Almario v. Alba, 127 SCRA 69 G.R. No. L-66088 January 25, 1984

NECESSITY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DETERMINED SOLELY BY THE PEOPLE. — 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 the proposed amendments are unnecessary is a matter which only the people can decide. The questions are presented for their determination.

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.

The necessity, expediency, and wisdom of the proposed amendments  are beyond the power of the courts to adjudicate.

Almario v. Alba, 127 SCRA 69 G.R. No. L-66088 January 25, 1984

 Amendment to the Constitution

 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 social reform 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 the proposed 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."

 

The necessity, expediency, and wisdom of the proposed amendments  are beyond the power of the courts to adjudicate.