Consti 11114

8/9/2019 Consti 11114

1/57

VERA V. AVELINO, 77 Phil. 863

FACTS: Commission on Elections submitted last May 1946 to the President and the Congresso the Phili!!ines a re!ort regarding the national elections held the !re"ious month# $t stated thatby reason o certain s!eciied acts o terrorism and "iolence in the !ro"ince o Pam!anga%&ue"a Eci'a% (ulacan and Tarlac% the "oting in said region did not relect the true and reee)!ression o the !o!ular *ill#

+uring the session% *hen the senate con"ened on May ,-% 1946% a !endatum resolution *asa!!ro"ed reerring to the re!ort ordering that .ose /# 0era% amon +io2no and .ose E# omero

3 *ho had been included among the 16 candidates or senator recei"ing the highest number o"otes% !roclaimed by the Commissions on Elections 3 shall not be s*orn% nor seated% asmembers o the chamber% !ending the termination o the o the !rotest lodged against theirelection#

Petitioners thus immediately instituted an action against their colleagues res!onsible or theresolution% !raying or an order to annul it and com!elling res!ondents to !ermit them to occu!ytheir seats and to e)ercise their senatorial !rerogati"e# They also allege that only the Electoral

Tribunal had 'urisdiction o"er contests relating to their election% returns and ualiications#es!ondents assert the "alidity o the !endatum resolution##$SS5E:

1#hether the Commission on Elections has the 'urisdiction to determine *hether or not "otescast in the said !ro"inces are "alid#

,#hether administration o oath and the sitting o .ose /# 0era% amon +io2no and .oseomero should be deerred !ending hearing and decision on the !rotests lodged against theirelections#

57$&8:

The Su!reme Court reused to inter"ene% under the conce!t o se!aration o !o*ers% holdingthat the case *as not a contest% and airmed the inherent right o the legislature to determine*ho shall be admitted to its membershi!#

8ranting that the !ost!onement o the administration o the oath amounts to sus!ension o the!etitioners rom their oice% and conceding arguendo that such sus!ension is beyond the !o*ero the res!ondents% *ho in eect are and acted as the Phili!!ine Senate ;Ale'andrino "s#

?% >>@%this !etition should be denied# As *as e)!lained in the Ale'andrinocase% *e could not order one branch o the 7egislature to reinstate a member thereo# To do so*ould be to establish 'udicial !redominance% and to u!set the classic !attern o chec2s andbalances *isely *o"en into our institutional setu!#

The Constitution !ro"ides ;Article 0$% section 1-@ that or any s!eech or debate in congress%

1 | J o h a nC O N S T I T U T I O N A L L A W 21 1 / 1 / 1 4

8/9/2019 Consti 11114

2/57

Senators and congressmen shall not be uestioned in any other !lace#

The Su!reme Court o the 5nited States has inter!reted this !ri"ilege to include the gi"ing o a"ote or the !resentation o a resolution#

# # # $t *ould be a narro* "ie* o the constitutional !ro"ision to limit it to*ards s!o2en in debate#The reason o the rule is as orcible in its a!!lication to *ritten re!orts !resented in that body byits committees% to resolutions oered% *hich% though in *riting% must be re!roduced in s!eech%and to the act o "oting% # # # ;Bilbourn "s# thom!son% 1? 5#S#% ,4D ,6 7a*# ed#% ?% !# ?91#@

$n the abo"e case% Bilbourn% or reusing to ans*er uestions !ut to him by the ouse oe!resentati"es o the 5nited States Congress% concerning the business o a real estate!artnershi!% *as im!risoned or contem!t by resolution o the house# e sued to reco"erdamages rom the sergeant at arms and the congressional members o the committee% *ho hadcaused him to be brought beore the house% *here he *as ad'udged to be in contem!t# TheSu!reme Court o the 5nited States ound that the resolution o the ouse *as "oid or *ant o

'urisdiction in that body% but the action *as dismissed as to the members o the committee u!onthe strength o the herein abo"eGmentioned congressional immunity# The court cited *ith

a!!ro"al the ollo*ing e)cer!ts rom an earlier decision o the Su!reme Court oMassachusetts:

These !ri"ileges are thus secured% not *ith the intention o !rotecting the members against!rosecutions or their o*n beneit% but to su!!ort the rights o the !eo!le% by enabling theirre!resentati"es to e)ecute the unctions o their oice *ithout ear o !rosecutions% ci"il orcriminal# $% thereore% thin2 that the article ought not to be construed strictly% but liberally% that theull design o it may be ans*ered# # # ;1? 5#S#% ,?#@ ;Em!hasis ours#@

Commenting on this Congressional !ri"ilege% illoughby relates a!!arently as controlling% theollo*ing incident:

$n 191% se"eral Members o Congress ha"ing been ser"ed *ith a *rit o mandamus in a ci"ilaction brought against them as members o the .oint Committee on Printing and gro*ing out areusal o a bid o the 0alley Pa!er Com!any% or the urnishing o !a!er% the Senate resol"edthat the .ustice issuing the *rit had unla*ully in"aded the constitutional !ri"ileges and!rerogati"es o the Senate o the 5nited States and o three SenatorsD and *as *ithout

'urisdiction to grant the rule% and Senators are directed to ma2e no a!!earance in res!onsethereto# ;illoughby on the Constitution o the 5nited States% 0ol# $% Second Edition% !# 616#@

es!ondents are% by this !roceeding% called to account or their "otes in a!!ro"ing the

Pendatum esolution# a"ing s*orn to u!hold the Constitution% *e must enorce theconstitutional directi"e# e must not uestion% nor !ermit res!ondents to be uestioned here inconnection *ith their "otes# ;Bilbourn "s# Thom!son% su!ra#@

Case dismissed#

Alejandrino v. Quezon, 46 Phil. 83 !"#4$


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

3/57

Facts:

The !etitioner in this original !etition or mandamus and in'unction is .ose Ale'andrino% aSenator a!!ointed by the 8o"ernor 8eneral# to re!resent the 1,th Senatorial +istrict# The casusbelli is a resolution ado!ted by the Phili!!ine Senate com!osed o the res!ondent Senators% /nFebruary -%19,4%de!ri"ing Ale'andrino o all the !rerogati"es% !ri"ileges% and emoluments o hisoice or the !eriod o 1 yr rom 1H,4 ha"ing been declared guilty o disorderly conduct andlagrant "iolation o the !ri"ileges o the Senate or ha"ing treacherously assaulted Sen# de 0era

on the occasion o certain !hrases being uttered by the latter in the course o the debateregarding the credentials o Mr# Ale'andrino# The burden o !etitionerIs com!laint is that theresolution is unconstitutional and entirely o no eect#

$ssue:

/& the Su!reme Court by mandamus and in'unction may annul the sus!ension o Senator Ale'andrino and com!el the Phili!!ine Senate to reinstate him in his oicial !ositionJ

eld:

The general rule is that the *rit *ill not lie rom one branch o the go"ernment to a coordinate

branch% or the "ery ob"ious reason that neither is inerior to the other# Mandamus *ill not lieagainst the legislati"e body% its members% or its oicers% to com!el the !erormance o duties!urely legislati"e in their character *Hc thereore !ertains to their legislati"e unctions and o"er*Hc they ha"e e)clusi"e control# The courts cannot dictate action in this res!ect *ithout a grossusur!ation o !o*er# Precedents ha"e held that *here a member has been e)!elled by thelegislati"e body% the courts ha"e no !o*er% irres!ecti"e o *hether the e)!ulsion *as right or*rong% to issue a mandate to com!el his reinstatement

Santiago "s sandiganbayan# A!ril 19% ,1

$n /ctober 19>>% Miriam +eensor Santiago% *ho *as the then Commissioner o the

Commission o $mmigration and +e!ortation ;C$+@% a!!ro"ed the a!!lication or legali=ation o

the stay o about ?, aliens# er act *as said to be illegal and *as tainted *ith bad aith and it

ran counter against e!ublic Act &o# ?19 ;AntiG8rat and Corru!t Practices Act@# The

legali=ation o such is also a "iolation o E)ecuti"e /rder &o# ?,4 *hich !rohibits the

legali=ation o disualiied aliens# The aliens legali=ed by Santiago *ere allegedly 2no*n by her

to be disualiied# T*o other criminal cases *ere iled against Santiago# Pursuant to this

inormation% Francis 8architorena% a !residing .ustice o the Sandiganbayan% issued a *arrant

o arrest against Santiago# Santiago !etitioned or !ro"isional liberty since she *as 'ustreco"ering rom a car accident *hich *as a!!ro"ed# $n 199-% a motion *as iled *ith the

Sandiganbayan or the sus!ension o Santiago% *ho *as already a senator by then# The

Sandiganbayan ordered the Senate President ;Maceda@ to sus!end Santiago rom oice or 9

days#


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

4/57

I%%&E' hether or not Sandiganbayan can order sus!ension o a member o the Senate

*ithout "iolating the Constitution#

(EL)' Kes# it is true that the Constitution !ro"ides that each L house may determine the rules

of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of

two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when

imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.

(ut on the other hand% Section 1? o A ?19 !ro"ides:

Suspension and loss of benefits. – any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal

prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under Title , !oo" ## of the $evised

%enal &ode or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property

whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of

participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Should he be convicted by

final 'udgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is

ac(uitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed

to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been

filed against him.

$n here% the order o sus!ension !rescribed by A# ?19 is distinct rom the !o*er o Congress

to disci!line its o*n ran2s under the Constitution# The sus!ension contem!lated in the abo"e

constitutional !ro"ision is a !uniti"e measure that is im!osed u!on determination by the Senate

or the 7o*er ouse% as the case may be% u!on an erring member# This is uite distinct rom the

sus!ension s!o2en o in Section 1? o A ?19% *hich is not a !enalty but a !reliminary%

!re"enti"e measure% !rescinding rom the act that the latter is not being im!osed on !etitioner

or misbeha"ior as a Member o the Senate#

e!ublic Act &o# ?19 does not e)clude rom its co"erage the members o Congress and that%

thereore% the Sandiganbayan did not err in thus decreeing the assailed !re"enti"e sus!ension

order#

(ut Santiago committed the said act *hen she *as still the C$+ commissioner% can she still be

sus!ended as a senatorJ

Section 1? o e!ublic Act &o# ?19 does not state that the !ublic oicer concerned must be

sus!ended only in the oice *here he is alleged to ha"e committed the acts *ith *hich he hasbeen charged# Thus% it has been held that the use o the *ord oice *ould indicate that it

a!!lies to any oice *hich the oicer charged may be holding% and not only the !articular oice

under *hich he stands accused#

Santiago has not yet been con"icted o the alleged crime% can she still be sus!endedJ


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

5/57

8/9/2019 Consti 11114

6/57

As held in Miriam +eensor Santiago "# Sandiganbayan% et al#% the doctrine o se!aration o!o*ers does not e)clude the members o Congress rom the mandate o A ?19# The order osus!ension !rescribed by e!ublic Act ?19 is distinct rom the !o*er o Congress to disci!lineits o*n ran2s under the Constitution# The sus!ension contem!lated in the abo"e constitutional!ro"ision is a !uniti"e measure that is im!osed u!on a determination by the Senate or theouse o e!resentati"es% as the case may be% u!on an erring member#

Ra2io' $ts !ur!ose is to !re"ent the accused !ublic oicer rom rustrating his !rosecution by

inluencing *itnesses or tam!ering *ith documentary e"idence and rom committing urther actso maleasance *hile in oice# $t is thus an incident to the criminal !roceedings beore the court#/n the other hand% the sus!ension or e)!ulsion contem!lated in the Constitution is a ouseGim!osed sanction against its members# $t is% thereore% a !enalty or disorderly beha"ior toenorce disci!line% maintain order in its !roceedings% or "indicate its honor and integrity#

The doctrine o se!aration o !o*ers by itsel may not be deemed to ha"e eecti"ely e)cludedmembers o Congress rom e!ublic Act &o# ?19 nor rom its sanctions# The ma)im sim!lyrecogni=es that each o the three coGeual and inde!endent% albeit coordinate% branches o thego"ernment 3 the 7egislati"e% the E)ecuti"e and the .udiciary 3 has e)clusi"e !rerogati"es andcogni=ance *ithin its o*n s!here o inluence and eecti"ely !re"ents one branch rom undulyintruding into the internal aairs o either branch#

Lea+ue o 9i2ie v. 9o5ele*

Action:

These are consolidated !etitions or !rohibition *ith !rayer or the issuance o a *rit o

!reliminary in'unction or tem!orary restraining order iled by the 7eague o Cities o the

Phili!!ines% City o $loilo% City o Calbayog% and .erry P# Treas assailing the constitutionality o

the sub'ect Cityhood 7a*s and en'oining the Commission on Elections ;C/ME7EC@ and

res!ondent munici!alities rom conducting !lebiscites !ursuant to the Cityhood 7a*s#

Fact:

+uring the 11th Congress% Congress enacted into la* ?? bills con"erting ?? munici!alities into

cities# o*e"er% Congress did not act on bills con"erting ,4 other munici!alities into cities#

+uring the 1,th Congress% Congress enacted into la* e!ublic Act &o# 99 ;A 99@% *hich

too2 eect on ? .une ,1# A 99 amended Section 4- o the 7ocal 8o"ernment Code by

increasing the annual income reuirement or con"ersion o a munici!ality into a city rom P,

million to P1 million# The rationale or the amendment *as to restrain% in the *ords o Senator

Auilino Pimentel% the mad rush o munici!alities to con"ert into cities solely to secure a larger

share in the $nternal e"enue Allotment des!ite the act that they are inca!able o iscal

inde!endence#


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

7/57

Ater the eecti"ity o A 99% the ouse o e!resentati"es o the 1,th Congress ado!ted

.oint esolution &o# ,9% *hich sought to e)em!t rom the P1 million income reuirement in

A 99 the ,4 munici!alities *hose cityhood bills *ere not a!!ro"ed in the 11th Congress#

o*e"er% the 1,th Congress ended *ithout the Senate a!!ro"ing .oint esolution &o# ,9#

+uring the 1?th Congress% the ouse o e!resentati"es reGado!ted .oint esolution &o# ,9 as

.oint esolution &o# 1 and or*arded it to the Senate or a!!ro"al# o*e"er% the Senate again

ailed to a!!ro"e the .oint esolution# Follo*ing the ad"ice o Senator Auilino Pimentel% 16

munici!alities iled% through their res!ecti"e s!onsors% indi"idual cityhood bills# The 16 cityhood

bills contained a common !ro"ision e)em!ting all the 16 munici!alities rom the P1 million

income reuirement in A 99#

/n ,, +ecember ,6% the ouse o e!resentati"es a!!ro"ed the cityhood bills# The Senate

also a!!ro"ed the cityhood bills in February ,% e)ce!t that o &aga% Cebu *hich *as !assed

on .une ,# The cityhood bills la!sed into la* ;Cityhood 7a*s@ on "arious dates rom Marchto .uly , *ithout the PresidentNs signature#

The Cityhood 7a*s direct the C/ME7EC to hold !lebiscites to determine *hether the "oters in

each res!ondent munici!ality a!!ro"e o the con"ersion o their munici!ality into a city#

Petitioners iled the !resent !etitions to declare the Cityhood 7a*s unconstitutional or "iolation

o Section 1% Article O o the Constitution% as *ell as or "iolation o the eual !rotection clause#

Petitioners also lament that the *holesale con"ersion o munici!alities into cities *ill reduce the

share o e)isting cities in the $nternal e"enue Allotment because more cities *ill share thesame amount o internal re"enue set aside or all cities under Section ,>- o the 7ocal

8o"ernment Code#

$ssue:

The !etitions raise the ollo*ing undamental issues:

1# hether the Cityhood 7a*s "iolate Section 1% Article O o the ConstitutionD and

,# hether the Cityhood 7a*s "iolate the eual !rotection clause#

eld:

e grant the !etitions#

The Cityhood 7a*s "iolate Sections 6 and 1% Article O o the Constitution% and are thus

unconstitutional#


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

8/57

First% a!!lying the P1 million income reuirement in A 99 to the !resent case is a

!ros!ecti"e% not a retroacti"e a!!lication% because A 99 too2 eect in ,1 *hile the

cityhood bills became la* more than i"e years later#

Second% the Constitution reuires that Congress shall !rescribe all the criteria or the creation o

a city in the 7ocal 8o"ernment Code and not in any other la*% including the Cityhood 7a*s#

Third% the Cityhood 7a*s "iolate Section 6% Article O o the Constitution because they !re"ent a

air and 'ust distribution o the national ta)es to local go"ernment units#

Fourth% the criteria !rescribed in Section 4- o the 7ocal 8o"ernment Code% as amended by

A 99% or con"erting a munici!ality into a city are clear% !lain and unambiguous% needing no

resort to any statutory construction#

Fith% the intent o members o the 11th Congress to e)em!t certain munici!alities rom the

co"erage o A 99 remained an intent and *as ne"er *ritten into Section 4- o the 7ocal

8o"ernment Code#

Si)th% the deliberations o the 11th or 1,th Congress on una!!ro"ed bills or resolutions are not

e)trinsic aids in inter!reting a la* !assed in the 1?th Congress#

Se"enth% e"en i the e)em!tion in the Cityhood 7a*s *ere *ritten in Section 4- o the 7ocal

8o"ernment Code% the e)em!tion *ould still be unconstitutional or "iolation o the eual

!rotection clause#

%e*2ion !0. The Congress shall con"ene once e"ery year on the ourth Monday o .uly or itsregular session% unless a dierent date is i)ed by la*% and shall continue to be in session orsuch number o days as it may determine until thirty days beore the o!ening o its ne)t regularsession% e)clusi"e o Saturdays% Sundays% and legal holidays# The President may call a s!ecialsession at any time#

%e*2ion !6.

1# The Senate shall elect its President and the ouse o e!resentati"es% its S!ea2er% by ama'ority "ote o all its res!ecti"e Members# Each ouse shall choose such other oicersas it may deem necessary#


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

9/57

,# A ma'ority o each ouse shall constitute a uorum to do business% but a smaller number may ad'ourn rom day to day and may com!el the attendance o absent Members insuch manner% and under such !enalties% as such ouse may !ro"ide#

?# Each ouse may determine the rules o its !roceedings% !unish its Members ordisorderly beha"ior% and% *ith the concurrence o t*oGthirds o all its Members% sus!endor e)!el a Member# A !enalty o sus!ension% *hen im!osed% shall not e)ceed si)ty days#

4# Each ouse shall 2ee! a .ournal o its !roceedings% and rom time to time !ublish thesame% e)ce!ting such !arts as may% in its 'udgment% aect national securityD and theyeas and nays on any uestion shall% at the reuest o oneGith o the Members !resent%be entered in the .ournal# Each ouse shall also 2ee! a ecord o its !roceedings#

-# &either ouse during the sessions o the Congress shall% *ithout the consent o theother% ad'ourn or more than three days% nor to any other !lace than that in *hich the t*oouses shall be sitting#

9a*o 9he5i*al v i5enez 7 *ra 347 !"63$

Casco Phili!!ine Chemical Co#% $nc# *as engaged in the !roduction o synthetic resin glues

used !rimarily in the !roduction o !ly*ood# The main com!onents o the said glue are urea and

ormaldehyde *hich are both being im!orted abroad# Pursuant to A ,69 ;Foreign E)change

Margin Fee 7a*@% the Central (an2 o the Phili!!ines issued on .uly 1% 19-9% its Circular &o# 9-%

i)ing a uniorm margin ee o ,-Q on oreign e)change transactions# To su!!lement the

circular% the (an2 later !romulgated a memorandum establishing the !rocedure or a!!lications

or e)em!tion rom the !ayment o said ee% as !ro"ided in same la*# $n com!liance% Casco !aid

the ees but later mo"ed or reimbursement as Casco maintained that urea and ormaldehydeare e)em!ted rom such ees# The C(P issued the "ouchers or reund ;!ursuant to esolution

1-,9 o the C(P@ but the ban2Ns auditor reused to honor the "ouchers since he maintained that

this is in contrast to the !ro"ision o Sec ,% !ar 1> o A ,69 *hich !ro"ides: The margin

established by the Monetary (oard !ursuant to the !ro"ision o section one hereo shall not be

im!osed u!on the sale o oreign e)change or the im!ortation o the ollo*ing:

xxx xxx xxx

)*+###. rea formaldehyde for the manufacture of plywood and hardboard when imported by

and for the exclusive use of end-users.

The Auditor 8eneral% 8imene=% airmed the ruling o C(PNs auditor# Casco maintains that the

term urea ormaldehyde a!!earing in this !ro"ision should be construed as urea and

ormaldehyde e urther contends that the bill a!!ro"ed in Congress contained the co!ulati"e

con'unction and bet*een the terms urea and% ormaldehyde% and that the members o


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

10/57

Congress intended to e)em!t urea and ormaldehyde se!arately as essential elements in the

manuacture o the synthetic resin glue called urea ormaldehyde% not the latter a inished

!roduct% citing in su!!ort o this "ie* the statements made on the loor o the Senate% during the

consideration o the bill beore said ouse% by members thereo#

I%%&E' hether or not the term urea ormaldehyde should be construed as urea and

ormaldehyde#

(EL)' 5rea ormaldehyde is not a chemical solution# $t is the synthetic resin ormed as a

condensation !roduct rom deinite !ro!ortions o urea and ormaldehyde under certain

conditions relating to tem!erature% acidity% and time o reaction# This !roduce *hen a!!lied in

*ater solution and e)tended *ith ine)!ensi"e illers constitutes a airly lo* cost adhesi"e or use

in the manuacture o !ly*ood# 5rea ormaldehyde is clearly a inished !roduct% *hich is

!atently distinct and dierent rom urea and ormaldehyde% as se!arate articles used in the

manuacture o the synthetic resin 2no*n as urea ormaldehyde The o!inions o any member

o Congress does not re!resent the entirety o the Congress itsel# hat is !rinted in the

enrolled bill *ould be conclusi"e u!on the courts# $t is *ell settled that the enrolled bill R *hich

uses the term urea ormaldehyde instead o urea and ormaldehyde R is conclusi"e u!on

the courts as regards the tenor o the measure !assed by Congress and a!!ro"ed by the

President# $ there has been any mista2e in the !rinting o the bill beore it *as certiied by the

oicers o Congress and a!!ro"ed by the E)ecuti"e R on *hich the SC cannot s!eculate%

*ithout 'eo!ardi=ing the !rinci!le o se!aration o !o*ers and undermining one o the

cornerstones o our democratic system R the remedy is by amendment or curati"e legislation%

not by 'udicial decree#

P(IL :&)E% A%%O9IA;ION V% PRA)O EN

8/9/2019 Consti 11114

11/57

I%%&E'

hether or not Sec ?- o A ?-4 is constitutional#

R&LIN'

&o# SC held that Sec ?- #A# &o# ?-4 is unconstitutional#

1# Article 0$% Sec# ,6;l@% o the Constitution !ro"iding that E"ery bill !assed by the Congress

shall embrace only one sub'ect *hich shall be e)!ressed in the title thereo#

The title o the bill is not reuired to be an inde) to the body o the act% or to be as

com!rehensi"e as to co"er e"ery single detail o the measure# $t has been held that i the title

airly indicates the general sub'ect% and reasonably co"ers all the !ro"isions o the act% and is

not calculated to mislead the legislature or the !eo!le% there is suicient com!liance *ith the

constitutional reuirement#

e are con"inced that the *ithdra*al o the ran2ing !ri"ilege rom some agencies is germane

to the accom!lishment o the !rinci!al ob'ecti"e o #A# &o# ?-4% *hich is the creation o amore eicient and eecti"e !ostal ser"ice system# /ur ruling is that% by "irtue o its nature as a

re!ealing clause% Section ?- did not ha"e to be e)!ressly included in the title o the said la*#

,# The !etitioners maintain that the second !aragra!h o Sec# ?- co"ering the re!eal o the

ran2ing !ri"ilege rom the !etitioners and this Court under E#/# ,% P+ 1>>, and P+ ,6 *as

not included in the original "ersion o Senate (ill &o# , or ouse (ill &o# 4,# As this

!aragra!h a!!eared only in the Conerence Committee e!ort% its addition% "iolates Article 0$%

Sec# ,6;,@ o the Constitution# The !etitioners also in"o2e Sec# 4 o the ules o the ouse o

e!resentati"es% reuiring that amendment to any bill *hen the ouse and the Senate shall

ha"e dierences thereon may be settled by a conerence committee o both chambers#

&asco %hilippine &hemical &o. v. imene/ laid do*n the rule that the enrolled bill% is conclusi"e

u!on the .udiciary ;e)ce!t in matters that ha"e to be entered in the 'ournals li2e the yeas and

nays on the inal reading o the bill@# The 'ournals are themsel"es also binding on the Su!reme

Court#

A!!lying these !rinci!les% *e shall decline to loo2 into the !etitionersI charges that an

amendment *as made u!on the last reading o the bill that e"entually became #A# &o# ?-4

and that co!ies thereo in its inal orm *ere not distributed among the members o each ouse#

(oth the enrolled bill and the legislati"e 'ournals certiy that the measure *as duly enacted i#e#%

in accordance *ith Article 0$% Sec# ,6;,@ o the Constitution# e are bound by such oicial

assurances rom a coordinate de!artment o the go"ernment% to *hich *e o*e% at the "ery

least% a becoming courtesy#


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

12/57

?# SC annuls Section ?- o the la* as "iolati"e o Article ?% Sec# 1% o the Constitution !ro"iding

that no !erson shall be de!ri"ed o the eual !rotection o la*s#

$t is *orth obser"ing that the Phili!!ine Postal Cor!oration% as a go"ernmentGcontrolled

cor!oration% *as created and is e)!ected to o!erate or the !ur!ose o !romoting the !ublic

ser"ice# hile it may ha"e been established !rimarily or !ri"ate gain% it cannot e)cuse itsel

rom !erorming certain unctions or the beneit o the !ublic in e)change or the ranchise

e)tended to it by the go"ernment and the many ad"antages it en'oys under its charter# 14 Among the ser"ices it should be !re!ared to e)tend is ree carriage o mail or certain oices o

the go"ernment that need the ran2ing !ri"ilege in the discharge o their o*n !ublic unctions#

&% v Pon 34 Phil 7#"

.uan Pons and 8abino (eliso *ere trading !artners# /n A!ril -% 1914% the steamer 0ope/ y

0ope/ arri"ed in Manila rom S!ain and it contained ,- barrels o *ine# The said barrels o *ine

*ere deli"ered to (eliso# (eliso subseuently deli"ered - barrels to PonsN house# /n the other

hand% the customs authorities noticed that the said ,- barrels listed as *ine on record *ere notdeli"ered to any listed merchant ;(eliso not being one@# And so the customs oicers conducted

an in"estigation thereby disco"ering that the ,- barrels o *ine actually contained tins o o!ium#

Since the act o trading and dealing o!ium is against Act &o# ,?>1% Pons and (eliso *ere

charged or illegally and raudulently im!orting and introducing such contraband material to the

Phili!!ines# Pons a!!ealed the sentence arguing that Act ,?>1 *as a!!ro"ed *hile the

Phili!!ine Commission ;Congress@ *as not in session# e said that his *itnesses claim that the

said la* *as !assedHa!!ro"ed on 1 March 1914 *hile the s!ecial session o the Commission

*as ad'ourned at 1,M& on February ,>% 1914# Since this is the case% Act ,?>1 should be null

and "oid#

I%%&E' hether or not the SC must go beyond the recitals o the .ournals to determine i Act

,?>1 *as indeed made a la* on February ,>% 1914#

(EL)' The SC loo2ed into the .ournals to ascertain the date o ad'ournment but the SC reused

to go beyond the recitals in the legislati"e .ournals# The said .ournals are conclusi"e on the

Court and to inuire into the "eracity o the 'ournals o the Phili!!ine 7egislature% *hen they

are% as the SC ha"e said% clear and e)!licit% *ould be to "iolate both the letter and the s!irit o

the organic la*s by *hich the Phili!!ine 8o"ernment *as brought into e)istence% to in"ade a

coordinate and inde!endent de!artment o the 8o"ernment% and to interere *ith the legitimate

!o*ers and unctions o the 7egislature# PonsN *itnesses cannot be gi"en due *eight against

the conclusi"eness o the .ournals *hich is an act o the legislature# The 'ournals say that the

7egislature ad'ourned at 1, midnight on February ,>% 1914# This settles the uestion% and the

court did not err in declining to go beyond these 'ournals# The SC !assed u!on the

conclusi"eness o the enrolled bill in this !articular case


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

13/57

A2or+a v Ville+a

$n 1964% 0illegas ;then Mayor o Manila@ issued circulars to the de!artment heads and chies o

oices o the city go"ernment as *ell as to the o*ners% o!erators andHor managers o business

establishments in Manila todisregard the !ro"isions o A 46-# e li2e*ise issued an order to

the Chie o Police to recall i"e members o the city !olice orce *ho had been assigned to

0iceGMayor Astorga !resumably under authority o A 46-# Astorga reacted against the ste!s

carried out by 0illegas# e then iled a !etition *ith this Court on Se!tember % 1964 or

Mandamus% $n'unction andHor Prohibition *ith Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory $n'unction

to com!el 0illegas et al and the members o the munici!al board to com!ly *ith the !ro"isions

o A 46-# es!ondent denied recognition o A 46- ;An Act +eining the Po*ers% ights

and +uties o the 0iceGMayor o the City o Manila% Further Amending or the Pur!ose Sections

Ten and Ele"en o e!ublic Act &umbered Four undred &ine% as Amended% /ther*ise Bno*n

as the e"ised Charter o the City o Manila@ because the said la* *as considered to ha"e

ne"er been enacted# hen the this said la* !assed the ?rd reading in the lo*er house as (9,66% it *as sent to the Senate *hich reerred it to the Committee on Pro"inces and Munici!al

8o"ernments and Cities headed by Senator o)as# Some minor amendments *ere made

beore the bill *as reerred bac2 to the Senate loor or deliberations# +uring such deliberations%

Sen# Tolentino made signiicant amendments *hich *ere subseuently a!!ro"ed by the Senate#

The bill *as then sent bac2 to the / and *as thereater a!!ro"ed by the /# The bill *as

sent to the President or a!!ro"al and it became A 46-# $t *as later ound out ho*e"er that

the co!y signed by the Senate President% sent to the / or a!!ro"al and sent to the

President or signing *as the *rong "ersion# $t *as in act the "ersion that had no amendments

thereto# $t *as not the "ersion as amended by Tolentino and as "alidly a!!ro"ed by the Senate#

+ue to this act% the Senate !resident and the President o the Phili!!ines *ithdre* and

in"alidated their signatures that they ai)ed on the said la*# Astorga maintains that the A is

still "ald and binding and that the *ithdra*al o the concerned signatures does not in"alidate the

statute# Astorga urther maintains that the attestation o the !residing oicers o Congress is

conclusi"e !roo o a billNs due enactment#

I%%&E' hether or not the SC must loo2 into the .ournal to determine i the said la* *as "alidly

enacted#

(EL)' The 'ournal o the !roceedings o each ouse o Congress is no ordinary record# TheConstitution reuires it# hile it is true that the 'ournal is not authenticated and is sub'ect to the

ris2s o mis!rinting and other errors% the 'ournal can be loo2ed u!on in this case# This SC is

merely as2ed to inuire *hether the te)t o ouse (ill &o# 9,66 signed by the President *as the

same te)t !assed by both ouses o Congress# 5nder the s!eciic acts and circumstances o

this case% the SC can do this and resort to the Senate 'ournal or the !ur!ose#


https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDsQFjAF&url=https%3A%2F%2Fuber2002.wordpress.com%2Ftag%2Fastorga-vs-villegas%2F&ei=MG1WVJilC6W7mAWftoLYAQ&usg=AFQjCNHkWDLmLU2PSS7YRXWWnSfdL5oNag&sig2=NirL3fjdarTbvxc8ttg5mg&bvm=bv.78677474,bs.1,d.dGchttps://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDsQFjAF&url=https%3A%2F%2Fuber2002.wordpress.com%2Ftag%2Fastorga-vs-villegas%2F&ei=MG1WVJilC6W7mAWftoLYAQ&usg=AFQjCNHkWDLmLU2PSS7YRXWWnSfdL5oNag&sig2=NirL3fjdarTbvxc8ttg5mg&bvm=bv.78677474,bs.1,d.dGc

8/9/2019 Consti 11114

14/57

The 'ournal discloses that substantial and lengthy amendments *ere introduced on the loor and

a!!ro"ed by the Senate but *ere not incor!orated in the !rinted te)t sent to the President and

signed by him# &ote ho*e"er that the SC is not as2ed to incor!orate such amendments into the

alleged la* but only to declare that the bill *as not duly enacted and thereore did not become

la*# As done by both the President o the Senate and the Chie E)ecuti"e% *hen they *ithdre*

their signatures therein% the SC also declares that the bill intended to be as it is su!!osed to be

*as ne"er made into la*# To !er!etuate that error by disregarding such rectiication and holding

that the erroneous bill has become la* *ould be to sacriice truth to iction and bring about

mischie"ous conseuences not intended by the la*Gma2ing body#

=orale v %uido

Morales has ser"ed as ca!tain in the !olice de!artment o a city or at least three years but

does not !ossess a bachelorNs degree% is ualiied or a!!ointment as chie o !olice# Morales

*as the chie o detecti"e bureau o the Manila Police +e!artment and holds the ran2 o

lieutenant colonel# e began his career in 19?4 as !atrolman and gradually rose to his !resent!osition# 5!on the resignation o the ormer Chie % Morales *as designated acting chie o

!olice o Manila and% at the same time% gi"en a !ro"isional a!!ointment to the same !osition by

the mayor o Manila# Subido a!!ro"ed the designation o the !etitioner but re'ected his

a!!ointment or ailure to meet the minimum educational and ci"il ser"ice

eligibility reuirements or the said !osition# $nstead% the res!ondent certiied other !ersons as

ualiied or the !ost# Subido in"o2ed Section 1 o the Police Act o 1966% *hich Section reads:

Minimum ualiication or a!!ointment as Chie o Police Agency# 3 &o !erson may be

a!!ointed chie o a city !olice agency unless he holds a bachelorNs degree rom a recogni=ed

institution o learning and has ser"ed either in the Armed Forces o the Phili!!ines or the&ational (ureau o $n"estigation% or has ser"ed as chie o !olice *ith e)em!lary record% or has

ser"ed in the !olice de!artment o any city *ith ran2 o ca!tain or its eui"alent therein or at

least three yearsD or an- hi+h *hool +radua2e ho ha erved a oi*er in 2he Ar5ed

1or*es or at least eight years *ith the ran2 o ca!tain andHor higher#

&o*here in the abo"e !ro"ision is it !ro"ided that a !erson *ho has ser"ed the !olice

de!artment o a city L can be ualiied or said oice# Morales ho*e"er argued that *hen the

said act *as being deliberated u!on% the a!!ro"ed "ersion *as actually the ollo*ing:

&o !erson may be a!!ointed chie o a city !olice agency unless he holds a bachelorNs degree

and has ser"ed either in the Armed Forces o the Phili!!ines or the &ational (ureau o

$n"estigation or !olice de!artment o any city and has held the ran2 o ca!tain or its eui"alent

therein or at least three years or an- hi+h *hool +radua2e ho ha erved 2he oli*e


https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uberdigests.info%2F2012%2F01%2Fmorales-vs-subido%2F&ei=2m1WVMntMsKjmwW014CoBg&usg=AFQjCNElKw2zolen9VyKmR039LmM7ncg2A&sig2=V5uDoFS9OdFXqMfUloO_wA&bvm=bv.78677474,bs.1,d.dGchttps://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uberdigests.info%2F2012%2F01%2Fmorales-vs-subido%2F&ei=2m1WVMntMsKjmwW014CoBg&usg=AFQjCNElKw2zolen9VyKmR039LmM7ncg2A&sig2=V5uDoFS9OdFXqMfUloO_wA&bvm=bv.78677474,bs.1,d.dGc

8/9/2019 Consti 11114

15/57

dear25en2 o a *i2- or *ho has ser"ed as oicer o the Armed Forces or at least > years *ith

the ran2 o ca!tain andHor higher#N

Morales argued that the abo"e "ersion *as the one *hich *as actually a!!ro"ed by Congress

but *hen the bill emerged rom the conerence committee the only change made in the

!ro"ision *as the insertion o the !hrase>or ha erved a *hie o oli*e i2h e?e5lar-

re*ord.@ Morales *ent on to su!!ort his case by !roducing co!ies o certiied !hotostatic co!y

o a memorandum *hich according to him *as signed by an em!loyee in the Senate billdi"ision% and can be ound attached to the !age !roos o the then bill being deliberated u!on#

I%%&E' hether or not the SC must loo2 u!on the history o the bill% thereby inuiring u!on the

'ournals% to loo2 searchingly into the matter#

(EL)' The enrolled Act in the oice o the legislati"e secretary o the President o the

Phili!!ines sho*s that Section 1 is e)actly as it is in the statute as oicially !ublished in sli!

orm by the (ureau o Printing# The SC cannot go behind the enrolled Act to disco"er *hat really

ha!!ened# The res!ect due to the other branches o the 8o"ernment demands that the SC act

u!on the aith and credit o *hat the oicers o the said branches attest to as the oicial acts o

their res!ecti"e de!artments# /ther*ise the SC *ould be cast in the unen"iable and un*anted

role o a sleuth trying to determine *hat actually did ha!!en in the labyrinth o la*ma2ing% *ith

conseuent im!airment o the integrity o the legislati"e !rocess# The SC is not o course to be

understood as holding that in all cases the 'ournals must yield to the enrolled bill# To be sure

there are certain matters *hich the Constitution e)!ressly reuires must be entered on the

'ournal o each house# To *hat e)tent the "alidity o a legislati"e act may be aected by a ailure

to ha"e such matters entered on the 'ournal% is a uestion *hich the SC can decide u!on but is

not currently being conronted in the case at bar hence the SC does not no* decide# All the SC

holds is that *ith res!ect to matters not e)!ressly reuired to be entered on the 'ournal% theenrolled bill !re"ails in the e"ent o any discre!ancy#

5#S# "# Pom!eya.R. No. L!/#00, Au+u2 6, !"!0

• !olice !o*er o the state

•

general *elare clause

1A9;%'

This case is regarding the com!laint iled by the !rosecuting attorney o the Pro"ince o $loilo%charging Sil"estre Pom!eya *ith "iolation o the munici!al ordinance o $loilo or *illully%


http://scire-licet.blogspot.com/2008/04/us-v-pompeya.htmlhttp://scire-licet.blogspot.com/2008/04/us-v-pompeya.html

8/9/2019 Consti 11114

16/57

illegally% and criminally and *ithout 'ustiiable moti"e ailing to render ser"ice on !atrol duty%reuired under said munici!al ordinance#

5!on arraignment% Pom!eya !resented a demurrer% stating that the acts charged in thecom!laint do not constitute a crime and that the munici!al ordinance is unconstitutional or being re!ugnant to the /rganic Act o the Phili!!ines% *hich guarantees the liberty o theciti=ens#

The trial 'udge sustained said demurrer and ordered the dismissal o the com!laint#

ence% this a!!eal#

I%%&E'

H& the acts stated in the com!laint are suicient to sho* a cause o action under the said la*H& said la* is in "iolation o the !ro"isions o the Phili!!ine (ill in de!ri"ing citi=ens o their rights therein guaranteed

(EL)'

$s the assailed munici!al ordinance a "iolation o the Phili!!ine (illJ

The munici!al ordinance *as enacted !ursuant to the !ro"isions o Act &o# 1?9% the s!eciic!ur!ose o *hich is to reuire each ableGbodied male resident o the munici!ality% bet*een theages o 1> and --% as *ell as each householder *hen so reuired by the !resident% to assist inthe maintenance o !eace and good order in the community% by a!!rehending ladrones% etc#% as*ell as by gi"ing inormation o the e)istence o such !ersons in the locality# Theamendment contains a !unishment or those *ho may be called u!on or such ser"ice% and *horeuse to render the same#

The uestion as2ed by the Su!reme Court is *hether there is anything in the la*% organic or other*ise% in orce in the Phili!!ine $slands% *hich !rohibits the central 8o"ernment% or anygo"ernmental entity connected there*ith% rom ado!ting or enacting rules and regulations or the

maintenance o !eace and good go"ernmentJ

$n ans*ering this% the Su!reme Court cited the tribal relations o the !rimiti"e man% the eudalsystem% the days o the hundreds GG all o *hich su!!ort the idea o an ancient obligation o the indi"idual to assist in the !rotection o the !eace and good order o his community#

The Su!reme Court held that the !o*er e)ercised under the !ro"isions o Act &o# 1?9 alls*ithin the !olice !o*er o the state and that the state *as ully authori=ed and 'ustiied inconerring the same u!on the munici!alities o the Phili!!ine $slands and that% thereore% the!ro"isions o the said Act are constitutional and not in "iolation nor in derogation o the rights o the !ersons aected thereby#

$s there a cause o actionJ

The com!lain is unable to sho* ;a@ that the deendant *as a male citi=en o the munici!alityD ;b@that he *as an ableGbodied citi=enD ;c@ that he *as not under 1> years o age nor o"er --D nor ;d@ that conditions e)isted *hich 'ustiied the !resident o the munici!ality in calling u!on him or the ser"ices mentioned in the la*#


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

17/57

For all o the oregoing reasons% the 'udgment o the lo*er court is hereby airmed% *ith costs#So ordered#

i*hon+ v hernandez

7ao $chong is a Chinese businessman *ho entered the country to ta2e ad"antage o business

o!!ortunities herein abound ;then@ 3 !articularly in the retail business# For some time he and his

ello* Chinese businessmen en'oyed a mono!oly in the local mar2et in Pasay# 5ntil in .une19-4 *hen Congress !assed the A 11> or the etail Trade &ationali=ation Act the !ur!ose o

*hich is to reser"e to Fili!inos the right to engage in the retail business# $chong then !etitioned

or the nulliication o the said Act on the ground that it contra"ened se"eral treaties concluded

by the P *hich% according to him% "iolates the eual !rotection clause ;!acta sund ser"anda@#

e said that as a Chinese businessman engaged in the business here in the country *ho hel!s

in the income generation o the country he should be gi"en eual o!!ortunity#

I%%&E' hether or not a la* may in"alidate or su!ersede treaties or generally acce!ted

!rinci!les#

(EL)' Kes% a la* may su!ersede a treaty or a generally acce!ted !rinci!le# $n this case% there

is no conlict at all bet*een the raised generally acce!ted !rinci!le and *ith A 11># The eual

!rotection o the la* clause does not demand absolute euality amongst residentsD it merely

reuires that all !ersons shall be treated ali2e% under li2e circumstances and conditions both as

to !ri"ileges conerred and liabilities enorcedD and% that the eual !rotection clause is not

inringed by legislation *hich a!!lies only to those !ersons alling *ithin a s!eciied class% i it

a!!lies ali2e to all !ersons *ithin such class% and reasonable grounds e)ist or ma2ing a

distinction bet*een those *ho all *ithin such class and those *ho do not#

For the sa2e o argument% e"en i it *ould be assumed that a treaty *ould be in conlict *ith a

statute then the statute must be u!held because it re!resented an e)ercise o the !olice !o*er

*hich% being inherent could not be bargained a*ay or surrendered through the medium o a

treaty# ence% $chong can no longer assert his right to o!erate his mar2et stalls in the Pasay

city mar2et#

A+u2in v Edu !"7"$ 88 %9RA !"0

Facts:

7eo"illo Agustin% the o*ner o a (eetle% challenged the constitutionality o 7etter o $nstruction

,,9 and its im!lementing order &o# 1 issued by 7T/ Commissioner omeo Edu# is car

already had *arning lights and did not *ant to use this#


https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fuber2002.wordpress.com%2Ftag%2Fichong-vs-hernandez%2F&ei=iW5WVN7_FuO6mAW4s4LQAw&usg=AFQjCNFqia_k60U0KvjTkqSLXdrxtyK92Q&sig2=uT-HIt7PIRdfKnU0oS6S8w&bvm=bv.78677474,bs.1,d.dGchttps://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fuber2002.wordpress.com%2Ftag%2Fichong-vs-hernandez%2F&ei=iW5WVN7_FuO6mAW4s4LQAw&usg=AFQjCNFqia_k60U0KvjTkqSLXdrxtyK92Q&sig2=uT-HIt7PIRdfKnU0oS6S8w&bvm=bv.78677474,bs.1,d.dGc

8/9/2019 Consti 11114

18/57

The letter *as !romulgation or the reuirement o an early *arning de"ice installed on a "ehicle

to reduce accidents bet*een mo"ing "ehicles and !ar2ed cars#

The 7T/ *as the issuer o the de"ice at the rate o not more than 1-Q o the acuisition cost#

The triangular relector !lates *ere set *hen the car !ar2ed on any street or high*ay or ?

minutes# $t *as mandatory#

Petitioner: 1# 7/$ "iolated the !ro"isions and delegation o !olice !o*er% eual !rotection% and

due !rocessH

,# $t *as o!!ressi"e because the ma2e manuacturers and car dealers millionaires at the

e)!ense car o*ners at -6G, !esos !er set#

ence the !etition#

The /S8 denied the allegations in !ar O and O$ o the !etition *ith regard to the

unconstitutionality and undue delegation o !olice !o*er to such acts#

The Phili!!ines *as also a member o the 196> 0ienna con"ention o 5& on road signs as a

regulation# To the !etitioner% this *as still an unla*ul delegation o !olice !o*er#

$ssue:

$s the 7/$ constitutionalJ $ it is% is it a "alid delegation o !olice !o*erJ

eld: Kes on both# Petition dismissed#

atio:

Police !o*er% according to the case o Edu " Ericta% *hich cited .# Taney% is nothing more or less

than the !o*er o go"ernment inherent in e"ery so"ereignty#

The case also says that !olice !o*er is state authority to enact legislation that may interere*ith !ersonal liberty or !ro!erty to !romote the general *elare#

Primicias " FulgosoG $t is the !o*er to describe regulations to !romote the health% morals%

!eace% education% good order% and general *elare o the !eo!le#


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

19/57

.# Cara=oG go"ernment limitations to !rotect constitutional rights did not also intend to enable a

citi=en to obstruct unreasonable the enactment o measures calculated to insure communal

!eace#

There *as no actual oundation on !etitioner to reute "alidity#

Ermita Malate otelGThe !resum!tion o constitutionality must !re"ail in the absence o actual

record in o"er thro*ing the statute#

(randeisG constitutionality must !re"ail in the absence o some actual oundation in

o"erthro*ing the statute#

E"en i the car had blin2ing lights% he must still buy relectors# is claims that the statute *as

o!!ressi"e *as antastic because the relectors *ere not e)!ensi"e#

SCG blin2ing lights may lead to conusion *hether the nature and !ur!ose o the dri"er is

concerned#

5nli2e the triangular relectors% *hose nature is e"ident because itNs installed *hen !ar2ed or

? minutes and !laced rom 4 meters rom the car allo*ing dri"ers to see clearly#

There *as no constitutional basis or !etitioner because the la* doesnNt "iolate any

constitutional !ro"ision#

7/$ ,,9 doesnNt orce motor "ehicle o*ners to !urchase the relector rom the 7T/# $t only

!rescribes rge reuirement rom any source#

The ob'ecti"e is !ublic saety#

The 0ienna con"ention on road rights and P+ , both recommended enorcement or

installation o e*dNs# (other !ossess rele"ance in a!!lying rules *ith the dec"laration o

!rinci!les in the Constitution#

/n the unla*ul delegation o legislati"e !o*er% the !etitioners ha"e no settled legal doctrines

Er5i2a =ala2e v 9i2- o =anila #/ %9RA 84"

/n 1? .une 196?% the Manila Munici!al (oard enacted /rd 46 and the same *as a!!ro"ed

by then acting mayor Astorga# /rd 46 sought to regulate hotels and motels# $t classiied them

into 1st class ;ta)ed at 62Hyr@ and ,nd class ;ta)ed at 4#-2Hyr@# $t also com!elled hotelsHmotels to

get the demogra!hics o anyone *ho chec2s in to their rooms# $t com!elled hotelsHmotels to


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

20/57

ha"e *ide o!en s!aces so as not to conceal the identity o their !atrons# ErmitaGMalate

im!ugned the "alidity o the la* a"erring that such is o!!ressi"e% arbitrary and against due

!rocess# The lo*er court as *ell as the a!!ellate court ruled in a"or o ErmitaGMalate#

I%%&E' hether or not /rd 46 is against the due !rocess clause#

(EL)' The SC ruled in a"or o Astorga# There is a !resum!tion that the la*s enacted by

Congress ;in this case Mun (oard@ is "alid# Ho a sho*ing or a strong oundation o in"alidity%the !resum!tion stays# As in this case% there *as only a sti!ulation o acts and such cannot

!re"ail o"er the !resum!tion# Further% the ordinance is a "alid e)ercise o Police Po*er# There is

no uestion but that the challenged ordinance *as !recisely enacted to minimi=e certain

!ractices hurtul to !ublic morals# This is to minimi=e !rostitution# The increase in ta)es not only

discourages hotelsHmotels in doing any business other than legal but also increases the re"enue

o the lgu concerned# And ta)ation is a "alid e)ercise o !olice !o*er as *ell# The due !rocess

contention is li2e*ise untenable% due !rocess has no e)act deinition but has reason as a

standard# $n this case% the !recise reason *hy the ordinance *as enacted *as to curb do*n

!rostitution in the city *hich is reason enough and cannot be deeated by mere singling out o

the !ro"isions o the said ordinance alleged to be "ague#

Facts:

ErmitaGMalate otel and Motel /!erators Association% and one o its members otel del

Mar $nc# !etitioned or the !rohibition o /rdinance 46 on .une 14% 196? to be a!!licable in

the city o Manila#

They claimed that the ordinance *as beyond the !o*ers o the Manila City (oard

to regulate due to the act that hotels *ere not !art o its regulatory !o*ers# They also asserted

that Section 1 o the challenged ordinance *as unconstitutional and "oid or being unreasonableand "iolati"e o due !rocess insoar because it *ould im!ose P6%# license ee !er annum

or irst class motels and P4%-# or second class motelsD there *as also the reuirement

that the guests *ould ill u! a orm s!eciying their !ersonal inormation#

There *as also a !ro"ision that the !remises and acilities o such hotels% motels and lodging

houses *ould be o!en or ins!ection rom city authorites# They claimed this to be "iolati"e o

due !rocess or being "ague#

The la* also classiied motels into t*o classes and reuired the maintenance o certain

minimum acilities in irst class motels such as a tele!hone in each room% a dining room or%

restaurant andlaundry# The !etitioners also in"o2ed the lac2 o due !rocess on this or beingarbitrary#

$t *as also unla*ul or the o*ner to lease any room or !ortion thereo more than t*ice ever- #4

hour#

There *as also a !rohibition or !ersons belo* 1> in the hotel#


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

21/57

The challenged ordinance also caused the automatic cancellation o the license o

the hotels that "iolated the ordinance#

The lo*er court declared the ordinance unconstitutional#

ence% this a!!eal by the city o Manila#

$ssue:

hether /rdinance &o# 46 o the City o Manila is "iolati"e o the due !rocess clauseJ

eld: &o# .udgment re"ersed#

atio:

The !resum!tion is to*ards the "alidity o a la*# o*e"er% the .udiciary should not lightly set

aside legislati"e action *hen there is not a clear in"asion o !ersonal or !ro!erty rights under

the guise o !olice regulation#

/I8orman Koung "# artord Fire $nsurance CoG Case *as in the sco!e o !olice !o*er# As

underlying uestions o act may condition the constitutionality o legislation o this character% theresum!tion o constitutionality must !re"ail in the absence o some actual oundation o

recordor o"erthro*ing the statute# &o such actual oundation being laid in the !resent case%

the lo*er court deciding the matter on the !leadings and the sti!ulation o acts% the

!resum!tion o "alidity must !re"ail and the 'udgment against the ordinance set aside#

There is no uestion but that the challenged ordinance *as !recisely enacted to minimi=e

certain !ractices hurtul to !ublic morals% !articularly ornication and !rostitution# Moreo"er% the

increase in the licensed ees *as intended to discourage establishments o the 2ind rom

o!erating or !ur!ose other than legal and at the same time% to increase the income o the city

go"ernment#

Police !o*er is the !o*er to !rescribe regulations to !romote the health% morals% !eace% good

order% saety and general *elare o the !eo!le# $n "ie* o the reuirements o due !rocess%

eual !rotection and other a!!licable constitutional guaranties% ho*e"er% the !o*er must not be

unreasonable or "iolati"e o due !rocess#

There is no controlling and !recise deinition o due !rocess# $t has a standard to *hich the

go"ernmental action should conorm in order that de!ri"ation o lie% liberty or !ro!erty% in each

a!!ro!riate case% be "alid# hat then is the standard o due !rocess *hich must e)ist both as a

!rocedural and a substanti"e reuisite to ree the challenged ordinance rom legal inirmityJ $t is

res!onsi"eness to the su!remacy o reason% obedience to the dictates o 'ustice# &egati"ely !ut%

arbitrariness is ruled out and unairness a"oided#

+ue !rocess is not a narro* or technical conce!tion *ith i)ed content unrelated to time% !lace

and circumstances% decisions based on such a clause reuiring a close and


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

22/57

!erce!ti"e inuiryinto undamental !rinci!les o our society#

8/9/2019 Consti 11114

23/57

Arnault "# &a=areno

Petition or habeas cor!us to relie"e !etitioner .ean Arnault rom coninement in the &e* (ilibid

!rison# +enied#

1A9;%' $n the latter !art o /ctober% 1949% the Phili!!ine 8o"ernment% through the ural

Progress Administration% bought t*o estates 2no*n as (uena"ista and Tambobong or the sums

o P4%-% and P-%% res!ecti"ely# P1%% *as !aid or the irst sum and P -%

to the second sum both to Ernest # (urt% a nonresident American% thru his t*o attorneyGinGact

in the Phili!!ines% as re!resented by .ean 7# Arnault% or both estates res!ecti"ely# o*e"er%

Ernest # (urt *as not the original o*ner o the estate# e bought the irst rom San .uan de

+ios hos!ital and the second rom the Phili!!ine trust com!any# $n both instances% (urt *as not

able to !ay the necessary amount o money to com!lete his !ayments# As such% his contract

*ith said o*ners *ere cancelled#

/n Se!tember 4% 194% the Phili!!ine Trust Com!any sold% con"eyed% and deli"ered the

Tambobong Estate to the ural Progress Administration by an abolute deed o sale in

consideration o the sum o P-%# The Phili!!ine 8o"ernment then% through the Secretary

o .ustice as Chairman o the (oard o +irectors o the ural Progress Administration and as

Chairman o the (oard o +irectors o the Phili!!ine &ational (an2% rom *hich the money *as

borro*ed% accom!lished the !urchase o the t*o estates in the latter !art o /ctober% 1949% as

stated at the outset#

/n February ,% 19-% the Senate ado!ted its esolution &o# >% *hich created a s!ecial

committee to in"estigate the transactions surrounding the estates# The s!ecial committee

created by the resolution called and e)amined "arious *itnesses% among the most im!ortant o

*hom *as .ean 7# Arnault# An intriguing uestion *hich the committee sought to resol"e *as

the a!!arent unnecessariness and irregularity o the 8o"ernmentNs !aying to (urt the total sum

o P1%-% or his alleged interest o only P,% in the t*o estates% *hich he seemed to

ha"e oreited any*ay long beore /ctober% 1949# The committee sought to determine *ho *ere

res!onsible or and *ho beneited rom the transaction at the e)!ense o the 8o"ernment#


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

24/57

Arnault testiied that t*o chec2s !ayable to (urt aggregating P1%-% *ere deli"ered to him

on the aternoon o /ctober ,9% 1949D that on the same date he o!ened a ne* account in the

name o Ernest # (urt *ith the Phili!!ine &ational (an2 in *hich he de!osited the t*o chec2s

aggregating P1%-%D and that on the same occasion he dre* on said account t*o chec2sD

one or P-%% *hich he transerred to the account o the Associated Agencies% $nc#% *ith the

Phili!!ine &ational (an2% and another or P44% !ayable to cash% *hich he himsel cashed#

$t *as the desire o the committee to determine the ultimate reci!ient o this sum o P44%

that ga"e rise to the !resent case# As Arnault resisted to name the reci!ient o the money% the

senate then a!!ro"ed a resolution that cited him or contem!t# $t is this resolution *hich brought

him to 'ail and is being contested in this !etition#

I%%&E%'

1# /& the Senate has the !o*er to !unish Arnault or contem!t or reusing to re"eal the

name o the !erson to *hom he ga"e the P44%#

,# /& the Senate lac2s authority to commit him or contem!t or a term beyond its !eriod o

legislati"e session% *hich ended on May 1>% 19-#

?# /& the !ri"ilege against sel incrimination !rotects the !etitioner rom being uestioned#

(EL)'

1# KES# /nce an inuiry is admitted or established to be *ithin the 'urisdiction o a legislati"e

body to ma2e% the in"estigating committee has the !o*er to reuire a *itness to ans*er any

uestion !ertinent to that inuiry% sub'ect o course to his constitutional right against selG

incrimination# The inuiry% to be *ithin the 'urisdiction o the legislati"e body to ma2e% must be

material or necessary to the e)ercise o a !o*er in it "ested by the Constitution% such as to

legislate% or to e)!el a MemberD and e"ery uestion *hich the in"estigator is em!o*ered to

coerce a *itness to ans*er must be material or !ertinent to the sub'ect o the inuiry or

in"estigation# The materiality o the uestion must be determined by its direct relation to the

sub'ect o the inuiry and not by its indirect relation to any !ro!osed or !ossible legislation# The

reason is% that the necessity or lac2 o necessity or legislati"e action and the orm and character


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

25/57

o the action itsel are determined by the sum total o the inormation to be gathered as a result

o the in"estigation% and not by a raction o such inormation elicited rom a single uestion#

,# &/# Senate is a continuing body and *hich does not cease to e)ist u!on the !eriodical

dissolution o the Congress or o the ouse o e!resentati"es# There is no limit as to time to

the SenateNs !o*er to !unish or contem!t in cases *here that !o*er may constitutionally be

e)erted as in the !resent case# Senate *ill not be dis!osed to e)ert the !o*er beyond its !ro!er

bounds% i#e# abuse their !o*er and 2ee! the *itness in !rison or lie# $ !ro!er limitations are

disregarded% Court isal*ays o!en to those *hose rights might thus be transgressed#

?# &/# Court is satisied that those ans*ers o the *itness to the im!ortant uestion% *hich is

the name o that !erson to *hom *itness ga"e the P44%% *ere ob"iously alse# is insistent

claim beore the bar o the Senate that i he should re"eal the name he *ould incriminate

himsel% necessarily im!lied that he 2ne* the name# Moreo"er% it is unbelie"able that he ga"e

P44% to a !erson to him un2no*n# Testimony *hich is ob"iously alse or e"asi"e is

eui"alent to a reusal to testiy and is !unishable as contem!t% assuming that a reusal to testiy

*ould be so !unishable# Since according to the *itness himsel the transaction *as legal% and

that he ga"e the P44% to a re!resentati"e o (urt in com!liance *ith the latterNs "erbal

instruction% Court ound no basis u!on *hich to sustain his claim that to re"eal the name o that

!erson might incriminate him#

This case arose rom the legislati"e inuiry into the acuisition by the Phili!!ine 8o"ernment o

the (uena"ista and Tambobong estates sometime in 1949# Among the *itnesses called to be

e)amined by the s!ecial committee created by a Senate resolution *as .ean 7# Arnault% a

la*yer *ho deli"ered a !artial o the !urchase !rice to a re!resentati"e o the "endor# +uring

the Senate in"estigation% Arnault reused to re"eal the identity o said re!resentati"e% at the

same time in"o2ing his constitutional right against selGincrimination# The Senate ado!ted a

resolution committing Arnault to the custody o the SergeantGatGArms and im!risoned until he

shall ha"e !urged the contem!t by re"ealing to the Senate # # # the name o the !erson to *homhe ga"e the P44%% as *ell as ans*er other !ertinent uestions in connection there*ith#

Arnault !etitioned or a *rit o abeas Cor!us

I%%&E' Can the senate im!ose !enalty against those *ho reuse to ans*er its uestions in a

congressional hearing in aid o legislation#


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

26/57

(EL)' $t is the inherent right o the Senate to im!ose !enalty in carrying out their duty to

conduct inuiry in aid o legislation# (ut it must be herein established that a *itness *ho reuses

to ans*er a uery by the Committee may be detained during the term o the members im!osing

said !enalty but the detention should not be too long as to "iolate the *itnessN right to due

!rocess o la*#

Tan "s C/ME7EC% 8## &o# ?1-- case brie summary

;an v 9O=ELE9, .R. No. 73!00 case brie summary

.uly 11% 19>6

1a*2' The com!lainants are residents o Pro"ince o &egros /ccidental# This case is !etitioncontesting the constitutionality o A &o# >>-% An Act Creating a &e* Pro"ince in the $sland o

&egros to be 2no*n as the Pro"ince o &egros del &orte% eecti"e +ec# ?% 19>-# Pursuant toand in im!lementation o this la*% the C/ME7EC scheduled a !lebiscite or .anuary ?% 19>6 onthe !ro!osed ne* !ro"ince# The !lebiscite resulted in the airmati"e "otes thus the!roclamation o the ne* !ro"ince 2no*n as &egros del &orte#

Iue'

;1@This case uestion *hether as residents o the !arent !ro"ince% the citi=ens should beincluded in the !lebiscite as the constitution !ro"ides that it should be conducted in the aectedarea

;,@They also uestion the constitutionality o the la* as the territory did not reach the reuiredminimum o ,- s#2m

Rulin+'

;$ssue 1@: The Su!reme Court held the citi=ens o the !arent !ro"ince should also be included inthe !lebiscite as they are also aected by the di"ision o the !ro"ince# This di"ision *ill cause analteration to the !arent !ro"inceNs territorial boundaries% !olitical units as *ell as may ha"ead"erse economic eects#

;$ssue ,@: (ased on records% it *as !ro"ed that the territorial boundaries o the ne* !ro"ince *illnot reach the reuired minimum o ?- s#2m#

As such% the Su!reme Court ruled that A &o# >>- is unconstitutional#

Tan "# C/ME7EC


http://scire-licet.blogspot.com/2008/04/tan-v-comelec.htmlhttp://scire-licet.blogspot.com/2008/04/tan-v-comelec.html

8/9/2019 Consti 11114

27/57

.R. No. 73!00, :ul- !!, !"86

12TA !3134 This case is relevant to the current bu// regarding the 5Sugbua".5 The issue inthis case, however, is a bit on the technical side.

G *hen the boundaries o a 785 is substantially altered% there are necessarily more than oneunit aected GG the !arent 785 and the ne* 785 that *as created as a result o the alteration

1A9;%'

This case *as !rom!ted by the enactment o (atas Pambansa (lg# >>-% An Act Creating a &e*Pro"ince in the $sland o &egros to be 2no*n as the Pro"ince o &egros del &orte% eecti"e+ec# ?% 19>-# ;Cities o Silay% Cadi= and San Carlos and the munici!alities o Calatra"a% Taboso%Escalante% Sagay% Mana!la% 0ictorias% E## Magalona% and Sal"ador (enedicto#

Pursuant to and in im!lementation o this la*% the C/ME7EC scheduled a !lebiscite or .anuary?% 19>6# Petitioners o!!osed% iling a case or Prohibition and contending that the (#P# >>- isunconstitutional and not in com!lete accord *ith the 7ocal 8o"ernment Code because:

;1@ The "oters o the !arent !ro"ince o &egros /ccidental% other than those li"ing *ithin the

territory o the ne* !ro"ince o &egros del &orte% *ere not included in the !lebiscite;,@ The area *hich *ould com!rise the ne* !ro"inc o &egros del &orte *ould only be about,%>-6#-6 s# 2m#% *hich is lesser than the minimum area !rescribed by the go"erning statute

The Su!reme Court *as in recess at the time so the !etition *as not timely considered#Conseuently% !etitioners iled a su!!lemental !leading on .anuary 4% 19>6% ater the !lebiscitesought to be restrained *as held the !re"ious day% .anuary ?#

I%%&E'

H& the !lebiscite *as legal and com!lied *ith the constitutional reuisites under Article O$%Sec# ? o the Consititution% *hich states that GG

Sec# ?# &o !ro"ince% city% munici!ality or barrio may be created% di"ided% merged% abolished% or its boundary substantially altered e)ce!t in accordance *ith the criteria established in the 7ocal8o"ernment Code% and sub'ect to the a!!ro"al by a ma'ority o the "otes in a !lebiscite in theunit or units aected#

(EL)'

$n inter!reting the abo"e !ro"ision% the Su!reme Court held that *hene"er a !ro"ince iscreated% di"ided or merged and there is substantial alteration o the boundaries% the a!!ro"al o a ma'ority o "otes in the !lebiscite in the unit or units aected must irst be obtained#

The creation o the !ro!osed ne* !ro"ince o &egros del &orte *ill necessarily result in thedi"ision and alteration o the e)isting boundaries o &egros /ccidental#

Plain and sim!le logic *ill demonstrate that t*o !olitical units *ould be aected# The irst *ouldbe the !arent !ro"ince o &egros /ccidental because its boundaries *ould be substantiallyaltered# The other aected entity *ould be com!osed o those in the area subtracted rom themother !ro"ince to constitute the !ro!osed !ro"ince o &egros del &orte#


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

28/57

The Su!reme Court urther held that the case o 8o"ernor Uosimo Paredes "ersus theonorable E)ecuti"e Secretary to the President% et al#% 8## &o# --6,>% March ,% 19>4 ;1,>SCA 6@% *hich the res!ondents used to su!!ort their case% should not be ta2en as a doctrinalor com!elling !recedent# ather% it held that the dissenting "ie* o .ustice 0icente Abad Santosin the aorementioned case is the orerunner o the a!!licable ruling% uoting that:

###*hen the Constitution s!ea2s o the unit or units aected it means all o the !eo!le o the munici!ality i themunici!ality is to be di"ided such as in the case at bar or o the !eo!le o

t*o or more munici!alities i there be a merger# $ see no ambiguity in the Constitutional!ro"ision#

$t a!!eared that *hen Parliamentary (ill &/# ?644 *hich !ro!osed the creation o the ne*!ro"ince o &egros del &orte *as !assed or a!!ro"al% it recited therein that the !lebiscite shallbe conducted in the areas aected *ithin a !eriod o one hundred and t*enty days rom thea!!ro"al o this Act# o*e"er% *hen the bill *as enacted into (#P# >>-% tehre *as anune)!lained change rom areas aecte to the !ro!osed ne* !ro"ince% *hich are the areasaected# The Su!reme Court held that it *as a selGser"ing !hrase to state that the ne*!ro"ince constitutes the area aected#

Such additional statement ser"es no useul !ur!ose or the same is misleading% erroneous% and

ar rom truth# The remaining !ortion o the !arent !ro"ince is as much an area aected# Thesubstantial alteration o the boundaries o the !arent !ro"ince% not to mention thead"erse economic eects it might suer% elouently argue the !oints raised by the !etitioners#

Conseuently% the Su!reme Court !ronounced that the !lebscite held on .anuary ?% 19>6 hasno legal eect or being a !atent nullity#

EEF/E% (atas Pambansa (lg# >>- is hereby declared unconstitutional#The !roclamation o the ne* !ro"ince o &egros del &orte% as *ell as the a!!ointment o theoicials thereo are also declared null and "oid#

;orrala v. =uni*iali2- o %ia+a2, .R. No. 0"!8/. :an. #", !"87 !47 %9RA 3"/

1A9;%'

(atas Pambansa -6% enacted February 19>% created theMunici!ality o Sibagat% Pro"ince o

Agusan del Sur# Petitioners assail its "alidity or being "iolati"e o Section ?% Article O$% 19?

Constitution:

Sec# ?# &o !ro"ince% city%munici!ality% or barrio may be created% di"ided% merged% abolished% or

its boundary substantially altered% e)ce!t in accordance *ith the criteria established in the 7ocal

8o"ernment Code% and sub'ect to the a!!ro"al by a ma'ority o the "otes cast in a !lebiscite in

the unit or units aected#


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

29/57

Petitioners argued that the 78C must irst be enacted to determine the criteria or the creation o

any !ro"ince% city% munici!ality% or barrio and since no 78C had yet been enacted as o the date

(P -6 *as !assed% the latter could not ha"e !ossibly com!lied *ith any criteria *hen

the Munici!ality *as created#

The 7ocal 8o"ernment Code came into being only on 1 February 19>? so that *hen (P -6

*as enacted% the code *as not yet in e)istence#

(EL)'

The absence o the 7ocal 8o"ernment Code at the time o its enactment did not curtail nor *as

it intended to cri!!le legislati"e com!etence to create munici!al cor!orations# Section ?% Article

O$ o the 19? Constitution does not !roscribe nor !rohibit the modiication o territorial and

!olitical subdi"isions beore the enactment o the 7ocal 8o"ernment Code# $t contains no

reuirement that the 7ocal 8o"ernment Code is a condition sine ua non or the creation o

amunici!ality% in much the same *ay that the creation o a ne* munici!ality does not !recludethe enactment o a 7ocal 8o"ernment Code# hat the Constitutional!ro"ision means is that

once said Code is enacted% the creation% modiication or dissolution o local go"ernment units

should conorm *ith the criteria thus laid do*n# $n the interregnum beore the enactment o such

Code% the legislati"e !o*er remains !lenary e)ce!t that the creation o the ne* local

go"ernment unit should be a!!ro"ed by the !eo!le concerned in a !lebiscite called or the

!ur!ose#

The creation o the ne* Munici!ality o Sibagat conormed to said reuisite# A !lebiscite *asconducted and the !eo!le o the unitHunits aected endorsed and a!!ro"ed the creation o the

ne* local go"ernment unit# $n act% the conduct o said !lebiscite is not uestioned herein# The

oicials o the ne* Munici!alityha"e eecti"ely ta2en their oaths o oice and are !erorming

their unctions# A de'ure entity has thus been created#

The !o*er to create a munici!al cor!oration is legislati"e in nature# $n the absence o any

constitutional limitation% a legislati"e body may create any cor!oration it deems essential or the

more eicient administration o go"ernment# The creation o the ne* Munici!ality *as a "alid

e)ercise o legislati"e !o*er "ested by the 19? Constitution in the $nterim (atasang

Pambansa#

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

BBBBBBBBBBBBB


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

30/57

Procedural 7imitations

AR;I9LE VI

;(E LEI%LA;IVE )EPAR;=EN;

%e*2ion #6.

1# E"ery bill !assed by the Congress shall embrace only one sub'ect *hich shall bee)!ressed in the title thereo#

,# &o bill !assed by either ouse shall become a la* unless it has !assed three readingson se!arate days% and !rinted co!ies thereo in its inal orm ha"e been distributed to itsMembers three days beore its !assage% e)ce!t *hen the President certiies to thenecessity o its immediate enactment to meet a !ublic calamity or emergency# 5!on thelast reading o a bill% no amendment thereto shall be allo*ed% and the "ote thereon shallbe ta2en immediately thereater% and the yeas and nays entered in the .ournal#

%e*2ion #7.

1# E"ery bill !assed by the Congress shall% beore it becomes a la*% be !resented to thePresident# $ he a!!ro"es the same he shall sign itD other*ise% he shall "eto it and returnthe same *ith his ob'ections to the ouse *here it originated% *hich shall enter theob'ections at large in its .ournal and !roceed to reconsider it# $% ater suchreconsideration% t*oGthirds o all the Members o such ouse shall agree to !ass the bill%it shall be sent% together *ith the ob'ections% to the other ouse by *hich it shall li2e*isebe reconsidered% and i a!!ro"ed by t*oGthirds o all the Members o that ouse% it shallbecome a la*# $n all such cases% the "otes o each ouse shall be determined by yeasor nays% and the names o the Members "oting or or against shall be entered in its.ournal# The President shall communicate his "eto o any bill to the ouse *here itoriginated *ithin thirty days ater the date o recei!t thereo% other*ise% it shall become ala* as i he had signed it#

,# The President shall ha"e the !o*er to "eto any !articular item or items in ana!!ro!riation% re"enue% or tari bill% but the "eto shall not aect the item or items to *hichhe does not ob'ect#

GE)!ress Substanti"e limitations

AR;I9LE III

8/9/2019 Consti 11114

31/57

%e*2ion #. The right o the !eo!le to be secure in their !ersons% houses% !a!ers% and eectsagainst unreasonable searches and sei=ures o *hate"er nature and or any !ur!ose shall bein"iolable% and no search *arrant or *arrant o arrest shall issue e)ce!t u!on !robable cause tobe determined !ersonally by the 'udge ater e)amination under oath or airmation o thecom!lainant and the *itnesses he may !roduce% and !articularly describing the !lace to besearched and the !ersons or things to be sei=ed#V !W

%e*2ion 3.

1# The !ri"acy o communication and corres!ondence shall be in"iolable e)ce!t u!onla*ul order o the court% or *hen !ublic saety or order reuires other*ise% as !rescribedby la*#

,# Any e"idence obtained in "iolation o this or the !receding section shall be inadmissibleor any !ur!ose in any !roceeding#

%e*2ion 4. &o la* shall be !assed abridging the reedom o s!eech% o e)!ression% or o the!ress% or the right o the !eo!le !eaceably to assemble and !etition the go"ernment or redresso grie"ances#

%e*2ion 0. &o la* shall be made res!ecting an establishment o religion% or !rohibiting the reee)ercise thereo# The ree e)ercise and en'oyment o religious !roession and *orshi!% *ithoutdiscrimination or !reerence% shall ore"er be allo*ed# &o religious test shall be reuired or thee)ercise o ci"il or !olitical rights#

%e*2ion 6. The liberty o abode and o changing the same *ithin the limits !rescribed by la*shall not be im!aired e)ce!t u!on la*ul order o the court# &either shall the right to tra"el beim!aired e)ce!t in the interest o national security% !ublic saety% or !ublic health% as may be!ro"ided by la*#

%e*2ion 7. The right o the !eo!le to inormation on matters o !ublic concern shall be

recogni=ed# Access to oicial records% and to documents and !a!ers !ertaining to oicial acts%transactions% or decisions% as *ell as to go"ernment research data used as basis or !olicyde"elo!ment% shall be aorded the citi=en% sub'ect to such limitations as may be !ro"ided byla*#

%e*2ion 8. The right o the !eo!le% including those em!loyed in the !ublic and !ri"ate sectors%to orm unions% associations% or societies or !ur!oses not contrary to la* shall not be abridged#

%e*2ion ". Pri"ate !ro!erty shall not be ta2en or !ublic use *ithout 'ust com!ensation#

%e*2ion !/. &o la* im!airing the obligation o contracts shall be !assed#

%e*2ion !!. Free access to the courts and uasiG'udicial bodies and adeuate legal assistanceshall not be denied to any !erson by reason o !o"erty#

%e*2ion !#.

1# Any !erson under in"estigation or the commission o an oense shall ha"e the right tobe inormed o his right to remain silent and to ha"e com!etent and inde!endent counsel


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

32/57

!reerably o his o*n choice# $ the !erson cannot aord the ser"ices o counsel% he mustbe !ro"ided *ith one# These rights cannot be *ai"ed e)ce!t in *riting and in the!resence o counsel#

,# &o torture% orce% "iolence% threat% intimidation% or any other means *hich "itiate the ree*ill shall be used against him# Secret detention !laces% solitary% incommunicado% or other similar orms o detention are !rohibited#

?# Any conession or admission obtained in "iolation o this or Section 1 hereo shall beinadmissible in e"idence against him#

4# The la* shall !ro"ide or !enal and ci"il sanctions or "iolations o this Section as *ell ascom!ensation to the rehabilitation o "ictims o torture or similar !ractices% and theiramilies#

%e*2ion !3. All !ersons% e)ce!t those charged *ith oenses !unishable by reclusion !er!etua*hen e"idence o guilt is strong% shall% beore con"iction% be bailable by suicient sureties% or bereleased on recogni=ance as may be !ro"ided by la*# The right to bail shall not be im!airede"en *hen the !ri"ilege o the *rit o habeas cor!us is sus!ended# E)cessi"e bail shall not bereuired#

%e*2ion !4.

1# &o !erson shall be held to ans*er or a criminal oense *ithout due !rocess o la*#

,# $n all criminal !rosecutions% the accused shall be !resumed innocent until the contrary is!ro"ed% and shall en'oy the right to be heard by himsel and counsel% to be inormed othe nature and cause o the accusation against him% to ha"e a s!eedy% im!artial% and!ublic trial% to meet the *itnesses ace to ace% and to ha"e com!ulsory !rocess tosecure the attendance o *itnesses and the !roduction o e"idence in his behal#o*e"er% ater arraignment% trial may !roceed not*ithstanding the absence o theaccused: Pro"ided% that he has been duly notiied and his ailure to a!!ear is

un'ustiiable#

%e*2ion !0. The !ri"ilege o the *rit o habeas cor!us shall not be sus!ended e)ce!t in caseso in"asion or rebellion% *hen the !ublic saety reuires it#

%e*2ion !6. All !ersons shall ha"e the right to a s!eedy dis!osition o their cases beore all 'udicial% uasiG'udicial% or administrati"e bodies#

%e*2ion !7. &o !erson shall be com!elled to be a *itness against himsel#

%e*2ion !8.

1# &o !erson shall be detained solely by reason o his !olitical belies and as!irations#

,# &o in"oluntary ser"itude in any orm shall e)ist e)ce!t as a !unishment or a crime*hereo the !arty shall ha"e been duly con"icted#

%e*2ion !".


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

33/57

1# E)cessi"e ines shall not be im!osed% nor cruel% degrading or inhuman !unishmentinlicted# &either shall death !enalty be im!osed% unless% or com!elling reasonsin"ol"ing heinous crimes% the Congress hereater !ro"ides or it# Any death !enaltyalready im!osed shall be reduced to reclusion !er!etua#

,# The em!loyment o !hysical% !sychological% or degrading !unishment against any!risoner or detainee or the use o substandard or inadeuate !enal acilities undersubhuman conditions shall be dealt *ith by la*#

%e*2ion #/. &o !erson shall be im!risoned or debt or nonG!ayment o a !oll ta)#

%e*2ion #!. &o !erson shall be t*ice !ut in 'eo!ardy o !unishment or the same oense# $ anact is !unished by a la* and an ordinance% con"iction or acuittal under either shall constitute abar to another !rosecution or the same act#

%e*2ion ##. &o e) !ost acto la* or bill o attainder shall be enacted#

AR;I9LE VI

;(E LEI%LA;IVE )EPAR;=EN;

%e*2ion #0.

1# The Congress may not increase the a!!ro!riations recommended by the President orthe o!eration o the 8o"ernment as s!eciied in the budget# The orm% content% andmanner o !re!aration o the budget shall be !rescribed by la*#

,# &o !ro"ision or enactment shall be embraced in the general a!!ro!riations bill unless itrelates s!eciically to some !articular a!!ro!riation therein# Any such !ro"ision orenactment shall be limited in its o!eration to the a!!ro!riation to *hich it relates#

?# The !rocedure in a!!ro"ing a!!ro!riations or the Congress shall strictly ollo* the!rocedure or a!!ro"ing a!!ro!riations or other de!artments and agencies#

4# A s!ecial a!!ro!riations bill shall s!eciy the !ur!ose or *hich it is intended% and shallbe su!!orted by unds actually a"ailable as certiied by the &ational Treasurer% or to beraised by a corres!onding re"enue !ro!osal therein#

-# &o la* shall be !assed authori=ing any transer o a!!ro!riationsD ho*e"er% thePresident% the President o the Senate% the S!ea2er o the ouse o e!resentati"es%the Chie .ustice o the Su!reme Court% and the heads o Constitutional Commissionsmay% by la*% be authori=ed to augment any item in the general a!!ro!riations la* or

their res!ecti"e oices rom sa"ings in other items o their res!ecti"e a!!ro!riations#

6# +iscretionary unds a!!ro!riated or !articular oicials shall be disbursed only or !ublic!ur!oses to be su!!orted by a!!ro!riate "ouchers and sub'ect to such guidelines asmay be !rescribed by la*#


8/9/2019 Consti 11114

34/57

# $% by the end o any iscal year% the Congress shall ha"e ailed to !ass the generala!!ro!riations bill or the ensuing iscal year% the general a!!ro!riations la* or the!receding iscal year shall be deemed reGenacted and shall remain in orce and eectuntil the general a!!ro!riations bill is !assed by the Congress#

%e*2ion #8.

1# The rule o ta)ation shall be uniorm and euitable# The Congress shall e"ol"e a

!rogressi"e system o ta)ation#

,# The Congress may% by la*% authori=e the President to i) *ithin s!eciied limits% andsub'ect to such limitations and restrictions as it may im!ose% tari rates% im!ort ande)!ort uotas% tonnage and *harage dues% and other duties or im!osts *ithin therame*or2 o the national de"elo!ment !rogram o the 8o"ernment#

?# Charitable institutions% churches and !ersonages or con"ents a!!urtenant thereto%mosues% nonG!roit cemeteries% and all lands% buildings% and im!ro"ements% actually%directly% and e)clusi"ely used or religious% charitable% or educational !ur!oses shall be

e)em!t rom ta)ation#

4# &o la* granting any ta) e)em!tion shall be !assed *ithout the concurrence o a ma'orityo all the Members o the Congress#

%e*2ion #".

1# &o money shall be !aid out o the Treasury e)ce!t in !ursuance o an a!!ro!riationmade by la*#

,# &o !ublic money or !ro!erty shall be a!!ro!riated% a!!lied% !aid% or em!loyed% directly

or indirectly% or the use% beneit% or su!!ort o any sect% church% denomination% sectarianinstitution% or system o religion% or o any !riest% !reacher% minister% other religiousteacher% or dignitary as such% e)ce!t *hen such !riest% !reacher% minister% or dignitary isassigned to the armed orces% or to any !enal institution% or go"ernment or!hanage orle!rosarium#

?# All money collected on any ta) le"ied or a s!ecial !ur!ose shall be treated as a s!ecialund and !aid out or such !ur!ose only# $ the !ur!ose or *hich a s!ecial und *ascreated has been ulilled or abandoned% the balance% i any% shall be transerred to thegeneral unds o the 8o"ernment#

%e*2ion 3/. &o la* shall be !assed increasing the a!!ellate 'urisdiction o the Su!reme Courtas !ro"ided in this Constitution *ithout its ad"ice and concurrence#

%e*2ion 3!. &o la* granting a title o royalty or nobility shall be enacted#

Gdelegation to the !resident


Consti 11114

Documents

Transcript of Consti 11114