No.

231

EN BANC
JOKER P. ARROYO, ET AL v. JOSE DE VENECIA, ET AL
[G.R. No. 127255, August 14, 1997]
MENDOZA, J.

Facts:

A petition was filed challenging the validity of RA 8240, which was introduced to
the House of Representatives amending certain provisions of the National Internal
Revenue Code involving taxations on the manufacture and sale of beer and cigarette.

The law originated in the House of Representatives as H. No. 7198. This bill was
approved on third reading on September 12, 1996 and transmitted on September 16,
1996 to the Senate which approved it with certain amendments on third reading on
November 17, 1996.

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.
Arroyo’s interpellation 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 that…Mr. Speaker?” The Chair and Rep. Arroyo were talking simultaneously. Thus,
although Rep. Arroyo subsequently objected to the Majority Leader’s 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.

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.

Issue:

Whether or not the law was passed on violation on the constitutional mandate.
Held:

No. The law was passed without violating a constitutional mandate.

There is no rule of the House concerned that quorum shall be determined by viva
voce or nominal voting. The Constitution does not require that the yeas and nays of the
Members be taken every time a House has to vote, except only on the following
instances – upon the last and the third readings of the bill, at the request of 1/5 of the
Members present and in repassing a bill over the veto of the President. Second, there is
obviousness on the part of the petitioner to delay the business of the House, thus
eliminating the alleged skullduggery on part of the accused. Third, the enrolled bill
doctrine states that enrolled bills are in itself conclusive thus legally binding provided it
is in harmony with the constitution. Lastly, the court upheld principle of separation of
powers, which herein, is applicable for the legislative branch for it has exercised its
power without grave abuse of discretion resulting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

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. 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
question of quorum cannot be raised repeatedly especially when the quorum is
obviously present for the purpose of delaying the business of the House.

After considering the arguments of the parties, the Court finds no ground for
holding that Congress committed a grave abuse of discretion in enacting R.A. No. 8240.
This case is therefore dismissed.