Mabanag vs Lopez Vito (1947)

Summary Cases:

Mabanag vs Lopez Vito 78 Phil 1

Subject:

Enrolled Bill

Facts:

Petitioners filed a petition for prohibition to prevent the enforcement of a congressional resolution
designated "Resolution of both houses proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Philippines to
be appended as an ordinance thereto."

Petitioners are 3 senators and 8 house representatives who had been proclaimed as elected winners by
in the 1946 elections, but who were not allowed to sit and participate in the legislative proceedings by
their respective Houses on account of alleged irregularities in their election.

Consequently, they did not take part in the passage of the questioned resolution, 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 they 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.

Respondents, on the other hand, claims that the court is without jurisdiction on the matter, and relies on
the conclusiveness on the courts of an enrolled bill or resolution.

Held:

Political Question

1. Political questions are not within the province of the judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal
| Page 1 of 3

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.

2. In Coleman vs. Miller, the United States Supreme Court concluded that the efficacy of ratification by
state legislature of a proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution is a political question and hence
not justiciable.

3. 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 independent of
any intervention by the Chief Executive.

4. The Constitution grants Congress exclusive power to control submission of constitutional amendments.
Final determination by Congress that ratification by three-fourths of the States has taken place 'is
conclusive upon the courts.' In the exercise of that power, Congress, of course, is governed by the
Constitution. However, whether submission, intervening procedure or Congressional determination of
ratification conforms to the commands of the Constitution [are] questions of a type which this Court has
frequently designated 'political.' (citing the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Black in Miller vs Coleman)

Enrolled Bill doctrine

5. The enrolled bill doctrine pertains to the rule that, in the case of Acts of 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. (based on
Section 313 of the old Code of Civil Procedure)

(Note: this means that courts are not to look behind the enrolled copy of the legislative bill and examine
the pertinent journals of the legislative proceedings to determine if the bill was indeed passed in
compliance with the Constitution and legislative rules)

6. It has been declared that the rule against going behind the enrolled bill is required by the respect due
to a coequal and independent department of the government. (citing American Jurisprudence)
| Page 2 of 3

7. The rule is also one of convenience, because , otherwise, courts could not rely on the published
session laws, but would be required to look beyond these to the journals of the legislature and often to
any printed bills and amendments which might be found after the adjournment of the legislature. (citing
American Jurisprudence)

8. Section 313 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2210, provides two methods of
proving legislative proceedings: (1) by the journals, or by published statutes or resolutions, or by copies
certified by the clerk or secretary or printed by their order; and (2) in case of acts of the legislature, by a
copy signed by the presiding Officers and secretaries thereof, which shall be conclusive proof of the
provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof.

9. The Court looked into the journals in United States vs. Pons because, in all probability, those were the
documents offered in evidence. It does not appear that a duly authenticated copy of the Act was in
existence or was placed before the Court. 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. More importantly, the court
did not say that if a discrepancy existed, it would give greater weight to the journals.

| Page 3 of 3