Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections

Facts:

On March 16, 1967 the Senate and House adopted three Resolutions of Both Houses (R.B.H. Nos. 1–3): R.B.H. No. 1 proposed increasing the maximum membership of the House of Representatives from 120 to 180 and apportioned 160 of the seats; R.B.H. No. 2 called for a constitutional convention to be elected in 1971; and R.B.H. No. 3 would permit senators and representatives to be delegates to such convention without forfeiting seats. Congress thereafter enacted Republic Act No. 4913 (approved June 17, 1967) to submit the proposed amendments in R.B.H. Nos. 1 and 3 to the people for ratification at the general elections on November 14, 1967, prescribe publication, posting and ballot form requirements, and appropriate funds.

Ramon A. Gonzales (petitioner in L-28196), a taxpayer and voter, filed an original action for prohibition (with preliminary injunction) on October 21, 1967 seeking to enjoin implementation of R.A. 4913 and to declare the Act void. PHILCONSA (petitioner in L-28224), a civic corporation, petitioned for review by certiorari of a Commission on Elections resolution dismissing its earlier petition that likewise sought to restrain implementation of R.A. 4913; PHILCONSA filed its petition with this Court on October 31, 1967. The Solicitor General answered; amici curiae appeared and argued; the two cases were submitted for decision on November 8, 1967.

At issue below and before this Court were objections that: (a) Congress or its members were illegal or de facto by virtue of failure to effect reapportionment after the 1960 census; (b) Congress could not both propose amendments and call a convention; (c) the Constitution required submission of amendments at a special election (or plebiscite) and not at a general election; and (d) R.A. 4913 failed to give the electorate adequate notic...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Is the question whether Congress, acting as a constituent assembly, complied with constitutional requirements in proposing amendments a justiciable issue amenable to judicial review?
• Did the failure of Congress to enact a valid reapportionment within three years after the 1960 census render Congress (or its members) illegal or de facto and thereby invalidate R.B.H. Nos. 1 and 3 and R.A. 4913?
• May Congress both propose specific amendments and call a constitutional convention, and does the constitutional disjunctive “or” prohibit doing both?
• May proposed constitutional amendments be submitted to the people for ratification at a general election rather than at a special election or plebiscite, and did Republic Act No. 4913 provide constitutional...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)