JROliva

PLANAS V COMELEC (1973 Consti- Plebiscite Case)

March 16 1967- Resolution No. 2 was passed and later on amended by Reso No. 4

August 24 1970- Reso No. 2 as amended was implemented and approved by RA 6132

November 10, 1970- Elections of delegates to said Convention

June 1, 1971- 1971 ConCon began to perform its functions

September 21, 1972- Proclamation No. 1081 was issued placing entire Ph under Martial Law

November 29, 1972- Convention approved the proposed Consti of the Repubic of the Ph

November 30, 1972- PD 73 was issued by the Pres to submit to the people for ratification or rejection of the
proposed consti.

December 7, 1972- Charito Planas filed a case to enjoin the ComElec or their agents from implementing PD 73
until further orders of the court. On the ground that said PD has no force and effect because calling for a
plebiscite, setting for guidelines, prescription of ballots and questions to be asked, and appropriation of public
funds are lodged exclusively in the Congress.

Planas further argued that there is no proper submission to the people because there is no freedom of speech,
press and assembly, and enough time to inform the people of its contents. Identical actions were filed on the ff
dates:

December 8, 1972- by Pablo Sanidad (L-35929)

December 11, 1972- by Gerardo Roxas, et al. (L-35940); by Eddie Monteclaro and Sedfrey Ordonez (L-35942)

December 12, 1972- by Vidal Tan et al. (L-35948), by Jose Diokno and Benigno Aquino (L-35953)

December 14, 1972- by Jacito Jimenez (L-35961), by Raul Gonzales (L-35965)

December 16, 1972- by Ernesto Hidalgo (L-35979)

December 16, 1972- Respondents were required to file their answers, except for the last case filed.

December 18, 1972- Said cases were partly heard and continued on December 19, 1972, and the last case already
included.

December 21, 1972 – January 4, 1973- notes were filed by the parties on the points they want to stress.

December 17, 1972- an order to temporarily suspend the effects of PD 1081 was issued

December 23, 1972- postponement for the plebiscite was announced.

January 7, 1973- General Order No. 20 was issued directing for the postponement of the plebiscite to be held on
January 15, 1973, and the December 17 order.

In view of these events relative to the postponement of the aforementioned plebiscite, the Court deemed it fit
to refrain, for the time being, from deciding the aforementioned cases, for neither the date nor the conditions
JROliva

under which said plebiscite would be held were known or announced officially. Then, again, Congress, pursuant
to the 1935 Constitution, was scheduled to meet in regular session on January 22, 1973.

January 12, 1973- petitioners in the identical case filed by Vidal Tan et al., filed an urgent motion praying that the
case be decided as soon as possible, preferably not later than January 15. Petitioners alleged, among others, that
the President issued PD 86 to organize the so called Citizen’s Assemblies, to basically ask the people to ratify or
reject the proposed 1913 consti, and the so-called Citizen’s Assembly would by-pass and short circuit the court if
there is an affirmative response from the people which is highly unconstitutional and undemocratic manner, and
could stop a free plebiscite. At about the same time, a similar prayer was made in a "manifestation" filed by the
petitioners in L-35949 and L-35942.

January 13, 1973- the Court issued a resolution requiring the respondents in said three (3) cases to comment on
said "urgent motion" and "manifestation not later than January 16.

January 15, 1973- petitioner in case L-35948 filed a supplemental motion for issuance of restraining order and
inclusion of addt’l respondents. On the same date, the court passed a resolution requiring respondents to file an
answer before January 16 and set the motion for hearing on January 17.

January 17, 1973- while the case is being heard, the Pres issued PD 1102 announcing the ratification and
proclamation of the 1971 Consti

In their defense, the respondents admitted to the allegations made in L-35948 and denied the rest. They alleged
that:

1) that the "questions raised" in said petition "are political in character";

2) that "the Constitutional Convention acted freely and had plenary authority to propose not only amendments
but a Constitution which would supersede the present Constitution";

3) that "the President's call for a plebiscite and the appropriation of funds for this purpose are valid";

4) that "there is not an improper submission" and "there can be a plebiscite under Martial Law"; and

5) that the "argument that the Proposed Constitution is vague and incomplete, makes an unconstitutional
delegation of power, includes a referendum on the proclamation of Martial Law and purports to exercise judicial
power" is "not relevant and ... without merit

Issue: WON the President have the legislative authority to call a plebiscite and appropriate funds for it?

Ruling: the members of the court deemed it best to write their own views and the chief justice should state the
result/votes on the issues.

1. Validity of PD 73.

a. the court ruled that it is valid on the ground that the Executive has the authority to issue
statutes and/or acts. Furthermore, a long list of cases in which the court has passed the
JROliva

constitutionality of statutes/ acts of the Executive pursuant to Art 8, Sec. 2(1) of the 1935
Consti.

2. The 1971 Constitutional Convention had exceeded its authority in approving Sections 2, 3 (par. 2) and 12
of Article XVII of the proposed Constitution.

a. the Convention was legally free to postulate any amendment it may deem fit to propose.

3. Authority of the President to issue Presidential Decree No. 73

a. The plebiscite has been postponed, no answer needed yet.

4. WON martial law per se affects the validity of a submission to the people for ratification of specific
proposals for amendment of the Constitution

a. Question was not explicitly raised or argued.

IOW, issuance of PD 73 is legal; the issue on the validity of the decree itself is moot and academic as voted by
the majority of the Justices; the authority of the 1971 ConCon to pass the proposed Consti was upheld by the
majority;

5. Whether the proclamation of Martial Law affected the proper submission of the proposed Constitution to
a plebiscite, insofar as the freedom essential therefor is concerned.

a. Justice Fernando is of the opinion that there is a repugnancy between the election contemplated
under Art. XV of the 1935 Constitution and the existence of Martial Law, and would, therefore,
grant the petitions were they not moot and academic. Justices Barredo, Antonio and Esguerra
are of the opinion that that issue involves question of fact which cannot be predetermined, and
that Martial Law per se does not necessarily preclude the factual possibility of adequate freedom
for the purposes contemplated.

6. Validity of Pres. Proclamation 1102

a. Justices Makalintal, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Makasiar, Esguerra and myself are of the
opinion that question of validity of said Proclamation has not been properly raised before the
Court, which, accordingly, should not pass upon such question.

b. Justice Barredo holds that the issue on the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 1102 has been
submitted to and should be determined by the Court, and that the "purported ratification of the
Proposed Constitution ... based on the referendum among Citizens' Assemblies falls short of
being in strict conformity with the requirements of Article XV of the 1935 Constitution," but that
such unfortunate drawback notwithstanding, "considering all other related relevant
circumstances, ... the new Constitution is legally recognizable and should be recognized as
legitimately in force.
JROliva

c. Justice Zaldivar maintains unqualifiedly that the Proposed Constitution has not been ratified in
accordance with Article XV of the 1935 Constitution, and that, accordingly, it has no force and
effect whatsoever.

d. Justice Antonio feels "that the Court is not competent to act" on the issue whether the Proposed
Constitution has been ratified by the people or not, "in the absence of any judicially discoverable
and manageable standards," since the issue "poses a question of fact.

7. WON these cases should be dismissed.

a. all of the aforementioned cases are hereby dismissed, without special pronouncement as to
costs.