Tolentino vs. Secretary

TOLENTINO VS.
SECRETARY I 230
EN BANC
ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, petitioner vs. THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE and THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents
[G.R. No. 115455. August 25, 1994.]
MENDOZA, J.
TOPIC: V. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

A.8. Journal and Congressional Records – Sec 16 (4), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution
DOCTRINE: (1) The Enrolled Bill Theory is based mainly on "the respect due to coequal and independent
departments," which requires the judicial department "to accept, as having passed
Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated." Thus, it has also been stated in other
cases that if the attestation is absent and the same is not required for the validity of a statute,
the courts may resort to the journals and other records of Congress for proof of its due enactment.
FACTS:
 The value-added tax (VAT) is levied on the sale, barter or exchange of goods and properties
as well as on the sale or exchange of services. It is equivalent to 10% of the gross selling price
or gross value in money of goods or properties sold, bartered or exchanged or of the gross
receipts from the sale or exchange of services.
 Republic Act No. 7716 seeks to widen the tax base of the existing VAT system and enhance
its administration by amending the National Internal Revenue Code.
 It appears that on various dates between July 22, 1992 and August 31, 1993, several bills
were introduced in the House of Representatives seeking to amend certain provisions of the
National Internal Revenue Code relative to the value-added tax or VAT. These bills were
referred to the House Ways and Means Committee which recommended for approval a
substitute measure, H. No. 11197.
 The bill (H. No. 11197) was considered on second reading starting November 6, 1993 and, on
November 17, 1993, it was approved by the House of Representatives after third and final
reading.
 It was sent to the Senate on November 23, 1993 and later referred by that body to its
Committee on Ways and Means.
 On February 7, 1994, the Senate Committee submitted its report recommending approval of S.
No. 1630.
 It was stated that the bill was being submitted "in substitution of Senate Bill No. 1129, taking
into consideration P. S. Res. No. 734 and H. B. No. 11197."
 On February 8, 1994, the Senate began consideration of the bill (S. No. 1630). It finished
debates on the bill and approved it on second reading on March 24, 1994. On the same day, it
approved the bill on third reading by the affirmative votes of 13 of its members, with one
abstention.
 H. No. 1197 and its Senate version (S. No. 1630) were then referred to a conference
committee which, after meeting four times (April 13, 19, 21 and 25, 1994), recommended that
"House Bill No. 11197, in consolidation with Senate Bill No. 1630, be approved in accordance
with the attached copy of the bill as reconciled and approved by the conferees."
 The Conference Committee bill, 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," was thereafter approved by the House of Representatives on April 27,
1994 and by the Senate on May 2, 1994.
 The enrolled bill was then presented to the President of the Philippines who, on May 5, 1994,
signed it.
 It became Republic Act No. 7716.
 On May 12, 1994, Republic Act No. 7716 was published in two newspapers of general
circulation.
TOLENTINO VS. SECRETARY I 230
 On May 28, 1994, it took effect, although its implementation was suspended until June 30,
1994 to allow time for the registration of business entities.
ISSUES:
1. Whether Republic Act No. 7716 did not "originate exclusively" in the House of
Representatives as required by Art. VI, Section 24 of the Constitution, because it is in fact
the result of the consolidation of two distinct bills, H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630.
2. Whether the bill which became Republic Act No. 7716 is the bill which the Conference
Committee report included provisions not found in either the House bill or the Senate bill
and that these provisions were "surreptitiously" inserted by the Conference Committee on
the fact that in the last two days of its session on April 21 and 25, 1994 the Committee met
behind closed doors as such whether the provisions were not the result of the give and take
that often mark the proceedings of conference committees.
RULINGS:
1. Yes, 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. 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
Senate's 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.
2. No, there is not anything unusual or extraordinary about the fact that the Conference
Committee met in executive sessions often the only way to reach agreement on conflicting
provisions is to meet behind closed doors, with only the conferees present. Otherwise, no
compromise is likely to be made. The Court is not about to take the suggestion of a cabal
or sinister motive attributed to the conferees on the basis solely of their "secret meetings"
on April 21 and 25, 1994, nor read anything into the incomplete remarks of the members,
marked in the transcript of stenographic notes by ellipses. The incomplete sentences are
probably due to the stenographer's own limitations or to the incoherence that sometimes
characterize conversations. Indeed, the Court 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.
CONCLUSION: WHEREFORE, the petitions in these cases are DISMISSED.

Tolentino vs. Secretary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tolentino vs. Secretary

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Tolentino vs. Secretary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TOLENTINO VS.

TOPIC: V. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

CONCLUSION: WHEREFORE, the petitions in these cases are DISMISSED.

You might also like