This case concerns a challenge to the validity of a law that amended provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code. The petitioners, who were members of the House of Representatives, argued the law violated rules of the House. Specifically, petitioner Rep. Arroyo objected to the approval of the conference committee report on the bill. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the rules of each House are procedural and can be waived or disregarded by the legislative body. Since the requisite number of members agreed to pass the measure, mere failure to follow the rules does not nullify the law. The Court also found it should not interfere in internal matters of the House, such as procedural disputes among its members. Therefore, the law was upheld as
This case concerns a challenge to the validity of a law that amended provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code. The petitioners, who were members of the House of Representatives, argued the law violated rules of the House. Specifically, petitioner Rep. Arroyo objected to the approval of the conference committee report on the bill. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the rules of each House are procedural and can be waived or disregarded by the legislative body. Since the requisite number of members agreed to pass the measure, mere failure to follow the rules does not nullify the law. The Court also found it should not interfere in internal matters of the House, such as procedural disputes among its members. Therefore, the law was upheld as
This case concerns a challenge to the validity of a law that amended provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code. The petitioners, who were members of the House of Representatives, argued the law violated rules of the House. Specifically, petitioner Rep. Arroyo objected to the approval of the conference committee report on the bill. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the rules of each House are procedural and can be waived or disregarded by the legislative body. Since the requisite number of members agreed to pass the measure, mere failure to follow the rules does not nullify the law. The Court also found it should not interfere in internal matters of the House, such as procedural disputes among its members. Therefore, the law was upheld as
Facts: A petition was filed challenging the validity of RA 8240, which amends certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code !etitioners, who are mem"ers of the #ouse of Representatives, charged that there is violation of the rules of the #ouse which petitioners claim are constitutionally$mandated so that their violation is tantamount to a violation of the Constitution %he law originated in the #ouse of Representatives %he &enate approved it with certain amendments A "icameral conference committee was formed to reconcile the disagreeing provisions of the #ouse and &enate versions of the "ill %he "icameral committee su"mitted its report to the #ouse 'uring the interpellations, Rep Arroyo made an interruption and moved to ad(ourn for lac) of *uorum +ut after a roll call, the Chair declared the presence of a *uorum %he interpellation then proceeded After Rep Arroyo,s interpellation of the sponsor of the committee report, -a(ority .eader Al"ano moved for the approval and ratification of the conference committee report %he Chair called out for o"(ections to the motion %hen the Chair declared/ 0%here "eing none, approved1 At the same time the Chair was saying this, Rep Arroyo was as)ing, 02hat is that3-r &pea)er41 %he Chair and Rep Arroyo were tal)ing simultaneously %hus, although Rep Arroyo su"se*uently o"(ected to the -a(ority .eader,s motion, the approval of the conference committee report had "y then already "een declared "y the Chair 5n the same day, the "ill was signed "y the &pea)er of the #ouse of Representatives and the !resident of the &enate and certified "y the respective secretaries of "oth #ouses of Congress %he enrolled "ill was signed into law "y !resident Ramos Issue: 2hether or not RA 8240 is null and void "ecause it was passed in violation of the rules of the #ouse e!": Rules of each #ouse of Congress are hardly permanent in character %hey are su"(ect to revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure of the "ody adopting them as they are primarily procedural Courts ordinarily have no concern with their o"servance %hey may "e waived or disregarded "y the legislative "ody Conse*uently, mere failure to conform to them does not have the effect of nullifying the act ta)en if the re*uisite num"er of mem"ers has agreed to a particular measure +ut this is su"(ect to *ualification 2here the construction to "e given to a rule affects person other than mem"ers of the legislative "ody, the *uestion presented is necessarily (udicial in character 6ven its validity is open to *uestion in a case where private rights are involved In the case, no rights of private individuals are involved "ut only those of a mem"er who, instead of see)ing redress in the #ouse, chose to transfer the dispute to the Court %he matter complained of concerns a matter of internal procedure of the #ouse with which the Court should not "e concerned %he claim is not that there was no *uorum "ut only that Rep Arroyo was effectively prevented from *uestioning the presence of a *uorum Rep Arroyo,s earlier motion to ad(ourn for lac) of *uorum had already "een defeated, as the roll call esta"lished the e7istence of a *uorum %he *uestion of *uorum cannot "e raised repeatedly especially when the *uorum is o"viously present for the purpose of delaying the "usiness of the #ouse
G.R. No. L-27038 January 30, 1970 - Pechueco Sons Company v. Provincial Board of Antique - January 1970 - Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence - Chanrobles Virtual Law Library