Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    Sandidad V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    ysa
    The petitioners sought to enjoin the COMELEC from holding a national referendum called by President Ferdinand Marcos through presidential decrees. They argued the president did not have the power to propose constitutional amendments, only the interim National Assembly did. The Solicitor General argued the issue was political and non-justiciable. However, the Supreme Court ruled the issue was justiciable, as it involved determining conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution, not a political question of legislative wisdom. The Court found the president's authority to propose amendments was the central legal issue.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sandidad V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    ysa
    36 views2 pages
    The petitioners sought to enjoin the COMELEC from holding a national referendum called by President Ferdinand Marcos through presidential decrees. They argued the president did not have the power to propose constitutional amendments, only the interim National Assembly did. The Solicitor General argued the issue was political and non-justiciable. However, the Supreme Court ruled the issue was justiciable, as it involved determining conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution, not a political question of legislative wisdom. The Court found the president's authority to propose amendments was the central legal issue.

    Original Title

    SANDIDAD V COMELEC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners sought to enjoin the COMELEC from holding a national referendum called by President Ferdinand Marcos through presidential decrees. They argued the president did not have the power to propose constitutional amendments, only the interim National Assembly did. The Solicitor General argued the issue was political and non-justiciable. However, the Supreme Court ruled the issue was justiciable, as it involved determining conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution, not a political question of legislative wisdom. The Court found the president's authority to propose amendments was the central legal issue.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    36 views2 pages

    Sandidad V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    ysa
    The petitioners sought to enjoin the COMELEC from holding a national referendum called by President Ferdinand Marcos through presidential decrees. They argued the president did not have the power to propose constitutional amendments, only the interim National Assembly did. The Solicitor General argued the issue was political and non-justiciable. However, the Supreme Court ruled the issue was justiciable, as it involved determining conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution, not a political question of legislative wisdom. The Court found the president's authority to propose amendments was the central legal issue.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO V.

    SANIDAD, petitioner
    vs.
    HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HONORABLE NATIONAL
    TREASURER, respondents.

    FACTS:
     On September 2, 1976, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 991 to
    call for a national referendum on October 16, 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies ("barangays")
    with the purpose to resolve issues of the martial law, the Interim 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.
     On 22 September 1976, the President issued another PD 1031, amending the previous
    Presidential Decree 991, by declaring the provisions of Presidential Decree 229 providing for
    the manner of voting and canvass of votes in "barangays" (Citizens Assemblies) applicable to
    the national referendum-plebiscite of 16 October 1976. The President also issued PD 1033,
    stating the questions to be submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite on 16 October
    1976. The first question is whether or not the citizen wants martial law to continue, and the
    second asks for the approval on several proposed amendments to the existing Constitution.
     The Decree recites in its "whereas" clauses that the people's continued opposition to the
    convening of the interim National Assembly reveals 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.
     The Commission on Elections was vested with the exclusive supervision and control of the
    October 1976 National Referendum-Plebiscite.
     Pablo C. Sanidad and Pablito V. Sanidad, father and son, commenced for Prohibition with
    Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin the COMELEC from holding and conducting the
    Referendum Plebiscite on October 16; to declare without force and effect PD 991, 1033 and
    1031. They 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.
     Another petitioner, Vicente Guzman filed for prohibition with preliminary injunction, asserting
    that the power to propose amendments or revisions of the Constitution during the transition
    period is expressly conferred to the interim National Assembly under Section 16, Article XVII of
    the Constitution.
     Another set of petitioners, Raul Gonzales and Alfredo Salapantan sought to restrain the
    implementation of Presidential Decrees relative to the forthcoming Referendum-Plebiscite of
    October 16. They assert that the incumbent President cannot act as a constituent assembly to
    propose amendments to the Constitution and 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.
     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

    ISSUE: Whether or not the issue raised is justiciable. (Specifically on the constitutionality of PDs 991
    and 1033).
    RULING: Justiciable.
    YES. 7 Justices of the Court held that the issue is a justiciable question, while only 3 maintained it
    was of political nature and thus not justiciable.

    The Court did not agree with the Solicitor General’s contention that the issue is a political one.
    Political question refers to those questions which, under the constitution, are to be decided by the
    people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been
    delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the Government. It is concerned with the issues
    dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.

    Here, the question raised is whether the President has authority to propose to the people
    amendments to the Constitution which the petitioners claim is vested solely upon the National
    Assembly, the constitutional convention called for the purpose, and the by the National Assembly.
    This is not a political question since it involves the determination of conflicting claims of authority
    under the constitution.

    You might also like