8/6/2019 Astorga v.

Villegas Case Digest – It's a Ping Thing

It's a Ping Thing

Anything and Everything That Interests Ping

Astorga v. Villegas Case Digest

NOVEMBER 21, 2018 ~ PINGTHINGLAW

Astorga v. Villegas
56 SCRA 714
Digest by Kirk Yngwie Enriquez

Facts:

On March 30, 1964, HB 9266, a bill of local application, was filed. The same was passed on third reading
without amendments on April 21, 1964. The bill was sent to the Senate and was referred to the Senate
Commi ee on Provinces, Municipal Governments and Cities headed by Sen. Gerardo Roxas. The
commi ee recommended the approval with a minor amendment, suggested by the senator, that it be the
President Pro-tempore of the Municipal Board who should succeed the Vice-Mayor in case of the la er’s
incapacity to act as Mayor. On May 20, 1964, substantial amendments to Section 1 of the Bill were
introduced by Sen. Arturo Tolentino which were approved in toto by the Senate. The amendment by
Sen. Roxas does not appear in the Senate journal to have been acted upon.

On May 21, 1964, the Secretary of the Senate sent a le er to the House of Reps that HB 9266 had been
passed by the Senate on May 20, 1964 with amendments, but what was a ached to the le er was the
certification of the amendment by Sen. Roxas, and not the ones by Sen. Tolentino. The House of Reps
then signified its approval and printed copies were certified and a ested by the Secretaries and Leaders
of both Houses. On June 16, 1964, the Secretary of the House of Reps transmi ed 4 printed copies of the
bill to the President, who approved the same on June 18, 1964. It became RA 4065 (a.k.a. “An Act
Defining the Powers, Rights, and Duties of the Vice Mayor of the City of Manila, Amending for the
Purpose Sections 10 and 11 of RA 409, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the City
of Manila”). The passage of the act irked respondent City Mayor, and Sen. Tolentino issued a press
statement on July 5, 1964 that the enrolled copy of HB 9266 signed into law by the president was a
wrong version because it did not have his amendments approved on the Senate floor. Consequently, the
Senate President, through the Senate Secretary, sent a le er to the President explaining that the enrolled
copy of the Bill signed by the secretaries and presiding officers of both Houses was not the bill approved
by Congress, and that his signature is invalid and has no effect, which means that the bill had never been
approved by the Senate and did not make the bill a valid enactment.

On July 31, 1964, the President sent a message to the presiding officers of both Houses of Congress
informing them that he was officially withdrawing his signature on HB 9266, saying that ‘it would be
untenable and against public policy to convert into law what was not actually approved by Congress’.
Manila Mayor and respondent Antonio Villegas also issued circulars to disregard the provisions of RA
4065. Vice Mayor and Petitioner Herminio Astorga filed a petition before the SC to compel the mayor,

https://pingthing.law.blog/2018/11/21/astorga-v-villegas-case-digest/ 1/3
8/6/2019 Astorga v. Villegas Case Digest – It's a Ping Thing

among others, to comply with the provisions of RA 4065.

Respondents’ position is that RA 4065 never became law since it was not the bill actually passed by the
Senate, and that the entries in the journal of that body and not the enrolled bill itself should be decisive.

Issue:

Whether the enrolled bill doctrine or the journal entry should be adhered to.

Ruling:

It is the journal entry that is binding in this case.

Congress devised its own system of authenticating bills, by the signatures of their respective presiding
officers and secretaries on the printed copy of the approved bill. This procedure is merely a mode of
authentication, signifying to the President that the bill being presented has been duly approved by
Congress and is ready for his approval. A estation/Authentication is not approval. A bill is approved
when it is passed by both Houses.

In Fields v. Clark, the US Supreme Court ruled that the signatures of the presiding officers on a bill,
although not required by the Constitution, is conclusive evidence of its passage. It also said that the
enrolled bill doctrine is based mainly on the respect due to coequal and independent departments,
which requires the judicial department to accept as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated in the
manner stated. Also, it has been stated in other cases that if the a estation is absent and the same is not
required for the validity of the statute, the courts may resort to the journals and other records of
Congress for proof of its due enactment.

However, the 1935 Constitution is silent as to what shall constitute proof of due enactment. However

Sec. 10(4) – Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings and publish the same from time to time.

Sec. 21(2) – No bill shall be passed by either House unless it shall have been printed and copies thereof in
its final form furnished its Members. Upon the last reading of a bill no amendment shall be allowed, and
the question upon its passage shall be taken immediately and the votes entered on the journal

Petitioner’s argument that the a estation is proof of its due enactment is neutralized by the fact that the
Senate President declared his signature on the bill to be invalid and meant that the bill he had signed has
never been approved. This declaration should be given greater respect than the a estation it invalidated.
As far as Congress is concerned, there is nothing sacrosanct in the certification made by the presiding
officers. The certification does not add to the validity of the bill or cure any defect already present upon
its passage. It is the approval by Congress and not the signatures of the presiding officers that is
essential.

In Brown v. Morris, the SC of Missouri said that the indispensable step is the final passage, and if a bill,
otherwise fully enacted as a law, is not a ested by the presiding officer, other proof that it has been
passed by both houses will satisfy the constitutional requirement.

Petitioner agrees that the a estation is not mandatory but argues that the disclaimer by the Senate
President would only mean that there was no a estation at all, but would not affect the validity of the
statute, hence RA 4065 would remain valid. It would limit the Court’s inquiry to the presence or absence
of the a estation and its effect. The issue is in case a estation is absent and there being no enrolled bill,
the entries in the journal should be consulted. The journals discloses that substantial and lengthy
https://pingthing.law.blog/2018/11/21/astorga-v-villegas-case-digest/ 2/3
8/6/2019 Astorga v. Villegas Case Digest – It's a Ping Thing

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, hence the bill was not duly enacted. For the Court
to perpetuate the error by disregarding such rectification and holding that the erroneous bill has become
law would be to sacrifice truth to fiction.

LAW NOTES

Published by pingthinglaw

An aspiring lawyer in her twenties who's just trying to make the right decision of saying no to chocolate
every day and failing miserably View all posts by pingthinglaw

BLOG AT WORDPRESS.COM.

https://pingthing.law.blog/2018/11/21/astorga-v-villegas-case-digest/ 3/3