Tolentino v.

Secretary of Finance
249 SCRA 635
FACTS:
Petitioners (Tolentino, Kilosbayan, Inc., Philippine Airlines, Roco, and
Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Association) seek
reconsideration of the Courts previous ruling dismissing the
petitions filed for the declaration of unconstitutionality of R.A. No.
7716, the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law. Petitioners contend that
the R.A. did not originate exclusively in the HoR as required by
Article 6, Section 24 of the Constitution. The Senate allegedly did
not pass it on second and third readings, instead passing its own
version. Petitioners contend that it should have amended the House
bill by striking out the text of the bill and substituting it with the text
of its own bill, so as to conform with the Constitution.
ISSUE:
W/N the R.A. is unconstitutional for having originated from the
Senate, and not the HoR.
HELD:
Petition is unmeritorious. The enactment of the Senate bill has not
been the first instance where the Senate, in the exercise of its
power to propose amendments to bills (required to originate in the
House), passed its own version. An amendment by substitution
(striking out the text and substituting it), as urged by petitioners,
concerns a mere matter of form, and considering the petitioner has
not shown what substantial difference it would make if Senate
applied such substitution in the case, it cannot be applied to the
case at bar. While the aforementioned Constitutional provision
states that bills must originate exclusively in the HoR, it also adds,
but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. The
Senate may then propose an entirely new bill as a substitute
measure. Petitioners erred in assuming the Senate version to be an
independent and distinct bill. Without the House bill, Senate could
not have enacted the Senate bill, as the latter was a mere
amendment of the former. As such, it did not have to pass the
Senate on second and third readings.
Petitioners question the signing of the President on both bills, to
support their contention that such are separate and distinct. The
President certified the bills separately only because the certification
had to be made of the version of the same revenue bill which AT
THE MOMENT was being considered.
Petitioners question the power of the Conference Committee to
insert new provisions. The jurisdiction of the conference committee
is not limited to resolving differences between the Senate and the
House. It may propose an entirely new provision, given that such are

germane to the subject of the conference, and that the respective

houses of Congress subsequently approve its report.
Petitioner PAL contends that the amendment of its franchise by the
withdrawal of its exemption from VAT is not expressed in the title of
the law, thereby violating the Constitution. The Court believes that
the title of the R.A. satisfies the Constitutional Requirement.
Petitioners claim that the R.A. violates their press freedom and
religious liberty, having removed them from the exemption to pay
VAT. Suffice it to say that since the law granted the press a privilege,
the law could take back the privilege anytime without offense to the
Constitution. By granting exemptions, the State does not forever
waive the exercise of its sovereign prerogative.
Lastly, petitioners contend that the R.A. violates due process, equal
protection and contract clauses and the rule on taxation. Petitioners
fail to take into consideration the fact that the VAT was already
provided for in E.O. No. 273 long before the R.A. was enacted. The
latter merely EXPANDS the base of the tax. Equality and uniformity
in taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the
same class be taxed at the same rate, the taxing power having
authority to make reasonable and natural classifications for
purposes of taxation. It is enough that the statute applies equally to
all persons, forms and corporations placed in s similar situation.