Alex Almario vs Manuel Alba

FACTS:
As provided for in Batas Pambansa Blg. 643, the Filipino electorate will go to the
polls on January 27, 1984 to either approve or reject amendments to the
Constitution proposed by Resolution Nos. 104, 105, 110, 111, 112, and 113 of the
Batasang Pambansa

In January 1984, a plebiscite was to be held to allow the voters to either approve
or reject amendments to the Constitution proposed by the Batasang Pambansa.
The proposed amendments are embodied in four (4) separate questions to be
answered by simple YES or NO answers.
Alex Almario and some other concerned groups seek to enjoin the submission in
the said plebiscite of Questions No. 3 (grant as an additional mode of acquiring
lands belonging to the public domain) and 4 (the undertaking by the government
of a land reform program and a social reform program) to the people for
ratification or rejection on the ground that there has been no fair and proper
submission following the doctrine laid down in Tolentino v. COMELEC.
However, unlike in the case of Tolentino vs COMELEC, Almario et al do not seek
to prohibit the holding of the plebiscite but only ask for more time for the people
to study the meaning and implications of the said questions/proposals until the
nature and effect of the proposals are fairly and properly submitted to the
electorate.
ISSUE: Whether or not Questions 3 and 4 can be presented to the people on a
later date.
HELD: No. This is a political question. The necessity, expediency, and wisdom of
the proposed amendments are beyond the power of the courts to adjudicate.
Precisely, whether or not grant of public land and urban land reform are
unwise or improvident or whether or not the proposed amendments are
unnecessary is a matter which only the people can decide. The questions are
presented for their determination.
Assuming that a member or some members of the Supreme Court may find
undesirable any additional mode of disposing of public land or an urban land
reform program, the remedy is to vote NO in the plebiscite but not to substitute
his or their aversion to the proposed amendments by denying to the millions of
voters an opportunity to express their own likes or dislikes.
Further, Almario et al have failed to make out a case that the average voter does
not know the meaning of grant of public land or of urban land reform.
Pablito Sanidad vs. Commission on Elections

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.