THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

JUAN PONS, defendant-appellant

G.R. No. 11530 | 1916-08-12
Topic: Powers of Congress Legislative Journals and Enrolled Bills

FACTS
Gabino Beliso, Juan Pons, and Jacinto Lasarte were charged with the crime of illegal
importation of opium. Conspiring together, they willfully and fraudulently, brought
from Spain, on board the steamer Lopez y Lopez, and imported into the city of
Manila, 520 tins containing 125 kilograms of opium of the value of Php62,400.00.
Juan Pons and Gabino Beliso were tried separately. (Jacinto Lasarte had not yet
been arrested.) Each were found guilty of the crime charged and sentenced
accordingly, the former to be confined in Bilibid Prison for the period of two years,
to pay a fine of P1,000 to suffer the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency, and to the payment of one-half of the costs. The same penalties were
imposed upon the latter, except that he was sentenced to pay a fine of P3,000. Both
appealed. Beliso later withdrew his appeal and the judgment as to him has become
final.
Pons appealed the sentence arguing that Act 2381 was approved while the
Philippine Commission (Congress) was not in session. He said that his witnesses
claim that the said law was passed/approved on 01 March 1914 while the special
session of the Commission was adjourned at 12 midnight on February 28, 1914.
Since this is the case, Act 2381 should be null and void.
ISSUES
Whether or not the court can look to legislative journals as poof of when
adjournment of Legislature happened?
Whether or not the Court can go beyond the recitals in the Journals to determine if
Act 2381 was indeed made a law on February 28, 1914.
RULING
YES. Section 275 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the existence of the
"official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United
States and of the Philippine Islands . . . shall be judicially recognized by the court
without the introduction of proof; but the court may receive evidence upon any of
the subjects in this section stated, when it shall find it necessary for its own
information, and may resort for its aid to appropriate books, documents, or
evidence."
 NO. The Supreme Court looked into the Journals to ascertain the date of
adjournment but refused to go beyond the recitals in the legislative Journals. The
said Journals are conclusive on the Court and to inquire into the veracity of the
journals of the Philippine Legislature, when they are, as the Court has said, clear
and explicit, would be to violate both the letter and the spirit of the organic laws by
which the Philippine Government was brought into existence, to invade a coordinate
and independent department of the Government, and to interfere with the legitimate
powers and functions of the Legislature.
Pons witnesses cannot be given due weight against the conclusiveness of the
Journals which is an act of the legislature. The journals say that the Legislature
adjourned at 12 midnight on February 28, 1914. This settles the question, and the
court did not err in declining to go beyond these journals. The Supreme Court passed
upon the conclusiveness of the enrolled bill in this particular case.
NOTES
Rules 15 and 16 of the Legislative Procedure of the Philippine Commission provides,
among other things, "that the proceedings of the Commission shall be briefly and
accurately stated on the journal." and that it shall be the duty of the Secretary "to keep a
correct journal of the proceedings of the Commission."
On page 793 of volume 7 of the Commission Journal for the ordinary and special sessions
of the Third Philippine Legislature, the following appears:
The Journal for Saturday, February 28, 1914, was approved. Adjournment sine die
of the Commission as a Chamber of the Philippine Legislature. The hour of
midnight having arrived, on motion of Commissioner Palma, the Commission, as a
Chamber of the Philippine Legislature adjourned sine die."

AN ACT RESTRICTING THE USE OF OPIUM AND REPEALING ACTNUMBERED

SEVENTEEN HUNDRED AND SIXTY-ONE.