SAMUEL OCCENA V THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE

COMMISSION ON AUDIT, THE NATIONAL TREASURER, THE DIRECTOR

OF PRINTING
RAMON A. GONZALES, MANUEL B. IMBONG, JO AUREA MARCOSIMBONG, RAY ALLAN T. DRILON, NELSON B. MALANA and GIL M.
TABIOS V. THE NATIONAL TREASURER and the COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS
104 SCRA 1, April 2, 1981
Fernado, C.J.

FACTS: Petitioners, Samuel Occena and Ramon Gonzales, suing as

taxpayers, petitioned for the prohibition against the validity of the
three Batasang Pambansa Resolutions proposing constitutional
amendments, which goes further than merely assailing their alleged
constitutional infirmity.
ISSUE: 1) Is the 1973 Constitution is the fundamental law?
2) Is the Interim Batasang Pambansa has the power to
propose amendments?
RULINGS:
1) YES, The 1973 Constitution is the fundamental Law. The
present constitution is in force and effect as of January 17,
1973. In Javellana v. the Executive Secretary, it has been
concluded that the new Constitution is in force and effective,
resolving all doubts. At least cases were previously cited in the
effectivity of the present Constitution in the first years of its
effectivity alone. Hence, the court sits to uphold and apply the
Constitution. To contend otherwise is futile.
2) YES, the Interim of Batasang Pambansa has the power to
propose amendments, vested by the provisions of the 1976
amendments, having same function with National Assembly,
which one is to propose amendments, and of the 1973
Constitution, in its transitory provisions, upon special call by
the Prime Minister.
No argument against the validity of the amendment of the law
because amendment includes revision or total overhaul of the
Constitution. Whether the case, it would become immaterial
the moment the same is ratified by the sovereign people.
Moreover, necessary votes to approve the proposition were
met by the majority of its members.

Therefore, the petitions were dismissed for lack of merit.