EN BANC

G.R. No. L-56350 April 2, 1981

SAMUEL C. OCCENA, petitioner,

vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, THE NATIONAL TREASURER, THE
DIRECTOR OF PRINTING, respondents.

---

G.R. No. L-56404 April 2, 1981

RAMON A. GONZALES, MANUEL B. IMBONG, JO AUREA MARCOS-IMBONG, RAY ALLAN T. DRILON,

NELSON B. MALANA and GIL M. TABIOS, petitioners,
vs.
THE NATIONAL TREASURER and the COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondents.

Case Digest

The petition was filed by Occena and Ramon Gonzales who are both members of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and former delegates of the 1971 Constitutional Convention that framed the present Constitution.
They are petitioning for the proceeding against the validity of three Batasang Pambansa resolutions.

Resolution No. 1, proposing an amendment allowing a natural-born citizen of the Philippines naturalized in a
foreign country to own a limited area of land for residential purposes. It was approved by the vote of 122 to
5.

Resolution No. 2, dealing with the Presidency, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, and the National
Assembly by a vote of 147 to 5

Resolution No. 3, on the amendment to the Article on the Commission on Elections by a vote of 148 to 2 with
1 abstention. The petitioners contend that such resolution is against the constitutions in proposing
amendments.

ISSUE: Are the resolutions unconstitutional?

HELD: Petitions are dismissed for the lack of merit. The court ruled the following:

1. The power of the Interim Batasang Pambansa to propose its amendments and how it may be exercised was
obtained validly. The 1973 Constitution vested the Interim National Assembly with the power to propose
amendments upon special call by the prime Minister by a vote of the majority of the members to be ratified.
This is accordance with the Article on Amendments similar with the interim and regular national assembly.
 2. Petitioners also claim that the resolutions were so extensive in character that it amount to a revision rather
than amendments. The Court disposed this contention and held that whether the Constitutional
Convention will only propose amendments to the Constitution or overhaul the Constitution and propose
an entirely new one, would also be valid if it would be submitted and to the people for ratification and
eventually ratified. Once ratified by the sovereign people, there can be no question about the validity of
the new Constitution. The fact that the present Constitution may be revised and replaced with new one is
no argument against the validity of the law because amendment includes the revision or total overhaul of
the entire Constitution.
3. The question is the vote necessary t propose amendments as well as the standard for proper submission.
The interim Batasang Pambansa, can propose amendments as it sits as a constituent body. With that being
said, only a majority vote is needed

Gia Samonte