G.R. No. 127255.

August 14, 1997

JOKER P. ARROYO, EDCEL C. LAGMAN, JOHN HENRY R. OSMEA, WIGBERTO E. TAADA, and
RONALDO B. ZAMORA, petitioners, vs. JOSE DE VENECIA, RAUL DAZA, RODOLFO ALBANO, THE
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, AND THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents.
Issue: Challenging the validity of Republic Act No. 8240, which amends certain provisions of the National
Internal Revenue Code by imposing so-called sin taxes (actually specific taxes) on the manufacture and
sale of beer and cigarettes.
Facts:
1.) H. No. 7198 originating from the House of Representatives was approved on third
reading on September 12, 1996 and transmitted on September 16, 1996 to the Senate which
approved it with certain amendments on third reading on November 17, 1996.
2.) A bicameral conference committee was formed to reconcile the disagreeing provisions of
the House and Senate versions of the bill. The bicameral conference committee submitted its
report to the House at 8 a.m. on November 21, 1996.
3.) Rep. Exequiel Javier delivered his sponsorship speech. Rep. Rogelio Sarmiento
interpellated. Rep. Arroyo moved to adjourn for lack of quorum. Rep. Antonio Cuenco objected to
the motion and asked for a head count. After a roll call, the Chair (Deputy Speaker Raul Daza)
declared the presence of a quorum. Rep. Arroyo appealed the ruling of the Chair, but his motion
was defeated when put to a vote. The interpellation of the sponsor thereafter proceeded.
4.) Rep. Arroyo announced that he was going to raise a question on the quorum.
5.) The bill was signed despite Senator Arroyos objection.
6.) 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 as having
been finally passed by the House of Representatives and by the Senate on November 21,
1996. The enrolled bill was signed into law by President Fidel V. Ramos on November 22, 1996.
7.) Section 16 (3) Article VI, The courts cannot declare an act of the legislature void on
account of noncompliance with rules of procedure made by itself to govern its deliberations.
8.) Art. VIII, 1 this Courts function is merely [to] check whether or not the governmental
branch or agency has gone beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction, not that it erred or
has a different view. In the absence of a showing . . . [of] grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction, there is no occasion for the Court to exercise its corrective power. . . . It has no
power to look into what it thinks is apparent error.
9.) The case at hand does not present a situation in which a branch of the government has
gone beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction so as to call for the exercise of our Art. VIII,
1 power.
Held: The Court must assume that Congress or any House thereof acted in the good faith belief that its
conduct was permitted by its rules. Petition for certiorari and prohibition is DISMISSED.