Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Tolentino v. Comelec

    Uploaded by

    AD
    16 views1 page
    Alex Almario and others sought to prevent Questions 3 and 4 from being included in an upcoming plebiscite that would approve or reject amendments to the Philippine Constitution. They argued that the questions had not been properly submitted to the people according to precedent. However, unlike in a prior case, they did not seek to prohibit the plebiscite altogether but asked for more time for study of the questions. The Supreme Court held that it could not prevent the questions from being presented, as determining the necessity of proposed amendments was a political matter for voters rather than the courts. It also found that Almario et al failed to demonstrate that voters did not understand the meaning and implications of the questions.

    Original Description:

    almario

    Original Title

    digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Alex Almario and others sought to prevent Questions 3 and 4 from being included in an upcoming plebiscite that would approve or reject amendments to the Philippine Constitution. They argued that the questions had not been properly submitted to the people according to precedent. However, unlike in a prior case, they did not seek to prohibit the plebiscite altogether but asked for more time for study of the questions. The Supreme Court held that it could not prevent the questions from being presented, as determining the necessity of proposed amendments was a political matter for voters rather than the courts. It also found that Almario et al failed to demonstrate that voters did not understand the meaning and implications of the questions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    16 views1 page

    Tolentino v. Comelec

    Uploaded by

    AD
    Alex Almario and others sought to prevent Questions 3 and 4 from being included in an upcoming plebiscite that would approve or reject amendments to the Philippine Constitution. They argued that the questions had not been properly submitted to the people according to precedent. However, unlike in a prior case, they did not seek to prohibit the plebiscite altogether but asked for more time for study of the questions. The Supreme Court held that it could not prevent the questions from being presented, as determining the necessity of proposed amendments was a political matter for voters rather than the courts. It also found that Almario et al failed to demonstrate that voters did not understand the meaning and implications of the questions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    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. Theproposed


    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
    theproposed 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.

    You might also like