US v. Pons

US v. Pons

G.R. No. L-11530 August 12, 1916

Trent, J.

Held:

                While there are no adjudicated cases in this jurisdiction upon the exact question whether the courts may take judicial notice of the legislative journals, it is well settled in the United States that such journals may be noticed by the courts in determining the question whether a particular bill became a law or not. The result is that the law and the adjudicated cases make it our duty to take judicial notice of the legislative journals of the special session of the Philippine Legislature of 1914. These journals are not ambiguous or contradictory as to the actual time of the adjournment. They show, with absolute certainty, that the Legislature adjourned sine die at 12 o’clock midnight on February 28, 1914.

Passing over the question whether the printed Act (No. 2381), published by authority of law, is conclusive evidence as to the date when it was passed, we will inquire whether the courts may go behind the legislative journals for the purpose of determining the date of adjournment when such journals are clear and explicit. From the foregoing it is clear that this investigation belongs entirely to that branch of legal science which embraces and illustrates the laws of evidence. On the one hand, it is maintained that the Legislature did not, as we have indicated, adjourn at midnight on February 28, 1914, but on March 1st, and that this allegation or alleged fact may be established by extraneous evidence; while, on the other hand, it is urged that the contents of the legislative journals are conclusive evidence as to the date of adjournment. In order to understand these opposing positions, it is necessary to consider the nature and character of the evidence thus involved. Counsel for the appellant, in order to establish his contention, must necessarily depend upon the memory or recollection of witnesses, while the legislative journals are the acts of the Government or sovereign itself. From their very nature and object the records of the Legislature are as important as those of the judiciary, and to inquiry into the veracity of the journals of the Philippine Legislature, when they are clear and explicit, would be to violate both the letter and the 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. These considerations of public policy led to the adoption of the rule giving verity and unimpeachability to legislative records. If that character is to be taken away for one purpose, it must be taken away for all, and the evidence of the laws of the state must rest upon a foundation less certain and durable than that afforded by the law to many contracts between private individuals concerning comparatively trifling matters.