Tolentino vs.

Secretary of Finance
[G.R.No. 115455 August 25, 1994]

 NATURE: Petition for Mandamus
FACTS:
RA 7716 seeks to widen the tax base of the existing VAT system and enhance its administration by amending the
National Internal Revenue Code. There are various suits challenging the constitutionality of RA 7716 on various
grounds.

The value-added tax (VAT) is levied on the sale, barter or exchange of goods and properties as well as on the sale
or exchange of services. RA 7716 seeks to widen the tax base of the existing VAT system and enhance its
administration by amending the National Internal Revenue Code. There are various suits challenging the
constitutionality of RA 7716 on various grounds
One contention that it did not pass 3 readings as required by the Constitution.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not RA 7716 violates Art. VI, Section 26 paragraph 2 of the Constitutio

HELD:
No. The argument of the petitioners was that S. No. 1630 did not pass 3 readings on separate days as required by
the Constitution because the second and third readings were done on the same day. But 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.

The court ruled: The phrase "except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment" in
Article VI, Section 26(2) qualifies the two stated conditions before a bill becomes a law (a) the bill has passed
three readings on separate days, and (b) it has been printed in its final form and distributed 3 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.
NOTES:
To construe 'except' clause as simply dispensing with the second requirement in the 'unless' clause would not only
violate the rules of grammar. It would also negate the very premise of the 'except' clause: Necessity of securing the
immediate enactment of a bill which is certified in order to meet a public calamaity or emergency.