EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-44640. October 12, 1976.]

PABLITO V. SANIDAD, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HONORABLE NATIONAL
TREASURER, Respondents.
[G.R. No. L-44684. October 12, 1976.]
VICENTE M. GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ELECTIONS, Respondents.
[G.R. No. L-44714. October 12, 1976.]
RAUL M. GONZALES, RAUL T. GONZALES, JR., and ALFREDO SALAPANTAN, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HONORABLE NATIONAL TREASURER,Respondents.

DECISION

MARTIN, J.:

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.
chanroble s.com:cralaw:red

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") to resolve, among other
things, 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. 1
Twenty days after or on September 22, 1976, the President issued another related decree, Presidential
Decree No. 1031, amending the previous Presidential Decree No. 991, by declaring the provisions of
Presidential Decree No. 229 providing for the manner of voting and canvass of votes in "barangays" (Citizens
Assemblies) applicable to the national referendum-plebiscite of October 16, 1976. Quite relevantly,
Presidential Decree No. 1031 repealed inter alia, Section 4, of Presidential Decree No. 991, the full text of
which (Section 4) is quoted in the footnote below. 2
On the same date of 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 Decree
recites in its "whereas" clauses that the peoples 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 questions ask, to wit:

jgc:chanroble s.com.ph

"(1) Do your want martial law to be continued?

(2) Whether or not you want martial law to be continued, do you approve the following amendments to the
Constitution? For the purpose of the second question, the referendum shall have the effect of a plebiscite
within the contemplation of Section 2 of Article XVI of the Constitution.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. There shall be, in lieu of the interim National Assembly, an interim Batasang Pambansa. Members of the
interim Batasang Pambansa which shall not be more than 120, unless otherwise provided by law, shall
include the incumbent President of the Philippines, representatives elected from the different regions of the
nation, those who shall not be less than eighteen years of age elected by their respective sectors, and those
chosen by the incumbent President from the members of the Cabinet. Regional representatives shall be

apportioned among the regions in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants and on the
basis of a uniform and progressive ratio while the sectors shall be determined by law. The number of
representatives from each region or sector and the, manner of their election shall be prescribed and
regulated by law.
2. The interim Batasang Pambansa shall have the same powers and its members shall have the same
functions, responsibilities, rights, privileges, and disqualifications as the interim National Assembly and the
regular National Assembly and the members thereof. However, it shall not exercise the power provided in
Article VIII, Section 14(1) of the Constitution.
3. The incumbent President of the Philippines shall, within 30 days from the election and selection of the
members, convene the interim Batasang Pambansa and preside over its sessions until the Speaker shall
have been elected. The incumbent President of the Philippines shall be the Prime Minister and he shall
continue to exercise all his powers even after the interim Batasang Pambansa is organized and ready to
discharge its functions and likewise be shall continue to exercise his powers and prerogatives under the
nineteen hundred and thirty five. Constitution and the powers vested in the President and the Prime Minister
under this Constitution.
4. The President (Prime Minister) and his Cabinet shall exercise all the powers and functions, and discharge
the responsibilities of the regular President (Prime Minister) and his Cabinet, and shall be subject only to
such disqualifications as the President (Prime Minister) may prescribe. The President (Prime Minister) if he
so desires may appoint a Deputy Prime Minister or as many Deputy Prime Ministers as he may deem
necessary.
5. The incumbent President shall continue to exercise legislative powers until martial law shall have been
lifted.
6. Whenever in the judgment of the President (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 instructions, which shall
form part of the law of the land.
7. The barangays and sanggunians shall continue as presently constituted but their functions, powers, and
composition may be altered by law.
Referenda conducted thru the barangays and under the supervision of the Commission on Elections may be
called at any time the government deems it necessary to ascertain the will of the people regarding any
important matter whether of national or local interest.
8. All provisions of this Constitution not inconsistent with any of these amendments shall continue in full
force and effect.
9. These amendments shall take effect after the incumbent President shall have proclaimed that they have
been ratified by a majority of the votes cast in the referendum-plebiscite."
cralaw virtua1aw library

The Commission on Elections was vested with the exclusive supervision and control of the October 1976
National Referendum-Plebiscite.
On September 27, 1976, PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO V. SANIDAD, father and son, commenced L44640 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, as well as Presidential
Decree No. 1031, insofar as it directs the Commission on Elections to supervise, control, hold, and conduct
the Referendum-Plebiscite scheduled on October 16, 1976.
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. As a consequence, the
Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16 has no constitutional or legal basis.
On October 5, 1976, 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.
On September 30, 1976, another action for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction, docketed as L-44684,
was instituted by VICENTE M. GUZMAN, a delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention, asserting that the
power to propose amendments to, or revision of the Constitution during the transition period is expressly
conferred on the interim National Assembly under action 16, Article XVII of the Constitution. 3
Still another petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction was filed on October 5, 1976 by RAUL M.
GONZALES, his son RAUL, JR., and ALFREDO SALAPANTAN, docketed as L-44714, to restrain the
implementation of Presidential Decrees relative to the forthcoming Referendum-Plebiscite of October 16.
These last petitioners argue that even granting him legislative powers under Martial Law, the incumbent
President cannot act as a constituent assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution; a referendumplebiscite is untenable under the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973; the submission of the proposed
amendments in such a short period of time for deliberation renders the plebiscite a nullity; to lift Martial
Law, the President need not consult the people via referendum; and allowing 15-year olds to vote would
amount to an amendment of the Constitution, which confines the right of suffrage to those citizens of the
Philippines 18 years of age and above.
We find the petitions in the three entitled cases to be devoid of merit.
I
Justiciability of question raised.
1. As a preliminary resolution, We rule that the petitioners in L-44640 (Pablo C. Sanidad and Pablito V.
Sanidad) possess locus standi to challenge the constitutional premise of Presidential Decree Nos. 991, 1031,
and 1033. It is now an ancient rule that the valid source of a statute Presidential Decrees are of such
nature may be contested by one who will sustain a direct injury as a result of its enforcement. At the
instance of taxpayers, laws providing for the disbursement of public funds may be enjoined, upon the theory
that the expenditure of public funds by an officer of the State for the purpose of executing an
unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of such funds. 4 The breadth of Presidential Decree No. 991
carries an appropriation of Five Million Pesos for the effective implementation of its purposes. 5 Presidential
Decree No. 1031 appropriates the sum of Eight Million Pesos to carry out its provisions. 6 The interest of the
aforenamed petitioners as taxpayers in the lawful expenditure of these amounts of public money sufficiently
clothes them with that personality to litigate the validity of the Decrees appropriating said funds. Moreover,
as regards taxpayers suits, this Court enjoys that open discretion to entertain the same or not. 7 For the
present case, We deem it sound to exercise that discretion affirmatively so that the authority upon which the
disputed Decrees are predicated may be inquired into.
2. The Solicitor General would consider the question at bar as a pure political one, lying outside the domain
of judicial review. We disagree. The amending process both as to proposal and ratification, raises a judicial
question. 8 This is especially true in cases where the power of the Presidency to initiate the amending
process by proposals of amendments, a function normally exercised by the legislature, is seriously doubted.
Under the terms of the 1973 Constitution, the power to propose amendments to the Constitution resides in
the interim National Assembly during the period of transition (Sec. 15, Transitory Provisions). After that
period, and the regular National Assembly in its active session, the power to propose amendments