i.

Ratification
a. Doctrine of Proper Submission
a. Tolentino vs. Comelec, 41 SCRA 702
Facts:
The case is a petition for prohibition to restrain respondent Commission on Elections
"from undertaking to hold a plebiscite on November 8, 1971," at which the proposed
constitutional amendment "reducing the voting age" in Section 1 of Article V of the
Constitution of the Philippines to eighteen years "shall be, submitted" for ratification by the
people pursuant to Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of 1971, and
the subsequent implementing resolutions, by declaring said resolutions to be without the force
and effect of law for being violative of the Constitution of the Philippines. The Constitutional
Convention of 1971 came into being by virtue of two resolutions of the Congress of the
Philippines approved in its capacity as a constituent assembly convened for the purpose of
calling a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution namely, Resolutions 2 and 4
of the joint sessions of Congress held on March 16, 1967 and June 17, 1969 respectively. The
delegates to the said Convention were all elected under and by virtue of said resolutions and
the implementing legislation thereof, Republic Act 6132.
Issue:
Is it within the powers of the Constitutional Convention of 1971 to order the holding
of a plebiscite for the ratification of the proposed amendment/s?
Decision:
The Court holds that all amendments to be proposed must be submitted to the people
in a single "election" or plebiscite. We hold that the plebiscite being called for the purpose of
submitting the same for ratification of the people on November 8, 1971 is not authorized by
Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution, hence all acts of the Convention and the
respondent Comelec in that direction are null and void. lt says distinctly that either Congress
sitting as a constituent assembly or a convention called for the purpose "may propose
amendments to this Constitution,". The same provision also as definitely provides that "such
amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when approved by a majority of the
votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for their
ratification," thus leaving no room for doubt as to how many "elections" or plebiscites may be
held to ratify any amendment or amendments proposed by the same constituent assembly of
Congress or convention, and the provision unequivocably says "an election" which means
only one.
The petition herein is granted. Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional
Convention of 1971 and the implementing acts and resolutions of the Convention, insofar as
they provide for the holding of a plebiscite on November 8, 1971, as well as the resolution of
the respondent Comelec complying therewith (RR Resolution No. 695) are hereby declared
null and void. The respondents Comelec, Disbursing Officer, Chief Accountant and Auditor
of the Constitutional Convention are hereby enjoined from taking any action in compliance
with the said organic resolution. In view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, the Court
declares this decision immediately executory.

b. Gonzales vs. Comelec, 21 SCRA 774 (1967)
Facts:
On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed the following
resolutions:
1. R.B.H. (Resolution of Both Houses) No. 1, proposing that Section 5, Article VI, of
the Constitution of the Philippines, be amended so as to increase the membership of
the House of Representatives from a maximum of 120, as provided in the present
constitution, to a maximum of 180, to be apportioned among several provinces as
nearly as may be according to the number of their respective inhabitants, although
each provinces shall have, at least, one (1) member;
2. R.B.H. No 2, calling a convention to propose amendments to said Constitution, the
convention to be composed of two (2) elective delegates from each representative
district, to be elected in the general elections to be held on the second Tuesday of
November, 1971; and
3. R.B.H. No. 3, proposing that Section 16, Article VI, of the same Constitution, be
amended so as to authorize Senators and members of the House of Representatives to
become delegates to the aforementioned constitutional convention, without forfeiting
their respective seats in Congress.
Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval of the President, on June 17,
1967, became Republic Act No. 4913, providing that the amendments to the Constitution
proposed in the aforementioned Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by the
people, at the general elections, which shall be held on November 14, 1967.
Issue:
1. Does the Congress (through ordinary legislative process) have the power to amend or
propose amendment to the Constitution?
2. May the proposed amendments be submitted at a plebiscite schedule on the same day
as the regular elections?
Held:
1. No. The power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments is not included
in the general grant of legislative powers to Congress. It is part of the inherent power
of the people as the repository or sovereignty in a republican state, to make, and,
hence, to amend their own Fundamental Law.
Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution merely because the
same explicitly grants such power. Hence, when exercising the same, it is said that
Senators and Members of the House of Representatives act, not as members of
Congress, but as component elements of a constituent assembly. When acting as
such, the members of Congress derive their authority from the Constitution, unlike
the people, when performing the same function, for their authority does not emanate
from the Constitution they are the very source of all powers of government,
including the Constitution itself.
Since, when proposing, as a constituent assembly, amendments to the
Constitution, the members of the Congress derive their authority from the
Fundamental Law, it follows that they do not have the final say on whether or not
their acts are within or beyond constitutional limits. The Constitution expressly
confers upon the Supreme Court, the power to declare a treaty unconstitutional,
despite the eminently political character of treaty-making power.
The issue whatever or not a Resolution of Congress acting as a constituent
assembly violates the Constitution essentially justiciable, not political, and, hence,
subject to judicial review.
2. Yes. The term election in Article XV of the 1935 Constitution does not indicate
that the election therein referred to is a special, not a general election. The
circumstances that three previous amendments to the Constitution has been
submitted to the people for ratification in special elections merely shows that
congress deemed it best to do so under the circumstances then obtaining. It does not
negate its authority to submit proposed amendments for ratification in general
elections

b. Judicial Review of Amendments
i. Javellana vs. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 30
Facts:
On January 20, 1973, just two days before the Supreme Court decided the sequel of plebiscite
cases, Javellana filed this suit against the respondents to restrain them from implementing any of the
provisions of the proposed Constitution not found in the present 1935Constitution. This is a petition
filed by him as a Filipino citizen and a qualified and registered voter and as a class suit, for himself and
in behalf of all citizens and voters similarly situated. Javellana also alleged that the President had
announced the immediate implementation of the new constitution, thru his Cabinet,
respondents including.
Respondents are acting without or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing the said
proposed constitution upon ground the that the President as Commander-in-Chief of the AFP is
without authority to create the Citizens Assemblies; without power to approve proposed constitution;
without power to proclaim the ratification by the Filipino people of the proposed constitution; and the
election held to ratify the proposed constitution was not a free election, hence null and void.
Following that, petitioners prayed for the nullification of Proclamation No. 1102 and any
order, decree, and proclamation which have the same import and objective.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 is a justiciable or
political question, and therefore non-justiciable.
2. Whether or not the constitution proposed by the 1971Constitutional Convention has
been ratified validly conforming to the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions.
3. Whether or not the proposed Constitution has been acquiesced in (with or without valid
ratification) by the people.
4. Whether or not the petitioners are entitled for relief.
5. Whether or not the proposed Constitution by the 1971 Constitutional Convention in
force.
Held:
First. To determine whether or not the new constitution is in force depends upon whether or not the
said new constitution has beenratified in accordance with the requirements of the 1935Constitution. It
is well settled that the matter of ratification of an amendment to the constitution should be settled
applying the provisions of the constitution in force at the time of the alleged ratification of the
old constitution.
The issue whether the new constitution proposed has been ratified in accordance with the provisions of
Article XV of the 1935 Constitutionis justiciable as jurisprudence here and in the US (from whom we
patterned our 1935 Constitution) shall show.

Second. The Constitution does not allow Congress or anybody else to vest in those lacking the
qualifications and having the disqualifications mentioned in the Constitution the right of suffrage.

The votes of persons less than 21 years of age render the proceedings in the Citizens assemblies void.
Proceedings held in such Citizens Assemblies were fundamentally irregular, in that persons lacking
the qualifications prescribed in Article V Section 1 of the 1935Constitution were allowed to vote in
said Assemblies. And, since there is no means by which the invalid votes of those less than 21 years of
age can be separated or segregated from those of the qualified voters, the proceedings in the Citizens
Assemblies must be considered null and void.

Viva voce voting for the ratification of the constitution is void. Article XV of the
1935 Constitution envisages with the term "votes cast" choices made on ballots not orally or by
raising hands by the persons taking part in plebiscites. This is but natural and logical, for, since the
early years of the American regime, we had adopted the Australian Ballot System, with its major
characteristics, namely, uniform official ballots prepared and furnished by the Government and secrecy
in the voting, with the advantage of keeping records that permit judicial inquiry, when necessary, into
the accuracy of the election returns.

The plebiscite on the constitution not having been conducted under the supervision of COMELEC is
void. The point is that, such of the Barrio Assemblies as were held took place without the intervention
of the COMELEC and without complying with the provisions of the Election Code of 1971 or even of
those of Presidential Decree No. 73. The procedure therein mostly followed is such that there is no
reasonable means of checking the accuracy of the returns filed by the officers who conducted said
plebiscites. This is another patent violation of Article X of the 1935 Constitution which form part of
the fundamental scheme set forth in the 1935 Constitution, as amended, to insure the "free, orderly, and
honest" expression of the people's will. For this, the alleged plebiscite in the Citizens Assemblies is
null and void, insofar as the same are claimed to have ratified the revised Constitution.

Third. Proclamation No. 1102 is not an evidence of ratification. Article X of the
1935 Constitution places COMELEC the "exclusive" charge to the "the enforcement and
administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections," independently of the Executive. But
there is not even a certification by the COMELEC in support of the alleged results of the citizens
assemblies relied upon inProclamation No. 1102. Also, on January 17, 1973 neither the alleged
president of the Federation of Provincial or City Barangays nor the Department of Local Governments
had certified to the President the alleged result of the citizens' assemblies all over the Philippines. The
citizens assemblies did not adopt the proposedconstitution. It is to my mind a matter of judicial
knowledge that there have been no such citizens assemblies in many parts of Manila and suburbs, not
to say, also, in other parts of the Philippines.

Fourth. The Court is not prepared to concede that the acts the officers and offices of
the Executive Department, in line withProclamation No. 1102, connote recognition of or acquiescence
to the proposed Constitution.

A department of the Government cannot recognize its own acts. Recognition normally connotes the
acknowledgment by a party of the acts of another. Individual acts of recognition by members of
Congress do not constitute congressional recognition, unless the members have performed said acts in
session duly assembled. This is a well-established principle of Administrative Law and of the Law of
Public Officers. The compliance by the people with the orders of martial law government does not
constitute acquiescence to the proposed Constitution. Neither does the Court prepared to declare that
the people's inaction as regards Proclamation No. 1102, and their compliance with a number of
Presidential orders, decrees and/or instructions, some or many of which have admittedly had salutary
effects, issued subsequently thereto, amounts to a ratification, adoption or approval of
said Proclamation No. 1102. The intimidation is there, and inaction or obedience of the people, under
these conditions, is not necessarily an act of conformity or acquiescence.

As regards the applicability to these cases of the "enrolled bill" rule, it is well to remember that the
same refers to a document certified to the President for his action under the Constitution by the Senate
President and the Speaker of the House of Reps, and attested to by the respective Secretaries of both
Houses, concerning legislative measures approved by said Houses. Whereas, Proclamation No. 1102 is
an act of the President declaring the results of a plebiscite on the proposed Constitution, an act which
Article X of the 1935Constitution denies the executive department of the Government.

In all other respects and with regard to the other respondent in said case, petitions therein should be
given due course, there being more than prima facie showing that the proposed Constitution has not
been ratified in accordance with Article XV of the 1935 Constitution, either strictly, substantially, or
has been acquiesced in by the people or majority thereof; that said proposed Constitution is not in force
and effect; and that the 1935 Constitution is still the Fundamental Law of the Land, without prejudice
to the submission of said proposed Constitution to the people at a plebiscite for its ratification or
rejection in accordance with Articles V, X and XV of the 1935Constitution and the provisions of the
Revised Election Code in force at the time of such plebiscite.

Fifth. Four (4) members of the Court, namely, Justices Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra hold
that it is in force by virtue of the people's acceptance thereof; 4 members of the Court, namely, Justices
Makalintal, Castro, Fernando and Teehankee cast no vote thereon on the premise stated in their votes
on the third question that they could not state with judicial certainty whether the people have accepted
or not accepted the Constitution; and 2 members of the Court, namely, Justice Zaldivar and myself
voted that the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention is not in force; with the
result, there are not enough votes to declare that the new Constitution is not in force.

ii. Sanidad vs. Comelec, 73 SCRA 333
Issue:
Whether Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 is constitutional or not.
Facts:
COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 was promulgated due to the enacted RA No. 6766 (An Act Providing
for an Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region) last October 23, 1989, which paved for a
call of a plebescite fo its ratification (original schedule was reset from December 27, 1989 to January
30, 1990.
Allegations of Sanidad:
1.Unconsitutional as it it violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the
press
2.Constitutes a prior restraint on his constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of the press bause of its penal
provsions in case of violation
Responses of COMELEC:
- Not violative of the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press but only a
valid implementation of the power of the Comelec to supervise and regulate media during election or
plebiscite periods as enunciated in Article IX-C, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution and Section 11 of
RA 6646
- Does Not absolutely bar petitioner from expressing his views and/or from campaigning for or against
the Organic Act. He may still express his views or campaign for or against the act through the Comelec
space and airtime (magazine/periodical in the province)
Held:
Petiton is GRANTED- Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 is declared null and void and
unconstitutional. TRO made permanent due to the follwing reasons:
1. It has no statutory basis
2. Form of regulation is tantamount to a restriction of petitioner's freedom of expression for no
justifiable reason
3. affected by the issues presented in a plebiscite should not be unduly burdened by restrictions on the
forum where the right to expression may be exercised.