Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1934 > December 1934 Decisions > G.R. No. 42878 December 22, 1934 - CIPRIANO P. PRIMICIAS, ET AL. v. QUINTIN PAREDES

061 Phil 118:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 42878. December 22, 1934.]

CIPRIANO P. PRIMICIAS and FELICIANO B. GARDINER, Petitioners, v. QUINTIN PAREDES, in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives, and JOSE A. CLARIN, in his capacity as Acting President of the Senate, Respondents.

Alejo Mabanag, for Petitioners.

Acting Solicitor-General Melencio for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. PHILIPPINE LEGISLATURE; ENACTMENT OF LAWS; POWER OF JUDICIARY; MANDAMUS. — Where a question is suggested as to whether or not a certain bill was duly approved by both Houses of the Philippine Legislature and where the journal which the Organic Act requires each House of the Legislature to keep is not identified, the return of the Speaker of the House and the Acting President of the Senate that the bill did not pass, supported by certified documents prepared by officers whose duty it is to prepare them, imports absolute verify and must be accepted as conclusive.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — The judiciary by means of a writ of mandamus operating upon the heads of a legislative body, can not supervise the making up of a record of the proceedings of that body. To attempt to do so would constitute an inquisition into the conduct of members and officers of the Legislature and would do violence to the rights of a co�rdinate body.


D E C I S I O N


MALCOLM, J.:


The petitioners, members of the House of Representatives of the Philippine Legislature, ask that mandamus issue commanding the respondents, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Acting President of the Senate, to sign and certify House bill No. 1268. The burden of the complaint is that the said bill was duly approved by both Houses of the Philippine Legislature as is evidenced by legislative records, and that this being true, it became the ministerial duty of the respondent presiding officers to present the same to the Governor-General for action. The answer of the respondents, as a first special defense, alleges that the Senate on receipt of the bill in question from the House, amended the bill in its title, and that this amendment was not acted upon by the House as is evidenced by legislative records; accordingly it is denied that the bill was legally passed by both Houses of the Philippine Legislature. As a second special defense, respondents submit that they are not subject to judicial control, and that, therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction, and as a third special defense, it is averred that the question presented is now moot. The petitioners have interposed a reply in which they generally and specifically deny the allegations of the answer.

It is to be noted that documents cited by the petitioners indicate one thing and that documents cited by the respondents indicate another thing. The parties are not even in agreement as to which of the exhibits constitutes the journal which the Organic Act requires each House of the Legislature to keep. In effect the court is asked to find the facts in favor of the petitioners, and having done so to cause the legislative records to be corrected in accordance with the reconstructed facts. This plainly we are not authorized to do, for it would constitute an inquisition into the conduct of members and officers of the Legislature and would do violence to the rights of a co�rdinate body. Under the conditions existing in this case, it suffices to say that the judiciary, by means of a writ of mandamus operating upon the heads of a legislative body, can not supervise the making up of a record of the proceedings of that body. The return of the Speaker of the House and the Acting President of the Senate, supported by certified documents prepared by officers whose duty it was to prepare them, imports absolute verity and must be accepted as conclusive. (Clough v. Curtis [1890], 134 U. S., 361; Fox v. Harris [1917], 91 S. E., 209; Ex parte Echols [1866], 88 Am. Dec., 749; State v. Bolte [1899], 74 A. S. R., 537; Alejandrino v. Quezon [1924], 46 Phil., 83.)

Restricting discussion to the issue raised by the first special defense, and without expressing any opinion on other points of the case, the court directs that the petition be dismissed, as is hereby done, with costs against the petitioners.

Avanceña, C.J., Street, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers, Imperial, Butte, Goddard and Diaz, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1934 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 42122 December 1, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. INOCENTES MOLDES

    061 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 40064 December 4, 1934 - RESURRECTION TAGARAO v. MARCOS GARCIA ET AL.

    061 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 41566 December 7, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAKAM, ET AL.

    061 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. 42439 December 10, 1934 - ANTONIO LARENA v. PEDRO TEVES

    061 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. 42517 December 10, 1934 - CRISANTO VILLAVIRAY v. CIRIACO ALVAREZ, ET AL.

    061 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. 40728 December 11, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOA MAKALANGAN

    061 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 42460 December 13, 1934 - EULOGIO MACALAYAC v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    061 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 37654 December 14, 1934 - ANTONIO FACTOR, ET AL. v. ISIDRA MANUEL, ET AL.

    061 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. 42718 December 15, 1934 - JOSE MONTIAGUE v. MARIANO BUYSON LAMPA

    061 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. 42301 December 17, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSCORO HUBERO

    061 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 42750 December 17, 1934 - BENITO MANEJERO v. MARIANO BUYSON LAMPA

    061 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. 38581 December 18, 1934 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. TIMOTEO ABARCA, ET AL.

    061 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. 41223 December 19, 1934 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. PEDRO COLETO

    061 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 42447 December 21, 1934 - FELIPE RODRIGUEZ v. VICENTE ZAMBRANO

    061 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. 37521 December 22, 1934 - FRANCISCO MAGNO v. MONICA VIOLA, ET AL.

    061 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 39332 December 22, 1934 - OTENG BAGOBA, ET AL. v. TAN KIEM TA, ET AL.

    061 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. 39641 December 22, 1934 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO SERAFICA, ET AL.

    061 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. 41235 December 22, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR ESCUDERO

    061 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. 42441 December 22, 1934 - ILOILO TRANSPORTATION CO. v. PANAY AUTOBUS COMPANY, ET AL.

    061 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. 42878 December 22, 1934 - CIPRIANO P. PRIMICIAS, ET AL. v. QUINTIN PAREDES

    061 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. 40574 December 29, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARIA CABERO

    061 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. 39533 December 29, 1934 - NICOLAS TRINIDAD v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA

    063 Phil 881