G.R. No.

L-23475 April 30, 1974

HERMINIO A. ASTORGA, in his capacity as Vice-Mayor of Manila, petitioner,

vs.
ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, in his capacity as Mayor of Manila, THE HON., THE EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY, ABELARDO SUBIDO, in his capacity as Commissioner of Civil Service,
EDUARDO QUINTOS, in his capacity as Chief of Police of Manila, MANUEL CUDIAMAT, in his
capacity as City Treasurer of Manila, CITY OF MANILA, JOSE SEMBRANO, FRANCISCO
GATMAITAN, MARTIN ISIDRO, CESAR LUCERO, PADERES TINOCO, LEONARDO FUGOSO,
FRANCIS YUSECO, APOLONIO GENER, AMBROCIO LORENZO, JR., ALFONSO MENDOZA,
JR., SERGIO LOYOLA, GERINO TOLENTINO, MARIANO MAGSALIN, EDUARDO QUINTOS,
JR., AVELINO VILLACORTA, PABLO OCAMPO, FELICISIMO CABIGAO, JOSE BRILLANTES,
JOSE VILLANUEVA and MARINA FRANCISCO, in their capacities as members of the
Municipal Board, respondents.

FACTS:

A House Bill was filed in the House of Representatives. It was passed on third reading with a
minor amendment, suggested by Senator Roxas and was sent to the Senate for its concurrence. Upon
the discussion of the Senate, substantial amendments to Section 1 were introduced by Senator Arturo
Tolentino. Those amendments were approved in toto by the Senate. However, the Secretary of the
Senate did a mistake by passing the bill containing the one recommended by Senator Roxas and not
the Tolentino amendments which were the ones actually approved by the Senate. Consequently, the
Secretary of the House transmitted four printed copies of the bill to the President of the Philippines,
who affixed his signatures thereto and then the bill became Republic Act No. 4065.

The furor over the Act which ensued as a result of the public denunciation mounted by
respondent City Mayor drew immediate reaction from Senator Tolentino, who issued a press statement
that the enrolled copy of House Bill No. 9266 signed into law by the President of the Philippines was
a wrong version of the bill.

Vice-Mayor, Herminio A. Astorga then filed a petition to compel respondents to comply with the
provisions of Republic Act 4065 as it would remain valid and binding upon the attestation of the
presiding officers of Congress constitutes a conclusive proof of due enactment of a bill.

ISSUE:

Whether the "enrolled bill" doctrine or the "journal entry" rule should be adhered to in this
jurisdiction.

HELD:

The journal 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. The 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. The Court do, as indeed both the President of the Senate and the Chief Executive did,
when they withdrew their signatures therein. In the face of the manifest error committed and
subsequently rectified by the President of the Senate and by the Chief Executive, for the Court to
perpetuate that error by disregarding such rectification and holding that the erroneous bill has become
law would be to sacrifice truth to fiction and bring about mischievous consequences not intended by
the law-making body.