Case Summary (G.R. No. L-28196)
Constitution’s Amendment Mechanism
Article XV, Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution (as amended) prescribes:
- Congress in joint session, by three-fourths vote in each house, may propose amendments or call a convention.
- Proposed amendments become effective only upon approval by a majority of votes cast at an election at which they are “submitted to the people for their ratification.”
Validity of Congress and Status of Members
- Petitioners’ claim that failure to reapportion legislative districts within three years after the 1960 census rendered Congress and its members de jure invalid is rejected.
- The 1935 Constitution itself provides that, pending apportionment, the House retains the same membership fixed for the earlier National Assembly, thus preserving legal continuity.
- Even if members were held de facto, the de facto officer doctrine validates their official acts and precludes collateral attack.
Power to Propose Amendments and to Call a Convention
- The disjunctive “or” in Article XV, Section 1 does not forbid Congress from simultaneously proposing specific amendments (Resolutions 1 and 3) and calling a convention (Resolution 2).
- The subject matter and timing differ: Resolutions 1 and 3 target specific changes to be ratified in 1967; Resolution 2 convenes a body in 1971 to consider broader reforms.
- Challenges to Congress’s wisdom—but not its authority—are political questions beyond judicial review.
Submission of Amendments in a General Election
- Nothing in the Constitution mandates a “special” election for ratification; it requires only an “election at which the amendments are submitted to the people.”
- A general election qualifies, and Congress may choose whether to pair ratification with regular polls.
Sufficiency of Public Notice and Opportunity to Ratify
- Republic Act No. 4913 requires:
• Publication of amendments in three consecutive issues of the Official Gazette at least 20 days prior;
• Posting of printed copies in municipal, city, provincial offices and polling places from October 14 until after the election;
• Availa
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-28196)
Facts
- On March 16, 1967, Congress adopted three Resolutions of Both Houses (R.B.H.):
- No. 1: Amend Sec. 5, Article VI—raise House membership from 120 to 180 and apportion 160 seats by population (minimum one per province).
- No. 2: Call a constitutional convention (two delegates per rep district) to be elected November 1971.
- No. 3: Amend Sec. 16, Article VI—allow Senators and Representatives to be convention delegates without forfeiting seats.
- June 17, 1967: Republic Act No. 4913 approved—submits R.B.H. Nos. 1 and 3 to plebiscite at the November 14, 1967 general election; provides for printing ballots and auditing funds.
- R.A. 4913 requires publication of proposed amendments in three Official Gazette issues, posting copies in public buildings and polling places, translations when practicable, and printing full resolutions on ballot backs.
Procedural History
- October 21, 1967: G.R. No. L-28196 filed by Ramon A. Gonzales:
- Sought prohibition and preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of R.A. 4913, ballot printing, and auditing; prayed to declare R.A. 4913 unconstitutional.
- October 28, 1967: Hearing; Solicitor General appeared for respondents; PHILCONSA admitted as amici curiae; DR. Salvador Araneta prayed deferment pending similar case.
- October 31, 1967: PHILCONSA filed G.R. No. L-28224—petition for certiorari to review Comelec resolution dismissing its petition against R.A. 4913.
- November 8, 1967: Both cases deemed submitted for decision upon filing of pleadings and memoranda.
Parties
- Ramon A. Gonzales: Filipino citizen, taxpayer, voter; sues as class representative.
- Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA): Civic, non-profit, non-partisan org defending rule of law and Constitution.
- Respondents: Commission on Elections; Director of Printing; Auditor General.
- Solicitor General: Represented respondents; raised political-question objection in L-28224 but argued merits in L-28196.
- Senator Arturo M. Tolentino: Opposed PHILCONSA petition; challenged jurisdiction; warned of legislative paralysis.
Issues
- Are the petitions justiciable or mere political questions?
- Does R.A. 4913 comply with Section 1, Article XV—“submitted to the people for their ratification”?
- Was Congress a de jure or de facto body due to failure to reapportion House districts within three years of 1960 census?
- May Congress both propose amendments and call a constitutional convention?
- Must ratification occur in a special plebiscite, or may it be held in a general election?
- Are R.A. 4913’s n