Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Javellana Vs Executive Secretary: Plebiscite Comelec Justiciable Question
Javellana Vs Executive Secretary: Plebiscite Comelec Justiciable Question
Facts:
Issues:
1. Whether or not the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 is a justiciable question.
2. Whether or not the constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention has been ratified validly
conforming to the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions.
3. Whether or not the proposed Constitution has been acquiesced in (with or without valid ratification) by the
people.
4. Whether or not the petitioners are entitled for relief.
5. Whether or not the proposed Constitution by the 1971 Constitutional Convention in force.
Rulings:
2. A department of the Government cannot “recognize” its own acts. Recognition normally connotes the
acknowledgment by a party of the acts of another. Individual acts of recognition by members of
Congress do not constitute congressional recognition, unless the members have performed said acts in
session duly assembled. This is a well-established principle of Administrative Law and of the Law of
Public Officers. The compliance by the people with the orders of martial law government does not
constitute acquiescence to the proposed Constitution. Neither does the Court prepared to declare that
the people’s inaction as regards Proclamation No. 1102, and their compliance with a number of
Presidential orders, decrees and/or instructions, some or many of which have admittedly had salutary
effects, issued subsequently thereto, amounts to a ratification, adoption or approval of said
Proclamation No. 1102. The intimidation is there, and inaction or obedience of the people, under
these conditions, is not necessarily an act of conformity or acquiescence.
3. As regards the applicability to these cases of the “enrolled bill” rule, it is well to remember that the
same refers to a document certified to the President for his action under the Constitution by the Senate
President and the Speaker of the House of Reps, and attested to by the respective Secretaries of both
Houses, concerning legislative measures approved by said Houses. Whereas, Proclamation No. 1102
is an act of the President declaring the results of a plebiscite on the proposed Constitution, an act
which Article X of the 1935 Constitution denies the executive department of the Government.
4. In all other respects and with regard to the other respondent in said case, petitions therein should be
given due course, there being more than prima facie showing that the proposed Constitution has not
been ratified in accordance with Article XV of the 1935 Constitution, either strictly, substantially, or
has been acquiesced in by the people or majority thereof; that said proposed Constitution is not in
force and effect; and that the 1935 Constitution is still the Fundamental Law of the Land, without
prejudice to the submission of said proposed Constitution to the people at a plebiscite for its
ratification or rejection in accordance with Articles V, X and XV of the 1935 Constitution and the
provisions of the Revised Election Code in force at the time of such plebiscite.
5. Being the vote of the majority, there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being
considered in force and effect.
2. Four (4) members of the Court, namely, Justices Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra hold that it
is in force by virtue of the people’s acceptance thereof; 4 members of the Court, namely, Justices
Makalintal, Castro, Fernando and Teehankee cast no vote thereon on the premise stated in their votes
on the third question that they could not state with judicial certainty whether the people have accepted
or not accepted the Constitution; and 2 members of the Court, voted that the Constitution proposed by
the 1971 Constitutional Convention is not in force; with the result, there are not enough votes to
declare that the new Constitution is not in force.