Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gonzales Vs Comelec
Gonzales Vs Comelec
3. R.B.H. No. 3: Proposes that Sec 16, Art VI of the Constitution be amended so as to
authorize Senators and Members of the House of Representatives to become
delegates to the aforementioned constitutional convention, without the need to
forfeit their respective seats in Congress.
Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which became RA 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 on
November 14, 1967. This act fixes the date and manner of elevtion for the proposed
amendments to be voted upon by the people, and appropriates funds for said
election.
Petitioners assail the validity/constitutionality of RA No. 4913 and for the prohibition
with preliminary injunction to restrain COMELEC from implementing or complying
with the said law. PHILCONSA also assails R.B.H No. 1 and 3.
ISSUE:
1.) Whether or not RA No. 4913 is unconstitutional.
2.) Whether or not the issue involves a political question.
HELD:
1.) Pursuant to Article XV of the 1935 Constitution, SC held that there is nothing in
this provision that states that the election referred to is special, different from the
general election. The Congress deemed it best to submit the amendments for
ratification in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. It does not negate
its authority to submit proposed amendments for ratification in general elections.
Petition is therefore DENIED.
2.) SC also noted that the issue is a political question because it attacks the wisdom
of the action taken by Congress and not the authority to take it. A political question
is not subject to review by the Court.