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.
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.