United States vs Juan Pons, 31 Phil 729

34 Phil. 729 Political Law Journal Conclusiveness of the Journals

ISSUE:
Whether or not the SC must go beyond the recitals of the Journals to
determine if Act 2381 was indeed made a law on February 28, 1914.
HELD:

Juan Pons and Gabino Beliso were trading partners. On April 5, 1914, the
steamer Lopez y Lopez arrived in Manila from Spain and it contained 25
barrels of wine. The said barrels of wine were delivered to Beliso. Beliso
subsequently delivered 5 barrels to Pons house. On the other hand, the
customs authorities noticed that the said 25 barrels listed as wine on
record were not delivered to any listed merchant (Beliso not being one).
And so the customs officers conducted an investigation thereby
discovering that the 25 barrels of wine actually contained tins of opium.
Since the act of trading and dealing opium is against Act No. 2381, Pons
and Beliso were charged for illegally and fraudulently importing and
introducing such contraband material to the Philippines. Pons appealed
the sentence arguing that Act 2381 was approved while the Philippine
Commission (Congress) was not in session. He said that his witnesses
claim that the said law was passed/approved on 01 March 1914 while
the special session of the Commission was adjourned at 12MN on
February 28, 1914. Since this is the case, Act 2381 should be null and
void.

The SC looked into the Journals to ascertain the date of adjournment but
the SC refused to go beyond the recitals in the legislative Journals. The
said Journals are conclusive on the Court and to inquire into the veracity
of the journals of the Philippine Legislature, when they are, as the SC
have said, clear and explicit, would be to violate both the letter and the
spirit of the organic laws by which the Philippine Government was
brought into existence, to invade a coordinate and independent
department of the Government, and to interfere with the legitimate
powers and functions of the Legislature. Pons witnesses cannot be
given due weight against the conclusiveness of the Journals which is an
act of the legislature. The journals say that the Legislature adjourned at
12 midnight on February 28, 1914. This settles the question, and the
court did not err in declining to go beyond these journals. The SC
passed upon the conclusiveness of the enrolled bill in this particular
case.