Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Case Digest - Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance

    Uploaded by

    Mae Clare D. Bendo
    989 views1 page
    The petitioner contends that R.A. No. 7716, the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law, violated Article VI, Sections 24 and 26(2) of the Constitution by not originating exclusively from the House of Representatives and not passing three readings on separate days in the Senate. However, the Court ruled that the phrase "originate exclusively" refers to the revenue bill, not law, and the Senate bill was certified as urgent by the President so it did not need to meet reading requirements. Therefore, the petitions claiming unconstitutionality were dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    28. Case Digest - Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The petitioner contends that R.A. No. 7716, the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law, violated Article VI, Sections 24 and 26(2) of the Constitution by not originating exclusively from the House of Representatives and not passing three readings on separate days in the Senate. However, the Court ruled that the phrase "originate exclusively" refers to the revenue bill, not law, and the Senate bill was certified as urgent by the President so it did not need to meet reading requirements. Therefore, the petitions claiming unconstitutionality were dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    989 views1 page

    Case Digest - Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance

    Uploaded by

    Mae Clare D. Bendo
    The petitioner contends that R.A. No. 7716, the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law, violated Article VI, Sections 24 and 26(2) of the Constitution by not originating exclusively from the House of Representatives and not passing three readings on separate days in the Senate. However, the Court ruled that the phrase "originate exclusively" refers to the revenue bill, not law, and the Senate bill was certified as urgent by the President so it did not need to meet reading requirements. Therefore, the petitions claiming unconstitutionality were dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Tolentino

    v.
    Secretary of Finance
    235 SCRA 630, 1994

    JURISPRUDENCE:
    The purpose for which three readings on separate days is required is said to be two-fold:
    (1) to inform the members of Congress of what they must vote on (2) to give them notice that a
    measure is progressing through the enacting process, thus enabling them and others interested in
    the measure to prepare their positions with reference to it.
    FACTS:
    The motions, of which there are 10 in all, have been filed by the several petitioners. The
    petitioners seek reconsideration of the Court’s decision dismissing the petitions for the declaration
    of unconstitutionality of R.A. No. 7716, otherwise known as the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law.
    R.A. No. 7716 is an act that seeks to widen the tax base of the existing VAT system and enhance its
    administration by amending the National Internal Revenue Code.
    Tolentino, petitioner, contends that R.A. No. 7716 did not originate exclusively from the
    House of Representatives but is a mere consolidation of House Bill No. 11197 and Senate Bill No.
    1630 and that it did not pass three readings on separate days on the Senate thus violating Article
    VI, Sections 24 and 26(2) of the Constitution, respectively.
    Art. VI, Sec. 24 states that All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing
    increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in
    the House of representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments, while Sec.
    26(2) states that No bill passed either House shall become a law unless it has passed three
    readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its
    Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its
    immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no
    amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter,
    and yeas and nays entered in the journal.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not R.A. No. 7716 violated Sections 24 and 26(2) of Article VI of the
    Constitution.
    RULING:
    No. The phrase “originate exclusively” refers to the Revenue Bill and not to the Revenue
    Law. It is sufficient that the House of Representatives initiated the passage of the Bill which may
    undergo extensive changes in the Senate. Senate Bill No. 1630, having been certified as urgent by
    the President need not meet the requirement not only of printing but also of reading the bill on
    separate days. Wherefore, the petitions are dismissed.

    By: Morcelos

    You might also like