Title
Tolentino vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. L-34150
Decision Date
Oct 16, 1971
Petitioner challenged COMELEC's plebiscite on a single constitutional amendment, arguing it violated the Constitution's requirement for a single election to ratify all amendments. The Supreme Court ruled the plebiscite invalid, emphasizing the need for a unified submission of amendments.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-34150)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Proceedings
    • Arturo M. Tolentino (petitioner) filed a petition for prohibition to restrain the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) from holding a plebiscite on November 8, 1971, to ratify the Convention’s proposed amendment lowering the voting age to eighteen years.
    • Intervenors composed of nine distinguished delegates of the 1971 Constitutional Convention joined to defend the plebiscite resolution; fiscal officers of the Convention (Disbursing Officer, Chief Accountant, Auditor) were added as indispensable parties.
  • Origin and Content of the Proposal
    • By Congressional Resolutions (March 16, 1967; June 17, 1969) and Republic Act No. 6132, a Constitutional Convention was convened; delegates elected November 10, 1970, organized June 1, 1971.
    • On September 27–28, 1971, the Convention approved Organic Resolution No. 1 amending Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution:
      • Voting age lowered from twenty-one to eighteen years.
      • Ratification “when approved by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite to coincide with local elections in November 1971.”
      • Funds (P75,000 or P250 per delegate) appropriated for plebiscite.
  • Implementation Steps
    • September 28, 1971: President Macapagal requested COMELEC’s assistance pursuant to RA 6132.
    • September 30, 1971: COMELEC agreed, subject to conditions on printing, security, and timely delivery of ballots.
    • October 7–12, 1971: Convention formed an Ad Hoc Committee; issued implementing guidelines; passed a recess resolution (Nov 1–9) to allow delegates to campaign; confirmed implementation by Resolution No. 24.
  • Petitioner’s Allegations
    • The Convention usurped Congress’s exclusive power to call plebiscites.
    • Article XV, Section 1 of the Constitution requires all proposed amendments by the Convention to be submitted in one election; separate submission of the voting-age amendment is unconstitutional.

Issues:

  • Jurisdiction
    • Whether the Supreme Court may review and enjoin acts of the Constitutional Convention in calling a plebiscite.
  • Scope of Convention Power
    • Whether the Constitutional Convention, once convened under Article XV, Section 1, has authority to call and fix the date and manner of a plebiscite for ratification of its proposed amendments.
    • Whether the Convention may submit a single amendment separately before completing its full draft, or must submit all amendments in one election.
  • Exclusivity of Legislative Power
    • Whether the power to call a plebiscite is exclusively legislative and cannot be exercised by the Convention.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.