Occena v. Comelec DIGEST

OCCENA VS.
COMELEC
G.R. NO. L-56350, APRIL 2, 1981
Fernando, C.J.
FACTS:
Petitioners Samuel Occena and Ramon A. Gonzales, both members of the Philippine Bar
and former delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention that framed the present
Constitution, are suing as taxpayers assailed against the validity of three Batasang
Pambansa Resolutions (Resolution No. 1 proposing an amendment allowing a natural-
born citizen of the Philippines 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) 1proposing
constitutional amendments. The petitioners asserted in rather unorthodox aspect that the
1973 Constitution is not the fundamental law, the Javellana 2 ruling to the contrary
notwithstanding.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the 1973 Constitution is the fundamental law.

2. Whether or not the resolutions issued by the Interim Batasang Pambansa is
unconstitional or not unconstitutional.
3. Whether or not the proposed amendments are so extensive in character that goes
far beyond the limits of the authority conferred on the Interim Batasang Pambansa.
HELD/RULINGS:
1. Yes. The 1973 Constitution is the Fundamental law. In the dispositive portion
of Javellana v. The Executive Secretary, 6 dismissing petitions for prohibition and
mandamus to declare invalid its ratification, this Court 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 further
judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect." It made
manifest that, as of January 17, 1973, the present Constitution came into force and
effect. With such a pronouncement by the Supreme Court and with the recognition of
the cardinal postulate that what the Supreme Court says is not only entitled to respect
but must also be obeyed, a factor for instability was removed. Thereafter, as a matter of
law, all doubts were resolved. Therefore, the 1973 Constitution is considered as the
fundamental law.
2. No. The three resolutions issued by the Interim Batasang Pambansa is not
unconstitutional. The 1973 Constitution in its Transitory Provisions vested the Interim
National Assembly with the power to propose amendments upon special call by the
Prime Minister by a vote of the majority of its members to be ratified in accordance with
the Article on Amendments. When, therefore, the Interim Batasang Pambansa, upon
the call of the President and Prime Minister Ferdinand E. Marcos, met as a constituent
body it acted by virtue of such impotence. Its authority to do so is clearly beyond doubt.
It could and did propose the amendments embodied in the resolutions now being
assailed. 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." 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.
3. No. The proposed amendments do not go beyond the limits of the authority conferred
on the Interim Batasang Pambansa. In Del Rosario v. Commission on Elections, Justice
Makasiar, dispose this contention: thus, "And whether the Constitutional Convention will
only propose amendments to the Constitution or entirely overhaul the present
Constitution and propose an entirely new Constitution based on an Ideology foreign to
the democratic system, is of no moment; because the same will be submitted to the
people for ratification. Once ratified by the sovereign people, there can be no debate
about the validity of the new Constitution. The fact that the present Constitution may be
revised and replaced with a new one ... is no argument against the validity of the law
because 'amendment' includes the 'revision' or total overhaul of the entire Constitution.
At any rate, whether the Constitution is merely amended in part or revised or totally
changed would become immaterial the moment the same is ratified by the sovereign
people." Therefore, the Interim Batasang Pambansa, sitting as a constituent body, can
propose amendments, whether extensive in character, is inconsequential once ratified.
WHEREFORE, it is the ruling of the court that the petitions be dismissed for lack of merit.

Occena v. Comelec DIGEST

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Occena v. Comelec DIGEST

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Occena v. Comelec DIGEST

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OCCENA VS.

1. Whether or not the 1973 Constitution is the fundamental law.

You might also like