Scribd
Upload
5 views

Facts

Another set of case digest

Uploaded by

Debbie Mae Tonog
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5 views

Facts

Another set of case digest

Uploaded by

Debbie Mae Tonog
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

8. Arroyo v.

De Venecia, 277 SCRA 268 (1997)


Facts:
A petition was filed challenging the validity of RA 8240, which amends certain
provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code. Petitioners, who are members of
the House of Representatives, charged that there is 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.
The law originated in the House of Representatives and was approved by the Senate
with amendments. A bicameral conference committee was formed to reconcile the
differing provisions of the House and Senate versions of the bill. The committee
submitted its report to the House. During interpellations, Rep. Arroyo interrupted
and moved to adjourn for lack of quorum. After a roll call, the Chair declared a
quorum and approved the report. Despite Rep. Arroyo objecting to the Majority
Leader's motion, the Chair's approval was declared.
On the same day, the bill was signed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President of the Senate and certified by the respective
secretaries of both Houses of Congress. The enrolled bill signed into law by
President Ramos.

Issue:
Whether or not RA 8240 is null and void because it was passed in violation of the
rules of the House.

Held:
The rules of each House of Congress are not always set in stone. Since they are
mostly procedural, the body adopting them has the authority to revoke, modify, or
waive them at any time. Courts ordinarily have no concern with their observance.
The legislative body has the authority to waive or disregard them. Consequently, if
the necessary number of members has approved a certain proposal, mere
noncompliance with them does not render the action taken invalid. However, this
needs to be qualified. The issue raised is inevitably judicial in nature when the
interpretation of a rule impacts parties other than the legislative body. Even its
legitimacy is debatable in situations where private rights are involved.
In the case, no rights of private individuals are involved but only those of a member
who, instead of seeking redress in the House, chose to transfer the dispute to the
Court. The matter complained of concerns a matter of internal procedure of the
House with which the Court should not be concerned. The claim is not that there
was no quorum but only that Rep. Arroyo was effectively prevented from
questioning the presence of a quorum. Rep. Arroyo’s earlier motion to adjourn for
lack of quorum had already been defeated, as the roll call established the existence
of a quorum. The question of quorum cannot be raised repeatedly especially when
the quorum is obviously present for the purpose of delaying the business of the
House.

9. Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630


Facts:
Multiple petitioners, including Arturo M. Tolentino, Juan T. David, Raul S. Roco, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and others, challenged the constitutionality of
Republic Act No. 7716 (Expanded Value Added Tax Law). The value-added tax (VAT),
signed on May 5, 1994, is levied on the sale, barter or exchange of goods and
properties as well as on the sale or exchange of services. RA 7716 seeks to widen
the tax base of the existing VAT system and enhance its administration by
amending the National Internal Revenue Code. There are various suits challenging
the constitutionality of RA 7716 on various grounds.
One contention is that RA 7716 did not originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives as required by Art. VI, Sec. 24 of the Constitution, because it is in
fact the result of the consolidation of 2 distinct bills, H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630.
There is also a contention that S. No. 1630 did not pass 3 readings as required by
the Constitution.

Issue:
Whether or not RA 7716 violates Art. VI, Secs. 24 and 26(2) of the Constitution

Held:
The argument that RA 7716 did not originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives as required by Art. VI, Sec. 24 of the Constitution is not valid. The
Constitution requires revenue bills to originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives and insisting that a revenue statute must substantially be the same
as the House bill would deny the Senate's power to concur with amendments and
propose amendments. The Constitution does not prohibit the filing of substitute bills
in the Senate in anticipation of receiving the House bill, as long as action by the
Senate is withheld pending receipt of the House bill.
The petitioners argued that S. No. 1630 did not pass 3 readings on separate days as
required by the Constitution because the second and third readings were done on
the same day. However, the presidential certification of S. No. 1630 as urgent
dispensed with the requirement of printing and reading the bill on separate days.
This is supported by the weight of legislative practice.
10. Phil. Judges Association vs. Prado, 227 SCRA 703
Facts:
Petitioners assailed the validity of Sec 35 R.A. No. 7354 which withdraw the franking
privilege from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Regional Trial Courts,
the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Land Registration
Commission and its Registers of Deeds, along with certain other government offices.
The petition assails the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7354 on the grounds that: (1) its
title embraces more than one subject and does not express its purposes; (2) it did
not pass the required readings in both Houses of Congress and printed copies of the
bill in its final form were not distributed among the members before its passage;
and (3) it is discriminatory and encroaches on the independence of the Judiciary.

Issue:
WON RA No.7354 is unconstitutional based on the following grounds:
1) Its title embraces more than one subject and does not express its purposes;
(2) It did not pass the required readings in both Houses of Congress and printed
copies of the bill in its final form were not distributed among the members before its
passage; and
(3) It is discriminatory and encroaches on the independence of the Judiciary.

Held:
1. The petitioners' argument is unfounded as the title of a bill does not need to be a
comprehensive index or exhaustively cover every detail of the measure. A title that
accurately indicates the general subject, covers all provisions, and doesn't mislead
the legislature or the people is sufficient constitutional compliance. In the case at
bar, the repealing clause is the effect of the statute, not the law's subject.
2. The court ruled that a conference committee can compromise differences
between the Senate and House, but it can also propose new provisions. The bill was
approved by both the Senate and House of Representatives and certified by the
Senate President and Speaker. The court declined to investigate the petitioners'
charges, as both the enrolled bill and legislative journals certify the measure's duly
enacted status, under the doctrine of separation powers.
3. Yes, the clause in the law denies the Judiciary equal protection of laws for all
similarly situated persons or things. The distinction between the Judiciary and
grantees of the franking privilege is superficial and does not make real differences.
The remedy is to withdraw the privilege from all government agencies.

You might also like