Constitutional Law
Arturo Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance
G.R. No. 115455: October 30, 1995
FACTS:
Petitioners seek a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s decision dismissing their
petitions to have R.A. No. 7716, otherwise known as the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law,
declared unconstitutional for alleged violation of Section 24, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution.
They contend that while H. No. 11197 passed three readings in the House of
Representatives, upon reaching the Senate, the latter passed its own version of the bill, the S.
No. 1630, instead of amending H. No. 11197. Hence, they allege, R.A. 7716 did not
“originate exclusively” from the House of Representatives. Petitioners also contend that H.
No. 11197 and S. No. 1630 are distinct and unrelated because the President separately
certified the need for enactment of these measures.
Petitioners also allege that the Conference Committee met for two days in executive
session with only the conferees present, thus violating the constitutional policy of full public
disclosure and the people’s right to know (Section 28, Article II and Section 7, Article III of
the 1987 Constitution).
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not S. 1630 is distinct and unrelated from H. No. 11197 as to render
R.A. No. 7716 unconstitutional
2) Whether or not there has been violation of the constitutional policy of full public
disclosure and the people’s right to know
RULING:
The Senate cannot enact revenue measures of its own without such bills because
revenue bills are required to originate exclusively in the House of Representatives. However,
Section 24, Article VI provides, “but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.”
Thus, after a revenue bill is passed and sent over to it by the House, the Senate certainly can
pass its own version on the same subject matter. This follows from the coequality of the two
chambers of Congress. 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.
Without H. No. 11197, the Senate could not have enacted S. No. 1630. Because the
Senate bill was a mere amendment of the House bill, H. No. 11197 in its original form did
not have to pass the Senate on second and three readings. It was enough that after it was
passed on first reading it was referred to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. Neither
was it required that S. No. 1630 be passed by the House of Representatives before the two
bills could be referred to the Conference Committee.
Regarding petitioner’s contention that the two measures are distinct and unrelated
because the President separately certified the need to enact these measures, the Court held
that “it is enough that he certifies the bill which, at the time he makes the certification, is
under consideration.”
On the matter of petitioners’ allegation of the breach of the constitutionally required
transparency in governance, the Court held: “Conferees keep notes of their meetings. Above
all, the public’s right to know was fully served because the Conference Committee in this
case submitted a report showing the changes made on the differing versions of the House and
Constitutional Law
the Senate. These changes are shown in the bill attached to the Conference Committee
Report. The members of both houses could thus ascertain what changes had been made in the
original bills without the need of a statement detailing the changes.”