1) Ramon Gonzales filed a case challenging the constitutionality of resolutions by Congress to amend the constitution and increase the size of the House of Representatives.
2) The court held that whether Congress acting as a constituent assembly violates the constitution is a justiciable issue subject to judicial review.
3) The resolutions were found to be null and void because Congress had not reapportioned seats for over three years, making them a de facto rather than de jure Congress, and the title of de facto officers cannot be collaterally assailed.
1) Ramon Gonzales filed a case challenging the constitutionality of resolutions by Congress to amend the constitution and increase the size of the House of Representatives.
2) The court held that whether Congress acting as a constituent assembly violates the constitution is a justiciable issue subject to judicial review.
3) The resolutions were found to be null and void because Congress had not reapportioned seats for over three years, making them a de facto rather than de jure Congress, and the title of de facto officers cannot be collaterally assailed.
1) Ramon Gonzales filed a case challenging the constitutionality of resolutions by Congress to amend the constitution and increase the size of the House of Representatives.
2) The court held that whether Congress acting as a constituent assembly violates the constitution is a justiciable issue subject to judicial review.
3) The resolutions were found to be null and void because Congress had not reapportioned seats for over three years, making them a de facto rather than de jure Congress, and the title of de facto officers cannot be collaterally assailed.
1) Ramon Gonzales filed a case challenging the constitutionality of resolutions by Congress to amend the constitution and increase the size of the House of Representatives.
2) The court held that whether Congress acting as a constituent assembly violates the constitution is a justiciable issue subject to judicial review.
3) The resolutions were found to be null and void because Congress had not reapportioned seats for over three years, making them a de facto rather than de jure Congress, and the title of de facto officers cannot be collaterally assailed.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 16
GONZALES vs COMELEC, G.R. No.
L-28196, November 9, 1967FACTS:
On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed resolutions No. 1, 2 and 3
i.e. to increase the seats of the Lower House from 120 to 180; to convoke a ConstitutionalConvention of 1971; and to amend the Constitution (Section 16, Article VI) so they can becomedelegates themselves to the Convention.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 theaforementioned Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by the people, at thegeneral 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, withpreliminary 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 dulyorganized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, and a civic, non-profit and non-partisanorganization the objective of which is to uphold the rule of law in the Philippines and to defend itsConstitution against erosions or onslaughts from whatever source.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not a Resolution of Congress
acting as a constituent assembly
violates theConstitution?May Constitutional Amendments Be Submitted for Ratification in a General
Election?
HELD:
The issue whether or not a Resolution of Congress
acting as a constituent assembly
violatesthe Constitution essentially justiciable, not political, and, hence, subject to judicial review.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 votingseparately, said resolutions are null and void because Members of Congress, which approved theproposed 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, noapportionment 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; thatCongress and its Members, likewise, became a
de facto
Congress and/or
de facto
congressmen);However, As a consequence, the title of a
