SUBJECT TOPIC DIGEST MAKER
Consti 1 Amendments and Revision of the Niel
Constitution
Tolentino vs Comelec
Barredo, J.
Docket Number: G.R. No. L-34150 October 16, 1971
Petitioner(s): Arturo Tolentino
Respondent(s): Comelec, et al.
FACTS
• Petition for prohibition principally to restrain the respondent Comelec from holding a
plebiscite on November 8, 1971 for the proposed constitutional amendment of reducing the
voting age from 21 to 18 yrs old in Sec. 1, Art. 5 of the Constitution.
• This plebiscite is submitted for ratification of the people pursuant to Organic Resolution
No. 1 of the ConCon of 1971.
• Since Comelec is the one named respondent in the petition, the Court is required to give
copies to the SolGen and the ConCon, through its president.
• The fiscal officers of the ConCon are indispensable in cases of this nature, since the acts
sought to be enjoined involve the expenditure of funds appropriated by law for the
Convention. Thus, the Court also ordered that the Disbursing Officer, Chief Accountant,
and Auditor of the Convention be made respondents.
• The Court also allowed a limited number of intervenors who have a legal interest in the
success of the respondents. This way, all interests involved should be duly and amply
represented and protected.
• ConCon of 1971 came into being because of two resolutions of the Congress. Resolutions 2
and 4 of the joint sessions of Congress held on March 16, 1967 and June 17, 1969.
o Resolution No. 2 = creating the ConCon, composition of the ConCon
o Resolution No. 4 = modified the number of delegates to represent the different
cities and provinces originally fixed in Resolution No. 2
• At 3:30am in the morning of September 28, 1971, the Convention approved Organic
Resolution No. 1.
• Organic Resolution No. 1 intends to lower the voting age to 18 years old.
• Petitioners claim that Organic Resolution No. 1 and other implementing resolutions
approved of by the Convention have no force and effect as laws. Comelec’s acts in
obedience of the directions of the Convention are null and void.
• Petitioners claim that the calling and holding of such a plebiscite is a power lodged
exclusively in Congress, as a legislative body, and may not be exercised by the Convention.
• Respondents and intervenors posit that the power to provide for, fix the date and lay down
the details of the plebiscite for the ratification of any amendment the convention may deem
proper to propose is within the authority of the Convention.
ISSUES and RATIONALE
1. W/N the ConCon has the power to provide for, fix the date, and lay down the details of the
plebiscite for the ratification of any amendment the Convention may deem proper.
2. W/N the Court has jurisdiction over this case. W/N this is a political question.
.
DISPOSITION
1. What should be questioned is if there is a limitation or condition to the power of the
Convention of calling for a plebiscite on the sole amendment contained in Organic
Resolution No. 1.
Yes, there is a condition. And it is that the convention should submit all the amendments to
be proposed in a SINGLE election or plebiscite.
In the present case, the convention submitted for a plebiscite only the first amendment.
Therefore, the court holds that the acts of the convention and the respondent Comelec are
null and void because the convention has to submit ALL the proposed amendments before
a plebiscite can be held.
Amendments should be submitted all together, not separately.
2. In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ w/c can be
called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the several departments
and among the integral or constituent units thereof.
When judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any
superiority over the other departments. Does not nullify or invalidate an act of legislature,
but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution and to
establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights w/c that instrument secures and
guarantees to them.
CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION
Makalintal, J.,
Reserved his vote. Has grave doubts but due to the time sensitivity, he will not dissent since
it will be inconclusive.
Reyes, Zaldivar, Castro, and Makasiar, JJ., concurring
2 additional objections of constitutional dimension:
1. There is no proper submission of the proposed amendment in question within the
meaning and intendment of Sec. 1 Art 15 of the Constitution
2. The forthcoming election is not the proper election envisioned by the same provision
of the Constitution.
They believe that by the time of the election for the ratification, the people are will not be
sufficiently informed of these amendments.
Fernando, J., concurring and dissenting
SUBJECT TOPIC DIGEST MAKER
Consti 1 Amendments and Revision of the Niel
Constitution
REVIEW NOTES
This part is optional. Highly encouraged and very much appreciated, but not required.
Sanidad vs Comelec
Martin, J.
Docket Number: G.R. No. L-44640 October 12, 1976
Petitioner(s): Pablito Sanidad
Respondent(s): Comelec, et al.
FACTS
• Prohibition suits with preliminary injunction relates to the power of the incumbent
President to propose amendments to the present Constitution in the absence of the interim
National Assembly, which has not convened.
• Pres. Marcos issued PD No. 991 calling for a National Referendum on October 6, 1976 for
the Citizens Assemblies to resolve the issues of Martial Law, replacement of the National
Assembly, the powers of such replacement, period of existence, length of the period for the
exercise by the President of his present powers.
• Twenty days after or on September 22, 1976, Marcos issued 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 Citizen Assemblies applicable to the National
Referendum-Plebiscite of Oct. 16. 1976. PD No. 1031 repealed Sec. 4 of PD No. 991.
o Marcos also issued PD No. 1033 stating the questions to be submitted to the
people in the referendum-plebiscite on Oct. 16, 1976.
o In the whereas clause of the PD, he says that the people’s continued opposition to
the convening of the interim NA evinces their desire to have it abolished and
replaced with a new interim legislative body.
• Comelec was given the exclusive supervision and control of the Oct 1976 referendum-
plebiscite.
• Petitioners Pablo and Pablito Sanidad filed this petition and declared PD 991, 1033, and
1031, to be without force and effect.
o 991 and 1033 = w/out effect insofar as they propose amendments to the
Constitution.
o 1031 = w/out effect insofar as it directs the Comelec to supervise, control, and
conduct the Oct 16, 1976 referendum-plebiscite.
• The referendum-plebiscite has no constitutional basis.
• Vicente Guzman, a delegate of the 1971 ConCon filed another petition stating that the
power to propose amendments to, or revision of the Constitution during the transition
period is vested in the interim NA.
• Raul Gonzales, his son Raul Gonzales Jr., and Alfredo Salapantan also filed a petition to
restrain the implementation of PDs relative to the forthcoming referendum-plebiscite on
Oct 16, 1976.
ISSUES and RATIONALE
1. W/N the president may exercise the power to propose amendments and call upon a
referendum of the Constitution.
2. W/N petitioners Sanidad have locus standi to file petition.
3. W/N the question at bar is political and outside judicial review.
DISPOSITION
1. In the Constitution, there are 2 periods being contemplated: 1) Period of Normalcy; 2)
Period of Transition.
o In period of transition, amendments may be proposed by a majority vote of all the
members of the interim NA upon special call by the interim Prime Minister
o In the present case, the president chose not to convene the NA because the
people, using their sovereign power, chose not support the National Assembly in
previous events which needed the NA to convene
▪ Plebiscite of January 10-15, 1973: people voted against the NA
convening for the ratification of the 1973 constitution
▪ Referendum of July 24, 1973: Citizen assemblies (barangays) reiterated
their sovereign will to withhold the convening of the NA
▪ Referendum of Feb 27, 1975
o If the president has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the
interim NA, there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the function of
that assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution, which is but adjunct,
although peculiar, to its gross legislative power.
2. Petitioners Sanidad have locus standi to challenge the constitutionality of PD Nos. 991 and
1033.
o GR: those who sustain direct injury as a result of the enforcement of a statute
have locus standi
3. The SC disagrees with the SolGen that the question at bar is purely political. The amending
process, proposal and ratification, raises a judicial question.
o PD 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.
o “All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, executive agreement, or
LAW shall be heard and decided by the SC en banc and no treaty, executive
agreement, or law may be declared unconstitutional without the concurrence of at
least 10 members of the SC.
o SC has the last word in the construction not only of treaties and statutes, but also
of the Constitution itself.