1st issue- You disregarded my stand on the Rules of the House which won’t be claiming itself as a continuing body as I frankly don’t vouch much for the Senate to use that argument.

Well, moving on.

2nd issue- So in other words the House was using the previous rules WITHOUT adopting it and WITHOUT admitting that the previous rules were actually “in effect” while they were using it.

Well, moving on.

3rd issue- Do you realize that the Supreme Court is a collegial body?

Again, 1 Justice out of 15 members of the Supreme Court and you claimed that as the OPINION of the Supreme Court. Do yourself a favor and ask a lawyer already.

Well, moving on.

4th issue- Didn’t you read the papers when Ermita claimed that further inquiries of the Senate were infirmed and Sen. Villar asked them to return the government budget because the rules used in deliberating that budget should also be held infirmed if Ermita was right as well as all the laws passed by the current Senate?

Well, moving on.

5th issue- So again, using the previous rules WITHOUT adopting it and WITHOUT admitting that the previous rules were actually “in effect” while they were using it.

Well, moving on.

6th issue- Maybe you should re-read the part which I quote now “And why do you keep PERSISTING on the idea that I alone am following the line that the rules (both kinds) carry over to the next house? i’m sorry if i missed someone but, who else?”

To which my answer included “They may have used ANOTHER argument on the matter but THEY TOO believe that the rules (both kinds) carry over to the next house.

Well, moving on.

Last issue- You really should have taken my advice.

Well, I think I have seen the best arguments that you can offer on this issue to which I will be moving on now.

first paragraph: how come i was reiterating? you said,
“
The rules of procedure was considered infirm by striking NOT at the rules of procedure BUT by striking at the core individuality of the House itself from where both rules emanate.
”
i replied: the senates rules of procedure was struck down not because of “the core individuality of the House itself from where both rules emanate” but because of non-compliance of the constitutional requirement of ‘duly’ published rules of procedure. it was the senate who tried to differentiate itself from the house, claiming it is a continuing body. the point was, the decision considering the rules of procedure infirm was not concerned about individuality of the House at all. it was only concerned with publication. i was saying it was the senate who brought up the issue of individuality of the House, to justify its non-publication of the rules of procedure, by claiming that it is different from the house. and the difference is that the senate is a ‘continuing body’. why is that reiterating the issue when it’s part of my reply?

2nd paragraph: they were using the previous rules. but note carefully it doesn’t say anything about it’s effectivity. if the house uses its contempt powers related to legislative inquiries before it has published its rules of procedure, you will see (as in neri) it cannot enforce that power yet.

3rd paragraph: what kind of comment is that? you were just asking : what again is the basis of the Court in saying that the Constitutional requirement was not complied with? my answer: non-continuing. because in that one word hinges the need of the senate to re-publish its rules of procedure. that’s what you can get from this portion of the supreme court decision:

The phrase “duly published rules of procedure” requires the Senate of every Congress to publish its rules of procedure governing inquiries in aid of legislation because every Senate is distinct from the one before it or after it. Since Senatorial elections are held every three (3) years for one-half of the Senate’s membership, the composition of the Senate also changes by the end of each term. Each Senate may thus enact a different set of rules as it may deem, fit. Not having published its Rules of Procedure, the subject hearings in aid of legislation conducted by the 14th Senate, are therefore, procedurally infirm.

your comment: an opinion by only 1 justice out of 15 members of the Supreme Court. Maybe you should ask what others think of that ratio. that portion came from the supreme court decision. are you saying all 14 justices have contrary opinion? in any case, what you are assailing is already the decision of the court, and not my answer.

paragraphs 4,5,and 6: So what did the “non-continuing body” argument allude to? I say it alludes to the core individuality of the Senate. didn’t i say i did not agree the argument used was against the body? this continuing-non-continuing issue is debated only to resolve whether the senate needs to republish the rules of procedure or not. to allude to ‘far reaching consequences to the Senate’ [puno] is to raise an issue outside the debate which exists independently of neri. it is a consequence of the current senate’s ‘design flaw’[mlq3].

Bencard’s post: each incoming house has, in emergent situations, the initial right to follow and apply the rules of the outgoing house. this is the same to what i said, that the new house can make use of the old rules.

Sen. Villar, Sen. Pangilinan, etc: please include references, how will i know you’re not just making it up? and why is the senate’s motion for reconsideration still using the ‘continuing body’ argument?

You didn’t have qualms asking for someone to intercede in your behalf previously; you seem to be having a problem so you might want to ask for intercession again. bencard already joined in the discussion when i wanted to pass up what i thought was an unconnected question. but i did take the question, didn’t i? and hey, justice league, you can ad hominem better than that.

As to your first paragraph; then reiterating that issue is hardly meritorious because I also stand that the Rules of the House (which certainly won’t claim to be a continuing body) remain effective towards the next one.

As to your 2nd paragraph-; if the House Rules didn’t have extended effectivity, then what House Rules were in effect between the convening of Congress on July 23, 2007 and the adoption of the House Rules on November 20, 2007? Answering that the House used its power to determine its Rules won’t avail you here.

As to your 3rd paragraph, an opinion by only 1 justice out of 15 members of the Supreme Court. Maybe you should ask what others think of that ratio.

As for paragraphs 4,5,and 6; you are getting way ahead of yourself. It’s already on your 3rd paragraph where you referred to the “non-continuing body” argument. So what did the “non-continuing body” argument allude to? I say it alludes to the core individuality of the Senate. But then you probably have a different opinion, don’t you?

As to your last paragraph; maybe you missed Bencard’s post on April 12 2:12 AM to wit he stated “…each incoming house has, in emergent situations, the initial right to follow and apply the rules of the outgoing house”, “for instance, failure to formally adopt and publish its rules say one month after the first session is, …” (you did admit that afayk the Rules of the Senate need not be published, right?)

But just in case he clarifies himself on that one, you also missed out on Sen. Villar, Sen. Pangilinan, etc… They may have used another argument on the matter but they too believe that the rules (both kinds) carry over to the next house.

You didn’t have qualms asking for someone to intercede in your behalf previously; you seem to be having a problem so you might want to ask for intercession again.

I have not argued about a “continuing body”.what i said was “it was the senate who tried to differentiate itself from the house, claiming it is a continuing body.” i said it was the senate’s argument. i didn’t say it’s yours.

Can you be SPECIFIC how Congress will be able to convene itself without having first its rules? i already answered this above, they can make use of the previous rules. and it doesn’t mean the rules have extended effectivity, it only means the new house is using its power to determine its rules.

what again is the basis of the Court in saying that the Constitutional requirement was not complied with? You’re going to go back again on that “non-continuing body” argument, aren’t you? yes, non-continuing. but its not an argument. it’s the supreme court’s opinion.

The argument used was AGAINST the “body”, and you’re claiming the core individuality of THAT body wasn’t struck aren’t you? i did not agree the argument used was against the body. i said it was struck down because of non-compliance of the publication requirement.

from your earlier post: The rules of procedure was considered infirm by striking NOT at the rules of procedure BUT by striking at the core individuality of the House itself from where both rules emanate.

i replied: the senate’s rules of procedure was struck down not because of “the core individuality of the House itself from where both rules emanate” but because of non-compliance of the constitutional requirement of ‘duly’ published rules of procedure.

And why do you keep PERSISTING on the idea that I alone am following the line that the rules (both kinds) carry over to the next house? i’m sorry if i missed someone but, who else?

I let it passed then, but if you use that argument again (and unless Bencard or David [or anyone else] make their presence felt again with regards to my issue) I’m going to start claiming that you are the only one who doesn’t understand the issue!

The writ of habeas corpus is also in our Article III.

Mindanaoan,

How many times must I tell you that I have not argued about a “continuing body” for either the House and the Senate?

In Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance, while considering Osmena vs. Pendatun; the court said

“… as we have already ruled, “parliamentary rules are merely procedural and with their observance the courts have no concern.” Our concern is with the procedural requirements of the Constitution for the enactment of laws.”

Can you be SPECIFIC how Congress will be able to convene itself without having first its rules?

As to your argument on the non-compliance of the Constitutional requirement of ‘duly’ published rules of procedure (Yes, there is a Constitutional requirement there just like there is one for Congress to convene itself and just as there is one for the enforcement of the anti-dynasty provision); what again is the basis of the Court in saying that the Constitutional requirement was not complied with?

You’re going to go back again on that “non-continuing body” argument, aren’t you?

The argument used was AGAINST the “body”, and you’re claiming the core individuality of THAT body wasn’t struck aren’t you?

And why do you keep PERSISTING on the idea that I alone am following the line that the rules (both kinds) carry over to the next house?

I let it passed then, but if you use that argument again (and unless Bencard and David [or anyone else] make their presence felt again with regards to my issue) I’m going to start claiming that you are the only one who doesn’t understand the issue!

[C]ourts have declared that ‘the rules adopted by deliberative bodies are subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body adopting them. And it has been said that Parliamentary rules are merely procedural, and with their observance, the courts have no concern. They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body.‘ Consequently, ‘mere failure to conform to parliamentary usage will not invalidate action (taken by a deliberative body) when the
requisite number of members have agreed to a particular measure. -osmena, jr. v. pendatun

the senates rules of procedure was struck down not because of “the core individuality of the House itself from where both rules emanate” but because of non-compliance of the constitutional requirement of ‘duly’ published rules of procedure. it was the senate who tried to differentiate itself from the house, claiming it is a continuing body, to convince the supreme court that the publication of the senate rules of procedure on december 2006 already complied with the constitutional requirement. this ‘continuing’ differentiator is where the senate hinge its argument that it need not republish its rules of procedure. if it fails to convince the court that it is a continuing body, then like the house, it needs to publish its rules of procedure for the 14th senate. again, nobody aside from you seems to be following the line that the rules (both kinds) carry over to the next house.

Lincoln was likely dead before the SC decided but everything else follows.

The Philippine Congress convened on July 23, 2007. The Philippine House of Representatives adopted their House Rules on November 20, 2007. So what Rules were they using in the meantime?

One of the times Martial law was declared in America (probably the last was after hurricane Katrina) was when Abraham Lincoln declared it during the Civil war. On September 15, 1863, Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized martial law. It was challenged in court in ex parte Milligan.

Right in the middle of a bitter civil war; and Lincoln lost in the Supreme Court!

The Court resoundingly told him that “Martial law … destroys every guarantee of the Constitution.”

The SC delineated the confines of Martial law.

Like I said before, America never had a President like we had.

And as far as I understand, Martial law isn’t even in their Constitution while it is in ours. What they have like ours is a suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus under the Sections for the Article of the Legislative branch while ours is under the Article of the Executive.

The powers of the American Legislative branch according to the Constitution include:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

The power of the American President according to the Constitution:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; ….

Read again our own Section 18 on the Article of the Executive branch and you will see a difference.

The rules of our Houses must continue till they themselves replace, repeal, amend, etc…. it.

I asked this of Bencard so I think its about time I ask it if you. What if a President declares Martial law between noon of June 30th following a national election and the 4th Monday of July with the rules of the previous Houses having lost its effectivity?

Can the Houses convene on their own? How?

(If you’re planning to copy Bencard’s answers; then I suggest you answer the succeeding questions I asked him also.)

BTW, you left out many questions but I’ll ask this one again. How can the Houses adopt rules when they have not been convened and so is definitely not in session?

Now as to your question as to how I can consider the rules of the Houses in similar way as the rules of procedure of the Houses which the constitution rigged with a requirement; it was the way the Rules of Procedure was struck down.

The rules of procedure was considered infirm by striking NOT at the rules of procedure BUT by striking at the core individuality of the House itself from where both rules emanate.

Do you think arguments like every “House” is distinct from the one before it or after it, the composition of the “House” changes by the end of each term, each “House” may thus enact a different set of rules as it may deem fit, and the “House” is not a “continuing body” struck at the individuality of the Rules of Procedure?