GR L 1123; (March, 1947) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1123; March 5, 1947
ALEJO MABANAG, ET AL., petitioners, vs. JOSE LOPEZ VITO, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, including eight senators and seventeen representatives, filed a petition for prohibition to prevent the enforcement of a congressional resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution. The resolution’s validity is challenged as unconstitutional. Three of the petitioner senators and eight of the petitioner representatives had been proclaimed elected in the April 23, 1946 elections. However, the three senators were suspended by the Senate, and the eight representatives were not allowed to sit in the House (except to vote for Speaker) due to alleged election irregularities. These members did not participate in the passage of the challenged resolution, and their membership was not included in computing the necessary three-fourths vote required to propose a constitutional amendment. If their votes had been counted, the affirmative votes would have been insufficient to reach the three-fourths threshold in each house of Congress.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review and invalidate the congressional resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution on the grounds that the required three-fourths vote was not obtained due to the exclusion of certain members.
RULING
The Supreme Court declined to exercise jurisdiction, treating the issue as a political question beyond judicial review. The Court held that the process of proposing amendments to the Constitution is a sovereign legislative function committed exclusively to Congress. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Coleman vs. Miller, the Court ruled that the efficacy of the proposal (and ratification) of a constitutional amendment is a political question. The determination by Congress of whether the requisite vote has been obtained is conclusive upon the courts. The doctrine of separation of powers precludes the judiciary from interfering in this highly political function performed by a co-equal department. Therefore, the Court did not rule on the merits of whether the exclusion of the suspended members invalidated the resolution.