TICKLER: JOURNALS AS CONCLUSIVE TO THE COURTS AND CONFLICT IN PROCEDURE AS NOT

GROUND FOR AMMENMENT OR UNCONSTITUTIONALITY

IF IT IS MERELY THE POLITICAL PERSONALITY OF THOSE PRESENT IN THE RATIFICATION,

ENROLLED BILLS CAN STILL BE VALIDATED.

FACTS:

ALEJO MABANAG, ET AL., petitioners, vs. JOSE LOPEZ VITO, ET AL., respondents.
G.R. No. L-1123 March 5, 1947

Petitioners include 3 senators and 8 representatives.

The three senators were suspended by senate due to election irregularities.

The 8 representatives were not allowed to take their seat in the lower House except in the
election of the House Speaker. They argued that some senators and House Reps were not
considered in determining the required 3⁄4 vote (of each house) in order to pass the Resolution
(proposing amendments to the Constitution)* – which has been considered as an **enrolled
bill by then.

At the same time, the votes were already entered into the Journals of the respective House. As
a result, the Resolution was passed but it could have been otherwise were they allowed to vote.
Petitioners pray that the said resolution be prevented. Respondents argue that the same can no
longer be prevented as entered in the Journals. The Journal of each house is conclusive to the
courts.

*this is in contrast to Art 15 of the Constitution as well

ISSUE: Whether or not the Court can take cognizance of the issue at bar.

HELD: If ratification of an amendment is a political question, a proposal which leads to

ratification has to be a political question. The two steps complement each other in a scheme
intended to achieve a single objective. It is to be noted that the amendatory process as
provided in section I of Article XV of the Philippine Constitution “consists of (only) two distinct
parts: proposal and ratification.” There is no logic in attaching political character to one and
withholding that character from the other.

Proposal to amend the Constitution is a highly political function performed by the Congress in
its sovereign legislative capacity and committed to its charge by the Constitution itself. The
exercise of this power is even in dependent of any intervention by the Chief Executive. If on
grounds of expediency scrupulous attention of the judiciary be needed to safeguard public
interest, there is less reason for judicial inquiry into the validity of a proposal then into that of
ratification.

On the other hand, as far as looking into the Journals is concerned, even if both the journals
and an authenticated copy of the Act had been presented, the disposal of the issue by the Court
on the basis of the journals does not imply rejection of the enrollment theory, for, as already
stated, the due enactment of a law may be proved in either of the two ways specified in section
313 of Act No. 190 as amended.

Section 313 of the old Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2210, provides: "Official
documents may be proved as follows: * * * (2) the proceedings of the Philippine Commission, or
of any legislative body that may be provided for in the Philippine Islands, or of Congress, by the
journals of those bodies or of either house thereof, or by published statutes or resolutions, or by
copies certified by the clerk or secretary, or printed by their order; Provided, That in the case of
Acts of the Philippine Commission or the Philippine Legislature, when there is an existence of a
copy signed by the presiding officers and secretaries of said bodies, it shall be conclusive proof
of the provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof."

Proof of Other Official Documents. —

Official documents may be proved, as follows:
1. Acts of the Chief Executive of the Philippine Islands, by the record of his office, certified
by his secretary under the seal thereof, if there be one; acts of the Executive of the United
States, by records of the Departments of the United States Government, wherein are
contained the records of such acts, certified by the heads of such departments. They may
also be proved by public documents, printed by the order of the Chief Executive of the
Philippine Islands, or the President of the United States, or by order of Congress, or either
House thereof, or by the order of the Philippine Commission, or by the order of any
legislative assembly which may be provided for the Philippine Islands. Acts of the
Executive of the Philippine Islands under Spanish administration may be proved by the
records thereof in the custody of the United States officials, or officials of the
Government of the Philippine Islands, certified by the legal keeper of the records. They
may also be proved by public documents printed by order of the Chief Executive of the
Philippine Islands. Acts of the Chief Executive of Spain may be proved by the records of
any department of the Executive, certified by the head of the department in which the
record is;
2. The proceedings of the United States Philippine Commission, or of any legislative body
that may be provided for the Philippine Islands, or of Congress, by the journals of those
bodies, or of either House thereof, or by published statutes or resolutions, or by copies
certified by the clerk or secretary, or printed by their order. The proceedings of the
legislative branch of the Government of Spain prior to the eighteenth day of August,
eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, may be proved by public documents, or statutes or
resolutions, printed by the order of the executive or legislative departments of the
Government of Spain, or commonly received in that country as such, or by copy certified
under the seal of either the executive or the legislative branch of the Government of
 Spain, or by a recognition thereof in some public act of the Executive of the United
States;
3. The acts of the executive or the proceedings of the legislature of any State or Territory of
the United States, in the same manner as provided in paragraphs one and two;
4. The acts of the executive or the proceedings of legislature of a foreign country, by
journals published by their authority, or commonly received in that country as such, or by
a copy certified under the seal of the country or sovereign, or by recognition thereof in
some public act of the Executive of the United States;
5. The acts of a municipal corporation of the Philippine Islands, or of a board or department
thereof, by a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof, or by a printed book published by
the authority of such corporation;
6. Official documents of any other class in the Philippine Islands, by the original, or by
copy certified by the legal keeper thereof;
7. Official documents of any other class in the United States, or in any State or Territory
thereof, by the original, or by a copy, certified by the legal keeper thereof, together with
the certificate of the secretary of state, judge of the supreme, superior, or county court, or
a mayor of a city of the United States, or of such State or Territory, that the copy is duly
certified by the officer having the legal custody of the original;
8. Official documents of any other class of a foreign country, by the original, or by a copy
certified by the legal keeper thereof, with a certificate, under the seal of the country or
sovereign, that the document is a valid and subsisting document of such country, and that
the copy is duly certified by the officer having legal custody of the original;
9. Official documents in departments of the United States Government, by the certificates of
the legal custodian thereof.

This Court found in the journals no signs of irregularity in the passage of the law and did not
bother itself with considering the effects of an authenticated copy if one had been introduced.
It did not do what the opponents of the rule of conclusiveness advocate, namely, look into the
journals behind the enrolled copy in order to determine the correctness of the latter, and rule
such copy out if the two, the journals and the copy, be found in conflict with each other. No
discrepancy appears to have been noted between the two documents and the court did not say
or so much as give to understand that if discrepancy existed it would give greater weight to the
journals, disregarding the explicit provision that duly certified copies “shall be conclusive proof
of the provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof.”

"The State court below assumed jurisdiction to determine whether the proper procedure is
being followed between submission and final adoption. However, it is apparent that judicial
review of or pronouncements upon a supposed limitation of a 'reasonable time within which
Congress may accept ratification; as to whether duly authorized State officials have proceeded
properly in ratifying or voting for ratification; or whether a State may reverse its action once
taken upon a proposed amendment; and kindred questions, are all consistent only with an
ultimate control over the amending process in the courts. And this must inevitably embarrass the
course of amendment by subjecting to judicial interference matters that we believe were intrusted
by the Constitution solely to the political branch of government.
**Enrolled Bill – that which has been duly introduced, finally passed by both houses, signed by
the proper officers of each, approved by the president and filed by the secretary of state.