Arroyo vs. De Venecia G.R. No.

127255, August 14, 1997 Sunday, January 25, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests, Political Law Facts: A petition was filed challenging the validity of RA 8240, which amends certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code. Petitioners, who are members of the House of Representatives, charged that there is violation of the rules of the House which petitioners claim are constitutionallymandated so that their violation is tantamount to a violation of the Constitution. The law originated in the House of Representatives. The Senate approved it with certain amendments. A bicameral conference committee was formed to reconcile the disagreeing provisions of the House and Senate versions of the bill. The bicameral committee submitted its report to the House. During the interpellations, Rep. Arroyo made an interruption and moved to adjourn for lack of quorum. But after a roll call, the Chair declared the presence of a quorum. The interpellation then proceeded. After Rep. Arroyo’s interpellation of the sponsor of the committee report, Majority Leader Albano moved for the approval and ratification of the conference committee report. The Chaircalled out for objections to the motion. Then the Chair declared: “There being none, approved.” At the same time the Chair was saying this, Rep. Arroyo was asking, “What is that…Mr. Speaker?” The Chairand Rep. Arroyo were talking simultaneously. Thus, 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.

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

Held: Rules of each House of Congress are hardly permanent in character. They are subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body adopting them as they are primarily procedural. Courts ordinarily have no concern with their observance. They may be waived or disregarded by the

. Consequently. no rights of private individuals are involved but only those of a member who. The matter complained of concerns a matter of internal procedure of the House with which the Court should not be concerned. Rep. Even its validity is open to question in a case where private rights are involved. the question presented is necessarily judicial in character. The claim is not that there was no quorum but only that Rep. In the case. mere failure toconform to them does not have the effect of nullifying the act taken if the requisite number of members has agreed to a particular measure. instead of seeking redress in the House. But this is subject to qualification. Arroyo’s earlier motion to adjourn for lack of quorum had already been defeated. Arroyo was effectively prevented from questioning the presence of a quorum. Where the construction to be given to a rule affects person other than members of the legislative body. 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. chose to transfer the dispute to the Court.legislative body. as the roll call established the existence of a quorum.

1994 Sunday. private bills and bills of local application must come from the House of Representatives on the theory that. Secs. H. Issue: Whether or not RA 7716 violates Art. 1630. 11197 and S. VI.Tolentino vs. Sec. But this was because the President had certified S. No. 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests. 24 and 26(2) of the Constitution Held: The argument that RA 7716 did not originate exclusively in the House of Representatives as required by Art. because it is in fact the result of the consolidation of 2 distinct bills. 115455. 1630 did not pass 3 readings on separate days as required by the Constitutionbecause the second and third readings were done on the same day. 24 of theConstitution.R. RA 7716 seeks to widen the tax base of the existing VAT system and enhance its administration by amending the National Internal Revenue Code. To begin with. No. To insist that a revenue statute and not only the bill which initiated the legislative process culminating in the enactment of the law must substantially be the same as the House bill would be to deny the Senate’s power not only to concur with amendments but also to propose amendments. Political Law Facts: The value-added tax (VAT) is levied on the sale. elected as they are from the districts. barter or exchange of goods and properties as well as on the sale or exchange of services. VI. No. No. August 25. No. tariff or tax bills. There are various suits challenging the constitutionality of RA 7716 on various grounds. No. 24 of theConstitution will not bear analysis. Nor does the Constitutionprohibit the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House. bills authorizing an increase of the publicdebt. so long as action by the Senate as a body is withheld pending receipt of the House bill. 1630 as urgent. it is not the law but the revenue bill which is required by the Constitution to originate exclusively in the House of Representatives. Secretary of Finance G. the members of the House can be expected to be more sensitive to the local needs and problems. The next argument of the petitioners was that S. Sec. The presidential certification dispensed . 1630 did not pass 3 readings as required by theConstitution. Indeed. One contention is that RA 7716 did not originate exclusively in the House of Representatives as required by Art. VI. January 25. what the Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing revenue. There is also a contention that S.

with the requirement not only of printing but also that of reading the bill on separate days. . That upon the certification of a bill by the President the requirement of 3 readings on separate days and of printing and distribution can be dispensed with is supported by the weight of legislative practice.

1950 on the other. et. Issue: . 3705 and 3555 on the one hand.. They submit that the recommendatory power given to the Secretary of Finance in regard to the occurrence of either of two events using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a benchmark necessarily and inherently required extended analysis and evaluation. Ermita G. 9337’s stand. petitioners argue that the fact that the presence of such a no pass-on provision in the House version and the absence thereof in the Senate Bill means there is no conflict because “a House provision cannot be in conflict with something that does not authority to the Executive to increase the VAT rate. As to the no pass-on provision for sale of petroleum products. Petitioners also reiterate their argument that the input tax is a property or a property right. 2005 J. also contend that Republic Act No. especially on account of the recommendatory power granted to the Secretary of Finance. 168056. as well as policy making.” Escudero. Petitioners also contend that even if the right to credit the input VAT is merely a statutory privilege. it has already evolved into a vested right that the State cannot remove.Abakada Guro v. al. July 5.. also reiterate that R. Puno En Banc Facts: Motions for Reconsideration filed by petitioners. No. Petitioners Escudero. et al. constitutes undue delegation of legislative power. ABAKADA Guro party List Officer and et al. No. and Senate Bill No. 9337 grossly violates the constitutional imperative on exclusive origination of revenue bills under Section 24 of Article VI of the Constitution when the Senate introduced amendments not connected with VAT.R..A. with regard to the no pass-on provision for the sale of service for power generation because both the Senate and the House were in agreement that the VAT burden for the sale of such service shall not be passed on to the end-consumer. insist that the bicameral conference committee should not even have acted on the no pass-on provisions since there is no disagreement between House Bill Nos.

and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives. 9337 or the Vat Reform Act is constitutional? Held: The Court is not persuaded. So long as there is a public end for which R. The Motions for Reconsideration are hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY. 9337 already involve legislative policy and wisdom. considering that he possesses all the facilities to gather data and information and has a much broader perspective to properly evaluate them. The temporary restraining order issued by the Court is LIFTED. the Secretary of Finance is not acting as the alter ego of the President or even her subordinate.A. the means through which such end shall be accomplished is for the legislature to choose so long as it is within constitutional bounds. In the same breath. As the Court stated in its Decision. No. the assailed provisions of R. revenue or tariff bills. to determine and declare the event upon which its expressed will is to take effect.A.A. bills of local application. bills authorizing increase of the public debt. More importantly. The Court reiterates that in making his recommendation to the President on the existence of either of the two conditions. No. No. but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. His function is to gather and collate statistical data and other pertinent information and verify if any of the two conditions laid out by Congress is present. He is acting as the agent of the legislative department. and a VAT-registered person’s entitlement to the creditable input tax is a mere statutory privilege. The Secretary of Finance becomes the means or tool by which legislative policy is determined and implemented. the Court reiterates its finding that it is not a property or a property right. Article VI. Section 24 of the Constitution provides that All appropriation.Whether or not the R. the right to credit the input tax is a mere creation of law. 9337 was passed. .

HELD: COURT DISMISSED ALL MOTIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER AND AFFIRMS ALL DECISIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT JUDGES. blunt. the carrying outside one's residence of any bladed. that the Information did not allege facts which constitute the offense penalized by Presidential Decree No. The petitioner by having one particular stand of the carrying of any dangerous weapon outside of the residence w/o regard to motive or intent makes this a case of statutory construction. 9. and second. etc. respectively. or public disorder. On a motion to quash filed by the accused. ISSUES OF THE CASE: Are the Informations filed by the People sufficient in form and substance to constitute the offense of "illegal possession of deadly weapon" penalized under Presidential Decree (PD for short) No. that the act of carrying the weapon was either in furtherance of. are consolidated in this one Decision as they involve one basic question of law. viz. lawless violence. 9? There are two elements to the the offense: first. it becomes necessary to . by the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila. on a common ground. the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Samar. Informations were filed charging the respective accused with "illegal possession of deadly weapon" in violation of Presidential Decree No. the three Judges mentioned above issued in the respective cases filed before them — the details of which will be recounted below — an Order quashing or dismissing the Informations. or to abet. rebellion. criminality. and joined by the Solicitor General. or pointed weapon. or in connection with subversion. insurrection. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION LESSON: The problem of determining what acts fall within the purview of a statute. chaos. not used as a necessary tool or implement for a livelihood.PEOPLE VS PURISIMA FACTS OF THE CASE: There are twenty-six (26) Petitions for Review filed by the People of the Philippines represented. 9 because it failed to state one essential element of the crime. Before those courts.

and injurious consequence . It is a salutary principle in statutory construction that there exists a valid presumption that undesirable consequences were never intended by a legislative measure. mischievous. which will avoid all objectionable. wrongful. and that a construction of which the statute is fairly susceptible is favored. indefensible. whereas" clauses which enumerate the facts or events which justify the promulgation of the decree and the stiff sanctions stated therein. evil.inquire into the intent and spirit of the decree and this can be found among others in the preamble or.

and that Bayanga. Province of Cotabato.Lidasan vs. it kept the public in the dark as to what towns and provinces were actually affected by the bill that even a Congressman from Cotabato voted for it only to find out later on that it is to the prejudice of his own province. which created Dianaton but which includes barrios located in another province Cotabato . Such title did not inform the members of Congress as to the full impact of the law. be spared from attack planted upon the constitutional mandate that "No bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill? HELD: The baneful effect of the defective title here presented is not so difficult to perceive. Later. Magabo. it did not apprise the people in the towns of Buldon and Parang in Cotabato and in the province of Cotabato itself that part of their territory is being taken away from their towns and province and added to the adjacent Province of Lanao del Sur." was passed. RA 4790. [Remarkably. COMELEC proceeded to establish precints for voter registration in the said territories of Dianaton. These are the pressures which heavily weigh against the constitutionality of RA 4790. which is entitled "An Act Creating the Municipality of Dianaton in the Province of Lanao del Sur. Lidasan came to know later on that barrios Togaig and Madalum just mentioned are within the municipality of Buldon. . the municipality of Parang. and Kabamakawan are parts and parcel of another municipality. Tabangao. Kat-bo. comelec Facts: Lidasan is a resident of Parang. Sarakan. Tiongko. Cotabato. also in the Province of Cotabato and not of Lanao del Sur. Colodan. even the Congressman of Cotabato voted in favor of RA 4790.] Pursuant to this law. it would be including in the territory thereof barrios from Cotabato. Digakapan. Lidasan then filed that RA 4790 be nullified for being unconstitutional because it did not clearly indicate in its title that it in creating Dianaton. ISSUE: Is RA 4790.

They are re-suppliers of power produced by NAPOCOR. language of such precision as to mirror. mere details need not be set forth. take appropriate action thereon. Thus. study and discuss the same. thus. fully index or catalogue all the contents and the minute details therein." receiving at least 50% of its electric power and energy from it to require as a condition that such franchise holder "shall not realize a net profit of more than twelve percent annually of its investments plus two-month operating expenses. The provision merely calls for all parts of an act relating to its subject finding expression in its title. if it receives at least fifty percent of its electric power and energy from the National Power Corporation. in order to give effect to the provisions hereof. Where the subject of a bill is limited to a particular matter. shall not realize a net profit of more than twelve percent annually of its investments plus two-month operating expenses. The legislature is not required to make the title of the act a complete index of its contents. and. The National Power Corporation shall renew all existing contracts with franchise holders for the supply of electric power and energy. and the public. In the event that the net profit as verified by the Public Service Commission should exceed the said twelve percent." . Alalayan asserts that the provision objected to is such a rider. entitled "An Act to Further Amend Commonwealth Act Numbered One Hundred Twenty. They aver that the provision of the said RA is a rider in only meant to increase the capital stock of NAPOCOR. the lawmakers along with the people should be informed of the subject of proposed legislative measures. it must be deemed sufficient that the title be comprehensive enough reasonably to include the general object which the statute seeks to effect without expressing each and every end and means necessary for its accomplishment. . there being no need to state the precise nature of the amendment. prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislators." "SEC. 1961. More specifically. the Constitution does not require Congress to employ in the title of an enactment. a rider being a provision not germane to the subject matter of the bill. It is aimed against the evils of the so-called omnibus bills as log-rolling legislation as well as surreptitious or unconsidered enactments. and it shall in any contract for the supply of electric power to a franchise holder require as a condition that the franchise holder. approved June 17. as Amended by Republic Act Numbered Twenty Six Hundred and Forty-One. Alalayan and PPDC are contractors with NAPOCOR. the persons interested in the subject of the bill. the Public Service Commission shall order such excess to be returned pro rata to the customers either in cash or as credit for future electric bills.ALALAYAN vs NAPOCOR Alalayan and the Philippine Power and Development Company assails the power vested in NAPOCOR that "in any contract for the supply of electric power to a franchise holder. And this. to lead them to inquire into the body of the bill. To impart to it a meaning which is reasonable and not unduly technical. if the law amends a section or part of a statute. This constitutional provision thus precludes the insertion of riders in legislation." This provision is similar to those found in many American State Constitutions.". 3 The National Power Corporation is hereby authorized to represent and transact for the benefit and in behalf of the public consumers." Also it could “renew all existing contracts with franchise holders for the supply of electric power and energy. "Of course. 3043. it suffices if reference be made to the legislation to be amended. This is all in pursuant to RA 3043 and the amendments it offered to RA 2641." ** RA. scope and consequences of the proposed law and its operation. HELD: No bill "which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in [its] title . It suffices if the title should serve the purpose of the constitutional demand that it inform the legislators. ISSUE: Whether or not RA 3043 is constitutional. To lend approval to such a plea is to construe the above constitutional provision as to cripple or impede proper legislation. . of the nature.

fully index or catalogue all contents and minute details of a law. as guardians of theConstitution. In the case. Where a statute violates the Constitution. subject only to monitoring by the Department of Energy. Issues: (1) Whether or not the petitions raise a justiciable controversy (2) Whether or not the petitioners have the standing to assail the validity of the law (3) Whether or not Sec. combinations in restraint of trade and unfair competition Held: As to the first issue. any person or entity may import or purchase any quantity of crude oil and petroleum products from a foreign or domestic source. The Court has brightlined its liberal stance on a petitioner’s locus standi where the petitioner is able to craft an issue of transcendental significance to the people. lease or own and operate refineries and other downstream oil facilities and market such crude oil or use the same for his own requirement. and may be considered in furtherance of such subject by providing for the method and means of carrying out the general subject. it is not only the right but the duty of the judiciary to declare such act as unconstitutional and void. 5(b) of RA 8180 violates the one title one subject requirement of the Constitution (4) Whether or not Sec.Facts: The petitions assail the constitutionality of various provisions of RA 8180 entitiled the “Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act of 1996. so long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject. The Court did not concur with this contention. have the inherent authority to determine whether a statute enacted by the legislature transcends the limit imposed by the fundamental law. but also the duty to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. petitioners pose issues which are significant to the people and which deserve the Court’s forthright resolution. 5(b) of RA 8180 on tariff differential violates the provision of the Constitution requiring every law to have only one subject which should be expressed in its title. The courts. 15 of RA 8180 violates the constitutionalprohibition on undue delegation of power (5) Whether or not RA 8180 violates the constitutional prohibition against monopolies.” Under the deregulated environment. judicial power includes not only the duty of the courts to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. A law having a single general subject indicated in the title may contain any number of provisions. no matter how diverse they may be. The title need not mirror. The Court held that Sec. It is also contended that Sec. . 5 providing for tariff differential is germane to the subject of RA 8180 which is the deregulation of the downstream oil industry. The effort of respondents to question the legal standing of petitioners also failed.

RA 8180 contains a separability clause. Shell and Caltex against prospective new players. there must be adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out theboundaries of the delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. Art. He is to time it as far as practicable when the prices ofcrude oil and petroleum products in the world market are declining and when the exchange rate of the peso in relation to the US dollar is stable. It erects a high barrier to the entry of new players. regardless of the occurrence of any event. The discretion given to the President is to advance the date of full deregulation before the end of March 1997. Petitioners also argued that some provisions of RA 8180 violate Sec. Under the sufficient standard test. they boast of existingrefineries of various capacities. considerations. inducements or compensations for each other. Full deregulation at the end of March 1997 is mandatory and the Executive has no discretion to postpone it for any purported reason. the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislative such that when it reaches the delegate the only thing he will have to do is to enforce it. and the reason for regulation of unmitigated monopolies. may stand and be enforced. the Court held that the offending provisions of RA 8180 so permeate its essence that . the nullity of one part will vitiate the rest. 19. Prospective competitors again will find compliance with this requirement difficult as it will entail a prohibitive cost. the law is complete on the question of the final date of full deregulation. Shell and Caltex stand as the only major league players in the oil market. 19. The most important question is whether the offending provisions can be individually struck down without invalidating the entire RA 8180. as conditions. The provision on inventory widens the balance of advantage of Petron. The exception to the general rule is that when the parts of a statute are so mutually dependent and connected. New players that intend to equalize the market power of Petron. The desirability of competition is the reason for the prohibition against restraint of trade. The separability clause notwithstanding. Competition is thus the underlying principle of Sec. Shell and Caltex by building refineries of their own will have to spend billions of pesos. XII of the Constitutionespouses competition. Thus. 15 of RA 8180 which fixes the time frame for the full deregulation of the downstream oil industry for being violative of the constitutional prohibition on undue delegation of power. Section 19. They will be competing on an uneven field. Those who will not build refineries but compete with them will suffer the huge disadvantage of increasing their product cost by 4%. while another part is valid. Under the first test. There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power: the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. if separable from the invalid. Petron. The general rule is that where part of a statute is void as repugnant to the Constitution. Congress expressly provided in RA 8180 that full deregulation will start at the end of March 1997. XII of the Constitution which cannot be violated by RA 8180. Art. Shell and Caltex can easily comply with the inventory requirement of RA 8180 in view of their existing storage facilities. XII of the Constitution. The tariff differential of 4% on imported crude oil and refined petroleum products therefore works to their immense benefit. the valid portion.Petitioners also assail Sec. Section 15 can hurdle both the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. Art. Petron. Section 15 lays down the standard to guide the judgment of the President. As the dominant players. the reason for the interdiction of unfair competition. as to warrant a belief that the legislature intended them as a whole.

inventory and predatory pricing inhibit fair competition. contrary to their intent. inventory and predatory pricing are among the principal props of RA 8180. The provisions on tariff differential. encourage monopolistic power and interfere with the free interaction of market forces.the entire law has to be struck down. these provisions on tariff differential. Unfortunately. . Congress could not have regulated the downstream oil industry without these provisions.

general orders. & to documents & papers pertaining to official acts. to be valid & enforceable. Petitioners maintain that since the subject of the petition concerns a public right and its object is to compel public duty. transactions. EOs. The generality of law (CC A14) will never work w/o constructive notice. The publication of presidential issuances “of public nature” or “of general applicability” is a requirement of due process. Article IV of the 1973 constitution. they need not show any specific interest. LOIs. 1973 Constitution). The respondents would have this case dismissed on the ground that petitioners have no legal personality to bring this petition. Laws. and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette. or decisions. petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish. Impt Point: It illustrates how decrees & issuances issued by one man—Marcos—are in fact laws of gen’l application & provide for penalties. Respondents further contend that publication in the OG is not a sine qua non requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. Issue: WON publication in the Official Gazatte is an indispensable requirement for the effectivity of the PDs. The ruling of this case provides the publication constitutes the necessary constructive notice & is thus the cure for ignorance as an excuse. of various presidential decrees. Held: Yes. etc. Before a person may be bound by law. The fact that a PD or LOI states its date of effectivity does not preclude their publication in the OG as they constitute important legislative acts. Ignorance will not even mitigate the crime.TANADA VS TUVERA 1985 Facts: Invoking the people’s right to be informed on matters of public concern. where laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. executive orders. and unless so published shall have no binding force and effect. letter of implementation and administrative orders. letters of instructions. he must first be officially informed of its contents. general orders. a right recognized in Section 6. shall be afforded the citizens subject to such limitation as may be provided by law (§6 AIV. must be published in the OG or otherwise effectively promulgated. . It is the people’s right to be informed on matters of public concern & corollarily access to official records. Judgment: Respondents ordered to publish in Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances of general application. The constitution afforded Marcos both executive & legislative powers. proclamations.

in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Code. Reasoning: The Supreme Court declared that all laws as above defined shall immediately upontheir approval. refers to thedate of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself.which subsequently required the new Solicitor General to file a rejoinder on the issue (under Rule 3. Solicitor General avers that the motion is a request for advisory opinion. or on another date specified by thelegislature. to become effective only after 15 days from their publication. . or as soon thereafter as possible. (4) Charter of a citynotwithstanding that it applies to only a portion of the national territory and directly affects onlythe inhabitants of that place. (3) Administrative rules and regulations for the purpose of enforcing or implementing existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation. be published in full in the Official Gazette. The legislature may in itsdiscretion provide that the usual fifteenday period shall be shortened or extended.´ in Article 2 of the Civil Code. and unless so published. publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws. or on any other date. February Revolution took place. Held: The clause ³unless it is otherwise provided. Section 18 of the Rules of Court). (5) Monetary Board circulars to ³fill in the details´ of the CentralBank Act which that body is supposed to enforce. Further. This clause does not mean that the legislature may make the law effective immediatelyupon approval. (2) presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or directlyconferred by the Constitution. including those of local application and private laws. which cannot in any event beomitted.Petitioners move for reconsideration / clarification of the decision on various questions. they shall have no binding force and effect. Decision was concurred only by 3 judges. the Court affirmed the necessity for the publication to the OfficialGazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application.TANADA TUVERA 1986 Facts: On 24 April 1985. Publicationrequirements applies to (1) all statutes. without its previous publication. Issue: Whether publication is still required in light of the clause ³unless otherwise provided´.