Proper Submission of Amendment or Revision

Gonzales vs COMELEC
G.R. No. L-28196 November 9, 1967

CONCEPCION, C.J.:

Facts:

On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed the following resolutions:

1. R. B. H. (Resolution of Both Houses) No. 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, as provided in the present Constitution, 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 (1)
member;

2. R. B. H. No. 2, calling a convention to propose amendments to said Constitution, the

3. R. B. H. No. 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.

Hence this petition for action for prohibition w/ preliminary injunction restraining Commission on
Elections from enforcing Republic Act No. 4913, or from performing any act that will result in the
holding of the plebiscite for the ratification of the constitutional amendments proposed in Joint
Resolutions Nos. 1 and 3 of the two Houses of Congress of the Philippine.

Hereinafter referred to as the PHILCONSA — were allowed to argue as amici curiae. Said counsel
for the PHILCONSA, Dr. Salvador Araneta, likewise prayed that the decision in this case be
deferred.

Issue

1. WON a Resolution of Congress — acting as a constituent assembly — violates the

2. May Constitutional Amendments Be Submitted for Ratification in a General Election?YES

Ruling
 1. As early as Angara vs. Electoral Commission, r. Jose P. Laurel — declared that "the judicial
department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the proper
allocation of powers between the several departments and among the integral or constituent
units thereof. Indeed, the power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments
thereto is not included in the general grant of legislative powers to Congress. 10 It is part of the
inherent powers of the people — as the repository of sovereignty in a republican state, such
as ours11 — to make, and, hence, to amend their own Fundamental Law. Congress may
propose amendments to the Constitution merely because the same explicitly grants such
power.12 Hence, when exercising the same, it is said that Senators and Members of the
House of Representatives act, not as members of Congress, but as component elements of
a constituent assembly. When acting as such, the members of Congress derive their
authority from the Constitution, unlike the people, when performing the same function,13 for
their authority does not emanate from the Constitution — they are the very source of all
powers of government, including the Constitution itself .

In short, the issue whether or not a Resolution of Congress — acting as a constituent

Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution, as amended, reads:

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 convention 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.

In the cases at bar, it is conceded 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. This, notwithstanding, it is urged that said resolutions are null and void because:

1. The 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;

2. Congress may adopt either one of two alternatives propose — amendments or call a convention
therefore but may not avail of both — that is to say, propose amendment and call a convention — at
the same time;

3. The election, in which proposals for amendment to the Constitution shall be submitted for
ratification, must be a special election, not a general election, in which officers of the national and
local governments — such as the elections scheduled to be held on November 14, 1967 — will be
chosen; and

4. The spirit of the Constitution demands that the election, in which proposals for amendment shall
be submitted to the people for ratification, must be held under such conditions — which, allegedly,
do not exist — as to give the people a reasonable opportunity to have a fair grasp of the nature and
implications of said amendments.

at, no apportionment having been made within three (3) years 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, respectively; and that,
consequently, the disputed Resolutions, proposing amendments to the Constitution, as well as
Republic Act No. 4913, are null and void.

However, the major premise of this process of reasoning is that the constitutional provision on
"apportionment within three years after the return of every enumeration, and not otherwise," is
mandatory. The fact that Congress is under legal obligation to make said apportionment does not
justify, however, the conclusion that failure to comply with such obligation rendered Congress illegal
or unconstitutional, or that its Members have become de facto officers.

The title of a de facto officer cannot be assailed collaterally. 23 It may not be contested except
directly, by quo warranto proceedings. Neither may the validity of his acts be questioned
upon the ground that he is merely a de facto officer.24 And the reasons are obvious: (1) it
would be an indirect inquiry into the title to the office; and (2) the acts of a de facto officer, if
within the competence of his office, are valid, insofar as the public is concerned.

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.

Submission of Proposal to the People:

Either Congress as a Constituent Assembly or the Constitutional Convention shall submit the
propose changes to the people. However, if neither Congress as a Constitutent Assembly nor the
Constitutional Convention submits changes,Congress as an ordinary Legislative body may do so.