Planas v. Commission of Elections, et. al.

Charito Planas, petitioner v. Commission on Elections, et. al., respondents

Doctrine
: Court refrained from reviewing the constitutional validity of Presidential proclamation
calling
for a plebiscite to ratify proposed constitutional amendments in relation to the
postponement of the
aforementioned plebiscite.
Keywords
: Constitutional law, 1971 Constitutional convention, plebiscite, ratification, 1972
Constitution
Nature
: instant petition/s
Date
: January 22, 1973
Ponente
: Supreme Court Chief Justice Concepcion
Short version:
Charito Planas filed a petition to the Supreme Court in order to prohibit the
implementation of
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 73 scheduling a plebiscite to ratify or reject the proposed
Constitutional
amendments submitted by the 1971 Constitutional Convention, citing constitutional
provisions. Other
identical actions were filed including a supplemental urgent motion for issuance of
restraining order
and writ of preliminary injunction from implementing PD No. 73 and any other similar
proclamations
related to such. The Supreme Court justices decided on a vote of 6 to 3 to dismiss all
petitions finding
it unnecessary to pass upon the question given the postponement of the said plebiscite
to an indefinite
time in the future, until further notice.
Facts:
•
March 16, 1967:
Congress passed Resolution No. 2 (Res. 2) calling for a Convention for the
purpose of proposing amendments to the 1935 Constitution.
•
June 17, 1969:
Congress adopted Resolution No. 4 (Res. 4) amending Res. 2
•
August 24, 1970:
Republic Act 6132 was approved implementing Res. 2 as amended
•
November 10, 1970:
Delegates to the Constitutional Convention were elected
•
June 1, 1971:
Constitutional Convention began performing thus named, the 1971
Constitutional Convention (1971 CC)
•
September 21, 1972:
While 1971 CC was in session, President Ferdinand Marcos issued
Proclamation No. 1081 (Proc. No. 1081) placing the entire Philippines under Martial Law
•
November 29, 1972:
1971 CC approved the Proposed Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines (Proposed Consti)
•
November 30, 1972:
President issued PD No. 73 “submitting the Proposed Constitution to the
People of the Philippines for ratification or rejection”. A plebiscite for the said ratification
was
scheduled on January 15, 1973 and funds were appropriated for such
•
December 7, 1972
: Charito Planas filed petition GR No. L-35925 to nullify PD No. 73 on
grounds that (1) the power to call for such plebiscite, by Constitution, is held exclusively
by the
Congress, and (2) there is no proper submission of the proposed constitution there
being no
freedom of discussion under Martial Law and lack of adequate time to inform the people
of the
contents of the Proposed Consti (Nov. 30, 1972 – Jan. 15, 1973)
•
December 8 – 16, 1972:
Similar actions were filed accordingly:
•
Pablo C. Sanidad v. COMELEC, et. al. (GR No. L-35929)
•
Gerardo Roxas, et. al. v. COMELEC, et. al. (GR No. L-35940)
•
Eddie B. Monteclaro v. COMELEC, et. al. (GR No. L-35941)
•
Sedfrey A. Ordoñez, et. al. v. The National Treasurer of the Philippines (GR No. L-
35942)
•
Vidal Tan, et. al. v. COMELECT, et. al.
(
GR No. L-35948
)
•
Jose V. Diokno, et. al. v. COMELEC (GR No. L-35953)
•
Jacinto Jimenez v. COMELEC, et. al. (GR No. L-35961)
•
Raul M. Gonzales v. COMELEC, et. al. (GR No. L-35965)
•
Ernesto Hidalgo v. COMELEC (GR No. L-35979)
•
Note:
GR No. L-35948 (V.Tan) alleged that the 1971 CC exceeded its authority in
approving Sec. 2, 3 (par. 2) and 12 of Proposed Consti.
•
December 17, 1972:
President issued an order to temporarily suspend the effects of Proc. No.
1081 (
Martial Law
) for the purpose of free and open debate on the Proposed Consti.
•
January 1, 1973:
President issued Presidential Decree (PD) No. 86 organizing Citizen's
Assemblies to be consulted on certain public questions. The voting for such questions is
to
take place on January 10 – 15, 1973.
•
January 5, 1973:
President issued PD No. 86-A which submitted new questions to PD No. 86
with emphasis on questions: (1) Do you approve of the new Constitution?, and (2) Do
you still
want a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new Constitution?
•
January 7, 1973:
President issued General Order No. 20 (GO No. 20) which postponed the
scheduled plebiscite to an indefinite time in the future, until further notice. This also
suspended
the effect of the order issued on December 17, 1972.
•
January 12, 1973:
Petitioners of case GR No. L-35948 filed an “Urgent Motion for Early
Decision” praying that the case be decided as soon as possible and not later than
January 15,
1973. It sees that PD No. 86 and PD No. 86-A as a means to by-pass and short circuit
the
powers of the Court to decide on the pending petitions if implemented
•
January 15, 1973:
Same petitioners filed a “Supplemental Motion for Issuance of Restraining
Order and Inclusion of Additional Respondents” from “collecting, certifying, announcing,
and
reporting” the results of the so-called Citizen's Assemblies. They also called for the
issuance of
a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the implementation of PD No. 73 and other
similar
proclamations, decrees or orders related to the plebiscite scheduled on January 15,
1973.
•
January 17, 1973:
While said cases where being heard in court, the Secretary of Justice
delivered to Chief Justice (CJ) Concepcion a copy of Proclamation No. 1102 (Proc No.
1102)
signed by the President that very morning.
•
The proclamation certified the ratification of the Proposed Consti by an overwhelming
majority as determined by the votes gathered from the Citizen's Assemblies. It was read
in
court by CJ Concepcion for the petitioners to hear.
•
After extensive discussion, it was deemed necessary that the Members of the Court
write their
own views and the CJ would state the result of the votes cast on the points of issue.
Issues:
MAJOR:
1.
Is the issuance of PD No. 73 by the President valid given that such power is exclusive of
Congress?
2.
Did the 1971 CC exceed their authority in approving the aforementioned sections in the
Proposed Consti?
3.
Does Martial Law affect the validity of the “proper submission of the Proposed Consti to
the
people for ratification” given that there is no freedom of speech, press and assembly?
4.
Is Proc No. 1102 valid and in conformity with the requirements for ratification stated in
the 1935
Constitution?
MINOR:
1.
Does the 1971 CC have the authority to continue functioning despite Martial Law?
Held:
MAJOR:
1.
The issue has become moot and academic.
Since the plebiscite in question has been
postponed, the court finds it unnecessary to pass upon the question of the validity of
PD
No. 73. If the plebiscite is schedules, the parties may file such actions as justified by the
given circumstances.
2.
No.
The 1971 CC was legally free to propose any amendment it deems fit
unless
inconsistent with the international doctrine of
Jus Cogens
since it exercised its sovereign
powers as delegated to it by the people. Also, because proposals for amendments
cannot
be a part of Fundamental Law unless approved by a majority of votes cast at an
election
where the proposals were submitted to the people for ratification. (Sec. 1, Art XV 1935
Constitution)
3.
The issue is a question of fact and cannot be predetermined.
As seen in the temporary
suspension of Proc No. 1081, Martial Law does not necessarily mean that freedom of
speech and discussion of the Proposed Consti. is curtailed. Since the said plebiscite has
been postponed, the issue remains to be a question of fact.
4.
The Court finds it unnecessary to pass upon such question.
The issue on the validity
of Proc No. 1102 has not been properly raised and adequately argued on by the parties
in
Court.
MINOR:
1.
Yes.
In adherence to the ruling of case
Duncan v. Kahanamoku
, “Legislatures and
courts continue to function” even under Martial Law since they are “indispensable to the
operations of the government”. Such ruling also applies to a constituent body like the
1971 CC.
Ratio:
A.
Petitioner’s contention:
1.
PD No. 73 has no force and effect as law because the calling of such plebiscite and
the appropriation of funds therefor, are, by Constitution, lodged exclusively in
Congress.
2.
There is no proper submission to the people of the said Proposed Consti. Set for
January 15, 1973, there being no freedom of speech, press, and assembly, and
there being no sufficient time to inform the people of the contents thereof.
Thereby, the respondents and agents of the COMELEC, the Treasurer of the Philippines,
and
the Auditor General should be prohibited from implementing PD No. 73 in any manner,
until
further orders of the Court.
GR No. L-35948:
A restraining order be issued enjoining and restraining COMELEC and other included
agents
from collecting, certifying, announcing and reporting the so-called Citizen’s
Assemblies
referendum results allegedly obtained when they were supposed to have met. The
proceedings
of the so-called Citizen’s Assemblies will place PD Nos. 73 and 86 beyond the reach and
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.

B.
Supreme Court:
As regards to the authority of the President to issue PD No. 73, the court finds it
unnecessary to
pass upon such question because the plebiscite ordained in said Decree has been
postponed. In
any event, should the plebiscite be scheduled to be held at any time later, the proper
parties may
then file such action as the circumstances may justify.
On the question whether the proclamation of Martial Law affected the proper
submission of the
Proposed Consti to a plebiscite, insofar as the freedom essential therefor is concerned,
the issue
involves a question of fact which cannot be predetermined, and Martial Law per se does
not
necessarily preclude the factual possibility of adequate freedom for the purposes
contemplated.
The question of the validity of Proc. No. 1102 has not been explicitly raised and
adequately argued
by the parties in any of these cases and it would not be proper to resolve such a
transcendental
question without the most thorough discussion possible under the circumstances.
Other Opinions:
CJ Concepcion:
a.
Instead of diminishing the case of GR No. L-35948 as moot and academic, said
petitioners
should be given a reasonable period of time within which to move in the premises.
Barredo, J:
a.
The issue of the constitutionality of Proc No. 1102 has been submitted in case GR No.
L-35948
Supplemental Urgent Motion. The ratification of the Proposed Consti falls short in
conformity
with requirements of Art XV, 1935 Constitution but considering the circumstances, the
new
Constitution is legally recognized and is legitimately in force.
Zaldivar, J.
a.
Proposed Consti has not been ratified in accordance with Art. XV, 1935 Constitution
therefore
has no force or effect whatsoever.
Disposition:
All aforementioned cases are hereby dismissed, without special pronouncement as to
costs.
Case digest by: Amylene Medina