8/11/2019 Tolentino v Sec of Finance (digest)
1/2
Colene Arcaina
Article VI, Section 26: Subject and title of bills general
prohibition of riders
Tolentino v Secretary of Finance
Date: August 25, 1994
Ponente: Mendoza, J.
Facts:
The case revolves around Republic Act 7716 or the Expanded
Value-Added Tax law.
On various dates between July 22, 1992 and August 31, 1993,
several billswere 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.
After several other debates, recommendations, and meetings in
the Senate Committee and the HoR, the
Conference Committee Bill 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 and became RA 7716.
Issue/s: (in relation to Article VI, Section 26)
WoN RA 7716 violates Article VI, Section 26(2) of the
Constitution (procedural issue)
Petitioner:
S. No. 1630 did not pass three readings on separate days as
required by the Constitution becausethe second and third readings
were done on the same day, March 24, 1994 and that the only
thing
that should have been dispensed with by certification of the
President was the printing and
distribution of the final copies of the bill.
Ruling:
RA 7716 did not violate Article VI, Section 26(2) of the
Constitution and that the procedural requirements have
been fully complied with in the enactment of the said law.
Ratio:
On February 24, 1994
9
and again on March 22, 1994,the President had certified S. No.
1630 as urgent. Thepresidential certification dispensed with the
requirement not only of printing but also that of reading the bill
on
separate days. The phrase "except when the President certifies
to the necessity of its immediate enactment, etc."
in Art. VI, 26(2) qualifies the two stated conditions before a
bill can become a law: (i) the bill has
passed three readings on separate days and (ii) it has been
printed in its final form and distributed three days
before it is finally approved
Also, it is noteworthy that no member of the Senate saw fit to
controvert the reality of the factual basis of the
certification. To the contrary, by passing S. No. 1630 on second
and third readings on March 24, 1994, the Senate
accepted the President's certification.
Art. VI, 26(2) must, therefore,be construed as referring only to
bills introduced for the first time in
either house of Congress, not to the conference committee
report. For if the purpose of requiring three
