Mabanag vs.

Vito Case Digest (Consti-1)

Mabanag vs. Vito
[GR L-1123, 5 March 1947]
En Banc, Tuason (J): 3 concur, 1 concur in separate opinion, 2 dissent in separate opinions, 1 filed
separate opinion
Facts: 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 the Senate shortly after the opening of the first
session of Congress following the elections, on account of alleged irregularities in their election. 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. A
resolution for their suspension had been introduced in the House of Representatives, but that resolution
had not been acted upon definitely by the House when the petition for prohibition was filed. 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. The petition for prohibition sought to prevent the enforcement of said congressional
resolution, as it is allegedly contrary to the Constitution. The members of the Commission on Elections,
the Treasurer of the Philippines, the Auditor General, and the Director of the Bureau of Printing are made
defendants. Eight senators, 17 representatives, and the presidents of the Democratic Alliance, the
Popular Front and the Philippine Youth Party.

Issue: Whether the Court may inquire upon the irregularities in the approval of the resolution proposing
an amendment to the Constitution.

Held: 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. The difficulty lies in determining what matters fall within the meaning of political question.
The term is not susceptible of exact definition, and precedents and authorities are not always in full
harmony as to the scope of the restrictions, on this ground, on the courts to meddle with the actions of the
political departments of the government. If a political question conclusively binds the judges out of respect
to the political departments, a duly certified law or resolution also binds the judges under the "enrolled bill
rule" born of that respect. 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 in
dependent of any intervention by the Chief Executive. If on grounds of expediency scrupulous attention of
the judiciary be needed to safeguard public interest, there is less reason for judicial inquiry into the validity
of a proposal then into that of ratification.

Mabanag v. Lopez Vito

G.R. No. L-1123, March 5, 1947
Ponente: Justice Tuason
Facts:
Instant petition is for prohibition of a congressional resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution. 3 of
petitioner senators were proclaimed elected in the April 1946 elections, but were then suspended on alleged
irregularities. The 8 petitioner representatives had not been allowed to sit. Thus, the mentioned did not take part in the
passage of the resolution. If their votes had been counted, the affirmative votes would have been short of the necessary.

Issue:
Whether or not the issue is justiciable.

Held:
No. Enrolled bill doctrine. Political questions are not subject to judicial review, except when dealing with questions
conferred upon the courts by constitutional/statutory proivision. This is predicated upon the separation of powers.
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. 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. Motives are beyond the courts. The sensible solution is not to patch
casual errors by asking the Judiciary to circumvent the Constitution, but to represent ourselves with competent
legislators. The Code of Civil Procedure provides proving legislative proceedings 1) journals, clerk/secretary certified;
2) copy signed by presiding officers and secretaries, conclusive proof. But this Court chooses to pass over the question.
The journals have no signs of irregularity.