SANIDAD VS.

COMELEC
SCRA 333

FACTS
On September 2, 1976, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 991 calling
for a national referendum on October 16, 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies ("barangays") to resolve,
among other things, the issues of martial law, the assembly, its replacement, the powers of such
replacement, the period of its existence, the length of the period for tile exercise by the President of his
present powers.
President issued another related decree, Presidential Decree No. 1031, amending the previous
Presidential Decree No. 991, by declaring the provisions of presidential Decree No. 229 providing for the
manner of voting and canvass of votes in "barangays" (Citizens Assemblies) applicable to the national
referendum-plebiscite of October 16, 1976. Quite relevantly, Presidential Decree No. 1031 repealed
Section 4, of Presidential Decree No. 991.
On the same date of September 22, 1976, the President issued Presidential Decree No. 1033,
stating the questions to be submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite on October 16, 1976.
The Decree recites in its "whereas" clauses that the people's continued opposition to the convening of
the National Assembly evinces their desire to have such body abolished and replaced thru a
constitutional amendment, providing for a legislative body, which will be submitted directly to the
people in the referendum-plebiscite of October 16.
On September 27, 1976, PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO V. SANIDAD, father and son,
commenced L-44640 for 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.
On October 5, 1976, the Solicitor General filed the comment for respondent Commission on
Elections, The Solicitor General principally maintains that petitioners have no standing to sue; the issue
raised is political in nature, beyond judicial cognizance of this Court; at this state of the transition period,
only the incumbent President has the authority to exercise constituent power; the referendum-
plebiscite is a step towards normalization.
Another action for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction, docketed as L-44684, was instituted
by VICENTE M. GUZMAN, a delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention, asserting that the power to
propose amendments to, or revision of the Constitution during the transition period is expressly
conferred on the interim National Assembly under Section 16, Article XVII of the Constitution.
Still another petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction was filed on October 5, 1976
by RAUL M. GONZALES, his son RAUL, JR., and ALFREDO SALAPANTAN, docketed as L- 44714, to
restrain the implementation of Presidential Decrees relative to the forthcoming Referendum-Plebiscite
of October 16. The petitioners argue that even granting him legislative powers under Martial Law, the
incumbent President cannot act as a constituent assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution; a
referendum-plebiscite is untenable under the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973; the submission of the
proposed amendments in such a short period of time for deliberation renders the plebiscite a nullity; to
lift Martial Law, the President need not consult the people via referendum; and allowing 15-.year olds to
vote would amount to an amendment of the Constitution, which confines the right of suffrage to those
citizens of the Philippines 18 years of age and above.
ISSUES
1. Is the question of the constitutionality of Presidential Decrees Nos. 991, 1031 and 1033 political
or justiciable?
2. During the present stage of the transition period, and under, the environmental circumstances
now obtaining, does the President possess power to propose amendments to the Constitution as
well as set up the required machinery and prescribe the procedure for the ratification of his
proposals by the people?
3. Is the submission to the people of the proposed amendments within the time frame allowed
therefor a sufficient and proper submission?
HELD
1. The question at bar raises a judicial question.The petitioners possess locus standi to challenge
the constitutional premise of Presidential Decree Nos. 991, 1031, and 1033. It is now an ancient
rule that the valid source of a stature Presidential Decrees are of such nature-may be contested
by one who will sustain a direct injuries as a in result of its enforcement.
The amending process both as to proposal and ratification, raises a judicial question.
Political questions are neatly associated with the wisdom, of the legality of a particular act.
Where the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act, that
matter is definitely justiciable or non-political. What is in the heels of the Court is not the
wisdom of the act of the incumbent President in proposing amendments to the Constitution, but
his constitutional authority to perform such act or to assume the power of a constituent
assembly. Whether the amending process confers on the President that power to propose
amendments is therefore a downright justiciable question. Should the contrary be found, the
actuation of the President would merely be a brutum fulmen. If the Constitution provides how it
may be amended, the judiciary as the interpreter of that Constitution, can declare whether the
procedure followed or the authority assumed was valid or not.

2. In the present period of transition, the interim National Assembly instituted in the Transitory
Provisions is conferred with that amending power. Section 15 of the Transitory Provisions
reads:
SECTION 15. The interim National Assembly, upon special call by the interim Prime
Minister, may, by a majority vote of all its Members, propose amendments to this Constitution.
Such amendments shall take effect when ratified in accordance with Article Sixteen hereof.

If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the interim
Assembly, there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the function of that Assembly to
propose amendments to the Constitution, which is but adjunct, although peculiar, to its gross
legislative power.

3. Time for deliberation is not short. The period from September 21 to October 16 or a period of 3
weeks is not too short for free debates or discussions on the referendum-plebiscite issues. It is
worthy to note that Article XVI of the Constitution makes no provision as to the specific date
when the plebiscite shall be held, but simply states that it "shall be held not later than three
months after the approval of such amendment or revision.