Case Digest: Gonzales vs.

COMELEC
Petitioner: Ramon A. Gonzalez / Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA)
Respondent: Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
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.
Facts:
The case is an original action for prohibition, with preliminary injunction. On March 16, 1967, the
Senate and the House of Representatives passed the following resolutions, (1) increasing the
number of seats in the lower house from 120 to 180, (2) calling for a constitutional convention,
and (3) allowing members of the Congress to run as delegates to the constitutional convention
without forfeiting their seats. Congress passed a bill, which, approved by the President on 17 June
1967, became Republic Act 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 14 November 1967.
Issue:
Whether or not a resolution of Congress, acting as a constituent assembly, violates the Constitution
pursuant to Section 1 Article XV.
Decision:
The power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments is not included in the general
grant of legislative power to Congress. Pursuant to Section 1 Article XV, “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
contention 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.” The said resolutions are null and void because the Congress may
not avail of both amending and calling a convention at the same time and the election must be a
special election not a general election for amendment to the Constitution shall be submitted for
ratification.

G.R. No. L-28196 | 21 SCRA 774 | November 9, 1967

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.