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 Summary (G.R. No. L-34150)

Parties

Petitioner: Arturo M. Tolentino
Primary Respondent: Commission on Elections
Other Respondents: Chief Accountant, Auditor, Disbursing Officer of the 1971 Convention
Intervenors: Nine distinguished Convention delegates

Key Dates

• Joint Congressional resolutions calling the Convention: March 16, 1967 (Res. 2) and June 17, 1969 (Res. 4)
• Delegate elections: November 10, 1970
• Convention inaugural session: June 1, 1971
• Organic Resolution No. 1 approving voting-age amendment: September 28, 1971
• President’s request to COMELEC: September 28, 1971
• COMELEC conditions for plebiscite: September 30, 1971
• Scheduled plebiscite: November 8, 1971
• Decision date: October 16, 1971

Applicable Law

1935 Philippine Constitution, Article XV, Section 1 (amendment process); Republic Act No. 6132 (1971 Constitutional Convention Act).

Factual Background

The 1971 Constitutional Convention was convened under joint‐session resolutions of Congress and Republic Act 6132. In the early hours of September 28, 1971, delegates approved Organic Resolution No. 1 to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 and to submit this single amendment in a plebiscite coinciding with the November 8, 1971 local elections, funding it from Convention savings or delegate per-diem waivers. The President asked COMELEC to implement the resolution, and COMELEC agreed on condition that the Convention print and secure ballots and forms at its own expense.

Procedural History

Tolentino filed a petition for prohibition to enjoin COMELEC from holding the plebiscite on November 8, 1971. The Court ordered service on the Solicitor General and added the Convention’s fiscal officers as indispensable respondents. Nine delegates were allowed to intervene. Respondents and intervenors opposed the petition.

Issue

Whether the Convention had constitutional authority to call and implement a separate plebiscite for ratification of a single amendment—namely, lowering the voting age—before completing and submitting all other proposed amendments in one election, or whether that power lay exclusively in Congress and was subject to the single-election requirement of Article XV, Section 1.

Jurisdiction over Constitutional Convention Acts

Intervenors argued the issue was a nonjusticiable political question and that the Convention was sovereign. The Court reaffirmed its jurisdiction to review acts of a constituent assembly or convention under the Constitution, citing Gonzales v. Comelec (21 SCRA 774) and Angara v. Electoral Commission (63 Phil. 139), emphasizing that no department or body is beyond constitutional constraints or judicial review.

Authority and Limitations of the Convention

Although the Convention exercises extraordinary powers to propose amendments, those powers derive from and are bounded by the existing Constitution. Its acts—internal or external—must conform to constitutional provisions. It cannot undertake functions beyond the Constitution’s grant, such as calling separate plebiscites in contravention of Article XV.

Single-Election Requirement for Ratification

Article XV, Section 1 authorizes Congress or a convention to propose amendments “valid as part of this Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted to

...continue reading

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