STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

MODULE 2
STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT

Name: Bagsit, Michael Subject: Statutory Construction

Case: Lidasan v. COMELEC, 21 Syllabus:
SCRA 496
Doctrine: Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one
subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof

Facts:
This is the case of Lidasan versus COMELEC.

The Fact of the case are as follow. On June 18, 1966, the Chief
Executive signed into law House Bill 1247, known as Republic Act
4790, now in dispute. Assailed in this petition is House Bill 1247,
which became Republic Act 4790 entitled “An Act Creating the
Municipality of Dianaton in the province of Lanao del Sur.” It was
found that the bill includes barrios located in another province –
Cotabato. Inn effect, by virtue of the stature, twelve barrios - in two
municipalities in the province of Cotabato are transferred to the
province of Lanao del Sur. This brought about a change in the
boundaries of the two provinces.

Prompted by the coming elections, COMELEC adopted a resolution

implementing the statute. This triggered the present action for
certiorari and prohibition by Bara Lidasan, a resident and taxpayer of
one of the affected municipalities (Parang, Cotabato), and a qualified
voter for the 1967 elections.
Issue:
The issues in this case whether or not the title of the RA 4790 “An
Act Creating Municipality of Dianaton in the province of Lanao del
Sur is unconstitutional for not confirming with the constitutional
requirement.

Ruling:

The decision of the Supreme Court, One Bill-One Subject

 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
MODULE 2
STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT

- First, Congress is to refrain from conglomeration, under one

statute, of heterogeneous subjects
- Second, the title of the bill is to be couched in a language
sufficient to notify the legislators and the public and those
concerned of the import of the single subject thereof

RA 4790 may still be salvaged with reference to the areas found within
Lanao del Sur, with the mere nullification of the portion in the other
province of Cotabato. The general rule is that where part of the statute
is void, the valid portion, if separable from the invalid, may stand and
be enforced. Enough must remain to make a complete, intelligible,
and valid statute, which carries out the legislative intent.

Under the Constitution, in the case of Lidasan versus COMELEC

upon the constitutional mandate that "No bill which may be enacted
into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be
expressed in the title of the bill". Every Bill passed by the Congress
shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title
thereof

Name: Joannie Lumbao Subject: Statutory Construction

Case: Giron v. Commission on Syllabus: Bill Title
Election
Doctrine: “One subject – One Title Rule” - Every bill passed by the
Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed
in the title thereof.

Facts:
Petitioner Henry Giron and petitioners-in-intervention assail the
constitutionality of Section 12 (Substitution of Candidates) and
Section 14 (Repealing Clause) of Republic Act No. (R.A.)9006,
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
MODULE 2
STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT

otherwise known as the Fair Election Act. Giron asserts that the
insertion of Sections 12 and 14 in the Fair Election Act violates
Section 26(1), Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution, which specifically
requires: “Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one
subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.” He avers that
these provisions are unrelated to the main subject of the Fair
Election Act: the lifting of the political ad ban. Section 12 refers to
the treatment of the votes cast for substituted candidates after the
official ballots have been printed, while Section 14 pertains to the
repeal of Section 67 (Candidates holding elective office) of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election
Code. Section 67 of this law concerns the ipso facto resignation of
elective officials immediately after they file their respective
certificates of candidacy for an office other than that which they are
currently holding in a permanent capacity.

Issue:
Whether or not the inclusion of Sections 12 and 14 in the Fair
Election Act violates Section 26 (1), Article VI of the 1987
Constitution, or the "one subject-one title" rule.
Ruling:
Petition must fail.

Petition is hereby DISMISSED.

Supporting Articles:
POLITICAL LAW: “one subject-one title” rule
Every bill passed by the congress shall embrace only one subject
which shall be expressed in the title thereof.

STATCON:
Constitutional provisions relating to the subject matter and
titles of statutes should not be so narrowly construed as to
cripple or impede the power of legislation. The requirement that
the subject of an act
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
MODULE 2
STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT

shall be expressed in its title should receive a reasonable and not a

technical construction. It is sufficient if the title be comprehensive
enough reasonably to include the general object which a
statute seeks to effect, without expressing each and every end
and means necessary or convenient for the accomplishing of
that object. Mere details need not be set forth. The title need not be
an abstract or index of the Act.

Name: De Guzman, Mark Subject: Statutory Construction

Daniel
Case: Tolentino vs. Sec Syllabus: Formalities
Finance
Doctrine: No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless
it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies
thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three
days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the
necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or
emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto
shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately
thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.

Facts:
Petitioners seeking reconsideration of SC En Banc decision
dismissing the petitions filed for the declaration of unconstitutionality
of R.A. No. 7716, otherwise known as the Expanded Value-Added
Tax Law.
|||
On June 27, 1995 the matter was submitted for resolution.

Petitioners claims made by them that R.A. No. 7716 did not "originate
exclusively" in the House of Representatives as required by Art. VI,
§24 of the Constitution.

Instead what the Senate did was to pass its own version (S. No. 1630)
which it approved on May 24, 1994. Petitioner Tolentino adds that
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
MODULE 2
STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT

what the Senate committee should have done was to amend H. No.
11197 by striking out the text of the bill and substituting it with the text
of S. No. 1630. That way, it is said, "the bill remains a House bill and
the Senate version just becomes the text (only the text) of the House
bill." “Amendment by substitution”

In plain simple language the Senate should have maintained the

original tittle of the house bill “H. No. 11197” and used the contents of
Senate Bill “S. No. 1630” that way the bill remains a House bill which
as petitioners contend is required by Art. VI, §24 of the Constitution

Issues:
1. W/N RA7716 is unconstitutional on grounds that it did not
exclusively originate in the House of Representatives and
therefore violates Art. VI §24 of the Constitution.

2. What is the extent of the power of the Senate to propose or

concur with amendments to the bills initiated by the House of
Representatives?

Ruling:
SC En Banc DENIED the MR of petitioners and upheld the
constitutionality of RA 7716.
The Bicameral nature of the congress follows from the
coequality of the two chambers. While all revenue bills must
exclusively originate from the house of representatives the senate
may propose or concur with amendments. Furthermore, the Senate
may propose an entirely new bill as a substitute measure.
In the case at bar, S. No. 1630 is not a “stand alone bill” it is
a mere amendment of the House bill, H. No. 11197. Which received
thorough consideration in the senate and passed legislative
requirement pursuant to Art. VI sec 26 of the 1987 constitution.
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
MODULE 2
STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT

Supporting Articles:

Art. VI, Section 24 of our Constitution reads:

All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of

the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall
originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate
may propose or concur with amendments.

Section 26.

(1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one
subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.

(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has
passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof
in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days
before its passage, except when the President certifies to the
necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or
emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto
shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately
thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.

Name: Salem A. Rangiris, Jr. Subject: StatCon

Case: PhilJa v. Prado Syllabus: Formalities
Doctrine: Any changes agreed upon by the Conference Committee
need not undergo another “three readings” in the Senate and the
House of Representatives. Article VI, Sec. 26(2) of the Constitution
must be construed as referring only to bills introduced for the first
time in either house of Congress. A law may not be declared
unconstitutional when what have been violated in its passage are
merely internal rules of procedures of the House. The Court may not
inquire beyond the certification of the approval of a bill from the
presiding officers of Congress. It has no power to inquire about the
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
MODULE 2
STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT

House of Congress process in enacting the law based on the latter’s

own rules.

Facts:

Petitioners assailed the validity of Sec 35 R.A. No. 7354 which

withdraw the franking privilege from the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, the Regional Trial Courts, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the
Municipal Trial Courts, and the Land Registration Commission and its
Registers of Deeds, along with certain other government offices. The
petition assails the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7354 on the grounds
that: (1) its title embraces more than one subject and does not express
its purposes; (2) it did not pass the required readings in both Houses
of Congress and printed copies of the bill in its final form were not
distributed among the members before its passage; and (3) it is
discriminatory and encroaches on the independence of the Judiciary

Issue:
Whether or not Sec 35 of RA 7354 is constitutional.

Ruling:

No. SC held that Sec 35 R.A. No. 7354 is unconstitutional.

1. Article VI, Sec. 26(l), of the Constitution providing that "Every bill
passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which
shall be expressed in the title thereof."

The title of the bill is not required to be an index to the body of

the act, or to be as comprehensive as to cover every single detail
of the measure. It has been held that if the title fairly indicates
the general subject, and reasonably covers all the provisions of
the act, and is not calculated to mislead the legislature or the
people, there is sufficient compliance with the constitutional
requirement.
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
MODULE 2
STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT

We are convinced that the withdrawal of the franking privilege

from some agencies is germane to the accomplishment of the
principal objective of R.A. No. 7354, which is the creation of a
more efficient and effective postal service system. Our ruling is
that, by virtue of its nature as a repealing clause, Section 35 did
not have to be expressly included in the title of the said law.

2. The petitioners maintain that the second paragraph of Sec. 35

covering the repeal of the franking privilege from the petitioners
and this Court under E.O. 207, PD 1882 and PD 26 was not
included in the original version of Senate Bill No. 720 or House
Bill No. 4200. As this paragraph appeared only in the
Conference Committee Report, its addition, violates Article VI,
Sec. 26(2) of the Constitution. The petitioners also invoke Sec.
74 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, requiring that
amendment to any bill when the House and the Senate shall
have differences thereon may be settled by a conference
committee of both chambers.

Casco Philippine Chemical Co. v. Gimenez laid down the rule

that the enrolled bill, is conclusive upon the Judiciary (except in
matters that have to be entered in the journals like the yeas and
nays on the final reading of the bill). The journals are themselves
also binding on the Supreme Court. Applying these principles,
we shall decline to look into the petitioners' charges that an
amendment was made upon the last reading of the bill that
eventually became R.A. No. 7354 and that copies thereof in its
final form were not distributed among the members of each
House. Both the enrolled bill and the legislative journals certify
that the measure was duly enacted i.e., in accordance with
Article VI, Sec. 26(2) of the Constitution. We are bound by such
official assurances from a coordinate department of the
government, to which we owe, at the very least, a becoming
courtesy.
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
MODULE 2
STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT

3. SC annuls Section 35 of the law as violative of Article 3, Sec. 1,

of the Constitution providing that no person shall "be deprived of
the equal protection of laws."

It is worth observing that the Philippine Postal Corporation, as a

government-controlled corporation, was created and is expected
to operate for the purpose of promoting the public service. While
it may have been established primarily for private gain, it cannot
excuse itself from performing certain functions for the benefit of
the public in exchange for the franchise extended to it by the
government and the many advantages it enjoys.

Name: Rachell Ann Uson Subject: StatCon

Case: BOLINAO ELECTRONICS CORP, Syllabus:
CHRONICLE BROADCASTING NETWORK, Approval of Bills
INC., and MONSERRAT BROADCASTING
SYSTEM, INC., petitioners, vs. BRIGIDO
VALENCIA, Sec. of the Dept. of Public Works
& Communications and ROBERT SAN
ANDRES of the Radio Control Division,
respondents.

G.R. No. L- 20740, June 30, 1964

Doctrine: The president has the power to veto any particular item or
items of an appropriations bill. However, when a provision of an
appropriations bill affects one or more items of the same, the
President cannot veto the provision without at the same time vetoing
the particular items to which it relates.
Facts:

• This petition for prohibition, mandatory injunction with

preliminary injunction are made by the Petitioners who are the 3
owners and operators of radio and television stations against the
respondents because of an ongoing investigation regarding the
renewal of their licenses.
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
MODULE 2
STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT

• The petitioners were not able to submit the applications for

renewal of their station licenses two months before its expiration;
hence, notice of hearing were sent to the petitioners for violation
of Sec. 12 and 14 of Dept Order No. 11 on Radio Laws, Rules
and Regulations and hearing was scheduled on Jan. 28, 1963.
This is also in connection with the power of Sec of PWC under
Commonwealth Act 3846 Sec.3 as amended by RA 584.
• Petitioners claim that this violation has ceased to exist because
of an issued circular dated July 24, 1962 intended for all radio
stations et.al to examine their operating practices, permits and
licenses and take remedial measures as soon as possible but
not later than August 10, 1962.
• Another issue is that Philippine Broadcasting Service (PBS)
operated by our State (RP), was given a construction permit to
install and operate a TV station in Manila (still part of Luzon)
particularly on Channel 9. The conflict is that PWC assumed that
CBN abandoned its right to operate and broadcast on Channel
9 because the latter is planning to transfer its station to Baguio
and the assignment will switch to Channel 10 effective only upon
the final transfer.
• Respondents made reference to the remarks appearing in the
construction permit No. 793, issued to the PBS, that
"construction of this station shall be begun after CBN’s permit to
transfer is approved." It is claimed that upon the approval of the
request to transfer, the petitioner was deemed to have
renounced or abandoned Channel 9.
• In reality, CBN did not pursue their plan on transfer. They
continued to operate on Channel 9. So, PBS is claiming for
damages because the alleged agreement between CBN and
said intervenor on the exchange of use of Channels 9 / 10.
• In relation to this, the president vetoed these 2 items of the
appropriation act to operate the PBS (incorporated in the 1962-
1963 Budget of the RP) which says that “no portion of
appropriation shall be used on the operation of television
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
MODULE 2
STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT

stations in Luzon or any part of the Philippines where there are

television stations”.

Issue:
1. WON the investigation being conducted by respondents, in
connection with petitioners' applications for renewal of their
station licenses, has any legal basis;
2. WON there was abandonment or renunciation by the Chronicle
Broadcasting Network (CBN) of Channel 9 in favor of PBS; and
3. WON PBS can legally operate Channel 9 and is entitled to
damages, for CBN's refusal to give up operations thereof.
Ruling: The writ of preliminary injunction filed by petitioners were
granted and heretofore issued by this Court is made permanent.
Without costs.

1. Investigation being conducted by respondents has no legal

basis because raison d'etre (the reason for being in existence)
had disappeared due of the circular’s condonement of the
petitioners’ violations. Having been in the same office or agency,
the Sec of PWC who has its own provision (RA 584) cannot
claim the illegality of the issued circular signed by
undersecretary of PWC to evade the effect of enforcement.
2. According to inter alios acta or the principle that a contract made
by other people cannot affect the rights of a non-party. The
respondent’s claim does not establish any agreement between
the radio control authority and the station operator, on the switch
or change of operations of CBN from Channel 9 to Channel 10
and cannot bind petitioner because CBN had no participation in
the preparation of the permit given to PBS. No proof that
petitioner had really waived or renounced its right to operate on
Channel 9, and respondents committed error in refusing to grant
petitioner's application for renewal of the license(Channel 9).
3. PBS would not have been entitled to reimbursement of its illegal
expenditures. There can be no damage because that the
Appropriation Act for PBS does not allow appropriations for the
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
MODULE 2
STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT

operation of television stations in Luzon or any part of the

Philippines where there are existing commercial television
stations. Though the President vetoed the 2 items in the
provision, his action was declared unconstitutional because:
• Executive's veto power does not carry with it the power to strike
out conditions or restrictions. (Art. VI, Sec. 20 of Consti)
• If the veto is unconstitutional, it follows that the same produced
no effect whatsoever, and the restriction imposed by the
appropriation bill, therefore, remains.

Supporting Articles:

Section 3 of Commonwealth Act 3846, as amended by Republic Act

584 provides that the Powers and Duties of Sec of PWC may
approve or disapprove any application for renewal of station or
operator license: Provided, however, That no application for renewal
shall be disapproved without giving the licensee a hearing."

Sections 12 and 14 of Department Order No. 11 of Radio Laws,

SEC. 12. - License Required for Operation of Transmitter,
Transceiver, or Station. - No radio transmitter or radio station shall
be operated without first obtaining from the Secretary of Public
Works & Communications a radio station license.

'SEC. 14. - When to Apply for Renewal. - If renewal of a station license

is desired, the licensee shall submit an application to the Secretary of
Public Works and Communications two (2) months before the
expiration date of the license to be renewed, Application should be
made on prescribed forms furnished for the purpose.'
---
Appropriations Act for the 1962-1963 Budget of the Republic of the
Philippines
IV. SPECIAL PURPOSES (items that the President vetoed)
"1. For contribution to the operation of the Philippine Broadcasting
Service, including promotion, programming, operations and general
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
MODULE 2
STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT

administration; Provided, That no portion of this appropriation shall be

used for the operation of television stations in Luzon or any part of the
Philippines where there are television stations . . . P300,000.00.

5. No amount appropriated for televisions under Special Fund and

General Fund shall be used for the operation of television stations in
Luzon or any part of the Philippines where there are television
stations."

Name: Jay Balicha Subject: StatCon

Case: ABAKADAGURO PARTY- Syllabus: Approval of Bills
LIST VS. PURISISMA
GR 166715, Aug. 14, 2008
Doctrine:

Facts:
• ||| RA 9335 provides rewards and sanctions to encourage
officials and employees of BIR and BOC to exceed revenue
targets.
• BIR and BOC were task to issue implementing rules and
regulations, TO BE APPROVED BY A JOINT
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE created for
such purpose.
• Petitioners assail constitutionality of RA 9335 on the following
grounds: (1) The law transforms the officials and employees
into mercenaries and bounty hunters (2) It violated the
constitutional guarantee of equal protection due to limiting the
scope of the rewards and incentives to the BIR and BOC
employees (3) The creation of a congressional oversight
committee violates the doctrine of separation of powers.

Issue:
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
MODULE 2
STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT

Whether the creation of the congressional oversight committee

violates the doctrine of separation of powers under the
Constitution

Ruling:
• Any of its members of congress to play any role in the
implementation or enforcement of the law violates the principle
of separation of powers.
• Section 12, of RA 9335, should be struck down as
unconstitutional. Without Section 12, the remaining provisions
still constitute a complete, intelligible and valid law
• Not violation of EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS, since only the
BIR and the BOC have the common distinct primary function of
generating revenues for the national government through the
collection of taxes, customs duties, fees and charges.

Supporting Articles:

Name: LOTERONO, Rechelle Mae L. Subject: STATCON

Case: Mabanag et al v. Lopez Vito Syllabus:
(The Petitioners are 8 Senators, 17 Representatives, and
the Presidents of the Democratic Alliance, the Popular
Front and the Philippine Youth Party) Module 2: Evidence of
L-1223, 05 March 1947 Enactment of Laws –
Ponente: TUASON, J. Enrolled Bill Theory
This case is a petition for prohibition to prevent the enforcement of a Congressional
Resolution “Resolution of both houses proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
Philippines to be appended as an ordinance thereto.” The validity of the above-mentioned
resolution is attacked as contrary to the Constitution.
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
MODULE 2
STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT

Facts:
• Three (3) of the plaintiff Senators and eight (8) of the plaintiff
Representatives were proclaimed by the COMELEC as elected
Senators and Representatives in the elections held on April 23,
1946.
• After the opening of the first session of Congress, the three
Senators were suspended due to alleged election irregularities.
• The eight Representatives were not allowed to sit in the lower
house except during the election of the Speaker. A resolution for
their suspension was introduced in the HOR, but that resolution
had not been acted upon by the House when this petition was
filed.
• As a consequence, these three (3) Senators and eight (8)
Representatives did participate in the passage of the questioned
Congressional Resolution “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.

Arguments:
• The Petitioners claimed that some Senators and House
Representatives 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.
• 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.
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
MODULE 2
STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT

• The petitioners contended that the enrolled bill rule has not
found acceptance in this jurisdiction.

Issue:
WON the said Resolution was enacted in compliance with the
legislative rules

Ruling:

YES. Upon examination of section 313 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

as amended by Act No. 2210, that, roughly, it 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. 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 inexistence 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. The
Supreme 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
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
MODULE 2
STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT

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 Supreme Court dismissed the petition without costs.

Supporting Articles:
Enrolled Bill. The bill as passed by Congress, authenticated by
the Speaker and the Senate President and approved by the
President is known as the enrolled bill. Under the principle of
the enrolled bill, the text of the act as passed and approved is
deemed importing absolute verity and is binding on the courts.
Under the “enrolled bill doctrine” the signing of a bill by the
Speaker of the House and the Senate President and the
certification of the Secretaries of both Houses of Congress that
it was passed are conclusive of its due enactment.

Name: Teruel, Emmanuel Subject: Statutory Construction

R.
Case: Arroyo vs. De Syllabus: Enrolled Bill Theory
Venecia
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
MODULE 2
STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT

Facts:
• Petition for certiorari and/or prohibition was filed questioning
the validity of R.A. 8240 for amending certain provisions of the
National Internal Revenue Code. Members of the House claim
that there is a violation of the rules of the House which
petitioners claim are constitutionalmandated so that their
violation is equivalent to a violation of the Constitution.

• The law originated in the House of Representatives as H. No.

7198 that was approved on the third reading and transmitted
to the Senate which was also approved with amendments. A
bicameral conference committee was formed to reconcile the
provisions of the House and Senate versions of the bill. The
bicameral committee submitted its consolidated law to the
House.

• In the course of his interpellations, Rep. Arroyo announced

that he was going to raise a question on the quorum, although
until the end of this interpellation he never did.

• On the same day, the bill was signed by the Speaker of the
House of Representative and the Senate President. The
enrolled bill was signed into law by President Ramos.
Issues:
• Whether or not there was a violation of the rules of the House
which petitioners claim are “constitutionally mandated” so that
their violation is equivalent to a violation of the constitution?

Ruling: Petition for certiorari and prohibition is DISMISSED; It does

NOT violate the constitution.

1. It is clear that what is alleged to have been violated are merely

internal rules of procedure of the House rather than
constitutional requirements for the enactment of a law.
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
MODULE 2
STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT

2. It is thus apparent that petitioners' predicament was largely of

their own making. Instead of submitting the proper motions for
the House to act upon, petitioners insisted on the pendency of
Rep. Arroyo's question as an obstacle to the passage of the bill.
But Rep. Arroyo's question was not, in form or substance, a
point of order or a question of privilege entitled to precedence.
Furthermore, even if Rep. Arroyo's question were so, Rep.
Albano's motion to adjourn would have precedence and would
have put an end to any further consideration of the question.
Also, Rep. Arroyo waived his objection by his continued
interpellation of the sponsor for in so doing he in effect
acknowledged the presence of a quorum

3. The enrolled bill rule considers that the President has no

authority to approve a bill not passed by Congress, an enrolled
Act in the custody of the Secretary of State, and having the
official attestations of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, of the President of the Senate, and of the
President, carries, on its face, a solemn assurance by the
legislative and executive departments of the government,
charged, respectively, with the duty of enacting and executing
the laws, that it was passed by Congress. The signing of H. No.
7198 by the Speaker of the House and the President of the
Senate and the certification by the secretaries of both Houses
of Congress that it was passed on November 21, 1996 are
conclusive of its due enactment.

Name: Ferdinand E. Apolonio Jr. Subject: StatCon

Case: Astorga v. Villegas Syllabus: Journal Entry Rule

Facts:
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
MODULE 2
STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT

House Bill No. 9266 becomes a law with the approval of the President
of the Philippines on June 18, 1964 thereafter called RA 4065. However
before it becomes a law it shall be noted that when the HB 9266 was sent
to the Senate by House of Representative it was later referred to the Senate
Committee on Provinces, Municipal Government and Cities headed by Sen.
Roxas. The Committee recommended the approval with minor amendment,
suggested by the senator. When the bill was discussed on the 2 nd reading in
Senate, a substantial amendments was introduced by Sen. Tolentino. Those
amendments were approved by Senate. But the recommendation of Sen.
Roxas does not appear in the journal of Senate proceedings as having been
acted upon.
The Secretary of Senate notify the House of Reps. that HB 9266 has
been passed by Senate “with amendments” attached to the letter a
certification of amendment, which was the one recommended by Sen.
Roxas and not Sen. Tolentino amendments which were the ones actually
approved by the Senate.
Later on Sen. Tolentino issued a press statement that the enrolled
copy of HB 9266 was the wrong version of the bill passed by the Senate. The
Senate President considered his signature on the enrolled bill as invalid and
of no effect. Because of that invalidation it is considered that it never been
approved by Senate and therefore did not make the bill a valid enactment.
The President of the Philippines later on withdrew his signature stating that
it would be against the public policy to convert into law what was not
actually approved by the two Houses of Congress.
The Mayor of Manila, Antonio Villegas, issued circulars to disregard
the provisions of RA 4065. Vice Mayor and Petitioner Herminio Astorga filed
a petition before the SC to compel the mayor, among others, to comply with
the provisions of RA 4065. Respondents’ position is that RA 4065 never
became law since it was not the bill actually passed by the Senate, and that
the entries in the journal of that body and not the enrolled bill itself should
be decisive.

|||
 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
MODULE 2
STATUTES AND THEIR ENACTMENT

Issue:
Whether the enrolled bill doctrine or the journal entry should be
adhered to.

Ruling:
It is the journal entry that is binding in this case.

The issue is in case attestation is absent and there being no enrolled

bill, the entries in the journal should be consulted. The journals discloses
that substantial and lengthy amendments were introduced on the floor and
approved by the Senate but were not incorporated in the printed text sent
to the President and signed by him, hence the bill was not duly enacted. For
the Court to perpetuate the error by disregarding such rectification and
holding that the erroneous bill has become law would be to sacrifice truth
to fiction.

This Court is not asked to incorporate such amendments into the

alleged law, which admittedly is a risky undertaking, but to declare that the
bill was not duly enacted and therefore did not become law.

In view of the foregoing considerations, the petition is denied and the

so-called Republic Act No. 4065 is declared not to have been duly enacted
and therefore did not become law.

Supporting Articles:
House Bill No. 9266 / RA 4065 – a.k.a “An Act Defining the Powers,
Rights, and Duties of the Vice Mayor of the City of Manila, Amending
for the Purpose Section 10 and 11 of RA 409 as amended, otherwise
known as the Revised Charter of the City of Manila.