Case Digest (G.R. No. L-34150)
Facts:
Arturo M. Tolentino v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-34150. October 16, 1971, the Supreme Court En Banc, Barredo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Arturo M. Tolentino filed a petition for prohibition principally to restrain the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) from undertaking to hold a plebiscite on November 8, 1971 to ratify a Convention-proposed amendment lowering the voting age to eighteen, as embodied in Organic Resolution No. 1 of the 1971 Constitutional Convention. The petition sought a declaration that the Convention resolutions and COMELEC acts implementing them were without force and void insofar as they directed the holding of that plebiscite.
The Court required service on the Solicitor General and the Constitutional Convention. COMELEC answered; the petition was amended to add as respondents the Convention’s Disbursing Officer, Chief Accountant and Auditor because the challenged acts involved expenditure of Convention funds. Nine delegates were allowed to intervene. Several other delegates and private parties filed pleadings which were received in the records though most motions to intervene or to appear as amicus curiae were denied.
Background: Congress, sitting in joint session, passed Resolutions 2 and 4 (March 16, 1967 and June 17, 1969) calling a Constitutional Convention and implementing the call by Republic Act No. 6132; delegates were elected November 10, 1970; the Convention convened June 1, 1971. In the session commencing September 27 (in the early hours of September 28), the Convention approved Organic Resolution No. 1 proposing an amendment to Section 1, Article V to lower the voting age to eighteen and providing in Section 2 that the amendment “shall be valid as part of the Constitution of the Philippines when approved by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite to coincide with the local elections in November 1971.” The Resolution also authorized use of Convention funds for an “advanced plebiscite” or delegates’ waived per diems.
President Diosdado P. Macapagal wrote COMELEC on September 28, 1971 asking it to help implement the resolution. On September 30, 1971 COMELEC informed the Convention it would hold the plebiscite only if the Convention printed separate ballots and election forms at its expense, adopted security measures for printing/shipment, and delivered the ballots and forms in time for distribution with official election materials. The Convention formed an Ad Hoc Committee, issued implementing guidelines, approved a recess (November 1–9) to permit delegates to campaign, and on October 12, 1971 passed Resolution No. 24 confirming the President of the Convention’s authority to implement Organic Resolution No. 1 and ratifying prior acts.
Petitioner’s principal contention was that under Section 1, Article XV of the Constitution the power to call and provide for the plebiscite is exclusively legislative (i.e., a power of Congress sitting in joint session), and that Section 1 requires that “the amendments proposed by the Convention shall be valid … when approved by a majority of the votes cast in an election at which the amendments are submitted” — which, petitioner argued, means all amendments proposed by that Convention must be submitted in one election, not piecemeal. Respondents and intervenors argued the Convention, as part of its power to propose amendments, may determine the time and manner of submitting proposed am...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court exercise jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of acts of the 1971 Constitutional Convention (i.e., is the controversy justiciable or a political question)?
- Did the Convention have authority, under Section 1, Article XV of the Constitution, to call and effect a plebiscite on November 8, 1971 to ratify the single amendment lowering the voting age to eighteen, apart from any other amendments it might propose (i.e., may the Convention submit amendments pie...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)