PABLITO V.

SANIDAD, petitioner,
vs.

HONORABLE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS and HONORABLE NATIONAL TREASURER, respondents.

1976 Oct 12 En Banc G.R. No. L-44640

FACTS:

In September 1976, then President Ferdinand Marcos issued PD 991 calling for a national
referendum on 16 Oct 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. 20 days after, the President issued another related decree, PD 1031,
amending the previous PD 991, by declaring the provisions of PD 229 providing for the manner
of voting and canvass of votes in barangays applicable to the national referendum-plebiscite of
Oct 16, 1976. Quite relevantly, PD 1031 repealed inter alia, Sec 4, of PD. 991. On the same date
of 22 Sept 1976, Marcos issued PD. 1033, stating the questions to he submitted to the people in
the referendum-plebiscite on Oct 16, 1976. The PD recites in its whereas clauses that the
peoples continued opposition to the convening of the interim NA 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
Oct 16.

On September 27, 1976, Atty. Pablito Sanidad filed a Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction
seeking to enjoin the COMELEC from holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on Oct
16; to declare without force and effect PD Nos. 991 and 1033, insofar as they propose
amendments to the Constitution, as well as PD 1031, insofar as it directs the COMELEC to
supervise, control, hold, and conduct the Referendum-Plebiscite scheduled on Oct 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 Oct 16 has no constitutional or
legal basis. The Sol-Gen contended that the question is political in nature hence the court cannot
take cognizance of it. The Sol-Gen principally maintains that petitioners have no standing to sue;
the issue raised is political in nature, beyond judicial cognizance of the SC; 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.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the issue is a political question

HELD:

The SC ruled that the issue is not a political question but rather a justiciable one. 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.
Political questions are neatly associated with the wisdom, not the legality of a particular act.
Where the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act, that
matter is definitely justiciable or non-political. What is confronting the SC is not the wisdom of
the act of the incumbent President in proposing amendments to the Constitution, but his
constitutional authority to perform such act or to assume the power of a constituent assembly.
Whether the amending process confers on the President that power to propose amendments is
therefore a downright justiciable question. Should the contrary be found, the actuation of the
President would merely be a brutum fulmen. If the Constitution provides how it may be
amended, the judiciary as the interpreter of that Constitution, can declare whether the procedure
followed or the authority assumed was valid or not.