Section 5

Tobias v. Abalos (RA 7675)Mandaluyong as a City. The Constitution provides that a city should have a population of at least 250,000” and having met this requirement Mandaluyong is qualified to be converted into a city and as provided in the Constitution entitled to at least 1 representative.

Mariano, Jr. v. Comelec (RA 7854)Makati as a City. Yes. The Supreme Court held that as was already decided by the Supreme Court in Tobias vs. Abalos, the Constitution provides that the compositions of the House should not be more than 250 members, UNLESS otherwise provided by law. The natural result in the creation of a new legislative from a special law whose purpose is to convert a municipality into a city is sanctioned by the Constitution.

Montejo v. ComelecBiliran, a sub-province of Leyte was made into a province which caused the reduction of municipalities under the 3rd district of Leyte. Comelec reapportioned some municipalities from one district to another. The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC does not have the power to reapportion districts but only to make minor adjustments. The Court added that the creation of a new province though results in an imbalance and devalue a citizen’s vote in violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution the only remedy is for Congress, to make a reapportionment of the legislative districts.

Veteran’s Federation Party v. ComelecIs the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives mentioned in Section 5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution, mandatory or is it merely a ceiling? In other words, should the twenty percent allocation for party-list solons be filled up completely and all the time?It is not mandatory. It merely provides a ceiling for the party-list seats in the House of Representatives. The Constitution vested Congress with the broad power to define and prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system of representatives. In the exercise of its constitutional prerogative, Congress deemed it necessary to require parties participating in the system to obtain at least 2% of the total votes cast for the party list system to be entitled to a party-list seat. Congress wanted to ensure that only those parties having a sufficient number of constituents deserving of representation are actually represented in Congress.

Ang Bagong Bayani v. Comelec (RA 7941)Whether or not political parties may participate in the party-list electionsWhether or not the party-list system is exclusive to ‘marginalized and underrepresented’ sectors and organizations.The Petitions are partly meritorious. These cases should be remanded to the COMELEC which will determine, after summary evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties and organizations enumerated in the assailed Omnibus Resolution satisfy the requirements of theConstitution and RA 7941. The resolution of this Court directed the COMELEC “to refrain proclaiming any winner” during the last party-list election, shall remain in force until after the COMELEC have compiled and reported its compliance.a. Yes. Political parties, even the major ones, may participate in the party-list elections. Under the Constitution and RA 7941, private respondents cannot be disqualified from the party-list elections, merely on the ground that they are political parties. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides that members of the House of Representatives may "be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations."Furthermore, under Sections 7 and 8, Article IX (C) of the Constitution, political parties may be registered under the party-list system. For its part,

Section 2of RA 7941 also provides for "a party-list system of registered national, regional andsectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, x x x." Section 3 expressly states that a "party" is "either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties."b. No. That political parties may participate in the party-list elections does not mean, however, that any political party -- or any organization or group for that matter – may do so. The requisite character of these parties or organizations must be consistent with the purpose of the party-list system, as laid down in the Constitution and RA7941. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution. The provision on the party-list system is not self-executory. It is, in fact, interspersed with phrases like "in accordance with law" or "as may be provided by law"; it was thus up to Congress to sculpt in granite the lofty objective of the Constitution. Hence, RA 7941 was enacted.

Section 6

Romualdez-Marcos v. ComelecAgainst Montejo, congressman of Tolosa. No. The SC held that Tolosa remains as his “domicile of origin”. Residence is to be synonymous with domicile particularly in election law. Marcos domicile of origin was established in Tolosa because she followed the domicile of her parents. This domicile of origin was not lost because she got married as residence and domicile have different meanings under civil law. The SC even added that considering that her husband died and she went free to choose her domicile, her intentions were manifest in her actions that Tolosa was to be her domicile.

Aquino v. ComelecButz Aquino as a congressman in the newly created district of Makati. Makati is domicile because of condo lease. No. The Court ruled against Aquino because his “leasing” of a condo unit is by no means indicative of his desire to make Makati his permanent home or domicile, considering that he was still a known resident of Concepcion, Tarlac for the past 52 years of which happens to be his birthplace. The Supreme Court reiterated how to successfully effect a chage of domicile: • Actual removal/actual change of domicile • Intention to abandon former domicile and establish a new one • Definite act which correspond with the purpose

Gallego v. VeraWhether or not Gallego lost his domicile of origin in Abuyog, Leyte and acquired a new domicilein Malaybalay, Bukidnon. HELD:Yes. Gallego did not lose his domicile in Abuyog by working in Malaybalay as an employee,registering as voter there and securing his residence certificate there for1940. The decision of the CA is reversed. In the definition of “residence” in the election law under the 1935 Constitution, it states that in order to acquire a domicile by choice, there must concur: 1.Residence or a bodily presence in the new locality2.An intention to remain there3.An intention to abandon the old domicile The purpose to remain in the domicile should be for an INDEFINITE period of time

Section 7

Dimaporo v. MitraWhether or not petitioner (representative for second legislative district of Lanao del Sur who ran for governor in Mindanao) forfeited his seat, upon the filing of the certificate of candidacy for another office. Yes. Forfeiture is automatic and permanently effective upon the filing of the certificate of candidacy for another office.

Section 11

Jimenez v. CabambangLibelous letter. No. The aforementioned publication does not fall within the purview of the phrase “speech and debate therein.”

Osmena v. PendatunBribery against the President. Yes. There is no question that Congressman Osmena made a serious imputation of bribery against the President. The 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.

Section 13

Zandueta v. Dela CostaCommission on Appropriation’s consent.

Section 14

Puyat v. De Guzman, Jr.Ordinarily, by virtue of the Motion for Intervention, Assemblyman Fernandez cannot be said to be appearing as counsel.

Section 16

Santiago v. Guingona, Jr.This Court has jurisdiction over the petition. It is well within the power and jurisdiction of the Court to inquire whether indeed the Senate or its officials committed a violation of the Constitution or gravely abused their discretion in the exercise of their functions and prerogatives.

Avelino v. CuencoThe constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its own president, which power should not be interfered with, nor taken over, by the judiciary.

Osmeña v. PendatunThe House is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behaviour, 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 can not be depicted in black and white for presentation to, and adjudication by the Courts.

Paredes, jr. v. SandiganbayanPetitioner’s invocation of Section 16(3), Article VI of the Constitution which deals with the power of each House of Congress inter alias to ‘punish its members of Congress for disorderly behavior ‘ and suspend or expel a member’ by a vote of two0thirds of the members subject to the qualification that the penalty of the suspension spoken of in Sec. 13 of RA 3019 which is not penalty by a preliminary preventive measure presenting from the fact that the latter is not being imposed on the petitioner for misbehavior as a Member of the House of Representative.

US v. PonsFrom their very nature and object the records of the Legislature are as important as those of the judiciary. And to inquire into the veracity of the journals of the Philippine Legislature when they are, as we have said, clear and explicit, would be to violate both the letter and the spirit of the organic laws by which the Philippine government was brought into existence, to invade and coordinate and independent department of the Government and to interfere with the legitimate powers and functions of the Legislature.

CASCO PHILIPPINE CHEMICAL CO., VS. GIMENEZHence, “urea formaldehyde” is clearly a finished product which is patently distinct and different from “urea” and “formaldehyde” as used in the manufacture of the synthetic resin known as “urea formaldehyde.”

PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION VS. PRADOUnder the doctrine of separation of powers, the Court may not inquire beyond the certification of the approval of a bill from the presiding officers of Congress. The aforementioned measure is declared unconstitutional insofar as it withdraws the franking privilege from the SC, CA, RTC and MTC and other government offices.

ARROYO VS. DE VENECIAIt is clear from the foregoing facts that what is alleged to have been violated in the enactment of R.A. No 8240 are merely internal rules of procedure of the House rather than constitutional requirements for the enactment of a law.

SECTION 17

ROBLES vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

ANGARA V. ELECTORAL COMMISSIONA conflict of a grave constitutional nature between the National Assembly on the one hand, and the Electoral Commission on the other. The Electoral Commission is a constitutional organ created for a specific purpose, namely to determine all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly.

LAZATIN V. HRETThe power of the HRET, as the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the Members of the House of Representatives, to promulgate rules and regulations relative to matters within its jurisdiction, including the period for filing election protests before it, is beyond dispute. Its rule-making power necessarily flows from the general power granted it by the Constitution.

ABBAS VS. SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

Every member of the tribunal may, as his conscience dictates, refrain from participating in the resolution of a case where he sincerely feels that his personal interests or biases would stand in the way of an objective and impartial judgment

BONDOC VS. PINEDAIf the HRET would reserve the interest of the party in power, the independence of the Electoral Tribunal, as embodied in the Constitution, will no longer be protected.

CHAVEZ V. COMELECThe petitioner’s proper recourse is to file a regular election protest which under the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code, exclusively pertains to the Senate Electoral Tribunal.

DAZA V. SINGSONNo. In the first place, the Commission on Election has already approved the petition of the LDP for registration as political party.

COSETENG VS. MITRAThe revision of the House representation in the Commission on Appointments is based on proportional representation of the political parties therein as provided in Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

GUINGONA VS. GONZALEZThe problem is what to do with the fraction of .5 or ½ to which each of the parties is entitled. The LDP majority in the Senate converted fractional half membership into a whole membership of one senator by adding one-half to be able to elect Senator Romulo as the 8th member.