Importaciones en Colombia y Nariño

Republic Act No. 8240, which amends certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code by imposing so-called “sin taxes” (actually specific taxes) on the manufacture and sale of beer and cigarettes, originated in the House of Representatives as H. No. 7198. This bill was approved on third reading on September 12, 1996 and transmitted on September 16, 1996 to the Senate which approved it with certain amendments on third reading on November 17, 1996. A bicameral conference committee was formed to reconcile the disagreeing provisions of the House and Senate versions of the bill. The

bicameral conference committee submitted its report to the House at 8 a.m. on November 21, 1996. At 11:48 a.m., after a recess, Rep. Exequiel Javier, chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, proceeded to deliver his sponsorship speech, after which he was interpellated. Rep. Rogelio Sarmiento was first to interpellate. He was interrupted when Rep. Arroyo moved to adjourn for lack of quorum. Rep.

Antonio Cuenco objected to the motion and asked for a head count. After a roll call, the Chair (Deputy Speaker Raul Daza) declared the presence of a quorum. The interpellation of the sponsor thereafter proceeded. In the course of his interpellation, Rep. Arroyo announced that he was going to raise a question on the quorum, although until the end of his interpellation he never did. What happened thereafter is shown in the following transcript of the session on November 21, 1996 of the House of Representatives, as published by Congress in the newspaper issues of December 5 and 6, 1996:

MR. ALBANO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we now approve and ratify the conference committee report.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Daza). Any objection to the motion?

MR. ARROYO. What is that, Mr. Speaker?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Daza). There being none, approved.

(Gavel)

MR. ARROYO. No, no, no, wait a minute, Mr. Speaker, I stood up. I want to know what is the question that the Chair asked the distinguished sponsor.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Daza). There was a motion by the Majority Leader for approval of the report, and the Chair called for the motion.

MR. ARROYO. Objection, I stood up, so I wanted to object.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Daza). The session is suspended for one minute.

(It was 3:01 p.m.)

(3:40 p.m., the session was resumed)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Daza). The session is resumed.

MR. ALBANO. Mr. Speaker, I move to adjourn until four o’clock, Wednesday, next week.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Daza). The session is adjourned until four o’clock, Wednesday, next week.

On that same day, the bill was signed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate and certified by the respective secretaries of both Houses of Congress as having been finally passed by the House of Representatives and by the Senate on November 21, 1996. The enrolled bill was signed into law by President Fidel V. Ramos on November 22, 1996. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and/or challenging the validity of RA 8240.

ISSUES:

Whether or not RA 8240 was passed in violation of rules of the House which will therefore be a violation of the Constitution.

Whether or not the Supreme Court has the power to look into the internal proceeding of the House.

HELD:

It is clear from the foregoing facts that what is alleged to have been violated in the enactment of R.A. No.

8240 are merely internal rules of procedure of the House rather than constitutional requirements for the enactment of a law. Petitioners claim that Rep. Arroyo was still making a query to the Chair when the latter declared Rep. Albano’s motion approved. But what happened is that, after Rep. Arroyo’s interpellation of the sponsor of the committee report, Majority Leader Rodolfo Albano moved for the approval and ratification of the conference committee report. The Chair called out for objections to the motion. Then the Chair declared: “There being none, approved.” At the same time the Chair was saying

this, however, Rep. Arroyo was asking, “What is that . . . Mr. Speaker?” The Chair and Rep. Arroyo were talking simultaneously. Thus, although Rep. Arroyo subsequently objected to the Majority Leader’s motion, the approval of the conference committee report had by then already been declared by the Chair, symbolized by its banging of the gavel. Verily, the fact that nobody objects means a unanimous action of the House making the passage of the bill to a law in accordance with the law. The Constitution does not require that the yeas and nays of the Members be taken every time a House has to vote, except only in the following instances: upon the last and third readings of the bill. Therefore, no violation of the Constitution was shown.

In this case no rights of private individuals are involved but only those of a member who, instead of seeking redress in the House, chose to transfer the dispute to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has no more power to look into the internal proceedings of a House than members of that House as long as no violation of the Constitutional violation is shown.

CASCO PHILIPPINES CHEMICAL CO., INC. VS. GIMENEZ (7 SCRA 347) FACTS:

There was enacted a Republic Act No. 2609, otherwise known as the Foreign Exchange Act. The Central Bank of the Philippines issued Circular No. 95 fixing the a uniform margin fee of 25% on foreign exchange transactions. Petitioner, Casco Philippine Chemical Co., Inc, engaged in the manufacture of synthetic resin glues bought imported urea and formaldehyde which are main raw materials in the production of its products and has paid the margin fee. Thereafter, petitioner sought to refund the said margin fee pursuant to to Resolution No. 1529 of the Monetary Board which declared that urea and formaldehyde is exempt from said sale. The Central Bank issued the corresponding vouchers for the refund but failed to give the money on the ground that the exemption granted by the Monetary Board is not within the purview of the said RA.

The pertinent provisions of the Republic Act provide:

The margin established by the Monetary Board pursuant to the provisions of section one hereof shall not be imposed upon the sale of foreign exchange for the importation of the following:

X X X

XVII. Urea formaldehyde for the manufacture of plywood and hardboard when imported by and for the exclusive use of end-users.

Petitioner contends that the term urea formaldehyde should be construed as urea and formaldehyde. It shall be noted that the National Institute of Science and Technology has expressed that urea

formaldehyde is not a chemical solution. It is a finished product distinct and different from urea and formaldehyde

ISSUE:

Whether or not Urea and Formaldehyde are exempt by law from the payment of the aforesaid margin fee.

HELD:

Denied the petition.

RATIO:

The enrolled bill is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by the Congress and approved by the President. If there has been any mistake in the printing of a bill before it was certified by the officers of the Congress and approved by the Executive, the remedy is by

amendment or curative legislation, not by judicial decree. The importation of urea and formaldehyde is not exempt from payment of margin fees being distinct and different from urea formaldehyde as provided in the law.

SECTION 17.

THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL EACH HAVE AN ELECTORAL