Case Digest (G.R. No. L-1123)
Facts:
Alejo Mabanag et al. v. Jose Lopez Vito et al., G.R. No. 1123, March 05, 1947, the Supreme Court En Banc, Tuason, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners filed an original petition for prohibition seeking to prevent enforcement of a congressional enactment — a joint Resolution of Both Houses proposing an amendment to the Constitution and Republic Act No. 73 (which called a plebiscite and appropriated funds to submit the proposed amendment to the people). The defendants were the members of the Commission on Elections, the Treasurer of the Philippines, the Auditor General, and the Director of the Bureau of Printing.The petitioners included eight senators, seventeen representatives, and leaders of several political parties. Three of the senator-petitioners (Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose E. Romero) had been proclaimed elected by the Commission on Elections after the April 23, 1946 elections but were thereafter not sworn or seated on the floor because the Senate approved a motion to defer their being sworn pending resolution of election protests. Eight representatives-elect likewise were not permitted to sit or vote (except for participating in the Speaker’s election) because the House had referred protests against their elections to a committee and had not finally acted. The parties stipulated many underlying facts and submitted the case on pleadings and stipulation.
At a joint session on September 18, 1946, the joint resolution proposing the amendment was certified as adopted by the presiding officers; certificates showed 16 Senate votes for and 5 against, and 68 House votes for and 18 against. Petitioners alleged that, because the three senators and eight representatives were not counted, the vote did not meet the three‑fourths‑of‑all‑members requirement in Section 1, Article XV of the Constitution, and that submission of the amendment (and enactment of Republic Act No. 73) was therefore unconstitutional. Respondents defended on grounds that (a) the Court lacked jurisdiction because the enrolled resolution and its authentication are conclusive, and (b) in any event the resolution had been validly adopted.
The Court heard the matter on the pleadings and stipulation of facts. After extensive discussion of the political‑question doctrine and the so‑called enrolled‑bill rule and survey of authorities (notably ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for prohibition challenging the validity of a congressional joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment and the implementing statute submitting it to a plebiscite.
- Whether a duly authenticated enrolled resolution or statute is conclusive upon the courts and thus bars judicial inquiry into alleged irregularities in the legislative adoption of a constitutional amendment (the enrolled‑bill rule).
- Whether the joint resolution was invalid for failure to obtain the constitutional three‑fourths vote because certain proclaimed senators and representatives were not counted (i.e., whether suspended or unseated mem...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)