Case Summary (G.R. No. 56350)
Authority of the Interim Batasang Pambansa to Propose Amendments
Under the 1976 Amendments and Transitory Provisions of the 1973 Constitution, the Interim Batasang Pambansa, when convened as a constituent assembly upon the Prime Minister’s special call, possessed the unequivocal power to propose constitutional amendments by majority vote.
Scope and Extent of Proposed Amendments
Petitioners argued that the resolutions effectuated a wholesale revision rather than mere amendments. The Court rejected this distinction, citing Del Rosario v. Comelec: any proposed change, partial or total, falls within the constituent body’s power so long as ratified by the people.
Voting Requirements for Proposals
The Constitution requires only a simple majority of the constituent body to propose amendments. Even if a three-fourths legislative threshold applied, the challenged Resolutions Nos. 28, 104 and 106 secured overwhelming affirmative votes far exceeding that benchmark.
Procedural Compliance and Submission to the People
The Charter mandates a plebiscite within three months of proposal. The April 7, 1981 plebiscite date falls within the 90-day period following the February adoption. Public awareness was deemed sufficient, given extensive discussion in the Batasang Pambansa and media coverage.
Conclusion and Disposition
The petitions failed to demonstrate any constitutional infirmity. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the prohibition proceedings for lack of merit, with nine justices concurring and no costs awarded.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Teehankee, in dissent,
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 56350)
Background and Parties
- Samuel C. Occena and Ramon A. Gonzales (with co-petitioners Manuel B. Imbong, Jo Aurea Marcos-Imbong, Ray Allan T. Drilon, Nelson B. Malana, Gil M. Tabios) are Filipino lawyers and former delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention.
- They sue as taxpayers to challenge the validity of three Batasang Pambansa Resolutions proposing amendments to the 1973 Constitution.
- Respondents include the Commission on Elections, Commission on Audit, National Treasurer, Director of Printing, and the Interim Batasang Pambansa acting under President/Prime Minister Ferdinand E. Marcos.
Procedural History
- Two prohibition petitions filed: Occena on March 6, 1981 (G.R. No. 56350) and Gonzales et al. on March 12, 1981 (G.R. No. 56404).
- Respondents were required to answer on March 10 and 13, respectively; comments were filed.
- Oral arguments were heard on March 26, with Solicitor General Mendoza representing respondents.
- Cases submitted for decision upon submission of supplementary data.
Legal Issues
- Is the 1973 Constitution the fundamental law enforceable by this Court despite the petitions’ novel denial?
- Does the Interim Batasang Pambansa have constitutional power to propose amendments, and what are the procedural requirements (vote threshold, submission and ratification process)?
- Were the three challenged resolutions – amending land ownership for naturalized citizens, restructuring executive and legislative offices, and modifying the Commission on Elections – validly approved and properly submit