Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Arturo Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance Facts: Some of the petitioners (Tolentino, Kilosbayan, Inc., Philippine Airlines (PAL , !

oco, an" #hamber of !eal $state an" %uil"ers Association (#!$%A reiterate previous claims ma"e by them that !.A. &o. ''() ($*pan"e" +alue A""e" Ta* La, "i" not -ori.inate e*clusively- in the /ouse of !epresentatives as re0uire" by Art. +I, Sec. 12 of the #onstitution. Althou.h they a"mit that /. &o. (((3' ,as file" in the /ouse of !epresentatives ,here it passe" three rea"in.s an" that after,ar"s ,as sent to the Senate ,here after first rea"in. it ,as referre" to the Senate 4ays an" 5eans #ommittee, they complain that the Senate "i" not pass it on secon" an" thir" rea"in.s. Instea", ,hat the Senate "i" ,as to pass its o,n version (S. &o. ()67 ,hich it approve" on 5ay 12, (332. Petitioner Tolentino a""s that ,hat the Senate committee shoul" have "one ,as to amen" /. &o. (((3' by stri8in. out the te*t of the bill an" substitutin. it ,ith the te*t of S. &o. ()67. That ,ay, it is sai", -the bill remains a /ouse bill an" the Senate version 9ust becomes the te*t (only the te*t of the /ouse bill.Issues: (( 4hether or not $+AT La, is unconstitutional on the .roun" that it "i" not ori.inate from the /ouse of !epresentatives. :Sec.12; (1 4hether or not the $+AT La, is unconstitutional on the .roun" that it "i" not un"er.o the three rea"in.s on separate "ays re0uirement of the #onstitution. :Sec.1); /el": (( &o, it is not unconstitutional. The Supreme #ourt re9ecte" the ar.ument of the petitioners an" hel" that such consoli"ation ,as consistent ,ith the po,er of the Senate to propose or concur ,ith amen"ments to the version ori.inate" in the /ouse of !epresentatives. 4hat the #onstitution simply means is that the initiative must come from the /ouse of !epresentatives. 5oreover, ,e note that there ,ere alrea"y several instances prior to this ,herein Senate passe" its o,n version rather than havin. the /ouse of !epresentatives version as far as revenue an" other similar bills are concerne". This practice of amen"ment by substitution has al,ays been accepte". The proposition of Tolentino concerns a mere matter of form. (1 &o, it is not unconstitutional. The ar.ument of the petitioners that S. &o. ()67 "i" not pass the 6 rea"in.s on separate "ays as re0uire" by the #onstitution because the secon" an" thir" rea"in.s ,ere "one on the same "ay is not appreciate" because the Presi"ent ha" certifie" S. &o. ()67 as ur.ent.

The presi"ential certification "ispense" of the re0uirement not only of printin. but also that of rea"in. the bill on separate "ays. That upon the certification of a bill by the Presi"ent, the re0uirement of 6 rea"in.s on separate "ays an" of printin. an" "istribution can be "ispense" ,ith is supporte" by the ,ei.ht of le.islative practice.