Case Digest (G.R. No. L-40004)
Facts:
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. v. Commission on Elections, and National Treasurer, G.R. No. L-40004, January 31, 1975, the Supreme Court En Banc, Makasiar, J., writing for the Court.On January 21, 1975 petitioners filed a petition for prohibition in the Supreme Court seeking nullification of Presidential Decrees Nos. 1366, 1366‑A (which called a referendum for February 27, 1975), Presidential Decrees Nos. 629 and 630 (appropriating funds for the referendum), Presidential Decrees Nos. 637 and 637‑A (specifying the referendum questions), and other presidential decrees, orders and instructions related to the referendum. The petition challenged the President’s authority to issue those instruments and attacked the proposed referendum as constitutionally defective.
Respondents — the Commission on Elections and the National Treasurer — filed a comment (treated by the Court as an answer) on January 28, 1975. After oral argument on January 30, 1975 (which lasted over seven hours), the Court submitted the case for decision and promulgated its judgment the next day, January 31, 1975. No lower court rulings are reported because the petition was brought directly to the Supreme Court by prohibition.
In the written opinion the Court first confronted a procedural objection: petitioners’ central claim effectively sought to question the incumbent President’s title, a matter ordinarily raised by quo warranto and thus actionable only by the Solicitor General or a rival claimant. The Court, citing prior precedents, recited the rule against collateral attacks on title but, given the grave public consequences, elected to pass upon the constitutional issues raised. The Court reviewed its recent decisions bearing on the 1973 Constitution and Martial Law — notably Javellana v. Executive Secretary and the habeas corpus/related decisions culminating in ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Do petitioners have legal personality to collaterally attack the title of the incumbent President by a petition for prohibition (i.e., is this action a permissible substitute for quo warranto)?
- Is Ferdinand E. Marcos a de jure and the “incumbent President” within the meaning of Section 3, Article XVII of the 1973 Constitution?
- May the incumbent President, during the transitory/martial law period, validly promulgate proclamations, orders, decrees and appropriation measures that have the force of law (including calling a referendum)?
- Is the scheduled February 27, 1975 referendum invalid because the climate of fear under Martial Law prevents free expression of the people’s will and because th...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)