Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance

    Uploaded by

    Fara Taradji
    176 views2 pages
    (1) The Supreme Court rejected the claim that the Expanded Value Added Tax Law did not originate from the House of Representatives as required by the Constitution. While the Senate passed its own version rather than amending the House version, the Court found this was consistent with the Senate's power to propose amendments. (2) The Court also rejected the claim that the Senate version did not undergo the three readings on separate days requirement. It held that the presidential certification of the bill as urgent dispensed with this requirement. (3) Prior practice showed instances where the Senate passed its own version of revenue bills rather than amending the House version, and amending by substitution has always been accepted.

    Original Description:

    tolentino

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    (1) The Supreme Court rejected the claim that the Expanded Value Added Tax Law did not originate from the House of Representatives as required by the Constitution. While the Senate passed its own version rather than amending the House version, the Court found this was consistent with the Senate's power to propose amendments. (2) The Court also rejected the claim that the Senate version did not undergo the three readings on separate days requirement. It held that the presidential certification of the bill as urgent dispensed with this requirement. (3) Prior practice showed instances where the Senate passed its own version of revenue bills rather than amending the House version, and amending by substitution has always been accepted.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    176 views2 pages

    Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance

    Uploaded by

    Fara Taradji
    (1) The Supreme Court rejected the claim that the Expanded Value Added Tax Law did not originate from the House of Representatives as required by the Constitution. While the Senate passed its own version rather than amending the House version, the Court found this was consistent with the Senate's power to propose amendments. (2) The Court also rejected the claim that the Senate version did not undergo the three readings on separate days requirement. It held that the presidential certification of the bill as urgent dispensed with this requirement. (3) Prior practice showed instances where the Senate passed its own version of revenue bills rather than amending the House version, and amending by substitution has always been accepted.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    Arturo Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance Facts: Some of the petitioners (Tolentino, Kilosbayan, Inc., Philippine Airlines (PAL , !

    oco, an" #hamber of !eal $state an" %uil"ers Association (#!$%A reiterate previous claims ma"e by them that !.A. &o. ''() ($*pan"e" +alue A""e" Ta* La, "i" not -ori.inate e*clusively- in the /ouse of !epresentatives as re0uire" by Art. +I, Sec. 12 of the #onstitution. Althou.h they a"mit that /. &o. (((3' ,as file" in the /ouse of !epresentatives ,here it passe" three rea"in.s an" that after,ar"s ,as sent to the Senate ,here after first rea"in. it ,as referre" to the Senate 4ays an" 5eans #ommittee, they complain that the Senate "i" not pass it on secon" an" thir" rea"in.s. Instea", ,hat the Senate "i" ,as to pass its o,n version (S. &o. ()67 ,hich it approve" on 5ay 12, (332. Petitioner Tolentino a""s that ,hat the Senate committee shoul" have "one ,as to amen" /. &o. (((3' by stri8in. out the te*t of the bill an" substitutin. it ,ith the te*t of S. &o. ()67. That ,ay, it is sai", -the bill remains a /ouse bill an" the Senate version 9ust becomes the te*t (only the te*t of the /ouse bill.Issues: (( 4hether or not $+AT La, is unconstitutional on the .roun" that it "i" not ori.inate from the /ouse of !epresentatives. :Sec.12; (1 4hether or not the $+AT La, is unconstitutional on the .roun" that it "i" not un"er.o the three rea"in.s on separate "ays re0uirement of the #onstitution. :Sec.1); /el": (( &o, it is not unconstitutional. The Supreme #ourt re9ecte" the ar.ument of the petitioners an" hel" that such consoli"ation ,as consistent ,ith the po,er of the Senate to propose or concur ,ith amen"ments to the version ori.inate" in the /ouse of !epresentatives. 4hat the #onstitution simply means is that the initiative must come from the /ouse of !epresentatives. 5oreover, ,e note that there ,ere alrea"y several instances prior to this ,herein Senate passe" its o,n version rather than havin. the /ouse of !epresentatives version as far as revenue an" other similar bills are concerne". This practice of amen"ment by substitution has al,ays been accepte". The proposition of Tolentino concerns a mere matter of form. (1 &o, it is not unconstitutional. The ar.ument of the petitioners that S. &o. ()67 "i" not pass the 6 rea"in.s on separate "ays as re0uire" by the #onstitution because the secon" an" thir" rea"in.s ,ere "one on the same "ay is not appreciate" because the Presi"ent ha" certifie" S. &o. ()67 as ur.ent.

    The presi"ential certification "ispense" of the re0uirement not only of printin. but also that of rea"in. the bill on separate "ays. That upon the certification of a bill by the Presi"ent, the re0uirement of 6 rea"in.s on separate "ays an" of printin. an" "istribution can be "ispense" ,ith is supporte" by the ,ei.ht of le.islative practice.

    You might also like