Javellana v. Executive Secretary
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The cases stemmed from the 1971 Constitutional Convention's proposal of a new Constitution. Presidential Decree No. 73 called for a plebiscite on January 15, 1973. Several petitions were filed challenging the validity of this decree and the plebiscite, citing lack of freedom of speech, press, and assembly due to Martial Law, and insufficient time to inform the public. The plebiscite was postponed. Subsequently, Presidential Decree No. 86 organized Citizens' Assemblies to consult the people on various issues, including the proposed Constitution. Proclamation No. 1102, issued on January 17, 1973, announced the ratification of the proposed Constitution based on the results from these Citizens' Assemblies. Procedural History: The initial 'plebiscite cases' were dismissed as moot and academic due to Proclamation No. 1102. The present five cases (G.R. Nos. L-36142, L-36164, L-36165, L-36236, L-36283) were filed challenging the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 and the implementation of the proposed Constitution. Respondents argued that the issues were political and non-justiciable, and that there was substantial compliance with constitutional requirements. The Court extensively heard arguments and deliberated. The Petition: Petitioners sought to restrain the implementation of the proposed Constitution, arguing that its ratification through Citizens' Assemblies was unconstitutional, that the assemblies lacked the power to approve the Constitution, that the President had no power to proclaim ratification, and that the process was not a free election. They contended that the 1935 Constitution remained in force.
Issue(s)
Whether the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 is justiciable or a political question. Whether the proposed Constitution was validly ratified conformably to Article XV of the 1935 Constitution. Whether the proposed Constitution was acquiesced in by the people. Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief. Whether the proposed Constitution is in force.
Ruling
The Supreme Court, by a majority vote of six (6) Justices (Makalintal, Castro, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, and Esguerra) with four (4) dissenting votes (Chief Justice Concepcion, Justices Zaldivar, Fernando, and Teehankee), dismissed the petitions. Consequently, there was no judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Justiciability of Proclamation No. 1102: Six members of the Court (Justices Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, and the writer) held that the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 presents a justiciable and non-political question. They asserted that the Court has a duty to determine the limitations placed by law upon official action and to ensure that no branch of government exceeds its constitutional authority. This position rejected the respondents' main defense that the issue was political and therefore beyond judicial review. The Court emphasized that the process of amending or ratifying a constitution is inherently a legal question, not a matter of policy or political discretion. On the Validity of Ratification: Six members of the Court (Justices Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, and the writer) concluded that the proposed Constitution was not validly ratified in accordance with Article XV, Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution. This provision requires ratification in an election or plebiscite participated in only by qualified and duly registered voters. The Court found that the Citizens' Assemblies did not meet these requirements, particularly regarding voter qualifications (age, literacy) and the secrecy of the ballot. Justice Barredo, while acknowledging shortcomings, voted for substantial compliance in a political sense. Justices Makasiar, Antonio, and Esguerra, however, voted that there was substantial compliance. On Acquiescence by the People: The Court was divided on whether the people had acquiesced in the proposed Constitution. Four members (Justices Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra) believed the people had accepted it. Two members (Justice Zaldivar and the writer) held that under Martial Law, there could be no free expression of acceptance or repudiation. Three members (Justices Makalintal, Castro, Teehankee) stated they had no means to know with judicial certainty whether the people had accepted it due to restrictions on free expression under Martial Law. Justice Fernando expressed reservations about applying the doctrine of acquiescence given the circumstances. On Entitlement to Relief: Six members of the Court (Justices Makalintal, Castro, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra) voted to dismiss the petitions. Their reasoning often cited the political nature of the issue, the existence of substantial interests under the new Constitution, or the lack of judicial competence to resolve the ultimate question of effectivity. Four members (Justices Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, and the writer) voted to deny the motion to dismiss and give due course to the petitions. On Whether the Constitution is in Force: Four members (Justices Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra) held that the Constitution was in force due to the people's acceptance. Four members (Justices Makalintal, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee) abstained from voting on this issue due to their inability to ascertain the people's acceptance with judicial certainty. Two members (Justice Zaldivar and the writer) voted that the Constitution was not in force. With no majority vote to declare it not in force, the dismissal of the petitions by the majority effectively allowed it to be considered in force.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court, by a majority vote, dismissed the petitions challenging the validity of Proclamation No. 1102, which announced the ratification of the proposed Constitution by the Filipino people through Citizens' Assemblies. The dismissal was based on various grounds, including mootness, political question doctrine, and substantial compliance, leading to the recognition of the new Constitution as being in force.