GONZALES vs.

COMELEC
G.R. No. L-28196 & L-28224, 9 November 1967

Nature: Original action for prohibition, with preliminary injunction

Ponente: Concepcion
Facts:
On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed R.B.H. (Resolution of
Both Houses) Nos. 1, 2, and 3.
o R.B.H. No. 1 proposed that Sec. 5, Art. VI of the [1935] Constitution be amended to
increase the membership of the HoR from a maximum of 120 to 180;
o R.B.H. No. 2 called for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, the
delegates of which were to be elected in the general elections to be held on November,
1971
o R.B.H. No. 3 proposed that Sec. 16, Article VI of the Constitution be amended to
authorize Senators and members of the HoR to become delegates to the ConCon
mentioned in R.B.H. No. 2 without forfeiting their seats
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.
As to jurisdiction, the Solicitor General maintained that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction as
the issue was a political question, as enunciated in the case of Mabanag vs. Lopez.
As to the merits of the case, four issues were raised to assert the constitutionality of the RA 4913.
First, petitioners argued that since no apportionment was made pursuant to the 1935
Constitution, the members of both houses of Congress became de facto members of the
legislature. Hence, they did not have authority to pass the assailed Resolutions as well as RA
4913.
Second, they forwarded the argument that Congress may adopt either one of two alternatives
(proposing amendments on the one hand, and calling for a convention on the other), but not both
at the same time. They support this argument by citing the fact that the disjunctive or was used
in the relevant Constitutional provision.
Third, the election in which proposals for amendment to the Constitution shall be submitted for
ratification, must be a special election, not a general election
Finally, they argued that the people must be given a reasonable opportunity to have a fair grasp
of the nature and implications of said amendments. Petitioners alleged that such conditions were
wanting in this case.

Issues/Held:
1. Whether or not the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over the case. (YES)
2. Whether or not the members of the Congress were de facto Congressmen. (NO)
3. May the Congress validly adopt two alternativesproposing amendments or a constitutional
conventionat the same time? (YES)
4. Should the election in which the amendment to the Constitution shall be submitted for ratification
be a special election? (NO)
5. Whether or not the conditions under which the people may be informed of the amendments
obtain in this case. (YES)

Ratio:
1. Petitioners reliance on Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito merit little consideration since the doctrine in that
case has been weakened by subsequent jurisprudence. The Court found that the issue whether
or nor a Resolution of Congress is valid is a justiciable issue.

2. The provision cited by petitioners calling for apportionment does not support the view that, upon
the expiration of the period to make such an apportionment, a Congress which fails to make it is
dissolved or becomes illegal. On the contrary, it implies necessarily that Congress shall continue
 to function with the representative districts existing at the time of the expiration of said period.
Despite the violation of such mandatory duty, the title to their respective offices remains
unimpaired, until dismissal or ouster pursuant to a judgment of conviction rendered in accordance
with the Constitution. The loss of office is not automatic.

Assuming arguendo that the Congress became a de facto Congress, public interest demands that
acts of persons holding, under color of title, an office created by a valid statute be, likewise,
deemed valid insofar as the public is concerned. Moreover, the title of a de facto officer cannot be
assailed collaterally as was done in this case. It may only be contested directly through a quo
warranto proceeding.

3. The use of the disjunctive or in this case was held to mean and, as the context warranted. R.
B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 propose amendments to the constitutional provision on Congress, to be
submitted to the people for ratification on November 14, 1967, whereas R. B. H. No. 2 calls for a
convention in 1971, to consider proposals for amendment to the Constitution, in general. In other
words, the subject matter of R. B. H. No. 2 is different from that of R B. H. Nos. 1 and 3. Although
the three (3) resolutions were passed on the same date, they were taken up and put to a vote
separately, or one after the other. In other words, they were not passed at the same time. On the
question of why did Congress opt for a constitutional convention altogether, such is not within the
power of the Court to decide; it is a political question.

4. There is nothing in Art. XV of the Constitution that indicates 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.

5. The citizenry had eight (8) months to study the amendments. Moreover, several measures
provided by RA 4913 to ensure that the people are sufficiently informed. These include
publication, posting, and distribution of copies of the amendments. These were substantially the
same means availed of to inform the people of the subject submitted to them for ratification, from
the original Constitution down to the Parity Amendment.

Disposition:
Petition denied.