Sanidad v Comelec

G.R. No. L-44640

October 12, 1976

FACTS:

The capital question raised in these prohibition suits with preliminary

injunction relates to the power of the incumbent President of the Philippines to
propose amendments to the present Constitution in the absence of the interim
National Assembly which has not been convened

On 2 September 1976, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued PD 991

calling for a national referendum on 16 October 1976 for the Citizens
Assemblies ("barangays") to resolve the issues of martial law, the interim
assembly, its replacement, the powers of such replacement, the period of its
existence, the length of the period for the exercise by the President of his
present powers.

On 22 September 1976, the President issued another PD 1031, amending

the previous Presidential Decree 991, by declaring the provisions of
Presidential Decree 229 providing for the manner of voting and canvass of
votes in "barangays" (Citizens Assemblies) applicable to the national
referendum-plebiscite of 16 October 1976. The President also issued PD 1033,
stating the questions to be submitted to the people in the
referendum-plebiscite on 16 October 1976. The Decree recites in its "whereas"
clauses that the people's continued opposition to the convening of the interim
National Assembly evinces their desire to have such body abolished and
replaced thru a constitutional amendment, providing for a new interim
legislative body, which will be submitted directly to the people in the
referendum-plebiscite of October 16. The Commission on Elections was
vested with the exclusive supervision and control of the October 1976 National
Referendum-Plebiscite.

Pablo C. Sanidad and Pablito V. Sanidad, father and son, commenced for
Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin the COMELEC from
holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16; to declare
without force and effect PD 991, 1033 and 1031. They 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.
 The Solicitor General filed the comment for respondent Commission on
Elections, The Solicitor General principally maintains that petitioners have no
standing to sue; the issue raised is political in nature, beyond judicial
cognizance of this Court; at this state of the transition period, only the
incumbent President has the authority to exercise constituent power; the
referendum-plebiscite is a step towards normalization

ISSUE:

Whether or not the issue raised is justiciable.

RULING:

Justiciable.

Political questions are neatly associated with the wisdom, of the legality of
a particular act. Where the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or
validity of the contested act, that matter is definitely justiciable or non-political.
What is in the heels of the Court is not the wisdom of the act of the incumbent
President in proposing amendments to the Constitution, but his constitutional
authority to perform such act or to assume the power of a constituent assembly.
Whether the amending process confers on the President that power to
propose amendments is therefore a downright justiciable question. Should the
contrary be found, the actuation of the President would merely be a brutum
fulmen. 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.

We cannot accept the view of the Solicitor General, in pursuing his theory
of non-justiciability, that the question of the President's authority to propose
amendments and the regularity of the procedure adopted for submission of the
proposal to the people ultimately lie in the judgment of the A clear Descartes
fallacy of vicious circle. Is it not that the people themselves, by their sovereign
act, provided for the authority and procedure for the amending process when
they ratified the present Constitution in 1973? Whether, therefore, the
constitutional provision has been followed or not is the proper subject of inquiry,
not by the people themselves of course who exercise no power of judicial but
by the Supreme Court in whom the people themselves vested that power, a
power which includes the competence to determine whether the constitutional
norms for amendments have been observed or not. And, this inquiry must be
done a prior not a posterior i.e., before the submission to and ratification by the
people.