You are on page 1of 3

Alejo Mabanag vs Jose Lopez Vito

8 Phil. 1 Political Law Journal Adoption of the Enrolled


Bill Theory

Petitioners include 3 senators and 8 representatives. The three


senators were suspended by senate due to election irregularities.
The 8 representatives were not allowed to take their seat in the
lower House except in the election of the House Speaker. They
argued that some senators and House Reps were not considered
in determining the required vote (of each house) in order to
pass the Resolution (proposing amendments to the Constitution)
which has been considered as an enrolled bill by then. At the
same time, the votes were already entered into the Journals of
the respective House. As a result, the Resolution was passed but
it could have been otherwise were they allowed to vote. If these
members of Congress had been counted, the affirmative votes in
favor of the proposed amendment would have been short of the
necessary three-fourths vote in either branch of Congress.
Petitioners filed or the prohibition of the furtherance of the said
resolution amending the constitution. Respondents argued that
the SC cannot take cognizance of the case because the Court is
bound by the conclusiveness of the enrolled bill or resolution.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court can take cognizance of the issue at bar.
Whether or not the said resolution was duly enacted by Congress.

HELD:
As far as looking into the Journals is concerned, even if both the
journals from each House and an authenticated copy of the Act
had been presented, the disposal of the issue by the Court on the

basis
of
the journals
does
not imply rejection of
theenrollment theory, for, as already stated, the due enactment
of a law may be proved in either of the two ways specified in
section 313 of Act No. 190 as amended. The SC found in the
journals no signs of irregularity in the passage of the law and did
not bother itself with considering the effects of an authenticated
copy if one had been introduced. It did not do what the
opponents of the rule of conclusiveness advocate, namely, look
into the journals behind the enrolled copy in order to determine
the correctness of the latter, and rule such copy out if the two,
the journals and the copy, be found in conflict with each other. No
discrepancy appears to have been noted between the two
documents and the court did not say or so much as give to
understand that if discrepancy existed it would give greater
weight to the journals, disregarding the explicit provision that
duly certified copies shall be conclusive proof of the provisions
of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof.
**Enrolled Bill that which has been duly introduced,
finally passed by both houses, signed by the proper officers of
each, approved by the president and filed by the secretary of
state.
Section 313 of the old Code of Civil Procedure (Act 190), as
amended by Act No. 2210, provides: Official documents may be
proved as follows: . . . (2) the proceedings of the Philippine
Commission, or of any legislatives body that may be provided for
in the Philippine Islands, or of Congress, by the journals of those
bodies or of either house thereof, or by published statutes or
resolutions, or by copies certified by the clerk of secretary, or
printed by their order; Provided, That in the case of Acts of the
Philippine Commission or the Philippine Legislature, when there is
an existence of a copy signed by the presiding officers and
secretaries of said bodies, it shall be conclusive proof of the
provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof.
The SC is bound by the contents of a duly authenticated
resolution (enrolled bill) by the legislature. In case of

conflict, the contents of an enrolled bill shall prevail over


those of the journals.

You might also like