Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
630
EN BANC.
631
631
1/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
PHILIPPINE
PRESS
INSTITUTE,
INC.
EGP
PUBLISHING CO., INC. KAMAHALAN PUBLISHING
CORPORATION PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC.
JOSE L. PAVIA and OFELIA L. DIMALANTA,
petitioners, vs. HON. LIWAYWAY V. CHATO, in her
capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue HON.
TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., in his capacity as
Executive Secretary and HON. ROBERTO B. DE
OCAMPO, in his capacity as Secretary of Finance,
respondents.
G.R. No. 115754. August 25, 1994.*
CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS
ASSOCIATIONS, INC., (CREBA), petitioner, vs. THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent.
G.R. No. 115781. August 25, 1994.*
KILOSBAYAN, INC., JOVITO R. SALONGA, CIRILO A.
RIGOS, ERME CAMBA, EMILIO C. CAPULONG, JR.,
JOSE T. APOLO, EPHRAIM TENDERO, FERNANDO
SANTIAGO, JOSE ABCEDE, CHRISTINE TAN, FELIPE
L. GOZON, RAFAEL G. FERNANDO, RAOUL V.
VICTORINO, JOSE CUNANAN, QUINTIN S. DOROMAL,
MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD,
INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. (MABINI),
FREEDOM
FROM
DEBT
COALITION,
INC.,
PHILIPPINE BIBLE SOCIETY, INC., and WIGBERTO
TAADA,
petitioners,
vs.
THE
EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and THE
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondents.
G.R. No. 115852. August 25, 1994.*
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. petitioner, vs. THE
SECRETARY OF FINANCE, and COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents.
632
632
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
2/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
3/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
633
4/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
634
must come from the House of Representatives and that it does not
prohibit the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation
of its receipt of the bill from the House.Indeed, what the
Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing revenue,
tariff, or tax bills, bills authorizing an increase of the public debt,
private bills and bills of local application must come from the
House of Representatives on the theory that, elected as they are
from the districts, the members of the House can be expected to be
more sensitive to the local needs and problems. On the other
hand, the senators, who are elected at large, are expected to
approach the same problems from the national perspective. Both
views are thereby made to bear on the enactment of such laws.
Nor does the Constitution prohibit the filing in the Senate of a
substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the
House, so long as action by the Senate as a body is withheld
pending receipt of the House bill.
Same Same Presidential certification on urgency of a bill
dispenses with the requirement not only of printing but also that of
reading the bill on separate days.The presidential certification
dispensed with the requirement not only of printing but also that
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
5/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
of reading the bill on separate days. The phrase except when the
President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment,
etc. in Art. VI, 26(2) qualifies the two stated conditions before a
bill can become a law: (i) the bill has passed three readings on
separate days and (ii) it has been printed in its final form and
distributed three days before it is finally approved. In other
words, the unless clause must be read in relation to the except
clause, because the two are really coordinate clauses of the same
sentence. To construe the except clause as simply dispensing
with the second requirement in the unless clause (i.e., printing
and distribution three days before final approval) would not only
violate the rules of grammar. It would also negate the very
premise of the except clause: the necessity of securing the
immediate enactment of a bill which is certified in order to meet a
public calamity or emergency. For if it is only the printing that is
dispensed with by presidential certification, the time saved would
be so negligible as to be of any use in insuring immediate
enactment. It may well be doubted whether doing away with the
necessity of printing and distributing copies of the bill three days
before the third reading would insure speedy enactment of a law
in the face of an emergency requiring the calling of a special
election for President and VicePresident. Under the Constitution
such a law is required to be made within seven days of the
convening of Congress in emergency session.
635
635
6/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
636
7/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
8/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
637
9/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
638
10/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
639
11/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
expresses the general subject of the statute and all its provisions
are germane to the general subject thus expressed.
Same Same Public Utilities Franchises The grant of a
franchise for the operation of a public utility is subject to
amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress when the common
good so requires.In contrast, in the case at bar, Republic Act No.
7716 expressly amends PALs franchise (P.D. No. 1590) by
specifically excepting from the grant of exemptions from the VAT
PALs exemption under P.D. No. 1590. This is within the power of
Congress to do under Art. XII, 11 of the Constitution, which
provides that the grant of a franchise for the operation of a public
utility is subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress
when the common good so requires.
Same Taxation Expanded Value Added Tax Law Bill of
Rights Freedom of Expression Even with due recognition of its
high estate and its importance in a democratic society, the press is
not immune from general regulation by the State.To be sure, we
are not dealing here with a statute that on its face operates in the
area of press freedom. The PPIs claim is simply that, as applied
to newspapers, the law abridges press freedom. Even with due
recognition of its high estate and its importance in a democratic
society, however, the press is not immune from general regulation
by the State.
640
640
12/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
641
13/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
14/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
642
642
15/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
643
16/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
644
17/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
645
Same
Bicameral
Conference
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
Committee
Both
18/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
19/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
646
20/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
647
21/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
648
22/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
649
23/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
650
24/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
25/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
651
26/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
652
27/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
653
28/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
654
29/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
655
30/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
bench, then the subject revenue or tariff bill may be upheld in this
jurisdiction on the principle of substantial compliance, as they
were in the United States, except possibly in instances where the
House bill undergoes what is now referred to as amendment by
substitutionn, for that would be in derogation of our Constitution
which vests solely in the House of Representatives the power to
initiate revenue bills. A Senate amendment by substitution
simply means that the bill in question did not in effect originate
from the lower chamber but from the upper chamber and now
disguises itself as a mere amendment of the House version.
Same Judicial Review Courts will not decline the exercise of
jurisdiction upon the suggestion that action might be taken by
political agencies in disregard of the judgment of the judicial
tribunals.The rule is fixed that the duty in a proper case to
declare a law unconstitutional cannot be declined and must be
performed in accordance with the deliberate judgment of the
tribunal before which the validity of the enactment is directly
drawn into question. When it is clear that a statute transgresses
the authority vested in the legislature by the Constitution, it is
the duty of the courts to declare the act unconstitutional because
they cannot shirk from it without violating their oaths of office.
This duty of the courts to maintain the Constitution as the
fundamental law of the state is imperative and unceasing and, as
Chief Justice Marshal said, whenever a statute is in violation of
the fundamental law, the courts must so adjudge and thereby give
effect to the Constitution. Any other course would lead to the
destruction of the Constitutionn. Since the question as to the
constitutionality of a statute is a judicial matter, the courts will
not decline the exercise of jurisdiction upon the suggestion that
action might be taken by political agencies in disregard of the
judgment of the judicial tribunals.
31/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Worse,
656
656
32/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
657
33/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
658
I. Procedural Issues:
A. Does Republic Act No. 7716 violate Art. VI, 24 of the
Constitution?
B. Does it violate Art. VI, 26(2) of the Constitution?
C. What is the extent of the power of the Bicameral
Conference Committee?
II. Substantive Issues:
A. Does the law violate the following provisions in the Bill of
Rights (Art. III)?
1. 1
2. 4
3. 5
4. 10
B. Does the law violate the following other provisions of the
Constitution?
1. Art. VI, 28(1)
2. Art. VI, 28(3)
34/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
them.
I. PROCEDURAL ISSUES
The contention of petitioners is that in enacting Republic
Act No. 7716, or the Expanded ValueAdded Tax Law,
Congress violated the Constitution because, although H.
No. 11197 had originated in the House of Representatives,
it was not passed by the Senate but was simply
consolidated with the Senate version (S. No. 1630) in the
Conference Committee to produce the bill which the
President signed into law. The following provisions of the
Constitution are cited in support of the proposition that
because Republic Act No. 7716 was passed in this manner,
it did
659
659
35/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
H. Nos. 253, 771, 2450, 7033, 8086, 9030, 9210, 9297, 10012 and
660
36/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
661
37/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
U.S. CONST., Art. 1, 7, cl. 1: All bills for raising revenue shall
662
38/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
4
Art. VI, 1.
663
39/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
40/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
664
Although the 1935 Constitution did not expressly require that bills
must pass three readings in each House, this was clearly implied from its
Art. VI, 21(2) so that the two Houses by their rules prescribed three
readings for the passage of bills. Later the requirement was expressly
provided in the 1973 Constitution from which Art. VI, 26(2) was taken.
Art. VIII, 19(2) of the 1973 document provided: No bill shall become a
law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed
copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to the Members three
days before its passage, except when the Prime Minister certifies to the
necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or
emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be
allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and
the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
41/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
9
10
665
morning of the third day after the vacancy in the offices of the President
and VicePresident occurs, convene in accordance with its rules without
need of a call and within seven days enact a law calling for a special
election to elect a President and a VicePresident to be held not earlier
than fortyfive days nor later than sixty days from the time of such call.
The bill calling such special election shall be deemed certified under
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
42/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
the
special
election
shall
be
charged
against
any
current
666
43/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
667
44/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
14
meetings.
As to the possibility of an entirely new bill emerging out
of a Conference Committee, it has been explained:
Under congressional rules of procedure, conference committees
are not expected to make any material change in the measure at
issue, either by deleting provisions to which both houses have
already agreed or by inserting new provisions. But this is a
difficult provision to enforce. Note the problem when one house
amends a proposal originating in either house by striking out
everything following the enacting clause and substituting
provisions which make it an entirely new bill. The versions are
now altogether different, permitting
a conference committee to
15
draft essentially a new bill . . . .
________________
13
14
668
45/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
1993.
18
The charge is an old one. In the United States, the same charge,
669
46/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Rule XII:
26. In the event that the Senate does not agree with the House
of Representatives on the provision of any bill or joint resolution,
the differences shall be settled by a conference committee of both
Houses which shall meet within ten days after their composition.
The President shall designate the members of the conference
committee in accordance with subparagraph (c), Section 3 of Rule
III.
Each Conference Committee Report shall contain a detailed and
sufficiently explicit statement of the changes in or amendments to
the subject measure, and shall be signed by the conferees.
The consideration of such report shall not be in order unless
the report has been filed with the Secretary of the Senate and
copies thereof have been distributed to the Members.
(Emphasis added)
Rules of the House of Representatives
Rule XIV:
85. Conference Committee Reports.In the event that the
House does not agree with the Senate on the amendments to any
bill or
________________
actually by conference committee. Any remedy found will probably take the
form of reducing the need for using conference committees at all and the principal
suggestion to that end is that bills and resolutions be referred, not, as now, to
separate committees of the two houses, but to joint committees, which not only
would hold single sets of hearings, but might deliberate and report back bills to
the two houses in such agreed form that further significant differences would not
be likely to develop. Arrangements of this nature yield excellent results in the
legislature of Massachusetts. But there are obstacles to adoption of the plan for
Congress, not the least of them being a natural aversion of House members to joint
committees in which senators seem likely to dominate and, as indicated below,
the outlook for the reform is problematical. F.A. OGG AND P.O. RAY, supra note
7 at 310311.
670
670
47/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
48/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
671
49/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
_________________
19
672
50/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
________________
20
22
23
673
51/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
674
52/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
675
53/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
676
54/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Art. VI, 28(4) provides: No law granting any tax exemption shall
677
55/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Associated Press v. NLRB, 301 U.S. 103, 132, 81 L.Ed. 953, 961
(1937).
678
678
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
56/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
29
30
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
57/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
679
58/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
________________
31
32
33
103(t) of the NIRC exempts from the VAT Sale or lease of goods or
680
59/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
35
36
37
107 of the NIRC provides: Any person subject to a value added tax
under Sections 100 and 102 of this Code shall register with the
appropriate Revenue District Officer and pay an annual registration
681
681
60/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
39
40
319 U.S. at 114, 87 L.Ed. 1292 at 1298. For the same reason, in
People v. Korins, 385 N.Y.S. 2d 474 (1976) a decision of the city court of
Utica, Oneida County held that to apply an ordinance requiring a
business license to be obtained before a person could sell newspapers in
the streets would be to impose a prior restraint on press freedom because
a newspaper is not in the same category as pineapple or a soap powder or
a pair of shoes whose sale may be conditioned on the possession of a
business license.
682
682
61/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
(1950), quoted in Ermita, Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Assn v. City
Mayor, 21 SCRA 449, 459 (1967).
683
683
62/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Art. VI, 28(1). Related to this argument is the claim that Republic
Act No. 7716 likewise infringes the Due Process and Equal Protection
Clauses of the Bill of Rights, Art. III, 1(1).
684
684
63/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
685
64/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
65/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
46
135 (1968).
686
686
See
E.
M.
FERNANDO,
THE
CONSTITUTION
OF
THE
The
term
is
Professor
Jaffes
(JUDICIAL
CONTROL
OF
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
66/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
687
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
secures and guarantees to them.
67/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
51
This conception
of the judicial power has been affirmed in
52
several cases of this Court following Angara.
_______________
50
51
52
688
68/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
the
petitions
in
these
cases
are
689
689
SEPARATE OPINION
NARVASA, C.J.:
I fully concur with the conclusions set forth in the scholarly
opinion of my learned colleague, Mr. Justice Vicente V.
Mendoza. I write this separate opinion to express my own
views relative to the procedural issues raised by the
various petitions and dealt with by some other Members of
the Court in their separate opinions.
By their very nature, it would seem, discussions of
constitutional issues prove fertile ground for a not
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
69/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
690
70/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
691
71/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
692
72/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
693
73/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Study the Proposal to Exempt Local Movie Producers from the Payment of
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
74/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
694
request that could not have been made had not the
Senators more or less closely examined the provisions of
HB 11197 and compared them with those of the
counterpart Senate measures.
Were the proceedings before the bicameral conference
committee fatally flawed? The affirmative is suggested
because the committee allegedly overlooked or ignored the
fact that SB 1630 could not validly originate in the Senate,
and that HB 11197 and SB 1630 never properly passed
both chambers. The untenability of these contentions has
already been demonstrated. Now, demonstration of the
indefensibility of other arguments purporting to establish
the impropriety of the BCC proceedings will be attempted.
There is the argument, for instance, that the conference
committee never used HB 11197 even as frame of
reference because it does not appear that the suggestion
therefor (made by House Panel Chairman Exequiel Javier
at the bicameral conference committees meeting on April
19, 1994, with the concurrence of Senator Maceda) was
ever resolved, the minutes being regrettably vague as to
what occurred after that suggestion was made. It is,
however, as reasonable to assume that it was, as it was not,
given the vagueness of the minutes already alluded to. In
fact, a reading of the BCC Report persuasively
demonstrates that HB 11197 was not only utilized as a
frame of reference but actually discussed and deliberated
on.
2
Said BCC Report pertinently states:
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT
The Conference Committee on the disagreeing provisions of House
Bill No. 11197, entitled:
AN ACT RESTRUCTURING THE VALUE ADDED TAX (VAT)
SYSTEM TO WIDEN ITS TAX BASE AND ENHANCE ITS
ADMINISTRATION, AMENDING FOR THESE PURPOSES
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
75/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
SECTIONS 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 AND 110
OF TITLE IV, 112, 115 AND 116 OF TITLE V, AND 236, 237,
AND 238 OF TITLE IX, AND REPEALING SECTIONS 113SD
AND 114 OF TITLE V, ALL OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED
________________
2
Italics supplied.
695
695
76/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
696
77/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
697
78/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
698
79/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
699
80/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
700
81/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
limitations
on
conference
committee
jurisdiction.
This
is
701
82/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
83/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
702
84/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
was before them, or did not realize that there were new
provisions in the reconciled version unrelated to any
disagreeing provisions, or that said new provisions or
revisions were effectively concealed
703
703
from them.
Moreover, it certainly was entirely within the power and
prerogative of either legislative chamber to reject the BCC
bill and require the organization of a new bicameral
conference committee. That this option was not exercised
by either house only proves that the BCC measure was
found to be acceptable as in fact it was approved and
adopted by both chambers.
I vote to DISMISS the petitions for lack of merit.
SEPARATE OPINION
CRUZ, J.:
It is a curious and almost incredible fact that at the
hearing of these cases on July 7, 1994, the lawyers who
argued for the petitionerstwo of them former presidents
of the Senate and the third also a member of that bodyall
asked this Court to look into the internal operations of
their Chamber and correct the irregularities they claimed
had been committed there as well as in the House of
Representatives and in the bicameral conference
committee.
While a member of the legislature would normally resist
such intervention and invoke the doctrine of separation of
powers to protect Congress from what he would call judicial
intrusion, these counsel practically implored the Court to
examine the questioned proceedings and to this end go
beyond the journals of each House, scrutinize the minutes
of the committee, and investigate all other matters relating
to the passage of the bill (or bills) that eventually became
R.A. No. 7716.
In effect, the petitioners would have us disregard the
timehonored inhibitions laid down by the Court upon itself
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
85/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
704
86/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
705
87/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
706
88/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
must control.
Article VI, Section 24, of the Constitution provides:
Sec. 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing
increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private
bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives,
but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.
707
89/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
708
90/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
709
91/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Bautista v. Salonga, G.R. No. 86439, 13 April 1989, 172 SCRA 160.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
92/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
710
93/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
4
711
94/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
712
95/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
713
96/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
stated thus:
The petitioners also invoke Sec. 74 of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, requiring that amendment to any bill when the
House and the Senate shall have differences thereon may be
settled by a conference committee of both chambers. They stress
that Sec. 35 was never a subject of any disagreement between
both Houses and so the second paragraph could not have been
validly added as an amendment.
These arguments are unacceptable.
While it is true that a conference committee is the mechanism
for compromising differences between the Senate and the House,
it is not limited in its jurisdiction to this question. Its broader
function is described thus:
A conference committee may deal generally with the subject matter or it
may be limited to resolving the precise differences
_______________
5
714
714
between the two houses. Even where the conference committee is not by
rule limited in its jurisdiction, legislative custom severely limits the
freedom with which new subject matter can be inserted into the
conference bill. But occasionally a conference committee produces
unexpected results, results beyond its mandate. These excursions occur
even where the rules impose strict limitations on conference committee
jurisdiction. This is symptomatic of the authoritarian power of conference
committee (Davies, Legislative Law and Process: In A Nutshell, 1986 Ed.,
p. 81).
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
97/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
7 SCRA 347.
715
715
laid down the rule that the enrolled bill is conclusive upon the
Judiciary (except in matters that have to be entered in the7
journals like the yeas and nays on the final reading of the bill).
The journals are themselves also binding on the Supreme8 Court,
as we held in the old (but still valid) case of U.S. vs. Pons, where
we explained the reason thus:
To inquire into the veracity of the journals of the Philippine legislature
when they are, as we have said, clear and explicit, would be to violate
both the letter and spirit of the organic laws by which the Philippine
Government was brought into existence, to invade a coordinate and
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
98/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
III
Press Freedom and Religious Freedom and Rep. Act No.
7716
The validity of the passage of Rep. Act No. 7716
notwithstanding, certain provisions of the law have to be
examined separately and carefully.
Rep. Act No. 7716 in imposing a valueadded tax on
circulation income of newspapers and similar publications
and on income
derived from publishing advertisements in
9
newspapers, to my mind, violates Sec. 4, Art. III of the
Constitution. Indeed, even the Executive Department has
tried to cure this defect by the issuance of BIR Regulation
No. 1194 precluding implementation of the tax in this
area. It should be clear, however, that the BIR
_______________
7
34 Phil. 729.
Executive Order No. 273, in Sec. 103 (f), had exempted this kind of
income from the VAT. Rep. Act. No. 7716 removed the exemption.
716
716
regulation cannot amend the law (Rep. Act No. 7716). Only
legislation
(as
distinguished
from
administration
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
99/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
11
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
100/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
717
101/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
12
13
718
102/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
719
103/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
720
SEPARATE OPINION
VITUG, J.:
Lest we be lost by a quagmire of trifles, the real threshold
and prejudicial issue, to my mind, is whether or not this
Court is ready to assume and to take upon itself with an
overriding authority the awesome responsibility of
overseeing the entire bureaucracy. Far from it, ours is
merely to construe and to apply the law regardless of its
wisdom and salutariness, and to strike it down only when
it clearly disregards constitutional proscriptions. It is what
the fundamental law mandates, and it is what the Court
must do.
I cannot yet concede to the novel theory, so challengingly
provocative as it might be, that under the 1987
Constitution the Court may now at good liberty intrude, in
the guise of the peoples imprimatur, into every affair of
government. What significance can still then remain, I ask,
of the time honored and widely acclaimed principle of
separation of powers, if at every turn the Court allows
itself to pass upon, at will, the disposition of a coequal,
independent and coordinate branch in our system of
government. I dread to think of the so varied uncertainties
that such an undue interference can lead to. The respect for
long standing doctrines in our jurisprudence, nourished
through time, is one of maturity not timidity, of stability
rather than quiescence.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
104/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
721
105/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
REGALADO, J.:
It would seem like an inconceivable irony that Republic Act
No. 7716 which, so respondents claim, was conceived by the
collective wisdom of a bicameral Congress and crafted with
sedulous care by two branches of government should now
be embroiled in challenges to its validity for having been
enacted in disregard of mandatory prescriptions of the
Constitution itself. Indeed, such impugnment by
petitioners goes beyond merely the procedural flaws in the
parturition of the law. Creating and regulating as it does
definite rights to property, but with its own passage having
been violative of explicit provisions of the organic law, even
without going into the intrinsic merits of the provisions of
Republic Act No. 7716 its substantive invalidity is pro facto
necessarily entailed.
How it was legislated into its present statutory existence
is not in serious dispute and need not detain us except for a
recital of some salient and relevant facts. The House of
Representatives
722
722
106/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
In substitution of H.B. Nos. 253, 771, 2450, 7033, 8086, 9030, 9210,
9297, 10012 and 10100 which were filed over the period from July 22,
1992 to August 3, 1993.
2
P.S. Res. No. 734 had earlier been filed in the Senate on September
10, 1992, while S.B. No. 1129 was filed on March 1, 1993.
723
723
107/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
724
108/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
725
109/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
110/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
7
Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. (1951), 381, citing Fairview vs.
726
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
111/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
________________
8
78 Phil. 1 (1947).
10
11
12
13
14
727
112/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
16
728
113/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
729
114/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Brailsford vs. Walker, 31 S.E. 2d 385, 387, 388, 205 S.C. 228.
18
19
730
115/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
defects.
xxx
x x x In Lafferty, passage of the law in question violated this
provision, yet the bill was properly enrolled and approved by the
governor. In declining to look behind the law to determine the
propriety of its enactment, the court enunciated three reasons for
adopting the enrolled bill rule. First, the court was reluctant to
scrutinize the processes of the legislature, an equal branch of
government. Second, reasons of convenience prevailed, which
discouraged requiring the legislature to preserve its records and
anticipated considerable complex litigation if the court ruled
otherwise. Third, the court acknowledged the poor recordkeeping
abilities of the General Assembly and expressed a preference for
accepting the final bill as enrolled, rather than opening up the
records of the legislature. x x x.
xxx
Nowhere has the rule been adopted without reason, or as a
result of judicial whim. There are four historical bases for the
doctrine. (1) An enrolled bill was a record and, as such, was not
subject to attack at common law. (2) Since the legislature is one of
the three branches of government, the courts, being coequal, must
indulge in every presumption that legislative acts are valid. (3)
When the rule was originally formulated, recordkeeping of the
legislatures was so inadequate that a balancing of equities
required that the final act, the enrolled bill, be given efficacy. (4)
There were theories of convenience as expressed by the Kentucky
court in Lafferty.
The rule is not unanimous in the several states, however, and
it has not been without its critics. From an examination of cases
and treaties, we can summarize the criticisms as follows: (1)
Artificial presumptions, especially conclusive ones, are not favored.
(2) Such a rule frequently (as in the present case) produces results
which do not accord with facts or constitutional provisions. (3) The
rule is conducive to fraud, forgery, corruption and other
wrongdoings. (4) Modern automatic and electronic recordkeeping
devices now used by legislatures
731
731
remove one of the original reasons for the rule. (5) The rule
disregards the primary obligation of the courts to seek the truth
and to provide a remedy for a wrong committed by any branch of
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
116/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
117/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
732
118/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
733
119/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
defines
734
734
Apart from all others only solely substantially all or for the
greater part. To the exclusion of all others without admission of
others to participation in a manner to exclude.
3
120/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Sixth Edition (1990), 565, citing Standard Oil Co. of Texas vs. State,
735
121/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
and the third reading is the reading of the bill in the form
as approved on second reading and takes place only after
printed copies thereof in its final form have been
distributed to the Members9 at least three days before,
unless the bill is certified. At the second reading, the
following takes place:
(1) Reading of the bill
(2) Sponsorship
(3) Debates
(4) Period of Amendments and
10
Section 26(2), Article VI, Constitution paragraph (7), Section 57, Rule
XXV.
7
10
11
736
122/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
737
123/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
and Section 85, Rule XIV of the Rules of the House which
reads:
SEC. 85. Conference Committee Reports.In the event that the
House does not agree with the Senate on the amendments to any
bill or joint resolution, the differences may be settled by
conference committees of both Chambers.
Volume I, Eight Edition, Chapter VI, 267. See Miller vs. Mardo, 2
SCRA 898 [1961] Everlasting Pictures, Inc. vs. Fuentes, 3 SCRA 539
[1961].
738
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
124/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
738
125/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
The only bill which could serve as a valid basis for R.A.
No. 7716 is House Bill (HB) No. 11197. This bill, which is
the substitute bill recommended by the House Committee
on Ways
739
739
inclusive.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
126/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
15
16
Id., Annex 9.
17
Id., Annex 1.
18
Id., 18.
19
(VAT) System By Expanding Its Tax Base, Amending Sections 103, 113,
114 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as Amended.
20
21
Id., 20.
22
Emphasis supplied.
740
740
on and acted upon was SB No. 1129 and not HB No. 11197.
The latter, instead of being the only measure to be taken
up, deliberated upon, and reported back to the Senate for
its consideration on second reading and, eventually, on
third reading, was, at the most, merely given by the
Committee a passing glance.
This specific unequivocal action of the Senate
Committee on Ways and Means, i.e., proposing and
recommending approval of SB No. 1630 as a substitute for
or in substitution of SB No. 1129 demolishes at once the
thesis of the Solicitor General that:
Assuming that SB 1630 is distinct from HB 11197, amendment
by substitution is within the purview of Section 24, Article VI of
the Constitution.
127/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
24
741
128/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
26
Page 56.
742
742
xxx
The Senate has the power to amend a revenue bill. This power
to amend is not confined to the elimination of provisions
contained in the original act, but embraces as well the addition of
such provisions thereto as may render the original act satisfactory
to the body which is called upon to support it. It has, in fact, been
held that the substitution of an entirely new measure for the one
originally proposed can be supported as a valid amendment.
Brake v. Collison, 122 Fed. 722.
Mr. James L. Quackenbush filed a statement for appellees in
No. 442.
Solicitor General Lehmann (by special leave) argued the cause
for the United States on reargument.
Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:
These cases involve the constitutional validity of 38 of the act of
Congress approved August 5, 1909, known as the corporation tax law. 36
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
129/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Stat. at L. 11, 112117, chap. 6, U.S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1909, pp. 659,
844849.
It is contended in the first place that this section of the act is
unconstitutional, because it is a revenue measure, and originated in the
Senate in violation of 7 of article 1 of the Constitution, providing that
all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with the
amendments, as on other bills. The history of the act is contained in the
governments brief, and is accepted as correct, no objection being made to
its accuracy.
This statement shows that the tariff bill of which the section under
consideration is a part, originated in the House of Representatives, and
was there a general bill for the collection of revenue. As originally
introduced, it contained a plan of inheritance taxation. In the Senate the
proposed tax was removed from the bill, and the corporation tax, in a
measure, substituted therefor. The bill having properly originated in the
House, we perceive no reason in the constitutional provision relied upon
why it may not be amended in the Senate in the manner which it was in
this case. The amendment was germane to the subjectmatter of the bill,
and not beyond the power of the Senate to propose. (Emphasis supplied)
xxx
743
130/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Representatives
where
the
bill
originated.
The
constitutional provision in question is Section 7, Article I of
the United States Constitution which reads:
Section 7. Bills and Resolutions.All Bills for raising Revenue
shall originate in the House of Representatives but the Senate
may propose or concur with Amendments, as on other Bills.
744
131/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
28
745
745
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
132/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
At 317.
746
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
133/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
746
134/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
_______________
30
31
32
Id., Annex 1.
747
747
135/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
748
83, Rule XIV of the Rules of the House, it is only when the
Senate shall have approved with amendments HB No.
11197 and the House declines to accept the amendments
after having been notified thereof that the request for a
conference may be made by the House, not by the Senate.
Conversely, the Senates request for a conference would
only be proper if, following the transmittal of SB No. 1630
to the House, it was approved by the latter with
amendments but the Senate rejected the amendments.
Indisputably then, when the request for a bicameral
conference was made by the Senate, SB No. 1630 was not
yet transmitted to the House for consideration on three
readings and HB No. 11197 was still in the Senate
awaiting consideration on second and third readings. Their
referral to the bicameral conference committee was
palpably premature and, in so doing, both the Senate and
the House acted without authority or with grave abuse of
discretion. Nothing, and absolutely nothing, could have
been validly acted upon by the bicameral conference
committee.
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION COMMITTED BY
THE BICAMERAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE.
Serious irregularities amounting to lack of jurisdiction or
grave abuse of discretion were committed by the bicameral
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
136/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
conference committee.
First, it assumed, and took for granted that SB No. 1630
could validly originate in the Senate. This assumption is
erroneous.
Second, it assumed that HB No. 11197 and SB No. 1630
had properly passed both chambers of Congress and were
properly and regularly submitted to it. As earlier discussed,
the assumption is unfounded in fact.
Third, per the bicameral conference committees
proceedings of 19 April 1994, Representative Exequiel
Javier, Chairman of the panel from the House, initially
suggested that HB No. 11197 should be the frame of
reference, because it is a revenue measure, to which
Senator Ernesto Maceda concurred. However, after an
incompletely recorded reaction of Senator Ernesto Herrera,
Chairman of the Senate panel, Representative Javier
seemed to agree that all amendments will be coming from
the Senate. The issue of what should be the frame of
reference does not appear to have been resolved. These
facts are recorded
749
749
137/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Page 22.
750
750
138/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
House and HB No. 11197 did not pass second and third
readings in the Senate, it logically follows that no
disagreeing provisions had as yet arisen. The bicameral
conference committee erroneously assumed the contrary.
Even granting arguendo that both HB No. 11197 and SB
No. 1630 had been validly approved by both chambers of
Congress and validly referred to the bicameral conference
committee, the latter had very limited authority thereon. It
was created
in view of the disagreeing provisions of the
35
two bills. Its duty was limited to the reconciliation of
disagreeing provisions or the resolution of differences or
inconsistencies. The committee recognized that36 limited
authority in the opening paragraph of its Report when it
said:
The Conference Committee on the disagreeing provisions of
House Bill No. 11197 x x x and Senate Bill No. 1630 x x x.
36
751
139/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
752
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
140/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
ISAGANI A. CRUZ, Philippine Political Law, 1991 ed., 226 Daza vs.
Singson, 180 SCRA 496 [1989] Coseteng vs. Mitra, 187 SCRA 377 [1990]
Gonzales vs. Macaraig, 191 SCRA 452 [1990] Llamas vs. Orbos, 202 SCRA 844
[1991] Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Com mittee, 203 SCRA 767 [1991] Oposa
vs. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 [1993].
38
39
78 Phil. 1 [1947].
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
141/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
753
753
State Constitution, said that the same makes it clear that the
indispensable step in the passage and it follows that if a bill,
otherwise fully enacted as a law, is not attested by the presiding
officer, other proof that it has passed both houses will satisfy the
constitutional requirement.
142/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
754
143/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Vitug,
Jose
C.,
COMPENDIUM
OF
TAX
LAW
AND
755
144/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Ibid.
Ibid.
L81311, June 30, 1988, 163 SCRA 371 with Justice Teodoro R.
Padilla as ponente.
756
756
HB No. 253
HB No. 771
HB No. 2450
September 9, 1992
7
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
145/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
HB No. 7033
February 3, 1993
SB No. 1129
March 1, 1993
HB No. 8086
March 9, 1993
HB No. 9030
_______________
5
Ibid at 378.
Ibid at 385.
Senate Resolution No. 734 filed on September 10, 1992 was entitled
SB No. 1129 sought to include under the VAT Law such items as lease
757
HB No. 9210
May 19,
1993
HB No. 9297
May 25,
1993
HB No. 10012
July 28,
1993
HB No. 10100
August 3,
1993
November
5, 1993
We now trace the course taken by H.B. No. 11197 and S.B.
No. 1129.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
146/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
HB/SB No.
November
11, 1993
November
17, 1993
November
18, 1993
enactment House Bill No. 9210 entitled An Act Amending Title IV and
Sections 237 and 238 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended,
to meet a public emergency.
10
Added Tax (VAT) System to Widen its Tax Base and Enhance Its
Administration, Amending for these Purposes Sections 99, 100, 102, 103,
104, 105, 106, 107, 108 and 110 of Title IV, 112, 115 and 116 of Title V,
and 236, 237, and 238 of Title IX and Repealing Sections 113 and 114 of
Title V, all of the National Internal Revenue Code, as Amended.
11
Added Tax (VAT) System to Widen its Tax Base and Enhance Its
Administration, Amending for these Purposes Sections 99, 100, 102, 103,
104, 105, 107, 108 and 110 of Title IV, 112 of Title V, and 236, 237 and 238
of Title IX, and Repealing Sections 113, 114 and 116 of Title V, all of the
National Internal Revenue Code, as Amended, and for other Purposes.
758
758
March
22,
1994
March
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
147/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
24,
1994
March
24,
1994
April
27,
1994
May
2,
1994
May
5,
1994
May
12,
1994
May
28,
1994
Added Tax (VAT) System, Widening Its Tax Base And Enhancing Its
Administration, And For These Purposes Amending And Repealing The
Relevant Provisions Of The National Internal Revenue Code, as amended,
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
148/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
759
Does it violate
Article VI, Section 26, paragraph 2, of the
14
Constitution?
What is the extent of the power of the Bicameral
Conference Committee?
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Does the law violate the following provisions in Article III
(Bill of Rights) of the Constitution:
15
1. Section 1
16
2. Section 4
17
3. Section 5
18
4. Section 10
_______________
private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives,
but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.
14
shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days,
and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its
Members three days before its passage, except when the president
certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public
calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment
thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately
thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.
15
property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws.
16
149/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
shall be passed.
760
760
150/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
_______________
19
761
by claiming
that such matters constitute a political
22
question.
In the instant petitions, this Court is called upon, not so
much to exercise its traditional power of judicial review as
to determine whether or not there has indeed been a grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the Legislature
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Where there are grounds to resolve a case without
touching on its constitutionality, the Court will do so with
utmost alacrity in due deference to the doctrine of
separation of powers anchored on the respect that must be
accorded to the other branches of government which are
coordinate, coequal and, as far as practicable, independent
of one another.
Once it is palpable that the constitutional issue is
unavoidable, then it is time to assume jurisdiction,
provided that the following requisites for a judicial inquiry
are met: that there must be an actual and appropriate case
a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the
constitutional question the constitutional question must be
raised at the earliest possible opportunity and the decision
of the constitutional question must be necessary to the
determination
of the case itself, the same being the lis mota
23
of the case.
Having assured ourselves that the abovecited requisites
are present in the instant petitions, we proceed to take
them up.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
151/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
23
Reform, G.R. No. 86889, December 4, 1990, 192 SCRA 51 Dumlao, et al.
v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 52245, January 22, 1980, 95 SCRA
392 People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 (1937).
762
762
152/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
763
153/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
764
154/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
p. 196.
765
765
155/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
not have a lawmaking body after martial law was declared, there were
tripartite conferences called by the President for the purpose of acting as a
recommendatory body regarding settlement of labor and management
disputes. During the said conferences, labor had shown that it can act
with maturity. As a result, in 1976, an amendment was introduced in the
Constitution providing for sectoral representation. In the Constitution
that was approved, the number of sectors was not indicated. However, in
the Election Code of 1978, it provided for three sectors namely, industrial
labor, agricultural labor and the youth. The agricultural labor was given
four seats two for Luzon, one for the Visayas and one for Mindanao. The
same is true with the industrial labor sector. As far as the youth are
concerned, they were also given four seats: two for Luzon, one for
Mindanao and one for the Visayas, with the condition that there will be an
additional two at large. And so, the youth had six representatives plus
four from the agricultural labor sector and four from the industrial labor
sectorwe had 14 seats.
In 1981, the Constitution was again amended. In the course of the
amendment, the labor representatives in the Batasang Pambansa
proposed that sectoral representation be included as a permanent addition
to the lawmaking body.
Again, in that Constitution which was approved in 1981, the number
and the name of the sectors were not indicated. However, in the Election
Code that was approved before the 1984 election, there was really a
definition of who will constitute the sectors and how they will be
appointed. Let me quote from that law that was passed in 1984. Under
Section 27 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, the scope of the sectors has been
defined as follows:
The agricultural labor sector covers all persons who personally and
physically till the land as their principal occupation. It includes
agricultural tenants and lessees, rural workers and farm employees,
ownercultivators, settlers and small fishermen.
The industrial labor sector includes all nonagricultural workers and
employees.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
156/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
766
766
157/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
________________
The youth sector embraces persons not more than twentyfive years of
age. (Volume Two, CONCOM RECORD, p. 564).
28
767
158/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
When you say that according to the Constitution such Revenue Bills should
originate exclusively from the House. In this instance, did it not originally
originate exclusively from the House?
The word used was not solely if there were Bills later also introduced, let
us say in the Senate, but the House Bill came ahead.
So, are you using the two (2) words originate exclusively and solely
synonymously?
SENATOR TOLENTINO:
AThe verb originate remains the same, Your Honor, but the word
exclusively, as I said, means solely. x x x
768
768
House Bill Nos. 253, 771, 2450, 7033, 8086, 9030, 9210,
9297, 10012 and 10100 were intended to restructure the
VAT system by exempting or imposing the tax on certain
items or otherwise
introducing reforms in the mechanics of
30
implementation. Of these, House Bill No. 9210 was
favored with a Presidential certification on the need for its
immediate enactment to meet a public emergency. Easily
the most comprehensive, it noted that the revenue
performance of the VAT, being far from satisfactory since
the collections have always fallen short of projections, the
system is rendered inefficient, inequitable and less
comprehensive. Hence, the Bill proposed several
amendments designed to widen31 the tax base of the VAT
and enhance its administration.
That House Bill No. 11197 being a revenue bill,
originated from the Lower House was acknowledged, in
fact was virtually taken for granted, by the Chairmen of
the Committee on Ways and Means of both the House of
Representatives and the Senate. Consequently, at the April
19, 1994 meeting of the Bicameral Conference Committee,
the Members agreed to make the House Bill as the frame
of reference or base of the discussions of the Bicameral
Conference Committee with the amendments
or
32
insertions to emanate from the Senate.
________________
30
H.B. 771exempting the sale of copra from VAT coverage H.B. 2450
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
159/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
769
160/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Res. No. 734 and H.B. No. 11197. At this stage, the subject
bill may be considered to have passed first reading in the
Senate with the submission of said Committee Report No.
349 by the Senate Committee on Ways and Means to which
it had been referred earlier. What
_______________
everything will just be inserted?
HON. MACEDA. Yes, Thats true for every revenue measure.
Theres no other way. The House Bill has got to be the base. Of course,
for the record, we know that this is an administration bill this is
certified by the president and I was about to put into the records as I
am saying now that your problem about the impact on prices on the
people was already decided when the President and the administration
sent this to us and certified it. They have already gotten over that
political implication of this bill and the economic impact on prices.
CHAIRMAN HERRERA. Yung concern mo about the bill as the
reference in this discussion is something that we can just. . . .
CHAIRMAN JAVIER. We will just . . . all the amendments will be
coming from the Senate.
770
770
161/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
771
162/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Bill No. 11197 and Senate Bill No. 1630 was finally passed by the House
of Representatives and the Senate on April 7, 1994 and May 2, 1994,
respectively.
772
772
163/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
37
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
164/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
773
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
165/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
_______________
38
774
774
166/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
40
775
167/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
42
43
Ibid at 733.
776
776
From their very nature and object, the records of the Legislature
are as important as those of the judiciary, and to inquire into the
veracity of the journals of the Philippine Legislature, when they
are, as we have said clear and explicit, would be to violate both
the letter and the spirit of the organic laws by which the
Philippine Government was brought into existence, to invade a
coordinate and independent department of the Government, and
to interfere 44with the legitimate powers and functions of the
Legislature.
168/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Ibid at 733734.
45
Ibid at 735.
46
78 Phil. 1 (1947).
47
Ibid at 3.
777
777
169/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Ibid at 18.
49
778
170/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
51
Ibid at 412.
52
779
171/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
780
780
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
172/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
and
By adding or deleting provisions, when there was no conflicting
provisions between the House and Senate versions, the BICAM
acted in excess of its jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of
discretion as to amount to loss of jurisdiction. x x x In adding to
the bill and thus subjecting to VAT, real properties, media and
cooperatives despite the contrary decision of both Houses, the
BICAM exceeded its jurisdiction or acted with
such abuse of
55
discretion as to amount to loss of jurisdiction ....
55
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
173/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
56
57
781
174/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
be in order, except when the journal is being read, while the roll is
being called or the House is dividing on any question. Each of the
pages of such reports shall contain a detailed, sufficiently explicit
statement of the changes in or amendments to the subject
measure.
The consideration of such report shall not be in order unless
copies thereof are distributed to the Members: Provided, That in
the last fifteen days of each session period it shall be deemed
sufficient that three copies of the report, signed as above
provided, are deposited in the office of the Secretary General.
782
782
175/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Page 261.
59
Page 268.
60
61
62
783
176/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
784
177/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
785
178/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
SB.
Real properties held primarily for sale to
customers or held for lease in the ordinary
course or business were included, which was
neither in the HB nor the SB (subject of
petition in G.R. No. 115754).
3. Section 102
On what are included in the term sale or exchange of
services, as to make them subject to VAT, the BICAM
included/inserted the following (not found in either House
or Senate Bills):
1. Services of lessors of property, whether personal or
real (subject of petition in G.R. No. 115754)
2. Warehousing services
3. Keepers
resorts
of
resthouses,
pension
houses,
inns,
179/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
786
180/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
787
181/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
788
182/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
See: 18 Words and Phrases 482 citing Kennedy v. Truss, Del. Super.,
789
183/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
BLACKs DICTIONARY, 6th ed., p. 687 citing State ex. rel. Riley v.
District Court of Second Judicial Dist. in and for Silver Bow County, 103
Mont. 576, 64 P. 2d 115, 119 (1937).
68
790
184/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Provisions of the now you see it, now you dont variety,
meaning those which were either in the House and/or
Senate versions but simply disappeared or were bracketed
out of existence in the BICAM Report, were eventually
incorporated in Republic Act No. 7716. Worse, some goods,
properties or services which were not covered by the two
versions and, therefore, were never intended to be so
covered, suddenly found their way into the same Report.
No advance notice of such insertions prepared the rest of
the legislators, much less the public who could be adversely
affected, so that they could be given the opportunity to
express their views thereon. Well has the final BICAM
report been described, therefore, as an instance of taxation
without representation.
That the conferees or delegates in the BICAM
representing the two Chambers could not possibly be
charged with bad faith or sinister motives or, at the very
least, unseemly behavior, is of no moment. The stark fact is
that items not previously subjected to the VAT now fell
under its coverage without interested sectors or parties
having been afforded the opportunity to be heard thereon.
This is not to say that the Conference Committee Report
should have undergone the three readings required in
Article VI, Section 26(2), for this clearly refers only to bills
which, after having been initially filed in either House,
negotiated the labyrinthine passage therein until its
approval. The composition of the BICAM including as it
usually does, the Chairman of the appropriate Committee,
the sponsor of the bill and other interested members
ensures an informed discussion, at least with respect to the
disagreeing provisions. The same does not obtain as
regards completely new
791
791
185/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of
all its transactions involving public interest.
792
792
186/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
793
187/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
188/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
72
794
of Senate Bill No. 720 or of House Bill No. 4200 but only in
the Conference Committee Report, was violative of Article
VI, Section 26 (2) of the Constitution. Likewise, that said
Section 35, never having been a subject of disagreement
between both Houses, could not have been validly added as
an amendment before the Conference Committee.
The majority opinion in said case explained:
While it is true that a conference committee is the
mechanism for compromising differences between the
Senate and the House, it is not limited in its jurisdiction to
this question. Its broader function is described thus:
A conference committee may deal generally with the subject
matter or it may be limited to resolving the precise differences
between the two houses. Even where the conference committee is
not by rule limited in its jurisdiction, legislative custom severely
limits the freedom with which new subject matter can be inserted
into the conference bill. But occasionally a conference committee
produces unexpected results, results beyond its mandate. These
excursions occur even where the rules impose strict limitations on
conference committee jurisdiction. This is symptomatic of the
authoritarian power of conference committee (Davies, Legislative
73
Law and Process: In a Nutshell, 1986 Ed., p. 81). (Italics
supplied)
189/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
795
190/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
In Osmea, Jr. v. Pendatun, (109 Phil. 863 [1960]), the Court held
that parliamentary rules are merely procedural and they may be waived
or disregarded by the legislative body. Hence, mere failure to conform to
parliamentary usage will not invalidate the action taken by a deliberative
body when the requisite number of members have agreed to a particular
measure.
75
796
191/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
77
Sison, Jr. v. Ancheta, L59431, July 25, 1984, 130 SCRA 654, 660.
78
79
797
192/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
798
DISSENTING OPINION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
With a consensus already reached after due deliberations,
silence perhaps should be the better part of discretion,
except to vote. The different views and opinions expressed
are so persuasive and convincing they are more than
enough to sway the pendulum for or against the subject
petitions. The penetrating and scholarly dissertations of
my brethren should dispense with further arguments
which may only confound and confuse even the most
learned of men.
But there is a crucial point, a constitutional issue which,
I submit, has been belittled, treated lightly, if not almost
considered insignificant and purposeless. It is elementary,
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
193/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
799
Representatives.
Since the term exclusively has already been
adequately defined in the various opinions, as to which
there seems to be no dispute, I shall no longer offer my own
definition.
Verily, the provision in our Constitution requiring that
all revenue bills shall originate exclusively from the Lower
House is mandatory. The word exclusively is an
exclusive word, which 1is indicative of an intent that the
provision is mandatory. Hence, all American authorities
expounding on the meaning and application of Sec. 7, par.
(1), Art. I, of the U.S. Constitution cannot be used in the
interpretation of Sec. 24, Art. VI, of our 1987 Constitution
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
194/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
800
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
195/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
progression,
an
improvement
on
its
precursor.
Thus,exclusively must be given its true meaning, its
purpose observed and virtue recognized, for it could not
have been conceived to be of minor consequence. That
construction is to be sought which gives effect to the whole
of the statuteits every word. Ut magis valeat quam
pereat.
Consequently, any reference to American authorities,
decisions and opinions, however wisely and delicately put,
can only mislead in the interpretation of our own
Constitution. To refer to them in defending the
constitutionality of R.A. 7716, subject of the present
petitions, is to argue on a false premise, i.e., that Sec. 24,
Art. VI of our 1987 Constitution is, or means exactly, the
same as Sec. 7, par. (1), Art. I of the U.S. Constitution,
which is not correct. Hence, only a wrong conclusion can be
drawn from a wrong premise.
For example, it is argued that in the United States, from
where our own legislature is patterned, the Senate can
practically substitute its own tax measure for that of the
Lower House. Thus, according to the Majority, citing an
American case, the validity of Sec. 37 which the Senate
had inserted in the Tariff Act of 1909 by imposing an ad
valorem tax based on the weight of vessels, was upheld
against the claim that the revenue bill originated in the
Senate in contravention
of Art. I, Sec. 7, of the U.S.
3
Constitution. In an effort to be more convincing, the
Majority even quotes the footnote in Introduction to
American Government by F.A. Ogg and P.O. Ray which
reads
Thus in 1883 the upper house struck out everything after the
enacting clause of a tariff bill and wrote its own measure, which
the House eventually felt obliged to accept. It likewise added 847
amendments to the PayneAldrich tariff act of 1909, dictated the
schedules of the emergency tariff act of 1921, rewrote an
extensive tax revision bill in the same year, and recast most of the
permanent tariff
________________
3
See Majority Opinion, p. 15, citing Rainey v. United States, 232 U.S., 309, 58
801
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
196/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
801
bill of 1922
197/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
See Note 3.
22 U.S. 107.
802
802
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
198/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
803
199/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
804
200/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
the Value Added Tax (VAT) System to Widen its Tax Base
and Enhance its Administration, Amending for These
Purposes Sections 99, 100, 102 to 108 and 110 of Title V
and 236, 237 and 238 of Title IX, and Repealing Sections
113 and 114 of Title V, all of the National Internal Revenue
Code as Amended. The vote was 114 Yeas and 12 Nays.
The next day, November 18, 1993, H.B. No. 11197 was
transmitted to the Senate for its concurrence by the Hon.
Camilo L. Sabio, Secretary General of the House of
Representatives.
On February 7, 1994, the Senate Committee on Ways
and Means submitted Senate Bill (S.B.) No. 1630,
recommending its approval in substitution of Senate Bill
No. 1129 taking into consideration P.S. Res. No. 734 and
House Bill No. 11197. On March 24, 1994, S.B. No. 1630
was approved on second and third readings. On the same
day, the Senate, thru Secretary Edgardo E. Tumangan,
requested the House for a conference in view of the
disagreeing provisions of S.B. No. 1630 and H.B. No.
11197. It designated the following as members of its
Committee: Senators Ernesto F. Herrera, Leticia R.
Shahani, Alberto S. Romulo, John H. Osmea, Ernesto M.
Maceda, Blas F. Ople, Francisco S.
805
805
201/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
SECTIONS 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 AND 110
OF TITLE IV, 112, 115 AND 116 OF TITLE V, AND 236, 237,
AND 238 OF TITLE IX, AND REPEALING SECTIONS 113 AND
114 OF TITLE V, ALL OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL
REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED
and Senate Bill No. 1630 entitled:
AN ACT RESTRUCTURING THE VALUE ADDED TAX (VAT)
SYSTEM TO WIDEN ITS TAX BASE AND ENHANCE ITS
ADMINISTRATION, AMENDING FOR THESE PURPOSES
SECTIONS 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108 AND 110 OF
TITLE IV, 112, 115, 117 AND 121 OF TITLE V, AND 236, 237,
AND 238 OF TITLE IX, AND REPEALING SECTIONS 113, 114,
116, 119 AND 120 OF TITLE V, ALL OF THE NATIONAL
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
having met, after full and free conference, has agreed to
recommend and do hereby recommend to their respective Houses
that House Bill No. 11197, in consolidation with Senate Bill No.
1630, be approved in accordance with the attached copy of the bill
as reconciled and approved by the conferees.
Approved.
_______________
1
806
202/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
1. The same
1. The same
________________
2
No. 115781 also the Petition in G.R. No. 115543, pp. 23.
807
807
2. 2. The same
The
same
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
203/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
equipment.
3. Right or the privilege to
use motion picture films,
films, tapes and discs.
3. 3. The same
The
same
6.
the
OF
OF
OR
the
808
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
204/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
5. SERVICES
OF
FRANCHISE
TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH
GRANTEES
OF
205/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
809
V On Section 104
The phrase INCLUDING PACKAGING MATERIALS was
included by the BCC on Section 104 (A) (1) (B), and the phrase
ON WHICH A VALUEADDED TAX HAS BEEN ACTUALLY on
Section 104 (A) (2). These phrases are not contained in either
House and Senate Bills.
VI On Section 107
Both House and Senate Bills provide for the payment of
P500.00 VAT registration fee. The BCC provides for P1,000.00
VAT fee.
VII On Section 112
While both the Senate and House Bills provide that a person
whose sales or receipts and are exempt under Section 103[w] of
the Code, and who are not VAT registered shall pay a tax
equivalent to THREE (3) PERCENT of his gross quarterly sales
or receipts, the BCC inserted the phrase: THREE PERCENT
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
206/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
810
207/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
811
thereof.
RA 7716 (BCCs Bill) expressly repeals Sections 113, 114 and
116 of the NIRC Article 39 (c) (d) and (e) of EO 226 and provides
the repeal of Sec. 119 and 120 of the NIRC upon the expiration of
two (2) years unless otherwise excluded by the President.
208/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
to certain statements from Canlan, Weightson and Beam but without citing their
specific book or article.
812
812
209/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
813
813
210/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
814
211/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
815
212/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
213/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
816
214/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
10
817
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
215/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Legislative Law and Process in a Nut Shell, West Publishing Co., 1986 ed., p.
81.
12
13
Ibid.
Manual of Legislative Procedure for Legislative and other Governmental
818
818
216/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
82 CJS 136.
15
819
819
217/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
820
218/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Op. cit., pp. 224225 citing Barndall Refining v. Welsh, 64 S.D. 647,
269 N.W. 853, 859 [1936]. Jones, Constitutional Provisions Regulating the
Mechanics of Enactment in Iowa (1935), 21 Iowa Law Rev. 79, Charlton,
Constitutional Regulation of Legislative Procedure (1936), 21 Iowa Law
Rev. 538 Note (1936) 21 Iowa Law Rev. 573.
17
821
219/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
220/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
822
822
x x x.
x x x In other words, the judiciary is the final arbiter on the
question of whether or not a branch of government or any of its
officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction,
or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion
amounting to excess of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial
power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature.
This is the background of paragraph 2 of Section 1, which
means that the courts cannot hereafter evade the duty to settle
matters of this nature, by claiming that such matters constitute
political question. (Emphasis ours)
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
221/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
with
_______________
19
20
21
823
222/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
23
24
25
26
27
28
824
223/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
825
224/225
4/22/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME235
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001543b8913adf3965293003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
225/225