SUBJECT: Law 121 (Constitutional Law 1) Prepared by: Dita, Joshua Tristan

Case Title: Gonzales v. COMELEC

TOPIC: Adoption and Amendment of the Constitution

Court Supreme Court Citation L-28221, L-28224 Date Nov. 9, 1967

Petitioner Ramon A. Gonzales

Respondents Commission on Elections (COMELEC), Director of Printing (DoP), and Auditor General (AG)

Ponente Concepcion, C.J.

Doctrine

The power to amend the Constitution is part of the inherent powers of the people: The power to amend
the Constitution or propose amendments thereto is not included in the grant of legislative powers, but of the
inherent powers of the people as the repository of sovereignty in a republican state. Hence, when amending
or proposing to amend, Members of Congress act not as members of the legislative but as component
elements of a constituent assembly.

Case Summary

Two petitions were filed against acts of Congress that attempt to amend the 1935 Constitution – (1) to increase
the House maximum membership, (2) to call a convention to propose amendments, and (3) to authorize
Congress Members to be delegates of the said convention without forfeiting their seats in Congress – as well
as RA 4913, submitting Resolutions (1) and (3) for a plebiscite to be ratified by the people.

The petitions sought to restrain COMELEC, the DoP, and the AG from holding the elections to ratify the said
Resolutions and declare RA 4913 unconstitutional and void, on the grounds that: (1) the Members of Congress
who passed such resolutions were de facto Congressmen, (2) Congress may only propose the amendments
or call a convention thereto, and not both, (3) said election for ratification must be special and not general, and
(4) RA 4913 violates the Spirit of the Constitution in its due process clause.

Repondents Solicitor General and Tolentino moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the Court had no
jurisdiction in ruling on the petitions, as these are political in nature. The Court held, however, that the issue of
the Resolutions being constitutional are subject to judicial review as they are justiciable in the manner or
procedure of proposing such amendments, separate from the substance or content of the same, which is
undoubtedly political.

Moreover, the Court held in a 9-6 majority that RA 4913 and Resolutions 1 and 3 are constitutional and valid,
stating that (1) even if officers are de facto does not automatically render their acts invalid, (2) the disjunctive
“or” can be used to mean “and” based on the spirit of the law, (3) the Constitution does not forbid general
elections in the absence of a statutory qualification of the term “elections,” and (4) that RA 4913 provided
sufficient information about the amendments for the people to cast an intelligent vote.

FACTS

• On March 16, 1967, the Congress passed the ff resolutions:

o RBH 1: To increase the membership of the House from a maximum of 120 to a maximum of
180, apportioned among the provinces according to their respective inhabitants, with a
minimum of 1 member each province, [apportioning 160 of 180 seats, and eliminating the
SUBJECT: Law 121 (Constitutional Law 1) Prepared by: Dita, Joshua Tristan
Case Title: Gonzales v. COMELEC
TOPIC: Adoption and Amendment of the Constitution
provision that Congress, by law, shall make an apportionment within three years after the
return of every enumeration]
o RBH 2: To call a convention to propose amendments, composed of 2 elective delegates for
each representative district to be elected in the general elections
o RBH 3: To amend Sec. 16, Art. VI of the 1935 Constitution, to authorize members of the
Congress to become elective delegates without forfeiting their seats in Congress
• On June 17, 1967, Republic Act No. 4913 was approved by the President, providing that
Constitutional amendments in RBH 1 & 3 be submitted for a plebiscite to be ratified by the people.
• Two cases were filed against the acts of Congress:
o Petitioner Ramon Gonzales files, as a class suit, on behalf of all citizens, taxpayers, and
voters, an action for prohibition – an extraordinary remedy available to compel the COMELEC,
DoP, and AG to desist from the proceedings of holding the election for the Constitutional
amendments.
o Petitioner PHILCONSA, a Philippines civic, non-profit, and non-partisan corporation with the
objections of upholding the rule of law and defend its Constitution against erosions or
onslaughts, files a review for certiorari of COMELEC’s resolution dismissing a petition
substantially identical to Gonzales’.
• The Solicitor General and Arturo M. Tolentino maintain that the Court has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter of PHILCONSA’s petition as the same is merely political in nature.
• Petitioner Gonzales seeks to:
o Restrain COMELEC, the DoP, and the AG from enforcing RA 4913 and from holding a
plebiscite to ratify RBHs 1 & 3
o Declare RA 4913 unconstitutional and void

on the ground that the Resolutions passed by Congress are null and void under Sec. 1, Article XV of
the 1935 Constitution:

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
convention 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.

because:

(1) The Members of Congress, approving the proposed amendments and the resolution calling a
convention to propose amendments, are, at best, de facto Congressmen,
(2) Congress may only adopt either one of two alternatives – propose amendments or call a convention
therefore – not both.
(3) The election in which proposals for amendments to the Constitution shall be submitted for ratification,
must be a special election, and not a general election
(4) The spirit of the Constitution demands that the said election must give the people a reasonable
opportunity to have a fair grasp of the nature and implications of said amendments

ISSUE - HELD - RATIO

SUBJECT: Law 121 (Constitutional Law 1) Prepared by: Dita, Joshua Tristan
Case Title: Gonzales v. COMELEC
TOPIC: Adoption and Amendment of the Constitution
ISSUE #1 HELD

WoN the Resolutions of Congress – as a constituent assembly – are subject to judicial YES
review

RATIO

• The Resolutions are justiciable issues, not mere political ones, and hence are subject to judicial
review.
o The Constitution leaves Congress free to propose whatever amendment it deems fit, such that
the substance of the proposed amendment is a matter of policy or wisdom.
o However, the Constitution imposes requisites on the manner or procedure of proposing the
amendments, e.g., the ¾ vote requirement, hence is a justiciable matter fixed by the
Constitution.
• The power to amend or propose amendments to the Constitution is within the inherent powers of the
people, not of the legislative, conferred by the sovereign character of our State.
o When members of Congress propose amendments, they act as members of a constituent
assembly representing the people and derive their authority from the Constitution itself.
• Hence, Congress does not have the power to declare whether or not acts are unconstitutional, for the
Constitution may lose its rigidity if it is to be subject to the whims of the legislative. The Constitution,
in view of the interest to keep its rigidity, confers such power to the Court alone.

ISSUE #2 HELD

WoN the Congress is illegal, and thus rendering the Resolutions null and void NO

RATIO

Congress does not become illegal due to failure to comply with a duty of apportionment.
• Context: Since 1935, no valid apportionment has been made by Congress
o The clause “until such apportionment shall have been made, the House shall have the same
number of members…”
▪ The succeeding clause instead implies that Congress shall continue to function at the
time of expiration of the said period
• Failure to discharge a mandatory duty does not result in the forfeiture of an office, in the absence of a
statute to this effect
o For the President, VP, SC Justices, and Auditor General, the violation of a mandatory duty
does not automatically result to the loss of their office, until dismissal or ouster or
impeachment.
• Even if they are de facto officers, the same does not render RA 4913 null and void
o De facto doctrine: public interest demands that acts of persons holding, under color of title, an
office created by a valid statute be deemed valid insofar as the public is concerned.
Otherwise, those dealing with any officer would be entitled to demand a satisfactory proof of
their title before dealing with them, recognizing their authority, or obeying their commands.
Great inconvenience, hardships, and evils may arise in the absence of the doctrine thereof.
SUBJECT: Law 121 (Constitutional Law 1) Prepared by: Dita, Joshua Tristan
Case Title: Gonzales v. COMELEC
TOPIC: Adoption and Amendment of the Constitution
o The title and validity of acts of a de facto officer cannot be assailed collaterally, except directly
by quo warranto proceedings.
• Without assailing the title and validity of acts of a de facto officer, such in this case the Members of
Congress, RA 4913 cannot be concluded as null and void.

ISSUE #3 HELD

WoN the disjunctive “or” limits the Congress to pursuing only one of the two NO
alternatives – proposing amendments as a Congress or calling a convention for the
same purpose

RATIO

• The disjunctive “or” has oftentimes been held to mean as “and,” when the spirit of the law warrants it.
• Although the three Resolutions were passed on the same date,
o Resolutions No. 1 and 3 (Congress proposes amendments) and Resolution 2 (Congress calls
for a Convention) concern two different submissions for ratification.
o The three Resolutions are voted on sequentially, not simultaneously.
• Hence, the disjunctive “or” does not limit Congress in pursuing only one of the two alternatives,
especially as RA 4913 calls for the enjoinment of the three non-simultaneous Resolutions.

ISSUE #4 HELD

WoN Constitutional amendments may only be submitted for ratification in a special NO

election

RATIO

Special Election General Election

The people themselves would approve/ratify the The people will elect public officials that would
amendments; plebiscite approve/ratify the amendments; election
• Sec. 5, Art. VI does not contain the word “special” to describe the election that must be made for the
people to ratify a proposed amendment.
o The term “election” normally refers to the selection of candidates to an office by popular vote,
nearer to the wisdom of general elections, while the term “plebiscite” refers to a voting made by
people themselves, as used in Art. V in women’s suffrage, nearer to the wisdom of special
elections.
• Previous amendments to the Constitution may have been ratified by a special election, but:
o This merely shows Congress deemed it necessary under the circumstances surrounding the
proposed amendments
o This does not negate the authority to hold a general election for the people to ratify
• Although a thorough discussion of the merits and demerits of the amendments would be better handled
by special elections as it would not be overshadowed by the attention given to elected officials in
general elections, such a discussion concerns itself with the wisdom of the elections, not the authority
of the same. The authority of holding a general election for the ratification of proposed amendments
remains constitutional.
SUBJECT: Law 121 (Constitutional Law 1) Prepared by: Dita, Joshua Tristan
Case Title: Gonzales v. COMELEC
TOPIC: Adoption and Amendment of the Constitution

ISSUE #5 HELD

WoN the RA 4913 violates the due process clause of the Constitution NO

RATIO

• There are ~8 months between the approval of Res. 1&3 and the elections for ratification. Sec. 2 of
RA 4913 provides that the amendments be:
a. Published in the Official Gazette at least 20 days before the election
b. Posting of notices in public buildings until one month before the election
c. Placing of copies of proposed amendments in the polling places
d. Printing the same at the back of the ballot
• RA 4913’s means to inform the people for the purposes of ratification were substantially the same
means with the Parity Amendment (i.e., for woman’s suffrage) from the Original Constitution.
• The Constitution merely requires a “fair appraisal to the people of the gist, the main idea, or the
substance of said proposals,”
• [Bengzon] “Substantive due process only refers to giving a fair opportunity to the people to be
informed; it does not guarantee that such opportunity will be availed of; that is the responsibility of the
citizen.”
• Hence, it can be sufficiently said that RA 4913 does not violate the due process clause of the
Constitution.

RULING:

• 9-6 in favor of the Respondents, declaring RA 4913 and RBH Nos. 1 and 3 constitutional and valid.
• Petitions are dismissed.