This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of RA 7716, also known as the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law. The plaintiff argued that it violated provisions requiring revenue bills to originate in the House of Representatives and be passed in three readings on separate days. The Supreme Court held that the law did not violate these provisions, as the phrase "originate exclusively" refers to the revenue bill, not law, and the certified urgency of one bill waived reading requirements.
This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of RA 7716, also known as the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law. The plaintiff argued that it violated provisions requiring revenue bills to originate in the House of Representatives and be passed in three readings on separate days. The Supreme Court held that the law did not violate these provisions, as the phrase "originate exclusively" refers to the revenue bill, not law, and the certified urgency of one bill waived reading requirements.
This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of RA 7716, also known as the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law. The plaintiff argued that it violated provisions requiring revenue bills to originate in the House of Representatives and be passed in three readings on separate days. The Supreme Court held that the law did not violate these provisions, as the phrase "originate exclusively" refers to the revenue bill, not law, and the certified urgency of one bill waived reading requirements.
Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance By: Dennis D. San Diego G.R. No. 115455 235 SCRA 630 (1994) FACTS RA 7716, otherwise known as the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law, is an act that seeks to widen the tax base of the existing VAT system and enhance its administration by amending the National Internal Revenue Code. There are various suits questioning and challenging the constitutionality of RA 7716 on various grounds. Tolentino contends that RA 7716 did not originate exclusively from the House of Representatives but is a mere consolidation of HB. No. 11197 and SB. No. 1630 and it did not pass three readings on separate days on the Senate thus violating Article VI, Sections 24 and 26(2) of the Constitution, respectively. Art. VI, Section 24: All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. Art. VI, Section 26(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. ISSUE Whether or not RA 7716 violated Art. VI, Section 24 and Art. VI, Section 26(2) of the Constitution. HELD No. The phrase originate exclusively refers to the revenue bill and not to the revenue law. It is sufficient that the House of Representatives initiated the passage of the bill which may undergo extensive changes in the Senate. SB. No. 1630, having been certified as urgent by the President need not meet the requirement not only of printing but also of reading the bill on separate days. April 2, 2012 - Posted by thelawaspirants | Statutory Construction | government, politics No comments yet. About This is an example of a WordPress page, you could edit this to put information about yourself or your site so readers know where you are coming from. You can create as many pages like this one or sub-pages as you like and manage all of your content inside of WordPress. Site info The Law Aspirants The Andreas04 Theme. Blog at WordPress.com. < 1 min to Spreed About these ads (http://en.wordpress.com/about-these-ads/)
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
Alan K. Lauckner v. United States v. John Hug Paul E. Costello Thomas J. Giacomaro Umberto J. Guido, Jr. William McGlynn Leonard A. Pellulo, Counterclaim, 68 F.3d 69, 3rd Cir. (1995)