PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO V. SANIDAD vs.

HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HONORABLE NATIONAL

TREASURER
G.R. No. L-44640 October 12, 1976
FACTS:
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relevantly, PD No. 1031 repealed inter alia, Sec 4, of PD No. 991.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 ReferendumPlebiscite 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.

HON. ROY A. PADILLA, JR., In his capacity as Governor of the Province of

Camarines Norte, petitioner,
vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent
G.R. No. 103328 October 19, 1992
FACTS:
Republic Act No. 7155 creates the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa in the Province of
Camarines Norte to be composed of Barangays Tulay-Na-Lupa, Lugui, San Antonio,
Mabilo I, Napaod, Benit, Bayan-Bayan, Matanlang, Pag-Asa, Maot, and Calabasa, all
in the Municipality of Labo, same province.
Pursuant to said law, the COMELEC issued a resolution for the conduct of a
plebiscite. The said resolution provides that the plebiscite shall be held in the areas
or units affected, namely the barangays comprising he proposed Municipality of
Tulay-Na-Lupa and the remaining areas of the mother Municipality of Labo,
Camarines Norte.
In the plebiscite held throughout the Municipality of Labo, majority of the votes cast
were against the creation of the Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa.
Thus, petitioner as Governor of Camarines Norte, seeks to set aside the plebiscite
conducted throughout the Municipality of Labo and prays that a new plebiscite be
undertaken. It is the contention of petitioner that the plebiscite was a complete
failure and that the results obtained were invalid and illegal because the plebiscite,
as mandated by COMELEC, should have been conducted only in the political unit or
units affected, i.e. the 12 barangays comprising the new Municipality of Tulay-NaLupa namely Tulay-Na-Lupa, Lugui, San Antonio, Mabilo I, Napaod, Benit, BayanBayan, Matanlang, Pag-Asa, Maot, and Calabasa. Petitioner stresses that the
plebiscite should not have included the remaining area of the mother unit of the

Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte. In support of his stand, petitioner argues

that where a local unit is to be segregated from a parent unit, only the voters of the
unit to be segregated should be included in the plebiscite.
Issue:
WON the plebiscite conducted in the areas comprising the proposed Municipality of
Tulay-Na-Lupa and the remaining areas of the mother Municipality of Labo valid.
Ruling:
Yes. When the law states that the plebiscite shall be conducted "in the political units
directly affected," it means that residents of the political entity who would be
economically dislocated by the separation of a portion thereof have a right to vote
in said plebiscite. Evidently, what is contemplated by the phase "political units
directly affected," is the plurality of political units which would participate in the
plebiscite. Logically, those to be included in such political areas are the inhabitants
of the 12 barangays of the proposed Municipality of Tulay-Na-Lupa as well as those
living in the parent Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte. Thus, it was concluded
that respondent COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in promulgating
the resolution.