III.

The Interplay between Clerical Errors and the Enrolled Bill Doctrine

A. Judicial Legislation

The main objective and goal of Statutory Construction is to discover and expound the meaning and intent
of the authors of the law.
1
In order to execute such intent, the courts may fill the open spaces in the law
which would establish the construction of the concomitant legislative intent that the construed law
contemplated to effectuate. This is done not to enlarge or restrict the law but to delineate what it requires
especially when the law has gaps which tend to obstruct its purpose, resulting to injustice or
inconsistency.
2
Article 9 of the New Civil Code which provides that "No judge or court shall decline to
render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws",
3
has already debunked
the myth that the courts cannot legislate. However, the filling-in of the gaps by the Judiciary must only be
done from molar to molecular motions
4
so as not to encroach upon the powers of the Legislature.


This form of judicial legislation becomes evident and necessary when it comes to clerical errors. Clerical
errors are mistakes made in a document that changes the meaning of a statute or bill, such as a
typographical error or the unintentional addition or omission of a word, phrase, or figure. A mistake of
this kind is a result of an inadvertence. Such an error was mistakenly, not purposely, written and should
be readily remedied.
5


B. Clerical Error due to Congressional Oversight

The case of Rufino Lopez and Sons, Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals is a clear example of a case of a clerical
error which is clearly due to a congressional oversight. It shows a discrepancy between Sections 7 and 11
of the same Republic Act. Section 7 grants the CTA jurisdiction over the Commissioner of Customs
decisions; meanwhile, Section 11 lists down the parties aggrieved by the ruling of the Collector of
Customs as a valid party to appeal the case yet makes no mention of those connected with the
Commissioner of Customs. Taken literally, the legal provision bestowing the appellate jurisdiction on the
Court of Tax Appeals would be meaningless and unenforceable because no person under the 1
st
scenario
would be able to appeal.
6
The courts in this case indulged in judicial legislation not to correct the act of
the legislature, but rather to give due course to the true intention of the authors of the law.
7
As much as
possible, the two conflicting or meaningless statutes should be harmonized and reconciled to give effect
to the entirety of the Republic Act. However, where the clerical error is plain and obvious, where the
legislative intent can be ascertained and where a literal interpretation of a statute would lead to an absurd
result, it is within the province of the courts to correct said error. If the aforementioned conditions do not
concur, the Enrolled Bill Theory applies.

C. Correction of Clerical Errors found in the Enrolled Bill

However, the application of the immediate correction of a clerical error in the enrolled bill is a gray area.
Based on previous jurisprudence which is encompassed by the aforementioned legislative history, the
enrolled bill theory mainly revolves around the authenticated legislative document which is deemed as a
conclusive proof of enactment upon the courts. The issue now arises on whether or not the courts can

1
Caltex v Palomar, 18 SCRA 247 (1966).
2
See RE: RESOLUTION GRANTING AUTOMATIC PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY BENEFITS TO HEIRS OF JUSTICES AND
JUDGES WHO DIE IN ACTUAL SERVICE, A.M. No. 02-12-01-SC (November 24, 2004).
3
New Civil Code. Art 9
4
Floresca v Philex Mining Corporation. 136 SCRA 142 (1985).
5
Blacks Law Dictionary 126 (9th ed. 2009).
6
Rufino Lopez and Sons, Inc. v Court of Tax Appeals, 100 Phil. 850 (1957).
7
Black on Interpretation of Laws (2
nd
edition)
validly correct a clerical error found in the enrolled bill despite a review of cases which reveals the courts
consistent adherence to the rule of its conclusiveness.


In the case of Farias vs. The Executive Secretary, what was assailed was Congress creation of two sets
of bicameral conference committees, the lack of records of proceedings, the alleged violation of the rules
of both houses, and the deletion of one of the provisions in the compromise. The respondents refuted the
allegations regarding the said irregularities by invoking the enrolled bill doctrine, which contains the
signatures of the Senate President and the Speaker of the House, and signed by the respective Secretaries
of both houses of Congress, that constitute proof beyond cavil that the bill was duly enacted into law. The
Court En Banc, unanimously reiterated and emphasized its adherence to the "enrolled bill doctrine," thus,
declining the petitioners plea for the Court to go behind the enrolled copy of the bill. The Court did not
find enough reason to deviate from the aforementioned established doctrine. Whatever doubts there may
be as to the formal validity of RA 9006 must be resolved in its favor.
8


The case of Morales vs Subido further solidifies the enrolled bill theory as importing absolute verity and
binding on the courts. Several interpretations of Section 10 of the Police Act of 1966 are being questioned
for resolution. Said provision involves the qualifications for the appointment of a captain in the police
department as chief of police. Because of the suggested possibility that a deletion in the subsequent
publication was made by mistake, the ponente himself painstakingly read and examined the enrolled bill
and found that the text of section 10 of the Act is as set forth in original. Moreover, the respect due to co-
equal and independent department requires the judicial department to act upon that assurance, and to
accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated; leaving the courts to
determine, when the question properly arises, whether the Act, so authenticated, is in conformity with the
Constitution.
9
The separate opinion of Associate Justice Artemio Panganiban in the case of Abakada vs
Executive Secretary adheres to the same theory that the enrolled bill doctrine is not absolute, and must
yield to the mandatory and self-executing provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
10


The courts then are given the liberty to determine whether or not the authenticated bills, when left
uncorrected, would render the provisions meaningless and/or unconstitutional. This power of judicial
determination gives a leeway to the courts to be able to correct clerical errors in the enrolled bill when the
interpretation of the statute according to its literal meaning would lead to absurdity or would impair or
contravene the clear intention of the Legislature. This would not undermine the authority of the statutes
despite having been signed and certified by the required officers of the Congress because such clerical
errors are but minor mistakes due to inadvertence or oversight. These simple errors can be costly because
a deletion or disappearance of a word or punctuation mark could deprive or circumvent the rights of a
citizen. The enrolled bill then could be modified accordingly especially when such uncertainty would
indubitably result in confusion and disorder.

Before such modification occurs, the courts should endeavor to reconcile the conflicting statute/ provision
with the enrolled bill instead of simply declaring the impossibility of their congruency with each other.
11

They should be construed as to give it the full effect. The only qualification of the rule of correcting errors
is that only those which are clearly clerical errors or obvious mistakes, omissions, and misprints are those
which can be changed or modified; and to do otherwise, is to rewrite the law and invade the domain of the

8
Farinas v Executive Secretary, 417 SCRA 503 (2003).
9
Morales v Subido, 26 SCRA 150 (1968).
10
Abakada v Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 168056 (2005).
11
Gordon v Veridiano, 167 SCRA 51 (1988).
legislature. This is simply judicial legislation in the guise of interpretation.
12


The aforementioned qualification is not a license for the courts to apply verba legis at all times. Under the
principles of statutory construction, if a statute is clears plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its
literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. This plain-meaning rule or verba legis
derived from the maxim index animi sermo est (speech is the index of intention) rests on the valid
presumption that the words employed by, the legislature in a statute correctly express its intent or will and
preclude the court from construing it differently.
13
Idolatrous reverence for the letter of the law sacrifices
the human being. The spirit of the law insures man's survival and ennobles him. The courts are not bound
in slavish obedience to the letter of the law which would be equivalent to closing their eyes to the
palpably obvious false claim of ignorance. In the words of Shakespeare, "the letter of the law killeth; its
spirit giveth life."
14
Courts test the law by its results if law appears to be arbitrary, courts are not bound
to apply it in slavish obedience to its language. Courts should construe a statute to effectuate, and not to
defeat, its provisions; nor render compliance with its provisions impossible to perform.
The expanded jurisdiction does not contemplate judicial supremacy over the other branches of
government. However, it must be reiterated that under Article 8 of the New Civil Code, In case of doubt
in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and
justice to prevail. The sufficiency and efficacy of a judgment must be tested by its substance rather than
its form. In construing a judgment, its legal effects including such effects that necessarily follow because
of lend implications, rather than the language used, govern. Also, its meaning, operation, and
consequences must be ascertained like any other written instrument. Thus, a judgment rests on the
intention of the court as gathered from every part thereof, including the situation to which it applies and
the attendant circumstance.
15
In this regard, we can ascertain that the clerical errors found in the enrolled
bill can be corrected by the courts so as to effectuate its true meaning and intent which are corroborated
by the appropriate attestations.


12
Ruben Agpalo, Statutory Construction, (1988).
13
Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation v NLRC, 206 SCRA 701 (1992).
14
Alonzo vs IAC, 150 SCRA 259 (1987).
15
Del Rosario Ilacad v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-24435 (1977).