CHAPTER II: STATUTES

Legislative Procedures
Legislative power rests with Congress, comprising the Senate and House of Representatives, which has authority to
create, amend, or repeal laws. A proposed law begins as a “bill” introduced in the legislature; once passed, it becomes
an “act” and, ultimately, a statute, the formal expression of legislative will. “Statute law” refers broadly to statutes and
their judicial interpretation and application.

How Does a Bill Become a Law – Steps

In both parliamentary and presidential systems, a bill must meet strict constitutional requirements, as outlined in the
1973 and 1987 Constitutions. However, lawmaking is generally faster and smoother in a parliamentary system. Here’s
a look at the bill passage process in a parliamentary (unicameral) system.

1. A National Assembly member submits a proposed bill, with their signature affixed and purpose stated, to the
Secretary, who schedules it for the first reading.

2. In the first reading, the bill is read by its number and title only.

3. After the first reading, the Speaker refers the bill to a committee for study and public hearings to gather input
from relevant parties.

After the hearing, the committee decides whether to report the bill favorably or consider a substitute.

Note: Should there be an unfavorable report of the committee, then the proposed bill is dead.

4. If the committee favors the bill, it is returned to the National Assembly and scheduled for the second reading.

5. In the second reading, the bill is read in its entirety.

6. After the second reading, the bill is open for debate, where members can propose amendments and insertions
to the proposed bill.

Note: After amendments, the bill may change from the author's original version, potentially becoming a better
bill through deliberations.

7. After the second reading, the bill is printed in its final form and distributed to members at least three days
before the final vote, unless the Prime Minister (or President) certifies in writing "the necessity of the immediate
enactment of the bill to meet a public calamity or emergency" (Art. VI, Sec. 26(2), 1987 Constitution).

8. The bill is calendared for the third and final reading, with no amendments allowed. Only the title is read,
followed by a vote, and the yeas or nays are entered in the journal. A majority of members present, constituting
a quorum, is sufficient to pass the bill (Art. VII, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution).

Note: Quorum is the minimum number of members needed to conduct business, usually 51% or 50% plus
one, depending on internal rules.

Note: If the NO vote wins, the proposed bill is dead.

The key difference between the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions is that, in the current system, after the third
reading in one House, the bill goes to the other house for three readings. If there are differences, a bicameral
conference committee resolves them through a compromise bill.

Note: Urgent bills may be discussed simultaneously by both houses of Congress.

Note: At this stage, the original bill conceived by the original author may no longer be his proposed bill.

9. After passage, the bill is sent to the Prime Minister (President) for approval. If approved, he signs it; if vetoed,
the bill returns with his objections to the National Assembly. If approved by two-thirds of the originating house,
it becomes law.

1
 If the vetoed bill is reconsidered and approved by two-thirds of the originating house, it is sent to the other
house for reconsideration. If approved there by two-thirds, it becomes law. The votes in each house are
recorded in the journal. The President must act on the bill within 30 days, or it automatically becomes law,
preventing a pocket veto.

Constitutional Test in the Passage of a Bill

There are constitutional limitations on statute enactment, such as prohibiting ex post facto laws or bills of attainder.
Regarding the bill passage process, three key constitutional requirements must be met.

I. Every bill passed by Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
II. A bill cannot become law unless it passes three readings on separate days, with printed copies distributed
three days before its passage, unless certified urgent by the President. No amendments are allowed on the
final reading, and the vote is recorded in the journal (Art. VI, Sec. 26(2), 1987 Constitution).
III. A bill passed by Congress is presented to the President. If vetoed, it returns to the originating House for
reconsideration. If two-thirds approve, it goes to the other House for the same process. If both Houses pass
it, the bill becomes law. The votes are recorded in the journal. The President must act within 30 days, or the
bill becomes law automatically.

I - Every bill passed by Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
The purpose of this constitutional requirement are:
1. To prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation;
2. To prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature; and
3. To inform the public of legislative proceedings and allow them to be heard on proposed legislation through
petitions or other means.

In Alalayan vs. National Power Corporation (1968), the Supreme Court stated that the provision aims to prevent
omnibus bills and log-rolling legislation by ensuring bills address only specific matters, thus prohibiting unrelated
"riders" to the bill.

The title of an act should be interpreted reasonably, not technically, to reflect its general purpose without needing to
detail every specific method or goal.

Remman Enterprises, Inc. and Chamber of Real Estate and Builders’ Association vs. Professional Regulatory
Board of Real Estate Service and Professional Regulation Commission (G.R. No. 197676, February 4, 2014)

Facts: RA 9646, the “Real Estate Service Act of the Philippines,” signed into law on June 29, 2009, aims to
professionalize the real estate sector through licensing and supervision of practitioners. It transferred oversight from
the DTI to the PRC and the Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service (PRBRES). The IRR was issued on
July 21, 2010. Petitioners challenged the law's constitutionality, claiming it violated Article VI, Section 26(1) of the 1987
Constitution. However, the trial court denied the petition, ruling the provisions were relevant to the law's title and
purpose.

Issue: Whether RA 9646 violates the "one title-one subject" rule under Article VI, Section 26(1) of the Philippine
Constitution.

Held: RA 9646, titled "An Act Regulating the Practice of Real Estate Service in the Philippines," complies with the "one
title-one subject" rule under Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution. The Court has ruled that the subject of an act
should be expressed in its title in a reasonable, not technical, manner. The title should be comprehensive enough to
include the general object of the statute without detailing every provision. The "one title-one subject" rule is satisfied if
all parts of the statute are related to the subject matter in the title and are not inconsistent with it. The Court adopts a
liberal construction to avoid impeding legislative power, ensuring that diverse provisions can still be valid if they further
the statute's general purpose.

II - A bill cannot become law unless it passes three readings on separate days, with printed copies distributed three
days before its passage, unless certified urgent by the President. No amendments are allowed on the final reading,
and the vote is recorded in the journal (Art. VI, Sec. 26(2), 1987 Constitution).

The "three reading" and "no amendment" rules do not prevent the bicameral conference committee from adding or
deleting provisions in the House and Senate bills after they’ve passed three readings. The Court in Philippine Judges
Association vs. Prado and Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance ruled that the conference committee can propose new
provisions, considered as "amendments in the nature of a substitute," as long as they are germane to the subject of
the bills. These amendments must be approved by both houses of Congress and do not bypass the rules.

2
In Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita (2005), the Court ruled that the bicameral conference committee's power to add
or delete provisions after three readings does not violate the "no amendment" rule. The Court upheld its earlier decision
in Tolentino, stating that requiring the committee’s report to undergo three readings in each house would lead to endless
negotiations.

Art. VI, Sec. 26(2) must, therefore, be construed as referring only to bills introduced for the first time in either house of
Congress, not to the conference committee report.

The Court clarified that the "no amendment rule" applies only to the procedure in each house before a bill is transmitted
to the other house. Interpreting the rule to prevent amendments after one house votes would strip the other house of
its power to amend. Therefore, the Constitution does not prohibit the Bicameral Conference Committee from introducing
amendments to bills passed by both houses.

Reason for “three readings” and “no amendment.”

This constitutional requirement, present in both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, ensures legislators have time to
deliberate on bills. The only exception is when the President certifies the need for immediate enactment due to a public
calamity or emergency.

III - A bill passed by Congress is presented to the President. If vetoed, it returns to the originating House for
reconsideration. If two-thirds approve, it goes to the other House for the same process. If both Houses pass it, the bill
becomes law. The votes are recorded in the journal. The President must act within 30 days, or the bill becomes law
automatically.

The President's executive approval and veto power is a mandatory constitutional requirement in the bill passage
process, serving as part of the checks and balance principle.

Parts of Statute
1. Title – The heading that names the statute and briefly summarizes its contents, e.g., "An Act providing a
special procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens Certificates of Title lost or destroyed."
2. Preamble – Explains the reasons and objectives for the statute's enactment, usually starting with “whereas.”
It helps interpret ambiguities in the statute (See People vs. Purisima, 86 SCRA 542, 1978).
3. Enacting Clause – Declares the statute’s enactment, typically starting with “Be it enacted,” and identifies it as
legislation.
4. Body – The main part of the statute, containing substantive and procedural provisions, including provisos and
exceptions.
5. Repealing Clause – Specifies previous laws or provisions that are repealed by the new statute.
6. Saving Clause – Ensures that rights, pending proceedings, and penalties are not annulled by the repeal of
prior laws.
7. Separability Clause – States that if any provision is declared unconstitutional, the remaining provisions still
stand.
8. Effectivity Clause – Specifies the date when the statute becomes effective.

Illustration:
Republic Act No. 7309
AN ACT CREATING A BOARD OF CLAIMS UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF
UNJUST IMPRISONMENT OR DETENTION AND VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIMES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled.

SECTION 1. Creation and Composition of the Board. – There is hereby created a Board of Claims under the
Department of Justice, hereinafter referred to as the Board, to be composed of one (1) Chairman and two (2) members
to be appointed by the Secretary of the said department.

SEC. 2. Powers and Functions of the Board. – The Board shall have the following powers and functions:
a) to receive, evaluate, process and investigate application for claims under this Act;
b) to conduct an independent administrative hearing and resolve application for claims, grant or deny the
same;
c) to deputize appropriate government agencies in order to effectively implement its functions; and
d) to promulgate rules and regulations in order to carry out the objectives of this Act.

SEC. 3. Who may File Claims. – The following may file claims for compensation before the Board:

3
 a) any person who was unjustly accused, convicted and imprisoned but subsequently released by virtue of a
judgement of acquittal;
b) any person who was unjustly detained and released without being charged;
c) any victim of arbitrary or illegal detention by the authorities as defined in the Revised Penal Code under a
final judgment of the court; and
d) any person who is a victim of violent crimes. For purposes of this Act, violent crimes shall include rape and
shall likewise refer to offenses committed with malice which resulted in death or serious physical and/or psychological
injuries, permanent incapacity or disability, insanity, abortion, serious trauma, or committed with torture, cruelty or
barbarity.

SEC. 4. Award Ceiling. – For victims of unjust imprisonment or detention, the compensation shall be based
on the number of months of imprisonment or detention and every fraction thereof shall be considered one month;
Provided, however, that in no case shall such compensation exceed One Thousand pesos (P1,000.00) per month.

In all other cases, the maximum amount for which the Board may approve a claim shall not exceed Ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00) or the amount necessary to reimburse the claimant the expenses incurred for
hospitalization, medical treatment, loss of wage, loss of support or other expenses directly related to injury, whichever
is lower. This is without prejudice to the right of the claimant to seek other remedies under existing laws.

SEC. 5. When to File Claims. – Any person entitled to compensation under this Act must, within six (6) months
after being released form imprisonment or detention, or from the date the victim suffered damage or injury, file his claim
with the Department, otherwise, he is deemed to have waived the same. Except as provided for in this Act, no waiver
of claim whatsoever is valid.

SEC. 6. Filing of Claims by Heirs. – In case of death or incapacity of any person entitled to any award under
this Act, the claim may be filed by his heirs, in the following order: by his surviving spouse, children, natural parents,
brother and/or sister.

SEC. 7. Resolution of Claims. – The Board shall resolve the claim within thirty (30) working days after filing of
the application.

The Board shall adopt an expeditious and inexpensive procedure for the claimants to follow in order to secure
their claims under this Act.

SEC. 8. Appeal. – Any aggrieved claimant may appeal, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the resolution
of the Board, to the Secretary of Justice whose decision shall be final and executory.

SEC. 9. Funding. – For purposes of this Act, the initial amount of Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) is hereby
authorized to be appropriated from the funds of the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

The subsequent annual funding shall also party come from one percent (1%) of the net income of the
Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation and one percent (1%) of the proceeds and sales and other disposition
and military camps on Metro Manila by the Base Conversion and Development Authority.

The proceeds from any contract relating to the depiction of a crime in a movie, book, newspaper, magazine,
radio or television production, or live entertainment, of any kind, or in any other form of commercial exploitation of any
convict’s story, recollection, opinion and emotions with regard to the offense committed shall not be released to convict
in a criminal case or his heirs, agents, assignees or successors in interest until full compensation for damages suffered
by the victim, his heirs or successors in interest is paid or arranged for, and the state is able to collect/assess fines and
costs and any other amounts due it in case of a conviction by final judgment. Such damages shall include, but shall
not be limited to, judicial awards, funeral expenses, medical expenses, lost earning and the like.

To ensure the continuity of the funding requirements under this Act, the amount of Five pesos (P5.00) shall
be set aside from each filing fee in every civil case filed with the court, the total proceeds of which shall constitute the
Victim Compensation Fund to be administered by the Department of Justice.

SEC. 10. Repealing Clause. – All laws, executive orders and executive issuances inconsistent with this Act
are hereby deemed repealed or modified accordingly.

SEC. 11. Separability Clause. – If for any reason any section or provision of this Act shall be declared
unconstitutional or invalid, no other section or provision shall be affected thereby.

4
 SEC. 12. Effectivity Clause. – This Act shall take effect after its publication in two (2) newspapers of general
circulation.

Approved: March 30, 1992.

Kinds of Statutes

1 GENERAL LAW A law of general nature that affects the community at large or a particular class
of people.
2 SPECIAL LAW A law is special when it differs from others of the same kind, serves a specific
purpose, or is limited in scope or application.
3 LOCAL LAW A law that applies to a specific locality rather than the entire state.
4 PUBLIC LAW Including constitutional, administrative, criminal, and international law,
governs the state's organization, the relationships between the state and its
people, public officers' duties, and interstate relations. It may be general, local,
or special.
5 PRIVATE LAW Private law defines and regulates relationships among individuals,
associations, and corporations.
6 REMEDIAL STATUTE A statute that provides a method to enforce causes of action, redress wrongs,
and obtain relief.
7 CURATIVE STATUTE A retrospective legislation that addresses past events to correct errors and
validate previously ineffective acts.
8 PENAL STATUTE A statute that defines crimes and prescribes fines and punishments.
9 PROSPECTIVE LAW A law applicable only to cases which shall arise after its enactment.
10 RETROSPECTIVE LAW A law that applies retroactively, affecting actions or rights that occurred before
it was enacted.
11 AFFIRMATIVE STATUTE An affirmative statute is one that requires an action to be done, in contrast to
a negative statute, which prohibits certain actions.
12 MANDATORY STATUTE A mandatory statute requires a specific action, using terms like "shall," unlike
permissive statutes, which use "may" to allow discretion.

A "mandatory" provision makes proceedings invalid if ignored, while a

"directory" provision does not affect validity. Mandatory provisions are
essential to the act, while directory provisions are related to form or procedure.
13 JUDICIAL DOCTRINE Judicial interpretation of a statute clarifies its original intent and becomes part
of the law without creating a new law. It is simply an explanation of the pre-
existing law's meaning.
(N.B.: The definition of the above kinds of statutes are taken from Black’s Law Dictionary, Centennial edition).

Concept of Vague Statutes

A statute is vague when it lacks clear standards, leaving people unsure of its meaning and application. This violates
due process by not providing fair notice and grants excessive discretion to law enforcers. In Coates v. City of Cincinnati,
the ordinance made it illegal for "three or more persons to assemble on any sidewalk and conduct themselves in a
manner annoying to persons passing by," which was deemed vague because it imposed no clear standard of what
constitutes "annoying." Vague laws with imprecise language may still be "saved" if they specify a standard, even if
defectively phrased.

Statutes that appear ambiguous but are applicable to specific activities may not be challenged. In Parker v. Levy, an
army officer was prosecuted under the US Uniform Code of Military Justice for "conduct unbecoming an officer" after
criticizing the Vietnam War. The court ruled that accepted military interpretation provided enough standards to give fair
notice of impermissible conduct, thus rejecting the vagueness challenge. (See People v. Eusebio Nazrio, 165 SCRA
186, 1988).

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of RA 7080 (Plunder Law) against a vagueness challenge, stating that
a criminal statute is not void for uncertainty if it provides a sufficiently clear warning of prohibited conduct based on
common understanding. The Court emphasized that flexibility is allowed in statute wording, as long as its boundaries
are clear, and it is not required to be overly precise, especially in cases where full details are difficult to define in
advance (Joseph Ejercito Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, Nov. 19, 2001).

Repeals of Statute may be expressed or implied

Express repeal is when a new law clearly states that a previous law is revoked or annulled. This is done explicitly within
the text of the new statute.

5
Implied repeal, on the other hand, happens when a new law's provisions conflict with or are incompatible with an
existing law. In this case, the older law is considered implicitly repealed because the two laws cannot both be in effect
at the same time.

This principle means that when a new law replaces an old one and addresses the same subject, it effectively cancels
out the previous law's provisions not included in the new statute. If the new law revises or substitutes the old law
entirely, it is considered a repeal of the old law, and only the new law applies. In the case of criminal laws, if a penal
law is repealed, courts lose the authority to prosecute offenses committed under the old law because the repeal
removes its validity.

A Central Bank Circular cannot repeal a law; only another law can do that. According to Article 7 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines, laws are repealed only by subsequent laws, and violations cannot be excused by custom or disuse.
Whether a law has been repealed depends on legislative intent, often shown through a specific repealing clause in the
new law, which directly cites the laws being repealed. If not explicitly stated, repeal is implied.

Repeal by implication occurs when a later law shows a clear intent to replace or override a previous one. For repeal to
happen, lawmakers must clearly intend to abolish the old law; otherwise, the new law is considered a continuation.
There are two types of implied repeal: (1) when the provisions of the two laws conflict and cannot coexist, the later law
implicitly repeals the earlier one, and (2) when the later law covers the entire subject of the earlier law and is intended
as a substitute, it repeals the earlier law. Repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency occurs when both laws conflict to the
point where neither can be applied without invalidating the other.

A later law relating to the same subject matter as an earlier law does not automatically repeal the earlier law unless
there is clear legislative intent to do so. In the case of a revised or codified statute, implied repeal occurs only if the
new law was intended to cover the entire subject matter and create a complete system. If the revised law is meant to
replace the old one, all provisions not included in the new law are considered repealed. The intent to repeal must be
evident for this to happen.

Ordinance
An ordinance is a law passed by a local legislative body. Under the Local Government Code of 1991, these bodies
include the sangguniang barangay (for barangays), sangguniang bayan (for municipalities), sangguniang panlungsod
(for cities), and sangguniang panlalawigan (for provinces). They are empowered to enact ordinances and resolutions
for local governance.

Test of Valid Ordinance

The tests of a valid ordinance are well-established. A long line of decisions has held that to be valid, an ordinance must
conform to the following substantive requirements:
1. It must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
2. It must not be unfair or oppressive;
3. It must not be partial or discriminatory;
4. It must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
5. It must be general and consistent with public policy; and
6. It must not be unreasonable.
In case of conflict between an ordinance and a statute, the ordinance must give way.

Reason Why an Ordinance should not contravene a Statute

Ordinances cannot override statutes because local governments are agents of the national government and only have
delegated legislative powers from Congress. Local councils cannot exercise powers beyond those granted by
Congress, as they derive their existence and authority solely from it. The legislature has the power to control, alter, or
even eliminate local governments, unless limited by the Constitution. Local governments are considered "tenants at
will" of the legislature.

While the 1987 Constitution strengthens local autonomy, it does not diminish the national legislature's control over local
government units (LGUs). Congress still holds the power to create, withhold, or recall LGUs. Although the Constitution
grants LGUs the power to tax, which cannot be revoked by statute, the national legislature remains the principal, and
LGUs cannot override or defy its authority.

Role of Foreign Jurisprudence

In the Philippines, American legal decisions are not automatically binding; laws must be interpreted according to the
intent of Filipino lawmakers, based on the language and context of local laws. If a foreign law is not properly presented
or proven, there is a presumption that it is identical to Philippine law.

6
The Doctrine of Processual Presumption
Norma A. Del Socorro vs. Ernst Johan Brickman Van Wilsem (G.R. No. 193797, December 10, 2014)

Facts: Petitioner Norma A. Del Socorro and respondent Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem married in Holland on
September 25, 1990, and had a son, Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem, born on January 19, 1994. Their marriage ended
with a divorce in Holland on July 19, 1995, when their son was only 18 months old. After returning to the Philippines,
respondent promised to provide monthly support of 250 Guilders (about Php 17,500), but failed to do so. Respondent
remarried and settled in Cebu, where he established a business. Despite a formal demand for support on August 28,
2009, respondent refused to comply, leading petitioner to file a complaint for violation of RA 9262 for failure to support
their child.

Issue: Whether or not a foreign national is obligated to support his minor child under Philippine law, even if the laws of
his home country do not require parental support.

Held: In international law, the party seeking to apply foreign law must prove it. In this case, the respondent, while
claiming the Netherlands law exempts him from supporting his child, failed to prove this law. Therefore, the doctrine of
processual presumption applies, meaning the court assumes the foreign law is the same as Philippine law, which
mandates parental support. Additionally, foreign law should not be applied if it results in injustice, as the primary goal
of law is to ensure justice.