Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Arroyo Vs de Venecia

    Uploaded by

    Ricardo Delacruz
    The document discusses a case where members of the House of Representatives challenged the validity of a law amending tax provisions. The issue was whether the law was null and void because it violated House rules in its passage. The court held that rules of Congress are procedural and can be waived or disregarded, and failure to conform does not nullify an act if the requisite number of members agreed. The court also said it would not interfere with internal House procedures.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Arroyo Vs de Venecia

    Uploaded by

    Ricardo Delacruz
    5 views2 pages
    The document discusses a case where members of the House of Representatives challenged the validity of a law amending tax provisions. The issue was whether the law was null and void because it violated House rules in its passage. The court held that rules of Congress are procedural and can be waived or disregarded, and failure to conform does not nullify an act if the requisite number of members agreed. The court also said it would not interfere with internal House procedures.

    Original Title

    arroyo vs de venecia

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case where members of the House of Representatives challenged the validity of a law amending tax provisions. The issue was whether the law was null and void because it violated House rules in its passage. The court held that rules of Congress are procedural and can be waived or disregarded, and failure to conform does not nullify an act if the requisite number of members agreed. The court also said it would not interfere with internal House procedures.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    5 views2 pages

    Arroyo Vs de Venecia

    Uploaded by

    Ricardo Delacruz
    The document discusses a case where members of the House of Representatives challenged the validity of a law amending tax provisions. The issue was whether the law was null and void because it violated House rules in its passage. The court held that rules of Congress are procedural and can be waived or disregarded, and failure to conform does not nullify an act if the requisite number of members agreed. The court also said it would not interfere with internal House procedures.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Name:

    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
    Monday and Friday 5:30-8:30p.m.

    JOKER P. ARROYO vs JOSE DE VENECIA


    G.R. No. 127255, August 14, 1997
    SUBJECT MATTER:
    Facts:
    A petition was filed challenging the validity of RA 8240, which amends 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. During the
    interpellations, Rep. Arroyo made an interruption and moved to adjourn for lack of
    quorum. But after a roll call, the Chair declared 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
    the conference committee report. 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 conform to them does not have the effect of nullifying the act taken if the requisite
    number of members has agreed to a particular measure. 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.

    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 motion to 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.

    You might also like