Case Digest (G.R. No. 56350)
Facts:
Samuel C. Occena v. The Commission on Elections, The Commission on Audit, The National Treasurer, The Director of Printing, G.R. No. 56350, and Ramon A. Gonzales et al. v. The National Treasurer and the Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 56404, April 02, 1981, Supreme Court En Banc, Fernando, C.J., writing for the Court.Petitioners — Samuel C. Occena in G.R. No. 56350 and Ramon A. Gonzales with co-petitioners Manuel B. Imbong, Jo Aurea Marcos-Imbong, Ray Allan T. Drilon, Nelson B. Malana and Gil M. Tabios in G.R. No. 56404 — filed prohibition proceedings challenging the validity of three Interim Batasang Pambansa Resolutions (Resolutions Nos. 28, 104 and 106, 1981) that proposed amendments to the 1973 Constitution and the scheduled plebiscite thereon. Petitioners framed novel arguments including the claim that the 1973 Constitution was not the fundamental law and, relatedly, that the Interim Batasang Pambansa lacked authority or had exceeded its authority in proposing the amendments; they also questioned whether the proposed amendments had been fairly and properly submitted to the people within the constitutional time-frame.
The petitions were filed on March 6 (Occena) and March 12 (Gonzales et al.). The Court required respondents to answer (responses/comments were filed), set the cases for hearing, and heard oral arguments on March 26, 1981 (with Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza arguing for respondents). Supplemental data were submitted and the cases were submitted for decision. The three challenged resolutions had been approved by the Interim Batasang Pambansa on February 5 and February 27, 1981, and Batasang Pambansa Blg. 22 set the plebiscite for April 7, 1981.
The Supreme Court, acting en banc, d...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court could entertain petitioners' contention that the 1973 Constitution is not the fundamental law.
- Whether the Interim Batasang Pambansa had the power to propose the challenged constitutional amendments and whether the proposals exceeded that power (i.e., were revisions rather than amendments).
- Whether the manner of proposing and submitting the amendments satisfied the Constitution’s requirements as to the voting threshold and fair/proper submission (includ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)