dispelled by the provision of two ballot boxes for every barangay center, one containing the ballots of

voters fifteen years of age and under eighteen, and another containing the ballots of voters eighteen
years of age and above. 37 The ballots in the ballot box for voters fifteen years of age and under
eighteen shall be counted ahead of the ballots of voters eighteen years and above contained in
another ballot box. And, the results of the referendum-plebiscite shall be separately prepared for the
age groupings, i.e., ballots contained in each of the two boxes. 38
2. It is apt to distinguish here between a "referendum" and a "plebiscite." A "referendum" is merely
consultative in character. It is simply a means of assessing public reaction to the given issues
submitted to the people for their consideration, the calling of which is derived from or within the
totality of the executive power of the President. 39 It is participated in by all citizens from the age of
fifteen, regardless of whether or not they are illiterates, feeble-minded, or ex-convicts. 40 A
"plebiscite," on the other hand, involves the constituent act of those "citizens of the Philippines not
otherwise disqualified by law, who are eighteen years of age or over, and who shall have resided in the
Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least six months
preceding the election." 41 Literacy, property, or any other substantive requirement is not imposed. It
is generally associated with the amending process of the Constitution, more particularly, the
ratification aspect.
VII
Freedoms of expression and assembly not disturbed.
1. There appears to be no valid basis for the claim that the regime of martial law stultifies in main the
freedom to dissent. That speaks of a bygone fear. The martial law regime which, in the observation of
Justice Fernando, "is impressed with a mild character" recorded no State imposition for a muffled voice.
To be sure, there are restraints of the individual liberty, but on certain grounds no total suppression of
that liberty is aimed at. The machinery for the referendum-plebiscite on October 16 recognizes all the
embracing freedoms of expression and assembly. The President himself had announced that he would
not countenance any suppression of dissenting views on the issues, as he is not interested in winning a
"yes" or "no" vote, but on the genuine sentiment of the people on the issues at hand. 42 Thus, the
dissenters soon found their way to the public forums, voicing out loud and clear their adverse views on
the proposed amendments and even on the valid ratification of the 1973 Constitution, which is already
a settled matter. 43 Even government employees have been held by the Civil Service Commission free
to participate in public discussion and even campaign for their stand on the referendum-plebiscite
issues. 44
VIII
Time for deliberation is not short.
1. The period from September 21 to October 16 or a period of 3 weeks is not too short for free debates
or discussions on the referendum-plebiscite issues. The questions are not new. They are the issues of
the day. The people have been living with them since the proclamation of martial law four years ago.
The referendums of 1973 and 1975 carried the same issue of martial law. That notwithstanding, the
contested brief period for discussion is not without counterparts in previous plebiscites for
constitutional amendments. Justice Makasiar, in the Referendum Case, recalls: "Under the old Society,
15 days were allotted for the publication in three consecutive issues of the Official Gazette of the
womens suffrage amendment to the Constitution before the scheduled plebiscite on April 30, 1937
(Com. Act No. 34). The constitutional amendment to append as ordinance the complicated TydingsKocialskowski was published in only three consecutive issues of the Official Gazette for 10 days prior to
the scheduled plebiscite (Com. Act 492). For the 1940 Constitutional amendments providing for the
bicameral Congress, the re-election of the President and Vice-President, and the creation of the
Commission on Elections, 20 days of publication in three consecutive issues of the Official Gazette was
fixed (Com. Act No. 517). And the Parity Amendment, an involved constitutional amendment affecting
the economy as well as the independence of the Republic was publicized in three consecutive issues of
the Official Gazette for 20 days prior to the plebiscite (Rep. Act No. 73)." 45
2. It is worthy to note that Article XVI of the Constitution makes no provision as to the specific date
when the plebiscite shall be held, but simply states that it "shall be held not later than three months
after the approval of such amendment or revision." In Coleman v. Miller, 46 the United States Supreme
court held that this matter of submission involves "an appraisal of a great variety of relevant
conditions, political, social and economic," which "are essentially political and not justiciable." The

constituent body or in the instant cases, the President, may fix the time within which the people may
act. This is because, first, proposal and ratification are not treated as unrelated acts, but as succeeding
steps in a single endeavor, the natural inference being that they are not to be widely separated in
time; second, it is only when there is deemed to be a necessity therefor that amendments are to be
proposed, the reasonable implication being that when proposed, they are to be considered and
disposed of the presently, and third, ratification is but the expression of the approbation of the people,
hence, it must be done contemporaneously. 47 In the words of Jameson," (a)n alteration of the
Constitution proposed today has relation to the sentiment and the felt needs of today, and that, if not
ratified early while that sentiment may fairly be supposed to exist, it ought to be regarded as waived,
and not again to be voted upon, unless a second time proposed by [proper body]." 48
IN RESUME
The three issues are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. Is the question of the constitutionality of Presidential Decrees Nos. 991, 1031 and 1033 political or
justiciable?
2. During the present stage of the transition period, and under the environmental circumstances now
obtaining, does the President possess power to propose amendments to the Constitution as well as set
up the required machinery and prescribe the procedure for the ratification of his proposals by the
people?
3. Is the submission to the people of the proposed amendments within the time frame allowed therefor
a sufficient and proper submission?
Upon the first issue, Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro and Associate Justices Enrique M. Fernando, Claudio
Teehankee, Antonio P. Barredo, Cecilia Muoz Palma, Hermogenes Concepcion Jr. and Ruperto G. Martin
are of the view that the question posed is justiciable, while Associate Justices Felix V. Makasiar, Felix Q.
Antonio and Ramon C. Aquino hold the view that the question is political.
Upon the second issue, Chief Justice Castro and Associate Justices Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio