Astorga vs. Villegas

When the presiding officer of a legislative chamber validly disclaims his signature on an enrolled bill, thereby negating the attestation, and the President withdraws his approval, the courts may resort to the legislative journals to determine whether the bill was duly enacted; where the journals show that the text signed into law was not the text approved by both Houses, the bill is void.

The case arose from a legislative mishap involving a local bill amending the Charter of the City of Manila to define the powers of the Vice-Mayor. The controversy highlighted the conflict between the enrolled bill doctrine (which treats the authenticated enrolled bill as conclusive proof of enactment) and the journal entry rule (which allows consultation of legislative journals to verify enactment).

• Filed in the SC on September 7, 1964 by petitioner Astorga for mandamus, injunction, and/or prohibition with preliminary injunction
• On April 28, 1965, the SC issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the Vice-Mayor from exercising powers under the contested RA 4065
• The SC made the restraining order permanent and denied the petition on April 30, 1974

• March 30, 1964: House Bill No. 9266 (a bill of local application) filed in the House of Representatives
• April 21, 1964: House passed the bill on third reading without amendments and transmitted it to the Senate
• Senate Proceedings:
  • Referred to the Senate Committee on Provinces and Municipal Governments and Cities chaired by Senator Roxas
  • Committee recommended approval with a minor amendment: making the President Protempore of the Municipal Board (instead of the City Engineer) successor to the Vice-Mayor
  • May 20, 1964: On second reading, Senator Tolentino introduced substantial amendments to Section 1, which the Senate approved in toto
  • The Roxas amendment was not acted upon according to the Senate journal
  • May 21, 1964: The Senate Secretary transmitted a letter to the House stating the bill was passed "with amendments," attaching a certification of the Roxas amendment (not the Tolentino amendments actually approved)
  • House Action: The House approved the bill as returned by the Senate
  • Authentication: Printed copies were certified and attested by the Secretaries and Speakers of both Houses
  • June 16, 1964: The House transmitted four copies to the President
  • June 18, 1964: The President signed the bill, converting it into Republic Act No. 4065
  • July 5, 1964: Senator Tolentino issued a press statement declaring the enrolled copy was the wrong version (containing Roxas amendment, not Tolentino amendments)
  • July 11, 1964: The Senate President wrote the President explaining the enrolled copy was not the bill duly approved by Congress, declaring his signature "invalid and of no effect"
  • July 21, 1964: The Senate President clarified that his invalidation meant the bill had never been approved by the Senate
  • July 31, 1964: The President sent a message to Congress officially withdrawing his signature, stating it would be against public policy to convert into law what was not actually approved by both Houses
  • Mayor Villegas's Actions: Issued circulars directing city officials to disregard RA 4065 and ordered the recall of police assigned to the Vice-Mayor under the contested Act
  • Succession: Original petitioner Astorga was succeeded by others as Vice-Mayor during the pendency of the case

• The enrolled bill doctrine applies: the bill signed by the presiding officers of both Houses and approved by the President is conclusive proof of due enactment and cannot be impeached by reference to legislative journals
• The attestation by presiding officers, while not mandatory for validity, creates a solemn assurance that binds the judicial department under the principle of respect for co-equal departments
• Even assuming the Senate President validly disclaimed his signature, this merely means there was no attestation, but does not affect the validity of the statute itself; the bill remains valid and binding
• The SC should not look beyond the enrolled bill to inquire into the actual proceedings of Congress

• The so-called Republic Act No. 4065 never became law because it was not the bill actually passed by the Senate
• The journal entry rule should apply: the entries in the Senate journal—not the enrolled bill—are decisive in determining whether due enactment occurred
• The Senate President's disclaimer of his signature was valid and effectively negated the attestation, leaving no enrolled bill to speak of
• Where the attestation is absent or invalidated, courts may resort to the journals to prove due enactment
• The journals clearly show the Senate approved the Tolentino amendments, not the Roxas amendment appearing in the enrolled bill

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the enrolled bill signed by the President is conclusive proof of its due enactment where the Senate President subsequently invalidated his signature and the President withdrew his approval
  • Whether the SC may consult the legislative journals to determine the validity of a bill's enactment when the enrolled bill is disputed
  • Whether Republic Act No. 4065 became law

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The enrolled bill is not conclusive when the attestation is validly disclaimed. The rationale of the enrolled bill doctrine—respect for co-equal departments—is neutralized when the Senate President himself declares his signature invalid and clarifies that the bill was never approved by the Senate. This declaration deserves greater respect than the erroneous attestation it invalidated.
  • The journal entries may be consulted when there is no valid enrolled bill. When the attestation is negated by the presiding officer's disclaimer, and the President withdraws his approval, there is no enrolled bill to speak of. In such cases, the SC may resort to the journals to determine whether the bill was duly enacted. The Constitution requires each House to keep a Journal, making it an official record of proceedings.
  • RA 4065 did not become law. The Senate journal discloses that substantial amendments introduced by Senator Tolentino were approved by the Senate but were not incorporated in the printed text transmitted to and signed by the President. The SC is not asked to incorporate these amendments (which would be a risky undertaking), but to declare that the bill was not duly enacted. To hold otherwise would perpetuate a manifest error and sacrifice truth to fiction.

• Enrolled Bill Doctrine — An enrolled bill (authenticated by the signatures of the presiding officers and secretaries of both Houses and approved by the President) is generally conclusive proof of its due enactment and cannot be impeached by reference to legislative journals. This doctrine rests on the respect due to co-equal and independent departments and the need for finality in legislative acts. However, this conclusiveness presupposes a valid attestation.
• Journal Entry Rule Exception — When the attestation on the enrolled bill is validly disclaimed or invalidated by the presiding officer, and the President withdraws his signature, courts may resort to the legislative journals to determine whether the bill was duly enacted. The journal is constitutionally mandated and constitutes the official record of legislative proceedings.
• Authentication vs. Approval — The signatures of presiding officers on the enrolled bill constitute mere authentication, not approval. The legislative process ends when the bill is approved by both Houses; the attestation merely signifies to the President that the bill has been duly approved and is ready for his approval or rejection. The attestation does not add to the validity of the bill or cure defects present upon passage.

• "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; leaving the courts to determine, when the question properly arises, whether the Act, so authenticated, is in conformity with the Constitution." (regarding the enrolled bill theory)
• "Obviously this declaration should be accorded even greater respect than the attestation it invalidated which it did for a reason that is undisputed in fact and indisputable in logic." (referring to the Senate President's disclaimer)
• "In the face of the manifest error committed and subsequently rectified by the President of the Senate and by the Chief Executive, for this 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."

• Mabanag v. Lopez Vito (78 Phil. 1) — Previously applied the enrolled bill doctrine but did not settle it as binding precedent; distinguished as it involved a political question regarding constitutional amendments and the Court was divided
• Field v. Clark (143 U.S. 294) — U.S. Supreme Court case establishing the enrolled bill theory based on respect for co-equal departments; cited for the rationale but distinguished given the unique facts of this case
• Casco Philippine Chemical Co. v. Gimenez (7 SCRA 347) — Cited for the principle that courts cannot incorporate amendments into the text of a statute to cure defects
• Morales v. Subido (27 SCRA 131) — Cited regarding the conclusiveness of enrolled bills under Section 313 of Act 190

• 1935 Constitution, Article VI, Section 20(1) — Mandates that every bill passed by Congress shall, before it becomes law, be presented to the President
• 1935 Constitution, Article VI, Section 10(4) — Requires each House to keep a Journal of its proceedings and publish the same
• 1935 Constitution, Article VI, Section 21(2) — Requires that upon the last reading of a bill, the yeas and nays be entered on the Journal
• Section 313 of Act 190 (Old Code of Civil Procedure) — Provided that proceedings of the Legislature may be proved by journals, or by copies certified by the clerk or secretary; provided that when a copy signed by presiding officers exists, it shall be conclusive proof of the provisions and due enactment

• N/A (Castro, Teehankee, Antonio, Esguerra, Fernandez, Muñoz Palma, and Aquino, JJ., concurred with the majority opinion without separate statements)

• N/A (Zaldivar, Fernando, and Barredo, JJ., took no part; Makasiar, J., was on official leave)