Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic: Legislative Department

Title: ASTORGA v. VILLEGAS

Citation: GR NO. L-23475, Apr 30, 1974, 155 Phil. 656

FACTS:

The petitioner, Hermino A. Astorga (as Manila Vice-Mayor), filed this case as a petition
praying for injunctive reliefs to compel the respondents to comply with the provisions of
the controversial Republic Act No. 4065 (the Act), which defines the Power, Rights, and
Duties of the Vice-Mayor of the City of Manila. On the ground that it was duly enacted and
should be followed.

During the Act’s Senate reading, Senators Tolentino and Roxas recommended
amendments thereto. Tolentino’s was approved by the Senate. Roxas’ recommended
amendment does not appear in the Senate Journal as having acted upon.

Senate sent its certification of the amendment to the House, attaching the amendment of
Roxas and not of Tolentino. Printed copies were then certified and attested by the
Secretary of the House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and the Senate President. The bill was transmitted to the President of the Philippines, who
affixed his signature thereto by way of approval, thereupon, the bill became the Act.

Senator Tolentino issued a press statement that the enrolled copy of the House Bill, signed
into law by the President of the Philippines, was a wrong version of the actual bill passed
by the senate because it did not embodied the amendments introduced by him which were
approved on the Senate floor.

The Senate President and the President of the Philippines affirmed this by withdrawing
their signatures, expressly declared that there was an error, and that the bill is not enacted.

Upon the declarations above, Antonio J. Villegas (Manila Mayor) issued circulars to the
department heads, chiefs of offices, and owners/operators of business establishments in
the city to disregard the Act. The mayor also recalled the five members of the city police
force who had been assigned to the Vice-Mayor presumably under the authority of the Act.

The mayor, who was then going abroad on an official trip, petitioned a temporary
restraining order barring vice-mayor from exercising mayoral powers purportedly
conferred to the vice-mayor under the assailed Act. Hence, the petition.

ISSUES:

Whether or not, the so-called Republic Act 4065 was passed into law despite being a bill
not found in the Journal.

RULING:

No. Briefly, since the bill is inconsistent with what the Congress have agreed upon.
Despite having the signatures of the presiding officers of both Houses, their attestation
does not add to the validity of the bill. The attestation is merely a mode of authentication,
since requiring the attestation in effect provides the officers the power to veto which is not
provided by the Constitution. Clearly, the approval of Congress, and not the signatures of
the officers, is essential.

Following that logic, the absence of the signatures would only mean that there is no
enrolled bill, however, would not affect the validity of the bill as pointed out by the
petitioner. Having no attestation/authentication, what evidence is there to determine
whether or not the bill had been duly enacted? The Court will have to consult the Senate
Journal.

The Journal, being required by the Constitution, is no ordinary record. While it is not
authenticated and is prone to misprinting and errors, the point is irrelevant in this case
since the Court is merely tasked to inquire whether the text of the House Bill signed by the
Chief Executive, is the same text passed by the Houses of Congress. Since the Act is
inconsistent with the version of the bill inside the Journal, then the court will have to
declare that the bill was not duly enacted.

Hence, the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Makalintal, declared that the
so-called Republic Act No. 4065 as not to have been duly enacted and therefore did
not become a law. The temporary restraining order is also made permanent.