1.

Gonzales vs COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774

G.R. No. L-28196
November 9, 1967

FACTS:

In June 1967, Republic Act 4913 was passed. This law provided for the COMELEC to hold
a plebiscite for the proposed amendments to the Constitution. It was provided in the said law
that the plebiscite shall be held on the same day that the general national elections shall be
held (November 14, 1967). This was questioned by Ramon Gonzales and other concerned
groups as they argued that this was unlawful as there would be no proper submission of the
proposals to the people who would be more interested in the issues involved in the general
election rather than in the issues involving the plebiscite. Gonzales also questioned the validity
of the procedure adopted by Congress when they came up with their proposals to amend the
Constitution (RA 4913). In this regard, the COMELEC and other respondents interposed the
defense that said act of Congress cannot be reviewed by the courts because it is a political
question.

ISSUE:

I. Whether or not the act of Congress in proposing amendments is a political question.

II. Whether or not a plebiscite may be held simultaneously with a general election.

HELD:

I. No. The issue is a justiciable question. It must be noted that the power to amend as
well as the power to propose amendments to the Constitution is not included in the general
grant of legislative powers to Congress. Such powers are not constitutionally granted to
Congress. On the contrary, such powers are inherent to the people as repository of sovereignty
in a republican state. That being, when Congress makes amendments or proposes
amendments, it is not actually doing so as Congress; but rather, it is sitting as a constituent
assembly. Such act is not a legislative act. Since it is not a legislative act, it is reviewable by the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the final say whether or not such act of the constituent
assembly is within constitutional limitations.

II. Yes. There is no prohibition to the effect that a plebiscite must only be held on a
special election. SC held that there is nothing in this provision of the [1935] Constitution 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.

DARRYL SHANE S. NARDO LLB 1-C