FACTS
Sec. 16 Duty to keep Journals and Records
CASCO v. GIMENEZ
ASTORGA v. VILLEGAS
ABAKADA v. ERMITA
RA 9377 is a consolidation of legislative bills:
 House Bill
 Senate Bill
Senate Committee on Ways and Means approved the Senate Bill
Senate agreed to the request of HR for a committee conference on the
disagreeing provisions of the proposed bill.
Conference Committee recommended the approval of its report.
 Senate and HR approved
Enrolled copy of the consolidated HR and S version was transmitted to the
President, who signed into law => RA 9337
 Effectivity date came, Court issued TRO, enjoining respondents from
enforcing and implementing law.
Petitioners contend that:
 Inclusion of stand-by authority of the P by the BCC is a violation of the
no-amendment rule upon last reading of the bill in Art. 6
 Insertion of the BCC of sections which were present in SB violates Art.
6 -> bills originate exclusively in the HR
 BCC acted w/o jurisdiction in deleting the no pass provisions in HB
and SB
Petitioners beseech the Court to define the powers of the BCC.
Sec. 17 Senate and House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
JURISDICTION OF ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL – Nature and Power
ANGARA v. ELECTORAL COMMISSION
September 1935 Elections: Angara, Ynsua, Castillo and Mayor were candidates
for the position of member of the Nat'l Assembly in 1st D of Tayabas
 Angara -> proclaimed member-elect and took oath
Dec. 1935, NA passed Res No. 8
ISSUE
W/N BCC has strictly complied with the rules
of both houses, thereby remaining within the
jurisdiction conferred upon it by Congress.
YES.
Did the Electoral Commission properly
entertain the election protest, despite the
previous confirmation of Angara by the
National Assembly? YES.
HELD
No blatant irregularities tainted the proceedings of the BCC, the Court
deems it necessary to dwell on the issue.
This Court is not the proper forum for the enforcement of these internal
rules of Congress, whether House or Senate. Parliamentary rules are
merely procedural and with their observance the courts have no
concern. Whatever doubts there may be as to the formal validity of Rep.
Act No. 9006 must be resolved in its favor.
If a change is desired in the practice [of the Bicameral Conference
Committee] it must be sought in Congress since this question is not
covered by any constitutional provision but is only an internal rule of
each house.
The power thus, Article VI, Section 16 (3) of the Constitution provides
that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. Pursuant to
this inherent constitutional power to promulgate and implement its own
rules of procedure, the respective rules of each house of Congress
provided for the creation of a Bicameral Conference Committee.
HR Rules:
 Conference Committee - HR does not agree with S on the
amendment to any bill or joint resolutions,settled by the
conference committees
 In resolving differences: HR support HB.
 CC Reports - contain sufficient and explicit statement of the
changes and amendments. The H shall vote on the CCR in the
same manner and procedures as it votes on a bill and third and
final reading.
Senate Rules:
differences, settled by a CC. CCR detailed and sufficiently explicit.
Conflicting and reconciled versions attached to the report.
Before the legislature was the sole judge of the ERQ of its members but
the 1935 Consti transferred it to the ElecCom
 Independent constitutional creation with specific powers and
fxns and is the sole judge of all contests relating to the ERC.
By necessary implication, it carries with it the power to prescribe RR as
to the time and manner of filing protests.
1
  As of Dec.3, those who had not receive election protest were approved RN 8 of NA, which confirms that no protests have been filed, was
and confirmed as members unnecessary.
Dec. 8 MOTION OF PROTEST was filed by Ynsua against Angara with Electoral  Confirmation was not required by Consti. Certification by the
Commission proper provincial board of canvassers is sufficient to entitle
Countered by Angara with MD, using RN 8 as basis that it already prescribed member-elect to a seat in NA.
 MTD denied
ElecCom issued RN 9 fixing the said date as the last day for filing of protests
 Angara was confirmed Dec 3 but ElecCom said protest can be filed
until Dec. 9
REYES v. COMELEC Does COMELEC have jurisdiction over Reyes J of COMELEC vs HRET appears to be non-issue. She seeks remedy before
despite the fact that she has already been the SC but asserts that it is the HRET which has J over her
Tan, a reg voter, filed before the COMELEC an Amended Petition to Deny Due proclaimed as winner and has taken her oath J is still with COMELEC.
Course or to Cancel COC of Regina Ongsiako as it contained material of office? YES. G: Does not acquire J over the issue of P's Q
misrepresentations: XPN: petition is filed with HRET
-> Status - single when shes married to Cong of Batangas J of HRET begins only after candidate is considered a member of the HR,
-> Residence - resident of M when shes a resident of B and QC as stated in Sec.17.
-> Residence w/n PH - not a permanent R when she is an immigrant of US To be considered a member, 3 requisites:
-> Birth date - 1964, when 1959 or 1960 (1) valid proclamation
-> Citizenship - F, but AC (2) proper oath (speaker of HR and open session)
Reyes answer, (3) assumption of office
-> while she is known as the wife of Cong Mandanas, no valid marriage No indication that she took oath during plenary session and no
between them (did not comply with formal requirements); not duty-bound to assumption of office yet.
live with Mandanas
-> Certificate NSO: July 3, 1964
-> Permanent residence in US not supported by evidence
Tan filed NDE:
-> Copy of article on the internet: provides a database record of BI that P is a
US citizen
-> Uses US passport in her travels
COMELEC cancelled P's COC
-> Not a citizen and failure to comply with RA 9225
Reyes won the May 13, 2013 election and on the same day took her oath before
Speaker Belmonte
Reyes has to take office (June 30, 12nn)
COMELEC has no jurisdiction over her, rather, HRET as the "sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns and qualification" of HR members

Pre-proclamation controversies v. election contests; Scope of inquiry; When proper Election contest
VERA v. AVELINO
COMELEC submitted to the President a report that election last May, by acts
of terrorism and violence in Pampanga, NE, Bulacan and Tarlac, did not
reflect the true and free expression of the popular will
Senate convened and approved: pending termination of protest, Vera, Diokno
and Romero (among 16 candidates highest number of votes for senator) shall
not sworn nor seated as members.
Did the the Senate exceed its powers. NO
Each House of the Philippine Legislature exercised the power to defer
oath-taking of any member against whom a protest had been lodged,
whenever in its discretion such suspension was necessary, before the
final decision of the contest.
constitutional Convention showed that instead of transferring to the
Electoral Commission all the powers of the House or Senate as the sole
judge of ERQ of NA members, given only jurisdiction over "all contests"
relating to the election.
that judges of the Electoral Commission will limit themselves only to

2
Pendatun Resolution:
Secrecy was violated in P, NE, B and T
Armed bands saw to it that their candidates were voted
Majority of voters: suffered from paralysis of judgment
COMELEC w/o J to determine w/n the votes cast were valid or invalid
Minority report of Hon. De Vera of COMELEC stated that if the elections were
annulled, V, D and R would not and could not have been declared elected
Protests against election of B, D and R have been filed with SET (basis of
findings of COMELEC)
ABAYON v. HRET
1st case
Abayon is the nominee of Aangat-Tayo PL that won a seat in HR (2007)
Respondents Lucaban, Dela Cruz and Doroga, all RV, filed a petition of QW with
HRET against AT and its nominee AB.
-> AT was not eligible for PL seat since it did not represent the marginalized
and underrepresented
-> AB was not qualified since she did not belong to the M&U sectors, being the
wife of incumbent congressional representative
-> Lost her bid as PL rep for An Waray
AB countered:
-> Status of AT as a national multi-sectoral PL representing workers, women,
youth, urban poor and elderly (belonged to women)
-> HRET had no J over the QW since it collaterally attacked the registration of
AT, a matter within the J of COMELEC
-> It was AT that was taking a seat, not AB
2nd case
Palparan is the 1st nominee of Bantay PL that won a seat in 2007 Elections
Respondents were members of some other PL groups; filed QW with HRET
against B and P
-> P did not belong to M&U (the communist rebels, CAFGU, former rebels,
security guards)
-> P committed gross HR violations against M&U
P countered that HRET had o J over his person since it wss B that was elected
-> his eligibility as 1st nominee was an internal concern of B
HRET dismissed the petition against PLs but upheld its J over AB and P
Composition
ABBAS v. SET
Petitioner Abbas et al. filed before the SET an election contest against 22
Does HRET have JD over the question on the
qualifications of the petitioners – YES
Can the SET hear and dispose of the case with
only 3 Justice-members? – NO
cases in which there has been a protest against the returns. The
Convention did not intend to give it all the functions of the Assembly on
the subject of election and qualifications of its members. Election
contest "relates only to statutory contests in which the contestant seeks
not only to oust the intruder, but also to have himself inducted into the
office
As admitted by petitioners themselves at the oral argument, the power
to defer the oath-taking, until the contests is adjudged, does not belong
to the corresponding Electoral Tribunal, then it must be held that the
House or Senate still retains such authority.
the Senate has, under parliamentary practice, the power to inquire into
the credentials of any member and the latter's right to participate in its
deliberations
PL hat is voted for in the elections but it is not the organization that sits
as and becomes members of the HR.
2 kinds of HR (1) Leg Districts (2) PL system
Nominees are members of the HR, not the organization, they are the
elected members.
HRET shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to, among other
things, the qualifications of the members of the HoR.
Since PL nominees are "elected members" of the HR, HRET has
jurisdiction to hear and pass upon their qualifications.
Once nominee has been proclaimed and the nominee has taken his oath
and assumed office as member of the House of Representatives, the
COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to his
qualifications ends and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins.
Consti: intended that both J and L share the duty and authority of
deciding all contests relating to ERQ of Senators
Intent can be seen by the fact that 2S: 1J
3
candidates of LABAN coalition who were proclaimed senators-elect in the
1987 Elections.
SET at that time was composed of:
3 AJ (Chairman Yap) and 6 Senators
Petitioners filed a motion to disqualify 6 senators of the SET from hearing the
issues
-> interested parties
-> considerations of public policy and norms of fair play and due process
-> doctrine of necessity does not rule out the amendment and permit the
contest being decided by 3 members of the tribunal
Proposed amendment of Tribunal's Rules (S.24):
-> concurrence of 5 members for adoption of resolution
-> 4 members disqualified, quorum: not less than 3, 1 of which is a Justice
Independence
BONDOC v. PINEDA
Pineda was affiliated with Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) and Bondoc
was affiliated with Nacionalista Party (NP)
-> rival candidates for Rep 4th D of Pampanga
Pineda winner
-> Bondoc filed protest with HRET
HRET: Bondoc won over Pineda by 23 votes
-> LDP members in the Tribunal insisted on a recount of ballots in some
precincts
-> Recount: delayed decision by 4 mos. Result: increased B over P to 107 votes
Cong. Camasura (LDP) voted to proclaim B as the winner of the election contest
-> told LDP Sec. Gen. that he did not vote for Pineda, voted B
-> He stirred a hornets nest in LDP
LDP began plotting moves to neutralize pro-B majority in the Tribunal
-> Eve of promulgation of B election contest, CC was expelled
-> Removal of CC, he was removed from HRET
Sec. 18 Commission on Appointments – Composition, nature and functions
DAZA v. SINGSON
Daza was one of the members of COA based on proportional representation
and was listed as rep of Liberal Party.
-> Sec.18: COA consist of 12 members of HR, elected on the basis of PR
However, Laban ng Demokratikong Piilipino (LDP) was reorganized.
-> Political realignment
-> 24 members resigned from LP to join LDP; from 159 to 17 members
HR reorganized its representation in COA
Can the HRET change the party’s
representation in the HRET to defeat the
promulgation of a decision freely reached by
the tribunal in an election contest pending?—
NO!
W/N Daza was entitled to his seat. NO
SET be not prevented from discharging a duty which it alone has the
power to perform, the performance of which is in the highest public
interest
no scheme or mode for settling such unusual situations or for the
substitution of Senators designated to the Tribunal whose
disqualification may be sought
Every member of the Tribunal may, as his conscience dictates, refrain
from participating in the resolution of a case where he sincerely feels that
his personal interests or biases would stand in the way of an objective
and impartial judgment.
BUT: in light of the Constitution, the SET cannot legally function as such,
absent its entire membership of Senators and that no amendments of its
Rules can confer on the 3 Justices-Members alone the power of valid
adjudication of a senatorial election contest.
Cunanan:
25 members of the Nacionalista Party formed Allied Majority to install a
new Speaker and reorganize the chamber (inc COA). noted that the
Allied Majority was a merely temporary combination as the
Nacionalista defectors had not disaffiliated. Reorganization of the
Commission on Appointments was invalid because it was not based on
the proportional representation of the political parties in the House of
Representatives as required by the Constitution.
LDP is not the permanent political party contemplated in the
Constitution in relation to the other provisions of the Constitution
so-called party has not yet achieved stability and suggests it might be
no different from several other political groups that have died "a-
bornin',
Respondent also cites Cunanan but from a different viewpoint.
According to him, that case expressly allows reorganization at any time
to reflect changes in the political alignments in Congress, provided only
that such changes are permanent.
-> (WINNING ARGUMENT) The creation of the LDP constituting the bulk
of the former PDP Laban and to which no less than 24 Liberal
congressmen had transferred was a permanent change. That change fully
justified his designation to the Commission on Appointments after the
reduction of the LP representation therein.
Independence of HRET is guarded by the framers of Constitution.
House issued a resolution removing Cong. Camasura for disloyalty to
the LDP because he voted for Bondoc, a rival
-> Resolution: clear impairment of the constitutional prerogative of
HRET to be the sole judge of election contest between P and B
-> Sanction such interference would reduce tribunal to a mere tool for
the aggrandizement of party in power.
Also SC held that disloyalty is not a valid cause for termination of
membership in HRET
4
-> Daza was taken out and Singson (LDP) was put
Daza's contention:
-> cannot be removed from COA because his election was permanent.
-> reorganization is not based on permanent political realignment because
LDP is not duly registered
Singson argues:
-> political question
COSETENG v. MITA
HR elected Coalesced Majority, 11/12 congressmen to represent in the COA
-> Romero, Cuenco, Mercado, Daza
Upon nomination of MajFL, House elected Ablan as the 12th member,
representing Coalesced Minority
LDP organized as a political party
House committees, inc house representation, had to be reogrganized
Coseteng wrote to Speaker Mitra requesting that as representative of KAIBA
-> she be appointed as member of CA and HRET
House revised the House majority in the COA to conform w/ new political
alignments
Coseteng and KAIBA filed Petition for Extraordinary Legal Writs praying that
SC declare null and void election of members of CA
-> violated consti mandate of proportional representation
-> she is qualified to sit in the CA as representative of minority
Respondents alleged:
-> Reorganization is strictly in consonance with Sec.18 Art 6
-> KAIBA is part of the Coalesced Majority so bound by choice of CM
-> Coseteng's claim to a seat is without legal and factual basis
GUINGONA v. GONZALES
National elections held on May 11, 1992 yielded the ff results:
LDP - 15 senators -> 7.5 members
NPC - 5 senators -> 2.5
Lakas - 3 senators - 1.5
LP - 1 Senator -> 1.5
Formula: (# of SenatorsofPoliPartyx12)/# of senators elected
Senator Romulo
Org meeting of Senate:
Sen Romulo, as MajFL, nominated 8 LDP senators for membership in COA
MinFLR Sen Guingona (Lakas) and Osmena (NPC) objected
Sen Tolentino compromise (temporary arrangment)
-> 8 LDP, 2 NPC, 1 Lakas and 1 LP
Sen. Guingo filed a writ of prohibition
to prohibit Sen. Gonzales, ex-officio Chairman of of COA, to recognize Romulo
(LDP) and Tañada (LP)
-> violative of the proportional representation
Based on the mathematical computation, each party is entitled to a fractional
membership
Were the members of the House in the CA
chosen on the basis of proportional
representation from political parties? – YES.
Was the the election of Senators Romulo and
Tañ ada as members of the COA is
constitutional? NO,
writ of prohibition is issued ordering
respondents Senator Romulo and Senator
Tañ ada to desist from assuming, occupying
and discharging the functions of members of
the Commission on Appointments; and
ordering the respondents Senate President
Neptali Gonzales, in his capacity as ex-officio
Chairman of the Commission on
Appointments, to desist from recognizing the
membership of the respondent Senators and
from allowing and permitting them from
sitting and participating as members of said
Commission.
-> members of the tribunal must be non-partisan
-> discharge fxns with complete detachment, impartiality and
independence from political party the belong
-> "disloyalty to party" and "breach of party discipline" not valid grounds
for expulsion
There are 160 members of LDP in the House
-> 79%, so 80% of 12 is 9.6 = 10 members
The remaining 2 seats:
-> LP (Yap) as the next largest party in Coalesced Majority
-> KBL (Ablan) as the principal opposition party
Kaiba, presumably a member of CM, are bound by majority's choices
-> If considered as an opposition party, Coseteng represents .4% or less
than 1%, so not entitled to a seat in COA
To claim membership in COA, political party should represent at least
8.4% or at least 17 congressmen
-> 9 congressmen endorsing Coseteng was inconsequential
Election of T and R as members of COA is null and void for violating the
rule on proportional representation
-> problem here is what to do with the fraction of .5 to which each of the
party is entitled
-> For LDP, the.5 was converted into a whole, which reduced another
PP's membership
To disturb the resulting fractional membership of the political parties by
adding together two halves to make a whole is a breach of the rule on
proportional representation because it will give the LDP an added
member in the Commission by utilizing the fractional membership of the
minority political party, who is deprived of half a representation.
Guidelines:
1. PP must have 2 duly elected senators for every seat in COA
2. More than 2 PP represented in the Senate, a single senator cannot
constitutional claim a seat
*Not mandatory to elect 12 senators in COA
*what is important is the majority of the entire members
*Assuming the Consti requires the 12 seats filled, cannot disregard
proportional representation
5
-> Election of R and T to COA unduly increased the membership of LDP and LP
in which reduced the membership of Lakas and NPC.
Sec. 21 Legislative Investigations
Sec. 23 Declaration of Existence of a State of War
LAGMAN v. MEDIALDEA
Sec. 24 Origin of Money Bills, Private Bills and Bills Local Application
TOLENTINO v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE
Consolidation of MRs filed by petitioners on the constitutionality of E-VAT Law
I. Power of the Senate to propose amendments to revenue bills
RA 7716 did not originate exclusively in the HR as required by the Art. 6 S. 24
 While it is true HB was filed in HR after 3 readings and sent to Senate,
the Senate did not pass it on 2nd and 3rd readings, rather, they
passed their own version -SB.
 Tolentino states that the Senate shouldve amended the HB by striking
the text of the bill and substitute it with Sb.
o Remains a house biil because it SB is only the text
II. SB a mere amendment of HB
P assumed that SB is an independent and distinct bill.
Premise: RA originated from both in HB and SB and that it is a product of 2 half-
baked bills because neither HB nor SB was passed BOTH by the Congress
III. President's Certification
HB and SB are distinct and unrelated measures and that because the P
separately certified to the need for the immediate enactment of these
measures, his certification was ineffectual and void.
P contend that "growing budget deficit" is not an emergency in a country where
it is considered as a chronic condition.
IV. Conference Committee
CC violated the constitutional policy of full public disclosure and people's right
to know because they met for 2 days in executive session with only the
conferees present.
Rules of both: CC reports must contain "detailed, sufficiently explicitly
statement of changes/amendments."
V. Titles of SB and HB
I. w/n the senate has the power to propose
amendments to the bill. YES.
II. w/n HB is a mere amendment of SB. YES.
III. w/n president’s certification was
ineffectual. NO.
IV. w/n CC violates full disclosure. NO.
V. w/n violates art. 6 sec. 26 (1). NO.
I. Power of the Senate to propose amendments to revenue bills
Amendment by substitution concerns a matter of form.
 Rules of the Senate: no amendment by substitution shall be
entertained unless text is submitted in writing.
Defeat of the proposal, the power of the Senate to propose amendments
must be understood to be full, plenary and complete "as on other Bills."
Thus, because revenue bills are required to originate exclusively in the
House of Representatives, the Senate cannot enact revenue measures of
its own without such bills. After a revenue bill is passed and sent over to
it by the House, however, the Senate certainly can pass its own version on
the same subject matter
Power of the Senate to propose or concur with amendments is
apparently without restriction.
 By virtue of this power, Senate can re-write a bill from the house
and leave only a trace of a bill.
 Originated from the HR because they are more familiar with the
needs of the country in regard to the enactment. The S has the
power to propose or concur with amendments to the bills
initiated by HR.
 The senate can propose an entirely new bill as a substitute.
II. SB a mere amendment of HB
Without HB, the Senate could not have enacted SB because the latter was
an amendment of the latter.
HB did not have to pass in 2nd and 3rd reading, enough that it did in the
1st and referred to SenateComWandM.
Neither was SB be passed by HR before it could be referred to Conference
Committee.
**Conference Committee: HB and SB (not passed in the other house)
similar in nature.
III. President's Certification
It is enough that the President certifies the bill which is under
consideration.
 President certified HB for immediate enactment because it was
6
RA 7716 violates Art. 6 which provides that "every bill passed by Congress
shall embrace only 1 subject which shall be expressed in the title."
PAL contends: amendment of its franchise by withdrawal of exemption from
VAT is not expressed in the title.
Sec. 25 Rules on Appropriation
Prohibition on “riders” in appropriation bills
GARCIA v. MATA
Pet Garcia was a reserve officer on active duty with AFP until his reversion to
inactive status in 1960, pursuant to RA No. 2332
 rank: Captain; emolument: P478/mo
June 18, 1995: RA 1382 took effect
 Section 1: “Reserve officers with at least ten years of active
accumulated commissioned service who are still on active duty at
w/n paragraph 11 of RA 1600 constitutional?
NO.
Paragraph contemplated:
(2) No provision or enactment shall be
embraced in the general appropriations bill
unless it relates specifically to some
particular appropriation therein. Any such
one being considered
 The HB was substituted by another HB.
"[E]xcept when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate
enactment, etc." no need:
1. "printed copies [of a bill] in its final form [must be] distributed
to the members three days before its passage"
2. bill can become a law it must have passed "three readings on
separate days."
 so it won't be academic by occurrence of emergency or public
calamity
Issue on budget deficit as an emergency, members of S believed that
there was an urgent need for consideration of SB
 they responded to the call of P by voting on the bill on 2nd and
3rd reading on same day
Two-fold purpose of readings on separate days:
1. inform Congress of what they must vote on
2. give them notice that a measure is progressing through
enacting process, enabling them and others interested in the
measure to prepare their positions
 substantially achieved in RA
IV. Conference Committee
Changes shown in the bill attached to CCR. Both could ascertain what
changes had been made in the orig bills w/o need of a statement detailing
the changes.
CC has the power to insert new provisions
 germane to the subject of the conference
V. Titles of SB and HB
To require every end and means necessary for the accomplishment of
objectives of statute be expressed in its title would be unreasonable and
render legislation impossible.
Need not to be stated in its title, but matter germane to the subject as
expressed in the title and adopted to the accomplishment of objectives.
Challenged provision fails to disclose its relevance or relation to any
appropriate item or to Appropriation Act.
 While R.A. 1600 appropriated money for the operation of the
Government for the fiscal year 1956-1957, the said
paragraph 11 refers to the fundamental governmental policy
matters of the calling to active duty and the reversion to
inactive status of reserve officers in the AFP.
 The non-appropriation item inserted is in violation of the
7
 the time of the approval of this Act shall not be reverted into inactive provision or enactment shall be limited in its constitutional inhibition against "riders" to GAA
status operation to the appropriation to which it R.A. 1600, as expressed in its title, is restricted to “appropriating funds
 G had a total of 9 years, 4 months and 12 days accumulated service; relates. for the operation of the government
short of minimum Unconstitutional, it confers no right and affords no protection. In legal
July 11, 1956: RA 1600 took effect, G accumulated 10 years, 5 months and 5 contemplation it is as though it has never been passed.
days
 Sec. 11. After the approval of this Act, and when there is no emergency,
no reserve officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines may be
called to a tour of active duty for more than two years during any
period of five consecutive years, provided that reserve officers with
at least ten years of active accumulated commissioned service who
are still on active duty at the time of the approval of this Act shall
not be reverted to inactive status except for cause after proper
court-martial proceedings or upon their request
G's reversion to inactive status on Nov 15 1960 was pursuant to RA 2334,
neither for (1) cause, (2) own request nor (3) after court martial proceedings
 Up to the filing of the case, G has been inactive and has neither received
emoluments from AFT and nor employed by gov't in any capacity
Consequence of reversion:
 filed petitions w/ AFP CoS, SND and P but received reply from CoS
September 17, 1969: G brought an action for "Mandamus and Recovery of a
Sum of Money"
 compel SND and COS to reinstate him in active commissioned service,
readjust his rank and pay all emoluments & allowances due him
from time reversion to inactive status
TC: dismissed petition
 Par. 11 in RA 1600 is "invalid, unconstitutional and inoperative." (SC
affirmed)
Respondents contention:
 Par. 11 has no relevance or pertinence to the budget in question or to
any appropriate item contained therein
FARIÑAS v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Is Section 14 of RA 9006 a rider? – NO Liberal Construction Rule that the subject of an act is expressed in its
title:
Farinas et al -> members of HR minority Sec. 14. Sections 67 and 85 of the Omnibus 1. Consti provisions relating to Sm and titles of statutes should not
Consolidation of 2 Rule 65 Pet: Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) and be narrowly construed as to cripple or impede the power of
 Declare unconstitutional Sec. 14 of Fair Election Act Sections 10 and 11 of Republic Act No. 6646 legislation
 Expressly repeals Sec.67 of OEC are hereby repealed. As a consequence, the 2. Requirement that the subject of an act shall be expressed in its
The Fair Election Act was a consolidation of ff bills: first proviso in the third paragraph of Section tittle should receive a reasonable not technical construction
1. HB: Allowing Mass Media for Election Propaganda 11 of Republic Act No. 8436 is rendered 3. Title need not be an abstract or index of an Act
2. SB: Enhance the Holding of Free, Orderly, Peaceful and Credible ineffective. All laws, presidential decrees, Title of RA 9006: “An Act to Enhance the Holding of Free Orderly, Honest,
Elections executive orders, rules and regulations, or Peaceful and Credible Elections through Fair Election Practices."
BCC (8 senate; 16 HR) was formed to reconcile any part thereof inconsistent with the  Sec 2: principles and objectives
 Before passing the law, the reconciled FEA has already been opposed provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or o [ensuring that bona fide candidates for any public
by Farinas et al -> Sec. 14 "rider" modified or amended accordingly. office shall be free from any form of harassment
Farinas argued: and discrimination.”
1) Sec. 14 is a rider, in violation of Art. 6, Sec. 26(1) Sec. 67 of OEC, elective officer other than the Title and objectives of RA 9006 are comprehensive enough to include
 repeal of Sec.67 of OEC is not embraced in the title, nor germane to the one holding a permanent capacity (exc: pres repeal OEC

8
 SM
 violates EPC only repeals Sec. 67, leaving intact Sec. 66 (similar
limitation)
Transfer of Funds
DEMETRIA v. ALBA
Sec. 44(1) of Budget Reform Decree of 1977 is being assailed as
unconstitutional
 The President shall have the authority to transfer any fund,
appropriated for the different departments, bureaus, offices and
agencies of the Executive Department, which are included in the
General Appropriations Act, to any program, project or activity of
any department, bureau, or office included in the General
Appropriations Act or approved after its enactment.
Gives executive the power to indiscriminately reapportion funds in the
executive without regard as to:
 w/n funds to be transferred are savings in the item from which the
same are to be taken
 w/n the transfer is for the purpose of augmenting the item to which
said transfer is to be made
Discretionary Fund
ARAULLO v. AQUINO
9 petitions assailing the constitutionality of DAP
World Bank made an observation that the economic growth of PH be reduced
and weakened if:
 continued its underspending
 failure to address large deficiencies in infrastructure
Resolve: Aquino admin introduced Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP)
 "Plain executive policy-making" to stimulate economy by streamlining
the implementation process through clustering of infrastructure
projects of DPWH
 WB: DAP partially successful
Sen. Jinggoy E delivered a privilege speech
 reveal some Senators had been alotted P50M as an incentive for voting
in favor of CJ Corona
DBM Secretary Abad: funds released was part of DAP
 speed up spending to accelerate economic expanision
 resolve sluggish disbursements - GDP slow
 funds of DAP taken from:
o unreleased appropriations under Personnel Services
o unprogrammed funds
o carry-over appropriations unreleased from previous
year
o budgets for slow-moving projects realigned to support
fast-disbursing projects
and vp) shall be considered ipso facto
resigned from office upon filing COC
w/n sec. 44 of budget reform decree is undue
delegation of legislative power, thus,
unconstitutional. YES.
I.
w/n DAP is violative of Sec. 29 (1) Art. 6 of
Consti. NO, DAP is not a fund, nor
appropriation. Merely program prioritized
spending.
II.
w/n transfer of funds under DAP and other
related issuances violative of Sec. 25(5) Art. 6
of the Constitution. YES.
III. w/n the power to augment can be used to
fund non-existent provisions in the GAA. NO.
ARTICLE VI. Section 25. (5) No law shall be
passed authorizing any transfer of
appropriations; however, the President, the
President of the Senate, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court, and the heads of
Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be
authorized to augment any item in the
general appropriations law for their
 Sec 67: imposition of limit on elective officials
 RA 9006: lifting of ban on use of media for election propaganda
o not inconsistent, rather, furtherance of subject
The 1973 Constitution prohibits such transfer
 Sec. 16[5]. No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
appropriations, however, the President, the Prime Minister,
the Speaker, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the
heads of constitutional commisions may by law be
authorized to augment any item in the general
appropriations law for their respective offices from savings
in other items of their respective appropriations. (similar to
the current Sec. 25)
To afford the heads of the department the flexibility in the use of public
funds, the Constitution allowed enactment of a law authorizing such
transfer
 leeway granted was limited: transfer may be allowed for the
purpose of augmenting an item
 transfer may be made only if there are savings from another
item in the appropriation of gov't branch
I.
DAP was a policy in order to stimulate the economy through accelerated
spending
 No need to legislate. Congress could appropriate but it has
nothing to do with the execution stage
SC as president had sufficient discretion to utilize budget to changes in
economic situation
II.
To be valid, transfer must comply with the ff requisites: (Not all
requirements were complied)
1. Law authorizing President, PofS, SoHR, CJ and heads of CC to
transfer funds within their respective offices
2. Funds to be transferred are savings generated from the
appropriations for their respective offices
3. Purpose: augment an item in the GA law for their respective
offices.
GAA provided for transfer of funds
 GAA '11-'12: contravene Constitution; allowed transfer of funds
from savings to augment any item in GAA even if item belongs
to office outside Executive
 GAA /13 amended to make it valid
Consti: funds appropriated can only be realigned if made within their
respective office
 transfer of funds by executive to legislative and non-exec
9
DBM laid down legal bases use of savings:
1. Sec. 25(5) Constitution
 authority of the Pres to augment an item for his office in GAA
2. Admin Code
3. GAA '11-'13
 unprogrammed funds also in here
Budget process *distinct but may overlap in implementation:
1. Budget Preparation
2. Budget Legislation
3. Budget Execution
4. Accountability
Sec. 26 – Subject and Title of Bills - General Prohibition on “riders”
CORDERO v. CABATUANDO
RA 1199 is the Agricultural Tenancy Act, while RA amends it.
 Sections 19 and 20 are being assailed for violating Art. 6 Sec 26(1) of
the Consti
Cordero, Trial Attorney of The Tenancy Counsel Unit of ATC of DOJ, filed a case
with CAR.
 Counsel of Salazar, tenant P in this case, against landlord Leonardo.
 Leonardo filed Motion to Disqualify Counsel. Granted.
 CAR upheld Landlord Leonardo's claims and held
o representation of indigent clients should be done by
DOLE in Sec. 54 of RA 1199
o Circular of ATC creating Tenancy Unit Counsel in
Mediation Division is ultra vires
o MD has been existing w/o sanction of any statute
RA 2263 was passed
 tenant cannot afford attorney, it shall be duty of trial attorney of
tenancy mediation commission to represent him
New law, Cordero filed a Manifestation contending case is now moot and
academic.
 Judge: Before enactment of 2263, no Tenancy Mediation Division
o Only basis was Sec. 19 and 20, which are null and void bec
no bill can embrace more than 1 subject
o Nowhere in the titles of RA1199 and 2263 is the creation
Tenancy Mediation Division
TIO v. VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD
Petition assails the constitutionality of PD 1987 "An Act Creating the
Videogram Regulatory Board"
 broad powers to regulate and supervise the videogram industry.
 Promulgated Oct. 5, 1985, took effect April 10, 1986
Nov. 5, 1985: PD 1994 amended NIRC
 SEC. 134. Video Tapes. — There shall be collected on each processed
respective offices from savings in other items
of their respective appropriations.
W/N Sections 19 and 20 of RA 2263,
amending Sections 53 and 54 of RA 1199 are
constitutional under Article VI, Section
21(1)? YES.
Sec 19. Section fifty-three of the same Act is
hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 53.
Duties of Secretary of Justice. The Secretary of
Justice, acting through a tenancy mediation
commission shall carry out a rational
enforcement program, which shall include
among other things, mediation of tenancy
disputes."
-> Sec. 20. Section fifty-four of the same act is
hereby amended to read as follows: "Sec. 54.
Representation by Counsel. In all cases herein
a tenant cannot afford to be represented by
counsel, it shall be the duty of the trial
attorney of the tenancy mediation
commission to represent him, upon proper
notification by the party concerned, or the
court of competent jurisdiction shall assign or
appoint counsel de oficio for the indigent
tenant.
w/n Section 10 thereof, which imposes a tax
of 30% on the gross receipts payable to the
local government is a RIDER and the same is
not germane to the subject matter thereof.
Nope, not a rider.
agencies violated consti
Transfer of funds must be made to existing projects in GAA
 funds transferred to projects outside the scope in GAA
Use of savings
 savings: refer to the excess money after the items that needed to
be funded have been funded, or those that needed to be paid
have been paid pursuant to the budget
 Funds use in DAP are not savings per se
 Funds from slow-moving were transferred to other projects
 savings declared at the end of fiscal year, here already
withdrawn in the middle
Republic Act 1199, is called "The Agricultural Tenancy Act of the
Philippines." and RA 2263 Amending RA 1199
 sufficient to include a provision authorizing the Secretary of
Justice, acting through a tenancy mediation division, to carry
out a national enforcement program, including the mediation
of disputes
Consti requirement:
 satisfied if all parts of the law are related, and are germane to
subject matter expressed in the title of the bill.
 complied with as long the law, as in the instant case, has a single
general subject which is the Agricultural Tenancy Act and the
amendatory provisions no matter how diverse they may be, so
long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general
subject, will be regarded as valid
Section 19 and 20 certainly germane to, and are reasonably necessary for
the accomplishment of the one general subject, agricultural tenancy.
Gov't v. HSBC: not be construed narrowly as to cripple or impede power
of legislation; requirement act shall be expressed in title should receive
reasonable not technical construction; sufficient title comprehensive
enough to include general object which a statute seeks to effect
People v. Carlos: only amendment brought about by Republic Act No.
2263 is the transfer of the function of representing these indigent
tenants to the Department of Justice; transfer of fxns from one gov't
department to another
The Constitutional requirement that "every bill shall embrace only one
subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof" is sufficiently
complied with if the title be comprehensive enough to include the
general purpose which a statute seeks to achieve.
o The requirement is satisfied if all the parts of the statute are related,
10
 video- tape cassette, ready for playback, regardless of length, an
annual tax of five pesos; Provided, That locally manufactured or
imported blank video tapes shall be subject to sales tax.
The Greateer Manila Theaters Assoc. were allowed to intervene to protect
their rights and the survival and very existence is threatened by the
unregulated by proliferation of film piracy.
Sec. 27 Procedures in Law-Making
Passage of bills
CIR v. CTA
Section 10. Tax on Sale, Lease or Disposition
of Videograms. — Notwithstanding any
provision of law to the contrary, the province
shall collect a tax of thirty percent (30%) of
the purchase price or rental rate, as the case
may be, for every sale, lease or disposition of
a videogram containing a reproduction of any
motion picture or audiovisual program. Fifty
percent (50%) of the proceeds of the tax
collected shall accrue to the province, and the
other fifty percent (50%) shall acrrue to the
municipality where the tax is collected;
PROVIDED, That in Metropolitan Manila, the
tax shall be shared equally by the
City/Municipality and the Metropolitan
Manila Commission.
and are germane to the subject matter expressed in the title, or as long
as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject and
title.
. The rule also is that the constitutional requirement as to the title of a
bill should not be so narrowly construed as to cripple or
impede the power of legislation. It should be given practical
rather than technical construction. 

. Sec.10 is allied and germane to, and is reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of, the general object of the DECREE, which
is the regulation of the video industry through the Videogram
Regulatory Board as expressed in its title. 

. The tax provision is not inconsistent with, nor foreign to that general
subject and title. As a tool for regulationit is simply one of the
regulatory and control mechanisms scattered throughout the
DECREE. 

. The express purpose of the DECREE to include taxation of the video
industry in order to regulate and rationalize the heretofore
uncontrolled distribution of videograms is evident from
Preambles 2 and 5. 

. Those preambles explain the motives of the lawmaker in presenting
the measure. The title of the DECREE, which is the creation of
the Videogram Regulatory Board, is comprehensive enough to
include the purposes expressed in its Preamble and
reasonably covers all its provisions. It is unnecessary to
express all those objectives in the title or that the latter be an
index to the body of the DECREE. 

11
12