56 SCRA 714 Political Law The Legislative Department Journal;When to be

Consulted
In 1964, Antonio 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 Republic Act
No. 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 then Vice-Mayor Herminio Astorga
(assigned under authority of RA 4065).
Astorga reacted against the steps carried out by Villegas. He then filed a petition 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 (filed with the SC). In his defense, Villegas denied recognition of
RA 4065 (An Act Defining the Powers, Rights and Duties of the Vice-Mayor 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 House Bill No. 9266, it was sent to
the Senate which referred it to the Committee on Provinces and Municipal Governments
and Cities headed by then 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 lower house and was thereafter approved by the latter.
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 lower house 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 valid 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 bills due
enactment.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 4065 was validly enacted.
HELD: No. 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. The 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.