BUNGCASAN, IVY JANE C.

CASE DIGEST
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
SUNDAYS 8:00AM – 12:30PM

Joker P. Arroyo, Edcel C. Lagman, John Henry R. Osmeña,

Wigberto E. Tañada, and Ronaldo B. Zamora, petitioners
vs Jose De Venecia, Raul Daza, Rodolfo Albano, The Executive Secretary,
The Secretary of Finance, and The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, respondents
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 by imposing so-called “sin taxes” (specific taxes) on the
manufacture and sale of beer and cigarettes. Petitioners argue that RA 8240 is null and void
because it was passed in violation on the rules of the House.

Petitioners, who are members of the House of Representatives, charged that there is violation
on the rules of the House which petitioners claim are constitutionally – mandated in Article VI,
Section 16(3) so that their violation is tantamount to a violation of the Constitution.

The law originated in the House of Representatives as House Bill No. 7198 which was approved
on third reading on September 12, 1996 and later transmitted to the Senate. The Senate
approved it with certain amendments on third reading on November 17, 1996. A bicameral
conference committee was formed to reconcile the disagreeing provisions of the House and the
Senate versions of the bill. The bicameral committee submitted its report to the House on
November 21, 1996. During the first interpellation by Rep. Sarmiento, Rep. Arroyo made an
interruption and moved to adjourn for lack of quorum. But after a roll call, the Chair (Deputy
Speaker Raul Daza) declared the presence of a quorum. Rep. Arroyo appealed the ruling of the
Chair, but his motion was defeated when put to a vote. The interpellation then proceeded.

Rep. Arroyo was fourth in the order of interpellation. In the course of this interpellation, Rep.
Arroyo announced that he was going to raise a question on the quorum, but he never did. After
the interpellation, Majority Leader Rodolfo Albano moved for the approval and ratification of
the conference committee report. The Chair called out for objections to the motion. The Chair
then declared: “There being none, approved.” Said statement was said simultaneously with Rep.
Arroyo asking, “What is that, Mr. Speaker?” Although Rep. Arroyo subsequently objected to the
Majority Leader’s 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 enrolled bill was signed into law by President Ramos on November 22, 1996.

ISSUE:
Whether or not RA 8240 is null and void because it was passed in violation of the rules of the
House.

RULING:
After considering the arguments of the parties, the Court finds no ground for holding that
Congress committed a grave abuse of discretion in enacting RA 8240. This case is therefore
dismissed.

What was alleged to have been violated in the enactment of RA 8240 are merely internal rules
of procedure of the House rather than constitutional requirements for the enactment of a law.
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. Arroyo’s earlier motion to adjourn for lack of
quorum has 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.

The established rule is that courts cannot declare an act of the legislature void on account
merely of non – compliance with rules of procedure made by itself, it follows that such a case
does not present a situation in which a branch of the government has “gone beyond the
constitutional limits of its jurisdiction” so as to call for the exercise of Article VIII, Section 1.

No rule of the House of Representative has been cited which specifically requires that in such
case as this involving approval of a conference committee report, the Chair must restate the
motion and conduct a viva voce or nominal voting. On the other hand, as the Solicitor General
has pointed out, the manner in which the conference committee report on HB No. 7198 was
approved was by no means a unique one. It has basis in legislative practice. It was the way the
conference committee report on the bills which became the Local Government Code of 1991
and the conference committee report on the bills amending the Tariff and Customs Code were
approved.

Nor does the Constitution require the yeas and nays of the Members be taken every time a
House has to vote, except only in the following instances: upon the last and third readings of a
bill, at the request of one-fifith of the Members present, and in repassing a bill over the veto of
the President. Indeed, considering the fact that in the approval of the original bill, the votes of
the members by yeas and nays had already been taken, it would have been sheer tedium to
repeat the process.

Under the enrolled bill doctrine, the signing of HB No. 7198 by the Speaker of the House and the
President of the Senate and the certification by the secretaries of both Houses of Congress that
it was passed on November 21, 1996 are conclusive of its due enactment.

Wherefore, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is DISMISSED.