Scribd
Upload
173 views

Gonzales vs. COMELEC - Digest

Gonzales vs. COMELEC involved challenges to the constitutionality of Republic Act 4913 and three Congressional resolutions regarding amendments to increase House seats and allow legislators to participate in a Constitutional Convention without losing their seats. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) RA 4913 was constitutional as it sufficiently informed the public about the amendments; and 2) Submitting the amendments to a public vote did not violate the spirit of the Constitution. While some Justices found the resolutions and law unconstitutional, the supermajority vote required to invalidate congressional acts was not reached.

Uploaded by

Struggler 369
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
173 views

Gonzales vs. COMELEC - Digest

Gonzales vs. COMELEC involved challenges to the constitutionality of Republic Act 4913 and three Congressional resolutions regarding amendments to increase House seats and allow legislators to participate in a Constitutional Convention without losing their seats. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) RA 4913 was constitutional as it sufficiently informed the public about the amendments; and 2) Submitting the amendments to a public vote did not violate the spirit of the Constitution. While some Justices found the resolutions and law unconstitutional, the supermajority vote required to invalidate congressional acts was not reached.

Uploaded by

Struggler 369
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

https://casedigests.

net/case-digest-gonzales-v-comelec-g-r-no-l-28196/

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

SEPTEMBER 16, 2018

FACTS:

On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed three resolutions which aim to:

• Increase the number of the House of Representatives from 120 to 180 members (First Resolution).

• Call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution (Second Resolution).

• Permit Senators and Congressmen to be members of the Constitutional Convention without forfeiting
their seats (Third Resolution).

Subsequently, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 4913, which took effect on June 17, 1967. RA 4913 is an
Act submitting to the Filipino people for approval the amendments to the Constitution proposed by the
Congress in the First and Third Resolutions.

Petitioner Gonzales, as taxpayer, voter and citizen, and allegedly in representation thru class suit of all
citizens of this country, filed this suit for prohibition with preliminary injunction to restrain COMELEC from
implementing Republic Act 4913 assailing said law as unconstitutional.

Petitioner PHILCONSA, as a civic, non-profit and non-partisan corporation, assails the constitutionality not
only of Republic Act 4913 but also of First and Third Resolutions.

ISSUES/HELD:

1. Whether RA 4913 is constitutional – YES.

2. Whether the submission of the amendments to the people of the Philippines violate the spirit of the
Constitution – NO.
RATIO:

1. RA 4913 is constitutional.

The measures undertaken by RA 4913 to inform the populace about the amendments are sufficient under
the Constitution. The Constitution does not forbid the submission of proposals for amendment to the
people except under certain conditions.

2. The submission of the amendments to the people of the Philippines do not violate the spirit of the
Constitution.

People may not be really interested on how the representatives are apportioned among the provinces of
the Philippines as per First Resolution. Those who are interested to know the full details may enlighten
themselves by reading copies of the amendments readily available in the polling places. On the matter of
Third Resolution, the provisions of Article XV of the Constitution are satisfied so long as the electorate
knows that it permits Congressmen to retain their seats as legislators, even if they should run for and
assume the functions of delegates to the Convention.

NOTE: The majority voted that the Resolutions and RA 4913 were unconstitutional but they did not reach
specific number of votes to invalidate these congressional acts under the 1935 Constitution, which is two-
thirds of the Supreme Court.

You might also like