THE PHILIPPINE LEGAL SYSTEM PARTS OF STATUTE

In re Shoop 1. Title
-admission of Max Shoop to practice law in - Bill must embrace only one subject
the Phillipines expressed in its title

-adoption of American jurisprudence - But must not be an index to, or be an
exhaustive catalogue of the body of the act as
PARTS OF STATUTE AND THEIR to cover every single detail 

ENACTMENT - It is enough that the title indicates the
a. Laws and Statutes general subject, and reasonably covers all
provisions of the act and not calculated to
Law- a rule of conduct formulated and made mislead the public 
Reasons: 

obligatory by legitimate power of the state. - Prevent hodgepodge or log-rolling
Statute- an act of the legislature, as an 
legislation 

organized body, expressed in the form, and - Prevent fraud and surprise through
passed according to the procedure required to 
introduction of provisions not germane to
constitute it as part of the law of the land. the statute (which have not received notice,
action and study of the legislators) 

b. Classification of Statutes - Language that must be sufficient to notify
the legislators and the public 

According to scope: - Title serves as guide to ascertain legislative
Public- affects the public at large or the intent 
How construed: 


whole community - Should be liberally construed 

General- applies to the whole 
state and - Not be given technical interpretation 
nor
operates upon all people or all class; does not narrowly construed to cripple or 
impede the
omit any subject or place 
 power of the legislature 

Special- relates to a particular persons or - If there is doubt, it should be resolved 
in
things or class or to a particular community 
 favour of the one title-one subject
Local- confined to a specific place or (presumption of constitutionality) 
Preamble
community 
 

Private- applies to a specific person or subject - Prefatory statement or explanation (finding

 of facts, reciting the purpose, reason, or
According to duration: occasion for making the law). Hence,
Permanent- operation is not limited in important role in construction 


duration but continues until repealed 
 - Usually found after the enacting clause and
Temporary- duration is for a limited 
period; before the body in presidential decrees and
ceases upon the happening of an event for executive orders 

which it was passed 
 - Legislature seldom puts this because the
reason for the law is contained in its
According to application: explanatory note
1. Prospective

2. Retroactive 3. Enacting Clause
- Part written immediately after the 
title 

According to operation: - States the authority by which the act is
Declaratory enacted
Curative 
 - Contains the phrases, “Be it enacted
Mandatory 
 by...” or “Now, therefore, I... by virtue of the
Directory 
 powers in me vested by the Constitution, do
Substantive 
 hereby decree...”
Remedial 

Penal 
 4.Purview/Body of the Statute
- What the law is all about 

According to form: - Should embrace one subject matter 

1. Affirmative
 - The provisions, although different and
2. Negative 
diverse, must be allied and germane 
to the
subject and purpose of the bill 

 - Usually divided into sections 
(numbered
and contains a single 
proposition) 
 3. Apprised of this development, the Office of the
- Usually includes a short title, policy,

definition, administrative sections, sections
prescribing standards of conduct, imposing
sanctions for violations of its provisions,
transitory provisions 
 4. Comelec, by resolution declared that the statute
5. Separability Clause 
 unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
- States that if any provision is declared
invalid, the remainder shall not be
affected
Presumption: Legislature intended a
statute to be effective as a whole and would
not have passed it had it foreseen that some
part of it is invalid.
Exception: Where
provisions cannot stand alone as to those left,
after the void part, is not complete and
workable
6. Repealing Clause 
 1. The constitutional provision contains dual
7. Effectivity Clause 
 Congress is to refrain from conglomeration,
- When the law takes effect
-Usually 15 days from the publication in the
Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general
circulation
Section 26. (1) Every bill passed by the
Congress shall embrace only one subject
which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
LIDASAN V COMELEC
Facts:
1. Lidasan, a resident and taxpayer of the
detached portion of Parang, Cotabato, and a
qualified voter for the 1967 elections assails
the constitutionality of RA 4790 and
petitioned that Comelec's resolutions
implementing the same for electoral purposes
be nullified. Under RA 4790, 12 barrios in two
municipalities in the province of Cotabato are
transferred to the province of Lanao del Sur.
This brought about a change in the
boundaries of the two provinces.
2. Barrios Togaig and Madalum are within the
municipality of Buldon in the Province of
Cotabato, and that Bayanga, Langkong,
Sarakan, Kat-bo, Digakapan, Magabo,
Tabangao, Tiongko, Colodan and
Kabamakawan are parts and parcel of another
municipality, the municipality of Parang, also
in the Province of Cotabato and not of Lanao
del Sur.
President, recommended to Comelec that the
operation of the statute be suspended until
"clarified by correcting legislation."
should be implemented unless declared
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 4790, which is
entitled "An Act Creating the Municipality of
Dianaton in the Province of Lanao del Sur",
but which includes barrios located in another
province — Cotabato is unconstitutional for
embracing more than one subject in the title
YES. RA 4790 is null and void
limitations upon legislative power. First.
under one statute, of heterogeneous
subjects. Second. The title of the bill is to be
couched in a language sufficient to notify the
legislators and the public and those concerned
of the import of the single subject thereof. Of
relevance here is the second directive. The
subject of the statute must be "expressed in
the title" of the bill. This constitutional
requirement "breathes the spirit of
command." Compliance is imperative, given
the fact that the Constitution does not exact of
Congress the obligation to read during its
deliberations the entire text of the bill. In fact,
in the case of House Bill 1247, which became
RA 4790, only its title was read from its
introduction to its final approval in the House
where the bill, being of local application,
originated.
2. The Constitution does not require Congress to
employ in the title of an enactment, language
of such precision as to mirror, fully index or
catalogue all the contents and the minute
details therein. It suffices if the title should
serve the purpose of the constitutional
demand that it inform the legislators, the
persons interested in the subject of the bill,
and the public, of the nature, scope and
consequences of the proposed law and its
operation. And this, to lead them to inquire
into the body of the bill, study and discuss the
same, take appropriate action thereon, and,
 thus, prevent surprise or fraud upon the
legislators.
3. The test of the sufficiency of a title is whether
or not it is misleading; and, which technical
accuracy is not essential, and the subject need
not be stated in express terms where it is
clearly inferable from the details set forth, a
title which is so uncertain that the average
person reading it would not be informed of
the purpose of the enactment or put on
inquiry as to its contents, or which is
misleading, either in referring to or indicating
one subject where another or different one is
really embraced in the act, or in omitting any
expression or indication of the real subject or
scope of the act, is bad.
4. The title — "An Act Creating the Municipality of
Dianaton, in the Province of Lanao del Sur" —
projects the impression that only the province
of Lanao del Sur is affected by the creation of
Dianaton. Not the slightest intimation is there
that communities in the adjacent province of
Cotabato are incorporated in this new Lanao
del Sur town. The phrase "in the Province of
Lanao del Sur," read without subtlety or
contortion, makes the title misleading,
deceptive. For, the known fact is that the
legislation has a two-pronged purpose
combined in one statute: (1) it creates the
municipality of Dianaton purportedly from
twenty-one barrios in the towns of Butig and
Balabagan, both in the province of Lanao del
Sur; and (2) it also dismembers two
municipalities in Cotabato, a province
different from Lanao del Sur.
5. Finally, the title did not inform the members of
Congress the full impact of the law. One, it did
not apprise the people in the towns of Buldon
and Parang in Cotabato and in the province of
Cotabato itself that part of their territory is
being taken away from their towns and
province and added to the adjacent Province
of Lanao del Sur. Two, it kept the public in the
dark as to what towns and provinces were
actually affected by the bill.
TOBIAS V ABALOS
FACTS:
Prior to Republic Act No., 7675 also known as “An
Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong
into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the
City of Mandaluyong”, Mandaluyong and San Juan
belonged to only one legislative district. A
plebiscite was held for the people of Mandaluyong
whether or not they approved of the said
conversion. The plebiscite was only 14.41% of the
said conversion. Nevertheless, 18,621 voted “yes”
whereas “7, 911” voted “no”.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the ratification of RA7675 was
unconstitutional citing Article VI, Sections 5(1), 4
and 26(1)
HELD/RULING:
For the purposes of discussion, let’s breakdown all
of the claimed violations to the 1987 Constitution.
Section 26(1). Every bill passed by the Congress
shall embrace only one subject which shall be
expressed in the title thereof.
The creation of a separate congressional district
for Mandaluyong is not a subject separate and
distinct from the subject of its
conversion. Moreover, a liberal construction of
the “one-title-one-subject” rule has been liberally
adopted by the court as to not impede legislation
(Lidasan v. Comelec).
Sec. 5(1). The House of Representatives shall be
composed of not more than two hundred and fifty
members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall
be elected from legislative districts apportioned
among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan
Manila area in accordance with the number of
their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a
uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as
provided by law, shall be elected through a party
list system of registered national, regional and
sectoral parties or organizations.
The Constitution clearly provides that the House
of Representatives shall be composed of not more
than 250 members, unless otherwise provided
by law. The emphasis on the latter clause
indicates that the number of the House of
Representatives may be increased, if mandated via
a legislative enactment. Therefore, the increase in
congressional representation is not
unconstitutional.
Sec. 5(4). Within three years following the return
of every census, the Congress shall make a
reapportionment of legislative districts based on
the standard provided in this section.
The argument on the violation of the above
provision is absurd since it was the Congress itself
which drafted, deliberated upon and enacted the
assailed law.
The petition is thereby DISMISSED for lack of
merit. SO ORDERED.
STEPS IN THE ENACTMENT OF A STATUTE
Article 6. Sec 27 (2) and Sec 27 of the 1987
Philippine Constitution.
Section 26. (1) Every bill passed by the
Congress shall embrace only one subject
which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
(2) No bill passed by either House shall
become a law unless it has passed three
readings on separate days, and printed copies
thereof in its final form have been distributed
to its Members three days before its passage,
except when the President certifies to the
necessity of its immediate enactment to meet
a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last
reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall
be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be
taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas
and nays entered in the Journal.
Section 27. (1) Every bill passed by the
Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be
presented to the President. If he approves the
same he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto
it and return the same with his objections to
the House where it originated, which shall
enter the objections at large in its Journal and
proceed to reconsider it. If, after such
reconsideration, two-thirds of all the
Members of such House shall agree to pass
the bill, it shall be sent, together with the
objections, to the other House by which it
shall likewise be reconsidered, and if
approved by two-thirds of all the Members of
that House, it shall become a law. In all such
cases, the votes of each House shall be
determined by yeas or nays, and the names of
the Members voting for or against shall be
entered in its Journal. The President shall
communicate his veto of any bill to the House
where it originated within thirty days after
the date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall
become a law as if he had signed it.
COMISSION OF INTERNAL REVENUE V
COURT OF TAX APPEAL
FACTS:
Manila Golf & Country Club, Inc., a non-stock
corporation who maintains a golf course and
operates a clubhouse with a lounge, bar &
dining room exclusively for its members &
guests claims that they should have been
exempt from payment of privilege taxes were
it not for the last paragraph of Section 191-A
of RA No. 6110, otherwise known as
"Omnibus Tax Law".
By virtue of RA No. 6110, the CIR assessed
the Manila Golf and Country Club fixed taxes
as operators of golf links and restaurant, and
also percentage tax (caterer's tax) for its sale
of foods and fermented liquors/wines for the
period covering September 1969 to December
1970 in the amount of P32,504.96 in which
the club protested claiming the assessment to
be without basis because Section 42 was
vetoed by then President Marcos.
CIR denied the protestation of the club, who
maintain that Section 42 was not entirely
vetoed but merely the words "hotel, motels,
resthouses" on the ground that it might
restrain the development of hotels which is
essential to the tourism industry.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the presidential veto referred
to the entire section or merely to the
imposition of 20% tax on gross receipt of
operators or proprietors of restaurants,
refreshment parlors, bars and other eating
places which are maintained within the
premises or compound of a hotel, motel or
resthouses.
DECISION:
The presidential veto referred merely to the
inclusion of hotels, motels, and rest houses in
the 20% caterer's tax bracket but not to the
whole section. It was then agreed by the SC
with then Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza
and his associates that inclusion of hotels,
motels, and rest houses in the 20% caterer's
tax bracket are "items" in themselves within
the meaning of Sec. 20(3), Article VI of the
1935 Constitution.
The Petition is granted. Sec. 191-A of RA 6110
is valid and enforceable, hence the Manila Golf
and Country Club, Inc is liable for the amount
assessed against it.
TOLENTINO V SECRETARY OF FINANCE
Facts: The value-added tax (VAT) is levied on
the sale, barter or exchange of goods and
properties as well as on the sale or exchange
of services. RA 7716 seeks to widen the tax
base of the existing VAT system and enhance
its administration by amending the National
Internal Revenue Code. There are various
suits challenging the constitutionality of RA
7716 on various grounds.
One contention is that RA 7716 did not
originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives as required by Art. VI, Sec. 24
of the Constitution, because it is in fact the
result of the consolidation of 2 distinct bills, H.
No. 11197 and S. No. 1630. There is also a
contention that S. No. 1630 did not pass 3
readings as required by the Constitution.
Issue: Whether or not RA 7716 violates Art.
VI, Secs. 24 and 26(2) of the Constitution
Held: The argument that RA 7716 did not
originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives as required by Art. VI, Sec. 24
of the Constitution will not bear analysis. To
begin with, it is not the law but the revenue
bill which is required by the Constitution to
originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives. To insist that a revenue
statute and not only the bill which initiated
the legislative process culminating in the
enactment of the law must substantially be
the same as the House bill would be to deny
the Senate’s power not only to concur with
amendments but also to propose
amendments. Indeed, what the Constitution
simply means is that the initiative for filing
revenue, tariff or tax bills, bills authorizing an
increase of the public debt, private bills and
bills of local application must come from the
House of Representatives on the theory that,
elected as they are from the districts, the
members of the House can be expected to be
more sensitive to the local needs and
problems. Nor does the Constitution prohibit
the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in
anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the
House, so long as action by the Senate as a
body is withheld pending receipt of the House
bill.
The next argument of the petitioners was that
S. No. 1630 did not pass 3 readings on
separate days as required by the Constitution
because the second and third readings were
done on the same day. But this was because
the President had certified S. No. 1630 as
urgent. The presidential certification
dispensed with the requirement not only of
printing but also that of reading the bill on
separate days. That upon the certification of a
bill by the President the requirement of 3
readings on separate days and of printing and
distribution can be dispensed with is
supported by the weight of legislative
practice.
ARROYO V DE VENECIA
Facts: A petition was filed challenging the
validity of RA 8240, which amends certain
provisions of the National Internal Revenue
Code. Petitioners, who are members of the
House of Representatives, charged that there
is violation of the rules of the House which
petitioners claim are constitutionally-
mandated so that their violation is
tantamount to a violation of the Constitution.
The law originated in the House of
Representatives. The Senate approved it with
certain amendments. A bicameral conference
committee was formed to reconcile the
disagreeing provisions of the House and
Senate versions of the bill. The bicameral
committee submitted its report to the House.
During the interpellations, Rep. Arroyo made
an interruption and moved to adjourn for lack
of quorum. But after a roll call, the Chair
declared the presence of a quorum. The
interpellation then proceeded. After Rep.
Arroyo’s interpellation of the sponsor of the
committee report, Majority Leader Albano
moved for the approval and ratification of the
conference committee report. The Chair called
out for objections to the motion. Then the
Chair declared: “There being none, approved.”
At the same time the Chair was saying this,
Rep. Arroyo was asking, “What is that…Mr.
Speaker?” The Chair and Rep. Arroyo were
talking simultaneously. Thus, although Rep.
Arroyo subsequently objected to the Majority
Leader’s motion, the approval of the
conference committee report had by then
already been declared by the Chair.
On the same day, the bill was signed by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and
the President of the Senate and certified by
the respective secretaries of both Houses of
Congress. The enrolled bill was signed into
law by President Ramos.
Issue: Whether or not RA 8240 is null and
void because it was passed in violation of the
rules of the House
Held:
Rules of each House of Congress are hardly
permanent in character. They are subject to
revocation, modification or waiver at the
pleasure of the body adopting them as they
are primarily procedural. Courts ordinarily
have no concern with their observance. They
may be waived or disregarded by the
legislative body. Consequently, mere failure to
conform to them does not have the effect of
nullifying the act taken if the requisite
number of members has agreed to a particular
measure. But this is subject to qualification.
Where the construction to be given to a rule
affects person other than members of the
legislative body, the question presented is
necessarily judicial in character. Even its
validity is open to question in a case where
private rights are involved.
In the case, no rights of private individuals are
involved but only those of a member who,
instead of seeking redress in the House, chose
to transfer the dispute to the Court.
The matter complained of concerns a matter
of internal procedure of the House with which
the Court should not be concerned. The claim
is not that there was no quorum but only that
Rep. Arroyo was effectively prevented from
questioning the presence of a quorum. Rep.
Arroyo’s earlier motion to adjourn for lack of
quorum had already been defeated, as the roll
call established the existence of a quorum.
The question of quorum cannot be raised
repeatedly especially when the quorum is
obviously present for the purpose of delaying
the business of the House.
ENROLLED BILL THEORY
Enrolled bill- the bill as passed by Congress,
authenticated by the House Speaker and
Senate President and approved by the
President
Rule: The text of the act as passed and
approved is deemed importing absolute verity
and is binding on the courts. If there has been
any mistake in the printing of the bill before it
was certified, the remedy is by amendment by
enacting a curative legislation and not a
judicial decree.
Presumption: It carries on its face a solemn
assurance by the legislative and executive
departments of the government that it was
passed by the assembly. Hence, the respect
due to co- equal and independent
departments requires the judiciary to act
upon that assurance and to accept all bills
duly authenticated.
MABANAG V LOPEZ
FACTS: Petitioners include 3 senators and 8
representatives. The three senators were
suspended by senate due to election
irregularities. The 8 representatives were not
allowed to take their seat in the lower House
except in the election of the House Speaker.
They argued that some senators and House
Reps were not considered in determining the
required ¾ vote (of each house) in order to
pass the Resolution (proposing amendments
to the Constitution) – which has been
considered as an enrolled bill by then. At the
same time, the votes were already entered
into the Journals of the respective House. As a
result, the Resolution was passed but it could
have been otherwise were they allowed to
vote. If these members of Congress had been
counted, the affirmative votes in favor of the
proposed amendment would have been short
of the necessary three-fourths vote in either
branch of Congress. Petitioners filed or the
prohibition of the furtherance of the said
resolution amending the constitution.
Respondents argued that the SC cannot take
cognizance of the case because the Court is
bound by the conclusiveness of the enrolled
bill or resolution.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court can take
cognizance of the issue at bar. Whether or not
the said resolution was duly enacted by conclusive proof of the provisions of such Acts
Congress. and of the due enactment thereof.”

HELD: As far as looking into the Journals is The SC is bound by the contents of a duly
concerned, even if both the journals from each authenticated resolution (enrolled bill) by the
House and an authenticated copy of the Act legislature. In case of conflict, the contents of
had been presented, the disposal of the issue an enrolled bill shall prevail over those of the
by the Court on the basis of the journals does journals.
not imply rejection of the enrollment theory,
for, as already stated, the due enactment of a
law may be proved in either of the two ways
specified in section 313 of Act No. 190 as
amended. The SC found in the journals no
signs of irregularity in the passage of the law
and did not bother itself with considering the
effects of an authenticated copy if one had
been introduced. It did not do what the
opponents of the rule of conclusiveness
advocate, namely, look into the journals
behind the enrolled copy in order to
determine the correctness of the latter, and
rule such copy out if the two, the journals and
the copy, be found in conflict with each other.
No discrepancy appears to have been noted
between the two documents and the court did
not say or so much as give to understand that
if discrepancy existed it would give greater
weight to the journals, disregarding the
explicit provision that duly certified copies
“shall be conclusive proof of the provisions of
such Acts and of the due enactment thereof.”

**Enrolled Bill – that which has been duly

introduced, finally passed by both houses,
signed by the proper officers of each,
approved by the president and filed by the
secretary of state.

Section 313 of the old Code of Civil Procedure

(Act 190), as amended by Act No. 2210,
provides: “Official documents may be proved
as follows: . . . (2) the proceedings of the
Philippine Commission, or of any legislatives
body that may be provided for in the
Philippine Islands, or of Congress, by the
journals of those bodies or of either house
thereof, or by published statutes or
resolutions, or by copies certified by the clerk
of secretary, or printed by their order;
Provided, That in the case of Acts of the
Philippine Commission or the Philippine
Legislature, when there is an existence of a
copy signed by the presiding officers and
secretaries of said bodies, it shall be