[ G.R. No. L-47329. December 09, 1977 ] 170 Phil. 556
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. L-47329. December 09, 1977 ]
ERNESTO C. HIDALGO, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE FERDINAND MARCOS Y EDRALIN AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
CASTRO, C.J.:
Considering the allegations, issues presented, and arguments adduced (a) in the petition for mandamus and/or prohibition, (b) in the Solicitor General’s Comment on the petition, (c) in the petitioner’s reply to the Comment, and (d) at the hearing on December 1, 1977, the Court, without passing upon the question of the suability of the President, considering that the Commission on Elections, which is the government entity called upon to implement Presidential Decree No. 1229, is impleaded, Resolved NOT to give due course to the petition and to DISMISS the same, for the reasons hereunder set forth.
(1) The President cannot be compelled by mandamus or otherwise to convene the “interim National Assembly” because, inter alia, this body was abrogated and supplanted by the interim Batasang Pambansa by virtue of the 1976 amendments to the Constitution, particularly Amendment No. 1 which partly provides that “There shall be, in lieu of the interim National Assembly, an Interim Batasang Pambansa.”
(2) The 1976 amendments to the Constitution ratified by the people in the October 16-17, 1976 referendum-plebiscite and now form part of the Constitution, hence, the December 17, 1977 referendum, contrary to the petitioner’s posture, may not be said to be designed to effectuate their ratification. The holding of the coming referendum is an exercise authorized by one of those amendments, i.e., Amendment No. 7, which provides that a referendum may be called “at any time the government deems it necessary to ascertain the will of the people regarding any important matter whether of national or local interest.”
(3) No constitutional infirmity attaches to Presidential Decree No. 1229 because the referendum called for therein will not result in an amendment to the Constitution. The question, “Do you vote that President Ferdinand E. Marcos continue in office as incumbent President and be Prime Minister after the organization of the Interim Batasang Pambansa as provided for in Amendment No. 3 of the 1976 Amendments to the Constitution?,” to be submitted to the people in the December 17, 1977 referendum, is in neither the nature nor the form of an amendment. It merely asks the people to either reaffirm or repudiate the confidence in the President which they had previously expressed. If the people vote “yes,” Amendment No. 3, which provides, inter alia, that “The incumbent President of the Philippines shall be the Prime Minister and he shall continue to exercise all his powers even after the interim Batasang Pambansa is organized and ready to discharge its functions and likewise he shall continue to exercise his powers and prerogatives under the Nineteen Hundred and Thirty Five Constitution and the powers vested in the President and the Prime Minister under this Constitution,” will simply be reaffirmed and reinforced. If the people vote “no,” the President, as he has categorically announced, will, in deference to “the will” of the people and exercising a public officer’s prerogative, resign. The cessation in office, for any reason, by the incumbent President will not result in an amendment to the Constitution, the provisions of which will remain unaltered.
It is clear from the above that the petition does not pose any question of sufficient importance or significance to warrant the further attention of the Court.
The dismissal of the instant petition is immediately executory.
Makasiar, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Santos, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur. Fernando, J., on official leave. Teehankee and Muñoz Palma, JJ., files a dissent. Barredo, J., concurs and reiterates his separate opinion in L-47245. Martin, J., on sick leave.