Case Digest (G.R. No. 208393) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In G.R. No. 56350 (Samuel C. Occena v. Commission on Elections, Commission on Audit, National Treasurer and Director of Printing) and G.R. No. 56404 (Ramon A. Gonzales et al. v. National Treasurer and Commission on Elections), both filed in the Supreme Court on March 6 and March 12, 1981 respectively, the petitioners—qualified Filipino lawyers and taxpayers—sought prohibition against the holding of an April 7, 1981 plebiscite called by Interim Batasang Pambansa Resolution Nos. 28, 104 and 106 (1981). They challenged the validity of measures proposing amendments to the 1973 Constitution, arguing first that that charter was not in force, and second that the Interim Batasang Pambansa lacked power or proper procedure to propose such sweeping changes. Respondents were required to answer and filed briefs; oral arguments were heard on March 26, 1981; and the case was submitted for decision. On April 2, 1981, the Court en banc rendered judgment.Issues:
Whether, under the 1973 Constitu... Case Digest (G.R. No. 208393) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Nature of the Actions and Parties
- Two petitions for prohibition filed by Samuel C. Occena (G.R. No. 56350) and Ramon A. Gonzales et al. (G.R. No. 56404) as taxpayers.
- Respondents: Commission on Elections, Commission on Audit, National Treasurer, Director of Printing.
- Chronology of Proceedings
- Petitions filed on March 6 and March 12, 1981; respondents required to answer by March 20 and 23, respectively.
- Answers and comments filed; cases set for oral argument on March 26, 1981; submission of supplemental data; deemed submitted.
- Subject Matter of the Challenge
- Validity of Batasang Pambansa Resolutions Nos. 28, 104 and 106 (1981) proposing amendments to the 1973 Constitution.
- Petitioners contend (a) the 1973 Constitution is not the fundamental law, (b) the resolutions exceed the Interim Batasang Pambansa’s authority, (c) procedural requirements for proposing and submitting amendments were violated.
Issues:
- Constitutional Status
- Is the 1973 Constitution in force and binding as the fundamental law of the land?
- Authority to Propose Amendments
- Does the Interim Batasang Pambansa have the constitutional power to propose amendments to the 1973 Constitution?
- If so, what vote threshold is required?
- Procedural Compliance
- Were the challenged resolutions approved by the requisite number of votes?
- Was the proposed plebiscite properly scheduled and was there fair submission to the people?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)