powers of congress case digest

7/24/2019 Powers of Congress Case Digest

1/61

POWERS OF CONGRESS

A.GENERAL PLENARY POWERS (Sec. 1) pass, amendrepeal

LEAGUE OF C!ES "S CO#ELECGR 1$%&'1 NO". 1, **

FAC!S+

During the 11thCongress, Congress enacted into law 33 bills converting33 municipalities into cities. However, Congress did not act on billsconverting 24 other municipalities into cities.

During the 12thCongress, Congress enacted into law Republic Act o.!""! #RA !""!$, which too% e&ect on 3" 'une 2""1. RA !""! amended(ection 4)" o* the +ocal overnment Code b- increasing the annualincome reuirement *or conversion o* a municipalit- into a cit- *rom/2" million to /1"" million.

Afterthe e&ectivit- o* RA !""!, the House o* Representatives o* the12thCongress adopted 'oint Resolution o. 2!, which sought to e0empt*rom the /1"" million income reuirement in RA !""! the 24municipalities whose cit-hood bills were not approved in the 11th

Congress. However, the 12th Congress ended without the (enateapproving 'oint Resolution o. 2!.

During the 13th Congress, the House o* Representatives readopted'oint Resolution o. 2! as 'oint Resolution o. 1 and *orwarded it to the(enate *or approval. However, the (enate again *ailed to approve the

'oint Resolution. ollowing the advice o* (enator Auilino /imentel, 1municipalities led, through their respective sponsors, individualcit-hood bills. 5he 1 cit-hood bills contained a common provisione0empting all the 1 municipalities *rom the /1"" million incomereuirement in RA !""!.

5he House o* Representatives approved the cit-hood bills. 5he (enatealso approved the cit-hood bills in ebruar- 2""6, e0cept that o* aga,Cebu which was passed on 6 'une 2""6. 5he cit-hood bills lapsed intolaw #Cit-hood +aws$.

5he Cit-hood +aws direct the C789+9C to hold plebiscites to determine

whether the voters in each respondent municipalit- approve o* theconversion o* their municipalit- into a cit-.

/etitioners led the present petitions to declare the Cit-hood +awsunconstitutional *or violation o* (ection 1", Article : o* theConstitution, as well as *or violation o* the eual protection clause./etitioners also lament that the wholesale conversion o* municipalitiesinto cities will reduce the share o* e0isting cities in the ;nternal


2/61

Revenue Allotment because more cities will share the same amount o*internal revenue set aside *or all cities under (ection 25remen-. (ection 4)" o* the +ocalovernment Code, as amended b- RA !""!, does not contain an-e0emption *rom this income reuirement.

;n enacting RA !""!, Congress did not grant an- e0emption torespondent municipalities, even though their cit-hood bills were


3/61

pending in Congress when Congress passed RA !""!. 5he Cit-hood+aws, all enacted after the e&ectivit- o* RA !""!, e0plicitl- e0emptrespondent municipalities *rom the increased income reuirement in(ection 4)" o* the +ocal overnment Code, as amended b- RA !""!.S5c eemp-/n clearl8 4/la-es Sec-/n 1*, Ar-cle ? /6 -e

C/ns--5-/n and s -5s pa-en-l8 5nc/ns--5-/nal. !/ 2e 4ald,s5c eemp-/n m5s- 2e 0r--en n -e L/cal G/4ernmen- C/deand n/- n an8 /-er la0, ncl5dn3 -e C-8//d La0s.

LEAGUE OF C!ES RESOLU!ON (APRL @, *1*)FAC!S+ (Same 6ac-s a2/4e)

RULNG+ (ection 1", Article : o* the 1!ect to approval b- a ma>orit- o* the votes cast in aplebiscite in the political units directl- a&ected. #9mphasissupplied$

5he Constitution is clear. 5he creation o* local government unitsmust *ollow the cr-era es-a2lsed n -e L/calG/4ernmen- C/de and not in another law. 5here is onl- one+ocal overnment Code. 5he Constitution reuires Congress tostipulate in the +ocal overnment Code all the criteria necessar-*or the creation o* a cit-, including the conversion o* a

municipalit- into a cit-. Congress cannot write such criteria inan- other law, li%e the Cit-hood +aws.

5he clear intent o* the Constitution is to insure that the creation o*cities and other political units must *ollow -e same 5n6/rm, n/n7dscrmna-/r8 cr-era 6/5nd s/lel8 n -e L/cal G/4ernmen-C/de. An- derogation or deviation *rom the criteria prescribed in the+ocal overnment Code violates (ection 1", Article : o* theConstitution.

RA !""! amended (ection 4)" o* the +ocal overnment Code toincrease the income reuirement *rom /2" million to /1"" million *or

the creation o* a cit-. !s -//9 e:ec- /n ;* 5red -a-an8 m5ncpal-8 desrn3 -/ 2ec/me a c-8 m5s- sa-s68 -eP1** mll/n nc/me re>5remen-. (ection 4)" o* the +ocalovernment Code, as amended b- RA !""!, does not contain an-e0emption *rom this income reuirement.


4/61

;n enacting RA !""!, Congress did not grant an- e0emption torespondent municipalities, even though their cit-hood bills werepending in Congress when Congress passed RA !""!. 5he Cit-hood+aws, all enacted after the e&ectivit- o* RA !""!, e0plicitl- e0emptrespondent municipalities *rom the increased income reuirement in

(ection 4)" o* the +ocal overnment Code, as amended b- RA !""!.S5c eemp-/n clearl8 4/la-es Sec-/n 1*, Ar-cle ? /6 -eC/ns--5-/n and s -5s pa-en-l8 5nc/ns--5-/nal. !/ 2e 4ald,s5c eemp-/n m5s- 2e 0r--en n -e L/cal G/4ernmen- C/deand n/- n an8 /-er la0, ncl5dn3 -e C-8//d La0s.

RA !""! is not a law di&erent *rom the +ocal overnment Code.(ection 1 o* RA !""! pertinentl- provides= Sec-/n @'* /6 Rep52lcAc- N/. $1%*, /-er0se 9n/0n as -e L/cal G/4ernmen- C/de/6 1&&1, s ere28 amended to read as *ollows= 0 0 0. RA !""!amended (ection 4)" o* the +ocal overnment Code. RA &**&, 28amendn3 Sec-/n @'* /6 -e L/cal G/4ernmen- C/de,

em2/des -e ne0 and pre4aln3 Sec-/n @'* /6 -e L/calG/4ernmen- C/de. Considering the +egislatures primar- intent tocurtail the mad rush o* municipalities wanting to be converted intocities, RA !""! increased the income reuirement *or the creation o*cities. 5o repeat, RA !""! is not a law di&erent *rom the +ocalovernment Code, as it e0pressl- amended (ection 4)" o* the +ocalovernment Code.

LEAGUE OF C!ES RESOLU!ON (FE.1', *11)FAC!S+ (Same 6ac-s a2/4e)

RULNG+

5he enactment o* the Cit-hood +aws is an e0ercise b- Congress o* itslegislative power. +egislative power is the authorit-, under theConstitution, to ma%e laws, and to alter and repeal them. 5heConstitution, as the e0pression o* the will o* the people in their original,sovereign, and unlimited capacit-, has vested this power in theCongress o* the /hilippines. 5he grant o* legislative power to Congressis broad, general, and comprehensive. 5he legislative bod- possessesplenar- powers *or all purposes o* civil government. An- power,deemed to be legislative b- usage and tradition, is necessaril-possessed b- Congress, unless the Constitution has lodged it

elsewhere. ;n ne, e0cept as limited b- the Constitution, eithere0pressl- or impliedl-, legislative power embraces all sub>ects, ande0tends to matters o* general concern or common interest.

?ithout doubt, the +C is a creation o* Congress through its lawma%ing powers. Congress has the power to alter or modi*- it as it didwhen it enacted R.A. o. !""!. (uch power o* amendment o* laws wasagain e0ercised when Congress enacted the Cit-hood +aws. ?henCongress enacted the +C in 1!!1, it provided *or uantiable


5/61

indicators o* economic viabilit- *or the creation o* local governmentunitsincome, population, and land area. Congress deemed it t tomodi*- the income reuirement with respect to the conversion o*municipalities into component cities when it enacted R.A. o. !""!,imposing an amount o* /1"" million, computed onl- *rom locall-

generated sources. However, Congress deemed it wiser to e0emptrespondent municipalities *rom such a belatedl- imposed modiedincome reuirement in order to uphold its higher calling o* putting@esh and blood to the ver- intent and thrust o* the +C, which iscountr-side development and autonom-, especiall- accounting *orthese municipalities as engines *or economic growth in their respectiveprovinces.

ndeniabl-, R.A. o. !""! amended the +C. But it is also true that, ine&ect, the Cit-hood +aws amended R.A. o. !""! through thee0emption clauses *ound therein. (ince the Cit-hood +aws e0plicitl-e0empted the concerned municipalities *rom the amendator- R.A. o.

!""!, such Cit-hood +aws are, there*ore, also amendments to the +Citsel*. or this reason, we reverse the ovember 1ieng was led in the Court o* irst;nstance #C;$ in 8anila with H(BC intervening in the case as privateprosecutor. 5he C; rendered a >udgment o* conviction sentencing Cun>ieng.

Cu n>ieng led a 8otion *or Reconsideration and *our successivemotions *or new trial which were all denied on Dec. 16, 1!3). inal

>udgment was entered on Dec. 1iengs petition *or leave to le a second alternativemotion *or reconsideration or new trial, then remanded the case to thecourt o* origin *or e0ecution o* >udgment.

Cu n>ieng led an application *or probation be*ore the trial court,under the provisions o* Act 4221 o* the de*unct /hilippine +egislature.


6/61

He states he is innocent o* the crime he has no criminal record andthat he would observe good conduct in the *uture.

C; 8anila 'udge 'ose Eera set the petition *or hearing *or probation onApril ), 1!36. H(BC uestioned the authorit- o* Eera to hold such

hearings and assailed the constitutionalit- o* the /robation Act since itviolates the eual protection o* laws and gives unlaw*ul and improperdelegation to provincial boards.

(ection 11 o* Act 4221 states that the act shall onl- be applied in thoseprovinces wherein the probationar- oFcer is granted salar- not lowerthan provincial scals b- respective provincial boards. 5he Cit- iscal o*8anila les a supplementar- petition aFrming issues raised b- H(BC,arguing that probation is a *orm o* reprieve, hence Act 4221 b-passesthis e0clusive power o* the Chie* 90ecutive. Hence, this petition in the(upreme Court.

RELA!EB SSUES+

?hether or not there is an undue delegation o* power to provincialboards

RULNG+

nder the constitutional s-stem, the powers o* government aredistributed among three coordinate and substantiall- independentorgans= the legislative, the e0ecutive and the >udicial. 9ach o* these

departments o* the government derives its authorit- *rom theConstitution which, in turn, is the highest e0pression o* popular will.9ach has e0clusive cogniGance o* the matters within its >urisdiction,and is supreme within its own sphere.

5he power to ma%e laws the legislative power is vested in abicameral +egislature b- the 'ones +aw #sec. 12$ and in a unicamiralational Assembl- b- the Constitution #Act. E;, sec. 1, Constitution o*the /hilippines$. 5he /hilippine +egislature or the ational Assembl-ma- not escape its duties and responsibilities b- delegating that powerto another bod- or authorit-. An- attempt to abdicate the power is

unconstitutional and void, on the principle thatpotestas delegata nondelegare potest.

5he rule, however, which *orbids the delegation o* legislative power isnot absolute and in@e0ible. ;t admits o* e0ceptions. An e0ceptionssanctioned b- immemorial practice permits the central legislative bod-to delegate legislative powers to local authorities. I;t is a cardinalprinciple o* our s-stem o* government, that local a&airs shall be


7/61

managed b- local authorities, and general a&airs b- the centralauthorities and hence while the rule is also *undamental that thepower to ma%e laws cannot be delegated, the creation o* themunicipalities e0ercising local sel*governance has never been held totrench upon that rule.(uch legislation is not regarded as a trans*er o*

general legislative power, but rather as the grant o* the authorit- toprescribe local regulations, according to immemorial practice, sub>ecto* course to the interposition o* the superior in cases o* necessit-.I 7nuite the same principle, Congress is powered to delegate legislativepower to such agencies in the territories o* the nited (tates as it ma-select. Courts have also sustained the delegation o* legislative powerto the people at large, though some authorities maintain that this ma-not be done. Doubtless, also, legislative power ma- be delegated b-the Constitution itsel*. (ection 14, paragraph 2, o* article E; o* theConstitution o* the /hilippines provides that I5he ational Assembl-ma- b- law authoriGe the /resident, sub>ect to such limitations and

restrictions as it ma- impose, to 0 within specied limits, tari& rates,import or e0port uotas, and tonnage and whar*age dues.I And section1 o* the same article o* the Constitution provides that I;n times o* waror other national emergenc-, the ational Assembl- ma- b- lawauthoriGe the /resident, *or a limited period and sub>ect to suchrestrictions as it ma- prescribed, to promulgate rules and regulationsto carr- out a declared national polic-.I

5he case be*ore us does not *all under an- o* the e0ceptionshereinabove mentioned.

5he challenged section o* Act o. 4221 in section 11 which reads as*ollows=

This Act shall apply only in those provinces in which therespective provincial boards have provided for the salaryof a probation ocerat rates not lower than those nowprovided *or provincial scals. (aid probation oFcer shallbe appointed b- the (ecretar- o* 'ustice and shall besub>ect to the direction o* the /robation 7Fce.

;n testing whether a statute constitute an undue delegation o*

legislative power or not, it is usual to inuire whether the statute wasc/mple-e n all -s -erms and pr/4s/ns 0en - le6- -e ands/6 -e le3sla-5re s/ -a- n/-n3 0as le6- -/ -e 5d3men- /6an8 /-er app/n-ee /r dele3a-e /6 -e le3sla-5re.# R. C. +., p.1).$ ;n the nited (tates vs. Ang 5ang Ho #J1!22K, 43 /hil., 1$, thiscourt adhered to the *oregoing rule when it held an act o* thelegislature void in so *ar as it undertoo% to authoriGe the overnoreneral, in his discretion, to issue a proclamation 0ing the price o*


8/61

rice and to ma%e the sale o* it in violation o* the proclamation a crime.#Seeand c*. CompaLia eneral de 5abacos vs. Board o* /ublic tilit-Commissioners J1!1K, 34 /hil., 13.$ 5he general rule, however, islimited b- another rule that to a certain e0tent matters o* detail ma-be le*t to be lled in b- rules and regulations to be adopted or

promulgated b- e0ecutive oFcers and administrative boards. As a rule,an ac- /6 -e le3sla-5re s nc/mple-e and ence n4ald 6 -d/es n/- la8 d/0n an8 r5le /r deDn-e s-andard 28 0c -eadmns-ra-4e /cer /r 2/ard ma8 2e 35ded n -e eercse/6 -e dscre-/nar8 p/0ers dele3a-ed -/ -.

5he probation Act does not, b- the *orce o* an- o* its provisions, 0 andimpose upon the provincial boards an- standard or guide in thee0ercise o* their discretionar- power. ?hat is granted, i* we ma- usethe language o* 'ustice CardoGo in the recent case o* (checter, supra,is a Iroving commissionI which enables the provincial boards to

e0ercise arbitrar- discretion. B- section 11 o* the Act, the legislaturedoes not seemingl- on its own authorit- e0tend the benets o* the/robation Act to the provinces but in realit- leaves the entire matter *orthe various provincial boards to determine. 6 -e pr/4ncal 2/ardd/es n/- 0s -/ a4e -e Ac- appled n -s pr/4nce, all -a- -as -/ d/ s -/ declne -/ appr/pra-e -e needed am/5n- 6/r-e salar8 /6 a pr/2a-/n /cer. !e plan lan35a3e /6 -e Ac-s n/- s5scep-2le /6 an8 /-er n-erpre-a-/n. !s, -/ /5rmnds, s a 4r-5al s5rrender /6 le3sla-4e p/0er -/ -epr/4ncal 2/ards.

I5he true distinctionI, sa-s 'udge Ranne-, Iis between the delegationo* power to ma%e the law, which necessaril- involves a discretion as towhat it shall be, and con*erring an authorit- or discretion as to itse0ecution, to be e0ercised under and in pursuance o* the law. 5he rstcannot be done to the latter no valid ob>ection can be made.I

;n 8iller vs. 8a-er, etc., o* ew Mor% J1


9/61

await the happening o* an- specied contingenc-. ;t is bound b- norule, limited b- no principle o* e0pendienc- announced b- thelegislature. ;t ma- ta%e into consideration certain *acts or conditionsand, again, it ma- not. ;t ma- have an- purpose or no purpose at all. ;tneed not give an- reason whatsoever *or re*using or *ailing to

appropriate an- *unds *or the salar- o* a probation oFcer. 5his is amatter which rest entirel- at its pleasure.

UN!EB S!A!ES "S ANG !ANG =O@; P=L 1 FE. $, 1&

FAC!S+

At its special session o* 1!1!, the /hilippine +egislature passed Act o.2


10/61

price o* pala-, rice or corn, to issue and promulgate temporar- rules andemergenc- measures *or carr-ing out the purposes o* the Act. B- its ver- terms,the promulgation o* temporar- rules and emergenc- measures is le*t to thediscretion o* the overnoreneral. 5he +egislature does not underta%e to speci*-or dene under what conditions or *or what reasons the overnoreneral shallissue the proclamation, but sa-s that it ma- be issued H6/r an8 ca5se,H and

leaves the uestion as to what is Ian- causeI to the discretion o* the overnoreneral. 5he Act also sa-s= Ior an- cause, conditions arise resulting in ane0traordinar- rise in the price o* pala-, rice or corn.I 5he +egislature does notspeci*- or dene what an Ie-ra/rdnar8 rseH is. 5hat is also le*t to thediscretion o* the overnoreneral. 5he Act also sa-s that the overnoreneral,Iwith the consent o* the Council o* (tate,I is authoriGed to issue and promulgateH-emp/rar8 r5les and emer3enc8 meas5res 6/r carr8n3 /5- -ep5rp/ses /6 -s Ac-.H;t does not speci*- or dene what is a temporar- rule oran emergenc- measure, or how long such temporar- rules or emergenc-measures shall remain in *orce and e&ect, or when the- shall ta%e e&ect. 5hat isto sa-, the +egislature itsel* has not in an- manner specied or dened an- basis*or the order, but has le*t it to the sole >udgment and discretion o* the overnoreneral to sa- what is or what is not Ia cause,I and what is or what is not Iane0traordinar- rise in the price o* rice,I and as to what is a temporar- rule or anemergenc- measure *or the carr-ing out the purposes o* the Act. nder this stateo* *acts, i* the law is valid and the overnoreneral issues a proclamation 0ingthe minimum price at which rice should be sold, an- dealer who, with or withoutnotice, sells rice at a higher price, is a criminal. 5here ma- not have been an-cause, and the price ma- not have been e0traordinar-, and there ma- not havebeen an emergenc-, but, i* the overnoreneral *ound the e0istence o* such*acts and issued a proclamation, and rice is sold at an- higher price, the sellercommits a crime.

5he +egislature cannot delegate the legislative power to enact an- law.;* Act no 2


11/61

Eitaliano (aco was Chie* 7Fcer o* the 8OE 9astern /olaris when he was%illed in an accident in 5o%-o, 'apan, 8arch 1), 1!urisdiction and a*terconsidering the position papers o* the parties ruled in *avor o* thecomplainant. 5he award consisted o* /1ect is a prerogative o* the legislature.5his prerogative cannot be abdicated or surrendered b- the legislatureto the delegate.

5here are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is avalid delegation o* legislative power, viz, the c/mple-eness -es-andthe s5cen- s-andard -es-. nder the rst test, -e la0 m5s- 2ec/mple-e n all -s -erms and c/nd-/ns 0en - lea4es -ele3sla-5re s5c -a- 0en - reaces -e dele3a-e -e /nl8-n3 e 0ll a4e -/ d/ s en6/rce -. nder the suFcient standardtest, -ere m5s- 2e ade>5a-e 35delnes /r s-a-/ns n -e la0


12/61

-/ map /5- -e 2/5ndares /6 -e dele3a-eJs a5-/r-8 andpre4en- -e dele3a-/n 6r/m r5nnn3 r/-. Both tests are intendedto prevent a total trans*erence o* legislative authorit- to the delegate,who is not allowed to step into the shoes o* the legislature and e0ercisea power essentiall- legislative..

5he reasons given above *or the delegation o* legislative powers ingeneral are particularl- applicable to administrative bodies. ?ith theproli*eration o* specialiGed activities and their attendant peculiarproblems, the national legislature has *ound it more and morenecessar- to entrust to administrative agencies the authorit- to issuerules to carr- out the general provisions o* the statute. 5his is calledthe Hp/0er /6 s52/rdna-e le3sla-/n.H

?ith this power, administrative bodies ma- implement the broadpolicies laid down in a statute b- HDlln3 nJ -e de-alswhich the

Congress ma- not have the opportunit- or competence to provide. 5hisis e&ected b- their promulgation o* what are %nown ass5pplemen-ar8 re35la-/ns, s5c as -e mplemen-n3 r5lesissued b- the Department o* +abor on the new +abor Code. !esere35la-/ns a4e -e 6/rce and e:ec- /6 la0.

8emorandum Circular o. 2 is one such administrative regulation. 5hemodel contract prescribed thereb- has been applied in a signicantnumber o* the cases without challenge b- the emplo-er. 5he power o*the /79A #and be*ore it the ational (eamen Board$ in reuiring themodel contract is not unlimited as there is a suFcient standard guiding

the delegate in the e0ercise o* the said authorit-. 5hat standard isdiscoverable in the e0ecutive order itsel* which, in creating the/hilippine 7verseas 9mplo-ment Administration, mandated it toprotect the rights o* overseas ilipino wor%ers to I*air and euitableemplo-ment practices.I

;t is not denied that the private respondent has been receiving amonthl- death benet pension o* /)14.42 since 8arch 1!


13/61

During the period *rom (eptember 4 to 7ctober 2!, 1!4 the /residento* the /hilippines, purporting to act pursuant to (ection < o* theRevised Administrative Code, issued 90ecutive 7rders os. !3 to 121,124 and 12 to 12! crea-n3 -r-87-ree (;;) m5ncpal-esenumerated in the margin.1(oon a*ter the date last mentioned, or on

ovember 1", 1!4 petitioner 9mmanuel /elaeG, as Eice /resident o*the /hilippines and as ta0pa-er, instituted the present special civilaction, *or a writ o* prohibition with preliminar- in>unction, against theAuditor eneral, to restrain him, as well as his representatives andagents, *rom passing in audit an- e0penditure o* public *unds inimplementation o* said e0ecutive orders andOor an- disbursement b-said municipalities.

/etitioner alleges that said e0ecutive orders are null and void, upon theground that said (ection < has been impliedl- repealed b- RepublicAct o. 236" and constitutes an undue delegation o* legislative power.

Respondent maintains the contrar- view and avers that the presentaction is premature and that not all proper parties re*erring to theoFcials o* the new political subdivisions in uestion have beenimpleaded. (ubseuentl-, the ma-ors o* several municipalitiesadversel- a&ected b- the a*orementioned e0ecutive orders becausethe latter have ta%en awa- *rom the *ormer the barrios composing thenew political subdivisions intervened in the case.

5he third paragraph o* (ection 3 o* Republic Act o. 236", reads=

Barrios shall not be created or their boundaries altered nor their

names changed e0cept under the provisions o* this Act or b- Acto* Congress.

/ursuant to the rst two #2$ paragraphs o* the same (ection 3=

All barrios e0isting at the time o* the passage o* this Act shallcome under the provisions hereo*.

pon petition o* a ma>orit- o* the voters in the areas a&ected, anew barrio ma- be created or the name o* an e0isting one ma-be changed b- the provincial board o* the province, upon

recommendation o* the council o* the municipalit- ormunicipalities in which the proposed barrio is stipulated. 5herecommendation o* the municipal council shall be embodied in aresolution approved b- at least twothirds o* the entiremembership o* the said council= /rovided, however, 5hat no newbarrio ma- be created i* its population is less than ve hundredpersons.


14/61

Hence, since 'anuar- 1, 1!", when Republic Act o. 236" becamee&ective, barrios ma- Inot be created or their boundaries altered northeir names changedI e0cept b- Act o* Congress or o* thecorresponding provincial board Iupon petition o* a ma>orit- o* thevoters in the areas a&ectedI and the Irecommendation o* the council

o* the municipalit- or municipalities in which the proposed barrio issituated.I /etitioner argues, accordingl-= I;* the /resident, under thisnew law, cannot even create a barrio, can he create a municipalit-which is composed o* several barrios, since barrios are units o*municipalitiesPI

RELA!EB SSUES+

?hether or not (ec. < o* the Revised Administrative Codeunlaw*ull- delegated legislative power to the /resident

RULNG+

Respondent alleges that the power o* the /resident to createmunicipalities under this section does not amount to an unduedelegation o* legislative power, rel-ing upon Municipality of Cardonavs. Municipality of Binagonan #3 /hil. )46$, which, he claims, hassettled it. (uch claim is untenable, *or said case involved, not thecreation o* a new municipalit-, but a meretransfer of territory *roman already eisting municipalit- #Cardona$ to another municipalit-#BinaLgonan$, li!ewise" eisting at the ti#e of and prior to said transfer#(ee ovNt o* the /.;. e0 rel. 8unicipalit- o* Cardona vs. 8unicipalit-, o*BinaLgonan J34 /hil. )1


15/61

itsel* it must set *orth therein the polic- to be e0ecuted, carried outor implemented b- the delegate2 and #b$ 0 a standard the limitso* which are suFcientl- determinate or determinable to which thedelegate must con*orm in the per*ormance o* his *unctions.

(ection < o* the Revised Administrative Code does not meet thesewell settled reuirements *or a valid delegation o* the power to 0 thedetails in the en*orcement o* a law. - d/es n/- en5nca-e an8p/lc8 -/ 2e carred /5- /r mplemen-ed 28 -e Presden-.Ne-er d/es - 34e a s-andard s5cen-l8 precse -/ a4/d -ee4l e:ec-s a2/4e re6erred -/. ;n this connection, we do notoverloo% the *act that, under the last clause o* the rst sente nce o*(ection ust uoted, but onlytheplaceto which the seat o*the government ma- be trans*erred. 5his *act becomes more apparentwhen we consider that said (ection < was originall- (ection 1 o* Acto. 164udgment o* theovernoreneral the public welfare reuires, he ma-, b- e0ecutiveorder,I e&ect the changes enumerated therein #as in said section


16/61

5hen, also, the power o* control o* the /resident over e0ecutivedepartments, bureaus or oFces implies no #ore than the authorit- toassume directl- the *unctions thereo* or to inter*ere in the e0ercise o*discretion b- its oFcials. 8ani*estl-, such control does not includethe authority either to abolish an executive department or

bureau, or to create a new one. As a c/nse>5ence, -e alle3edp/0er /6 -e Presden- -/ crea-e m5ncpal c/rp/ra-/ns 0/5ldnecessarl8 c/nn/-e -e eercse 28 m /6 an a5-/r-8 e4en3rea-er -an -a- /6 c/n-r/l which he has over the e0ecutivedepartments, bureaus or oFces. ;n other words, (ection < o* theRevised Administrative Code does not merel- *ail to compl- with theconstitutional mandate above uoted. ;nstead o* giving the /residentless power over local governments than that vested in him over thee0ecutive departments, bureaus or oFces, it reverses the process anddoes the eact opposite, b- con*erring upon him #ore power overmunicipal corporations than that which he has over said e0ecutive

departments, bureaus or oFces.

SAN!AGO "S CO#ELEC$* SCRA 1*% #ARC= 1&, 1&&$

FAC!S+

/rivate respondent Att-. 'esus Deln, president o* /eoples ;nitiative *orRe*orms 8oderniGation and Action #/;R8A$, led with the C789+9C apetition to amend the constitution to li*t the term limits o* electiveoFcials, through /eoples ;nitiative. He based this petition on Art :E;;(ec. 2 o* the 1!urisdiction or authorit- toentertain the petition. 5he petitioners herein (enator (antiago,Ale0ander /adilla, and ;sabel 7ngpin led this civil action *orprohibition under Rule ) o* the Rules o* Court against C789+9C and

the Deln petition ring the several arguments, such as the *ollowing= 1$5he constitutional provision on peoples initiative to amend theconstitution can onl- be implemented b- law to be passed b-Congress. o such law has been passed 2$ 5he peoples initiative islimited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision thereo*.+i*ting o* the term limits constitutes a revision, there*ore it is outsidethe power o* peoples initiative. 5he (upreme Court granted the 8otion*or ;ntervention.


17/61

RELA!EB SSUES+

?hether or not there is a valid delegation o* legislative powerdirectl- to the people

RULNG+

(ection 2 o* Article :E;; o* the Constitution provides=

(9C. 2. Amendments to this Constitution ma- li%ewise be directl-proposed b- the people through initiative upon a petition o* at leasttwelveper centu#o* the total number o* registered voters, o* whichever- legislative district must be represented b- at least three percentu# o* the registered voters therein. o amendment under thissection shall be authoriGed within ve -ears *ollowing the ratication o*this Constitution nor o*tener than once ever- ve -ears therea*ter.

5he Congress shall provide *or the implementation o* the e0ercise o*this right.

5his provision is not sel*e0ecutor-. ;n his boo%, 'oauin Bernas, amember o* the 1!ect, in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, orresolutions passed b- an- legislative bod- upon compliance with thereuirements o* this Act is hereb- aFrmed, recogniGed andguaranteed. #nderscoring supplied$.


18/61

5he inclusion o* the word Constitution therein was a dela-eda*terthought. 5hat word is neither germane nor relevant to saidsection, which e0clusivel- relates to initiative and re*erendum onnational laws and local laws, ordinances, and resolutions. 5hat sectionis silent as to amendments on the Constitution. As pointed out earlier,

initiative on the Constitution is conned onl- to proposals to A89D.5he people are not accorded the power to directl- propose, enact,approve, or re>ect, in whole or in part, the Constitution through thes-stem o* initiative. 5he- can onl- do so with respect to laws,ordinances, or resolutions.

?hile the Act provides subtitles *or ational ;nitiative and Re*erendum#(ubtitle ;;$ and *or +ocal ;nitiative and Re*erendum #(ubtitle ;;;$, nosubtitle is provided *or initiativeon the Constitution. 5his conspicuoussilence as to the latter simpl- means that the main thrust o* the Act isinitiative and re*erendum on national and local laws. ;* Congress

intended R.A. o. 63) to *ull- provide *or the implementation o* theinitiativeon amendments to the Constitution, it could have provided *ora subtitle there*or, considering that in the order o* things, the primac-o* interest, or hierarch- o* values, the right o* the people to directl-propose amendments to the Constitution is *ar more important thanthe initiative on national and local laws.

R.A. o. 63), in all o* its twent-three sections, merel- #a$ mentions,the word Constitution in (ection 2 #b$ denes initiative on theConstitution and includes it in the enumeration o* the three s-stems o*initiative in (ection 3 #c$ spea%s o* plebiscite as the process b- which

the proposition in an initiative on the Constitution ma- be approved orre>ected b- the people #d$ reiterates the constitutional reuirementsas to the number o* voters who should sign the petition and #e$provides *or the date o* e&ectivit- o* the approved proposition.

5here was, there*ore, an obvious downgrading o* the more importantor the paramount s-stem o* initiative. R.A. o. 63) thus delivered ahumiliating blow to the s-stem o* initiative on amendments to theConstitution b- merel- pa-ing it a reluctant lip service.

5he *oregoing brings us to the conclusion that R.A. N/. %$;' s

nc/mple-e, nade>5a-e, /r 0an-n3 n essen-al -erms andc/nd-/ns ns/6ar as n-a-4e /n amendmen-s -/ -eC/ns--5-/n s c/ncerned. ;ts lacunae on this substantive matterare *atal and cann/- 2e c5red 28 emp/0ern3 -e CO#ELEC -/pr/m5l3a-e s5c r5les and re35la-/ns as ma8 2e necessar8 -/carr8 /5- -e p5rp/ses /6 -eM Ac-


19/61

5he rule is that what has been delegated, cannot be delegated or ase0pressed in a +atin ma0im= potestas delegata non delegari potest.5he recogniGed e0ceptions to the rule are as *ollows=

#1$ Delegation o* tari& powers to the /resident under (ection 2udicial *unctions, to promulgate rules and regulations is a *orm o*delegation o* legislative authorit- under no. ) above. However, inever- case o* permissible delegation, there must be a showing that thedelegation itsel* is valid. ;t is valid onl- i* the law #a$ s c/mple-e n-sel6, setting *orth therein the polic- to be e0ecuted, carried out, orimplemented b- the delegate and #b$ 0es a standard the limits o*which are suFcientl- determinate and determinable to which thedelegate must con*orm in the per*ormance o* his *unctions. A suFcientstandard is one which denes legislative polic-, mar%s its limits, mapsout its boundaries and species the public agenc- to appl- it. ;t

indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is tobe e&ected.

;nso*ar as initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution isconcerned, R.A. N/. %$;' msera2l8 6aled -/ sa-s68 2/-re>5remen-s n s52/rdna-e le3sla-/n. !e dele3a-/n /6 -ep/0er -/ -e CO#ELEC s -en n4ald.

;t logicall- *ollows that the C789+9C cannot validl- promulgate rulesand regulations to implement the e0ercise o* the right o* the people todirectl- propose amendments to the Constitution through the s-stem

o* initiative. ;t does not have that power under R.A. o. 63). Relianceon the C789+9Cs power under (ection 2#1$ o* Article ;:C o* theConstitution is misplaced, *or the laws and regulations re*erred totherein are those promulgated b- the C789+9C under #a$ (ection 3 o*Article ;:C o* the Constitution, or #b$ a law where subordinatelegislation is authoriGed and which satises the completeness and thesuFcient standard tests.


20/61

AAABA GURO PAR!Y LS! "S ER#!A@%& SCRA 1 SEP!. 1, **'

FAC!S+

7n 8a- 24, 2""), the /resident signed into law Republic Act !336 orthe EA5 Re*orm Act. Be*ore the law too% e&ect on 'ul- 1, 2""), theCourt issued a 5R7 en>oining government *rom implementing the lawin response to a slew o* petitions *or certiorari and prohibitionuestioning the constitutionalit- o* the new law.

5he challenged section o* R.A. o. !336 is the common proviso in(ections 4, ) and = 5hat the /resident, upon the recommendation o*the (ecretar- o* inance, shall, e&ective 'anuar- 1, 2"", raise the rateo* valueadded ta0 to 12S, a*ter an- o* the *ollowing conditions hasbeen satised=

#i$ Ealueadded ta0 collection as a percentage o* ross Domestic/roduct #D/$ o* the previous -ear e0ceeds two and *our*th percent#2 4O)S$

or #ii$ ational government decit as a percentage o* D/ o* theprevious -ear e0ceeds one and onehal* percent #1TS$U

/etitioners allege that the grant o* standb- authorit- to the /residentto increase the EA5 rate is an abdication b- Congress o* its e0clusivepower to ta0 because such delegation is not covered b- (ection 2< #2$,Article E; o* the Constitution. 5he- argue that EA5 is a ta0 levied on the

sale or e0change o* goods and services which can- 2e ncl5ded0-n -e p5r4e0 /6 -ar:s 5nder -e eemp-/n dele3a-/nsince this re*ers to customs duties, tolls or tribute pa-able uponmerchandise to the government and usuall- imposed onimportedOe0ported goods. 5he- also said that the /resident has powersto cause, in@uence or create the conditions provided b- law to bringabout the conditions precedent. 8oreover, the- allege that no guidingstandards are made b- law as to how the (ecretar- o* inance willma%e the recommendation.

RELA!EB SSUES+

?hether or not there is an undue delegation b- Congress o* itse0clusive power to ta0 to the /resident

RULNG+

5he legislature ma- delegate to e0ecutive oFcers or bodies the p/0er-/ de-ermne cer-an 6ac-s /r c/nd-/ns, /r -e appenn3 /6


21/61

c/n-n3ences, /n 0c -e /pera-/n /6 a s-a-5-e s, 28 -s-erms, made -/ depend, 25- -e le3sla-5re m5s- prescr2es5cen- s-andards, p/lces /r lm-a-/ns /n -er a5-/r-8.?hile the power to ta0 cannot be delegated to e0ecutive agencies,details as to the en*orcement and administration o* an e0ercise o* such

power ma- be le*t to them, including the power to determine thee0istence o* *acts on which its operation depends.

5he rationale *or this is that the preliminar- ascertainment o* *acts asbasis *or the enactment o* legislation is not o* itsel* a legislative*unction, but is simpl- ancillar- to legislation. 5hus, the dut- o*correlating in*ormation and ma%ing recommendations is the %ind o*subsidiar- activit- which the legislature ma- per*orm through itsmembers, or which it ma- delegate to others to per*orm. ;ntelligentlegislation on the complicated problems o* modern societ- isimpossible in the absence o* accurate in*ormation on the part o* the

legislators, and an- reasonable method o* securing such in*ormation isproper. 5he Constitution as a continuousl- operative charter o*government does not reuire that Congress nd *or itsel* ever- *actupon which it desires to base legislative action or that it ma%e *or itsel*detailed determinations which it has declared to be prereuisite toapplication o* legislative polic- to particular *acts and circumstancesimpossible *or Congress itsel* properl- to investigate.

;n the present case, the challenged section o* R.A. o. !336 is thecommonprovisoin (ections 4, ) and which reads as *ollows=

5hat the /resident, upon the recommendation o* the(ecretar- o* inance, sall, e&ective 'anuar- 1, 2"", raisethe rate o* valueadded ta0 to twelve percent #12S$, a*teran- o* the *ollowing conditions has been satised=

#i$ Ealueadded ta0 collection as apercentage o* ross Domestic /roduct #D/$ o*the previous -ear e0ceeds two and *our*thpercent #2 4O)S$ or

#ii$ ational government decit as apercentage o* D/ o* the previous -eare0ceeds one and onehal* percent #1 S$.

5he case be*ore the Court is n/- a dele3a-/n /6 le3sla-4e p/0er.- s smpl8 a dele3a-/n /6 ascer-anmen- /6 6ac-supon whichen*orcement and administration o* the increase rate under the law iscontingent. 5he legislature has made the operation o* the 12S ratee&ective 'anuar- 1, 2"", contingent upon a specied *act or condition.


22/61

;t leaves the entire operation or nonoperation o* the 12S rate upon6ac-5al ma--ers /5-sde /6 -e c/n-r/l /6 -e eec5-4e.

o discretion would be e0ercised b- the /resident. Highlighting theabsence o* discretion is the *act that the word shall is used in thecommon proviso. 5he use o* the word shall connotes a mandator-order. ;ts use in a statute denotes an imperative obligation and isinconsistent with the idea o* discretion.?here the law is clear andunambiguous, it must be ta%en to mean e0actl- what it sa-s, andcourts have no choice but to see to it that the mandate is obe-ed.

5hus, - s -e mns-eral d5-8 /6 -e Presden- -/ mmeda-el8mp/se -e 1 ra-e 5p/n -e es-ence /6 an8 /6 -ec/nd-/ns specDed 28 C/n3ress. 5his is a dut- which cannot beevaded b- the /resident. ;nasmuch as the law specicall- uses theword shall, the e0ercise o* discretion b- the /resident does not comeinto pla-. ;t is a clear directive to impose the 12S EA5 rate when the

specied conditions are present. 5he time o* ta%ing into e&ect o* the12S EA5 rate is based on the happening o* a certain speciedcontingenc-, or upon the ascertainment o* certain *acts or conditionsb- a person or bod- other than the legislature itsel*.

AAABA GURO PAR!Y LS! "S PURS#A'% SCRA '1 AUG. 1@, **

FAC!S+

RA !33) was enacted to optimiGe the revenuegeneration capabilit-and collection o* the Bureau o* ;nternal Revenue #B;R$ and the Bureau

o* Customs #B7C$. 5he law intends to encourage B;R and B7C oFcialsand emplo-ees to e0ceed their revenue targets b- providing a s-stemo* rewards and sanctions through the creation o* a Rewards and;ncentives und #und$ and a Revenue /er*ormance 9valuation Board#Board$. ;t covers all oFcials and emplo-ees o* the B;R and the B7Cwith at least si0 months o* service, regardless o* emplo-ment status.

9ach Board has the dut- to #1$ prescribe the rules and guidelines *orthe allocation, distribution and release o* the und #2$ set criteria andprocedures *or removing *rom the service oFcials and emplo-eeswhose revenue collection *alls short o* the target #3$ terminate

personnel in accordance with the criteria adopted b- the Board #4$prescribe a s-stem *or per*ormance evaluation #)$ per*orm other*unctions, including the issuance o* rules and regulations and #$submit an annual report to Congress.

5he D7, DB8, 9DA, B;R, B7C and the Civil (ervice Commission #C(C$were tas%ed to promulgate and issue the implementing rules and


23/61

regulations o* RA !33), to be approved b- a 'oint Congressional7versight Committee created *or such purpose.

/etitioners assert that the law 5nd5l8 dele3a-es -e p/0er -/ Dre4en5e -ar3e-s -/ -e Presden- as - lac9s a s5cen-

s-andard /n -a- ma--er. ?hile (ection 6#b$ and #c$ o* RA !33)provides that B;R and B7C oFcials ma- be dismissed *rom the servicei* their revenue collections *all short o* the target b- at least 6.)S, thela0 d/es n/-, /0e4er, D -e re4en5e -ar3e-s -/ 2e ace4ed.ns-ead, -e Dn3 /6 re4en5e -ar3e-s as 2een dele3a-ed -/-e Presden- 0-/5- s5cen- s-andards. - 0ll -ere6/re 2eeas8 6/r -e Presden- -/ D an 5nreals-c and 5na--ana2le-ar3e- n /rder -/ dsmss R /r OC pers/nnel.

RELA!EB SSUES+

?hether or not RA !33) undul- delegates power to 0 revenuetargets to the /resident.

RULNG+

5wo tests determine the validit- o* delegation o* legislative power= #1$the completeness test and #2$ the suFcient standard test. A law iscomplete when it sets *orth therein the polic- to be e0ecuted, carriedout or implemented b- the delegate. ;t la-s down a suFcient standardwhen it provides adeuate guidelines or limitations in the law to mapout the boundaries o* the delegates authorit- and prevent thedelegation *rom running riot. 5o be suFcient, the standard must speci*-the limits o* the delegates authorit-, announce the legislative polic-and identi*- the conditions under which it is to be implemented.

RA !33) adeuatel- states the polic- and standards to guide the/resident in 0ing revenue targets and the implementing agencies incarr-ing out the provisions o* the law. (ection 2 spells out the polic- o*the law=

(9C. 2. 'eclaration of &olicy. V ;t is the polic- o* the (tate tooptimiGe the revenuegeneration capabilit- and collection o* theBureau o* ;nternal Revenue #B;R$ and the Bureau o* Customs#B7C$ 28 pr/4dn3 6/r a s8s-em /6 re0ards and sanc-/ns-r/53 -e crea-/n /6 a Re0ards and ncen-4es F5ndand a Re4en5e Per6/rmance E4al5a-/n /ardin the aboveagencies *or the purpose o* encouraging their oFcials andemplo-ees to e0ceed their revenue targets.


24/61

(ection 4 IcanaliGed within ban%s that %eep it *rom over@owingI thedelegated power to the /resident to 0 revenue targets=

(9C. 4. (ewards and )ncentives *und. V A Rewards and ;ncentivesund, hereina*ter re*erred to as the und, is hereb- created, to be

sourced *rom the collection o* the B;R and the B7C in e0cess o*-er respec-4e re4en5e -ar3e-s /6 -e 8ear, asde-ermned 28 -e Be4el/pmen- 5d3e- and C//rdna-n3C/mm--ee (BCC), in the *ollowing percentages=

90cess o* Collection o*the 90cess the Revenue5argets

/ercent #S$ o* the 90cessCollection to Accrue to the und

3"S or below V 1)S

8ore than 3"S V 1)S o* the rst 3"S plus 2"So* the remaining e0cess

5he und shall be deemed automaticall- appropriated the -earimmediatel- *ollowing the -ear when the revenue collectiontarget was e0ceeded and shall be released on the same scal-ear.

Re4en5e -ar3e-s sall re6er -/ -e /r3nal es-ma-edre4en5e c/llec-/n epec-ed /6 -e R and -e OC 6/r a34en Dscal 8ear as s-a-ed n -e 5d3e- /6 Epend-5resand S/5rces /6 Fnancn3 (ESF) s52m--ed 28 -ePresden- -/ C/n3ress.5he B;R and the B7C shall submit tothe DBCC the distribution o* the agencies revenue targets asallocated among its revenue districts in the case o* the B;R, andthe collection districts in the case o* the B7C.

Revenue targets are based on the original estimated revenue collectione0pected respectivel- o* the B;R and the B7C *or a given scal -ear asapproved b- the DBCC and stated in the B9( submitted b- the/resident to Congress. 5hus, the determination o* revenue targets doesnot rest solel- on the /resident as it also undergoes the scrutin- o* theDBCC.

7n the other hand, (ection 6 species the limits o* the Boardsauthorit- and identies the conditions under which oFcials andemplo-ees whose revenue collection *alls short o* the target b- at least6.)S ma- be removed *rom the service.

Clearl-, RA !33) in no wa- violates the securit- o* tenure o* oFcialsand emplo-ees o* the B;R and the B7C. 5he guarantee o* securit- o*


25/61

tenure onl- means that an emplo-ee cannot be dismissed *rom theservice *or causes other than those provided b- law and onl- a*ter dueprocess is accorded the emplo-ee. ;n the case o* RA !33), it la-s downa reasonable -ardstic% *or removal #when the revenue collection *allsshort o* the target b- at least 6.)S$ with due consideration o* all

relevant *actors a&ecting the level o* collection. 5his standard isanalogous to ineFcienc- and incompetence in the per*ormance o*oFcial duties, a ground *or disciplinar- action under civil service laws.5he action *or removal is also sub>ect to civil service laws, rules andregulations and compliance with substantive and procedural dueprocess.

At an- rate, this Court has recogniGed the *ollowing as suFcientstandards= Ipublic interest,I I>ustice and euit-,I Ipublic convenienceand wel*areI and Isimplicit-, econom- and wel*are.I ;n this case, thedeclared polic- o* optimiGation o* the revenuegeneration capabilit-

and collection o* the B;R and the B7C is in*used with public interest.

.LEGSLA!"E #LL (=/0 a 2ll 2ec/mes a la0)

C.L#!A!ONS

C.1 SUS!AN!"E L#!A!ONS

1) Epress Lm-a-/ns

BE#E!RA "S ALA1@ SCRA *

FAC!S+

Assailed in this petition *or prohibition with pra-er *or a writ o*preliminar- in>unction is the constitutionalit- o* the rst paragraph o*(ection 44 o* /residential Decree o. 1166, otherwise %nown as theIBudget Re*orm Decree o* 1!66.I

/etitioners, who led the instant petition as concerned citiGens o* thiscountr-, as members o* the ational Assembl-OBatasan /ambansarepresenting their millions o* constituents, as parties with generalinterest common to all the people o* the /hilippines, and as ta0pa-erswhose vital interests ma- be a&ected b- the outcome o* the relie*spra-ed *orI 1listed the grounds relied upon in this petition as *ollows=

A. (9C5;7 44 7 5H9 NBD95 R97R8 D9CR99 7 1!66N;R;9( /7 5H9 DA895A+ +A? BMA5H7R;W; 5H9 ;++9A+ 5RA(9R 7 /B+;C 879M(.

B. (9C5;7 44 7 /R9(;D95;A+ D9CR99 7. 1166 ;(R9/A5 57 5H9 C7(5;55;7 A( ;5 A;+( 57


26/61

(/9C;M 5H9 7B'9C5;E9( AD /R/7(9( 7R ?H;CH 5H9/R7/7(9D 5RA(9R 7 D( AR9 57 B9 8AD9.

C. (9C5;7 44 7 /R9(;D95;A+ D9CR99 7. 1166A++7?( 5H9 /R9(;D95 57 7E9RR;D9 5H9 (A9ARD(,7R8 AD /R7C9DR9 /R9(CR;B9D BM 5H9

C7(5;55;7 ; A//R7E; A//R7/R;A5;7(.

D. (9C5;7 44 7 5H9 (A89 D9CR99 A875( 57 AD9 D9+9A5;7 7 +9;(+A5;E9 /7?9R( 57 5H99:9C5;E9.

9. 5H9 5HR9A599D AD C75;; 5RA(9R 7D( BM 5H9 /R9(;D95 AD 5H9 ;8/+9895A5;75H9R97 BM 5H9 BD95 8;;(59R AD 5H9 5R9A(R9R7 5H9 /H;+;//;9( AR9 ?;5H75 7R ; 9:C9(( 7 5H9;RA5H7R;5M AD 'R;(D;C5;7.

Commenting on the petition in compliance with the Court resolutiondated (eptember 1!, 1!usticiable controvers- t *or resolution or determination. He*urther contended that the provision under consideration was enactedpursuant to (ection 1J)K, Article E;;; o* the 1!63 Constitution and thatat an- rate, prohibition will not lie *rom one branch o* the governmentto a coordinate branch to en>oin the per*ormance o* duties within thelatterNs sphere o* responsibilit-.

SSUE+

?7 (ec.44 o* the XBudget Re*orm Decree o* 1!66 in*ringes upon the*undamental law b- authoriGing the illegal trans*er o* public mone-s

RULNG+

(ec. 1J)K. o law shall be passed authoriGing an- trans*ero* appropriations, however, the /resident, the /rime8inister, the (pea%er, the Chie* 'ustice o* the (upremeCourt, and the heads o* constitutional commisions ma- b-law be authoriGed to augment an- item in the generalappropriations law *or their respective oFces *rom savingsin other items o* their respective appropriations.

5he prohibition to trans*er an appropriation *or one item to anotherwas e0plicit and categorical under the 1!63 Constitution. However, toa&ord the heads o* the di&erent branches o* the government and thoseo* the constitutional commissions considerable @e0ibilit- in the use o*public *unds and resources, the constitution allowed the enactment o*a law authoriGing the trans*er o* *unds *or the purpose o* augmentingan item *rom savings in another item in the appropriation o* the


27/61

government branch or constitutional bod- concerned. 5he leewa-granted was thus limited. 5he purpose and conditions *or which *undsma- be trans*erred were specied, i.e. trans*er ma- be allowed *or thepurpose o* augmenting an item and such trans*er ma- be made onl- i*there are savings *rom another item in the appropriation o* the

government branch or constitutional bod-./aragraph 1 o* (ection 44 o* /.D. o. 1166 undul- over e0tends theprivilege granted under said (ection 1J)K. ;t empowers the /residentto indiscriminatel- trans*er *unds *rom one department, bureau, oFceor agenc- o* the 90ecutive Department to an- program, pro>ect oractivit- o* an- department, bureau or oFce included in the eneralAppropriations Act or approved a*ter its enactment, without regard asto whether or not the *unds to be trans*erred are actuall- savings inthe item *rom which the same are to be ta%en, or whether or not thetrans*er is *or the purpose o* augmenting the item to which saidtrans*er is to be made. ;t does not onl- completel- disregard the

standards set in the *undamental law, thereb- amounting to an unduedelegation o* legislative powers, but li%ewise goes be-ond the tenorthereo*. ;ndeed, such constitutional inrmities render the provision inuestion null and void.

GUNGONA "S CARAGUE1&% SCRA 1

FAC!S+

5he 1!!" budget consists o* /!


28/61

?7 it is inconsistent with (ections 24 and 2!#1$, Art. E; o* theConstitution

RULNG+

(ec. 24. All appropriation"revenue or tari& bills"bills authoriGing

increase o* the public debt, bills o* local application, and privatebills shall originate eclusivelyin the+ouse of (epresentatives"but the Senate #ay propose or concur with a#end#ents.#9mphasis supplied.$

5he- assert that bills have to be approved b- the /resident, then a lawmust be passed b- Congress to authoriGe said automatic appropriationand that there must be deniteness, certaint- and e0actness in anappropriation, otherwise it is an undue delegation o* legislative powerto the /resident who determines in advance the amount appropriated*or the debt service.

5he argument o* petitioners that the said presidential decrees did notmeet the reuirement and are there*ore inconsistent with (ections 24and 26 o* Article E; o* the Constitution which reuires, among others,that Iall appropriations, . . . bills authoriGing increase o* public debtImust be passed b- Congress and approved b- the /resident isuntenable. Certainl-, the *ramers o* the Constitution did notcontemplate that e0isting laws in the statute boo%s including e0istingpresidential decrees appropriating public mone- are reduced to mereIbillsI that must again go through the legislative million 5he onl-reasonable interpretation o* said provisions o* the Constitution whichre*er to IbillsI is that the- mean appropriation measures still to be

passed b- Congress. ;* the intention o* the *ramers thereo* wereotherwise the- should have e0pressed their decision in a more direct ore0press manner.

(ection 2!#l$. o mone- shall be paid out o* the treasur- e0ceptin pursuance o* an appropriation made b- law.

8ore signicantl-, there is no provision in our Constitution thatprovides or prescribes an- particular *orm o* words or religious recitalsin which an authoriGation or appropriation b- Congress shall be made,e0cept that it be Imade b- law,I such as precisel- the authoriGation orappropriation under the uestioned presidential decrees. ;n other

words, in terms o* time horiGons, an appropriation ma- be madeimpliedl- #as b- past but subsisting legislations$ as well as e0pressl-*or the current scal -ear #as b- enactment o* laws b- the presentCongress$, >ust as said appropriation ma- be made in general as wellas in specic terms. 5he Congressional authoriGation ma- be embodiedin annual laws, such as a general appropriations act or in specialprovisions o* laws o* general or special application which appropriatepublic *unds *or specic public purposes, such as the uestioned


29/61

decrees. An appropriation measure is suFcient i* the legislativeintention clearl- and certainl- appears *rom the language emplo-ed #;nre Continuing Appropriations, 32 /. 262$, whether in the past or in thepresent.

5he Court, there*or, nds that R.A. o. 4


30/61

pon 8otion o* /rivate Respondent C7C79D, the (andiganba-anissued a Resolution li*ting the seuestration o* the sub>ect C/B shareson the ground that herein private respondents in particular,C7C79D and the socalled C;; companies had not been impleaded b-the /C as partiesde*endants in its 'ul- 31, 1!udicial action within the si0month period ending onAugust 2, 1!oining the holding o* the election. (ubseuentl-,the Court li*ted the Restraining 7rder and ordered the C/B to proceedwith the election o* its board o* directors. urthermore, it allowed theseuestered shares to be voted b- their registered owners.

the Court, acting on the solicitor generals 8otion *orClaricationO8ani*estation, issued a Resolution on ebruar- 1, 1!!3,declaring that the right o* petitioners Jherein private respondentsK tovote stoc% in their names at the meetings o* the C/B cannot beconceded at this time. 5hat right still has to be established b- them

be*ore the (andiganba-an. ntil that is done, the- cannot be deemedlegitimate owners o* C/B stoc% and cannot be accorded the right tovote them.

7n 'anuar- 23, 1!!), the Court rendered its nal Decision in R o.!"63, nulli*-ing and setting aside the ovember 1), 1!!" Resolutiono* the (andiganba-an which, as earlier stated, li*ted the seuestrationo* the sub>ect C/B shares. 5he e0press impleading o* hereinRespondents C7C79D et al. was deemed unnecessar- because the>udgment ma- simpl- be directed against the shares o* stoc% shown tohave been issued in consideration o* illgotten wealth. urthermore, thecompanies are simpl- the resin the actions *or the recover- o* illegall-

acuired wealth, and there is, in principle, no cause o* action againstthem and no ground to implead them as de*endants in said case.

(i0 -ears later, on ebruar- 13, 2""1, the Board o* Directors o* C/Breceived *rom the ACCRA +aw 7Fce a letter written on behal* o* theC7C79D and the alleged nameless one million coconut *armers,demanding the holding o* a stoc%holders meeting *or the purpose o*,among others, electing the board o* directors. ;n response, the board


31/61

approved a Resolution calling *or a stoc%holders meeting on 8arch ,2""1 at three ocloc% in the a*ternoon.

SSUE+

90press +imitation on 5a0ation

RULNG+Coconut Funds Are Levied for the ene!t of the Coconut"ndustry and "ts Farmers#

'ust li%e the sugar lev- *unds, the coconut lev- *unds constitute state*unds even though the- ma- be held *or a special public purpose.

;n *act, 90ecutive 7rder o. 45red -r/53 -e -an3 and p/lce p/0ers /6-e S-a-e. 5he sugar lev- *unds, which are stri%ingl- similar to thecoconut levies in their imposition and purpose, were declared public*unds b- this Court in ,aston v. (epublic &lanters Ban!, *rom which weuote=

5he stabiliGation *ees collected are in the nature o* a ta0 which iswithin the power o* the (tate to impose *or the promotion o* the sugarindustr- #-utz vs. Araneta" !< /hil. 14


32/61

()*+ Constitution, Art# ", -ec# .)/01, lifted from the ()02Constitution, Article ", -ec# .0/(1#

5he character o* the (tabiliGation und as a special *und is emphasiGedb- the *act that the *unds are deposited in the /hilippine ational Ban%and not in the /hilippine 5reasur-, mone-s *rom which ma- be paid out

onl- in pursuance o* an appropriation made b- law #1!


33/61

8alvar en. +im$I that, at the time o* the passage and approval o*said Act, the a*orementioned *eeder roads were Inothing but pro>ectedand planned subdivision roads, not -et constructed, . . . within theAntonio (ubdivision . . . situated at . . . /asig, RiGalI, which pro>ected*eeder roads Ido not connect an- government propert- or an-

important premises to the main highwa-I that the a*orementionedAntonio (ubdivision #as well as the lands on which said *eeder roadswere to be construed$ were private properties o* respondent 'ose C.Wulueta, who was a member o* the (enate o* the /hilippines that on8a-, 1!)3, respondent Wulueta, addressed a letter to the 8unicipalCouncil o* /asig, RiGal, o&ering to donate said pro>ected *eeder roads tothe municipalit- o* /asig, RiGal that, on 'une 13, 1!)3, the o&er wasaccepted b- the council, sub>ect to the condition Ithat the donor wouldsubmit a plan o* the said roads and agree to change the names o* twoo* themI that no deed o* donation in *avor o* the municipalit- o* /asigwas, however, e0ecutedY. that said appropriation o* /


34/61

private enterprises or business, does not >usti*- their aid b- the usepublic mone-.

enerall-, under the e0press or implied provisions o* the constitution,public funds #ay be used only for public purpose. 5he right o* thelegislature to appropriate *unds is correlative with its right to ta0, and,

under constitutional provisions against ta0ation e0cept *or publicpurposes and prohibiting the collection o* a ta0 *or one purpose andthe devotion thereo* to another purpose, no appropriation of statefunds can be #ade for other than for a public purpose.

5he test o* the constitutionalit- o* a statute reuiring the use o* public*unds is whether the statute is designed to promote the public interest,as opposed to the *urtherance o* the advantage o* individuals,although each advantage to individuals might incidentally serve thepublic.

) mpled Lm-a-/ns

a. N/n7Bele3a-/n /6 P/0ers

2. Pr/2-/n a3ans- rrepeala2le la0s

;) Pr/ced5ral Lm-a-/ns

a. One S52ec- and !-le

CRUK "S PARAS1; SCRA '%&

FAC!S+

5he decision now under review re*ers to Republic Act o. !3< asamended. ;t was originall- enacted on 'une 2", 1!)3. ;t is entitled= IAAC5 RA5; 8;C;/A+ 7R C;5M B7ARD( AD C7C;+( 5H9/7?9R 57 R9+A59 5H9 9(5AB+;(H895, 8A;59AC9 AD7/9RA5;7 7 C9R5A; /+AC9( 7 A8(9895 ?;5H; 5H9;RR9(/9C5;E9 59RR;57R;A+ 'R;(D;C5;7(.N ;ts rst section inso*ar aspertinent reads= I5he municipal or cit- board or council o* eachchartered cit- shall have the power to regulate b- ordinance theestablishment, maintenance and operation o* night clubs, cabarets,dancing schools, pavilions, coc%pits, bars, saloons, bowling alle-s,billiard pools, and other similar places o* amusement within its

territorial >urisdiction= ... I 5hen on 8a- 21, 1!)4, the rst section wasamended to include not merel- Ithe power to regulate, but li%ewiseI/rohibit ... I 5he title, however, remained the same. ;t is wordede0actl- as Republic Act o. !3


35/61

altered. ;t was not changed one whit. 5he e0act wording was *ollowed.5he power granted remains that o* regulation, notprohibition.

SSUE+

7ne (ub>ect 7ne 5itle +imitation

RULNG+5here is thus support *or the view advanced b- petitioners that toconstrue Republic Act o. !3< as allowing the prohibition o* theoperation o* night clubs would give rise to a constitutional uestion.5he Constitution mandates= I9ver- bill shall embrace onl- one sub>ectwhich shall be e0pressed in the title thereo*. I (ince there is no disputeas the title limits the power to regulating, not prohibiting, it wouldresult in the statute being invalid i*, as was done b- the 8unicipalit- o*Bocaue, the operation o* a night club was prohibited. 5here is a widegap between the e0ercise o* a regulator- power Ito provide *or the

health and sa*et-, promote the prosperit-, improve the morals, in thelanguage o* the Administrative Code, such competence e0tending to allIthe great public needs, to uote *rom Holmes, and to interdict an-calling, occupation, or enterprise. ;n accordance with the wellsettledprinciple o* constitutional construction that between two possibleinterpretations b- one o* which it will be *ree *rom constitutionalinrmit- and b- the other tainted b- such grave de*ect, the *ormer is tobe pre*erred. A construction that would save rather than one thatwould aF0 the seal o* doom certainl- commends itsel*. ?e have doneso be*ore ?e do so again.

!O "S "BEOGRA# REGULA!ORY OARB

GR $'%&$


36/61

7n 7ctober 23, 1!ect which shall be e0pressed in the title thereo*I is suFcientl-complied with i* the title be comprehensive enough to include thegeneral purpose which a statute see%s to achieve. ;t is not necessar-that the title e0press each and ever- end that the statute wishes toaccomplish. 5he reuirement is satised i* all the parts o* the statuteare related, and are germane to the sub>ect matter e0pressed in thetitle, or as long as the- are not inconsistent with or *oreign to thegeneral sub>ect and title. An act having a single general sub>ect,indicated in the title, ma- contain an- number o* provisions, no matterhow diverse the- ma- be, so long as the- are not inconsistent with or

*oreign to the general sub>ect, and ma- be considered in *urtherance o*such sub>ect b- providing *or the method and means o* carr-ing outthe general ob>ect.I 5he rule also is that the constitutional reuirementas to the title o* a bill should not be so narrowl- construed as to crippleor impede the power o* legislation. ;t should be given practical ratherthan technical construction.

5ested b- the *oregoing criteria, petitionerNs contention that the ta0provision o* the D9CR99 is a rider is without merit. 5hat section reads,inter alia=

(ection 1". Ta on Sale" -ease or 'isposition of :ideogra#s. otwithstanding an- provision o* law to the contrar-, the province shall

collect a ta0 o* thirt- percent #3"S$ o* the purchase price or rentalrate, as the case ma- be, *or ever- sale, lease or disposition o* avideogram containing a reproduction o* an- motion picture oraudiovisual program. i*t- percent #)"S$ o* the proceeds o* the ta0collected shall accrue to the province, and the other *t- percent #)"S$shall acrrue to the municipalit- where the ta0 is collected /R7E;D9D,

5hat in 8etropolitan 8anila, the ta0 shall be shared euall- b- theCit-O8unicipalit- and the 8etropolitan 8anila Commission.


37/61

000 000 000

5he *oregoing provision is allied and germane to, and is reasonabl-necessar- *or the accomplishment o*, the general ob>ect o* theD9CR99, which is the regulation o* the video industr- through theEideogram Regulator- Board as e0pressed in its title. 5he ta0 provision

is not inconsistent with, nor *oreign to that general sub>ect and title. Asa tool *or regulation it is simpl- one o* the regulator- and controlmechanisms scattered throughout the D9CR99. 5he e0press purpose o*the D9CR99 to include ta0ation o* the video industr- in order toregulate and rationaliGe the hereto*ore uncontrolled distribution o*videograms is evident *rom /reambles 2 and ), supra. 5hosepreambles e0plain the motives o* the lawma%er in presenting themeasure. 5he title o* the D9CR99, which is the creation o* theEideogram Regulator- Board, is comprehensive enough to include thepurposes e0pressed in its /reamble and reasonabl- covers all itsprovisions. ;t is unnecessar- to e0press all those ob>ectives in the title

or that the latter be an inde0 to the bod- o* the D9CR99.

!OAS "S AALOS

GR L711@$;

FAC!S+

Herein petitioners assail the constitutionalit- o* Republic Act o. 66),otherwise %nown as IAn Act Converting the 8unicipalit- o*8andalu-ong into a Highl- rbaniGed Cit- to be %nown as the Cit- o*8andalu-ong.I

/ursuant to the +ocal overnment Code o* 1!!1, a plebiscite was heldon April 1", 1!!4. 5he people o* 8andalu-ong were as%ed whetherthe- approved o* the conversion o* the 8unicipalit- o* 8andalu-onginto a highl- urbaniGed cit- as provided under R.A. o. 66). 5heturnout at the plebiscite was onl- 14.41S o* the voting population.evertheless, 1ect law resulted in the latter embracing two principal sub>ects,


38/61

namel-= #1$ the conversion o* 8andalu-ong into a highl- urbaniGedcit- and #2$ the division o* the congressional district o* (an'uanO8andalu-ong into two separate districts, in violation o* the onesub>ect one bill rule.

SSUE+

?7 the inclusion o* the assailed (ection 4! in the sub>ect law ma%esit a violation o* the one sub>ectone bill rule

RULNG+

5he contentions are devoid o* merit.

the statutor- conversion o* 8andalu-ong into a highl- urbaniGed cit-with a population o* not less than two hundred *t- thousandindubitabl- ordains compliance with the Ione cit-one representativeIprovisoin the Constitution=

. . . 9ach cit- with a population o* at least two hundred *t-

thousand, or each province, shall have at least onerepresentativeI #Article E;, (ection )#3$, Constitution$.

Hence, it is in compliance with the a*orestated constitutional mandatethat the creation o* a separate congressional district *or the Cit- o*8andalu-ong is decreed under Article E;;;, (ection 4! o* R.A. o. 66).

Contrar- to petitionersN assertion, the creation o* a separatecongressional district *or 8andalu-ong is not a sub>ect separate anddistinct *rom the sub>ect o* its conversion into a highl- urbaniGed cit-but is a natural and logical conseuence o* its conversion into a highl-urbaniGed cit-. Eeril-, the title o* R.A. o. 66), IAn Act Converting the

8unicipalit- o* 8andalu-ong ;nto a Highl- rbaniGed Cit- o*8andalu-ongI necessaril- includes and contemplates the sub>ecttreated under (ection 4! regarding the creation o* a separatecongressional district *or 8andalu-ong.

8oreover, a liberal construction o* the Ione titleone sub>ectI rule hasbeen invariabl- adopted b- this court so as not to cripple or impedelegislation. 5hus, in Su#ulong v. Co#elec #63 /hil. 2ect and all the provisions aregermane to that general sub>ect.I

5he liberal construction o* the Ione titleone sub>ectI rule had been*urther elucidated in -idasan v. Co#elec #21 (CRA 4! J1!6K$, to wit=

7* course, the Constitution does not reuire Congress to emplo-in the title o* an enactment, language o* such precision as tomirror, *ull- inde0 or catalogue all the contents and the minutedetails therein. ;t suFces i* the title should serve the purpose o*


39/61

the constitutional demand that it in*orm the legislators, thepersons interested in the sub>ect o* the bill and the public, o* thenature, scope and conse%uences o* the proposed law and itsoperationI

2. ;7Readn3 R5le

@) Presden-al "e-/OLNAO ELEC!RC CORP. "S "ALENCA

11 SCRA @%FAC!S+

5his is an original petition *or prohibition, mandator- in>unction with preliminar-in>unction led b- the Bolinao 9lectronics Corporation, Chronicle Broadcastingetwor%, ;nc., and 8onserrat Broadcasting (-stem, ;nc., owners and operators o*radio and television stations enumerated therein, against respondents (ecretar-o* /ublic ?or%s and Communications and Acting Chie* o* the Radio ControlDivision. +ater the Republic o* the /hilippines, as operator o* the /hilippine

Broadcasting (ervice, sought and was allowed to intervene in this case, saidintervenor having been granted a construction permit to install and operate atelevision station in 8anila.

Bolinao 9lectronics Corporation was the coowner and a copetitioner o* ChronicleBroadcasting etwor%, ;nc. #CB$ and 8ontserrat Broadcasting (-stem ;nc. 5he-operate and own television #channel !$ and radio stations in the /hilippines. 5he-were summoned b- Brigido Ealencia, then (ecretar- o* Communications, *oroperating even a*ter their permit has e0pired. Ealencia claimed that because o*CBs continued operation sans license and their continuing operation hadcaused damages to his department.

SSUE+

?7 the /resident ma- legall- veto a condition attached to anappropriation or item in the appropriation bill

RULNG+

nder the Constitution, the /resident has the power to veto an-particular item or items o* an appropriation bill. However, when aprovision o* an appropriation bill a&ects one or more items o* thesame, the /resident cannot veto the provision without at the sametime vetoing the particular item or items to which it relates. #Art. E;,(ec. 2".$

;t ma- be observed *rom the wordings o* the Appropriations Act that

the amount appropriated *or the operation o* the /hilippineBroadcasting (ervice was made sub>ect to the condition that the sameshall not be used or e0pended *or operation o* television stations in+uGon, where there are alread- e0isting commercial television stations.5his gives rise to the uestion o* whether the /resident ma- legall-veto a condition attached to an appropriation or item in theappropriation bill. But this is not a novel uestion. A little e&ort to


40/61

research on the sub>ect would have -ielded enough authorit- to guideaction on the matter or, in the leading case o* State v. +older,2it wasalread- declared that such action b- the Chie* 90ecutive was illegal.5his ruling, that the e0ecutiveNs veto power does not carr- with it thepower to stri%e out conditions or restrictions, has been adhered to in

subseuent cases. ;* the veto is unconstitutional, it *ollows that thesame produced no e&ect whatsoever, and the restriction imposed b-the appropriation bill, there*ore, remains. An- e0penditure made b- theintervenor /B(, *or the purpose o* installing or operating a televisionstation in 8anila, where there are alread- television stations inoperation, would be in violation o* the e0press condition *or the releaseo* the appropriation and, conseuentl-, null and void. ;t is not diFcultto see that even i* it were able to prove its right to operate on Channel!, said intervenor would not have been entitled to reimbursement o* itsillegal e0penditures.

GONKALES "S #ACARAG

1&1 SCRA @'FAC!S+

Congress passed House Bill o. 1!1/ursuant to the constitutional provision on the passage o* bills,Congress presented the said Bill to the /resident *or consideration andapproval.

5he /resident signed the Bill into law, and declared the same to havebecome Rep. Act o. I?H9R9A(, Be it Resolved, as it is hereb- Resolved, 5hat the (enatee0press its sense that the veto b- the /resident o* (ection )) o* the99RA+ /R7E;(;7( o* the eneral Appropriation Bill o* 1!

I0 0 0I

5hus it is that, on 11 April 1!unction and Restraining 7rder, assailing mainl- the constitutionalit-or legalit- o* the /residential veto o* (ection )), and see%ing to en>oinrespondents *rom implementing Rep. Act o.


41/61

5he petitioners led a 8otion *or +eave to ile and to Admit(upplemental /etition, which was granted, basicall- raising the sameissue as in the original /etition, this time uestioning the /residentsveto o* certain provisions, particularl- (ection 1, o* House Bill 2!34,or the eneral Appropriations Bill *or iscal Mear 1!!", which the

/resident declared to have become Rep. Act o.

provisions and not items and are, there*ore, outside the scope o* theitemveto power o* the /resident.

5he veto power o* the /resident is e0pressed in Article E;, (ection 26 o*the 1!gc=chanrobles.com.ph

I(ec. 26. #1$ 9ver- bill passed b- the Congress shall, be*oreit becomes a law, be presented to the /resident. ;* heapproves the same, he shall sign it otherwise, he shallveto it and return the same with his ob>ections to theHouse where it originated, which shall enter the ob>ectionsat large in its 'ournal and proceed to reconsider it. ;*, a*ter

such reconsideration, twothirds o* all the 8embers o* suchHouse shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, togetherwith the ob>ections, to the other House b- which it shallli%ewise be reconsidered, and i* approved b- twothirds o*all the 8embers o* that House, it shall become a law. ;n allsuch cases, the votes o* each House shall be determinedb- -eas or na-s, and the names o* the 8embers voting *oror against shall be entered in its 'ournal. 5he /resident


42/61

shall communicate his veto o* an- bill to the House whereit originated within thirt- da-s a*ter the date o* receiptthereo* otherwise, it shall become a law as i* he hadsigned it.

I#2$ 5he /resident shall have the power to veto an-particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, ortari& bill, but the veto shall not a&ect the item or items towhich he does not ob>ect.I

/aragraph #1$ re*ers to the general veto power o* the /residentand i* e0ercised would result in the veto o* the entire bill, as ageneral rule. /aragraph #2$ is what is re*erred to as the itemvetopower or the lineveto power. ;t allows the e0ercise o* the vetoover a particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, ortari& bill. As specied, the Presden- ma8 n/- 4e-/ less -anall /6 an -em /6 an Appr/pra-/ns ll. n /-er 0/rds,

-e p/0er 34en -e eec5-4e -/ dsappr/4e an8 -em /r-ems n an Appr/pra-/ns ll d/es n/- 3ran- -ea5-/r-8 -/ 4e-/ a par- /6 an -em and -/ appr/4e -eremann3 p/r-/n /6 -e same -em.

7riginall-, item veto e0clusivel- re*erred to veto o* items o*appropriation bills and rst came into being in the *ormer7rganic Act, the Act o* Congress o* 2! August 1!1. 5his was*ollowed b- the 1!3) Constitution, which contained a similarprovision in its (ection 11#2$, Article E;, e0cept that the vetopower was made more e0pansive b- the inclusion o* this

sentence=

I. . . Wen a pr/4s/n /6 an appr/pra-/n 2ll a:ec-s /ne/r m/re -ems /6 -e same, -e Presden- can n/- 4e-/ -epr/4s/n 0-/5- a- -e same -me 4e-/n3 -e par-c5lar-em /r -ems -/ 0c - rela-es. . .I

5he 1!3) Constitution *urther broadened the /residents vetopower to include the veto o* item or items o* revenue and tari&bills.

?ith the advent o* the 1!63 Constitution, the section too% a

more simple and compact *orm, thus=

I(ection 2" #2$. 5he /rime 8inister shall have the power to vetoan- particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tari&bill, but the veto shall not a&ect the item or items to which hedoes not ob>ect.I


43/61

;t is to be noted that the counterpart provision in the 1!


44/61

budgetar- sense o* the term. Article E;, (ection 2) #2$ o* the1!


45/61

5H;R5M 79, ;9599 HDR9D AD ;95M7R, AD 7R 75H9R/R/7(9(I #AA o* 1!!4$. 7n the same da-, the /resident deliveredhis /residential Eeto 8essage, speci*-ing the provisions o* the bill hevetoed and on which he imposed certain conditions, to wit=

1. /rovision on Debt Ceiling, on the ground that this debt reduction

scheme cannot be validl- done through the 1!!4 AA.U And thatappropriations *or pa-ment o* public debt, whether *oreign ordomestic, are automaticall- appropriated pursuant to the oreignBorrowing Act and (ection 31 o* /.D. o. 1166 as reiterated under(ection 2, Chapter 4, Boo% E; o* 9.7. o. 2!2, the AdministrativeCode o* 1!


46/61

RULNG+

5he 4e-/ p/0er, while e0ercisable b- the /resident, is actuall- a parto* the legislative process. 5here is, there*ore, sound basis to indulge inthe presumption o* validit- o* a veto. 5he burden shi*ts on thoseuestioning the validit- thereo* to show that its use is a violation o* the

Constitution.

5he vetoed provision on the debt servicing is clearl- an attempt torepeal (ection 31 o* /.D. o. 1166 #oreign Borrowing Act$ and 9.7. o.2!2, and to reverse the debt pa-ment polic-. As held b- the court inonGales, the repeal o* these laws should be done in a separate law,not in the appropriations law.

;n the veto o* the provision relating to (Cs, there was no unduediscrimination when the /resident vetoed said special provisions whileallowing similar provisions in other government agencies. ;* somegovernment agencies were allowed to use their income and maintain a

revolving *und *or that purpose, it is because these agencies havebeen en>o-ing such privilege be*ore b- virtue o* the special lawsauthoriGing such practices as e0ceptions to the one*und polic-U #e.g.,R.A. o. 41< *or the ational (tud arm, /.D. o. !"2A *or the(ecurities and 90change Commission 9.7. o. 3)! *or the Departmento* Budget and 8anagements /rocurement (ervice$.

5he veto o* the second paragraph o* (pecial /rovision o. 2 o* the item*or the D/?H is unconstitutional. 5he (pecial /rovision in uestion isnot an inappropriate provision which can be the sub>ect o* a veto. ;t isnot alien to the appropriation *or road maintenance, and on the other

hand, it species how the said item shall be e0pended 6"S b-administrative and 3"S b- contract.

5he (pecial /rovision which reuires that all purchases o* medicines b-the A/ should strictl- compl- with the *ormular- embodied in theational Drug /olic- o* the Department o* Health is an appropriateUprovision. Being directl- related to and inseparable *rom theappropriation item on purchases o* medicines b- the A/, the specialprovision cannot be vetoed b- the /resident without also vetoing thesaid item.

5he reuirement in (pecial /rovision o. 2 on the use o* undU *or the

A/ moderniGation program that the /resident must submit allpurchases o* militar- euipment to Congress *or its approval, is ane0ercise o* the congressional or legislative veto.U However the case atbench is not the proper occasion to resolve the issues o* the validit- o*the legislative veto as provided in (pecial /rovisions os. 2 and 3because the issues at hand can be disposed o* on other grounds.5here*ore, being inappropriateU provisions, (pecial /rovisions os. 2and 3 were properl- vetoed.


47/61

urthermore, (pecial /rovision o. 3, prohibiting the use o* the8oderniGation *und *or pa-ment o* the trainer planes and armoredpersonnel carriers, which have been contracted *or b- the A/, isviolative o* the Constitutional prohibition on the passage o* laws thatimpair the obligation o* contracts #Art. ;;;, (ec. 1"$, more so, contracts

entered into b- the overnment itsel*. 5he veto o* said specialprovision is there*ore valid.

5he (pecial /rovision, which allows the Chie* o* (ta& to use savings toaugment the pension *und *or the A/ being managed b- the A/Retirement and (eparation Benets (-stem is violative o* (ections2)#)$ and 2!#1$ o* the Article E; o* the Constitution.

Regarding the deactivation o* CA(, we do not nd an-thing in thelanguage used in the challenged (pecial /rovision that would impl-that Congress intended to den- to the /resident the right to de*er orreduce the spending, much less to deactivate 11,""" CA members

all at once in 1!!4. But even i* such is the intention, the appropriationlaw is not the proper vehicle *or such purpose. (uch intention must beembodied and mani*ested in another law considering that it abradesthe powers o* the CommanderinChie* and there are e0isting laws onthe creation o* the CAs to be amended.

7n the conditions imposed b- the /resident on certain provisionsrelating to appropriations to the (upreme Court, constitutionalcommissions, the HA and the D/?H, there is less basis to complainwhen the /resident said that the e0penditures shall be sub>ect toguidelines he will issue. ntil the guidelines are issued, it cannot bedetermined whether the- are proper or inappropriate. nder the

aith*ul 90ecution Clause, the /resident has the power to ta%enecessar- and proper stepsU to carr- into e0ecution the law. 5hesesteps are the ones to be embodied in the guidelines.

') !ree Wa8s 28 0c a 2ll 2ec/mes a la0

7 28 s3na-5re /6 -e Pres.7 28 /4errdn3 -e 4e-/7 28 nac-/n 6/r ;*da8s

%) E:ec-4-8 /6 La0s!AABA "S !U"ERA

1;% SCRA $FAC!S+

;nvo%ing the peopleNs right to be in*ormed on matters o* publicconcern, a right recogniGed in (ection , Article ;E o* the 1!63/hilippine Constitution, 1as well as the principle that laws to be validand en*orceable must be published in the 7Fcial aGette or otherwisee&ectivel- promulgated, petitioners see% a writ o* mandamus tocompel respondent public oFcials to publish, andOor cause the


48/61

publication in the 7Fcial aGette o* various presidential decrees,letters o* instructions, general orders, proclamations, e0ecutive orders,letter o* implementation and administrative orders.

Respondents contend that publication in the 7Fcial aGette is not asine ua non reuirement *or the e&ectivit- o* laws where the laws

themselves provide *or their own e&ectivit- dates. ;t is thus submittedthat since the presidential issuances in uestion contain specialprovisions as to the date the- are to ta%e e&ect, publication in the7Fcial aGette is not indispensable *or their e&ectivit-.

SSUE+

?7 there is still a need to publish the law even i* the law itsel*provided *or its e&ectivit-

RULNG+

5he point stressed is anchored on Article 2 o* the Civil Code=

Art. 2. +aws shall ta%e e&ect a*ter *teen da-s *ollowing thecompletion o* their publication in the 7Fcial aGette,unless it is otherwise provided, ...

RespondentsN argument, however, is logicall- correct onl- inso*ar as iteuates the e&ectivit- o* laws with the *act o* publication. Consideredin the light o* other statutes applicable to the issue at hand, theconclusion is easil- reached that said Article 2 does not preclude thereuirement o* publication in the 7Fcial aGette, even i* the law itsel*provides *or the date o* its e&ectivit-. 5hus, (ection 1 o*Commonwealth Act 3< provides as *ollows=

(ection 1. 5here shall be published in the 7Fcial aGetteJ1K all important legisiative acts and resolutions o* a publicnature o* the, Congress o* the /hilippines J2K all e0ecutiveand administrative orders and proclamations, e0cept suchas have no general applicabilit- J3K decisions or abstractso* decisions o* the (upreme Court and the Court o* Appealsas ma- be deemed b- said courts o* suFcient importanceto be so published J4K such documents or classes o*documents as ma- be reuired so to be published b- lawand J)K such documents or classes o* documents as the/resident o* the /hilippines shall determine *rom time totime to have general applicabilit- and legal e&ect, or whichhe ma- authoriGe so to be published. ...

5he clear ob>ect o* the aboveuoted provision is to give the generalpublic adeuate notice o* the various laws which are to regulate theiractions and conduct as citiGens. ?ithout such notice and publication,there would be no basis *or the application o* the ma0im Iignorantialegis non e0cusat.I ;t would be the height o* in>ustice to punish or


49/61

otherwise burden a citiGen *or the transgression o* a law o* which hehad no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.

/erhaps at no time since the establishment o* the /hilippine Republichas the publication o* laws ta%en so vital signicance that at this timewhen the people have bestowed upon the /resident a power hereto*ore

en>o-ed solel- b- the legislature. ?hile the people are %ept abreast b-the mass media o* the debates and deliberations in the Batasan/ambansaand *or the diligent ones, read- access to the legislativerecordsno such publicit- accompanies the lawma%ing process o* the/resident. 5hus, without publication, the people have no means o*%nowing what presidential decrees have actuall- been promulgated,much less a denite wa- o* in*orming themselves o* the speciccontents and te0ts o* such decrees.

?H9R97R9, the Court hereb- orders respondents to publish in the7Fcial aGette all unpublished presidential issuances which are o*

general application, and unless so published, the- shall have nobinding *orce and e&ect.

P=LPPNE "E!ERANS AN E#PLOYEES "S


50/61

Anent the claim of respondents Central Bank and Liquidator of PVB that R.A. No. 716

!ecame effecti"e onl# on $arch 1%& 1' or fifteen (1)* da#s after its pu!lication in the

+fficial ,a-ette& the Court is of the "ie that the contentions are !ereft of merit.

?hile as a rule, laws ta%e e&ect a*ter *teen #1)$ da-s *ollowing thecompletion o* their publication in the 7Fcial aGette or in a newspaper

o* general circulation in the /hilippines, the legislature has theauthorit- to provide *or e0ceptions, as indicated in the clause Iunlessotherwise provided.I

;n the case at bar, (ection 1" o* R.A. o. 61! provides=

(ec. 1". ;$ectivity. 5his Act shall ta%e e&ect upon its approval.

Hence, it is clear that the legislature intended to ma%e the lawe&ective i##ediatelyupon its approval. ;t is undisputed that R.A. o.61! was signed into law b- /resident CoraGon C. Auino on 'anuar- 2,1!!2. 5here*ore, said law became e&ective on said date.

Assuming *or the sa%e o* argument that publication is necessar- *or thee&ectivit- o* R.A. o. 61!, then it became legall- e&ective onebruar- 24, 1!!2, the date when the same was published in the7Fcial aGette, and not on 8arch 1", 1!!2, as erroneousl- claimed b-respondents Central Ban% and +iuidator.

B.N!A!"E ANB REFERENBU#

GARCA "S CO#ELECGR 111;* SEP!. ;*, 1&&@

FAC!S+

7n 8a- 24, 1!!3, petitioners led a petition with the (angguniangBa-an o* 8orong to annul /ambansang Qapas-ahan Blg. 1", (er-e1!!3 which includes the 8unicipalot- o* 8orong as part o* the (ubic(pecial 9conomic Wone in accord with the RA o. 6226.

5he mu

powers of congress case digest

Documents