G.R. NO. 32432 SEPTEMBER 11, 1970 IMBONG VS.

COMELEC

FACTS:

Petition for declaratory judgment: 2 separate but related petitions of running candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Convention assailing the validity of RA 6132. Imbong: Par 1 Sec 8

Gonzales: Sections 2, 4, 5, par. 1 Sec 8, and validity of entire law.

Sec 4: Considers all public officers or employees as resigned when they file their candidacy Sec 2: Apportionment of delegates Sec 5: Disqualifies any elected delegate from running for any public office in the election or from assuming any appointive office or position until the final adjournment of the ConCon Par 1 Sec 8: Ban against all political parties or organized groups from giving support or representing a delegate to the convention.

Related laws:

Resolution No. 2 (1967) Calls for Constitutional Convention to be composed of 2 delegates from each representative district who shall be elected in November, 1970. RA 4919 Implementation of Res. No. 2 Resolution No. 4 (1979) ConCon: 320 delegates apportioned among existing representative districts according to the population; Provided, each district shall be entitled to 2 delegates. RA 6132 Concon Act 1970, repealed RA 4919, implemented Res Nos. 2 & 4.

ISSUE(S):

Whether the Congress has a right to call for Constitutional Convention. Whether the parameters set by such a call is constitutional.

RULING:

Congress has the authority to call for Constitutional Convention as a Constituent Assembly. Furthermore, specific provisions assailed by the petitioners were deemed as constitutional. Constitutionality of R.A. 6132: Congress acting as Constituent Assembly has a full authority to propose amendments, or to call for a convention for the purpose, by a three-fourths vote of each House in joint session assembled but voting separately and these votes are attained by Resolution Nos. 2 and 4. Section 4: Application of Section 2 Article 12 of the Constitution. Section 2: Implementation of Res. 4 and enough that the basis employed for such apportion is reasonable. In the Macias case, relied by petitioner Gonzales is not reasonable for the case granted more representatives to a province with less population than the provinces with more inhabitants.

Section 5: State through its Constitution or legislative body can create an office and parameters to qualify or disqualify members thereof. This disqualification is only temporary. Safety mechanism to prevent political figures from controlling elections and allows them to devote more time to the Constitutional Convention. Par.1 Sec. 8: Avoids debasement of the electoral process and assures candidates equal opportunity since candidates must now depend on their individual merits, and not the support of political parties. Provision does not create discrimination towards any particular party or group, it applies to all organizations.

CONCLUSION:

The prayers in both petitioners are denied and R.A. No. 6132 including Sections 2, 4, 5, and 8(a) paragraph 1 cannot be declared as unconstitutional.

G.R. NO. 34150 OCTOBER 16, 1971 TOLENTINO VS. COMELEC

FACTS:

Petition for prohibition principally: Restrain respondent COMELEC from undertaking to hold a plebiscite on November 8, 1971, at which the proposed constitutional amendment reducing the voting age in Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution to eighteen years shall be submitted for ratification by the people pursuant to Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of 1971, and the subsequent implementing resolutions, by declaring said resolutions to be without the force and effect of law in so far as they direct the holding of such plebiscite and also by declaring the acts of the respondent Commission (COMELEC) performed and to be done by it in obedience to the aforesaid Convention resolutions to be null and void, for being violative of the Constitution of the Philippines. Constitutional Convention of 1971 came into being by virtue of Resolutions 2 and 4 of the Congress of the Philippines. The delegates to the said Convention were all elected under and by virtue of said resolutions and the implementing legislation thereof, Republic Act 6132. Organic Resolution No. 1 was approved by the Convention on September 1971.

ISSUE(S):

Whether it is within the powers of the Constitutional Convention of 1971 to order the holding of a plebiscite for the ratification of the proposed amendment(s). Whether or not a Resolution of Congress is justiciable.

RULING:

Court holds that all amendments to be proposed must be submitted to the people in a single "election" or plebiscite. They hold that the plebiscite being called for the purpose of submitting the same for ratification of the people on November 8, 1971 is not authorized by Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution; hence all acts of the Convention and the respondent COMELEC in that direction are null and void. As held in Gonzales vs. COMELEC, the issue whether or not a Resolution of Congress acting as a constituent assembly violates the Constitution is essentially justiciable not political, and, hence, subject to judicial review.

CONCLUSION:

Petition is granted. Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of 1971 and the implementing acts and resolutions of the Convention, insofar as they provided for the holding of a plebiscite on November 1971, as well as the resolution of the respondent COMELEC (RR Resolution No. 695) are declared null and void. Respondents: COMELEC, Disbursing Officer, Chief Accountant and Auditor of the Constitutional Convention are enjoined from taking any action in compliance with the said organic resolution. Court declares the decision immediately executory.

G.R. NO. 44640 OCTOBER 12, 1976

SANIDAD VS. COMELEC

FACTS:

Capital question raised in these prohibition suits with preliminary injunction relates to the power of incumbent President of the Philippines to propose amendments to the present Constitution in the absence of the interim National Assembly which has not been convened.

September 1976, Pres. Ferdinand E. Marcos issued P.D. 991 calling for a national referendum on 16 October 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies ("barangays").
Issued another related decree P.D. 1031, amending the P.D. 991, by declaring the provisions of P.D. 229 providing for the manner of voting and canvass of votes in "barangays" (Citizens Assemblies) applicable to the national referendumplebiscite of October 1976.

President issued P.D. 1033, stating the questions to be submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite on October 1976.

27 September 1976, Pablo C. Sanidad and Pablito V. Sanidad, father and son, commenced L-44640 for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin the COMELEC from holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16.

Action for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction, docketed as L-44684: Vicente M. Guzman asserted that the power to propose amendments to, or revision of the Constitution during the transition period is expressly conferred on the interim National Assembly under action 16, Article XVII of the Constitution. Petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction: Filed by Raul M. Gonzales, his son Raul Jr., and Alfredo Salapantan, docketed as L-44714, to restrain the implementation of Presidential Decrees relative to the forthcoming ReferendumPlebiscite of October 16.

ISSUE(S):

Whether the question of the constitutionality of Presidential Decrees Nos. 991, 1031, and 1033 are political or justiciable. Whether the President has 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 during the present stage of the transition period, and under the environmental circumstances. Whether the submission to the people of the proposed amendments within the time frame allowed therefor a sufficient and proper submission.

RULING:

Justiciability of question, raised. As a preliminary resolution, the petitioners in L-44640 (Pablo C. Sanidad and Pablito V. Sanidad) possessed locus standi to challenge the constitutional premise of Presidential Decree Nos. 991, 1031, and 1033. The valid source of a statutePresidential Decrees are of such naturemay be contested by one who will sustain a direct injury as a result of enforcement. The amending process both as to proposal and ratification are in a judicial question. This is especially true in cases where the power of the Presidency to initiate the amending process by proposals of amendments, a function normally exercised by the legislature, was seriously doubted. Under the terms of the 1973 Constitution, the power to propose amendments of the constitution resides in the interim National Assembly in the period of transition.

Amending process as laid out in the new constitution. Article XVI of the 1973 Constitution on Amendments In the present period of transition, the interim National Assembly instituted in the Transitory Provisions is conferred with that amending power. Section 15 of the Transitory Provisions: The interim National Assembly, upon special call by the interim Prime Minister, may, by a majority vote of all its Members, propose amendments to this Constitution. Such amendments shall take effect when ratified in accordance with Art. 16 hereof.

2 periods contemplated in the constitutional life of the nation: 1. NORMALCY: Amending process by proposal of the (1) regular National Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; (2) Constitutional Convention called by a vote of two-thirds of all the Members of the National Assembly. 2. TRANSITION: Amendments maybe proposed by majority vote of all the Members of the interim National Assembly upon special call by the interim Prime Minister.

Court in Aquino v. COMELEC settled that the incumbent President is vested with that prerogative of discretion as to when he shall initially convene the interim National Assembly. ConCon intended to leave to the President the determination of the time when he shall initially convene the interim National Assembly, consistent with the prevailing conditions of peace and order in the country. When the legislative arm of the state undertakes the proposals of amendment to a Constitution, that body is not in the usual function of lawmaking. Not legislating when engaged in the amending process. Rather, it is exercising a peculiar power bestowed upon it by the fundamental charter itself. In the Philippines, that power is provided for in Article XVI of the 1973 Constitution (for the regular National Assembly) or in Section 15 of the Transitory Provisions (for the interim National Assembly).

Time for deliberation is not short. Period from September 21 to October 16 or a period of 3 week is not too short for free debates or discussions on the referendum-plebiscite issues. 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. 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.

CONCLUSION:

The vote being 8 to 2 to dismiss, the said petitions are dismissed and the decision is immediately executory.

G.R. NO. 128448, FEBRUARY 1 2001 MIRASOL VS. COURT OF APPEALS

Facts:

Mirasols were sugar land owners and planters that was financed by the Philippine National Bank (PNB) under a crop loan financing scheme. Signed Credit Agreements, a Chattel Mortgage on Standing Crops, and a Real Estate Mortgage in favor of PNB. The Chattel Mortgage empowered PNB to negotiate and sell the latter's sugar and to apply the proceeds to the payment of their obligations to it. President Marcos issued P.D. 579 authorizing Philippine Exchange Co., Inc. (PHILEX) to purchase sugar allocated for export and authorized PNB to finance PHILEX's purchases. This directed that whatever profit PHILEX might realize was to be remitted to the government. Believing that the proceeds were more than enough to pay their obligations, petitioners asked PNB for an accounting of the proceeds which it ignored. They continued to avail of other loans from PNB and to make unfunded withdrawals from their accounts with said bank. PNB asked them to settle their due and demandable accounts. As a result, petitioners, conveyed to PNB real properties by way of dacion en pago still leaving an unpaid amount. PNB proceeded to extra-judicially foreclose the mortgaged properties. PNB still had a deficiency claim.

Petitioners continued to ask PNB to account for the proceeds and insisted that said proceeds, if properly liquidated, could offset their outstanding obligations. PNB remained adamant in its stance that under P.D. No. 579, there was nothing to account since under said law, all earnings from the export sales of sugar pertained to the National Government.

ISSUE(S):

Whether or not the Trial Court has jurisdiction to declare a statute unconstitutional without notice to the Solicitor General.

Whether P.D. 579 and subsequent issuances are unconstitutional and subject to judicial review.

RULING:

Regional Trial Courts have the authority and jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of a statute, presidential decree, or executive order. Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the power to declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation not only in this Court, but in all Regional Trial Courts.

R.A. No. 7202 cannot be deemed to have repealed R.A. No. 579. Power to declare a law unconstitutional does not lie with the legislature, but with the courts.

Requisites for power of judicial review: Actual case before the Court. Question before the Court must be ripe for adjudication. Person challenging the validity of the act must have standing to challenge. Question of constitutionality must have been raised at the earliest opportunity; Issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.

CONCLUSION:

Petition is denied and the assailed decision of the respondent court in CA-G.R. CY 38607 is affirmed.