Tobias v.

Abalos
FACTS:
Prior to Republic Act No., 7675 also known as An Act Converting
the unicipalit! o" an#alu!ong into a $ighl! %rbani&e# Cit! to
be known as the Cit! o" an#alu!ong', an#alu!ong an# (an
)uan belonge# to onl! one legislative #istrict. A plebiscite was
hel# "or the people o" an#alu!ong whether or not the! approve#
o" the sai# conversion. *he plebiscite was onl! +,.,+- o" the
sai# conversion. Nevertheless, +.,6/+ vote# !es' whereas 7,
0++' vote# no'.
ISSUE:
1hether or not the rati2cation o" RA7675 was unconstitutional
citing Article 34, (ections 55+6, , an# /65+6
HELD/RULING:
7or the purposes o" #iscussion, let8s break#own all o" the clai9e#
violations to the +0.7 Constitution (ection /65+6 ever! bill passe#
b! the Congress shall e9brace onl! one sub:ect which shall be
e;presse# in the title thereo". *he creation o" a separate
congressional #istrict "or an#alu!ong is not a sub:ect separate
an# #istinct "ro9 the sub:ect o" its conversion. oreover, a
liberal construction o" the one<title<one<sub:ect' rule has been
liberall! a#opte# b! the court as to not i9pe#e legislation
5=i#asan v. Co9elec6. (ec. 55+6. *he $ouse o" Representatives
shall be co9pose# o" not 9ore than two hun#re# an# 2"t!
9e9bers, unless otherwise 2;e# b! law, who shall be electe#
"ro9 legislative #istricts apportione# a9ong the provinces, cities,
an# the etropolitan anila area in accor#ance with the nu9ber
o" their respective inhabitants, an# on the basis o" a uni"or9 an#
progressive ratio, an# those who, as provi#e# b! law, shall be
electe# through a part! list s!ste9 o" registere# national,
regional an# sectoral parties or organi&ations. *he Constitution
clearl! provi#es that the $ouse o" Representatives shall be
co9pose# o" not 9ore than /5> 9e9bers, unless otherise
!rovi"e" b# la. *he e9phasis on the latter clause in#icates
that the nu9ber o" the $ouse o" Representatives 9a! be
increase#, i" 9an#ate# via a legislative enact9ent. *here"ore,
the increase in congressional representation is not
unconstitutional.
(ec. 55,6. 1ithin three !ears "ollowing the return o" ever! census,
the Congress shall 9ake a reapportion9ent o" legislative #istricts
base# on the stan#ar# provi#e# in this section.
*he argu9ent on the violation o" the above provision is absur#
since it was the Congress itsel" which #ra"te#, #eliberate# upon
an# enacte# the assaile# law.
*he petition is thereb! ?4(4((@? "or lack o" 9erit. (A AR?@R@?
$ARA LIDASAN vs. C%&&ISSI%N %N ELECTI%NS
FACTS:
RA ,70> creating the unicipalit! o" ?ianaton in the Province o"
=anao ?el (ur was enacte# into law. (ection + o" the act rea#s:
B;;C(@C*4AN +. Darrios *ogaig, a#alu9, Da!anga,=angkong,
(arakan, Eat<bo, ?igakapan, agabo, *abangao,*iongko,
Colo#an, Eaba9awakan, Eapatagan, Dongabong,Aipang,
?agowan, Dakikis, Dungabung, =osain, ati9os an# agolatung,
in the unicipalities o" Dutig an# Dalabagan,Province o" =anao #el
(ur, are separate# "ro9 sai# 9unicipalities an# constitute# into a
#istinct an# in#epen#ent 9unicipalit! o" the sa9e province to be
known as the unicipalit! o" ?ianaton, Province o" =anao #el (ur.
*he seat o" govern9ent o" the 9unicipalit! shall be in *agalogC
;;;'
Dara =i#asan, petitioner in this instant case, 2le# a petition "or
certiorari an# prohibition be"ore the Co99ission on @lections
citing that the sai# law inclu#e# two barrios "ro9 the unicipalit!
o" Dul#on, Province o" Cotabato, an#, ten barrios that are parts
an# parcel o" the unicipalit! o" Parang, also in the Province o"
Cotabato, not =anao #el (ur thereb! changing the boun#aries o"
the two provinces. (ince elections are "orth co9ing, the
CA@=@C issue# a resolution on August +5, +067 which still puts
the twelve barrios "ro9 Cotabato Province un#er the new
unicipalit! o" ?ianaton, Province o" =anao #el (ur. *he AFce o"
the Presi#ent therea"ter reco99en#e# to CA@=@C that the
operation o" the statute be suspen#e# be suspen#e# until
clari2e# b! correcting legislation but the CA@=@C #eclare# that
the statute 9ust be i9ple9ente# unless #eclare#
unconstitutional b! the (upre9e Court.
ISSUE:
?oes the title o" RA ,70> con"or9 to the constitutional
reGuire9ent that no bill which 9a! be enacte# into law shall
e9brace 9ore than one sub:ect which shall be e;presse# in the
title o" the bill an# whether RA ,70> is null an# voi#.
HELD:
*he (upre9e Court rule#, to wit:
+. No, the title o" RA ,70> #oes not con"or9 with the
constitutional reGuire9ent regar#ing to title o" statute since it is
9islea#ing an# #eceptive as the legislation co9bines two
purposes in one statute, na9el!, creates the unicipalit! o"
?ianaton, Province o" =anao #el (ur "ro9 twent! barrios "ro9 the
unicipalities o" Dutig an# Dalabagan, both o" =anao #el (ur, an#
#is9e9bers two 9unicipalities o" the Province o" Cotabato.
/. Hes, RA ,70> is null an# voi#
LIDASAN v. C%&&ISSI%N %N ELECTI%NS
FACTS
An )une +., +066, Chie" @;ecutive signe# into law House $ill
'H$( )*+,, now known as Re!ubli- A-t 'RA( +,./0An A-t
Creatin1 the &uni-i!alit# o2 Dianaton in the 3rovin-e o2
Lanao "el Sur4 *he ne 5uni-i!alit# o2 Dianaton6 Lanao
"el Sur inclu#es: Eapatagan, Dongabong,
Aipang,?agowan,Dakikis, Dungabung, =osain, ati9os, an#
agolatung. 4t also inclu#es: barrios o" *ogaig an# a#alu9
5both situate# in $ul"on6 Cotabato6 an# barrios o" Da!anga,
=angkong, (arakan, Eat<bo, ?igakapan,
agabo,*angabao,*iongko, Colo#an, an# Eaba9awakan 5all
situate# in 3aran16 Cotabato6
$ara Li"asan, resi#ent an# ta;pa!er o" the #etache# portion o"
Parang, Cotabato aIecte# b! the i9ple9entation o" RA ,70>,
Guestions the constitutionalit! o" RA ,70>.
ISSUE
1hether or not RA ,70> is vali#J
RULING
RA ,70> #eclare# as NULL an" 7%ID
Constitutional reGuire9ent "oretaste# that Kno bill which 9a! be
enacte# into law shall e9brace 9ore than one sub:ect which shall
be e;presse# in the title o" the billL Constitutional provision
contains DUAL LI&ITATI%NS upon legislative power:
+. Congress is to re"rain "ro9 conglo9eration, less than one
statute, o" heterogeneous sub:ects.
/. *he title o" the bill is to be couche# in a language suFcient to
noti"! the legislators an# the public an# those concerne# o" the
i9port o" the single sub:ect thereo". 4t violates
the -onstitutional re8uire5ent that the sub:ect o" the bill be
e;presse# in its title.
4t #i# not in"or9 the Congress the "ull i9pact o" the =aw.
oreover, 4t #i# not in"or9 the citi&ens o" Dul#on an# Parangin
Cotabato that part o" their territor! is being taken awa! "ro9
their towns an# 9unicipalities an# that such will be a##e# to the
Province o" =anao #el (ur. *he sub:ect was the creation o" the
9unicipalit! o" ?ianaton. $ence, it 9akes the title 9islea#ing an#
#eceptive
@ven upon re9oving the barrios o" Cotabato inclu#e# in the
9unicipalit! o" ?ianaton, it is still unconstitutional because the
vali# part is not in#epen#ent o" the invali# portion. *hus, it is
in#ivisible, an# it is accor#ingl! null an# voi# in its totalit!.
Arro#o v De 7ene-ia
Fa-ts: Petitioners are 9e9bers o" the $ouse o"
Representatives. *he! brought this suit against respon#ents
charging violation o" the rules o" the $ouse which petitioners
clai9 are Mconstitutionall! 9an#ate#M so that their violation is
tanta9ount to a violation o" the Constitution.
4n the course o" his interpellation, Rep. Arro!o announce# that he
was going to raise a Guestion on the Guoru9, although until the
en# o" his interpellation he never #i#.
An the sa9e #a!, the bill was signe# b! the (peaker o" the $ouse
o" Representatives an# the Presi#ent o" the (enate an# certi2e#
b! the respective secretaries o" both $ouses o" Congress as
having been 2nall! passe# b! the $ouse o" Representatives an#
b! the (enate on Nove9ber /+, +006. *he enrolle# bill was
signe# into law b! Presi#ent 7i#el 3. Ra9os on Nove9ber //,
+006.

Issue: 1hether R.A. No. ./,> is null an# voi# because it was
passe# in violation o" the rules o" the $ouseN
1hether the certi2cation o" (peaker ?e 3enecia that the law was
properl! passe# is "alse an# spuriousN
1hether the Chair, in the process o" sub9itting an# certi"!ing the
law violate# $ouse RulesN an#
1hether a certiorariOprohibition will be grante#.

Hel": *hat a"ter consi#ering the argu9ents o" the parties, the
Court 2n#s no groun# "or hol#ing that Congress co99itte# a
grave abuse o" #iscretion in enacting R.A. No. ./,> *his case is
there"ore #is9isse#.
Ratio: *o #isregar# the Menrolle# billM rule in such cases woul# be
to #isregar# the respect #ue the other two #epart9ents o" our
govern9ent. 4t woul# be an unwarrante# invasion o" the
prerogative o" a coeGual #epart9ent "or this Court either to set
asi#e a legislative action as voi# because the Court thinks the
$ouse has #isregar#e# its own rules o" proce#ure, or to allow
those #e"eate# in the political arena to seek a re9atch in the
:u#icial "oru9 when petitioners can 2n# their re9e#! in that
#epart9ent itsel". *he Court has not been investe# with a roving
co99ission to inGuire into co9plaints, real or i9agine#, o"
legislative skul#ugger!. 4t woul# be acting in e;cess o" its power
an# woul# itsel" be guilt! o" grave abuse o" its #iscretion were it
to #o so. *he suggestion 9a#e in a case 9a! instea#
appropriatel! be 9a#e here: petitioners can seek the enact9ent
o" a new law or the repeal or a9en#9ent o" R.A. No. ./,>. 4n the
absence o" an!thing to the contrar!, the Court 9ust assu9e that
Congress or an! $ouse thereo" acte# in the goo# "aith belie" that
its con#uct was per9itte# b! its rules, an# #e"erence rather than
#isrespect is #ue the :u#g9ent o" that bo#!.

In vie o2 hat is essential:
erel! internal rules o" proce#ure o" the $ouse rather than
constitutional reGuire9ents "or the enact9ent o" a law, i.e., Art.
34, PP/6</7 are 34A=A*@?.
7irst, in As9eQa v. Pen#atun, it was hel#: MAt an! rate, courts
have #eclare# that Rthe rules a#opte# b! #eliberative bo#ies are
sub:ect to revocation, 9o#i2cation or waiver at the pleasure o"
the bo#! a#opting the9.R An# it has been sai# that RParlia9entar!
rules are 9erel! proce#ural, an# with their observance, the
courts have no concern. *he! 5a# be aive" or "isre1ar"e"
b# the le1islative bo"#.R ConseGuentl!, R9ere "ailure to
con"or9 to parlia9entar! usage will not invali#ate the action
5taken b! a #eliberative bo#!6 when the reGuisite nu9ber o"
9e9bers have agree# to a particular 9easure.RM
Rules are har#l! per9anent in character. *he prevailing view is
that the! are sub:ect to revocation, 9o#i2cation or waiver at the
pleasure o" the bo#! a#opting the9 as the! are pri9aril!
proce#ural. Courts or#inaril! have no concern with their
observance. *he! 9a! be waive# or #isregar#e# b! the
legislative bo#!. ConseGuentl!, 5ere 2ailure to -on2or5 to
the5 "oes not have the e9e-t o2 nulli2#in1 the a-t ta:en i2
the re8uisite nu5bers o2 5e5bers have a1ree" to a
!arti-ular 5easure.

In vie o2 the Courts ;uris"i-tion
*his CourtRs "unction is 9erel! to check whether or not the
govern9ental branch or agenc! has gone be!on# the
constitutional li9its o" its :uris#iction, not that it erre# or has a
#iIerent view. 4n the absence o" a showing . . . o" grave abuse o"
#iscretion a9ounting to lack o" :uris#iction, there is no occasion
"or the Court to e;ercise its corrective power. . . . 4t has no power
to look into what it thinks is apparent error. 4", then, the
establishe# rule is that courts cannot #eclare an act o" the
legislature voi# on account 9erel! o" nonco9pliance with rules o"
proce#ure 5a"e b# itsel26 it 2ollos that su-h a -ase "oes
not !resent a situation in hi-h a bran-h o2 the
1overn5ent has <1one be#on" the -onstitutional li5its o2
its ;uris"i-tion<.

In vie o2 House Rules:
No rule o" the $ouse o" Representatives has been cite# which
speci2call! reGuires that in cases such as this involving approval
o" a con"erence co99ittee report, the Chair 9ust restate the
9otion an# con#uct a viva voce or no9inal voting.
r. *A=@N*4NA. *he "act that nobo#! ob:ects 9eans a unani9ous
action o" the $ouse. 4nso"ar as the 9atter o" proce#ure is
concerne#, this has been a prece#ent since 4 ca9e here seven
!ears ago, an# it has been the proce#ure in this $ouse that i"
so9ebo#! ob:ects, then a #ebate "ollows an# a"ter the #ebate,
then the voting co9es in.
Nor #oes the Constitution reGuire that the !eas an# the na!s o"
the e9bers be taken ever! ti9e a $ouse has to vote, e;cept
onl! in the "ollowing instances: upon the last an" thir"
rea"in1s o2 a bill, at the re8uest o2 one=>2th o2 the
&e5bers present, an# in re=!assin1 a bill over the veto o2
the 3resi"ent.

In vie o2 1rave abuse
4n#ee#, the phrase Mgrave abuse o" #iscretion a9ounting to lack
or e;cess o" :uris#ictionM has a settle# 9eaning in the
:urispru#ence o" proce#ure. 4t 9eans such capricious an#
whi9sical e;ercise o" :u#g9ent b! a tribunal e;ercising :u#icial or
Guasi :u#icial power as to a9ount to lack o" power.

In vie o2 the enrolle" bill "o-trine
%n#er the enrolle# bill #octrine, the signing o" $. No. 7+0. b! the
(peaker o" the $ouse an# the Presi#ent o" the (enate an# the
certi2cation b! the secretaries o" both $ouses o" Congress that it
was passe# on Nove9ber /+, +006 are conclusive o" its #ue
enact9ent.
*his Court Guote# "ro9 1ig9ore on @vi#ence the "ollowing
e;cerpt which e9bo#ies goo#, i" ol#<"ashione# #e9ocratic theor!:
4nstea# o" trusting a "aith"ul )u#iciar! to check an ineFcient
=egislature, the! shoul# turn to i9prove the =egislature. *he
sensible solution is not to patch an# 9en# casual errors b! asking
the )u#iciar! to violate legal principle an# to #o i9possibilities
with the ConstitutionN but to represent ourselves with co9petent,
care"ul, an# honest legislators, the work o" whose han#s on the
statute<roll 9a! co9e to reSect cre#it upon the na9e o" popular
govern9ent.'

'In vie o2 ;usti>abilit# a--or"in1 to 3UN%6 ?(
1ith #ue respect, 4 "o not a1ree that the issues !ose" b#
the !etitioner are non=;usti>able. Nor #o 4 agree that we will
triviali&e the principle o" separation o" power i" we assu9e
:uris#iction over the case at bar. @ven in the %nite# (tates, the
principle o" separation o" power is no longer an i9pregnable
i9pe#i9ent against the interposition o" :u#icial power on cases
involving breach o" rules o" proce#ure b! legislators.
*he Constitution e9powers each house to #eter9ine its rules o"
procee#ings. 4t 9a! not b! its rules ignore constitutional
restraints or violate "un#a9ental rights, an# there shoul# be a
reasonable relation between the 9o#e or 9etho# o" procee#ings
establishe# b! the rule an# the result which is sought to be
attaine#. Dut within these li9itations all 9atters o" 9etho# are
open to the #eter9ination o" the $ouse, an# it is no
i9peach9ent o" the rule to sa! that so9e other wa! woul# be
better, 9ore accurate, or even 9ore :ust.
&abana1 vs Lo!e@ 7ito
?ournal A A"o!tion o2 the Enrolle" $ill Theor#
FACTS:
Petitioners inclu#e T senators an# . representatives. *he three
senators were suspen#e# b! senate #ue to election irregularities.
*he . representatives were not allowe# to take their seat in the
lower $ouse e;cept in the election o" the $ouse (peaker. *he!
argue# that so9e senators an# $ouse Reps were not consi#ere#
in #eter9ining the reGuire# U vote 5o" each house6 in or#er to
pass the Resolution 5proposing a9en#9ents to the Constitution6
V which has been consi#ere# as an enrolle# bill b! then. At the
sa9e ti9e, the votes were alrea#! entere# into the )ournals o"
the respective $ouse. As a result, the Resolution was passe# but
it coul# have been otherwise were the! allowe# to vote. 4" these
9e9bers o" Congress ha# been counte#, the aFr9ative votes in
"avor o" the propose# a9en#9ent woul# have been short o" the
necessar! three<"ourths vote in either branch o" Congress.
Petitioners 2le# or the prohibition o" the "urtherance o" the sai#
resolution a9en#ing the constitution. Respon#ents argue# that
the (C cannot take cogni&ance o" the case because the Court is
boun# b! the conclusiveness o" the enrolle# bill or resolution.

ISSUE: 1hether or not the Court can take cogni&ance o" the
issue at bar. 1hether or not the! sai# resolution was #ul!
enacte# b! Congress

HELD: As "ar as looking into the )ournals is concerne#, even i"
both the :ournals "ro9 each $ouse an# an authenticate# cop! o"
the Act ha# been presente#, the #isposal o" the issue b! the
Court on the basis o" the :ournals #oes not i9pl! re:ection o" the
enroll9ent theor!, "or, as alrea#! state#, the #ue enact9ent o" a
law 9a! be prove# in either o" the two wa!s speci2e# in section
T+T o" Act No. +0> as a9en#e#. *he (C "oun# in the :ournals no
signs o" irregularit! in the passage o" the law an# #i# not bother
itsel" with consi#ering the eIects o" an authenticate# cop! i" one
ha# been intro#uce#. 4t #i# not #o what the opponents o" the rule
o" conclusiveness a#vocate, na9el!, look into the :ournals behin#
the enrolle# cop! in or#er to #eter9ine the correctness o" the
latter, an# rule such cop! out i" the two, the :ournals an# the
cop!, be "oun# in conSict with each other. No #iscrepanc!
appears to have been note# between the two #ocu9ents an# the
court #i# not sa! or so 9uch as give to un#erstan# that i"
#iscrepanc! e;iste# it woul# give greater weight to the :ournals,
#isregar#ing the e;plicit provision that #ul! certi2e# copies Mshall
be conclusive proo" o" the provisions o" such Acts an# o" the #ue
enact9ent thereo".M

BBEnrolle" $ill V that which has been #ul! intro#uce#, 2nall!
passe# b! both houses, signe# b! the proper oFcers o" each,
approve# b! the presi#ent an# 2le# b! the secretar! o" state.

(ection T+T o" the ol# Co#e o" Civil Proce#ure 5Act +0>6, as
a9en#e# b! Act No. //+>, provi#es: MAFcial #ocu9ents 9a! be
prove# as "ollows: . . . 5/6 the procee#ings o" the Philippine
Co99ission, or o" an! legislatives bo#! that 9a! be provi#e# "or
in the Philippine 4slan#s, or o" Congress, b! the :ournals o" those
bo#ies or o" either house thereo", or b! publishe# statutes or
resolutions, or b! copies certi2e# b! the clerk o" secretar!, or
printe# b! their or#erN Provi#e#, *hat in the case o" Acts o" the
Philippine Co99ission or the Philippine =egislature, when there is
an e;istence o" a cop! signe# b! the presi#ing oFcers an#
secretaries o" sai# bo#ies, it shall be conclusive proo" o" the
provisions o" such Acts an# o" the #ue enact9ent thereo".M

The SC is boun" b# the -ontents o2 a "ul# authenti-ate"
resolution 'enrolle" bill( b# the le1islature. In -ase o2
-onCi-t6 the -ontents o2 an enrolle" bill shall !revail over
those o2 the ;ournals.
Cas-o 3hili!!ine Che5i-al Co. In-.6 v. Hon. 3e"ro Gi5ene@
FACTS:
Petitioner was engage# in the 9anu"acture o" s!nthetic resin
glues. 4t sought the re"un# o" the 9argin "ees rel!ing on RA /6>0
57oreign @;change argin 7ee =aw6 stating that the Central Dank
o" the Philippines 2;e# a uni"or9 9argin "ee o" /5- on "oreign
e;change transactions. $owever, the Au#itor o" the Dank re"use#
to pass in au#it an# approve# the sai# re"un#s upon the groun#
that Petitioner8s separate i9portations o" urea an# "or9al#eh!#e
is not in accor# with the provisions o" (ec. /, par. +. o" RA
/6>0.*he pertinent portion o" this statute rea#s: *he 9argin
establishe# b! the onetar! Doar# C shall be i9pose# upon the
sale o" "oreign e;change "or the i9portation o" the "ollowing:
B3444. %rea "or9al#eh!#e "or the 9anu"acture o" pl!woo# an#
har#woo# when i9porte# b! an# "or the e;clusive use o" en#<
users'
ISSUE:
1ON urea' an# "or9al#eh!#e' are e;e9pt b! law "ro9 the
pa!9ent o" the 9argin "ee.
HELD:
*he ter9 urea "or9al#eh!#e' use# in (ec. / o" RA /6>0 re"ers to
the 2nishe# pro#uct as e;presse# b! the National 4nstitute o"
(cience an# *echnolog!, an# is #istinct an# separate "ro9 urea
an# "or9al#eh!#e' which are separate che9icals use# in the
9anu"acture o" s!nthetic resin. *he one 9entione# in the law is a
2nishe# pro#uct, while the ones i9porte# b! the Petitioner are
raw 9aterials. $ence, the i9portation o" urea' an#
"or9al#eh!#e' is not e;e9pt "ro9 the i9position o" the 9argin
"ee.
&orales v Subi"o
Fa-ts: M4n the (enate, the Co99ittee on Wovern9ent
Reorgani&ation, to which $ouse Dill 605+ was re"erre#, reporte# a
substitute 9easure. 4t is to this substitute bill that (ection +> o"
the Act owes its present "or9 an# substance.
M4t is be note# that the Ro#rigo a9en#9ent was in the nature
o" an a##ition to the phrase Rwho has serve# the police
#epart9ent o" a cit! "or at least . !ears with the rank o" captain
an#Oor higher,R un#er which the !etitioner herein, who is at least
a high school gra#uate 5both parties agree that the petitioner
2nishe# the secon# !ear o" the law course6 -oul" !ossibl#
8uali2#. $owever, so9ewhere in the legislative process the
phrase D<ho has serve" the !oli-e "e!art5ent o2 a -it#
or<E was #roppe# an# onl! the Ro#rigo a9en#9ent was
retaine#.M
*he !resent insisten-e o2 the !etitioner is that the
version o2 the !rovision, as a9en#e# at the behest o" (en.
Ro#rigo, was the version a!!rove" b# the Senate on thir"
rea"in1, an# that when the bill e9erge# "ro9 the con"erence
co99ittee the onl# -han1e 9a#e in the provision was the
insertion o" the phrase <or has serve" as -hie2 o2 !oli-e ith
eFe5!lar# re-or".<
4n support o" this assertion, the !etitioner sub9itte# certi2e#
photostatic copies o" the #iIerent #ra"ts o" $ouse Dill 605+
showing the various changes 9a#e. 4n what purport to be the
page proo"s o" the bill as 2nall! approve# b! both $ouses o"
Congress.
4t is un9istakable up to this point that the phrase, <ho has
serve" the !oli-e "e!art5ent o2 a -it# or6< was still part o"
the provision, but accor#ing to the petitioner the $ouse bill
#ivision #elete# the entire provision an# substitute# what now is
(ection +> o" the Police Act o" +066, which (ection rea#s:
Mini9u9 Guali2cation "or appoint9ent as Chie" o" Police
Agenc!. X No person 9a! be appointe# chie" o" a cit! police
agenc! unless he hol#s a ba-helorGs "e1ree "ro9 a recogni&e#
institution o" learning an# has serve" either in the Ar5e"
For-es o2 the 3hili!!ines or the National $ureau o2
Investi1ation, or has serve# as chie" o" police with e;e9plar!
recor#, or has serve# in the !oli-e "e!art5ent o2 an#
-it# with rank o" captain or its eGuivalent therein "or at least
three !earsN or an# hi1h s-hool 1ra"uate ho has serve" as
oH-er in the Ar5e" For-es "or at least eight !ears with the
rank o" captain an#Oor higher.M
*he petitioner also sub9itte# a certi2e# photostatic cop! o" a
9e9oran#u9 which accor#ing to hi9 was signe# b! an
e9plo!ee in the (enate bill #ivision, an# can be "oun# attache#
to the page proo"s o" the bill, e;plaining the change in (ection +>,
thus: <Se-tion )/ as re-ast 2or -larit#. 'ith the -onsent
o2 Sen. Gan@on I Con1ress5an &ontano(.<
Issue: 1hether the change an e9plo!ee, as purporte#l! was a
rewriting to suit so9e st!listic pre"erences, was in truth an
alteration o" 9eaning.
Hel": ACCAR?4NW=H, the 9otions "or reconsi#eration
are #enie#.
Ratio: *he respect #ue to the other branches o" the Wovern9ent
#e9an#s that we act upon the "aith an# cre#it o" what the
oFcers o" the sai# branches attest to as the oFcial acts o" their
respective #epart9ents. Atherwise we woul# be cast in the
unenviable an# unwante# role o" a sleuth tr!ing to #eter9ine
what actuall! #i# happen in the lab!rinth o" law9aking, with
conseGuent i9pair9ent o" the integrit! o" the legislative process.
*he investigation which the petitioner woul# like this Court to
9ake can be better #one in Congress. A"ter all, $ouse cleaning X
the i99e#iate an# i9perative nee# "or which see9s to be
suggeste# b! the petitioner X can best be eIecte# b! the
occupants thereo".
4" there has been an! 9istake in the printing o" the bill be"ore
it was certi2e# b! the oFcers o" Congress an# approve# b! the
@;ecutive X on which we cannot speculate, without :eopar#i&ing
the principle o" separation o" powers an# un#er9ining one o" the
cornerstones o" our #e9ocratic s!ste9 X the re9e#! is b!
a9en#9ent or curative legislation, not b! :u#icial #ecree.M

In vie o2 Haroo" v Jentorth
1hat the )ustice $arlan sai# in $arwoo# v. 1entworth: $ow
9uch greater is the #anger o" per9itting the vali#it! o" a
legislative enact9ent to be Guestione# b! evi#ence "urnishe# b!
the general en#orse9ents 9a#e b! clerks upon bills previous to
their 2nal passage an# enrol9ent, X en#orse9ents usuall! so
e;presse# as not to be intelligible to an! one e;cept those who
9a#e the9, an# the scope an# eIect o" which cannot in 9an!
cases be un#erstoo# unless supple9ente# b! the recollection o"
clerks as to what occurre# in the hurr! an# con"usion o"ten
atten#ant upon legislative procee#ings.M
In vie o2 to 2orei1n lan"5ar: -ases on enrolle" bill
"o-trine
Doth arshall 7iel# Y Co. v. Clark an# $arwoo# v. 1entworth
involve# clai9s si9ilar to that 9a#e b! the petitioner in this
case. 4n both the clai9s were re:ecte#.
*hus, in arshall 7iel# Y Co. it was conten#e# that the *ariI
Act o" Actober +, +.0> was a nullit! because Mit is shown b! the
congressional recor#s o" procee#ings, reports o" co99ittees o"
con"erence, an# other papers printe# b! authorit! o" Congress,
an# having re"erence to $ouse Dill 0,+6, that a section o" the bill
as it 2nall! passe#, was not in the bill authenticate# b! the
signatures o" the presi#ing oFcers o" the respective houses o"
Congress, an# approve# b! the Presi#ent.M
4n re:ecting the contention, the %nite# (tates (upre9e Court
hel# that the signing b! the (peaker o" the $ouse o"
Representatives an# b! the Presi#ent o" the (enate o" an enrolle#
bill is an oFcial attestation b! the two houses that such bill is the
one that has passe# Congress. An# when the bill thus atteste# is
signe# b! the Presi#ent an# #eposite# in the archives, its
authentication as a bill that has passe# Congress shoul# be
#ee9e# co9plete an# uni9peachable.
4n $arwoo# the clai9 was that an act o" the legislature o"
Ari&ona Mcontaine#, at the ti9e o" its 2nal passage, provisions
that were o9itte# "ro9 it without authorit! o" the council or the
house, be"ore it was presente# to the governor "or his approval.M
*he Court reiterate# its ruling in arshall 7iel# Y Co.
In vie o2 &abana1 v Lo!e@=7ito I CASC% v Gi5ene@
4t was not until +0,7 that the Guestion was presente# in
abanag v. =ope&<3ito, an# we there hel# that an enrolle# bill
Mi9ports absolute verit! an# is bin#ing on the courts.M *his court
hel# itsel" boun# b! an authenticate# resolution, #espite the "act
that the vote o" three<"ourths o" the 9e9bers o" the Congress 5as
reGuire# b! the Constitution to approve proposals "or
constitutional a9en#9ents6 was not actuall! obtaine# on
account o" the suspension o" so9e 9e9bers o" the $ouse o"
Representatives an# o" the (enate.
*hus in abanag the enrolle# bill theor! was a#opte#.
1hatever #oubt there 9ight have been as to the status an# "orce
o" the theor! in the Philippines, in view o" the #issent o" three
)ustices in abanag, was 2nall! lai# to rest b! the unani9ous
#ecision in Casco Philippine Che9ical Co. v. Wi9ene&. (peaking
"or the Court, the then )ustice 5now Chie" )ustice6 Concepcion
sai#: M7urther9ore, it is well settle# that the enrolle# bill X which
uses the ter9 Rurea "or9al#eh!#eR instea# o" Rurea an#
"or9al#eh!#eR X is conclusive upon the courts as regar#s the
tenor o" the 9easure passe# b! Congress an# approve# b! the
Presi#ent 5Pri9icias vs. Pare#es, 6+ Phil., ++., +/>N abanag vs.
=ope&<3ito, 7. Phil., +N acias vs. Co99. on @lections, =<+.6.,,
(epte9ber +,, +06+6.
Astor1a v 7ille1as
Fa-ts: An arch T>, +06, $ouse Dill No. 0/66, a bill o" local
application, was 2le# in the $ouse o" Representatives. 4t was
there passe# on thir# rea#ing without a9en#9ents on April /+,
+06,. 7orthwith the bill was sent to the (enate "or its
concurrence. 4t was re"erre# to the (enate Co99ittee on
Provinces an# unicipal Wovern9ents an# Cities hea#e# b!
(enator Werar#o . Ro;as.
*he co99ittee "avorabl! reco99en#e# approval with a 9inor
a9en#9ent, suggeste# b! (enator Ro;as, that instea# o" the Cit!
@ngineer it be the Presi#ent Prote9pore o" the unicipal Doar#
who shoul# succee# the 3ice<a!or in case o" the latterRs
incapacit! to act as a!or.
An )ul! T+, +06, the Presi#ent o" the Philippines sent a
9essage to the presi#ing oFcers o" both $ouses o" Congress
in"or9ing the9 that in view o" the circu9stances he as
oH-iall# ith"rain1 his si1nature on House $ill No.
.*KK 5which ha# been returne# to the (enate the previous )ul!
T6, a##ing that Mit woul# be untenable an# against public polic!
to convert into law what was not actuall! approve# b! the two
$ouses o" Congress.M
%pon the "oregoing "acts the a!or o" anila, Antonio
3illegas, issue# circulars to the #epart9ent hea#s an# chie"s o"
oFces o" the cit! govern9ent as well as to the owners, operators
an#Oor 9anagers o" business establish9ents in anila to
#isregar# the provisions o" Republic Act ,>65. $e likewise issue#
an or#er to the Chie" o" Police to recall 2ve 9e9bers o" the cit!
police "orce who ha# been assigne# to the 3ice<a!or
presu9abl! un#er authorit! o" Republic Act ,>65.
Issue: 1hether the so<calle# RA ,>65 beca9e law an# that 3ice<
a!or Astorga shoul# e;ercise an! o" the powers con"erre# b! RA
,>65.
Hel": 4n view o" the "oregoing consi#erations, the petition is
#enie# an# the so<calle# Republic Act No. ,>65 entitle# MAN AC*
?@74N4NW *$@ PA1@R(, R4W$*( AN? ?%*4@( A7 *$@ 34C@<
AHAR A7 *$@ C4*H A7 AN4=A, 7%R*$@R A@N?4NW 7AR *$@
P%RPA(@ (@C*4AN( *@N AN? @=@3@N A7 R@P%D=4C AC*
N%D@R@? 7A%R $%N?R@? N4N@, A( A@N?@?, A*$@R14(@
ENA1N A( *$@ R@34(@? C$AR*@R A7 *$@ C4*H A7 AN4=AM
is "e-lare" not to have been "ul# ena-te" an" there2ore
"i" not be-o5e la. *he te9porar! restraining or#er #ate#
April /., +065 is hereb! 9a#e per9anent. No pronounce9ent as
to costs.
Ratio: 4t 9a! be note# that the enrolle# bill theor! is base#
9ainl! on Mthe res!e-t "ue to -oe8ual an" in"e!en"ent
"e!art5ents,M which reGuires the :u#icial #epart9ent Mto
accept, as having passe# Congress, all bills authenticate# in the
9anner state#.M Thus it has also been state" in other -ases
that i2 the attestation is absent an" the sa5e is not
re8uire" 2or the vali"it# o2 a statute6 the -ourts 5a#
resort to the ;ournals an" other re-or"s o2 Con1ress 2or
!roo2 o2 its "ue ena-t5ent.
In vie o2 the enrolle" bill theor#
*he Menrolle# billM theor! was relie# upon 9erel! to bolster the
ruling on the :uris#ictional Guestion, the reasoning being that Mi" a
political Guestion -on-lusivel# bin"s the ;u"1es out o2
res!e-t to the !oliti-al "e!art5ents, a #ul! certi2e# law or
resolution also bin#s the :u#ges un#er the Renrolle# bill ruleR born
o" that respect.M 4t is a #eclaration b! the two houses, through
their presi#ing oFcers, to the Presi#ent, that a bill, thus atteste#,
has receive#, in #ue "or9, the sanction o" the legislative branch
o" the govern9ent, an# that it is #elivere# to hi9 in obe#ience to
the constitutional reGuire9ent that all bills which pass Congress
shall be presente# to hi9. An# when a bill, thus atteste#,
receives his approval, an# is #eposite# in the public archives, its
authentication as a bill that has passe# Congress shoul" be
"ee5e" -o5!lete an" uni5!ea-hable.
As the Presi#ent has no authorit! to approve a bill not passe#
b! Congress, an enrolle# Act in the custo#! o" the (ecretar! o"
(tate, an# having the oFcial attestations o" the (peaker o" the
$ouse o" Representatives, o" the Presi#ent o" the (enate, an# o"
the Presi#ent o" the %nite# (tates, -arries6 on its 2a-e6 a
sole5n assuran-e b# the le1islative an" eFe-utive
"e!art5ents o2 the 1overn5ent6 -har1e"6 res!e-tivel#6
ith the "ut# o2 ena-tin1 an" eFe-utin1 the las6 that it
as !asse" b# Con1ress. *he respect #ue to coeGual an#
in#epen#ent #epart9ents reGuires the :u#icial #epart9ent to act
upon that assurance, an# to accept, as having passe# Congress,
all bills authenticate# in the 9anner state#N leaving the courts to
#eter9ine, when the Guestion properl! arises, whether the Act,
so authenticate#, is in con"or9it! with the Constitution.M
In vie o2 Se-. L)L A-t )./ o2 Rules o2 Evi"en-e Co"e o2
Civil 3ro-e"ures
)ustice Cesar Deng&on wrote a separate opinion, concurre# in
b! )ustice (abino Pa#illa, hol#ing that the Court ha# :uris#iction to
resolve the Guestion presente#, an# aFr9ing categoricall! that
Mthe enrolle" -o!# o2 the resolution an" the le1islative
;ournals are -on-lusive u!on us,M speci2call! in view o"
(ection T+T o" Act +0>, as a9en#e# b! Act No. //+>. *his
provision in the Rules o" @vi#ence in the ol# Co#e o" Civil
Proce#ure appears in#ee# to be the onl! statutor! basis on which
the Menrolle# billM theor! rests. 4t rea#s:
M*he procee#ings o" the Philippine Co99ission, or o" an!
legislative bo#! that 9a! be provi#e# "or in the Philippine
4slan#s, or o" Congress 59a! be prove#6 b! the :ournals o" those
bo#ies or o" either house thereo", or b! publishe# statutes or
resolutions, or b! copies certi2e# b! the clerk or secretar!,
printe# b! their or#erN provi#e#, that in the case o" acts o" the
Philippine Co99ission or the Philippine =egislature, when there is
in e;istence a cop! signe# b! the presi#ing oFcers an#
secretaries o" sai# bo#ies, it shall be -on-lusive !roo2 o2 the
!rovisions o2 su-h a-ts an" o2 the "ue ena-t5ent
thereo2.M
In vie o2 neutrali@ation
D! the respect #ue to a co<eGual #epart9ent o" the
govern9ent, is neutrali@e" in this -ase b# the 2a-t that the
Senate 3resi"ent "e-lare" his si1nature on the bill to be
invali" an" issue" a subse8uent -lari>-ation that the
invali"ation o2 his si1nature 9eant that the bill he ha"
si1ne" ha" never been a!!rove" b# the Senate. Abviousl!
this #eclaration shoul" be a--or"e" even 1reater res!e-t
than the attestation it invali"ate", which it #i# "or a reason
that is un#ispute# in "act an# in#isputable in logic.

In vie o2 the si1natures
*he law<9aking process in Congress en#s when the bill is
approve# b! both $ouses, an# the certi2cation #oes not a## to
passage. 4n other wor#s it is the approval b! Congress an# not
the si1natures o2 the !resi"in1 oH-ers that is
essential. *hus the 5+0T56 Constitution sa!s that MZe[ver! bill
passe# b! the Congress shall, be"ore it beco9es law, be
presente# to the Presi#ent.M
In vie o2 the nee" to in8uire throu1h the ?ournal
*he :ournal o" the procee#ings o" each $ouse o" Congress is
no or#inar! recor#. *he Constitution reGuires it. 1hile it is true
that the :ournal is not authenticate# an# is sub:ect to the risks o"
9isprinting an# other errors, the point is irrelevant in this case.
*his Court is 9erel! aske# to inGuire whether the te;t o" $ouse
Dill No. 0/66 signe# b! the Chie" @;ecutive was the sa9e te;t
passe# b! both $ouses o" Congress. %n#er the speci2c "acts an#
circu9stances o" this case, this Court can #o this an# resort to
the (enate :ournal "or the purpose. *he :ournal #iscloses that
substantial an# length! a9en#9ents were intro#uce# on the
Soor an# approve# b! the (enate but were not incorporate# in
the printe# te;t sent to the Presi#ent an# signe# b! hi9.
IN RE SH%%3
FACTS
< a; (hoop is appl!ing "or a#9ission to practice law in the
Philippines un#er Par. , o" the Rules "or the @;a9ination o"
Can#i#ates "or A#9ission to the Practice o" =aw. 4t was shown in
his application that he was practicing "or 9ore than 5 !ears in the
highest court o" the (tate o" New Hork.
< *he sai# rule reGuires that:
New Hork (tate b! co9it! con"ers the privilege o" a#9ission
without e;a9ination un#er si9ilar circu9stances to attorne!s
a#9itte# to practice in the Philippine 4slan#s. 5Asi#e "ro9 co9it!,
the satis"actor! aF#avits o" applicants 9ust show the! have
practice# at least 5 !ears in an! 5#istrict or circuit or highest6
court o" the %( or territor! o" it. Dut a#9ission is still in the
#iscretion o" the court.6
< *he rule o" New Hork court, on the other han#, per9its
a#9ission without e;a9ination in the #iscretion o" the Appellate
?ivision in several cases:
+. Provi#e# that the applicant also practice# 5 !ears as a 9e9ber
o" the bar in the highest law court in an! other state or territor!
o" the A9erican %nion or in the ?istrict o" Colu9bia
/. *he applicant practice# 5 !ears in another countr! whose
:urispru#ence is base# on the principles o" the @nglish Co99on
=aw 5@C=6.
ISSUE
1AN un#er the New Hork rule as it e;ists the principle o" co9it!
is establishe#
HELD
< *he Philippines is an %NARWAN4\@? *@RR4*ARH o" the %(, un#er
a civil govRt. @stablishe# b! the Congress
4n interpreting an# appl!ing the bulk o" the written laws o" this
:uris#iction, an# in ren#ering its #ecisions in cases NA* covere#
b! the letter o" the written law, this court relies upon the theories
an# prece#ents o" Anglo<A9erican cases, sub:ect to the li9ite#
e;ception o" those instances where the re9nants o" the (panish
written law present well<#e2ne# civil law theories an# o" the "ew
cases where such prece#ents are inconsistent with local custo9s
an# institutions.
< *he :urispru#ence o" this :uris#iction is base# upon the @C= in its
present #a! "or9 o" Anglo<A9erican Co99on =aw to an al9ost
e;clusive e;tent.
< New Hork per9its con"erring privileges on attorne!s a#9itte# to
practice in the Philippines si9ilar to those privileges accor#e# b!
the rule o" this court. < Petition grante#. ?ecision is base# on the
interpretation o" the NH ruleN #oesn8t establish a prece#ent with
respect to "uture Applications.
Reasonin1 %n *@RR4*ARH:
a. Co9it! woul# e;ist i" we are a territor! o" the %(
b. 1e are NA* an organi&e# territor! incorporate# into the %nite#
(tates but
c. 1e are NA* a M"oreign countr!M or Manother countr!M either
#. =ike Puerto Rico, we 9a! not be incorporate# but we are a
territor! since the %( Congress legislates "or us an# we have
been grante# a "or9 o" territorial govern9ent, so to that e;tent
we are a territor! accor#ing to the %( Att!. Wen.
e. 4t is not believe# that the New Hork court inten#e# the wor#
territor!M to be li9ite# to the technical 9eaning o" organi&e#
territor! or it woul# have use# the 9ore accurate e;pression.
". *here"ore, 1e have a basis o" co9it! to satis"! the 2rst
reGuire9ent since the "ull phraseolog! in#icates a (1@@P4NW
4N*@N*4AN to inclu#e A== o" the territor! o" the %(.
An CAAN =A1 :uris#iction:
5An what principleOs is the present #a! :urispru#ence base#J6
g. 4n 9ost o" the (tates, inclu#ing New Hork, co#i2cation an#
statute law have co9e to be a ver! large proportion o" the law o"
the :uris#iction, the re9aining proportion being a s!ste9 o" case
law which has its roots, to a large but not e;clusive #egree, in the
ol# @nglish cases.
h. 4n speaking o" a :urispru#ence Mbase# on the @nglish Co99on
=awM it woul# see9 proper to sa! that the :urispru#ence o" a
particular :uris#iction 4s base# upon the principles o" that
Co99on =aw i" its statute law an# its case law to a ver! large
e;tent inclu#es the science an# application o" law as lai# #own
b! the ol# @nglish cases, as perpetuate# an# 9o#i2e# b! the
A9erican cases.
). Co99on =aw a#opte# b! #ecision:
i. 4n the %(, the @C= is blen#e# with A9erican co#i2cation an#
re9nants o" the (panish an# 7rench Civil Co#es. *here a legal
9eta9orphosis has occurre# si9ilar to that which is transpiring
in this :uris#iction to#a!.
ii. New Hork uses the phrase Mbase# on the @nglish Co99on =awM
in a general sense
iii. An# that such Co99on =aw 9a! beco9e the basis o" the
:urispru#ence o" the courts where practical consi#erations an#
the eIect o" sovereignt! gives roun# "or such a #ecision.
iv. 4" in the Philippines, @C= principles as e9bo#ie# in Anglo<
A9erican :urispru#ence are use# an# applie# b! the courts to the
e;tent that Co99on =aw principles are NA* in conSict with the
=ACA=1R4**@N laws, custo9s, an# institutions as 9o#i2e# b! the
change o" sovereignt! an# subseGuent legislation, an# there is
NA A*$@R 7AR@4WN case law s!ste9 use# to an! substantial
e;tent, *$@N it is proper to sa! in the sense o" the New Hork rule
that the M:urispru#enceM o" the Philippines is base# on the @C=.
E. 4N *$@ P$4=4PP4N@ 4(=AN?(:
i. *he e;tent o" the @nglish or Anglo<A9 Co99on =aw here has
not been #e2nitel! #eci#e# b! the (C. Dut there is a si9ilarit! to
the Guotations "ro9 the A9erican #ecisions cite# with re"erence
to the @C=.
ii. Al&ua Y Arnalot vs. )ohnson: we appl! Anglo<A9 :urispru#ence
onl! in M;;;Cso "ar as the! are "oun#e# on soun# principles
applicable to local con#itions, an# are not in conSict with e;isting
lawN nevertheless, 9an! o" the rules, principles, an# #octrines o"
the Co99on =aw have, to all intents an# purposes, been
4PAR*@? into this :uris#iction, a R@(%=* o" the enact9ent o"
new laws an# the organi&ation o" new institutions b! the
Congress o" the %(C;;;M
iii. *he (panish :u#icial s!ste9 was abrogate# replace# with a
new one 9o#elle# a"ter the :u#icial s!ste9s o" the %(. *here"ore,
those (panish #octrines an# principles in conSict with the new
one were abrogate#.
iv. %(. v. ?e Wu&9an: 7or proper construction an# application o"
the ter9s an# provisions we borrowe# "ro9 or 9o#elle# upon
Anglo<A9 prece#ents, we review the legislative histor! o" such
enact9ents.
v. %(. v. Abiog an# Abiog: *he courts are constantl! gui#e# b! the
#octrines o" Co99on =aw. Neither @C= or A9erican Co99on =aw
is in "orce in this 4slan#sCsave onl! in so "ar as the! are "oun#e#
on soun# principles applicable to local con#itions an# arenRt in
conSict with e;isting law.M
vi. 1hat we have is a P$4=4PP4N@CAAN =A1 inSuence# b! the
@C= or A9erican Co99on =aw.
vii. A great prepon#erance o" the :urispru#ence o" our :uris#iction
is base# upon Anglo<A9erican case law prece#ents<e;clusivel! in
appl!ing those statutor! laws which have been enacte# since the
change o" sovereignt! an# which con"or9 9ore or less to the
A9erican statutes, an#<to a large e;tent in appl!ing an#
e;pan#ing the re9nants o" the (panish co#es an# written laws.
=. P$4=4PP4N@ (*A*%*@ =A1:
i. *he chie" co#es o" (pain that were e;ten#e# to us were as
"ollows: Penal Co#e, Co#e o" Co99erce, =e! Provisional, Co#e o"
Cri9inal Proce#ure, an# Co#e o" Civil Proce#ure, Civil Co#e,
arriage =aw, ortgage =aw, Railwa! laws, =aw o" 1aters.
ii. *here were also special laws having li9ite# application.
iii. *he "oregoing written laws ha# acGuire# the "orce o" statute
law b! change o" sovereignt!.
iv. *here was no properl! calle# Case =aw o" (pain since (panish
:urispru#ence #oes not recogni&e the principle o" (tare ?ecisis.
+. anresa8s #iscussion o" Art. 6 o" the civil shows how "ar "ro9 a
case law s!ste9 is :urispru#ence. (panish courts are governe#
b!:
a. 7irst, b! written law
b. /n#, b! the custo9s o" the place 5#erives its "orce because it is
the acknowle#ge# 9anner on how things are #one an# not
:urispru#ence6
c. Tr#, b! :u#icial #ecision 5when in practice, these were
consi#ere# lastN the #evelop9ent o" case law was i9pe#e#
because the courts were "ree to #isregar# an! in"or9ation or
#ecisions o" other courts.6
#. ,th, b! general principles o" law
.(PAN4($ (*A*%*@ =A1
i. All portions o" political law were abrogate# i99e#iatel! with
the change o" sovereignt!.
ii. All (panish laws, custo9s, an# rights o" propert! inconsistent
with the Constitution an# A9erican principles an# institutions
were superse#e#.
iii. 4t was as i" Congress ha# enacte# new laws "or the Philippines
9o#elle# upon those sa9e (panish statutes.
.CA(@( %N?@R A@R4CAN ?@R43@? (*A*%*@(
i. 4t appears that the bulk o" present #a! (tatute =aw is #erivative
"ro9 Anglo<A9erican sourcesN #erivative in a sense o" having
been CAP4@?, an# in the sense o" having been enacte# b!
Congress or b! virtue o" its authorit!.
ii. 4n all o" the cases, Anglo<A9erican #ecisions an# authorities
are use# an# relie# upon to a greater or less #egree. Although in
9an! cases, the use is b! wa! o" #ictu9, nevertheless, the net
result is the buil#ing up o" a ver! substantial elaboration o" Anglo<
A9erican case law.
N.CA(@( %N?@R (PAN4($ (*A*%*@(
i. 1e use Anglo<A9 cases in interpreting an# appl!ing the
re9nants o" the (panish statutes thus showing how per9anent
the hol# o" the Anglo<A9 Co99on =aw has on our :urispru#ence.
ii. Anglo<A9 case law pla!s a ver! great part in a9pli"!ing the
law on those sub:ects, which are still governe# b! the re9aining
portions o" the (panish statutes, as e;hibite# in the groups o"
cases cite# in the "ootnotes.
iii. Anglo<A9 case law has entere# practicall! ever! 2el# o" law
an# in the large 9a:orit! o" such sub:ects has "or9e# the sole
basis "or the gui#ance o" the Court in #eveloping :urispru#ence.
iv. *he result is that weRve #evelope# a Phil. Co99on =aw which
is base# al9ost e;clusivel!, e;cept in cases where conSicting
with local custo9s an# institutions, upon Anglo<A9 Co99on =aw.
A.CA==A*@RA= 4N7=%@NC@(
i. *here are no #igests o" (panish #ecisions to ai# the stu#! o"
Dench an# Dar vs. the abun#ance o" #igestsOreportsOte;tbooks on
@nglishOA9. courts.
ii. *here is a proli2c use o" Anglo<A9 authorities in the #ecisions
o" the court, plus, the available sources "or stu#! an# re"erence
on legal theories are 9ostl! Anglo<A9erican
iii. *here"ore, there has been #evelope# an# will continue a
co99on law in our :urispru#ence 5i.e. Phil Co99on =aw6 base#
upon the @C= in its present #a! "or9 o" an Anglo<A9 C=, which is
eIective in all o" the sub:ects o" law in this :uris#iction, in so "ar
as it #oes not conSict with the e;press language o" the written
law 5where the re9nants o" the (panish written law present well<
#e2ne# civil law theories6 or with the local custo9s an#
institutions.
Tolentino versus Se-retar# o2 Finan-e
Fa-ts:
Petitioner seeks re consi#eration on the on the #ecision o" the
(upre9e Court #is9issing the cases "or the #eclaration o"
unconstitutionalit! o" R.A. No. 77+6 otherwise known as the
@;pan#e# 3alue<a##e# *a; =aw'. Petitioner clai9e# that the law
#i# not originate e;clusivel! "ro9 the $ouse o" Representatives
as reGuire# b! Art. 34 (ec. /, o" the Constitution. *hough its
original version $ouse Dill No. +++07 was 2le# in the $ouse o"
Representatives then sent to the (enate where onl! 2rst rea#ing
was con#ucte# an# then the senate passe# another version o"
the bill 5(enate Dill No. +6T>6. *olentino conten#e# that the
(enate shoul# have a9en#e# the $ouse Dill No. +++07 b!
replacing it with the te;t o" (. No. +6T>. 4n this wa!, the bill
re9ains a $ouse Dill an# the (enate version beco9es onl! the
te;t o" the $ouse Dill.
Issues:
+. 1hether the (enate8s action ren#ers R.A. No. 77+6
constitutionall! invali#.
/. 1hether the (enate co99itte# grave abuse o" its #iscretion b!
passing its own version o" the Dill.
Hel":
No, R.A. No. 77+6 is not unconstitutional. 4t is not the onl!
instance in which the senate propose# an a9en#9ent to a $ouse
revenue bill b! enacting its own version. *his has happene# twice
#uring the eight Congress in R.A. No. 7T60 an# R.A. No. 75,0.
Petitioner8s contention concerns onl! a 9atter o" "or9 an# #i# not
establish an! substantial #iIerence on both Dills.
*here was no grave abuse o" #iscretion though Art. 34 sec. /,
provi#es that all appropriation an# revenue bills shall originate
e;clusivel! in the $ouse o" RepresentativesN it "urther provi#es
that the (enate 9a! propose or concur with a9en#9ents. 4t is an
accepte# practice "or the (enate to intro#uce what is known as
an a9en#9ent b! substitution, which 9a! entirel! replace the
bill initiate# in the $ouse o" Representatives.
CIR v Court o2 TaF A!!eals
FACTS:
anila Wol" Y Countr! Club, 4nc., a non<stock corporation who
9aintains a gol" course an# operates a clubhouse with a lounge,
bar Y #ining roo9 e;clusivel! "or its 9e9bers Y guests clai9s
that the! shoul# have been e;e9pt "ro9 pa!9ent o" privilege
ta;es were it not "or the last paragraph o" (ection +0+<A o" RA No.
6++>, otherwise known as MA9nibus *a; =awM.
D! virtue o" RA No. 6++>, the C4R assesse# the anila Wol" an#
Countr! Club 2;e# ta;es as operators o" gol" links an# restaurant,
an# also percentage ta; 5catererRs ta;6 "or its sale o" "oo#s an#
"er9ente# liGuorsOwines "or the perio# covering (epte9ber +060
to ?ece9ber +07> in the a9ount o" PT/,5>,.06 in which the club
proteste# clai9ing the assess9ent to be without basis because
(ection ,/ was vetoe# b! then Presi#ent arcos.
C4R #enie# the protestation o" the club, who 9aintain that
(ection ,/ was not entirel! vetoe# but 9erel! the wor#s Mhotel,
9otels, resthousesM on the groun# that it 9ight restrain the
#evelop9ent o" hotels which is essential to the touris9 in#ustr!.
ISSUE:
1hether or not the presi#ential veto re"erre# to the entire section
or 9erel! to the i9position o" />- ta; on gross receipt o"
operators or proprietors o" restaurants, re"resh9ent parlors, bars
an# other eating places which are 9aintaine# within the
pre9ises or co9poun# o" a hotel, 9otel or resthouses.
DECISI%N:
*he presi#ential veto re"erre# 9erel! to the inclusion o" hotels,
9otels, an# rest houses in the />- catererRs ta; bracket but not
to the whole section. 4t was then agree# b! the (C with then
(olicitor Weneral @stelito en#o&a an# his associates that
inclusion o" hotels, 9otels, an# rest houses in the />- catererRs
ta; bracket are Mite9sM in the9selves within the 9eaning o" (ec.
/>5T6, Article 34 o" the +0T5 Constitution. *he Petition is grante#.
(ec. +0+<A o" RA 6++> is vali# an# en"orceable, hence the anila
Wol" an# Countr! Club, 4nc is liable "or the a9ount assesse#
against it.