JAVELLANA VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY G.R. No. L-36142 Petitioner: Josue Javellana Respondent: Executive Secretary Ponente: CONCEPCION, C.J.

: FACTS: The 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 on March 16, 1967. 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. On November 29, 1972, the President issued Proclamation No. 1081 placing the entire Philippines under Martial Law while the Convention was in session on September 21, 1972. The Convention approved its Proposed Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines on November 29, 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, Charito Planas filed a case against the Treasurer of the Philippines and the Auditor General, to enjoin said “respondents or their agents from implementing Presidential Decree No. 73. Upon the grounds, inter alia, that said 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. The President had issued an order temporarily suspending the effects of Proclamation No. 1081 on December 17, 1972, for the purpose of free and open debate on the Proposed Constitution. On December 23, 1972, the President announced the postponement of the plebiscite for the ratification or rejection of the Proposed Constitution. No formal action to this effect was taken until January 7, 1973, when General Order No. 20 was issued, directing “that the plebiscite scheduled to be held on January 15, 1978. General Order No. 20, moreover, “suspended in the meantime” the “order of December 17, 1972, temporarily suspending the effects of Proclamation No. 1081 for purposes of free and open debate on the proposed Constitution.” Due to the postponement of the plebiscite the Court deemed to fit to refrain, for the time being, from deciding the cases, for neither the date nor the conditions under the said plebiscite would be held were known or announced officially. The congress was pursuant to the 1935 Constitution, schedule to meet in regular session on January 22, 1973, and since the main objection to Presidential Decree No. 73 refer to the President does not have the legislative authority to call a plebiscite and appropriate funds.

according to information conveyed by the Secretary of Justice. 1102 is justiciable question and not a political question because the manner of changing the constitution should be based on the constitution itself or the court is the one who check if the constitution is followed (Sec 1. At noontime on the date when the case was heard the President instructed the Secretary of Justice to deliver to him a copy of Proclamation No. that the President had. No. which was sign by the President.On January 15. January 16. The majority of six (6) votes of Justices Makalintal. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled a remedy or the 1973 is already enforce HELD: 1. No. 4. all the aforementioned cases are hereby dismissed.R. Castro. 3. Article XV). earlier that morning. 2. there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect. There was a question on factual claim about the number of people who participated in the voting. 3. the fact that the doors of Congress are padlocked which prevent the Congress from meeting on January 22. Yes. Makasiar. No. 1102. ISSUE: 1. This being the vote of the majority. The writer who deliver the copy of Proclamation wen to the Session Hall and announced to the Court. 1102.m. 1973 and setting the motion of hearing on January 17.M. Yes. Antonio and Esguerra with the four (4) dissenting votes of the Chief Justice and Justices Zaldivar. a political question or Justiciable matters Whether or not the majority vote by Marcos can be accepted in court Whether or not the people accept the proposed constitution. Tuesday. Whether or not Proclamation No. 1973 the Court passed a resolution requiring the respondents in said case G. signed said Proclamation No.. 1102. Barredo. The Proclamation No. 2. Fernando and Teehankee. . L35948 to file an answer to the said motion not later than 4 P. 1973. 1973 because the state is under Martial Law. 4. there are no legal bases for open voting by viva voce or rising of hands because it violates the secrecy of the ballot as by the election laws. at 9:30 a.