Arturo M. Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, et al. [DISSENTING OPINION, J. REGALADO]

ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, petitioner, vs. THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE and THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents. [DISSENTING OPINION, J. REGALADO]

G.R. No. 115455 | 1994-08-25

Bicameral conference committee, may include in its report an entirely new provision not found in either the House bill or Senate bill versions
VAT law is constitutional, progressive system of taxation is not a judicially enforceable right
Congress, Appropriation Laws
Congress, Procedure for the Passage of Bills
1987 Constitution, Article 6, Section 26 (2), the certification of necessity of a bill by the President dispenses with the requirement of three readings on separate days and of printing and distribution
Bicameral conference committee

REGALADO, J., dissenting:

It would seem like an inconceivable irony that Republic Act No. 7716 which, so respondents claim, was conceived by the collective wisdom of a bicameral Congress and crafted with sedulous care by two branches of government should now be embroiled in challenges to its validity for having been enacted in disregard of mandatory prescriptions of the Constitution itself. Indeed, such impugnment by petitioners goes beyond merely the procedural flaws in the parturition of the law. Creating and regulating as it does definite rights to property, but with its own passage having been violative of explicit provisions of the...