Case Summary (G.R. No. 218628)
Issue II: S. No. 1630 as Amendment to H. No. 11197
Petitioners claimed S. No. 1630 was an independent measure not passing second and third readings in the House. The Court found S. No. 1630 to be a “mere amendment” of H. No. 11197: the Senate bill’s provisions mapped to those of the House bill as reflected in Tolentino’s own comparative chart. Without the House bill’s referral, the Senate could not have enacted S. No. 1630, and first-reading referral sufficed. Conference committee practice likewise allows disparate versions to be reconciled without each passing the opposite chamber.
Issue III: Presidential Certification for Immediate Enactment
Petitioners contended that separate certifications of H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630 violated Art. VI, §26(2). The Court explained that certification applies to the bill “under consideration” at the moment—first H. No. 9210, later H. No. 11197 in the House, and S. No. 1630 in the Senate. Historical and textual context shows certification may waive separate-day and final-form printing requirements when urgency is certified; six weeks’ Senate debate before final readings satisfied deliberation objectives.
Issue IV: Conference Committee Procedures and Public Disclosure
Challenges arose from executive-session meetings with only conferees present and exclusion of some stenographers. The Court noted no congressional rule mandated open hearings; the public’s right to know was served by publication of the Conference Committee’s detailed report and attached text. Precedent (R.A. No. 1400, Land Reform Act hearings) and comparative doctrine confirm plenary authority of conference committees to meet in closed sessions and to propose new germane provisions, subject to approval by both houses.
Issue V: Single-Subject Rule and Bill Titles
Philippine Airlines asserted that narrowing VAT exemptions (e.g., removing franchise exemption under P.D. No. 1590) was not expressed in RA 7716’s title, thus breaching Art. VI, §26(1). The Court held the title’s broad description of “restructuring the VAT system, widening its base and enhancing its administration, … amending … relevant provisions of the NIRC” sufficiently signaled all related amendments, including to Section 103(q). Detailed reference in both House and Senate bills reinforced adequate notice.
Issue VI: Press Freedom and Religious Exemptions under the VAT
The Philippine Press Institute argued that removing the press’s VAT exemption was discriminatory and violated free-press guarantees. The Court distinguished VAT from a license or privilege tax (Grosjean; Murdock): VAT is an indirect revenue tax on goods and services and does not single out expression for restraint. Restoring uniformity simply placed the press on the same footing as other businesses. Likewise, taxing Bible sales does not unduly burden religious exercise, as VAT applies incidentally to transactions, not to preaching or publication as a privilege.
Issue VII: Due Process, Equal Protection, Contract Obligations and Tax Uniformity
CREBA and other petitioners claimed impairment of existing contracts, irrational classification of taxable transactions, and violation of the uniform, equitable, and progressive taxation mandate (Art. VI, §28). The Court reaffirmed that lawful new taxes do not impair contracts in the constitutional sense; government reserves sovereign power to tax. Reasonable classifications (e.g., exempting basic foodstuffs, agricultural inputs, low-volume sellers) and uniform application to similarly situated taxpayers satisfy equal-protection and uniformity requir
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 218628)
Procedural Posture
- Petitions for declaration of unconstitutionality of R.A. No. 7716 (Expanded VAT Law) were dismissed by this Court en banc.
- Ten separate motions for reconsideration were filed by various petitioners (except in G.R. No. 115931).
- The Solicitor General filed a consolidated comment; select petitioners filed replies and rejoinders.
- The matter was submitted for resolution on June 27, 1995.
Facts
- House Bill No. 11197 was filed in the House, passed three readings, then transmitted to the Senate.
- Senate did not amend H.B. 11197 on second/third readings; instead it enacted its own version, S.B. 1630, approved May 24, 1994.
- R.A. No. 7716 resulted from consolidation of H.B. 11197 and S.B. 1630 by a Conference Committee meeting in executive session.
- Presidential certifications for “immediate enactment” were issued: June 1, 1993 (H.B. 9210) and March 22, 1994 (S.B. 1630).
- Petitioners challenged the law on multiple grounds: origination and amendment procedures, certification, conference-committee secrecy, title clause, press and religious freedom, contract obligations, equal protection, progressive taxation, and cooperative policy.
Issue I: Power of the Senate to Propose Amendments to Revenue Bills
- Art. VI, 24 of the Constitution requires revenue bills to “originate exclusively” in the House but allows the Senate to “propose or concur with amendments.”
- Precedent: during the Eighth and Ninth Congresses, the Senate passed its own versions of House-originated revenue measures (e.g., R.A. Nos. 7369, 7549, 7642–7717).
- Senate Rules permit a committee to endorse a new substitute bill in writing; this is a recognized form of amendment.
- Constitutional history shows the framers fully intended the Senate’s amendment power to be “full, plenary and complete.”
Issue II: S.B. 1630 as a Mere Amendment of H.B. 11197
- Petitioners contended S.B. 1630 was an independent enactment, not an amendment.
- Comparative tables of H.B. 11197 and S.B. 1630 reveal parallel provisions and clear amendment intent.
- Legislative precedent (e.g., R.A. No. 1405) confirms that unpassed House and Senate versions on the same subject may go to conference without separate cross-passage.
- S.B. 1630 “took into consideration” H.B. 11197 and thus functioned as an amendment.
Issue III: Validity of the President’s Certification for Immediate Enactment
- Art. VI, 26(2) permits dispensing with three readings on separate