Aquino, Concepcion Jr.

and Martin voted in the affirmative, while Associate Justices Teehankee and
Muoz Palma voted in the negative. Associate Justice Fernando, conformably to his concurring and
dissenting opinion in Aquino v. Enrile (59 SCRA 183), specifically dissents from the proposition that
there is concentration of powers in the Executive during periods of crisis, thus raising serious doubts as
to the power of the President to propose amendments.
Upon the third issue, Chief Justice Castro and Associate Justices Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion
Jr. and Martin are of the view that there is a sufficient and proper submission of the proposed
amendments for ratification by the people. Associate Justices Barredo and Makasiar expressed the
hope, however, that the period of time may be extended. Associate Justices Fernando, Makasiar and
Antonio are of the view that the question is political and therefore beyond the competence and
cognizance of this Court. Associate Justice Fernando adheres to his concurrence in the opinion of Chief
Justice Concepcion in Gonzales v. COMELEC (21 SCRA 774). Associate Justices Teehankee and Muoz
Palma hold that precinding from the Presidents lack of authority to exercise the constituent power to
propose the amendments, etc., as above stated, there is no fair and proper submission with sufficient
information and time to assure intelligent consent or rejection under the standards set by this Court in
the controlling cases of Gonzales, supra and Tolentino v. COMELEC (41 SCRA 702).
Chief Justice Castro and Associate Justices Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion Jr. and
Martin voted to dismiss the three petitions at bar. For reasons as expressed in his separate opinion,
Associate Justice Fernando concurs in the result. Associate Justices Teehankee and Muoz Palma voted
to grant the petitions.
ACCORDINGLY, the vote being 8 to 2 to dismiss, the said petitions are hereby dismissed. This decision
is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.
Aquino, J., concurs in the result.
Separate Opinions
CASTRO, C.J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
From the challenge as formulated in the three petitions at bar and the grounds advanced by the
Solicitor General in opposition thereto, as well as the arguments adduced by the counsels of the
parties at the hearing had on October 7 and 8, 1976, three vital issues readily project themselves as
the centers of controversy, namely:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(1) Is the question of the constitutionality of Presidential Decrees Nos. 991, 1031 and 1033 political or
justiciable?
(2) During the present stage of the transition period, and under the environmental circumstances now
obtaining, does the President possess power to propose amendments to the Constitution as well as set
up the required machinery and Prescribe the procedure for the ratification of his proposals by the
people?
(3) Is the submission to the people of the proposed amendments within the time frame allowed
therefor a sufficient and proper submission?
I
First Issue
The threshold question is not at all one of first impression. Specifically on the matter of proposals to
amend the Constitution, this Court, in Mabanag v. Lopez Vito (78 Phil. 1), inceptively announced the
dictum that
"Proposal to amend the Constitution is a highly political function performed by the Congress in its
sovereign legislative capacity and committed to its charge by the Constitution itself. The exercise of
this power is even independent of any intervention by the Chief Executive. If on grounds of expediency
scrupulous attention of the judiciary be needed to safeguard public interest, there is less reason for
judicial inquiry into the validity of a proposal than into that of a ratification."cralaw virtua1aw library
In time, however, the validity of the said pronouncement was eroded. In the assessment of the Court
itself
"The force of this precedent has been weakened, however, by Suanes v. Chief Accountant of the

Senate (81 Phil. 818), Avelino v. Cuenco (L-2581, March 4 and 14, 1949), Taada v. Cuenco (L-10520,
February 28, 1957), and Macias v. Commission on Elections (L-18684, September 14, 1961).
"In short, the issue whether or not a Resolution of Congress acting as a constituent assembly
violates the Constitution is essentially justiciable, not political, and, hence, subject to judicial review,
and, to the extent that this view may be inconsistent with the stand taken in Mabanag v. Lopez Vito
(supra), the latter should be deemed modified accordingly. The Members of the Court are unanimous
on this point." (Gonzales v. Commission on Elections, et al, L-28196, November 9, 1967, 21 SCRA 774,
786-787).
The abandonment of the Mabanag v. Lopez Vito doctrine appears to have been completed when, in
Javellana v. Executive Secretary, Et. Al. (L-36142, March 31, 1973, 50 SCRA 30), six members of the
Court concurred in the view that the question of whether the 1973 Constitution was ratified in
accordance with the provisions of Article XV (Amendments) of the 1935 Constitution is inherently and
essentially justiciable.
As elucidated therein, with extensive quotations from Taada v. Cuenco (103 Phil. 1051)
". . . the term political question connotes, in legal parlance, what it means in ordinary parlance,
namely, a question of policy in matters concerning the government of a State, as a body politic. In
other words, in the language of Corpus Juris Secundum (supra), it 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 issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular
measure.
"Accordingly, when the grant of power is qualified, conditional or subject to limitations, the issue on
whether or not the prescribed qualifications or conditions have been met, or the limitations respected,
is justiciable or non-political, the crux of the problem being one of legality or validity of the contested
act, not its wisdom. Otherwise, said qualifications, conditions or limitations particularly those
prescribed or imposed by the Constitution would be set at naught." (Javellana