Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

II.

THE TRAIN LAW WAS VALIDLY PASSED BY CONGRESS AND


SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE PRESIDENT.

A. The TRAIN Bicameral Conference Committee Report was ratified in


accordance with the 1987 Constitution and the Rules of the House
of Representatives.
B. The doctrine of separation of powers prevents this Honorable Court
from inquiring into the existence of a quorum during the 13
December 2017 session of the House of Representatives, on
account of the conclusive evidence of Journal No. 48 and the
enrolled bill of the TRAIN.
C. The President correctly relied on the enrolled TRAIN bill when he
signed it into law.

III. THE PURPOSE OF THE TRAIN LAW IS TO ERADICATE POVERTY


AND REDUCE INEQUALITY FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE
PEOPLE.

A. The increase in oil excise taxes is imbued with revenue, regulatory


and remedial policy considerations.
B. The TRAIN Law is progressive.
C. The TRAIN Law does not violate the due process clause.
D. The TRAIN Law does not violate the equal protection clause.

IV. THE PROVISION ON THE INCREASE OF EXCISE TAX ON COAL IS


NOT A RIDER BECAUSE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 24,
ARTICLE VI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION AND SECTION 83, RULE
XXIX OF THE RULES OF THE SENATE.

V. OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF A


TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, WRIT OF PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND/OR STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER.

A. Petitioners improperly availed of a special civil action for certiorari.


B. Petitioners violated the principle of hierarchy of courts.
C. Petitioners failed to show an actual case or controversy calling for
the exercise of judicial power.
D. Petitioners raised political questions which are not justiciable.
E. Petitioners failed to implead Congress as an indispensable party.
F. Petitioners violated the doctrine of presidential immunity from
suit.
A. The TRAIN Bicameral Conference Committee Report was ratified in
accordance with the 1987 Constitution and the Rules of the House
of Representatives.

46. Petitioners allege that the House of Representatives ratified the TRAIN BCC
Report without a quorum and without a majority vote of the Members present,
in violation of the following provisions of the 1987 Constitution and the House
Rules:

Section 16 (2), Article VI of the Constitution

A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a


smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance
of absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House
may provide.

47. The entries in the House of Representatives Journal Nos. 48 and 49 dated
13 December 2017 and 15 January 2018, respectively, belie these allegations.

48. Journal No. 48 shows the clear presence of a quorum to transact business.
From a total of two hundred ninety-five (295) House Members, two hundred
thirty-two (232) members responded to the roll call. This number is more than
the majority needed to constitute a quorum, a majority being a number greater
than half of the total.

49. Journal No. 48 likewise shows that “[o]n motion of Representative Defensor,
there being no objection, the Body considered and subsequently ratified the
Conference Committee Report on the disagreeing provisions of House Bill No.
5356… and Senate Bill No. 1592 or the TRAIN BCC Report.

50. These facts are likewise borne by Journal No. 49, which also contains the
approval of Journal No. 48 by majority of the House Members, viz:

MOTION OF REPRESENTATIVE BONDOC

Rep. Juan Pablo “Rimpy” P. Bondoc then moved for the approval of
Journal No. 48 of December 13, 2017.

OBJECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE TINIO

Rep. Antonio L. Tinio objected to the aforesaid motion.

REMARKS OF REPRESENTATIVE TINIO

Given five minutes by the Chair to explain his objection upon


Representative Bondoc’s motion, Representative Tinio asked the Secretariat to
amend the portion entitled “RATIFICATION OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
REPORT ON HOUSE BILL NO. 5636 AND SENATE BILL NO. 1592” on page 12 of
Journal No. 48 in order to reflect (1) his and Rep. Carlos Isagani T. Zarate’s
numerous objections to said ratification and (2) his objection to said ratification
on the basis of lack of quorum.

MOTION OF REPRESENTATIVE BONDOC

Representative Bondoc moved that the House first vote on his motion to
approve Journal No. 48.

REMARKS OF REPRESENTATIVE TINIO

Representative Tinio also contested the statement in the aforecited


portion of Journal No. 48 that the Body ratified said Committee Report and
argued that no voting had taken place thereon. He asked the Secretariat to
correct the use of the word “ratified” as he cited the House Rules on (1) the
ratification of a Conference Committee Report by a majority vote of the
Members of the House, there being a quorum; and (2) the conduct of a voting
on motions or questions where the Speaker shall first say, “as many as are in
favor, say aye” and thereafter say, “as many as are opposed, say nay” after the
affirmative vote is counted.