Professional Documents
Culture Documents
_______________
* EN BANC.
631
632
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
633
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
634
must come from the House of Representatives and that it does not
prohibit the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation
of its receipt of the bill from the House.—Indeed, what the
Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing revenue,
tariff, or tax bills, bills authorizing an increase of the public debt,
private bills and bills of local application must come from the
House of Representatives on the theory that, elected as they are
from the districts, the members of the House can be expected to be
more sensitive to the local needs and problems. On the other
hand, the senators, who are elected at large, are expected to
approach the same problems from the national perspective. Both
views are thereby made to bear on the enactment of such laws.
Nor does the Constitution prohibit the filing in the Senate of a
substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the
House, so long as action by the Senate as a body is withheld
pending receipt of the House bill.
Same; Same; Presidential certification on urgency of a bill
dispenses with the requirement not only of printing but also that of
reading the bill on separate days.—The presidential certification
dispensed with the requirement not only of printing but also that
of reading the bill on separate days. The phrase “except when the
President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment,
etc.” in Art. VI, § 26(2) qualifies the two stated conditions before a
bill can become a law: (i) the bill has passed three readings on
separate days and (ii) it has been printed in its final form and
distributed three days before it is finally approved. In other
words, the “unless” clause must be read in relation to the “except”
clause, because the two are really coordinate clauses of the same
sentence. To construe the “except” clause as simply dispensing
with the second requirement in the “unless” clause (i.e., printing
and distribution three days before final approval) would not only
violate the rules of grammar. It would also negate the very
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
635
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
636
637
638
639
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in its title
is intended to prevent surprise upon the members of Congress
and to inform the people of pending legislation so that, if they
wish to, they can be heard regarding it. If, in the case at bar,
petitioner did not know before that its exemption had been
withdrawn, it is not because of any defect in the title but perhaps
for the same reason other statutes, although published, pass
unnoticed until some event somehow calls attention to their
existence. Indeed, the title of Republic Act No. 7716 is not any
more general than the title of PAL’s own franchise under P.D. No.
1590, and yet no mention is made of its tax exemption.
Same; Same; Same; The trend is to construe the constitutional
requirement in such a manner that courts do not unduly interfere
with the enactment of necessary legislation.—The trend in our
cases is to construe the constitutional requirement in such a
manner that courts do not unduly interfere with the enactment of
necessary legislation and to consider it sufficient if the title
expresses the general subject of the statute and all its provisions
are germane to the general subject thus expressed.
Same; Same; Public Utilities; Franchises; The grant of a
franchise for the operation of a public utility is subject to
amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress when the common
good so requires.—In contrast, in the case at bar, Republic Act No.
7716 expressly amends PAL’s franchise (P.D. No. 1590) by
specifically excepting from the grant of exemptions from the VAT
PAL’s exemption under P.D. No. 1590. This is within the power of
Congress to do under Art. XII, § 11 of the Constitution, which
provides that the grant of a franchise for the operation of a public
utility is subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress
when the common good so requires.
Same; Taxation; Expanded Value Added Tax Law; Bill of
Rights; Freedom of Expression; Even with due recognition of its
high estate and its importance in a democratic society, the press is
not immune from general regulation by the State.—To be sure, we
are not dealing here with a statute that on its face operates in the
area of press freedom. The PPI’s claim is simply that, as applied
to newspapers, the law abridges press freedom. Even with due
recognition of its high estate and its importance in a democratic
society, however, the press is not immune from general regulation
by the State.
640
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
641
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
642
643
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 15/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
644
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 16/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
645
646
for Congress to simply say that the rules have been observed and
flatly consider the matter closed. It does not have to be as final as
that. I would imagine that the judiciary, and particularly this
Court, should be able to verify that statement and determine for
itself, through the exercise of its own powers, if the Constitution
has, indeed, been obeyed. In fact, the Court has already said that
the question of whether certain procedural rules have been
followed is justiciable rather than political because what is
involved is the legality and not the wisdom of the act in question.
So we ruled in Sanidad v. Commission on Elections (73 SCRA
333) on the amendment of the Constitution; in Daza v. Singson
(180 SCRA 496) on the composition of the Commission on
Appointments; and in the earlier case of Tañada v. Cuenco (100
SCRA 1101) on the organization of the Senate Electoral Tribunal,
among several other cases. By the same token, the ascertainment
of whether a bill underwent the obligatory three readings in both
Houses of Congres should not be considered an invasion of the
territory of the legislature as this would not involve an inquiry
into its discretion in approving the measure but only the manner
in which the measure was enacted.
Same; Expanded VAT Law; Bicameral Conference Committee;
The resultant enrolled bill did not originate exclusively in the
House of Representatives.—The two bills were separately
introduced in their respective Chambers. Both retained their
independent existence until they reached the bicameral
conference committee where they were consolidated. It was this
consolidated measure that was finally passed by Congress and
submitted to the President of the Philippines for his approval.
House Bill No. 11197 originated in the House of Representatives
but this was not the bill that eventually became R.A. No. 7716.
The measure that was signed into law by President Ramos was
the consolidation of that bill and another bill, viz., Senate Bill No.
1630, which was introduced in the Senate. The resultant enrolled
bill thus did not originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives. The enrolled bill itself says that part of it (and it
does not matter to what extent) originated in the Senate.
Same; Same; Same; The participation of the Senate was not in
proposing or concurring with amendments but in originating its
own Senate bill which was not embodied in but merged with the
House bill.—It would have been different if the only participation
of the Senate was in the amendment of the measure that was
originally proposed in the House of Representatives. But this was
not the case. The participation of the Senate was not in proposing
or concurring with
647
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 19/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 20/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
648
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 21/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
649
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 22/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
650
651
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 24/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
652
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 25/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
11197 and Senate Bill No. 1630.” This is conclusive evidence that
the measure did not originate exclusively in the House. Second,
the enrolled bill doctrine is of American origin, and unquestioned
fealty to it may no longer be justified in view of the expanded
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 1, Article VIII of our
Constitution. Third, even under the regime of the 1935
Constitution which did not contain the above provision, this
Court, through Mr. Chief Justice Makalintal, in Astorga vs.
Villegas, declared that it cannot be truly said that Mabanag vs.
Lopez Vito has laid to rest the question of whether the enrolled
bill doctrine or the journal entry rule should be adhered to in this
jurisdiction. Fourth, even in the United States, the enrolled bill
doctrine has been substantially undercut. This is shown in the
disquisitions of Mr. Justice Reynato S. Puno in his dissenting
opinion, citing Sutherland, Statutory Construction.
653
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 26/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
the Constitution. Thus, it draws its life and vitality from the rules
governing its creation.
Same; Same; Same; The Bicameral Conference Committee
exceeded the power and authority granted in the Rules of its
creation.—Even a cursory perusal of the above outline will
convince one that, indeed, the Bicameral Conference Committee
(henceforth to be referred to as BICAM) exceeded the power and
authority granted in the Rules of its creation. Both Senate and
House Rules limit the task of the Conference Committee in almost
identical language to the settlement of differences in the
provisions or amendments to any bill or joint resolution. If it
means anything at all, it is that there are provisions in subject
bill, to start with, which differ and, therefore, need reconciliation.
Nowhere in the Rules is it authorized to initiate or propose
completely new matter. Although under certain rules on
legislative procedure, like those in Jefferson’s Manual, a
conference committee may introduce germane matters in a
particular bill, such matters should be circumsribed by the
committee’s sole authority and function to reconcile differences.
Same; Same; Same; Insertion of new matter on the part of the
Bicameral Conference Committee is an ultra vires act which makes
the same void.—Parenthetically, in the Senate and in the House,
a matter is “germane” to a particular bill if there is a common tie
between said matter and the provisions which tend to promote the
object and purpose of the bill it seeks to amend. If it introduces a
new subject matter not within the purview of the bill, then it is
not “germane” to the bill. The test is whether or not the change
represented an amendment or extension of the basic purpose of
the original, or the introduction of an entirely new and different
subject matter. In the BICAM, however, the germane subject
matter must be within the ambit of the disagreement between the
two Houses. If the “germane” subject is not covered by the
disagreement but it is reflected in the final version of the bill as
reported by the Conference Committee or, if what appears to be a
“germane” matter in the sense that it is “relevant or closely allied”
with the purpose of the bill, was not the subject of a disagreement
between the Senate and the House, it should be deemed an
extraneous matter or even a “rider” which should never be
considered legally passed for not having undergone the three-day
reading requirement. Insertion of new matter on the part of the
BICAM is, therefore, an ulta vires act which makes the same void.
654
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 27/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 28/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
655
656
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 30/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
657
MENDOZA, J.:
I. Procedural Issues:
1. § 1
2. § 4
3. § 5
4. § 10
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 32/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
I. PROCEDURAL ISSUES
659
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 33/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
1 H. Nos. 253, 771, 2450, 7033, 8086, 9030, 9210, 9297, 10012 and
10100. (Respondents’ Consolidated Memorandum, Annexes 3-12).
660
________________
2 U.S. CONST., Art. 1, § 7, cl. 1: “All bills for raising revenue shall
originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or
concur with amendments, as on other bills.”
662
1909, was upheld against the claim that the provision was
a revenue bill which originated in the Senate 6 in
contravention of Art. I, § 7 of the U.S. Constitution. Nor is
the power to amend limited to adding a provision or two in
a revenue bill emanating from the House. The U.S. Senate
has gone so far as changing the whole of bills following the
enacting clause and substituting its own versions. In 1883,
for example, it struck out everything after the enacting
clause of a tariff bill and wrote in its place its own measure,
and the House subsequently accepted the amendment. The
U.S. Senate likewise added 847 amendments to what later
became the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909; it dictated the
schedules of the Tariff Act of 1921; it rewrote an extensive
tax revision bill in7 the same year and recast most of the
tariff bill of 1922. Given, then, the power of the Senate to
propose amendments, the Senate can propose its own
version even with respect to bills which are required by the
Constitution to originate in the House.
________________
663
_______________
8 Although the 1935 Constitution did not expressly require that bills
must pass three readings in each House, this was clearly implied from its
Art. VI, § 21(2) so that the two Houses by their rules prescribed three
readings for the passage of bills. Later the requirement was expressly
provided in the 1973 Constitution from which Art. VI, § 26(2) was taken.
Art. VIII, § 19(2) of the 1973 document provided: No bill 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 the Members three
days before its passage, except when the Prime Minister 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.
9 Respondents’ Consolidated Reply, Annex 14.
10 Memorandum of Petitioner Arturo M. Tolentino, Supplement C.
665
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 39/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
seven days
11 of the convening of Congress in emergency
session.
That upon the certification of a bill by the President the
requirement of three readings on separate days and of
printing and distribution can be dispensed with is
supported by the weight of legislative practice. For
example, the bill defining the certiorari jurisdiction of this
Court which, in consolidation with the Senate version,
became Republic Act No. 5440, was passed on second and
third readings in the House of Representatives on the same
day (May 14, 1968) 12after the bill had been certified by the
President as urgent.
There is, therefore, no merit in the contention that
presidential certification dispenses only with the
requirement for the printing of the bill and its distribution
three days before its passage but
________________
666
667
________________
668
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 42/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
669
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 43/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
Rule XII:
§ 26. In the event that the Senate does not agree with the House
of Representatives on the provision of any bill or joint resolution,
the differences shall be settled by a conference committee of both
Houses which shall meet within ten days after their composition.
The President shall designate the members of the conference
committee in accordance with subparagraph (c), Section 3 of Rule
III.
Each Conference Committee Report shall contain a detailed and
sufficiently explicit statement of the changes in or amendments to
the subject measure, and shall be signed by the conferees.
The consideration of such report shall not be in order unless
the report has been filed with the Secretary of the Senate and
copies thereof have been distributed to the Members.
(Emphasis added)
Rule XIV:
________________
actually by conference committee. Any remedy found will probably take the
form of reducing the need for using conference committees at all; and the principal
suggestion to that end is that bills and resolutions be referred, not, as now, to
separate committees of the two houses, but to joint committees, which not only
would hold single sets of hearings, but might deliberate and report back bills to
the two houses in such agreed form that further significant differences would not
be likely to develop. Arrangements of this nature yield excellent results in the
legislature of Massachusetts. But there are obstacles to adoption of the plan for
Congress, not the least of them being a natural aversion of House members to joint
committees in which senators seem likely to dominate; and, as indicated below,
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 44/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
the outlook for the reform is problematical.” F.A. OGG AND P.O. RAY, supra note
7 at 310-311.
670
_________________
672
________________
673
674
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 49/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
675
_______________
676
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 51/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
regular intervals with fixed prices for subscription and sale and
which is devoted principally to the publication of advertisements.
________________
26 Art. VI, § 28(4) provides: “No law granting any tax exemption shall
be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the
Congress.”
677
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 52/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
27 Associated Press v. NLRB, 301 U.S. 103, 132, 81 L.Ed. 953, 961
(1937).
678
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 53/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
679
________________
680
_________________
by the Secretary of Finance which shall not be less than Four hundred
eighty thousand pesos (P480,000.00) or more than Seven hundred twenty
thousand pesos (P720,000.00) subject to tax under Section 112 of this
Code.”
34 297 U.S. at 250, 80 L.Ed. at 668.
35 460 U.S. at 581, 75 L.Ed.2d at 302.
36 493 U.S. 378, 107 L.Ed.2d 796 (1990).
37 § 107 of the NIRC provides: “Any person subject to a value added tax
under Sections 100 and 102 of this Code shall register with the
appropriate Revenue District Officer and pay an annual registration
681
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 56/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
fee in the amount of One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) for every separate
or distinct establishment or place of business and every year thereafter on
or before the last day of January. Any person just commencing a business
subject to the value-added tax must pay the fee before engaging therein . .
.”
38 101 Phil. 386 (1957).
39 319 U.S. 105, 113, 87 L.Ed. 1292 (1943).
40 319 U.S. at 114, 87 L.Ed. 1292 at 1298. For the same reason, in
People v. Korins, 385 N.Y.S. 2d 474 (1976) a decision of the city court of
Utica, Oneida County held that to apply an ordinance requiring a
business license to be obtained before a person could sell newspapers in
the streets would be to impose a prior restraint on press freedom because
“a newspaper is not in the same category as pineapple or a soap powder or
a pair of shoes” whose sale may be conditioned on the possession of a
business license.
682
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 57/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
683
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 58/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_________________
42 Art. VI, § 28(1). Related to this argument is the claim that Republic
Act No. 7716 likewise infringes the Due Process and Equal Protection
Clauses of the Bill of Rights, Art. III, § 1(1).
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 59/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
684
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 60/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
43 Neri, “In Support of the Expanded Value-Added Tax,” (CRC
Economic Policy Papers No. 5 1994) pp. 3-4.
44 Cf. Lutz v. Araneta, 98 Phil. 148, 153 (1955).
685
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 61/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_________________
686
________________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 62/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
49 Compare Justice Laurel: “Even then, this power of judicial review is
limited to actual cases and controversies to be exercised after full
opportunity of argument by the parties, and limited further to the
constitutional question raised or the very lis mota presented. Any attempt
at abstraction could only lead to dialectics and barren legal questions and
to sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities.” Angara v. Electoral
Commission, 63 Phil. 139, 158 (1936).
687
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 63/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
This conception
52 of the judicial power has been affirmed in
several cases of this Court following Angara.
_______________
688
____________________________________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 64/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
SEPARATE OPINION
NARVASA, C.J.:
691
________________
694
request that could not have been made had not the
Senators more or less closely examined the provisions of
HB 11197 and compared them with those of the
counterpart Senate measures.
Were the proceedings before the bicameral conference
committee fatally flawed? The affirmative is suggested
because the committee allegedly overlooked or ignored the
fact that SB 1630 could not validly originate in the Senate,
and that HB 11197 and SB 1630 never properly passed
both chambers. The untenability of these contentions has
already been demonstrated. Now, demonstration of the
indefensibility of other arguments purporting to establish
the impropriety of the BCC proceedings will be attempted.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 70/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
2 Italics supplied.
695
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 71/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 72/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_________________
698
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 75/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
700
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 76/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
701
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 77/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 78/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 79/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
from them.
Moreover, it certainly was entirely within the power and
prerogative of either legislative chamber to reject the BCC
bill and require the organization of a new bicameral
conference committee. That this option was not exercised
by either house only proves that the BCC measure was
found to be acceptable as in fact it was approved and
adopted by both chambers.
I vote to DISMISS the petitions for lack of merit.
SEPARATE OPINION
CRUZ, J.:
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 81/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 83/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 84/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
this was not the case. The participation of the Senate was
not in proposing or concurring with amendments that
would have been incorporated in House Bill No. 11197. Its
participation was in originating its own Senate Bill No.
1630, which was not embodied in but merged with House
Bill No. 11197.
Senate Bill No. 1630 was not even an amendment by
substitution, assuming this was permissible. To
“substitute” means “to take the place of; to put or use in
place of another.” Senate Bill No. 1630 did not, upon its
approval, replace (and thus eliminate) House Bill No.
11197. Both bills retained their separate identities until
they were joined or united into what became the enrolled
bill and ultimately R.A. No. 7716.
708
SEPARATE OPINION
PADILLA, J.:
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 85/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_________________
709
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 86/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
2 Bautista v. Salonga, G.R. No. 86439, 13 April 1989, 172 SCRA 160.
3 Kapatiran, supra at 385.
710
II
The procedure followed in the approval of Rep. Act No.
7716 Petitioners however posit that the present case raises
a far-reaching constitutional question which the Court is
duty-bound to decide
4 under its expanded jurisdiction in the
1987 Constitution. Petitioners more specifically question
and impugn the manner by which the expanded VAT law
(Rep. Act No. 7716) was approved by Congress. They
contend that it was approved in violation of the
Constitution from which fact it follows, as a consequence,
that the law is null and void. Main reliance of the
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 87/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
711
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 88/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
“SEC. 26. x x x
(2) 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
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 89/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 90/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
714
between the two houses. Even where the conference committee is not by
rule limited in its jurisdiction, legislative custom severely limits the
freedom with which new subject matter can be inserted into the
conference bill. But occasionally a conference committee produces
unexpected results, results beyond its mandate. These excursions occur
even where the rules impose strict limitations on conference committee
jurisdiction. This is symptomatic of the authoritarian power of conference
committee (Davies, Legislative Law and Process: In A Nutshell, 1986 Ed.,
p. 81).’
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 91/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
“This Act (Rep. Act No. 7716) is a consolidation of House Bill No.
11197 and Senate Bill No. 1630 (w)as finally passed by the House
of Representatives and the Senate on April 27, 1994 and May 2,
1994 respectively.”
_______________
6 7 SCRA 347.
715
laid down the rule that the enrolled bill is conclusive upon the
Judiciary (except in matters that have to be entered in the7
journals like the yeas and nays on the final reading of the bill).
The journals are themselves also binding on the Supreme Court,
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 92/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
as we held in the old (but still valid) case of U.S. vs. Pons, where
we explained the reason thus:
‘To inquire into the veracity of the journals of the Philippine legislature
when they are, as we have said, clear and explicit, would be to violate
both the letter and spirit of the organic laws by which the Philippine
Government was brought into existence, to invade a coordinate and
independent department of the Government, and to interfere with the
legitimate powers and functions of the Legislature.’
III
_______________
716
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 93/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
regulation cannot amend the law (Rep. Act No. 7716). Only
legislation (as distinguished from administration
regulation) can amend an existing law.
Freedom of the press was virtually unknown in the
Philippines before 1900. In fact, a prime cause of the
revolution against Spain at the turn of the 19th century
was the repression of the freedom of speech and expression
and of the press. No less than our national hero, Dr. Jose P.
Rizal, in “Filipinas Despues de Cien Anos” (The Philippines
a Century Hence) describing the reforms sine quibus non
which the Filipinos were insisting upon, stated: “The
minister x x x who wants his reforms to be reforms, must 10
________________
717
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 94/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
IV
Petitions of CREBA and PAL and Rep. Act No. 7716
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 95/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
718
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 96/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
719
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 97/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
720
SEPARATE OPINION
VITUG, J.:
721
DISSENTING OPINION
REGALADO, J.:
722
_______________
1 In substitution of H.B. Nos. 253, 771, 2450, 7033, 8086, 9030, 9210,
9297, 10012 and 10100 which were filed over the period from July 22,
1992 to August 3, 1993.
2 P.S. Res. No. 734 had earlier been filed in the Senate on September
10, 1992, while S.B. No. 1129 was filed on March 1, 1993.
723
_______________
724
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 102/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
725
_______________
7 Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. (1951), 381, citing Fairview vs.
Durham, 45 Iowa 56.
726
Co., Inc. vs. Gimenez, etc., et al., Morales vs. Subido, etc.,
and Philippine 12 Judges Association, etc., et al. vs. Prado,
etc., et13 al., on the one hand, and Tañada, et al. vs. Cuenco,14
________________
727
________________
728
‘This Court is firmly committed to the holding that when the journals
speak they control, and against such proof the enrolled bill is not
conclusive.’ ”
_______________
17 Brailsford vs. Walker, 31 S.E. 2d 385, 387, 388, 205 S.C. 228.
18 110 So. 343, 346.
19 602 South Western Reporter, 2d Series, 402-425, jointly deciding
Carrollton Wholesale Tobaccos, Inc. et al. vs. Department of Revenue, et
al., and Bluegrass Provisions Co., Inc., et al. vs. Department of Revenue,
et al.
730
xxx
“x x x Under the enrolled bill doctrine as it now exists in
Kentucky, a court may not look behind such a bill, enrolled and
certified by the appropriate officers, to determine if there are any
defects.
xxx
“x x x In Lafferty, passage of the law in question violated this
provision, yet the bill was properly enrolled and approved by the
governor. In declining to look behind the law to determine the
propriety of its enactment, the court enunciated three reasons for
adopting the enrolled bill rule. First, the court was reluctant to
scrutinize the processes of the legislature, an equal branch of
government. Second, reasons of convenience prevailed, which
discouraged requiring the legislature to preserve its records and
anticipated considerable complex litigation if the court ruled
otherwise. Third, the court acknowledged the poor record-keeping
abilities of the General Assembly and expressed a preference for
accepting the final bill as enrolled, rather than opening up the
records of the legislature. x x x.
xxx
“Nowhere has the rule been adopted without reason, or as a
result of judicial whim. There are four historical bases for the
doctrine. (1) An enrolled bill was a ‘record’ and, as such, was not
subject to attack at common law. (2) Since the legislature is one of
the three branches of government, the courts, being coequal, must
indulge in every presumption that legislative acts are valid. (3)
When the rule was originally formulated, record-keeping of the
legislatures was so inadequate that a balancing of equities
required that the final act, the enrolled bill, be given efficacy. (4)
There were theories of convenience as expressed by the Kentucky
court in Lafferty.
“The rule is not unanimous in the several states, however, and
it has not been without its critics. From an examination of cases
and treaties, we can summarize the criticisms as follows: (1)
Artificial presumptions, especially conclusive ones, are not favored.
(2) Such a rule frequently (as in the present case) produces results
which do not accord with facts or constitutional provisions. (3) The
rule is conducive to fraud, forgery, corruption and other
wrongdoings. (4) Modern automatic and electronic record-keeping
devices now used by legislatures
731
remove one of the original reasons for the rule. (5) The rule
disregards the primary obligation of the courts to seek the truth
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 109/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
The force of the rule depends upon the nature of the question to be
decided and the extent of the disturbance of rights and practices which a
change in the interpretation of the law or the course of judicial opinions
may create. Cogent considerations are whether there is clear error and
urgent reasons ‘for neither justice nor wisdom requires a court to go from
one doubtful rule to another,’ and whether or not the evils of the principle
that has been followed will be more injurious than can possibly result
from a change.
732
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 110/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
DISSENTING OPINION
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 111/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
733
“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.”
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 112/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
734
“Apart from all others; only; solely; substantially all or for the
greater part. To the exclusion of all others; without admission of
others to participation; in a manner to exclude.”
3
committee;
_______________
2 Sixth Edition (1990), 565, citing Standard Oil Co. of Texas vs. State,
Tex. Civ. App., 142 S.W.2d 519, 521, 522, 523.
3 21 SCRA 665, 673 [1967].
4 Sections 52 and 53, Rule XXIII.
735
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 114/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
736
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 115/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
737
“SEC. 51. Prior to their final approval, bills and joint resolutions
shall be read at least three times.”
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 116/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
“SEC. 26. In the event that the Senate does not agree with the
House of Representatives on the provision of any bill or joint
resolution, the differences shall be settled by a conference
committee of both Houses which shall meet within ten days after
its composition.”
and Section 85, Rule XIV of the Rules of the House which
reads:
_________________
13 Volume I, Eight Edition, Chapter VI, 267. See Miller vs. Mardo, 2
SCRA 898 [1961]; Everlasting Pictures, Inc. vs. Fuentes, 3 SCRA 539
[1961].
738
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 117/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
739
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 118/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
740
on and acted upon was SB No. 1129 and not HB No. 11197.
The latter, instead of being the only measure to be taken
up, deliberated upon, and reported back to the Senate for
its consideration on second reading and, eventually, on
third reading, was, at the most, merely given by the
Committee a passing glance.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 119/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
741
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 120/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
“The Senate has the power to amend a revenue bill. This power to
amend is not confined to the elimination of provisions contained
in the original act, but embraces as well the addition of such
provisions thereto as may render the original act satisfactory to
the body which is called upon to support it. It has, in fact, been
held that the substitution of an entirely new measure for the one
originally proposed can be supported as a valid amendment.
xxx xxx xxx
It is contended in the first place that this section of the act is
unconstitutional, because it is a revenue measure, and originated
in the Senate in violation of section 7 of article 1 of the
Constitution, providing that ‘all bills for raising revenue shall
originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may
propose or concur with the amendments, as on other bills.’ ”
_______________
742
x x x
The Senate has the power to amend a revenue bill. This power
to amend is not confined to the elimination of provisions
contained in the original act, but embraces as well the addition of
such provisions thereto as may render the original act satisfactory
to the body which is called upon to support it. It has, in fact, been
held that the substitution of an entirely new measure for the one
originally proposed can be supported as a valid amendment.
Brake v. Collison, 122 Fed. 722.
Mr. James L. Quackenbush filed a statement for appellees in
No. 442.
Solicitor General Lehmann (by special leave) argued the cause
for the United States on reargument.
Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:
743
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 122/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 123/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
“Any bill may make its first appearance in either house, except
only that bills for raising revenue are required by the constitution
to ‘originate’ in the House of Representatives. Indeed, through its
right to amend revenue bills, even to the extent of substituting
new ones, the
________________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 124/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
745
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 125/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
29 At 317.
746
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 126/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
747
_______________
748
83, Rule XIV of the Rules of the House, it is only when the
Senate shall have approved with amendments HB No.
11197 and the House declines to accept the amendments
after having been notified thereof that the request for a
conference may be made by the House, not by the Senate.
Conversely, the Senate’s request for a conference would
only be proper if, following the transmittal of SB No. 1630
to the House, it was approved by the latter with
amendments but the Senate rejected the amendments.
Indisputably then, when the request for a bicameral
conference was made by the Senate, SB No. 1630 was not
yet transmitted to the House for consideration on three
readings and HB No. 11197 was still in the Senate
awaiting consideration on second and third readings. Their
referral to the bicameral conference committee was
palpably premature and, in so doing, both the Senate and
the House acted without authority or with grave abuse of
discretion. Nothing, and absolutely nothing, could have
been validly acted upon by the bicameral conference
committee.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 128/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
749
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 129/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
34 Page 22.
750
_______________
751
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 131/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
37 ISAGANI A. CRUZ, Philippine Political Law, 1991 ed., 226; Daza vs.
Singson, 180 SCRA 496 [1989]; Coseteng vs. Mitra, 187 SCRA 377 [1990];
Gonzales vs. Macaraig, 191 SCRA 452 [1990]; Llamas vs. Orbos, 202 SCRA 844
[1991]; Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Com- mittee, 203 SCRA 767 [1991]; Oposa
vs. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 [1993].
38 56 SCRA 714, 719, 723 [1974].
39 78 Phil. 1 [1947].
753
State Constitution, said that the same ‘makes it clear that the
indispensable step in the passage’ and it follows that if a bill,
otherwise fully enacted as a law, is not attested by the presiding
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 133/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
officer, other proof that it has ‘passed both houses will satisfy the
constitutional requirement.’ ”
DISSENTING OPINION
ROMERO, J.:
________________
754
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 134/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
755
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 135/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 L-81311, June 30, 1988, 163 SCRA 371 with Justice Teodoro R.
Padilla as ponente.
756
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 136/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
5 Ibid at 378.
6 Ibid at 385.
7 Senate Resolution No. 734 filed on September 10, 1992 was entitled
“Resolution Urging the House Committee on Ways and Means to Study
the Proposal to Exempt Local Movie Producers from the Payment of the
Value-Added Tax as an Incentive to the Production of Quality and
Wholesome Filipino Movies, Whenever They Feature an All-Filipino Cast
of Actors and Actresses.”
8 SB No. 1129 sought to include under the VAT Law such items as lease
of real properties, excluding agricultural lands and residential properties
with monthly rentals of less than P10,000.00; hotels; restaurants, eating
places, caterers; services by persons in the exercise of their professions;
actors, actresses, talents, singers and professional athletes; and lawyers,
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 137/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
757
We now trace the course taken by H.B. No. 11197 and S.B.
No. 1129.
HB/SB No.
HB No. 11197 was approved in the Lower — November
House on second reading 11, 1993
HB No. 11197 was approved in the Lower — November
House on third reading and voted upon 17, 1993
with 114 Yeas and 12 Nays —
November
18, 1993
HB No. 11197 was transmitted to the — February
Senate Senate Committee on Ways and 7, 1994
Means submitted Com. Report No. 349
recommending for approval SB No. 1630 in
substitution of SB No. 1129, taking into
consideration
11 PS Res. No. 734 and HB No.
11197
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 138/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
10 House Bill No. 11197 is entitled “An Act Restructuring the Value-
Added Tax (VAT) System to Widen its Tax Base and Enhance Its
Administration, Amending for these Purposes Sections 99, 100, 102, 103,
104, 105, 106, 107, 108 and 110 of Title IV, 112, 115 and 116 of Title V,
and 236, 237, and 238 of Title IX and Repealing Sections 113 and 114 of
Title V, all of the National Internal Revenue Code, as Amended.”
11 Senate Bill No. 1630 is entitled “An Act Restructuring The Value-
Added Tax (VAT) System to Widen its Tax Base and Enhance Its
Administration, Amending for these Purposes Sections 99, 100, 102, 103,
104, 105, 107, 108 and 110 of Title IV, 112 of Title V, and 236, 237 and 238
of Title IX, and Repealing Sections 113, 114 and 116 of Title V, all of the
National Internal Revenue Code, as Amended, and for other Purposes.”
758
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 139/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
Does Republic Act No.13 7716 violate Article VI, Section 24,
of the Constitution?
________________
12 Republic Act No. 7716 is entitled “An Act Restructuring The Value-
Added Tax (VAT) System, Widening Its Tax Base And Enhancing Its
Administration, And For These Purposes Amending And Repealing The
Relevant Provisions Of The National Internal Revenue Code, as amended,
and for other purposes.”
13 Article VI, Section 24: “All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills
authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and
759
Does it violate
14 Article VI, Section 26, paragraph 2, of the
Constitution?
What is the extent of the power of the Bicameral
Conference Committee?
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Does the law violate the following provisions in Article III
(Bill of Rights) of the Constitution:
15
1. Section 116
2. Section 417
3. Section 5 18
4. Section 10
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 140/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately
thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.”
15 Article III, Section 1: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws.”
16 Article III, Section 4: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom
of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances.”
17 Article III, Section 5: “No law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference,
shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise
of civil or political rights.”
18 Article III, Section 10: “No law impairing the obligation of contracts
shall be passed.”
760
_______________
761
determination23 of the case itself, the same being the lis mota
of the case.
Having assured ourselves that the above-cited requisites
are present in the instant petitions, we proceed to take
them up.
_______________
762
(a) The bill which became Republic Act No. 7716 did
not originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives. The Senate, after receiving H.B.
No. 11197, submitted its own bill, S.B. No. 1630,
and proceeded to vote and approve the same after
second and third readings.
(b) The Senate exceeded its authority to “propose or
concur with amendments” when it submitted its
own bill, S.B. No. 1630, recommending its approval
“in substitution of S.B. No. 1129, taking into
consideration P.S. Res. No. 734 and H.B. No.
11197.”
(c) H.B. No. 11197 was not deliberated upon by the
Senate. Neither was it voted upon by the Senate on
second and third readings, as what was voted upon
was S.B. No. 1630.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 143/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
763
‘All bills appropriating public funds, revenue or tariff bills, bills of local
application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the Assembly,
but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. In case of
disapproval by the Senate of any such bills, the Assembly may repass the
same by a two-thirds vote of all its members, and thereupon, the bill so
repassed shall be deemed enacted and may be submitted to the President
for corresponding action. In the event that the Senate should fail to
finally act on any such bills, the Assembly may, after thirty days from the
opening of the next regular sessions of the same legislative term,
reapprove the same with a vote of two-thirds of all the members of the
Assembly. And upon such reapproval, the bill shall be deemed enacted
and may be submitted to the president for corresponding action.’
764
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 145/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
765
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 146/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
766
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 147/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
The youth sector embraces persons not more than twenty-five years of
age.” (Volume Two, CONCOM RECORD, p. 564).
28 City Mayor, et al. v. The Chief, Philippine Constabulary and Col.
Nicanor Garcia, L-20346, October 31, 1967, 21 SCRA 673.
767
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 148/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
When you say that according to the Constitution such Revenue Bills should
originate exclusively from the House. In this instance, did it not originally
originate exclusively from the House?
The word used was not “solely”; if there were Bills later also introduced, let
us say in the Senate, but the House Bill came ahead.
So, are you using the two (2) words originate “exclusively” and “solely”
synonymously?
SENATOR TOLENTINO:
A—The verb “originate” remains the same, Your Honor, but the word
“exclusively,” as I said, means “solely.” x x x
768
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 149/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
House Bill Nos. 253, 771, 2450, 7033, 8086, 9030, 9210,
9297, 10012 and 10100 were intended to restructure the
VAT system by exempting or imposing the tax on certain
items or otherwise
30 introducing reforms in the mechanics of
implementation. Of these, House Bill No. 9210 was
favored with a Presidential certification on the need for its
immediate enactment to meet a public emergency. Easily
the most comprehensive, it noted that the revenue
performance of the VAT, being far from satisfactory since
the collections have always fallen short of projections, “the
system is rendered inefficient, inequitable and less
comprehensive.” Hence, the Bill proposed several
amendments designed to widen31 the tax base of the VAT
and enhance its administration.
That House Bill No. 11197 being a revenue bill,
originated from the Lower House was acknowledged, in
fact was virtually taken for granted, by the Chairmen of
the Committee on Ways and Means of both the House of
Representatives and the Senate. Consequently, at the April
19, 1994 meeting of the Bicameral Conference Committee,
the Members agreed to make the House Bill as the “frame
of reference” or “base” of the discussions of the Bicameral
Conference Committee with the “amendments”
32 or
“insertions to emanate from the Senate.”
________________
30 H.B. 771—exempting the sale of copra from VAT coverage; H.B. 2450
—exempting the lessors or distributors of cinematographic films from
paying the VAT; H.B. 7033—amending Sec. 103 of the National Internal
Revenue Code, as amended by EO 273; H.B. 8086—exempting packaging
materials of export products from the VAT; H.B. 9030—amending Sec. 120
of the NIRC, as renumbered by EO 273; H.B. 9210—amending Title IV
and Sections 237 and 238 of the NIRC; H.B. 9297—restructuring the VAT
system by expanding its tax base, and amending Sections 99, 100 (A), 102
(A), 103, 113, 114, 115 and 116 of the NIRC; H.B. 10012—reducing the
rate of VAT imposed on sale and importation of goods, and sale of services;
H.B. 10100—amending certain provisions of the NIRC on VAT.
31 Explanatory Note of House Bill No. 9210.
32 Excerpts from the April 19, 1994 meeting of the Bicameral
Conference Committee: “CHAIRMAN Javier. First of all, what would be
the basis, no, or framework para huwag naman mawala yung personality
namin dito sa bicameral, no, because the bill originates from the House
because this is a revenue bill, so we would just want to ask, we make the
House Bill as the frame of reference, and then
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 150/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
769
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 151/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
770
_______________
771
________________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 153/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
772
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 154/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
773
“Each house shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time
to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its
judgment, affect national security; and the yeas and nays on any
question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present,
be entered in the Journal.
Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.” (Italics
supplied)
_______________
774
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 156/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
775
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 157/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
“Passing over the question of whether the printed Act (No. 2381),
published by authority of law, is conclusive evidence as to the
date when it was passed, we will inquire whether the courts may
go behind the legislative journals for the purpose of determining
the date43 of adjournment when such journals are clear and
explicit.”
________________
776
“From their very nature and object, the records of the Legislature
are as important as those of the judiciary, and to inquire into the
veracity of the journals of the Philippine Legislature, when they
are, as we have said clear and explicit, would be to violate both
the letter and the spirit of the organic laws by which the
Philippine Government was brought into existence, to invade a
coordinate and independent department of the Government, and
to interfere 44with the legitimate powers and functions of the
Legislature.”
_______________
44 Ibid at 733-734.
45 Ibid at 735.
46 78 Phil. 1 (1947).
47 Ibid at 3.
777
_______________
48 Ibid at 18.
49 117 Phil. 363 (1963).
778
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 160/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
779
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 161/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
780
and
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 162/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
781
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 163/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
“SEC. 26. In the event that the Senate does not agree with the
House of Representatives on the provision of any bill or joint
resolution, the differences shall be settled by a conference
committee of both Houses which shall meet within ten days after
their composition.
The President shall designate the members of the conference
committee in accordance with subparagraph (c), Section 8 of Rule
III.
Each Conference Committee Report shall contain a detailed
and sufficiently explicit statement of the changes in or
amendments to the subject measure, and shall be signed by the
conferees.
The consideration of such report shall not be in order unless
the report has been filed with the Secretary of the Senate and
copies thereof have been distributed to the Members.”
782
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 164/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
58 Page 261.
59 Page 268.
60 Davies, supra, at 65.
61 Sec. 764, p. 541.
62 Consolidated Memorandum for Respondents, p. 71.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 165/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
783
________________
784
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 167/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
785
3. Section 102
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 168/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 169/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
5. Section 104
6. Section 107
7. Section 112
8. Section 115
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 170/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
9. Section 117
788
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 171/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
65 See: 18 Words and Phrases 482 citing Kennedy v. Truss, Del. Super.,
13 A. 2nd 431, 435, 1 Terry 424 (1940).
66 United States Gypsum Co. v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 110 N.W. 2d
698, 71, 363, Mich. 548 (1961).
789
_________________
67 BLACK’s DICTIONARY, 6th ed., p. 687 citing State ex. rel. Riley v.
District Court of Second Judicial Dist. in and for Silver Bow County, 103
Mont. 576, 64 P. 2d 115, 119 (1937).
68 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, May 3, 1952, p. 885 cited in Orquiola,
Annotated Rules of the Senate, 1991 ed., pp. 40-41.
790
5th Ed., 1979, which means “to change or modify for the
better; to alter by modification, deletion, or addition,” said
insertions and deletions constitute amendments.
Consequently, these violated Article VI, Section 26 (2)
which provides inter alia: “Upon the last reading of a bill,
no amendment thereto shall be allowed . . .” This
proscription is intended to subject all bills and their
amendments to intensive deliberation by the legislators
and the ample ventilation of issues to afford the public an
opportunity to express their opinions or objections issues to
afford the public an opportunity to express their opinions
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 173/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
791
________________
792
_______________
793
_______________
794
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 177/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
of Senate Bill No. 720 or of House Bill No. 4200 but only in
the Conference Committee Report, was violative of Article
VI, Section 26 (2) of the Constitution. Likewise, that said
Section 35, never having been a subject of disagreement
between both Houses, could not have been validly added as
an amendment before the Conference Committee.
The majority opinion in said case explained:
“While it is true that a conference committee is the
mechanism for compromising differences between the
Senate and the House, it is not limited in its jurisdiction to
this question. Its broader function is described thus:
________________
795
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 178/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_________________
74 In Osmeña, Jr. v. Pendatun, (109 Phil. 863 [1960]), the Court held
that parliamentary rules are merely procedural and they may be waived
or disregarded by the legislative body. Hence, 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.
75 State v. Essling, 128 N.W. 2d 307, 316 (1964).
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 179/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
796
________________
797
798
DISSENTING OPINION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 182/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
Representatives.”
Since the term “exclusively” has already been
adequately defined in the various opinions, as to which
there seems to be no dispute, I shall no longer offer my own
definition.
Verily, the provision in our Constitution requiring that
all revenue bills shall originate exclusively from the Lower
House is mandatory. The word “exclusively” is an
“exclusive word,” which 1is indicative of an intent that the
provision is mandatory. Hence, all American authorities
expounding on the meaning and application of Sec. 7, par.
(1), Art. I, of the U.S. Constitution cannot be used in the
interpretation of Sec. 24, Art. VI, of our 1987 Constitution
which has a distinct feature of “exclusiveness” all its own.
Thus, when our Constitution absolutely requires—as it is
mandatory—that a particular bill should exclusively
emanate from the Lower House, there is no alternative to
the requirement that the bill to become valid law must
originate exclusively from that House.
In the interpretation of constitutions, questions
frequently arise as to whether particular sections are
mandatory or directory. The courts usually hesitate to
declare that a constitutional provision is directory merely
in view of the tendency of the legislature to disregard
provisions which are not said to be mandatory. Accordingly,
it is the general rule to regard constitutional provisions as
mandatory, and not to leave any discretion to the will of
the legislature to obey or disregard them. This presumption
as to mandatory quality is usually followed unless it is
unmistakably manifest that the provisions are intended to
be merely directory. So strong is the inclination in favor of
giving obligatory force to the terms of the organic law that
it has even been said that neither by the courts nor by any
other department of the government may any provision of
the Constitution be regarded as merely directory, but that
each and everyone of its provisions should be treated as
imperative and mandatory, without reference to the rules
and distinguishing2 between the directory and the
mandatory statutes.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 183/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
800
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 184/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
Thus in 1883 the upper house struck out everything after the
enacting clause of a tariff bill and wrote its own measure, which
the House eventually felt obliged to accept. It likewise added 847
amendments to the Payne-Aldrich tariff act of 1909, dictated the
schedules of the emergency tariff act of 1921, rewrote an
extensive tax revision bill in the same year, and recast most of the
permanent tariff
________________
3 See Majority Opinion, p. 15, citing Rainey v. United States, 232 U.S., 309, 58
Law Ed. 617.
801
bill of 1922 —
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 185/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
802
_______________
804
DISSENTING OPINION
PUNO, J.:
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 189/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
806
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 190/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
A. The H.B., S.B., and the BCC (R.A. 7716) all included sale of
PROPERTIES as subject to VAT.
The term GOODS or PROPERTIES includes the following:
________________
807
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 191/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
808
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 192/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
809
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 193/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
V On Section 104
VI On Section 107
While both the Senate and House Bills provide that a person
whose sales or receipts and are exempt under Section 103[w] of
the Code, and who are not VAT registered shall pay a tax
equivalent to THREE (3) PERCENT of his gross quarterly sales
or receipts, the BCC inserted the phrase: THREE PERCENT
UPON THE EFFECTIVITY OF THIS ACT AND FOUR
PERCENT (4%) TWO YEARS THEREAFTER.
810
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 194/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
IX On Section 117
This Section has not been touched by either Senate and House
Bills. But the BCC amended it by subjecting franchises on
ELECTRIC, GAS and WATER UTILITIES A TAX OF TWO
PERCENT (2%) ON GROSS RECEIPTS DERIVED x x x.
X On Section 121
XI Others
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 195/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
811
thereof.
“In the event that the Senate does not agree with the House of
Representatives on the provision of any bill or joint resolution, the
differences shall be settled by a conference committee of both
Houses
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 196/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
3 See p. 66 of the Consolidated Memorandum for Respondents where they refer
to certain statements from Canlan, Weightson and Beam but without citing their
specific book or article.
812
“In the event that the House does not agree with the Senate on the
amendments to any bill or joint resolution, the differences may be
settled by a conference committee of both chambers.
x x x. Each report shall contain a detailed, sufficiently explicit
statement of the changes in or amendments to the subject
measure.” (Emphasis supplied)
4
________________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 197/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
5 See p. 22, Memorandum of Petitioners in G.R. No. 115781 citing Jefferson’s
Manual and Rules of the House of Representatives, by Lewis Deschler,
Parliamentarian, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967, p. 264.
6 Ibid, citing Riddick, Senate Procedure: Precedents and Practices, US Senate,
1981, US Government Printing Office, pp. 383-384.
813
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 198/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
814
________________
815
________________
816
________________
817
“x x x
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 202/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
a. Constitutional rules.
b. Statutory rules or charter provisions.
c. Adopted rules.
d. Judicial decisions.
e. Adopted parliamentary authority.
f. Parliamentary law.
g. Customs and usages.
_______________
11 Legislative Law and Process in a Nut Shell, West Publishing Co., 1986 ed., p.
81.
12 Ibid.
13 Manual of Legislative Procedure for Legislative and other Governmental
Bodies, McGraw Hill Co., Inc., 1953 ed., pp. 32-33.
818
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 203/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
“x x x.
Where the failure of constitutional compliance in the
enactment of statutes is not discoverable from the face of the act
itself but may be demonstrated by recourse to the legislative
journals, debates, committee reports or papers of the governor,
courts have used several conflicting theories with which to dispose
of the issue. They have held: (1) that the enrolled bill is conclusive
and like the sheriff’s return cannot be attacked; (2) that the
enrolled bill is prima facie correct and only in case the legislative
journal shows affirmative contradiction of the constitutional
requirement will the bill be held invalid, (3) that although the
enrolled bill is prima facie correct, evidence from the journals, or
other extrinsic sources is admissible to strike the bill down; (4)
that the legislative journal is conclusive and the enrolled bill is
valid only if it
_______________
14 82 CJS 136.
15 Statutory Construction, 3rd ed., Vol. I., p. 223.
819
820
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 205/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
“x x x.
If for no other reason than that it conforms to the expressed
policy of our law making body, we choose to follow the rule.
Section 313 of the old Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act
No. 2210, provides: ‘Official documents’ may be proved as follows:
* * * (2) the proceedings of the Philippine Commission, or of any
legislative body that may be provided for in the Philippine
Islands, or of Congress, by the journals of those bodies or of either
house thereof, or by published statutes or resolutions, or by copies
certified by the clerk or secretary, or printed by their order;
Provided, That in the case of Acts of the Philippine Commission or
the Philippine Legislature, when there is an existence of a copy
signed by the presiding officers and secretaries of said bodies, it
shall be conclusive proof of the provisions of such Acts and of the
due enactment thereof.”
________________
16 Op. cit., pp. 224-225 citing Barndall Refining v. Welsh, 64 S.D. 647,
269 N.W. 853, 859 [1936]. Jones, Constitutional Provisions Regulating the
Mechanics of Enactment in Iowa (1935), 21 Iowa Law Rev. 79, Charlton,
Constitutional Regulation of Legislative Procedure (1936), 21 Iowa Law
Rev. 538; Note (1936) 21 Iowa Law Rev. 573.
17 See Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. Rep. 1 [1947]; Casco Phil.
Chemical Co. v. Gimenez, L-17931, February 28, 1963; Morales v. Subido,
No. L-29658, February 27, 1969, 27 SCRA 131; Phil. Judges Association v.
Prado, G.R. No. 105371, November 11, 1993.
821
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 206/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
822
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 207/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
“x x x.
x x x In other words, the judiciary is the final arbiter on the
question of whether or not a branch of government or any of its
officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction,
or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion
amounting to excess of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial
power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature.
This is the background of paragraph 2 of Section 1, which
means that the courts cannot hereafter evade the duty to settle
matters of this nature, by claiming that such matters constitute
political question.” (Emphasis ours)
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 208/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
20 Article VIII, section 2.
21 Article VIII, section 3.
823
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 209/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
23 Article VIII, section 9.
24 Article VIII, section 4(1).
25 Article VIII, section 9.
26 Article VIII, section 6.
27 Article VIII, section 12.
28 Article VII, section 18.
824
———o0o———
826
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 211/212
2/15/24, 7:48 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018dac9e2d449c6997fe000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 212/212