271059/271347/E-02472/E-04036 Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh — Official PDF

Concurring and Dissenting Opini011 28 G.R. Nos. 271347, 278353, E-024 72 & E-04036 separate third readings 1s insufficient, without more, to establish a constitutional violation. The concern underlying a stricter rule is nonetheless substantial. A conference report may contain consequential changes that were not separately considered in the versions initially approved by either chamber. Its cons,ideration as a cmnmon legislative product may reduce opportunities for focused scrutiny. That concern carries particular weight in an appropriations measure, where a change in a single category may authorize billions of pesos in additional spending. The appropriate response, however, is transparency and accountability in the conference process, not a judicially created prohibition against revisiting every provision on which the chambers previously agreed. Congress may adopt such a restriction as a matter of legislative policy. The Court should not make that policy choice constitutionally con1pulsory. The distinction between congressional rules and constitutional requirements is equally important. In Arroyo v. De Venecia, 74 the Court rejected the proposition that every violation of a House rule necessarily violates the Constitution merely because the power to adopt the rule derives from Article VI, Section 16(3). Within constitutional bounds, a, legislative body may modify or waive its procedural rules.75 Farinas v. Executive Secretary76 applied the same reasoning to alleged irregularities involving conference committees and declined to invalidate the challenged law on that basis.77 A failure to observe an internal instruction and a breach of the Constitution have different legal consequences. This distinction does not withdraw legislative action fro1n review under Article VIII, Section l. 78 It requires the Court to identify an actual constitutional transgression or infringement of an enforceable right, rather than equate a departure from parliamentary procedure with grave abuse of discretion. This does not diminish the value of the reporting requirements. A clear account of amendments enables legislators to understand what they are being asked to approve and pennits the public to identify the changes made during the conference. The House requirement of a detailed statement79 and the 74 343 Phil. 42 (1997) [Per J. Me-ndoza, En Banc]. 75 Id. at 60-65. 76 463 Phil. 179 (2003) [Per f. Callejo, Sr.; En Banc:].' 77 id. at 210-211. 78 CONST., art. Vlll, sec. 1 provides: The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts _as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the comts ofjusrice to settle acti.:ia1 controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdici.ion on the part of any branch or instru.memality of the Gove1nment. 79 Rules of the House of Representatives, 19'h Congress, Rule X, sec. 63.