Constitutional Law 1

Javellana v. The Executive Secretary

50 SCRA 30
March 31, 1973

FACTS
On March 16, 1967, Congress of the Philippines passed Resolution No. 2 which was amended by Resolution
No.4. Adopted on June 17, 1969, called a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. Said
Resolution No.2, as amended, was implemented by R.A. No.6132, approved on August 24, 1970, pursuant to the
provisions of which the election of delegates to the said Convention was held on November 10, 1970 and began to
function on June 1, 1971. While the Convention was in session on September 21, 1972, the President issued
Procalmation No. 1081 placing the entire Philippines under Martial Law.

The Convention approved its proposed Constitution. Then, the President issued Presidential Decree No. 73
“submitting to the Filipino people for ratification or rejection the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional
Convention, and appropriating funds therefor,” as well as setting plebiscite for said ratification or rejection of the
proposed Constitution on January 15, 1973.

Upon multiple objections to the issuance of P.D. No.73, mostly on the ground that the President did not have
legislative authority to call for a plebiscite, Proclamation No.1081 was temporarily lifted for the purpose of free and
open debate on the Proposed Constitution and plebiscite scheduled on January 15, 1973 was postponed indefinitely.

On January 17, 1973, while the case was being heard, Proclamation No. 1102, signed by the President, through
one of his cabinet members, announced the proclamation of the Constitution proposed by the 1971 ConCon has been
ratified.

On January 20, 1973, Petitioner, Jose Javellana filed a case to the Supreme Court to restrain respondents from
implementing any of the provisions of the Proposed Constitution not found in the 1935 Constitution alleging that the
President is without authority and jurisdiction to implement the Proposed Constitution and that the election held to
ratify the proposed constitution was not a free election, hence null and void.

ISSUE
WON the Proposed Constitution by the 1971 Constitutional Convention was ratified validly.

RULING
6 (majority) of the members of the Court held that the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional
Convention was not validly ratified in accordance with Article 15, Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution. However, the Court
not having enough votes to declare that the new Constitution is not in force, concedes that there is no further judicial
obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect.

ACCORDINGLY, by virtue of the majority of six (6) votes with four (4) dissenting votes, all aforementioned cases
are hereby dismissed. This being the vote of majority, there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being
considered in force and effect.
It is so ordered.