G.R. No. L-47329 - Hidalgo vs. Marcos y Edralin

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-47329)

Key Dates

Relevant dates included the October 16–17, 1976 referendum-plebiscite (ratifying the 1976 amendments), the contested December 17, 1977 referendum called by P.D. No. 1229, and the Court’s resolution rendered on December 9, 1977.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Framework

The applicable constitution is the 1973 Constitution as amended in 1976. Relevant 1976 amendments referenced in the decision include Amendment No. 1 (creating an Interim Batasang Pambansa in lieu of the interim National Assembly), Amendment No. 3 (provisions regarding the incumbent President as Prime Minister and related powers), and Amendment No. 7 (authorizing referenda to ascertain the will of the people on important matters). Presidential Decree No. 1229 called the December 17, 1977 referendum and posed the specific question concerning whether President Marcos should continue in office and become Prime Minister after organization of the Interim Batasang Pambansa.

Relief Sought and Procedural Posture

The petitioner sought mandamus and/or prohibition to prevent the holding of the December 17, 1977 referendum and to compel the President to convene the interim National Assembly. The Court considered the petition, the Solicitor General’s Comment, petitioner’s reply, and oral arguments heard December 1, 1977. The Court resolved not to give due course to the petition and dismissed it.

Majority Disposition

The petition was dismissed and the dismissal declared immediately executory. The majority did not rule on the suability of the President, noting that the Comelec was impleaded and was the entity called upon to implement P.D. No. 1229. Several members concurred in the dismissal; two Justices (Teehankee and Muñoz Palma) dissented, and one Justice reiterated a separate opinion in a related docket.

Majority Reasoning — Convening the Interim National Assembly

The Court held that the President could not be compelled by mandamus to convene the “interim National Assembly” because that body had been abrogated and supplanted by the Interim Batasang Pambansa pursuant to the 1976 constitutional amendments, particularly Amendment No. 1 which provided that “There shall be, in lieu of the interim National Assembly, an Interim Batasang Pambansa.” Because the interim National Assembly no longer existed under the amended constitutional structure, the requested mandamus relief to convene it was unavailable.

Majority Reasoning — Validity and Effect of the 1976 Amendments and the December 1977 Referendum

The Court treated the 1976 amendments as having been ratified by the people in the October 16–17, 1976 referendum and therefore as part of the 1973 Constitution. Accordingly, the December 17, 1977 referendum was viewed not as a device to ratify those amendments but as an exercise authorized by Amendment No. 7, which permits referenda “at any time the Government deems it necessary to ascertain the will of the people regarding any important matter whether of national or local interest.” Thus, the Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the December 1977 referendum was designed to effect the ratification of the 1976 amendments.

Majority Reasoning — Nature of the Referendum Question and Constitutional Impact

The Court found no constitutional infirmity in P.D. No. 1229 because the referendum question would not effectuate an amendment to the Constitution. The question to be submitted—whether the people vote that President Marcos continue in office as incumbent President and be Prime Minister after organization of the Interim Batasang Pambansa as provided in Amendment No. 3—was characterized as neither in the nature nor the form of a constitutional amendment. The question was described as a consultative measure asking the people to reaffirm or repudiate confidence in the President. If the people voted “yes,” the Court reasoned that Amendment No. 3 would simply be reaffirmed; if “no,” the President had announced he would resign, and such cessation in office would not alter constitutional provisions. On that basis the majority concluded the petition did not present questions of sufficient importance to warrant further judicial relief.

Dissent (Justice Muñoz Palma) — Invalidity of the 1976 Amendments and P.D. No. 1229

Justice Muñoz Palma dissented and, invoking his views in related dockets (including Gualberto J. dela Llana v. Comelec), would have given due course to the petition and enjoined the December 17, 1977 referendum. He reasoned that in Sanidad v. Comelec (L-44640) P.D. Nos. 991 and 1033 (the instruments that produced the October 1976 referendum) were held to contravene Article XVI (on the amendatory process) and Transitory Article XVII, Section 15, rendering the 1976 amendments invalid; thus Amendment Nos. 3 and 7 lacked constitutional and legal basis and P.D. No. 1229 was void. He also shared the petitioner’s apprehension that P.D. No. 1229 would in practice effect a constitutional change by institutionalizing the concentration of President and Prime Minister powers in one person for an indefinite period, thereby nullifying constitutional provisions on terms, modes of selection, and parliamentary accountability (e.g., the Prime Minister’s dependence on the Assembly’s confidence). He emphasized that accountability and changes to the governmental form should proceed through proper constitutional amendatory procedures and deliberative legislative bodies, not by referenda used as substitutes for the mechanisms prescribed by the Constitution.

Dissent (Justice Teehankee) — Procedural and Substantive Objections to the Referendum

Justice Teehankee likewise

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-47329)

Background and Procedural History

Parties: Ernesto C. Hidalgo as petitioner; Honorable Ferdinand Marcos y Edralin and the Commission on Elections as respondents.
Nature of action: Petition for mandamus and/or prohibition aiming to challenge and to enjoin the scheduled December 17, 1977 referendum called by Presidential Decree No. 1229.
Record materials considered by the Court: (a) the petition for mandamus and/or prohibition; (b) the Solicitor General’s Comment on the petition; (c) the petitioner’s reply to the Comment; and (d) arguments presented at the hearing on December 1, 1977.
Court’s preliminary procedural stance: The Court did not pass upon the question of the suability of the President but noted that the Commission on Elections, as the government entity called upon to implement P.D. No. 1229, was impleaded.
Disposition at first instance: The Court, en banc, resolved not to give due course to the petition and to dismiss it.
Decision date and citation: 170 Phil. 556, En Banc, G.R. No. L-47329, December 09, 1977.
Executory character: The dismissal of the petition was declared immediately executory.

Questions Presented

Whether the President can be compelled by mandamus or otherwise to convene the interim National Assembly.
Whether the December 17, 1977 referendum called by P.D. No. 1229 is an attempt to effectuate an amendment to the 1973 Constitution.
Whether Presidential Decree No. 1229 is constitutionally infirm insofar as it calls a referendum on the specific question regarding President Marcos’s continuation in office and service as Prime Minister after organization of the Interim Batasang Pambansa.

Relief Sought by Petitioner

A writ of mandamus and/or prohibition compelling or restraining governmental action related to the convening of the interim National Assembly and the holding of the December 17, 1977 referendum.
An injunction enjoining the scheduled December 17, 1977 referendum as provided for in P.D. No. 1229.

Majority Holding and Disposition

The petition was not given due course and was dismissed by the Court, for the reasons set forth in the decision.
The Court held that the President cannot be compelled by mandamus or otherwise to convene the “interim National Assembly” because that body had been abrogated and supplanted by the Interim Batasang Pambansa under the 1976 amendments.
The Court held that the December 17, 1977 referendum authorized by P.D. No. 1229 did not constitute an act of ratification of the 1976 amendments, because those amendments were already ratified by the people in the October 16–17, 1976 referendum-plebiscite and now formed part of the Constitution.
The Court held that no constitutional infirmity attached to P.D. No. 1229 because the referendum called for therein would not result in an amendment to the Constitution; the question to be submitted was consultative in character and not in the form or nature of an amendment.
The dismissal was declared immediately executory.

Majority Reasoning — Ground (1): Status of the Interim National Assembly

The interim National Assembly had been abrogated and supplanted by the Interim Batasang Pambansa pursuant to the 1976 amendments to the Constitution.
The Court cited Amendment No. 1 of the 1976 amendments which partly provides: “There shall be, in lieu of the interim National Assembly, an Interim Batasang Pambansa.”
Because the interim National Assembly no longer existed as an institution under the Constitution (having been replaced by the Interim Batasang Pambansa), the President could not be compelled to convene the former body.

Majority Reasoning — Ground (2): Ratification Status of the 1976 Amendments and the Role of the December 1977 Referendum

The 1976 amendments to the Constitution were ratified by the people in the October 16–17, 1976 referendum-plebiscite and consequently formed part of the Constitution.
The December 17, 1977 referendum could not be regarded as designed to effectuate ratification of the 1976 amendments because they were already part of the Constitution.
The holding of the December 17, 1977 referendum was an exercise authorized by one of the 1976 amendments — specifically Amendment No. 7 — which authorizes referenda under certain circumstances.

Majority Reasoning — Ground (3): Nature of P.D. No. 1229’s Referendum Question and Constitutional Amendment

The referendum question to be submitted on December 17, 1977 read: “Do you vote that President Ferdinand E. Marcos continue in office as incumbent President and be Prime Minister after the organization of the Interim Batasang Pambansa as provided for in Amendment No. 3 of the 1976 Amendments to the Constitution?”
The Court found that the question was neither in the nature nor in the form of an amendment to the Constitution.
The referendum question merely sought the people’s reaffirmation or repudiation of confidence in the President, a consultative expression rather than a constitutional amendment.
If the people voted “yes,” Amendment No. 3 would be simply reaffirmed; if they voted “no,” the President had categorically announced he would resign in deference to the will of the people, and any cessation in office would not effect an amendment to the Constitution.
Therefore, P.D. No. 1229 did not bear constitutional infirmity on the ground that it effected an amendment.

Concurring and Participating Justices

Justices Makasiar, Antonio, Aqui