Crisostomo, John Paul

Legal Research
Case Digest
Javellana v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. L-36142, March 31, 1973
Concepcion, C.J.

Facts:
On March 16, 1967, Congress of the Philippines passed a resolution calling a Convention to
propose amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines. The 1971 Constitutional Convention
began to perform its functions on June 1, 1971. While the Convention was in session 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. The next day, November 30, 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.

The President also declared on December 31, 1972 the issuance of Presidential decree no. 86
organizing the Citizens Assemblies to be consulted on certain public questions, including the
question of adopting the proposed Constitution.

Subsequently, Proclamation No. 1102 was ratified which declared that fourteen million nine
hundred seventy-six thousand five hundred sixty one (14,976,561) members of all the Barangays
(Citizens Assemblies) voted for the adoption of the proposed Constitution, as against seven
hundred forty-three thousand eight hundred sixty-nine (743,869) who voted for its rejection.

On January 20, 1973, just two days before the Supreme Court decided the sequel of other
plebiscite cases, Javellana filed this suit against the respondents to restrain them from
implementing any of the provisions of the proposed Constitution not found in the present 1935
Constitution.

Javellana alleged that the President had announced 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 proposed Constitution. He argued that the President, as Commander in Chief
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, is without authority to create the Citizens Assemblies;
that the same are without power to approve the proposed Constitution; that the President is
without power to proclaim the ratification by the Filipino people of the proposed Constitution; ad
that the election held to ratify the proposed Constitution was not a free election, hence null and
void.
 Crisostomo, John Paul
Legal Research
Case Digest

Respondents Puyat and Roy, filed their comment alleging that said case is a highly political
question, which the Court would not be in a position to act upon judicially, and that in upholding
the validity of Proclamation No. 1102, further proceedings in this case may only be an academic
exercise in futility.

Issues:
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 andstatutory provisions?
3. Has the aforementioned proposed Constitution acquiesced in (with or without
validratification) 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

Ruling:
The members of the court agreed that each would write his own opinion. The writer of the
decision shall then first express his opinion on the issues, after which he will concurrently vote
with his colleagues in the Court for a summary of votes.

The writer opined the following:

On the issue of the political question doctrine, it is clear in the minds of the Court that the
question whether or not the revised Constitution drafted by the 1971 Constitutional Convention
has been ratified in accordance with said Article XV is a justiciable one and non-political in
nature, and that it is the Court’s bounden duty to decide such question.

In Miller v Johnson, it was held that the courts have a “duty, rather than a power” to determine
whether another branch of the government has kept within the constitutional limits, and that
“unless the manner is followed, the judiciary as the interpreter of that constitution, will declare
the amendment invalid”.

On the validity of the Citizens’ assembly as plebiscite, proceedings held in such Citizen´s
assemblies were irregular, in that persons lacking the qualifications prescribed in Article V
section 1 of the 1935 Constitution were allowed to vote in said Assemblies. Since there are no
 Crisostomo, John Paul
Legal Research
Case Digest

means to segregate the invalid votes of those less than 21 years of age from the qualified voters,
the proceedings in the Citizen´s assemblies must be considered null and void.

Viva voce voting for the ratification of the constitution is also void. We had adopted the
Australian ballot system, with uniform official ballots prepared and furnished by the government
including secrecy of voting, with the advantage of keeping records for judicial inquiry and
probes into the accuracy of the elections returns.

The Assemblies, which were held without the intervention of the COMELEC and without
complying with the provisions of the Election Code of 1971, is void. There was no reasonable
means of checking the accuracy of the returns filed by the officers who conducted said
plebiscites. This is a patent violation of Article X of the 1935 Constitution as amended, to insure
the ¨free, orderly, and honest¨ expression of the people´s will.

The Proclamation No. 1102 is not evidence of ratification. Article X of the 1935 Constitution
places COMELEC the exclusive charge to the enforcement and administration of all laws
relative to the conduct of elections, independently of the Executive. There was not even a
certification by the COMELEC in support of the alleged results of the citizen´s assemblies relied
upon in Proclamation No. 1102.

The Court is not prepared to concede that the acts of the offices of the Executive department, in
line with Proclamation No. 1102, connote recognition of or acquiescence to the proposed
Constitution. The compliance by the people with the orders of martial law does not constitute
acquiescence to the proposed Constitution. Niether des the Court prepared to declare that the
people´s inaction as regards to Proclamation No. 1102, amounts to a ratification, adoption or
approval. Intimidation is there, and obedience of the people, under these conditions, s not
necessarily an act of conformity or acquiescence.

Summary of votes:
1. As for the first issue involving the political-question doctrine, Justices Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee and the writer, or six (6) members of the Court,
held that the issue of the validity of Proclamation o. 1102 presents a justiciable and
non-political question.
2. On the question of validity of the ratification, Justices Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee and the writer, or six (6) members of the 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.
3. On the question of acquiescence by the Filipino people of the proposed Constitution, no
majority vote had been reached by the Court.
 Crisostomo, John Paul
Legal Research
Case Digest
4. On the question of relief, six (6) members of the Court, Justice Makalintal, Castro,
Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra voted to Dismiss the petition.
5. On the question of whether the new Constitution of 1973 is in force, there was not
enough votes to declare that the new Constitution is not i force.

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 dismissed.

This being the vote of the majority, there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution
being considered in force and effect.
 Crisostomo, John Paul
Legal Research
Case Digest
Miriam Defensor Santiago v. COMELEC, GR No. 127325, March 3, 1997
Davide, Jr., J.

Facts:
On December 6, 1996, private respondent, as founding member of the Movement for People´s
initiative, filed with public respondent, COMELEC, a ¨Petition to Amend the Constitution, to lift
Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People´s Initiative¨. According to Delfin, the said Petition
for Initiative will first be submitted to the people, and after it is signed by at least twelve per cent
of the total number of registered voters in the country it will be formally filed with the
COMELEC.

On 18 December 1996, the petitioners herein, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander
Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin, filed this special civil action for prohibition raising the
following arguments: (1) The constitutional provision on people's initiative to amend the
Constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. No such law has been
passed; (2) It is true that R.A. No. 6735 provides for three systems of initiative, namely, initiative
on the Constitution, on statutes, and on local legislation. However, it failed to provide any
subtitle on initiative on the Constitution, unlike in the other modes of initiative, which are
specifically provided for in Subtitle II and Subtitle III. This deliberate omission indicates that the
matter of people's initiative to amend the Constitution was left to some future law. (3)The
people's initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision thereof.
Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a revision and is, therefore, outside the power of
the people's initiative. (4) Finally, Congress has not yet appropriated funds for people's initiative;
neither the COMELEC nor any other government department, agency, or office has realigned
funds for the purpose.

Issues:
1. Whether R.A. No. 6735, entitled An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and
Referendum and Appropriating Funds Therefor, was intended to include or cover
initiative on amendments to the Constitution; and if so, whether the Act, as worded,
adequately covers such initiative

2. Whether that portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 (In re: Rules and Regulations
Governing the Conduct of Initiative on the Constitution, and Initiative and Referendum
on National and Local Laws) regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to the
Constitution is valid, considering the absence in the law of specific provisions on the
conduct of such initiative
 Crisostomo, John Paul
Legal Research
Case Digest
3. Whether the lifting of term limits of elective national and local officials, as proposed in
the draft "Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution," would constitute a revision of,
or an amendment to, the Constitution.

Ruling:
Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution provides:

SEC. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people
through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered
voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the
registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years
following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.

The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.

This provision is not self-executory. In his book, Joaquin Bernas, a member of the 1986
Constitutional Commission, stated:

Without implementing legislation Section 2 cannot operate. Thus, although this mode of
amending the Constitution is a mode of amendment which bypasses congressional action, in the
last analysis it still is dependent on congressional action.

Bluntly stated, the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution
through the system of initiative would remain entombed in the cold niche of the Constitution
until Congress provides for its implementation. Stated otherwise, while the Constitution has
recognized or granted that right, the people cannot exercise it if Congress, for whatever reason,
does not provide for its implementation.

Moreover, while R.A. NO. 6735 exerted utmost diligence and care in providing for the details in
the implementation of initiative and referendum on ntional and local legislation thereby giving
them special attention, it failed, to do so on the system of initiative on amendments to the
Constitution.

Thus, R.A. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar
as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned.

On the second issue, the incompletenes cannot be cured by empowering the COMELEC to
promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act.
The rule is that potestas delegata non delegari potest or what has been delegatied, cannot be
delegated.
 Crisostomo, John Paul
Legal Research
Case Digest

It logically follows then that the COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to
implement the exercise of the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the
Constitution through the system of initiative. It does not have that power under R.A. No. 6735.

Reliance on the COMELEC's power under Section 2(1) of Article IX-C of the Constitution is
misplaced, for the laws and regulations referred to therein are those promulgated by the
COMELEC under (a) Section 3 of Article IX-C of the Constitution, or (b) a law where
subordinate legislation is authorized and which satisfies the "completeness" and the "sufficient
standard" tests.

On the third issue, further discussion on the issue of whether the proposal to lift the term limits
of the elective national and local officials is an amendment to, and not a revision of, the
Constitution is rendered unnecessary, if not academic.