JOKER P. ARROYO, EDCEL C. LAGMAN, JOHN HENRY R.

OSMEÑA, WIGBERTO
E. TAÑADA, AND RONALDO B. ZAMORA, petitioner,
vs.
JOSE DE VENECIA, RAUL DAZA, RODOLFO ALBANO, THE EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, AND THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents

G.R. No. 127255 August 14, 1997

MENDOZA, J.:

FACTS:
Petitioners filed a suit against the respondents, charging violation of the rules of the
house which is tantamount to a violation of the constitution. The law originated in the
House of Representatives as H. No. 7198. A bicameral conference committee was
formed to reconcile the disagreeing provisions of the house and senate versions of the
bill, furthermore the committee submitted its report to the House. Rep. Arroyo
interrupted and move to adjourn for lack of quorum during the interpellation. But after a
head count it declared the presence of a quorum.
Mr. Albano moved to approve and ratify the conference committee report. The chair
called out for objection to the motion which arroyo asked what is the question that the
Chair asked the distinguished sponsor, but the approval of the chair has already been
declared.
ISSUE:
Whether or not RA 8240 is null and void because it was passed in violation of the rules
of the House.
RULING:

No. The court ruled that no rule of the House of Representative has been cited which
specifically requires that in case such as this involving approval of a conference
committee report, the Chair must restate the motion and conduct a viva voce or nominal
voting. On the other hand, as the Solicitor General has pointed out, the manner in which
the conference committee report on H. No. 7198 was approval was by no means a
unique one. It has basis in legislative practice. It was the way the conference committee
report on the bills which became the Local Government Code of 1991 and the
conference committee report on the bills amending the Tariff and Customs Code were
approved.