G.R. No. L-28196 and L-28224 November 9, 1967
RAMON A. GONZALES, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, DIRECTOR OF PRINTING and AUDITOR GENERAL, respondents. / PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

FACTS

On March 16, 1967, the Senate and House of Representatives passed three resolutions: R.B.H. No. 1 proposed to amend Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution to increase House membership from a maximum of 120 to 180; R.B.H. No. 2 called a constitutional convention with delegates to be elected in November 1971; and R.B.H. No. 3 proposed to amend Section 16, Article VI to allow legislators to serve as convention delegates without forfeiting their seats. Congress later passed Republic Act No. 4913 , approved on June 17, 1967, providing for the submission of the amendments in R.B.H. Nos. 1 and 3 for ratification at the general elections on November 14, 1967. Ramon A. Gonzales filed an original action for prohibition (G.R. No. L-28196) to restrain the enforcement of R.A. No. 4913 and the holding of the plebiscite, and to declare the Act unconstitutional. The Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) filed a petition for certiorari (G.R. No. L-28224) seeking review of the COMELEC resolution dismissing its petition against the implementation of R.A. No. 4913 . The cases were consolidated.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, considering the political question doctrine; and (2) Whether the resolutions and the implementing act are constitutional.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that it has jurisdiction. The Court modified the precedent in Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, holding that the issue of whether a Resolution of Congress acting as a constituent assembly violates the Constitution is essentially justiciable, not political, and subject to judicial review. The members of Congress, when proposing amendments, act as a constituent assembly deriving authority from the Constitution, and their acts are not beyond constitutional scrutiny. On the merits, the Court found the petitions without sufficient merit. It held that the Members of Congress who approved the proposed amendments were legitimate, as the House of Representatives, though not reapportioned as required, was a de facto body whose acts were valid. The Court also ruled that Congress has the discretion to submit proposed amendments for ratification either at a general election or a special election, as the Constitution does not prescribe a specific type of election. The submission of the amendments in R.B.H. Nos. 1 and 3 at the forthcoming general election was therefore valid. The petitions were dismissed.