Gonzales v. COMELEC

9/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021 9/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Same; Nature of power to amend the Constitution.—The

power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments
thereto is not included in the general grant of legislative powers
to Congress. It (is a 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.
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution merely
because the same explicitly grants such power. Hence, when
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
exercising the same, it is said that Senators and Members of the
House of Representatives act, not as members of Congress, but as
No. L-28196. November 9, 1967. competent elements of a constituent assembly. When acting as
such, the members of Congress derive their authority from the
RAMON A. GONZALES, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON Constitution, unlike the people, when performing the same
ELECTIONS,DIRECTOR OF PRINTING and AUDITOR function, for their authority does not emanate from the
GENERAL, respondents. Constitution—they are the very source of all powers of
government, including the Constitution itself.
No. L-28224. November 9, 1967. Power of reapportionment of congressional districts.—It is not
true that Congress has not made a reapportionment within three
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION years after the enumeration or census made in 1960. It did
(PHILCONSA), petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON actually pass a bill, which became Republic Act 3040 (approved
ELECTIONS, respondent. June 17, 1961), purporting to make reapportionment. This act
was, however, declared unconstitutional on the ground that the
775 apportionment therein undertaken had not been made according
to the number of inhabitants of the different provinces of the
Philippines.
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 775
Same; Same; Failure of Congress to make reapportionment
did not make Congress illegal or unconstitutional.—The fact that
Congress is under obligation to make apportionment, as required
Constitutional law; Power of judicial department to determine under the Constitution, does not justify the conclusion
allocation of powers between several departments.—The judicial
department is the only constitutional organ which can be called 776
upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the

several departments and among the integral or constituent units
thereof.
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Same; Power to pass upon validity of constitutional
amendmtnt.—In Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito (78 Phil. 1), the Court Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
declined to pass upon the question whether or not a given number

of votes cast in Congress in favor of a proposed amendment to the that such failure rendered Congress illegal or unconstitutional, or
Constitution satisfied the three-fourths vote requirement of the that its Members have become de facto officers. The effect of this
fundamental law, characterizing the issue as a political one. The omission has been envisioned in the Constitution which provides
force of this precedent has been weakened by Suanes vs. Chief that “until such apportionment shall have been made, the House
Accountant of the Senate (81 Phil. 818), Avelino vs. Cuenco of Representatives shall have the same number of members as
(L2851, March 4 & 14, 1949), Tañada vs. Cuenco (L-10520, Feb. that fixed by law for the National Assembly, who shall be elected
28, 1957), and Macias vs. Commission on Elections (L-18684, by the qualified elections from the present Assembly districts.”
Sept. 14, 1961). The Court rejected the theory advanced in these This provision does not support the view that, upon the expiration
four cases that the issues therein raised were political questions, of the period to make the apportionment, a Congress which fails
the determination of which is beyond judicial review. to make it is dissolved or becomes illegal. On the contrary, it
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/66 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/66
implies necessarily that Congress shall continue to function with officers and employees of the Government would be entitled to
the representative districts existing at the time of the expiration demand from them satisfactory proof of their title to the positions
of said period. they hold, before dealing with them, or before recognizing their
Same; Same; No valid apportionment since adoption of authority or obeying their commands, even if they should act
Constitution in 1935.—Since the adoption of the Constitution in within the limits of the authority vested in their respective offices,
1935, Congress has not made a valid apportionment as required position or employments. One can imagine the great
in the fundamental law. inconvenience, hardships and evils that would result in the
Same; Same; Senate and House constituted on Dec. 30, 1961 absence of the de facto doctrine.
were de jure bodies.—The Senate and House of Representatives Same; Same; Title of de facto officer cannot be assailed
organized or constituted on December 30, 1961 were de jure collaterally.—The title of a de facto officer cannot be assailed
bodies and the Members thereof were de jure officers. collaterally. It may not be contested except directly, by quo
warranto proceedings.
Same; Same; Effect of failure of Congress to discharge
mandatory duty.—Neither our political law, in general, nor our Same; Same; Validity of acts of de facto officer cannot be
law on public officers in particular, supports the view that failure assailed collaterally.—Neither may the validity of his acts be
to discharge a mandatory duty, whatever it may be, would questioned upon the ground that he is merely a de facto officer.
automatically result in the forfeiture of an office, in the absence of And the reasons are obvious: (1) it would be an indirect inquiry
a statute to this effect. into the title to the office; and (2) the acts of a de facto officer, if
Sayne; Same; Same; Provisions of Election Law relative to within the competence of his office, are valid, insofar as the public
election of members of Congress in 1965 not repealed.—The is concerned.
provision of our Election Law relative to the election of members Same; Construction of terms; Meaning of the term “or”.—The
of Congress in 1965 were not repealed in consequence of the term “or” has, oftentimes, been held to mean “and” or vice-versa,
failure of said body to make an apportionment within three years when the spirit or context of the law warrants it.
after the census of 1960. Inasmuch as the general elections in Same; Power of Congress to approve resolutions amending the
1965 were presumably held in conformity with said Election Law Constitution.—There is nothing in the Constitution or in the
and the legal provisions creating Congress with a House of history thereof that would negate the authority of different
Representatives composed of members elected by qualified voters Congresses to approve the contested resolutions, or of the same
of representative districts as they existed at the time of said Congress to pass the same in different sessions or different days
elections remained in force, we cannot see how said Members of of the same Congressional session. Neither has any plausible
the House of Representatives can be regarded as de facto officers reason been advanced to justify the denial of authority to adopt
owing to the failure of their predecessors in office to make a said resolutions on the same day.
reapportionment within the period aforementioned.
Same; Meaning of term “election” in Art. XI, Constitution,—
Same; De facto doctrine; Reason therefor.—The main reason There is in this provision nothing to indicate that the “election”
for the existence of the de facto doctrine is that public interest therein referred to is a “special, not a general election.” The
demands that acts of persons holding, under color of title, an circumstance that the previous amendments to the Constitution
office created by a valid statute be, likewise, deemed valid insofar had been submitted to the people for ratification in special
as the public—as distinguished from the officer in question—is elections merely shows that Congress deemed it best to do so
concerned. Indeed, otherwise those dealing with under the circumstances then obtaining. It does not negate its
authority to submit proposed amendments for ratification in
777
general elections.
Same; Legislation cannot be nullified for failure of certain
sectors to discuss it sufficiently.—A legislation cannot be nullified
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 777 by reason of the failure of certain sectors of the community to
discuss it sufficiently. Its constitutionality or unconstitutionally
depends upon no other factor than those existing at the time of
the enactment thereof, unaffected by the acts or omissions of law

enforcing to agencies, particularly those that take place ratification may, in a different setting, be sufficient for the
subsequently to the passage or approval of the law. purpose. The constitutionality or unconstitutionality of a law may
Same; Public knowledge of proposed amendments.—A con- not be made to depend willy-nilly on factors not inherent in its
provisions.
778 Same; Requisite for declaring law unconstitutional.—For a
law to be struck down as unconstitutional, it must be so by reason
of some irreconcilable conflict between it and the Constitution.
Otherwise a law may be either valid or invalid, according to
circumstances not found in its provisions, such as the zeal with
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections which they are carried out. The criterion would be too broad and
relative, and dependent upon individual opinions that at best are
subjective. What one may regard as sufficient compliance with the
siderable portion of the people may not know how over 160 of the
requirement of submission to the people, within the context of the
proposed maximum of representative districts are actually
same law, may not be so to another.
apportioned by RBH No. 1 among the provinces in the
Philippines. It is not improbable, however, that they are not
779
interested in the details of the apportionment, or that a careful
reading thereof may tend, in their simple minds, to impair a clear
vision thereof. Upon the other hand, those who are more VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 779
sophisticated may enlighten themselves sufficiently by reading
the copies of the proposed amendments posted in public places, Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
the copies kept in the polling places and the text of the contested
resolutions, as printed in full on the back of the ballots they will Same; Ratification of amendments need not be in special
use. election or plebiscite.—The ratification of the amendments to the
Same; Judicial power to nullify executive or legislative acts, Constitution need not necessarily be in a special election or
not violative of principle of separation of powers.—The system of plebiscite called for that purpose alone. While such procedure is
checks and balances underlying the judicial power to strike down highly to be preferred, the Constitution speaks simply of “an
acts of the Executive or of Congress transcending the confines set election” at which the amendments are submitted to the people
forth in the fundamental law is not in derogation of powers, for their ratification.”
pursuant to which each department is supreme within its own
BENGZON, J., concurring:
sphere.
Same; Determination of conditions for submission of Constitutional law; Validity of Rep. Act 1493; Jurisdiction of
amendments to people purely legislative.—The determination of the court.—Since observance of constitutional provisions on the
the conditions under which the proposed amendments shall be procedure for amending the Constitution is concerned, the issue is
submitted to the people is concededly a matter which falls within cognizable by this Court under its powers to review an Act of
the legislative sphere. Congress to determine its conformity to the fundamental law. For
though the Constitution leaves Congress free to propose whatever
MAKALINTAL, J., concurring:
constitutional amendment it deems fit, so that the substance or
content of said proposed amendment is a matter of policy and
Constitutional law; Rep. Act 4913; Manner prescribed in law wisdom and thus a political question, the Constitution
sufficient to have amendments submitted for ratification by people. nevertheless imposes requisites as to the manner or procedure of
—The manner prescribed in Sections 2 and 4 of Republic Act 4913 proposing such amendments, e.g., the three-fourths vote
is sufficient for the purpose of having the proposed amendments requirement. Said procedure or manner, therefore, far from being
submitted to the people for their ratification, as enjoined in left to the discretion of Congress, as a matter of policy and
Section 1, Article XV of the Constitution. wisdom, is fixed by the Constitution. And to that extent, all
Same; Defect is in implementation.—The defect is not questions bearing on whether Congress in proposing amendments
intrinsic in the law, but in its implementation. The same manner followed the procedure required by the Constitution, is perforce
of submitting the proposed amendments to the people for justiciable, it not being a matter of policy or wisdom.
Same; Special election not required to ratify constitutional since the time the above provision (Art. VI, Sec. 5, Const.) was
amendment.—To join the ratification of the proposed amendments adopted, does not render the present districting illegal or
with an election for candidates to public office, that is to make it unconstitutional. For the Constitution itself provides for its
concurrent with such election, does not render it any less an continuance in such case, rendering legal and de jure the status
election at which the proposed amendments are submitted to the quo.
people for their ratification. No prohibition being found in the
FERNANDO, J., concurring with the Chief Justice:
plain terms of the Constitution, none should be inferred. Had the
framers of the Constitution thought of requiring a special election
Constitutional law; Constitutional amendments; Certain
for the purpose only of the proposed amendments, they could have
aspects of amending process deemed political.—Certain aspects of
said so, by qualifying the phrase with some word such as “special”
the amending process may be considered political. The process
or “solely” or “exclusively”. They did not.
itself is political in its entirety, “from submission until an
Same; Validity of Rep. Act 4913; 3/4 vote not required.— amendment becomes part of the Constitution, and is not subject
Congress validly enacted Republic Act 4913 to fix the details of to judicial guidance, control or interference at any point.”
the date and manner of submitting the proposed amendments to
the people for their ratification, since it does not “propose SANCHEZ, J., dissenting:
amendments” in the sense referred to by Section 1, Article XV of
the Constitution, but merely provides for how and when the Constitutional law; Amendments; Meaning of phrase
amendments, already proposed, are going to be voted upon, the “submitted to the people for their ratification.”—The words
same does not need the 3/4 vote in joint session required in “submitted to the people for their ratification”, if construed in the
Section 1, Article XV of the Constitution. light of the nature of the Constitution—a fundamental charter
that is legislation direct from the people, an expression of their
780 sovereign will—is that it can only be amended by the people
expressing themselves according to the procedures ordained by
the Constitution. Therefore, amendments must be fairly laid
before the people for their blessing or spurning. The people are
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections not to be mere rubber stamps. They are not to vote blindly.
781
Same; Same; Law complies with substantive due process.—An
examination of the provisions of the law shows no violation of the
due process clause of the Constitution. The publication in the
Official Gazette at least 20 days before the election, the posting of VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 781
notices in public building not later than October 14, 1967, to
remain posted until after the elections, the placing of copies of the Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
proposed amendments in the polling places, aside from printing
the same at the back of the ballot, provide sufficient opportunity They must be afforded ample opportunity to mull over the original
to the voters to cast an intelligent vote on the proposal. Due provisions, compare them with the proposed amendments, and try
process refers only to providing fair opportunity; it does not to reach a conclusion as the dictates of their conscience suggest,
guarantee that the opportunity given will in fact be availed of; free from the incubus of extraneous or possibly insidious
that is the look-out of the voter and the responsibility of the influences. The word “submitted” can only mean that the
citizen. As long as fair and reasonable opportunity to be informed government, within its maximum capabilities, should strain every
is given, and it is, the due process cause is not infringed. Non- effort to inform every citizen of the provisions to be amended, and
printing of the provisions to be amended as they now stand, and the proposed amendments and the meaning, nature and effects
the printing of the full proposed amendments at the back of the thereof. What the Constitution in effect directs is that the
ballot instead of the substance thereof at the face of the ballot, do government, in submitting an amendment for ratification, should
not deprive the voter of fair opportunity to be informed. put every instrumentality or agency within its structural
Same; Effect of failure of Congress to pass valid redistricting framework to enlighten the people, educate them with respect to
law.—The failure of Congress to pass a valid redistricting law their act of ratification or rejection. There must be fair

submission, intelligent consent or rejection. If with all these were to be ratified or rejected. These plebiscites have been
safeguards the people still approve the amendment no matter how referred to either as an “election” or “general election.” At no time,
prejudicial it is to them, then so be it. For the people decree their however, was the vote for amendments of the Constitution held
own fate. simultaneously with the election of officials, national or local.
Same: Procedure for dissemination of information on
REYES, J.B.L., J., concurring with Justice Sanchez:
amendments defective.—The procedure does not effectively bring
the matter to the people. First, the Official Gazette is not widely
Constitutional law; Constitutional amendment; Majority votes
read. It does not reach the barrios. And even if it reached the
cast at election, insufficient to ratify proposed amendments in Rep.
barrios, it is not available to all. Secondly, many citizens,
Act 4913.—It is impossible to believe that it was ever intended by
especially those in the outlying barrios do not go to municipal, city
the framers of the Constitution that an amendment should be
and or provincial office buildings, except on special occasions like
submitted and ratified by just “a majority of the votes cast at an
paying taxes or responding to court summonses. Thirdly, it would
election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for
not help any if at least five copies are kept in the polling place for
their ratification”, if the concentration of the people's attention
examination by qualified electors on election day. Fourthly, copies
thereon is to be diverted by other extraneous issues such as the
in the principal native language shall be kept in each polling
choice of local and national officials. The framers of the
place; but this is not in the nature of a command because such
Constitution, aware of the fundamental character thereof, and of
copies shall be kept therein only “when practicable” and “as may
the need of giving it as much stability as is practicable, could have
be determined by the Commission on Elections.” Fifthly, it is true
only meant that any amendments thereto should be debated,
that the Comelec is directed to make available copies of such
considered and voted at an election wherein the people could
amendments in English, Spanish or whenever practicable in the
devote undivided attention to the subject. That this was the
principal native languages, for free distribution. However,
intention and spirit of the provision is corroborated in the case of
Comelec is not required to actively distribute them to the people.
all other constitutional amendments in the past, that were
Finally, it is of common knowledge that Comelec has more than
submitted to and approved in special elections exclusively devoted
its hands full in these preelection days. They cannot possibly
to the issue whether the legislature's amendatory proposals
make extensive distribution. Surely enough, the voters do not
should be ratified or not.
have the benefit of proper notice of the proposed amendments
through dissemination by publication in extenso. People do not
ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Prohibition
have at hand the necessary data on which to base their stand on
with preliminary injunction.
the merits and demerits of said amendments. There is, therefore,
no proper submission of the proposed constitutional amendment The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. No. 28196:
of Section 1, Article XV of the Constitution. Ramon A. Gonzales in his own behalf.
Same; Same; Proper submission of amendments to the people Juan T. David as amicus curiae
required.—That proper submission of amendments to the people Solicitor General for respondents. No. 28224:
to enable them to equally ratify them properly is the meat of the Salvador Araneta for petitioner.
constitutional requirement, is reflected in the sequence of Solicitor General for respondent.
782 CONCEPCION, C.J.:
G. R. No. L-28196 is an original action for prohibition, with

preliminary injunction.
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Petitioner therein prays for judgment:
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections 783
uniform past practices. The Constitution has been amended thrice VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 783
—in 1939, 1940 and 1947. In each case the amendments were
embodied in resolutions adopted by the Legislature, which
thereafter fixed the dates at which the proposed amendments

1) Restraining: (a) the Commission on Elections from 784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
enforcing Republic Act No. 4913, or from Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
performing any act that will result in the holding of
the plebiscite for the ratification of the
constitutional amendments proposed in Joint at the general elections which shall be held on November
Resolutions Nos. 1 and 3 of the two Houses of 14, 1967.
Congress of the Philippines, approved on March 16, The petition in L-28196 was filed on October 21, 1967.
1967; (b) the Director of Printing from printing At the hearing thereof, on October 28, 1967, the Solicitor
ballots, pursuant to said Act and Resolutions; and General appeared on behalf of respondents. Moreover, Atty.
(c) the Auditor General from passing in audit any Juan T. David and counsel for the Philippine Constitution
disbursement from the appropriation of funds made Association—hereinafter referred to as the PHILCONSA—
were allowed to argue as amici curiae. Said counsel for the
in said Republic Act No. 4913; and
PHILCONSA, Dr. Salvador Araneta, likewise prayed that
2) declaring said Act unconstitutional and void.
the decision in this case be deferred until after a
substantially identical case—brought by said organization
The main facts are not disputed. On March 16, 1967, the 1
before the Commission on Elections, which was expected to
Senate and the House of Representatives passed the
decide it any time, and whose decision would, in all
following resolutions:
probability, be appealed to this Court—had been submitted
1. R. B. H. (Resolution of Both Houses) No. 1, thereto for final determination, for a joint decision on the
proposing that Section 5, Article VI, of the identical issues raised in both cases. In fact, on October 31,
1967, the PHILCONSA filed with this Court the petition in
Constitution of the Philippines, be amended so as to
G. R. No. L-28224, for review by certiorari of the resolution
increase the membership of the House of 2
Representatives from a maximum of 120, as of the Commission on Elections dismissing the petition
provided in the present Constitution, to a maximum therein. The two (2) cases were deemed submitted for
of 180, to be apportioned among the several decision on November 8, 1967, upon the filing of the answer
provinces as nearly as may be according to the of respondent, the memorandum of the petitioner and the
number of their respective inhabitants, although reply memorandum of respondent in L-28224.
each province shall have, at least, one (1) member; Ramon A. Gonzales, the petitioner in L-28196, is
admittedly a Filipino citizen, a taxpayer, and a voter. He
2. R. B. H. No. 2, calling a convention to propose claims to have instituted case L-28196 as a class unit, for
amendments to said Constitution, the convention to and in behalf of all citizens, taxpayers, and voters similarly
be composed of two (2) elective delegates from each
situated. Although respondents and the Solicitor General
representative district, to be “elected in the general
have filed an answer denying the truth of this allegation,
elections to be held on the second Tuesday of
upon the ground that they have no knowledge or
November, 1971;” and
information to form a belief as to the truth thereof, such
3. R. B. H. No. 3, proposing that Section 16, Article VI, denial would appear to be a perfunctory one. In fact, at the
of the same Constitution, be amended so as to hearing of case L-28196, the Solicitor General expressed
authorize Senators and members of the House of himself in favor of a judicial determination of
Representatives to become delegates to the
aforementioned constitutional convention, without
________________
forfeiting their respective seats in Congress.
1 Urging the latter to refrain from implementing Republic Act No. 4913
Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval and from submitting to a plebiscite in the general elections to be held on
by the President, on June 17, 1967, became Republic Act November 14, 1967, the Constitutional amendments proposed in the
No. 4913, providing that the amendments to the aforementioned R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3.
Constitution proposed in the aforementioned Resolutions 2 Dated October 30, 1967.
No. 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by the people,
785
784

VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 785 786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
the merits of the issues raised in said case. characterizing the issue submitted thereto as a political
The PHILCONSA, petitioner in L-28224, is admittedly a one, declined to pass upon the question whether or not a
corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of given number of votes cast in Congress in favor of a
the Philippines, and a civic, non-profit and non-partisan proposed amendment to the Constitution—which was being
organization the objective of which is to uphold the rule of submitted to the people for ratification—satisfied the three-
law in the Philippines and to defend its Constitution fourths vote requirement of the fundamental law. The force
against erosions or onslaughts from whatever source. of this precedent has been weakened, 6
however, by Suanes7
Despite his aforementioned statement in L-28196, in his vs. Chief Accountant 8 of the Senate Avelino vs. Cuenco,
answer in L-28224 the Solicitor General maintains that Tañada vs.9
Cuenco, and Macias vs. Commission on
this Court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of L- Elections. In the first, we held that the officers and
28224, upon the ground that the same3 is “merely political” employees of the Senate Electoral Tribunal are under its
as held in Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito. Senator Arturo M. supervision and control, not of that of the Senate President,
Tolentino, who appeared before the Commission on as claimed by the latter; in the second, this Court
Elections and filed an opposition to the PHILCONSA proceeded to determine the number of Senators necessary
petition therein, was allowed to appear before this Court for a quorum in the Senate; in the third, we nullified the
and objected to said petition upon the ground: a) that the election, by Senators belonging to the party having the
Court has no jurisdiction either to grant the relief sought in largest number of votes in said chamber, purporting to act
the petition, or to pass upon the legality of the composition on behalf of the party having the second largest number of
of the House of Representatives; b) that the petition, if votes therein, of two (2) Senators belonging to the first
granted, would, in effect, render inoperational the party, as members, for the second party, of the Senate
legislative department; and c) that “the failure of Congress Electoral Tribunal; and in the fourth, we declared
to enact a valid reapportionment law xxx does not have the unconstitutional an act of Congress purporting to apportion
legal effect of rendering illegal the House of the representative districts for the House of
Representatives elected thereafter, nor of rendering its acts Representatives, upon the ground that the apportionment
null and void.” had not been made as may be possible according to the
number of inhabitants of each province. Thus we rejected
the theory, advanced in these four (4) cases, that the issues
JURISDICTION
therein raised were political questions the determination of
As early as Angara vs. Electoral Commission, this Court—
4
which is beyond judicial review.
speaking through one of the leading members of the Indeed, the power to amend the Constitution or to
Constitutional Convention and a respected professor of propose amendments thereto is not included 10
in the general
Constitutional Law, Dr. Jose P. Laurel—declared that “the grant of legislative powers to Congress. It is part of the
judicial department is the only constitutional organ which inherent powers of the people—as the repository 11
of
can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of sovereignty in a republican state, such as ours —to
powers between the several departments and among the
integral or constituent units thereof.” 5
________________
It is true that in Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, this Court
6 81 Phil. 818.
7 L-2851, March 4 and 14, 1949.
_______________ 8 L-10520, February 28, 1957.
9 1-18684, September 14, 1961.
3 78 Phil. 1.
10 Section 1, Art. VI, Constitution of the Philippines.
4 63 Phil. 139, 157.
11 Section 1, Art. II, Constitution of the Philippines.
5 Supra.
787
786

VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 787 16 Supra.
make, and, hence, to amend their own Fundamental Law.

Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution 12
merely because the same explicitly grants such power. Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
Hence, when exercising the same, it is said that Senators
and Members of the House of Representatives act, not as “The Congress in joint session assembled by a vote of threefourths
members of Congress, but as component elements of a of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of
constituent assembly. When acting as such, the members of Representatives voting separately, may propose amendments to
Congress derive their authority from the Constitution, 13
this Constitution or call a convention for that purpose. Such
unlike the people, when performing the same function. for amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when
their authority does not emanate from the Constitution— approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which
they are the very source of all powers of government, the amendments are submitted to the people for their
including the Constitution itself. ratification.”
Since, when proposing, as a constituent assembly,
amendments to the Constitution, the members of Congress Pursuant to this provision, amendments to the
derive their authority from the Fundamental Law, it Constitution may be proposed, either by Congress, or by a
follows, necessarily, that they do not have the final say on convention called by Congress for that purpose. In either
whether or not their acts are within or beyond case, the vote of “three-fourths of all the members of the
constitutional limits. Otherwise, they could brush aside Senate and of the House of Representatives voting
and set the same at naught, contrary to the basic tenet that separately” is necessary. And, “such amendments shall be
ours is a government of laws, not of men, and to the rigid valid as part of” the “Constitution when approved by a
nature of our Constitution. Such rigidity is stressed by the majority of the votes cast at an election at which the
fact that, the Constitution expressly confers upon the amendments are submitted to the people for their
14
Supreme Court,15 the power to declare a treaty ratification.”
unconstitutional, despite the eminently political character In the cases at bar, it is conceded that the R. B. H. Nos.
of treaty-making power. 1 and 3 have been approved by a vote of three-fourths of all
In short, the issue whether or not a Resolution of the members of the Senate and of the House of
Congress—acting as a constituent assembly—violates the Representatives voting separately. This, notwithstanding,
Constitution essentially justiciable, not political, and, it is urged that said resolutions are null and void because:
hence, subject to judicial review, and, to the extent that
this view may be inconsistent with the stand taken in 1. The Members of Congress, which approved the
16
Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, the latter should be deemed proposed amendments, as well as the resolution
modified accordingly. The Members of the Court are calling a convention to propose amendments, are, at
unanimous on this point. best, de facto Congressmen ;
2. Congress may adopt either one of two alternatives—
propose amendments or call a convention therefor—
THE MERITS but may not avail of both—that is to say, propose
amendment and call a convention—at the same
Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution, as amended,
time;
reads:
3. The election, in which proposals for amendment to
the Constitution shall be submitted for ratification,
_______________
must be a special election, not a general election, in
12 Section 1, Art. XV, Constitution of the Philippines. which officers of the national and local governments
13 Of amending the Constitution. —such as the elections scheduled to be held on
14 And, inferentially, to lower courts. November 14, 1967—will be chosen; and
15 Sec. 2(1), Art. VIII of the Constitution.
4. The spirit of the Constitution demands that the unconstitutional, upon the ground that the apportionment
election, in which proposals for amendment shall be therein undertaken had not been made according to the
submitted to the people for ratification, must be number of 18inhabitants of the different provinces of the
held under such conditions—which, allegedly, do Philippines.
not exist—as to Moreover, we are unable to agree with the theory that,
in view of the failure of Congress to make a valid ap-
789
______________
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 789 17 Approved, June 17, 1961.
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections 18 Macias vs. Commission on Elections, supra.
790
give the people a reasonable opportunity to have a
fair grasp of the nature and implications of said
amendments. 790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Legality of Congress and Legal
Status of the Congressmen portionment within the period stated in the Constitution,
Congress became an “unconstitutional Congress” and that,
The first objection is based upon Section 5, Article VI, of
in consequence thereof, the Members of its House of
the Constitution, which provides :
Representatives are de facto officers. The major premise of
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more this process of reasoning is that the constitutional
than one hundred and twenty Members who shall be apportioned provision on “apportionment within three years after the
among the several provinces as nearly as may be according to the return of every enumeration, and not otherwise,” is
number of their respective inhabitants, but each province shall mandatory. The fact that Congress is under legal obligation
have at least one Member. The Congress shall by law make an to make said apportionment does not justify, however, the
apportionment within three years after the return of every conclusion that failure to comply with such obligation
enumeration, and not otherwise. Until such apportionment shall rendered Congress illegal or unconstitutional, or that its
have been made, the House of Representatives shall have the Members have become de facto officers.
same number of Members as that fixed by law for the National It is conceded that, since the adoption of the
Assembly, who shall be elected by the qualified electors from the Constitution in 1935, Congress has not made a valid
present Assembly districts. Each representative district shall apportionment as required in said fundamental law. The
comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous and compact territory.” effect of this omission has been envisioned in the
Constitution, pursuant to which:
It is urged that the last enumeration or census took place
in 1960; that, no apportionment having been made within “x x x Until such apportionment shall have been made, the House
three (3) years thereafter, the Congress of the Philippines of Representatives shall have the same number of Members as
and/or the election of its Members became 'illegal; that that fixed by law for the National Assembly, who shall be elected
Congress and its Members, likewise, became a de facto by the qualified electors from the present Assembly districts, x x
Congress and/or de facto congressmen, respectively; and x.”
that, consequently, the disputed Resolutions, proposing
The provision does not support the view that, upon the
amendments to the Constitution, as well as Republic Act
expiration of the period to make the apportionment, a
No. 4913, are null and void.
Congress which fails to make it is dissolved or becomes
It is not true, however, that Congress has not made an
illegal. On the contrary, it implies necessarily that
apportionment within three years after the enumeration or
Congress shall continue to function with the representative
census made in 1960. It did actually pass a bill, which
17 districts existing at the time of the expiration of said
became Republic Act No. 3040, purporting to make said
period.
apportionment. This Act was, however, declared
It is argued that the above-quoted provision refers only herein, upon expiration of said period of three years, or late
to the elections held in 1935. This theory assumes that an in 1963, Congress became illegal and its Members, or at
apportionment had to be made necessarily before the first least, those of the House of Representatives, became illegal
elections to be held after the inauguration of 19
the holders of their respective offices, and were de facto
Commonwealth of the Philippines, or in 1938. The officers.
assumption, is, however, unwarranted, for there had been Petitioners do not allege that the expiration of said
no enumeration in 1935, and nobody could foretell when it three-year period without a reapportionment, had the
would be made. Those who drafted and adopted the effect of abrogating or repealing the legal provision
creating Congress, or, at least, the House of
________________ Representatives, and are not aware of any rule or principle
of law that would warrant such conclusion. Neither do they
19 Under the original Constitution providing for a unicameral allege that the term of office of the members of said House
legislative body, whose members were chosen for a term of three (3) years automatically expired or that they ipso facto forfeited their
(Section 1, Art. VI, of the Original Constitution). seats
791 792
Constitution in 1935 could be certain, therefore, that the in Congress, upon the lapse of said period for
three-year period, after the earliest possible enumeration, reapportionment. In fact, neither our political law, nor our
would expire after the elections in 1938. law on public officers, in particular, supports the view that
What is more, considering that several provisions of the failure to discharge a mandatory duty, whatever it may be,
Constitution, particularly those on the legislative would automatically result in the forfeiture of an office, in
department, were amended in 1940, by establishing a the absence of a statute to this effect.
bicameral Congress, those who drafted and adopted said Similarly, it would seem obvious that the provision of
amendment, incorporating therein the provision of the our Election Law relative to the election of Members of
original Constitution regarding the apportionment of the Congress in 1965 were not repealed in consequence of the
districts for representatives, must have known that the failure of said body to make an apportionment within three
three-year period therefor would expire after the elections (3) years after the census of 1960. Inasmuch as the general
scheduled to be held and actually held in 1941. elections in 1965 were presumably held in conformity with
Thus, the events contemporaneous with the framing and said Election Law, and the legal provisions creating
ratification of the original Constitution in 1935 and of the Congress—with a House of Representatives composed of
amendment thereof in 1940 strongly indicate that the members elected by qualified voters of representative
provision concerning said apportionment and the effect of districts as they existed at the time of said elections—
the failure to make it were expected to be applied to remained in force, we can not see how said Members of the
conditions obtaining after the elections in 1935 and 1938, House of Representatives can be regarded as de facto
and even after subsequent elections. officers owing to the failure of their predecessors in office to
Then again, since the report of the Director of the make a reapportionment within the period aforementioned.
Census on the last enumeration was submitted to the Upon the other hand, the Constitution authorizes the
President on November 30, 1960, it follows that the three- impeachment of the President, the Vice-President, the
vear period to,make the apportionment did not expire until Justices of the Supreme Court and the Auditor General for,
20
1963, or after the Presidential elections in 1961. There can inter alia, culpable violation of the Constitution, the
be no question, therefore, that the Senate and the House of enforcement of which is, not only their mandatory duty, but
Representatives organized or constituted on December 30, also, their main function. This provision indicates that,
1961, were de jure bodies, and that the Members thereof despite the violation of such mandatory duty, the title to
were de jure officers. Pursuant to the theory of petitioners their respective offices remains unimpaired, until dismissal
or ouster pursuant to a judgment of conviction rendered in he had reached the age of retirement. This Court held that
accordance with Article IX of the Constitution. In short, the the objection could not be entertained, because the Judge
loss of office or the extinction of title thereto is not was at least, a de facto Judge,
automatic.
Even if we assumed, however, that the present Members ______________
of Congress are merely de facto officers, it would not follow
that the contested resolutions and Republic Act No. 4913 21 Lino Luna vs. Rodriguez and De los Angeles, 37 Phil, p. 192;
are null and void. In fact, the main reasons for the Nacionalista Party vs. De Vera, 35 Phil., 126: Codilla vs. Martinez, L-
existence of the de facto doctrine is that public interest 14569, November 23, 1960. See, also. State vs. Carrol, 38 Conn. 499;
demands that acts of persons holding, under 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.
20 Section 1, Article IX of the Constitution. 24 People vs. Rogelio Gabitanan, 43 O.G. 3211.
25 53 Phil. 866.
793
794
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1957 793

Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections 794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
color of title, an office created by a valid statute be,
likewise, deemed valid insofar as the public—as 21
whose title can not be assailed collaterally. It should be
distinguished from the officer in question—is concerned. noted that Tayko was not a third party insofar as the
Indeed, otherwise, those dealing with officers and Judge was concerned. Tayko was one of the parties in the
employees of the Government would be entitled to demand aforementioned suit. Moreover, Judge Capistrano had not,
from them satisfactory proof of their title to the positions as yet, finished hearing the case, much less rendered a
they hold, before dealing with them, or before recognizing decision therein. No rights had vested in favor of the
their authority or obeying their commands, even if they parties, in consequence of the acts of said Judge. Yet,
should act within the limits of the authority vested 22
in their Tayko's objection was overruled. Needless to say, insofar as
respective offices, positions or employments, One can Congress is concerned, its acts, as regards the Resolutions
imagine the great inconvenience, hardships and evils that herein contested and Republic Act No. 4913, are complete.
would result in the absence of the de facto doctrine. Congress has nothing else to do in connection therewith.
As a consequence, 23the title of a de facto officer cannot be The Court is, also, unanimous in holding that the
assailed collaterally. It may not be contested except objection under consideration is untenable.
directly, by quo warranto proceedings. Neither may the
validity of his acts be questioned upon the ground that he Alternatives Available
24
is merely a de facto officer. And the reasons are obvious: to Congress
(1) it would be an indirect inquiry into the title to the office; Atty. Juan T. David, as amicus curiae, maintains that
and (2) the acts of a de facto officer, if within the Congress may either propose amendments to the
competence of his office, are valid, insofar as the public is Constitution or call a convention for that purpose, but it
concerned. can not do both, at the same time. This theory is based
It is argued that the foregoing rules do not apply to the upon the fact that the two (2) alternatives are connected in
cases at bar because the acts therein involved have not the Constitution by the disjunctive “or.” Such basis is,
been completed and petitioners herein are not third however, a weak one, in the absence of other circumstances
parties. This pretense25is untenable. It is inconsistent with —and none has brought to our attention—supporting the
Tayko vs. Capistrano. In that case, one of the parties to a conclusion drawn by the amicus curiae. In fact, the term
suit being heard before Judge Capistrano objected to his “or” has, oftentimes, been held to mean “and,” or 26vice-versa,
continuing to hear the case, for the reason that, meanwhile, when the spirit or context of the law warrants it.
It is, also, noteworthy that R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 propose Congress. Whether or not this should be done is a political
amendments to the constitutional provision on Congress, to question, not subject to review by the courts of justice.
be submitted to the people for ratification on November 1A, On this question there is no disagreement among the
1967, whereas R. B. H. No. 2 calls for a convention in 1971, members of the Court.
to consider proposals for amendment to the Constitution, in
general. In other words, the subject-matter of R. B. H. No. 2 May Constitutional Amendments
is different from that of Be Submitted for Ratification
in a General Election?
________________ Article XV of the Constitution provides:
26 50 Am. Jur., Sec. 282, pp. 267-268, citing Heckathorn v. Heckathorn, “x x x The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-
284 Mich. 677, 280 NW 79, citing RCL; Robson v. Cantwell, 143 SC 104, fourths of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of
141 SE 180, citing RCL; Geiger v. Kobilka, 26 Wash 171, 66 P 423, Am. St. Representatives voting separately, may propose amend-
Rep. 733 and many others.
796
795

VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 795 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 when
R B. H. Nos. 1 and 3. Moreover, the amendments proposed
approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which
under R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3, will be submitted for
the amendments are submitted to the people for their
ratification several years before those that may be proposed
ratification.”
by the constitutional convention called in R. B. H. No. 2.
Again, although the three (3) resolutions were passed on There is in this provision nothing to indicate that the
the same date, they were taken up and put to a vote “election” therein referred to is a “special,” not a general,
separately, or one after the other. In other words, they were election. The circumstance that three previous
not passed at the same time. amendments to the Constitution had been submitted to the
In any event, we do not find, either in the Constitution, people for ratification in special elections merely shows
or in the history thereof, anything that would negate the that Congress deemed it best to do so under the
authority of different Congresses to approve the contested circumstances then obtaining. It does not negate its
Resolutions, or of the same Congress to pass the same in authority to submit proposed amendments for ratification
different sessions or different days of the same in general elections.
congressional session. And, neither has any plausible It would be better, from the viewpoint of a thorough
reason been advanced to justify the denial of authority to discussion of the proposed amendments, that the same be
adopt said resolutions on the same day. submitted to the people's approval independently of the
Counsel ask: Since Congress has decided to call a election of public officials. And there is no denying the fact
constitutional convention to propose amendments, why not that an adequate appraisal of the merits and demerits
let the whole thing be submitted to said convention, instead proposed amendments is likely to be overshadowed by the
of, likewise, proposing some specific amendments, to be great attention usually commanded by the choice of
submitted for ratification before said convention is held? personalities involved in general elections, particularly
The force of this argument must be conceded, but the same when provincial and municipal officials are to be chosen.
impugns the wisdom of the action taken by Congress, not But, then, these considerations are addressed to the
its authority to take it. One seeming purpose thereof is to wisdom of holding a plebiscite simultaneously with the
permit Members of Congress to run for election as election of public officers. They do not deny the authority of
delegates to the constitutional convention and participate Congress to choose either alternative, as implied in the
in the proceedings therein, without forfeiting their seats in term “election” used, without qualification, in the
abovequoted provision of the Constitution. Such authority
becomes even more patent when we consider: (1) that the It should be noted that the contested Resolutions were
term “election,” normally refers to the choice or selection of approved on March 16, 1967, so that, by November 14,
candidates to public office by popular vote; and (2) that the 1967, our citizenry shall have had practically eight (8)
word used in Article V of the Constitution, concerning the months to be informed on the amendments in question.
grant of suffrage to women is, not “election,” but Then again, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 4913 provides:
“plebiscite.”
Petitioners maintain that the term “election,” as used in (1) that “the amendments shall be published in three
Section 1 of Art. XV of the Constitution, should be consecutive issues of the Official Gazette, at least
construed as meaning a special election. Some members of twenty days prior to the election;”
the Court even feel that said term (“election”) refers to a (2) that “a printed copy of the proposed amendments
“plebiscite,” without any “election,” general or special, of shall be posted in a conspicuous place in every
public officers. They opine that constitution- munic
797
798
al amendments are, in general, if not always, of such ipality, city and provincial office building and in
important, if not transcendental and vital nature as to every polling place not later than October 14, 1967,”
demand that the attention of the people be focused and that said copy “shall remain posted therein
exclusively on the subject-matter thereof, so that their until after the election;”
votes thereon may reflect no more than their intelligent,
(3) that “at least five copies of said amendment shall be
impartial and considered view on the merits of the
kept in each polling place, to be made available for
proposed amendments, unimpaired, or, at least, undiluted
examination by the qualified electors during
by extraneous, if not insidious factors, let alone the
election day;”
partisan political considerations that are likely to affect the
selection of elective officials. (4) that “when practicable, copies in the principal
This, certainly, is a situation to be hoped for. It is a goal native languages, as may be determined by the
the attainment of which should be promoted. The ideal Commission on Elections, shall be kept in each
conditions are, however, one thing. The question whether polling place;”
the Constitution forbids the submission of proposals for (5) that “the Commission on Elections shall make
amendment to the people except under such conditions, is available copies of said amendments in English,
another thing. Much as the writer and those who concur in Spanish and, whenever practicable, in the principal
this opinion admire the contrary view, they find themselves native languages, for free distributing:” and
unable to subscribe thereto without, in effect, reading into (6) that the contested Resolutions “shall be printed in
the Constitution what they believe is not written thereon full” on the back of the ballots which shall be used
and can not fairly be deduced from the letter thereof, since on November 14, 1967.
the spirit of the law should not be a matter of sheer
speculation. We are not prepared to say that the foregoing measures are
The majority view—although the votes in favor thereof palpably inadequate to comply with the constitutional
are insufficient to declare Republic Act No. 4913 requirement that proposals for amendment be “submitted
unconstitutional—as ably set forth in the opinion penned to the people for their ratification,” and that said measures
by Mr. Justice Sanchez, is, however, otherwise. are manifestly insufficient, from a constitutional viewpoint,
to inform the people of the amendment sought to be made.
Would the Submission now of the Contested These were substantially the same means availed of to
Amendments to the People Violate the
inform the people of the subject submitted to them for
Spirit of the Constitution?
ratification, from the original Constitution down to the
Parity Amendment. Thus, referring to the original government office building and in every polling place not later
Constitution, Section 1 of Act No. 4200, provides: than May eighteen, nineteen hundred and forty, and shall remain
posted therein until after the election. At least ten copies of said
“Said Constitution, with the Ordinance appended thereto, shall be amendments shall be kept in each polling place to be made
published in the Official Gazette, in English and in Spanish, for available for examination by the qualified electors during election
three consecutive issues at least fifteen days prior to said election, day. When practicable, copies in the principal native languages,
and a printed copy of said Constitution, with the Ordinance as may be determined by the Secretary of the Interior, shall also
appended thereto, shall be posted in a conspicuous place in each be kept therein.”
municipal and provincial government office building and in each
polling place not later than the twenty-second day of April, As regards the Parity Amendment, Section 2 of Republic
nineteen hundred and thirty-five, and shall remain posted therein Act No. 73 is to the effect that:
continually until after the termination of the election. At least ten
copies of the Constitution with the Ordinance appended thereto, “The said amendment shall be published in English and Spanish
in English and in Spanish, shall be kept at each polling place in three consecutive issues of the Official Gazette at least twenty
available for examina- days prior to the election. A printed copy thereof shall be posted in
a conspicuous place in every municipal, city, and provincial
799 government office building and in every polling place not later
than February eleven, nineteen hundred and fortyseven, and
shall remain posted therein until after the election. At least, ten
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 799
copies of the said amendment shall be kept in each polling place
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections to be made available for examination by the qualified electors
during election day. When practicable, copies
tion by the qualified electors during election day. Whenever
practicable, copies in the principal local dialects as may be 800
determined by the Secretary of the Interior shall also be kept in
each polling place.”
The provision concerning woman’s suffrage is Section 1 of Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
Commonwealth Act No. 34, reading:
in the principal native languages, as may be determined by the
“Said Article V of the Constitution shall be published in the Commission on Elections, shall also be kept in each polling place.”
Official Gazette, in English and in Spanish, for three consecutive
issues at least fifteen days prior to said election, and the said The main difference between the present situation and that
Article V shall be posted in a conspicuous place in each municipal obtaining in connection with the former proposals does not
and provincial office building and in each polling place not later arise from the law enacted therefor. The difference springs
than the twenty-second day of April, nineteen and thirty-seven, from the circumstance that the major political parties had
and shall remain posted therein continually until after the taken sides on previous amendments to the Constitution—
termination of the plebiscite. At least ten copies of said Article V except, perhaps, the woman’s suffrage—and, consequently,
of the Constitution, in English and in Spanish, shall be kept at debated thereon at some length before the plebiscite took
each polling place available for examination by the qualified place. Upon the other hand, said political parties have not
electors during the plebiscite. Whenever practicable, copies in the seemingly made an issue on the amendments now being
principal native languages, as may be determined by the contested and have, accordingly, refrained from discussing
Secretary of the Interior, shall also be kept in each polling place.” the same in the current political campaign. Such debates or
polemics as may have taken place—on a rather limited
Similarly, Section 2, Commonwealth Act No. 517, referring scale—on the latest proposals for amendment, have been
to the 1940 amendments, is of the following tenor: due principally to the initiative of a few civic organizations
and some militant members of our citizenry who have
“The said amendments shall be published in English and Spanish
voiced their opinion thereon. A legislation cannot, however,
in three consecutive issues of the Official Gazette at least twenty
be nullified by reason of the failure of certain sectors of the
days prior to the election. A printed copy thereof shall be posted in
community to discuss it sufficiently. Its constitutionality or
a conspicuous place in every municipal, city, and provincial
unconstitutionally depends upon no other factors than provisions of Article XV of the Constitution are satisfied so
those existing at the time of the enactment thereof, long as the electorate knows that R. B. H. No. 3 permits
unaffected by the acts or omissions of law enforcing Congressmen to retain their seats as legislators, even if
agencies, particularly those that take place subsequently to they should run for and assume the functions of delegates
the passage or approval of the law. to the Convention.
Referring particularly to the contested proposals for We are impressed by the factors considered by our
amendment, the sufficiency or insufficiency, from a distinguished and esteemed brethren, who opine otherwise,
constitutional angle, of the submission thereof for but, we feel that such factors affect the wisdom of Republic
ratification to the people on November 14, 1967, depends— Act No. 4913 and that of R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3, not the
in the view of those who concur in this opinion, and who, authority of Congress to approve the same.
insofar as this phase of the case, constitute the minority— The system of checks and balances underlying the
upon whether the provisions of Republic Act No. 4913 are judicial power to strike down acts of the Executive or of
such as to fairly apprise the people of the gist, the main Congress transcending the confines set forth in the
idea or the substance of said proposals, which is—under R. fundamental laws is not in derogation of the principle of
B. H. No. 1—the increase of the maximum number of seats separation of powers, pursuant to which each department
in the House of Representatives, from 120 to 180, and— is supreme within its own sphere. The determination of the
under R. B. H. No. 3—the authority given to the members conditions under which the proposed amendments shall
of Congress to run for delegates to the Constitutional
802
Convention and, if elected thereto,
801
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 801
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections be submitted to the people is concededly a matter which
falls within the legislative sphere. We do not believe it has
to discharge the duties of such delegates, without forfeiting been satisfactorily shown that Congress has exceeded the
their seats in Congress. We—who constitute the minority— limits thereof in enacting Republic Act No. 4913.
believe that Republic Act No. 4913 satisfies such Presumably, it could have done something better to
requirement and that said Act is, accordingly, enlighten the people on the subject-matter thereof. But,
constitutional. then, no law is perfect. No product of human endeavor is
A considerable portion of the people may not know how beyond improvement. Otherwise, no legislation would be
over 160 of the proposed maximum of representative constitutional and valid. Six (6) Members of this Court
districts are actually apportioned by R. B. H. No. 1 among believe, however, said Act and R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 violate
the provinces in the Philippines. It is not improbable, the spirit of the Constitution.
however, that they are not interested in the details of the Inasmuch as there are less than eight (8) votes in favor
apportionment, or that a careful reading thereof may tend of declaring Republic Act 4913 and R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3
in their simple minds, to impair a clear vision thereof. unconstitutional and invalid, the petitions in these two (2)
Upon the other hand, those who are more sophisticated, cases must be, as they are hereby, dismissed, and the writs
may enlighten themselves sufficiently by reading the copies therein prayed for denied, without special pronouncement
of the proposed amendments posted in public places, the as to costs. It is so ordered,
copies kept in the polling places and the text of contested
resolutions, as printed in full on the back of the ballots they Makalintal and Bengzon, J.P., JJ., concur.
will use. Fernando, J, concurs fully with the above opinion,
It is, likewise, conceivable that as many people, if not adding a few words on the question of jurisdiction.
more, may fail to realize or envisage the effect of R.B. H. Sanchez, J., renders a separate opinion.
No. 3 upon the work of the Constitutional Convention or Reyes, Dizon and Angeles, JJ., concur in the result
upon the future of our Republic. But, then, nobody can reached in the separate opinion of Justice Sanchez.
foretell such effect with certainty. From our viewpoint, the
Zaldivar and Castro, JJ., concur in the separate local dialect in the blank space after each question; to vote for the
opinion of Justice Sanchez., rejection thereof, he shall write the word “No” or its equivalent in
Pilipino or in the local dialect.”
MAKALINTAL, J., concurring:
I believe that intrinsically, that is, considered in itself and
I concur in the foregoing opinion of the Chief Justice. I without reference to extraneous factors and circumstances,
would make some additional observations in connection the manner prescribed in the aforesaid provisions is
with my concurrence. Sections 2 and 4 of Republic A. t No. sufficient for the purpose of having the proposed
4913 provide: amendments submitted to the people for their ratification,
as enjoined in Section 1, Article XV of the Constitution. I
“SEC. 2. The amendments shall be published in three consecutive
am at a loss to say what else should have been required by
issues of the Official Gazette at least twenty days prior to the
the Act to make it adhere more closely to the constitutional
election. A printed copy thereof shall be posted in a conspicuous
requirement. Certainly it would have been out of place to
place in every municipality, city and provincial office building and
provide, for instance, that government officials and
in every polling place not later than October fourteen, nineteen
employees should go out and explain the amendments to
hundred and sixty-seven, and shall remain posted therein until
the people, or that they should be the subject of any
after the election. At least five copies of the said amendments
particular means or form of public discussion.
shall be kept in each polling place to be made available for
The objection of some members of the Court to Republic
examination by the qualified electors during
Act No. 4913 seems to me predicated on the fact that there
803 are so many other issues at stake in the coming general
election that the attention of the electorate can-
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 803 804

election day. When practicable, copies in the principal native
languages, as may be determined by the Commission on
Elections, shall be kept in each polling place. The Commission on
Elections shall make available copies of each amendments in not be entirely focused on the proposed amendments, such
English, Spanish and, whenever practicable, in the principal that there is a failure to properly submit them for
native languages, for free distribution. ratification within the intendment of the Constitution. If
that is so, then the defect is not intrinsic in the law but in
x x x x x x its implementation. The same manner of submitting the
proposed amendments to the people for ratification may, in
“SEC. 4. The ballots which shall be used in the election for the
a different setting, be sufficient for the purpose. Yet I
approval of said amendments shall be printed in English and
cannot conceive that the constitutionality or
Pilipino and shall be in the size and form prescribed by the
unconstitutionality of a law may be made to depend
Commission on Elections: Provided, however, That at the back of
willynilly on factors not inherent in its provisions. For a
said ballot there shall be printed in full Resolutions of both
law to be struck down as unconstitutional it must be so by
Houses of Congress Numbered One and Three, both adopted on
reason of some irreconcilable conflict between it and the
March sixteen, nineteen hundred and sixty-seven, proposing the
Constitution. Otherwise a law may be either valid or
amendments: Provided, further. That the questionnaire appearing
invalid, according to circumstances not found in its
on the face of the ballot shall be as follows:
provisions, such as the zeal with which they are carried
Are you in favor of the proposed amendment to Section five of
out. To such a thesis I cannot agree. The criterion would be
Article VI of our Constitution printed at the back of this ballot?
too broad and relative, and dependent upon individual
Are you in favor of the proposed amendment to section sixteen
opinions that at best are subjective. What one may regard
of Article VI of our Constitution printed at the back of this ballot?
as sufficient compliance with the requirement of
To vote for the approval of the proposed amendments, the voter
submission to the people, within the context of the same
shall write the word “yes” or its equivalent in Pilipino or in the
law, may not be so to another. The question is susceptible
of as many views as there are viewers; and I do not think said election. Resolutions of Both Houses Nos. 1 and 3
this Court would be justified in saying that its own view on propose two amendments to the Constitution: the first, to
the matter is the correct one, to the exclusion of the amend Sec 5, Art. VI, by increasing the maximum
opinions of others. membership of the House of Representatives from 120 to
On the other hand, I reject the argument that the 180, apportioning 160 of said 180 seats and eliminating the
ratification must necessarily be in a special election or provision that Congress shall by law make an
plebiscite called for that purpose alone. While such apportionment within three years after the return of every
procedure is highly to be preferred, the Constitution speaks enumeration; the second, to amend Sec. 16, Art. VI, by
simply of “an election at which the amendments are allowing Senators and Representatives to be delegates to a
submitted to the people for their ratification,” and I do not constitutional convention without forfeiting their seats.
subscribe to the restrictive interpretation that the Since both petitions relate to the proposed amendments,
petitioners would place on this provision, namely, that it they are considered together herein.
means only a special election. Specifically and briefly, petitioner Gonzales’ objections
are as follows: (1) Republic Act 4913 violates Sec. 1, Art. XV
BENGZON, J.P., J., concurring: of the Constitution; in submitting the proposed
It is the glory of our institutions that they are founded

______________
upon law, that no one can exercise any authority over the
rights and interests of others except pursuant to and 1 United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co., 125 U.S. 273.
805 806
1
in the manner authorized by law. Based upon this amendments to the Constitution, to the people for
principle, petitioners Ramon A. Gonzales and Philippine approval, at the general election of 1967 instead of at a
Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) come to this Court special election solely for that purpose; (2) Republic Act
in separate petitions. 4913 violates Sec. 1, Art. XV of the Constitution, since it
Petitioner Gonzales, as taxpayer, voter and citizen, and was not passed with the 3/4 vote in joint session required
allegedly in representation thru class suit of all citizens of when Congress proposes amendments to the Constitution,
this country, filed this suit for prohibition with preliminary said Republic Act being a step in or part of the process of
injunction to restrain the Commission on Elections, proposing amendments to the Constitution; and (3)
Director of Printing and Auditor General from Republic Act 4913 violates the due process clause of the
implementing and/or complying with Republic Act 4913, Constitution (Sec. 1, Subsec. 1, Art. III), in not requiring
assailing said law as unconstitutional. that the substance of the proposed amendments be stated
Petitioner PHILCONSA, as a civic, non-profit and on the face of the ballot or otherwise rendering clear the
nonpartisan corporation, assails the constitutionality not import of the proposed amendments, such as by stating the
only of Republic Act 4913 but also of Resolutions of Both provisions before and after said amendments, instead of
Houses Nos. 1 and 3 of March 16, 1967. printing at the back of the ballot only the proposed
Republic Act 4913, effective June 17, 1967, is an Act amendments.
submitting to the Filipino people for approval the Since observance of Constitutional provisions on the
amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines procedure for amending the Constitution is concerned, the
proposed by the Congress of the Philippines in Resolutions issue is cognizable by this Court under its powers to review
of Both Houses Numbered 1 and 3, adopted on March 16, an Act of Congress to determine its conformity to the
1967. Said Republic Act fixes the date and manner of the fundamental law. For though the Constitution leaves
election at which the aforesaid proposed amendments shall Congress free to propose whatever Constitutional
be voted upon by the people, and appropriates funds for amendment it deems fit, so that the substance or content of
said proposed amendment is a matter of policy and wisdom joint session by 3/4 vote.
and thus a political question, the Constitution nevertheless Sec. 1, Art. XV of the Constitution provides:
imposes requisites as to the manner or procedure of
proposing such amendments, e.g., the three-fourths vote “Sec. 1. The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of
requirement. Said procedure or manner, therefore, far from three-fourths of all the members of the Senate and of the House of
being left to the discretion of Congress, as a matter of Representatives voting separately, may propose amendments to
policy and wisdom, is fixed by the Constitution. And to that this Constitution or call a convention for that purpose. Such
extent, all questions bearing on whether Congress in amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when
proposing amendments followed the procedure required by approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election to which
the Constitution, is perforce justiciable, it not being a the amendments are submitted to the people for their
matter of policy or wisdom. ratification.”
Turning then to petitioner Gonzales’ first objection, Sec.
Does Republic Act 4913 propose amendments to the
1, Art. XV clearly does not bear him on the point. It
Constitution? If by the term “propose amendment” is meant
nowhere requires that the ratification be thru, an election
to determine WHAT said amendment shall be, then
solely for that purpose. It only requires that it be at “an
Republic Act 4913 does not; Resolutions of Both Houses
election at which the amendments are submitted to the
people for their ratification.” To join it with an election for
_______________
candidates to public office, that is, to make
2 Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139, 1958, Justice Laurel,
807
ponente.
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 807 808

it concurrent with such election, does not render it any less Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
an election at which the proposed amendments are!
submitted to the people for their ratification. To prohibition 1 and 3 already did that. If, on the other hand, it means, or
being found in the plain terms of the Constitution, none also means, to provide for how, when, and by what means
should be inferred. Had the framers of the Constitution the amendments shall be submitted to the people for
thought of requiring a special election for the purpose only approval, then it does,
of the proposed amendments, they could have said so, by A careful reading of Sec. 1, Art. XV shows that the first
qualifying the phrase with some word such as “special” or sense is the one intended. Said Section has two sentences:
“solely” or “exclusively”. They did not. in the first, it requires the 3/4 voting in joint session, for
It is not herein decided that such concurrence of election Congress to “propose amendments”. And then in the second
is wise, or that it would not have been better to provide for sentence, it provides that “such amendments xxx shall be
a separate election exclusively for the ratification of the submitted to the people for their ratification”. This clearly
proposed amendments. The point however is that such indicates that by the term “propose amendments” in the
separate and exclusive election, even if it may be better or first sentence is meant to frame the substance or the
wiser, which again, is not for this Court to decide, is not content or the WHAT-element of the amendments; for it is
included in the procedure required by the Constitution to this and this alone that is submitted to the people for their
amend the same. The function of the Judiciary is “not to ratification. The details of when the election shall be held
pass upon questions
2
of wisdom, justice or expediency of for approval or rejection of the proposed amendments, or
legislation”. It is limited to determining whether the action the manner of holding it, are not submitted for ratification
taken by the Legislative Department has violated the to form part of the Constitution. Stated differently, the
Constitution or not. On this score, I am of the opinion that plain language of Section 1, Art. XV, shows that the act of
it has not. proposing amendments is distinct from—albeit related to—
Petitioner Gonzales’ second point is that Republic Act that of submitting the amendments to the people for their
4913 is deficient for not having been passed by Congress in
ratification ; and that the 3/4 voting requirement applies voter and the responsibility of the citizen. As long as fair
only to the first step, not to the second one. and reasonable opportunity to be informed is given, and it
It follows that the submission of proposed amendments is, the due process clause is not infringed.
can be done thru an ordinary statute passed by Congress. Non-printing of the provisions to be amended as they
The Constitution does not expressly state by whom the now stand, and the printing of the full proposed
submission shall be undertaken; the rule is that a power amendments at the back of the ballot instead of the
not lodged elsewhere under the Constitution is deemed to substance thereof at the face of the ballot, do not deprive
reside with the legislative body, under the doctrine of the voter of fair opportunity to be informed. The present
residuary powers. Congress therefore validly enacted wording of the Constitution is not being veiled or
Republic Act 4913 to fix the details of the date and manner suppressed from him; he is conclusively presumed to know
of submitting the proposed amendments to the people for them and they are available should he want to check on
their ratification. Since it does not “propose amendments” what he is conclusively presumed to know. Should the
in the sense referred to by Sec. 1, Art. XV of the voters choose to remain ignorant of the present
Constitution, but merely provides for how and when the Constitution, the fault does not lie with Congress. For
amendments, already proposed, are going to be voted upon, opportunity to familiarize oneself with the Constitution as
the same does not need the 3/4 vote in joint session it stands has been available thru all these years. Perhaps it
required in Sec. 1, Art. XV of the Constitution. would have been more convenient for the voters if the
Furthermore, Republic Act 4913 is an appropriation present word-
measure.
810
809

VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 809 Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
ing of the provisions were also to be printed on the ballot.
Sec 6 thereof appropriates P1,000,000 for carrying out its The same however is a matter of policy. As long as the
provisions. Sec 18, Art. VI of the Constitution states that method adopted provides sufficiently reasonable chance to
“All appropriation xxx bills shall originate exclusively in intelligently vote on the amendments, and I think it does in
the House of Representatives”. Republic Act 4913, this case, it is not constitutionally defective.
therefore, could not have been validly adopted in a joint Petitioner Gonzales’ other arguments touch on the
session, reinforcing the view that Sec 1, Art. XV does not merits or wisdom of the proposed amendments. These are
apply to such a measure providing for the holding of the for the people in their sovereign capacity to decide, not for
election to ratify the proposed amendments, which must this Court.
perforce appropriate funds for its purpose. Two arguments were further advanced: first, that
Petitioner Gonzales contends, thirdly, that Republic Act Congress cannot both call a convention and propose
4913 offends against substantive due process. An amendments; second, that the present Congress is a de
examination of the provisions of the law shows no violation facto one, since no apportionment law was adopted within
of the due process clause of the Constitution. The three years from the last census of 1960, so that the
publication in the Official Gazette at least 20 days before Representatives elected in 1961 are de facto officers only.
the election, the posting of notices in public buildings not Not being de jure, they cannot propose amendments, it is
later than October 14, 1967, to remain posted until after argued.
the elections, the placing of copies of the proposed As to the first point, Sec. 1 of Art. XV states that
amendments in the polling places, aside from printing the Congress “may propose amendments or call a convention
same at the back of the ballot, provide sufficient for that purpose”. The term “or”, however, is frequently
opportunity to the voters to cast an intelligent vote on the used as having the same meaning as “and” particularly in
proposal. Due process refers only to providing fair permissive, affirmative sentences so that the interpretation
opportunity; it does not guarantee that the opportunity of the word “or” as “and” in the Constitution in such use
given will in fact be availed of; that is the look-out of the will not change its meaning (Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. v.
Goodenough, 32 So. 404, 411, 108 La, 442). And it should hard to speak with certitude, considering Article XV that
be pointed out that the resolutions proposing amendments Congress may be entrusted with the full and uncontrolled
(R.B.H. Nos. 1 and 3) are different from that calling for a discretion on the procedure leading to proposals for an
convention (R.B.H. No. 2), Surely, if Congress deems it amendment of the Constitution. 2
better or wise to amend the Constitution before a It may be said however that in Mabanag v. Lopez Vito,
convention called for is elected, it should not be fettered this Court
3
through Justice Tuason followed Coleman v.
from doing so. For our purposes in this case, suffice it to Miller, in its holding that certain aspects of the amending
note that the Constitution does not prohibit it from doing process may be considered political. His opinion quoted
so. with approval the view of Justice Black, to which three
As to the second argument, it is also true that Sec. 5 of other members of the United States Supreme Court agreed,
Art. VI of the Constitution provides in part that “The that the process itself is political in its entirety,
Congress shall by law make an apportionment within three
years after the return of every enumeration, and not ______________
otherwise”. It however further states in the next sentence:
“Until such apportionment shall have been 1 103 Phil. 1051 (1957),
2 78 Phil. 1 (1947).
811 3 307 US 433 (1939).
812
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 811
made, the House of Representatives shall have the same Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
number of Members as that fixed by law for the National
Assembly, who shall be elected by the qualified electors “from submission until an amendment becomes part of the
from the present assembly districts.” The failure of Constitution, and is not subject to judicial guidance, control
Congress, therefore, to pass a valid redistricting law since or interference at any point.” In a sense that would solve
the time the above provision was adopted, does not render the matter neatly. The judiciary would be spared the at
the present districting illegal or unconstitutional. For the times arduous and in every case soul-searching process of
Constitution itself provides for its continuance in such case, determining whether the procedure for amendments
rendering legal and de jure the status quo. required by the Constitution has been followed.
For the above reasons, I vote to uphold the At the same time, without impugning the motives of
constitutionality of Republic Act 4913, and fully concur Congress, which cannot be judicially inquired into at any
with the opinion of the Chief Justice. rate, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a failure
to observe the requirements of Article XV would occur. In
FERNANDO, J., concurring: the event that judicial intervention is sought, to rely
automatically on the theory of political question to avoid
At the outset, we are faced with a question of jurisdiction. passing on such a matter of delicacy might under certain
The opinion prepared by the Chief Justice discusses the circumstances be considered, and rightly so, as nothing less
matter with a fullness that erases doubts and misgivings than judicial abdication or surrender.
and clarifies the applicable principles. A few words may What appears regrettable is that a major opinion of an
however be added. esteemed jurist, the late Justice Tuason, would no longer
We start from the premise that only where it can be be controlling. There is comfort in the thought that the
shown that the question is to be solved by public opinion or view that then prevailed was itself a product of the times.
where the matter has been left by the Constitution to the It could very well be that considering the circumstances
sole discretion of any of the political branches, as was so existing in 1947 as well as the particular amendment
clearly stated
1
by the then Justice Concepcion in Tañada v. sought to be incorporated in the Constitution, the parity
Cuenco, may this Court avoid passing on the issue before rights ordinance, the better part of wisdom in view of the
it. Whatever may be said about the present question, it is grave economic situation then confronting the country
would be to avoid the existence of any obstacle to its being Directly under attack in this, a petition for prohibition,
submitted for ratification. Moreover, the Republic being is the constitutionality of Republic Act 4913, approved on
less than a year old, American Supreme Court opinions on June 17, 1967. This Act seeks to implement Resolutions 1
constitutional questions were invariably accorded and 3 adopted by the Senate and the House of
uncritical acceptance. Thus the approach followed by Representatives on March 16, 1967 with the end in view of
Justice Tuason is not difficult to understand. It may be said amending vital portions of the Constitution.
that there is less propensity now, which is all to the good, Since the problem here presented has its roots in the
for this Court to accord that much deference to resolutions aforesaid of both houses of Congress, it may
constitutional views coming from that quarter. just as well be that we recite in brief the salient features
Nor is this mode of viewing the opinion of Justice thereof. Resolution No. 1 increases the membership of the
Tuason to do injustice to his memory. For as he stated 4
in House of Representatives from 120 to 180 members, and
another major opinion in Araneta v. Dinglasan, in immediately apportions 160 seats. A companion resolution
ascertaining the meaning to be given the Emergency is Resolution No. 3 which permits Senators and
Powers Congressmen—without forfeiting their seats in Congress
_______________ ________________
4 84 Phil. 368 (1940). 5 Commonwealth Act No. 671 (1941).

6 Araneta v. Dinglasan, supra, at p. 376.
813
814
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 813

5
Act, one should not ignore what would ensue if a particular 1
mode of construction were followed. As 6
he so emphatically —to be members of the Constitutional Convention to be
stated, “We test a rule by its results.” convened, as provided in another resolution—Resolution
The consequences of a judicial veto on the then proposed No. 2. Parenthetically, two of these proposed amendments
amendment on the economic survival of the country, an to the Constitution (Resolutions 1 and 3) are to be
erroneous appraisal it turned out later, constituted an submitted to the people for their ratification next
effective argument for its submission. Why not then November 14, 1967. Resolution No. 2 just adverted to calls
consider the question political and let the people decide? for a constitutional convention also to propose amendments
That assumption could have been indulged in. It could very to the Constitution. The delegates thereto are to be elected
well be the inarticulate major premise. For many it did on the second Tuesday of November 1970; the convention to
bear the stamp of judicial statesmanship. sit on June 1, 1971; and the amendments proposed by the
The opinion of Chief Justice Concepcion renders crystal- convention to be submitted to the people thereafter for
clear why as of this date and in the foreseeable future their ratification.
judicial inquiry to assure the utmost compliance with the Of importance now are the proposed amendments
constitutional requirement would be a more appropriate increasing the number of members of the House of
response. Representatives under Resolution No. 1, and that in
Resolution No. 3 which gives Senators and Congressmen
SANCHEZ, J., in separate opinion: ‘the right to sit as members of the constitutional convention
to be convened on June 1, 1971. Because, these are the two
Right at the outset, the writer expresses his deep
amendments to be submitted to the people in the general
appreciation to Mr. Justice Calixto O. Zaldivar and Mr.
elections soon to be held on November 14, 1967, upon the
Justice Fred Ruiz Castro for their invaluable contribution
provisions of Section 1, Republic Act 4913, which reads:
to the substance and form of the opinion which follows.

“The amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines proposed Congressman of their own, on the theory of equal
by the Congress of the Philippines in Resolutions of both Houses representation. And then, people may question the
Numbered One and Three, both adopted on March sixteen, propriety of permitting the increased 180 Congressmen
nineteen hundred and sixty-seven, shall be submitted to the from taking part in the forthcoming constitutional
people for approval at the general election which shall be held on convention and future conventions for fear that they may
November fourteen, nineteen hundred and sixty-seven, in dominate its proceedings. They may entertain the belief
accordance with the provisions of this Act.” that, if at all, increase in the number of Congressmen
should be a proper topic for deliberation in a constitutional
Republic Act 4913 projects the basic angle of the problem convention which, anyway, will soon take place. They
thrust upon us—the manner in which the amendments probably would ask: Why the hurry? These ponderables
proposed by Congress just adverted to are to be brought to require the people’s close scrutiny.
the people’s attention. 2. With these as backdrop, we perforce go into the
First, to the controlling constitutional precept. In order philosophy behind the constitutional directive that
that proposed amendments to the Constitution may become constitutional amendments be submitted to the people for
effective, Section 1, Article XV thereof commands that such their ratification.
amendments must be “approved by a majority of the votes A constitutional amendment is not a temporary
cast at an election at which the amendments expedient. Unlike a statute which may suffer amendments
three or more times in the same year, it is intended to
________________ stand the test of time. It is an expression of the people’s
sovereign will.
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.”
2 Italics supplied.
815
816
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 815
are submitted to the people for their ratification.”2 The
accent is on two words complementing each other, namely, And so, our approach to the problem of the mechanics of
“submitted” and “ratification.” submission for ratification of amendments is that reasoning
1. We are forced to take a long hard look at the core of on the basis of the spirit of the Constitution is just as
the problem facing us. And this, because the amendments important as reasoning by a strict adherence to the
submitted are transcendental and encompassing. The phraseology thereof. We underscore this, because it is
ceiling of the number of Congressmen is sought to be within the realm of possibility that a Constitution may be
elevated from 120 to 180 members; and Senators and overhauled. Supposing three-fourths of the Constitution is
Congressmen may run in constitutional conventions to be amended. Or, the proposal is to eliminate the all-
without forfeiting their seats. These certainly affect the important Bill of Rights in its entirety. We believe it to be
people as a whole. The increase in the number of beyond debate that in some such situations the
Congressmen has its proportional increase in the people’s amendments ought to call for a constitutional convention
tax burdens. They may not look at this with favor, what lather than a legislative proposal. And yet, nothing there is
with the constitutional provision (Section 5, Article VI) that in the books or in the Constitution itself which would
Congress “shall by law make an apportionment”, without require such amendments to be adopted by a constitutional
the necessity of disturbing the present constitutionally convention. And then, too, the spirit of the supreme
provided number of Congressmen. People in Quezon City, enactment, we are sure, forbids that proposals therefor be
for instance, may balk at the specific apportionment of the initiated by Congress and thereafter presented to the
160 seats set forth in Resolution No. 1, and ask for a people for their ratification.
In the context just adverted to, we take the view that thought evolved the excitement or hot blood, but the sober second
the words “submitted to the people for their ratification”, if thought, which alone, if the government is to be safe, can be
construed in the light of the nature of the Constitution—a allowed efficiency, xxx Changes in government are to be feared
fundamental charter that is legislation direct from the unless the benefit is certain. As Montaign says: ‘All great
people, an expression of their sovereign will—is that it can mutations shake and disorder a state. Good does not necessarily
only be amended by the people expressing themselves succeed evil; another
3
evil may succeed and a worse.’ Am. Law Rev.
according to the procedure ordained by the Constitution. 1889, p. 311”
Therefore, amendments must be fairly laid before the
people for their blessing or spurning. The people are not to 3. Tersely put, the issue before us funnels down to this
be mere rubber stamps. They are not to vote blindly. They proposition: If the people are not sufficiently informed of
must be afforded ample opportunity to mull over the the amendments to be voted upon, to conscientiously
original provisions, compare them with the proposed deliberate thereon, to express their will in a genuine
amendments, and try to reach a conclusion as the dictates manner, can it be said that in accordance with the
of their conscience suggest, free from the incubus of constitutional mandate, “the amendments are submitted to
extraneous or possibly insidious influences. We believe the the people for their ratification?” Our answer is “No”.
word “submitted” can only mean that the government, We examine Republic Act 4913, approved on June 17,
within its maximum capabilities, should strain every effort 1967—the statute that submits to the people the
to inform very citizen of the provisions to be amended, and constitutional amendments proposed by Congress in
the proposed amendments and the meaning, nature and Resolutions 1 and 3. Section 2 of the Act provides the
effects thereof. By this, we are not to be understood as manner of propagation of the nature of the amendments
saying that, if one citizen or 100 citizens or 1,000 citizens throughout the country. There are five parts in said Section
cannot be reached, 2, viz:
817
________________
3 Ellingham vs. Dye, 99 N.E. pp. 4, 15; italics supplied.

VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 817
then there is no submission within the meaning of the word 818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
as intended by the framers of the Constitution. What the Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
Constitution in effect directs is that the government, in
submitting an amendment for ratification, should put every
instrumentality or agency within its structural framework (1) The amendment shall be published in three
consecutive issues of the Official Gazette at least
to enlighten the people, educate them with respect to their
twenty days prior to the election.
act of ratification or rejection. For, as we have earlier
stated, one thing is submission and another is ratification. (2) A printed copy thereof shall be posted in a
There must be fair submission, intelligent, consent or conspicuous place in every municipality, city and
rejection. If with all these safeguards the people still provincial office building and in every polling place
approve the amendment no matter how prejudicial it is to not later than October fourteen, nineteen hundred
them, then so be it. For, the people decree their own fate. and sixty-seven, and shall remain posted therein
Aptly had it been said: until after the election.
(3) At least five copies of the said amendments shall be
“x x x The great men who builded the structure of our state in this kept in each polling place to be made available for
respect had the mental vision of a good Constitution voiced by examination by the qualified electors during
Judge Cooley, who has said ‘A good Constitution should be beyond election day.
the reach of temporary excitement and popular caprice or passion.
(4) When practicable, copies in the principal native
It is needed for stability and steadiness; it must yield to the
languages, as may be determined by the
thought of the people; not to the whim of the people, or the

Commission on Elections, shall be kept in each barrios who are completely unmindful of the discussions
polling place. that go on now and then in the cities and centers of
(5) The Commission on Elections shall make available population on the merits and demerits of the amendments.
copies of said amendments in English, Spanish and, Rather, Comelec, in this case, is but a passive agency
whenever practicable, in the principal native wliich may hold copies available, but which copies may not
languages, for free distribution. be distributed at all. Finally, it is of common knowledge
that Comelec has more than its hands full in these pre-
A question that comes to mind is whether the procedure for election days. They cannot possibly make extensive
dissemination of information regarding the amendments distribution.
effectively brings the matter to the people. A dissection of Voters will soon go to the polls to say “yes” or “no”. But
the mechanics yields disturbing thoughts. First, the even the official sample ballot submitted to this Court
Official Gazette is not widely read. It does not reach the would show that only the amendments are printed at the
barrios. And even if it reaches the barrios, is it available to back. And this, in pursuance to Republic Act 4913 itself.
all? And if it is, would all understand English ? Second, it Surely enough, the voters do not have the benefit of
should be conceded that many citizens, especially those in proper notice of the proposed amendments thru
the outlying barrios, do not go to municipal, city and/or dissemination by publication in extenso. People do not have
provincial office buildings, except on special occasions like at hand the necessary data on which to base their stand on
paying taxes or responding to court summonses. And if the merits and demerits of said amendments.
they do, will they notice the printed amendments posted on We, therefore, hold that there is no proper submission of
the bulletin board ? And if they do notice, such copy again the proposed constitutional amendments within the
is in English (sample submitted to this Court by the meaning and intendment of Section 1, Article XV of the
Solicitor General) for, anyway, the statute does not require Constitution.
that it be in any other language or dialect. Third, it would 4. Contemporary history is witness to the fact that
not help any if at least five copies are kept in the polling during the present election campaign the focus is on the
place for examination by qualified electors during election election of candidates. The constitutional amendments are
day. As petitioner puts it, voting time is not study time. crowded out. Candidates on the homestretch, and their
And then, who can enter the polling place except those who leaders as well as the voters, gear their undivided
are about to vote? Fourth, copies in the principal native 820
languages shall be kept in each polling place. But this is
not, as Section 2 itself implies, in the nature of a
819
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 819

efforts to the election of officials; the constitutional
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections amendments cut no ice with them. The truth is that even
in the ballot itself, the space accorded to the casting of “yes”
command because such copies shall be kept therein only or “no” vote would give one the impression that the
“when practicable” and “as may be determined by the constitutional amendments are but a bootstrap to the
Commission on Elections.” Even if it be said that these are electoral ballot. Worse still, the fortunes of many elective
available before election, a citizen may not intrude into the officials, on the national and local levels, are inextricably
schoolbuilding where the polling places are usually located intertwined with the results of the vote on the plebiscite. In
without disturbing the school classes being held there. a clash between votes for a candidate and conscience on the
Fifth, it is true that the Comelec is directed to make merits and demerits of the constitutional amendments, we
available copies of such amendments in English, Spanish are quite certain that it is the latter that will be dented.
or whenever practicable, in the principal native languages, 5. That proper submission of amendments to the people
for free distribution. However, Comelec is not required to to enable them to equally ratify them properly is the meat
actively distribute them to the people. This is significant as of the constitutional requirement, is reflected in the
to people in the provinces, especially those in the far-flung sequence of uniform past practices. The Constitution had
been amended thrice—in 1939, 1940 and 1947. In each 24, Article VI), with all its dire consequences. If such an
case, the amendments were embodied in resolutions overwhelming majority, that was evidently exacted in order
adopted by the Legislature, which thereafter fixed the to impress upon all and sundry the seriousness of every
dates at which the proposed amendments were to be constitutional amendment, is asked for a proposal to
ratified or rejected. These plebiscites have been referred to amend the Constitution, I find it impossible to believe that
either as an “election” or “general election”. At no time, it was ever intended by its framers that such amendment
however, was the vote for the amendments of the should be submitted and ratified by just “a majority of the
Constitution held simultaneously with the election of votes cast at an election at which the amendments are
officials, national or local. Even with regard to the 1947 submitted to the people for their ratification”, if the
parity amendment, the record shows that the sole issue concentration of the people’s attention thereon to be
was the 1947 parity amendment; and the special elections diverted by other extraneous issues, such as the choice of
simultaneously held in only three provinces, Iloilo, local and national officials. The framers of the
Pangasinan and Bukidnon, were merely incidental thereto. Constitution, aware of the fundamental character thereof,
In the end, we say that the people are the last ramparts and of the need of giving it as much stability as is
that guard against indiscriminate changes in the practicable, could have only meant that any amendments
Constitution that is theirs. Is it too much to ask that thereto should be debated, considered and voted upon at an
reasonable guarantee be made that in the matter of the election wherein the people could devote undivided
alterations of the law of the land, their true voice be heard? attention to the subject. That this was the intention and
The answer perhaps is best expressed in the following the spirit of the provision is corroborated in the case of all
thoughts: “It must be remembered that the Constitution is other constitutional amendments in the past, that were
the people’s enactment. No proposed change can become submitted to and approved in special elections exclusively
effective unless they will it so4 through the compelling force devoted to the issue whether the legislature’s amendatory
of need of it and desire for it.” proposals should be ratified or not.
Dizon, Angeles, Zaldivar and Castro, JJ., concur

_________________
with the above opinion.
4 Ellingham vs. Dye, supra, at p. 17; italics supplied.
822
821

Gonzales vs, Commission on Elections
For the reasons given, our vote is that Republic Act 4913
ANNOTATION
must be stricken down as in violation of the Constitution.
JUDICIAL DEFERENCE TO POLITICAL
Zaldivar and Castro, JJ., concur. Reyes, J.B.L., QUESTIONS
Dizon and Angeles, JJ., concur in the result herein reached
Concept of “Political Question.”—The phrase “political
in a separate opinion.
question” refers to those questions which under the
REYES, J.B.L., J., concurring: Constitution are to be decided by the people in their
sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary
I concur in the result with the opinion penned by Mr. authority has been delegated 1
to the legislative or executive
Justice Sanchez. To approve a mere proposal to amend the branch of the Government , and concerns with the wisdom,
Constitution requires (Art. XV) a three-fourths (3/4) vote of justice, policy, advisability,
2
or
3
expediency, not the legality,
all the members of each legislative chamber, the highest of a particular law or action .
majority ever demanded by the fundamental charter, one The term “political question” is not susceptible of exact
higher even than that required in order to declare war (Sec. definition and precedents and authorities are not always in
harmony as to the scope of the restrictions, on this ground,
on the courts to meddle with the 4

actions of the political constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine
departments of the Government . Although it is difficult to the proper allocation of powers between the several
define a political question as contradistinguished from a departments
9
and among the integral or constituent units
justiceable one, it has been generally held that the first thereof the judiciary is empowered to determine the 10
involves political rights which consist in the power to limitations which the law places upon all official actions.
participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or Corollarily, the principle that the manner in which
management of the government, while justiceable discretionary powers are exercised is not subject to judicial
questions are those which affect civil, personal, or property review, does not apply where the issue involved 11
is the
rights 5accorded to every member of the community or existence and extent of those discretionary powers.
nation. The concept of political question
6
is predicated on Determination of Jurisdiction in Political Controversies.
the principle of separation of powers. —When the issue is a political one which comes within
the exclusive sphere of the legislative or executive
_______________ department of the Government to decide, the judicial
department or Supreme Court has no power to determine
1 Tañada vs. Cuenco, L-10520, Feb. 28, 1957; Mabanag, et al. v. Lopez whether or not the act of the Legislature or Chief Executive
Vito, et al., L-1123, Mar. 5, 1947; Climaco, et al. v. Macadaeg, et al., L- is against the Constitution. What determines the
19440 & L-19447, Apr. 18, 1962. jurisdiction of the courts in such case is the issue involved,
2 Morfe v. Mutuc, L-20387, Jan. 31, 1968; Sumulong v. Commission on and not12 the law or constitutional provision which may be
Elections, et al., 73 Phil. 288 (1941); Avelino v. Cuenco, L-2821, Mar. 4 & applied .
14, 1949; Cf. also Dissenting Opinion of Justice Concepcion (now Chief
Justice) in Aytona v. Castillo, et al., L-19313, Jan. 20, 1962. PARTICULAR QUESTIONS HELD TO BE POLITICAL’
3 Gonzales v. Hechanova, L-21897, Oct. 22, 1963; Arnault v. Nazareno, Whether Imputation of Bribery Constitutes Disorderly
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 7 Osmeña, Jr. v. Pendatun, et al., L-17144, Oct. 28, 1960, citing Clifford
action is necessarily dictated by consideration of public or political policy v. French, 146 Cal. 604, 69 L.R.A. 556.
(Tañada v. Cuenco, supra). 8 Severino v. Governor-General, 16 Phil. 366 (1910), citing Hawkins v.
5 Concurring Opinion of Justice Feria in Mabanag, et al. v. Lopez Vito, Governor, 1 Ark. 570, 33 Am. Dec. 346.
Id. 9 Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139, 157.
6 Tañada v. Cuenco, Id.; In re McConnaleghy, 119 N. W. 408. 10 Tanada v. Cuenco, Id.
11 Id. See also Lacson v. Roque, L-6225 (1953); Jover v. Borra, L-6782,
823
Jul. 25, 1953.
12 Concurring Opinion of Justice Feria in Mabanag v. Lopez Vito,
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 823 supra.
Within the context of political questions are broad

principles to the effect that under our form of Government:
The judicial department has no power to revise even the Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
most arbitrary and unfair action of the legislative
department, or of either house thereof, taking in pursuance Behavior.—As to whether imputations of bribery against
of the power committed
7
exclusively to that department by the President, made by a congressman in a privilege
the Constitution . The legal or constitutional duties of the speech, constituted “disorderly behavior,” the Supreme
Chief Executive are political, and that he is only Court held that the House is the sole judge of what
accountable for them to his country, 8
and to his own constitutes disorderly behavior, not only because the
conscience in a political manner . However, under the Constitution has conferred jurisdiction upon it but also
doctrine that the judicial department is the only because the matter depends mainly on factual
circumstances of which the House knows best; and that if reconsidered, as prescribed in the Rules of that body,
the Court assumed the power to determine whether such because the matter concerns its internal business
16
which
conduct constituted disorderly behavior, it would thereby cannot be made the subject of judicial inquiry .
have assumed appellate jurisdiction, which the Issue of Suspension of Operation of Law.—The task of
Constitution never intended 13
to confer upon a co-ordinate suspending the operation of a law alleged to be
branch of the Government . unconstitutional is a matter of extreme delicacy because it
Question Relating to Reorganization and Rules of is an interference with the official acts, not only of the duly
Commission on Appointments.—The question as to whether elected representatives of the 17
people, but also of the
the Supreme Court could review a resolution of the Senate highest magistrate of the land .
reorganizing its representation in the Commission on Inquiry Regarding the Wisdom, Justice, or Advisability
Appointments, was decided in the negative, the main of Particular Law.—The wisdom or advisability of a
purpose of the petition therein being “to force upon the particular statute is not a question for the courts to
Senate the reinstatement of Senator Magalona in the determine that is question for the legislature to determine.
Commission on Appointments” one-half of the members of The Courts may or may not agree with the legislature upon
which is to be elected by each House on the basis of the wisdom or necessity of the law. Their disagreement,
proportional
14
representation of the political parties however, furnishes no basis for pronouncing a statute
therein . The issue there depended mainly on the illegal. If the particular statute is within the constitutional
termination of the political alignment of the members of power of the legislature to enact, whether the courts agree
the Senate at the time of said organization and of the or not in18
the wisdom of its enactment, is a matter of no
necessity or advisability of15 effecting said reorganization, concern . The
which is a political question .
_________________
________________
not give the Senate the power it then exercised—the power of
13 Osmeña, Jr. v. Pendatun, et al., Id. suspension for one year. Whereas now, the Congress has the inherent
14 Cabili, et al. v. Francisco, et al., L-2438, May 8, 1951. legislative prerogative of suspension which the Constitution did not
15 Ibid. The Cabili case was decided upon the authority of Alejandrino impair. Cf. Osmeña, Jr. v. Pendatun, Id. Further, under our Constitution
v. Quezon, 46 Phil. 83 (1924) and Vera v. Avelino, 77 Phil. 192 (1946). In Senators and Congressmen are elective, not appointive officials.
the Alejandrino case, the Supreme Court held that in view of the In the Vera case, the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to set aside
separation of powers, it had no jurisdiction to compel the Senate to the Pendatun resolution ordering that petitioners Vera, Diokno and
reinstate an appointive Senator who was, by resolution of the Senate, Romero shall not be seated as members of the Senate, the same matter
suspended from office for 12 months because he had assaulted another being a political question. Here the Supreme Court declared that "the
member of that Body for certain phrases the latter had uttered in the judiciary is not the repository of remedies for all political or social evils."
course of a debate. This ruling may now be considered obsolete because at 16 Advincula v. Commission on Appointments, L-19823, Aug. 31, 1962.
the time the Alejandrino case arose, the legislature had only those powers 17 Social Security System v. Bayona, L-13555, May 30, 1962.
which were granted to it by the Jones Law; whereas now the Congress had 18 Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936); U.S. v. Te Yu,
the full legislative powers and prerogatives of a sovereign nation, except 24 Phil. 1 (1912); Morfe v. Mutuc, et al., L20387, Jan. 31, 1968.
as restricted by the Constitution. In other words, in the Alejandrino case,
826
the Court reached the conclusion that the Jones Law did
825
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 825
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections remedy against unwise legislation is an appeal not to the
Court, but to the
19
people who elected the members of the
The Court cannot pass upon the correctness of the legislative body . Only congressional power or competence,
interpretation of the one-day period within which a not the wisdom of the action
20
taken, may be the basis for
resolution of the Commission on Appointments may be declaring a statute invalid .
Upon the other hand, however, if the statute covers Issues Affecting Exercise of Executive Power to Appoint
subjects not authorized by the Constitution, then the and to Withdraw Appointments.—Most if not all
Courts are not only authorized but are justified in appointments made by the President have two aspects,
pronouncing the same illegal and void, no matter 21
how wise namely, the legal and the political. The first refers to his
or beneficient such legislation may seem 'to be. authority to make the appointments. The second deals with
Whether Public Interests Demand Creation of the wisdom in the exercise of such authority, as well as its
Municipalities.—The creation of Municipalities is not an propriety. Whether a given vacancy or number of vacancies
administrative function, but one which is essentially and should be filled, or who among several qualified persons
eminently legislative in character. The question whether or shall be chosen, or whether a given appointment or number
not “public interest” demands the exercise of such22power is of appointments will favor the political party to whom the
purely a legislative question or a political question . power of appointment belongs and will injure the interest
Question on Policies Enunciated in Preamble and in of a rival political party and to what extent, are essentially
Declaration of Principles of Constitution.—Whether a and typically political matters. Hence, the question
legislative enactment of Congress or the specific deed of whether certain appointments should be sanctioned or
any other department tallies with the policies enunciated turned down by reason of the improper, immoral, or
in the Preamble and in the Declaration of Principles of the malevolent motives with which said matters were handled
Constitution is a matter of opinion which cannot be is, likewise, clearly political, and as such, its determination
controlled by judicial pronouncements and belongs to those belongs, not to the courts of justice (Vera v. Avelino, 77
broad questions, essentially political in character, upon Phil. 192, 205; 16 C.J.S. 689-690, Willoughby on the
which opinion must be crystallized 23
and, when elections Constitution, Vol. III, 1326-1327), but to the political organ
come, will be decided by the people. established precisely to check possible abuses in the
The true office of a preamble is to expound the nature exercise of the 26
appointing power—the Commission on
and extent and application of the powers actually conferred24
Appointments.
by the Constitution, and not substantially to create them . The appointing power is the exclusive prerogative of the
It cannot be regarded as the source of any substantive President, upon which no limitations may be imposed by
power Congress, except those resulting from the need of securing
the concurrence of the Commission on Appointments and
________________ from the exercise of the limited legislative power to 27
prescribe the qualifications to a given appointive office.
19 Sumulong v. Commission on Elections, et al., 73 Phil. 288 (1941). However, where the Commission on Appointments that
20 U.S. v. Te Yu, supra. See footnotes nos. 18 and 21. will consider the Presidential appointees is different from
21 Ibid; Mutuc, et al., L-20387, supra; Gonzales v. Comelec, L-28196, that existing at the time of the appointments and where
Nov. 9, 1967. the
22 Pelaez v. Auditor General, L-23825, Dec. 14, 1965.
23 Concurring Opinion of Justice Perfecto in Custodio v President of the _______________
Senate, L-117, Nov. 7, 1945.
24 Story on the Constitution, Vol I, Sec. 462. 25 Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11.
26 Opinion of Justice Concepcion (now Chief Justice), with whom
827 Justice Barrera agreed, in Aytona v. Castillo, Id.
27 Manalang v. Quitoriano, L-6898, Apr. 30, 1954.
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 827 828

conferred on the government or any of its department. No
power can be exercised by the State unless, apart from the Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
preamble, it be found in some express delegation25of power
or in some power to be properly implied therefrom . names are to be submitted by his successor, who may not
wholly approve of the selections, the President should be
doubly careful in extending such appointments; otherwise, Inquiry into Motive Behind Formulation of Policy of Chief
such appointments extended by the out-going President Executive.—In determining the issue, whether or not the
would fall beyond the intent and spirit of the constitutional disposal by burning of confiscated cigarettes by the
provision granting to 28the Executive authority to issue ad Customs Commissioner was authorized by Section 2608 of
interim appointments. the Tariff Code, the motivation for the issuance of the
The President may exercise his authority to appoint ad directive of the President (issued allegedly in violation of
interim appointments, even if his term is about to expire, said section) cannot be taken into consideration. Reason
but only to 29avoid a disruption of the operation of the therefor is that Courts have no jurisdiction to inquire into
Government. In the exercise of such authority of the the motives that lie behind the31 formulation of government
incoming Executive to either re-appoint those whose ad policies by the Chief Executive.
interim appointments had lapsed or appoint others whom Impropriety
32
of Act of Department Head.—In Santos v.
he may deem fit to carry out the policies of his Yatco in which a department head was sought to be
administration, his functions are30 mainly political, and enjoined from electioneering, in view 33 of the explicit
hence, not subject to judicial review . provision of the Civil Service Act of 1959 , prohibiting all
officers and employees in the Civil Service, “whether in the
______________ competitive or classified, or noncompetitive or unclassified
service,” “from engaging directly or indirectly in partisan
28 Aytona v. Castillo, Id. political activities or taking part in any election except to
29 Guevara v. Inocentes, L-25577, Mar. 16, 1966. In the Guevara case, vote,” the Supreme Court held that the issue therein was
the legal issue posed is the effect of the adjournment of a special session of one of “impropriety as distinguished from illegality,” and
Congress upon ad interim appointments made prior thereto. that, as such, “it is not justiciable by this Court.”
30 Concurring Opinion of Chief Justice Concepcion in Guevara v.
Inocentes, supra. ________________
The question raised in the Aytona case was whether an incoming
President could, before Congress had met in regular or special session, ments,” the Supreme Court declared that such act lends “force to the
contention that these appointments fall beyond the intent and spirit of the
validly withdraw ad interim appointments made by the out-going
constitutional provision granting to the Executive authority to issue ad
President, in order that the Commission on Appointments could not act,
interim appointments.” Such circumstances were therein found to fit the
even if it wanted to, on said appointments. This question was decided in
the affirmative. “exceptional circumstances justifying revocation” of said appointments.
In declining to disregard the President's Administrative Order No. 2 But the Supreme Court, realizing the danger of over-stretching the effect
(withdrawing the ad interim appointments of the out-going President) in of that decision beyond the extreme and extraordinary circumstances
particularly attending the case, wisely stated that:
the Aytona case, the Supreme Court considered the circumstances
surrounding the issuance of the 350 appointments, of which therein “The filling up of vacancies in important positions if few, and so spaced as to afford
petitioner Aytona were one, in the night of December 29, 1961, such as the some assurance of deliberate action and careful consideration of the need for the
“scramble” in Malacanang of candidates for positions trying to get their appointment and the appointee's qualification, may undoubtedly be permitted.”
written appointments or having such appointments changed to more
convenient places; the fact that such mass appointments were issued a The case of Herrera v. Liwag, et al, L-20079, Sept. 30, 1963, comes
few hours before the inauguration of the new President. Thus, after squarely within the above qualification in the Aytona ruling.
observing that the appointing President could not have exercised the care 31 Gonzales v. Enrile, et al., L-22730, May 24, 1967.
necessary to insure that said appointments would be approved by “a 32 55 O.G. 8641.
Commission on Appointments different from that existing at the time of 33 Rep. Act No. 2260, Sec. 29.
the appoint
830
829

VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9. 1967 829 Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections

Determination of Exigency Requiring Suspension of Writ of question, and lies within the breast of the Governor-
Habeas Corpus.—Our Supreme Court refused to interfere General.” On this subject, our Constitution now provides
with the decision of the Governor-General in suspending that “The heads of departments upon their own initiative
the writ of habeas corpus for such a step would constitute or upon request of either House may appear before and be
an encroachment of the discretionary power34 and authority heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their
of an independent and distinct department . It was there departments, unless the public interest shall require 38
observed and held that the authority to decide whether the otherwise and the President shall so state in writing.”
exigency has arisen requiring suspension of the writ of Determination of Facts Requiring Deportation of Aliens.
habeas corpus belongs to the Governor-General and his —Courts will not take jurisdiction of a case to enjoin the
decision is final and conclusive upon the courts. The same
35
Chief Executive from deporting an obnoxious alien. The
pronouncement was made in Montenegro vs. Castaneda . inherent power of the President to deport undesirable
Issue Regarding Power to Call Special Election.—The aliens is universally denominated political, and this power
Supreme Court denied a petition for mandamus filed would continue to exist for the preservation of the life and
against the Governor-General to compel him to call a integrity of the State and the peace of its people, even
special election for the purpose of electing a municipal though the Constitution
39
is destroyed and every letter of the
president in the town of Silay; stating in support of the statutes is repealed. In the enforcement of the power of
denial, that “the Governor-General is invested with certain the President to deport aliens, he is the sole judge of the
political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his facts and circumstances which require the deportation and
own discretion and36is accountable only to his country in his he cannot be required to show 40
reasonable grounds for his
political character. belief to a court of justice, although in our jurisdiction,
Question Pertaining to Examination
37
of Government Congress has prescribed the conditions and methods under
Vouchers.—In an earlier case which involved another which and41 by which the power should be carried into
petition for mandamus filed by some elected members of operation.
the Philippine Legislature, to direct the officials of the Whether Lawless Violence, Invasion, etc. and War Exists.
executive and legislative departments to permit the _ The President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed
petitioners to examine the vouchers showing the Forces, is the sole judge and authority to determine
expenditures of the “Independence Commission,” the Court whether there exists lawless violence, invasion,
held that if the Governor-General “should deem it insurrection, or rebellion and his 42
decision thereon is
important and advisable to exhibit the vouchers to the conclusive upon all other persons. The question whether
petitioners or to the public in order that the taxpayers war, in the legal sense, still continues, or has terminated, is
might know in what manner their contributions to the within the province of the political department, and43not of
Government are expended, that is a question for him to the judicial department, of government to determine.
decide.” It is purely a political
______________
________________
38 Sec. 24, Art. VI, Philippine Constitution.
34 Barcelon v. Baker, 5 Phil. 87 (1905). 39 Forbes, et al. v. Tiaco, et al., 16 Phil. 534 (1910).
35 L-4221, 48 O.G. 3391 (1952). See Art. VII, Sec. 10 (2), Philippine 40 In re Patterson, 1 Phil. 23; Ang Beng v. Commissioner of
Constitution. Immigration, L-9621, Jan. 30, 1957; Tan Sin v. Deportation Board, L-
36 Severino v. Governor-General, et al., 16 Phil. 366 (1910); Cf. also Sec. 11511, Nov. 18, 1958.
22, Revised Election Code, re “Call of Special Elections” by the President. 41 Cf. Sec. 69, Rev. Adm. Code;Executive Order No. 455 (1951).
37 Abueva, et al. v. Wood, et al., 45 Phil. 612 (1924). 42 Forbes, et al. v. Tiaco, et al., supra; Cf. Sec. 10 (2), Art. VII,
Philippine Constitution.
831 43 Untal v. Chief of Staff, etc., 84 Phil. 586 (1949).
832
VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 831

Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections Senate, as Members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, upon
nomination by another Senator, who is a member and
spokesman of the party having the largest number of votes
PARTICULAR QUESTIONS HELD TO BE in the Senate, on behalf of its Committee on Rules,
JUSTICEABLE: contravenes the constitutional mandate that said members
Validity of Apportionment Act.—Even if an apportionment of the tribunal shall be chosen “upon nomination x x x” “of
law improves existing conditions, its validity or the party having the second largest number 46
of votes,” “in
constitutionality is a justiceable question. Thus, the the Senate, is not a political question. The reason is that
Supreme Court declared unconstitutional an Act of the Senate is not clothed with “full discretionary authority”
Congress purporting to apportion the representative in the choice of Members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal.
districts for the House of Representatives, upon the ground The exercise of its power 47
thereon is subject to
of disproportion of representation—which is contrary to the Constitutional limitations. It is clearly within the
constitutional provision that the one hundred twenty legislative province of the judicial department to pass upon
Members of the House of Representatives” shall be the validity of the proceedings therewith. Hence, the
apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as may Supreme Court has, not only jurisdiction, but, also a duty
be according to the number of their respective to consider and determine the principal issue raised by the
44
inhabitants.” Citing American precedents, the Supreme parties therein.
Court ruled that: “The constitutionality of a legislative On the question of appointments of the employees of the
apportionment act is a judicial question, and not one which Senate Electoral Tribunal, the Supreme Court held that
the court cannot consider on the ground that it is a political the officers and employees of that tribunal are under its
question;” “the passage of apportionment acts is not so supervision and control, not48
of that of the Senate President,
exclusively within the power of the legislature as to as claimed by the latter. A judgment rendered by the
preclude a court from inquiring into their constitutionality Electoral Tribunal in the exercise of its powers, are exempt
when the question is properly brought before it;” “the fact from judicial supervision and interference, except on a clear
that the action may have a political effect, and in that showing of such arbitrary and improvident use 49
of the
sense affect a political object, does not make the question powers as it will constitute a denial of due process.
involved in a suit to declare the unconstitutionality of an Determination of Number of Votes Essential to Constitute50
apportionment act political instead of judicial;” “the Quorum.—In Mabanag, et al v. Lopez Vito, et al., the
constitutionality of a statute forming a delegate district or Supreme Court held that it could not review the finding of
apportioning delegates for the House of Representatives is the Senate to the effect that the members thereof, who had
a judicial question for the courts, although the statute is an been suspended by said House, should not be considered in
exercise of political power;” and “the mere impact of the determining whether the votes cast therein, in favor of a
suit upon the political situation does not render it political resolution proposing an amendment to the Con-
45
instead of judicial.”
Validity of Proceedings in Senate Electoral Tribunal.— ______________
The question whether the election of two Senators, by the
46 Tañada, et al. v. Cuenco, et al., L-10520, Feb. 28, 1957.
47 Cf. Sec. 11, Art. VI, Philippine Constitution.
________________ 48 Suanes v. Chief Accountant of the Senate, 81 Phil. 818 (1948).
44 Macias v. Commission on Elections, et al., L-18684, Sept 14, 1961; Cf.
49 Morrero v. Bocar, 37 O.G. 445.
Sec. 5, Art. VI, Philippine Constitution

50 L-1123, Mar. 5, 1947.
45 Ibid
834
833
51
51
stitution, suffice to satisfy the requirement
52
of the latter, VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 835
such question being a political53one. Quoting with approval Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections
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 P3,000,000 for the back salaries of the Congressmen. It was
there contended that the Congress that enacted the
Constitution is a political question and hence not
questioned appropriation did not have a constitutional
justiceable;” that “if ratification of an amendment is a
political question, a proposal which leads to ratification has existence because the terms of the members thereof had
to be a political question;” and that the amending process already expired prior to its enactment of the measure;
further, that the Congress did not convene during the
itself is political in its entirety, “from submission until an
Japanese occupation; therefore, they are not entitled to any
amendment becomes part of the Constitution, and is not
subject to judicial guidance, control or interference at any salary for the years of their non-service to the country. By
point.” resolution, the Supreme Court viewed the serious issue as
one with a political character raised by a taxpayer with no
The weight of the Mabanag decision, as a precedent, has
legal personality to sue; consequently, it dismissed the
been weakened, however, by the Supreme Court resolution
54
of March 14, 1949 in Avelino v. Cuenco, in which the petition, stating that “the controversy xxx belongs to the
exclusive tribunal of the electorate;” and that “x x x one
Court proceeded to determine the number of votes essential
55
who invokes the power of the court to declare an act of
to constitute a quorum in the Senate. In the case under
annotation, the Court emphatically held that “the issue Congress unconstitutional must be able to show not only
whether or not a Resolution of Congress—acting as a that the statute is invalid but that he has sustained, or is
in danger of sustaining, some direct injury as the result of
constituent assembly—violates the Constitution, is
its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some
essentially justiceable, not political, and, hence, subject to
judicial review.” With this latest pronouncement, indefinite way in common with the people generally.”
repudiating in effect the Mabanag ruling, it may now be The opinion quoted, which considers the controversy
arising from the challenged P3,000,000 appropriation as a
restated with certitude that the question whether certain
political question, is now of doubtful validity. For in
proposed amendments to the Constitution are invalid for 58
non-compliance with the procedure therein prescribed is Philippine Constitution Association v. Gimenez, et al.,
where the petitioner therein questioned the validity and
not a political one and may be traversed and settled by the
56
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 3836 “insofar as the
Courts.
Legality57of Appropriation Act.—Custodio v. President of same allows retirement gratuity and commutation of
the Senate involved a petition for prohibition filed by a vacation and sick leave to Senators and Representatives of
Congress,” the Supreme Court did not consider said issue
taxpayer and employee of the government against the
as a political one; instead, it declared void that provision of
Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
the Insular Treasurer and Auditor, praying that the Court the controversial Act because it contravened the
constitutional injunction against increase in compensation
declare invalid and unconstitutional the appropriation of
“until after the expiration of the full terms59 of all the
Members of Congress approving such increase.” Similarly, 60
_______________
in Philippine Constitution Association v. Mathay, et al.,
51 Cf. Sec. 1, Art. XV, Philippine Constitution. where the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 4134,
52 Mabanag, et al. v. Lopez Vito, et al., supra. regarding the salary increases of the Senators and
53 122 A.L.R. 625.
Representatives, etc., was raised, the Supreme Court did
54 L-2851, Mar. 4, 1949.
not also treat the issue as a political question; on the
contrary, it met
55 Gonzales v. Commission on Elections, supra.
56 Cf. Taiiada v. Cuenco, Id.
57 L-117, Nov. 7, 1945; 42 O.G. No. 6, p. 1243. _______________
835
58 L-23326, Dec. 18, 1965.
59 Cf. Sec. 14, Art. VI, Philippine Constitution.
60 L-2554, Oct. 4, 1966.

836 63 Gonzales v. Hechanova, L-21897, Oct. 22, 1963.
837
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 10, 1967 837
Remotigue vs. Osmena, Jr.
squarely the constitutional issue arising from that piece of
legislation. 64
The holding in the Custodio case that a mere taxpayer ciable. Republic Act 1793, which created the Presidential
cannot be permitted to question the constitutionality of an Electoral Tribunal, has the effect of giving said defeated
Act of61Congress has already been abandoned in subsequent candidate the legal right to contest judicially the election of
cases. the President-elect or Vice-President-elect and to demand a
Validity of Executive Agreement.—Where the statute
62
recount of65 the votes cast for the office involved in the
has prescribed certain conditions before importation of rice litigation. And by providing that the said Presidential
could be made by an agency or officer of the Executive Electoral Tribunal “shall be composed of the Chief Justice
Department, the Court may rule on the question whether and the other ten Members of the Supreme Court,” said
or not there was compliance therewith; and, even if the legislation has conferred upon such Court an additional
66
cereal was imported for stock pile purposes of the original jurisdiction of an exclusive character. —Atty.
Philippine Army, the requisites for validity of the DOMINGO . LUCENARIO.
importation must be complied with. Although the Chief
Note.—The Constitution “vests in the judicial branch of
Executive may enter into executive agreements without
the government, not merely some specified or limited
previous legislative authority, he may not enter into a
judicial power, but ‘the’ judicial power under our political
transaction which is prohibited by law enacted prior
system, and, accordingly, the entirety or ‘air of said power,
thereto. He may not defeat legislative enactments that
except, only, so much as the Constitution confers upon
have acquired the status of laws, by indirectly repealing
some other agency, such as” that vested in the Electoral
the same through an executive agreement, providing for
63 Tribunals of Congress. (Lopez vs. Roxas, L-25718, July 28,
the very act prohibited by said laws.
1966, 17 Supreme Court Reports Annotated 756).
Recount of Votes Cast for President or Vice President.—
Prior to the approval of Republic Act No. 1793, a defeated _______________
candidate for president or vice-president, who believed that
he was the candidate who obtained the largest number of
votes for either office; despite the proclamation by Congress
of another candidate as the president-elect or vice-
president-elect, had no legal right to demand by election
protest a recount of the votes cast for the office concerned,
to establish his rights thereto. As a consequence, © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
controversies or disputes on this matter were not justi-
______________
61 See Province of Tayabas v. Perez, 56 Phil. 257 (1931); Rodriguez v.

Treas. of the Philippines and Barredo v. Commission on Elections, L-3055
& L-3056, Aug. 26, 1949; Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works, etc., L-
10405, Dec. 29, 1960; Gonzales v. Hechanova, 60 O.G. 802 (1963);
Philippine Constitution Association v. Gimenez, supra; Philippine
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.

Gonzales v. COMELEC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gonzales v. COMELEC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021 9/12/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021

Same; Nature of power to amend the Constitution.—The

upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the

declined to pass upon the question whether or not a given number

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/66 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/66

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/66 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/66

782 CONCEPCION, C.J.:

G. R. No. L-28196 is an original action for prohibition, with

Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections 783

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/66 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/66

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/66 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/66

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/66 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/66

VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 787 16 Supra.

Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections 788

make, and, hence, to amend their own Fundamental Law.

VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1957 793

796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 803 804

Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections

It is the glory of our institutions that they are founded

VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 807 808

Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections

810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

4 84 Phil. 368 (1940). 5 Commonwealth Act No. 671 (1941).

VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 813

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 41/66 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 42/66

3 Ellingham vs. Dye, 99 N.E. pp. 4, 15; italics supplied.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 45/66 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 46/66

VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 819

Dizon, Angeles, Zaldivar and Castro, JJ., concur

822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

on the courts to meddle with the 4

VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 823 supra.

Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections 824

Within the context of political questions are broad

VOL. 21, NOVEMBER 9, 1967 827 828

830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 57/66 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 58/66

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 59/66 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 60/66

Sec. 5, Art. VI, Philippine Constitution

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 63/66 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 64/66

836 63 Gonzales v. Hechanova, L-21897, Oct. 22, 1963.

61 See Province of Tayabas v. Perez, 56 Phil. 257 (1931); Rodriguez v.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 65/66 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017481d8ba9b98f594cf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 66/66

You might also like