Constitutional Law 1 Module

QUESTIONS FOR MODULE 2 1. Pido Sardinas had always voted in every election since he turned 18 on May 19, 1996. He always believes that sovereignty really resides in the people. In March 2011, he graduated from University of San Agustin College of Law and passed the Bar Examination the following year. After his admission to the Bar, he was awarded a full scholarship by the Ford Foundation International Fellowship Program. In August 2012, he left for the United States to pursue his Master of Laws degree from the University of Michigan Law School in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Just before his graduation in May 2013, he hurriedly returned to the Philippines in order to file his Certificate of Candidacy for Senator under the Ladlad Party. Pedro Baraco opposed his candidacy on the ground that Pido Sardinas does not meet the minimum qualifications provided by the constitution. a) In December 2022 during his second term as senator, while Congress is not in session, he was appointed by the President as the first Secretary of the Department of LGBTQ, a newly created office. He resigned from his seat in Congress, took his oath before the President and assumed office. a.

Is his appointment constitutional? (2) Yes. Pedro Sardinas’ appointment is constitutional. Under the 1987 Constitution, the President makes appointments while the Congress is not in session or during the recess of Congress; this appointment is otherwise known as ad interim appointments as contrast to the regular appointments where the President appoints the nominee during the session of Congress and such appointment must be given consent by the Commission on Appointments.

b.

Is his assumption into office valid (2) No. His assumption into office is not valid. While it is true that Pedro Sardinas’ appointment is valid and considered as an ad interim appointment, it must be taken account, however, that the Office he is appointed to is newly created during his 2nd term as Senator which under the Constitution is considered as Forbidden Office in reference to Article 6, section 13, in which regardless he resigned as Senator, he can never assume office in the newly created office during his term. He must wait for one year period after the creation of the office before he can validly assume the office.

b) Supposed during his second term as a senator while he was having snacks at the canteen after conducting a committee hearing, he was arrested by the police by virtue of the warrant issued by the court because he was charged of abusing a minor. a. Is the issuance of the warrant of arrest by the court valid? (2) Yes. The issuance of the warrant of arrest is valid. Pedro Sardinas has committed an offense which is punishable by law. Thus, by virtue of a warrant of arrest, he can be arrested.

b. Granting that the issuance of the warrant is valid, is the arrest in accordance with the constitution? (2) No. His arrest was made while the Congress is in session. His felony of abusing the minor is an offense which carries a penalty of imprisonment which is less than six years which in such a case, a member of Congress has the immunity of arrest. However, if his felony carries a penalty of more than six years of imprisonment, he can be arrested regardless whether the Congress is in session or not. 2. On September 24, 2020, due to the prevalent smuggling of rice from other countries, the Senate passed a resolution calling for an investigation in aid of legislation as part of its oversight functions. The Senate Committee issued subpoena to the secretary of the Department of Agriculture, and an invitation to a businessman engaged in the business of importing rice for them to appear before the committee during the investigation. Both the secretary and the businessman refused to appear before the committee. The secretary of the DA reasoned out that he was not given consent by the president and as needed under section 22 of Article VI, he needed the consent of the President. In fact he is listed under Executive Order No. 464, as among those officials who cannot appear before Congress if they don’t have the consent of the President. The businessman gave no reason for his refusal. a. Is the refusal to appear of the Secretary of the DA valid? (2) No. The refusal to appear of the Secretary of the DA is not valid. The Legislature’s power to conduct inquiry in aid of legislation is expressly recognized in Article 6, section 21 of the 1987 Constitution where such power is inherent in the power to legislate. In the case of Senate vs. Ermita, it has been held that such grant of power must be understood that a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of vital information with regard to conditions which the legislation is being intended to affect or change. Thus, in cases where the legislative body does not itself possess the required information, recourse must be acquired to others who do possess it. However, such power of the Legislature is not absolute; there are recognized exemptions to such power which fall under the rubric of “executive privilege”. This is the power of the government to withhold information from the public, the courts, and the Congress only to certain types of information where State’s national security might be compromised at hand. Thus, when Congress exercises its investigation in aid of legislation as part of its oversight functions, the only way for department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege. They are not exempt by the mere fact that they are department heads. Only one official may be exempted from this power -- the President. Further, it has been held that it is not sufficient to merely declare that the President or an authorized head of office has determined to exempt themselves; certainly, Congress has the right to know why the Executive considers the requested information as privileged.

Therefore, the refusal to appear of the Secretary of the DA is not valid. c. Can the Senate Committee compel the businessman to appear before it? (2) No. Senate Committee cannot compel the businessman to appear before it. In the case of Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, it was clearly provided that inquiry in itself might not properly be in aid of legislation, and thus beyond the constitutional power of Congress. That such inquiry should not usurp judicial functions. One possible way for Congress to avoid such result is to indicate in its invitations to the public officials concerned, or to any person for that matter, the possible needed statute which prompted the need for the inquiry. Given such statement in its invitations, along with the usual indication of the subject of inquiry and the questions relative to and in furtherance thereof, there would be less room for speculation on the part of the person invited on whether the inquiry is in aid of legislation. Absence of such, the Senate Committee cannot compel the businessman to appear before it. d. Is the setting up by the committee of the above-mentioned investigation in accordance with the rulings of the Supreme Court in the cases of Arnault v. Nazareno and Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee? (2) In Arnault v. Nazareno, it has been held that the power of inquiry is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function of the Philippine congress. That although there are no express provisions in the constitution that invest either the House or the Senate with the power to conduct investigations and exact testimony, such power is implied. On the other hand, Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, it has been held that the power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is not absolute or unlimited far different of that of the Arnault Case. That the investigation must solely be "in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure" and that "the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected." It follows then that the rights of persons under the Bill of Rights must be respected, including the right to due process and the right not to be compelled to testify against one's self. e. Granting that the Secretary of the DA finally appeared before the committee, and during the hearing, for refusing to reveal whether he personally and financially gained from the importation of rice being implemented by his department, he was cited for contempt by the committee. Is the citing for contempt of the Secretary of the DA valid? (2) Yes. Citing for contempt of the Secretary of the DA is valid. In the case of Horacio Castillo, as penned by the Associate Justice Gesmundo, it has been held that as long as there is a legitimate

legislative inquiry, then the inherent power of contempt by the Senate may be properly exercised. f. As a consequence of being cited in contempt, the Secretary was detained at the Senate Holding Facility. Can the Committee order his detention up to April 11, 2022? Why (2) Yes. There is a possibility that the Committee can order his detention up to April 11, 2022 being the sole discretion of the committee and by virtue of presumption of regularity. In the case of Arnault vs. Nazareno, the Court ruled that the Senate is a continuing body and does not cease to exist upon the periodical dissolution of the Congress. As such, there is no time limit to the Senate's power to punish for contempt in cases where that power may be constitutionally exerted. However, in Balag’s case, the court argued that the indefinite detention of persons cited in contempt impairs their constitutional right to liberty. That paramount public interest requires the Court to determine such issue to ensure that the constitutional rights of the persons appearing before a legislative inquiry of the Senate are protected that there is “a genuine necessity” to place a limitation on the period of imprisonment that may be imposed by the Senate citing Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution, which obliges Congress to respect persons appearing in its inquiry in aid of legislation. 3. A bill was filed in the House of Representatives intending to impose additional taxes for cigarettes and liquor products in order to raise more revenues for the anti-poverty initiatives of the government. The bill immediately passed in the House. Upon receipt of the bill from the House, the Senate introduced its own version which is substantially different from the House version. After the Senate approved its own version, it forwarded its own version together with that of the house to the bicameral conference committee. The committee approved the version of the Senate. Rep.Patongpatong objected to the action of the Senate as violative of the Constitution because the original version of the house was not followed. Is the objection valid. (2) No. While it is true that a tax bill must be originated in the House of Representatives, which in this case, indeed originated in the House of Representatives, the case of Tolentino vs. Sec. of Finance, held that if House of Representatives should pass a bill, the Senate is not precluded from creating of what is known as “Antipacitory Bill” which Constitution allows the Senate to make changes in the bill on the parts thereof coming from House of Representatives and allows even further the Senate to even change the entire bill with their own version for as long as the bill in itself was originally passed from the House of Representatives.