Scribd
Upload
187 views1 page

Occena v. COMELEC Case Summary

1) Samuel Occena and Ramon Gonzales filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of three resolutions passed by the Interim Batasang Pambansa that proposed constitutional amendments. 2) The petitioners argued that the proposed amendments went beyond the Interim Batasang Pambansa's authority and were revisions rather than amendments. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the Interim Batasang Pambansa did have the power to propose amendments based on language in the 1976 Amendments giving it the same powers as the regular National Assembly. The court then dismissed the petition.

Uploaded by

Jet jet Nueva
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
187 views1 page

Occena v. COMELEC Case Summary

1) Samuel Occena and Ramon Gonzales filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of three resolutions passed by the Interim Batasang Pambansa that proposed constitutional amendments. 2) The petitioners argued that the proposed amendments went beyond the Interim Batasang Pambansa's authority and were revisions rather than amendments. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the Interim Batasang Pambansa did have the power to propose amendments based on language in the 1976 Amendments giving it the same powers as the regular National Assembly. The court then dismissed the petition.

Uploaded by

Jet jet Nueva
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Occena vs COMELEC

104 SCRA 1, April 2, 1981

Facts:
Samuel Occena and Ramon Gonzales filed a suit for prohibition challenging the validity of
three Batasang Pambansa Resolutions (resolution nos. 28, 104, 106)proposing constitutional
amendments. The petitioners urge that the amendments proposed are beyond the limits of the
authority given on the Interim Batasang Pambansa. For them, whaat was done was to revise and not
to amend.

Issue:
Whether or not the Interim Batasang Pambansa has the power to propose amendments.

Ruling:
Yes. The existence of the power of the Interim Batasang Pambansa is indubitable. One of such
power is of proposing amendments. The applicable provision in the 1976 Amendments reads: “The
Interim Batasang Pambansa shall have the same powers and its Members shall have the same functions,
responsibilities, rights, privileges, and disqualifications as the Interim National Assembly and the regular
National Assembly and the Members thereof.”

The Court dismissed the petition.

You might also like