Republic of the Philippines 1967, the PHILCONSA filed with this Court the petition in G. R. No.

L-28224,
SUPREME COURT for review by certiorari of the resolution of the Commission on
Manila Elections2 dismissing the petition therein. The two (2) cases were deemed
submitted for decision on November 8, 1967, upon the filing of the answer
EN BANC of respondent, the memorandum of the petitioner and the reply
memorandum of respondent in L-28224.
G.R. No. L-28196 November 9, 1967
Ramon A. Gonzales, the petitioner in L-28196, is admittedly a Filipino
RAMON A. GONZALES, petitioner,
citizen, a taxpayer, and a voter. He claims to have instituted case L-28196
vs.
as a class unit, for and in behalf of all citizens, taxpayers, and voters
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, DIRECTOR OF PRINTING and AUDITOR
similarly situated. Although respondents and the Solicitor General have
GENERAL, respondents.
filed an answer denying the truth of this allegation, upon the ground that
they have no knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
-----------------------------------------
thereof, such denial would appear to be a perfunctory one. In fact, at the
hearing of case L-28196, the Solicitor General expressed himself in favor of
G.R. No. L-28224 November 9, 1967
a judicial determination of the merits of the issued raised in said case.
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), petitioner,
vs. The PHILCONSA, petitioner in L-28224, is admittedly a corporation duly
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent. organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, and a civic, non-
profit and non-partisan organization the objective of which is to uphold the
No. 28196: rule of law in the Philippines and to defend its Constitution against
Ramon A. Gonzales for and in his own behalf as petitioner. erosions or onslaughts from whatever source. Despite his aforementioned
Juan T. David as amicus curiae statement in L-28196, in his answer in L-28224 the Solicitor General
Office of the Solicitor General for respondents. maintains that this Court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of L-
28224, upon the ground that the same is "merely political" as held
No. 28224: in Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito.3 Senator Arturo M. Tolentino, who appeared
Salvador Araneta for petitioner. before the Commission on Elections and filed an opposition to the
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent. PHILCONSA petition therein, was allowed to appear before this Court and
objected to said petition upon the ground: a) that the Court has no
CONCEPCION, C.J.: jurisdiction either to grant the relief sought in the petition, or to pass upon
the legality of the composition of the House of Representatives; b) that the
petition, if granted, would, in effect, render in operational the legislative
G. R. No. L-28196 is an original action for prohibition, with preliminary
department; and c) that "the failure of Congress to enact a valid
injunction.
reapportionment law . . . does not have the legal effect of rendering illegal
the House of Representatives elected thereafter, nor of rendering its acts
Petitioner therein prays for judgment: null and void."

1) Restraining: (a) the Commission on Elections from enforcing Republic JURISDICTION

Act No. 4913, or from performing any act that will result in the holding of
the plebiscite for the ratification of the constitutional amendments
As early as Angara vs. Electoral Commission,4 this Court — speaking
proposed in Joint Resolutions Nos. 1 and 3 of the two Houses of Congress
through one of the leading members of the Constitutional Convention and
of the Philippines, approved on March 16, 1967; (b) the Director of Printing
a respected professor of Constitutional Law, Dr. Jose P. Laurel — declared
from printing ballots, pursuant to said Act and Resolutions; and (c) the
that "the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be
Auditor General from passing in audit any disbursement from the
called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the
appropriation of funds made in said Republic Act No. 4913; and
several departments and among the integral or constituent units thereof."
It is true that in Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito,5 this Court characterizing the issue
2) declaring said Act unconstitutional and void. submitted thereto as a political one, declined to pass upon the question
whether or not a given number of votes cast in Congress in favor of a
proposed amendment to the Constitution — which was being submitted to
The main facts are not disputed. On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the
the people for ratification — satisfied the three-fourths vote requirement
House of Representatives passed the following resolutions:
of the fundamental law. The force of this precedent has been weakened,
however, by Suanes vs. Chief Accountant of the Senate,6 Avelino vs.
1. R. B. H. (Resolution of Both Houses) No. 1, proposing that Section 5, Cuenco,7 Tañada vs. Cuenco,8 and Macias vs. Commission on Elections.9In
Article VI, of the Constitution of the Philippines, be amended so as to the first, we held that the officers and employees of the Senate Electoral
increase the membership of the House of Representatives from a maximum Tribunal are under its supervision and control, not of that of the Senate
of 120, as provided in the present Constitution, to a maximum of 180, to be President, as claimed by the latter; in the second, this Court proceeded to
apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as may be according to determine the number of Senators necessary for a quorum in the Senate; in
the number of their respective inhabitants, although each province shall the third, we nullified the election, by Senators belonging to the party
have, at least, one (1) member; having the largest number of votes in said chamber, purporting to act on
behalf of the party having the second largest number of votes therein, of
two (2) Senators belonging to the first party, as members, for the second
2. R. B. H. No. 2, calling a convention to propose amendments to said
party, of the, Senate Electoral Tribunal; and in the fourth, we declared
Constitution, the convention to be composed of two (2) elective delegates
unconstitutional an act of Congress purporting to apportion the
from each representative district, to be "elected in the general elections to
representative districts for the House of Representatives, upon the ground
be held on the second Tuesday of November, 1971;" and
that the apportionment had not been made as may be possible according
to the number of inhabitants of each province. Thus we rejected the theory,
3. R. B. H. No. 3, proposing that Section 16, Article VI, of the same advanced in these four (4) cases, that the issues therein raised were
Constitution, be amended so as to authorize Senators and members of the political questions the determination of which is beyond judicial review.
House of Representatives to become delegates to the aforementioned
constitutional convention, without forfeiting their respective seats in
Indeed, the power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments
Congress.
thereto is not included in the general grant of legislative powers to
Congress.10 It is part of the inherent powers of the people — as the
Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval by the repository of sovereignty in a republican state, such as ours 11 — to make,
President, on June 17, 1967, became Republic Act No. 4913, providing that and, hence, to amend their own Fundamental Law. Congress may propose
the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the aforementioned amendments to the Constitution merely because the same explicitly grants
Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by the people, at the such power.12 Hence, when exercising the same, it is said that Senators and
general elections which shall be held on November 14, 1967. 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
The petition in L-28196 was filed on October 21, 1967. At the hearing
Constitution, unlike the people, when performing the same function,13 for
thereof, on October 28, 1967, the Solicitor General appeared on behalf of
their authority does not emanate from the Constitution — they are the very
respondents. Moreover, Atty. Juan T. David and counsel for the Philippine
source of all powers of government, including the Constitution itself .
Constitution Association — hereinafter referred to as the PHILCONSA —
were allowed to argue as amici curiae. Said counsel for the PHILCONSA, Dr.
Salvador Araneta, likewise prayed that the decision in this case be deferred Since, when proposing, as a constituent assembly, amendments to the
until after a substantially identical case brought by said organization Constitution, the members of Congress derive their authority from the
before the Commission on Elections,1 which was expected to decide it any Fundamental Law, it follows, necessarily, that they do not have the final say
time, and whose decision would, in all probability, be appealed to this on whether or not their acts are within or beyond constitutional limits.
Court — had been submitted thereto for final determination, for a joint Otherwise, they could brush aside and set the same at naught, contrary to
decision on the identical issues raised in both cases. In fact, on October 31, 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, consequently, the disputed Resolutions, proposing amendments to the
the Constitution expressly confers upon the Supreme Court, 14 the power to Constitution, as well as Republic Act No. 4913, are null and void.
declare a treaty unconstitutional,15 despite the eminently political
character of treaty-making power.
It is not true, however, that Congress has not made an apportionment
within three years after the enumeration or census made in 1960. It did
In short, the issue whether or not a Resolution of Congress — acting as a actually pass a bill, which became Republic Act No. 3040, 17 purporting to
constituent assembly — violates the Constitution essentially justiciable, make said apportionment. This Act was, however, declared
not political, and, hence, subject to judicial review, and, to the extent that unconstitutional, upon the ground that the apportionment therein
this view may be inconsistent with the stand taken in Mabanag vs. Lopez undertaken had not been made according to the number of inhabitants of
Vito,16 the latter should be deemed modified accordingly. The Members of the different provinces of the Philippines.18
the Court are unanimous on this point.
Moreover, we are unable to agree with the theory that, in view of the failure
THE MERITS of Congress to make a valid apportionment within the period stated in the
Constitution, Congress became an "unconstitutional Congress" and that, in
consequence thereof, the Members of its House of Representatives are de
Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution, as amended, reads:
facto officers. The major premise of this process of reasoning is that the
constitutional provision on "apportionment within three years after the
The Congress in joint session assembled by a vote of three- return of every enumeration, and not otherwise," is mandatory. The fact
fourths of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of that Congress is under legal obligation to make said apportionment does
Representatives voting separately, may propose amendments to not justify, however, the conclusion that failure to comply with such
this Constitution or call a convention for that purpose. Such obligation rendered Congress illegal or unconstitutional, or that its
amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when Members have become de facto officers.
approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which
the amendments are submitted to the people for their
It is conceded that, since the adoption of the Constitution in 1935, Congress
ratification.
has not made a valid apportionment as required in said fundamental law.
The effect of this omission has been envisioned in the Constitution,
Pursuant to this provision, amendments to the Constitution may be pursuant to which:
proposed, either by Congress, or by a convention called by Congress for
that purpose. In either case, the vote of "three-fourths of all the members
. . . Until such apportionment shall have been made, the House of
of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately" is
Representatives shall have the same number of Members as that
necessary. And, "such amendments shall be valid as part of" the
fixed by law for the National Assembly, who shall be elected by
"Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election
the qualified electors from the present Assembly districts. . . . .
at which the amendments are submitted to the people for their
ratification."
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
In the cases at bar, it is conceded that the R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 have been
dissolved or becomes illegal. On the contrary, it implies necessarily that
approved by a vote of three-fourths of all the members of the Senate and
Congress shall continue to function with the representative districts
of the House of Representatives voting separately. This, notwithstanding,
existing at the time of the expiration of said period.
it is urged that said resolutions are null and void because:

It is argued that the above-quoted provision refers only to the elections

1. The Members of Congress, which approved the proposed amendments,
held in 1935. This theory assumes that an apportionment had to be made
as well as the resolution calling a convention to propose amendments, are,
necessarily before the first elections to be held after the inauguration of the
at best, de facto Congressmen;
Commonwealth of the Philippines, or in 1938.19 The assumption, is,
however, unwarranted, for there had been no enumeration in 1935, and
2. Congress may adopt either one of two alternatives propose — nobody could foretell when it would be made. Those who drafted and
amendments or call a convention therefore but may not avail of both — adopted the Constitution in 1935 could be certain, therefore, that the
that is to say, propose amendment and call a convention — at the same three-year period, after the earliest possible enumeration, would expire
time; after the elections in 1938.

3. The election, in which proposals for amendment to the Constitution shall What is more, considering that several provisions of the Constitution,
be submitted for ratification, must be particularly those on the legislative department, were amended in 1940,
a special election, not a general election, in which officers of the national by establishing a bicameral Congress, those who drafted and adopted said
and local governments — such as the elections scheduled to be held on amendment, incorporating therein the provision of the original Constitution
November 14, 1967 — will be chosen; and regarding the apportionment of the districts for representatives, must have
known that the three-year period therefor would expire after the elections
scheduled to be held and actually held in 1941.
4. The spirit of the Constitution demands that the election, in which
proposals for amendment shall be submitted to the people for ratification,
must be held under such conditions — which, allegedly, do not exist — as Thus, the events contemporaneous with the framing and ratification of the
to give the people a reasonable opportunity to have a fair grasp of the original Constitution in 1935 and of the amendment thereof in 1940
nature and implications of said amendments. strongly indicate that the provision concerning said apportionment and
the effect of the failure to make it were expected to be applied to conditions
obtaining after the elections in 1935 and 1938, and even
Legality of Congress and Legal Status of the Congressmen
after subsequent elections.

The first objection is based upon Section 5, Article VI, of the Constitution,
Then again, since the report of the Director of the Census on the last
which provides:
enumeration was submitted to the President on November 30, 1960, it
follows that the three-year period to make the apportionment did not
The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more expire until 1963, or after the Presidential elections in 1961. There can be
than one hundred and twenty Members who shall be no question, therefore, that the Senate and the House of Representatives
apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as may be organized or constituted on December 30, 1961, were de jure bodies, and
according to the number of their respective inhabitants, but that the Members thereof were de jure officers. Pursuant to the theory of
each province shall have at least one Member. The Congress petitioners herein, upon expiration of said period of three years, or late in
shall by law make an apportionment within three years after the 1963, Congress became illegal and its Members, or at least, those of the
return of every enumeration, and not otherwise. Until such House of Representatives, became illegal holder of their respective offices,
apportionment shall have been made, the House of and were de facto officers.
Representatives shall have the same number of Members as that
fixed by law for the National Assembly, who shall be elected by
Petitioners do not allege that the expiration of said three-year period
the qualified electors from the present Assembly districts. Each
without a reapportionment, had the effect of abrogating or repealing the
representative district shall comprise, as far as practicable,
legal provision creating Congress, or, at least, the House of
contiguous and compact territory.
Representatives, and are not aware of any rule or principle of law that
would warrant such conclusion. Neither do they allege that the term of
It is urged that the last enumeration or census took place in 1960; that, no office of the members of said House automatically expired or that they ipso
apportionment having been made within three (3) years thereafter, the facto forfeited their seats in Congress, upon the lapse of said period for
Congress of the Philippines and/or the election of its Members became reapportionment. In fact, neither our political law, nor our law on public
illegal; that Congress and its Members, likewise, became a de officers, in particular, supports the view that failure to discharge a
facto Congress and/or de facto congressmen, respectively; and that, mandatory duty, whatever it may be, would automatically result in the
forfeiture of an office, in the absence of a statute to this effect.
Similarly, it would seem obvious that the provision of our Election Law separately, or one after the other. In other words, they were not passed at
relative to the election of Members of Congress in 1965 were not repealed the same time.
in consequence of the failure of said body to make an apportionment
within three (3) years after the census of 1960. Inasmuch as the general
In any event, we do not find, either in the Constitution, or in the history
elections in 1965 were presumably held in conformity with said Election
thereof anything that would negate the authority of different Congresses
Law, and the legal provisions creating Congress — with a House of
to approve the contested Resolutions, or of the same Congress to pass the
Representatives composed of members elected by qualified voters of
same in, different sessions or different days of the same congressional
representative districts as they existed at the time of said elections —
session. And, neither has any plausible reason been advanced to justify the
remained in force, we can not see how said Members of the House of
denial of authority to adopt said resolutions on the same day.
Representatives can be regarded as de facto officers owing to the failure of
their predecessors in office to make a reapportionment within the period
aforementioned. Counsel ask: Since Congress has decided to call a constitutional convention
to propose amendments, why not let the whole thing be submitted to said
convention, instead of, likewise, proposing some specific amendments, to
Upon the other hand, the Constitution authorizes the impeachment of the
be submitted for ratification before said convention is held? The force of
President, the Vice-President, the Justices of the Supreme Court and the
this argument must be conceded. but the same impugns the wisdom of the
Auditor General for, inter alia, culpable violation of the Constitution,20 the
action taken by Congress, not its authority to take it. One seeming purpose
enforcement of which is, not only their mandatory duty, but also, their
thereof to permit Members of Congress to run for election as delegates to
main function. This provision indicates that, despite the violation of such
the constitutional convention and participate in the proceedings therein,
mandatory duty, the title to their respective offices remains unimpaired,
without forfeiting their seats in Congress. Whether or not this should be
until dismissal or ouster pursuant to a judgment of conviction rendered in
done is a political question, not subject to review by the courts of justice.
accordance with Article IX of the Constitution. In short, the loss of office or
the extinction of title thereto is not automatic.
On this question there is no disagreement among the members of the
Court.
Even if we assumed, however, that the present Members of Congress are
merely de facto officers, it would not follow that the contested resolutions
and Republic Act No. 4913 are null and void. In fact, the main reasons for May Constitutional Amendments Be Submitted for Ratification in
the existence of the de facto doctrine is that public interest demands that a General Election?
acts of persons holding, under color of title, an office created by a valid
statute be, likewise, deemed valid insofar as the public — as distinguished
Article XV of the Constitution provides:
from the officer in question — is concerned.21 Indeed, otherwise, those
dealing with officers and employees of the Government would be entitled
to demand from them satisfactory proof of their title to the positions they . . . The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-
hold, before dealing with them, or before recognizing their authority or fourths of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of
obeying their commands, even if they should act within the limits of the Representatives voting separately, may propose amendments to
authority vested in their respective offices, positions or this Constitution or call a contention for that purpose. Such
employments.22 One can imagine this great inconvenience, hardships and amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when
evils that would result in the absence of the de facto doctrine. approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which
the amendments are submitted to the people for their
ratification.
As a consequence, the title of a de facto officer cannot be assailed
collaterally.23 It may not be contested except directly, by quo
warranto proceedings. Neither may the validity of his acts be questioned There is in this provision nothing to indicate that the "election" therein
upon the ground that he is merely a de facto officer.24 And the reasons are referred to is a "special," not a general, election. The circumstance that
obvious: (1) it would be an indirect inquiry into the title to the office; and three previous amendments to the Constitution had been submitted to the
(2) the acts of a de facto officer, if within the competence of his office, are people for ratification in special elections merely shows that Congress
valid, insofar as the public is concerned. 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.
It is argued that the foregoing rules do not apply to the cases at bar because
the acts therein involved have not been completed and petitioners herein
are not third parties. This pretense is untenable. It is inconsistent It would be better, from the viewpoint of a thorough discussion of the
with Tayko vs. Capistrano.25 In that case, one of the parties to a suit being proposed amendments, that the same be submitted to the people's
heard before Judge Capistrano objected to his continuing to hear the case, approval independently of the election of public officials. And there is no
for the reason that, meanwhile, he had reached the age of retirement. This denying the fact that an adequate appraisal of the merits and demerits
Court held that the objection could not be entertained, because the Judge proposed amendments is likely to be overshadowed by the great attention
was at least, a de facto Judge, whose title can not be assailed collaterally. It usually commanded by the choice of personalities involved in general
should be noted that Tayko was not a third party insofar as the Judge was elections, particularly when provincial and municipal officials are to be
concerned. Tayko was one of the parties in the aforementioned suit. chosen. But, then, these considerations are addressed to the wisdom of
Moreover, Judge Capistrano had not, as yet, finished hearing the case, much holding a plebiscite simultaneously with the election of public officer. They
less rendered decision therein. No rights had vested in favor of the parties, do not deny the authority of Congress to choose either alternative, as
in consequence of the acts of said Judge. Yet, Tayko's objection was implied in the term "election" used, without qualification, in the
overruled. Needless to say, insofar as Congress is concerned, its acts, as abovequoted provision of the Constitution. Such authority becomes even
regards the Resolutions herein contested and Republic Act No. 4913, are more patent when we consider: (1) that the term "election," normally
complete. Congress has nothing else to do in connection therewith. refers to the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular
vote; and (2) that the word used in Article V of the Constitution, concerning
the grant of suffrage to women is, not "election," but "plebiscite."
The Court is, also, unanimous in holding that the objection under
consideration is untenable.
Petitioners maintain that the term "election," as used in Section 1 of Art. XV
of the Constitution, should be construed as meaning a special election.
Available Alternatives to Congress
Some members of the Court even feel that said term ("election") refers to
a "plebiscite," without any "election," general or special, of public officers.
Atty. Juan T. David, as amicus curiae, maintains that Congress may either They opine that constitutional amendments are, in general, if not always,
propose amendments to the Constitution or call a convention for that of such important, if not transcendental and vital nature as to demand that
purpose, but it can not do both, at the same time. This theory is based upon the attention of the people be focused exclusively on the subject-matter
the fact that the two (2) alternatives are connected in the Constitution by thereof, so that their votes thereon may reflect no more than their
the disjunctive "or." Such basis is, however, a weak one, in the absence of intelligent, impartial and considered view on the merits of the proposed
other circumstances — and none has brought to our attention — amendments, unimpaired, or, at least, undiluted by extraneous, if not
supporting the conclusion drawn by the amicus curiae. In fact, the term insidious factors, let alone the partisan political considerations that are
"or" has, oftentimes, been held to mean "and," or vice-versa, when the spirit likely to affect the selection of elective officials.
or context of the law warrants it.26
This, certainly, is a situation to be hoped for. It is a goal the attainment of
It is, also, noteworthy that R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 propose amendments to the which should be promoted. The ideal conditions are, however, one thing.
constitutional provision on Congress, to be submitted to the people for The question whether the Constitution forbids the submission of proposals
ratification on November 14, 1967, whereas R. B. H. No. 2 calls for a for amendment to the people except under such conditions, is another thing.
convention in 1971, to consider proposals for amendment to the Much as the writer and those who concur in this opinion admire the
Constitution, in general. In other words, the subject-matter of R. B. H. No. 2 contrary view, they find themselves unable to subscribe thereto without,
is different from that of R B. H. Nos. 1 and 3. Moreover, the amendments in effect, reading into the Constitution what they believe is not written
proposed under R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3, will be submitted for ratification thereon and can not fairly be deduced from the letter thereof, since the
several years before those that may be proposed by the constitutional spirit of the law should not be a matter of sheer speculation.
convention called in R. B. H. No. 2. Again, although the three (3) resolutions
were passed on the same date, they were taken up and put to a vote
The majority view — although the votes in favor thereof are insufficient to The said amendments shall be published in English and Spanish
declare Republic Act No. 4913 unconstitutional — as ably set forth in the in three consecutive issues of the Official Gazette at least twenty
opinion penned by Mr. Justice Sanchez, is, however, otherwise. days prior to the election. A printed copy thereof shall be posted
in a conspicuous place in every municipal, city, and provincial
government office building and in every polling place not later
Would the Submission now of the Contested Amendments to the People
than May eighteen, nineteen hundred and forty, and shall
Violate the Spirit of the Constitution?
remain posted therein until after the election. At least ten copies
of said amendments shall be kept in each polling place to be
It should be noted that the contested Resolutions were approved on March made available for examination by the qualified electors during
16, 1967, so that, by November 14, 1967, our citizenry shall have had election day. When practicable, copies in the principal native
practically eight (8) months to be informed on the amendments in languages, as may be determined by the Secretary of the
question. Then again, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 4913 provides: Interior, shall also be kept therein.

(1) that "the amendments shall be published in three consecutive issues of As regards the Parity Amendment, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 73 is to the
the Official Gazette, at least twenty days prior to the election;" effect that:

(2) that "a printed copy of the proposed amendments shall be posted in a The said amendment shall be published in English and Spanish
conspicuous place in every municipality, city and provincial office building in three consecutive issues of the Official Gazette at least twenty
and in every polling place not later than October 14, 1967," and that said days prior to the election. A printed copy thereof shall be posted
copy "shall remain posted therein until after the election;" in a conspicuous place in every municipal, city, and provincial
government office building and in every polling place not later
than February eleven, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and
(3) that "at least five copies of said amendment shall be kept in each polling
shall remain posted therein until after the election. At least, ten
place, to be made available for examination by the qualified electors during
copies of the said amendment shall be kept in each polling place
election day;"
to be made available for examination by the qualified electors
during election day. When practicable, copies in the principal
(4) that "when practicable, copies in the principal native languages, as may native languages, as may be determined by the Commission on
be determined by the Commission on Elections, shall be kept in each Elections, shall also be kept in each polling place.
polling place;"
The main difference between the present situation and that obtaining in
(5) that "the Commission on Elections shall make available copies of said connection with the former proposals does not arise from the law enacted
amendments in English, Spanish and, whenever practicable, in the therefor. The difference springs from the circumstance that the major
principal native languages, for free distributing:" and political parties had taken sides on previous amendments to the
Constitution — except, perhaps, the woman's suffrage — and,
consequently, debated thereon at some length before the plebiscite took
(6) that the contested Resolutions "shall be printed in full" on the back of
place. Upon the other hand, said political parties have not seemingly made
the ballots which shall be used on November 14, 1967.
an issue on the amendments now being contested and have, accordingly,
refrained from discussing the same in the current political campaign. Such
We are not prepared to say that the foregoing measures are palpably debates or polemics as may have taken place — on a rather limited scale
inadequate to comply with the constitutional requirement that proposals — on the latest proposals for amendment, have been due principally to the
for amendment be "submitted to the people for their ratification," and that initiative of a few civic organizations and some militant members of our
said measures are manifestly insufficient, from a constitutional viewpoint, citizenry who have voiced their opinion thereon. A legislation cannot,
to inform the people of the amendment sought to be made. however, be nullified by reason of the failure of certain sectors of the
community to discuss it sufficiently. Its constitutionality or
unconstitutionality depends upon no other factors than those existing at
These were substantially the same means availed of to inform the people
the time of the enactment thereof, unaffected by the acts or omissions of
of the subject submitted to them for ratification, from the original
law enforcing agencies, particularly those that take place subsequently to
Constitution down to the Parity Amendment. Thus, referring to the original
the passage or approval of the law.
Constitution, Section 1 of Act No. 4200, provides:

Referring particularly to the contested proposals for amendment, the

Said Constitution, with the Ordinance appended thereto, shall be
sufficiency or insufficiency, from a constitutional angle, of the submission
published in the Official Gazette, in English and in Spanish, for
thereof for ratification to the people on November 14, 1967, depends — in
three consecutive issues at least fifteen days prior to said
the view of those who concur in this opinion, and who, insofar as this phase
election, and a printed copy of said Constitution, with the
of the case, constitute the minority — upon whether the provisions of
Ordinance appended thereto, shall be posted in a conspicuous
Republic Act No. 4913 are such as to fairly apprise the people of the gist,
place in each municipal and provincial government office
the main idea or the substance of said proposals, which is — under R. B. H.
building and in each polling place not later than the twenty-
No. 1 — the increase of the maximum number of seats in the House of
second day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, and shall
Representatives, from 120 to 180, and — under R. B. H. No. 3 — the
remain posted therein continually until after the termination of
authority given to the members of Congress to run for delegates to the
the election. At least ten copies of the Constitution with the
Constitutional Convention and, if elected thereto, to discharge the duties of
Ordinance appended thereto, in English and in Spanish, shall be
such delegates, without forfeiting their seats in Congress. We — who
kept at each polling place available for examination by the
constitute the minority — believe that Republic Act No. 4913 satisfies such
qualified electors during election day. Whenever practicable,
requirement and that said Act is, accordingly, constitutional.
copies in the principal local dialects as may be determined by
the Secretary of the Interior shall also be kept in each polling
place. A considerable portion of the people may not know how over 160 of the
proposed maximum of representative districts are actually apportioned by
R. B. H. No. 1 among the provinces in the Philippines. It is not improbable,
The provision concerning woman's suffrage is Section 1 of Commonwealth
however, that they are not interested in the details of the apportionment,
Act No. 34, reading:
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
Said Article V of the Constitution shall be published in the sophisticated, may enlighten themselves sufficiently by reading the copies
Official Gazette, in English and in Spanish, for three consecutive of the proposed amendments posted in public places, the copies kept in the
issues at least fifteen days prior to said election, and the said polling places and the text of contested resolutions, as printed in full on the
Article V shall be posted in a conspicuous place in each back of the ballots they will use.
municipal and provincial office building and in each polling
place not later than the twenty-second day of April, nineteen
It is, likewise, conceivable that as many people, if not more, may fail to
and thirty-seven, and shall remain posted therein continually
realize or envisage the effect of R. B. H. No. 3 upon the work of the
until after the termination of the plebiscite. At least ten copies of
Constitutional Convention or upon the future of our Republic. But, then,
said Article V of the Constitution, in English and in Spanish, shall
nobody can foretell such effect with certainty. From our viewpoint, the
be kept at each polling place available for examination by the
provisions of Article XV of the Constitution are satisfied so long as the
qualified electors during the plebiscite. Whenever practicable,
electorate knows that R. B. H. No. 3 permits Congressmen to retain their
copies in the principal native languages, as may be determined
seats as legislators, even if they should run for and assume the functions of
by the Secretary of the Interior, shall also be kept in each polling
delegates to the Convention.
place.

We are impressed by the factors considered by our distinguished and

Similarly, Section 2, Commonwealth Act No. 517, referring to the 1940
esteemed brethren, who opine otherwise, but, we feel that such factors
amendments, is of the following tenor:
affect the wisdom of Republic Act No. 4913 and that of R. B. H. Nos. 1 and
3, not the authority of Congress to approve the same.
The system of checks and balances underlying the judicial power to strike should go out and explain the amendments to the people, or that they
down acts of the Executive or of Congress transcending the confines set should be the subject of any particular means or form of public discussion.
forth in the fundamental laws is not in derogation of the principle of
separation of powers, pursuant to which each department is supreme
The objection of some members of the Court to Republic Act No. 4913
within its own sphere. The determination of the conditions under which
seems to me predicated on the fact that there are so many other issues at
the proposed amendments shall be submitted to the people is concededly
stake in the coming general election that the attention of the electorate,
a matter which falls within the legislative sphere. We do not believe it has
cannot be entirely focused on the proposed amendments, such that there
been satisfactorily shown that Congress has exceeded the limits thereof in
is a failure to properly submit them for ratification within the intendment
enacting Republic Act No. 4913. Presumably, it could have done something
of the Constitution. If that is so, then the defect is not intrinsic in the law
better to enlighten the people on the subject-matter thereof. But, then, no
but in its implementation. The same manner of submitting the proposed
law is perfect. No product of human endeavor is beyond improvement.
amendments to the people for ratification may, in a different setting, be
Otherwise, no legislation would be constitutional and valid. Six (6)
sufficient for the purpose. Yet I cannot conceive that the constitutionality
Members of this Court believe, however, said Act and R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3
or unconstitutionality of a law may be made to depend willy-nilly on
violate the spirit of the Constitution.
factors not inherent in its provisions. For a law to be struck down as
unconstitutional it must be so by reason of some irreconcilable conflict
Inasmuch as there are less than eight (8) votes in favor of declaring between it and the Constitution. Otherwise a law may be either valid or
Republic Act 4913 and R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 unconstitutional and invalid, invalid, according to circumstances not found in its provisions, such as the
the petitions in these two (2) cases must be, as they are hereby, dismiss zeal with which they are carried out. To such a thesis I cannot agree. The
and the writs therein prayed for denied, without special pronouncement criterion would be too broad and relative, and dependent upon individual
as to costs. It is so ordered. opinions that at best are subjective. What one may regard as sufficient
compliance with the requirement of submission to the people, within the
context of the same law, may not be so to another. The question is
Makalintal and Bengzon, J.P., JJ., concur.
susceptible of as many views as there are viewers; and I do not think this
Fernando, J., concurs fully with the above opinion, adding a few words on
Court would be justified in saying that its own view on the matter is the
the question of jurisdiction.
correct one, to the exclusion of the opinions of others.

On the other hand, I reject the argument that the ratification must
necessarily be in a special election or plebiscite called for that purpose
alone. While such procedure is highly to be preferred, the Constitution
Separate Opinions speaks simply of "an election at which the amendments are submitted to
the people for their ratification," and I do not subscribe to the restrictive
interpretation that the petitioners would place on this provision, namely,
MAKALINTAL, J., concurring:
that it means only a special election.

I concur in the foregoing opinion of the Chief Justice. I would make some
additional observations in connection with my concurrence. Sections 2 and
4 of Republic Act No. 4913 provide:

BENGZON, J.P., J., concurring:

Sec. 2. The amendments shall be published in three consecutive
issues of the Official Gazette at least twenty days prior to the
election. A printed copy thereof shall be posted in a conspicuous It is the glory of our institutions that they are founded upon law, that no
place in every municipality, city and provincial office building one can exercise any authority over the rights and interests of others
and in every polling place not later than October fourteen, except pursuant to and in the manner authorized by law. 1 Based upon this
nineteen hundred and sixty-seven, and shall remain posted principle, petitioners Ramon A. Gonzales and Philippine Constitution
therein until after the election. At least five copies of the said Association (PHILCONSA) come to this Court in separate petitions.
amendments shall be kept in each polling place to be made
available for examination by the qualified electors during
Petitioner Gonzales, as taxpayer, voter and citizen, and allegedly in
election day. When practicable, copies in the principal native
representation thru class suit of all citizens of this country, filed this suit
languages, as may be determined by the Commission on
for prohibition with preliminary injunction to restrain the Commission on
Elections, shall be kept in each polling place. The Commission on
Elections, Director of Printing and Auditor General from implementing
Elections shall make available copies of each amendments in
and/or complying with Republic Act 4913, assailing said law as
English, Spanish and, whenever practicable, in the principal
unconstitutional.
native languages, for free distribution.

Petitioner PHILCONSA, as a civic, non-profit and non-partisan corporation,

xxx xxx xxx
assails the constitutionality not only of Republic Act 4913 but also of
Resolutions of Both Houses Nos. 1 and 3 of March 16, 1967.
Sec. 4. The ballots which shall be used in the election for the
approval of said amendments shall be printed in English and
Republic Act 4913, effective June 17, 1967, is an Act submitting to the
Pilipino and shall be in the size and form prescribed by the
Filipino people for approval the amendments to the Constitution of the
Commission on Elections: Provided, however, That at the back of
Philippines proposed by the Congress of the Philippines in Resolutions of
said ballot there shall be printed in full Resolutions of both
Both Houses Numbered 1 and 3, adopted on March 16, 1967. Said Republic
Houses of Congress Numbered One and Three, both adopted on
Act fixes the date and manner of the election at which the aforesaid
March sixteen, nineteen hundred and sixty-seven, proposing the
proposed amendments shall be voted upon by the people, and
amendments: Provided, further, That the questionnaire
appropriates funds for said election. Resolutions of Both Houses Nos. 1 and
appearing on the face of the ballot shall be as follows:
3 propose two amendments to the Constitution: the first, to amend Sec. 5,
Art. VI, by increasing the maximum membership of the House of
Are you in favor of the proposed amendment to Section five of Representatives from 120 to 180, apportioning 160 of said 180 seats and
Article VI of our Constitution printed at the back of this ballot? eliminating the provision that Congress shall by law make an
apportionment within three years after the return of every enumeration;
the second, to amend Sec. 16, Art. VI, by allowing Senators and
Are you in favor of the proposed amendment to section sixteen
Representatives to be delegates to a constitutional convention without
of Article VI of our Constitution printed at the back of this
forfeiting their seats.
ballot?

Since both petitions relate to the proposed amendments, they are

To vote for the approval of the proposed amendments, the voter
considered together herein.
shall write the word "yes" or its equivalent in Pilipino or in the
local dialect in the blank space after each question; to vote for
the rejection thereof, he shall write the word "No" or its Specifically and briefly, petitioner Gonzales' objections are as follows: (1)
equivalent in Pilipino or in the local dialect. Republic Act 4913 violates Sec. 1, Art. XV of the Constitution, in submitting
the proposed amendments to the Constitution, to the people for approval,
at the general election of 1967 instead of at a special election solely for that
I believe that intrinsically, that is, considered in itself and without
purpose; (2) Republic Act 4913 violates Sec. 1, Art. XV of the Constitution,
reference to extraneous factors and circumstances, the manner prescribed
since it was not passed with the 3/4 vote in joint session required when
in the aforesaid provisions is sufficient for the purpose of having the
Congress proposes amendments to the Constitution, said Republic Act
proposed amendments submitted to the people for their ratification, as
being a step in or part of the process of proposing amendments to the
enjoined in Section 1, Article XV of the Constitution. I am at a loss to say
Constitution; and (3) Republic Act 4913 violates the due process clause of
what else should have been required by the Act to make it adhere more
the Constitution (Sec. 1, Subsec. 1, Art. III), in not requiring that the
closely to the constitutional requirement. Certainly it would have been out
substance of the proposed amendments be stated on the face of the ballot
of place to provide, for instance, that government officials and employees
or otherwise rendering clear the import of the proposed amendments,
such as by stating the provisions before and after said amendments, people for their ratification. Since it does not "propose amendments" in the
instead of printing at the back of the ballot only the proposed amendments. sense referred to by Sec. 1, Art. XV of the Constitution, but merely provides
for how and when the amendments, already proposed, are going to be
voted upon, the same does not need the 3/4 vote in joint session required
Since observance of Constitutional provisions on the procedure for
in Sec. 1, Art. XV of the Constitution. Furthermore, Republic Act 4913 is an
amending the Constitution is concerned, the issue is cognizable by this
appropriation measure. Sec. 6 thereof appropriates P1,000,000 for
Court under its powers to review an Act of Congress to determine its
carrying out its provisions. Sec. 18, Art. VI of the Constitution states that
conformity to the fundamental law. For though the Constitution leaves
"All appropriation . . . bills shall originate exclusively in the House of
Congress free to propose whatever Constitutional amendment it deems fit,
Representatives". Republic Act 4913, therefore, could not have been
so that the substance or content of said proposed amendment is a matter of
validly adopted in a joint session, reinforcing the view that Sec. 1, Art. XV
policy and wisdom and thus a political question, the Constitution
does not apply to such a measure providing for the holding of the election
nevertheless imposes requisites as to the manner or procedure of
to ratify the proposed amendments, which must perforce appropriate
proposing such amendments, e.g., the three-fourths vote requirement. Said
funds for its purpose.
procedure or manner, therefore, from being left to the discretion of
Congress, as a matter of policy and wisdom, is fixed by the Constitution.
And to that extent, all questions bearing on whether Congress in proposing Petitioner Gonzales contends, thirdly, that Republic Act 4913 offends
amendments followed the procedure required by the Constitution, is against substantive due process. An examination of the provisions of the
perforce justiciable, it not being a matter of policy or wisdom. law shows no violation of the due process clause of the Constitution. The
publication in the Official Gazette at least 20 days before the election, the
posting of notices in public buildings not later than October 14, 1967, to
Turning then to petitioner Gonzales' first objection, Sec. 1, Art. XV clearly
remain posted until after the elections, the placing of copies of the
does not bear him on the point. It nowhere requires that the ratification be
proposed amendments in the polling places, aside from printing the same
thru an election solely for that purpose. It only requires that it be at "an
at the back of the ballot, provide sufficient opportunity to the voters to cast
election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for their
an intelligent vote on the proposal. Due process refers only to providing
ratification." To join it with an election for candidates to public office, that
fair opportunity; it does not guarantee that the opportunity given will in
is, to make it concurrent with such election, does not render it any less an
fact be availed of; that is the look-out of the voter and the responsibility of
election at which the proposed amendments are submitted to the people
the citizen. As long as fair and reasonable opportunity to be informed is
for their ratification. To prohibition being found in the plain terms of the
given, and it is, the due process clause is not infringed.
Constitution, none should be inferred. Had the framers of requiring
Constitution thought of requiring a special election for the purpose only of
the proposed amendments, they could have said so, by qualifying the Non-printing of the provisions to be amended as they now stand, and the
phrase with some word such as "special" or "solely" or "exclusively". They printing of the full proposed amendments at the back of the ballot instead
did not. of the substance thereof at the face of the ballot, do not deprive the voter
of fair opportunity to be informed. The present wording of the Constitution
is not being veiled or suppressed from him; he is conclusively presumed to
It is not herein decided that such concurrence of election is wise, or that it
know them and they are available should he want to check on what he is
would not have been better to provide for a separate election exclusively
conclusively presumed to know. Should the voters choose to remain
for the ratification of the proposed amendments. The point however is that
ignorant of the present Constitution, the fault does not lie with Congress.
such separate and exclusive election, even if it may be better or wiser,
For opportunity to familiarize oneself with the Constitution as it stands has
which again, is not for this Court to decide, is not included in the procedure
been available thru all these years. Perhaps it would have been more
required by the Constitution to amend the same. The function of the
convenient for the voters if the present wording of the provisions were also
Judiciary is "not to pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency
to be printed on the ballot. The same however is a matter of policy. As long
of legislation".2 It is limited to determining whether the action taken by the
as the method adopted provides sufficiently reasonable chance to
Legislative Department has violated the Constitution or not. On this score,
intelligently vote on the amendments, and I think it does in this case, it is
I am of the opinion that it has not.
not constitutionally defective.

Petitioner Gonzales' second point is that Republic Act 4913 is deficient for
Petitioner Gonzales' other arguments touch on the merits or wisdom of the
not having been passed by Congress in joint session by 3/4 vote.
proposed amendments. These are for the people in their sovereign
capacity to decide, not for this Court.
Sec. 1, Art. XV of the Constitution provides:
Two arguments were further advanced: first, that Congress cannot both
Sec. 1. The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of call a convention and propose amendments; second, that the present
three-fourths of all the members of the Senate and of the House Congress is a de facto one, since no apportionment law was adopted within
of Representatives voting separately, may propose amendments three years from the last census of 1960, so that the Representatives
to this Constitution or call a convention for that purpose. Such elected in 1961 are de facto officers only. Not being de jure, they cannot
amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when propose amendments, it is argued.
approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election to which
the amendments are submitted to the people for their
As to the first point, Sec. 1 of Art. XV states that Congress "may propose
ratification.
amendments or call a convention for that purpose". The term "or",
however, is frequently used as having the same meaning as "and"
Does Republic Act 4913 propose amendments to the Constitution? If by the particularly in permissive, affirmative sentences so that the interpretation
term "propose amendment" is meant to determine WHAT said amendment of the word "or" as "and" in the Constitution in such use will not change its
shall be, then Republic Act 4913 does not; Resolutions of Both Houses 1 meaning (Vicksburg S. & P. R. Co. v. Goodenough, 32 So. 404, 411, 108 La,
and 3 already did that. If, on the other hand, it means, or also means, to 442). And it should be pointed out that the resolutions proposing
provide for how, when, and by what means the amendments shall amendments (R.B.H. Nos. 1 and 3) are different from that calling for a
be submitted to the people for approval, then it does. convention (R.B.H. No. 2). Surely, if Congress deems it better or wise to
amend the Constitution before a convention called for is elected, it should
not be fettered from doing so. For our purposes in this case, suffice it to
A careful reading of Sec. 1, Art. XV shows that the first sense. is the one
note that the Constitution does not prohibit it from doing so.
intended. Said Section has two sentences: in the first, it requires the 3/4
voting in joint session, for Congress to "propose amendments". And then in
the second sentence, it provides that "such amendments . . . shall be As to the second argument, it is also true that Sec. 5 of Art. VI of the
submitted to the people for their ratification". This clearly indicates that by Constitution provides in part that "The Congress shall by law make an
the term "propose amendments" in the first sentence is meant to frame the apportionment within three years after the return of every enumeration,
substance or the content or the WHAT-element of the amendments; for it and not otherwise". It however further states in the next sentence: "Until
is this and this alone that is submitted to the people for their ratification. such apportionment shall have been made, the House of Representatives
The details of when the election shall be held for approval or rejection of shall have the same number of Members as that fixed by law for the
the proposed amendments, or the manner of holding it, are not submitted National Assembly, who shall be elected by the qualified electors from the
for ratification to form part of the Constitution. Stated differently, the plain present assembly districts." The failure of Congress, therefore, to pass a
language of Section 1, Art. XV, shows that the act of proposing amendments valid redistricting law since the time the above provision was adopted,
is distinct from — albeit related to — that of submitting the amendments does not render the present districting illegal or unconstitutional. For the
to the people for their ratification; and that the 3/4 voting requirement Constitution itself provides for its continuance in such case, rendering legal
applies only to the first step, not to the second one. and de jure the status quo.

It follows that the submission of proposed amendments can be done thru For the above reasons, I vote to uphold the constitutionality of Republic Act
an ordinary statute passed by Congress. The Constitution does not 4913, and fully concur with the opinion of the Chief Justice.
expressly state by whom the submission shall be undertaken; the rule is
that a power not lodged elsewhere under the Constitution is deemed to
reside with the legislative body, under the doctrine of residuary powers.
Congress therefore validly enacted Republic Act 4913 to fix the details of
the date and manner of submitting the proposed amendments to the
FERNANDO, J., concurring: Since the problem here presented has its roots in the resolutions aforesaid
of both houses of Congress, it may just as well be that we recite in brief the
salient features thereof. Resolution No. 1 increases the membership of the
At the outset, we are faced with a question of jurisdiction. The opinion
House of Representatives from 120 to 180 members, and immediately
prepared by the Chief Justice discusses the matter with a fullness that
apportions 160 seats. A companion resolution is Resolution No. 3 which
erases doubts and misgivings and clarifies the applicable principles. A few
permits Senators and Congressmen — without forfeiting their seats in
words may however be added.
Congress — to be members of the Constitutional Convention1 to be
convened, as provided in another resolution — Resolution No. 2.
We start from the premise that only where it can be shown that the Parenthetically, two of these proposed amendments to the Constitution
question is to be solved by public opinion or where the matter has been left (Resolutions I and 3) are to be submitted to the people for their ratification
by the Constitution to the sole discretion of any of the political branches, next November 14, 1967. Resolution No. 2 just adverted to calls for a
as was so clearly stated by the then Justice Concepcion in Tañada v. constitutional convention also to propose amendments to the Constitution.
Cuenco,1 may this Court avoid passing on the issue before it. Whatever may The delegates thereto are to be elected on the second Tuesday of
be said about the present question, it is hard to speak with certitude November 1970; the convention to sit on June 1, 1971; and the
considering Article XV, that Congress may be entrusted with the full and amendments proposed by the convention to be submitted to the people
uncontrolled discretion on the procedure leading to proposals for an thereafter for their ratification.
amendment of the Constitution.
Of importance now are the proposed amendments increasing the number
It may be said however that in Mabanag v. Lopez Vito,2 this Court through of members of the House of representatives under Resolution No. 1, and
Justice Tuason followed Coleman v. Miller,3 in its holding that certain that in Resolution No. 3 which gives Senators and Congressmen the right
aspects of the amending process may be considered political. His opinion to sit as members of the constitutional convention to be convened on June
quoted with approval the view of Justice Black, to which three other 1, 1971. Because, these are the two amendments to be submitted to the
members of the United States Supreme Court agreed, that the process itself people in the general elections soon to be held on November 14, 1967,
is political in its entirety, "from submission until an amendment becomes upon the provisions of Section 1, Republic Act 4913, which reads:
part of the Constitution, and is not subject to judicial guidance, control or
interference at any point." In a sense that would solve the matter neatly.
The amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines
The judiciary would be spared the at times arduous and in every case soul-
proposed by the Congress of the Philippines in Resolutions of
searching process of determining whether the procedure for amendments
both Houses Numbered One and Three, both adopted on March
required by the Constitution has been followed.
sixteen, nineteen hundred and sixty- seven, shall be submitted
to the people for approval at the general election which shall be
At the same time, without impugning the motives of Congress, which held on November fourteen, nineteen hundred and sixty- seven,
cannot be judicially inquired into at any rate, it is not beyond the realm of in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
possibility that a failure to observe the requirements of Article XV would
occur. In the event that judicial intervention is sought, to rely automatically
Republic Act 4913 projects the basic angle of the problem thrust upon us
on the theory of political question to avoid passing on such a matter of
— the manner in which the amendments proposed by Congress just
delicacy might under certain circumstances be considered, and rightly so,
adverted to be brought to the people's attention.
as nothing less than judicial abdication or surrender.

First, to the controlling constitutional precept. In order that proposed

What appears regrettable is that a major opinion of an esteemed jurist, the
amendments to the Constitution may become effective, Section 1, Article
late Justice Tuason, would no longer be controlling. There is comfort in the
XV thereof commands that such amendments must be "approved by a
thought that the view that then prevailed was itself a product of the times.
majority of the votes cast at an election at which amendments
It could very well be that considering the circumstances existing in 1947
are submitted to the people for their ratification."2 The accent is on two
as well as the particular amendment sought to be incorporated in the
words complementing each other, namely, "submitted" and "ratification."
Constitution, the parity rights ordinance, the better part of wisdom in view
of the grave economic situation then confronting the country would be to
avoid the existence of any obstacle to its being submitted for ratification. 1. We are forced to take a long hard look at the core of the problem facing
Moreover, the Republic being less than a year old, American Supreme us. And this, because the amendments submitted are transcendental and
Court opinions on constitutional questions were-invariably accorded encompassing. The ceiling of the number of Congressmen is sought to be
uncritical acceptance. Thus the approach followed by Justice Tuason is not elevated from 120 to 180 members; and Senators and Congressmen may
difficult to understand. It may be said that there is less propensity now, run in constitutional conventions without forfeiting their seats. These
which is all to the good, for this Court to accord that much deference to certainly affect the people as a whole. The increase in the number of
constitutional views coming from the quarter. Congressmen has its proportional increase in the people's tax burdens.
They may not look at this with favor, what with the constitutional provision
(Section 5, Article VI) that Congress "shall by law make an apportionment",
Nor is this mode of viewing the opinion of Justice Tuason to do injustice to
without the necessity of disturbing the present constitutionally provided
his memory. For as he stated in another major opinion in Araneta v.
number of Congressmen. People in Quezon City, for instance, may balk at
Dinglasan,4 in ascertaining the meaning to be given the Emergency Powers
the specific apportionment of the 160 seats set forth in Resolution No. 1,
Act,5 one should not ignore what would ensue if a particular mode of
and ask for a Congressman of their own, on the theory of equal
construction were followed. As he so emphatically stated, "We test a rule
representation. And then, people may question the propriety of permitting
by its results."
the increased 180 Congressmen from taking part in the forthcoming
constitutional convention and future conventions for fear that they may
The consequences of a judicial veto on the then proposed amendment on dominate its proceedings. They may entertain the belief that, if at all,
the economic survival of the country, an erroneous appraisal it turned out increase in the number of Congressmen should be a proper topic for
later, constituted an effective argument for its submission. Why not then deliberation in a constitutional convention which, anyway, will soon take
consider the question political and let the people decide? That assumption place. They probably would ask: Why the hurry? These ponderables
could have been indulged in. It could very well be the inarticulate major require the people's close scrutiny.
premise. For many it did bear the stamp of judicial statesmanship.
2. With these as backdrop, we perforce go into the philosophy behind the
The opinion of Chief Justice Concepcion renders crystal-clear why as of this constitutional directive that constitutional amendments be submitted to
date and in the foreseeable future judicial inquiry to assure the utmost the people for their ratification.
compliance with the constitutional requirement would be a more
appropriate response.
A constitutional amendment is not a temporary expedient. Unlike a statute
which may suffer amendments three or more times in the same year, it is
intended to stand the test of time. It is an expression of the people's
sovereign will.

SANCHEZ, J., in separate opinion: And so, our approach to the problem of the mechanics of submission for
ratification of amendments is that reasoning on the basis of the spirit of the
Constitution is just as important as reasoning by a strict adherence to the
Right at the outset, the writer expresses his deep appreciation to Mr.
phraseology thereof. We underscore this, because it is within the realm of
Justice Calixto O. Zaldivar and Mr. Justice Fred Ruiz Castro for their
possibility that a Constitution maybe overhauled. Supposing three-fourths
invaluable contribution to the substance and form of the opinion which
of the Constitution is to be amended. Or, the proposal is to eliminate the all
follows.
important; Bill of Rights in its entirety. We believe it to be beyond debate
that in some such situations the amendments ought to call for a
Directly under attack in this, a petition for prohibition, is the constitutional convention rather than a legislative proposal. And yet,
constitutionality of Republic Act 4913, approved on June 17, 1967. This Act nothing there is in the books or in the Constitution itself. which would
seeks to implement Resolutions 1 and 3 adopted by the Senate and the require such amendments to be adopted by a constitutional convention.
House of Representatives on March 16, 1967 with the end in view of And then, too, the spirit of the supreme enactment, we are sure, forbids
amending vital portions of the Constitution.
that proposals therefor be initiated by Congress and thereafter presented the Official Gazette is not widely read. It does not reach the barrios. And
to the people for their ratification. even if it reaches the barrios, is it available to all? And if it is, would all
under stand English? Second, it should be conceded that many citizens,
especially those in the outlying barrios, do not go to municipal, city and/or
In the context just adverted to, we take the view that the words "submitted
provincial office buildings, except on special occasions like paying taxes or
to the people for their ratification", if construed in the light of the nature of
responding to court summonses. And if they do, will they notice the printed
the Constitution — a fundamental charter that is legislation direct from the
amendments posted on the bulletin board? And if they do notice, such copy
people, an — expression of their sovereign will — is that it can only be
again is in English (sample submitted to this Court by the Solicitor General)
amended by the people expressing themselves according to the procedure
for, anyway, the statute does not require that it be in any other language or
ordained by the Constitution. Therefore, amendments must be fairly laid
dialect. Third, it would not help any if at least five copies are kept in the
before the people for their blessing or spurning. The people are not to be
polling place for examination by qualified electors during election day. As
mere rubber stamps. They are not to vote blindly. They must be afforded
petitioner puts it, voting time is not study time. And then, who can enter
ample opportunity to mull over the original provisions compare them with
the polling place, except those who are about to vote? Fourth, copies in the
the proposed amendments, and try to reach a conclusion as the dictates of
principal native languages shall be kept in each polling place. But this is
their conscience suggest, free from the incubus of extraneous or possibly
not, as Section 2 itself implies, in the nature of a command because such
in insidious influences. We believe, the word "submitted" can only mean
copies shall be kept therein only "when practicable" and "as may be
that the government, within its maximum capabilities, should strain every
determined by the Commission on Elections." Even if it be said that these
effort to inform very citizen of the provisions to be amended, and the
are available before election, a citizen may not intrude into the school
proposed amendments and the meaning, nature and effects thereof. By
building where the polling places are usually located without disturbing
this, we are not to be understood as saying that, if one citizen or 100
the school classes being held there. Fifth, it is true that the Comelec is
citizens or 1,000 citizens cannot be reached, then there is no submission
directed to make available copies of such amendments in English, Spanish
within the meaning of the word as intended by the framers of the
or whenever practicable, in the principal native languages, for free
Constitution. What the Constitution in effect directs is that the government,
distribution. However, Comelec is not required to actively distribute them
in submitting an amendment for ratification, should put every
to the people. This is significant as to people in the provinces, especially
instrumentality or agency within its structural framework to enlighten the
those in the far-flung barrios who are completely unmindful of the
people, educate them with respect to their act of ratification or rejection.
discussions that go on now and then in the cities and centers of population
For, as we have earlier stated, one thing is submission and another
on the merits and demerits of the amendments. Rather, Comelec, in this
is ratification. There must be fair submission, intelligent, consent or
case, is but a passive agency which may hold copies available, but which
rejection. If with all these safeguards the people still approve the
copies may notbe distributed at all. Finally, it is of common knowledge that
amendment no matter how prejudicial it is to them, then so be it. For, the
Comelec has more than its hands full in these pre-election days. They
people decree their own fate.
cannot possibly make extensive distribution.

Aptly had it been said:

Voters will soon go to the polls to say "yes" or "no". But even the official
sample ballot submitted to this Court would show that only the
. . . The great men who builded the structure of our state in this amendments are printed at the back. And this, in pursuance to Republic Act
respect had the mental vision of a good Constitution voiced by 4913 itself.
Judge Cooley, who has said "A good Constitution should beyond
the reach of temporary excitement and popular caprice or
Surely enough, the voters do not have the benefit of proper notice of the
passion. It is needed for stability and steadiness; it must yield to
proposed amendments thru dissemination by publication in extenso.
the thought of the people; not to the whim of the people, or the
People do not have at hand the necessary data on which to base their stand
thought evolved the excitement or hot blood, but the sober
on the merits and demerits of said amendments.
second thought, which alone, if the government is to be safe, can
be allowed efficiency. . . . Changes in government are to be feared
unless the benefit is certain. As Montaign says: "All great We, therefore, hold that there is no proper submission of the proposed
mutations shake and disorder a state. Good does not necessarily constitutional amendments within the meaning and intendment of Section
succeed evil; another evil may succeed and a worse." Am. Law Rev. 1, Article XV of the Constitution.
1889, p. 3113
4. Contemporary history is witness to the fact that during the present
3. Tersely put, the issue before us funnels down to this proposition: If the election campaign the focus is on the election of candidates. The
people are not sufficiently informed of the amendments to be voted upon, constitutional amendments are crowded out. Candidates on the
to conscientiously deliberate thereon, to express their will in a genuine homestretch, and their leaders as well as the voters, gear their undivided
manner can it be said that in accordance with the constitutional mandate, efforts to the election of officials; the constitutional amendments cut no ice
"the amendments are submitted to the people for their ratification?" Our with them. The truth is that even in the ballot itself, the space accorded to
answer is "No". the casting of "yes" or "no" vote would give one the impression that the
constitutional amendments are but a bootstrap to the electoral ballot.
Worse still, the fortunes of many elective officials, on the national and local
We examine Republic Act 4913, approved on June 17, 1967 — the statute
levels, are inextricably intertwined with the results of the votes on the
that submits to the people the constitutional amendments proposed by
plebiscite. In a clash between votes for a candidate and conscience on the
Congress in Resolutions 1 and 3. Section 2 of the Act provides the manner
merits and demerits of the constitutional amendments, we are quite
of propagation of the nature of the amendments throughout the country.
certain that it is the latter that will be dented.
There are five parts in said Section 2, viz:

5. That proper submission of amendments to the people to enable them to

(1) The amendment shall be published in three consecutive
equally ratify them properly is the meat of the constitutional requirement,
issues of the Official Gazette at least twenty days prior to the
is reflected in the sequence of uniform past practices. The Constitution had
election.
been amended thrice — in 1939, 1940 and 1947. In each case, the
amendments were embodied in resolutions adopted by the Legislature,
(2) A printed copy thereof shall be posted in a conspicuous place which thereafter fixed the dates at which the proposed amendments were
in every municipality, city and provincial office building and in to be ratified or rejected. These plebiscites have been referred to either as
every polling place not later than October fourteen, nineteen an "election" or "general election". At no time, however, was the vote for
hundred and sixty-seven, and shall remain posted therein until the amendments of the Constitution held simultaneously with the election
after the election. officials, national or local. Even with regard to the 1947 parity amendment;
the record shows that the sole issue was the 1947 parity amendment; and
the special elections simultaneously held in only three provinces, Iloilo,
(3) At least five copies of the said amendments shall be kept in
Pangasinan and Bukidnon, were merely incidental thereto.
each polling place to be made available for examination by the
qualified electors during election day.
In the end we say that the people are the last ramparts that guard against
indiscriminate changes in the Constitution that is theirs. Is it too much to
(4) When practicable, copies in the principal native languages,
ask that reasonable guarantee be made that in the matter of the alterations
as may be determined by the Commission on Elections, shall be
of the law of the land, their true voice be heard? The answer perhaps is best
kept in each polling place.
expressed in the following thoughts: "It must be remembered that the
Constitution is the people's enactment. No proposed change can become
(5) The Commission on Elections shall make available copies of effective unless they will it so through the compelling force of need of it and
said amendments in English, Spanish and, whenever desire for it."4
practicable, in the principal native languages, for free
distribution.
For the reasons given, our vote is that Republic Act 4913 must be stricken
down as in violation of the Constitution.
A question that comes to mind is whether the procedure for dissemination
of information regarding the amendments effectively brings the matter to
Zaldivar and Castro, JJ., concur.
the people. A dissection of the mechanics yields disturbing thoughts. First,
Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon and Angeles, JJ., concur in the result.
REYES, J.B.L., J., concurring:

I concur in the result with the opinion penned by Mr. Justice Sanchez. To
approve a mere proposal to amend the Constitution requires (Art. XV) a
three-fourths (3/4) vote of all the members of each legislative chamber, the
highest majority ever demanded by the fundamental charter, one higher even
than that required in order to declare war (Sec. 24, Article VI), with all its
dire consequences. If such an overwhelming majority, that was evidently
exacted in order to impress upon all and sundry the seriousness of every
constitutional amendment, is asked for a proposal to amend the Constitution,
I find it impossible to believe that it was ever intended by its framers that
such amendment should be submitted and ratified by just "a majority of the
votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the
people for their ratification", if the concentration of the people's attention
thereon to be diverted by other extraneous issues, such as the choice of local
and national officials. The framers of the Constitution, aware of the
fundamental character thereof, and of the need of giving it as much stability
as is practicable, could have only meant that any amendments thereto should
be debated, considered and voted upon at an election wherein the people
could devote undivided attention to the subject. That this was the intention
and the spirit of the provision is corroborated in the case of all other
constitutional amendments in the past, that were submitted to and approved
in special elections exclusively devoted to the issue whether the legislature's
amendatory proposals should be ratified or not.

Dizon, Angeles, Zaldivar and Castro, JJ., concur.