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