Title
Javellana vs. Executive Secretary
Case
G.R. No. L-36142
Decision Date
Mar 31, 1973
The Supreme Court dismissed challenges to the 1973 Constitution's ratification, ruling it a political question, citing substantial compliance and public acquiescence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 160727)

Procedural history leading to these consolidated matters

Multiple petitions were filed in December 1972 and January–February 1973 challenging Presidential Decree No. 73 and later the Barangay referendum and Proclamation No. 1102. The Court first considered a group of “plebiscite cases” decided January 22, 1973; those cases were largely dismissed as moot and academic after Proclamation No. 1102. The present set of five consolidated cases were filed soon after January 17, 1973 (various G.R. Nos. listed in the record). The Court treated respondents’ initial comments as motions to dismiss, set the matters for extensive oral argument (five days), received written notes and rejoinders, and then each Justice filed individual opinions.

Core legal questions presented

  1. Is the question whether the Proposed Constitution was validly ratified justiciable or a political question beyond judicial review?
  2. If justiciable, was the Proposed Constitution validly ratified in accordance with Article XV, §1 of the 1935 Constitution (and related provisions such as Article V on suffrage and Article X on the Commission on Elections)?
  3. If the constitutional ratification procedure was defective, had the people nonetheless acquiesced in or accepted the new Constitution so that it should be recognized as in force?
  4. What remedies, if any, were appropriate (injunctive, prohibitory, mandamus), and is Proclamation No. 1102 legally sustainable?

Governing constitutional and statutory requirements (as framed in the opinions)

  • Article XV, §1 (1935 Constitution) prescribes that proposed amendments or revision 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.”
  • Article V, §1 prescribes qualifications for suffrage (age 21, literacy, residence) — these are treated as constitutional limitations on who may vote.
  • Article X establishes an independent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and vests it with “exclusive charge” of enforcement and administration of election laws and plenary powers to ensure free, orderly and honest elections.
  • Election Code of 1971 implements these constitutional principles, prescribing registration, voting methods (ballot and secrecy), appointment of election boards, canvass and certification procedures, and COMELEC supervision (sections cited in the record).

Petitioners’ principal objections to the Barangay procedure and Proclamation No. 1102

  • The Barangay proceedings were not an “election” within the meaning of Article XV because: (a) participants included persons under the constitutional voting age (15+ and 18+ in some local laws), (b) voting was largely viva voce or by show of hands rather than secret ballot using official ballots, (c) the process lacked the statutory safeguards (registration, precincts, inspectors, official canvass) and COMELEC supervision required by the Constitution and Election Code, and (d) there was insufficient time and freedom for meaningful debate (compromised by Martial Law and the suspension of earlier limited freedom of debate).
  • The President’s Proclamation No. 1102 relied upon returns compiled by Executive agencies (Department of Local Governments) and an alleged federation representative; there was no COMELEC certification and the proclamation therefore lacked the legal foundation required to treat Barangay returns as a valid plebiscitary result.

Majority, plurality and dissenting positions — overall disposition

  • Final disposition: by a majority vote (six Justices: Makalintal, Castro, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra), all the consolidated petitions were dismissed; the Court’s majority concluded there was no judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being “considered in force and effect.” The judgment thus left the executive and legislative organs free to proceed under the new charter.
  • Dissenting and separate views: Chief Justice Concepcion and Justices Zaldivar, Fernando and Teehankee dissented (Concepcion filed the principal lengthy opinion arguing the petitions should be given due course and that the Proposed Constitution had not been validly ratified). Justice Zaldivar also wrote separately. Several Justices set out nuanced positions on justiciability, the sufficiency of the Barangay process, and whether the Court should exercise judicial restraint for political‑policy reasons.

Chief Justice Concepcion’s controlling legal analysis (concise)

  • Justiciability: the Court has authority and duty to decide whether constitutional amending requirements have been met; this is a justiciable question under long line of precedents. Judicial review is essential where an act claims to change the Constitution itself.
  • Proper law to apply: because the alleged ratification was asserted to have occurred while the 1935 Constitution was in force, the validity of ratification must be assessed under the 1935 Constitution (the “old Constitution”) — compliance with its Article XV (and associated provisions) is determinative.
  • Substantive defects identified: (1) voter qualifications — the Barangay process admitted persons under age 21 and otherwise not satisfying Article V qualifications; (2) voting method — the use of open, viva voce votes and lack of secret ballots ran afoul of the historical and legal understanding of “votes cast” and the Australian ballot principle that gives evidentiary records and secrecy; (3) COMELEC independence — Article X vests COMELEC with exclusive charge of election administration and its participation or at least supervision was lacking; (4) compliance and substantiation — Proclamation No. 1102’s certification rested on returns tabulated by Executive agencies and a federation report rather than on COMELEC canvass, and no adequate documentary chain was produced to support the 14.9 million figure; (5) freedom of debate — General Order No. 20 and the ongoing Martial Law environment impaired the necessary freedom for an informed ratification process.
  • Remedy posture: Concepcion concluded the petitions should be given due course and that the Court should receive evidence and adjudicate the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 and the ratification, because the record on the face of it raised grave doubts as to constitutionally required procedure and the integrity of the reported returns.

Key legal arguments advanced by respondents and the opposing positions in the opinions

  • Respondents (Government): contended the issue is political and non‑justiciable; argued that the Barangay referendum manifested popular approval substantively and deserved recognition; emphasized the practical reality that the Executive, many legislators, and foreign relations had already adjusted to the new Constitution and that invalidating the proclaimed ratification would cause chaos; contended Proclamation No. 1102 was properly declaratory and was to be accorded deference.
  • Counterarguments (in opinions like Concepcion’s): procedural and constitutional safeguards matter; an enrolled proclamation cannot foreclose judicial inquiry where constitutional compliance is challenged; COMELEC’s constitutional role cannot be displaced by Executive‑run tabulations; “acceptance” or “acquiescence” by portions of government personnel or the populace does not cure a process that the Constitution requires to be followed.

Precedents and constitutional construction emphasized

  • The opinions rely on prior authority (Tolentino v. Comelec; Gonzales v. Comelec; other cases cited in the record) holding that Article XV procedures are constitutionally mandated and that the COMELEC must oversee ratification plebiscites. Tolentino in particular was invoked to affirm that piecemeal or partial submissions (or departures from required procedure) are invalid where they deprive the electorate of adequate notice, debate and context. The Chief Justice and several Justices stressed the historical and doctrinal rationale for treating Article V voter qualifications and Article X COMELEC safeguards as mandatory.

Attendant factual‑evidentiary problems identified by petitioners and noted by the Court

  • Reported Barangay returns (14.9 million in favor) exceeded the number of registered voters aged 21 and above in January 1973 (less than 12 million), creating prima facie inconsistency.
  • The chain of custody and certification of returns was traced to Provincial and Municipal tabulations processed by the Department of Local Governments and allegedly reported by an individual (Mr. Francisco Cruz) whose official status was questioned; no COMELEC certification accompanied the Presidential proclamation.
  • Many Barangay consultations appeared to have been organized on very short notice and without the time or mechanisms to ensure uniform observance of election safeguards; in numerous places voting took place openly and informally.

Remedies and votes on relief

  • Chief Justice Concepcion (personal opinion): concluded petitions should be given due course, the reported Barangay ratification was constitutionally defective, and the Proposed Constitution was not in force; recommended judicial proceedings to test Proclamation No. 1102 and to enjoin implementation to prevent the constitutional crisis that might follow from acceptance of a procedurally defective ratification.
  • Final vote and outcome: by a m

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms