Occena Vs Comelec 104 Scra 1
Occena Vs Comelec 104 Scra 1
SUPREME COURT postulate that what the Supreme Court says is not only
Manila entitled to respect but must also be obeyed, a factor for
instability was removed. Thereafter, as a matter of law, all
EN BANC doubts were resolved. The 1973 Constitution is the
fundamental law. It is as simple as that. What cannot be
G.R. No. L-56350 April 2, 1981 too strongly stressed is that the function of judicial review
has both a positive and a negative aspect. As was so
SAMUEL C. OCCENA, petitioner, convincingly demonstrated by Professors Black and
vs. Murphy, the Supreme Court can check as well as
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE COMMISSION legitimate. In declaring what the law is, it may not only
ON AUDIT, THE NATIONAL TREASURER, THE nullify the acts of coordinate branches but may also sustain
DIRECTOR OF PRINTING, respondents. their validity. In the latter case, there is an affirmation that
what was done cannot be stigmatized as constitutionally
G.R. No. L-56404 April 2, 1981 deficient. The mere dismissal of a suit of this character
suffices. That is the meaning of the concluding statement
RAMON A. GONZALES, MANUEL B. IMBONG, JO in Javellana. Since then, this Court has invariably applied
AUREA MARCOS-IMBONG, RAY ALLAN T. DRILON, the present Constitution. The latest case in point is People
NELSON B. MALANA and GIL M. TABIOS, petitioners, v. Sola, promulgated barely two weeks ago. During the first
vs. year alone of the effectivity of the present Constitution, at
THE NATIONAL TREASURER and the COMMISSION least ten cases may be cited.
ON ELECTIONS, respondents.
Same; The Interim Batasang Pambansa is authorized to
Constitutional Law; The ruling in Javellana vs. Executive meet as a constituent assembly and propose amendments
Secretary is authoritative as to the effectivity of the 1973 to the Constitution.—The 1973 Constitution in its Transitory
Constitution whose provisions have been applied already Provisions vested the Interim National Assembly with the
in several cases before the Supreme Court.—It is much too power to propose amendments upon special call by the
late in the day to deny the force and applicability of the Prime Minister by a vote of the majority of its members to
1973 Constitution. In the dispositive portion of Javellana v. be ratified in accordance with the Article on Amendments.
The Executive Secretary, dismissing petitions for When, therefore, the Interim Batasang Pambansa, upon
prohibition and mandamus to declare invalid its ratification, the call of the President and Prime Minister Ferdinand E.
this Court stated that it did so by a vote of six to four. It Marcos, met as a constituent body, it acted by virtue of
then concluded: “This being the vote of the majority, there such competence. Its authority to do so is clearly beyond
is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being doubt. It could and did propose the amendments embodied
considered in force and effect.” Such a statement served a in the resolutions now being assailed. It may be observed
useful purpose. It could even be said that there was a need parenthetically that as far as petitioner Occena is
for it. It served to clear the atmosphere. It made manifest concerned, the question of the authority of the Interim
that as of January 17, 1973, the present Constitution came Batasang Pambansa to propose amendments is not new.
into force and effect. With such a pronouncement by the
Same; Whether the Interim Batasang Pambansa proposals fourth votes applies, such extraordinary majority was
would amend or revised the Constitution becomes obtained. It is not disputed that Resolution No. 1 proposing
immaterial the moment the same is ratified by the an amendment allowing a natural-born citizen of the
sovereign people.—And whether the Constitutional Philippines naturalized in a foreign country to own a limited
Convention will only propose amendments to the area of land for residential purposes was approved by the
Constitution or entirely overhaul the present Constitution vote of 122 to 5; Resolution No. 2 dealing with the
and propose an entirely new Constitution based on an Presidency, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, and the
ideology foreign to the democratic system, is of no National Assembly by a vote of 147 to 5 with 1 abstention;
moment; because the same will be submitted to the people and Resolution No. 3 on the amendment to the Article on
for ratification. Once ratified by the sovereign people, there the Commission on Elections by a vote of 148 to 2 with 1
can be no debate about the validity of the new Constitution. abstention. Where then is the alleged infirmity?
The fact that the present Constitution may be revised and
replaced with a new one * * * is no argument against the Same; The Constitution clearly states when a proposed
validity of the law because ‘amendment’ includes the amendment to the Constitution should be submitted to the
‘revision’ or total overhaul of the entire Constitution. At any people for ratification.—As to the period, the Constitution
rate, whether the indicates the way the matter should be resolved. There is
Constitution is merely amended in part or revised or totally no ambiguity to the applicable provision: “Any amendment
changed would become immaterial the moment the same to, or revision of, this Constitution shall be valid when
is ratified by the sovereign people. There is here the ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which
adoption of the principle so wellknown in American shall be held not later than three months after the approval
decisions as well as legal texts that a constituent body can of such amendment or revision. The three resolutions were
propose anything but conclude nothing. We are not approved by the Interim Batasang Pambansa sitting as a
disposed to deviate from such a principle not only sound in constituent assembly on February 5 and 27, 1981. In the
theory but also advantageous in practice. Batasang Pambansa Blg. 22, the date of the plebiscite is
set for April 7, 1981. It is thus within the 90-day period
Same; Only a majority vote is required for the Interim provided by the Constitution. Thus any argument to the
Batasang Pambansa to be able to propose amendments to contrary is unavailing.
the Constitution.—The Interim Batasang Pambansa, sitting
as a constituent body, can propose amendments. In that FERNANDO, C.J.:
capacity, only a majority vote is needed. It would be an
indefensible proposition to assert that the three-fourth The challenge in these two prohibition proceedings against
votes required when it sits as a legislative body applies as the validity of three Batasang Pambansa
well when it has been convened as the agency through 1
Resolutions proposing constitutional amendments, goes
which amendments could be proposed. That is not a further than merely assailing their alleged constitutional
requirement as far as a constitutional convention is infirmity. Petitioners Samuel Occena and Ramon A.
concerned. It is not a requirement either when, as in this Gonzales, both members of the Philippine Bar and former
case, the Interim Batasang Pambansa exercises its delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention that
constituent power to propose amendments. Moreover, framed the present Constitution, are suing as taxpayers.
even on the assumption that the requirement of three- The rather unorthodox aspect of these petitions is the
assertion that the 1973 Constitution is not the fundamental Constitution came into force and effect. With such a
law, the Javellana 2 ruling to the contrary notwithstanding. pronouncement by the Supreme Court and with the
To put it at its mildest, such an approach has the arresting recognition of the cardinal postulate that what the Supreme
charm of novelty – but nothing else. It is in fact self Court says is not only entitled to respect but must also be
defeating, for if such were indeed the case, petitioners obeyed, a factor for instability was removed. Thereafter, as
have come to the wrong forum. We sit as a Court duty- a matter of law, all doubts were resolved. The 1973
bound to uphold and apply that Constitution. To contend Constitution is the fundamental law. It is as simple as that.
otherwise as was done here would be, quite clearly, an What cannot be too strongly stressed is that the function of
exercise in futility. Nor are the arguments of petitioners judicial review has both a positive and a negative aspect.
cast in the traditional form of constitutional litigation any As was so convincingly demonstrated by Professors
more persuasive. For reasons to be set forth, we dismiss Black 10 and Murphy, 11 the Supreme Court can check as
the petitions. well as legitimate. In declaring what the law is, it may not
only nullify the acts of coordinate branches but may also
The suits for prohibition were filed respectively on March sustain their validity. In the latter case, there is an
6 3 and March 12, 1981. 4 On March 10 and 13 affirmation that what was done cannot be stigmatized as
respectively, respondents were required to answer each constitutionally deficient. The mere dismissal of a suit of
within ten days from notice. 5 There was a comment on the this character suffices. That is the meaning of the
part of the respondents. Thereafter, both cases were set concluding statement in Javellana. Since then, this Court
for hearing and were duly argued on March 26 by has invariably applied the present Constitution. The latest
petitioners and Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza for case in point is People v. Sola, 12 promulgated barely two
respondents. With the submission of pertinent data in weeks ago. During the first year alone of the effectivity of
amplification of the oral argument, the cases were deemed the present Constitution, at least ten cases may be cited. 13
submitted for decision.
2. We come to the crucial issue, the power of
It is the ruling of the Court, as set forth at the outset, that the Interim Batasang Pambansa to propose amendments
the petitions must be dismissed. and how it may be exercised. More specifically as to the
latter, the extent of the changes that may be introduced,
1. It is much too late in the day to deny the force and the number of votes necessary for the validity of a
applicability of the 1973 Constitution. In the dispositive proposal, and the standard required for a proper
portion of Javellana v. The Executive submission. As was stated earlier, petitioners were unable
6
Secretary, dismissing petitions for prohibition and to demonstrate that the challenged resolutions are tainted
mandamus to declare invalid its ratification, this Court by unconstitutionality.
stated that it did so by a vote of six 7 to four. 8 It then
concluded: "This being the vote of the majority, there is no (1) The existence of the power of the Interim Batasang
further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being Pambansa is indubitable. The applicable provision in the
considered in force and effect." 9 Such a statement served 1976 Amendments is quite explicit. Insofar as pertinent it
a useful purpose. It could even be said that there was a reads thus: "The Interim Batasang Pambansa shall have
need for it. It served to clear the atmosphere. It made the same powers and its Members shall have the same
manifest that, as of January 17, 1973, the present functions, responsibilities, rights, privileges, and
disqualifications as the interim National Assembly and the the opinion of Justice Makasiar, speaking for the Court,
regular National Assembly and the Members in Del Rosario v. Commission on Elections 18 to dispose of
thereof." 14One of such powers is precisely that of this contention. Thus: "3. And whether the Constitutional
proposing amendments. The 1973 Constitution in its Convention will only propose amendments to the
Transitory Provisions vested the Interim National Assembly Constitution or entirely overhaul the present Constitution
with the power to propose amendments upon special call and propose an entirely new Constitution based on an
by the Prime Minister by a vote of the majority of its Ideology foreign to the democratic system, is of no
members to be ratified in accordance with the Article on moment; because the same will be submitted to the people
Amendments. 15When, therefore, the Interim Batasang for ratification. Once ratified by the sovereign people, there
Pambansa, upon the call of the President and Prime can be no debate about the validity of the new Constitution.
Minister Ferdinand E. Marcos, met as a constituent body it 4. The fact that the present Constitution may be revised
acted by virtue Of such impotence Its authority to do so is and replaced with a new one ... is no argument against the
clearly beyond doubt. It could and did propose the validity of the law because 'amendment' includes the
amendments embodied in the resolutions now being 'revision' or total overhaul of the entire Constitution. At any
assailed. It may be observed parenthetically that as far as rate, whether the Constitution is merely amended in part or
petitioner Occena is Concerned, the question of the revised or totally changed would become immaterial the
authority of the Interim Batasang Pambansa to propose moment the same is ratified by the sovereign
amendments is not new. In Occena v. Commission on people." 19 There is here the adoption of the principle so
Elections, 16 filed by the same petitioner, decided on well-known in American decisions as well as legal texts
January 28, 1980, such a question was involved although that a constituent body can propose anything but conclude
not directly passed upon. To quote from the opinion of the nothing. 20 We are not disposed to deviate from such a
Court penned by Justice Antonio in that case: "Considering principle not only sound in theory but also advantageous in
that the proposed amendment of Section 7 of Article X of practice.
the Constitution extending the retirement of members of
the Supreme Court and judges of inferior courts from sixty- (3) That leaves only the questions of the vote necessary to
five (65) to seventy (70) years is but a restoration of the propose amendments as well as the standard for proper
age of retirement provided in the 1935 Constitution and submission. Again, petitioners have not made out a case
has been intensively and extensively discussed at that calls for a judgment in their favor. The language of the
the Interim Batasang Pambansa, as well as through the Constitution supplies the answer to the above questions.
mass media, it cannot, therefore, be said that our people The Interim Batasang Pambansa, sitting as a constituent
are unaware of the advantages and disadvantages of the body, can propose amendments. In that capacity, only a
proposed amendment." 17 majority vote is needed. It would be an indefensible
proposition to assert that the three-fourth votes required
(2) Petitioners would urge upon us the proposition that the when it sits as a legislative body applies as well when it
amendments proposed are so extensive in character that has been convened as the agency through which
they go far beyond the limits of the authority conferred on amendments could be proposed. That is not a requirement
the Interim Batasang Pambansa as Successor of as far as a constitutional convention is concerned. It is not
the Interim National Assembly. For them, what was done a requirement either when, as in this case,
was to revise and not to amend. It suffices to quote from the Interim Batasang Pambansa exercises its constituent
power to propose amendments. Moreover, even on the people are unaware of the advantages and disadvantages
assumption that the requirement of three- fourth votes of the proposed amendment [ s ]." 22
applies, such extraordinary majority was obtained. It is not
disputed that Resolution No. 1 proposing an amendment WHEREFORE, the petitions are dismissed for lack of
allowing a natural-born citizen of the Philippines merit. No costs.
naturalized in a foreign country to own a limited area of
land for residential purposes was approved by the vote of
122 to 5; Resolution No. 2 dealing with the Presidency, the
Prime Minister and the Cabinet, and the National Assembly
by a vote of 147 to 5 with 1 abstention; and Resolution No.
3 on the amendment to the Article on the Commission on
Elections by a vote of 148 to 2 with 1 abstention. Where
then is the alleged infirmity? As to the requisite standard
for a proper submission, the question may be viewed not
only from the standpoint of the period that must elapse
before the holding of the plebiscite but also from the
standpoint of such amendments having been called to the
attention of the people so that it could not plausibly be
maintained that they were properly informed as to the
proposed changes. As to the period, the Constitution
indicates the way the matter should be resolved. There is
no ambiguity to the applicable provision: "Any amendment
to, or revision of, this Constitution shall be valid when
ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which
shall be held not later than three months after the approval
of such amendment or revision." 21 The three resolutions
were approved by the Interim Batasang Pambansa sitting
as a constituent assembly on February 5 and 27, 1981. In
the Batasang Pambansa Blg. 22, the date of the plebiscite
is set for April 7, 1981. It is thus within the 90-day period
provided by the Constitution. Thus any argument to the
contrary is unavailing. As for the people being adequately
informed, it cannot be denied that this time, as in the cited
1980 Occena opinion of Justice Antonio, where the
amendment restored to seventy the retirement age of
members of the judiciary, the proposed amendments have
"been intensively and extensively discussed at
the Interim Batasang Pambansa, as well as through the
mass media, [ so that ] it cannot, therefore, be said that our