TOLENTINO VS.

SECRETARY OF FINANCE
G.R. NO. 115455 OCTOBER 30, 1995
FACTS

• Congress enacted R.A. No. 7716 or known as the Expanded Value Added Tax Law (E-Vat),
which sought to widen the tax base of the existing Value Added Tax (VAT) system and
enhance its administration by amending the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).
• Arturo M. Tolentino (petitioner) filed a certiorari for the Court to reconsider its
previous decision dismissing the petitions filed for the unconstitutionality of R.A. 7716.
• As per the petitioner, 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.
FACTS

• Petitioner contends that it should have amended the House bill by striking out the text
of the bill and substituting it with the text of its own bill, so as to conform with the
Constitution.
• H. No. 11197 was filed in the House of Representatives and passed three readings. It was
sent to the Senate and was approved as S. No. 1630 on May 24, 1994, voting on the bill
on second and third readings on the same day.
ISSUE/S

• Whether or not RA No. 7716 is unconstitutional for violating Art. 6, Sec. 24 of the
Philippine Constitution
• Whether or not the Senate Bill No. 1630 is unconstitutional for not passing the three (3)
readings on separate days as required by the Constitution
 DISCUSSION

• Art. 6, Sec. 24 of the PH Constitution provides:

All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local
application, and private bills, shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but
the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.
• Without H. No. 11197, the Senate could not have enacted S. No. 1630. Because the Senate bill was a
mere amendment of the House bill, H. No. 11197
• It is not the law, but the revenue bill, which is required by the Constitution to originate
exclusively in the House of Representatives. It is important to emphasize this, because a bill
originating in the House may undergo such extensive changes in the Senate that the result may be a
rewriting of the whole.
DISCUSSION

• Art. 6, Sec. 26 (2) of the PH Constitution provides:

No bill passed by 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 the 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.
RULING

• Issue (1)
No. Court said that it is not the law which should originate from the House of Rep, but the
revenue bill which was required to originate from the House of Rep. The initiative must come
from the Lower House because they are elected in the district level – meaning they are
expected to be more sensitive to the needs of the locality. Also, a bill originating from the Lower
House may undergo extensive changes while in the Senate. Senate can introduce a
separate and distinct bill other than the one the Lower House proposed. The
Constitution does not prohibit the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its
receipt of the House bill, so long as action by Senate is withheld pending the receipt of the
House bill.
RULING

• Issue (2)
No. The President had certified S. No. 1630 as urgent. The presidential certification
dispensed with the requirement not only of printing but also that of reading the bill on
separate days. That upon the certification of a bill by the President the requirement of 3
readings on separate days and of printing and distribution can be dispensed with is
supported by the weight of legislative practice.
• The motions for reconsideration were denied by the Court with finality and the
temporary restraining order previously issued was lifted.