The Philippines is a democratic and republican state.

As a republican state, sovereignty resides in

the People and all government authority emanates from them (Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1). A
Republican form of government rests on the conviction that sovereignty should reside in the
people and that all government authority must emanate from them. It abhors the concentration
of power on one or a few, cognizant that power, when absolute, can lead to abuse, but it also
shuns a direct and unbridled rule by the people, a veritable kindling to the passionate fires of
anarchy. Our people have accepted this notion and decided to delegate the basic state authority
to principally three branches of government the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary
each branch being supreme in its own sphere but with constitutional limits and a firm tripod
of checks and balances .
The Executive Branch
The executive branch is headed by the President, who is elected by a direct vote of the people.
The term of office of the President, as well as the Vice-President, is six (6) years. As head of the
Executive Department, the President is the Chief Executive. He represents the government as a
whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his department.
He has control over the executive department, bureaus and offices. This means that he has the
authority to assume directly the functions of the executive department, bureau and office or
interfere with the discretion of its officials. Corollary to the power of control, the President also
has the duty of supervising the enforcement of laws for the maintenance of general peace and
public order. Thus, he is granted administrative power over bureaus and offices under his control
to enable him to discharge his duties effectively.
The President exercises general supervision over all local government units and is also the
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
Under the existing Presidential form of government, the executive and legislative branches are
entirely separate, subject only to the mechanisms of checks and balances. There were attempts
to amend the Constitution in order to shift to a parliamentary system, but these moves were
struck down by the Supreme Court. The most recent petition that reached the Supreme Court is
Lambino vs. COMELEC.
The Legislative Branch
The legislative branch, which has the authority to make, alter or repeal laws (see also the
definition of legislative power), is the Congress. Congress is vested with the tremendous
power of the purse, traditionally recognized in the constitutional provision that no money shall
be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. It
comprehends both the power to generate money by taxation (the power to tax) and the power to
spend it (the power to appropriate). The power to appropriate carries with it the power to specify
the amount that may be spent and the purpose for which it may be spent.
Under a bicameral system, the Congress is composed of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.
The Senate is composed of twenty-four (24) Senators, who are elected at large by the qualified
voters of the Philippines. The term of office of the Senators is six (6) years.
The House of Representatives, on the other hand, is composed of not more than two hundred
and fifty (250) members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who are elected from legislative districts
apportioned among the provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Manila area, and those who are
elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or

organizations. The term of office of members of the House of Representatives, also called
Congressmen, is three (3) years.
The Judiciary
Judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by
law. The judiciary has the moderating power to determine the proper allocation of
powers between the branches of government. When the judiciary mediates to allocate
constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does
not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred
obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under
the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that
instrument secures and guarantees to them. In the words of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno:
The Judiciary may not have the power of the sword, may not have the power of the purse,
but it has the power to interpret the Constitution, and the unerring lessons of history tell us that
rightly wielded, that power can make a difference for good.
While Congress has the power to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the various
courts, Congress cannot deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction provided in the
Constitution. No law shall also be passed reorganizing the judiciary when it undermines the
security of tenure of its members. The Supreme Court also has administrative supervision over
all courts and the personnel thereof, having the power to discipline or dismiss judges of lower
courts.
The Supreme Court is composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en
banc or, in its discretion, in divisions of three, five or seven members. A member of the Supreme
Court must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, at least forty (40) years of age and must
have been for fifteen (15) years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the pratice of law
in the Philippines. Justices hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy
(70) years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office.
* Sources: Francisco, Jr. vs. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 10 November 2003, main
decision and the separate opinions of Justices Vitug and Corona; Ople vs. Torres, G.R. No.
127685, 23 July 1998.
What is the basis the power of inquiry in aid of legislation ?
The Congressional power of inquiry is expressly recognized in Section 21 of Article VI of
the Constitution:
SECTION 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees
may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of
procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
Even without this express Constitutional provision, the power of inquiry is inherent in the power
to legislate. The power of inquiry, with process to enforce it, is grounded on the necessity of
information in the legislative process. If the information possessed by executive officials on the
operation of their offices is necessary for wise legislation on that subject, by parity of reasoning,
Congress has the right to that information and the power to compel the disclosure thereof.
Why is inquiry in aid of legislation important under the separation of powers?
Under the separation of powers, Congress has the right to obtain information from any source
even from officials of departments and agencies in the executive branch. It is this very

separation that makes the congressional right to obtain information from the executive so
essential, if the functions of the Congress as the elected representatives of the people are
adequately to be carried out.
SECTION 55. Veto Power of the Local Chief Executive. - (a) The local chief executive may
veto any ordinance of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panlungsod, or Sangguniang
bayan on the ground that it is ultra vires or prejudicial to the public welfare, stating his reasons
therefor in writing.
(b) The local chief executive, except the Punong Barangay, shall have the power to veto any
particular item or items of an appropriations ordinance, an ordinance or resolution adopting
a local development plan and public investment program, or an ordinance directing the
payment of money or creating liability. In such a case, the veto shall not affect the item or
items which are not objected to. The vetoed item or items shall not take effect unless the
Sanggunian overrides the veto in the manner herein provided; otherwise, the item or items
in the appropriations ordinance of the previous year corresponding to those vetoed, if any,
shall be deemed reenacted.
(c) The local chief executive may veto an ordinance or resolution only once. The Sanggunian
may override the veto of the local chief executive concerned by two-thirds (2/3) vote of all
its members, thereby making the ordinance effective even without the approval of the local
chief executive concerned
If the House-approved version is compatible with that of the Senates, the final versions enrolled
form is printed. If there are certain differences, a Bicameral Conference Committee is called to
reconcile conflicting provisions of both versions of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives. Conference committee submits report on the reconciled version of the bill, duly
approved by both chambers. The Senate prints the reconciled version in its enrolled form.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7055 AN ACT STRENGTHENING CIVILIAN SUPREMACY OVER THE MILITARY BY
RETURNING TO THE CIVIL COURTS THE JURISDICTION OVER CERTAIN OFFENSES INVOLVING
MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, OTHER PERSONS SUBJECT TO MILITARY
LAW, AND THE MEMBERS OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OFFICE, REPEALING FOR THE PURPOSE
CERTAIN PRESIDENTIAL DECREES
A writ of habeas corpus, also known as the great writ, is a summons with the force of a court
order; it is addressed to the custodian (a prison official for example) and demands that a prisoner
be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to
determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to detain the prisoner. If the custodian is
acting beyond his or her authority, then the prisoner must be released. Any prisoner, or another
person acting on his or her behalf, may petition the court, or a judge, for a writ of habeas corpus.
One reason for the writ to be sought by a person other than the prisoner is that the detainee
might be held incommunicado. Most civil law jurisdictions provide a similar remedy for those
unlawfully detained, but this is not always called habeas corpus.[1] For example, in some Spanishspeaking nations, the equivalent remedy for unlawful imprisonment is the amparo de
libertad ('protection of freedom').
The Presidential and Vice-Presidential elections held on 7 February 1986 in
the Philippines were snap elections, and are popularly known as the Snap Elections, that
followed the end of Martial Law and brought about the People Power Revolution, the downfall
of President Ferdinand E. Marcos, and the accession of Corazon C. Aquino as President.
The 1986 Snap Elections is one of the most controversial elections in the history of the
Philippines. This election is pursuant to the declaration of President Ferdinand E. Marcos to
conduct a Snap Election which he announced through an interview by the American Broadcasting

Company political affairs program This Week with David Brinkleyin November
1985. President Marcos believed his early re-election would solidify United States support,
silence his critics in the Philippines and the United States, and perhaps banish the ghost of
Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. The Snap Elections was set on February 7, 1986.
The results of the election according to the Commission on Elections which was chaired by
Ramon Felipe are as follows:
Ferdinand E. Marcos: 10, 807, 197 votes (53.62%)
Corazon C. Aquino:

9, 291, 761 votes (46.10%)

The results showed that Ferdinand Marcos won the elections against Corazon C. Aquino with a
margin of 1, 515, 436 votes. This massive election fraud by the Marcos Government which
was condemned by the majority of the Filipino populace caused the mass walk-out of computer
analysts and tabulators from the PICC. The tabulation of votes was not finished because of this
incident. The official tabulator of votes and has the power to proclaim the winners of the Snap
Elections is the Batasan Pambansa which is also dominated by Marcos loyalists. They declared
Marcos and Tolentino as the victors of the elections. This has caused massive uproar from all
sides of the political and social spectrum since the election results are very questionable.
http://manilastanUnicameralism vs. Bicameralism in 1986 Constitutional Commission
(Philippines) Unicameral Bicameral More economical & 2nd chamber direct efficient
representatives of over-all Would be more open to interest of the people the pressure of people
Healthy check agains power hastily passed legislations Greater role of media as a Check
against abuse of partner in politics power Importance of national figures; thus, antiparochialdardtoday.com/2014/09/23/bicameralism-is-useless-in-the-philippines/
Explain the differences between unicameral and bicameral legislatures. What are their virtues
and vices?
A bicameral legislature is composed of two houses, namely the lower house and the upper
house. The lower house is usually elected by the general public and represent the ordinary
people. The upper house is usually selected and reflect political subdivisions, such as the House
of Senate of US, or represent certain class, such as the House of Lords of Britain. On the contrary,
a unicameral legislature is composed of only one body, representing all people in the community.
This system usually exists in more culturally and ideologically homogenous countries.
The virtues of the bicameral system
Firstly, the two houses of the bicameral legislature represent two different groups of people in
the community. For example, in the British legislature, the House of Lords acts as the upper
house and represent the aristocrats whereas the House of Commons acts as the lower house and
represent ordinary public. This way, the interest and views of people form different groups can be
equally heard in the legislature without any domination of either party.
Secondly, with the existence of two houses, both of them can have the effect of check and
balance against each other. This can form an effective self-monitoring system within the
legislature, any mistake or false is easily to be discovered and exposed to the knowledge of the
public. Such system helps the prevention of the passage of flawed or unfair legislation that
favours any groups of people in the community.
Thirdly, a legislature formed by two houses can act as a stronger and more effective monitor
over the executive branch of the government. As a duty of the legislature, the legislators
representing the public should help the people to check the executive branch of the government
in order to prevent abuse of power within the government. With two legislative bodies, the check
and balance of the executive...

The seven deadly sins, also known as the capital vices or cardinal sins, is a classification
of vices (part of Christian ethics) that has been used since early Christian times to educate and
instruct Christians concerning fallen humanity's tendency to sin. In the currently recognized
version, the sins are usually given as wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony. Each is
a form of Idolatry-of-Self wherein the subjective reigns over the objective.
The Catholic Church divides sin into two categories: venial sins, in which guilt is relatively minor,
and the more severe mortal sins. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a mortal or
deadly sin is believed to destroy the life of grace and charity within a person and thus creates
the threat of eternal damnation. "Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us that is,
charity necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally
accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation."[1]
According to Catholic moral thought, the seven deadly sins are not discrete from other sins, but
are instead the origin ("capital" comes from the Latin caput, head) of the others. Vices can be
either venial or mortal, depending on the situation, but "are called 'capital' because they
engender other sins, other vices".[2]
The Commonwealth of the Philippines (Tagalog: Komonwelt ng
Pilipinas; Spanish: Mancomunidad de Filipinas)[1] was the administrative body that governed
the Philippines from 1935 to 1946, aside from a period of exile in the Second World War from
1942 to 1945 when Japan occupied the country. It replaced the Insular Government, a United
States territorial government, and was established by the TydingsMcDuffie Act. The
Commonwealth was designed as a transitional administration in preparation for the country's full
achievement of independence.[10]
During its more than a decade of existence, the Commonwealth had a strong executive and a
Supreme Court. Its legislature, dominated by the Nacionalista Party, was at first unicameral, but
later bicameral. In 1937, the government selected Tagalogthe language of Manila and its
surrounding provincesas the basis of the national language, although it would be many years
before its usage became general. Women's suffrage was adopted and the economy recovered to
its pre-Depression level before the Japanese occupation in 1942.
The Commonwealth government went into exile from 1942 to 1945, when the Philippines was
under Japanese occupation. In 1946, the Commonwealth ended and the Philippines reclaimed full
sovereignty as provided for in Article XVIII of the 1935 Constitution.