ASTORGA petitioner vs.

VILLEGAS respondent
G.R. No. L-23475, April 30, 1974
Makalintal, C.J.:
DOCTRINE/S
Enrolled bill theory -the 1935 Constitution is silent as to what shall constitute proof due enactment of a
bill. Certification of the bill by the presiding officers are not required.
Journal Entry Rule – in the absence of attestation of the bill, the courts may resort to journals of Congress
for proof of statute’s due enactment. If the attestation is absent and is not required for the validity of a
statute, the courts may resort to the journals and other records of Congress for proof of its due enactment.
FACTS
On March 30, 1964 House Bill No. 9266, a bill of local application, was filed in the House of
Representatives. The bill was sent to the Senate for its concurrence and referred to the Senate Committee
on Provinces and Municipal Governments and Cities headed by Gerardo M. Roxas. Senator Gerardo
Roxas recommended an amendment to the bill where 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. During the bill’s second reading on May 20, 1964, substantial amendments to Section 1
were suggested by Senator Arturo Tolentino. The suggested amendments of Senator Tolentino and not of
Senator Roxas were approved in toto by the Senate and were likewise included in the journal of the
Senate proceedings as having been acted upon.
Secretary of the Senate sent a letter to the House of Representatives saying that House Bil No. 9266 had
been passed by the Senate “with amendments”. However, the amendment that was attached to the letter
sent was those that were suggested by Senator Roxas and not the actual approved amendments by Senator
Tolentino. The House of Representatives then signified the approval of the House Bill and printed copies
which were then signed and certified by the Secretary of the House of Representatives, the Spreaker of
the House of Representatives, the Secretary of the Senate, and the Senate President. Four copies of the
bill were then sent to the President who affixed his signature by way of approval on June 18, 1964. The
bill thereupon became Republic Act No. 4065.
Upon knowing the events that transpired, Senator Tolentino made a press release saying that Republic
Act No. 4065 was not the same bill and amendments approved by the Senate and House of
Representatives. The Senate President, through a letter, informed the President of the matter and informed
him that their signatures would be withdrawn and invalidated, therefore the presence of their signatures
did not make the bill a valid enactment.
The Mayor of Manila, Antonio Villegas, then issued circulars to the department heads and chiefs of
offices of the city government as well as to the owners, operators and/or managers of business
establishments in Manila to disregard the provisions of RA 4065. Upon knowing this, Vice-Mayor,
Herminio Astorga, filed a petition with the Supreme Court on September 7, 1964 for Mandamus
Injunction and/or Prohibition with Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction to compel
respondents to comply with the provisions of RA 4065. Respondents alleged that the bill never became a
law as there was a mistake of fact in the bill approved by the Senate.
ISSUE
1. Whether or not Republic Act 4065 was passed into law
2. Whether or not entries in the journal may be consulted to determine the validity of Republic Act
4065
RULING
1. NO. In this case, there is an absence of such attestation as a result of the withdrawal and
invalidity of the certification of the Congress (Senate President). The declaration of the Senate
President that his signature on the bill be invalid, signifies the retracting of the approval of the
Congress to the wrong bill. Republic Act 4065 was not the same enrolled bill passed by the
Senate and thus, its approval is invalid. As far as Congress itself is concerned, there is nothing
sacrosanct in the certification made by the presiding officers. It is merely a mode of
authentication. The lawmaking process in Congress ends when the bill is approved by both
Houses, and the certification does not add to the validity of the bill or cure any defect already
present upon its passage. In other words, it is the approval by Congress and not the signatures of
the presiding officers that is essential.
2. YES. There being no enrolled bill to speak of, the entries in the journal should be consulted. The
Supreme Court is merely asked to inquire whether the text of House Bill No. 9266 signed by the
Chief Executive was the same text passed by both Houses of Congress. Under the specific facts
and circumstances of this case, the Court can do this and resort to the Senate journal for the
purpose. 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. The Court is not asked to incorporate such amendments into the
alleged law, which admittedly is a risky undertaking, but to declare that the bill was not duly
enacted and therefore did not become law.  In the face of the manifest error committed and
subsequently rectified by the President of the Senate and by the Chief Executive, for the Court 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.