MENDOZA

JOKER P. ARROYO, EDCEL C. LAGMAN, JOHN HENRY R. OSMEÑA, WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, and
RONALDO B. ZAMORA, petitioners, vs. JOSE DE VENECIA, RAUL DAZA, RODOLFO ALBANO, THE
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, respondents.
DE VENECIA SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, RAUL DAZA DEPUTY SPEAKER

Facts:

1. Petition for certiorari and prohibition challenging the validity of R.A No. 8240 which amends
certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code by imposing sin taxes on manufacture
and sale of beer and cigarettes.

2. charging 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.
3. Contention: Majority Leader, Rodolfo Albano, moved for the approval of the conference
committee report on a bill that became R.A 8240
a. The chair, Deputy Speaker Raul Raza, asked if there was any objection to the motion and
then Rep. Arroyo asked “What is the Mr. Speaker?”
b. The chair allegedly ignored him and declared the report approved
i. The question is a privileged question
1. Affecting the duties, conduct, rights, privileges, dignity, integrity, or
reputation or the House
c. Rep. Arroyo and the other petitioners contends that the approval R. A No. 8240 was
rushed through the House of Representatives
d. Rule XVI of the Rules of House of Representatives provides that when a member desires
to speak, he shall rise and respectfully address the Chair “Mr. Speaker”
4. Petitioners principal argument is that R.A. No.8240 is null and void because it was passed in
violation of the rules of the House

Issue: Whether or not the legislative act R.A No. 8240 is invalid given that there was still a query to the
Chair

Held:

No. SC dismissed the case because it found no ground for holding that the Congress committed a grave
abuse of discretion in enacting R.A No. 8240. Section 26 – 27 of Art. 6 were not violated hence it did not
violate the constitutional requirements provided in these sections. What was violated in the enactment
of R.A No. 8240 are only internal rules of procedure of the House. The courts cannot declare an act of
the legislature void on account of noncompliance with the rules of procedure. Furthermore, the Court
stated that it has no more power to look into the internal proceedings of a House as long as no violation
of constitutional provisions is shown. In addition to this, there is also no grave abuse of discretion when
the House passed the Republic Act as it did not go beyond its jurisdiction’s constitutional limits, so the
Court cannot exercise judicial review. (Court cannot be concerned with internal procedures). It would be
an invasion of the prerogative of a coequal department it the Court will set aside a legislative action as
void just because the Court thinks the House has disregarded its own rules of procedure. To do so, will
make the Court act in the excess of its power and would be guilty of grave abuse of discretion.

the petition for certiorari and prohibition is DISMISSED

Joke Arroyo was still asking a question when R.A No. 8240 was approved. However, although there was a
query from Rep. Arroyo, it was not done so in the proper way. Their contention has no merit since Rep.
Arroyo did not have the floor when he asked the question. In addition to this, it is stated in Rule XVI of
the Rules of House of Representatives provides that when a member desires to speak, he shall rise and
respectfully address the Chair “Mr. Speaker”. Arroyo’s question was also not a question of privilege as it
is defined in Rule XX section 121 of the Rules of the House that questions of privilege are those affecting
the duties, conduct, rights, privileges, dignity, integrity, or reputation or the House. Lastly, the SC held
that non-compliance to the internal rules, it does not affect the validity of the Republic Act.

SC denied the motion for rehearing and reconsideration

PONENTE: MENDOZA