LEGASPI v. MINISTER OF FINANCE 24 July 1982 Ponente: Barredo, J. Topic: Aids in interpretation Facts: Valentino L.

Legaspi, incumbent member of the interim Batasang Pambansa, praying that the SC declare PD 1840 unconstitutional. The said PD was issued in accordance with the legislative powers granted on the President in Amendment No. 6 of the Constitution pursuant to Proclamation No. 1595. Petitioner claims that the said amendment is not one of the powers granted the President by the Constitution as amended in the plebiscite of April 7, 1981.
Law: Amendment No. 6 Whenever in the judgment of the President, 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. Sec. 1, Art. 8 The Legislative power shall be vested in a Batasang Pambansa Sec.11, Art. 7 The President may grant amnesty with concurrence to the Batsang Pambansa Sec. 16, Art. 7 All powers vested in the President of the Philippines under the 1935 Constitution and the laws of the land which are not herein provided for on conferred upon any official shall be deemed and are hereby vested in the President unless the Batasang Pambansa provides otherwise.

Issues: Whether or not PD 1840 is unconstitutional? o Whether or not Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 Constitution is unaffected or repealed by the April 7, 1981 amendment? o Whether or not the term incumbent President, as seen in all other Amendments and which only refers to Marcos, is the person referred to as President in Amendment No.6 ? o Whether or not the phrase President (Prime Minister) means that since the position is no longer held by one person, neither the President nor the Prime Minister can have the power vested in Amendment No. 6? o Whether or not Amendment No. 2, which refers to the legislative assembly simply as Batasang Pambansa, intends to convert or upgrade the present existing assembly (interim Batasang Pambansa) into the regular Batasang Pambansa?

Decision: Held 1. PD 1840 2. Amendment unaffected Ratio Constitutional The 1981 plebiscite does not repeal Amendment No. 6 by omission. Since it was not voted on, it would be unfair to the people to repeal it just because it was not included as one of the questions in the plebiscite. Amendment No. 6 uses the term President and not incumbent President. Therefore, it refers to all future presidents. When the two offices are separated and held by separate people, the power originally for the Prime Minister is transferred to the President. The power in Amendment No. 6 was meant for the executive official, which in this case is the President. The only change made by the 1981 amendment to Amendment No. 2 is the non-inclusion of the incumbent President to the assembly. The reference to the legislative body as Batasang Pambansa (as opposed to interim Batasang Pambansa) is a non-essential issue since the present existing assembly is still the interim Batasang Pambansa.

No.

is

3. The term incumbent President does not apply to Amendment No. 6 4. The phrase President (Prime Minister) does not limit Amendment No. 6

5. Amendment No. 2 did not mean to convert or upgrade the present assembly