G.R. No.

L-28196 November 9, 1967

RAMON A. GONZALES, petitioner,

vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, DIRECTOR OF PRINTING and AUDITOR
GENERAL, respondents.

FACTS

On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed the
following resolutions: (1) Proposing that Section 5, Article VI, of the Constitution of
the Philippines, be amended so as to increase the membership of the House of
Representatives from a maximum of 120 to a maximum of 180, to be apportioned
among the several provinces as nearly as may be according to the number of their
respective inhabitants, although each province shall have, at least, one member;
(2) Calling a convention to propose amendments to said Constitution, the
convention to be composed of two elective delegates from each representative
district, to be "elected in the general elections to be held on the second Tuesday
of November, 1971;" and (3) Proposing that Section 16, Article VI, of the same
Constitution, be amended so as to authorize Senators and members of the House
of Representatives to become delegates to the aforementioned constitutional
convention, without forfeiting their respective seats in Congress.

Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval by the President, on June
17, 1967, became Republic Act No. 4913, providing that the amendments to the
Constitution proposed in the aforementioned Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be submitted, for
approval by the people, at the general elections which shall be held on November 14,
1967.

Two cases were filed against this act of Congress: One an is original action for
prohibition, with preliminary injunction by Ramon A. Gonzales, in L-28196, a Filipino
citizen, a taxpayer, and a voter. He claims to have instituted case L-28196 as a class unit,
for and in behalf of all citizens, taxpayers, and voters similarly situated. Another one is
by PHILCONSA, in L-28224, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of
the Philippines, and a civic, non-profit and non-partisan organization the objective of
which is to uphold the rule of law in the Philippines and to defend its Constitution
against erosions or onslaughts from whatever source.
ISSUE

1. Whether or not a Resolution of Congress, acting as a constituent assembly,

violates the Constitution?

2. May Constitutional Amendments be submitted for ratification in a general

election?

RULING

(1)

In the cases at bar, notwithstanding that the R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 have been approved
by a vote of three-fourths of all the members of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives voting separately, said resolutions are null and void because Members
of Congress, which approved the proposed amendments, as well as the resolution
calling a convention to propose amendments, are, at best, de facto Congressmen (based
upon Section 5, Article VI, of the Constitution, no apportionment has been made been
made by Congress within three (3) years since 1960. Thereafter, the Congress of the
Philippines and/or the election of its Members became illegal; that Congress and its
Members, likewise, became a de facto Congress and/or de facto congressmen);

However, As a consequence, the title of a de facto officer cannot be assailed collaterally.

Referring particularly to the contested proposals for amendment, the sufficiency or

insufficiency, from a constitutional angle, of the submission thereof for ratification to
the people on November 14, 1967, depends — in the view of those who concur in this
opinion, and who, insofar as this phase of the case, constitute the minority — upon
whether the provisions of Republic Act No. 4913 are such as to fairly apprise the people
of the gist, the main idea or the substance of said proposals, which is — under R. B. H.
No. 1 — the increase of the maximum number of seats in the House of Representatives,
from 120 to 180, and — under R. B. H. No. 3 — the authority given to the members of
Congress to run for delegates to the Constitutional Convention and, if elected thereto,
to discharge the duties of such delegates, without forfeiting their seats in Congress. We
— who constitute the minority — believe that Republic Act No. 4913 satisfies such
requirement and that said Act is, accordingly, constitutional.

One of the issues raised in this case was the validity of the submission of certain
proposed constitutional amendments at a plebiscite scheduled on the same day as the
regular elections. Petitioners argued that this was unlawful as there would be no proper
submission of the proposal to the people who would be more interested in the issues
involved in the election.

(2)

Article XV of the Constitution provides:

. . . The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-fourths of all the

Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately,
may propose amendments to this Constitution or call a contention for that purpose.
Such amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when approved by a
majority of the votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted
to the people for their ratification.

There is in this provision nothing to indicate that the "election" therein referred to
is a "special," not a general, election. The circumstance that three previous
amendments to the Constitution had been submitted to the people for ratification
in special elections merely shows that Congress deemed it best to do so under the
circumstances then obtaining. It does not negate its authority to submit proposed
amendments for ratification in general elections.

They do not deny the authority of Congress to choose either alternative, as implied
in the term "election" used, without qualification, in the above quoted provision of
the Constitution. Such authority becomes even more patent when we consider: (1)
that the term "election," normally refers to the choice or selection of candidates to
public office by popular vote; and (2) that the word used in Article V of the
Constitution, concerning the grant of suffrage to women is, not "election," but
“plebiscite."