G.R. No. 127255.

June 26, 1998

JOKER P. ARROYO, EDCEL C. LAGMAN, JOHN HENRY R. OSMEA, WIGBERTO E. TAADA, and
RONALDO B. ZAMORA, Petitioners
vs.
JOSE DE VENECIA, RAUL DAZA, RODOLFO ALBANO, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE
SECRETARY OF FINANCE, AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

Facts:
The petitioners are challenging the validity of R.A. 8420 (amends certain
provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code by imposing Sin Taxes) by filing
a petition for for certiorari and/or prohibition. They claim that respondents violated
the rules of the House which are "constitutionally mandated" so that their violation
is tantamount to a violation of the Constitution when the Chair of the Committee
(Deputy Speaker Raul Daza) allegedly ignored a privileged question raised by Rep.
Arroyo during the committee report for the approval of R.A. 8420.
Petitioners claim that there are actually four different versions of the
transcript of this portion of Rep. Arroyo's interpellation:
(1)the transcript of audio-sound recording of the proceedings in the session hall
(2) the transcript of the proceedings from 3:00 p.m. to 3:40 p.m. of November 21,
1996, as certified by the Chief of the Transcription Division on November 21, 1996
(3) the transcript of the proceedings from 3:00 p.m. to 3:40 p.m. of November 21,
1996 as certified by the Chief of the Transcription Division on November 28, 1996
(4) the published version
Petitioners contend that the House rules were adopted pursuant to the
constitutional provision that "each House may determine the rules of its
proceedings" and that for this reason they are judicially enforceable. This
contention was invoked by parties, although not successfully, precisely to support
claims of autonomy of the legislative branch to conduct its business free from
interference by courts. In this case, petitioners cite the provision for the opposite
purpose of invoking judicial review.

Issue:
Whether or not the House of Representatives acted with grave abuse of discretion
in enacting R.A. No. 8240 affects its validity?

Held:
The petition was dismissed. According to the findings of the court, the alleged
violations are merely internal rules of procedures rather than what petitioners claim
to be constitutional requirements for enacting laws. In this 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 this Court. It would be an unwarranted
invasion of the prerogative of a coequal department for this Court either to set
aside a legislative action as void because the Court thinks the House has
disregarded its own rules of procedure, or to allow those defeated in the political
arena to seek a rematch in the judicial forum when petitioners can find their remedy
in that department itself.