Planas v.

COMELEC

G.R. No. L-35925. January 22, 1973

Fact/s:

After the Congress passed Resolution Nos. 2 and 4 and Republic Act 6132, President Marcos issued
Proclamation No. 1081 placing the entire Philippines under Martial Law while the convention was in
session. The next day, November 30, 1973, the President issued Presidential Decree No. 73, submitting
to the Filipino people for ratification or rejection the Constitution of the Philippines proposed by the 1971
Constitutional Convention, and appropriating funds as well as settiing the plebiscite for said ratification
or rejection of the proposed Constitution on January 15, 1973.

Charito Planas filed to enjoin COMELEC, the Treasurer of the Philippines, and the Auditor General, from
implementing P.D. No. 73. On December 17, 1972, the President has issued a temporary suspension on
the effects of Proclamation No. 1081, for the purpose of free and open debate on the Constitution. The
President postponed the plebiscite. In view of the events relative to the postponement of the plebiscite,
the court deemed it fit to refrain, for the time being, from deciding the aforementioned cases because
the date and conditions of the plebiscite were not known. Presidential Decree No. 86 organizing the so-
called Citizens Assemblies was announced. Assemblies were asked if they favor or oppose (a) the New
Society (b) Reforms instituted under Martial Law (c) the holding of plebiscite on the proposed Constitution
(d) the opening of the regular session stated on January 22, 1973 in accordance with the existing
Constitution despite Martial Law.

Issue/s:

Whether or not Supreme Court has authority to pass on the constitutionality of P.D. No. 73?

Whether or not Constitutional Convention had exceeded its authority in approving Sections 2,
3(2) and 12 of Article 17 of the proposed Constitution?

Whether or not Martial Law per se affects the validity of a submission to the people for ratification
of specific proposals for amendments of the Constitution?

Held:

Yes, the Supreme Court has the authority to pass upon the validity of P.D. No. 73. The contested
decree purports to have the force and effect of a legislation, so that the issue on the validity
thereof is manifestly a justiciable one, on the authority, not only of a long test of cases which the
Court has passed upon the constitutionality of statutes and/or acts of the Executive. Section 2,
Article 8 of 1935 Constitution expressly provides for the authority of the Supreme Court to review
cases involving said issue.
 No, the Convention was legally free to postulate any amendment it may deem fit to propose --s
save perhaps what is or may be inconsistent with what is known, particularly in international law,
as Jus Cogens. It should adhere to Section 1, Article 15 of the 1935 Constitution.

No decision yet, it has not been adequately argued by the parties. Thus, instead of dismissing the
case as moot and academic, said petitioners should be given a reasonable period of time within
which to move in the premises.
 Sanidad v. COMELEC

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

Fact/s:

President Ferdinand Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 991 calling for a national referendum on
October 16, 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies 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. Presidential Decree No. 1031
was issued to amend P.D. No. 991, by declaring the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 229 providing
for the manner of voting and canvass of voter in barangays (Citizen Assemblies). President also issued
Presidential Decree No. 1033 stating the questions to be submitted to the people in the referendum-
plebiscite. 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
thus a constitutional amendment, providing for a new interim legislative body, which will be submitted
directly to the people in the referendum-plebiscite on October 16.

Pablo and Pablito Sanidad, filed prohibition with preliminary injunction to enjoin COMELEC from holding
and conducting the referendum-plebiscite on October 16, declare without force and effect P.D. Nos. 991,
1031 and 1033.

Issue/s:

Whether or not petitioner has legal standing to challenge the premise of P.D. Nos. 991, 1031 and
1033?

Whether or not the President has power to exercise constituent power to propose amendments
to the Constitution?

Whether or not the referendum-plebiscite was valid and considerate with the timeframe allowed?

Held:

Yes, Presidential Decrees in question may be challenged by taxpayers because there is an

appropriation of Php 5 Million for P.D. 991 and Php 8 Million for P.D. 1031. Moreover, the
President undertook proposal of amendments and submitted the proposed amendments thru
P.D. No. 1033. The regularity of the procedure for amendments raised a contestable issue.
 Yes, the President has the legislative power as part of his emergency power under Martial Law. If
the President had been legitimately discharging legislative functions of the interim assembly,
there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the function of that Assembly to propose
amendments to the Constitution, which is adjunct, although peculiar, to its gross legislative
powers. The President's action is not a unilateral move.

Yes, Sovereignty resides in its people. Although age is a factor for plebiscites, everyone has a
vested right to suffrage. Three weeks is not too short for debates and discussions.