CIPRIANO P. PRIMICIAS AND FELICIANO B. GARDINER, PETITIONERS, VS. QUINTIN PAREDES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND JOSE A. CLARIN, IN HIS CAPACIT…

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
coordinate 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 vs. Curtis [1890], 134 U. S., 361; Fox vs. Harris [1917], 91 S. E.f 209; Ex parte Echols [1866], 88 Am. Dec., 749; State vs. Bolte [1899], 74 A. S. R., 537; Alejandrino vs. 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.

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