ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST (Formerly AASJAS) OFFICERS

SAMSON S. ALCANTARA and ED VINCENT S. ALBANO, petitioners, vs.

THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA;
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
CESAR PURISIMA; and HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE GUILLERMO PARAYNO, JR., respondents.
G.R. No. 168056
September 1, 2005
Austria-Martinez, J

SUBJECT MATTER:
Enactment of Statutes; Enrolled Bill Theory; Journal Entry
**This digest focuses on procedural issues that pushed petitioners to claim invalidation of RA 9337

DOCTRINE(S) AND APPLICABLE CONCEPT(S):

Enrolled Bill Doctrine: An enrolled bill is conclusive to the Court and the Court cannot speculate or infer that there was a
mistake in the printing of the bill given its certification by Congress and approval by the President before final enactment
of the law.

LEGAL BASIS AND APPLICABLE CONCEPT(S):

SECTION 24, ARTICLE 6, 1987 CONSTITUTION: 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.

PARAGRAPH 2, SECTION 26, ARTICLE 6, 1987 CONSTITUTION: 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

ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

PETITION to invalidate RA 9337 on the grounds of constitutional infirmities in its passage
Petitioner(s): ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST (Formerly AASJAS) OFFICERS SAMSON S. ALCANTARA and
ED VINCENT S. ALBANO

Respondent(s): THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA; HONORABLE SECRETARY

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE CESAR PURISIMA; and HONORABLE COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE GUILLERMO PARAYNO, JR.

SUMMARY:

Petitioners questions the constitutionality of RA 9337 (“AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 27, 28, 34, 106, 107, 108, 109,
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 119, 121, 148, 151, 236, 237 AND 288 OF THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE
CODE OF 1997, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”) on the grounds of constitutional infirmities in its
passage. The Supreme Court ruled RA 9337 as constitutional as its passing did not violate Sections 24 and 26 of Article 6
of the 1987 Constitution.

ANTECEDENT FACTS:
● January 7, 2005: HB 3555 was introduced with the President certifying it for immediate enactment.
● January 27, 2005: HREP approved HB 3555 on second and third reading.
 ● February 8, 2005: HB 3705, an offshoot bill of HB 3555, was also certified by the President for immediate
enactment.
● February 28, 2005: HREP approved HB 3705 on second and third reading.
● April 13, 2005: SB 1950 was approved by the Senate on second and third reading. The Senate agreed to the
request of HREP for a committee conference (Bicam Conference) on the disagreeing provisions of the proposed
bills covering the same issues (amendments to the National Internal Revenue Code).
● May 10, 2005: Senate approved Bicam Report.
● May 11, 2005: HREP approved Bicam Report.
● May 23, 2005: Enrolled bill transmitted to the President.
● May 24, 2005: President signed RA 9337 into law.
● July 1, 2005: TRO issued by SC to enjoin respondents from enforcing the law.

ISSUE(S), HOLDING, AND RATIO:

1. WON RA 9337 is valid ? -- YES
RULING RATIO

1. YES, its passing did not violate
constitutional provisions on proper
enactment of revenue bills.
● The SC firstly invoked the doctrine of the enrolled bill theory:
The Court is not the proper forum to question the validity of a
law based on the constitutional infirmities of its passage given
that these are governed by internal rules of Congress which
Congress determines for itself (please review Arroyo vs. De
Venecia ruling) BUT OK MAINGAY KAYO EDI ETO
DECISION NAMIN:
○ As laid down in the ruling of Tolentino vs. Secretary of
Finance: the Bicameral Conference can substantially
change any revenue bill introduced by the House of
Representatives as long as changes introduced are
germane to the subject of the bills (including the
Senate bill) before the committee.
■ The inclusion of a new provision by the Bicam
is considered an “amendment in the nature of
a substitute”, and thus valid.
○ As laid down in the ruling of Tolentino vs. Secretary of
Finance as well: the “no-amendment rule” refers
only to the procedure to be followed by each
house of Congress with regard to bills initiated in
each house, BEFORE bill is transmitted to the
other house for concurrence and amendment.
○ There is no question that the bill originated in the
HREP via the earlier introduction of HB 3555 and HB
3705 before its Senate counterpart bill. Provisions
incorporated by the Senate via the Bicam Committee
Meeting is a valid exercise of the Senate’s co-equal
legislative power to propose amendments thereto.

DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, Republic Act No. 9337 not being unconstitutional, the petitions in G.R. Nos. 168056, 168207, 168461,
168463, and 168730, are hereby DISMISSED.
There being no constitutional impediment to the full enforcement and implementation of R.A. No. 9337, the temporary
restraining order issued by the Court on July 1, 2005 is LIFTED upon finality of herein decision.
SO ORDERED.
MAIN SEPARATE OPINIONS for Procedural Issues:

Davide, Jr., C.J., pls. see separate concurring and dissenting opinion.
- I vote to declare R.A. No. 9337 as unconstitutional insofar as it amends provisions pertaining to VAT (as this
originated from the Senate BIll and NOT the House bills).
Puno, J., pls. see concurring and dissenting opinion.
- The Bicam Conference Committee actions are paramount to a “third House of Congress” and exceeded its
jurisdiction of settling the differences between the House and Senate bills presented to them:
- Removal of “no pass on provision” common in SB 1950 and HB 3705
- Addition of provision absent in the presented bills (added restrictions on local government’s use of
incremental revenue from the VAT)
- High time to reexamine the germaneness proffered in the Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance ruling.
- I vote to declare the unconstitutionality of the provisions stated above.