TOLENTINO V COMELEC

TOPIC: Doctrine of Proper Submission means all the proposed amendments to the
Constitution shall be presented to the people for the ratification or rejection at the same
time, not piecemeal.
The case is a petition for prohibition to restrain respondent Commission on Elections
"from undertaking to hold a plebiscite on November 8, 1971," at which the proposed
constitutional amendment "reducing the voting age" in Section 1 of Article V of the
Constitution of the Philippines to eighteen years "shall be, submitted" for ratification by
the people pursuant to Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of
1971 which provides:
A RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION ONE OF ARTICLE V OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES SO AS TO LOWER THE VOTING AGE TO 18
However, the petition was rendered null and void including the Organic Resolution no.1
and all other implementing laws. This is on the ground that the calling and holding of
such a plebiscite is, by the Constitution, a power lodged exclusively in Congress, as a
legislative body, and may not be exercised by the Convention, and that, under Section
1, Article XV of the Constitution, the proposed amendment in question cannot be
presented to the people for ratification separately from each and all of the other
amendments to be drafted and proposed by the Convention.
The subsequent implementing resolutions, by declaring said resolutions to be without
the force and effect of law for being violative of the Constitution of the Philippines. The
Constitutional Convention of 1971 came into being by virtue of two resolutions of the
Congress of the Philippines approved in its capacity as a constituent assembly
convened for the purpose of calling a convention to propose amendments to the
Constitution namely, Resolutions 2 and 4 of the joint sessions of Congress held on
March 16, 1967 and June 17, 1969 respectively. The delegates to the said Convention
were all elected under and by virtue of said resolutions and the implementing legislation
thereof, Republic Act 6132.

Issue
Is it within the powers of the Constitutional Convention of 1971 to order the holding of a
plebiscite for the ratification of the proposed amendment/s?

Held

The Court holds that all amendments to be proposed must be submitted to the people in
a single "election" or plebiscite. We hold that the plebiscite being called for the purpose
of submitting the same for ratification of the people on November 8, 1971 is not
authorized by Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution, hence all acts of the
Convention and the respondent Comelec in that direction are null and void. lt says
distinctly that either Congress sitting as a constituent assembly or a convention called
for the purpose "may propose amendments to this Constitution,". The same provision
also as definitely provides that "such amendments shall be valid as part of this
Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which the
amendments are submitted to the people for their ratification," thus leaving no room for
doubt as to how many "elections" or plebiscites may be held to ratify any amendment or
amendments proposed by the same constituent assembly of Congress or convention,
and the provision unequivocally says "an election" which means only one.
The petition herein is granted. Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional
Convention of 1971 and the implementing acts and resolutions of the Convention,
insofar as they provide for the holding of a plebiscite on November 8, 1971, as well as
the resolution of the respondent Comelec complying therewith (RR Resolution No. 695)
are hereby declared null and void. The respondents Comelec, Disbursing Officer, Chief
Accountant and Auditor of the Constitutional Convention are hereby enjoined from
taking any action in compliance with the said organic resolution. In view of the peculiar
circumstances of this case, the Court declares this decision immediately executory.