Hidalgo v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ernesto C. Hidalgo filed a petition for mandamus and/or prohibition against Honorable Ferdinand Marcos and the Commission on Elections. Procedural History: The case was elevated to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petition sought to compel the President to convene the interim National Assembly and to question the constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 1229, which called for a referendum on December 17, 1977.
Issue(s)
Whether the President can be compelled by mandamus or otherwise to convene the "interim National Assembly". Whether Presidential Decree No. 1229 is constitutionally infirm. Whether the December 17, 1977 referendum is designed to effectuate the ratification of the 1976 amendments to the Constitution.
Ruling
The Supreme Court resolved NOT to give due course to the petition and to DISMISS the same. The Court held that the President cannot be compelled to convene the interim National Assembly as it was abrogated and supplanted by the interim Batasang Pambansa. Furthermore, Presidential Decree No. 1229 was deemed not to possess constitutional infirmity because the referendum it called for would not result in an amendment to the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the President can be compelled to convene the "interim National Assembly": The Court held that the President cannot be compelled by mandamus or otherwise to convene the "interim National Assembly." This is because the interim National Assembly was abrogated and supplanted by the interim Batasang Pambansa by virtue of the 1976 amendments to the Constitution. Specifically, Amendment No. 1 to the Constitution provided that "There shall be, in lieu of the interim National Assembly, an Interim Batasang Pambansa." Therefore, the premise of the petitioner's request was rendered moot by subsequent constitutional amendments. On whether Presidential Decree No. 1229 is constitutionally infirm: The Court found no constitutional infirmity in Presidential Decree No. 1229. The decree called for a referendum on December 17, 1977. The Court reasoned that the question posed in the referendum, "Do you vote that President Ferdinand E. Marcos continue in office as incumbent President and be Prime Minister after the organization of the Interim Batasang Pambansa as provided for in Amendment No. 3 of the 1976 Amendments to the Constitution," was not in the nature or form of an amendment. It merely asked the people to reaffirm or repudiate their confidence in the President. A "yes" vote would reaffirm Amendment No. 3, while a "no" vote would lead to the President's resignation, neither of which would alter the Constitution's provisions. On whether the December 17, 1977 referendum is designed to effectuate ratification of the 1976 amendments: The Court clarified that the 1976 amendments to the Constitution were already ratified by the people in the October 16-17, 1976 referendum-plebiscite and thus formed part of the Constitution. The December 17, 1977 referendum was an exercise authorized by Amendment No. 7 of those amendments, which permits a referendum to be called "at any time the government deems it necessary to ascertain the will of the people regarding any important matter whether of national or local interest." Therefore, the referendum was not for ratification but for ascertaining the people's will on a matter of public interest as permitted by the Constitution.
Main Doctrine
The Court dismissed the petition for mandamus and/or prohibition, holding that the President cannot be compelled to convene the interim National Assembly as it was abrogated by the interim Batasang Pambansa, and that Presidential Decree No. 1229 is not constitutionally infirm as the referendum it calls for does not result in an amendment to the Constitution.