G.R. No. L-34150. October 16, 1971. ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and THE CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, THE AUDITOR, and THE DISBURSING OFFICER OF THE 1971 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, respondents, RAUL S. MANGLAPUS, et al., Intervenors.
FACTS

The 1971 Constitutional Convention, constituted by congressional resolutions, approved Organic Resolution No. 1, proposing to lower the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen years. The resolution directed that this specific amendment be submitted for ratification in a plebiscite coinciding with the local elections on November 8, 1971. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued resolutions to implement this plebiscite. Arturo M. Tolentino filed a petition for prohibition to restrain the COMELEC from holding the plebiscite, arguing that the Convention’s act of submitting a single, isolated amendment for separate ratification violated the Constitution. The fiscal officers of the Convention were impleaded as indispensable parties. Several delegates were allowed to intervene in support of the Convention’s position.

ISSUE

Whether the Constitutional Convention could validly submit for ratification a single, partial amendment to the Constitution separately from, and prior to the completion of, its entire work of proposing amendments.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, declaring Organic Resolution No. 1 and its implementing acts null and void. The legal logic rests on the interpretation of Article XV, Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution, which governed the amendment process. The provision stated that amendments “shall be valid” when “approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for their ratification.” The Court, applying the doctrine of necessary implication and considering the nature of a constitutional revision, held that this clause mandated the submission of all proposed amendments arising from the convention in a single plebiscite. The purpose was to allow the electorate to consider the amendments as an integrated whole, understanding their interrelationships and collective impact on the fundamental law. A piecemeal submission, especially of a single provision like the voting age, would deprive the people of this essential frame of reference and context. The Court reasoned that the constitutional requirement of “an election” for ratification logically precluded multiple, staggered plebiscites for discrete amendments from the same convention. Therefore, the Convention, while possessing the power to propose amendments, was bound by the constitutional procedure for their ratification, which required a consolidated submission after the completion of its proposals. The COMELEC and Convention officials were enjoined from proceeding with the November 8, 1971 plebiscite.