POLITICAL REVIEW LECTURE NOTES – OCTOBER 15, 2019

 LECTURE NOTES ON POLIREV (page 18 of the outline) oCan be published EXCEPT matters affecting national
security
b. Quorum o Yeas and Nays be entered: request of 1/5 who are present
-½+1 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
- Majority of ALL members of the Senate (absent and present)  13
- Majority of the members of the Senate  Present Only  SESSIONS
- Section 15, Art. 6: Regular Session
ARROYO vs. DE VENECIA o convene once a year on the 4th Monday of July
- The Constitution REQUIRES quorum o until 30 days before opening the next session

ABAKADA GURO vs. ERMITA - Section 10, Art. 7

- Bicameral committee reconciles different versions of the law o 10 in the morning of the 3rd day after the vacancy
- Bicameral Committee: asked in Bar exams o Within 7 days
o Without need of a special call
SANTIAGO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN o ENACT A LAW calling for a SPECIAL ELECTION: not
- She argued that she’s a Senator so ONLY the Senate can sanction her earlier than 45; not later than 60
- Preventive Suspension: RA 3019 (Anti-Graft)
ASTORGA vs. VILLEGAS
 THE ENROLLED BILL THEORY - GENERAL RULE: enrolled bill prevails; EXCEPTION: If the entry is
mandated by the Constitution, such will prevail.
- Enrolled bill is a rule of evidence It raises a conclusive
presumption that a bill is duly enacted in the law - Sir: It’s a gray area
- Conclusive as to genuineness and due execution - Here, binawi ang enrolled bill kasi daw maling-mali as there was a
discrepancy in the Congressional record
- All proceedings are reflected in the journal
- ‘pag binawi ni Senate President and House Speaker, walang
enrolled bill.
MABANAG vs. LOPEZ VITO
- It does not sit well that we study the JOURNAL of Congress because
 ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS
it will result in STABILITY
- separate bodies from COA
- requirements can’t be changed, unlike in COA which can be changed
CASCO vs. GIMENEZ
by proportional representation
- Urea & formaldehyde: not exempted - Each House shall have an E.T. which serves as the sole judge of all
- Remedy is amendment of the law contests relating to ELECTION, RETURNS and QUALIFICATIONS
of their Members
US vs. PONS o Each E.T. composition
- Congress is already adjourned  3 Justices of SC designated by CJ
- They stopped the clock at 11:59  adjourned sine die  Senior Justice as the Chairman
- Entry in journal was Feb. 28, but it was passed on March 1  6 Members of Senate/HR
- CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION  Chosen on the basis of proportional representation from
political parties and parties organizations
MORALES vs. SUBIDO
- Congressional Record (Sec. 16.4, par. 2 of Art. VI) TAÑADA vs. CUENCO
- JOURNAL OF ITS PROCEEDINGS - under the 1935 Constitution, there must be a balance of power, 3
from minority: 3 from majority
1
THIS IS EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE CONTRIBUTORS.
 POLITICAL REVIEW LECTURE NOTES – OCTOBER 15, 2019

- SIR: 1987 Constitution provided the legislative component of

tribunals based on proportional representation TERESITA FABIAN vs. DESIERTO
- Jurisdiction of respective tribunals of E,R,Q of members of Congress - Ombudsman is an executive body
- No need to fill membership of all tribunals (9) - “administrative” decision of the OMBUDSMAN is appealable to CA
- Before: COMELEC; Now: E.T. - “Criminal” case  SB to review findings of Ombudsman

ABBAS vs. SET  PRESIDENT’S VETO POWER

- 1935 Constitution: proportional representation - GEN. RULE: President can veto the entire bill.
- NOW: membership or legislative component of ET is based on - ALL or NOTHING
proportional representation - President is NOT an editor
- EXCEPTION: “Item-veto Power”  Appropriation, Review and
BONDOC vs. PINEDA Tariff Bill
- Independence of Electoral Tribunals
- Members can’t be removed without just cause BOLINAO ELECTRONICS vs. VALENCIA
- Veto the condition, veto the item it relates
ANGARA vs. ELECTORAL COMMISSION
- Electoral Commission has Express Power, Regulatory Power GONZALES vs. MACARAIG
(Particular Power) and Incidental Power - Amended/repealed an existing law
- “augment”  TO TRANSFER
 PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION - Proposed budget is decreased  President cannot augment the
- Cannot exceed 12 but can go below 12 budget
- Constitution does not prohibit below 12 - Dangling condition
o Inappropriate condition (violates Sec. 25.2) ; wala pang
ARNAULT vs. NAZARENO specific provision
- power to cite someone in contempt “incidental power” o Does not relate to any item/provision
- Congress is a CONTINUING BODY so even if HR terms are over, - Increased savings  augmentation MUST BE within THE SAME
may Senate pa rin so, power of contempt continues department

 SIR: MASTER APPROPRIATION LAWS!!! BENGZON vs. DRILON

- There’s incorporation and it’s still amendment/revision
 JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT - You cannot veto an existing law.
- BP 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act)
Sec. 30, ART. VI  refers to rulings and decisions of administrative  POWER OF INQUIRY (Sec. 21) vs. QUESTION HOUR (Sec.
agencies or outside the judiciary 22)
- No law shall be passed increasing the jurisdiction of the SC without - Sec. 21 Conditions:
its advice and concurrence 1. In aid of Legislation
- WHY? More backlogs. 2. In accordance with duly published rules
- There should be some measure of control with SC’s power. 3. Rights of those who shall participate therein shall be respected
- SC: “LEGAL ENGINEERING” - Sec. 21 is MANDATORY, EXCEPT if the President invokes
o Here, you need to make a distinction: EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE!!!
 If matter is WITHIN SC’s jurisdiction, walang magagawa
e.g. If Congress creates another court, okay lang o QUESTION HOUR

2
THIS IS EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE CONTRIBUTORS.
 POLITICAL REVIEW LECTURE NOTES – OCTOBER 15, 2019

- A MONITORING FUNCTION only; not an investigative power DELA CRUZ vs. PARAS
- There must be an ORDER from President or Cabinet members - Original law was amenden
- Power of Supervision - Amendatory law allowed prohibition BUT did not change the title,
- Sec. 22 requires President’s approval one of the provisions allowed prohibition
- SC: Title did not reflect the prohibition; amendatory law was VOID.
SENATE vs. ERMITA
- Sec. 1 of EO 464 is valid  all heads of departments shall SECURE LIDASAN vs. COMELEC
the President’s approval before appearing (Sec. 22: Question Hour) - every bill must have only one subject matter
- Sections 2&3 are not valid  refers to Sec. 21, investigation in aid of - no to RIDER
legislation: CANNOT BE LIMITED - title must reflect subject matter

BENGZON vs. SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE TIO vs. VIDEOGRAM

- SIR: gray area, maybe because the invitation daw did not state “in - Regulatory (police power) vs. Revenue Measure (taxation)
aid of legislation” - Regulatory carries with it the power to tax
- You can invoke right against self-incrimination
INSULAR LUMBER vs. CTA
 Sec. 23, Art. 6 - Tax exemption is logically connected with tax imposition
- EMERGENCY POWERS does not only pertain to war
- ANY national emergency (traffic)
- Sec. 17, Art. 12  another emergency power that Congress may  ARTICLE VII – THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
delegate to the President in times of CALAMITY
 IMPEACHMENT
ARANETA vs. DINGLASAN - Not admin/crim/civil; it is SUI GENERIS
- Here, the law granted by Congress did not provide for a period - 2/3 votes in the HR  IMPEACHES an impeachable officer
- Issue: andyan pa rin ba ang emergency power? NO MORE. Hindi - Senate acting as an Impeachment Court to determine conviction to
indefinite and emergency power!!! oust such officer by 2/3 votes
- There must be a law granting the President such emergency power;
Pres. Has quasi-legislative function  POWERS & FUNCTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT
- OPERATIVE FACT is not the existence of an emergency but the Government vs. Springer
existence of a law. - Post-enactment measure
- Law prescribed for a voting committee
SIR: Under the present Constitution, do you need a law to repeal
the law granting such power? Marcos vs. Manglapus
1. RESOLUTION ONLY; - Gov.-Gen.: power to appoint is essentially executive
2. Upon adjournment of Congress
- “legislative veto” case
- RESIDUAL POWER of the President
- PRIMARY POWER of the head of the State: protect the general
 BILLS  LEGISLATIVE PROCESS – Sec. 26 (1), Art. 6 welfare
- Title need to be so specific - Anything that is not assigned to other departments fall under the
- As long as it is germaneto the subject matter, sufficient and does not residual power
mislead

3
THIS IS EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE CONTRIBUTORS.