STAT CON Chapter 1

Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, CIR

August 25, 1994
Mendoza J.
FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition challenging the
constitutionality of RA7716.

RA No. 7716 (Expanded VAT law) seeks to widen the tax base of the
existing VAT system and enhance its administration by amending NIRC.
(Note: VAT levied on sale, barter or exchange of goods and
properties as well on the sale of exchange of services; equivalent to
10% of the gross selling price)

History of RA 7716
o Several bills were introduced in HOR on the subject.
o H No. 11197 was considered and approved after 3rd reading by HOR.
o Bill was sent to Senate and was referred to its Committee on Ways
and Means
o Committee submitted its report recommending S No. 1630.
o Senate approved this bill. 2nd and 3rd reading were done in the same
day.
o House and Senate version were referred to BCC.
o Bicameral Conference Committee consolidated the two and was
approved. (enrolled bill)

Petitioner questions constitutionality of said Act:

He averred that this revenue bill did not exclusively originate from
the House of Representatives as required by Section 24, Article 6 of
the Constitution. It was simply the result of the consolidation of 2
distinct bills, H. No. 11197 and S No. 1630 by the BCC.
SECTION 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.

Even though RA 7716 originated as HB 11197 and that it passed the 3

readings in the HoR, the same did not complete the 3 readings in
Senate on separate days as required by the Constitution (Sec. 26 (2) of
the Constitution) because the second and third readings were done on
the same day
SECTION 26.
(2) No bill passed by either House 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.

Tolentino averred that what Senate could have done is amend HB 11197
by striking out its text and substituting it with the text of SB 1630 in that
way the bill remains a House Bill and the Senate version just becomes
the text (only the text) of the HB.

ISSUE:
1. WON RA No. 7716 (Expanded VAT law) is constitutional
2. What is the extent of the powers of Bicameral Conference Committee?
RULING:
1. YES. RA 7716 is constitutional
In observance of Article 6 Sec 24 of 1987 Constitution

(-Petitioners contention is that Republic Act No. 7716 did not originate
exclusively in the House of

Representatives as required by Art. VI, 24

of the Constitution, because it is in fact the result of the consolidation of

two distinct bills, H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630.)

What is required by the Constitution to originate exclusively in the HOR

is the bill not the law. Hence, a bill will naturally undergo many
amendments.

What the Constitution simply means, is that the initiative must come
from the HoR. Such consolidation was consistent with the power of the
Senate to propose or concur with amendments to the version originated in
the HoR.
(-Also, It was insisted that S. No. 1630 was passed not in substitution of H.
No. 11197 but of another Senate bill (S. No. 1129) earlier filed and that
what the Senate did was merely to take [H. No. 11197] into
consideration in enacting S. No. 1630.)

The constitution does not prohibit the filing in the Senate of a substitute
bill.

To insist that a revenue statute must substantially be the same as the

House bill would be to deny the Senates power not only to concur with
amendments but also to propose amendments. It would be to violate
the coequality of legislative power of the two houses of Congress and in
fact make the House superior to the Senate.

In observance of Article 6 Sec 26 (2) of 1987 Constitution

With regards to dispensing the requirement of 3 readings on 3 separate

days, this was because the President had certified S. No. 1630 as urgent.

The presidential certification dispensed 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
2. Bicameral Conference Committee can include provisions not found in the
senate or House version of the bill.

"Note that when one house amend a proposal 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 draft essentially a new bill . . . . The result is a third
version, which is considered an amendment in the nature of a substitute,
the only requirement for which being that the third version be germane to
the subject of the House and Senate bills."