-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 1 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
No. L-28196. November 9, 1967.
RAMON A. GONZALES, petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONON
ELECTIONS,DIRECTOR OF PRINTING andAUDITOR GENERAL, respondents.
No. L-28224. November 9, 1967.
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION(PHILCONSA), petitioner, vs.
COMMISSION ONELECTIONS, respondent.
775
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 775
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
Constitutional law; Power of judicial department to
determineallocation of powers between several departments.The
judicial
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 2 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
department is the only constitutional organ which can be
calledupon to determine the proper allocation of powers between
theseveral departments and among the integral or constituent
unitsthereof.
Same; Power to pass upon validity of constitutional
amendmtnt.
In Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito (78 Phil. 1), the Court declined to
passupon the question whether or not a given number of votes cast
inCongress in favor of a proposed amendment to the
Constitutionsatisfied the three-fourths vote requirement of the
fundamental law,characterizing the issue as a political one. The
force of thisprecedent has been weakened by Suanes vs. Chief
Accountant of theSenate (81 Phil. 818), Avelino vs. Cuenco (L2851,
March 4 & 14,1949), Taada vs. Cuenco (L-10520, Feb. 28, 1957),
and Macias vs.Commission on Elections (L-18684, Sept. 14, 1961).
The Courtrejected the theory advanced in these four cases that the
issuestherein raised were political questions, the determination of
whichis beyond judicial review.
Same; Nature of power to amend the Constitution.The powerto
amend the Constitution or to propose amendments thereto is
notincluded in the general grant of legislative powers to Congress.
It(is a part of the inherent powers of the peopleas the repository
ofsovereignty in a republican state, such as oursto make, andhence,
to amend their own fundamental law. Congress may proposeamendments
to the Constitution merely because the same explicitlygrants such
power. Hence, when exercising the same, it is said thatSenators and
Members of the House of Representatives act, not asmembers of
Congress, but as competent elements of a constituentassembly. When
acting as such, the members of Congress derivetheir authority from
the Constitution, unlike the people, whenperforming the same
function, for their authority does not emanate
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 3 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
from the Constitutionthey are the very source of all powers
ofgovernment, including the Constitution itself.
Power of reapportionment of congressional districts.It is
nottrue that Congress has not made a reapportionment within
threeyears after the enumeration or census made in 1960. It did
actuallypass a bill, which became Republic Act 3040 (approved June
17,1961), purporting to make reapportionment. This act was,
however,declared unconstitutional on the ground that the
apportionmenttherein undertaken had not been made according to the
number ofinhabitants of the different provinces of the
Philippines.
Same; Same; Failure of Congress to make reapportionment didnot
make Congress illegal or unconstitutional.The fact thatCongress is
under obligation to make apportionment, as requiredunder the
Constitution, does not justify the conclusion
776
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
that such failure rendered Congress illegal or unconstitutional,
orthat its Members have become de facto officers. The effect of
thisomission has been envisioned in the Constitution which
providesthat until such apportionment shall have been made, the
House ofRepresentatives shall have the same number of members as
thatfixed by law for the National Assembly, who shall be elected by
thequalified elections from the present Assembly districts.
Thisprovision does not support the view that, upon the expiration
of the
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 4 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
period to make the apportionment, a Congress which fails to
makeit is dissolved or becomes illegal. On the contrary, it
impliesnecessarily that Congress shall continue to function with
therepresentative districts existing at the time of the expiration
of saidperiod.
Same; Same; No valid apportionment since adoption ofConstitution
in 1935.Since the adoption of the Constitution in1935, Congress has
not made a valid apportionment as required inthe fundamental
law.
Same; Same; Senate and House constituted on Dec. 30, 1961were de
jure bodies.The Senate and House of Representativesorganized or
constituted on December 30, 1961 were de jure bodiesand the Members
thereof were de jure officers.
Same; Same; Effect of failure of Congress to dischargemandatory
duty.Neither our political law, in general, nor our lawon public
officers in particular, supports the view that failure todischarge
a mandatory duty, whatever it may be, wouldautomatically result in
the forfeiture of an office, in the absence of astatute to this
effect.
Sayne; Same; Same; Provisions of Election Law relative
toelection of members of Congress in 1965 not repealed.Theprovision
of our Election Law relative to the election of members ofCongress
in 1965 were not repealed in consequence of the failure ofsaid body
to make an apportionment within three years after thecensus of
1960. Inasmuch as the general elections in 1965 werepresumably held
in conformity with said Election Law and the legalprovisions
creating Congress with a House of Representativescomposed of
members elected by qualified voters of representativedistricts as
they existed at the time of said elections remained inforce, we
cannot see how said Members of the House of
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 5 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
Representatives can be regarded as de facto officers owing to
thefailure of their predecessors in office to make a
reapportionmentwithin the period aforementioned.
Same; De facto doctrine; Reason therefor.The main reason forthe
existence of the de facto doctrine is that public interest
demandsthat acts of persons holding, under color of title, an
office created bya valid statute be, likewise, deemed valid insofar
as the publicasdistinguished from the officer in questionis
concerned. Indeed,otherwise those dealing with
777
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 777
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
officers and employees of the Government would be entitled
todemand from them satisfactory proof of their title to the
positionsthey hold, before dealing with them, or before recognizing
theirauthority or obeying their commands, even if they should act
withinthe limits of the authority vested in their respective
offices, positionor employments. One can imagine the great
inconvenience,hardships and evils that would result in the absence
of the de factodoctrine.
Same; Same; Title of de facto officer cannot be
assailedcollaterally.The title of a de facto officer cannot be
assailedcollaterally. It may not be contested except directly, by
quo warrantoproceedings.
Same; Same; Validity of acts of de facto officer cannot be
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 6 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
assailed collaterally.Neither may the validity of his acts
bequestioned upon the ground that he is merely a de facto officer.
Andthe reasons are obvious: (1) it would be an indirect inquiry
into thetitle to the office; and (2) the acts of a de facto
officer, if within thecompetence of his office, are valid, insofar
as the public isconcerned.
Same; Construction of terms; Meaning of the term or.Theterm or
has, oftentimes, been held to mean and or vice-versa,when the
spirit or context of the law warrants it.
Same; Power of Congress to approve resolutions amending
theConstitution.There is nothing in the Constitution or in the
historythereof that would negate the authority of different
Congresses toapprove the contested resolutions, or of the same
Congress to passthe same in different sessions or different days of
the sameCongressional session. Neither has any plausible reason
beenadvanced to justify the denial of authority to adopt said
resolutionson the same day.
Same; Meaning of term election in Art. XI, Constitution,There is
in this provision nothing to indicate that the electiontherein
referred to is a special, not a general election. Thecircumstance
that the previous amendments to the Constitutionhad been submitted
to the people for ratification in special electionsmerely shows
that Congress deemed it best to do so under thecircumstances then
obtaining. It does not negate its authority tosubmit proposed
amendments for ratification in general elections.
Same; Legislation cannot be nullified for failure of
certainsectors to discuss it sufficiently.A legislation cannot be
nullified byreason of the failure of certain sectors of the
community to discuss itsufficiently. Its constitutionality or
unconstitutionally depends uponno other factor than those existing
at the time of the enactment
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 7 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
thereof, unaffected by the acts or omissions of law enforcing
toagencies, particularly those that take place subsequently to
thepassage or approval of the law.
Same; Public knowledge of proposed amendments.A con-
778
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
siderable portion of the people may not know how over 160 of
theproposed maximum of representative districts are
actuallyapportioned by RBH No. 1 among the provinces in the
Philippines.It is not improbable, however, that they are not
interested in thedetails of the apportionment, or that a careful
reading thereof maytend, in their simple minds, to impair a clear
vision thereof. Uponthe other hand, those who are more
sophisticated may enlightenthemselves sufficiently by reading the
copies of the proposedamendments posted in public places, the
copies kept in the pollingplaces and the text of the contested
resolutions, as printed in full onthe back of the ballots they will
use.
Same; Judicial power to nullify executive or legislative acts,
notviolative of principle of separation of powers.The system of
checksand balances underlying the judicial power to strike down
acts ofthe Executive or of Congress transcending the confines set
forth inthe fundamental law is not in derogation of powers,
pursuant towhich each department is supreme within its own
sphere.
Same; Determination of conditions for submission of
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 8 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
amendments to people purely legislative.The determination of
theconditions under which the proposed amendments shall besubmitted
to the people is concededly a matter which falls withinthe
legislative sphere.
MAKALINTAL, J., concurring:
Constitutional law; Rep. Act 4913; Manner prescribed in
lawsufficient to have amendments submitted for ratification by
people.The manner prescribed in Sections 2 and 4 of Republic Act
4913is sufficient for the purpose of having the proposed
amendmentssubmitted to the people for their ratification, as
enjoined in Section1, Article XV of the Constitution.
Same; Defect is in implementation.The defect is not intrinsicin
the law, but in its implementation. The same manner ofsubmitting
the proposed amendments to the people for ratificationmay, in a
different setting, be sufficient for the purpose.
Theconstitutionality or unconstitutionality of a law may not be
made todepend willy-nilly on factors not inherent in its
provisions.
Same; Requisite for declaring law unconstitutional.For a lawto
be struck down as unconstitutional, it must be so by reason ofsome
irreconcilable conflict between it and the Constitution.Otherwise a
law may be either valid or invalid, according tocircumstances not
found in its provisions, such as the zeal withwhich they are
carried out. The criterion would be too broad andrelative, and
dependent upon individual opinions that at best aresubjective. What
one may regard as sufficient compliance with therequirement of
submission to the people, within the context of thesame law, may
not be so to another.
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 9 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
779
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 779
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
Same; Ratification of amendments need not be in specialelection
or plebiscite.The ratification of the amendments to theConstitution
need not necessarily be in a special election orplebiscite called
for that purpose alone. While such procedure ishighly to be
preferred, the Constitution speaks simply of anelection at which
the amendments are submitted to the people fortheir
ratification.
BENGZON, J., concurring:
Constitutional law; Validity of Rep. Act 1493; Jurisdiction of
thecourt.Since observance of constitutional provisions on
theprocedure for amending the Constitution is concerned, the issue
iscognizable by this Court under its powers to review an Act
ofCongress to determine its conformity to the fundamental law.
Forthough the Constitution leaves Congress free to propose
whateverconstitutional amendment it deems fit, so that the
substance orcontent of said proposed amendment is a matter of
policy andwisdom and thus a political question, the Constitution
neverthelessimposes requisites as to the manner or procedure of
proposing suchamendments, e.g., the three-fourths vote requirement.
Saidprocedure or manner, therefore, far from being left to the
discretionof Congress, as a matter of policy and wisdom, is fixed
by theConstitution. And to that extent, all questions bearing on
whether
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 10 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
Congress in proposing amendments followed the procedure
requiredby the Constitution, is perforce justiciable, it not being
a matter ofpolicy or wisdom.
Same; Special election not required to ratify
constitutionalamendment.To join the ratification of the proposed
amendmentswith an election for candidates to public office, that is
to make itconcurrent with such election, does not render it any
less anelection at which the proposed amendments are submitted to
thepeople for their ratification. No prohibition being found in the
plainterms of the Constitution, none should be inferred. Had the
framersof the Constitution thought of requiring a special election
for thepurpose only of the proposed amendments, they could have
said so,by qualifying the phrase with some word such as special
orsolely or exclusively. They did not.
Same; Validity of Rep. Act 4913; 3/4 vote not required.Congress
validly enacted Republic Act 4913 to fix the details of thedate and
manner of submitting the proposed amendments to thepeople for their
ratification, since it does not propose amendmentsin the sense
referred to by Section 1, Article XV of the Constitution,but merely
provides for how and when the amendments, alreadyproposed, are
going to be voted upon, the same does not need the 3/4vote in joint
session required in Section 1, Article XV of theConstitution.
780
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 11 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
Same; Same; Law complies with substantive due
process.Anexamination of the provisions of the law shows no
violation of thedue process clause of the Constitution. The
publication in theOfficial Gazette at least 20 days before the
election, the posting ofnotices in public building not later than
October 14, 1967, to remainposted until after the elections, the
placing of copies of the proposedamendments in the polling places,
aside from printing the same atthe back of the ballot, provide
sufficient opportunity to the voters tocast an intelligent vote on
the proposal. Due process refers only toproviding fair opportunity;
it does not guarantee that theopportunity given will in fact be
availed of; that is the look-out ofthe voter and the responsibility
of the citizen. As long as fair andreasonable opportunity to be
informed is given, and it is, the dueprocess cause is not
infringed. Non-printing of the provisions to beamended as they now
stand, and the printing of the full proposedamendments at the back
of the ballot instead of the substancethereof at the face of the
ballot, do not deprive the voter of fairopportunity to be
informed.
Same; Effect of failure of Congress to pass valid
redistrictinglaw.The failure of Congress to pass a valid
redistricting law sincethe time the above provision (Art. VI, Sec.
5, Const.) was adopted,does not render the present districting
illegal or unconstitutional.For the Constitution itself provides
for its continuance in such case,rendering legal and de jure the
status quo.
FERNANDO, J., concurring with the Chief Justice:
Constitutional law; Constitutional amendments; Certain aspectsof
amending process deemed political.Certain aspects of theamending
process may be considered political. The process itself is
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 12 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
political in its entirety, from submission until an
amendmentbecomes part of the Constitution, and is not subject to
judicialguidance, control or interference at any point.
SANCHEZ, J., dissenting:
Constitutional law; Amendments; Meaning of phrase submittedto
the people for their ratification.The words submitted to thepeople
for their ratification, if construed in the light of the natureof
the Constitutiona fundamental charter that is legislation
directfrom the people, an expression of their sovereign willis that
it canonly be amended by the people expressing themselves according
tothe procedures ordained by the Constitution. Therefore,amendments
must be fairly laid before the people for their blessingor
spurning. The people are not to be mere rubber stamps. They arenot
to vote blindly.
781
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 781
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
They must be afforded ample opportunity to mull over the
originalprovisions, compare them with the proposed amendments, and
tryto reach a conclusion as the dictates of their conscience
suggest, freefrom the incubus of extraneous or possibly insidious
influences. Theword submitted can only mean that the government,
within itsmaximum capabilities, should strain every effort to
inform everycitizen of the provisions to be amended, and the
proposed
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 13 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
amendments and the meaning, nature and effects thereof. What
theConstitution in effect directs is that the government, in
submittingan amendment for ratification, should put every
instrumentality oragency within its structural framework to
enlighten the people,educate them with respect to their act of
ratification or rejection.There must be fair submission,
intelligent consent or rejection. Ifwith all these safeguards the
people still approve the amendmentno matter how prejudicial it is
to them, then so be it. For the peopledecree their own fate.
Same: Procedure for dissemination of information onamendments
defective.The procedure does not effectively bringthe matter to the
people. First, the Official Gazette is not widelyread. It does not
reach the barrios. And even if it reached thebarrios, it is not
available to all. Secondly, many citizens, especiallythose in the
outlying barrios do not go to municipal, city and orprovincial
office buildings, except on special occasions like payingtaxes or
responding to court summonses. Thirdly, it would not helpany if at
least five copies are kept in the polling place forexamination by
qualified electors on election day. Fourthly, copies inthe
principal native language shall be kept in each polling place;but
this is not in the nature of a command because such copies shallbe
kept therein only when practicable and as may be determinedby the
Commission on Elections. Fifthly, it is true that the Comelecis
directed to make available copies of such amendments in
English,Spanish or whenever practicable in the principal native
languages,for free distribution. However, Comelec is not required
to activelydistribute them to the people. Finally, it is of common
knowledgethat Comelec has more than its hands full in these
preelection days.They cannot possibly make extensive distribution.
Surely enough,the voters do not have the benefit of proper notice
of the proposedamendments through dissemination by publication in
extenso.
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 14 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
People do not have at hand the necessary data on which to
basetheir stand on the merits and demerits of said amendments.
Thereis, therefore, no proper submission of the proposed
constitutionalamendment of Section 1, Article XV of the
Constitution.
Same; Same; Proper submission of amendments to the
peoplerequired.That proper submission of amendments to the people
toenable them to equally ratify them properly is the meat of
theconstitutional requirement, is reflected in the sequence of
782
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
uniform past practices. The Constitution has been amended
thricein 1939, 1940 and 1947. In each case the amendments
wereembodied in resolutions adopted by the Legislature,
whichthereafter fixed the dates at which the proposed amendments
wereto be ratified or rejected. These plebiscites have been
referred toeither as an election or general election. At no time,
however,was the vote for amendments of the Constitution
heldsimultaneously with the election of officials, national or
local.
REYES, J.B.L., J., concurring with Justice Sanchez:
Constitutional law; Constitutional amendment; Majority votescast
at election, insufficient to ratify proposed amendments in Rep.Act
4913.It is impossible to believe that it was ever intended by
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 15 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
the framers of the Constitution that an amendment should
besubmitted and ratified by just a majority of the votes cast at
anelection at which the amendments are submitted to the people
fortheir ratification, if the concentration of the people's
attentionthereon is to be diverted by other extraneous issues such
as thechoice of local and national officials. The framers of
theConstitution, aware of the fundamental character thereof, and
ofthe need of giving it as much stability as is practicable, could
haveonly meant that any amendments thereto should be
debated,considered and voted at an election wherein the people
could devoteundivided attention to the subject. That this was the
intention andspirit of the provision is corroborated in the case of
all otherconstitutional amendments in the past, that were submitted
to andapproved in special elections exclusively devoted to the
issuewhether the legislature's amendatory proposals should be
ratifiedor not.
ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Prohibitionwith
preliminary injunction.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. No. 28196:
Ramon A. Gonzales in his own behalf. Juan T. David as amicus curiae
Solicitor General for respondents. No. 28224: Salvador Araneta for
petitioner. Solicitor General for respondent.
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
G. R. No. L-28196 is an original action for prohibition,
withpreliminary injunction.
Petitioner therein prays for judgment:
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 16 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
1)
2)
1.
783
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 783
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
Restraining: (a) the Commission on Electionsfrom enforcing
Republic Act No. 4913, or fromperforming any act that will result
in the holding ofthe plebiscite for the ratification of
theconstitutional amendments proposed in JointResolutions Nos. 1
and 3 of the two Houses ofCongress of the Philippines, approved on
March 16,1967; (b) the Director of Printing from printingballots,
pursuant to said Act and Resolutions; and(c) the Auditor General
from passing in audit anydisbursement from the appropriation of
funds madein said Republic Act No. 4913; and
declaring said Act unconstitutional and void.
The main facts are not disputed. On March 16, 1967, theSenate
and the House of Representatives passed thefollowing
resolutions:
R. B. H. (Resolution of Both Houses) No. 1,proposing that
Section 5, Article VI, of theConstitution of the Philippines, be
amended so as toincrease the membership of the House
ofRepresentatives from a maximum of 120, asprovided in the present
Constitution, to a maximumof 180, to be apportioned among the
several
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 17 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
2.
3.
provinces as nearly as may be according to thenumber of their
respective inhabitants, althougheach province shall have, at least,
one (1) member;
R. B. H. No. 2, calling a convention to proposeamendments to
said Constitution, the convention tobe composed of two (2) elective
delegates from eachrepresentative district, to be elected in the
generalelections to be held on the second Tuesday ofNovember, 1971;
and
R. B. H. No. 3, proposing that Section 16, Article VI,of the
same Constitution, be amended so as toauthorize Senators and
members of the House ofRepresentatives to become delegates to
theaforementioned constitutional convention, withoutforfeiting
their respective seats in Congress.
Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approvalby the
President, on June 17, 1967, became Republic ActNo. 4913, providing
that the amendments to theConstitution proposed in the
aforementioned ResolutionsNo. 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by
the people,
784
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
at the general elections which shall be held on November14,
1967.
The petition in L-28196 was filed on October 21, 1967.
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 18 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
At the hearing thereof, on October 28, 1967, the
SolicitorGeneral appeared on behalf of respondents. Moreover,
Atty.Juan T. David and counsel for the Philippine
ConstitutionAssociationhereinafter referred to as the PHILCONSAwere
allowed to argue as amici curiae. Said counsel for thePHILCONSA,
Dr. Salvador Araneta, likewise prayed thatthe decision in this case
be deferred until after asubstantially identical casebrought by
said organizationbefore the Commission on Elections,
1 which was expected
to decide it any time, and whose decision would, in
allprobability, be appealed to this Courthad been submittedthereto
for final determination, for a joint decision on theidentical
issues raised in both cases. In fact, on October 31,1967, the
PHILCONSA filed with this Court the petition inG. R. No. L-28224,
for review by certiorari of the resolutionof the Commission on
Elections
2 dismissing the petition
therein. The two (2) cases were deemed submitted fordecision on
November 8, 1967, upon the filing of theanswer of respondent, the
memorandum of the petitionerand the reply memorandum of respondent
in L-28224.
Ramon A. Gonzales, the petitioner in L-28196, isadmittedly a
Filipino citizen, a taxpayer, and a voter. Heclaims to have
instituted case L-28196 as a class unit, forand in behalf of all
citizens, taxpayers, and voters similarlysituated. Although
respondents and the Solicitor Generalhave filed an answer denying
the truth of this allegation,upon the ground that they have no
knowledge orinformation to form a belief as to the truth thereof,
suchdenial would appear to be a perfunctory one. In fact, at
thehearing of case L-28196, the Solicitor General expressedhimself
in favor of a judicial determination of
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 19 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
________________
1 Urging the latter to refrain from implementing Republic Act
No.
4913 and from submitting to a plebiscite in the general
elections to be
held on November 14, 1967, the Constitutional amendments
proposed in
the aforementioned R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3.2 Dated October 30,
1967.
785
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 785
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
the merits of the issues raised in said case.The PHILCONSA,
petitioner in L-28224, is admittedly a
corporation duly organized and existing under the laws ofthe
Philippines, and a civic, non-profit and non-partisanorganization
the objective of which is to uphold the rule oflaw in the
Philippines and to defend its Constitutionagainst erosions or
onslaughts from whatever source.Despite his aforementioned
statement in L-28196, in hisanswer in L-28224 the Solicitor General
maintains thatthis Court has no jurisdiction over the
subject-matter of L-28224, upon the ground that the same is merely
politicalas held in Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito.
3 Senator Arturo M.
Tolentino, who appeared before the Commission onElections and
filed an opposition to the PHILCONSApetition therein, was allowed
to appear before this Courtand objected to said petition upon the
ground: a) that theCourt has no jurisdiction either to grant the
relief sought inthe petition, or to pass upon the legality of the
composition
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 20 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
of the House of Representatives; b) that the petition,
ifgranted, would, in effect, render inoperational thelegislative
department; and c) that the failure of Congressto enact a valid
reapportionment law xxx does not have thelegal effect of rendering
illegal the House ofRepresentatives elected thereafter, nor of
rendering its actsnull and void.
JURISDICTION
As early as Angara vs. Electoral Commission,4 this Court
speaking through one of the leading members of theConstitutional
Convention and a respected professor ofConstitutional Law, Dr. Jose
P. Laureldeclared that thejudicial department is the only
constitutional organ whichcan be called upon to determine the
proper allocation ofpowers between the several departments and
among theintegral or constituent units thereof.
It is true that in Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito,5 this Court
_______________
3 78 Phil. 1.4 63 Phil. 139, 157.5 Supra.
786
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 21 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
characterizing the issue submitted thereto as a politicalone,
declined to pass upon the question whether or not agiven number of
votes cast in Congress in favor of aproposed amendment to the
Constitutionwhich was beingsubmitted to the people for
ratificationsatisfied the three-fourths vote requirement of the
fundamental law. The forceof this precedent has been weakened,
however, by Suanesvs. Chief Accountant of the Senate
6 Avelino vs. Cuenco,
7
Taada vs. Cuenco,8 and Macias vs. Commission on
Elections.9 In the first, we held that the officers and
employees of the Senate Electoral Tribunal are under
itssupervision and control, not of that of the Senate President,as
claimed by the latter; in the second, this Courtproceeded to
determine the number of Senators necessaryfor a quorum in the
Senate; in the third, we nullified theelection, by Senators
belonging to the party having thelargest number of votes in said
chamber, purporting to acton behalf of the party having the second
largest number ofvotes therein, of two (2) Senators belonging to
the firstparty, as members, for the second party, of the
SenateElectoral Tribunal; and in the fourth, we
declaredunconstitutional an act of Congress purporting to
apportionthe representative districts for the House
ofRepresentatives, upon the ground that the apportionmenthad not
been made as may be possible according to thenumber of inhabitants
of each province. Thus we rejectedthe theory, advanced in these
four (4) cases, that the issuestherein raised were political
questions the determination ofwhich is beyond judicial review.
Indeed, the power to amend the Constitution or topropose
amendments thereto is not included in the general
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 22 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
grant of legislative powers to Congress.10
It is part of theinherent powers of the peopleas the repository
ofsovereignty in a republican state, such as ours
11to
________________
6 81 Phil. 818.7 L-2851, March 4 and 14, 1949.8 L-10520,
February 28, 1957.9 1-18684, September 14, 1961.10 Section 1, Art.
VI, Constitution of the Philippines.11 Section 1, Art. II,
Constitution of the Philippines.
787
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 787
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
make, and, hence, to amend their own Fundamental Law.Congress
may propose amendments to the Constitutionmerely because the same
explicitly grants such power.
12
Hence, when exercising the same, it is said that Senatorsand
Members of the House of Representatives act, not asmembers of
Congress, but as component elements of aconstituent assembly. When
acting as such, the members ofCongress derive their authority from
the Constitution,unlike the people, when performing the same
function.
13 for
their authority does not emanate from the Constitutionthey are
the very source of all powers of government,including the
Constitution itself.
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 23 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
Since, when proposing, as a constituent assembly,amendments to
the Constitution, the members of Congressderive their authority
from the Fundamental Law, itfollows, necessarily, that they do not
have the final say onwhether or not their acts are within or
beyondconstitutional limits. Otherwise, they could brush asideand
set the same at naught, contrary to the basic tenet thatours is a
government of laws, not of men, and to the rigidnature of our
Constitution. Such rigidity is stressed by thefact that, the
Constitution expressly confers upon theSupreme Court,
14 the power to declare a treaty
unconstitutional,15
despite the eminently political characterof treaty-making
power.
In short, the issue whether or not a Resolution ofCongressacting
as a constituent assemblyviolates theConstitution essentially
justiciable, not political, and,hence, subject to judicial review,
and, to the extent that thisview may be inconsistent with the stand
taken in Mabanagvs. Lopez Vito,
16 the latter should be deemed modified
accordingly. The Members of the Court are unanimous onthis
point.
THE MERITS
Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution, as
amended,reads:
_______________
12 Section 1, Art. XV, Constitution of the Philippines.13 Of
amending the Constitution.
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 24 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
14 And, inferentially, to lower courts.15 Sec. 2(1), Art. VIII
of the Constitution.16 Supra.
788
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
The Congress in joint session assembled by a vote of
threefourthsof all the Members of the Senate and of the House
ofRepresentatives voting separately, may propose amendments to
thisConstitution or call a convention for that purpose.
Suchamendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution
whenapproved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at
which theamendments are submitted to the people for their
ratification.
Pursuant to this provision, amendments to theConstitution may be
proposed, either by Congress, or by aconvention called by Congress
for that purpose. In eithercase, the vote of three-fourths of all
the members of theSenate and of the House of Representatives
votingseparately is necessary. And, such amendments shall bevalid
as part of the Constitution when approved by amajority of the votes
cast at an election at which theamendments are submitted to the
people for theirratification.
In the cases at bar, it is conceded that the R. B. H. Nos.1 and
3 have been approved by a vote of three-fourths of allthe members
of the Senate and of the House ofRepresentatives voting separately.
This, notwithstanding,
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 25 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
1.
2.
3.
4.
it is urged that said resolutions are null and void because:
The Members of Congress, which approved theproposed amendments,
as well as the resolutioncalling a convention to propose
amendments, are, atbest, de facto Congressmen ;
Congress may adopt either one of two alternativespropose
amendments or call a convention thereforbut may not avail of
boththat is to say, proposeamendment and call a conventionat the
sametime;
The election, in which proposals for amendment tothe
Constitution shall be submitted for ratification,must be a special
election, not a general election,in which officers of the national
and localgovernmentssuch as the elections scheduled to beheld on
November 14, 1967will be chosen; andThe spirit of the Constitution
demands that theelection, in which proposals for amendment shallbe
submitted to the people for ratification, must beheld under such
conditionswhich, allegedly, donot existas to
789
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 789
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
give the people a reasonable opportunity to have afair grasp of
the nature and implications of said
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 26 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
amendments.
Legality of Congress and Legal Status of the Congressmen
The first objection is based upon Section 5, Article VI, ofthe
Constitution, which provides :
The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more
thanone hundred and twenty Members who shall be apportioned
amongthe several provinces as nearly as may be according to the
numberof their respective inhabitants, but each province shall have
at leastone Member. The Congress shall by law make an
apportionmentwithin three years after the return of every
enumeration, and nototherwise. Until such apportionment shall have
been made, theHouse of Representatives shall have the same number
of Membersas that fixed by law for the National Assembly, who shall
be electedby the qualified electors from the present Assembly
districts. Eachrepresentative district shall comprise, as far as
practicable,contiguous and compact territory.
It is urged that the last enumeration or census took placein
1960; that, no apportionment having been made withinthree (3) years
thereafter, the Congress of the Philippinesand/or the election of
its Members became 'illegal; thatCongress and its Members,
likewise, became a de factoCongress and/or de facto congressmen,
respectively; andthat, consequently, the disputed Resolutions,
proposingamendments to the Constitution, as well as Republic ActNo.
4913, are null and void.
It is not true, however, that Congress has not made
anapportionment within three years after the enumeration or
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 27 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
census made in 1960. It did actually pass a bill, whichbecame
Republic Act No. 3040,
17 purporting to make said
apportionment. This Act was, however, declaredunconstitutional,
upon the ground that the apportionmenttherein undertaken had not
been made according to thenumber of inhabitants of the different
provinces of thePhilippines.
18
Moreover, we are unable to agree with the theory that,in view of
the failure of Congress to make a valid ap-
______________
17 Approved, June 17, 1961.18 Macias vs. Commission on
Elections, supra.
790
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
portionment within the period stated in the
Constitution,Congress became an unconstitutional Congress and
that,in consequence thereof, the Members of its House
ofRepresentatives are de facto officers. The major premise ofthis
process of reasoning is that the constitutionalprovision on
apportionment within three years after thereturn of every
enumeration, and not otherwise, ismandatory. The fact that Congress
is under legal obligationto make said apportionment does not
justify, however, theconclusion that failure to comply with such
obligation
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 28 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
rendered Congress illegal or unconstitutional, or that
itsMembers have become de facto officers.
It is conceded that, since the adoption of theConstitution in
1935, Congress has not made a validapportionment as required in
said fundamental law. Theeffect of this omission has been
envisioned in theConstitution, pursuant to which:
x x x Until such apportionment shall have been made, the House
ofRepresentatives shall have the same number of Members as
thatfixed by law for the National Assembly, who shall be elected by
thequalified electors from the present Assembly districts, x x
x.
The provision does not support the view that, upon theexpiration
of the period to make the apportionment, aCongress which fails to
make it is dissolved or becomesillegal. On the contrary, it implies
necessarily thatCongress shall continue to function with the
representativedistricts existing at the time of the expiration of
saidperiod.
It is argued that the above-quoted provision refers onlyto the
elections held in 1935. This theory assumes that anapportionment
had to be made necessarily before the firstelections to be held
after the inauguration of theCommonwealth of the Philippines, or in
1938.
19 The
assumption, is, however, unwarranted, for there had beenno
enumeration in 1935, and nobody could foretell when itwould be
made. Those who drafted and adopted the
________________
19 Under the original Constitution providing for a
unicameral
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 29 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
legislative body, whose members were chosen for a term of three
(3) years
(Section 1, Art. VI, of the Original Constitution).
791
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 791
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
Constitution in 1935 could be certain, therefore, that
thethree-year period, after the earliest possible enumeration,would
expire after the elections in 1938.
What is more, considering that several provisions of
theConstitution, particularly those on the legislativedepartment,
were amended in 1940, by establishing abicameral Congress, those
who drafted and adopted saidamendment, incorporating therein the
provision of theoriginal Constitution regarding the apportionment
of thedistricts for representatives, must have known that
thethree-year period therefor would expire after the
electionsscheduled to be held and actually held in 1941.
Thus, the events contemporaneous with the framing
andratification of the original Constitution in 1935 and of
theamendment thereof in 1940 strongly indicate that theprovision
concerning said apportionment and the effect ofthe failure to make
it were expected to be applied toconditions obtaining after the
elections in 1935 and 1938,and even after subsequent elections.
Then again, since the report of the Director of theCensus on the
last enumeration was submitted to thePresident on November 30,
1960, it follows that the three-
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 30 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
vear period to,make the apportionment did not expire until1963,
or after the Presidential elections in 1961. There canbe no
question, therefore, that the Senate and the House
ofRepresentatives organized or constituted on December 30,1961,
were de jure bodies, and that the Members thereofwere de jure
officers. Pursuant to the theory of petitionersherein, upon
expiration of said period of three years, or latein 1963, Congress
became illegal and its Members, or atleast, those of the House of
Representatives, became illegalholders of their respective offices,
and were de factoofficers.
Petitioners do not allege that the expiration of saidthree-year
period without a reapportionment, had theeffect of abrogating or
repealing the legal provisioncreating Congress, or, at least, the
House ofRepresentatives, and are not aware of any rule or
principleof law that would warrant such conclusion. Neither do
theyallege that the term of office of the members of said
Houseautomatically expired or that they ipso facto forfeited
theirseats
792
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
in Congress, upon the lapse of said period forreapportionment.
In fact, neither our political law, nor ourlaw on public officers,
in particular, supports the view thatfailure to discharge a
mandatory duty, whatever it may be,
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 31 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
would automatically result in the forfeiture of an office, inthe
absence of a statute to this effect.
Similarly, it would seem obvious that the provision ofour
Election Law relative to the election of Members ofCongress in 1965
were not repealed in consequence of thefailure of said body to make
an apportionment within three(3) years after the census of 1960.
Inasmuch as the generalelections in 1965 were presumably held in
conformity withsaid Election Law, and the legal provisions
creatingCongresswith a House of Representatives composed ofmembers
elected by qualified voters of representativedistricts as they
existed at the time of said electionsremained in force, we can not
see how said Members of theHouse of Representatives can be regarded
as de factoofficers owing to the failure of their predecessors in
office tomake a reapportionment within the period
aforementioned.
Upon the other hand, the Constitution authorizes theimpeachment
of the President, the Vice-President, theJustices of the Supreme
Court and the Auditor General for,inter alia, culpable violation of
the Constitution,
20 the
enforcement of which is, not only their mandatory duty, butalso,
their main function. This provision indicates that,despite the
violation of such mandatory duty, the title totheir respective
offices remains unimpaired, until dismissalor ouster pursuant to a
judgment of conviction rendered inaccordance with Article IX of the
Constitution. In short, theloss of office or the extinction of
title thereto is notautomatic.
Even if we assumed, however, that the present Membersof Congress
are merely de facto officers, it would not followthat the contested
resolutions and Republic Act No. 4913
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 32 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
are null and void. In fact, the main reasons for theexistence of
the de facto doctrine is that public interestdemands that acts of
persons holding, under
______________
20 Section 1, Article IX of the Constitution.
793
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1957 793
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
color of title, an office created by a valid statute
be,likewise, deemed valid insofar as the publicasdistinguished from
the officer in questionis concerned.
21
Indeed, otherwise, those dealing with officers andemployees of
the Government would be entitled to demandfrom them satisfactory
proof of their title to the positionsthey hold, before dealing with
them, or before recognizingtheir authority or obeying their
commands, even if theyshould act within the limits of the authority
vested in theirrespective offices, positions or employments,
22 One can
imagine the great inconvenience, hardships and evils thatwould
result in the absence of the de facto doctrine.
As a consequence, the title of a de facto officer cannot
beassailed collaterally.
23 It may not be contested except
directly, by quo warranto proceedings. Neither may thevalidity
of his acts be questioned upon the ground that heis merely a de
facto officer.
24 And the reasons are obvious:
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 33 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
(1) it would be an indirect inquiry into the title to the
office;and (2) the acts of a de facto officer, if within
thecompetence of his office, are valid, insofar as the public
isconcerned.
It is argued that the foregoing rules do not apply to thecases
at bar because the acts therein involved have notbeen completed and
petitioners herein are not thirdparties. This pretense is
untenable. It is inconsistent withTayko vs. Capistrano.
25 In that case, one of the parties to a
suit being heard before Judge Capistrano objected to
hiscontinuing to hear the case, for the reason that, meanwhile,he
had reached the age of retirement. This Court held thatthe
objection could not be entertained, because the Judgewas at least,
a de facto Judge,
______________
21 Lino Luna vs. Rodriguez and De los Angeles, 37 Phil, p.
192;
Nacionalista Party vs. De Vera, 35 Phil., 126: Codilla vs.
Martinez, L-
14569, November 23, 1960. See, also. State vs. Carrol, 38 Conn.
499;
Wilcox vs. Smith, 5 Wendell [N.Y.] 231; 21 Am. Dec, 213;
Sheehan's Case,
122 Mass., 445; 23 Am. Rep., 323.22 Torres vs. Ribo, 81 Phil.
50.23 Nacionalista Party vs. De Vera, supra.24 People vs. Rogelio
Gabitanan, 43 O.G. 3211.25 53 Phil. 866.
794
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 34 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
whose title can not be assailed collaterally. It should benoted
that Tayko was not a third party insofar as the Judgewas concerned.
Tayko was one of the parties in theaforementioned suit. Moreover,
Judge Capistrano had not,as yet, finished hearing the case, much
less rendered adecision therein. No rights had vested in favor of
theparties, in consequence of the acts of said Judge. Yet,Tayko's
objection was overruled. Needless to say, insofar asCongress is
concerned, its acts, as regards the Resolutionsherein contested and
Republic Act No. 4913, are complete.Congress has nothing else to do
in connection therewith.
The Court is, also, unanimous in holding that theobjection under
consideration is untenable.
Alternatives Available to Congress
Atty. Juan T. David, as amicus curiae, maintains thatCongress
may either propose amendments to theConstitution or call a
convention for that purpose, but itcan not do both, at the same
time. This theory is basedupon the fact that the two (2)
alternatives are connected inthe Constitution by the disjunctive
or. Such basis is,however, a weak one, in the absence of other
circumstancesand none has brought to our attentionsupporting
theconclusion drawn by the amicus curiae. In fact, the termor has,
oftentimes, been held to mean and, or vice-versa,when the spirit or
context of the law warrants it.
26
It is, also, noteworthy that R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3
proposeamendments to the constitutional provision on Congress, tobe
submitted to the people for ratification on November 1A,
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 35 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
1967, whereas R. B. H. No. 2 calls for a convention in 1971,to
consider proposals for amendment to the Constitution, ingeneral. In
other words, the subject-matter of R. B. H. No. 2is different from
that of
________________
26 50 Am. Jur., Sec. 282, pp. 267-268, citing Heckathorn v.
Heckathorn,
284 Mich. 677, 280 NW 79, citing RCL; Robson v. Cantwell, 143 SC
104,
141 SE 180, citing RCL; Geiger v. Kobilka, 26 Wash 171, 66 P
423, Am.
St. Rep. 733 and many others.
795
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 795
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
R B. H. Nos. 1 and 3. Moreover, the amendments proposedunder R.
B. H. Nos. 1 and 3, will be submitted forratification several years
before those that may be proposedby the constitutional convention
called in R. B. H. No. 2.Again, although the three (3) resolutions
were passed onthe same date, they were taken up and put to a
voteseparately, or one after the other. In other words, they
werenot passed at the same time.
In any event, we do not find, either in the Constitution,or in
the history thereof, anything that would negate theauthority of
different Congresses to approve the contestedResolutions, or of the
same Congress to pass the same indifferent sessions or different
days of the same
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 36 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
congressional session. And, neither has any plausiblereason been
advanced to justify the denial of authority toadopt said
resolutions on the same day.
Counsel ask: Since Congress has decided to call aconstitutional
convention to propose amendments, why notlet the whole thing be
submitted to said convention, insteadof, likewise, proposing some
specific amendments, to besubmitted for ratification before said
convention is held?The force of this argument must be conceded, but
the sameimpugns the wisdom of the action taken by Congress, notits
authority to take it. One seeming purpose thereof is topermit
Members of Congress to run for election asdelegates to the
constitutional convention and participatein the proceedings
therein, without forfeiting their seats inCongress. Whether or not
this should be done is a politicalquestion, not subject to review
by the courts of justice.
On this question there is no disagreement among themembers of
the Court.
May Constitutional Amendments Be Submitted for Ratification in a
General Election?
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
ofRepresentatives voting separately, may propose amend-
796
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 37 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
Gonzales vs. Commission on Election
ments to this Constitution or call a convention for that
purpose.Such amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution
whenapproved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at
which theamendments are submitted to the people for their
ratification.
There is in this provision nothing to indicate that theelection
therein referred to is a special, not a general,election. The
circumstance that three previousamendments to the Constitution had
been submitted to thepeople for ratification in special elections
merely showsthat Congress deemed it best to do so under
thecircumstances then obtaining. It does not negate itsauthority to
submit proposed amendments for ratificationin general
elections.
It would be better, from the viewpoint of a thoroughdiscussion
of the proposed amendments, that the same besubmitted to the
people's approval independently of theelection of public officials.
And there is no denying the factthat an adequate appraisal of the
merits and demeritsproposed amendments is likely to be overshadowed
by thegreat attention usually commanded by the choice
ofpersonalities involved in general elections, particularlywhen
provincial and municipal officials are to be chosen.But, then,
these considerations are addressed to thewisdom of holding a
plebiscite simultaneously with theelection of public officers. They
do not deny the authorityof Congress to choose either alternative,
as implied in theterm election used, without qualification, in
theabovequoted provision of the Constitution. Such authority
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 38 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
becomes even more patent when we consider: (1) that theterm
election, normally refers to the choice or selectionof candidates
to public office by popular vote; and (2) thatthe word used in
Article V of the Constitution, concerningthe grant of suffrage to
women is, not election, butplebiscite.
Petitioners maintain that the term election, as usedin Section 1
of Art. XV of the Constitution, should beconstrued as meaning a
special election. Some members ofthe Court even feel that said term
(election) refers to aplebiscite, without any election, general or
special, ofpublic officers. They opine that constitution-
797
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 797
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
al amendments are, in general, if not always, of suchimportant,
if not transcendental and vital nature as todemand that the
attention of the people be focusedexclusively on the subject-matter
thereof, so that theirvotes thereon may reflect no more than their
intelligent,impartial and considered view on the merits of
theproposed amendments, unimpaired, or, at least, undilutedby
extraneous, if not insidious factors, let alone thepartisan
political considerations that are likely to affect theselection of
elective officials.
This, certainly, is a situation to be hoped for. It is a goalthe
attainment of which should be promoted. The ideal
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 39 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
(1)
(2)
conditions are, however, one thing. The question whetherthe
Constitution forbids the submission of proposals foramendment to
the people except under such conditions, isanother thing. Much as
the writer and those who concur inthis opinion admire the contrary
view, they find themselvesunable to subscribe thereto without, in
effect, reading intothe Constitution what they believe is not
written thereonand can not fairly be deduced from the letter
thereof, sincethe spirit of the law should not be a matter of
sheerspeculation.
The majority viewalthough the votes in favor thereofare
insufficient to declare Republic Act No. 4913unconstitutionalas
ably set forth in the opinion pennedby Mr. Justice Sanchez, is,
however, otherwise.
Would the Submission now of the Contested Amendments to the
People Violate the Spirit of the Constitution?
It should be noted that the contested Resolutions wereapproved
on March 16, 1967, so that, by November 14,1967, our citizenry
shall have had practically eight (8)months to be informed on the
amendments in question.Then again, Section 2 of Republic Act No.
4913 provides:
that the amendments shall be published in threeconsecutive
issues of the Official Gazette, at leasttwenty days prior to the
election;that a printed copy of the proposed amendmentsshall be
posted in a conspicuous place in everymunic
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 40 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
798
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
ipality, city and provincial office building and inevery polling
place not later than October 14, 1967,and that said copy shall
remain posted thereinuntil after the election;that at least five
copies of said amendment shall bekept in each polling place, to be
made available forexamination by the qualified electors
duringelection day;that when practicable, copies in the
principalnative languages, as may be determined by theCommission on
Elections, shall be kept in eachpolling place;
that the Commission on Elections shall makeavailable copies of
said amendments in English,Spanish and, whenever practicable, in
the principalnative languages, for free distributing: and
that the contested Resolutions shall be printed infull on the
back of the ballots which shall be usedon November 14, 1967.
We are not prepared to say that the foregoing measures
arepalpably inadequate to comply with the constitutionalrequirement
that proposals for amendment be submittedto the people for their
ratification, and that said measures
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 41 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
are manifestly insufficient, from a constitutional viewpoint,to
inform the people of the amendment sought to be made.
These were substantially the same means availed of toinform the
people of the subject submitted to them forratification, from the
original Constitution down to theParity Amendment. Thus, referring
to the originalConstitution, Section 1 of Act No. 4200,
provides:
Said Constitution, with the Ordinance appended thereto, shall
bepublished in the Official Gazette, in English and in Spanish,
forthree consecutive issues at least fifteen days prior to said
election,and a printed copy of said Constitution, with the
Ordinanceappended thereto, shall be posted in a conspicuous place
in eachmunicipal and provincial government office building and in
eachpolling place not later than the twenty-second day of April,
nineteenhundred and thirty-five, and shall remain posted
thereincontinually until after the termination of the election. At
least tencopies of the Constitution with the Ordinance appended
thereto, inEnglish and in Spanish, shall be kept at each polling
place availablefor examina-
799
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 799
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
tion by the qualified electors during election day.
Wheneverpracticable, copies in the principal local dialects as may
bedetermined by the Secretary of the Interior shall also be kept
ineach polling place.
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 42 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
The provision concerning womans suffrage is Section 1
ofCommonwealth Act No. 34, reading:
Said Article V of the Constitution shall be published in the
OfficialGazette, in English and in Spanish, for three consecutive
issues atleast fifteen days prior to said election, and the said
Article V shallbe posted in a conspicuous place in each municipal
and provincialoffice building and in each polling place not later
than the twenty-second day of April, nineteen and thirty-seven, and
shall remainposted therein continually until after the termination
of theplebiscite. At least ten copies of said Article V of the
Constitution, inEnglish and in Spanish, shall be kept at each
polling place availablefor examination by the qualified electors
during the plebiscite.Whenever practicable, copies in the principal
native languages, asmay be determined by the Secretary of the
Interior, shall also bekept in each polling place.
Similarly, Section 2, Commonwealth Act No. 517, referringto the
1940 amendments, is of the following tenor:
The said amendments shall be published in English and Spanishin
three consecutive issues of the Official Gazette at least
twentydays prior to the election. A printed copy thereof shall be
posted ina conspicuous place in every municipal, city, and
provincialgovernment office building and in every polling place not
later thanMay eighteen, nineteen hundred and forty, and shall
remain postedtherein until after the election. At least ten copies
of saidamendments shall be kept in each polling place to be
madeavailable for examination by the qualified electors during
electionday. When practicable, copies in the principal native
languages, asmay be determined by the Secretary of the Interior,
shall also bekept therein.
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 43 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
As regards the Parity Amendment, Section 2 of RepublicAct No. 73
is to the effect that:
The said amendment shall be published in English and Spanish
inthree consecutive issues of the Official Gazette at least twenty
daysprior to the election. A printed copy thereof shall be posted
in aconspicuous place in every municipal, city, and
provincialgovernment office building and in every polling place not
later thanFebruary eleven, nineteen hundred and fortyseven, and
shallremain posted therein until after the election. At least, ten
copiesof the said amendment shall be kept in each polling place to
bemade available for examination by the qualified electors
duringelection day. When practicable, copies
800
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
in the principal native languages, as may be determined by
theCommission on Elections, shall also be kept in each polling
place.
The main difference between the present situation and
thatobtaining in connection with the former proposals does notarise
from the law enacted therefor. The difference springsfrom the
circumstance that the major political parties hadtaken sides on
previous amendments to the Constitutionexcept, perhaps, the womans
suffrageand, consequently,debated thereon at some length before the
plebiscite tookplace. Upon the other hand, said political parties
have notseemingly made an issue on the amendments now being
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 44 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
contested and have, accordingly, refrained from discussingthe
same in the current political campaign. Such debates orpolemics as
may have taken placeon a rather limitedscaleon the latest proposals
for amendment, have beendue principally to the initiative of a few
civic organizationsand some militant members of our citizenry who
havevoiced their opinion thereon. A legislation cannot, however,be
nullified by reason of the failure of certain sectors of
thecommunity to discuss it sufficiently. Its constitutionality
orunconstitutionally depends upon no other factors thanthose
existing at the time of the enactment thereof,unaffected by the
acts or omissions of law enforcingagencies, particularly those that
take place subsequently tothe passage or approval of the law.
Referring particularly to the contested proposals foramendment,
the sufficiency or insufficiency, from aconstitutional angle, of
the submission thereof forratification to the people on November
14, 1967, dependsin the view of those who concur in this opinion,
and who,insofar as this phase of the case, constitute the
minorityupon whether the provisions of Republic Act No. 4913
aresuch as to fairly apprise the people of the gist, the mainidea
or the substance of said proposals, which isunder R.B. H. No. 1the
increase of the maximum number of seatsin the House of
Representatives, from 120 to 180, andunder R. B. H. No. 3the
authority given to the membersof Congress to run for delegates to
the ConstitutionalConvention and, if elected thereto,
801
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 45 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 801
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
to discharge the duties of such delegates, without
forfeitingtheir seats in Congress. Wewho constitute the
minoritybelieve that Republic Act No. 4913 satisfies
suchrequirement and that said Act is,
accordingly,constitutional.
A considerable portion of the people may not know howover 160 of
the proposed maximum of representativedistricts are actually
apportioned by R. B. H. No. 1 amongthe provinces in the
Philippines. It is not improbable,however, that they are not
interested in the details of theapportionment, or that a careful
reading thereof may tendin their simple minds, to impair a clear
vision thereof.Upon the other hand, those who are more
sophisticated,may enlighten themselves sufficiently by reading the
copiesof the proposed amendments posted in public places, thecopies
kept in the polling places and the text of contestedresolutions, as
printed in full on the back of the ballotsthey will use.
It is, likewise, conceivable that as many people, if notmore,
may fail to realize or envisage the effect of R.B. H.No. 3 upon the
work of the Constitutional Convention orupon the future of our
Republic. But, then, nobody canforetell such effect with certainty.
From our viewpoint, theprovisions of Article XV of the Constitution
are satisfied solong as the electorate knows that R. B. H. No. 3
permitsCongressmen to retain their seats as legislators, even
ifthey should run for and assume the functions of delegatesto the
Convention.
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 46 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
We are impressed by the factors considered by ourdistinguished
and esteemed brethren, who opine otherwise,but, we feel that such
factors affect the wisdom of RepublicAct No. 4913 and that of R. B.
H. Nos. 1 and 3, not theauthority of Congress to approve the
same.
The system of checks and balances underlying thejudicial power
to strike down acts of the Executive or ofCongress transcending the
confines set forth in thefundamental laws is not in derogation of
the principle ofseparation of powers, pursuant to which each
departmentis supreme within its own sphere. The determination of
theconditions under which the proposed amendments shall
802
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
be submitted to the people is concededly a matter whichfalls
within the legislative sphere. We do not believe it hasbeen
satisfactorily shown that Congress has exceeded thelimits thereof
in enacting Republic Act No. 4913.Presumably, it could have done
something better toenlighten the people on the subject-matter
thereof. But,then, no law is perfect. No product of human endeavor
isbeyond improvement. Otherwise, no legislation would
beconstitutional and valid. Six (6) Members of this Courtbelieve,
however, said Act and R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 violatethe spirit of
the Constitution.
Inasmuch as there are less than eight (8) votes in favor
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 47 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
of declaring Republic Act 4913 and R. B. H. Nos. 1 and
3unconstitutional and invalid, the petitions in these two (2)cases
must be, as they are hereby, dismissed, and the writstherein prayed
for denied, without special pronouncementas to costs. It is so
ordered,
Makalintal and Bengzon, J.P., JJ., concur. Fernando, J, concurs
fully with the above opinion,
adding a few words on the question of jurisdiction. Sanchez, J.,
renders a separate opinion. Reyes, Dizon and Angeles, JJ., concur
in the result
reached in the separate opinion of Justice Sanchez. Zaldivar and
Castro, JJ., concur in the separate
opinion of Justice Sanchez.,
MAKALINTAL, J., concurring:
I concur in the foregoing opinion of the Chief Justice. Iwould
make some additional observations in connectionwith my concurrence.
Sections 2 and 4 of Republic A. t No.4913 provide:
SEC. 2. The amendments shall be published in three
consecutiveissues of the Official Gazette at least twenty days
prior to theelection. A printed copy thereof shall be posted in a
conspicuousplace in every municipality, city and provincial office
building andin every polling place not later than October fourteen,
nineteenhundred and sixty-seven, and shall remain posted therein
untilafter the election. At least five copies of the said
amendments shallbe kept in each polling place to be made available
for examinationby the qualified electors during
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 48 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
803
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 803
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
election day. When practicable, copies in the principal
nativelanguages, as may be determined by the Commission
onElections, shall be kept in each polling place. The Commission
onElections shall make available copies of each amendments
inEnglish, Spanish and, whenever practicable, in the principal
nativelanguages, for free distribution.
x x x x x x
SEC. 4. The ballots which shall be used in the election for
theapproval of said amendments shall be printed in English
andPilipino and shall be in the size and form prescribed by
theCommission on Elections: Provided, however, That at the back
ofsaid ballot there shall be printed in full Resolutions of both
Housesof Congress Numbered One and Three, both adopted on
Marchsixteen, nineteen hundred and sixty-seven, proposing
theamendments: Provided, further. That the questionnaire
appearingon the face of the ballot shall be as follows:
Are you in favor of the proposed amendment to Section five
ofArticle VI of our Constitution printed at the back of this
ballot?
Are you in favor of the proposed amendment to section sixteen
ofArticle VI of our Constitution printed at the back of this
ballot?
To vote for the approval of the proposed amendments, the
votershall write the word yes or its equivalent in Pilipino or in
the localdialect in the blank space after each question; to vote
for therejection thereof, he shall write the word No or its
equivalent in
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 49 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
Pilipino or in the local dialect.
I believe that intrinsically, that is, considered in itself
andwithout reference to extraneous factors and circumstances,the
manner prescribed in the aforesaid provisions issufficient for the
purpose of having the proposedamendments submitted to the people
for their ratification,as enjoined in Section 1, Article XV of the
Constitution. Iam at a loss to say what else should have been
required bythe Act to make it adhere more closely to the
constitutionalrequirement. Certainly it would have been out of
place toprovide, for instance, that government officials
andemployees should go out and explain the amendments tothe people,
or that they should be the subject of anyparticular means or form
of public discussion.
The objection of some members of the Court to RepublicAct No.
4913 seems to me predicated on the fact that thereare so many other
issues at stake in the coming generalelection that the attention of
the electorate can-
804
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
not be entirely focused on the proposed amendments, suchthat
there is a failure to properly submit them forratification within
the intendment of the Constitution. Ifthat is so, then the defect
is not intrinsic in the law but inits implementation. The same
manner of submitting theproposed amendments to the people for
ratification may, in
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 50 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
a different setting, be sufficient for the purpose. Yet Icannot
conceive that the constitutionality orunconstitutionality of a law
may be made to dependwillynilly on factors not inherent in its
provisions. For alaw to be struck down as unconstitutional it must
be so byreason of some irreconcilable conflict between it and
theConstitution. Otherwise a law may be either valid orinvalid,
according to circumstances not found in itsprovisions, such as the
zeal with which they are carriedout. To such a thesis I cannot
agree. The criterion would betoo broad and relative, and dependent
upon individualopinions that at best are subjective. What one may
regardas sufficient compliance with the requirement ofsubmission to
the people, within the context of the samelaw, may not be so to
another. The question is susceptible ofas many views as there are
viewers; and I do not think thisCourt would be justified in saying
that its own view on thematter is the correct one, to the exclusion
of the opinions ofothers.
On the other hand, I reject the argument that theratification
must necessarily be in a special election orplebiscite called for
that purpose alone. While suchprocedure is highly to be preferred,
the Constitution speakssimply of an election at which the
amendments aresubmitted to the people for their ratification, and I
do notsubscribe to the restrictive interpretation that
thepetitioners would place on this provision, namely, that itmeans
only a special election.
BENGZON, J.P., J., concurring:
It is the glory of our institutions that they are founded
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 51 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
upon law, that no one can exercise any authority over therights
and interests of others except pursuant to and
805
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 805
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
in the manner authorized by law.1 Based upon this
principle, petitioners Ramon A. Gonzales and
PhilippineConstitution Association (PHILCONSA) come to this Courtin
separate petitions.
Petitioner Gonzales, as taxpayer, voter and citizen,
andallegedly in representation thru class suit of all citizens
ofthis country, filed this suit for prohibition with
preliminaryinjunction to restrain the Commission on
Elections,Director of Printing and Auditor General fromimplementing
and/or complying with Republic Act 4913,assailing said law as
unconstitutional.
Petitioner PHILCONSA, as a civic, non-profit andnonpartisan
corporation, assails the constitutionality notonly of Republic Act
4913 but also of Resolutions of BothHouses Nos. 1 and 3 of March
16, 1967.
Republic Act 4913, effective June 17, 1967, is an Actsubmitting
to the Filipino people for approval theamendments to the
Constitution of the Philippinesproposed by the Congress of the
Philippines in Resolutionsof Both Houses Numbered 1 and 3, adopted
on March 16,1967. Said Republic Act fixes the date and manner of
theelection at which the aforesaid proposed amendments
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 52 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
shall be voted upon by the people, and appropriates fundsfor
said election. Resolutions of Both Houses Nos. 1 and 3propose two
amendments to the Constitution: the first, toamend Sec 5, Art. VI,
by increasing the maximummembership of the House of Representatives
from 120 to180, apportioning 160 of said 180 seats and eliminating
theprovision that Congress shall by law make anapportionment within
three years after the return of everyenumeration; the second, to
amend Sec. 16, Art. VI, byallowing Senators and Representatives to
be delegates to aconstitutional convention without forfeiting their
seats.
Since both petitions relate to the proposed amendments,they are
considered together herein.
Specifically and briefly, petitioner Gonzales objectionsare as
follows: (1) Republic Act 4913 violates Sec. 1, Art. XVof the
Constitution; in submitting the proposed
______________
1 United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co., 125 U.S. 273.
806
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
amendments to the Constitution, to the people forapproval, at
the general election of 1967 instead of at aspecial election solely
for that purpose; (2) Republic Act4913 violates Sec. 1, Art. XV of
the Constitution, since it
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 53 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
was not passed with the 3/4 vote in joint session requiredwhen
Congress proposes amendments to the Constitution,said Republic Act
being a step in or part of the process ofproposing amendments to
the Constitution; and (3)Republic Act 4913 violates the due process
clause of theConstitution (Sec. 1, Subsec. 1, Art. III), in not
requiringthat the substance of the proposed amendments be statedon
the face of the ballot or otherwise rendering clear theimport of
the proposed amendments, such as by stating theprovisions before
and after said amendments, instead ofprinting at the back of the
ballot only the proposedamendments.
Since observance of Constitutional provisions on theprocedure
for amending the Constitution is concerned, theissue is cognizable
by this Court under its powers to reviewan Act of Congress to
determine its conformity to thefundamental law. For though the
Constitution leavesCongress free to propose whatever
Constitutionalamendment it deems fit, so that the substance or
content ofsaid proposed amendment is a matter of policy and
wisdomand thus a political question, the Constitution
neverthelessimposes requisites as to the manner or procedure
ofproposing such amendments, e.g., the three-fourths
voterequirement. Said procedure or manner, therefore, far frombeing
left to the discretion of Congress, as a matter ofpolicy and
wisdom, is fixed by the Constitution. And to thatextent, all
questions bearing on whether Congress inproposing amendments
followed the procedure required bythe Constitution, is perforce
justiciable, it not being amatter of policy or wisdom.
Turning then to petitioner Gonzales first objection, Sec.
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 54 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
1, Art. XV clearly does not bear him on the point. Itnowhere
requires that the ratification be thru, an electionsolely for that
purpose. It only requires that it be at anelection at which the
amendments are submitted to thepeople for their ratification. To
join it with an election forcandidates to public office, that is,
to make
807
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 807
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
it concurrent with such election, does not render it anyless an
election at which the proposed amendments are!submitted to the
people for their ratification. To prohibitionbeing found in the
plain terms of the Constitution, noneshould be inferred. Had the
framers of the Constitutionthought of requiring a special election
for the purpose onlyof the proposed amendments, they could have
said so, byqualifying the phrase with some word such as special
orsolely or exclusively. They did not.
It is not herein decided that such concurrence ofelection is
wise, or that it would not have been better toprovide for a
separate election exclusively for theratification of the proposed
amendments. The pointhowever is that such separate and exclusive
election, evenif it may be better or wiser, which again, is not for
thisCourt to decide, is not included in the procedure requiredby
the Constitution to amend the same. The function of theJudiciary is
not to pass upon questions of wisdom, justice
-
7/18/15, 8:35 PMSUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Page 55 of
103http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000014ea1295e99c104d585000a0094004f00ee/p/AKA384/?username=Guest
or expediency of legislation.2 It is limited to determining
whether the action taken by the Legislative Departmenthas
violated the Constitution or not. On this score, I am ofthe opinion
that it has not.
Petitioner Gonzales second point is that Republic Act4913 is
deficient for not having been passed by Congress injoint session by
3/4 vote.
Sec. 1, Art. XV of the Constitution provides:
Sec. 1. The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of
three-fourths of all the members of the Senate and of the House
ofRepresentatives voting separately, may propose amendments to
thisConstitution or call a convention for that purpose.