Legislative Department (Art.VI, 1987 Constitution) - Constitutional Law I - PDF

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT (Art.VI, 1987 Constitution) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I USJ-R School of Law  ART. VI, SECTION 1 The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except...

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT (Art.VI, 1987 Constitution) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I USJ-R School of Law  ART. VI, SECTION 1 The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum. Legislative power is the authority to make laws and to alter or repeal them. The power is vested in the Congress of the Philippines, EXCEPT to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on INITIATIVE and REFERENDUM. The power of present and future legislatures must remain plenary. Thus, one legislature cannot pass irrepealable law. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF CONGRESS 1. General plenary power 2. Specific power of appropriation 3. Taxation and expropriation 4. Legislative investigation 5. Question hour university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  NON-LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF CONGRESS 1. Canvass of the Presidential elections 2. Declaration of the existence of a state of war 3. Confirmation of amnesties and presidential appointments 4. Amendment or revision of the Constitution 5. Impeachment university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  Composition, Qualification & Term of Office university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ART. VI, SECTION 2 The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  RESIDENCE Residence is place where one habitually resides and to which, when he is absent, he has the intention of returning. A person cannot have two residences at the same time; acquisition of a new residence results in forfeiture of the old. But intention to abandon his old residence cannot be legally inferred from his act in establishing a home elsewhere or otherwise conducting activities therein, in the absence of a clear showing that he has decided to adopt a new residence. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  RESIDENCE For political law purposes, does the term residence refer to dwelling or habitation? NO. Domicile or legal residence is the place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home. The term “residence” is to be understood as not referring to dwelling or habitation but rather to domicile or legal residence – place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi). university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  DOMICILE It is a question of intention and circumstances. Three rules must be borne in mind: 1. That a man must have a residence or domicile somewhere; 2. When once established, it remains until a new one is acquired; and, 3. A man can have but one residence or domicile at a time. There must be a bona fide intention to abandon the former place of residence and establishing a new one. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT: PURPOSE To prevent newcomers unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a community from seeking elective offices. Officials should know their constituencies and the unique circumstances of their constituencies: their needs, difficulties, aspirations, potentials for growth and development and all matters vital to their common welfare. Constituencies can best know and evaluate the candidates’ qualifications and fitness for office if these candidates have lived among them. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  MARCOS V. COMELEC September 18, 1995 university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  MARCOS V. COMELEC FACTS: Imelda Romualdez-Marcos was domiciled in Tacloban, Leyte since she was a little over 8 years old. She attended Holy Infant Academy in Tacloban from 1938 to 1949 and graduated from high school there. She earned her college degree in Education from St. Paul's College (now Divine Word University) in Tacloban. She taught at the Leyte Chinese School in Tacloban City before moving to Manila in 1952. She married ex-President Ferdinand E. Marcos in 1954 when he was a congressman of Ilocos Norte and registered as a voter there. Imelda registered as a voter in San Juan, Rizal when Ferdinand became a Senator in 1959 and in San Miguel, Manila when he was elected President in 1965. She served as a member of the Batasang Pambansa and Governor of Metro Manila during 1978. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  MARCOS V. COMELEC Imelda ran for Representative of the First District of Leyte in the 1995 Elections. Incumbent Representative Cirilo Roy Montejo filed a “Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification” against her, citing non-compliance with the residency requirement since Imelda, in her Certificate of Candidacy, had indicated a 7-month residency, which she sought to amend by adding “since childhood” to clarify her long-standing domicile in Tacloban City. The amendment was a result of her move to the Municipality of Tolosa, leading to the initial 7-months residency indication. The provincial election supervisor denied her amended Certificate of Candidacy due to late submission. Did Imelda satisfy the one-year residency requirement to be eligible in running as representative of the First District of Leyte? university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  MARCOS V. COMELEC For political purposes the concepts of residence and domicile are dictated by the peculiar criteria of political laws. As these concepts have evolved in our election law, what has clearly and unequivocally emerged is the fact that residence for election purposes is used synonymously with domicile. Applying this principle discussed to the instant case, what is inescapable is that petitioner held various residences for different purposes during the last four decades. None of these purposes unequivocally point to an intention to abandon her domicile of origin in Tacloban, Leyte. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  MARCOS V. COMELEC Moreover, while petitioner was born in Manila, as a minor she naturally followed the domicile of her parents. She grew up in Tacloban, reached her adulthood there and eventually established residence in different parts of the country for various reasons. Even during her husband's presidency, at the height of the Marcos Regime's powers, Imelda kept her close ties to her domicile of origin by establishing residences in Tacloban, celebrating her birthdays and other important personal milestones in her home province, instituting well-publicized projects for the benefit of her province and hometown, and establishing a political power base where her siblings and close relatives held positions of power either through the ballot or by appointment, always with either her influence or consent. These well-publicized ties to her domicile of origin are part of the history and lore of the quarter century of Marcos power in our country. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  AQUINO V. COMELEC G.R. NO. 120265 SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  AQUINO V. COMELEC FACTS: Agapito Aquino filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative for the Second District of Makati City. Private respondents Move Makati, a duly registered political party, and Mateo Bedon, Chairman of LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP of Brgy. Cembo, Makati City, filed a petition to disqualify Aquino on the ground that the latter lacked the residence qualification as a candidate for congressman which, under Sec. 6, Art. VI of the Constitution, should be for a period not less than 1 year immediately preceding the elections. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  AQUINO V. COMELEC RULING: In order that petitioner could qualify as a candidate for Representative of the Second District of Makati City, he must prove that he has established not just residence but domicile of choice. Aquino’s domicile of origin was Tarlac, but he ran in Makati. The Court found him ineligible for the elective position in Makati because of the residency requirement. There is nothing wrong in an individual changing residences so he could run for an elective post, for as long as he is able to prove that he has effected a change of residence for the period required by law. In this case, however, Aquino was unable to sufficiently prove change of residence. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  AQUINO V. COMELEC Petitioner, in his certificate of candidacy for the 1992 elections, indicated not only that he was a resident of San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac in 1992 but that he was a resident of the same for 52 years immediately preceding that elections. At that time, his certificate indicated that he was also a registered voter of the same district. His birth certificate places Concepcion, Tarlac as the birthplace of his parents. What stands consistently clear and unassailable is that his domicile of origin of record up to the time of filing of his most recent certificate of candidacy for the 1995 elections was Concepcion, Tarlac. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  TERM OF OFFICE university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ART. VI, SECTION 4 The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and shall commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. No Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term of which he was elected. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  WHY IS SENATE CALLED A CONTINUING BODY? Senate is considered as a “continuing body.” The continuity of the life of the Senate is intended to encourage the maintenance of Senate policies as well as guarantee that there will be experienced members who can help and train newcomers in the discharge of their duties. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ART. VI, SECTION 5 The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a partylist system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ART. VI, SECTION 5 The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ART. VI, SECTION 5 Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative. Note: Compact – solid Contiguous – physical contact Adjacent – close by or near CITY – at least 250,000 population PROVINCE – no population requirement to be entitled to a representative university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  GERRYMANDERING The legislature shall see to it that each city with a population of at least 250,000, and every province, shall have at least one representative. The Constitution reiterates guaranty against gerrymandering – the arrangement of districts in such a way as to favor the election of preferred candidates through the inclusion therein only of those areas where they expect to win, regardless of the resultant shape of such districts. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  CREATION OF LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT A proposed province composed of one or more islands need not comply with the 2,000 square km. contiguous territory requirement under the Local Government Code. (Each province is entitled to 1 district representative.) Validity of legislative apportionment is a judicial question. The basis for districting is the number of INHABITANTS, not the number of registered voters. The 250,000 minimum population requirement for the establishment of legislative districts applies only to cities, not provinces. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  CREATION OF LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT Representative districts are created by law. The ARMM Regional Assembly may not create a representative district. Nor may it create a province because a province automatically gets one representative district. (Sema v. COMELEC, GR No. 177597, July 16, 2008). The creation of legislative districts does not need confirmation by plebiscite if it does not involve the creation of a local government unit. (Bagabuyo v. COMELEC, December 8, 2008) university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  REQUIREMENTS IN CONGRESS university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ART. VI, SECTION 6 No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless: 1. he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines 2. on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, 3. able to read and write, and, 4. except the party-list representatives, a registered voter of at least one year in the district in which he shall be elected. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ANG ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. vS. COMELEC G.R. NO. 203766, APRIL 2, 2013 university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  use this if mag strict ug basis regarding sa partylist ANG ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. VS. COMELEC Fifty-two party-list groups and organizations filed separate petitions totaling 54 with the Supreme Court in an effort to reverse various resolutions by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) disqualifying them from the May 2013 party-list race. The COMELEC ruled that these party-list groups and organizations: 1. failed to represent a “marginalized and underrepresented sector,” 2. their nominees do not come from a “marginalized and underrepresented sector,” 3. some of the organizations or groups are not truly representative of the sector they intend to represent in Congress. Petitioners argued that the poll body committed grave abuse of discretion in denying some of the petitioners’ application for accreditation and canceling the existing accreditation of the rest. They also lamented the poll body’s “denial” to accord them due process in the evaluation proceedings. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ANG ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. VS. COMELEC In a Decision promulgated on April 2, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the 54 petitions and remanded these petitions to the COMELEC. The high court ordered the COMELEC to determine “whether petitioners are qualified to register under the party-list system and to participate in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections” under the new parameters set forth in the Decision. The Decision, however, clarified that the poll body may not be faulted for acting on the basis of previous rulings (Ang Bagong Bayani, BANAT) of the high court regarding the party-list system. These earlier rulings enumerated guidelines on who may participate in the party- list system. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ANG ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. VS. COMELEC In Atong Paglaum, the Court laid down new guidelines on the participation of major political parties as follows: 1.) Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (a) national parties or organizations, (b) regional parties or organizations, and (c) sectoral parties or organizations. 2.) National and regional parties or organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any “marginalized and underrepresented” sector. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ANG ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. VS. COMELEC 3.) Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A political party that field candidates in legislative district elections can participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing. 4.) Sectoral parties or organizations may either be “marginalized and underrepresented” or lacking in “well-defined political constituencies.” university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ANG ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. VS. COMELEC 5.) A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the “marginalized and underrepresented” must belong to the “marginalized and underrepresented” sector they represent. 6.) National, regional and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee who remains qualified. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ANG ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. VS. COMELEC The party-list system is intended to democratize political power by giving political parties that cannot win in legislative district elections a chance to win seats in the House of Representatives. It is not synonymous with that of the sectoral representation. Hence, the clear intent, express wording, and party-list structure ordained in Section 5(1) and (2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution cannot be disputed: the party-list system is not for sectoral parties only, but also for non-sectoral parties. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ANG ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. VS. COMELEC The framers intended the sectoral parties to constitute a part, but not the entirety, of the party-list system. In fact, the framers voted down, 19-22, a proposal to reserve the party-list system exclusively to sectoral parties. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the framers of the 1987 Constitution expressly rejected the proposal to make the party-list system exclusively for sectoral parties only, and that they clearly intended the party-list system to include both sectoral and non-sectoral parties. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ANG ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. VS. COMELEC A party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties. A political party refers to an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of government and which, as the most immediate means of securing their adoption, regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as candidates for public office. A sectoral party refers to an organized group of citizens belonging to any of the sectors enumerated in Section 5 of Party-List Law, whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ANG ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. VS. COMELEC The rule on nominees and members coming from the sector they intend to represent also applies only to the sectoral parties or organizations. The Supreme Court ruled that it is enough that “a majority of the members of the sectoral parties or organizations must belong to the ‘marginalized and underrepresented sector they represent. The same is true for those who lack “well-defined political constituencies.” university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ANG ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. VS. COMELEC As for the nominees of these sectoral parties and organizations, the new guidelines provide that: mao ni amendment sa 1st requisite 1. they must either be members of the sector or 2. have a track record of advocacy for their sector. Should some of the nominees of these national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations be disqualified, the party or organization itself will not be disqualified “provided that they have at least one nominee who remains qualified.” university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ANG ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. VS. COMELEC The Decision clarified that COMELEC may not be faulted for acting on the basis of previous rulings (Ang Bagong Bayani, BANAT) of the high court regarding the party-list system. These earlier rulings enumerated guidelines on who may participate in the party-list system. In Ang Bagong Bayani’s parameters for the party-list system, guideline 2 states that “while even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors… to be elected to the House of Representatives.” university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ANG ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. VS. COMELEC However, in its latest Decision, in Atong Paglaum, the high court pointed out that there was an “inherent inconsistency” in the Ang Bagong Bayani guidelines since the requirement that the major political parties should represent the “marginalized and underrepresented” sectors essentially “automatically disqualified” these major parties from the party-list system. As for BANAT, the Supreme Court said that the guidelines in this ruling “merely formalized the prevailing practice” when it prohibited major political parties from participating in the party-list elections even if through their allied sectoral organizations. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  if dili strict ang case, use this and the veteran case BANAT vs. COMELEC G.R. NO. 179271, APRIL 21, 2009 university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  BANAT VS. COMELEC FACTS: The 14 May 2007 elections included the elections for the party- list representatives. The COMELEC counted 15,950,900 votes cast for 93 parties under the Party-List System. On 27 June 2002, BANAT filed a Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by the Constitution, docketed as NBC No. 07-041 (PL) before the NBC. BANAT filed its petition because the Chairman and the Members of the COMELEC have recently been quoted in the national papers that the COMELEC is duty bound to and shall implement the Veterans ruling, that is, would apply the Panganiban formula in allocating party-list seats. There were no intervenors in BANAT's petition before the NBC. BANAT filed a memorandum on 19 July 2007. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  BANAT VS. COMELEC On 9 July 2007, the COMELEC, sitting as the National Board of Canvassers, promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-60. NBC Resolution No. 07-60 proclaimed thirteen (13) parties as winners in the party-list elections, namely: Buhay Hayaan Yumabong (BUHAY), Bayan Muna, Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC), Gabrielas Women Party (Gabriela), Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives (APEC), A Teacher, Akbayan, Citizens Action Party (AKBAYAN), Alagad, Luzon Farmers Party (BUTIL), Cooperative-Natco Network Party (COOP- NATCCO), Anak Pawis, Alliance of Rural Concerns (ARC), and Abono. ISSUE: Is the two percent threshold and qualifier votes prescribed by the same Section 11(b) of RA 7941 constitutional? university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  BANAT VS. COMELEC RULING: The petitions have partial merit. The Supreme Court maintained that a Philippine-style party-list election has at least four inviolable parameters as clearly stated in Veterans vs COMELEC. 1. Twenty percent allocation - the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed 20% of the total membership of the House of Representatives. 2. Two percent threshold - Only those parties garnering a minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are qualified to have a seat in the House of Representative. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  BANAT VS. COMELEC 3. Three-seat limit - Each qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats: that is, one qualifying and two additional seats. 4. Proportional representation - the additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed in proportion to their total number of votes. However, because the formula in Veterans has flaws in its mathematical interpretation of the term proportional representation, this Court is compelled to revisit the formula for the allocation of additional seats to party-list organizations. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  BANAT VS. COMELEC 1.) The 20% allocation - the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed 20% of the total membership of the House of Representatives, including those elected under the party-list. 2.) Parties should be ranked from highest to lowest based on the number of votes garnered. Those receiving at least 2% of the total votes cast shall be entitled to one seat. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  BANAT VS. COMELEC 3.) In allocating additional seats, even the parties who did not garner 2% could be entitled to additional seats. Procedure in second round of seat allocation: Correct formula in determining the number of additional seats: [Number of votes received/total number of votes] x Remaining available seats Seat is assigned to each of the parties next in rank until all available seats are completely distributed. 3-seat cap is applied to determine the number of seats each qualified party-list candidate is entitled. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  BANAT VS. COMELEC What was declared unconstitutional in this case was NOT the two (2) percent threshold itself; but rather, the continued application of the two (2) percent threshold in determining the additional seats that will be allocated to winners in party-list elections. The two percent threshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the maximum number of available party list seats when the number of available party list seats exceeds 50. The continued operation of the two percent threshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the House of Representatives shall consist of party-list representatives. The Supreme Court struck down the two percent threshold only in relation to the distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941. The two percent threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents the attainment of “the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY V. COMELEC Under Sec. 5, 2nd par., Art. VI of the Constitution, the party-list representatives shall constitute twenty (20) percent of the total number of representatives, including those under the party-list. Based on this, the ratio is 4:1, i.e., for every four (4) district representatives, there should be one (1) party-list representative. In the computation of the number of seats allocated to party-list representatives, FRACTIONAL REPRESENTATION IS NOT ALLOWED as it will exceed the twenty (20) allocated seats for party-list representatives and, therefore, will violate the Constitution. In such a case, what should be done is simply to disregard the fraction. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ENROLLED BILL DOCTRINE The signing of a bill by the Speaker of the House and the Senate President and the certification of the Secretaries of both houses of Congress that it was passed are conclusive of its due enactment. (Abakada Guro Party List, et al. vs. Ermita, et al., September 1, 2005) NOTE: A bill originating in the House may undergo such extensive changes in the Senate that the result may be a rewriting of the whole, a distinct bill may be produced. The power of the Senate to propose amendments, it call propose its own version even with respect to bills which are required by the Constitution to originate in the House. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law ANG BAGONG BAYANI – OFW LABOR PARTY VS. COMELEC The religious sector is expressly prohibited from participating in party- list elections (Sec. 5, 2nd par., Art. VI, 1987 Constitution). Religious denominations and sects are even prohibited from being registered as political parties in the COMELEC (Sec. 2, par. 5, Art. IX-C, 1987 Constitution). However, the Supreme Court clarified, based on the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, that what is prohibited is the registration of a religious sect as a political party; there is no prohibition against a priest running as a candidate. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ANG LADLAD-LGBT PARTY V. COMELEC G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010 The act of the COMELEC of not allowing the registration of Ang Ladlad- LGBT Party as a political party to participate in party-list elections on the ground that its members are “immoral,” citing verses from the Bible and the Koran, is tainted with grave abuse of discretion as it violated the non-establishment clause of freedom of religion and, therefore, should be nullified. Under this non-establishment clause of freedom of religion, the COMELEC, as an agency of the government, is NOT supposed to use religious standards in its decisions and actions. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ART. VI, SECTION 7 The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of three years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. No Member of the House of Representatives shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ART. VI, SECTION 8 Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election of the Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of May. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ART. VI, SECTION 9 In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of Representatives: a special election may be called to fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by law, but the Senator or Member of the House of Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired term. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ART. VI, SECTION 10 The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall be determined by law. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives approving such increase. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ART. VI, SECTION 11 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. No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof. NOTE: Pertains to parliamentary immunities university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITIES 1) IMMUNITY FROM ARREST – for a criminal offense not punishable by a penalty of more than 6 years imprisonment. When is the privilege available? While the congress is in session, whether regular or special and whether or not the legislator is actually attending a session. Not available while Congress is in recess. The purpose is to protect the legislator against harassment which keeps him away from attending sessions. “Session”- commences every 4th Monday of July and continues until 30 days before the opening of the next regular session; includes special session as well If it is less than 6 years, even if the member is not attending the session, for as long as Congress is in session, he cannot be arrested otherwise the arresting officer which makes the arrest can be prosecuted for a violation of Revised Penal Code for obstruction of a member of Congress to attend a session. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITIES 2) PRIVILEGE OF SPEECH AND DEBATE – protection only against forums other than the Congress itself. It does not protect legislator against the disciplinary authority of Congress but is an absolute protection against suits for libel. It includes speech on official functions, speeches delivered, statements made, votes cast, bills introduced and other acts done in the performance of official duties. It is not essential that utterances are made while Congress is in session. However, utterances must be part legislative action/deliberative and communicative process by which legislators participate in a committee or congressional proceedings. What is the purpose of the privilege? To leave the legislator unimpeded in the performance of his duties and free from fee of harassment from outside. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  OSMEÑA JR. VS. PENDATUN 109 Phil 863 (1960) university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  OSMEÑA JR. V. PENDATUN On July 14, 1960, Congressman Sergio Osmeña filed a petition for declaratory relief, certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction against Congressman Salapida Pendatun and fourteen other congressmen in their capacity as members of the Special Committee created by House Resolution No. 59. He asked for annulment of such Resolution on the ground of infringement of his parliamentary immunity. He also asked, principally, that said members of the special committee be enjoined from proceeding in accordance with it, particularly the portion authorizing them to require him to substantiate his charges against the President with the admonition that if he failed to do so, he must show cause why the House should not punish him. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  OSMEÑA JR. V. PENDATUN This petition attached a copy of House Resolution No. 59 where it was stated that Sergio Osmeña made a privilege speech entitled “A Message to Garcia” where he claimed to have been hearing of ugly reports that under Garcias’ unpopular administration, the free things they used to get from the government are now for sale at premium prices. They say that even pardons are for sale, and that regardless of the gravity or seriousness of a criminal case. House Resolution No. 59 was passed by the House of Representatives creating a special committee of 15 Members to investigate the allegations that if his allegations were found to be baseless and malicious, he may be subjected to disciplinary actions by the lower house. After congressman Osmeña refused to produce evidence to substantiate his imputations, the special committee found the congressman guilty of serious disorderly behavior and suspended him from office for 15 months. Did Resolution No. 59 violate his parliamentary immunity for speeches delivered in Congress? university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  OSMEÑA JR. V. PENDATUN No. Section 15, Article VI of the 1935 Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity upon members of the legislature which is a fundamental privilege cherished in every parliament in a democratic world. It guarantees the legislator complete freedom of expression without fear of being made responsible in criminal or civil actions before the courts or any other forum outside the Hall of Congress. However, parliamentary immunity does not protect him from responsibility before the legislative body whenever his words and conduct are considered disorderly or unbecoming of a member therein. Therefore, Osmeña’s petition is dismissed. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  PEOPLE VS. JALOSJOS FEBRUARY 3, 2000 university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  PEOPLE VS. JALOSJOS Romeo G. Jalosjos is a full-fledged member of Congress who was confined at the national penitentiary while his conviction for statutory rape on two counts and acts of lasciviousness on six counts is pending appeal. Jalosjos filed a motion asking that he be allowed to fully discharge his duties of a Congressman including attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings despite his having convicted in the first instance including of a non-bailable offense. Jalosjos argued that his re-election as the Congressman of the First District of Zamboanga del Norte embodies the sovereign will of his constituents who desire their voices to be represented. He emphasized his status as a bona fide member of the House of Representatives and urged that his mandate be respected by co-equal branches of government. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  PEOPLE VS. JALOSJOS RULING: Jaloslos is not entitled to attend the sessions in Congress. The immunity from arrest or detention of Senators or members of the House of Representatives arises from a provision of the Constitution and shows that this privilege has always been granted in a restrictive sense. It is true, that election is the expression of the sovereign power of the people. However, the rights and privileges from being elected as public official may be restricted by law. Privilege has to be granted by law, not inferred from the duties of a position, the higher the rank the greater the requirement of obedience rather that exemption. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  PEOPLE VS. JALOSJOS The members of Congress cannot compel absent members to attend sessions if the reason for the abuse is a legitimate one. The confinement of a Congressman with a crime punishable imprisonment by more than six (6) years is not merely authorized by law, has constitutional foundations. Allowing Jalosjos to attend in Congressional sessions and meetings for five (5) days in a week which will make him a free man with all the privileges and would make his status to that of a special class, it also would be a making of the purpose of the correction system. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  TRILLANES VS. PIMENTEL G.R NO. 179817, JUNE 21, 2008 university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  TRILLANES vs. PIMENTEL On July 27,2003, a group of more than 300 heavily armed soldiers led by junior officers of the AFP stormed into the Oakwood Premier Apartment in Makati City and publicly demanded the resignation of the President and key national officials. After a series of negotiations quelled the teeming tension and resolved the impasse, military soldiers surrender that evening. The event of oakwood incident petitioner Antonio F. Trillanes was charged with coup d' etat before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. Trillanes now asks the Court that he be allowed to attend all official functions of the Senate, alleging mainly that his case is distinct from that of Jalosjos as his (Trillanes) case is still pending resolution whereas that in the Jalosjos case, there was already conviction. The trial court denied all the requests in the Omnibus Motion. Thus, Trillanes filed petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court to set aside orders of the RTC. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  TRILLANES vs. PIMENTEL RULING: The determination that the evidence of guilt is strong, whether ascertained in a hearing of an application for bail or imported from a trial court's judgment of conviction, justifies the detention of an accused as a valid curtailment of his right to provisional liberty. This accentuates the proviso that the denial of the right to bail in such cases is "regardless of the stage of the criminal action.” Such justification for confinement applies equally to detention prisoners like Trillanes or convicted prisoners-appellants like Jalosjos. 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. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  FULL DISCLOSURE OF THEIR FINANCIAL BUSINESS INTEREST university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ART. VI, SECTION 12 All Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall, upon assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their financial and business interests. They shall notify the House concerned of a potential conflict of interest that may arise from the filing of a proposed legislation of which they are authors. Section 9. Divestment. - A public official or employee shall avoid conflicts of interest at all times. When a conflict of interest arises, he shall resign from his position in any private business enterprise within thirty (30) days from his assumption of office and/or divest himself of his shareholdings or interest within sixty (60) days from such assumption. The same rule shall apply where the public official or employee is a partner in a partnership. The requirement of divestment shall not apply to those who serve the Government in an honorary capacity nor to laborers and casual or temporary workers. (R.A. 6713 - Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  INCOMPATIBLE OFFICE AND FORBIDDEN OFFICE university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ART. VI, SECTION 13 No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  INCOMPATIBLE OFFICE VS. FORBIDDEN OFFICE INCOMPATIBLE OFFICE FORBIDDEN OFFICE university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  LIBAN VS. GORDON, G.R. No. 175352, July 15, 2009 university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  LIBAN VS. GORDON FACTS: Petitioners Dante V. Liban, et al. filed with the Supreme Court a Petition to Declare Richard J. Gordon as Having Forfeited His Seat in the Senate. Petitioners are officers of the Board of Directors of the Quezon City Red Cross Chapter while respondent is Chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) Board of Governors. During respondents incumbency as a member of the Senate of the Philippines, he was elected Chairman of the PNRC during the 23 February 2006 meeting of the PNRC Board of Governors. Petitioners allege that by accepting the chairmanship of the PNRC Board of Governors, respondent has ceased to be a member of the Senate as provided in Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution which provides that no Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat. Respondent insists that the PNRC is not a government-owned or controlled corporation and that the prohibition under Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution does not apply in the present case since volunteer service to the PNRC is neither an office nor an employment. ISSUES: 1. Whether the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) is a government-owned or controlled corporation? 2. Whether respondent should be automatically removed as a Senator pursuant to Section 13, Article VI of the Philippine Constitution? university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  LIBAN VS. GORDON RULING: 1. No, PNRC is a private organization performing public functions.Thus, PNRC is a non-profit, donor-funded, voluntary, humanitarian organization, whose mission is to bring timely, effective, and compassionate humanitarian assistance for the most vulnerable without consideration of nationality, race, religion, gender, social status, or political affiliation. The Republic of the Philippines, adhering to the Geneva Conventions, established the PNRC as a voluntary organization for the purpose contemplated in the Geneva Convention of 27 July 1929. The PNRC must not only be, but must also be seen to be, autonomous, neutral and independent in order to conduct its activities in accordance with the Fundamental Principles. The PNRC must not appear to be an instrument or agency that implements government policy; otherwise, it cannot merit the trust of all and cannot effectively carry out its mission as a National Red Cross Society. To ensure and maintain its autonomy, neutrality, and independence, the PNRC cannot be owned or controlled by the government. Indeed, the Philippine government does not own the PNRC. 2. No, the PNRC Chairman is not an official or employee of the Executive branch since his appointment does not fall under Section 16, Article VI of the Constitution. Certainly, the PNRC Chairman is not an official or employee of the Judiciary or Legislature. This leads us to the obvious conclusion that the PNRC Chairman is not an official or employee of the Philippine Government. Not being a government official or employee, the PNRC Chairman, as such, does not hold a government office or employment. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  INHIBITIONS AND DISQUALIFICATIONS university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ART. VI, SECTION 14 No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  INHIBITIONS AND DISQUALIFICATIONS university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  SPECIAL SESSION university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ART. VI, SECTION 15 The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July for its regular session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be in session for such number of days as it may determine until thirty days before the opening of its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. The President may call a special session at any time. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  1. ELECTION OF THE SENATE PRESIDENT AND SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE 2. QUORUM 3. DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS 4. JOURNAL 5. ADJOURNMENT university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ART. VI, SECTION 16 1. 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. 2. A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide. 3. Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  ART. VI, SECTION 16 4. Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national security; and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in the Journal. Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings. 5. Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  AVELINO VS. CUENCO, 83 Phil 17 university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  AVELINO VS. CUENCO FACTS: In a session of the Senate, Tanada’s request to deliver a speech in order to formulate charges against then Senate President Avelino was approved. With the leadership of the Senate President followed by his supporters, they deliberately tried to delay and prevent Tanada from delivering his speech. Before Senator Tañada could deliver his privilege speech to formulate charges against the incumbent Senate President, the petitioner (Senator Avelino), motu propio adjourned the session of the Senate and walked out with his followers. Senator Cabili requested to make the following incidents into a record: The deliberate abandonment of the Chair by the petitioner, made it incumbent upon Senate President Pro-tempore Arranz and the remaining members of the Senate to continue the session in order not to paralyze the functions of the Senate. Senate President Pro-tempore Arranz suggested that respondent Senator Mariano Cuenco be designated to preside over the session which suggestion was carried unanimously. The respondent, Senator Cuenco, thereupon took the Chair. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  AVELINO VS. CUENCO Gregorio Abad was appointed Acting Secretary upon motion of Senator Arranz, because the Assistant Secretary, who was then acting as Secretary, had followed the petitioner when the latter abandoned the session. Senator Tañada, after being recognized by the Chair, was then finally able to deliver his privilege speech. Thereafter Senator Sanidad read aloud the complete text of said Resolution (No. 68), and submitted his motion for approval thereof and the same was unanimously approved. The petitioners, Senator Jose Avelino, in a quo warranto proceeding, asked the court to declare him the rightful Senate President and oust the respondent, Mariano Cuenco, contending that the latter had not been validly elected because twelve members did not constitute a quorum – the majority required of the 24-member Senate. ISSUES: Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction on subject matter. Whether or not Resolutions 67 and 68 was validly approved. Whether or not the petitioner be granted to declare him the rightful President of the Philippines Senate and oust respondent. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  AVELINO VS. CUENCO RULING: (1) The Supreme Court held that they cannot take cognizance of the case. The court will be against the doctrine of separation of powers. In view of the separation of powers, 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. The Court will not interfere in this case because 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. 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. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  AVELINO VS. CUENCO RULING: (2) Supposing the Court has jurisdiction, there is unanimity in the view that the session under Senator Arranz was a continuation of the morning session and that a minority of ten senators may not, by leaving the Hall, prevent the other twelve senators from passing a resolution that met with their unanimous endorsement. Justice Paras, Feria, Pablo and Bengzon say there was the majority required by the Constitution for the transaction of the business of the Senate, because, firstly, the minute say so, secondly, because at the beginning of such session there were at least fourteen senators including Senators Pendatun and Lopez, and thirdly because in view of the absence from the country of Senator Tomas Confesor, twelve senators constitute a majority of the Senate of twenty-three senators. When the Constitution declares that a majority of “each House” shall constitute a quorum, “the House: does not mean “all” the members. Even a majority of all the members constitute “the House”. There is a difference between a majority of “the House”, the latter requiring less number than the first. Therefore an absolute majority (12) of all the members of the Senate less one (23), constitutes constitutional majority of the Senate for the purpose of a quorum. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  AVELINO VS. CUENCO (3) Should the petitioner be granted to declare him the rightful President of the Senate and oust respondent? The Supreme Court adopts a hands-off policy on this matter. The Court found it injudicious to declare the petitioner as the rightful President of the Senate, since the office depends exclusively upon the will of the majority of the senators, the rule of the Senate about tenure of the President of that body being amenable at any time by that majority. At any session hereafter held with thirteen or more senators, in order to avoid all controversy arising from the divergence of opinion here about quorum and for the benefit of all concerned, the said twelve senators who approved the resolutions herein involved could ratify all their acts and thereby place them beyond the shadow of a doubt. university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law  THANK YOU! university of san jose-recoletos constitutional law