Você está na página 1de 11

Arroyo vs Devenecia Petioners: Joker P.

Arroyo et al Respondents: Jose De Venecia et al Facts: This is a petition for certiorari and/or prohibition challenging the validity of RA 8240 which amends certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code by imposing so-called sin taxes on the manufacture and sale of beer and cigarettes. Petitioners assail the violation of the rules of the House which they claim are constitutionally mandated so that their violation is tantamount to a violation of the Constitution. Petitioners claim that the passage of the law was in the house was railroaded due to the fact that Rep. Arroyo was still making a query to the chair when the latter declared Rep. Albanos motion approved. What happened is that, after Rep Arroyos interpellation of the sponsor of the committee report, Majority Leader Rodolfo 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, however, Rep. Arroyo was asking, What is that.. Mr. Speaker? The chair and Rep was talking simultaneously. Thus, albeit Rep Arroyo subsequent to the motion of the Majority Leader, the approval of the conference committee report hand by then already been declared by the chair , symbolized by its banging of the gravel. Issue: Whether or not RA 8420 is null and void because it was passed in violation of the rules of the House and is therefore a violation of the constitution because of the constitutional mandate in Article VI SEC 16 (3) HELD: Petition DISMISSED RATIO DECIDENDI: 1. What is alleged to have been violated are merely internal rules of procedure of the House rather than Constitutional Requirements for the enactment of the law. In one of the cases mentioned it was stated that a legislative act will not be declared invalid for noncompliance with rules. 2. Courts cannot declare an act of the legislature void on account of non-compliance with rules of procedure made by itself. 3. Rep. Arroyos earlier motion to adjourn for lack of quorum had already been defeated, as the roll coll established the existence of such.

Facts: Congressman Sergio Osmena is petitioning the court for injunction against Congressman Pendatun and (14) other congressman. Cong. Osmena is required to substantiate his charges against the President, and if he failed to do so, why the House shouldnt punish him. This is contained in Resolution No. 59. He asked for annulment of resolution on the ground that it is an infringement of his parliamentary immunity. There is no question that Cong. Osmena, in a privileged speech delivered before the house, made the serious imputation of bribery against the President which are quoted in Res. No. 59, and that he refused to produce before the House Committee created for the purpose, evidence to substantiate such imputations. Issues: (1) WON resolution violated his constitutional absolute parliamentary immunity for speeches delivered in the House. (2) WON his words constituted disorderly behaviour (3) WON taking up other business after objectionable speech, he is no longer (4) WON House has power to suspend on of its members liable

(1) Immunity guarantees the legislator complete freedom of expression without fear of being made responsible in criminal or civil actions before courts or forums outside the Congressional Hall. BUT it does not protect him from responsibility before the legislative body itself whenever his words and conduct are considered by the latter disorderly or unbecoming of a member thereof. (2) House is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behavior, not only because the Constitution has conferred jurisdiction upon it, but also because the matter depends mainly on factual circumstances of which the house knows best but which cannot be depicted in black and white for presentation to, and adjudication by the courts. (3)

(4) for unparliamentary conduct, members of Parliament or of Congress have been, or could be censure, committed to prison, suspended, even expelled by the votes of their colleagues. Jones Law provides, Each house may punish its members for disorderly behavior and with the concurrence of 2/3 votes, expel an elective member.

HELD: petition is dismissed

NOTE: RA No. 59 (page 865-866) it basically says that. 2nd par. Osmena is accusing the president of everything is for sale, even pardons for the right price are given even to those that have committed grave crimes. 3rd par. Osmena maliciously or recklessly assaulted the dignity of the president without proof. 4th par. That he is to substantiate his charges against the president, and if he fails to do so, he should answer why he should not be punished by the House. SANTIAGO vs SANDIGANBAYAN I. FACTS 1) The Court is called upon to review the act of Sandiganbayan, and how far it can go, on ordering the preventive suspension of petitioner Meriam Defensor-Santiago, in connection with pending criminal cases filed against her for alleged violation of RA 3019: Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act. 2) The instant case arose from the complaints by a group of employees of the Commission of Immigration and Deportation (CID) against, then CID Commissioner Meriam Defensor-Santiago, the alleged violation of RA 3019: Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act. 3) Hence, Sandiganbayan filed the Criminal Case No. 16698: On October 17, 1988, in Manila.accused Meriam Defensor-Santiago, a public officer and being then the Commissioner of Commission on Immigration and Deportation, with evident bad faith and manifest partially in the exercise of her official functions, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally approve the application for legalization of the stay of the following aliens: Ting Siok Hun, Ching Suati Liong Ting (etc)who arrived in the Phils after January 1, 1984 w/c prohibits the legalization of said disqualified aliens knowing fully well that said aliens are disqualified, thereby giving unwarranted benefits to said aliens whose stay in the Phils was unlawfully legalized by said accused. 4) Before the Criminal Case No. 16698, Santiago had two other- one for the violation of Presidential Decree No. 46 (details not mentioned) and the other one, a libel case. 5) Before Criminal Case No. 16698, Presiding Justice Garchitorena issued an order for the arrest of the petitioner, fixing the bail of 15,000php. At that time, Santiago posted a cash bail w/o need for physical appearance bec she was recuperating from injuries sustained in a vehicular accident.

6) Sandigandbayan granted this until her physical condition would warrant her physical appearance in court. 7) Upon manifestation by the Ombudsman that Santiago was able to come unaided to his office on May 20, 1991, the court issued an order setting the arraignment on May 27, 1991. 8) Meanwhile, Santiago moved for the cancellation of her cash bond 9) On May 24, 1991, the court, by petition of Santiago, issued a temporary restraining order to Sandigandbayan from proceeding with Criminal Case No. 16698. 10) On January 13, 1992 the temporary restraining order was lifted. 11) On July 6, 1992. Because of media reports announcing that Santiago had the intention to accept a fellowship from John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, the Sandiganbayan issued an order to enjoin Santiago from leaving the country 12) On October 1992, Santiago moved to inhibit Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Garchitorena from the case. Her motion was denied. 13) The following day, Santiago filed a motion for bill of particulars with the Sandiganbayan asseverating that the names of the aliens whose applications she purportedly approved and thereby supposedly extended undue advantage were conspicuously omitted in the complaint. 14) The court initially issued a temporary restraining order directing Garchitorena to cease and desist from sitting in the case 15) On August 3, 1995, Sandiganbayan resolves to allow the testimony of Rodolfo Pedellaga, to be scheduled on September 15. 16) On August 18, Santiago submitted to Sandiganbayan a motion of reconsideration on its decision August 3 decision w/c would allow the testimony of Pedellaga. 17) On August 22, 1995 Santiago filed her opposition to the motion of the prosecution to suspend her. 18) On January 25, 1996, the Sandiganbayan resolved: for all the foregoing, the Court hereby grants the motion under consideration and hereby suspends Miriam Defensor-Santiago from her position as senator of the Republic of the Phils and from any other govt position she may be holding at present or hereafter. Her suspension shall be for 90 days II. ISSUE: W/N Sandiganbayan has the authority to decree a 90-day preventive suspension of Santiago, a Senator of the Republic of the Phils, from any govt position. III. HELD: Yes IV. RATIO 1) The authority of the Sandiganbayan to order the preventive suspension of an incumbent public official charged with violation of the provision of RA 3019 has both legal and jurisprudential support. The sandiganbayan merely adhered to the clear and unequivocal mandate of the law, as well as the jursiprudence in w/c the Court has, more than once, upheld the

Sandiganbayan authority to decree the suspension of the public officials and employees indicated before it. United States vs Pons Facts:

April 5, 6 OR 10, 1915 (they are not sure about the date, those are the possible dates indicated on the case) Spanish mail steamer named Lopez y Lopez arrived at Manila from Spain Bringing 25 barrels which were manifested as wine and consigned to Jacinto Lasarte Prior to the arrival of the cargo, Gabino Beliso engaged in business of a wine merchant, with an office and warehouse located at 203 Calle San Anton, Manila The 25 barrels were delivered to Gregorio Cansipit, a customs broker, by Beliso (these documents were endorsed: deliver to Gabino Beliso and signed Jacinto Lasarte) The barrels were delivered to the said warehouse and Beliso signed the paper acknowledging the delivery

Custom authorities noticed that shipments of merchandise manifested as wine consigned to persons whose names were not listed as merchants On April 10, 1915, an investigation was conducted and found out that o At around 11am of April 9 o 25 barrels were delivered to Belisos warehouse (traced by the customs registry number of the shipment, entry number and serial number of each barrel) o Before the merchandise arrived, Juan Pons, went to Belisos warehouse and the two engaged in a conversation in Belisos office o When the barrels arrives, Beliso ordered one of his employees, Cornelius Sese and directed him to go get a bull cart o Beliso carefully selected 5 barrels out of the 25 and told Sese to load these 5 on the cart and deliver them to Juan Pons at 144 Calle General Solano, which Sese complied April 10, 1915 Customs service agents entered Belisos bodega Sese was found in the bodega and placed under arrest 20 of the 25 barrels could be found in Belisos bodega Sese informed the custom agents that the 5 missing barrels had been delivered by him to Pons Accompanied by Sese, the agents proceeded to Pons place and there found the 5 missing barrels, which were identified by the registry, entry and serial numbers 5 barrels were empty (the staves sprung and iron hoops removed) Custom officers noticed several baskets of lime scattered about the basement of the house and on further search found 77 tins of opium in one fo these baskets No one was in the house, but some clothing was found with the initial J.P. Investigation of 144 Calle General Solano Mariano Limjap OWNER

F.C. Garcia rented the house The lease of the house was produced by the agent of the owner, the agents saw that the same was signed F.C. Garcia by Juan Pons Returned to the place of Beliso Selected 3 barrels and ordered them returned to the customhouse While the customs officer were still at the office and warehouse of Beliso Morning of April 10 Pons, unaware that anything unusual was going on, arrived there and was placed under arrest and taken to the office of Captain Hawkins (chief of customs secret service) In the customs house Pons voluntary confessed his participation in the smuggling of the opium Pons said that the 77 tins of opium found in Calle General Solano represented the entire importation The 3 barrels from Belisos warehouse was opened by Pons in the custom house Pons showed the officers how to open the barrels and pointed out that the end of the barrel, which had the impression of a bottle stamped in the wood, contained the opium 195 tins of opium taken from the 3 barrels Pons stated that he had delivered some 250 tins of opium of this shipment to a chinaman at 7:30am of April 10 (as instructed by Beliso) Pons stated that o he and Beliso had been partners in several opium transactions o The house at 144 Calle General Solano had been leased by him at the suggestion of Beliso for the purpose of handling the prohibited drug o He and Beliso had shares profits of a previous importation of opium Customs agents went with Pons to his house At the yard, they found several large tin repceptacles (similar to those found at 144 Calle General Solano and to those taken from the barrels at the customhouse) Regarding F.C. Garcia At first, Pons stated that F.C. Garcia was a tobacco merchant traveleing in and between ISabela dn Cagayan Later, he retracted his statement and admistted that Garcia was a fictitious person During the trial, Pons testified that Garcia was a wine merchant and a resident of Spain Garcia wrote him a latter directing him to rent a house for him (Garcia) and retain it until the arrival in the Philippines of Garcia This letter arrives on the same steamer which brought the 25 barrels F.C. Garcia told him in the letter that this opium was coming in barrels of wine sent to Beliso by a man by the name of Jacinto Lasarte and that is the reason why he wanted to get the barrels of wine from Beliso Appeal of Juan Pons Lower court sentenced him 2 years in Bilibid Prison, pay a fine of 1,000 pesos and to the payment of one-half of the costs Contentions for reversal are numerous (25 assignments of error). The court erred: o In denying this appellants motion dated May 6, 1915 and reproduces on July 27, 1915

o Finding that the legal evidence of record establishes the guilt of the appellant, Juan Pons, beyond reasonable doubt Issue: (this is the main issue that we need, related to the topic) W/n Pons must be punished under Act No. 2381 if found guilty? (the last day of the special session of the Philippine Legislature for 1914 was February 28 and the counsel of Pons alleged that Act No. 2381 was not passed or approved on February 28 but on March 1, 1914, therefore, the same is null and void) VITAL QUESTION: date of adjournment of the legislature 1. How that is to be proved, whether by the legislative journals or extraneous evidence 2. Whether the court can take judicial notice of the journals Act No. 1679 The Secretary of the Commission shall perform the duties which would properly be required of the Recorder of the Commission under the existing law Rules 15 and 16 of the Legislative Procedure of the Philippine Commission The proceedings of the Commission shall be briefly and accurately stated on the journal It shall be the duty of the Secretary to keep a correct journal of the proceedings of the Commission Page 793 of volume 7 of the Commission Journal for the ordinary and special sessions of the 3 rd Philippine Legislature The journal for Saturday, February 28, 1914, was approved. Adjournment sine die of the Commission as a Chamber of the Philippine Legislature. The hour of midnight having arrived, on motion of Commissioner Palma, the Commission, as a Chamber of the Philippine Legislature adjourned sine die Journal of the Assemblys proceedings for the sessions of 1914 and published and it appears therein The Assembly adjourned sine die at 12 oclock midnight on February 28, 1914 ANSWER to 1 and 2 Section 275 of the Code of Civil Procedure: official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the United States and of the Philippine Islands shall be judicially recognized by the court without the introduction of proof; but the court may receive evidence upon any of the subjects in this section stated, when it shall find it necessary for its own information, and may resort for its aid to appropriate books, documents or evidence It is maintained that the Legislature did not, as we have indicated, adjourn at midnight on February 28, 1914, but on March 1st, and that this allegation or alleged fact may be established by extraneous evidence, while, on the other hand, it is urged that the contents of the legislative journals are conclusive evidence as to the date of the adjournment Evidence Which proved or disproves any matter in question or to influence the belief respecting it Conclusive evidence Established facts, as in the instance of conclusive presumptions

Note: Case laws of different American cases were cited Numerous decisions of the various states in he America Union in support of the rule therein laid down, and we have been unable to find a single case of a later date where the rule has been in the least changed or modified when the legislative journals cover the point The Constitution of the Philippines is modelled after those Federal Government and the various states, we do not hesitate to follow the courts in that country in the matter before us The journals say that the Legislature adjourned at 12 midnight on February 18, 1914. This settled the question and the court did not err in declining to go behind these journals **Juan Pons is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt (Judgment affirmed) Casco Philippine Chemical Co., Inc. vs. Gimenez (Duty to keep journals and records)

Facts:
Central Bank of the Philippines issued on July 1, 1995 Circular No. 95 fixing a uniform

margin fee of 25% on foreign exchange transactions (this was pursuant to R.A 2609, known as Foreign Exchange Margin Fee Law) The Central Bank the later promulgated a memorandum establishing the procedure for application for exemption from the payment of said fee (provided in RA 2609) Petitioner (Casco Phil. Chemical Co, Inc) bought foreign exchange for the importation of urea AND formaldehyde (main raw materials in the production of said glue) and paid the aforementioned margin fee: (1) PhP 33, 765 and (2) 6,345 [different foreign transactions] o (Note: Casco Phil. Engaged in the manufacture of synthetic resin glues, used in bonding lumber and veneer by plywood and hardwood producers)
Petitioner sought the refund relying upon the Resolution No. 1529 of the Monetary Board

of said Bank (dated November 3, 1959), declaring that the separate importation of urea and formaldehyde is exempt from said fee. However, the Auditor of the Bank refused to pass in audit and approve vouchers for the refund upon the ground that separate importation of urea and formaldehyde is NOT in the provisions of sec. 2 of RA 2609: o The margin fee shall not be imposed upon sale of importation of Urea formaldehyde for the manufacture of plywood and hardboard
Petitioner maintains that the term urea formaldehyde appearing in this provision

should be construed as urea and formaldehyde and that Congress intended to exempt

urea and formaldehyde citing in support of this view the statements made on the floor of the Senate, during the consideration of the bill before said House. o (Note: urea formaldehyde is clearly a finished product, which is patently distinct and different from urea and formaldehyde Issue: W/N the bill approved in Congress exempted urea and formaldehyde from margin fee?

Held: SC held that importation of urea and formaldehyde not exempt from margin fee on foreign exchange Individual statements made by Senators on the floor of the Senate do not necessarily reflect the view of the Senate. Much less do they indicate the intent of the House of Representatives. Enrolled bill conclusive upon the courts o It is well settled that the enrolled bill which uses the term urea formaldehyde instead of urea and formaldehyde is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by Congress and approved by the President Astorga v. Villegas No. L-23475 / 30 April 1974 FACTS: House Bill No. 9266 (HB 9266) was filed in the House of Representatives (30 March 1964). HB 9266 was passed on third reading without amendments (21 April 1964) and was, then, sent to the Senate (specifically to the Senate Committee on Provinces and Municipal Governments and Cities, herein the Committee) for its concurrence. The Committee recommended the approval with a minor amendment that was suggested by Senator Roxas. o Senator Roxas suggested amendment was that instead of the City Engineer it be the President Protempore of the Municipal Board who should succeed the ViceMayor in case of the latters incapacity ton act as Mayor. When HB 9266 was discussed on the floor of the Senate on second reading (20 May 1964), substantial amendments to Section 1 were introduced by Senator Arturo Tolentino. o The amendments provided for the amendment of Section 10 of RA No. 409 (Charter of the City of Manila), defining the powers and duties of the ViceMayor. o Those amendments were approved in toto by the Senate. The amendments proposed by Senator Roxas did not appear in the journal of the Senate Proceedings.

Secretary of the Senate sent a letter to the House of Representatives (21 May 1964); stating that HB 9266 had been passed by the Senate on 20 May 1964 with amendments. o Attached to the letter was a certification of the amendment, which was the one recommended by Senator Roxas and not the Tolentino amendments which were the ones actually approved by the Senate. The House of Representatives thereafter signified its approval of HB 9266 and copies were printed. o The printed copies were then certified and attested by the Secretary of the House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Secretary of the Senate and the Senate President. o Four copies were transmitted to the President of the Philippines, who affixed his signatures thereto. o HB 9266 thereupon became Republic Act No. 4065 (RA 4065). Senator Tolentino then issued a press statement (5 July 1964), stating that the enrolled copy of HB 9266 signed into law by the President of the Philippines was a wrong version of the bill actually passed by the Senate because it did not embody the amendments introduced by him and approved on the Senate floor. o As such, the Senate President, through the Secretary of the Senate, addressed a letter, stating that the enrolled copy of HB 9266 was not the bill duly approved by Congress and that he considered his signature on the enrolled bill as invalid and of no effect. o The President of the Philippines also addressed a latter (to the Presiding Officers of both Houses of Congress), stating that in view of the circumstances, he was officially withdrawing his signature on HB 9266. Upon foregoing facts, Mayor of Manila Antonio Villegas (herein Respondent) issued circulars to the department heads and chiefs of offices of the city of government to disregard the provisions of RA 4065. o He also issued an order to the Chief of Police to recall five members of the city police force who had been assigned to the Vice-Mayor presumably under authority of RA 4065. In his reaction, Vice-Mayor Herminio Astorga (herein Petitioner) filed a petition for Mandamus, Injunction and/or Prohibition with Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory Injuction to compel the Mayor, Executive Secretary, Commissioner of Civil Service, the Manila Chief of Police, Manila City Treasurer and the members of the municipal board to comply with the provisions of RA 4065. The question (or issue, if you may) now falls as to whether the enrolled bill doctrine or the journal entry rule should be adhered to in this jurisdiction. (NOTE: What the journal entry contained was the Tolentino Amendments and not the Roxas Amendments. What the enrolled bill contained was the Roxas Amendments and not the Tolentino Amendments. Sakit sa ulo, I know.) HELD: The signatures of the Presiding Officers are NOT essential as pertaining to the validity of the bill.

It is considered merely as a mode of authentication (as provided for in the Rules of the House of Representatives). As such, due to the absence of such attestation(s) as a result of the disclaimers (by both the Senate President and the President), the enrolled bill doctrine, thus, becomes invalidated. Still, it cannot ultimately render the alleged law as duly enacted or not (as explained in the preceding bullet point). Hence, there being no enrolled bill, the court now moves to consider different evidence that may determine whether the bill was duly enacted or not. That evidence is the Journal (of Congress). The Journal of the proceedings of each House of Congress is no ordinary record and can be or is regarded as conclusive evidence as pertaining to the determination of whether or not the alleged law was duly enacted or not. o The Court inquired (from the Journal) whether the text of HB 9266 signed by the Chief Executive was the same text passed by both Houses of Congress. The Journal discloses that substantial and lengthy amendments were introduced on the floor and approved by the Senate but were not incorporated in the printed text sent to the President and signed-by him. The Court cannot incorporate such amendments into the alleged law. They can only declare that the bill was not duly enacted and therefore did not become law (because of the discrepancies between the Journal and the Bill). Petition DENIED. RA 4065, entitled (*inhales*) AN ACT DEFINING THE POWERS, RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE VICE-MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MANILA, FURTHER AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTIONS TEN AND ELEVEN OF REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED FOUR HUNDRED NINE (*breathes*), AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MANILA (*exhales*) is declared not to have been duly enacted and therefore did not become law. o