21 SCRA 774 Political Law Amendment to the Constitution Political Question vs

Justiciable Question
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 aconstituent 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.