Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 73 views

    Gonzales Vs Comelec G.R. No. L-28196 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    LBitz
    This case involves consolidated petitions challenging the validity of RA No. 4913 and R.B.H. Nos. 1 and 3 which proposed amendments to the Philippine Constitution to be submitted for approval in the 1967 general election. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) RA No. 4913 is constitutional as Congress has the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution; 2) Constitutional amendments can be submitted for ratification in a general election according to the 1935 Constitution; and 3) the issues involve a justiciable question regarding whether the proper procedures for amending the Constitution were followed, rather than a non-justiciable political question. The petitions were denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gonzales Vs Comelec G.R. No. L-28196 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    LBitz
    73 views2 pages
    This case involves consolidated petitions challenging the validity of RA No. 4913 and R.B.H. Nos. 1 and 3 which proposed amendments to the Philippine Constitution to be submitted for approval in the 1967 general election. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) RA No. 4913 is constitutional as Congress has the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution; 2) Constitutional amendments can be submitted for ratification in a general election according to the 1935 Constitution; and 3) the issues involve a justiciable question regarding whether the proper procedures for amending the Constitution were followed, rather than a non-justiciable political question. The petitions were denied.

    Original Description:

    Gonzales vs Comelec G.R. No. L-28196 Case Digest Constitutional Law

    Original Title

    Gonzales vs Comelec G.R. No. L-28196 Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves consolidated petitions challenging the validity of RA No. 4913 and R.B.H. Nos. 1 and 3 which proposed amendments to the Philippine Constitution to be submitted for approval in the 1967 general election. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) RA No. 4913 is constitutional as Congress has the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution; 2) Constitutional amendments can be submitted for ratification in a general election according to the 1935 Constitution; and 3) the issues involve a justiciable question regarding whether the proper procedures for amending the Constitution were followed, rather than a non-justiciable political question. The petitions were denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    73 views2 pages

    Gonzales Vs Comelec G.R. No. L-28196 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    LBitz
    This case involves consolidated petitions challenging the validity of RA No. 4913 and R.B.H. Nos. 1 and 3 which proposed amendments to the Philippine Constitution to be submitted for approval in the 1967 general election. The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) RA No. 4913 is constitutional as Congress has the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution; 2) Constitutional amendments can be submitted for ratification in a general election according to the 1935 Constitution; and 3) the issues involve a justiciable question regarding whether the proper procedures for amending the Constitution were followed, rather than a non-justiciable political question. The petitions were denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-28196 November 9, 1967

    RAMON A. GONZALES, petitioner,


    vs.
    COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, DIRECTOR OF PRINTING and AUDITOR
    GENERAL, respondents.

    FACTS:

    This case is composed of consolidated cases filed separately by Petitioner Gonzalez and PHILCONSA
    assailing for the declaration of nullity of RA. No. 4913 and R.B.H. No. 1 and 3. On March 16, 1967, the
    Senate and the House of Representatives passed the following resolutions (Resolution of Both
    Houses/R.B.H.): (1) increasing the number of seats in the lower house from 120 to 180, (2) calling for a
    constitutional convention, and (3) allowing members of the Congress to run as delegates to the
    constitutional convention without forfeiting their seats. Congress passed a bill, which, approved by the
    President on 17 June 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 on 14 November 1967.

    Petitioners assail the validity/constitutionality of RA No. 4913 and for the prohibition with preliminary
    injunction to restrain COMELEC from implementing or complying with the said law. PHILCONSA also
    assails R.B.H No. 1 and 3.

    ISSUES:

    1. Whether or not Republic Act No. 4913 constitutional.


    2. Whether or not Constitutional amendments be submitted for ratification in a general election.
    3. Whether or not the issues involve a political question.

    HELD:

    1. Yes. The constituent power or the power to amend or revise the Constitution, is different from
    the law-making power of Congress.
    2. Yes. Pursuant to Article XV of the 1935 Constitution, SC held that there is nothing in this
    provision that states that the election referred to is special, different from the general election.
    Congress can directly propose amendments to the Constitution and at the same time call for a
    Constitutional Convention to propose amendments. It does not negate its authority to submit
    proposed amendments for ratification in general elections. Petition is therefore DENIED.
    3. Yes. Since observance of Constitutional provisions on the procedure for amending the
    Constitution is concerned, the issue is cognizable by the Supreme Court under its powers to
    review an Act of Congress to determine its conformity to the fundamental law. For though the
    Constitution leaves Congress free to propose whatever Constitutional amendment it deems fit,
    so that the substance or content of said proposed amendment is a matter of policy and wisdom
    and thus a political question, the Constitution nevertheless imposes requisites as to the manner
    or procedure of proposing such amendments. Hence, all questions bearing on whether Congress
    in proposing amendments followed the procedure required by the Constitution, is perforce
    justiciable, it not being a matter of policy or wisdom.

    You might also like