ConstiLaw_Javellana v Executive Sec

8/18/2019 ConstiLaw_Javellana v Executive Sec

1/158

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-36142 March 31, 1973

JOSUE JAVELLANA, petitioner,vs.TE E!ECUT"VE SECRETAR#, TE SECRETAR# O$ NAT"ONAL%E$ENSE, TE SECRETAR# O$ JUST"CE AN% TE SECRETAR#O$ $"NANCE, respondents.

G.R. No. L-36164 March 31, 1973

V"%AL TAN, J. ANTON"O ARANETA, ALEJAN%RO ROCES, MANUELCRU%O, ANTON"O U. M"RAN%A, EM"L"O %E PERALTA AN%LOREN&O M. TA'A%A, petitioners,vs.TE E!ECUT"VE SECRETAR#, TE SECRETAR# O$ $"NANCE , TESECRETAR# O$ JUST"CE, TE SECRETAR# O$ LAN% RE$ORM,TE SECRETAR# O$ NAT"ONAL %E$ENSE, TE AU%"TOR

GENERAL, TE (U%GET COMM"SS"ONER, TE CA"RMAN O$PRES"%ENT"AL COMM"SS"ON ON REORGAN"&AT"ON, TETREASURER O$ TE P"L"PP"NES, TE COMM"SS"ON ONELECT"ONS AN% TE COMM"SS"ONER O$ C"V"LSERV"CE, respondents.

G.R. No. L-3616) March 31, 1973.

GERAR%O RO!AS, AM(ROS"O PA%"LLA, JOV"TO R. SALONGA,SALVA%OR . LAUREL, RAMON V. M"TRA, JR. a*+ EVA ESTRA%A-ALA, petitioners,vs.ALEJAN%RO MELCOR, * h/ ca0ac a/ Ec5 ScrarJUAN PONCE ENR"LE, * h/ ca0ac a/ Scrar o8 Nao*a%8*/ G*ra ROMEO ESP"NO, * h/ ca0ac a/ Ch8 o8 Sa88

o8 h Ar:+ $orc/ o8 h Ph00*/ TANC"O E. CASTA'E%A, *h/ ca0ac a/ Scrar G*ra Src/ S*aor G"L J. PU#AT,* h/ ca0ac a/ Pr/+* o8 h S*a a*+ S*aor JOSE RO#,h/ ca0ac, a/ Pr/+* Pro T:0or o8 h o8 hS*a, respondents.

G.R. No. L-36236 March 31, 1973

E%%"E (. MONTECLARO, ;0r/o*a a*+ * h/ ca0ac a/Pr/+* o8 h Nao*a Pr// C5< o8 h Ph00*/=, petitioner,vs.TE E!ECUT"VE SECRETAR#, TE SECRETAR# O$ PU(L"C"N$ORMAT"ON, TE AU%"TOR GENERAL, TE (U%GETCOMM"SS"ONER > TE NAT"ONAL TREASURER, respondents.

G.R. No. L-362?3 March 31, 1973

NAPOLEON V. %"LAG, AL$RE%O SALAPANTAN, JR., LEONAR%OASO%"SEN, JR., a*+ RAUL M. GON&ALE&, petitioners,vs.TE ONORA(LE E!ECUT"VE SECRETAR#, TE ONORA(LESECRETAR# O$ NAT"ONAL %E$ENSE, TE ONORA(LE (U%GETCOMM"SS"ONER, TE ONORA(LE AU%"TORGENERAL, respondents.

Ramon A. Gonzales for petitioner Josue Javellana.

Lorenzo M. Tañada and Associates for petitioners Vidal Tan, et al.

Tañada, Salonga, rdoñez, Rodrigo, Sanidad, Ro!as. Gonzales and Arro"o for petitioners Gerardo Ro!as, et al.

Jo#er $. Arro"o and Rogelio %. $adilla for petitioner &ddie Monteclaro.

Raul M. Gonzales and Associates for petitioners 'apoleon V. (ilag, et

Arturo M. Tolentino for respondents Gil J. $u"at and Jose Ro".

ffice of t)e Solicitor General &stelito $. Mendoza, Solicitor Vicente V.Mendoza and Solicitor Re"nato S. $uno for ot)er respondents.

R E S O L ! " O N

CONCEPC"ON, C.J.:

!he above#entitled five $%& cases are a se'uel of cases (.R. Nos. L#)%*+%,L#)%*+*, L#)%*-, L#)%*, L#)%*+, L#)%*/, L#)%*%), L#)%*0, L#)%*0% andL#)%*1*, decided on 2anuar3 ++, *1), to 4hich 5e 4ill hereafter refercollectivel3 as the plebiscite cases.

%ac#ground of t)e $le*iscite +ases.

!he factual settin6 thereof is set forth in the decision therein rendered,fro7 4hich 5e 'uote8

On March 0, *01, Con6ress of the Philippinespassed Resolution No. +, 4hich 4as a7ended b3Resolution No. of said bod3, adopted on 2une 1*0*, callin6 a Convention to propose a7end7entto the Constitution of the Philippines. SaidResolution No. +, as a7ended, 4as i7ple7ented bRepublic Act No. 0)+, approved on Au6ust +,*1-, pursuant to the provisions of 4hich theelection of dele6ates to said Convention 4as held

Nove7ber -, *1-, and the *1 ConstitutionalConvention be6an to perfor7 its functions on 2une, *1. 5hile the Convention 4as in session onSepte7ber +, *1+, the President issuedProcla7ation No. -/ placin6 the entire Philippineunder Martial La4. On Nove7ber +*, *1+, theConvention approved its Proposed Constitution ofthe Republic of the Philippines. !he ne9t da3,Nove7ber )-, *1+, the President of the Philippinissued Presidential :ecree No. 1), ;sub7ittin6 to t


2/158

2anuar3 %, *1), there bein6 no freedo7 ofspeech, press and asse7bl3, and there bein6 nosufficient ti7e to infor7 the people of the contentsthereof.;

Substantiall3 identical actions 4ere filed, on:ece7ber /, *1+, b3 Pablo C. Sanidad a6ainst theCo77ission on Elections $Case (.R. No. L# )%*+*&on :ece7ber , *1+, b3 (erardo Ro9as, et al.,a6ainst the Co77ission on Elections, the :irector of Printin6, the National !reasurer and the Auditor(eneral $Case (.R. L#)%*-&, b3 Eddie B.

Monteclaro a6ainst the Co77ission on Electionsand the !reasurer of the Philippines $Case (.R. No.L#)%*&, and b3 Sedfre3 Ordo>e?, et al. a6ainst theNational !reasurer and the Co77ission on Elections$Case (.R. No. L#)%*+&@ on :ece7ber +, *1+,b3 idal !an, et al., a6ainst the Co77ission onElections, the !reasurer of the Philippines, the Auditor (eneral and the :irector of Printin6 $Case(.R. No. L#)%*/& and b3 2ose 5. :iono andBeni6no S. A'uino a6ainst the Co77ission onElections $Case (.R. No. L#)%*%)&@ on :ece7ber, *1+, b3 2acinto 2i7ene? a6ainst theCo77ission on Elections, the Auditor (eneral, the!reasurer of the Philippines and the :irector of theBureau of Printin6 $Case (.R. No. L#)%*0&, and b3Raul M. (on?ales a6ainst the Co77ission onElections, the Bud6et Co77issioner, the National

!reasurer and the Auditor (eneral $Case (.R. No.L#)%*0%&@ and on :ece7ber 0, *1+, b3 Ernesto C.idal6o a6ainst the Co77ission on Elections, theSecretar3 of Education, the National !reasurer andthe Auditor (eneral $Case (.R. No. L#)%*1*&.

"n all these cases, e9cept the last $(.R. No. L#)%*1*&, the respondents 4ere re'uired to file theirans4ers ;not later than +8-- $oDcloc& noon ofSaturda3, :ece7ber 0, *1+.; Said cases 4ere,also, set for hearin6 and partl3 heard on Monda3,:ece7ber /, *1+, at *8)- a.7. !he hearin6 4ascontinued on :ece7ber *, *1+. B3 a6ree7ent ofthe parties, the afore7entioned last case (.R.No. L#)%*1* 4as, also, heard, =ointl3 4ith theothers, on :ece7ber *, *1+. At the conclusion of

the hearin6, on that date, the parties in all of theafore7entioned cases 4ere 6iven a short period ofti7e 4ithin 4hich ;to sub7it their notes on the pointsthe3 desire to stress.; Said notes 4ere filed ondifferent dates, bet4een :ece7ber +, *1+, and2anuar3 , *1).

Mean4hile, or on :ece7ber 1, *1+, the Presidenthad issued an order te7poraril3 suspendin6 theeffects of Procla7ation No. -/, for the purpose offree and open debate on the Proposed Constitution.On :ece7ber +), the President announced thepostpone7ent of the plebiscite for the ratification orre=ection of the Proposed Constitution. No for7alaction to this effect 4as taen until 2anuar3 1, *1),4hen (eneral Order No. +- 4as issued, directin6

;that the plebiscite scheduled to be held on 2anuar3%, *1/, be postponed until further notice.; Said(eneral Order No. +-, 7oreover, ;suspended in the7eanti7e; the ;order of :ece7ber 1, *1+,te7poraril3 suspendin6 the effects of Procla7ationNo. -/ for purposes of free and open debate onthe proposed Constitution.;

"n vie4 of these events relative to the postpone7entof the afore7entioned plebiscite, the Court dee7edit fit to refrain, for the ti7e bein6, fro7 decidin6 theafore7entioned cases, for neither the date nor theconditions under 4hich said plebiscite 4ould be held4ere no4n or announced officiall3. !hen, a6ain,Con6ress 4as, pursuant to the *)% Constitution,scheduled to 7eet in re6ular session on 2anuar3 ++,

*1), and since the 7ain ob=ection to Presidential:ecree No. 1) 4as that the President does not hathe le6islative authorit3 to call a plebiscite andappropriate funds therefor, 4hich Con6ressun'uestionabl3 could do, particularl3 in vie4 of thefor7al postpone7ent of the plebiscite b3 thePresident reportedl3 after consultation 4ith,a7on6 others, the leaders of Con6ress and theCo77ission on Elections the Court dee7ed it7ore i7perative to defer its final action on thesecases.

;"n the afternoon of 2anuar3 +, *1), the petitionein Case (.R. No.L#)%*/ filed an ;ur6ent 7otion,; pra3in6 that saidcase be decided ;as soon as possible, preferabl3 nlater than 2anuar3 %, *1).; "t 4as alle6ed in said7otion, inter alia8

;0. !hat the President subse'uentl3 announced thissuance of Presidential :ecree No. /0 or6ani?in6the so#called Citi?ens Asse7blies, to be consultedon certain public 'uestions FBulletin !oda3, 2anuar, *1)G@

;1. !hat thereafter it 4as later announced that ;the Asse7blies 4ill be ased if the3 favor or oppose

FG !he Ne4 Societ3@

F+G Refor7s instituted underMartial La4@

F)G !he holdin6 of a plebiscite the proposed ne4 Constitutionand 4hen $the tentative ne4dates 6iven follo4in6 thepostpone7ent of the plebiscitefro7 the ori6inal date of 2anua% are


3/158

;-. !hat on 2anuar3 -, *1), it 4as reported thaton 7ore 'uestion 4ould be added to the four $&'uestion previousl3 announced, and that the for7sof the 'uestion 4ould be as follo4s8

FG :o 3ou lie the Ne4 Societ3H

F+G :o 3ou lie the refor7sunder 7artial la4H

F)G :o 3ou lie Con6ress a6ain

to hold sessionsH

FG :o 3ou lie the plebiscite tobe held laterH

F%G (o "ou li#e t)e a"$resident Marcos running t)eaffairs of t)egovernment- FBulletin !oda3,2anuar3 -, *1)@ e7phasis anadditional 'uestion.G

;. !hat on 2anuar3 , *1), it 4as reported thatsi9 $0& 7ore 'uestions 4ould be sub7itted to the so#called Citi?ens Asse7blies8

FG :o 3ou approve of theciti?ens asse7blies as the baseof popular 6overn7ent to decideissues of national interestsH

F+G (o "ou approve of t)e ne+onstitution-

F)G :o 3ou 4ant a plebiscite tobe called to ratif3 the ne4ConstitutionH

FG :o 3ou 4ant the elections tobe held in Nove7ber, *1) in

accordance 4ith the provisionsof the *)% ConstitutionH

F%G "f the elections 4ould not beheld, 4hen do 3ou 4ant the ne9telections to be calledH

F0G :o 3ou 4ant 7artial la4 tocontinueH FBulletin !oda3,2anuar3 , *1)@ e7phasissuppliedG

;+. !hat accordin6 to reports, the returns 4ithrespect to the si9 $0& additional 'uestions 'uotedabove 4ill be on a for7 si7ilar or identical to Anne9

;A; hereof@

;). !hat attached to pa6e of Anne9 ;A; is anotherpa6e, 4hich 4e 7ared as Anne9 ;A#;, and 4hichreads8

COMMEN!S ON

IES!"ON No.

"n order tobroaden thebase ofciti?ensD

participatin6overn7e.

IES!"ON No. +

But 4e do not 4ant the Ad"nteri7 Asse7bl3 to beconvoed. Or if it is to beconvened at all, it should not bdone so until after at least

seven $1& 3ears fro7 theapproval of the Ne4Constitution b3 the Citi?ens Asse7blies.

IES!"ON No. )

!he vote of the Citi?ens Asse7blies should alread3 beconsidered the plebiscite on thNe4 Constitution.

"f the Citi?ens Asse7bliesapprove of the Ne4Constitution, then the ne4

Constitution should be dee7eratified.

IES!"ON No.

5e are sic and tired of toofre'uent elections. 5e are fedup 4ith politics, of so 7an3debates and so 7uche9penses.

IES!"ON No. %

Probabl3 a period of at leastseven $1& 3ears 7oratoriu7 oelections 4ill be enou6h forstabilit3 to be established in thcountr3, for refor7s to tae rooand nor7alc3 to return.

IES!"ON No. 0

5e 4ant President Marcos tocontinue 4ith Martial La4. 5e4ant hi7 to e9ercise his po4e4ith 7ore authorit3. 5e 4anthi7 to be stron6 and fir7 so thhe can acco7plish all his refopro6ra7s and establishnor7alc3 in the countr3. "f all

other 7easures fail, 4e 4antPresident Marcos to declare arevolutionar3 6overn7ent alonthe lines of the ne4 Constitutio4ithout the ad interi7 Asse7bl3.;

;Attention is respectfull3 invited to the co77ents o;Iuestion No. ),; 4hich reads8

IES!"ON No. )

!he vote of the Citi?ens Asse7blies should be


4/158

considered the plebiscite on theNe4 Constitution.

"f the Citi?ens Asse7bliesapprove of the Ne4Constitution, then the ne4Constitution should be dee7edratified.

!his, 4e are afraid, and therefore alle6e, is pre6nant4ith o7inous possibilities.

. !hat, in the 7eanti7e, speain6 on televisionand over the radio, on 2anuar3 1, *1), thePresident announced that the li7ited freedo7 ofdebate on the proposed Constitution 4as bein64ithdra4n and that the procla7ation of 7artial la4and the orders and decrees issued thereunder4ould thenceforth strictl3 be enforced F:ail3E9press, 2anuar3 /, *1)G@

%. !hat petitioners have reason to fear, andtherefore state, that the 'uestion added in the lastlist of 'uestions to be ased to the Citi?ens Asse7blies, na7el38

:o 3ou approve of the Ne4

ConstitutionH

in relation to the 'uestion follo4in6 it8

:o 3oustill 4antaplebiscite to becalled toratif3 thene4ConstitutionH;

4ould be an atte7pt to b3#pass and short#circuit thisonorable Court before 4hich the 'uestion of thevalidit3 of the plebiscite on the proposed Constitutionis no4 pendin6@

;0. !hat petitioners have reason to fear, andtherefore alle6e, that if an affir7ative ans4er to thet4o 'uestions =ust referred to 4ill be reported thenthis onorable Court and the entire nation 4ill beconfronted 4ith a fait accompli 4hich has beenattained in a hi6hl3 unconstitutional andunde7ocratic 7anner@

;1. !hat the fait accompli 4ould consist in thesupposed e9pression of the people approvin6 theproposed Constitution@

;/. !hat, if such event 4ould happen, then the casebefore this onorable Court could, to all intents andpurposes, beco7e 7oot because, petitioners fear,and the3 therefore alle6e, that on the basis of suchsupposed e9pression of the 4ill of the peoplethrou6h the Citi?ens Asse7blies, it 4ould beannounced that the proposed Constitution, 4ith allits defects, both con6enital and other4ise, has beenratified@

;*. !hat, in such a situation the Philippines 4ill befacin6 a real crisis and there is lielihood ofconfusion if not chaos, because then, the people

and their officials 4ill not no4 4hich Constitution iin force.

;+-. !hat the crisis 7entioned above can onl3 beavoided if this onorable Court 4ill i77ediatel3decide and announce its decision on the presentpetition@

;+. !hat 4ith the 4ithdra4al b3 the President of thli7ited freedo7 of discussion on the proposedConstitution 4hich 4as 6iven to the people pursuato Sec. ) of Presidential :ecree No. 1), the

opposition of respondents to petitionersD pra3er atthe plebiscite be prohibited has no4 collapsed andthat a free plebiscite can no lon6er be held.;

At about the sa7e ti7e, a si7ilar pra3er 4as 7adein a ;7anifestation; filed b3 the petitioners in L#)%**, ;(erardo Ro9as, et al. v. Co77ission onElections, et al.,; and L#)%*+, ;Sedfre3 A. Ordo>eet al. v. !he National !reasurer, et al.;

!he ne9t da3, 2anuar3 ), *1), 4hich 4as aSaturda3, the Court issued a resolution re'uirin6 threspondents in said three $)& cases to co77ent onsaid ;ur6ent 7otion; and ;7anifestation,; ;not laterthan !uesda3 noon, 2anuar3 0, *1).; Priorthereto, or on 2anuar3 %, *1), shortl3 before noothe petitioners in said Case (.R. No. L#)%*/ riled;supple7ental 7otion for issuance of restrainin6order and inclusion of additional respondents,;pra3in6

;... that a restrainin6 order beissued en=oinin6 and restraininrespondent Co77ission onElections, as 4ell as the:epart7ent of Local(overn7ents and its head,Secretar3 2ose Ro>o@ the:epart7ent of A6rarian Reforand its head, Secretar3Conrado Estrella@ the NationaRatification Coordinatin6Co77ittee and its Chair7an,(uiller7o de e6a@ theirdeputies, subordinates andsubstitutes, and all otherofficials and persons 4ho 7a3be assi6ned such tas, fro7collectin6, certif3in6, andannouncin6 and reportin6 to thPresident or other officialsconcerned, the so#calledCiti?ensD Asse7bliesreferendu7 results alle6edl3obtained 4hen the3 4eresupposed to have 7et durin6the period co7prised bet4een2anuar3 - and 2anuar3 %,

*1), on the t4o 'uestions'uoted in para6raph of thisSupple7ental r6ent Motion.;

"n support of this pra3er, it 4as alle6ed

;). !hat petitioners are no4 before this onorableCourt in order to as further that this onorableCourt issue a restrainin6 order en=oinin6 hereinrespondents, particularl3 respondent Co77ission Elections as 4ell as the :epart7ent of Local(overn7ents and its head, Secretar3 2ose Ro>o@the :epart7ent of A6rarian Refor7s and its head,Secretar3 Conrado Estrella@ the National RatificatioCoordinatin6 Co77ittee and its Chair7an,(uiller7o de e6a@ and their deputies, subordinate


5/158

andJor substitutes, fro7 collectin6, certif3in6,announcin6 and reportin6 to the President thesupposed Citi?ensD Asse7blies referendu7 resultsalle6edl3 obtained 4hen the3 4ere supposed tohave 7et durin6 the period bet4een 2anuar3 - and2anuar3 %, *1), particularl3 on the t4o 'uestions'uoted in para6raph of this Supple7ental r6entMotion@

;. !hat the proceedin6s of the so#called Citi?ensD Asse7blies are ille6al, null and void particularl3insofar as such proceedin6s are bein6 7ade the

basis of a supposed consensus for the ratification ofthe proposed Constitution because8

FaG !he elections conte7platedin the Constitution, Article K, at4hich the proposedconstitutional a7end7ents areto be sub7itted for ratification,are elections at 4hich onl3'ualified and dul3 re6isteredvoters are per7itted to vote,4hereas, the so called Citi?ensD Asse7blies 4ere participated inb3 persons % 3ears of a6e andolder, re6ardless of'ualifications or lac thereof, asprescribed in the Election Code@

FbG Elections or plebiscites forthe ratification of constitutionala7end7ents conte7plated in Article K of the Constitutionhave provisions for the secrec3of choice and of vote, 4hich isone of the safe6uards offreedo7 of action, but votes inthe Citi?ensD Asse7blies 4ereopen and 4ere cast b3 raisin6hands@

FcG !he Election Code 7aesa7ple provisions for free,

orderl3 and honest elections,and such provisions are a7ini7u7 re'uire7ent forelections or plebiscites for theratification of constitutionala7end7ents, but there 4ere nosi7ilar provisions to 6uide andre6ulate proceedin6s of the socalled Citi?ensD Asse7blies@

FdG "t is seriousl3 to be doubtedthat, for lac of 7aterial ti7e,7ore than a handful of the socalled Citi?ensD Asse7blieshave been actuall3 for7ed,because the 7echanics of their

or6ani?ation 4ere still bein6discussed a da3 or so beforethe da3 the3 4ere supposed tobe6in functionin68

;Provincial6overnorsand cit3 and7unicipal7a3ors hadbeen7eetin64ith barriocaptainsandco77unit3

leaderssince lastMonda3F2anuar3 *1)& tothresh outhe7echanicin thefor7ationthe Citi?e Asse7bliand the

topics fordiscussioFBulletin!oda3,2anuar3 *1)G

;"t should be recalled that the Citi?ensD Asse7blies4ere ordered for7ed onl3 at the be6innin6 of the3ear F:ail3 E9press, 2anuar3 , *1)G, andconsiderin6 the lac of e9perience of the localor6ani?ers of said asse7blies, as 4ell as theabsence of sufficient 6uidelines for or6ani?ation, it too 7uch to believe that such asse7blies could beor6ani?ed at such a short notice.

;%. !hat for lac of 7aterial ti7e, the appropriatea7ended petition to include the additional officialsand 6overn7ent a6encies 7entioned in para6raphof this Supple7ental r6ent Motion could not beco7pleted because, as noted in the r6ent Motionof 2anuar3 +, *1), the sub7ission of the proposConstitution to the Citi?ensD Asse7blies 4as not7ade no4n to the public until 2anuar3 , *1).But be that as it 7a3, the said additional officials aa6encies 7a3 be properl3 included in the petition abar because8

FaG !he herein petitioners havepra3ed in their petition for theannul7ent not onl3 ofPresidential :ecree No. 1), bualso of ;an3 si7ilar decree,procla7ation, order orinstruction.

so that Presidential :ecree No. /0, insofar at leastas it atte7pts to sub7it the proposed Constitution a plebiscite b3 the so#called Citi?ensD Asse7blies, properl3 in issue in this case, and those 4hoenforce, i7ple7ent, or carr3 out the saidPresidential :ecree No. /0. and the instructionsincidental thereto clearl3 fall 4ithin the scope of thipetition@

FbG "n their petition, petitionerssou6ht the issuance of a 4rit o

preli7inar3 in=unction restraininot onl3 the respondents na7in the petition but also their;a6ents; fro7 i7ple7entin6 noonl3 Presidential :ecree No. 1but also ;an3 other si7ilardecree, order, instruction, orprocla7ation in relation to theholdin6 of a plebiscite on2anuar3 %, *1) for thepurpose of sub7ittin6 to the


6/158

FcG Petitioners pra3ed for suchother relief 4hich 7a3 be =ustand e'uitable. Fp. )*, PetitionG.

;!herefore, vie4in6 the case fro7 all an6les, theofficials and 6overn7ent a6encies 7entioned inpara6raph ) of this Supple7ental r6ent Motion,can la4full3 be reached b3 the processes of thisonorable Court b3 reason of this petition,considerin6, further7ore, that the Co77ission onElections has under our la4s the po4er, a7on6others, of8

$a& :irect and i77ediatesupervision and control overnational, provincial, cit3,7unicipal and 7unicipal districtofficials re'uired b3 la4 toperfor7 duties relative to theconduct of elections on 7atterspertainin6 to the enforce7ent of the provisions of this Code ...;FElection Code of *1, Sec. )G.

;0. !hat unless the petition at bar is decidedi77ediatel3 and the Co77ission on Elections,to6ether 4ith the officials and 6overn7ent a6encies7entioned in para6raph ) of this Supple7ental

r6ent Motion are restrained or en=oined fro7collectin6, certif3in6, reportin6 or announcin6 to thePresident the results of the alle6ed votin6 of the so#called Citi?ensD Asse7blies, irreparable da7a6e 4illbe caused to the Republic of the Philippines, the


7/158

Constitution should alread3 be dee7ed ratified b3the


8/158

c. 2ustice aldivar 7aintainsun'ualifiedl3 that the ProposedConstitution has not beenratified in accordance 4ith Article K of the *)%Constitution, and that,accordin6l3, it has no force andeffect 4hatsoever.

d. 2ustice Antonio feels ;that theCourt is not co7petent to act;on the issue 4hether the

Proposed Constitution has beenratified b3 the people or not, ;inthe absence of an3 =udiciall3discoverable and 7ana6eablestandards,; since the issue;poses a 'uestion of fact.

1. On the 'uestion 4hether or not these casesshould be dis7issed, 2ustices Maalintal, Castro,Barredo, Maasiar, Antonio and Es6uerra voted inthe affir7ative, for the reasons set forth in theirrespective opinions. 2ustices


9/158

be issued orderin6 respondents E9ecutive Secretar3, the Secretar3 ofNational :efense, the Chief of Staff of the Ar7ed


10/158

... !here is not)ing either in the Constitution or in the2udiciar3 Act re'uirin6 the vote of ei6ht 2ustices tonullif3 a rule or re6ulation or an e9ecutive orderissued b3 the President. "t is ver3 si6nificant that inthe previous drafts of section -, Article """ of theConstitution, ;e9ecutive order; and ;re6ulation;ereincluded a7on6 those that re'uired for theirnullification the vote of t4o#thirds of all the 7e7bersof the Court. But ;e9ecutive order; and ;re6ulation;4ere later deleted fro7 the final draft $Arue6o, !he


11/158

4rit of )a*eas corpus on Au6ust +, *1, despite the opposite vie4taen b3 this Court in %arcelona v. %a#er 2@ and Montenegro v.+astañeda, 21insofar as it adhered to the for7er case, 4hich vie4 5e,accordin6l3, abandoned and refused to appl3.


12/158

defend the Constitution to settle it. !his e9plains 4h3, in Miller v.Jo)nson, 2? it 4as held that courts have a ;dut" , rather than a po4er;, todeter7ine 4hether another branch of the 6overn7ent has ;ept it)inconstitutional limits.; Not satisfied 4ith this postulate, the court 4entfarther and stressed that, if the Constitution provides ho4 it 7a3 bea7ended as it is in our *)% Constitution ;then, unless t)e manner is folloed, t)e 6udiciar" as t)e interpreter of t)at constitution, ill declaret)e amendment invalid .; 29 "n fact, this ver3 Court speain6 throu6h2ustice Laurel, an outstandin6 authorit3 on Philippine Constitutional La4,as 4ell as one of the hi6hl3 respected and fore7ost leaders of theConvention that drafted the *)% Constitution declared, as earl3 as2ul3 %, *)0, that ;$i&n t i7es of social dis'uietude or politicale9cite7ent, the 6reat land7ars of the Constitution are apt to be

for6otten or 7arred, if not entirel3 obliterated. "n cases of conflict,the 6udicial depart7ent is the onl" constitutional organ 4hich can becalled upon to deter7ine the proper allocation of po4ers bet4een theseveral depart7ents; of the 6overn7ent. 3@

!he Solicitor (eneral has invoed Lut)er v. %orden 31 in support of hisstand that the issue under consideration is non#=usticiable in nature.Neither the factual bac6round of that case nor the action taen thereinb3 the


13/158

!hen, too, the case of Lut)er v. %orden hin6ed 7ore on the 'uestion ofreco6nition of government , than on reco6nition of constitution, and thereis a funda7ental difference bet4een these t4o $+& t3pes of reco6nition,the first bein6 6enerall3 conceded to be a political 'uestion, 4hereas thenature of the latter depends upon a nu7ber of factors, one of the7 bein64hether the ne4 Constitution has been adopted in the 7annerprescribed in the Constitution in force at the ti7e of the purportedratification of the for7er, 4hich is essentiall" a 6usticia*le'uestion. !here4as, in Lut)er v. %orden, a conflict bet4een to $+& rival 6overn7ents,anta6onistic to each other, 4hich is absent in the present cases. ere,the (overn7ent established under the *)% Constitution is the ver3sa7e 6overn7ent 4hose E9ecutive :epart7ent has ur6ed the adoptionof the ne4 or revised Constitution proposed b3 the *1 Constitutional

Convention and no4 alle6es that it has been ratified b3 the people.

"n short, the vie4s e9pressed b3 the


14/158

. /)at is t)e procedure prescri*ed *" t)e 4;25 +onstitution for itsamendment-

nder section of Art. K of said Constitution, three $)& steps areessential, na7el38

. !hat the a7end7ents to the Constitution be proposed either b3Con6ress or b3 a convention called for that purpose, ;b3 a vote of three#fourths of all the Me7bers of the Senate and the ouse ofRepresentatives votin6 separatel3,; but ;in =oint session asse7bled;@

+. !hat such a7end7ents be ;sub7itted to the people for theirratification; at an ;election;@ and

). !hat such a7end7ents be ;approved b3 a 7a=orit3 of the votes cast;in said election.

Co7pliance 4ith the first re'uire7ent is virtuall3 conceded, althou6h thepetitioners in L#)00 'uestion the authorit3 of the *1 ConstitutionalConvention to incorporate certain provisions into the draft of the ne4 orrevised Constitution. !he 7ain issue in these five $%& cases hin6es,therefore, on 4hether or not the last t4o $+& re'uire7ents have beenco7plied 4ith.

+. as t)e contested draft of t)e ne or revised +onstitution *eensu*mitted to t)e people for t)eir ratification conforma*l" to Art. :V of t)e

+onstitution-

"n this connection, other provisions of the *)% Constitution concernin6;elections; 7ust, also, be taen into account, na7el3, section " of Art. and Art. K of said Constitution. !he for7er reads8

Section . Suffra6e 7a3 be e9ercised b3 7aleciti?ens of the Philippines not other4ise dis'ualifiedb3 la4, 4ho are t4ent3#one 3ears of a6e or over andare able to read and 4rite, and 4ho shall haveresided in the Philippines for one 3ear and in the7unicipalit3 4herein the3 propose to vote for at leastsi9 7onths precedin6 the election. !he National Asse7bl3 shall e9tend the ri6ht of suffra6e to4o7en, if in a plebiscite 4hich shall be held for thatpurpose 4ithin t4o 3ears after the adoption of this

Constitution, not less than three hundred thousand4o7en possessin6 the necessar3 'ualificationsshall vote affir7ativel3 on the 'uestion.

Sections and + of Art. K of the Constitution ordain in part8

Section . !here shall bean independent Co77ission on Elections co7posedof a Chair7an and t4o other Me7bers to beappointed b3 the President 4ith the consent of theCo77ission on Appoint7ents, 4ho shall hold officefor a ter7 of n ine 3ears and 7a3 not be reappointed....

999 999 999

Sec. +. !he Co77ission on Elections shallhave e!clusive char6e of the enforce7ent andad7inistration of all las relative to the conduct ofelections and shall e9ercise all other functions 4hich7a3 be conferred upon it b3 la4. "t shall decide,save those involvin6 the ri6ht tovote, all ad7inistrative 'uestions, affectin6 elections,includin6 the deter7ination of the nu7ber andlocation of pollin6 places, and the appoint7ent ofelection inspectors and of other election officials. Allla enforcement agencies and instrumentalities oft)e Government , 4hen so re'uired b3 theCo77ission, shall act as its deputies for thepurpose of insuring fee, orderl", and )onestelections. !he decisions, orders, and rulin6s of the

Co77ission shall be sub=ect to revie4 *" t)eSupreme +ourt .

999 999 999 39

a. /)o ma" vote in a ple*iscite under Art. V of t)e+onstitution-

Petitioners 7aintain that section of Art. of the Constitution is alimitation upon the e9ercise of the ri6ht of suffra6e. !he3 clai7 that noother persons than ;citi?ens of the Philippines not other4ise dis'ualifie

b3 la4, 4ho are t4ent3#one 3ears of a6e or over and are able to readand 4rite, and 4ho shall have resided in the Philippines for one 3ear anin the 7unicipalit3 4herein the3 propose to vote for at least si9 7onthsprecedin6 the election,; 7a3 e9ercise the ri6ht of suffra6e in thePhilippines. pon the other hand, the Solicitor (eneral contends thatsaid provision 7erel3 guarantees the ri6ht of suffra6e to personspossessin6 the afore7entioned 'ualifications and none of thedis'ualifications, prescribed b3 la4, and that said ri6ht 7a3 be vested bco7petent authorities in persons lac#ing so7e or all of theafore7entioned 'ualifications, and possessing so7e of the aforesaiddis'ualifications. "n support of this vie4, he invoes the per7issivenature of the lan6ua6e ;$s&uffra6e 7a3 be e9ercised; used insection of Art. of the Constitution, and the provisions of the RevisedBarrio Charter, Republic Act No. )%*-, particularl3 sections and 0thereof, providin6 that citi?ens of the Philippines ;ei6hteen 3ears of a6eor over,; 4ho are re6istered in the list of barrio asse7bl3 7e7bers, shabe 7e7bers thereof and 7a3 participate as such in the plebiscites

prescribed in said Act.

" cannot accept the Solicitor (eneralDs theor3. Art. of the Constitutiondeclares )o 7a3 e9ercise the ri6ht of suffra6e, so that those lacin6 t'ualifications therein prescribed 7a3 not e9ercise such ri6ht. !his vie4borne out b3 the records of the Constitutional Convention that drafted t*)% Constitution. "ndeed, section of Art. of the *)% Constitution4as lar6el3 based on the report of the co77ittee on suffra6e of theConvention that drafted said Constitution 4hich report 4as, in turn,;stron6l3 influenced b3 the election la4s then in force in thePhilippines ... .; 4@ ; Said co77ittee had reco77ended8 & ;!hat the ri6of suffra6e should e9ercised onl" b3 7ale citi?ens of the Philippines.; +;!hat should be limited to those 4ho could read and 4rite.; )& ;!hatthe dut" to vote should be 7ade o*ligator" .; "t appears that the firstreco77endation 4as discussed e9tensivel3 in the Convention, and thab3 4a3 of co7pro7ise, it 4as eventuall3 a6reed to include, in section

of Art. of the Constitution, the second sentence thereof i7posin6 upothe National Asse7bl3 established b3 the ori6inal Constitution insteaof the bica7eral Con6ress subse'uentl3 created b3 a7end7ent saidConstitution the dut3 to ;e9tend the ri6ht of suffra6e 4o7en, if in aplebiscite to, be held for that purpose 4ithin t4o 3ears after the adoptioof this Constitution, not less than three hundred thousand 4o7enpossessin6 the necessar3 'ualifications shall vote affir7ativel3 on the'uestion.; 41

!he third reco77endation on ;co7pulsor3; votin6 4as, also debatedupon rather e9tensivel3, after 4hich it 4as re=ected b3 theConvention. 42 !his accounts, in 73 opinion, for the per7issive lan6ua6used in the first sentence of said Art. . :espite so7e debates on thea6e 'ualification a7end7ent havin6 been proposed to reduce thesa7e to / or +-, 4hich 4ere re=ected, and the residence 'ualification,as 4ell as the dis'ualifications to the e9ercise of the ri6ht of suffra6e

the second reco77endation limiting the ri6ht of suffra6e to those 4hocould ;read and 4rite; 4as in the lan6ua6e of :r. 2ose M. Arue6o, oof the :ele6ates to said Convention ; readil" approved in theConvention 4ithout an3 dissentin6 vote,; althou6h there 4as so7edebate on 4hether the


15/158

branch of the (overn7ent to den3 said ri6ht to the sub=ect of the 6rant and, in this sense onl3, 7a3 the sa7e partae of the nature of a6uarantee. But, this does not i7pl3 not even re7otel3, that the


16/158

!he ter7 ;votes cast; ... 4as held in Smit) v.Renville +ount" +ommissioners, 0% N.5. *%0, 0Minn. 0, to have been used as an e'uivalent of;*allots cast.; )6

!he 4ord ;cast; is defined as ;to deposit for7all3 orofficiall3.; )7

"t see7s to us that a vote is cast 4hena *allot is deposited indicatin6 a ;choice.; ... !he4ord ;cast; 7eans ;deposit $a *allot & for7all3 orofficiall3 ... .

... "n si7ple 4ords, 4e 4ould define a ;vote cast; asthe e9ercise on a *allot of the choice of the voter onthe 7easure proposed. )?

"n short, said Art. K envisa6es 4ith the ter7 ;votes cast; choices7ade on *allots not orall3 or b3 raisin6 b3 the persons tain6 partin plebiscites. !his is but natural and lo6ical, for, since the earl3 3ears ofthe A7erican re6i7e, 4e had adopted the Australian Ballot S3ste7, 4ithits 7a=or characteristics, na7el3, uniform official *allots prepared andfurnished b3 the (overn7ent and secrec3 in the votin6, 4ith theadvanta6e of eepin6 records that per7it =udicial in'uir3, 4hennecessar3, into the accurac3 of the election returns. And the *)%Constitution has been consistentl3 interpreted in all plebiscites for theratification re=ection of proposed a7end7ents thereto, fro7 *)% to*01. ence, the viva voce votin6 in the Citi?ensD Asse7blies 4as and isnull and void a* initio.

b. o s)ould t)e ple*iscite *e )eld- B+M&L&+ supervisionindispensa*le> essential re9uisitesC

2ust as essential as co7pliance 4ith said Art. of the * Constitution isthat of Art. K thereof, particularl3 its sections and +. "ndeed, section provides that ;$t&here shall be an independent Co77ission onElections ... .; !he point to be stressed here is the ter7 ;independent.;"ndeed, 4h3 4as the ter7 usedH

"n the absence of said constitutional provision as to the independence ofthe Co77ission, 4ould it have been depends upon either Con6ress orthe 2udiciar3H !he ans4er 7ust be the ne6ative, because the functionsof the Co77ission ;enforce7ent and ad7inistration; of election la4s are neither le6islative nor =udicial in nature, and, hence, be3ond thefield allocated to either Con6ress or courts of =ustice. Said functions areb3 their nature essentiall3 e!ecutive, for 4hich reason, the Co77ission4ould be under the ;control; of the President, pursuant to section -,para6raph $& of Art. "" of the Constitution, if Art. K thereof did note9plicitl3 declare that it $the Co77ission& is an ;independent; bod3. "nother 4ords, in a7endin6 the ori6inal *)% Constitution, b3 insertin6therein said Art. K, on the Co77ission on Elections, the purpose 4as to7ae said Co77ission independent principall" of t)e +)ief &!ecutive.

And the reason therefor is, also, obvious. Prior to the creation of theCo77ission on Elections as a constitutional or6an, election la4s in thePhilippines 4ere enforced b3 the then :epart7ent of the "nterior, throu6hits E9ecutive Bureau, one of the offices under the supervision and controlof said :epart7ent. !he sa7e lie other depart7ents of the E9ecutiveBranch of the (overn7ent 4as, in turn, under the control of the ChiefE9ecutive, before the adoption of the *)% Constitution, and had been until the abolition of said :epart7ent, so7eti7e a6o under the controlof the President of the Philippines, since the effectivit3 of said


17/158

therefor and that if the3 ;could le6all3 dispense 4ith such re'uire7ent ...the3 could 4ith e'ual propriet3 dispense 4ith all of the7, including t)eone t)at t)e vote s)all *e *" secret *allot, or even *" *allotat all ... .;

Moreover, upon the for7al presentation to the E9ecutive of the proposedConstitution drafted b3 the *1 Constitutional Convention, or on:ece7ber , *1+, Presidential :ecree No. 1) $on the validit3 of 4hich 4hich 4as contested in the plebiscite cases, as 4ell as in the*1+ )a*eas corpus cases 66 5e need not, in the case of bar, e9pressan3 opinion& 4as issued, callin6 a plebiscite, to be held on 2anuar3 %,*1), at 4hich the proposed Constitution 4ould be sub7itted to the

people for ratification or re=ection@ directin6 the publication of saidproposed Constitution@ and declarin6, inter alia, that ;$t&he provision ofthe Election Code of *1, insofar as the3 are not inconsistent; 4ith saiddecree e9ceptin6 those ;re6ardin6 ri6ht and obli6ations of politicalparties and candidates; ;s)all appl" to the conduct of the plebiscite.;"ndeed, section + of said Election Code of *1 provides that ;$a&llelections of public officers e9cept barrio officials and ple*iscites shall beconducted in the 7anner provided b3 this Code.; (eneral Order No. +-,dated 2anuar3 1, *1), postponin6 until further notice, ;the plebiscitescheduled to be held on 2anuar3 %, *1),; said nothin6 about theprocedure to be follo4ed in plebiscite to tae place at such notice, andno other order or decree has been brou6ht to Our attention, e9pressl3 ori7pliedl3 repealin6 the provisions of Presidential :ecree 1), insofar assaid procedure is concerned.

pon the other hand, said (eneral Order No. +- e9pressl3 suspended;the provisions of Section ) of Presidential :ecree No. 1) insofar as the3allo4 free public discussion of proposed Constitution ... te7poraril3suspendin6 effects of Procla7ation No. -/ for the purposes of freeopen dabate on the proposed Constitution ... .; !his specific 7ention ofthe portions of the decrees or orders or instructions suspended b3(eneral Order No. +- necessaril3 i7plies that all other portions of saiddecrees, orders or instructions and, hence, the provisions ofPresidential :ecree No. 1) outlinin6 the procedure to be follo4ed in theplebiscite for ratification or re=ection of the proposed Constitution re7ained in force, assu7in6 that said :ecree is valid.

"t is clai7ed that b3 virtue of Presidential :ecree No. /0#A the te9t of4hich is 'uoted belo4 67 the E9ecutive declared, inter alia, that thecollective vie4s e9pressed in the Citi?ensD Asse7blies ;shallbe considered in the for7ulation of national policies or pro6ra7s and,4herever practicable, shall be translated into concrete and specificdecision;@ that such Citi?ensD Asse7blies ;shall consider vital nationalissues ... lie the holdin6 of the plebiscite on the ne4 Constitution ... andothers in the future, 4hich shall serve as guide or *asis for action ordecision b3 the national 6overn7ent;@ and that the Citi?ensD Asse7blies;shall conduct bet4een 2anuar3 - and %, *1), a referendum oni7portant national issues, includin6 those specified in para6raph +hereof, and sub7it the results thereof to the :epart7ent of Local(overn7ents and Co77unit3 :evelop7ent i77ediatel3 thereafter, ... .; As in Presidential :ecree No. /0, this :ecree No. /0#A does not andcannot e9clude the e9ercise of the constitutional supervisor3 po4er ofthe Co77ission on Elections or its participation in the proceedin6s insaid Asse7blies, if the sa7e had been intended to constitute the;election; or Plebiscite re'uired Art. of the *)% Constitution. !heprovision of :ecree No. /0#A directin6 the i77ediate sub7ission of theresult thereof to the :epart7ent of Local (overn7ents Co77unit3:evelop7ent is not necessaril3 inconsistent 4ith, and 7ust besubordinate to the constitutional po4er of the Co77ission on Elections

to e9ercise its ;e9clusive authorit3 over the enforce7ent andad7inistration of all la4s to the conduct of elections,; if the proceedin6sin the Asse7blies 4ould partae of the nature of an ;election; orplebiscite for the ratification or re=ection of the proposed Constitution.

5e are told that Presidential :ecree No. /0 4as further a7ended b3Presidential :ecree No. /0#B, dated *1), orderin6 ;that i7portantnational issues shall fro7 ti7e to t i7e@ be referred to the Baran6a3s$Citi?ens Asse7blies& for resolution in accordance 4ith Presidential:ecree No. /0#A dated 2anuar3 %, *1) and that the initial referendu7include the 7atter of ratification of the Constitution b3 the *1Constitutional Convention; and that ;$t&he Secretar3 of the :epart7ent of Local (overn7ents and Co77unit3 :evelop7ent shall insure thei7ple7entation of this order.; As in the case of Presidential :ecrees Nos./0 and /0#A, the fore6oin6 directives do not necessaril3 e9cludee9ercise of the po4ers vested b3 the *)% Constitution in the

Co77ission on Elections, even if the E9ecutive had the authorit3 torepeal Art. K of our


18/158

-+ ;that the Constitution proposed b3 the nineteen hundred andsevent3#one $*1& Constitutional Convention has been ratified b3 anover4hel7in6 7a=orit3 of all of the votes cast b3 the 7e7bers of all theBaran6a3s $Citi?ens Asse7blies& throu6hout the Philippines and hasthereb3 co7e into effect.;

"n this connection, it is not clai7ed that the Chief E9ecutive had personalno4led6e of the data he certified in said procla7ation. Moreover, Art. Kof the *)% Constitution 4as precisel3 inserted to place *e"ond theE9ecutive the po4er to supervise or even e9ercise an" authorit34hatsoever over ;all la4s relative to the conduct of elections,; and,hence, 4hether the elections are for the choice or selection of public

officers or for the ratification or re=ection of an3 proposed a7end7ent, orrevision of the


19/158

re'uire a ;7a=orit3 of the votes cast ; in an election or plebiscite called for the ratification of an a7end7ent or revision of the first Constitution or theeffectivit3 of the proposed Constitution, and the phrase ;votes cast; hasbeen construed to 7ean ;votes 7ade in 4ritin6 not orall3, as it 4as in7an3 Citi?ensD Asse7blies.7)

Even counsel for (il 2. Pu3at and 2ose Ro3, as respondents in L#)00%,asserts openl3 that Art. K of the Constitution has not been co7plied4ith, and since the alle6ed substantial co7pliance 4ith the re'uire7entsthereof partaes of the nature of a defense set up b3 the otherrespondents in these cases, the burden of provin6 such defense 4hich, if true, should be 4ithin their peculiar no4led6e is clearl3 on

such respondents. Accordin6l3, if despite the e9tensive notes anddocu7ents sub7itted b3 the parties herein, the 7e7bers of the Court donot no4 or are not prepared to sa3 4hether or not the 7a=orit3 of thepeople or of those 4ho too part in the Citi?ensD Asse7blies haveassented to the proposed Constitution, the lo6ical step 4ould be to 6ivedue course to these cases, re'uire the respondents to file their ans4ers,and the plaintiffs their repl3, and, thereafter, to receive the pertinentevidence and then proceed to the deter7ination of the issues raisedthereb3. Other4ise, 4e 4ould be placin6 upon the petitioners the burdenof disprovin6 a defense set up b3 the respondents, 4ho have not sofar established the truth of such defense.

Even 7ore i7portant, and decisive, than the fore6oin6 is thecircu7stance that there is a7ple reason to believe that 7an3, if not 7ost,of the people did not no4 that the Citi?ensD Asse7blies 4ere, at the ti7ethe3 4ere held, plebiscites for the ratification or re=ection of the proposedConstitution. ence, in Our decision in the plebiscite cases, 5esaid, inter alia8

Mean4hile, or on :ece7ber 1, *1+, the Presidenthad issued an order te7poraril3 suspendin6 theeffects of Procla7ation No. -/, for the purpose offree and open debate on the Proposed Constitution.On :ece7ber +), the President announced thepostpone7ent of the plebiscite for the ratification orre=ection of the Proposed Constitution. No for7alaction to this effect 4as taen until 2anuar3 1, *1),4hen (eneral Order No. +- 4as issued, directin6;that the plebiscite scheduled to be held on 2anuar3%, *1), be postponed until further notice.; Said(eneral Order No. +-, 7oreover, ;suspended in the7eanti7e; the ;order of :ece7ber 1, *1+,te7poraril3 suspendin6 the effects of Procla7ationNo. -/ for purposes of free and open debate onthe proposed Constitution.


20/158

"ndeed, " can not, in 6ood conscience, declare that the proposedConstitution has been approved or adopted b3 the people in the citi?ensDasse7blies all over the Philippines, 4hen it is, to 73 7ind, a 7atter of =udicial no4led6e that there have been no such citi?ensD asse7bliesin man" parts of Manila and suburbs, not to sa3, also, in other parts ofthe Philippines. "n a letter of (overnor Efren B. Pascual of Bataan, dated2anuar3 %, *1), to the Chief E9ecutive, the for7er reported8

... !his report includes a resu7ee $sic& of theactivities 4e undertoo in effectin6the referendum on the eleven 'uestions 3ou 4antedour people consulted on and the Su77ar3 of

Results thereof for each 7unicipalit3 and for the4hole province.

999 999 999

... Our initial plans and preparations, ho4ever, dealtonl3 on the ori6inal five 'uestions. Conse'uentl3,4hen e received an instruction on Januar" 47 toc)ange the 'uestions, e urgentl" suspended allsc)eduled +itizens Assem*l" meetings on t)atda" and called all Ma3ors, Chiefs of Offices andother 6overn7ent officials to another conference todiscuss 4ith the7 the ne4 set of 6uidelines and7aterials to be used.

n Januar" 44, ... anot)er instruction from t)e topas received to include the ori6inal five 'uestionsa7on6 those to be discussed and ased in theCiti?ensD Asse7bl3 7eetin6s. 5ith this latestorder,e again )ad to ma#e modifications in ourinstructions to all those 7ana6in6 and supervisin6the holdin6 of the Citi?ensD Asse7bl3 7eetin6sthrou6hout the province. ... Aside fro7 thecoordinators 4e had fro7 the Office of the (overnor,the splendid cooperation and support e9tended b3al7ost all government officials and emplo"ees in theprovince, particularl3 of the :epart7ent ofEducation, PC and PAC: personnel, provided us4ith enou6h hands to trouble shoot and i7ple7entsudden chan6es in the instructions an3ti7e andan34here needed. ...

... As to our people, in 6eneral, their enthusiasticparticipation sho4ed their preference and readinessto accept this ne4 7ethod of 6overn7ent topeople consultation in s)aping up 6overn7entpolicies.

!hus, as late as 2anuar3 -, *1), the Bataan officials hadto suspend ;all scheduled Citi?ensD Asse7bl3 7eetin6s ...; and call allavailable officials ;... to discuss 4ith the7 t)e ne set of guidelines and7aterials to be used ... .; !hen, ;on 2anuar3 ... another instructionfro7 the top 4as received to include the ori6inal five 'uestions a7on6those be discussed and ased in the Citi?ensD Asse7bl3 7eetin6s. 5iththis latest order, 4e a6ain had to 7ae 7odifications in our instructionsto all those 7ana6in6 and supervisin6 holdin6 of the Citi?ensD Asse7bl37eetin6s throu6hout province. ... As to our people, in 6eneral, theirenthusiastic participation sho4ed their preference and readiness toaccept the ne4 7ethod of 6overn7ent to people consultation in s)apingup6overn7ent policies.;

!his co77unication 7anifestl3 sho4s8 & that, as late a 2anuar3 ,*1), the Bataan officials had still to discuss not put into operation 7eans and 4a3s to carr3 out the chan6in6 instructions fro7 the top onho4 to or6ani?e the citi?ensD asse7blies, 4hat to do therein and even4hat 'uestions or topics to propound or touch in said asse7blies@ +& thatthe asse7blies 4ould involve no 7ore than consultations or dialo6uesbet4een people and 6overn7ent not decisions be 7ade *" t)e

people@ and )& that said consultations 4ere ai7ed onl3 at ;shapin6up government policies; and, hence could not, and did not, partae of thenature of a plebiscite for the ratification or re=ection of a proposeda7end7ent of a ne4 or revised Constitution for the latter does not entailthe for7ulation of a polic" of t)e Government , but the 7ain6 of decision

*" t)e people on the ne4 4a3 of life, as a nation, the3 4ish to have, onthe proposed Constitution shall have been ratified.

"f this 4as the situation in Bataan one of the provinces nearest toManila as late as 2anuar3 , *1), one can easil3 i7a6ine thepredica7ent of the local officials and people in the re7ote barrios innorthern and southern Lu?on, in the Bicol re6ion, in the isa3an "slandand Mindanao. "n fact, several 7e7bers of the Court, includin6 those otheir i77ediate fa7ilies and their household, althou6h dul3 re6isteredvoters in the area of (reater Manila, 4ere not even notified that citi?enasse7blies 4ould be held in the places 4here their respectiveresidences 4ere located. "n the Prohibition and A7end7ent

case,

77

attention 4as called to the ;dut" cast upon the court of ta#ing 6udicial cognizance of an3thin6 affectin6 the e9istence and validit3 of anla4 or portion of theConstitution ... .; "n line 4ith its o4n pronounce7ent in another case, th


21/158

Constitution 4ould place under the Supre7e Court, and 4hich thePresident has not ostensibl3 e9ercised, e9cept as to so7e 7inor routine7atters, 4hich the :epart7ent of 2ustice has continued to handle, thisCourt havin6 preferred to 7aintain the status 9uo in connection there4ithpendin6 final deter7ination of these cases, in 4hich the effectivit3 of theafore7entioned Constitution is disputed.

!hen, a6ain, a 6iven depart7ent of the (overn7ent cannot 6enerall3 besaid to have ;reco6ni?ed; its on acts. Reco6nition nor7all3 connotesthe acno4led67ent b3 a part3 of the acts of anot)er . Accordin6l3, 4hena subordinate officer or office of the (overn7ent co7plies 4ith theco77ands of a superior officer or office, under 4hose supervision and

control he or it is, the for7er 7erel3 o*e"s the latter. Strictl3 speain6,and fro7 a le6al and constitutional v ie4point, there is no act ofreco6nition involved therein. "ndeed, the lo4er officer or office, if he or itacted other4ise, 4ould =ust be 6uilt3 of insubordination.

!hus, for instance, the case of Ta"lor v. +ommonealt) ?@ cited b3respondents herein in support of the theor3 of the peopleDs ac'uiescence involved a constitution ordained in *-+ and ;proclai7ed b3 aconvention dul3 called b3 a direct vote of the people of the state to reviseand a7end the Constitution of /0*. !he result of the 4or of thatConvention has been reco6ni?ed, accepted and acted upon asthe onl" valid Constitution of the State; b3

. !he ;(overnor of the State in s4earin6 fidelit3 to it and proclai7in6 it,as directed thereb3;@

+. !he ;Le6islature in its formal official act adoptin6 a 6oint resolution,2ul3 %, *-+, reco6ni?in6 the Constitution ordained b3 theConvention ...;@

). !he ;individual oaths of its 7e7bers to support it, and *" its )aving*een engaged for nearl" a "ear , in le6islatin6 under it and puttin6 itsprovisions intooperation ...;@

. !he ;=udiciar3 in tain6 the oath prescribed thereb3 to support it and b3enforcin6 its provisions ...;@ and

%. !he ;people in their pri7ar3 capacit3 b3 peacefull3 acceptin6 it andac'uiescin6 in it, b3 re6isterin6 as voters under it to the e9tent ofthousands throu6hout the State, and b3 votin6, under its provisions, at a6eneral election for their representatives in the Con6ress of the nitedStates.;

Note that the Ne4 Constitution of ir6inia, drafted b3 a convention 4hose7e7bers 4ere elected directl3 b3 the people, 4as not sub7itted to thepeople for ratification or re=ection thereof. But, it 4as reco6ni?ed, not b3the convention itself, but b3 ot)er sectors of the (overn7ent, na7el3,the (overnor@ the Le6islature not 7erel3 b3 individual acts of its7e7bers, but b3 formal 6oint resolution of its t4o $+& cha7bers@ b3 the =udiciar3@ and b3 the people, in the various 4a3s specified above. 5hat is7ore, there 4as no martial la . "n the present cases, noneof thefore6oin6 acts of ac'uiescence 4as present. 5orse still, there is 7artialla4, the strict enforcement of 4hich 4as announced s)ortl" *efore thealle6ed citi?ensD asse7blies. !o top it all, in the !a3lor case, the effectivit3of the contested a7end7ent 4as not contested =udiciall3 until about oneB4C "ear after the a7end7ent had been put into operation in all branchesof the (overn7ent, and co7plied 4ith b3 the people 4ho participated inthe elections held pursuant to the provisions of the ne4 Constitution. "nthe cases under consideration, the le6alit3 of Presidential :ecree No. 1)callin6 a plebiscite to be held on 2anuar3 %, *1), 4as i7pu6ned asearl3 as :ece7ber 1, *1+, or five $%& 4ees *efore the scheduledplebiscite, 4hereas the validit3 of Procla7ation No. -+ declarin6 on2anuar3 1, *1), that the proposed Constitution had been ratified despite (eneral Order No. +-, issued on 2anuar3 1, *1+, for7all3 andofficiall3 suspendin6 the plebiscite until further notice 4as i7pu6nedas earl3 as 2anuar3 +-, *1), 4hen L#)0+ 4as filed, or t)ree B2Cda"s after the issuance of Procla7ation No. -+.

"t is further alle6ed that a 7a=orit3 of the 7e7bers of our ouse ofRepresentatives and Senate have ac'uiesced in the ne4 or revisedConstitution, b3 filin6 4ritten state7ents optin6 to serve in the Ad "nteri7 Asse7bl3 established in the !ransitor3 Provisions of said Constitution.

"ndividual acts of reco6nition b3 7e7bers of our le6islature, as 4ell as other colle6iate bodies under the 6overn7ent, are invalid as acts of sale6islature or bodies, unless its 7e7bers have perfor7ed said actsin session dul" assem*led , or unless the la4 provides other4ise, andthere is no such la4 in the Philippines. !his is a 4ell#established principof Ad7inistrative La4 and of the La4 of Public Officers, and no plausibreason has been adduced to 4arrant departure therefro7. ?1

"ndeed, if the 7e7bers of Con6ress 4ere 6enerall3 a6reeable to theproposed Constitution, 4h3 did it beco7e necessar3 to padloc itspre7ises to prevent its 7eetin6 in session on 2anuar3 ++, *1), andthereafter as provided in the *)% ConstitutionH "t is true that,

theoreticall3, the 7e7bers of Con6ress, if bent on dischar6in6 theirfunctions under said Constitution, could have 7et in an3 other place, thbuildin6 in 4hich the3 perfor7 their duties bein6 i77aterial to the le6alof their official acts. !he force of this ar6u7ent is, ho4ever, offset ordissipated b3 the fact that, on or about :ece7ber +1, *1+, i77ediateafter a conference bet4een the E9ecutive, on the one hand, and7e7bers of Con6ress, on the other, so7e of 4ho7 e9pressed the 4ishto 7eet in session on 2anuar3 ++, *1), as provided in the *)%Constitution, a :ail3 E9press colu7nist $Pri7itivo Mi=ares& attributed toPresidential Assistant (uiller7o de e6a a state7ent to the effect that;Dcertain 7e7bers of the Senate appear to be 7issin6 the point in issue4hen the3 reportedl3 insisted on ta#ing up first t)e 9uestion of conveni+ongress.; !he :ail3 E9press of that date, ?2 lie4ise, headlined, on itsfront pa6e, a ;Senatorial $lot A6ainst DMartial La4 (overn7entD:isclosed;. !hen, in its issue of :ece7ber +*, *1+, the sa7e paperi7puted to the E9ecutive an appeal ;to diverse 6roups involved ina conspirac" to under7ine; his po4ers; under 7artial la4 to desist from

provo#ing a constitutional crisis ... )ic) ma" result in t)e e!ercise *"me of aut)orit" < )ave not e!ercised .;

No 7atter ho4 6ood the intention behind these state7ent 7a3 havebeen, the idea i7plied therein 4as too clear an ominous for an3 7e7bof Con6ress 4ho thou6ht of or6ani?in6, holdin6 or tain6 part in asession of Con6ress, not to 6et the i7pression that he could hardl3 do 4ithout invitin6 or risin6 the application of Martial La4 to hi7. nderthese conditions, " do not feel =ustified in holdin6 that the failure of the7e7bers of Con6ress to 7eet since 2anuar3 ++, *1), 4as due to thereco6nition, ac'uiescence in or confor7it3 4ith the provisions of theafore7entioned Constitution, or its alle6ed ratification.


22/158

of the (overn7ent, 4h3 should Procla7ation No. -+ 7erit lessconsideration than in enrolled billH

Before ans4erin6 this 'uestion, " 4ould lie to as the follo4in68 "f,instead of bein6 certified b3 the afore7entioned officers of Con6ress, theso#called enrolled bill 4ere certified b3, sa3, the President of the Association of Su6ar Planters andJor Millers of the Philippines, and the7easure in 'uestion 4ere a proposed le6islation concernin6 Su6arPlantations and Mills sponsored b3 said Association, 4hich evenprepared the draft of said le6islation, as 4ell as lobbied actuall3 for itsapproval, for 4hich reason the officers of the Association, particularl3, itsafore7entioned president 4hose honest3 and inte6rit3 are

un'uestionable 4ere present at the deliberations in Con6ress 4henthe sa7e approved the proposed le6islation, 4ould the enrolled bill ruleappl3 theretoH Surel3, the ans4er 4ould have to be in the ne6ative.5h3H Si7pl3, because said Association President has absolutel3 noofficial authorit3 to perfor7 in connection there4ith, and, hence, hiscertification is le6all3, as 6ood as non#e9istent.

Si7ilarl3, a certification, if an3, of the Secretar3 of the :epart7ent ofLocal (overn7ents and Co77unit3 :evelop7ent about the tabulatedresults of the votin6 in the Citi?ens Asse7blies alle6edl3 )eld all over thePhilippines and the records do not sho4 that an3 such certification, tothe President of the Philippines or to the President


23/158

As earlier stated, after the sub7ittal b3 the 7e7bers of the Court of theirindividual opinions andJor concurrences as appended hereto, the 4riter4ill no4 7ae, 4ith the concurrence of his collea6ues, a resu7e orsu77ar3 of the votes cast b3 each of the7.

"t should be stated that b3 virtue of the various approaches and vie4se9pressed durin6 the deliberations, it 4as a6reed to s3nthesi?e the basicissues at bar in broad 6eneral ter7s in five 'uestions for purposes oftain6 the votes. "t 4as further a6reed of course that each 7e7ber of theCourt 4ould e9pound in his individual opinion andJor concurrence hiso4n approach to the stated issues and deal 4ith the7 and state $or not&his opinion thereon sin6l3 or =ointl3 and 4ith such priorit3, 'ualifications

and 7odifications as he 7a3 dee7 proper, as 4ell as discuss thereonother related issues 4hich he 7a3 consider vital and relevant to thecases at bar.

!he five 'uestions thus a6reed upon as reflectin6 the basic issues hereininvolved are the follo4in68

. "s the issue of the validit3 of Procla7ation No. -+ a =usticiable, orpolitical and therefore non#=usticiable, 'uestionH

+. as the Constitution proposed b3 the *1 Constitutional Conventionbeen ratified validl3 $4ith substantial, if not strict, co7pliance&confor7abl3 to the applicable constitutional and statutor3 provisionsH

). as the afore7entioned proposed Constitution ac'uiesced in $4ith or

4ithout valid ratification& b3 the peopleH

. Are petitioners entitled to reliefH and

%. "s the afore7entioned proposed Constitution in forceH

!he results of the votin6, pre7ised on the individual vie4s e9pressed b3the 7e7bers of the Court in their respect opinions andJor concurrences,are as follo4s8

. On the first issue involvin6 the political#'uestion doctrine 2usticesMaalintal, aldivar, Castro,


24/158

ACCOR:"N(L, b3 virtue of the 7a=orit3 of si9 $0& votes of 2usticesMaalintal, Castro, Barredo, Maasiar, Antonio and Es6uerra 4ith thefour $& dissentin6 votes of the Chief 2ustice and 2ustices aldivar,


25/158

entered in full on the =ournals 4as director" , and not 7andator3.!his li*eral vie4 4as approved in State v. 5innett $Neb.& - N. ), -L.R.A. $N.S.& *, and People v. Sours, ) Colo. )0*, Pac. 01, -+ A7.St. Rep. ). But it has not been universall3 accepted.

;"n a#land $aving +o. v. ilton, 0* Cal. 1*, Pac. ), the court, inco77entin6 upon the ansas case said8 D!he reasonin6 b3 4hich thelearned court reached the conclusion it did is not based on an"sound le6al principles, but contrar" to t)em. 'eit)er thear6u7ent nor the conclusion can co77and our assent or approval. !hear6u7ent is illogical , and based on pre7ises 4hich are it)out an"sound foundation, and rests merel" on assumption.D See, also, the 4ell#

considered case of adderl" v. $ortland , Or. /, 1 Pac. 1-, 1%Pac. +++. All these cases concede t)e 6urisdiction of t)e court todeter7ine 4hether, in sub7ittin6 a proposed a7end7ent to the people,the Le6islature legall" o*served t)e constitutional provisions as to t)emanner of procedure. "nLivermore v. /aite, -+ Cal. ), )0 Pac. +,+% L.R.A. )+, the court, at the instance of a citi?en and a ta9pa3er,restrained the Secretar3 of State fro7 tain6 steps to sub7it to thepeople a proposed a7end7ent to the Constitution a6reed to b3 theLe6islature on the 6round that the Le6islature had not acted inconfor7it3 4ith the Constitution and that the proposed a7end7ent 4asof such a character that it could not properl3 beco7e a part of theConstitution. !he Supre7e Court of Colorado, in $eople v. Sours, supra,refused to e9ercise this authorit3.

;!he entire 'uestion received elaborate consideration in oehler v. ill,0- "o4a, %), N.5. 1)/, % N.5. 0-*. !he a7end7ent,4hich concededl" )ad *een adopted *" t)e people, had not, *efore itssu*mission, *een entered in full upon t)e legislative 6ournals, as re'uiredb3 the Constitution, and it 4as held that this 4as amaterial variance inboth for7 and substance fro7 the constitutional re'uire7ents, and thatthe a7end7ent didnot , therefore, beco7e a part of the Constitution. Asto the clai7 that the 'uestion 4as political, and not =udicial, it 4as saidthat, 4hile it is not co7petent for courts to in'uire into the validit3 of theConstitution and the for7 of 6overn7ent under 4hich the3 the7selvese9ist, and fro7 4hich the3 derive their po4ers, 3et, )ere t)e e!isting+onstitution prescri*es a met)od for its on amendment, an amendment t)ereto, to *e valid, must *e adopted in strict conformit" to t)at met)od @and it is the dut" of the courts in a proper case, 4hen an a7end7entdoes not relate to their o4n po4er or functions, to in9uire 4hether, in theadoption of the a7end7ent, t)e provisions of t)e e!isting +onstitution)ave *een o*served , and, if not, to declare t)e amendment invalid andof no force. !his case 4as follo4ed in State v. %roo#)art , ) "o4a, +%-,/ N.5. -0.

;"n @niversit" v. Mc


26/158

authorities, reversed this decision, and held that the 'uestions 4ere of a 6udicial nature, and properl3 deter7inable b3 the court on their 7erits.Mr. 2ustice :i9on, after statin6 the facts, said8 D"t thus beco7es 7anifestthat there 4as present in the Supre7e Court, and is no4 pendin6 in thiscourt, ever3 ele7ent tendin6 to 7aintain =urisdiction over the sub=ect#7atter, unless it be true, as insisted, that the =udicial depart7ent of the6overn7ent has not the ri6ht to consider 4hether the le6islativedepart7ent and its a6encies have observed constitutional in=unctions inatte7ptin6 to a7end the Constitution, and to annul t)eir acts in case t)at t)e" )ave not done so. !hat such a proposition is not true see7s to beindicated b3 the )ole histor3 of =urisprudence in this countr3.D !he court,after considerin6 the case on the 7erits, held that the proper conclusionhad been dra4n therefro7, and that the a7end7ent in 'uestion 4as

le6all3 sub7itted and adopted.

;!he recent case of Rice v. $almer , 1/ Ar. )+, *0 S.5. )*0, presentedthe identical 'uestion 4hich 4e have under consideration. "n reference tothe contention that the Constitution intended to dele6ate to the Speaerof the ouse of Representatives the po4er to deter7ine 4hether ana7end7ent had been adopted, and that the 'uestion 4as political, andnot =udicial, the court observed8 ;!he ar6u7ent has often been 7ade insi7ilar cases to the courts, and it is found in 7an3 dissentin6 opinions@but, 4ith probabl3 a fe e9ceptions, it is not found inan3 prevailing opinion.;

;"n State v. Too#er , % Mont. /, )1 Pac. /-, +% L.R.A. %0-, it 4as heldthat the constitutional re'uire7ent of publication of a proposedconstitutional provision for three 7onths prior to the election at 4hich it isto be sub7itted to the people is mandator" and that noncompliancet)ereit) renders t)e adoption of an amendment of no effect .;

ANNEK B

MALACAAN(

MAN"LA

B !E PRES":EN! O< !E P"L"PP"NES

PRES":EN!"AL :ECREE NO. /0#B

(efining =urt)er t)e Role of %aranga"s B+itizens Assem*liesC

5EREAS, since their creation pursuant to Presidential :ecree No. /0dated :ece7ber ), *1+, the Baran6a3s $Citi?ens Asse7blies& havepetitioned the Office of the President to sub7it to the7 for resolutioni7portant national issues@

5EREAS, one of the 'uestions persistentl3 7ention refers to theratification of the Constitution proposed b3 the *1 ConstitutionalConvention@

5EREAS, on the basis of the said petitions, it is evident that the peoplebelieve that the sub7ission of the proposed Constitution to the Citi?ens Asse7blies or Baran6a3s should taen as a plebiscite in itself in vie4 ofthe fact that freedo7 of debate has al4a3s been li7ited to the leadershipin political, econo7ic and social fields, and that it is no4 necessar3 to

brin6 this do4n to the level of the people the7selves throu6h theBaran6a3s or Citi?ens Asse7blies@

NO5, !ERE


27/158

and 4ith specific reference to the ter7 ;plebiscites,; the provision of Article K re6ardin6 ratification of constitutional a7end7ents.

!he 7anner of conductin6 elections and plebiscites provided b3 theCode is spelled out in other sections thereof. Section ** re'uires that'ualified voters be re6istered in a per7anent list, the 'ualifications bein6those set forth in Article , Section , of the *)% Constitution on thebasis of a6e $+&, literac3 and residence. !hese 'ualifications arereiterated in Section - of the Election Code. Section -+ enu7eratesthe classes of persons dis'ualified to vote. Succeedin6 sectionsprescribe the election paraphernalia to be used, the procedure forre6isterin6 voters, the records, of re6istration and the custod3 thereof,

the description and printin6 of official ballots, the actual castin6 of votesand their subse'uent countin6 b3 the boards of inspectors, the rules forappreciation of ballots, and then the canvass and procla7ation of theresults.

5ith specific reference to the ratification of the *1+ draft Constitution,several additional circu7stances should be considered8

$& !his draft 4as prepared and approved b3 a Convention 4hich hadbeen convened pursuant to Resolution No. + passed b3 Con6ress onMarch 0, *01, 4hich provides8

Sec. 1. !he a7end7ents proposed b3 theConvention shall be valid and considered part of theConstitution 4hen approved b3 a 7a=orit3 ofthe votes cast in an election at 4hich the3 aresub7itted to the people for their ratification pursuantto Article K of the Constitution.

$+& Article K"", Section 0, of the draft itself states8

Sec. 0. !his Constitution shall tae effecti77ediatel3 upon its ratification b3 a 7a=orit3 of thevotes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose and,e9cept as herein provided, shall supersede theConstitution of nineteen hundred and thirt3#five andall a7end7ents thereto.

!he sa7e procedure is prescribed in Article K", Section +, for theratification of an3 future a7end7ent to or revision of the saidConstitution.

$)& After the draft Constitution 4as approved b3 the ConstitutionalConvention on Nove7ber )-, *1+ the said bod3 adopted ResolutionNo. %/), proposin6 ;to President


28/158

$%& "f the elections 4ould not be held, 4hen do 3ou4ant the ne9t elections to be calledH

$0& :o 3ou 4ant 7artial la4 to continueH FBulletin!oda3, 2anuar3 , *1)@ e7phasis suppliedG.

Appended to the si9 additional 'uestions above 'uoted 4ere thesu66ested ans4ers, thus8

COMMEN!S ON

IES!"ON No.

"n order to broaden the base ofciti?ensD participation in6overn7ent.

IES!"ON No. +

But 4e do not 4ant the Ad"nteri7 Asse7bl3 to beconvoed. Or if it is to beconvened at all, it should not bedone so until after at leastseven $1& 3ears fro7 theapproval of the Ne4

Constitution b3 the Citi?ens Asse7blies.

IES!"ON No. )

"f the Citi?ens Asse7bliesapprove of the Ne4Constitution, then the ne4Constitution should be dee7edratified.

!he vote of the Citi?ens Asse7blies should alread3 beconsidered the plebiscite on theNe4 Constitution.

IES!"ON No.

5e are sic and tired of toofre'uent elections. 5e are fedup 4ith politics, of so 7an3debates and so 7uche9penses.

IES!"ON No. %

Probabl3 a period of at leastseven $1& 3ears 7oratoriu7 onelections 4ill be enou6h forstabilit3 to be established in thecountr3, for refor7s to tae rootand nor7alc3 to return.

IES!"ON No. 0

5e 4ant President Marcos tocontinue 4ith Martial La4. 5e4ant hi7 to e9ercise his po4ers4ith 7ore authorit3. 5e 4anthi7 to be stron6 and fir7 so thathe can acco7plish all his refor7pro6ra7 and establish nor7alc3in the countr3. "f all other7easures fail, 4e 4antPresident Marcos to declare a

revolutionar3 6overn7ent alonthe lines of the ne4 Constitutio4ithout the ad interi7 Asse7b

So it 4as that on 2anuar3 , *1), the second da3 of the purportedreferendu7, the su66estion 4as broached, for the first ti7e, that theplebiscite should be done a4a3 4ith and a favorable vote b3 the Asse7blies dee7ed e'uivalent ratification. !his 4as done, not in the'uestionnaire itself, but in the su66ested ans4er to 'uestion No. ).Stran6el3, ho4ever, it 4as not si7ilarl3 su66ested that an unfavorablevote be considered as re=ection.

!here should be no serious dispute as to the fact that the 7anner in4hich the votin6 4as conducted in the Citi?en Asse7blies, assu7in6 thsuch votin6 4as held, 4as not 4ithin the intend7ent of Article K,Section , of the *)% Constitution nor in accordance 4ith the ElectionCode of *1. !he referendu7 can b3 no 7eans be considered as theplebiscite conte7plated in Section + of said Code and in Article K"",Section 0, of the draft Constitution itself, or as the election intended b3Con6ress 4hen it passed Resolution No. + on March 0, *01 callin6 aConvention for the revision of the *)% Constitution. !he Citi?ens Asse7blies 4ere not li7ited to 'ualified, let alone re6istered voters, buincluded all citi?ens fro7 the a6e of f ifteen, and re6ardless of 4hether onot the3 4ere illiterates, feeble#7inded, or e9 convicts these bein6the classes of persons e9pressl3 dis'ualified fro7 votin6 b3 Section -of the Election Code. "n short, the constitutional and statutor3'ualifications 4ere not considered in the deter7ination of 4ho shouldparticipate. No official ballots 4ere used in the votin6@ it 4as done 7ostb3 accla7ation or open sho4 of hands. Secrec3, 4hich is one of theessential features of the election process, 4as not therefore observed.No set of rules for countin6 the votes or of tabulatin6 the7 and reportinthe fi6ures 4as prescribed or follo4ed. !he Co77ission on Elections,4hich is the constitutional bod3 char6ed 4ith the enforce7ent andad7inistration of all la4s relative to the conduct of elections, too no paat all, either b3 4a3 of supervision or in the assess7ent of the results.

"t has been su66ested that since accordin6 to Procla7ation No. -+ tover4hel7in6 7a=orit3 of all the 7e7bers of the Citi?ens Asse7blies hvoted for the adoption of the proposed Constitution there 4as asubstantial co7pliance 4ith Article K, Section , of the *)%Constitution and 4ith the Election Code of *1. !he su66estion 7issethe point entirel3. "t is of the essence of a valid e9ercise of the ri6ht ofsuffra6e that not onl3 7ust a 7a=orit3 or pluralit3 of the voters carr3 theda3 but that the sa7e 7ust be dul3 ascertained in accordance 4ith theprocedure prescribed b3 la4. "n other 4ords the ver3 e9istence of such7a=orit3 or pluralit3 depends upon the 7anner of its ascertain7ent, andto conclude that it e9ists even if it has not been ascertained accordin6 tla4 is si7pl3 to be6 the issue, or to assu7e the ver3 fact to beestablished. Other4ise no election or plebiscite could be 'uestioned fonon#co7pliance 4ith the provisions of the Election La4 as lon6 as it iscertified that a 7a=orit3 of the citi?ens had voted favorabl3 or adversel3on 4hatever it 4as that 4as sub7itted to the7 to vote upon.

o4ever, a findin6 that the ratification of the draft Constitution b3 theCiti?ens Asse7blies, as certified b3 the President in Procla7ation No.-+, 4as not in accordance 4ith the constitutional and statutor3procedure laid do4n for the purpose does not 'uite resolve the 'uestioraised in these cases. Such a findin6, in our opinion, is on a 7atter 4hiis essentiall3 =usticiable, that is, 4ithin the po4er of this Court to in'uireinto. "t i7ports nothin6 7ore than a si7ple readin6 and application of thpertinent provisions of the *)% Constitution, of the Election Code and other related la4s and official acts. No 'uestion of 4isdo7 or of polic3 involved. But fro7 this findin6 i t does not necessaril3 follo4 that thisCourt 7a3 =ustifiabl3 declare that the Constitution has not beco7eeffective, and for that reason 6ive due course to these petitions or 6ranthe 4rits herein pra3ed for. !he effectivit3 of the said Constitution, in thefinal anal3sis, is the basic and ulti7ate 'uestion posed b3 these casesto resolve 4hich considerations other than =udicial, and therefore be3onthe co7petence of this Court, are relevant and unavoidable.

Several theories have been advanced respectivel3 b3 the parties. !hepetitioners la3 stress on the invalidit3 of the ratification process adoptedb3 the Citi?ens Asse7blies and on that pre7ise 4ould have this Court6rant the reliefs the3 see. !he respondents represented b3 the Solicito(eneral, 4hose theor3 7a3 be taen as the official position of the(overn7ent, challen6e the =urisdiction of this Court on the 6round thatthe 'uestions raised in the petitions are political and therefore non#


29/158

=usticiable, and that in an3 case popular ac'uiescence in the ne4Constitution and the prospect of unsettlin6 acts done in reliance thereonshould caution a6ainst interposition of the po4er of =udicial revie4.Respondents (il 2. Pu3at and 2ose Ro3 $in L#)00%&, in their respectivecapacities as President and President Pro !e7pore of the Senate of thePhilippines, and throu6h their counsel, Senator Arturo !olentino, lie4iseinvoe the political 'uestion doctrine, but on a 6round not concurred inb3 the Solicitor (eneral, na7el3, that approval of the *1) Constitutionb3 the people 4as 7ade under a revolutionar3 6overn7ent, in the courseof a successful political revolution, 4hich 4as converted b3 act of thepeople to the present de 6ure 6overn7ent under the *1) Constitution.;

eretofore, constitutional disputes 4hich have co7e before this Court for ad=udication proceeded on the assu7ption, conceded b3 all, that theConstitution 4as in full force and effect, 4ith the po4er and authorit3 ofthe entire (overn7ent behind it@ and the tas of this Court 4as si7pl3 todeter7ine 4hether or not the particular act or statute that 4as bein6challen6ed contravened so7e rule or 7andate of that Constitution. !heprocess e7plo3ed 4as one of interpretation and s3nthesis. "n the casesat bar there is no such assu7ption8 the Constitution $*)%& has beendero6ated and its continued e9istence as 4ell as the validit3 of the act ofdero6ation is issue. !he le6al proble7 posed b3 the situation isa66ravated b3 the fact that the political ar7s of the (overn7ent theE9ecutive :epart7ents and the t4o ouses of Con6ress haveaccepted the ne4 Constitution as effective8 the for7er b3 or6ani?in6the7selves and dischar6in6 their functions under it, and the latter b3 notconvenin6 on 2anuar3 ++, *1) or at an3 ti7e thereafter, as ordained b3the *)% Constitution, and in the case of a 7a=orit3 of the 7e7bers b3e9pressin6 their option to serve in the "nteri7 National Asse7bl3 in

accordance 4ith Article K""", Section +, of the *1) Constitution.

!he theor3 advanced b3 Senator !olentino, as counsel for respondentsPu3at and Ro3, 7a3 be taen up and restated at sa7e len6th if onl3because it 4ould constitute, if sustained, the 7ost convenient 6round forthe invocation of the political#'uestion doctrine. "n support of his theor3,Senator !olentino contends that after President Marcos declared 7artialla4 on Septe7ber +, *1+ $Procla7ation No. -/& he established arevolutionar3 6overn7ent 4hen he issued (eneral Order No. the ne9tda3, 4herein he proclai7ed ;that " shall 6overn the nation and direct theoperation of the entire 6overn7ent, includin6 all its a6encies andinstru7entalities, in 73 capacit3, and shall e9ercise all the po4ers andprero6atives appurtenant and incident to 73 position as suchCo77ander#in#Chief of all the Ar7ed


30/158

"n positin6 the proble7 4ithin an identifiable fra7e of reference 4e findno need to consider 4hether or not the re6i7e established b3 PresidentMarcos since he declared 7artial la4 and under 4hich the ne4Constitution 4as sub7itted to the Citi?ens Asse7blies 4as arevolutionar3 one. !he pivotal 'uestion is rather 4hether or not theeffectivit3 of the said Constitution b3 virtue of Presidential Procla7ationNo. -+, upon the reco77endation of the atipunan ng mga %aranga" ,4as intended to be definite and irrevocable, re6ardless of non#co7pliance 4ith the pertinent constitutional and statutor3 provisionsprescribin6 the procedure for ratification. 5e 7ust confess that afterconsiderin6 all the available evidence and all the relevant circu7stances4e have found no reasonabl3 reliable ans4er to the 'uestion. On onehand 4e read, for instance, the follo4in6 public state7ents of the

President8

Speain6 about the procla7ation of 7artial la4, he said8

" reiterate 4hat " have said in the past8 there is noturnin6 bac for our people.

5e have co77itted ourselves to this revolution. 5ehave pled6ed to it our future, our fortunes, our lives,our destin3. 5e have burned our brid6es behind us.Let no 7an 7isunderstand the stren6th of ourresolution. $A Report to the Nation, 2an. 1, *1).&

On the occasion of the si6nin6 of Procla7ation No. -+ on 2anuar3 1,*1), the President said the follo4in6, a7on6 other thin6s8

... 5e can, perhaps deli7it the po4er of the peopleto spea on le6al 7atters, on =usticiable 7atters, on7atters that 7a3 co7e before the e9perts andinterpreters of the la4. But 4e cannot dis'ualif3 thepeople fro7 speain6 on 4hat 4e and the peopleconsider purel3 political 7atters especiall3 those thataffect the funda7ental la4 of the land.

... !he political 'uestions that 4ere presented to thepeople are e9actl3 those that refer to the for7 of6overn7ent 4hich the people 4ant ... !hei7plications of disre6ardin6 the peopleDs 4ill are tooa4eso7e to be even considered.


31/158

run into critical proble7s 4ith3our pro6ra7sH

R. " have never 6otten off theconstitutional trac. Ever3thin6 "a7 doin6 is in accordance 4iththe *)% Constitution. !he onl3thin6 is that instead of /#3ear#olds votin6, 4e have allo4ed%#3ear#olds the ri6ht to vote.But the %#3ear#olds of toda3are hi6h#school students, if not

6raduates, and the3 are betterinfor7ed than 73conte7poraries at that a6e. Onthe 7atter of 4hether it isconstitutional to proclai7 7artialla4, it is constitutional becausethe Constitution provides for it inthe event of invasion,insurrection, rebellion ori77ediate dan6er thereof. 5e7a3 'uarrel about 4hether 4hat4e have 6one throu6h issufficient cause to proclai77artial la4 but at the ver3 leastthere is a dan6er of rebellionbecause so 7an3 of oursoldiers have been illed. ou

7ust re7e7ber this $7artial la4provision& 4as lifted fro7 the A7erican le6islation that 4asthe funda7ental la4 of ourcountr3.

999 999 999

"n the li6ht of this see7in6 a7bivalence, the choice of 4hat course ofaction to pursue belon6s to the President. 5e have earlier 7adereference to sub=ective factors on 4hich this Court, to our 7ind, is in noposition to pass =ud67ent. A7on6 the7 is the PresidentDs o4nassess7ent of the 4ill of the people as e9pressed throu6h the Citi?ens Asse7blies and of the i7portance of the *1) Constitution to thesuccessful i7ple7entation of the social and econo7ic refor7s he hasstarted or envisioned. "f he should decide that there is no turnin6 bac,that 4hat the people reco77ended throu6h the Citi?ens Asse7blies, asthe3 4ere reported to hi7, de7and that the action he too pursuantthereto be final and irrevocable, then =udicial revie4 is out of the'uestion.

"n articulatin6 our vie4 that the procedure of ratification that 4as follo4ed4as not in accordance 4ith the *)% Constitution and related statutes,4e have dischar6ed our s4orn dut3 as 4e conceive it to be. !hePresident should no4 perhaps decide, if he has not alread3 decided,4hether adherence to such procedure is 4ei6ht3 enou6h aconsideration, if onl3 to dispel an3 cloud of doubt that 7a3 no4 and inthe future shroud the nationDs Charter.

"n the deliberations of this Court one of the issues for7ulated forresolution is 4hether or not the ne4 Constitution, since its sub7ission to

the Citi?ens Asse7blies, has found acceptance a7on6 the people, suchissue bein6 related to the political 'uestion theor3 propounded b3 therespondents. 5e have not tarried on the point at all since 4e find noreliable basis on 4hich to for7 a =ud67ent. nder a re6i7e of 7artialla4, 4ith the free e9pression of opinions throu6h the usual 7ediavehicles restricted, 4e have no 7eans of no4in6, to the point of =udicialcertaint3, 4hether the people have accepted the Constitution. "n an3event, 4e do not find the issue decisive insofar as our vote in thesecases is concerned. !o interpret the Constitution that is =udicial. !hatthe Constitution should be dee7ed in effect because of popularac'uiescence that is political, and therefore be3ond the do7ain of =udicial revie4.

5e therefore vote not to 6ive due course to the instant petitions.

(ARRE%O, J., concurrin68

As far as " a7 concerned, " re6ard the present petitions as no 7ore tha7ere reiterations of the Supple7ental Petitions f iled b3 Counsel Loren?M. !a>ada on 2anuar3 %, *1) in the so called Plebiscite Casesdecided b3 this Court on 2anuar3 ++, *1/. Of course, there area7plifications of so7e of the 6rounds previousl3 alle6ed and in thecourse of the unprecedented five#da3 hearin6 that 4as held fro7


32/158

instead of 7ere specific a7end7ents of particular portions of theConstitution of *)%. Needless to sa3, before 7artial la4 4as declared,there 4as full and unli7ited covera6e of the 4orin6s in the conventionb3 the 7ass 7edia. At the sa7e ti7e, public debates and discussions onvarious aspects of proposed a7end7ents 4ere not unco77on.

Earlier, on Nove7ber ++, *1+, the Convention had Resolution No. %/)proposin6 ;to President


33/158

NO5 !ERE


34/158

5EREAS, the said Citi?ens Asse7blies 4ereestablish precisel3 to broaden the base of citi?enparticipation in the de7ocratic process and to afforda7ple opportunit3 for the citi?en to e9press theirvie4s on i7portant national issues@

5EREAS, respondin6 to the cla7or of the peoplean pursuant to Presidential :ecree No. /0#A, dated2anuar3 %, *1), the follo4in6 'uestions 4ere posedbefore Citi?ensD Asse7blies or Baran6a3s8 :o 3ouapprove of the Ne4 ConstitutionH :o 3ou still 4ant aplebiscite to be called to ratif3 the ne4 ConstitutionH

5EREAS, fourteen 7illion nine hundred sevent3#si9 thousand five hundred si9t3 one $,*10,%0&7e7bers of all the Baran6a3s $Citi?ens Asse7blies&voted for the adoption of the proposed Constitution,as a6ainst seven hundred fort3#three thousand ei6hthundred si9t3 nine $1),/0*& 4ho voted for itsre=ection@ 4hile on the 'uestion as to 4hether or notthe people 4ould still lie a plebiscite to be called toratif3 the ne4 Constitution fourteen 7illion t4ohundred ninet3#ei6ht thousand ei6ht hundredfourteen $,+*/,/& ans4ered that there 4as noneed for plebiscite and that the vote of theBaran6a3s $Citi?ens Asse7blies& should beconsidered as a vote in a plebiscite@

5EREAS, since the referendu7 results sho4 that7ore than ninet3#five $*%& percent of the 7e7bers of the Baran6a3s $Citi?en Asse7blies& are in favor ofthe Ne4 Constitution, the atipunan n6 M6aBaran6a3 has stron6l3 reco77ended that the ne4Constitution should alread3 be dee7ed ratified b3the


35/158

the i7ple7entation or enforce7ent of the ne4 Constitution no4 bein6done could continue.

Be that as it 7a3, " a7 a6ainst leavin6 such an i7portant point open tospeculation. B3 nature " a7 averse to a7bi6uit3 and e'uivocation and asa 7e7ber of the Supre7e Court, last thin6 " should no4in6l3countenance is uncertaint3 as to the =uridical si6nificance of an3 decisionof the Court 4hich is precisel3 bein6 looed upon as the haven in 4hichdoubts are supposed to be authoritativel3 dispelled. Besides, fro7 ver3nature of thin6s, one thin6 is indubitabl3 be3ond dispute 4e cannotact in both capacities of a %#7an and an #7an Court at the sa7eti7e, in lie 7anner that it is inconceivable that the *)% and *1)

Constitution can be considered b3 s both in force. Our inescapable dut3is to 7ae a choice bet4een the7, accordin6 to 4hat la4 and otherconsiderations inherent to our function dictate. " cannot bear the thou6htthat so7eone 7a3 so7eda3 sa3 that the Supre7e Court of thePhilippines once decided a case 4ithout no4in6 the basis of i ts authorto act or that i t 4as ever 4antin6 in =udicial coura6e to define the sa7e.

Accordin6l3, 4ith full consciousness of 73 li7itations but co7pelled b373 sense of dut3 and propriet3 to strai6hten out this 6rave of issuetouchin6 on the capacit3 in 4hich the Court actin6 in these cases, " holdthat 4e have no alternative but adopt in the present situation theorthodo9 rule that 4hen validit3 of an act or la4 is challen6ed as bein6repu6nant constitutional 7andate, the sa7e is allo4ed to have effectuntil the Supre7e Court rules that it is unconstitutional. Stated differentl3,5e have to proceed on the assu7ption that the ne4 Constitution is inforce and that 5e are actin6 in these cases as the %#7an Supre7eCourt provided for there Contrar3 to counselDs contention, there is hereno pre=ud67ent for or a6ainst an3 of the t4o constitutions. !he truth of7atter is si7pl3 that in the nor7al and lo6ical conduct 6overn7entalactivities, it is neither practical nor 4ise to defer the course of an3 actionu

ConstiLaw_Javellana v Executive Sec

Documents

Transcript of ConstiLaw_Javellana v Executive Sec