I.

THE LEGISLATIVE
A. NATURE OF LEGISLATIVE POWER
Section 1, Article VI, 1987 Constitution
“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 the initiative and referendum.”
- The Philippine Congress is a bicameral legislature composed of two chambers – the Senate and the House of
Representatives
- Plenary grant of legislative power – the Congress alone can make laws and Congress may not delegate its laws
making power
- The holders of legislative power:
 People – thru RA 6735
 Congress – plenary grant
 President – in emergency

1. NON-DELEGABILITY OF LEGISLATIVE POWER

3 distinct ideas why the legislative power cannot be delegated:
1. Doctrine of Separation of Powers
2. Concept of Due Process of Law – precludes the transfer of regulatory functions to private persons
3. Delegata potestas non potest delegari – “what is delegated cannot be delegated”
EXCEPTIONS:
1. People’s Initiatives
 Power to congress is not exclusive in the 1987 Constitution
 “Except to the extent reserve by the people by the provision on initiative and referendum”
 The people have reserved to themselves the authority to correct legislative mistakes or to
supplement legislative inadequacies whether on national level or on the local level of legislation
 RA 6735 = the power of people to directly “propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or
part thereof passed by Congress or local legislative body
 Purpose of Initiative and Referendum is to institutionalize “people power”
2. Emergency Powers
 Section 23(2), Article VI, 1987 Constitution
“(2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a
limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper
to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers
shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.”
 Gives the president “powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy”
3. Tariff Powers
 Section 28(2), Article VI, 1987 Constitution
“(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such
limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage
dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the
Government.”
 Authorizes the Congress to delegate the power to fix tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage
and wharfage dues, and other duties and imposts

2. EMERGENCY POWERS
1. Martial Law and suspension of Habeas Corpus
2. Tariff Powers – being in vote by Congress [Section 23(2), Article VI]
3. Additional/Reiterated Powers – given to the President for a limited period of time = what we have in SQ
 given to the President to address the Corona Virus Pandemic

BAYANIHAN ACT 2 – additional authority to combat the COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines
- Congress authorized the President to realign the budget (unconstitutional because there’s a law that prevents
the Congress from enacting laws that allows the president to realign the budget)
 Regardless of the emergency, we cannot use the law on the pretext of addressing an emergency to
circumvent constitutional provisions
 RA 11332
 The President can ensure the availability of funds
 Laws on emergency procurement
- Good for only 3 months, unless Congress extends it
 - Invokes 2 separate powers of the President (Additional/Reiterated Powers and Takeover Powers)
 Takeover powers
 Limited to medical facilities and transportation
- Can the President direct the trade and industries secretary to compel manufacturing companies to produce
medical equipment?
 NO because the takeover powers are limited to medical facilities and transportation
- Can the President compel the Bureau of Customs to facilitate the entry of medical imported equipment?
 YES. You do not need an emergency power to do that
 The President has control of the Bureau of Customs
- Penal Provisions on the Spread of Fake Information
 No direct responsibility to a specific agency to determine false information that creates chaos
- Impact on LGUs
 Autonomy of LGUs is as so far congress allows it to be with
 There are already laws that limit the powers of LGUs when it comes to health emergencies
- Submit a report every Monday of the week to the oversight
 We have a right to know how the money is being spent
 The office of the President will submit a report every Monday to the oversight committee of
Congress how the billions of pesos in public funds where they went and how they were spent

Administrative Bodies
- Authorized agencies to exercise vast regulatory powers
- justified by 2 theories:
1. Non-Legislative body may fill up the details of a statute – congress may delegate to others powers which
the legislature may rightfully exercise itself
2. Congress may pass contingent legislation – legislation which leaves to another body the business of
ascertaining the facts necessary to bring the law into actual operations
- The function performed by the administrative agency is not law-making but law-executing
- To ensure that the power delegated by the legislature is not law-making powers:
a. The statute must be complete in itself
b. Fix a standard – the limits of which are sufficiently determinable or determinable – to which the
delegate must conform in the performance of his function

B. COMPOSITION AND QUALIFICATION

Section 2, Article VI, 1987 Constitution
“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”
- Commissioner Davide suggested that the small number suggested superior quality—number higher that 24
would dilute the quality of the senate
- “As may provided by law” = reference to the mechanics for electing the Senators at large and not the number of
Senators
- “At large” = senatorial candidates submit themselves to a vote of the entire national electorate

Section 3, Article VI, 1987 Constitution

“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.”
- Qualification for Senators:
1. The residence requirement is satisfied if one is domiciled in the Philippines even if not physically present
during the 2-year period
2. Age qualification must be possessed on the day of the election, not on the day of proclamation

Section 4, Article VI, 1987 Constitution

“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.”
- The term of Senators = staggering of terms
- Term commences at 30th of June following their election
- On possibility of re-election: a 6-year term with one intermediate re-election (no senator shall serve for more
than 2 consecutive terms)
 - Does the limitation on number of elections mean than a Senator who served 2 consecutive terms must wait for
6 years before he can run again? – NO, a senator can run again 3 years after the expiration of his second term
- Senatorial elections take place every after 3 years and are all elected for a 6-year term

Section 5, Article VI, 1987 Constitution

“(1) 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 party-list system of registered
national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

(4) Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative
districts based on the standards provided in this section.”
- Composition of the House of Representatives:
 District Representatives (243)
 “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” = concept of equality of representation
 Apportionment
1. Section 5 (1) – rules for dividing provinces and cities
2. Section 5 (3) – to avoid “gerrymandering” (gerrymandering – creation of representative
districts out of separate portions in favor of one candidate)
 A province is entitled to 1 representative no matter its population size
3. Section 5 (4) – intended to allow for correction of imbalances in population due to rise
and movements of population
 Only Congress can create provinces and cities necessarily includes the creation
of legislative districts
 Sectoral/Party-list Representatives (61)
 Commissioner Monsod: Sectoral and Party-List are not synonymous
 Sectoral representation = representing the minorities/marginalized
 Desire to give the reserved seats was born of the recognition of the inability of the
disadvantaged sectors to compete in political process
 Commission approved a compromise: one-half of the seats allocated to party-list
representatives will be reserved for sectoral representatives who will be chosen “as
provided by law”
- Summary of Section 5:
 Section 5 provides 2 regimes:
1. Temporary regime of sectoral representatives
 Answer to the recognized disadvantaged and marginalized sectors
 Within a period of 3 congressional terms, they should prepare to compete in a system of
proportional representation that would treat parties/organization on the same level
2. Proportional representation regime (permanent party-list)

Section 6, Article VI, 1987 Constitution

“No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and,
on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list
representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not
less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.”
- Qualification of District and Party-list Representatives:
 District Representative
 Must be natural-born citizen of the Philippines
  Registered voter in a district in which he shall be elected immediately preceding the election
 Resident of the district for a period of not less than 1 year
 Difference between the qualifications of district-representatives and party-list representatives
 Party-list rep doesn’t represent a district = need not have resided in a single district for at least
one year immediately preceding the election
 Section 9, RA 7941
“Section 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. No person shall be nominated as party-list
representative unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident
of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the
election, able to read and write, a bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks
to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and is at least
twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election.
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than
thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains
the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration of
his term.”
 Sectoral Representative
 Same qualifications as party-list representative
- “Natural-born”
 Those citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
Philippine citizenship
 Section 1 (3), Article IV: “those who are born before January 23, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect
Philippine citizenship among age of majority”
- Domicile v. Residence
 Residence = a place of abode, whether temporary or permanent
 Domicile = permanent residence to which one, when absent, has intention to return
 Residence is not necessarily domicile; but domicile is necessarily resident
 The Constitution uses the word “resident”
 Qualification of residence = to exclude a stranger or newcomer, unacquainted with the condition and
needs of a community, from an elective office to serve that community
- 3 requisites to acquire a new domicile:
1) Residence or bodily presence in a new locality
2) Intention to remain there
3) Intention to abandon the old domicile

Section 7, Article VI, 1987 Constitution

“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.”
- Term of Representatives
 3 years; “No Member of the House of Representatives shall serve for more than 3 consecutive terms”
 If one representative is elected to serve the unexpired term of another – no matter how short,
will be considered one term (for the purpose of counting the number of successive terms
allowed)

CITIZENSHIP
LLAMANZARES V. COMELEC and ELAMPARO [G.R. 221697]
FACTS
ANTECEDENT FACTS (ABOUT PETITIONER)
- September 03, 1968: found in Edgardo Militar in the Parish Church of Jaro
- September 06, 1968: the petitioner was given the name “Mary Grace Natividad Contreras Militar
- May 13, 1974: spouses Ronald Allan Kelley Poe (a.k.a. Fenando Poe, Jr.) and Jesusa Sonora Poe (a.k.a. Susan
Roces), Municipal Trial Court of San Juan City granted their petition to adopt Grace Poe
 The court ordered the name to be changed to “Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe”
- May 04, 2006: OCR-Iloilo issued a new Certificate of Live Birth in the name of Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe.
- December 13, 1986: Registered voter at San Juan City
- April 4, 1988: DFA issued petitioner a passport (being renewed every 5 years: 1993, 1998)
- 1991: graduated from Boston College (BS Political Science)
- July 27, 1991: Married to dual citizen (Philippines and the US) Teodoro Misael Daniel V. Llamanzares
 - July 29, 1991: couple flew back to US
- October 18, 2001: petitioner became a naturalized American citizen. Obtained US Passport
- April 8, 2004: petitioner came back to the PH to support her father’s candidacy
- December 13, 2004 – February 3, 2005: petitioner stay in the Philippines due to her father’s medical condition,
and eventually death
- May 24, 2005: settled back to the Philippines
 Secured a tax identification
- March 2006: abandonment of petitioner’s US address
- 2006: petitioner’s husband acquired a 509-square meter lot in Corinthian Hills, Quezon City where they built
their family home and to this day, is where the couple and their children have been residing
- July 07, 2006: petitioner took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to Republic Act
No. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003
- July 18, 2006: Bureau of Immigration declared that petitioner is deemed to have reacquired her Philippine
citizenship while her children are considered as citizens of the Philippines
- August 31, 2006: re-registered as voter of Barangay Santa Lucia, San Juan City & secured a Philippine Passport
- October 2010: when petitioner was appointed as MTRCB chairperson, petitioner stopped using her American
Passport
- December 09, 2011: petitioner was issued a "Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the United States"
- October 02, 2012: petitioner her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Senator for the 2013 Elections wherein she
answered "6 years and 6 months" to the question "Period of residence in the Philippines before May 13, 2013
- October 15, 2015: petitioner filed her COC for the Presidency for the May 2016 Elections. In her COC, the
petitioner declared that she is a natural-born citizen and that her residence in the Philippines up to the day
before May 09, 2016 would be ten (10) years and eleven (11) months counted from 24 May 2005.
- Petitioner's filing of her COC for President in the upcoming elections triggered the filing of several COMELEC
cases against her which were the subject of these consolidated cases.
Respondents:
- On the issue of citizenship: respondents argue that petitioner cannot be considered as a natural-born Filipino on
account of the fact that she was a foundling.
 claimed that international law does not confer natural-born status and Filipino citizenship on foundlings
 even assuming arguendo that petitioner was a natural-born Filipino, she is deemed to have lost that
status when she became a naturalized American citizen
 according to Elamparo, natural-born citizenship must be continuous from birth
- On the matter of petitioner's residency: respondents argue that petitioner fell short of the ten-year residency
requirement of the Constitution as her residence could only be counted at the earliest from July 2006, when she
reacquired Philippine citizenship under the said Act.
 on the assumption that petitioner is qualified to reacquire lost Philippine Citizenship, Elamparo believes
that petitioner failed to reestablish her domicile in the Philippines
Petitioner:
Petitioner seasonably filed her Answer wherein she countered that:
1. the COMELEC did not have jurisdiction over Elamparo's petition as it was actually a petition for quo warranto
which could only be filed if Grace Poe wins in the Presidential elections, and that the Department of Justice
(DOJ) has primary jurisdiction to revoke the BI's July 18, 2006 Order;

2. the petition failed to state a cause of action because it did not contain allegations which, if hypothetically
admitted, would make false the statement in her COC that she is a natural-born Filipino citizen nor was there
any allegation that there was a willful or deliberate intent to misrepresent on her part;

3. she did not make any material misrepresentation in the COC regarding her citizenship and residency
qualifications for:
a. the 1934 Constitutional Convention deliberations show that foundlings were considered citizens;
b. foundlings are presumed under international law to have been born of citizens of the place where they
are found;
c. she reacquired her natural-born Philippine citizenship under the provisions of R.A. No. 9225;
d. she executed a sworn renunciation of her American citizenship prior to the filing of her COC for
President in the May 9, 2016 Elections and that the same is in full force and effect and has not been
withdrawn or recanted;
e. the burden was on Elamparo in proving that she did not possess natural-born status;
f. residence is a matter of evidence and that she reestablished her domicile in the Philippines as early as
May 24, 2005;
 g. she could reestablish residence even before she reacquired natural-born citizenship under R.A. No.
9225;
h. statement regarding the period of residence in her 2012 COC for Senator was an honest mistake, not
binding and should give way to evidence on her true date of reacquisition of domicile;
i. Elamparo's petition is merely an action to usurp the sovereign right of the Filipino people to decide a
purely political question, that is, should she serve as the country's next leader.
Petitioner (Grace Poe) filed a motion for reconsideration seeking a reversal of the COMELEC First Division's Resolution:
- WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to GRANT the Petitions
and CANCEL the Certificate of Candidacy of MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD SONORA POE-LLAMANZARES for the
elective position of President of the Republic of the Philippines in connection with the 9 May 2016 Synchronized
Local and National Elections.
ISSUES and DECISION
1. Whether or not Mary Grace Poe-Llamanzares is a Filipino citizen and if she is qualified to run for presidency
- At the outset, it must be noted that presumptions regarding paternity is neither unknown nor unaccepted in
Philippine Law.
- There is more than sufficient evidence that petitioner has Filipino parents and is therefore a natural-born
Filipino.
- Parenthetically, the burden of proof was on private respondents to show that petitioner is not a Filipino citizen.
 The private respondents should have shown that both of petitioner's parents were aliens.
 The admission that petitioner is a foundling did not shift the burden to her because such status did not
exclude the possibility that her parents were Filipinos
 Petitioner offered official statistics from PSA noting that any child born in the Philippines during
the decade of her birth (1960-1970) is 99.83%
 Other circumstantial evidence: She also has typical Filipino features––height, flat nasal bridge,
straight black hair, almond shaped eyes and an oval face
 Common sense: foreigners do not come to the Philippines so they can get pregnant and leave
their newborn babies behind
- Foundling
 When there’s silence and ambiguity in the enumeration with respect to foundlings, there is a need to
examine the intent of the framers:
 the constitutional silence is fully explained in terms of linguistic efficiency and the avoidance of
redundancy. The policy is clear: it is to recognize foundlings, as a class, as Filipinos under Art.
IV, Section 1 (3) of the 1935 Constitution (“those who are born before January 23, 1973, of
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship among age of majority”)
 The Solicitor General makes the further point that the framers "worked to create a just and
humane society," that "they were reasonable patriots and that it would be unfair to impute
upon them a discriminatory intent against foundlings." = We find no such intent or language
permitting discrimination against foundlings.
 Foundlings are likewise citizens under international law. Under the 1987 Constitution, an
international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law either by transformation or
incorporation

Doctrine of Transformation Doctrine of Incorporation

requires that an international law be generally accepted principles of international
transformed into a domestic law through a law, by virtue of the incorporation clause of
constitutional mechanism such as local the Constitution, form part of the laws of the
legislation land even if they do not derive from treaty
obligations
 Petitioner's evidence shows that at least sixty countries in Asia, North and South America, and
Europe have passed legislation recognizing foundlings as its citizen.
- COMELEC’s ruling – that petitioner's repatriation in July 2006 under the provisions of R.A. No. 9225 did not
result in the reacquisition of natural-born citizenship.
 Bengson III v. HRET, this Court pointed out that there are only two types of citizens under the 1987
Constitution: natural-born citizen and naturalized, and that there is no third category for repatriated
citizens:
1) Those who are natural-born
2) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
 A citizen who is not a naturalized Filipino, i.e., did not have to undergo the process of naturalization to
obtain Philippine citizenship, necessarily is a natural-born Filipino.
 Noteworthy is the absence in said enumeration of a separate category for persons who, after losing
Philippine citizenship, subsequently reacquire it.
  The reason therefor is clear: as to such persons, they would either be natural-born or
naturalized depending on the reasons for the loss of their citizenship and the mode prescribed
by the applicable law for the reacquisition thereof.
 The COMELEC cannot reverse a judicial precedent = The whole process undertaken by COMELEC
is wrapped in grave abuse of discretion
- HELD: Mary Grace Poe-Llamanzares has found to be a natural-born citizen and is declared to be qualified to
run for presidency

RESIDENCY
ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS V. COMELEC and MONTEJO [G.R. 119976]
FACTS
- March 8, 1995: Mrs. Marcos filed her COC for the position of Representative of First District of Leyte
- March 23, 1995: private respondent Montejo, incumbent Representative and a candidate for the same position,
filed a petition of cancellation and disqualification with COMELEC alleging that the petitioner did not meet the
constitutional requirement for residency
- March 29, 2995: petitioner filed a corrected COC changing the entry of “7 months” to “since childhood”
- Petitioner averred to COMELEC head office that the word “seven” was an honest misinterpretation which she
sought to rectify by adding the words “since childhood” in her amended COC, noting that she has always
maintained Tacloban City as her domicile or residence
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
1. the validity of amending the original Certificate of Candidacy after the lapse of the deadline for filing
certificates of candidacy
 “Honest mistake” = devoid of merit
 To allow respondent to change the seven (7) month period of her residency in order to prolong it by
claiming it was "since childhood" is to allow an untruthfulness to be committed before this Commission.
 Based on these reasons the Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy cannot be admitted by this
Commission
2. petitioner's compliance with the one-year residency requirement
 In election cases, the term "residence" has always been considered as synonymous with "domicile"
which imports not only the intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in-that place
 Domicile denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business or pleasure, or for like
reasons, one intends to return
 3 requisites to acquire a new domicile:
1) Residence or bodily presence in a new locality
2) Intention to remain there
3) Intention to abandon the old domicile
 When respondent chose to stay in Ilocos and later on in Manila, coupled with her intention to stay there
by registering as a voter there and expressly declaring that she is a resident of that place, she is deemed
to have abandoned Tacloban City, where she spent her childhood and school days, as her place of
domicile
ISSUES and DECISION
I. Whether or not Imelda Romualdez-Marcos is a resident of the First District of Leyte and if the petitioner has had the
residency requirement therein
- Domicile = permanent home; a place to which whenever absent for business or for pleasure, one intends to
return, and depends on facts and circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent
 includes twin concept: (1) the fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place" and (2) intention of
returning there permanently
- Residence = physical presence of a person in a given area, community or country
- Difference Residence v. Domicile
 Domicile = intent to return
 Residence = intent to leave as soon as his purpose is established
- Precedent cases
 Fayon v Quirino
 the mere absence of an individual from his permanent residence without the intention to
abandon it does not result in a loss or change of domicile
 Co v Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives:
 The Court concluded that the framers of the 1987 Constitution obviously adhered to the
definition given to the term residence in election law, regarding it as having the same meaning
as domicile
- FACTS ESTABLISHED ABOUT PETITIONER’S DOMICILE:
  She graduated high school in Holy Infant Academy
 She graduated college in St. Paul College (now Divine World University of Tacloban)
 Taught in Leyte Chinese School
 1952: went to Manila to work with her cousin
 1954: Married Ferdinand Marcos
 1959: spouses Marcos lived in San Juan, Rizal where she registered a voter
 1965: lived in Malacanang Palace and registered a voter in San Miguel, Manila
 1986: Hawaii
 1991: came back to Manila
 1992: ran for President and filed her SOC wherein she indicated she is a resident and registered voter of
San Juan, Metro Manila
- Petitioner’s various residences for different purposes during the last 4 decades = none of these purposes
unequivocally point to an intention to abandon her domicile of origin in Tacloban, Leyte
- 3 requisites to successfully change domicile:
1) An actual removal or an actual change of domicile;
2) A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one; and
3) Acts which correspond with the purpose.
In the absence of clear and positive proof based on these criteria, the residence of origin should be deemed to
continue
- Article 110 of the Civil Code well delineated the use of “residence”
 In the Civil Code, there is an obvious difference between domicile and residence. Both terms imply
relations between a person and a place; but in residence, the relation is one of fact while in domicile it is
legal or juridical, independent of the necessity of physical presence.
 Residence is acquired by living in place
 Domicile can exist without actually living in the place
- The essential distinction between residence and domicile in law is that residence involves the intent to leave
when the purpose for which the resident has taken up his abode ends. One may seek a place for purposes such
as pleasure, business, or health. If a person's intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his intent is to
leave as soon as his purpose is established it is residence.
- In the light of all the principles relating to residence and domicile enunciated by this court up to this point, we
are persuaded that the facts established by the parties weigh heavily in favor of a conclusion supporting
petitioner's claim of legal residence or domicile in the First District of Leyte.
HELD: In the light of all the principles relating to residence and domicile enunciated by this court up to this point, we are
persuaded that the facts established by the parties weigh heavily in favor of a conclusion supporting petitioner's claim
of legal residence or domicile in the First District of Leyte

AQUINO V. COMELEC [G.R. 120265]

FACTS
- March 25, 1995: Aquino filed his COC for the position of Representative for the Second Legislative District of
Makati
 Residency: 10 moths
- April 24, 1995: Move Makati (polpar), Mateo Bedon, and Chairman of LAKAS-NUCDUMP filed a petition to
disqualify Aquino on the ground that the latter lacked the residence qualification
- April 25, 1995: petitioner amended his COC. This time, petitioner stated in Item 8 of his certificate that he had
resided in the constituency where he sought to be elected for 1 year and days
- May 6, 1995: COMELEC’s SECOND DIVISION:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Commission (Second Division) RESOLVES to DISMISS the
instant: petition for Disqualification against respondent AGAPITO AQUINO and declares him ELIGIBLE to
run for the Office of Representative in the Second Legislative District of Makati City.
- May 8, 1995: petitioner garnered 38k votes
- May 10, 1995: respondents filed an urgent motion to suspend the proclamation of petitioner
- May 15, 1995: COMELEC en banc issued an Order suspending petitioner's proclamation
- June 2, 1995: COMLEC reversed the May 6 ruling – making petitioner ineligible thus disqualified as a candidate
for the Office of Representative of the Second Legislative District of Makati City in the May 8, 1995 elections, for
lack of the constitutional qualification of residence
Aquino filed a petition for Certiorari assailing the orders dated May 15, 1995 and June 2, 1995, as well as the resolution
dated June 2, 1995 issued by the COMELEC en banc. Petitioner's raises the following errors for consideration, to wit:

ISSUES and DECISION

Whether “residency” in the certificate of candidacy actually connotes “domicile” to warrant the disqualification of
Aquino from the position in the electoral district
The framers of the Constitution adhered to the earlier definition given to the word "residence" which regarded it as
having the same meaning as domicile.
- the 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, i.e., his domicile, is that to which the
Constitution refers when it speaks of residence for the purposes of election law.

- As found by the COMELEC, the petitioner in his Certificate of Candidacy for the May 11, 1992 elections, indicated
not only that he was a resident of San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac in 1992 and that he was a resident of the same
for 52 years immediately preceding that election
- His birth certificate places Concepcion, Tarlac as the birthplace of both of his parents Benigno and Aurora.
- From data furnished by petitioner himself to the COMELEC at various times during his political career, 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.
 Petitioner’s assertion that he has transferred his domicile from Tarlac to Makati is a bare assertion which
is hardly supported by the facts in the case at bench
- 3 requisites to successfully change domicile:
1) An actual removal or an actual change of domicile;
2) A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one; and
3) Acts which correspond with the purpose.
- In the absence of clear and positive proof based on these criteria, the residence of origin should be deemed to
continue
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. Our Order restraining respondent
COMELEC from proclaiming the candidate garnering the next highest number of votes in the congressional elections for
the Second District of Makati City is made PERMANENT.

C. POWERS
1. GENERAL PLENARY POWER
Section 1, Article VI, 1987 Constitution
“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 the initiative and referendum.”
- Plenary grant of legislative power – the Congress alone can make laws and Congress may not delegate its laws
making power
- Plenary – composed of ALL members of the house
- Bill (“Panukalang Batas”) – proposed legislation
Section 26 (2), Article VI, 1987 Constitution
“No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed
copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the
President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last
reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter,
and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.”
Section 27 (1), Article VI, 1987 Constitution
“Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same,
he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House where it originated,
which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-
thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the
other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it
shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the
Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the
House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if he
had signed it.”
HOW A BILL BECOMES A LAW
1. A bill may be introduced in the House of Representatives or the Senate. A bill must relate to only one subject
matter which must be expressed in its title.
2. On FIRST READING, the title and number of the bill is read, and then, it is referred to the appropriate
committee.
3. A committee studies the bill and conducts hearings on it. Thereafter, a committee report is prepared on the bill.
A committee only prepares a report on a bill it decides to recommend for approval by the House. The
 committee report is read in open session, and together with the bill, it is referred to the Rules Committee. The
Rules Committee can place the bill in the Second Reading Calendar or in the Calendar of Unassigned Business.
4. On SECOND READING, a bill is subject to debate and amendment before being placed in the Third Reading
Calendar for final passage. A bill must undergo three (3) readings on three (3) separate days, except when the
President certifies a bill as urgent to meet a public calamity or national emergency.
5. After its passage by one house, the bill goes through the same process in the other house.
6. If amendments are made in one house, the other house must concur. If a house has a counterpart bill to a bill
passed by the other house, and these bills have conflicting provisions, a conference committee composed of
representatives of each house is formed to harmonize the conflicting provisions. Thereafter, if the conflicting
provisions are harmonized, a conference committee report is prepared for ratification or approval by both
houses.
7. When the bill is passed by both houses, it is signed by their respective leaders and sent to the President for
approval.
8. Once received by the Office of the President, the bill can take one of three routes:
 APPROVED. Once it is approved by the President, it becomes a Republic Act and takes effect after 15
days following the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general
circulation.
 VETOED. The bill is returned to the originating house with an explanation on why it was vetoed. The
house can either accept the veto, or override it with a 2/3 (majority) vote, after which it is essentially
approved, and takes effect after 15 days following the completion of its publication in the Official
Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation.
 LAPSED INTO LAW. A bill is said to have lapsed into law if the President fails to act on it within 30 days
after receiving the bill. It takes effect after 15 days following the completion of its publication in the
Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation.

2. ENROLL BILLED THEORY: JOURNAL V. ENROLLED BILL

Section 16(4), Article 6
“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.”
Journal
- Official act of the legislature
- Records of the daily proceedings of the Congress as kept by the office of its secretary
- Duty to keep a journal:
1. To ensure publicity to the proceedings of the legislature, and a correspondent responsibility of the
members
2. Provide proof of what is exactly transpired in the legislature
- Section 7, Article 3: The right of people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized…
Enrolled Bill
- Duly authenticated copy of a bill or resolution bearing the signature of the Speaker and of the Senate President
and the certification of the secretaries of both Houses and such bill was passed
Enrolled Bill Rule
- If there has been any mistake in the printing of the bill before it was certified by the officers of the Congress and
approved by the Executive without jeopardizing the principle of separation of powers and undermining in one of
the cornerstones of our democratic system, the remedy is by amendment/curative legislation, not by judicial
decree.
Conflict between Journal and Enrolled Bill
- The journals must yield to the enrolled bill
- The enrolled bill prevails in the event of discrepancy

3. LIMITATIONS
1. SUBSTANTIVE LIMITATIONS
a. Express limitations
Bill of Rights (e.g., Bill of rights against the enactment of Ex-post facto law – laws that
condemned or punishes an act committed before that specific law existed)
Bill of Attainder – a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed
punishment on them, without benefit of trial.
 On Constitutional appellate jurisdiction of SC (Appropriate for inclusion under the Judicial
department – to prevent further case load of the Supreme Court)
On Appropriations
On Taxation
No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted
b. Implied limitations
Congress cannot legislate irreplaceable laws
Congress cannot delegate legislative powers
Non-encroachment on powers of other departments (to avoid impairment of separation of
powers)
2. PROCEDURAL LIMITATIONS
a. Only one subject
to prevent logrolling
to prevent fraud
to fairly apprise the people

b. Three reading on separate days

to avoid half-baked legislations
c. Printed copies in its final form 3 days before the passage of the bill
Third reading itself is limited to yay and nay
Reviewed

FRANCHISE OF ABS-CBN CASE

FACTS
- ABS-CBN mainly argues that instead of issuing the CDO, the NTC should have allowed ABS-CBN to continue its
operations pending Congress' determination of whether or not to renew its legislative franchise based on the
bills already filed therefor. In this regard, ABS-CBN posits that "the plenary power of Congress to grant or renew
a franchise necessarily includes the corollary power to define and preserve rights and obligations pending its
final determination of the matter.
ISSUES
- whether or not the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) gravely abused its discretion in issuing the
assailed Cease and Desists Order (CDO) against ABS-CBN.
DECISION
- A legislative franchise is both a prerequisite and a continuing requirement for broadcasting entities to
broadcast their programs through television and radio stations in the country
- Should the Court grant the petition on the merits, the nullification of the CDO will be of no practical
consequence since based on our Constitution and laws, a legislative franchise is necessary for a broadcasting
entity to legally operate its radio and television stations. Thus, even if the CDO is annulled as prayed for, ABS-
CBN cannot altogether resume its broadcast operations through its radio and television stations because its
legislative franchise therefore bad already expired and that, considering the denial of the House Committee on
Legislative Franchises, has not been renewed.
- The congressional deliberations on pending bills are not equivalent and cannot take the place of a duly
enacted law, which requires the entire constitutional process for legislation to take its full course.
- While the Court understands the plight and concerns of ABS-CBN, its employees, and its supporters in general, it
wishes to emphasize that the act of granting or renewing legislative franchises is beyond the Court's power.
Congress has the sole authority to grant and renew legislative franchises for broadcasting entities, such as ABS-
CBN, to legally broadcast their programs through allocated frequencies for the purpose. As it presently stands,
the legislative branch of our government has yet to grant or renew ABS-CBN's legislative franchise, which
decision - whether fortunate or unfortunate - this Court must impartially respect, else it violates the
fundamental principle of separation of powers.
- WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to: (1) DROP the House of Representatives and the Senate of the Philippines as
parties to this case; and (2) DISMISS the petition on the ground of mootness.

4. APPROPRIATIONS
Section 29(1), Article 6
“No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.”
- Appropriation – statute that the primary and specific purpose of which is to authorize the release of public
funds from treasury
- General Appropriation – law passed annually intended to provide for the financial operations of the entire
government during 1 fiscal period (e.g., Mayor Vico Sotto’s P13B fund appropriation)
 - Special Appropriation – designed for specific purpose (e.g., Bayanihan Act, fund for the relief of typhoon
victims)

LIMITS TO APPROPRIATION (CRUZ)

1. Implied Limitations
 Essential to the validity of the appropriation to that it be devoted to a public purpose
 The sum authorized to be released must be determinate or at least determinable
2. Constitutional Limitations
 Appropriation bills should originate in the House of the Representatives
 Necessary in view of the many abuses committed in the past in the use of discretionary funds

LIMITS TO APPROPRIATION (BERNAS)

1. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application,
and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or
concur with amendments.
2. The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the
Government as specified in the budget.
3. The Congress may not clutter the general appropriation law with provisions not specifically related to some
particular item of appropriation, and every such provision shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation
item to which it relates.
 Prohibition of riders in appropriation bills = prohibition to provisions unrelated to the bill
4. Congress may not adopt a procedure for approving appropriations for itself different from the procedure for
other appropriations.
5. Special appropriation bills must specify the purpose for which they are intended and must be supported by
funds certified as available by the National Treasurer. If the funds are not actually available, the special
appropriation bill must provide a corresponding revenue proposal.
6. Congress has limited discretion to authorize transfer of funds.
 "No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, 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 Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in
the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective
appropriations."
7. Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be
supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by law.
8. Congress cannot cripple the operation of government by its failure or refusal to pass a general appropriations
bill. Section 25(7) provides for automatic re-enactment of the general appropriations law of the preceding fiscal
year. Such "reappropriation" remains in force until the new general appropriations law is approved.
9. Section 29(2) prohibits the expenditure of public money or property for religious purposes.
10. The general appropriation law must be based on the budget prepared by the President.

DEVOTED TO PUBLIC PURPOSE (BERNAS)

- The test of the constitutionality of a statute requiring the use of public funds is whether the statute is designed
to promote the public interest, as opposed to the furtherance of the advantage of individuals, although such
advantage to individuals might incidentally serve the public.
- E.g., Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works (SC ruled that the appropriation is void ab initio because the act was
private in nature)

BELGICA V OCHOA [G.R. 208566]

DEFINITION OF TERMS
Fund Realignment
- refers to variation/alteration of the original description of the project which may involve modification/ change in
scope of work/ location of the capital outlay projects under the General Appropriations Acts (GAA)
Discretionary Funds
- amount of money that is available to spend on things that are not considered necessary but that may be useful
Pork Barrel System
- collusion between the Legislative and Executive branches of government to accumulate lump-sum public funds
in their offices with unchecked discretionary powers to determine its distribution as political largesse
- Elements
a. lump-sum funds are allocated through the appropriations process to an individual officer;
b. the officer is given sole and broad discretion in determining how the funds will be used or expended;
 c. the guidelines on how to spend or use the funds in the appropriation are either vague, overbroad or
inexistent;
d. projects funded are intended to benefit a definite constituency in a particular part of the country and to
help the political careers of the disbursing official by yielding rich patronage benefits.
Congressional Pork Barrel (currently known as PDAF – Priority Development Assistance Fund)
- lump-sum, discretionary fund wherein legislators are able to effectively control certain aspects of the fund’s
utilization through various post-enactment measures and/or practices
Presidential Pork Barrel (currently known as Malampaya Funds)
- lump-sum, discretionary fund which allows the President to determine the manner of its utilization
PAGCOR – Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation
FACTS
- Spurred in large part by the findings contained in the CoA Report and the Napoles controversy, several petitions
were lodged before the Court similarly seeking that the "Pork Barrel System" be declared unconstitutional.
- BELGICA PETITION: petitioners pray to the Court, the foregoing respondents to release to COA and the public
a. complete schedule/list of legislators who have availed of their PDAF and VILP from the years 2003 to
2013, specifying the use of the funds, the project or activity and the recipient entities or individuals
b. the use of the Executive’s lump-sum, discretionary funds, including the proceeds from the Malampaya
Funds and remittances from the PAGCOR from 2003 to 2013
c. inclusion in budgetary deliberations with the Congress of all presently off-budget, lump-sum,
discretionary funds including, but not limited to, proceeds from the Malampaya Funds and remittances
from the PAGCOR.
ISSUES
1. Congressional Pork Barrel
Whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article and all other Congressional Pork Barrel Laws similar thereto are
unconstitutional considering that they violate the principles of constitutional provisions on (a) separation of
powers; (b) non-delegability of legislative power; (c) checks and balances; (d) accountability; (e) political
dynasties; and (f) local autonomy.
2. Presidential Pork Barrel
Whether or not the phrases (a) "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President"
under Section 8 of PD 910, relating to the Malampaya Funds, and (b) "to finance the priority infrastructure
development projects and to finance the restoration of damaged or destroyed facilities due to calamities, as
may be directed and authorized by the Office of the President of the Philippines" under Section 12 of PD 1869,
as amended by PD 1993, relating to the Presidential Social Fund, are unconstitutional insofar as they constitute
undue delegations of legislative power.
Congressional Pork Barrel
I. Separation of powers – there is a violation of the principle when there is impermissible (a) interference with and/or
(b) assumption of another department’s functions
a. Statement of Principles
 Any action or step beyond that will undermine the separation of powers guaranteed by the
Constitution
1) scrutiny based primarily on Congress’ power of appropriation and the budget hearings
conducted in connection with it, its power to ask heads of departments to appear before and be
heard by either of its Houses on any matter pertaining to their departments and its power of
confirmation
2) investigation and monitoring of the implementation of laws pursuant to the power of Congress
to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation
b. Application
 Fund release
the statutory authority of legislators to participate in the area of fund release through
congressional committees is contained in Special Provision 5 which explicitly states that "all
request for release of funds shall be supported by the documents prescribed under Special
Provision No. 1 and favorably endorsed by House Committee on Appropriations and the Senate
Committee on Finance, as the case may be.
 Realignment
paragraph 2, Special Provision 4 which explicitly states, among others, that "any realignment of
funds shall be submitted to the House Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee
on Finance for favorable endorsement to the DBM or the implementing agency, as the case may
be
paragraph 1, Special Provision 4 which authorizes the "Secretaries of Agriculture, Education,
Energy, Interior and Local Government, Labor and Employment, Public Works and Highways,
 Social Welfare and Development and Trade and Industry to approve realignment from one
project/scope to another within the allotment received from this Fund, subject to among others
(iii) the request is with the concurrence of the legislator concerned."
II. Non-delegability of Legislative Power
- In the cases at bar, the Court observes that the 2013 PDAF Article confers post-enactment stages of the budget
execution identification authority to individual legislators, violates the principle of non-delegability since said
legislators are effectively allowed to individually exercise the power of appropriation.
- Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice and Insular Auditor (Bengzon) held that the power to appropriate involves
setting apart by law of a certain sum from the public revenue for a specified purpose.
- Essentially, under the 2013 PDAF Article, individual legislators are given a personal lump-sum fund from which
they are able to dictate (a) how much from such fund would go to (b) a specific project or beneficiary that they
themselves also determine.
- Thus, keeping with the principle of non-delegability of legislative power, the Court hereby declares the 2013
PDAF Article, as well as all other forms of Congressional Pork Barrel which contain the similar legislative
identification feature as herein discussed, as unconstitutional.
Presidential Pork Barrel
- The Presidential pork barrel is valid. The main issue raised by Belgica et al against the presidential pork barrel is
that it is unconstitutional because it violates Sec 29 (1) Article VI of the Constitution which provides "No money
shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. The SC disagrees as it
ruled that PD 910 which created Malampaya Fund and PD 1869 which amended PAGCOR's Charter provided for
appropriation
DECISION
UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
a. the entire 2013 PDAF Article
b. all legal provisions of past and present Congressional Pork Barrel Laws, such as fund release and/or fund
realignment, unrelated to the power of congressional oversight
c. all legal provisions of past and present Congressional Pork Barrel Laws, which conferred personal, lump-sum
allocations to legislators from which they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves determine
d. all informal practices of similar import and effect, which the Court similarly deems to be acts of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
e. the phrases (1) "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the President" under Section 8 of
Presidential Decree No. 910 and (2) "to finance the priority infrastructure development projects" under Section
12 of Presidential Decree No. 1869, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1993, for both failing the sufficient
standard test in violation of the principle of non-delegability of legislative power.
CONSTITUTIONAL
Accordingly, the funds under the Malampaya Funds and the Presidential Social Fund shall remain therein to be utilized
for their respective special purposes not otherwise declared as unconstitutional.

5. PRESIDENT’S POWER TO CERTIFY THE BILL AS URGENT

- The President may certify that the immediate enactment of the proposed law is necessary to meet a public
calamity or emergency.
- Speed is obviously the overriding reason for such certification.
- A certification that the bill is urgent removes the requirement of separate days for the three readings (all three
approvals can be done on the same day), as well as the requirement of printing/distribution three days before
the passage of the bill.

6. LEGISLATION INVESTIGATION V QUESTION HOUR

Section 21, Article 6
“The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such
inquiries shall be respected.”
- Deals with the inherent power of legislative investigation in aid of legislation for which Congress or its
committees are authorized to summon witnesses
Legislative Investigation
- power of inquiry
- limitation in on the power of legislative investigation:
 it must be “in aid of legislation”
 it must be “in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure”
 The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected
“In aid of legislation”
 - The materiality of the question must be determined by its direct relation to the subject of the inquiry and not by
its direct relation to any proposed/possible legislation
- tools to enable the legislative body to gather information

Section 22, Article 6

“The heads of departments may upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of
either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter
pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of
the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited
to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the security of the State or the public interest so
requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session.”

- Deals with the delicate relationship to the official family of the President – heads of department
- The whole tenor of this provision is permissive: the department heads could appear but the legislature was not
obliged to entertain them; reciprocally, the legislature could request their appearance but could not oblige them
especially if the President objected
Question Hour (adopted from parliamentary)
- Instrument for keeping administration in line
- (1973 Constitution): “The PM, real executive, and Cabinet members could be required to appear and answer
questions and interpellations to give account of their stewardship.”
 Appearance of ministers = MANDATORY
- (1987 Constitution): “The heads of departments may upon their own initiative, with the consent of the
President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be
heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. When the security of the State or the public
interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive
session.”
 Question hour would NOT be mandatory but DIRECTORY
 Reason: To fully conform to a system of separation of powers
“Oversight function of Congress”
- Intended to enable Congress to determine how laws it passed are being implemented
- Department Heads are the alter ego of the President, they may not appear without the consent of the President
- Exemptions for summons only applied to Department heads and not to everyone who has Cabinet rank

SENATE V ERMITA [G.R. 169777]

FACTS
- Senate issued invitations to various officials of the Executive Department for them to appear on September 29,
2005, as resource speakers in a public hearing on the railway project of the North Luzon Railways Corporation
with the China National Machinery and Equipment Group (North Rail Project).
- Executive Secretary Ermita send a copy of E.O. 464, informing the Senate, “that officials of the Executive
Department invited to appear at the meeting will not be able to attend the same without the consent of the
President, pursuant to [E.O. 464].”
- E.O. 464. "Ensuring Observance of the Principle of Separation of Powers, Adherence to the Rule on Executive
Privilege and Respect for the Rights of Public Officials Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation
Under the Constitution, and For Other Purposes,"
ISSUE (Constitutionality of E.O. 464)
- Whether or not E.O. 464 in constitutional
 That this power of inquiry is broad enough to cover officials of the executive branch may be deduced
from the same case.
- “Executive privilege”
 right of the President and high-level executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress,
the courts, and ultimately the public
- Legislative Inquiry vs Question Hour
 question hour must be interpreted vis-à-vis Section 21 which provides for the power of either House of
Congress to "conduct inquiries in aid of legislation."
 Legislative Inquiry = it is actually a power of Congress in terms of its own lawmaking
 Question Hour = is not actually a power in terms of its own lawmaking power because in Legislative
Inquiry, it is in aid of legislation.
DECISION (Partly Granted)
- Congress undoubtedly has a right to information from the executive branch whenever it is sought in aid of
legislation. If the executive branch withholds such information on the ground that it is privileged, it must so
assert it and state the reason therefor and why it must be respected.
 - The infirm provisions of E.O. 464 allow the executive branch to evade congressional requests for information
without need of clearly asserting a right to do so and/or proffering its reasons therefor. By the mere expedient
of invoking said provisions, the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is frustrated. That is
impermissible.

GUDANI V SENGA [G.R. 170165]

Antecedents Facts
- petitioners were invited by Senator Biazon to attend before the Senate Committee on National Defense and
Security
- OPMG recommended that petitioners be charged with violation of Article of War 65, on willfully disobeying a
superior officer, in relation to Article of War 97, on conduct prejudicial to the good order and military
discipline.
FACTS
- Petitioners seek the annulment of a directive from President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo enjoining them and other
military officers from testifying before Congress without the President’s consent.
- Petitioners characterize the directive from President Arroyo requiring her prior approval before any AFP
personnel appear before Congress as a “gag order,” which violates the principle of separation of powers in
government as it interferes with the investigation of the Senate Committee conducted in aid of legislation.
ISSUE
- Whether or not the President has the authority to issue an order to the members of the AFP preventing them
from testifying before a legislative inquiry
DECISION
- the ability of the President to prevent military officers from testifying before Congress does not turn on
executive privilege, but on the Chief Executive’s power as commander-in-chief to control the actions and speech
of members of the armed forces.
- The Constitution vests the title “commander-in-chief” to the PRESIDENT – chain of command mandate that the
President’s ability to control the individual members of the armed forces be accorded the utmost respect.
 Where a military officer is torn between obeying the President and obeying the Senate, the Court will
without hesitation affirm that the officer has to choose the President. After all, the Constitution
prescribes that it is the President, and not the Senate, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed
forces.
- At the same time, the refusal of the President to allow members of the military to appear before Congress is still
subject to judicial relief—the legislative body seeking such testimony may seek judicial relief to compel the
attendance.
REASON
- The necessity of upholding the ability to restrain speech becomes even more imperative if the soldier desires to
speak freely on political matters. The Constitution requires that "the armed forces shall be insulated from
partisan politics," and that no member of the military shall engage directly or indirectly in any partisan political
activity, except to vote.

7. POWER TO CONCUR IN TREATIES

- The Constitution requires the concurrence of Congress to an amnesty and to a treaty
- Section 19, Article 7 – authorizes the President to grant amnesty with the concurrence of the majority is not the
membership of each House, it would appear, but the membership of the legislature as a whole.
- Section 21, Article 7 – “no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at
least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate”

TANADA V ANGARA [G.R. 118295]

FACTS
- To hasten worldwide recovery from the devastation wrought by the Second World War, plans for the
establishment of three multilateral institutions:
a. World Bank - address the rehabilitation and reconstruction of war-ravaged and later developing
countries;
b. International Monetary Fund - deal with currency problems
c. International Trade Organization - foster order and predictability in world trade and to minimize
unilateral protectionist policies that invite challenge, even retaliation, from other states (never flew)
- August 1994: the members of the Philippine Senate received a letter from the President, stating among others
that “the Uruguay Round Final Act, the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, the Ministerial
Declarations and Decisions, and the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services are hereby submitted
to the Senate for its concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of the Constitution.”
 - December 1994: “Resolved, as it is hereby resolved, that the Senate concur, as it hereby concurs, in the
ratification by the President of the Philippines of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.”
- World Trade Organization (WTO)
 Philippines joined WTO as a founding member with the goal of improving "Philippine access to foreign
markets, especially its major trading partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly
agricultural and industrial products."
- Petitioners argue that
1. that the WTO requires the Philippines "to place nationals and products of member-countries on the
same footing as Filipinos and local products"
2. that the WTO violates the mandate of the 1987 Constitution to "develop a self-reliant and independent
national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos to give preference to qualified Filipinos and to
promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods."
ISSUES AND DECISION
Do the provisions of the WTO agreement contravene Section 19, Article 2, and Sections 10 and 12, Article 12 of the
Philippine Constitution?
- Section 19, Article 2. “The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively
controlled by Filipinos.”
 Declaration of Principles Not Self-Executing, meaning a law should be passed by Congress to clearly
define and effectuate such principles.
- Section 10, Article 12. “The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation and operation of
enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos.
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall
give preference to qualified Filipinos”
- Section 12, Article 12. “The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and
locally produced goods, and adopt measures that help make them competitive.”
 merely laying down general principles relating to the national economy and patrimony, should be read
and understood in relation Sections 1 and 13.
 Issue: whether there are enough balancing provisions in the Constitution to allow the Senate to ratify
the Philippine concurrence in the WTO Agreement. And we hold that there are:
While the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and
enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the
world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only
against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair
The Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign
investments, goods and services in the development of the Philippine economy. While the
Constitution does not encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and investments
into the country, it does not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of
equality and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair.

Whether provisions of the Agreement Establishing the WTO unduly limit, restrict and impair Philippine sovereignty
specifically the legislative power which, under Sec. 2, Article 6, 1987 Philippine Constitution
- NO, the WTO agreement does not unduly limit, restrict, and impair the Philippine sovereignty, particularly the
legislative power granted by the Philippine Constitution. The Senate was acting in the proper manner when it
concurred with the President’s ratification of the agreement.
- In Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the Constitution “adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,
cooperation and amity, with all nations.” By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally
accepted principles of international law, which are considered to be automatically part of our own laws.
 A treaty engagement is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the
parties. A state which has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its legislations
such modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken
- By their inherent nature, treaties really limit/restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. By their voluntary act,
nations may surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for greater benefits granted by or derived
from a convention or pact.
- Treaties have been used to record agreements between States concerning such widely diverse matters as, for
example, the lease of naval bases, the sale or cession of territory, the termination of war, the regulation of
conduct of hostilities, the formation of alliances, the regulation of commercial relations, the settling of claims,
the laying down of rules governing conduct in peace and the establishment of international organizations. The
sovereignty of a state therefore cannot be considered absolute.
 - The WTO reliance on “most favored nation,” “national treatment,” and “trade without discrimination” cannot be
struck down as unconstitutional as they are rules of equality and reciprocity that apply to all WTO members.
Aside from envisioning a trade policy based on “equality and reciprocity,” the fundamental law encourages
industries that are “competitive in both domestic and foreign markets,” thereby demonstrating a clear policy
against a sheltered domestic trade environment, but one in favor of the gradual development of robust
industries that can compete with the best in the foreign markets. Indeed, Filipino managers and Filipino
enterprises have shown capability and tenacity to compete internationally. And given a free trade environment,
Filipino entrepreneurs and managers in Hongkong have demonstrated the Filipino capacity to grow and to
prosper against the best offered under a policy of laissez faire.

8. THE PRIVILEGE FROM ARREST AND PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY; REQUIREMENTS

POBRE V SANTIAGO [A.C. 7399]
FACTS
- Pobre wanted to impeach MDS because she badmouthed Chief Justice Panganiban.
- Santiago claims an unjust act of the Judicial Bar Council, which after sending out public invitations for
nomination to the soon-to-be vacated position of Chief Justice, would eventually inform applicants that only
incumbent justices of the Supreme Court would qualify for nomination. She felt that the JBC should have at least
given an advanced advisory that non-sitting members of the Court, like her, would not be considered for the
position of Chief Justice.
ISSUES
Whether or not there is a ground for Sen. Defensor-Santiago to be disbarred or subjected to disciplinary action by the
Court for her questioned speech
- Immunity Senator Santiago claims:
 Section 11, Article 6: "A Senator or Member of the House of Representative 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."
 Reason: it is indispensable that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech and that he should be
protected from resentment of every one, however powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may
occasion offense.
- Therefore, the plea of Senator Santiago for the dismissal of the complaint for disbarment or disciplinary action is
well taken.
PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
- Parliamentary immunity must not be allowed to be used as a vehicle to ridicule, demean, and destroy the
reputation of the Court and its magistrates, nor as armor for personal wrath and disgust. Authorities are agreed
that parliamentary immunity is not an individual privilege accorded the individual members of the Parliament
or Congress for their personal benefit, but rather a privilege for the benefit of the people and the institution
that represents them.
- Parliamentary non-accountability thus granted to members of Congress is not to protect them against
prosecutions for their own benefit, but to enable them, as the people’s representatives, to perform the
functions of their office without fear of being made responsible before the courts or other forums outside the
congressional hall.
DECISION
WHEREFORE, the letter-complaint of Antero J. Pobre against Senator/Atty. Miriam Defensor-Santiago is, conformably to
Art. VI, Sec. 11 of the Constitution, DISMISSED.

9. POWER TO IMPEACH
- ARTICLE 11 – ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
- Section 3, Article 11, 1987 Constitution:
 (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
 (3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a
favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee or override its contrary
resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded.
 (5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a
period of one year
 (6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.

FRANCISCO V HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES [G.R. 160261]

FACTS
 - In G.R. No. 160261, petitioner Atty. Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr., alleging that he has a duty as a member of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines to use all available legal remedies to stop an unconstitutional impeachment,
that the issues raised in his petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus are of transcendental importance,
and that he “himself was a victim of the capricious and arbitrary changes in the Rules of Procedure in
Impeachment Proceedings introduced by the 12th Congress”
ISSUES AND DECISION
1. House's "exclusive" power to initiate all cases of impeachment; Senate's "sole" power to try and decide all cases of
impeachment
- The framers intended "initiation" to start with the filing of the complaint.
 Commissioner Maambong explained that the initiation of impeachment proceedings starts with the
filing of the complaint, and the vote of one-third of the House in a resolution of impeachment does not
initiate the impeachment proceedings which was already initiated by the filing of a verified complaint
under Section 3, paragraph (2), Article XI of the Constitution
2. Whether or not the Court has the jurisdiction to determine the validity of the second impeachment complaint
pursuant to Article XI of the Constitution.
- Validity of the Second Impeachment Complaint
 Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing of the impeachment complaint and
referral to the House Committee on Justice, the meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear.
Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated in a foregoing manner, another may not be filed
against the same official within a one-year period following Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.
 In fine, considering that the first impeachment complaint, was filed by former President Estrada against
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., along with seven associate justices of this Court, on June 2, 2003, and
referred to the House Committee on Justice on August 5, 2003, the second impeachment complaint filed
by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William Fuentebella against the Chief Justice on
October 23, 2003, violates the constitutional prohibition against the initiation of impeachment
proceedings against the same impeachable officer within a one-year period.