Facts. In 1976, Pres.

Marcos submitted to the people in a referendum-

plebiscite two questions:

“(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? xxx”
Petitioners now seek to declare void the presidential decrees which

submitted the aforementioned issues to the people in a plebiscite-

referendum. They aver that the incumbent President has no constitutional

grant of constituent power to propose amendments to the Constitution;

consequently, the referendum-plebiscite has no legal basis. They now seek
to enjoin COMELEC from holding such plebiscite.
Issues.
(1) Is the nature of the question on the constitutionality of the assailed
presidential decrees political or justiciable?
(2) Does the President possess the power to propose amendments to the
Constitution as well as set up the required machinery and prescribe
the procedure for the ratification of his proposals by the people?
(3) Is the submission to the people of the proposed amendments
sufficient and proper?
Held.
(1) The question is justiciable. The constitutional amending in this case is
in the form of a delegated and hence a limited power so that the SC is
vested with that authority to determine whether that power has been
discharged within its limits. Political questions are neatly associated
with the wisdom, not the legality of a particular act. [In the case at
bar,] what is in the heels of the Court is not the wisdom but the
Constitutional authority of the President to perform such acts or to
assume the power of a constituent assembly. If the Constitution
provides how it may be amended, the Judiciary as the interpreter of
that Constitution, can declare whether the procedure followed or the
authority assumed was valid or not.