TOPIC: Constitutional Supremacy

Title of the Case: Tolentino v. COMELEC

G.R./Date: G.R. No. L-34150 October 16, 1971
Petitioner: Arturo M. Tolentino
Respondent: COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and THE CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, THE
AUDITOR, and THE DISBURSING OFFICER OF THE 1971 CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION
Ponente: Judge Barredo

FACTS:
The Constitutional Convention of 1971 came into being by virtue of two resolutions of the
Congress of the Philippines approved in its capacity as a constituent assembly convened for the
purpose of calling a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution namely, Resolutions
2 and 4 of the joint sessions of Congress.
The plebiscite was set to be held on November 8, 1971 at which the proposed constitutional
amendment "reducing the voting age" in Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution of the
Philippines to eighteen years "shall be submitted" for ratification by the people pursuant to
Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of 1971, and the subsequent
implementing resolutions.
Petitioner argues that:
1. Organic Resolution No. 1 and the other implementing resolutions thereof subsequently
approved by the Convention have no force and effect as laws in so far as they provide for
the holding of a plebiscite co-incident with the elections of senators and city, provincial,
and municipal officials. Hence, all of Comelec's acts in obedience thereof and tending to
carry out the holding of the plebiscite directed by said resolutions are null and void, on
the ground that the calling and holding of such a plebiscite is, by the Constitution, a
power lodged exclusively in Congress, as a legislative body, and may not be
exercised by the Convention.
2. Under Section 1, Article XV of the Constitution, the proposed amendment in question
cannot be presented to the people for ratification separately from each and all of the
other amendments to be drafted and proposed by the Convention
Respondents and intervenors argue that:
1. The power to provide for, fix the date and lay down the details of the plebiscite for
the ratification of any amendment the Convention may deem proper to propose is within
the authority of the Convention as a necessary consequence and part of its power to
propose amendments; and
2. This power includes that of submitting such amendments either individually or
jointly at such time and manner as the Convention may direct in discretion.
3. Acts impugned by petitioner are beyond the control of the Congress and the courts, the
issue being a political question and the Convention being legislative body of the highest
order is sovereign.
ISSUE: Whether or not Organic Resolution No 1 of Congress — acting as a constituent
assembly — violates the Constitution
RULING: Yes. We hold that the plebiscite being called for the purpose of submitting the
amendment for ratification of the people on November 8, 1971 is not authorized by Section 1 of
Article XV of the Constitution. Hence, all acts of the Convention and the respondent Comelec in
that direction are null and void. The same provision provides that "such amendments shall be
valid as part of this Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at
which the amendments are submitted to the people for their ratification," thus leaving no room
for doubt as to how many "elections" or plebiscites may be held to ratify any amendment or
amendments proposed by the same constituent assembly of Congress or convention, and the
provision unequivocally says "an election" which means only one.

In order that a plebiscite for the ratification of an amendment to the Constitution may be validly
held, it must provide the voter not only sufficient time but ample basis for an intelligent appraisal
of the nature of the amendment per se as well as its relation to the other parts of the Constitution
with which it has to form a harmonious whole.