Arroyo vs de Venecia

G.R. No. 127255

Facts:
Arroyo and others filed a petition challenging the validity of RA 8240 or sin tax
law. 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. Arroyos interpellation of the sponsor of the committee report, Majority Leader
Albano moved for the approval and ratification of the conference committee report.
The Chaircalled 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 Chairand 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. The issue here is wheter or not RA 8240 is
validly passed into law.
Statutory construction rule used: Enrolled Bill Doctrine
Application of the Rule on the case:
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. If there is no evidence to the contrary, the certification of the presiding
officers of both Houses that a bill has been duly passed will be respected. Under this rule,
the Supreme 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 verity and is binding on the courts.

Chua vs CSC

G.R. No. 88979

Facts:
R.A.6683 was enacted to provide for the early retirement and voluntary separation of
government employees affected due to reorganization, those who may avail were regular,
casual, temporary and emergency employees, with rendered service minimum of two
years.
Petitioner Lydia Chua was hired by the National Irrigation Administration Authoruty for
over 15 years as a coterminous employee of 4 successive NIA projects. She availed of the
above mentioned law only to be denied as the CSC who deemed her unqualified, being a
coterminous employee. She was instead offered a severance of monthly basic pay for
each year of service. The issue here is whether or not the petitioner was entitled to avail
of the early retirement benefit as a coterminous employee.
Statutory rule: Doctrine of Necessary Implication
Application in the case:
The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of necessary implication which holds that what
is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is expressed. Every statute is
understood, by implication, to contain all such provisions as may be necessary to
effectuate its object and purpose, or to make effective rights, powers, privileges or
jurisdiction which it grants, including all such collateral and subsidiary consequences as
may be fairly and logically inferred from its terms.This is ex necessitate legis or necessity
of the law. every statutory grant of power, right or privilege is deemed to include all
incidental power, right or privilege. This is so because the greater includes the lesser,
expressed in the Maxim, in eo plus sit, simper inest et minus. What is thought, at the time
of enactment, to be an all-embracing legislation may be inadequate to provide for the
unfolding events of the future. So-called gaps in the law develop as the law is enforced.
One of the rules of statutory construction used to fill in the gap is the doctrine of
necessary implication.