This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of Republic Act 999, which consolidated three legislative bills related to the budget deficit and revenue generation. It discusses four key issues: 1) whether the bicameral conference committee had jurisdiction to consolidate the three bills, 2) whether the court can go behind the enrolled copy of a bill, 3) whether amendments can be introduced in the conference committee, and 4) whether the constitutional requirement of appropriations bills originating in the House of Representatives was followed. The court found that 1) the conference committee acted within its jurisdiction, 2) it cannot go behind the enrolled bill, 3) amendments can be introduced in the conference committee report, and 4) the requirement was followed since
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of Republic Act 999, which consolidated three legislative bills related to the budget deficit and revenue generation. It discusses four key issues: 1) whether the bicameral conference committee had jurisdiction to consolidate the three bills, 2) whether the court can go behind the enrolled copy of a bill, 3) whether amendments can be introduced in the conference committee, and 4) whether the constitutional requirement of appropriations bills originating in the House of Representatives was followed. The court found that 1) the conference committee acted within its jurisdiction, 2) it cannot go behind the enrolled bill, 3) amendments can be introduced in the conference committee report, and 4) the requirement was followed since
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of Republic Act 999, which consolidated three legislative bills related to the budget deficit and revenue generation. It discusses four key issues: 1) whether the bicameral conference committee had jurisdiction to consolidate the three bills, 2) whether the court can go behind the enrolled copy of a bill, 3) whether amendments can be introduced in the conference committee, and 4) whether the constitutional requirement of appropriations bills originating in the House of Representatives was followed. The court found that 1) the conference committee acted within its jurisdiction, 2) it cannot go behind the enrolled bill, 3) amendments can be introduced in the conference committee report, and 4) the requirement was followed since
GR 14!"# Se$tember 1# %&&' (A)TS* Re$ublic Act +!! is a consoli,ation o- three le.islative bills# House Bills /os. !''' an, !&'# an, Senate bill /o. 1+'&. The $ur$ose o- the act 0as to solve several $roblems re.ar,in. bu,.et ,e1cit# revenue .eneration# etc. Both house bills involve, the increasin. o- the 2alue3A,,e, Tax# -or the $ur$ose o- revenue .eneration. House Bill !''' 0as intro,uce, by the House o- Re$resentatives# an, a-ter the 1rst rea,in. on 4anuary # %&&'# the 5resi,ent certi1e, the bill -or imme,iate enactment. The bill 0as later a$$rove, by the House o- Re$resentatives on the secon, an, thir, rea,in.. House Bill /o. !&' 0as similarly certi1e, by the $resi,ent -or imme,iate enactment on (ebruary "# %&&'. 6n the other han,# Senate Bill /o. 1+'& 0as a$$rove, on the secon, an, thir, rea,in. an, $asse, to the other house. The Senate a.ree, to the re7uest o- the House o- Re$resentatives to or a con-erence committee on the ,isa.reein. $rovisions o- the $ro$ose, bills. The )on-erence )ommittee ma,e a re$ort to consoli,ate the three bills $ro$ose, bills 0hich 0as later a$$rove, by both houses# transmitte, to the 5resi,ent an, si.ne, into la0 as Re$ublic Act +!! on 8arch %4# %&&'. The la0 too9 e:ect 4uly 1# %&&'# in 0hich the )ourt issue, a tem$orary restrainin. or,er u$on. Several cases 0ere 1le, 7uestionin. the constitutionality o- RA +!!. The claims inclu,e, that it 0as an un,ue ,ele.ation o- le.islative $o0ers# The Bicameral )on-erence )ommittee actin. 0ithout ;uris,iction# an, that all a$$ro$riation# revenue or tari: bills shall ori.inate exclusively in the House o- Re$resentatives. <ssues* 1= >hether or not the )on-erence )ommittee acte, 0ithout ;uris,iction in consoli,atin. the three bills? %= >hether or not the )ourt may .o behin, the enrolle, co$y o- the bill to certi-y its enactment? != >hether or not amen,ments may be intro,uce, in the )on-erence )ommittee 0hen a bill has $asse, three rea,in.s? 4= >hether or not the )onstitutional re7uirement o- the ori.ination o- a$$ro$riations bills 0as com$lie, 0ith? Hel,* 1= /o. The callin. o- a Bicameral )on-erence )ommittee has the $ur$ose o- resolvin. con@ictin. amen,ments $ro$ose, by the t0o houses. There-ore# they may i- the 0ish# consoli,ate three bills in accor,ance 0ith the rules o- its $rocee,in.s. The basic $o0ers o- the le.islative branch are to -ormulate, an, im$lement its o0n rules o- $rocee,in.s# an, ,etails o- ho0 )on.ress com$lies 0ith its internal rules. The consoli,ation o- the bills 0as necessary -or the le.islature to concur 0ith the amen,ments# there-ore ma9in. the la0 more re$resentative o- the 0ill o- the $eo$le. %= /o. As relaye, in (arinas vs Executive Secretary# the court may not .o behin, the enrolle, bill to evaluate its ,ue enactment# only 0hen there is a serious ,iscre$ancy bet0een 0hat 0as ,eliberate, as sho0n in the ;ournals an, the 1nal bill a$$rove, by the hea,s o- both houses# may the court .o behin, the enrolle, co$y o- the bill. To ,o other0ise 0oul, encroach u$on the se$aration o- ;u,icial an, le.islative $o0ers. The court is not the $ro$er $arty to en-orce the internal rules o- )on.ress. != Aes. Althou.h the bill 0as a$$rove, on the thir, rea,in.# an, the )onstitutional $rovision $rohibits amen,ments to be intro,uce, therea-ter# it ,oes not $rohibit the other house or the )on-erence )ommittee to $ro$ose or concur 0ith amen,ments. The $rohibition o- intro,ucin. amen,ments re-ers only to bills intro,uce, -or the 1rst time in either houses o- )on.ress# not to the )on-erence )ommittee re$ort. (urthermore# to construe other0ise 0oul, ,e$rive the other house o- )on.ress its constitutional $o0er to amen, or intro,uce chan.es to the bill. 4= Aes. The a$$ro$riations bills ori.inate, -rom the House o- Re$resentatives# House Bill /os. !''' an, !&'. Althou.h amen,ments to the $rovisions o- the ori.inal bills ,i, not all ori.inate -rom the House o- Re$resentatives# it ,oes not violate the )onstitutional $rovision o- exclusive ori.ination o- revenue bills. >hat the Senate ,i, 0as $ro$ose amen,ments to the revenue bill throu.h the consoli,ationB they ,i, not $ro$ose the revenue bill itsel-. (urthermore# the )onstitution $rovi,es that Cthe Senate may $ro$ose or concur 0ith amen,ments.D ESec. %4# Art 2<= To construe other0ise 0oul, ,e$rive the SenateFs le.islative $o0er.