18) Sanidad vs. COMELEC

PABLITO SANIDAD vs.
COMELEC
Political Law Amendment to the Constitution

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No. 1031 repealed inter alia, Sec 4, of PD No. 991.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 referendumplebiscite 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 ReferendumPlebiscite 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 can validly propose amendments to the Constitution.
HELD: 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.

18) Sanidad vs. COMELEC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

18) Sanidad vs. COMELEC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

18) Sanidad vs. COMELEC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PABLITO SANIDAD vs.

Political Law Amendment to the Constitution

You might also like