Statcon I and II Full Cases

8/12/2019 Statcon I and II Full Cases

1/14


2/14

The margin established by the )onetary +oard pursuant to the provision of sectionone hereof shall not be imposed upon the sale of foreign e(change for theimportation of the following=.

( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

89III. >rea formaldehyde for the manufacture of plywood and hardboard whenimported by and for the e(clusive use of end?users.

@herefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts beadmitted and approved by this ;onorable Court, without preudice to the partiesadducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts. 1wph1.t

Petitioner maintains that the term


3/14

@;'R'&:R', the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against thepetitioner. It is so ordered.

Bengzon !.J. "adilla Ba#tista $ngelo %arador 'e(es J.B.%. Barrera "aredes )izon'egala and *a+alintal JJ. conc#r.

G.R. No. L-2968 February 27, 1969


4/14

ENRIE 4. ORALES,petitioner,vs.A/ELAR!O S/I!O, a& Co55#&o$er o C##+ Ser#'e,respondent.

R ' 0 : * > T I :

CASRO, J.:

The petitioner7s motions for reconsideration are directed specifically at the followingportion of our decision=

In the 0enate, the Committee on Government ReorganiEation, to which ;ouse+ill "$- was referred, reported a substitute measure. It is to this substitute bill thatsection -# of the Act owes its present form and substance The provision of thesubstitute bill reads=

o person may be appointed chief of a city police agency unless he

holds a bachelor7s degree and has served either in the Armed &orces of thePhilippines or the ational +ureau of Investigation or police department ofany city and has held the ran% of captain or its e6uivalent therein for at leastthree years or any high school graduate who has served the policedepartment of a city for at least J years with the ran% of captain andKor higher.

( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

At the behest of 0enator &rancisco Rodrigo, the phrase


5/14

made in the provision was the insertion of the phrase


6/14


7/14

It is contended, however, that in this urisdiction the ournals of the legislature havebeen declared conclusive upon the courts, the petitioner citing nited States . "ons." Thecase cited is inapposite of it does not involve a discrepancy between an enrolled bill and the

ournal. Rather the issue tendered was whether evidence could be received to show that,contrary to the entries of the ournals, the legislature did not adourn at midnight of &ebruary!J, -$-5 but after, and that


8/14

!oncepcion !.J. 'e(es J.B.%. )izon *a+alintal 5aldiar Sanchez 0ernando and!apistrano JJ. conc#r.

G.R. No. L-237 A(r#+ 3, 197

HERINIO A. ASORGA, #$ %#& 'a(a'#)y a& 4#'e-ayor o a$#+a, petitioner,vs.ANONIO . 4ILLEGAS, #$ %#& 'a(a'#)y a& ayor o a$#+a, HE HON., HEE:ECI4E SECREAR, A/ELAR!O S/I!O, #$ %#& 'a(a'#)y a& Co55#&o$er o


9/14

C##+ Ser#'e, E!AR!O INOS, #$ %#& 'a(a'#)y a& C%#e o Po+#'e o a$#+a,ANEL C!IAA, #$ %#& 'a(a'#)y a& C#)y rea&urer o a$#+a, CI OF ANILA,OSE SE/RANO, FRANCISCO GAAIAN, ARIN ISI!RO, CESAR LCERO,PA!ERES INOCO, LEONAR!O FGOSO, FRANCIS SECO, APOLONIO GENER,A/ROCIO LOREN"O, R., ALFONSO EN!O"A, R., SERGIO LOOLA, GERINOOLENINO, ARIANO AGSALIN, E!AR!O INOS, R., A4ELINO4ILLACORA, PA/LO OCAPO, FELICISIO CA/IGAO, OSE /RILLANES, OSE4ILLANE4A a$* ARINA FRANCISCO, #$ )%e#r 'a(a'#)#e& a& 5e5ber& o )%eu$#'#(a+ /oar*,respondents.

$rtemio 3. "anganian and 'enito 3. Sag#isag and !rispin ). Baizas and $ssociates forpetitioner.

"aredes "olador !r#z and 6azareno and $ntonio Barredo for respondent *a(or of*anila.

'omeo %. 7aha(on for respondents !it( 8reas#rer of *anila etc. et al.

Office of the Solicitor General $rt#ro $. $lafriz $ssistant Solicitor General "acifico ". de!astro Solicitor Jorge '. !o,#ia and Solicitor 'icardo %. "ronoe Jr. for respondents 8he9:ec#tie Secretar( and !ommissioner of !iil Serice.

0ort#nato de %eon and $ntonio 3. 'a,#iza as amici c#riae.

A;ALINAL, C.J.:p

The present controversy revolves around the passage of ;ouse +ill o. $!"", whichbecame Republic Act 5#",


10/14

0enator Ro(as does not appear in the ournal of the 0enate proceedings as having beenacted upon.

:n )ay !-, -$"5 the 0ecretary of the 0enate sent a letter to the ;ouse of Representativesthat ;ouse +ill o. $!"" had been passed by the 0enate on )ay !#, -$"5


11/14

Chief of Police, the )anila City Treasurer and the members of the municipal board tocomply with the provisions of Republic Act 5#".

Respondents7 position is that the so?called Republic Act 5#" never became law since itwas not the bill actually passed by the 0enate, and that the entries in the ournal of thatbody and not the enrolled bill itself should be decisive in the resolution of the issue.

:n April !J, -$", upon motion of respondent )ayor, who was then going abroad on anofficial trip, this Court issued a restraining order, without bond,


12/14

The proceedings of the Philippine Commission, or of any legislative body thatmay be provided for in the Philippine Islands, or of Congress Bmay be provedby the ournals of those bodies or of either house thereof, or by publishedstatutes or resolutions, or by copies certified by the cler% or secretary, printedby their orderF provided, that in the case of acts of the Philippine Commissionor the Philippine *egislature, when there is in e(istence a copy signed by thepresiding officers and secretaries of said bodies, it shall be concl#sie

proof of the provisions of such acts and of the due enactment thereof.

Congress devised its own system of authenticating bills duly approved by both ;ouses,namely, by the signatures of their respective presiding officers and secretaries on theprinted copy of the approved bill. 2It has been held that this procedure is merely a mode ofauthentication,3to signify to the Chief '(ecutive that the bill being presented to him hasbeen duly approved by Congress and is ready for his approval or reection.The function ofan attestation is therefore not of approval, because a bill is considered approved after it haspassed both ;ouses. 'ven where such attestation is provided for in the Constitutionauthorities are divided as to whether or not the signatures are mandatory such that their

absence would render the statute invalid.

The affirmative view, it is pointed out, would be ineffect giving the presiding officers the power of veto, which in itself is a strong argument tothe contrary6There is less reason to ma%e the attestation a re6uisite for the validity of a billwhere the Constitution does not even provide that the presiding officers should sign the billbefore it is submitted to the President.

In one case in the >nited 0tates, where the B0tateConstitution re6uired the presidingofficers to sign a bill and this provision was deemed mandatory, the duly authenticatedenrolled bill was considered as conclusive proof of its due enactment.7Another casehowever, under the same circumstances, held that the enrolled bill was not conclusiveevidence.8+ut in the case of 0ield s. !lar+,9the >.0. 0upreme Court held that thesignatures of the presiding officers on a bill, although not re6uired by the Constitution, isconclusive evidence of its passage. The authorities in the >nited 0tates are thus notunanimous on this point.

The rationale of the enrolled bill theory is set forth in the said case of 0ield s. !lar+ asfollows=

The signing by the 0pea%er of the ;ouse of Representatives, and, by thePresident of the 0enate, in open session, of an enrolled bill, is an officialattestation by the two houses of such bill as one that has passed Congress. Itis a declaration by the two houses, through their presiding officers, to thePresident, that a bill, thus attested, has received, in due form, the sanction of

the legislative branch of the government, and that it is delivered to him inobedience to the constitutional re6uirement that all bills which pass Congressshall be presented to him. And when a bill, thus attested, receives hisapproval, and is deposited in the public archives, its authentication as a billthat has passed Congress should be deemed complete and unimpeachable.

As the President has no authority to approve a bill not passed by Congress,an enrolled Act in the custody of the 0ecretary of 0tate, and having the officialattestations of the 0pea%er of the ;ouse of Representatives, of the President


13/14

of the 0enate, and of the President of the >nited 0tates, carries, on its face, asolemn assurance by the legislative and e(ecutive departments of thegovernment, charged, respectively, with the duty of enacting and e(ecutingthe laws, that it was passed by Congress. The respect due to coe6ual andindependent departments re6uires the udicial department to act upon thatassurance, and to accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticatedin the manner statedF leaving the courts to determine, when the 6uestionproperly arises, whether the Act, so authenticated, is in conformity with theConstitution.

It may be noted that the enrolled bill theory is based mainly on


14/14

to the validity of the bill or cure any defect already present upon its passage. In other wordsit is the approval by Congress and not the signatures of the presiding officers that isessential. Thus the B-$3 Constitution says that RP:0'0'CTI:0 T' A1 '*'9' :& R'P>+*IC ACT >)+'R'1 &:>R ;>1R'1 I',

A0 A)'1'1, :T;'R@I0' D:@ A0 T;' R'9I0'1 C;ART'R :& T;' CITL :&)AI*A< is declared not to have been duly enacted and therefore did not become law. Thetemporary restraining order dated April !J, -$" is hereby made permanent. opronouncement as to costs.

Statcon I and II Full Cases

Documents

Transcript of Statcon I and II Full Cases