Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
775
776
777
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
778
siderable portion of the people may not know how over 160 of the
proposed maximum of representative districts are actually
apportioned by RBH No. 1 among the provinces in the
Philippines. It is not improbable, however, that they are not
interested in the details of the apportionment, or that a careful
reading thereof may tend, in their simple minds, to impair a clear
vision thereof. Upon the other hand, those who are more
sophisticated may enlighten themselves sufficiently by reading
the copies of the proposed amendments posted in public places,
the copies kept in the polling places and the text of the contested
resolutions, as printed in full on the back of the ballots they will
use.
Same; Judicial power to nullify executive or legislative acts,
not violative of principle of separation of powers.—The system of
checks and balances underlying the judicial power to strike down
acts of the Executive or of Congress transcending the confines set
forth in the fundamental law is not in derogation of powers,
pursuant to which each department is supreme within its own
sphere.
Same; Determination of conditions for submission of
amendments to people purely legislative.—The determination of
the conditions under which the proposed amendments shall be
submitted to the people is concededly a matter which falls within
the legislative sphere.
779
780
since the time the above provision (Art. VI, Sec. 5, Const.) was
adopted, does not render the present districting illegal or
unconstitutional. For the Constitution itself provides for its
continuance in such case, rendering legal and de jure the status
quo.
781
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
782
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. No. 28196:
Ramon A. Gonzales in his own behalf.
Juan T. David as amicus curiae
Solicitor General for respondents. No. 28224:
Salvador Araneta for petitioner.
Solicitor General for respondent.
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
The main facts are not disputed. On March 16, 1967, the
Senate and the House of Representatives passed the
following resolutions:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
________________
1 Urging the latter to refrain from implementing Republic Act No. 4913
and from submitting to a plebiscite in the general elections to be held on
November 14, 1967, the Constitutional amendments proposed in the
aforementioned R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3.
2 Dated October 30, 1967.
785
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
JURISDICTION
4
As early as Angara vs. Electoral Commission, this Court—
speaking through one of the leading members of the
Constitutional Convention and a respected professor of
Constitutional Law, Dr. 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.” 5
It is true that in Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, this Court
_______________
3 78 Phil. 1.
4 63 Phil. 139, 157.
5 Supra.
786
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
________________
6 81 Phil. 818.
7 L-2851, March 4 and 14, 1949.
8 L-10520, February 28, 1957.
9 1-18684, September 14, 1961.
10 Section 1, Art. VI, Constitution of the Philippines.
11 Section 1, Art. II, Constitution of the Philippines.
787
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
THE MERITS
_______________
16 Supra.
788
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
789
______________
790
The provision does not support the view that, upon the
expiration of the period to make the 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.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
________________
791
______________
793
______________
794
Alternatives Available
to Congress
Atty. Juan T. David, as amicus curiae, maintains that
Congress may either propose amendments to the
Constitution or call a convention for that purpose, but it
can not do both, at the same time. This theory is based
upon the fact that the two (2) alternatives are connected in
the Constitution by the disjunctive “or.” Such basis is,
however, a weak one, in the absence of other circumstances
—and none has brought to our attention—supporting the
conclusion drawn by the amicus curiae. In fact, the term
“or” has, oftentimes, been held to mean “and,” or 26vice-versa,
when the spirit or context of the law warrants it.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
________________
795
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
796
798
799
800
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
803
“SEC. 4. The ballots which shall be used in the election for the
approval of said amendments shall be printed in English and
Pilipino and shall be in the size and form prescribed by the
Commission on Elections: Provided, however, That at the back of
said ballot there shall be printed in full Resolutions of both
Houses of Congress Numbered One and Three, both adopted on
March sixteen, nineteen hundred and sixty-seven, proposing the
amendments: Provided, further. That the questionnaire appearing
on the face of the ballot shall be as follows:
Are you in favor of the proposed amendment to Section five of
Article VI of our Constitution printed at the back of this ballot?
Are you in favor of the proposed amendment to section sixteen
of Article VI of our Constitution printed at the back of this ballot?
To vote for the approval of the proposed amendments, the voter
shall write the word “yes” or its equivalent in Pilipino or in the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
local dialect in the blank space after each question; to vote for the
rejection thereof, he shall write the word “No” or its equivalent in
Pilipino or in the local dialect.”
1
in the manner authorized by law. Based upon this
principle, petitioners Ramon A. Gonzales and Philippine
Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) come to this Court
in separate petitions.
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 the Commission on Elections,
Director of Printing and Auditor General from
implementing and/or complying with Republic Act 4913,
assailing said law as unconstitutional.
Petitioner PHILCONSA, as a civic, non-profit and
nonpartisan corporation, assails the constitutionality not
only of Republic Act 4913 but also of Resolutions of Both
Houses Nos. 1 and 3 of March 16, 1967.
Republic Act 4913, effective June 17, 1967, is an Act
submitting to the Filipino people for approval the
amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines
proposed by the Congress of the Philippines in Resolutions
of Both Houses Numbered 1 and 3, adopted on March 16,
1967. Said Republic Act fixes the date and manner of the
election at which the aforesaid proposed amendments shall
be voted upon by the people, and appropriates funds for
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
______________
806
807
_______________
808
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 36/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
______________
812
_______________
813
5
Act, one should not ignore what would ensue if a particular
mode of construction were followed. As 6
he so emphatically
stated, “We test a rule by its results.”
The consequences of a judicial veto on the then proposed
amendment on the economic survival of the country, an
erroneous appraisal it turned out later, constituted an
effective argument for its submission. Why not then
consider the question political and let the people decide?
That assumption could have been indulged in. It could very
well be the inarticulate major premise. For many it did
bear the stamp of judicial statesmanship.
The opinion of Chief Justice Concepcion renders crystal-
clear why as of this date and in the foreseeable future
judicial inquiry to assure the utmost compliance with the
constitutional requirement would be a more appropriate
response.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 41/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
________________
814
1
—to be members of the Constitutional Convention to be
convened, as provided in another resolution—Resolution
No. 2. Parenthetically, two of these proposed amendments
to the Constitution (Resolutions 1 and 3) are to be
submitted to the people for their ratification next
November 14, 1967. Resolution No. 2 just adverted to calls
for a constitutional convention also to propose amendments
to the Constitution. The delegates thereto are to be elected
on the second Tuesday of November 1970; the convention to
sit on June 1, 1971; and the amendments proposed by the
convention to be submitted to the people thereafter for
their ratification.
Of importance now are the proposed amendments
increasing the number of members of the House of
Representatives under Resolution No. 1, and that in
Resolution No. 3 which gives Senators and Congressmen
‘the right to sit as members of the constitutional convention
to be convened on June 1, 1971. Because, these are the two
amendments to be submitted to the people in the general
elections soon to be held on November 14, 1967, upon the
provisions of Section 1, Republic Act 4913, which reads:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 42/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
________________
1 The text of the law reads: “He (Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives) may, however, be a Member of a Constitutional
Convention.”
815
________________
2 Italics supplied.
816
“x x x The great men who builded the structure of our state in this
respect had the mental vision of a good Constitution voiced by
Judge Cooley, who has said ‘A good Constitution should be beyond
the reach of temporary excitement and popular caprice or passion.
It is needed for stability and steadiness; it must yield to the
thought of the people; not to the whim of the people, or the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 45/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
thought evolved the excitement or hot blood, but the sober second
thought, which alone, if the government is to be safe, can be
allowed efficiency, xxx Changes in government are to be feared
unless the benefit is certain. As Montaign says: ‘All great
mutations shake and disorder a state. Good does not necessarily
succeed evil; another
3
evil may succeed and a worse.’ Am. Law Rev.
1889, p. 311”
________________
818
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 46/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
_________________
821
For the reasons given, our vote is that Republic Act 4913
must be stricken down as in violation of the Constitution.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 49/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
822
ANNOTATION
JUDICIAL DEFERENCE TO POLITICAL
QUESTIONS
_______________
1 Tañada vs. Cuenco, L-10520, Feb. 28, 1957; Mabanag, et al. v. Lopez
Vito, et al., L-1123, Mar. 5, 1947; Climaco, et al. v. Macadaeg, et al., L-
19440 & L-19447, Apr. 18, 1962.
2 Morfe v. Mutuc, L-20387, Jan. 31, 1968; Sumulong v. Commission on
Elections, et al., 73 Phil. 288 (1941); Avelino v. Cuenco, L-2821, Mar. 4 &
14, 1949; Cf. also Dissenting Opinion of Justice Concepcion (now Chief
Justice) in Aytona v. Castillo, et al., L-19313, Jan. 20, 1962.
3 Gonzales v. Hechanova, L-21897, Oct. 22, 1963; Arnault v. Nazareno,
L-3920 (1950).
4 Mabanag, et al. v. Lopez Vito, supra. As distinguished from the
judicial, the legislative and executive departments are spoken of as the
political departments of Government because in very many cases their
action is necessarily dictated by consideration of public or political policy
(Tañada v. Cuenco, supra).
5 Concurring Opinion of Justice Feria in Mabanag, et al. v. Lopez Vito,
Id.
6 Tañada v. Cuenco, Id.; In re McConnaleghy, 119 N. W. 408.
823
_______________
7 Osmeña, Jr. v. Pendatun, et al., L-17144, Oct. 28, 1960, citing Clifford
v. French, 146 Cal. 604, 69 L.R.A. 556.
8 Severino v. Governor-General, 16 Phil. 366 (1910), citing Hawkins v.
Governor, 1 Ark. 570, 33 Am. Dec. 346.
9 Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139, 157.
10 Tanada v. Cuenco, Id.
11 Id. See also Lacson v. Roque, L-6225 (1953); Jover v. Borra, L-6782,
Jul. 25, 1953.
12Concurring Opinion of Justice Feria in Mabanag v. Lopez Vito,
supra.
824
________________
825
_________________
826
________________
827
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 55/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
_______________
828
______________
829
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 57/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
________________
ments,” the Supreme Court declared that such act lends “force to the
contention that these appointments fall beyond the intent and spirit of the
constitutional provision granting to the Executive authority to issue ad
interim appointments.” Such circumstances were therein found to fit the
“exceptional circumstances justifying revocation” of said appointments.
But the Supreme Court, realizing the danger of over-stretching the effect
of that decision beyond the extreme and extraordinary circumstances
particularly attending the case, wisely stated that:
The case of Herrera v. Liwag, et al, L-20079, Sept. 30, 1963, comes
squarely within the above qualification in the Aytona ruling.
31 Gonzales v. Enrile, et al., L-22730, May 24, 1967.
32 55 O.G. 8641.
33 Rep. Act No. 2260, Sec. 29.
830
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 58/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
________________
831
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 59/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
______________
832
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 60/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
________________
833
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 61/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
______________
834
51
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 62/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
51
stitution, suffice to satisfy the requirement
52
of the latter,
such question being a political53one. Quoting with approval
the case of Coleman v. Miller and the opinion of Justice
Black, the Court further ruled that, “the efficacy of
ratification x x x of a proposed amendment to the
Constitution is a political question and hence not
justiceable;” that “if ratification of an amendment is a
political question, a proposal which leads to ratification has
to be a political question;” and that the amending process
itself is political in its entirety, “from submission until an
amendment becomes part of the Constitution, and is not
subject to judicial guidance, control or interference at any
point.”
The weight of the Mabanag decision, as a precedent, has
been weakened, however, by the Supreme Court 54
resolution
of March 14, 1949 in Avelino v. Cuenco, in which the
Court proceeded to determine the number of votes essential
55
to constitute a quorum in the Senate. In the case under
annotation, the Court emphatically held that “the issue
whether or not a Resolution of Congress—acting as a
constituent assembly—violates the Constitution, is
essentially justiceable, not political, and, hence, subject to
judicial review.” With this latest pronouncement,
repudiating in effect the Mabanag ruling, it may now be
restated with certitude that the question whether certain
proposed amendments to the Constitution are invalid for
non-compliance with the procedure therein prescribed is
not a political
56
one and may be traversed and settled by the
Courts.
Legality57of Appropriation Act.—Custodio v. President of
the Senate involved a petition for prohibition filed by a
taxpayer and employee of the government against the
Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
the Insular Treasurer and Auditor, praying that the Court
declare invalid and unconstitutional the appropriation of
_______________
835
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 63/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 64/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
836
______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 65/66
6/25/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
837
64
ciable. Republic Act 1793, which created the Presidential
Electoral Tribunal, has the effect of giving said defeated
candidate the legal right to contest judicially the election of
the President-elect or Vice-President-elect and to demand a
recount of65 the votes cast for the office involved in the
litigation. And by providing that the said Presidential
Electoral Tribunal “shall be composed of the Chief Justice
and the other ten Members of the Supreme Court,” said
legislation has conferred upon such Court an additional
66
original jurisdiction of an exclusive character. —Atty.
DOMINGO . LUCENARIO.
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016b8c61e4955c2c3db4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 66/66