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.