Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    Senate May Propose or Concur With Amendments." in The Exercise of This Power, The

    Uploaded by

    Nelda Enriquez
    This case involves a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law (R.A. No. 7716). Specifically, the petitioners argued that R.A. No. 7716 violated constitutional provisions requiring that revenue bills originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, and that bills pass three readings on separate days. The Supreme Court ruled that the Senate acted within its powers in substituting its own version of the bill, and that the presidential certification of urgency allowed the bill to bypass the three reading requirement. Therefore, the court held that R.A. No. 7716 did not violate the constitutional provisions cited by the petitioners.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Senate May Propose or Concur With Amendments." in The Exercise of This Power, The

    Uploaded by

    Nelda Enriquez
    25 views2 pages
    This case involves a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law (R.A. No. 7716). Specifically, the petitioners argued that R.A. No. 7716 violated constitutional provisions requiring that revenue bills originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, and that bills pass three readings on separate days. The Supreme Court ruled that the Senate acted within its powers in substituting its own version of the bill, and that the presidential certification of urgency allowed the bill to bypass the three reading requirement. Therefore, the court held that R.A. No. 7716 did not violate the constitutional provisions cited by the petitioners.

    Original Description:

    A

    Original Title

    infamous lorna

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law (R.A. No. 7716). Specifically, the petitioners argued that R.A. No. 7716 violated constitutional provisions requiring that revenue bills originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, and that bills pass three readings on separate days. The Supreme Court ruled that the Senate acted within its powers in substituting its own version of the bill, and that the presidential certification of urgency allowed the bill to bypass the three reading requirement. Therefore, the court held that R.A. No. 7716 did not violate the constitutional provisions cited by the petitioners.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    25 views2 pages

    Senate May Propose or Concur With Amendments." in The Exercise of This Power, The

    Uploaded by

    Nelda Enriquez
    This case involves a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law (R.A. No. 7716). Specifically, the petitioners argued that R.A. No. 7716 violated constitutional provisions requiring that revenue bills originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, and that bills pass three readings on separate days. The Supreme Court ruled that the Senate acted within its powers in substituting its own version of the bill, and that the presidential certification of urgency allowed the bill to bypass the three reading requirement. Therefore, the court held that R.A. No. 7716 did not violate the constitutional provisions cited by the petitioners.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    115455 October 30, 1995


    ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, petitioner,
    vs.
    THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE and THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
    REVENUE, respondents.

    Facts: Petitioner seeking motion of reconsideration of the Court decision


    dismissing the petitions filed in these cases for the declaration of unconstitutionality of
    R.A. No. 7716. Some of the petitioners (Tolentino, Kilosbayan, Inc., Philippine Airlines
    (PAL), Roco, and Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Association (CREBA)) reiterate
    previous claims made by them that R.A. No. 7716 otherwise known as the Expanded
    Value-Added Tax Law did not "originate exclusively" in the House of Representatives as
    required by Art. VI, §24 of the Constitution. Although they admit that H. No. 11197 was
    filed in the House of Representatives where it passed three readings and that afterward
    it was sent to the Senate where after first reading it was referred to the Senate Ways
    and Means Committee, they complain that the Senate did not pass it on second and
    third readings. Instead what the Senate did was to pass its own version (S. No. 1630)
    which it approved on May 24, 1994. Petitioner Tolentino adds that what the Senate
    committee should have done was to amend H. No. 11197 by striking out the text of the
    bill and substituting it with the text of S. No. 1630. That way, it is said, "the bill remains a
    House bill and the Senate version just becomes the text (only the text) of the House
    bill."Petitioner also argue that S. No. 1630 did not pass 3 readings as required by the
    Art. VI, Section 26 (2) of the Constitution.

    Issues: 1. Whether or not R.A. No. 7716 violated Art. VI, Section 24 and Art. VI,
    Section 26 (2) of the Constitution.

    Rulings: 1. No. Art. VI, §24 provides that all appropriation, revenue or tariff bills,
    bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills
    must "originate exclusively in the House of Representatives," it also adds, "but the
    Senate may propose or concur with amendments." In the exercise of this power, the
    Senate may propose an entirely new bill as a substitute measure. As petitioner
    Tolentino states in a high school text, a committee to which a bill is referred may do any
    of the following:
    (1) to endorse the bill without changes; (2) to make changes in the bill omitting or
    adding sections or altering its language; (3) to make and endorse an entirely new bill as
    a substitute, in which case it will be known as a committee bill; or (4) to make no report
    at all.
    S. No. 1630, as a substitute measure, is therefore as much an amendment of H. No.
    11197 as any which the Senate could have made.
    2. This was because the President had certified S. No. 1630 as urgent.
    The presidential certification dispensed with the requirement not only of printing but also
    that of reading the bill on separate days. That upon the certification of a bill by the
    President the requirement of 3 readings on separate days and of printing and
    distribution can be dispensed with is supported by the weight of legislative practice.
    Art. VI, Section 26 (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.

    You might also like