Arroyo vs. De Venecia G.R. No.

127255, August 14, 1997

Facts:
A petition was filed challenging the validity of RA 8240,
whichamends certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue
Code. Petitioners, who are members of the House of
Representatives, charged that there is violation of the rules of the
House which petitioners claim are constitutionally-mandated so
that their violation is tantamount to a violation of the
Constitution.
The law originated in the House of Representatives. The Senate
approved it with certain amendments. A bicameral conference
committee was formed to reconcile the disagreeing provisions of
the House and Senate versions of the bill. The bicameral
committee submitted its report to the House. During the
interpellations, Rep. Arroyo made an interruption and moved to
adjourn for lack of quorum. But after a roll call, the Chair declared
the presence of a quorum. The interpellation then proceeded.
After Rep. Arroyosinterpellation of the sponsor of the committee
report, Majority Leader Albano moved for the approval and
ratification of the conference committee report. The Chair called
out for objections to the motion. Then the Chair declared: There
being none, approved. At the same time the Chair was saying
this, Rep. Arroyo was asking, What is thatMr. Speaker? The
Chair and Rep. Arroyo were talking simultaneously. Thus,
although Rep. Arroyo subsequently objected to the Majority
Leaders motion, the approval of the conference committee
report had by then already been declared by the Chair.
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 the respective secretaries of both Houses of Congress. The
enrolled bill was signed into law by President Ramos.

Issue:
Whether or not RA 8240 is null and void because it was passed in
violation of the rules of the House
Held:
Rules of each House of Congress are hardly permanent in
character. 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 has agreed to a particular measure. But this
is subject to qualification. Where the construction to be given to a
rule affects person 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 the 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 the Court.
The matter complained of concerns a matter of internal
procedure of the House with which the Court should not be
concerned. 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. Arroyos earlier motion to adjourn for
lack of quorum had already been defeated, as the roll call
established the existence of a quorum. The question of quorum
cannot be raised repeatedly especially when the quorum is
obviously present for the purpose of delaying the business of
the House.