PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO V. SANIDAD vs.

HONORABLE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS and HONORABLE NATIONAL TREASURE
G.R. No. L-44684. October 12,1976
VICENTE M. GUZMAN, vs. COMMISSION ELECTIONS
G.R. No. L-44714. October 12,1976
RAUL M. GONZALES, RAUL T. GONZALES, JR., and ALFREDO SALAPANTAN,
vs. HONORABLE COMMISSION ON SELECTIONS and HONORABLE NATIONAL
TREASURER,
FACTS: This case involves three petitions questioning Presidential Decrees 999,
1031 and 1033 of then President Ferdinand Marcos. These endow power to the
incumbent President of the Philippines to propose amendments to the Constitution
in the absence of the interim National Assembly which has not been convened at
that time. On September 2, 1976, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential
Decree No. 991 calling for a national referendum on October 16, 1976 to resolve
issued involving martial law. On September 22, 1976, the President issued
Presidential Decree No. 1031, providing for the manner of voting and canvass of
votes in "barangays" (Citizens Assemblies) applicable to the national referendumplebiscite. On the same date, Presidential Decree No. 1033 was issued, stating the
questions to be submitted to the people. The proposed amendments include that
there shall be, in lieu of the interim National Assembly, an interim Batasang
Pambansa. This shall include the President. It shall have the same functions,
responsibilities, rights, privileges, and disqualifications as the interim National
Assembly. It gives the President power to convene the interim Batasang Pambansa
within 30 days from the election and selection of the members, and preside over its
sessions until the Speaker shall have been elected. The incumbent President shall
continue to exercise legislative powers until martial law shall have been lifted.
ISSUES:
Whether or not, the question at hand is justiciable?
Whether or not then President Marcos had the power to propose
amendments on the Constitution?
HELD:
On the issue of the justiciability of question, the Court first pointed out that the
petitioners have legal standing to sue, because they may sustain direct injuries from
the enforcement of the decrees. Then pointed out that the amending process both
as to proposal and ratification, raises a judicial question. Section 2 (2), Article X of
the new Constitution provides: "All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,
executive agreement, or law may shall be heard and decided by the Supreme Court
en banc and no treaty, executive agreement, or law may be declared
unconstitutional without the concurrence of at least ten Members. The Court
inquires not on the wisdom of the act of the incumbent President in proposing
amendments to the Constitution, but on his constitutional authority to perform such.
If the Constitution provides how it may be amended, the judiciary as the interpreter
of that Constitution, can declare whether the procedure followed or the authority
assumed was valid or not.
On the issue regarding the amending process, the Court mentioned Sections
1 and 2 of the XVI of the 1973 Constitution, stating that any amendment or revision
may be proposed by the National assembly as long as there are sufficient votes, and
the amendment shall be valid when ratified by a majority of votes in the plebiscite.

However, in the period of transition, the interim National Assembly, upon special
call by the interim Prime Minister, may, by a majority vote of all its Members,
propose amendments to this Constitution. The Court reiterated that the incumbent
President is vested with that prerogative of discretion as to when he shall initially
convene the interim National Assembly. Although the power to legislate is
constitutionally consigned to the interim National Assembly during the transition
period, the initial convening of that Assembly is a matter fully addressed to the
judgment of the incumbent President. In the case at bar, the President opted to
defer convening of that body in utter recognition of the people's preference. If the
President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the interim
Assembly, 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. The President acts as agent for and
in behalf of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution. Thus, the Court
dismissed the petition and ruled that the President can propose amendments to the
Constitution and he was able to present those proposals to the people in sufficient
time.
BONUS ISSUES:
On the referendum-plebiscite, the Court reiterated the sovereignty of the People.
The October 16 referendum-plebiscite is a resounding call to the people to exercise
their sovereign power as constitutional legislator. The amending process is a
sovereign act, although the authority to initiate the same and the procedure to be
followed reside somehow in a particular body.
On the participation of the 15-year olds, there is nothing objectionable in consulting
the people on a given issue, which is of current one and submitting to them for
ratification of proposed constitutional amendments. The fear of commingled votes
(15-year olds and 18-year olds above) is readily dispelled by the provision of two
ballot boxes for every barangay center, one containing the ballots of voters fifteen
years of age and under eighteen, and another containing the ballots of voters
eighteen years of age and above
On the time of deliberation, the period from September 21 to October 16 or a period
of 3 weeks is not too short for free debates or discussions on the referendumplebiscite issues. The questions are not new. They are the issues of the day. The
people have been living with them since the proclamation of martial law four years
ago.