8/10/2019 G.R. No.

L-52265
Today is Saturday, August 10, 2019

Custom Search

Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-52265 January 28, 1980

SAMUEL C. OCCEÑA, petitioner,

Occeña Law Office for petitioner.

Office of the Solicitor General for respondents.

ANTONIO, J.:

Petition for prohibition seeking to restrain respondents from implementing Batas Pambansa Big. 51 (providing for
the elective and/or appointive positions in various local governments), 52 (governing the election of local
government officials scheduled on January 30, 1980), 53 (defining the rights and privileges of accredited parties),
and 54 (providing for a plebiscite, simultaneously with the election of local officials on January 30, 1980, regarding
the proposed amendment of Article X, Section 7, of the 1973 Constitution). The constitutional issues raised are: (1)
whether or not the Interim Batasang Pambansa has the power to authorize the holding of local elections; (2)
assuming it has such power, whether it can authorize said elections without enacting a local government code; (3)
as g it may validly perform the foregoing, whether it can schedule such elections less than ninety, (90) days from the
passage of the enabling law; and; (4), assuming further that the proposed amendment to Article X, Section 7 of the
Constitution is valid, whether the plebiscite con be legally held together with the local elections. The thrust of
Petitioner's arguments is that these issues should be resolved in the negative.

After deliberating on the memoranda and arguments adduced by both parties at the hearing as January 15, 1980,
the Court finds no merit in the petition.

1. The leguslative power granted by Section 1, Artcle VIII of the Constitution to the National Assembly has been
explicitly vested during the period of transition on the Interim Batasang Pambansa by Amendment No. 2 to the
constitution. The only station is that it shall not exercise its treaty ratification powers provided in Article VIII, Section
14(1) of the Constitution. The legislative power has described generally as being a power to make, alter and laws. 1
It is the peculiar province of the legislature to probe general rules for the government of society. The e of the
legislative function is the determination of the legislative policy and its formulation and promulgation as a defined
and binding rule of conduct. 2 It is a recognized principle in constitutional law that the legislative body possesses
Plenary power for all purposes of civil government The 1egislative power of the Interim Batasang Pambansa is,
therefore, Complete, subject only to the limitation that the interim Batasang Pambansa shall not exercise the power
of the National Assembly in the ratification of treaties. 3 The power to regulate the manner of conducting elections, to
Prescribe the form of the official ballot, and to provide for the Manner in which candidates shall be chosen is
inherently and historically legislative. Petitioner has. not cited any provision of the Constitution, as amended by the
Amendments of 1976, which expressly or by implication deny to the Interim Batasang Pambansa the authority to call
for local elections. It is a well established rule that where no exception is made in terms, none will be made by mere
implication or construction. The wordings of a constitutional provision do not have a narrow or contracted meaning,
but are used in a broad sense, with a view of covering all contingencies. Petitioner's invocation of the Report of the
Committee on Transitory Provisions of October 13, 1972 does not. support his contention that the Interim Batasang
Pambansa has no power to call local elections. The purported report refers to the interim National Assembly in
Article XVII, the convening of which was rejected by the Filipino people. As We stated in Peralta v. Commission on
Elections: 4

It should be recalled that under the terms of the Transitory Provisions of the Constitution, the
membership of the interim National Assembly would consist of the Incumbent President and Vice-
President, the Senators and the Representatives of the old Congress and the Delegates to the
Constitutional Convention who have opted to serve therein. The Filipino people rejected the convening
of the interim National Assembly, and for a perfectly justifiable reason.

By September of 1976, the consensus had emerged for a referendum partaking of the character of a
plebiscite which would be held to establish the solid foundation for the next step towards normalizing
the political process. By the will of the people, as expressed overwhelmingly in the plebiscite of October
15 and 16, 1976, Amendments Nos. 1 to 9 were approved, abolishing the interim National Assembly
and creating in its stead an interim Batasang Pambansa. This was intended as a preparatory and
experimental step toward the establishment of full parliamentary government as provided for in the
Constitution. (at p. 61).

In the search for the meaning of the language of the Constitution, reference may be made to the historical basis of
the provisions. The historical events and circumstances which led to the ratification of Amendments Nos. I to 9 of
the constitution show the manifest intent and desire of the people to establish, during the period of transition, a
government that can effectively provide for the nation's peaceful and orderly transition from a crisis to a full
parliament system of government.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1980/jan1980/gr_52265_1980.html 1/3
8/10/2019 2. Neither can We find in Section 1, Article XI of the Constitution any requirement that the enactment of a local
G.R. No. L-52265
government code is a condition sine qua non for the calling of the local elections by the Interim Batasang
Pambansa. Indeed, the holding of local elections does not, in any manner, preclude the enactment of a local
government code by the Batasang Pambansa at some later period. There cannot be any doubt that our local
governments are basic and fundamental units in our democratic institutions, To strengthen these institutions, the
election of local officials should be periodically held. 5 Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to adopt such a technical
or strained construction as will unduly impair the efficiency of the Interim Batasang Pambansa in meeting the
challenges and discharging its responsibilities in response to the problems arising in a modernizing and dynamic
society. The legislative decision to call for local elections in order to enable the Filipino people to exercise their
sovereign right to choose their local officials cannot, therefore, be faulted as a violation of the Constitution.

3. Section 6 of Article XII of the Constitution does not fix an unalterable period of ninety (90) days for an election
campaign. This provision must be construed in relation to Section 5 of Article XII thereof which grants to the
Commission on Elections the power to supervise or regulate the operation of transportation public utilities, media of
communication, etc. during the "election period". Section 6 fixes the "election period" by stating that unless fixed by
the Commission in special cases, the election period shall commence ninety (90) days before the day of election
and shall end thirty (30) days thereafter. In Peralta v. Commission on Elections, supra, We resolved, in effect, this
issue by holding that the forty-five day period of campaign prescribed in Section 4 of the 1978 Election Code was
not violative of Section 6 of Article XII of the Constitution.

4. Considering that the proposed amendment to Section 7 of Article X of the Constitution extending the retirement of
members of the Supreme Court and judges of inferior courts from sixty-five (65) to seventy (70) years is but a
restoration of the age of retirement provided in the 1935 Constitution and has been intensively and extensively
discussed at the Interim Batasang Pambansa, as well as through the mass media, it cannot, therefore, be said that
our people are unaware of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendment.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED. This decision is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., reserves his vote.

Barredo, Fernandez and Guerrero, JJ., agree with the opinion of the Court penned by Justice Felix Q. Antonio and
Chief Justice Fernando certifies.

Separate Opinions

FERNANDO, C J., concurring:

With the opinion insofar as the Court found no merit in the petition seeking to declare unconstitutional Batas
Pambansa Blg. 51, 52 and 53 and takes no part as far as the challenge to Batas Pambansa Blg. 54 is concerned.

Separate Opinions

FERNANDO, C J., concurring:

With the opinion insofar as the Court found no merit in the petition seeking to declare unconstitutional Batas
Pambansa Blg. 51, 52 and 53 and takes no part as far as the challenge to Batas Pambansa Blg. 54 is concerned.

Footnotes

1 Fernando, The Constitution of the Philippines, p. 172.

2 Yakus v. United States, 321 US 414, 88 L. ed. 834.

3 Amendment No. 2, in relation to Article VIII, Section 14(1), Constitution of the Philippines.

4 L-47771, March 11, 1978, 82 SCRA 30.

5 As long as popular government is an end to be achieved and safeguarded, suffrage, whatever may
be the modality and form devised, must continue to be the means be which the a great reservoir of
power must be emptied into the receptacular agencies wrought by the people through their Constitution
in the interest of good government and the common weal. ... (Moya v. Del Fierro 69 Phil. 199. 204
(1939), (PAngutan v. Abubakar, 43 SCRA 1, 11).

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1980/jan1980/gr_52265_1980.html 2/3
8/10/2019 G.R. No. L-52265

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1980/jan1980/gr_52265_1980.html 3/3