82. Gonzales vs.

Commission on Elections
21 SCRA 774
FACTS:
In June 1967, Republic Act 4913 was passed. This law provided for the
COMELEC to hold a plebiscite for the proposed amendments to the
Constitution. It was provided in the said law that the plebiscite shall be held
on the same day that the general national elections shall be held (November
14, 1967). This was questioned by Ramon Gonzales and other concerned
groups as they argued that this was unlawful as there would be no proper
submission of the proposals to the people who would be more interested in
the issues involved in the general election rather than in the issues involving
the plebiscite.
Gonzales also questioned the validity of the procedure adopted by Congress
when they came up with their proposals to amend the Constitution (RA
4913). In this regard, the COMELEC and other respondents interposed the
defense that said act of Congress cannot be reviewed by the courts because
it is a political question.
ISSUE:
I. Whether or not the act of Congress in proposing amendments is a political
question.
II. Whether or not a plebiscite may be held simultaneously with a general
election.
HELD:
I. No. The issue is a justiciable question. It must be noted that the power to
amend as well as the power to propose amendments to the Constitution is
not included in the general grant of legislative powers to Congress. Such
powers are not constitutionally granted to Congress. On the contrary, such
powers are inherent to the people as repository of sovereignty in a
republican state. That being, when Congress makes amendments or
proposes amendments, it is not actually doing so as Congress; but rather, it
is sitting as a constituent assembly. Such act is not a legislative act. Since it
is not a legislative act, it is reviewable by the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court has the final say whether or not such act of the constituent assembly is
within constitutional limitations.
II. Yes. There is no prohibition to the effect that a plebiscite must only be held
on a special election. SC held that there is nothing in this provision of the
[1935] Constitution to indicate that the election therein referred to is a
special, not a general election. The circumstance that the previous
amendment to the Constitution had been submitted to the people for
ratification in special elections merely shows that Congress deemed it best to
do so under the circumstances then obtaining. It does not negate its

authority to submit proposed amendments for ratification in general

elections.
Note: **Justice Sanchez and Justice JBL Reyes dissented. Plebiscite should
be scheduled on a special date so as to facilitate Fair submission, intelligent
consent or rejection. They should be able to compare the original
proposition with the amended proposition.