G.R. No. L-36142 March 31, 1973
+ 4 ratification cases.
PLEBISCITE CASES:
March 16, 1967: Congress of the Philippines passed Resolution No. 2, which was amended by Resolution No. 4 of said body, adopted on June 17, 1969, calling a Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines.
August 24, 1970: Said resolution was approved.
November 10, 1970: the election of delegates to the said Convention was held.
June 1, 1971: Constitutional Convention began to perform its functions.
September 21, 1972: While the Congress was still in session, the President issued Proclamation No. 1081 placing the entire Philippines under Martial Law.
November 29, 1972: the Convention approved its Proposed Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.
November 30, 1972: the President of the Philippines issued Presidential Decree No. 73, “submitting to the Filipino people for ratification or rejection the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention, and appropriating funds therefor,” as well as setting the plebiscite for said ratification or rejection of the Proposed Constitution on January 15, 1973.
December 7, 1972: Charito Planas filed a case against the Commission on Elections, the Treasurer of the Philippines and the Auditor General, to enjoin said “respondents or their agents from implementing Presidential Decree No. 73, in any manner, until further orders of the Court,” upon the grounds, inter alia, that said Presidential Decree “has no force and effect as law because :
> Calling of a plebiscite, the setting of guidelines for the conduct of the same, the prescription of the ballots to be used and the question to be answered by the voters, and the appropriation of public funds for the purpose, are, by the Constitution, lodged exclusively in Congress; (only Congress can call for a plebiscite)
> No proper submission to the people of the proposed 1973 Constitution set for January 15, 1973 "there being no freedom of speech, press, and assembly, and there being no sufficient time to inform the people of the contents thereof.
December 17, 1972: the President had issued an order temporarily suspending the effects of Proclamation No. 1081, for the purpose of free and open debate on the Proposed Constitution.
December 23, 1972: the President announced the postponement of the plebiscite for the ratification or rejection of the Proposed Constitution. No formal action to this effect was taken until January 7, 1973.
January 7, 1973: General Order No. 20 was issued, directing “that the plebiscite scheduled to be held on January 15, 1978, be postponed until further notice.” Said General Order No. 20, moreover, “suspended in the meantime” the “order of December 17, 1972, temporarily suspending the effects of Proclamation No. 1081 for purposes of free and open debate on the proposed Constitution.”
Because of these events relative to the postponement of the aforementioned plebiscite, the Court deemed it fit to refrain, for the time being, from deciding the aforementioned cases, for neither the date nor the conditions under which said plebiscite would be held were known or announced officially. Then, again, Congress was, pursuant to the 1935 Constitution, scheduled to meet in regular session on January 22, 1973, and since the main objection to Presidential Decree No. 73 was that the President does not have the legislative authority to call a plebiscite and appropriate funds therefor, which Congress unquestionably could do, particularly in view of the formal postponement of the plebiscite by the President reportedly after consultation with, among others, the leaders of Congress and the Commission on Elections the Court deemed it more imperative to defer its final action on these cases.
January 12, 1973: in the afternoon, the petitioners in Case G.R. No. L-35948 filed an “urgent motion,” praying that said case be decided “as soon as possible, preferably not later than January 15, 1973.
January 13, 1973: Saturday, the Court issued a resolution requiring the respondents in said three (3) cases to comment on said “urgent motion” and “manifestation,” “not later than Tuesday noon, January 16, 1973.” Prior thereto, or on January 15, 1973, shortly before noon, the petitioners in said Case G.R. No. L-35948 riled a “supplemental motion for issuance of restraining order and inclusion of additional respondents,” praying: “… that a restraining order be issued enjoining and restraining respondent Commission on Elections, as well as the Department of Local Governments and its head, Secretary Jose Roño; the Department of Agrarian Reforms and its head, Secretary Conrado Estrella; the National Ratification Coordinating Committee and its Chairman, Guillermo de Vega; their deputies, subordinates and substitutes, and all other officials and persons who may be assigned such task, from collecting, certifying, and announcing and reporting to the President or other officials concerned, the so-called Citizens’ Assemblies referendum results allegedly obtained when they were supposed to have met during the period comprised between January 10 and January 15, 1973, on the two questions quoted in paragraph 1 of this Supplemental Urgent Motion.”
January 15, 1973: the Court passed a resolution requiring the respondents in said case G.R. No. L-35948 to file “file an answer to the said motion not later than 4 P.M., Tuesday, January 16, 1973,” and setting the motion for hearing “on January 17, 1973, at 9:30 a.m.” While the case was being heard, on the date last mentioned, at noontime, the Secretary of Justice called on the writer of this opinion and said that, upon instructions of the President, he (the Secretary of Justice) was delivering to him (the writer) a copy of Proclamation No. 1102, which had just been signed by the President. Thereupon, the writer returned to the Session Hall and announced to the Court, the parties in G.R. No. L-35948 inasmuch as the hearing in connection therewith was still going on and the public there present that the President had, according to information conveyed by the Secretary of Justice, signed said Proclamation No. 1102, earlier that morning.
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:
January 20, 1973: just two days before the Supreme Court decided the sequel of plebiscite cases, Javellana filed this suit against the respondents to restrain them from:
> implementing any of the provisions of the proposed Constitution not found in the present 1935 Constitution. This is a petition filed by him as a Filipino citizen and a qualified and registered voter and as a class suit, for himself and in behalf of all citizens and voters similarly situated. Javellana also alleged that the President had announced the immediate implementation of the new constitution, thru his Cabinet, respondents including.
> Respondents are acting without or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing the said proposed constitution upon ground that the President as Commander-in-Chief of the AFP is without authority to create the Citizens Assemblies; without power to approve proposed constitution; without power to proclaim the ratification by the Filipino people of the proposed constitution; and the election held to ratify the proposed constitution was not a free election, hence null and void.
> Following that, petitioners prayed for the nullification of Proclamation No. 1102 and any order, decree, and proclamation which have the same import and objective.
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, there are not enough votes to declare that the new Constitution is not in force. There is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and in effect.
Comments
Post a Comment