Subject: Law 102 B – Consti 1

G.R. No. G.R. No. L-36142

Parties Javellana v. Executive Secretary
Date Mar 31, 1973
Ponente Justice Concepcion
Digeter Catubig
 FACTS
Facts of the Complaint
On March 16, 1967, Congress called a Constitutional Convention. The 1971
Constitutional Convention 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 Convention approved its Proposed
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.
On November 30, 1972, the President issued Presidential Decree No. 73, 'submitting to
the people for ratification the Constitution by the 1971 Constitutional Convention, and
appropriating funds therefor,' as well as setting the plebiscite on January 15, 1973.
On December 7, 1972, Charito Planas filed a case with the Supreme Court against
COMELEC for implementing P.D. 73 because it has no effect of law and only Congress
may constitutionally call a plebiscite and appropriate of public funds for the purpose.
More identical cases were filed after this date.
On December 23, 1972, the President announced the postponement of the plebiscite for
ratification. On January 7, 1973, General Order No. 20 was issued, directing 'that the
plebiscite be postponed until further notice.' The Court refrained from deciding on the
matter for the time being and deferred its final action on the cases.
On January 12, 1973, the petitioners in Case G.R. No. L-35948 filed an 'urgent motion,'
raying that said case be decided 'as soon as possible, preferably not later than January
15, 1973.
On January 15, 1973, petitioners prayed for a restraining order to be issued against
COMELEC, DILG, DAR, the National Ratification Coordinating Committee, etc.,
ordering them to cease operations regarding the plebiscite. Petitioners alleged that the
proceedings of the Citizens’ Assemblies were null and void because (a) participants in
the Citizens’ Assemblies were at least 15 years old, regardless of qualification (Consti
required registered voters), (b) Assemblies were open (Consti required secrecy in
voting), (c) there was no provision for free, orderly and honest elections (Election
required so), (d) the formation of Citizens’ Assemblies were doubted due to the lack of
material time.
On January 15, 1973, the President signed Proclamation No. 1102, announcing the
ratification Constitution proposed by the Consti Conv. Justices dismissed the petitions.
On January 20, 1973, Javellana filed a case against the Exec Sec, etc., to prevent them
and their agents from implementing provisions of the proposed Constitution not found
in the present Constitution. Javellana alleged that the President and his Cabinet are
acting without, or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing the said proposed
Constitution because (a) they are without authority to create the Citizens Assemblies,
(b) the President is without power to proclaim the ratification, and (c) the ratification
election was not a free election, hence null and void. Similar actions were filed by
several other parties, including by members of Senate who stated that on Monday,
January 22, 1973, were unlawfully prevented from using the Senate Session Hall, the
same having been closed by the Department of General Services.
The Supreme Court dismissed said cases on January 22, 1973, by a majority vote, upon
the ground that the petitions therein had become moot and academic; that the alleged
rati􀁅cation of the 1972 (1973) Constitution "is illegal, unconstitutional and void and . . .
cannot have superseded and revoked the 1935 Constitution,"
Respondents commented that (b) the issue is not justiciable, c) the 1935 Constitution
was complied with, d) the proposed Consti was properly submitted to the people in a
free, orderly and honest election, and e) the amending process outlined in Article XV of
the 1935 Constitution is not exclusive of other modes of amendment.

ISSUES
I. Whether Proclamation No. 1102 is a justiciable, or political question.
II. Whether the proposed Constitution was ratified validly.
III. Whether the proposed Constitution in force.

RULINGS & RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES DISMISSED
THE 1973 CONSTITUTION IS IN FORCE
Six justices voted Proclamation No. 1102 as being justiciable. the Court may inquire into
the question of whether or not there has actually been such an approval but the Court
should keep its hands off out of respect to the people's will. However, the Court may
determine whether the 1935 Constitution was complied with.
Six justices voted against the validity of the ratification in accordance with Article XV,
Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution, which provided only one way of ratification: in an
election or plebiscite held in accordance with law and participated in only by qualified
and duly registered voters.
Four voted that the people have already accepted the new Constitution. Two held that
there can be no free expression if the nation was still under Martial Law. Three
expressed their lack of competency to address the question, stating that "[u]nder a
regime of martial law, with the free expression of opinions … vehicles restricted, (they)
have no means of knowing … whether the people have accepted the Constitution."
Four voted that the Constitution is in force due to the people’s acceptance; four casted
no vote due to lack of information; and two voted that the Constitution is not in effect.
Finally, one a vote of 6-4, all the cases are dismissed and the new Constitution is in
force.