IV

Authority of the incumbent President to propose amendments to the Constitution.

1. As earlier pointed out, 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 convening of that body in utter recognition of the peoples 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 (Sec. 15 of the Transitory Provisions).
Again, harking to the dictates of the sovereign will, the President decided not to call the interim
National Assembly. Would it then be 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 bodys
legislative functions? The answer is yes. 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 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." 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. 26
2. The Presidents action is not a unilateral move. As early as the referendums of January 1973 and
February 1975, the people had already rejected the calling of the interim National Assembly. The
Lupong Tagapagpaganap of the Katipunan ng mga Sanggunian, the Pambansang Katipunan ng mga
Barangay, and the Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Barangay, representing 42,000 barangays, about
the same number of Kabataang Barangay organizations, Sanggunians in 1,458 municipalities, 72
provinces, 3 sub-provinces, and 60 cities had informed the President that the prevailing sentiment of
the people is for the abolition of the interim National Assembly. Other issues concerned the lifting of
martial law and amendments to the Constitution. 27 The national organizations of Sangguniang Bayan
presently proposed to settle the issues of martial law, the interim Assembly, its replacement, the
period of its existence, the length of the period for the exercise by the President of its present powers
in a referendum to be held on October 16. 28 The Batasang Bayan (legislative council) created under
Presidential Decree 995 of September 10, 1976, composed of 19 cabinet members, 9 officials with
cabinet rank, 91 members of the Lupong Tagapagpaganap (executive committee) of the Katipunan ng
mga Sangguniang Bayan voted in session to submit directly to the people in a plebiscite on October
16, the previously quoted proposed amendments to the Constitution, including the issue of martial law.
29 Similarly, the "barangays" and the "sanggunians" endorsed to the President the submission of the
proposed amendments to the people on October 16. All the foregoing led the President to initiate the
proposal of amendments to the Constitution and the subsequent issuance of Presidential Decree No.
1033 on September 22, 1976 submitting the questions (proposed amendments) to the people in the
National Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16.
V
The People as Sovereign.
1. Unlike in a federal state, the location of sovereignty in a unitary state is easily seen. In the
Philippines, a republican and unitary state, sovereignty "resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them. 30 In its fourth meaning, Savigny would treat "people" as "that
particular organized assembly of individuals in which, according to the Constitution, the highest power
exists." 31 This is the concept of popular sovereignty. It means that the constitutional legislator,
namely, the people, is sovereign. 32 In consequence, the people may thus write into the Constitution

their convictions on any subject they choose in the absence of express constitutional prohibition. 33
This is because, as Holmes said, the Constitution "is an experiment, as all life is an experiment." 34
"The necessities of orderly government," wrote Rottschaefer, "do not require that one generation
should be permitted to permanently fetter all future generations." A constitution is based, therefore,
upon a self-limiting decision of the people when they adopt it. 35
2. The October 16 referendum-plebiscite is a resounding call to the people to exercise their sovereign
power as constitutional legislator. The proposed amendments, as earlier discussed, proceed not from
the thinking of a single man. Rather, they are the collated thoughts of the sovereign will reduced only
into enabling forms by the authority who can presently exercise the powers of the government. In
equal vein, the submission of those proposed amendments and the question of martial law in a
referendum-plebiscite expresses but the option of the people themselves implemented only by the
authority of the President. Indeed, it may well be said that the amending process is a sovereign act,
although the authority to initiate the same and the procedure to be followed reside somehow in a
particular body.
VI
Referendum-Plebiscite not rendered nugatory by the participation of the 15-year olds.
1. October 16 is in parts a referendum and a plebiscite. The question (1) Do you want martial law to
be continued? is a referendum question, wherein the 15-year olds may participate. This was
prompted by the desire of the Government to reach the larger mass of the people so that their true
pulse may be felt to guide the President in pursuing his program for a New Order. For the succeeding
question on the proposed amendments, only those of voting age of 18 years may participate. This is
the plebiscite aspect, as contemplated in Section 2, Article XVI of the new Constitution. 36 On this
second question, it would only be the votes of those 18 years old and above which will have valid
bearing on the results. The fact that the voting populace are simultaneously asked to answer the
referendum question and the plebiscite question does not infirm the referendum-plebiscite. There is
nothing objectionable in consulting the people on a given issue, which is of current one and submitting
to them for ratification of proposed constitutional amendments. The fear of commingled votes (15-year
olds and 18-year olds above) is readily