Like irrepealable laws, those laws which impose conditions for its future repeal effectively restricts on the competency of Congress to enact future legislation. It restrains the plenary power of the legislature to amend or repeal laws. Only the Constitution may preclude or restrict the power to amend or repeal laws, and not a prior statute.
Facts:
GSIS enjoyed tax-exempt status by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1146. With the enactment of the Local Government Code (LGC), the City of Davao thought that Sec. 193 of the said law withdrew the tax exemption privileges of GSIS. Thus, the City of Davao sent a Notice of Public Auction to the GSIS Davao City branch office due to non-payment of realty taxes. GSIS protested, claiming that since the LGC failed to comply with the conditions set forth in Sec. 33 of PD 1146 to withdraw the tax exemption privileges of GSIS, the subsequent enactment of the LGC did not repeal the tax exemptions of GSIS.
Issue:
Whether a law may validly impose conditions for its future repeal. Ruling:
NO. Like irrepealable laws, those laws which impose conditions for its future repeal effectively restricts on the competency of Congress to enact future legislation. It restrains the plenary power of the legislature to amend or repeal laws. Only the Constitution may preclude or restrict the power to amend or repeal laws, and not a prior statute. Since the past, present, and future legislative assemblies are regarded with equal footing with the same plenary powers, it would be anathema to democratic principles to allow one legislative body to restrain or bind the actions of the future legislative body.
In this case, President Marcos cannot bind the future legislature to a particular mode of repeal. He cannot, like all legislative bodies, declare in advance the intent of subsequent legislatures or the effect of subsequent legislation upon existing statutes. Thus, the conditions for repeal imposed by Sec. 33 of PD 1146 is invalid.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________
SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) v. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD AND PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (PDEA)
G.R. No. 157870November 3, 2008, Velasco, Jr., J.
Congress’ inherent legislative powers, broad as they may be, are subject to certain substantive and constitutional limitations, which circumscribe both the exercise of the power itself and the allowable subjects of legislation. As such, Congress may not amend or enlarge the qualification requirements for senatorial candidates as enumerated in Section 3, Article VI of the Constitution.
Facts:
Section 36 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 requires mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office. Pursuant to the said legal provision, COMELEC issued a Resolution which required “all candidates for public office, both national and local, in the May 10, 2004 Synchronized National and Local Elections” to undergo mandatory drug tests. Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., a candidate for re-election,
claims that the mandatory drug tests are unconstitutional since these impose a qualification for candidates for senators in addition to those already provided for in the 1987 Constitution. Issue:
Whether mandatory drug tests may be validly imposed as an additional qualification for senatorial candidates.
Ruling:
NO. Congress’ inherent legislative powers, broad as they may be, are subject to certain substantive and constitutional limitations, which circumscribe both the exercise of the power itself and the allowable subjects of legislation. One such limitation is found in Section 3, Article VI of the Constitution prescribing the qualifications of candidates for senators.
In this case, neither Congress nor the COMELEC may enlarge the qualification requirements enumerated in the aforesaid constitutional provision. To require a senatorial candidate to be certified illegal-drug clean would add another qualification layer to what the 1987 Constitution, at the minimum, requires for membership in the Senate. Hence, the mandatory drug test requirement for senatorial candidates is unconstitutional.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________
SENATOR BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III AND MAYOR JESSE ROBREDO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN JOSE A.R. MELO AND ITS COMMISSIONERS, RENE V. SARMIENTO, NICODEMO T. FERRER, LUCENITO
N. TAGLE, ARMANDO VELASCO, ELIAS R. YUSOPH AND GREGORIO LARRAZABAL G.R. No. 189793 April 7, 2010, Perez, J.
The Constitution requires a 250,000 minimum population only for a city to be entitled to a representative, but not so for a province.
Facts:
A law was passed increasing the legislative districts of the Province of Camarines Sur from four (4) to five (5). Because of the reapportionment, the first legislative district was left with a population of only 176,383. The constitutionality of the reapportionment was questioned on the ground that each legislative district should contain a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand (250,000), based on Section 5 (3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. The said provision reads: “(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.” Issue:
Whether there is a minimum population requirement to apportion a new legislative district in a province.
Ruling:
NO. The cited provision draws a plain and clear distinction between the entitlement of a city to a district on one hand, and the entitlement of a province to a district on the other. While a province is entitled to at least a representative, with nothing mentioned about
population, a city must first meet a population minimum of 250,000 in order to be similarly entitled. In fact, pursuant to the Local Government Code, a province may be created even if its population is less than 250,000.
In addition, the use by the subject provision of a comma to separate the phrase "each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand" from the phrase "or each province" point to no other conclusion than that the 250,000 minimum population is only required for a city, but not for a province. Plainly read, Section 5(3) of the Constitution requires a 250,000 minimum population only for a city to be entitled to a representative, but not so for a province.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________
VICTORINO B. ALDABA, CARLO JOLETTE S. FAJARDO,JULIO G. MORADA, AND