ASTORGA V. VILLEGAS GR NO.

L-23475

In 1964, Villegas (then Mayor of Manila) issued circulars to the department heads and chiefs of
offices of the city government as well as to the owners, operators and/or managers of business
establishments in Manila to disregard the provisions of RA 4065. He likewise issued an order to the
Chief of Police to recall five members of the city police force who had been assigned to Vice-Mayor
Astorga presumably under authority of RA 4065. Astorga reacted against the steps carried out by
Villegas. He then filed a petition with this Court on September 7, 1964 for Mandamus, Injunction
and/or Prohibition with Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction to compel Villegas et al
and the members of the municipal board to comply with the provisions of RA 4065. Respondent
denied recognition of RA 4065 (An Act Defining the Powers, Rights and Duties of the Vice-Mayor of
the City of Manila, Further Amending for the Purpose Sections Ten and Eleven of Republic Act
Numbered Four Hundred Nine, as Amended, Otherwise Known as the Revised Charter of the City of
Manila) because the said law was considered to have never been enacted. When the this said law
passed the 3
rd
reading in the lower house as HB 9266, it was sent to the Senate which referred it to
the Committee on Provinces and Municipal Governments and Cities headed by Senator Roxas.
Some minor amendments were made before the bill was referred back to the Senate floor for
deliberations. During such deliberations, Sen. Tolentino made significant amendments which were
subsequently approved by the Senate. The bill was then sent back to the HOR and was thereafter
approved by the HOR. The bill was sent to the President for approval and it became RA 4065. It was
later found out however that the copy signed by the Senate President, sent to the HOR for approval
and sent to the President for signing was the wrong version. It was in fact the version that had no
amendments thereto. It was not the version as amended by Tolentino and as validly approved by the
Senate. Due to this fact, the Senate president and the President of the Philippines withdrew and
invalidated their signatures that they affixed on the said law. Astorga maintains that the RA is still
vald and binding and that the withdrawal of the concerned signatures does not invalidate the statute.
Astorga further maintains that the attestation of the presiding officers of Congress is conclusive proof
of a bills due enactment.
ISSUE: Whether or not the SC must look into the Journal to determine if the said law was validly
enacted.
HELD: The journal of the proceedings of each House of Congress is no ordinary record. The
Constitution requires it. While it is true that the journal is not authenticated and is subject to the risks
of misprinting and other errors, the journal can be looked upon in this case. This SC is merely asked
to inquire whether the text of House Bill No. 9266 signed by the President was the same text passed
by both Houses of Congress. Under the specific facts and circumstances of this case, the SC can do
this and resort to the Senate journal for the purpose. 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. Note however that the SC is
not asked to incorporate such amendments into the alleged law but only to declare that the bill was
not duly enacted and therefore did not become law. As done by both the President of the Senate
and the Chief Executive, when they withdrew their signatures therein, the SC also declares that the
bill intended to be as it is supposed to be was never made into law. 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.