Astorga vs. Villegas G.R. No.

L-23475, April 30, 1974 Sunday, January 25, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests, Political Law Facts: House Bill No. 9266, a bill of local application filed in theHouse of Representatives, was passed on third reading without amendments. But when the bill was discussed in the Senate, substantial amendments were introduced by Senator Tolentino. Those amendments were approved in toto by the Senate. There was also an amendment recommended by Senator Roxas but this does not appearin the journal of the Senate proceedings as having been acted upon. The House of Representatives thereafter signified its approval of H.B.9266 containing the amendments recommended by Senator Roxas and not the Tolentino amendments which were the ones actuallyapproved by the Senate. The printed copies of the bill were then certified and attested by the Secretary of the House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, theSecretary of the Senate and the Senate President. Then the President affixed his signature thereto by way of approval. The bill became RA 4065. Senator Tolentino issued a press statement that the enrolled copy of H.B. 9266 signed into law by the President was a wrong version of the bill actually passed by the Senate because it did not embody the amendments introduced by him and approved on the Senate floor. As a consequence, the Senate President invalidated his signature on the bill. Thereafter, the President withdrew his signature on H.B. 9266.

Issue: Whether or not the enrolled bill doctrine should be adhered to

Held: 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 right manner.

Petitioners argument that

the attestation of

the

presiding officers of

Congress is conclusive proof of a bills due enactment, required, it is said, by the respect due to a co-equal department of the government, is neutralized by the fact that the Senate President declared his signature on the bill to be invalid and issued a subsequent clarification that the invalidation of his signature meant that the bill he had signed had never been approved by the Senate. Absent such attestation as a be result of the disclaimer, and consequently there being no enrolled bill to speak of, the entries in the journal should consulted.

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 declares that the bill was not duly enacted and therefore did not become a law.

Issues: 1. WON the attestation of the presiding officers of Congress is conclusive proof of a bills due enactment. 2. WON RA 4065 can be considered as valid in the absence of the attestation required Held: 1. No. Senate President declared that his signature on the bill to be invalid and issued a subsequent clarification that the invalidation of his signature meant that the bill he had signed had never been approved by the Senate. This declaration should be accorded greater respect than the attestation that it invalidated. Certification that was made by the presiding officer is merely a mode of authentication. The essential thing is the approval of congress and not the signature of the presiding officers. Function of attestation is not approval because a bill is considered approved after it has passed both houses. Constitution does not even provide that the presiding officer should sign the bill before it is submitted to the president. Rationale of the enrolled bill theory the signing by the speaker of the House of Representatives and by the president of the Senate, in open session, of an enrolled bill, is an official attestation by the two houses, through their presiding officers, to the president, that a bill, thus attested, has received, in due form, the sanction

of the legislative branch of the government, and it is delivered to him in obedience to the constitutional requirement that all bills which pass Congress shall be presented to him. (Field vs. Clark) Enrolled bill theory based mainly on the respect due to coequal and independent departments which requires the judicial department to accept as having passed Congress, all bills authenticate in the manner stated. 2. No. Petitioner agrees that the attestation in the bill is not mandatory but he argues that the disclaimer thereof by the Senate President, granting that it to have been validly made, would only mean that there was no attestation at all but would not affect the validity of the statute. The argument of the petitioner would limit the courts inquiry to the presence or absence of the attestation and to the effect of its absence upon the validity of the statute. Absent such attestation as a result of the disclaimer, and consequently there being no enrolled bill to speak of, what evidence is there to determine within the bill had been duly enacted? In such case, the entry in the journal should be consulted. 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. Bill was not duly enacted and therefore did not become law.