Você está na página 1de 2

Prepared by: Emmanuel E Chung Jr.

LLB4101
I. CASE
G.R. No. 127255, June 26, 1998, JOKER P. ARROYO, EDCEL C. LAGMAN, JOHN HENRY
R. OSMEA, WIGBERTO E. TAADA, and RONALDO B. ZAMORA V JOSE DE
VENECIA, RAUL DAZA, RODOLFO ALBANO, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE
SECRETARY OF FINANCE, AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
II. FACTS
A petition was filed challenging the validity of RA 8240, which amends certain provisions of the
National Internal Revenue Code. 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 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 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.
III. ISSUES
Whether or not RA 8240 is null and void because it was passed in violation of the rules of the
House
IV. LAWS
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8240 (AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 138, 139, 140 AND 142 OF
THE NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES

V. RULING OF THE COURT: Rules of each House of Congress are hardly permanent in
character. They are subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body
adopting them as they are primarily procedural. Courts ordinarily have no concern with their
observance. They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body. Consequently, mere
failure to conform to them does not have the effect of nullifying the act taken if the requisite
number of members has agreed to a particular measure. But this is subject to qualification.
Where the construction to be given to a rule affects person other than members of the legislative
body, the question presented is necessarily judicial in character.
Even its validity is open to question in a case where private rights are involved.
In the 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 the Court.
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. Arroyos
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.
VI. CONCLUSION
The motion for rehearing and reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY