Arturo Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance
Tolentino
et al is questioning the constitutionality of RA 7716 otherwise known as the
Expanded Value Added Tax (EVAT) Law. Tolentino averred that this revenue bill
did not exclusively originate from the House of Representatives as required by
Section 24, Article 6 of the Constitution. Even though RA 7716 originated as HB
11197 and that it passed the 3 readings in the HoR, the same did not complete
the 3 readings in Senate for after the 1st reading it
was referred to the Senate Ways & Means Committee thereafter Senate passed
its own version known as Senate Bill 1630. Tolentino averred that what Senate
could have done is amend HB 11197 by striking out its text and substituting it
w/ the text of SB 1630 in that way “the bill remains a House Bill and the
Senate version just becomes the text (only the text) of the HB”. Tolentino and
co-petitioner Roco [however] even signed the said Senate Bill.
ISSUE: Whether
or not EVAT originated in the HoR.
HELD: By a 9-6
vote, the SC rejected the challenge, holding that such consolidation was
consistent with the power of the Senate to propose or concur with amendments to
the version originated in the HoR. What the Constitution simply means,
according to the 9 justices, is that the initiative must come from the HoR.
Note also that there were several instances before where Senate passed its own
version rather than having the HoR version as far as revenue and other such
bills are concerned. This practice of amendment by substitution has always been
accepted. The proposition of Tolentino concerns a mere matter of form. There is
no showing that it would make a significant difference if Senate were to adopt
his over what has been done.