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