PABLITO SANIDAD VS.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. L-44640 October 12, 1976
Judicial Question

FACTS: On September 27, 1976, Pablo Sanidad and Pablito Sanidad petitioned for prohibition with
preliminary injunction to enjoin COMELEC from holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on
October 16; to declare without force and effect PD Nos. 991 and 1033, as well as PD. 1031. Petitioners
contend that the president has no power to propose amendments to the new constitution, as such,
the referendum plebiscite has no legal basis.
On 2 Sept 1976, Marcos issued PD No. 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. Twenty days after, the
President issued another related decree, PD No. 1031, amending the previous PD No. 991, by declaring
the provisions of PD No. 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 No. 1031
repealed inter alia, Sec 4, of PD No. 991. On the same date of 22 Sept 1976, Marcos issued PD No. 1033,
stating the questions to he submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite on October 16, 1976.
The Decree recites in its whereas clauses that the peoples 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.
On September 27, 1976, Sanidad 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. The Soc-Gen contended that the question is political in nature hence the
court cannot take cognizance of it.

ISSUE: Whether or not Marcos can validly propose amendments to the Constitution.

HELD: Yes. The amending process both as to proposal and ratification raises a judicial question. 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. Under
the terms of the 1973 Constitution, the power to propose amendments to the Constitution resides in the
interim National Assembly during the period of transition (Sec. 15, Transitory Provisions). After that
period, and the regular National Assembly in its active session, the power to propose amendments
becomes ipso facto the prerogative of the regular National Assembly (Sec. 1, pars. 1 and 2 of Art. XVI,
1973 Constitution). The normal course has not been followed. Rather than calling the interim National
Assembly to constitute itself into a constituent assembly, the incumbent President undertook the
proposal of amendments and submitted the proposed amendments thru Presidential Decree 1033 to
the people in a Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16. Unavoidably, the regularity of the procedure
for amendments, written in lambent words in the very Constitution sought to be amended, raises a
contestable issue. The implementing Presidential Decree Nos. 991, 1031, and 1033, which commonly
purport to have the force and effect of legislation are assailed as invalid, thus the issue of the validity
of said Decrees is plainly a justiciable one, within the competence of this Court to pass upon. Section
2 (2) Article X of the new Constitution provides: All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty,
executive agreement, or law shall be heard and decided by the Supreme Court en banc and no
treaty, executive agreement, or law may be declared unconstitutional without the concurrence of at
least ten Members. . . .. The Supreme Court has the last word in the construction not only of treaties
and statutes, but also of the Constitution itself. The amending, like all other powers organized in the
Constitution, is in form a delegated and hence a limited power, so that the Supreme Court is vested
with that authority to determine whether that power has been discharged within its limits.
This petition is however dismissed. The President can propose amendments to the Constitution and he
was able to present those proposals to the people in sufficient time. The President at that time also sits
as the legislature.