G.R. No. 127255, August 14, 1997
JOKER P. ARROYO, EDCEL C. LAGMAN, JOHN HENRY R. OSMEÑA, WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, AND RONALDO B. ZAMORA, PETITIONERS, VS. JOSE DE VENECIA, RAUL DAZA, RODOLFO ALBANO, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The case involves a petition concerning the proceedings in the House of Representatives. The petitioners, who are members of the House, alleged they were prevented from raising a question of quorum during the consideration of a bill. The main opinion dismissed the petition, citing the non-justiciability of the issue under the principle of separation of powers and the enrolled bill doctrine. This text is the Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Justice Puno.

ISSUE

1. Whether the issues posed by the petitioners regarding House proceedings are non-justiciable.
2. Whether the enrolled bill doctrine is an absolute bar to judicial review of alleged irregularities in the legislative process.

RULING

Justice Puno concurred in the result (dismissal of the petition) but dissented from the main opinion’s reasoning on justiciability and the enrolled bill doctrine.
1. On Justiciability: The issues are justiciable. The principle of separation of powers is not an absolute bar to judicial review of congressional rules and procedures. Citing U.S. jurisprudence (U.S. v. Ballin, U.S. v. Smith, Christoffel v. U.S., Yellin v. U.S., Baker v. Carr), the opinion states courts can review whether congressional rules ignore constitutional restraints, violate fundamental rights, or lack a reasonable relation between the method and the result sought. Courts can also interpret legislative rules, especially when the rights of third persons are involved.
2. On the Enrolled Bill Doctrine: The doctrine, which treats the official endorsement of a bill by legislative officers as conclusive of its due enactment, is not an immutable rule. It is a rule of evidence that can yield to the paramount need to discover the truth, especially under the 1987 Constitution which mandates that the State adopt a policy of full public disclosure. The doctrine should not be used to shield a constitutional violation from judicial scrutiny. Philippine jurisprudence (Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, Casco Philippine Chemical Co. v. Gimenez, Morales v. Subido, Philippine Judges Association v. Prado) has shown instances where the Court looked beyond the enrolled bill to examine journal entries when constitutional mandates were at issue.
3. Final Disposition: Despite finding the issues justiciable and the enrolled bill doctrine not absolute, Justice Puno found no grave abuse of discretion committed by the respondents to justify granting the petition. The complaint was merely about being prevented from raising a question of quorum—a procedural rule malleable by nature and a matter of judgment call for legislators. The petition did not involve a violation of a constitutionally mandated rule or the right of a non-member requiring constitutional protection. Therefore, the petition was correctly dismissed.