The manner by which Congress approved the extension of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is a political question that is not reviewable by the Court.
We cannot say anything more than what has been expounded and find no reason to deviate from the ruling on this matter in the case of Lagman v. Pimentel III:[77]
We cannot say anything more than what has been expounded and find no reason to deviate from the ruling on this matter in the case of Lagman v. Pimentel III:[77]
No less than the Constitution, under Section 16 of Article VI, grants the Congress the right to promulgate its own rules to govern its proceedings, to wit:Section 16. (3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly 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 sixty days. (Emphasis ours)In Pimentel, Jr., et al. v. Senate Committee of the Whole, this constitutionally-vested authority is recognized as a grant of foil discretionary authority to each House of Congress in the formulation, adoption and promulgation of its own rules. As such, the exercise of this power is generally exempt from judicial supervision and interference, except on a clear showing of such arbitrary and improvident use of the power as will constitute a denial of due process.
This freedom from judicial interference was explained in the 1997 case of Arroyo v. De Venecia, wherein the Court declared that:But the cases, both here and abroad, in varying forms of expression, all deny to the courts the power to inquire into allegations that, in enacting a law, a House of Congress failed to comply with its own rules, in the absence of showing that there was a violation of a constitutional provision or the rights of private individuals.In other words, the Court cannot review the rules promulgated by Congress in the absence of any constitutional violation. Petitioners have not shown that the above-quoted rules of the Joint Session violated any provision or right under the Constitution.
Construing the full discretionary power granted to the Congress in promulgating its rules, the Court, in the case of Spouses Dela Paz (Ret.) v. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, et al. explained that the limitation of this unrestricted power deals only with the imperatives of quorum, voting and publication. It should be added that there must be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought to be attained.[79]
No comments:
Post a Comment