Javellana vs. The Executive Secretary
The Facts:Sequence of events that lead to the filing of the “Plebiscite” then“Ratification” Cases. The Plebiscite CaseOn 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 thePhilippines.Said Resolution No. 2, as amended, was implemented by Republic Act No.6132, approved on August 24, 1970, pursuant to the provisions of which theelection of delegates to the 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 Presidentissued Proclamation No. 1081 placing the entire Philippines under MartialLaw.On November 29, 1972, the Convention approved its Proposed Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. The next day, November 30, 1972, thePresident of the Philippines issued Presidential Decree No. 73, "submitting tothe Filipino people for ratification or rejection the Constitution of the Republicof the Philippines proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention, andappropriating funds therefor," as well as setting the plebiscite for saidratification or rejection of the Proposed Constitution on January 15, 1973.On December 7, 1972, Charito Planas filed a case against the Commission onElections, the Treasurer of the Philippines and the Auditor General, to enjoinsaid "respondents or their agents from implementing Presidential Decree No.73, in any manner, until further orders of the Court," upon the grounds, interalia, that said Presidential Decree "has no force and effect as law because thecalling ... of such plebiscite, the setting of guidelines for the conduct of thesame, the prescription of the ballots to be used and the question to beanswered by the voters, and the appropriation of public funds for thepurpose, are, by the Constitution, lodged exclusively in Congress ...," and"there is no proper submission to the people of said Proposed Constitution setfor January 15, 1973, there being no freedom of speech, press and assembly,and there being no sufficient time to inform the people of the contentsthereof."On December 17, 1972, the President had issued an order temporarilysuspending the effects of Proclamation No. 1081, for the purpose of free andopen debate on the Proposed Constitution.
On December 23, the President announced the postponement of theplebiscite for the ratification or rejection of the Proposed Constitution. Noformal action to this effect was taken until January 7, 1973, when GeneralOrder No. 20 was issued, directing "that the plebiscite scheduled to be heldon January 15, 1978, be postponed until further notice." Said General OrderNo. 20, moreover, "suspended in the meantime" the "order of December 17,1972, temporarily suspending the effects of Proclamation No. 1081 forpurposes of free and open debate on the proposed Constitution."Because of these events relative to the postponement of the aforementionedplebiscite, the Court deemed it fit to refrain, for the time being, from decidingthe aforementioned cases, for neither the date nor the conditions underwhich said plebiscite would be held were known or announced officially. Then, again, Congress was, pursuant to the 1935 Constitution, scheduled tomeet in regular session on January 22, 1973, and since the main objection toPresidential Decree No. 73 was that the President does not have thelegislative authority to call a plebiscite and appropriate funds therefor, whichCongress unquestionably could do, particularly in view of the formalpostponement of the plebiscite by the President reportedly after consultationwith, among others, the leaders of Congress and the Commission on Electionsthe Court deemed it more imperative to defer its final action on these cases."In the afternoon of January 12, 1973, the petitioners in Case G.R. No."L-35948 filed an "urgent motion," praying that said case be decided "as soonas possible, preferably not later than January 15, 1973." The next day, January 13, 1973, which was a Saturday, the Court issued aresolution requiring the respondents in said three (3) cases to comment onsaid "urgent motion" and "manifestation," "not later than Tuesday noon, January 16, 1973." Prior thereto, or on January 15, 1973, shortly before noon,the petitioners in said Case G.R. No. L-35948 riled a "supplemental motion forissuance of restraining order and inclusion of additional respondents,"praying:"... that a restraining order be issued enjoining and restraining respondentCommission on Elections, as well as the Department of Local Governmentsand its head, Secretary Jose Roño; the Department of Agrarian Reforms andits head, Secretary Conrado Estrella; the National Ratification CoordinatingCommittee and its Chairman, Guillermo de Vega; their deputies, subordinatesand substitutes, and all other officials and persons who may be assigned suchtask, from collecting, certifying, and announcing and reporting to thePresident or other officials concerned, the so-called Citizens' Assembliesreferendum results allegedly obtained when they were supposed to have metduring the period comprised between January 10 and January 15, 1973, onthe two questions quoted in paragraph 1 of this Supplemental UrgentMotion."On the same date January 15, 1973 the Court passed a resolution requiringthe respondents in said case G.R. No. L-35948 to file "file an answer to thesaid motion not later than 4 P.M., Tuesday, January 16, 1973," and setting themotion for hearing "on January 17, 1973, at 9:30 a.m." While the case wasbeing heard, on the date last mentioned, at noontime, the Secretary of Justice called on the writer of this opinion and said that, upon instructions of
the President, he (the Secretary of Justice) was delivering to him (the writer)a copy of Proclamation No. 1102, which had just been signed by thePresident. Thereupon, the writer returned to the Session Hall and announcedto the Court, the parties in G.R. No. L-35948 inasmuch as the hearing inconnection therewith was still going on and the public there present that thePresident had, according to information conveyed by the Secretary of Justice,signed said Proclamation No. 1102, earlier that morning. Thereupon, the writer read Proclamation No. 1102 which is of the followingtenor: ____________________________ "BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES"PROCLAMATION NO. 1102"ANNOUNCING THE RATIFICATION BY THE FILIPINO PEOPLE OF THECONSTITUTION PROPOSED BY THE 1971 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION."WHEREAS, the Constitution proposed by the nineteen hundred seventy-oneConstitutional Convention is subject to ratification by the Filipino people;"WHEREAS, Citizens Assemblies were created in barrios, in municipalities andin districts/wards in chartered cities pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 86,dated December 31, 1972, composed of all persons who are residents of thebarrio, district or ward for at least six months, fifteen years of age or over,citizens of the Philippines and who are registered in the list of CitizenAssembly members kept by the barrio, district or ward secretary;"WHEREAS, the said Citizens Assemblies were established precisely tobroaden the base of citizen participation in the democratic process and toafford ample opportunity for the citizenry to express their views on importantnational issues;"WHEREAS, responding to the clamor of the people and pursuant toPresidential Decree No. 86-A, dated January 5, 1973, the following questionswere posed before the Citizens Assemblies or Barangays: Do you approve of the New Constitution? Do you still want a plebiscite to be called to ratify thenew Constitution?"WHEREAS, fourteen million nine hundred seventy-six thousand five hundredsixty-one (14,976,561) members of all the Barangays (Citizens Assemblies)voted for the adoption of the proposed Constitution, as against sevenhundred forty-three thousand eight hundred sixty-nine (743,869) who votedfor its rejection; while on the question as to whether or not the people wouldstill like a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new Constitution, fourteenmillion two hundred ninety-eight thousand eight hundred fourteen(14,298,814) answered that there was no need for a plebiscite and that thevote of the Barangays (Citizens Assemblies) should be considered as a vote ina plebiscite;"WHEREAS, since the referendum results show that more than ninety-five(95) per cent of the members of the Barangays (Citizens Assemblies) are infavor of the new Constitution, the Katipunan ng Mga Barangay has stronglyrecommended that the new Constitution should already be deemed ratifiedby the Filipino people;"NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, byvirtue of the powers in me vested by the Constitution, do hereby certify andproclaim that the Constitution proposed by the nineteen hundred and
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
