GONZALES VS. COMELEC [21 SCRA 774; G.R. No.

L-28196; 9 Nov 1967]

case digest (CONSTI-1

GONZALES VS. COMELEC [21 SCRA 774; G.R. No. L-28196; 9 Nov 1967]
Facts: The case is an original action for prohibition, with preliminary injunction.
The main facts are not disputed. On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed
the following resolutions:
1. R. B. H. (Resolution of Both Houses) No. 1, - proposing that Section 5, Article VI, of the Constitution
of the Philippines, be amended 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, to be apportioned among
the several provinces as nearly as may be according to the number of their respective inhabitants,
although each province shall have, at least, one (1) member;
2. R. B. H. No. 2, - 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 to be held on the second Tuesday of November, 1971;" and
3. R. B. H. No. 3, -proposing that Section 16, Article VI, of 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, on June 17, 1967, became
Republic Act No. 4913, providing that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the
aforementioned Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by the people, at the general elections
which shall be held on November 14, 1967.
Issue: Whether or Not a Resolution of Congress, acting as a constituent assembly, violates the
Constitution.
Held: In as much as there are less than eight (8) votes in favor of declaring Republic Act 4913 and R. B.
H. Nos. 1 and 3 unconstitutional and invalid, the petitions in these two (2) cases must be, as they are
hereby, dismiss and the writs therein prayed for denied, without special pronouncement as to costs. It is so
ordered.
As a consequence, the title of a de facto officer cannot be assailed collaterally. It may not be contested
except directly, by quo warranto proceedings. Neither may the validity of his acts be questioned upon the
ground that he is merely a de facto officer. And the reasons are obvious:
(1) it would be an indirect inquiry into the title to the office; and
(2) the acts of a de facto officer, if within the competence of his office, are valid, insofar as the public is
concerned.
"The judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the

proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among the integral or constituent units
thereof."
Article XV of the Constitution provides:
. . . The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate
and of the House of Representatives voting separately, may propose amendments to this Constitution or
call a contention for that purpose. Such amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when
approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the
people for their ratification.
From our viewpoint, the provisions of Article XV of the Constitution are satisfied so long as the electorate
knows that R. B. H. No. 3 permits Congressmen to retain their seats as legislators, even if they should run
for and assume the functions of delegates to the Convention.