Astorga v Villegas

No. L-23475 | Apr 30, 1974 | C.J. Makalintal

FACTS

Petitioner: Vice-Mayor of Manila; Respondent: Mayor of Manila

Petition: mandamus, injunction and/or prohibition with preliminary mandatory and prohibitory
injunction

Controversy: passage of HB No. 9266 / RA 4065 (Revised Charter of the City of Manila)

Timeline:
-

March 30, 1964 - HB 9266, a bill of local application, filed in HoR

-

April 21, 1964 - HB 9266 passed on 3rd reading without amendments, sent to Senate for
concurrence (referred to Senate Committee on Provinces and Municipal Governments and Cities
headed by Sen. Gerardo Roxas)

-

May 20, 1964 - HB discussed on Senate floor, amendments made to Sec 1 (Sen. Arturo
Tolentino) approved in toto by Senate. Amendments recommended by Sen. Roxas was not acted
upon by Senate and did not appear in the journal.

-

May 21, 1964 - Secretary of Senate sent letter to HoR that HB 9266 had been passed by the
Senate with amendments (includes amendments by Sen Roxas instead of amendments by Sen
Tolentino which was the one actually approved by the Senate)

-

June 16, 1964 - Sec of the House transmitted 4 printed copies of the bill to the President for
signature

-

June 18, 1964 - Bill was signed by Pres and became RA 4065

-

July 5, 1964 - Sen Tolentino issued a press statement saying that the enrolled copy of HB 9266
was the wrong version

-

July 11, 1964 - Senate Pres, through Sec of Senate, sent a letter to the President explaining that
his signature in the bill was invalid as it was the wrong version

-

July 21, 1964 - Subsequent letter clarifying that the invalidation of the Senate Pres signature
meant that the bill had never been approved by the Senate and the fact that he and the Senate
Sec had signed it did not make the bill a valid enactment

-

July 31, 1964 - Pres officially withdrew his signature from HB

-

After the withdrawal of Pres signature, Villegas as Mayor of Manila, issued circulars to disregard
the provisions of RA 4065 and recalled the 5 members of the police who had been assigned to
the Vice-Mayor under the authority of RA 4065

-

Petitioner filed the said petitions to compel respondents to comply with the provisions of RA 4065


Respondents argument: RA 4065 never became a law as it was not the bill actually passed by the
Senate, and that the entries in the journal of that body and not the enrolled bill itself should be
decisive in the resolution of the issue

Court issued a TRO enjoining Astorga from exercising any of the powers of the Vice-Mayor
conferred by RA 4065

Original petitioner has already been succeeded since the filing of this case


ISSUE

WON the SC must look into the Senate Journal to determine if RA 4065 was validly enacted
Astorga v Villegas
No. L-23475 | Apr 30, 1974 | C.J. Makalintal


HELD / RATIO

Yes. Under the specific facts and circumstances of this case, the SC can resort to the Senate
Journal for the purpose of answering the inquiry on whether the text of HB 9266 signed by the Pres
was the same text passes by both Houses of Congress.

The journal discloses that substantial and lengthy amendments were introduced on the floor and
approved by the Senate but were not incorporated in the printed text sent to the President and
signed by him.

Note: the SC is not asked to incorporate such amendments into the alleged law but only to declare
that the bill was not duly enacted and therefore did not become law.

Based on the record of proceedings found in the Senate Journal, respondents arguments were
affirmed, ergo, RA 4065 is declared not to have been duly enacted and therefore did not become
law. The TRO is made permanent.