115 SCRA 418 (Legaspi v Minister of Finance) 4. Note: Amendment No.
6 states ‘Whenever in the judgment of the President
July 24, 1982 | Barredo, J. | Rules of Construction
PETITIONER: Valentino L. Legaspi
RESPONDENTS: Honorable Minister of Finance and Honorable Commissioner
and/or the Bureau of Internal Revenue
SUMMARY:
President Marcos passed PD 1840, which provides for tax exemptions. This was
passed without the concurrence with the legislative sector. The petitioner questions
the constitutionality of such given the provision in the constitution (Art VIII,
Section 1) that the legislative power should lie in the legislative branch. Legaspi
further questions the applicability of Amendment No. 6 given that there were two
plebiscites held and, the more recent plebiscite did not include Amendment No. 6,
which is the legal basis for Marcos to pass PD 1840.
DOCTRINE:
In times of an emergency, it has been believed since the ancient period that such
powers, although dictatorial in nature, is important for the country to be able to
survive such circumstances. The president is able to exercise such powers,
whenever, by his judgment, is important.
ISSUES:
FACTS:
1. This is a petition to review the decision of the Minister of Finance
2. Legaspi, an incumbent member of the interim Batasang Pambansa
petitioned to declare PD 1840 – granting tax amnesty and filing of
statement of asset and liabilities and some other purposes –
unconstitutional.
3. Legaspi raises multiple contentions. One of which is the ability of the
HELD
President to grant amnesty, which presupposes the concurrence with the
Batasang Pambansa.
(Prime Minister), there exists a grave emergency or a threat or imminence
thereof, or whenever the Interim Batasang Pambansa or the regular
National Assembly fails or is unable to act adequately on any matter for
any reason that in his judgment requires immediate action, he may, in order
to meet the exigency, issue the necessary decrees, orders, or letters of
instruction, which shall form part of the law of the land.’
5. There were two plebiscites held. One in 1976 and another one in 1981.
Amendment No. 6 was part of the first plebiscite. Legaspi questions
whether the amendments made in the first plebiscite applies to the second
plebiscite and he claims that “Amendment No. 6 is rendered inoperable,
deleted and/or repealed by the amendments of April 7, 1981”, wherein
such is said to be omitted in the second plebiscite.
6. The newly amended constitution through the plebiscite of 1981 resulted
into a new system of government, wherein there is an existing president
and a prime minister of different functions. Batas Pambansa Blg. 125
called for a presidential election, wherein Marcos was duly elected. The
appointed Prime Minister, Members of Cabinet, and the Executive
Committee took their oaths and performed their functions according to the
newly amended constitution.
7. The petitioner contends that the separation of powers between the Prime
Minister and the President means that some of the powers of the Prime
Minister were transferred to the President, Amendment No. 6 not being
one of those.
1. WON PD 1840 is unconstitutional
2. WON Amendment No. 6, which states the powers of the state during an
emergency, is repealed by omission due to the new amendments in the
second plebiscite.
3. WON the President has the power to legislate, specifically to grant
amnesty without concurrence with the Batasang Pambansa.
1. No. PD 1840 is not unconstitutional.
2. No. This is a mere assertion.
 3. Yes. It is mentioned in Amendment No. 6

RATIO:

1. PD 1840 is the result of the emergency powers provided under Article 6,

wherein the president is authorized to enact legislation when the interim
Batasan or the regular National Assembly fails to or is unable to act on
matters, which the President believes requires immediate action.
Note: 4 powers expressly provided by the Constitution: (a) emergency
powers expressly delegated by the Batasan; (b) call of the armed forces,
who otherwise are supposed to be in the barracks; (c) suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; and (d) martial law
Amendment No 6 was supposed to be the fifth power since Marcos knew
that people disliked the idea of declaring Martial Law. Amendment No 6
would make it unnecessary for the president to declare Martial Law in the
attainment of his goal in legislating by himself.
2. Sorry wala masyadong explanation yung 2nd issue basta hindi narepeal
yung Amendment No 6 by the second plebiscite
3. The basis of this power is the avoidance of the need to use violence,
which Marcos deems necessary when it comes to Martial Law. It was
supposed to be a non-violent alternative to the presidential legislation.

SEPARATE OPINIONS:
De Castro, J.
The petitioner’s contention is petty. The Prime Minister, who was said to have the
power to exert Amendment No. 6 is based on the 1976 Constitution. Since the
amendment is relatively new, there is an indicator wherein the construction of the
law allows such powers to the president until the Prime Minister’s assumption of
the executive powers.
CONCURRING:
Abad Santos, J.
TLDR; Amendment No. 6 was legislated to give the president such powers even
after the period of Martial Law