SANIDAD VS COMELEC

SANIDAD VS COMELEC
(G.R. NO. L-44640, OCT. 12, 1976)
FACTS:
On September 2, 1976, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 991 to call for a national
referendum on October 16, 1976 through the so-called Citizens Assemblies (“barangays”). Its primary purpose is
to resolve the issues of martial law (as to its existence and length of effectivity).
On September 22, 1976, the President issued another related decree, Presidential Decree No. 1031, amending the
previous Presidential Decree No. 991, by declaring the provisions of presidential Decree No. 229 providing for the
manner of voting and canvass of votes in "barangays" (Citizens Assemblies) applicable to the national referendum-
plebiscite of October 16, 1976.
On September 22, 1976 the president issued another proclamation (P.D. 1033) to specify the questions that are to
be asked during the referendum on October 16.
Father and son, Pablo and Pablito Sanidad filed for prohibition with preliminary injunction to enjoin the COMELEC
from holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16, and to declare without force and effect
Presidential Decree Nos. 991 and 1033, insofar as they propose amendments to the Constitution.
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.
The Solicitor General contends that petitioners have no standing to sue, and that the issue raised is political in
nature – and thus it cannot be reviewed by the court. The Solicitor General also asserts that at this state of the
transition period, only the incumbent President has the authority to exercise constituent power; the referendum-
plebiscite is a step towards normalization.
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?
RULING:
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.
2. Yes. The power to legislate is constitutionally consigned to the interim National Assembly during the
transition period. However, the initial convening of that Assembly is a matter fully addressed to the judgment of
the incumbent President. And, in the exercise of that judgment, the President opted to defer convening of that
body in utter recognition of the people's preference. Likewise, in the period of transition, the power to propose
amendments to the Constitution lies in the interim National Assembly upon special call by the President (See. 15
of the Transitory Provisions). Again, harking to the dictates of the sovereign will, the President decided not to call
the interim National Assembly. Would it then be within the bounds of the Constitution and of law for the President
to assume that constituent power of the interim Assembly vis-a-vis his assumption of that body's legislative
functions? The answer is yes. If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the
interim Assembly, there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the function of that Assembly to propose
amendments to the Constitution, which is but adjunct, although peculiar, to its gross legislative power. This, of
course, is not to say that the President has converted his office into a constituent assembly of that nature
normally constituted by the legislature.

SANIDAD VS COMELEC - Final Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SANIDAD VS COMELEC - Final Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SANIDAD VS COMELEC - Final Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(G.R. NO. L-44640, OCT. 12, 1976)

You might also like