Upgrade your Lawyerly experience.

Lawyerly Premium available starting September 19, 2022.

Click here for more details.

 Cases 
 Laws 
 Notebooks 

 SIGN IN 

 Edit Share
by Natasha Kaye

JOKER P. ARROYO v. JOSE DE VENECIA, GR No. 127255, 1997-08-14

Facts:
This is a petition for certiorari  and/or prohibition challenging the validity of Republic Act
No. 8240, which amends certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code by
imposing so-called "sin taxes"
Petitioners are members of the House of Representatives.
charging 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
Rep. Rogelio Sarmiento was first to interpellate. He was interrupted when Rep. Arroyo
moved to adjourn for lack of quorum. Rep. Antonio Cuenco objected to the motion and
asked for a head count. After a roll call, the Chair (Deputy Speaker Raul Daza) declared the
presence of a... quorum.[1] Rep. Arroyo appealed the ruling of the Chair, but his motion was
defeated when put to a vote. The interpellation of the sponsor thereafter proceeded.
In the course of his interpellation, Rep. Arroyo announced that he was going to raise a
question on the quorum,... although until the end of his interpellation he never did.
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 as having been finally passed by the House of Representatives and by the Senate
on November
21, 1996. The enrolled bill was signed into law by President Fidel V. Ramos on November
22, 1996.
According to... petitioners, the four versions differ on three points, to wit: (1) in the audio-
sound recording the word "approved," which appears on line 13 in the three other versions,
cannot be heard; (2) in the transcript certified on November 21, 1996 the word "no" on line
17 appears only... once, while in the other versions it is repeated three times; and (3) the
published version does not contain the sentence "(Y)ou better prepare for a quorum because
I will raise the question of the quorum," which appears in the other versions.
Petitioners' allegations are vehemently denied by respondents. However, there is no need to
discuss this point as petitioners have announced that, in order to expedite the resolution of
this petition, they admit, without conceding, the correctness of the transcripts relied upon...
by the respondents. Petitioners agree that for purposes of this proceeding the word
"approved" appears in the transcripts.
Petitioners' principal argument is that R.A. No. 8240 is null and void because it was passed in
violation of the rules of the House; that these rules embody... the "constitutional mandate"
in Art. VI, §16(3) that "each House may determine the rules of its proceedings" and that,
consequently, violation of the House rules is a violation of the Constitution itself.
Here petitioners cite the provision for the opposite purpose of invoking judicial review.
Issues:
Petitioners' principal argument is that R.A. No. 8240 is null and void because it was passed in
violation of the rules of the House; that these rules embody... the "constitutional mandate"
in Art. VI, §16(3) that "each House may determine the rules of its proceedings" and that,
consequently, violation of the House rules is a violation of the Constitution itself
They contend that the certification of Speaker De Venecia that the law was... properly
passed is false and spurious.
Ruling:
DISMISSED
We have no more power to look into the internal proceedings of a House than members of
that House have... to look over our shoulders, as long as no violation of constitutional
provisions is shown.
What happened is that, after Rep. Arroyo's interpellation of the sponsor of the committee
report, Majority Leader Rodolfo Albano moved for the approval and ratification of the
conference committee report.
Principles:
(1) in violation of Rule VIII, §35 and Rule XVII, §103 of the rules of the House,[2] the Chair, in
submitting the conference committee report to the House, did not call for the yeas or nays,
but simply asked for... its approval by motion in order to prevent petitioner Arroyo from
questioning the presence of a quorum; (2) in violation of Rule XIX, §112,[3] the Chair
deliberately ignored Rep. Arroyo's question, "What is that . . . Mr. Speaker?" and did not
repeat Rep.
Albano's motion to approve or ratify; (3) in violation of Rule XVI, §97,[4] the Chair refused to
recognize Rep. Arroyo and instead proceeded to act on Rep. Albano's motion and afterward
declared the report approved; and (4) in violation of Rule XX,... §§121-122, Rule XXI, §123,
and Rule XVIII, §109,[5] the Chair suspended the session without first ruling on Rep.
Arroyo's question which, it is alleged, is a point of order or a privileged motion. It is argued
that Rep. Arroyo's query should have been... resolved upon the resumption of the session on
November 28, 1996, because the parliamentary situation at the time of the a... djournment
remained upon the resumption of the session.
journal entry rule, the judicial inquiry sought by the petitioners is barred.
First. It is clear from the foregoing facts that what is alleged to have been violated in the
enactment of R.A. No. 8240 are merely internal rules of procedure of the House rather than
constitutional requirements for the enactment of a law,... In Osmeña v. Pendatun,[11] it was
held: "At any rate, courts have declared that 'the rules adopted by deliberative bodies are
subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure of the... body adopting them.'
And it has been said that 'Parliamentary rules are merely procedural, and with their
observance, the courts have no concern. They may be waived or disregarded by the
legislative body.' Consequently, 'mere failure to conform to parliamentary usage will not...
invalidate the action (taken by a deliberative body) when the requisite number of members
have agreed to a particular measure.'"
Having made the rule, it... should be regarded, but a failure to regard it is not the subject-
matter of judicial inquiry.
but when the House has acted in a matter clearly within its power, it would be an
unwarranted invasion of the independence... of the legislative department for the court to
set aside such action as void because it may think that the House has misconstrued or
departed from its own rules of procedure."
The courts cannot declare an act of the legislature void on account of noncompliance with
rules... of procedure made by itself to govern its deliberations.
nothing involving abuse of discretion [by the other branches of the government] amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction is... beyond judicial review."
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.
Instead of submitting the proper motions for the House to act upon, petitioners insisted on
the pendency of Rep. Arroyo's question as an obstacle to the passage of the bill. But Rep.
Arroyo's... question was not, in form or substance, a point of order or a question of privilege
entitled to precedence.[30] And even if Rep. Arroyo's question were so, Rep. Albano's
motion to adjourn would have precedence and would have put an end to any further...
consideration of the question.[31]
Indeed, the phrase "grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess... of jurisdiction"
has a settled meaning in the jurisprudence of procedure. It means such capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment by a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi judicial power as to
amount to lack of power
It would be an unwarranted invasion of the prerogative of a coequal department for this
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. The Court has not been invested with a roving commission to inquire into
complaints, real or imagined, of legislative skullduggery. It would be acting in excess of its
power and... would itself be guilty of grave abuse of its discretion were it to do so. The
suggestion made in a case[48] may instead appropriately be made here: petitioners can seek
the enactment of a new law or the repeal or amendment of R.A. No. 8240. In the absence...
of anything to the contrary, the Court must assume that Congress or any House thereof
acted in the good faith belief that its conduct was permitted by its rules, and deference
rather than disrespect is due the judgment of that body.

Digests created by other users

 Kenneth Guevarra Limosnero     

 Multi Athlete     

 Copyright Notice |

 Disclaimer |

 Terms of Service |

 Privacy |

 Content Policy |

 Contact Us