Rules on Appropriation and Realignment | Powers of Congress | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Powers of Congress: Rules on Appropriation and Realignment

The legislative power of appropriation is vested in Congress under Article VI, Section 29 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. This includes the power to allocate public funds for specific purposes through the passage of appropriations laws. The power of realignment, however, must be distinguished and handled in accordance with constitutional and statutory limitations.

Below is a comprehensive discussion on the rules of appropriation and realignment under the legislative powers of Congress:

---

I. Appropriation Defined

An appropriation is the authorization made by law or ordinance, directing the payment of public funds for a specific public purpose. The power of appropriation is a legislative function, and no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law (Article VI, Section 29(1), 1987 Constitution).

Appropriations laws typically come in the form of the General Appropriations Act (GAA) which specifies the budget for all branches of government, or special appropriations laws which allocate funds for a specific purpose.

II. Types of Appropriation

1. General Appropriations Act (GAA):

   • This is the national budget which is passed annually by Congress, allocating funds to all government departments, agencies, and instrumentalities for their operations and projects for the next fiscal year.

2. Special Appropriations:

   • These are laws that allocate a particular sum of money for a specific purpose, not covered by the GAA. These appropriations must be accompanied by a certification from the National Treasurer that funds are available for the purpose (Art. VI, Sec. 25(4)).

3. Automatic Appropriations:

   • These are appropriations provided by law without need of further legislative action every fiscal year. Examples include debt service payments and retirement benefits for government personnel.

III. Constitutional Rules on Appropriation

1. Initiative by the Executive:

   • The Constitution mandates that appropriations bills must originate exclusively from the House of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments (Article VI, Section 24).
   • The President submits a budget proposal for Congress to consider, and no appropriations law can be passed without originating in the House, though amendments may come from the Senate.

2. Balanced Budget Requirement:

   • The President is required to submit a balanced budget to Congress (Article VI, Section 22). This submission is a key reference for appropriations bills.

3. Specific Appropriation Requirement:

   • The Constitution requires that appropriation laws must specify the purpose for which the funds are intended. This ensures transparency and accountability in public spending (Article VI, Section 25(2)).

4. Prohibition on Transfer of Appropriations:

   • No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, the Chief Justice, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may by law be authorized to augment any item in the GAA for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations (Article VI, Section 25(5)). This power to augment does not extend to realignments of funds to a new item that was not previously included in the budget.

IV. Power of Realignment

Realignment is the act of transferring funds from one program or project to another within the same department or agency. Under the Constitution and established jurisprudence, realignment is a limited power, mainly granted to certain officials to address emergency or unforeseen needs.

1. Distinction from Appropriation:

   • While appropriation is the act of assigning funds for a specific purpose by Congress, realignment occurs after appropriation and involves shifting or redistributing funds within an already appropriated budget.

2. Power to Realign Savings:

   • The power to realign is limited to instances where there are savings. Savings refer to any balances from appropriated funds which remain unspent after fulfilling the purpose of the appropriations, due to efficiency or the completion of a project for less than the budgeted amount.
   • Augmentation from savings may only be applied to an item already included in the appropriations law.

3. Constitutional Limits:

   • As provided under Article VI, Section 25(5), only the President, Senate President, Speaker of the House, Chief Justice, and heads of Constitutional Commissions may be authorized by law to realign funds.
   • Realignment can only augment existing items within the budget, and savings cannot be used to fund new projects or expenditures not covered by the original appropriation law. This rule is emphasized in cases where executive overreach in fund realignment has been challenged (e.g., Araullo v. Aquino on the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) case).

V. Jurisprudence on Realignment and Appropriation

1. Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) Case:

   • In Araullo v. Aquino (G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014), the Supreme Court held that the realignment of funds under DAP was unconstitutional. The Court clarified that savings can only be realigned to augment an existing item in the GAA and cannot be used to fund new projects or programs. Furthermore, the Court ruled that funds cannot be declared as savings prior to the end of the fiscal year or before they have been freed from their appropriated purpose.

2. Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) Case:

   • In the PDAF (Pork Barrel) case (Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013), the Supreme Court ruled that legislative post-enactment intervention in the form of realigning funds through congressional insertions was unconstitutional. Congress’ role in appropriation ends after the passage of the budget, and legislators cannot intervene in the use of public funds post-enactment.

3. Veto Power:

   • The President has the power of line-item veto (Article VI, Section 27(2)), which allows the executive to veto specific items in an appropriation bill. Once vetoed, funds for that specific item cannot be released or realigned unless Congress overrides the veto with a two-thirds vote in both chambers.

VI. Conclusion

The power of appropriation is a key function of Congress, ensuring that public funds are allocated for specified public purposes. The realignment of funds is a more restricted executive power, contingent on the availability of savings and constrained by constitutional provisions. Appropriations laws, particularly the General Appropriations Act, must conform to the constitutional principles of transparency, accountability, and separation of powers. Jurisprudence further delineates the boundaries of both appropriation and realignment, safeguarding against the misuse of public funds through unauthorized executive or legislative actions.

Presidential Veto and Congressional Override | Powers of Congress | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Presidential Veto and Congressional Override in the Philippines

Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the power of presidential veto and the congressional override mechanism are integral checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of government. These principles ensure that the law-making process undergoes rigorous scrutiny, balancing the interests of both branches in the governance process.

---

A. Presidential Veto Power

The veto power is the authority vested in the President of the Philippines to reject a bill passed by Congress (i.e., both the House of Representatives and the Senate). This power is provided under Article VI, Section 27(1) of the 1987 Constitution.

1. Types of Veto

• General or Absolute Veto: This type of veto allows the President to reject a bill in its entirety. When the President exercises this veto, the whole bill is sent back to Congress with his objections.

• Line-item Veto: Under Article VI, Section 27(2) of the 1987 Constitution, the President may exercise a line-item veto on appropriation, revenue, or tariff bills. This means the President can veto specific provisions or items in such bills without vetoing the entire measure. This power enables the President to reject certain allocations or tax measures while allowing the rest of the bill to become law.

2. Requirements for a Veto

• Time Limit: The President must act on a bill within 30 days from the time it is presented to him. If the President fails to act within this period, the bill automatically becomes law as if he had signed it (known as pocket approval).

• Communication of Veto: When vetoing a bill, the President must return the bill with his written objections to the originating house of Congress. The veto message is crucial because it informs Congress of the specific reasons why the bill is unacceptable.

3. Effects of a Veto

• Once the bill is vetoed, it does not become law unless Congress overrides the veto.

• The line-item veto applies only to appropriation, revenue, or tariff bills. If a vetoed line item is overridden by Congress, the bill will become law with the overridden items restored.

---

B. Congressional Override of the Presidential Veto

Under Article VI, Section 27(1) of the Constitution, Congress has the power to override a presidential veto.

1. Requirements for Override

For Congress to override a veto, the following conditions must be met:

• Two-thirds Vote: The vetoed bill must be approved by a two-thirds vote of all members of each house (House of Representatives and Senate), voting separately.

  • The "two-thirds" requirement means that it is not merely two-thirds of those present in the session, but two-thirds of the total membership of each chamber. This makes overriding a presidential veto a significant challenge and ensures that only those measures with substantial legislative support can bypass the executive disapproval.

2. Procedure for Override

• Upon receipt of the President’s veto, the house where the bill originated (either the House of Representatives or the Senate) will reconsider the bill. If two-thirds of the total members of that house approve the bill despite the veto, it will be sent to the other house for reconsideration.

• If the second house also achieves a two-thirds majority in favor of the bill, the veto is overridden, and the bill becomes law without the President’s signature.

• The process requires a vote of "yeas" and "nays" which must be recorded in the journal of each house.

3. Limits on Congressional Override

• A vetoed bill can only be subject to an override vote if it is reconsidered during the session when it was originally passed. If Congress adjourns before the veto is acted upon, it cannot be reconsidered until the next session.

• In the case of a line-item veto, Congress can override only the specific vetoed item, and not the entire bill unless the entire bill was subject to a general veto.

4. Consequence of an Override

If Congress successfully overrides a veto, the bill becomes law despite the President's objections. It is treated as if the President had signed it.

---

C. Presidential Veto in Relation to the Power of the Purse

In the case of appropriation, revenue, or tariff bills, the line-item veto gives the President the power to influence the allocation of public funds, an essential aspect of the government's fiscal policy. However, Congress can override specific line-item vetoes through the same two-thirds vote mechanism, giving Congress a critical role in final fiscal decisions.

---

D. Judicial Review of the Veto

The judiciary may review the use of the veto power in cases where it is alleged that the President has acted in violation of the Constitution or in an arbitrary or capricious manner. However, courts are generally reluctant to interfere in the political decisions of the executive unless there is a clear breach of constitutional provisions.

1. Cases Involving the Veto Power

• Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez (G.R. No. 113105, August 19, 1994): The Supreme Court upheld the President’s line-item veto power, emphasizing that it is a necessary executive tool in ensuring fiscal responsibility.

• Demetria v. Alba (G.R. No. L-71977, February 27, 1987): This case clarified the extent of the President’s veto power over special appropriations, emphasizing that the President has discretion to veto items in appropriation bills without violating the principle of separation of powers.

---

E. Policy Considerations and Implications

The veto power plays a pivotal role in the system of checks and balances, providing the President with a safeguard against potentially harmful or imprudent legislation. However, it also serves as a point of potential friction between the executive and legislative branches. Congress's ability to override a veto ensures that the legislative intent can still prevail, but only with substantial consensus. This design encourages compromise and dialogue between the branches.

---

F. Comparative Overview: The Veto in Other Jurisdictions

The presidential veto in the Philippines closely mirrors that of the United States, where the U.S. President also has general veto power and a limited line-item veto. However, unlike the United States, where the Supreme Court struck down the line-item veto as unconstitutional (in Clinton v. City of New York, 1998), the Philippines retains a functioning line-item veto specifically for appropriation, revenue, and tariff bills, emphasizing fiscal responsibility in the government's budgeting process.

---

Conclusion

The presidential veto and congressional override provisions in the 1987 Constitution represent critical checks and balances between the legislative and executive branches. The President’s veto power allows for a robust review of legislation, while Congress’s ability to override this veto ensures that no single branch dominates the law-making process. This interplay is a vital aspect of Philippine political law, ensuring accountability and balance in governance.

Limitations on Revenue, Appropriations, and Tariff | Powers of Congress | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

IX. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

I. Powers of Congress

---

4. Limitations on Revenue, Appropriations, and Tariff Powers

Congress of the Philippines, as the primary legislative body, is vested with broad powers in matters of revenue, appropriations, and tariffs. However, these powers are subject to constitutional limitations and statutory constraints. Below is a detailed discussion of these limitations:

---

A. Limitations on Revenue Powers

The power of Congress to impose taxes, duties, imposts, and excises is an inherent aspect of its legislative authority. This power is subject to the following constitutional and statutory limitations:

1. Uniformity and Equity in Taxation (Art. VI, Sec. 28 (1))

• Uniformity means that persons or things belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. The tax must operate in the same manner upon all individuals or corporations of the same class.
• Equity in taxation implies that the burden must be proportionate to the taxpayer's ability to pay. Taxes should not be arbitrary or confiscatory.

2. Progressive System of Taxation (Art. VI, Sec. 28 (1))

• The Constitution mandates that the taxation system in the Philippines should be progressive. This means that the rate of tax increases as the ability of the taxpayer to pay increases. The legislative intent is to place heavier tax burdens on those who have more and to relieve those with lesser financial capability.

3. Non-Delegation of Taxing Power (Art. VI, Sec. 24)

• The power to impose taxes is inherently legislative and cannot be delegated to any other body except through constitutional exceptions, such as the delegation of limited powers to local government units (LGUs) under the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160).
• Revenue Bills must originate exclusively from the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. Revenue bills pertain to taxes, customs duties, and tariffs, as well as measures affecting fiscal policy.

4. Presidential Veto Power on Tax Measures (Art. VI, Sec. 27 (2))

• The President has the power to veto bills, including tax measures, passed by Congress. A presidential veto may extend to a specific provision of an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill. However, Congress can override the veto by a two-thirds vote of all members of both Houses.

---

B. Limitations on Appropriations Power

Appropriations refer to the allocation of public funds by Congress for specific government expenditures. The Constitution imposes stringent rules on how Congress may exercise its appropriation power:

1. Requirement for an Appropriation Law (Art. VI, Sec. 29 (1))

• No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. This requires the passing of a specific appropriation law to authorize the disbursement of public funds.

2. Appropriations for Public Purpose (Art. VI, Sec. 29 (1))

• Public funds may only be appropriated for public purposes. An appropriation that serves private interest or is otherwise not for public benefit is unconstitutional.

3. Presidential Submission of the Budget (Art. VI, Sec. 22)

• The President is required to submit to Congress a proposed national budget or General Appropriations Bill (GAB) within 30 days from the opening of each regular session. The proposed budget includes details of projected income and proposed expenditures.
• The role of Congress is to deliberate and approve, modify, or reject the budget submitted by the President. The GAB must originate from the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose amendments.

4. Prohibition on Reenactment of the Budget (Art. VI, Sec. 25 (7))

• In the absence of a new General Appropriations Act, Congress may not reenact a previous budget indefinitely. However, the reenacted budget may be applied temporarily until a new budget is passed.

5. Prohibition Against Impairment of Judiciary and Constitutional Bodies (Art. VIII, Sec. 3; Art. IX-A, Sec. 5)

• Congress is prohibited from reducing the appropriations of the Judiciary below the amount appropriated in the previous year. A similar restriction applies to constitutional commissions (e.g., Commission on Audit, Civil Service Commission, and Commission on Elections).

6. Presidential Power to Veto Appropriation Items (Art. VI, Sec. 27 (2))

• The President has the power to veto individual appropriation items within a General Appropriations Bill, a practice known as the line-item veto. The veto can apply to specific appropriations while allowing the rest of the budget to be enacted.

7. Prohibition of “Pork Barrel” and Lump-Sum Appropriations

• The Supreme Court declared the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel system unconstitutional in Belgica v. Ochoa (2013). Congress is prohibited from appropriating lump-sum funds to be later distributed at the discretion of legislators. All appropriations must be specific and itemized in the GAB.

8. Automatic Appropriations for Certain Expenditures

• Certain expenditures are automatically appropriated by law. These include:
  • Debt Service Payments (Art. VI, Sec. 26 (3)): Payments for principal and interest on government borrowings are automatically appropriated.
  • Salaries of Constitutional Officers: Salaries and pensions of constitutional officers such as the Judiciary and constitutional commissions are automatically appropriated.

---

C. Limitations on Tariff Powers

The power to impose duties and tariffs is part of Congress's broader fiscal power. However, specific constitutional and statutory limitations apply:

1. Delegation of Tariff Powers (Art. VI, Sec. 28 (2))

• While Congress possesses the exclusive power to impose tariffs, it may delegate to the President limited authority to adjust tariff rates, import and export quotas, and other trade restrictions. Such delegation is permissible for flexibility in economic policy but must be within the bounds of law.

2. Executive Modification of Tariff Rates (Customs Modernization and Tariff Act)

• Pursuant to laws like the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act (R.A. No. 10863), the President, upon recommendation of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), can modify tariff rates to address changes in domestic and international markets. However, these modifications must still conform to the objectives and limitations prescribed by Congress.

3. Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and International Trade Commitments

• Congress must respect the commitments of the Philippines under international agreements such as World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations and Free Trade Agreements. Tariffs and trade policies must conform to these international standards, and any changes require legislative action or treaty modification.

---

Conclusion

The powers of Congress to legislate on matters of revenue, appropriations, and tariffs are broad but subject to significant constitutional constraints. These limitations are designed to ensure accountability, prevent abuse, promote fairness, and protect public funds for legitimate public purposes. The overarching principle governing these limitations is that taxation and appropriations must serve the collective good and adhere to constitutional mandates of uniformity, equity, and fiscal responsibility.

Limitations on Legislative Power | Powers of Congress | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

IX. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
I. Powers of Congress
3. Limitations on Legislative Power

---

The Philippine Congress, composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives, is granted legislative power under the 1987 Constitution (Art. VI, Sec. 1). However, this power is not absolute. It is subject to limitations, which can be categorized into three main types: (1) Constitutional limitations, (2) Inherent limitations, and (3) External limitations derived from principles of international law or treaties. Each will be discussed meticulously below.

---

1. Constitutional Limitations

These are explicit and implicit limitations imposed by the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. These limitations ensure that Congress exercises its powers within the bounds set by the fundamental law.

a. Bill of Rights (Art. III of the 1987 Constitution)

Congress cannot enact laws that violate fundamental rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Examples include:

• Freedom of speech and expression (Sec. 4): Congress cannot pass laws that infringe upon the freedom of speech, press, or peaceful assembly.
• Freedom of religion (Sec. 5): Any law that imposes or establishes a state religion, or that restricts the free exercise of religion, would be unconstitutional.
• Due process and equal protection (Sec. 1): Congress cannot pass arbitrary laws or laws that deprive people of life, liberty, or property without due process, nor can it pass laws that violate the equal protection clause.
• Ex post facto laws and bills of attainder (Sec. 22): Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws (laws that retroactively change the legal consequences of actions) and bills of attainder (laws that declare a person or group guilty of a crime without a judicial trial).

b. Separation of Powers (Art. VI, Sec. 1 and Art. VII, Sec. 1)

The principle of separation of powers places an inherent limitation on Congress’s power by preventing it from encroaching upon the powers of the Executive or the Judiciary:

• Non-delegation of legislative power (Art. VI, Sec. 1): Congress cannot delegate its law-making power to other bodies or branches of government unless there is a clear standard or framework for doing so (Doctrine of Subordinate Legislation).
• Encroachment on judicial powers (Art. VIII, Sec. 1): Congress cannot enact laws that interfere with the judiciary’s power to interpret the Constitution or decide cases.

c. Appropriations and Taxation

Certain constitutional provisions place limitations on the legislative power of Congress in relation to money bills, taxation, and appropriation laws.

• Money bills (Art. VI, Sec. 24): All appropriations, revenue, or tariff bills, bills authorizing the increase of the public debt, and bills of local application must originate exclusively in the House of Representatives. The Senate may propose or concur with amendments.
• Equal protection in taxation (Art. VI, Sec. 28): Congress must ensure uniformity and equity in taxation. The power to tax must be exercised according to law and must not violate the equal protection clause.

d. Amendments or Revisions of the Constitution (Art. XVII)

Congress’s power to amend or revise the Constitution is subject to the procedures outlined in Article XVII. Any proposed constitutional amendment or revision must go through specific procedures, either through a constituent assembly, a constitutional convention, or a people’s initiative, and requires ratification by the Filipino people in a plebiscite.

e. Other Specific Constitutional Provisions

Congress is also bound by other explicit limitations in the Constitution, including:

• Prohibition on monopolies and unfair competition (Art. XII, Sec. 19)
• Prohibition on the passage of laws granting titles of royalty or nobility (Art. VI, Sec. 31)
• Prohibition on laws that impair the obligation of contracts (Art. III, Sec. 10)

---

2. Inherent Limitations

These are limitations that are naturally imposed on legislative bodies based on the very nature of sovereignty, statehood, and the legal structure of the country. These inherent limitations are often judicially implied from the Constitution or recognized under the jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court.

a. Territorial and Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Congress can legislate only within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines and on matters that fall within its subject matter jurisdiction. It cannot legislate for matters that are exclusive to local governments (subject to the principle of local autonomy) or matters that are reserved to international or global governance (subject to international law).

b. Police Power, Eminent Domain, and Taxation

These are inherent powers of the State that Congress exercises through legislation, but these powers have inherent limitations:

• Police Power: Must be exercised only for the purpose of promoting public health, safety, morals, or welfare, and it must be reasonably related to achieving that purpose.
• Eminent Domain: Congress can authorize the taking of private property for public use, but this is subject to the payment of just compensation.
• Taxation: Must be exercised for a public purpose, and Congress must adhere to the principle of uniformity and equity in imposing taxes.

---

3. Limitations Derived from International Law

As a member of the international community, the Philippines is bound by the principles of international law, and its legislative power is constrained by its obligations under international agreements and treaties, as well as principles of customary international law.

a. International Law as Part of Philippine Law (Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution)

The 1987 Constitution provides that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. This means Congress cannot enact laws that violate such principles.

b. Treaty Obligations

When the Philippines enters into a treaty, it undertakes to fulfill certain obligations under international law. Congress cannot pass laws that would violate these treaty obligations. Some key treaties include:

• United Nations Charter: The Philippines, as a signatory, is committed to upholding international peace and human rights, meaning Congress cannot pass laws that would contravene these principles.
• International Human Rights Treaties: The Philippines has ratified treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and others. Congress must ensure that laws do not violate human rights protected under these treaties.
• World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements: As a member of the WTO, the Philippines must comply with international trade rules, and Congress cannot enact protectionist legislation that would breach these commitments.

c. Customary International Law

In addition to treaty obligations, customary international law, which refers to international practices that are accepted as law, also limits the legislative powers of Congress. For example, international principles on non-interference in the affairs of other states or rules prohibiting genocide must be respected in domestic legislation.

---

4. Judicial Review and Safeguard

Any law passed by Congress is subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court. Under the power of judicial review (Art. VIII, Sec. 1), the Supreme Court can declare any law unconstitutional if it violates the limitations discussed above. This serves as the ultimate safeguard against the abuse or misuse of legislative power.

---

Conclusion

The legislative power of the Philippine Congress is broad but is tightly circumscribed by constitutional provisions, inherent limitations, and obligations under international law. These constraints ensure that Congress legislates in a manner consistent with democratic principles, respect for human rights, the rule of law, and the country's commitments to the global community.

Power of Impeachment | Powers of Congress | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Legislative Department – Powers of Congress: Power of Impeachment

The power of impeachment is a unique mechanism in the Constitution of the Philippines designed to remove from office certain high-ranking officials for serious offenses. It is vested in Congress, comprising both the House of Representatives and the Senate, with specific roles assigned to each chamber in the process. This power reflects the principle of checks and balances, ensuring accountability of high-ranking public officials.

Constitutional Basis

The power of impeachment is explicitly provided in Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which outlines the grounds and procedure for impeachment. The same article and subsequent sections provide the specific roles of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the process.

Who Can Be Impeached?

The Constitution provides that the following officials may be removed from office through impeachment:

1. The President
2. The Vice President
3. The Members of the Supreme Court
4. The Members of the Constitutional Commissions (Commission on Elections, Civil Service Commission, and Commission on Audit)
5. The Ombudsman

These are the highest officials in the government, reflecting the gravity of impeachment as a political and legal remedy.

Grounds for Impeachment

Impeachment can only proceed based on any of the following serious offenses:

1. Culpable Violation of the Constitution – A deliberate and willful breach of the Constitution.
2. Treason – Betrayal of the country, typically by aiding its enemies during wartime.
3. Bribery – Offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting anything of value to influence the actions of an official.
4. Graft and Corruption – Illegal or unethical actions that enrich oneself or others to the detriment of public interest.
5. Other High Crimes – Serious offenses which demonstrate an abuse of power or breach of the public trust.
6. Betrayal of Public Trust – Acts that are considered reprehensible by the standard of public accountability, often involving ethical misconduct or gross negligence.

The Impeachment Process:

The impeachment process consists of two main phases: impeachment proper in the House of Representatives and the trial in the Senate.

1. Impeachment in the House of Representatives:

   • Initiation of the Complaint:

     • An impeachment complaint may be initiated either by one-third (1/3) of all the members of the House of Representatives through a verified complaint or resolution of endorsement.
     • Alternatively, any Filipino citizen can file a verified complaint, but it must be endorsed by any member of the House of Representatives.
     • Once initiated, no other impeachment proceedings can be filed against the same official within a period of one year (Article XI, Section 3[5]).

   • Referral to the House Committee on Justice:

     • The impeachment complaint is referred to the House Committee on Justice, which will determine whether the complaint is sufficient in form and substance.
     • The Committee may conduct hearings and will submit a report to the House plenary, recommending whether the complaint should proceed.

   • Plenary Deliberation and Voting:

     • The House of Representatives, in plenary session, will deliberate on the articles of impeachment.
     • If at least one-third (1/3) of all the members of the House approve the articles of impeachment, the complaint is deemed valid, and the official is considered impeached.
     • This means the official will now face trial before the Senate.

2. Trial in the Senate:

   • The Senate acts as the impeachment court with the Senators serving as the judges.

   • When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the impeachment trial. For all other impeachable officials, the Senate President presides over the trial.

   • Prosecutors from the House of Representatives will present the case before the Senate.

   • The impeached official is afforded the right to counsel and due process.

   • Verdict:

     • After hearing the evidence and arguments, the Senate will deliberate and render its judgment.
     • A conviction requires a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members of the Senate.
     • If convicted, the impeached official is removed from office. The Senate can also disqualify the official from holding any future office of public trust, but it cannot impose any other punishment (e.g., imprisonment). If criminal liability is involved, that must be dealt with by the regular courts.

Key Constitutional Provisions:

1. Article XI, Section 3(2): The House of Representatives has the exclusive power to initiate impeachment cases.
2. Article XI, Section 3(6): The Senate has the sole power to try and decide all impeachment cases.
3. Article XI, Section 3(7): The penalty in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of public trust. However, the impeached party remains liable to prosecution and punishment in accordance with law after removal.

Notable Impeachment Cases in the Philippines:

1. Joseph Ejercito Estrada (2000):

   • President Estrada was impeached on charges of bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, and culpable violation of the Constitution. However, the impeachment trial was disrupted, and mass protests (popularly known as EDSA II) eventually led to his ouster.
   • Estrada was later convicted by the Sandiganbayan of plunder but was pardoned by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

2. Renato C. Corona (2012):

   • Chief Justice Corona was impeached by the House of Representatives in December 2011, largely based on charges of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution for failure to disclose certain assets in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).
   • He was convicted by the Senate Impeachment Court in 2012, with a majority of Senators voting to remove him from office.

Limitations on the Power of Impeachment:

1. One-Year Bar Rule: Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated against an official, no other impeachment proceedings can be initiated against the same official within a one-year period (Article XI, Section 3[5]).

2. Political Nature of Impeachment: Impeachment is not strictly a judicial proceeding but a political one. While due process is afforded to the official, the standards of evidence and procedure are not the same as in regular courts. It is fundamentally a political question, where political considerations can come into play.

3. No Appeal from Senate Decision: The Senate’s decision in an impeachment trial is final and non-appealable. The judgment is purely within the political realm, and the decision-making power is vested entirely in the Senate.

Implications of Impeachment:

1. Removal from Office: The primary consequence of a conviction is removal from the office held.
2. Disqualification: The convicted official may also be disqualified from holding any future office of public trust.
3. Criminal Liability: Impeachment does not exempt the official from criminal prosecution and penalties in regular courts if the offense is subject to penal laws (e.g., bribery, graft, and corruption).

Conclusion:

The power of impeachment is a vital tool in the Philippine constitutional system designed to hold high-ranking officials accountable for serious offenses. It serves as a check against abuses of power by ensuring that no one, not even the highest officials of the land, is above the law. Congress, through the House of Representatives and the Senate, plays a central role in ensuring the integrity of the process. However, it is a political process, and its success largely depends on the integrity and wisdom of the members of Congress.

Legislative Inquiries and Oversight Functions | Powers of Congress | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Legislative Inquiries and Oversight Functions of Congress (Philippine Setting)

I. Constitutional Basis

The powers of legislative inquiries and oversight functions of Congress are enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly in Article VI (Legislative Department), which grants Congress the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation and to exercise oversight over the Executive branch of government.

1. Legislative Inquiry Power (Section 21, Article VI, 1987 Constitution):

   • Text of the provision: "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."

   This provision gives Congress (both the Senate and the House of Representatives) the authority to conduct investigations as part of its lawmaking power.

2. Oversight Function (Section 22, Article VI, 1987 Constitution):

   • Text of the provision: "The heads of departments may upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session."

   This provision emphasizes the role of Congress in exercising control or supervision over the Executive branch by requiring department heads to appear before them and explain or defend their actions.

II. Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation

A legislative inquiry refers to an investigation or hearing conducted by Congress or its committees to gather information and evidence necessary to craft or amend legislation. While it is often associated with fact-finding missions, its primary purpose is to aid the legislative process.

Essential Elements of Legislative Inquiry

1. In Aid of Legislation:
   Any investigation must be conducted with the genuine intention of drafting or revising laws. It cannot be conducted for reasons of mere curiosity, harassment, or to substitute for the role of the judiciary in deciding legal disputes.

2. Committee or House Authorization:
   An inquiry must be duly authorized by the entire House (Senate or House of Representatives) or by one of its committees. Each committee’s authority and jurisdiction must conform to the duly published rules of procedure of Congress.

3. Observance of Rights:
   The rights of those who are summoned or involved in legislative inquiries must be protected, including the right to due process, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel. This is often referred to as the "respected rights" clause of Section 21, Article VI.

4. Publication of Rules:
   The rules of procedure for conducting legislative inquiries must be published to provide transparency, clarity, and predictability in the conduct of investigations.

Limitations on the Legislative Inquiry Power

1. Must Be In Aid of Legislation:
   The inquiry must have a clear legislative purpose, and it cannot be used for purposes such as determining criminal guilt, which is a judicial function (see Arnault v. Nazareno).

2. Respect for Judicial Independence:
   Congress must refrain from encroaching on judicial matters or intervening in cases pending before the courts. This principle is upheld by the doctrine of the separation of powers.

3. Presidential Privilege:
   In certain cases, the President may invoke executive privilege to withhold information from Congress if disclosure would impair national security, diplomatic negotiations, or other state interests (see Senate v. Ermita).

4. Due Process and Rights of Persons:
   Legislative inquiries must respect the rights of witnesses and resource persons, including the right to refuse to answer questions that might incriminate them.

Jurisdiction of Committees in Legislative Inquiries

Each house of Congress has standing and special committees that are empowered to conduct investigations. The scope of the committee’s jurisdiction must be aligned with its mandate and expertise, as outlined in the rules of each House.

III. Oversight Functions of Congress

Congress also exercises oversight functions to monitor, review, and scrutinize the actions of the Executive branch, its agencies, and its officials. Oversight is a critical check on executive power and ensures that laws passed by Congress are being implemented effectively and in accordance with legislative intent.

Key Features of the Oversight Function

1. Control and Supervision:
   Congress, through its oversight committees, can control or supervise the implementation of laws and review the exercise of executive powers to ensure that administrative actions align with the laws passed by the legislature.

2. Power to Summon Department Heads (Section 22, Article VI):
   Congress can compel department heads to appear before it to answer questions or provide reports on the performance of their duties. This allows Congress to scrutinize the actions of the Executive branch.

3. Written Questions and Interpellation:
   Congress has the power to submit written questions to department heads before they appear, and it can subject these officials to interpellation on broader issues. The interpellation process provides Congress with critical information for lawmaking and policy review.

4. Conduct of Executive Sessions:
   In matters involving national security or sensitive public interest, Congress may conduct executive sessions. These sessions are held in private and are often requested by the President when public disclosure may compromise state secrets.

Legislative Veto and Congressional Oversight

While legislative vetoes have been deemed unconstitutional (see Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita), Congress retains certain powers to ensure that executive agencies follow the legislative intent of laws. Through post-enactment measures, such as budgetary reviews and the creation of special oversight committees, Congress exercises its role in scrutinizing the executive.

Oversight Committees

Congress has established various oversight committees tasked with monitoring the implementation of laws, evaluating the performance of executive agencies, and investigating matters of public interest. These include:

1. Committee on Public Accountability – Ensures that public officials and agencies are held accountable for their actions.
2. Committee on Good Government – Examines instances of graft and corruption within the government.
3. Joint Congressional Oversight Committees – Established by certain laws to monitor the implementation of specific statutes (e.g., the Congressional Oversight Committee on the Implementation of the Philippine Competition Act).

IV. Case Law on Legislative Inquiry and Oversight Powers

Several landmark Supreme Court decisions have shaped the understanding of legislative inquiry and oversight functions:

1. Arnault v. Nazareno (1950)
   This case established that legislative inquiries must always be in aid of legislation. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot use its investigative powers to determine the guilt or innocence of an individual, as this is a function reserved for the courts.

2. Senate v. Ermita (2006)
   The Supreme Court struck down Executive Order No. 464, which prohibited executive officials from appearing before Congress without the President’s consent. The Court ruled that while executive privilege may be invoked in certain cases, a blanket prohibition is unconstitutional and impairs Congress’ power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.

3. Neri v. Senate (2008)
   This case involved the invocation of executive privilege by then-NEDA Director-General Romulo Neri during a Senate investigation into the NBN-ZTE broadband deal. The Supreme Court upheld the invocation of executive privilege, citing the need to protect sensitive communications between the President and her advisers.

4. Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita (2005)
   The Court struck down the legislative veto provision in the VAT law, emphasizing that such vetoes encroach on executive prerogatives. However, the decision affirmed Congress' power to monitor the implementation of laws through its oversight functions, provided these do not violate the principle of separation of powers.

V. Conclusion

The legislative inquiry and oversight functions of Congress are integral to the balance of powers in the Philippine government. While Congress has broad investigative powers in aid of legislation, these are subject to constitutional limitations, including respect for executive privilege, judicial independence, and the rights of individuals. Similarly, the oversight function ensures that the Executive branch implements laws faithfully and effectively, serving as a critical check on executive power.