2: Statutes and Their Enactment

Question 1

Lidasan v Comelec, 21 SCRA 496

Key Principle/s: One Subject One Title Rule, Dual Limitation Upon the Legislative Power of the Congress

Answer 1

• One subject, one title rule.
• There are dual limitations upon the legislative power of the congress:

1. The congress should refrain from conglomeration or combination of heterogenous subjects.
2. The congress should couch the language of the title in such a manner as to notify or apprise legislators, the public, and those concerned.

Question 2

Giron v Comlec G.R. No. 188179, January 22 2013

Key Principle/s: One Subject One Title, Omnibus Bills, Test of Sufficiency

Answer 2

• The Supreme Court said that the proscription in the one subject one title rule is to prevent omnibus bills, log-rolling legislation as well as surreptitious and/or unconsidered encroaches.
• The Test of Sufficiency for the bill - broad enough to cover the nature, consequences, and scope of the law. The effects of which are the necessary consequence of the subject of the law and is not required to be expressed in the title.
• As long as it germane to the subject, then the title of the bill is constitutional

Question 3

Tolentino v Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630

Key Principle/s: Bills Amended or Revised by the Senate, Presidential Certification

Answer 3

• Bills originating from the House of the Representatives does not bar the Senate to propose amendments that is different or may even result the filing a substitute bill as long as the Senate cannot act on that particular type of bill without a version that originated from the House of Representatives
• Presidential Certification as to the urgency and necessity of the immediate enactment, it applies to the two constitutional requirements:

1. Three readings must be done in separate days
2. Printed form must be distributed at least three days before the passage or the third reading

Question 4

PHILJA v Prado, G.R. No 105371, November 11 1993, 227 SCRA 203

Key Principle/s: Conference Committee

Answer 4

• That the role of the Conference Committee is not only limited to reconcile the differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives, but it can also propose another bill which is not included in those versions as long as:

1. It is germane to the subject of the bill.
2. It is ratified or approved of both houses.

Question 5

Bolinao Electronics v Valencia, G.R. No L-20740, June 30, 1964, 11 SCRA 486

Key Principle/s: Authority of the President to Veto

Answer 5

• That the authority of the President to veto an item does not include the mere veto of the specific restrictions or conditions of that item.
• If the President should veto, it should be the entire item.
• If the veto is deemed unconstitutional, then that restriction or condition remains.

Question 6

Abakada Guro Party-list v Purisima G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008

Key Principle/s: Rule of Presentment

Answer 6

• Rule of Presentment – a bill cannot become a law if it is not presented to the President for approval or for him to signify his veto.

Question 7

Mabanag v Lopez Vito, L-1223, March 5, 1947, 78 Phil. 1 (1947)

Key Principle/s: Separation of Powers, Enrolled Bill

Answer 7

• Separation of powers - although the enrolled bill rule is still controlling with respect to that is absolute verity of the content, if there is no proof to the contrary, and that the reason for that enrolled bill rule is to respect the other co-equal and independent branch of the government, and also for convenience purposes for the enrolled bill to be prima facie evidence so that the supreme court will no longer inquire about the process in the enactment of that bill.
• This case may not be controlling as to the political question doctrine in view of the 1987 constitution which expands judicial the power of the supreme court to inquire to those matters which are previously part of political question.

Question 8

Arroyo v De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, August 14, 1997, 277 SCRA 714

Key Principle/s: Journal Entry, Ye’s and Ney’s, Enrolled Bill

Answer 8

• Mere violations of the internal rules of procedures of the House of Representatives and the Senate are not a violation of the constitution

• Those to be included in the journal are:
1. The ye’s and ney’s as to the third and final reading of the bill.

2. 1/5 of the Congress requested to be voted upon by ye’s and ney’s.
3. To override the veto of the President requires the ye’s and ney’s of the Congress.

• Joker Arroyo wanted ye’s and ney’s after the bill was ratified after it was forwarded by the Conference Committee which was not required.
• The Enrolled Bill Rule is not a conclusive presumption because if there is evidence to the contrary then that can be disputed. The Supreme Court can inquire into or consult with the Legislative Journal

Question 9

Astorga v Villegas, G.R. No. 23475, April 30, 1974, 56 SCRA 714

Key Principle/s: Unimpeachability of Journals

Answer 9

• Unimpeachability of journals is only applicable to those entries which are required under the constitution.
• As to the entries not required under the constitution, they are not conclusively presumed but only a disputable presumption.
• The enrolled bill is a mode of authentication and is not essential as to the validity of the bill of the law, but what is essential is the approval of both houses and the signing off of the President.