Composition:SENATE
Twenty-four (24), elected at large
by the qualified voters of the
Philippines, as may be provided
by law.
Term of office: 6 yearsshall
commence, unless otherwise
provided by law, at noon on the
30th day of June next following
their election.
Qualifications:
a. Natural-born citizen of the
Philippines;
b. At least thirty-five (35) years
of age on the day of the election; 6. For party-list representatives or organizations:
c. Able to read and write;
d. Registered voter;
e. Resident of the Philippines for
not less than 2 years
immediately preceding the day
of the election.
Disqualifications:
a. No Senator shall serve for
more than 2 consecutive terms.
Voluntary renunciation of the
office for any length of time shall
not be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of
his service for the full term for
which he was elected. (Section
4, Article VI)
b. One who has been declared
by competent authority as
insane or incompetent
c. One who has been
sentenced by final judgment for:
i. Subversion; ii. Insurrection; iii. 12, BP 881Omnibus Election Code)
Rebellion;
iv. Any offense for which he
has been sentenced to a
penalty of not more than
18 months; or
v. A crime involving moral
turpitude, unless given plenary
pardon or granted amnesty
(Section 12, BP 881 Omnibus
Election Code)
Electoral Tribunal: Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) Canvassing Board: COMELEC: House of
composed of three (3) Supreme Court Justices and
six (6) Senatorsto act as sole judge of all contest
relating to election returns and qualifications of their
respective members.
Removal: Thru EXPULSION by the Senate with the
concurrence of two-thirds (2/3) of all its members
(Section 16, par. 3, Article VI)
Composition: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
not more than 250 members, unless otherwise provided by law, consisting of:
a. District Representatives elected from legislative districts apportioned
among the provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Manila area. (Sec. 5, par. 1,
Article VI)
b. Party-List Representatives constitutes 20% of the total number of
representatives elected through a party-list system of registered national,
regional and sectoral parties or organization.
c. Sectoral Representatives 1/2 of the seats allocated to party-list
representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from
the:
i. Labor;
ii. Peasant;
iii. Urban poor;
iv. Indigenous cultural communities;
v. Women;
vi. Youth; and
vii. Such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious
sector.
Term of office: three (3) years, which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by
law, at noon of June 30 next following their election.
Qualifications:
1. Natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
2. At least 25 years of age on the day of the election;
3. Able to read and write;
4. Registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected except the
party-list representatives;
5. Resident of the district for a period of not less than 1 year immediately
preceding the day of the election;
a. Natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
b. A registered voter;
c. A resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year
immediately preceding the day of the election;
d. Able to read and write;
e. A bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to
represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election;
f. At least 25 years of age on the day of the election;
g. The political party, sector, organization or coalition must represent the
marginalized and underrepresented groups.
h. Must comply with the declared policy of enabling Filipino citizens
belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be elected to the
House of Representatives;
i. Religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system;
j. A party or an organization must not be disqualified under Sec. 6, RA
7941;
k. The party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project
organized or an entity funded or assisted by the government;
l. The party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its
nominees must likewise do so;
m. Not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized
and underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees; and
n. The nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and
enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.
Manner of Voting: (Sec. 10, RA 7941) Every voter shall be entitled to two
(2) votes: (1) for candidate for member of the HOR in his legislative district, and
(2) for the party, organizations, or coalition he wants represented in the HOR:
provided, that a vote cast for a party, organizations, or coalition not entitled to
be voted for shall not be counted.
Disqualifications:
a. Shall not serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms. (Sec. 7, Article VI)
b. One who has been declared by competent authority as insane or
incompetent
c. One who has been sentenced by final judgment for:
i. Subversion; ii. Insurrection; iii. Rebellion; iv. Any offense for which he
has been sentenced to a penalty of not more than 18 months; or v. A crime
involving moral turpitude, unless given plenary pardon or granted amnesty (
d. For Party-List Representatives:
i. It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for
religious purposes;
ii. It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
iii. It is a foreign party or organization;
iv. It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party,
foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or
members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes;
v. It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to
elections;
vi. It declares untruthful statement in its petition;
vii. It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year;
viii. It fails to participate in the last two preceding elections or fails to obtain at
least 2% of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two preceding
elections for the constituency in which it had registered. (Section 6, RA 7941)
Representative
Electoral Tribunal (HRET)composed of nine (9)
members: 3 Supreme Court Justices and six (6)
members of the CongressSection 17, Art. VI
Removal: EXPULSION by the House with the
concurrence of two-thirds (2/3) of all its members (Sec.
16, par. 3, Art. VI)
CONFLICT OF INTERESTall members of
the Senate and the HOR shall, upon
assumption of office, make a full disclosure of
their financial and business interests. They
shall notify the House concerned of a
potential conflict of interest that may arise
from the filing of a proposed legislation of
which they are author.
Incompatible Officeno Senator or member
of the House of Representatives may hold any
other office or employment in the
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations
or their subsidiaries, during his term without
forfeiting his seat.
The purpose is to prevent him from owing
loyalty to another branch of the
government, to the detriment of the
independence of the legislature and the
doctrine of separation of powers.
The prohibition is not absolute, what is not
allowed is the simultaneous holding of that
office and the seat in the Congress. Any
legislator may hold another office or
employment in the government provided he
forfeits his position in the Congress.
Forfeiture of the legislators seat, or cessation
of his tenure, shall be automatic upon holding
of the incompatible office.
Forbidden Officeno Senator or member of
the House of Representatives shall be
appointed to any office, which may have been
created, or the emoluments thereof increased
during the term for which he was elected.
With this, even if the member of the Congress
is willing to forfeit his seat therein, he may not
be appointed to any office in the government
that has been created or the emoluments
thereof have been increased during his term.
Such a position is forbidden office. The
purpose is to prevent trafficking in public
office.
The provision does not apply to elective
offices.
The appointment of the member of the
Congress to the forbidden office is not allowed
only during the term for which he was
elected, when such office was created or its
emolumentswereincreased. After such term,
and even if the legislator is reelected, the
disqualification no longer applies and he may
therefore be appointed to the office.
Privileges:
a. Freedom from arrestwhile Congress is in
session for offense punished by not more than
6 years imprisonment (Art. 145, RPC; . 11,
Art. VI)
b. Speech and Debate clausenot to be
questioned nor held liable in any other place
for any speech or debate in Congress or
in any committee thereof. (Section 11,
Article VI)
(See discussion under Parliamentary
Immunity)
Composition and Qualificationsthey are
exclusive under the principle of expressio
unios est exclusio alterius, with the result that
it is not competent for the Congress to
provide by mere legislation for additional
qualifications no matter how relevant they
may be. (Justice Isagani Cruz, Philippine
Political Law)
In Marcos vs. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300,
the Court upheld the qualification of Imelda
Marcos, despite her own declaration in her
certificate of candidacy that she had resided
in the district for only seven (7) months,
because of the following:
a. A minor follows the domicile of his parents;
Tacloban became her domicile of origin by
operation of law when her father brought their
family to Leyte;
b. Domicile of origin is lost only when there is
actual removal or change of
domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning
the former residence and establishing a new
one, and acts which correspond with the
purpose; in the absence of clear and positive
proof of the concurrence of all these, the
domicile of origin should be deemed to
continue;
c. The wife does not automatically gain the
husbands domicile because the term
residence in Civil Law does not mean the
same thing in Political Law; when Mrs. Marcos
married Ferdinand Marcos in 1954, she kept
her domicile of origin and merely gained a
new home, not a domicilium necessarium;
d. Even assuming that she gained a new
domicile after her marriage and acquired
the right to choose a new one only after her
husband died, her acts following her return to
the country clearly indicate that she chose
Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her
domicile of choice.
Coquilla vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 151914,
July 31, 2002, the SC ruled that he petitioner
had not been a resident of Oras, Eastern
Samar, for at least one year prior to the May
14, 2001 elections. Although Oras was his
domicile of origin, petitioner lost the same
when he became a US citizen after enlisting in
the US Navy. From then on, until November
10, 2000, when he re-acquired Philippine
citizenship through repatriation, petitioner
was an alien without any right to reside in the
Philippines.
In Caasi vs. COMELEC, it was held that the
immigration to the US by virtue of the
acquisition of a green card constitutes
abandonment of domicile in the Philippines.
REPUBLIC ACT 7941 AN ACT PROVIDING
FOR THE ELECTION OF PARTY-LIST
REPRESENTATIVES THROUGH THE PARTY-
LIST SYSTEM, AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS THEREFOR
Nature of Party-List System
1. The party-list system is a social tool
designed not only to give more law to the
great masses of our people who have less in
life, but also to enable them to become
veritable lawmakers themselves, empowered
to participate directly in the enactment of
laws designed to benefit them. It intends to
make the marginalized and the
underrepresented not merely passive
recipients of he States benevolence, but
active participants in he mainstream of
representative democracy. Thus, allowing all
individuals and groups, including those which
now dominate district elections, to have the
same opportunity to participate in party-list
elections would desecrate this lofty objective
and mongrelize the social justice
mechanisms into an atrocious veneer for
traditional politics.
2. Crucial to the resolution of this case is the
fundamental social justice principle that those
who have less in life should have more in law.
The party-list system is one such tool
intended to benefit those who have less in
life. It gives the great masses of our people
genuine hope and genuine power. It is a
message to the destitute and the prejudiced,
and even those in the underground, that
change is possible. It is an invitation for them
to come out of their limbo and seize the
opportunity.
Clearly, therefore, the Court cannot accept
the submissions xxx that the party-list system
is, without any qualification, open to all. Such
position does not only weaken
the electoral chances of the marginalized and
underrepresented; it also prejudices them. It
would gut the substance of the party-list
system. Instead of generating hope, it would
create a mirage. Instead of enabling the
marginalized, it would further weaken them
and aggravate their marginalization. (Ang
Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001)
Inviolable parameters to determine the
winners in Party-List election:
1. The Twenty Percent (20%) Allocationthe
combined number of all party-list
congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent
(20%) of the total membership of the House
of Representative, including those elected
under the party-list;
2. The Two Percent (2%) Thresholdonly
those garnering a minimum of 2% of the total
valid votes cast for the party-list system are
qualified to have a seat in the HOR;
3. The Three (3) Seat Limiteach qualified
party, regardless of the number of votes it
actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of
3 seats; that is, one (1) qualifying and two (2)
additional seats.
4. The Proportional Representationthe
additional seats which a qualified party is
entitled to shall be computed in proportion to
their total number of votes. (Veterans
Federation Party vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
136781, October 6, 2000)
Guidelines for Screening Party-List
Participants
1. The political party, sector,
organization or coalition must represent
the marginalized and underrepresented
groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. In
other wordsit must show in its constitution,
by-laws, articles of incorporation, history,
platform of government and track record
that it represents and seeks to uplift
marginalized and underrepresented sectors.
Verily, majority of its membership should
belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented. And it must demonstrate
that in a conflict of interest, it has chosen or
likely to choose the interest of such sectors.
2. They must comply with the declared
statutory policy of enabling Filipino citizens
belonging to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors x x x to be elected
to the House of Representatives. In other
words, while they are not disqualified merely
on the ground that they are political parties,
they must show, however, that they represent
the interests of the marginalized and
underrepresented.
3. In view of the objections directed against
the registration of Ang Buhay Hayaang
Yumabong, which is allegedly a religious
group, the Court notes the express
constitutional provision that the religious
sector may not be represented in the party-
list system. The prohibition is on any religious
organization registering as political party not
against a priest running as a candidate.
4. A party or organization must not be
disqualified under section 6 of RA 7941 which
enumerates the grounds for disqualification.
5. The party or organization must not be an
adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity
funded or assisted by the government. The
party or organization must be a group of
citizens, organized by citizens and operated
by citizens. It must be independent of the
government.
6. The party must not only comply with the
requirements of the law; its nominees must
likewise do so;
7. Not only the candidate party or
organization must represent marginalized and
underrepresented sectors; so also must its
nominees; and
8. The nominee must likewise be able to
contribute to the formulation and
enactment of appropriate legislation that will
benefit the nation as a whole. (Ang Bagong
BayaniOFW Labor Party vs. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 147589, June 26, 2001)
Aklat vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 162203, April
24, 2004, the COMELEC has the power to
promulgate the necessary rules and
regulations to enforce and administer election
laws. This power includes the determination,
within the parameters fixed by law, of
appropriate periods for the accomplishment of
certain pre-election acts like filing petitions for
registration under the party-list system. This
is exactly what the COMELEC did when it
issued its Resolution No. 6320 declaring
September 30, 2003, as the deadline for
filing petitions for registration under the
party-list system.
ChoosingParty-ListRepresentativesthey
are proclaimed by the COMELEC based on the
list of names submitted by the respective
parties, organizations or coalitions to the
COMELEC according to their ranking in the
list.
Effect of change of affiliation Any
elected party-list representative who changes
his political party or sectoral affiliation during
his term of office shall forfeit his seat;
provided that if he changes his political party
or sectoral affiliation within 6 months before
an election, he shall not be eligible for
nomination as party-list representative under
his new party or organization. Vacancy: In
case of vacancy in the seat reserved for party-
list representatives, the vacancy shall be
automatically filled by the next representative
from the list of nominees in the order
submitted to the COMELEC by the same party,
organization or coalition, who shall serve for
the unexpired term. If the list is exhausted,
the party, organization or coalition concerned
shall submit additional nominees.
LABO DOCTRINEdoctrine of the rejection
of the second placernot applicable in Party-
List System
Apportionment of legislative Districts:
(Section 5, paragraphs 3 and 4, Article VI)
Each legislative district shall comprise, as far
as practicable, contiguous, compact, and
adjacent territory. Each city with a population
of at least two hundred fifty thousand
(250,000), or each province, shall have at
least one representative. This is intended to
prevent gerrymandering.
Gerrymanderingthe creation of
representative districts out of separate
portions of territory in order to favor a
candidate.
Within three (3) years following the return of
every census, the Congress shall make a
reapportionment of legislative districts based
on the standards provided in this section.
Mariano vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 118627,
March 7, 1995, the Court held that the
Constitution does not preclude Congress from
increasing its membership by passing a law
other than a general apportionment law. In
fact, in Tobias vs. Abalos, 239 SCRA 106,
the case involved the division of San Juan and
Mandaluyong into two (2) representative
districts. With the elevation of Mandaluyong
from municipality into a highly urbanized city,
both Mandaluyong and San Juan were
recognized by RA 7675 as distinct
representative districts. This was challenged
on the ground that RA 7675 did not mention
any census indicating that San Juan and
Mandaluyong had the minimal requirement of
250,000 inhabitants needed to constitute a
district. Neither did the challengers, however,
give any evidence that the respective
populations of each of the two political units
were less than the number required. Hence
the court presumed that Congress had made
due consideration of the minimum
requirement. It ruled that reapportionment of
legislative districts may be made through a
special law. To hold that reapportionment can
be made only through a general law would
create an inequitable situation where a new
city or province created by Congress will be
denied legislative representation for an
indeterminate period of time. That
intolerable situation would deprive the
people in the city or province a particle of that
sovereignty. Sovereignty cannot admit
subtraction; it is indivisible. It must be
forever whole or it is not sovereignty.
In Montejo vs. COMELEC, it was held that
while concededly the conversion of Biliran into
a regular province brought about an
imbalance in the distribution of voters and
inhabitants in the 5 districts of Leyte, the
issue involves reapportionment of legislative
districts, and Petitioners remedy lies with
Congress. This Court cannot itself make the
reapportionment as petitioner would want.
SESSIONS (Section 14, Article VI)
1. Regularconvene once every year. The
4th Monday of July until 30 days before the
start of new regular session (Section 14,
Article VI) adjournment is allowed 30 days
before the opening of its next regular session
this is compulsory;
2. Special
a. Called by the President (Sec. 15, Article VI)
the President has the power to call special
session; without the call of President
impeachment
b. Due to a vacancy in the offices of the
President and VP at 10:00 am on the 3rd day
after the vacancies (Sec. 10, Article VII)
c. Decide on the disability of the President
because the majority of all the members of
the Cabinet has disputed his assertion that he
is able to discharge the powers and duties of
his office (Section 11, par. 3, Article VII)
d. To revoke or extend the Presidential
Proclamation of Martial Law or suspension of
the Writ of Habeas Corpus (Section 18, article
VII)
3. Joint
a. Voting separately
i. Choosing the President (Section 4, Article
VII);
ii. Determine the Presidents disability (Sec.
11, Art. VII); iii. Confirming nomination of
Vice-President (Section 9, Article VI); iv.
Declaring existence of state of war (Section
23, Article VI); and v. Proposing constitutional
amendments (Section 1, Article XVII).
b. Voting jointly
i. To revoke or extend proclamation
suspending the privilege of writ of habeas
corpus (Section 18, Article VII); and ii. To
revoke or extend declaration of martial law
( 18, Article VII).
4. AdjournmentNeither Chamber during
session, without consent of the other, adjourn
for more than 3 days, nor any other place
than that in which the two Chambers shall be
sitting (Section 16, par. 5, Article VI)
Adjournment Sine Diethe interval
between the session of one Congress and that
of another; congress must stop the clock at
midnight of the last day of session in order to
validly pass a law.
The Senate is a continuing body while the
House is not.
DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS (Section 16, par.
3, Article VI) Each house may punish its
members for disorderly behavior and, with
concurrence of 2/3 of all its members,
suspend (for not more than 60 days) or expel
a member.
The interpretation of disorderly behavioris
the prerogative of the House concerned and
cannot be judicially reviewed.
In Osmea vs. Pendatun, 109 Phil 863, the
determination of the acts which constitutes
disorderly behavior is within the full
discretionary authority of the House
concerned, and the Court will not review such
determination, the same being a political
question.
Members of Congress may also be suspended
by the Sandiganbayan or by the Office of the
Ombudsman. (Paredes vs. SAndiganbayan, G.
R. No. 118364, August 10, 1995; Santiago vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 128055, April 18,
2001)
The suspension in the Constitution is different
from the suspension prescribed in RA 3019,
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The
latter is not a penalty but a preliminary
preventive measure and is not imposed upon
the petitioner for misbehavior as a member of
Congress. (Paredes vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 118364, August 10, 1995)
In Miriam Defensor-Santiago vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 128055, April 18,
2001, Section 13 of RA 3019 (where it
appears to be a ministerial duty of the court
to issue the order of suspension upon a
determination of the validity of the criminal
information filed before it) does not state that
the public officer should be suspended only in
the office where he is alleged to have
committed the acts charged. Furthermore, the
order of suspension provided in RA 3019 is
distinct from the power of Congress to
discipline its own ranks. Neither does the
order of suspension encroach upon the power
of Congress. The doctrine of separation of
powers, by itself, is not deemed to have
effectively excluded the members of Congress
from RA 3019 or its sanctions.
PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
A Senator or member of the HOR shall, in all
offenses punishable by not more than 6 years
imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while
the Congress is in session. No member shall
be questioned nor be held liable in any other
place for any speech or debate in the
Congress or in any other committee thereof.
Two (2) Kinds:
a. Freedom from arrest or detention
while Congress is in session for offense
punished by not more than 6 years
imprisonment (Article 145, RPC; Sec. 11, Art.
VI)it is intended to ensure representation of
the constituents of the member of the
Congress by preventing attempts to keep him
from attending its sessions. The present
Constitution adheres to the restrictive rule
minus the obligation of Congress to surrender
the Member of the House of Representatives
to the custody of law. The requirement that he
should be attending sessions or committee
meetings has also been removed. For
relatively minor offenses, it is enough that
Congress is in session. (People vs. Jalosjos,
324 SCRA 689, February 20, 2000)
in sessionnot day to day; refers to the
entire duration of the session from its opening
until its adjournment.
b. Speech and Debate clausenot to be
questioned nor held liable in any other place
for any speech or debate in Congress or
in any committee thereof. (Section 11,
Article VI)it enables the legislator to express
views bearing upon the public interest without
fear of accountability outside the halls of the
legislature for his inability to support his
statements with the usual evidence required
in the court of justice.
in any other placebut not in the Senate
or Congress itself
Section 16, par. 3, Article VIEach House
may determine the rules of its proceedings,
punish its Members for disorderly behavior,
and, with the concurrence of 2/3 of all its
members, suspend or expel a Member. A
penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall
not exceed 60 days.
People vs. Jalosjos, 324 SCRA 689, the
immunity from arrest or detention of Senators
and Members of the HOR arises from a
provision of the Constitution. The history of
the provision shows that the privilege has
always been granted in a restrictive sense.
The provision granting an exemption as a
special privilege cannot be extended beyond
the ordinary meaning of its term. It may
not be extended by intendment, implication
or equitable considerations. x x x
Because of the broad coverage of felony and
breach of the peace, the exemption applied
only to civil arrests. A congressman like the
accused-appellant, convicted under Title 11
of the Revised Penal Code could not claim
parliament immunity from arrest. He was
subject to the same general laws governing
all persons still to be tried or whose
convictions were pending appeal.
The present Constitution adheres to the same
restrictive rule minus the obligation of
Congress to surrender the subject
Congressman to the custody of law. The
requirement that he should be attending
sessions or committee meetings has also
been removed. For relatively minor offenses,
it is enough that Congress is in session.
Accused-appellant argues that a member
of Congress function to attend sessions is
underscored by Section 16 (2), Article VI of
the Constitution which states that (2) A
majority of each House shall constitute a
quorum to do business, but a smaller number
may adjourn from day to day and may compel
the attendance of absent Members in such
manner, and under such penalties, as such
House may provide.
However, the accused-appellant has not given
any reason why he should be exempted from
the operation of Section 11, Article VI. The
members of Congress cannot compel absent
members to attend sessions if the reason
for absence is legitimate a one. The
confinement of a Congressman charged with
a crime punishable by imprisonment of more
than 6 years is not merely authorized by law,
it has constitutional foundations.
When the voters of his district elected the
accused-appellant to Congress, they did so
with full awareness of the limitations on his
freedom of action. They did so with the
knowledge that he could achieve only such
legislative results which he could accomplish
within the confines of prison. To give a more
drastic illustration, if voters elect a person
with full knowledge that he is suffering from a
terminal illness, they do so knowing that any
time, he may no longer serve his full term in
office.
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE; Varieties of:
It is the power of the government to withhold
information from the public, the courts, and
the Congress. (Schwartz)
It is also the right of the President and high-
level executive branch officers to withhold
information from Congress, the courts, and
ultimately the public. (Rozell)
1. State secret privilegeinvoked by
Presidents on the ground that the information
is of such nature that its disclosure would
subvert crucial military or diplomatic
objective.
2. Informers privilegeprivilege of the
government not to disclose the identity of
persons who furnish information in violations
of law to officers charged with the
enforcement of the law.
3. Generic privilegefor internal
deliberations has been said to attach to intra-
governmental documents reflecting advisory
opinions, recommendations and deliberations
comprising part of a process by which
governmental decisions and policies are
formulated.
In determining the validity of a claim of
privilege, the question that must be asked is
not only whether the requested information
falls within one of the traditional privileges,
but also whether that privilege should be
honored in a given procedural setting.
Senate vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777,
April 20, 2006, executive privilege, whether
asserted against Congress, the courts, or the
public, is recognized only in relation to certain
types of information of a sensitive character.
While executive privilege is a constitutional
concept, a claim thereof may be valid or not
depending on the ground invoked to justify it
and the context in which it is made.
Noticeably absent is any recognition that
executive officials are exempt from the duty
to disclose information by the mere fact of
being executive officials. Indeed, the
extraordinary character of the exemptions
indicates that the presumption inclines
heavily against executive secrecy and in favor
of disclosure.
General rule: DISCLOSURE(policy on
transparency)
Exceptions: Disclosure would subvert crucial
diplomatic or military objective.
1. Supreme Court
2. Executive Secretary
3. Presidentmust invoke executive privilege
PROTOCOL DE CLOTUREa final act; an
instrument which records the winding up of
the proceedings of a diplomatic conference
and usually includes a reproduction of the text
of treaties, conventions, recommendations
and other acts agreed upon and signed by the
plenipotentiaries attending the conference. It
is not the treaty itself. It is rather a summary
of the proceedings of a protracted conference
which may have taken place over several
years. It will not require the concurrence of
the Senate. The documents contained therein
are deemed adopted without need for
ratification. (Taada vs. Angara, 272 SCRA
18, 1997)
Commission on Appointments(S 18,
Article VI)
The Commission is independent of the two
Houses of Congress; its employees are not,
technically, employees of Congress. It has the
power to promulgate its own rules of
proceedings.
Powers: Act on all appointments submitted
to it within 30 session days of Congress from
their submission; to act on Presidential
appointments; has power to promulgate its
own rules of proceedings.
Composition:
*Senate Presidentacts as Ex-Officio
Chairman
*12 Senators and 12 Members of the House of
Representatives, elected by each house on
the basis of proportional representation from
the political parties and organizations
registered under the party-list system
represented therein.
*Chairman shall not vote except in case of a
tie.
In Guingona vs. Gonzales, 214 SCRA 789, a
political party must have at least two (2)
elected senators for every seat in the
Commission on Appointments. Thus, where
there are two or more political parties
represented in the Senate, a political
party/coalition with a single senator in the
Senate cannot constitutionally claim a seat in
the Commission on Appointments. It is not
mandatory to elect 12 senators to the
Commission; what the Constitution requires is
that there must be at least a majority of the
entire membership.
POWERS OF CONGRESS
Classification: 1. LEGISLATIVE
General plenary power;
Specific power of appropriation;
Taxation and expropriation;
Legislative investigations (Sec. 21, Art. VI);
and
Question hour (Section 22, Art. VI).
2. NON-LEGISLATIVEincludes power to:
Canvass presidential election (4, Art. VII);
Declare the existence of state of war (
23,p.1,Art.6);
Exercise delegation of emergency powers;
Call special election for President & VP
(10,Art.7);
Give concurrence to treaties&amnesties
(19&21,A.7);
Propose constitutional amendments
(constituent power) (Sections 1-2, Art. XVII);
Confirm certain appointments (9&16, Art.
7);
Impeach (Section 2, Art. XI);
Decide the disability of President
because majority of the Cabinet disputes
his assertion that he is able to discharge his
duties(11, Art. 7);
Revoke or extend proclamation of
suspension of privilege of writ of habeas
corpus or declaration of martial law (Section
18, Art. VII);
Set the rules regarding the utilization of
natural resources (Section 2, Art. XII).
Limitations on the Powers of Congress:
1. SUBSTANTIVE
a. Express:
i. Bill of Rights (Article III);
ii. On Appropriations ( 25&29 par. 1& 2, Art
VI);
iii. On taxation (28&29, par 3, Article VI);
iv. On Constitutional appellate jurisdiction of
SC (Section 30, Article VI);
v. No law granting title of royalty or nobility
shall be passed (Section 31, Article VI);
vi. No specific funds shall be appropriated or
paid for use or benefit of any religion, sect,
etc., except for priests, etc., assigned to AFP,
penal institutions, etc. (Sec. 29, pararaph 2,
Article VI).
b. Implied:
i. Prohibition against irrepealable laws;
ii. Non-delegation of powers.
2. PROCEDURAL
a. Only one subject, to be stated in the title
of the bill (Sec. 26, par. 1, Article VI);
b. Three(3)readings ons eparate days;
printed copies of the bill in its final form
distributed to members 3 days before its
passage, except if President certifies to its
immediate enactment to meet a public
calamity or emergency; upon its last reading,
no amendment allowed and the vote thereon
taken immediately and the yeas and nays
entered into the Journal (26, par. 2, Article VI;
c. Appropriation, revenue and tariff bills shall
originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives.
How a bill becomes a law?
1. Approved and signed by the President;
2. Presidential veto overridden by 2/3 votes
of all the members of both Houses;
3. Failure of the President to veto the bill and
to return it with his objections to the
House where it originated, within 30 days
after the date of receipt;
4. A bill calling a special election for President
and Vice-President under Section 10, Article
VII becomes a law upon third and final
reading.
Bills exclusively originated in the House
of Representative: (APRIL)
1. Appropriation bills;
2. Private bills;
3. Revenue or tariff bills;
4. Bills authorizing Increase in public debts;
and
5. Bills of Local application.
However, although these bills are required to
originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives, the Senate may propose or
concur with amendments (Sec. 24, Art. VI).
Amendments may include amendments by
substitution. (Tolentino vs. Secretary of
Finance)
What is required to originate exclusively
in the House of Representatives is the bill, not
the law itself. (Tolentino vs. Secretary of
Finance)
If the nays prevail, then it is about time that
a new bicameral committee be created until
the bill will be accepted by both houses. (Bill
is not killed.)
If yeas prevail, the bill is signed by the
Executive Secretary. Two (2) Rules to be
observedSection 26, Article VI:
1. One (1) subject, One (1) Title Ruleto
prevent RIDERStotally unrelated matters
2. Three (3) Readings on Separate Days
Except: when the President certifies to the
necessity of the immediate enactment of the
bill to meet thepubliccalamityandemergency
political questionnot subject to judicial
review Section 26 (par. 1), Article VIevery
bill passed by the Congress shall embrace
only
one subject which shall be expressed in the
title thereof.
The objectives of the above provision
are:
1. To prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling
legislation;
2. To prevent surprise or fraud upon the
legislature by means of provisions in bills of
which the titles gave no information, and
which might therefore be overlooked and
carelessly and unintentionally adopted; and
3. To fairly appraise the people, through such
publication of legislative proceedings as is
usually made, of the subjects of legislation
that are being considered, in order that they
may have opportunity of being heard thereon
by petition or otherwise if they shall so desire.
Literal interpretationthe subject or title
need not be an index or catalogue. It must be
germane and related to the subject matter.
Agripino A. De Guzman, Jr., et al. vs.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 129118, July 19, 2000,
Section 26 (1), Article VI is sufficiently
complied with where the title is
comprehensive enough to embrace the
general objective it seeks to achieve, and if all
the parts of the statute are related and
germane to the subject matter embodied in
the title or so long as the same are not
inconsistent with or foreign to the general
subject and title.
Section 26, par. 2 of Article VINo bill
passed by either House shall become a law
unless it has passed three readings on
separate days, and printed copies thereof in
its final form have been distributed to its
Members three days before its passage,
except when the President certifies to the
necessity of its immediate enactment to meet
a public calamity or emergency.
ENROLLED BILL DOCTRINE
It is one duly introduced and finally passed by
both houses, authenticated by the proper
officer of each, and approved by the
President. It is conclusive upon the courts as
regards the tenor of the measure passed by
Congress and approved by the President.
Once the bill becomes an enrolled bill, it is
conclusive upon the court of its due
enactment. Courts may no longer validly
inquire into the bill because of the doctrine of
separation of powers.
Casco (Phil) Chemical Co. vs. Gimenez, 7
SCRA 347, if a mistake was made in the
printing of the bill before it was certified by
Congress and approved by the President, the
remedy is amendment or corrective
legislation, not a judicial decree.
The enrolled bill rule rests on the
following considerations: x x x As the
President has no authority to approve a bill no
passed by Congress, an enrolled act in the
custody of the Secretary of State, and having
the official attestations of the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, of the President of
the Senate, and of the President of the United
States, carries, on its face, a solemn
assurance by the legislative and executive
departments of the government, charged,
respectively, with the duty of enacting and
executing the laws, that it was passed by the
Congress. the respect due to co-equal and
independent departments requires the judicial
department to act upon the assurance, and to
accept, as having passed Congress, all bills
authenticated in the manner stated; leaving
the court to determine, when the question
properly arises, whether the Act, so
authenticated, is in conformity with the
Constitution. (Marshall Field & Co. vs. Clark,
143 US 649)
BICAMERAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
the mechanism for compromising
differences between the Senate and the
Housecapable of producing unexpected
resultbill will have to be sent back to both
houses and subject to votation.
A conference committee may deal generally
with the subject matter or it may be limited to
resolving the precise differences between the
two houses. Even where the conference
committee is not by rule limited in its
jurisdiction, legislative custom severely limits
the freedom with which new subject matter
can be inserted in to the conference bill. But
occasionally it produces unexpected results,
results beyond its mandate. These excursions
occurs even where the rules impose strict
limitations on conference committee
jurisdiction. This is symptomatic of an
authoritarian power of conference committee.
(Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado,
227 SCRA 703, November 11, 1993)
DOCTRINE OF SHIFTING MAJORITYFor
each house to pass a bill, only the votes of the
majority of those present in the session, there
being a quorum, is required.
QuorumA majority of each House, but a
smaller number may adjourn from day to day
and may compel the attendance of absent
members in such manner and under such
penalties as such house may determine.
Avelino vs. Cuenco, 83 Phil 17, the basis in
determining the existence of a quorum in the
Senate shall be the total number of Senators
who are in the country and within the coercive
jurisdiction of the Senate.
Arroyo vs. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255,
June 26, 1998, the SC declared that the
question of quorum cannot be raised
repeatedly, especially when a quorum is
obviously present for the purpose of delaying
the business of the House.
LEGISLATIVE JOURNALregarded as
conclusive with respect to matters that are
required by the Constitution to be recorded
therein. With respect to other matters, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, the
journals have also been accorded conclusive
effects. Thus, in US vs. Pons, this Court spoke
of the imperatives of public policy for
regarding the Journals as public memorials of
the most permanent character, thus: They
should be public, because all are required to
conform to them; they should be permanent,
that rights acquired today upon the faith of
what has been declared to be law shall not be
destroyed tomorrow, or at some remote
period of time, by facts resting only in
memory of individuals. (Arroyo vs. De
Venecia, 277 SCRA 268)
Matters that are required to be entered
on the Journal:
1. The yeas and nays on the 3rd and final
reading of a bill;
2. The yeas and nays on any question, at the
request of 1/5 of the members present;
3. The yeas and nays upon re-passing a bill
over the Presidents veto; and
4. The Presidents objection to a bill he had
vetoed. (Arroyo vs. De Venecia, 277 SCRA
268)
Journal entry vs. enrolled bill
Enrolled bill prevails, except to matters, which
under the Constitution, must entered into the
Journal. (Morales vs. Subido, 26 SCRA 150)
Presidents Options:
1. Sign and the bill becomes a law.
2. Vetoes the bill, it does not become a law.
2/3 votes of all its Members (for Congress to
override)
3. Inactionthe bill automatically becomes a
law within 30 days upon receipt of the bill
from Congress.
There is no such thing as pocket veto here
in the Philippines because inaction by the
President for 30 days never produces a veto
even if Congress is in recess. The President
must still act to veto the bill and communicate
his veto to the Congress without need of
returning the vetoed bill with his veto
message.
Pocket veto occurs when:
a. The President fails to act on the bill;
b. The reason he does not return the bill to
the Congress is that Congress is not in
session.
PRESIDENTIAL VETO VETOSection 27,
Article VI
1. General veto of the Presidentparagraph
1 of Section 27, Article VI
2. Item/Line veto of the Presidentparagraph
2 of Section 27, Article VI
The act of the Executive in vetoing the
particular provisions is an exercise of a
constitutionally vested power. But even as the
Constitution grants the power, it also provides
limitations to its exercise. The veto power is
not absolute. x x x
The OSG is correct when it states that the
Executive must veto a bill in its entirety or not
at all. He or she cannot act like an editor
crossing out specific lines, provisions, or
paragraphs in a bill that he or she dislikes. In
the exercise of the veto power, it is generally
veto, however, when it comes to
appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, the
Administration needs the money to run the
machinery of the government and it can not
veto the entire bill even if it may contain
objectionable features. The President is,
therefore, compelled to approve into law the
entire bill, including its undesirable parts. It is
for this reason that the Constitution has
wisely provided the item veto power to
avoid inexpedient riders being attached to an
indispensable appropriation or revenue
measures.
The Constitution provides that only a
particular item or items may be vetoed. The
power to disapprove any item or items in an
appropriation bill does not grant the authority
to veto a part of an item and to approve the
remaining portion of the same item. (Bengzon
vs. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133, April 15, 1992)
General rule: Selective/partial veto is not
allowed. The President may not veto a
provision of the bill without vetoing the
whole/entire bill itself.
Exception: Paragraph 2 of Section 27, Article
VIItem/Line veto
Only Appropriation, Revenue and Tariff Bills
(ART)selective veto is allowed here provided
the vetoed bill shall not affect the items which
was not vetoed.
ItemRefers to the particulars, the details,
the distinct and severable parts of the bill. It
is an indivisible sum of money dedicated to a
stated purpose.
Exceptions to the Exception:
1. DOCTRINE OF INAPPROPRIATE
PROVISIONSection 25 (2), Article VI - A
provision that is constitutionally inappropriate
for an appropriation bill may be singled out for
veto even if it is not an appropriation or
revenue item.
It was invoked in the case of Gonzalez vs.
Macaraig wherein President Aquino vetoed a
provision of the general appropriation bill. The
Supreme Court ruled in favor of the veto
power of the President. Section 25 (2), Article
VINo provision or enactment shall be
embraced in the general appropriation bill
unless it relates specifically to some particular
appropriation therein.Items which the
President does not object, otherwise it
becomes an inappropriate provisionit may
be treated as an itemsubject to the item
veto of the President.
2. Executive Impoundmentrefusal of the
President to spend funds already allocated by
Congress for specific purpose. It is the failure
to spend or obligate budget authority of any
type. This power is derived from Section
38 of the Administrative Code of 1987 on
suspension.
Appropriation Reserves Section 37 of the
Administrative Code authorizes the Budget
Secretary to establish reserves against
appropriations to provide for contingencies
and emergencies which may arise during
the year. This is merely expenditure
deferral, not suspension, since the agencies
concerned can still draw on the reserves if the
fiscal outlook improves.
3. Legislative Vetoa congressional veto is
a means whereby the legislature can block or
modify administrative action taken under a
statute. It is a form of legislative control in
the implementation of particular executive
action. The form may either be:
a. Negativesubjecting the executive action
to disapproval by Congress; or
b. Affirmativerequiring approval of the
executive action by Congress.
A congressional veto is subject to serious
questions involving the separation of powers.
Local Chief Executives have veto power
except the Punong Barangay.
POWER OF APPROPRIATION The
spending power, called the power of
purse belongs to the Congress, subject
only to the veto power of the President. it
carries with it a power to specify the project or
activity to be funded under the appropriation
law.
Appropriations LawA statute, the
primary and specific purpose of which is
to authorize release of public funds from the
treasury.
The existence of appropriations and the
availability of funds are indispensable pre-
requisites to or conditions sine qua non for
the execution of government contracts.
(COMELEC vs. Judge Quijano Padilla and
Photokina Marketing Corp., G.R. No.
151992, September 18, 2000)
Classification:
1. General Appropriation Lawpassed
annually, intended to provide for the
financial operations of the entire government
during one fiscal period.
2. Special Appropriation Lawdesigned
for a specific purpose.
Implied (Extra-Constitutional)
Limitations on Appropriation Power:
1. Must specify public purpose; and
2. Sum authorized for release must be
determinate, or at least determinable.
Constitutional Limitations on Special
Appropriation Measures:
1. Must specify public purpose for which the
sum was intended; and
2. Must be supported by funds actually
available as certified by the National
Treasurer or to be raised by corresponding
revenue proposal included therein.
Constitutional Rules on General
Appropriation Laws: Section 25, Article
VI
1. Congress may not increase appropriations
recommended by the President for operation
of the Governmentto prevent big budget
deficits;
2. Form, content and manner of preparation
of budget shall be provided by law;
3. No provision or enactment shall be
embraced unless it relates specifically to
some particular appropriations therein;
4. Procedure for approving appropriations for
Congress shall be the same as that of
other departmentsto prevent sub rosa
appropriations by Congress;
5. Prohibition against transfer of
appropriations (Doctrine of Augmentation),
however:
a. President;
b. Senate President;
c. Speaker of the House;
d. Chief Justice; and
e. Heads of Constitutional Commissions
may, by law, be authorized to augment any
item in the general appropriations law for
their respective offices from savings in other
items of their respective appropriations.
6. Prohibition against appropriations for
sectarian benefit; and
7. Automatic re-appropriation.
POWER OF TAXATION
Limitations:
1. Rule of taxation shall be uniform and
equitable and Congress shall evolve a
progressive system of taxation.
2. Charitable institutions, etc., and all
lands, buildings and improvements
actually, directly and exclusively used for
religious, charitable or educational purposes
shall be exempt from taxation.
3. All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-
profit educational institutions used actually,
directly and exclusively for educational
purposes shall be exempt from taxes and
duties.
4. Law granting tax exemption shall be
passed only with the concurrence of a
majority of all the members of Congress.
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL Section 17, Article
VSenate and House of Representatives
sole judge of all contest relating to the
election returns and qualifications of their
respective Members
No appeal lies. Appeal is merely statutory.
The remedy is Rule 65, Certiorari (Special Civil
Action) based on Grave Abuse of Discretion.
HRETalthough attached to the Congress,
has separate and distinct personality. It was
created as a non-partisan court. It must be
independent of Congress and devoid of
partisan influence and consideration.
Members of HRET, once appointed thereto,
they shall be accorded thereto of security of
tenure to ensure their impartiality and
independence.
Bondoc vs. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792,
Disloyalty to the party and Breach of party The Constitution mandates that the HRET and
discipline are not valid grounds for the
expulsion of a member. HRET members enjoy
security of tenure; their membership may not
be terminated except for a just cause such as
the expiration of congressional term, death,
resignation from the political party, formal
affiliation with another political party, or
removal for other valid causes.
Pimentel vs. HRET, G.R. No. 141489,
November 29, 2002, the SC said that even
assuming that the party-list representatives
comprise a sufficient number and have
agreed to designate common nominees
to the HRET and Commission on
Appointments, their primary recourse clearly
rests with the House of Representatives and
not with the Court. Only if the House fails to
comply with the directive of the Constitution
on proportional representation of political
parties in the HRET and Commission on
Appointments can the party-list
representatives seek recourse from this Court
through judicial review. Under the doctrine of
primary administrative jurisdiction, prior
recourse to the House is necessary before the
petitioners may bring the case to Court.
Imelda Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC,
248 SCRA 300As to the HRETs supposed
assumption of jurisdiction over the issue of
petitioners qualifications after the May 8,
1995 elections, suffice it to say that HRETs
jurisdiction as the sole judge of all contests
relating to the elections, returns and
qualifications of members of Congress begins
only after a candidate has become a member
of the House of Representatives (Article VI,
Section 17 1987 Constitution). Petitioner not
being a member of the House of
Representatives, it is obvious that HRET at
this point has no jurisdiction over the
question. COMELEC is not ousted of
jurisdiction. See also Section 6 of RA 6646.
Guerrero vs. COMELEC, 336 SCRA 458 (July
26, 2000) While the Congress is vested with
the power to declare valid or invalid
certificate of candidacy, its refusal to exercise
the power following the proclamation and
assumption of Farias is a recognition of
the jurisdictional boundaries separating the
COMELEC and the HRET.
Under Article VI, Section 17 of the
Constitution, the HRET has the sole and
exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relative
to the elections, returns and qualifications of
members of the House of Representatives.
Thus, once a winning candidate has been
proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed
office as a member of the HOR, COMELECs
jurisdiction over election contests relating to
his elections, returns and qualifications ends,
and the HRETs own jurisdiction begins. Thus,
the COMELECs decision to discontinue
exercising jurisdiction over the case is
justifiable, in deference to the HRETs own
jurisdiction and functions.
Appeal from SET or HRET Decision
the SET shall each, respectively, be the sole
judge of all contest relating to the elections,
returns and qualifications of their respective
members.
The Court has stressed that so long as the
Constitution grants the HRET the power to be
the sole judge of all contests relating to the
elections, returns and qualifications of
members of the House of Representatives,
any final action taken by the HRET on a
matter within its jurisdiction shall, as a rule,
not be reviewed by the Supreme Court. The
power granted to the Electoral Tribunal
excludes the exercise of any authority on
the part of this Court that would in any wise
restricts it or curtail it or even affect the
same.
In Robles vs. HRET, the Court has explained
that while the judgments of the Tribunal are
beyond judicial interference, the Court may do
so, however, but only in the exercise of the
SCs so-called extraordinary jurisdiction upon
determination that the Tribunals decision or
resolution was rendered without or in excess
of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion, or upon a clear showing of such
arbitrary and improvident use by the Tribunal
of its power as constitutes a denial of due
process of law, or upon demonstration of a
very clear unmitigated error, manifestly
constituting such grave abuse of discretion
that there has to be remedy for such abuse.
The Court does not venture into the perilous
area of correcting perceived errors of
independent branches of government; it
comes in only when it has to vindicate a
denial of due process or correct an abuse of
discretion so grave or glaring that no less
than the Constitution itself calls for remedial
action. (Libanan vs. HRET, 283 SCRA 520)
Section 21, Article VIThe Senate or the
HOR or any of its respective committees may
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in
accordance with its duly published rules and
procedure. The right of persons appearing in
or affected by such inquiries shall be
respected.
Constitutional limitation on inquiries in aid
of legislation
POWER OF LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATION
(Section 21, Article VI) -- Power to
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation
Investigatorial Powernot absolute; subject
judicial review in view of the expanded power
of the court to determine whether there has
been grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Limitations:
1. The inquiry must be in aid of legislation;
2. It must be in accordance with duly
published rules and procedure of the House
concerned; and
3. The right of persons appearing in or
affected by such inquiries shall be
respected.
Remedy: invoke the Right against Self-
Incrimination
Section 21 (Legislative investigation) vs.
Section 22(Question Hour)
1. Inquiry in aid of legislationthey may not
validly refuse to appear:
It will impair the work of Congress
It will violate the rights of the people to
information on matters of public concern
(Section 7, Article III)
2. Members of the executive cabinet in view
of EO 464
These two (2) sections should not be
considered as pertaining to the same power of
Congress. One specifically relates to the
power to conduct inquiry in aid of legislation,
the aim of which is to elicit information that
may be used for legislation, while the other
pertains to the power to conduct a question
hour, the objective of which is to obtain
information in pursuit of Congress oversight
function.
Section 21 (Legislative investigation)
1. Any person may appear
2. The Committees conduct the investigation
3. The subject matter is any matter for
the purpose of legislation
4. Appearance is mandatory
Section 22(Question Hour)
1. Only department head may appear
2. The entire body conduct the investigation
3. The subject matters are matters related
to the department only
4. Appearance is Discretionary
Senate vs. Ermita, G.R. No., 169777, April
20, 2006, while attendance to Congressional
hearings is discretionary on the part of the
department heads during question hour,
such is not in the case in inquiries in aid of
legislation, except upon a valid and express
claim of executive privilege.
The principle of separation of powers is the
reason why executive officials may not be
compelled to attend hearings when Congress
exercises its oversight functions. Though, this
is not the case when the Congress exercises
its power of inquiry in aid of legislation.
Sections 21 and 22 of Article VI, therefore,
while closely related and complementary to
each other, should not be considered as
pertaining to the same power of Congress.
one specifically relates to the power to
conduct an inquiry in aid of legislation, the
aim of which is to elicit information that may
be used for legislation, while the other
pertains to the power to conduct a question
hour, the object of which is to obtain
information in pursuit of Congress oversight
function.
Sabio vs. Sen. Gordon, G.R. No. 174340,
October 17, 2006, the Congress power of
inquiry, being broad, encompasses everything
that concerns the administration of existing
laws as well as proposed or possibly needed
statutes. It even extends to government
agencies created by Congress and officers
whose positions are within the power of
Congress to regulate or even abolish. A mere
provision of law cannot pose a limitation to
the broad power of Congress, in the absence
of any constitutional basis.
QUESTION HOURintegral in a
parliamentary government; the heads of
departments may, upon their own initiative,
with the consent of the President, or upon the
request of either house, as the rules of each
house shall provide, appear before and be
heard by such house on any matter pertaining
to their departments. Written questions shall
be submitted to the President of the Senate or
the Speaker of the House at least 3 days
before their scheduled appearance.
Interpolations shall not be limited to
written questions, but may cover matters
related thereto. When the scrutiny of the
State or the public interest so requires, the
appearance shall be conducted in executive
session
Arnault vs. Nazareno, 87 Phil. 29the
inquiry, to be within the jurisdiction of the
legislative body making it, must be material
or necessary to the exercise of a power in it
vested by the Constitution, such as to
legislate or to expel a member.
(The power to conduct Inquiry is integral and
implied of legislative power)
Standard Chartered Bank vs. Senate
Committee on Banks, G.R. No. 167173,
December 27, 2007, the mere filing of a
criminal or an administrative complaint before
a court or a quasi-judicial body should not
automatically bar the conduct of legislative
investigation. Otherwise, it would be
extremely easy to subvert any intended
inquiry by Congress through the convenient
ploy of instituting a criminal or
administrative complaint.
Congressional Oversight Functions
(Makalintal vs. COMELEC, G.R. No.
157013, July 10, 2003)
It embraces all activities undertaken by
Congress to enhance its understanding of and
influence over the implementation of
legislation it has enacted. Clearly, oversight
concerns post-enactment measures
undertaken by Congress:
a. To monitor bureaucratic compliance with
program objectives;
b. To determine whether agencies are
properly administered;
c. To eliminate executive waste and
dishonesty;
d. To prevent executive usurpation of
authority; and
e. To assess executive conformity with the
congressional perception of public interest.
The power of oversight has been held to be
intrinsic in the grant of legislative power itself
and integral to the checks and balances
inherent in a democratic system of
government.
The oversight power has also been used
to ensure the accountability of regulatory
commissions like the SEC. Unlike other
ordinary administrative agencies, these
bodies are independent from the executive
branch and are outside the executive
department in the discharge of their
functions.
Categories of Congressional Oversight
Functions:
a. Scrutinyimplies a lesser intensity and
continuity of attention to administrative
operations. Its primary purpose is to
determine economy and efficiency of the
operation of government activities. In the
exercise of legislative scrutiny, Congress
may request information and report from the
other branches of government. It can give
recommendations or pass resolutions for
consideration of the agency involved.
It is based primarily on the power of
appropriation of Congress. xxx But
legislative scrutiny does not end in budget
hearings. Congress can ask the heads of
departments to appear before and be heard
by either the House of Congress on any
matter pertaining to their department.
Likewise, Congress exercises legislative
scrutiny thru its power of confirmation to find
out whether the nominee possesses the
necessary qualifications, integrity and probity
required of all public servants.
b. Congressional investigationinvolves a
more intense digging of facts. It is recognized
under Section 21, Article VI. Even in the
absence of constitutional mandate, it has
been held to be an essential and appropriate
auxiliary to the legislative functions.
c. Legislative supervisionit connotes a
continuing and informed awareness on the
part of congressional committee regarding
executive operations in a given administrative
area. It allows Congress to scrutinize the
exercise of delegated law-making authority,
and permits Congress to retain part of
that delegated
authority.
Congress exercises supervision over the
executive agencies through its veto power. It
typically utilizes veto provisions when
granting the President or an executive agency
the power to promulgate regulations with the
force of law. These provisions require the
President or an agency to present the
proposed regulations to Congress, which
retains a right to approve or disapprove any
regulation before it takes effect. Such
legislative veto provisions usually provide that
a proposed regulation will become a law after
the expiration of a certain period of time, only
if Congress does not affirmatively disapprove
of the regulation in the meantime. Less
frequently, the statute provides that a
proposed regulation will become a law if
Congress affirmatively approves it.
POWER OF CONCURRENCE The
Constitution requires the concurrence of the
Congress to an amnesty and to a treaty.
THE WAR POWER
The Congress, by a vote of 2/3 of both houses
in joint session assembled, voting separately,
shall have the sole power to declare the
existence of a state of war.
LAW-MAKING POWERS OF CONGRESS
Pertinently, the power to make laws
legislative poweris vested in Congress.
Congress may not escape its duties and
responsibilities by delegating that power to
any other body or authority. Any attempt to
abdicate the power is unconstitutional and
void, on the principle of delegari potesta non
potest delegaridelegated power may not be
delegated. The rule which forbids the
delegation of legislative power, however, is
not absolute and inflexible. It admits of
exceptions. An exception sanctioned by
immemorial practice permits the legislative
body to delegate its licensing power to certain
persons, municipal corporations, towns,
boards, councils, commissions,
commissioners, auditors, bureaus and
directors. Such licensing power includes the
power to promulgate necessary rules and
regulations. (Chavez vs. Romulo, G.R. No.
157036, June 9,
2004)