CASE FOR SEPARATION OF POWERS AND CHECKS AND BALANCES

In the Philippine setting, there is a more compelling reason for courts to categorically
reject the political question defense when its interposition will cover up abuse of power.

ARROYO VS. DE VENECIA August 14, 1997

277 SCRA 268

FACTS
BACKGROUNDER: Petitioners are members of the House of Representatives.
They brought this suit against respondents Jose de Venecia, Speaker of the House
of Representatives, Deputy Speaker Raul Daza, Majority Leader Rodolfo Albano,
the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Finance, and the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, charging violation of the rules of the House that their violation
is tantamount to a violation of the Constitution.
o Petitioner Rep. Joker Arroyo announced that he was going to raise a
question on the quorum, although until the end of his interpellation he
never did. What happened thereafter is shown in the following transcript
of the session on November 21, 1996 of the House of Representatives, as
published by Congress in the newspaper issues of December 5 and 6,
1996; 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.
FIRST STAGE: Petitioners principal argument is that R.A. 8240 is null and void
because it was passed in violation of the rules of the House; that these rules
embody the constitutional mandate in Article V1, 16(3) that each House may
determine the rules of its proceedings and that, consequently, violation of the
House rules is a violation of the Constitution itself. They contend that the
certification of Speaker De Venecia that the law was properly passed is false and
spurious. Petitioners also charge that the session was hastily adjourned at 3:40
p.m. on November 21,1996 and the bill certified by Speaker Jose De Venecia to
prevent petitioner Rep. Arroyo from formally challenging the existence of a
quorum and asking for reconsideration. Respondents defense is anchored on the
principle of separation of powers and the enrolled bill doctrine. They argue that
the Court is not the proper forum for the enforcement of the rules of the House
and that there is no justification for reconsidering the enrolled bill doctrine. The
respondents contend that, in passing the bill which became R.A. No. 8240, the
rules of the House, as well as parliamentary precedents for approval of conference
committee reports on mere action, were faithfully observed.
FINAL STAGE: In the decided case, the constitutional provision that each House
may determine the rules of its proceedings was invoked by parties, although not
successfully, precisely to support claims of autonomy of the legislative branch to
conduct its business free from interference by courts. Here petitioners cite the
provision for the opposite purpose of invoking judicial review.
ISSUE
Whether or not R.A. No. 8240 is null and void because it was passed in violation
of the rules of the House.
Whether or not a certiorari/prohibition will be granted.

RULING

At any rate, courts 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. There is no constitutional
provision requiring that the legislative should read a bill in any particular manner.
It may, then, read or deliberate upon a bill as it sees fit, either in accordance with
its own rules, or in violation thereof, or without making any rules.
In this case no rights of private individual are involved but only those of a
member who, instead of seeking redress in the House, chose to transfer the
dispute to this Court. The Court have no more power to look into the internal
proceedings of a House than members of that House have to look over the Courts
shoulders, as long as no violation of constitutional provisions is shown.
After considering the arguments of the parties, the Court find no ground for
holding that Congress committed a grave abuse of discretion in enacting R.A. No.
8240. The case is therefore dismissed.