#31

Ligot vs Mathay

G.R. No. L-34676

April 30, 1974

Facts:

During the second term of Benjamin Ligot from the year 1961 to 1965, Republic Act No.
4134, which grants an increase on their salaries was enacted into law which would be operative
until 1969. The petitioner lost his bid for a fourth consecutive term in the 1969 elections and
filed a claim for retirement under Commonwealth Act 186, which provided for retirement
gratuity of any officials. The Congress Auditor and the Auditor General disallowed the issuance
of certification.

Issue:

Whether or not Ligot is entitled to such benefit considering his contention at the time of
his retirement, the increased salary for members was already Php32,000.00 per annum as
provided by the law (RA 4134) in contrast to the respondent’s decision that receiving the
increased salary is prohibited by the Constitution.

Held:

No, Ligot is not entitled to receive the retirement benefit

Under the Article VI of the 1935 Constitution, “No increase in said compensation shall
take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the members of Senate and House of
Representatives approving such increase.”

In the present case, Ligot can’t receive such benefit since the Act expressly stated that it
would be operative from 1969 onwards. Granting the retirement benefit to the petitioner would
be to pay them prohibited emoluments which in effect increase the salary beyond that which they
were permitted by the Constitution to receive during their incumbency. Furthermore, such
scheme would contravene the Constitution for it would enable administrative authorities to do
indirectly what cannot be done directly.
#32

Martinez vs Morfe

G.R. No. L-34022

March 24, 1972

Facts:

The delegates of the 1971 Constitutional Convention, namely Martinez y Festin and
Fernando Bautista , Sr. were both facing a criminal complaint. Martinez was charged with
falsification of public documents while the latter was accused of violating the Revised Penal
Code. Both of them were arrested while the convention is still in session. Additionally, both of
them assailed the validity of the arrest and invoked their right to immunity.

Issue:

Whether or not the arrest Martinez and Bautista, Sr. can be quashed by the virtue of
parliamentary immunity, which is traceable under the 1935 Constitution (Section 15 of the
Article VI of the 1935 Constitution, which grants them immunity from arrest).

Held:

No, the arrest cannot be quashed by the virtue of parliamentary immunity.

It is made clear in Section 15 of Article VI of the 1935 Constitution that members are
immune from arrest during their attendance in Congress except in cases of treason, felony and
breach of peace.

In this case, both delegates committed crimes that fall under the category of “breach of
peace”. Breach of peace covers any offense whether defined by the Revised Penal Code or any
special statute. Thus, the petitioners cannot invoke their right to parliamentary immunity.
#33

People vs Jalosjos

G.R. Nos. 132875-76

February 3, 2000

Facts:

Romeo G. Jalosjos, a full-fledged member of Congress was charged with statutory rape
and acts of lasciviousness. He filed a motion asking that he be allowed to fully discharge the
duties of a Congressman, which includes attendance at legislative sessions despite his having
been convicted in the first instance of non-bailable offense.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent should be allowed to discharge his duties as a

congressman considering the fact that the sovereign electorate of the First District of Zamboanga
elected him as their representative in the Congress.

Held:

No, the respondent should not be allowed to discharge his duties as a congressman.

Section 11, of the Article VI of the 1987 Constitution states that: “A Senator or Member
of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years
imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session.”

In this case, the respondent’s contention cannot be sustained since the privilege of
immunity is always granted in a restricted ways. Furthermore, the petitioner has not given any
reason why he should be exempted from the Constitutional provision. Allowing the accused to
attend sessions will virtually make him a free man.
#30

Atong Paglaum,Inc.vs Comelec

G.R. No. 203766

April 2, 2013

Facts:

COMELEC disqualified Atong Paglaum and 51 other party-lists during the May 2013
elections mainly because they do not represent the marginalized and the underrepresented
sectors. The 52 party-lists filed a petition contending that the COMELEC committed a grave
abuse of discretion for disqualifying them.

Issue:

Whether or not the COMELEC committed a grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying

the party-lists considering the contention that the parties does not represent marginalized or
underrepresented

Held:

No, the COMELEC did not commit a grave abuse of discretion.

The COMELEC only followed the guidelines set in the cases of Ang Bagong Bayani and
Banat.

In this case, however, the Supreme Court decided to abandon the rulings and adopt new
parameters for the May 2013 elections. The petitions were furthermore remanded to the
COMELEC so the latter can determine the status of the petitioners based on the new guidelines
set by the Supreme Court. It is clear from the new set of rules that not all parties in the party-list
system have to represent a sector that is marginalized and underrepresented and major political
parties may participate in the party-list system provided that they do so through their bona fide
sectoral wing.