G.R. No. 127255 - JOKER P. ARROYO, EDCEL C. LAGMAN, JOHN HENRY R. OSMEÑA, WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, AND RONALDO B. ZAMORA, VS. JOSE DE VENECIA, RAUL DAZA, RODOLFO ALBANO, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly decline the invitation to exercise our power. Second. Petitioners, quoting former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcions sponsorship in the Constitutional Commission, contend that under Art. VIII, §1, nothing involving abuse of discretion [by the other branches of the government] amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction is beyond judicial review. [19] Implicit in this statement of the former Chief Justice, however, is an acknowledgment that the jurisdiction of this Court is subject to the case and controversy requirement of Art. VIII, §5 and, therefore, to the requirement of a justiciable controversy before courts can adjudicate constitutional questions such as those which arise in the field of foreign relations. For while Art. VIII, §1 has broadened the scope of judicial inquiry into areas normally left to the political departments to decide, such as those relating to national security, [20] it has not altogether done away with political questions such as those which arise in the field of foreign relations. As we have already held, under Art. VIII, §1, this Courts function is merely [to] check whether or not the governmental branch or agency has gone beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction, not that it erred or has a different view. In the absence of a showing . . . [of] grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, there is no occasion for the Court to exercise its corrective power. . . . It has no power to look into what it thinks is apparent error. [21] If, then, the established rule is that courts cannot declare an act of the legislature void on account merely of noncompliance with rules of procedure made by itself, it follows that such a case does not present a situation in which a branch of the government has gone beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction so as to call for the exercise of our Art. VIII, §1 power. Third. Petitioners claim that the passage of the law in the House was railroaded. They claim that Rep. Arroyo was still making a query to the Chair when the latter declared Rep. Albanos motion approved. What happened is that, after Rep. Arroyos interpellation of the sponsor of the committee report, Majority Leader Rodolfo Albano moved for the approval and ratification of the conference committee report. The Chair called out for objections to the motion. Then the Chair declared: There being none, approved. At the same time the Chair was saying this, however, Rep. Arroyo was asking, What is that . . . Mr. Speaker? The Chair and Rep. Arroyo were talking simultaneously. Thus, although Rep. Arroyo subsequently objected to the Majority Leaders motion, the approval of the conference committee report had by then already been declared by the Chair, symbolized by its banging of the gavel. Petitioners argue that, in accordance with the rules of the House, Rep. Albanos motion for the approval of the conference committee report should have been stated by the Chair and later the i