E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
Bicameral conference committee
Sunday, 05 22, 2005
A bicameral conference committee in the legislative process is expected to reconcile only conflicting provisions. It can not do away with provisions to which both Houses are in agreement or over which there is no conflict between them. The committee is limited to the adjustment, reconciliation and harmonizing of contrasting versions of both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Section 3 of House Bill No. 3705 reads: “...the value added tax (VAT) imposed under this paragraph shall be paid and absorbed by the subject generation companies who shall be prohibited from passing on the cost of such tax payments either directly or indirectly to any consumer in whatever form or manner, it being the express intent of this act that the value added tax shall be borne and absorbed exclusively by the power-generating companies.”
Similarly, Section 5 of Senate Bill No. 1950 reads: “Sec. 3. ...the VAT on the sales of electricity by generation companies and services of transmission companies and distribution companies as well as those of franchise grantees of electric utilities shall not apply to residential end-users; provided, that the value added tax herein levied shall be absorbed and paid by the generation, transmission and distribution companies concerned. The companies shall not pass on such tax payments to National Power Corp. (Napocor) or ultimately to the consumers, including but not limited to residential end-users, either as costs or in a any other form whatsoever, directly or indirectly.”
Clearly, there is no difference between the respective versions of the two Houses on the value-added tax bills. Both Houses are agreed on the “no-pass on” provision. But the bicameral conference committee that reconciled the conflicting provisions of the two versions chose to delete the “no-pass on” provision in the reconciled version.
The members of the panel of either House, before they go into conference, are given instructions by the entire House on how to conduct the committee proceedings. What is clear is that they cannot negotiate on provisions where there is no conflict with the other House. Precisely, the report of a bicameral conference committee is preceded by the words: “The Conference Committee on the Disagreeing Provisions of House Bill No. 3705 and Senate Bill No. 1950……”
Committees of conference are appointed for the sole purpose of compromising and adjusting the differing and conflicting opinions of the two Houses, and the committees of conference alone can grant compromises and modify propositions of either House within the limits of the disagreement. Conferees are limited to the consideration of differences between the two Houses. Conferees shall not insert in their report matter not committed to them by either House, nor shall they strike from the bill matter agreed to by both Houses. No matter on which there is nothing in either the Senate or the House passed versions of a bill may be included in the conference report and actions to the contrary would subject the report to a point of order (Riddicks Precedents and Procedures).
The matter of deletion of the no-pass on provision, which was not referred for conference, should have been the proper subject of a point of order when the report of the committee was submitted for ratification by the two Houses. And this would have resulted to a recommitment of the bill to another conference in order that a new version, this time incorporating the deleted provision over which there was no disagreement in the first place, could be reported out and, thereafter, ratified.
The deletion of the no pass-on provision on electric utilities is what many are worried about. The VAT will now be borne by the residential end users. Senator Nene Pimentel exerted all efforts in introducing this provision, but all his efforts came to naught in the committee. This matter could be properly raised in the petition that some members of Congress will be filing with the Supreme Court, to challenge the constitutionality of the revised expanded VAT law.
Whatever prompted the members of the committee to remove the provision is anybody’s guess. Many saw the no-pass on provision as the only saving grace of the controversial VAT bills. Juan de la Cruz was smiling at least for the duration of the committee deliberations, confident that the burden of the VAT will not be passed on to him. But Juan de la Cruz did not have the wherewithal to lobby for retention of the provision; Aye P. Pees did, for deletion. Now, Juan de la Cruz weeps - like Senator Loi Ejercito Estrada, who delivered an impassioned negative vote against the approval of the final version of the VAT bills, as the VAT will surely hit the masses.
Sen. Joker Arroyo could not have put it more clearly in his qualified dissent to the bicameral conference committee report: “…although the independent power producers (IPPs) would be VATed, it would be NAPOCOR, owned by the taxpayers, which would actually pay for the VAT imposed on the IPPs. Since Napocor is almost bankrupt…, it would sustain further losses because of the VAT of the IPPs that it will shoulder. The “no-pass on” provision was precisely crafted so that the IPPs would pay the 12-percent VAT and no one else. The buck stops with the IPPs. But with its deletion, the IPPs in effect would not pay any VAT at all, They are actually VAT-free. But the bicam report would make them look as if they are sharing in the tax burden, paying a 12-percent VAT when in fact they will not. Since the people own Napocor, they would be paying the VAT of the IPPs. There lies the fiction and absurdity.”
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
The matter of deletion of the no-pass on provision, which was not referred for conference, should have been the proper subject of a point of order when the report of the committee was submitted for ratification by the two Houses. And this would have resulted to a recommitment of the bill to another conference in order that a new version, this time incorporating the deleted provision over which there was no disagreement in the first place, could be reported out and, thereafter, ratified.
The deletion of the no pass-on provision on electric utilities is what many are worried about. The VAT will now be borne by the residential end users. Senator Nene Pimentel exerted all efforts in introducing this provision, but all his efforts came to naught in the committee. This matter could be properly raised in the petition that some members of Congress will be filing with the Supreme Court, to challenge the constitutionality of the revised expanded VAT law.
Whatever prompted the members of the committee to remove the provision is anybody’s guess. Many saw the no-pass on provision as the only saving grace of the controversial VAT bills. Juan de la Cruz was smiling at least for the duration of the committee deliberations, confident that the burden of the VAT will not be passed on to him. But Juan de la Cruz did not have the wherewithal to lobby for retention of the provision; Aye P. Pees did, for deletion. Now, Juan de la Cruz weeps - like Senator Loi Ejercito Estrada, who delivered an impassioned negative vote against the approval of the final version of the VAT bills, as the VAT will surely hit the masses.
Sen. Joker Arroyo could not have put it more clearly in his qualified dissent to the bicameral conference committee report: “…although the independent power producers (IPPs) would be VATed, it would be NAPOCOR, owned by the taxpayers, which would actually pay for the VAT imposed on the IPPs. Since Napocor is almost bankrupt…, it would sustain further losses because of the VAT of the IPPs that it will shoulder. The “no-pass on” provision was precisely crafted so that the IPPs would pay the 12-percent VAT and no one else. The buck stops with the IPPs. But with its deletion, the IPPs in effect would not pay any VAT at all, They are actually VAT-free. But the bicam report would make them look as if they are sharing in the tax burden, paying a 12-percent VAT when in fact they will not. Since the people own Napocor, they would be paying the VAT of the IPPs. There lies the fiction and absurdity.”
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
No comments:
Post a Comment