LOZANO vs.

NOGRALES

FACTS:
Two petitions filed by their respective petitioners in their capacities as concerned
citizens and taxpayers, prayed for the nullification of House Resolution No. 1109 entitled
“A Resolution Calling upon the members of Congress to convene for the purpose of
considering proposals to amend or revise the Constitution, upon a three-fourths vote of
all the members of Congress.” Both petitions seek to trigger a justiciable controversy
that would warrant an interpretation of the Court of Section 1, Article XVII which
provides for the procedure for amending or revising the Constitution. Petitioners alleged
that HR No. 1109 is unconstitutional due to its deviation from prescribed procedures to
amend the Consti by excluding Senate of the Philippines from the process of proposing
amendments to the Consti and for lack of thorough debates and consultations.

ISSUE:
• WON court has power to review the case for the validity of HR No. 1109
• WON matter of voting for amending Consti should be done jointly or separately

RULING:
• First: No, House has not yet performed a positive act that would warrant an
intervention from the Court. HR No. 1009 only resolved that the HOR shall convene at a
future time for proposing amendments to the Consti.

• Second: Article XVII states that Congress may propose amendments by ¾ of all
members. However, no provision tackles that both houses must meet in a joint session
which leads to a vote as separate houses for the amendment. In this case, HOR said it
would forward HR No. 1109 to the Senate for approval and possible promulgation of a
Joint and Concurrent Resolution convening the Congress into a Constituent Assembly.

IMBONG vs. COMELEC

FACTS:
Petitioners Imbong and Gonzales filed separate petitions for declaratory relief, refuting
the constitutionality of RA 6132, claiming that it prejudices their rights as candidates.

Congress, acting as a Con-Ass passed Resolution No. 2 which called for the Con-Con
to propose Consti amendments.

After adoption, Congress acting as legislative body, enacted R.A. 4914. Thereafter,
Congress, acting as Con-Ass, passed Resolution No. 4 amening Resolution No. 2 by
stating that any other details relating to the specific apportionment of delegates, election
of delegates to, and the holding of the Constitutional Convention shall be embodied in
an implementing legislation.
Congress acting as a legislative body, enacted R.A. 6132, implementing Res. No. 2 and
4 and expressly repealing R.A. 4914.

ISSUE:
• WON Congress, while acting as a legislative body, enact R.A. 6132 to implement the
resolution passed by it in its capacity as a Con-Ass

RULING:
• Court declared that while authority to call a Con-Con is vested by Consti solely in
Congress acting as Con-Ass, the power to enact implementing details of the law does
not exclusively pertain to Congress, the Congress in exercising its comprehensive
legislative power may pass the necessary implementing law providing for the details of
the Con-Con, such as the number, qualification, and compensation of its member.

• Congress, acting as Con-Ass has authority to propose consti amendments for the
purpose by ¾ votes of each house in joint session assembled but voting separately.
• Implementing details are the authority of the Congress not only as Con-Ass but also in
exercise of comprehensive legislative power which encompasses all matters not by
necessary implication withdrawn or removed by the Consti from the scope legislative
action as long as it does not contravene any provision of the Consti.
• Congress as a legislative body may enact necessary legislation to fill in gaps which
Congress as a Consti Assembly has omitted.