US VS PONS

FACTS: Pons and Gabino Beliso were trading partners. On 5 Apr 1914, the steamer Lopez y
Lopez arrived at Manila from Spain and it contained 25 barrels of wine. The said barrels of wine
were delivered to Beliso. Beliso subsequently delivered 5 barrels to Pons’ house. On the other
hand, 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). And so the customs officers conducted
an investigation thereby discovering that the 25 barrels of wine actually contained tins of
opium. Since the ct of trading and dealing opium is against Act 2381, Pons and Beliso were
charged for illegally and fraudulently importing and introducing such contraband material to
the Philippines. Pons appealed the sentence arguing that Act 2381 was not approved while the
Philippine Commission (Congress) was not in session. 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. Since this is the case, Act 2381 should be null and
void.

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.

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. The said Journals are conclusive on the
Court and to inquire into the veracity of the journals of the Philippine Legislature, when they
are, as the SC have said, clear and explicit, would be to violate both the letter and the spirit of
the organic laws by which the Philippine Government was brought into existence, to invade a
coordinate and independent department of the Government, and to interfere with the
legitimate powers and functions of the Legislature. Pons’ witnesses cannot be given due weight
against the conclusiveness of the Journals which is an act of the legislature. The journals say
that the Legislature adjourned at 12 midnight on February 28, 1914. This settles the question,
and the court did not err in declining to go behind these journals. The SC passed upon the
conclusiveness of the enrolled bill in this particular case.