ARTICLE VI.

THE LEGISLATIVE POWER

I. Powers of Congress in general

A. Legislative power (Sec. 1)
CASES:
David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006
Ople vs. Torres, G.R. No. 127685 July 23, 1998 (read also the concurrences of JJ. Vitug and Panganiban and
the dissent of J. Kapunan)
B. Non-legislative powers
1. Express
2. Implied
a. punish for contempt during legislative investigations
CASE: Arnault v. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-3820, July 18, 1950
3. Inherent

II. Composition of Congress (Sec. 2 & 5)

A. Senate
1. Number of members 24 Senators
2. Manner of election elected at large
3. Term
B. HOR
1. Classification & number of members
a. District reps not more than 250 representatives, unless otherwise fixed by law [Sec. 5(1)]
b. Party-list reps
i. 20% of the total number of representatives including those under the party-list [Sec. 5(2)]
CASES:
Veterans Federation v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 13678, October 26, 2010
Banat v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009
ii. Major political parties may participate and get elected in the party-list election
CASES:
Ang Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147613, June 26, 2001
BANAT v. COMELEC, supra
Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013 reversal of Ang Bagong Bayani
and BANAT rulings
iii. Meaning of marginalized and underrepresented
CASE: Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010
iv. Delisting of party-list groups
CASE: Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190529, April 29, 2010
v. Authority to determine the qualifications of a party-list nominee initially belongs to the party; HRET
has jurisdiction to determine the qualification of nominee as a bona fide member of the party or
organization which he seeks to represent under the Party-list System Act
CASE: Abayon v. HRET, G.R. No. 189466, February 11, 2010
vi. Qualification of a party-list representative vis--vis his expulsion from his party-list group within the
jurisdiction of the HRET
CASE: Lico v. COMELEC, supra
vii. Eligibility of parties seeking registration under the party-list system
CASES:
Magdalo Para sa Pagbabago v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190793, June 19, 2012
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC, supra
2. Manner of election
a. District reps elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the
Metropolitan Manila area [Sec. 5(1)]
b. Party-list reps elected at large through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral
parties or organizations [Sec. 5(1)]
3. Basic requirement for legislative districts
a. apportionment in accordance with the number of inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and
progressive ratio [Sec. 5(1)]; as far as practicable, must consist of contiguous, compact and adjacent
territories [Sec. 5(3)] rationale to prevent/discourage gerrymandering
CASES:
Montejo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 118702, March 16, 1995
b. representation each city with population of at least 250,000, or each province, shall have at least one
representative [Sec. 5(3)]
Aquino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010

III. Qualifications of members of Congress (Sec. 3 & 6)

CASE: Pimentel v. Comelec, G.R. No. 161658, November 3, 2008 list of qualifications in the Constitution
exclusive; mandatory drug test an unconstitutional additional qualification
A. Citizenship natural born citizen
CASES:
Limkaichong v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 178831-32, April 1, 2009 Attack on a candidates citizenship through
a collateral attack on her fathers previous naturalization as Filipino improper
Vilando v. HRET, G.R. Nos. 192147 & 192149, August 23, 2011 citizenship is a continuing requirement
 David v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 221538, September 20, 2016
B. Age 35 for Senators; 25 for representatives
1. Reckoning point: day of election at the latest
C. Literacy requirement able to read and write
D. Registration as voter registered voter anywhere in the Phils for Senators and party-list representatives;
registered voter of district he is elected
E. Residency resident of Phils.
1. Threshold: at least 2 years immediately preceding election (Senators); at least 1 year immediately preceding
election (for representatives)
2. Where
a. anywhere in the Philippines (Senators and party-list reps)
b. in the legislative district they seek to run (district reps)
3. Meaning of residence legal and permanent residence, or domicile
CASES:
Coquilla v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002
Co v. Electoral Tribunal, G.R. Nos. 92191-92 July 30, 1991
Marcos v. Comelec, G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995 (Ponencia of J. Kapunan not joined by other
justices in the majority; Read also the concurrences of JJ. Puno and Francisco and the dissent of J. Padilla)
Aquino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 120265, September 18, 1995

IV. Term of office (Sec. 4 & 7, Art. VI; Sec. 2, Art. XVIII)
A. Commencement noon of June 30 next following the election
B. Duration
1. Senators 6 years; maximum of 2 consecutive terms
a. Senators elected in 1992, 1st 12 served for 6 years (until June 30, 1998), remaining 12 for 3 years (until
June 30, 1995)
i. Effect: overlapping of terms because of the 24 Senators, 12 are elected every 3 years; thus, the 6-
year term of 12 Senators expires every 3 years, leaving just 12 (half, or less than a majority) of
Senators to continue into the next Congress
CASES:
Arnault v. Nazareno, supra Senate under the 1935 Constitution was a continuing body
Neri v. Senate Committee, G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008 (decision); September 4, 2008
(resolution) Clarification of the Senate-as-a-continuing-body (Read also the dissent of J. Carpio)
Garcillano v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 170338, December 23, 2008
2. Representatives 3 years; maximum of 3 consecutive terms
C. Effect of voluntary renunciation not considered as an interruption in the continuity of service for the full term

V. Regular and special elections of members of Congress (Sec. 8 & 9)

A. Regular elections 2nd Monday of May
B. Special election in case of vacancy; optional: may be called, by law, to fill the vacancy, but the Senator or
Representative thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired term.

VI. Salaries and accounts of Members of Congress (Sec. 10 & 20)

A. Salaries determined by law; no increase in compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full
term of all the senators and representatives approving it
CASE: PHILCONSA v. Jimenez, G.R. No. L-23326, December 18, 1965
B. records and books of accounts of Congress preserved and open to the public in accordance with law; audited
by the COA

VII. Parliamentary immunities (Sec. 11)

A. Privilege from arrest
1. Requisites
a. offense charged is punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment,
b. Congress is in session
2. Rationale the constituents of a senator or representative must not be deprived of representation when
Congress is in session except only in relatively serious cases where the penalty prescribed by law is
imprisonment exceeding 6 years
B. Privilege of speech and debate
1. Requisites
a. May be invoked only outside of Congress, but not before the concerned House itself, which may
exercise its disciplinary power under Section 16(3) of Article VI for disorderly behavior
CASE: Osmea v. Pendatun, G.R. No. L-17144, October 28, 1960
b. speech or debate must be made in the Congress or in any committee thereof
CASE: Jimenez v. Cabangbang, G.R. No. L-15905, August 3, 1966
2. Rationale to guarantee legislators complete freedom of expression without fear of being made responsible
in criminal or civil actions before the courts or any other forum outside of Congress
3. Any claim of an unworthy purpose or of the falsity and mala fides of the statement uttered by the member of
the Congress does not destroy the privilege
CASE: Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago, A.C. No. 7399, August 25, 2009

VIII. Disclosure and Notification Requirements (Sec. 12)

IX. Incompatible and Forbidden Offices (Sec. 13)

 A. Incompatible office
1. Definition any other office or employment in the government, including GOCCs or their subsidiaries, when
concurrently held by a legislator during his term of office
CASES:
Adaza v. Pacaa, G.R. No. L-68159, March 18, 1985
Liban v. Gordon, G.R. No.175352, July 15, 2009
2. Effect of holding of incompatible office forfeiture of legislative seat
B. Forbidden office
1. Definition any office created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which a legislator
was elected
C. Exception to prohibition against holding incompatible or forbidden offices

X. Inhibitions and Disqualifications (Sec. 14)

A. personal appearance as counsel before courts of justice, the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and
administrative bodies
CASE: Puyat v. De Guzman, G.R. No. L-51122, March 25, 1982
B. financial interest in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the government, including
any GOCC or its subsidiary during his term of office
C. intervention in any matter before a government office for pecuniary benefit, or where he may be called upon to
act on account of his office
CASE: Belgica v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013 pork barrel system
unconstitutional because it gave individual legislators post-enactment roles in the implementation of the budget

XI. Sessions (Sec. 15); Read also Sec. 4 and 10, Art. VII

XII. Officers of each House [Sec. 16 (1)]

A. Specific officers
1. Senate
a. Senate President
CASE: Avelino v. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-2821, March 4, 1949 (decision) issue on who should be the
Senate President not justiciable (i.e., political); thus, SC has no jurisdiction March 14, 1949 (resolution
of the MR): The Court, voting 7-3, resolved to assume jurisdiction in the light of events subsequent to the
promulgation of its decisioni.e., the Cuenco group, taking cue from the dissenting opinions in the
decision, issued compulsory processes to compel the senators of the Avelino group to attend their
session, but to no availjustifying the Courts intervention
b. Others
i. Senate President pro tempore
ii. Majority floor leader
iii. Minority floor leader
CASE: Santiago v. Guingona, G.R. No. 134577, November 18, 1998
iv. Committee chairs, vice chairs (and members)
v. Secretary General and Sergeant-at-Arms
2. House of Representatives
a. Speaker
b. Others
i. Deputies
ii. Majority leader
iii. Minority leader
iv. Committee chairs, vice chairs (and members)
v. Secretary General and Sergeant-at-Arms
B. Vote requirement majority of all members of each House

XIII. Quorum [Sec. 16 (2)]

A. Requirement majority of each House
CASE: Avelino v. Cuenco, supra (dicta of 4 of the 6 Justices constituting the majority)
B. If quorum is absent: a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent
members
1. But absentee member cannot be compelled to attend sessions if reason for the absence is legitimate
CASES:
People v. Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875-76. February 3, 2000
Trillanes v. Pimentel, G.R. No. 179817, June 27, 2008
C. As long as there is quorum, the Houses of Congress may conduct business and hold session; within a quorum,
a vote of majority is generally sufficient to enact laws; GR: majority of those constituting a quorum sufficient to
repeal a law
CASE: Kida v. Senate, G.R. No. 196271, October 18, 2011

XIV. Legislative journals and records [Sec. 16 (4)]

A. Types of journals
1. Journal of proceedings
a. published from time to time (except parts affecting national security)
b. mandatory contents
i. yeas and nays on any question shall be entered in the Journal at the request of 1/5 of the members
present [Sec. 16(4), Art. VI]
 ii. yeas and nays (upon nominal voting) on the final reading of a bill [Sec. 26(2), Art. VI]
iii. when the President vetoes a bill or an item therein, and return the same with his objections to the
House where it originated, the latter shall enter the Presidents objections at large in its journal and
proceed to reconsider it [Sec. 27(1), Art. VI]
iv. in case the Houses of Congress overrides the Presidents veto, the names of the members voting
for or against shall be entered in the journal [Sec. 27(2), Art. VI]
c. GR: conclusive with respect to maters required by the Constitution to recorded therein
CASES:
U.S. v. Pons, G.R. No. L-11530, August 12, 1916
2. Record of proceedings
B. Importance
1. A way to confirm due enactment of a law
CASE: Arroyo v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, August 14, 1997
C. The enrolled bill doctrine
1. Definition a bill duly introduced and finally enacted by both Houses, signed and certified by the Senate
President and Senate Secretary, and the Speaker of the House and the House Secretary General is
conclusive on the courts not only on its text but also on its due enactment
CASE: Arroyo v. De Venecia, supra, concurring and dissenting opinion of J. Puno Evolution of the
enrolled bill doctrine
2. Basis/rationale separation of powers, which requires courts to accept, as having been duly passed by
Congress, all authenticated bills, and not to inquire beyond the certification of the approval of a bill from the
presiding officers of Congress
3. Application
CASES:
Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, G.R. No. L-1123, March 5, 1947
Casco Philippine Chemical Co., Inc. v. Jimenez, G.R. No. L-17931, February 28, 1963
Morales v. Subido, G.R. No. L-29658, November 29, 1968 (decision); February 27, 1969 (resolution)
D. Legislative journal vs. enrolled bill
CASES:
Morales v. Subido, February 27, 1969 (resolution)
Astorga v. Villegas, G.R. No. L-23475, April 30, 1974
Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, G.R. No. 105371, November 11, 1993
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, August 25, 1994
Farias v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 147387, December 10, 2003
Arroyo v. de Venecia, supra

XV. The Electoral Tribunals (Sec. 17 & 19)

A. Jurisdiction sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective
members
1. Meaning of contest post-election dispute: either an election protest or a quo warranto petition, which,
although two distinct remedies, would have one objective in view, i.e., to dislodge the winning candidate
from office
2. Meaning of sole judge jurisdiction is exclusive, i.e., the COMELEC, despite its broad mandate to enforce
and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections [Sec. 2(1), Art. IX-C], does not
share this power
CASE: Lazatin v. HRET, G.R. No. 84297, December 8, 1988
3. Meaning of members
CASE:
Aquino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 120265, September 18, 1995
Reyes v. Comelec, G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013
Limkaichong v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 178831-32, April 1, 2009
4. Issue of qualification of a party-list representative vis--vis his expulsion from his party-list group within the
jurisdiction of the HRET
CASE: Lico v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205505, September 29, 2015
5. Issues raised before the COMELEC may be raised again before the Electoral Tribunals
CASE: Fernandez v. HRET, G.R. No. 187478, December 21, 2009
B. Composition (Sec. 17)
1. 9 members 3 SC Justices and 6 Senators (for the SET); 3 SC Justices and 6 representatives (for the
HRET)
a. Components
i. Judicial 3 SC Justices chosen by the Chief Justice
ii. Legislative 6 Senators (SET), or 6 representatives (HRET) chosen on the basis of proportional
representation from the parties
CASE: Abbas v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 83767, October 27, 1988 Chairperson is the
senior Justice in the Tribunal
b. Members of the Electoral Tribunals have security of tenure
CASE: Bondoc v. Pineda, G.R. No. 97710, September 26, 1991 (read also the dissenting opinion of
J. Padilla)
c. Legislative component, how chosen based on proportional representation from the parties
CASE: Taada v. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-10520, February 28, 1957
C. Time of constitution/organization (Sec. 19) within 30 days after the Houses shall have been organized with the
election of the President and the Speaker
D. Independence even from the House concerned
CASES:
 Angara v. Electoral Commission, G.R. No. L-45081, July 15, 1936
Co v. Electoral Tribunal, supra
Bondoc v. Pineda, supra
E. Authority to promulgate rules of procedure: exclusive
CASES:
Angara v. Electoral Commission, supra
Lazatin v. HRET, supra
F. Judicial review of decisions of Electoral Tribunals
CASES:
Co v. Electoral Tribunal, supra
Lerias v. HRET, G.R. No. 97105, October 15, 1991

XVI. The Commission on Appointments

A. Composition
1. Ex officio Chair Senate President
2. Members 12 senators & 12 representatives
B. Manner of election elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the parties therein
CASES:
Cunanan v. Tan, G.R. No. L-19721, May 10, 1962
Daza v. Singson, G.R. No. 86344, December 21, 1989
Coseteng v. Mitra, G.R. No. 86649, July 12, 1990
Guingona v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 106971, October 20, 1992
C. Voting rules
1. majority vote of all the Members
2. Chair does not vote, except in case of a tie
D. Jurisdiction act on all presidential nominations/appointments requiring its concurrence within 30 session days
from submission
1. Actions
a. consent (confirm)
b. reject
c. by-pass
2. Officers covered (Sec. 16, Art. VII) heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other
officers whose appointments are vested in the President in the Constitution
CASE: Sarmiento v. Mison, G.R. No. 79974, December 17, 1987
E. Time frames
1. Time to organize within 30 days after both Houses shall have been organized with the election of the Senate
President and the Speaker
2. Time to act on nominations/appointments requiring its concurrence within 30 session days from submission
F. Meeting
1. only when Congress is in session
2. at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its members

XVII. Manner of the conduct of sessions and voting in Congress

A. For legislative function
1. Separate sessions and separate votes on matters up for voting
2. GR: vote requirement is simple majority of those constituting a quorum
B. For non-legislative functions
1. To declare of the existence of a state of war 2/3 of both Houses in joint session, voting separately [Sec.
23(1), Art. VI]
2. To confirm the Presidents nomination of a new Vice-President from among the members of the Senate or
the House whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President during the term for which he was
elected (Sec. 9, Art. VII)
3. To determine whether the Presidentwho has declared himself temporarily unable to discharge the
functions of his office but later gives notice of his readiness to resume his functions but his Cabinet believes
otherwiseis already fit to return to office 2/3 vote of both Houses, voting separately (silent on whether
the Houses meet in a joint session) [Sec. 11 (5), Art. VII]
4. To canvass of the votes for President and Vice-President after the presidential election; in the improbable
event that there is a tie for the winners Congress decides, during such joint public session, by majority of
all members of both Houses, voting separately [Sec. 4(4) and (5), Art. VII]
5. To revoke the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
majority of all of its Members in a regular or special joint session [Sec. 18(1), Art. VII]
6. To sit as constituent assembly and propose amendments to, or revision of, the 1987 Constitution joint
session, by vote of all members, but silent on whether the Houses shall vote jointly or separately (Sec. 1,
Art. XVII)

XVIII. Specific powers of Congress

A. Power to enact statutes
1. Origin of laws
a. GR: either House
 b. EXC: exclusive-origination rule: appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the
public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments (Sec. 24)
i. Meaning of originate exclusively
CASE: Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, supra phrase originate exclusively means that the
initiative for filing the specified bills must come from the House of Representatives (Read also the
dissent of J. Regalado)
ii. No limitation on the extent of amendments that may be introduced by the Senate to a House revenue
bill as long as such amendments are germane to the subject of the bill
CASE: Abakada Guro v. Ermita, G.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005
2. Prohibited measures
a. Law increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in the 1987 Constitution
without its advice and concurrence (Sec. 30, Art. VI)
b. Law granting a title of royalty or nobility (Sec. 31)
3. The one-subject, one-bill rule [Sec. 26(1)]
a. Limitations upon legislative power enshrined in the rule
i. Congress is to refrain from conglomeration, under one statute, of heterogeneous subjects (omnibus
bills and log-rolling legislation)
ii. title of the bill is to be couched in a language sufficient to notify the legislators and the public and
those concerned of the import of the single subject thereof
b. Purposes
i. to prevent surprise or fraud upon the Legislature, i.e., to apprise the legislators of the laws purposes,
nature and scope, prevent the enactment into law of matters that have not received the notice, action
and study of the legislators
ii. to inform the people of pending legislation so that, if they wish to, they can be heard regarding it
c. GR title of the law need only to express its general subject, all its provisions need only be germane to
the general subject thus expressed; Congress need not employ in the title language of such precision
as to mirror, fully index or catalogue all the contents and the minute details therein; EXC:
CASES:
Lidasan v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-28089, October 25, 1967
d. Relevant matters that need not be indicated in the title of the law
CASES:
PHILCONSA v. Jimenez, G.R. No. L-23326, December 18, 1965
Farias v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 147387, December 10, 2003
Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service, G.R. No.
197676, February 4, 2014
e. One subject, one bill rule liberally construed title need not mirror, fully index or catalogue all contents
and minute details of a law; a law having a single general subject indicated in the title may contain any
number of provisions, no matter how diverse, so long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the
general subject, and may be considered in furtherance of such subject by providing for the method and
means of carrying it; The one subject, one bill rule should receive a reasonable and not a technical
construction: It is sufficient if the title be comprehensive enough to include the general object that the
law seeks to implement, without expressing every end and means for the accomplishing of that
object. Details need not be set forth. The title need not be an abstract or index of the law.
CASES:
Tatad v. Secretary, G.R. No. 124360, November 5, 1997
Tobias v. Abalos, G.R. No. 114783, December 8, 1994 Procedure in the passage of bills in Congress
[Sec. 26(2), Art. VI]
f. GR: No bill shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies
thereof in its final form have been distributed three days before its passage
i. Three-readings-on-separate-days rule applies only to bills introduced for the first time in either
house of Congress, not to the conference committee report
CASE: Tolentino v. Secretary, supra
ii. the two-fold purpose underlying three readings on separate days: (1) to inform the legislators of the
matters they shall vote on and (2) to give them notice that a measure is in progress through the
enactment process
g. EXC
i. when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity
or emergency
ii. passage of special law calling for special election when a vacancy in the offices of the President
and Vice-President occurs: bill calling such special election shall be deemed certified under Sec.
26(2), Article VI, and upon its approval on third reading by the Congress, it shall automatically
become law (Sec. 10, Art. VII)
iii. the phrase except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment, etc. in
Art. VI, 26(2) qualifies the two stated conditions before a bill can become a law: (i) the bill has
passed three readings on separate days and (ii) it has been printed in its final form and distributed
three days before it is finally approved. The unless clause in Sec. 26(2) must be read in relation
to the except clause because they are coordinate clauses of the same sentence
CASE: Tolentino v. Secretary, supra
iv. presidential certification may be given to the Senate version of a tax (revenue) bill
CASE: Tolentino v. Secretary, supra
v. Meaning of public calamity or emergency
CASES:
Tolentino v. Secretary, supra
 Kida v. Senate, supra
vi. Despite Presidents certification, two-fold purpose that underlies three readings on separate days
requirement must always be observed
CASE: Kida v. Senate, supra
h. no-amendment rule upon last reading, no amendment shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be
taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal
CASE: Abakada Guro v. Ermita, G.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005 (decision); October 18, 2005
(resolution)
i. The Bicameral Conference Committee
i. When: In the event of differences in the versions by either House of a bill or resolution
ii. Purpose: to settle the differences and come up with a reconciled version
iii. Basis: power to promulgate and implement rules of procedure; not expressly provided in the
Constitution, but a necessity in a bicameral Congress to respond to a problem, not addressed by
any constitutional provision, where the two houses of Congress find themselves in disagreement
over changes or amendments in a legislative bill
iv. Scope of powers: as may be provided in the rules of each House; not subject to judicial review
CASE: Abakada Guro v. Ermita, G.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005
j. Minimum vote requirement for passage of bill majority of those constituting a quorum
CASE: Kida v. Senate, supra
k. Manner of voting by legislators
i. Viva voce or voice vote presiding officer asks those in favor to say aye and those not in favor to
say nay, then announces who appear to win the vote; VARIATION: a motion for approval is made,
the presiding officer asks for objections, and hearing none, declares that the motion is approved
1. Roll call or nominal voting the roll is called and the ayes and nays is taken and recorded; GR:
Constitution does not require that the yeas and the nays of each members of Congress be taken
every time a House has to vote, EXC: (1) upon the 3rd readings of a bill; (2) at the request of
1/5 of the Members present; and (3) in overriding the Presidents veto of a bill re-passing a bill
over the veto of the President
ii. Alternative when voice vote appears inconclusive: divide the House either by rising vote or show of
hands
iii. Others: balloting, electronic voting, etc.
4. System of authentication of bills passed by Congress
a. Before the printed copy of an approved bill is transmitted to the President for his signature, the Speaker
and the Senate President, together with the respective Secretaries of each House, authenticate it by
affixing their respective signatures
b. The enrolled bill doctrine
5. Approval of bill into law [Sec. 27(1)]
a. GR: The rule of presentment: Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be
presented to the President or approval or veto. In the absence of presentment, no bill passed by
Congress can become a law. In this sense, law-making under the Constitution is a joint act of the
Legislature and of the Executive
i. EXC: Bill calling for special election when a vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice-
President occurs deemed certified under Sec. 26(2), Article VI, and upon approval on third reading
by the Congress, it shall automatically become law (Sec. 10, Art. VII)
b. Procedure upon presentment of bill to President
i. President signs bill into law
ii. President lets the bill lapse into law after 30 days
iii. President vetoes bill, but Congress overrides the veto
c. Procedure after President vetoes bill
i. President returns bill with his objections to the House of origin
ii. House of origin shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and shall reconsider the veto
iii. If 2/3 of all the Members of House of origin shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with
the objections, to the other House
iv. Other House shall likewise reconsider the veto, and if approved by 2/3 of all the Members of that
House, the bill shall become a law
v. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of
the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal
d. Rule on presidential vetoes: No partial veto, President must veto a bill in its entirety or not at all. He
cannot act like an editor crossing out specific lines or provisions. In the exercise of the veto power, it is
generally all or nothing; EXC: Item veto allowed for appropriation, revenue, or tariff bills [Sec. 27(2), Art.
VI]
i. Rationale of item veto Because the government needs the money to run its machinery, the
President may be prevented from vetoing the entire bill even if it may contain objectionable features.
Thus, the Constitution has wisely provided the item veto power to avoid inexpedient riders attached
to an appropriation or revenue measure
ii. Purpose of item veto to prevent log-rolling legislation, impose fiscal restrictions on the legislature,
as well as to fortify the executive branchs role in the budgetary process
iii. Meaning of item the particulars, the details, the distinct and severable parts of the bill; an
indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose; a specific appropriation of money, not
some general provision of law, which happens to be put into an appropriation bill; meaning of line
item an allocation of a specified singular amount for a specified singular purpose
CASE: Belgica v. Executive Secretary, supra
 iv. GR: The President cannot veto a condition or restriction attached to an item in an appropriation,
revenue, or tariff bill while retaining the particular item to which such condition or restriction relates;
EXC: The President may veto a condition in the general appropriations bill if it partakes of the
nature of an improper provision
CASES:
Bolinao Electronics v. Valencia, G.R. No. L-20740, June 30, 1964
Bengzon v. Drilon, G.R. No. 103524, April 15, 1992
PHILCONSA v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, August 19, 1994
e. The Presidents power of impoundment
i. Meaning of impoundment the refusal by the President, for whatever reason, to spend funds
appropriated by Congress; the failure to spend or obligate budget authority of any type; in refusing
or deferring the implementation of an appropriation item, the President in effect exercises a veto
power that is not expressly granted by the Constitution (the Constitution does not say anything about
impounding); thus, the source of the authority to impound must be found elsewhere
CASE: PHILCONSA v. Enriquez, supra
f. Legislative veto and post-enactment congressional oversight
i. Meaning of legislative veto
ii. Purpose
CASE: Abakada Guro v. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008
g. Judicial review of Presidents veto power
CASES:
PHILCONSA v. Enriquez, supra
Gonzales v. Macaraig, G.R. No. 87636, November 19, 1990

B. Rule-making power [Sec. 16 (3)]

1. Legislative rules that are procedural in nature may be disregarded by the House concerned (CAVEAT:
disregard should not violate a constitutional right, or the Bill or Rights)
CASE: Osmea v. Pendatun, supra
2. Various congressional rules under the Constitution
a. rules of proceedings in general [Sec. 16(3)]
b. rules during inquiries in aid of legislation (Sec. 21)
c. rules during question hour (Sec. 22)
d. rules for the canvassing of certificates of canvass for the election of the President and Vice-President
[Sec. 4(6), Art. VII]
e. rules for convening if Congress is not in session (e.g.: in case of vacancy in the offices of the President
and Vice-President, to be able to enact a law calling for a special election to elect a President and a
Vice-President (Sec. 10, Art. VII); or when Congress needs to decide whether the Presidentwho has
declared himself temporarily unable to discharge the functions of his office but later gives notice of his
readiness to resume his functions but his Cabinet believes otherwiseis already fit to return to office
[Sec. 11(3), Art. VII]; or after the President proclaims ML or suspends the privilege of the writ [Sec. 18(2),
Art. VII]

C. Power to discipline members [Sec. 16 (3)]

1. Ground for discipline: disorderly behavior
a. Meaning of disorderly behavior not a justiciable question
CASE: Osmea v. Pendatun, supra
b. Example of disorderly behavior
i. Assaulting a fellow legislator during a debate (Alejandrino v. Quezon, G.R. No. 22041, September
11, 1924)
ii. making insinuations of corruption against the President in a privilege speech (Osmea v. Pendatun)
2. Punishments allowed
a. suspension or expulsion
i. suspension shall not exceed 60 days
b. others reprimand, admonition, etc.
3. Vote requirement
a. 2/3 of all members for suspension or expulsion
b. majority vote for other penalties (?)

D. Power of Legislative Inquiry and Question Hour (Sec. 21 & 22)

1. Distinctions
a. Purpose Sec. 21 aims to elicit information that may be used for legislation; Sec. 22 aims to obtain
information in pursuit of Congress oversight function
b. Availability of compulsory process under Sec. 21, appearance may be compelled through compulsory
process; N/A under Sec. 22, except to the extent that the oversight function of Congress is performed
in pursuit of legislation
2. The power of inquiry vested in the Houses of Congress or in any of their respective committees
a. Who exercises power the Houses themselves or their respective committees
CASE: In re Camilo L. Sabio, G.R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006
b. Persons covered anyone, including public officials and private individuals
CASE: Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006
c. Purpose in aid of legislation
CASES:
 Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, G.R. No. 89914, November 20, 1991 (Read also the
dissents of JJ. Gutierrez and Cruz)
Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate Committee on Banks, G.R. No. 167173, December 27, 2007
d. Scope any matter relevant to the intended legislation (power of inquiry is co-extensive with the power
to legislate; matters that may be a proper subject of legislation and those that may be a proper subject
of investigation are one); Exceptions: executive privilege,
CASES:
Senate v. Ermita, supra
Akbayan v. Aquino, G.R. No. 170516, July 16, 2008
Neri v. Senate Committee, supra
e. Governing rules duly published rules of procedure of either House
CASE: Garcillano v. House of Representatives Committees, G.R. No. 170338, December 23, 2008
f. Basic guideline rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected
g. Right to information of Congress underlies legislative investigations
CASE: Senate v. Ermita, supra
h. Power of legislative inquiry under 21 repeals inconsistent provisions of law
CASE: In Re Camilo L. Sabio, supra
3. to be heard on any matter pertaining to their department
a. Nature (Senate v. Ermita)
b. Who initiates the heads of departments, with the consent of the President, or either House (no mention
of committees thereof, unlike Sec. 21)
c. Persons covered heads of departments of the executive branch
d. Purpose oversight
e. Scope any matter pertaining to their departments
f. Governing rules as the rules of each House shall provide
g. Basic guidelines
i. questions shall be submitted to the Senate President or the Speaker at least 3 days before their
scheduled appearance
ii. interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto
iii. when the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing,
the appearance shall be conducted in executive session
4. Judicial review of legislative inquiries the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is, in
theory, no less susceptible to abuse than executive or judicial power. It may, thus, be subjected to judicial
review pursuant to the Courts certiorari powers under Sec. 1, Article VIII

E. Power of appropriation (Sec. 25 & 29)

1. Appropriation defined money set aside by formal action for a specific use
2. Power of appropriation variously referred to as power of the purse, spending power, and budgetary
power; belongs to Congress, subject only to the veto power of the President. The President may propose
the budget, but still the final say on the matter of appropriations is lodged in Congress
3. Exclusive origination rule All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills . . . shall originate exclusively in the House
of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. (Sec. 24)
CASE: Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, supra (Read also the dissent of J. Regalado)
4. Stages (Guingona v. Carangue)
a. budget preparation
b. Legislative authorization
c. budget execution
d. budget accountability
5. Relevant constitutional norms
a. Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President. The form, content, and
manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law. [Sec. 25(1)]
b. Prohibition against riders: No provision shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it
relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. Any such provision shall be limited in its
operation to the appropriation to which it relates. [Sec. 25(2)]
CASES:
Garcia v. Mata, G.R. No. L-33713, July 30, 1975
Gonzales v. Macaraig, supra (read also counter-arguments in the dissent of J. Cruz)
c. The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for
approving appropriations for other departments. [Sec.25(3)]
d. GR: A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended, and shall be supported
by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding
revenue proposal therein. [Sec. 25(4)] EXC: Appropriations for the special election shall be charged
against any current appropriations and need not be supported by funds actually available as certified by
the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal (Sec. 10, Art. VII)
e. The power of augmentation: GR: No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations;
EXC: the President, Senate President, House Speaker, Chief Justice, and 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. [Sec.25(5)]
CASES:
Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014
PHILCONSA v. Enriquez, supra
Gonzales v. Macaraig, supra (read also the dissents of JJ. Gutierrez, Cruz and Padilla)
f. Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be
 supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by law. [Sec.
25(6)]
g. If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have failed to pass the general appropriations bill
for the ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations law for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed
re-enacted and shall remain in force and effect until the general appropriations bill is passed by the
Congress. [Sec. 25(7)]
h. No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. [Sec.
29(1)]
i. Meaning of appropriation made by law
CASE: Belgica v. Secretary, supra
i. Appropriation for sectarian purpose: No public money or property shall be appropriated, directly or
indirectly, for the use of any sect, or of any priest or dignitary as such, except when such priest or
dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or
leprosarium. [Sec. 29(2)]
CASES:
Aglipay v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-45459, March 13, 1937
Garces v. Estenzo, G.R. No. L-53487, May 25, 1981
j. All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid
out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or
abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds. [Sec. 29(2)]
6. The pork barrel system the defining feature of all forms of Congressional Pork Barrel is the authority of
legislators to participate in the post-enactment phases of project implementation
CASES:
PHILCONSA v. Enriquez, supra
Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty (LAMP) v. Secretary, G.R. No. 164987, April 24, 2012
Belgica v. Executive Secretary, supra
7. Riders in an appropriations law
CASE: Garcia v. Mata, G.R. No. L-33713, July 30, 1975

F. Power of taxation (Sec. 28)

1. Rule in taxation: uniformity (as opposed to equal), equitability, and progressiveness [Sec. 28(1)]
CASES:
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, supra
Abakada Guro v. Ermita, supra
2. Power of taxation cannot be delegated; power to tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and
wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts may, by law be delegated to the President [Sec. 28(2)]
CASE: Abakada Guro v. Ermita, supra
3. Tax exemptions
a. to religious, charitable and educational institutions [Sec. 28 (3)]
CASES:
Lladoc v. CIR, G.R. No. L-19201, June 16, 1965
Lung Center v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 144104, June 29, 2004
b. needs concurrence of majority of all members of Congress [Sec. 28(4)]
CASE: NPC v. Province of Lanao del Sur, G.R. No. 96700, November 19, 1996

G. The power of concurrence or confirmation

1. To a grant of amnesty by the President the President shall have the power to grant amnesty with the
concurrence of a majority of all the members of the Congress. (Sec. 19, Article VII)
2. To a treaty or international agreement No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective
unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate (Sec. 21, Art. VII)
3. To confirm Presidents nomination of Vice-President Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-
President, the President shall nominate a Vice-President from among the members of the Senate and the
House of Representatives who shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the members
of both Houses, voting separately (Sec. 9, Article VII)

H. The war powers The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting
separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war [Sec. 23(1), Art. VI]

I. Power to delegate emergency powers In times of war or other national emergency, Congress may, by law,
authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise
emergency powers, which, unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, shall cease upon the next
adjournment thereof. [Sec. 23(2)]
1. state of emergency may be declared by the President even without congressional authority, but actual
exercise of emergency powers requires delegation from Congress
CASE: David v. Arroyo, supra
2. duration of emergency powers: may cease if withdrawn by Congress through mere a resolution at any time,
by operation of law upon the next adjournment of Congress
CASES:
Araneta v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. L-2044, August 26, 1949
Rodriguez v. Gella, G.R. No. L-6266, February 2, 1953
3. taking over of private business affected with public interest In times of national emergency, when the public
interest so requires, the State may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it,
temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately-owned public utility or business affected with
public interest. (Sec. 17, Art. XII)
4. Dichotomy of war and other national emergency (Read the concurring and dissenting of J. Montemayor
in Rodriguez v. Gella, supra)