research- enrolled bill

7/24/2019 Research- Enrolled Bill

1/45

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-23475 April 30, 1974

HERMNO A. ASTORGA, i! "i# $%p%$i&' %# (i$)-M%'or o* M%!il%, petitioner,vs.ANTONO +. (LLEGAS, i! "i# $%p%$i&' %# M%'or o* M%!il%, THE HON., THE EECUT(E SECRETAR, AELAR/O SU/O, i!"i# $%p%$i&' %# Coi##io!)r o* Ciil S)ri$), E/UAR/O UNTOS, i! "i# $%p%$i&' %# C"i)* o* Poli$) o* M%!il%, MANUELCU/AMAT, i! "i# $%p%$i&' %# Ci&' Tr)%#r)r o* M%!il%, CT O MANLA, +OSE SEMRANO, RANCSCO GATMATAN,MARTN S/RO, CESAR LUCERO, PA/ERES TNOCO, LEONAR/O UGOSO, RANCS USECO, APOLONO GENER,AMROCO LORENO, +R., ALONSO MEN/OA, +R., SERGO LOOLA, GERNO TOLENTNO, MARANO MAGSALN,E/UAR/O UNTOS, +R., A(ELNO (LLACORTA, PALO OCAMPO, ELCSMO CAGAO, +OSE RLLANTES, +OSE(LLANUE(A %!6 MARNA RANCSCO, i! &")ir $%p%$i&i)# %# ))r# o* &") M!i$ip%l o%r6,respondents.

Artemio V. Panganiban and Renito V. Saguisag and Crispin D. Baizas and Associates for petitioner.

Paredes Poblador, Cruz and Nazareno and Antonio Barredo for respondent Maor of Manila.

Romeo !. "a#aon for respondents Cit $reasurer of Manila, etc., et al.

%ffice of t#e Solicitor &eneral Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor &eneral Pacifico P. de Castro, Solicitor 'orge R. Co(uia and SolicitorRicardo !. Prono)e, 'r. for respondents $#e *+ecuti)e Secretar and Commissioner of Ci)il Ser)ice.

ortunato de !eon and Antonio V. Ra(uiza as amici curiae.

MA8ALNTAL, C.J.:p

The present controversy revolves around the passage of ouse Bill No. !"##, $hich beca%e Republic Act &'#(, )An Act *efining thePo$ers, Rights and *uties of the +iceMayor of the City of Manila, -urther A%ending for the Purpose ections Ten and Eleven ofRepublic Act Nu%bered -our undred Nine, as A%ended, /ther$ise 0no$n as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila.)

The facts as set forth in the pleadings appear undisputed1

/n March 2', 3!#& ouse Bill No. !"##, a bill of local application, $as filed in the ouse of Representatives. 4t $as there passed onthird reading $ithout a%end%ents on April "3, 3!#&. -orth$ith the bill $as sent to the enate for its concurrence. 4t $as referred to theenate Co%%ittee on Provinces and Municipal 5overn%ents and Cities headed by enator 5erardo M. Ro6as. The co%%itteefavorably reco%%ended approval $ith a %inor a%end%ent, suggested by enator Ro6as, that instead of the City Engineer it be the

President Prote%pore of the Municipal Board $ho should succeed the +iceMayor in case of the latter7s incapacity to act as Mayor.

8hen the bill $as discussed on the floor of the enate on second reading on May "', 3!#&, substantial a%end%ents to ection 3 1$ereintroduced by enator Arturo Tolentino. Those a%end%ents $ere approved in toto by the enate. The a%end%ent reco%%ended byenator Ro6as does not appear in the 9ournal of the enate proceedings as having been acted upon.

/n May "3, 3!#& the ecretary of the enate sent a letter to the ouse of Representatives that ouse Bill No. !"## had been passedby the enate on May "', 3!#& )$ith a%end%ents.) Attached to the letter $as a certification of the a%end%ent, $hich $as the onereco%%ended by enator Ro6as and not the Tolentino a%end%ents $hich $ere the ones actually approved by the enate. The ouseof Representatives thereafter signified its approval of ouse Bill No. !"## as sent bac: to it, and copies thereof $ere caused to beprinted. The printed copies $ere then certified and attested by the ecretary of the ouse of Representatives, the pea:er of the ouseof Representatives, the ecretary of the enate and the enate President. /n ;une 3#, 3!#& the ecretary of the ouse trans%ittedfour printed copies of the bill to the President of the Philippines, $ho affi6ed his signatures thereto by $ay of approval on ;une 3


2/45

never been approved by the enate and therefore the fact that he and the enate ecretary had signed it did not %a:e the bill a validenact%ent.

/n ;uly 23, 3!#& the President of the Philippines sent a %essage to the presiding officers of both ouses of Congress infor%ing the%that in vie$ of the circu%stances he $as officially $ithdra$ing his signature on ouse Bill No. !"## >$hich had been returned to theenate the previous ;uly 2?, adding that )it $ould be untenable and against public policy to convert into la$ $hat $as not actuallyapproved by the t$o ouses of Congress.)

@pon the foregoing facts the Mayor of Manila, Antonio +illegas, issued circulars to the depart%ent heads and chiefs of offices of the citygovern%ent as $ell as to the o$ners, operators andor %anagers of business establish%ents in Manila to disregard the provisions ofRepublic Act &'#(. e li:e$ise issued an order to the Chief of Police to recall five %e%bers of the city police force $ho had beenassigned to the +iceMayor presu%ably under authority of Republic Act &'#(.

Reacting to these steps ta:en by Mayor +illegas, the then +iceMayor, er%inio A. Astorga, filed a petition $ith this Court on epte%ber, 3!#& for )Manda%us, 4n9unction andor Prohibition $ith Preli%inary Mandatory and Prohibitory 4n9unction) to co%pel respondentsMayor of Manila, the E6ecutive ecretary, the Co%%issioner of Civil ervice, the Manila Chief of Police, the Manila City Treasurer andthe %e%bers of the %unicipal board to co%ply $ith the provisions of Republic Act &'#(.

Respondents7 position is that the socalled Republic Act &'#( never beca%e la$ since it $as not the bill actually passed by the enate,and that the entries in the 9ournal of that body and not the enrolled bill itself should be decisive in the resolution of the issue.

/n April "


3/45

@.. upre%e Court held that the signatures of the presiding officers on a bill, although not re=uired by the Constitution, is conclusiveevidence of its passage. The authorities in the @nited tates are thus not unani%ous on this point.

The rationale of the enrolled bill theory is set forth in the said case of ield )s. Clar- as follo$s1

The signing by the pea:er of the ouse of Representatives, and, by the President of the enate, in open session, ofan enrolled bill, is an official attestation by the t$o houses of such bill as one that has passed Congress. 4t is adeclaration by the t$o houses, through their presiding officers, to the President, that a bill, thus attested, has received,in due for%, the sanction of the legislative branch of the govern%ent, and that it is delivered to hi% in obedience to theconstitutional re=uire%ent that all bills $hich pass Congress shall be presented to hi%. And $hen a bill, thus attested,receives his approval, and is deposited in the public archives, its authentication as a bill that has passed Congressshould be dee%ed co%plete and uni%peachable. As the President has no authority to approve a bill not passed byCongress, an enrolled Act in the custody of the ecretary of tate, and having the official attestations of the pea:er ofthe ouse of Representatives, of the President of the enate, and of the President of the @nited tates, carries, on itsface, a sole%n assurance by the legislative and e6ecutive depart%ents of the govern%ent, charged, respectively, $iththe duty of enacting and e6ecuting the la$s, that it $as passed by Congress. The respect due to coe=ual andindependent depart%ents re=uires the 9udicial depart%ent to act upon that assurance, and to accept, as havingpassed Congress, all bills authenticated in the %anner statedF leaving the courts to deter%ine, $hen the =uestionproperly arises, $hether the Act, so authenticated, is in confor%ity $ith the Constitution.

4t %ay be noted that the enrolled bill theory is based %ainly on )the respect due to coe=ual and independent depart%ents,) $hich

re=uires the 9udicial depart%ent )to accept, as having passed Congress, all bills aut#enticated in t#e manner stated.) Thus it has alsobeen stated in other cases that if t#e attestation is absent and t#e same is not re(uired for t#e )alidit of a statute, the courts %ay resortto the 9ournals and other records of Congress for proof of its due enact%ent. This $as the logical conclusion reached in a nu%ber ofdecisions, 10although they are silent as to $hether the 9ournals %ay still be resorted to if the attestation of the presiding officers ispresent.

The >3!2(? Constitution is silent as to $hat shall constitute proof of due enact%ent of a bill. 4t does not re=uire the presiding officers tocertify to the sa%e. But the said Constitution does contain the follo$ing provisions1

ec. 3' >&?. )Each ouse shall :eep a ;ournal of its proceedings, and fro% ti%e to ti%e publish the sa%e, e6ceptingsuch parts as %ay in its 9udg%ent re=uire secrecyF and the yeas and nays on any =uestion shall, at the re=uest of onefifth of the Me%bers present, be entered in the ;ournal.)

ec. "3 >"?. )No bill shall be passed by either ouse unless it shall have been printed and copies thereof in its finalfor% furnished its Me%bers at least three calendar days prior to its passage, e6cept $hen the President shall havecertified to the necessity of its i%%ediate enact%ent. @pon the last reading of a bill no a%end%ent thereof shall beallo$ed, and the =uestion upon its passage shall be ta:en i%%ediately thereafter, and theeas and nas entered onthe ;ournal.)

Petitioner7s argu%ent that the attestation of the presiding officers of Congress is conclusive proof of a bill7s due enact%ent, re=uired, it issaid, by the respect due to a coe=ual depart%ent of the govern%ent, 11is neutraliDed in this case by the fact that the enate Presidentdeclared his signature on the bill to be invalid and issued a subse=uent clarification that the invalidation of his signature %eant that thebill he had signed had never been approved by the enate. /bviously this declaration should be accorded even greater respect than theattestation it invalidated, $hich it did for a reason that is undisputed in fact and indisputable in logic.

As far as Congress itself is concerned, there is nothing sacrosanct in the certification %ade by the presiding officers. 4t is %erely a %odeof authentication. The la$%a:ing process in Congress ends $hen the bill is approved by both ouses, and the certification does not addto the validity of the bill or cure any defect already present upon its passage. 4n other $ords it is the approval by Congress and not the

signatures of the presiding officers that is essential. Thus the >3!2(? Constitution says that )GeH very bill passed by the Congress shall,

before it beco%es la$, be presented to the President. 124n Bron )s. Morris, supra,the upre%e Court ofMissouri, interpreting a si%ilar provision in the tate Constitution, said that the sa%e )%a:es it clear that the indispensable step is thefinal passage and it follo$s that if a bill, other$ise fully enacted as a la$, is not attested by the presiding officer, of the proof that it has)passed both houses) $ill satisfy the constitutional re=uire%ent.)

Petitioner agrees that the attestation in the bill is not %andatory but argues that the disclai%er thereof by the enate President, grantingit to have been validly %ade, $ould only %ean that there $as no attestation at all, but $ould not affect the validity of the statute. ence,it is pointed out, Republic Act No. &'#( $ould re%ain valid and binding. This argu%ent begs the issue. 4t $ould li%it the court7s in=uiry tothe presence or absence of the attestation and to the effect of its absence upon the validity of the statute. The in=uiry, ho$ever, goesfarther. Absent such attestation as a result of the disclai%er, and conse=uently there being no enrolled bill to spea: of, $hat evidence isthere to deter%ine $hether or not the bill had been duly enactedI 4n such a case the entries in the 9ournal should be consulted.

The 9ournal of the proceedings of each ouse of Congress is no ordinary record. The Constitution re=uires it. 8hile it is true that the9ournal is not authenticated and is sub9ect to the ris:s of %isprinting and other errors, the point is irrelevant in this case. This Court is%erely as:ed to in=uire $hether the te6t of ouse Bill No. !"## signed by the Chief E6ecutive $as the sa%e te6t passed by bothouses of Congress. @nder the specific facts and circu%stances of this case, this Court can do this and resort to the enate 9ournal forthe purpose. The 9ournal discloses that substantial and lengthy a%end%ents $ere introduced on the floor and approved by the enatebut $ere not incorporated in the printed te6t sent to the President and signed by hi%. This Court is not as:ed to incorporate sucha%end%ents into the alleged la$, $hich ad%ittedly is a ris:y underta:ing, 13but to declare that the bill $as not duly enacted andtherefore did not beco%e la$. This 8e do, as indeed both the President of the enate and the Chief E6ecutive did, $hen they $ithdre$their signatures therein. 4n the face of the %anifest error co%%itted and subse=uently rectified by the President of the enate and by the


4/45

Chief E6ecutive, for this Court to perpetuate that error by disregarding such rectification and holding that the erroneous bill has beco%ela$ $ould be to sacrifice truth to fiction and bring about %ischievous conse=uences not intended by the la$%a:ing body.

4n vie$ of the foregoing considerations, the petition is denied and the socalled Republic Act No. &'#( entitled )AN ACT *E-4N4N5 TEP/8ER, R45T AN* *@T4E /- TE +4CEMAJ/R /- TE C4TJ /- MAN4A, -@RTER AMEN*4N5 -/R TE P@RP/EECT4/N TEN AN* EE+EN /- REP@B4C ACT N@MBERE* -/@R @N*RE* N4NE, A AMEN*E*, /TER84E 0N/8N ATE RE+4E* CARTER /- TE C4TJ /- MAN4A) is declared not to have been duly enacted and therefore did not beco%e la$. The

te%porary restraining order dated April "3?. The 3!2 Constitution si%ilarly provides in Article +444, ection "'>3? that )>E?very billpassed by the National Asse%bly shall, before it beco%es a la$, be presented to the Pri%e Minister ... )

32 ee, for e6a%ple, the decisions of this Court in Casco Phil. Che%ical Co. vs. 5i%eneD, 3!23, -eb. "


5/45

CONCURRNG AN/ /SSENTNG OPNON

PUNO, J.;

4 concur in the result. 4 do appreciate the fine legal dis=uisition of Mr. ;ustice MendoDa to 9ustify the dis%issal of the case atbar. Nevertheless, 4 have to e6press %y vie$s on the alleged non9usticiability of the issue posed by the petitioner as $ell as theapplicability of the archaic enroll bill doctrine in light of $hat 4 perceive as ne$ $rin:les in our la$ brought about by the 3!3? that it did not ignore any constitutional

restraintF >"? it did not violate any funda%ental rightF and >2? its %ethod has a reasonable relationship $ith the result sought to beattained. By e6a%ining Rule +, the Court did not allo$ its 9urisdiction to be defeated by the %ere invocation of the principle ofseparation of po$ers.

%lli!$as follo$ed in 3!2" by the case of US . Si&".G2H4n Si&", the )%!i!


6/45

to their constitutionality.Si

Si&" $as follo$ed by the 194:case of C"ri#&o**)l . U!i&)6 S&%&)#. G&HChristoffel testified before the Co%%ittee on Education andabor of the ouse of Representive.e denied he $as a co%%unist and $as charged $ith per9ury in a regular court. e adducedevidence during the trial that the co%%ittee had no =uoru% $hen the per9urious state%ent $as given. Nonetheless, he $as convicted invie$ of the 9udges charge to the %e%bers of the 9ury that to find Christoffel guilty, they had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that

6 6 6

6 6 6 the defendant Christoffel appeared $efore a 'uorum of at least thirteen mem$ers of the said Committee, and that at least that num$er must have$een actually and physically present if such a Committee so met, that is, if thirteen mem$ers did meet at the $eginning of the afternoon session of"arch /, /20)6.4t held1

6 6 6

Congressional practice in the transaction of ordinary legislative $usiness is of course none of our concern, and $y the same to&en the considerations(hich may lead Congress as a matter of legislative practice to treat as valid the conduct of its committees do not control the issue $efore us. The'uestion is neither (hat rules Congress may esta$lish for its o(n governance, not (hether presumptions of continuity may protect the validity of its

legislative conduct. The question is rather what rules the House has established and whether they have been followed.It of course has the po(erto define (hat tri$unal is competent to e6act testimony and the conditions that esta$lish its competency to do so. The heart of this case is that $y the

charge that (as given it (as allo(ed to assume that the conditions of competency (ere satisfied even though the $asis in fact (as not esta$lished in

the face of a possi$le finding that the facts contradicted the assumption.

7e are measuring a conviction of crime $y the statute (hich defined it. s a conse'uence of this conviction, petitioner (as sentenced to imprisonmentfor a term or t(o to si6 years. n essential part of a procedure (hich can $e said fairly to inflict such a punishment is that all the elements of the crime

charged shall $e proved $eyond reasona$le dou$t. n element of the crime charged in the instant indictment is the presence of a complete tri$unal, andthe trial court proper so instructed the )ury. The House insist that to $e such a tri$unal a committee must consist of 'uorum, and (e agree (ith the trial

courts charge that to convict, the )ury had to $e satisfied $eyond a reasona$le dou$t that there (ere actually and physically present a ma)ority of the

committee.

Then to charge, ho(ever, that such re'uirement is satisfied $y a finding that there (as a ma)ority present t(o or three hours $efore the defendantoffered his testimony, in the face of evidence indicating the contrary, is to rule as a matter of la( that a 'uorum need to $e present (hen the offense

is committed. This is not only seems to us contrary to the rules and practice of the Congress $ut denies petitioner a fundamental right. That right is thathe $e convicted of crime only on proof of all elements of the crime charged against him. tri$unal that is not competent is no tri$unal, and it

unthin&a$le that such a $ody can $e an instrument of criminal conviction.

The %inority co%plained that the ouse has adopted the rule and practice that a =uoru% once established is presu%ed continue unlessuntil a point of no =uoru% is raised. ' &"i# 6)$i#io!, &") Cor& , i! )**)$&, i!%li6%&)# &") rl) 6 6 6. The %inority vie$ co%%andedonly the vote of three >2? 9ustices.

The @ upre%e Court pursued the sa%e line in 193in deciding the case of)lli! . U!i&)6 S&%&)#.G(H)lli! $as indicted on fivecounts of $illfully refusing to ans$er =uestions put to hi% by a subco%%ittee of the ouse Co%%ittee on @nA%erican Activities. e$as convicted by the *istrict Court of conte%pt of Congress on four counts.The conviction $as affir%ed by the Court of Appeals for thethcircuit. /n certiorari, ") %##%il)6 "i# $o!i$&io! o! &")


7/45

$e distri$uted to every (itness under Rule XVII, the (itness reasona$le e6pectation is that the Committee actually does (hat it purports to do, adhereto its o(n rules. To foreclose a defense $ased upon those rules, simply $ecause the (itness (as deceived $y the Committees appearance of regularity,

is not fair. The committee prepared the ground(or& for prosecution in =ellins case meticulously. It is not too e!acting to require that the

Committee be equally meticulous in obeying its own rules.

4t additionally bears stressing that the @nited tates, the 9udiciary has pruned the political thic:et. 4n the bench%ar: caseof %)r v. C%rr,G#Hthe @ upre%e Court assu%ed 9urisdiction to hear a petition for reapportiont%ent of the Tennessee legislature

ruling that the political =uestion doctrine, a tool for %aintenance of govern%ent order, $ill not be so applied as to pro%ote only disorderand that the courts cannot re9ect as no la$ suit, a bonafide controversy as to $hether so%e action deno%inated political e6ceedsconstitutional authority.

4n the P"ilippi!) #)&&i!


8/45

given specific time to fill up vacancies in the )udiciary ninety *2-3 days from the occurrence of the vacancy in case of the %upreme Court and ninety*2-3 days from the su$mission of the list of recommendees $y the +udicial and 5ar Council in case of vacancies in the lo(er courts. To further insulate

appointments in the )udiciary from the virus of politics, the %upreme Court (as given the po(er to appoint all officials and employees of the +udiciary

in accordance (ith the Civil %ervice @a(. nd to ma&e the separation of the )udiciary from other $ranches of government more (atertight, itprohi$ited mem$ers of the )udiciary to $e 6 6 6 designated to any agency performing quasi)udicial or administrative functions. 7hile the Constitution

strengthened the sine(s of the %upreme Court, it reduced the po(ers of the t(o other $ranches of the government, especially the ?6ecutive. 4ota$lepo(ers of the 9resident clipped $y the Constitution is his po(er to suspend the (rit of habeas corpusand to proclaim martial la(. The e6ercise of this

po(er is no( su$)ect to revocation $y Congress. @i&e(ise, the sufficiency of the factual $asis for the e6ercise of said po(er may $e revie(ed $y thisCourt in an appropriate proceeding filed $y any citi;en.

The provision defining )udicial po(er as including the duty of the courts of )ustice to determine (hether or not there has $een a grave a$use ofdiscretion amounting to lac& or e6cess of )urisdiction on the part of any $ranch or instrumentality of the >overnment constitutes the capstone of the

efforts of the Constitutional Commission to upgrade the po(ers of this court vis--visthe other $ranches of the government. This provision (as dictated

$y our e6perience under martial la( (hich taught us that a stronger and more independent )udiciary is needed to a$ort a$uses in government. 6 6 6.

6 6 6

In sum, I su$mit that in imposing to this Court the duty to annul acts of government committed (ith grave a$use of discretion, the ne( Constitution

transformed this Court from passivity to activism. This transformation, dictated $y our distinct e6perience as a nation, is not merely evolutionary $ut

revolutionary.(nder the )*+ and )*-+ Constitutions, this Court approached constitutional violations by initially determining what it cannotdo under the )*/- Constitution, there is a shift in stress this Court is mandated to approach constitutional violations not by finding out what

it should do but what it must do. The Court must discharge this solemn duty $y not resuscitating a past that petrifies the present.

4 urge %y brethren in the Court to give due and serious consideration to this ne$ constitutional provision as the case at bar once %orecalls us to define the para%eters of our po$er to revie$ violations of the rules of the ouse. 8e $ill not be true to our trust as the lastbul$ar: against govern%ent abuses if $e refuse to e6ercise this ne$ po$er or if $e $ield it $ith ti%idity. To be sure, it is this e6ceedingti%idity to unsheath the 9udicial s$ord that has increasingly e%boldened other branches of govern%ent to denigrate, if not defy, orders ofour courts. 4n Tol)!&i!o,G


9/45

The principle of separation of po$ers is thus the principal prop of the enrolled bill doctrine. The doctrine is also 9ustified as a rule ofconvenience. upposedly, it avoids difficult =uestions of evidence. G3#H4t is also believed that it $ill prevent the filing of too %any cases$hich $ill cast a cloud of uncertainty on la$s passed by the legislature. As e6plained in E6 Pacte 8ren G3Hif the validity of every actpublished as la$ is to be tested by e6a%ining its history, as sho$n by the 9ournals of the t$o houses of the legislature, there $ill be ana%ount of litigation, difficulty, and painful uncertainty appalling in its conte%plation, and %ultiplying a hundredfold the alleged uncertaintyof the la$. The conclusiveness of the enrolled bill is also 9ustified on the ground that 9ournals and other e6trinsic evidence are conduciveto %ista:e, if not fraud.

These 9ustifications for the enrolled bill theory have been re9ected in various 9urisdictions in the @nited tates. 4n his *issenting/pinion in Tol)!&i!o v. S)$r)&%r' o* i!%!$), and its co%panion cases,G3eneral ssem$ly and e6pressed a preference for accepting the final $ill as enrolled,

rather than opening up the records of the legislature. 6 6 6.

6 6 6

4o(here has the rule $een adopted (ithout reason, or as a result of )udicial (him. There are four historical bases for the doctrine.*/3 n enrolled

$ill (as a record and, as such (as not su$)ect to attac& at common la(. *3 %ince the legislature is one of the three $ranches of government, the courts,$eing coe'ual, must indulge in every presumption that legislative acts are valid. *#3 7hen the rule (as originally formulated, recordD&eeping of the

legislatures (as so inade'uate that a $alancing of e'uities re'uired that the final act, enrolled $ill, $e given efficacy. *03 There (ere theories ofconvenience as e6pressed $y the entuc&y court in @afferty.

The rule is not uninanimous in the several states, however and it has not been without critics. "rom an e!amination of cases and treaties, we

can summari;e the criticism as follows% 3)4 9rtificial presumptions, especially conclusive ones, are not favored. 3odern automatic and electronic record1'eeping devices now used by legislatures remove one of the

original reasons for the rule. 34 The rule disregards the primary obligation of the courts to see' the truth and to provide a remedy for a

wrong committed by any branch of government. In light of these considerations we are convinced that the time has come to re1e!amine the

enrolled bill doctrine.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/127255_puno.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/127255_puno.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/127255_puno.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/127255_puno.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/127255_puno.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/127255_puno.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/127255_puno.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/127255_puno.htm#_edn18


10/45

?


11/45

5y (hat (e have essayed a$ovewe are not of course to be understood as holding that in all cases the ournals must yield to the enrolled bill. Tobe sure there are certain matters which the Constitution e!pressly requires must be entered on the ournal of each house. To (hat e6tent the

validity of a legislative act may $e affected $y a failure to have such matters entered on the )ournal, is a 'uestion (hich (e do not no( decide. 9ll we

hold is that with respect to matters not e!pressly required to be entered on the ournal, the enrolled bill prevails in the event of any

discrepancy.

4n the 1974case of A#&ororris, supra, the :upreme Court of >issouri, interpreting a similar provision in the :tateConstitution, said that the same ma'es it clear that the indispensable step is the final passage and it follows that if a bill, otherwise fully

enacted as a law, is not attested by the presiding officer, the proof that it has passed both houses will satisfy the constitutional requirement.

9etitioner agrees that the attestation in the $ill is not mandatory $ut argues that the disclaimer thereof $y the %enate 9resident, granting it to have $eenvalidly made, (ould only mean that there (as no attestation at all, $ut (ould not affect the validity of the statute. Hence, it is pointed out, Repu$lic

ct 4o. 0-BA (ould remain valid and $inding. This argument $egs the issued. It (ould limit the courts in'uiry to the presence or a$sence of the

attestation and to the effect of its a$sence upon the validity of the statute. The in'uiry, ho(ever, goes farther. $sent such attestation as a result of thedisclaimer, and conse'uently there $eing no enrolled $ill to spea& of, (hat evidence is there to determine (hether or not the $ill had $een duly

enacted. In such a case the entries in the )ournal should $e consulted.

The )ournal of the proceedings of each House of Congress is no ordinary record the Constitution re'uires it. 7hile it is true that the )ournal is notauthenticated and su$)ect to the ris& of misprinting and the errors, the point is irrelevant in this case. This Court is merely as&ed to in'uire (hether the

te6t of House 5ill 4o. 2BB signed $y the Chief ?6ecutive (a the same test passed $y $oth Houses of Congress. nder the specific facts and

circumstance of this case, this Court can do this and resort to the %enate )ournal for the purpose. The ournal disclosed that substantial and lengthyamendments were introduced on the floor and approved by the :enate but were not incorporated in the printed te!t sent to the &resident and

signed by him. This Court is not as'ed to incorporated such amendments into the alleged law, which admittedly is a ris'y underta'ing, but to

declare that the bill was not duly enacted and therefore did not become a law. This We do, as indeed both the &resident of the :enate and the

Chief 0!ecutive did, when they withdrew their signatures therein. In the face of the manifest error committed and su$se'uently rectified $y the

9resident of the %enate and $y the Chief ?6ecutive, for this Court to perpetuate that error $y disregarding such rectification and holding that theerroneous $ill has $ecome a la( (ould $e to sacrifice truth to fiction and $ring a$out mischievous conse'uences not intended $y the la(Dma&ing $ody.

4n 1993, the enrolled bill doctrine $as again used as #)$o!6%r' r%&io!%l) in the case of P"ilippi!) +6imene; laid do(n the rule that the enrolled $ill is conclusive upon the +udiciary *e6cept in matters that

have to $e entered in the )ournals are themselves also $inding on the %upreme Court, as (e held in the old *$ut stills valid3 case of .%. vs. 9ons,(here (e e6plained the reason thus:

To in'uire into the veracity of the )ournals of the 9hilippine legislature (hen they are, as (e have said, clear and e6plicit, (ould $e to violate $oth the

letter and spirit of the organic la(s $y (hich the 9hilippine >overnment (as $rought into e6istence, to invade a coordinate and independentdepartment of the >overnment, and to interfere (ith the legitimate po(ers and functions of the @egislature.

pplying these principles, (e shall decline to loo& into the petitioners charges that the amendment (as made upon the last reading of the $ill that

eventually $ecame R.. 4o.


12/45

$ill and the legislative )ournals certify that the measure (as duly enacted i.e., in accordance (ith the rticle VI, %ec. B*3 of the Constitution. 7e are$ound $y such official assurances from a coordinate department of the government, to (hich (e o(e, at the very least, a $ecoming courtesy.

-inally in 1994ca%e the case of Tol)!&i!o v. S)$r)&%r' o* i!%!$), et al. and its co%panion cases.G"(H4nvolved in the case $as theconstitutionality of R.A. No. 3#, other$ise :no$n as the E6panded +alue Added Ta6 a$. The %a9ority G"#Hpartly relied on the enrolledbill doctrine in dis%issing challenges to the constitutionality of R.A. No. 3#. 4t held1

6 6 6

ourth. 7hatever dou$ts there may $e as to the formal validityof Repu$lic ct 4o. 3

G"HThe case involved the validity of a la$ $hich allegedly $as passed in violation of ouse Rule + $hich provided that %e%berspresent in the cha%ber but not voting $ould be counted and announced in deter%ining the presence of a =uoru% to dobusiness.

G2H"3!2"?.

G&H22< @ 3!&


13/45

G33HCarr ). Co:e, & A%. t. Rep.

G32Hutherland, +ol. 4, ection 3&'( >2 rded., 3!&2?.

G3&Hee e.g., Mogilner ). Metropolitan Plan Co%%unication, "2# 4nd. "!


14/45

ISS T&)% i# &(% (l%o een %#(#ed in o#&er "(%e% #&(# i/ #&e (##e%#(#ion i% (%en# (nd #&e %(e i% no#

re8)ired /or #&e +(lidi#* o/ ( %#(#)#e, #&e "o)r#% (* re%or# #o #&e o)rn(l% (nd o#&er re"ord% o/ onre%% /or proo/ o/ i#%

d)e en("#en#. T&i% (% #&e loi"(l "on"l)%ion re("&ed in ( n)er o/ de"i%ion%, (l#&o)& #&e* (re %ilen# (% #o

&e#&er #&e o)rn(l% (* %#ill e re%or#ed #o i/ #&e (##e%#(#ion o/ #&e pre%idin o"er% i% pre%en#.

Appro+(l o/ onre%%, no# %in(#)re% o/ #&e o"er%, i% e%%en#i(l

A% /(r (% onre%% i#%el/ i% "on"erned, #&ere i% no#&in %("ro%(n"# in #&e "er#i;"(#ion (de * #&e pre%idin o"er%. I# i%

erel* ( ode o/ ()#&en#i"(#ion. T&e l((in pro"e%% in onre%% end% &en #&e ill i% (ppro+ed * o#& o)%e%,

(nd #&e "er#i;"(#ion doe% no# (dd #o #&e +(lidi#* o/ #&e ill or ")re (n* de/e"# (lre(d* pre%en# )pon i#% p(%%(e. In o#&er

ord% i# i% #&e (ppro+(l * onre%% (nd no# #&e %in(#)re% o/ #&e pre%idin o"er% #&(# i% e%%en#i(l.

6&en "o)r#% (* #)rn #o #&e o)rn(l

A%en# %)"& (##e%#(#ion (% ( re%)l# o/ #&e di%"l(ier, (nd "on%e8)en#l* #&ere ein no enrolled ill #o %pe( o/, &(#

e+iden"e i% #&ere #o de#erine &e#&er or no# #&e ill &(d een d)l* en("#ed? In %)"& ( "(%e #&e en#rie% in #&e o)rn(l

%&o)ld e "on%)l#ed.

T&e o)rn(l o/ #&e pro"eedin% o/ e("& o)%e o/ onre%% i% no ordin(r* re"ord. T&e on%#i#)#ion re8)ire% i#. 6&ile i# i%

#r)e #&(# #&e o)rn(l i% no# ()#&en#i"(#ed (nd i% %)e"# #o #&e ri%% o/ i%prin#in (nd o#&er error%, #&e poin# i%


15/45

irrele+(n# in #&i% "(%e. T&i% o)r# i% erel* (%ed #o in8)ire &e#&er #&e #e# o/ o)%e ill No. 92:: %ined * #&e &ie/

Ee")#i+e (% #&e %(e #e# p(%%ed * o#& o)%e% o/ onre%%.


16/45

The type of measures that Congress may consider and act upon *in addition to treaties in the %enate3 include $ills and three &inds of resolutions.They are:

). Aills

These are general measures, (hich if passed upon, may $ecome la(s. $ill is prefi6ed (ith %., follo(ed $y a num$er assigned the measure $ased

on the order in (hich it is introduced. The vast ma)ority of legislative proposalsrecommendations dealing (ith the economy, increasing penalties forcertain crimes, regulation on commerce and trade, etc., are drafted in the form of $ills. They also include $udgetary appropriation of the government

and many others. 7hen passed $y $oth cham$ers in identical form and signed $y the 9resident or repassed $y Congress over a presidential veto, they$ecome la(s.


17/45

committee report descri$es the purpose and scope of the $ill, e6plains any committee amendments, indicates proposed changes in e6isting la(and such other materials that are relevant. "oreover, reports are num$ered in the order in (hich they are filed and printed.

$ac& to top

Calendaring for Floor Debates: Consideration of, and Debates on Bills

nder %ection 0A of Rule XVI of the Rules of the %enate, the %enate shall have three calendars, to (it:

A Calendar for Ordinary Business," in which shall be included the bills reported out by the committees in the order in which they were received by

the Office of the ecretary! the bills whose consideration has been areed upon by the enate without settin the dates on which to effect it! and also

the bills whose consideration has been postponed indefinitely!

A Calendar for pecial Orders,# in which the bills and resolutions shall be arraned successively and chronoloically, accordin to the order inwhich they were assined for consideration! and

A Calendar for $hird %eadin,# in which shall be included all bills and &oint resolutions approved on second readin.

Thus, a $ill (hich has a committee report can $e referred to the JCalendar for !rdinary 5usiness.K It may again $e moved to its J%pecial !rder of5usinessK for priority action.

!n the other hand, the consideration and de$ate of $ills and resolutions are spelled out in Rule XXV, %ection


18/45

?ither cham$er can re'uest a conference once $oth have considered the same legislation. >enerally, the cham$er that approved the legislation first(ill disagree to the amendments made $y the second $ody and (ill ma&e a re'uest that a conference $e convened. %ometimes, ho(ever, the second

$ody (ill as& for a conference immediately after it has passed the legislation, assuming that the other cham$er (ill not accept its amendments.

:election of Conferees

nder the Rules of the %enate *Rule XII, %ection #03, the %enate 9resident shall designate the mem$ers of the %enate panel in the conferencecommittee (ith the approval of the %enate. The %enate delegation to a conference can range in si;e from three to a larger num$er, depending on the

length and comple6ity of the legislation involved.

9uthority of Conferees

The authority given to the %enate conferees theoretically is limited to matters in disagreement $et(een the t(o cham$ers. They are not authori;ed

to delete provisions or language agreed to $y $oth the House and the %enate as to draft entirely ne( provisions.

In practice, ho(ever, the conferees have (ide latitude, e6cept (here the matters in disagreement are very specific. "oreover, conferees attempt to

reconcile their differences, $ut generally they try to grant concession only insofar as they remain confident that the cham$er they represent (ill acceptthe compromise.

The Conference $eport

7hen the conferees have reached agreement on a $ill, the conference committee staff (rites a conference report indicating changes made in the$ill and e6plaining each sideLs actions.

!nce a conference committee completes its (or&s, it can no( $e su$mitted to the floor for its approval. Ge$ate on conference reports is highly

privileged and can interrupt most other $usiness.

pproval of the conference report $y $oth houses, along (ith any amendments on disagreement, constitutes final approval of the $ill.

$ac& to top

Final Legislatie Action

fter $oth houses have given final approval to a $ill, a final copy of the $ill, &no(n as the Jenrolled $ill,K shall $e printed, and certified as correct

$y the %ecretary of the %enate and the %ecretary >eneral of the House of Representatives. fter (hich, it (ill $e signed $y the %pea&er of the Houseand the %enate 9resident.

$ill may $ecome a la(, even (ithout the 9residentLs signature, if the 9resident does not sign a $ill (ithin #- days from receipt in his office.

$ill may also $ecome a la( (ithout the 9residentLs signature if Congress overrides a presidential veto $y t(oDthirds vote.

$ac& to top

!ummary

The follo(ing is a summary of ho( a $ill $ecomes a la(:

"ilingCalendaring for "irst $eading

$ill is filed in the !ffice of the %ecretary (here it is given a corresponding num$er and calendared for irst Reading.

"irst $eading

Its title, $ill num$er, and authorLs name are read on the floor, after (hich it is referred to the proper committee.

Committee Hearings$eport

Committee conducts hearings and consultation meetings. It then either approves the proposed $ill (ithout an amendment, approves it (ith

changes, or recommends su$stitution or consolidation (ith similar $ills filed.

Calendaring for :econd $eading

The Committee Report (ith its approved $ill version is su$mitted to the Committee on Rules for calendaring for %econd Reading.
http://www.senate.gov.ph/about/legpro.asp#tophttp://www.senate.gov.ph/about/legpro.asp#tophttp://www.senate.gov.ph/about/legpro.asp#tophttp://www.senate.gov.ph/about/legpro.asp#tophttp://www.senate.gov.ph/about/legpro.asp#tophttp://www.senate.gov.ph/about/legpro.asp#top


19/45

:econd $eading

5ill author delivers sponsorship speech on the floor. %enators engage in de$ate, interpellation, turno en contra, and re$uttal to highlight the pros

and cons of the $ill. period of amendments incorporates necessary changes in the $ill proposed $y the committee or introduced $y the %enators

themselves on the floor.

Doting on :econd $eading

%enators vote on the second reading version of the $ill. If approved, the $ill is calendared for third reading.

Doting on Third $eading

9rinted copies of the $illLs final version are distri$uted to the %enators. This time, only the title of the $ill is read on the floor. 4ominal voting is

held. If passed, the approved %enate $ill is referred to the House of Representatives for concurrence.

9t the House of $epresentatives

The @o(er Cham$er follo(s the same procedures *irst Reading, %econd Reading and Third Reading3.

Aac' to the :enate

If the HouseDapproved version is compati$le (ith that of the %enateLs, the final versionLs enrolled form is printed. If there are certain differences, a

5icameral Conference Committee is called to reconcile conflicting provisions of $oth versions of the %enate and of the House of Representatives.Conference committee su$mits report on the reconciled version of the $ill, duly approved $y $oth cham$ers. The %enate prints the reconciled version

in its enrolled form.

:ubmission to >alacaEang

inal enrolled form is su$mitted to "alacaMang. The 9resident either signs it into la(, or vetoes and sends it $ac& to the %enate (ith veto message.

CASCO P"ilippi!) C")i$%l Gi)!)B G.R. No. L-17931. )r%r' 2:, 193.

"


20/45

Casco Philippine Che%ical Co., 4nc. >Casco? $as engaged in the production of synthetic resin glues used pri%arily in the production of ply$ood. The %ain co%ponents of the

said glue are r)% %!6 *or%l6)"'6)$hich are both being i%ported abroad. Pursuant to a Central Ban: circular, Casco paid the re=uired %argin fee for its i%ported urea and

for%aldehyde. Casco ho$ever paid in protest as it %aintained that urea and for%aldehyde are ta6 e6e%pt transactions. The Central Ban: agreed and it issued vouchers for

refund. The said vouchers $ere sub%itted to Pedro 5i%eneD, the then Auditor 5eneral, $ho denied the ta6 refund. 5i%eneD %aintained that urea and for%aldehyde, as t$o

separate and distinct co%ponents are not ta6 e6e%ptF that $hat is ta6 e6e%pt is r)% *or%l6)"'6) >the synthetic resin for%ed by co%bining urea and for%aldehyde?.

5i%eneD cited the provision of ec. ", par 3< of Republic Act No. "#'! $hich provides1

$#e margin establis#ed b t#e Monetar Board pursuant to t#e pro)ision of section one #ereofshall not be imposed upont#e sale of foreign e+c#ange for t#e importation of

t#e folloing:

+++ +++ +++

;"i$" i# p%&)!&l' 6i#&i!$& %!6 6i**)r)!& *ro

Dr)% %!6 D*or%l6)"'6), as separate articles used in the %anufacture of the synthetic resin :no$n as urea for%aldehyde.

The opinions or state%ents of any %e%ber of Congress during the deliberation of the said la$bill do not represent the entirety of the Congress itself. "%& i# pri!&)6 i! &")

)!roll)6 ill >ol6 ) $o!$l#i) po! &") $or. The enrolled bill L $hich uses the ter% urea for%aldehyde instead of urea and for%aldehyde L is conclusive upon

the courts as regards the tenor of the %easure passed by Congress and approved by the President. 4f there has been any %ista:e in the printing of the bill before it $as

certified by the officers of Congress and approved by the E6ecutive L on $hich the C cannot speculate, $ithout 9eopardiDing the principle of separation of po$ers and

under%ining one of the cornerstones of our de%ocratic syste% L the re%edy is by a%end%ent or curative legislation, not by 9udicial decree.

Arro'o /) ()!)$i% G.R. No. 127255. A


21/45

the absence of anything to the contrary, the Court %ust assu%e that Congress or any ouse thereof acted in the good faith belief that itsconduct $as per%itted by its rules, and deference rather than disrespect is due the 9udg%ent of that body.

! i)> o* >"%& i# )##)!&i%lMerely internal rules of procedure of the ouse rather than constitutional re=uire%ents for the enact%ent of a la$, i.e., Art. +4, OO"#"are +4/ATE*.

-irst, in /s%ea v. Pendatun, it $as held1 )At any rate, courts have declared that 7the rules adopted by deliberative bodies are sub9ect torevocation, %odification or $aiver at the pleasure of the body adopting the%.7 And it has been said that 7Parlia%entary rules are %erelyprocedural, and $ith their observance, the courts have no concern. They %' ) >%i)6 or 6i#r)ta:en by a deliberative body? $hen there=uisite nu%ber of %e%bers have agreed to a particular %easure.7)

Rules are hardly per%anent in character. The prevailing vie$ is that they are sub9ect to revocation, %odification or $aiver at the pleasureof the body adopting the% as they are pri%arily procedural. Courts ordinarily have no concern $ith their observance. They %ay be$aived or disregarded by the legislative body. Conse=uently, )r) *%ilr) &o $o!*or &o &") 6o)# !o& "%) &") )**)$& o* !lli*'i!o *or)i

Thus, in Marshall -ield Q Co. it $as contended that the Tariff Act of /ctober 3, 3


23/45

4n re9ecting the contention, the @nited tates upre%e Court held that the signing by the pea:er of the ouse of Representativesand by the President of the enate of an enrolled bill is an official attestation by the t$o houses that such bill is the one that has passedCongress. And $hen the bill thus attested is signed by the President and deposited in the archives, its authentication as a bill that haspassed Congress should be dee%ed co%plete and uni%peachable.

4n ar$ood the clai% $as that an act of the legislature of AriDona )contained, at the ti%e of its final passage, provisions that $ereo%itted fro% it $ithout authority of the council or the house, before it $as presented to the governor for his approval.) The Court

reiterated its ruling in Marshall -ield Q Co.

! i)> o* M%%!%< Lop)B-(i&o CASCO Gi)!)B 4t $as not until 3!& that the =uestion $as presented in Mabanag v. opeD+ito, and $e there held that an enrolled bill )i%portsabsolute verity and is binding on the courts.) This court held itself bound by an authenticated resolution, despite the fact that the vote ofthreefourths of the %e%bers of the Congress >as re=uired by the Constitution to approve proposals for constitutional a%end%ents? $asnot actually obtained on account of the suspension of so%e %e%bers of the ouse of Representatives and of the enate.

Thus in Mabanag the enrolled bill theory $as adopted. 8hatever doubt there %ight have been as to the status and force of the theoryin the Philippines, in vie$ of the dissent of three ;ustices in Mabanag, $as finally laid to rest by the unani%ous decision in CascoPhilippine Che%ical Co. v. 5i%eneD. pea:ing for the Court, the then ;ustice >no$ Chief ;ustice? Concepcion said1 )-urther%ore, it is$ell settled that the enrolled bill L $hich uses the ter% 7urea for%aldehyde7 instead of 7urea and for%aldehyde7 L is conclusive upon thecourts as regards the tenor of the %easure passed by Congress and approved by the President >Pri%icias vs. Paredes, #3 Phil., 33i!< "i# #i$hich had been returned

to the enate the previous ;uly 2?, adding that )it $ould be untenable and against public policy to convert into la$ $hat $as not actually

approved by the t$o ouses of Congress.)

@pon the foregoing facts the Mayor of Manila, Antonio +illegas, issued circulars to the depart%ent heads and chiefs of offices of the

city govern%ent as $ell as to the o$ners, operators andor %anagers of business establish%ents in Manila to disregard the provisions of

Republic Act &'#(. e li:e$ise issued an order to the Chief of Police to recall five %e%bers of the city police force $ho had been

assigned to the +iceMayor presu%ably under authority of Republic Act &'#(.

##); 8hether the socalled RA &'#( beca%e la$ and that +iceMayor Astorga should e6ercise any of the po$ers conferred by RA

&'#(.

H)l6; 4n vie$ of the foregoing considerations, the petition is denied and the socalled Republic Act No. &'#( entitled )AN ACT *E-4N4N5

TE P/8ER, R45T AN* *@T4E /- TE +4CEMAJ/R /- TE C4TJ /- MAN4A, -@RTER AMEN*4N5 -/R TE

P@RP/E ECT4/N TEN AN* EE+EN /- REP@B4C ACT N@MBERE* -/@R @N*RE* N4NE, A AMEN*E*, /TER84E

0N/8N A TE RE+4E* CARTER /- TE C4TJ /- MAN4A) is 6)$l%r)6 !o& &o "%) ))! 6l' )!%$&)6 %!6 &")r)*or) 6i6 !o&

)$o) l%>. The te%porary restraining order dated April "


24/45

! i)> o* &") )!roll)6 ill &")or'

The )enrolled bill) theory $as relied upon %erely to bolster the ruling on the 9urisdictional =uestion, the reasoning being that )if a

political =uestion $o!$l#i)l' i!6# &") =6%# p%##)6 ' Co! o* S)$. 313 A$& 190 o* Rl)# o* Ei6)!$) Co6) o* Ciil Pro$)6r)#

;ustice Cesar BengDon $rote a separate opinion, concurred in by ;ustice abino Padilla, holding that the Court had 9urisdiction to

resolve the =uestion presented, and affir%ing categorically that )&") )!roll)6 $op' o* &") r)#ol&io! %!6 &") l)%ay be proved? by the 9ournals of those bodies or of either house thereof, or by published statutes or resolutions, or by

copies certified by the cler: or secretary, printed by their orderF provided, that in the case of acts of the Philippine Co%%ission or the

Philippine egislature, $hen there is in e6istence a copy signed by the presiding officers and secretaries of said bodies, i& #"%ll )

$o!$l#i) proo* o* &") proi#io!# o* #$" %$ %!6 o* &") 6) )!%$&)!& &")r)o*.)

! i)> o* !)&r%liB%&io!

By the respect due to a coe=ual depart%ent of the govern%ent, is !)&r%liB)6 i! &"i# $%#) ' &") *%$& &"%& &") S)!%&) Pr)#i6)!&

6)$l%r)6 "i# #i

that &") ill ") "%6 #i

The la$%a:ing process in Congress ends $hen the bill is approved by both ouses, and the certification does not add to the validity

of the bill or cure any defect already present upon its passage. 4n other $ords it is the approval by Congress and !o& &") #i

&") pr)#i6i!< o**i$)r# &"%& i# )##)!&i%l.Thus the >3!2(? Constitution says that )GeHvery bill passed by the Congress shall, before it

beco%es la$, be presented to the President.)

! i)> o* &") !))6 &o i!?ir) &"ro


25/45

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-17931 )r%r' 2:, 193

CASCO PHLPPNE CHEMCAL CO., NC.,petitioner,vs.HON. PE/RO GMENE, i! "i# $%p%$i&' %# A6i&or G)!)r%l o* &") P"ilippi!)#,%!6 HON. SMAEL MATHA, i! "i# $%p%$i&' %# A6i&or o* &") C)!&r%l %!, respondents.

'alandoni = 'amir for petitioner.%fficer of t#e Solicitor &eneral for respondents.

CONCEPCON, J.:

This is a petition for revie$ of a decision of the Auditor 5eneral denying a clai% for refund of petitioner Casco Philippine Che%ical Co.,4nc.

The %ain facts are not disputed. Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. "#'!, other$ise :no$n as the -oreign E6change Margin-ee a$, the Central Ban: of the Philippines issued on ;uly 3, 3!(!, its Circular No. !(. fi6ing a unifor% %argin fee of "(K on foreigne6change transactions. To supple%ent the circular, the Ban: later pro%ulgated a %e%orandu% establishing the procedure for

applications for e6e%ption fro% the pay%ent of said fee, as provided in said Republic Act No. "#'!. everal ti%es in Nove%ber and*ece%ber 3!(!, petitioner Casco Philippine Che%ical Co., 4nc. L $hich is engaged in the %anufacture of synthetic resin glues, used inbonding lu%ber and veneer by ply$ood and hard$ood producers L bought foreign e6change for the i%portation of urea andfor%aldehyde L $hich are the %ain ra$ %aterials in the production of said glues L and paid therefor the afore%entioned %argin feeaggregating P22,#(.&". 4n May, 3!#', petitioner %ade another purchase of foreign e6change and paid the su% of P#,2&(." as %arginfee therefor.

Prior thereto, petitioner had sought the refund of the first su% of P22,#(.&", relying upon Resolution No. 3("! of the Monetary Board ofsaid Ban:, dated Nove%ber 2, 3!(!, declaring that the separate i%portation of urea and for%aldehyde is e6e%pt fro% said fee. oonafter the last i%portation of these products, petitioner %ade a si%ilar re=uest for refund of the su% of P#,2&(." paid as %argin feetherefor. Although the Central Ban: issued the corresponding %argin fee vouchers for the refund of said a%ounts, the Auditor of theBan: refused to pass in audit and approve said vouchers, upon the ground that the e6e%ption granted by the Monetary Board forpetitioner7s separate i%portations of urea and for%aldehyde is not in accord $ith the provisions of section ", paragraph +444 of RepublicAct No. "#'!. /n appeal ta:en by petitioner, the Auditor 5eneral subse=uently affir%ed said action of the Auditor of the Ban:. ence,

this petition for revie$.

The only =uestion for deter%ination in this case is $hether or not )urea) and )for%aldehyde) are e6e%pt by la$ fro% the pay%ent of theaforesaid %argin fee. The pertinent portion of ection " of Republic Act No. "#'! reads1

The %argin established by the Monetary Board pursuant to the provision of section one hereof shall not be i%posed upon thesale of foreign e6change for the i%portation of the follo$ing1.

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

+444. @rea for%aldehyde for the %anufacture of ply$ood and hardboard $hen i%ported by and for the e6clusive use of endusers.

8herefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be ad%itted and approved by this onorableCourt, $ithout pre9udice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation offacts. >?p#@>./t

Petitioner %aintains that the ter% )urea for%aldehyde) appearing in this provision should be construed as )urea andfor%aldehyde)>e%phasis supplied? and that respondents herein, the Auditor 5eneral and the Auditor of the Central Ban:, have erred in holdingother$ise. 4n this connection, it should be noted that, $hereas )urea) and )for%aldehyde) are the principal ra$ %aterials in the%anufacture of synthetic resin glues, the National 4nstitute of cience and Technology has e6pressed, through its Co%%issioner, thevie$ that1

@rea for%aldehyde is not a che%ical solution. 4t is the synthetic resin for%ed as a condensation product fro% definiteproportions of urea and for%aldehyde under certain conditions relating to te%perature, acidity, and ti%e of reaction. Thisproduce $hen applied in $ater solution and e6tended $ith ine6pensive fillers constitutes a fairly lo$ cost adhesive for use in the%anufacture of ply$ood.

ence, )urea for%aldehyde) is clearly a finished product, $hich is patently distinct and different fro% urea) and )for%aldehyde), asseparate articles used in the %anufacture of the synthetic resin :no$n as )urea for%aldehyde). Petitioner contends, ho$ever, that the billapproved in Congress contained the copulative con9unction )and) bet$een the ter%s )urea) and )for%aldehyde), and that the %e%bersof Congress intended to e6e%pt )urea) and )for%aldehyde) separately as essential ele%ents in the %anufacture of the synthetic resinglue called )urea) for%aldehyde), not the latter as a finished product, citing in support of this vie$ the state%ents %ade on the floor ofthe enate, during the consideration of the bill before said ouse, by %e%bers thereof. But, said individual state%ents do notnecessarily reflect the vie$ of the enate. Much less do they indicate the intent of the ouse of Representatives >see ong 0iatChocolate -actory vs. Central Ban:, (& /ff. 5aD., #3(F Mayon Motors 4nc. vs. Acting Co%%issioner of 4nternal Revenue, 3(''' GMarch"!, 3!#3HF Manila ;oc:ey Club, 4nc. vs. 5a%es Q A%use%ent Board, 3"" G-ebruary "!, 3!#'H?. -urther%ore, it is $ell settled that


26/45

the enrolled bill L $hich uses the ter% )urea for%aldehyde) instead of )urea and for%aldehyde) L is conclusive upon the courts asregards the tenor of the %easure passed by Congress and approved by the President >Pri%icias vs. Paredes, #3 Phil. 33


27/45

MR. ARR/J/. /b9ection, 4 stood up, so 4 $anted to ob9ect.

TE *EP@TJ PEA0ER >Mr. *aDa?. The session is suspended for one %inute.

>4t $as 21'3 p.%.?

>21&' p.%., the session $as resu%ed?

TE *EP@TJ PEA0ER >Mr. *aDa?. The session is resu%ed.

MR. ABAN/. Mr. pea:er, 4 %ove to ad9ourn until four ocloc:, 8ednesday, ne6t $ee:.

TE *EP@TJ PEA0ER >Mr. *aDa?. The session is ad9ourned until four ocloc:, 8ednesday, ne6t $ee:.

>4t $as 21&' p.%.?

/n the sa%e day, the bill $as signed by the pea:er of the ouse of Representatives and the President of the enate and certifiedby the respective secretaries of both ouses of Congress as having been finally passed by the ouse of Representatives and by theenate on Nove%ber "3, 3!!#. The enrolled bill $as signed into la$ by President -idel +. Ra%os on Nove%ber "", 3!!#.

Petitioners clai% that there are actually four different versions of the transcript of this portion of Rep. Arroyos interpellation1 >3? thetranscript of audiosound recording of the proceedings in the session hall i%%ediately after the session ad9ourned at 21&' p.%. onNove%ber "3, 3!!#, $hich petitioner Rep. Edcel C. ag%an obtained fro% the operators of the sound syste%F >"? the transcript of theproceedings fro% 21'' p.%. to 21&' p.%. of Nove%ber "3, 3!!#, as certified by the Chief of the Transcription *ivision on Nove%ber "3,3!!#, also obtained by Rep. ag%anF >2? the transcript of the proceedings fro% 21'' p.%. to 21&' p.%. of Nove%ber "3, 3!!# as certified

by the Chief of the Transcription *ivision on Nove%ber "&? the published versionabove=uoted. According to petitioners, the four versions differ on three points, to $it1 >3? in the audiosound recording the $ordapproved, $hich appears on line 32 in the three other versions, cannot be heardF >"? in the transcript certified on Nove%ber "3, 3!!# the$ord no on line 3 appears only once, $hile in the other versions it is repeated three ti%esF and >2? the published version does notcontain the sentence >J?ou better prepare for a =uoru% because 4 $ill raise the =uestion of the (uorum, $hich appears in the otherversions.

Petitioners allegations are vehe%ently denied by respondents. o$ever, there is no need to discuss this point as petitioners haveannounced that, in order to e6pedite the resolution of this petition, they ad%it, $ithout conceding, the correctness of the transcripts reliedupon by the respondents. Petitioners agree that for purposes of this proceedingthe $ord approved appears in the transcripts.

/nly the proceedings of the ouse of Representatives on the conference co%%ittee report on . No. 3!< are in=uestion. Petitioners principal argu%ent is that R.A. No."? in violation of Rule 4, 33", G2Hthe Chair deliberatelyignored Rep. Arroyos =uestion, 8hat is that . . . Mr. pea:erI and did not repeat Rep. Albanos %otion to approve or ratifyF >2? in violationof Rule +4, !,G&Hthe Chair refused to recogniDe Rep. Arroyo and instead proceeded to act on Rep. Albanos %otion and after$arddeclared the report approvedF and >&? in violation of Rule , 3"33"", Rule 4, 3"2, and Rule +444, 3'!, G(Hthe Chair suspended thesession $ithout first ruling on Rep. Arroyos =uestion $hich, it is alleged, is a point of order or a privileged %otion. 4t is argued that Rep.Arroyos =uery should have been resolved upon the resu%ption of the session on Nove%ber "


28/45

Petitioners contend that the ouse rules $ere adopted pursuant to the constitutional provision that each ouse %ay deter%ine therules of its proceedingsG!Hand that for this reason they are 9udicially enforceable. To begin $ith, this contention stands the principle on itshead. 4n the decided cases,G3'Hthe constitutional provision that each ouse %ay deter%ine the rules of its proceedings $as invo:ed byparties, although not successfully, precisely to support clai%s of autono%y of the legislative branch to conduct its business free fro%interference by courts. ere petitioners cite the provision for the opposite purpose of invo:ing 9udicial revie$.

But the cases, both here and abroad, in varying for%s of e6pression, all deny to the courts the po$er to in=uire into allegations that,in enacting a la$, a ouse of Congress failed to co%ply $ith its o$n rules, in the absence of sho$ing that there $as a violation of aconstitutional provision or the rights of private individuals. 4n /s%ea ). Pendatun,G33Hit $as held1 At any rate, courts have declared that therules adopted by deliberative bodies are sub9ect to revocation, %odification or $aiver at the pleasure of the body adopting the%. And ithas been said that Parlia%entary rules are %erely procedural, and $ith their observance, the courts have no concern. They %ay be$aived or disregarded by the legislative body. Conse=uently, %ere failure to confor% to parlia%entary usage $ill not invalidate the action>ta:en by a deliberative body? $hen the re=uisite nu%ber of %e%bers have agreed to a particular %easure.

4n @nited tates ). Ballin, ;oseph Q Co.,G3"Hthe rule $as stated thus1 The Constitution e%po$ers each house to deter%ine its rulesof proceedings. 4t %ay not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate funda%ental rights, and there should be a reasonablerelation bet$een the %ode or %ethod of proceeding established by the rule and the result $hich is sought to be attained. But $ithinthese li%itations all %atters of %ethod are open to the deter%ination of the ouse, and it is no i%peach%ent of the rule to say that so%eother $ay $ould be better, %ore accurate, or even %ore 9ust. 4t is no ob9ection to the validity of a rule that a different one has beenprescribed and in force for a length of ti%e. The po$er to %a:e rules is not one $hich once e6ercised is e6hausted. 4t is a continuouspo$er, al$ays sub9ect to be e6ercised by the ouse, and $ithin the li%itations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of anyother body or tribunal.

4n Cra$ford ). 5ilchrist,G32Hit $as held1 The provision that each ouse shall deter%ine the rules of its proceedings does not restrictthe po$er given to a %ere for%ulation of standing rules, or to the proceedings of the body in ordinary legislative %attersF but in theabsence of constitutional restraints, and $hen e6ercised by a %a9ority of a constitutional (uorum, such authority e6tends to adeter%ination of the propriety and effect of any action as it is ta:en by the body as it proceeds in the e6ercise of any po$er, in thetransaction of any business, or in the perfor%ance of any duty conferred upon it by the Constitution.

4n tate e6 rel. City oan Q avings Co. ). Moore,G3&Hthe upre%e Court of /hio stated1 The provision for reconsideration is no partof the Constitution and is therefore entirely $ithin the control of the 5eneral Asse%bly. aving %ade the rule, it should be regarded, buta failure to regard it is not the sub9ect%atter of 9udicial in=uiry. 4t has been decided by the courts of last resort of %any states, and alsoby the @nited tates upre%e Court, that a legislative act $ill not be declared invalid for nonco%pliance $ith rules.

4n tate ). avings Ban:,G3(Hthe upre%e Court of Errors of Connecticut declared itself as follo$s1 The Constitution declares thateach house shall deter%ine the rules of its o$n proceedings and shall have all po$ers necessary for a branch of the egislature of a freeand independent state. Rules of proceedings are the servants of the ouse and sub9ect to its authority. This authority %ay be abused,but $hen the ouse has acted in a %atter clearly $ithin its po$er, it $ould be an un$arranted invasion of the independence of the

legislative depart%ent for the court to set aside such action as void because it %ay thin: that the ouse has %isconstrued or departedfro% its o$n rules of procedure.

4n Mc*onald ). tate,G3#Hthe 8isconsin upre%e Court held1 8hen it appears that an act $as so passed, no in=uiry $ill beper%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. The presu%ption is conclusive that they have done so. 8e thin: no court has everdeclared an act of the legislature void for nonco%pliance $ith the rules of procedure %ade by itself, or the respective branches thereof,and $hich it or they %ay change or suspend at $ill. 4f there are any such ad9udications, $e decline to follo$ the%.

ch$eiDer ). TerritoryG3His illustrative of the rule in these cases. The 3

7e have no constitutional provision re'uiring that the legislature should read a $ill in any particular manner. It may, then, read or deli$erate upon a $illas it sees fit, either in accordance (ith its o(n rules, or in violation thereof, or (ithout ma&ing any rules. The provision of section /< referred to is

merely a statutory provision for the direction of the legislature in its action upon proposed measures. It receives its entire force from legislative

sanction, and it e6ists only at legislative pleasure. The failure of the legislature to properly (eigh and consider an act, its passage through thelegislature in a hasty manner, might $e reasons for the governor (ithholding his signature thereto8 $ut this alone, even though it is sho(n to $e a

violation of a rule (hich the legislature had made to govern its o(n proceedings, could $e no reason for the courts refusing its enforcement after it (as

actually passed $y a ma)ority of each $ranch of the legislature, and duly signed $y the governor. The courts cannot declare an act of the legislaturevoid on account of noncompliance (ith rules of procedure made $y itself to govern its deli$erations. "cGonald v. %tate, 1- 7is. 0-


29/45

Petitioners %ust realiDe that each of the three depart%ents of our govern%ent has its separate sphere $hich the others %ay notinvade $ithout upsetting the delicate balance on $hich our constitutional order rests. *ue regard for the $or:ing of our syste% ofgovern%ent, %ore than %ere co%ity, co%pels reluctance on our part to enter upon an in=uiry into an alleged violation of the rules of theouse. 8e %ust accordingly decline the invitation to e6ercise our po$er.

S)$o!6. Petitioners, =uoting for%er Chief ;ustice Roberto Concepcions sponsorship in the Constitutional Co%%ission, contendthat under Art. +444, 3, nothing involving abuse of discretion Gby the other branches of the govern%entH a%ounting to lac: or e6cess of9urisdiction is beyond 9udicial revie$.G3!H4%plicit in this state%ent of the for%er Chief ;ustice, ho$ever, is an ac:no$ledg%ent that the9urisdiction of this Court is sub9ect to the case and controversy re=uire%ent of Art. +444, ( and, therefore, to the re=uire%ent of a9usticiable controversy before courts can ad9udicate constitutional =uestions such as those $hich arise in the field of foreignrelations. -or $hile Art. +444, 3 has broadened the scope of 9udicial in=uiry into areas nor%ally left to the political depart%ents to decide,such as those relating to national security, G"'Hit has not altogether done a$ay $ith political =uestions such as those $hich arise in thefield of foreign relations. As $e have already held, under Art. +444, 3, this Courts function

is merely EtoF chec& (hether or not the governmental $ranch or agency has gone $eyond the constitutional limits of its )urisdiction, not that it erred or

has a different vie(. In the a$sence of a sho(ing . . . EofF grave a$use of discretion amounting to lac& of )urisdiction, there is no occasion for the Courtto e6ercise its corrective po(er. . . . It has no po(er to loo& into (hat it thin&s is apparent error.E/F

4f, then, the established rule is that courts cannot declare an act of the legislature void on account %erely of nonco%pliance $ith rules ofprocedure %ade by itself, it follo$s that such a case does not present a situation in $hich a branch of the govern%ent has gone beyondthe constitutional li%its of its 9urisdiction so as to call for the e6ercise of our Art.+444, 3 po$er.

T"ir6. Petitioners clai% that the passage of the la$ in the ouse $as railroaded. They clai% that Rep. Arroyo $as still %a:ing a=uery to the Chair $hen the latter declared Rep. Albanos %otion approved.

8hat happened is that, after Rep. Arroyos interpellation of the sponsor of the co%%ittee report, Ma9ority eader Rodolfo Albano%oved for the approval and ratification of the conference co%%ittee report. The Chair called out for ob9ections to the %otion. Then theChair declared1 There being none, approved. At the sa%e ti%e the Chair $as saying this, ho$ever, Rep. Arroyo $as as:ing, 8hat is that. . . Mr. pea:erI The Chair and Rep. Arroyo $ere tal:ing si%ultaneously. Thus, although Rep. Arroyo subse=uently ob9ected to theMa9ority eaders %otion, the approval of the conference co%%ittee report had by then already been declared by the Chair, sy%boliDedby its banging of the gavel.

Petitioners argue that, in accordance $ith the rules of the ouse, Rep. Albanos %otion for the approval of the conferenceco%%ittee report should have been stated by the Chair and later the individual votes of the Me%bers should have been ta:en. They saythat the %ethod used in this case is a legislators night%are because it suggests unani%ity $hen the fact $as that one or so%elegislators opposed the report.

No rule of the ouse of Representatives has been cited $hich specifically re=uires that in cases such as this involving approval ofa conference co%%ittee report, the Chair %ust restate the %otion and conduct a viva voce or no%inal voting. /n the other hand, as theolicitor 5eneral has pointed out, the %anner in $hich the conference co%%ittee report on . No. 3!< $as approved $as by no %eansa uni=ue one. 4t has basis in legislative practice. 4t $as the $ay the conference co%%ittee report on the bills $hich beca%e the ocal5overn%ent Code of 3!!3 and the conference co%%ittee report on the bills a%ending the Tariff and Custo%s Code $ere approved.

4n 3!(, the practice $as =uestioned as being contrary to the rules of the ouse. The point $as ans$ered by Ma9ority eaderArturo M. Tolentino and his ans$er beca%e the ruling of the Chair. Mr. Tolentino said1

"r. Tolentino. The fact that no$ody o$)ects means a unanimous action of the House. Insofar as the matter of procedure is concerned, this has $een aprecedent since I came here seven years ago, and it has $een the procedure in this House that if some$ody o$)ects, then a de$ate follo(s and after the

de$ate, then the voting comes in.

. . . .

"r. %pea&er, a point of order (as raised $y the gentleman from @eyte, and I (onder (hat his attitude is no( on his point of order. I should )ust li&e tostate that I $elieve that (e have had a su$stantial compliance (ith the Rules. The Rule invo&ed is not one that refers to statutory or constitutional

re'uirement, and a su$stantial compliance, to my mind, is sufficient. 7hen the Chair announces the vote $y saying Is there any o$)ectionN and no$ody

o$)ects, then the Chair announces The $ill is approved on second reading. If there (as any dou$t as to the vote, any motion to divide (ould have $eenproper. %o, if that motion is not presented, (e assume that the House approves the measure. %o I $elieve there is su$stantial compliance here, and if

any$ody (ants a division of the House he can al(ays as& for it, and the Chair can announce ho( many are in favor and ho( many are against. EF

4ndeed, it is no i%peach%ent of the %ethod to say that so%e other $ay $ould be better, %ore accurate and even %ore 9ust. G"2HTheadvantages or disadvantages, the $isdo% or folly of a %ethod do not present any %atter for 9udicial consideration. G"&H4n the $ords of the@.. Circuit Court of Appeals, this Court cannot provide a second opinion on $hat is the best procedure. Not$ithstanding the deferenceand estee% that is properly tendered to individual congressional actors, our deference and estee% for the institution as a $hole and forthe constitutional co%%and that the institution be allo$ed to %anage its o$n affairs precludes us fro% even atte%pting a diagnosis ofthe proble%.G"(H

Nor does the Constitution re=uire that the easand the nas of the Me%bers be ta:en every ti%e a ouse has to vote, e6cept onlyin the follo$ing instances1 upon the last and third readings of a bill,G"#Hat the re=uest of onefifth of the Me%bers present, G"Hand inrepassing a bill over the )etoof the President.G"


30/45

G+!R4"?4T ! %?%%I!4

!n motion of "r. l$ano, there $eing no o$)ection

, the Chair declared the session ad)ourned until four ocloc& in the afternoon of 7ednesday,

4ovem$er


31/45

its face, a solemn assurance $y the legislative and e6ecutive departments of the government, charged, respectively, (ith the duty of enacting ande6ecuting the la(s, that it (as passed $y Congress. The respect due to coe'ual and independent departments re'uires the )udicial department to act

upon that assurance, and to accept, as having passed Congress, all $ills authenticated in the manner stated8 leaving the court to determine, (hen the

'uestion properly arises, (hether the ct, so authenticated, is in conformity (ith the Constitution.E0AF

To overrule the doctrine no$, as the dissent urges, is to repudiate the %assive teaching of our cases and overthro$ an establishedrule of evidence.

4ndeed, petitioners have advanced no argu%ent to $arrant a departure fro% the rule, e6cept to say that, $ith a change in the%e%bership of the Court, the three ne$ %e%bers %ay be assu%ed to have an open %ind on the =uestion of the enrolled billrule. Actually, not three but four >CruD, -eliciano, Bidin, and uiason, ''.? have departed fro% the Court since our decision in the E+ATcases and their places have since been ta:en by four ne$ %e%bers >-rancisco, er%osisi%a, Panganiban, and Torres, ''.?Petitionersare thus si%ply ban:ing on the change in the %e%bership of the Court.

Moreover, as already noted, the due enact%ent of the la$ in =uestion is confir%ed by the ;ournal of the ouse of Nove%ber "3,3!!# $hich sho$s that the conference co%%ittee report on . No. 3!


32/45

3"". Precedence. ub9ect to the ten%inute rule, =uestions of privilege shall have precedence over all other =uestions, e6cept a %otionto ad9ourn and a point of order.

Rule 4, 3"2. Definition and Precedence. A privileged %otion pertains to a sub9ect %atter $hich, under the rules, ta:es precedenceover others.

The order of precedence of privileged %otions is deter%ined in each case by the rules.

Rule +444, 3'!. #o Ma Vote Procedure *+ceptions. 8hen a bill, report or %otion is adopted or lost, a %e%ber $ho voted $ith the%a9ority %ay %ove for its reconsideration on the sa%e or succeeding session day. The %otion shall ta:e precedence over allother =uestions, e6cept a %otion to ad9ourn, a =uestion of privilege, and a point of order.

G#H"2( CRA #2' >3!!&?.

GHRollo, p. ""3!#'?.

G33H3'! Phil. at e%phasis added?.

G3&H3"& /hio t. "(#, 3 N.E. !3', !33 >3!23? >e%phasis added?.

G3(H! Conn. 3&3, #& Atl. (, !3' >3!'#? >e%phasis added?.

G3#H3e%phasis added?.

G33!!'?F See Marcos ). Manglapus, 3 CRA ##3!e%phasis added?.

G""H& Cong. Rec. &32&3& >-eb. 3(, 3!(?.

G"2H@nited tates ).Ballin, ;oseph Q Co., 3&& @.. at (, 2# .Ed. at 2"&"(F tate ). e$is, 3


33/45

G&'H4d.at 3, =uoting & ;ohn 8ig%ore, Treatise on the a$ on Evidence 32(' at '" >3!&'?. This e6cerpt is preserved in the Chadbourneedition of this locus classicus. ee & 8ig%ore on Evidence 32(' at ;a%es . Chadbourne, ed. 3!"?.

G&3HE+AT cases GTolentino ). ecretary of -inanceH, "2( CRA at #". Cf. Morales ). ubido, " CRA 323 >3!#!?.

G&"HPhilippine ;udges Assn ). Prado, "" CRA '2, 3' >3!!2?F Morales ). ubido, " CRA 323.

G&2HCasco Philippine Che%ical Co., 4nc. ). 5i%eneD, CRA 2& >3!#2?F Resins, 4nc. ). Auditor 5eneral, "( CRA (& >3!#


34/45

The present insistence of the petitioner is that the version of the provision, as a%ended at the behest of en. Rodrigo, $as the versionapproved by the enate on third reading, and that $hen the bill e%erged fro% the conference co%%ittee the only change %ade in theprovision $as the insertion of the phrase )or has served as chief of police $ith e6e%plary record).

4n support of this assertion, the petitioner sub%itted certified photostatic copies of the different drafts of ouse Bill #!(3 sho$ing thevarious changes %ade. 4n $hat purport to be the page proofs of the bill as finally approved by both ouses of Congress >anne6 5?, thefollo$ing provision appears1

EC. 3'. Minimum (ualifications for appointment as C#ief of a Police Agenc. L No person %ay be appointed chief of a citypolice agency unless he holds a bachelor7s degree fro% a recogniDed institution of learning and has served either the Ar%ed-orces of the Philippines or has served as chief of police $ith e6e%plary record or the National Bureau of 4nvestigation or thepolice depart%ent of any city and has held the ran: of captain or its e=uivalent therein for at least three years or any highschool graduate $ho has served the police depart%ent of a city or has served as officer in the Ar%ed -orces for at least eightyears fro% the ran: of captain andor higher.

4t is un%ista:able up to this point that the phrase, )$ho has served the police depart%ent of a city or $as still part of the provision, butaccording to the petitioner the ouse bill division deleted the entire provision and substituted $hat no$ is section 3' of the Police Act of3!##, $hich section reads1

Minimum (ualification for appointment as C#ief of Police Agenc. L No person %ay be appointed chief of a city police agencyunless he holds a bachelor7s degree fro% a recogniDed institution of learning and has served either in the Ar%ed -orces of thePhilippines or the National Bureau of 4nvestigation, or has served as chief of police $ith e6e%plary record, or has served in thepolice depart%ent of any city $ith the ran: of captain or its e=uivalent therein for at least three yearsF or any high schoolgraduate $ho has served as officer in the Ar%ed -orces for at least eight years $ith the ran: of captain andor higher.

The petitioner also sub%itted a certified photostatic copy of a %e%orandu% $hich according to hi% $as signed by an e%ployee in theenate bill division, and can be found attached to the page proofs of the bill, e6plaining the change in section 3', thus1 .

ection 3' $as recast for clarity >$ith the consent of en. 5anDon Q Congress%an Montano?.

4t $ould thus appear that the o%ission L $hether deliberate or unintended L of the phrase, )$ho has served the police depart%ent of acity or $as %ade not at any stage of the legislative proceedings but only in the course of the engross%ent of the bill, %ore specifically inthe proofreading thereofF that the change $as %ade not by Congress but only by an e%ployee thereofF and that $hat purportedly $as are$riting to suit so%e stylistic preferences $as in truth an alteration of %eaning. 4t is for this reason that the petitioner $ould have us loo:

searchingly into the %atter.

The petitioner $holly %isconceives the function of the 9udiciary under our syste% of govern%ent. As $e observed e6plicitly in ourdecision, the enrolled Act in the office of the legislative secretary of the President of the Philippines sho$s that section 3' is e6actly as itis in the statute as officially published in slip for% by the Bureau of Printing. 8e cannot go behind the enrolled Act to discover$hat reall happened. The respect due to the other branches of the 5overn%ent de%ands that $e act upon the faith and credit of $hatthe officers of the said branches attest to as the official acts of their respective depart%ents. /ther$ise $e $ould be cast in theunenviable and un$anted role of a sleuth trying to deter%ine $hat actualldid happen in the labyrinth of la$%a:ing $ith conse=uenti%pair%ent of the integrity of the legislative process. The investigation $hich the petitioner $ould li:e this Court to %a:e can be betterdone in Congress. After all, ouse cleaning L the i%%ediate and i%perative need for $hich see%s to be suggested by the petitioner Lcan best be effected by the occupants thereof. E6pressed else$ise, this is a %atter $orthy of the attention not of an /liver 8endellol%es but of a herloc: ol%es.

8hat the first Mr. ;ustice arlan said in ardood ). entort#3 %ight aptly be said in ans$er to the petitioner1 )4f there be danger,

under the principles announced in ield ). Clar-, 3&2 @.. #&!, #3, that the governor and the presiding officers of the t$o houses of aterritorial legislature %ay i%pose upon the people an act that $as never passed in the for% in $hich it is preserved in the publishedstatutes, ho$ %uch greater is the danger of per%itting the validity of a legislative enact%ent to be =uestioned by evidence furnished bythe general indorse%ents %ade by cler:s upon bills previous to their final passage and enroll%ent, L indorse%ents usually soe6pressed as not to be intelligible to any one e6cept those $ho %ade the%, and the scope and effect of $hich cannot in %any cases beunderstood unless supple%ented by the recollection of cler:s as to $hat occurred in the hurry and confusion often attendant uponlegislative proceedings.)"

4ndeed the course suggested to us by the petitioner $ould be productive of nothing but %ischief.

Both Mars#all ield = Co. ). Clar- and arood ). entort# involved clai%s si%ilar to that %ade by the petitioner in this case. 4n boththe clai%s $ere re9ected. Thus, in Mars#all ield = Co. it $as contended that the Tariff Act of /ctober 3, 3


35/45

4t is contended, ho$ever, that in this 9urisdiction the 9ournals of the legislature have been declared conclusive upon the courts, the

petitioner citing Enited States ). Pons.# The case cited is inapposite of it does not involve a discrepancy bet$eenan enrolled bill and the 9ournal. Rather the issue tendered $as $hether evidence could be received to sho$ that, contrary to the entriesof the 9ournals, the legislature did not ad9ourn at %idnight of -ebruary "as re=uired by the Constitution to approve proposals for constitutional a%end%ents? $as notactually obtained on account of the suspension of so%e %e%bers of the ouse of Representative and the enate. lap#i>.nFt

Thus in Mabanag the enrolled bill theory $as adopted. 8hatever doubt there %ight have been as to the status and force of the theory inthe Philippines, in vie$ of the dissent of three ;ustices in Mabanag,! $as finally laid to rest by the unani%ous decision in Casco

P#ilippine C#emical Co. ). &imenez. 3' pea:ing for the Court, the then ;ustice >no$Chief ;ustice? Concepcion said1

-urther%ore it is $ell settled that the enrolled bill L $hich uses the ter% )urea for%aldehyde) instead of )urea andfor%aldehyde) L is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the %easure passed by Congress and approved by thePresident >Pri%icias vs. Paredes, #3 Phil. 33

/ E C S O N

$EAS%N, '.:


36/45

This is a petition for prohibition to prevent the enforce%ent of a congressional resolution designated Resolution of both houses proposing an a%end%ent to the Constitution of

the Philippines to be appended as an ordinance thereto. The %e%bers of the Co%%ission on Elections, the Treasurer of the Philippines, the Auditor 5eneral, and the *irector

of the Bureau of Printing are %ade defendants, and the petitioners are eight senators, seventeen representatives, and the presidents of the *e%ocratic Alliance, the Popular

-ront and the Philippine Jouth Party. The validity of the above%entioned resolution is attac:ed as contrary to the Constitution.

The case $as heard on the pleadings and stipulation of facts. 4n our vie$ of the case it is unnecessary to go into the facts at length. 8e $ill %ention only the facts essential for

the proper understanding of the issues. -or this purpose it suffices to say that three of the plaintiff senators and eight of the plaintiff representatives had been proclai%ed by a

%a9ority vote of the Co%%ission on Elections as having been elected senators and representatives in the elections held on April "2, 3!. The three senators $ere suspended

by the enate shortly after the opening of the first session of Congress follo$ing the elections, on account of alleged irregularities in their election. The eight representatives

since their election had not been allo$ed to sit in the lo$er ouse, e6cept to ta:e part in the election of the pea:er, for the sa%e reason, although they had not been for%ally

suspended. A resolution for their suspension had been introduced in the ouse of Representatives, but that resolution had not been acted upon definitely by the ouse $hen

the present petition $as filed.

As a conse=uence these three senators and eight representatives did not ta:e part in the passage of the =uestioned resolution, nor $as their %e%bership rec:oned $ithin

the co%putation of the necessary threefourths vote $hich is re=uired in proposing an a%end%ent to the Constitution. 4f these %e%bers of Congress had been counted, the

affir%ative votes in favor of the proposed a%end%ent $ould have been short of the necessary threefourths vote in either branch of Congress.

At the threshold $e are %et $ith the =uestion of the 9urisdiction of this Court. The respondents deny that this Court has 9urisdiction, relying on the conclusiveness on the courts

of an enrolled bill or resolution. There is so%e %erit in the petitionersU contention that this is confusing 9urisdiction, $hich is a %atter of substantive la$, $ith conclusiveness of

an enact%ent or resolution, $hich is a %atter of evidence and practice. This ob9ection, ho$ever, is purely acade%ic. 8hatever distinction there is in the 9uridical sense bet$een

the t$o concepts, in practice and in their operation they boil do$n to the sa%e thing. Basically the t$o notions are synony%ous in that both are founded on the regard $hich the

9udiciary accords a coe=ual coordinate, and independent depart%ents of the 5overn%ent. 4f a political =uestion conclusively binds the 9udges out of respect to the political

depart%ents, a duly

research- enrolled bill

Documents