SANIDAD VS.

COMELEC Case Digest

SANIDAD VS. COMELEC
G.R. NO. L-446640
OCTOBER 12, 1976

FACTS: On September 2, 1976, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 991 calling for a
national referendum on October 16, 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies ("barangays") to resolve, among other things,
the issues of martial law, the national assembly, its replacement, the powers of such replacement, the period of its
existence, the length of the period for tile exercise by the President of his present powers.

Twenty days after or on September 22, 1976, the President issued another related decree, Presidential Decree No.
1031, amending the previous Presidential Decree No. 991, by declaring the provisions of presidential Decree No. 229
providing for the manner of voting and canvassing of votes in "barangays" applicable to the national referendum-
plebiscite of October 16, 1976. Quite relevantly, Presidential Decree No. 1031 repealed Section 4, of Presidential
Decree No. 991, the full text of which is quoted in the footnote below.

On the same date of September 22, 1976, the President issued Presidential Decree No. 1033, stating the questions
to be submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite on October 16, 1976. The Decree recites in its "whereas"
clauses that the people's continued opposition to the convening of the National Assembly evinces their desire to have
such body abolished and replaced thru a constitutional amendment, providing for a legislative body, which will be
submitted directly to the people in the referendum-plebiscite of October 16.

The questions ask, to wit:

(1) Do you want martial law to be continued?

(2) Whether or not you want martial law to be continued, do you approve the following amendments to the
Constitution? For the purpose of the second question, the referendum shall have the effect of a plebiscite within the
contemplation of Section 2 of Article XVI of the Constitution.

On September 27, 1976, PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO V. SANIDAD, commenced 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.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the case?

2. Whether or not the president has the authority to propose amendments to the Constitution?

3. Is the submission to the people of the proposed amendments within the time frame allowed therefor a sufficient and
proper submission?

HELD:

Issue 1 – Justiciability of the courts

We cannot accept the view of the Solicitor General, in pursuing his theory of non-justiciability, that the question of the
President's authority to propose amendments and the regularity of the procedure adopted for submission of the
proposal to the people ultimately lie in the judgment of the clear Descartes fallacy of vicious circle. Is it not that the
people themselves, by their sovereign act, provided for the authority and procedure for the amending process when
they ratified the present Constitution in 1973? Whether, therefore, the constitutional provision has been followed or
not is the proper subject of inquiry, not by the people themselves of course who exercise no power of judicial but by
the Supreme Court in whom the people themselves vested that power, a power which includes the competence to
determine whether the constitutional norms for amendments have been observed or not. And, this inquiry must be
done a prior not a posterior i.e., before the submission to and ratification by the people.

Issue 2 – Whether or not the president has the authority to propose amendments to the Constitution?

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 people's 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. 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 body's 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.

Issue 3 - Is the submission to the people of the proposed amendments within the time frame allowed therefor a
sufficient and proper submission?

It is worthy to note that Article XVI of the Constitution makes no provision as to the specific date when the plebiscite
shall be held, but simply states that it "shall be held not later than three months after the approval of such amendment
or revision."