This document summarizes the key holdings of the Philippine Supreme Court case Javellana v. Executive Secretary regarding the ratification of the proposed 1973 Philippine Constitution. The Court found:
1) The validity of Proclamation 1102 calling for citizens' assemblies is a justiciable issue, not a political question.
2) The proposed 1973 Constitution was not validly ratified according to the requirements of the 1935 Constitution, which requires ratification in an election.
3) There was no majority on whether the people had acquiesced to or accepted the new Constitution given restrictions of free expression under martial law.
4) Six justices voted to dismiss the case as an issue beyond judicial competence, allowing
This document summarizes the key holdings of the Philippine Supreme Court case Javellana v. Executive Secretary regarding the ratification of the proposed 1973 Philippine Constitution. The Court found:
1) The validity of Proclamation 1102 calling for citizens' assemblies is a justiciable issue, not a political question.
2) The proposed 1973 Constitution was not validly ratified according to the requirements of the 1935 Constitution, which requires ratification in an election.
3) There was no majority on whether the people had acquiesced to or accepted the new Constitution given restrictions of free expression under martial law.
4) Six justices voted to dismiss the case as an issue beyond judicial competence, allowing
This document summarizes the key holdings of the Philippine Supreme Court case Javellana v. Executive Secretary regarding the ratification of the proposed 1973 Philippine Constitution. The Court found:
1) The validity of Proclamation 1102 calling for citizens' assemblies is a justiciable issue, not a political question.
2) The proposed 1973 Constitution was not validly ratified according to the requirements of the 1935 Constitution, which requires ratification in an election.
3) There was no majority on whether the people had acquiesced to or accepted the new Constitution given restrictions of free expression under martial law.
4) Six justices voted to dismiss the case as an issue beyond judicial competence, allowing
This document summarizes the key holdings of the Philippine Supreme Court case Javellana v. Executive Secretary regarding the ratification of the proposed 1973 Philippine Constitution. The Court found:
1) The validity of Proclamation 1102 calling for citizens' assemblies is a justiciable issue, not a political question.
2) The proposed 1973 Constitution was not validly ratified according to the requirements of the 1935 Constitution, which requires ratification in an election.
3) There was no majority on whether the people had acquiesced to or accepted the new Constitution given restrictions of free expression under martial law.
4) Six justices voted to dismiss the case as an issue beyond judicial competence, allowing
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
G.R. No.
L-36142 Case Title: Javellana, petitioner v. Executive Secretary et. al, respondents
Date: March 31, 1973
I. FACTS
On January 20, 1973, Josue Javellana filed a prohibition case to restrain respondents from implementing any of the provisions of the proposed constitution not found in the present constitution. Javellana maintained that the respondents are acting without or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing proposed constitution and that the president is without power to proclaim the ratification of the constitution. Similar actions were filed by Vidal Tan, Gerardo Roxas, among others. Petitioners pray for the nullification of Proclamation 1102 (Citizens Assemblies) and any order, decree, and proclamation which are similar in their objectives.
II. ISSUES
1. Whether the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 is a justiciable, or political and therefore non-justiciable, question? 2. Whether the Constitution has proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention been ratified validly (with substantial, if not strict, compliance) conformably to the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions? 3. Whether the aforementioned proposed Constitution has acquiesced in (with or without valid ratification) by the people? (acquiesced – “permission” given by silence or passiveness. Acceptance or agreement by keeping quiet or by not making objections.) 4. Whether petitioners are entitled to relief? 5. Whether the aforementioned proposed Constitution is in force?
HELD: 1. On the first issue involving the political-question doctrine Justices Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee and myself, or six (6) members of the Court, hold that the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 presents a justiciable and non-political question. Justices Makalintal and Castro did not vote squarely on this question, but, only inferentially, in their discussion of the second question. Justice Barredo qualified his vote, stating that “inasmuch as it is claimed there has been approval by the people, the Court may inquire into the question of whether or not there has actually been such an approval, and, in the affirmative, the Court should keep hands-off out of respect to the people’s will, but, in negative, the Court may determine from both factual and legal angles whether or not Article XV of the 1935 Constitution been complied with.” Justices Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra, or three (3) members of the Court hold that the issue.
2. On the second question of validity of the ratification, Justices Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Castro, Fernando, Teehankee and myself, or six (6) members of the Court also hold that the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention was not validly ratified in accordance with Article XV, section 1 of the 1935 Constitution, which provides only one way for ratification, i.e., “in an election or plebiscite held in accordance with law and participated in only by qualified and duly registered voters. Justice Barredo qualified his vote, stating that “(A)s to whether or not the 1973 Constitution has been validly ratified pursuant to Article XV, I still maintain that in the light of traditional concepts regarding the meaning and intent of said Article, the referendum in the Citizens’ Assemblies, specially in the manner the votes therein were cast, reported and canvassed, falls short of the requirements thereof. In view, however, of the fact that I have no means of refusing to recognize as a judge that factually there was voting and that the majority of the votes were for considering as approved the 1973 Constitution without the necessity of the usual form of plebiscite followed in past ratifications, I am constrained to hold that, in the political sense, if not in the orthodox legal sense, the people may be deemed to have cast their favorable votes in the belief that in doing so they did the part required of them by Article XV, hence, it may be said that in its political aspect, which is what counts most, after all, said Article has been substantially complied with, and, in effect, the 1973 Constitution has been constitutionally ratified.” Justices Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra, or three (3) members of the Court hold that under their view there has been in effect substantial compliance with the constitutional requirements for valid ratification.
3. On the third question of acquiescence by the Filipino people in the aforementioned
proposed Constitution, no majority vote has been reached by the Court. Four (4) of its members, namely, Justices Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra hold that “the people have already accepted the 1973 Constitution.” Two (2) members of the Court, namely, Justice Zaldivar and myself hold that there can be no free expression, and there has even been no expression, by the people qualified to vote all over the Philippines, of their acceptance or repudiation of the proposed Constitution under Martial Law. Justice Fernando states that “(I)f it is conceded that the doctrine stated in some American decisions to the effect that independently of the validity of the ratification, a new Constitution once accepted acquiesced in by the people must be accorded recognition by the Court, I am not at this stage prepared to state that such doctrine calls for application in view of the shortness of time that has elapsed and the difficulty of ascertaining what is the mind of the people in the absence of the freedom of debate that is a concomitant feature of martial law.” 88 Three (3) members of the Court express their lack of knowledge and/or competence to rule on the question. Justices Makalintal and Castro are joined by Justice Teehankee in their statement that “Under a regime of martial law, with the free expression of opinions through the usual media vehicle restricted, (they) have no means of knowing, to the point of judicial certainty, whether the people have accepted the Constitution.”
4. On the fourth question of relief, six (6) members of the Court, namely, Justices Makalintal, Castro, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra voted to DISMISS the petition. Justice Makalintal and Castro so voted on the strength of their view that “(T)he effectivity of the said Constitution, in the final analysis, is the basic and ultimate question posed by these cases to resolve which considerations other than judicial, an therefore beyond the competence of this Court, 90 are relevant and unavoidable.” 91 Four (4) members of the Court, namely, Justices Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee and myself voted to deny respondents’ motion to dismiss and to give due course to the petitions.
5. On the fifth question of whether the new Constitution of 1973 is in force: Four (4) members of the Court, namely, Justices Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra hold that it is in force by virtue of the people’s acceptance thereof; Four (4) members of the Court, namely, Justices Makalintal, Castro, Fernando and Teehankee cast no vote thereon on the premise stated in their votes on the third question that they could not state with judicial certainty whether the people have accepted or not accepted the Constitution; and Two (2) members of the Court, namely, Justice Zaldivar and myself voted that the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention is not in force; with the result that there are not enough votes to declare that the new Constitution is not in force. Accordingly, by virtue of the majority of six (6) votes of Justices Makalintal, Castro, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra with the four (4) dissenting votes of the Chief Justice and Justices Zaldivar, Fernando and Teehankee, all the aforementioned cases are hereby dismissed. This being the vote of the majority, there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect.is political and “beyond the ambit of judicial inquiry.
