41 – LIM

Javellana v. Executive Secretary

GR L-36142 March 31, 1973
Section 2.1.—Elections; definition, basis, and nature
MAIN POINT: The term “election” refers to the conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, the
holding of the electoral campaign and the casting and counting of the votes.

FACTS: “THE RATIFICATION CASES” This is the time of Marco’s Martial Law. There was a Constitutional
Convention to change the 1935 constitution. Marcos enacted Martial Law and created the Citizens
Assembly to ratify or reject the plebiscite Marcos then sent a letter, claiming that the people, through
people’s assembly ratified the 1971 Constitutional Convention

Prior thereto, or on January 20, 1973, Josue Javellana filed Case against the Executive Secretary and the
Secretaries of National Defense, Justice and Finance, to restrain said respondents "and their
subordinates or agents from implementing any of the provisions of the propose Constitution not found
in the present Constitution" Petition was filed as a "Filipino citizen, and a qualified and registered voter"
and as "a class suit, for himself, and in behalf of all citizens and voters similarly situated,", Javellana
alleged that the President had announced "the immediate implementation of the New Constitution,
thru his Cabinet, respondents including," and that the latter "are acting without, or in excess of
jurisdiction in implementing the said proposed Constitution" upon the ground: "that the President, as
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, is without authority to create the Citizens
Assemblies"; that the same "are without power to approve the proposed Constitution ..."; "that the
President is without power to proclaim the ratification by the Filipino people of the proposed
Constitution"; and "that the election held to ratify the proposed Constitution was not a free election,
hence null and void. Petitioner claims "the alleged creation of the Citizens' Assemblies as
instrumentalities for the ratification of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines" is inherently
illegal and palpably unconstitutional
After deliberating on these cases, the members of the Court agreed that each would write his own
opinion and serve a copy thereof on his colleagues, and this they did. Subsequently, the Court
discussed said opinions and votes were cast thereon.

ISSUE: W/N the 1971 Constitution was validly ratified

RULING: NO. Whether a constitutional amendment has been properly adopted according
to an existing constitution is a judicial question as it is the absolute duty of the judiciary
to determine whether the Constitution has been amended in the manner required by
the constitution. The Constitution proposed by the 1971 Convention was not validly
ratified in accordance with Article XV section 1 of the 1935 Constitution which provides
only one way for ratification (election or plebiscite held in accordance with law and only
with qualified voters). Due to the environmental and social conditions in the Philippines
(i.e. martial law), the Court cannot honestly say that the people acquiesced to the
proposed Constitution. The majority ruled to dismiss the cases as the effectivity of the
proposed Constitution is the basic issue posed by the cases which considerations other
than judicial are relevant and unavoidable. The new constitution is in force as there are
not enough votes to say otherwise.