Gonzales Vs Comelec

RAMON A. GONZALES v. COMELEC, GR No.
L-28196 & L-28224, 1967-11-09

Facts:
enate and the House of Representatives passed the following resolutions:
R.B.H.
No. 1, proposing... to increase the membership of the House of
Representatives from a maximum of 120,... o a maximum of 180, to be apportioned among
the several provinces as nearly as may be according to the number of their respective
inhabitants, although each province shall have, at least, one (1)... member;
R.B.H. No. 2, calling a convention to propose amendments to said Constitution, the
convention to be composed of two (2) elective delegates from each representative district,
to be "elected in... the general elections
R.B.H. No. 3, proposing tha... t
Constitution, be amended so as to authorize senators and members of the House of
Representatives to become delegates to the... aforementioned constitutional convention,
without forfeiting their respective seats in Congress.
Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval by the President,... became
Republic Act No. 4913, providing that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the
aforementioned Resolutions Nos. 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by the people, at... the
general elections
Ramon A. Gonzales, the petitioner... laims to have instituted case L-28196 as a class suit,
for and in behalf of all citizens, taxpayers, and voters similarly... situated.
it is urged that said resolutions... are null and void because:
1. The Members of Congress, which approved the proposed amendments, as well as the
resolution calling a convention to propose amendments, are, at best, de facto Congress-
men;
2. Congress may adopt either one of two alternatives - propose amendments or call a
convention therefore - but may not avail of both - that is to say, propose amendment and
call a... convention - at the same time;
3. The election, in which proposals for amendments to the Constitution shall be submitted
for ratification, must be a special election, not a general election
Atty. Juan T. David, as amicus curiae, maintains that Congress may either propose
amendments to the Constitution or call a convention for that purpose
, but it cannot do both, at the same time.
This theory is based upon the fact... that the two (2) alternatives are connected in the
Constitution by the disjunctive "or."
Petitioners maintain that the term "election," as used in Section 1 of Art. XV of the
Constitution, should be construed as meaning a special election.
Issues:
whether or not a Resolution of Congress acting as a constituent assembly violates the
Constitution, is essentially justiciable, not political, and, hence, subject to judicial review
May Constitutional Amendments
Be Submitted for Ratification... in a General Election?
Ruling:
Indeed, the power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments thereto is not
included in the general grant of legislative powers to Congress.
It is part of the inherent powers of the people as the repository of... sovereignty in a
republican state, such as ours... to make, and, hence, to amend their own Fundamental
Law. Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution merely because the same
explicitly grants such... power.
Hence, when exercising the same, it is said that Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives act, not as members of Congress, but as component elements of a
constituent... assembly. When acting as such, the members of Congress derive their
authority from the Constitution, unlike the people, when performing the same function,... fo...
or their authority does not... emanate from the Constitution they are the very source of all
powers of government, including the Constitution itself.
Since, when proposing, as a constituent assembly, amendments to the Constitution, the
members of Congress derive their authority from the Fundamental Law, it follows,
necessarily, that they do not have the final say on whether or not their acts are within or
beyond... constitutional limits.
Such basis is, however, weak one, in the absence of other circumstances - and none has
been brought to our attention - supporting the conclusion drawn by the amicus... curiae. In
fact, the term "or" has, oftentimes, been held to mean "and," or vice-versa, when the spirit
or context of the law warrants it.
In any event, we do not find, either in the Constitution, or in the history thereof, anything that
would negate the authority of different Congresses to approve the contested Resolutions, or
of the same Congress to pass the same in different sessions or different days of the... same
congressional session. And, neither has any plausible reason been advanced to justify the
denial of authority to adopt said resolutions on the same day.
Counsel ask: Since Congress has decided to call a constitutional convention to propose
amendments, why not let the whole thing be submitted to said convention, instead of,
likewise, proposing some specific amendments, to be submitted for ratification before... said
convention is held? The force of this argument must be conceded, but the same impugns
the wisdom of the action taken by Congress, not its authority to take it. One seeming
purpose thereof is to permit Members of Congress... to run for election as delegates to the
constitutional convention and participate in the proceedings therein, without forfeiting their
seats in Congress. Whether or not this should be done is a political question, not subject to
review by the courts of... justice.
On this question there is no disagreement among the members of the Court.
Article XV of the Constitution provides:
"x x x The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-fourths of all the
Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately, may
propose amendments to this Constitution or call a convention for that... purpose. Such
amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when approved by a majority of the
votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for their
ratification."
There is in this provision nothing to indicate that the "election" therein referred to is a
"special," not a general election. The circumstance that three previous amendments to the
Constitution had been submitted to the people for ratification in special... elections merely
shows that Congress deemed it best to do so under the circumstances then obtaining. It
does not negate its authority to submit proposed amendments for ratification in general
elections.
It would be better, from the viewpoint of a thorough discussion of the proposed
amendments, that the same be submitted to the people's approval independently of the
election of public officials.
And there is no denying the fact that an adequate appraisal of... the merits and demerits of
proposed amendments is likely to be overshadowed by the great attention usually
commanded by the choice of personalities involved in general elections, particularly when
provincial and municipal officials are to be chosen. But,... then, these considerations are
addressed to the wisdom of holding a plebiscite simultaneously with the election of public
officers.
They do not deny the authority of Congress to choose either alternative, as implied in the
term "election" used, without... qualification, in the above-quoted provision of the Constitu-
tion.
tags
GONZALES vs COMELEC, G.R. No. L-28196, November 9, 1967
May Constitutional Amendments Be Submitted for Ratification in a General Election?
FACTS: On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed resolutions
No. 1, 2 and 3 – i.e. to increase the seats of the Lower House from 120 to 180; to convoke a
Constitutional Convention of 1971; and to amend the Constitution (Section 16, Article VI) so
they can become delegates themselves to the Convention.
HELD: The issue whether or not a Resolution of Congress — acting as a constituent assembly
— violates the Constitution is essentially justiciable, not political, and, hence, subject to judicial
review.
Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval by the President, on June 17,
1967, became Republic Act No. 4913, providing that the amendments to the Constitution
proposed in the aforementioned Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by the
people, at the general elections which shall be held on November 14, 1967. Two cases were
filed against this act of Congress: One an is original action for prohibition, with preliminary
injunction by Ramon A. Gonzales, in L-28196, a Filipino citizen, a taxpayer, and a voter. He
claims to have instituted case L28196 as a class unit, for and in behalf of all citizens, taxpayers,
and voters similarly situated. Another one is by PHILCONSA, in L-28224, a corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, and a civic, nonprofit and non-partisan
organization the objective of which is to uphold the rule of law in the Philippines and to defend
its Constitution against erosions or onslaughts from whatever source.
In the cases at bar, notwithstanding that the R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 have been approved by a
vote of three-fourths of all the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives
voting separately, said resolutions are null and void because Members of Congress, which
approved the proposed amendments, as well as the resolution calling a convention to propose
amendments, are, at best, de facto Congressmen (based upon Section 5, Article VI, of the
Constitution, no apportionment has been made been made by Congress within three (3) years
since 1960. Thereafter, the Congress of the Philippines and/or the election of its Members
became illegal; that Congress and its Members, likewise, became a de facto Congress and/or
de facto congressmen);
ISSUE/S: Whether or not a Resolution of Congress — acting as a constituent assembly —

violates the Constitution?
However, As a consequence, the title of a de facto officer cannot be assailed collaterally.

Referring particularly to the contested proposals for amendment, the sufficiency or insufficiency,
from a constitutional angle, of the submission thereof for ratification to the people on November
14, 1967, depends — in the view of those who concur in this opinion, and who, insofar as this
phase of the case, constitute the minority — upon whether the provisions of Republic Act No.
4913 are such as to fairly apprise the people of the gist, the main idea or the substance of said
proposals, which is — under R. B. H. No. 1 — the increase of the maximum number of seats in
the House of Representatives, from 120 to 180, and — under R. B. H. No. 3 — the authority
given to the members of Congress to run for delegates to the Constitutional Convention and, if
elected thereto, to discharge the duties of such delegates, without forfeiting their seats in
Congress. We — who constitute the minority — believe that Republic Act No. 4913 satisfies
such requirement and that said Act is, accordingly, constitutional.
One of the issues raised in this case was the validity of the submission of certain proposed
constitutional amendments at a plebiscite scheduled on the same day as the regular elections.
Petitioners argued that this was unlawful as there would be no proper submission of the
proposal to the people who would be more interested in the issues involved in the election.
HELD: Pursuant to Art 15 of the ’35 Constitution, SC held that there is nothing in this provision
to indicate that the election therein referred to is a special, not a general election. The
circumstance that the previous amendment to the Constitution had been submitted to the
people for ratification in special elections merely shows that Congress deemed it best to do so
under the circumstances then obtaining. It does not negate its authority to submit proposed
amendments for ratification in general elections. **J Reyes dissented. “Plebiscite should be
scheduled on a special date so as to facilitate “Fair submission, intelligent consent or rejection”.
They should be able to compare the original proposition with the amended proposition

Gonzales Vs Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gonzales Vs Comelec

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gonzales Vs Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RAMON A. GONZALES v. COMELEC, GR No.

L-28196 & L-28224, 1967-11-09

GONZALES vs COMELEC, G.R. No. L-28196, November 9, 1967

May Constitutional Amendments Be Submitted for Ratification in a General Election?

ISSUE/S: Whether or not a Resolution of Congress — acting as a constituent assembly —

However, As a consequence, the title of a de facto officer cannot be assailed collaterally.

You might also like