EN BANC[G.R. No. 127255.August 14, 1997]JOKERP. ARROYO, EDCELC. LAGMAN, JOHNHENRYR. OME!A, "#G$ER%OE. %A!ADA, &'(RONALDO $. )AMORA, petitioners, vs. JOE DE *ENEC#A, RA+L DA)A, RODOL,O AL$ANO,%HE E-EC+%#*E ECRE%ARY, %HE ECRE%ARY O, ,#NANCE, AND %HE COMM##ONER O,#N%ERNAL RE*EN+E,respondents.D E C ## O NMENDO)A, J..This is a petition for certiorari and/or prohibition challenging the validity of Republic Act No. 82!" #hicha$ends certain provisions of the National %nternal Revenue Code by i$posing so&called 'sin ta(es) *actuallyspecific ta(es+ on the $anufacture and sale of beer and cigarettes.,etitioners are $e$bers of the -ouse of Representatives.They brought this suit against respondents.osede/enecia" 0pea1erof the-ouseof Representatives" 2eputy0pea1erRaul 2a3a" 4a5ority6eaderRodolfoAlbano" theE(ecutive0ecretary" the0ecretaryof 7inance" andtheCo$$issioner of %nternalRevenue" charging violation of the rules of the -ouse #hich petitioners clai$ are 'constitutionally $andated)so that their violation is tanta$ount to a violation of the Constitution.The la# originated in the -ouse of Representatives as -. No. 89:8.This bill#as approved on thirdreading on 0epte$ber 92" 9::; and trans$itted on 0epte$ber 9;" 9::; to the 0enate #hich approved it#ith certain a$end$ents on third reading on Nove$ber 98" 9::;. A bica$eral conference co$$ittee #asfor$ed to reconcile the disagreeing provisions of the -ouse and 0enate versions of the bill.Thebica$eral conferenceco$$itteesub$itteditsreporttothe-ouseat8a.$.onNove$ber29"9::;.At 99ednesday" ne(t #ee1.T-E 2E,DTE 0,EAFER *4r. 2a3a+.The session is ad5ourned until four oIcloc1" >ednesday" ne(t #ee1.*%t #as Hhat is that . . . 4r. 0pea1erG) and did not repeat Rep. AlbanoIs $otion to approveor ratifyJ*H+ inviolationof RuleL/%" K:8"?@ theChair refusedtorecogni3eRep. Arroyoandinsteadproceeded to act on Rep. AlbanoIs $otion and after#ard declared the report approvedJ and *+ in violation ofRule LL" KK929&922" Rule LL%" K92H" and Rule L/%%%" K9!:"?B@ the Chair suspended the session #ithout firstruling on Rep. ArroyoIs =uestion #hich" it is alleged"is a point of order or a privileged $otion.%t is arguedthat Rep. ArroyoIs =uery should have been resolved upon the resu$ption of the session on Nove$ber 28"9::;" because the parlia$entary situation at the ti$e of the ad5ourn$ent re$ained upon the resu$ption ofthe session.,etitioners also charge that the session #as hastily ad5ourned at Hhenit appearsthat anact #assopassed" no in=uiry #ill be per$itted to ascertain #hether the t#o houses have or have not co$plied strictly#ith their o#n rules in their procedure upon the bill" inter$ediate its introduction and final passage. Thepresu$ptionisconclusivethat theyhavedoneso.>ethin1 nocourt hasever declaredanact of thelegislature void for non&co$pliance #ith the rules of procedure $ade by itself" or the respective branchesthereof" and #hich it or they $ay change or suspend at #ill.%f there are any such ad5udications" #e declineto follo# the$.)0ch#ei3er v. Territory?98@ is illustrativeof theruleinthesecases.The98:H0tatutes of C1laho$aprovided for three readings on separate days before a bill $ay be passed by each house of the legislature"#ith the proviso that in case of an e$ergency the house concerned $ay" by t#o&thirds vote" suspend theoperation of the rule.,laintiff #as convicted in the district court of violation of a la#punishingga$bling.-e appealed contending that the ga$bling statute #as not properly passed by the legislaturebecause the suspension of the rule on three readings had not been approved by the re=uisite t#o&thirdsvote.2is$issing this contention" the 0tate 0upre$e Court of C1laho$a helde have no constitutional provision re=uiring that the legislature should read a bill in any particular $anner.%t $ay" then" read or deliberate upon a bill as it sees fit" either in accordance #ith its o#n rules" or in violation thereof" or #ithout $a1ing any rules.The provision of section 98 referred to is $erely a statutory provision for the direction of the legislature in its action upon proposed $easures.%t receives its entire force fro$ legislative sanction" and it e(ists only at legislative pleasure.The failure of the legislature to properly #eigh and consider an act" its passage through the legislature in a hasty $anner" $ight be reasons for the governor #ithholding his signature theretoJ but this alone" even though it is sho#n to be a violation of a rule #hich the legislature had $ade to govern its o#n proceedings" could be no reason for the courtIs refusing its enforce$ent after it #as actually passed by a $a5ority of each branch of the legislature" and duly signed by the governor.The courts cannot declare an act of the legislature void on account of nonco$pliance #ith rules of procedure $ade by itself to govern its deliberations.4c2onald v. 0tate" 8! >is.!8" B! N.>. 98BJ %n re Ryan" 8! >is. 9" B! N. >. 988J 0tate v. Bro#n" HH 0.C. 9B9" 99 0. E. ;9J Rail#ay Co. v. Aill" B Ar1. 9!9" 9B 0. >. 98.>econcludethissurvey#iththeuseful su$$aryof therulingsbyfor$erChief .ustice7ernando"co$$enting on the po#er of each -ouse of Congress to deter$ine its rules of proceedings.-e #rotehere the construction to be given to a rule affects persons other than $e$bers of the legislative body the =uestion presented is necessarily 5udicial in character.Even its validity is open to =uestion in a case #here private rights are involved.?98@%n this case no rights of private individuals are involved but only those of a $e$ber #ho" instead ofsee1ing redress in the -ouse" chose to transfer the dispute to this Court.>e have no $ore po#er to loo1into the internal proceedings of a -ouse than $e$bers of that -ouse have to loo1 over our shoulders" aslong as no violation of constitutional provisions is sho#n.,etitioners $ust reali3e that each of the three depart$ents of our govern$ent has its separate sphere#hich the others $ay not invade #ithout upsetting the delicate balance on #hich our constitutional orderrests. 2ue regard for the #or1ing of our syste$ of govern$ent" $ore than $ere co$ity" co$pels reluctanceon our part to enter upon an in=uiry into an alleged violation of the rules of the -ouse. >e $ust accordinglydecline the invitation to e(ercise our po#er.12o'(.,etitioners" =uoting for$er Chief .ustice Roberto ConcepcionIs sponsorship in theConstitutional Co$$ission" contend that under Art. /%%%" K9" 'nothing involving abuse of discretion ?by theother branches of the govern$ent@ a$ounting to lac1 or e(cess of 5urisdiction is beyond 5udicialrevie#.)?9:@ %$plicit in this state$ent of the for$er Chief .ustice" ho#ever" is an ac1no#ledg$ent that the5urisdiction of this Court is sub5ect to the case and controversy re=uire$ent of Art. /%%%" KB and" therefore"to the re=uire$ent of a 5usticiable controversy before courts can ad5udicate constitutional =uestions such asthose #hich arise in the field of foreign relations. 7or #hile Art. /%%%" K9 has broadened the scope of 5udicialin=uiry into areas nor$ally left to the politicaldepart$ents to decide" such as those relating to nationalsecurity"?2!@ it has not altogether done a#ay #ith political =uestionssuch as those #hich arise in the field offoreign relations.As #e have already held" under Art. /%%%" K9" this CourtIs functionis $erely ?to@ chec1#hether or not the govern$ental branch or agency has gone beyond the constitutional li$its of its 5urisdiction" not that it erred or has a different vie#. %n the absence of a sho#ing . . . ?of@ grave abuse of discretion a$ounting to lac1 of 5urisdiction" there is no occasion for the Court to e(ercise its corrective po#er. . . . %t has no po#er to loo1 into #hat it thin1s is apparent error.?29@%f" then" the established rule is that courts cannot declare an act of the legislature void on account $erely ofnonco$pliance #ith rules of procedure $ade by itself" it follo#s that such a case does not present a situationin #hich a branch of the govern$ent has 'gone beyond the constitutional li$its of its 5urisdiction) so as tocall for the e(ercise of our Art./%%%" K9 po#er.%3/0(.,etitioners clai$ that the passage of the la# in the -ouse #as 'railroaded.)They clai$ that Rep.Arroyo #as still $a1ing a =uery to the Chair #hen the latter declared Rep. AlbanoIs $otion approved.>hat happenedisthat" after Rep. ArroyoIsinterpellationof thesponsor of theco$$itteereport"4a5ority 6eader RodolfoAlbano$ovedfor the approval andratificationof the conference co$$itteereport.TheChaircalledoutforob5ectionstothe$otion.ThentheChairdeclaredhat is that . . .4r. 0pea1erG) The Chair and Rep. Arroyo #ere tal1ing si$ultaneously. Thus" although Rep. Arroyosubse=uently ob5ected to the 4a5ority 6eaderIs $otion" the approval of the conference co$$ittee report hadby then already been declared by the Chair" sy$boli3ed by its banging of the gavel.,etitioners argue that" in accordance #ith the rules of the -ouse" Rep. AlbanoIs $otion for the approvalof the conference co$$ittee report should have been stated by the Chair and later the individual votes ofthe 4e$bers should have been ta1en.They say that the $ethod used in this case is alegislatorIsnight$arebecauseit suggests unani$ity#henthefact #as that oneor so$elegislatorsopposed the report.No rule of the -ouse of Representatives has been cited #hich specifically re=uires that in cases such asthis involving approval of a conference co$$ittee report" the Chair $ust restate the $otion and conduct aviva voce or no$inal voting.Cn the other hand"as the 0olicitor Aeneral has pointed out" the $anner in#hich the conference co$$ittee report on -. No. 89:8 #as approved #as by no $eans a uni=ue one.%t hasbasis in legislative practice.%t #as the #ay the conference co$$ittee report on the bills #hich beca$e the6ocal Aovern$ent Code of 9::9 and the conference co$$ittee report on the bills a$ending the Tariff andCusto$s Code #ere approved.%n9:B8" thepractice#as=uestionedasbeingcontrarytotherulesof the-ouse.Thepoint #asans#eredby4a5ority6eader Arturo4. Tolentinoandhis ans#er beca$etherulingof theChair.4r.Tolentino said-EREA0" a concerted and collaborative effort a$ong the various basic services and social security providing agencies and other govern$ent instru$entalities is re=uired to achieve such a syste$JNC>" T-ERE7CRE" %" 7%2E6 /. RA4C0" ,resident of the Republic of the ,hilippines" by virtue of the po#ers vested in $eby la#"do hereby direct the follo#ingARRANT A .D2%C%A6 RE/%E>J$.A.C. NC. H!8 ?9::;@ >A0 %00DE2 >%T-%N T-E ELECDT%/E AN2 A24%N%0TRAT%/E ,C>ER0 C7 T-E ,RE0%2ENT >%T-CDT ENCRCAC-%NA CN T-E 6EA%06AT%/E ,C>ER0 C7 CCNARE00JC.T-E 7DN20 NECE00ARE 7CR T-E %4,6E4ENTAT%CN C7 T-E %2ENT%7%CAT%CN RE7ERENCE 0E0TE4 4AE BE 0CDRCE2 7RC4 T-E BD2AET0 C7 T-E CCNCERNE2 AAENC%E0JD.A.C. NC. H!8 ?9::;@ ,RCTECT0 AN %N2%/%2DA6U0 %NTERE0T %N ,R%/ACE.?H@>e no# resolve.#As is usual in constitutional litigation" respondents raise the threshold issues relating to the standing tosueof thepetitioner andthe5usticiabilityof thecaseat bar.4orespecifically"respondentsaver thatpetitioner has no legal interest to uphold and that the i$ple$enting rules of A.C. No. H!8 have yet to bepro$ulgated.These sub$issions do not deserve our sy$pathetic ear.,etitioner Cple is a distinguished $e$ber of our0enate. As a 0enator" petitioner is possessed of the re=uisite standing to bring suit raising the issue that theissuance of A.C. No. H!8 is a usurpation of legislative po#er.?@ As ta(payer and $e$ber of the Aovern$ent0ervice %nsurance 0yste$ *A0%0+" petitioner can also i$pugn the legality of the $isalign$ent of public fundsand the $isuse of A0%0 funds to i$ple$ent A.C. No. H!8.?B@The ripeness for ad5udication of the petition at bar is not affected by the fact that the i$ple$enting rulesof A.C. No. H!8 have yet to be pro$ulgated.,etitioner Cple assails A.C. No. H!8 as invalid per se and asinfir$ed on its face.-is action is not pre$ature for the rules yet to be pro$ulgated cannot cure its fataldefects.4oreover"the respondents the$selves have started the i$ple$entation of A.C. No.H!8 #ithout#aiting for the rules.As early as .anuary 9:" 9::8" respondent 0ocial 0ecurity 0yste$ *000+ caused thepublicationof anoticetobidforthe$anufactureof theNational %dentification*%2+card.?;@ RespondentE(ecutive 0ecretary Torres has publicly announced that representatives fro$ the A0%0 and the 000 haveco$pleted the guidelines for the national identification syste$.?8@ All signals fro$ the respondents sho# theiruns#erving #ill to i$ple$ent A.C.No.H!8and #e need not #ait for the for$alityofthe rules to pass5udg$ent on its constitutionality.%n this light" the dissenters insistence that #e tighten the rule on standingis not a co$$endable stance as its result #ould be to throttle an i$portant constitutional principle and afunda$ental right.##"1 'oA2o;1 to t31 2o01 /ssu1s.P1t/t/o'10 27&/;s t3&t A.O. No. 58@ /s 'ot & ;101&(;/'/st0&t/ut & 7&A &'( 31'21, >19o'( t31 6oA10 o: t31 P01s/(1't to /ssu1.-e allegesthat A.C. No. H!8 establishes a syste$ of identification that is all&enco$passing in scope" affects the life andliberty of every 7ilipino citi3en and foreign resident" and $ore particularly" violates their right to privacy.,etitionerUs sedulous concern for the E(ecutive not to trespass on the la#$a1ing do$ain of Congress isunderstandable.The blurring of the de$arcation line bet#een the po#er of the 6egislature to $a1e la#sand the po#er of the E(ecutive to e(ecute la#s #ill disturb their delicate balance of po#er and cannot beallo#ed. -ence" the e(ercise by one branch of govern$ent of po#er belonging to another #illbe givenast0/2t10 s20ut/'9 by this Court. Thelinethatdelineates6egislativeandE(ecutivepo#erisnotindistinct. L1g/s7&t/1 :o0 t31so716u06os1 o:/;671;1't/'g t31 7&A &'(2&009/'gout t31 71g/s7&t//o;1t0/2s/s'o7o'g10 7/;/t1(tot31us1o: :/'g1060/'t to/(1't/:9&'/'(//o7og/2&7 23&0&2t10/st/2s &'( A3&t 6&0t/2u7&0 >/o;1t0/2s t123'o7og9 s3&77 >1 us1( to/(1't/:9 61o671 A3o A/77 s11C /ts 2o&'Hu1t o: o6t/o's &71 to t31/;671;1'to0s o: A.O. No. 58@, t31 :1&0 t3&t /t t301&t1's t31 0/g3t to 60//o7og/2&7 /':o0;&t/o' &7o'1 :o0 /(1't/:/2&t/o' 6u06os1s. %nfact" the 0olicitor Aeneral clai$s that the adoption of the %dentification Reference 0yste$ #ill contribute tothe Tgeneration of population data for develop$ent planning.T?B@ This is an ad$ission that the ,RN #ill notbe used solely for identification but for the generation of other data #ith re$ote relation to the avo#edpurposes of A.C. No. H!8. C71&079, t31 /'(1:/'/t1'1ss o: A.O. No. 58@ 2&' g/71 /':o0;&t/o' >&s1t30oug3 t31 1712t0o'/2 7/'C&g1 o: t31 :/71s.[55] %31 (&t& ;&9 >1 g&t3101( :o0 g&/':u7 &'( us1:u7gout t31 1B/st1'21 o: t3/s ell to note" the co$puter lin1agegives other govern$ent agencies access to the infor$ation.Y1t, t3101 &01 'o 2o't0o7s to gu&0( &g&/'st71&C&g1 o: /':o0;&t/o'. >hen the access code of the control progra$s of the particular co$puter syste$is bro1en" an intruder" #ithout fear of sanction or penalty" can $a1e use of the data for #hatever purpose" or#orse" $anipulate the data stored #ithin the syste$.?B:@%t is plain and#e hold that A.C. No. H!8 falls short of assuring that personal infor$ation #hich #ill begathered about our people #illonly be processed for u'1Hu//7/t/1s o: &>us1 &'( ;/sus1 o: t31 PRN, >/o;1t0/2s &'( 2o;6ut10t123'o7og9&01 &221'tu&t1( A31' A1 2o's/(10 t3&tt31 /'(/101&( o0 67&21( o' 3/s #D, ;u23 71ss 711B612t&t/o'o:60/e declared that the la#" inco$pellingapublicofficerto$a1eanannual reportdisclosinghisassetsandliabilities" hissourcesofinco$e and e(penses" did not infringe on the individualUs right to privacy. The la# #as enacted to pro$ote$orality in public ad$inistration by curtailing and $ini$i3ing the opportunities for officialcorruption and$aintaining a standard of honesty in the public service.?88@Thesa$ecircu$stancesdonotobtaininthecaseatbar.7orone" R.A. H!9:isastatute" notanad$inistrative order.0econdly" R.A. H!9: itself is sufficiently detailed.The la# is clear on #hat practices#ere prohibited and penali3ed" andit #as narro#ly dra#n to avoid abuses.%n the case at bar" A.C. No. H!8$ay have been i$pelled by a #orthy purpose" but" it cannot pass constitutional scrutiny for it is not narro#lydra#n. A'( A1 'oA 3o7( t3&t A31' t31 /'t1g0/t9 o: &:u'(&;1't&7 0/g3t /s &t st&C1, t3/s 2ou0t A/77g/