This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
him the rightful Senate President and oust the respondent, Mariano Cuenco. In a session of the Senate, Tanadaâ €™s request to deliver a speech in order to formulate charges against then Senate President Avelino was approved. With the leadership of the Senate President followed by his supporters, they deliberately tried to delay and prevent Tanada from delivering his speech. The SP with his supporters employed delaying tactics, the tried to adjourn the session then walked out. Only 12 Senators were left in the hall. The members of the senate left continued the session and Senator Cuenco was appointed as the Acting President of the Senate and was recognized the next day by the President of the Philippines. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction of the case. 2. Whether or not Resolutions 67 & 68 was validly approved. HELD: 1. The Court has no jurisdiction of the case because the subject matter is political in nature and in doing so, the court will be against the doctrine of separation of powers. To the first question, the answer is in the negative, in view of the separation of powers, the political nature of the controversy (Alejandrino vs. Quezon, 46 Phil. 83; Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil. 192; Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. 1) and the constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its own president, which power should not be interfered with, nor taken over, by the judiciary. We refused to take cognizance of the Vera case even if the rights of the electors of the suspended senators were alleged affected without any immediate remedy. A fortiori we should abstain in this case because the selection of the presiding officer affect only the Senators themselves who are at liberty at any time to choose their officers, change or reinstate them. Anyway, if, as the petition must imply to be acceptable, the majority of the Senators want petitioner to preside, his remedy lies in the Senate Session Hall – not in the Supreme Court. 2. It was held that there is a quorum that 12 being the majority of 23. In fine, all the four justice agree that the Court being confronted with the practical situation that of the twenty three senators who may participate in the Senate deliberations in the days immediately after this decision, twelve senators will support Senator Cuenco and, at most, eleven will side with Senator Avelino, it would be most injudicious to declare the latter as the rightful President of the Senate, that office being essentially one that depends exclusively upon the will of the majority of the senators, the rule of the Senate about tenure of the President of that body being amenable at any time by that majority. And at any session hereafter held with thirteen or more senators, in order to avoid all controversy arising from the divergence of opinion here about quorum and for the benefit of all concerned,the said twelve senators who approved the resolutions herein involved could ratify all their acts and thereby place them beyond the shadow of a doubt. ARROYO v DE VENECIA Facts: Petitioners are members of the House of Representatives. They brought this suit against respondents charging violation of the rules of the House which petitioners claim are "constitutionally mandated" so that their violation is tantamount to a violation of the Constitution. In the course of his interpellation, Rep. Arroyo announced that he was going to raise a question on the quorum, although until the end of his interpellation he never did. On the same day, the bill was signed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate and certified by the respective secretaries of both Houses of Congress as having been finally passed by the House of Representatives and by the Senate on November 21, 1996. The enrolled bill was signed into law by President Fidel V. Ramos on November 22, 1996.
Issue: Whether R.A. No. 8240 is null and void because it was passed in violation of the rules of the House; Whether the certification of Speaker De Venecia that the law was properly passed is false and spurious; Whether the Chair, in the process of submitting and certifying the law violated House Rules; and Whether a certiorari/prohibition will be granted.
Held: After considering the arguments of the parties, the Court finds no ground for holding that Congress committed a grave abuse
'" Rules are hardly permanent in character. of legislative skullduggery. They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body. .A. 'mere failure to conform to parliamentary usage will not invalidate the action (taken by a deliberative body) when the requisite number of members have agreed to a particular measure. 8240. modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body adopting them as they are primarily procedural. or to allow those defeated in the political arena to seek a rematch in the judicial forum when petitioners can find their remedy in that department itself. and deference rather than disrespect is due the judgment of that body. real or imagined. this has been a precedent since I came here seven years ago. . No. This case is therefore dismissed. not that it erred or has a different view. In the absence of anything to the contrary. The Court has not been invested with a roving commission to inquire into complaints. It would be an unwarranted invasion of the prerogative of a coequal department for this Court either to set aside a legislative action as void because the Court thinks the House has disregarded its own rules of procedure. 8240. In the absence of a showing . It would be acting in excess of its power and would itself be guilty of grave abuse of its discretion were it to do so. then. No. They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body. of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.' And it has been said that 'Parliamentary rules are merely procedural. the courts have no concern. the Court must assume that Congress or any House thereof acted in the good faith belief that its conduct was permitted by its rules. the established rule is that courts cannot declare an act of the legislature void on account merely of noncompliance with rules of procedure made by itself. In view of the Courts jurisdiction This Court's function is merely to check whether or not the governmental branch or agency has gone beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction.A. The prevailing view is that they are subject to revocation. Consequently. courts have declared that 'the rules adopted by deliberative bodies are subject to revocation. In view of House Rules No rule of the House of Representatives has been cited which specifically requires that in cases such as this involving approval of a conference committee report. Courts ordinarily have no concern with their observance. Mr. It has no power to look into what it thinks is apparent error. The suggestion made in a case may instead appropriately be made here: petitioners can seek the enactment of a new law or the repeal or amendment of R. Art. Insofar as the matter of procedure is concerned. If. it was held: "At any rate. mere failure to conform to them does not have the effect of nullifying the act taken if the requisite number of members have agreed to a particular measure . modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body adopting them. . VI. in Osmeña v. Pendatun. §§26-27 are VIOLATED. Ratio: To disregard the "enrolled bill" rule in such cases would be to disregard the respect due the other two departments of our government. The fact that nobody objects means a unanimous action of the House.. it follows that such a case does not present a situation in which a branch of the government has "gone beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction" . First. and it has been the procedure in this House that if . i. and with their observance. there is no occasion for the Court to exercise its corrective power.e. . In view of what is essential Merely internal rules of procedure of the House rather than constitutional requirements for the enactment of a law.of discretion in enacting R. the Chair must restate the motion and conduct a viva voce or nominal voting. .' Consequently. TOLENTINO.
It means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment by a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi judicial power as to amount to lack of power. In view of grave abuse Indeed. then a debate follows and after the debate. except only in the following instances: upon the last and third readings of a bill. if old-fashioned democratic theory: “Instead of trusting a faithful Judiciary to check an inefficient Legislature.” (In view of justiciability according to PUNO. In view of the enrolled bill doctrine Under the enrolled bill doctrine. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights. T he sensible solution is not to patch and mend casual errors by asking the Judiciary to violate legal principle and to do impossibilities with the Constitution. and there should be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceedings established by the rule and the result which is sought to be attained. be. declared guilty of disorderly conduct and flagrant violation of the privileges of the Senate for having treacherously assaulted the Honorable Vicente de Vera. 1996 are conclusive of its due enactment. or even more just. and it is no impeachment of the rule to say that some other way would be better. J. The Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. and in repassing a bill over the veto of the President . phrases being uttered by the latter in the course of the debate regarding the credentials of said Mr. 7198 by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate and the certification by the secretaries of both Houses of Congress that it was passed on November 21. Nor do I agree that we will trivialize the principle of separation of power if we assume jurisdiction over the case at bar. ALEJANDRINO v QUEZON Facts: "Resolved: That the Honorable Jose Alejandrino. No.) With due respect. and honest legislators. Nor does the Constitution require that the yeas and the nays of the Members be taken every time a House has to vote. the principle of separation of power is no longer an impregnable impediment against the interposition of judicial power on cases involving breach of rules of procedure by legislators. Senator for the Twelfth District. Alejandrino. at the request of one-fifth of the Members present. then the voting comes in. This Court quoted from Wigmore on Evidence the following excerpt which embodies good. the signing of H. the phrase "grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" has a settled meaning in the jurisprudence of procedure. Senator for the Sixth District on the occasion of certain.somebody objects. Even in the United States. careful. they should turn to improve the Legislature. more accurate. but to represent ourselves with competent. as he is hereby. . I do not agree that the issues posed by the petitioner are non-justiciable. the work of whose hands on the statuteroll may come to reflect credit upon the name of popular go vernment. But within these limitations all matters of method are open to the determination of the House.
Issue: Whether resolution above quoted is unconstitutional and entirely of no effect. to issue a final writ of mandamus and injunction against the respondents ordering them to recognize the rights of the petitioner to exercise his office as Senator Held: As it is unlikely that the petition could be amended to state a cause of action.) Either House may thus punish an appointive member for disorderly behavior. . nevertheless. and. likewise vindicates the honor of the legislative body while giving to the constituency . and to this extent at least the executive department may be said to be dependent upon and subordinate to the judiciary.) They may not be removed by the Philippine Legislature . indirectly restrain the others. 17. respectively. secs. . 16. is granted the power to "punish its members for disorderly behavior. The power to control is the power to abrogate and the power to abrogate is the power to usurp. ." (Organic Act. As to whether the power to "suspend" is then included in the power to "punish." (Organic Act." a power granted to the two Houses of the Legislature by the Constitution. with the concurrence of two-thirds. However. it must be dismissed without costs. to enforce the Constitution. expulsion. These senators and representatives "hold office until removed by the Governor-General. or in the power to "remove. It is not the office of the person to whom the writ of mandamus is directed. In view of the propriety of mandamus Mandamus will not lie against the legislative body." a power granted to the Governor-General by the Constitution. To this extent. The final arbiter in cases of dispute is the judiciary. So ordered. He prays the court: (1) To issue a preliminary injunction against the respondents enjoining them from executing the resolution. it would appear that neither is the correct hypothesis. do the courts restrain the other departments. Such is the judgment of the court." In view of the Organic Law vs Power to Discipline House Members On the merits of the controversy. to compel the performance of duties purely legislative in their character which therefore pertain to their legislative functions and over which they have exclusive control. (2) to declare the aforesaid resolution of the Senate null and void. expel an elective member. The court accordingly lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition and the demurrer must be sustained. Neither House may expel an appointive member for any reason . and (3) as a consequence of the foregoing. its members. when permissible. or its officers. sec. by which the propriety of issuing a mandamus is to be determined. The courts must determine the validity of legislative enactments as well as the legality of all private and official acts. for five reasons. but the nature of the thing to be done. we will only say this: The Organic Act authorizes the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands to appoint two senators and nine representatives to represent the non-Christian regions in the Philippine Legislature. It is peculiarly the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is. Each department may. In view of effects of punishment Punishment by way of reprimand or fine vindicates the outraged dignity of the House without depriving the constituency of representation. to the Senate and the House of Representatives. Ratio: We rule that neither the Philippine Legislature nor a branch thereof can be directly controlled in the exercise of their legislative powers by any judicial process. and to decide whether the proper constitutional sphere of a department has been transcended. 18. The Constitution has purposely withheld from the two Houses of the Legislature and the Governor-General alike the power to suspend an appointive member of the Legislature.
conceding what has been so well stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. OSMENA v PENDATUN Facts: Congressman Osmena. Issue: Whether or not there is an infringement of Osmena’s parliamentary privilege of speech Held: Sec. In view of no remedy Conceding therefore that the power of the Senate to punish its members for disorderly behavior does not authorize it to suspend an appointive member from the exercise of his office for one year . VI of the Constitution provides that for any speech or debate in Congress. and adjudication by the Courts. if the Court assumed the power to determine whether Osmena’s conduct constituted disorderly behavior. But it does not protect him from responsibility before the legislative body itself whenever his words and conduct are considered by the latter disorderly or unbecoming a member thereof. but also because the matter depends mainly on factual circumstances of which the House knows best but which can not be depicted in black and white for presentation to. 15 (now Sec. by resolution of the House. If it be said that conclusion leaves the petitioner without a remedy. in a privilege speech delivered before the House of Representatives. it would have assumed appellate jurisdiction. the seat remains filled but the occupant is silenced. Thereafter. the Senators or Members of the House of Representatives shall not be questioned in any other place. the answer is that the judiciary is not the repository of all wisdom and all power. but suspension deprives the electoral district of representation without that district being afforded any means by which to fill the vacancy. . yet the writ prayed for cannot issue. On the question whether delivery of speeches attacking the President constitutes disorderly conduct for which Osmena may be disciplined. which the Constitution never intended to confer upon a coordinate branch of the government. For having made the imputations and for failing to produce evidence in support thereof. By suspension. Osmena was. not only because the Constitution has conferred jurisdiction upon it. Art. the Court believes that the House of Representatives is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behavior. conceding all this and more.an opportunity to elect anew. Suspension for one year is equivalent to qualified expulsion or removal. for the all-conclusive reason that the Supreme Court does not possess the power of coercion to make the Philippine Senate take any particular action . 11). For one thing. Osmena refused to produce before the House Committee evidence to substantiate such imputations. made serious imputations of bribery against President Garcia. It guarantees the legislator complete freedom of expression without fear of being made responsible in criminal or civil actions before the courts or any other forum outside of the Congressional Hall. suspended from office for a period of 15 months for serious disorderly behavior. The Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity which is a fundamental privilege cherished in every legislative assembly of the democratic world. a special committee of 15 members was created to investigate the truth of the charges made by Congressman Osmena against the President.
the Sandiganbayan merely adhered to the clear an unequivocal mandate of the law. upheld Sandiganbayan’s authority to decree the suspens ion of public officials and employees indicted before it. Should he be convicted by final judgment. or that the information is subject to quashal on any of the grounds set out in Section 3. 3019 does not state that the public officer concerned must be suspended only in the office where he is alleged to have committed the acts with which he has been charged. Santiago has not yet been convicted of the alleged crime. Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation. The 8 representatives were not allowed to take their seat in the lower House except in the election of the House Speaker. The three senators were suspended by senate due to election irregularities. prescinding from the fact that the latter is not being imposed on petitioner for misbehavior as a Member of the Senate. and not only the particular office under which he stands accused. suspend or expel a Member. The legalization of such is also a violation of EO 324 which prohibits the legalization of disqualified aliens. If these members of Congress had been counted.” On the other hand. HELD: The Constitution provides that each “… house may determine the rules of its proceedings. and. Pursuant to this information. such as. The aliens legalized by Santiago were allegedly known by her to be disqualified. of the Revised Rules on Criminal procedure. more than once. Santiago the then Commissioner of the Commission of Immigration and Deportation (CID) approved the application for legalization of the stay of about 32 aliens. After a long series of appeals and court battles between Santiago and Sandiganbayan. 3019. that he has not been afforded the right to due preliminary investigation. All it secures to the accused is adequate opportunity to challenge the validity or regularity of the proceedings against him. in 1995 the latter moved for the suspension of Santiago. Two other criminal cases were filed against Santiago. At the same time. This is quite distinct from the suspension spoken of in Section 13 of RA 3019.” In here. can she still be suspended as a senator? In issuing the preventive suspension of petitioner. MABANAG v LOPEZ VITO Political Law – Journal – Adoption of the Enrolled Bill Theory Petitioners include 3 senators and 8 representatives. the Resolution was passed but it could have been otherwise were they allowed to vote. 13. when imposed. issued the arrest of Santiago. from office. – any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under Title 7. Neither does it contemplate a proceeding to determine (1) the strength of the evidence of culpability against him. Section 13 of Republic Act No. Garchitorena. shall be suspended from office. As a result. he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law. but if he is acquitted. that the acts imputed to him do not constitute a specific crime warranting his mandatory suspension from office under Section 13 of Republic Act No. as well as the jurisprudence in which the SC has. Thus. it has been held that the use of the word “office” would indicate that it applies to any office which the officer charged may be holding. shall not exceed sixty days. 3019 is distinct from the power of Congress to discipline its own ranks under the Constitution. The suspension contemplated in the above constitutional provision is a punitive measure that is imposed upon determination by the Senate or the HOR. with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members. upon an erring member. is pending in court. presiding Justice of Sandiganbayan. the votes were already entered into the Journals of the respective House. But Santiago committed the said act when she was still the CID commissioner. Sec 13 of RA 3019 provides : “SEC. can she still be suspended? The law does not require that the guilt of the accused must be established in a pre-suspension proceeding before trial on the merits proceeds. Sandiganbayan ordered the Senate president (Maceda) to suspend Santiago from office for 90 days. who was already a senator by then. the order of suspension prescribed by RA. (2) the gravity of the offense charged. They argued that some senators and House Reps were not considered in determining the required ¾ vote (of each house) in order to pass the Resolution (proposing amendments to the Constitution) – which has been considered as an enrolled bill by then.DEFENSOR SANTIAGO v SANDIGANBAYAN Political Law – Suspension of a Member of Congress – RA 3019 On or about 17 Oct 1988. punish its Members for disorderly behavior. he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension. A penalty of suspension. Her act was said to be illegal and was tainted with bad faith and it ran counter against RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). which is not a penalty but a preliminary. preventive measure. ISSUE: Whether or not Sandiganbayan can order suspension of a member of the Senate without violating the Constitution. Santiago petitioned for a provisional liberty since she was just recovering from a car accident which was approved. or (3) whether or not his continuance in office could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records another evidence before the court could have a valid basis in decreeing preventive suspension pending the trial of the case. the affirmative votes in favor of . as the case may be. Suspension and loss of benefits. Rule 117. unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him.
Gimenez. provides: “Official documents may be proved as follows: . No discrepancy appears to have been noted between the two documents and the court did not say or so much as give to understand that if discrepancy existed it would give greater weight to the journals. or printed by their order. Section 313 of the old Code of Civil Procedure (Act 190). acidity. the due enactment of a law may be proved in either of the two ways specified in section 313 of Act No. In compliance. and rule such copy out if the two.” The Auditor General. by members thereof. it shall be conclusive proof of the provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof. was engaged in the production of synthetic resin glues used primarily in the production of plywood. HELD: Urea formaldehyde is not a chemical solution. or by copies certified by the clerk of secretary. approved by the president and filed by the secretary of state. as amended by Act No. 1959. 190 as amended. “formaldehyde”. as already stated. Respondents argued that the SC cannot take cognizance of the case because the Court is bound by the conclusiveness of the enrolled bill or resolution. or by published statutes or resolutions. or of any legislatives body that may be provided for in the Philippine Islands. or of Congress. for. when there is an existence of a copy signed by the presiding officers and secretaries of said bodies. be found in conflict with each other. even if both the journals from each House and an authenticated copy of the Act had been presented. by the journals of those bodies or of either house thereof. That in the case of Acts of the Philippine Commission or the Philippine Legislature. Urea formaldehyde for the manufacture of plywood and hardboard when imported by and for the exclusive use of endusers.. namely. finally passed by both houses. par 18 of RA 2609 which provides: “The margin established by the Monetary Board pursuant to the provision of section one hereof shall not be imposed upon the sale of foreign exchange for the importation of the following: xxx xxx xxx “XVIII. The SC found in the journals no signs of irregularity in the passage of the law and did not bother itself with considering the effects of an authenticated copy if one had been introduced. as separate articles used in the manufacture of the synthetic resin known as “urea formaldehyde” The opinions of any member of Congress does not represent the entirety of the Congress itself. and that the members of Congress intended to exempt “urea” and “formaldehyde” separately as essential elements in the manufacture of the synthetic resin glue called “urea formaldehyde”. ISSUE: Whether or not the term “urea formaldehyde” should be construed as “urea and formaldehyde”. its Circular No.” **Enrolled Bill – that which has been duly introduced. (2) the proceedings of the Philippine Commission. Casco maintains that the term “urea formaldehyde” appeari ng in this provision should be construed as “urea and formaldehyde” He further contends that the bill approved in Congress contained the copulative conjunction “and” between the terms “urea” and. look into the journals behind the enrolled copy in order to determine the correctness of the latter. and time of reaction. Provided. The CBP issued the vouchers for refund (pursuant to Resolution 1529 of the CBP) but the bank’s auditor refused to honor the vouchers since he maintained that this is in contrast to the provision of Sec 2. the Bank later promulgated a memorandum establishing the procedure for applications for exemption from the payment of said fee. . In case of conflict. Petitioners filed or the prohibition of the furtherance of the said resolution amending the constitution. Inc. fixing a uniform margin fee of 25% on foreign exchange transactions. which is patently distinct and different from “urea” and “formaldehyde”. What is printed in the enrolled bill would be . “Urea formaldehyde” is clearly a finished product. Casco paid the fees but later moved for reimbursement as Casco maintained that urea and formaldehyde are exempted from such fees. CASCO v JIMENEZ Casco Philippine Chemical Co. This produce when applied in water solution and extended with inexpensive fillers constitutes a fairly low cost adhesive for use in the manufacture of plywood. To supplement the circular. 95. disregarding the explicit provision that duly certified copies “shall be conclusiv e proof of the provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof. It did not do what the opponents of the rule of conclusiveness advocate. during the consideration of the bill before said House. It is the synthetic resin formed as a condensation product from definite proportions of urea and formaldehyde under certain conditions relating to temperature. the journals and the copy.the proposed amendment would have been short of the necessary three-fourths vote in either branch of Congress. HELD: As far as looking into the Journals is concerned. affirmed the ruling of CBP’s auditor. citing in support of this view the statements made on the floor of the Senate. The main components of the said glue are urea and formaldehyde which are both being imported abroad. Pursuant to RA 2609 (Foreign Exchange Margin Fee Law). Whether or not the said resolution was duly enacted by Congress. . 2210. not the latter a finished product. ISSUE: Whether or not the Court can take cognizance of the issue at bar. as provided in same law. the Central Bank of the Philippines issued on July 1. the disposal of the issue by the Court on the basis of the journals does not imply rejection of the enrollment theory. signed by the proper officers of each. the contents of an enrolled bill shall prevail over those of the journals.” The SC is bound by the contents of a duly authenticated resolution (enrolled bill) by the legislature.
Astorga further maintains that the attestation of the presiding officers of Congress is conclusive proof of a bill’s due enactment. And so the customs officers conducted an investigation thereby discovering that the 25 barrels of wine actually contained tins of opium. He then filed a petition with this Court on September 7. the SC can do this and resort to the Senate journal . Astorga reacted against the steps carried out by Villegas. Under the specific facts and circumstances of this case. Since the ct of trading and dealing opium is against Act 2381. Otherwise Known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila) because the said law was considered to have never been enacted. 9266 signed by the President was the same text passed by both Houses of Congress. It was later found out however that the copy signed by the Senate President. The said Journals are conclusive on the Court and to inquire into the veracity of the journals of the Philippine Legislature. Due to this fact. the journal can be looked upon in this case. clear and explicit. HELD: The journal of the proceedings of each House of Congress is no ordinary record. The said barrels of wine were delivered to Beliso. as Amended. Pons appealed the sentence arguing that Act 2381 was not approved while the Philippine Commission (Congress) was not in session. The journals say that the Legislature adjourned at 12 midnight on February 28. Astorga maintains that the RA is still vald and binding and that the withdrawal of the concerned signatures does not invalidate the statute. ASTORGA v VILLEGAS In 1964. ISSUE: Whether or not the SC must look into the Journal to determine if the said law was validly enacted. The SC passed upon the conclusiveness of the enrolled bill in this particular case. as the SC have said. operators and/or managers of business establishments in Manila to disregard the provisions of RA 4065. It was in fact the version that had no amendments thereto. Since this is the case. without jeopardizing the principle of separation of powers and undermining one of the cornerstones of our democratic system — the remedy is by amendment or curative legislation. The bill was then sent back to the HOR and was thereafter approved by the HOR. Injunction and/or Prohibition with Preliminary Mandatory and Pro hibitory Injunction” to compel Villegas et al and the members of the municipal board to comply with the provisions of RA 4065. when they are. the customs authorities noticed that the said 25 barrels listed as wine on record were not delivered to any listed merchant (Beliso not being one). Some minor amendments were made before the bill was referred back to the Senate floor for deliberations. Rights and Duties of the Vice-Mayor of the City of Manila. The bill was sent to the President for approval and it became RA 4065. Further Amending for the Purpose Sections Ten and Eleven of Republic Act Numbered Four Hundred Nine. On the other hand. ISSUE: Whether or not the SC must go beyond the recitals of the Journals to determine if Act 2381 was indeed made a as law on 28 Feb 1914. He said that his witnesses claim that the said law was passed/approved on 01 March 1914 while the special session of the Commission was adjourned at 12MN on 28 Feb 1914. If there has been any mistake in the printing of the bill before it was certified by the officers of Congress and approved by the Executive — on which the SC cannot speculate. 1964 for “Mandamus. The Constitution requires it. the steamer Lopez y Lopez arrived at Manila from Spain and it contained 25 barrels of wine. When the this said rd “law” passed the 3 reading in the lower house as HB 9266. 1914.conclusive upon the courts. While it is true that the journal is not authenticated and is subject to the risks of misprinting and other errors. it was sent to the Senate which referred it to the Committee on Provinces and Municipal Governments and Cities headed by Senator Roxas. This settles the question. not by judicial decree. It is well settled that the enrolled bill — which uses the term “urea formaldehyde” instead of “urea and formaldehyde” — is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by Congress and approved by the President. and to interfere with the legitimate powers and functions of the Legislature. Sen. On 5 Apr 1914. This SC is merely asked to inquire whether the text of House Bill No. to invade a coordinate and independent department of the Government. Act 2381 should be null and void. During such deliberations. and the court did not err in declining to go behind these journals. Beliso subsequently delivered 5 barrels to Pons’ house. US v PONS Political Law – Journal – Conclusiveness of the Journals Pons and Gabino Beliso were trading partners. Respondent denied recognition of RA 4065 (An Act Defining the Powers. Tolentino made significant amendments which were subsequently approved by the Senate. He likewise issued an order to the Chief of Police to recall five members of the city police force who had been assigned to Vice-Mayor Astorga presumably under authority of RA 4065. Villegas (then Mayor of Manila) issued circulars to the department heads and chiefs of offices of the city government as well as to the owners. sent to the HOR for approval and sent to the President for signing was the wrong version. Pons’ witnesses cannot be given due weight against the conclusiveness of the Journals which is an act of the legislature. the Senate president and the President of the Philippines withdrew and invalidated their signatures that they affixed on the said law. Pons and Beliso were charged for illegally and fraudulently importing and introducing such contraband material to the Philippines. HELD: The SC looked into the Journals to ascertain the date of adjournment but the SC refused to go beyond the recitals in the legislative Journals. would be to violate both the letter and the spirit of the organic laws by which the Philippine Government was brought into existence. It was not the version as amended by Tolentino and as validly approved by the Senate.
or has served as chief of police with exemplary record. is a question which the SC can decide upon but is not currently being confronted in the case at bar hence the SC does not now decide. the approved version was actually the following: ‘No person may be appointed chief of a city police agency unless he holds a bachelor’s degree and has served either in the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the National Bureau of Investigation or police department of any city and has held the rank of captain or its equivalent therein for at least three years or any high school graduate who has served the police department of a city or who has served as officer of the Armed Forces for at least 8 years with the rank of captain and/or higher. the enrolled bill prevails in the event of any discrepancy. To perpetuate that error by disregarding such rectification and holding that the erroneous bill has become law would be to sacrifice truth to fiction and bring about mischievous consequences not intended by the law-making body. Upon the resignation of the former Chief . Subido approved the designation of the petitioner but rejected his appointment for “failure to meet the minimum ed ucational and civil service eligibility requirements for the said position. Morales however argued that when the said act was being deliberated upon.” Morales went on to support his case by producing copies of certified photostatic copy of a memorandum which according to him was signed by an employee in the Senate bill division. As done by both the President of the Senate and the Chief Executive. ISSUE: Whether or not the SC must look upon the history of the bill. The respect due to the other branches of the Government demands that the SC act upon the faith and credit of what the officers of the said branches attest to as the official acts of their respective departments. which Section reads: “Minimum qualification for appointment as Chief of Police Agency. with consequent impairment of the integrity of the legislative process. thereby inquiring upon the journals.’ Morales argued that the above version was the one which was actually approved by Congress but when the bill emerged from the conference committee the only change made in the provision was the insertion of the phrase “or has served as chief of police with exemplary record. or has served in the police department of any city with rank of captain or its equivalent therein for at least three years. . Morales was designated acting chief of police of Manila and. – No person may be appointed chief of a city police agency unless he holds a bachelor’s degree from a recognized institution of learning and has served either in the Armed Forces of th e Philippines or the National Bureau of Investigation. MORALES v COMMISSIONER SUBIDO Political Law – Journals vs Enrolled Bill Morales has served as captain in the police department of a city for at least three years but does not possess a bachelor’s degree. To what extent the validity of a legislative act may be affected by a failure to have such matters entered on the journal. to look searchingly into the matter. He began his career in 1934 as patrolman and gradually rose to his present position.for the purpose. given a provisional appointment to the same position by the mayor of Manila. Subido invoked Section 10 of the Police Act of 1966.” Instead. The SC cannot go behind the enrolled Act to discover what really happened. or any high school graduate who has served as officer in the Armed Forces for at least eight years with the rank of captain and/or higher. is qualified for appointment as chief of police. and can be found attached to the page proofs of the then bill being deliberated upon.” Nowhere in the above provision is it provided that a person “who has served the police department of a city …” can be qualified for said office. The SC is not of course to be understood as holding that in all cases the journals must yield to the enrolled bill. at the same time. the respondent certified other persons as qualified for the post. Morales was the chief of detective bureau of the Manila Police Department and holds the rank of lieutenant colonel. the SC also declares that the bill intended to be as it is supposed to be was never made into law. All the SC holds is that with respect to matters not expressly required to be entered on the journal. Otherwise the SC would be cast in the unenviable and unwanted role of a sleuth trying to determine what actually did happen in the labyrinth of lawmaking. 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. HELD: The enrolled Act in the office of the legislative secretary of the President of the Philippines shows that Section 10 is exactly as it is in the statute as officially published in slip form by the Bureau of Printing. Note however that the SC is not asked to incorporate such amendments into the alleged law but only to declare that the bill was not duly enacted and therefore did not become law. To be sure there are certain matters which the Constitution expressly requires must be entered on the journal of each house. when they withdrew their signatures therein.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.