Case Digest (G.R. No. L-36142)
Facts:
Josue Javellana et al. v. The Executive Secretary et al., G.R. Nos. L-36142, L-36164, L-36165, L-36236, L-36283, March 31, 1973, Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, J., writing for the Court.These five original petitions were filed in the Supreme Court after the 1971 Constitutional Convention approved a proposed constitution on November 30, 1972 and after a sequence of presidential decrees and orders concerning a plebiscite and Citizens (Barangay) Assemblies. Petitioners (various private citizens, civic leaders and members of the Senate) sought injunctive, prohibitory and mandamus relief to prevent respondents (the Executive Secretary, various Cabinet secretaries, line agencies and, in one petition, Senate officers) from implementing or giving effect to the proposed constitution and to compel legislative action or access to Senate premises in the face of executive acts claimed to have altered the constitutional order.
Background events relevant to all five petitions: Congress had earlier (March 16, 1967) authorized a Constitutional Convention; the 1971 Convention adopted a draft on November 30, 1972. The President issued Presidential Decree No. 73 submitting the draft for a plebiscite (originally set for Jan. 15, 1973), later Decrees No. 86 / 86-A creating and directing Citizens Assemblies (barangays) to hold referenda between Jan. 10–15, 1973, and, after returns were reported to the Executive, Proclamation No. 1102 (Jan. 17, 1973) certifying a reported overwhelming approval and “ratification” of the proposed constitution by the Citizens Assemblies. General Order No. 20 (Jan. 7, 1973) had earlier postponed the January 15 plebiscite and suspended the earlier limited lifting of martial law for free debate.
Petitioners challenged the legality of the Citizens Assemblies process, the participation of non-qualified voters (including persons under 21), the viva voce manner of voting, the absence of Commission on Elections (COMELEC) supervision, the alleged lack of freedom caused by Martial Law and General Order No. 20, and the President’s proclamation (No. 1102) itself. Some petitioners asked for writs of injunction, prohibition and mandamus (including a petition by Senators to compel Senate leaders to permit convening).
Respondents filed consolidated comments and moved to dismiss; they argued lack of jurisdiction (political question), that the Citizens Assemblies’ results and Proclamation No. 1102 were conclusive or at least entitled to great deference, and that substantial compliance or popular acquiescence had made the new constitution effective. The Court treated respondents’ pleadings as motions to dismiss and set the matters for extended oral argument; the parties submitted voluminous notes and documents. The members of the Court wrote individual opinions and then voted on five agreed questions (justiciability; validity of ratification; acquiescence; relief; whether the new constitution is in force). After deliberations the Court, by a 6–4 vote, dismissed all five petitions. Several Justices filed separate concurring or dissenting opinions; the lead opinion was written by Chief Justice Concepcion, who also filed a lengthy dissenting opinion in which several c...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the question whether the proposed 1972 Constitution was validly ratified a justiciable judicial question, or a political question beyond this Court’s jurisdiction?
- Was the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention validly ratified in accordance with Article XV, Sec. 1 of the 1935 Constitution (i.e., by an election/plebiscite participated in only by qualified and duly registered voters and conducted in conformity with law)?
- Has the proposed Constitution been accepted or acquiesced in by the people and the other departments of government so as to preclude judicial intervention?
- Are petitioners entitled to the equitable reliefs they seek (injunction, prohibition, mandamus)? ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)