PLANAS VS.

COMELEC
FACTS:
While the 1971 Constitution Convention was in session on September 21, 1972, the
president issued Proclamation No. 1081 placing the Philippines under martial law.
On November 29, 1972 the Convention approved its proposed constitution. The next
day the president issued PD No. 73 submitting to the people for ratification or
rejection the proposed constitution as well as setting the plebiscite for said
ratification. On December 7, 1972, Charito Planas filed a petition to enjoin
respondents from implemented PD No. 73 because the calling of the plebiscite
among others are lodged exclusively in the Congress. On December 17, 1972, the
president issued an order temporarily suspending the effects of PD 1081 for the
purpose of free and open debate on the proposed constitution. On December 23, the
president announced the postponement of the plebiscite, as such, the Court
refrained from deciding the cases. On January 12, the petitioners filed for an urgent
motion praying that the case be decided as soon as possible.
Issue [1]: Whether the Court has authority to pass upon the validity of Presidential
Decree 73.
Held [1]: Presidential Decree 73 purports to have the force and effect of a legislation,
so that the issue on the validity thereof is manifestly a justiciable one, on the
authority, not only of along list of cases in which the Court has passed upon the
constitutionality of statutes and/or acts of the Executive, 1 but, also, of no less than
thatof Subdivision (1) of Section 2, Article VIII of the1935 Constitution, which
expressly provides for the authority of the Supreme Court to review cases involving
said issue.Issue
[2]: Whether the President has the authority to issue PD 73 to submit to the People
the Constitution proposed by the Convention.
Held [2]: As regards the authority of the President to issue Presidential Decree
73,"submitting to the Filipino people (on January 15,1973) for ratification or rejection
the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines proposed bythe 1971
Constitutional Convention and appropriating funds therefor," it is unnecessary, for the
time being, 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.

Javellana vs. Exec. Sec

FACTS: In 1973, Marcos ordered the immediate implementation of the new 1973
Constitution. Javellana, a Filipino and a registered voter sought to enjoin the Exec
Sec and other cabinet secretaries from implementing the said constitution. Javellana
averred that the said constitution is void because the same was initiated by the
president. He argued that the President is w/o power to proclaim the ratification by
the Filipino people of the proposed constitution. Further, the election held to ratify
such constitution is not a free election there being intimidation and fraud.
ISSUE: Whether or not the SC must give due course to the petition.
HELD: The SC ruled that they cannot rule upon the case at bar. Majority of the SC
justices expressed the view that they were concluded by the ascertainment made by
the president of the Philippines, in the exercise of his political prerogatives. Further,
there being no competent evidence to show such fraud and intimidation during the
election, it is to be assumed that the people had acquiesced in or accepted the 1973
Constitution. The question of the validity of the 1973 Constitution is a political
question which was left to the people in their sovereign capacity to answer. Their
ratification of the same had shown such acquiescence.

AQUINO VS. ENRILE