Samuel Occena vs.

COMELEC
Fernando, CJ
April 2, 1981
G.R. No. L-56350
Doctrine
Constituent power; Amending or revision process (Art. XVII, 1987 Constitution); By Congress as constituent
assembly As provided in the Constitution, the Interim Batasang Pambansa, sitting as a constituent body, can
propose amendments. In that capacity, only a majority vote is needed not the requirement when the
Interim BP sits as a legislative body.
Facts

Ratio/
Issues

(The 1973 Constitution was in force around this time [as upheld in the Javellana case] and it established the
Batasang Pambansa (BP), as an interim assembly in 1978 which later became an official body in 1984. The
Batasang Pambansa replaced the National Assembly under the 1935 Constitution. ed.)
- In this prohibition proceedings, suing in their capacity as taxpayers, petitioners assailed the three BP
resolutions containing proposals for constitutional amendments. They were the members of the 1971
Constitutional Convention who framed the 1973 Constitution.
They argued that these amount to revisions and are beyond the limits of the authority conferred on
the Interim Batasang Pambansa as Successor of the Interim National Assembly. They claim that the
1973 Constitution was not the ultimate law of the land, notwithstanding the ruling in Javellana.
1. Whether the 1973 Constitution was invalid (NO)
On the Javellana case
COURT: A. It ruled that it is too much late in the day to deny the force and applicability of the Constitution.
In Javellana, the petitions for prohibition and mandamus to declare as invalid the Constitutions ratification
were dismissed by a vote of six to four. It then concluded: "This being the vote of the majority, there is no
further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect."
B. With such a pronouncement by the Supreme Court and with the recognition of the cardinal postulate that
what the Court says is not only entitled to respect but must also be obeyed, a factor for instability was
removed.
C. The Court emphasized that the function of judicial review has both a positive and a negative aspect. It can
check as well as legitimate. In declaring what the law is, it may not only nullify the acts of coordinate
branches but may also sustain their validity. In the latter case, there is an affirmation that what was done
cannot be stigmatized as constitutionally deficient.
On the Batasang Pambansas power to propose amendments
A. In line with the 1976 Amendments, the BP was given the same same powers and its Members were also
given same functions, responsibilities, rights, privileges, and disqualifications as the interim National
Assembly and the regular National Assembly and the Member
B. 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.
C. As applied, when, the Interim Batasang Pambansa, upon the call of the President and Prime Minister
Ferdinand E. Marcos, met as a constituent body it acted by virtue of such laws.
On the character of the amendments, alleged to be so extensive that it amounts to revision
A. Whether the Constitutional Convention will only propose amendments to the Constitution or entirely
overhaul the present Constitution and propose an entirely new Constitution based on an ideology foreign to
the democratic system, is of no moment; because the same will be submitted to the people for ratification.
Whether the Constitution is merely amended in part or revised or totally changed would become immaterial
the moment the same is ratified by the sovereign people.
B. 'Amendment' includes the 'revision' or total overhaul of the entire Constitution. This is in line with the
principle in American decisions as well as legal texts that a constituent body can propose anything but
conclude nothing.

On the number of votes necessary to propose amendments as well as the standard for proper submission
A. As provided in the Constitution, the Interim Batasang Pambansa, sitting as a constituent body, can propose
amendments. In that capacity, only a majority vote is needed not the requirement when the Interim BP sits
as a legislative body. Assuming that the 3/4s votes are required, the extraordinary majority was obtained.
B. As to the standard for proper submission, the question may be viewed not only from the standpoint of the
period that must elapse before the holding of the plebiscite but also from the standpoint of such amendments
having been called to the attention of the people. The Constitution indicates the way the matter should be
resolved. There is no ambiguity to the applicable provision: "Any amendment to, or revision of, this
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."
As applied
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.
The proposed amendments have "been intensively and extensively discussed at the InterimBatasang
Pambansa, as well as through the mass media, [ so that ] it cannot, therefore, be said that our people are
unaware of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendment.
HELD

Petitions dismissed

Dissenting
opinion,
Teehankee,
J.

The proposed amendments to be valid must come from the constitutional agency vested with the constituent
power to do so, i.e. in the Interim National Assembly provided in the Transitory Article XVII which would
then have to be convened and not from the executive power as vested in the President (Prime Minister) from
whom such constituent power has been withheld.
The October 1976 constitutional amendments which created the Interim Batasang Pambansa in lieu of the
Interim National Assembly were invalid since as ruled by the Court therein, constitutional provisions on
amendments "dealing with the procedure or manner of amending the fundamental law are binding upon the
Convention and the other departments of the government (and) are no less binding upon the people." he
proposed amendments at bar having been adopted by the Interim Batasang Pambansa as the fruit of the invalid
October, 1976 amendments must necessarily suffer from the same Congenital infirmity.
Assuming the proposals validity, the doctrine of fair and proper submission should be followed. The three
resolutions proposing complex, complicated and radical amendments of our very structure of government
were considered and approved by the Interim Batasang Pambansa sitting as a constituent assembly on
February 27, 1981. It set the date of the plebiscite for thirty-nine days later on April 7, 1981 which is totally
inadequate and far short of the ninety-day period fixed by the Constitution for submittal to the people to
"sufficiently inform them of the amendments to be voted upon, to conscientiously deliberate thereon and to
express their will in a genuine manner."

Prepared by: Eunice V Guadalope [Consti 1]