v. Executive Secretary, supra).

So it is in the situation here presented. The basic issue is the constitutional validity of the presidential
acts of proposing amendments to the Constitution and of calling a referendum-plebiscite for the
ratification of the proposals made. Evidently, the question does not concern itself with the wisdom of
the exercise of the authority claimed or of the specific amendments proposed. Instead the inquiry vel
non is focused solely on the existence of the said power in the President a question purely of legality
determinable thru interpretation and construction of the letter and spirit of the Constitution by the
Court as the final arbiter in the delineation of constitutional boundaries and the allocation of
constitutional powers.chanrobles law library : red
For the Court to shun cognizance of the challenge herein presented, especially in these parlous years,
would be to abdicate its constitutional powers, shirk its constitutional responsibility, and deny the
people their ultimate recourse for judicial determination.
I have thus no hesitancy in concluding that the question here presented is well within the periphery of
judicial inquiry.
II
Second Issue
The main question stands on a different footing; it appears unprecedented both here and elsewhere.
Its solution, I believe, can be found and unraveled only by a critical assessment of the existing legal
order in the light of the prevailing political and factual milieu.
To be sure, there is an impressive array of consistent jurisprudence on the proposition that, normally or
under normal conditions, a Constitution may be amended only in accord with the procedure set forth
therein. Hence, if there be any such prescription for the amendatory process as invariable there is
because one of the essential parts of a Constitution is the so-called "constitution of sovereignty" which
comprises the provision or provisions on the modes in accordance with which formal changes in the
fundamental law may be effected the same would ordinarily be the controlling criterion for the
validity of the amendments sought.
Unfortunately, however, during the present transition period of our political development, no express
provision is extant in the Constitution regarding the agency or agent by whom and the procedure by
which amendments thereto may be proposed and ratified a fact overlooked by those who challenge
the validity of the presidential acts in the premises. This is so because there are at least two distinctly
perceptible stages in the transition from the old system of government under the 1935 Constitution to
the new one established by the 1973 Constitution.
The first stage comprises the period from the effectivity of the Constitution on January 17, 1973 to the
time the Interim National Assembly is convened by the incumbent President and the interim President
and the interim Prime Minister are chosen (Article XVII, Sections 1 and 3[1]. The existence of this stage
as an obvious fact of the nations political life was recognized by the Court in Aquino v. Commission on
Elections, Et. Al. (L-40004, January 31, 1975, 62 SCRA 275), when it rejected the claim that, under the
1973 Constitution, the President was in duty bound to convene the interim National Assembly soon
after the Constitution took effect.
The second stage embraces the period from the date the interim National Assembly is convened to the
date the Government described in Articles VII to IX of the Constitution is inaugurated, following the
election of the members of the regular National Assembly (Article XVII, Section 1) and the election of
the regular President and Prime Minister. This is as it should be because it is recognized that the
President has been accorded the discretion to determine when he shall initially convene the interim
National Assembly, and his decision to defer the convocation thereof has found overwhelming support
by the sovereign people in two previous referenda, thereby giving reality to an interregnum between
the effectivity of the Constitution and the initial convocation of the interim National Assembly, which
interregnum, as aforesaid, constitutes the first stage in the transition period.cralawnad
Against this factual backdrop, it is readily discernible that neither of the two sets of provisions

embodied in the Constitution on the amendatory process applied during the said first stage. Thus,
Section 15, Article XVII (Transitory Provisions) provides
"Sec. 15. The interim National Assembly, upon special call by the interim Prime Minister, may, by a
majority vote of all its Members, propose amendments to this Constitution. Such amendments shall
take effect when ratified in accordance with Article Sixteen hereof."cralaw virtua1aw library
Patently, the reference to the "interim National Assembly" and the "interim Prime Minister" limits the
application thereof to the second stage of the transition period, i.e., after the interim National
Assembly shall have been convened and the interim Prime Minister shall have been chosen.
Upon the other hand, the provisions of Article XVI (Amendments), to wit
"SECTION 1. (1) Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by the National
Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members, or by a constitutional convention.
"(2.) The National Assembly may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional
convention or, by a majority vote of all its Members, submit the question of calling such a convention
to the electorate in an election.
"SEC. 2. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution shall be valid when ratified by a majority
of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not later than three months after the approval of
such amendment or revision."cralaw virtua1aw library
unequivocally contemplate amendments after the regular Government shall have become fully
operative, referring as they do to the National Assembly which will come Into being only at that time.
In the face of this constitutional hiatus, we are confronted with the dilemma whether amendments to
the Constitution may be effected during the aforesaid first stage and, if in the affirmative, by whom
and in what manner such amendments may be proposed and ratified.