271059/271347/E-02472/E-04036 Concurring Opinion: Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo — Official PDF

Concurring Opinion 12 G.R. Nos. 271059, 271347, E-02472, and E-04036 jurisdiction, legislative custom severely limits the freedom with which new subject matter can be inserted into the conference bill. But occasionally a conference committee produces unexpected results, results beyond its mandate, These excursions occur even where the rules impose strict limitations on conference committee jurisdiction. This is symptomatic of the authoritarian power of conference committee (Davies, Legislative Law and Process: In a Nutshell, 1986 Ed., p.81 ). It is a matter of record that the conference Committee Report on the bill in question was returned to and duly approved by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Thereafter, the bill was enrolled with its certification by Senate President Neptali A Gonzales and Speaker Ramon V. Mitra of the House of Representatives as having been duly passed by both Houses of Congress. It was then presented to and approved by President Corazon C. Aquino on April 3, 1992. Under the doctrine of separation powers, the Court may not inquire beyond the certification of the approval of a bill from the presiding officers of Congress. Casco Philippine Chemical Co. v. Gimenez laid down the rule that the enrolled bill, is conclusive upon the Judiciary ( except in matters that have to be entered in the journals like the yeas and nays on the final reading . of the bill). The jotµUals are themselves .also binding on the Supreme Court, as we held in the old (but still valid) case of US [v.] Pons, where we explained the reason thus: To inquire into the veracity of the journals of the Philippine legislature when they are, as we have said, clear and explicit, would be to violate both the, letter and spirit of the organic laws by which the Philippine Government was brought into existence, to invade a coordinate and independent department of the Government, and to interfere with the legitimate powers and functions, of the Legislature. Applying these principles, we shall decline to look into the petitioners' charges that an amendment was made upon the last reading of the bill that eventually became [Republic Act] No. 7354 and that copies thereof in its final form were not distributed among the members of each House. Both the enrolled bill and the legislative journals certify that the measure was duly enacted[, i.e.], in accordance with Article VI, [Seftion] 26(2) of the Constitution. We are bound by such official assurances from a coordinate department of the government, to which_ we owe,_ at the very least, a becoming courtesy.42 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) Consistent with the foregoing, I am of the view that the Bicameral Conference Committee is not limited, in reconciling any extant conflict between the versions of the two houses of Congress, to the specific subject 42 /d.at510-511.