ASTORGA vs VILLEGAS

GR No. 23475, April 30, 1974

Facts:
In 1964, Villegas (then Mayor of Manila) issued circulars to the department heads
and chiefs of offices of the city government as well as to the owners, operators
and/or managers of business establishments in Manila to disregard the
provisions of RA 4065. He likewise issued an order to the Chief of Police to recall
five members of the city police force who had been assigned to Vice-Mayor
Astorga presumably under authority of RA 4065. Astorga reacted against the
steps carried out by Villegas. He then filed a petition with this Court on
September 7, 1964 for "Mandamus, Injunction and/or Prohibition with Preliminary
Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction" to compel Villegas et al and the members
of the municipal board to comply with the provisions of RA 4065. Respondent
denied recognition of RA 4065 (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) because the said
law was considered to have never been enacted. When the this said law
passed the 3rd reading in the lower house as HB 9266, it was sent to the Senate
which referred it to the Committee on Provinces and Municipal Governments and
Cities headed by Senator Roxas. Some minor amendments were made before
the bill was referred back to the Senate floor for deliberations. During such
deliberations, Sen. Tolentino made significant amendments which were
subsequently approved by the Senate. The bill was then sent back to the HOR
and was thereafter approved by the HOR. The bill was sent to the President for
approval and it became RA 4065. It was later found out however that the copy
signed by the Senate President, sent to the HOR for approval and sent to the
President for signing was the wrong version. It was in fact the version that had no
amendments thereto. It was not the version as amended by Tolentino and as
validly approved by the Senate. Due to this fact, the Senate president and the
President of the Philippines withdrew and invalidated their signatures that they
affixed on the said law. Astorga maintains that the RA is still vald and binding and
that the withdrawal of the concerned signatures does not invalidate the statute.
Astorga further maintains that the attestation of the presiding officers of Congress
is conclusive proof of a bill's due enactment.
Issue:
Whether or not the SC must look into the Journal to determine if the said law was
validly enacted.
Decision:
The journal of the proceedings of each House of Congress is no ordinary record.
The Constitution requires it. While it is true that the journal is not authenticated
and is subject to the risks of misprinting and other errors, the journal can be

looked upon in this case. This SC is merely asked to inquire whether the text of
House Bill No. 9266 signed by the President was the same text passed by both
Houses of Congress. Under the specific facts and circumstances of this case, the
SC can do this and resort to the Senate journal for the purpose. 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 however that 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. As done by both the
President of the Senate and the Chief Executive, when they withdrew their
signatures therein, the SC also declares that the bill intended to be as it is
supposed to be was never made into law. To perpetuate that error by
disregarding such rectification and holding that the erroneous bill has become
law would be to sacrifice truth to fiction and bring about mischievous
consequences not intended by the law-making body.