G. R. no. L-28196 Gonzales, petitioner vs. Comelec, respondent Nov.

9, 1967 Facts * On March 16, 1967, the Congress passed the following resolutions. - RBH [Resolution of Both Houses] No. 1. Increasing the members of the lower house from 120 to 180 [Sec5, Art6 1935 Consti]. - RBH No. 2. Calling a convention to propose amendments - RBH No. 3. Allowing members of both Houses to become delegates to the said convention without forfeiting their seats in Congress [Sec16, Art6 1935 Consti] * RA 4913 was subsequently enacted, providing for the submission of RBH 1 and 3 for approval by the people, at the general elections on Nov. 14, 1967. * This petition was then filed on Oct. 21, 1967 against the aforementioned acts and the hearing was set seven days thereafter. * Atty. David and PHILCONSA, allowed to argue as amici curiae, prayed that the decision be postponed for GR L-28196 so a joint decision could be rendered to the similar case that they would be filing (GR L-28224). * The Solicitor General expressed in his reply that GR L-28224 was merely a political case as held in Mabanag vs. Lopez; thus, the Court had no jurisdiction to decide on the case. Issue * WON the Court has jurisdiction to decide on the case despite it being political? Yes. - The force of precedent (by case of Mabanag vs. Lopez) has been weakened by four cases (Suanes vs. Chief Accountant of the Senate, Avelino vs. Cuenco, Tanada vs. Cuenco, and Macias vs. Comelec) that rejected the theory that had the issues been raised were political, the determination of which is beyond judicial review. - The Supreme Court is entitled by the Constitution to declare a treaty or law unconstitutional. * WON the failure of Congress to enact a valid reapportionment law be a question of legality of the lower house or render its acts null and void? No. - The Constitution only provides that when the Congress fails to make reapportionment, it shall continue to have the same apportionment as before. It does not mean that Congress becomes illegal or dissolved after the deadline to make the reapportionment has lapsed. * WON RA 4193 and RBH nos. 1 and 3 are valid? Yes. - As per answer to the second issue, acts made by the Congress are not null and void. - One seeming purpose of these issuances is to permit Members of Congress to be elected as delegates without forfeiting their seats (a political question, not subject to review). - There are less than eight votes in favor of declaring RA 4913 and RBH nos. 1 and 3 unconstitutional and invalid. - The submission of proposed amendments to the people does not violate the spirit of Constitution since the people have practically been informed for eight months. Held Petitions in both cases are dismissed. Writs therein prayed for denied.