Law Dictionary

Question X-A, Political Law, 2017 Bar Exam

Notice: The following suggested answers simulate those that a bar examinee may provide as an answer to a bar exam question. Thus, specific citations (i.e., republic acts, articles/sections, jurisprudence, etc.) are not provided because it is not required in the bar exam. For purposes other than answering the bar exam, please be reminded that proper referencing or legal citation is required.

Question X-A, Political Law, 2017 Bar Exam

Under the enrolled bill doctrine, the signing of a bill by both the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate and the certification by the secretaries of both Houses of Congress that the bill was passed on a certain date are conclusive on the bill’s due enactment. Assuming there is a conflict between the enrolled bill and the legislative journal, to the effect that the enrolled bill signed by the Senate President and eventually approved by the President turned out to be different from what the Senate actually passed as reflected in the legislative journal.

(a) May the Senate President disregard the enrolled bill doctrine and consider his signature as invalid and of no effect? (2.5%)

(b) May the President thereafter withdraw his signature? Explain your answer. (2.5%)

Suggested Answer:

(a) Yes. Under jurisprudence, in one case involving the withdrawal of the signature of the Senate President in an enrolled bill which then passed into law after signing by the President, it was held to be valid resulting in the bill being not duly enacted and therefore did not become law.

(b) Yes. Under the same jurisprudence earlier mentioned, the withdrawal of the signature of the President on a bill which became a law was held to be valid resulting in the same not having passed and thus did not become a law. It was stated therein that perpetuating the error would be to sacrifice truth to fiction and bring about mischievous consequences not intended by the law-making body.

Disclaimer: All information is for educational and general information only. These should not be taken as professional legal advice or opinion. Please consult a competent lawyer to address your specific concerns. Any statements or opinions of the author are solely his own and do not reflect that of any organization he may be connected.

Suggested Answers

Top Read

non bis in idem

Latin maxim. • “not twice for the same” (Tacas v. Cariaso, G.R. No. L-37406, August 31, 1976)

Direct Assaults, Revised Penal Code

1. Concept Art. 148. Direct assaults – Any persons who, without a public uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of

Video Lessons

Legal Maxims

lex prospicit, non respicit

• “the law looks forward not backward” (Co v. CA, En Banc, G.R. No. 100776, October 28, 1993, citing Development Bank of the Philippines v.

nullum crimen, nulla poena sige lege

Latin maxim. • “that there can exist no punishable act except those previously and specifically provided for by penal statute” (Corpuz v. People, En Banc,

Read more


Grave threats, Revised Penal Code

1. Concept and legal basis Art. 282. Grave threats. – Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property

Crimes against public order

Title Three – Crimes against Public Order Chapter One: Rebellion, Sedition and Disloyalty Chapter Two: Crimes against Popular Representation Section One. – Crimes against legislative

You cannot copy content of this page