JD1A
GATITA, REINHEART D.
PART 1
1.True
2.True
3.True
4.True
5.True
6.True
7.False
8.True
9.True
10.True
PART 2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
A
A
D
B
C
B
A
A
A
C
PART 3
1.Differentiate a joint resolution and a bill.
A Joint resolution is passed by both houses of legislative that has force of law. It requires the
approval of both houses. Just like the bill there’s no difference. The Joint resolution is used when
dealing with emergency appropriations bill and for proposing amendments.
While a Bill is a measures which passed by congress, when it approved by both houses and the
President of the Philippines. It becomes an Enrolled bill when authenticated by the speaker of the
house and the senate president and approved by the president.
The difference is that the join resolution is not presented to the president for approval unlike the Bill
it under go three readings and it must signed by president.
2.
3. To presume the Validity of a bill, it has to be passed the third reading and it will be subm88 for
final vote by yeas and nay.
Under the Enrolled Bill Doctrine, the signing of the bill by the speaker of the house and the Senate
President and the certification of the secretaries of both houses of congress that it was passed are
conclusive of its due enactment
It was invalid because because the required votes for its approval had not been obtain.
4.
The provision stating that the No money shall be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriations made by law. It means that all of government agencies or departments must
undergo the budgeting process for their different functions and activities and actions when it come
to the Validity of Appreciation. The law sets apart a determinate amount of money and allocates it
for public purpose.
In relation to the Article 7 of the civil code, that When the courts declared a law to be inconsistent,
it is void and the latter shall be govern.
5.
The petitioner in this case is challenging the validity of Republic Act charging violation of the rules of
the House which petitioners claim are “constitutionally mandated” so that their violation is
tantamount to a violation of the Constitution. It ruled that while the constitution empowers each
House to determine the rules of proceeding, it may not be ignore the constitutional restraints or
violate fundamental rights