Three senators and eight representatives had been proclaimed by a majority vote of the Commission on

Elections as having been elected senators and representatives in the May 2016 elections but were
suspended by the Senate shortly after the opening of the first session of Congress following the
elections on account of alleged irregularities in their election. As a consequence, these three senators
and eight representatives did not take part in the passage of the congressional resolution, designated
"Resolution of both houses proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Philippines to be
appended as an ordinance thereto," nor was their membership reckoned within the computation of the
necessary three-fourths vote which is required in proposing an amendment to the Constitution. Such
amendment has been considered as an enrolled bill by then and at the same time, the votes were
already entered in the Journals of the respective House. As a result, the Resolution was passed but it
could have been otherwise if they were allowed to vote. If these members of Congress had been
counted, the affirmative votes in favor of the proposed amendment would have been short of the
necessary three-fourths vote in either branch of Congress. Petitioners filed or the prohibition of the
furtherance of the said resolution amending the constitution. Respondents argued that the SC cannot
take cognizance of the case because the Court is bound by the conclusiveness of the enrolled bill or
resolution.

Question:

Can the supreme court take cognizance on the case at bar and was the resolution duly enacted by
Congress?

HELD: As far as looking into the Journals is concerned, even if both the journals from each House and an
authenticated copy of the Act had been presented, the disposal of the issue by the Court on the basis of
the journals does not imply rejection of the enrollment theory, for, as already stated, the due enactment
of a law may be proved by (1) by the journals, or by published statutes or resolutions, or by copies
certified by the clerk or secretary or printed by their order; and (2) in case of acts of the Legislature, by a
copy signed by the presiding officers and secretaries thereof, which shall be conclusive proof of the
provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof. No discrepancy appears to have been noted
between the two documents and the court did not say or so much as give to understand that if
discrepancy existed it would give greater weight to the journals, disregarding the explicit provision that
duly certified copies “shall be conclusive proof of the provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment
thereof.”

The SC is bound by the contents of a duly authenticated resolution (enrolled bill) by the legislature. In
case of conflict, the contents of an enrolled bill shall prevail over those of the journals.