G.R. No. L-44640, L-44684, L-44714. October 12, 1976.
PABLO C. SANIDAD, et al., petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al., respondents.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions challenged the authority of the incumbent President to propose amendments to the 1973 Constitution and the power of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to supervise the scheduled October 16, 1976, referendum-plebiscite on those amendments. The proposed amendments were highly significant, including provisions for an interim Batasang Pambansa, the continuation of martial law, and the grant of legislative powers to the President. Petitioners, including journalists and citizens, argued that the President, under a martial law regime, lacked the constituent power to initiate constitutional amendments. They contended that such power resided solely in the people or a duly convened constitutional convention, and that the COMELEC could not validly administer a plebiscite based on an unauthorized proposal.
The respondents, the COMELEC and the National Treasurer, defended the legality of the process. They asserted that the President, as the incumbent and under the transitory provisions of the 1973 Constitution, possessed the authority to propose amendments during the period of martial law. They further argued that the COMELEC had a clear constitutional mandate to supervise all plebiscites. The core dispute thus centered on the scope of presidential power during a crisis government and the justiciability of the President’s exercise of constituent power.

ISSUE

The principal issue was whether the President, during the period of martial law under the 1973 Constitution, had the authority to propose amendments to that Constitution, and whether the COMELEC could validly hold a plebiscite on such proposals.

RULING

The Supreme Court, in a decision penned by Justice Martin, dismissed the petitions and upheld the authority of the President to propose the amendments and the COMELEC to hold the plebiscite. The Court’s legal logic proceeded from the nature of the government in place. It ruled that the 1973 Constitution was in full force and effect, having been ratified in accordance with the ruling in Javellana v. Executive Secretary. Consequently, the government was operating under its framework, including the transitory provisions.
The Court held that under the specific circumstances of a crisis government—characterized by the proclamation of martial law and the absence of the interim National Assembly—governmental powers, including the constituent power to propose amendments, were concentrated in the President. This concentration was deemed a necessary incident of the extraordinary times, intended to preserve the state and allow for necessary reforms. The act of proposing amendments was viewed as a political question, the wisdom of which was beyond judicial review. The Court emphasized that the ultimate sovereign power remained with the people, who would accept or reject the proposals in the plebiscite. Since the COMELEC’s duty to supervise the plebiscite was ministerial and the proposals were deemed validly initiated, its actions were lawful. The decision effectively sanctioned the constitutional amendment process initiated by the executive under martial law.