Astorga v.

Villegas
April 30, 1974

Original action in the Supreme Court. Mandamus, injunction and/or prohibition with preliminary
mandatory prohibitory injunction. Denied.

Facts: House Bill No. 9266 which was filed in the House of Representatives passed on 3rd
reading without amendments. It was sent to the Senate for concurrence and it was referred to the
appropriate Senate Committee, which recommended approval with a minor amendment
recommended by Senator Roxas. (instead of the City Engineer it be the President Protempore of
the Municipal Board who should succeed the Vice-Mayor in case of the latter’s incapacity to act
as Mayor). When the bill was discussed on the Senate Floor, substantial amendments to Section
1 was introduced by Senator Tolentino, which amendments were approved in toto by the Senate.
Secretary of the Senate sent a letter to the House of Representatives that the House Bill had been
passed by the Senate by the Senate with amendments. Attached was a certification of the
amendment, which was the one recommended by Senator Roxas, and not the Tolentino
amendments which were the ones actually approved by the Senate. House of Representatives
signified their approval. The printed copies were then certified and attested to by the Secretaries
of Senate and House of representatives and the Senate President. The bill with the Roxas
amendments were signed by the president of the Philippines and it was subsequently named RA
4065.

It was later made public by Senator Tolentino that the enrolled copy of HB 9266 signed into law
by the President was a wrong version of the bill actually passed by the Senate and approved on
the Senate Floor. Senate President admitted the mistake in a letter to the President. As a result,
the president sent a message to the presiding officer of both houses that he was officially
withdrawing his signature from HB 9266.

Mayor of Manila issued circulars ordering the disregard of the provisions of RA 4605. He also
issued an order recalling 5 members of the city police who had been assigned to the Vice-Mayor
presumably under the authority of RA 4065. Vice Mayor Astorga filed this petition with the
court.

Respondents contend that RA 4065 never became law since it was not the bill actually passed by
the Senate, and that the entries in the journal of that body and not the enrolled bill itself should
be decisive in the resolution of the issue.

Issues:
1. WON the attestation of the presiding officers of Congress is conclusive proof of a bill’s due
enactment.
2. WON RA 4065 can be considered as valid in the absence of the attestation required

Held:
1. No. Senate President declared that his signature on the bill to be invalid and issued a
subsequent clarification that the invalidation of his signature meant that the bill he had signed
had never been approved by the Senate. This declaration should be accorded greater respect than
the attestation that it invalidated. Certification that was made by the presiding officer is merely a
mode of authentication. The essential thing is the approval of congress and not the signature of
the presiding officers. Function of attestation is not approval because a bill is considered
approved after it has passed both houses. Constitution does not even provide that the presiding
officer should sign the bill before it is submitted to the president. Rationale of the enrolled bill
theory – the signing by the speaker of the House of Representatives and by the president of the
Senate, in open session, of an enrolled bill, is an official attestation by the two houses, through
their presiding officers, to the president, that a bill, thus attested, has received, in due form, the
sanction of the legislative branch of the government, and it is delivered to him in obedience to
the constitutional requirement that all bills which pass Congress shall be presented to him. (Field
vs. Clark) Enrolled bill theory – based mainly on the respect due to coequal and independent
departments which requires the judicial department to accept as having passed Congress, all bills
authenticate in the manner stated.

2. No. Petitioner agrees that the attestation in the bill is not mandatory but he argues that the
disclaimer thereof by the Senate President, granting that it to have been validly made, would
only mean that there was no attestation at all but would not affect the validity of the statute. The
argument of the petitioner would limit the court’s inquiry to the presence or absence of the
attestation and to the effect of its absence upon the validity of the statute. Absent such attestation
as a result of the disclaimer, and consequently there being no enrolled bill to speak of, what
evidence is there to determine within the bill had been duly enacted? In such case, the entry in
the journal should be consulted. The journal discloses that substantial and lengthy amendments
were introduced on the floor and approved by the Senate but were not incorporated in the printed
text sent to the president and signed by him. Bill was not duly enacted and therefore did not
become law.