RAMON A.

GONZALES, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, DIRECTOR

OF PRINTING and AUDITOR GENERAL, respondents. G.R. No. L-28196      November 9,
1967

FACTS
Petitioners Ramon A. Gonzales filed a petition assailing the constitutionality of Republic Act
No. 4913.
Republic Act No. 4913, was an act submitting the amendments to the Constitution the proposed
Resolutions No. 1 and 3, for approval by the people, at the general elections which shall be held
on November 14, 1967. Resolution of Both Houses (R.B.H.) No. 1, proposed to amend Sec. 5,
Article VI of the Constitution by increasing the members of the House of Representative from
120 to 180. While, R.H.B. No. 3, proposed to amend Sec. 16, Art. VI of the Constitution, by
authorizing Senators and other members of the House of Representatives to become delegates to
the constitutional convention without forfeiting their respective seats in congress.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner Gonzales sought to restrain the COMEC from enforcing the R.A. No. 4913 for holding
the plebiscite for the ratification of the constitutional amendments proposed in the Resolutions 1
and 3. He claimed that the said Act was unconstitutional and void.
ISSUE
Whether or not constitutional amendments can be submitted for ratification in general election?
HOLDING
Yes, Constitutional amendments can be submitted for ratification in general election.

Article XV of the Constitution provides that the Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote
of three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting
separately, may propose amendments to this Constitution or call a contention for that purpose.
Such amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when approved by a majority of the
votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for their
ratification.

The court held that nothing in the provision of Sec. 1 No. XV of the Constitution, indicated that
the “election” therein referred to was a “special”, not a general election. The court said that the
Congress deemed it best to do so under the circumstances and it did not negate its authority to
submit proposed amendments for ratification in general elections.

The court subscribed to the reading of the Constitution and to the spirit of the law that it should
not be deduced from a matter of speculation. The law was clear in defining “election”- general
elections.
ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and THE
CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, THE AUDITOR, and THE DISBURSING OFFICER OF THE
1971 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, respondents, RAUL S. MANGLAPUS, JESUS
G. BARRERA, PABLO S. TRILLANA III, VICTOR DE LA SERNA, MARCELO B.
FERNAN, JOSE Y. FERIA, LEONARDO SIGUION REYNA, VICTOR F. ORTEGA, and
JUAN V. BORRA, Intervenors
G.R. No. L-34150 October 16, 1971

FACTS
The 1971 Constitutional Convention approved the Organic Resolution No. 1, to reduce the
voting age from 21 to 18, amending Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, and to hold the
plebiscite to coincide with the local elections in November 8, 1971. Then, President Diosdado
Macapagal called the COMELEC to help the Convention to implement the Organic Resolution
No. 1. The COMELEC resolved to inform the Convention that it would hold the plebiscite. The
President of the Convention, issued an order forming an Ad Hoc Committee to implement the
Resolution.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner Arturo Tolentino claimed that Organic Resolution No. 1 and other implementing
resolutions had no force and effect because the law provides that the holding of the plebiscite
coincide with the election’s senator, and all city, provincial and municipal officials to be held on
November 8, 1971, hence, the COMELEC’s act of holding the plebiscite was null and void.
Petitioner also stated that under the Constitution, the calling and holding of plebiscite was a
power vested exclusively in Congress, as a legislative body and may not be exercise by the
Convention and that under Section 1, Article XV of the Constitution, the proposed amendment in
question cannot be presented to the people for ratification separately from each and all of the
other amendments to be drafted and proposed by the Convention
However, respondents and intervenors stated that the Convention has the power to provide for,
fix the date and lay down the details of the plebiscite for the ratification of any amendment the
Convention may deem proper to propose. They added that the Convention has the authority to
propose amendments and that this power includes that of submitting such amendments either
individually or jointly at such time and manner as the Convention may direct in discretion
ISSUE
Whether or not there is a limitation or condition in Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution
which is violated by the act of the Convention of calling for a plebiscite on the sole amendment
contained in Organic Resolution No. 1?
HOLDING
Yes. There is a limitation or condition in Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution which is
violated by the act of the Convention of calling for a plebiscite on the sole amendment contained
in Organic Resolution No. 1
The Court held that there was a condition that all amendments to be proposed by the Convention
must be submitted to the people in a single “election” or plebiscite. In this case, the amendment
now proposed to be submitted to plebiscite was only the first amendment by the Convention.
Thus, the Court ruled that the plebiscite being called for the purpose of submitting the same for
ratification of the people on Nov. 8, 1971 was not authorized by Sec. 1, Art. XV of the
Constitution, hence all acts of Convention and COMELEC in that direction were null and void.
Also, the court ruled that in order that a plebiscite for the ratification of an amendment to the
Constitution may be validly held, it must provide the voter not only the sufficient time but ample
basis for an intelligent appraisal of the nature of the amendment per se as well as its relation to
the other parts of the Constitution with which it has to form a harmonious whole. The court
stated that the proposed plebiscite has no proper submission.