Tolentino vs COMELEC (1971)

Summary Cases:

Tolentino vs Comelec 41 SCRA 702

Subject: The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of the acts of a
constitutional convention; There should only be one election or plebiscite wherein all the proposed
amendments are submitted to the people for ratification at the same time, not separately from each and
all of the other amendments.

Facts:
Arturo M. Tolentino filed a petition for prohibition before the Supreme Court to restrain the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC) from implementing Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional
Convention of 1971, as well as the implementing acts and resolutions of the said Convention and the
COMELEC. The pertinent portion reads:
Section 1. Section One of Article V of the Constitution of the Philippines is amended to as follows:
Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by (male) citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law, who are (twenty-one) EIGHTEEN years or over and are able to read and
write, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for one year and in the municipality
wherein they propose to vote for at least six months preceding the election.
Section 2. This amendment shall be valid as part of the Constitution of the Philippines when
approved by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite to coincide with the local elections in
November 1971.
Xxx
As identified by the Supreme Court, the issue before it for resolution was whether or not there was any
limitation or condition in Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution which was violated by the act of the
Convention of calling for a plebiscite on the sole amendment contained in Organic Resolution No. 1.
Held:
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of the acts of a
constitutional convention.
1. The Supreme Court, citing Gonzales v. Comelec (21 SCRA 774), held that the issue whether or
not a Resolution of Congress acting as a constituent assembly, and, for that matter, of a
constitutional convention called for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution
violates the Constitution is essentially justiciable not political, and, hence, subject to judicial
review.
2. A constitutional convention owes its existence and derives all its authority and power from the
existing Constitution. Thus, the Supreme Court which has the sacred duty to give meaning and
vigor to the Constitution by interpreting and construing its provisions and by striking down any
act violative thereof, has jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of the acts of a
constitutional convention.
There should only be one election or plebiscite wherein all the proposed amendments are
Copyright Thinc Office Corp. All rights reserved

submitted to the people for ratification at the same time, not separately from each and all of the
other amendments.
3. The Supreme Court held that there was a limitation or condition in Section 1 of Article XV of
the Constitution which was violated by the act of the Convention of calling for a plebiscite on the
sole amendment contained in Organic Resolution No. 1, and it was the condition and limitation
that all the amendments to be proposed by the same Convention must be submitted to the
people in a single election or plebiscite.
4. In arriving at the foregoing conclusion, the Supreme Court held that as Section 1 of Article XV
of the Constitution distinctly states that Congress sitting as a constituent assembly or a
convention called for the purpose may propose amendments to this Constitution, there is no
limit as to the number of amendments that Congress or the Convention may propose. However,
the same Section 1 limits the number of election or plebiscite that may be held to ratify any
amendment or amendments proposed by the same constituent assembly of Congress or
convention, to only one, as the said constitutional provision definitely provides that 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.
5. Moreover, all the proposed amendments must be submitted to the people for ratification at the
same time, not separately from each and all of the other amendments, because the Constitution
has to be an integrated and harmonious instrument, if it is to be viable as the framework of the
government it establishes, on the one hand, and adequately formidable and reliable as the
succinct but comprehensive articulation of the rights, liberties, ideology, social ideals, and
national and nationalistic policies and aspirations of the people, on the other. This harmony can
be achieved only if the people can study with deliberation the proposed amendment in relation to
the whole existing constitution and or any of its parts and thereby arrive at an intelligent
judgment as to its acceptability an intelligent judgment as to its acceptability.
6. As the amendment proposed to be submitted to a plebiscite was only the first amendment the
Convention proposed, the plebiscite being called for the purpose of submitting the same for
ratification of the people was not authorized by Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution, hence
all acts of the Convention and the respondent COMELEC in that direction were null and void.

Copyright Thinc Office Corp. All rights reserved