KATRYN MARIE A.

BAJO
Constitutional Law 1

9. TOLENTINO V. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-34150, October 16, 1971

FACTS:

Petitioner filed a Petition for Prohibition principally to restrain COMELEC

from undertaking to hold a plebiscite 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 18 years “shall be, submitted”
for ratification by the people pursuant to Organic Resolution No. 1 of the
Constitutional Convention of 1971.

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 held on March 16, 1967 and June 17, 1969 respectively. The
delegates to the said Convention were all elected under and by virtue of said
resolutions and the implementing legislation thereof, Republic Act 6132. The
pertinent portions of Resolution No 2 read as follows:

SECTION 1. There is hereby called a convention to propose amendments to

the Constitution of the Philippines, to be composed of two elective Delegates
from each representative district who shall have the same qualifications as those
required of Members of the House of Representatives.

xxx xxx xxx

SECTION 7. The amendments proposed by the Convention shall be valid and

considered part of the Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast
in an election at which they are submitted to the people for their ratification
pursuant to Article XV of the Constitution.

Resolution No. 4 merely modified the number of delegates to represent the

different cities and provinces fixed originally in Resolution No 2.
ISSUE:

Whether or not it is within the power of the Convention to call for a

plebiscite for the ratification by the people of the constitutional amendment
proposed in the Organic Resolution No. 1.

RULING:

NO.

The main thrust of the petition is that 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 eight senators and all city,
provincial and municipal officials to be held on November 8, 1971, 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, and that, 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.

The petition herein is granted. Organic Resolution No. 1 of the

Constitutional Convention of 1971 and the implementing acts and resolutions of
the Convention, insofar as they provide for the holding of a plebiscite on
November 8, 1971, as well as the resolution of the respondent Comelec
complying therewith (RR Resolution No. 695) are hereby declared null and void.
The respondents Comelec, Disbursing Officer, Chief Accountant and Auditor of the
Constitutional Convention are hereby enjoined from taking any action in
compliance with the said organic resolution. In view of the peculiar circumstances
of this case, the Court declares this decision immediately executory. No costs.