MABANAG VS.

LOPEZ VITO I 228

EN BANC
ALEJO MABANAG, et.al., petitioners vs. JOSE LOPEZ VITO, et.al., respondents
[G.R. No. L-1123. March 5, 1947.]
TUASON, J.

TOPIC: V. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

A.8. Journal and Congressional Records – Sec 16 (4), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution
DOCTRINE: (1) The Enrolled Bill Theory is based mainly on "the respect due to coequal and independent
departments," which requires the judicial department "to accept, as having passed
Congress, all bills  authenticated in the manner stated." Thus, it has also been stated in other
cases that  if the attestation is absent and the same 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:
 This is a petition for prohibition to prevent the enforcement of a congressional resolution
designated "Resolution of both houses proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
Philippines to be appended as an ordinance thereto."
 The members of the Commission on Elections, the Treasurer of the Philippines, the Auditor
General, and the Director of the Bureau of Printing are made defendants, and the petitioners
are eight senators, seventeen representatives, and the presidents of the Democratic Alliance,
the Popular Front and the Philippine Youth Party.
 The validity of the abovementioned resolution is attacked as contrary to the Constitution.
 Three of the plaintiff senators and eight of the plaintiff 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 April 23, 1946.
 The three senators were suspended by the Senate shortly after the opening of the first session
of Congress following the elections, on account of alleged irregularities in their election.
 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.
 A resolution for their suspension had been introduced in the House of Representatives, but
that resolution had not been acted upon definitely by the House when the present petition was
filed.
 As a consequence, these three senators and eight representatives did not take part in the
passage of the questioned resolution, 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.
 The respondents deny that this Court has jurisdiction, relying on the conclusiveness on the
courts of an enrolled bill or resolution. They contended that a duly authenticated bill or
resolution imports absolute verity and is binding on the courts.
 MABANAG VS. LOPEZ VITO I 228
 Petitioners, on the other hand, argued that the enrolled bill rule has not found acceptance in
the Court’s jurisdiction.

ISSUE: Whether the Court has jurisdiction under the enrolled bill theory.

RULING: Yes, the Court has jurisdiction under the enrolled bill theory. The petitioners
contend that the enrolled bill rule has not found acceptance in this jurisdiction, citing the case of
United States vs. Pons (34 Phil., 729). It is argued that this Court examined the journal in that case to
find out whether or not the contention of the appellant was right. The Court held that petitioners are in
error. It will be seen upon examination of 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.
The Court looked into the journals in United States vs. Pons because, in all probability,
those were the documents offered in evidence. It does not appear that a duly authenticated copy of
the Act was in existence or was placed before the Court; and it has not been shown that if that had
been done, this Court would not have held the copy conclusive proof of the due enactment of the law.
It is to be remembered that the Court expressly stated that it "passed over the question" of whether
the enrolled bill was conclusive as to its contents and the mode of its passage.
Even if both the journals 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. 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. 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."
In view of the foregoing considerations, we deem it unnecessary to decide the question
of whether the senators and representatives who were ignored in the computation of the necessary
three-fourths vote were members of Congress within the meaning of section 1 of Article XV of the
Philippine Constitution.

CONCLUSION: The petition is dismissed without costs.

 MABANAG VS. LOPEZ VITO I 228