Arroyo vs. De Venecia G.R. No.

127255, August 14, 1997

Sunday, January 25, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: A petition was filed challenging the validity of RA 8240,

whichamends certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code.
Petitioners, who are members of the House of Representatives, charged that
there is violation of the rules of the House which petitioners claim are
constitutionally-mandated so that their violation is tantamount to a violation of
the Constitution.

The law originated in the House of Representatives. The Senate approved it with
certain amendments. A bicameral conference committee was formed to
reconcile the disagreeing provisions of the House and Senate versions of
the bill. The bicameral committee submitted its report to the House. During the
interpellations, Rep. Arroyo made an interruption and moved to adjourn for lack
of quorum. But after a roll call, the Chairdeclared the presence of a quorum.
The interpellation then proceeded. After Rep. Arroyo’s interpellation of the
sponsor of the committee report, Majority Leader Albano moved for the
approval and ratification of theconference committee report. The Chair called
out for objections to themotion. Then the Chair declared: “There being none,
approved.” At the same time the Chair was saying this, Rep. Arroyo was asking,
“What is that…Mr. Speaker?” The Chair and Rep. Arroyo were talking
simultaneously. Thus, although Rep. Arroyo subsequently objected to the
Majority Leader’s motion, the approval of the conference committee report had
by then already been declared by the Chair.

On the same day, the bill was signed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President of the Senate and certified by the respective
secretaries of both Houses of Congress. The enrolled bill was signed into law by
President Ramos.
Issue: Whether or not RA 8240 is null and void because it was passed in
violation of the rules of the House

Held:
Rules of each House of Congress are hardly permanent in character. They are
subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body
adopting them as they are primarily procedural. Courts ordinarily have no
concern with their observance. They may be waived or disregarded by the
legislative body. Consequently, mere failure to conformto them does not have
the effect of nullifying the act taken if the requisite number of members
has agreed to a particular measure. But this is subject to qualification. Where
the construction to be given to a rule affects person other than members of the
legislative body, the question presented is necessarily judicial in character. Even
its validity is open to question in a case where private rights are involved.

In the case, no rights of private individuals are involved but only those of a
member who, instead of seeking redress in the House, chose to transfer the
dispute to the Court.

The matter complained of concerns a matter of internal procedure of the House

with which the Court should not be concerned. The claim is not that there was
no quorum but only that Rep. Arroyo was effectively prevented from
questioning the presence of a quorum. Rep. Arroyo’s earlier motionto adjourn
for lack of quorum had already been defeated, as the roll call established the
existence of a quorum. The question of quorum cannot be raised repeatedly
especially when the quorum is obviously present for the purpose of delaying the
business of the House.