PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSN., INC. v. GIMENEZ (Sam)
The provision for the retirement of the members and certain
December 18, 1965 | Regala, J. | Effect of Insufficiency of Title
PETITIONER: Philippine Constitution Assn., Inc., et. al.
RESPONDENT: Pedro M. Gimenez, et. al.
SUMMARY: The Petitioner, the Philippine Constitution Assn., Inc. (Philconsa),
a non-profit civic organization, duly incorporated under Philippine Laws, filed a
petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction to restrain the Auditor
General of the Philippines and the disbursing officers of both Houses of the
Congress. t argued that RA 3836, which allowed retirement gratuity to the
members of the Congress, was unconstitutional and void as the provision on the
retirement was not expressed in its title and the law aimed at increasing the
compensation of the members of the Congress, both of which constituted
violations of the Constitution. SC held that the law was unconstitutional, not
only because the provision on the retirement was considered discriminatory, but
also because the title was not relevant to the subject matter, and therefore a
violation of the Constitution.
DOCTRINE:
1935 Constitution (as amended), Art. VI, Section 21. (1): No bill which may be
enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed
in the title of the bill.
FACTS:
1. RA 3886 allows a Senator or a member of the HoR and an elective office of
either House of Congress to retire regardless of age. It provides for the
retirement benefits for members of Congress which, in effect, are increases
in the salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives,
2. Based on this law, to be eligible for retirement, he must have served for at
least twelve years as Senator and/or as member of the HoR. For an elective
officer of either House, he must have served the government for at least
twelve years, of which not less than four years have been rendered as such
elective officer.
3. The gratuity payable by the employer or office is equivalent to one year’s
salary for every four years of service in the government. The gratuity is
exempt from taxation, not liable to attachment or execution, and not
refundable in case of reinstatement or re-election of the retiree.
4. The Petitioner, the Philippine Constitution Assn., Inc. (Philconsa), a non-
profit civic organization, duly incorporated under Philippine Laws, filed a
petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction to restrain the Auditor
General of the Philippines and the disbursing officers of both Houses of the
Congress.
5. It argued that RA 3836, which allows retirement gratuity to the members of
the Congress, is unconstitutional and void based on the following points:
a.
officers of Congress is not expressed in the title of the bill. The
title gives no inkling or notice whatsoever to the public regarding
the retirement gratuities and commutable vacation and sick leave
privileges to members of Congress.
b. The provision on retirement gratuity is an attempt to circumvent
the Constitutional ban on increase of salaries of the members of
Congress during their term of office
c. The same provision constitutes "selfish class legislation" because it
allows members and officers of Congress to retire after twelve (12)
years of service and gives them a gratuity equivalent to one year
salary for every four years of service, which is not refundable in
case of reinstatement or re-election of the retiree, while all other
officers and employees of the government can retire only after at
least twenty (20) years of service and are given a gratuity which is
only equivalent to one month salary for every year of service,
which, in any case. cannot exceed 24 months.
d. The provision on vacation and sick leave, commutable at the
highest rate received, insofar as members of Congress are
concerned, is another attempt of the legislators to further increase
their compensation in violation of the Constitution.
6. The Solicitor General, in response, raised the following points:
a. The grant of retirement or pension benefits under Republic Act No.
3836 to the officers objected to by the petitioner does not
constitute "forbidden compensation"
b. The title of the law in question sufficiently complies with the
provisions of the Constitution (Section 21, Article VI) that “no bill
which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one
subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill."
c. The law in question does not constitute class legislation
d. Certain indispensable parties, specifically the elected officers of
Congress who are authorized to approve vouchers for payments for
funds under the law in question, and the claimants to the vouchers
to be presented for payment under said items, were not included in
the petition
e. The petitioner has no standing to institute this suit.
f. The payment of commutable vacation and sick leave benefits
under the said Act is merely "in the nature of a basis for computing
the gratuity due each retiring member" and, therefore, is not an
indirect scheme to increase their salary.
7. According to SC:
a. As taxpayers, the petitioners Philconsa had a legal standing to
bring suit.
b. The retirement benefit is a form of emolument because it is a part
of compensation for services of one possessing any office. This
clearly runs counter to the prohibition of the Constitution (Art VI,
 Sec. 14) 6. 1935 Constitution (as amended), Art III, Section 1. (1) No person shall be
c. Features of RA 3886 are patently discriminatory, and therefore deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall
violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution (Art III, Sec. any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
1(1)).
7. 1935 Constitution (as amended), Art VI, Section 14. The Senators and the
d. The title of said Republic Act 3836 is void as it is not germane to
the subject matter and is a violation of the paragraph 1, section 21, Members of the House of Representatives shall, unless otherwise provided
Article VI of the Constitution by law, receive an annual compensation of seven thousand two hundred
ISSUE/s: pesos each, including per diems and other emoluments or allowances and
1. Whether or Not RA 3836 is void and unconstitutional - YES exclusive only of traveling expenses to and from their respective districts in
the case of Members of the House of Representatives, and to and from their
RULING: places of residence in the case of Senators, when attending sessions of the
SC declared RA 3836 null and void, and unconstitutional, insofar as it refers to the
Congress. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after
retirement of Members of Congress and elected officials. Restraining order was
issued. the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and of
the House of Representatives approving such increase. Until otherwise
RATIO: provided by law, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House
1. With regard to the legal standing - taxpayers, have sufficient interest in of Representatives shall each receive an annual compensation of sixteen
preventing the illegal expenditures of moneys raised by taxation and thousand pesos.
may therefore question the legality or constitutionality of statutes
requiring expenditure of public moneys." (11 Am. Jur. 761)
2. The purpose of the requirement that the subject of an Act should be
expressed in its title is fully explained by Cooley, thus: (1) to prevent
surprise or fraud upon the Legislature; and (2) to fairly apprise the
people, through such publication of legislation that are being considered, in
order that they may have the opportunity of being heard thereon by petition
or otherwise, if they shall so desire (Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 8th
ed., Vol. I, p. 182; See also Martin, Political Law Reviewer, Book One
[1965], p. 119)
3. The Constitutional requirement with respect to titles of statutes as
sufficient to reflect their contents is satisfied if all parts of a law relate
to the subject expressed in its title, and it is not necessary that the title be
a complete index of the content." (People v. Carlos, 78 Phil. 535)
4. The Constitutional requirement that the subject of an act shall be
expressed in its title should be reasonably construed so as not to interfere
unduly with the enactment of necessary legislation. It should be given a
practical, rather than technical construction. It should be a sufficient
compliance with such requirement if the title expresses the general subject
and all the provisions of the statute are germane to that general subject.
(Sumulong v. The Commission on Elections, 73 Phil. 288, 291)
5. 1935 Constitution (as amended), Art. VI, Section 21.
(1) No bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one
subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill.