CASE DIGEST
Facts: As
provided for in Batas Pambansa Blg. 643, the Filipino electorate will go to the
polls on January 27, 1984 to either 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 are embodied in four (4) separate
questions to be answered by simple YES or NO answers. Petitioners herein seek to enjoin the
submission on January 27, 1984 of Question Nos. 3 (“grant” as an additional
mode of acquiring lands belonging to the public domain) and 4 (the undertaking
by the government of a land reform program and a socialreform program), which
cover Resolution Nos. 105 and 113, to the people for ratification or rejection
on the ground that there has been no fair and proper submission following the
doctrine laid down in Tolentino v. COMELEC. The petitioners do not seek to
prohibit the holding of the plebiscite but only ask 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 are fairly and properly submitted
to the electorate.
ISSUE: Whether or
not Questions 3 and 4 can be presented to the people on a later date.
HELD: The
necessity, expediency, and wisdom of the proposed amendments are beyond the
power of the courts to adjudicate. Precisely, whether or not “grant” of public
land and “urban land reform” are unwise or improvident or whether or not
theproposed amendments are unnecessary is a matter which only the people can
decide. The questions are presented for their determination. Assuming that a
member or some members of this Court may find undesirable any additional mode
of disposing of public land or an urban land reform program, the remedy is to
vote “NO” in the plebiscite but not to substitute his or their aversion to the
proposed amendments by denying to the millions of voters an opportunity to
express their own likes or dislikes. 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. The petitioners have 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment