United States vs Juan Pons, 31 Phil 729

34 Phil. 729 Political Law Journal Conclusiveness of the Journals

Juan Pons and Gabino Beliso were trading partners. On April 5, 1914, the steamer Lopez
y Lopez arrived in Manila from Spain and it contained 25 barrels of wine. The said barrels
of wine were delivered to Beliso. Beliso subsequently delivered 5 barrels to Pons house.
On the other hand, the customs authorities noticed that the said 25 barrels listed as wine
on record were not delivered to any listed merchant (Beliso not being one). And so the
customs officers conducted an investigation thereby discovering that the 25 barrels of
wine actually contained tins of opium. Since the act of trading and dealing opium is
against Act No. 2381, Pons and Beliso were charged for illegally and fraudulently
importing and introducing such contraband material to the Philippines. Pons appealed
the sentence arguing that Act 2381 was approved while the Philippine Commission
(Congress) was not in session. He said that his witnesses claim that the said law
was passed/approved on 01 March 1914 while the special session of the Commission was
adjourned at 12MN on February 28, 1914. Since this is the case, Act 2381 should be null
and void.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the SC must go beyond the recitals of the Journals to determine if Act
2381 was indeed made a law on February 28, 1914.
HELD:
The SC looked into the Journals to ascertain the date of adjournment but the SC refused
to go beyond the recitals in the legislative Journals. The said Journals are conclusive on
the Court and to inquire into the veracity of the journals of the Philippine Legislature,
when they are, as the SC have said, clear and explicit, would be to violate both the letter
and the spirit of the organic laws by which the Philippine Government was brought into
existence, to invade a coordinate and independent department of the Government, and
to interfere with the legitimate powers and functions of the Legislature. Pons witnesses
cannot be given due weight against the conclusiveness of the Journals which is an act of
the legislature. The journals say that the Legislature adjourned at 12 midnight on
February 28, 1914. This settles the question, and the court did not err in declining to go
beyond these journals. The SC passed upon the conclusiveness of the enrolled bill in this
particular case.