Scribd
Upload
76 views

GONZALES Vs COMELEC

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1967 regarding proposed constitutional amendments by Congress. The Court held that: 1) Whether a resolution by Congress acting as a constituent assembly violates the constitution is a justiciable issue subject to judicial review. 2) The resolutions proposing constitutional amendments were null and void because Congress had not reapportioned seats as required by the constitution, making them a de facto rather than de jure Congress. 3) However, the title of a de facto officer, such as members of Congress, cannot be collaterally assailed.

Uploaded by

RJ Turno
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
76 views

GONZALES Vs COMELEC

This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1967 regarding proposed constitutional amendments by Congress. The Court held that: 1) Whether a resolution by Congress acting as a constituent assembly violates the constitution is a justiciable issue subject to judicial review. 2) The resolutions proposing constitutional amendments were null and void because Congress had not reapportioned seats as required by the constitution, making them a de facto rather than de jure Congress. 3) However, the title of a de facto officer, such as members of Congress, cannot be collaterally assailed.

Uploaded by

RJ Turno
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/ 1

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
de facto 
officer cannot be assailed collaterally.

You might also like