G.R. No. L-44640 - Concurring Opinions

G.R. No. L-44640, October 12, 1976,
♦ Decision, Martin, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion, Castro, [CJ], Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Concepcion [JJ]
♦ Concurring & Dissenting Opinion, Fernando, Teehankee, Muñoz-Palma [JJ]

PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO V. SANIDAD, petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HONORABLE NATIONAL TREASURER, respondents.

RAUL M. GONZALES, RAUL T. GONZALES, JR., and ALFREDO SALAPANTAN, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE COMMISSION ON SELECTIONS and HONORABLE NATIONAL TREASURER, respondents.

From the challenge as formulated in the three petitions at bar and the grounds advanced be the Solicitor General in opposition thereto, as well as the arguments adduced by the counsels of the parties at the hearing had on October 7 and 8, 1976, three vital issues readily project themselves as the centers of controversy, namely:

(1) Is the question of the constitutionality of Presidential Decrees Nos. 991, 1031 and 1033 political or justiciable?

(2) During the present stage of the transition period, and under the environmental circumstances now obtaining, does the President possess power to propose amendments to the Constitution as well as set up the required machineries and prescribe the procedure for the ratification of his proposals by the people?

(3) Is the submission to the people of the proposed amendments within the time frame allowed therefor a sufficient and proper, submission"

The threshold question is not at all one of first impression Specifically on the matter of proposals to amend the Constitution, this Court, in Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito (78 Phil. 1), inceptively announced the dictum that-

In time, however, the validity of the said pronouncement was eroded. In the assessment of the Court itself-

The force of this precedent has been weakened, however, by Suanes vs. Chief Accountant of the Senate (81 Phil. 818), Avelino vs. Cuenco (L-2581, March 4 and 14, 1949), Tanada vs. Cuenco (L-10520, February 28, 1957), and Macias vs. Commission on Elections (L-18684, September 14, 1961).

In short, the issue whether or not a Resolution of Congress-acting as a constituent assembly-violates the Constitution is essentially justiciable, not political, and, hence, subject to judicial review, and, to the extent this view may be inconsistent with the stand taken in Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito the latter should be deemed modified accordingly. The Members of the Court are unanimous on this point." (Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections, et al, L-28196, November 9, 1967, 21 SCRA 774, 786-787).

The abandonment of the Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito doctrine appears to have been completed when, in Javellana vs. Secretary, et al. (L-36142, March 3l, 1973, 50 SCRA 30), six members of the Court concurred in the view that the question of whether the 1973 Constitution was ratified in accordance with the provisions of Article XV (Amendments) of the 1935 Constitution is inherently and essentially justiciable.

As elucidated therein, with extensive quotations from Tanada vs. Cuenco (103 Phil. 1051)-

Accordingly, when the grant of power is qualified, conditional or subject to limitations, the issue on whether or not the prescribed qualifications or conditions have been met, or the limitations respected, is justiciable or non-political, the crux of the problem being one of legality or validity of the contested act, not its wisdom. Otherwise, said qualifications, conditions or limitations - particularly those prescribed or imposed by the Constitution - would be set at naught." (Javellana vs. Executive Secretary, supra).

So it is in the situation here presented. The basic issue is the constitutional validity of the presidential acts of proposing amendments to the Constitution and of calling a referendum-plebiscite for the ratification of the proposals made. Evidently, the question does not concern itself with the wisdom of the exercise of the authority claimed or of the specific amendments proposed. Instead the inquiry vel non is focused solely on the existence of the said power in the President - a question purely of legality determinable thru interpretation and construction of the letter and spirit of the Constitution by the Court as the final arbiter in the delineation of constitutional boundaries and the allocation of constitutional powers.

For the Court to shun cognizance of the challenge herein presented, especially in these parlous years, would be to abdicate its constitutional powers, shirk its constitutional responsibility, and deny the people their ultimate recourse for judicial determination.

I have thus no hesitancy in concluding that the question here presented is well within the periphery of judicial inquiry.

The main question stands on a different footing; it appears unprecedented both here and elsewhere. Its solution, I believe, can be found and unraveled only by a critical assessment of the existing legal order in the light of the prevailing political and factual milieu.

To be sure, there is an impressive array of consistent jurisprudence on the proposition that, normally or under normal conditions, a Constitution may be amended only in accord with the procedure set forth therein. Hence, if there be any such prescription for the amendatory process as invariable there is because one of the essential parts of a Constitution is the so-called "constitution of sovereignty" which comprises the provision or provisions on the modes in accordance with which formal changes in the fundamental law may be effected the same would ordinarily be the controlling criterion for the validity of the amendments sought.

Unfortunately, however, during the present transition period of our political development, no express provision is extant in the Constitution regarding the agency or agent by whom and the procedure by which amendments thereto may be proposed and ratified fact overlooked by those who challenge the validity of the presidential acts in the premises. This is so because there are at least two distinctly in the transition from the old system of government under the 1935 Constitution to the new one established by the 1973 Constitution.

The first stage comprises the period from the effectivity of the Constitution on January 17, 1973 to the time the National Assembly is convened by the incumbent President and the interim President and the interim Prime Minister are chosen Article XVII, Sections 1 and 3[1]. The existence of this stage as an obvious fact of the nation's political life was recognized by the Court in Aquino vs. Commission on Elections, et al. (L-40004, January 31, 1975, 62 SCRA 275), when it rejected the claim that, under the 1973 Constitution, the President was in duty bound to convene the interim National Assembly soon after the Constitution took effect.

The second stage embraces the period from the date the interim National Assembly is convened to the date the Government described in Articles VII to IX of the Constitution is inaugurated, following the election of the members of the regular National Assembly (Article XVII, Section 1) and the election of the regular President and Prime Minister,. This is as it should be because it is recognized that the President has been accorded the discretion to determine when he shall initially convene the interim National Assembly, and his decision to defer the convocation thereof has found overwhelming support by the sovereign people in two previous referenda, therein giving reality to an interregnum between the effectivity of the Constitution and the initial convocation of the interim National Assembly, which interregnum, as aforesaid, constitutes the first stage in the transition period.

Against this factual backdrop, it is readily discernible that neither of the two sets of provisions embodied in the Constitution on the amendatory process applied during the said first stage. Thus, Section 15, Article XVII (Transitory Provisions) provides-

"Sec. 15. The interim National Assembly, upon special call by the interim Prime Minister, may, by a majority vote of all its Members, propose amendments to this Constitution. Such amendments shall take effect when ratified in accordance with Article Sixteen hereof."

Patently, the reference to the "interim National Assembly" and the "interim Prime Minister" limits the application thereof to the second stage of the transition period, i.e.,., after the interim? National Assembly shall have been convened and the interim Prime Minister shall have been chosen.

unequivocally contemplate amendments after the regular Government shall have become fully operative, referring as they do to the National Assembly which will come into being only at that time.

In the face of this constitutional hiatus, we are confronted with the dilemma whether amendments to the Constitution may be effected during the aforesaid first stage and, if in the affirmative, by whom and in what manner such amendments may be proposed and ratified.

Susceptibility to change is one of the hallmarks of an Ideal Constitution. Not being a mere declaration of the traditions of a nation but more the embodiment of a people's hopes and aspirations, its strictures are not unalterable. They are, instead, dynamic precepts intended to keep in stride with and attuned to the living social organism they seek to fashion and govern. If it is conceded that "the political or philosophical aphorism of one generation is doubted by the next and entirely discarded by the third," then a Constitution must be able to adjust to the changing needs and demands of society so that the latter may survive, progress and endure. On these verities, there can be no debate.

During the first stage of the transition period in which the Government is at present - which is understandably the most critical - the need for change may be most pressing and imperative, and to disavow the existence of the right to amend the Constitution would be sheer political heresy. Such view would deny the people a mechanism for effecting peaceful change, and belie the organic conception of the Constitution by depriving it of its means of growth. Such a result obviously could not have been intended by the framers of the fundamental law.

It seems, however, that the happenstance that the first period would come to pass before the convocation of the interim National Assembly was not anticipated, hence, the omission of an express mandate to govern the said situation in so far as amendments are concerned. But such omission through inadvertence should not, because it cannot, negate the sovereign power of the people to amend the fundamental charter that governs their lives and their future and perhaps even the very survival of the nation.

Upon the other hand, it is clear from the afore-quoted provisions on the amendatory process that the intent was, instead, to provide a simpler and more expeditious mode of amending the Constitution during the transition period. For, while under Article XVI thereof, proposals for amendment may be made directly by the regular National Assembly by a vote of at least three-fourths of all its members, under Section 15 of Article XVII, a bare majority vote of all the members of the National Assembly would suffice for the purpose. The relaxation and the disparity in the vote requirement are revealing. The can only signify a recognition of the need to facilitate the adoption of amendments during the second stage of the transition period so that the interim National Assembly will be able, in a manner of speaking, to iron out the kinks in the new Constitution, remove imperfections therein, and provide for changed or changing circumstances before the establishment of the regular Government. In this contest, therefore, it is inutile speculation to assume that the Constitution was intended to render impotent or ar the effectuation of needful change at an even more critical period - the first stage. With greater reason, therefore, must the right and power to amend the Constitution during the first stage of te transition period be upheld, albeit within its express and implied constraints.

Neither can it be successfully argued, in the same context and in the present posture, that the Constitution may be amended during the said first stage only by convening the interim National Assembly. That is to say and require that he said stage must first be brought to an end before any amendment may be proposed and ratified. Settled jurisprudence does not square with such a proposition. As aptly noted in Aquino vs. Commission on Elections, et al., supra, the framers of the Constitution set no deadline for the convening of the interim National Assembly because they could not have foreseen how long the crises which impelled the proclamation and justify the continued state of martial law would last. Indeed, the framers committed to the sound judgment is not subject to judicial review, save possibly to determine whether arbitrariness has infected such exercise; absent such a taint, the matter is solely in the keeping of the President. To thus content that only by convening the interim National Assembly may the Constitution be amended at this time would effectively override the judgement vested in the President, even in default of any he has acted arbitrarily or gravely abuse his discretion. Furthermore, to sustain such a contention would not only negate the mandate so resoundingly expressed by the people in two national referenda against the immediate convening of the interim National Assembly, but as well deride their overwhelming approval of the manner in which the President has exercised the legislative power to issue proclamations, orders, decrees and instructions having the stature and force of law.

Given the constitutional stalemate or impasse spawned by these supervening developments, the logical query that compels itself for resolution is: By whom, then, may proposals for the amendment of the Constitution be made and in what manner may said proposals be ratified by the people?

It is conventional wisdom that, conceptually, the constituent power is not to be confuse with legislative power in general because the prerogative to propose amendments to the Constitution is not in any sense embraced within the ambit of ordinary law-making. Hence, there is much to recommend the proposition that, in default of an express grant thereof, the legislature - traditionally the delegated repository thereof - may not claim it under a general grant of legislative authority. In the same vein, neither would it be altogether unassailable to say that because by constitutional tradition and express allocation the constituent power under the Constitution is locate in the law-making agency and at this stage of the transition period the law-making authority is firmly recognized as being lodged in the President, the said constituent power should now logically be in the hands of te President who may thus exercise it in place of the interim National Assembly. Instead,, as pointed out in Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections, et al., supra, the power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments thereto

As such, it is undoubtedly a power that only the sovereign people, either directly by themselves or through their chosen delegate, can wield. Since it has been shown that the people, inadvertently or otherwise, have not delegated that power to inadvertently or otherwise, have not delegated that power to any instrumentality during the current stage of our hegira from crisis to normalcy, it follows of necessity that the same remains with them for them to exercise in the manner they see fit and through the agency they choose. And, even if it were conceded that - as it is reputedly the rule in some jurisdictions - a delegation of the constituent authority amounts to a complete divestiture from the people of the power delegated which they may not thereafter unilaterally reclaim from the delegate, there would be no violence donde to such rule, assuming it to be applicable here, inasmuch as that power, under the environmental circumstance adverted to, has not been delegated to anyone in the first place. The constituent power during the first stage of the transition period belongs to and remains with the people, and accordingly may be exercised by them - how and when - at their pleasure.

At this juncture, a flashback to the recent and contemporary political ferment in the country proves revelatory. The people, shocked and revolted by the "obvious immorality" of the unabashed manner by which the delegates to the Constitutional Convention virtually legislated themselves into office as ipso facto members of the interim National Assembly by the mere fiat of voting for the transitory provisions of the Constitution. and the stark reality that the unwieldy political monstrosity that the interim Assembly portended to be would have proven to be a veritable drain on the meager financial resources of a nation struggling for survival, have unequivocally put their foot down, as it were, on the convocation thereof. But this patently salutary decision of the people proved to be double-edged. It likewise bound the political machinery of the Government in a virtual straight-jacket and consigned the political evolution of the nation into a state of suspended animation. Faced with the ensuing dilemma, the people understandably agitated for a solution. Through consultations in the barangays and sanggunian assemblies, the instrumentalities through which the people's voice is articulated in the unique system of participatory democracy in the country today, the underpinnings for the hastening of the return to constitutional normalcy quickly evolved into an overwhelming sentiment to amend the Constitution in order to replace the discredited interim National Assembly with what the people believe will be an appropriate agency to eventually take over the law-making power and thus pave the way for the early lifting of martial rule. In pursuit of this sentiment, and to translate its constraints into concrete action, the Pambansang Katipunan ng Barangay, the Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Kabataang Barangay, the Lupong Tagapagpaganap of the Katipunan ng mga Barangay, the Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Kabataang Barangay the Lupong Tagapagpaganap of the Katipunan ng mga Sanggunian, and finally the Batasang Bayan, to a man and as one voice, have come forward with definitive proposals for the amendment of the Constitution, and, choosing the President the only political arm of the State at this time through which that decision could be implemented and the end in view attained as their spokesman, proposed the amendments under challenge in the cases at bar.

In the light of this milieu and its imperatives, one thing is inescapable: the proposals now submitted to the people for their ratification in the forthcoming referendum-plebiscite are factually not of the President; they are directly those of the people themselves speaking thru their authorized instrumentalities. The President merely formalized the said proposals in Presidential Decree No. 1033. It being conceded in all quarters that sovereignty resides in the people and it having been demonstrated that their constituent power to amend the Constitution has not been delegated by them to any instrumentality of the Government during the present stage of the transition period of our political development, the conclusion is ineluctable that their exertion of that residuary power cannot be vulnerable to any constitutional challenge as being ultra vires. Accordingly, without venturing to rule on whether or not the President is vested with constituent power as it does not appear necessary to do so in the premises the proposals here challenged, being acts of the sovereign people no less, cannot be said to be afflicted with unconstitutionality. A fortiori, the concomitant authority to call a plebiscite and to appropriate funds therefor is even less vulnerable not only because the President, in exercising said authority has acted as a mere alter ego of the people who made the proposals, but likewise because the said authority is legislative in nature rather than constituent.

Little need be said of the claimed insufficiency and impropriety of the submission of the proposed amendments for ratification from the standpoint of time. The thesis cannot be disputed that a fair submission presupposes an adequate time lapse to enable the people to be sufficiently enlightened on the merits or demerits of the amendments presented for their ratification or rejection. However, circumstances there are which unmistakably demonstrated that the is met. Even if the proposal appear to have been formalized only upon the promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 1033 on September 22, 1976, they are actually the crystallization of sentiments that for so long have preoccupied the minds of the people and their authorized representatives, from the very lowest level of the political hierarchy. Hence, unlike proposals emanating from a legislative body, the same cannot but be said to have been mulled over, pondered upon, debated, discussed and sufficiently understood by the great masses of the nation long before they ripened into formal proposals.

Besides. it is a fact of which judicial notice may well be taken that in the not so distant past when the 1973 Constitution was submitted to the people for ratification, an all-out campaign, in which all the delegates of the Constitutional Convention reportedly participated, was launched to acquaint the people with the ramifications and working of the new system of government sought to be inaugurated thereunder. It may thus well be assumed that the people in general have since acquired, in the least, a working knowledge of the entirety of the Constitution. The changes now proposed the most substantial of which being merely the replacement of the interim National assembly with another legislative arm for the Government during the transition period until the regular National Assembly shall have been constituted do not appear to be of such complexity as to require considerable time to be brought home to the full understanding of the people. And, in fact, the massive and wide-ranging informational and educational campaign to this end has been and still is in full swing, with all the media the barangay, the civic and sectoral groups, and even the religious all over the land in acting and often enthusiastic if not frenetic involvement.

Indeed, when the people cast their votes on October 16, a negative vote could very well mean an understanding of the proposals which they reject; while an affirmative vote could equally be indicative Of such understanding and/or an abiding credence in the fidelity with which the President has kept the trust they have confided to him as President and administrator of martial rule

It is thus my considered view that no question viable for this court to pass judgment upon is posed. Accordingly, I vote for the outright dismissal of the three petitions at bar.

While I am in full agreement with the majority of my brethren that the herein petitions should be dismissed, as in fact I vote for their dismissal, I deem it imperative that I should state separately the considerations that have impelled me to do so.

Perhaps, it is best that I should start by trying to disabuse the minds of those who have doubts as to whether or not I should have taken part in the consideration and resolution of these cases. Indeed, it would not be befitting my position in this Highest Tribunal of the land for me to leave unmentioned the circumstances which have given cause, I presume, for others to feel apprehensive that my participation in these proceedings might detract from that degree of faith in the impartiality that the Court's judgment herein should ordinarily command. In a way, it can be said, of course, that I am the one most responsible for such a rather problematical situation, and it is precisely for this reason that I have decided to begin this opinion with a discussion of why I have not inhibited myself, trusting most confidently that what I have to say will be taken in the same spirit of good faith, sincerity and purity of purpose in which I am resolved to offer the same.

Plain honesty dictates that I should make of record here the pertinent contents of the official report of the Executive Committee of the Katipunan ng mga Sanggunian submitted to the Katipunan itself about the proceedings held on August 14, 1976. It is stated in that public document that:

Aware of this, a five-man Committee members of the Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) headed by Supreme Court Justice Antonio Barredo proposed on July 28, the establishment of 'Sangguniang Pambansa' or 'Batasang Pambansa' which would help the President in the performance of his legislative functions. The proposed new body will take the place of the interim National Assembly which is considered not practical to convene at this time considering the constitution of its membership.

Upon learning the proposal of Justice Barredo, the country's 42,000 barangay assemblies on August 1 suggested that the people be consulted on a proposal to create a new legislative body to replace the interim assembly provided for by the Constitution. The suggestion of the barangay units was made through their national association, Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Barangay headed by Mrs. Nora Z. Patines. She said that the people have shown in at least six instances including in the two past referenda that they are against the convening of the interim National Assembly. She also said that since the people had ruled out the calling of such assembly and that they have once proposed that the President create instead the Sangguniang Pambansa or a legislative advisory body, then the proposal to create a new legislative must necessarily be referred to the people.

The federation of Kabataang Barangay, also numbering 42,000 units like their elder counterparts in the Katipunan ng mga Barangay also asserted their own right to be heard on whatever plans are afoot to convene a new legislative body.

On August 6, a meeting of the national directorate of PKB was held to discuss matters pertaining to the stand of the PKB with regards to the convening of a new legislative body. The stand of the PKB is to create a legislative advisory council in place of the old assembly. Two days after, August 8, the Kabataang Barangay held a symposium and made a stand which is the creation of a body with full legislative powers.

A nationwide clamor for the holding of meeting in their respective localities to discuss more intellegently the proposal to create a new legislative body was made by various urban and rural Sangguniang Bayans.

Numerous requests made by some members coming from 75 provincial and 61 city SB assemblies, were forwarded to the Department of Local Government and Community Development (DLGCD).

On August 7, Local Government Secretary, Jose A. Rono granted the request by convening the 91 member National Executive Committee of the Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Sanggunian on August 14 which was held at Session Hall, Quezon City. Invited also to participate were 13 Regional Federation Presidents each coming from the PKB and the PKKB

Actually, the extent of my active participation in the events and deliberations that have culminated in the holding of the proposed referendum- plebiscite on October 16, 1976, which petitioners are here seeking to enjoin, has been more substantial and meaningful than the above report imparts. Most importantly, aside from being probably the first person to publicly articulate the need for the creation of an interim legislative body to take the place of. the interim National Assembly provided for in the Transitory Provisions of the Constitution, as suggested in the above report, I might say that I was the one most vehement and persistent in publicly advocating and urging the authorities concerned to directly submit to the people in a plebiscite whatever amendments of the Constitution might be considered necessary for the establishment of such substitute interim legislature. In the aforementioned session of the Executive Committee of the Katipunan, I discourse on the indispensability of a new interim legislative body as the initial step towards the early lifting of martial law and on the fundamental considerations why in our present situation a constitutional convention would be superfluous in amending the Constitution.

Moreover, it is a matter of public knowledge that in a speech I delivered at the Coral Ballroom of the Hilton Hotel in the evening of August 17, 1976, I denounced in no uncertain terms the plan to call a constitutional convention. I reiterated the same views on September 7, 1976 at the initial conference called by the Comelec in the course of the information and educational campaign it was enjoined to conduct on the subject. And looking back at the subsequent developments up to September 22, 1976, when the Batasang Bayan approved and the President signed the now impugned Presidential Decree No. 1033, it is but human for me to want to believe that to a certain extent my strong criticisms and resolute stand against any other alternative procedure of amending the Constitution for the purpose intended had borne fruit.

I must hasten to add at this point, however, that in a larger sense, the initiative for all I have done, was not altogether mine alone. The truth of the matter is that throughout the four years of this martial law government, it has always been my faith, as a result of casual and occasional exchanges of thought with President Marcos, that when the appropriate time does come, the President would somehow make it known that in his judgment, the situation has already so improved as to permit the implementation, if gradual, of the constitutionally envisioned evolution of our government from its present state to a parliamentary one. Naturally, this would inevitably involve the establishment of a legislative body to replace the abortive interim National Assembly. I have kept tract of all the public and private pronouncements of the President, and it was the result of my reading thereof that furnished the immediate basis for my virtually precipitating, in one way or another, the materialization of the forthcoming referendum-plebiscite. In other words, in the final analysis, it was the President's own attitude on the matter that made it opportune for me to articulate my own feelings and Ideas as to how the nation can move meaningfully towards normalization and to publicly raise the issues that have been ventilated by the parties in the instant cases.

I would not be human, if I did not consider myself privileged in having been afforded by Divine Providence the opportunity to contribute a modest share in the formulation of the steps that should lead ultimately to the lifting of martial law in our country. Indeed, I am certain every true Filipino is anxiously looking forward to that eventuality. And if for having voiced the sentiments of our people, where others would have preferred to be comfortably silent, and if for having made public what every Filipino must have been feeling in his heart all these years, I should be singled out as entertaining such preconceived opinions regarding the issues before the Court in the cases at bar as to preclude me from taking part in their disposition, I can only say that I do not believe there is any other Filipino in and out of the Court today who is not equally situated as I am .

The matters that concern the Court in the instant petitions do not involve merely the individual interests of any single person or group of persons. Besides, the stakes in these cases affect everyone commonly, not individually. The current of history that has passed through the whole country in the wake of martial law has swept all of us, sparing none, and the problem of national survival and of restoring democratic institutions and Ideals is seeking solution in the minds of all of us. That I have preferred to discuss publicly my own thoughts on the matter cannot mean that my colleagues in the Court have been indifferent and apathetic about it, for they too are Filipinos. Articulated or not, all of us must have our own preconceived Ideas and notions in respect to the situation that confronts the country. To be sure, our votes and opinions in the- major political cases in the recent past should more or less indicate our respective basic positions relevant to the issues now before Us. Certainly, contending counsels cannot be entirely in the dark in this regard. I feel that it must have been precisely because of such awareness that despite my known public participation in the discussion of the questions herein involved, none of the parties have sought my inhibition or disqualification.

Actually, although it may be difficult for others to believe it, I have never allowed my preconceptions and personal inclinations to affect the objectivity needed in the resolution of any judicial question before the Court. I feel I have always been able to appreciate, fully consider and duly weigh arguments and points raised by all counsels, even when they conflict with my previous views. I am never beyond being convinced by good and substantial ratiocination. Nothing has delighted me more than to discover that somebody else has thought of more weighty arguments refuting my own, regardless of what or whose interests are at stake. I would not have accepted my position in the Court had I felt I would not be able to be above my personal prejudices. To my mind, it is not that a judge has preconceptions that counts, it is his capacity and readiness to absorb contrary views that are indispensable for justice to prevail. That suspicions of prejudgment may likely arise is unavoidable; but I have always maintained that whatever improper factors might influence a judge will unavoidably always appear on the face of the decision. In any event, is there better guarantee of justice when the preconceptions of a judge are concealed?

Withal, in point of law, I belong to the school of thought that regards members of the Supreme Court as not covered by the general rules relative to disqualification and inhibition of judges in cases before them. If I have in practice actually refrained from participating in some cases, it has not been because of any legal ground founded on said rules, but for purely personal reasons, specially because, anyway, my vote would not have altered the results therein.

It is my considered opinion that unlike in the cases of judges in the lower courts, the Constitution does not envisage compulsory disqualification or inhibition in any case by any member of the Supreme Court. The Charter establishes a Supreme Court "composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices", with the particular qualifications therein set forth and to be appointed in the manner therein provided. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any indication that the legislature may designate by law instances wherein any of the justices should not or may not take part in the resolution of any case, much less who should take his place. Members of the Supreme Court are definite constitutional officers; it is not within the power of the lawmaking body to replace them even temporarily for any reason. To put it the other way, nobody who has not been duly appointed as a member of the Supreme Court can sit in it at any time or for any reason. The Judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court composed as the Constitution ordains - that power cannot be exercised by a Supreme Court constituted otherwise. And so, when as in the instant where, if any of the member of Court is to abstain from taking part, there would be no quorum - and no court to render the decision - it is the includible duty of all the incumbent justices to participate in the proceedings and to cast their votes, considering that for the reasons stated above, the provisions of Section 9 of the Judiciary Act do not appear to conform with the concept of the office of Justice of the Supreme Court contemplated in the Constitution.

The very nature of the office of Justice of the Supreme Court as the tribunal of last resort and bulwark of the rights and liberties of all the people demands that only one of dependable and trustworthy probity should occupy the same. Absolute integrity, mental and otherwise, must be by everyone who is appointed thereto. The moral character of every member of the Court must be assumed to be such that in no case whatsoever. regardless of the issues and the parties involved, may it be feared that anyone's life, liberty or property, much less the national interests, would ever be in jeopardy of being unjustly and improperly subjected to any kind of judicial sanction. In sum, every Justice of the Supreme Court is expected to be capable of rising above himself in every case and of having full control of his emotions and prejudices, such that with the legal training and experience he must of necessity be adequately equipped with, it would be indubitable that his judgment cannot be but objectively impartial, Indeed, even the appointing power, to whom the Justices owe their positions, should never hope to be unduly favored by any action of the Supreme Court. All appointments to the Court are based on these considerations, hence the ordinary rules on inhibition and disqualification do not have to be applied to its members.

With the preliminary matter of my individual circumstances out of the way, I shall now address myself to the grave issues submitted for Our resolution.

In regard to the first issue as to whether the questions posed in the petitions herein are political or justiciable, suffice it for me to reiterate the fundamental position I took in the Martial Law cases,1 thus

Indeed, these fundamental considerations are the ones that lie at the base of what is known in American constitutional law as the political question doctrine, which in that jurisdiction is unquestionably deemed to be part and parcel of the rule of law, exactly like its apparently more attractive or popular opposite, judicial activism, which is the fullest exertion of judicial power, upon the theory that unless the courts intervene injustice might prevail. It has been invoked and applied by this Court in varied forms and mode of projection in several momentous instances in the past, (Barcelona vs. Baker, 5 Phil. 87; Severino vs. Governor-General, 16 Phil. 366; Abueva vs. Wood, 45 Phil. 612; Alejandrino vs. Quezon, 46 Phil. 85; Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil. 192; Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. 1; Cabin vs. Francisco, 88 Phil. 654; Montenegro vs. Castaneda, 91 Phil. 882, Santos vs. Yatco, 55 O.G. 8641 [Minute Resolution of Nov. 6, 19591 Osmena vs. Pendatun, Oct. 28, 1960.) and it is the main support of the stand of the Solicitor General on the issue of jurisdiction in the cases at bar. It is also referred to as the doctrine of judicial self-restraint or abstention. But as the nomenclatures themselves imply, activism and self- restraint are both subjective attitudes, not inherent imperatives. The choice of alternatives in any particular eventuality is naturally dictated by what in the Court's considered opinion is what the Constitution envisions should be by in order to accomplish the objectives of government and of nationhood. And perhaps it may be added here to avoid confusion of concepts, that We are not losing sight of the traditional approach based on the doctrine of separation of powers. In truth, We perceive that even under such mode of rationalization, the existence of power is secondary, respect for the acts of a co-ordinate, co-equal and independent Department being the general rule, particularly when the issue is not encroachment of delimited areas of functions but alleged abuse of a Department's own basic prerogatives. (59 SCRA, pp. 379-383.)

Applying the foregoing considerations to the cases at bar, I hold that the Court has jurisdiction to pass on the merits of the various claims of petitioners. At the same time, however, I maintain that the basic nature of the issues herein raised requires that the Court should exercise its constitutionally endowed prerogative to refrain from exerting its judicial authority in the premises.

Stripped of incidental aspects, the constitutional problem that confronts Us stems from the absence of any clear and definite express provision in the Charter applicable to the factual milieu herein involved. The primary issue is, to whom, under the circumstances, does the authority to propose amendments to the Constitution property belong? To say, in the light of Section 15 of Article XVII of the Charter, that that faculty lies in the interim National Assembly is to beg the main question. Indeed, there could be no occasion for doubt or debate, if it could ' only be assumed that the interim National Assembly envisaged in Sections 1 and 2 of the same Article XVII may be convoked. But precisely, the fundamental issue We are called upon to decide is whether or not it is still constitutionally possible to convene that body. And relative to that question, the inquiry centers on whether or not the political developments since the ratification of the Constitution indicate that the people have in effect enjoined the convening of the interim National Assembly altogether. On this score, it is my assessment that the results of the referenda of January 10-15, 1973, July 27-28, 1973 and February 27, 1975 clearly show that the great majority of our people, for reasons plainly obvious to anyone who would consider the composition of that Assembly, what with its more than 400 members automatically voted into it by the Constitutional Convention together with its own members, are against its being convoked at all.

Whether or not such a manifest determination of the sentiments of the people should be given effect without a formal amendment of the Constitution is something that constitutional scholars may endlessly debate on. What cannot be disputed, however, is that the government and the nation have acquiesced to, it and have actually operated on the basis thereof. Proclamation 1103 which, on the predicate that the overwhelming majority of the people desire that the interim Assembly be not convened, has ordained the suspension of its convocation, has not been assailed either judicially or otherwise since the date of its promulgation on January 17, 1973.

In these premises, it is consequently the task of the Court to determine what, under these circumstances, is the constitutional relevance of the interim National Assembly to any proposal to amend the Constitution at this time. It is my considered opinion that in resolving that question, the Court must have to grapple with the problem of what to do with the will of the people, which although manifested in a manner not explicitly provided for in the Constitution, was nevertheless official, and reliable, and what is more important clear and unmistakable, despite the known existence of well-meaning, if insufficiently substantial dissent. Such being the situation, I hold that it is not proper for the Court to interpose its judicial authority against the evident decision of the people and should leave it to the political department of the government to devise the ways and means of resolving the resulting problem of how to amend the Constitution, so long as in choosing the same, the ultimate constituent power is left to be exercised by the people themselves in a well- ordered plebiscite as required by the fundamental law.

Assuming We have to inquire into the merits of the issue relative to the constitutional authority behind the projected amendment of the Charter in the manner provided in Presidential Decree 1033, I hold that in the peculiar situation in which the government is today, it is not incompatible with the Constitution for the President to propose the subject amendments for ratification by the people in a formal plebiscite under the supervision of the Commission on Elections. On the contrary, in the absence of any express prohibition in the letter of the Charter, the Presidential Decree in question is entirely consistent with the spirit and the principles underlying the Constitution. The correctness of this conclusion should become even more patent, when one considers the political developments that the people have brought about since the ratification of the Constitution on January 17,1973.

I consider it apropos at this juncture to repeat my own words in a speech I delivered on the occasion of the celebration of Law Day on September 18, 1975 before the members of the Philippine Constitution Association and their guests:

To begin with, in analyzing the new Constitution, we must be careful to distinguish between the body or main part thereof and its transitory provisions. It is imperative to do so because the transitory provisions of our Constitution are extraordinary in the sense that obviously they have been designed to provide not only for the transition of our government from the presidential form under the past charter to a parliamentary one as envisaged in the new fundamental law, but also to institutionalize, according to the President, the reforms introduced thru the exercise of his martial law powers. Stated differently, the transitory provisions, as it has turned out, has in effect established a transition government, not, I am sure, perceived by many. It is a government that is neither presidential nor parliamentary. It is headed, of course, by President Marcos who not on retains all his powers under the 1935 Constitution but enjoys as well those of the President and the Prime Minister under the new Constitution. Most importantly, he can and does legislate alone. But to be more accurate, I should say that he legislates alone in spite of the existence of the interim National Assembly unequivocally ordained by the Constitution, for the simple reason that he has suspended the convening of said assembly by issuing Proclamation No. 1103 purportedly 'in deference to the sovereign will of the Filipino people' expressed in the January 10-15, 1973 referendum.

Thus, we have here the unique case of a qualified ratification. The whole Constitution was submitted for approval or disapproval of the people, and after the votes were counted and the affirmative majority known, we were told that the resulting ratification was subject to the condition that the interim National Assembly evidently established in the Constitution as the distinctive and indispensable element of a parliamentary form of government should nevertheless be not convened and that no elections should be held for about seven years, with the consequence that we have now a parliamentary government without a parliament and a republic without any regular election of its officials. And as you can see, this phenomenon came into being not by virtue of the Constitution but of the direct mandate of the sovereign people expressed in a referendum. In other words, in an unprecedented extra-constitutional way, we have established, wittingly or unwittingly, a direct democracy through the Citizens Assemblies created by Presidential Decree No. 86, which later on have been transformed into barangays, a system of government proclaimed by the President as 'a real achievement in participatory democracy.' What I am trying to say, my friends, is that as I perceive it, what is now known as constitutional authoritarianism means, in the final analysis, that the fundamental source of authority of our existing government may not be necessarily found within the four corners of the Constitution but rather in the results of periodic referendums conducted by the Commission on Elections in a manner well known to all of us This, as I see it, is perhaps what the President means by saying that under the new Constitution he has extra-ordinary powers independently of martial law - powers sanctioned directly by the people which may not even be read in the language of the Constitution. in brief, when we talk of the rule of law nowadays, our frame of reference should not necessarily be the Constitution but the outcome of referendums called from time to time by the President. The sooner we imbibe this vital concept the more intelligent will our perspective be in giving our support and loyalty to the existing government. What is more, the clearer will it be that except for the fact that all the powers of government are being exercised by the President, we - do not in reality have a dictatorship but an experimental type of direct democracy."

In the foregoing disquisition, I purposely made no mention of the referendum of February 27, 1975. It is important to note, relative to the main issue now before Us, that it was originally planned to ask the people in that referendum whether or not they would like the interim National Assembly to convene, but the Comelec to whom the task of preparing the questions was assigned was prevailed upon not to include any -such question anymore, precisely because it was the prevalent view even among the delegates to the Convention as well as the members of the old Congress concerned that that matter had already been finally resolved in the previous referenda of January and July 1973 in the sense that. the Assembly should not be convened comparable to res adjudicata.

It is my position that as a result of the political developments since January 17, 1973 the transitory provisions envisioning the convening of the interim National Assembly have been rendered legally inoperative. There is no doubt in my mind that for the President to convoke the interim National Assembly as such would be to disregard the will of the people - something no head of a democratic republican state like ours should do. And I find it simply logical that the reasons that motivated the people to enjoin the convening of the Assembly - the unusually large and unmanageable number of its members and the controversial morality of its automatic composition consisting of all the incumbent elective national executive and legislative officials under the Old Constitution who would agree to join it and the delegates themselves to the Convention who had voted in favor of the Transitory Provisions - apply not only to the Assembly as an ordinary legislature but perhaps more to its being a constituent body. And to be more realistic, it is but natural to conclude that since the people are against politicians in the old order having anything to do with the formulation of national policies, there must be more reasons for them to frown on said politicians taking part in amendment of the fundamental law, specially because the particular amendment herein involved calls for the abolition of the interim National Assembly to which they belong and its substitution by the Batasang Pambansa.

It is argued that in law, the qualified or conditional ratification of a constitution is not contemplated. I disagree. It is inconsistent with the plenary power of the people to give or withhold their assent to a proposed Constitution to maintain that they can do so only wholly. I cannot imagine any sound principle that can be invoked to support the theory that the proposing authority can limit the power of ratification of the people. As long as there are reliable means by which only partial approval can be manifested, no cogent reason exists why the sovereign people may not do so. True it is that no proposed Constitution can be perfect and it may therefore be taken with the good and the bad in it, but when there are feasible ways by which it can be determined which portions of it, the people disapprove. it would be stretching technicality beyond its purported office to render the final authority - the people impotent to act according to what they deem best suitable to their interests.

In any event, I feel it would be of no consequence to debate at length regarding the legal feasibility of qualified ratification. Proclamation 1103 categorically declares that:

and in consequence, the President has acted accordingly by not convening the Assembly. The above factual premises of Proclamation 1103 is not disputed by petitioners. Actually, it is binding on the Court, the same being a political act of a coordinate department of the government not properly assailed as arbitrary or whimsical. At this point, it must be emphasized in relation to the contention that a referendum is only consultative, that Proclamation 1103, taken together with Proclamation 1102 which proclaimed the ratification of the Constitution, must be accorded the same legal significance as the latter proclamation, as indeed it is part and parcel if the Act of ratification of the Constitution, hence not only persuasive but mandatory. In the face of the incontrovertible fact that the sovereign people have voted against the convening of the interim National Assembly, and faced with the problem of amending the Constitution in order precisely to implement the people's rejection of that Assembly, the problem of constitutional dimension that confronts Us, is how can any such amendment be proposed for ratification by the people?

To start with, it may not be supposed that just because the office or body designed by the constitutional convention to perform the constituent function of formulating proposed amendments has been rendered inoperative by the people themselves, the people have thereby foreclosed the possibility of amending the Constitution no matter how desirable or necessary this might be. In this connection, I submit that by the very nature of the office of the Presidency in the prevailing scheme of government we have - it being the only political department of the government in existence - it is consistent with basic principles of constitutionalism to acknowledge the President's authority to perform the constituent function, there being no other entity or body lodged with the prerogative to exercise such function.

There is another consideration that leads to the same conclusion. It is conceded by petitioners that with the non-convening of the interim Assembly, the legislative authority has perforce fallen into the hands of the President, if only to avoid a complete paralysis of law-making and resulting anarchy and chaos. It is likewise conceded that the provisions of Section 3 (2) of Article XVII invest the President with legislative power for the duration of the transition period. From these premises, it is safe to conclude that in effect the President has been substituted by the people themselves in place of the interim Assembly. Such being the case, the President should be deemed as having been granted also the cognate prerogative of proposing amendments to the Constitution. In other words, the force of necessity and the cognate nature of the act justify that the department exercising the legislative faculty be the one to likewise perform the constituent function that was attached to the body rendered impotent by the people's mandate. Incidentally, I reject most vehemently the proposition that the President may propose amendments to the Constitution in the exercise of his martial law powers. Under any standards, such a suggestion cannot be reconciled with the Ideal that a Constitution is the free act of the people.

It was suggested during the oral, argument that instead of extending his legislative powers by proposing the amendment to create a new legislative body, the President should issue a decree providing for the necessary apportionment of the seats in the Regular National Assembly and call for an election of the members thereof and thus effect the immediate normalization of the parliamentary government envisaged in the Constitution. While indeed procedurally feasible, the suggestion overlooks the imperative need recognized by the constitutional convention as may be inferred from the obvious purpose of the transitory provisions, for a period of preparation and acquaintance by all concerned with the unfamiliar distinctive features and practices of the parliamentary system. Accustomed as we are to the presidential system, the Convention has seen to it that there should be an interim parliament under the present leadership, which will take the corresponding measures to effectuate the efficient and smooth transition from the present system to the new one. I do not believe this pattern set by the convention should be abandoned.

The alternative of calling a constitutional convention has also been mentioned. But, in the first place, when it is considered that whereas, under Section 1 (1) and (2) of Article XVI, the regular National Assembly may call a Constitutional Convention or submit such a call for approval of the people, Section 15 of Article XVII, in reference to interim National Assembly, does not grant said body the prerogative of calling a convention, one can readily appreciate that the spirit of the Constitution does not countenance or favor the calling of a convention during the transition, if only because such a procedure would be time consuming, cumbersome and expensive. And when it is further noted that the requirement as to the number of votes needed for a proposal is only a majority, whereas it is three-fourths in respect to regular Assembly, and, relating this point to the provision of Section 2 of Article XVI to the effect that all ratification plebiscites must be held "not later than three months after the approval" of the proposed amendment by the proposing authority, the adoption of the most simple manner of amending the charter, as that provided for in the assailed Presidential Decree 1033 suggests itself as the one most in accord with the intent of the fundamental law.

There is nothing strange in adopting steps not directly based on the letter of the Constitution for the purpose of amending or changing the same. To cite but one important precedent, as explained by Mr. Justice Makasiar in his concurring opinion in Javellana 2, the present Constitution of the United States was neither proposed nor ratified in the manner ordained by the original charter of that country, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

In brief. if the convening and operation of the interim National Assembly has been effectuated through a referendum-plebiscite in January, 1973, and ratified expressly and impliedly in two subsequent referenda, those of July, 1973 and February, 1975, why may not a duly held plebiscite suffice for the purpose of creating a substitute for that Assembly? It should be borne in mind that after all, as indicated in the whereas of the impugned Presidential Decree, actually, the proposed amendments were initiated by the barangays and sanggunian members. In other words, in submitting the amendments for ratification, the President is merely acting as the conduit thru whom a substantial portion of the people, represented in the Katipunan ng Mga Sanggunian, Barangay at Kabataang Barangay, seek the approval of the people as a whole of the amendments in question. If all these mean that the sovereign people have arrogated unto themselves the functions relative to the amendment to the Constitution, I would regard myself as totally devoid of legal standing to question it, having in mind that the most fundamental tenet on which our whole political structure rests is that "sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them."

In the light of the foregoing considerations, I hold that Presidential Decree No. 1033 does not infringe the Constitution, if only because the specific provision it is supposed to infringe does not exist in legal contemplation since it was coevally made inoperative when the people ratified the Constitution on January 17, 1973. I am fully convinced that there is nothing in the procedure of amendment contained in said decree that is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of constitutionalism. On the contrary, I find that the Decree, in issue conforms admirably with the underlying tenet of our government - the sovereignty and plenary power of the people.

On the issue of whether or not October 16, 1976 is too proximate to enable the people to sufficiently comprehend the issues and intelligently vote in the referendum and plebiscite set by Presidential Decree 1033, all I can say is that while perhaps my other colleagues are right in holding that the period given to the people is adequate, I would leave it to the President to consider whether or not it would be wiser to extend the same. Just to avoid adverse comments later I wish the President orders a postponement. But whether such postponement is ordered or not, date of the referendum- plebiscite anywhere from October 16, 1976 to any other later date, would be of no vital import.

Since the validity or effectivity of the proposed amendments is to be decided ultimately by the people in their sovereign capacity, the question is political as the term is defined in Tanada, et al. vs. Cuenco, et al. (103 Phil. 1051), which is a bar to any judicial inquiry, for the reasons stated in Our opinion in Javellana, et al. vs. Executive Secretary, et al. (L-36142); Tan, et al. vs. Executive Secretary, et al. (L,36164); Roxas, et al. vs Executive Secretary, et al. (L-36165); Monteclaro, etc., et al. vs' Executive Secretary, et al. (@36236); and Ditag et al. vs. Executive Secretary, et al. (L-W283, March 31, 1973, 50 SCRA 30, 204-283). The procedure for amendment is not important Ratification by the people is all that is indispensable to validate an amendment. Once ratified, the method of making the proposal and the period for submission become relevant.

The contrary view negates the very essence of a republican democracy - that the people are sovereign - and renders meaningless the emphatic declaration in the very first provision of Article II of the 1973 Constitution that the Philippines is a republican state, sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. It is axiomatic that sovereignty is illimitable The representatives cannot dictate to the sovereign people. They may guide them; but they cannot supplant their judgment, Such an opposite view likewise distrusts the wisdom of the people as much as it despises their intelligence. It evinces a presumptuous pretension to intellectual superiority. There are thousands upon thousands among the citizenry, who are not in the public service, who are more learned and better skilled than many of their elected representatives.

Moreover, WE already ruled in Aquino, et al. vs- Comelec, et al. (L 40004, Jan. 31, 1975, 62 SCRA 275, 298-302) that the President as enforcer or administrator of martial rule during the period of martial law can legislate; and that he has the discretion as to when the convene the interim National Assembly depending on prevailing conditions of peace and order. In view of the fact that the interim National Assembly has not been convoked in obedience to the desire of the people clearly expressed in the 1973 referenda, the President therefore remains the lone law-making authority while martial law subsists. Consequently, he can also exercise the power of the interim National Assembly to propose amendments to the New Constitution (Sec. 15,,Art. XVII If, as conceded by petitioner Vicente Guzman (L-44684), former delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention which drafted the 1973 Constitution. the President, during the period of martial law, can call a constitutional convention for the purpose, admittedly a constituent power, it stands to reason that the President can likewise legally propose amendments to the fundamental law.

At the threshold, it is necessary to clarify what is a "political question". It must be noted that this device has been utilized by the judiciary "to avoid determining questions it is ill equipped to determine or that could be settled in any event only with the effective support of the political branches."1 According to Weston, judges, whether "personal representatives of a truly sovereign king, or taking their seats as the creatures of a largely popular sovereignty speaking through a written constitution, derive their power by a delegation, which clearly or obscurely as the case may be, deliminates and delimits their delegated jurisdiction.* * * Judicial questions * * * are those which the sovereign has set to be decided in the courts. Political questions, similarly, are those which the sovereign has entrusted to the so-called political departments of government or has reserved to be settled by its own extra-government or has reserved to be settled by its own extra-governmental action."2 Reflecting a similar concept, this Court has defined a "political question" as a "matter which is to be exercised by the people in their primary political capacity or that has been specifically delegated to some other department or particular officer of the government, with discretionary power to act."3 In other words, it refers to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of government.4

In determining whether an issue falls within the political question category, the absence of satisfactory creterion for a judicial determination or the appropriateness of attributing finality to the action of the political departments of government is a dominant consideration. This was explained by Justice Brennan in Baker v. Carr,5 thus :

To decide whether a matter has in a measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government or retained be the people to be decided by them in their sovereign capacity, or whether that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is indeed a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation.

In Coleman v. Miller,6 the United States Supreme Court held that the efficacy of the ratification by state legislatures of a constitutional amendment is a political question. On the question of whether the State Legislature could constitutionally relative an amendment, after the same had been previously rejected by it, it was held that the ultimate authority over the question was in Congress in the exercise of its control over the promulgation of the adoption of the amendment. And in connection with the second question of whether the amendment has lost its, vitality through the lapse of time, the Court held that the question was likewise political, involving "as it does ... an appraisal of a great variety of relevant conditions, political, social and economic, which can hardly be said to be within the appropriate range of evidence receivable in a court of justice and as to which it would be an extravagant extension of juridical authority to assert judicial notice as the basis of deciding a controversy with respect to the validity of an amendment actually ratified. On the other hand, these conditions are appropriate for the consideration of the political departments of the Government. The questions they involve are essentially political and not justiciable." '

In their concurring opinions, Justices Black, Roberts, Frankfurter and Douglas stressed that:

Relying on this doctrine enunciated in Coleman v. Miller supra this Court, in Mabanag v. Lopez Vitol,7 speaking through Mr. Justice Pedro Tuason, ruled that the process of constitutional amendment, involving proposal and ratification, is a political question. In the Mabang case, the petitioners sought to prevent the enforcement of a resolution of Congress proposing the "Parity Amendment" to the Philippine Constitution on the ground that it had not been approved by the three-fourths vote of all the members of each house as required be Article XV of the 1935 Constitution. It was claimed that three (3) Senators and eight (8) members of the House of Representatives had been suspended and that their membership was not considered in the determination of the three- fourths %- ore In dismissing the petition on the ground that the question of the validity of the proposal was political, the Court stated:

"If ratification of an amendment is a political question, a proposal which leads to ratification has to be a political question. The question to steps complement each other in a scheme intended to achieve a single objective. It is to be noted that amendatory process as provided in Section I of Article XV of the Philippine Constitution 'consists of (only) two distinct parts: proposal and ratification.' There is no logic in attaching political character to one and withholding that character from the other. Proposal to amend the Constitution is a highly political function performed by the Congress in its sovereign legislative capacity and committed to its charge by the Constitution itself. ..." (At pages 4-5, Italics supplied.)

It is true that in Gonzales v. Comelec,8 this Court held that "the issue whether or not a Resolution of Congress, acting as a constituent assembly - violates the Constitution is essentially justiciable, not political, and hence, subject to judicial review." What was involved in Gonzales, however, was not a proposed What was involved in Gonzales, however, was not a proposed amendment to the Constitution but an act of Congress,9 submitting proposed amendments to the Constitution. Similarly, in Tolentino v. Commission an Elections, 10 what was involved was not the validity of the proposal to lower the voting age but rather that of the resolution of the Constitutional Convention submitting the proposal for ratification. The question was whether piecemeal amendments to the Constitution could submitted to the people for approval or rejection.

Here, the point has been stressed that the President is acting as agent for and in behalf of the people in proposing the amendment. there can be no question that in the referendums of January, 1973 and in the subsequent referendums the people had clearly and categorically rejected the calling of the interim National Assembly. As stated in the main opinion, the Lupang Tagapagpaganap of the Katipunan ng mga Sanggunian, the Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Barangay, representing 42,000 barangays, the Kabataang Barangay organizations and the various sectoral groups had proposed the replacement of the interim National Assembly. These barangays and the Sanggunian assemblies are effective instrumentalities through which the desires of the people are articulated and expressed. The Batasang Bayan (Legislative Council), composed of nineteen (19) cabinet members and nine (9) officials with cabinet rank, and ninety-one (91) members of the Lupang Tagapagpaganap (Executive Committee) of the Katipunan ng mga Sangguniang Bayani voted in their special session to submit directly to the people in a plebiscite on October 16, 1976 the afore-mentioned constitutional amendments. Through the Pambansang Katipunan by Barangay and the Pampurok ng Katipunan Sangguniang Bayan, the people have expressed their desire not only to abolish the interim National Assembly, but to replace it with a more representative body acceptable to them in order to effect the desirable constitutional changes necessary to hasten the political evolution of the government towards the parliamentary system, while at the same time ensuring that the gains of the New Society, which are vital to the welfare of the people, shall be safeguarded. The proposed constitutional amendments, therefore, represent a consensus of the people.

It would be futile to insist that the intemi National Assembly should have been convened to propose those amendments pursuant to Section 15 of Article XVII of the Constitution. This Court, in the case of Aquino v. Commission or Elections,11 took judicial notice of the fact that in the referendum of January, 1973, a majority of those who approved the new Constitution conditioned their votes on the demand that the interim National Assembly provided in the Transitory Provisions should not be and the President "in deference to the sovereign will of the Filipino people" declared that the convening of said body shall be suspended.12 As this Court observed in the Aquino case:

Since it was the action by the people that gave binding force and effect to the new Constitution, then it must be accepted as a necessary consequence that their objection against the immediate convening of the interim National Assembly must be respected as a positive mandate of the sovereign.

In the Philippines, which is a unitary state, sovereignty "resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them."13 The term "People" as sovereign is comprehensive in its context. The people, as sovereign creator of all political reality, is not merely the enfranchised citizens but the political unity of the people. 14 It connotes, therefore, a people which exists not only in the urgent present but in the continuum of history. The assumption that the opinion of The People as voters can be treated as the expression of the interests of the People as a historic community was, to the distinguished American journalist and public philosopher, Walter Lipunan, unwarranted.

In Gonzales v. Comelec, supra, the Court clearly emphasized that the power to propose amendments or to amend the Constitution is part of the inherent power of the people as the repository of sovereignty in a republican state. While Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution, it acts pursuant to authority granted to it by the people through the Constitution. Both the power to propose and the authority to approve, therefore, inhere in the people as the bearer of the Constitution making power.

Absent an interim National Assembly upon whom the people, through the Constitution, have delegated the authority to exercise constituent powers, it follows from necessity that either the people should exercise that power themselves or through any other instrumentality they may choose. For Law, like Nature, abhors a vacuum (natural vacuum abhorret).

The question then is whether the President has authority to act for the people in submitting such proposals for ratification at the plebiscite of October 16. The political character of the question is, therefore, particularly manifest, considering that ultimately it is the people who will decide whether the President has such authority. It certainly involves a matter which is to be exercised by the people in their sovereign capacity, hence, it is essentially political, not judicial.

While it is true that the constituent power is not to be confuse with legislative power in general because the prerogative to propose amendments is not embraced within the context of ordinary lawmaking, it must be noted that the proposals to be submitted for ratification in the forthcoming referendum are, in the final analysis, actually not of the President but directly of the people themselves, speaking through their authorized instrumentalities.

The paramount consideration that impelled Us to arrive at the foregoing opinion is the necessity of ensuring popular control over the constituent power. "If the people are to control the constituent power - the power to make and change the fundamental law of the State," observed Wheeler," "the process of Constitutional change must not be based too heavily upon existing agencies of government." Indeed, the basic premise of republicanism is that the ordinary citizen, the common man. can be trusted to determine his political destiny. Therefore, it is time that the people should be accorded the fullest opportunity to decide the laws that shall provide for their governance. For in the ultimate analysis, the success of the national endeavor shall depend on the vision, discipline and I by ininess of the moqqqtai will of every Filipino.

The term "political question", as this Court has previously defined, refers to those questions which, under the constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the Government. It is concerned with the issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.1

Here, the question raised is whether the President has authority to propose to the people amendments to the Constitution which the petitioners claim is vested solely upon the National Assembly, the constitutional convention called for the purpose, and the by the National Assembly. This is not a political question since it involves the determination of conflicting claims of authority under the constitution.

In Gonzales vs. Comelec, 2 this Court, resolving the issue of whether or not a Resolution of Congress, acting as a constituent assembly, violates the Constitution, ruled that the question is essentially justiciable, not political, and hence, subject to judicial review.

In Tolentino vs. Comelec 3 this Court finally dispelled all doubts as to its position regarding its jurisdiction vis-a-vis the constitutionality of the acts of Congress, acting as a constituent assembly, as well as those of a constitutional convention called for the purpose of proposing amendments to the constitution. Insofar as observance of constitutional provisions on the procedure for amending the constitution is concerned, the issue is cognizable by this Court under its powers of judicial review.

2. As to the merits, a brief backdrop of the decision to hold the referendum-plebiscite will help resolve the issue. It is to be noted that under the 1973 Constitution, an interim National Assembly was organized to bring about an orderly transition from the presidential to the parliamentary system of government.' The people, however, probably distrustful of the members who are old time politicians and constitutional delegates who had voted themselves by to membership in the interim National Assembly, voted against the convening of the said interim assembly for at least seven years thus creating a political stalemate and a consequent delay' in the transformation of the government into the parliamentary system. To resolve the impasse, the President, at the instance of the barangays and sanggunian assemblies through their duly authorized instrumentalities who recommended a study of the feasibility of abolishing and replacing the by interim National Assembly with another interim body truly representative of the people in a reformed society, issued Presidential Decree No. 991, on September 2, 1976, calling for a national referendum on October -16, 1976 to ascertain the wishes of the people as to the ways and means that may be available to attain the objective; providing for a period of educational and information campaign on the issues; and establishing the mechanics and manner for holding thereof. But the people, through their barangays, addressed resolutions to the Batasang Bayan, expressing their desire to have the constitution amended, thus prompting the President to issue Presidential Decree No. 1033, stating the questions to @ submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite on October 16,1976.

As will be seen, the authority to amend the Constitution was removed from the interim National Assembly and transferred to the seat of sovereignty itself. Since the Constitution emanates from the people who are the repository of all political powers, their authority to amend the Constitution through the means they have adopted, aside from those mentioned in the Constitution, cannot be gainsaid. Not much reflection is also needed to show that the President did not exercise his martial law legislative powers when he proposed the amendments to the Constitution. He was merely acting as an instrument to carry out the will of the people. Neither could he convene the interim National Assembly, as suggested by the petitioners, without doing violence to the people's will expressed overwhelmingly when they decided against convening the interim assembly for at least seven years.

3. The period granted to the people to consider the proposed amendments is reasonably long and enough to afford intelligent discussion of the issues to be voted upon. PD 991 has required the barangays to hold assemblies or meetings to discuss and debate on the referendum questions, which in fact they have been doing. Considering that the proposed amendments came from the representatives of the people themselves, the people must have already formed a decision by this time on what stand to take on the proposed amendments come the day for the plebiscite. Besides, the Constitution itself requires the holding of a plebiscite for the ratification of an amendment not later than three (3) months after the approval of such amendment or revision but without setting a definite period within which such plebiscite shall not be held. From this I can only conclude that the framers of the Constitution desired that only a short period shall elapse from the approval of such amendment or resolution to its ratification by the people.