StatCon: Statues and their Enactments

Arroyo VS De Venecia
[ Evidence of due Enactment of Law ]
23 Docket No. 127255 Date : August 14, 1997 Ponente Mr. Justice Your Name:
Vicente V. Mendoza Selina Laurel

Petitioners: Joker P. Arroyo, Edcel C. Lagman, John Respondents: Jose De Venecia, Raul Daza, Rodolfo
Henry R. Osmeñ a, Wigberto E. Tañ ada, and Ronaldo B. Albano, the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of
Zamora Finance, and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Recit Ready Summary

Petitioners question the validity of RA 8240 imposing “sin taxes” on beer and cigarettes on the ground that the rules
of the House in the passage of the bill were not properly observed so as to be violative of Sec. 16 of Art. VI of the
Constitution. During the last session before the passage of the bill, Rep. Arroyo announced that he was going to raise
a question on the quorum, although until the end of his interpellation he never did. Petitioners allege that there was
failure to conduct a proper vote (yeas or nays), that the proceedings were “railroaded” etc. The SC denied the
petition stating that what is alleged to have been violated are merely internal rules of procedure over which the
courts have no power of review. The petitioners’ remedy is to seek the enactment of a new law or the repeal or
amendment of R.A. No. 8240.

Facts

1. Petition for certiorari and/or prohibition challenging the validity of RA 8240 imposing so-called “sin taxes”
(actually specific taxes) on the manufacture and sale of beer and cigarettes.
2. The law originated in the House of Representatives as H. No. 7198. This bill was approved on third reading
and transmitted to the Senate which approved it with certain amendments on third reading. A bicameral
conference committee was formed to reconcile the disagreeing provisions of the House and Senate
versions of the bill.
3. The bicameral conference committee submitted its report to the House.
o Rep. Arroyo moved to adjourn for lack of quorum.
o Rep. Antonio Cuenco objected to the motion and asked for a head count.
o After a roll call, the Chair (Deputy Speaker Raul Daza) declared the presence of a quorum.
o Rep. Arroyo appealed the ruling of the Chair, but his motion was defeated when put to a vote. The
interpellation of the sponsor thereafter proceeded.
 In the course of his interpellation, Rep. Arroyo announced that he was going to raise a question on the
quorum, although until the end of his interpellation he never did. 
 On the same day, the bill was signed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of
the Senate and certified by both Houses of Congress. The enrolled bill was signed into law by President
Fidel V. Ramos. 
 Petitioners’ principal argument is that R.A. No. 8240 is null and void because it was passed in violation of
the rules of the House; that these rules embody the “constitutional mandate” in Art. VI, §16(3) that “each
House may determine the rules of its proceedings” and that, consequently, violation of the House rules is
a violation of the Constitution itself. They contend that the certification of Speaker De Venecia that the
law was properly passed is false and spurious. 

 In violation of Rule VIII, §35 and Rule XVII, §103 of the rules of the House, the Chair, in submitting the
conference committee report to the House, did not call for the yeas or nays, but simply asked for its
approval by motion in order to prevent petitioner Arroyo from questioning the presence of a quorum 
 In violation of Rule XIX, §112, the Chair deliberately ignored Rep. Arroyo’s question, “What is that . . .
Mr. Speaker?” and did not repeat Rep. Albano’s motion to approve or ratify 
 In violation of Rule XVI, §97, the Chair refused to recognize Rep. Arroyo and instead proceeded to act on
Rep. Albano’s motion and afterward declared the report approved 

1
  In violation of Rule XX, §§121-122, Rule XXI, §123, and Rule XVIII, §109, the Chair suspended the session
without first ruling on Rep. Arroyo’s question which, it is alleged, is a point of order or a privileged motion.
It is argued that Rep. Arroyo’s query should have been resolved upon the resumption of the session,
because the parliamentary situation at the time of the adjournment remained upon the resumption of
the session. 

 Petitioners urge the Court not to feel bound by the certification of the Speaker of the House that the law
had been properly passed, and they ask for a reexamination of Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, which
affirmed the conclusiveness of an enrolled bill. 

Respondents’ defense is anchored on the principle of separation of powers and the enrolled bill
doctrine. 

 They argue that the Court is not the proper forum for the enforcement of the rules of the House
and that there is no justification for reconsidering the enrolled bill doctrine.
 Although the Constitution provides in Art. VI, §16(3) for the adoption by each House of its rules
of proceedings, enforcement of the rules cannot be sought in the courts except insofar as they
implement constitutional requirements such as that relating to three readings on separate days
before a bill may be passed.
 In passing the bill which became R.A. No. 8240, the rules of the House, as well as parliamentary
precedents for approval of conference committee reports on mere motion, were faithfully
observed. De Venecia denies that his certification is false and spurious and contends that under
the journal entry rule, the judicial inquiry sought by the petitioners is barred. Journal No. 39 of
the House of Representatives, covering the sessions, shows that “On Motion of Mr. Albano, there
being no objection, the Body approved the Conference Committee Report on House Bill No.
7198.”

Procedural History

[Brief step by step description of what happened and why it happened; something like the one below; this
is mainly for CRIMPRO and in all other cases where it might be useful; delete this entire section if it’s
irrelevant]
1. Complaint for estafa filed at the City Prosecutor; endorsed to the Provincial Prosecutor; both found
probable cause.
2. Information filed at RTC; warrants of arrest issued; warrants later quashed on motion of Jugueta that
they were general warrants.
3. State (OSG) filed Rule 45 Petition for Review with the CA; CA denied for being filed late.
Issues Ruling
W/N there was a violation of the rules of the House which petitioners claim are 1. No
“constitutionally mandated” so that their violation is tantamount to a violation of the
Constitution.
Rationale

1. Internal rules

It is clear that what is alleged to have been violated are merely internal rules of procedure of the House rather
than constitutional requirements for the enactment of a law, i.e., Art. VI, §§26-27.

The courts are denied the power to inquire into allegations that, in enacting a law, a House of Congress failed to
comply with its own rules, in the absence of showing that there was a violation of a constitutional provision or the
rights of private individuals. (SC cited Osmeñ a v. Pendatun and several US cases to this effect)

2
Schweizer v. Territory --- SC of Oklahoma held that the provision referred to is merely a statutory provision for the
direction of the legislature in its action upon proposed measures.

Summary of rules by former Chief Justice Fernando --- Rules are hardly permanent in character. The prevailing view
is that they are subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body adopting them as they are
primarily procedural. Courts ordinarily have no concern with their observance. They may be waived or disregarded
by the legislative body. Consequently, mere failure to conform to them does not have the effect of nullifying the
act taken if the requisite number of members have agreed to a particular measure. The above principle is subject,
however, to this qualification. Where the construction to be given to a rule affects persons other than members of
the legislative body the question presented is necessarily judicial in character. Even its validity is open to question
in a case where private rights are involved.

In this case no rights of private individuals are involved but only those of a member who, instead of seeking
redress in the House, chose to transfer the dispute to this Court.

Each of the three departments of our government has its separate sphere which the others may not invade
without upsetting the delicate balance on which our constitutional order rests.

2. Judicial review.

If, then, the established rule is that courts cannot declare an act of the legislature void on account merely of
noncompliance with rules of procedure made by itself, it follows that such a case does not present a situation in
which a branch of the government has “gone beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction” so as to call for the
exercise of our Art. VIII, §1 power.

3.Manner/Method

 No rule of the House of Representatives has been cited which specifically requires that in cases such as
this involving approval of a conference committee report, the Chair must restate the motion and conduct
a viva voce or nominal voting. On the other hand, the manner in which the conference committee report
on H. No. 7198 was approved was by no means a unique one. It has basis in legislative practice. It was the
way the conference committee report on the bills which became the Local Government Code of 1991 and
the conference committee report on the bills amending the Tariff and Customs Code were approved. 
 Majority Leader Arturo M. Tolentino --- The fact that nobody objects means a unanimous action of the
House. Insofar as the matter of procedure is concerned, this has been a precedent since I came here
seven years ago, and it has been the procedure in this House that if somebody objects, then a debate
follows and after the debate, then the voting comes in. 
 The advantages or disadvantages, the wisdom or folly of a method do not present any matter for judicial
consideration. 
 Nor does the Constitution require that the yeas and the nays of the Members be taken every time a
House has to vote, except only in the following instances: 
- upon the last and third readings of a bill
- at the request of one-fifth of the Members present o and in repassing a bill over the veto of the
President. 
 Rep. Arroyo waived his objection by his continued interpellation of the sponsor for in so doing he in effect
[34]
acknowledged the presence of a quorum. 

3
4. Enrolled bill doctrine applies

 Where there is no evidence to the contrary, this Court will respect the certification of the presiding
officers of both Houses that a bill has been duly passed. 
 The enrolled bill rule rests on the following considerations: 

o As the President has no authority to approve a bill not passed by Congress, an enrolled Act in the custody of the
Secretary of State, and having the official attestations of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, of the
President of the Senate, and of the President, carries, on its face, a solemn assurance by the legislative and
executive departments of the government, charged, respectively, with the duty of enacting and executing the
laws, that it was passed by Congress.

o The respect due to coequal and independent departments requires the judicial department to act upon that
assurance, and to accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated; leaving the court
to determine, when the question properly arises, whether the Act, so authenticated, is in conformity with the
Constitution.

Moreover, as already noted, the due enactment of the law in question is confirmed by the Journal of the House
which shows that the conference committee report on H. No. 7198, which became R.A. No. 8240, was approved on
that day. The Journal is regarded as conclusive with respect to matters that are required by the Constitution to be
recorded therein.

 The Court has not been invested with a roving commission to inquire into complaints, real or imagined, of
legislative skullduggery. It would be acting in excess of its power and would itself be guilty of grave abuse
of its discretion were it to do so. 
 Remedy: Petitioners can seek the enactment of a new law or the repeal or amendment of R.A. No. 8240. 

Disposition
Petition for certiorari and prohibition is DISMISSED.