CASE DIGEST

Astorga vs Villegas
Statutory Construction

Court Supreme Court En Banc

Citation G.R. No. L-23475
Date April 30, 1974
Petitioner Herminio A. Astorga
Respondent Antonio J. Villegas, et. al

FACTS:
On March 30, 1964 House Bill No. 9266, a bill of local application, which will amend the Revised
Charter of the City of Manila and provide for the power, duties, and rights of the Vice Mayor of the City,
was filed in the House of Representatives. It was passed on third reading without amendments until it was
discussed in the Senate. Then Senator Tolentino made substantial amendments which were approved in
toto by the Senate. Senator Roxas also recommended amendment but this did not appear in the journal
of the Senate proceedings. The House of Representatives approved HB 9266 which became RA 4065
containing the amendments recommended by Senator Roxas and not the Senator Tolentino
amendments.
Senator Tolentino issued a press statement that the copy of the HB 9266 signed into law by the
President was the wrong version of the bill actually passed by the Senate. As a consequence, the Senate
President invalidated his signature on the bill. Soon, the President also withdrew his signature.
After learning such, respondents sent letters and issued circulars to all concerned personnel and
departments of the local government to disregard the provisions of the said law.
With that, the petitioner, then Vice Mayor of Manila filed a petition for Mandamus, lnjunction
and/or Prohibition with Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction to compel the respondents to
comply with the provisions of RA 4065.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Republic Act No. 4065 is valid

HELD:
The Congress attests or authenticates bills by the signatures of their respective presiding officers
and secretaries on the printed copy of the approved bill which will be sent to the President for his
approval. The 1935 Constitution is silent as to what shall constitute proof of due enactment; however,
Section 10(4) says that each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings and publish the same from
time to time.
The petitioner’s argument is that the attestation is proof of its due enactment, however, since the
Senate President withdrew his signature, thus equating this to no attestation. If attestation is absent and
there being no enrolled bill, the entries in the journal should be consulted.
The court looked whether the HB 9266 which was approved to be RA 4065 was the same bill
passed by both houses of Congress through the Senate Journal, and it was found out that substantial and
lengthy amendments that were recommended and approved by were not incorporated in the printed text
sent to the President for signature.
Thus, the court denied the petition and declared that Republic Act No. 4065 was not duly
enacted, thus, it did not become a law.