Scribd
Upload
85 views4 pages

Article VI Notes - Transcribed

This document discusses several Supreme Court cases related to the legislative and executive powers of the President and Congress in the Philippines. It addresses issues like the President's quasi-legislative authority, emergency powers, control over executive departments, reapportionment of legislative districts, and parliamentary privileges and prohibitions for legislators. The document provides an overview of the key points of each case as it relates to delineating the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.

Uploaded by

Vic Rabaya
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
85 views4 pages

Article VI Notes - Transcribed

This document discusses several Supreme Court cases related to the legislative and executive powers of the President and Congress in the Philippines. It addresses issues like the President's quasi-legislative authority, emergency powers, control over executive departments, reapportionment of legislative districts, and parliamentary privileges and prohibitions for legislators. The document provides an overview of the key points of each case as it relates to delineating the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.

Uploaded by

Vic Rabaya
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Ople vs. Torres, G.R. No.

127685 July 23, 1998 – delineation of President had both Executive and Parliamentary
Legislative and Executive powers (read also the opinions of JJ. Vitug, Authority)
Panganiban and Kapunan)
 Promulgation of Decrees is generally an absolute power
 AO as quasi-legislative power of the President – may granted to the Legislative
only be valid if it is “to implement a prior legislative act  Requisites for Emergency Powers:
made by Congress” o There must be war or emergency;
 [GR] a Legislative Act is required which would enshrine o The delegation must be for a limited period;
the Policies which the A.O. may subsequently o The delegation must be subject to such
implement restrictions as the Congress may prescribe (as
Congress is required to first promulgate a law
KMU v. Director General, NEDA, G.R. No. 167798, April 19, 2006 which determines such emergency that has/will
arise)
 Sec. 17, Art VII 1987 Constitution – the President has
o The emergency power must be exercised to
control of all Executive Department Bureaus and Offices
carry out a national policy declared by the
*Any Presidential Legislation which holistically or
Congress.
merely involves Executive Department Bureaus and
Offices, generally, does not need a prior legislative Veteran’s Federation v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 13678, October 26,
act. 2010

 Legislative Power is generally the power to determine  House of Representatives:


policies not covered by prior laws enacted by Congress. o Party-list Cap 20%
 President’s Quasi-Legislative Power is generally o 2% Threshold
promulgation of law for implementing prior policies o 3 seats limitation (additional 2% each seat)
determined and enacted by Congress o Additional seats determined by proportional
representation rule
David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006  Overruled by Banat v Comelec
o No longer needs additional 2% for each
 PP 1017 – State of National Emergency is deemed additional seats
unconstitutional
*President cannot validly enact such decrees Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
(except during Marcos’ Martial Law where the 190529, April 29, 2010
 Rule for Purging of Partylist’s who:  Given the Citizenship of the place where
o Fail to participate in the last two elections; OR they are found
o Failure to obtain at least 2% votes in the last
two elections o According to Philippines Law:
 PGBI’s removal from the list is unconstitutional, as per  Are Filipino Citizens - Natural Born
SC: Filipino Citizen by Legal Fiction
o The requisites abovementioned are to be
treated separately. Co v. Electoral Tribunal, G.R. Nos. 92191-92, July 30, 1991
o PGBI’s non-involvement in subsequent election
 Residence = Domicile
due to lack of funds do not constitute a  Domicile of Origin:
secondary failure to obtain at least 2% votes, it o Cannot be abandoned outright
is to be treated as if they did not participate on o The law does not require that you have a house
such election. in your domicile of origin:
 As it may be destroyed/demolished for
Montejo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 118702, March 16, 1995 some reason, and you may have moved
rationale – to prevent/discourage gerrymandering to a different place for some other
reason to temporarily reside in
 Legislative Districts may be Reapportioned validly
through a Legislative Promulgation, and NOT through Marcos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995 (Read
COMELEC’s derivatives. also the other opinions)

Vilando v. HRET, G.R. Nos. 192147 & 192149, August 23, 2011  Imelda is inherently a citizen of Tacloban, Leyte:
o Minor follows the Domicile of Parent – although
 Quo warranto proceeding cannot and must not be used she was born in Manila, they moved to Tacloban
to collateraly attack the issue of Citizenship of a thereafter
Candidate o Domicile of Origin is not easily lost:
 Wife merely follows the residence of
David v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 221538, September 20, husband
2016  Upon death of husband the wife may:
A. Return Automatically regain/return
 FOUNDLINGS: to her domicile of origin upon husband’s
o According to International Law: death
B. Expressly choose to regain/return to o Pronouncement of Congress Officials are not
her domicile of origin (freedom of protected if made outside the walls or four-
choice) corners of Congress.

Arnault v. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-3820, July 18, 1950 In Trillanes v Castillo-Marigomen:

 Any person may be detained for an indefinite period o Speech done outside the halls of Congress is not
due to being cited for contempt. subject to Privilege of Speech

SECTION 14 – Prohibitions
Balag v. Senate, G.R. No. 234608, July 3, 2018
 Prohibition from appearing in court
 Period of detention only lasts until the expiration of the o [GR]Limited only to personal appearances of a
legislative inquiry OR at the end of one regular Congress Legislative Official in Court
Term (expiration of the 3year term) o To prohibit possible undue influence on the
proceeding

In Puyat v De Guzman:
SECTION 11 – Parliamentary Priviledges
o [Ex]Legislators may be allowed to appear in a
 Privilege of Arrest, requires:
case:
o Congress be in session
 AS A PARTY TO THE CASE
o No Final and Executory Decision
 NOT AS A LAWYER
o Crime be punishable by imprisonment by not
 NOT AS A REPRESENTATIVE
more than 6-years (see People v. Jalosjos)
 Prohibition from any financial interest in Government
 Privilege of Speech and Debate, requires:
Contracts or Projects
o Pronouncements made in Congress only
In Belgica v. Exect Sec:
In Osmena v Pendatun:
 PDAF/PORKBARREL SYSTEM is
unconstitutional

You might also like