Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28196) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Ramon A. Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections et al. (G.R. Nos. L-28196 & L-28224, decided November 9, 1967, reported at 129 Phil. 7), petitioner Gonzales, a taxpayer and voter acting as class representative, and petitioner Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA), a civic, non-profit, non-partisan corporation, sought to enjoin the Commission on Elections, Director of Printing and Auditor General from implementing Republic Act No. 4913. RA 4913, approved June 17, 1967, provided for the submission to the people, at the November 14, 1967 general elections, of amendments to Sections 5 and 16, Article VI of the 1935 Constitution, as proposed in Resolutions of Both Houses Nos. 1 and 3 of March 16, 1967. Resolution 1 sought to increase the House of Representatives’ membership from 120 to 180 and to reapportion 160 seats; Resolution 3 aimed to allow sitting senators and representatives to serve as delegates to a future constitutional convention without forfeiture of their off Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28196) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Procedural Background
- G.R. No. L-28196 (filed October 21, 1967) – Ramon A. Gonzales, a citizen, taxpayer, and voter, sought prohibition with preliminary injunction to enjoin:
- The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) from holding a plebiscite under Republic Act No. 4913 (RA 4913) to ratify constitutional amendments;
- The Director of Printing from printing ballots for said plebiscite;
- The Auditor General from auditing disbursements for the plebiscite.
- G.R. No. L-28224 (filed October 31, 1967) – Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA), a civic, non-profit, non-partisan corporation, petitioned for certiorari to review a COMELEC resolution dismissing its petition to enjoin implementation of RA 4913.
- Both cases were consolidated and submitted for decision on November 8, 1967.
- Legislative and Constitutional Background
- March 16, 1967 – Congress adopted three Resolutions of Both Houses (R.B.H.):
- No. 1: Proposing amendment to Sec. 5, Art. VI (increase House membership from 120 to 180, apportion 160 seats by population).
- No. 2: Calling a constitutional convention to be elected in November 1971.
- No. 3: Amending Sec. 16, Art. VI to allow Senators and Representatives to serve as convention delegates without forfeiture of seats.
- June 17, 1967 – President approved RA 4913, directing submission of R.B.H. Nos. 1 and 3 to the people for ratification at the November 14, 1967 general elections; prescribing publication, posting, polling-place copies, and ballot format.
- Petitioner and Respondents’ Positions
- Petitioners (Gonzales and PHILCONSA) alleged:
- RA 4913 violates the Constitution by submitting amendments at a general election rather than a special plebiscite;
- Congress lacked authority, its Members being de facto due to failure to reapportion within three years of the 1960 census;
- Congress cannot simultaneously propose amendments and call a convention;
- Notice and information measures under RA 4913 are constitutionally inadequate to allow informed ratification.
- Respondents (COMELEC, Director of Printing, Auditor General) and the Solicitor General defended RA 4913 as within Congress’s constitutional powers; urged the issues to be justiciable.
Issues:
- Jurisdiction–Justiciability
- Are the questions raised political (non-justiciable) or judicially cognizable?
- Authority and Legality of Congress
- Did failure to enact a valid reapportionment law within three years after the 1960 census render Congress or its Members de facto and their acts void?
- Scope of Congressional Power to Amend or Call Convention
- May Congress both propose amendments and call a convention concurrently?
- Mode of Submission for Ratification
- Does Article XV, Sec. 1 of the Constitution require a special election or plebiscite, distinct from a general election, to ratify proposed amendments?
- Must the proposed amendments be submitted under conditions ensuring undivided public focus?
- Adequacy of Notice and Information
- Are the publication, posting, and ballot-printing requirements of RA 4913 sufficient under the constitutional mandate that amendments be “submitted to the people for their ratification”?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)