CONSTI 1 DIGEST: Nic’s cult
Facts:
ABAKADA v. Ermita
GR NO: 168056 Date: September 1, 2005
Petitioners: ABAKADA Partylist Respondents: HON. ERNESTO MATA
Ponente: Austria-Martinez, J Digest author: Arki Davocol
Topic: Procedure in Law-Making - passage of bills
Recit-Ready Summary:
● Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of RA 9337, accomplished after the
Bicameral Conference Committee (BCC) reconciled the two conflicting bills from
both the Senate and the HOR.
● According to the petitioners, the BCC allegedly exceeded its authority by:
1. inserting the stand-by authority in favor of the President,
2. deleting entirely the no pass-on provisions found in both the HB and SB,
3. inserting the provision imposing a 70% limit on input tax to be credited
against the output tax, and (4) including the amendments introduced only
by the SB regarding other kinds of taxes in addition to the VAT.
● SC held that the BCC did not exceed its authority, as such bill passed by the said body
is well within the internal rules of the Congress.
● SC also stated that such changes or modifications made by the BCC were germane to
the subjects of the provisions referred to it for reconciliation, hence no grave abuse
of discretion.
Doctrine & Notes:
● To reconcile or harmonize disagreeing provisions, the BCC may then:
○ Adopt the specific provisions of either the HB or SB
○ Decide that neither provisions in the HB or SB would be carried into the
final form of the bill, and/or
○ Try to arrive at a compromise between the disagreeing provision
● The no-amendment rule:
○ It refers only to the procedure to be followed by each house of Congress
with regard to bills initiated in each of said respective houses, before said
bill is transmitted to the other house for its concurrence or amendment.
○ It means that it applies only to bills that are introduced for the first time
in each of the houses
● Republic Act No. 9337 (VAT Law) is a consolidation of three legislative bills namely,
House Bill Nos. 3555 and 3705, and Senate Bill No. 1950.
● The Senate agreed to the request of HOR for a committee conference on the
disagreeing provisions of the proposed bills.
● The BCC recommended the approval of the report, which the Senate did on May
10, 2005 and the HOR agreed the next day.
● The President signed the bill into law and became the RA 9337 or the “Value Added
Tax Reform Law”.
● Before the law took effect, the Court issued a TRO, effective immediately.
Petitioners namely ABAKADA GURO Party List et.al, Sen. Aquino Pimentel, Jr. et.al,
Association of Pilipinas Shell Dealers, Inc., et.al, several members of the HOR led by
Rep. Francis Joseph Escudero, and Governor Enrique Garcia filed petitions assailing
the constitutionality of RA 9337.
● The petitioners argued that the Bicameral Conference Committee exceeded its
authority by
1. inserting the stand-by authority in favor of the President in Sections 4, 5,
and 6 of R.A. No. 933
2. deleting entirely the no pass-on provisions found in both the House and
Senate bills
3. inserting the provision imposing a 70% limit on the amount of input tax to
be credited against the output tax and
4. including the amendments introduced only by Senate Bill No. 1950
regarding other kinds of taxes in addition to the VAT.
Issue/s:
● W/N the Bicameral Conference Committee exceeded its authority conferred to it by
Congress? NO
Held/ Ratio
● SC ruled that it did not see any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction committed by the Bicameral Conference Committee.
● SC reiterated that the irregularities assailed by petitioners are mostly involved in
the internal rules of Congress and so the Court is not the proper forum for their
enforcement.
● Parliamentary rules are merely procedural and with their observance, the courts
have no concern. Nevertheless, the Court deemed it necessary to dwell on the
issue.
● The Court observed that there was a necessity for a conference committee because
a comparison of the provisions of House Bill Nos. 3555 and 3705 on one hand, and
Senate Bill No. 1950 on the other, reveals that there were indeed disagreements.
“Give the Devil the Benefit of the Law”
CONSTI 1 DIGEST: Nic’s cult
● To reconcile or harmonize disagreeing provisions, the Bicameral Conference
Committee may then

a) adopt the specific provisions of either the House bill or Senate bill
b) decide that neither provisions in the House bill nor the provisions in
the Senate bill would be carried into the final form of the bill, and/or
c) try to arrive at a compromise between the disagreeing provisions.

● In the present case, the changes introduced by the Bicameral Conference Committee
on disagreeing provisions were meant only to reconcile and harmonize the
disagreeing provisions for it did not inject any idea or intent that is wholly foreign to
the subject embraced by the original provisions.
In conclusion, all the changes or modifications made by the Bicameral Conference
Committee are germane to subjects of the provisions referred to it for reconciliation.

“Give the Devil the Benefit of the Law”