Alvarez v. Guingona

Alvarez v. Guingona

G.R. No. 118303 January 31, 1996

Hermosisima, Jr., J.

Facts:

                HB 8817, entitled “An Act Converting the Municipality of Santiago into an Independent Component City to be known as the City of Santiago,” was filed in the House of Representatives, subsequently passed by the House of Representatives, and transmitted to the Senate. A  counterpart of HB 8817, SB 1243 was filed in the Senate, and was passed as well. The enrolled bill was submitted to and signed by the Chief Executive as RA 7720. When a plebiscite on the Act was held on July 13, 1994, a great majority of the registered voters of Santiago voted in favor of the conversion of Santiago into a city.

Issue:

whether or not considering that the Senate passed SB 1243, its own version of HB 8817, RA 7720 can be said to have originated in the House of Representatives

Held:

                Yes. Bills of local application are required to originate exclusively in the House of Representatives. Petitioners contend that since a bill of the same import was passed in the Senate, it cannot be said to have originated in the House of Representatives.

Such is untenable because it cannot be denied that the HB was filed first (18 Apr 1993). The SB was filed 19 May. The HB was approved on third reading 17 Dec, and was transmitted to the Senate 28 Jan 1994.

The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House, does not contravene the constitutional requirement that a bill of local application should originate in the House of Representatives, for as long as the Senate does not act thereupon until it receives the House bill.

The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House of Representatives, does not contravene the constitutional requirement that a bill of local application should originate in the House of Representatives, for as long as the Senate does not act thereupon until it receives the House bill.

In Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, the Court said that what the Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing revenue, tariff, or tax bills, bills authorizing an increase of the public debt, private bills and bills of local application must come from the House of Representatives on the theory that, elected as they are from the districts, the members of the House can be expected to be more sensitive to the local needs and problems. On the other hand, the senators, who are elected at large, are expected to approach the same problems from the national perspective. Both views are thereby made to bear on the enactment of such laws. Nor does the Constitution prohibit the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House, so long as action by the Senate as a body is withheld pending receipt of the House bill.