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

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

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

DAVIDE, JR., J., dissenting:

The legislative history of R.A. No. 7716, as highlighted in the Consolidated Memorandum for the public respondents submitted by the Office of the Solicitor General, demonstrates beyond doubt that it was passed in violation or deliberate disregard of mandatory provisions of the Constitution and of the rules of both chambers of Congress relating to the enactment of bills.

I therefore vote to strike down R.A. No. 7716 as unconstitutional and as having been enacted with grave abuse of discretion.

The Constitution provides for a bicameral Congress. Therefore, no bill can be enacted into law unless it is approved...