G.R. No. 127255 June 26, 1998
JOKER P. ARROYO, EDCEL C. LAGMAN, JOHN HENRY R. OSMEÑA, WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, and RONALDO B. ZAMORA, petitioners, vs. JOSE DE VENECIA, RAUL DAZA, RODOLFO ALBANO, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners sought a rehearing and reconsideration of the Court’s decision dismissing their petition for certiorari and prohibition. They contended that during the House proceedings on November 21, 1996, for the approval of the conference committee report on the bill that later became R.A. No. 8240, the Majority Leader moved for its approval. When the Chair asked if there was any objection, petitioner Rep. Joker P. Arroyo asked, “What is that, Mr. Speaker?” Petitioners claimed this was a privileged question or a point of order which should have precedence, but the Chair ignored him and declared the report approved. Petitioners further charged a disregard of House Rules requiring the Chair to state a motion and ask for individual votes instead of merely asking for objections.

ISSUE

Whether the House of Representatives acted with grave abuse of discretion in its approval of the conference committee report, particularly in allegedly ignoring Rep. Arroyo’s question and in using a voice vote procedure instead of a nominal vote.

RULING

The Court DENIED the motion for rehearing and reconsideration with finality. The contention had no merit. Rep. Arroyo did not have the floor; he stood up and spoke without first drawing the Chair’s attention or obtaining recognition, as required by House Rules. Consequently, the Chair did not hear him. The question “What is that, Mr. Speaker?” was neither a question of privilege nor a point of order as defined by the Rules. The practice of asking for objections to a motion for approval of a conference committee report was a well-established part of parliamentary law, constituting substantial compliance with the Rules. Rep. Arroyo could have asked for reconsideration of the Chair’s ruling, but after a session suspension to settle the matter, he did not pursue it. The alleged disregard of internal rules of procedure does not affect the validity of R.A. No. 8240, as such rules are not constitutional requirements for the enactment of laws. The Court found no basis for the charge that the approval was railroaded and no grave abuse of discretion by the House.