7/29/2019 Case Digest Consti Sanidad and Tolentino

1/1

SANIDAD vs. COMELEC Case Digest

SANIDAD vs. COMELEC

181 SCRA 529

Facts: On 23 October 1989, RA 6766 (Act providing for an organic act for the

Cordillera Autonomous Region) was enacted into law. The plebiscite was

scheduled 30 January 1990. The Comelec, by virtue of the power vested by

the 1987 Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881), RA 6766 and

other pertinent election laws, promulgated Resolution 2167, to govern the

conduct of the plebiscite on the said Organic Act for the Cordillera

Autonomous Region. Pablito V. Sanidad, a newspaper columnist of

Overview for the Baguio Midland Courier assailed the constitutionality of

Section 19 (Prohibition on columnists, commentators or announcers) of the

said resolution, which provides During the plebiscite campaign period, on

the day before and on plebiscite day, no mass media columnist,

commentator, announcer or personality shall use his column or radio or

television time to campaign for or against the plebiscite issues.

Issue: Whether columnists are prohibited from expressing their opinions, or

should be under Comelec regulation, during plebiscite periods.

Held: Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution that what was granted to the

Comelec was the power to supervise and regulate the use and enjoyment of

franchises, permits or other grants issued for the operation of transportation

or other public utilities, media of communication or information to the end

that equal opportunity, time and space, and the right to reply, including

reasonable, equal rates therefor, for public information campaigns andforums among candidates are ensured. Neither Article IX-C of the

Constitution nor Section 11-b, 2nd paragraph of RA 6646 (a columnist,

commentator, announcer or personality, who is a candidate for any elective

office is required to take a leave of absence from his work during the

campaign period) can be construed to mean that the Comelec has also been

granted the right to supervise and regulate the exercise by media

practitioners themselves of their right to expression during plebiscite

periods. Media practitioners exercising their freedom of expression during

plebiscite periods are neither the franchise holders nor the candidates. In

fact, there are no candidates involved in a plebiscite. Therefore, Section 19 of

Comelec Resolution 2167 has no statutory basis.

Tolentino vs COMELEC

41 SCRA 702

Petitioner: ARTURO M. TOLENTINO

Respondents: Commission on Election, and the Chief Accountant, the

Auditor and the Disbursing Officer of the 1971 Constitutional Convention,

Raul S. Manglapus, Jesus G. Barrera, Pablo S. Trillana III, Victor dela Serna,

Marcelo B. Fernan, Jose Y. Feria, Leonardo Siguin Reyna, Victor F. Ortega

and Juan V. Borra

FactsThe case is a petition for prohibition to restrain respondent Commission on

Elections "from undertaking to hold a plebiscite on November 8, 1971," at

which the proposed constitutional amendment "reducing the voting age" in

Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution of the Philippines to eighteen years

"shall be, submitted" for ratification by the people pursuant to Organic

Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of 1971, and the

subsequent implementing resolutions, by declaring said resolutions to be

without the force and effect of law for being violative of the Constitution of

the Philippines. The Constitutional Convention of 1971 came into being by

virtue of two resolutions of the Congress of the Philippines approved in its

capacity as a constituent assembly convened for the purpose of calling a

convention to propose amendments to the Constitution namely, Resolutions

2 and 4 of the joint sessions of Congress held on March 16, 1967 and June 17,

1969 respectively. The delegates to the said Convention were all elected

under and by virtue of said resolutions and the implementing legislation

thereof, Republic Act 6132.

Issue

Is it within the powers of the Constitutional Convention of 1971 to order the

holding of a plebiscite for the ratification of the proposed amendment/s?

Decision

The Court holds that all amendments to be proposed must be submitted to

the people in a single "election" or plebiscite. We hold that the plebiscite

being called for the purpose of submitting the same for ratification of the

people on November 8, 1971 is not authorized by Section 1 of Article XV of

the Constitution, hence all acts of the Convention and the respondent

Comelec in that direction are null and void. lt says distinctly that either

Congress sitting as a constituent assembly or a convention called for the

purpose "may propose amendments to this Constitution,". The same

provision also as definitely provides that "such amendments shall be valid as

part of this Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast at an

election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for their

ratification," thus leaving no room for doubt as to how many "elections" or

plebiscites may be held to ratify any amendment or amendments proposed

by the same constituent assembly of Congress or convention, and the

provision unequivocably says "an election" which means only one.

The petition herein is granted. Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional

Convention of 1971 and the implementing acts and resolutions of theConvention, insofar as they provide for the holding of a plebiscite on

November 8, 1971, as well as the resolution of the respondent Comelec

complying therewith (RR Resolution No. 695) are hereby declared null and

void. The respondents Comelec, Disbursing Officer, Chief Accountant and

Auditor of the Constitutional Convention are hereby enjoined from taking

any action in compliance with the said organic resolution. In view of the

peculiar circumstances of this case, the Court declares this decision

immediately executory.