Planas vs. Commission on Elections[GR L-35925, 22 January 1973];

also Sanidad vs.Comelec [GR L-35929], Roxas vs. Comelec [GR L-35940],
Monteclaro vs. Comelec [GR L-35941],
Ordonez vs. National Treasurer of the Philippines[GR L-35942],
Tan vs. Comelec [GR L-35948],

Diokno vs. Comelec [GR L-35953],

Jimenez vs.Comelec [GR L-35961],
Gonzales vs. Comelec[GR L-35965],

and Hidalgo vs. Comelec [GR L-35979]

Second Division, Concepcion (J): 3 concur, 3concur in separate opinions, 1 concurs as
recapitulated, 1 dissents in separate opinion, 2filed separate opinions

Facts: On 16 March 1967, Congress of the Philippines passed Resolution 2, which was
amended by Resolution 4 of said body, adopted on 17 June 1969, calling a Convention
to propose amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines. Said Resolution 2, as
amended, was implemented by RA 6132, approved on 24August 1970, pursuant to the
provisions of which the election of delegates to said Convention was held on 10
November 1970, and the 1971Constitutional Convention began to perform its functions
on 1 June 1971. While the Convention was in session on 21 September 1972, the
President issued Proclamation 1081 placing the
 

entire Philippines under Martial Law.

On 29November 1972, the Convention approved its Proposed Constitution of the
Republic of thePhilippines. The next day, 30 November 1972, the President of the
Philippines 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," as well assetting
the plebiscite for said ratification or rejection of the Proposed Constitution on 15 January
1973. Soon after, or on 7 December1972, Charito Planas filed, with the SupremeCourt,
Case GR L-35925, against the Commissionon Elections, the Treasurer of
the Philippines and the Auditor General, to enjoin said "respondents or their agents from
implementing Presidential Decree 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
 

15 January 1973, there being no freedom of speech, press and assembly, and there
being no sufficient time to inform the people of the contents thereof." Substantially
identical actions were filed. Meanwhile, or on 17 December 1972,the President had
issued an order temporarily suspending the effects of Proclamation 1081, for the
purpose of free and open debate on the Proposed Constitution. On December 23, 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
7 January 1973, when General Order 20 was issued, directing "that the plebiscite
scheduled to be held on 15 January1973, be postponed until further notice." Said
General Order 20, moreover, "suspended in the meantime" the "order of 17 December
1972,temporarily suspending the effects of Proclamation 1081 for purposes of free and
open debate on the proposed Constitution." In view of the events relative to the
postponement of theplebiscite, the Court deemed it fit to refrain, for the time being, from
deciding the cases, for neither the date nor the conditions under which said plebiscite
would be held were known or announced officially. Then, again, Congress was,pursuant
to the 1935 Constitution, scheduled to meet in regular session on 22 January 1973, and

Planas v. COMELEC

7/17/2014
0 Comments

Constitutional Law. Political Law. Plebiscite Cases.

PLANAS VS. COMELEC
49 SCRA 105; January 22, 1973
Ponente: Concepcion, C.J.

FACTS:
While the 1971 Constitution Convention was in session on
September 21, 1972, the president issued Proclamation
No. 1081 placing the Philippines under martial law. On
November 29, 1972 the Convention approved its proposed
constitution. The next day the president issued PD No. 73
submitting to the people for ratification or rejection the
proposed constitution as well as setting the plebiscite for
said ratification. On December 7, 1972, Charito Planas
filed a petition to enjoin respondents from implemented PD
No. 73 because the calling of the plebiscite among others
are lodged exclusively in the Congress. On December 17,
1972, the president issued an order temporarily
suspending the effects of PD 1081 for the purpose of free
and open debate on the proposed constitution. On
December 23, the president announced the postponement
of the plebiscite, as such, the Court refrained from
deciding the cases. On January 12, the petitioners filed for
an “urgent motion” praying that the case be decided “as
soon as possible”.

ISSUES:
1.    Is validity of PD 73 justiciable?
2.    Is PD 73 valid?
3.    Does the 1971 Constitutional Convention have the
authority to pass the proposed constitution?

HELD:
The Court may pass upon constitutionality of PD 73 not
only because of a long list of cases decided by the Court
but also of subdivision (1) of Section 2, Article VIII of the
1935 Constitution which expressly provides for the
authority of the Court to review cases revolving such
issue. The validity of the decree itself was declared moot
and academic by the Court. The convention is free to
postulate any amendment as long as it is not inconsistent
to what is known as Jus Cogens.