I.

Philippine Constitutional System

Javellana vs Secretary
Imbong vs COMELEC
Santiago vs COMELEC
Lambino vs COMELEC
Lawyer’s League vs Aquino
In Re Saturnino Bermudez
De Leon vs Esguerra
Javellana vs. The Executive Secretary 50 SCRA 30
Ponente: Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion
The Facts:
The Plebiscite Case
A Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines was approved on
August 24, 1970 and began to perform its functions on June 1, 1971. On September 21, 1972, the
President issued Proclamation No. 1081 placing the entire Philippines under Martial Law.
On November 29, 1972, the 1971 Constitutional Convention approved its Proposed Constitution
of the Republic of the Philippines. The next day,President Marcos 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 Commission on Elections, the
Treasurer of the Philippines and the Auditor General, to enjoin said “respondents or their agents
from implementing Presidential Decree No. 73, in any manner, until further orders of the
Court,” 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 “ 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 no
sufficient time to inform the people of the contents thereof.”
On December 23, the President announced the postponement of the plebiscite for the ratification
or rejection of the Proposed Constitution and temporarily suspending the effects of Proclamation
No. 1081 for purposes of free and open debate on the proposed Constitution.”
The Court deemed it fit to refrain, for the time being, from deciding the aforementioned cases,
for neither the date nor the conditions under which said plebiscite would be held were known or
announced officially.
“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 soon as possible, preferably not later than
January 15, 1973.”
The Court issued a resolution requiring the respondents in said three (3) cases to comment on
said “urgent motion” and “manifestation,” “not later than Tuesday noon, January 16, 1973 and
set the motion for hearing “on January 17, 1973, at 9:30 a.m.”
While the case was being heard, the President issued Proclamation No. 1102.
“ANNOUNCING THE RATIFICATION BY THE FILIPINO PEOPLE OF THE
CONSTITUTION PROPOSED BY THE 1971 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
Citizens Assemblies were created in barrios, in municipalities and in districts/wards in chartered
cities. The said Citizens Assemblies were established to broaden the base of citizen participation
in the democratic process and to afford ample opportunity for the citizenry to express their views
on important national issues.
The Ratification Case
On January 20, 1973, Josue Javellana filed Case G.R. No. L-36142, as a “Filipino citizen, and a
qualified and registered voter” and as “a class suit, for himself, and in behalf of all citizens and
voters similarly situated 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 propose Constitution not found in the present
Constitution” referring to that of 1935. Javellana alleged that the President ordered “the
immediate implementation of the New Constitution, thru his Cabinet, and that the latter are
acting without or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing the said proposed Constitution. He
construed that the President is without authority to create the Citizens Assemblies; to approve
the proposed Constitution; proclaim the ratification; and that the election held to ratify the
proposed Constitution was not a free election, hence null and void.
The Issue:
1. Is the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 a justiciable, or political and therefore
non-justiciable, question?
2. Has the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention been ratified
validly (with substantial, if not strict, compliance) conformably to the applicable
constitutional and statutory provisions?
3. Has the aforementioned proposed Constitution acquiesced in (with or without valid
ratification) by the people? (acquiesced – “permission” given by silence or passiveness.
Acceptance or agreement by keeping quiet or by not making objections.)
4. Are petitioners entitled to relief?
5. Is the aforementioned proposed Constitution in force?

Decision and Ratio:

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. Concepcion,
together Justices Zaldivar, Fernando and Teehankee, voted to grant the relief being sought, thus
upholding the 1973 Constitution.
1. The Court held that the issue is political and “beyond the ambit of judicial inquiry.”
2. Court held that the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention was
not validly ratified in accordance 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 only by qualified and duly registered voters.
However, it is conceded that the doctrine stated in some American decisions to the effect
that independently of the validity of the ratification, a new Constitution once accepted
acquiesced in by the people must be accorded recognition by the Court.”

3. On the fourth question, 6 justices voted to DISMISS the petition. Justice Makalintal and
Castro so voted on the strength of their view that “The effectivity of the said Constitution,
in the final analysis, is the basic and ultimate question posed by these cases to resolve
which considerations other than judicial, and therefore beyond the competence of this
Court, are relevant and unavoidable.

4. On the fifth question of whether the new Constitution of 1973 is in force:

ACCORDINGLY, by virtue of the majority of six (6) votes of Justices Makalintal, Castro,
Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra with the four (4) dissenting votes of the Chief Justice
and Justices Zaldivar, Fernando and Teehankee, all the aforementioned cases are hereby
dismissed. This being the vote of the majority, there is no further judicial obstacle to the new
Constitution being considered in force and effect.
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Barredo qualified his vote, stating that “As to whether or not the 1973 Constitution has
been validly ratified pursuant to Article XV, I still maintain that in the light of traditional
concepts regarding the meaning and intent of said Article, the referendum in the Citizens’
Assemblies, especially in the manner the votes therein were cast, reported and canvassed, falls
short of the requirements thereof.
However, the fact that there was voting and that the majority of the votes were for considering
as approved the 1973 Constitution without the necessity of the usual form of plebiscite followed
in past ratifications, the people may be deemed to have cast their favorable votes in the belief
that in doing so they did the part required of them by Article XV, hence, it may be said that in
its political aspect, which is what counts most, after all, said Article has been substantially
complied with, and, in effect, the 1973 Constitution has been constitutionally ratified.”