G.R. No. 56503 - Mitra, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

A petition for mandamus and prohibition was filed by petitioners challenging the validity of the 1973 Constitution and the corresponding presidential proclamation of its ratification.
The petitioners insisted that the current Constitution was not genuinely in force because its ratification did not comply with the constitutional method prescribed in the 1935 Constitution.
In a marked variation from similar cases (Occena and Gonzales), the petition also included a plea for a plebiscite so that the Filipino people might vote afresh on the ratification of the Constitution in force.

The petition, along with the earlier cases, was premised on the assumption that the present constitution was merely in a state of proposal and not truly operative.
The petitioners based their arguments partly on a misinterpretation of the seminal Javellana v. Executive Secretary decision, asserting that judicial review should invalidate the present constitutional order.
Despite this assertion, the Court reaffirmed that prior decisions and the prevailing practice had conclusively established the Constitution’s validity and operativeness.

The case involved significant discussion of the doctrine of judicial review, emphasizing that the Supreme Court must either check or legitimize acts of the executive or legislative branches.
Detailed references were made to prior rulings – including Javellana v. Executive Secretary, Aquino, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, and People v. Sola – to illustrate that once a constitution is deemed operative, there is no further judicial obstacle to its enforcement.
The petition pointed to the apparent discrepancy between executive actions, such as the ratification proclamations and the conduct of elections and referenda, which underlined the public’s de facto acceptance of the new constitutional order.

The petition also raised issues regarding the scope of the President’s powers as Commander-in-Chief, particularly in relation to the declaration of martial law.
Arguments were made concerning the interpretation of martial law provisions inherited from the 1935 Constitution, comparing it to the restrictions and practices under American jurisprudence.
The Court noted that although martial law powers allow the President to suspend certain rights and enforce order, judicial review persists as an essential check—even under such extraordinary circumstances.

Whether the 1973 Constitution is properly in force and effect despite challenges to its ratification process.
Whether the petitioners’ contention that the Constitution should be subjected to a new plebiscite is sustainable under the doctrine of judicial review.

Whether the petition for mandamus and prohibition should have been entertained given the established acceptance of the Constitution by the people and the government’s continued operations.
Whether the Supreme Court’s previous decisions (especially in Javellana v. Executive Secretary) conclusively preclude challenges to the Constitution’s validity and its operative effect.

The extent of the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief, particularly in the context of martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
Whether the expansion of martial law powers to address issues such as economic crises is compatible with constitutional limitations and the preservation of individual rights.