8 Javellana v Executive Secretary.docx

8/21/2019 8 Javellana v Executive Secretary.docx

1/47

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-36142 March 31, 1973

JOSUE JAVELLANA, petitioner,vs.TE E!ECUT"VE SECRETAR#, TE SECRETAR# O$ NAT"ONAL %E$ENSE, TE SECRETAR# O$JUST"CE AN% TE SECRETAR# O$ $"NANCE, respondents.

G.R. No. L-36164 March 31, 1973

V"%AL TAN, J. ANTON"O ARANETA, ALEJAN%RO ROCES, MANUEL CRU%O, ANTON"O U. M"RAN%A,

EM"L"O %E PERALTA AN% LOREN&O M. TA'A%A, petitioners,vs.TE E!ECUT"VE SECRETAR#, TE SECRETAR# O$ $"NANCE , TE SECRETAR# O$ JUST"CE, TESECRETAR# O$ LAN% RE$ORM, TE SECRETAR# O$ NAT"ONAL %E$ENSE, TE AU%"TOR GENERAL,TE (U%GET COMM"SS"ONER, TE CA"RMAN O$ PRES"%ENT"AL COMM"SS"ON ONREORGAN"&AT"ON, TE TREASURER O$ TE P"L"PP"NES, TE COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS AN%TE COMM"SS"ONER O$ C"V"L SERV"CE, respondents.

G.R. No. L-3616) March 31, 1973.

GERAR%O RO!AS, AM(ROS"O PA%"LLA, JOV"TO R. SALONGA, SALVA%OR . LAUREL, RAMON V.M"TRA, JR. a*+ EVA ESTRA%A-ALA, petitioners,

vs.ALEJAN%RO MELCOR, * h/ ca0ac a/ Ec5 Scrar JUAN PONCE ENR"LE, * h/ ca0aca/ Scrar o8 Nao*a %8*/ G*ra ROMEO ESP"NO, * h/ ca0ac a/ Ch8 o8 Sa88 o8 hAr:+ $orc/ o8 h Ph00*/ TANC"O E. CASTA'E%A, * h/ ca0ac a/ Scrar G*raSrc/ S*aor G"L J. PU#AT, * h/ ca0ac a/ Pr/+* o8 h S*a a*+ S*aor JOSE RO#, h/ca0ac, a/ Pr/+* Pro T:0or o8 h o8 h S*a, respondents.

G.R. No. L-36236 March 31, 1973

E%%"E (. MONTECLARO, ;0r/o*a a*+ * h/ ca0ac a/ Pr/+* o8 h Nao*a Pr// C5< o8 hPh00*/=, petitioner,vs.

TE E!ECUT"VE SECRETAR#, TE SECRETAR# O$ PU(L"C "N$ORMAT"ON, TE AU%"TOR GENERAL,TE (U%GET COMM"SS"ONER > TE NAT"ONAL TREASURER, respondents.

G.R. No. L-362?3 March 31, 1973

NAPOLEON V. %"LAG, AL$RE%O SALAPANTAN, JR., LEONAR%O ASO%"SEN, JR., a*+ RAUL M.GON&ALE&,petitioners,vs.TE ONORA(LE E!ECUT"VE SECRETAR#, TE ONORA(LE SECRETAR# O$ NAT"ONAL %E$ENSE,TE ONORA(LE (U%GET COMM"SS"ONER, TE ONORA(LE AU%"TOR GENERAL, respondents.


2/47

Ramon A. Gonzales for petitioner Josue Javellana.

Lorenzo M. Tañada and Associates for petitioners Vidal Tan, et al.

Tañada, Salonga, rdoñez, Rodrigo, Sanidad, Ro!as. Gonzales and Arro"o for petitioners Gerardo Ro!as, etal.

Jo#er $. Arro"o and Rogelio %. $adilla for petitioner &ddie Monteclaro.

Raul M. Gonzales and Associates for petitioners 'apoleon V. (ilag, et al.

Arturo M. Tolentino for respondents Gil J. $u"at and Jose Ro".

ffice of t)e Solicitor General &stelito $. Mendoza, Solicitor Vicente V. Mendoza and Solicitor Re"nato S. $unofor ot)er respondents.

R E S O L ! " O N

CONCEPC"ON, C.J.:

!he above#entitled five $%& cases are a se'uel of cases (.R. Nos. L#)%*+%,L#)%*+*, L#)%*-, L#)%*, L#)%*+, L#)%*/, L#)%*%), L#)%*0, L#)%*0% andL#)%*1*, decided on 2anuar3 ++, *1), to 4hich 5e 4ill hereafter refer collectivel3 as the plebiscite cases.

%ac#ground of t)e $le*iscite +ases.

!he factual settin6 thereof is set forth in the decision therein rendered, fro7 4hich 5e 'uote8

On March 0, *01, Con6ress of the Philippines passed Resolution No. +, 4hich 4as a7ended

b3 Resolution No. of said bod3, adopted on 2une 1, *0*, callin6 a Convention to proposea7end7ents to the Constitution of the Philippines. Said Resolution No. +, as a7ended, 4asi7ple7ented b3 Republic Act No. 0)+, approved on Au6ust +, *1-, pursuant to the provisionof 4hich the election of dele6ates to said Convention 4as held on Nove7ber -, *1-, and the*1 Constitutional Convention be6an to perfor7 its functions on 2une , *1. 5hile theConvention 4as in session on Septe7ber +, *1+, the President issued Procla7ation No. -/placin6 the entire Philippines under Martial La4. On Nove7ber +*, *1+, the Conventionapproved its Proposed Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. !he ne9t da3, Nove7ber)-, *1+, the President of the Philippines issued Presidential :ecree No. 1), ;sub7ittin6 to the


3/47

speech, press and asse7bl3, and there bein6 no sufficient ti7e to infor7 the people of thecontents thereof.;

Substantiall3 identical actions 4ere filed, on :ece7ber /, *1+, b3 Pablo C. Sanidad a6ainst theCo77ission on Elections $Case (.R. No. L# )%*+*& on :ece7ber , *1+, b3 (erardo Ro9as,et al., a6ainst the Co77ission on Elections, the :irector of Printin6, the National !reasurer andthe Auditor (eneral $Case (.R. L#)%*-&, b3 Eddie B. Monteclaro a6ainst the Co77ission onElections and the !reasurer of the Philippines $Case (.R. No. L#)%*&, and b3 Sedfre3

Ordo>e?, et al. a6ainst the National !reasurer and the Co77ission on Elections $Case (.R. NoL#)%*+&@ on :ece7ber +, *1+, b3 idal !an, et al., a6ainst the Co77ission on Elections, the!reasurer of the Philippines, the Auditor (eneral and the :irector of Printin6 $Case (.R. No. L#)%*/& and b3 2ose 5. :iono and Beni6no S. A'uino a6ainst the Co77ission on Elections$Case (.R. No. L#)%*%)&@ on :ece7ber , *1+, b3 2acinto 2i7ene? a6ainst the Co77issionon Elections, the Auditor (eneral, the !reasurer of the Philippines and the :irector of the Bureauof Printin6 $Case (.R. No. L#)%*0&, and b3 Raul M. (on?ales a6ainst the Co77ission onElections, the Bud6et Co77issioner, the National !reasurer and the Auditor (eneral $Case (.RNo. L#)%*0%&@ and on :ece7ber 0, *1+, b3 Ernesto C. idal6o a6ainst the Co77ission onElections, the Secretar3 of Education, the National !reasurer and the Auditor (eneral $Case(.R. No. L#)%*1*&.

"n all these cases, e9cept the last $(.R. No. L#)%*1*&, the respondents 4ere re'uired to file theirans4ers ;not later than +8-- $oDcloc& noon of Saturda3, :ece7ber 0, *1+.; Said cases 4erealso, set for hearin6 and partl3 heard on Monda3, :ece7ber /, *1+, at *8)- a.7. !he hearin64as continued on :ece7ber *, *1+. B3 a6ree7ent of the parties, the afore7entioned lastcase (.R. No. L#)%*1* 4as, also, heard, =ointl3 4ith the others, on :ece7ber *, *1+. Atthe conclusion of the hearin6, on that date, the parties in all of the afore7entioned cases 4ere6iven a short period of ti7e 4ithin 4hich ;to sub7it their notes on the points the3 desire tostress.; Said notes 4ere filed on different dates, bet4een :ece7ber +, *1+, and 2anuar3 ,*1).

Mean4hile, or on :ece7ber 1, *1+, the President had issued an order te7poraril3 suspendinthe effects of Procla7ation No. -/, for the purpose of free and open debate on the Proposed

Constitution. On :ece7ber +), the President announced the postpone7ent of the plebiscite forthe ratification or re=ection of the Proposed Constitution. No for7al action to this effect 4as taenuntil 2anuar3 1, *1), 4hen (eneral Order No. +- 4as issued, directin6 ;that the plebiscitescheduled to be held on 2anuar3 %, *1/, be postponed until further notice.; Said (eneralOrder No. +-, 7oreover, ;suspended in the 7eanti7e; the ;order of :ece7ber 1, *1+,te7poraril3 suspendin6 the effects of Procla7ation No. -/ for purposes of free and opendebate on the proposed Constitution.;

"n vie4 of these events relative to the postpone7ent of the afore7entioned plebiscite, the Courtdee7ed it fit to refrain, for the ti7e bein6, fro7 decidin6 the afore7entioned cases, for neitherthe date nor the conditions under 4hich said plebiscite 4ould be held 4ere no4n or announcedofficiall3. !hen, a6ain, Con6ress 4as, pursuant to the *)% Constitution, scheduled to 7eet in

re6ular session on 2anuar3 ++, *1), and since the 7ain ob=ection to Presidential :ecree No. 1)4as that the President does not have the le6islative authorit3 to call a plebiscite and appropriatefunds therefor, 4hich Con6ress un'uestionabl3 could do, particularl3 in vie4 of the for7alpostpone7ent of the plebiscite b3 the President reportedl3 after consultation 4ith, a7on6others, the leaders of Con6ress and the Co77ission on Elections the Court dee7ed it 7orei7perative to defer its final action on these cases.

;"n the afternoon of 2anuar3 +, *1), the petitioners in Case (.R. No.L#)%*/ filed an ;ur6ent 7otion,; pra3in6 that said case be decided ;as soon as possible,preferabl3 not later than 2anuar3 %, *1).; "t 4as alle6ed in said 7otion, inter alia8


4/47

;0. !hat the President subse'uentl3 announced the issuance of Presidential :ecree No. /0or6ani?in6 the so#called Citi?ens Asse7blies, to be consulted on certain public 'uestionsFBulletin !oda3, 2anuar3 , *1)G@

;1. !hat thereafter it 4as later announced that ;the Asse7blies 4ill be ased if the3 favor oroppose

FG !he Ne4 Societ3@

F+G Refor7s instituted under Martial La4@

F)G !he holdin6 of a plebiscite on the proposed ne4 Constitution and 4hen $thetentative ne4 dates 6iven follo4in6 the postpone7ent of the plebiscite fro7 theori6inal date of 2anuar3 % are


5/47

F+G (o "ou approve of t)e ne +onstitution-

F)G :o 3ou 4ant a plebiscite to be called to ratif3 the ne4 ConstitutionH

FG :o 3ou 4ant the elections to be held in Nove7ber, *1) in accordance 4iththe provisions of the *)% ConstitutionH

F%G "f the elections 4ould not be held, 4hen do 3ou 4ant the ne9t elections to becalledH

F0G :o 3ou 4ant 7artial la4 to continueH FBulletin !oda3, 2anuar3 , *1)@e7phasis suppliedG

;+. !hat accordin6 to reports, the returns 4ith respect to the si9 $0& additional 'uestions 'uotedabove 4ill be on a for7 si7ilar or identical to Anne9 ;A; hereof@

;). !hat attached to pa6e of Anne9 ;A; is another pa6e, 4hich 4e 7ared as Anne9 ;A#;,and 4hich reads8

COMMEN!S ON

IES!"ON No.

"n order to broaden the base of citi?ensD participation in6overn7ent.

IES!"ON No. +

But 4e do not 4ant the Ad "nteri7 Asse7bl3 to be convoed. Or if it is to beconvened at all, it should not be done so until after at least seven $1& 3ears fro7the approval of the Ne4 Constitution b3 the Citi?ens Asse7blies.

IES!"ON No. )

!he vote of the Citi?ens Asse7blies should alread3 be considered the plebisciteon the Ne4 Constitution.

"f the Citi?ens Asse7blies approve of the Ne4 Constitution, then the ne4Constitution should be dee7ed ratified.

IES!"ON No.

5e are sic and tired of too fre'uent elections. 5e are fed up 4ith politics, of so7an3 debates and so 7uch e9penses.

IES!"ON No. %

Probabl3 a period of at least seven $1& 3ears 7oratoriu7 on elections 4ill beenou6h for stabilit3 to be established in the countr3, for refor7s to tae root andnor7alc3 to return.

IES!"ON No. 0


6/47

5e 4ant President Marcos to continue 4ith Martial La4. 5e 4ant hi7 to e9ercisehis po4ers 4ith 7ore authorit3. 5e 4ant hi7 to be stron6 and fir7 so that he canacco7plish all his refor7 pro6ra7s and establish nor7alc3 in the countr3. "f allother 7easures fail, 4e 4ant President Marcos to declare a revolutionar36overn7ent alon6 the lines of the ne4 Constitution 4ithout the ad interi7

Asse7bl3.;

;Attention is respectfull3 invited to the co77ents on ;Iuestion No. ),; 4hich reads8

IES!"ON No. )

!he vote of the Citi?ens Asse7blies should be considered the plebiscite on theNe4 Constitution.

"f the Citi?ens Asse7blies approve of the Ne4 Constitution, then the ne4Constitution should be dee7ed ratified.

!his, 4e are afraid, and therefore alle6e, is pre6nant 4ith o7inous possibilities.

. !hat, in the 7eanti7e, speain6 on television and over the radio, on 2anuar3 1, *1), thePresident announced that the li7ited freedo7 of debate on the proposed Constitution 4as bein64ithdra4n and that the procla7ation of 7artial la4 and the orders and decrees issuedthereunder 4ould thenceforth strictl3 be enforced F:ail3 E9press, 2anuar3 /, *1)G@

%. !hat petitioners have reason to fear, and therefore state, that the 'uestion added in the lastlist of 'uestions to be ased to the Citi?ens Asse7blies, na7el38

:o 3ou approve of the Ne4ConstitutionH

in relation to the 'uestion follo4in6 it8

:o 3ou still 4ant a plebiscite to be called to ratif3 thene4 ConstitutionH;

4ould be an atte7pt to b3#pass and short#circuit this onorable Court before 4hich the 'uestionof the validit3 of the plebiscite on the proposed Constitution is no4 pendin6@

;0. !hat petitioners have reason to fear, and therefore alle6e, that if an affir7ative ans4er to thet4o 'uestions =ust referred to 4ill be reported then this onorable Court and the entire nation 4ilbe confronted 4ith a fait accompli 4hich has been attained in a hi6hl3 unconstitutional andunde7ocratic 7anner@

;1. !hat the fait accompli 4ould consist in the supposed e9pression of the people approvin6 theproposed Constitution@

;/. !hat, if such event 4ould happen, then the case before this onorable Court could, to allintents and purposes, beco7e 7oot because, petitioners fear, and the3 therefore alle6e, that onthe basis of such supposed e9pression of the 4ill of the people throu6h the Citi?ens Asse7bliesit 4ould be announced that the proposed Constitution, 4ith all its defects, both con6enital andother4ise, has been ratified@


7/47

;*. !hat, in such a situation the Philippines 4ill be facin6 a real crisis and there is lielihood ofconfusion if not chaos, because then, the people and their officials 4ill not no4 4hichConstitution is in force.

;+-. !hat the crisis 7entioned above can onl3 be avoided if this onorable Court 4ill i77ediateldecide and announce its decision on the present petition@

;+. !hat 4ith the 4ithdra4al b3 the President of the li7ited freedo7 of discussion on the

proposed Constitution 4hich 4as 6iven to the people pursuant to Sec. ) of Presidential :ecreeNo. 1), the opposition of respondents to petitionersD pra3er at the plebiscite be prohibited hasno4 collapsed and that a free plebiscite can no lon6er be held.;

At about the sa7e ti7e, a si7ilar pra3er 4as 7ade in a ;7anifestation; filed b3 the petitioners inL#)%**, ;(erardo Ro9as, et al. v. Co77ission on Elections, et al.,; and L#)%*+, ;Sedfre3 A.Ordo>e?, et al. v. !he National !reasurer, et al.;

!he ne9t da3, 2anuar3 ), *1), 4hich 4as a Saturda3, the Court issued a resolution re'uirin6the respondents in said three $)& cases to co77ent on said ;ur6ent 7otion; and ;7anifestation,;;not later than !uesda3 noon, 2anuar3 0, *1).; Prior thereto, or on 2anuar3 %, *1), shortl3before noon, the petitioners in said Case (.R. No. L#)%*/ riled a ;supple7ental 7otion forissuance of restrainin6 order and inclusion of additional respondents,; pra3in6

;... that a restrainin6 order be issued en=oinin6 and restrainin6 respondentCo77ission on Elections, as 4ell as the :epart7ent of Local (overn7ents andits head, Secretar3 2ose Ro>o@ the :epart7ent of A6rarian Refor7s and its headSecretar3 Conrado Estrella@ the National Ratification Coordinatin6 Co77ittee andits Chair7an, (uiller7o de e6a@ their deputies, subordinates and substitutes,and all other officials and persons 4ho 7a3 be assi6ned such tas, fro7collectin6, certif3in6, and announcin6 and reportin6 to the President or otherofficials concerned, the so#called Citi?ensD Asse7blies referendu7 resultsalle6edl3 obtained 4hen the3 4ere supposed to have 7et durin6 the periodco7prised bet4een 2anuar3 - and 2anuar3 %, *1), on the t4o 'uestions'uoted in para6raph of this Supple7ental r6ent Motion.;

"n support of this pra3er, it 4as alle6ed

;). !hat petitioners are no4 before this onorable Court in order to as further that thisonorable Court issue a restrainin6 order en=oinin6 herein respondents, particularl3 respondentCo77ission on Elections as 4ell as the :epart7ent of Local (overn7ents and its head,Secretar3 2ose Ro>o@ the :epart7ent of A6rarian Refor7s and its head, Secretar3 ConradoEstrella@ the National Ratification Coordinatin6 Co77ittee and its Chair7an, (uiller7o de e6a@and their deputies, subordinates andJor substitutes, fro7 collectin6, certif3in6, announcin6 andreportin6 to the President the supposed Citi?ensD Asse7blies referendu7 results alle6edl3obtained 4hen the3 4ere supposed to have 7et durin6 the period bet4een 2anuar3 - and2anuar3 %, *1), particularl3 on the t4o 'uestions 'uoted in para6raph of this Supple7entalr6ent Motion@

;. !hat the proceedin6s of the so#called Citi?ensD Asse7blies are ille6al, null and voidparticularl3 insofar as such proceedin6s are bein6 7ade the basis of a supposed consensus forthe ratification of the proposed Constitution because8

FaG !he elections conte7plated in the Constitution, Article K, at 4hich theproposed constitutional a7end7ents are to be sub7itted for ratification, areelections at 4hich onl3 'ualified and dul3 re6istered voters are per7itted to vote,


8/47

4hereas, the so called Citi?ensD Asse7blies 4ere participated in b3 persons %3ears of a6e and older, re6ardless of 'ualifications or lac thereof, as prescribedin the Election Code@

FbG Elections or plebiscites for the ratification of constitutional a7end7entsconte7plated in Article K of the Constitution have provisions for the secrec3 ofchoice and of vote, 4hich is one of the safe6uards of freedo7 of action, but votesin the Citi?ensD Asse7blies 4ere open and 4ere cast b3 raisin6 hands@

FcG !he Election Code 7aes a7ple provisions for free, orderl3 and honestelections, and such provisions are a 7ini7u7 re'uire7ent for elections orplebiscites for the ratification of constitutional a7end7ents, but there 4ere nosi7ilar provisions to 6uide and re6ulate proceedin6s of the so called Citi?ensD

Asse7blies@

FdG "t is seriousl3 to be doubted that, for lac of 7aterial ti7e, 7ore than a handfulof the so called Citi?ensD Asse7blies have been actuall3 for7ed, because the7echanics of their or6ani?ation 4ere still bein6 discussed a da3 or so before theda3 the3 4ere supposed to be6in functionin68

;Provincial 6overnors and cit3 and 7unicipal 7a3ors had been7eetin6 4ith barrio captains and co77unit3 leaders since lastMonda3 F2anuar3 /, *1)& to thresh out the 7echanics in thefor7ation of the Citi?ens Asse7blies and the topics for discussion.FBulletin !oda3, 2anuar3 -, *1)G

;"t should be recalled that the Citi?ensD Asse7blies 4ere ordered for7ed onl3 at the be6innin6 ofthe 3ear F:ail3 E9press, 2anuar3 , *1)G, and considerin6 the lac of e9perience of the localor6ani?ers of said asse7blies, as 4ell as the absence of sufficient 6uidelines for or6ani?ation, itis too 7uch to believe that such asse7blies could be or6ani?ed at such a short notice.

;%. !hat for lac of 7aterial ti7e, the appropriate a7ended petition to include the additionalofficials and 6overn7ent a6encies 7entioned in para6raph ) of this Supple7ental r6ent Motioncould not be co7pleted because, as noted in the r6ent Motion of 2anuar3 +, *1), thesub7ission of the proposed Constitution to the Citi?ensD Asse7blies 4as not 7ade no4n to thepublic until 2anuar3 , *1). But be that as it 7a3, the said additional officials and a6encies 7abe properl3 included in the petition at bar because8

FaG !he herein petitioners have pra3ed in their petition for the annul7ent not onl3of Presidential :ecree No. 1), but also of ;an3 si7ilar decree, procla7ation, ordeor instruction.

so that Presidential :ecree No. /0, insofar at least as it atte7pts to sub7it the proposed

Constitution to a plebiscite b3 the so#called Citi?ensD Asse7blies, is properl3 in issue in this caseand those 4ho enforce, i7ple7ent, or carr3 out the said Presidential :ecree No. /0. and theinstructions incidental thereto clearl3 fall 4ithin the scope of this petition@

FbG "n their petition, petitioners sou6ht the issuance of a 4rit of preli7inar3in=unction restrainin6 not onl3 the respondents na7ed in the petition but also their;a6ents; fro7 i7ple7entin6 not onl3 Presidential :ecree No. 1), but also ;an3other si7ilar decree, order, instruction, or procla7ation in relation to the holdin6 oa plebiscite on 2anuar3 %, *1) for the purpose of sub7ittin6 to the


9/47

FcG Petitioners pra3ed for such other relief 4hich 7a3 be =ust and e'uitable. Fp. )*PetitionG.

;!herefore, vie4in6 the case fro7 all an6les, the officials and 6overn7ent a6encies 7entioned inpara6raph ) of this Supple7ental r6ent Motion, can la4full3 be reached b3 the processes ofthis onorable Court b3 reason of this petition, considerin6, further7ore, that the Co77ission onElections has under our la4s the po4er, a7on6 others, of8

$a& :irect and i77ediate supervision and control over national, provincial, cit3,7unicipal and 7unicipal district officials re'uired b3 la4 to perfor7 duties relativeto the conduct of elections on 7atters pertainin6 to the enforce7ent of theprovisions of this Code ...; FElection Code of *1, Sec. )G.

;0. !hat unless the petition at bar is decided i77ediatel3 and the Co77ission on Elections,to6ether 4ith the officials and 6overn7ent a6encies 7entioned in para6raph ) of thisSupple7ental r6ent Motion are restrained or en=oined fro7 collectin6, certif3in6, reportin6 orannouncin6 to the President the results of the alle6ed votin6 of the so#called Citi?ensD

Asse7blies, irreparable da7a6e 4ill be caused to the Republic of the Philippines, the


10/47

;5EREAS, the Constitution proposed b3 the nineteen hundred sevent3#one ConstitutionalConvention is sub=ect to ratification b3 the


11/47

Such is the bac6round of the cases sub7itted deter7ination. After ad7ittin6 so7e of thealle6ations 7ade in the petition in L#)%*/ and den3in6 the other alle6ations thereof,respondents therein alle6ed in their ans4er thereto, b3 4a3 affir7ative defenses8 & that the;'uestions raised; in said petition ;are political in character;@ +& that ;the ConstitutionalConvention acted freel3 and had plenar3 authorit3 to propose not onl3 a7end7ents but aConstitution 4hich 4ould supersede the present Constitution;@ )& that ;the PresidentDs call for aplebiscite and the appropriation of funds for this purpose are valid;@ & that ;there is not ani7proper sub7ission; and ;there can be a plebiscite under Martial La4;@ and %& that the

;ar6u7ent that the Proposed Constitution is va6ue and inco7plete, 7aes an unconstitutionaldele6ation of po4er, includes a referendu7 on the procla7ation of Martial La4 and purports toe9ercise =udicial po4er; is ;not relevant and ... 4ithout 7erit.; "dentical defenses 4ere set up inthe other cases under consideration.

"77ediatel3 after the hearin6 held on 2anuar3 1, *1), or since the afternoon of that date, theMe7bers of the Court have been deliberatin6 on the afore7entioned cases and, after e9tensivediscussions on the 7erits thereof, have dee7ed it best that each Me7ber 4rite his o4n vie4sthereon and that thereafter the Chief 2ustice should state the result or the votes thus cast on thepoints in issue. ence, the individual vie4s of 73 brethren in the Court are set forth in theopinions attached hereto, e9cept that, instead of 4ritin6 their separate opinions, so7e Me7bershave preferred to 7erel3 concur in the opinion of one of our collea6ues.

!hen the 4riter of said decision e9pressed his o4n opinion on the issues involved therein, after 4hich herecapitulated the vie4s of the Me7bers of the Court, as follo4s8

. !here is unani7it3 on the =usticiable nature of the issue on the le6alit3 of Presidential :ecreeNo. 1).

+. On the validit3 of the decree itself, 2ustices Maalintal, Castro,


12/47

a. 2ustices Maalintal, Castro,


13/47

Si7ilar actions 4ere filed, on 2anuar3 +), *1), b3 idal !an, 2. Antonio Araneta, Ale=andro Roces, ManuelCrudo, Antonio . Miranda, E7ilio de Peralta and Loren?o M. !a>ada, a6ainst the E9ecutive Secretar3, theSecretaries of


14/47

Pre7ised upon the fore6oin6 alle6ations, said petitioners pra3ed that, ;pendin6 hearin6 on the 7erits, a 4rit ofpreli7inar3 7andator3 in=unction be issued orderin6 respondents E9ecutive Secretar3, the Secretar3 of Nationa:efense, the Chief of Staff of the Ar7ed


15/47

Accordin6l3, the 4riter 4ill first e9press his person opinion on the issues before the Court. After the e9positionhis aforesaid opinion, the 4riter 4ill 7ae, concurrentl3 4ith his collea6ues in the Court, a resu7e of su77ar3of the votes cast b3 the7 in these cases.

/riter0s $ersonal pinion

".

Alleged academic futilit" of furt)er proceedings in G.R. L123435.

!his defense or theor3, set up b3 counsel for respondents (il 2. Pu3at and 2ose Ro3 in (.R. No. L#)00%, and,also, b3 the Solicitor (eneral, is predicated upon the fact that, in Our decision in the plebiscite cases, Mr.2ustice Barredo had e9pressed the vie4 that the *)% Constitution had ;pro tanto passed into histor3; and;been le6iti7atel3 supplanted b3 the Constitution no4 in force b3 virtue of Procla7ation No. -+ ...;@ that Mr.2ustice Antonio did not feel ;that this Court co7petent to act; in said cases ;in the absence of an3 =udiciall3discoverable and 7ana6eable standards; and because ;the access to relevant infor7ation is insufficient toassure the correct deter7ination of the issue,; apart fro7 the circu7stance that ;the ne4 constitution has beenpro7ul6ated and 6reat interests have alread3 arisen under it; and that the political or6an of the (overn7enthas reco6ni?ed its provisions@ 4hereas, Mr. 2ustice Es6uerra had postulated that ;$4&ithout an3 co7petentevidence ... about the circu7stances attendin6 the holdin6; of the ;referendu7 or plebiscite; thru the Citi?ensD

Asse7blies, he ;cannot sa3 that it 4as not la4full3 held; and that, accordin6l3, he assumed ;that 4hat theprocla7ation $No. -+& sa3s on its face is true and until overco7e b3 satisfactor3 evidence; he could not;subscribe to the clai7 that such plebiscite 4as not held accordin6l3;@ and that he accepted ;as a faitaccompli that the Constitution adopted $b3 the *1 Constitutional Convention& on Nove7ber )-, *1+, hasbeen dul3 ratified.

Counsel for respondents (il 2. Pu3at and 2ose Ro3 6oes on to sa3 that, under these circu7stances, ;it see7sre7ote or i7probable that the necessar3 ei6ht $/& votes under the *)% Constitution, and 7uch less the ten$-& votes re'uired b3 the *1+ $*1)& Constitution, can be obtained for the relief sou6ht in the A7endedPetition; in (.R. No.L#)00%.

" a7 unable to share this vie4. !o be6in 4ith, Mr. 2ustice Barredo announced publicl3, in open court, durin6 thehearin6 of these cases, that he 4as and is 4illin6 to be convinced that his afore7entioned opinion in theplebiscite cases should be reconsidered and chan6ed. "n effect, he thus declared that he had an open 7ind inconnection 4ith the cases at bar, and that in decidin6 the sa7e he 4ould not necessaril3 adhere to said opinionif the petitioners herein succeeded in convincin6 hi7 that their vie4 should be sustained.

Secondl3, counsel for the aforesaid respondents had apparentl3 assu7ed that, under the *)% Constitution,ei6ht $/& votes are necessar3 to declare invalid the contested Procla7ation No. -+. " do not believe that thisassu7ption is borne out b3 an3 provision of said Constitution. Section - of Article """ thereof reads8

All cases involvin6 the constitutionalit3 of a treat3 or la4 shall be heard and decided b3 the

Supre7e Court in *anc , and no treat3 or la4 7a3 be declared unconstitutional 4ithout theconcurrence of t4o thirds of all the 7e7bers of the Court.

Pursuant to this section, the concurrence of t4o#thirds of all the Me7bers of the Supre7e Court is re'uired onl3to declare ;treat3 or la4; unconstitutional. Construin6 said provision, in a resolution dated Septe7ber 0, **then Chief 2ustice Moran, voicin6 the unanimous vie4 of the Me7bers of this Court, postulated8

... !here is not)ing either in the Constitution or in the 2udiciar3 Act re'uirin6 the vote of ei6ht2ustices to nullif3 a rule or re6ulation or an e9ecutive order issued b3 the President. "t is ver3si6nificant that in the previous drafts of section -, Article """ of the Constitution, ;e9ecutiveorder; and ;re6ulation; ere included a7on6 those that re'uired for their nullification the vote of


16/47

t4o#thirds of all the 7e7bers of the Court. But ;e9ecutive order; and ;re6ulation; 4erelater deleted fro7 the final draft $Arue6o, !he


17/47

unsettlin6 acts done in reliance on it caution a6ainst interposition of the po4er of =udicial revie4;@ that ;in thecase of the Ne4 Constitution, the 6overn7ent has been reco6ni?ed in accordance 4ith the Ne4 Constitution;@that ;the countr3Ds forei6n relations are no4 bein6 conducted in accordance 4ith the ne4 charter;@ that ;forei6n6overn7ents have taen note of it;@ that the ;plebiscite cases; are ;not precedents for holdin6 'uestionsre6ardin6 proposal and ratification =usticiable;@ and that ;to abstain fro7 =ud67ent on the ulti7ate issue ofconstitutionalit3 is not to abdicate dut3.;

At the outset, it is obvious to 7e that 5e are not bein6 ased to ;declare; the ne Constitution invalid. 5hat

petitioners dispute is the theor3 that it has been validl3 ratified b3 the people, especiall3 that the3 have doneso in accordance it) Article :V of t)e 4;25 +onstitution. !he petitioners 7aintain that the conclusion reachedb3 the Chief E9ecutive in the dispositive portion of Procla7ation No. -+ is not borne out b3 the 4hereasesprecedin6 the sa7e, as the predicates fro7 4hich said conclusion 4as dra4n@ that the plebiscite or ;election;re'uired in said Article K has not been held@ that the Chief E9ecutive has no authorit3, under the *)%Constitution, to dispense4ith said election or plebiscite@ that the proceedin6s before the Citi?ensD Asse7bliesdid not constitute and 7a3 not be considered as such plebiscite@ that the facts of record abundantl3 sho4 thatthe afore7entioned Asse7blies could not have been held throu6hout the Philippines fro7 2anuar3 - to2anuar3 %, *1)@ and that, in an3 event, the proceedin6s in said Asse7blies are null and void as an alle6edratification of the ne4 Constitution proposed b3 the *1 Constitutional Convention, not onl3 because of thecircu7stances under 4hich said Asse7blies had been created and held, but, also, because persons dis'ualifieto vote under Article of the Constitution 4ere allo4ed to participate therein, because the provisions of our

Election Code 4ere not observed in said Asse7blies, because the sa7e 4ere not held under the supervision othe Co77ission on Elections, in violation of section + of Article K of the *)% Constitution, and because thee9istence of Martial La4 and (eneral Order No. +-, 4ithdra4in6 or suspendin6 the li7ited freedo7 to discussthe 7erits and de7erits of said proposed Constitution, i7paired the peopleDs freedo7 in votin6 thereon,particularl3 a viva voce, as it 4as done in 7an3 instances, as 4ell as their abilit3 to have a reasonableno4led6e of the contents of the docu7ent on 4hich the3 4ere alle6edl3 called upon to e9press their vie4s.

Referrin6 no4 7ore specificall3 to the issue on 4hether the ne4 Constitution proposed b3 the *1Constitutional Convention has been ratified in accordance 4ith the provisions of Article K of the *)%Constitution is a political 'uestion or not, " do not hesitate to state that the ans4er 7ust be in the ne6ative."ndeed, such is the position taen b3 this Court, 1 in an endless line of decisions, too lon6 to leave an3 roo7for possible doubt that said issue is inherentl3 and essentiall3 =usticiable. Such, also, has been the consistent

position of the courts of the nited States of A7erica, 4hose decisions have a persuasive effect in this =urisdiction, our constitutional s3ste7 in the *)% Constitution bein6 patterned after that of the nited States.Besides, no plausible reason has, to 73 7ind, been advanced to 4arrant a departure fro7 said position,consistentl3 4ith the for7 of 6overn7ent established under said Constitution..

!hus, in the afore7entioned plebiscite cases, 1? /e re6ected the theor3 of the respondents therein that the'uestion 4hether Presidential :ecree No. 1) callin6 a plebiscite to be held on 2anuar3 %, *1), for theratification or re=ection of the proposed ne4 Constitution, 4as valid or not, 4as not a proper sub=ect of =udicialin'uir3 because, the3 clai7ed, it partoo of a political nature, and 5e unanimousl" declared that the issue 4asa 6usticia*le one. /it) identical unanimit" , 5e overruled the respondentsD contention in the *1 )a*eascorpuscases, 19 'uestionin6 Our authorit3 to deter7ine the constitutional sufficienc3 of the factual bases of thePresidential procla7ation suspendin6 the privile6e of the 4rit of )a*eas corpus on Au6ust +, *1, despite the

opposite vie4 taen b3 this Court in %arcelona v. %a#er 2@ and Montenegro v. +astañeda, 21 insofar as it adhereto the for7er case, 4hich vie4 5e, accordin6l3, abandoned and refused to appl3.


18/47

!he reason 4h3 the issue under consideration and other issues of si7ilar character are =usticiable, not politicalis plain and si7ple. One of the principal bases of the non#=usticiabilit3 of so#called political 'uestions is theprinciple of separation of po4ers characteristic of the Presidential s3ste7 of 6overn7ent the functions of4hich are classified or divided, b3 reason of their nature, into three $)& cate6ories, na7el38 & those involvin6the 7ain6 of la4s, 4hich are allocated to the le6islative depart7ent@ +& those concerned 7ainl3 4ith theenforce7ent of such la4s and of =udicial decisions appl3in6 andJor interpretin6 the sa7e, 4hich belon6 to thee9ecutive depart7ent@ and )& those dealin6 4ith the settle7ent of disputes, controversies or conflicts involvin6ri6hts, duties or prero6atives that are le6all3 de7andable and enforceable, 4hich are apportioned to courts of

=ustice. 5ithin its o4n sphere but onl" it)in such sphere each depart7ent is supre7e and independentof the others, and each is devoid of authorit3, not onl3 to encroach upon the po4ers or field of action assi6nedto an3 of the other depart7ents, but, also, to in'uire into or pass upon the advisabilit3 or isdom of the actsperfor7ed, 7easures taen or decisions 7ade b3 the other depart7ents provided that such acts, 7easuresor decisions are it)inthe area allocated thereto b3 the Constitution. 2)

!his principle of separation of po4ers under the presidential s3ste7 6oes hand in hand 4ith the s3ste7 ofchecs and balances, under 4hich each depart7ent is vested b3 the


19/47

must act accordingl" to la and su*6ect its restrictions, and ever" departure t)erefrom ordisregard t)ereof must su*6ect )im to t)at restraining and controlling poer of t)e people, actingt)roug) t)e agenc" of t)e 6udiciar"> for it must *e remem*ered t)at t)e people act t)roug)courts, as ell as t)roug) t)e e!ecutive or t)e Legislature. One depart7ent is =ust asrepresentative as the other, and t)e 6udiciar" is t)e department )ic) is c)arged it) t)e specialdut" of determining t)e limitations )ic) t)e la places upon all official action. !he reco6nition othis principle, unno4n e9cept in (reat Britain and A7erica, is necessar", to ?t)e end t)at t)egovernment ma" *e one of las and not of men; 4ords 4hich 5ebster said 4ere t)e

greatest contained in an3 4ritten constitutional docu7ent.; $E7phasis supplied.&

and, in an atte7pt to describe the nature of a political 'uestion in ter7s, it 4as hoped, understandable to thela37en, 5e added that ;... the ter7 ;political 'uestion; connotes, in le6al parlance, 4hat it 7eans in ordinar3parlance, na7el3, a 'uestion of polic3; in 7atters concernin6 the 6overn7ent of a State, as a bod3 politic. ;"nother 4ords, in the lan6ua6e of Corpus 2uris Secundu7 $supra&, it refers to ;those 'uestions 4hich, under theConstitution, are to be decided *" t)e people in their soverei6n capacit3, or in re6ard to 4hich full discretionar"aut)orit" has been dele6ated to the Le6islature or e9ecutive branch of the 6overn7ent.; "t is concerned 4ithissues dependent upon the isdom, not legalit" , of a particular 7easure.;

Accordin6l3, 4hen the 6rant of po4er is 'ualified, conditional or sub=ect to li7itations, the issue on 4hether ornot the prescribed 'ualifications or conditions have been 7et, or the li7itations respected, is =usticiable or non#

political, the cru9 of the proble7 bein6 one of legalit" or validit" of the contested act, not its 4isdo7. Other4isesaid 'ualifications, conditions or li7itations particularl3 those prescribed or i7posed b3 the Constitution 4ould be set at nau6ht. 5hat is 7ore, the =udicial in'uir3 into such issue and the settle7ent thereof arethe mainfunctions of courts of =ustice under the Presidential for7 of 6overn7ent adopted in our *)%Constitution, and the s3ste7 of checs and balances, one of its basic predicates. As a conse'uence, 5e haveneither the authorit3 nor the discretion to decline passin6 upon said issue, but are under t)e inelucta*leo*ligation 7ade particularl3 7ore e9actin6 and pere7ptor3 b3 our oath, as 7e7bers of the hi6hest Court ofthe land, to support and defend the Constitution to settle it. !his e9plains 4h3, in Miller v. Jo)nson, 2? it 4asheld that courts have a ;dut" , rather than a po4er;, to deter7ine 4hether another branch of the 6overn7ent ha;ept it)in constitutional limits.; Not satisfied 4ith this postulate, the court 4ent farther and stressed that, if theConstitution provides ho4 it 7a3 be a7ended as it is in our *)% Constitution ;then, unless t)e manner isfolloed, t)e 6udiciar" as t)e interpreter of t)at constitution, ill declare t)e amendment invalid .; 29 "n fact, this

ver3 Court speain6 throu6h 2ustice Laurel, an outstandin6 authorit3 on Philippine Constitutional La4, as4ell as one of the hi6hl3 respected and fore7ost leaders of the Convention that drafted the *)% Constitution declared, as earl3 as 2ul3 %, *)0, that ;$i&n ti7es of social dis'uietude or political e9cite7ent, the 6reatland7ars of the Constitution are apt to be for6otten or 7arred, if not entirel3 obliterated. "n cases of conflict,the 6udicial depart7ent is the onl" constitutional organ 4hich can be called upon to deter7ine the properallocation of po4ers bet4een the several depart7ents; of the 6overn7ent. 3@

!he Solicitor (eneral has invoed Lut)er v. %orden 31 in support of his stand that the issue under considerationis non#=usticiable in nature. Neither the factual bac6round of that case nor the action taen therein b3 the


20/47

Prior thereto, ho4ever, 7an3 citi?ens had beco7e dissatisfied 4ith the charter 6overn7ent. Me7orialsaddressed b3 the7 to the Le6islature havin6 failed to brin6 about the desired effect, 7eetin6s 4ere held andassociations for7ed b3 those 4ho belon6ed to this se67ent of the population 4hich eventuall3 resulted ina convention called for the draftin6 of a ne4 Constitution to be sub7itted to the people for their adoption orre=ection. !he convention 4as not authori?ed b3 an3 la4 of the e9istin6 6overn7ent. !he dele6ates to suchconvention fra7ed a ne4 Constitution 4hich 4as sub7itted to the people. pon the return of the votes cast b3the7, the convention declared that said Constitution had been adopted and ratified b3 a 7a=orit3 of the peopleand beca7e the para7ount la4 and Constitution of Rhode "sland.

!he charter 6overn7ent, 4hich 4as supported b3 a lar6e nu7ber of citi?ens of the state, contested, ho4ever,the validit3 of said proceedin6s. !his not4ithstandin6, one !ho7as 5. :orr, 4ho had been elected 6overnorunder the ne4 Constitution of the rebels, prepared to assert authorit3 b3 force of ar7s, and 7an3 citi?ensasse7bled to support hi7. !hereupon, the charter 6overn7ent passed an Act declarin6 the state under MartialLa4 and adopted 7easures to repel the threatened attac and subdue the rebels. !his 4as the state of affairs4hen the defendants, 4ho 4ere in the 7ilitar3 service of the charter 6overn7ent and 4ere to arrest Luther, foren6a6in6 in the support of the rebel 6overn7ent 4hich 4as never able to e9ercise an" authorit3 in the state broe into his house.

Mean4hile, the charter 6overn7ent had taen 7easures to call its o4n convention to revise the e9istin6 for7 o6overn7ent. Eventuall3, a ne4 constitution 4as drafted b3 a convention held under the authorit3 of the charter

6overn7ent, and thereafter 4as adopted and ratified b3 the people. ;$!&he ti7es and places at 4hich the votes4ere to be 6iven, the persons 4ho 4ere to receive and return the7, and the 'ualifications of the voters )avingall *een previousl" aut)orized and provided for *" la passed *" t)e c)arter government ,; the latter for7all3surrendered all of its po4ers to the ne4 6overn7ent, established under its authorit3, in Ma3 /), 4hich hadbeen in operation uninterruptedl" since then.

About a 3ear before, or in Ma3 /+, :orr, at the head of a 7ilitar3 force, had 7ade an unsuccessful atte7pt totae possession of the state arsenal in Providence, but he 4as repulsed, and, after an ;asse7bla6e of so7ehundreds of ar7ed 7en under his co77and at Chepatchet in the 2une follo4in6, 4hich dispersed uponapproach of the troops of the old 6overn7ent, no further effort 4as 7ade to establish; his 6overn7ent. ;... untilthe Constitution of /); adopted under the auspices of the charter 6overn7ent ;4ent into operation, thecharter 6overn7ent continued to assert its authorit3 and e9ercise its po4ers and to enforce o*edience

t)roug)out t)e state ... .;

avin6 offered to introduce evidence to prove that the constitution of the rebels had been ratified b3 the 7a=oritof the people, 4hich the Circuit Court re=ected, apart fro7 renderin6 =ud67ent for the defendants, the plaintifftoo the case for revie4 to the


21/47


22/47

action for a declarator3 =ud67ent declarin6 thereunder that he 4hose 'ualifications 4ere uncontested hadbeen unla4full3 e9cluded fro7 the *-th Con6ress of the .S. Said dis7issal 4as predicated upon the6round, inter alia, that the issue 4as political, but the


23/47

Petitioner in L#)0+)0 added, as ar6u7ents in support of the ne6ative vie4, that 8 & ;$4&ith a 6overn7ent#controlled press, there can never be a fair and proper sub7ission of the proposed Constitution to the people;@and +& Procla7ation No. -+ is null and void ;$i&nas7uch as the ratification process; prescribed ;in the *)%Constitution 4as not follo4ed.;

Besides adoptin6 substantiall3 so7e of the 6rounds relied upon b3 the petitioners in the above#7entionedcases, the petitioners in L#)0+/) ar6ue that ;$t&he creation of the Citi?ensD Asse7blies as the vehicle for theratification of the Constitution 4as a deception upon the people since the President announced the

postpone7ent of the 2anuar3 %, *1) plebiscite to either


24/47

Sec. +. !he Co77ission on Elections shall have e!clusive char6e of the enforce7ent andad7inistration of all las relative to the conduct of elections and shall e9ercise all other functions4hich 7a3 be conferred upon it b3 la4. "t shall decide, save those involvin6 the ri6ht tovote, all ad7inistrative 'uestions, affectin6 elections, includin6 the deter7ination of the nu7berand location of pollin6 places, and the appoint7ent of election inspectors and of other electionofficials. All la enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of t)e Government , 4hen sore'uired b3 the Co77ission, shall act as its deputies for the purpose of insuring fee, orderl", and)onest elections. !he decisions, orders, and rulin6s of the Co77ission shall be sub=ect to

revie4 *" t)e Supreme +ourt .

999 999 999 39

a. /)o ma" vote in a ple*iscite under Art. V of t)e +onstitution-

Petitioners 7aintain that section of Art. of the Constitution is a limitation upon the e9ercise of the ri6ht ofsuffra6e. !he3 clai7 that no other persons than ;citi?ens of the Philippines not other4ise dis'ualified b3 la4,4ho are t4ent3#one 3ears of a6e or over and are able to read and 4rite, and 4ho shall have resided in thePhilippines for one 3ear and in the 7unicipalit3 4herein the3 propose to vote for at least si9 7onths precedin6the election,; 7a3 e9ercise the ri6ht of suffra6e in the Philippines. pon the other hand, the Solicitor (eneralcontends that said provision 7erel3 guarantees the ri6ht of suffra6e to persons possessin6 the afore7entioned

'ualifications and none of the dis'ualifications, prescribed b3 la4, and that said ri6ht 7a3 be vested b3co7petent authorities in persons lac#ing so7e or all of the afore7entioned 'ualifications, and possessing so7eof the aforesaid dis'ualifications. "n support of this vie4, he invoes the per7issive nature of the lan6ua6e ;$s&uffra6e 7a3 be e9ercised; used in section of Art. of the Constitution, and the provisions of theRevised Barrio Charter, Republic Act No. )%*-, particularl3 sections and 0 thereof, providin6 that citi?ens ofthe Philippines ;ei6hteen 3ears of a6e or over,; 4ho are re6istered in the list of barrio asse7bl3 7e7bers, shalbe 7e7bers thereof and 7a3 participate as such in the plebiscites prescribed in said Act.

" cannot accept the Solicitor (eneralDs theor3. Art. of the Constitution declares )o 7a3 e9ercise the ri6ht ofsuffra6e, so that those lacin6 the 'ualifications therein prescribed 7a3 not e9ercise such ri6ht. !his vie4 isborne out b3 the records of the Constitutional Convention that drafted the *)% Constitution. "ndeed, section of Art. of the *)% Constitution 4as lar6el3 based on the report of the co77ittee on suffra6e of the

Convention that drafted said Constitution 4hich report 4as, in turn, ;stron6l3 influenced b3 the election la4sthen in force in the Philippines ... .; 4@ ; Said co77ittee had reco77ended8 & ;!hat the ri6ht of suffra6e shoulde9ercised onl" b3 7ale citi?ens of the Philippines.; +& ;!hat should be limited to those 4ho could read and4rite.; )& ;!hat the dut" to vote should be 7ade o*ligator" .; "t appears that the first reco77endation 4asdiscussed e9tensivel3 in the Convention, and that, b3 4a3 of co7pro7ise, it 4as eventuall3 a6reed to include,in section of Art. of the Constitution, the second sentence thereof i7posin6 upon the National Asse7bl3established b3 the ori6inal Constitution instead of the bica7eral Con6ress subse'uentl3 created b3a7end7ent said Constitution the dut3 to ;e9tend the ri6ht of suffra6e 4o7en, if in a plebiscite to, be held forthat purpose 4ithin t4o 3ears after the adoption of this Constitution, not less than three hundred thousand4o7en possessin6 the necessar3 'ualifications shall vote affir7ativel3 on the 'uestion.; 41

!he third reco77endation on ;co7pulsor3; votin6 4as, also debated upon rather e9tensivel3, after 4hich it 4asre=ected b3 the Convention. 42 !his accounts, in 73 opinion, for the per7issive lan6ua6e used in the firstsentence of said Art. . :espite so7e debates on the a6e 'ualification a7end7ent havin6 been proposed toreduce the sa7e to / or +-, 4hich 4ere re=ected, and the residence 'ualification, as 4ell as thedis'ualifications to the e9ercise of the ri6ht of suffra6e the second reco77endation limiting the ri6ht ofsuffra6e to those 4ho could ;read and 4rite; 4as in the lan6ua6e of :r. 2ose M. Arue6o, one of the:ele6ates to said Convention ;readil" approved in the Convention 4ithout an3 dissentin6 vote,; althou6hthere 4as so7e debate on 4hether the


25/47

5hat is relevant to the issue before s is the fact that the constitutional provision under consideration 4as7eant to be and is a grant or conferment of a ri6ht to persons possessin6 the 'ualifications and none of thedis'ualifications therein 7entioned, 4hich in turn, constitute a limitation of or restriction to said ri6ht, andcannot, accordin6l3, be dispensed 4ith, e9cept b3 constitutional a7end7ent. Obviousl3, ever3 suchconstitutional 6rant or confer7ent of a ri6ht is necessaril3 a ne6ation of the authorit3 of Con6ress or of an3other branch of the (overn7ent to den3 said ri6ht to the sub=ect of the 6rant and, in this sense onl3, 7a3 thesa7e partae of the nature of a 6uarantee. But, this does not i7pl3 not even re7otel3, that the


26/47

important 7easures for 4hich it de7ands in addition to favorable action of the *arrio council the approvalof *arrio assem*l" throu6h a ple*iscite, lesser 'ualifications than those prescribed in dealin6 4ith ordinar37easures for 4hich such plebiscite need not be held.

"t is si7ilarl3 inconceivable that those 4ho drafted the *)% Constitution intended section of Art. thereof toappl3 onl" to elections of pu*lic officers, not to ple*iscites for the ratification of a7end7ents to the


27/47

!he 4ord ;cast; is defined as ;to deposit for7all3 or officiall3.; )7

"t see7s to us that a vote is cast 4hen a *allot is deposited indicatin6 a ;choice.; ... !he 4ord;cast; 7eans ;deposit $a *allot & for7all3 or officiall3 ... .

... "n si7ple 4ords, 4e 4ould define a ;vote cast; as the e9ercise on a *allot of the choice of thevoter on the 7easure proposed. )?

"n short, said Art. K envisa6es 4ith the ter7 ;votes cast; choices 7ade on *allots not orall3 or b3raisin6 b3 the persons tain6 part in plebiscites. !his is but natural and lo6ical, for, since the earl3 3ears ofthe A7erican re6i7e, 4e had adopted the Australian Ballot S3ste7, 4ith its 7a=or characteristics,na7el3, uniform official *allots prepared and furnished b3 the (overn7ent and secrec3 in the votin6, 4ith theadvanta6e of eepin6 records that per7it =udicial in'uir3, 4hen necessar3, into the accurac3 of the electionreturns. And the *)% Constitution has been consistentl3 interpreted in all plebiscites for the ratification re=ectioof proposed a7end7ents thereto, fro7 *)% to *01. ence, the viva voce votin6 in the Citi?ensD Asse7blies4as and is null and void a* initio.

b. o s)ould t)e ple*iscite *e )eld- B+M&L&+ supervision indispensa*le> essential re9uisitesC

2ust as essential as co7pliance 4ith said Art. of the * Constitution is that of Art. K thereof, particularl3 itssections and +. "ndeed, section provides that ;$t&here shall be an independent Co77ission on Elections ... !he point to be stressed here is the ter7 ;independent.; "ndeed, 4h3 4as the ter7 usedH

"n the absence of said constitutional provision as to the independence of the Co77ission, 4ould it have beendepends upon either Con6ress or the 2udiciar3H !he ans4er 7ust be the ne6ative, because the functions of thCo77ission ;enforce7ent and ad7inistration; of election la4s are neither le6islative nor =udicial in natureand, hence, be3ond the field allocated to either Con6ress or courts of =ustice. Said functions are b3 their natureessentiall3 e!ecutive, for 4hich reason, the Co77ission 4ould be under the ;control; of the President, pursuanto section -, para6raph $& of Art. "" of the Constitution, if Art. K thereof did not e9plicitl3 declare that it $theCo77ission& is an ;independent; bod3. "n other 4ords, in a7endin6 the ori6inal *)% Constitution, b3 insertin6therein said Art. K, on the Co77ission on Elections, the purpose 4as to 7ae said Co77ission independent

principall" of t)e +)ief &!ecutive.

And the reason therefor is, also, obvious. Prior to the creation of the Co77ission on Elections as aconstitutional or6an, election la4s in the Philippines 4ere enforced b3 the then :epart7ent of the "nterior,throu6h its E9ecutive Bureau, one of the offices under the supervision and control of said :epart7ent. !hesa7e lie other depart7ents of the E9ecutive Branch of the (overn7ent 4as, in turn, under the control othe Chief E9ecutive, before the adoption of the *)% Constitution, and had been until the abolition of said:epart7ent, so7eti7e a6o under the control of the President of the Philippines, since the effectivit3 of said


28/47

7e7bers ;shall not, durin6 the continuance in office, en6a6e in the practice of an3 profession or intervene,directl3 or indirectl3, in the 7ana6e7ent or control of an3 private enterprise 4hich in an34a3 7a3 affected b3the functions of their office@ nor shall the3, directl3 or indirectl3, be financiall3 interested in an3 contract 4ith the(overn7ent or an3 subdivision or instru7entalit3 thereof.; 63 !hus, the fra7ers of the a7end7ent to the ori6inaConstitution of *)% endeavored to do ever3thin6 possible protect and insure the independence of each7e7ber of the Co77ission.

5ith respect to the functions thereof as a bod3, section + of said Art. K ordains that ;$t&he Co77ission on

Elections shall have e!clusive char6e of the enforce7ent and ad7inistration all la4s relative to the conduct ofelections,; apart fro7 such other ;functions 4hich 7a3 be conferred upon it b3 la4.; "t further provides that theCo77ission ;shall decide, save those involvin6 the ri6ht to vote, all ad7inistrative 'uestion affectin6 elections,includin6 the deter7ination of the nu7ber and location of pollin6 places, and the appoint7ent of electioninspectors and of other election officials.; And, to forests possible conflicts or frictions bet4een the Co77issionon one hand, and the other offices or a6encies of the e9ecutive depart7ent, on the other, said section +postulates that ;BaCll la4 enforce7ent a6encies and instru7entalities of the (overn7ent, 4hen so re9uired b3the Co77ission, shall act as its deputies for the purpose of insurin6 free, orderl3, and honest elections.; Notsatisfied 4ith this, it declares, in effect, that ;$t&he decisions, orders, and rulin6 of the Co77ission; shall not besub=ect to revie4, e9cept b3 the Supre7e Court.

"n accordance 4ith the letter and spirit of said Art. K of the Constitution, Rep. Act No. 0)//, other4ise no4n as

the Election Code of *1, i7ple7ents the constitutional po4ers of the Co77ission on Elections and 6rantsadditional po4ers thereto, so7e of 4hich are enu7erated in sections % and 0 of said Act, 'uotedbelo4. 64 Moreover, said Act contains, inter alia, detailed provisions re6ulatin6 contributions and other $corrupt&practices@ the establish7ent of election precincts@ the desi6nation and arran6e7ent of pollin6 places, includin6votin6 booths, to protect the secrec3 of the ballot@ for7ation of lists of voters, the identification and re6istrationof voters, the proceedin6s therefor, as 4ell as for the inclusion in, or e9clusion or cancellation fro7 said list andthe publication thereof@ the establish7ent of 7unicipal, provincial and files of re6istered voters@ the co7positionand appoint7ent of board of election inspectors@ the particulars of the official ballots to be used and theprecautions to be taen to insure authenticit3 thereof@ the procedure for the castin6 of votes@ the countin6 ofvotes b3 boards of inspectors@ the rules for the appreciation of ballots and the preparation and disposition ofelection returns@ the constitution and operation of 7unicipal, provincials and national boards of canvassers@ thepresentation of the political parties andJor their candidates in each election precinct@ the procla7ation of the

results, includin6, in the case of election of public officers, election contests@ and the =urisdiction of courts of =ustice in cases of violation of the provisions of said Election Code and the penalties for such violations.


29/47

of said proposed Constitution@ and declarin6, inter alia, that ;$t&he provision of the Election Code of *1, insofaas the3 are not inconsistent; 4ith said decree e9ceptin6 those ;re6ardin6 ri6ht and obli6ations of politicalparties and candidates; ;s)all appl" to the conduct of the plebiscite.; "ndeed, section + of said Election Codeof *1 provides that ;$a&ll elections of public officers e9cept barrio officials and ple*iscites shall be conductedin the 7anner provided b3 this Code.; (eneral Order No. +-, dated 2anuar3 1, *1), postponin6 until furthernotice, ;the plebiscite scheduled to be held on 2anuar3 %, *1),; said nothin6 about the procedure to befollo4ed in plebiscite to tae place at such notice, and no other order or decree has been brou6ht to Ourattention, e9pressl3 or i7pliedl3 repealin6 the provisions of Presidential :ecree 1), insofar as said procedure is

concerned.

pon the other hand, said (eneral Order No. +- e9pressl3 suspended ;the provisions of Section ) ofPresidential :ecree No. 1) insofar as the3 allo4 free public discussion of proposed Constitution ... te7poraril3suspendin6 effects of Procla7ation No. -/ for the purposes of free open dabate on the proposed Constitutio... .; !his specific 7ention of the portions of the decrees or orders or instructions suspended b3 (eneral OrderNo. +- necessaril3 i7plies that all other portions of said decrees, orders or instructions and, hence, theprovisions of Presidential :ecree No. 1) outlinin6 the procedure to be follo4ed in the plebiscite for ratification ore=ection of the proposed Constitution re7ained in force, assu7in6 that said :ecree is valid.

"t is clai7ed that b3 virtue of Presidential :ecree No. /0#A the te9t of 4hich is 'uoted belo4 67 theE9ecutive declared, inter alia, that the collective vie4s e9pressed in the Citi?ensD Asse7blies ;shall

be considered in the for7ulation of national policies or pro6ra7s and, 4herever practicable, shall be translatedinto concrete and specific decision;@ that such Citi?ensD Asse7blies ;shall consider vital national issues ... liethe holdin6 of the plebiscite on the ne4 Constitution ... and others in the future, 4hich shall serveas guide or *asis for action or decision b3 the national 6overn7ent;@ and that the Citi?ensD Asse7blies ;shallconduct bet4een 2anuar3 - and %, *1), a referendum on i7portant national issues, includin6 thosespecified in para6raph + hereof, and sub7it the results thereof to the :epart7ent of Local (overn7ents andCo77unit3 :evelop7ent i77ediatel3 thereafter, ... .; As in Presidential :ecree No. /0, this :ecree No. /0#Adoes not and cannot e9clude the e9ercise of the constitutional supervisor3 po4er of the Co77ission onElections or its participation in the proceedin6s in said Asse7blies, if the sa7e had been intended to constitutethe ;election; or Plebiscite re'uired Art. of the *)% Constitution. !he provision of :ecree No. /0#A directin6the i77ediate sub7ission of the result thereof to the :epart7ent of Local (overn7ents Co77unit3:evelop7ent is not necessaril3 inconsistent 4ith, and 7ust be subordinate to the constitutional po4er of the

Co77ission on Elections to e9ercise its ;e9clusive authorit3 over the enforce7ent and ad7inistration of all la4to the conduct of elections,; if the proceedin6s in the Asse7blies 4ould partae of the nature of an ;election; orplebiscite for the ratification or re=ection of the proposed Constitution.

5e are told that Presidential :ecree No. /0 4as further a7ended b3 Presidential :ecree No. /0#B, dated *1)orderin6 ;that i7portant national issues shall fro7 ti7e to ti7e@ be referred to the Baran6a3s $Citi?ens

Asse7blies& for resolution in accordance 4ith Presidential :ecree No. /0#A dated 2anuar3 %, *1) and that theinitial referendu7 include the 7atter of ratification of the Constitution b3 the *1 Constitutional Convention;and that ;$t&he Secretar3 of the :epart7ent of Local (overn7ents and Co77unit3 :evelop7ent shall insurethe i7ple7entation of this order.; As in the case of Presidential :ecrees Nos. /0 and /0#A, the fore6oin6directives do not necessaril3 e9clude e9ercise of the po4ers vested b3 the *)% Constitution in the Co77issioon Elections, even if the E9ecutive had the authorit3 to repeal Art. K of our


30/47

sanctioned. And, since the provisions of this article for7 part of the fundamental sche7e set forth in the *)%Constitution, as a7ended, to insure the ;free, orderl3, and honest; e9pression of the peopleDs 4ill, theafore7entioned violation thereof renders null and void the contested proceedin6s or alle6ed plebiscite in theCiti?ensD Asse7blies, insofar as the sa7e are clai7ed to have ratified the revised Constitution proposed b3 the*1 Constitutional Convention. ;...BaCll t)e aut)orities agree that the le6al definition of an election, as 4ell asthat 4hich is usuall3 and ordinaril3 understood b3 the ter7, is a choosin6 or as election b3 those havin6 a ri6htto participate $in the selection& of those 4ho shall fill the offices, or of t)e adoption or re6ection of an" pu*licmeasure affecting t)e territor" involved . % C3c. +1*@ Leis v. %o"nton, +% Colo. /0, %% Pac. 1)+@ Saunders v

a"nes, ) Cal. %@ Seaman v. %aug)man, /+ "o4a +0, 1 N.5. -*, L.R.A. )%@ State v. irs), +% "nd+-1, + N.E. -0+, * L.R.A. 1-@ BouvierDs La4 :ictionar3. 6?

"

as t)e proposed +onstitution aforementioned*een approved *" a ma6orit" of t)e people in+itizens0 Assem*lies allegedl" )eldt)roug)out t)e $)ilippines-

Respondents 7aintain the affir7ative, rel3in6 upon Procla7ation No. -+, the validit3 of 4hich is precisel3bein6 contested b3 petitioners herein. Respondents clai7 that said procla7ation is ;conclusive; upon this Cour

or is, at least, entitled to full faith and credence, as an enrolled bill@ that the proposed Constitution has been, infact, ratified, approved or adopted b3 the ;over4hel7in6; 7a=orit3 of the people@ that Art. K of the *)%Constitution has thus been ;substanciall3; co7plied 4ith@ and that the Court refrain fro7 passin6 upon thevalidit3 of Procla7ation No. -+, not onl3 because such 'uestion is political in nature, but, also, becauseshould the Court invalidate the procla7ation, the for7er 4ould, in effect, veto the action of the people in 4ho7soverei6nt3 resides and fro7 its po4er are derived.

!he 7a=or fla4 in this process of rationali?ation is that it assu7es, as a fact, the ver3 pre7ise on 4hich it ispredicated, and 4hich, 7oreover, is contested b3 the petitioners. As the Supre7e Court of Minnessota has aptlput it

... ever" officer under a constitutional 6overn7ent 7ust act accordin6 to la4 and sub=ect to itsrestrictions, and ever" departure therefro7 or disre6ard thereof 7ust sub=ect hi7 to therestrainin6 and controllin6 of the people, acting t)roug) t)e agenc" of t)e 6udiciar"> for it must *eremem*ered t)at t)e people act t)roug) courts, as 4ell as throu6h the e9ecutive or theLe6islature. One depart7ent is =ust as representative as the other, and t)e 6udiciar" is t)edepartment )ic) is c)arged it) t)e special dut" of determining t)e limitations )ic) t)e la

places upon all official action. ... .

Accordin6l3, the issue boils do4ns to 4hether or not the E9ecutive acted 4ithin the li7its of his authorit3 4henhe certified in Procla7ation No. -+ ;that the Constitution proposed b3 the nineteen hundred and sevent3#one$*1& Constitutional Convention has been ratified b3 an over4hel7in6 7a=orit3 of all of the votes cast b3 the7e7bers of all the Baran6a3s $Citi?ens Asse7blies& throu6hout the Philippines and has thereb3 co7e intoeffect.;

"n this connection, it is not clai7ed that the Chief E9ecutive had personal no4led6e of the data he certified insaid procla7ation. Moreover, Art. K of the *)% Constitution 4as precisel3 inserted to place *e"ond theE9ecutive the po4er to supervise or even e9ercise an" authorit3 4hatsoever over ;all la4s relative to theconduct of elections,; and, hence, 4hether the elections are for the choice or selection of public officers or forthe ratification or re=ection of an3 proposed a7end7ent, or revision of the


31/47

7unicipalit3@ that the president of each such 7unicipal association for7ed part of a provincial or cit3 associatioof presidents of such 7unicipal associations@ that the president of each one of these provincial or cit3associations in turn for7ed part of a National Association or


32/47

4as held constitutional; b3 said Court. ;!he district court found that the a7end7ent had no in fact beenadopted, and on this appeal; the Supre7e Court 4as ;re9uired to determine t)e correctness of that conclusion

Referrin6 to the effect of the certification of the State Board of Canvassers created b3 the Le6islature and ofthe proclamation 7ade b3 the (overnor based thereon, the Court held8 ;"t 4ill be noted that this board does no7ore than tabulate the reports received fro7 the various count3 board and add up and certif3 the results. Statev. Mason, % 5ash. +), // Pac. +0, * L.R.A. $.S.& ++. "t is settled la4 that the decisions of electionofficers, and canvassin6 boards are not conclusive and that t)e final decision must rest it) t)e courts, unless

the la4 declares that the decisions of the board shall be final; and there is no such la4 in the cases at bar.;... !he correctness of the conclusion of the state board rests upon the correctness of the returns 7ade b3 thecount3 boards and it is inconceiva*le that it 4as intended that this state7ent of result should be final andconclusive regardless of t)e actual facts. !he procla7ation of the (overnor adds not)ing in the 4a3 ofconclusiveness to the le6al effect of the action of the canvassin6 board. "ts purpose is to for7all3 notif3 thepeople of the state of the result of the votin6 as found b3 the canvassin6 board. 2a7es on Const. Conv. $thEd.& sec. %+).;

"n %ott v. /artz , 73 the Court revieed the state7ent of results of the election 7ade b3 the canvassin6 board, inorder that the true results could be =udiciall3 deter7ined. And so did the court in Rice v. $almer . 74

"nas7uch as Art. K of the *)% Constitution places under the ;e9clusive; char6e of the Co77ission on

Elections, ;the enforce7ent and ad7inistration of all la4s relative to the conduct of elections,; independentl" ofthe E9ecutive, and t)ere is not even a certification *" t)e +ommission in support of the alle6ed results of theciti?ensD asse7blies relied upon in Procla7ation No. -+ D apart fro7 the fact that on 2anuar3 1, *1)neither the alle6ed president of the


33/47

plebiscites for the ratification or re=ection of the proposed Constitution. ence, in Our decision in the plebiscitecases, 5e said, inter alia8

Mean4hile, or on :ece7ber 1, *1+, the President had issued an order te7poraril3 suspendinthe effects of Procla7ation No. -/, for the purpose of free and open debate on the ProposedConstitution. On :ece7ber +), the President announced the postpone7ent of the plebiscite forthe ratification or re=ection of the Proposed Constitution. No for7al action to this effect 4as taenuntil 2anuar3 1, *1), 4hen (eneral Order No. +- 4as issued, directin6 ;that the plebiscite

scheduled to be held on 2anuar3 %, *1), be postponed until further notice.; Said (eneralOrder No. +-, 7oreover, ;suspended in the 7eanti7e; the ;order of :ece7ber 1, *1+,te7poraril3 suspendin6 the effects of Procla7ation No. -/ for purposes of free and opendebate on the proposed Constitution.


34/47

F1G :o 3ou approve of the ne4 ConstitutionH

F/G :o 3ou 4ant a plebiscite to be called to ratif3 the ne4 ConstitutionH

F*G :o 3ou 4ant the elections to be held in Nove7ber, *1) in accordance 4ith the provisions ofthe *)% ConstitutionH

F-G "f the elections 4ould not be held, 4hen do 3ou 4ant the ne9t elections to be calledH

FG :o 3ou 4ant 7artial la4 to continueH FBulletin !oda3, 2anuar3 , *1)G

!o be6in 4ith, 'uestions nos. , +, ), , %, 0, *, - and are not proper in a plebiscite for the ratification of aproposed Constitution or of a proposed a7end7ent thereto. Secondl3, neither is the lan6ua6e of 'uestion No. 1 ;:o 3ou approve the ne4 ConstitutionH; One approves ;of; the act of another 4hich does not need suchapproval for the effectivit3 of said act, 4hich the first person, ho4ever, finds to be 6ood, 4ise satisfactor3. !heapproval of the 7a=orit3 of the votes cast in plebiscite is, ho4ever, essential for an a7end7ent to theConstitution to be valid as part thereof. !hirdl3, if the proceedin6s in the Citi?ensD Asse7blies constituted aplebiscite 'uestion No. / 4ould have been unnecessar3 and i7proper, re6ardless of 4hether 'uestion No. 14ere ans4ered affir7ativel3 or ne6ativel3. "f the 7a=orit3 of the ans4ers to 'uestion No. 1 4ere in theaffir7ative, the proposed Constitution 4ould have beco7e effective and no other plebiscite could be heldthereafter in connection there4ith, even if the 7a=orit3 of the ans4ers to 'uestion No. / 4ere, also, in theaffir7ative. "f the 7a=orit3 of the ans4ers to 'uestion No. 1 4ere in the ne6ative, neither 7a3 another plebiscitebe held, even if the 7a=orit3 of the ans4ers to 'uestion No. / 4ere in the affir7ative. "n either case, not 7orethan one plebiscite could be held for the ratification or re=ection of the proposed Constitution. "n short, theinsertion of said t4o $+& 'uestions apart fro7 the other 'uestions adverted to above indicates stron6l3 thathe proceedin6s therein did not partae of the nature of a plebiscite or election for the ratification or re=ection ofthe proposed Constitution.

"ndeed, " can not, in 6ood conscience, declare that the proposed Constitution has been approved or adopted b3the people in the citi?ensD asse7blies all over the Philippines, 4hen it is, to 73 7ind, a 7atter of =udicialno4led6e that there have been no such citi?ensD asse7blies in man" parts of Manila and suburbs, not to sa3,also, in other parts of the Philippines. "n a letter of (overnor Efren B. Pascual of Bataan, dated 2anuar3 %,*1), to the Chief E9ecutive, the for7er reported8

... !his report includes a resu7ee $sic& of the activities 4e undertoo in effectin6the referendum on the eleven 'uestions 3ou 4anted our people consulted on and the Su77ar3of Results thereof for each 7unicipalit3 and for the 4hole province.

999 999 999

... Our initial plans and preparations, ho4ever, dealt onl3 on the ori6inal five 'uestions.Conse'uentl3, 4hen e received an instruction on Januar" 47 to c)ange the 'uestions, eurgentl" suspended all sc)eduled +itizens Assem*l" meetings on t)at da" and called all Ma3ors

Chiefs of Offices and other 6overn7ent officials to another conference to discuss 4ith the7 thene4 set of 6uidelines and 7aterials to be used.

n Januar" 44, ... anot)er instruction from t)e top as received to include the ori6inal five'uestions a7on6 those to be discussed and ased in the Citi?ensD Asse7bl3 7eetin6s. 5ith thislatest order, e again )ad to ma#e modifications in our instructions to all those 7ana6in6 andsupervisin6 the holdin6 of the Citi?ensD Asse7bl3 7eetin6s throu6hout the province. ... Asidefro7 the coordinators 4e had fro7 the Office of the (overnor, the splendid cooperation andsupport e9tended b3 al7ost all government officials and emplo"ees in the province, particularl3of the :epart7ent of Education, PC and PAC: personnel, provided us 4ith enou6h hands to


35/47

trouble shoot and i7ple7ent sudden chan6es in the instructions an3ti7e and an34hereneeded. ...

... As to our people, in 6eneral, their enthusiastic participation sho4ed their preference andreadiness to accept this ne4 7ethod of 6overn7ent to people consultation in s)aping up6overn7ent policies.

!hus, as late as 2anuar3 -, *1), the Bataan officials had to suspend ;all scheduled Citi?ensD Asse7bl3

7eetin6s ...; and call all available officials ;... to discuss 4ith the7 t)e ne set of guidelines and 7aterials to beused ... .; !hen, ;on 2anuar3 ... another instruction fro7 the top 4as received to include the ori6inal five'uestions a7on6 those be discussed and ased in the Citi?ensD Asse7bl3 7eetin6s. 5ith this latest order, 4ea6ain had to 7ae 7odifications in our instructions to all those 7ana6in6 and supervisin6 holdin6 of theCiti?ensD Asse7bl3 7eetin6s throu6hout province. ... As to our people, in 6eneral, their enthusiastic participatiosho4ed their preference and readiness to accept the ne4 7ethod of 6overn7ent to people consultation ins)aping up 6overn7ent policies.;

!his co77unication 7anifestl3 sho4s8 & that, as late a 2anuar3 , *1), the Bataan officials had stillto discuss not put into operation 7eans and 4a3s to carr3 out the chan6in6 instructions fro7 the top onho4 to or6ani?e the citi?ensD asse7blies, 4hat to do therein and even 4hat 'uestions or topics to propound ortouch in said asse7blies@ +& that the asse7blies 4ould involve no 7ore than consultations or dialo6ues

bet4een people and 6overn7ent not decisions be 7ade *" t)e people@ and )& that said consultations 4ereai7ed onl3 at ;shapin6 up government policies; and, hence could not, and did not, partae of the nature of aplebiscite for the ratification or re=ection of a proposed a7end7ent of a ne4 or revised Constitution for the lattedoes not entail the for7ulation of a polic" of t)e Government , but the 7ain6 of decision *" t)e people on thene4 4a3 of life, as a nation, the3 4ish to have, once the proposed Constitution shall have been ratified.

"f this 4as the situation in Bataan one of the provinces nearest to Manila as late as 2anuar3 , *1), onecan easil3 i7a6ine the predica7ent of the local officials and people in the re7ote barrios in northern andsouthern Lu?on, in the Bicol re6ion, in the isa3an "slands and Mindanao. "n fact, several 7e7bers of theCourt, includin6 those of their i77ediate fa7ilies and their household, althou6h dul3 re6istered voters in thearea of (reater Manila, 4ere not even notified that citi?ensD asse7blies 4ould be held in the places 4here theirrespective residences 4ere located. "n the Prohibition and A7end7ent case, 77 attention 4as called to the

;dut" cast upon the court of ta#ing 6udicial cognizance of an3thin6 affectin6 the e9istence and validit3 of an3 la4or portion of theConstitution ... .; "n line 4ith its o4n pronounce7ent in another case, the


36/47

representatives accredited to our (overn7ent, and even in devisin6 ad7inistrative 7eans and 4a3s to bettercarr3 into effect. Acts of Con6ress 4hich define the 6oals or ob=ectives thereof, but are either i7precise or silenon the particular 7easures to be resorted to in order to achieve the said 6oals or dele6ate the po4er to do so,e9pressl3 or i7pliedl3, to the E9ecutive. !his, not4ithstandin6, the political or6an of a 6overn7ent that purportsto be republican is essentiall3 the Con6ress or Le6islative :epart7ent. 5hatever 7a3 be the functionsallocated to the E9ecutive :epart7ent speciall3 under a 4ritten, ri6id Constitution 4ith a republican s3ste7of (overn7ent lie ours the role of that :epart7ent is inherentl3, basicall3 and funda7entall3 e9ecutive innature to ;tae care that the la4s be faithfull3 e9ecuted,; in the lan6ua6e of our *)% Constitution. 79

Conse'uentl3, " a7 not prepared to concede that the acts the officers and offices of the E9ecutive :epart7ent,in line 4ith Procla7ation No. -+, connote a reco6nition thereof o an ac'uiescence thereto. 5hether the3reco6ni?ed the proposed Constitution or ac'uiesce thereto or not is so7ethin6 that cannot le6all3, 7uch lessnecessaril3 or even nor7all3, be deduced fro7 their acts in accordance there4ith, because the are *ound toobe3 and act in confor7it3 4ith the orders of the President, under 4hose ;control; the3 are, pursuant to t)e4;25 +onstitution. !he3 have absolutel3 no ot)er c)oice, speciall3 in vie4 of Procla7ation No. -/ placin6 thePhilippines under Martial La4. Besides, b3 virtue of the ver3 decrees, orders and instructions issued b3 thePresident thereafter, he had assu7ed all po4ers of (overn7ent althou6h so7e 'uestion his authorit3 to doso and, conse'uentl3, there is hardl3 an3thin6 he has done since the issuance of Procla7ation No. -+, on2anuar3 1, *1) declarin6 that the Constitution proposed b3 the *1 Constitutional Convention has beenratified b3 the over4hel7in6 7a=orit3 of the people that he could not do under the authorit3 he clai7ed to

have under Martial La4, since Septe7ber +, *1+, e9cept the po4er of supervision over inferior courts and itspersonnel, 4hich said proposed Constitution 4ould place under the Supre7e Court, and 4hich the Presidenthas not ostensibl3 e9ercised, e9cept as to so7e 7inor routine 7atters, 4hich the :epart7ent of 2ustice hascontinued to handle, this Court havin6 preferred to 7aintain the status 9uo in connection there4ith pendin6 finadeter7ination of these cases, in 4hich the effectivit3 of the afore7entioned Constitution is disputed.

!hen, a6ain, a 6iven depart7ent of the (overn7ent cannot 6enerall3 be said to have ;reco6ni?ed; its on actsReco6nition nor7all3 connotes the acno4led67ent b3 a part3 of the acts of anot)er . Accordin6l3, 4hen asubordinate officer or office of the (overn7ent co7plies 4ith the co77ands of a superior officer or office, unde4hose supervision and control he or it is, the for7er 7erel3 o*e"s the latter. Strictl3 speain6, and fro7 a le6aland constitutional vie4point, there is no act of reco6nition involved therein. "ndeed, the lo4er officer or office, ifhe or it acted other4ise, 4ould =ust be 6uilt3 of insubordination.

!hus, for instance, the case of Ta"lor v. +ommonealt) ?@ cited b3 respondents herein in support of thetheor3 of the peopleDs ac'uiescence involved a constitution ordained in *-+ and ;proclai7ed b3 aconvention dul3 called b3 a direct vote of the people of the state to revise and a7end the Constitution of /0*.!he result of the 4or of that Convention has been reco6ni?ed, accepted and acted upon as the onl" validConstitution of the State; b3

. !he ;(overnor of the State in s4earin6 fidelit3 to it and proclai7in6 it, as directed thereb3;@

+. !he ;Le6islature in its formal official act adoptin6 a 6oint resolution, 2ul3 %, *-+, reco6ni?in6 theConstitution ordained b3 the Convention ...;@

). !he ;individual oaths of its 7e7bers to support it, and *" its )aving *een engaged for nearl" a "ear , inle6islatin6 under it and puttin6 its provisions intooperation ...;@

. !he ;=udiciar3 in tain6 the oath prescribed thereb3 to support it and b3 enforcin6 its provisions ...;@ and

%. !he ;people in their pri7ar3 capacit3 b3 peacefull3 acceptin6 it and ac'uiescin6 in it, b3 re6isterin6 as votersunder it to the e9tent of thousands throu6hout the State, and b3 votin6, under its provisions, at a 6eneralelection for their representatives in the Con6ress of the nited States.;


37/47

Note that the Ne4 Constitution of ir6inia, drafted b3 a convention 4hose 7e7bers 4ere elected directl3 b3 thepeople, 4as not sub7itted to the people for ratification or re=ection thereof. But, it 4as reco6ni?ed, not b3 theconvention itself, but b3 ot)er sectors of the (overn7ent, na7el3, the (overnor@ the Le6islature not 7erel3b3 individual acts of its 7e7bers, but b3 formal 6oint resolution of its t4o $+& cha7bers@ b3 the =udiciar3@ and b3the people, in the various 4a3s specified above. 5hat is 7ore, there 4as no martial la . "n the presentcases, none of the fore6oin6 acts of ac'uiescence 4as present. 5orse still, there is 7artial la4, the strictenforcement of 4hich 4as announced s)ortl" *efore the alle6ed citi?ensD asse7blies. !o top it all, in the !a3lorcase, the effectivit3 of the contested a7end7ent 4as not contested =udiciall3 until about one B4C "ear after the

a7end7ent had been put into operation in all branches of the (overn7ent, and co7plied 4ith b3 the people4ho participated in the elections held pursuant to the provisions of the ne4 Constitution. "n the cases underconsideration, the le6alit3 of Presidential :ecree No. 1) callin6 a plebiscite to be held on 2anuar3 %, *1), 4ai7pu6ned as earl3 as :ece7ber 1, *1+, or five $%& 4ees *efore the scheduled plebiscite, 4hereas the validit3of Procla7ation No. -+ declarin6 on 2anuar3 1, *1), that the proposed Constitution had been ratified despite (eneral Order No. +-, issued on 2anuar3 1, *1+, for7all3 and officiall3 suspendin6 the plebiscite untilfurther notice 4as i7pu6ned as earl3 as 2anuar3 +-, *1), 4hen L#)0+ 4as filed, or t)ree B2C da"s afterthe issuance of Procla7ation No. -+.

"t is further alle6ed that a 7a=orit3 of the 7e7bers of our ouse of Representatives and Senate haveac'uiesced in the ne4 or revised Constitution, b3 filin6 4ritten state7ents optin6 to serve in the Ad "nteri7

Asse7bl3 established in the !ransitor3 Provisions of said Constitution. "ndividual acts of reco6nition b3

7e7bers of our le6islature, as 4ell as of other colle6iate bodies under the 6overn7ent, are invalid as acts ofsaid le6islature or bodies, unless its 7e7bers have perfor7ed said acts in session dul" assem*led , or unlessthe la4 provides other4ise, and there is no such la4 in the Philippines. !his is a 4ell#established principle of

Ad7inistrative La4 and of the La4 of Public Officers, and no plausible reason has been adduced to 4arrantdeparture therefro7. ?1

"ndeed, if the 7e7bers of Con6ress 4ere 6enerall3 a6reeable to the proposed Constitution, 4h3 did it beco7enecessar3 to padloc its pre7ises to prevent its 7eetin6 in session on 2anuar3 ++, *1), and thereafter asprovided in the *)% ConstitutionH "t is true that, theoreticall3, the 7e7bers of Con6ress, if bent on dischar6in6their functions under said Constitution, could have 7et in an3 other place, the buildin6 in 4hich the3 perfor7their duties bein6 i77aterial to the le6alit3 of their official acts. !he force of this ar6u7ent is, ho4ever, offset ordissipated b3 the fact that, on or about :ece7ber +1, *1+, i77ediatel3 after a conference bet4een the

E9ecutive, on the one hand, and 7e7bers of Con6ress, on the other, so7e of 4ho7 e9pressed the 4ish to7eet in session on 2anuar3 ++, *1), as provided in the *)% Constitution, a :ail3 E9press colu7nist $Pri7itivoMi=ares& attributed to Presidential Assistant (uiller7o de e6a a state7ent to the effect that ;Dcertain 7e7bersof the Senate appear to be 7issin6 the point in issueD 4hen the3 reportedl3 insisted on ta#ing up first t)e9uestion of convening +ongress.; !he :ail3 E9press of that date, ?2 lie4ise, headlined, on its front pa6e, a;Senatorial $lot A6ainst DMartial La4 (overn7entD :isclosed;. !hen, in its issue of :ece7ber +*, *1+, thesa7e paper i7puted to the E9ecutive an appeal ;to diverse 6roups involved in a conspirac" to under7ine; hispo4ers; under 7artial la4 todesist from provo#ing a constitutional crisis ... )ic) ma" result in t)e e!ercise *"me of aut)orit" < )ave not e!ercised .;

No 7atter ho4 6ood the intention behind these state7ent 7a3 have been, the idea i7plied therein 4as tooclear an ominous for an3 7e7ber of Con6ress 4ho thou6ht of or6ani?in6, holdin6 or tain6 part in a session of

Con6ress, not to 6et the i7pression that he could hardl3 do so 4ithout invitin6 or risin6 the application ofMartial La4 to hi7. nder these conditions, " do not feel =ustified in holdin6 that the failure of the 7e7bers ofCon6ress to 7eet since 2anuar3 ++, *1), 4as due to their reco6nition, ac'uiescence in or confor7it3 4ith theprovisions of the afore7entioned Constitution, or its alle6ed ratification.


38/47

to use the 6un a6ainst those 4ho compl" 4ith the orders of the part3 4ieldin6 the 4eapon does not detract fro7the inti7idation that Martial La4 necessaril3 connotes. "t 7a3 reflect the 6ood, reasonable and 4holeso7eattitude of the person 4ho has the 6un, either pointed at others, 4ithout pullin6 the tri66er, or 7erel3 ept in itsholster, but not 4ithout 4arnin6 that he 7a3 or 4ould use it if he dee7ed it necessar3. Still, the inti7idation isthere, and inaction or obedience of the people, under these conditions, is not necessaril3 an act of confor7it3 oac'uiescence. !his is speciall3 so 4hen 4e consider that the 7asses are, b3 and lar6e, unfamiliar 4ith theparlia7entar3 s3ste7, the ne4 for7 of 6overn7ent introduced in the proposed Constitution, 4ith theparticularit3 that it is not even identical to that e9istin6 in En6land and other parts of the 4orld, and that even

e!perienced la"ers and social scientistsfind it difficult to 6rasp the full i7plications of so7e provisionsincorporated therein.

As re6ards the applicabilit3 to these cases of the ;enrolled bill; rule, it is 4ell to re7e7ber that the sa7e refersto a docu7ent certified to the President for his action under the Constitution b3 the Senate President andthe Speaer of the ouse of Representatives, and attested to b3 the Secretar3 of the Senate and the Secretar3of the ouse of Representatives, concernin6 le6islative 7easures approved b3 the t4o ouses of Con6ress.!he ar6u7ent of the Solicitor (eneral is, rou6hl3, this8 "f the enrolled bill is entitled to full faith and credenceand, to this e9tent, it is conclusive upon the President and the =udicial branch of the (overn7ent, 4h3 shouldProcla7ation No. -+ 7erit less consideration than in enrolled billH

Before ans4erin6 this 'uestion, " 4ould lie to as the follo4in68 "f, instead of bein6 certified b3 the

afore7entioned officers of Con6ress, the so#called enrolled bill 4ere certified b3, sa3, the President of the Association of Su6ar Planters andJor Millers of the Philippines, and the 7easure in 'uestion 4ere a proposedle6islation concernin6 Su6ar Plantations and Mills sponsored b3 said Association, 4hich even prepared thedraft of said le6islation, as 4ell as lobbied actuall3 for its approval, for 4hich reason the officers of the

Association, particularl3, its afore7entioned president 4hose honest3 and inte6rit3 are un'uestionable 4ere present at the deliberations in Con6ress 4hen the sa7e approved the proposed le6islation, 4ould theenrolled bill rule appl3 theretoH Surel3, the ans4er 4ould have to be in the ne6ative. 5h3H Si7pl3, because sai

Association President has absolutel3 no official authorit3 to perfor7 in connection there4ith, and, hence, hiscertification is le6all3, as 6ood as non#e9istent.

Si7ilarl3, a certification, if an3, of the Secretar3 of the :epart7ent of Local (overn7ents and Co77unit3:evelop7ent about the tabulated results of the votin6 in the Citi?ens Asse7blies alle6edl3 )eld all over the

Philippines and the records do not sho4 that an3 such certification, to the President of the Philippines or tothe President


39/47

co77ent on the respective petitions 4ith three $)& 7e7bers of the votin6 to dis7iss the7 outri6ht andthen considers co77ents thus sub7itted b3 the respondents as 7otions to dis7iss, as 4ell as set the sa7e fohearin6. !his 4as due to the transcendental nature of the 7ain issue raised, the necessit3 of decidin6 the sa7e4ith ut7ost dispatch, and the 7ain defense set up b3 respondents herein, na7el3, the alle6ed political nature osaid issue, placin6 the sa7e, accordin6 to respondents, be3ond the a7bit of =udicial in'uir3 and deter7ination."f this defense 4as sustained, the cases could readil3 be dis7issed@ but, o4in6 to the i7portance of the'uestions involved, a reasoned resolution 4as de7anded b3 public interest. At the sa7e ti7e, respondents hadcautioned a6ainst a =udicial in'uir3 into the 7erits of the issues posed on account of the 7a6nitude of the evil

conse'uences, it 4as cla

Documents

8 Javellana v Executive Secretary.docx