G.R. No. L-36142 March 31, 1973
JOSUE JAVELLANA, petitioner,
vs.
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AND THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, respondents.
+ 4 ratification cases.
PLEBISCITE CASES
ANTECEDENT CASES:
1. Marcos issued P.D. no. 73 submitting to the Fillipino people for ratification or rejection the proposed Constitution or for them to have a plebiscite.
2. Petitioners argued:
2.1. Calling of plebiscite is exclusively lodge in Congress;
2.2. No proper submission "there being no freedom of speech, press, and assembly, and there being no sufficient time to inform the people of the contents thereof.
3. While the case was pending before the Supreme Court, Presidential Proclamation No.1102 was issued announcing the "ratification by the Filipino people" of the proposed 1973 Constitution.
RULING:
1) P.D. No. 73 was voted against 6 Justices by reason that it had become moot and academic since Presidential Proclamation No.1102 was already issued.. Therefore, it was dismissed.
2) 7 Justices opined that the validity of P.P.1102 was not properly raised before the Court. Thus, the petition was also dismissed.
Concepcion, CJ.:
RATIFICATION CASES (5)
FACTS:
1. Javellana filed a petition to restrain respondents from implementing any of the proposed Constitution not found in 1935(Commonwealth Constitution).
2. The subject in question was the validity of the Presidential Proclamation No. 1102 declaring the ratification of 1973 Constitution by the Filipino people, not the Constitution itself.
ARGUMENTS:
PETITIONERS argued that:
1. There was no plebiscite or election held.
Art. XIV of then 1935 Consti states that Such amendments [by the Congress] shall be valid as part of this Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for their ratification.
2. Citizen's Assemblies are not tantamount to a plebiscite or election.
3. Persons disqualified to vote participated in the Citizen's Assemblies.
4. The conduct of the proceedings in the Citizen's Assemblies was not supervised by the Commission on Elections required by the provisions of the 1935 Consti.
RESPONDENT:
1. Petitioners were raising a POLITICAL QUESTION, beyond the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.
Subject matter that the Supreme Court deems to be inappropriate for judicial review because discretionary power over it should be left to the politically accountable branches of government (i.e., the President and Congress). Thus, the courts will leave constitutional questions on such matters to be resolved in the political process. Courts will usually find a matter to be a political question on one of two grounds: (1) the constitutional concern for separation of powers, where the Constitution has already committed the matter on other nonjudicial branches of government for decision making; and (2) prudential concerns which lead the Court to choose to refrain from adjudicating the matter.
ISSUES:
1. Is the validity of P.P. No. 1102 a justiciable question and not a political question?
2. Has the Constitution proposed by 1971 Constitutional Convention been ratified validly given the the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions?
3. Has the proposed Constitution been acquiesced in by the people?
4. Is the proposed Constitution now in force?
RULING:
1. YES. It's not a POLITICAL QUESTION.
Separation of powers: It was within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court since the 1935 Constitution has a provision on the manner it can be amended. Thus, it can be subjected to judicial review.
2. NO. It wasn't validly ratified in accordance with the 1935 Constitution. In the Citizen's assembly, those who were over 18 were allowed to vote by virtue of the Revised Barrio charter (R.A. 3590). However, this was repugnant to the 1935 Constitutional provision that only grants right to suffrage to 21 years old and above to vote.
3. It cannot be shown that majority of the people have acquiesced to the proposed constitution. It was a matter of judicial knowledge that no such assemblies in many parts of Metro Manila and it "suburbs" were held. If this was the case in the capital, it can be assumed that there were much fewer assemblies held in the provinces and far-flung areas in the country.
People's inaction cannot be equated to acquiescence because martial law was enforced at that time and there was an atmosphere of intimidation and repression which could be the reason why many people did not protest.
Acts of the members of the Executive Department and other agencies of the government which were then already functioning under the 1973 Constitution could not be considered acquiescence or recognition of the proposed constitution since they were bound to obey the president because they were under the control of the executive department. Their obedience was not to the New Constitution but to the President.
4. There was not enough votes to say that it was not in force. There need to be a majority of 6 Justices to say that the New Constitution was not in force.
Votes:
4 - in force
4 - did not vote
2 - voted not in force.
Ultimately, 6 justices voted to dismiss the petitions and concluded, there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and in effect.
Comments
Post a Comment