G.R. No. L-36142 / No. L-36164 / No. L-36165 / No. L-36236 / No. L-36283 | 1973-03-31

Nature of the Case and Procedural History

The above entitled five (5) cases are a sequel of cases G.R. Nos. L-35925, L-35929, L-35940, L-35941, L-35942, L-35948, L-35953, L-35961, L-35965 and L-35979, decided on January 22, 1973, to which We will hereafter refer collectively plebiscite cases.

Plebiscite cases

On March 16, 1967, Congress of the Philippines passed Resolution No. 2, which was amended by Resolution No. 4 of said body, adopted on June 17, 1969, calling a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines. Said Resolution No. 2, as amended, was implemented by Republic Act No. 6132, approved on August 24, 1970, pursuant to the provisions of which the election of delegates to said Convention was held on November 10, 1970, and the, 1971 Constitutional Convention began to perform its functions on June 1, 1971.

While the Convention was in session on September 21, 1972, the President issued Proclamation No. 1081 placing the entire Philippines under Martial Law. On November 29, 1972, the Convention approved its Proposed Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. The next day, November 30, 1972, the President of the Philippines issued Presidential Decree No. 73, ‘submitting to the Filipino people for ratification or rejection the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention, and appropriating funds therefor,’ as well as setting the plebiscite for said ratification or rejection of the Proposed Constitution on January 15, 1973.

On December 7, 1972, 10 petititions which were the cases described above, were filed to this Court seeking to prevent respondents from implementing PD 73, upon the grounds that the said PD ‘has no force and effect as law because the calling . . . of such plebiscite, the setting of guidelines for the conduct of the same, the prescription of the ballots to be used and the question to be answered by the voters, and the appropriation of public funds for the purpose, are, by the Constitution, lodged exclusively in Congress . . .,’ and ‘there is no proper submission to the people of said Proposed Constitution set for January 15, 1973, there being no freedom of speech, press and assembly, and there being sufficient time to inform the people of the contents thereof’.

Subsequently, Proclamanation 1102 was issued, which contained the subject of ratification of the proposed constitution by the 1971 Constitutional Convention. The Proclamation stated that Citizens Assemblies were created in barrios, municipalites, and in districts/wards, which were established to purportedly to broaden the base of citizen participation in the democratic process. According to the proclamation, 14,976,561 members of the all the Baranggays voted for the adoption of the proposed Constitution with 743,869 for its rejection. 14,298,814 voted that there is no need for a plebiscite to ratify the new Constitution, and thus considered as a vote in a plebiscite. The proposed Constitution is then declared ratified by the “overwhelming majority of the Baranggays (Citizens Assemblies) throughout the Philippines.”

The petitions were dismissed on the basis that the legality of PD 73, and the authority of the 1971 Con-Con has become moot and academic. Additionally, majority voted that the question of the validity of PD 1102 has not been properly raised, thus cannot pass upon such question.

Present cases

On or before January 20, 1973, Josue Javellana filed Case G.R. No. L-36142 against the Executive Secretary and the Secretaries of National Defense, Justice and Finance, to restrain said respondents “and their subordinates or agents, from implementing any of the provisions of the proposed Constitution not found in the present Constitution’ referring to that of 1935.”

Javellana alleged that the President had announced “the immediate implementation of the New Constitution, thru his Cabinet, respondents including,” and that the latter “are acting without, or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing the said proposed Constitution” upon the ground: “that the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, is without authority to create the Citizens Assemblies“; that the same “are without power to approve the proposed Constitution . . .”; “that the President is without power to proclaim the ratification by the Filipino people of the proposed Constitution“; and “that the election held to ratify the proposed Constitution was not a free election, hence null and void.”

Similar actions were filed on January 23, 1973 by seven other petitioners.

Likewise, on January 23, 1973, 6 members of the Senate filed GR No L-36165, alleging that pursuant to the 1935 Constitution which is still in force, the Congress must convene on January 22, 1973 at 10:00AM up to the afternoon. However, said petitioners were prevented from using the Senate Hall and the same hall was closed at about 5 or 6 PM of the said day. The petitioners asked respondent Senate President to perform their duties under the law and the rules of the Senate but unlawfully refrained and continue to doing so. The petitioners also alleged that they are willing to perform their duties as members of the Senate but respondents Secretary of National Defense, Executive Secretary and Chief of Staff, are preventing them by doing so because the Senate premises were occuppied by military elements. The petition also maintained that the ratification of the proposed Constitution through the Citizens assemblies was unconstitutional.

In their reply, respondents commented that the
(1) Court has no jurisdiction over the issues raised in the petitions,
(2) the questions raised are political in character and therefore non-justiciable,
(3) there was substantial compliance with Article XV of the 1935 Constitution,
(4) the Constitution was properly submitted to the people in a free, orderly and honest election,
(5) Proclamation No. 1102, certifying the results of the election, is conclusive upon the courts,
(6) the amending process outlined in Article XV of the 1935 Constitution is not exclusive of other modes of amendment.

Issues

  1. Does the President have the power to call on a plebiscite while the Martial Law is in effect?

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply