G.R. No.

L-44640 181 SCRA 529

October 12, 1976

Pablo Sanidad, petitioner vs. Commission on Elections, respondents.

Facts: PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO V. SANIDAD, father and son, commenced L-44640 for
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.
Issue: Whether or not the constitutionality of Presidential Decrees 991, 1031 and 1033 poses a justiciable
question.
Held: The Court decided that the issue at hand poses a justiciable question. 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. 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. Rather than
calling the 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 regularity of
the procedure for amendments, written in lambent words in the very Constitution sought to be amended,
raises a contestable issue.