Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
August 14, 1997
JOKER P. ARROYO, EDCEL C. LAGMAN, JOHN HENRY R. OSMEA, WIGBERTO E. TAADA, and
RONALDO B. ZAMORA, petitioners, vs. JOSE DE VENECIA, RAUL DAZA, RODOLFO ALBANO, THE
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, AND THE COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents.
Issue: Challenging the validity of Republic Act No. 8240, which amends certain provisions of the National
Internal Revenue Code by imposing socalled sin taxes (actually specific taxes) on the manufacture and
sale of beer and cigarettes.
Facts:
1.) H. No. 7198 originating from the House of Representatives 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.
2.) A bicameral conference committee was formed to reconcile the disagreeing provisions of the
House and Senate versions of the bill. The bicameral conference committee submitted its report
to the House at 8 a.m. on November 21, 1996.
3.) Rep. Exequiel Javier delivered his sponsorship speech. Rep. Rogelio Sarmiento interpellated.
Rep. Arroyo moved to adjourn for lack of quorum. Rep. Antonio Cuenco objected to the motion
and asked for a head count. After a roll call, the Chair (Deputy Speaker Raul Daza) declared the
presence of a quorum. Rep. Arroyo appealed the ruling of the Chair, but his motion was defeated
when put to a vote. The interpellation of the sponsor thereafter proceeded.
4.) Rep. Arroyo announced that he was going to raise a question on the quorum.
5.) The bill was signed despite Senator Arroyo’s objection.
6.) 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 as having been
finally passed by the House of Representatives and by the Senate on November 21, 1996. The
enrolled bill was signed into law by President Fidel V. Ramos on November 22, 1996.
7.) Section 16 (3) Article VI, The courts cannot declare an act of the legislature void on account of
noncompliance with rules of procedure made by itself to govern its deliberations.
8.) Art. VIII, 1 this Courts function is merely [to] check whether or not the governmental branch or
agency has gone beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction, not that it erred or has a
different view. In the absence of a showing . . . [of] grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction, there is no occasion for the Court to exercise its corrective power. . . . It has no power
to look into what it thinks is apparent error.
9.) The case at hand does not present a situation in which a branch of the government has gone
beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction so as to call for the exercise of our Art. VIII, 1
power.
Held: The Court must assume that Congress or any House thereof acted in the good faith belief that its
conduct was permitted by its rules. Petition for certiorari and prohibition is DISMISSED.