Morales vs Subido on January 22, 2012 Political Law Journals vs Enrolled Bill Morales has served as captain in the

police department of a city for at least th ree years but does not possess a bachelor s degree, is qualified for appointment a s chief of police. Morales was the chief of detective bureau of the Manila Polic e Department and holds the rank of lieutenant colonel. He began his career in 19 34 as patrolman and gradually rose to his present position. Upon the resignation of the former Chief , Morales was designated acting chief of police of Manila and, at the same time, given a provisional appointment to the same position by t he mayor of Manila. Subido approved the designation of the petitioner but reject ed his appointment for failure to meet the minimum educational and civil service eligibility requirements for the said position. Instead, the respondent certified other persons as qualified for the post. Subido invoked Section 10 of the Polic e Act of 1966, which Section reads: Minimum qualification for appointment as Chief of Police Agency. No person may be appointed chief of a city police agency unless he holds a bachelor s degree from a recognized institution of learning and has served either in the Armed Forces o f the Philippines or the National Bureau of Investigation, or has served as chie f of police with exemplary record, or has served in the police department of any city with rank of captain or its equivalent therein for at least three years; o r any high school graduate who has served as officer in the Armed Forces for at least eight years with the rank of captain and/or higher. Nowhere in the above provision is it provided that a person who has served the po lice department of a city can be qualified for said office. Morales however argue d that when the said act was being deliberated upon, the approved version was ac tually the following: No person may be appointed chief of a city police agency unless he holds a bachel or s degree and has served either in the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Na tional Bureau of Investigation or police department of any city and has held the rank of captain or its equivalent therein for at least three years or any high school graduate who has served the police department of a city or who has served as officer of the Armed Forces for at least 8 years with the rank of captain an d/or higher. Morales argued that the above version was the one which was actually approved by Congress but when the bill emerged from the conference committee the only chang e made in the provision was the insertion of the phrase or has served as chief of police with exemplary record. Morales went on to support his case by producing c opies of certified photostatic copy of a memorandum which according to him was s igned by an employee in the Senate bill division, and can be found attached to t he page proofs of the then bill being deliberated upon. ISSUE: Whether or not the SC must look upon the history of the bill, thereby inq uiring upon the journals, to look searchingly into the matter. HELD: The enrolled Act in the office of the legislative secretary of the Presid ent of the Philippines shows that Section 10 is exactly as it is in the statute as officially published in slip form by the Bureau of Printing. The SC cannot go behind the enrolled Act to discover what really happened. The respect due to th e other branches of the Government demands that the SC act upon the faith and cr edit of what the officers of the said branches attest to as the official acts of their respective departments. Otherwise the SC would be cast in the unenviable and unwanted role of a sleuth trying to determine what actually did happen in th e labyrinth of lawmaking, with consequent impairment of the integrity of the leg islative process. The SC is not of course to be understood as holding that in al

l cases the journals must yield to the enrolled bill. To be sure there are certa in matters which the Constitution expressly requires must be entered on the jour nal of each house. To what extent the validity of a legislative act may be affec ted by a failure to have such matters entered on the journal, is a question whic h the SC can decide upon but is not currently being confronted in the case at ba r hence the SC does not now decide. All the SC holds is that with respect to ma tters not expressly required to be entered on the journal, the enrolled bill pre vails in the event of any discrepancy.