CASE DIGEST

50 Arroyo v De Venecia
Constitutional Law 1

Court Supreme Court
Citation G.R. No. 127255
Date August 14, 1997
Petitioner Joker P. Arroyo, et. al
Respondent Jose De Venecia, et. al
Relevant topic Organizations and Sessions – Rules of Proceedings

FACTS:

• Petition for Certioriari and/or Prohibition challenging the validity of RA 8240, “An act amending Sections 138,
140, & 142 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and for other purposes” by imposing so-called sin-
taxes on the manufacture and sale of beer and cigarettes.
• November 17, 1996 – Third reading of the bill
• November 21, 1996 – Bicameral conference committee submitted report to House which reconciles the disagreeing
provisions of the House and Senate versions of the bill; sponsorship speech and interpellations happened
o Rep. Arroyo moved to adjourn for lack of quorum
o Rep. Cuenco objected to the motion and asked for a head count
o Chair (Deputy Speaker Daza) declared the presence of a quorum after a roll call
o Rep. Arroyo appealed the ruling of the Chair but his motion was defeated when put to a vote
o Interpellation proceeded
th
o Rep. Arroyo registered to interpellate (he was 4 in order). 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 (evidenced by the transcript of the session on November 21, 1996).
o On this same day, bill was signed by the Speaker of the HoR and President of the Senate; as well as
certified by the respective Secretaries of both Houses of Congress as having been finally passed.
• November 22, 1996 – President Fidel V. Ramos signed into law the enrolled bill

Petitioners’ Complaint Respondents’ Defense

• Issue on having a quorum • Principle of separation of powers
• The session on November 21, 1996 was hastily • Enrolled Bill Doctrine
adjourned at 3:40 pm
• The House rules were adopted pursuant to the
constitutional provision that “each House may
determine the rules of its proceedings” and that for
this reason they are judicially enforceable
• In accordance with the rules of the House, Rep.
Albano’s motion for the approval of the conference
committee report should have been stated by the
Chair and later the individual votes of the Members
should have been taken
• Urged the Court not to feel bound by the Certification
of the Speaker of the House that the law had been
properly passed, considering the Court’s power under
Art. VIII Section 1 (judicial power)

ISSUES-HELD:

ISSUES
Whether or not RA 8240 is null and void because it was
passed in violation of the rules of the House; that these
rules embody the constitutional mandate (Art VI, Section
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
HELD
NO
The Court finds no ground for holding that Congress
committed a grave abuse of discretion in enacting RA
8240. This case is therefore DISMISSED.

Page 1 of 3

CASE DIGEST
50 Arroyo v De Venecia
Constitutional Law 1

RATIONALE:

1. What is alleged to have been violated in the enactment of RA 8240 are merely internal rules of procedure of the
i
House rather than the constitutional requirements for the enactment of a law (Art. VI, Sections 26 -27).

2. But the cases, both here and abroad, in varying forms of expression, all deny to the courts the power to inquire into
allegations that, in enacting a law, a House of Congress failed to comply with its own rules, in the absence of
showing that there was a violation of a constitutional provision or the rights of private individuals.

a. Osmena v Pendatun: “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.’

b. ‘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.”

c. State ex rel. City Loan & Savings Co. v Moore: ‘Having made the rules, it should be regarded, but a failure
to regard it is not the subject-matter of judicial inquiry.’

d. ‘The courts cannot declare an act of the legislature void on account of non-compliance with rules or
procedure made by itself to govern its deliberations.’

e. The survey of jurisprudence was concluded with the useful summary of rulings by former CJ Fernando:
‘Rules are hardly permanent in character. The prevailing view is that 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 have agreed to a particular measure. The above
principle is subject, however, to this qualification. When the construction to be given to a rule affects persons
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.

3. In the absence of a showing … [of] grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, there is no occasion
for the Court to exercise its corrective power… it has no power to look into what it thinks is apparent error.

4. If, then, the established rule is that courts cannot declare an act of the legislature void on account merely of
noncompliance with rules of procedure made by itself, it follows that such a case does not present a situation in
which a branch of the government has "gone beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction" so as to call for the
exercise of our [judicial] power.

5. What really happened during the interpellation?

a. After Rep. Arroyo’s interpellation of the sponsor of the committee report, Majority Floor Leader Albano
moved for the approval and ratification of the conference committee report
b. The Chair called out for objections to the motion; then he declared: “There being none, approved.”
c. At the same time the Chair was declaring the approval, Rep. Arroyo was asking: “What is that… Mr.
Speaker?” (The Chair and Rep. Arroyo were talking simultaneously.)
d. Although Rep. Arroyo subsequently objected to the motion, the approval of the conference committee report
had by then already declared by the Chair, symbolized by its banging of the gavel.

6. 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.
a. The advantages or disadvantages, the wisdom or folly of a method do not present any matter for judicial
consideration.

7. On the issue of quorum: 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.

Page 2 of 3

CASE DIGEST
50 Arroyo v De Venecia
Constitutional Law 1

8. Under the enrolled bill doctrine, the signing of H. No. 7198 by the Speaker of the House and the President of the
Senate and the certification by the secretaries of both Houses of Congress that it was passed on November 21,
1996 are conclusive of its due enactment.
a. This Court will respect the certification of the presiding officers of both Houses that a bill has been duly
passed.

9. 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 and
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 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.

i
Section 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the
title thereof. (2) No bill passed by the either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on
separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its
passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or
emergency. Upon last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken
immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.

Page 3 of 3