Mabanag v.

Lopez Vito
G.R. No. L-1123, March 5, 1947
Ponente: Justice Tuason

I. Topic:
Evidence of Due Enactment of Laws
Enrolled Bill Theory

II. Petitioners: ALEJO MABANAG ET AL., eight senators, seventeen representatives, and the presidents of
the Democratic Alliance. the Popular Front and the Philippine Youth Party
Respondents: JOSE LOPEZ VITO ET AL., The members of the Commission on Elections. the Treasurer of
the Philippines, the Auditor General, and the Director of the Bureau of Printing

III. Instant petition for prohibition of a congressional resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution.

IV. Three senators and eight representatives had been proclaimed by a majority vote of the Commission on
Elections as having been elected senators and representatives in the elections held on 23 April 1946. The
three senators were suspended by senate due to election irregularities. The eight representatives since their
election had not been allowed to sit in the lower House, except to take part in the election of the Speaker,
for the same reason, although they had not been formally suspended. As a consequence these three senators
and eight representatives did not take part in the passage of the congressional resolution, designated
"Resolution of both houses proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Philippines to be appended
as an ordinance thereto," nor was their membership reckoned within the computation of the necessary
three-fourths vote which is required in proposing an amendment to the Constitution. If these members of
Congress had been counted, the affirmative votes in favor of the proposed amendment would have been
short of the necessary three-fourths vote in either branch of Congress.

Petitioner Respondent

 Petitioners argued that some senators and
House Reps were not considered in
determining the required ¾ vote.
 If these members of Congress had been
counted, the affirmative votes in favor of the
proposed amendment would have been short of
the necessary three-fourths vote in either
branch of Congress
 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
 The votes were already entered into the
Journals of the respective House. As a result,
the Resolution was passed.

V. Issues:
Whether or not the Court can take cognizance of the issue at bar
Whether or not the said resolution was duly enacted by Congress

VI. Ruling:
 It is a doctrine too well established to need citation of authorities that political questions are not within the
province of the judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal with such questions has been conferred upon
the courts by express constitutional or statutory provision. This doctrine is predicated on the principle of the
separation of powers, a principle also too well known to require elucidation or citation of authorities.
 According to a US case, the efficacy of ratification by state legislature of proposed amendment to Federal
Constitution is a political question. If ratification of an amendment is a political question, a proposal which
leads to ratification has to be a political question. 1935 Constitution provides two distinct parts for
amendments: proposal and ratification. Proposal to amend is highly political performed by Congress in its
sovereign legislative capacity, and there is less reason for judicial inquiry into a proposal’s validity rather
than ratification.
  It is to be noted that the amendatory process as provided in section I of Article XV of the Philippine
Constitution "consists of (only) two distinct parts: proposal and ratification." There is no logic in attaching
political character to one and withholding that character from the other. Proposal to amend the Constitution
is a highly political function performed by the Congress in its sovereign legislative capacity and committed
to its charge by the Constitution itself.
 As far as looking into the Journals is concerned, even if both the journals from each House and an
authenticated copy of the Act had been presented, the disposal of the issue by the Court on the basis of the
journals does not imply rejection of the enrollment theory, for, as already stated, the due enactment of a law
may be proved in either of the two ways specified in section 313 of Act No. 190 as amended.
 A duly authenticated bill/resolution imports absolute verity and is binding on the courts. The courts cannot
mandate the President to use his calling out power when the situation permits it, or the legislature to pass a
certain kind of law. Such duties are beyond judicial review if the one charged fails to perform them.
 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. It did not do what the opponents
of the rule of conclusiveness advocate, namely, look into the journals behind the enrolled copy in order to
determine the correctness of the latter, and rule such copy out if the two, the journals and the copy, be found
in conflict with each other. 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, disregarding the explicit provision that duly certified copies "shall be conclusive proof of the
provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof."

Enrolled Bill – that which has been duly introduced, finally passed by both houses, signed by the proper officers of
each, approved by the president and filed by the secretary of state.

Section 313 of the old Code of Civil Procedure (Act 190), as amended by Act No. 2210, provides: "Official
documents may be proved as follows: . . . (2) the proceedings of the Philippine Commission, or of any legislatives
body that may be provided for in the Philippine Islands, or of Congress, by the journals of those bodies or of either
house thereof, or by published statutes or resolutions, or by copies certified by the clerk of secretary, or printed by
their order; Provided, That in the case of Acts of the Philippine Commission or the Philippine Legislature, when
there is an existence of a copy signed by the presiding officers and secretaries of said bodies, it shall be conclusive
proof of the provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof."

The SC is bound by the contents of a duly authenticated resolution (enrolled bill) by the legislature. In case of
conflict, the contents of an enrolled bill shall prevail over those of the journals.