Sanidad vs.

Commission on Elections

Facts
O n 2 S e p t e m b e r 1 9 7 6 , P re s i d e n t Fe rd i n a n d E . M a rc o s i s s u e d P
D 9 9 1 c a l l i n g f o r a n a t i o n a l referendum on 16 October 1976 for the
Citizens Assemblies ("barangays") to resolve the issues of martiallaw, the
interim assembly, its replacement, the powers of such replacement, the
period of its existence,the length of the period for the exercise by the
President of his present powers.On 22 September 1976, the President issued
another PD 1031, amending the previous PresidentialDecree 991, by
declaring the provisions of Presidential Decree 229 providing for the manner
of voting andcanvass of votes in "barangays" (Citizens Assemblies)
applicable to the national referendum-plebiscite of 16 October 1976. The
President also issued PD 1033, stating the questions to be submitted to the
peoplein the referendum-plebiscite on 16 October 1976. The Decree
recites in its "whereas" clauses that thepeople's continued
opposition to the convening of the interim National Assembly
evinces their desire tohave such body abolished and replaced thru a
constitutional amendment, providing for a new interim legislative body,
which will be submitted directly to the people in the referendum-plebiscite of
October 16. The Commission on Elections was vested with the exclusive
supervision and control of the October 1976National Referendum-
Plebiscite.Pa b l o C . S a n i d a d a n d Pa b l i t o V. S a n i d a d , f a t h e r a n d s o
n , c o m m e n c e d f o r Pr o h i b i t i o n w i t h Preliminary
Injunction seeking to enjoin the COMELEC from holding and
conducting the ReferendumPlebiscite on October 16; to declare without
force and effect PD 991, 1033 and 1031. They contend thatunder the 1935
and 1973 Constitutions there is no grant to the incumbent President
to exercise theconstituent power to propose amendments to the new
Constitution.On 30 September 1976, another action for Prohibition with
Preliminary Injunction, was institutedby Vicente M. Guzman, a delegate
to the 1971 Constitutional Convention, asserting that the power
topropose amendments to, or revision of the Constitution during the
transition period is expressly conferred

on the interim National Assembly under action 16, A

r t i c l e X V I I o f t h e Constitution. Another petition for Prohibition with
Preliminary Injunction was filed by Raul M. Gonzales, hisson, and Alfredo
Salapantan, to restrain the implementation of Presidential Decrees.

Issue:
W/N the President may call upon a referendum for the amendment of the
Constitution.

Held:
Section 1 of Article XVI of the 1973 Constitution on Amendments ordains that
"(1) Any amendmentto, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by
the National Assembly upon a vote of three-fourthsof all its Members, or
by a constitutional convention. (2) The National Assembly may, by a
vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention or, by
a majority vote of all its Members, submitthe question of calling such a
convention to the electorate in an election." Section 2 thereof provides
that"Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution shall be valid when
ratified by a majority of the
votesc a s t i n a p l e b i s c i t e w h i c h s h a l l b e h e l d n o t l a t e r t h a
n t h r e e m o n t h s a a f t e r t h e a p p r o v a l o f s u c h amendment or
revision."In the present period of transition,
the interim National Assembly
instituted in the TransitoryProvisions is conferred with
that amending power. Section 15 of the Transitory Provisions reads "
Theinterim National Assembly, upon special call by the interim Prime
Minister, may, by a majority vote of allits Members, propose amendments to
this Constitution. Such amendments shall take effect when ratifiedin
accordance with Article 16 hereof." There are, therefore, two periods
contemplated in the constitutional life of the nation: period
of normalcy and period of transition. In times of normalcy, the
amending process may be initiated by the proposals of the (1) regular
National Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; or (2) by
aConstitutional Convention called by a vote of two-thirds of all the
Members of the National Assembly.However the calling of a
Constitutional Convention may be submitted to the electorate in an
electionv o t e d u p o n b y a m a j o r i t y vote of all
t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e N a t i o n a l A s s e m b l y. I n t i m e s o f t r a n s i t i o n ,
amendments may be proposed by a majority vote of all the Members
of theinterim National Assembly upon special call by the interim Prime
Minister. The Court in Aquino v. COMELEC, had already settled that the
incumbent President is vested withthat prerogative of discretion as to
when he shall initially convene the interim National Assembly.
TheConstitutional Convention intended to leave to the President the
determination of the time when he shallinitially convene the interim
National Assembly, consistent with the prevailing conditions of
peace andorder in the country.When the Delegates to the Constitutional
Convention voted on the Transitory Provisions, they wereaware of the fact
that under the same, the incumbent President was given the discretion as to
when hecould convene the interim National Assembly. The President's
decision to defer the convening of theinterim National Assembly soon
found support from the people themselves.In the plebiscite of January
10-15, 1973, at which the ratifi cation of the 1973 Constitution
wassubmitted, the people voted against the convening of the interim
National Assembly. In the referendum
of 2 4 J u l y 1 9 7 3 , t h e C i t i z e n s A s s e m b l i e s ( " b a g a n g a y s " ) re i t e r a t
e d t h e i r s o v e re i g n w i l l t o w i t h h o l d t h e convening of the interim
National Assembly. Again, in the referendum of 27 February 1975, the
proposedquestion of whether the interim National Assembly shall be
initially convened was eliminated, becausesome of the members of
Congress and delegates of the Constitutional Convention, who were
deemeda u t o m a t i c a l l y m e m b e r s o f t h e i n t e r i m N a t i o n a l A s s e m b
l y , w e re a g a i n s t i t s i n c l u s i o n s i n c e i n t h a t referendum of
January, 1973 the people had already resolved against it.In sensu striciore,
when the legislative arm of the state undertakes the proposals of
amendment toa Constitution, that body is not in the usual function of
lawmaking. It is not legislating when engaged inthe amending
process. Rather, it is exercising a peculiar power bestowed upon it
by the fundamental