En Banc. As The Commission On Elections En Banc v. Belmonte

En Banc. As the Commission on Elections En Banc Decision was not appealed before this Court, it became final and executory. Thus, the House of Representatives had to officially recognize petitioner as the duly-elected representative of the 4th District of Leyte, without having any discretion on how and when to do it.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt208) In Velasco v. Hon. Speaker Belmonte,(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt209) petitioner argued that the House Speaker and Secretary General unlawfully excluded him from enjoying his clear right as the duly-elected Representative of the Lone District of Marinduque.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt210) The Commission on Elections En Banc had already affirmed petitioner's election, but the House refused to administer his oath and register him in the Roll of the House of Representatives.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt211) This Court ruled that the House Speaker and the Secretary General unlawfully neglected their ministerial duties to recognize petitioner's election.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt212) In both cases, this Court granted the petition for mandamus and compelled the House Speaker to administer petitioner's oath, as well as the House Secretary General to register petitioner's name in the Roll of the House of Representatives.

To emphasize, for about 30 years since the 1987 Constitution was promulgated and the bicameral Congress was restored, the House has collectively considered the votes for the second placer for House Speaker as the votes of the Minority for its Minority Leader. Thus, it is up to the House leadership to extend recognition to the duly-designated Minority Leader. Mandamus, however, does not lie to allow this Court to choose the Minority Leader.

VII Caution must be exercised in having a complete hands-off approach on matters involving grave abuse of discretion of a co-equal branch. This Court has come a long way from our pronouncements in Mabanag v. Vito.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt213) In Mabanag, the Congress voted on the "Resolution of Both Houses Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the Philippines to be Appended as an Ordinance Thereto."(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt214) The Resolution proposed to amend the 1935 Constitution to give way for the American parity rights provision, which granted United States citizens equal rights with Filipinos(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt215) in the exploitation of our country's natural resources and the operation of public utilities, contrary to Articles XIII(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt216) and XIV(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt217) of the 1935 Philippine Constitution.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt218) Article XV, Section 1(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt219) of the 1935 Constitution required the affirmative votes of three-fourths (3/4) of all members of the Senate and the House, voting separately, before a proposed constitutional amendment could be submitted to the people for approval or disapproval.

The Senate was then composed of 24 members while the House had 98 members.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt220) Two (2) House representatives later resigned, leaving the House membership with only 96 representatives.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt221) Following the Constitutional mandate, the required votes to pass the Resolution were 18 Senators and 72 Representatives.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt222) The Senate suspended three (3) Senators from the Nacionalista Party, namely, Ramon Diokno, Jose 0. Vera, and Jose E. Romero, for alleged irregularity in their elections.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt223) Meanwhile, the House also excluded eight (8) representatives from taking their seats. Although these eight (8) representatives were not formally suspended, the House nevertheless excluded them from participating for the same reason.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt224) Due to the suspension of the Senators and Representatives, only 16 out of the required 18 Senators and 68 out of the 72 Representatives voted in favor of the Resolution.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt225) Mabanag recognized that had the excluded members of Congress been allowed to vote, then the parity amendment that gave the Americans rights to our natural resources, which this Court ruled impacted on our sovereignty, would not have been enacted.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt226) Nevertheless, the absence of the necessary votes of three-fourths (3/4) of either branch of Congress, voting separately, did not prevent Congress from passing the Resolution.

Petitioners thus assailed the Resolution for being unconstitutional. This Court, ruling under the 1935 Constitution, upheld the enactment despite the patent violation of Article XV, Section 1.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt227) Mabanag ruled that Congress in joint session already certified that both Houses adopted the Resolution, which was already an enrolled bill.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt228) Thus, this Court had no more power to review as it was a political question: In view of the foregoing considerations, we deem it unnecessary to decide the question of whether the senators and representatives who were ignored in the computation of the necessary three-fourths vote were members of Congress within the meaning of Section 1 of Article XV of the Philippine Constitution.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt229) Justice Perfecto's dissent, however, considered the matter a constitutional question-that is to say, deciding whether respondents violated the requirements of Article XV of the 1935 Constitution was within this Court's jurisdiction.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt230) Subsequent rulings(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt231) have since delimited and clarified the political question doctrine, especially under the 1987 Constitution.

It bears stressing that Article VIII, Section 1 explicitly grants this Court the power "to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government." We cannot again shy away from this constitutional mandate. The rule of law must still prevail in curbing any attempt to suppressthe minority and eliminate dissent.

In Estrada v.

Desierto:(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt232) To a great degree, the 1987 Constitution has narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine when it expanded the power of judicial review of this [C]ourt not only to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. Heretofore, the judiciary has focused on the "thou shalt not's" of the Constitution directed against the exercise of its jurisdiction.

With the new provision, however, courts are given a greater prerogative to determine what it can do to prevent grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. Clearly, the new provision did not just grant the Court power of doing nothing.(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#fnt233) (Emphasis supplied) Any attempt by the dominant to silence dissent and take over an entire institution finds no room under the 1987 Constitution. Parliamentary practice and the Rules of the House of Representatives cannot be overruled in favor of personal agenda.

It is understandable for the majority in any deliberative body to push their advantages to the consternation of the minority. However, in a representative democracy marked with opportunities for deliberation, the complete annihilation of any dissenting voice, no matter how reasonable, is a prelude to many forms of authoritarianism. While politics speaks in numbers, many among our citizens can only hope that those political numbers are the result of mature discernment.

Maturity in politics is marked by a courageous attitude to be open to the genuine opposition, who will aggressively point out the weaknesses of the administration, in an orderly fashion, within parliamentary forums. After all, if the true interest of the public is in mind, even the administration will benefit by criticism. VIII The remedy petitioners have chosen is a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.

To succeed, however, they should not only be able show that respondents' acts acknowledging Representative Suarez as the Minority Leader are null and void; they must also show that at the time this Court acts, petitioner Representative Baguilat still has the clear and unmistakable right to be recognized as the Minority Leader. In my view, writs of mandamus against Congress should only be granted when this Court is satisfied, with an abundance of caution, that petitioner still has a clear legal right. The House of Representatives is a political forum where alliances change as soon as the Majority reveals its position on pressing issues, which may have ripened after the House's opening session and which its members may not have anticipated then.

Certainly, at the beginning of the 17th Congress, the right of Representative Baguilat was clear. However, since then, several significant votes, such as those on the death penalty bill and the extension of Martial Law, have been taken. The proper recourse in a case like this should just have been an action for certiorari or prohibition to annul the actions of the respondents.

The House would then proceed to allow its Minority to convene and select its leader in accordance with the Rules. The best kinds of dissents are those that are voiced from a platform of principle. By its very nature, dissents are carried by minorities.

If history is to be properly understood, the persistent but often drowned out voices of the minority may be heard better in the future. For the minority, the present may be unforgiving: for they will be shunned and often times shamed by powerful forces. Yet, dissents by minorities are always expressions of hope.

In the near future, with the benefit of hindsight, their views will attain clarity to most, sooner rather than later. The creativity and wisdom of those who took a stand will then be truly appreciated. It will be then that they will take their turn to be the majority.

With deep regret, in the absence of a showing of a clear and unmistakable present right on the part of petitioners, considering the possibility of shifting political alliances, I cannot vote to issue the writ of mandamus, even as I find that there was grave abuse of discretion. Accordingly, I vote to DISMISS the petition but only because it was the wrong remedy. MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN Associate Justice Footnotes (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt1) Avelino v. Cuenca, 83 Phil. 17 (1949) [En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt2) Rollo , pp. 222-223, Comment. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt3) Avelino v. Cuenca, 83 Phil. 17, 22 (1949) [En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt4) Id.

at l8. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt5) See ARUEGO, JOSE, THE FRAMING OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, <https://archive.org/details/theframing- of-the-philippine-constitution> (1936). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt6) Avelino v. Cuenca, 83 Phil. 17 (1949) [En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt7) Id. at 36. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt8) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt9) 100 Phil. 1101 (1957) [Per J. Concepcion, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt10) 113 Phil. 1 (1961) [Per J. Bengzon, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt11) G.R. No. L-19721, May 10, 1962 [En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt12) Rollo, p. 749, OSG Comment. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt13) Id.

at 226-229, Suarez Comment. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt14) 359 Phil. 276 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt15) Rollo, p.

231, Suarez Comment. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt16) Id. at 226.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt17) 359 Phil. 276 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt18) Id. at 296.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt19) Id. at 286. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt20) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt21) Id. at 287. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt22) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt23) Id. at 305. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt24) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt25) Id. at 297. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt26) Id.

at 300. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt21)Id. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt22) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt29) Legislative Information, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, l 7rn CONGRESS, <http://www.congress.gov.ph/about/?about=history> (last visited July 24, 2017), citing R. Velasco and M. Sylvano, The Philippine Legislative Reader 41 (1989).

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt30) Rollo, pp. 31-32. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt31) Id. at 33, citing Rulings of the Chair, 3rd ed., 2010, p.

XXXVIII. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt32) Id. The official website of the House of Representatives does not contain a copy of the Journal of the 11th Congress; only those from the 12111 to the present Congresses.

See House Journals, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (l 7m CONGRESS), <http://www.congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/?v=joumals> (Last accessed July 25, 2017). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt33) Id. at 177, TSN dated August 24, 2016.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt34) Id. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt35) Id. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt36) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt37) Id. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt38) Id. at 24.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt39) Id. at 24. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt40) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt41) Id. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt42) Id. at 178.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt43) Id. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt44) Id. at 251, Journal No. 1 dated July 25, 2016.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt45)Id. at 215. Atty. Marilyn B. Barua-Yap, Secretary General under the 16th Congress.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt46) Id. at 215-216, Suarez Comment. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt47) Id.

at 264, Journal No. 1 dated July 25, 2016 (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt48) Id. at 719, Journal No. 10 dated August 15, 2016. The first sentence of Rule XII, sec.

94, titled "Conduct and Attire During Sessions and Committee Meetings," shall be read as follows: MEMBERS SHALL WEAR PROPER ATTIRE WHICH IS BARONG FILIPINO OR COAT AND TIE, OR BUSINESS ATTIRE FOR MEN, AND FILIPINA DRESS OR BUSINESS SUIT FOR WOMEN, AND OBSERVE PROPER DECORUM DURING SESSIONS AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt49) RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (17TH CONGRESS), Rule XXVIII, sec.

165 provides that "[t]hese rules shall take effect on the date of adoption." (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt50) Rollo , p. 264, Journal No. 1 dated July 25, 2016 (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt51) Id.

at 266, Journal No. 1 dated July 25, 2016. He was nominated by petitioner Representative Raul A. Daza, seconded by petitioner Representative Tom S. Villarin. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt52) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt53) Id. at 251, Journal No. 1 dated July 25, 2016. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt54) Rollo, p.

816, OSG Comment, Annex 5. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt55) Id. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt56) Rollo, p.

266, Journal No. 1 dated July 25, 2016. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt57) Rollo, p. 266, Journal No. 1 dated July 25, 2016.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt58) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt59) Id. at 266-269. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt60) Id.

at 40-42, Petition. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt61) Id. at 269.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt62) See RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES {l 7TH CONGRESS), Rule II, sec. 8 provides: Section 8. Members who vote for the winning candidate for Speaker shall constitute the Majority in the House[.] "

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt63) Rollo, p. 140. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt64) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt65) Id. at 119, TSN dated July 26, 2016. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt66) Id.

at 117. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt67) Id. at 116-117.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt68) Id. at 24, Petition. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt69) Id.

at 809, TSN dated July 26, 2016. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt70) Id. at 117.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt71) Id. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt72) Id. at 119, TSN dated July 26, 2016.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt73) Id. at 118, TSN dated July 26, 2016. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt74) Except for the House Speaker himself, as he is automatically part of the Majority.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt75) Rollo, p. 118. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt76) Id.

at 773-774, TSN dated July 26, 2016. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt77) Id. at 774, TSN dated July 26, 2016.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt78) Id. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt79) Id. at 775, TSN dated July 26, 2016.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt80) Id. at 781, TSN dated July 26, 2016 (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt81) Id. at 780, TSN dated July 26, 2016.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt82) Id. at 132, Representative Lagman's Letter dated August 1, 2016. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt83) Rollo, p.

132, Lagman Letter dated August 1, 2016. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt84) Id. at 268-269 and 735.

The votes of Representatives Aragones, Co, and Garcia are not mentioned in the files forwarded to this Court. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt85) Rollo, p. 12, Petition; see also rollo , pp. 61-62, Trishia Billiones, Lagman blasts Suarez's "anointment"

as minority leader, ABS-CBN NEWS, July 25, 2016, <http://news.abscbn. com/news/07 /25/16/lagman-blasts-suarezs-anointment-as-minority-leader> (last accessed July 24, 2017). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt86) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt87) Id. at 16. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt88) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt89) Id. at 15. They were Representatives Abayon, Aggabao, Alonte-Naguiat, Aragones, Arcillas, Bagatsing, Batocabe, Bernos, Bertiz, Bravo, Cerafica, Chavez, Co, Cortuna, De Vera, Eusebio, Ferriol-Pascual, Garbin, Garcia, and Garin.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt90) Id. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt91) Id. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt92) Id.

at 680, Journal No. 4 dated August 1, 2016. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt93) Id. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt94) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt95) Id. at 132. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt96) Id.

at 136, Lagman Letter dated August 1, 2016. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt97) Id. at 132.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt98) Id. at 133, Lagman Letter dated August 1, 2016. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt99) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt100) Id. at 134, Lagman Letter dated August 1, 2016. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt101) Id.

at 133. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt102) Id. at 134.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt103) Id. at 132. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt104) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt105) Id. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt106) Id. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt107) Id.

at 682, Journal No. 4 dated August 1, 2016. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt108) Id. at 17, Petition.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt109) Id. at 133. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt110) Id.

at 18-20, Petition. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt111) Id. at 160, Annex Y of Petition.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt112) Id. at 158, Annex X of Petition. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt113) Id.

at 148, Annex S of Petition. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt114) Id. at 142, Annex P of Petition.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt115) Id. at 156, Annex W of Petition. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt116) Id.

at 152, Annex U of Petition. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt117) Id. at 144,Annex Q of Petition.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt118) Id. at 146, Annex R of Petition. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt119) Id.

at 150, Annex T of Petition. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt120) Id. at 154, Annex V of Petition.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt121) Id. at 18-20. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt122) Id.

at 713, Journal No. 10 dated August 15, 2016. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt123) Id. at 21-22, Petition.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt124) Id. at 716, Journal No. 10 dated August 15, 2016. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt125) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt126) Id. at 716-717, Journal No. 10 dated August 15, 2016. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt127) Id.

at 140, Fariñas First Letter dated July 26, 2016.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt128) Id. at 717. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt129) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt130) Id. at 713. The Chair was Deputy Speaker Raneo E. Abu.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt131) Id. at 140, Fariñas First Letter dated July 26, 2016. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt132) RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (l 7TH CONGRESS), Rule XIII, sec.

109 provides: Section 109. Appeal from Ruling of the Chair. - Any Member may appeal from the ruling of the Chair and may be recognized by the Chair, even though another Member has the floor.

No appeal is in order when another appeal is pending. The Member making the appeal shall state the reasons for the appeal subject to the five-minute rule. The Chair shall state the reasons for the ruling and forthwith submit the question to the body.

An appeal cannot be amended and shall yield only to a motion to adjourn, to a point of order, to a question of personal privilege or to recess. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt133) Rollo, pp. 717-718, Journal No. 10 dated August 15, 2016. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt134) Id.

at 718. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt135) Id. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt136) Id.

at 719. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt137) Id. at 266, Journal No. 1 dated July 25, 2016.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt138) Id. at 221, Suarez Comment. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt139) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt140) Id. at 3-56. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt141) Arroyo v. De Venecia, 343 Phil. 42 (1997) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt142) Id. at 60-61. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt143) Id.

at 70. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt144) Legislative Information, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 17TH CONGRESS, <http://www.congress.gov.ph/legisinfo/?v=students> (last visited July 25, 2017). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt145) Expressio unius est exclusion alterius: the express mention of one person, thing or consequence implies the exclusion of all others.

See Romualdez v. Marcelo, 529 Phil. 90, 109 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Special First Division]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt146) Cassus omissus pro omisso habendus est. See Municipality of Nueva Era, Ilocos Norte v. Municipality of Marcos, Ilocos Norte, 570 Phil. 395, 417 (2008) [Per J. Reyes, En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt147) Rollo, p. 777, Annex 1 of OSG Comment. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt148) Id.

at 266, Journal No. 1 dated July 25, 2016. On July 25, 2016, then Acting Floor Leader Representative Fariñas expressed his view that there were only two (2) categories: those in favor of Speaker Alvarez were considered as Majority members, while the rest were considered as Minority members, with no third category of independent membership. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt149) Id.

at 264-266. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt150) See rollo , p. 266.

When Representative Fariñas made his interpretation at the start of the First Regular Session of the 17th Congress on July 25, 2016, the Committee on Rules had not been constituted because the election for Speaker was yet to commence. The Committee on Rules is headed by the Majority Leader as the chairperson, with the Deputy Majority Leaders as the vice-chairpersons (Rule IX, Section 26 (ss)). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt151) Rollo, p.

116, TSN dated July 26, 2016. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt152) Id. at 772-773, TSN dated July 26, 2016.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt153) Id. at 680, Journal No. 4 dated August 1, 2016. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt154) Id.

at 132, Lagman First Letter dated August 1, 2016. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt155) Id. at 717, Journal No. 10 dated August 15, 2016.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt156) See Philippine Realty Holdings Corporation v. Firematic Philippines, Inc., 550 Phil. 586, 608 (2007) [Per J. Callejo Sr., Third Division]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt157) See CIVIL CODE, art. 1431 and RULES OF COURT, Rule 131, sec.

2(a). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt158) Rollo, p. 264, Journal No. I dated July 25, 2016.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt159) RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (l7th Congress), Preamble. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt160) CIVIL CODE, art. 1431 provides: Article 1431.

Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt161) RULES OF COURT, Rule 131, sec. 2(a) states: Section 2.

Conclusive presumptions. - The following are instances of conclusive presumptions: (a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing is true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt162) Santiago Syjuco, Inc. v. Castro, 256 Phil. 621 (1989) [Per J. Narvasa, First Division].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt163) Id. at 644. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt164) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt165) Id. at 645. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt166) Rollo, pp. 18-21.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt167) Id. at 140, Farinas' Letter dated July 26, 2016. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt168) Verba intentioni, non e contra, debent inservice.

See Dissenting Opinion of J. Abad Santos in Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission, 216 Phil. 185, 207 (1984) [Per J. Makasiar, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt169) 12 Phil. 485 (1909) [Per J. Tracey, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt170) 216 Phil. 185 (1984) [Per J. Makasiar, En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt171) Id. at 207. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt172) House Leaders Information: Minority Leader, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (17TH CONGRESS), <http://www.congress.gov.ph/leaders/?l=minority> (last accessed July 24, 2017).

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt173) House Committees, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (l 7TH CONGRESS), <http://www.congress.gov.ph/committees/?v=standing> (last accessed July 24, 2017). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt174) See RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (17TH CONGRESS), Rule IX, sec. 27 and 33.

The House has two kinds of committees, standing and special, whose members are generally chosen based on the proportional representation of the Majority and the Minority. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt175) RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (17TH CONGRESS), Rule IX, sec. 30 states: Section 30.

The Speaker, the Deputy Speakers3, the Majority Leader, the Deputy Majority Leaders, the Minority Leader and the five (5) Deputy Minority Leaders and the chairperson of the Committee on Accounts or a Member deputized by any of the aforementioned officials shall have voice and vote in all committees. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt176) Rule IX, Section 26, first sentence (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt177) Rule IX, Section 26, first sentence (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt178) Rule IX, Section 30 (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt179) Under Section 27 of Rule IX of the Rules of the House: Section 27. Kinds.

- The House shall have standing and special committees that shall be organized, except for the Committee on Rules, on the basis of proportional representation of the Majority and the Minority. Standing committees shall have jurisdiction over measures relating to needs, concerns, issues and interests affecting the general welfare and which require continuing or comprehensive legislative study, attention and action. Special committees are intended to address measures relating to special or urgent needs, concerns, issues and interests of certain sectors or constituencies requiring immediate legislative action, or to such needs, concerns, issues and interests that may fall within the scope of the jurisdiction of a standing committee, but which the standing committee concerned is unable to act upon with needed dispatch.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt180) Rule IX, Section 27 (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt181) Rule IX, Section 26 (ss) (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt182) Rule IX, Section 26 (ss) (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt183) Rule IX, Section 33 (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt184) Rollo, p. 47, Petition. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt185) Rollo, p.

6, Petition. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt186) Rollo, p. 13, Petition.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt187) The word "fiscalizer" comes from the Spanish verb "fiscalizar," which means "to criticize."

Filipino lawmakers turned this into an English word to describe a person who is a critic of an alleged government wrongdoing. For example, in an article dated April 12, 2007 by the Philippine Information Agency, Senator Joker Arroyo used the term to refer to an "opposition within the administration:" Tacloban City (12 April) - Re-electionist Senator Joker Arroyo defended his position in running under the Administration ticket during the Team Unity's campaign sortie here in Samar yesterday saying he will continue to act as "fiscalizer"

of the Arroyo administration.

According to Senator Arroyo, his position of being an "opposition within the administration" will not change despite the fact that he is running under the Administration's Team Unity as there was no agreement at all that he will stop being critical to the Arroyo government in exchange for his being picked up as its candidate. (Joker stresses role as Administration's "fiscalizer,"

http://archives.pia.gov.ph/?m= l 2&sec=reader&rp=7 &fi=p0704l2.htm&no=59&date=04/12/2007) (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt188) Trishia Billiones, Lagman blasts Suarez's "anointment" as minority leader, ABS-CBN NEWS, July 25, 2016, <http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/07 /25/16/lagman-blasts-suarezs-anointment-as-minority-Ieader> (last accessed July 24, 2017). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt189) CONST., art.

III, sec. 4. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt190) CONST, art.

VI, sec. 5(1). (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt191) CONST., art.

XIII, sec. 15. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt192) The Diocese of Baco/odv.

Commission on Elections, 751Phil.301 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt193) Id. at 360.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt194) Avelino v. Cuenca, 83 Phil. 17 (1989) [Per J. Carson, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt195) Dissenting Opinion ofJ. Perfecto in Avelino v. Cuenca, 83 Phil. 17, 48 (1989) [Per J. Carson, En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt196) Rollo, p. 49. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt197) Militante v. Court of Appeals, 386 Phil. 522 (2000) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt198) Id. at 537. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt199) Id.

See also RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, sec. 3: Section 3. When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner ...

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt200) Systems Plus Computer College of Caloocan City v. Local Government of Caloocan City, 455 Phil. 956 (2003) [Per J. Corona, Third Division]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt201) Sunville Timber Products, Inc. v. Abad, 283 Phil. 400, 407 (1992) [Per J. Cruz, First Division]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt202) Velasco v. Belmonte, Jr., G.R. No. 211140, January 12, 2016, <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/20l6/january2016/211140.pdf> [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt203) Codilla, Sr. v. De Venecia, 442 Phil. 139 (2002) [Per J. Puno, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt204) Id. at 189.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt205) Id. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt206) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt207) 442 Phil. 139 (2002) [Per J. Puno, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt208) Id. at 190.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt209) Velasco v. Belmonte, Jr., G.R. No. 211140, January 12, 2016 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/20l6/january2016/211140.pdt> [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt210) Id. at 8-9.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt211) Id. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt212) Id. at 21.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt213) Mabanag v. Vito, 78 Phil. I (1947) [Per J. Tuason, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt214) Id. at 2.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt215) The Parity Amendment read as follows: Notwithstanding the provision of section one, Article Thirteen [Sec. I, art. XIII], and section eight, Article Fourteen [Sec. 8, art. XIV], of the foregoing Constitution, during the effectivity of the Executive Agreement entered into by the President of the Philippines with the President of the United States on the fourth of July, nineteen hundred and forty-six, [July 4, 1946), pursuant to the provisions of Commonwealth Act Numbered Seven hundred and thirty-three, but in no case to extend beyond the third of July, nineteen hundred and seventy-four, [July 3, 1974), the disposition, exploitation, development, and utilization of all agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coals, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces and sources of potential energy, and other natural resources of the Philippines, and the operation of public utilities, shall, if OPEN to any person, be open to citizens of the United States and to all forms of business enterprise owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by citizens of the United States in the same manner as to and under the same conditions imposed upon, citizens of the Philippines or corporations or associations owned or controlled by citizens of the Philippines.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt216) CONST. (1935), art. XIII, sec.

1. All Agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the inauguration of the Government established under this Constitution. Natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for another twenty-five years, except as to water right for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, in which cases beneficial use may be the measure and the limit of the grant.

Section 2. No private corporation or association may acquire, lease, or hold public agricultural lands in excess of one thousand and twenty-four hectares, nor may any individual acquire such lands by purchase in excess of one hundred and forty-four hectares, or by lease in excess of one thousand and twenty-four hectares, or by homestead in excess of twenty-four hectares.

Lands adapted to grazing not exceeding two thousand hectares, may be leased to an individual, private corporation, or association. …. Section 5.

Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt217) Article XIV, Section 8. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or other entities organized under the laws of the Philippines, sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by citizens of the Philippines, nor shall such franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer period than fifty years.

No franchise or right shall be granted to any individual, firm, or corporation, except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the Congress when the public interest so requires. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt218) See Republic v. Quasha, 150-B Phil. 140-166 (1972) [Per J. Reyes, First Division]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt219) CONST.

(1935), art. XV, sec. 1 provides: Section 1.

The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately, may propose amendments to this Constitution or call a convention for that purpose. Such amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for their ratification. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt220) See Dissenting Opinion of J. Perfecto in Mabanag v. Vito, 78 Phil. l, 29 (1947) [Per J. Tuason, En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt221) Id. at 38. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt222) Id.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt223) See Vera v. Avelino, 77 Phil. 192 (1946) [Per J. Bengzon, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt224) Mabanag v. Vito, 78 Phil. l, 2-3 (1947) [Per J. Tuason, En Banc]. See PROF.

H. w. BRANDS, BOUND TO EMPIRE: THE UNITED STATES AND THE PHILIPPINES 231 (1992). Dr. H. W. Brands, Professor of History at the University of Texas at Austin, describes the exclusion of the "announced opponents of parity"

as a "strong-arm tactic" engineered "to narrow the odds" of the administration not getting the 3/4 assent required to amend the Constitution that would favor American nationals.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt225) Id. at 39-40. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt226) Id.

at 3. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt227) Id. at 19.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt228) Id. at 3. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt229) Id.

at 19. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt230) Id. at 39-40.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt231) See Senate of the Phils. v. Ermita, 527 Phil. 500 (2006) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, En Banc], Bayan v. Ermita, 522 Phil. 201 (2006) [Per J. Azcuna, En Banc], David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705 (2006) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, En Banc]. (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt232) Estrada v. Desierto, 406 Phil. I (2001) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#rnt233) Id. at 42-43. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation [](javascript:history.back\(1\)) [](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr227757so2017.html#top)