Case Digest (G.R. No. 10037)
Facts:
The case involves a petition for prohibition filed by Benigno S. Aquino, Jr., Trinidad Herrera, Bishop Francisco Claver, S.J., Bishop Antonio Nepomuceno, among others, on January 21, 1975. They sought to nullify various Presidential Decrees relating to a scheduled referendum set for February 27, 1975, which included Decree Nos. 1366 and 1366-A calling for the referendum, Decrees Nos. 629 and 630 appropriating funds for it, and Decrees Nos. 637 and 637-A specifying questions for the referendum. The primary argument of the petitioners was that President Ferdinand E. Marcos lacked legal authority to issue these decrees as he was not legally in office under either the 1935 or 1973 Constitution. They argued that the proper procedure to question his authority would be a quo warranto action. The Solicitor General filed a comment in response on January 28, 1975. Following an extensive oral argument spanning over seven hours on January 30, 1975, the Supreme Court considered the comment aCase Digest (G.R. No. 10037)
Facts:
Petitioners: Benigno S. Aquino, Jr., Trinidad Herrera, Bishop Francisco Claver, S.J., Bishop Antonio Nepomuceno, Bishop Jesus Varela, Bishop Felix Zafra, Bishop Teotimo Pacis, et al. Respondents: Commission on Elections and National Treasurer Case Filed: January 21, 1975 Issue Raised: The petitioners sought to nullify several Presidential Decrees, including Presidential Decrees Nos. 1366, 1366-A, 629, 630, 637, and 637-A, which called for a referendum on February 27, 1975, and appropriated funds for it.Key Points:
- Challenge to President Marcos' Authority: The petitioners argued that President Ferdinand E. Marcos did not hold any legal office nor possess lawful authority under either the 1935 or 1973 Constitution, and thus had no authority to issue the questioned decrees.
- Nature of the Action: The petition was seen as akin to a quo warranto proceeding, which challenges the title of a public officer. However, only the Solicitor General or a person asserting title to the same office can file such a petition, and the petitioners did not claim such a right.
- Martial Law Context: The Court had previously affirmed the validity of Martial Law Proclamation No. 1081, issued on September 22, 1972, under the 1935 Constitution. The 1973 Constitution also validated all proclamations, orders, and decrees issued by President Marcos.
- Referendum of July 27-28, 1973: The Court noted that a majority of voters in the referendum had approved President Marcos continuing in office beyond 1973 to finish reforms under Martial Law.
Issues:
- Does President Ferdinand E. Marcos hold legitimate authority as President under the 1973 Constitution?
- Does President Marcos have the authority to call for a referendum and appropriate funds for it?
- Is the scheduled referendum on February 27, 1975, constitutional, particularly given the climate of Martial Law?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)