Tole v. Secre

Tolentino v.
Secretary of Finance,
G.R. No. 115455,
August 25, 1994
TOPIC: Procedure for the passage of bills - Art. VI, sec. 26(2)
FACTS:
● Petitioners argue that the enactment of Republic Act No. 7716, or the Expanded
Value-Added Tax Law, violated the Philippine Constitution. They claim that the law did not
originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, as required by Article VI, Section 24 of
the Constitution, but was the result of the consolidation of two distinct bills: H. No. 11197
and S. No. 1630.
The history of the bill is as follows:

● H. No. 11197, a bill to amend the National Internal Revenue Code related to the value-added
tax (VAT), was introduced in the House of Representatives and approved by that body on
November 17, 1993.
● It was then sent to the Senate and referred to its Committee on Ways and Means.
● The Senate Committee recommended approval of S. No. 1630, a bill with a similar purpose,
on February 7, 1994. This bill was submitted "in substitution of Senate Bill No. 1129," taking
into consideration H.B. No. 11197.
● The Senate approved S. No. 1630 on second and third reading on March 24, 1994.
● H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630 were then referred to a conference committee, which met four
times and recommended the approval of a consolidated bill.
● The Conference Committee bill, titled "AN ACT RESTRUCTURING THE VALUE-ADDED TAX
(VAT) SYSTEM," was approved by both the House of Representatives and the Senate in April
and May 1994, respectively.
● Petitioners argued that the consolidation of the bills resulted in a law that did not meet the
constitutional requirement of exclusively originating in the House. They assert that the law
must retain the essence of H. No. 11197 to be considered as originating in the House.
● Additionally, petitioners claimed a violation of Article VI, Section 26(2) of the Constitution,
which mandates that no bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed
three readings on separate days and printed copies have been distributed to members three
days before its passage.
● They argued that this procedural requirement was not followed in the enactment of
Republic Act No. 7716.
ISSUE:
WON Republic Act No. 7716 violates Article VI, Section 26 (2) of the Constitution.
NO. Republic Act No. 7716 did not violate Article VI, Section 26(2) of Constitution.
RULING:
The Court held that the requirement for bills to (1) pass three readings on separate
days and (2) the necessity for printing and distribution of copies three days before final
approval CAN BE DISPENSED WITH when the President certifies to the necessity of the bill's
immediate enactment to address a public calamity or emergency.
In this case, the President had certified Senate Bill No. 1630 (S. No. 1630) as urgent on
two occasions (February 24, 1994, and March 22, 1994), which effectively waived the requirements
of separate readings on separate days and the printing and distribution three days before final
approval
The Court highlighted that the "except" clause in Article VI, Section 26(2) should be
read in relation to the "unless" clause, as they are coordinate clauses of the same sentence. The
purpose of the presidential certification is to ensure the immediate enactment of a bill when
there is a pressing public calamity or emergency, which would be defeated if only the
printing requirement were waived. Therefore, both the requirement for separate readings on
separate days and the printing and distribution of copies can be dispensed with by presidential
certification.
The Court also rejected the argument that the certification was invalid due to the
absence of an emergency, as the growing budget deficit was considered an unusual
condition. No member of the Senate disputed the factual basis of the certification, and the Senate
accepted it by passing S. No. 1630 on second and third readings on the same day.
Additionally, the Court held that the President certified S. No. 1630 because that was the bill
being considered by the Senate. When the matter was before the House, the President certified
House Bill No. 9210 (H. No. 9210), which was pending in the House. This demonstrated the
President's compliance with the legislative process.
ADDITION NOTES
The Court ruled that the contention of the petitioners that the Conference Committee had
inserted provisions not found in the original bills lacked merit.
The Court explained that under legislative rules, conference committees were not
expected to make material changes in a bill's provisions. However, if one house amended a
bill originating from the other house significantly, the versions could be so different that a
conference committee might draft an entirely new version, an "amendment in the nature of a
substitute," as long as it remained germane to the subject matter of the bills.
The RULES of both the Senate and House of Representatives state that in the event that
the ONE HOUSE does not agree with the THE OTHER HOUSE 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.
Additionally, the Court did not see any merit in the argument that members of Congress
were not fully informed about the provisions of the bill. BECAUSE the Conference Committee Report
was thereafter approved by the House and the Senate, presumably after appropriate study by their
members.

Tole v. Secre

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tole v. Secre

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tole v. Secre

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tolentino v.

The history of the bill is as follows:

You might also like