Members of the philippine bar and former delegates to

members of the Philippine Bar and former delegates to the
1971 Constitutional Convention that framed the present
Constitution, are suing as taxpayers assailed against the
validity of three Batasang Pambansa Resolutions (Resolution
No. 1 proposing an amendment allowing a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines naturalized in a foreign country to
own a limited area of land for residential purposes was
approved by the vote of 122 to 5; Resolution No. 2 dealing
with the Presidency, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, and
the National Assembly by a vote of 147 to 5 with 1
abstention; and Resolution No. 3 on the amendment to the
Article on the Commission on Elections by a vote of 148 to 2
with 1 abstention) 1 proposing constitutional amendments.
The petitioners asserted in rather unorthodox aspect that
the 1973 Constitution is not the fundamental law, the
Javellana
2
ruling to the contrary notwithstanding.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the 1973 Constitution is the
fundamental law.
2. Whether or not the resolutions issued by the Interim
Batasang Pambansa is unconstitional or not
unconstitutional.
3. Whether or not the proposed amendments are so
extensive in character that goes far beyond the limits
of the authority conferred on the Interim Batasang
Pambansa.
HELD
1.
No. The proposed amendments do not go beyond the
limits of the authority conferred on the Interim Batasang
Pambansa. In Del Rosario v. Commission on Elections,
Justice Makasiar, dispose this contention: thus, "And
whether the Constitutional Convention will only propose
amendments to the Constitution or entirely overhaul the
present Constitution and propose an entirely new
Constitution based on an Ideology foreign to the
democratic system, is of no moment; because the same
will be submitted to the people for ratification. Once
ratified by the sovereign people, there can be no debate
about the validity of the new Constitution. The fact that
the present Constitution may be revised and replaced
with a new one ... is no argument against the validity of
the law because 'amendment' includes the 'revision' or
total overhaul of the entire Constitution. At any rate,
whether the Constitution is merely amended in part or
revised or totally changed would become immaterial the
moment the same is ratified by the sovereign people."
Therefore, the Interim Batasang Pambansa, sitting as a
constituent body, can propose amendments, whether
extensive in character, is inconsequential once ratified.
WHEREFORE, it is the ruling of the court that the petitions
be dismissed for lack of merit.
Lambino, supra
Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018-
2019
19

Merzy’s Notes Prelim Exam
i. Congress
ii. Constitutional Convention
Three Theories on the position of a Constitutional
Convention vis-à-vis the regular the departments of
government:
1. Theory of Conventional Sovereignty
2. Convention is inferior to the other department
3. Independent of and co-equal to the other departments
iii. People only for Amendments
Republic Act No. 6735 - An Act Providing for a System of