Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
_______________
* EN BANC.
631
632
633
634
must come from the House of Representatives and that it does not
prohibit the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of
its receipt of the bill from the House.·Indeed, what the Constitution
simply means is that the initiative for filing revenue, tariff, or tax
bills, bills authorizing an increase of the public debt, private bills
and bills of local application must come from the House of
Representatives on the theory that, elected as they are from the
districts, the members of the House can be expected to be more
sensitive to the local needs and problems. On the other hand, the
senators, who are elected at large, are expected to approach the
635
636
which being that the third version be germane to the subject of the
House and Senate bills.
Same; Same; Same; The report of the conference committee
needs the approval of both houses of Congress to become valid as an
act of the legislative department.·Indeed, this Court recently held
that it is within the power of a conference committee to include in
its report an entirely new provision that is not found either in the
House bill or in the Senate bill. If the committee can propose an
amendment consisting of one or two provisions, there is no reason
why it cannot propose several provisions, collectively considered as
an „amendment in the nature of a substitute,‰ so long as such
amendment is germane to the subject of the bills before the
committee. After all, its report was not final but needed the
approval of both houses of Congress to become valid as an act of the
legislative department. The charge that in this case the Conference
Committee acted as a third legislative chamber is thus without any
basis.
Same; Same; Same; Separation of Powers; It is common place in
Congress that conference committee reports include new matters
which, though germane, have not been committed to the committee,
and if a change is desired in the practice, it must be sought in
Congress since this question is not covered by any constitutional
provision but is only an internal rule of each house.·To be sure,
nothing in the Rules limits a conference committee to a
consideration of conflicting provisions. But Rule XLIV, § 112 of the
Rules of the Senate is cited to the effect that „If there is no Rule
applicable to a specific case the precedents of the Legislative
Department of the Philippines shall be resorted to, and as a
supplement of these, the Rules contained in JeffersonÊs Manual.‰
The following is then quoted from the JeffersonÊs Manual: The
637
638
amendment was invalid because the requisite votes for its approval
had not been obtained or that certain provisions of a statute had
been „smuggled‰ in the printing of the bill have moved or persuaded
us to look behind the proceedings of a coequal branch of the
government. There is no reason now to depart from this rule.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; While the „enrolled bill‰ rule
is not absolute, the Supreme Court should decline the invitation to
go behind the enrolled copy of the bill where allegations that the
constitutional procedures for the passage of bills have not been
observed have no more basis than another allegation that the
Conference Committee „surreptitiously‰ inserted provisions into a
bill which it had prepared.·No claim is here made that the
„enrolled bill‰ rule is absolute. In fact in one case we „went behind‰
an enrolled bill and consulted the Journal to determine whether
certain provisions of a statute had been approved by the Senate in
view of the fact that the President of the Senate himself, who had
signed the enrolled bill, admitted a mistake and withdrew his
signature, so that in effect there was no longer an enrolled bill to
consider. But where allegations that the constitutional procedures
for the passage of bills have not been observed have no more basis
than another allegation that the Conference Committee
„surreptitiously‰ inserted provisions into a bill which it had
prepared, we should decline the invitation to go behind the enrolled
copy of the bill. To disregard the „enrolled bill‰ rule in such cases
would be to disregard the respect due the other two departments of
our government.
Same; Same; Titles of Bills; The constitutional requirement that
every bill passed by Congress shall embrace only one subject which
shall be expressed in its title is intended to prevent surprise upon the
members of Congress and to inform the people of pending legislation
so that, if they wish to, they can be heard regarding it.·The
question is whether this amendment of § 103 of the NIRC is fairly
embraced in the title of Republic Act No. 7716, although no mention
is made therein of P.D. No. 1590 as among those which the statute
amends. We think it is, since the title states that the purpose of the
statute is to expand the VAT system, and one way of doing this is to
widen its base by withdrawing some of the exemptions granted
before. To insist that P.D. No. 1590 be
639
640
641
of the mind and conscience and the need to assure that the channels
of communication are open and operating importunately demand
the exercise of this CourtÊs power of review. There is, however, no
justification for passing upon the claims that the law also violates
the rule that taxation must be progressive and that it denies
petitionersÊ right to due process and the equal protection of the
laws. The reason for this different treatment has been cogently
stated by an eminent authority on constitutional law thus: „[W]hen
freedom of the mind is imperiled by law, it is freedom that
commands a momentum of respect; when property is imperiled it is
the lawmakersÊ judgment that commands respect. This dual
standard may not precisely reverse the presumption of
constitutionality in civil liberties cases, but obviously it does set up
a hierarchy of values within the due process clause.‰
Same; Same; Same; The legislature is not required to adhere to
a policy of „all or none‰ in choosing the subject of taxation.·On the
other hand, the CUPÊs contention that CongressÊ withdrawal of
exemption of producers cooperatives, marketing cooperatives, and
service cooperatives, while maintaining that granted to electric
cooperatives, not only goes against the constitutional policy to
promote cooperatives as instruments of social justice (Art. XII, § 15)
but also denies such cooperatives the equal protection of the law is
actually a policy argument. The legislature is not required to
adhere to a policy of „all or none‰ in choosing the subject of taxation.
Same; Same; Same; Regressivity is not a negative standard for
courts to enforce since what Congress is required by the Constitution
to do is to „evolve a progressive system of taxation.‰·Indeed,
regressivity
642
643
concrete record. We accept that this Court does not only adjudicate
private cases; that public actions by „non-Hohfeldian‰ or ideological
plaintiffs are now cognizable provided they meet the standing
requirement of the Constitution; that under Art. VIII, § 1, ¶ 2 the
Court has a „special function‰ of vindicating constitutional rights.
Nonetheless the feeling cannot be escaped that we do not have
before us in these cases a fully developed factual record that alone
can impart to our adjudication the impact of actuality to insure that
decision-making is informed and well grounded. Needless to say, we
do not have power to render advisory opinions or even jurisdiction
over petitions for declaratory judgment. In effect we are being asked
to do what the Conference Committee is precisely accused of having
done in these cases·to sit as a third legislative chamber to review
legislation.
644
645
only take up bills which have already been freely and fully
discussed in both chambers of the legislature, but as to which there
is need of reconciliation in view of „disagreeing provisions‰ between
them; and both chambers entrust the function of reconciling the
bills to their delegates at a conference committee with full
awareness, and tacit consent, that conformably with established
practice unquestioningly observed over many years, new provisions
may be included even if not within the „disagreeing provisions‰ but
of which, together with other changes, they will be given detailed
and sufficiently explicit information prior to voting on the
conference committee version.
Same; Same; Same; It is an unacceptable theorization that
when the BCC report and its proposed bill were submitted to the
Senate and the House, and the members thereof did not bother to
read, or what is worse, having read did not understand, what was
before them.·In any case, all the changes and revisions, and
deletions, made by the conference committee were all subsequently
considered by and approved by both the Senate and the House,
meeting and voting separately. It is an unacceptable theorization, to
repeat, that when the BCC report and its proposed bill were
submitted to the Senate and the House, and the members thereof
did not bother to read, or what is worse, having read did not
understand, what was before them, or did not realize that there
were new provisions in the reconciled version unrelated to any
„disagreeing provisions,‰ or that said new provisions or revisions
were effectively concealed from them. Moreover, it certainly was
entirely within the power and prerogative of either legislative
chamber to reject the BCC bill and require the organization of a
new bicameral conference committee. That this option was not
exercised by either house only proves that the BCC measure was
found to be acceptable as in fact it was approved and adopted by
both chambers.
646
Senate.
Same; Same; Same; The participation of the Senate was not in
proposing or concurring with amendments but in originating its own
Senate bill which was not embodied in but merged with the House
bill.·It would have been different if the only participation of the
Senate was in the amendment of the measure that was originally
proposed in the House of Representatives. But this was not the
case. The participation of the Senate was not in proposing or
concurring with
647
648
649
650
of origination and the absence of the phrase „as on other Bills,‰ the
Philippine Senate cannot amend by substitution with an entirely
new bill of its own any bill covered by Section 24 of Article VI which
the House of Representatives transmitted to it because such
substitution would indirectly violate Section 24.
Same; Same; Same; Presidential Certification of Bills; The only
revenue bill which could be properly certified on permissible
constitutional grounds is the bill that was introduced in the House.
·I submit, however, that the Presidential certification is void ab
initio not necessarily for the reason adduced by petitioner
Kilosbayan, Inc., but because it was addressed to the Senate for a
bill which is prohibited from originating therein. The only bill which
could be properly certified on permissible
651
652
653
654
655
656
Committee can wield ex post veto power wages war against our
settled ideals of representative democracy.·But the thesis that a
Bicameral Conference Committee can wield ex post veto power does
not only contravene the rules of both the Senate and the House. It
wages war againt our settled ideals of representative democracy.
For the inevitable, catastrophic effect of the thesis is to install a
Bicameral Conference Committee as the Third Chamber of our
Congress, similarly vested with the power to make laws but with
the dissimilarity that its laws are not the subject of a free and full
discussion of both Houses of Congress. With such a vagrant power, a
Bicameral Conference Com-mittee acting as a Third Chamber will
be a constitutional monstrosity.
Same; „Enrolled Bill‰ Doctrine; The enrolled bill theory is a
historical relic that should not continuously rule us from the
fossilized past.·Respondents seek sanctuary in the conclusiveness
of an enrolled bill to bar any judicial inquiry on whether Congress
observed our constitutional procedure in the passage of R.A. No.
7716. The enrolled bill theory is a historical relic that should not
continuously rule us from the fossilized past. It should be
immediately emphasized that the enrolled bill theory originated in
England where there is no written constitution and where
Parliament is supreme. In this jurisdiction, we have a written
constitution and the legislature is a body of limited powers.
Likewise, it must be pointed out that starting from the decade of
the 40Ês, even American courts have veered away from the regidity
and unrealism of the conclusiveness of an enrolled bill.
Same; Same; The previous rulings of the Supreme Court on the
conclusiveness of an enrolled bill are no longer good law.·I am not
unaware that this Court has subscribed to the conclusiveness of an
enrolled bill as enunciated in the 1947 lead case of Mabanag v.
Lopez Vito, and reiterated in subsequent cases. With due respect, I
submit that these rulings are no longer good law. Suffice to state
that section 313 of the Old Code of Civil Procedure as amended by
Act No. 2210 is no longer in our statute books. It has long been
repealed by the Rules of Court. Mabanag also relied on
jurisprudence and authorities in the United States which are under
severe criticisms by modern scholars. Hence, even in the United
States the conclusiveness of an enrolled bill has been junked by
most of the States.
657
MENDOZA, J.:
658
I. Procedural Issues:
1. § 1
2. § 4
3. § 5
4. § 10
I. PROCEDURAL ISSUES
659
________________
1 H. Nos. 253, 771, 2450, 7033, 8086, 9030, 9210, 9297, 10012 and
10100. (RespondentsÊ Consolidated Memorandum, Annexes 3-12).
660
661
2
Federal Constitution, it is notable in two respects: the verb
„shall originate‰ is qualified in the Philippine Constitution
by the word „exclusively‰ and the phrase „as on other bills‰
in the American version is omitted. This means, according
to them, that to be considered as having originated in the
House, Republic Act No. 7716 must retain the essence of H.
No. 11197.
This argument will not bear analysis. To begin with, it is
not the law·but the revenue bill·which is required by the
Constitution to „originate exclusively‰ in the House of
Representatives. It is important to emphasize this, because
a bill originating in the House may undergo such extensive
changes in the Senate that the result may be a rewriting of
the whole. The possibility of a third version by the
conference committee will be discussed later. At this point,
what is important to note is that, as a result of the Senate
action, a distinct bill may be produced. To insist that a
revenue statute·and not only the bill which initiated the
legislative process culminating in the enactment of the law
·must substantially be the same as the House bill would
be to deny the SenateÊs power not only to „concur with
amendments‰ but also to „propose amendments.‰ It would
be to violate the coequality of legislative power of the two
houses of Congress and in fact make the House superior to
the Senate.
The contention that the constitutional design is to limit
the SenateÊs power in respect of revenue bills in order to
compensate
________________
2 U.S. CONST., Art. 1, § 7, cl. 1: „All bills for raising revenue shall
originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or
concur with amendments, as on other bills.‰
662
3
for the grant to the Senate of the treaty-ratifying power
________________
663
664
_______________
8 Although the 1935 Constitution did not expressly require that bills
must pass three readings in each House, this was clearly implied from its
Art. VI, § 21(2) so that the two Houses by their rules prescribed three
readings for the passage of bills. Later the requirement was expressly
provided in the 1973 Constitution from which Art. VI, § 26(2) was taken.
Art. VIII, § 19(2) of the 1973 document provided: No bill 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 the Members
three days before its passage, except when the Prime Minister 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.
9 RespondentsÊ Consolidated Reply, Annex 14.
10 Memorandum of Petitioner Arturo M. Tolentino, Supplement C.
665
________________
666
667
________________
668
________________
669
Rule XII:
§ 26. In the event that the Senate does not agree with the House of
Representatives on the provision of any bill or joint resolution, the
differences shall be settled by a conference committee of both Houses
which shall meet within ten days after their composition.
The President shall designate the members of the conference
committee in accordance with subparagraph (c), Section 3 of Rule
III.
Each Conference Committee Report shall contain a detailed and
sufficiently explicit statement of the changes in or amendments to the
subject measure, and shall be signed by the conferees.
Rule XIV:
________________
actually by conference committee. Any remedy found will probably take the
form of reducing the need for using conference committees at all; and the
principal suggestion to that end is that bills and resolutions be referred, not, as
now, to separate committees of the two houses, but to joint committees, which
not only would hold single sets of hearings, but might deliberate and report
back bills to the two houses in such agreed form that further significant
differences would not be likely to develop. Arrangements of this nature yield
excellent results in the legislature of Massachusetts. But there are obstacles to
adoption of the plan for Congress, not the least of them being a natural
aversion of House members to joint committees in which senators seem likely
to dominate; and, as indicated below, the outlook for the reform is
problematical.‰ F.A. OGG AND P.O. RAY, supra note 7 at 310-311.
670
671
_________________
672
________________
673
674
________________
675
25
Manila Railroad Co. v. Rafferty, it was held that an Act of
the U.S. Congress, which provided for the payment of tax
on certain goods and articles imported into the Philippines,
did not amend the franchise of plaintiff, which exempted it
from all taxes except those mentioned in its franchise. It
was held that a special law cannot be amended by a
general law.
In contrast, in the case at bar, Republic Act No. 7716
expressly amends PALÊs franchise (P.D. No. 1590) by
specifically excepting from the grant of exemptions from
the VAT PALÊs exemption under P.D. No. 1590. This is
within the power of Congress to do under Art. XII, § 11 of
the Constitution, which provides that the grant of a
franchise for the operation of a public utility is subject to
amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress when the
common good so requires.
_______________
676
________________
26 Art. VI, § 28(4) provides: „No law granting any tax exemption shall
be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the
Congress.‰
677
_______________
27 Associated Press v. NLRB, 301 U.S. 103, 132, 81 L.Ed. 953, 961
(1937).
678
_______________
679
31
pay any significant amount of tax.‰ The discriminatory
purpose was thus very clear.
More 32recently, in Arkansas WritersÊ Project, Inc. v.
Ragland, it was held that a law which taxed general
interest magazines but not newspapers and religious,
professional, trade and sports journals was discriminatory
because while the tax did not single out the press as a
whole, it targeted a small group within the press. What is
more, by differentiating on the basis of contents (i.e.,
between general interest and special interests such as
religion or sports) the law became „entirely incompatible
with the First AmendmentÊs guarantee of freedom of the
press.‰
These cases come down to this: that unless justified, the
differential treatment of the press creates risks of
suppression of expression. In contrast, in the cases at bar,
the statute applies to a wide range of goods and services.
The argument that, by imposing the VAT only on print
media whose gross sales exceeds P480,000
33
but not more
than P750,000, the law discriminates is
________________
680
_________________
by the Secretary of Finance which shall not be less than Four hundred
eighty thousand pesos (P480,000.00) or more than Seven hundred twenty
thousand pesos (P720,000.00) subject to tax under Section 112 of this
Code.‰
34 297 U.S. at 250, 80 L.Ed. at 668.
35 460 U.S. at 581, 75 L.Ed.2d at 302.
36 493 U.S. 378, 107 L.Ed.2d 796 (1990).
37 § 107 of the NIRC provides: „Any person subject to a value added
tax under Sections 100 and 102 of this Code shall register with the
appropriate Revenue District Officer and pay an annual registration
681
________________
People v. Korins, 385 N.Y.S. 2d 474 (1976) a decision of the city court of
Utica, Oneida County held that to apply an ordinance requiring a
business license to be obtained before a person could sell newspapers in
the streets would be to impose a prior restraint on press freedom because
„a newspaper is not in the same category as pineapple or a soap powder
or a pair of shoes‰ whose sale may be conditioned on the possession of a
business license.
682
________________
683
_________________
42 Art. VI, § 28(1). Related to this argument is the claim that Republic
Act No. 7716 likewise infringes the Due Process and Equal Protection
Clauses of the Bill of Rights, Art. III, § 1(1).
684
_______________
685
_________________
686
________________
687
This conception
52
of the judicial power has been affirmed in
several cases of this Court following Angara.
_______________
688
____________________________________
SEPARATE OPINION
NARVASA, C.J.:
690
691
692
693
________________
694
request that could not have been made had not the
Senators more or less closely examined the provisions of
HB 11197 and compared them with those of the
counterpart Senate measures.
Were the proceedings before the bicameral conference
committee fatally flawed? The affirmative is suggested
because the committee allegedly overlooked or ignored the
fact that SB 1630 could not validly originate in the Senate,
and that HB 11197 and SB 1630 never properly passed
both chambers. The untenability of these contentions has
________________
2 Italics supplied.
695
696
697
_________________
698
699
700
701
charges that an amendment was made upon the last reading of the
bill that eventually R.A. No. 7354 and that copies thereof in its final
form were not distributed among the members of each House. Both
the enrolled bill and the legislative journals certify that the
measure was duly enacted i.e., in accordance with Article VI, Sec.
26 (2) of the Constitution. We are bound by such official assurances
from a coordinate department of the government, to which we owe,
at the very least, a becoming courtesy.‰
702
abroad.
In any case, all the changes and revisions, and deletions,
made by the conference committee were all subsequently
considered by and approved by both the Senate and the
House, meeting and voting separately. It is an unacceptable
theorization, to repeat, that when the BCC report and its
proposed bill were submitted to the Senate and the House,
the members thereof did not bother to read, or what is
worse, having read did not understand, what was before
them, or did not realize that there were new provisions in
the reconciled version unrelated to any „disagreeing
provisions,‰ or that said new provisions or revisions were
effectively concealed
703
from them.
Moreover, it certainly was entirely within the power and
prerogative of either legislative chamber to reject the BCC
bill and require the organization of a new bicameral
conference committee. That this option was not exercised
by either house only proves that the BCC measure was
found to be acceptable as in fact it was approved and
adopted by both chambers.
I vote to DISMISS the petitions for lack of merit.
SEPARATE OPINION
CRUZ, J.:
committee.
While a member of the legislature would normally resist
such intervention and invoke the doctrine of separation of
powers to protect Congress from what he would call judicial
intrusion, these counsel practically implored the Court to
examine the questioned proceedings and to this end go
beyond the journals of each House, scrutinize the minutes
of the committee, and investigate all other matters relating
to the passage of the bill (or bills) that eventually became
R.A. No. 7716.
In effect, the petitioners would have us disregard the
time-honored inhibitions laid down by the Court upon itself
in the landmark case of U.S. v. Pons (34 Phil. 725), where it
refused to consider extraneous evidence to disprove the
recitals in the journals of the Philippine Legislature that it
had adjourned sine die at midnight of February 28, 1914.
Although it was generally known then that the special
session had actually exceeded the deadline fixed by the
Governor-General in his proclamation, the Court chose to
be guided solely by the legislative journals, holding
significantly as follows:
704
706
Applying these
707
708
SEPARATE OPINION
PADILLA, J.:
_________________
709
„In any event, if petitioners seriously believe that the adoption and
continued application of the VAT are prejudicial to the general
welfare or the interests of the majority of the people, they should
seek recourse and relief from the political branches of the
government. The Court, following the time-honored doctrine of
separation of powers, cannot substitute its judgment for that of the
President (and Congress) as to the wisdom, justice and advisability
3
of the adoption of the VAT.‰
________________
2 Bautista v. Salonga, G.R. No. 86439, 13 April 1989, 172 SCRA 160.
3 Kapatiran, supra at 385.
710
II
The procedure followed in the approval of Rep. Act No.
7716 Petitioners however posit that the present case raises
a far-reaching constitutional question which the Court is
duty-bound to decide
4
under its expanded jurisdiction in the
1987 Constitution. Petitioners more specifically question
and impugn the manner by which the expanded VAT law
(Rep. Act No. 7716) was approved by Congress. They
contend that it was approved in violation of the
Constitution from which fact it follows, as a consequence,
that the law is null and void. Main reliance of the
petitioners in their assault is Section 24, Art. VI of the
Constitution which provides:
________________
711
712
„SEC. 26. x x x
(2) 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.‰
713
_______________
714
between the two houses. Even where the conference committee is not by
rule limited in its jurisdiction, legislative custom severely limits the
freedom with which new subject matter can be inserted into the
conference bill. But occasionally a conference committee produces
unexpected results, results beyond its mandate. These excursions occur
even where the rules impose strict limitations on conference committee
jurisdiction. This is symptomatic of the authoritarian power of conference
committee (Davies, Legislative Law and Process: In A Nutshell, 1986 Ed.,
p. 81).Ê
„This Act (Rep. Act No. 7716) is a consolidation of House Bill No.
11197 and Senate Bill No. 1630 (w)as finally passed by the House of
Representatives and the Senate on April 27, 1994 and May 2, 1994
respectively.‰
_______________
6 7 SCRA 347.
715
laid down the rule that the enrolled bill is conclusive upon the
Judiciary (except in matters that have to be entered in the journals
7
like the yeas and nays on the final reading of the bill). The journals
are themselves also binding on the Supreme Court, as we held in
8
the old (but still valid) case of U.S. vs. Pons, where we explained
the reason thus:
ÂTo inquire into the veracity of the journals of the Philippine legislature
when they are, as we have said, clear and explicit, would be to violate
both the letter and spirit of the organic laws by which the Philippine
Government was brought into existence, to invade a coordinate and
independent department of the Government, and to interfere with the
legitimate powers and functions of the Legislature.Ê
III
_______________
716
regulation cannot amend the law (Rep. Act No. 7716). Only
legislation (as distinguished from administration
regulation) can amend an existing law.
Freedom of the press was virtually unknown in the
Philippines before 1900. In fact, a prime cause of the
revolution against Spain at the turn of the 19th century
was the repression of the freedom of speech and expression
and of the press. No less than our national hero, Dr. Jose P.
Rizal, in „Filipinas Despues de Cien Anos‰ (The Philippines
a Century Hence) describing the reforms sine quibus non
which the Filipinos were insisting upon, stated: „The
minister x x x who wants his reforms to be reforms, must 10
begin by declaring the press in the Philippines free x x x.‰
Press freedom in the Philippines has met repressions,
most notable of which was the closure of almost all forms of
existing mass media upon the imposition of martial law on
21 September 1972.
Section 4, Art. III of the Constitution maybe traced to
the United States Federal Constitution. The guarantee of
freedom of expression was planted in the Philippines by
President McKinley in the Magna Carta of Philippine
Liberty, Instructions to the Second Philippine Commission
on 7 April 1900.
The present constitutional provision which reads:
gross
________________
717
IV
Petitions of CREBA and PAL and Rep. Act No. 7716
_______________
718
length here. The qualification in the law that the 10% VAT
covers only sales of real property primarily held for sale to
customers, i.e. for trade or business thus takes into
consideration a taxpayerÊs capacity to pay. There is no
showing that the consequent distinction in real estate sales
is arbitrary and in violation of the equal protection clause
of the Constitution. The inherent power to tax of the State,
which is vested in the legislature, includes the power to
determine whom or what to tax, as well as how much to
tax. In the absence of a clear showing that the tax violates
the due process and equal protection clauses of the
Constitution, this Court, in keeping with the doctrine of
separation of powers, has to defer to the discretion and
judgment of Congress on this point.
Philippine Airlines (PAL) in a separate petition (G.R.
No. 115852) claims that its franchise under PD No. 1590
which makes it liable for a franchise tax of only 2% of gross
revenues „in lieu of all the other fees and charges of any
kind, nature or description, imposed, levied, established,
assessed or collected by any municipal, city, provincial, or
national authority or government agency, now or in the
future,‰ cannot be amended by Rep. Act No. 7716 as to
make it (PAL) liable for a 10% value-added tax
719
720
SEPARATE OPINION
VITUG, J.:
721
DISSENTING OPINION
REGALADO, J.:
Representatives
722
_______________
1 In substitution of H.B. Nos. 253, 771, 2450, 7033, 8086, 9030, 9210,
9297, 10012 and 10100 which were filed over the period from July 22,
1992 to August 3, 1993.
2 P.S. Res. No. 734 had earlier been filed in the Senate on September
10, 1992, while S.B. No. 1129 was filed on March 1, 1993.
723
_______________
724
________________
725
_______________
7 BlackÊs Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. (1951), 381, citing Fairview vs.
Durham, 45 Iowa 56.
726
________________
9 78 Phil. 1 (1947).
10 L-17931, February 28, 1963, 7 SCRA 347.
11 L-29658, February 27, 1969, 27 SCRA 131.
12 G.R. No. 105371, November 11, 1993, 227 SCRA 703.
13 103 Phil. 1051 (1957).
14 L-46640, October 12, 1976, 73 SCRA 333.
727
________________
728
729
„(1) While the presumption is that the enrolled bill, as signed by the
legislative officers and filed with the secretary of state, is the bill as
it passed, yet this presumption is not conclusive, and when it is
shown from the legislative journals that a bill though engrossed and
enrolled, and signed by the legislative officers, contains provisions
that have not passed both houses, such provisions will be held
spurious and not a part of the law. As was said by Mr. Justice
Cockrell in the case of Wade vs. Atlantic Lumber Co., 51 Fla. 628,
text 633, 41 So. 72, 73:
ÂThis Court is firmly committed to the holding that when the journals
speak they control, and against such proof the enrolled bill is not
conclusive.Ê ‰
_______________
17 Brailsford vs. Walker, 31 S.E. 2d 385, 387, 388, 205 S.C. 228.
18 110 So. 343, 346.
19 602 South Western Reporter, 2d Series, 402-425, jointly deciding
Carrollton Wholesale Tobaccos, Inc. et al. vs. Department of Revenue, et
al., and Bluegrass Provisions Co., Inc., et al. vs. Department of Revenue,
et al.
730
legislatures
731
remove one of the original reasons for the rule. (5) The rule
disregards the primary obligation of the courts to seek the truth and
to provide a remedy for a wrong committed by any branch of
government. In light of these considerations, we are convinced that
the time has come to re-examine the enrolled bill doctrine.
„[2] This court is not unmindful of the admonition of the doctrine
of stare decisis. The maxim is „Stare decisis et non quieta movere,‰
which simply suggests that we stand by precedents and not disturb
settled points of law. Yet, this rule is not inflexible, nor is it of such a
nature as to require perpetuation of error or logic. As we stated in
DanielÊs AdmÊr v. Hoofnel, 287 Ky 834, 155 S.W.2d 469, 471-72
(1941) (citations omitted):
The force of the rule depends upon the nature of the question to be
decided and the extent of the disturbance of rights and practices which a
change in the interpretation of the law or the course of judicial opinions
may create. Cogent considerations are whether there is clear error and
urgent reasons Âfor neither justice nor wisdom requires a court to go from
one doubtful rule to another,Ê and whether or not the evils of the principle
that has been followed will be more injurious than can possibly result
from a change.
732
DISSENTING OPINION
733
provides:
„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.‰
„vt 1: to cause the beginning of: give rise to: INITIATE . . . 2. to start
(a person or thing) on a course of journey . . . vi: to take or have
________________
734
„Apart from all others; only; solely; substantially all or for the
greater part. To the exclusion of all others; without admission of
_______________
2 Sixth Edition (1990), 565, citing Standard Oil Co. of Texas vs. State,
Tex. Civ. App., 142 S.W.2d 519, 521, 522, 523.
3 21 SCRA 665, 673 [1967].
4 Sections 52 and 53, Rule XXIII.
735
_______________
736
________________
737
„SEC. 51. Prior to their final approval, bills and joint resolutions
shall be read at least three times.‰
„SEC. 26. In the event that the Senate does not agree with the
House of Representatives on the provision of any bill or joint
resolution, the differences shall be settled by a conference
committee of both Houses which shall meet within ten days after its
composition.‰
and Section 85, Rule XIV of the Rules of the House which
reads:
_________________
13 Volume I, Eight Edition, Chapter VI, 267. See Miller vs. Mardo, 2
SCRA 898 [1961]; Everlasting Pictures, Inc. vs. Fuentes, 3 SCRA 539
[1961].
738
739
________________
740
on and acted upon was SB No. 1129 and not HB No. 11197.
The latter, instead of being the only measure to be taken
up, deliberated upon, and reported back to the Senate for
its consideration on second reading and, eventually, on
third reading, was, at the most, merely given by the
Committee a passing glance.
This specific unequivocal action of the Senate
Committee on Ways and Means, i.e., proposing and
recommending approval of SB No. 1630 as a substitute for
or in substitution of SB No. 1129 demolishes at once the
thesis of the Solicitor General that:
________________
741
„The Senate has the power to amend a revenue bill. This power to
amend is not confined to the elimination of provisions contained in
the original act, but embraces as well the addition of such
provisions thereto as may render the original act satisfactory to the
body which is called upon to support it. It has, in fact, been held that
the substitution of an entirely new measure for the one originally
proposed can be supported as a valid amendment.
xxx xxx xxx
It is contended in the first place that this section of the act is
unconstitutional, because it is a revenue measure, and originated in
_______________
742
x x x
The Senate has the power to amend a revenue bill. This power to
amend is not confined to the elimination of provisions contained in
the original act, but embraces as well the addition of such
provisions thereto as may render the original act satisfactory to the
body which is called upon to support it. It has, in fact, been held
that the substitution of an entirely new measure for the one
originally proposed can be supported as a valid amendment.
Brake v. Collison, 122 Fed. 722.
Mr. James L. Quackenbush filed a statement for appellees in No.
442.
Solicitor General Lehmann (by special leave) argued the cause for
the United States on reargument.
Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:
743
„Any bill may make its first appearance in either house, except only
that bills for raising revenue are required by the constitution to
ÂoriginateÊ in the House of Representatives. Indeed, through its right
to amend revenue bills, even to the extent of substituting new ones,
the
________________
745
29
Senate may, in effect, originate them also.‰
_______________
29 At 317.
746
_______________
747
_______________
748
83, Rule XIV of the Rules of the House, it is only when the
Senate shall have approved with amendments HB No.
11197 and the House declines to accept the amendments
749
in this wise, as 34
quoted in the Consolidated Memorandum
for Respondents:
However, since the Senate did not act on this Bill on second
and third readings because its Committee on Ways and
Means did not deliberate on it but instead proposed SB No.
1630 in substitution of SB No. 1129, the suggestion has no
factual basis. Then, when finally he agreed that „all
amendments will be coming from the Senate,‰ he
_______________
34 Page 22.
750
_______________
751
752
37
of the expanded jurisdiction of this Court under Section 1,
Article VIII of our Constitution which now expressly grants
authority to this Court to:
_______________
37 ISAGANI A. CRUZ, Philippine Political Law, 1991 ed., 226; Daza vs.
Singson, 180 SCRA 496 [1989]; Coseteng vs. Mitra, 187 SCRA 377 [1990];
Gonzales vs. Macaraig, 191 SCRA 452 [1990]; Llamas vs. Orbos, 202 SCRA 844
[1991]; Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Com- mittee, 203 SCRA 767 [1991];
Oposa vs. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792 [1993].
38 56 SCRA 714, 719, 723 [1974].
39 78 Phil. 1 [1947].
753
State Constitution, said that the same Âmakes it clear that the
indispensable step in the passageÊ and it follows that if a bill,
otherwise fully enacted as a law, is not attested by the presiding
officer, other proof that it has Âpassed both houses will satisfy the
constitutional requirement.Ê ‰
DISSENTING OPINION
ROMERO, J.:
________________
754
_______________
755
_______________
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 L-81311, June 30, 1988, 163 SCRA 371 with Justice Teodoro R.
Padilla as ponente.
756
5
Constitution.‰ In dismissing the consolidated petitions,
this Court stated:
_______________
5 Ibid at 378.
6 Ibid at 385.
7 Senate Resolution No. 734 filed on September 10, 1992 was entitled
„Resolution Urging the House Committee on Ways and Means to Study
the Proposal to Exempt Local Movie Producers from the Payment of the
Value-Added Tax as an Incentive to the Production of Quality and
Wholesome Filipino Movies, Whenever They Feature an All-Filipino Cast
of Actors and Actresses.‰
8 SB No. 1129 sought to include under the VAT Law such items as
lease of real properties, excluding agricultural lands and residential
properties with monthly rentals of less than P10,000.00; hotels;
restaurants, eating places, caterers; services by persons in the exercise of
their professions; actors, actresses, talents, singers and professional
athletes; and lawyers, accountants, doctors and other professionals
registered with the Philippine Regulatory Commission.
757
9
HB No. 9210 · May 19,
1993
HB No. 9297 · May 25,
1993
HB No. 10012 · July 28,
1993
We now trace the course taken by H.B. No. 11197 and S.B.
No. 1129.
HB/SB No.
HB No. 11197 was approved in the Lower · November
House on second reading 11, 1993
HB No. 11197 was approved in the Lower · November
House on third reading and voted upon 17, 1993
with 114 Yeas and 12 Nays ·
November
18, 1993
HB No. 11197 was transmitted to the · February
Senate Senate Committee on Ways and 7, 1994
Means submitted Com. Report No. 349
recommending for approval SB No. 1630 in
substitution of SB No. 1129, taking into
consideration
11
PS Res. No. 734 and HB No.
11197
_______________
238 of Title IX, and Repealing Sections 113, 114 and 116 of Title V, all of
the National Internal Revenue Code, as Amended, and for other
Purposes.‰
758
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
Does Republic Act No.13
7716 violate Article VI, Section 24,
of the Constitution?
________________
12 Republic Act No. 7716 is entitled „An Act Restructuring The Value-
Added Tax (VAT) System, Widening Its Tax Base And Enhancing Its
Administration, And For These Purposes Amending And Repealing The
Relevant Provisions Of The National Internal Revenue Code, as
amended, and for other purposes.‰
13 Article VI, Section 24: „All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills
authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and
759
Does it violate
14
Article VI, Section 26, paragraph 2, of the
Constitution?
What is the extent of the power of the Bicameral
Conference Committee?
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Does the law violate the following provisions in Article III
(Bill of Rights) of the Constitution:
15
1. Section 1
16
2. Section 4
17
3. Section 5
18
4. Section 10
_______________
760
_______________
761
22
question.‰
In the instant petitions, this Court is called upon, not so
much to exercise its traditional power of judicial review as
to determine whether or not there has indeed been a grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the Legislature
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Where there are grounds to resolve a case without
touching on its constitutionality, the Court will do so with
utmost alacrity in due deference to the doctrine of
separation of powers anchored on the respect that must be
accorded to the other branches of government which are
coordinate, coequal and, as far as practicable, independent
of one another.
Once it is palpable that the constitutional issue is
unavoidable, then it is time to assume jurisdiction,
provided that the following requisites for a judicial inquiry
are met: that there must be an actual and appropriate case;
a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the
constitutional question; the constitutional question must be
raised at the earliest possible opportunity and the decision
of the constitutional question must be necessary to the
determination23
of the case itself, the same being the lis mota
of the case.
Having assured ourselves that the above-cited requisites
are present in the instant petitions, we proceed to take
them up.
_______________
762
(a) The bill which became Republic Act No. 7716 did
not originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives. The Senate, after receiving H.B.
No. 11197, submitted its own bill, S.B. No. 1630,
and proceeded to vote and approve the same after
second and third readings.
(b) The Senate exceeded its authority to „propose or
concur with amendments‰ when it submitted its
own bill, S.B. No. 1630, recommending its approval
„in substitution of S.B. No. 1129, taking into
consideration P.S. Res. No. 734 and H.B. No.
11197.‰
(c) H.B. No. 11197 was not deliberated upon by the
Senate. Neither was it voted upon by the Senate on
second and third readings, as what was voted upon
was S.B. No. 1630.
________________
763
ÂAll bills appropriating public funds, revenue or tariff bills, bills of local
application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the Assembly,
but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. In case of
disapproval by the Senate of any such bills, the Assembly may repass the
same by a two-thirds vote of all its members, and thereupon, the bill so
repassed shall be deemed enacted and may be submitted to the President
for corresponding action. In the event that the Senate should fail to
finally act on any such bills, the Assembly may, after thirty days from the
opening of the next regular sessions of the same legislative term,
reapprove the same with a vote of two-thirds of all the members of the
Assembly. And upon such reapproval, the bill shall be deemed enacted
and may be submitted to the president for corresponding action.Ê
764
25
38 and later of Resolution No. 73.‰ (Italics supplied)
Chamber.
„It is said that the House of Representatives being the
more popular branch of the legislature, being closer to the
people, and having more frequent contacts with them than
the Senate, should have the privilege of taking the
initiative in the proposals of revenue and tax projects, the
disposal of the peopleÊs money, and the contracting of public
indebtedness.
These powers of initiative in the raising and spending of
public funds enable the House of Representatives not only
to implement but even to determine the fiscal policies of
the government. They place on its shoulders much of the
responsibility of solving the financial problems of the
government, which are so closely related to the economic
life of the country, and of deciding on the proper
distribution of revenues
26
for such uses as may best advance
public interests.‰
The popular nature of the Lower House has been more
pronounced with the inclusion of Presidentially-appointed
sectoral representatives, as provided in Article VI, Section
5(2), of the Constitution, thus: „The party-list
representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the
total number of representatives including those under the
party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification
of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-
list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by
________________
765
_______________
766
________________
The youth sector embraces persons not more than twenty-five years of
age.‰ (Volume Two, CONCOM RECORD, p. 564).
28 City Mayor, et al. v. The Chief, Philippine Constabulary and Col.
Nicanor Garcia, L-20346, October 31, 1967, 21 SCRA 673.
767
________________
When you say that according to the Constitution such Revenue Bills should
originate exclusively from the House. In this instance, did it not originally
originate exclusively from the House?
The word used was not „solely‰; if there were Bills later also introduced,
let us say in the Senate, but the House Bill came ahead.
So, are you using the two (2) words originate „exclusively‰ and „solely‰
synonymously?
SENATOR TOLENTINO:
A·The verb „originate‰ remains the same, Your Honor, but the word
„exclusively,‰ as I said, means „solely.‰ x x x
768
House Bill Nos. 253, 771, 2450, 7033, 8086, 9030, 9210,
9297, 10012 and 10100 were intended to restructure the
VAT system by exempting or imposing the tax on certain
items or otherwise
30
introducing reforms in the mechanics of
implementation. Of these, House Bill No. 9210 was
favored with a Presidential certification on the need for its
immediate enactment to meet a public emergency. Easily
the most comprehensive, it noted that the revenue
performance of the VAT, being far from satisfactory since
the collections have always fallen short of projections, „the
system is rendered inefficient, inequitable and less
comprehensive.‰ Hence, the Bill proposed several
amendments designed to widen31
the tax base of the VAT and
enhance its administration.
That House Bill No. 11197 being a revenue bill,
originated from the Lower House was acknowledged, in
fact was virtually taken for granted, by the Chairmen of
the Committee on Ways and Means of both the House of
________________
769
_______________
770
that he had
_______________
771
________________
772
_______________
773
„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.‰ (Italics
supplied)
_______________
774
_______________
775
„We believe that a more reasonable rule is the one which Professor
Sutherland describes as the Âextrinsic evidenceÊ rule . . . . Under this
approach there is a prima facie presumption that an enrolled bill is
valid, but such presumption may be over-come by clear satisfactory
and convincing evidence establishing that constitutional
41
requirements have not been met.‰
„Passing over the question of whether the printed Act (No. 2381),
published by authority of law, is conclusive evidence as to the date
when it was passed, we will inquire whether the courts may go
behind the legislative journals for the purpose of determining the
43
date of adjournment when such journals are clear and explicit.‰
________________
776
„From their very nature and object, the records of the Legislature
are as important as those of the judiciary, and to inquire into the
veracity of the journals of the Philippine Legislature, when they
are, as we have said clear and explicit, would be to violate both the
letter and the spirit of the organic laws by which the Philippine
Government was brought into existence, to invade a coordinate and
independent department of the Government, and to interfere with
44
the legitimate powers and functions of the Legislature.‰
47
bill ruleÊ born of that respect.‰
Mindful that the U.S. Supreme Court is on the side of
those who favor the rule and for no other reason than that
it conforms to the expressed policy of our law making body
(i.e., Sec. 313 of the old Code of Civil Procedure, as
amended by Act No. 2210), the Court said that „duly
certified copies shall be conclusive proof of
_______________
44 Ibid at 733-734.
45 Ibid at 735.
46 78 Phil. 1 (1947).
47 Ibid at 3.
777
_______________
48 Ibid at 18.
49 117 Phil. 363 (1963).
778
50
Sherlock Holmes.‰ The alleged omission of a phrase in the
final Act was made, not at any stage of the legislative
proceedings, but only in the course of the engrossment of
the bill, more specifically in the proofreading thereof.
But the Court did include a caveat that qualified the
absoluteness of the „enrolled bill‰ rule stating:
_______________
779
_______________
780
there was no disagreement between the House and the Senate and,
worse, provisions contrary to what the House and the Senate had
54
approved after three separate readings.‰
and
________________
781
„SEC. 26. In the event that the Senate does not agree with the
House of Representatives on the provision of any bill or joint
resolution, the differences shall be settled by a conference
committee of both Houses which shall meet within ten days after
their composition.
The President shall designate the members of the conference
committee in accordance with subparagraph (c), Section 8 of Rule
III.
Each Conference Committee Report shall contain a detailed and
sufficiently explicit statement of the changes in or amendments to
the subject measure, and shall be signed by the conferees.
The consideration of such report shall not be in order unless the
report has been filed with the Secretary of the Senate and copies
thereof have been distributed to the Members.‰
782
59
change the text to which both Houses have agreed.‰ (Italics
supplied.)
________________
58 Page 261.
59 Page 268.
60 Davies, supra, at 65.
61 Sec. 764, p. 541.
62 Consolidated Memorandum for Respondents, p. 71.
783
in toto. The impulse is to get done with the matters and so the
motion to accept has undue advantage, for some members are sure
to prefer swallowing unpalatable provisions rather than prolong
controversy. This is the more likely if the report comes in the rush
of business toward the end of a session, when to seek further
conference might result in the loss of the measure altogether. At
any time in the session there is some risk of such a result following
the rejection of a conference report, for it may not be possible to
secure a second conference, or delay may give opposition to the
main proposal chance to develop more strength.
xxx xxx xxx
Entangled in a network of rule and custom, the Representative
who resents and would resist this theft of his rights, finds himself
helpless. Rarely can he vote, rarely can he voice his mind, in the
matter of any fraction of the bill. Usually he cannot even record
himself as protesting against some one feature while accepting the
measure as whole. Worst of all, he cannot by argument or suggested
change, try to improve what the other branch has done.
This means more than the subversion of individual rights. It
means to a degree the abandonment of whatever advantage the
bicameral system may have. By so much it in effect transfers the
lawmaking power to a small group of members who work out in
private a decision that almost always prevails. What is worse, these
men are not chosen in a way to ensure the wisest choice. It has
become the practice to name as conferees the ranking members of
the committee, so that the accident of seniority determines.
Exceptions are made, but in general it is not a question of who are
most competent to serve. Chance governs, sometimes giving way to
favor, rarely to merit.
xxx xxx xxx
Speaking broadly, the system of legislating by conference
committee is unscientific and therefore defective. Usually it forfeits
the benefit of scrutiny and judgment by all the wisdom available.
Uncontrolled, it is inferior to that process by which every
63
amendment is secured independent discussion and vote. x x x.‰
(Italics supplied)
________________
784
________________
785
3. Section 102
5. Section 104
787
6. Section 107
7. Section 112
8. Section 115
9. Section 117
788
________________
65 See: 18 Words and Phrases 482 citing Kennedy v. Truss, Del. Super.,
13 A. 2nd 431, 435, 1 Terry 424 (1940).
66 United States Gypsum Co. v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 110 N.W. 2d
698, 71, 363, Mich. 548 (1961).
789
_________________
67 BLACKÊs DICTIONARY, 6th ed., p. 687 citing State ex. rel. Riley v.
District Court of Second Judicial Dist. in and for Silver Bow County, 103
Mont. 576, 64 P. 2d 115, 119 (1937).
68 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, May 3, 1952, p. 885 cited in
Orquiola, Annotated Rules of the Senate, 1991 ed., pp. 40-41.
790
5th Ed., 1979, which means „to change or modify for the
better; to alter by modification, deletion, or addition,‰ said
insertions and deletions constitute amendments.
Consequently, these violated Article VI, Section 26 (2)
which provides inter alia: „Upon the last reading of a bill,
no amendment thereto shall be allowed . . .‰ This
proscription is intended to subject all bills and their
amendments to intensive deliberation by the legislators
and the ample ventilation of issues to afford the public an
opportunity to express their opinions or objections issues to
afford the public an opportunity to express their opinions
or objections thereon. The same rationale underlies the
three-reading requirement to the end that no surpises may
be sprung on an unsuspecting citizenry.
Provisions of the „now you see it, now you donÊt‰ variety,
meaning those which were either in the House and/or
Senate versions but simply disappeared or were „bracketed
out‰ of existence in the BICAM Report, were eventually
incorporated in Republic Act No. 7716. Worse, some goods,
791
________________
792
_______________
793
_______________
794
of Senate Bill No. 720 or of House Bill No. 4200 but only in
the Conference Committee Report, was violative of Article
VI, Section 26 (2) of the Constitution. Likewise, that said
Section 35, never having been a subject of disagreement
between both Houses, could not have been validly added as
an amendment before the Conference Committee.
The majority opinion in said case explained:
„While it is true that a conference committee is the
mechanism for compromising differences between the
Senate and the House, it is not limited in its jurisdiction to
this question. Its broader function is described thus:
________________
795
_________________
74 In Osmeña, Jr. v. Pendatun, (109 Phil. 863 [1960]), the Court held
that parliamentary rules are merely procedural and they may be waived
or disregarded by the legislative body. Hence, mere failure to conform to
parliamentary usage will not invalidate the action taken by a
deliberative body when the requisite number of members have agreed to
a particular measure.
75 State v. Essling, 128 N.W. 2d 307, 316 (1964).
796
________________
797
798
DISSENTING OPINION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
799
Representatives.‰
Since the term „exclusively‰ has already been
adequately defined in the various opinions, as to which
there seems to be no dispute, I shall no longer offer my own
definition.
Verily, the provision in our Constitution requiring that
all revenue bills shall originate exclusively from the Lower
House is mandatory. The word „exclusively‰ is an „exclusive
word,‰ which 1
is indicative of an intent that the provision is
mandatory. Hence, all American authorities expounding on
the meaning and application of Sec. 7, par. (1), Art. I, of the
U.S. Constitution cannot be used in the interpretation of
Sec. 24, Art. VI, of our 1987 Constitution which has a
distinct feature of „exclusiveness‰ all its own. Thus, when
our Constitution absolutely requires·as it is mandatory·
that a particular bill should exclusively emanate from the
Lower House, there is no alternative to the requirement
that the bill to become valid law must originate exclusively
from that House.
In the interpretation of constitutions, questions
frequently arise as to whether particular sections are
mandatory or directory. The courts usually hesitate to
declare that a constitutional provision is directory merely
in view of the tendency of the legislature to disregard
provisions which are not said to be mandatory. Accordingly,
it is the general rule to regard constitutional provisions as
mandatory, and not to leave any discretion to the will of the
legislature to obey or disregard them. This presumption as
to mandatory quality is usually followed unless it is
unmistakably manifest that the provisions are intended to
be merely directory. So strong is the inclination in favor of
giving obligatory force to the terms of the organic law that
it has even been said that neither by the courts nor by any
other department of the government may any provision of
the Constitution be regarded as merely directory, but that
each and everyone of its provisions should be treated as
imperative and mandatory, without reference to the rules
and distinguishing2 between the directory and the
mandatory statutes.
The framers of our 1987 Constitution could not have
used the term „exclusively‰ if they only meant to replicate
and adopt in
_______________
800
Thus in 1883 the upper house struck out everything after the
enacting clause of a tariff bill and wrote its own measure, which the
House eventually felt obliged to accept. It likewise added 847
amendments to the Payne-Aldrich tariff act of 1909, dictated the
schedules of the emergency tariff act of 1921, rewrote an extensive
tax revision bill in the same year, and recast most of the permanent
tariff
________________
3 See Majority Opinion, p. 15, citing Rainey v. United States, 232 U.S., 309,
58 Law Ed. 617.
801
4
bill of 1922 ·
_______________
802
803
_______________
804
DISSENTING OPINION
PUNO, J.:
805
_______________
806
2
petitioner Tolentino as follows:
A. The H.B., S.B., and the BCC (R.A. 7716) all included sale of
PROPERTIES as subject to VAT.
The term GOODS or PROPERTIES includes the following:
________________
807
formula or process,
goodwill trademark,
tradebrand or other like
property or right.
2. Right or the privilege to 2. 2. The same
use in the Philippines of The
any industrial, commercial, same
or scientific equipment.
3. Right or the privilege to 3. 3. The same
use motion picture films, The
films, tapes and discs. same
4. Radio and Television 4. 4. In addition to radio and
time The television time the following
Same were included: SATELLITE
TRANSMISSION and CABLE
TELEVISION TIME
5. Other Similar properties 5. 5. ÂOther similar propertiesÊ
The was deleted
Same
6.· 6.· 6. Real properties held
primarily for sale to customers
or held for lease in the
ordinary course or business
808
The BCC deleted subsection (f) in its entirety, despite its retention
in both the House and Senate Bills, thus under RA 7716, the
Âprinting, publication, importation or sale of books and any
newspaper, magazine, review, or bulletin which appears at regular
intervals with fixed prices for subscription and sale and which is
not devoted principally to the publication of advertisementsÊ is
subject to VAT.
Subsection (g) was amended by the BCC (both Senate and House
Bills did not) by changing the word TEN to FIVE, thus:
„Importation of passenger and/or cargo vessel of more than five
thousand ton to ocean going, including engine and spare parts of
said vessel to be used by the importer himself as operator thereof.‰
In short, importation of vessels with tonnage of more than 5
thousand is VAT exempt.
Subsection L, was amended by the BCC by adding the qualifying
phrase: EXCEPT THOSE RENDERED BY PROFESSIONALS.
Subsection U which exempts from VAT „Transactions which are
exempt under special laws,‰ was amended by BCC by adding the
phrase: EXCEPT THOSE GRANTED UNDER PD Nos. 66, 529,
972, 1491, and 1590, and NON-ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES under
RA 6938. This is the reason why cooperatives are now subject to
VAT.
While the SALE OF REAL PROPERTIES was included in the
exempt transactions under the House Bill, the BCC made a
qualification by stating:
809
V On Section 104
VI On Section 107
Both House and Senate Bills provide for the payment of P500.00
VAT registration fee. The BCC provides for P1,000.00 VAT fee.
While both the Senate and House Bills provide that a person
whose sales or receipts and are exempt under Section 103[w] of the
Code, and who are not VAT registered shall pay a tax equivalent to
THREE (3) PERCENT of his gross quarterly sales or receipts, the
BCC inserted the phrase: THREE PERCENT UPON THE
EFFECTIVITY OF THIS ACT AND FOUR PERCENT (4%) TWO
YEARS THEREAFTER.
810
IX On Section 117
This Section has not been touched by either Senate and House
Bills. But the BCC amended it by subjecting franchises on
ELECTRIC, GAS and WATER UTILITIES A TAX OF TWO
PERCENT (2%) ON GROSS RECEIPTS DERIVED x x x.
X On Section 121
XI Others
811
thereof.
RA 7716 (BCCÊs Bill) expressly repeals Sections 113, 114 and 116
of the NIRC; Article 39 (c) (d) and (e) of EO 226 and provides the
repeal of Sec. 119 and 120 of the NIRC upon the expiration of two
(2) years unless otherwise excluded by the President.‰
„In the event that the Senate does not agree with the House of
Representatives on the provision of any bill or joint resolution, the
differences shall be settled by a conference committee of both Houses
_______________
812
„In the event that the House does not agree with the Senate on the
amendments to any bill or joint resolution, the differences may be
settled by a conference committee of both chambers.
x x x. Each report shall contain a detailed, sufficiently explicit
statement of the changes in or amendments to the subject
measure.‰ (Emphasis supplied)
4
The JeffersonÊs Manual has been adopted as a supplement
to our parliamentary rules and practice. Section 456 of
JeffersonÊs Manual similarly
5
confines the powers of a
conference committee, viz:
________________
813
________________
814
the people that they can legitimately pass laws. Laws that
are not enacted by the peopleÊs rightful representatives
subvert the peopleÊs sovereignty. Bicameral Conference
Committees, with their ad hoc character and limited
membership, cannot pass laws for they do not represent the
people. The Constitution does not allow the tyranny of the
majority. Yet, the respondents will impose the worst kind of
tyranny·the tyranny of the minority over the majority.
Secondly, the Constitution delineated in deft strokes the
steps to be followed in making laws. The overriding
purpose of these procedural rules is to assure that only bills
that successfully survive the searching scrutiny of the
proper committees of Congress and the full and
________________
815
________________
816
________________
817
„x x x
a. Constitutional rules.
b. Statutory rules or charter provisions.
c. Adopted rules.
d. Judicial decisions.
e. Adopted parliamentary authority.
f. Parliamentary law.
g. Customs and usages.
_______________
11 Legislative Law and Process in a Nut Shell, West Publishing Co., 1986 ed.,
p. 81.
12 Ibid.
13 Manual of Legislative Procedure for Legislative and other Governmental
Bodies, McGraw Hill Co., Inc., 1953 ed., pp. 32-33.
818
„x x x.
Where the failure of constitutional compliance in the enactment
of statutes is not discoverable from the face of the act itself but may
be demonstrated by recourse to the legislative journals, debates,
committee reports or papers of the governor, courts have used
several conflicting theories with which to dispose of the issue. They
have held: (1) that the enrolled bill is conclusive and like the
sheriff Ês return cannot be attacked; (2) that the enrolled bill is
prima facie correct and only in case the legislative journal shows
affirmative contradiction of the constitutional requirement will the
bill be held invalid, (3) that although the enrolled bill is prima facie
correct, evidence from the journals, or other extrinsic sources is
admissible to strike the bill down; (4) that the legislative journal is
conclusive and the enrolled bill is valid only if it
_______________
14 82 CJS 136.
15 Statutory Construction, 3rd ed., Vol. I., p. 223.
819
820
„x x x.
If for no other reason than that it conforms to the expressed
policy of our law making body, we choose to follow the rule. Section
313 of the old Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2210,
provides: ÂOfficial documentsÊ may be proved as follows: * * * (2) the
proceedings of the Philippine Commission, or of any legislative body
that may be provided for in the Philippine Islands, or of Congress,
by the journals of those bodies or of either house thereof, or by
published statutes or resolutions, or by copies certified by the clerk
or secretary, or printed by their order; Provided, That in the case of
Acts of the Philippine Commission or the Philippine Legislature,
when there is an existence of a copy signed by the presiding officers
and secretaries of said bodies, it shall be conclusive proof of the
provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof.‰
________________
16 Op. cit., pp. 224-225 citing Barndall Refining v. Welsh, 64 S.D. 647,
269 N.W. 853, 859 [1936]. Jones, Constitutional Provisions Regulating
the Mechanics of Enactment in Iowa (1935), 21 Iowa Law Rev. 79,
Charlton, Constitutional Regulation of Legislative Procedure (1936), 21
Iowa Law Rev. 538; Note (1936) 21 Iowa Law Rev. 573.
17 See Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. Rep. 1 [1947]; Casco Phil.
Chemical Co. v. Gimenez, L-17931, February 28, 1963; Morales v. Subido,
No. L-29658, February 27, 1969, 27 SCRA 131; Phil. Judges Association
v. Prado, G.R. No. 105371, November 11, 1993.
821
_______________
822
„x x x.
x x x In other words, the judiciary is the final arbiter on the
question of whether or not a branch of government or any of its
officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or
so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to
excess of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but a duty to
pass judgment on matters of this nature.
This is the background of paragraph 2 of Section 1, which means
that the courts cannot hereafter evade the duty to settle matters of
this nature, by claiming that such matters constitute political
question.‰ (Emphasis ours)
_______________
823
_______________
824
825
Petitions dismissed.
···o0o···
826