Chapter 8: The Legislative Department

- Section 2: “The Senate shall be composed of 24 Senators

- The New Constitution has revived the Congress of the who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the
Philippines, which was replaced during the Marcos regime with Philippines, as may be provided by law.”
the Batasang Pambansa. - this rule intends to make the Senate a training ground for
- The new Congress represents a return to bicameralism after national leaders and possibly a springboard to the Presidency.
our recent experiment with unicameralism, which was - senator will have a broader outlook of the problems of the
established by the 1973 Constitution and, in fact, also initially country.
provided for in the 1935 Constitution before it was amended in
1940. (2) Qualifications
- The Malolos Congress and Taft Commission are unicameral.
- The Philippine Bill of 1902, provided for a legislature consisting - Section 3
of Philippine Assembly and the Philippine Commission, which - Espinosa vs Aquino: upheld the late Senator Ninoy Aquino,
under the Jones Law were replaced by the House of who was less than the required age on the day of the election
Representatives and the Senate, respectively. but celebrated his 35th before his proclamation as one of the
- The Philippine Legislature, as it was called, was the patter of winners.
the Congress of the Philippines. - Literacy requirement: specifically prescribed
- The Congress of the Philippines also consists of a Senate and - Residence: place where one habitually resides and to which,
a House of Representatives. when he is absent, he has the intention of returning.
- Section I of Article IV: The legislative power is now not - cannot have 2 residences
exclusively vested in the Congress. - Domicile: fixed permanent residence to which, whenever
- The congress discharges powers of a non-legislative nature, absent for business, pleasure, or some other reasons, one
among them: intends to return.
- the canvass of the presidential election 1. that a man must have a residence or domicile
- the declaration of the existence of a state of war somewhere
- the confirmation of amnesties 2. when once established it remains until a new one is
- through the commission of appointments, presidential acquired
appointments 3. a man can have but one residence or domicile at a time
- the amendment or revision of the constitution - one must demonstrate an actual removal or an actual change
- impeachment of domicile.
- Perez vs Comelec: a person’s registration as voter in one
The Senate district is not proof that he is not domiciled in another district.
- Limbona vs Comelec: a candidate is presumed to have
(1) Composition changed he domicile upon her marriage, or by operation of
 law, consistent with the provisions of Art. 68 and 69 of the - Pending matters and proceedings are considered terminated
Family Code to the effect that spouses shall have a single upon the expiration of that Congress and it is merely optional
family domicile, unless one of them maintains a separate on the Senate of the succeeding Congress to take up such
residence. unfinished matters.
- Party-list representative member of the HOR: any part of the - “Not a continuing body”: passage of bills
Phil. - League of Cities of the Philippines vs COMELEC: unapproved
- District representative member of the HOR: must reside in the city hood bills filed during the 11th Congress became mere
district. scraps of paper upon the adjournment of the 11th Congress.
- Mitra vs COMELEC: residency rule - to prevent strangers or - Arnault vs Nazareno: power subsits as long as the senate,
newcomers unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a which is a continuing body, persists in performing the
community from seeking elective offices in that community. particular legislative function involved.
- Senators and members of the HOR must be natural-born - Garcillano vs HOR: the present Senate under the 1987
citizens not only at the time of their election but during their Constitution is no longer a continuing legislative body. The
entire tenure. present senate has 24 members, 12 of whom are elected
- Maquiling vs COMELEC: dual citizenship not allowed to run. every three years for a term of six years each.
- Social Justice Society vs Dangerous Drugs Board: mandatory - Art VI, Sec 4: No senator shall serve for more than 2
drug test, unconstitutional consecutive terms.
- Legislative power remains limited in the sense that it is subject
to substantive and constitutional limitations which circumscribe The House of Representatives
both the exercise of the power itself and the allowable subjects
of legislation. (1) Composition

(3) Term - District Representative: elected directly and personally, from

the territorial unit he is seeking to represent.
- Articles VI and XVIII - Party-list Representative: chosen indirectly, through the party
- Beginning 1995, twelve senators were elected every 3 yrs, to he represents, which is the one voted for by the electorate.
serve the full terms of 6 yrs, so that unlike the HOR, the - Party-list system is an innovation of the 1987 Constitution.
senate shall not at any time be completely dissolved. - Section 5
- One half of the membership is retained as the other half is
replaced or reelected every 3 yrs. a. The District Representatives
- “Continuing” institution: as it is not dissolved as an entity with - 200 members to be directly elected from the various legislative
each national election or change in the composition of its districts.
members. - The territory was divided into 13 regions with 200 districts
apportioned among the provinces, cities and Metro Manila.
- Initial apportionment shall adjust within 3 years. - RA 7941: rules of selection
- each city with a population of at least 250 thousand shall have - Among Paglaum vs COMELEC: SC set the parameters for
1 representative. participation in party-list elections, Section 5(1). The party-list
- Gerrymandering: “an apportionment of representative districts system provides 3 groups:
so contrived as to give an unfair advantage to the party in 1. National parties or organisation
power.” 2. Regional parties or organisations
- Aldaba vs COMELEC: the SC nullified a law which created a 3. Sectoral parties or organisations
legislative for Malolos City. It contravenes the requirement that 1&2: do not need to organise along sectoral lines and do
each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, not need to represent any marginalised and underrepresented
contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory.” sector.
- Navarro vs Ermita: upheld the constitutionality of an exception. 3: independent and linked to political parties. may either
Ruled that a proposed province composed of one or more be marginalised and underrepresented or lacking in well-defined
islands need not comply with the 2000 square meter political constituencies.
contiguous territory requirement under the Local Government - party-list system: democratise political power by giving political
Code. parties that cannot win in legislative district elections a chance
- Marcias vs COMELEC: validity of a legislative appointment to win seats in the HOR.
measure is a justiciable question. The SC annulled the law - Disqualified:
when it was shown that the apportionment was not based on 1. religious sects
the population. 2. advocate violence or unlawful means
- Herrera vs COMELEC: the basis for “districting is the number 3. foreign parties
of inhabitants” of a province or a city, and not the number of its 4. parties which receive support from any foreign
registered voters. government of foreign political party
- Mariano vs COMELEC: it is not necessary for either a city or a 5. those which violate or fail to comply with election laws
province to have an additional population of 250,000 to 6. those which declare untruthful statements in their
establish an additional legislative district. petitions
- Tobias vs Abalos: Mandaluyong, highly urbanised city 7. those which have ceased to exist for atlas 1 yr
automatically resulted its establishment as a legislative district. 8. those who failed to participate in the laws 2 preceding
- Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act: unconstitutional, because the elections.
power to create them inherently involves the power to create - Sectors:
legislative districts, which ONLY Congress possesses. 1. labor*
2. peasant*
b. The Party-list Representatives 3. fisher-folk*
4. urban poor*
- shall constitute 20% of the total membership of the body. 5. indigenous cultural communities*
 6. elderly** - To be a bonafide: “belong to the sector represented, or have
7. handicapped* a track record of advocacy for such sector.”
8. women** - The youth representative must not be more than 30.
9. youth** - The age qualification is lower.
10. veterans* - Residence must be from the district he represents at least 1
11. OFW* year before election. (district representatives)
12. professionals** - Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003: “deemed
not to have lost their Philippine Citizenship under the
*marginalized and underrepresented conditions of this Act.”
**well-defined political constituencies - Those who retain pr re-acquire Philippine Citizenship under
- Alauya vs Limbona: SC declared ineligible a judge candidate this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject
without first resigning. to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities.
- Seneres vs COMELEC: any person may submit a nomination - Members of the HOR must be natural born citizens not only at
list. the time of their election but during their entire tenure.
- no change of names or alteration of the order of nominees - Suffrage:
shall be allowed after submitting. Except when nominees dies 1. 18 years of the
or withdraws or incapacitated. 2. Residence for at least 1 year
- incumbent sectoral representatives in the HOR who are 3. Residence in the place wherein they propose to vote for
nominated shall not be considered resigned. at least 6 mos. before election.
- Lokin v COMELEC: SC annulled an additional ground allowed - Disqualifications:
by the COMELEC for the substitution by a registered party 1. any person who has been sentenced by final judgment
- Voter entitled with 2 votes: 1 member, 1 party-list to suffer imprisonment for not less than one year.
- BANAT vs COMELEC: for every four district rep., there shall 2. Disability not having been removed by plenary pardon
be one party-lis rep. or amnesty.
- Abayon vs HRET: 2 kinds of Congressmen. Those elected - Disqualified persons shall automatically reacquire the right to
from legislative districts and those elected through the party- vote after 5 yrs.
list system.
(3) Term
(2) Qualifications
- Three years, shall begin at noon June 30.
- Section 6 - May not be re-elected any number of times.
- The party-list representative must be a bona fide member of
the party he seeks to represent at least ninety days before Election
election day.
- Every three years, all the members of the HOR and one-half of
the senate were up for election, or re-election if still allowed. - Requirements:
- Special election, vacancy in the party list representatives shall 1. Remarks must be made while the legislature or the legislative
be filled by the next nominee. committee is functioning, that is, in session.
2. They must be made in connection with the discharge of
Salaries official duties.
- Shall be determined by law. No increase until the term has - Jimenez vs Cabangbang: He had a letter when the Congress
expired. was i recess and in his private capacity only.
- Records and books of accounts shall be open to the public - This privilege is not absolute.
and audited by Comm. on Audit. - legislator may be called to account for his remarks by his own
colleagues in the Congress itself.
Parliamentary Immunities - Osmena vs Pendatun: President who had been vilified by the
- In all offenses punishable by not more than 6 years petitioner could not file any civil or criminal action against him
imprisonment. because of this immunity.
- Two kinds of immunities:
1. Immunity from arrest: intended to ensure representation of Conflict of Interest
the constituents of the member of the Congress by - Upon assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their
preventing attempts to keep him from attending sessions. financial and business interests.
2. Privilege of speech and debate: enables the legislator to - They will be prevented from using their official positions for
express views bearing upon the public interest without fear of ulterior purposes.
accountability outside the halls of the legislature for his
inability to support his statements with the usual evidence Incompatible and Forbidden Offices
required in the COJ. - No senator of member of the HOR can hold any other office
without forfeiting his seat.
(1) Privilege from Arrest - Incompatible offices: to prevent him from owing loyalty to
another branch of government, to the detriment of the
- Expected all criminal offences regardless of degree. independence of the legislature and the doctrine of separation
- Immunity may not be invoked if the crib is murder but is of powers.
available in slight physical injuries. - Not absolute, what is not allowed is the simultaneous holding
- Applies only while the Congress is in session. of that office and the seat in the Congress.
- Session: entire period from its initial convening until its final - No resolution was necessary to declare his legislative post
adjournment. vacant.

(2) Privilege of speech and Debate

- Term: the time during which the officer may claim to hold the - A court martial case is a criminal case and the General court
office as of right and fixes the internal after which the martial is a court akin to any other courts.
incumbents shall succeed one another. - The purpose of disqualification: prevent the legislator from
- Tenure: the period during which the incumbent actually hold exerting undue influence, deliberately or not, upon the body
the office. where he is appearing.
- Adaza vs Pacana: the court unanimously rejected this - Legislators are prohibited from being financially interested in
argument and held that Adaza automatically forfeited the any contract with the government because of the influence
governorship the moment he took his oath as a member of the they can easily exercise in obtaining these concession.
BP. - To prevent abuses from being committed by the members of
- If the second office is an extension of the legislative position or the Congress to the prejudice of the public welfare and
is in aid of the legislative duties, the holding will not cease. particularly of legitimate contractors with the government who
(electoral tribunal) otherwise might be placed at a disadvantageous position.
- Legislators who serve as treaty negotiators under the
President continue to sit in the Congress. Session
- Forbidden office: Even if the member is willing to forfeit his - The Congress shall convene once a year on the 4th Monday
seat, he may not be appointed to any office that has been of July. The Pres. may call a special session at any time.
created or the emoluments thereof have been increased
during his term. Officers
- to prevent trafficking. - The Senate Pres. and the Speaker of the HOR do not have
- This provision does not apply to elective offices which are fixed term and may be replaced at any time by majority.
filled by the voters themselves.
- The appointment of the member of the Congress to the Quorum
forbidden office is not allowed only during the term for which - Defined as any number sufficient to transact business which
he was elected, when such office was created or its may be less than majority.
emoluments were increased. - But in our Constitution, majority is required.
- After the term, if re-elected, the disqualification no longer
applies and he may therefore be appointed to the office. Discipline of Members
- The courts may annul any expulsion or suspension of a
Inhibitions and Disqualifications member that is not concurred in by atlas 2/3 of the entire body
- No member of senator shall appear as counsel. He shall not or any suspension meted out by the legislature, even with the
intervene in any matter before any office of the Gov. required two-thirds vote, as to any period in excess of the 60
- General Court Martial: a court within the strictest sense of the days maximum duration.
word acts as a criminal court. Journals
- Journals are a record of what is done and past in a legislative - The Chairman of the Commission shall not vote except in
assembly. cases of a tie.
- Must be published except parts as may affect national - The Commission shall act on appointments on 30 days.
security. - The Commission shall rule by majority of all members.
- Enrolled bill: “which has been duly introduced, finally passed - to limit the President’s appointing power.
by both houses signed by the proper officers of each,
approved by the governor or president and filed by the Organization
secretary of state.” - The ET and CA shall be constituted within 30 days after the
- Astorga vs Villegas: There was actually no enrolled bill to Senate and the HOR shall have been organised with the
speak of in view of the withdrawal of the signatures of the election of the Pres and Speaker.
Pres. and Senate Pres. - Only in session.
- Journal is only a resume or the minutes of what transpired - This provision is based on the need to enable the Pres. to
during a legislative session. exercise his appointing power with dispatch in coordination
with the CA.
Adjournment - Ad interim: appointments during recess.
- It is necessary that there babe prior agreement before either of
them decides to adjourn for more than three days.
- One house should not adjourn to a place other thann where
both chambers are sitting, without the consent of the other.
- Place: refers not to the building but to the political unit where
the two houses may be sitting.

The Electoral Tribunals

- Seats are apportioned among all the parties represented in
each chamber, including the party-list members.
- To be considered a Member of HOR:
1. a valid proclamation
2. proper oath
3. assumption of office

The Commission on Appointments

- Consisting of the Senate President, ex officio Chairman, 12
Senators, 12 HOR.
Jimenez vs Cabangbang delivered, statements made, or votes cast in the halls of
17 SCRA 876 – Political Law – Freedom of Speech and Debate  Congress, while the same is in session as well as bills
Bartolome Cabangbang was   a member of the House of introduced in Congress, whether the same is in session or not,
Representatives and Chairman of its Committee on National and other acts performed by Congressmen, either in Congress
Defense. In November  1958, Cabangbang caused the or outside the premises housing its offices, in the official
publication of an open letter addressed to the Philippines. Said discharge of their duties as members of Congress and of
letter alleged that there have been allegedly three operational Congressional Committees duly authorized to perform its
plans under serious study by some ambitious AFP officers, with functions as such at the time of the performance of the acts in
the aid of some civilian political strategists. That such strategists question. Congress was not in session when the letter was
have had collusions with communists and that the Secretary of published and at the same time he, himself, caused the
Defense, Jesus Vargas, was planning a coup d’état to place him publication of the said letter. It is obvious that, in thus causing the
as the president. The “planners” allegedly have Nicanor Jimenez, communication to be so published, he was not performing his
among others, under their guise and that Jimenez et al may or official duty, either as a member of Congress or as officer of any
may not be aware that they are being used as a tool to meet Committee thereof. Hence, contrary to the finding made by the
such an end. The letter was said to have been published in lower court the said communication is not absolutely privileged.
newspapers of general circulation. Jimenez then filed a case
against Cabangbang to collect a sum of damages against Adaza v. Pacana
Cabangbang alleging that Cabangbang’s statement is libelous. 135 SCRA 431
Cabangbang petitioned for the case to be dismissed because he
said that as a member of the  lower house,  he is immune from FACTS:
suit and that he is covered by the privileged communication rule Adaza is the governor of Misamis Oriental and Pacana is the
and that the said letter is not even libelous. vice-governor. Their respective term of office expires on March 3,
ISSUE: Whether or not the open letter is covered by privilege 1986. Both parties ran in the Batasang Pambansa (BP) elections
communication endowed to members of Congress. in 1984 and respondent lost to petitioner. On July 23, 1984,
HELD: No.  Article VI, Section 15 of the Constitution provides Pacana took his oath of office as the governor. Petitioner has
“The Senators and Members of the House of Representatives brought this petition to exclude respondent therefrom, claiming to
shall in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the be the lawful occupant of the position.
peace. Be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the
sessions of the Congress, and in going to and returning from the ISSUE:
same; and for any speech or debate therein, they shall not be 1) Whether or not a provincial governor who was elected as
questioned in any other place.” Mababatas Pambansa (MP) can exercise the functions of both
The publication of the said letter is not covered by said simultaneously; and 2) whether or not a vice-governor who ran
expression which refers to utterances made by Congressmen in for the position of MP but lost, can continue serving as vice
the performance of their official functions, such as speeches
governor and subsequently succeed to the office of governor if he averred that the Supreme Court has not jurisdiction over the
said office is vacated. matter and Congress has the power to discipline its members.
ISSUE: Whether or not Osmeña’s immunity has been violated?
HELD: HELD: No. Section 15, Article VI of the 1935 Constitution enshrines
Section 10, Article VIII of the Constitution is clear and parliamentary immunity upon members of the legislature which is
unambiguous. A member of the BP may not hold any other office a fundamental privilege cherished in every parliament in a
in the government. A public office is a public trust. A holder democratic world. It guarantees the legislator complete freedom of
thereof is subject to regulations and conditions as the law may expression without fear of being made responsible in criminal or
impose and he cannot complain of any restrictions on his holding
civil actions before the courts or any other forum outside the Hall
of more than one office. The contention that Pacana, as a mere
of Congress. However, it does not protect him from responsibility
private citizen, runs afoul of BP Blg. 697 which provides that
governors, or members of sangguniang or barangay officials, before the legislative body whenever his words and conduct are
upon filing a certificate of candidacy be considered on forced considered disorderly or unbecoming of a member therein.
leave of absence from office. When respondent reassumed the Therefore, Osmeña’s petition is dismissed.
position of vice-governor after the BP elections, he was acting
within the law. Thus, the instant petition is denied.  Alejandrino vs Quezon
 
Osmena vs Pendatun case no. 45 Congress Power to discipline its members
Alejandrino v. Quezon, 46 Phil. 83 (1924)
109 Phil. 863 – Political Law – The Legislative Department – F:The petitioner in this original petition for mandamus and
Parliamentary Immunity injunction is Jose Alejandrino, a Senator appointed by the
In June 1960, Congressman Sergio Osmeña, Jr. delivered a speech Governor General. to represent the 12th Senatorial District. The
entitled “A Message to Garcia”. In the said speech, he disparaged casus belli is a resolution adopted by the Philippine Senate
then President Carlos Garcia and his administration. Subsequently, composed of the respondent Senators, On February 5,1924,
House Resolution No. 59 was passed by the lower house in order to depriving Alejandrino of all the prerogatives, privileges, and
investigate the charges made by Osmeña during his speech and emoluments of his office for the period of 1 yr from 1/24 having
that if his allegations were found to be baseless and malicious, he been declared guilty of disorderly conduct and flagrant violation
of the privileges of the Senate for having treacherously
may be subjected to disciplinary actions by the lower house.
assaulted Sen. de Vera on the occasion of certain phrases being
Osmeña then questioned the validity of the said resolution before
uttered by the latter in the course of the debate regarding the
the Supreme Court. Osmeña avers that the resolution violates his credentials of Mr. Alejandrino. The burden of petitioner's
parliamentary immunity for speeches delivered in complaint is that the resolution is unconstitutional and entirely
Congress. Congressman Salipada Pendatun filed an answer where of no effect.
Issue: WON the Supreme Court by mandamus and injunction
may annul the suspension of Senator Alejandrino and compel with the provisions of RA 4065 (filed with the SC). In his
the Philippine Senate to reinstate him in his official position? defense, Villegas denied recognition of RA 4065 (An Act Defining
Held. the Powers, Rights and Duties of the Vice-Mayor of the City of
 The general rule is that the writ will not lie from one branch of  Manila) because the said law was considered to have never been
the gov't to a coordinate branch, for the very obvious reason enacted. When the this said “law” passed the 3rd reading in the
that neither is inferior to the other. Mandamus will not lie lower house as House Bill No. 9266, it was sent to the Senate
against the legislative body, its members, or its officers, to which referred it to the Committee on Provinces and Municipal
compel the performance of duties purely legislative in their Governments and Cities headed by then Senator Roxas. Some minor
character w/c therefore pertains to their legislative functions
amendments were made before the bill was referred back to the
and over w/c they have exclusive control.The courts cannot
Senate floor for deliberations. During such deliberations, Sen.
dictate action in this respect without a gross usurpation of 
power. Tolentino made significant amendments which were subsequently
Precedents have held that where a member has been expelled approved by the Senate. The bill was then sent back to the lower
by the legislative body, the courts have no power, irrespective house and was thereafter approved by the latter. The bill was sent
of whether the expulsion was right or wrong, to issue a to the President for approval and it became RA 4065. It was later
mandate to compel his reinstatement found out however that the copy signed by the Senate President,
sent to the lower house for approval and sent to the President for
Astorga vs Villegas signing was the wrong version. It was in fact the version that had
no amendments thereto. It was not the version as amended by
56 SCRA 714 – Political Law – The Legislative Department – Tolentino and as validly approved by the Senate. Due to this fact,
 Journal;When to be Consulted  the Senate president and the President of the Philippines withdrew
In 1964, Antonio Villegas (then Mayor of Manila) issued circulars to and invalidated their signatures that they affixed on the said law.
the department heads and chiefs of offices of the city government Astorga maintains that the RA is still valid and binding and that the
as well as to the owners, operators and/or managers of business withdrawal of the concerned signatures does not invalidate the
establishments in Manila to disregard the provisions of Republic statute. Astorga further maintains that the attestation of the
Act No. 4065. He likewise issued an order to the Chief of Police to presiding officers of Congress is conclusive proof of a bill’s due
recall five members of the city police force who had been assigned enactment.
to then Vice-Mayor Herminio Astorga (assigned under authority of ISSUE: Whether or not RA 4065 was validly enacted.
RA 4065). HELD: No.  The journal of the proceedings of each House of
Astorga reacted against the steps carried out by Villegas. He then Congress is no ordinary record. The Constitution requires it. While it
filed a petition for “Mandamus, Injunction and/or Prohibition with is true that the journal is not authenticated and is subject to the
Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction” to compel risks of misprinting and other errors, the journal can be looked
Villegas et al and the members of the municipal board to comply upon in this case. The SC is merely asked to inquire whether the
text of House Bill No. 9266 signed by the President was the same consolidation of 2 distinct bills, H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630.
text passed by both Houses of Congress. Under the specific facts There is also a contention that S. No. 1630 did not pass 3
and circumstances of this case, the SC can do this and resort to the readings as required by the Constitution.
Senate journal for the purpose. The journal discloses that
substantial and lengthy amendments were introduced on the floor Issue:
and approved by the Senate but were not incorporated in the Whether or not RA 7716 violates Art. VI, Secs. 24 and 26(2)
printed text sent to the President and signed by him. Note however ofthe Constitution
that the SC is not asked to incorporate such amendments into the
Held:
alleged law but only to declare that the bill was not duly enacted
The argument that RA 7716 did not originate exclusively in the
and therefore did not become law. As done by both the President of House of Representatives as required by Art. VI, Sec. 24 of the
the Senate and the Chief Executive, when they withdrew their Constitution will not bear analysis. To begin with, it is not the law
signatures therein, the SC also declares that the bill intended to be but the revenue bill which is required by the Constitution to
as it is supposed to be was never made into law.   To perpetuate originate exclusively in the House of Representatives. To insist
that error by disregarding such rectification and holding that the that a revenue statute and not only the bill which initiated the
erroneous bill has become law would be to sacrifice truth to fiction legislative process culminating in the enactment of the law must
and bring about mischievous consequences not intended by the substantially be the same as the House bill would be to deny the
law-making body. Senate’s power not only to concur with amendments but also to
propose amendments. Indeed, what the Constitution simply
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance means is that the initiative for filing revenue, tariff or tax bills, bills
authorizing an increase of the public debt, private bills and bills
Facts: of local application must come from the House of
The value-added tax (VAT) is levied on the sale, barter or Representatives on the theory that, elected as they are from the
exchange of goods and properties as well as on the sale or districts, the members of the House can be expected to be more
exchange of services. RA 7716 seeks to widen the tax base of sensitive to the local needs and problems. Nor does the
the existing VAT system and enhance its administration by Constitutionprohibit the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in
amending the National Internal Revenue Code. There are anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House, so long as
various suits challenging the constitutionality of RA 7716 on action by the Senate as a body is withheld pending receipt of the
various grounds. House bill.

The next argument of the petitioners was that S. No. 1630 did
One contention is that RA 7716 did not originate exclusively in not pass 3 readings on separate days as required by the
the House of Representatives as required by Art. VI, Sec. 24 of Constitution because the second and third readings were done
the Constitution, because it is in fact the result of the on the same day. But this was because the President had
certified S. No. 1630 as urgent. The presidential certification than those with bigger population is invalid because it violates
dispensed with the requirement not only of printing but also that the principle of proportional representation prescribed by the
of reading the bill on separate days. That upon the certification of Constitution. Inequality of apportionment law is “arbitrary and
a billby the President the requirement of 3 readings on separate capricious and against the vital principle of equality.” as held in
days and of printing and distribution can be dispensed with is Houghton County v. Blacker.

supported by the weightof legislative practice.

Rulings:

Facts:
No. The Court concluded that the statute be declared invalid.
Petitioners are members of the House of Representatives from Republic Act 3040 clearly violates the said constitutional
Negros Oriental, Misamis Oriental and Bulacan and the provision in several ways namely:

provincial Governor of Negros Oriental. They are requesting that • It gave Cebu seven members, while Rizal with a bigger
the respondent officials be prevented to implement RA 3040, an number of inhabitants got four only.

act that apportions representative districts in the country. They • It gave Manila four members, while Cotabato with a
alleged that their respective provinces were discriminated bigger population got three only

because they were given less representation. Furthermore, they • Pangasinan with less inhabitants than both Manila and
allege that RA 3040 is unconstitutional and void because:
Cotabato got more than both, five members having been
1 It was passed without printed final copies which must be assigned to it.

furnished to the members of the HOR at least 3 calendar • Samar (with 871,857) was allotted four members while
days prior to passage.
Davao with 903,224 got three only.

2 It was approved more than 3 years after the return of the • Bulacan with 557,691 got two only, while Albay with less
last census of the population.
inhabitants (515,691) got three.

3 It apportioned districts without regard to the number of • Misamis Oriental with 387,839 was given one member
inhabitants of the several provinces.
only, while Cavite with less inhabitants (379,904) got two.
 
These were not the only instances of unequal
Issues:
apportionment.

Whether or not the apportionment of representative districts • Mountain Province has 3 whereas Isabela, Laguna and
under Republic Act 3040 is in accordance with the constitution.
Cagayan with more inhabitants have 2 each. And then,
 
Capiz, La Union and Ilocos Norte got 2 each, whereas
Discussions:
Sulu that has more inhabitants got 1 only. And Leyte with
The Constitution directs that the one hundred twenty Members 967,323 inhabitants got 4 only, whereas Iloilo with less
of the House of Representatives “shall be apportioned among inhabitants (966,145) was given 5.
the several provinces as nearly as may be according to the
member of their respective inhabitants.” A law giving provinces
with less number of inhabitants more representative districts