Legislative Procedure/Restrictions – Arroyo v. De Venecia – GR 127255, 08/14/97 – Mendoza, J.

Facts: Joker Arroyo and other House Reps filed against House Speaker Jose De Venecia et al. for violating the rules of HOR
which they claim are constitutionally mandated, making their violation also contrary to the Constitution. Petition for
certiorari and/or prohibition on the validity of RA 8240 which amends provisions of the NIRC by imposing “sin taxes”
(specific taxes) on the manufacture and sale of beer and cigarettes.

HB 7198 was approved on 09/12/96 and approved by the Senate, with amendments, on 11/17/96. A bicameral conference
committee was formed to reconcile the provisions between the houses. During the committee report’s approval, Arroyo
moved to adjourn for lack of quorum after the first interpellation of Exequiel Javier’s sponsorship speech. This motion was
defeated when Rep Cuenco called for a headcount and was granted by Deputy Speaker Raul Daza who declared the
presence of a quorum.

Arroyo registered to interpellate. During his interpellation, he announced he would question the quorum, but he never
did. Rep Adolfo Albano moved to approve/ratify the bill and was approved. The bill was signed by the Speaker and SenPres
with certifications of their secretaries as an enrolled bill on 11/21/96 then signed into law by Pres Ramos the next day.

Arroyo et al claimed there were 4 conflicting versions of the transcript but conceded that the word “approved” was in the
transcripts. Their main argument was that RA 8240 was null/void since its false and spurious passage was in violation of
Rules of HOR. Since the rules embody the “constitutional mandate” in 16(3) Art 6, violation of the Rules is contrary to the
Constitution. Because Arroyo’s objection was not heard, the passage of the bill was invalid.

They claimed the Rules were violated in Daza not calling for yeas or nays but simply asked for its approval by motion in
order to prevent Arroyo from questioning the presence of quorum; Daza ignored Arroyo’s question and did not repeat
Albano’s motion to approve; Daza acted on Albano’s motion and declared the report approved and; Daza suspended the
session without ruling on Arroyo’s question. Arroyo claims the session was hastily adjourned to prevent him from
challenging the existence of quorum and asking for reconsideration.

Respondents opposed the charges and argued that SC was not the proper place for enforcement of the Rules. Although
the Constitution provides for the creation of Rules, the Rules can’t be enforced by courts except on the constitutional
requirement of holding 3 readings on separate days before passing a bill. Furthermore, the Journal 39 shows that there
was no objection in the approval of the committee report on HB 7198.

Issue: (1) Is the violation of the Rules of HOR a violation of the Constitution? (2) Did HOR commit a grave abuse of discretion
in enacting RA 8240? (3) Was Arroyo’s objection valid? (4) Is the Enrolled Bill conclusive proof of due enactment?

Held: (1) No. The allegation of what was violated are merely internal rules of the House rather than constitutional
requirements for the enactment of a law; subordinate legislation. Arroyo didn’t claim that there was no quorum only that
he was prevented from questioning by some maneuver violating the Rules.

US v. Ballin, Joseph & Co.: 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.

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."

Courts cannot declare an act of legislature void on account merely of noncompliance with its own rules of procedure.
However, the Rules must not ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights.
Legislative Procedure/Restrictions – Arroyo v. De Venecia – GR 127255, 08/14/97 – Mendoza, J.

No rights of private individuals were involved; courts have no power over such matters unless it is an actual constitutional
violation. Arroyo must realize that there are 3 departments in the government, and they cannot impose or compel one
another. We must accordingly decline the invitation to exercise our power.

(2) No, CJ Concepcion says “nothing involving the abuse of discretion by other branches amounting to lack/excess of
jurisdiction is beyond judicial review.” This isn’t a justiciable controversy. There’s no point in exercising corrective powers
over noncompliance of internal rules.

The Court’s function is to check whether the governmental branch or agency has gone beyond the constitutional limits of
its jurisdiction; not because it erred or has a different view.

(3) No. Arroyo claims the enactment was railroaded; that he was still making a query when Daza declared Albano’s motion
approved. What happened was as Daza was approving, Arroyo simultaneously asked what the motion was. Arroyo
objected to the motion of approval after the report was approved. Thus, making his objection invalid.

He also argued that the approval motion should’ve been restated by Daza and that the votes were taken nominally. But
this matter isn’t a cause for courts to rule upon; neither is there a rule providing for such requirements.

The constitution doesn’t require that yeas and nays must be recorded every time Congress needs to vote; except on the
3rd Reading, at the request of 1/5 of members, and in repassing a bill vetoed by the President.

If Arroyo wanted to say something or object, he should’ve done it earlier.

(4) Yes, it’s an established rule of evidence that the official attestations of Congress’ presiding officers and secretaries
proves the due enactment of a bill. This is with respect to the separation of powers

In the Astorga case, SC “went behind” an enrolled bill because it conflicted with the Journal; the Journal is regarded as
conclusive with respect to matters that are required by the Constitution to be recorded therein.

A duly authenticated bill or resolution imports absolute verity and is binding on the courts

It would be an unwarranted invasion of the prerogative of a coequal department for this Court either to set aside a
legislative action as void because the Court thinks the House has disregarded its own rules of procedure, or to allow those
defeated in the political arena to seek a rematch in the judicial forum when petitioners can find their remedy in that
department itself.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is DISMISSED.

Legislative Procedure/Restrictions – Arroyo v. De Venecia – GR 127255, 08/14/97 – Mendoza, J.

JOKER P. ARROYO, EDCEL C. LAGMAN, JOHN HENRY R. OSMEÑA, WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, AND RONALDO B. ZAMORA, , vs.
JOSE DE VENECIA, RAUL DAZA, RODOLFO ALBANO, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, AND THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Romero, J. Separate Opinion:

- Enrolled Bill Doctrine must only be limited to minor matters relating to form and factual issues which don’t
materially alter the essence/substance of the law
- Introduction of new provisions in the committee report violated the constitutional proscription against
amendments after the last reading

Puno, J. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion:

- Enrolled Bill Doctrine should be abandoned because it may be questioned

o The original Enrolled Bill in England was the final evidence of due enactment of law
 Common Law practice
- The conclusiveness of an enrolled bill which all too often results in the suppression of truth

Vitug, J. Concurring Opinion:

- Grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government

o The term grave abuse of discretion has long been understood in our jurisprudence as, and confined
to, a capricious and whimsical or despotic exercise of judgment as amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.

RA 8240: An act amending Sections 138, 140, & 142 Of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended,
and for other purposes

Const 16 Art 6: The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives its Speaker, by a majority
vote of all its respective Members.

Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.

A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may
adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner, and
under such penalties, as such House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly
behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member.
A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.

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.

Neither House during the Sessions of the Congress shall, without consent of the other, adjourn
for more than 3 days, nor to any other place than that which the two Houses shall be sitting
Legislative Procedure/Restrictions – Arroyo v. De Venecia – GR 127255, 08/14/97 – Mendoza, J.

NIRC: National Internal Revenue Code

Rule 8 Sec 35: Voting. — Every member present in the session shall vote on every question put unless he inhibits
himself on account of personal pecuniary interest therein.

Rule 19 Sec 112: Manner of Voting. — The Speaker shall rise to put a question saying, "As many as are in favor of
(as the question may be), say Aye" and, after the affirmative vote is counted, "As many as are
opposed, say Nay . . .

Rule 19 Sec 112: Reading and Withdrawal of Motions. — The Speaker shall state the motion or, if in writing, shall
cause it to be read by the Secretary General before being debated. A motion may be withdrawn
any time before its approval

Rule 26 Sec 97: Recognition of Member. — When two or more members rise at the same time, the Speaker shall
recognize the Member who is to speak first.

Rule 20 Sec 121: Definition. — Questions of privilege are those affecting the duties, conduct, rights, privileges,
dignity, integrity or reputation of the House or of its members, collectively or individually.

Rule 20 Sec 122: Precedence. — Subject to the ten-minute rule, questions of privilege shall have precedence over
all other questions, except a motion to adjourn and a point of order.

Rule 21 Sec 123: Definition and Precedence. — A privileged motion pertains to a subject matter which, under the
rules, takes precedence over others.

The order of precedence of privileged motions is determined in each case by the rules.

Rule 28 Sec 109: Who May Vote; Procedure; Exceptions. — When a bill, report or motion is adopted or lost, a
member who voted with the majority may move for its reconsideration on the same or succeeding
session day. The motion shall take precedence over all other questions, except a motion to
adjourn, a question of privilege, and a point of order.
Legislative Procedure/Restrictions – Arroyo v. De Venecia – GR 127255, 08/14/97 – Mendoza, J.

Journal No. 39 Excerpt:

Albano: Mr. Speaker, I move that we now approve and ratify the conference committee report.

Deputy Speaker Daza: Any objection to the motion?

Arroyo What is that, Mr. Speaker?

Deputy Speaker Daza: There being none, approved.

*Gavel*

Arroyo: No, no, no, wait a minute, Mr. Speaker, I stood up. I want to know what is the question
that the Chair asked the distinguished sponsor.

Deputy Speaker Daza: There was a motion by the Majority Leader for approval of the report, and the Chair called
for the motion.

Arroyo: Objection, I stood up, so I wanted to object.

Deputy Speaker Daza: The session is suspended for one minute.

*It was 3:01PM*

*3:40PM; session resumed*

Deputy Speaker Daza: The session is resumed.

Albano: Mr. Speaker, I move to adjourn until four o'clock, Wednesday, next week.

Deputy Speaker Daza: The session is adjourned until four o'clock, Wednesday, next week

*It was 3:40PM*