TOLENTINO v COMELEC (1971)

FACTS:
The Constitutional Convention of 1971
approved Organic Resolution No. 1 which
amended the age qualification for the exercise
of suffrage from 21 to 18.
President Diosdado Macapagal then sent a
letter to COMELEC calling upon the
commission to help the Convention implement
the said resolution.
On 20 September 1971, COMELEC then
"RESOLVED to inform the Constitutional
Convention that it will hold the plebiscite on
condition that:
a) The Constitutional Convention will
undertake the printing of separate
official ballots, election returns and tally
sheets for the use of said plebiscite at
its expense;
b) The Constitutional Convention will adopt
its own security measures for the
printing and shipment of said ballots and
election forms; and
c) Said official ballots and election forms
will be delivered to the Commission in
time so that they could be distributed at
the same time that the Commission will
distribute its official and sample ballots
to be used in the elections on November
8, 1971.
To implement the Resolution, the President
issued an order forming an Ad Hoc Committee.
Implementing guidelines were issued and
approved by the President who then
transmitted the same to COMELEC. On 7
October 1971, The Convention approved a
resolution calling for a recess of the
Convention from 1 November 1971 to 9
November 1971 to permit the delegates to
campaign for the ratification of Organic
Resolution No. 1. On 12 October 1971, the
Convention passed Resolution No. 24
confirming the authority of the President of the
Constitution to implement Organic Resolution
No. 1, including the creation of the Ad Hoc
Committee ratifying all acts performed in
connection with said implementation.

The scheduled advance plebiscite concerns

only the amendments included in Organic
Resolution No. 1 and this was even before the
rest of the draft of the Constitution had been
approved.
ISSUE:
WON there is any limitation or condition in
Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution
which is violated by the act of the Convention
of calling for a plebiscite on the sole
amendment contained in Organic Resolution
No. 1?
HELD/RATIO:
Yes, it violates the condition and limitation that
al the amendments to be proposed by the
same Convention must be submitted to the
people in a single election or plebiscite.
Section 1, Article XV definitely provides that
such amendments shall be valid as part of this
Constitution when approved by a majority of
the votes at an election at which the
amendments are submitted to the people for
their ratification --- this provision unequivocally
says an election which means only one.
The Court has no desire at all to hamper and
hamstring the noble work of the Constitutional
Convention . We are not denying any right of
the people to vote on the proposed
amendment; We are only holding that under
Section 1, Article XV of the Constitution, the
same should be submitted to them not
separately from but together with all the
other amendments to be proposed by this
present Convention.
In order that a plebiscite for the ratification of
an amendment to the Constitution may be
validly held, it must provide the voter not only
sufficient time but ample basis for an intelligent
appraisal of the nature of the amendment per
se as well as its relation to the other parts of
the Constitution with which it has to form a
harmonious whole.

MR for TOLENTINO v COMELEC

Reconsideration of the decision is sought on
the following grounds:

(1) That inasmuch as Congress, acting as

a constituent assembly, can submit to
a plebiscite, whether, singly or together,
the constitutional amendments it may
propose, the Convention being at par
with such constituent assembly
= Although Congress as the legislature
is a continuing body, factually and in
contemplation of law, it is not so
whenever it sits in its capacity as a
constituent assembly. In the latter
instance, its juridical existence as such
is coextensive only with the legal
duration of the joint session assembled
to perform any particular work of
proposing
amendments
to
the
Constitution. In the juridical sense, each
such joint session is a constitutional
convention in itself, distinct and
separate from the others of similar
nature, and may be distinguished from
the convention per se.
Consequently, while Congress may
easily reconvene as another constituent
body after it has finally adjourned as
such, from the very nature of its
existence, a new call for election of
delegates who would compose a new
Constitutional Convention would be
needed.

(2) That the phrase at an election in

Section 1 of Article XV of the
Constitution does not necessarily mean
only one plebiscite but may be
construed as signifying several
plebiscites,
because
there
is
jurisprudence holding that a word in
singular in a statute or constitution may
be understood in the plural;
= We went further and construed
assailed provision, by going behind
actual words and ascertaining
purpose and intent of the framers of
Constitution.

the
the
the
the

Nothing in the Decision denies the

possibility that the phrase an election
may comprehend more than one
plebiscite; what the Court held in effect
with the spirit of the provisions, is that
which proscribes piece-meal submission
before the whole draft of the new
Constitution or all the amendment to be
proposed have been finally approved by
that body, considering that before that
there could be no safe frame of
reference
for
intelligent
voting,
especially because the particular
amendment proposed is subject to
many undefined reservations which it is
in the power of the Convention to
approve at any time before or after the
ratification of their final handiwork.

(3) That the question of whether or not the

Convention
should
submit
the
amendments it may propose in a single
plebiscite or otherwise is a matter that
goes into the wisdom of the action of
the Convention rather than to its
authority or power, hence outside the
pale of judicial review.
= the movants have confused wisdom
of the questioned action taken by the
Convention with the wisdom of the
provisions of Section 1 of Article XV of
the Constitution which is applicable
thereto. What We discussed in Our
decision is not whether or not the
Convention acted wisely; We simply
held that for the reasons given in the
decision, We see wisdom in the
construction
that
piece-meal
submission, before all the proposed
Constitutional amendments as a whole
have been approved, is not allowed by
the Constitution.

(4) And that, in relation to the point in the

decision to the effect that the proposed
amendment in question regarding the
reduction of the voting age in the
Philippines has no frame of reference
because the proposed amendment is a
simple fixing of the minimum voting age
from 21 to 18, and it is difficult to
conceive of any possible future
amendments where (sic) this fixed
voting age could be out of tune and
hard to imagine how this amendment
on this minimum voting age could
conceivably be better understood if
presented together with the various
substantial
and
fundamental
amendments in the whole draft when
concluded,
= The right to vote is not as simple as it
might appear to be when considered in
relation to the form of government, the
fundamental
principles
and
the
educational policies, inter alia, that the
other amendments to the Constitution
may adopt and pursue.
In the way that the proposal is worded,
read together with the reservations
tacked to it by the Convention thru
Section 3 of the questioned resolution, it
is too much of a speculation to assume
what exactly the amendment would
really amount to in the end.

BAYAN v ZAMORA (2000)

FACTS:
The United States panel met with the
Philippine panel to discussed, among others,
the possible elements of the Visiting Forces
Agreement (VFA). This resulted to a series of
conferences
and
negotiations
which
culminated on January 12 and 13, 1998.
Thereafter, President Fidel Ramos approved
the VFA, which was respectively signed by
Foreign Affairs Secretary Siazon and United
States Ambassador Thomas Hubbard.
On 5 October 1998 Pres. Estrada through Sec.
of Foreign Affairs ratified the VFA. Senate
approved it by 2/3 votes on 27 May 1989. On 1
June 1999, the VFA officially entered into
force. On the whole, the VFA is an agreement
which defines the treatment of United States
troops and personnel visiting the Philippines. It
provides for the guidelines to govern such
visits of military personnel, and further defines
the rights of the United States and the
Philippine government in the matter of criminal
jurisdiction, movement of vessel and aircraft,
importation and exportation of equipment,
materials and supplies.
Petitioners: Section 25, Article XVIII is
applicable considering that the VFA has for its
subject the presence of foreign military troops
in the Philippines.
Respondents: Section 21, Article VII should
apply inasmuch as the VFA is not a basing
arrangement but an agreement which involves
merely the temporary visits of United States
personnel engaged in joint military exercises.
ISSUE:
1. Is the VFA governed by the provision of
Section 21, Article VII or of Section 25,
Article XVII of the Constitution?
- Section 25, Article XVIII, which
specifically deals with treaties
involving foreign military bases,
troops, or facilities, should apply in
the instant case.
- To a certain extent and in a limited
sense, however, the provisions of
section 21, Article VII will find

applicability with regard to the issue

and for the sole purpose of
determining the number of votes
required to obtain the valid
concurrence of the Senate, as will be
further discussed hereunder.
2. WON the requirements of Section 25
were complied with when the Senate
gave its concurrence to the VFA
Section
foreign
facilities
following
viz:

25, Article XVIII disallows

military bases, troops, or
in the country, unless the
conditions are sufficiently met,

it must be under a treaty;

A treaty, as defined by the
Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties, is an
international
instrument
concluded between States in
written form and governed by
international law, whether
embodied
in
a
single
instrument or in two or more
related
instruments,
and
whatever
its
particular
designation.
the treaty must be duly concurred
in by the Senate and, when so
required by congress, ratified by a
majority of the votes cast by the
people in a national referendum;
Section 25, Article XVIII must
be related and viewed in light
of
the
clear
mandate
embodied in Section 21,
Article VII, which in more
specific terms, requires that
the concurrence of a treaty, or
international agreement, be
made by a two -thirds vote of
all the members of the
Senate.
recognized as a treaty by the other
contracting state.
the phrase recognized as a
treaty means that the other
contracting party accepts or

acknowledges the agreement

as a treaty
The records reveal that the
United States Government,
through Ambassador Thomas
C. Hubbard, has stated that
the United States government
has fully committed to living
up to the terms of the VFA
With the ratification of the
VFA, which is equivalent to
final acceptance, and with the
exchange of notes between
the Philippines and the United
States of America, it now
becomes
obligatory
and
incumbent on our part, under
the principles of international
law, to be bound by the terms
of the agreement.