"The regime of martial law has been with us for four years now.

No doubt, martial law has initially

secured some reforms for the country. The people were quite willing to participate in the new
experiment, thrilled by the novelty of it all. After the euphoria, however, the people seem to have gone
back to the old ways, with the exception that some of our freedoms were taken away, and an
authoritarian regime established.
"We must bear in mind that martial law was envisioned only to cope with an existing national crisis. It
was not meant to be availed of for a long period of time, otherwise it would undermine our adherence
to a democratic form of government. In the words of the Constitution, martial law shall only be
declared in times of rebellion, insurrection invasion, or imminent danger thereof, when the public
safety requires it. Since we no longer suffer from internal disturbances of a gargantuan scale, it is
about time we seriously rethink the necessity of prolonging the martial law regime. If we justify the
continuance of martial law by economic or other reasons other than the foregoing constitutional
grounds, then our faith in the Constitution might be questioned. Even without martial law, the
incumbent Chief Executive still holds vast powers under the Constitution. After all, the gains of the New
Society can be secured without sacrificing the freedom of our people. If the converse is true, then we
might have to conclude that the Filipinos deserve a dictatorial form of government. The referendum
results will show whether the people themselves have adopted this sad conclusion.
"The response of the people to the foregoing issues will affect generations yet to come, so they should
mull over the pros and cons very carefully."cralaw virtua1aw library
6. This opinion is written in the same spirit as the Presidents exhortations on the first anniversary of
proclamation of the 1973 Constitution that we "let the Constitution remain firm and stable" so that it
may "guide the people", and that we "remain steadfast on the rule of law and the Constitution" as he
recalled his rejection of the "exercise (of) power that can be identified merely with a revolutionary
government" that makes its own law, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . Whoever he may be and whatever position he may happen to have, whether in government or
outside government, it is absolutely necessary now that we look solemnly and perceptively into the
Constitution and try to discover for ourselves what our role is in the successful implementation of that
Constitution. With this thought, therefore, we can agree on one thing and that is: Let all of us age, let
all of us then pass away as a pace in the development of our country, but let the Constitution remain
firm and stable and let institutions grow in strength from day to day, from achievement to
achievement, and so long as that Constitution stands, whoever may the man in power be, whatever
may his purpose be, that Constitution will guide the people and no man, however, powerful he may be,
will dare to destroy and wreck the foundation of such a Constitution.
"These are the reasons why I personally, having proclaimed martial law, having been often induced to
exercise power that can be identified merely with a revolutionary government, have remained
steadfast on the rule of law and the Constitution." 54*
IV. A final word on the Courts resolution of October 5, 1976 which in reply to the Comelec query
allowed by a vote of 7 to 3, judges of all courts, after office hours, "to accept invitations to act as
resource speakers under Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 991, as amended, as well as to take sides
in discussions and debates on the referendum-plebiscite questions under Section 7 of the same
Decree." 55
The writer with Mr. Justice Makasiar and Madame Justice Muoz Palma had dissented from the majority
resolution, with all due respect, on the ground that the non-participation of judges in such public
discussions and debates on the referendum-plebiscite questions would preserve the traditional noninvolvement of the judiciary in public discussions of controversial issues. This is essential for the
maintenance and enhancement of the peoples faith and confidence in the judiciary. The questions of
the validity of the scheduled referendum-plebiscite and of whether there is proper submission of the
proposed amendments were precisely subjudice by virtue of the cases at bar.

The lifting of the traditional inhibition of judges from public discussion and debate might blemish the
image and independence of the judiciary. Aside from the fact that the fixing of a time limit for the
acceptance of their courtesy resignations to avoid an indefinite state of insecurity of their tenure in
office still pends, litigants and their relatives and friends as well as a good sector of the public would
be hesitant to air views contrary to that of the Judge.
Justices Makasiar and Muoz Palma who share these views have agreed that we make them of record
here, since we understand that the permission given in the resolution is nevertheless addressed to the
personal decision and conscience of each judge, and these views may be of some guidance to them.
BARREDO, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
While I am in full agreement with the majority of my brethren that the herein petitions should he
dismissed, as in fact I vote for their dismissal, I deem it imperative that I should state separately the
considerations that have impelled me to do so.
Perhaps, it is best that I should start by trying to disabuse the minds of those who I have doubts as to
whether or not I should have taken part in the consideration and resolution of these cases. Indeed, it
would not be befitting my position in this Highest Tribunal of the land for me to leave unmentioned the
circumstances which have given cause, I presume, for others to feel apprehensive that my
participation in these proceedings might detract from that degree of faith in the impartiality that the
Courts judgment herein should ordinarily command. In a way, it can be said, of course, that I am the
one most responsible for such a rather problematical situation, and it is precisely for this reason that I
have decided to begin this opinion with a discussion of why I have not inhibited myself, trusting most
confidently that what I have to say will be taken in the same spirit of good faith, sincerity and purity of
purpose in which I am resolved to offer the same.
Plain honesty dictates that I should make of record here the pertinent contents of the official report of
the Executive Committee of the Katipunan ng mga Sanggunian submitted to the Katipunan itself about
the proceedings held on August 14, 1976. It is stated in that public document
that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"THE ISSUE WITH REGARDS TO THE CONVENING OF A LEGISLATIVE body came out when the President
expressed his desire to share his powers with other people.
Aware of this, a five-man Committee members of the Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA)
headed by Supreme Court Justice Antonio Barredo proposed on July 28, the