Mabanag v.

Lopez Vito
G.R. No. L-1123, March 5, 1947
Ponente: Justice Tuason

Facts:
Instant petition is for prohibition of a congressional resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution. 3 of
petitioner senators were proclaimed elected in the April 1946 elections, but were then suspended on alleged
irregularities. The 8 petitioner representatives had not been allowed to sit. Thus, the mentioned did not take part in
the passage of the resolution. If their votes had been counted, the affirmative votes would have been short of the
necessary.

Issue:
Whether or not the issue is justiciable.

Held:
No. Enrolled bill doctrine. Political questions are not subject to judicial review, except when dealing with questions
conferred upon the courts by constitutional/statutory proivision. This is predicated upon the separation of powers.
According to a US case, the efficacy of ratification by state legislature of proposed amendment to Federal
Constitution is a political question. If ratification of an amendment is a political question, a proposal which leads to
ratification has to be a political question. 1935 Constitution provides two distinct parts for amendments: proposal
and ratification. Proposal to amend is highly political performed by Congress in its sovereign legislative capacity,
and there is less reason for judicial inquiry into a proposals validity rather than ratification. A duly authenticated
bill/resolution imports absolute verity and is binding on the courts. The courts cannot mandate the President to use
his calling out power when the situation permits it, or the legislature to pass a certain kind of law. Such duties are
beyond judicial review if the one charged fails to perform them. Motives are beyond the courts. The sensible
solution is not to patch casual errors by asking the Judiciary to circumvent the Constitution, but to represent
ourselves with competent legislators. The Code of Civil Procedure provides proving legislative proceedings 1)
journals, clerk/secretary certified; 2) copy signed by presiding officers and secretaries, conclusive proof. But this
Court chooses to pass over the question. The journals have no signs of irregularity.