Arroyo v De Venecia

Facts:
Petitioners are members of the House of Representatives. They brought this
suit against respondents 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. In the course of his interpellation, Rep. Arroyo announced that he
was going to raise a question on the quorum, although until the end of his interpellation
he never did. 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 as having been finally passed by the House
of Representatives and by the Senate on November 21, 1996. The enrolled bill was
signed into law by President Fidel V. Ramos on November 22,1996.
Issue:
Whether R.A. No. 8240 is null and void because it was passed in violation of the rules of
the House; Whether the certification of Speaker De Venecia that the law was properly
passed is false and spurious; Whether the Chair, in the process of submitting and
certifying thelaw violated House Rules; and Whether a certiorari/prohibition will be
granted.
Held:
That after considering the arguments of the parties, the Court finds no ground
for holding that Congress committed a grave abuse of discretion in enacting R.A.
No. 8240 This case is therefore dismissed.
Ratio:
To disregard the "enrolled bill" rule in such cases would be to disregard the respect due
the other two departments of our government. It would be an unwarranted invasion of
theprerogative of a coequal department for this Court either to set aside a legislative
action as void because the Court thinks the House has disregarded its own rules
of procedure, or to allow those defeated in the political arena to seek a rematch in
the judicial forum when petitioners can find their remedy in that department itself. The
Court has not been invested with a roving commission to inquire into complaints, real or
imagined, of legislative skulduggery. It would be acting in excess of its power and would
itself be guilty of grave abuse of its discretion were itto do so. The suggestion made in a
case may instead appropriately be made here: petitioners can seek the enactment of a
new law or the repeal or amendment of R.A. No. 8240. In theabsence of anything to the
contrary, the Court must assume thatCongress or any House thereof acted in the good
faith belief thatits conduct was permitted by its rules, and deference rather
thandisrespect is due the judgment of that body.
In view of what is essential:
Merely internal rules of procedure of the House rather thanconstitutional requirements
for the enactment of a law, i.e., Art.VI, 26-27 are VIOLATED.First, in Osmea v.
Pendatun, it was held: "At any rate, courtshave declared that 'the rules adopted
by deliberative bodies aresubject 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 theirobservance, the courts have no concern. They
may be waivedor disregarded by the legislative body

.' Consequently, 'merefailure to conform to parliamentary usage will not invalidate

theaction (taken by a deliberative body) when the requisite numberof members have
agreed to a particular measure.'"Rules are hardly permanent in character. The
prevailing view isthat they are subject to revocation, modification or waiver at
thepleasure of the body adopting them as they are primarilyprocedural. Courts ordinarily
have no concern with theirobservance. They may be waived or disregarded by
thelegislative body. Consequently,
mere failure to conform tothem does not have the effect of nullifying
the act takenif the requisite numbers of members have agreed to
aparticular measure
.
In view of the Courts jurisdiction
This Court's function is merely to check whether or not thegovernmental branch or
agency has gone beyond theconstitutional limits of its jurisdiction, not that it erred or
has adifferent view. In the absence of a showing . . . of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction, there is no occasionfor the Court to exercise its
corrective power. . . . It has no powerto look into what it thinks is apparent error. If, then,
theestablished rule is that courts cannot declare an act of thelegislature void on account
merely of noncompliance with rules of procedure
made by itself, it follows that such a case doesnot present a
situation in which a branch of thegovernment has "gone beyond the
constitutional limits of its jurisdiction"
.
In view of House Rules:
No rule of the House of Representatives has been cited whichspecifically requires that
in cases such as this involving approvalof a conference committee report, the
Chair must restate themotion and conduct a viva voce or nominal voting.Mr.
TOLENTINO. The fact that nobody objects means a unanimousaction of the House.
Insofar as the matter of procedure isconcerned, this has been a precedent since I came here
sevenyears ago, and it has been the procedure in this House that if somebody objects,
then a debate follows and after the debate,then the voting comes in.Nor does the
Constitution require that the yeas and the nays of the Members be taken every time a
House has to vote, exceptonly in the following instances: upon the
last and thirdreadings of a bill
,
at the request of one-fifth of theMembers
present, and in
re-passing a bill over the veto of the President
.
In view of grave abuse
Indeed, the phrase "grave abuse of discretion amounting to lackor excess of
jurisdiction" has a settled meaning in the jurisprudence of procedure. It means such
capricious andwhimsical exercise of judgment by a tribunal exercising judicial orquasi
judicial power as to amount to lack of power.
In view of the enrolled bill doctrine

Under the enrolled bill doctrine, the signing of H. No. 7198 by theSpeaker of the House
and the President of the Senate and thecertification by the secretaries of both Houses
of Congress that itwas passed on November 21, 1996 are conclusive of its
dueenactment. This Court quoted from Wigmore on Evidence the followingexcerpt which
embodies good, if old-fashioned democratictheory: Instead of trusting a faithful
Judiciary to check aninefficient Legislature, they should turn to improve theLegislature.
The sensible solution is not to patch and mend casualerrors by asking the Judiciary to
violate legal principle and to doimpossibilities with the Constitution; but to
represent ourselveswith competent, careful, and honest legislators, the work of whose
hands on the statute-roll may come to reflect credit uponthe name of popular
government.
(In view of justifiability according to PUNO, J)
With due respect, I
do not agree that the issues posed bythe petitioner are nonjustifiable
. Nor do I agree that we willtrivialize the principle of separation of power if we
assume jurisdiction over the case at bar. Even in the United States, theprinciple of
separation of power is no longer an impregnableimpediment against the interposition of
judicial power on casesinvolving breach of rules of procedure by legislators. The
Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. It may not by
its rules ignore constitutionalrestraints or violate fundamental rights, and there should
be areasonable relation between the mode or method of proceedingsestablished by the
rule and the result which is sought to beattained. But within these limitations all matters
of method areopen to the determination of the House, and it is noimpeachment of the
rule to say that some other way would bebetter, more accurate, or even more just.

Arroyo v. De Venecia
Facts:
An amendment to the National Internal Revenue Code was introduced to the House
of Representatives involving taxations on the manufacture and sale of beer and cigarettes. This
waslater passed accordingly and brought to the House of Senate. Upon the interpellation on
thesecond reading, herein petitioner moved for adjournment for lack of quorum which
isconstitutionally needed to conduct business. Petitioners motion was defeated and
wasrailroaded. The bill was then signed into law by President Fidel Ramos.
Issue:
Whether or not the law was passed on violation on the constitutional mandate.
Held:
There is no rule of the House concerned that quorum shall be determined by viva voce
or nominal voting. The Constitution does not require that the yeas and nays of the Members
betaken every time a House has to vote, except only on the following instances upon the last
andthe third readings of the bill, at the request of 1/5 of the Members present and in repassing a
billover the veto of the President. Second, there is obviousness on the part of the petitioner to
delaythe business of the House, thus eliminating the alleged skullduggery on part of the
accused.Third, the enrolled bill doctrine states that enrolled bills are in itself conclusive thus
legally binding provided it is in harmony with the constitution. Lastly, the court upheld principle
of separation of powers, which herein, is applicable for the legislative branch for it has exercised
its power without grave abuse of discretion resulting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.