House neophyte reminded of ‘1-subject, 1-title’ rule
In past House hearings, Marikina Rep. Miro Quimbo seemed to have played the patient listener to Batangas Rep. Leandro Leviste’s proposals and concerns regarding taxation.
But on Monday, Quimbo, the current chair of the House committee on ways and means, had to engage the neophyte Leviste in a testy exchange just to remind him about some basics of legislative work.
During plenary debates on the Kalinga bill—a draft measure formulating a comprehensive government response to the economic disruptions caused by the Middle East conflict—Leviste asked Quimbo if its scope can be widened. Kalinga stands for “Komprehensibong Alalay sa Livelihood, Inflation, Negosyo at Goods Assistance.”
Leviste repeatedly asked if Quimbo was open to including a provision amending the National Internal Revenue Code in order reduce the rate for the value added tax (VAT) back to 10 percent from the current 12 percent.
Basic tenet
Quimbo, a lawyer, replied that doing so might already violate the “one-subject, one-title” rule for crafting bills, which is laid down in the Constitution.
“If that will be the method that we will use to bring down VAT from 12 to 10 percent, effectively for all goods, this will disregard or lead to the declaration of our proposed bill as null and void or unconstitutional,” he said.
“[O]ur proposed bill needs to tackle only one specific subject matter, and that is the oil price hike or the oil crisis, or the energy crisis that we are facing,” he added. “It’s not an issue whether I agree with it or not—but if we place that, it will surely be deemed unconstitutional.”
“All lawmakers inside this august hall know this extremely basic constitutional tenet,” he stressed.
But Leviste pressed on: “The chairperson is saying that the decrease in the VAT from 12 to 10 percent is not a response to the oil crisis. But to my view, this is certainly a response to the oil crisis, that’s why it should not be a reason for the proposal to be set aside.”
‘Listen intently’
The quick retort from Quimbo: “I did not say that, Mr. Speaker, I did not say that it is not a response to the crisis. I am not from Batangas, I am from Marikina. You may be better at speaking Tagalog, but listen intently to what I say: I never said that it is not a response.”
He reiterated that inserting VAT reduction in the Kalinga bill would just put the measure “to waste” as it could easily be questioned for disregarding “a very basic constitutional precept.”
At this point Leviste appeared to finally step back, saying he would just like to see the Quimbo’s committee holding future discussions on pending tax relief bills.
Quimbo assured him that the panel would indeed take them up, including bills filed by the Batangas lawmaker himself, and that he would even lead the committee in approving them if Leviste could muster majority support.
