ARTICLE VI. THE LEGISLATIVE POWER
5(3)]
A. Powers of Congress in general
1. Legislative power (Sec. 1)
a. Meaning
CASES:
Ople vs. Torres, G.R. No. 127685 July 23,
1998 – delineation of Legislative and
Executive powers (read also the opinions of
JJ. Vitug, Panganiban and Kapunan)
KMU v. Director General, NEDA, G.R.
No. 167798, April 19, 2006
David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3,
2006
2. Non-legislative powers
B. Composition of Congress (Sec. 2 & 5)
1. Senate
a. Number of members
b. Manner of election
2. HOR
a. Classification & number of members
(1) District reps
(2) Party-list reps
(a) 20% of the total number of
representatives including those
under the party-list [Sec. 5(2)]
CASES:
Veteran’s Federation v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 13678,
October 26, 2010
Banat v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
179271, April 21, 2009
(b) Major political parties may
participate in the party-list election
CASE: Atong Paglaum v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766, April
2, 2013 (reversal of Ang Bagong
Bayani and BANAT rulings)
(c) Meaning of marginalized and
underrepresented
CASE: Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 190582, April
8, 2010
(d) Delisting of party-list groups
CASE: Philippine Guardians
Brotherhood, Inc. v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 190529, April 29, 2010
(e) Qualifications of a party-list
nominee/representative
CASES:
Abayon v. HRET, G.R. No.
189466, February 11, 2010
Lico v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
205505, September 29, 2015
(f) 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
b. Manner of election [Sec. 5(1)]
c. Basic requirement for legislative districts
(1) apportionment – number of inhabitants,
uniform and progressive ratio [Sec. 5(1)];
contiguous, compact and adjacent
territories [Sec. 5(3)]
CASES:
Macias v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-18684,
September 14, 1961
Montejo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 118702,
March 16, 1995
(a) rationale – to prevent/discourage
gerrymandering
(2) representation – each city with population
of at least 250,000, or each province, shall
have at least one representative [Sec.
Aquino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793,
April 7, 2010
C. Qualifications of members of Congress (Sec. 3 & 6)
1. Citizenship – natural born citizen
CASES:
Vilando v. HRET, G.R. Nos. 192147 & 192149,
August 23, 2011
David v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No.
221538, September 20, 2016
2. Age – 35 for Senators, 25 for representatives on
the day of the election at the latest
3. Literacy – able to read and write
4. Registration as voter
5. Residence
CASES:
Co v. Electoral Tribunal, G.R. Nos. 92191-92 July
30, 1991
Marcos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119976,
September 18, 1995 (Read also the other opinions)
Aquino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120265,
September 18, 1995 (Read also the other opinions)
D. Term of office (Sec. 4 & 7, Art. VI; Sec. 2, Art. XVIII)
1. Commencement – noon of June 30 next following
the election
2. Duration
a. Senators – 6 years; maximum of 2 consecutive
terms
(1) Senators elected in 1992, 1st 12 served for
6 years (until June 30, 1998), remaining
12 for 3 years (until June 30, 1995)
(2) Overlapping of terms & the Senate as a
continuing body
CASES:
Arnault v. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-3820,
July 18, 1950
Neri v. Senate Committee, G.R. No.
180643, March 25, 2008 (decision);
September 4, 2008 (resolution)
Garcillano v. House of
Representatives, G.R. No. 170338,
December 23, 2008
Balag v. Senate, G.R. No. 234608, July
3, 2018
b. Representatives – 3 years; maximum of 3
consecutive terms
3. Effect of voluntary renunciation
E. Regular and special elections of members of Congress
(Sec. 8 & 9)
F. Salaries and accounts of Members of Congress (Sec.
10 & 20)
CASE: PHILCONSA v. Jimenez, G.R. No. L-23326,
December 18, 1965
G. Parliamentary immunities (Sec. 11)
1. Privilege from arrest
CASE: People v. Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875-76.
February 3, 2000 (Also read the concurrence of J.
Gonzaga-Reyes)
2. Privilege of speech and debate
CASES:
Osmeña v. Pendatun, G.R. No. L-17144, October
28, 1960
Jimenez v. Cabangbang, G.R. No. L-15905,
August 3, 1966
Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago, A.C. No. 7399,
August 25, 2009
Trillanes v. Castillo-Marigomen, G.R. No.
223451, Mar 14, 2018
H. Disclosure and Notification Requirements (Sec. 12)
I. Incompatible and Forbidden Offices (Sec. 13)
CASES:
Adaza v. Pacaña, G.R. No. L-68159, March 18, 1985
 Liban v. Gordon, G.R. No.175352, July 15, 2009 Lazatin v. HRET, G.R. No. 84297, December 8,
1988
J. Inhibitions and Disqualifications (Sec. 14) Aquino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120265,
CASES: September 18, 1995
Puyat v. De Guzman, G.R. No. L-51122, March 25, Limkaichong v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 178831-
1982 32, April 1, 2009
Belgica v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 208566, Reyes v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207264, June 25,
November 19, 2013 2013
Lico v. COMELEC, supra (distinguish with Reyes
K. Sessions (Sec. 15); Read also Sec. 4 and 10, Art. VII v. COMELEC)
1. Regular session 2. Composition (Sec. 17)
2. Special sessions CASES:
Tañada v. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-10520, February
L. Officers of each House [Sec. 16 (1)] 28, 1957
1. Senate Abbas v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No.
a. Senate President 83767, October 27, 1988
CASE: Avelino v. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-2821, Bondoc v. Pineda, G.R. No. 97710, September
March 4, 1949 (decision); March 14, 1949 26, 1991
(resolution of the MR) 3. Time of constitution/organization
b. Others 4. Independence from the House concerned
CASE: Santiago v. Guingona, G.R. No. CASES:
134577, November 18, 1998 Bondoc v. Pineda, supra
2. House of Representatives Angara v. Electoral Commission, G.R. No. L-
a. Speaker 45081, July 15, 1936
b. Others 5. Authority to promulgate rules of procedure:
CASE: Baguilat v. Speaker Alvarez, G.R. No. exclusive
227757, July 25, 2017 CASES:
Angara v. Electoral Commission, supra
M. Quorum [Sec. 16 (2)] Lazatin v. HRET, G.R. No. 84297, December 8,
1. Requirement – majority of each House 1988
CASE: Avelino v. Cuenco, supra 6. Judicial review of decisions of Electoral Tribunals
2. If quorum is absent, a smaller number may adjourn CASES:
from day to day and may compel the attendance of Co v. Electoral Tribunal, supra
absent members EXCEPT when such absence is Lerias v. HRET, G.R. No. 97105, October 15, 1991
based on a valid reason Tagolino v. HRET, August 23, 2011
CASES:
People v. Jalosjos, supra Q. The Commission on Appointments
Trillanes v. Pimentel, G.R. No. 179817, June 27, CASES:
2008 Cunanan v. Tan, G.R. No. L-19721, May 10, 1962
3. As long as there is quorum, the Houses of Coseteng v. Mitra, G.R. No. 86649, July 12, 1990
Congress may conduct business and hold session; Guingona v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 106971, October 20,
within a quorum, a vote of majority is generally 1992
sufficient to enact laws; GR: majority of those
constituting a quorum sufficient to repeal a law R. Manner of the conduct of sessions and voting in
CASE: Kida v. Senate, G.R. No. 196271, October Congress
18, 2011
S. Specific powers of Congress
N. Rule-making power and power of internal discipline 1. Power to enact statutes
[Sec. 16(3)] a. Origin of laws (Sec. 24)
1. Rule-making power CASES:
CASES: Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, supra
Osmeña v. Pendatun, supra (Read also the other opinions)
Arroyo v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, August Abakada Guro v. Ermita, G.R. No. 168056,
14, 1997 September 1, 2005
2. Discipline members b. Prohibited measures (Sec. 25(5),
CASES: 28(4), 30 & 31; also Sec. 3, Art. IX-D;
Osmeña v. Pendatun, supra Sec. 4, 5, 10 Art. III; Sec. 2, Art. VIII]
Alejandrino v. Quezon, G.R. No. 22041, c. The “one-subject, one-bill” rule [Sec. 26(1)]
September 11, 1924) CASES:
Lidasan v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-28089,
O. Legislative journals and records [Sec. 16(4)] October 25, 1967
1. Journals PHILCONSA v. Jimenez, G.R. No. L-23326,
CASES: December 18, 1965
U.S. v. Pons, G.R. No. L-11530, August 12, 1916 Tobias v. Abalos, G.R. No. 114783,
Arroyo v. De Venecia, supra December 8, 1994
2. Legislative journal vs. enrolled bill Tatad v. Secretary, G.R. No. 124360,
CASES: November 5, 1997
Morales v. Subido, February 27, 1969 (resolution) Fariñas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
Astorga v. Villegas, G.R. No. L-23475, April 30, 147387, December 10, 2003
1974 Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. Professional
Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, G.R. Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service,
No. 105371, November 11, 1993 G.R. No. 197676, February 4, 2014
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. d. Procedure in the passage of bills in Congress
115455, August 25, 1994 [Sec. 26(2), Art. VI]
Fariñas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. (1) General Rule: Three readings on separate
147387, December 10, 2003 days; exception
CASES:
P. The Electoral Tribunals (Sec. 17 & 19) Tolentino v. Secretary, supra
1. Jurisdiction Kida v. Senate, supra
CASES: (2) no-amendment rule
 CASE: Abakada Guro v. Ermita, supra
(Read also the resolution dated August
14, 2008)
(3) The Bicameral Conference Committee
CASE: Abakada Guro v. Ermita, supra
(4) Vote requirement for passage of bill –
majority of those constituting a quorum
CASE: Kida v. Senate, supra
(5) Manner of voting by legislators
e. System of authentication of bills passed by
Congress
(1) 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
(2) The enrolled bill doctrine
CASES:
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)
Arroyo v. De Venecia, supra, concurring
and dissenting opinion of J. Puno –
evolution of the enrolled bill doctrine
f. Approval of bill into law; veto power of the
President (Sec. 27)
(1) The rule of presentment
(2) Presidential veto
(a) Procedure after President vetoes bill
(b) Item/partial veto
CASE: Belgica v. Executive
Secretary, supra
(c) GR: Prohibition of veto of a condition
attached to an item; EXC: if condition
is an improper provision
CASES:
Bengzon v. Drilon, G.R. No.
103524, April 15, 1992
PHILCONSA v. Enriquez, G.R. No.
113105, August 19, 1994
(3) “Legislative veto” and post-enactment
congressional oversight
CASE: Abakada Guro v. Purisima, G.R.
No. 166715, August 14, 2008
(4) Judicial review of President’s veto power
CASES:
PHILCONSA v. Enriquez, supra
Gonzales v. Macaraig, G.R. No. 87636,
November 19, 1990
2. Power to Conduct Legislative Inquiry and Question
Hour (Sec. 21 & 22)
a. Distinctions
CASE: Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777,
April 20, 2006
b. The power of inquiry
(1) Who exercises power – the Houses
themselves or their respective committees
CASE: In re Camilo L. Sabio, G.R. No.
174340, October 17, 2006
(2) Persons covered – anyone, including
public officials and private individuals
CASE: Senate v. Ermita, supra
(3) Purpose – in aid of legislation
CASES:
Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee, G.R. No. 89914, November
20, 1991
Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate
Committee on Banks, G.R. No. 167173,
December 27, 2007
(4) Scope
CASES:
Senate v. Ermita, supra
Akbayan v. Aquino, G.R. No. 170516,
July 16, 2008
Neri v. Senate Committee, supra
Romero v. Estrada, G.R. No. 174105,
April 2, 2009
(5) Governing rules – duly published rules of
procedure of either House
CASE: Garcillano v. House of
Representatives Committees, G.R. No.
170338, December 23, 2008
(6) rights of persons appearing in, or affected
by, such inquiries shall be respected
CASE: Balag v. Senate, supra
(7) when legislative inquiry terminates
CASE: Balag v. Senate, supra
(8) Power of legislative inquiry under §21
repeals inconsistent provisions of law
CASE: In Re Camilo L. Sabio, supra
(9) Judicial review of issues arising from
legislative inquiries
CASE: De la Paz v. Senate Committee
on Foreign Relations, G.R. No. 184849,
February 13, 2009
c. The question hour
3. Power of appropriation (Sec. 25 & 29)
a. Appropriation defined
b. Exclusive origination rule (Sec. 24)
CASES:
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, supra
Abakada Guro v. Ermita, supra
c. Stages (Guingona v. Carangue)
d. Congress may not increase the appropriations
recommended by the President [Sec. 25(1)]
e. Prohibition against riders [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)
f. Procedure in approving appropriations for the
Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for
approving appropriations for other
departments [Sec.25(3)]
g. The power of augmentation [Sec.25(5)]
CASES:
Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, July 1,
2014
h. Discretionary funds [Sec. 25(6)]
i. Reenacted budget [Sec. 25(7)]
j. No money shall be paid out of the Treasury
except in pursuance of an appropriation made
by law [Sec. 29(1)]
CASE: Belgica v. Executive Secretary,
supra (re: the Malampaya Funds and the
Presidential Social Fund)
k. Prohibition against appropriation for sectarian
purpose [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
Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding
of Religious Rituals at the Hall of Justice
Building in Quezon City, A.M. No. 10-4-19-
SC, March 7, 2017 (read also the dissent of J.
Leonen)
l. Special taxes as a special fund [Sec. 29(2)]
m. The “pork barrel” system
CASES:
PHILCONSA v. Enriquez, supra
Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty v.
Secretary, G.R. No. 164987, April 24, 2012
Belgica v. Executive Secretary, supra
n. Riders in an appropriations law
CASE: Garcia v. Mata, G.R. No. L-
33713, July 30, 1975
4. Power of taxation (Sec. 28)
a. Rule in taxation: uniformity, equitability, and
progressiveness [Sec. 28(1)]
CASES:
 Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, supra
Abakada Guro v. Ermita, supra
b. GR: Power of taxation cannot be delegated;
EXC: delegation to the President of the power
to fix tariff rates, import and export quotas,
tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties
or imposts [Sec. 28(2)]
CASE: Abakada Guro v. Ermita, supra
c. Tax exemptions
(1) 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
(2) needs concurrence of majority of all
members of Congress [Sec. 28(4)]

5. The power of concurrence/confirmation

a. To a grant of amnesty by the President (Sec.
19, Article VII)
b. To a treaty or international agreement (Sec.
21, Art. VII)
c. To confirm President’s nomination of Vice-
President (Sec. 9, Article VII)

6. The war powers [Sec. 23(1), Art. VI]

7. Power to grant emergency powers to the President

[Sec. 23(2)]
CASES:
David v. Arroyo, supra
Araneta v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. L-2044, August
26, 1949
Rodriguez v. Gella, G.R. No. L-6266, February 2,
1953