Arroyo vs. De Venecia G.R. No.

127255, August 14, 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. The Senate approved it
with certain amendments. A bicameral conference committee was formed to
reconcile the disagreeing provisions of the House and Senate versions of the
bill. The bicameral committee submitted its report to the House. During the
interpellations, Rep. Arroyo made an interruption and moved to adjourn for
lack of quorum. But after a roll call, the Chair declared the presence of a
quorum. The interpellation then proceeded. After Rep. Arroyos interpellation
of the sponsor of the committee report, Majority Leader Albano moved for
the approval and ratification of the conference committee report. The Chair
called out for objections to the motion. Then the Chair declared: There
being none, approved. At the same time the Chair was saying this, Rep.
Arroyo was asking, What is thatMr. Speaker? The Chair and Rep. Arroyo
were talking simultaneously. Thus, although Rep. Arroyo subsequently
objected to the Majority Leaders motion, the approval of the conference
committee report had by then already been declared by the Chair.
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 bill was 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 theHouse

Held:
Rules of each House of Congress are hardly permanent in character. They are
subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body
adopting them as they are primarily procedural. Courts ordinarily have no
concern with their observance. They may be waived or disregarded by the

legislative body. Consequently, mere failure to conform to them does not

have the effect of nullifying the act taken if the requisite number of members
has agreed to a particular measure. But this is subject to qualification. Where
the construction to be given to a rule affects person other than members of
the legislative body, the question presented is necessarily judicial in
character. Even its validity is open to question in a case 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. Arroyos 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.