Javellana vs. Executive Secretary Case Digest

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

Javellana vs.

Executive SecretaryFacts:
The Plebiscite Case
On March 16, 1967, Congress of the Philippines passed Resolution No. 2, as amended
byResolution No. 4, calling for a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments to thePhilippine
Constitution. Said Resolution was implemented by Republic Act No. 6132, for theelection of
delegates of the said Convention. Hence, the 1971 Constitutional Convention beganto 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
issuedPresidential Decree No. 73, which is an order for setting and appropriating of funds for
aplebiscite for the ratification or rejection of the proposed Constitution as drafted by the
1971Constitutional Convention.On December 7, 1972, Charito Planas filed a case against the Commission on
Elections, theTreasurer of the Philippines and the Auditor General, to enjoin said respondents or
their agentsfrom implementing Presidential Decree No. 73, on the grounds that the President
does not havethe legislative authority to call a plebiscite and the appropriation of public funds for
the purposeare lodged exclusively by the Constitution in Congress and there is no
proper submission to thepeople of said Proposed Constitution set for January 15, 1973, there
being no freedom of speech, press and assembly, and there being no sufficient time to inform the
people of thecontents thereof.On December 23, 1972, the President announced the postponement of
the plebiscite for theratification or rejection of the Proposed Constitution. The Court deemed
it fit to refrain, for thetime being, from deciding the aforementioned case.In the afternoon of January 12,
1973, the petitioners in Case G.R. No. L-35948 filed an "urgentmotion," praying that said case be
decided "as soon as possible, preferably not later thanJanuary 15, 1973." The next day, January 13, 1973,
the Court issued a resolution requiring therespondents to comment and file an answer to the said "urgent
motion" not later than Tuesday
noon, January 16, 1973." When the case was being heard, the Secretary of Justice called onand
said that, upon instructions of the President, he is delivering a copy of Proclamation No.1102,
which had just been signed by the President earlier that morning.Proclamation No.
1102, declares that Citizen Assemblies referendum was conducted, and thatthe result shows that
more than 95% of the members of the Citizens Assemblies are in favor of the new Constitution
and majority also answered that there was no need for a plebiscite andthat the vote of the
Citizens Assemblies should be considered as a vote in a plebiscite. The thenPresident of the
Philippines, Marcos, hereby certify and proclaim that the Constitution proposedby the 1971
Constitutional Convention has been ratified by an overwhelming majority of all of the votes cast by the
members of the Citizens Assemblies throughout the Philippines, and hasthereby come into effect.
The Ratification Case
On January 20, 1973, Josue Javellana filed case against the Executive Secretary and
theSecretaries of National Defense, Justice and Finance, to restrain said respondents "and
their subordinates or agents from implementing any of the provisions of the propose Constitution
notfound in the present Constitution" referring to that of 1935.Javellana alleged that the
President had announced "the immediate implementation of the NewConstitution, 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: "thatthe
President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, is withoutauthority to

create the Citizens Assemblies"; that the same "are without power to approve theproposed
Constitution ..."; "that the President is without power to proclaim the ratification by theFilipino
people of the proposed Constitution"; and "that the election held to ratify the
proposedConstitution was not a free election, hence null and void."
Issue:
1. Whether or not the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 involves a justiciable
or political question.2. Whether or not the proposed new or revised Constitution been ratified to
said Art. XV of the1935 Constitution.
3. Whether or not the proposed Constitution aforementioned been approved by a majority of
thepeople in Citizens' Assemblies allegedly held throughout the Philippines.4. Whether or not the
people acquiesced in the proposed Constitution.5. Whether or not the parties are entitled to any
relief.
Ruling:
The court was severely divided on the following issues raised in the petition: but when thecrucial
question of whether the petitioners are entitled to relief, six members of the court(Justices
Makalintal, Castro, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra) voted to dismiss thepetition.
Concepcion, together Justices Zaldivar, Fernando and Teehankee, voted to grant therelief being
sought, thus upholding the 1973 Constitution.
First Issue
On the first issue involving the political-question doctrine Justices Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Castro,Fernando, Teehankee and myself, or six (6) members of the Court, hold that the issue of
thevalidity of Proclamation No. 1102 presents a justiciable and non-political question.
JusticesMakalintal and Castro did not vote squarely on this question, but, only inferentially,
in their discussion of the second question. Justice Barredo qualified his vote, stating that "inasmuch asit is
claimed there has been approval by the people, the Court may inquire into the question
of whether or not there has actually been such an approval, and, in the affirmative,
the Courtshould keep hands-off out of respect to the people's will, but, in negative, the Court
maydetermine from both factual and legal angles whether or not Article XV of the
1935 Constitutionbeen complied with." Justices Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra, or three
(3) members of the Courthold that the issue is political and "beyond the ambit of
judicial inquiry."
Second Issue
On the second question of validity of the ratification, Justices Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,Fernando,
Teehankee and myself, or six (6) members of the Court also hold that theConstitution proposed
by the 1971 Constitutional Convention was not validly ratified inaccordance with Article XV,
section 1 of the 1935 Constitution, which provides only one way for ratification, i.e., "in
an election or plebiscite held in accordance with law and participated in onlyby qualified and
duly registered voters.

You might also like