Scribd
Upload
71 views1 page

Philconsa Vs Gimenez

The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether RA 3836, which allows retirement gratuity and commutation of vacation and sick leave for Senators, Representatives, and elective officials of Congress, violates the Constitutional provision that every bill passed by Congress must have a single subject expressed in its title. The Court held that while retirement benefits for GSIS members who serve for 20 years are related to the subject of CA 186, providing benefits for members of Congress and elective officers is not germane to CA 186 and violates the single subject rule.

Uploaded by

Carlota Nicolas Villaroman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
71 views1 page

Philconsa Vs Gimenez

The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether RA 3836, which allows retirement gratuity and commutation of vacation and sick leave for Senators, Representatives, and elective officials of Congress, violates the Constitutional provision that every bill passed by Congress must have a single subject expressed in its title. The Court held that while retirement benefits for GSIS members who serve for 20 years are related to the subject of CA 186, providing benefits for members of Congress and elective officers is not germane to CA 186 and violates the single subject rule.

Uploaded by

Carlota Nicolas Villaroman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PHILCONSA VS.

GIMENEZ 15 SCRA 489, 1965


FACTS:
The Supreme Court was called upon in to decide the grave and fundamental
problem of the constitutionality of RA 3836 insofar as the same allows retirement
gratuity and commutation of vacation and sick leave to Senators and
Representatives and to the elective officials of both houses (of Congress). The
constitutionality of the law is assailed on the ground that the provision for the
retirement of the members and certain officers of Congress is not expressed in the
title of the bill, in violation of the Constitution.
ISSUE:
W/N RA 3836 violates the Constitutional provision that every bill passed by the
Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title
thereof.
HELD:
YES. Under RA 3836, amending CA 186, as amended by RA Nos. 660 and 3096, the
retirement benefits are granted to members of the GSIS who have rendered at least
twenty years of service regardless of age. This provision is related and germane to
the subject of CA 186. On the other hand, the succeeding paragraph of RA 3836
refers to members of Congress and to elective officers thereof who are not
members of the GSIS. To provide retirement benefits, therefore, for these officials
would relate to subject matter, not germane to CA 186.

You might also like