Mabanag v.

Lopez Vito FACTS: 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. ISSUES: Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction and whether or not the journals can be investigated against the conclusiveness of the enrolled bills. HELD: 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 thereof. Astorga vs. Villegas G.R. No. L-23475, April 30, 1974 Facts: House Bill No. 9266, a bill of local application filed in the House of Representatives, was passed on third reading withoutamendments. But when the bill was discussed in the Senate, substantial amendments were introduced by Senator Tolentino. Thoseamendments 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 actually approved by the Senate. The printed copies of the bill were then certified and attested by the Secretary of the House ofRepresentatives, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Secretary 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 theamendments 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 hissignature 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 result of the disclaimer, and consequently there being no enrolled bill to speak of, the entries in the journal should be consulted. The journal discloses that substantial and lengthy amendments wereintroduced 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. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892), sustained the McKinley Tariff Act of 1890, in which the president was given power to take certain prescribed articles off the free list if he found that the countries exporting such products to the United States unreasonably discriminated against American agricultural products. The Supreme Court ruled that this was a delegation of discretion as to the facts, not the law, and was not, therefore, an unconstitutional delegation of power.

L O N ZA N I D A V S C O M E L E C FACTS: Lonzanida was elected as mayor and served two consecutive terms from 1988 to 1995. He then ranagain for the same position in the May 1995 elections, won and discharged his duties as mayor. However, his opponent contested his proclamation and filed an election protest before the RTC, which ruled that there was a failure of elections and declared the position of mayor vacant. The COMELECaffirmed this decision and petitioner acceded to the order to vacate his post. In the 1998 elections, Lonzanida again filed a certificate of candidacy for mayor but was protested against due to the reason that he allegedly had served 3 consecutive terms already. ISSUE: Whether or not it may be considered that petitioner had served 3 consecutive terms, granting that he did not finish his term in 1995. HELD: Negative. By reason of his involuntary relinquishment of office, petitioner did not fully serve the 1995-1998 mayoral term and became a private citizen