Arroyo v. De Venecia Case Digest

Arroyo v. De Venecia
GR No. 127255

Digest by Kirk Yngwie Enriquez

Facts:

Petitioners are members of the House of Reps, challenging the validity of RA 8420 amending certain provisions of the NIRC by imposing so-called “sin taxes” on the manufacture and sale of beer and cigarettes. Petition is against Speaker of the House Jose De Venecia, Deputy Speaker Raul Daza, Majority Floor Leader Rodolfo Albano, Executive Secretary, Secretary of Finance, and Commissioner of Internal Revenue, charging violation of the riles of the House which are “constitutionally mandated”, so their violation is tantamount to a constitutional violation.

The law originated in the House of Reps as HB 7198, was approved on 3rd reading on September 12, 1996, and transmitted to the Senate on September 16, 1996 which approved it with certain amendments on third reading on November 17, 1996. A bicameral conference committee was formed to reconcile disagreeing provisions of both Houses. The bicam committee submitted its report to the House at 8AM on November 21, 1996. Rep. Exequiel Javier, chairman of the committee on ways and means proceeded to deliver his sponsorship speech and was interpellated. When Rep. Rogelio Sarmiento was interpellating, he was interrupted when petitioner moved to adjourn for lack of quorum. The motion was objected and a roll call was done. Deputy Speaker Raul Daza decalred the presence of a quorum. Petitoner appealed but was defeated when put to a vote. The interpellation proceeded.

Petitioner registered to interpellate and was 4th in order. Petitioner announced that he was going to raise a question on the quorum, never did. The transcript on the session on November 21, 1996 as published by Congress in the newspaper issues shows that when petitioner was asking the Speaker a question, the Speaker outright approved the bill acting on the motion by Rep. Albano. When petitioner tried to clarify, session was suspended by the Speaker. On the same day, the bill was signed by the Speaker and the Senate President and certified by the secretaries of both Houses of Congress. The enrolled bill was signed into law by President Ramos on November 22, 1996.

Petitioners claim that there are 4 different versions of the transcript:

The transcript of audio-sound recording of the proceedings immediately after the session adjourned at 3:40pm.

The transcript of proceedings from 3:00pm – 3:40pm of November 21, 1996 as certified by the Chief of the Transcription Division on November 21.

The transcript of proceedings from 3:00pm – 3:40pm on November 21, 1996 as certified by the Chief of Transcription Division on November 28.

The published version in the newspapers.

Petitioners claim that the four versions differ on 3 points:

In the audio-sound, the word “approved” cannot be heard
.
In the transcript certified on Nov 21, the word “no” appears only once, while in other versions it is repeated 3 times.

The published version does not contain “you better prepare for a quorum because I will raise the question of the quorum.”

Petitioners argue that RA 8240 is null and void because it was passed in violation 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 from questioning the presence of a quorum (in violation of Rule VIII 35 and Rule XVII 103).

The Chair ignored petitioner’s question (in violation of Rule XIX 112).

The Chair refused to recognize petitioner and proceeded to act on motion of Rep. Albano (in violation of Rule XVI 97).

The Chair suspended the session without first ruling on petitioner’s question which was allegedly a point of order or privileged motion.

Respondents 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. Respondents also argue that in passing the bill, the rules of the house were faithfully observed.

Issue:

WON the House of Reps committed a grave abuse of discretion in enacting RA 8240.


Ruling:
No. The Court finds no ground for holding that Congress committed a grave abuse of discretion in enacting RA 8240. 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.
In Osmena v. Pendatun, the Court ruled that rules adopted by deliberative bodies are subject to revocation, modification, or waiver at the pleasure of the body adopting them. Parliamentary rules are merely procedural, and with their observance, the courts have no concern.

In US v. Ballin, Joseph, & Co., the rule stated was the Constitution (US) empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings.

In City Loan & Savings Co. v. Moore, the SC of Ohio rules that the provision for consideration is no part of the Constitution and is therefore entirely within the control of the General Assembly. Having made the rule, it should be regarded, but a failure to regard it is not subject-matter of judicial inquiry.
According to Chief Justice Fernando, mere failure to conform to the rules of proceedings of Congress does not have the effect of nullifying the act taken if the requisite number of members have agreed to a particular measure.

In the instant case, the matter complained of concerns a matter of internal procedure of the House which the Court should not be concerned about. The claim was not that there was no quorum, but only that petitioner was prevented from questioning the presence of a quorum.

Also, under the enrolled bill doctrine, the signing of HB 7198 by the presiding officers and certification by the secretaries of both Houses that it was passed on November 21, 1996 is conclusive of its due enactment. When there is no evidence to the contrary, the Court will respect the certification of the presiding officers of both Houses that a bill has been duly passed. To disregard the enrolled bill doctrine would be to disregard the respect due the other departments of the government.
Petitioners have not advanced any argument that warrants departure from the doctrine. The due enactment of the law is likewise confirmed by the Journal of the House of November 21, 1996 which shows that the conference committee report on HB 7198 which became RA 8240 wa sapproved on that day. The keeping of the Journal is required by Section 16 Article VI of the Constitution. The Journal is regarded as conclusive with respect to matters that are required by the Constitution to be recorded therein. With respect to other matters, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Journals have also been accorded conclusive effect.