Arroyo, et al. vs. De Venecia Facts: In the case at bar, the validity of R.A. 8240 or H. No.

7198 is being questioned by petitioners based on several grounds. They argue that: 1) (Principal argument) R.A. 8240 is null and void because it was passed in violation of the rules of the House; which embody the constitutional mandate thereby violating the Constitution itself. Therefore, RA 8240 is unconstitutional and should be considered void. 2) These specific rule violations were: a. The Chair, in submitting the conference committee report to the House, did not call for yeas or nays (which should be documented according to the rules) but simply asked for approval by motion in order to prevent petitioner Arroyo from questioning the presence of a quorum. (Rule VIII S 35, Rule XVII S 103) The fact that the Chair deliberately ignored Rep. Arroyos question and did not repeat Albanos motion to approve or ratify violated Rule XIX S 112 (see transcript) The Chair, in refusing to recognize Arroyo and proceeding to act on Albanos motion, violated Rule XVI S 97 The Chair violated Rule XX SS121-122, Rule XXI S 123, and Rule XVIII S 109 in suspending the session without first ruling on Rep. Arroyos question, which is a point of order according to the rules.

b. c. d.

The petitioners herein requests the Court to ascertain the above allegations challenging the constitutionality of the act. Issues: 1) W/N the violations of the rules of the House (if any) constitute a violation of the Constitution itself? (Which is significant because if not, the Court would lose its jurisdiction) 2) W/N the violation of the rules of the House would nullify the RA Held: 1) The alleged violations of the Rules of the House are merely internal rules of procedure rather than constitutional requirements for the enactment of laws. In these cases, both here and abroad, deny to the courts the power to inquire into allegations that, in enacting a law, a House of Congress failed to comply with its own rules in the absence of showing that there was a violation of a constitutional provision. Since the rules violated were the rules that the House itself created, the Courts have no concern with their observance. The rules are subject to the modification, revocation or waiver at the pleasure of the body adopting them. The court has no more power to look into internal proceedings of the House as long as no violation of constitutional provisions (whether procedural or substantial prejudicial to private individuals) is shown. 2) Quoting former Chief Justice Fernando: the mere failure to conform to them [internal procedural rules established by the body] does not have the effect of nullifying the act taken if the requisite number of members have agreed to a particular measure Side Issues: 2a) The Constitution does not require that the yeas and nays of the Members be taken every time the House has to vote except only in the following instances: upon the last and third readings of a bill, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, and in repassing a bill over the veto of the President. Since the situation does not fall among the exceptions, plus the fact that the votes of the Members by yeas and nays had already been taken, they would no longer have to take it again. No violation of the rules

2b) The Chair, in approving the conference committee report, and Rep Arroyo, in objecting to the motion, spoke simultaneously. Thus the approval of the motion had already been done, symbolized by the banging of the gavel. No violation of the rule 2c & 2d) The session was suspended for 39 minutes to allow the parties to settle the problem. When it resumed at 3:40pm Rep Arroyo did not object anymore, signifying that a settlement has been made. No violation of the rule