Gonzales v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Congress passed Joint Resolutions Nos. 1 and 3 proposing amendments to the Constitution and Resolution No. 2 calling for a constitutional convention. Subsequently, Republic Act No. 4913 was enacted, providing for the submission of the amendments proposed in Resolutions Nos. 1 and 3 to the people for approval at the general election on November 14, 1967. Procedural History: Two petitions were filed: G.R. No. L-28196 by Ramon A. Gonzales, a citizen, taxpayer, and voter, seeking to restrain the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and other officials from enforcing R.A. No. 4913 and declaring it unconstitutional. G.R. No. L-28224 was filed by the Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) for review of a COMELEC resolution dismissing its petition, raising similar issues. The Petition: Petitioners sought to restrain the enforcement of R.A. No. 4913 and the printing of ballots, and to declare R.A. No. 4913 unconstitutional. The main grounds were that the amendments should be submitted in a special election, not a general election; that Congress, due to failure to reapportion congressional districts within the prescribed period, was a de facto body and its members de facto officers, rendering their acts void; and that the dissemination of information about the amendments was inadequate, violating the spirit of the Constitution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to pass upon the constitutionality of resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution and the law submitting them for ratification. Whether the failure of Congress to enact a reapportionment law within three years after the 1960 census rendered Congress a de facto body and its members de facto officers. Whether Congress may simultaneously propose amendments to the Constitution and call a convention for the same purpose. Whether constitutional amendments can be submitted for ratification in a general election, or if a special election is required. Whether the measures for informing the public about the proposed amendments under Republic Act No. 4913 are adequate to satisfy the constitutional requirement of submission for ratification.
Ruling
The petitions are dismissed. Republic Act No. 4913 and the proposed amendments are declared constitutional and valid. The writs prayed for are denied. Dispositive Portion: "Inasmuch as there are less than eight (8) votes in favor of declaring Republic Act 4913 and R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 unconstitutional and invalid, the petitions in these two (2) cases must be, as they are hereby, dismiss and the writs therein prayed for denied, without special pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered."
Ratio Decidendi
On Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review acts of Congress when it acts as a constituent assembly. While Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito suggested some issues were political, subsequent cases like Suanes vs. Chief Accountant of the Senate, Avelino vs. Cuenco, Tañada vs. Cuenco, and Macias vs. Commission on Elections have established that the judiciary can determine if Congress, in proposing amendments, has acted within constitutional limits. The power to amend the Constitution is inherent in the people, and Congress, when exercising this power, derives authority from the Constitution, making its acts subject to judicial review. The Court unanimously agrees on this point, modifying the stance in Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito. On the Legality of Congress and De Facto Officers: The failure of Congress to enact a valid reapportionment law within three years after the 1960 census did not render Congress illegal or its members de facto officers. The Constitution itself provides that until reapportionment is made, the House of Representatives shall have the same number of members elected from existing districts. Furthermore, even if they were considered de facto officers, their acts, performed under color of title and within the scope of their office, are valid with respect to the public, and their title cannot be collaterally attacked. The Court is unanimous in finding this objection untenable. On Available Alternatives to Congress: The argument that Congress cannot simultaneously propose amendments and call a convention is based on a weak interpretation of the disjunctive "or." The term "or" can be interpreted as "and" depending on the context. Moreover, Resolution No. 2 calling for a convention is distinct in its subject matter and timing from Resolutions Nos. 1 and 3 proposing specific amendments. The Court finds no constitutional prohibition against Congress pursuing both alternatives, and any perceived wisdom or lack thereof in this action is a political question beyond judicial review. On Submission in a General Election: The Constitution, in Article XV, Section 1, refers to "an election" for the ratification of amendments without specifying it must be a special election. While a special election might be preferable for focused deliberation, the Constitution does not forbid submission during a general election. The measures provided in Republic Act No. 4913 for publication, posting, and availability of copies of the amendments are deemed sufficient to apprise the people, satisfying the constitutional requirement of submission, even if the effectiveness of these measures in practice is debated. The minority view, which found the measures inadequate, did not garner enough votes to declare the Act unconstitutional. On Adequacy of Information: The measures outlined in Republic Act No. 4913, including publication in the Official Gazette, posting in public places and polling precincts, and availability of copies for free distribution, are considered constitutionally adequate to inform the electorate about the proposed amendments. While some members of the Court believed these measures were insufficient and that the amendments were overshadowed by the general election, the majority view held that these provisions were not palpably inadequate and were consistent with past practices for submitting amendments. The Court cannot nullify a law based on the failure of certain sectors to discuss it sufficiently; constitutionality depends on the law itself and the circumstances at its enactment.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review acts of Congress acting as a constituent assembly to determine if they violate the Constitution, as the issue is justiciable, not political. The submission of constitutional amendments for ratification can be done in a general election, and the adequacy of dissemination measures is a matter of legislative wisdom, not a constitutional infirmity, provided reasonable opportunity for information is given.