ASTORGA v VILLEGAS Senate President wrote to the President

-explained that the enrolled bill they signed was not

Controversy revolves around House Bill No. 9266,
became RA 4065: AN ACT DEFINING THE
POWERS, RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE VICE
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MANILA.
-Amended Section 10 & 11 of RA 409 (Revised
Charter of the City of Manila.
HBNo. 9266, bill of local application was filed in
the HoR.
-passed on its 3rd reading w/o amendments.
HBNo 9266 was sent to the Senate for
concurrence.
-referred to the Senate Committee on Provinces and
Municipal Governments and Cities (head: Sen.
Gerardo Roxas)
-committee recommended it for approval wig minor
amendments
-that instead of the City Engineer, it
should be the President Protempore of the
Municipal Board who shd succeed the
Vice Mayor in case the VM cannot act
as Mayor.
the bill approved by the Congress
-that he considered his signature on the enrolled bill
as invalid and without effect.
--SUBC LETTER: clarified that the invalidation of the
Senate President of his signature meant that the bill
has never been approved by the Senate,
THEREFORE was not validly enacted.
President sent a message to his presiding
officers of Both Houses.
-in view of the circumstances, he officially withdraws
his signature on the HBNo. 9266.
-it was untenable and against public policy to convert
into what was not actually approved by the two
Houses.
Manila Mayor Antonio Villegas issued circulars
to:
1. Department heads
2. Chiefs of offices
3. Owners, operators and managers of businesses
in Manila
--to disregard the provisions of RA 4065.

2nd Reading on the floor of the Senate And an order to the Chief of Police
-substantial amendments to Section 1 were -to recall 5 members of the city police force who had
introduced by Sen. Arturo Tolentino been assigned to the Vice Mayor under authority of
-approved in toto by the Senate. RA 4065.
-HOWEVER, the amendment recommended by
Sen. Roxas did not appear in the journal of senate VM Astorga reacted + Filed a petition to compel
proceedings as having been acted upon. the respondents to comply with the provisions
of RA 4065.
The Secretary of the Senate sent a letter to the
HoR
-HBNo. 9266 had been passed by the senate WITH PETITIONER RESPONDENT
AMENDMENTS. Attestation of the never became a law
-attached to the letter: a certification of the presiding officers is since it was not the
amendment (the one recommended by Sen. Roxas; conclusive proof of s actual bill passed by the
not the ones by Tolentino which were the ones bills due enactment senate, entries in the
actually approved) senate journal AND
NOT THE ENROLLED
HoR signified its approval of HBNo. 9266 as sent BILL
back to it.
-copies of it were printed + certified and attested by should be the basis of
the Secretary of the H, Speaker of the H & Secretary the SC
of the Sen, Sen President
-signed into law =RA 4065 _________________________________________
ISSUEs:
Sen Tolentino issued a press statement that the 1. WON RA 4065 was duly enacted.
enrolled copy of the bill signed into law was a 2. WON the enrolled bill doctrine should apply.
wrong version of the bill.
-did not embody the amendments introduced by him 1. NO. Since both the Senate President and the Chief
and approved on the senate floor Executive withdrew their signatures therein, the court
declared that the bill was not duly enacted
and therefore did not become a law. The Constitution
requires that each House shall keep a journal. An
importance of having a journal is that in the absence of
attestation or evidence of the bill’s due enactment, the
court may resort to the journals of the Congress to
verify such. “Where the journal discloses that
substantial amendment were introduced and approved
and were not incorporated in the printed text sent to the
President for signature, the court can declare that the
bill has not been duly enacted and did not become a
law.”

2. No. The enrolled bill theory is based mainly on

“the respect due to coequal and independent
departments. which requires the judicial department
to accept, as having passed Congress, all bills
authenticated in the manner stated. If the attestation
is absent and the same is not required for the validity
of a statute, the courts may resort to the journals and
other records of Congress for proof of its due
enactment.

That attestation of the presiding officers of Congress

is conclusive proof of due enactment of the law
cannot apply in this case because the Senate
President himself had already declared his signature
on the bill to be invalid. Thus, the enrolled bill
doctrine cannot apply.