Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In this case, the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9337 or the RVAT Law
(Revitalized Value Added Tax Law) was put into issue. It was alleged, among
others, that said law was not duly enacted.
R.A. 9337 originated as House Bill No. 3705. After 3rd reading in the lower
house, it was transmitted to the Senate where it was lodged as Senate Bill No.
1950. In the Senate, several provisions, which were not found in the H.B.
3705, were inserted.
After 3rd reading in the Senate, the lower house found that the House version
and the Senate version have disagreeing provisions. And pursuant to
Congress Rules, both Houses agreed to form a Bicameral Conference
Committee (BCC) where representatives from both Houses were sent to settle
the disagreeing provisions.
Apparently however, the BCC further inserted several provisions to S.B. 1950,
i.e., stand by power was granted to the President to raise the valued-added
tax rate. Further still, the “No pass” provision was deleted – this provision
prohibited the passing of value-added tax to consumers.
Nevertheless, said version was passed into law hence the promulgation of
R.A. No. 9337.
In 2005, ABAKADA GURO Party List, headed by its officers Attys. Samson
Alcantara and Ed Vincent Albano, as well as co-petitioner [then]
Congressman Francis Escudero, questioned the constitutionality of R.A. No.
9337
ISSUE: Whether or not the enrolled bill doctrine applies in this case.
ADVERTISEMENTS
Comments
0 comments