7/30/2019 Javellana vs Executive

1/2

JAVELLANA VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

G.R. No. L-36142

Petitioner: Josue Javellana

Respondent: Executive Secretary

Ponente: CONCEPCION, C.J.:

FACTS:

The Congress of the Philippines passed Resolution No. 2, which was amended by Resolution No. 4 of said

body, adopted on June 17, 1969, calling a Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the

Philippines on March 16, 1967.

Resolution No. 2, as amended, was implemented by Republic Act No. 6132, approved on August 24,

1970, pursuant to the provisions of which the election of delegates to said Convention was held on

November 10, 1970, and the 1971 Constitutional Convention began to perform its functions on June 1,

1971.

On November 29, 1972, the President issued Proclamation No. 1081 placing the entire Philippines underMartial Law while the Convention was in session on September 21, 1972. The Convention approved its

Proposed Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines on November 29, 1972

The President of the Philippines issued Presidential Decree No. 73, submitting to the Filipino people for

ratification or rejection the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines proposed by the 1971

Constitutional Convention, and appropriating funds therefor, as well as setting the plebiscite for said

ratification or rejection of the Proposed Constitution on January 15, 1973.

On December 7, 1972, Charito Planas filed a case against the Treasurer of the Philippines and the

Auditor General, to enjoin said respondents or their agents from implementing Presidential Decree No.

73. Upon the grounds, inter alia,that said Presidential Decree has no force and effect as law becausethe calling of such plebiscite, the setting of guidelines for the conduct of the same, the prescription of

the ballots to be used and the question to be answered by the voters, and the appropriation of public

funds for the purpose, are, by the Constitution, lodged exclusively in Congress.

The President had issued an order temporarily suspending the effects of Proclamation No. 1081 on

December 17, 1972, for the purpose of free and open debate on the Proposed Constitution.

On December 23, 1972, the President announced the postponement of the plebiscite for the ratification

or rejection of the Proposed Constitution. No formal action to this effect was taken until January 7,

1973, when General Order No. 20 was issued, directing that the plebiscite scheduled to be held on

January 15, 1978. General Order No. 20, moreover, suspended in the meantime the order of

December 17, 1972, temporarily suspending the effects of Proclamation No. 1081 for purposes of free

and open debate on the proposed Constitution.

Due to the postponement of the plebiscite the Court deemed to fit to refrain, for the time being, from

deciding the cases, for neither the date nor the conditions under the said plebiscite would be held were

known or announced officially. The congress was pursuant to the 1935 Constitution, schedule to meet in

regular session on January 22, 1973, and since the main objection to Presidential Decree No. 73 refer to

the President does not have the legislative authority to call a plebiscite and appropriate funds.

7/30/2019 Javellana vs Executive

2/2

On January 15, 1973 the Court passed a resolution requiring the respondents in said case G.R. No. L-

35948 to file an answer to the said motion not later than 4 P.M., Tuesday, January 16, 1973 and setting

the motion of hearing on January 17, 1973, at 9:30 a.m. At noontime on the date when the case was

heard the President instructed the Secretary of Justice to deliver to him a copy of Proclamation No.

1102, which was sign by the President. The writer who deliver the copy of Proclamation wen to the

Session Hall and announced to the Court, that the President had, according to information conveyed by

the Secretary of Justice, signed said Proclamation No. 1102, earlier that morning.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not Proclamation No. 1102, a political question or Justiciable matters2. Whether or not the majority vote by Marcos can be accepted in court3. Whether or not the people accept the proposed constitution.4. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled a remedy or the 1973 is already enforce

HELD:

1. Yes, The Proclamation No. 1102 is justiciable question and not a political question because themanner of changing the constitution should be based on the constitution itself or the court is

the one who check if the constitution is followed (Sec 1, Article XV).

2. No, there are no legal bases for open voting by viva voce or rising of hands because it violatesthe secrecy of the ballot as by the election laws. There was a question on factual claim about the

number of people who participated in the voting.

3.

No, the fact that the doors of Congress are padlocked which prevent the Congress from meetingon January 22, 1973 because the state is under Martial Law.

4. Yes, The majority of six (6) votes of Justices Makalintal, Castro, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio andEsguerra 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.