PABLO C. SANIDAD AND PABLITO C.

SANIDAD VS HONORABLE
COMMISION ON ELECTIONS & HONORABLE NATIONAL TREASURER G.R.
No. L-44640, October 12, 1976

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"). Its primary purpose is to resolve the issues of martial law (as to its
existence and length of effectivity).

On 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 questions ask, to wit: 1) Do you want martial law to be continued? (2) WON
you want martial law to be continued, do you approve the following amendments to
the Constitution?

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. 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.

ISSUE

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?

RULING

YES. In the period of transition, the power to propose amendments to the Constitution
lies in the interim National Assembly upon special call by the President (Sec. 15 of the
Transitory Provisions).

The power to legislate is constitutionally consigned to the interim National Assembly

during the transition period. However, the initial convening of that Assembly is a
matter fully addressed to the judgment of the incumbent President. And, in the exercise
of that judgment, the President opted to defer the convening of that body in utter
recognition of the people's preference - the people had already rejected the calling of the
interim National Assembly in the referendums of January 1973 and February 1975.

In the instant case, the President decided not to call the interim National Assembly and
proceeded with the assumption of that body’s legislative power which is within the
bounds of the Constitution and the law. The President has been legitimately
discharging the legislative functions of the interim Assembly, and it is within his power
to discharge the function of the interim Assembly to propose amendments to the
Constitution.

With the interim National Assembly not convened and only the Presidency and the
Supreme Court in operation, the urges of absolute necessity render it imperative upon
the President to act as agent for and in behalf of the people to propose amendments to
the Constitution – the latter being in no capacity to propose amendments to the
Constitution.