Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

Mabanag vs Lopez Vito

This is 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."
The petitioners contend that their vote were not taken into consideration in requiring that in amending
the constitution, the law requires 3/4 of the votes of the member of the Congress thus arriving in the
question of constitutionality of the said resolution.
Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction and whether or not the journals can be investigated against
the conclusiveness of the enrolled bills.
Petition is dismissed without cost. The Court held that to go behind the enrolled bills which were
already authenticated and to investigate the journals amounts to disregard of the respect due to the
coequal and independent department of the state, and it would be an inquisition into the conduct of
the members of the legislature, a very delicate power, the frequent exercise of which must lead to
confusion in the administration of the law.
Duly certified copies shall be conclusive proof of the provisions of Acts and the due enactment

G.R. No. L-1123: Mabanag vs Lopez Vito
Journal Adoption of the Enrolled Bill Theory

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 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. 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. Petitioners filed or the prohibition of the furtherance of the said resolution
amending the constitution. 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.

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

HELD: 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. 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.