G.R. No.

L-23475 April 30, 1974

HERMINIO A. ASTORGA, in his capacity as Vice-Mayor of Manila, petitioner,

vs.
ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, in his capacity as Mayor of Manila, THE HON., et.al.

MAKALINTAL, C.J.:p

FACTS: In 1964, Antonio 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 Republic Act No. 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 then Vice-Mayor Herminio Astorga (assigned under
authority of RA 4065).

Astorga reacted against the steps carried out by Villegas. He then filed a petition 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 (filed with the SC). In his defense, Villegas denied recognition
of RA 4065 (An Act Defining the Powers, Rights and Duties of the Vice-Mayor of the City of Manila) because the said
law was considered to have never been enacted. When the this said “law” passed the 3rd reading in the lower house
as House Bill No. 9266, it was sent to the Senate which referred it to the Committee on Provinces and Municipal
Governments and Cities headed by then 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 lower house and
was thereafter approved by the latter. 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 lower house 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 valid 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 bill’s due enactment.

ISSUE: WON RA 4065 was validly enacted.

RULING: No. 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. The 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.