Gonzales vs. COMELEC

RAMON A. GONZALES, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, DIRECTOR OF PRINTING and AUDITOR GENERAL, respondents.

G.R. No. L-28196
NOVEMBER 9, 1967

FACTS:

The Congress passed 3 resolutions simultaneously.

The first, proposing amendments to the Constitution so as to increase the membership of the House of Representatives from a maximum of 120, as provided in the present Constitution, to a maximum of 180.

he second, calling a convention to propose amendments to said Constitution, the convention to be composed of two (2) elective delegates from each representative district, to be elected in the general elections.

In addition, the third, proposing that the same Constitution be amended so as to authorize Senators and members of the House of Representatives to become delegates to the aforementioned constitutional convention, without forfeiting their respective seats in Congress. Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval by the President, became Republic Act No. 4913 providing that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the aforementioned resolutions be submitted, for approval by the people, at the general elections.

The petitioner assails the constitutionality of the said law contending that the Congress cannot simultaneously propose amendments to the Constitution and call for the holding of a constitutional convention.

ISSUE(S):

1. Is Republic Act No. 4913 constitutional?
2. WON Congress can simultaneously propose amendments to the Constitution and call for the holding of a constitutional convention?
   
   

HELD:

YES as to both issues. The constituent power or the power to amend or revise the Constitution, is different from the law-making power of Congress. Congress can directly propose amendments to the Constitution and at the same time call for a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments.

Indeed, the power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments thereto is not included in the general grant of legislative powers to Congress. It is part of the inherent powers of the people — as the repository of sovereignty in a republican state, such as ours— to make, and, hence, to amend their own Fundamental Law. Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution merely because the same explicitly grants such power. Hence, when exercising the same, it is said that Senators and Members of the House of Representatives act, not as members of Congress, but as component elements of a constituent assembly. When acting as such, the members of Congress derive their authority from the Constitution, unlike the people, when performing the same function, for their authority does not emanate from the Constitution — they are the very source of all powers of government, including the Constitution itself.

Since, when proposing, as a constituent assembly, amendments to the Constitution, the members of Congress derive their authority from the Fundamental Law, it follows, necessarily, that they do not have the final say on whether or not their acts are within or beyond constitutional limits. Otherwise, they could brush aside and set the same at naught, contrary to the basic tenet that ours is a government of laws, not of men, and to the rigid nature of our Constitution. Such rigidity is stressed by the fact that, the Constitution expressly confers upon the Supreme Court, the power to declare a treaty unconstitutional, despite the eminently political character of treaty-making power.

HELLO!
You can help law students and barristas by contributing to our collection. Please upload your case digests, reviewers or other relevant materials HERE.

For attribution or removal, contact us.