Sanidad v. COMELEC

TOPICS:  legal standing, jusiticiable and political question, referendum and plebiscite

FACTS:

Petitioners Sanidad sought to enjoin the COMELEC from holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16, 1976 per PD 1031 and to declare without effect PD 991, PD 1033.

Presidential Decree No. 991 - calls for a national referendum on October 16, 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies to resolve the issues of Martial law, the Interim Assembly, its replacement, the powers of such replacement, the period for its existence, and the length of period for the exercise by the President.

Presidential Decree No. 1033 - it provides the questions to be submitted to the people in the referendum plebiscite: 1) Do you want martial law to be continued? 2) WON you want ML to be continued, do you approve the ff. amendments of the Consti? a) in lieu of the interim National Assembly, there shall be an interim Batasang Pambasna composed of the President and representatives and those chosen members of the Cabinet. 

Moreover, petitioners contend that there is no grant to the incumbent President to exercise the constituent power to propose amendments to the new Constitution. 

ISSUE:

I) WON the petitioners have the legal standing to challenge the PDs

II) WON the issue involves a political question

RULING:

I.

Yes, the petitioners have legal standing as taxpayers. They have an interest over the lawful expenditure of the funds appropriated in the PDs. In this case, PD 1031 appropriates 8M, while PD 991 appropriates 5M.  

II.

No, the issue is a justiciable question. 

Under the 1973 Constitution, all cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, executive agreement, or law shall be heard and decided by the Supreme Court en banc and no treaty, executive agreement, or law may be declared unconstitutional without the concurrence of at least ten Members. 

In this case, the validity of PD 1031, 991, and 1033 are assailed as invalid. Thus, the issue of the validity of the decrees is plainly justiciable. More so that the judiciary is the interpreter of the Constitution whether the procedure is followed in amending the Constitution or the authority assumed by the President to propose amendments was valid or not. 

Therefore, the question was justiciable which can be passed upon the court.

--------------- 

DISCUSSION:

There are two periods in the constitutional life of the nation:

1) Period of Normalcy

2) Period of Transition

In the period of normalcy, the amending process may be initiated by the proposal of the (1) regular National Assembly upon a a vote of three-fourths of all its members; or (2) by a Constitutional Convention called by a vote of two-thirds of all the Members of the National Assembly.

The calling of a Constitutional Convention may be submitted to the electorate in an election voted upon by a majority vote of all the members of the National Assembly. 

In the period of transition, amendments may be proposed by a majority vote of all the Members of the interim National Assembly upon special call by the interim Prime Minister.

The President's decision to defer the convening of the interim National Assembly soon found support from the people themselves. 

In the plebiscite of January 10-15, 1973, at which the ratification of the 1973 Constitution was submitted, the people voted against the convening of the interim National Assembly. In the referendum of July 24, 1973, the Citizens Assemblies ("bagangays") reiterated their sovereign will to withhold the convening of the interim National Assembly.

A "referendum" is merely consultative in character. It is simply a means of assessing public reaction to the given issues submitted to the people for their consideration, the calling of which is derived from or within the totality of the executive power of the President. It is participated in by all citizens from the age of fifteen, regardless of whether or not they are illiterates, feeble-minded, or ex-convicts. 

A "plebiscite," on the other hand, involves the constituent act of those "citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are eighteen years of age or over, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six months preceding the election."

Political questions are associated with the wisdom, not the legality of a particular fact.