[G.R. No. L-1123. March 5, 1947.

ALEJO MABANAG, ET AL., Petitioners, v. JOSE LOPEZ VITO, ET AL., Respondents.

DECISION: Dismissed;

PONIENTE: TUASON, J;
Concur.: Moran, C.J, Pablo and Hotiveros; J J
Concurring with separate opinion: Padilla, J; concur: Bengzon J.
Concurring and dissenting: Hidalgo, J. ; concur: Paras, J
Dissenting: Perfecto, J
Facts:

1. 3 plaintiff senators and 8 plaintiff representatives duly elected and proclaimed by the
Commission on Election in the elections held on April 23, 1946.
2. 3 senators were suspended by the senate, on account of alleged irregularities in their
election.
3. 8 representatives were not allowed to sit in the lower house except to take part in the
election of the speaker, for the same reason above.
4. The 8 representatives were not suspended but a resolution for their suspension had been
introduced in the house of representatives but had not be acted upon when the petition was
filed.
5. The 3 senators and 8 representatives did not take part in the passage of the questioned
resolution, nor was their membership reckoned when computing the necessary ¾-vote
required in proposing an amendment to the constitution.
6. The petition was sought to prevent the enforcement 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.”

Issue

1. Whether or not the court has the jurisdiction over the issue.
2. Whether or not the congressional resolution to amend the constitution was duly enacted.

Held:

1.

No, 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. The difficulty lies in determining what matters fall within the meaning of political
question. If a political question conclusively binds the judges out of respect to the political
departments, a duly certified law or resolution also binds the judges under the "enrolled bill rule"
born of that respect.

It is to be noted that the amendatory process as provided in section I of Article XV of the

Philippine Constitution (1935) "consists of (only) two distinct parts: proposal and ratification."

If ratification of an amendment is a political question, a proposal which leads to ratification

has to be a political question. 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.
2.

Section 313 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2210, that, roughly, it
provides two methods of proving legislative proceedings:

(1) by the journals, or by published statutes or resolutions, or by copies certified by the clerk
or secretary or printed by their order; and

(2) in case of acts of the legislature, by a copy signed by the presiding Officers and
secretaries thereof, which shall be conclusive proof of the provisions of such Acts and of the
due enactment thereof.

This Court 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.

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."