http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/arroyo-vs-de-venecia-gr-no-127255.

html

Arroyo vs. De Venecia G.R. No. 127255, August 14, 1997

Sunday, January 25, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes

Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

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.
Arroyo’s 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 Leader’s 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.

Issue: Whether or not RA 8240 is null and void because it was passed in violation of the rules of the
House

Held:
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. Arroyo’s 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.

https://chanrac08.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/arroyo-vs-de-venecia-gr-no-127255-14-august-1997/

1
Arroyo vs De Venecia GR No 127255 14
August 1997
Posted by Rachel Chan in Case Digests, Constitutional Law I

≈ Leave a comment

Facts: RA 8240 which amends certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code by imposing
so-called ”sin taxes” on the manufacture and sale of beer and cigarettes were challenged by Representative
Joker Arroyo. The bicameral committee after submitting its report to the House, the chairman of the committee
proceeded to deliver his sponsorship speech and was interpellated. Arroyo also interrupted to move to adjourn
for lack of quorum. His motion was defeated and put to a vote. The interpellation of the sponsor proceeded and
the bill was approved on its third reading.

Issue: Whether or not Arroyo should have been heard for his call to adjourn for lack of quorum?

Decision: Petition dismissed. It is unwarranted invasion of the prerogative of a coequal department of the 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 the
petitioners can find their remedy in their own department.

https://nonamalum.weebly.com/digests/arroyo-v-de-venecia-gr-no-127255-august-14-1997

Arroyo v De Venecia G.R. No. 127255. August 14, 1997.

Facts: Petitioners are members of the House of Representatives. They brought this suit against respondents charging
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.

In the course of his interpellation, Rep. Arroyo announced that he was going to raise a question on the quorum, although
until the end of his interpellation he never did.

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 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.

Issue: Whether R.A. No. 8240 is null and void because it was passed in violation of the rules of the House;
Whether the certification of Speaker De Venecia that the law was properly passed is false and spurious;
Whether the Chair, in the process of submitting and certifying the law violated House Rules; and
Whether a certiorari/prohibition will be granted.

Held: After considering the arguments of the parties, the Court finds no ground for holding that Congress committed a
grave abuse of discretion in enacting R.A. No. 8240. This case is therefore dismissed.

Ratio: To disregard the "enrolled bill" rule in such cases would be to disregard the respect due the other two departments
of our government. 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. The Court has not been invested with a roving commission to inquire into complaints, real or
imagined, of legislative skullduggery. It would be acting in excess of its power and would itself be guilty of grave abuse of
its discretion were it to do so. The suggestion made in a case may instead appropriately be made here: petitioners can
2
seek the enactment of a new law or the repeal or amendment of R.A. No. 8240. In the absence of anything to the contrary,
the Court must assume that Congress or any House thereof acted in the good faith belief that its conduct was permitted by
its rules, and deference rather than disrespect is due the judgment of that body.

In view of what is essential

Merely internal rules of procedure of the House rather than constitutional requirements for the enactment of a law, i.e., Art.
VI, §§26-27 are VIOLATED.

First, in Osmeña v. Pendatun, it was held: "At any rate, courts have declared that 'the rules adopted by deliberative bodies
are subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body adopting them.' And it has been said that
'Parliamentary rules are merely procedural, and with their observance, the courts have no concern. They may be waived
or disregarded by the legislative body.' Consequently, '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.'"

Rules are hardly permanent in character. The prevailing view is that 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 have agreed to a particular
measure.

In view of the Courts jurisdiction

This Court's 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. If, then, the established rule is that courts cannot declare an act
of the legislature void on account merely of noncompliance with rules of procedure made by itself, it follows that such a
case does not present a situation in which a branch of the government has "gone beyond the constitutional limits
of its jurisdiction".

In view of House Rules

No rule of the House of Representatives has been cited which specifically requires that in cases such as this involving
approval of a conference committee report, the Chair must restate the motion and conduct a viva voce or nominal voting.

Mr. TOLENTINO. The fact that nobody objects means a unanimous action of the House. Insofar as the matter of
procedure is concerned, this has been a precedent since I came here seven years ago, and it has been the procedure in
this House that if somebody objects, then a debate follows and after the debate, then the voting comes in.

Nor does the Constitution require that the yeas and the nays of the Members be taken every time a 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.

In view of grave abuse

Indeed, the phrase "grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" has a settled meaning in the
jurisprudence of procedure. It means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment by a tribunal exercising judicial
or quasi judicial power as to amount to lack of power.

In view of the enrolled bill doctrine

Under the enrolled bill doctrine, the signing of H. No. 7198 by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate
and the certification by the secretaries of both Houses of Congress that it was passed on November 21, 1996 are
conclusive of its due enactment.

This Court quoted from Wigmore on Evidence the following excerpt which embodies good, if old-fashioned democratic
theory: “Instead of trusting a faithful Judiciary to check an inefficient Legislature, they should turn to improve the
Legislature. The sensible solution is not to patch and mend casual errors by asking the Judiciary to violate legal principle
and to do impossibilities with the Constitution; but to represent ourselves with competent, careful, and honest legislators,
the work of whose hands on the statute-roll may come to reflect credit upon the name of popular government.”

(In view of justiciability according to PUNO, J.)

With due respect, I do not agree that the issues posed by the petitioner are non-justiciable. Nor do I agree that we
will trivialize the principle of separation of power if we assume jurisdiction over the case at bar. Even in the United States,
the principle of separation of power is no longer an impregnable impediment against the interposition of judicial power on
cases involving breach of rules of procedure by legislators.

3
The Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional
restraints or violate fundamental rights, and there should be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of
proceedings established by the rule and the result which is sought to be attained. But within these limitations all matters of
method are open to the determination of the House, and it is no impeachment of the rule to say that some other way would
be better, more accurate, or even more just.

http://lawyerly.ph/digest/c8952?user=197

JOKER P. ARROYO v. JOSE DE VENECIA, GR No. 127255, 1997-08-14

Facts:

Challenging the validity of Republic Act No. 8240... charging 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 bicameral conference committee submitted its report to the House at 8 a.m. on November 21, 1996. At
11:48 a.m., after a recess, Rep. Exequiel Javier, chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, proceeded to
deliver his sponsorship speech, after which he was interpellated.

He was interrupted when Rep. Arroyo moved to adjourn for lack of quorum. Rep.

In the course of his interpellation, Rep. Arroyo announced that he was going to raise a question on the
quorum,... although until the end of his interpellation he never did.

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 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.

Petitioners' principal argument is that R.A. No. 8240 is null and void because it was passed in violation of the
rules of the House; that these rules embody... the "constitutional mandate" in Art. VI, §16(3) that "each House
may determine the rules of its proceedings" and that, consequently, violation of the House rules is a violation of
the Constitution itself. They contend that the certification of Speaker De Venecia that the law was... properly
passed is false and spurious.

Petitioners also charge that the session was hastily adjourned at 3:40 p.m. on November 21, 1996 and the bill
certified by Speaker Jose De Venecia to prevent petitioner Rep. Arroyo from formally challenging the
existence of a quorum and asking for a reconsideration.

In his supplemental comment, respondent De Venecia denies that his certification of H. No. 7198 is false and
spurious and contends that under the journal entry rule, the judicial inquiry sought by the petitioners is barred.

This Journal was approved on December 2, 1996 over the lone... objection of petitioner Rep. Lagman.[8]

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

On motion of Mr. Albano, there being no objection, the Chair declared the session adjourned until four o'clock
in the afternoon of Wednesday, November 27, 1996.

It was 3:40 p.m. Thursday, November 21, 1996. (emphasis added)

This Journal was approved on December 2, 1996. Again, no one objected to its approval except Rep. Lagman.

4
Issues:

Petitioners claim that the passage of the law in the House was "railroaded." They claim that Rep. Arroyo was
still making a query to the Chair when the latter declared Rep. Albano's motion approved.

Ruling:

"When it appears that an act was so passed, no inquiry will be permitted to asce... n this 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 this Court

Petitioners argue that, in accordance with the rules of the House, Rep. Albano's motion for the approval of the
conference committee report should have been stated by the Chair and later the individual votes of the
Members should have been taken. They say that the method used in... this case is a legislator's nightmare
because it suggests unanimity when the fact was that one or some legislators opposed the report.

No rule of the House of Representatives has been cited which specifically requires that in cases such as this
involving approval of a conference committee report, the Chair must restate the motion and conduct a viva
voce or nominal voting.

It is thus apparent that petitioners' predicament was largely of their own making. Instead of submitting the
proper motions for the House to act upon, petitioners insisted on the pendency of Rep. Arroyo's question as an
obstacle to the passage of the bill. But Rep. Arroyo's... question was not, in form or substance, a point of order
or a question of privilege entitled to precedence.[30] And even if Rep. Arroyo's question were so, Rep.
Albano's motion to adjourn would have precedence and would have put an end to any further... consideration of
the question.[31]

To repeat, 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. Arroyo's 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.[

Rep. Arroyo waived his objection by his continued interpellation of the sponsor for in so doing he in effect
acknowledged the presence of a quorum.[3

34 Phil. 729, 735

Principles:

Nor does the Constitution require that the yeas and the nays of the Members be taken every time a House has to
vote, except only in the following instances: upon the last and third readings of a bill,[26] at the request of
one-fifth of the Members... present,[27] and in repassing a bill over the veto of the President.[28] Indeed,
considering the fact that in the approval of the original bill the votes of the Members by yeas and nays had
already been taken, it would have been sheer... tedium to repeat the process.

Indeed, the phrase "grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess... of jurisdiction" has a settled
meaning in the jurisprudence of procedure.