Case Digest: Occena v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 56350, April 2, 1981

 Political Law Review | Amendment by Proposal

  • Petitioners Samuel C. Occena and Ramon A. Gonzales are both lawyers and former delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention.

  • The Interim Batasang Pambansa passed three resolutions proposing amendments to the 1973 Constitution.

  • Petitioners challenged the validity of these resolutions, arguing that:

    • The 1973 Constitution was not valid (despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Javellana v. Executive Secretary).

    • The proposed amendments were too extensive and amounted to a revision.

    • The method of proposal and submission violated constitutional requirements.


Whether the Congress can choose the method of proposing amendments (directly or via a convention
). YES

  • The Court reaffirmed the Javellana ruling. The 1973 Constitution is in force and effect. Any argument to the contrary is futile.

  • The 1976 Amendments explicitly granted the Interim Batasang Pambansa the power to propose amendments.

  • The Court held that the legislature, when convened as a constituent body, has full discretion over the method of proposing amendments.

  • The Congress has the discretion to propose amendments directly or through a Constitutional Convention. This principle aligns with earlier rulings which recognized that the method of proposal is a political question entrusted to the legislature.


Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Election Laws: Requirements Before Election

Special Rules and Proceedings: Rule 75