SANIDAD VS.

COMELEC
(G.R. No. L-44640 October 12, 1976)

Petitioners: Pablo C. Sanidad and Pablito V. Sanidad

Respondents: Honorable Comission on Elections and Honorable National Treasurer
Ponente: Martin, J
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.1
Twenty days after or on September 22, 1976, the 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 Quite relevantly, Presidential Decree No. 1031 repealed Section 4, of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, the full text of which (Section 4) is quoted in the footnote below. 2
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.
In response, 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 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.

Issue:
Whether or not the President has the authority to propose amendments to the present Constitution
in the absence of an interim National Assembly which has not been convened.
Held/Resolution:
Yes, the president has the authority to propose amendments to the present Constitution in the
absence of an interim National Assembly. There are two periods contemplated in the
constitutional life of the nation, (1) period of normalcy, and (2) period of transition. In this case,
the interim National Assembly instituted in the Transitory Provisions is conferred with that
amending power. However, in a period of transition, the interim National Assembly may only be
instituted upon special call by the interim Prime Minister. Therefore, it is solely in the hand of
the prime minister to call upon the aid of the interim National Assembly in times of turmoil.
Given this, we can deduce that the president has the authority to propose amendments as the
governmental powers are generally concentrated to the president in times of crisis