Occena v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the validity of three Batasang Pambansa Resolutions proposing constitutional amendments. Petitioners, members of the Philippine Bar and former delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention, challenge these resolutions not only on grounds of alleged constitutional infirmity but also by asserting that the 1973 Constitution itself is not the fundamental law, despite prior Supreme Court rulings to the contrary. 2. Procedural History: These two prohibition proceedings were filed in the Supreme Court on March 6 and March 12, 1981, respectively. Respondents were required to answer, and submitted their comments. The cases were subsequently set for hearing and argued by the petitioners and the Solicitor General. Following the submission of amplifying data, the cases were deemed submitted for decision. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, suing as taxpayers, filed these petitions for prohibition. They challenge the validity of Batasang Pambansa Resolutions proposing constitutional amendments, arguing that the 1973 Constitution is not the fundamental law. They further contend that the proposed amendments are too extensive, constituting a revision rather than an amendment, and question the sufficiency of the votes required for their proposal and the standard for their submission to the people. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the petitions, affirming the force and applicability of the 1973 Constitution and finding no constitutional infirmity in the challenged resolutions.
Issue(s)
Whether the 1973 Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. Whether the Interim Batasang Pambansa has the power to propose constitutional amendments. Whether the proposed amendments were so extensive as to constitute a revision rather than an amendment. Whether the required votes for proposing amendments were obtained. Whether the submission of the proposed amendments for ratification met the required standards, including the timing of the plebiscite.
Ruling
The petitions are dismissed for lack of merit. The 1973 Constitution is the fundamental law, and the Interim Batasang Pambansa validly exercised its constituent power to propose amendments, which were properly submitted for ratification.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the 1973 Constitution: The Court reiterated its ruling in Javellana v. The Executive Secretary, stating that it is "much too late in the day to deny the force and applicability of the 1973 Constitution." The dismissal of the petitions in Javellana by a vote of six to four, with the concluding statement that "there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect," established the 1973 Constitution as the fundamental law. The Court emphasized that its pronouncements must be obeyed, and since then, the Court has consistently applied the present Constitution. On the power of the Interim Batasang Pambansa to propose amendments: The Court affirmed that the existence of this power is "indubitable." Citing the 1976 Amendments, which state that the Interim Batasang Pambansa shall have the same powers as the interim National Assembly, and the 1973 Constitution's Transitory Provisions vesting the Interim National Assembly with the power to propose amendments, the Court concluded that the Interim Batasang Pambansa acted within its authority when it met as a constituent body to propose amendments. The Court noted that this issue was not entirely new for petitioner Occena, referencing a previous case where a similar question was involved. On the extent of the proposed amendments (revision vs. amendment): The Court dismissed the contention that the proposed amendments were so extensive as to constitute a revision. Quoting Del Rosario v. Commission on Elections, the Court stated that "'amendment' includes the 'revision' or total overhaul of the entire Constitution." It adopted the principle that a constituent body can propose anything but conclude nothing, and that any proposed changes become immaterial once ratified by the sovereign people. On the required votes for proposing amendments: The Court clarified that when the Interim Batasang Pambansa sits as a constituent body to propose amendments, only a majority vote is needed, distinguishing this from the three-fourths votes required when it sits as a legislative body. The Court found that even if the three-fourths vote requirement were applicable, such an extraordinary majority was obtained, citing the specific votes for each resolution. Therefore, no infirmity existed in this regard. On the standard for proper submission and plebiscite timing: The Court found no merit in the arguments regarding the standard for submission. The Constitution requires that any amendment or revision be ratified by a majority of votes cast in a plebiscite held not later than three months after approval. The resolutions were approved in February 1981, and the plebiscite was set for April 7, 1981, which is within the 90-day period. Furthermore, the Court held that the proposed amendments had been "intensively and extensively discussed" in the Interim Batasang Pambansa and through mass media, ensuring that the people were adequately informed.
Main Doctrine
The 1973 Constitution is the fundamental law of the land, and the Interim Batasang Pambansa has the constituent power to propose amendments thereto, which become valid upon ratification by the people in a plebiscite held within the prescribed period.