Pablito Sanidad vs Commission on Elections

73 SCRA 333 Political Law

Amendment to the Constitution

Constitutional Law

On 2 Sept 1976, Marcos issued PD No. 991 calling for a

national referendum on 16 Oct 1976 for the Citizens
Assemblies (barangays) to resolve, among other things, the
issues of martial law, the interim assembly, its replacement,
the powers of such replacement, the period of its existence,
the length of the period for the exercise by the President of
his present powers. Twenty days after, the President issued
another related decree, PD No. 1031, amending the previous
PD No. 991, by declaring the provisions of PD No. 229
providing for the manner of voting and canvass of votes in
barangays applicable to the national referendum-plebiscite
of Oct 16, 1976. Quite relevantly, PD No. 1031 repealed inter
alia, Sec 4, of PD No. 991. On the same date of 22 Sept 1976,
Marcos issued PD No. 1033, stating the questions to he
submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite on
October 16, 1976. The Decree recites in its whereas
clauses that the peoples continued opposition to the
convening of the interim National Assembly evinces their
desire to have such body abolished and replaced thru a
constitutional amendment, providing for a new interim
legislative body, which will be submitted directly to the
people in the referendum-plebiscite of October 16.

On September 27, 1976, Sanidad filed a Prohibition with

Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin the Commission on
Elections from holding and conducting the Referendum
Plebiscite on October 16; to declare without force and effect
Presidential Decree Nos. 991 and 1033, insofar as they
propose amendments to the Constitution, as well as
Presidential Decree No. 1031, insofar as it directs the
Commission on Elections to supervise, control, hold, and
conduct the Referendum-Plebiscite scheduled on October 16,
1976.Petitioners contend that under the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions there is no grant to the incumbent President to
exercise the constituent power to propose amendments to
the new Constitution. As a consequence, the Referendum-

Plebiscite on October 16 has no constitutional or legal basis.

The Soc-Gen contended that the question is political in
nature hence the court cannot take cognizance of it.

ISSUE: Whether or not Marcos

amendments to the Constitution.

can

validly

propose

HELD: Yes. The amending process both as to proposal and

ratification raises a judicial question. This is especially true
in cases where the power of the Presidency to initiate the
amending process by proposals of amendments, a function
normally exercised by the legislature, is seriously doubted.
Under the terms of the 1973 Constitution, the power to
propose amendments to the Constitution resides in the
interim National Assembly during the period of transition
(Sec. 15, Transitory Provisions). After that period, and the
regular National Assembly in its active session, the power to
propose amendments becomes ipso facto the prerogative of
the regular National Assembly (Sec. 1, pars. 1 and 2 of Art.
XVI, 1973 Constitution). The normal course has not been
followed. Rather than calling the interim National Assembly
to constitute itself into a constituent assembly, the
incumbent President undertook the proposal of amendments
and submitted the proposed amendments thru Presidential
Decree 1033 to the people in a Referendum-Plebiscite on
October 16. Unavoidably, the regularity of the procedure for
amendments, written in lambent words in the very
Constitution sought to be amended, raises a contestable
issue. The implementing Presidential Decree Nos. 991, 1031,
and 1033, which commonly purport to have the force and
effect of legislation are assailed as invalid, thus the issue of
the validity of said Decrees is plainly a justiciable one, within
the competence of this Court to pass upon. Section 2 (2)
Article X of the new Constitution provides: All cases
involving the constitutionality of a treaty, executive
agreement, or law shall be heard and decided by the
Supreme Court en banc and no treaty, executive agreement,
or law may be declared unconstitutional without the
concurrence of at least ten Members. . . .. The Supreme
Court has the last word in the construction not only of
treaties and statutes, but also of the Constitution itself. The

amending, like all other powers organized in the Constitution,

is in form a delegated and hence a limited power, so that the
Supreme Court is vested with that authority to determine
whether that power has been discharged within its limits.

This petition is however dismissed. The President can

propose amendments to the Constitution and he was able to
present those proposals to the people in sufficient time. The
President at that time also sits as the legislature.