7/28/2019 Digest Statcon 2
1/4
Alvarez v. Guingona
G.R. No. 118303 January 31, 1996
Hermosisima, Jr., J.
FACTS:
On April 18, 1993, HB No. 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. Meanwhile, on May 19. 1993, SB No. 1243, a counterpart of the HB, was filed in the
Senate. On March 22, 1994, the House of Representatives, upon being apprised of the action of the
Senate, approved the amendments proposed by the Senate.
ISSUE: WON RA 7720 is invalid for not originating from the House of Representatives
HELD:
No. It was clear that HB No. 8817 was filed in the House of Representatives first before SB No. 1243 was
filed in the Senate. Thus, HB No. 8817 was the bill that initiated the legislative process that culminated in
the enactment of Republic Act No. 7720. No violation of Section 24, Article VI, of the 1987 Constitution
is perceptible under the circumstances attending the instant controversy. The Constitution does not
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.
7/28/2019 Digest Statcon 2
2/4
Garcia v. Mata
G.R. No. L-33713 July 30, 1975
CASTRO,J.
FACTS:
Garcia was a reserve officer on active duty with the Armed Forces of the Philippines until his reversion to
inactive status. Petitioner brought an action for "Mandamus and Recovery of a Sum of Money" in the
court a quo to compel the respondents Secretary of National Defense and Chief of Staff of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines to reinstate him in the active commissioned service of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, to readjust his rank, and to pay all the emoluments and allowances due to him from the
time of his reversion to inactive status.
Garcia claims that his reversion to inactive status is violation of RA 1600 which prohibits the reversion of
officers with at least 10 years of service.
ISSUE: WON Paragraph 11 of RA No.1600 is unconstitutional
HELD:
Yes. A perusal of the challenged provision of R.A. 1600 fails to disclose its relevance or relation to any
appropriation item therein, or to the Appropriation Act as a whole. While R.A. 1600 appropriated money
for the operation of the Government for the fiscal year 1956-1957, the said paragraph 11 refers to the
fundamental government policy matters of the calling to active duty and the reversion to inactive status
of reserve officers in the AFP. It was indeed a non-appropriation item inserted in an appropriation
measure in violation of the constitutional inhibition against "riders" to the general appropriation act.
The paragraph in question also violates Art. VI, Sec. 1 Paragraph 1 of the 1935 Constitution: "No bill
which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the
title of the bill." The subject of R.A. 1600, as expressed in its title, is restricted to "appropriating funds for
the operation of the government." Any provision contained in the body of the act that is fairly included
in this restricted subject or any matter properly connected therewith is valid and operative. But, if a
provision in the body of the act is not fairly included in this restricted subject, like the provision relating
to the policy matters of calling to active duty and reversion to inactive duty of reserve officers of the
AFP, such provision is inoperative and of no effect.
.
7/28/2019 Digest Statcon 2
3/4
PHILCONSA v. Gimenez
G.R. No. L-23326 December 18, 1965
Regala, J.
FACTS:
The Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. (Philconsa, for short), a non-profit civic organization, assails
the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 3836 "insofar as the same allows retirement gratuity and
commutation of vacation and sick leave to Senators and Representatives, and to the elective officials of
both houses (of Congress).
ISSUE: WON the title of Republic Act No. 3836 is germane to the subject matter expressed in the act.
HELD:
Yes. It is to be observed that under Republic Act 3836, amending the first paragraph of section 12,
subsection (c) of Commonwealth Act 186, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 660 and. 3096, the
retirement benefits are granted to members of the Government Service Insurance System, who have
rendered at least twenty years of service regardless of age. This paragraph is related and germane to the
subject of Commonwealth Act No. 186. On the other hand, the succeeding paragraph of Republic Act
3836 refers to members of Congress and to elective officers thereof who are not members of the
Government Service Insurance System. To provide retirement benefits, therefore, for these officials,
would relate to subject matter which is not germane to Commonwealth Act No. 186. In other words, this
portion of the amendment (re retirement benefits for Members of Congress and elected officers, such
as the Secretary and Sergeants-at-arms for each House) is not related in any manner to the subject of
Commonwealth Act 186 establishing the Government Service Insurance System and which provides for
both retirement and insurance benefits to its members.
7/28/2019 Digest Statcon 2
4/4
Tio V. Videogram Regulatory Board
G.R. No. L-75697 June 18, 1987
Melencio-Herrera, J.
FACTS:
The petitioner on his own behalf and purportedly on behalf of other videogram operators adversely affected,
assails the constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 1987 entitled "An Act Creating the Videogram
Regulatory Board" with broad powers to regulate and supervise the videogram industry. A month after the
promulgation of the decree, PD 1994 amended the National Internal Revenue Codeprovided that:
"SEC. 134. Video Tapes. There shall be collected on each processed video-tape cassette, ready for
playback, regardless of length, an annual tax of five pesos; Provided, That locally manufactured or
imported blank video tapes shall be subject to sales tax."
"Section 10. Tax on Sale, Lease or Disposition of Videograms. Notwithstanding any provision of law to
the contrary, the provinceshall collect a tax of thirty percent (30%) of the purchase price orrental rate,
as the case may be, for every sale, lease or disposition of a videogram containing a reproduction of any
motion picture or audiovisual program.
Petitioner's contended that the tax provision of the decree is a rider.
ISSUE:.
Whether or not the DECREE is constitutional.
HELD:
Yes. The foregoing provision is allied and germane to, and is reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of, the general object of the DECREE, which is the regulation of the video industry
through the Videogram Regulatory Board as expressed in its title. The tax provision is not inconsistent
with, nor foreign to that general subject and title. As a tool for regulation it is simply one of the
regulatory and control mechanisms scattered throughout the DECREE.
The levy of the 30% tax is for a public purpose. It was imposed primarily to answer the need for
regulating the video industry, particularly because of the rampant film piracy, the flagrant violation of
intellectual property rights, and the proliferation of pornographic video tapes. And while it was also an
objective of the DECREE to protect the movie industry, the tax remains a valid imposition.