Planas v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Congress passed Resolution No. 2, amended by Resolution No. 4, calling for a Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. This was implemented by Republic Act No. 6132, leading to the election of delegates and the commencement of the 1971 Constitutional Convention's work. On September 21, 1972, the President declared Martial Law via Proclamation No. 1081. On November 29, 1972, the Convention approved a Proposed Constitution. The President then issued Presidential Decree No. 73 on November 30, 1972, submitting the Proposed Constitution to a plebiscite scheduled for January 15, 1973. Procedural History: Multiple petitions were filed before the Supreme Court seeking to enjoin the implementation of Presidential Decree No. 73, arguing that the President lacked the authority to call a plebiscite and appropriate funds, and that there was insufficient freedom for public debate. The Court heard these cases and received notes from the parties. Subsequently, the President issued an order temporarily suspending the effects of Proclamation No. 1081 for free debate, then postponed the plebiscite via General Order No. 20. The Court deferred its decision. Later, petitioners filed urgent motions and supplemental motions, highlighting the President's issuance of Presidential Decree No. 86 organizing Citizens Assemblies and the subsequent questions posed to these assemblies, including one on approving the New Constitution. Petitioners feared this would create a fait accompli and render the Court's decision moot. On January 17, 1973, while a hearing was ongoing, the Court was informed that the President had signed Proclamation No. 1102, announcing the ratification of the Proposed Constitution by the Filipino people through the Citizens Assemblies. The Petition: The consolidated petitions challenged the validity of Presidential Decree No. 73, the authority of the President to call a plebiscite, the legality of the submission of the Proposed Constitution to the Filipino people, and the validity of the ratification process, particularly concerning the use of Citizens Assemblies and the impact of Martial Law.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court has the authority to pass upon the validity of Presidential Decree No. 73. Whether the 1971 Constitutional Convention exceeded its authority in approving certain sections of the proposed Constitution. Whether the President has the authority to issue Presidential Decree No. 73, calling for a plebiscite and appropriating funds. Whether the proclamation of Martial Law affects the validity of a submission to the people for ratification of constitutional amendments. Whether Proclamation No. 1102, announcing the ratification of the proposed Constitution, is valid. Whether the cases should be dismissed as moot and academic.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed all the consolidated cases. The Court unanimously agreed that the issue of the legality of Presidential Decree No. 73 was justiciable. However, a majority of the Justices deemed the issues concerning the validity of Presidential Decree No. 73 and the authority of the Constitutional Convention to be moot and academic. The Court also held that the question of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 was not properly raised before it. Consequently, all cases were dismissed without special pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Justiciability of Presidential Decree No. 73: The Court was unanimous in holding that the issue concerning the legality of Presidential Decree No. 73 is justiciable, rejecting the Solicitor General's contention that it was a political question. The Court reasoned that since the decree purports to have the force and effect of legislation, its validity is a matter that falls within the Court's power of judicial review, as expressly provided for in the Constitution. On the Validity of Presidential Decree No. 73 and the Authority of the Constitutional Convention: A majority of the Justices opined that the issues concerning the validity of Presidential Decree No. 73 and the authority of the 1971 Constitutional Convention to approve the proposed Constitution had become moot and academic. This was due to subsequent events, including the postponement of the plebiscite and the issuance of Proclamation No. 1102, which declared the ratification of the proposed Constitution. The Court found that the original challenges were overtaken by these developments, rendering a decision on the merits unnecessary. On the Authority of the 1971 Constitutional Convention: While a majority found the issue moot, several Justices voted to uphold the authority of the Convention to propose amendments, including the contested provisions. They reasoned that the Convention exercised sovereign powers delegated by the people and that any proposals would still require ratification by the people as per the Constitution. On the Impact of Martial Law on Plebiscite Validity: The Court considered the question of whether Martial Law affected the freedom essential for a valid plebiscite. Some Justices believed there was a repugnancy between the requirements of a free election and the existence of Martial Law, while others felt that Martial Law per se did not preclude the factual possibility of adequate freedom for such purposes and that the issue involved factual determinations not yet ripe for adjudication. On Proclamation No. 1102: A majority of the Justices were of the opinion that the question of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 had not been properly raised before the Court. Therefore, the Court should not pass upon such a question. This meant that the subsequent declaration of ratification through Citizens Assemblies was not directly reviewed on its merits in these proceedings. On Dismissal of Cases: The Court, by a majority vote, dismissed all the cases. This dismissal was based on the findings that the issues had become moot and academic, and that certain questions, particularly regarding Proclamation No. 1102, were not properly before the Court. Some Justices, however, voted to grant petitioners a period to file appropriate pleadings to contest Proclamation No. 1102, but this was ultimately not the prevailing decision.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court dismissed all cases challenging Presidential Decree No. 73 and the subsequent ratification process of the proposed Constitution, primarily on the grounds that the issues had become moot and academic due to subsequent events, including the issuance of Proclamation No. 1102, and that certain issues were not properly raised before the Court.