Astorga vs. Villegas

AI-generated

# AK503127

This case concerns the validity of Republic Act No. 4065, which allegedly did not reflect the version of House Bill No. 9266 that was duly passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Vice-Mayor Herminio A. Astorga sought to enforce the provisions of the Act, while Mayor Antonio J. Villegas argued it never became law due to procedural defects during its enactment. The Supreme Court ruled that RA 4065 was not duly enacted and thus did not become law.

Decided

30th April 1974

Division

En Banc

Ponente

MAKALINTAL, Querube

Case Nature

ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Mandamus, injunction and/or prohibition with preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction.

Case References

56 SCRA 714

No. L-23475

Full text word count

3,720

Full text read time est.

11-15 Mins

Full text sources

elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph

E-SCRA

Lawphil

PDF Document

Subjects

Statutory Construction

Case Title

HERMINIO A. ASTORGA, in his capacity as Vice-Mayor of Manila, petitioner, vs. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, in his capacity as Mayor of Manila, THE HON., THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ABELARDO SUBIDO, in his capacity as Commissioner of Civil Service, EDUARDO QUINTOS, in his capacity as Chief of Police of Manila, MANUEL CUDIAMAT, in his capacity as City Treasurer of Manila, CITY OF MANILA, JOSE SEMBRANO, FRANCISCO GATMAITAN, MARTIN ISIDRO, CESAR LUCERO, PADERES TINOCO, LEONARDO FUGOSO, FRANCIS YUSECO, APOLONIO GENER, AMBROCIO LORENZO, JR., ALFONSO MENDOZA, JR., SERGIO LOYOLA, GERINO TOLENTINO, MARIANO MAGSALIN, EDUARDO QUINTOS, JR., AVELINO VILLACORTA, PABLO OCAMPO, FELICISIMO CABIGAO, JOSE BRILLANTES, JOSE VILLANUEVA and MARINA FRANCISCO, in their capacities as members of the Municipal Board, respondents.

Dispositive

In view of the foregoing considerations, the petition is denied and the so-called Republic Act No. 4065 entitled “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” is declared not to have been duly enacted and therefore did not become law. The temporary restraining order dated April 28, 1965 is hereby made permanent. No pronouncement as to costs.

Concur (8)

ANTONIO, Felix

AQUINO, Ramon

CASTRO, Fred Ruiz

ESGUERRA, Salvador

FERNANDEZ, Estanislao

MAKALINTAL, Querube

MUÑOZ-PALMA, Cecilia

TEEHANKEE, Claudio

On Leave (1)

MAKASIAR, Felix

Took No Part (3)

BARREDO, Antonio

FERNANDO, Enrique

ZALDIVAR, Calixto

Primary Holding

The Supreme Court declared Republic Act 4065 invalid as it was not properly enacted into law, ruling that when there is a conflict between the enrolled bill and the legislative journal records, the latter may be consulted to determine whether a bill was duly enacted.

Background

The case originated from the passage of House Bill No. 9266, which sought to define the powers of the Manila Vice-Mayor. After its passage, controversy erupted when it was discovered that the version signed into law did not include substantial amendments made by Senator Tolentino on the Senate floor.

History

March 30, 1964: HB No. 9266 filed in the House.
April 21, 1964: Passed in the House, sent to the Senate.
May 20, 1964: Senate introduced and approved amendments.
June 18, 1964: Signed by the President as RA 4065.
July 5, 1964: Senator Tolentino denounced discrepancies.
September 7, 1964: Petition filed by Astorga.
April 28, 1965: Supreme Court issued temporary restraining order.
April 30, 1974: Supreme Court decision issued.

Facts

1. House Bill 9266 was passed by House of Representatives without amendments
2. Senate passed it with substantial Tolentino amendments
3. Senate Secretary sent wrong version (without Tolentino amendments) to House
4. President signed version without Tolentino amendments
5. Senate President and President later withdrew their signatures
6. Mayor Villegas issued circulars to disregard RA 4065
7. Vice-Mayor Astorga filed petition to compel compliance with RA 4065

Arguments of the Petitioners

1. The attestation of presiding officers is conclusive proof of a bill's due enactment
2. Even without attestation, the law remains valid
3. The enrolled bill doctrine should be upheld

Arguments of the Respondents

1. RA 4065 never became law as it wasn't the version actually passed by Senate
2. Senate journal entries, not enrolled bill, should be decisive
3. There was no valid enactment due to substantial discrepancy

Issues

1. Whether the "enrolled bill doctrine" or "journal entry rule" should apply
2. Whether RA 4065 was validly enacted into law
3. Whether Senate President's withdrawal of signature invalidates the law

Ruling

1. Senate journal showed substantial amendments not in signed version
2. Senate President's withdrawal of signature invalidated attestation
3. When attestation is questioned, journal entries may be examined
4. Constitutional requirement of keeping journal suggests its importance
5. Actual congressional approval, not mere signatures, is essential

Doctrines

1. Enrolled Bill Doctrine: considers signed bill as conclusive proof of passage
2. Journal Entry Rule: allows examination of legislative journals
3. Separation of Powers: requires respect between government branches
4. Authentication Requirements: explains role of signatures in legislative process

Key Excerpts

1. "The respect due to coequal and independent departments requires the judicial department to act upon that assurance, and to accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated."
2. “To perpetuate an error by disregarding its rectification would be to sacrifice truth to fiction.”

Precedents Cited

1. Mabanag v. Lopez Vito: Addressed the enrolled bill doctrine.
2. Field v. Clark: Established the enrolled bill doctrine in U.S. jurisprudence.
3. Morales v. Subido: Discussed legislative enactment procedures.
4. Brown vs. Morris: discussed authentication requirements
5. Hammond vs. Lynch: addressed mandatory signature requirements

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

1. 1935 Constitution Article VI, Section 10(4): requirement to keep journal
2. 1935 Constitution Article VI, Section 21(2): requirements for bill passage
3. 1935 Constitution Article VI, Section 20(1): presentation of bills to President
4. Republic Act No. 409: Amended by RA 4065.

Primary Holding Background History Facts Arguments of the Petitioners Arguments of the Respondents Issues Ruling Doctrines Key Excerpts Precedents Cited Provisions

Case Sections