Default modelResearch answer
In short
Charter change (meaning proposals to amend the Constitution) was possible for President Marcos in the constitutional “transition” setting addressed by *Sanidad v. Commission on Elections*, because Marcos could convene the interim National Assembly that could then propose amendments.
Explanation
- If you mean President Marcos’s actions in the transition setting addressed by Sanidad v. Commission on Elections, then charter change proposals were possible through the interim National Assembly, because the Court says the interim National Assembly had the amending power and the incumbent President had discretion on when to convene it. (Sanidad v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-44640 (1976-10-12))
- If you mean charter change under the 1987 Constitution as it works today, then the Constitution itself limits the proposal stage to Congress (three-fourths vote of all Members) or a constitutional convention, or to people’s initiative with the specific petition thresholds and district representation. The sources you provided do not show any presidential role in proposing amendments under the 1987 Constitution. (1987 Constitution, Article XVII, Sections 1 and 2)
- Even when amendments are properly proposed under the 1987 Constitution, validity requires plebiscite ratification by a majority of votes cast, with the plebiscite scheduled within the 60–90 day windows stated in Article XVII, Section 4. (1987 Constitution, Article XVII, Section 4)
- The sources do not settle whether President Marcos could initiate or propose amendments directly under the 1987 Constitution’s process, because the case law you provided reaches President Marcos in the earlier transition framework, and the 1987 text points to Congress/constitutional convention/initiative as proposers. (Sanidad v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-44640 (1976-10-12); 1987 Constitution, Article XVII, Sections 1 and 2)
- a constitutional provision is among the sources and controls over any conflicting statute
"(1) Any amendment to or revision of the Constitution proposed by Congress or a constitutional convention shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days (60) nor later than ninety days (90) after the approval of such amendment or revision. (2) Any amendment to or revision of the Constitution directly proposed by the people through initiative shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days (60) nor later than ninety days (90) after the certification by the Commi…
"Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:"
This provision limits who can propose amendments under the 1987 Constitution. It requires proposals to come from Congress (with a three-fourths vote) or from a constitutional convention, not from the President.
"The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or"
This sets the vote threshold for Congress when it proposes amendments. It does not mention any presidential power to initiate or approve the proposal.
"A constitutional convention."
This is the second way amendments may be proposed under the 1987 Constitution. The President is not identified as the proposer.
"Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein."
This states that, aside from Congress or a constitutional convention, the people may propose amendments through initiative using a minimum petition size and district representation. It does not give the President a role in proposing through initiative.
"No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter."
This imposes timing limits on amendments proposed by people’s initiative under Section 2. The President’s involvement is not part of this rule.
"The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right."
This says Congress must make the rules for implementing the initiative right. It does not create a presidential power to propose amendments.
"Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision."
This explains that even after amendments are proposed under Section 1 (Congress or a constitutional convention), the change becomes valid only after majority ratification in a plebiscite scheduled within 60–90 days after approval. The rule focuses on ratification timing, not on presidential initiation.
"Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition."
This similarly requires plebiscite ratification by majority for initiative-based amendments, with a 60–90 day schedule after COMELEC certifies the petition. Again, it does not mention presidential proposal power.
"(1) Any amendment to or revision of the Constitution proposed by Congress or a constitutional convention shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days (60) nor later than ninety days (90) after the approval of such amendment or revision."
This repeats the same core requirement under the Administrative Code for ratification by majority in a 60–90 day plebiscite after approval when Congress or a constitutional convention proposes the amendment. It does not add any role for the President.
"(2) Any amendment to or revision of the Constitution directly proposed by the people through initiative shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days (60) nor later than ninety days (90) after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition."
This repeats the initiative-based ratification requirement and its 60–90 day timing. It likewise does not provide any presidential power.
Laws retrieved
Everything retrieval surfaced, not only what the answer relied on. Read the ones it quotes.
- Section 1, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
- Section 2, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
- Section 4, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
- Section 10, Administrative Code of 1987
"In the present period of transition, the interim National Assembly instituted in the Transitory Provisions is conferred with that amending power."
This confirms that during the transition period discussed in the case, the interim National Assembly had the power to propose amendments (the amending power), not the President directly.
The Supreme Court explained that during the transition period, the incumbent President had the discretion as to when to initially convene the interim National Assembly, which was the body empowered to propose constitutional amendments. (Sanidad v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-44640 (1976-10-12))
This is the key holding relevant to President Marcos: it says the incumbent President (Marcos, in the case context) had discretion as to when to initially convene the interim National Assembly.
"All proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions, and acts promulgated, issued, or done by the incumbent President shall be part of the law of the land, and shall remain valid, binding, and effective even after lifting of martial law or the ratification of this Constitution, unless modified, revoked, or superseded by subsequent proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions, or other acts of the incumbent President, or unless expressly and explicitly modified or repealed by the regular National Assembly."
This describes the continuing legal effect of acts of the incumbent President in that earlier period, unless later changed by subsequent acts or by the regular National Assembly.
The Court clarified that the President's authority was to decide when to convene the interim National Assembly, not to propose amendments directly. (Sanidad v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. L-44640 (1976-10-12))
This repeats the settled point that the President’s power was about convening the interim National Assembly, which then had the constitutional power to propose amendments.
Cases retrieved
Everything retrieval surfaced, not only what the answer relied on. Read the ones it quotes.