TITLE OF THE CASE: Tolentino vs.

Secretary of Finance
G.R. No. 115455 October 30, 1995
PETITIONER: ARTURO M. TOLENTINO
RESPONDENTS: THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE and THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE
PONENTE: MENDOZA, J.

FACTS:
Petitioner Tolentino, filed a certiorari for the court to reconsider the decision dismissing the
petitions totalling of ten suits filed for the declaration of R.A. No. 7716, otherwise known as the
Expanded Value-Added Tax Law's unconstitutionality. As per him, R.A. No. 7716 did not
"originate exclusively" in the House of Representatives as required by the Constitution as
it was a version proposed by the Senate; The petitioner argued that the Bill must retain the
essence of H. No. 11197 to comply with the constitution

ISSUE:
Whether or not R.A. No. 7716 violated Article VI, Section 24 and 26 (2) of the
Philippine Constitution.

RULING:
The motions for reconsideration are denied with finality. The Petitioners' error is that they
have assume that the S. No. 1630 is an independent bill. S. No. 1630, as a substitute
measure, is as much an amendment of H. No. 11197 as the Senate could not have made and
enacted S. No. 1630 without H. No. 11197. On March 22, 1994 the Senate was considering S.
No. 1630. The President had earlier certified H. No. 9210 for immediate enactment on
June 1, 1993. Together with other bills, it was later substituted by H. No. 11197 hence S. No.
1630 was also certified for immediate enactment. For this, the members of the Senate believed
that there was an urgent need for consideration of S. No. 1630 in order to respond to the call of
the President by voting on the bill on second and third readings on the same day.University of
Santo Tomas.