Search SPONSORED ADS Home About UD Full Texts Legal English Law Student Blog Forum Quizzes and Exams LAW MEMES 2013 BAR EXAM RESULTS Home » Constitutional Law » Arturo Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance Arturo Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance 235 S CRA 630 (1994) – 249 SCRA 635 (1995) – Political Law – Origination of Revenue Bills – EVA T – Amendment by Substitution Arturo Tolentino et al are questioning the constitutionality of RA 7716 otherwise known as the Expanded Value Added Tax (EVAT) Law. Tolentino averred that this revenue bill did not exclusively originate from the House of Representatives as required by Section 24, Article 6 of the Constitution. Even though RA 7716 originated as HB 11197 and that it passed the 3 readings in the HoR, the same did not complete the 3 readings in Senate for after the 1 st reading it was referred to the Senate Ways & Means Committee thereafter Senate passed its own version known as Senate Bill 1630. Tolentino averred that what Senate could have done is amend HB 11197 by striking out its text and substituting it with the text of SB 1630 in that way “the bill remains a House Bill and the Senate version just becomes the text (only the text) of the HB”. (It’ s ironic however to note that T olentino and co-petitioner Raul Roco even signed the said Senate Bill.) ISSUE: Whether or not the EVAT law is procedurally infirm. HELD: No. By a 9-6 vote, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge, hol ding that such consolidation was consistent with the power of the Senate to propose or concur with amendm ents to the version originated in the HoR. What the Constitution simply means, according to the 9 justices, is that the initiative must come ! The People VS ! GR VS ! Law VS ! Republic VS 1 0 0 2 0 0 0