6 Arroyo V de Venecia

CASE DIGEST
Arroyo vs De Venecia (277 SCRA 268)

Statutory Construction
Court Supreme Court En Banc

Citation G.R. No. 127255
Date August 14, 1997
Petitioner Joker P. Arroyo, et. al
Respondent Jose De Venecia, et. al
Ponente J. Mendoza
FACTS:
Petitioners in this case petition for certioriari and/or prohibition challenging the validity of RA 8240,
“An act amending Sections 138, 140, & 142 of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and for
other purposes” by imposing so-called sin-taxes on the manufacture and sale of beer and cigarettes.
RA 8240 passed its third reading on November 18, 1996 and on November 21 of the same year,
the Bicameral conference committee submitted report to House which reconciles the disagreeing
provisions of the House and Senate versions of the bill; sponsorship speech and interpellations
happened. During the bicameral conference, Rep. Arroyo moved to adjourn for lack of quorum, however,
Rep. Cuenco objected to the motion and asked for a head count. Chair (Deputy Speaker Daza) declared
the presence of a quorum after a roll call and Rep. Arroyo appealed the ruling of the Chair but his motion
was defeated when put to a vote.
Rep. Arroyo registered to interpellate, he was 4 th in order. 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 as evidenced by the transcript of the session on November 21, 1996.
After Rep. Arroyo’s interpellation of the sponsor of the committee report, Majority Floor Leader
Albano moved for the approval and ratification of the conference committee report. The Chair called out
for objections to the motion; then he declared: “There being none, approved.” At the same time the Chair
was declaring the approval, Rep. Arroyo was asking: “What is that... Mr. Speaker?” The Chair and Rep.
Arroyo were talking simultaneously. Although Rep. Arroyo subsequently objected to the motion, the
approval of the conference committee report had by then already declared by the Chair, symbolized by its
banging of the gavel.
On this same day, the bill was signed by the Speaker of the HoR and President of the Senate; as
well as certified by the respective Secretaries of both Houses of Congress as having been finally passed.
On November 22, 1996, President Fidel V. Ramos signed the bill into law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not RA 8240 is null and void because it was passed in violation of the rules of the
House; that these rules embody the constitutional mandate (Art VI, Section 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.
HELD:
What is alleged to have been violated in the enactment of RA 8240 are merely internal rules of
procedure of the House rather than the constitutional requirements for the enactment of a law (Art. VI,
Sections 26-27). The survey of jurisprudence was concluded with the useful summary of rulings by former
CJ 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. When 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.
Thus, 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 judicial power.
On the issue of quorum, the claim is not that there was no quorum but only that Rep. Arroyo was
effectively prevented from questioning the presence of a quorum. Rep. Arroyo's earlier motion to adjourn
for lack of quorum had already been defeated as the roll call established the existence of a quorum.
The Court has not been endowed 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. The suggestion made in a case may instead appropriately be made here:
petitioners can seek the enactment of a new law or the repeal or amendment of R.A. No. 8240. In the
absence of anything to the contrary, the Court must assume that Congress or any House thereof acted in
the good faith belief that its conduct was permitted by its rules, and deference rather than disrespect is
due the judgment of that body.
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is DISMISSED.

6 Arroyo V de Venecia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6 Arroyo V de Venecia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

6 Arroyo V de Venecia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE DIGEST

Arroyo vs De Venecia (277 SCRA 268)

Court Supreme Court En Banc

You might also like