CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

BRING HOME CLASS QUIZ (ARTICLE VI)

INSTRUCTION: Answer the following questions concisely. No need to use
the TRAC method; comprehensive one-liners will get full credit. Use simple
sentencesi.e., avoid run-on, compound, long-winded and convoluted sentences
in explaining your answers.
A. Officers of the Houses
1. Who are the officers of the Houses of Congress expressly mentioned in Sec.
16(1) of Article VI? In the present Congress, who are the respective officers of the
Houses, and what are their respective functions?
Sec 16 (1) Article VI -The Senate shall elect its President and the House of
Representatives, its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective Members. Each
House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary. The current
senate president is Senator Aquilino Koko Pimentel III and the current House of
Representatives Speaker is Pantaleon Alvarez. They dont have a fixed term and
may be replaced at any time at the pleasure of a majority of all the members of
their respective chambers. The legislative heads are highly political officers whose
continued incumbency will depend upon the partisan alignment of their colleagues.
2. Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over a dispute on who should be the
rightful Senate President or House Speaker?
No, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over a dispute on who should be
the rightful Senate President or House Speaker. The court ruled in Avelino v
Cuenca that the political nature of the controversy and the constitutional grant to
the Senate of the power to elect its own president, which power should not be
interfered with, nor taken over, by the judiciary, in view of the separation of
powers. The selection of the presiding officer affect only the Senators themselves
who are at liberty at any time to choose their officers, change or reinstate them.
Anyway, if, as the petition must imply to be acceptable, the majority of the
Senators want petitioner to preside, his remedy lies in the Senate Session Hall
not in the Supreme Court.
3. Do members of the House, who do not vote for the Senate President or the
House Speaker, ipso facto constitute the minority, who could then elect the
minority leader?
While the Constitution mandates that the President of the Senate must be
elected by a number constituting more than one half of all the members thereof, it
does not provide that the members who will not vote for him shall ipso facto
constitute the minority, who could thereby elect the minority leader. Notably,
Rules I and II of the Rules of the Senate do not provide for the positions of
majority and minority leaders. Neither is there an open clause providing
specifically for such offices and prescribing the manner of creating them or of
choosing the holders thereof. However, such offices, by tradition and long practice,
are actually extant. Verily, no law or regulation states that the defeated candidate
shall automatically become the minority leader. All that the Charter says is that
Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary. The method
of choosing who will be such other officers is merely a derivative of the exercise of
the prerogative conferred by the aforequoted constitutional provision. Therefore,
such method must be prescribed by the Senate itself.
B. Quorum
4. Under Sec. 16(2) of Article VI, what is the quorum requirement for a House of
Congress to conduct business? If there is no quorum due to absences, what is the
remedy of those who are present? May those who are present compel the
attendance of a member unable to attend the session due to incarceration pursuant
to a criminal case?
The quorum requirement for the House of Congress to conduct business
under Section 16(2) of Article VI is a majority of each House. However, if there
are absences, a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the
attendance of the absent members.

No, those who are present cannot compel the attendance of a member unable
to attend the session due to incarceration pursuant to a criminal case.

It may be stated that for emergency or compelling temporary leaves from

imprisonment are allowed to all prisoners, at the discretion of the authorities or
upon court orders. However, in the case of Trillianes v. Pimentel, the court ruled
that, all prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence
cannot practice their profession nor engage in any business or occupation, or hold
office, elective or appointive, while in detention. This is a necessary consequence
of arrest and detention. Furthermore, the performance of legitimate and even
essential duties by public officers has never been an excuse to free a person validly
in prison.
5. Assuming there is a quorum, what is the vote requirement for the approval of a
bill during 2nd and 3 rd reading? May Congress provide for a super-majority
requirement before a statute may be amended or repealed?
Within a quorum, the vote requirement to approve a bill during 2nd and 3rd
reading is a vote from the majority of the Members present.
No, the congress cannot provide for a super-majority requirement before a
statute be amended or repealed.

In the case of Kida V. Senate, the Supreme Court nullified a law requiring a
supermajority vote of two thirds of all the members of congress for purposes of
amending or repealing. The said provision gave the said law the character of an
irrepealably law by requiring more than what the constitution demands. It
significantly constricts the future legislators' room for action and flexibility.
Thus, the congress cannot provide for a super-majority vote requirement
before statute be amended or repealed
C. Journals
6. In a court litigation, may the judge go beyond what is reflected in the journals of
the Houses of Congress and inquire into what really happened in the plenary?

No, the judge may not go beyond the journals. In the pronouncement in US
v. PONS the court did not look beyond the journals of congress because it is
already clear and explicit. To go inquire into the veracity of the journals would
mean interference to the legislative functions of congress.
7. What is meant by the enrolled bill doctrine? Is this still good law?
Under the enrolled bill doctrine, once a bill passes a legislative body and is
signed into law, the courts assume that all rules of procedure in the enactment
process were properly followed. ANSWER 7.2: Apparently, this rule is not
appropriate in today's modern and developing judicial philosophy. The fact that the
number and complexity of lawsuits may increase is not persuasive if one is mindful
that the overriding purpose of our judicial system is to discover the truth and see
that justice is done. The existence of difficulties and complexities should not deter
this pursuit and we reject any doctrine or presumption that so provides.
D. The Electoral Tribunals
8. What are the requisites for the exercise of the Electoral Tribunals of their
respective jurisdictions?
Section 17 of the Constitution provides that the exercise of the Electoral
Tribunals of their respective jurisdictions begins only after the candidate is
considered as either a Member of the House of Representatives or a Senator.
Jurisdiction also provides that a candidate is considered a Member of the House of
Representatives with the concurrence of three requisites: (a) a valid proclamation;
(b) a proper oath; and (c) assumption of office.
9. May an issue previously raised before the COMELEC be raised again before the
Electoral Tribunals?
YES, issues raised before the COMELEC may be raised again before the
Electoral Tribunals.
The 1987 Constitution explicitly provides under Article VI, Section 17
thereof that the HRET and the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) shall be the sole
judges of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their
respective members.
The authority conferred upon the Electoral Tribunal is full, clear and
complete. The use of the word sole emphasizes the exclusivity of the jurisdiction of
these Tribunals,[33] which is conferred upon the HRET and the SET after elections
and the proclamation of the winning candidates. A candidate who has not been
proclaimed and who has not taken his oath of office cannot be said to be a member
of the House of Representatives. In an existing jurisprudence of the Supreme Court
a petition for quo warrant to is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the HRET, even
if, the COMELEC had already passed upon in administrative or quasi-judicial
proceedings the issue of the qualification of the Member of the House of
Representatives while the latter was still a candidate.
Ergo, issues raised before the COMELEC may be raised again before the
Electoral Tribunals.
10. Under Sec. 17 of Article VI, what is the composition of the Electoral
Tribunals? How are their respective legislative and judicial components chosen?
Under Sec. 17 of Article VI the electoral tribunals shall be composed of 9
members, 3 from the judiciary and 6 from the legislation.
 The three components from the judiciary shall be Justices of the Supreme
Court to be designated by the Chief Justice and the remaining six components from
the legislative shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as
the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation
from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the
party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal
shall be its Chairman.
11. May a member-legislator of an Electoral Tribunal be replaced by another
member-legislator at any time and for just any cause?
Replacing a member-legislator in the Electoral Tribunal cannot be done at
any time or just for any cause because in replacing its member, it must be done in
accordance with the Constitution. Under Article VIII Section 1 of the 1987
Philippine Constitution, defines judicial power as both authority and duty of the
courts to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.

Changes or replacement may also be acted in their own free will with valid reason
and must have no political implication and no covert design to derail the
disposition of a pending case in the Electoral Tribunal.

12. Do the respective leaderships of the Houses of Congress have control and
supervision over the Electoral Tribunals?
No, the respective leaderships of the House of Congress don't have control
and supervision over the Electoral Tribunal.

The membership of the Electoral Tribunal under the 1987 Constitution

provides that each tribunal, whether of the Senate or House of Representatives,
shall be composed of nine members, three of whom shall be Justices of the
Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall
be members of the Senate or House of Representatives, as the case may be, who
shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation of the political parties
and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented
therein. The senior justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its chairman.
 Thus, it is clear that respective leaderships of the Houses of Congress don't
have control and supervision over the Electoral Tribunal.
13. May the rules governing the exercise of an Electoral Tribunals functions be
prescribed by a statute enacted by Congress and not by the rules promulgated by
the Tribunal itself?
In Lazatin vs HRET, the court is of the considered view that it may not. Its
rule-making power necessarily flows from the general power granted it by the
Constitution. The power of the HRET, as the sole judge of all contests relating to
the election, returns and qualifications of the Members of the House of
Representatives, to promulgate rules and regulations relative to matters within its
jurisdiction, including the period for filing election protests before it, is beyond
dispute.
E. The Commission on Appointments
14. Under Sec. 18 of Article VI, what is the composition of the Commission on
Appointments? How are the members of the Senate and House contingents to the
Commission on Appointments chosen?
Under Sec. 18 of Article VI, the composition of the Commission on
Appointments consists of twelve Senators and twelve Members of the House of
Representatives. The members of the Senate and House contingents to the
Commission on Appointments are elected by each House, respectively, on the basis
of proportional representation of the political parties therein.
15. Under Sec. 18 of Article VI, how does the Commission on Appointments vote?
What are the legal effects once the Commission on Appointments confirms an
appointment? Rejects an appointment? Bypasses an appointment?
a. Under the Sec. 18 of Article VI, the commission on appointments rule by a
majority vote of all the members.
b. If the commission confirms an appointment, the official is allowed to discharge
the duties related to the office immediately.
c. If the commission rejects the appointment, the official is no longer allowed to
discharge the duties related to the office, and the president has to appoint someone
else.
d. If the commission bypasses the official, the president can re-appoint that person.
16. Who are the officials covered by the power of consent of the Commission on
Appointments?
The 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 him in this Constitution (1987)
are the officials who are covered by the power of consent of the Commission on
Appointments.
17. Does the President need to get the consent of the Commission on Appointments
if he removes from office an officer subject to the power of confirmation of the
latter?
The President does not need to get the consent of the Commission on
Appointments. A president can either make a nomination or an appointment. Either
action involves the commission. If the President removes an officer from office
who is subject to the power of confirmation of the CA, this action does not
involves the CA to decide. The President, in the exercise of that power, had
carefully considered the fitness and qualifications of nominees or appointees. To
this end, the Rules of the Commission's Statement of Policy provides that, The
Commission on Appointments hereby declares as its policy that the powers vested
in it by the Constitution shall be discharged with only one impelling motive, which
is the efficient and harmonious functioning of the government, to assures that the
President has exercised the power to appoint wisely, by appointing only those who
are fit and qualified.
18. What is an ad interim appointment? A temporary appointment? May the
President validly refuse to submit to the Commission on Appointments an ad
interim appointment? A temporary appointment?
An ad interim appointment is that done by the President during the recess of
Congress. It is permanent in nature and subject to confirmation or disapproval by
the Commission on Appointments.
A temporary appointment is one where the President designates an officer
who meets all the requirements for the position to which he is being appointed
except the appropriate civil service eligibility. The appointee shall be replaced
when the qualified civil service eligible is available. It is temporary in nature, often
done after a sudden vacancy, for the said vacancy must be filled immediately.
While a temporary appointment is not subject to review and the subsequent
approval or disapproval by the Commission on Appointments, an ad interim is.
 Therefore, the President may not refuse to submit to the Commission on
Appointments an ad interim appointment.
F. Law-making power
19. What is the meaning of originate exclusively in Sec. 24 of Article VI? What
is the extent of the Senates power to propose or concur with amendments in Sec.
24?
The phrase exclusively originate in Sec. 24 Art. VI means that all
appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt,
bills of local application, and private bills, are supposed to be initiated by the
House of Representatives.

The Senate is, however, allowed much leeway in the exercise of its power to
propose or concur with amendments to the bills initiated by the House of
Representatives. A senate committee to which a bill is referred may do any of the
following:
(1) to endorse the bill without changes; (2) to make changes in the bill omitting or
adding sections or altering its language; (3) to make and endorse an entirely new
bill as a substitute, in which case it will be known as a committee bill; or (4) to
make no report at all.
20. What is meant by the one subject, one bill rule under Sec. 26(1) of Article
VI? Should the title of a bill comprehensively state all the contents of the bill?

a. The one subject, one bill rule in the Constitution is a necessary requirement
that all bills must hurdle in order to be constitutional. The one subject, one bill rule
means that the body of the bill must be in harmony of the title that is being used.
That the title is sufficient enough to gauge the possible contents of the provisions
that it seeks to represent. As such, any provision in any given bill or law that is
considered inconsistent with the title of the bill or law in question must be stricken
down.

The rule is in place so that the general populace will be fairly apprised of
such laws that are enacted. Fraud in the legislation process may also be avoided
with the usage of the one title, one bill rule. Without said rule, legislators might
approve a law without knowing that some of its provisions are totally unrelated to
the title and might be against their interest or the interest of the people. Finally, the
one subject, one bill rule is used in order to prevent hodgepodge or logrolling
legislation.

b. There is no need for the title of the bill to comprehensively state all the contents
of the bill. The Supreme Court has stated that it should be enough that the title
expresses the general subject and all the provisions are germane to that general
subject (Tobias v. Abalos). As what can be surmised above, the provisions need
not even be exactly the same matter as of the title. It only needs to be germane, or
related to the title to satisfy the one subject, one bill rule.
21. Farias v. Executive Secretary: Does Sec. 14 of R.A. 9006, insofar as it
expressly repeals Sec. 67 of B.P. 881 violate the one subject, one bill rule?
No, it does not violate the one subject one title. The purported
dissimilarity of Section 67 of the omnibus election code, which imposes a
limitation on elective officials who run for an office other than the one they are
holding to the other provisions of Republic Act No. 9006, which deals with the
lifting of the ban on the use of media for election propaganda does not violate the
one subject one title rule. This court held that an act having a single general
subject, indicated in the title, may contain any number of provisions, no matter
how diverse they may be, 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 out the general subject. The legislators
considered Section 67 of the Omnibus Election code as a form of harassment or
discrimination that had to be done away with and repealed. The executive
department found cause with Congress when the President of the Philippines
signed the measure into law.
22. Tobias v. Abalos: Does R.A. 7675entitled as An Act Converting the
Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the
City of Mandaluyongviolate the one subject, one bill rule?
No, R.A. 7675 does not violate the one subject, one bill rule.

Section 26(1) of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides that, every bill
passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in
the title thereof.
In the case at bar, the creation of a separate congressional district for
Mandaluyong is not a subject separate and distinct from the subject of its
conversion into a highly urbanized city but is a natural and logical consequence of
its conversion into a highly urbanized city. Furthermore, the title of R.A. No. 7675,
"An Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized
City of Mandaluyong" necessarily includes and contemplates the subject treated
under Section 49 regarding the creation of a separate congressional district for
Mandaluyong. Lastly, a liberal construction of the "one title-one subject" rule has
been invariably adopted by this court so as not to cripple or impede legislation.
This is promulgated in the case of Sumulong v. Comelec and further elucidated in
Lidasan v. Comelec, which the court ruled that, the constitutional requirement as
now expressed in Article VI, Section 26(1) should be given a practical rather than a
technical construction. It should be sufficient compliance with such requirement if
the title expresses the general subject and all the provisions are germane to that
general subject.
Thus, R.A. 7675 does not violate the one subject, one bill rule.
23. What is the rationale behind the three-readings-on-separate-days requirement in
Sec. 26(2) of Article VI?
The requirement that every bill should pass three readings on separate days
is enunciated by the constitution to ensure that legislators are fully informed on the
contents of a bill they are supposed to vote upon; more time and study are thus
devoted by the Congress in their deliberation and consideration of bills, thereby
enacting a more comprehensive, with very minimal flaws, if not flawless, well-
thought-out laws. Furthermore the legislators are notified that a measure is in
progress through the enactment process, sufficient to enable them and other parties
interested in the bill to intelligently respond thereto and to put them on guard
against individual personal interests of other legislators, which were easily
materialized under the 1935 Constitution wherein the three-readings-on-separate-
days requirement was not articulated. Bills were approved in the first, second, and
third readings all in one session day only. As a result, bills were passed into laws
without much deliberation, time and effort from the Congress which led to half-
baked legislation, incomplete and often carried with it flaws supposedly
discoverable under a more stringent measure of review.

24. Is the determination by the President of what constitutes public calamity or

emergency in Sec. 26(2) of Article VI reviewable by the Supreme Court?
Yes, the determination by the President of what constitutes public calamity
or emergency in Sec. 26(2) id the Article VI reviewable by the Supreme Court.

In Tolentino vs Secretary the court held that the sufficiency of the factual
basis of the existence of a national emergency justifying the delegation of the
extraordinary powers of the President is subject to judicial review because basic
rights of the individuals may be of hazard.
25. May the Presidents certification that a bill is urgent be sent only to one House
of Congress?
Yes, the Presidents certification that a bill is urgent may be sent only to one
House of Congress.

Under the case of Kida v. Senate, it shows that the President wrote to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives to certify the necessity of the immediate
enactment of R.A. No. 10153. In this case, the Presidents certification exempted
both the House and the Senate from having to comply with the three separate
readings requirement which follows the ruling in Tolentino. The House of
Representative and the Senate in the exercise of their legislative discretion gave
full recognition to the Presidents certification and promptly enacted the said law.
Hence, the judiciary is not bound by the acceptance of the Presidents certification
by both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Therefore, the Presidents certification that a bill is urgent may be sent only
to one House of Congress.
26. What is meant by the no-amendment rule under Sec. 26(2) of Article VI? Do
amendments introduced by the Bicameral Conference Committeedone to thresh
out any variance between the Senate and House versions of the billviolate this
rule?
The "no-amendment rule" under Section 26(2) of Article VI refers only to
the procedure to be followed by each house of Congress with regards to bills
initiated in each of said respective houses, before said bill is transmitted to the
other house for its concurrence or amendment.

Although not provided for in the Constitution, Congress has established the
so-called Conference Committee, composed of representatives from the Senate and
the House of Representative, which is a "mechanism for compromising
differences" between their respective versions of a bill or joint resolution.

Thus it cannot be taken to mean that the introduction by the Bicameral

Conference Committee amendments and modifications to disagreeing provisions in
bills that have been acted upon by both Houses is prohibited.
27. Under Sec. 27(1) of Article VI, what are the ways by which a bill may become
a law? If the President vetoes a bill, what happens next?
28. May the President veto only a provision, and not the entirety, of a bill? What is
meant by item veto? May the President veto a condition attached to an item of
appropriation in an appropriation bill?
The President shall have the control of all the bills made by Congress and
Senate, he ensures that the bill will be properly executed before it will become a
law.
a. Yes, the President can veto a specific provision on a certain bill without affecting
the entire the provisions of on the same bill. However, 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. Section, 27, paragraph 2 Art VI. The 1987 Constitution.

b. Veto means a constitutional right of the president to reject a decision or proposal

made by a law making body.

c. The President has the authority to augment any appropriation.

Yes, the President can veto a condition attach to an item of appropriation,

because the constitution mandates it that only the president, the senate president,
speaker of the house of representative, the chief justice of the supreme court and
the heads of the constitutional commission may be authorized to augment any item
in the general appropriations law. Section 25, paragraph 5 Art VI of the the 1987
Constitution.

Hence, the President can attach an item of appropriation in an appropriation.

G. Rule-making power
29. If a House of Congress violates its own rules of procedure, may the Supreme
Court exercise jurisdiction over the controversy?
No, the Supreme Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over controversies
involving violations on internal rules of procedure of Congress. In Osmea v
Pendatun, the Supreme Court said that the theory of Separation of Powers
fastidiously observed by this court. Each department, it has been said, had
exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its
own sphere. Under our form of government, the judicial department has no power
to revise even the most arbitrary and unfair action of the legislative department, or
of either house thereof, taking in pursuance of the power committed exclusively to
that department by the Constitution
H. Disciplinary power
30. What is the meaning of the phrase disorderly behavior in Sec. 16(3) of
Article VI? Is the determination by a House of Congress that an unparliamentary
conduct constitutes disorderly behavior a justiciable question?
The phrase disorderly behavior as contemplated in Sec. 16 (3) of Article
VI is left to the prerogative of Congress and cannot as a rule be judicially
reviewed. The matter comes in the category of a political question. Accordingly,
the Supreme Court did not interfere when the legislature declared that the physical
assault by one member against another, or the delivery of a derogatory speech
which the member was unable to substantiate, constituted "disorderly behavior"
and justified the adoption of disciplinary measures. Other disciplinary measures
besides expulsion and suspension are deletion of unparliamentary remarks from the
record, fine, imprisonment and censure, sometimes called "soft impeachment."

What constitutes disorderly conduct is within the interpretation of the

legislative body and not the judiciary, because it is a matter that depends mainly on
the factual circumstances of which the House knows best. Anything to the contrary
will amount to encroachment of power. In Osmena v Pendatun, the Supreme Court
ruled that the House is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behaviour, not only
because the Constitution has conferred jurisdiction upon it, but also because the
matter depends mainly on factual circumstances of which the House knows best
but which cannot be depicted in black and white for presentation to, and
adjudication by the Courts. For one thing, if this Court assumed the power to
determine whether a member of the Senates conduct constituted disorderly
behaviour, it would thereby have assumed appellate jurisdiction, which the
Constitution never intended to confer upon a coordinate branch of the Government.
The theory of separation of powers fastidiously observed by this Court, demands in
such situation a prudent refusal to interfere. Each department, it has been said, had
exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its
own sphere.
31. Under Sec. 16(3) of Article VI, what is the vote requirement for a legislator to
be disciplined by his peers? May a different vote (e.g. simple majority) be provided
by the rules for penalties other than suspension or expulsion.
Sec 16(3) of Article VI provides that, the concurrence of two-thirds of all its
members should be met in order to suspend or expel a member provided that such
suspension imposed shall not exceed sixty days. Likewise, other disciplinary
measures or penalties besides suspension and expulsion should be concurred by
two-thirds of the entire body.

I. Power of inquiry

32. What are the distinctions between the power of legislative inquiry under Sec.
21 and the question hour under Sec. 22, both of Article VI?

Section 21 (inquiry in aid of legislation) and Section 22 (question hour) of

Article VI of the Constitution are closely related and complementary to each other,
but they do not pertain to the same power of Congress. One specifically relates to
the power to conduct inquiries 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 the oversight function of Congress. While attendance was meant to be
discretionary in the question hour, it was compulsory in inquiries in aid of
legislation.
33. May a committee of a House of Congress, and not the House plenary itself, cite
a resource person in contempt during a legislative inquiry?
Yes, a committe of a House of Congress, and not the house plenary itself,
may cite a resource person in contempt during a legislativeinquiry.

Article VI, section 21 grants the power of inquiry not only to the Senate and the
House of Representatives, but also to any of their respective committees. This is
significant because it constitutes a direct conferral of investigatory power upon the
committees and it means that the means which the Houses can take in order to
effectively perform its investigative function are also available to the Committees.
And that the contempt power of the Congress is founded upon reason and policy
and that the power of inquiry will not be complete if for every contumacious act,
Congress has to resort to judicial interference.
34. May a legislative inquiry be validly conducted even without a proposed
legislation stated in the resolution calling for such investigation?
No, the legislative inquiry must be in aid of legislation under doctrine of
Separation of Powers.
 Jurisprudence teaches that legislative power remains limited in the sense that
it is substantive and constitutional limitations which circumscribe both the exercise
of the power itself and allowable subjects of legislation.
J. Power of the purse
35. May Congress validly provide in the General Appropriations Act a much-
reduced budget for a government instrumentality (e.g., the proposed Php1,000.00
budget of the ERC for 2018)?
Yes, the Congress may validly provide in the General Appropriation Act a
much reduced budget for a governmental instrumentality.

Under Article VI Section 25(1) of our constitution it states that The

Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for
the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. Our constitution used
the word may which is optional in nature and also there is no prohibition to
reduce the proposed budget made by the President.

Hence, it is discretionary to the Congress whether to increase or decrease the

proposed budget.
36. What are the requisites for the application of the power of augmentation under
Sec. 25(5) of Article VI? Why did the Supreme Court declare President Aquinos
Disbursement Acceleration Program unconstitutional in Araullo v Aquino?
Requisites of a valid transfer of appropriated funds under Section 25(5),
Article VI. The transfer of appropriated funds, to be valid under Section 25(5),
[Article VI of the Constitution], must be made upon a concurrence of the following
requisites, namely: (1) There is a law authorizing the President, the President of the
Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, and the heads of the Constitutional Commissions to transfer funds
within their respective offices; (2) The funds to be transferred are savings
generated from the appropriations for their respective offices; and (3) The purpose
of the transfer is to augment an item in the general appropriations law for their
respective offices.

The DAP is unconstitutional because the President cannot substitute his own
will for that of Congress to which the power to spend public wealth resides as
provided by law and furthermore the DAPs funding came from withdrawal of
unobligated allotments from the implementing agencies, and the declaration of the
withdrawn unobligated allotments and unreleased appropriations as savings prior
to the end of the fiscal year and without complying with the statutory definition of
savings contained in the General Appropriations Acts and the schematic
introduction of Cross-boarder transfers or augmentations which is prohibited due
to its being contradictory to the doctrine of separation of powers and Section 25(5)
of Article VI as provided by the 1987 Constitution.
37. How does the pork barrel system work in general? Why was it declared
unconstitutional in Belgica v. Secretary?
Pork Barrel is commonly known as the lump-sum, discretionary funds of the
members of the Congress. Since 2011, it is allocated as such:

1.) P70 million for each member of the lower house, broken down to 40 million for
"hard projects," and 30 million for "soft projects."
2.) P200 million for each senator, broken down to P100 million for hard projects,
P100 million for soft projects.
3.) P200 million for the Vice President, broken down to P100 million for hard
projects, P100 million for soft projects.

It was declared unconstitutional because it violates the principles of

Separation of Power, Non-delegability of legislative power, Principles of Checks
and Balance, and Local autonomy.

K. Power of taxation
38. What is meant by the terms uniform and equitable and progressive under
Sec. 28(1) of Article VI? (See Tolentino v. Secretary; Abakada Guro v. Ermita)
What about the phrase actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious,
charitable, or religious purposes in Sec. 28(3) of Article VI?

The meaning of the terms "uniform and equitable" and "progressive" under
section 28 (1) of article VI are as follows;

First, the concept of uniformity in taxation implies that all taxable articles or
properties of the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. It requires the uniform
application and operation, without discrimination, of the tax in every place where
the subject of the tax is found. It does not, however, require absolute identity or
equality under all circumstances, but subject to reasonable classification.
Second, the concept of equity in taxation requires that the appointment of the tax
burden be, more or less, just in the light of the tax payer's ability to shoulder the tax
burden, and if warranted on the benefits received from the government. It's
cornerstone is the taxpayer's ability to pay.

Third, the term "progressive", refers to the way the tax rate increases as the taxable
amount increases as a system of taxation. In which persons or corporations are
assessed at a greater percentage of their income according to the theoretical ability
to pay. That is, taxpayers pay more in taxes if they earn more in income.

In instances under section 28(3) of article VI, is an exemption from real

property tax only.

The exemption in favor of property used exclusively for charitable or

educational purposes is not limited to property actually indispensable therefore, but
extends to facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of said purposes.