Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gonzales v. COMELEC
Gonzales v. COMELEC
775
776
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
777
778
siderable portion of the people may not know how over 160 of the
proposed maximum of representative districts are actually
apportioned by RBH No. 1 among the provinces in the
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
779
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
780
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
before the people for their blessing or spurning. The people are
not to be mere rubber stamps. They are not to vote blindly.
781
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
782
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. No. 28196:
Ramon A. Gonzales in his own behalf.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
The main facts are not disputed. On March 16, 1967, the
Senate and the House of Representatives passed the
following resolutions:
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
784
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
________________
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
JURISDICTION
4
As early as Angara vs. Electoral Commission, this Court—
speaking through one of the leading members of the
Constitutional Convention and a respected professor of
Constitutional Law, Dr. Jose P. Laurel—declared that “the
judicial department is the only constitutional organ which
can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
_______________
3 78 Phil. 1.
4 63 Phil. 139, 157.
5 Supra.
786
________________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
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
THE MERITS
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
_______________
788
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
789
______________
790
The provision does not support the view that, upon the
expiration of the period to make the apportionment, a
Congress which fails to make it is dissolved or becomes
illegal. On the contrary, it implies necessarily that
Congress shall continue to function with the representative
districts existing at the time of the expiration of said
period.
It is argued that the above-quoted provision refers only
to the elections held in 1935. This theory assumes that an
apportionment had to be made necessarily before the first
elections to be held after the inauguration of 19
the
Commonwealth of the Philippines, or in 1938. The
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
________________
791
792
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
______________
793
______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
25 53 Phil. 866.
794
Alternatives Available
to Congress
Atty. Juan T. David, as amicus curiae, maintains that
Congress may either propose amendments to the
Constitution or call a convention for that purpose, but it
can not do both, at the same time. This theory is based
upon the fact that the two (2) alternatives are connected in
the Constitution by the disjunctive “or.” Such basis is,
however, a weak one, in the absence of other circumstances
—and none has brought to our attention—supporting the
conclusion drawn by the amicus curiae. In fact, the term
“or” has, oftentimes, been held to mean “and,” or 26vice-versa,
when the spirit or context of the law warrants it.
It is, also, noteworthy that R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 propose
amendments to the constitutional provision on Congress, to
be submitted to the people for ratification on November 1A,
1967, whereas R. B. H. No. 2 calls for a convention in 1971,
to consider proposals for amendment to the Constitution, in
general. In other words, the subject-matter of R. B. H. No. 2
is different from that of
________________
795
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
796
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
798
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
799
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
800
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
801
803
“SEC. 4. The ballots which shall be used in the election for the
approval of said amendments shall be printed in English and
Pilipino and shall be in the size and form prescribed by the
Commission on Elections: Provided, however, That at the back of
said ballot there shall be printed in full Resolutions of both
Houses of Congress Numbered One and Three, both adopted on
March sixteen, nineteen hundred and sixty-seven, proposing the
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
805
1
in the manner authorized by law. Based upon this
principle, petitioners Ramon A. Gonzales and Philippine
Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) come to this Court
in separate petitions.
Petitioner Gonzales, as taxpayer, voter and citizen, and
allegedly in representation thru class suit of all citizens of
this country, filed this suit for prohibition with preliminary
injunction to restrain the Commission on Elections,
Director of Printing and Auditor General from
implementing and/or complying with Republic Act 4913,
assailing said law as unconstitutional.
Petitioner PHILCONSA, as a civic, non-profit and
nonpartisan corporation, assails the constitutionality not
only of Republic Act 4913 but also of Resolutions of Both
Houses Nos. 1 and 3 of March 16, 1967.
Republic Act 4913, effective June 17, 1967, is an Act
submitting to the Filipino people for approval the
amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines
proposed by the Congress of the Philippines in Resolutions
of Both Houses Numbered 1 and 3, adopted on March 16,
1967. Said Republic Act fixes the date and manner of the
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
______________
806
807
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
_______________
808
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
809
810
811
______________
812
_______________
813
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 38/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
5
Act, one should not ignore what would ensue if a particular
mode of construction were followed. As 6
he so emphatically
stated, “We test a rule by its results.”
The consequences of a judicial veto on the then proposed
amendment on the economic survival of the country, an
erroneous appraisal it turned out later, constituted an
effective argument for its submission. Why not then
consider the question political and let the people decide?
That assumption could have been indulged in. It could very
well be the inarticulate major premise. For many it did
bear the stamp of judicial statesmanship.
The opinion of Chief Justice Concepcion renders crystal-
clear why as of this date and in the foreseeable future
judicial inquiry to assure the utmost compliance with the
constitutional requirement would be a more appropriate
response.
________________
814
1
—to be members of the Constitutional Convention to be
convened, as provided in another resolution—Resolution
No. 2. Parenthetically, two of these proposed amendments
to the Constitution (Resolutions 1 and 3) are to be
submitted to the people for their ratification next
November 14, 1967. Resolution No. 2 just adverted to calls
for a constitutional convention also to propose amendments
to the Constitution. The delegates thereto are to be elected
on the second Tuesday of November 1970; the convention to
sit on June 1, 1971; and the amendments proposed by the
convention to be submitted to the people thereafter for
their ratification.
Of importance now are the proposed amendments
increasing the number of members of the House of
Representatives under Resolution No. 1, and that in
Resolution No. 3 which gives Senators and Congressmen
‘the right to sit as members of the constitutional convention
to be convened on June 1, 1971. Because, these are the two
amendments to be submitted to the people in the general
elections soon to be held on November 14, 1967, upon the
provisions of Section 1, Republic Act 4913, which reads:
________________
1 The text of the law reads: “He (Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives) may, however, be a Member of a Constitutional
Convention.”
815
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 40/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
________________
2 Italics supplied.
816
817
“x x x The great men who builded the structure of our state in this
respect had the mental vision of a good Constitution voiced by
Judge Cooley, who has said ‘A good Constitution should be beyond
the reach of temporary excitement and popular caprice or passion.
It is needed for stability and steadiness; it must yield to the
thought of the people; not to the whim of the people, or the
thought evolved the excitement or hot blood, but the sober second
thought, which alone, if the government is to be safe, can be
allowed efficiency, xxx Changes in government are to be feared
unless the benefit is certain. As Montaign says: ‘All great
mutations shake and disorder a state. Good does not necessarily
succeed evil; another
3
evil may succeed and a worse.’ Am. Law Rev.
1889, p. 311”
________________
818
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 44/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
820
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 45/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
_________________
821
For the reasons given, our vote is that Republic Act 4913
must be stricken down as in violation of the Constitution.
822
ANNOTATION
JUDICIAL DEFERENCE TO POLITICAL
QUESTIONS
_______________
1 Tañada vs. Cuenco, L-10520, Feb. 28, 1957; Mabanag, et al. v. Lopez
Vito, et al., L-1123, Mar. 5, 1947; Climaco, et al. v. Macadaeg, et al., L-
19440 & L-19447, Apr. 18, 1962.
2 Morfe v. Mutuc, L-20387, Jan. 31, 1968; Sumulong v. Commission on
Elections, et al., 73 Phil. 288 (1941); Avelino v. Cuenco, L-2821, Mar. 4 &
14, 1949; Cf. also Dissenting Opinion of Justice Concepcion (now Chief
Justice) in Aytona v. Castillo, et al., L-19313, Jan. 20, 1962.
3 Gonzales v. Hechanova, L-21897, Oct. 22, 1963; Arnault v. Nazareno,
L-3920 (1950).
4 Mabanag, et al. v. Lopez Vito, supra. As distinguished from the
judicial, the legislative and executive departments are spoken of as the
political departments of Government because in very many cases their
action is necessarily dictated by consideration of public or political policy
(Tañada v. Cuenco, supra).
5 Concurring Opinion of Justice Feria in Mabanag, et al. v. Lopez Vito,
Id.
6 Tañada v. Cuenco, Id.; In re McConnaleghy, 119 N. W. 408.
823
_______________
7 Osmeña, Jr. v. Pendatun, et al., L-17144, Oct. 28, 1960, citing Clifford
v. French, 146 Cal. 604, 69 L.R.A. 556.
8 Severino v. Governor-General, 16 Phil. 366 (1910), citing Hawkins v.
Governor, 1 Ark. 570, 33 Am. Dec. 346.
9 Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139, 157.
10 Tanada v. Cuenco, Id.
11 Id. See also Lacson v. Roque, L-6225 (1953); Jover v. Borra, L-6782,
Jul. 25, 1953.
12Concurring Opinion of Justice Feria in Mabanag v. Lopez Vito,
supra.
824
________________
825
_________________
826
________________
827
_______________
828
______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 53/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
829
________________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 54/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
ments,” the Supreme Court declared that such act lends “force to the
contention that these appointments fall beyond the intent and spirit of the
constitutional provision granting to the Executive authority to issue ad
interim appointments.” Such circumstances were therein found to fit the
“exceptional circumstances justifying revocation” of said appointments.
But the Supreme Court, realizing the danger of over-stretching the effect
of that decision beyond the extreme and extraordinary circumstances
particularly attending the case, wisely stated that:
The case of Herrera v. Liwag, et al, L-20079, Sept. 30, 1963, comes
squarely within the above qualification in the Aytona ruling.
31 Gonzales v. Enrile, et al., L-22730, May 24, 1967.
32 55 O.G. 8641.
33 Rep. Act No. 2260, Sec. 29.
830
________________
831
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 56/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
______________
832
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 57/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
________________
833
______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 58/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
834
51
stitution, suffice to satisfy the requirement
52
of the latter,
such question being a political53one. Quoting with approval
the case of Coleman v. Miller and the opinion of Justice
Black, the Court further ruled that, “the efficacy of
ratification x x x of a proposed amendment to the
Constitution is a political question and hence not
justiceable;” that “if ratification of an amendment is a
political question, a proposal which leads to ratification has
to be a political question;” and that the amending process
itself is political in its entirety, “from submission until an
amendment becomes part of the Constitution, and is not
subject to judicial guidance, control or interference at any
point.”
The weight of the Mabanag decision, as a precedent, has
been weakened, however, by the Supreme Court 54
resolution
of March 14, 1949 in Avelino v. Cuenco, in which the
Court proceeded to determine the number of votes essential
55
to constitute a quorum in the Senate. In the case under
annotation, the Court emphatically held that “the issue
whether or not a Resolution of Congress—acting as a
constituent assembly—violates the Constitution, is
essentially justiceable, not political, and, hence, subject to
judicial review.” With this latest pronouncement,
repudiating in effect the Mabanag ruling, it may now be
restated with certitude that the question whether certain
proposed amendments to the Constitution are invalid for
non-compliance with the procedure therein prescribed is
not a political
56
one and may be traversed and settled by the
Courts.
Legality57of Appropriation Act.—Custodio v. President of
the Senate involved a petition for prohibition filed by a
taxpayer and employee of the government against the
Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
the Insular Treasurer and Auditor, praying that the Court
declare invalid and unconstitutional the appropriation of
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 59/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
835
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 60/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
_______________
836
______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 61/62
9/6/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Constitution Association vs. Mathay, supra; Iloilo Palay & Corn Planters
Ass'n v. Feliciano, et al., L-24022, Mar. 3, 1965.
62 See Republic Act Nos. 2207 and 3452.
63 Gonzales v. Hechanova, L-21897, Oct. 22, 1963.
837
64
ciable. Republic Act 1793, which created the Presidential
Electoral Tribunal, has the effect of giving said defeated
candidate the legal right to contest judicially the election of
the President-elect or Vice-President-elect and to demand a
recount of65 the votes cast for the office involved in the
litigation. And by providing that the said Presidential
Electoral Tribunal “shall be composed of the Chief Justice
and the other ten Members of the Supreme Court,” said
legislation has conferred upon such Court an additional
66
original jurisdiction of an exclusive character. —Atty.
DOMINGO . LUCENARIO.
_______________
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174619e5fe7eb424448003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 62/62