How a Bill Becomes Law in the Philippines: Legislative Process and Key Jurisprudence

I. Introduction

The legislative process in the Philippines is a cornerstone of its democratic system, enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, which establishes a bicameral Congress composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. This process transforms proposed legislation, known as bills, into statutes or laws that govern the nation. Rooted in the principle of separation of powers, the procedure ensures thorough deliberation, checks and balances, and public participation. It draws from American influences but is adapted to the Philippine presidential system.

The Constitution, particularly Article VI, outlines the fundamental framework, supplemented by congressional rules, statutes like Republic Act No. 9006 (Fair Election Act) for election-related bills, and jurisprudence from the Supreme Court. This article comprehensively examines the step-by-step legislative process, procedural nuances, constitutional requirements, and pivotal judicial decisions that have shaped its interpretation and application.

II. Constitutional Foundations

A. Sources of Legislative Power

Legislative power is vested in Congress, except to the extent reserved to the people via initiative and referendum (Article VI, Section 1). Congress cannot delegate this power except in specific cases, such as to the President for emergency powers (Article VI, Section 23) or local governments for ordinances.

B. Types of Bills

Bills are classified as:

General Bills: Apply nationwide.
Local Bills: Affect specific localities.
Private Bills: Benefit individuals or entities.
Appropriation, Revenue, or Tariff Bills: Must originate in the House (Article VI, Section 24).
Bills Authorizing Increase in Public Debt, Private Bills, or Bills of Local Application: Also originate in the House.

C. Quorum and Voting Requirements

A majority of each house constitutes a quorum (Article VI, Section 16(2)). Most bills require a simple majority vote, but overrides of presidential vetoes need two-thirds (Article VI, Section 27(1)). Impeachment requires one-third of the House to initiate and two-thirds of the Senate to convict (Article XI, Sections 3(1) and 3(6)).

III. Step-by-Step Legislative Process

The process is governed by the Rules of the Senate and the House, which must align with the Constitution. It typically takes months to years, involving multiple readings, debates, and inter-house coordination.

A. Initiation and Filing of Bills

Origin: Any member of Congress can introduce a bill. The President may certify bills as urgent, allowing immediate consideration without the three-reading rule on separate days (Article VI, Section 26(2)).
Exclusive Origination: Revenue, tariff, appropriation, public debt increase, private, or local application bills must start in the House. However, the Senate can propose amendments.
Petition via Initiative: The people can propose laws via initiative under Republic Act No. 6735, requiring signatures from at least 10% of registered voters (Article VI, Section 32).

B. First Reading

The bill is read by its title, number, and author.
It is referred to the appropriate committee(s) for study. No debate occurs at this stage.
In the House, the Committee on Rules handles referrals; in the Senate, the Senate President or Rules Committee.

C. Committee Stage

Hearings and Deliberations: Committees conduct public hearings, inviting stakeholders, experts, and agencies. Technical working groups may refine the bill.
Amendments and Substitutes: Committees can amend, consolidate, or substitute bills. If rejected, the bill dies in committee.
Report Out: A committee report is submitted, recommending approval, disapproval, or amendments. This stage is crucial for scrutiny and often where lobbying occurs.
Special Committees: For complex issues, like the Bangsamoro Organic Law, ad hoc committees may form.

D. Second Reading

Sponsorship and Debate: The committee chair sponsors the bill. Interpellations, debates, and amendments follow.
Period of Amendments: Members propose changes; voting on amendments occurs.
Approval on Second Reading: The house votes on the bill as amended. If passed, it proceeds; if not, it may be archived or reconsidered.

E. Third Reading

The bill, printed in final form, is distributed at least three days before voting (Article VI, Section 26(2)).
No amendments are allowed; only a yea/nay vote by roll call.
Passage requires a majority of quorum members.

F. Transmission to the Other House

If originated in the House and passed, it goes to the Senate (and vice versa).
The receiving house treats it as a new bill, undergoing the same three readings.
If the Senate amends a House bill, it returns to the House for concurrence.

G. Bicameral Conference Committee (Bicam)

If versions differ, a bicameral conference committee reconciles discrepancies.
Composed of members from both houses, it produces a conference report.
The report must be approved by both houses. No new provisions can be inserted beyond reconciling differences, per jurisprudence.

H. Enrollment and Authentication

The approved bill is enrolled (printed in final form) and signed by the Senate President and House Speaker.
It is then transmitted to the President.

I. Presidential Action

Approval: The President signs it into law (Article VI, Section 27(1)).
Veto: The President can veto the entire bill or line-item veto appropriations, revenue, or tariff bills. Congress can override with two-thirds vote in each house.
Pocket Veto: If not acted upon within 30 days, the bill lapses into law.
Certification of Urgency: Allows bypassing the three-day printing rule and separate-day readings.

J. Publication and Effectivity

Laws are published in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation (Article 2, Civil Code; Executive Order No. 200).
Effectivity is 15 days after publication unless otherwise provided.

IV. Special Procedures

A. Budget and Appropriations

The General Appropriations Bill (GAB) follows a unique timeline: Submitted by the President within 30 days of Congress's opening, it undergoes rigorous committee scrutiny.
No amendments increasing total appropriations without presidential consent.

B. Treaties and International Agreements

Senate concurrence by two-thirds vote for treaties (Article VII, Section 21).

C. Impeachment Bills

House initiates via verified complaint or endorsement; Senate tries as a court.

D. Electoral and Political Laws

Subject to Commission on Elections oversight; bills like the Automated Election System law require special safeguards.

E. Emergency Legislation

During martial law or emergencies, Congress can convene or delegate powers to the President.

V. Key Jurisprudence Shaping the Legislative Process

The Supreme Court has interpreted and enforced constitutional provisions through landmark cases, ensuring procedural integrity and preventing abuses.

A. Origination Clause

Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance (1994): Upheld the Value-Added Tax Law despite Senate amendments to a House-originated revenue bill. The Court ruled that the Senate can introduce amendments, even substantial ones, as long as the bill originates in the House. This "germaneness" test requires amendments to relate to the bill's subject.
Alvarez v. Guingona (1996): Affirmed that bills increasing public debt must originate in the House, but Senate substitutions are allowed if germane.

B. Three-Readings Rule

Arroyo v. De Venecia (1997): The Court deferred to congressional rules, holding that the three-readings requirement is directory, not mandatory, unless constitutional rights are violated. However, certification of urgency must be justified.
Philippine Judges Association v. Prado (1993): Invalidated a law for violating the three-day printing rule, emphasizing procedural due process.

C. Bicameral Conference Committee

Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez (1994): Ruled that the bicam limits insertions to reconciling differences; no "third version" of the bill can be created. Violations render the law unconstitutional.
Fariñas v. Executive Secretary (2003): Struck down provisions inserted in bicam that were not in either house's version.

D. Presidential Veto

Bengzon v. Drilon (1992): Invalidated a line-item veto in the GAB that exceeded authority, clarifying that vetoes must target specific items, not conditions.
Gonzales v. Macaraig (1990): Upheld the veto power but stressed it cannot be used to amend laws substantively.

E. Enrolled Bill Doctrine

Astorga v. Villegas (1974): The enrolled bill, signed by presiding officers, is conclusive evidence of passage. Courts generally do not look beyond it unless there is clear evidence of fraud or mistake.
Casco Philippine Chemical Co. v. Gimenez (1963): Applied the doctrine to uphold a law's validity despite alleged irregularities.

F. Publication Requirement

Tañada v. Tuvera (1985): Mandated publication for laws to take effect, overruling prior practices. Unpublished laws are ineffective.
Nagkakaisang Maralita v. Military Shrines Services (2013): Extended this to executive issuances with penal sanctions.

G. Delegation and Completeness

Pelaez v. Auditor General (1965): Invalidated excessive delegation to the President for creating municipalities, requiring sufficient standards.
Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita (2005): Upheld delegated tariff powers with guidelines.

H. Initiative and Referendum

Lambino v. COMELEC (2006): Struck down a people's initiative for lacking enabling law details and being a revision, not amendment.
Santiago v. COMELEC (1997): Declared RA 6735 insufficient for constitutional amendments via initiative.

I. Other Notable Cases

Guingona v. Carague (1991): On automatic appropriations for debt service.
Belgica v. Ochoa (2013): Declared the Pork Barrel System unconstitutional for violating separation of powers.
Saguisag v. Ochoa (2016): On enhanced defense cooperation agreements, requiring Senate concurrence as treaties.

VI. Challenges and Reforms

The process faces issues like gridlock, pork barrel insertions, and influence peddling. Reforms include anti-dynasty laws (pending), transparency via open data, and digital filing systems. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted hybrid sessions, upheld in Aumentado v. House of Representatives (2021) as constitutional.

Public participation is encouraged through hearings and petitions, aligning with democratic ideals. Jurisprudence continues to evolve, ensuring the process remains robust against executive overreach or legislative excesses.

VII. Conclusion

The Philippine legislative process embodies deliberative democracy, balanced by judicial oversight. From initiation to enactment, it safeguards against hasty legislation while allowing responsiveness to national needs. Key cases like Tolentino and Tañada have fortified constitutional mandates, making the system resilient. Understanding this process is essential for citizens, lawmakers, and scholars to engage effectively in governance.