Salary of House of Representatives in the Philippines
Term of Function and Privileges
Term of Office of Senators
Privileges of Senators
Salaries
Parliamentary Immunities
Privilege from Arrest
Privilege of Spoken communication and Debate
Bases of the Privilege
Purpose of the Privilege
Precedents and Practices
Relevance
Scope of Privilege Voice communication
Suspension and Disqualification
Manner of Imposing Subject
Inhibitions and Disqualifications
Disharmonize of Interests
Incompatible and Forbidden Offices
Term of Function of Senators
The term of the members of the Senate is expressly provided in Articles Six and Eighteen respectively of the Constitution:
Sec. 4. The term of part of the Senators shall be six years and shall commence, unless otherwise provided past law, at noon on the thirtieth twenty-four hours of June next post-obit their election.
Sec. 2. The Senators, members of the House of Representatives, and the local officials starting time elected under this Constitution shall serve until noon of June 30, 1992.
Of the Senators elected in the election in 1992, the first twelve obtaining the highest number of votes shall serve for six years and the remaining twelve for three years.
It must be remembered that the 24 Senators kickoff elected nether the 1987 Constitution on May 2, 1987 served merely for v years ending on June 30, 1992. Of the senators elected in 1992, the first 12 obtaining the highest number of votes served for the total term of half dozen years expiring in 1998, and the final 12 served only three years and ended in 1995. Later on which, the 12 Senators elected in 1995 shall serve the full term of half-dozen years or until year 2001. Those 12 to be elected in 1998 shall also serve the full term of six years. In fine, beginning 1992, 12 Senators shall be elected every three years, so that unlike in the House of Representatives, the Senate shall non at someday be completely dissolved. One-half of the membership is retained as the other one-half is replaced or reelected every three years.
The purpose of the continuity of the life of the Senate is intended to encourage the maintenance of Senate policies likewise as guarantee that in that location will be experienced members who tin help and train newcomers in the belch of their duties. In addition, in case of resignation, death, permanent disability, removal from function, or resignation of the President and Vice-President, the Senate President shall act as President.
Moreover, the Constitution, in Section 4, Article 6, provides limits to the extent a fellow member of the Senate tin run for reelection. Information technology provides as follows:
No Senator shall serve for more than than ii consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for whatsoever length of time shall non be considered as an inter-ruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected.
Privileges of Senators
Salaries
The salaries of members of the Senate is governed by Commodity Six of the Constitution equally follows:
Sec. 10. The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall exist determined by law. No increase in said bounty shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives approval such increase.
Sec. 20. The records and books of accounts of Congress shall exist preserved and be open to the public in accord with law, and such books shall exist audited by the Commission on Audit which shall publish annually an itemized listing of amounts paid to and expenses incurred for each Fellow member.
It must be noted that in accordance with the above provisions, there is no prohibition against the receipt of allowances by the members of Congress. The second section, on the other hand, seeks to avoid the recurrence of the abuses committed by the members of the Old Congress in allotting themselves fabulous allowances the amount of which they refused to divulge to the people. Information technology is now provided under the Constitution that the books of accounts of Congress shall be open to public inspection and must be audited past the Committee on Inspect. Moreover, every fellow member of Congress' itemized expenditures, including allowances, shall be published annually for the information of the people.
It is interesting to note that the Constitution in Section 17, Article XVIII, provides the corresponding salaries of Senators, to wit:
Until the Congress provides otherwise, the President shall receive an annual salary of three hundred thousand pesos; the Vice-President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Main Justice of the Supreme Courtroom, two hundred forty thousand pesos each; the Senators, the members of the House of Representatives, the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and the Chairmen of the Ramble Commissions, 2 hundred four yard pesos each; and the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, one hundred eighty m pesos each.
Yet, nether Joint Resolution No. ane, the salaries of the members of the Senate is increased to salary grade 33 with monthly equivalent rate of P35,000.00. The Senate President, on the other hand, is raised to salary grade 34 with a monthly basic bacon of P40,000.00.
Parliamentary Immunities
A. Privilege from Arrest
One of the privileges that a member of Congress enjoys is the privilege from abort. In this regard, Section 11, Article VI, of the Constitution provides as follows:
A Senator or Fellow member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable past not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No fellow member shall be questioned nor be held liable in whatever other place for whatsoever voice communication or debate in Congress or in any commission thereof.
This privilege is intended to insure representation of the constituents past the members of Congress. In Vera vs. Avelino, the Supreme Court, quoting a conclusion of the United states of america Supreme Court, explained for whose benefit the right to parliamentary immunity is secured:
These privileges are thus secured non with the intention of protecting the members confronting prosecutors for their ain benefit, but to back up the rights of the people, by enabling their representatives to execute the function of their office without fear of prosecution, civil or criminal.
A member of Congress could only be suspended by the House of which he is a member and merely for the purpose of self-preservation or self-protection. To protect a member of Congress from oppression, even this power has been circumscribed past the 1935 Constitution and further limited past the 1987 Constitution.
The rationale for this was expressed past the Supreme Court as early as 11 September 1924 in Alejandrino vs. Quezon:
It is noteworthy that the Congress of the United States shall not in all its long history append a member. And the reason is obvious. Punishment by way of reprimand or fine vindicates the outraged dignity of the House without depriving the constituency of representation; expulsion, when permissible, likewise vindicates the honor of the legislative trunk while giving to the constituency an opportunity to elect anew; but break deprives the balloter district of representation without that district being afforded any means by which to fill the vacancy. Past intermission, the seat remains filled, but the occupant is silenced.
B. Privilege of Speech and Debate
ane. Bases of the Privilege
ane.ane. Constitutional Footing
Privilege voice communication is a parliamentary privilege enjoyed past a Fellow member of Congress provided for in Section 11, Commodity VI of the Constitution. Information technology states as follows:
Sec. xi. A Senator or Member of the Firm of Representatives shall, in all offenses exist punishable by not more than half-dozen years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned nor exist held liable in any other identify for whatever spoken communication or debate in Congress or in any committee thereof.
ane.2 Rules of the Senate
This is contained in Section 110, Rule Twoscore, Rules of the Senate, which provides as follows:
Sec. 110. After the consideration of the matters independent in the Calendar for Special Orders, a Senator may forthwith request for and avail of the privilege to speak for i (i) 60 minutes on any thing of public interest.
If more than one (one) Senator wish to avail of the same privilege, the Senator who commencement announced his intention shall be given priority.
The period of time allowed in this section may, upon motion of the Senator on the floor be extended for such fourth dimension as may be necessary for him to finish his voice communication unless a majority of all the Senators vote against such extension.
2. Purpose of the Privilege
Members of Congress cannot be prosecuted for any words spoken in debate or in connexion with voting or used in written reports or with things generally done in a session of either House in relation to the business before it. This protection is extended to them during the session on the occasion of the exercise of their functions either in their respective chambers or in joint assembly, or in committees or commission. The purpose of this privilege of spoken communication or debate is not to protect the members against prosecutions for their own benefit only to enable them as representatives of the people to execute the functions of their function without fright of prosecution, ceremonious or criminal. As held in the case of Osmeña v. Pendatun, the Supreme Court took the occasion of defining the purpose of the privilege. It ruled:
Our Constitution enshrines parliamentary amnesty which is a primal privilege cherished in every legislative assembly of the democratic earth. As quondam every bit the English Parliament, its purpose is to enable and encourage a representative of the public to discharge his public trust with compactness and success for information technology is indispensably necessary that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of oral communication, and that he should be protected from the resentment of every one, however, powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may occasion. Such immunity has come to this state from the practices of Parliament as construed and applied by the Congress of the United states. Its extent and application remain no longer in doubt insofar equally related to the question earlier usa. Information technology guarantees the legislator complete liberty of expression without fear of being made responsible in criminal or civil actions before the courts or whatsoever other forum outside of the Congressional hall. Only it does not protect him from responsibility before the legislative body itself whenever his words and conduct are considered by the latter disorderly or unbecoming to a fellow member thereof.
three. Precedents and Practices
The following are some of the precedents and practices observed in the previous sessions of Congress concerning the privilege speech:
3.i. When Information technology Can and When Information technology Cannot
Information technology has been ruled that the privilege granted nether this section cannot exist availed of when the House has already proceeded to transact its business organisation, such every bit the consideration of bills. But in a certain case, when the Business firm was already considering unfinished business or business for the day, a member was permitted, through a motion unanimously approved, to deliver a brusk speech on an important example in his province. A fellow member availing himself of such a privilege was entitled to one full 60 minutes. Having the floor on the privilege 60 minutes, he could not be forced to yield to interpellations.
The i-60 minutes privilege not having expired yet, a member, who requested but ten minutes in order to deliver his speech, was allowed to use the rest of the hour. He could not exist precluded from standing with his speech until the 1 hour was consumed.
3.2. On Asking for Reservation
On point of order whether preference be given to a member who requests a previous reservation over any member who stands up on the floor ahead of the former, information technology has been held that an unwritten rule, sanctioned past immemorial practise, establishes such a preference. A asking for reservation to utilize the privilege hr on a future date made on the floor by a fellow member is recorded in the Journal.
The time of a member automatically expires the moment he takes his seat and, consequently, he cannot reply questions unless an extension of his time is granted by unanimous consent. The i-hour privilege can exist extended just past unanimous consent.
three.three. Decorum on Voice communication
A member, availing himself of the privilege hour, may refuse interpellations, only he may be brash by the Chair not to use whatsoever improper language. He should apply a language in conformity with the decorum and dignity of the House.
The Chair entertained a motion to delete from the Record a portion of a member's speech under the privilege hour as unparliamentary for being confronting the dignity and integrity of the members, and when submitted past the Chair to the House, the motion was approved.
When a member attacks the leadership of the Business firm, he may be declared out of order and deprived further use of the privilege hour.
A member should, during the privilege hr, refrain from making personal allusions to any fellow member. In availing himself of the privilege hour, a member may, under his own responsibility, speak confronting an absent-minded fellow member. It is indecorous of the Senate during a privilege speech.
In the exercise of his one- hour privilege, a fellow member can speak on any subject of national involvement, and he may even criticize the President on the engagement of certain persons to the government. Merely delivering speeches attacking the Main Executive constitutes disorderly conduct for which a fellow member may be suspended or expelled from the House equally a disciplinary activeness. The Chair sustained a point of order which asked for deletion from the Record, equally unparliamentary, parts of the privilege speech attacking the Catholic faith.
3.4. Interpellation
A fellow member having the flooring to avail himself of the privilege 60 minutes may turn down to yield to interpellation or yield for information. He cannot be forced to yield to another so that, in turn, the latter tin reply questions.
Information technology is in order for a member interpellating to lay the premises of his question. He may interpellate in the mode he so desires and use whatsoever of the official languages even if different from that used by the fellow member who has the floor.
A fellow member on the floor using the remaining portion of the privilege hour may stop yielding to further interpellations.
The time consumed by interpellation is counted against a member who has the floor; that is the reason why he has the option to yield or not to questions.
3.5. Precedence and Interruption
The House sustained the Chair that afterward the reading of the order of concern, the 1-hr privilege has precedence over whatsoever other matters, such as question of privilege.
A fellow member availing himself of the one-hour privilege may yield to further interpellation, but he cannot exist interrupted except by a signal of society. He cannot exist deprived of the floor except with his consent, and he may deliver his speech communication in such manner as he pleases as long as he speaks with due decorum. The Chair did non entertain a motion referring a i-hour privilege speech to a commission on the ground that while a member is enjoying the privilege, he cannot be deprived of the floor except by a point of order.
three.6. Extension of Time
Later on a member has consumed the privilege hr, no extension of time for the privilege can be granted if there is an objection to the motion for such extension.
An objection to a motion for extension of the ane-60 minutes privilege is non debatable.
The one-hour privilege can no longer be extended when, after its commitment, the member using the privilege sits down, thereby forfeiting his correct to continue. When a member sits downwards afterwards the expiration of his ane-hour privilege, his time can no longer be extended.
A member who has the privilege hour may yield a portion of it to another member. When a member ceded a portion of his one-60 minutes privilege, such a portion could not, without his consent, be extended to more than the number of minutes agreed upon.
A member using the remaining portion of the privilege hour may refuse any interpellation in gild to save the time left for him.three.seven. Reference Oral communication
The Chair entertained a motion to refer a privilege speech communication to a committee afterward information technology had been delivered on the flooring.
three.eight. Stricken Off the Record
On motion approved by the House, the whole voice communication including interpellations, was stricken off the record for being unparliamentary.
During the privilege hour, the Chair motu proprio ordered stricken off the record the word "dishonorable" uttered with reference to the members of the House by the member interpellating.
4. Relevance
4.1. No bodacious government by the people unless their representatives possess this privilege.
There could be no assured authorities past the people, unless their representatives had unquestioned possession of this privilege. Thus, just the House of Commons was concerned in its vindication, and only in its connexion with that House could information technology be a matter of ramble importance. The Lords, of course, possess the right as with the Commons, and thus it is considered i of the common privileges of Parliament. But information technology seems never to accept been an issue with the Lords. As Stubbs says, "he would have been a bold Rex indeed who had attempted to finish give-and-take in the Firm of Lords."
4.2. To protect independence and integrity of Congress and to reinforce separation of powers.
In U.South. vs. Johnson, Justice John Marshall Harlan said that the purpose of the speech or contend clause is safe, that information technology was adopted past the Constitutional Convention (without give-and-take or opposition) because of the English language feel with the intent to protect the independence and integrity of Congress and to reinforce the separation of powers by preventing an unfriendly executive and a hostile judiciary appointed by the executive from reaching a congressional activity for evidence of criminality.
4.3. Footing of corrective legislative measures.
In exercise, many subjects of privilege speeches are the bases of consequent advisable commission investigations of legislative bodies, and these may event to corrective measures being filed on the footing of such committee investigations. It appears to exist co-extensive with the range of legislative ability, like the range of legislative research together with its limitations.
four.4. To voice out dissent, the essence of commonwealth.
It is the all-time outlet of the people and of the opposition to ventilate anomalies in govern-ment and misgovernment, to express their concerns and sentiments thru their representatives in legislative bodies. In short, to phonation out dissent is the essence of democracy.
five. Scope of Privilege Speech communication:
Personal and Collective
A question of privilege consists of a question affecting the rights of the Senate collectively or of its members individually including its privileges, reputation, conduct, decorum, dignity and integrity of proceedings.
A Senator may rise to a question of personal privilege at any time, simply he cannot interrupt or take another Senator from the floor for that purpose without the latter's consent. However, the reading of the Periodical cannot be interrupted by a question of personal privilege neither tin can a question of privilege exist raised when there is no quorum or when the roll is being called.
Under this provision, a member of the Senate may raise a question of privilege by a argument or remark on the floor and if sustained by the Chair, the member is entitled to speak.
After the privilege speech of a Senator, another member was recognized on a question of personal privilege to clarify certain matters in which he participated and which was left out in the privilege speech of the onetime.
A member rose to speak on a question of personal privilege as his name was linked in a news detail which was considered equally a malicious publication.
Franking Privilege
Commonwealth Act No. 69 remains a good law. It expressly grants members of Congress the transmission free of charge within the Philippines of mail matters. Sections 1 and 2 of this police force provide as follows:
All postal service matter of Senators and of members of the Business firm of Representatives of the Philippines, addressed for delivery inside the Philippines, shall be received, transmitted and delivered in the mails of the Philippines free of postage: Provided, That each such postal service matter when addressed to persons or offices other than government officers or offices shall not exceed one hundred and twenty grams in weight.
The envelope or wrapper of such post matter shall touch the left upper corner the name and official designation of the official sending the postal service matter, and the words "Senate of the Philippines," or "Firm of Representatives," as the instance may exist, and on the right upper corner the words "Penalty for private or unauthorized utilize to avert payment of postage, P500.00."
Suspension and Disqualification
Way of Imposing Subject
Section 16(3), Article Six of the Constitution provides the manner in which members of the Senate may be disciplined, suspended or expelled. It provides equally follows:
Each Firm may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for hell-raising behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed lx days.
Rules of proceedings are needed for the orderly conduct of the sessions of Congress. Unless such rules violate fundamental or individual rights, they are within the exclusive discretion of each Business firm to codify and translate and may not be judicially reversed.
Without the above provision, the authority to subject field its members tin still be exercised by each Business firm as an inherent ability, with the concurrence of a majority vote, conformably to the full general rule on the will of the majority. With this provision, the disciplinary ability is not so much expressly conferred every bit limited because of the specific conditions laid down for its proper do.
Thus, the courts may annul whatsoever expulsion or break of a member that is not concurred in by at to the lowest degree 2-thirds of the entire body or any suspension meted out by the legislature, even with the required two-thirds vote, equally to any flow in excess of the lx-twenty-four hour period maximum elapsing. These are procedural matters and therefore justiciable.
But the interpretation of the phrase "hell-raising behavior" is the prerogative of Congress and cannot as a rule be judicially reviewed. The matter comes in the category of a political question. Accordingly, the Supreme Court did non interfere when the legislature declared that the concrete assail by 1 member confronting another, or the delivery of a derogatory oral communication which the fellow member was unable to substantiate, constituted "disorderly behavior" and justified the adoption of disciplinary measures.
Other disciplinary measures too expulsion and suspension are deletion of unparliamentary remarks from the record, fine, imprisonment and censure, sometimes called "soft impeachment."
Inhibitions and Disqualifications
The Constitution provides in Section xiv, Commodity Half-dozen the grounds of inhibitions and disqualifications for members of Congress.
It provides equally follows:
No Senator or fellow member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel earlier any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he, straight or indirectly, be interested financially in whatsoever contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before whatsoever office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his role.
Appearance of the legislator is now barred before all courts of justice, regardless of rank, limerick, or jurisdiction. The disqualification also applies to the revived Electoral Tribunal and to all administrative bodies, like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Labor Relations Commission. Courts martial and war machine tribunals, being administrative agencies, are included.
The purpose of the disqualifications is to foreclose the legislator from exerting undue influence, deliberately or not, upon the body where he is appearing. The pressure may non be intended; ordinarily, the advent is enough, considering the powers available to the legislator which he tin can practise to advantage or punish a judge deciding his instance or, in the case of the Electoral Tribunal, his close association with its members. This is the reason the prohibited appearance must be personal. The lawyer-legislator may notwithstanding appoint in the practice of his profession except that when it comes to trials and hearings before the bodies in a higher place-mentioned, advent may be made not by him but by other members of his law role.
In Puyat v. De Guzman, a legislator entered his appearance as counsel for one of the parties to an intracorporate dispute before the Securities and Commutation Commission. He desisted when his representation was challenged under the above-mentioned section. Thereafter, he purchased P200 worth of stocks in the corporation from the faction he was representing and sought to intervene in the said dispute, this fourth dimension as a stockholder. The Supreme Court did not allow him to do and so equally his evident purpose was to circumvent the constitutional prohibition. Justice Melencio Herrera declared:
Under those facts and circumstances, we are constrained to concord that at that place has been an indirect appearance as counsel before xxx an administrative body' and in our opinion, that is circumvention of the constitutional prohibition. The intervention was an reconsideration to enable him to appear actively in the proceeding in another chapters. To believe the avowed purpose, that is, to enable him eventually to vote and to be elected as Director in the consequence of an unfavorable outcome of the SEC case, would be pure naivete. He would all the same appear equally counsel indirectly.
Legislators are prohibited from existence financially interested in whatever contract with the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including authorities-owned or controlled corporations, or in whatsoever franchise or special privilege granted by any of these during their term of office, considering of the influences they tin can easily practice in obtaining these concessions. The thought is to foreclose abuses from existence committed by the members of Congress to the prejudice of the public welfare and particularly of legitimate contractors with the government who otherwise might be placed at a disadvantageous position vis-à-vis the legislator.
It should be noted, though, that not every transaction with the government is barred past this provision. The contracts referred to here are those involving "fiscal interest," that is, contracts from which the legislator expects to derive some profit at the expense of the government. An analogy is a contract for public works or the sale of office equipment or supplies to the government. Past dissimilarity, information technology cannot be said that the legislator will profit financially from a contract of carriage with a government instrumentality like the PAL since information technology is the carrier that will do good from the passenger'south fare.
The last judgement restores an inhibition originally imposed by the 1935 Constitution. Although this provision has never been judicially interpreted, it may be surmised that the rule shall apply to the case, say, of the chairman of the committee on banks serving as legislative consultant for a private banking company.
Conflict of Interests
The provisions in Section 12, Article 6 of the Constitution are intended to ensure the probity and objectivity of the members of Congress.
In that location are some persons who may exist tempted to run for Congress not because of a desire to serve the people only precisely for the protection or even enhancement of their ain interests. By requiring them to brand known at the outset their financial and business connections or investments, it is hoped that their potential for self-aggrandizement volition be reduced and they will be prevented from using their official positions for ulterior purposes. In some countries, businessmen are required to unload their stockholdings as these might touch on their official acts or at least lead to suspicion of casuistry or impropriety in the discharge of their duties in the government.
Incompatible and Forbidden Offices
Under Section 13, Article Half dozen of the Constitution, it states some other disqualifications by which a member of Congress may agree office, to wit:
Sec. 13. No Senator or Member of the Firm of Representatives may hold whatsoever other function or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, bureau, or instrumentality thereof, including government-endemic or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected.
The first function of this department refers to what are known every bit incompatible offices, which may not be held past the legislator during his tenure in Congress. The purpose is to prevent him from owing loyalty to some other branch of the government, to the detriment of the independence of the legislature and the doctrine of separation of powers.
The prohibition against the belongings of an incompatible office is not absolute; what is non allowed is the simultaneous belongings of that office and the seat in Congress. In the case of the remainder of the legislators, any of them may hold another office or employment in the regime provided he forfeits, every bit a result, his position in Congress.
Forfeiture of the legislator'southward seat, or cessation of his tenure, shall be automatic upon the holding of the incompatible office. Thus, a congress-homo who was elected provincial governor was deemed to accept automatically forfeited his seat in the House of Representatives when he took his oath for the provincial office. No resolution was necessary to declare his legislative mail service vacant.
In Adaza 5. Pacana, the petitioner and the respondent were elected governor and vice-governor, respectively, of Misamis Oriental. Both subsequently ran for the Batasang Pambansa, merely just the petitioner won. Adaza then qualified every bit a member of the lawmaking body, whereupon Pacana assumed the governorship as statutory successor. Adaza challenged Pacana'due south takeover, contending that nether the parliamentary system a legislator could concurrently serve as governor; hence, there was no vacancy in the governorship that Pacana could fill up. Through Justice Escolin, the Court unanimously rejected this argument and held that Adaza automatically forfeited the governorship the moment he took his adjuration as a member of the Batasang Pambansa.
The ramble prohibition against a member of the Batasang Pambansa from holding whatsoever other office or employment in the government during his tenure is clear. Department 10, Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution provides every bit follows:
Sec. 10. A Member of the National Assembly shall not hold any other role or employment in the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including authorities-owned or controlled corporations, during his tenure, except that of prime number minister or member of the chiffonier. xxx
The linguistic communication used in the to a higher place-cited section is plain. The just exceptions mentioned therein are the offices of prime government minister and cabinet member. The wisdom or expediency of the said provision is a affair which is not inside the province of the Court to determine.
A public role is a public trust. It is created for the interest and the do good of the people. Every bit such, a holder thereof is bailiwick to such regulations and conditions as the law may impose and he cannot complain of any restrictions which public policy may dictate on his holding of more than than one office. Information technology is therefore of no avail to petitioner that the system of government in other states allows a local elective official to human activity as an elected member of the parliament at the same time. The dictate of the people in whom legal sovereignty lies is explicit. It provides no exceptions save the ii offices specifically cited in the above-quoted constitutional provision. Thus, while it may be said that within the purely parliamentary system of government no incompatibility exists in the nature of the two offices under consideration, as incompatibility herein present is 1 created by no less than the Constitution itself. In the case at bar, at that place is no question that petitioner has taken his adjuration of function every bit an elected Mambabatas Pambansa and has been discharging his duties as such. In the light of the oftentimes-mentioned constitutional provision, this fact operated to vacate his former mail and he cannot now continue to occupy the same, nor endeavour to belch its functions.
Merely not every other part or employment is to be regarded as incompatible with the legislative position. For example, membership in the Electoral Tribunal is permitted by the Constitution itself. Moreover, if it can be shown that the second function is an extension of the legislative position or is in assist of legislative duties, the holding thereof volition not result in the loss of the legislator'due south seat in Congress.
Accordingly, the chairmen of the Senate and Business firm committees on education retain their seats in Congress while sitting concurrently equally ex-officio members in the U.P. Board of Regents. Legislators who serve every bit treaty negotiators under the President of the Philippines continue to sit in Congress, where they tin amend work for the blessing of the treaty and the passage of the needed implementing legislation.
But even if a member of Congress is willing to forfeit his seat therein, he may not exist appointed to any civil office in the government that has been created or the emoluments thereof have been increased while he was incumbent in the legislature. Such a position is a forbidden office.
The purpose is to prevent trafficking in public function. Were the rule otherwise, certain legislators, especially those not sure of reelection, might be able to work for the creation or improvement of lucrative positions and, in combination with the President, adapt for their appointment thereto in order to provide for their futurity security at the expense of the public service.
Notably, this provision does not apply to elective offices, which are filled by the voters themselves.
The appointment of a member of Congress to the forbidden part is not immune simply during the term for which he was elected, when such office was created or its emoluments were increased. Afterwards such term, and fifty-fifty if the legislator is reelected, the disqualification no longer applies and he may therefore be appointed to the office.
Senators
- 18th Congress Senators
- Listing of Previous Senators
- Whorl of Senate Presidents
- Composition of the Senate
- Term of Office and Privileges
Source: http://legacy.senate.gov.ph/senators/terms.asp
0 Response to "Salary of House of Representatives in the Philippines"
Post a Comment