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. L-36142)

Petitions and Parties

  1. G.R. No. L-36142 (Javellana v. Exec. Sec. et al.)
  2. G.R. No. L-36164 (Tan et al. v. Exec. Sec. et al.)
  3. G.R. No. L-36236 (Monteclaro v. Exec. Sec. et al.)
  4. G.R. No. L-36165 (Roxas et al. v. Melchor et al.)
  5. G.R. No. L-36283 (Dilag et al. v. Exec. Sec. et al.)

Key Dates

• March 16, 1967 – Congress passes Res. No. 2 calling Constitutional Convention.
• November 30, 1972 – 1971 Convention approves proposed Constitution.
• December 1, 1972 – Pres. Decree No. 73 calls January 15 plebiscite under 1935 Constitution/1971 Election Code.
• December 31, 1972 – Decree No. 86 creates “Citizens’ Assemblies.”
• January 5, 1973 – Decree No. 86-A tasks those assemblies with referendum on proposed Constitution.
• January 7, 1973 – Gen. Order No. 20 postpones plebiscite indefinitely.
• January 10–15, 1973 – Citizens’ Assemblies vote on draft Constitution and other issues.
• January 17, 1973 – Proclamation No. 1102 certifies vote of assemblies as ratification.
• February 12–16, 1973 – Oral hearings in these five cases.
• March 31, 1973 – Decisions rendered.

Applicable Law

• 1935 Constitution, Art. XV, Sec. 1 – “Amendments… valid… when approved by a majority… in an election… submitted to the people.”
• 1971 Election Code (R.A. No. 6388) – Governs all elections of public officers and plebiscites, prescribes voter qualifications (21 years, literacy, residence), registration, secret ballots, Commission on Elections’ supervision.
• 1972 proposed Constitution, Art. XVII, Sec. 16 – “This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority… in a plebiscite called for the purpose.”

Factual Background

  1. Under martial law proclaimed Sept. 21, 1972, the 1971 Constitutional Convention approved a full draft Constitution Nov. 30, 1972.
  2. Pres. Decree No. 73 (Dec. 1, 1972) called a Jan. 15, 1973 plebiscite under the 1935 Constitution and 1971 Election Code.
  3. Gen. Order No. 20 (Jan. 7, 1973) postponed that plebiscite.
  4. Decrees 86 and 86-A (Dec. 31, 1972 & Jan. 5, 1973) set up “Citizens’ Assemblies” (all residents ≥ 15, any literacy) to vote Jan. 10–15 on the draft Constitution and other issues, viva voce and under executive department supervision.
  5. Proclamation No. 1102 (Jan. 17, 1973) certified 14,976,561 “yes” votes vs. 743,869 “no,” and declared the draft Constitution ratified and in effect.

Issues Presented

  1. Was the ratification via Citizens’ Assemblies referendum conducted in compliance with Art. XV, Sec. 1, of the 1935 Constitution and the 1971 Election Code?
  2. Does Proclamation No. 1102 validly certify ratification?
  3. Is the question of ratification of a new Constitution a political question or justiciable by this Court?
  4. Has the proposed Constitution been validly ratified or otherwise entered into effect?
  5. Are petitioners entitled to injunctive or mandamus relief preventing or requiring actions under the competing Charters?

Petitioners’ Contentions

• No “election… submitted to the people” in accordance with Art. XV, Sec. 1, 1935 Cons., because participation was not confined to qualified registered voters, voting was open (hand-raising), no secret ballots, no Commission on Elections supervision, no formal polling places or certified returns.
• Proclamation No. 1102 is not based on any lawful act of ratification and so is void.
• Martial law and suspension of public debate deprived the assemblies of freedom essential to a valid plebiscite.
• The Citizens’ Assemblies process short-circuited judicial review and by-passed constitutional safeguards.

Respondents’ Contentions

• The issue of validity of Proclamation No. 1102 is a political question, non-justiciable.
• Even if Art. XV procedure was not literally followed, there was substantial compliance: the clear will of the people was expressed in an organized referendum.
• The Citizens’ Assemblies vote was conclusive and irreversible under the doctrine of popular acquiescence and the people’s right to decide political questions.
• The new Constitution has been accepted




...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.