DIGEST
Arroyo vs. De Venecia G.R. No. 127255, August 14, 1997
Facts: 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 was formed 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 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 proceeded. After Rep. Arroyo’s interpellation of the
sponsor of the committee report, Majority Leader Albano moved for
the approval and ratification of the conference committee report. The
Chair called out for objections to the motion. Then the Chair declared:
“There being none, approved.” At the same time the Chair was saying
this, Rep. Arroyo was asking, “What is that…Mr. Speaker?” The Chair
and Rep. Arroyo were talking simultaneously. Thus, although Rep.
Arroyo subsequently objected to the Majority Leader’s 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.
Issue: Whether or not RA 8240 is null and void because it was
passed in violation of the rules of the House
Held: Rules of each House of Congress are hardly permanent in
character. They are subject to revocation, modification or waiver at
the pleasure of the body adopting them as they are primarily
procedural. Courts ordinarily have no concern with their observance.
They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body.
Consequently, mere failure to conform to them does not have the
effect of nullifying the act taken if the requisite number of members
has agreed to a particular measure. But this is subject to qualification.
Where the construction to be given to a rule affects person other than
members of the legislative body, the question presented is necessarily
judicial in character. Even its validity is open to question in a case
where private rights are involved.
In the case, no rights of private individuals are involved but
only those of a member who, instead of seeking redress in the House,
chose to transfer the dispute to the Court. The matter complained of
concerns a matter of internal procedure of the House with which the
Court should not be concerned. The claim is not that there was no
quorum but only that Rep. Arroyo was effectively prevented from
questioning the presence of a quorum. Rep. Arroyo’s earlier motion to
adjourn for lack of quorum had already been defeated, as the roll call
established the existence of a quorum. The question of quorum
cannot be raised repeatedly especially when the quorum is obviously
present for the purpose of delaying the business of the House.