TABLE OF CASES RE: CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES IN
GOVERNMENT
Title
Mabanag v. Lopez Vito
(Congressional Resolution
proposing the Parity
Amendment)
Note: Expressly overturned
in Gonzales v. COMELEC
Gonzales v. COMELEC
(Resolutions of both Houses
calling for the 1971
Constitutional Convention
and amendments to the
1935 Constitution)
Tolentino v. COMELEC
( 1973 Constitutional
Convention convened)
Planas v. COMELEC
(Plebiscite cases)
Javellana v. Executive
Secretary (Ratification
cases)
Sanidad v. COMELEC (1976
Facts
Resolution of Congress
proposing the Parity Amendment
was assailed on the grounds that
it did not comply with the ¾ rule
prescribed by the Constitution
RBH No. 1 called for an increase
in membership of the HOR; RBH
No 2 called for a Constitutional
Convention RBH No. 3 called for
the amendment of Sec 16, Art. VI
to allow members of the
Congress to be delegates to the
ConCon without losing their
seats. Petitioners sought to
restrain respondents from
enforcing the law passed by
Congress submitting RBH Nos. 1
and 2 for ratification during the
general elections of 1967.
The validity of the ConCon
Resolution (submitting, for
ratification the proposal to lower
the voting age to 18) was
assailed. Issue: W/N piecemeal
amendments to the Constitution
could be submitted to the people
for ratification or rejection.
Petitioners sought to enjoin
respondents from implementing
PD 73 which called for a
plebiscite (to be held on Jan. 15,
1973) for the Constitution to be
approved by the ConCon on
1972, on the theory that: (a) The
power to submit is lodged
exclusively in Congress and (b)
there is no proper submission to
the people
Petitioners sought to enjoy
implementation of any of the
provisions of the “new
constitution” which are not found
in the 1935 Constitution, on the
theory that it was not validly
ratified in accordance with Art. 1,
Sec XV.
Petitioners question the authority
Held and Ratio
DISMISSED; Proposal of
amendments to the Constitution
is a political question. The
enrolled copy of the resolution in
which it was certified that the
proposal had been approved by
the required vote was conclusive
upon the Courts
DENIED; (1) Proposal of
amendments is not a political
question and it is subject to
judicial review. (2) Congress may
propose amendments and at the
same time call for a Constituent
Assembly. (3) Ratification may be
done simultaneously with a
general election or in a special
election called specially for that
purpose. There was proper
submission.
GRANTED. All amendments
proposed by the ConCon shall be
submitted to the people in a
single election.
DISMISSED. The validity of
calling for a plebiscite is
justiciable BUT, the issue
became moot
Although the question of whether
Constitution was validly ratified is
a justiciable question, the
question of whether a
Constitution has come into force
and effect is a political question
beyond the Court’s competence.
The amending process, both as
Amendments) of the President in issuing several to proposal and ratification is
PDs proposing amendments to justiciable. In a crisis government,
the New Constitution and calling the President shall have the
for a national referendum- power to assume the constituent
plebiscite for the said power to propose amendments
amendments. lodged in the Legislative body.

Mitra v. COMELEC (1973 Petitioners argue that the 1973
Constitution) Constitution never validly took
effect, on the theory that the 1973
Constitution was still and is still at
the stage of proposal. They ask
the Court to order a plebiscite for
the ratification of the 1973
Constitution
Even without valid ratification, a
new Constitution could come into
force and effect by the
acquiescence of the people.
Popular acquiescence to a new
Constitution gives the document
the force and effect of the
Fundamental Law of the Land
regardless of the method of
ratification. If it is accepted by the
people (as shown in their
participation in several elections
and referenda since then), in
whom sovereignty resides
according to the Constitution, the
Courts cannot refuse to yield
assent to such political question

Lawyer’s League v. Aquino Petitioners question the The question of legitimacy of a

(EDSA Revolution) legitimacy of the Aquino new government arising from a
Government successful revolution is a political
question beyond review by the
Courts

De Leon v. Esguerra (1987 Petitioners question the
Constitution ratified) appointment of respondents as
barangay officials and maintain
that with the ratification of the
1987 Constitution, the OIC did not
have authority to simply appoint
their replacements
Date of effectivity of the 1987
Constitution retroacts to the date
of the plebiscite (Feb 2, 1987).
Provisional Constitution deemed
to have been superseded by
1987 Constitution on said date of
effectivity

Defensor Santiago v. Petitioners seek to enjoin COMELEC was permanently

COMELEC (PIRMA case) respondent COMELEC from enjoined from entertaining or
acting on the petition by the taking cognizance of any petition
PIRMA group asking for an order for initiative until a sufficient law
fixing details on how to collect shall have been validly enacted to
signatures for the people’s provide for the implementation of
initiative to amend the the system
Constitution.
The system of initiative under Art
XVII, Sec 2 is not self-executory
and needs an enabling law before
the right of the people could be
exercised. However, an
examination of its provisions
reveals that RA 6735 is
incomplete, inadequate or
wanting in essential terms and
conditions insofar as initiative on
amendments to the Constitution
is concerned.
Estrada v. Desierto (EDSA II)
Lambino v. COMELEC
(Labino Group People’s
Initiative)
Estrada questions legitimacy of
Arroyo government and claims
that he did not resign from
position and that Arroyo is merely
an acting president
Petitioners seek review of
COMELEC decision denying due
course to a people’s initiative to
amend the 1987 Constitution
The Government arising from
EDSA I was extra-constitutional
while EDSA II was a
constitutional exercise of the right
to free speech, freedom of
assembly, and to petition the
government for redress
The constituent power reserved
to people under Art. XVII Sec 2 is
limited to the power to propose
amendments to, not revision of ,
the Constitution
Moreover, “direct proposal by the
people” means that the petition
signed by the people should
contain full text of the proposed
amendments to the Constitution