Title
Supreme Court
Tinio vs. Duterte
Case
G.R. No. 236118
Decision Date
Jan 24, 2023
The case challenged the constitutionality of the TRAIN Act, focusing on its passage, excise taxes, and alleged violations of due process and progressive taxation. The Court upheld the law, ruling it validly passed and constitutional.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 236118)

Key Dates

• December 13, 2017 – House session in which the TRAIN Bicameral Conference Committee (BCC) Report was ratified.
• December 19, 2017 – Signing of Republic Act No. 10963 (TRAIN Act).
• January 24, 2023 – En banc decision date.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable to cases decided in 2023).
• Rules of Court, Rule 65 (special civil action for certiorari and prohibition).
• Internal Rules of the House of Representatives (Sections 16–17 and Rule XXII on quorum and broadcasting).
• Enrolled Bill Doctrine and rules on legislative journals.

Facts

The TRAIN Act amended the National Internal Revenue Code to rationalize tax structures and fund the government’s “Build, Build, Build” infrastructure program and social interventions. Former President Duterte certified precursor tax reform bills as urgent. Petitioners Tinio et al. claimed the House ratified the BCC Report without a quorum on the night of December 13, 2017, rendering the law void. Laban Konsyumer et al. asserted that excise taxes on diesel, coal, LPG, and kerosene are regressive, confiscatory, and violative of due process and equal protection.

Procedural History

The two petitions were consolidated by Supreme Court resolution. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a consolidated comment alleging procedural defects (improper remedy, hierarchy of courts violation, no case or controversy, political questions, failure to implead Congress, presidential immunity). Petitioners filed replies reiterating their remedies, standing, and merits arguments, and both sought injunctive relief pending resolution.

Issues

The Court identified eight issues for resolution:

  1. Cognizance under its expanded judicial power.
  2. Violation of the hierarchy of courts.
  3. Impleading Congress as an indispensable party.
  4. Application of presidential immunity.
  5. Validity of enactment process (quorum and ratification).
  6. Whether Section 48 of TRAIN (amending Section 151 of the Tax Code) is a prohibited rider.
  7. Due process challenge to excise taxes.
  8. Equal protection challenge and Section 28(1), Article VI (progressive taxation requirement).

Actual Case or Controversy

The Court held that an actual case or controversy existed because petitioners alleged grave abuse of discretion (lack of quorum) and direct injury (regressive tax effects). These allegations presented concrete conflicting legal rights susceptible to judicial resolution.

Hierarchy of Courts

Petitioners conceded not following the doctrine of hierarchy of courts but justified direct resort to the Supreme Court under recognized exceptions: genuine constitutional issues needing immediate resolution, matters of transcendental importance, lack of adequate remedy elsewhere. The Court found these exceptions applicable given the gravity and urgency of the constitutional questions raised.

Enactment and Quorum

Article VI, Section 16(2) of the Constitution requires a majority quorum to “do business.” House Journal No. 48 (December 13, 2017) recorded 232 members present at roll call and no objection to quorum until the BCC Report was moved for ratification. The Journal showed ratification upon motion and without objection, followed by adjournment at 10:05 p.m. Petitioners’ claims of a lack of quorum alleged from a video recording and photograph were deemed insufficient to overcome the presumption that the House maintained a quorum throughout its proceedings.

Separation of Powers and Internal Rules

The Court explained that while each House may set its own rules (Article VI, Section 16(3)), the question whether a quorum “continued” during a valid, convened session is an internal matter properly addressed by Congress under its rules. Judicial inquiry into such internal proceedings would violate separation of powers.

Enrolled-Bill Doctrine and Legislative Journals

Under the enrolled-bill doctrine, an authenticated enrolled act certified by both Houses’ officers conclusively proves due enactment. Concurrently, legislative journals required by the Constitution carry conclusive evidentiary weight as records of congressional proceedings. Because neither the enrolled copy nor Journal No. 48 reflected any defect, the TRAIN Act’s passage is presumed valid.

Petitioners’ Evidence

Petitioners relied on a livestream video and a photograph showing a “near-empty” session hall. The Court found these sources inadequate to rebut the presumption of regularity: the video covered only part of the hall without timestamp or certification, and the photograph—self-serving and unverified—could not definitively establish a quorum loss.

Procedural Errors and Remedy

Procedural objections included failure to implead the entire Congress. The Court held that impleading the House and Senate through their official heads substantially complied. Petitioners had also joined President Duterte, implicating presidential immunity; the remedy was to drop the President as respondent rather than dismiss the petition.

Rider Question on Section 48

Section 48 of TRAIN, raising excise taxes on coal, was introduced by the Senate. Article VI, Section 24 permits the Senate to propose or concur with amendments to House-originating revenue bi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms