G.R. No. L-33304 - People vs. Abletes

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-33304)

Petitioner’s Relief Sought

Petitioner sought mandamus, injunction and/or prohibition (with preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction) to compel respondents to comply with the provisions of Republic Act No. 4065, which purported to define the powers, rights and duties of the Vice‑Mayor of Manila and amend certain sections of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila.

Relevant Procedural and Historical Facts

House Bill No. 9266 was filed in the House on March 30, 1964 and passed third reading on April 21, 1964. The Senate considered the bill and, on May 20, 1964, substantial amendments were recorded on the Senate floor (introduced by Senator Arturo Tolentino) and approved by the Senate. Separately, a committee recommendation (attributed to Senator Gerardo M. Roxas) proposed a minor different amendment. On May 21, 1964 the Senate Secretary transmitted to the House a certification stating the bill had been passed “with amendments,” but the attached certification reflected the Roxas committee amendment, not the substantive Tolentino floor amendments. The House accepted the enrolled text as transmitted, printed copies were authenticated by the presiding officers and secretaries of both Houses, and the President signed the enrolled copy on June 18, 1964, resulting in publication as Republic Act No. 4065.

Subsequent Denunciations and Executive Withdrawal

Public objections followed. Senator Tolentino publicly asserted that the enrolled bill signed into law did not contain the substantive amendments actually approved by the Senate. The Senate President, through the Senate Secretary, wrote the President indicating the enrolled copy was not the bill duly approved by Congress and declared his own signature on the enrolled copy invalid. The Senate President later clarified that his invalidation meant the bill so signed had never been approved by the Senate. On July 31, 1964 the President formally withdrew his signature on the enrolled bill and indicated it would be untenable to convert into law a bill not actually approved by both Houses.

Respondents’ Actions and Interim Relief

Relying on the view that the enrolled copy was not the authentic law, Mayor Villegas instructed city officials and certain business operators to disregard RA 4065 and directed the Chief of Police to recall police assignments made under the purported act. Petitioner Vice‑Mayor Astorga filed the present petition in September 1964. The Court issued a temporary restraining order on April 28, 1965 enjoining Astorga from exercising purported powers conferred by RA 4065 pending resolution.

Core Legal Issue

Whether the “enrolled bill” doctrine (which treats an enrolled and authenticated act as conclusive proof of its passage) or the rule that journals and records of the legislative proceedings may be consulted (the “journal entry” rule) controls in determining whether the enrolled bill presented to and signed by the President was in fact the bill duly enacted by Congress—particularly where a presiding officer of a house of Congress disclaims or invalidates his attestation.

Applicable Constitutional and Statutory Provisions

The Court applied the 1935 Constitution (the Constitution operative at the time of the events). The relevant constitutional commands include the requirement that each House keep a Journal of its proceedings (Sec. 10(4)) and that every bill passed by Congress be presented to the President before it becomes law (Article VI, Sec. 20(1)). The Court also referenced Act 190, as amended by Act 2210, which historically provided that a copy of acts signed by presiding officers and secretaries is conclusive proof of enactment (the statutory basis historically underlying the enrolled bill doctrine).

Parties’ Contentions

Petitioner argued that the attestation by presiding officers on the enrolled bill is conclusive proof of due enactment and that even if an attestation were absent or disclaimed this would not defeat the statute’s validity. Respondents argued that the enrolled copy was not the bill actually passed by the Senate; the Senate journal—not the enrolled document—showed that the Senate had adopted substantial amendments which did not appear in the enrolled text, and the Senate President’s invalidation of his signature demonstrated the enrolled copy was erroneous.

Precedents and Doctrinal Background Considered

The Court reviewed governing authorities including U.S. decisions exemplifying the enrolled bill doctrine (notably Field v. Clark) and Philippine precedents such as Mabanag v. Lopez Vito where divergent opinions had been expressed. The Court observed that the enrolled bill doctrine is principally justified by respect among co‑equal branches and that signatures of presiding officers commonly serve as authentication. The Court acknowledged, however, that authorities are not unanimous and that where attestation is absent or disclaimed, courts have resorted to journals and records to determine the legislative act’s true content.

Court’s Analysis on Authentication versus Substantive Enactment

The Court emphasized that the attestation by presiding officers is a mode of authentication indicating to the Chief Executive that a bill has purportedly been duly approved. Authentication does not constitute the substantive act of legislative approval. Where a presiding officer affirmatively disclaims or invalidates his attestation, that disclaimer warrants greater respect than the signature it purports to validate. Under the 1935 Constitution, final passage by both Houses—reflected in their journals—constitutes the indispensable act of enactment; presentation to the President follows. Thus, in the absence of a valid attestation, the journals may be consulted to determine whether the text signed by the President is the text actually passed. The Court found the Senate journal in this case showed the Senate had approved substantial floor amendments that did not appear in the enrolled copy signed by the President.

Resolution of the Enrolled‑Bill versus Journal Co

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-33304)

Case Citation and Court

Reported at 155 Phil. 656.
Decision rendered En Banc, G.R. No. L-23475, dated April 30, 1974.
Opinion by Chief Justice Makalintal.

Subject Matter and Core Controversy

The controversy centers on whether House Bill No. 9266, which was signed into law as Republic Act No. 4065, was duly enacted by Congress.
The statute in question: "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" (commonly referenced as Republic Act No. 4065).
The legal dispute implicated the "enrolled bill" doctrine versus the evidentiary and probative force of the legislative journals (the "journal entry" rule) in proving due enactment.

Factual Background — Legislative History of House Bill No. 9266

March 30, 1964: House Bill No. 9266, a local bill, was filed in the House of Representatives.
April 21, 1964: The House passed the bill on third reading without amendments.
After House passage, the bill was sent to the Senate for concurrence and referred to the Senate Committee on Provinces and Municipal Governments and Cities, chaired by Senator Gerardo M. Roxas.
The Senate committee favorably recommended approval, proposing a minor amendment by Senator Roxas substituting the President Pro Tempore of the Municipal Board for the City Engineer as successor to the Vice-Mayor when incapacitated.
May 20, 1964: On second reading in the Senate, Senator Arturo Tolentino introduced substantial and lengthy amendments to Section 1; those Tolentino amendments were approved by the Senate.
The Roxas committee amendment (the President Pro Tempore substitution) does not appear in the Senate journal as having been acted upon during floor deliberations.
May 21, 1964: The Secretary of the Senate transmitted a letter to the House stating the bill had been passed "with amendments," and attached a certification reflecting the Roxas amendment — not the Tolentino amendments actually approved on the Senate floor.
The House accepted the bill as so transmitted; printed copies were produced and certified and attested by the Secretary and Speaker of the House and by the Secretary and President of the Senate.
June 16, 1964: The Secretary of the House transmitted four printed copies of the enrolled bill to the President.
June 18, 1964: The President affixed his signature; the bill was then considered to have become Republic Act No. 4065.
Subsequent public controversy followed, prompting Senator Tolentino's July 5, 1964 press statement alleging the enrolled copy signed into law was not the version actually passed by the Senate because it omitted his floor-approved amendments.

Post-Enactment Challenges and Official Responses

July 11, 1964: The Senate President, through the Secretary of the Senate, informed the President that the enrolled copy signed by the presiding officers and their secretaries was not the bill duly approved by Congress; he considered his own signature on the enrolled bill invalid and of no effect.
July 21, 1964: The Senate President clarified that his invalidation of his signature meant the bill he had signed had never been approved by the Senate, and thus the signature did not validate the bill.
July 31, 1964: The President of the Philippines officially withdrew his signature on House Bill No. 9266, explaining that converting into law a bill not actually approved by both Houses would be untenable and against public policy.
In reaction to the controversy and the President's withdrawal, Mayor Antonio J. Villegas of Manila:
- Issued circulars instructing city department heads, office chiefs, and business establishment owners/operators/managers in Manila to disregard the provisions of Republic Act No. 4065.
- Ordered the Manila Chief of Police to recall five police personnel assigned to the Vice-Mayor pursuant to the contested Act.
September 7, 1964: Vice-Mayor Herminio A. Astorga filed a petition in the Supreme Court for "Mandamus, Injunction and/or Prohibition with Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction" to compel the respondents to comply with RA 4065.

Procedural Posture in the Supreme Court

Respondents asserted RA 4065 never became law because the enrolled bill did not contain the text actually passed by the Senate; they argued the journals — not the enrolled bill — should control.
April 28, 1965: This Court issued a temporary restraining order, without bond, enjoining Vice-Mayor Astorga from exercising any powers as Acting Mayor purportedly conferred by Republic Act No. 4065 until further orders.
Petitioner Astorga has since been succeeded by other Vice-Mayors; amici curiae (Attorneys Fortunato de Leon and Antonio Raquiza) were permitted to file memoranda.
Extensive memoranda and arguments were submitted on the question whether the "enrolled bill" doctrine or the "journal entry" rule prevails in the Philippines.

Legal Issue(s) Presented

Primary legal issue: Whether the enrolled bill (attested and signed by presiding officers and the President) is conclusive proof of a bill's enactment (the "enrolled bill" doctrine), or whether the legislative journals and records may be consulted to determine the true text passed by Congress (the "journal entry" rule), particularly where the presiding officer withdraws or disclaims his attestation.
Subsidiary issues:
- The legal effect of an attestation by presiding officers and whether such attestation is mandatory for validity.
- The proper evidentiary weight to be accorded to Senate journal entries when there is an evident discrepancy between journal entries and the enrolled bill.
- Whether the President's withdrawal of his signature and the Senate President's invalidation of his signature affects the presumption of validity of the enrolled bill.

Arguments Advanced by the Parties and Amici

Petitioner (Vice-Mayor Astorga):
- Relied on the enrolled bill theory: attestation by presiding officers and presidential approval produce a conclusive presumption that the bill was duly enacted.
- Argued that signatures of presiding officers serve as conclusive proof due to the respect owed to co-equal branches.
- Asserted that even if the Senate President later disclaimed his signature, that would amount to absence of attest