Tolentino  vs.  COMELEC  

Doctrine:   The   Constitutional   Convention   of   1971   is   subject   to   the   condition   and   limitation   that   all  amendments   to   be   proposed   by   the   same  must   be   submitted   to   the   people   in   a   single   “election”   or  plebiscite.  Keywords:  Constitutional  Convention,  constitutional  amendments,  plebiscite  Date:  1971  Ponente:  Justice  Barredo    

Short  version  

Petition  is  for  prohibition  to  restrain  respondent  COMELEC  from  holding  a  plebiscite  for  the  ratification  of  a  proposed  amendment  in  the  Constitution.  Petitioner  prays  that  the  resolutions  of  the  Constitutional  Convention   and   the   acts   of   Comelec   in   obedience   to   such   resolutions   be   declared   null   and   void.   The  Court  voted  to  grant  the  petition.  

 

Facts  

The   1971   Constitutional   Convention   was   convened   through   two   resolutions   (Resolutions   2   and   4)   of  Congress   in   its   capacity   as   a   constituent   assembly   to   propose   amendments   to   the   Constitution.   The  proposed  amendment  in  the  present  case  is  the  lowering  of  the  voting  age  to  18.    

• Petitioner  submits  that  the  said  resolutions  contravene  the  Constitution  on  two  points:  1)  only  Congress  as  a  legislative  body  has  the  power  to  call  and  hold  a  plebiscite  so  that  it  may  not  be  exercised  by  the  Convention,  and  2)  that  the  proposed  amendments  should  all  be  presented  to  the  people  for  ratification.  

• Respondents  posit   that   the  power   to  provide   for,   fix   the  date  and   lay  down  the  details  of   the  plebiscite  is  within  the  authority  of  the  Convention,  and  that  the  Convention  has  the  discretion  whether  to  submit  the  amendments  individually  or  jointly.  

• Intervenors   contend   that   the   issue   is   one  of   a   political   question  over  which   the  Court   cannot  rule.  

 

Issues  

1. Does  the  Court  have  jurisdiction  over  the  present  issue?  2. Is   it   within   the   power   of   the   Convention   to   call   and   hold   a   plebiscite   for   the   ratification   of  

proposed  amendments  to  the  Constitution?  3. Does  the  Constitution  allow  the  submission  to  the  people  of  piecemeal  proposed  amendments?  

 

   

Ratio  

1. Yes.  In  Angara  vs.  Electoral  Commission,  it  has  been  held  that  the  judicial  department  has  the  power  to  determine  the  proper  allocation  of  powers  between  the  several  departments  of  government  and  among  the  integral  or  constituent  units  thereof.      In  considering  the  present  issue  justiciable,  the  Court  does  not  undermine  the  authority  of  the  Convention.   It   is   simply   because   both   the   Court   and   the   Convention   are   subject   to   the  Constitution  and  the  rule  of  law,  and  the  Constitution  provides  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Court  to  resolve  conflicting  claims  of  authority  and   to  establish   for   the  parties   in  an  actual  controversy  the  rights  which  the  Constitution  secures  and  guarantees  to  them.    

2. Ambiguous.  The   Court   considers   it   to   be   of   the   utmost   importance   that   the   Convention   should   be  untrammeled  and  unrestrained  in  the  performance  of  its  constitutionally  assigned  mission  in  the  manner  and  form  it  may  conceive  best,  and  so  the  Court  may  step  in  to  clear  up  doubts  as  to  the  boundaries  set  down  by  the  Constitution  only  when  and  to  the  specific  extent  only  that  it  would  be  necessary  to  do  so  to  avoid  a  constitutional  crises  or  a  clearly  demonstrable  violation  of  the  existing  Charter.  The   Court   refrained   from   making   any   pronouncement   or   expression   of   views   because   it   is  divided  in  itself,  and  that  it  found  itself  short  of  time  to  study  and  deliberate  the  case.    

3. No.  The   Court   holds   that   all   the   amendments   to   be   proposed   by   the   same   Convention   must   be  submitted  to  the  people  in  a  single  “election”  or  plebiscite.  Article   XV,   Section   1   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.  Any   amendment   of   the   Constitution   is   as   important   as   the   whole   of   it,   if   only   because   the  Constitution  has  to  be  an  integrated  and  harmonious  instrument.  Once  the  original  constitution  is  approved,  the  part  that  the  people  play  in  its  amendment  becomes  harder,  for  when  a  whole  constitution   is  submitted  to  them,  more  or   less  they  can  assume   its  harmony  as  an   integrated  whole,   and   they   can   either   accept   or   reject   it   in   its   entirety.   Submitting   to   them   only   the  proposed  amendment  deprives   the  voter  of  a   fixed   frame  of   reference  as   to  what  will  be   the  final  draft,  so  that  they  cannot  decide  intelligently  whether  to  accept  or  reject  it.  

 

Justice  Makalintal  

• Vote   reserved:   entertains   grave   doubts   as   to   the   validity   of   the   premises   postulated   and  conclusions  reached  in  support  of  the  dispositive  portion.  

Justices  Reyes,  Zaldivar,  Castro,  Makasiar  

• Concurring:   there   can   be   no   proper   submission   of   the   proposed   amendment   and   that   the    holding  of  the  plebiscite  on  the  same  day  as  national  and  local  elections  is  not  proper.  

• For  there  to  be  proper  submission,  1)  the  people  should  be  afforded  ample  opportunity  to  mull  over  the  original  provisions,  compare  them  with  the  proposed  amendments,  and  try  to  reach  an  

independent  conclusion,  and  2)  the  government  should  strain  every  effort  to  inform  citizens  of  the  provisions  to  be  amendment  and  the  meaning,  nature  and  effects  thereof.  

• Concentration  of  the  people’s  attention   is  diverted  by  other   issues,  such  as  the  choice  of   local  and  national  officials.  

Justice  Fernando  

• Concurring  and  dissenting:  concurs  that  the  Court,  Congress  and  the  Convention  all  bow  to  the  supremacy  of  the  Constitution;  dissents  on  the  nullification  of  the  action  of  the  Convention.  

• The  Constitution  uses   the  word   “election”   in   the   singular,   but   that   is   not   decisive.   The  words  used   in  the  Constitution  are  not   inert;   they  derive  vitality   from  the  obvious  purposes  at  which  they  are  aimed.