G.R. No.

127255 August 14, 1997

JOKER P. ARROYO, et al, petitioner,
vs.
JOSE DE VENECIA, et al, respondents.

FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari and/or prohibition challenging the validity of Republic Act No.
8240, which amends certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code by imposing so-called "sin
taxes" (actually specific taxes) on the manufacture and sale of beer and cigarettes.
Petitioners are members of the House of Representatives. They brought this suit against
respondents Jose de Venecia, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Deputy Speaker Raul Daza,
Majority Leader Rodolfo Albano, the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Finance, and the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, charging 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.

First. It is clear from the foregoing facts that what is alleged to have been violated in the enactment
of R.A. No. 8240 are merely internal rules of procedure of the House rather than constitutional
requirements for the enactment of a law, i.e., Art. VI, §§26-27. Petitioners do not claim that there
was no quorum but only that, by some maneuver allegedly in violation of the rules of the House,
Rep. Arroyo was effectively prevented from questioning the presence of a quorum.

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
9

enforceable. To begin with, this contention stands the principle on its head. In the decided
cases,   the constitutional provision that "each House may determine the rules of its proceedings"
10

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. Here petitioners cite the
provision for the opposite purpose of invoking judicial review.

In United States v. Ballin, Joseph & Co.,   the rules was stated thus: "The Constitution empowers
12

each house to determine its rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional
restraints or violate fundamental rights, and there should be a reasonable relation between the mode
or method of proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought to be attained. But
within these limitations all matters of method are open to the determination of the House, and it is no
impeachment of the rule to say that some other way would be better, more accurate, or even more
just. It is no objection to the validity of a rule that a different one has been prescribed and in force for
a length of time. The power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a
continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the House, and within the limitations
suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal."

Fourth. Under the enrolled bill doctrine, the signing of H. No. 7198 by the Speaker of the House and
the President of the Senate and the certification by the secretaries of both Houses of Congress that
it was passed on November 21, 1996 are conclusive of its due enactment. Much energy and
learning is devoted in the separate opinion of Justice Puno, joined by Justice Davide, to disputing
this doctrine. To be sure, there is no claim either here or in the decision in the EVAT cases
[Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance] that the enrolled bill embodies a conclusive presumption. In one
case   we "went behind" an enrolled bill and consulted the Journal to determine whether certain
38

provisions of a statute had been approved by the Senate.

But, where as here there is no evidence to the contrary, this Court will respect the certification of the
presiding officers of both Houses that a bill has been duly passed. Under this rule, this Court has
refused to determine claims that the three-fourths vote needed to pass a proposed amendment to
the Constitution had not been obtained, because "a duly authenticated bill or resolution imports
absolute verify and is binding on the courts."

The enrolled bill doctrine, as a rule of evidence, is well established. It is cited with approval by text
writers here and abroad.   The enrolled bill rule rests on the following considerations:
44

. . . As the President has no authority to approve a bill not passed by Congress, an enrolled
Act in the custody of the Secretary of State, and having the official attestations of the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, of the President of the Senate, and of the
 President of the United States, carries, on its face, a solemn assurance by the legislative and
executive departments of the government, charged, respectively, with the duty of enacting
and executing the laws, that it was passed by Congress. The respect due to coequal and
independent departments requires the judicial department to act upon that assurance, and to
accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated; leaving the
court to determine, when the question properly arises, whether the Act, so authenticated, is
in conformity with the Constitution. 
45

To overrule the doctrine now, as the dissent urges, is to repudiate the massive teaching of our cases
and overthrow an established rule of evidence.

Moreover, as already noted, the due enactment of the law in question is confirmed by the Journal of
the House of November 21, 1996 which shows that the conference committee report on H. No.
7198, which became R.A. No. 8740, was approved on that day. The keeping of the Journal is
required by the Constitution, Art. VI, §16(4) provides:

Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same,
excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national security; and
the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present,
be entered in the Journal.

Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.

The Journal is regarded as conclusive with respect to matters that are required by the Constitution to
be recorded therein.   With respect to other matters, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the
46

Journals have also been accorded conclusive effect. Thus, in United States v. Pons,   this Court
47

spoke of the imperatives of public policy for regarding the Journals as "public memorials of the most
permanent character," thus: "They should be public, because all are required to conform to them;
they should be permanent, that rights acquired today upon the faith of what has been declared to be
law shall not be destroyed tomorrow, or at some remote period of time, by facts resting only in the
memory of individuals." As already noted, the bill which became R.A. No. 8240 is shown in the
Journal. Hence its due enactment has been duly proven.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is DISMISSED.