Information | Reference
Case Title:
ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, petitioner,
vs. THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE
and THE COMMISSIONER OF 630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents.,
Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance
JUAN T. DAVID, petitioner, vs.
TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., as *
RAUL S. ROCO and the INTEGRATED G.R. No. 115525. August 25, 1994.
BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES,
petitioners, vs. THE SECRETARY OF JUAN T. DAVID, petitioner, vs. TEOFISTO T.
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE; THE GUINGONA, JR., as Executive Secretary; ROBERTO DE
COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OCAMPO, as Secretary of Finance; LIWAYWAY
OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND VINZONS-CHATO, as Commissioner of Internal Revenue;
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, respondents., and their AUTHORIZED AGENTS OR
REPRESENTATIVES, respondents.
PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE, INC.;
EGP PUBLISHING CO., INC.; *
633
634
must come from the House of Representatives and that it does not
prohibit the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation
of its receipt of the bill from the House.·Indeed, what the
Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing
revenue, tariff, or tax bills, bills authorizing an increase of the
public debt, private bills and bills of local application must come
from the House of Representatives on the theory that, elected as
they are from the districts, the members of the House can be
expected to be more sensitive to the local needs and problems.
On the other hand, the senators, who are elected at large, are
expected to approach the same problems from the national
perspective. Both views are thereby made to bear on the
enactment of such laws. Nor does the Constitution prohibit the
filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its
receipt of the bill from the House, so long as action by the Senate
as a body is withheld pending receipt of the House bill.
Same; Same; Presidential certification on urgency of a bill
dispenses with the requirement not only of printing but also that
of reading the bill on separate days.·The presidential
certification dispensed with the requirement not only of printing
but also that of reading the bill on separate days. The phrase
„except when the President certifies to the necessity of its
immediate enactment, etc.‰ in Art. VI, § 26(2) qualifies the two
stated conditions before a bill can become a law: (i) the bill has
passed three readings on separate days and (ii) it has been
printed in its final form and distributed three days before it is
finally approved. In other words, the „unless‰ clause must be
read in relation to the „except‰ clause, because the two are really
coordinate clauses of the same sentence. To construe the „except‰
clause as simply dispensing with the second requirement in the
„unless‰ clause (i.e., printing and distribution three days before
final approval) would not only violate the rules of grammar. It
would also negate the very premise of the „except‰ clause: the
necessity of securing the immediate enactment of a bill which is
certified in order to meet a public calamity or emergency. For if it
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
MENDOZA, J.:
658
I. Procedural Issues:
1. § 1
2. § 4
3. § 5
4. § 10
I. PROCEDURAL ISSUES
________________
1 H. Nos. 253, 771, 2450, 7033, 8086, 9030, 9210, 9297, 10012 and
660
661
________________
2 U.S. CONST., Art. 1, § 7, cl. 1: „All bills for raising revenue shall
662
________________
663
664
_______________
8 Although the 1935 Constitution did not expressly require that bills
must pass three readings in each House, this was clearly implied from
its Art. VI, § 21(2) so that the two Houses by their rules prescribed three
readings for the passage of bills. Later the requirement was expressly
provided in the 1973 Constitution from which Art. VI, § 26(2) was taken.
Art. VIII, § 19(2) of the 1973 document provided: No bill shall become a
law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed
copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to the Members
three days before its passage, except when the Prime Minister certifies
to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or
emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall
be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter,
and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.
9 RespondentsÊ Consolidated Reply, Annex 14.
665
________________
morning of the third day after the vacancy in the offices of the President
and Vice-President occurs, convene in accordance with its rules without
666
________________
668
________________
1993.
18 The charge is an old one. In the United States, the same charge,
669
§ 26. In the event that the Senate does not agree with the House
of Representatives on the provision of any bill or joint resolution,
the differences shall be settled by a conference committee of both
Houses which shall meet within ten days after their composition.
The President shall designate the members of the conference
committee in accordance with subparagraph (c), Section 3 of
Rule III.
Each Conference Committee Report shall contain a detailed
and sufficiently explicit statement of the changes in or
amendments to the subject measure, and shall be signed by the
conferees.
The consideration of such report shall not be in order unless
the report has been filed with the Secretary of the Senate and
copies thereof have been distributed to the Members.
(Emphasis added)
Rule XIV:
________________
actually by conference committee. Any remedy found will probably take the
form of reducing the need for using conference committees at all; and the
principal suggestion to that end is that bills and resolutions be referred, not, as
now, to separate committees of the two houses, but to joint committees, which not
only would hold single sets of hearings, but might deliberate and report back bills
to the two houses in such agreed form that further significant differences would
not be likely to develop. Arrangements of this nature yield excellent results in
the legislature of Massachusetts. But there are obstacles to adoption of the plan
for Congress, not the least of them being a natural aversion of House members to
joint committees in which senators seem likely to dominate; and, as indicated
below, the outlook for the reform is problematical.‰ F.A. OGG AND P.O. RAY,
supra note 7 at 310-311.
670
_________________
672
673
674
________________
675
_______________
676
________________
26 Art. VI, § 28(4) provides: „No law granting any tax exemption shall
677
_______________
27 Associated Press v. NLRB, 301 U.S. 103, 132, 81 L.Ed. 953, 961
(1937).
678
679
________________
680
_________________
tax under Sections 100 and 102 of this Code shall register with the
appropriate Revenue District Officer and pay an annual registration
681
________________
40 319 U.S. at 114, 87 L.Ed. 1292 at 1298. For the same reason, in
People v. Korins, 385 N.Y.S. 2d 474 (1976) a decision of the city court of
Utica, Oneida County held that to apply an ordinance requiring a
business license to be obtained before a person could sell newspapers in
the streets would be to impose a prior restraint on press freedom
because „a newspaper is not in the same category as pineapple or a soap
powder or a pair of shoes‰ whose sale may be conditioned on the
possession of a business license.
682
________________
683
_________________
42 Art. VI, § 28(1). Related to this argument is the claim that Republic
Act No. 7716 likewise infringes the Due Process and Equal Protection
Clauses of the Bill of Rights, Art. III, § 1(1).
684
_______________
685
_________________
135 (1968).
686
________________
687
This conception
52
of the judicial power has been affirmed in
several cases of this Court following Angara.
_______________
688
____________________________________
SEPARATE OPINION
NARVASA, C.J.:
________________
Study the Proposal to Exempt Local Movie Producers from the Payment
of the Value-Added Tax as an Incentive to the Production of Quality and
Wholesome Filipino Movies Whenever they Feature an All-Filipino Cast
of Actors and Actresses.‰
694
request that could not have been made had not the
Senators more or less closely examined the provisions of
HB 11197 and compared them with those of the
counterpart Senate measures.
Were the proceedings before the bicameral conference
committee fatally flawed? The affirmative is suggested
because the committee allegedly overlooked or ignored the
fact that SB 1630 could not validly originate in the Senate,
and that HB 11197 and SB 1630 never properly passed
both chambers. The untenability of these contentions has
already been demonstrated. Now, demonstration of the
indefensibility of other arguments purporting to establish
the impropriety of the BCC proceedings will be attempted.
There is the argument, for instance, that the conference
committee never used HB 11197 even as „frame of
reference‰ because it does not appear that the suggestion
therefor (made by House Panel Chairman Exequiel Javier
at the bicameral conference committeeÊs meeting on April
19, 1994, with the concurrence of Senator Maceda) was
ever resolved, the minutes being regrettably vague as to
________________
2 Italics supplied.
695
_________________
698
701
702
from them.
Moreover, it certainly was entirely within the power and
prerogative of either legislative chamber to reject the BCC
bill and require the organization of a new bicameral
conference committee. That this option was not exercised
by either house only proves that the BCC measure was
found to be acceptable as in fact it was approved and
adopted by both chambers.
I vote to DISMISS the petitions for lack of merit.
SEPARATE OPINION
CRUZ, J.:
SEPARATE OPINION
PADILLA, J.:
_________________
________________
2 Bautista v. Salonga, G.R. No. 86439, 13 April 1989, 172 SCRA 160.
3 Kapatiran, supra at 385.
710
II
The procedure followed in the approval of Rep. Act No.
7716 Petitioners however posit that the present case raises
a far-reaching constitutional question which the Court is
duty-bound to decide
4
under its expanded jurisdiction in the
1987 Constitution. Petitioners more specifically question
and impugn the manner by which the expanded VAT law
(Rep. Act No. 7716) was approved by Congress. They
contend that it was approved in violation of the
Constitution from which fact it follows, as a consequence,
that the law is null and void. Main reliance of the
petitioners in their assault is Section 24, Art. VI of the
Constitution which provides:
________________
711
„SEC. 26. x x x
(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it
has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies
thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members
three days before its passage, except when the President certifies
to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public
calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no
amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall
be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered
in the Journal.‰
_______________
714
between the two houses. Even where the conference committee is not by
rule limited in its jurisdiction, legislative custom severely limits the
freedom with which new subject matter can be inserted into the
conference bill. But occasionally a conference committee produces
unexpected results, results beyond its mandate. These excursions occur
even where the rules impose strict limitations on conference committee
jurisdiction. This is symptomatic of the authoritarian power of
conference committee (Davies, Legislative Law and Process: In A
Nutshell, 1986 Ed., p. 81).Ê
„This Act (Rep. Act No. 7716) is a consolidation of House Bill No.
11197 and Senate Bill No. 1630 (w)as finally passed by the
House of Representatives and the Senate on April 27, 1994 and
May 2, 1994 respectively.‰
_______________
6 7 SCRA 347.
715
laid down the rule that the enrolled bill is conclusive upon the
Judiciary (except in matters that have to be entered in the7
journals like the yeas and nays on the final reading of the bill).
The journals are themselves also binding on the Supreme8 Court,
as we held in the old (but still valid) case of U.S. vs. Pons, where
we explained the reason thus:
ÂTo inquire into the veracity of the journals of the Philippine legislature
when they are, as we have said, clear and explicit, would be to violate
both the letter and spirit of the organic laws by which the Philippine
Government was brought into existence, to invade a coordinate and
independent department of the Government, and to interfere with the
legitimate powers and functions of the Legislature.Ê
III
_______________
income from the VAT. Rep. Act. No. 7716 removed the exemption.
716
regulation cannot amend the law (Rep. Act No. 7716). Only
legislation (as distinguished from administration
regulation) can amend an existing law.
Freedom of the press was virtually unknown in the
________________
717
IV
Petitions of CREBA and PAL and Rep. Act No. 7716
_______________
718
SEPARATE OPINION
VITUG, J.:
DISSENTING OPINION
REGALADO, J.:
1
passed House Bill No. 11197 on third reading on
November 17, 1993 and, the following day, it transmitted
the same to the Senate for concurrence. On its part, the
Senate approved Senate Bill No. 1630 on second and third
readings on March 24, 1994. It is important to note in this
regard that on March 22, 1994, said S.B. No. 1630 had
been certified by President Fidel V. Ramos for immediate
enactment to meet a public emergency, that is, a growing
budgetary deficit. There was no such certification for H.B.
_______________
1 In substitution of H.B. Nos. 253, 771, 2450, 7033, 8086, 9030, 9210,
9297, 10012 and 10100 which were filed over the period from July 22,
1992 to August 3, 1993.
2 P.S. Res. No. 734 had earlier been filed in the Senate on September
10, 1992, while S.B. No. 1129 was filed on March 1, 1993.
723
_______________
724
________________
725
_______________
7 BlackÊs Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. (1951), 381, citing Fairview vs.
726
________________
727
15
Daza vs. Singson, et al., on the other, to know which
would be applicable to the present controversy and which
should be rejected.
But, first, a positional exordium. The writer of this
opinion would be among the first to acknowledge and
enjoin not only courtesy to, but respect for, the official acts
of the Executive and Legislative departments, but only so
long as the same are in accordance with or are defensible
under the fundamental charter and the statutory law. He
would readily be numbered in the ranks of those who
would preach a reasoned sermon on the separation of
powers, but with the qualification that the same are not
contained in tripartite compartments separated by imper-
meable membranes. He also ascribes to the general
validity of American constitutional doctrines as a matter of
historical and legal necessity, but not to the extent of being
oblivious to political changes or unmindful of the fallacy of
undue generalization arising from myopic disregard of the
factual setting of each particular case.
These ruminations have likewise been articulated and
dissected by my colleagues, hence it is felt that the only
issue which must be set aright in this dissenting opinion is
the so-called enrolled bill doctrine to which we are urged to
cling with reptilian tenacity. It will be preliminarily noted
that the official certification appearing right on the face of
Republic Act No. 7716 would even render unnecessary any
further judicial inquiry into the proceedings which
transpired in the two legislative chambers and, on a
parody of tricameralism, in the bicameral conference
committee. Moreover, we have the excellent dissertations
of some of my colleagues on these matters, but respondents
insist en contra that the congressional proceedings cannot
properly be inquired into by this Court. Such objection
confirms a suppressive pattern aimed at sacrificing the
rule of law to the fiat of expediency.
Respondents thus emplaced on their battlements the
pronouncement of this Court in the aforecited16
case of
Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado. Their reliance
thereon falls into the same error committed by their
seeking refuge in the Flint case, ante., which, as has
earlier been demonstrated (aside from
________________
728
ÂThis Court is firmly committed to the holding that when the journals
speak they control, and against such proof the enrolled bill is not
conclusive.Ê ‰
_______________
17 Brailsford vs. Walker, 31 S.E. 2d 385, 387, 388, 205 S.C. 228.
18 110 So. 343, 346.
19 602 South Western Reporter, 2d Series, 402-425, jointly deciding
730
731
remove one of the original reasons for the rule. (5) The rule
disregards the primary obligation of the courts to seek the truth
and to provide a remedy for a wrong committed by any branch of
government. In light of these considerations, we are convinced
that the time has come to re-examine the enrolled bill doctrine.
„[2] This court is not unmindful of the admonition of the
doctrine of stare decisis. The maxim is „Stare decisis et non
quieta movere,‰ which simply suggests that we stand by
precedents and not disturb settled points of law. Yet, this rule is
not inflexible, nor is it of such a nature as to require perpetuation
of error or logic. As we stated in DanielÊs AdmÊr v. Hoofnel, 287
Ky 834, 155 S.W.2d 469, 471-72 (1941) (citations omitted):
The force of the rule depends upon the nature of the question to be
decided and the extent of the disturbance of rights and practices which
a change in the interpretation of the law or the course of judicial
opinions may create. Cogent considerations are whether there is clear
error and urgent reasons Âfor neither justice nor wisdom requires a court
to go from one doubtful rule to another,Ê and whether or not the evils of
the principle that has been followed will be more injurious than can
possibly result from a change.
732
DISSENTING OPINION
„No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has
passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies
thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members
three days before its passage, except when the President certifies
to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public
calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no
amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall
be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered
in the Journal.‰
________________
„Apart from all others; only; solely; substantially all or for the
greater part. To the exclusion of all others; without admission of
others to participation; in a manner to exclude.‰
3
In City Mayor vs. The Chief of Philippine Constabulary,
this Court said:
_______________
2 Sixth Edition (1990), 565, citing Standard Oil Co. of Texas vs. State,
735
_______________
736
________________
737
„SEC. 51. Prior to their final approval, bills and joint resolutions
shall be read at least three times.‰
and Section 85, Rule XIV of the Rules of the House which
reads:
_________________
13 Volume I, Eight Edition, Chapter VI, 267. See Miller vs. Mardo, 2
SCRA 898 [1961]; Everlasting Pictures, Inc. vs. Fuentes, 3 SCRA 539
[1961].
738
________________
inclusive.
15 Consolidated Memorandum for Respondents, 18.
Tax (VAT) System By Expanding Its Tax Base, Amending Sections 103,
113, 114 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as Amended.‰
20 Id., Annex „17.‰
21 Id., 20.
22 Emphasis supplied.
740
on and acted upon was SB No. 1129 and not HB No. 11197.
The latter, instead of being the only measure to be taken
up, deliberated upon, and reported back to the Senate for
its consideration on second reading and, eventually, on
third reading, was, at the most, merely given by the
Committee a passing glance.
This specific unequivocal action of the Senate
Committee on Ways and Means, i.e., proposing and
recommending approval of SB No. 1630 as a substitute for
or in substitution of SB No. 1129 demolishes at once the
thesis of the Solicitor General that:
________________
„The Senate has the power to amend a revenue bill. This power
to amend is not confined to the elimination of provisions
contained in the original act, but embraces as well the addition
of such provisions thereto as may render the original act
satisfactory to the body which is called upon to support it. It has,
in fact, been held that the substitution of an entirely new measure
for the one originally proposed can be supported as a valid
amendment.
xxx xxx xxx
It is contended in the first place that this section of the act is
unconstitutional, because it is a revenue measure, and
originated in the Senate in violation of section 7 of article 1 of
the Constitution, providing that Âall bills for raising revenue
shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate
may propose or concur with the amendments, as on other bills.Ê ‰
_______________
742
x x x
The Senate has the power to amend a revenue bill. This power
to amend is not confined to the elimination of provisions
contained in the original act, but embraces as well the addition
of such provisions thereto as may render the original act
744
„Any bill may make its first appearance in either house, except
only that bills for raising revenue are required by the
constitution to ÂoriginateÊ in the House of Representatives.
Indeed, through its right to amend revenue bills, even to the
extent of substituting new ones, the
________________
745
_______________
29 At 317.
746
_______________
747
_______________
748
83, Rule XIV of the Rules of the House, it is only when the
Senate shall have approved with amendments HB No.
11197 and the House declines to accept the amendments
after having been notified thereof that the request for a
conference may be made by the House, not by the Senate.
749
_______________
34 Page 22.
750
_______________
751
752
_______________
37 ISAGANI A. CRUZ, Philippine Political Law, 1991 ed., 226; Daza vs.
Singson, 180 SCRA 496 [1989]; Coseteng vs. Mitra, 187 SCRA 377 [1990];
Gonzales vs. Macaraig, 191 SCRA 452 [1990]; Llamas vs. Orbos, 202 SCRA 844
[1991]; Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Com- mittee, 203 SCRA 767 [1991];
Oposa vs. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 [1993].
753
State Constitution, said that the same Âmakes it clear that the
indispensable step in the passageÊ and it follows that if a bill,
otherwise fully enacted as a law, is not attested by the presiding
officer, other proof that it has Âpassed both houses will satisfy the
constitutional requirement.Ê ‰
DISSENTING OPINION
ROMERO, J.:
________________
754
_______________
755
_______________
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 L-81311, June 30, 1988, 163 SCRA 371 with Justice Teodoro R.
Padilla as ponente.
756
5
Constitution.‰ In dismissing the consolidated petitions,
this Court stated:
_______________
5 Ibid at 378.
6 Ibid at 385.
7 Senate Resolution No. 734 filed on September 10, 1992 was entitled
757
9
HB No. 9210 · May 19,
1993
HB No. 9297 · May 25,
1993
HB No. 10012 · July 28,
1993
HB No. 10100 · August 3,
1993
HB No. 11197 in substitution of HB Nos. · November
253, 771, 2450, 7033, 8086,
10
9030, 9210, 5, 1993
9297, 10012 and 10100
We now trace the course taken by H.B. No. 11197 and S.B.
No. 1129.
HB/SB No.
HB No. 11197 was approved in the Lower · November
House on second reading 11, 1993
HB No. 11197 was approved in the Lower · November
House on third reading and voted upon 17, 1993
with 114 Yeas and 12 Nays ·
November
18, 1993
HB No. 11197 was transmitted to the · February
Senate Senate Committee on Ways and 7, 1994
Means submitted Com. Report No. 349
recommending for approval SB No. 1630 in
substitution of SB No. 1129, taking into
consideration PS Res. No. 734 and HB No.
_______________
enactment House Bill No. 9210 entitled „An Act Amending Title IV and
Sections 237 and 238 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as
amended, to meet a public emergency.‰
10 House Bill No. 11197 is entitled „An Act Restructuring the Value-
Added Tax (VAT) System to Widen its Tax Base and Enhance Its
Administration, Amending for these Purposes Sections 99, 100, 102,
103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 and 110 of Title IV, 112, 115 and 116 of Title
V, and 236, 237, and 238 of Title IX and Repealing Sections 113 and 114
of Title V, all of the National Internal Revenue Code, as Amended.‰
11 Senate Bill No. 1630 is entitled „An Act Restructuring The Value-
Added Tax (VAT) System to Widen its Tax Base and Enhance Its
Administration, Amending for these Purposes Sections 99, 100, 102,
103, 104, 105, 107, 108 and 110 of Title IV, 112 of Title V, and 236, 237
and 238 of Title IX, and Repealing Sections 113, 114 and 116 of Title V,
all of the National Internal Revenue Code, as Amended, and for other
Purposes.‰
758
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
Does Republic Act No.13
7716 violate Article VI, Section 24,
of the Constitution?
________________
12 Republic Act No. 7716 is entitled „An Act Restructuring The Value-
Added Tax (VAT) System, Widening Its Tax Base And Enhancing Its
Administration, And For These Purposes Amending And Repealing The
Relevant Provisions Of The National Internal Revenue Code, as
amended, and for other purposes.‰
13 Article VI, Section 24: „All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills
759
Does it violate
14
Article VI, Section 26, paragraph 2, of the
Constitution?
What is the extent of the power of the Bicameral
Conference Committee?
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Does the law violate the following provisions in Article III
(Bill of Rights) of the Constitution:
15
1. Section 1
16
2. Section 4
17
3. Section 5
18
4. Section 10
_______________
property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws.‰
16 Article III, Section 4: „No law shall be passed abridging the
shall be passed.‰
760
_______________
761
by claiming22
that such matters constitute a political
question.‰
In the instant petitions, this Court is called upon, not so
much to exercise its traditional power of judicial review as
to determine whether or not there has indeed been a grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the Legislature
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Where there are grounds to resolve a case without
touching on its constitutionality, the Court will do so with
utmost alacrity in due deference to the doctrine of
separation of powers anchored on the respect that must be
accorded to the other branches of government which are
coordinate, coequal and, as far as practicable, independent
of one another.
Once it is palpable that the constitutional issue is
unavoidable, then it is time to assume jurisdiction,
provided that the following requisites for a judicial inquiry
are met: that there must be an actual and appropriate
case; a personal and substantial interest of the party
raising the constitutional question; the constitutional
question must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity and the decision of the constitutional question
must be necessary to the determination 23
of the case itself,
the same being the lis mota of the case.
Having assured ourselves that the above-cited
requisites are present in the instant petitions, we proceed
to take them up.
_______________
762
(a) The bill which became Republic Act No. 7716 did
not originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives. The Senate, after receiving H.B.
No. 11197, submitted its own bill, S.B. No. 1630,
and proceeded to vote and approve the same after
________________
763
ÂAll bills appropriating public funds, revenue or tariff bills, bills of local
application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the Assembly,
but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. In case of
disapproval by the Senate of any such bills, the Assembly may repass
the same by a two-thirds vote of all its members, and thereupon, the bill
so repassed shall be deemed enacted and may be submitted to the
President for corresponding action. In the event that the Senate should
fail to finally act on any such bills, the Assembly may, after thirty days
from the opening of the next regular sessions of the same legislative
term, reapprove the same with a vote of two-thirds of all the members of
the Assembly. And upon such reapproval, the bill shall be deemed
enacted and may be submitted to the president for corresponding
action.Ê
764
________________
Edition, p. 196.
765
_______________
not have a lawmaking body after martial law was declared, there were
tripartite conferences called by the President for the purpose of acting
as a recommendatory body regarding settlement of labor and
management disputes. During the said conferences, labor had shown
that it can act with maturity. As a result, in 1976, an amendment was
introduced in the Constitution providing for sectoral representation. In
the Constitution that was approved, the number of sectors was not
indicated. However, in the Election Code of 1978, it provided for three
sectors; namely, industrial labor, agricultural labor and the youth. The
agricultural labor was given four seats; two for Luzon, one for the
Visayas and one for Mindanao. The same is true with the industrial
labor sector. As far as the youth are concerned, they were also given four
seats: two for Luzon, one for Mindanao and one for the Visayas, with the
condition that there will be an additional two at large. And so, the youth
had six representatives plus four from the agricultural labor sector and
four from the industrial labor sector·we had 14 seats.
In 1981, the Constitution was again amended. In the course of the
amendment, the labor representatives in the Batasang Pambansa
proposed that sectoral representation be included as a permanent
addition to the lawmaking body.
Again, in that Constitution which was approved in 1981, the number
766
________________
The youth sector embraces persons not more than twenty-five years
of age.‰ (Volume Two, CONCOM RECORD, p. 564).
767
________________
When you say that according to the Constitution such Revenue Bills should
originate exclusively from the House. In this instance, did it not originally
originate exclusively from the House?
The word used was not „solely‰; if there were Bills later also introduced, let
us say in the Senate, but the House Bill came ahead.
So, are you using the two (2) words originate „exclusively‰ and „solely‰
synonymously?
SENATOR TOLENTINO:
A·The verb „originate‰ remains the same, Your Honor, but the word
„exclusively,‰ as I said, means „solely.‰ x x x
768
House Bill Nos. 253, 771, 2450, 7033, 8086, 9030, 9210,
9297, 10012 and 10100 were intended to restructure the
________________
769
_______________
770
_______________
771
________________
Bill No. 11197 and Senate Bill No. 1630 was finally passed by the House
of Representatives and the Senate on April 7, 1994 and May 2, 1994,
respectively.‰
772
773
_______________
774
_______________
775
„Passing over the question of whether the printed Act (No. 2381),
published by authority of law, is conclusive evidence as to the
date when it was passed, we will inquire whether the courts may
go behind the legislative journals for the purpose of determining
the date43 of adjournment when such journals are clear and
explicit.‰
________________
776
_______________
44 Ibid at 733-734.
45 Ibid at 735.
46 78 Phil. 1 (1947).
47 Ibid at 3.
777
_______________
48 Ibid at 18.
49 117 Phil. 363 (1963).
778
50
Sherlock Holmes.‰ The alleged omission of a phrase in the
final Act was made, not at any stage of the legislative
proceedings, but only in the course of the engrossment of
the bill, more specifically in the proofreading thereof.
But the Court did include a caveat that qualified the
absoluteness of the „enrolled bill‰ rule stating:
779
_______________
780
and
________________
781
„SEC. 26. In the event that the Senate does not agree with the
House of Representatives on the provision of any bill or joint
resolution, the differences shall be settled by a conference
committee of both Houses which shall meet within ten days after
their composition.
The President shall designate the members of the conference
committee in accordance with subparagraph (c), Section 8 of
Rule III.
Each Conference Committee Report shall contain a detailed
and sufficiently explicit statement of the changes in or
amendments to the subject measure, and shall be signed by the
conferees.
The consideration of such report shall not be in order unless
the report has been filed with the Secretary of the Senate and
copies thereof have been distributed to the Members.‰
782
________________
58 Page 261.
59 Page 268.
60 Davies, supra, at 65.
783
________________
784
________________
785
3. Section 102
786
5. Section 104
787
6. Section 107
7. Section 112
8. Section 115
9. Section 117
788
________________
789
_________________
67 BLACKÊs DICTIONARY, 6th ed., p. 687 citing State ex. rel. Riley v.
District Court of Second Judicial Dist. in and for Silver Bow County, 103
Mont. 576, 64 P. 2d 115, 119 (1937).
68 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, May 3, 1952, p. 885 cited in
790
5th Ed., 1979, which means „to change or modify for the
better; to alter by modification, deletion, or addition,‰ said
insertions and deletions constitute amendments.
Consequently, these violated Article VI, Section 26 (2)
which provides inter alia: „Upon the last reading of a bill,
no amendment thereto shall be allowed . . .‰ This
proscription is intended to subject all bills and their
amendments to intensive deliberation by the legislators
and the ample ventilation of issues to afford the public an
opportunity to express their opinions or objections issues to
afford the public an opportunity to express their opinions
or objections thereon. The same rationale underlies the
three-reading requirement to the end that no surpises may
be sprung on an unsuspecting citizenry.
Provisions of the „now you see it, now you donÊt‰ variety,
meaning those which were either in the House and/or
Senate versions but simply disappeared or were „bracketed
out‰ of existence in the BICAM Report, were eventually
incorporated in Republic Act No. 7716. Worse, some goods,
properties or services which were not covered by the two
versions and, therefore, were never intended to be so
covered, suddenly found their way into the same Report.
No advance notice of such insertions prepared the rest of
the legislators, much less the public who could be
adversely affected, so that they could be given the
opportunity to express their views thereon. Well has the
________________
792
_______________
793
_______________
794
of Senate Bill No. 720 or of House Bill No. 4200 but only in
the Conference Committee Report, was violative of Article
VI, Section 26 (2) of the Constitution. Likewise, that said
Section 35, never having been a subject of disagreement
between both Houses, could not have been validly added as
an amendment before the Conference Committee.
________________
795
_________________
74 In Osmeña, Jr. v. Pendatun, (109 Phil. 863 [1960]), the Court held
that parliamentary rules are merely procedural and they may be waived
or disregarded by the legislative body. Hence, mere failure to conform to
parliamentary usage will not invalidate the action taken by a
deliberative body when the requisite number of members have agreed to
a particular measure.
75 State v. Essling, 128 N.W. 2d 307, 316 (1964).
796
________________
797
798
DISSENTING OPINION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
799
Representatives.‰
_______________
800
Thus in 1883 the upper house struck out everything after the
enacting clause of a tariff bill and wrote its own measure, which
the House eventually felt obliged to accept. It likewise added 847
amendments to the Payne-Aldrich tariff act of 1909, dictated the
schedules of the emergency tariff act of 1921, rewrote an
extensive tax revision bill in the same year, and recast most of
the permanent tariff
________________
3 See Majority Opinion, p. 15, citing Rainey v. United States, 232 U.S., 309, 58
Law Ed. 617.
801
4
bill of 1922 ·
_______________
6 22 U.S. 107.
802
803
_______________
804
DISSENTING OPINION
PUNO, J.:
_______________
806
A. The H.B., S.B., and the BCC (R.A. 7716) all included sale of
PROPERTIES as subject to VAT.
The term GOODS or PROPERTIES includes the following:
________________
No. 115781; also the Petition in G.R. No. 115543, pp. 2-3.
807
808
809
V On Section 104
VI On Section 107
While both the Senate and House Bills provide that a person
whose sales or receipts and are exempt under Section 103[w] of
the Code, and who are not VAT registered shall pay a tax
equivalent to THREE (3) PERCENT of his gross quarterly sales
810
IX On Section 117
This Section has not been touched by either Senate and House
Bills. But the BCC amended it by subjecting franchises on
ELECTRIC, GAS and WATER UTILITIES A TAX OF TWO
PERCENT (2%) ON GROSS RECEIPTS DERIVED x x x.
X On Section 121
XI Others
811
thereof.
„In the event that the Senate does not agree with the House of
Representatives on the provision of any bill or joint resolution,
the differences shall be settled by a conference committee of both
Houses
_______________
812
„In the event that the House does not agree with the Senate on the
amendments to any bill or joint resolution, the differences may be
settled by a conference committee of both chambers.
x x x. Each report shall contain a detailed, sufficiently explicit
statement of the changes in or amendments to the subject
measure.‰ (Emphasis supplied)
4
The JeffersonÊs Manual has been adopted as a supplement
to our parliamentary rules and practice. Section 456 of
JeffersonÊs Manual similarly
5
confines the powers of a
conference committee, viz:
________________
813
________________
814
________________
815
________________
816
________________
„x x x
a. Constitutional rules.
b. Statutory rules or charter provisions.
c. Adopted rules.
d. Judicial decisions.
e. Adopted parliamentary authority.
f. Parliamentary law.
g. Customs and usages.
_______________
11 Legislative Law and Process in a Nut Shell, West Publishing Co., 1986 ed.,
p. 81.
12 Ibid.
13 Manual of Legislative Procedure for Legislative and other Governmental
Bodies, McGraw Hill Co., Inc., 1953 ed., pp. 32-33.
818
„x x x.
Where the failure of constitutional compliance in the
enactment of statutes is not discoverable from the face of the act
itself but may be demonstrated by recourse to the legislative
journals, debates, committee reports or papers of the governor,
courts have used several conflicting theories with which to
dispose of the issue. They have held: (1) that the enrolled bill is
conclusive and like the sheriff Ês return cannot be attacked; (2)
that the enrolled bill is prima facie correct and only in case the
legislative journal shows affirmative contradiction of the
constitutional requirement will the bill be held invalid, (3) that
although the enrolled bill is prima facie correct, evidence from
the journals, or other extrinsic sources is admissible to strike the
bill down; (4) that the legislative journal is conclusive and the
enrolled bill is valid only if it
_______________
14 82 CJS 136.
15 Statutory Construction, 3rd ed., Vol. I., p. 223.
819
820
„x x x.
If for no other reason than that it conforms to the expressed
policy of our law making body, we choose to follow the rule.
Section 313 of the old Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by
Act No. 2210, provides: ÂOfficial documentsÊ may be proved as
follows: * * * (2) the proceedings of the Philippine Commission,
or of any legislative body that may be provided for in the
Philippine Islands, or of Congress, by the journals of those bodies
or of either house thereof, or by published statutes or
resolutions, or by copies certified by the clerk or secretary, or
printed by their order; Provided, That in the case of Acts of the
Philippine Commission or the Philippine Legislature, when there
is an existence of a copy signed by the presiding officers and
secretaries of said bodies, it shall be conclusive proof of the
provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof.‰
________________
16 Op. cit., pp. 224-225 citing Barndall Refining v. Welsh, 64 S.D. 647,
821
_______________
822
„x x x.
x x x In other words, the judiciary is the final arbiter on the
question of whether or not a branch of government or any of its
officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction, or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of
discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. This is not only a
judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this
nature.
This is the background of paragraph 2 of Section 1, which
means that the courts cannot hereafter evade the duty to settle
matters of this nature, by claiming that such matters constitute
political question.‰ (Emphasis ours)
_______________
823
_______________
824
825
···o0o···
826