Gonzales vs COMELEC

G.R. No. L-28196

21 SCRA 774
November 9, 1967

Petitioner: Ramon A. Gonzalez / Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA)

Respondent: Commission on Elections (COMELEC)

FACTS: This case is composed of consolidated cases filed separately by Petitioner

Gonzalez and PHILCONSA assailing for the declaration of nullity of RA. No. 4913 and
R.B.H. No. 1 and 3. On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of
Representatives passed the following resolutions (Resolution of Both Houses/R.B.H.):

1. R.B.H No. 1: Proposes that Sec 5, Art VI of Constitution be amended so as to

increase the membership of the House of Representatives from a maximum of 120
in accordance with the present Constitution, to a maximum of 180, to be
apportioned among several provinces and that each province shall have at least one
(1) member.

2. R.B.H. No. 2: Calls for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution,

which will be composed of two (2) elective delegates from each representative
district, to be "elected in the general elections to be held on the second Tuesday of
November 1971.

3. R.B.H. No. 3: Proposes that Sec 16, Art VI of the Constitution be amended so as to
authorize Senators and Members of the House of Representatives to become
delegates to the aforementioned constitutional convention, without the need to
forfeit their respective seats in Congress.

Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which became RA No. 4913, providing that
the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the aforementioned Resolutions
No. 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by the people at the general elections on
November 14, 1967. This act fixes the date and manner of elevtion for the proposed
amendments to be voted upon by the people, and appropriates funds for said
election.

Petitioners assail the validity/constitutionality of RA No. 4913 and for the prohibition
with preliminary injunction to restrain COMELEC from implementing or complying
with the said law. PHILCONSA also assails R.B.H No. 1 and 3.

ISSUE:
1.) Whether or not RA No. 4913 is unconstitutional.
2.) Whether or not the issue involves a political question.

HELD:

1.) Pursuant to Article XV of the 1935 Constitution, SC held that there is nothing in
this provision that states that the election referred to is special, different from the
general election. The Congress deemed it best to submit the amendments for
ratification in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. It does not negate
its authority to submit proposed amendments for ratification in general elections.
Petition is therefore DENIED.

2.) SC also noted that the issue is a political question because it attacks the wisdom
of the action taken by Congress and not the authority to take it. A political question
is not subject to review by the Court.