Case Summary (G.R. No. L-23475)
Petitioner and Respondents
Petitioner: Herminio A. Astorga, in his capacity as Vice-Mayor of Manila
Respondents: Antonio J. Villegas, Mayor of Manila; the Executive Secretary; the Civil Service Commissioner; the Chief of Police of Manila; the City Treasurer; and members of the Municipal Board
Key Dates
• March 30, 1964: Filing of House Bill No. 9266 in the House of Representatives
• April 21, 1964: Third-reading approval in the House without amendments
• May 20–21, 1964: Senate approval with conflicting records of amendments (Tolentino vs. Roxas)
• June 18, 1964: Presidential signature converting the bill into Republic Act No. 4065
• July 1964: Senate President and President of the Philippines withdraw signatures, declaring the enrolled bill erroneous
• September 7, 1964: Vice-Mayor Astorga files petition for mandamus, injunction, and prohibition
• April 28, 1965: Supreme Court issues temporary restraining order
• April 30, 1974: En banc decision
Applicable Law
1935 Philippine Constitution
• Article VI, Sec. 20(1): Every bill passed by Congress must be presented to the President before becoming law
• Article VI, Sec. 10(4) & Sec. 21(2): Requirements for journal entries, printed copies, and recording of votes
Act No. 190, Sec. 313 (Evidence Code): Conclusive proof of enactment by duly signed enrolled acts
Legislative History and Error in Enrollment
House Bill No. 9266 amended Sections 10 and 11 of Manila’s Revised Charter to define the Vice-Mayor’s powers and succession. The House passed it as filed. The Senate Committee endorsed a minor Roxas amendment, but on the floor Senator Tolentino secured substantial changes. The enrolled copy certified to the House and later printed for the President reflected only the Roxas amendment, not the Tolentino amendments actually approved in the Senate journal.
Retraction of Attestations and Executive Withdrawal
Upon public controversy, Senator Tolentino publicly noted the discrepancy. The Senate President formally declared his attestation invalid and clarified that the enrolled copy was never duly approved by the Senate. The President of the Philippines then withdrew his signature, acknowledging that the law on file had not passed both Houses in due form.
Judicial Proceedings and Issue Presented
Vice-Mayor Astorga sought mandamus and injunctive relief to compel enforcement of RA 4065. Respondents contended the measure never became law because the enrolled copy did not match the actual Senate action, and that the Senate journal—not the signed enrolled bill—controls. The Court enjoined Astorga from exercising any purported powers until final resolution.
Enrolled Bill Doctrine vs. Journal Entry Rule
The Court examined U.S. Supreme Court decisions (Field v. Clark) recognizing an enrolled bill’s attestations as conclusive proof of enactment, balanced against authorities permitting resort to legislative journals where attestations are absent or disclaimed. Under the 1935 Constitution, Congress must keep and publish journals, but it does not mandate presiding-officer sign
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-23475)
Facts
- On March 30, 1964, House Bill No. 9266 was filed in the House of Representatives; on April 21, 1964 it passed third reading without amendments.
- The House transmitted the bill to the Senate, where the Committee on Provinces and Municipal Governments and Cities, chaired by Senator Gerardo M. Roxas, recommended approval with a minor amendment (succession by the President Pro Tempore instead of the City Engineer).
- On May 20, 1964, Senator Arturo Tolentino introduced substantial amendments on the Senate floor, which the Senate approved in full; the Roxas amendment is not reflected in the Senate Journal.
- On May 21, 1964, the Senate Secretary certified the Roxas amendment (but not the Tolentino changes) to the House; the House concurred and printed four enrolled copies.
- On June 18, 1964, the President signed the printed copy, enacting it as Republic Act No. 4065, defining the powers of the Vice-Mayor of Manila and amending certain sections of R.A. 409.
- Public controversy erupted; Senator Tolentino publicly declared on July 5, 1964 that the enrolled copy did not reflect the Senate’s actual amendments.
- The Senate President, by letters of July 11 and July 21, 1964, disavowed his signature on the enrolled bill and declared it was never properly approved by the Senate.
- On July 31, 1964, the President of the Philippines withdrew his signature, stating that the enrolled copy was not the version duly passed by Congress.
- Mayor Antonio Villegas issued circulars instructing all city officials and business establishments in Manila to disregard R.A. 4065 and ordered the recall of five police officers assigned to the Vice-Mayor under the Act.
- Vice-Mayor Herminio A. Astorga filed a petition on September 7, 1964 for mandamus, injunction, and prohibition to compel respondents to enforce R.A. 4065.
Procedural History
- The petition challenged the validity of R.A. 4065 on the ground that the enrolled copy did not embody the Senate’s