Department of Agrarian Reform is the lead implementing agency of Comprehensive

Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). It undertakes land tenure improvement and

development of program beneficiaries. DAR conducts land survey in resettlement areas.
It undertakes land acquisition and distribution and land management studies. The DAR
also orchestrates the delivery of support services to farmer-beneficiaries and promotes
the development of viable agrarian reform communities.

DAR Mission

"To lead in the implementation of agrarian reform and sustainable rural development in
the countryside through land tenure improvement and provision of integrated
development services to landless farmers, farmworkers and small landowner-cultivators,
and the delivery of agrarian justice".

CARP Vision

"A nation where there is equitable land ownership and empowered agrarian reform
beneficiaries who are effectively managing their economic and social development for a
quality of life".

Land Reform in Philippine History (Part 1)

Pre-Spanish Period

“This land is Ours God gave this land to us”

Before the Spaniards came to the Philippines, Filipinos lived in villages or barangays
ruled by chiefs or datus. The datus comprised the nobility. Then came the maharlikas
(freemen), followed by the aliping mamamahay (serfs) and aliping saguiguilid (slaves).

However, despite the existence of different classes in the social structure, practically
everyone had access to the fruits of the soil. Money was unknown, and rice served as
the medium of exchange.

Spanish Period

“United we stand, divided we fall”

When the Spaniards came to the Philippines, the concept of encomienda (Royal Land
Grants) was introduced. This system grants that Encomienderos must defend his
encomienda from external attack, maintain peace and order within, and support the
missionaries. In turn, the encomiendero acquired the right to collect tribute from the
indios (native).

The system, however, degenerated into abuse of power by the encomienderos The
tribute soon became land rents to a few powerful landlords. And the natives who once
cultivated the lands in freedom were transformed into mere share tenants.

1
1st Philippine Republic

“The yoke has finally broken”

When the First Philippine Republic was established in 1899, Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo
declared in the Malolos Constitution his intention to confiscate large estates, especially
the so-called Friar lands.

However, as the Republic was short-lived, Aguinaldo’s plan was never implemented.

American Period

“Long live America”

Significant legislation enacted during the American Period:

 Philippine Bill of 1902 – Set the ceilings on the hectarage of private individuals
and corporations may acquire: 16 has. for private individuals and 1,024 has. for
corporations.

 Land Registration Act of 1902 (Act No. 496) – Provided for a comprehensive
registration of land titles under the Torrens system.

 Public Land Act of 1903 – introduced the homestead system in the Philippines.

 Tenancy Act of 1933 (Act No. 4054 and 4113) – regulated relationships between
landowners and tenants of rice (50-50 sharing) and sugar cane lands.

The Torrens system, which the Americans instituted for the registration of lands, did not
solve the problem completely. Either they were not aware of the law or if they did, they
could not pay the survey cost and other fees required in applying for a Torrens title.

Commonwealth Period

“Government for the Filipinos”

President Manuel L. Quezon espoused the "Social Justice" program to arrest the
increasing social unrest in Central Luzon.

Significant legislation enacted during Commonwealth Period:

 1935 Constitution – "The promotion of social justice to ensure the well-being and
economic security of all people should be the concern of the State"

2
  Commonwealth Act No. 178 (An Amendment to Rice Tenancy Act No. 4045),
Nov. 13, 1936 – Provided for certain controls in the landlord-tenant relationships

 National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC), 1936 – Established the price of
rice and corn thereby help the poor tenants as well as consumers.

 Commonwealth Act. No. 461, 1937 – Specified reasons for the dismissal of
tenants and only with the approval of the Tenancy Division of the Department of
Justice.

 Rural Program Administration, created March 2, 1939 – Provided the purchase

and lease of haciendas and their sale and lease to the tenants.

 Commonwealth Act No. 441 enacted on June 3, 1939 – Created the National
Settlement Administration with a capital stock of P20,000,000.

Japanese Occupation

“The Era of Hukbalahap”

The Second World War II started in Europe in 1939 and in the Pacific in 1941.

Hukbalahap controlled whole areas of Central Luzon; landlords who supported the
Japanese lost their lands to peasants while those who supported the Huks earned fixed
rentals in favor of the tenants.

Unfortunately, the end of war also signaled the end of gains acquired by the peasants.

Upon the arrival of the Japanese in the Philippines in 1942, peasants and workers
organizations grew strength. Many peasants took up arms and identified themselves
with the anti-Japanese group, the HUKBALAHAP (Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa Hapon).

Philippine Republic

“The New Republic”

After the establishment of the Philippine Independence in 1946, the problems of land
tenure remained. These became worst in certain areas. Thus the Congress of the
Philippines revised the tenancy law.

President Manuel Roxas (1946-1948) enacted the following laws:

3
  Republic Act No. 34 -- Established the 70-30 sharing arrangements and
regulating share-tenancy contracts.
 Republic Act No. 55 -- Provided for a more effective safeguard against arbitrary
ejectment of tenants.

President Elpidio Quirino (1948-1953) enacted the following law:

 Executive Order No. 355 issued on October 23, 1950 -- Replaced the National
Land Settlement Administration with Land Settlement Development Corporation
(LASEDECO) which takes over the responsibilities of the Agricultural Machinery
Equipment Corporation and the Rice and Corn Production Administration.

President Ramon Magsaysay (1953-1957) enacted the following laws:

 Republic Act No. 1160 of 1954 -- Abolished the LASEDECO and established the
National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) to resettle
dissidents and landless farmers. It was particularly aimed at rebel returnees
providing home lots and farmlands in Palawan and Mindanao.

 Republic Act No. 1199 (Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954) -- governed the
relationship between landowners and tenant farmers by organizing share-
tenancy and leasehold system. The law provided the security of tenure of
tenants. It also created the Court of Agrarian Relations.

 Republic Act No. 1400 (Land Reform Act of 1955) -- Created the Land Tenure
Administration (LTA) which was responsible for the acquisition and distribution of
large tenanted rice and corn lands over 200 hectares for individuals and 600
hectares for corporations.

 Republic Act No. 821 (Creation of Agricultural Credit Cooperative Financing

Administration) -- Provided small farmers and share tenants loans with low
interest rates of six to eight percent.

President Carlos P. Garcia (1957-1961)

Continued the program of President Ramon Magsaysay. No new legislation passed.

President Diosdado Macapagal (1961-1965) enacted the following law:

 Republic Act No. 3844 of August 8, 1963 (Agricultural Land Reform Code) --
Abolished share tenancy, institutionalized leasehold, set retention limit at 75
hectares, invested rights of preemption and redemption for tenant farmers,
provided for an administrative machinery for implementation, institutionalized a
judicial system of agrarian cases, incorporated extension, marketing and
supervised credit system of services of farmer beneficiaries.

4
The RA was hailed as one that would emancipate Filipino farmers from the bondage of
tenancy.

President Ferdinand Marcos (1965-1986). Proclamation No. 1081 on September 21,

1972 ushered the Period of the New Society. Five days after the proclamation of Martial
Law, the entire country was proclaimed a land reform area and simultaneously the
Agrarian Reform Program was decreed.

President Marcos enacted the following laws:

 Republic Act No. 6389, (Code of Agrarian Reform) and RA No. 6390 of 1971 --
Created the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Agrarian Reform Special
Account Fund. It strengthen the position of farmers and expanded the scope of
agrarian reform.

 Presidential Decree No. 2, September 26, 1972 -- Declared the country under
land reform program. It enjoined all agencies and offices of the government to
extend full cooperation and assistance to the DAR. It also activated the Agrarian
Reform Coordinating Council

 Presidential Decree No. 27, October 21, 1972 -- Restricted land reform scope to
tenanted rice and corn lands and set the retention limit at 7 hectares.

President Corazon C. Aquino (1986-1992)

The Constitution ratified by the Filipino people during the administration of President
Corazon C. Aquino provides under Section 21 under Article II that “The State shall
promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.”

On June 10, 1988, former President Corazon C. Aquino signed into law Republic Act No.
6657 or otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). The law
became effective on June 15, 1988.

Subsequently, four Presidential issuances were released in July 1987 after 48

nationwide consultations before the actual law was enacted.

President Corazon C. Aquino enacted the following laws:

 Executive Order No. 228, July 16, 1987 – Declared full ownership to qualified
farmer-beneficiaries covered by PD 27. It also determined the value remaining
unvalued rice and corn lands subject of PD 27 and provided for the manner of
payment by the FBs and mode of compensation to landowners.

 Executive Order No. 229, July 22, 1987 – Provided mechanism for the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

5
  Proclamation No. 131, July 22, 1987 – Instituted the CARP as a major program
of the government. It provided for a special fund known as the Agrarian Reform
Fund (ARF), with an initial amount of Php50 billion to cover the estimated cost of
the program from 1987-1992.

 Executive Order No. 129-A, July 26, 1987 – streamlined and expanded the
power and operations of the DAR.

 Republic Act No. 6657, June 10, 1988 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) –
An act which became effective June 15, 1988 and instituted a comprehensive
agrarian reform program to promote social justice and industrialization providing
the mechanism for its implementation and for other purposes. This law is still the
one being implemented at present.

 Executive Order No. 405, June 14, 1990 – Vested in the Land Bank of the
Philippines the responsibility to determine land valuation and compensation for
all lands covered by CARP.

 Executive Order No. 407, June 14, 1990 – Accelerated the acquisition and
distribution of agricultural lands, pasture lands, fishponds, agro-forestry lands
and other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.

President Fidel V. Ramos (1992-1998) When President Fidel V. Ramos formally took
over in 1992, his administration came face to face with publics who have lost confidence
in the agrarian reform program. His administration committed to the vision “Fairer, faster
and more meaningful implementation of the Agrarian Reform Program.

President Fidel V. Ramos enacted the following laws:

 Republic Act No. 7881, 1995 – Amended certain provisions of RA 6657 and
exempted fishponds and prawns from the coverage of CARP.

 Republic Act No. 7905, 1995 – Strengthened the implementation of the CARP.

 Executive Order No. 363, 1997 – Limits the type of lands that may be converted
by setting conditions under which limits the type of lands that may be converted
by setting conditions under which specific categories of agricultural land are
either absolutely non-negotiable for conversion or highly restricted for
conversion.
 Republic Act No. 8435, 1997 (Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act AFMA)
– Plugged the legal loopholes in land use conversion.

6
  Republic Act 8532, 1998 (Agrarian Reform Fund Bill) – Provided an additional
Php50 billion for CARP and extended its implementation for another 10 years.

President Joseph E. Estrada (1998-2000) “ERAP PARA SA MAHIRAP’. This was the
battle cry that endeared President Joseph Estrada and made him very popular during
the 1998 presidential election.

President Joseph E. Estrada initiated the enactment of the following law:

 Executive Order N0. 151, September 1999 (Farmer’s Trust Fund) – Allowed the
voluntary consolidation of small farm operation into medium and large scale
integrated enterprise that can access long-term capital.

During his administration, President Estrada launched the Magkabalikat Para sa

Kaunlarang Agraryo or MAGKASAKA. The DAR forged into joint ventures with private
investors into agrarian sector to make FBs competitive.

However, the Estrada Administration was short lived. The masses who put him into office
demanded for his ouster.

President Gloria Macapacal-Arroyo (2000-present) The agrarian reform program under

the Arroyo administration is anchored on the vision “To make the countryside
economically viable for the Filipino family by building partnership and promoting social
equity and new economic opportunities towards lasting peace and sustainable rural
development.”

 Land Tenure Improvement - DAR will remain vigorous in implementing land

acquisition and distribution component of CARP. The DAR will improve land
tenure system through land distribution and leasehold.

 Provision of Support Services - CARP not only involves the distribution of lands
but also included package of support services which includes: credit assistance,
extension services, irrigation facilities, roads and bridges, marketing facilities and
training and technical support programs.

 Infrastrucre Projects - DAR will transform the agrarian reform communities

(ARCs), an area focused and integrated delivery of support services, into rural
economic zones that will help in the creation of job opportunities in the
countryside.

 KALAHI ARZone - The KALAHI Agrarian Reform (KAR) Zones were also
launched. These zones consists of one or more municipalities with concentration
of ARC population to achieve greater agro-productivity.

7
  Agrarian Justice - To help clear the backlog of agrarian cases, DAR will hire more
paralegal officers to support undermanned adjudicatory boards and introduce
quota system to compel adjudicators to work faster on agrarian reform cases.
DAR will respect the rights of both farmers and landowners.

History of the Senate

Introduction
The Spanish Period (1521-1898)
The Malolos Congress (1898-1900)
Philippine Commission (1900-1916)
Philippine Assembly (1907-1916)
Philippine Legislature (1916-1935)
Commonwealth Congress (1935-1946)
Congress of the Philippines (1946-1972)
Present Congress of the Philippines

Introduction

The legislature in any society performs the important function of deliberating policies
for the peoples and passing them in the form of statutes.

Although the Philippine Legislature was organized only in 1916, it had deep roots in
the past. Long before the Spanish rulers came to the Philippines, the people in their
barangays were already governed by a set of rules by their chief. Over the long span of
Spanish and American rule, various forms of legislative structures were set up to
perpetuate the colonial rulers’ desire to rule the country.

The Filipinos, just like other colonized people, fought for independence from colonial
rule. During this struggle, they also recognized the critical role that a legislature could
play in the movement for independence. After the victory over Spain, they established
the Malolos Congress, based on their Constitution. The Philippine Legislature,
composed of the Philippine Senate and the House of Representatives, was created
under the Philippine Autonomy Act, popularly known as the Jones Law, which was
passed by the Congress of the United States and became law on August 29, 1916. It
served as the legislative body of the Philippines from October 1916 to November 1935,
until it was succeeded by the National Assembly upon the inauguration on November 15,
1935 of the Commonwealth provided in the Constitution of the Philippines.

With independence from America in 1946, the legislature was called the Philippine
Congress which shared governmental powers with the executive and the judiciary.

In 1972, the President declared martial law and Congress was abolished. The
bloodless coup of February 22-25, 1986, brought forth a new regime and restored the
bicameral congress which is the present set-up of the Philippine Legislature.

8
The Spanish Period (1521-1898)

Under the Spanish rule, the legislative powers were shared by three entities: (1) the
Governor-General who could promulgate executive decrees, edicts or ordinances with
the force of the law; (2) the Royal Audencia, which passed laws in the form of autos
accordados; and (3) the Crown of Spain acting through its councils.

Serving as chief legislator was a governor-general who was assisted by two

advisory bodies where he stood as president. The other entity exercising legislative
powers in the Philippines was the Royal Audencia which was the Spanish Supreme
Court in the Philippines. The governor-general also stood as the president of this body.

Many historians observed, however, that the legislative function during the Spanish
period was monopolized by a set of interlocking bodies, where the Chief Legislator, the
governor-general, exercising unbounded powers, also stood as president and member
of other bodies which were supposed to advise him. Filipino representation was also
largely absent in the legislative bodies.

The Malolos Congress (1898-1900)

In the closing years of the Spanish regime, the revolutionary government of Emilio
Aguinaldo inaugurated a Congress on September 15, 1898, at the Barasoain Church in
Malolos, Bulacan. This Congress was later on referred to as the Malolos Congress.

The Malolos Congress, also known as the Assembly of Representatives, was the
lawmaking body of the First Republic. It was a unicameral body composed of
representatives, one-third of whom were chosen by the officials of the municipalities
under the control of the Revolutionary Government, and the others appointed by
Aguinaldo to represent the areas under the American Army which could not send
delegates. The Malolos Congress is best remembered for framing the Malolos
Constitution. The functions and powers of the legislative branch of the First Republic
was defined and enumerated by the Malolos Charter as follows:

1. To watch over the interest of the Philippine people;

2. To carry out the revolutionary laws and discuss the vote upon said laws;

3. To discuss and approve treaties and loans; and

4. To examine and approve the accounts presented annually by the Secretary of

Finance, as well as “extraordinary and other taxes which may be here-after imposed."

Several reasons prompted the creation and convening of the Malolos Congress.
Primarily, it was established to attract the country’s elite—the intellectuals and the
wealthy—to join the revolution. Secondly, the creation of a representative government
was given primarily to make good impression on foreign powers. A popular Assembly
was deemed necessary in order to enhance the image of the new Republic.

9
 The delegates to the Congress constituted the cream of the country’s professionals
and intellectuals. An official directory of the Malolos Assembly of Representatives listed a
total of 201 members who had served the body at one time or another. Most historians,
however, have placed the Assembly membership at only 130.

The Assembly, despite time constraints, turned out to be a prolific legislature. Its first
official act was the ratification of the “Act of Declaration of Independence” on September
29, 1898. It also passed a number of important laws designed to protect the new
Republic from incursions of foreigners and to protect the local business and labor.

With the outbreak of the Philippine-American War in February, 1899, the Assembly’s
activities were hampered by the emergency situation.

back to top

Philippine Commission (1900-1916)

When the U.S. assumed sovereignty over the Philip-pines after the Spanish-
American War, a military government was set up, with the military governor exercising
executive, legislative and judicial powers. In 1901, however, the legislative powers
hitherto exercised by the military governor were transferred to the Philippine
Commission. The legislative body was the Philippine Commission created by the
President of the United States in his capacity as commander-in-chief of the Armed
Forces, which act was later ratified by the U.S. Congress in the Philippine Bill of 1902.
This body served as the sole legislative body of the Philippines until 1907 when the First
Philippine Assembly was convened and created pursuant to the Philippine Bill of 1902.
The members of the Philippine Commission were appointed by the U.S. President with
the consent of the U.S. Senate, while those of the Philippine Assembly were elected by
qualified electors in their respective representative districts into which the country was
divided.

The presiding officer of the Philippine Commission was also the head of government
himself—the American governor-general. Its membership, starting in 1901, consisted of
five Americans and three Filipinos. Then in 1913, there were five locals to only four
Americans. The Commission commenced its legislative work on September 1, 1900, or
barely three months after the civil government was established in the Philippines. It
started with only five members, all Americans. The original members appointed by the
U.S. President were Judge William Taft, chairman; and Dr. Dean Worcester, Mr. Luke
Wright, Mr. Henry Ide, and Prof. Bernard Moses, members.

It was only in 1913 when the Filipinos finally obtained numerical majority in what
was now a nine-man legislative body. This was made possible after Woodrow Wilson
was elected president of the United States. The new president, through his new
appointed Governor-General Francis Burton Harrison, assured the Filipinos that his
administration would take steps to assure them of a majority in the appointive
Commission. Other well-known Filipinos who were later tapped to serve the body were
Gregorio Araneta, Juan Sumulong and Rafael Palma. This was maintained up to 1916,
when it was replaced by the Philippine Senate, as provided for by the Jones Law.

10
 As a legislative body, the Philippine Commission wielded broad powers and
discharged vital functions. These included the power to make rules and orders having the
effect of law, for raising revenue by means of taxes, customs and import duties. It also
appropriated and spent public funds. It also enacted pieces of legislation largely of
general application such as those establishing the country’s civil service system and
judicial network, organizing the Philippine Constabulary and the police and creating the
insular bureaus and offices, municipal and provincial governments.

Philippine Assembly (1907-1916)

The Philippine Assembly was convened at the old Manila Grand Opera House on
October 16, 1907. Two dominant political groups—the Partido Nacionalista and Partido
Nacional Progresista vied for positions in the Assembly. Minority parties also fielded their
candidates as well as independent aspirants. The NP, the party that espoused
“immediate and complete independence” headed by Sergio Osmeña, captured majority
of the 80 – seat Assembly. However, a situation of conflict prevailed, for the legislative
arm of government consisted of an elective Assembly composed of Filipinos and an
appointive Commission (later to become the Senate), the majority of the members of
which were Americans. Such conflicts, however, came to an end when the legislative
powers were vested by the Jones Law in a bicameral legislature composed exclusively
of Filipinos. From 1907 to 1916, the legislative power was vested in a legislature, with
the Philippine Commission as the upper house and the Philippine Assembly as the lower
house thereof.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Jones Law, the legislative set-up was changed.
The Philippine Commission was abolished and the Philippine Legislature, inaugurated
on October 16, 1916, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives was
established. Thus, the history of Philippine Senate can be traced in relative term from
the time the Americans colonized our country.

Philippine Legislature (1916-1935)

The Philippine Legislature, in whom legislative powers were vested, was a

bicameral legislative body composed of a Senate and a House of Representatives.
The Jones Law gave the Philippine Legislature general legislative powers, with
limitations that all laws affecting immigration, currency, coinage or tariff and those
pertaining to lands of public domain, timber, mining are subject to the approval of the
President of the United States of America. It also gave the Filipinos greater participation
in government through the power of confirmation over the appointments of officers in the
Executive and Judicial branches of the government.

During its 19-year existence the country went through seven elections —from 1916
to 1934—to elect members of both chambers of the Legislature. In the first election, on
the first Tuesday of October 1916, two senators were elected from each of the 12
senatorial districts—one for a term of six years; the other for three years. In the
subsequent general elections, there was to be elected from each district one senator for
six years. There were two appointive members for the Senate who were designated by
the American governor-general to represent the non-Christian areas of the Archipelago.

11
The elective Representatives served for three years, while the Senators, except half of
the 22 who won in the first senatorial race in 1916, had a six-year tenure.

The 24-man Philippine Senate was represented by two Senators from each of the
12 senatorial districts into which the country was divided. Eleven of the districts were
represented by Senators elected by qualified voters in their respective bailiwicks. The
twelfth senatorial district, which was then generally inhabited by non-Christian Filipinos,
was represented by two appointive Senators who had no fixed terms. The two appointive
Senators were Joaquin A. Clarin and Jadji Butu representing the provinces in Mindanao,
Mountain province and Baguio from 1916 to 1918, with the latter only being reappointed
in 1926.

Altogether, there were 67 Senators who served in the Philippine Senate at one time
or another from 1916 to 1935. Over half of these senior solons were reelected at least
once. A number of them were elected several times, as in the case of Manuel L. Quezon
who repeatedly served as Senator from 1916 to 1935, when he assumed the Presidency
of the Philippine Commonwealth. Senate President Pro Tempore Sergio Osmeña who
was first elected Senator in 1922 was also a multi-term Senator who later emerged as
Vice-President.

Leadership at the top of the Senate hierarchy was quite firm during its existence
through the strong stewardship of Senate President Quezon. Reelected three times in a
row, he lorded it over the Senate since its founding and relinquished it only when he
became President of the Commonwealth.

During its existence, the Philippine Legislature enacted altogether 1,619 laws,
covering all subjects of legislation, except foreign affairs.

The Philippine Legislature closed its career in the service of our people to pave the
way for the final preparations for the framing and adoption of the Philippine Constitution
and the establishment of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, which were conditions
precedent for the attainment of our political independence.

On May 1, 1934, it accepted the Tydings-McDuffie Law, which authorized the

framing of the Philippine Constitution.

Commonwealth Congress (1935-1946)

The birth of the Commonwealth of the Philippines ushered another change in the
legislative system when a uni-cameral National Assembly was convened as provided in
the 1935 Constitution. But the return to unicameralism was short-lived. By virtue of a
constitutional amendment in 1940, a two-chamber Congress was restored.

In accordance with the constitutional amendment of 1940, the Legislature returned

to its pre-Commonwealth structure with the restoration of the Senate. Thus in the
November, 1941 polls, more aspirants figured in what could be considered as the first
synchronized balloting of the country.

Elected together with re-electionist President Quezon and Vice-President Sergio

Osmeña, the Nacionalista Senate bets swamped the opposition. The NP candidates

12
garnered not only the 24 senatorial seats at stake but also 70 of the 89 Lower House
slots.

Of the 24 senators-elect, the first eight placers were to serve for 6 years, the next
eight for 4 years and the last eight for 2 years. After the war, though, a number of those
who were to serve for fewer years went on to assume their posts when Congress
convened in June 1945. A number of top placers were not able to report for duty partly
because some of them were charged or had died.

When the two chambers finally got organized in June 1945, the election of officers
was given top priority. Senator Manuel A. Roxas, who had ranked second in the 1941
senatorial elections, was elected Senate President, while Senator Elpidio Quirino was
chosen President Pro Tempore.

On January 4, 1946, the Congress met again in a special session to discuss the first
postwar general elections. Three months later—on April 23, 1946—that law-making body
gave way to the First Congress of the Third Republic.

Congress of the Philippines (1946-1972)

The post-Independence Congress became the first legislature of the Republic of the
Philippines. That Congress’ first members were elected during the dying days of the
Commonwealth in 1946, and the last barely a year before it gave way to martial law
that ushered in the dictatorship in 1973. All told, that legislature consisted of seven
Congresses of four years each except the final one, which lasted for only two years.

Like its immediate predecessor that emerged following the first amendments of the
1935 Constitution, the Congress of the Philippines had a Senate and a House of
Representatives. The members of the Senate were elected at large or nationwide, unlike
their predecessors who were elected by regions for a term of 6 years. The Senate was
composed of 24 members elected by qualified voters of the country. Certain
qualifications were required for an individual to become a senator: he had to be a
natural-born citizen, 35 years of age upon election to the Senate, a qualified voter and a
resident of the Philippines for at least 2 years prior to his election.

The election of the First Congress—16 for the Senate and 104 for the House—took
place on April 23, 1946. The Liberal Party captured nine of the 16 senatorial seats. The
rest went to the Nacionalista candidates and their allies. Senator Jose Avelino of Samar
was elected as Senate President at that time.

In the 1947 polls, six LP bets—Lorenzo Tañada, Vicente Madrigal, Geronima

Pecson, Emiliano Tirona, Fernando Lopez and Pablo David—were elected. Only two
NPs were elected, namely, Camilo Osias and Eulogio Rodriguez.

However, a bitter rivalry ensued between newly installed President Elpidio Quirino
and LP Senate President Avelino over party presidential nomination for the 1949 national
elections. Although the Senate was dominated by the “Avelino Wing,” with 11 members
including himself, the “Quirino LPs” joined forces with the NPs to oust Avelino as Senate
President in early 1949. Senator Mariano Jesus Cuenco replaced Avelino.

13
 Altogether, from 1949 to 1971, the last polls before the exit of that Congress, the
political leadership shifted from one major political party to the other in both chambers.

The Congress of the Philippines followed a certain schedule for the session of both
houses. They commenced their regular sessions every fourth Monday of January,
although this could be changed as Congress saw fit. Every Congress had four regular
sessions lasting for 100 days, excluding Sundays. Special sessions could also be called
by the President to tackle major bills left unfinished during regular sessions.

Among the powers exercised by the Senate were:

1. Ratification of treaties entered into by the Executive; and

2. Confirmation of appointments made by the President.

The shifting of leadership in the Senate was quite active during this period. The
power struggle started during the First Congress where Senate President Avelino,
together with Melecio Arranz as President Pro Tempore, was ousted from the Senate
helm four years later. In the Second Congress (1950-1953), Avelino tried to bounce back
but Senator Mariano Cuenco replaced him for good following the former’s expulsion from
the top.

When the Nacionalistas returned to power with Ramon Magsaysay’s overwhelming

victory in the 1953 presidential elections, Eulogio Rodriguez of Rizal assumed the Senate
presidency for the first time and remained as its President for nearly a decade. In the Fifth
Congress, LP President Ferdinand E. Marcos, who had been elected Senator a few years
earlier, toppled Rodrigue from the Senate presidency. Senator Arturo Tolentino of Manila
took over from Marcos in 1966. In the 7th Congress, fellow NP Senator Gil J. Puyat of
Pampanga and Manila assumed the Senate helm until it was abolished in early 1973.

Present Congress of the Philippines

The 1972 Constitution abolished the bicameral legislature and in its stead
established a unicameral body under a parliamentary government. The legislative bodies
created during the martial law were the Batasang Bayan, the Interim Batasang Bayan
and the Batasang Pambansa. When the popular “people power” or EDSA revolution
broke out in February, 1986, Corazon Aquino was installed as the new President. She
issued a proclamation creating a Constitutional Commission to draft a new Constitution
for the Philippines.

The said commission convened on June 1, 1986, and finished its work on October
15, 1986. A plebiscite, held on February 7, 1987, overwhelmingly ratified the present
1987 Constitution. The 1987 Constitution restored the presidential system of
government together with the bicameral congress of the Philippines. Section 1, Article VI
of the 1987 Constitution provides as follows:

The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines, which shall
consist of the Senate and the House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved
to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.

14
 The present Congress is actually a reincarnation of the Senate of the Philippines
under the 1940 amendment to the 1935 Constitution. As mandated by the new
constitution, the upper chamber is composed of 24 members elected at large, who serve
a term of six years. Senators cannot serve beyond two consecutive terms.

The Senate of the 14th Congress is currently headed by Senate President Manny
Villar, Pro Tempore Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Majority Leader Francis N. Pangilinan and
Minority Leader Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. It has thirty-six (36) permanent committees and
five (5) Oversight committees to fuel the wheels of the legislative mill. The Senate or any
of its committees may conduct formal inquiries or investigations in aid of legislation. The
committees are classified into: (1) standing or permanent; (2) special or ad hoc; (3) joint;
and (4) sub. Subcommittees are created to parcel the work of standing or special
committees. The "special" committees are created for a particular purpose and dissolved
after accomplishing such purpose. Joint committees are those that include members of
both houses.

The following Senators have, at one time or another assumed the Senate helm:
Manuel L. Quezon, 1916-1935; Manuel A. Roxas, 1945-1946; Jose Avelino, 1946-1949;
Mariano Jesus Cuenco, 1949-1951; Eulogio Rodriguez, 1952-1963; Ferdinand Marcos,
1963-1965; Arturo Tolentino, 1966-1967; Gil J. Puyat, 1967-1973; Jovito Salonga, 1987-
1992; Edgardo J. Angara, January 1993 - August 1995; Ernesto M. Maceda, October
1996 - January 1998; Neptali A. Gonzales, January 1992 - 1993; August 1995 - October
1996 and January 1998 to June 1998; Marcelo B. Fernan, July 1998 to July 1999; Blas
F. Ople, July 1999 to April 2000; Franklin M. Drilon, April to November 2000; Aquilino Q.
Pimentel Jr., November 2000 to July 2001; Franklin M. Drilon, July 2001 to July 2006;
and Manny Villar, July 2006 to present.

15
The Commission on Elections, also known as COMELEC, is one of the three
constitutional commissions of the Philippines. It is the premier guardian of the ballot. Its
principal role is to enforce all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections,
initiatives, referendums, and recalls.

Functions of the Commission

Under the Constitution, the Commission on Elections is independent of the Executive,

Legislative and Judicial branches of the Philippine Government, for which purpose it has
been vested the following functions:

Judicial functions

 to exercise exclusive jurisdictions over all contests relating to the elections,

returns, and

qualifications of all elective regional, provincial and city officials and appellate jurisdiction
over all contests involving all municipal officials decided by trial courts of general
jurisdiction;

 to decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting
elections, including determination of the number and location of polling places,
appointment of election officials and inspectors, and registration of voters;
 to file petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters; and
 to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election
laws, including acts or omissions constituting election fraud, offenses and
malpractices.

Ministerial functions

 To enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of and
elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referendum, and recalls.
 to deputize, with the concurrence of the President of the Philippines, law
enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the Government, including the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free,
orderly, honest, peaceful credible elections;
 to register political parties, organizations or coalitions and accredit citizens' arms
of the Commission.

16
Reportorial function

 To submit to the President and the Congress a comprehensive report on the

conduct of each election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall.

Recommendatory functions

 To recommend to Congress the enactment of effective measures to minimize

election spending including limitation of places where propaganda materials shall
be posted, and to prevent and penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses,
malpractices, and nuisance candidates; and
 to recommend to the President the removal of any officer of employee it has
deputized, or the imposition of any other disciplinary action, for violation or
disregard of, or disobedience to its directive, order, or decision.

Other functions

 To perform other functions as may be provided by law, including fiscal autonomy.

Organizational structure

The Commission Proper

The Commission Proper is the policy-making body composed of the Chairman and six
Commissioners who must be:

 Natural-born citizens of the Philippines;

 at least thirty-five years of age at the time of their appointment;
 holders of a college degree, with a majority of them, including the Chairman,
members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for
at least ten (10) years; and
 they must not have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately
preceding elections [Article IX-C, Section 1, 1987 Constitution].


o The Chairman and the Commissioners are appointed by the President,
with the consent of the Commission on Appointments.
o The Chairman and the Commissioners hold office for seven years, without
reappointment. Of those first appointed, three Members hold office for
seven years, two Members for five years and the last Members for three
years without reappointment. In no case shall any Member be appointed or
designated in a temporary or acting capacity.

The Chairman


o The Chairman acts as the Presiding Officer and Chief Executive Officer of
the Commission and executes/administers the policies, decisions. orders
and resolutions approved by the Commission. he directs and supervises

17
 the operations and internal administration of the Commission in
accordance with its policies, rules and regulations.

The Commissioners

The Commissioners exercise quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions either en

banc or in division. They also perform such other functions as may be assigned by the
Commission or the Chairman.

Offices of the Commission

Assisting the Commission are the Executive Director, Deputy Executive Directors for
Administration and Operations, nine Department offices, 17 Regional Election Directors,
81 Provincial Election Supervisors and Election Officers in cities and municipalities.
Comelec has a complement of more than 5,000 employees.

Department Offices of the Commission

Election Contests and Adjudication Department (ECAD)


o Handles all contests relating to elections, returns, and qualifications of all
elective provincial and city officials;
o Provides legal and technical services to the Commission, whether sitting
en banc or in division;
o Represents the Commission in the Supreme Court in cases where the
Commission is named public respondent in relation to protest in quo
warranto proceedings.

Election and Barangay Affairs Department (EBAD)


o Performs advisory and consultative services to the Commission on the
formulation and implementation of policies for the effective, efficient and
economical holding of elections and canvassing of results;
o Develops guidelines, criteria, standards and procedures on the conduct of
registration of voters and the holding of elections and other political
exercises for the observance of Commission personnel in the field

Law Department

o Performs consultative and legal services to the Commission in quasi-
judicial cases;
o Plans and coordinate with the administration and enforcement of laws
relative to the conduct of elections;
o Prepares pleadings and briefs in cases involving the Commission;
o Represents the Commission in cases before the courts and other tribunal;
o Investigates complaints relative to the conduct of elections and
prosecutes, on its own or in collaboration with government prosecutors,
cases of election offenses;

18
Education and Information Department (EID)

o EID is the media office of the Commission. It handles press relations
work, issues press releases, conducts research and studies on
information needs, prepares report on the conduct of elections for
submission to the President and Congress;
o Develops informative and educational material for multi-media use;
o Maintains liaison with government offices, media agencies, and other
public and private organizations to ensure effective and efficient
implementation of the education and information program of the
Commission.

Finance Services Department


o Primarily responsible for the preparation and administration of the budget
of the Commission.

Election Records and Statistics Department

Personnel Department
Planning Department
Administrative Services Department

History

The Commission on Elections (Comelec) was created by a 1940 amendment to the

1935 Constitution of the Philippines. Before the creation of the Comelec, supervision
over the conduct of elections was vested by law in the Secretary of Interior. The
Secretary of Interior saw to it that local authorities performed the ministerial duties
assigned to them by the Election Code. He decides administrative questions concerning
elections. The courts, however, exercised exclusive and final jurisdiction over questions
affecting the right to vote as well as contested elections of local elective officials.
Elections contests involving members of the National Assembly were judged solely by an
Electoral Commission composed of three justices of the Supreme Court and six
members of the National Assembly.

In view, however, of the close official ties between the President and the Secretary of
Interior, there was always the danger of a partisan Secretary of the Interior exploiting his
powers and influence to ensure the victory of his party at the polls.

As a consequence, the Constitution was amended in 1940 to create an independent

Commission on Elections, composed of a Chairman and two other members, to take
over the functions of the Secretary of the Interior relative to the elections. but since the
amendments could not be effective in time for the 1940 elections, the National Assembly,
by Commonwealth Act No. 607, created a Commission on Elections, giving thereto the
same powers which the Commission on Elections could have under the amended
Constitution. The statutory Commission supervised the conduct of the December 10,
1940 local elections.

The constitutional amendment creating the Commission on Elections was finally

approved on December 2, 1940. On June 21, 1941, Commonwealth Act No. 657 was

19
enacted reorganizing the Commission on Elections as a constitutional entity. The
members of the statutory Commission continued as members of the constitutional
Commission.

The Chairman and Members of the Commission had a fixed term of nine years each - a
member being replaced every three years except in the first Commission. They could be
removed from office only by impeachment. They were provided with fixed salaries which
could neither be increased nor diminished during their term of office. These were
safeguards to ensure the independence of the Commission.

The administrative control of elections exercised by the Secretary of Interior was

transferred to the Commission on Elections. The Commission was vested with the
exclusive charge of enforcing and administering all laws relative to elections and power
to decide all questions affecting elections, except those involving the right to vote, which
were left to final judicial determination. The courts and electoral tribunals retained their
original powers over election contests.

The 1973 Constitution enlarged the membership of the Commission from three to nine
members but reduced their term of office from nine years to seven years. As in the 1935
Constitution, the Chairman and Commissioners have staggered terms of office and
could be removed from office only by impeachment.

First to serve in the Commission on Elections under the 1973 Constitution were former
Senator Leonardo B. Perez, as Chairman, and Venacio S. Duque, Flores A. Bayot, Jose
M. Mendoza, Fernando R. Veloso, Lininding Pangandaman, Venancio L. Yaneza and
Casimiro R. Madarang, Jr. as Commissioners. Commissioner Pangandaman, the first
Muslim Commissioner of the Comelec, was appointed Ambassador by President
Ferdinand Marcos even before the expiration of his term. His unexpired term was taken
over by Commissioner Hashim R. Abubakar.

On May 17, 1980, Chairman Perez (who was later appointed Minister on Political Affairs
by President Marcos) and Commissioners Duque and Bayot, after completing their
seven-years term, retired. Commissioner Santiago succeeded Perez, and the following
were appointed Commissioners: Domingo C. Pabalete; Victorino A. Savellano; Jaime C.
Opinion; Noli Sagadraca; Romeo Firme: Luis Lardizabal and Ide C. Tillah. With
Commissioner Lardizabal the membership of the Commission was thus increased to
eight, one short of the full complement of nine.

Upon the retirement of Commissioners Firme, Tillah and Lardizabal on May 17, 1983 the
Commission on Elections was composed of only five members.

On March 21, 1983, two new members were appointed by President Marcos, namely:
Froilan Bacungan and Ramon H. Felipe, Jr.

With the retirement of Chairman Santiago and Commissioners Pabalete and Sagadraca
on May 17, 1984, Savellano was appointed Chairman.

Three new members were appointed on July 27, 1985, namely: Commissioners Quirino
A. Marquinez, Mangontawar Guro and Mario D. Ortiz.

20
On January 31, 1986 Commissioners Ruben C. Agpalo and Jaime Layosa were
appointed to finally complete the required membership of nine.

After the tumultuous February 7, 1986 snap elections and the People Power Revolution,
Chairman Savellano and all the Commissioners of the Comelec tendered their courtesy
resignations which, except those of Commissioners Bacungan and Felipe, were
accepted by President Corazon Aquino.

On April 11, 1986 Commissioner Felipe was appointed Acting Chairman. On July 23,
1986 he took his oath of office as permanent Chairman, together with Commissioners
Leopoldo Africa, Haydee Yorac, Andres Flores, Anacleto Badoy, and Dario Rama as
members of the "new" Commission on Elections.

On February 15, 1988 Hilario G. Davide, Jr., was appointed Chairman with Alfredo E.
Abueg, Jr., Haydee B. Yorac, Leopoldo L. Africa, Andres R. Flores, Dario C. Rama and
Magdara B. Dimaampao as Commissioners. Commissioner Haydee B. Yorac was
appointed as Acting Chairman when Hilario G. Davide, Jr. was appointed Chairman of
the Presidential Fact Finding Commission in December 1989, pursuant to Administrative
Order No. 146.

On June 6, 1991 Christian Monsod was appointed by President Aquino as Chairman of

the Commission to serve the unexpired term of Davide.

When Monsod retired on February 15, 1995 President Fidel Ramos appointed Court of
Appeals Justice Bernardo Pardo as Chairman of the Commission. Pardo's term was cut
short when he was appointed by President Joseph Estrada as Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court in October 1998. Commissioner Luzviminda Tancangco was appointed
Acting Chairman of the Commission.

On January 11, 1999 President Estrada appointed Sandiganbayan Justice Harriet

Demetriou as Chairman of the Commission. After the events of January 2001 that led to
the ouster of President Estrada from power, Demetriou tendered her courtesy
resignation which was accepted by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

On February 19, 2001 President Arroyo appointed Justice Alfredo Benipayo as

Chairman of the Commission. However, the Commission on Appointments did not
confirm his appointment due to opposition of some Commissioners led by Luzviminda
Tancangco. On June 5, 2002 President Arroyo appointed Metropolitan Manila
Development Authority Chairman and former Mandaluyong City mayor Benjamin S.
Abalos, Sr. to replace Benipayo.

On January 26, 2008, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointed former Supreme Court

Associate Justice Jose Melo, 77, to replace Chair Abalos.[1] THe United Opposition
(Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino) opposed Melo's appointment.[2] But Melo needs to
be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments (CA), so Commissioner Romeo A.
Brawner was appointed ad interim Acting Chairman on February 2, 2008 and will stay as
Chairman until Melo is confirmed by the CA.

On March 25, 2008, former Supreme Court justice Jose Melo was sworn in as new
chairman of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) by acting Chair Romeo A. Brawner.

21
Melo's ad interim appointment (Congress is not in session) was sent by the Malacanan
to the Commission on Appointments.[3]

On May 29, 2008, Romeo A. Brawner died from a massive heart attack. Brawner,
appointed to the Comelec to replace the controversial Virgilio Garcillano, was supposed
to end his term on February 2, 2011.[4]

Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, on July 2, 2008, appointed former Acting Judge (Br. 74, RTC,
Malabon) Leonardo Leonida and retired Justice of the Court of Appeals Lucenito Tagle
as Commissioners of the Commission on Elections.[5][6]

Impeachment complaint

On September 27, 2007, Iloilo Vice Governor Rolex Suplico filed a 64-page
impeachment complaint (3:00 p.m.) against Commission on Elections chairman
Benjamin Abalos, Sr. before the House of Representatives of the Philippines regarding
the ZTE national broadband network (NBN) deal. It was endorsed by Representatives
Teofisto Guingona III of Bukidnon and Teodoro Casiño of Bayan Muna (People First),
and Zamboanga City Representative Ma. Isabelle Climaco. Affidavits of Romulo Neri
and Jose de Venecia III supported the complaint.[7][8] On October 1, 2007, COMELEC
Chairman Benjamin Abalos, Sr. faced with an impending impeachment case resigned in
a press conference. The Commission on Elections appointed Resurreccion Z. Borra as
Acting Chairman. Mr. Abalos stated: "I'm resigning... effective immediately," Mr. Abalos
told a news conference. "However, let not my detractors feast on this declaration. I'm not
admitting guilt for any wrongdoing."[9] An impeachment complaint against Commission on
Elections (Comelec) chairman Benjamin Abalos Sr was formally filed before the House
of Representatives after Romulo Neri, former chief of the National Economic
Development Authority (Neda), accused Abalos of attempting to bribe him.

Issues

ZTE broadband contract controversy

In August 2007, Nueva Vizcaya Rep. Carlos Padilla delivered a privilege speech alleging
that Abalos brokered for the national broadband network (NBN) project. Padilla claimed
that Abalos met with officials of the Chinese firm ZTE Corp., which got the US $329
million contract for the broadband project.

Abalos denied brokering for the National Broadband Network project despite admitting
he knows some officials in ZTE Corp. He admitted making four trips to China and playing
golf there. He also admitted that ZTE officials, whom he says are his golf buddies,
hosted and paid for the trips.

Jose de Venecia III, son of House Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr, alleged that Abalos
offered him US$10 million to withdraw his proposal on the NBN project. De Venecia is a
majority shareholder of Amsterdam Holdings Inc., a company that submitted an
unsolicited proposal on the NBN project. De Venecia also claimed that Abalos asked for
money from the ZTE Corp. officials.

Hello Garci

22
Abalos was mentioned in the "Hello Garci" tape, which refers to the alleged wiretapped
conversations where vote rigging in the 2004 elections was discussed by, among others,
a woman presumed to be President Arroyo and man presumed to be Comelec
Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano.

Mega Pacific

Abalos was the Comelec chair when the election body approved a P1.3-billion contract
with the Mega Pacific Consortium for the purchase of automated counting machines,
which the Supreme Court in January 2004 declared as void because of "clear violation of
law and jurisprudence" and "reckless disregard of [Comelec's] own bidding rules and
procedure."

On January 21, 2004, Pimentel filed criminal and administrative charges before the
Ombudsman against Abalos and other commissioners in connection with the deal.
Abalos described the charges as a "demolition job."

Pimentel accused Abalos and the other commissioners of committing an act of

impropriety when they and their wives traveled to Seoul, South Korea to visit the plant of
the maker of the counting machines a few months before the bidding for the contract
started. Pimentel said he received information that the Korean company paid for the
plane tickets and hotel accommodations for the trip.

However, Abalos claimed that the expenses for the trip were paid for out of the P1 million
he won in a golf tournament in Wack Wack.

On September 27, 2006, the Ombudsman, in a resolution, absolved all respondents

involved in the Mega Pacific controversy of all administrative and criminal liabilities "for
lack of probable cause." It also reversed its June 28 resolution which contained factual
findings that can be used by the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment
proceedings against Comelec Commissioner Resureccion Borra.

The Commission on Elections is mandated to give life and meaning to the basic principle
that sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. It is
an independent constitutional body created by a 1940 amendment to the 1935 Constitution.
Since then, its membership was enlarged and its powers expanded by the 1973 and 1987
Constitutions. The Commission exercises not only administrative and quasi-judicial powers, but
judicial power as well.

Before the creation of the Commission, supervision over the conduct of elections was
vested in the Executive Bureau, an office under the Department of the Interior, and later
directly vested in the Department itself. The close official relationship between the President
and the Secretary of the Interior and the perceived compelling influence of the former over the
latter bred suspicion that electoral exercises were manipulated to serve the political interest
of the party to which they belonged.

23
 The National Assembly was impelled to propose the creation by constitutional amendment
of an independent Commission on Elections. The amendment was ratified by the Filipino
people in a plebiscite on June 17, 1940 and approved on December 2, 1940.

THE COMELEC AS GUARDIAN OF THE BALLOT

Through the years, the Commission has managed to maintain its authority and
independence in the conduct of elections. Actions and decisions of this body that appeared to
strain the limits of its powers were, in most cases, sustained by the Supreme Court, thereby
reinforcing its position as the constitutionally ordained guardian of the ballot.

In its latest decision upholding the Commission's assertion of authority, the high tribunal
affirmed the exclusive character of its power to conduct the preliminary investigation and
prosecution in cases involving election offenses (People vs. Honorable Enrique B. Inting, Judge,
RTC, BR 38, Dumaguete City, et al, G.R. No. 88919, July 27, 1990).

Such decisions have attested to the Commission's sixty-one (61) years of service to
Philippine democracy, to the strength of purpose and character and the vision of the men and
women who have served it.

REORGANIZATION

The Commission on Elections had undergone several reorganizations:

On June 21, 1941, Commonwealth Act No. 657 was enacted reorganizing the Commission on
Elections as a constitutional body. There were 39 staff members including three
Commissioners, namely: Pedro Concepcion, Chairman; Jose C. Abreu and Rufino Luna,
members.

The Chairman and Members of the Commission had a term of nine years each - a member
being replaced every three years - except in the first Commission who were given nine, six and
three year terms respectively. They could be removed from office only by impeachment and
were provided with fixed salaries which could neither be increased nor diminished during their
term of office. These were among the safeguards to ensure the integrity and independence of
the Commission.

On June 22, 1963, Congress approved Republic Act Nos. 3588 and 3808 enabling the
Commission to reorganize and expand its structure and increase personnel down to the
municipal level. Republic Act No. 3588 was passed in order to establish a permanent list of
voters and a continuing system of registration of voters, in each city, municipality and
municipal district by a non-partisan and qualified election registrar with the assistance of an
election clerk. On the other hand, Republic Act No. 3808 authorized the Commission to
reorganize its office "in order to promote maximum efficiency in carrying out its
constitutional duty to ensure free, clean and orderly elections and administer and
enforce effectively all laws relative to the conduct of elections". This law empowered the
Commission to abolish or create department, divisions, sections, or units, redistribute functions
and personnel, change salaries and allowances of its subordinate officials and employees and
provide for adequate appropriation for maintenance and operation.

The 1973 Constitution enlarged the membership of the Commission from three to nine
members but reduced their term of office from nine to seven years. It likewise enlarged the

24
powers and functions of the Commission such as the grant of judicial power. Thus, the Comelec
became a judicial tribunal while keeping its origin as an administrative entity.

First to serve in the Commission under the 1973 Constitution were Leonardo B. Perez as
chairman, and Venancio S. Duque, Flores A. Bayot, Jose Mendoza, Fernando R. Veloso,
Liningding M. Pangandaman, Venancio L. Yaneza and Casimiro R. Madarang, Jr. as
Commissioners.

Because of the increased membership and the enlarged powers and functions of the
Commission under the 1973 Constitution, President Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 597
on December 3, 1974 authorizing the Comelec to undertake a reorganization of its various
departments, divisions, sections, offices and other units. Implemented in 1979, the
reorganization created two new offices, namely the Election and Barangay Affairs Department
and the Electoral Contests Adjudication Department. Field operations were decentralized with
the establishment of the offices of the Regional Election Directors.

The 1987 Constitution reduced the membership of the Commission from nine to seven but
retained their term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed, three
members shall hold office for seven years, two members for five years and the last members
for three years. They can be removed from office only by impeachment and are provided with
salaries fixed by law which shall not be decreased during their term of office.

On July 11, 1986, Ramon H. Felipe, Jr. was appointed as Chairman to serve under the 1987
Constitution with Leopoldo L. Africa, Haydee B. Yorac, Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr., Andres R.
Flores, Dario C. Rama and Tomas V. dela Cruz, as Commissioners. On February 15, 1988, Hilario
G. Davide, Jr., was appointed Chairman with Alfredo E. Abueg, Jr., Haydee B. Yorac, Leopoldo
L. Africa, Andres R. Flores, Dario C. Rama and Magdara B. Dimaampao as Commissioners.
Commissioner Haydee B. Yorac was appointed as Acting Chairman when Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
was appointed Chairman of the Presidential Fact Finding Commission in December 1989 under
Administrative Order No. 146.

1. Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of and
elections, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.

2. Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections,
returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and
appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by
trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay official decided by
trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
3. Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections,
including determination of the number and location of polling places, appointment of
election officials and inspectors, and registration of voters.
4. Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcement agencies and
instrumentalities of the Government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for
the exclusive purposes of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful credible elections.
5. Register, after sufficient publication, political parties, organizations, of coalitions
which, in addition to other requirements, must present their platform or program of
government; and accredit citizens arms of the Commission on Elections.

25
 6. File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for inclusion
or exclusion of voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of
violations of elections laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds,
offenses, and malpractices.
7. Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize election spending,
including limitation of places where propaganda materials shall be posted, and to
prevent and penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance
candidates.
8. Recommed to the President the removal of any officer of employee it has deputized, or
the imposition of any other disciplinary action, for violation or disregard of, or
disobedience to its directive, order, or decision.
9. Submit to the President and the Congress a comprehensive report on the conduct of
each election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, or recall.

Supreme Court of the Philippines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Philippines

This article is part of the series:

Politics and government of
the Philippines

Government
Political history · Constitution

Executive
President (list)
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
2001 – 2010

Vice President (list)

Noli de Castro
2004 – 2010

Executive Departments
(list)

Legislative
14th Congress

26
 2007 – 2010

Senate House
President Speaker
Manuel Villar, Jr. Prospero Nograles

Judiciary
Supreme Court

Chief Justice Reynato Puno

Court of Appeals · Sandiganbayan
Court of Tax Appeals · Ombudsman

Elections
Commission on Elections
Chairman:Jose Melo
Elections:2010 | 2004 | 1998 | 1992 | 1986 | All
Referenda: 1987 | 1984 | 1981

Political parties
 Lakas-CMD  NP  PDP-LABAN
 KAMPI  LP  PMP

 NPC  UNO  Others

Administrative divisions
Capital Cities
Regions Municipalities
Provinces Barangays

Foreign relations
Government Website
Human rights

· Atlas
Other countries
Politics Portal
view • talk • edit

The Supreme Court of the Philippines (Filipino: Kataas-taasang Hukuman ng

Pilipinas or Korte Suprema) is the country's highest judicial court, as well as the court of
last resort. The court consists of 14 Associate Justices and 1 Chief Justice. Pursuant to the
Constitution, the Supreme Court has "administrative supervision over all courts and the
personnel thereof".[1]

27
The Supreme Court complex occupies the corner of Padre Faura Street and Taft Avenue
in Manila, with the main building directly fronting the Philippine General Hospital. Until
1945, the Court held office within Intramuros.

Contents
[hide]
 1 Constitutional role
o 1.1 Composition
o 1.2 Functions
 2 Cases
o 2.1 Appellate review
o 2.2 Original jurisdiction
 3 Current Justices
 4 History
o 4.1 Pre-Hispanic and Hispanic periods
o 4.2 American period
o 4.3 An independent Philippines
o 4.4 Writ of Amparo
o 4.5 Language
 5 The Philippine Court System
 6 See also
 7 External links

 8 Notes

[edit] Constitutional role

[edit] Composition

A person must meet the following requirements in order to be appointed to the Supreme
Court: (1) natural-born citizenship, (2) at least 40 years old; (3) must have been for
fifteen years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the
Philippines.[2] An additional constitutional requirement, though less precise in nature, is
that a Justice "must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and
independence."[3] Upon a vacancy in the Court, whether for the position of Chief Justice
or Associate Justice, the President fills the vacancy by appointing a person from a list of
at least 3 nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council.[4]

Beginning with the 1935 Constitution, Supreme Court Justices are obliged to retire upon
reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70.[5] Some Justices had opted to retire before
reaching the age of 70, such as Florentino Feliciano, who retired at 67 to accept
appointment to the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization.

[edit] Functions

28
 See also: Judicial review in the Philippines

The powers of the Supreme Court are defined in Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
These functions may be generally divided into two – judicial functions and administrative
functions. The administrative functions of the Court pertain to the supervision and control
over the Philippine judiciary and its employees, as well as over members of the
Philippine bar. Pursuant to these functions, the Court is empowered to order a change of
venue of trial in order to avoid a miscarriage of justice and to appoint all officials and
employees of the judiciary.[6] The Court is further authorized to promulgate the rules for
admission to the practice of law, for legal assistance to the underprivileged, and the
procedural rules to be observed in all courts.[7]

The more prominent role of the Court lies in the exercise of its judicial functions. Section
1 of Article VIII contains definition of judicial power that had not been found in previous
constitutions. The provision states in part that:

Judicial power includes the duty of courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
government.

The definition reaffirms the power of the Supreme Court to engage in judicial review, a
power that had traditionally belonged to the Court even before this provision was
enacted. Still, this new provision effectively dissuades from the easy resort to the political
question doctrine as a means of declining to review a law or state action, as was often
done by the Court during the rule of President Ferdinand Marcos.[8] As a result, the
existence of “grave abuse of discretion” on the part of any branch or instrumentality of
the government is sufficient basis to nullify state action.

[edit] Cases

The Court is authorized to sit either en banc or in divisions of 3, 5 or 7 members. Since

the 1970s, the Court has constituted itself in 3 division with 5 members each. Majority of
the cases are heard and decided by the divisions, rather than the court en banc. However,
the Constitution requires that the Court hear en banc “[a]ll cases involving the
constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, as well as “those
involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees,
proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations”.[9] The Court en
banc also decides cases originally heard by a division when a majority vote cannot be
reached within the division. The Court also has the discretion to hear a case en banc even
if no constitutional issue is involved, as it typically does if the decision would reverse
precedent or presents novel or important questions.

29
[edit] Appellate review

Far and away the most common mode by which a case reaches the Supreme Court is
through an appeal from a decision rendered by a lower court. Appealed cases generally
originate from lawsuits or criminal indictments filed and tried before the trial courts.
These decisions of the trial courts may then be elevated on appeal to the Court of
Appeals, or more rarely, directly to the Supreme Court if only “questions of law” are
involved. Apart from decisions of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court may also
directly review on appeal decisions rendered by the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax
Appeals. Decisions rendered by administrative agencies are not directly appealable to the
Supreme Court, they must be first challenged before the Court of Appeals. However,
decisions of the Commission on Elections may be elevated directly for review to the
Supreme Court, although the procedure is not, strictly speaking, in the nature of an
appeal.

Review on appeal is not as a matter of right, but "of sound judicial discretion and will be
granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor".[10] In the exercise of
appellate review, the Supreme Court may reverse the decision of lower courts upon a
finding of an "error of law". The Court generally declines to engage in review the
findings of fact made by the lower courts, although there are notable exceptions to this
rule. The Court also refuses to entertain cases originally filed before it that should have
been filed first with the trial courts.

[edit] Original jurisdiction

The other mode by which a case reaches the Supreme Court is through an original
petition filed directly with the Supreme Court, in cases where the Constitution establishes
“original jurisdiction” with the Supreme Court. Under Section 5(1), Article VIII of the
Constitution, these are “cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
corpus”. Resort to certiorari, prohibition and mandamus may be availed of only if "there
is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law".[11]

However, notwithstanding this grant of original jurisdiction, the Court has, through the
years, assigned to lower courts such as the Court of Appeals the power to hear petitions
for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus. As a result, the
Court has considerable discretion to refuse to hear these petitions filed directly before it
on the ground that such should have been filed instead with the Court of Appeals or the
appropriate lower court. Nonetheless, cases that have attracted wide public interest, or
where a speedy resolution is of the essence, have been accepted for decision by the
Supreme Court without hesitation.

In cases involving the original jurisdiction of the Court, there must be a finding of "grave
abuse of discretion" on the part of the respondents to the suit to justify favorable action
on the petition. The standard of "grave abuse of discretion", a markedly higher standard

30
than "error of law", has been defined as "a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
amounting to lack of jurisdiction"[12]

[edit] Current Justices

Date of Date of Date of Appointing
Name
Appointment Birth Retirement President
Gloria
December 8, Macapagal-
2007 Arroyo
(as Chief Justice) (as Chief
Reynato S. May 17, May 16, Justice)
Puno 1940 2010
Chief Justice June 28, 1993 Fidel V.
(as Associate Ramos
Justice) (as Associate
Justice)

Leonardo A.
January 27, November November 5, Fidel V.
Quisumbing
1998 6, 1939 2009 Ramos
Associate
Justice

Consuelo
Joseph
Ynares- October 5, October 4,
April 6, 1999 Ejercito
Santiago 1939 2009
Estrada
Associate
Justice

Antonio T. Gloria
October 26, October 26, October 25,
Carpio Macapagal-
2001 1949 2019
Associate Arroyo
Justice

Ma. Alicia
Gloria
Austria- December December
April 12, 2002 Macapagal-
Martinez 19, 1940 18, 2010
Arroyo
Associate
Justice

Renato C. Gloria
October 15, October 14,
Corona April 9, 2002 Macapagal-
1948 2018
Associate Arroyo
Justice

31
 Conchita
Gloria
Carpio- September 3, June 19, June 18,
Macapagal-
Morales 2002 1941 2011
Arroyo
Associate
Justice

Adolfo S. Gloria
October 24, February February 15,
Azcuna Macapagal-
2002 16, 1939 2009
Associate Arroyo
Justice

Dante O. Gloria
May 11, May 10,
Tinga July 7, 2003 Macapagal-
1939 2009
Associate Arroyo
Justice

Minita Chico- Gloria

December December 4,
Nazario July 14, 2004 Macapagal-
5, 1939 2009
Associate Arroyo
Justice

Presbitero J. Gloria
March 31, August 8, August 7,
Velasco, Jr. Macapagal-
2006 1948 2018
Associate Arroyo
Justice

Antonio
Gloria
Eduardo B. January 22, June 13, June 12,
Macapagal-
Nachura 2007 1941 2011
Arroyo
Associate
Justice

Ruben T. Gloria
January 3, January 2,
Reyes July 25, 2007 Macapagal-
1939 2009
Associate Arroyo
Justice

Teresita
Gloria
Leonardo-de December 3, October 8, October 7,
Macapagal-
Castro 2007 1948 2018
Arroyo
Associate
Justice

32
 Arturo D. Gloria
March 17, December December
Brion Macapagal-
2008 29, 1946 28, 2016
Associate Arroyo
Justice

[edit] History

Supreme Court Building, Manila

[edit] Pre-Hispanic and Hispanic periods

In the years prior to the official establishment of the Supreme Court, institutions
exercising judicial power were already in existence. Before the Spaniards came, judicial
authority “in its primitive form” was in the hands of barangay chiefs. During the early
years of the Spanish regime, these powers were vested upon Miguel López de Legazpi,
the first governor-general of the Philippines. He administered civil and criminal justice
under the Royal Order of August 14, 1569.

The present Supreme Court was preceded by the Royal Audiencia, a collegial body
established on May 5, 1583 and composed, of a president, four oidores (justices), and a
fiscal, among others. It was the highest tribunal in the Philippines, below only the
Consejo de Indias of Spain. However, this body also exercised administrative functions,
not just judicial functions.

The Audiencia’s functions and structure underwent substantial modifications in 1815

when its president was replaced by a chief justice and the number of justices was
increased. It then came to be known as the Audiencia Territorial de Manila with two
branches, civil and criminal, later renamed sala de lo civil and sala de lo criminal. The
Audiencia was converted to a purely judicial body by a Royal Decree issued on July 4,
1861, but its decisions were appealable to the Supreme Court of Spain sitting in Madrid.

33
On February 26, 1886, a territorial Audiencia was organized in Cebu, followed by an
Audiencia for criminal cases in Vigan. However, the pre-eminence of the Supreme Court
as the sole interpreter of the law was unknown during the Spanish regime.

Unlike the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court during the period of American rule,
the decisions of the Royal Audiencia are

[edit] American period

The Supreme Court of the Philippines was officially established on June 11, 1901 through
the passage of Act No. 136, otherwise known as the Judiciary Law of the Second
Philippine Commission. By virtue of that law, judicial power in the Philippine Islands
was vested in the Supreme Court, Courts of First Instance and Justice of the Peace courts.
Other courts were subsequently established.

The judicial structure introduced by Act No. 136 was reaffirmed by the US Congress with
the passage of the Philippine Bill of 1902. The Administrative Code of 1917 ordained the
Supreme Court as the highest tribunal with nine members: a chief justice and eight
associate justices.

From 1901 to 1935, although a Filipino was always appointed chief justice, the majority
of the members of the Supreme Court were Americans. Complete Filipinization was
achieved only with the establishment of the Commonwealth of the Philippines in 1935.
Claro M. Recto and Jose P. Laurel were among the first appointees to replace the
American justices. With the ratification of the 1935 Constitution in a plebiscite held on
May 14, 1935, the membership in the Supreme Court increased to 11: a chief justice and
ten associate justices, who sat en banc or in two divisions of five members each.

[edit] An independent Philippines

Under the 1973 Constitution, the membership of the Supreme Court was increased to 15.
The justices sat en banc or in divisions. The 1973 Constitution also vested in the Supreme
Court administrative supervision over all lower courts which heretofore was under the
Department of Justice.

After the overthrow of President Ferdinand Marcos in 1986, President Corazon C.

Aquino, using her emergency powers, promulgated a transitory charter known as the
“Freedom Constitution” which did not affect the composition and powers of the Supreme
Court. The Freedom Charter was replaced by the 1987 Constitution which is the
fundamental charter in force in the Philippines at present. Section 1 Article VIII of the
Constitution vests the judicial power “in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as
may be established by law.”

[edit] Writ of Amparo

34
The Supreme Court approved the Writ of Amparo on September 25, 2007.[13] The writ of
amparo (Spanish for protection) strips the military of the defense of simple denial. Under
the writ, families of victims have the right to access information on their cases -- a
constitutional right called the "habeas data" common in several Latin American
countries. The rule is enforce retroactively. Chief Justice Puno stated that "If you have
this right, it would be very, very difficult for State agents, State authorities to be able to
escape from their culpability."[14][15]

The Resolution and the Rule on the Writ of Amparo gave legal birth to Puno's brainchild.
[16][17][18]
No filing or legal fees is required for Amparo which takes effect on October 24.
Puno also stated that the court will soon issue rules on the writ of Habeas Data and the
implementing guidelines for Habeas Corpus. The petition for the writ of amparo may be
filed "on any day and at any time" with the Regional Trial Court, or with the
Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. The interim reliefs under
amparo are: temporary protection order (TPO), inspection order (IO), production order
(PO), and witness protection order (WPO, RA 6981).[19]

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has criticized the Writ of Amparo and
Habeas Data for being insufficient, saying further action must be taken, including
enacting laws for protection against torture, enforced disappearance, and laws to provide
legal remedies to victims. AHRC said the writ failed to protect non-witnesses, even if
they too face threats.[20]

Habeas Data

On August 30, 2007, Puno vowed to institute the writ of habeas data as a new legal
remedy to the extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. Puno explained that the
writ of amparo denies to authorities defense of simple denial, and habeas data can find
out what information is held by the officer, rectify or even the destroy erroneous data
gathered.[21]

On January 22, 2008, the Supreme Court En Banc approved the rules for the writ of
Habeas Data ("to protect a person’s right to privacy and allow a person to control any
information concerning them"), effective on February 2, the Philippines’ Constitution
Day.[22]

[edit] Language

Since the courts' creation, English had been used in court proceedings. But for the first
time in Philippine judicial history, or on August 22, 2007, three Malolos City regional
trial courts in Bulacan will use Filipino, to promote the national language. Twelve
stenographers from Branches 6, 80 and 81, as model courts, had undergone training at
Marcelo H. del Pilar College of Law of Bulacan State University College of Law
following a directive from the Supreme Court of the Philippines. De la Rama said it
was the dream of Chief Justice Reynato Puno to implement the program in other areas
such as Laguna, Cavite, Quezon, Nueva Ecija, Batangas, Rizal and Metro Manila.[23]

35
Sandiganbayan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Philippines

This article is part of the series:

Politics and government of
the Philippines

Government
Political history · Constitution

Executive
President (list)
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
2001 – 2010

Vice President (list)

Noli de Castro
2004 – 2010

Executive Departments
(list)

Legislative
14th Congress
2007 – 2010

Senate House
President Speaker
Manuel Villar, Jr. Prospero Nograles

Judiciary
Supreme Court

Chief Justice Reynato Puno

36
 Court of Appeals · Sandiganbayan
Court of Tax Appeals · Ombudsman

Elections
Commission on Elections
Chairman:Jose Melo
Elections:2010 | 2004 | 1998 | 1992 | 1986 | All
Referenda: 1987 | 1984 | 1981

Political parties
 Lakas-CMD  NP  PDP-LABAN
 KAMPI  LP  PMP

 NPC  UNO  Others

Administrative divisions
Capital Cities
Regions Municipalities
Provinces Barangays

Foreign relations
Government Website
Human rights

· Atlas
Other countries
Politics Portal
view • talk • edit

The Sandiganbayan is a special court in the Philippines which was established under
Presidential Decree No. 1606. Its rank is equivalent to the Court of Appeals. The court
consists of 14 Associate Justices and 1 Presiding Justice. The Sandiganbayan building is
located at Centennial Building, Commonwealth Ave., Batasan Road, Quezon City in
Metro Manila.

Contents
[hide]
 1 History
 2 Current Justices
 3 See also
 4 External links

 5 References

37
 [edit] History

The creation of the Sandiganbayan was originally provided for by Article XIII of the
1973 Constitution of the Philippines:

"SEC. 5. The National Assembly shall create a special court, to be known as

Sandiganbayan, which shall have jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving
graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public officers and
employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, in relation
to their office as may be determined by law."

In obedience to this mandate, the late President Ferdinand Marcos, exercising the
emergency legislative power granted him under Amendment No. 6 of the 1976
Amendments to the 1973 Constitution, issued on June 11, 1978, Presidential Decree No.
1486 creating the Sandiganbayan and putting it on the same level as what were then
known as the Courts of First Instance, now the Regional Trial Courts. Shortly thereafter,
however, the Sandiganbayan was elevated to the level of the Court of Appeals by virtue
of Presidential Decree No. 1606 issued on December 10, 1978.

At the start of its operation on February 12, 1979, the Sandiganbayan had only one
Division, composed of the Presiding Justice, Hon. Manuel R. Pamaran, and two
Associate Justices, Hon. Bernardo P. Fernandez and Hon. Romeo M. Escareal, and a
skeleton force of fifteen (15). The start of the third year of the Court's operation in 1981
was marked by the activation of the Second Division. The appointment of three more
Justices of the Third Division in August 4, 1982 completed the full membership of the
Court.

The People Power Revolution of February 1986 signaled the beginning of a new
dispensation, caused substantial changes in the entire government machinery, including
the judiciary. However, both the “Freedom Constitution” and the new Constitution have
seen fit to maintain the Sandiganbayan as one of the principal instruments of public
accountability. In furtherance of this, its jurisdiction has been broadened to include the
so-called “ill-gotten wealth” cases investigated by the Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG) through Executive Orders No. 14 and No. 14-A. In the

38
reorganization program of the new government, the resignation of some of the members
of the Court was accepted leading to the appointment of a new Presiding Justice in the
person of Hon. Francis E. Garchitorena.

To further strengthen the functional and structural organization of the Sandiganbayan,

several amendments have been introduced to the original law creating it, the latest of
which are Republic Acts No. 7975 and No. 8249. Under these new laws, the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan is now confined to cases involving public officials occupying
positions classified as salary grade “27” and higher. As restructured, the Sandiganbayan is
presently composed of a Presiding Justice and fourteen (14) Associate Justices who sit in
five (5) Divisions of three Justices each in the trial and determination of cases.

Philippine Court of Tax Appeals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Philippines

This article is part of the series:

Politics and government of
the Philippines

Government
Political history · Constitution

Executive
President (list)
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
2001 – 2010

Vice President (list)

Noli de Castro
2004 – 2010

Executive Departments
(list)

Legislative
14th Congress
2007 – 2010

39
 Senate House
President Speaker
Manuel Villar, Jr. Prospero Nograles

Judiciary
Supreme Court

Chief Justice Reynato Puno

Court of Appeals · Sandiganbayan
Court of Tax Appeals · Ombudsman

Elections
Commission on Elections
Chairman:Jose Melo
Elections:2010 | 2004 | 1998 | 1992 | 1986 | All
Referenda: 1987 | 1984 | 1981

Political parties
 Lakas-CMD  NP  PDP-LABAN
 KAMPI  LP  PMP

 NPC  UNO  Others

Administrative divisions
Capital Cities
Regions Municipalities
Provinces Barangays

Foreign relations
Government Website
Human rights

· Atlas
Other countries
Politics Portal
view • talk • edit

40
The Philippine Court of Tax Appeals (Filipino: Hukumang Paghahabol sa Buwis ng
Pilipinas) is the special court of limited jurisdiction, and has the same level with the
Court of Appeals. The court consists of 8 Associate Justices and 1 Presiding Justice. The
Court of Tax Appeals building is located at Agham Road, National Government Center,
Diliman, Quezon City in Metro Manila.

Contents
[hide]
 1 History
o 1.1 2008 Reorganization
 2 Current Justices
 3 See also
 4 External links
 5 References

 6 References

[edit] History
The Court of Tax Appeals was originally created by virtue of Republic Act. No. 1125
which was enacted on June 16, 1954 and was recently amended by Republic Act. No.
9282 on March 30, 2004, which took effect on April 23, 2004. Under Section 1 of the
new law, the Court is headed by a Presiding Justice and assisted by five (5) Associate
Justices. They shall have the same qualifications, rank, category, salary, emoluments and
other privileges, be subject to the same inhibitions and disqualifications and enjoy the
same retirement and other benefits as those provided for under existing laws for the
Presiding Justice and Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals.

Previously, only decision, judgment, ruling or inaction of the Commissioner of Internal

Revenue, the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade

41
and Industry, or the Secretary of Agriculture, involving the National Internal Revenue
Code and the Tariff and Customs Code on civil matters are appeallable to the Court of
Tax Appeals. The expanded jurisdiction transferred to the CTA the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals over matters involving criminal violation
and collection of revenues under the National Internal Revenue Code and Tariff and
Customs Code. In addition, it also acquired jurisdiction over cases involving local and
real property taxes which used to be with the Regional Trial Court and the Court of
Appeals.

[edit] 2008 Reorganization

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on June 12, 2008 signed into law Republic Act 9503 (An Act
Enlarging the Organizational Structure of the Court of Tax Appeals, Amending for the
Purpose Certain Sections of the Law Creating the Court of Tax Appeals, and for Other
Purposes), which added 3 more members (and one more division) to the Court.The new
law was enacted "to expedite disposition of tax-evasion cases and increase revenues for
government to fund social services, food, oil and education subsidies and
infrastructure."[1]

The Constitutional Mandate

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, as in past constitutions, vested the power of government on the
legislative, executive, and the judiciary.

The Legislative Power is vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a
House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and
referendum.

The Executive Power is vested in the President of the Philippines, and;

The Judicial Power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two
hundred and fifty (250) 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. The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per cent (20%) of the total
number of representatives including those under the party list.

A Member of the House of Representatives should be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the
day of the election, is at least twenty-five (25) 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 proceeding the day of the election.

The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of three years, and shall serve for
no more than three consecutive terms.

Brief History of the Philippine Congress

42
Evolution of the Philippine Legislative System 1

The Philippine legislative system has undergone a series of evolutions that reflected the sociopolitical
conditions of the times and the level of political maturity of society.

It began with the unicameral Malolos Congress of the short-lived Philippine Republic of 1898-1899, followed
by the Philippine Commission of 1901, a colonial legislative system composed of all-American appointees.
This body then evolved into a bicameral, predominantly elective, Filipino-controlled legislature by virtue of
the Jones Act of 1916, and lasted until November 1935 when the semi-independent Commonwealth
Government was inaugurated. A unicameral National Assembly replaced the bicameral body after the 1935
Philippine Constitution was ratified. In 1941, the Constitution was amended, again restoring the bicameral
legislature that came to be called the Congress of the Philippines.

Except during the Japanese-sponsored Philippine Republic from 1942-1945, the Congress functioned as the
national legislature until September 1972 when President Ferdinand E. Marcos placed the country under
martial law.

The Batasang Pambansa - A Unicameral Legislature 2

When martial law was declared, the Constitutional Convention, by virtue of an Act of Congress in 1971, was
in the process of drafting a new Constitution. The final draft was adopted by the Convention on November
29, 1972. This was ratified and proclaimed by President Marcos on January 17, 1973 amidst widespread
protest and controversy. With the proclamation of a new Constitution, the presidential form of government
was changed to a modified parliamentary form. Congress was abolished and was replaced by an elected
unicameral National Assembly, known as Batasang Pambansa.

The Batasang Pambansa was made up of a maximum of 200 Members elected from different provinces with
their component cities, highly urbanized cities and districts of Metropolitan Manila, appointed representatives
from various sectors such as the youth, agricultural and industrial labor sectors, and those chosen by the
President from the members of the Cabinet. The Members had a term of six years.

The Present Philippine Congress

3
The February 1986 Revolution People Power Revolution

The world-famed bloodless coup of February 22-25, 1986 ushered in a new political regime. President
Corazon Aquino, backed by a coalition of forces from both ends of the political spectrum, forged a new
government, triggering a chain of events that dramatically changed the political landscape of the country and
signalled the rebirth of democracy. These political changes were: the abolition of the Batasang Pambansa
following the proclamation of a new revolutionary government; the organization of a Constitutional
Commission that drafted a new charter which, in turn, was ratified in February 1987; the rebirth of the old
bicameral system; and the election of Members to the new Congress.

The New Congress 4

The new Congress has the biggest membership and is probably the most powerful among its predecessor
legislatures. The Constitutional Commission (ConCom) clothed it with vast powers to perform a wider and
more dynamic role. This fact is partly reflected in the Charter itself, which devotes 32 sections to the
legislative department compared with only 23 for the executive and 16 for the judicial departments.

The new bicameral Congress consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The upper chamber
or the Senate is composed of 24 Members elected at-large by the qualified voters of the Philippines. On the
other hand, the lower chamber or the House of Representatives is composed of "not more than 250
Members, who are elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities and the
Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and

43
progressive ratio and those, as provided by law, elected through a party-list system of registered national,
regional and sectoral parties or organizations". [Sec. 5(1), Art. VI, 1987 Philippine Constitution]

Sources:
1
Velasco, R. and Sylvano, M., The Philippine Legislative Reader, (1989), p. 41.
2
Ibid, pp. 43-44.
3
Abletez, J., Foundations of Freedom (A History of Philippine Congresses), 1989, pp. 82-85.
4
Ibid.

How a Bill Becomes a Law

House Rule X: Bills, Resolutions, Messages, Memorials and Petitions

1. Preparation of the bill

2. First reading
3. Committee consideration / action
4. Second reading
5. Third reading
6. Transmittal of the approved bill to the Senate
7. Senate action on approved bill of the House
8. Conference committee
9. Transmittal of the bill to the President
10. Presidential action on the bill
11. Action on approved bill
12. Action on vetoed bill

PREPARATION OF THE BILL

The Member or the Bill Drafting Division of the Reference and Research Bureau prepares and drafts the bill
upon the Member's request.

FIRST READING
1. The bill is filed with the Bills and Index Service and the same is numbered and reproduced.
2. Three days after its filing, the same is included in the Order of Business for First Reading.
3. On First Reading, the Secretary General reads the title and number of the bill. The Speaker refers
the bill to the appropriate Committee/s.

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION/ACTION
1. The Committee where the bill was referred to evaluates it to determine the necessity of conducting
public hearings.
If the Committee finds it necessary to conduct public hearings, it schedules the time thereof, issues
public notics and invites resource persons from the public and private sectors, the academe and
experts on the proposed legislation.
If the Committee finds that no public hearing is not needed, it schedules the bill for Committee
discussion/s.
2. Based on the result of the public hearings or Committee discussions, the Committee may introduce
amendments, consolidate bills on the same subject matter, or propose a subsitute bill. It then prepares
the corresponding committee report.
3. The Committee approves the Committee Report and formally transmits the same to the Plenary
Affairs Bureau.

SECOND READING
1. The Committee Report is registered and numbered by the Bills and Index Service. It is included in
the Order of Business and referred to the Committee on Rules.
2. The Committee on Rules schedules the bill for consideration on Second Reading.

44
3. On Second Reading, the Secretary General reads the number, title and text of the bill and the
following takes place:
a. Period of Sponsorship and Debate
b. Period of Amendments
c. Voting which may be by:
i. viva voce
ii. count by tellers
iii. division of the House; or
iv. nominal voting

THIRD READING
1. The amendments, if any, are engrossed and printed copies of the bill are reproduced for Third
Reading.
2. The engrossed bill is included in the Calendar of Bills for Third Reading and copies of the same are
distributed to all the Members three days before its Third Reading.
3. On Third Reading, the Secretary General reads only the number and title of the bill.
4. A roll call or nominal voting is called and a Member, if he desires, is given three minutes to explain
his vote. No amendment on the bill is allowed at this stage.
a. The bill is approved by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Members present.
b. If the bill is disapproved, the same is transmitted to the Archives.

TRANSMITTAL OF THE APPROVED BILL TO THE SENATE

The approved bill is transmitted to the Senate for its concurrence.

SENATE ACTION ON APPROVED BILL OF THE HOUSE

The bill undergoes the same legislative process in the Senate.

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
1. A Conference Committee is constituted and is composed of Members from each House of
Congress to settle, reconcile or thresh out differences or disagreements on any provision of the bill.
2. The conferees are not limited to reconciling the differences in the bill but may introduce new
provisions germane to the subject matter or may report out an entirely new bill on the subject.
3. The Conference Committee prepares a report to be signed by all the conferees and the Chairman.
4. The Conference Committee Report is submitted for consideration/approval of both Houses. No
amendment is allowed.

TRANSMITTAL OF THE BILL TO THE PRESIDENT

Copies of the bill, signed by the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and
certified by both the Secretary of the Senate and the Secretary General of the House, are transmitted to the
President.

PRESIDENTIAL ACTION ON THE BILL

1. If the bill is approved the President, the same is assigned an RA number and transmitted to the
House where it originated.
2. If the bill is vetoed, the same, together with a message citing the reason for the veto, is transmitted
to the House where the bill originated.

ACTION ON APPROVED BILL

The bill is reproduced and copies are sent to the Official Gasette Office for publication and distribution to the
implementing agencies. It is then included in the annual compilation of Acts and Resolutions.

45
ACTION ON VETOED BILL

The message is included in the Order of Business. If the Congress decides to override the veto, the House
and the Senate shall proceed separately to reconsider the bill or the vetoed items of the bill. If the bill or its
vetoed items is passed by a vote of two-thirds of the Members of each House, such bill or items shall
become a law.

Note: A joint resolution having the force and effect of a law goes through the same process.

46