Case Summary (G.R. No. L-34150)
Constitutional Provision at Issue
Article XV, Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution requires that all amendments “proposed” by a constituent assembly or convention be submitted “at an election” for ratification. The Court construed this to mean a single, comprehensive plebiscite once the full set of proposed amendments is finalized.
Nature of the Proposed Amendment
Organic Resolution No. 1 reduced the voter age from twenty-one to eighteen but expressly reserved the Convention’s right to propose additional changes to the same constitutional provision or others. The resolution further directed that this “partial amendment” be submitted in a plebiscite coinciding with the November 8, 1971 elections and appropriated funds for that purpose.
Movants’ Arguments for Piece-Meal Submission
- By parity with Congress acting as a constituent assembly, the Convention may submit amendments singly or collectively.
- The singular phrase “at an election” may be construed to allow multiple plebiscites.
- The timing and manner of submission involve policy wisdom, not judicial review.
- The voting-age amendment is simple and self-explanatory, so no broader frame of reference is needed.
Court’s Construction of Amendment Procedure
– The Constitution’s people-ordained amendment clause is binding on all government bodies and the electorate, who must be offered a decisive, intelligible package of changes.
– The mandate reflects the sovereign will that all proposed amendments be presented together, not piece-meal, ensuring a stable frame of reference for voters.
Distinction Between Constituent Assembly and Convention
– Congress as a constituent assembly exists only during joint sessions convened for amendment; it becomes functus officio upon adjournment, then plebiscites follow on the full set of proposals.
– A convention, once elected, cannot reconvene without new elections; it must submit all approved amendments in one comprehensive plebiscite after completing its work.
Historical Exposition on Prior Amendments
– 1939–1940 amendments under the 1935 Constitution were approved by constituent sessions, then submitted in two separate plebiscites only after final adjournment and after proposals were in complete, final form.
– That practice confirms the requirement of wholesale submission, not case-by-case ratification.
Frame of Reference Requirement
– Partial and provisional amendments lacking a complete context deny voters an intelligible basis for judgment.
– The voting-age reduction, burdened with reservations, is too speculative to stand alone.
Rejection of Movants’ Additional Grounds
– Grammar alone did not drive the decision; rather, purposive construction proscribing piece-meal submissions best accords with the amendment clause’s spirit.
– Whether the action is wise is irrelevant to authority; judicial review concerns power, not prudence.
– The simplicity of lo
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-34150)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Arturo M. Tolentino (petitioner) assailing the validity of Constitutional Convention Organic Resolution No. 1.
- The Supreme Court’s decision of September 28, 1971 declared Organic Resolution No. 1 null and void for violating Article XV, Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution.
- Intervenors and the Commission on Elections, as well as Convention officers, filed motions for reconsideration; petitioner filed answers.
- The Court submitted the motions for resolution and, after full consideration, denied them on November 4, 1971.
Facts and Background
- The 1971 Constitutional Convention adopted Organic Resolution No. 1 proposing to amend Section 1, Article V of the Constitution:
- Lower the voting age from 21 to 18.
- Submit this “partial amendment” to a plebiscite coincident with the November 8, 1971 election of senators and local officials.
- Appropriate Convention funds for the purpose.
- Section 3 of the resolution expressly reserved the Convention’s power to propose further amendments to the same provision or other parts of the Constitution at a later date.
Issues Presented
- Whether the 1971 Convention may submit a “partial,” provisional amendment for ratification before completing its full draft of all proposed amendments.
- Whether Article XV, Section 1 of the Constitution permits more than one plebiscite or “election” to ratify amendments proposed by the Convention.
- Whether the question is nonjusticiable or lies beyond judicial review as a matter of Convention wisdom.
- Whether a separate frame of reference is necessary for ratification of a simple age-reduction amendment.
Arguments of Respondents and Intervenors
- Convention is on par with Congress acting as a constituent assembly, which submits amendments singly or together.
- The term “at an election” may be read in the plural; singular words may bear a plural sense.
- The choice between one or several plebiscites is a matter of Convention wisdom, not judicial power.
- No separate frame of reference is n