Javellana Vs Executive Secretary

Javellana vs Executive Secretary
Marcos declared martial law on September 21, 1972. The Congress of the Philippines was then
padlocked, and full legislative authority was vested on Marcos who ruled by decree. Many prominent
members of the opposition, notably Benigno Aquino Jr. and Jose W. Diokno, were arrested and
placed in military jails.
Despite the declaration of martial law, the 1971 Constitutional Convention continued. On November
29, 1972, the Convention approved the new constitution and the next day, Marcos issued
Presidential Decree 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",[1] as well as setting the plebiscite for ratification on January 15, 1973. Charito Planas,
a staunch critic and later vice-mayor of Quezon City, filed a case, known as the Plebiscite Cases
(Planas v. COMELEC (1973)) before with the Supreme Court calling for a stop to the proposed
ratification upon the grounds, among others, that the Presidential Decree "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 there being no freedom of speech,
press and assembly, and there being no sufficient time to inform the people of the contents
thereof."[2]
On January 15, 1973, while the Plebiscite Cases were being heard in the Supreme Court, the
president signed Proclamation 1102, which states that the 1973 Constitution was "ratified by an
overwhelming majority of all the votes cast by the members of all the barangays (citizens'
assemblies) throughout the Philippines..." during the 1973 constitutional plebiscite.
By virtue of that decree, the Supreme Court dismissed the case for being moot and academic,
without prejudice to the filing of a case questioning the validity of Proclamation 1102.
Filing and hearings[edit]

On January 20, 1973, Josue Javellana initially filed a case questioning Proclamation 1102. Similar
petitions followed suit by Vidal Tan, J. Antonio Araneta, Alejandro Roces, Manuel Crudo, Antonio U.
Miranda, Emilio de Peralta and Lorenzo M. Tañada on January 23, 1973; on February 3, 1973, by
Eddie Monteclaro, (as President of the National Press Club of the Philippines); and on February 12,
1973, by Napoleon V. Dilag, Alfredo Salapantan, Jr., Leonardo Asodisen, Jr. and Raul M. Gonzalez.
Likewise, on January 23, 1973, several senators filed a case against the Executive Secretary, as
well as Senate President Gil Puyat and Senate President Pro Tempore Jose Roy, alleging that
Congress must still hold session, and that they were being prevented to do so by agents of the
Government, invoking Proclamation 1102.
The lawyers representing the petitioners included Ramon A. Gonzales, Lorenzo Tañada, Jovito
Salonga, Sedfrey Ordoñez, Francisco ’Soc’ Rodrigo, Pablo Sanidad, Joker Arroyo and Rogelio B.
Padilla, and Raul M. Gonzalez. Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Solicitor Vicente V. Mendoza
and Solicitor Reynato S. Puno represented the government, as well as Arturo Tolentino for Gil J.
Puyat and Jose Roy.
Morning and afternoon hearings were held by the Supreme Court from February 12 to 16, 1973.
During the deliberations, former Senator Lorenzo Tañada occasionally rebuked the justices. After
the deliberations, the parties were allowed to submit their notes and other arguments.
The Supreme Court at that time consisted of Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, and Associate
Justices Querube Makalintal, Calixto Zaldivar, Fred Ruiz Castro, Enrique Fernando, Claudio
Teehankee, Antonio Barredo, Felix Makasiar, Felix Antonio and Salvador Esguerra. Of the members
of the court, Concepcion, Makalintal and Zaldivar were the justices not initially appointed by Marcos,
Concepcion being appointed in 1954 (he was later appointed Chief Justice in 1966), Makalintal in
1962 and Zaldivar in 1964.
Decision[edit]
Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion wrote the decision. He outlined the summary of facts, then his
own dissenting opinion of the case in which he said that the 1973 Constitution has not been properly
ratified according to law, and then proceeded to make the summary of votes by the members of the
court.
The issues raised were:
1. Is the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 a (political) question?

2. Has the 1973 Constitution been ratified validly?
3. Has the Constitution been acquiesced in (with or without valid ratification) by the people?
4. Are petitioners entitled to relief?
5. Is the Constitution in force?
The court was severely divided on the issues raised in the petition, but when the crucial 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 the petition, thus upholding the 1973
Constitution and Marcos's rule. Concepcion, together with Justices Zaldivar, Fernando and
Teehankee, voted to grant the relief being sought.
In the issue of whether or not the 1973 Constitution has been ratified validly, six members of the
court (the Chief Justice, and Justices Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando and Teehankee),
answered that the Constitution was not validly ratified. Barredo's opinion was equivocal in its nature
according to Cruz, but Joaquin Bernas, in his book on the Constitution, annotates that his opinion
would be counted as concurring with the six justices. But it is unusual [according to whom?] that of those who
said that the Constitution was not validly ratified, Querube Makalintal and Fred Ruiz Castro voted to
dismiss the petitions. Makalintal and Castro, in a joint opinion, justified their non-granting of relief on
the basis of a case in relation to Luther v. Borden (48 U.S. (7 How.) 1; 12 L.Ed. 581, 1849). It said
that the inquiry was indeed a political determination and not a judicial one.
It was speculated[by whom?] that the two justices, being next in line for the position of Chief Justice, voted
as such so as not to lose favor with Marcos. Makalintal was subsequently appointed Speaker of the
Interim Batasang Pambansa, and Castro evidently showing his support of the Marcos regime
through his court decisions and public statements.
The last sentence of the decision said, "This being the vote of the majority, there is no further judicial
obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect." It is disputed [by whom?] as to
whether Concepcion placed this sentence intentionally or someone inserted these words after he
signed the decision.
Aftermath[edit]
The Ratification Cases removed any legal challenge to the Marcos dictatorship. He had dictatorial
power as President of the Philippines until he was forced out of power in 1986.
Chief Justice Concepcion took a leave 18 days after the decision became public (50 days from his
scheduled retirement) supposedly because he was disappointed on the outcome of the decision. He
would later become a member of the Philippine Constitutional Commission of 1986 that drafted
the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Drawing from his experiences in the martial law years, he
introduced several innovations designed to assure the independence of the Supreme Court, such as
the Judicial and Bar Council and the express conferment on the Court the power to review any acts
of government.
In The Conjugal Dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, it was observed by Primitivo Mijares
in the Chapter "Spineless Judiciary: Legitimizing A Pretender" that, while the Ratification Cases was
resolved in a matter of months, the other cases involving Marcos’ imprisoned critics were not
decided until a year or two later. [citation needed] In fact, some of the critics withdraw their petitions, mostly
for writ of habeas corpus, due to the lack of confidence that the Supreme Court would grant their
relief.
Makalintal, when he became Chief Justice, also took a similar approach of Concepcion in deciding
the case of the Habeas Corpus Cases of Benigno Aquino Jr. ([3]) by summarizing the diverse votes of
the members of the court. He explained the reason why there was no collegial opinion by the Court,
among others, that the justices of the Supreme Court are conscious of "the future verdict of history".
At the time of Chief Justices Castro and Fernando, the Supreme Court, using the ‘legitimizing’
power, affirmed the legality of the Ratification Cases through several cases, such as Sanidad v.
COMELEC (1976)[4] and Occena v. COMELEC (1981).[5]
Of the four justices who voted to grant relief, Concepcion and Calixto Zaldivar left the court due to
retirement. Justices Teehankee, first identified with the regime, [by whom?] began to show his
independence by consistently dissenting on several decisions made by the court. He was
accompanied in such dissents by Justice Cecilia Muñoz-Palma, and later, by Vicente Abad Santos.
Fernando, though expected that he would be one to oppose the excesses of the Marcos's regime,
became its supporter.
Aftermath[edit]
The Ratification Cases removed any legal challenge to the Marcos dictatorship. He had dictatorial
power as President of the Philippines until he was forced out of power in 1986.
Chief Justice Concepcion took a leave 18 days after the decision became public (50 days from his
scheduled retirement) supposedly because he was disappointed on the outcome of the decision. He
would later become a member of the Philippine Constitutional Commission of 1986 that drafted
the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Drawing from his experiences in the martial law years, he
introduced several innovations designed to assure the independence of the Supreme Court, such as
the Judicial and Bar Council and the express conferment on the Court the power to review any acts
of government.
In The Conjugal Dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, it was observed by Primitivo Mijares
in the Chapter "Spineless Judiciary: Legitimizing A Pretender" that, while the Ratification Cases was
resolved in a matter of months, the other cases involving Marcos’ imprisoned critics were not
decided until a year or two later. [citation needed] In fact, some of the critics withdraw their petitions, mostly
for writ of habeas corpus, due to the lack of confidence that the Supreme Court would grant their
relief.
Makalintal, when he became Chief Justice, also took a similar approach of Concepcion in deciding
the case of the Habeas Corpus Cases of Benigno Aquino Jr. ([3]) by summarizing the diverse votes of
the members of the court. He explained the reason why there was no collegial opinion by the Court,
among others, that the justices of the Supreme Court are conscious of "the future verdict of history".
At the time of Chief Justices Castro and Fernando, the Supreme Court, using the ‘legitimizing’
power, affirmed the legality of the Ratification Cases through several cases, such as Sanidad v.
COMELEC (1976)[4] and Occena v. COMELEC (1981).[5]
Of the four justices who voted to grant relief, Concepcion and Calixto Zaldivar left the court due to
retirement. Justices Teehankee, first identified with the regime, [by whom?] began to show his
independence by consistently dissenting on several decisions made by the court. He was
accompanied in such dissents by Justice Cecilia Muñoz-Palma, and later, by Vicente Abad Santos.
Fernando, though expected that he would be one to oppose the excesses of the Marcos's regime,
became its supporter.

Javellana Vs Executive Secretary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Javellana Vs Executive Secretary

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Javellana Vs Executive Secretary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Javellana vs Executive Secretary

Filing and hearings[edit]

1. Is the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 a (political) question?

You might also like