Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSUE:
Whether or not the ratification of RA7675 was unconstitutional
Section 5
FACTS:
Section 26(1). Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace
Prior to Republic Act No., 7675 also known as An Act
Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly
section.
ORDERED.
Mariano v COMELEC
FACTS:
This is a petition for prohibition and declaratory relief filed by
district of Leyte.
Held:
Yes. In imposing a two percent threshold, Congress wanted to
ensure that only those parties, organizations and coalitions
having a sufficient number of constituents deserving of
representation are actually represented in Congress. This intent
can be gleaned from the deliberations on the proposed bill. The
two percent threshold is consistent not only with the intent of
the framers of the Constitution and the law, but with the very
essence of "representation." Under a republican or
representative state, all government authority emanates from
the people, but is exercised by representatives chosen by them.
But to have meaningful representation, the elected persons
must have the mandate of a sufficient number of people.
Otherwise, in a legislature that features the party-list system,
the result might be the proliferation of small groups which are
incapable of contributing significant legislation, and which
might even pose a threat to the stability of Congress. Thus,
even legislative districts are apportioned according to "the
number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a
uniform and progressive ratio" to ensure meaningful local
representation.
Issue:
How should the additional seats of a qualified party be
determined?
Held:
Step One. There is no dispute among the petitioners, the public
and the private respondents, as well as the members of this
Court that the initial step is to rank all the participating parties,
organizations and coalitions from the highest to the lowest
based on the number of votes they each received. Then the
ratio for each party is computed by dividing its votes by the
total votes cast for all the parties participating in the system.
All parties with at least two percent of the total votes are
guaranteed one seat each. Only these parties shall be
considered in the computation of additional seats. The party
receiving the highest number of votes shall thenceforth be
referred to as the first party.
Step Two. The next step is to determine the number of seats the
first party is entitled to, in order to be able to compute that for
the other parties. Since the distribution is based on proportional
representation, the number of seats to be allotted to the other
parties cannot possibly exceed that to which the first party is
entitled by virtue of its obtaining the most number of votes.
Step Three The next step is to solve for the number of
additional seats that the other qualified parties are entitled to,
based on proportional representation.
G.R. No. 147589
x---------------------------------------------------------x
1.
HELD:
choice.
continue.
Section 7
Dimaporo v. Mitra
FACTS:
Dimaporo was elected as a representative for the second
legislative district of Lanao del Sur during the 1987
congressional elections.
elected to, then that clearly shows that he did not intend to
serve the mandate of the people which was placed upon him
and therefore he should be considered ipso facto resigned. The
filling of a certificate shall be considered as an overt act or
abandoning or relinquishing his mandate to the people and he
should therefore resign if he want to seek another position
which he feels he could be of better service.
Section 11
Nicanor Jimenez vs Bartolome Cabangbang
17 SCRA 876 Political Law Freedom of Speech and
Debate
Bartolome Cabangbang was a member of the House of
Representatives and Chairman of its Committee on National
Defense. In November 1958, Cabangbang caused the
publication of an open letter addressed to the Philippines. Said
letter alleged that there have been allegedly three operational
plans under serious study by some ambitious AFP officers, with
the aid of some civilian political strategists. That such
strategists have had collusions with communists and that the
Secretary of Defense, Jesus Vargas, was planning a coup dtat
to place him as the president. The planners allegedly have
Nicanor Jimenez, among others, under their guise and that
Jimenez et al may or may not be aware that they are being used
as a tool to meet such an end. The letter was said to have been
who had voted for Sen. Fernan comprised the majority, while
only those who had voted for him, the losing nominee,
belonged to the minority. However, senators belonging to the
Lakas-NUCD-UMDP Party number 7 and, thus, also a
minority had chosen Sen. Guingona as the minority leader.
Thus, Petitioners filed this case for quo warranto.
ISSUE:
o
FACTS:
During the election of officers in the Senate, Sen. Marcelo
Fernan and Sen. Tatad were both nominated to the position of
Senate President. By a vote of 20 to 2, Sen. Fernan was
declared the duly elected Senate President. Thereafter, Sen.
Tatad manifested that, with the agreement of Sen. Santiago,
allegedly the only other member of the minority, he was
assuming position of minority leader. He explained that those
xxx
Majority may also refer to the group, party, or faction with the
larger number of votes, not necessarily more than one half.
This is sometimes referred to as plurality. In contrast, minority
is a group, party, or faction with a smaller number of votes or
adherents than the majority. Between two unequal parts or
numbers comprising a whole or totality, the greater number
would obviously be the majority, while the lesser would be the
minority. But where there are more than two unequal
groupings, it is not as easy to say which is the minority entitled
to select the leader representing all the minorities. In a
government with a multi-party system such as in the
Philippines (as pointed out by petitioners themselves), there
could be several minority parties, one of which has to be
identified by the Comelec as the dominant minority party for
purposes of the general elections. In the prevailing composition
of the present Senate, members either belong to different
political parties or are independent. No constitutional or
over the matter and Congress has the power to discipline its
members.
ISSUE: Whether or not Osmeas immunity has been violated?
HELD: No. Section 15, Article VI of the 1935 Constitution
enshrines parliamentary immunity upon members of the
legislature which is a fundamental privilege cherished in every
parliament in a democratic world. It guarantees the legislator
complete freedom of expression without fear of being made
responsible in criminal or civil actions before the courts or any
other forum outside the Hall of Congress. However, it does not
protect him from responsibility before the legislative body
whenever his words and conduct are considered disorderly or
unbecoming of a member therein. Therefore, Osmeas petition
is dismissed.
Ceferino Paredes, Jr. vs Sandiganbayan
252 SCRA 641 Political Law The Legislative Department
Suspension of a Member of Congress RA 3019
In January 1990, Teofilo Gelacio, the then vice mayor of San
Francisco, Agusan del Sur filed a case against Ceferino
Paredes, Jr. (who was then the governor of the same province),
Atty. Generoso Sansaet (counsel of Paredes), and Mansueto
Honrada (a clerk of court). The three allegedly conspired to
falsify a copy of a Notice of Arraignment and of the Transcript
In lumping the Judiciary with the other offices from which the
franking privilege has been withdrawn, Sec 35 has placed the
courts of justice in a category to which it does not belong. If it
recognizes the need of the President of the Philippines and the
members of Congress for the franking privilege, there is no
reason why it should not recognize a similar and in fact greater
need on the part of the Judiciary for such privilege.
Held:
them does not have the effect of nullifying the act taken if the
requisite number of members has agreed to a particular
Section 17
Robles
v.
HRET
FACTS
Santos
were
Caloocan
City
Robles
was
1sPetitioner
elected
to
ttmotion
contest
w/
HRET
appreciation
of
Urgent
Recall/Disregard
Motion
his
Previous
Motion.
not
acted
by
2nto
dMotion
st
granted.
Robles
claimed
that
jurisdiction.
divested
HRET
of
ISSUE
grave
abuse
RULING
matter
remaining
respondent
tribunal,
case.
Itinstance
is
an
at
the
terminated.
Certainly,
theHRET,
the
withdrawal
otherwise
would
acquired.
Petition
is
Robles
dismissed.
v.
HRET
FACTS
Santos
were
Caloocan
City
Petitioner
Robles
was
1sMotion
elected
to upon
contest
w/
HRET
appreciation
ofof
Urgent
Recall/Disregard
Motion
his
Previous
Motion.
Motion
not
acted
upon
by
HRET,
2nto
dMotion
st
granted.
Robles
claimed
that11 the
the 11
jurisdiction.
motion
divested
HRET
of
ISSUE
grave
abuse
of
RULING
matter
the
remaining
respondent
tribunal,
case.
It
is
an
at
the
terminated.
Certainly,
the
withdrawal
otherwise
would
acquired.
is
dismissed.
Petition
FACTS
v.
HRET
Santos
were
Caloocan
City
Petitioner
Robles
was
elected
to upon
1sRobles
tmotion
contest
w/
HRET
appreciation
ofof
Urgent
Motion
Recall/Disregard
his
Previous
Motion.
2nto
Motion
acted
by
dMotion
granted.
Robles
claimed
that1 the 1
st
divested
HRET
of
ISSUE
jurisdiction.
grave
abuse
matter
RULING
the
remaining
respondent
tribunal,
case.
Itinstance
isnot
an
at
the
instance
terminated.
Certainly,
theHRET,
withdrawal
otherwise
would
acquired.
is
dismissed.
Petition
Jose Angara vs The Electoral Commission, Pedro Ynsua,
Miguel Castillo, and Dionisio Mayor
63 Phil. 139 Political Law Judicial Review Electoral
Commission
In the elections of Sept 17, 1935, Angara, and the respondents,
Pedro Ynsua et al. were candidates voted for the position of
member of the National Assembly for the first district of the
Province of Tayabas. On Oct 7, 1935, Angara was proclaimed
as member-elect of the NA for the said district. On November
15, 1935, he took his oath of office. On Dec 3, 1935, the NA in
session assembled, passed Resolution No. 8 confirming the
election of the members of the National Assembly against
whom no protest had thus far been filed. On Dec 8, 1935,
Ynsua, filed before the Electoral Commission a Motion of
Protest against the election of Angara. On Dec 9, 1935, the EC
adopted a resolution, par. 6 of which fixed said date as the last
day for the filing of protests against the election, returns and
qualifications of members of the NA, notwithstanding the
previous confirmation made by the NA. Angara filed a Motion
to Dismiss arguing that by virtue of the NA proclamation,
Ynsua can no longer protest. Ynsua argued back by claiming
that EC proclamation governs and that the EC can take
cognizance of the election protest and that the EC cannot be
subject to a writ of prohibition from the SC.
(g)
That under the organic law prevailing before the
(1935) Constitution went into effect, each house of the
legislature was respectively the sole judge of the elections,
returns, and qualifications of their elective members.
(h)
That the (1935) Constitution has transferred all the
powers previously exercised by the legislature with respect to
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of its
members, to the Electoral Commission.
(i)
That such transfer of power from the legislature to
the Electoral Commission was full, clear and complete, and
carried with it ex necesitate rei the implied power inter alia to
prescribe the rules and regulations as to the time and manner of
filing protests.
(j)
That the avowed purpose in creating the Electoral
Commission was to have an independent constitutional organ
pass upon all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of members of the National Assembly, devoid of
partisan influence or consideration, which object would be
frustrated if the National Assembly were to retain the power to
prescribe rules and regulations regarding the manner of
conducting said contests.
(k)
That section 4 of article VI of the (1935) Constitution
repealed not only section 18 of the Jones Law making each
house of the Philippine Legislature respectively the sole judge
13MAR
G.R. No. 86649 | July 12, 1990 | J.
Facts:
Petitioner Anna Coseteng, the lone candidate elected to the
House of Representatives under KAIBA, wrote to Speaker
Ramon Mitra to appoint her as a member of the Commission
on Appointments (CA) and House Tribunal a request backed
by nine congressmen.
Previously, the House elected from the Coalesced Majority
parties 11 out 12 congressmen to the CA and later on, added
Roque Ablan, Jr. as the twelfth member, representing the
Coalesced Minority. Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP)
was also organized as a party, prompting the revision of the
House majority membership in CA due to political
realignments and the replacement of Rep. Daza (LP) with Rep.
Singson (LDP).
Congresswoman Anna Coseteng and her party KAIBA filed a
Petition for Extraordinary Legal Writs (considered as petition
for quo warranto and injunction) praying that the Court declare
the election of respondent Ablan, Singson and the rest of the
CA members null and void on the theory that their election
violated the constitutional mandate of proportional
representation because the New Majority (LDP) is entitled to
v.
HRET
FACTS
Santos
were
Caloocan
City
Petitioner
Robles
was
1sRobles
elected
to upon
tmotion
contest
w/
HRET
appreciation
ofof
Urgent
Recall/Disregard
Motion
his
Previous
Motion.
Motion
acted
by
2nto
dMotion
st
granted.
Robles
claimed
that1 the 1
jurisdiction.
divested
HRET
of
ISSUE
grave
abuse
RULING
matter
remaining
respondent
tribunal,
case.
Itinstance
isnot
an
at
the
terminated.
Certainly,
theHRET,
the
withdrawal
otherwise
would
acquired.
Petition
is
dismissed.
Teofisto Guingona vs Neptali Gonzales
HRETs Composition Rounding Off
After the May 11, 1992 elections, the senate was composed of
15 LDP senators, 5 NPC senators, 3 LAKAS-NUCD senators,
and 1 LP-PDP-LABAN senator. To suffice the requirement that
each house must have 12 representatives in the CoA, the
parties agreed to use the traditional formula: (No. of Senators
of a political party) x 12 seats) Total No. of Senators elected.
The results of such a formula would produce 7.5 members for
LDP, 2.5 members for NPC, 1.5 members for LAKAS-NUCD,
and 0.5 member for LP-PDP-LABAN. Romulo, as the majority
floor leader, nominated 8 senators from their party because he
rounded off 7.5 to 8 and that Taada from LP-PDP-LABAN
should represent the same party to the CoA. This is also
pursuant to the proposition compromise by Sen Tolentino who
proposed that the elected members of the CoA should consist
of eight LDP, one LP-PDP-LABAN, two NPC and one
LAKAS-NUCD. Guingona, a member of LAKAS-NUCD,
opposed the said compromise. He alleged that the compromise
is against proportional representation.
ISSUE: Whether or not rounding off is allowed in determining
a partys representation in the CoA.
HELD: It is a fact accepted by all such parties that each of
them is entitled to a fractional membership on the basis of the
rule on proportional representation of each of the political
parties. A literal interpretation of Section 18 of Article VI of the
Constitution leads to no other manner of application. The
attempt and that she instructed him not to accept the bribe.
However, when probed further on what they discussed about
the NBN Project, Neri refused to answer, invoking executive
privilege. In particular, he refused to answer the questions on
(a) whether or not President Arroyo followed up the NBN
Project, (b) whether or not she directed him to prioritize it, and
(c) whether or not she directed him to approve. He later refused
to attend the other hearings and Ermita sent a letter to the
SBRC averring that the communications between GMA and
Neri is privileged and that the jurisprudence laid down
in Senate vs Ermita be applied. The SBRC cited Neri for
contempt.
ISSUE: Whether or not the three questions sought by the
SBRC to be answered falls under executive privilege.
HELD: The oversight function of Congress may be facilitated
by compulsory process only to the extent that it is performed in
pursuit of legislation.
The communications elicited by the three (3) questions are
covered by the presidential communications privilege.
1st, the communications relate to a quintessential and nondelegable power of the President, i.e. the power to enter into
an executive agreement with other countries. This authority of
ISSUES:
Issues:
This case is consolidated with G.R. No. 208493 and G.R. No.
209251.
The so-called pork barrel system has been around in the
Philippines since about 1922. Pork Barrel is commonly known
as the lump-sum, discretionary funds of the members of the
Congress. It underwent several legal designations from
Congressional Pork Barrel to the latest Priority
Development Assistance Fund or PDAF. The allocation for
the pork barrel is integrated in the annual General
Appropriations Act (GAA).
Since 2011, the allocation of the PDAF has been done in the
following manner:
HELD:
implement the law but under the pork barrel system, whats
happening was that, after the GAA, itself a law, was enacted,
the legislators themselves dictate as to which projects their
PDAF funds should be allocated to a clear act of
implementing the law they enacted a violation of the
principle of separation of powers. (Note in the older case
of PHILCONSA vs Enriquez, it was ruled that pork barrel, then
called as CDF or the Countrywide Development Fund, was
constitutional insofar as the legislators only recommend where
their pork barrel funds go).
This is also highlighted by the fact that in realigning the PDAF,
the executive will still have to get the concurrence of the
legislator concerned.
b. Non-delegation of Legislative Power
As a rule, the Constitution vests legislative power in Congress
alone. (The Constitution does grant the people legislative
power but only insofar as the processes of referendum and
initiative are concerned). That being, legislative power cannot
be delegated by Congress for it cannot delegate further that
which was delegated to it by the Constitution.
Exceptions to the rule are:
d. Local Autonomy
As a rule, the local governments have the power to manage
their local affairs. Through their Local Development Councils
(LDCs), the LGUs can develop their own programs and
policies concerning their localities. But with the PDAF,
particularly on the part of the members of the house of
representatives, whats happening is that a congressman can
either bypass or duplicate a project by the LDC and later on
claim it as his own. This is an instance where the national
government (note, a congressman is a national officer) meddles
with the affairs of the local government and this is contrary to
the State policy embodied in the Constitution on local
autonomy. Its good if thats all that is happening under the
pork barrel system but worse, the PDAF becomes more of a
personal fund on the part of legislators.
the Congress
of pork barrel.
Lastly, the Court is of the view that the petition poses issues
II.
sue.
approved it.
PORK BARREL:
The Members of Congress are then requested by the President
to recommend projects and programs which may be funded
from the PDAF. The list submitted by the Members of
Congress is endorsed by the Speaker of the House of
remain intact.
_______________
NOTES:
Facts:
The donation of the property to the government to make the
property public does not cure the constitutional defect. The fact
that the law was passed when the said property was still a
Garcia vs Mata
Held:
than having the HoR version as far as revenue and other such
bills are concerned. This practice of amendment by substitution
has always been accepted. The proposition of Tolentino
concerns a mere matter of form. There is no showing that it
would make a significant difference if Senate were to adopt his
over what has been done.
Tan v. Del Rosario Digest
Tan v Del Rosario
Facts:
1. Two consolidated cases assail the validity of RA 7496 or the
Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme ("SNIT"), which
amended certain provisions of the NIRC, as well as the Rules
and Regulations promulgated by public respondents pursuant
to said law.
2. Petitioners posit that RA 7496 is unconstitutional as it
allegedly violates the following provisions of the Constitution:
-Article VI, Section 26(1) Every bill passed by the Congress
shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the
title thereof.
section.
ORDERED.
Section 27
her authority when she vetoed Section 55 (FY 89) and Section
16 (FY 90) which are provision; (2) when the President
objects to a provision of an appropriation bill, she cannot
exercise the item-veto power but should veto the entire bill; (3)
the item-veto power does not carry with it the power to strike
out conditions or restrictions for that would be legislation, in
violation of the doctrine of separation of powers; and (4) the
power of augmentation in Article VI, Section 25 [5] of the
1987 Constitution, has to be provided for by law and, therefore,
Congress is also vested with the prerogative to impose
restrictions on the exercise of that power.
ISSUE: Whether or not the President exceeded the item-veto
power accorded by the Constitution. Or differently put, has the
President the power to veto `provisions of an Appropriations
Bill.
HELD: SC ruled that Congress cannot include in a general
appropriations bill matters that should be more properly
enacted in separate legislation, and if it does that, the
inappropriate provisions inserted by it must be treated as
item, which can be vetoed by the President in the exercise of
his item-veto power. The SC went one step further and rules
that even assuming arguendo that provisions are beyond the
executive power to veto, and Section 55 (FY 89) and Section
16 (FY 90) were not provisions in the budgetary sense of the
RULING:
No. The phrase except custom brokers is not meant to
discriminate against custom brokers but to avert a potential
conflict between Sections 102 and 103 of the Tax Code, as
amended. The distinction of the customs brokers from the other
professionals who are subject to occupation tax under the Local
Tax Code is based on material differences, in that the activities
of customs partake more of a business, rather than a profession
and were thus subjected to the percentage tax under Section
174 of the Tax Code prior to its amendment by EO 273. EO
273 abolished the percentage tax and replaced it with the VAT.
If the Association did not protest the classification of customs
brokers then, there is no reason why it should protest now.
Province of Abra vs Harold Hernando
107 SCRA 104 Political Law Exemption From Taxes The
Church
The Province of Abra sought to tax the properties of the Roman
Catholic Bishop, Inc. of Bangued. Judge Harold Hernando
dismissed the petition of Abra without hearing its side.
Hernando ruled that there is no question that the real
properties sought to be taxed by the Province of Abra are
properties of the respondent Roman Catholic Bishop of
Bangued, Inc. Likewise, there is no dispute that the properties
including their produce are actually, directly and exclusively
court ruled for the government, holding that the second floor of
purposes and that the ground floor used and rented by Northern
In the case at bar, the lease of the first floor of the building to
On religious freedom
The Supreme Court noted however that the elevating influence
of religion is recognized here as elsewhere. Evidence would be
our preamble where we implored the aid of divine providence
to establish an ideal government. If should also be further
noted that religious freedom as a constitutional mandate is not
an inhibition of profound reverence to religion.
P27,017,813,000.00.
The said automatic appropriation for debt service is authorized
by PD No. 18, entitled Amending Certain Provisions of
Republic Act Numbered Four Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty,
as Amended (Re: Foreign Borrowing Act), by PD No. 1177,
entitled Revising the Budget Process in Order to
Institutionalize the Budgetary Innovations of the New Society,
and by PD No.1967, entitled An Act Strengthening the
Guarantee and Payment Positions of the Republic of the
Philippines on its Contingent Liabilities Arising out of Relent
and Guaranteed Loans by Appropriating Funds For The
Purpose.
The petitioners were questioning the constitutionality of the
automatic appropriation for debt service, it being higher than
the budget for education, therefore it is against Section 5(5),
Article XIV of the Constitution which mandates to assign the
highest budgetary priority to education.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the automatic appropriation for debt service is
unconstitutional; it being higher than the budget for education.
HELD:
No. While it is true that under Section 5(5), Article XIV of the
Constitution Congress is mandated to assign the highest
budgetary priority to education, it does not thereby follow that
the hands of Congress are so hamstrung as to deprive it the
Diaz v. CA
G.R. No. L-109698
Bellossillo, J.
Facts:
On 23 January 1991, Davao Light and Power
Company, Inc. (DLPC) filed with the Energy Regulatory Board
(ERB) an application for the approval of the sound value
appraisal of its property in service.
The Asian Appraisal Company valued the property
and equipment of DLPC as of 12 March 1990 at One Billion
One Hundred Forty One Million Seven Hundred Seventy Four
Thousand Pesos (P1,141,774,000.00).
On 6 December 1992, ERB approved the application
of DLPC after deducting Fourteen Million Eight Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P14,800,000.00) worth of property and
equipment which were not used by DLPC in its operation.
On 6 July 1992, petitioners filed a petition for review
on certiorari before the Supreme Court assailing the decision of
ERB on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and/or grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
In our resolution of 8 September 1992, the Supreme
Court referred the case for proper disposition to the Court of
Appeals which subsequently dismissed the petition on the
ground that (1) the filing of the petition for review with the
Issue:
whether or not E.O. No. 172 is violative of Section
30, Article VI of the Constitution
Held:
Yes. Since Sec. 10 of E.O. No. 172 was enacted
without the advice and concurrence of the Supreme Court, this
provision never became effective, with the result that it cannot
be deemed to have amended the Judiciary Reorganization Act
of 1980. Consequently, the authority of the Court of Appeals to
decide cases from the Board of Energy, now ERB, remains.
Section 32