 for reconsideration, which was eventually denied by the appellate court in the Resolution of

September 30, 1987.

 Petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration on September 24, 1987 but this was denied in
the Resolution of October 27, 1987.
 SC: the fifteen-day period for appealing or for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be
extended.
 Halabuyas case: allowed a 1 month grace period from the promulgation of resolution
 In this case, petitioners' motion for extension of time was filed on September 9, 1987, more than
a year after the expiration of the grace period on June 30, 1986.

People v. Que Po Lay

 QPL is appealing from the decision of CFI, finding him guilty of CB Circular no. 20.
 Appellant who was in possession of foreign exchange consisting of U.S. dollars, U.S. checks and
U.S. money orders amounting to about $7,000 failed to sell the same to the Central Bank through
its agents within one day following the receipt of such foreign exchange as required by Circular
No. 20
 QPL claims that circular No. 20 was not published in the Official Gazette prior to the act or
omission imputed to the appellant so it had no force and effect.
 Article 2 of the new Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386) equally provides that laws shall take effect
after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is
otherwise provided.
 It is true that Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank is not a statute or law but being issued for the
implementation of the law authorizing its issuance, it has the force and effect of law according to
settled jurisprudence.
 Circulars and regulations especially like the Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank in question which
prescribes a penalty for its violation should be published before becoming effective
 the public is bound by its contents, especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation or circular
must first be published and the people officially and specifically informed of said contents and its
penalties.
 Although circular No. 20 of the Central Bank was issued in the year 1949, it was not published
until November 1951, that is, about 3 months after appellant's conviction of its violation. It is
clear that said circular, particularly its penal provision, did not have any legal effect and bound no
one until its publication in the Official Gazette or after November 1951

NPC v. Pinatubo Commercial

 National Power Corp (NPC) questions RTC’s decision declaring items 3 and 3.1 of NPC Circular
unconstitutional
 The provision allow partnerships and corporations that directly use aluminum as the raw
material in producing finished products either purely or partly out of aluminum to participate in
the bidding for the disposal of ACSR wires
 Said that it is violative of due process and equal protection clause for restraining competitive free
trade and commerce
 Pinatubo, a trader of scrap materuals submitted a pre-qualification from to NPC which NPC
denied
 Pinatubo asked for the annulment of the circular. RTC decalred it unconstitutional being violative
of substantive due process as it created rights in favor of third parties but the circular was never
published.
 In this case, NPC Circular No. 99-75 did not have to be published since it was merely an internal
rule or regulation. It did not purport to enforce or implement an existing law but was merely a
directive issued by the
 All these guidelines were addressed to the NPC personnel involved in the bidding and award of
scrap ACSRs. It did not, in any way, affect the rights of the public in general or of any other
 person not involved in the bidding process. Assuming it affected individual rights, it did so only
remotely, indirectly and incidentally.
 Participation in the bidding process is a privilege inasmuch as it can only be exercised under
existing criteria imposed by the government itself. As such, prospective bidders, including
Pinatubo, cannot claim any demandable right to take part in it if they fail to meet these criteria.

Neri v. Seante Committee on Accountability of Public Officers

 Romulo Neri appeared before the respondent Senate Committees on Accountability of Public
Officers and Investigations, Trade and Commerce, and National Defense and Security and
testified on matters concerning the National Broadband Project (NBN)
 He disclosed that COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos offered him P200M in exchange for his
approval of the NBN Project. He informed President Arroyo of the bribery attempt and she
instructs him not to accept the bribe.
 When the Committees probed further on the petitioner and President’s discussions, he refused
to answer the questions on whether Arroyo followed up the NBN Project, whether she prioritized
it, whether she directed him to approve it
 The committee required him to appear and testify once more but exec secretary Ermita wrote to
respondent committees and requested to dispense with the testimony on the ground of
executive privilege.
 Committees issued the Order citing petitioner in contempt and ordered his arrest
 Issue is whether through the issuance of the order, they violated Section 21, Article VI of the
Constitution because their inquiry was not in accordance with the “duly published rules of
procedure,”
 Questions were considered subject to executive privilege
 Section 136 of the Senate Rules quoted above takes into account the new composition of the
Senate after an election and the possibility of the amendment or revision of the Rules at the start
of each session in which the newly elected Senators shall begin their term.
 However, it is evident that the Senate has determined that its main rules are intended to be valid
from the date of their adoption until they are amended or repealed. Such language is
conspicuously absent from the Rules.
 The Rules simply state "(t)hese Rules shall take effect seven (7) days after publication in two (2)
newspapers of general circulation." The latter does not explicitly provide for the continued
effectivity of such rules until they are amended or repealed.
 In view of the difference in the language of the two sets of Senate rules, it cannot be presumed
that the Rules (on legislative inquiries) would continue into the next Congress. The Senate of the
next Congress may easily adopt different rules for its legislative inquiries which come within the
rule on unfinished business.
 The language of Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution requiring that the inquiry be conducted
in accordance with the duly published rules of procedure is categorical. It is incumbent upon the
Senate to publish the rules for its legislative inquiries in each Congress or otherwise make the
published rules clearly state that the same shall be effective in subsequent Congresses or until
they are amended or repealed to sufficiently put public on notice.
 It should likewise be stressed that not all orders issued or proceedings conducted pursuant to
the subject Rules are null and void. Only those that result in violation of the rights of witnesses
should be considered null and void, considering that the rationale for the publication is to protect
the rights of witnesses as expressed in Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution. Sans such
violation, orders and proceedings are considered valid and effective.

Pimentel v. Senate Committee of the Whole

  Before the Court is the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and restraining order filed by
Pimental, Villar Arroyo, Pangilinan, Pia Cayetano and Alan Peter Cayetano.
 Senator Pimentel called to attention the double insertion of 200Million appropriated separately
for the construction of Carlos P. Garcia Ave and C-5 Road which was said to cover the same
stretch
 Lacson further stated that when he investigated on the double entry, it led to Senator Villar,
then Senate President.
 On October 8, 2008 Senator Madrigal introduce P.S. Resolution 706, which states that there
was indeed double entry of said project, with overwhelming evidence of abuse of authority
of the Senate President (Villar) to profit from such project. Acts of the Senate President are
indirect violation of the Constitution, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Code of
Conduct and Ethical standards of Public Officers. Ethics Committee investigated on Villar
 On Nov. 17, 2008, Senator Enrile was elected Senate President and the Ethics Committee
was reorganized with the Election of Lacson as Chairperson.
 On Dec. 16, 2008, Senator Lacson inquired whether the Minority was ready to name
their representatives.
 After consultation, Senator Pimentel informed the body that there would be no members
from the Minority in the Ethics Committee.
 Senator Lacson reiterated his appeal to the Minority to nominate their representative to
the Ethics Committee.
 Senator Pimentel stated that it is the stand of the Minority no to nominate any of their
members to the Ethics Committee.
 The Senate adopted the Rules of the Senate Committee on the Ethics and Privileges.
 Senator Villar on a privilege speech where he stated that he would answer the accusations
against him on the floor and not before the Ethics Committee.
 Senator Lacson stated that the Ethics Committee is not a kangaroo court. However, due to the
accusation that the Ethics Committee could not act with fairness on Senator Villar’s Case,
Senator Lacson moved that the responsibility of the Ethics Committee be undertaken by Senate,
acting as a whole.
 Issue: Whether Senate Committee of the Whole violated the due process clause of the
Constitution when it refused to publish the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole in spite
of its own provision [which] require[s] its effectivity upon publication?
 Sec. 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective Committees may
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.
 The Constitution does not require publication of the internal rules of the House or Senate. Since
rules of the House or the Senate that affect only their members are internal to the House or
Senate, such rules need not be published, unless such rules expressly provide for their
publication before the rules can take effect
 In this case, the proceedings before the Senate Committee of the Whole affect only members of
the Senate since the proceedings involve the Senate’s exercise of its disciplinary power over one
of its members. Clearly, the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole are internal to the
Senate. However, Section 81, Rule 15 of the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole
provides: These Rules shall be effective after publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper
of general circulation.
Hence, in this particular case, the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole itself provide that the
Rules must be published before the