ASTORGA v. Villegas 2.

The same was passed on third reading without

April 30, 1974 | Makalintal, C.J. | G.R. No. L- 23475 amendments on April 21, 1964.
3. The bill was sent to the Senate and was referred to the
Senate Committee on Provinces, Municipal
PETITIONER: Herminio A. Astorga
RESPONDENT: Antonio J. Villegas Governments and Cities headed by Sen. Gerardo
Roxas. The committee recommended the approval with
SUMMARY: a minor amendment, suggested by the senator, that it
be the President Pro-tempore of the Municipal Board
This case revolves around the issue whether the enrolled bill who should succeed the Vice-Mayor in case of the
doctrine of House Bill No. 9266 should be adhered to in this latter’s incapacity to act as Mayor.
jurisdiction. Herminio A. Astorga filed a petition before the
SC to compel the Mayor (Antonio Villegas), among others, 4. On May 20, 1964, substantial amendments to Section
to comply with the provisions of RA 4065. Mayor Villegas 1 of the Bill were introduced by Sen. Arturo Tolentino
denounced the passage of the bill and Sen. Tolentiono which were approved in toto by the Senate.
declared in a press statement that the enrolled version of HB a. The amendment by Sen. Roxas does not appear in
9266 signed into law by the President was a wrong version the Senate journal to have been acted upon.
of the bill passed by the Senate because it did not 5. On May 21, 1964, the Secretary of the Senate sent a
embodythe amendments introduced by him and approved letter to the House of Representatives that House Bill
on the Senate Floor. 9266 had been passed by the Senate on May 20, 1964
with amendments, but what was attached to the letter
WHETHER OR NOT THE ENROLLED BILL SHOULD BE was the certification of the amendment by Sen. Roxas,
ADHERED TO. (NO) and not the ones by Sen. Tolentino.
6. The House of Representatives then signified its
DOCTRINE: approval and printed copies were certified and attested
The journal entry contains the substantial and lengthy by the Secretaries and Leaders of both Houses.
amendments introduced on the floor and approved by the
7. On June 16, 1964, the Secretary of the House of Reps
Senate and the enrolled bill does not. In this case, the
journal entry prevails over the enrolled bill. transmitted 4 printed copies of the bill to the President,
who approved the same on June 18, 1964. It became
RA 4065 (a.k.a. “An Act Defining the Powers, Rights,
and Duties of the Vice Mayor of the City of Manila,
FACTS: Amending for the Purpose Sections 10 and 11 of RA
1. On March 30, 1964, House Bill 9266, a bill of local 409, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised
application, was filed. Charter of the City of Manila”).

SAM U. | Statutory Construction

 8. The passage of the act irked the respondent City political question rather than within the jurisdiction of
Mayor Villegas and it was then followed by Sen. the judiciary principle on separation of powers in our
Tolentino’s press statement on July 5, 1964 stating that government hence, they relied on the “Enrolled Bill
the enrolled copy of HB 9266 signed into law by the Theory” which states that “if a political question
president was a wrong version because it did not have conclusively binds the judges out of respect to the political
his amendments approved on the Senate floor. departments, a duly certified law or resolution also binds
9. As a result, the Senate President, through the Senate the judges under the "enrolled bill rule" born of that
Secretary, sent a letter to the President explaining that respect."
the enrolled copy of the Bill signed by the secretaries 2. (Separate Opinion by Justice Cesar Bengzon,
and presiding officers of both Houses was not the bill concurred in by Justice Sabino Padilla) - Rules of
approved by Congress, and that his signature is invalid Evidence in the old Code of Civil Procedure:
and has no effect, which means that the bill had never a. The proceedings of the Philippine Commission, or
been approved by the Senate and did not make the bill of any legislative body that may be provided for in
a valid enactment. the Philippine Islands, or of Congress (may be
10. On July 31, 1964 the President of the Philippines sent a proved) by the journals of those bodies or of
message to the presiding officers of both Houses of either house thereof, or by published statutes or
Congress informing them that in view of the resolutions, or by copies certified by the clerk or
circumstances he was officially withdrawing his signature secretary, printed by their order; provided, that in
on House Bill No. 9266 adding that "it would be untenable the case of acts of the Philippine Commission or
and against public policy to convert into law what was not the Philippine Legislature, when there is in
actually approved by the two Houses of Congress." existence a copy signed by the presiding officers
and secretaries of said bodies, it shall be
conclusive proof of the provisions of such acts
ISSUE: Whether or not the enrolled bill doctrine should be
and of the due enactment thereof.
adhered to. (NO)
3. Congress devised its own system of authenticating bills
HELD: The petition is DENIED. RA 4065 is declared not to
duly approved by both Houses, namely, by the signatures
have been duly enacted and therefore did not become law. of their respective presiding officers and secretaries on
the printed copy of the approved bill. This procedure is
RATIO: merely a mode of authentication, to signify to the Chief
1. (Main Opinion, delivered by Justice Pedro Tuason, Executive that the bill being presented to him has been
concurred in by Justices Manuel V. Moran, Guillermo F. duly approved by Congress and is ready for his approval
Pablo, and Jose M. Hontiveros) - case involves a or rejection. The function of an attestation is therefore not

SAM U. | Statutory Construction

 of approval, because a bill is considered approved after it manner stated; leaving the courts to determine,
has passed both Houses. when the question properly arises, whether the
4. Field v. Clark - U.S. Supreme Court held that the Act, so authenticated, is in conformity with the
signatures of the presiding officers on a bill, although not Constitution.
requied by the constitution, is conclusive evidence of its 5. The 1935 Constitution
passage. a. Sec. 10 (4). "Each House shall keep a Journal of
a. The signing by the Speaker of the House of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the
Representatives, and, by the President of the same, excepting such parts as may in its
Senate, in open session, of an enrolled bill, is an judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays
official attestation by the two houses of such bill on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of
as one that has passed Congress. It is a the Members present, be entered in the Journal."
declaration by the two houses, through their b. Sec. 21 (2). "No bill shall be passed by either
presiding officers, to the President, that a bill, thus House unless it shall have been printed and
attested, has received, in due form, the sanction copies thereof in its final form furnished its
of the legislative branch of the government, and Members at least three calendar days prior to its
that it is delivered to him in obedience to the passage, except when the President shall have
constitutional requirement that all bills which pass certified to the necessity of its immediate
Congress shall be presented to him. enactment. Upon the last reading of a bill no
b. As the President has no authority to approve a amendment thereof shall be allowed, and the
bill not passed by Congress, an enrolled Act in the question upon its passage shall be taken
custody of the Secretary of State, and having the immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays
official attestations of the Speaker of the House of entered on the Journal."
Representatives, of the President of the Senate, 6. Brown v. Morris (SC of Missouri) - the indispensable step
and of the President of the United States, carries, is the final passage and it follows that if a bill, otherwise
on its face, a solemn assurance by the legislative fully enacted as a law, is not attested by the presiding
and executive departments of the government, officer, of the proof that it has "passed both houses" will
charged, respectively, with the duty of enacting satisfy the constitutional requirement."
and executing the laws, that it was passed by
Congress.
c. The respect due to coequal and independent
departments requires the judicial department to
act upon that assurance, and to accept, as having
passed Congress, all bills authenticated in the

SAM U. | Statutory Construction