SANIDAD VS COMELEC

PABLO C. SANIDAD AND PABLITO C. SANIDAD VS HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS &

HONORABLE NATIONAL TREASURER
G.R. NO. L-44640
OCTOBER 12, 1976

FACTS: On September 2, 1976, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No.
991 to call for a national referendum on October 16, 1976 through the so-called Citizens
Assemblies (“barangays”). Its primary purpose is to resolve the issues of martial law (as to its
existence and length of effectivity).

On September 22, the president issued another proclamation (P.D. 1033) to specify the
questions that are to be asked during the referendum on October 16. The first question is
whether or not the citizen wants martial law to continue, and the second one asks for the
approval on several proposed amendments to the existing Constitution.
The COMELEC was vested with the exclusive supervision and control of the national
referendum in October 16.

Father and son, Pablo and Pablito Sanidad filed for prohibition with preliminary injunction to
enjoin the COMELEC from holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16,
and to declare without force and effect Presidential Decree Nos. 991 and 1033, insofar as
they propose amendments to the Constitution.

Another petitioner, Vicente Guzman filed for prohibition with preliminary injunction,
asserting that the power to propose amendments or revisions of the Constitution during the
transition period is expressly conferred to the interim National Assembly under Section 16,
Article XVII of the Constitution.

Another set of petitioners, Raul Gonzales and Alfredo Salapantan sought to restrain the
implementation of Presidential Decrees relative to the forthcoming Referendum-Plebiscite of
October 16. They assert that the incumbent President cannot act as a constituent assembly to
propose amendments to the Constitution and a referendum-plebiscite is untenable under the
Constitutions of 1935 and 1973.

The submission of the proposed amendments in such a short period of time for deliberation
renders the plebiscite a nullity. To lift Martial Law, the President need not consult the people
via referendum; and allowing 15-.year olds to vote would amount to an amendment of the
Constitution, which confines the right of suffrage to those citizens of the Philippines 18 years
of age and above.

The Solicitor General contends that petitioners have no standing to sue, and that the issue
raised is political in nature – and thus it cannot be reviewed by the court. The Solicitor
General also asserts that at this state of the transition period, only the incumbent President
has the authority to exercise constituent power; the referendum-plebiscite is a step towards
normalization.

ISSUE: WON the issue poses a justiciable question (specifically on the constitutionality of PDs
991 and 1033).
HELD: YES. 7 Justices of the Court held that the issue is a justiciable question, while only 3
maintained it was of political nature and thus not justiciable.

The Court did not agree with the Solicitor General’s contention that the issue is a political
one. This is because the 1973 Constitution expressly provided that the power to propose
amendments to the constitution resides in the interim National Assembly in the period of
transition.

After that transition period, and when the regular National Assembly is in its active session,
the power to propose amendments becomes ipso facto the prerogative of the regular National
Assembly. The normal course has not been followed.

Rather than calling the National Assembly to constitute itself into a constituent assembly, the
president undertook the proposal of amendments through Presidential Decree 1033 and in
effect, through a Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16. Unavoidably, the irregularity of the
amendment procedure raises a contestable issue.