Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance - 249 SCRA 635 without offense to the Constitution.

without offense to the Constitution. By granting exemptions, the State does not forever
FACTS:
Petitioners (Tolentino, Kilosbayan, Inc., Philippine Airlines, Roco, and
Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Association) seek reconsideration of the Court’s
previous ruling dismissing the petitions filed for the declaration of unconstitutionality of
R.A. No. 7716, the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law. Petitioners contend that the R.A.
did not “originate exclusively” in the HoR as required by Article 6, Section 24 of the
Constitution. The Senate allegedly did not pass it on second and third readings, instead
passing its own version. Petitioners contend that it should have amended the House
bill by striking out the text of the bill and substituting it with the text of its own bill, so as
to conform with the Constitution.
waive the exercise of its sovereign prerogative.
Lastly, petitioners contend that the R.A. violates due process, equal protection
and contract clauses and the rule on taxation. Petitioners fail to take into consideration
the fact that the VAT was already provided for in E.O. No. 273 long before the R.A. was
enacted. The latter merely EXPANDS the base of the tax. Equality and uniformity in
taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class be taxed
at the same rate, the taxing power having authority to make reasonable and natural
classifications for purposes of taxation. It is enough that the statute applies equally to
all persons, forms and corporations placed in s similar situation.

ISSUE:
W/N the R.A. is unconstitutional for having “originated” from the Senate, and
not the HoR.
Tolentino v Sec. of Finance
Facts:
HELD:
1. House of Rep. filed House Bill 11197 (An Act Restructuring the VAT System to
Petition is unmeritorious. The enactment of the Senate bill has not been the
Widen its Tax Base and Enhance its Admin., Amending for these Purposes…)
first instance where the Senate, in the exercise of its power to propose amendments to
2. Upon receipt of Senate, Senate filed another bill completely different from that of
bills (required to originate in the House), passed its own version. An amendment by
the House Bill
substitution (striking out the text and substituting it), as urged by petitioners, concerns
3. Senate finished debates on the bill and had the 2nd and 3rd reading of the Bill on the
a mere matter of form, and considering the petitioner has not shown what substantial
same day
difference it would make if Senate applied such substitution in the case, it cannot be
4. Bill was deliberated upon in the Conference Committee and become enrolled bill
applied to the case at bar. While the aforementioned Constitutional provision states
which eventually became the EVAT law.
that bills must “originate exclusively in the HoR,” it also adds, “but the Senate may
propose or concur with amendments.” The Senate may then propose an entirely new
Procedural Issue:
bill as a substitute measure. Petitioners erred in assuming the Senate version to be an
(1) WoN RA 7716 originated exclusively from the House of Rep. in accordance with sec
independent and distinct bill. Without the House bill, Senate could not have enacted
24, art 6 of Consti
the Senate bill, as the latter was a mere amendment of the former. As such, it did not
(2) WoN the Senate bill violated the “three readings on separate days” requirement of the
have to pass the Senate on second and third readings.
Consti
(3) WoN RA 7716 violated sec 26(1), art 6 - one subject, one title rule.
Petitioners question the signing of the President on both bills, to support their
contention that such are separate and distinct. The President certified the bills
separately only because the certification had to be made of the version of the same
NOTE: This case was filed by PAL because before the EVAT Law, they were exempt
revenue bill which AT THE MOMENT was being considered.
from taxes. After the passage of EVAT, they were already included. PAL contended
that neither the House or Senate bill provided for the removal of the exemption from
Petitioners question the power of the Conference Committee to insert new
taxes of PAL and that it was inly made after the meeting of the Conference Committee
provisions. The jurisdiction of the conference committee is not limited to resolving
w/c was not expressed in the title of RA 7166
differences between the Senate and the House. It may propose an entirely new
provision, given that such are germane to the subject of the conference, and that the
Held:
respective houses of Congress subsequently approve its report.
1. YES! Court said that it is not the law which should originate from the House of
Rep, but the revenue bill which was required to originate from the House of Rep. The
Petitioner PAL contends that the amendment of its franchise by the withdrawal
inititiative must ocme from the Lower House because they are elected in the district
of its exemption from VAT is not expressed in the title of the law, thereby violating the
level – meaning they are expected to be more sensitive to the needs of the locality.
Constitution. The Court believes that the title of the R.A. satisfies the Constitutional
Also, a bill originating from the Lower House may undergo extensive changes while in
Requirement.
the Senate. Senate can introduce a separate and distinct bill other than the one the
Lower House proposed. The Constitution does not prohibit the filing in the Senate of a
Petitioners claim that the R.A. violates their press freedom and religious
substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the House bill, so long as action by Senate
liberty, having removed them from the exemption to pay VAT. Suffice it to say that since
is withheld pending the receipt of the House bill.
the law granted the press a privilege, the law could take back the privilege anytime
2. NO. The Pres. certified that the Senate bill was urgent. Presidential certification separate days and of printing and distribution can be dispensed with is supported by
dispensed the requirement not only of printing but also reading the bill in 3 separate the weight of legislative practice.
days. In fact, the Senate accepted the Pres. certification

3. No. Court said that the title states that the purpose of the statute is to expand the
VAT system and one way of doing this is to widen its base by withdrawing some of the
exemptions granted before. It is also in the power of Congress to amend, alter, repeal
grant of franchises for operation of public utility when the common good so requires.
One subject rule is intended to prevent surprise upon Congress members and inform
people of pending legislation. In the case of PAL, they did not know of their situation
not because of any defect in title but because they might have not noticed its publication
until some event calls attention to its existence.

Facts:

One contention is that RA 7716 did not originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives as required by Art. VI, Sec. 24 of the Constitution, because it is in fact
the result of the consolidation of 2 distinct bills, H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630. There
is also a contention that S. No. 1630 did not pass 3 readings as required by the
Constitution.

Issue:

Whether or not RA 7716 violates Art. VI, Secs. 24 and 26(2) of the
Constitution

Held:

The argument that RA 7716 did not originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives as required by Art. VI, Sec. 24 of the Constitution will not bear analysis.
To begin with, it is not the law but the revenue bill which is required by the Constitution
to originate exclusively in the House of Representatives. 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.
Indeed, what the Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing revenue, tariff
or tax bills, bills authorizing an increase of the public debt, private bills and bills of local
application must come from the House of Representatives on the theory that, elected
as they are from the districts, the members of the House can be expected to be more
sensitive to the local needs and problems. Nor does the Constitution prohibit the filing
in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House,
so long as action by the Senate as a body is withheld pending receipt of the House bill.

The next argument of the petitioners was that S. No. 1630 did not pass 3
readings on separate days as required by the Constitution because the second and
third readings were done on the same day. But this was because the President had
certified S. No. 1630 as urgent. The presidential certification dispensed with the
requirement not only of printing but also that of reading the bill on separate days. That
upon the certification of a bill by the President the requirement of 3 readings on