HERMINIO A. ASTORGA, in his capacity as Vice-Mayor of Manila, petitioner, vs. ANTONIO J.

VILLEGAS, in his capacity as Mayor of Manila, et al. respondents. G.R. No. L-23475 April 30,
1974
FACTS: House Bill No. 9266 approved in Congress and signed by the Chief Executive as law on
June 18, 1964, Republic Act No. 4065, An Act Defining the Powers, Rights, and Duties of the
Vice-Mayor of the City of Manila, further Amending for the Purpose Sections Ten and Eleven of
Republic Act Numbered Four Hundred Nine, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the Revised
Charter of the City of Manila. However, as the law was denounced by the public, thus, Senator
Arturo Tolentino issued a press statement that the enrolled copy of H.B. No. 9266 signed into
law by the Chief Executive was a wrong version as did not embody the amendments introduced
by him and approved on the Senate floor. With this, the Senate President explained, through a
letter, to the Chief Executive that the submitted enrolled bill copy was not the bill duly
approved by Congress and that he considered his signature on it as invalid and of no effect
which was further clarified in a subsequent letter that his and the Senate Secretary’s signature
did not make the bill a valid enactment. As a result, on July 31, 1964, the Chief Executive
informed both Houses of Congress that he is officially withdrawing his signature on H.B. No.
9266. However, on September 7, 1964, the petitioner filed a petition for Mandamus to which
respondents positioned their argument that the R.A. No. 4065 never became a law since it was
not the bill actually passed by the Senate and the entries in the journal of that body and not the
enrolled bill itself should be the basis on the matter.
ISSUE/S: Whether or not the “enrolled bill” doctrine or the “journal entry” rule should be
adhered to.
RULING: The Court ruled that the “journal entry” should be adhered to, thus, denying the
petition and declaring R.A. No. 4065 not to have been duly enacted and therefore did not
become law. As emphasized by the Court, 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. It is a rule in Statutory
Construction that the journal is regarded as conclusive concerning the matters that are
required by the Constitution to be recorded therein. The journal of the proceedings of each
House of Congress is no ordinary record as the Constitution requires it:
Sec. 10 (4). "Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish
the same, excepting such parts as may in its judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays
on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in the
Journal."
Lastly, the Court highlighted that to perpetuate the error by disregarding such rectification ad
holding 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.