By Congress As Constituent Assembly

By Congress as Constituent Assembly
MABANAG v. LOPEZ VITO

G.R. No. L-1123 March 5, 1947
Tuason, J.:
Facts:
Eight senators and 17 representatives filed a petition for prohibition to prevent a Congressional
Resolution for a proposal to amend the Constitution. Three of these plaintiff senators were
suspended and eight of the plaintiff representatives were not allowed to take sit in the lower
house. Thus, they were not allowed to take part in the passage of the questioned resolution, nor
was their membership reckoned within the computation of the necessary three-fourths vote
required in proposing an amendment to the constitution.
Issue:
Whether the procedure in passing the questioned Congressional Resolution is invalid.
Ruling:
No. The Supreme Court held that it is unnecessary for them to decide whether the senators and
representatives who were ignored in the computation of the necessary three-fourths vote were
members of Congress within the meaning of section 1 of Article XV of the Philippine
Constitution.
This is because proposals to amend the Constitution is a highly political function performed by
the Congress in its sovereign legislative capacity and committed to its charge by the Constitution
itself.
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 Senate and the House of Representatives passed 3 resolutions, proposing amendments to the
Constitution the resolutions are the following:
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.
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.
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 were proposed in the
aforementioned resolutions.
Issue:
Whether the congress acting as a constituent assembly can amend the constitution in the
aforementioned resolutions no.1,2 and 3.
Held:
No, congress acting as a constituent assembly cannot amend the constitution in the
aforementioned resolutions no.1,2 and 3.
The power to the amendment of the Constitution or to propose amendments thereto is not
included in the general grant of legislative powers to Congress. Instead it is a part of the inherent
powers of the people as the repository of sovereignty in a republican state, such as ours to make,
and amend our 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.
By Constitutional Convention
Tan v. Macapagal
G.R. Nos. L-34161 February 29, 1972
Facts:
On October 6, 1971, a petition was filed by Eugene A. Tan, Silvestre J. Acejas and Rogelio V.
Fernandez regarding the declaratory relief as a tax payers, but allegedly suing in behalf of
themselves and the Filipino people, questioning the validity of the range of the authority of the
1971 Constitutional Convention. Tan and others seek although the convention was merely
empowered to propose improvements. However, on October 8,1971 a resolution was issued by
the Court dismissing the petition. Thus, a motion for reconsideration was filed before the
Supreme Court. On the other hand, the Court said that it cannot exercise the competence
petitioners would erroneously assume it possesses, even assuming that they have the requisite
standing, which is the first question to be faced.
Issue:
Whether petitioners had the right standing to seek a declaration of the alleged nullity of a
resolution of the Constitutional Convention
Ruling:
1.No, because the unchallenged rule is that the person who questions the validity of a statute
must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained or will
sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement.
By People’s Initiative
Santiago vs. COMELEC, supra
Facts of the Case:

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin filed this special
civil action on December 18, 1996. The constitution provisions on people’s initiative to amend
constitution only by the law passed by Congress, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago filed a
senate bill entitled “An Act Prescribing and Regulating Constitution Amendments by People’s
Initiative.” The people’s initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision
thereof.
Issue:
Whether the people’s initiative should be consider being part of the Constitution?
Ruling:
Yes, because the government is the people and without the people there is no government. The
form of the Philippine government is democracy where the people’s voice can be heard. People’s
initiative includes the proposal, proposed constitutional amendments, and the signature form.

By Congress As Constituent Assembly

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

By Congress As Constituent Assembly

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

By Congress As Constituent Assembly

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

By Congress as Constituent Assembly

MABANAG v. LOPEZ VITO

RAMON A. GONZALES, petitioner,

Santiago vs. COMELEC, supra

Facts of the Case:

You might also like