51.

VALIDITY OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Gonzales v. Commission on Elections
G.R. No. L-28196 November 9, 1967
CONCEPCION, C.J:

Doctrine:

Section 1 of Art. XV of the Constitution, should be construed as meaning a

special election Some members of the Court even feel that said term
("election") refers to a "plebiscite," without any "election," general or
special, of public officers.

Facts:

Ramon A. Gonzales, the petitioner in L-28196, is admittedly a Filipino

citizen, a taxpayer, and a voter. He claims to have instituted case L-28196
as a class suit, for and in behalf of all citizens, taxpayers, and voters
similarly situated.

He alleges that Resolution of Both House (RBH). the following Resolutions of

the House are unconstitutional:

1 R.B.H. - Increase the number of the House of Representatives from 120

to 180 members.

2 R.B.H - Call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.

3 R.B.H - Permit Senators and Congressmen to be members of the

Constitutional Convention without forfeiting their seats

Subsequently Republic Act No. 4913 was passed and took effect on June 17,
1967 and 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. This particular statute is being assailed by the petitioner
on its constitutionality

Issue:

Is Republic Act. No. 4913 is unconstitutional?

Rule:

No, Republic Act No. 4913 is constitutional. Votes in favor thereof are
insufficient to declare Republic Act No. 4913 unconstitutional.
It is part of the inherent powers of the people — as the repository of
sovereignty in a republican state, such as ours — to make, and, hence, to
amend their own Fundamental Law.

In this case, it is notable that by November 14, 1967, the 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 security
measures to ensure that the public will be informed of the amendments. This
renders the court not not be prepared to say that the foregoing measures
are palpably inadequate to comply with the constitutional requirement that
proposals for amendment be "submitted to the people for their ratification,"
and that said measures are manifestly insufficient from a constitutional
viewpoint, to inform the people of the amendments sought to be made.

Therefore, Republic Act. No. 4913 is violative to the spirit of constitution but
not unconstitutional.