SANIDAD vs COMELEC
For the purpose of the
FACTS: On September 2, 1976,
President Marcos issued Presidential
Decree No. 991 calling for a national
referendum on October 16, 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.
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.
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 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 questions ask, to wit:
"(1) Do you 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?
second question, the referendum shall
have the effect of a plebiscite within the
contemplation of Section 2 of Article XVI
of the Constitution. (there were several
proposed amendments but I did not
include them..)
On September 27, 1976, petitioners filed
a 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.
ISSUE: WON Pres. Marcos can
propose amendments to the present
Constitution (1973) in the absence of
the interim National Assembly which has
not been convened.
HELD: Yes.
The power to legislate is constitutionally
consigned to the interim National
Assembly during the transition
period. However, the initial convening of
that Assembly is a matter fully addressed
to the judgment of the incumbent
President. And, in the exercise of that
judgment, the President opted to defer
the convening of that body in utter
recognition of the people's preference.
Likewise, in the period of transition, the
power to propose amendments to the
Constitution lies in the interim National
Assembly upon special call by the
President.
amendments without constitutional
infractions. For the President to shy
away from that actuality and decline to
undertake the amending process
would leave the governmental
machinery at a stalemate or create in
the powers of the State a destructive
vacuum, thereby impeding the
objective of a crisis government "to
end the crisis and restore normal
times."

Again, harking to the dictates of the
sovereign will, the President decided not
to call the interim National
Assembly. Thus it is within the bounds of
the Constitution and of law for the
President to assume that constituent
power of the interim Assembly vis-a-
vis his assumption of that body's
legislative functions.
In these parlous times, that Presidential
initiative to reduce into concrete forms
the constant voices of the people reigns
supreme. After all, constituent
assemblies or constitutional conventions,
like the President now, are mere agents
of the people.

If the President has been legitimately

discharging the 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 but adjunct,
although peculiar, to its gross
legislative power.

This, of course, is not to say that the

President has converted his office into a
constituent assembly of that nature
normally constituted by the
legislature. Rather, with the interim
National Assembly not convened and
only the Presidency and the Supreme
Court in operation, the urges of absolute
necessity render it imperative upon the
President to act as agent for and in behalf
of the people to propose amendments to
the Constitution. Parenthetically, by its
very constitution, the Supreme Court
possesses no capacity to propose