MABANAG VS LOPEZ VITO

G.R. No. L-1123. March 5, 1947

Tuason, J.

FACTS:

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 ¾ 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 the enrollment 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.
MABANAG VS LOPEZ VITO
G.R. No. L-1123. March 5, 1947

Tuason, J.

FACTS:

Three senators and eight representatives had been proclaimed by a majority vote of the Commission
on Elections as having been elected senators and representatives in the elections held on 23 April
1946. The three senators were suspended by the Senate shortly after the opening of the first session
of Congress following the elections, on account of alleged irregularities in their election. The eight
representatives since their election had not been allowed to sit in the lower House, except to take part
in the election of the Speaker, for the same reason, although they had not been formally suspended. A
resolution for their suspension had been introduced in the House of Representatives, but that resolution
had not been acted upon definitely by the House when the petition for prohibition was filed. As a
consequence these three senators and eight representatives did not take part in the passage of the
congressional resolution, designated "Resolution of both houses proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the Philippines to be appended as an ordinance thereto," nor was their membership
reckoned within the computation of the necessary three-fourths vote which is required in proposing an
amendment to the Constitution. 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. The petition for prohibition sought to prevent the enforcement of said congressional
resolution, as it is allegedly contrary to the Constitution. The members of the Commission on Elections,
the Treasurer of the Philippines, the Auditor General, and the Director of the Bureau of Printing are
made defendants. Eight senators, 17 representatives, and the presidents of the Democratic Alliance,
the Popular Front and the Philippine Youth Party.

ISSUE:

Whether the Court may inquire upon the irregularities in the approval of the resolution proposing an
amendment to the Constitution.

HELD:

It is a doctrine too well established to need citation of authorities that political questions are not within
the province of the judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal with such questions has been
conferred upon the courts by express constitutional or statutory provision. This doctrine is predicated
on the principle of the separation of powers, a principle also too well known to require elucidation or
citation of authorities. The difficulty lies in determining what matters fall within the meaning of political
question. The term is not susceptible of exact definition, and precedents and authorities are not always
in full harmony as to the scope of the restrictions, on this ground, on the courts to meddle with the
actions of the political departments of the government. If a political question conclusively binds the
judges out of respect to the political departments, a duly certified law or resolution also binds the judges
under the "enrolled bill rule" born of that respect. If ratification of an amendment is a political question,
a proposal which leads to ratification has to be a political question. The two steps complement each
other in a scheme intended to achieve a single objective. It is to be noted that the amendatory process
as provided in section I of Article XV of the Philippine Constitution "consists of (only) two distinct parts:
proposal and ratification." There is no logic in attaching political character to one and withholding that
character from the other. Proposal to amend the Constitution is a highly political function performed by
the Congress in its sovereign legislative capacity and committed to its charge by the Constitution itself.
The exercise of this power is even in dependent of any intervention by the Chief Executive. If on grounds
of expediency scrupulous attention of the judiciary be needed to safeguard public interest, there is less
reason for judicial inquiry into the validity of a proposal then into that of a ratification.

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.