Arroyo vs. De Venecia G.R. No.

127255,
August 14, 1997

proceeded. After Rep. Arroyos interpellation of the

sponsor of the committee report, Majority

Sunday, January 25, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes

Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Leader Albano moved for the approval and

Facts:

Chair called out for objections to the motion. Then

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
constitutionally-mandated 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 wasformed 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

ratification of the conference committee report. The

the Chair declared: There being none, approved.
At the same time the Chair was saying this,
Rep. Arroyo was asking, What is thatMr.
Speaker? The Chair and Rep. Arroyo were talking
simultaneously. Thus, although
Rep. Arroyo subsequently objected to the Majority
Leaders 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.

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

Issue: Whether or not RA 8240 is null and void

because it was passed in violation of the rules of the

House

Held:

In the case, no rights of private individuals are

Rules of each House of Congress

involved but only those of a member who, instead of

are hardly permanent in character. They are subject

seeking redress in the House, chose to transfer

to revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure

the dispute to the Court.

of the body adopting them as they are primarily

The matter complained of concerns a matter of

procedural. Courts ordinarily have no concern with

internal procedure of the House with which

their observance. They may be waived or

the Court should not be concerned. The claim is not

disregarded by the legislative body. Consequently,

that there was no quorum but only that

mere failure to conform to them does not have the

Rep. Arroyo was effectively prevented from

effect of nullifying the act taken if the requisite

questioning the presence of a quorum. Rep. Arroyos

number of members has agreed to a particular

earlier motion to adjourn for lack of quorum had

measure. But this is subject to qualification. Where

already been defeated, as the roll call established

the construction to be given to a rule affects person

the existence of a quorum. The question of quorum

other than members of the legislative body, the

cannot be raised repeatedly especially when the

question presented is necessarily judicial in

quorum is obviously present for the purpose of

character. Even its validity is open to question in a

delaying the business of the House.

case where private rights are involved.