PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO V.

SANIDAD, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HONORABLE NATIONAL
TREASURER, respondents. G.R. No. L-44640 October 12, 1976

VICENTE M. GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ELECTIONS, respondent. G.R. No.

L-44684. October 12,1976

RAUL M. GONZALES, RAUL T. GONZALES, JR., and ALFREDO

SALAPANTAN, petitioners,
vs. HONORABLE COMMISSION ON SELECTIONS and HONORABLE NATIONAL
TREASURER, respondents G.R. No. L-44714. October 12,1976

FACTS
On 1976, President Ferdinand Marcos issued the following Presidential Decrees: 1) Presidential
Decree No. 991, calling for a national referendum; 2) Presidential Decree No. 1031, amending
the previous Presidential Decree No. 991, declaring Presidential Degree No. 229, the manner of
voting and canvass of votes in barangay applicable to national referendum plebiscite of October
16, 1976; and 3) Presidential Decree No. 1033, stating questions to be submitted to the people in
the referendum – plebiscite.
The proposed amendments provided that there shall be an interim Batasang Pambansa in place of
the interim National Assembly, that the interim Batasang Pambansa have the same powers and
functions as the interim National Assembly, and that the incumbent President will preside the
session until a speaker has been elected.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioners Pablo Sanidad and Raul Gonzales, in their separate petition, sought to enjoin
COMELEC from holding and conducting the referendum – plebiscite and to declare without
force and effect the Presidential Decrees. Petitioners stated that under the 1935 and 1973
Constitution, there was no grant to the incumbent president to exercise the constituent power to
propose amendments to the new Constitution.
On the other hand, petitioner Vicente M. Guzman asserted that the power to propose
amendments to or revision of the constitution during transition period was expressly conferred
on the interim National Assembly.
Respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that the question was a pure
political one, and that at this state of transition period, only the incumbent president had the
authority to exercise constituent power.
ISSUES

1) Whether or not the President has the power to set up the required machinery and
prescribe the procedure for the ratification of his proposals by the people?
 2) Whether or not the submission to the people of the proposed amendments within the time
frame allowed therefore sufficient and proper submission?

HOLDING
1) Yes. the President has the power to set up the required machinery and prescribe the
procedure for the ratification of his proposals by the people
The court held that the presidential exercise of legislative powers in time of martial law was
valid. The power to legislate was constitutionally vested to the interim National Assembly upon
the special calling of President. However, the people had rejected the calling for the interim
National Assembly and the President adhered to the call of the people. Thus, the National
Assembly was not convened. Only President and the Supreme Court was in operation and the
urges of absolute necessity rendered it important upon the President to act as agent for and in
behalf of the people to propose amendments to the constitution.
Also, the court stated that if the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative
function of the interim Assembly, there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the
function of that assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution.

2) Yes. the submission to the people of the proposed amendments was within the time frame
allowed and there is a sufficient and proper submission.
The court held that 3 weeks period was not too short for free debates or discussions on the
referendum-plebiscite issues. The court stated that the people already new the issues and the
questions were not new. The people had been living with martial law. Moreover, the Article XVI
of the Constitution did not mention as to the specific date when the plebiscite should be held, it
simply stated that it should be held not later than 3 months after the approval of such
amendments or revision. The court stated that the matter of submission involved giving notice to
the people at sufficient time and they ruled that 3 weeks was enough period.