Almario vs. Alba

The sufficiency of the period during which constitutional amendments are submitted to the people before they vote depends on the complexity and intricacy of the questions presented. Where the proposed amendments are relatively simple and the electorate has been afforded adequate time and information to arrive at an intelligent judgment, the requirement of fair and proper submission is satisfied. The wisdom, necessity, and expediency of proposed constitutional amendments are beyond the power of courts to adjudicate and are matters for the people to decide at the polls.

The Filipino electorate was scheduled to go to the polls on January 27, 1984 pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 643 to approve or reject amendments to the Constitution proposed by Resolution Nos. 104, 105, 110, 111, 112, and 113 of the Batasang Pambansa. The proposed amendments were embodied in four separate questions to be answered by simple YES or NO answers. Section 2, Article XVI of the Constitution allows a period of not more than three months for the conduct of information campaigns before a plebiscite is held.

The Batasang Pambansa, convened as a constituent assembly, approved six resolutions proposing amendments to the 1973 Constitution. Resolution No. 105, adopted on November 21, 1983, proposed to amend Sections 11 and 12 of Article XIV by adding the word "grant" as an additional mode of acquiring alienable lands of the public domain and by allowing the agrarian reform program to include the grant or distribution of alienable lands of the public domain to qualified tenants, farmers, and other landless citizens. Resolution No. 113, adopted on December 19, 1983, proposed to add a paragraph to Section 12 of Article XIV requiring the State to undertake an urban land reform and social housing program for deserving landless, homeless, or inadequately sheltered low-income resident citizens.

The plebiscite was scheduled for January 27, 1984 under Batas Pambansa Blg. 643, with the proposed amendments embodied in four questions. Question No. 3 covered Resolution No. 105, and Question No. 4 covered Resolution No. 113. Petitioners, who did not seek to prohibit the holding of the plebiscite entirely, asked for more time for the people to study the meaning and implications of Resolution Nos. 105 and 113 until the nature and effect of the proposals were fairly and properly submitted to the electorate.

Petitioners alleged that the two proposals bore far-reaching implications affecting existing constitutional and statutory provisions as well as Supreme Court holdings on acquisition and disposition of public lands and property rights in urban areas. They claimed they were not aware of any campaign by the COMELEC or any other governmental agency endeavoring to register in the consciousness of the Filipino people the rationale behind Resolution Nos. 105 and 113 and their implications.

The respondents, through the Solicitor General, argued that Resolution No. 105 was approved 67 days before the plebiscite and Resolution No. 113 was approved 42 days before, affording adequate time for debate. The Solicitor General noted that "agrarian reform program" had been in the consciousness of the Filipino people since 1972 with the passage of P.D. No. 27, and that "grant" or "land grant or distribution" had been familiar since Commonwealth days with the enactment of Commonwealth Act No. 141. The respondents assured the Court that publication had been effected in all provinces and cities except a few without local newspapers, that barangays had been enjoined to hold community gatherings, and that the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and various civic organizations had taken strong positions on the proposed questions.

• Fair and Proper Submission: Petitioners argued that Resolution Nos. 105 and 113 had not been properly and fairly submitted to the understanding of the Filipino people, invoking the doctrine laid down in Tolentino vs. COMELEC (41 SCRA 707) which requires that a plebiscite provide the voter not only sufficient time but ample basis for an intelligent appraisal of the nature of the amendment per se as well as its relation to the other parts of the Constitution.

• Far-Reaching Implications: Petitioners contended that the two proposals bore far-reaching implications bound to affect existing constitutional and statutory provisions as well as Supreme Court holdings on acquisition and disposition of public lands and on property rights particularly in urban areas, and ought first to be thoroughly explained to the people before they are made to vote.

• Lack of Information Campaign: Petitioners alleged they were not aware of any campaign by the COMELEC or any other governmental agency endeavoring to register in the consciousness of the Filipino people the rationale behind Resolution Nos. 105 and 113 and their implications, and that it would be a deception if the Filipino people were hurried to approve or disapprove the proposed amendments.

• Adequate Time for Debate: Respondents argued that Resolution No. 105 was approved on November 21, 1983 and Resolution No. 113 on December 19, 1983, or 67 and 42 days respectively before the plebiscite, and that these periods afforded adequate and sufficient time for debate, with the amendments being discussed in barangay meetings, civic organization discussions, and on radio and television.

• Familiarity of the Subject Matter: The Solicitor General argued that "agrarian reform program" had been in the consciousness of the Filipino people since 1972 with the passage of P.D. No. 27, and that "grant" or "land grant or distribution" had been familiar subject matters since Commonwealth days with the enactment of Commonwealth Act No. 141, while "urban land reform" and "social housing" had been familiar topics since the country's first zoning laws and through laws such as Rep. Act No. 267, P.D. No. 814, P.D. No. 933, Rep. Act No. 1322, and P.D. No. 1517.

• Publication and Dissemination: Respondents assured the Court that publication had been effected in all provinces and cities except a few where there were no local newspapers, that barangays had been enjoined to hold community gatherings, and that the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and various civic organizations had taken strong stands for or against the proposed questions.

• Fair and Proper Submission: Whether Question Nos. 3 and 4, covering Resolution Nos. 105 and 113, were fairly and properly submitted to the electorate for ratification or rejection in accordance with the doctrine laid down in Tolentino vs. COMELEC.

• Judicial Review of Amendment Wisdom: Whether the Court may pass upon the wisdom, necessity, and expediency of the proposed constitutional amendments.

• Fair and Proper Submission: No. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit. The sufficiency of the period during which amendments are submitted to the people depends on the complexity and intricacy of the questions presented, and the petitioners failed to show that the proposed amendments were of such a nature that the people could not arrive at an intelligent judgment on their acceptability.

• Judicial Review of Amendment Wisdom: No. The necessity, expediency, and wisdom of the proposed amendments are beyond the power of the courts to adjudicate; these are matters which only the people can decide at the polls.

• Fair and Proper Submission: The Court reasoned that Section 2, Article XVI of the Constitution allows a period of not more than three months for the conduct of information campaigns, and the sufficiency of the period depends on the complexity and intricacy of the questions presented. The addition of the word "grant" to Section 11, Article XIV and the addition of paragraphs on urban land reform to Section 12 of Article XIV did not result in amendments of such a nature that the people could not arrive at an intelligent judgment. The Court noted that the present provisions of the Constitution are adequate to support any program for the grant of public lands or for the implementation of urban land reform, since homesteads and free patents are "grants." The Court further observed that the amendments, if ratified, would serve at most a symbolic purpose, as the Solicitor General conceded that the amendments under Question No. 3 serve to confirm existing practice pursuant to long-standing legislation. The Court found that Batas Pambansa Blg. 643 directed the COMELEC to publish the amendments, that publication had been effected in all provinces and cities except a few without local newspapers, that barangays had been enjoined to hold community gatherings, and that the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and various civic organizations had taken strong stands for or against the proposed questions. The Court noted that Resolution No. 105 would have been submitted for 67 days to the people on Plebiscite Day while Resolution No. 113 would have been submitted for 42 days, compared to the 36 days for the entire 1935 Constitution and only 3 weeks for the 1976 amendments which were admittedly much more complicated.

• Judicial Review of Amendment Wisdom: The Court held that the necessity, expediency, and wisdom of the proposed amendments are beyond the power of the courts to adjudicate. Whether or not "grant" of public land and "urban land reform" are unwise or improvident, or whether the proposed amendments are unnecessary, is a matter which only the people can decide. The issue before the Court was not the wisdom of the proposed amendments, their desirability, or the danger of the power being abused, but whether the voters are aware of the wisdom, the desirability, or the dangers of abuse. The petitioners failed to make out a case that the average voter does not know the meaning of "grant" of public land or of "urban land reform." The Court emphasized that any interpretation of "grant" would carry the weight of applicable precedents which surround the associated words "homestead" and "purchase" in the same clause of the Constitution, and any legislation laying down the rules on urban land reform would have to survive the constitutional tests of due process, equal protection, police power, and reasonable compensation now applied to agrarian land reform.

• Doctrine of Fair and Proper Submission — In order that a plebiscite for the ratification of an amendment to the Constitution may be validly held, it must provide the voter not only sufficient time but ample basis for an intelligent appraisal of the nature of the amendment per se as well as its relation to the other parts of the Constitution with which it has to form a harmonious whole. The sufficiency of the period during which amendments are submitted to the people before they vote depends on the complexity and intricacy of the questions presented. In this case, the Court found that the proposed amendments were relatively simple, that the electorate had adequate time and information, and that the requirement of fair and proper submission was satisfied.

• Political Question Doctrine — The necessity, expediency, and wisdom of proposed constitutional amendments are beyond the power of the courts to adjudicate. Whether proposed amendments are unwise or improvident, or whether they are unnecessary, is a matter which only the people can decide at the polls. Courts may not substitute their aversion to proposed amendments by denying to the millions of voters an opportunity to express their own likes or dislikes.

• "The sufficiency of the period during which amendments are submitted to the people before they vote to either affirm or reject depends on the complexity and intricacy of the questions presented." — This passage articulates the controlling standard for determining whether there has been fair and proper submission of proposed constitutional amendments, and it was the basis for the Court's finding that the periods of 67 and 42 days were adequate given the relative simplicity of the amendments.

• "More important, however, is that the necessity, expediency, and wisdom of the proposed amendments are beyond the power of the courts to adjudicate." — This passage states the political question doctrine as applied to constitutional amendments, holding that the merits of proposed amendments are for the people to decide, not the courts.

• "The issue before us has nothing to do with the wisdom of the proposed amendments, their desirability, or the danger of the power being abused. The issue is whether or not the voters are aware of the wisdom, the desirability, or the dangers of abuse." — This passage delineates the proper scope of judicial inquiry in cases challenging the submission of constitutional amendments, focusing on the electorate's awareness rather than the merits of the proposals.

• Tolentino vs. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 707 — Cited by petitioners as the controlling doctrine on fair and proper submission; the Court applied its standard but found that the requirement was satisfied in this case.

• Sanidad vs. Commission on Elections, 73 SCRA 333 — Cited for the proposition that there was sufficient and proper submission of the 1976 amendments, which were admittedly more complicated than the amendments at issue in this case.

• Gonzales vs. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774 — Referenced in the separate opinions for the standard of fair submission requiring that the people be sufficiently informed of the amendments to be voted upon.

• Section 2, Article XVI, 1973 Constitution — Provides that any amendment to or revision of the Constitution shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not later than three months after the approval of such amendment or revision. The Court applied this provision in determining that the periods of 67 and 42 days for the proposed amendments were within the constitutional limit.

• Section 11, Article XIV, 1973 Constitution — The provision sought to be amended by Resolution No. 105 to add "grant" as an additional mode of acquiring alienable lands of the public domain. The Court noted that the present provisions were already adequate to support any program for the grant of public lands.

• Section 12, Article XIV, 1973 Constitution — The provision sought to be amended by Resolution Nos. 105 and 113 regarding the agrarian reform program and the addition of an urban land reform and social housing program. The Court found that the existing provisions were adequate to support such programs.

• Batas Pambansa Blg. 643 — The statute that set the plebiscite for January 27, 1984 and directed the COMELEC to publish the amendments. The Court noted that publication had been effected in all provinces and cities except a few without local newspapers.

Fernando, C.J., Makasiar, Aquino (voting to dismiss for lack of cause of action), Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro, Plana, and Escolin, JJ., concurred. Justice Plana wrote a separate concurring opinion. Chief Justice Fernando wrote a separate concurring opinion.

• Justice Teehankee — Dissented, voting for the partial granting of the petition and for the elimination of Questions Nos. 3 and 4 at the plebiscite. He argued that the amendments appeared simple yet were complex, that several members of the Court expressed the view that the amendments were "unnecessary," and that the Solicitor General himself stated that Question No. 3 was "unnecessary." He noted that all the bar associations had expressed grave doubts as to the questioned amendments, and that there had not been ample time and dissemination of information to comprehend the significance, implications, and consequences of the proposed amendments.

• Justice Abad Santos — Voted to grant partial relief to the petitioners, stating that there was manifest basis for the claim that the citizenry had not been adequately educated on the proposed amendments. He noted that at the late date of January 24, 1984, he was asked questions about the two proposals and was not too sure about his answers. He would have allowed Questions 1 and 2 to proceed but deferred Questions 3 and 4 to some other appropriate date.

• Justice Melencio-Herrera — Voted for the grant of the plea, arguing that BP 643 should be published in the Official Gazette pursuant to the Civil Code, and that the ballots should set out in full the proposed constitutional amendments so that there can be no question that when a citizen voted "yes" or "no," he thoroughly knew what he had voted for or against.

• Justice Relova — Dissented, stating that the people in the provinces were not and by Friday would not be sufficiently informed of the meaning, nature, and effects of the proposed amendments. He noted that the proposed amendments had only been translated into Tagalog and Cebuano, with no translation into the many other dialects, and would have enjoined the respondents from submitting Questions 3 and 4 to the people while allowing the plebiscite to proceed with respect to Questions 1 and 2.