GR L 1123; (March, 1947) (CRITIQUE)
__________________________________________________________________
THE AI-ASSISTED CRITIQUE
The Court’s reliance on the Coleman v. Miller precedent to classify the entire constitutional amendment process as a political question is a profound abdication of judicial duty, particularly given the stark factual context. By refusing to examine whether the requisite three-fourths vote was properly computed after the exclusion of duly elected legislators, the Court effectively insulated a potentially unconstitutional act from review under the guise of non-justiciability. This creates a dangerous precedent where the procedural rules for amending the supreme law—explicitly outlined in the Constitution itself—are left to the sole discretion of the legislature, rendering those constitutional limits unenforceable and undermining the very structure of a limited government. The analogy to ratification is flawed; a court’s review of the internal procedural arithmetic of a legislative vote is a fundamentally different and more judicially manageable standard than assessing the political reasonableness of a state ratification process.

Furthermore, the application of the enrolled bill rule in this context is analytically unsound and results in a formalistic surrender of constitutional oversight. The rule, which presumes the regularity of a legislative act based on its authentication, is designed to prevent courts from inquiring into extrinsic evidence of procedural irregularities in ordinary legislation. However, applying it to a constituent act like a constitutional amendment proposal elevates form over substance to an extreme degree, especially when the alleged defect—the exclusion of members from the vote count—goes to the heart of the constitutional quorum requirement. The Court’s conflation of this evidentiary rule with the political question doctrine conflates a rule of evidence with a jurisdictional barrier, thereby using a technical presumption to avoid a substantive constitutional inquiry that was well within its competence.

Ultimately, the decision prioritizes judicial restraint to a fault, establishing a doctrine that could allow a legislative majority to manipulate its own composition to bypass explicit supermajority requirements. By holding that the proposal stage is a political question, the Court removed a critical check on congressional power, creating a loophole whereby the procedural safeguards of Article XV could be circumvented. The dissent in Coleman v. Miller, which the Court selectively cites, warned against such judicial interference in the amending process, but the Philippine context presented a clearer case of justiciable, mathematical non-compliance rather than a political judgment. This ruling thus enfeebles the judiciary’s role as the guardian of constitutional procedures and sets a precedent that could undermine the integrity of future attempts to amend the fundamental law.