Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
*
G.R. No. 115455. August 25, 1994.
_______________
* EN BANC.
631
632
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
633
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
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 coequality of legislative power of the two houses of
Congress and in fact make the House superior to the Senate.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Legislative power is vested in the
Congress of the Philippines, consisting of “a Senate and a House of
Representatives,” not in any particular chamber.—The contention
that the constitutional design is to limit the Senate’s power in
respect of revenue bills in order to compensate for the grant to the
Senate of the treaty-ratifying power and thereby equalize its
powers and those of the House overlooks the fact that the powers
being compared are different. We are dealing here with the
legislative power which under the Constitution is vested not in
any particular chamber but in the Congress of the Philippines,
consisting of “a Senate and a House of Represen-tatives.” The
exercise of the treaty-ratifying power is not the exercise of
legislative power. It is the exercise of a check on the executive
power. There is, therefore, no justification for comparing the
legislative powers of the House and of the Senate on the basis of
the possession of such nonlegislative power by the Senate. The
possession of a similar power by the U.S. Senate has never been
thought of as giving it more legislative powers than the House of
Representatives.
Same; Same; Same; Same; There is really no difference
between the Senate preserving the House Bill up to the enacting
clause and then writing its own version following the enacting
clause and, on the other hand, separately presenting a bill of its
own on the same subject matter.—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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The Constitution simply means
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
634
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
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
premise of the “except” clause: the necessity of securing the
immediate enactment of a bill which is certified in order to meet a
public calamity or emergency. For if it is only the printing that is
dispensed with by presidential certification, the time saved would
be so negligible as to be of any use in insuring immediate
enactment. It may well be doubted whether doing away with the
necessity of printing and distributing copies of the bill three days
before the third reading would insure speedy enactment of a law
in the face of an emergency requiring the calling of a special
election for President and Vice-President. Under the Constitution
such a law is required to be made within seven days of the
convening of Congress in emergency session.
635
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
636
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
637
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
638
639
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
640
641
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
642
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
643
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
not ripe for adjudication. That duty must still be performed in the
context of a concrete case or controversy, as Art. VIII, § 5(2)
clearly defines our jurisdiction in terms of “cases,” and nothing
but “cases.” That the other departments of the government may
have committed a grave abuse of discretion is not an independent
ground for exercising our power. Disregard of the essential limits
imposed by the case and controversy requirement can in the long
run only result in undermining our authority as a court of law.
For, as judges, what we are called upon to render is judgment
according to law, not according to what may appear to be the
opinion of the day.
644
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
645
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
646
647
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
648
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
649
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
650
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
651
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
readings” rule, and was not transmitted to the House for the
completion of the constitutional
652
and normally includes the member who introduced the bill and
the chairman of the committee which considered it together with
such other representatives of the house as seem expedient.
(Horack, Cases and Materials on Legislation [1940] 220. See also
Zinn, Conference Procedure in Congress, 38 ABAJ 864 [1952];
Steiner, The Congressional Conference
653
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
654
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
655
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
656
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
657
MENDOZA, J.:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
658
I. Procedural Issues:
1. § 1
2. § 4
3. § 5
4. § 10
I. PROCEDURAL ISSUES
________________
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
3
for the grant to the Senate of the treaty-ratifying power
and thereby equalize its powers and those of the House
overlooks the fact that the powers being compared are
different. We are dealing here with the legislative power
which under the Constitution is vested not in any
particular chamber but in the Congress of the Philippines,4
consisting of “a Senate and a House of Representatives.”
The exercise of the treaty-ratifying power is not the
exercise of legislative power. It is the exercise of a check on
the executive power. There is, therefore, no justification for
comparing the legislative powers of the House and of the
Senate on the basis of the possession of such nonlegislative
power by the Senate.
5
The possession of a similar power by
the U.S. Senate has never been thought of as giving it
more legislative powers than the House of Representatives.
In the United States, the validity of a provision (§ 37)
imposing an ad valorem tax based on the weight of vessels,
which the U.S. Senate had inserted in the Tariff Act of
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 in the same year and recast most of the
7
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
7
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
664
_______________
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.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 36/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
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
________________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 37/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
than forty-five days nor later than sixty days from the time of such call.
The bill calling such special election shall be deemed certified under
paragraph 2, Section 26, Article VI of this Constitution and shall become
law upon its approval on third reading by the Congress. Appro-priations
for the special election shall be charged against any current
appropriations and shall be exempt from the requirements of paragraph 4,
Section 25, Article VI of this Constitution. The convening of the Congress
cannot be suspended nor the special election postponed. No special
election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months
before the date of the next presidential election.”
12 JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SIXTH
CONGRESS, FOURTH SESSION 398-399 (1968).
666
667
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 39/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
668
________________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 40/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
669
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:
bill or
________________
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,
the outlook for the reform is problematical.” F.A. OGG AND P.O. RAY, supra note
7 at 310-311.
670
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 42/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
671
_________________
672
________________
673
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 45/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
674
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 46/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
675
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 47/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
676
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 48/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
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
_______________
27 Associated Press v. NLRB, 301 U.S. 103, 132, 81 L.Ed. 953, 961
(1937).
678
_______________
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
________________
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
________________
683
_________________
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).
684
_______________
685
_________________
686
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 58/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
687
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 59/199
22/10/2017 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
____________________________________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 60/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
689
SEPARATE OPINION
NARVASA, C.J.:
690
691
692
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 64/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
693
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 65/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
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.
There is the argument, for instance, that the conference
committee never used HB 11197 even as “frame of
reference” because it does not appear that the suggestion
therefor (made by House Panel Chairman Exequiel Javier
at the bicameral conference committee’s meeting on April
19, 1994, with the concurrence of Senator Maceda) was
ever resolved, the minutes being regrettably vague as to
what occurred after that suggestion was made. It is,
however, as reasonable to assume that it was, as it was not,
given the vagueness of the minutes already alluded to. In
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 66/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
2 Italics supplied.
695
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 67/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
696
697
3
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 69/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
3
provision of the Code of Civil Procedure long since stricken
from the statute books.
I would myself consider the “enrolled bill” theory as
laying down a presumption of so strong a character as to be
well nigh absolute or conclusive, fully in accord with the
familiar and fundamental philosophy of separation of
powers. The result, as far as I am concerned, is to make
discussion of the enrolled bill principle purely academic; for
as already pointed out, there is no proof worthy of the
name of any facts to justify its reexamination and, possibly,
disregard.
The other question is, what is the nature of the power
given to a bicameral conference committee of reconciling
differences
_________________
698
699
700
down the rule that the enrolled bill is conclusive upon the
Judiciary (except in matters that have to be entered in the
journals like the yeas and nays on the final reading of the
bill) (Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. 1). The journals are
themselves also binding on the Supreme Court, as we held
in the old (but still valid) case of U.S. v. Pons (34 Phil. 729),
where we explained the reason thus:
701
702
703
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.:
704
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 76/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
705
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 77/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
706
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 78/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
707
708
SEPARATE OPINION
PADILLA, J.:
1
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 80/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
1
In Kapatiran v. Tan, where the ponente was the writer of
this Separate Opinion, a unanimous Supreme Court en
banc upheld the validity of the original VAT law (Executive
Order No. 273, approved on 25 July 1987). It will, in my
view, be pointless at this time to re-open arguments
advanced in said case as to why said VAT law was invalid,
and it will be equally redundant to re-state the principles
laid down by the Court in the same case affirming the
validity of the VAT law as a tax measure. And yet, the
same arguments are, in effect, marshalled against the
merits and substance of the expanded VAT law (Rep. Act
No. 7716, approved on 5 May 1994). The same Supreme
Court decision should
_________________
709
________________
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
petitioners in their assault is Section 24, Art. VI of the
Constitution which provides:
________________
711
712
“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
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.”
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 84/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
713
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 85/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
both Houses and so the second paragraph could not have been
validly added as an amendment.
These arguments are unacceptable.
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:
_______________
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).’
“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.”
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 86/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
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 Supreme8 Court,
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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 87/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
716
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
begin by declaring the press in the Philippines free x x x.”
Press freedom in the Philippines has met repressions,
most notable of which was the closure of almost all forms of
existing mass media upon the imposition of martial law on
21 September 1972.
Section 4, Art. III of the Constitution maybe traced to
the United States Federal Constitution. The guarantee of
freedom of expression was planted in the Philippines by
President McKinley in the Magna Carta of Philippine
Liberty, Instructions to the Second Philippine Commission
on 7 April 1900.
The present constitutional provision which reads:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 88/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
717
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 89/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
IV
Petitions of CREBA and PAL and Rep. Act No. 7716
_______________
718
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 90/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
719
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 91/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
720
SEPARATE OPINION
VITUG, J.:
721
DISSENTING OPINION
REGALADO, J.:
722
1
passed House Bill No. 11197 on third reading on
November 17, 1993 and, the following day, it transmitted
the same to the Senate for concurrence. On its part, the
Senate approved Senate Bill No. 1630 on second and third
readings on March 24, 1994. It is important to note in this
regard that on March 22, 1994, said S.B. No. 1630 had been
certified by President Fidel V. Ramos for immediate
enactment to meet a public emergency, that is, a growing
budgetary deficit. There was no such certification for H.B.
No. 11197 although it was the initiating revenue bill.
It is, therefore, not only a curious fact but, more
importantly, an invalid procedure since that Presidential
certification was erroneously made for and confined to S.B.
No. 1630 which was indisputably a tax bill and, under the
Constitution, could not validly originate in the Senate.
Whatever is claimed in favor of S.B. No. 1630 under the
blessings of that certification, such as its alleged exemption
from the three separate readings requirement, is
accordingly negated and rendered inutile by the
inefficacious nature of said certification as it could lawfully
have been issued only for a revenue measure originating
exclusively from the lower House. To hold otherwise would
be to validate a Presidential certification of a bill initiated
in the Senate despite the Constitutional prohibition against
its originating therefrom.
Equally of serious significance is the fact that S.B. No.
1630 was reported out in Committee Report No. 349
submitted to the Senate on February 7, 1994 and approved
by that body “in substitution of S.B. No. 1129,” while
merely “taking
2
into consideration P.S. No. 734 and H.B.
No. 11197.” S.B. No. 1630, therefore, was never filed in
substitution of either P.S. No. 734 or, more emphatically, of
H.B. No. 11197 as these two legislative issuances were
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 94/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
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
________________
725
_______________
7 Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. (1951), 381, citing Fairview vs.
Durham, 45 Iowa 56.
726
________________
727
15
Daza vs. Singson, et al., on the other, to know which
would be applicable to the present controversy and which
should be rejected.
But, first, a positional exordium. The writer of this
opinion would be among the first to acknowledge and
enjoin not only courtesy to, but respect for, the official acts
of the Executive and Legislative departments, but only so
long as the same are in accordance with or are defensible
under the fundamental charter and the statutory law. He
would readily be numbered in the ranks of those who would
preach a reasoned sermon on the separation of powers, but
with the qualification that the same are not contained in
tripartite compartments separated by imper-meable
membranes. He also ascribes to the general validity of
American constitutional doctrines as a matter of historical
and legal necessity, but not to the extent of being oblivious
to political changes or unmindful of the fallacy of undue
generalization arising from myopic disregard of the factual
setting of each particular case.
These ruminations have likewise been articulated and
dissected by my colleagues, hence it is felt that the only
issue which must be set aright in this dissenting opinion is
the so-called enrolled bill doctrine to which we are urged to
cling with reptilian tenacity. It will be preliminarily noted
that the official certification appearing right on the face of
Republic Act No. 7716 would even render unnecessary any
further judicial inquiry into the proceedings which
transpired in the two legislative chambers and, on a parody
of tricameralism, in the bicameral conference committee.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 99/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
728
729
‘This Court is firmly committed to the holding that when the journals
speak they control, and against such proof the enrolled bill is not
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 101/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 102/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
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
and to provide a remedy for a wrong committed by any branch of
government. In light of these considerations, we are convinced that
the time has come to re-examine the enrolled bill doctrine.
“[2] This court is not unmindful of the admonition of the
doctrine of stare decisis. The maxim is “Stare decisis et non quieta
movere,” which simply suggests that we stand by precedents and
not disturb settled points of law. Yet, this rule is not inflexible, nor
is it of such a nature as to require perpetuation of error or logic. As
we stated in Daniel’s Adm’r v. Hoofnel, 287 Ky 834, 155 S.W.2d
469, 471-72 (1941) (citations omitted):
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.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 103/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
732
DISSENTING OPINION
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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 105/199
22/10/2017 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
In City Mayor vs. The Chief of Philippine Constabulary,
this Court said:
_______________
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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 107/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
736
________________
737
“SEC. 51. Prior to their final approval, bills and joint resolutions
shall be read at least three times.”
“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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 110/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
739
________________
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.
This specific unequivocal action of the Senate
Committee on Ways and Means, i.e., proposing and
recommending approval of SB No. 1630 as a substitute for
or in substitution of SB No. 1129 demolishes at once the
thesis of the Solicitor General that:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 112/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
741
“The Senate has the power to amend a revenue bill. This power to
amend is not confined to the elimination of provisions contained
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 113/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
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:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 114/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
743
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 115/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
744
“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
________________
745
_______________
29 At 317.
746
_______________
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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 120/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
749
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 121/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
34 Page 22.
750
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 122/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
751
752
_______________
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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 125/199
22/10/2017 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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 126/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
755
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 127/199
22/10/2017 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
5
Constitution.” In dismissing the consolidated petitions,
this Court stated:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 128/199
22/10/2017 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,
accountants, doctors and other professionals registered with the
Philippine Regulatory Commission.
757
9
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 129/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
9
HB No. 9210 — May 19,
1993
HB No. 9297 — May 25,
1993
HB No. 10012 — July 28,
1993
HB No. 10100 — August 3,
1993
HB No. 11197 in substitution of HB Nos. — November
253, 771, 2450, 7033, 8086,
10
9030, 9210, 5, 1993
9297, 10012 and 10100
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 with 17, 1993
114 Yeas and 12 Nays —
November
18, 1993
HB No. 11197 was transmitted to the Senate — February
Senate Committee on Ways and Means 7, 1994
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
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 130/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
758
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
Does Republic Act No.13
7716 violate Article VI, Section 24,
of the Constitution?
________________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 131/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
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 1
16
2. Section 4
17
3. Section 5
18
4. Section 10
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 132/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
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
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 133/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
761
by claiming22
that such matters constitute a political
question.”
In the instant petitions, this Court is called upon, not so
much to exercise its traditional power of judicial review as
to determine whether or not there has indeed been a grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the Legislature
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Where there are grounds to resolve a case without
touching on its constitutionality, the Court will do so with
utmost alacrity in due deference to the doctrine of
separation of powers anchored on the respect that must be
accorded to the other branches of government which are
coordinate, coequal and, as far as practicable, independent
of one another.
Once it is palpable that the constitutional issue is
unavoidable, then it is time to assume jurisdiction,
provided that the following requisites for a judicial inquiry
are met: that there must be an actual and appropriate case;
a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the
constitutional question; the constitutional question must be
raised at the earliest possible opportunity and the decision
of the constitutional question must be necessary to the
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.
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 134/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
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.
________________
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,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 136/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
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
________________
765
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 138/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
The agricultural labor sector covers all persons who personally and
physically till the land as their principal occupation. It includes
agricultural tenants and lessees, rural workers and farm employees,
owner-cultivators, settlers and small fishermen.
The industrial labor sector includes all nonagricultural workers and
employees.
766
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 139/199
22/10/2017 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
________________
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.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 140/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
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
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.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 141/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
769
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 142/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
sent this to us and certified it. They have already gotten over that
political implication of this bill and the economic impact on prices.
“CHAIRMAN HERRERA. Yung concern mo about the bill as the
reference in this discussion is something that we can just. . . .
“CHAIRMAN JAVIER. We will just . . . all the amendments will be
coming from the Senate.”
770
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 143/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
upon Senate Bill No. 1630, for House Bill No. 11197 had
already been fused into the former.
At the oral hearing of July 7, 1994, petitioner in G.R.
No. 115455 admitted, in response to this writer’s query,
that he had
_______________
771
________________
772
_______________
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)
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 146/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
774
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 147/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
775
“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.”
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 148/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
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.”
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 149/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
44 Ibid at 733-734.
45 Ibid at 735.
46 78 Phil. 1 (1947).
47 Ibid at 3.
777
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 150/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
48 Ibid at 18.
49 117 Phil. 363 (1963).
778
50
Sherlock Holmes.” The alleged omission of a phrase in the
final Act was made, not at any stage of the legislative
proceedings, but only in the course of the engrossment of
the bill, more specifically in the proofreading thereof.
But the Court did include a caveat that qualified the
absoluteness of the “enrolled bill” rule stating:
the passage of House Bill No. 11197 and Senate Bill No.
1630, outside of the
_______________
779
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 152/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
780
and
________________
781
“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.”
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 154/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
782
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 155/199
22/10/2017 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.
783
________________
784
________________
785
3. Section 102
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 158/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
786
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 159/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
5. Section 104
787
6. Section 107
7. Section 112
8. Section 115
9. Section 117
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 160/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
788
________________
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
or objections thereon. The same rationale underlies the
three-reading requirement to the end that no surpises may
be sprung on an unsuspecting citizenry.
Provisions of the “now you see it, now you don’t” variety,
meaning those which were either in the House and/or
Senate versions but simply disappeared or were “bracketed
out” of existence in the BICAM Report, were eventually
incorporated in Republic Act No. 7716. Worse, some goods,
properties or services which were not covered by the two
versions and, therefore, were never intended to be so
covered, suddenly found their way into the same Report.
No advance notice of such insertions prepared the rest of
the legislators, much less the public who could be adversely
affected, so that they could be given the opportunity to
express their views thereon. Well has the final BICAM
report been described, therefore, as an instance of “taxation
without representation.”
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 163/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
791
________________
792
_______________
793
_______________
794
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
_________________
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).
796
________________
797
798
DISSENTING OPINION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
799
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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 172/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
800
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 173/199
22/10/2017 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
_______________
802
803
_______________
804
DISSENTING OPINION
PUNO, J.:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 177/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
805
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 178/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
806
A. The H.B., S.B., and the BCC (R.A. 7716) all included sale of
PROPERTIES as subject to VAT.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 179/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
807
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 180/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
808
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 181/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
809
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
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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 183/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
811
thereof.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 184/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
“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
_______________
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
The Jefferson’s Manual has been adopted as a supplement
to our parliamentary rules and practice. Section 456 of
Jefferson’s Manual similarly
5
confines the powers of a
conference committee, viz:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 185/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
813
________________
814
________________
815
________________
816
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 189/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
817
“x x x
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.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 190/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
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
“x x x.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 191/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
_______________
14 82 CJS 136.
15 Statutory Construction, 3rd ed., Vol. I., p. 223.
819
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 192/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
advanced, that is, that it was not only an undue burden upon the
legislature to preserve its records to meet the attack of persons
not affected by the procedure of enactment, but also that it
unnecessarily complicated litigation and confused the trial of
substantive issues.
Although many of these arguments are persuasive and are
indeed the basis for the rule in many states today, they are not
invulnerable to attack. The rule most relied on—the sheriff’s
return or sworn official rule—did not in civil litigation deprive the
injured party of an action, for always he could sue the sheriff upon
his official bond. Likewise, although collateral attack was not
permitted, direct attack permitted raising the issue of fraud, and
at a later date attack in equity was also available; and that the
evidence of the sheriff was not of unusual weight was
demonstrated by the fact that in an action against the sheriff no
presumption of its authenticity prevailed.
The argument that the enrolled bill is a ‘record’ and therefore
unimpeachable is likewise misleading, for the correction of
records is a matter of established judicial procedure. Apparently,
the justification is either the historical one that the king’s word
could not be questioned or the separation of powers principle that
one branch of the government must treat as valid the acts of
another.
820
“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.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 193/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
________________
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
_______________
822
“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)
_______________
823
_______________
824
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 198/199
22/10/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235
———o0o———
826
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f44ba6bac184d7e8d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 199/199