Senate: not a continuing body

In the leading case of “Nazareno vs Arnault,” July 18, 1950, the SC ruled that, unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate was a continuing body. Under the 1987 Constitution, is the Senate still a continuing body? Is there a need for the Senate to republish its rules of procedure in conducting inquiries in aid of legislation?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. The Senate cannot be deemed to be a continuing body. The Senate must republish its rules of procedure.

Justice Antonio T. Carpio, in his Dissenting and Concurring Opinion, in Neri vs. Senate opined that “the present Senate under the 1987 Constitution is no longer a continuing legislative body. The present Senate has twenty-four members, twelve of whom are elected every three years for a term of six years each. Thus, the term of twelve Senators expires every three years, leaving less than a majority of Senators to continue into the next Congress. The 1987 Constitution, like the 1935 Constitution, requires a majority of Senators to “constitute a quorum to do business.”

“Justice Carpio, observes that “Nazareno” was decided under the 1935 Constitution when only eight of the 24 senators were elected every two years such that 16 senators constituting two-thirds of the Senate “always continued into the next Congress.” Since only a majority or 13 of the 24 members were needed to constitute a quorum and do business, the Senate was deemed a continuing body.”

In contrast, under the 1987 Constitution, the term of 12 of the 24 senators expired every three years “leaving less than a majority to continue into the next Congress.” Thus, the present Senate cannot be deemed a continuing body. Ergo, the rules must be republished after the expiration of the term of 12 senators. (visit fellester.blogspot.com)

“The foregoing distinction may appear hair-splitting but it is essential to due process and the rule of law. The Senate Rules of Procedure put at risk the liberty of witnesses and resource persons during investigations. Hence, the Constitution and the rules must be strictly construed in favor of the people and against the Senate.” (Are the Senate Investigation Rules Valid? by CJ Panganiban, Philippine Daily Inquirer, April 06, 2008)


The present Senate of the 14th Congress conducted an inquiry in aid of legislation on the “Hello Garci” tapes which allegedly contained President GMA’s instructions to former Comelec Commissioner Garcillano to manipulate in her favor results of the 2004 presidential elections. The Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation had been published in newspapers of general circulation only in 1995 and 2006. With respect to the present Senate, however, no effort was undertaken for the publication of these rules when they first opened their session. Is the Senate investigation valid?


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. The SC declared invalid for lack of compliance with the publication requirement the previous Senate inquiry in aid of legislation on the “Hello Garci” tapes. “However, the Senate may now call for a new inquiry on the same following the publication of the Senate Rules of Procedure in two major dailies last October 2008.”

The Court cited sec. 21, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution which mandates the publication of the rules of procedure of either the Senate or the House of Representatives, or any of its respective committees before it may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. The requisite of publication of the rules is intended to satisfy the basic requirements of due process.

The SC reiterated its ruling in Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations that the phrase “duly published rules of procedure” requires the Senate of every Congress to publish its rules of procedure governing inquiries in aid of legislation because every Senate is distinct from the one before it or after it. Since Senatorial elections are held every three (3) years for one-half of the Senate’s membership, the composition of the Senate also changes by the end of each term. Each Senate may thus enact a different set of rules as it may deem fit. Not having published its Rules of Procedure, the subject hearings in aid of legislation conducted by the 14th Senate, are therefore, procedurally infirm.

The Court said that the respondents cannot justify their non-observance of the constitutionally mandated publication requirement by arguing that the rules have never been amended since 1995 and that they are published in booklet form available to anyone for free, and accessible to the public at the Senate’s internet web page. “The absence of any amendment to the rules cannot justify the Senate’s defiance of the clear and unambiguous language of Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution…The constitutional mandate to publish the said rules prevails over any custom, practice or tradition followed by the Senate,” it said. It added that the respondents’ invocation of the provisions of RA 8792, Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, to support their claim of valid publication through the internet was incorrect, stressing that “the law merely recognizes the admissibility in evidence of electronic data messages and/or electronic documents” but such “does not make the internet a medium for publishing laws, rules and regulations.” (GR No. 170338, Garcillano v. House of Representatives; GR No. 179275, Rañada v. Senate, December 23, 2008)