Gonzales vs Comelec, Case Digest

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

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. 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 L-28196 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, non-profit 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.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not a Resolution of Congress — acting as a constituent assembly — violates the Constitution? May Constitutional Amendments Be Submitted for Ratification in a General Election?

HELD: The issue whether or not a Resolution of Congress — acting as a constituent assembly — violates the Constitution essentially justiciable, not political, and, hence, subject to judicial review. 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); 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