UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW

D2026, Surname, First Name, M.I.

Planas v. Commission on Elections, et al.

Reference No. Date Ponente
G.R. L35925 January 22, 1973 Concepcion, CJ
Legal Basis Doctrine

Re: Calling of Plebiscite being Power to call the Plebescite rests exclusively
exclusively a power of Congress — in Congress
Topic
Section 1, Article XV of the 1935
Approval of
Constitution. Will of the People v. Legality of Constitutional
the 1973
Change?
Constitution
Re: the jurisdiction in determining
the validity of P.D. 73 — Subdivision
(1) of Section 2, Article VIII of the
1935 Constitution,

PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
Charito Planas Commission on Elections
Treasurer of the Philippines
————————— Auditor General

Pablo Sanidad
Gerardo Roxas et. al.
Eddie Monteclaro
Sedfrey Ordoñez et. al.
Vidal Tan et. al.
Jose Diokno et. al.
Jacinto Jimenez
Raul Gonzales
Ernesto Hidalgo

NOTE: List the names of all the people involved

(Surname, Firstname for indivs). Some profs may
ask for the names of the other people not included
in the Case Name

RECIT READY SUMMARY

● The 1971 Constitutional Convention (ConCon) was called to propose amendments to the
Constitution of the Philippines. This ConCon was approved on August 24, 1970 and began to
perform its functions on June 1, 1971.
● The day after the ConCon approved its Proposed Constitution, President Marcos issued
Presidential Decree No. 73, submitting to the people for ratification or rejection of the
proposed Constitution.
● Charito Planas filed a petition to enjoin respondents from implementing P.D. No. 73 as
calling such a plebiscite is lodged exclusively in Congress and that the proposed
Constitution was not yet shown to people.
● After temporarily suspending Proclamation No. 1081 for the purpose of free and public
debate, President Marcos, on December 23, 1972, announced the postponement of the
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW
D2026, Surname, First Name, M.I.

plebiscite for ratification or rejection of the proposed Constitution. It was in effect until
January 15, 1973.
● On January 12, 1973, the petitioners filed an “urgent motion” for the case to be decided “as
soon as possible.”
● The President subsequently announced the issuance of P.D. No. 86, organizing the so-called
Citizen’s Assemblies that shall be consulted on certain public questions. The petitioners,
however, argued that the Election Code did not contain provisions to guide and regulate
proceedings of the Citizens’ Assemblies.
● The petitioners prayed not only for the annulment of P.D. No. 73, but also of any similar
decree, proclamation, order or instruction.
● While the case was being heard on January 17, 1973, President Marcos released
Proclamation No. 1102 formally announcing that the 1971 Constitutional Convention had
been ratified by an overwhelming majority.
● Because of the issuance of Proclamation No. 1102, all cases brought up by the petitioners are
dismissed by the Supreme Court for being moot and academic.

RELEVANT FACTS
Chronological sequence stating the time, place, event, leading to the tension
NOTE: Adjust the phrasing of relevant facts to the recitation style of the professor.
If the case is heavy on factual matters, make sure to be meticulous in your writing of the facts.
If focused on issue spotting, then add the key facts that are relevant to the case.
1. On June 1, 1971, the 1971 Constitutional Convention (ConCon) began its function to propose
amendments. On September 21, 1972, the President issued Proclamation No. 1081 placing
the Philippines under martial law. On November 29, 1972, the ConCon approved its proposed
Constitution. The next day, the President issues Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 73, submitting
to the Filipino people for ratification or rejection of the newly-proposed Constitution.
2. Planas, and subsequent petitioners, would file against the Commission on Elections, et. al.,
enjoining them from implementing P.D. No. 73 on the grounds that (a) it has no force and
effect as law because calling such plebiscite is constitutionally exclusive to Congress and
(b) there was no proper submission of the proposed Constitution to the people given the
absence of free speech, press, and assembly under martial law and no sufficient time to
inform the people.
3. On December 17, 1972, the president temporarily suspended Proclamation No. 1081 for the
purpose of free and open debate on the proposed Constitution. On December 23, he
announced the postponement of the plebiscite. On January 7, 1973, General Order no. 20
postponed the scheduled plebiscite for January 15 until further notice.
a. With this, the Court deferred final action on these cases given that the date and
conditions for the plebiscite were unknown.
4. On January 12, 1973, petitioners in G.R. No. L-35948 filed an “urgent motion” requesting that
the case be decided as soon as possible, preferably before January 15, 1973 because the
President was allegedly planning to circumvent the constitutional requirements for a
plebiscite by using the Citizen Assemblies (organized by P.D. No. 86) as an alternative way of
gathering public consent on the proposed New Constitution.
5. On January 16, 1973, the President signed Proclamation No. 1102 ratifying the new
Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention.
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW
D2026, Surname, First Name, M.I.

ARGUMENTS

PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS

● The arguments of the petitioner and

● Presidential Decree 73 has no force and subsequent petitioners are moot and
effect as law because the calling . . . of academic given that the President had
such plebiscite, the setting of guidelines already issued Proclamation No. 1102,
for the conduct of the same, the ratifying the new Constitution.
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.
● There is no proper submission to the
people of said Proposed Constitution set
for January 15, 1973, there being no
freedom of speech, press and assembly,
and there being no sufficient time to
inform the people of the contents
thereof.

ISSUES - HELD - RATIO

ISSUE RATIO
W/N the court had YES. PD 73 purports to have the force and effect of a legislation, so that
jurisdiction in the issue on the validity thereof is manifestly a justiciable one, on the
determining the validity authority, not only of a long list of cases in which the Court has passed
of PD 73 upon the constitutionality of statutes and/or acts of the Executive, but,
also, of no less than that of Subdivision (1) of Section 2, Article VIII of the
1935 Constitution, which expressly provides for the authority of this Court
to review cases involving said issue.

W/N PD 73 is actually MOOT AND ACADEMIC. The court refused to pass judgment on the
valid validity of PD 73 as President Marcos already postponed the holding of
the planned plebiscite.

W/N the 1971 NO. The Convention was legally free to postulate any amendment it may
Constitutional deem fit to propose except what is or may be inconsistent with what is
Convention had known as jus cogens.
exceeded its authority
in approving Sections 2,
3 (par. 2) and 12 of
Article XVII of the
proposed Constitution
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW
D2026, Surname, First Name, M.I.

RULING

All cases are hereby dismissed as the case has become moot and academic.

SEPARATE OPINIONS (if applicable)

Zaldivar, J. (dissenting)

● President Marcos cannot by decree order the ratification of the proposed 1972 Constitution
through a voting in the barangays and make said result the basis for proclaiming the
ratification of the proposed constitution. It is very clear to him that Proclamation No. 1102
was issued in complete disregard, or, in violation, of the provisions of Section 1 of Article V
of the 1935 Constitution.
● Voting in the barangays was done by the raising of hands by the persons indiscriminately
gathered to participate in the voting. To consider the votes in the barangays as expressive of
the popular will and use them as the basis in declaring whether a Constitution is ratified or
rejected is to resort to a voting by demonstrations, which would mean the rule of the crowd,
only one degree higher than the rule by the mob.
● The people are sovereign, but the will of the people must be expressed in a manner as the
law and the demands of a well-ordered society require. The rule of law must prevail even
over the apparent will of the majority of the people, if that will had not been expressed or
obtained, in accordance with the law.

Name, J. (concurring/dissenting)
● List opinions
● List opinions

IMPORTANT CONCEPTS