ALMARIO v.

ALBA

127 SCRA 69 – Political Law – Amendment to the Constitution – Political Question

In January 1984, a plebiscite was to be held to allow the voters to either approve or reject
amendments to the Constitution proposed by the Batasang Pambansa. The proposed
amendments are embodied in four (4) separate questions to be answered by simple YES or NO
answers.

Alex Almario and some other concerned groups seek to enjoin the submission in the said
plebiscite of Questions No. 3 (“grant” as an additional mode of acquiring lands belonging to the
public domain) and 4 (the undertaking by the government of a land reform program and a social
reform program) to the people for ratification or rejection on the ground that there has been no
fair and proper submission following the doctrine laid down in Tolentino v. COMELEC.

However, unlike in the case of Tolentino vs COMELEC, Almario et al do not seek to prohibit the
holding of the plebiscite but only ask for more time for the people to study the meaning and
implications of the said questions/proposals until the nature and effect of the proposals are fairly
and properly submitted to the electorate.

ISSUE: Whether or not Questions 3 and 4 can be presented to the people on a later date.

HELD: No. This is a political question. The necessity, expediency, and wisdom of the proposed
amendments are beyond the power of the courts to adjudicate. Precisely, whether or not “grant”
of public land and “urban land reform” are unwise or improvident or whether or not the proposed
amendments are unnecessary is a matter which only the people can decide. The questions are
presented for their determination. Assuming that a member or some members of the Supreme
Court may find undesirable any additional mode of disposing of public land or an urban land
reform program, the remedy is to vote “NO” in the plebiscite but not to substitute his or their
aversion to the proposed amendments by denying to the millions of voters an opportunity to
express their own likes or dislikes.

Further, Almario et al have failed to make out a case that the average voter does not know the
meaning of “grant” of public land or of “urban land reform.”

ALEX G. ALMARIO, ISAGANI M. JUNGCO, ESTANISLAO L. CESA, JR.,

DORINTINO FLORESTA, FIDELA Y. VARGAS, ET AL., Petitioners, v. HON.
MANUEL ALBA and THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 1973 CONSTITUTION;

GRANT OF ALIENABLE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND URBAN LAND REFORM;
PROPOSALS BASED ON PRESENT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. — The present
provisions of the Constitution are adequate to support any program of the government
for the grant of public lands to qualified and deserving citizens or for the
implementation of urban land reform. Homesteads and free patents are "grants." We
likewise see no constitutional infirmity to a law passed by the Batasang Pambansa,
under the present Constitution, that would grant alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain not more than twenty four (24) hectares to any qualified tenant, farmer,
and other landless citizen in areas reserved by the President, acting pursuant to such
law.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; NECESSITY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DETERMINED SOLELY BY

THE PEOPLE. — The necessity, expediency, and wisdom of the proposed amendments
are beyond the power of the courts to adjudicate. Precisely, whether or not "grant" of
public land and "urban land reform" are unwise or improvident or whether or not the
proposed amendments are unnecessary is a matter which only the people can decide.
The questions are presented for their determination.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PUBLICATION; REQUIREMENT FOR FAIR AND PROPER SUBMISSION
ADEQUATELY MET. — Batas Pambansa Blg. 643 directs the COMELEC to publish the
amendments. The respondents assure us that publication in all provinces and cities,
except a few where there are no local newspapers, has been affected and that
Barangays all over the country have been enjoined to hold community gatherings for
this purpose. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines and various civic organizations have
taken a strong stand for or against the last two proposed questions. Television and
radio programs regularly broadcast the amendments. The petitioners have failed to
explain why, inspite of all the above, there is still fair and proper submission.

FERNANDO, C.J., concurring: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 1973 CONSTITUTION;

GRANT OF ALIENABLE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND URBAN LAND REFORM;
PROPOSALS ALREADY AUTHORIZED UNDER THE EXISTING CONSTITUTION. —
Resolution No. 105 deals with the grant or distribution of alienable and disposable lands
of the public domain to qualified tenants, farmers and other landless citizens.
Resolution No. 113 deals with urban land reform and social housing program. They are,
then, immediately recognizable as logical and necessary extensions of the fundamental
principle of social justice enshrined as far back as the 1935 Constitution and expanded
in the present Constitution. Our adoption of such principle antedated the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights by thirteen years. To my mind, therefore, no question
need arise under the standard of proper submission.

PLANA, J., concurring: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 1973 CONSTITUTION;

GRANT OF ALIENABLE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND URBAN LAND REFORM;
PROPOSALS ALREADY AUTHORIZED UNDER THE EXISTING CONSTITUTION. —
Reflecting on Section 11, Article XIV and Section 6, Article 11 of the 1973 Constitution,
it seems evident that what is sought to be adopted under Questions 3 and 4 of the
forthcoming plebiscite based on Resolutions Nos. 105 and 113 of the Batasang
Pambansa, is already authorized under the existing Constitution. The proposed
Constitutional amendments under Questions 3 and 4 would just be confirmatory of a
legislative power already existing, it stands to reason that a protracted discussion of the
proposed Constitutional amendments under Questions 3 and 4 is neither necessary nor
constitutionally required.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; REQUIREMENT OF FAIR AND PROPER SUBMISSION COMPLIED WITH.
— There is compliance with Article XVI, Section 2 of the Constitution, under which a
proposed Constitutional amendment shall be submitted to a plebiscite "which shall be
held not later than 3 months after the approval of such amendment." The proposed
amendments under Questions 3 and 4, as embodied in Resolutions 105 and 113 of the
Batasang Pambansa, were adopted on November 21 and December 19, 1983,
respectively. From November 21, 1983, when Resolution No. 105 was adopted, up to
January 27, 1984, there would be a spread of 67 days. On the other hand, from
December 19, 1983, when Resolution No. 113 was adopted, up to January 27, 1984,
there would be a spread of 39 days.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; NO COMPELLING REASON FOR A SEPARATE PLEBISCITE FOR THE
APPROVAL OF QUESTIONED PROPOSALS. — There is no compelling reason why so
much of the people’s money should be spent for holding a separate plebiscite when the
purpose, by and large, of the second is merely to confirm an existing Constitutional
power.

TEEHANKEE, J., dissenting: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 1973 CONSTITUTION;

REQUIREMENT OF FAIR AND PROPER SUBMISSION. — The doctrine of fair and proper
submission to the people of proposed constitutional amendments as enunciated by the
Court in Tolentino v. Comelec (41 SCRA 702, 729) mandates that "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." There must be
fair submission and intelligent consent or rejection. As the late Justice Conrado V.
Sanchez stressed in his separate opinion in the earlier case of Gonzales v. Comelec,
concurred in by the late Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro and Justice Calixto Zaldivar, (21
SCRA 774, 817), the people must be "sufficiently informed of the amendments to be
voted upon, to conscientiously deliberate thereon, to express their will in a genuine
manner." cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; GRANT OF ALIENABLE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND URBAN
LAND REFORM; PEOPLE HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN AMPLE TIME TO COMPREHEND THE
SIGNIFICANCE AND CONSEQUENCES THEREOF; RATIFICATION OF THE AMENDMENTS
IN A PLEBISCITE SHOULD BE ENJOINED. — There has not been ample time and
dissemination of information to comprehend the significance, implications and
complications and consequences of the proposed amendments so as to comply with the
fundamental requirements of a fair and proper submission in order that the people may
intelligently approve or reject the same. It is, therefore, but proper, in accordance with
due process in dealing with such a fundamental instrument as the Constitution which
basically is a charter of limitation of the powers of government, that the precipitate
submittal on January 27, 1984 of Questions Nos. 3 and 4 for the people’s ratification or
rejection be enjoined. It is far better to avail of the maximum 90-day period after the
approval of the proposed amendments for their submittal in a plebiscite so that the
people may at the proper time make their decision with the fullest possible
comprehension. During this interval, the separate and completely different second
additional paragraphs proposed to be inserted in Article XIV, section 12 of the
Constitution in conflicting Resolutions Nos. 105 and 113 (103) as pointed out on pages
2 and 5 hereof should be clarified. Otherwise, if the plebiscite is held on the 27th, the
people would just have to go by the position taken by the State at the hearing of
January 24th that their remedy is to vote "No" against the proposed amendments which
they do not understand (or are "unnecessary").

ABAD SANTOS, J., separate opinion: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 1973 CONSTITUTION;

GRANT OF ALIENABLE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND URBAN LAND REFORM;
SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS IN A PLEBISCITE TO BE DEFERRED. — Partial relief
should be granted to petitioners as there is manifest basis for their claim that the
citizenry has not been adequately educated on the proposed amendments on grant of
public lands and urban land reform. The petitioners cite the case of Tolentino v.
Comelec and although the instant case does not fall squarely under said decision, that
case can serve as a guide in the resolution of this case. No question is raised with
respect to Questions 1 and 2 which have been thoroughly discussed in public and
private fora for which reason there is no cause to delay their submission to the people.
Preparations for the plebiscite on January 27, 1984, have reached the point of no
return. questions 1 and 2 can and should be submitted to the people on plebiscite day
but Questions 3 and 4 should be submitted at some other appropriate date.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., separate opinion: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; AMENDMENTS TO THE 1973 CONSTITUTION; PROCEDURE

ADOPTED THEREFOR SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL INQUIRY. — What may be noted in Article
XVI is that, besides the provision for the number of votes necessary for the Batasan’s
proposal to amend or revise the Constitution, or to call a convention or propose to the
people the calling of a convention, the procedure for the revision or amendment of the
Constitution has not been established. Hence, the procedure shall be as the Batasan
shall adopt in the exercise of sound judgment, in the understanding that when it does
so, it acts only as a constituent assembly and not as a legislative body. If the Batasan,
as a constituent assembly, should provide for the revision or amendment of the
Constitution in a manner not consonant with fundamentals of democracy and of good
government, and its action is challenged, this Court can assume jurisdiction to resolve
the controversy.

2. ID.; ID.; GRANT OF ALIENABLE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND URBAN LAND
REFORM; BATASANG PAMBANSA RESOLUTIONS PROPOSING THE SAME SUBJECT TO
THE PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT IN THE CIVIL CODE. — Publication is a fundamental
requirement for Resolution 105 and Resolution 113 and it has been sought to be done
in BP 643, a statutory law setting January 27, 1984 for the plebiscite. In the same way
that the people are entitled to know what laws have been approved by the Batasan,
through their publication in the Official Gazette, the same requirement should be
followed in respect of resolutions proposing constitutional amendments. Batas
Pambansa Blg. 643, a statutory law setting January 27, 1984 for the plebiscite, where
the people can vote on the proposed constitutional amendments, it should be published
in the Official Gazette pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Code. The Code provides
that "laws shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of their
publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided." The important factor
in the codal provision is the publication, and the date of effectivity of the law is of
secondary importance. I do not subscribe to the proposition that, when a statute
provides for the date of its effectivity it no longer needs to be published. The provision
should be interpreted such that when a statute provides for the date of its effectivity, it
shall not become effective after fifteen days of publication but it shall be effective after
publication, on the date provided in the statute itself.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; FAILURE OF EFFECTIVE PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS. — A reading of the minimum standards set in Gonzalez v. COMELEC, 21
SCRA 774 (1967) will readily show that principles of good government require that, in a
plebiscite for the revision of the Constitution, aside from other standards set, the ballots
should set out in full the proposed constitutional amendments so that there can be no
question that when a citizen had voted "yes" or "no", he thoroughly knew what he had
voted for or against. Publication is for the general public. Individual notice should also
be given to the voter and this can be done easily through the ballot that he will cast.
Thus, in the case of non-resident defendants, summons is published in a newspaper of
general circulation but it is also required that summons be served to him individually
through registered mail sent to his last known address. In the ballots to be prepared for
the January 27 plebiscite, as mentioned in BP 643, the citizen is not made aware of the
exact amendments which have been proposed by the Batasan. Said law merely makes
mention of the amendments in substance. For example, anent Question No. 3, that the
"grant" is limited to 24 hectares is not stated. Question No. 4 is not even indicated.
Again, to my mind, there is failure of effective publication. It is not enough that the
citizen is expected, or required, to read the newspapers and posted copies in public
places.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PLEBISCITE TO RATIFY AMENDMENTS TO BE HELD WITHIN 3

MONTHS FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF LAST PUBLICATION. — If BP 643 is published in
the Official Gazette, and the ballots for the plebiscite should contain in full the proposed
amendments to the Constitution, the plebiscite can be held on a stated date within 3
months following the completion of the last publication. The number of days after
completion of the last publication, whether it is ten days, one month, or three months,
will be a question which this Court will have no jurisdiction to resolve. It is very clear in
Article XVI of the Constitution that the plebiscite shall be held in so many number of
days after approval of the amendment provided they do not exceed 3 months. The
number of days is within the exclusive power of the Batasan to determine.

RELOVA, J., separate opinion: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 1973 CONSTITUTION;

GRANT OF ALIENABLE LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND URBAN LAND REFORM;
REQUIREMENT OF PROPER SUBMISSION NOT MET. — It is safe to say that the people
in the provinces are not, and by Friday (January 27) will not be sufficiently informed of
the meaning, nature and effects thereof. Undersigned takes judicial notice of the fact
that they have not been afforded ample time to deliberate thereon conscientiously. As
stated by this Court in Tolentino v. Commission on Elections, 41 SCRA 702, 729, "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." In the
case at bar, it is sad to state that proposed Amendments 3 and 4 have not been fairly
laid before the people for their approval or rejection. In fact, said proposed
Amendments have only been translated into Tagalog and Cebuano. There has been no
translation thereof in the many other dialects in which case it cannot be said that our
people were afforded ample opportunity to understand and deliberate over them.