Cesar Clarence D.

Contreras

Political Law Review

Javallena vs. Executive Secretary Digest

Facts:

During Martial Law, Marcos issued Presidential Decree 73 for the ratification of a
new Constitution of the Philippines as proposed by the 1971 Constitutional
Convention. One Charito Planas filed a case against the COMELEC, the Treasurer of
the Philippines and the Auditor General, to enjoin them from implementing PD 73
and that said PD has no force and effect as law because the calling... of such plebiscite,
the setting of guidelines for the conduct of the same, the prescription of the ballots to
be used and the question to be answered by the voters, and the appropriation of public
funds for the purpose, are, by the Constitution, lodged exclusively in Congress..." and
"there is no proper submission to the people there being no freedom of speech, press
and assembly, and there being no sufficient time to inform the people of the contents
thereof.

While this case for the suspension of the plebiscite was being heard, the Secretary of
Justice informed the court that the president had just signed PD 1102, which ratified
the 1973 Constitution during a Constitutional Plebiscite. Javellana filed this case
gainst the Executive Secretary and the Secretaries of National Defense, Justice and
Finance to restrain them from implementing any of the provisions of the proposed
Constitution not found in the present 1935 Constitution. This petition is one filed by
him 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 also
alleged that the President had announced the immediate implementation of the new
constitution, thru his Cabinet, respondents including. He alleged that they 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"n 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.

Issues:
1. W/N the validity of PD 1102 is a justiciable question?

Held:
Cesar Clarence D. Contreras

Political Law Review

Yes, it is a justiciable question and not a political one.

Ratio:

What is generally meant, when it is said that a question is political, and not judicial, is
that it is a matter which is to be exercised by the people in their primary political
capacity, or that it has been specifically delegated to some other department or
particular officer of the government, with discretionary power to act. Thus the
Legislature may in its discretion determine whether it will pass law or submit a
proposed constitutional amendment to the people. The courts have no judicial control
over such matters, not merely because they involve political questions, but because
they are matters which the people have by the Constitution delegated to the
Legislature. The Governor may exercise the powers delegated him, free from judicial
control, so long as he observes the laws act within the limits of the power conferred.
His discretionary acts cannot be controllable, not primarily because they are of a
politics nature, but because the Constitution and laws have placed the particular
matter under his control. In other words, political questions are those questions which,
under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or
in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or
executive branch of the government." It is concerned with issues dependent upon the
wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.

The court looked into American jurisprudence and found that, deciding whether a
matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of
government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been
committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a
responsibility of the Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.

The authorities are thus practically uniform in holding that whether a constitutional
amendment has been properly adopted according to the requirements of an existing
Constitution is a judicial question. There can be little doubt that the consensus of
judicial opinion is to the effect that it is the absolute duty of the judiciary to determine
whether the Constitution has been amended in the manner required by the
Constitution, unless a special tribunal has been created to determine the question; and
even then many of the courts hold that the tribunal cannot be permitted to illegally
amend the organic law.