1.

Tolentino vs COMELEC In a special election to fill a vacancy, the rule is that

there should that there should be a statute that expressly provides that an election
to fill a vacancy shall be held at the next general elections, fixes the date when the
special elections shall be held and shall operate as a call for that election. (EDO)
Consequently, an election held at the time is not invalidated by the fact that the
body charged by law with the duty of calling the election failed to do so. This is
because the right and duty to hold the election emanate from the statute and not
from any call for the election by some authority and the law charges voters with
knowledge of the time and place of the election.
2. PP vs Jalosjos
- Members of Congress are not exempt from detention for crime
- They may be arrested, even when the house is in session for crimes punishable by
a penalty of more than 6 months
- There is no basis whatsoever for treating him differently from other convicts
- Points: MPP (membership in Congress, public defense, creation of a privileged
class)
3. Pobre vs Santiago
- Privilege of speech is intended to leave the legislator unimpeded in the
performance of his duties and free from fear of harassment from outside
- The court upheld her defense of parliamentary immunity (privilege of speech and
debate) but added that Santiago undoubtedly has crossed the limits of decency and
good professional conduct
- Her statements were intemperate and highly improper in substance
4. Liban vs Gordon
- Liban has no standing to challenge Gordons occupation of his senatorial seat
- National Red Cross can neither be classified as an instrumentality of the
government (GOCC) nor a strictly private corporation as it is considered as an
auxiliary of the government given that it performs public functions
- Gordon was allowed to hold both offices
5. Puyat vs De Guzman
- A congressman buys a nominal amount of shares in a corporation which is party to
a suit before the Securities and Exchange Commission and then appears in
intervention. Should the intervention be allowed?
- HELD: A ruling upholding the intervention would make the constitutional provision
ineffective
- All a Congressman needs to do, if he wants to if he wants to influence an
administrative body, is to acquire a minimal participation in the interest of a client
and then intervene in the proceedings
- That which the Constitution directly prohibits may not be done by indirection or by
a general legislative act, which is intended to accomplish the objects specifically or
impliedly prohibited
6. Casco Philippine Chemical Corp vs Gimenez (Urea Dehyldride)
- HELD: Enrolled bill is the official copy of approved legislation and bears the
certification of the presiding officer of the legislative body

-The respect due to a co-equal department requires the courts to accept the
certification of the presiding officer of the legislative body as conclusive assurance
that the bill so certified is authentic
- In the instant case, urea dehyldride is the one exempt from tax and not the
ingredients
7. Astorga vs Villegas (repudiate signature)
- Q: If the presiding officer should repudiate his signature in the enrolled bill, will the
enrolled bill still prevail over the journal?
- A: The enrolled bill theory is based mainly on the respect due to a coequal
department
- When the coequal department itself repudiates the bill, then the Journal must be
accepted as conclusive (enrolled bill becomes ineffectual)
8. Morales vs Subido
- Q: if the enrolled bill conflicts with the journal on a matter required by the
Constitution to be entered in the journal, which should prevail?
- A: Journal (but SC has explicitly left this matter an open question in the case of
Morales vs Subido)
9. Angara vs Electoral Commission (Ynsua questions?) about election contest
- When there is an election contest, that is, when a defeated candidate challenges
the qualification and claims the seat of a proclaimed winner, the respective
electoral tribunal of each house is the sole judge and neither the SC nor each house
of Congress nor the COMELEC can interfere
- In the absence of an election contest, however, the ETs are without jurisdiction
- Thus, the power of each house to defer oath taking of members until final
determination of election contests filed against them has been returned by each
House
10. Limkaichong vs COMELEC
- F: When do we pass cases from COMELEC to ET?
- H: Once a winning candidate has been PTA (proclaimed, taken his oath, assumed
office) as a member of the HOR, COMELECs jurisdiction over election contests
relating to his election, returns and qualifications (ERQ) ends and the HRETs own
jurisdiction begins
11. Daza vs Singson (CA)
- F: Liberal Party LDP
- Q1: Does the situation present a political question?
- No. The question is justiciable. It is one of legality, not of wisdom.
- The ascertainment of the manner of forming the Commission on Appointments is
distinct from the discretion of the parties to designate their representatives
- Q2: Petitioner contends that the organization of LDP cannot affect the composition
of CA because LDP is not a registered party and has not yet shown the stability of a
party. Decide.
- The constitution does not require that the party must be a registered party
(though COMELEC affirmed that LDP is a registered party in the course of litigation)
- What the constitution requires is proportional representation of the parties (in both
houses of Congress)

- The sense of the Constitution that the membership in the CA must always reflect
political alignments in Congress (and must therefore adjust to changes)
- It is understood that such changes in party affiliation must be permanent and not
merely temporary alliances
12. Coseteng vs Mitra (KAIBA)
- F: KAIBA Coseteng sought appointment to CA as a minority rep. Is she entitled to
a seat under the rule of proportional representation ?
- H: No
- This is a justiciable question (as it involves the legality of the distribution of
seats/filling of seats in CA)
- Even if KAIBA were to be considered as an opposition party, its lone membership
represents only .4% of the house membership, and this does not entitle her to 1 of
the 12 seats
- The endorsement of the 9 members cannot also be counted because they are not
members of her party
13. Guingona vs Gonzales (.5 issue)
- The court ruled that rounding off 7.5 to 8 and .5 to 1 is unconstitutional because it
deprived LAKAS and NPC of .5 each
- The holders of.5 each, while belonging to distinct parties, can barely form a unity
of purposes of obtaining a seat in CA
- The result would be a total of only 11 members. The court ruled that a full
complement of 12 was not mandatory
14. Senate vs Ermita (PGMA- executive privilege)
- F: NRP (North Rail Project); Hello Garci case; EO 464 by PGMA (executive privilege)
- H: Court specified who may and who may not be summoned to Section 21
hearings.
- Thus, under this rule, even a department head who is an alter ego of the president
may be summoned
- Even the members and the chairman of PCGG (Philippine Commission on good
governance) are not exempt from summons in spite of the exemption given by Pres.
Aquino
- Other Issues/Questions:
- Q1: Is Sec 3 of EO 464 consitutional/valid?
- It is constitutional in part. (Then distinguish Section 21 vs Section 22 hearings;
power of inquiry in aid of legislation vs question hour)
- Q2: WON self-incrimination protects the petitioner from being questioned
- No. A testimony which is obviously false and evasive is equivalent to refusal to
testify and is punishable as contempt (assuming that a refusal to testify would be so
punishable)
-H2: A distinction has to be made between the power to conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation and the power to conduct a question hour
- In aid of legislation: aim is to elicit information (that may be used for legislation)
- Question Hour: aim to obtain information (in pursuit of Congress oversight
function)

-QH: When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how department heads are
implementing statutes which it has issued, its right to such information is not as
imperative as that of the President to whom as Chief Executive, the department
heads must give a report of their performance as a matter of duty.
-In such instances, Art 6 in keeping with the doctrine of separation of powers, states
that Congress may only request the appearance of department heads, who may
appear with the consent of the President
- EO 464 in this case is constitutional
-In aid of legislation: When the inquiry in which Congress requires the appearance is
in aid of legislation, the appearance is mandatory. When Congress exercises its
power of inquiry, the only way for department heads to exempt themselves
therefrom is by a valid claim of executive privilege
- They are not exempt from the mere fact that they are department heads
- Only one executive official may be exempt from such power of legislative inquiry in
aid of legislation, the President on whom executive power is vested
-Hence, beyond the reach of Congress, except during the power of impeachment
15. Sabio vs Gordon
- Court ruled that everyone may be summoned except the president and justices of
the SC
- Nor a court may prevent a witness from appearing in such hearing
16. Garcillano vs House of Reps
- F: publication requirement of rules of procedure?
- H: Section 21 of Constitution explicitly provides that Senate or HOR or any of its
respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation (in accordance
with its published rules of procedure)
- Points: Due process, height of injustice, article 2 of CC, organic law (DHAO)
- The requisite of publication of the rules is intended to satisfy the basic
requirements of due process
- Publication is indeed imperative, for it will be the height of injustice to punish or
otherwise burden citizen a citizen for a transgression of a law or rule of which he
had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one
- Cite Art 22, CC
- The absence of any amendment to the rules published years ago cannot justify the
Senates defiance of the clear and unambiguous language of Sec 21, Art 6 of the
Constitution
- The organic law instructs that the Senate or its committees may conduct inquiries
in aid of legislation only in accordance with duly published rules of procedure, and
does not make any distinction whether or not these riles have undergone
amendments/revision
- The constitutional mandate to publish the said rules prevails over any custom,
practice or tradition followed by the Senate
17. Arnault vs Nazareno (440k, if he reveals the recipient, he will incriminate
himself)
- F/Q: When may a person in an investigation be punished for contempt?
- H: No person can be punished for contumacy as a witness unless his testimony is
required in a matter into which the legislature or any of its committees has
jurisdiction to inquire

- The requirement that the investigation be in aid of legislation is an essential

element for establishing jurisdiction of the legislative body
-H2: Punishment of a contumacious witness may include imprisonment, for the
duration of the session
- The Senate being a continuing body may order imprisonment for an indefinite
period but principles of due process and equal protection will have to be considered
18. Bengzon Jr vs SBRC (Senate Blue Ribbon Committee) - ENRILE
- F: Enrile said there was a need to determine the existence of violation of law in
the alleged transfer of some properties of Kokoy Romualdez to the Lopa Group of
Companies.
- H: The court ruled that the investigation was not in aid of legislation since the
speech of Enrile contained no suggestion of contemplated legislation
- it merely pointed to the need to determine whether the relatives of Pres Aquino,
particularly Lopa had vioaled the law
- To allow the investigation to continue would violate the doctrine of separation of
powers (Sandiganbayan has acquired jurisdiction over the case would result to
encroachment of power considering the exclusive domain of the judiciary may
result to conflicting judgments and if final judgment of SBRC is rendered first, may
influence judgment of Sandiganbayan)
- The court did not find it necessary the due process allegation
-H2: The inquiry was held not to be in aid of legislation
- SC held that the speech of Senator Enrile contained no suggestion of
contemplated legislation
- He merely called upon the Senate to look into possible violation of Section 5, RA
3019
- There is no intended legislation involved
- The issue to be investigated is one over which jurisdiction has been acquired by
the Sandiganbayan, the issue had thus been preempted by that court
- To allow the committee to investigate would only pose the possibility of conflicting
judgments but if the Committees judgment is rendered before the
Sandiganbayans, the possibility that its influence may be made to be bear on the
ultimate judgment of the Sandiganbayan cannot be discounted
- The SBRCs probe and investigation into the same justiciable controversy would
be an encroachment into the exclusive domain of judicial jurisdiction that had much
earlier set in
19. Negros Oriental II Electric Coop vs Sangguniang Panglungsod
- Q: May the inherent power of Congress to punish for contempt be applied, mutatis
mutandis, to local legislative bodies?
- A: No. The power is inherent in Congress as a matter of self-preservation (being 1
of the 3 branches of the government)
- It is sui generis, may not be claimed by local legislative bodies
20. Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance
- F: RA 7716/ EVAT law (money bill)

- H1: The court said that the exclusivity of the prerogative of the House of
Representatives means that the HOR alone can initiate the passage of a revenue
bill, such that if the House does not initiate one, no revenue law will be passed
- But once the House has approved a revenue bill, and passed it on to the Senate,
the Senate can completely overhaul it, by amendment of parts or by amendment by
substitution, and come out with one completely different from what the House has
approved
- It does not matter whether the Senate already anticipated a bill from the House
and formulated one to take the place of whatever the House might send
- The court rejected the idea that the Senate is bound to retain the essence of what
the other House approved
- Textually, it is the bill which must exclusively originate from the House and not the
law itself which is the product of the total bicameral legislative process (law
originates from both Senate and HOR)
-H2: Amendments germane to the purpose of the bill could be introduced even if
these were not in either original bill (Bicameral Conference Committee)
- There is nothing unusual or extraordinary about the fact that the conference
committee met in executive sessions
- Often, the only way to reach agreement on conflicting provisions is to meet closed
doors, with only the conferees present. Otherwise, no compromise is likely to be
made
-H3: It was held that the presidential certification dispensed with the requirement
not only of printing but also that of reading the bill on 3 separate days (on the basis
of growing budget deficiency)
- It was held that RA 7716 (EVAT Law) exclusively originated in HOR
- It is important to emphasize that it is not the law, but the bill which is required to
originate exclusively in the HOR because the bill may undergo such extensive
changes in the Senate, that the result may be a rewriting of the whole
- As a result of the Senate action, a distinct bill may be produced
- To insist that a revenue statute, not just a bill, must be substantively the same as
the house bill would be to deny the Senates power not only to concur with
amendments but also to propose amendments
- It would violate the coequality of legislative power of Senate
- The Constitution does not prohibit the filing in the senate of a substitute bill in
anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House
21. Guingona vs Carague
- F: Case dealt with the controversy surrounding automatic appropriation for foreign
debt servicing
- Principal contentions of petitioners are:
- a) Appropriation bills under Sec24 must originate in the HOR (PDs as laws vs bills)
- b) There must be definiteness, certainty, and exactness in the appropriation
(principles on delegation)
- Answers:
- a) The existing presidential decrees are already laws and not bills still to be
enacted (then differentiate bill vs law)
- b) Court resolved the issue by applying the principles on delegation The decrees
are complete by themselves and the exact amount due can be arrived it by
parameters set by law on the basis of existins records

22. Demetria vs Alba (PD 1177)

- F/Q: Paragraph 1 of Section 44 of PD 1177 says the President shall have the
authority to transfer any fund, appropriated for the different departments, bureaus,
offices and agencies of the executive dept, which are included in the General
Appropriations Act, to any program, project or activity of any department, bureau or
office included in the GAA or approved after its enactment. Valid?
- A: No (CSI considerable flexibility, savings, indiscrimate transfer of funds)
- Commenting on the constitutional text, the court said that the provision is
intended to afford the heads of the different branches of the government and those
of the constitutional commissions CONSIDERABLE FLEXIBILITY in the use public
funds and resources but the leeway granted was limited
- The purpose of augmenting an item and such transfer may be made only if there
are savings from another item in the appropriation of the government branch or
constitutional body
- Pointing out that PD 1177 empowered the president to indiscriminately transfer
funds without regard to whether or not the funds are savings from other items in the
appropriation, the court declared the law unconstitutional
23. PHILCONSA vs ENRIQUEZ (Impoundment, CAFGU, GAA 1994, modernization of
AFP)
-H1: The list of those who may be authorized to transfer funds under this provision
is exclusive
- Chief of Staff of AFP (modernization of AFP) may not be given authority.
- Individual members of Congress may not be given by authority. If granted with
authority by law, they have to seek approval from the Senate President or Speaker
of the House first.
- Such power may only be exercised by the President (savings)
-On Executive Impoundment (PHILCONSA vs ENRIQUEZ)
- Another way of exercising executive veto is by executive impoundment
- Impoundment is the refusal of the President to spend funds that are already
allocate by Congress for a specific purpose
- There is no provision in the Constitution on the subject
- Issue: To the amount appropriated by Congress for the compensation and
separation benefits of members of CAFGU was attached a provision that it shall be
used for the compensation of CAFGUs including the payment of their separation
benefit not exceeding 1 year subsistence allowance for the 11000 members who
will be deactivated in 1994.
- The president did not veto the provision but said instead in his veto message that
the implementation
of the provision would be subject to his prior approval taking into consideration the
peace and order situation in the affected localities
-RULING: (refrained, doctrine of inappropriate provisions, separate bill RDD)
- SC refrained from passing judgment on the constitutionality of impoundment
- The court, however, found in the Doctrine of Inappropriate Provision; found a way
out of having to decide whether impoundment was legal
- Court said a provision for disbandment of CAFGU must be in a separate bill

-On Modernization of AFP

-On the issue of whether Special Provision #2 on the use of funds in the
appropriation for the modernization of the AFP, GAA of 1994, which requires prior
approval of Congress for the release of the corresponding modernization funds is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
- RULING: (legislative veto, administrative action, special provision # 2 is an
inappropriate provision, power of appropriation LAIP)
- The SC did not resolve the issue of legislative veto but instead ruled that any
provision blocking an administrative action in implementing a law or requiring
legislative approval for executive acts must be incorporated in a separate and
substantive bill
- Thus since Special Provision # 2 is an inappropriate provision, the president
properly vetoed the same
- The power of appropriation carries with the power to specify the project/activity to
be funded under the appropriation law
-On the constitutionality of a Special Provision in 1994 GAA, which allows a member
of Congress to realign his allocation for operation expenses to any other expense
category (REALIGNMENT)
-SC said that members of Congress only determine the necessity of the realignment
of savings in the allotments for their operational expenses, because they are in the
best position to do so being knowledgeable of the savings available in some items
of the operational expenses and which items need augmentation
- However, it is the Senate President or the Speaker of the House, as the case may
be, who shall approve the realignment. Hence, the special provision adverted to it is
NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
- In the same case, the SC upheld the presidential veto (in the appropriation for the
AFP Pension and Gratuity Fund, 1994 GAA) which authorized the Chief of Staff to
use savings to augment the pension fund, on the ground that under the
Constitution, such right must and can be exercised only by the President of the
Philippines
-Pork Barrel (CDF) on separation of powers - CPI
- In upholding the validity of the law, court said:
-Congress itself had specified the uses of the fund and that the power given to the
Reps, Senators and VP was merely RECOMMENDATORY to the president, who can
approve or disapprove the recommendation
-Court praised the scheme for being innovative and imaginative
24. BOLINAO Electronics vs Valencia (destructive vs creative)
- F: pubic work bill, TV stations, item -veto issue
- H: A condition cannot be vetoed without vetoing the item to which it is attached
- Veto power is destructive in nature and not creative, and so the President is limited
to approving or disapproving the bill
25. GONZALES vs MACARAIG (Doctrine of Inappropriate Provisions)
- Court accepted

- A provision that is constitutionally inappropriate for an appropriation bill may be

singled out for veto (even if it is not an appropriation or revenue item)
- In essence, what this means is that the president can veto riders (in an
appropriation bill)
-On GAA 1989 Sec 55 and GAA 1990 (Section 16). Decide.
- Keywords: JABPAC justiciable, augmentation, bolinao, provision vs item, neither
an allowable provision; nor a condition in an appropriation bill
- The question is justiciable because it involves an interpretation of the constitution
- The power to augment lies dormant until authorized by law. Since the grant of the
power of augmentation is not an act of appropriation, it has no place in
appropriation act. But since there is already a law authorizing augmentation, the
new provision to that extent restricts the authority of other departments already
granted. The necessary implication of this is that if the power to augment it to
restricted or taken back, it should be in a separate law
- In the case of Bolinao Enterprises vs Valencia, it was ruled that a condition in an
appropriation bill may not be vetoed without vetoing the item to which it is
attached
- Provision and Item in a budgetary legislation are different. An item is an indivisible
sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose and not general provision of law that
happens to be put into an appropriation bill. Neither Section 55 nor Section 16 fits
the definition of an item. In fact, the disapproved items do not appear on the face of
the bill
- Neither is it an allowable provision because it does not relate to any appropriation
in the bill. It is therefore a rider to that extent (provision-appropriation in the bill)
- Neither is it a condition in a budgetary sense because it does not refer to any
specific item. It is more in the nature of a general provision which must be
contained in a separate law (condition item)
26. Lung Center vs Quezon City
- Lung Center is a charitable institution within the context of the 1973 and 1987
Constitution
- To determine whether an enterprise is a charitable institution or not, the following
elements should be considered: statutes creating the enterprise, its corporate
functions, its constitution and by lays, its use etc
- However, portions of its real property that are leased to private entities are not
exempt from real property taxes
- These are not actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes (ADE)
27. Trillanes Case (reclusion perpetua, presumption of innocence)
- H: SC denied his motion (MPP- membership in congress, public defense, creation of
a privileged class)
- Constitution says that crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua are non bailable
- Presumption of innocence does not necessarily carry with the full enjoyment of
civil and political rights
28. Adaza vs Pacana
- Forfeiture of seat in Congress shall be automatic upon the members assumption
of such other office deemed incompatible with his seat in Congress

29. Liban vs Gordon (RA 95)

- PNRC (Philippine National Red Cross) can neither be classified as an
instrumentality of the State, so as not to lose its character of neutrality as well as
independence nor strictly as a private corporation as it is treated as an auxiliary of
the state
- RA 95 is constitutional
- Thus, there can be no prohibition against Senator Gordon concurrently holding the
position of chairman of PNRC
30. Avelino vs Cuenco (walk out scene of the Senate President)
- SPC (separation of powers, political nature of the controversy, constitutional grant)
- Basis in determining the existence of a quorum in the Senate shall be the total
number of senators who are in the country and within the coercive jurisdiction of
the Senate (12 out 23)
31. Arroyo vs De Venecia
- Issues: Quorum, Rules of Procedure
- The question of quorum cannot be raised repeatedly especially when a quorum is
obviously present, for the purpose of delaying the business of the House
- A legislative act cannot be invalidated for non-compliance of rules of procedure
32. Osmena vs Pendatun
- The determination of the acts which constitute disorderly behavior is within the full
discretionary authority of the House concerned
- The discretionary authority of the House concerned, and the court will not review
such determination because it is a political question
33. Pimental vs HOR (involves CA, HRET Prior Recourse Issue, Doctrine of Primary
Administrative Jurisdiction)
- SC said that even assuming that party list representatives comprise a sufficient
number and have agreed to designate common nominees to the HRET and CA, their
primary recourse clearly rests w/ HOR and not with the court
- Only if the House fails to comply with the directive of the constitution on
proportional representation of political parties in the HRET and CA can the party list
representatives seek recourse from the court through judicial review
- Under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction, prior recourse to the
House is necessary before the petitioners may bring the case to court (prior
recourse to the House before Court)
34. Santiago vs Sandiganbayan
- F: legalization of several foreigners stay in the Phil; Santiago BI, RA 3019 BI vs
Congress - suspension)
- H: RA 3019/Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act does not state that the public
officer should be suspended only in the office where he is alleged to have
committed the acts charged
- Also, the order of suspension provided in RA 3019 is distinct from the power of
Congress to discipline its own ranks
- Neither does the order of suspension encroach upon the power of Congress

- The doctrine of separation of powers, by itself, is not deemed to have to effectively

excluded the members of Congress from RA3019 or its sanctions
35. Guingona vs Gonzales (.5 issue)
- SC said, a political party must have at least 2 elected senators for every seat in
the CA
- Thus, where there are 2 or more political parties represented to the Senate, a
political party coalition with a single senator in the Senate cannot constitutionally
claim a seat in the CA
- It is not mandatory to elect 12 senators to CA
- What the constitution requires is that there must at least be a majority of its
membership
36. Farinas vs Executive Secretary (Rider issue RA 9006 Repeal in the Omnibus
Election Code)
- SC said, Sec 14 of RA 9006, which repealed Section 67, but left intact Section 68 of
the Omnibus Election Code is not a rider
- Because a rider is a provision not germane/related to the subject matter of the bill
- Also, the title and objectives of RA 9006 are comprehensive enough to include the
repeal
- It need not be expressed in the title, because the title is not required to be a
complete index of its contents
37. Philippine Judges Association vs Prado
- The jurisdiction of the Conference Committee is not limited to resolving differences
between the Senate and the HORs versions of the bill
- It may propose an entirely new provision
38. LAMP case
- Several concerned citizens sought the nullification of the PDAF as enacted in GAA
2004
- HELD:
-There is lack of any pertinent evidentiary support that illegal misuse of PDAF (in the
form of kickbacks) has become a common exercise of unscrupulous members of
Congress
- There is no proof of direct participation of legislators in the actual spending of the
budget
- Thus, the petitioned was dismissed
-On Judicial Review
- Citizens and Taxpayers Suit
- The petition complains of illegal disbursement of public funds derived from
taxation
- There is substantial controversy before the court
- Locus Standi
- LAMP should be allowed to sue
-There is sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by
taxation required in taxpayers suits

The petition also poses also poses issues with paramount public interest. The
ramification of issues involving the unconstitutional spending of PDAF deserves the
consideration of the court
-In this case, SC rejected the argument that the petitioner was barred by res
judicata (because there was no identity in the subject matter since it involves
constitutional challenges against the 2004 PDAF article)
- Stare Decisis argument was likewise rejected. The case was dismissed on a
procedural technicality and has not set any controlling doctrine (susceptible of
current application to the substantive issues in these cases)
39. Neri vs Senate Committee (NBN-ZTE)
-Executive Privilege right of the president and other high level executive branch
officials (to withhold information from Congress, Courts and public)
- Issues:
-a) Are the communications sought to be elicited by the 3 questions covered by
executive privilege?
-b) Did the Senate Committees commit grave abuse of discretion in citing Neri for
contempt and ordering the arrest?
- Answers: (presidential communications privilege, grave abuse of discretion PG)
- a) The communications sought to be elicited by the 3 questions are covered by the
presidential communications privilege (type of executive privilege)
- Hence, the Senate court cannot compel Neri to answer the 3 questions
- Neri has the right to withhold information from the Congress, the courts and the
public
- b) Senate Committed grave abuse of discretion in citing Neri in citing Neri for
contempt and ordering his arrest, hence, not valid.
-H2: On rules of procedure
-One of the reasons SC cited in granting Neris petition for certiorari, was the merit
in the argument of the OSG, as follows:
- The phrase duly published rules of procedure requires the Senate of every
Congress to publish its rules of procedure governing inquiries in aid of legislation
because every Senate is distinct from the one before it or after it
- Since Senatorial elections are held every 3 years for of the Senate membership,
the composition of the Senate also changes by the end of each term. Each Senate
must thus enact a different set of rules as it may deem fit
- Not having published its rules of procedure, the subject hearings in aid of
legislation conducted by the 14th Senate are therefore procedurally infirm
40. Guigona vs Carague
- SC upheld the constitutionality of the automatic appropriation for debt service
under the 1990 GAA
- According to the SC, the legislative intent of RA 4860is that the amount needed
should be automatically set aside in order to enable the Philippines to pay the
principal, interest, taxes and other normal banking charges on the loans, credit etc.
when they become due without the need to enact a separate law appropriating
funds therefore as the need arises
- Although the decrees do not state the specific amounts to be paid, the amounts
nevertheless are made certain by the legislative parameters provided in the decrees

- The mandate is to pay only the principal, interest, taxes and other normal banking
charges when they shall become due
- No uncertainty arises in executive implementation as the limit will be the exact
amounts as shown by the books in the Treasury
41. Standard Chartered Bank vs Senate Committee on Banks
- The mere filing of a criminal or an administrative complaint before a court or
quasi-judicial body should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative inquiry.
- Otherwise, it would be extremely easy to subvert any intended inquiry by
Congress through the convenient ploy of instituting a criminal or administrative
complaint
- The exercise of sovereign legislative authority, of which the power of legislative
inquiry is an essential component, cannot be made subordinate to a criminal or
administrative investigation
- It was held that the legislative inquiry does not violate the petitioners right to
privacy
42. SEMA vs COMELEC
- SC ruled that Congress cannot validly delegate the ARMM Regional Assembly the
power to create legislative districts
- The power to increase the allowable membership in the HOR and to reapportion
legislative districts is vested exclusively in Congress
43. Atong Paglaum Inc vs COMELEC
- SC formulated new paramaters to guide the COMELEC in determining who may
participate in the coming and subsequent elections (4 parameters: 20%
allocation,2% threshold, 3-seat limit, proportional representation)
44. Veterans Party vs COMELEC
- SC reversed the COMELEC ruling that the 38 respondent parties were each entitled
to a party-list seat despite their failure to obtain at least 2% each of the total
number of national votes in the party-list election
- 20% allocation is not mandatory; 2% threshold is mandatory
- 20% allocation: the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not
exceed 20% of the total membership in the HOR
- 2% threshold: only those parties garnering a minimum of 2% of the total valid
votes cast for the party-list system are qualified to have a guaranteed seat in the
House
- 3-seat limit rule: each qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it actually
obtained, is entitled to a maximum of 3 seats (1 guaranteed/qualifying, 2
additional)
- Proportional representation: the additional seats which a qualified party is entitled
to shall be computed in proportion to their total # of votes
45. LADLAD
- Moral disapproval, without more is not a sufficient governmental interest to justify
exclusion of homosexuals in the party-list system
- The LGBT is a sector that can be represented in the party-list system even if it is
not specifically enumerated in the law
- What is important is that is complies with the Constitution and RA 7941

46. Banat vs COMELEC

- Abandoned the formula adopted in Veterans Federation Party, in the matter of the
allocation of additional seats to party-list groups, even as it also explained that the
requirement in Bagong Bayani that the nominees must represent a marginalized
and underrepresented sector does not mean that the nominees must wallow in
poverty
- Steps: rank, 20% allocation is mandatory, 2% threshold is not mandatory, 3-seat
limit, proportional representation for additional seats
- 2% threshold is unconstitutional as it makes it impossible for the 20% allocation to
be filled up (in the second round of seat-allocation)
47. Macalintal vs COMELEC
- Macalintal questions the validity of Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003
- H: a)There can be no absentee voting if the absentee voters are required to
physically reside in the Philippines within the period required for non-absentee
voters.
- As understood in election laws, domicile and residence can be used
interchangeably. Hence, one is a resident in his domicile (in so far as election laws
are concerned)
- The domicile is the place where one has the intention to return to
- Thus, an immigrant who executes an affidavit stating his intent to return to the
Philippines is considered a resident of the Philippines for purposes of being qualified
as an absentee voter
-b) It could not be the intention of Congress to allow COMELEC to include the
proclamation of the winners of President and VP race. To interpret it that way would
mean that Congress allowed COMELEC to usurp its power
- The canvassing and proclamation of the presidential and VP elections is still lodged
in Congress and was in no way transferred to the COMELEC by virtue of RA 9189
48. Judicial Review- SCs power to declare a law, treaty etc as unconstitutional
- APEQ
49. Political Questions (e.g. Tanada vs Cuenco disorderly behavior?)
- Under the Constitution are to be decided by the people (in their sovereign
capacity)
- But full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive
branch of the government
49. Republic vs Feliciano (Magsaysay land issue)
- The suit is against the state
- However, informacion posesoria had not been shown to have been converted into
a reecord of ownership
-It is nothing more than a prima facie evidence of possession
- Feliciano must first sue to prove title
50. Lansang vs CA (public official against the state)
- The rule is that the suit must be regarded as one against the state where
satisfaction of the judgment against the public official concerned will require the

state itself to perform an appropriation of the amount necessary to pay the

damages awarded to the plaintiff
- The rule does not apply where the public official is charged in his official capacity
for acts that are unlawful and injurious to the people
- Public officials are not exempt, in their personal capacity, from liability arising from
acts committed in bad faith
- Neither does it apply where the public official is clearly being sued not in his
official capacity but in his personal capacity, although the acts complained of may
have been committed while he occupied a public position