Occena v. COMELEC

TOPICS: 1973 Constitution is the Fundamental Law, The 1973 Constitution vested the Interim Batasang Pambansa with the power to propose amendments upon a special call by the PM by a vote of the majority of its members, Doctrine of Proper Submission, 

FACTS:

Petitioners Samuel Occena and Ramon Gonzales, as taxpayers, challenged the validity of the 3 Batasang Pambansa Resolutions as follows:

1) Resolution No. 1 proposing an amendment allowing a natural-born citizen of the Philippines naturalized in a foreign country to own a limited area of land for residential purposes was approved by the vote of 122 to 5;

2) Resolution No. 2 dealing with the Presidency, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, and the National Assembly by a vote of 147 to 5 with 1 abstention; and

3) Resolution No. 3 on the amendment to the Article on the Commission on Elections by a vote of 148 to 2 with 1 abstention

The petitioners questioned the power of the Interim Batasang Pambansa to propose the amendments being so extensive in character that they go beyond the limits of the authority conferred on them. The petitioners also a question on whether the people were properly informed on the amendments. 

ISSUE:

I. WON the power of the Interim BP to propose amendment was constitutional.

II. WON the proposed amendments overhaul the Constitution that it tantamount to a revision.

III. WON the change in the Constitution followed the requisite standard for a proper submission.

RULING:

I.

Yes, the 1973 Constitution in its Transitory Provisions vested the Interim National Assembly with the power to propose amendments upon special call by the Prime Minister by a vote of the majority of its members to be ratified in accordance with the Article on Amendments. 

II.

No, the issue on whether the Constitutional Convention will only propose amendments to the Constitution or entirely overhaul the present Constitution and propose an entirely new Constitution is of no moment because the same will be submitted to the people for ratification. Moreover, amendment includes revision. Once ratified by the sovereign people, there can be no debate about the validity of the new Constitution.

III.

Yes, any amendment to, or revision of, the Constitution shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not later than three months after the approval of such amendment or revision.

In this case, the three resolutions were approved by the Interim Batasang Pambansa sitting as a constituent assembly on February 5 and 27, 1981. In the Batasang Pambansa Blg. 22, the date of the plebiscite is set for April 7, 1981. It is thus within the 90-day period provided by the Constitution.

Moreover, the people were adequately informed and it cannot be denied that the proposed amendments have "been intensively and extensively discussed at the Interim Batasang Pambansa, as well as through the mass media”. Hence, it cannot, therefore, be said that the people are unaware of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendments.

----------------- 

DISCUSSION:

MAJORITY VOTE NEEDED TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS: The Interim Batasang Pambansa, sitting as a constituent body, can propose amendments. In that capacity, only a majority vote is needed. It would be an indefensible proposition to assert that the three-fourth votes required when it sits as a legislative body applies as well when it has been convened as the agency through which amendments could be proposed. That is not a requirement as far as constitutional convention is concerned. It is not a requirement either when, as in this case, the Interim Batasang Pambansa.