7/9/2019 G.R. No. 118303 January 31, 1996 - HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ v. TEOFISTO T.

GUINGONA : JANUARY 1996 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME …

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1996 > January 1996 Decisions > G.R. No. 118303 January 31,
1996 - HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA:

Custom Search
Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 118303. January 31, 1996.]

SENATOR HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ, SENATOR JOSE D. LINA, JR., MR. NICASIO B. BAUTISTA, MR.
JESUS P. GONZAGA, MR. SOLOMON D. MAYLEM, LEONORA C. MEDINA, CASIANO S. ALIPON,
Petitioners, v. HON. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., in his capacity as Executive Secretary, HON.
RAFAEL ALUNAN, in his capacity as Secretary of Local Government, HON. SALVADOR
ENRIQUEZ, in his capacity as Secretary of Budget, THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, HON. JOSE
MIRANDA, in his capacity as Municipal Mayor of Santiago and HON. CHARITO MANUBAY, HON.
VICTORINO MIRANDA, JR., HON. ARTEMIO ALVAREZ, HON. DANILO VERGARA, HON. PETER DE
JESUS, HON. NELIA NATIVIDAD, HON. CELSO CALEON and HON. ABEL MUSNGI, in their capacity
as SANGGUNIANG BAYAN MEMBERS, MR. RODRIGO L. SANTOS, in his capacity as Municipal
Treasurer, and ATTY. ALFREDO S. DIRIGE, in his capacity as Municipal Administrator,
Respondents.

Belo, Gozon, Elma, Parel, Asuncion & Lucila, for Petitioners.

Rene P. Pine, for Private Respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE; LOCAL GOVERNMENT, CONSTRUED. — A local

Government Unit is a political subdivision of the State which is constituted by law and possessed of
substantial control over its own affairs. Remaining to be an intra sovereign subdivision of one sovereign
DebtKollect Company, Inc. nation, but not intended, however, to be an emperium in emperia, the local government unit is
autonomous in the sense that it is given more powers, authority, responsibilities and resources.

2. ID.; ID.; INCOME DEFINED. — Income is defined in the Local Government Code to be all revenues and
receipts collected or received forming the gross accretions of funds of the local government unit.

3. ID.; ID.; INTERNAL REVENUE ALLOTMENT (IRA) ARE ITEMS OF INCOME. — The IRAs are items of
income because they form part of the gross accretion of the funds of the local government unit. The IRAs
regularly and automatically accrue to the local treasury without need of any further action on the part of
the local government unit. They thus constitute income which the local government can invariably rely
upon as the source of much needed funds.

4. ID.; ID.; ANNUAL INCOME DEFINED. — Department of Finance Order No. 35-93 correctly encapsulizes
the full import of the above disquisition when it defined ANNUAL INCOME to be "revenues and receipts
realized by provinces, cities and municipalities from regular sources of the Local General Fund including
the internal revenue allotment and other shares provided for in Sections 284, 290 and 291 of the Code,
but exclusive of n.on.-recurring receipts, such as other national aids, grants, financial assistance, loan
proceeds, sales of fixed assets, and similar others" (Emphasis ours).

5. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; ORDER CONSTITUTING EXECUTIVE OR CONTEMPORANEOUS

ChanRobles Intellectual Property CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUTE BY ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CHARGED WITH THE TASK OF
Division INTERPRETING THE SAME, ENTITLED TO FULL RESPECT. — Such order, constituting executive or
contemporaneous construction of a statute by an administrative agency charged with the task of
interpreting and applying the same, is entitled to full respect and should be accorded great weight by the

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1996januarydecisions.php?id=57 1/5
7/9/2019 G.R. No. 118303 January 31, 1996 - HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA : JANUARY 1996 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME …
January-1996 Jurisprudence                  must clearly and fully establish the basis that will justify such a declaration; otherwise, their petition must
Adm. Matter No. P-94-1032 January 18, 1996 -
FELICIDAD V. MORALES v. JULIO G. TARONGOY
G.R. No. 104528 January 18, 1996 - PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
G.R. No. 113349 January 18, 1996 - ROBERTO
MONDONEDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 116524 January 18, 1996 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. LYNDON M. FLORES
G.R. No. 116719 January 18, 1996 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO AMIGO
G.R. No. 118771 January 18, 1996 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO T. ABRENICA
Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1064 January 22, 1996 -
EMILIA B. HERNANDEZ v. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN
G.R. No. 102874 January 22, 1996 - MACARIO R.
LOPEZ v. LOURDES C. JAVIER, ET AL.
G.R. No. 104482 January 22, 1996 - BELINDA
TAÑEDO v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 108538 January 22, 1996 - LOURDES A.
VALMONTE v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 109404 January 22, 1996 - FLORENCIO
EUGENIO v. FRANKLIN Y. DRILON
G.R. No. 111212 January 22, 1996 - GEORGE
ANDERSON v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 117051 January 22, 1996 - FRANCEL
REALTY CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 110592 January 23, 1996 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. YOLANDA VELASCO PAMINTUAN
G.R. No. 52267 January 24, 1996 - ENGINEERING &
MACHINERY CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 87110 January 24, 1996 - GIL RUBIO v.
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
G.R. No. 98197 January 24, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. DANILO MAGSOMBOL
G.R. No. 111929 January 24, 1996 - AMERICAN
HOME ASSURANCE CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION
G.R. No. 112659 January 24, 1996 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. SUCHINDA LEANGSIRI
G.R. No. 114333 January 24, 1996 - PANTRANCO
NORTH EXPRESS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION
G.R. No. 114972 January 24, 1996 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO S. CASTANEDA
G.R. No. 115849 January 24, 1996 - FIRST
PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL BANK, ET AL. v. COURT
OF APPEALS
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1996januarydecisions.php?id=57
courts, unless such construction is clearly shown to be in sharp conflict with the Constitution, the
governing statute, or other laws.
6. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; LEGISLATIVE; BILL CONVERTING MUNICIPALITY TO CITY MUST ORIGINATE
FROM THE HOUSE; PASSING OF SUBSEQUENT BILL COVERING THE SAME MUNICIPALITY, NO ADVERSE
EFFECT. — Although a bill of local application like HB No. 8817 should, by constitutional prescription,
originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, the claim of petitioners that Republic Act No. 7720
did not originate exclusively in the House of Representatives because a bill of the same import, SB No.
1243, was passed in the Senate, is untenable because it cannot be denied that HB No. 8817 was filed in
the House of Representatives first before SB No. 1243 was filed in the Senate. Petitioners themselves
cannot disavow their own admission that HB No. 8817 was filed on April 18, 1993 while SB No. 1243 was
filed on May 19, 1993. The filing of HB No. 8817 was thus precursive not only of the said Act in question
but also of SB No. 1243. Thus, HB No. 8817, was the bill that initiated the legislative process that
culminated in the enactment of Republic Act No. 7720. No violation of Section 24, Article VI, of the 1987
Constitution is perceptible under the circumstances attending the instant controversy.
7. ID.; ID.; FILING IN THE SENATE OF A SUBSTITUTE BILL IN ANTICIPATION OF ITS RECEIPT OF THE
HOUSE BILL WITHOUT ACTING THEREON DOES NOT CONTRAVENE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT. —
Petitioners themselves acknowledge that HB No. 8817 was already approved on Third Reading and duly
transmitted to the Senate when the Senate Committee on Local Government conducted its public hearing
on HB No. 8817. HB No. 8817 was approved on the Third Reading on December 17, 1993 and transmitted
to the Senate on January 28, 1994; a little less than a month thereafter, or on February 23, 1994, the
Senate Committee on Local Government conducted public hearings on SB No. 1243. Clearly, the Senate
held in abeyance any action on SB No. 1243 until it received HB No. 8817, already approved on the Third
Reading, from the House of Representatives. The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of
its receipt of the bill from the House, does not contravene the constitutional requirement that a bill of local
application should originate in the House of Representatives, for as long as the Senate does not act
thereupon until it receives the House bill.
8. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS; EVERY LAW IS PRESUMED CONSTITUTIONAL;
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF R.A. 7720 NOT OVERCOME IN CASE AT BAR. — It is a well-entrenched
jurisprudential rule that on the side of every law lies the presumption of constitutionality. Consequently,
for RA No. 7720 to be nullified, it must be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the
Constitution, not merely a doubtful and equivocal one; in other words, the grounds for nullity must be
clear and beyond reasonable doubt. Those who petition this court to declare a law to be unconstitutional
fail. Taking into consideration the justification of our stand on the immediately preceding ground raised by
petitioners to challenge the constitutionality of RA No. 7720, the Court stands on the holding that
petitioners have failed to overcome the presumption. The dismissal of this petition is, therefore,
inevitable.
DECISION
HERMOSISIMA. JR., J.:
Of main concern to the petitioners is whether Republic Act No. 7720, just recently passed by Congress
and signed by the President into law, is constitutionally infirm.
Indeed, in this Petition for Prohibition with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Prohibitory Injunction, petitioners assail the validity of Republic Act No. 7720, entitled, "An Act Converting
the Municipality of Santiago, Isabela into an Independent Component City to be known as the City of
Santiago," mainly because the Act allegedly did not originate exclusively in the House of Representatives
as mandated by Section 24, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Also, petitioners claim that the Municipality of Santiago has not met the minimum average annual income
required under Section 450 of the Local Government Code of 1991 in order to be converted into a
component city.
Undisputed is the following chronicle of the metamorphosis of House Bill No. 8817 into Republic Act No.
7720: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
On April 18, 1993, HB No. 8817, entitled "An Act Converting the Municipality of Santiago into an
Independent Component City to be known as the City of Santiago," was filed in the House of
Representatives with Representative Antonio Abaya as principal author. Other sponsors included
Representatives Ciriaco Alfelor, Rodolfo Albano, Santiago Respicio and Faustino Dy. The bill was referred to
the House Committee on Local Government and the House Committee on Appropriations on May 5,
1993.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On May 19, 1993, June 1, 1993, November 28, 1993, and December 1, 1993, public hearings on HB No.
8817 were conducted by the House Committee on Local Government. The committee submitted to the
House a favorable report, with amendments, on December 9, 1993.
On December 13, 1993, HB No. 8817 was passed by the House of Representatives on Second Reading and
was approved on Third Reading on December 17, 1993. On January 28, 1994, HB No. 8817 was
transmitted to the Senate.
Meanwhile, a counterpart of HB No. 8817, Senate Bill No. 1243, entitled, "An Act Converting the
Municipality of Santiago into an Independent Component City to be Known as the City of Santiago," was
filed in the Senate. It was introduced by Senator Vicente Sotto III, as principal sponsor, on May 19, 1993.
This was just after the House of Representatives had conducted its first public hearing on HB No. 8817. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On February 23, 1994, or a little less than a month after HB No. 8817 was transmitted to the Senate, the
Senate Committee on Local Government conducted public hearings on SB No. 1243. On March 1, 1994,
the said committee submitted Committee Report No. 378 on HB No. 8817, with the recommendation that
it be approved without amendment, taking into consideration the reality that H.B. No. 8817 was on all
fours with SB No. 1243. Senator Heherson T. Alvarez, one of the herein petitioners, indicated his approval
thereto by signing said report as member of the Committee on Local Government.
On March 3, 1994, Committee Report No. 378 was passed by the Senate on Second Reading and was
approved on Third Reading on March 14, 1994. On March 22, 1994, the House of Representatives, upon
being apprised of the action of the Senate, approved the amendments proposed by the Senate.
The enrolled bill, submitted to the President on April 12, 1994, was signed by the Chief Executive on May
5, 1994 as Republic Act No. 7720. When a plebiscite on the Act was held on July 13, 1994, a great
majority of the registered voters of Santiago voted in favor of the conversion of Santiago into a city. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The question as to the validity of Republic Act No. 7720 hinges on the following twin issues: (I) Whether
or not the Internal Revenue Allotments (IRAs) are to included in the computation of the average annual
income of a municipality for purposes of its conversion into an independent component city, and (II)
Whether or not, considering that the Senate passed SB No. 1243, its own version of HB No. 8817,
2/5
7/9/2019 G.R. No. 118303 January 31, 1996 - HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA : JANUARY 1996 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME …
G.R. No. 116588 January 24, 1996 - PRIMO T.
TANALA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 117418 January 24, 1996 - STELLAR
INDUSTRIAL SERVICES v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 117423 January 24, 1996 - LEGAR
MANAGEMENT & REALTY CORPORATION v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 98061 January 25, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. CASIMIRO DE CASTRO
G.R. No. 101941 January 25, 1996 - EDMUNDO
QUEBRAL v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 105877 January 25, 1996 - VALIANT
MACHINERY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION
G.R. No. 107378 January 25, 1996 - REMEDIOS K.
ASIS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
G.R. No. 112337 January 25, 1996 - ANTONIO L.
AZORES v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 113615 January 25, 1996 - BIENVENIDO
VELARMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 106440 January 29, 1996 - ALEJANDRO
MANOSCA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 107640 January 29, 1996 - FAUSTINA
PUNCIA, ET AL. v. ANTONIO N. GERONA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 108522 January 29, 1996 - GERARDO A.
DEL MUNDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 112869 January 29, 1996 - KELLY R.
WICKER, ET AL. v. PAUL T. ARCANGEL
G.R. No. 114762 January 29, 1996 - REBECCA
DESAMITO VDA. DE ALCANTARA v. COURT OF
APPEALS
G.R. No. 114904 January 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO HUBILLA, JR., ET AL.
G.R. No. 114952 January 29, 1996 - MAGNOLIA
DAIRY PRODUCTS CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 115920 January 29, 1996 - PCI
AUTOMATION CENTER v. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 116279 January 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO CRISTOBAL
G.R. No. 116486 January 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO R. MALIPUT
G.R. No. 117059 January 29, 1996 - PIZZA
HUT/PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP. v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 118671 January 29, 1996 - HILARIO M.
RUIZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 119583 January 29, 1996 - NESCITO C.
HILARIO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION
G.R. No. 120040 January 29, 1996 - CAMILO Y. GO,
ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS
A.M. No. MTJ-94-984 January 30, 1996 - GLADY M.
GALVEZ v. GEMINIANO A. EDUARDO
A.M. No. P-96-1177 January 30, 1996 - SALVADOR
D. SILERIO v. IGNACIO B. BALASULLA
A.M. No. RTJ-95-1330 January 30, 1996 - AZUCENA
CINCO TABAO, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE C. ASIS
G.R. No. 112096 January 30, 1996 - MARCELINO B.
AGOY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
G.R. No. 119155 January 30, 1996 - VICTORINA A.
CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
Adm. Matter No. MTJ-96-1072 January 31, 1996 -
DANIEL MAMOLO v. ROGELIO R. NARISMA
G.R. Nos. 107382 & 107612 January 31, 1996 -
ASSOCIATED BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 108251 January 31, 1996 - CEFERINO S.
PAREDES v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 111876 January 31, 1996 - JOHANNA
SOMBONG v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 112034 January 31, 1996 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. RIZALDY C. CONDE
G.R. No. 117415 January 31, 1996 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ELISA D. MIRANDA
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1996januarydecisions.php?id=57
Republic Act No. 7720 can be said to have originated in the House of Representatives.
I. The annual income of a local government unit includes the IRAs.
Petitioners claim that Santiago could not qualify into a component city because its average annual last two
(2) consecutive years based on 1991 constant prices falls below the required annual income of Pesos
(P20,000,000.00) for its conversion into a city, petitioners having computed Santiago’s average annual
income in the following manner:
Total income (at 1991 constant prices) for 1991 P20,379,057.07
Total income (at 1991 constant prices) for 1992 P21,570,106.87
——————
Total income for 1991 and 1992 P41,949,163.94
Minus:
IRAs for 1991 and 1992 P15,730,043.00
——————
Total income for 1991 and 1992 P26,219,120.94
Average Annual Income P13,109,560.47
====================================
By dividing the total income of Santiago for calendar years 1991 and 1992, after deducting the IRAs, the
average annual income arrived at would only be P13,109,560.47 based on the 1991 constant prices. Thus,
petitioners claim that Santiago’s income is far below the aforesaid Twenty Million Pesos average annual
income requirement.
The certification issued by the Bureau of Local Government Finance of the Department of Finance, which
indicates Santiago’s average annual income to be P20,974,581.97, is allegedly not accurate as the
Internal Revenue Allotments were not excluded from the computation. Petitioners asseverate that the
IRAs are not actually income but transfers and/or budgetary aid from the national government and that
they fluctuate, increase or decrease, depending on factors like population, land and equal sharing.
In this regard, we hold that petitioners’ asseverations are untenable because Internal Revenue Allotments
form part of the income of Local Government Units. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
It is true that for a municipality to be converted into a component city, it must, among others, have an
average annual income of at least Twenty Million Pesos for the last two (2) consecutive years based on
1991 constant prices. 1 Such income must be duly certified by the Department of Finance. 2
Resolution of the controversy regarding compliance by the Municipality of Santiago with the aforecited
income requirement hinges on a correlative and contextual explication of the meaning of internal revenue
allotments (IRAs) vis-a-vis the notion of income of a local government unit and the principles of local
autonomy and decentralization underlying the institutionalization and intensified empowerment of the
local government system.
A Local Government Unit is a political subdivision of the State which is constituted by law and possessed
of substantial control over its own affairs. 3 Remaining to be an intra sovereign subdivision of one
sovereign nation, but not intended, however, to be an imperium in imperio, 4 the local government unit is
autonomous in the sense that it is given more powers, authority, responsibilities and resources. 5 Power
which used to be highly centralized in Manila, is thereby deconcentrated, enabling especially the
peripheral local government units to develop not only at their own pace and discretion but also with their
own resources and assets. 6
The practical side to development through a decentralized local government system certainly concerns the
matter of financial resources. With its broadened powers and increased responsibilities, a local
government unit must now operate on a much wider scale. More extensive operations, in turn, entail more
expenses. Understandably, the vesting of duty, responsibility and accountability in every local government
unit is accompanied with a provision for reasonably adequate resources to discharge its powers and
effectively carry out its functions. 7 Availment of such resources is effectuated through the vesting in
every local government unit of (1) the right to create and broaden its own source of revenue; (2) the right
to be allocated a just share in national taxes such share being in the form of internal revenue allotments
(IRAs); and (3) the right to be given its equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development
of the national wealth, if any, within its territorial boundaries. 8
The funds generated from local taxes, IRAs and national wealth utilization proceeds accrue to the general
fund of the local government and are used to finance its operations subject to specified modes of spending
the same as provided for in the Local Government Code and its implementing rules and regulations. For
instance, not less than twenty percent (20%) of the IRAs must be set aside for local development
projects. 9 As such, for purposes of budget preparation, which budget should reflect the estimates of the
income of the local government unit, among others, the IRAs and the share in the national wealth
utilization proceeds are considered items of income. This is as it should be, since income is defined in the
Local Government Code to be all revenues and receipts collected or received forming the gross accretions
of funds of the local government unit. 10
The IRAs are items of income because they form part of the gross accretion of the funds of the local
government unit. The IRAs regularly and automatically accrue to the local treasury without need of any
further action on the part of the local government unit. 11 They thus constitute income which the local
government can invariably rely upon as the source of much needed funds. For purposes of converting the
Municipality of Santiago into a city, the Department of Finance certified, among others, that the
municipality had an average annual income of at least Twenty Million Pesos for the last two (2)
consecutive years based on 1991 constant prices. This, the Department of Finance did after including the
IRAs in its computation of said average annual income. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Furthermore, Section 450 (c) of the Local Government Code provides that "the average annual income
shall include the income accruing to the general fund, exclusive of special funds, transfers, and non-
recurring income.’’ To reiterate, IRAs are a regular, recurring item of income; nil is there a basis, too, to
classify the same as a special fund or transfer, since IRAs have a technical definition and meaning all its
own as used in the Local Government Code that unequivocally makes it distinct from special funds or
transfers referred to when the Code speaks of "funding support from the national government, its
instrumentalities and government-owned- or -controlled corporations." 12
Thus, Department of Finance Order No. 35-93 13 correctly encapsulizes the full import of the above
disquisition when it defined ANNUAL INCOME to be "revenues and receipts realized by provinces cities and
municipalities from regular sources of the Local General Fund including the internal revenue allotment and
other shares provided for in Sections 284, 290 and 291 of the Code, but exclusive of non-recurring
3/5
7/9/2019 G.R. No. 118303 January 31, 1996 - HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA : JANUARY 1996 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME …
receipts, such as other national aids, grants, financial assistance, loan proceeds, sales of fixed assets, and
G.R. No. 118303 January 31, 1996 - HEHERSON T. similar others" (Underscoring ours). 14 Such order, constituting executive or contemporaneous
ALVAREZ v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA construction of a statute by an administrative agency charged with the task of interpreting and applying
the same, is entitled to full respect and should be accorded great weight by the courts, unless such
G.R. No. 118491 January 31, 1996 - ALFONSO construction is clearly shown to be in sharp conflict with the Constitution, the governing statute, or other
BALAIS, ET AL. v. TIRSO D.C. VELASCO, ET AL.
laws. 15

II. In the enactment of RA No. 7720, there was compliance with Section 24, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution.

Although a bill of local application like HB No. 8817 should, by constitutional prescription, 16 originate
exclusively in the House of Representatives, the claim of petitioners that Republic Act No. 7720 did not
originate exclusively in the House of Representatives because a bill of the same import, SB No. 1243, was
passed in the Senate, is untenable because it cannot be denied that HB No. 8817 was filed in the House of
Representatives first before SB No. 1243 was filed in the Senate. Petitioners themselves cannot disavow
their own admission that HB No. 8817 was filed on April 18, 1993 while SB No. 1243 was filed on May 19,
1993. The filing of HB No. 8817 was thus precursive not only of the said Act in question but also of SB No.
1243. Thus, HB No. 8817, was the bill that initiated the legislative process that culminated in the
enactment of Republic Act No. 7720. No violation of Section 24, Article VI, of the 1987 Constitution is
perceptible under the circumstances attending the instant controversy. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Furthermore, petitioners themselves acknowledge that HB No. 8817 was already approved on Third
Reading and duly transmitted to the Senate when the Senate Committee on Local Government conducted
its public hearing on HB No. 8817. HB No. 8817 was approved on the Third Reading on December 17,
1993 and transmitted to the Senate on January 28, 1994; a little less than a month thereafter or on
February 23, 1994, the Senate Committee on Local Government conducted public hearings on SB No.
1243. Clearly, the Senate held in abeyance any action on SB No. 1243 until it received HB No. 8817,
already approved on the Third Reading, from the House of Representatives. The filing in the Senate of a
substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House, does not contravene the
constitutional requirement that a bill of local application should originate in the House of Representatives,
for as long as the Senate does not act thereupon until it receives the House bill.

We have already addressed this issue in the case of Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance. 17 There, on the
matter of the Expanded Value Added Tax (EVAT) Law, which, as a revenue bill, is nonetheless
constitutionally required to originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, we explained: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . To begin with, 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. . . . as a result of the Senate action, a distinct bill may be produced. To insist that
a revenue statute — and not only the bill which initiated the legislative process culminating in the
enactment of the law — must substantially be the same as the House bill would be to deny the Senate’s
power not only to ‘concur with amendments’ but also to ‘propose amendments.’ It would be to violate the
co-equality of legislative power of the two houses of Congress and in fact make the House superior to the
Senate.

x x x

It is insisted, however, that S. No. 1630 was passed not in substitution of H. No. 11197 but of another
Senate bill (S. No. 1129) earlier filed and that what the Senate did was merely to ‘take [H. No. 11197]
into consideration’ in enacting S. No. 1630. There is really no difference between the Senate preserving H.
No. 11197 up to the enacting clause and then writing its own version following the enacting clause (which,
it would seem petitioners admit is an amendment by substitution), and, on the other hand, separately
presenting a bill of its own on the same subject matter. In either case the result are two bills on the same
subject.

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 n 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. . . ." 18

III. Every law, including RA No. 7720, has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality.

It is a well-entrenched jurisprudential rule that on the side of every law lies the presumption of
constitutionality. 19 Consequently, for RA No. 7720 to be nullified it must be shown that there is a clear
and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not merely a doubtful and equivocal one; in other words, the
grounds for nullity must be clear and beyond reasonable doubt. 20 Those who petition this court to
declare a law to be unconstitutional must clearly and fully establish the basis that will justify such a
declaration; otherwise, their petition must fail. Taking into consideration the justification of our stand on
the immediately preceding ground raised by petitioners to challenge the constitutionality of RA No. 7720,
the Court stands on the holding that petitioners have failed to overcome the presumption. The dismissal of
this petition is, therefore, inevitable.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit with costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
Francisco and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

1. Local Government Code, Section 450.

2. Ibid.

3. Basco v. PAGCOR, 197 SCRA 52.

4. Ibid.

5. Local Government Code, Section 2. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

6. Pimentel, Jr., Aquilino, The Local Government Code of 1991: The Key to National

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1996januarydecisions.php?id=57 4/5
7/9/2019 G.R. No. 118303 January 31, 1996 - HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA : JANUARY 1996 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME …
Development, 1993 Edition, p. 4.

7. Local Government Code, Section 3(d).

8. Ibid.

9. Local Government Code, Section 17(g); Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local
Government Code of 1991, Rule XXXII, Article 385.

10. Local Government Code, Section 306(i).

11. Local Government Code. Section 7.

12. Local Government Code, Section 17(g).

13. Dated June 16, 1993 on the subject of "Updating the Income Classification of Provinces,
Cities and Municipalities Pursuant to the Provisions of Section 8 of the Local Government
Code of 1991." (This DOF order was issued to implement Executive Order No. 249 dated
July 25, 1987 entitled, "Providing for a New Income Classification of Provinces, Cities and
Municipalities and for Other Purposes.")

14. Id., Section 3.

15. Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals. 203 SCRA 504.

16. 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 24.

17. 235 SCRA 630.

18. Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, supra.

19. Basco v. PAGCOR, 197 SCRA 52; Abbas v. COMELEC, 179 SCRA 287; Peralta v.
COMELEC, 82 SCRA 30; Salas v. Jarencio, 48 SCRA 734; Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, 47 Phil.
387.

20. Peralta v. COMELEC, supra; Basco v. PAGCOR, supra.

Back to Home | Back to Main

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

 Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1996januarydecisions.php?id=57 5/5