Gonzales vs. Comelec Case Digest

 

Amendments and Revision of the Constitution Gonzales vs. COMELEC 21 SCRA 774 G.R No. L-28196 November 9, 1967 RAMON A. GONALES! petitioner, GONALES! petitioner, vs. COMM"SS"ON ON ELEC#"ONS! $"REC#OR O% &R"N#"NG &R"N#" NG and A'$"#OR GENERAL!  GENERAL!  respondents. %a(ts)  The main facts are not dispted. !n "arch 16, 1967, the #enate and the $ose of  Representatives passed the fo%%o&in' reso%tions( 1. R. ). $. *Reso%tion of )oth $oses+ No. 1, proposin' that #ection , rtic%e /, of the 0onstittion of the hi%ippines, be amended so as to increase the membership of the $ose of Representatives from a maimm of 123, as provided in the present 0onstittion, to a maimm of 183, to be apportioned amon' the severa% provinces as near%4 as ma4 be accordin' to the nmber of their respective inhabitants, a%tho'h each province sha%% have, at %east, one *1+ member5 2. R. ). $. No. 2, ca%%in' a convention to propose amendments to said 0onstittion, the convention to be composed of t&o *2+ e%ective de%e'ates from each representative district, to be e%ected in the 'enera% e%ections to be he%d on the second Tesda4 of November, 19715 and . R. ). $. No. , proposin' that #ection 16, rtic%e /, of the same 0onstittion, be amended so e'ates as tes to atho a thori rie e #en #enato ators rs tioned and membe meconsti mbers rsttion ofiona% the of Represe epr esenta ntativ esfeitin to bec become ome de% de%e'a to the afore aforemen mentio ned con stitt a% $ose con conven ventio tion, n, &it &itho hot t tives for forfei tin' ' the their ir respective seats in 0on'ress. #bseen #bs eent%4, t%4, 0on'r 0on'ress ess passed a bi%%, bi%%, &hich, &hich, pon appr approva% ova% b4 the res residen ident, t, on :ne 17, 1967, became Repb%ic ct No. ;91, providin' that the amendments to the 0onstittion proposed in the aforementioned Reso%tions No. 1 and  be sbmitted, for approva% b4 the peop%e, at the 'enera% e%ections &hich sha%% be he%d on November 1;, 1967. "ssue) cation mst be specia% e%ection and not 'enera% e%ection in &hich o?cers of the nationa% and %oca% 'overnments sha%% be chosen.  The spirit of the 0onstittion demands that the e%ection, in &hich proposa%s for amendment sha%% be sbmitted to the peop%e for rati>cation, mst be he%d nder sch conditions @ &hich, a%%e'ed%4, do not eist @ as to 'ive the peop%e a reasonab%e opportnit4 to have a fair 'rasp of the natre and imp%ications of said amendments. Res-ondent+s a*,uments) COMELEC

that the 0ort has no Arisdiction either to 'rant the re%ief so'ht in the petition, or to pass pon the %e'a%it4 of the composition of the $ose of Representatives5 b+ that the petition, if 'ranted, &o%d, in eBect, render in operationa% the %e'is%ative

 

department5 and c+ that the fai%re of 0on'ress to enact a va%id reapportionment %a& . . . does not have the %e'a% eBect of renderin' i%%e'a% the $ose of Representatives e%ected thereafter, nor of renderin' its acts n%% and void. Rulin,) /nasmch as there are %ess than ei'ht *8+ votes in favor of dec%arin' Repb%ic ct ;91 and R. Nos.are 1 and  nconstittiona% and inva%id, thepra4ed petitions these t&o *2+ cases mst be,).as$.the4 hereb4, dismiss and the &rits therein forin denied, &ithot specia% prononcementt as to costs. /t is so ordered. prononcemen

"ssue 2 Refe* oo/ -. 107