G.R. No. L-29658 February 27, 1969
ENRIQUE V. MORALES, petitioner, vs. ABELARDO SUBIDO, as Commissioner of Civil Service, respondent.

FACTS

The petitioner, Enrique V. Morales, filed motions for reconsideration directed at a portion of the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the legislative history of Section 10 of the Police Act of 1966. The petitioner asserted that the version of the provision amended at the behest of Senator Rodrigo, which included the phrase “who has served the police department of a city or,” was the version approved by the Senate on third reading. He claimed that when the bill emerged from the conference committee, the only change made was the insertion of the phrase “or has served as chief of police with exemplary record.” The petitioner submitted certified photostatic copies of different drafts of House Bill 6951, including page proofs purportedly showing the provision as finally approved by both Houses of Congress, which still contained the phrase “who has served the police department of a city or.” According to the petitioner, the House bill division later deleted this phrase and substituted the text that became Section 10. He also submitted a memorandum from a Senate bill division employee explaining the change was made “for clarity” with the consent of certain legislators. The petitioner argued that the omission was made during the engrossment of the bill, not during legislative proceedings, and by an employee, not by Congress, effectively altering the meaning.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can go behind the enrolled Act of Congress to examine alleged discrepancies between the bill as passed by the legislature and the bill as officially published, based on internal legislative documents and drafts.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the motions for reconsideration. The Court held that it cannot go behind the enrolled Act to discover what happened during the legislative process. The enrolled Act in the office of the legislative secretary of the President, which shows Section 10 exactly as officially published, imports absolute verity and is binding on the courts. The respect due to the coordinate branches of government demands that the judiciary act upon the faith and credit of the official attestations by the officers of those departments. The investigation suggested by the petitioner is a matter for Congress, not the judiciary. The Court adopted the “enrolled bill theory,” citing Mabanag v. Lopez-Vito and Casco Philippine Chemical Co. v. Gimenez, which hold that an enrolled bill is conclusive upon the courts as to the tenor of the measure passed by Congress and approved by the President. The Court distinguished United States v. Pons as inapposite, as it did not involve a discrepancy between an enrolled bill and the journal. The Court clarified that it was not holding that in all cases the journals must yield to the enrolled bill, particularly for matters the Constitution expressly requires to be entered on the journal, but with respect to matters not expressly required, the enrolled bill prevails in the event of any discrepancy.