ARROYO v. DE VENECIA (Sam) Senate President. It was then signed by Pres. Ramos on 22 Nov 1996.
August 14, 1997 | Mendoza, J. | Procedural Requirements in Enacting a Law in 6.
general
PETITIONER: Joker P. Arroyo, et. al
RESPONDENTS: Jose De Venecia, et. al.
SUMMARY: This is a petition for certiorari and/or prohibition challenging the
validity of republic Act 8240. Prior to its approval by the President, a bicameral
conference committee was formed to reconcile the Senate and House version of
the bill. According to the petitioners, the rules of the House in the passage of the
law were allegedly violated as petitioner Rep. Arroyo was prevented to formally
question the presence of a quorum and to ask for reconsideration. According to
the petitioners, violation of the House rules constitutes a Constitutional violation.
Hence, the certification of respondent Speaker De Venecia that the law was
properly passed was false and spurious.
SC dismissed the petition based on the principle of the separation of powers and
the Enrolled Bill Doctrine.
DOCTRINE: The Supreme Court has no more power to look into the internal
proceedings of a House than members of that House have to look over the
shoulders of the justices, as long as no violation of constitutional provisions is
shown.
The Enrolled Bill Doctrine is based on the consideration that the signing by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, and, by the President of the Senate, in
open session, of an enrolled bill, is an official attestation by the two houses of
such bill as one that has passed
FACTS:
1. House Bill 7198 (where the RA 8240 originated) from the HoR was
approved in the Senate with certain amendments on the third reading.
Hence, a bicameral conference committee was formed to reconcile the
disagreeing provisions of the House and Senate version of the bill.
2. The bicameral conference committee submitted its report to the House on
21 Nov 1996. The interpellation was interrupted when petitioner Rep. Joker
Arroyo moved to adjourn for lack of quorum.
3. Rep. Cuenco objected to the motion of petitioner Arroyo and he asked for a
head count. After a roll call, the Chair (Dep. Speaker Raul Daza) declared
the presence of a quorum.
4. Petitioner Arroyo appealed to the ruling of the chair but was defeated. He
later on registered to interpellate and announced that he would raise the
question on the quorum. However, he never did until the end of his
interpellation.
5. On the same day, the bill was signed by the Speaker of the HoR and the
Petitioners claimed that there are four different versions of the transcripts of
the session.
7. Petitioners argued that RA 8240 was null and void at it was passed in
violation of the rules of HoR. Since these rules embodied the constitutional
mandate, it followed that a violation of the House rules was a violation of
the constitution itself.
8. Because of the violation of the HoR rules, petitioners contended that the
certification of Respondent Speaker De Venecia that the law was properly
passed was false and spurious.
9. The following were the alleged violations according to the Petitioners:
a. The Chair did not call for the yeas or nays, but simply asked for
the approval of the motion in order to prevent petitioner Arroyo
from questioning the presence of the quorum.
b. The Chair deliberately ignored the question of petitioner Arroyo
(“What is that Mr. Speaker?”) and did not repeat Rep. Albano’s
motion to approve or ratify.
c. The Chair refused to recognize petitioner Arroyo and instead
proceeded to act on Rep. Albano’s motion and declared the report
approved afterwards.
d. The Chair suspended the session without first ruling on petitioner’s
Arroyo’s question. The petitioner’s question should have been
resolved upon the resumption of the session.
10. Petitioners also charged that the session was hastily adjourned at 3:40 PM
to prevent petitioner Arroyo from formally challenging the existence of a
quorum and asking for a reconsideration.
11. Respondents argue that the Court is not the proper forum for the
enforcement of the rules of the House. This argument was based on the
principle of separation of powers and the enrolled bill doctrine.
12. Respondent De Venecia contended that under the journal entry rule, the
judicial inquiry sought by the petitioners was barred and that the journal
was approved over the lone objection of one of the petitioners, Rep.
Lagman.
13. According to SC, what was alleged to have been violated were just internal
HoR rules of procedure, and not the constitutional requirement for enacting
a law.
14. According to SC, petitioners were not claiming that there was no quorum,
but that petitioner Arroyo was prevented from questioning the presence of a
quorum.
15. It was noted by SC that after the interpellation of Petitioner Arroyo of the
sponsor of the committee report, Majority Leader Rep. Albano moved for
the approval and ratification of the conference committee report. The Chair
called out for objection the Chair declared “There being none, approved. At
the same time, Petitioner Arroyo was asking “What is that Mr. Speaker?”.
Petitioner Arroyo and the Chair were talking simultaneously. Although
Petitioner Arroyo objected to the Majority Leader’s motion, the approval of
 the conference committee report had by then already been declared by the
Chair, symbolized by its banging of the gavel.
16. Petitioner Arroyo waived his objection by his continued interpellation of the
sponsor by which he acknowledged the presence of a quorum.
17. Only petitioner Arroyo objected to the manner by which the report was
approved. On the other hand, petitioners Lagman and Zamora objected to
the report itself.
18. In accordance with the Enrolled Bill Doctrine, SC refused to look into
allegations that the enrolled bill sent to the President contains provisions
which had been surreptitiously inserted in the committee.
19. SC found no ground for holding that Congress committed a grave abuse of
discretion in enacting RA 8240. The case was therefore dismissed.
ISSUE/s:
1. Whether or not RA 8240 is valid? – YES
2. Whether or not Congress committed a grave abuse of discretion in enacting
RA 8240? - NO
3. Whether or not the violation of the House rules constitutes a violation of the
Constitution? – NO
4. Whether or not the SC has jurisdiction over the case? - NO
RULING:
SC dismissed the petition for Certiorari and prohibition.
RATIO:
1. Based on the principle of separation of powers, SC had no power to look
into the internal proceedings of a House as long as there were no
violations of constitutional provisions. Each of the three departments
(Executive, Legislative, Judiciary) had its separate sphere which the others
might not invade.
2. Based on Art. VIII, sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution, the Court’s function is
to check whether or not the governmental branch or agency has gone
beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction. The Court has no
power to look into what it thinks is an apparent error.
3. It would be an unwarranted invasion of the prerogative of a coequal
department for the Court either to set aside a legislative action as void
because the Court thinks the House has disregarded its own rules of
procedure, or to allow those defeated in the political arena to seek a
rematch in the judicial forum when petitioners can find their remedy in
that department itself.
4. Violation of rules which are merely internal does not constitute a
constitutional violation.
5. No rule of the House of Representatives has been cited which
specifically requires that in cases such as this involving approval of a
conference committee report, the Chair must restate the motion and
conduct a viva voce or nominal voting. Nor does the Constitution require
that the yeas and the nays of the Members be taken every time a House has
to vote, except only in the following instances: upon the last and third
readings of a bill, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, and in
repassing a bill over the veto of the President.
6. Modern rationale for the enrolled bill theory (Field v. Clark): The
signing by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and, by the
President of the Senate, in open session, of an enrolled bill, is an official
attestation by the two houses of such bill as one that has passed
Congress. It is a declaration by the two Houses, through their presiding
officers, to the President, that a bill, thus attested, has received, in due form,
the sanction of the legislative branch of the government, and that it is
delivered to him in obedience to the constitutional requirement that all bills
which pass Congress shall be presented to him.
7. The Journal of the House containing its proceedings is regarded as
conclusive with respect to matters that are required by the Constitution to
be recorded therein.
Separate Opinion:
1. Romero, J.: The majority breached the procedure to be followed in the
passage of the bill and hid under the cloak of the enrolled bill theory and the
rule that the Court is not the proper forum for the enforcement of internal
legislative rules allegedly violated.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion:
1. Puno, J.: He did not agree that the issues posed by the petitioners are non-
justiciable nor did he agree that the Court must trivialize the principle of
separation of power if the Court assumes jurisdiction over the case. He
reiterated the provision in the Constitution stating that the Court is
mandated to approach constitutional violations not by finding out what is
should not do but what it must do. According to him, this provision calls the
Court to define the parameters of its power to review violations of the rules
of the House. He also suggested to re-examine the Court’s preference for
the enrolled bill doctrine and make a definitive pronouncement that they no
longer give their unqualified support to the enrolled bill doctrine. The
conclusiveness of an enrolled bill which all too often results in the
suppression of truth cannot be justified under the 1987 Constitution.
Concurring Opinion
1. Vitug, J: There is absence of a clear case of grave abuse of discretion. To
act on the case would be an unwarranted intrusion into the internal affairs of
a co-equal, independent and coordinate branch of government.