case digest
Post on 12-Jan-2016
4 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
MABANAG V. LOPEZ VITO, 78 PHIL. 1
FACTS:
This is a petition for prohibition to prevent the enforcement of a
congressional resolution designated "Resolution of both houses proposing an
amendment to the Constitution of the Philippines to be appended as an ordinance
thereto." The petitioners contend that their vote were not taken into consideration
in requiring that in amending the constitution, the law requires 3/4 of the votes of
the member of the Congress thus arriving in the question of constitutionality of the
said resolution.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction and whether or not the journals can
be investigated against the conclusiveness of the enrolled bills.
HELD:
Petition is dismissed without cost. The Court held that to go behind the
enrolled bills which were already authenticated and to investigate the journals
amounts to disregard of the respect due to the coequal and independent
department of the state, and it would be an inquisition into the conduct of the
members of the legislature, a very delicate power, the frequent exercise of which
must lead to confusion in the administration of the law. Duly certified copies shall
be conclusive proof of the provisions of Acts and the due enactment thereof.
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.
top related