G.R. No.

L-1123, March 5, 1947

Mabanag v. Lopez Vito

Ponente: Justice Tuason I.

Topic: Evidence of Due Enactment of Laws Enrolled Bill Theory

II.

Petitioners: ALEJO MABANAG ET AL., eight senators, seventeen representatives, and the presidents of the
Democratic Alliance. the Popular Front and the Philippine Youth Party Respondents: JOSE LOPEZ VITO ET AL.,
The members of the Commission on Elections. the Treasurer of the Philippines, the Auditor General, and the
Director of the Bureau of Printing

III.

Instant petition for prohibition of a congressional resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution.

IV.

Three senators and eight representatives had been proclaimed by a majority vote of the Commission on Elections as
having been elected senators and representatives in the elections held on 23 April 1946. The three senators were
suspended by senate due to election irregularities. The eight representatives since their election had not been allowed
to sit in the lower House, except to take part in the election of the Speaker, for the same reason, although they had
not been formally suspended. As a consequence these three senators and eight representatives did not take part in the
passage of the congressional resolution, designated "Resolution of both houses proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the Philippines to be appended as an ordinance thereto," nor was their membership reckoned within
the computation of the necessary three-fourths vote which is required in proposing an amendment to the
Constitution. If these members of Congress had been counted, the affirmative votes in favor of the proposed
amendment would have been short of the necessary three-fourths vote in either branch of Congress.

Petitioner

V.

Petitioners argued that some senators and House Reps were not considered in determining the required ¾ vote. If
these members of Congress had been counted, the affirmative votes in favor of the proposed amendment would have
been short of the necessary three-fourths vote in either branch of Congress

Respondent

Respondents argued that the SC cannot take cognizance of the case because the Court is bound by the
conclusiveness of the enrolled bill or resolution The votes were already entered into the Journals of the respective
House. As a result, the Resolution was passed.

Issues: Whether or not the Court can take cognizance of the issue at bar Whether or not the said resolution was duly
enacted by Congress

VI.

Ruling:
It is a doctrine too well established to need citation of authorities that political questions are not within the province
of the judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal with such questions has been conferred upon the courts by
express constitutional or statutory provision. This doctrine is predicated on the principle of the separation of powers,
a principle also too well known to require elucidation or citation of authorities. According to a US case, the efficacy
of ratification by state legislature of proposed amendment to Federal Constitution is a political question. If
ratification of an amendment is a political question, a proposal which leads to ratification has to be a political
question. 1935 Constitution provides two distinct parts for amendments: proposal and ratification. Proposal to
amend is highly political performed by Congress in its sovereign legislative capacity, and there is less reason for
judicial inquiry into a proposal’s validity rather than ratification.

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. As far as looking into the Journals is concerned, even if both the journals from each House 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. A duly authenticated bill/resolution
imports absolute verity and is binding on the courts. The courts cannot mandate the President to use his calling out
power when the situation permits it, or the legislature to pass a certain kind of law. Such duties are beyond judicial
review if the one charged fails to perform them. The SC 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."

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. Section 313 of the old Code of Civil Procedure
(Act 190), as amended by Act No. 2210, provides: "Official documents may be proved as follows: . . . (2) the
proceedings of the Philippine Commission, or of any legislatives 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 of 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." The SC is bound by the contents of a duly authenticated resolution (enrolled bill) by the
legislature. In case of conflict, the contents of an enrolled bill shall prevail over those of the journals.