Case Summary (G.R. No. L-29658)
Factual summary of petitioner’s submissions
The petitioner submitted certified photostatic copies of successive drafts of House Bill No. 6951, page proofs purporting to show the version approved by both Houses, and a memorandum from a Senate bill-division employee. These documents were offered to show that an earlier draft contained the phrase “who has served the police department of a city or,” which allegedly would have allowed the petitioner (a high school graduate with police service) to qualify under Section 10. The petitioner alleged that the phrase was omitted not by legislative action but during engrossment or proofreading by a legislative employee and that the enrolled Act therefore does not reflect what was actually passed or intended by Congress.
Court’s statement of constitutional and institutional limits
The Court rejected the petitioner’s invitation to act as an investigatory body into the internal legislative process. It emphasized the separation of powers and the institutional duty to accept the enrolled Act as the authoritative and conclusive record of the statute as authenticated by the presiding officers of the legislative houses and approved by the Executive. The Court stated that to permit evidentiary inquiries into internal clerical endorsements or proofreading changes would impair the integrity and finality of the legislative process and would reduce the judiciary to a fact-finding “sleuth” in matters properly addressed within Congress.
Reliance on United States precedents and their principles
The Court anchored its position on established U.S. authority. In Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark (143 U.S. 649 (1891)), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the signatures of the presiding officers of the two houses on an enrolled bill constitute an official attestation that the bill is the one passed by Congress; when such an enrolled bill is approved by the President and deposited in the archives, its authentication is complete and unimpeachable. Harwood v. Wentworth (162 U.S. 547 (1895)) reiterated that courts should not permit discrepancy claims to be established by internal legislative endorsements or clerical recollections. The Court cited these authorities to buttress the principle that enrolled and authenticated legislation is conclusive on the courts.
Philippine precedents adopting the enrolled bill doctrine
The Court traced the development of the enrolled bill theory in Philippine jurisprudence. It distinguished United States v. Pons (34 Phil. 729 (1916)) as inapposite because that case did not involve a discrepancy between an enrolled bill and the journal entries. The Court noted Mabanag v. Lopez-Vito (78 Phil. 1 (1947)) as the decision adopting the enrolled bill rule for the Philippines, holding that an enrolled bill “imports absolute verity and is binding on the courts,” despite earlier division among justices. The Court then cited Casco Philippine Chemical Co. v. Gimenez (G.R. No. L-17931, Feb. 28, 1963) as having settled any remaining doubt, quoting Chief Justice Concepcion that the enrolled bill is conclusive and any printing or clerical mistakes must be corrected by legislative amendment or curative legislation rather than by judicial decree.
Court’s caveat regarding journaled matters and constitutional requirements
While asserting the primacy of the enrolled Act, the Court recognized limited exceptions: certain matters are expressly required by the Constitution to be entered on the journal of each house. The Court rese
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-29658)
Citation and Procedural Posture
- 136 Phil. 405; G.R. No. L-29658; February 27, 1969.
- The matter before the Court consists of the petitioner's motions for reconsideration directed to a portion of the Court's prior decision concerning the legislative history and text of section 10 of the Police Act of 1966.
- The motions for reconsideration challenge the enrolled Act’s version of section 10 on the ground that the provision was altered in the engrossment/proofreading process and that the allegedly intended Senate amendment (the "Rodrigo amendment") was distorted or partially omitted.
- The ultimate disposition by the Court: the motions for reconsideration are denied.
Legislative and Factual Background (as presented)
- House Bill 6951 was the originating measure; in the Senate the Committee on Government Reorganization reported a substitute measure, and section 10’s present form and substance trace to that substitute bill.
- The substitute bill originally contained the following provision (quoted in the record):
- "No person may be appointed chief of a city police agency unless he holds a bachelor's degree and has served either in the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the National Bureau of Investigation or police department of any city and has held the rank of captain or its equivalent therein for at least three years or any high school graduate who has served the police department of a city for at least 8 years with the rank of captain and/or higher."
- At the instance of Senator Francisco Rodrigo an amendment was inserted to add the phrase "has served as officer in the Armed Forces" so that the provision read (quoted in the record):
- "No person may be appointed chief of a city police agency unless he holds a bachelor's degree and has served either in the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the National Bureau of Investigation or police department of any city and has held the rank of captain or its equivalent therein for at least three years or any high school graduate who has served the police department of a city or who has served as officer of the Armed Forces for at least 8 years with the rank of captain and/or higher."
- The Rodrigo amendment was characterized as an addition to the phrase "who has served the police department of a city for at least 8 years with the rank of captain and/or higher," under which the petitioner might qualify (petitioner is at least a high school graduate and finished the second year of law).
- According to the petitioner, somewhere in the legislative process the phrase "who has served the police department of a city or" was dropped and only the Rodrigo amendment was retained, altering the intended qualification language.
Documentary Materials Submitted by Petitioner
- Certified photostatic copies of different drafts of House Bill 6951 showing the sequence of changes made to section 10.
- Page proofs of the bill as finally approved by both Houses of Congress (annex G), which contained the following version (quoted in the record):
- "SEC. 10. Minimum qualifications for appointment as Chief of a Police Agency . - No person may be appointed chief of a city police agency unless he holds a bachelor's degree from a recognized institution of learning and has served either the Armed Forces of the Philippines or has served as chief of police with exemplary record or the National Bureau of Investigation or the police department of any city and has held the rank of captain or its equivalent therein for at least three years or any high school graduate who has served the police department of a city or has served as officer in the Armed Forces for at least eight years from the rank of captain and/ or higher."
- A certified photostatic copy of a memorandum, purportedly signed by an employee in the Senate bill division and attached to the page proofs, explaining the change in section 10 in these terms:
- "Section 10 was recast for clarity. (with the consent of Sen. Ganzon & Congressman Montano)."
Petitioner’s Core Argument and Requested Judicial Action
- The petitioner contends that:
- The version of the provision as amended by Sen. Rodrigo was the version approved by the Senate on third reading.
- When the bill emerged from the conference committee, the only change made to that provision was the insertion of "or has served as chief of police wi