Gonzales v.

COMELEC
G.R. No. L-40117
February 22, 1975
N/A (Justice Teehankee for Main Dissent)

SUBJECT MATTER:
IV. Territory, People, and Government – B. People – 2. Suffrage

LEGAL BASIS AND APPLICABLE CONCEPT(S):

From the 1973 Constitution

Section 1, Article VI. Suffrage shall be exercised by citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are
eighteen years of age or over and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place
wherein they propose to vote for at least six months preceding the election. No literacy, property or other substantive
requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of, suffrage. The Batasang Pambansa shall provide a system for the
purpose of securing the secrecy and sanctity of the vote.

Section 12, Article IX. The Prime Minister shall be commander-in-chief of all armed forces of the Philippines, and
whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion,
insurrection, or rebellion. In case of invasion, or rebellion, or imminent danger thereof when the public safety
requires, it he may suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or place the Philippines or any part thereof
under martial law.

Section 3(2), Article XVII. All proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions, and acts promulgated, issued, or done by the
incumbent President shall be part of the law of the land, and shall remain valid, legal, binding, and effective even after the
lifting of the Martial Law or the ratification of this Constitution unless modified, revoked, or superseded by subsequent
proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions, or unless expressly or implicitly modified or repealed by the regular
National Assembly.

ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

PROHIBITION with Preliminary Injunction
Petitioner(s): Raul M. Gonzales, an opposition activist during Martial Law years, and a lawyer to Benigno
Parties “Ninoy” Aquino

Respondent( Honorable Commission on Elections

s): Honorable National Treasurer

SUMMARY:
This case is a MINUTE RESOLUTION. The Court quickly dismissed the petition for prohibition against the National
Referendum proposed by Dicktator Ferdinand Marcos, on the grounds that the questioned proclamations and decrees
have already been ruled as valid in a previous case (Aquino Jr. vs. COMELEC). Justice Teehankee dissents, observing
that this case, together with Aquino Jr., are the first cases not to be barred by rules issued during Martial Law. Justice
Teehankee votes to hear the petition, so as to address grave questions regarding the constitution.

ANTECEDENT FACTS:
Legal History under Martial Law, thus far – lifted from Justice Teehankee’s Dissent
 September 22, 1972, issuance of General Order No. 3 – the judiciary was declared without jurisdiction to try
cases “involving the validity, legality or constitutionality of any decree, order or acts issued, promulgated
or performed by (President Marcos) or by (President Marcos’s) duly designated representative pursuant
to Proclamation No. 1081, dated September 21, 1972.”
C2023(YOUR SURNAME) - SUBJECT, PROF.’S SURNAME
  January 17, 1973, issuance of Proclamation No. 1102 – declaring that the 1973 Constitution has come into
effect – On this day, Martial Law should have also been legally terminated.
 July 27-28, 1973, referendum was held, which voted “against stopping the use of Martial Law powers.”
 January 31, 1975, Aquino Jr. vs. COMELEC, together with this present case – “the very first cases that I can
recall, where the State… has not invoked General Order No. 3…”

History of Assailed Presidential Proclamation and Decrees

● June 28, 1973 – Dicktator Ferdinand Marcos issues Presidential Decree 229 – in Section 13, there will now be
two separate ballot boxes:
○ For voters ages 15 to under 18-year old
○ For voters ages 18 and above
● December 31, 1974 – Dicktator Ferdinand Marcos issues Presidential Proclamation 1366 – to set January 30,
1975 as a day for a National Referendum. Roughly, the questions are (full list of questions from the National
Referendum at the last page):
○ Do you approve of restructuring the Local Government of Greater Manila?
○ Do you approve of the President’s Appointees, who would succeed the Local Government Officials of
Greater Manila retiring on December 31, 1975?
○ Do you approve of the manner that the President is exercising his power under Martial Law?
○ Do you want Martial Law to continue?
● January 4, 1975 – Dicktator Ferdinand Marcos issues Presidential Decree 629 – to set dates January 7 to 21,
1975 as the Period for Registration of Barangay Members in the upcoming National Referendum.
● January 4, 1975 – Dicktator Ferdinand Marcos issues Presidential Decree 630 – which prescribes the Rules and
Regulations for the conduction of the National Referendum.
● January 7, 1975 – Dicktator Ferdinand Marcos issues Presidential Decree 637 – to adopt the recommendations of
COMELEC regarding the questions on the National Referendum
● January 17, 1975 – Dicktator Ferdinand Marcos issues Presidential Decree 637-A – adopting further
recommendations from COMELEC, again regarding the question on the National Referendum
● January 12, 1975 – Dicktator Ferdinand Marcos issues Presidential Proclamation 1366-A – to reset the date of
the National Referendum to February 27, 1975.

ISSUE(S) AND HOLDING(S):

1. WoN whether the Court can prohibit the National Referendum to be held on February 27, 1975. -- NO

RATIO:
1. NO, the Court cannot prohibit the National Referendum as the Court has already ruled on the validity of the
questioned proclamations regarding the National Referendum.
○ The questioned proclamations were previously brought up on another landmark case, Aquino Jr. vs.
COMELEC – the Court ruled that President Ferdinand Marcos is the lawful President of the Republic of
the Philippines and, pursuant to his Legislative Powers as Commander-in-Chief and administrator of
Martial Law, the President validly promulgated the proclamations in question.

DISPOSITIVE:
MINUTE RESOLUTION – The petition is DISMISSED

MAIN DISSENTING OPINION:

Justice Teehankee
 Vote to give due course to the petition to answer the grave constitutional questions raised.
 Since August 1974, President Marcos has been signing Presidential Decrees, General Orders, and Acts
simply as “President of the Philippines by virtue of the powers (vested in him) by the Constitution” – no longer as
Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces under Martial Law.
o FOR THE FIRST TIME, Martial Law was NOT used to bar the Court from trying cases on
Constitutionality.

C2023(YOUR SURNAME) - SUBJECT, PROF.’S SURNAME

 Justice Teehankee pointed out the limits of President Marcos as Commander-in-Chief and Administrator to
Martial Rule under the then-new 1973 Constitution:
o Decrees and Acts referring to the National Referendum were issued “by virtue of… the Constitution”
– not from Martial Law powers.
o Section 12, Article IX of the 1973 Constitution (which is a verbatim reproduction of Section 10(2) Article
VII of the 1935 Constitution) provides that Martial Law may be imposed only “in cases of invasion,
insurrection, or rebellion” – “military power” is limited only to such use.
o Only executive powers are vested in the incumbent President – Transitory Provisions (Section 3(2),
Article XVII of the 1973 Constitution) provide that although proclamations by the president shall be law of
the land, even after Martial Law is lifted, the National Assembly may repeal or modify such laws.
 There is a question on whether separating ballot boxes for non-qualified voters (between 15 to below 18 years of
age) would justify their inclusion in the National Referendum, and whether their inclusion will violate minimum
age requirement to exercise the right to suffrage (Section 1, Article VI of the 1973 Constitution).
 The question of “Do you want Martial Law to continue?” is hardly inappropriate for a referendum. Once the
conditions of rebellion no longer exist, then Martial Law ceases to exist as well, regardless of the outcome
of any referendum.

C2023(YOUR SURNAME) - SUBJECT, PROF.’S SURNAME

 The National Referendum

I
"For the Greater Manila Area comprising the cities of Manila, Quezon, Pasay, and Caloocan; and the municipalities of
Valenzuela in the province of Bulacan; and Las Piñas, Makati, Malabon, Mandaluyong, Muntinlupa, Navotas, Parañaque,
San Juan del Monte, Taguig, Pateros, Pasig, and Marikina in the province of Rizal:"

On Local Governments and Officials

1. Do you want the present Mayor-Council form of government now existing in the cities and municipalities of
Greater Manila to continue?
2. If you do not want the Mayor-Council type to continue, do you favor of the President exercising his powers to
restructure the local governments in Greater Manila (four cities and 13 municipalities) into an integrated system
like a Manager or Commission form under such terms and conditions as he may decide?

On Martial Law
1. Do you approve of the manner President Marcos has been exercising his powers under Martial law and the
Constitution, including the power to issue proclamations, orders, decrees, and instructions with the force of law?
2. Do you want the President to continue exercising same powers?

II
For Areas outside of the Greater Manila Area

On Local Officials
At the expiration of the terms of office of your local elective officials on December 31, 1975, how do you want their
successors chosen: to be appointed by the President or elected in accordance with the Election Code?

On Martial Law
1. Do you approve of the manner President Marcos has been exercising his powers under Martial Law and the
Constitution, including the power to issue proclamations, orders, decrees, and instructions with the force of law?
2. Do you want the President to continue exercising the same power?

C2023(YOUR SURNAME) - SUBJECT, PROF.’S SURNAME