Arroyo vs. De Venecia G.R. No.

127255, August 14, 1997

Facts: A petition was filed challenging the validity of RA 8240, which
amends certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code.
Petitioners, who are members of the House of Representatives, charged
that there is violation of the rules of the House which petitioners claim
are constitutionally-mandated so that their violation is tantamount to a
violation
of
the
Constitution.
The law originated in the House of Representatives. The Senate approved
it with certain amendments. A bicameral conference committee was
formed to reconcile the disagreeing provisions of the House and Senate
versions of the bill. The bicameral committee submitted its report to the
House. During the interpellations, Rep. Arroyo made an interruption and
moved to adjourn for lack of quorum. But after a roll call, the Chair
declared the presence of a quorum. The interpellation then proceeded.
After Rep. Arroyos interpellation of the sponsor of the committee report,
Majority Leader Albano moved for the approval and ratification of the
conference committee report. The Chair called out for objections to the
motion. Then the Chair declared: There being none, approved. At the
same time the Chair was saying this, Rep. Arroyo was asking, What is
thatMr. Speaker? The Chair and Rep. Arroyo were talking
simultaneously. Thus, although Rep. Arroyo subsequently objected to the
Majority Leaders motion, the approval of the conference committee
report had by then already been declared by the Chair.
On the same day, the bill was signed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President of the Senate and certified by the
respective secretaries of both Houses of Congress. The enrolled bill was
signed
into
law
by
President
Ramos.
Issue: Whether or not RA 8240 is null and void because it was passed in
violation
of
the
rules
of
the
House
Held:
Rules of each House of Congress are hardly permanent in character. 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 has agreed to a particular measure. But
this is subject to qualification. Where the construction to be given to a
rule affects person 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.
In the case, no rights of private individuals are involved but only those of
a member who, instead of seeking redress in the House, chose to transfer
the
dispute
to
the
Court.
The matter complained of concerns a matter of internal procedure of the
House with which the Court should not be concerned. 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. Arroyos
earlier motion to adjourn for lack of quorum had already been defeated,
as the roll call established the existence of a quorum. The question of
quorum cannot be raised repeatedly especially when the quorum is
obviously present for the purpose of delaying the business of the House.