5 planas v comelec

8/21/2019 5 Planas v Comelec

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/5-planas-v-comelec 1/59

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-35925 January 22, 1973

CHARTO PLANAS, petitioner,vs.COMMSSON ON ELECTONS, !" a#., respondents.

G.R. No. L-35929 January 22, 1973

PA$LO C. SAN%A%, petitioner,vs.

COMMSSON ON ELECTONS, !" a#., respondents.

G.R. No. L-359&' January 22, 1973

GERAR%O RO(AS, !")., !" a#. petitioners,vs.COMMSSON ON ELECTONS, !" a#., respondents.

G.R. No. L-359&1 January 22, 1973

E%%E $. MONTECLARO, petitioner,vs.

THE COMMSSON ON ELECTONS, !" a#., respondents.

G.R. No. L-359&2 January 22, 1973

SE%*RE+ A. OR%OE, !" a#., petitioners,vs.THE NATONAL TREASURER O* THE PHLPPNES, !" a#., respondents.

G.R. No. L-359& January 22, 1973

/%AL TAN, !" a#., petitioners,vs.

COMMSSON ON ELECTONS, !" a#., respondents.

G.R. No. L-35953 January 22, 1973

JOSE 0. %ONO, !" a#., petitioners,vs.THE COMMSSON ON ELECTONS, respondents.

G.R. No. L-3591 January 22, 1973



JACNTO JMENE, petitioner,vs.COMMSSON ON ELECTONS, !" a#., respondents.

G.R. No. L-3595 January 22, 1973

RAUL M. GONALES, petitioner,vs.

THE HONORA$LE COMMSSON ON ELECTONS, !" a#., respondents.

G.R. No. L-35979 January 22, 1973

ERNESTO H%ALGO, petitioner,vs.COMMSSON ON ELECTONS, !" a#., respondents.

Ramon A. Gonzales for petitioner Charito Planas.

Pablito V. Sanidad and Gerardo L. Catipon for petitioner Pablo C. Sanidad.

Jovito R. Salonga and Associates and Rodrigo Law ffice for petitioners Gerardo Ro!as" etc." et al.

#$i%ano and Arro&o for petitioner 'ddie (. )onteclaro.

Sedfre& A. rdonez and Associates for petitioners Sedfre& A. rdonez" et al.

Lorenzo ). *a+ada for petitioners Vidal *an" et al.

,rancis '. Garchitorena for petitioners Jose -. io/no" et al.

Jacinto Jimenez in his own behalf.

Ra$l ). Gonzales in his own behalf.

'rnesto 0idalgo in his own behalf.

ffice of the Solicitor General 'stelito P. )endoza" Assistant Solicitor General Conrado *. Limcaoco" SolicitorVicente V. )endoza and Solicitor Re&nato S. P$no for respondents.

CONCEPCON, C.J.:

On March 16, 16!, Con"ress of the Philippines passed Resolution No. #, $hich $as a%ended b& ResolutionNo. ' of said bod&, adopted on (une 1!, 16, callin" a Convention to propose a%end%ents to the Constitutionof the Philippines. )aid Resolution No. #, as a%ended, $as i%ple%ented b& Republic Act No. 61*#, approvedon Au"ust #', 1!+, pursuant to the provisions of $hich the election of dele"ates to said Convention $as heldon Nove%ber 1+, 1!+, and the 1!1 Constitutional Convention be"an to perfor% its functions on (une 1, 1!1hile the Convention $as in session on )epte%ber #1, 1!#, the President issued Procla%ation No. 1+-1placin" the entire Philippines under Martial a$. On Nove%ber #, 1!#, the Convention approved its ProposeConstitution of the Republic of the Philippines. /he ne0t da&, Nove%ber *+, 1!#, the President of thePhilippines issued Presidential ecree No. !*, 2sub%ittin" to the 3ilipino people for ratification or re4ection theConstitution of the Republic of the Philippines proposed b& the 1!1 Constitutional Convention, and



appropriatin" funds therefor,2 as $ell as settin" the plebiscite for said ratification or re4ection of the ProposedConstitution on (anuar& 15, 1!*.

)oon after, or on ece%ber !, 1!#, Charito Planas filed, $ith this Court, Case . R. No. 7*5#5, a"ainst theCo%%ission on Elections, the /reasurer of the Philippines and the Auditor eneral, to en4oin said 2respondentsor their a"ents fro% i%ple%entin" Presidential ecree No. !*, in an& %anner, until further orders of the Court,2upon the "rounds, inter alia, that said Presidential ecree 2has no force and effect as la$ because the callin" .of such plebiscite, the settin" of "uidelines for the conduct of the sa%e, the prescription of the ballots to be use

and the 8uestion to be ans$ered b& the voters, and the appropriation of public funds for the purpose, are, b&the Constitution, lod"ed e0clusivel& in Con"ress ...,2 and 2there is no proper sub%ission to the people of saidProposed Constitution set for (anuar& 15, 1!*, there bein" no freedo% of speech, press and asse%bl&, andthere bein" no sufficient ti%e to infor% the people of the contents thereof.2

)ubstantiall& identical actions $ere filed, on ece%ber -, 1!#, b& Pablo C. )anidad a"ainst the Co%%issionon Elections 9Case .R. No. 7*5#:; on ece%ber 11, 1!#, b& erardo Ro0as, et al., a"ainst theCo%%ission on Elections, the irector of Printin", the National /reasurer and the Auditor eneral 9Case .R.No. 7*5'+:, b& Eddie B. Monteclaro a"ainst the Co%%ission on Elections and the /reasurer of the Philippine9Case .R. No. 7*5'1:, and b& )edfre& A. Ordo<e=, et al. a"ainst the National /reasurer and the Co%%issionon Elections 9Case .R. No. 7*5'#:; on ece%ber 1#, 1!#, b& >idal /an, et al., a"ainst the Co%%ission onElections, the /reasurer of the Philippines, the Auditor eneral and the irector of Printin" 9Case .R. No. 7

*5'-:, and b& (ose . io?no and Beni"no ). A8uino a"ainst the Co%%ission on Elections 9Case .R. No. *55*:; on ece%ber 1', 1!#, b& (acinto (i%ene= a"ainst the Co%%ission on Elections, the Auditor eneral,the /reasurer of the Philippines and the irector of the Bureau of Printin" 9Case .R. No. 7*561:, and b&Raul M. on=ales a"ainst the Co%%ission on Elections, the Bud"et Co%%issioner, the National /reasurer andthe Auditor eneral 9Case . R. No. 7*565:; and on ece%ber 16, 1!#, b& Ernesto C. @idal"o a"ainst theCo%%ission on Elections, the )ecretar& of Education, the National /reasurer and the Auditor eneral 9Case.R. No. 7*5!:.

n all these cases, e0cept the last 9.R. No. 7*5!:, the respondents $ere re8uired to file their ans$ers 2notlater than 1# ++ 9ocloc?: noon of )aturda&, ece%ber 16, 1!#.2 )aid cases $ere, also, set for hearin" andpartl& heard on Monda&, ece%ber 1-, 1!#, at *+ a.%. /he hearin" $as continued on ece%ber 1, 1!#.B& a"ree%ent of the parties, the afore%entioned last case 7 .R. No. 7*5! D $as, also, heard, 4ointl& $ith

the others, on ece%ber 1, 1!#. At the conclusion of the hearin", on that date, the parties in all of theafore%entioned cases $ere "iven a short period of ti%e $ithin $hich 2to sub%it their notes on the points the&desire to stress.2 )aid notes $ere filed on different dates, bet$een ece%ber #1, 1!#, and (anuar& ', 1!*.

Mean$hile, or on ece%ber 1!, 1!#, the President had issued an order te%poraril& suspendin" the effects ofProcla%ation No. 1+-1, for the purpose of free and open debate on the Proposed Constitution. On ece%ber#*, the President announced the postpone%ent of the plebiscite for the ratification or re4ection of the ProposedConstitution. No for%al action to this effect $as ta?en until (anuar& !, 1!*, $hen eneral Order No. #+ $asissued, directin" 2that the plebiscite scheduled to be held on (anuar& 15, 1!*, be postponed until furthernotice.2 )aid eneral Order No. #+, %oreover, 2suspended in the %eanti%e2 the 2order of ece%ber 1!, 1!#,te%poraril& suspendin" the effects of Procla%ation No. 1+-1 for purposes of free and open debate on theproposed Constitution.2

n vie$ of these events relative to the postpone%ent of the afore%entioned plebiscite, the Court dee%ed it fit torefrain, for the ti%e bein", fro% decidin" the afore%entioned cases, for neither the date nor the conditions unde$hich said plebiscite $ould be held $ere ?no$n or announced officiall&. /hen, a"ain, Con"ress $as, pursuantto the 1*5 Constitution, scheduled to %eet in re"ular session on (anuar& ##, 1!*, and since the %ainob4ection to Presidential ecree No. !* $as that the President does not have the le"islative authorit& to call aplebiscite and appropriate funds therefor, $hich Con"ress un8uestionabl& could do, particularl& in vie$ of thefor%al postpone%ent of the plebiscite b& the President D reportedl& after consultation $ith, a%on" others, theleaders of Con"ress and the Co%%ission on Elections D the Court dee%ed it %ore i%perative to defer its finalaction on these cases.



n the afternoon of (anuar& 1#, 1!*, the petitioners in Case .R. No. 7*5'- filed an 2ur"ent %otion,2 pra&in"that said case be decided 2as soon as possible, preferabl& not later than (anuar& 15, 1!*.2 t $as alle"ed insaid %otion, inter alia

6. /hat the President subse8uentl& announced the issuance of Presidential ecree No. -6or"ani=in" the so7called Citi=ens Asse%blies, to be consulted on certain public 8uestionsBulletin /oda&, (anuar& 1, 1!*F;

!. /hat thereafter it $as later announced that 2the Asse%blies $ill be as?ed if the& favor oroppose D

21F /he Ne$ )ociet&;

2#F Refor%s instituted under Martial a$;

2*F /he holdin" of a plebiscite on the proposed ne$ Constitution and $hen 9thetentative ne$ date "iven follo$in" the postpone%ent of the plebiscite fro% theori"inal date of (anuar& 15 are 3ebruar& 1 and March 5:;

2'F /he openin" of the re"ular session slated on (anuar& ## in accordance $iththe e0istin" Constitution despite Martial a$.2 Bulletin /oda&, (anuar& *, 1!*.F

-. /hat it $as later reported that the follo$in" are to be the for%s of the 8uestions to be as?ed tothe Citi=ens Asse%blies D

21F o &ou approve of the Ne$ )ociet&G

2#F o &ou approve of the refor% %easures under %artial la$G

2*F o &ou thin? that Con"ress should %eet a"ain in re"ular sessionG

2'F @o$ soon $ould &ou li?e the plebiscite on the ne$ Constitution to be heldG2Bulletin /oda&, (anuar& 5, 1!*;

. /hat the votin" b& the so7called Citi=ens Asse%blies $as announced to ta?e place durin" theperiod fro% (anuar& 1+ to (anuar& 15, 1!*;

1+ /hat on (anuar& 1+, 1!*, it $as reported that one %ore 8uestion $ould be added to the four9': 8uestions previousl& announced, and that the for%s of the 8uestions $ould be as follo$s D

21F o &ou li?e the Ne$ )ociet&G

2#F o &ou li?e the refor%s under %artial la$G

2*F o &ou li?e Con"ress a"ain to hold sessionsG

2'F o &ou li?e the plebiscite to be held laterG

25F o &o$ li/e the wa& President )arcos is r$nning the affairs of thegovernment G2 Bulletin /oda&, (anuar& 1+, 1!*; additional 8uestion e%phasis.F

11. /hat on (anuar& 11, 1!*, it $as reported that si0 96: %ore 8uestions $ould be sub%itted tothe so7called Citi=ens Asse%blies D



21F o &ou approve of the citi=ens asse%blies as the base of popular "overn%ento decide issues of national interestsG

2#F o &o$ approve of the new Constit$tionG

2*F o &ou $ant a plebiscite to be called to ratif& the ne$ ConstitutionG

2'F o &ou $ant the elections to be held in Nove%ber, 1!* in accordance $iththe provisions of the 1*5 Constitution G

25F f the elections $ould not be held, $hen do &ou $ant the ne0t elections to becalledG

26F o &ou $ant %artial la$ to continueG2 Bulletin /oda&, (anuar& 11, 1!*;e%phasis supplied.F

1#. /hat accordin" to reports, the returns $ith respect to the si0 96: additional 8uestions 8uotedabove $ill be on a for% si%ilar or identical to Anne0 2A2 hereof;

1*. /hat attached to pa"e 1 of Anne0 2A2 is another pa"e, $hich $e %ar?ed as Anne0 2A712, and$hich reads D

2COMMEN/) ON

HIE)/ON No. 1

n order to broaden the base of citi=ens participation in "overn%ent.

HIE)/ON No. #

But $e do not $ant the Ad nteri% Asse%bl& to be convo?ed. Or if it is to be

convened at all, it should not be done so until after at least seven 9!: &ears fro%the approval of the Ne$ Constitution b& the Citi=ens Asse%blies.

HIE)/ON No. *

/he vote of the Citi=ens Asse%blies should alread& be considered the plebisciteon the Ne$ Constitution.

f the Citi=ens Asse%blies approve of the Ne$ Constitution, then the ne$Constitution should be dee%ed ratified.

HIE)/ON No. '

e are sic? and tired of too fre8uent elections. e are fed up $ith politics, of so%an& debates and so %uch e0penses.

HIE)/ON No. 5

Probabl& a period of at least seven 9!: &ears %oratoriu% on elections $ill beenou"h for stabilit& to be established in the countr&, for refor%s to ta?e root andnor%alc& to return.



HIE)/ON No. 6

e $ant President Marcos to continue $ith Martial a$. e $ant hi% to e0ercisehis po$ers $ith %ore authorit&. e $ant hi% to be stron" and fir% so that he canacco%plish all his refor% pro"ra%s and establish nor%alc& in the countr&. f allother %easures fail, $e $ant President Marcos to declare a revolutionar&"overn%ent alon" the lines of the ne$ Constitution $ithout the ad interi%

Asse%bl&.2

Attention is respectfull& invited to the co%%ents on 2Huestion No. *2, $hich reads D

2HIE)/ON No. *

/he vote of the Citi=ens Asse%blies should be considered the plebiscite on theNe$ Constitution.

f the Citi=ens Asse%blies approve of the Ne$ Constitution, then the ne$Constitution should be dee%ed ratified.

/his, $e are afraid, and therefore alle"e, is pre"nant $ith o%inous possibilities.

1'. /hat, in the %eanti%e, spea?in" on television and over the radio, on (anuar& !, 1!*, thePresident announced that the li%ited freedo% of debate on the proposed Constitution $as bein"$ithdra$n and that the procla%ation of %artial la$ and the orders and decrees issuedthereunder $ould thenceforth strictl& be enforced ail& E0press, (anuar& -, 1!*F;

15. /hat petitioners have reason to fear, and therefore state, that the 8uestion added in the lastlist of 8uestions to be as?ed to the Citi=ens Asse%blies, na%el& D

o &ou approve of the Ne$ ConstitutionG2 D

in relation to the 8uestion follo$in" it D

2o &ou still $ant a plebiscite to call to ratif& the ne$ ConstitutionG2 D

$ould be an atte%pt to b&7pass and short7circuit this @onorable Court before $hich the 8uestionof the validit& of the plebiscite on the proposed Constitution is no$ pendin";

16. /hat petitioners have reason to fear, and therefore alle"e, that if an affir%ative ans$er to thet$o 8uestions 4ust referred to $ill be reported then this @onorable Court and the entire nation $ilbe confronted $ith a fait accompli $hich has been attained in a hi"hl& unconstitutional andunde%ocratic %anner;

1!. /hat the fait accompli $ould consist in the supposed e0pression of the people approvin" theproposed Constitution;

1-. /hat, if such event $ould happen, then the case before this @onorable Court could, to allintents and purposes, beco%e %oot because, petitioners fear, and the& therefore alle"e, that onthe basis of such supposed e0pression of the $ill of the people throu"h the Citi=ens Asse%bliesit $ould be announced that the proposed Constitution, $ith all its defects, both con"enital andother$ise, has been ratified;



1. /hat, in such a situation, the Philippines $ill be facin" a real crisis and there is li?elihood ofconfusion if not chaos, because then, the people and their officials $ill not ?no$ $hichConstitution is in force.

#+. /hat the crisis %entioned above can onl& be avoided if this @onorable Court $ill i%%ediatel&decide and announce its decision on the present petition;

#1. /hat $ith the $ithdra$al b& the President of the li%ited freedo% of discussion on the

proposed Constitution $hich $as "iven to the people pursuant to )ec. * of Presidential ecreeNo. !*, the opposition of respondents to petitioners pra&er that the proposed plebiscite beprohibited has no$ collapsed and that a free plebiscite can no lon"er be held.

At about the sa%e ti%e, a si%ilar pra&er $as %ade in a 2%anifestation2 filed b& the petitioners in 7*5',2erardo Ro0as, et al. v. Co%%ission on Elections, et al.,2 and7*5'#, 2)edfre& A. Ordone=, et al. v. /he National /reasurer, et al.2

/he ne0t da&, (anuar& 1*, 1!*, $hich $as a )aturda&, the Court issued a resolution re8uirin" the respondentsin said three 9*: cases to co%%ent on said 2ur"ent %otion2 and 2%anifestation,2 2not later than /uesda& noon,(anuar& 16, 1!*.2 Prior thereto, or on (anuar& 15, 1!*, shortl& before noon, the petitioners in said Case .R.No. 7*5'- filed a 2supple%ental %otion for issuance of restrainin" order and inclusion of additionalrespondents,2 pra&in" D

... that a restrainin" order be issued en4oinin" and restrainin" respondent Co%%ission onElections, as $ell as the epart%ent of oca overn%ents and its head, )ecretar& (ose Rono;the epart%ent of A"rarian Refor%s and its head, )ecretar& Conrado Estrella; the NationalRatification Coordinatin" Co%%ittee and its Chair%an, uiller%o de >e"a; their deputies,subordinates and substitutes, and all other officials and persons $ho %a& be assi"ned such tas?fro% collectin", certif&in", and announcin" and reportin" to the President or other officialsconcerned, the so7called Citi=ens Asse%blies referendu% results alle"edl& obtained $hen the&$ere supposed to have %et durin" the period co%prised bet$een (anuar& 1+ and (anuar& 15,1!*, on the t$o 8uestions 8uoted in para"raph 1 of this )upple%ental Ir"ent Motion.

n support of this pra&er, it $as alle"ed D

*. /hat petitioners are no$ before this @onorable Court in order to as? further that this @onorableCourt issue a restrainin" order en4oinin" herein respondents, particularl& respondentCo%%ission on Elections as $ell as the epart%ent of ocal overn%ents and its head,)ecretar& (ose Rono; the epart%ent of A"rarian Refor%s and its head, )ecretar& ConradoEstrella; the National Ratification Coordinatin" Co%%ittee and its Chair%an, uiller%o de >e"a;and their deputies, subordinates andJor substitutes, fro% collectin", certif&in", announcin" andreportin" to the President the supposed Citi=ens Asse%blies referendu% results alle"edl&obtained $hen the& $ere supposed to have %et durin" the period bet$een (anuar& 1+ and(anuar& 15, 1!*, particularl& on the t$o 8uestions 8uoted in para"raph 1 of this )upple%entalIr"ent Motion;

'. /hat the proceedin"s of the so7called Citi=ens Asse%blies are ille"al, null and void particularl&insofar as such proceedin"s are bein" %ade the basis of a supposed consensus for theratification of the proposed Constitution because D

9a: /he elections conte%plated in the Constitution, Article K>, at $hich theproposed constitutional a%end%ents are to be sub%itted for ratification, areelections at $hich onl& 8ualified and dul& re"istered voters are per%itted to vote,$hereas, the so7called Citi=ens Asse%blies $ere participated in b& persons 15



&ears of a"e and older, re"ardless of 8ualifications or lac? thereof, as prescribedin the Election Code;

9b: Elections or plebiscites for the ratification of constitutional a%end%entsconte%plated in Article K> of the Constitution have provisions for the secrec& ofchoice and of vote, $hich is one of the safe"uards of freedo% of action, but votesin the Citi=ens Asse%blies $ere open and $ere cast b& raisin" hands;

9c: /he Election Code %a?es a%ple provisions for free, orderl& and honestelections, and such provisions are a %ini%u% re8uire%ent for elections orplebiscites for the ratification of constitutional a%end%ents, but there $ere nosi%ilar provisions to "uide and re"ulate proceedin"s of the so7called Citi=ens

Asse%blies;

9d: t is seriousl& to be doubted that, for lac? of %aterial ti%e, %ore than a handfuof the so7called Citi=ens Asse%blies have been actuall& for%ed, because the%echanics of their or"ani=ation $ere still bein" discussed a da& or so before theda& the& $ere supposed to be"in functionin" D

2Provincial "overnors and cit& and %unicipal %a&ors had been%eetin" $ith barrio captains and co%%unit& leaders since lastMonda& 9(anuar& -, 1!*: to thresh out the %echanics in thefor%ation of the Citi=ens Asse%blies and the topics for discussion9Bulletin /oda&, (anuar& 16, 1!*:.

t should be recalled that the Citi=ens Asse%blies $ere ordered for%ed onl& at the be"innin" ofthe &ear 9ail& E0press, (anuar& 1, 1!1:, and considerin" the lac? of e0perience of the localor"ani=ers of said asse%blies, as $ell as the absence of sufficient "uidelines for or"ani=ations, itis too %uch to believe that such asse%blies could be or"ani=ed at such a short notice.

5. /hat for lac? of %aterial ti%e, the appropriate a%ended petition to include the additionalofficials and "overn%ent a"encies %entioned in para"raph * of this )upple%ental Ir"ent Motioncould not be co%pleted because, as noted in the Ir"ent Motion of (anuar& 1#, 1!*, thesub%ission of the proposed Constitution to the Citi=ens Asse%blies $as not %ade ?no$n to thepublic until (anuar& 11, 1!*. But be that as it %a&, the said additional officials and a"encies %abe properl& included in the petition at bar because D

9a: /he herein petitioners have pra&ed in their petition for the annul%ent not onl&of Presidential ecree No. !*, but also of 2an& si%ilar decree, procla%ation, ordeor instruction2

so that Presidential ecree No. -6, insofar at least as it atte%pts to sub%it the proposedConstitution to a plebiscite b& the so7called Citi=ens Asse%blies, is properl& in issue in this case

and those $ho enforce, i%ple%ent, or carr& out the said Presidential ecree No. -6, and theinstructions incidental thereto clearl& fall $ithin the scope of this petition;

9b: n their petition, petitioners sou"ht the issuance of a $rit of preli%inar&in4unction restrainin" not onl& the respondents na%ed in the petition but also their2a"ents2 fro% i%ple%entin" not onl& Presidential ecree No. !*, but also 2an&other si%ilar decree, order, instruction, or procla%ation in relation to the holdin" oa plebiscite on (anuar& 15, 1!* for the purpose of sub%ittin" to the 3ilipinopeople for their ratification or re4ection the 1!# raft or proposed Constitutionapproved b& the Constitutional Convention on Nove%ber *+, 1!#; and finall&,



9c: Petitioners pra&ed for such other relief $hich %a& be 4ust and e8uitable. 9p. *Petition:.

2/herefore, vie$in" the case fro% all an"les, the officials and "overn%ent a"encies %entioned inpara"raph * of this )upple%ental Ir"ent Motion, can la$full& be reached b& the processes ofthis @onorable Court b& reason of this petition, considerin", further%ore, that the Co%%ission onElections has under our la$s the po$er, a%on" others, of D

2a: irect and i%%ediate supervision and control over national, provincial, cit&,%unicipal and %unicipal district officials re8uired b& la$ to perfor% duties relativeto the conduct of elections on %atters pertainin" to the enforce%ent of theprovisions of this Code ... .2 9Election Code of 1!1, )ec. *:.

6. /hat unless the petition at bar is decided i%%ediatel& and the Co%%ission on Elections,to"ether $ith the officials and "overn%ent a"encies %entioned in para"raph * of this)upple%ental Ir"ent Motion are restrained or en4oined fro% collectin", certif&in", reportin" orannouncin" to the President the results of the alle"ed votin" of the so7called Citi=ens

Asse%blies, irreparable da%a"e $ill be caused to the Republic of the Philippines, the 3ilipinopeople, the cause of freedo% and de%ocrac&, and the petitioners herein because

9a: After the result of the supposed votin" on the 8uestions %entioned in para"raph 1 hereofshall have been announced, a conflict $ill arise bet$een those $ho %aintain that the 1*5Constitution is still in force, on the one hand, and those $ho $ill %aintain that it has beensuperseded b& the proposed Constitution, on the other, thereb& creatin" confusion, if not chaos;

9b: Even the 4urisdiction of this Court $ill be sub4ect to serious attac? because the advocates ofthe theor& that the proposed Constitution has been ratified b& reason of the announce%ent of thresults of the proceedin"s of the so7called Citi=ens Asse%blies $ill ar"ue that, eneral OrderNo. *, $hich shall also be dee%ed ratified pursuant to the /ransitor& Provisions of the proposedConstitution, has placed Presidential ecrees Nos. !* and -6 be&ond the reach and 4urisdictionof this @onorable Court.

On the sa%e date D (anuar& 15, 1!* D the Court passed a resolution re8uirin" the respondents in said case.R. No. 7*5'- to 2file an ans$er to the said %otion not later than ' P.M., /uesda&, (anuar& 16, 1!*,2 andsettin" the %otion for hearin" 2on (anuar& 1!, 1!*, at *+ a.%.2 hile the case $as bein" heard, on the datelast %entioned, at noonti%e, the )ecretar& of (ustice called on the $riter of this opinion and said that, uponinstructions of the President, he 9the )ecretar& of (ustice: $as deliverin" to hi% 9the $riter: a cop& ofProcla%ation No. 11+#, $hich had 4ust been si"ned b& the President. /hereupon, the $riter returned to the)ession @all and announced to the Court, the parties in .R. No. 7*5'- D inas%uch as the hearin" inconnection there$ith $as still "oin" on D and the public there present that the President had, accordin" toinfor%ation conve&ed b& the )ecretar& of (ustice, si"ned said Procla%ation No. 11+#, earlier that %ornin"./hereupon, the $riter read Procla%ation No. 11+# $hich is of the follo$in" tenor

BL /@E PRE)EN/ O3 /@E P@PPNE)

PROCAMA/ON NO. 1123

ANNOINCN /@E RA/3CA/ON BL /@E 3PNO PEOPE O3 /@E CON)//I/ONPROPO)E BL /@E 1!1 CON)//I/ONA CON>EN/ON.

@EREA), the Constitution proposed b& the nineteen hundred sevent&7one ConstitutionalConvention is sub4ect to ratification b& the 3ilipino people;



@EREA), Citi=ens Asse%blies $ere created in barrios, in %unicipalities and in districtsJ$ardsin chartered cities pursuant to Presidential ecree No. -6, dated ece%ber *1, 1!#, co%posedof all persons $ho are residents of the barrio, district or $ard for at least si0 %onths, fifteen &earsof a"e or over, citi=ens of the Philippines and $ho are re"istered in the list of Citi=en Asse%bl&%e%bers ?ept b& the barrio, district or $ard secretar&;

@EREA), the said Citi=ens Asse%blies $ere established precisel& to broaden the base ofciti=en participation in the de%ocratic process and to afford a%ple opportunit& for the citi=enr& to

e0press their vie$s on i%portant national issues;

@EREA), respondin" to the cla%or of the people and pursuant to Presidential ecree No. -67 A, dated (anuar& 5, 1!*, the follo$in" 8uestions $ere posed before the Citi=ens Asse%blies orBaran"a&s o &ou approve of the Ne$ ConstitutionG o &ou still $ant a pebiscite to be calledto ratif& the ne$ ConstitutionG

@EREA), fourteen %illion nine hundred sevent&7si0 thousand five hundred si0t&7one91',!6,561: %e%bers of all the Baran"a&s 9Citi=ens Asse%blies: voted for the adoption of theproposed Constitution, as a"ainst seven hundred fort&7three thousand ei"ht hundred si0t&7nine9!'*,-6: $ho voted for its re4ection; $hile on the 8uestion as to $hether or not the people $ouldstill li?e a plebiscite to be called to ratif& the ne$ Constitution, fourteen %illion t$o hundred

ninet&7ei"ht thousand ei"ht hundred fourteen 91',#-,-1': ans$ered that there $as no need fora plebiscite and that the vote of the Baran"a&s 9Citi=ens Asse%blies: should be considered as avote in a plebiscite;

@EREA), since the referendu% results sho$ that %ore than ninet&7five 95: per cent of the%e%bers of the Baran"a&s 9Citi=ens Asse%blies: are in favor of the ne$ Constitution,the 4atip$nan ng )ga (aranga& has stron"l& reco%%ended that the ne$ Constitution shouldalread& be dee%ed ratified b& the 3ilipino people;

NO, /@ERE3ORE, , 3ERNAN E. MARCO), President of the Philippines, b& virtue of thepo$ers in %e vested b& the Constitution, do hereb& certif& and proclai% that the Constitutionproposed b& the nineteen hundred and sevent&7one 91!1: Constitutional Convention has beenratified b& an over$hel%in" %a4orit& of all the votes cast b& the %e%bers of all the Baran"a&s9Citi=ens Asse%blies: throu"hout the Philippines, and has thereb& co%e into effect.

N /NE)) @EREO3, have hereunto set %& hand and caused the seal of the Republic ofthe Philippines to be affi0ed.

one in the Cit& of Manila, this 1!th da& of (anuar&, in the &ear of Our ord, nineteen hundredand sevent&7three.

9)"d.: 3ERNAN E. MARCO)President of the Philippines

B& the President

AE(ANRO MEC@ORE0ecutive )ecretar&

)uch is the bac?"round of the cases sub%itted for Our deter%ination. After ad%ittin" so%e of the alle"ations%ade in the petition in 7*5'- and den&in" the other alle"ations thereof, respondents therein alle"ed in theirans$er thereto, b& $a& of affir%ative defenses 1: that the 28uestions raised2 in said petition 2are political incharacter2; #: that 2the Constitutional Convention acted freel& and had plenar& authorit& to propose not onl&a%end%ents but a Constitution $hich $ould supersede the present Constitution2; *: that 2the Presidents call



for a plebiscite and the appropriation of funds for this purpose are valid2; ': that 2there is not an i%propersub%ission2 and 2there can be a plebiscite under Martial a$2; and 5: that the 2ar"u%ent that the ProposedConstitution is va"ue and inco%plete, %a?es an unconstitutional dele"ation of po$er, includes a referendu% onthe procla%ation of Martial a$ and purports to e0ercise 4udicial po$er2 is 2not relevant and ... $ithout %erit.2dentical defenses $ere set up in the other cases under consideration.

%%ediatel& after the hearin" held on (anuar& 1!, 1!*, or since the afternoon of that date, the Me%bers of theCourt have been deliberatin" on the afore%entioned cases and, after e0tensive discussions on the %erits

thereof, have dee%ed it best that each Me%ber $rite his o$n vie$s thereon and that thereafter the Chief(ustice should state the result or the votes thus cast on the points in issue. @ence, the individual vie$s of %&brethren in the Court are set forth in the opinions attached hereto, e0cept that, instead of $ritin" their separateopinions, so%e Me%ber have preferred to %erel& concur in the opinion of one of our collea"ues.

hat follo$s is %& o$n vie$ on these cases.

/he first 8uestion for Our deter%ination is $hether e have authorit& to pass upon the validit& of Presidentialecree No. !*, in vie$ of the )olicitor enerals alle"ation to the effect that said 8uestion is a political one. a%of the opinion D on $hich the Me%bers of the Court are unani%ous D that the contention of the )olicitoreneral is untenable and that the issue afore%entioned is a 4usticiable one. ndeed, the contested decreepurports to have the force and effect of a le"islation, so that the issue on the validit& thereof is %anifestl& a

4usticiable one, on the authorit&, not onl& of a lon" list of cases in $hich the Court has passed upon theconstitutionalit& of statutes andJor acts of the E0ecutive, 1 but, also, of no less than that of )ubdivision 91: of)ection #, Article > of the 1*5 Constitution, 2 $hich e0pressl& provides for the authorit& of this Court to revie$cases involvin" said issue.

Petitioners in .R. No. 7*5'- %aintain that the 1!1 Constitutional Convention had e0ceeded its authorit& inapprovin" )ections #, * 9par. #: and 1# of Article K> of the proposed Constitution. Re"ardless of the $isdo%and %oral aspects of the contested provisions of the proposed Constitution, it is %& considered vie$ that theConvention $as le"all& free to postulate an& a%end%ent it %a& dee% fit to propose D save perhaps $hat is or%a& be inconsistent $ith $hat is no$ ?no$n, particularl& in international la$, as J$s Cogens D not onl&because the Convention e0ercised soverei"n po$ers dele"ated thereto b& the people D althou"h insofar onl&as the deter%ination of the proposals to be %ade and for%ulated b& said bod& is concerned D but, also,

because said proposals cannot be valid as part of our 3unda%ental a$ unless and until 2approved b& the%a4orit& of the votes cast at an election at $hich2 2 said proposals 2are sub%itted to the people for theirratification,2 as provided in )ection 1 of Art. K> of the 1*5 Constitution.

As re"ards the authorit& of the President to issue Presidential ecree No. !*, 2sub%ittin" to the 3ilipino people9on (anuar& 15, 1!*: for ratification or re4ection the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines proposed b&the 1!1 Constitutional Convention and appropriatin" funds therefor,2 find it unnecessar&, for the ti%e bein", tpass upon such 8uestion, because the plebiscite ordained in said ecree has been postponed. n an& event,should the plebiscite be scheduled to be held at an& ti%e later, the proper parties %a& then file such action asthe circu%stances %a& 4ustif&.

ith respect to the 8uestion $hether or not %artial la$ per se affects the validit& of a sub%ission to the peoplefor ratification of specific proposals for a%end%ent of the Constitution, consider this %atter as one inti%atel&and necessaril& related to the validit& of Procla%ation No. 11+# of the President of the Philippines. /his8uestion has not been e0plicitl& raised, ho$ever, in an& of the cases under consideration, said cases havin"been filed before the issuance of such Procla%ation, althou"h the petitioners in 7*5'- %aintain that the issueon the referral of the Proposed Constitution to the Citi=ens Asse%blies %a& be dee%ed and $as raised in their)upple%ental Motion of (anuar& 15, 1!*. At an& rate, said 8uestion has not been ade8uatel& ar"ued b& theparties in an& of these cases, and it $ould not be proper to resolve such a transcendental 8uestion $ithout the%ost thorou"h discussion possible under the circu%stances. n fairness to the petitioners in 7*5'- andconsiderin" the surroundin" circu%stances, believe, therefore, that, instead of dis%issin" the case as %oot



and acade%ic, said petitioners should be "iven a reasonable period of ti%e $ithin $hich to %ove in thepre%ises.

Recapitulatin" the vie$s e0pressed b& the Me%bers of the Court, the result is this

1. /here is unani%it& on the 4usticiable nature of the issue on the le"alit& of Presidential ecree No. !*.

#. On the validit& of the decree itself, (ustices Ma?alintal, Castro, 3ernando, /eehan?ee, Es"uerra and %&self,or si0 96: Me%bers of the Court, are of the opinion that the issue has beco%e %oot and acade%ic, $hereas(ustices Barredo, Ma?asiar and Antonio voted to uphold the validit& of said ecree.

*. On the authorit& of the 1!1 Constitutional Convention to pass the proposed Constitution or to incorporatetherein the provisions contested b& the petitioners in7*5'-, (ustices Ma?alintal, Castro, /eehan?ee and Es"uerra opine that the issue has beco%e %oot andacade%ic. (ustices 3ernando, Barredo, Ma?asiar, Antonio and %&self have voted to uphold the authorit& of theConvention.

'. (ustice 3ernando, li?e$ise, e0pressed the vie$ that the 1!1 Constitutional Convention had authorit& tocontinue in the perfor%ance of its functions despite the procla%ation of Martial a$. n effect, (ustices Barredo,Ma?asiar and Antonio hold the sa%e vie$.

5. On the 8uestion $hether the procla%ation of Martial a$ affected the proper sub%ission of the proposedConstitution to a plebiscite, insofar as the freedo% essential therefor is concerned, (ustice 3ernando is of theopinion that there is a repu"nanc& bet$een the election conte%plated under Art. K> of the 1*5 Constitutionand the e0istence of Martial a$, and $ould, therefore, "rant the petitions $ere the& not %oot and acade%ic.(ustices Barredo, Antonio and Es"uerra are of the opinion that that issue involves 8uestion of fact $hich cannobe predeter%ined, and that Martial a$ per se does not necessaril& preclude the factual possibilit& of ade8uatefreedo% for the purposes conte%plated.

6. On Presidential Procla%ation No. 11+#, the follo$in" vie$s $ere e0pressed

a. (ustices Ma?alintal, Castro, 3ernando, /eehan?ee, Ma?asiar, Es"uerra and %&self are of theopinion that 8uestion of validit& of said Procla%ation has not been properl& raised before theCourt, $hich, accordin"l&, should not pass upon such 8uestion.

b. (ustice Barredo holds that the issue on the constitutionalit& of Procla%ation No. 11+# hasbeen sub%itted to and should be deter%ined b& the Court, and that the 2purported ratification ofthe Proposed Constitution ... based on the referendu% a%on" Citi=ens Asse%blies falls short ofbein" in strict confor%it& $ith the re8uire%ents of Article K> of the 1*5 Constitution,2 but thatsuch unfortunate dra$bac? not$ithstandin", 2considerin" all other related relevantcircu%stances, ... the ne$ Constitution is le"all& reco"ni=able and should be reco"ni=ed asle"iti%atel& in force.

c. (ustice aldivar %aintains un8ualifiedl& that the Proposed Constitution has not been ratified inaccordance $ith Article K> of the 1*5 Constitution, and that, accordin"l&, it has no force andeffect $hatsoever.

d. (ustice Antonio feels 2that the Court is not co%petent to act2 on the issue $hether theProposed Constitution has been ratified b& the people or not, 2in the absence of an& 4udiciall&discoverable and %ana"eable standards,2 since the issue 2poses a 8uestion of fact.

!. On the 8uestion $hether or not these cases should dis%issed, (ustices Ma?alintal, Castro, Barredo,Ma?asiar, Antonio and Es"uerra voted in the affir%ative, for the reasons set forth in their respective opinions.(ustices 3ernando, /eehan?ee and the $riter si%ilarl& voted, e0cept as re"ards Case No. 7*5'- as to $hich



the& voted to "rant to the petitioners therein a reasonable period of ti%e $ithin $hich to file appropriatepleadin"s should the& $ish to contest the le"alit& of Presidential Procla%ation No. 11+#. (ustice aldivar favorsthe "rantin" of said period to the petitioners in said Case No.7*5'- for the afore%entioned purpose, but he believes, in effect, that the Court should "o farther and decideon the %erits ever&one of the cases under Consideration.

@ERE3ORE, all of the afore%entioned cases are hereb& dis%issed, $ithout special pronounce%ent as tocosts.

t is so ordered.

)a/asiar" J." conc$r.

S!ara"! O4n4on

MAALNTAL an6 CASTRO, JJ., concurrin"

/he principal relief pra&ed for in the petition in .R. NO. 7*5'- is to declare 2)ections #, * 9par #:, and 1# of Article K>, of the 1!# raft on proposed Constitution approved b& the 1!1 Constitutional Convention onNove%ber *+, 1!# as $ell as Presidential ecree No. !* or an& si%ilar decree, procla%ation, order orinstruction unconstitutional, null and void, ...2 Basicall&, althou"h couched in different lan"ua"e, it is the sa%erelief sou"ht in the other petitions.

Article K> contains the transitor& provisions. )ection # thereof refers to the %e%bership of the interi% Nationa Asse%bl&, $hich includes, a%on" others, 2those ele"ates to the 91!1: Constitutional Convention $ho haveopted to serve therein b& votin" affir%ativel& for this Article.2 )ection * 9par. #: provides that 29A:llprocla%ations, orders, decrees, instructions, and acts pro%ul"ated, issued, or done b& the incu%bent Presidenshall be part of the la$ of the land, and shall re%ain valid, le"al, bindin", and effective even after liftin" of%artial la$ or the ratification of this Constitution, unless %odified, revo?ed, or superseded b& subse8uentprocla%ations, orders, decrees, instructions, or other acts of the incu%bent President, or unless e0pressl& ande0plicitl& %odified or repealed b& the re"ular National Asse%bl&.2 And )ection 1# states in part 2All treaties,e0ecutive a"ree%ents, and contracts entered into b& the overn%ent, or an& subdivision, a"enc&, orinstru%entalit& thereof, includin" "overn%ent7o$ned or controlled corporations, are hereb& reco"ni=ed as le"avalid, and bindin" ...2

Presidential ecree No. !*, issued on ece%ber 1, 1!#, called for a plebiscite to be held on (anuar& 15,1!*, $herein the proposed Constitution $ould be sub%itted for ratification. At the sa%e ti%e it appropriated thsu% of P15,+++,+++.++ for that purpose. t $as pri%aril& to stop the said plebiscite fro% bein" held that thesepetitions $ere filed.

/he specific "rounds alle"ed in the petition in .R. No. 7*5'- to support the relief pra&ed for $hich are fairl&representative of the others, read as follo$s

. /he President of the Philippines has no po$er to call a plebiscite for the ratification or re4ectionof the 1!# raft; neither has he the po$er to appropriate funds for the holdin" of the saidplebiscite.



. /he 1!# raft is va"ue and inco%plete. t %a?es an unconstitutional dele"ation of po$er. And it contains provisions $hich $ere be&ond the po$er of the convention to enact. All thesehave %ade the 1!# raft unfit for 2proper sub%ission2 to the people.

. /he period of ti%e bet$een Nove%ber *+, 1!# $hen the 1!# raft $as approved, and(anuar& 15, 1!*, the date the plebiscite $ill be held, is too inade8uate for the people to beinfor%ed of the contents of the 1!# raft, and to stud& and discuss the% so that the& couldthereafter intelli"entl& cast their vote.

/o$ards the end of ece%ber 1!# it $as announced in the ne$spapers that the President had postponed theplebiscite to a date to be fi0ed later, althou"h tentativel& 3ebruar& 1 and March 5, 1!* $ere %entioned. /heannounce%ent $as %ade officiall& in eneral Order No. #+, dated (anuar& !, 1!*. /hen on (anuar& 1!, 1!*the President issued Procla%ation No 11+#, certif&in" that the proposed Constitution had been ratified b& theCiti=ens Asse%blies created under Presidential ecree No. -6, issued on ece%ber *1, 1!#, and thattherefore it had beco%e effective.

n vie$ of the fore"oin" develop%ents $hich supervened after the petitions herein and the ans$ers thereto$ere filed and the cases ar"ued b& the parties, the issues raised in "rounds Nos. and above8uoted havebeco%e %oot. /he plebiscite sou"ht to be en4oined did not ta?e place on (anuar& 15, 1!*. ndeed, itspostpone%ent to so%e indefinite date in the future rendered the petition also pre%ature. But of course $hether

the petition is %oot or pre%ature %a?es no %aterial difference as far as these cases are concerned, since theannounced ratification of the proposed Constitution b& the Citi=ens Asse%blies has %ade it unli?el& that an&plebiscite $ill be held.

ith respect to "round No. $e are of the opinion that the 8uestion of $hether or not the proposals referred tob& the petitioners, specificall& )ecs. #, * 9par. #: and 1#, $ere proper for sub%ission to the people for ratificatiohas li?e$ise beco%e %oot because of the Presidents Procla%ation No. 11+# certif&in" that such ratification haalread& ta?en place. f the& %a& be assailed at all as invalid it should be not as %ere proposals b& theConvention but alread& as provisions of the Constitution, and certainl& not in the present cases in the state in$hich the& have been sub%itted for decision.

/here $as an atte%pt on the part of counsel for the petitioner in .R. No. 7*5'- durin" the oral ar"u%ent onhis ur"ent %otion for earl& decision to 8uestion the validit& of Procla%ation No. 11+#. /his 8uestion is not $ithinthe purvie$ of the petition and involves issues $hich have neither been raised nor ar"ued herein, havin" arisenin a ne$ and different settin" and fra%e of reference, and hence %a& onl& be ventilated, if at all, in anappropriate case or at least throu"h appropriate pleadin"s so that the parties %a& be dul& heard.

e therefore vote to dis%iss the petitions.

TEEHANEE, J., concurrin"

ithout pre4udice to the filin" of a separate e0tended opinion, concur $ith the Chief (ustice in his separateopinion and add the follo$in" brief co%%ents.

/he )olicitor enerals Office on behalf of respondents %anifested as of its last co%%ent of (anuar& 16, 1!*that 29:ith respect to the state%ent in the (oint Manifestation that Presidential ecree No. !* $hich calls forthe holdin" of the plebiscite on (anuar& 15, 1!* still stands, the plebiscite scheduled to be held on (anuar& 151!* has been postponed until further notice b& virtue of eneral Order No. #+, dated (anuar& !, 1!*, ofPresident 3erdinand E. Marcos.2

On the other hand, Presidential Procla%ation No. 11+# issued on (anuar& 1!, 1!* recites as a pre%isethereof,inter alia, that 2since the referendu% results sho$ that %ore than ninet&7five 95: per cent of the%e%bers of the Baran"a&s 9Citi=ens Asse%blies: 1 are in favor of the Ne$ Constitution, the atipunan n" M"a



Baran"a& has stron"l& reco%%ended that the ne$ Constitution should alread& be dee%ed ratified b& the3ilipino people.2 2

Inder the circu%stances of record fro% $hich it appears that no election 9or plebiscite: for the purpose hasbeen called and held, 3 it $ould be pre%ature for no$ to hold that the averred ratification of the Constitutionproposed b& the 1!1 Constitutional Convention has %et the re8uire%ents of Article K> of the Constitution that29):uch a%end%ents shall be valid as part of this Constitution $hen approved b& a %a4orit& of the votes cast atan election at $hich the a%end%ents are sub%itted to the people for their ratification2 or of section 16 of Article

K> of the proposed Constitution itself that 29/:his Constitution shall ta?e effect i%%ediatel& upon its ratificationb& a %a4orit& of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose.2

ith the result reached b& the Court, and the renderin" %oot of the issues raised a"ainst the validit& ofPresidential ecree No. !*, do not dee% it necessar& to reach and pass upon the "rave constitutional8uestion in its t$o aspects 9a: $hether the Constitutional Convention %a& assu%e the po$er to call theplebiscite 9a po$er historicall& e0ercised b& Con"ress: and to appropriate funds therefor a"ainst theConstitutional %andate lod"in" such po$er in Con"ress & and 9b: $hether the Constitutional Convention %a&dele"ate such assu%ed po$er to the President D absent an& sho$in" of $illful default or incapacit& on the parof Con"ress to dischar"e it.

B& the sa%e to?en, it is unnecessar& to resolve the e8uall& "rave 8uestion of $hether certain %atters adopted

and proposed b& the 1!1 Constitutional Convention $ere $ltra vires, e.". sections # and 15 of Article K>9/ransitor& Provisions: providin" for the dele"ates of said Convention to constitute the %a4orit& ofan interim National Asse%bl& and e%po$erin" such Asse%bl& 2upon special call b& the interim Pri%eMinister ..., b& a %a4orit& vote of all its %e%bers, 9to: propose a%end%ents to this Constitution 9$hich: shallta?e effect $hen ratified in accordance $ith Article )i0teen hereof2, $hich $ould appear to be in violation of theaccepted principles "overnin" constitutional conventions that the& beco%e f$nct$s officio upon co%pletion oftheir function to for%ulate and adopt a%end%ents to the Constitution 5 for the peoples ratification or re4ection inthe %anner ordained in the Constitution D since such convention controlled interim National Asse%bl& %a&continue proposin" Constitutional a%end%ents b& mere ma%orit& vote in contrast to the reg$lar nationalasse%bl& $hich $ould re8uire 2a vote of three5fo$rths of all its members2 to propose such a%end%ents. 7

ANTONO, J., concurrin"

/he historical events of the last fe$ da&s have rendered the petitions 9.R. Nos. 7*5#5, 7*5#, 7*5'+, *5'1, 7*5'#, 7*5'-, 7*55*, 7*561, 7*565 and 7*5!:, includin" the supple%ental petition %ootand should be dis%issed.

ithout pre4udice to a %ore e0tended opinion later, concur in the vie$ that i%plicit in the po$er of theConstitutional Convention to propose a%end%ents to the Constitution is its authorit& to order an election at$hich such a%end%ents are to be sub%itted to the people for ratification and, $ithin the narro$ ran"e i%pliedas necessar& for the business of sub%ittin" the a%end%ents to the people, the capacit& to appropriate %one&for the e0penses necessar& to %a?e such sub%ittal effective. ndependentl& therefore of the 8uestion, $hetheror not the President %a& le"islate durin" %artial la$, it $as certainl& $ithin the authorit& of the President toissue such %easures, actin" as a"ent for and in behalf of the Constitutional Convention to call for a plebiscite,prescribe its ter%s and appropriate %one& for said purpose.

/he opinion that the President, as a"ent of the Convention, could device other for%s of election to deter%inethe $ill of the %a4orit& of the people on the ratification of the proposed Constitution, establishes a principle thatis, not entirel& devoid of precedent. /he present Constitution of the Inited )tates $as ratified in a %anner not inaccord $ith the first Constitution of the Inited )tates, $hich $as the Articles of Confederation. /he violation$as deliberate, but Madison, ho$ever defended the %ethod provided for the adoption of the ne$ Constitutionb& sa&in" that it $as a case 2of absolute necessit&2 $hich forced the fra%ers of the ne$ Constitution to resort2to the "reat principle of self7preservation; to the transcendental la$ of nature and of natures od, $hichdeclares that the safet& and happiness of societ& are the ob4ects at $hich all political institutions ai%, and to



$hich all such institutions %ust be sacrificed.2 hile a"ree that this precedent is never one that $ould 4ustif&"overn%ental or"ans in i"norin" constitutional restraints, the fact is the people the%selves had alread& acted badoptin" the procedure devised in the e0pression of their soverei"n $ill.

/o the contention of one of the petitioners, that the draft of the Constitution contains provisions be&ond thepo$er of the Constitutional Convention to sub%it for ratification, suffice it to state that there is nothin" that canle"all& prevent a convention fro% actuall& revisin" the entire Constitution for, in the final anal&sis, it is theapproval of the people that "ives validit& to an& proposal of a%end%ent or revision.

concur in the opinion that %artial rule per se, in the li"ht of conte%porar& events, does not $arrant thepresu%ption that the results of the plebiscite of ratification is not a "enuine and free e0pression of the popular$ill.

t poses a 8uestion of fact $hich, in the absence of an& 4udiciall& discoverable and %ana"eable standards, or$here the access to relevant infor%ation is insufficient to assure the correct deter%ination of the issue, do notfeel that this Court is co%petent to act.

f the ratification of the ne$ Constitution and the ne$ "overn%ent erected thereon, is not $hat it is representedto be, the e0pression of the $ill of the %a4orit& or the people are dissatisfied, the& have a%ple re%ed&. /heinstru%ent itself provides a%end%ent and chan"e. 3or the onl& and proper $a& in $hich it should be re%ediedis the people actin" as a bod& politic. /hese 8uestions relate to %atters not to be settled on strict le"alprinciples. 3or the ne$ Constitution has been pro%ul"ated and "reat interests have alread& arisen under it. /hepolitical or"an in the "overn%ent has reco"ni=ed it and has co%%enced the i%ple%entation of its provisions.Inder such circu%stances the Court should therefore refrain fro% precipitatin" i%possible situations $hich%i"ht other$ise rip the delicate social and political fabric.

/he theor& of presu%ptive collective duress under %artial rule is perhaps valid in an& other cli%e. n the case abar, it flies a"ainst the star? realit& of the factual settin". /o insist upon it is to i"nore the historical facts thatcul%inated in the national referendu%. /he people $anted a revolutionar& chan"e. /he& $ere a$are of the%anifold proble%s of the nation D its povert&, corruption, in4ustice, subversion and insur"enc& and cri%inalit&./he s$eepin" and dra%atic refor%s durin" the last fe$ %onths buo&ed up the hopes of the people that thru theinstru%entalit& of a ne$ charter these "ains of the co%%on$eal %a& be conserved and further enlar"ed. n thea%bience of such a historical settin", it $ould have been presu%ptuous to assu%e that the 8ualified voters inthe reportedl& %ore than fourteen %illion 3ilipinos $ho voted for the ne$ charter, did so not $ith freedo% butfro% fear. )uch a posture, cannot accept, for that $ould de%ean the coura"e, inte"rit& and $isdo% of thepeople the%selves.

n all other respects, the opinion of (ustice Barredo, %erits %& concurrence.

ESGUERRA, J., concurrin"

vote to den& all petitions see?in" to prohibit the holdin" of the plebiscite on (anuar& 15, 1!*, on theConstitution of Nove%ber *+, 1!#, as provided for in Presidential ecree No. !* of ece%ber 1, 1!#.

)pecificall&, vote to den& the supple%ental petition in .R. No. 7*5'- see?in" to restrain the Citi=ens Asse%blies referendu% in connection $ith that ratification of said Constitution.

M& reasons are si%ple and need no elaborate and len"th& discussion.

1. n the first place, these cases have been %oot and acade%ic as the holdin" of the plebiscite scheduled for(anuar& 15, 1!*, has been indefinitel& postponed under eneral Order No. #+ dated (anuar& !, 1!*.Conse8uentl&, there is nothin" %ore to prohibit or restrain.

#. n the second place, the supple%ental petition in .R. No. 7*5'- to restrain the respondents, includin"three additional parties, na%el& )ecretar& (ose Rono as head of the epart%ent of ocal overn%ents;



)ecretar& Conrado Estrella, as head of the epart%ent of A"rarian Refor%s and )ecretar& uiller%o de >e"a,as Chair%an of the National Ratification Coordinatin" Co%%ittee, $ho $ere not dul& served $ith su%%ons andhave never been heard, has been rendered futile as the Citi=ens Asse%blies have e0pressed their decisions toratif& the 1!# Constitution and said officers have reported to the President and on the basis thereof he hasannounced the ratification of said Constitution b& Procla%ation No. 11+#, dated (anuar& 1!, 1!*, effective 1#++ ocloc? noon of said date. @ence there is also nothin" %ore to restrain or prohibit as the acts sou"ht to bestopped have been full& acco%plished.

do not atte%pt to assail the validit& of Procla%ation No. 11+# as the Court is not in possession of an& evidenceto overthro$ the veracit& of the facts therein related, there bein" no case for%all& filed $ith the Court attac?in"the validit& of said Procla%ation, and, %oreover, the parties responsible for the holdin" of the referendu% orplebiscite b& the Citi=ens Asse%blies, $hich ratified the proposed Constitution, have not bein" i%pleaded andafforded a chance to be heard. n brief, there is absolutel& no basis for %a?in" a pronounce%ent on the validit&of the said procla%ation, and to do so $ould be si%pl& tidin" rou"h shod over the $ell7beaten road of dueprocess of la$ $hich basicall& re8uires notice and full and fair hearin".

ithout an& co%petent evidence do not pretend to ?no$ %ore about the circu%stances attendin" the holdin"of said referendu% or plebiscite and cannot sa& that it $as not plainfull& held. assu%e that $hat theprocla%ation sa&s on its face is true and until overco%e b& satisfactor& evidence, of $hich there is absolutel&nothin" before Is, cannot subscribe to the clai% that such plebiscite $as not held accordin"l&.

At this sta"e, $hether or not there $as a valid ratification of the 1!# Constitution cannot be resolved $ithoutraisin" the le"alit& of the overn%ent under $hich $e are no$ operatin" as of (anuar& 1!, 1!*. @ence e$ould be confronted $ith a political 8uestion $hich is be&ond the 4urisdiction of this Court to settle. accept as afait acco%pli that the Constitution adopted on Nove%ber *+, 1!#, has been dul& ratified, and consider thatan& assault a"ainst it as $ell as the %anner of its ratification has been innocuous. @avin" been invested $ithfull force and effect b& the approval of an over$hel%in" %a4orit& of the people, to %ount an attac? a"ainst itno$ $ould be nothin" less than fi"htin" the $ind%ills in on Hui4ote fashion. do not $ish to e%ulate thatuni8ue literar& character and prefer to ta?e thin"s in the li"ht of the star? realities of the present. have al$a&sadhered to the idea that the practical approach to an& 8uestion &ields the happiest solution, instead of soarin"in fli"hts of fantasies and losin" ones self in idle %etaph&sical adventures.

*ERNAN%O, J., concurrin" and dissentin"

hile a% in a"ree%ent $ith the resolution of the Court dis%issin" the petitions for their bein" %oot andacade%ic, feel that a brief separate opinion e0pressin" %& vie$s on certain le"al issues $ould not be a%iss,considerin" the transcendental character of the suits before us. ndisputabl&, the& involve the crucial roleassu%ed b& the E0ecutive in the proposed sub%ission of the ne$ Constitution, perhaps unavoidabl& thrustupon hi% in vie$ of the declaration of %artial la$. t is reassurin" that there is a reiteration of the principle thatthe a%endin" process, both as to proposal and ratification, raises a 4udicial 8uestion. Not$ithstandin" the vi"orand plausibilit& $ith $hich the )olicitor7eneral stressed $hat for hi% is the political nature of the controvers&,$ith considerable support fro% authorities on constitutional la$ partial to the 4udicial restraint approach, it $ouldbe, for %e, a plain abdication of the trust reposed in this Court, if it $ould rule itself as devoid of authorit& toin8uire into the validit& of the steps ta?en to$ards the ratification of the proposed a%end%ents. /he %ost that

can concede is that $here the effect of the nullification sou"ht is to prevent the soverei"n people fro%e0pressin" their $ill, the ut%ost caution and circu%spection should be e0ercised.

No$, as to the %erits of the issues that $ould have called for resolution, $ere it not for the %atter beco%in"%oot and acade%ic. hile not s8uarel& raised, the 8uestion of $hether or not a constitutional convention could"o on %eetin" $ith %artial la$ in force has a pre4udicial aspect. 3ollo$in" the rulin" in $ncan v.4ahanamo/$ 1 that e"islature and courts continue to function even under such period, bein" not %erel&cherished "overn%ental institutions but indispensable to the operation of "overn%ent, there is no doubt in %&%ind that the sa%e principle should li?e$ise appl& to a constituent bod&. /o the contention pressed b& )enator/anada, as counsel, in *an v. Commission on 'lections, that the proposed Constitution contains provisions



be&ond the po$er of the Constitutional Convention to sub%it for ratification, it see%s to %e a sufficient ans$erthat once convened, the area open for deliberation to a Constitutional Convention and thereafter to bee%bodied in proposed a%end%ents if approved b& the %a4orit&, is practicall& li%itless. 2 n that sense, it can betrul& stated that the Convention can propose an&thin" but conclude nothin". As $as inti%ated b& (usticeMa?asiar, spea?in" for the Court in el Rosario v. Comelec , 3 2$hether the Constitutional Convention $ill onl&propose a%end%ents to the Constitution or entirel& overhaul the present Constitution and propose an entirel&ne$ Constitution based on an ideolo"& forei"n to the de%ocratic s&ste%, is of no %o%ent; because the sa%e$ill be sub%itted to the people for ratification. Once ratified b& the soverei"n people, there can be no debate

about the validit& of the ne$ Constitution.2 & Once its $or? of draftin" has been co%pleted, it could itself directthe sub%ission to the people for ratification as conte%plated in Article K> of the Constitution. @ere it did not doso. ith Con"ress not bein" in session, could the President, b& the decree under 8uestion, call for such aplebisciteG Inder such circu%stances, a ne"ative ans$er certainl& could result in the $or? of the Conventionbein" rendered nu"ator&. /he vie$ has been repeatedl& e0pressed in %an& A%erican state court decisions thatto avoid such undesirable conse8uence, the tas? of sub%ission beco%es %inisterial, $ith the political branchesdevoid of an& discretion as to the holdin" of an election for that purpose. 5 Nor is the appropriation b& hi% of thea%ount necessar& to be considered as offensive to the Constitution. f it $ere done b& hi% in his capacit& asPresident, such an ob4ection $ould indeed have been for%idable, not to sa& insur%ountable. f theappropriation $ere %ade in his capacit& as a"ent of the Convention to assure that there be the sub%ission tothe people, then such an ar"u%ent loses force. /he Convention itself could have done so. 7 t is understandable$h& it should be thus. f it $ere other$ise, then a le"islative bod&, the appropriatin" ar% of the "overn%ent,

could conceivabl& %a?e use of such authorit& to co%pel the Convention to sub%it to its $ishes, on pain of beinrendered financiall& distrau"ht. /he President then, if perfor%in" his role as its a"ent, could be held as notdevoid of such co%petence. /hat brin"s %e to the ar"u%ent as to the absence of proper sub%ission,developed $ith the custo%ar& learnin" and persuasiveness b& )enators /anada and )alon"a. ith all duereco"nition of their forensic s?ill, prefer to rel& on $hat, for %e, is the correct principle announced in theopinion of the Chief (ustice in Gonzales v. Commission on 'lections 2A considerable portion of the people%a& not ?no$ ho$ over 16+ of the proposed %a0i%u% of representative districts are actuall& apportioned b&R.B.@. No. 1 a%on" the provinces in the Philippines. t is not i%probable, ho$ever, that the& are not interestedin the details of the apportion%ent, or that a careful readin" thereof %a& tend in their si%ple %inds, to i%pair aclear vision thereof. Ipon the other hand, those $ho are %ore sophisticated, %a& enli"hten the%selvessufficientl& b& readin" the copies of the proposed a%end%ents posted in public places, the copies ?ept in thepollin" places and the te0t of contested resolutions, as printed in full on the bac? of the ballots the& $ill use. t is

li?e$ise, conceivable that as %an& people, if not %ore, %a& fail to reali=e or envisa"e the effect of R.B.@. No. *upon the $or? of the Constitutional Convention or upon the future of our Republic. But, then, nobod& can foretesuch effect $ith certaint&. 3ro% our vie$point, the provisions of Article K> of the Constitution are satisfied solon" as the electorate ?no$s that R.B.@. No. * per%its Con"ress%en to retain their seats as le"islators, even ifthe& should run for and assu%e the functions of dele"ates to the Convention. e are i%pressed b& the factorsconsidered b& our distin"uished and estee%ed brethren, $ho opine other$ise, but, $e feel that such factorsaffect the wisdom of Republic Act No. '1* and that of R.B.@. Nos. 1 and *, not the a$thorit& of Con"ress toapprove the sa%e. /he s&ste% of chec?s and balances underl&in" the 4udicial po$er to stri?e do$n acts of theE0ecutive or of Con"ress transcendin" the confines set forth in the funda%ental la$s is not in dero"ation of theprinciple of separation of po$ers, pursuant to $hich each depart%ent is supre%e $ithin its o$n sphere. /hedeter%ination of the conditions under $hich the proposed a%end%ents shall be sub%itted to the people isconcededl& a %atter $hich falls $ithin the le"islative sphere. e do not believe it has been satisfactoril& sho$n

that Con"ress has e0ceeded the li%its thereof in enactin" Republic Act No. '1*.2 9

Nonetheless, $ere it not for the fact that the %atter had beco%e %oot and acade%ic, a% for "rantin" thepetitions in vie$ of $hat, for %e, is the repu"nanc& bet$een an election conte%plated under Article K> of theConstitution in herein the voters can freel& re"ister their $ill, $hether it be for approval or disapproval, and thee0istence of %artial la$, $ith its connotation that dissent %a& be frau"ht $ith unpleasant conse8uences. hileit is to be ad%itted that the Ad%inistration has done its best to alleviate such a state of %ind, cannot in allhonest& sa&, althou"h a% prepared to concede that %a& labor under a sense of undue pessi%is%, that the%o%entu% of fear necessaril& incident to such a re"i%e has been reduced to a %ini%u%. fail to see then thee0istence of that indispensable condition of freedo% that $ould validate the ratification process as conte%plateb& the Constitution. As to the validit& of Procla%ation No. 11+#, adherence to $hat for %e are funda%ental



concepts of 4udicial revie$ precludes it this state the e0pression of an& opinion. t $ould, at the ver& least, bepre%ature. 1'

$ARRE%O, J., concurrin" and dissentin"

ith full consciousness of the transcendental conse8uences of the action the Court is ta?in" in these cases, noonl& upon %e personall& and as a %e%ber of the )upre%e Court but upon the Court itself as the "uardian ofthe Constitution, $hich all its %e%bers have sole%nl& s$orn in the na%e of od to uphold and defend, and

after lon" and serious consideration of all aspects and an"les of the issues sub%itted for resolution b& theparties, have co%e to the sincere conviction that the petitions herein should be dis%issed, includin" thesupple%ental petition filed b& petitioners in .R. No. 7*5'-, $ith the conse8uent denial of the %otion for theissuance of a $rit of preli%inar& in4unction or a te%porar& restrainin" order en4oinin" in effect an& act $hich$ould i%pl& "ivin" force and effect to the 1!# Constitution $hich President 3erdinand E. Marcos proclai%edas ratified in Procla%ation No. 11+# as of t$elve ocloc? noon on (anuar& 1!, 1!*. ithout pre4udice to a %oree0tended opinion later, %& reasons for this conclusion are as follo$s

As of toda&, t$o %atters present the%selves for Our i%%ediate resolution, na%el&, 91: the petitions in all ofthese cases pra&in" for a $rit of prohibition a"ainst the i%ple%entation of Presidential ecree No. !* callin" forand settin" the date and the %anner of holdin" the plebiscite for the ratification of the Constitution proposed b&the 1!1 Constitutional Convention, the date set bein" (anuar& 15, 1!*, and 9#: the supple%ental petition,

$ith pra&er for the issuance of a $rit of preli%inar& in4unction or a restrainin" order, in .R. No. 7*5'- toen4oin $hatever ratification of the said Constitution $ould be proposed b& the Citi=ens Asse%blies, establishedunder Presidential ecrees Nos. -6, -67A, and -67B, and, correspondin"l&, an& act $hich $ould "ive force andeffect to such ratification, should it be proclai%ed, $hich, b& the $a&, ever&bod& ?no$s $as alread& done atabout 11++ ocloc? A.M. on (anuar& 1!, 1!*.

As to No. 91:, vote to dis%iss the ori"inal petitions in all these cases for the si%ple reason that the alle"ed"rounds thereof are either untenable or have been pre%ature, if not so%eho$ %oot and acade%ic, at least,%ean$hile that the plebiscite had not been reset. 1

9a: /here is no 8uestion that the %atter of $hether or not Presidential ecree No. !* is valid is a 4usticiable oneand not political, hence $ithin the 4urisdiction of this Court to resolve. /olentino v. Co%elec, .R. No. 7*'15+,October 16, 1!1, '1 )CRA !+# is sufficient authorit& for this pose.

9b: On the other hand, a% of the considered vie$ that it is not $ithin the co%petence of this Court to pass onthe propriet& or $isdo% of an& part or provision of the Constitution as proposed b& the Convention. /heConvention $as called for the purpose of proposin" a%end%ents to the Constitution, and li?e an& ConstitutionaConvention it $as co%pletel& and absolutel& free to %a?e an& proposal, $hether or not consonant $ith the1*5 Constitution. /he theor& of ultra7vires proposals advanced b& petitioners is to %e $ithout sufficient le"albasis.

9c: Much less can accept the vie$ that the Conventions tas? $as li%ited to proposin" specific a%end%ents tobeco%e either as ne$ parts of the e0istin" Constitution or as replace%ents of correspondin" portions thereof,for even if there $ere an& theoretical basis for petitioners posture in this re"ard, feel safe in sa&in" that $henthe people elected the dele"ates to the Convention and $hen the dele"ates the%selves $ere ca%pai"nin"such li%itation of the scope of their function and ob4ective $as not in their %inds. ithal, considerin" thenu%ber and nature of the proposals alread& bein" publicl& discussed before and after said election, to follo$petitioners su""estion $ould have produced confusion and probabl& insur%ountable difficulties even in thefra%in" and phrasin" alone of the a%end%ents so that the& %a& easil& and clearl& 4ibe $ith the other parts ofthe e0istin" Constitution.

9d: Re"ardin" the alle"ed lac? of le"islative po$er of the President to issue Presidential ecree No. !*, %aintain that independentl& of the issue of $hether or not the President %a& le"islate durin" %artial la$ relativeto %atters not connected $ith the re8uire%ents of suppressin" the ar%ed insur"enc& and the %aintenance of



peace and order, it $as $ithin the prero"ative of the President to issue said decree, considerin" that in doin" sohe %erel& acted as a"ent for and on behalf of the Constitutional Convention, $hich, in %& opinion $ritten for theCourt in the /olentino case, individuall& held, had the po$er to call for a plebiscite, prescribe its ter%s andappropriate %one& for the purpose. isre"ardin" i%%aterial niceties of for% and lan"ua"e, and loo?in" to itsobvious intent and purpose, hold that Resolution No. 5-'* of the Convention, approved on Nove%ber ##,1!#, dele"ated to the President in plenar& ter%s the callin" of the plebiscite, and since the ordinar& rulesre8uirin" the la&in" do$n of standards in the dele"ation of le"islative functions bindin" Con"ress do not, to %&%ind, appl& to the Convention, if onl& because the latter occupies a hi"her plane of le"islative authorit& than

Con"ress in %atters related to the acco%plish%ent of its ob4ectives, it follo$s that Presidential ecree No. !*$as validl& issued.

9e: All the other ob4ections to said decree $ere rendered pre%ature, if not so%eho$ %oot and acade%ic for theti%e bein", because under eneral Order No. #+, dated (anuar& !, 1!*, the President postponed theplebiscite until further notice. )uch bein" the case, nobod& could positivel& sa& that the President $ould notallo$ Con"ress to pass a plebiscite la$ or that he $ould not lift %artial la$ b& then or that the contracts,e0ecutive orders, treaties, procla%ations, decrees, etc. that are supposed to be ratified to"ether $ith theConstitution itself $ould not be published, for the proper infor%ation of all concerned before the ne0t date to befi0ed for the plebiscite. n other $ords, no one could sa& that appropriate steps $ould not be ta?en to %eet theob4ections alle"ed in the petitions before the plebiscite $ould be actuall& held. t is, indeed, 4udiciall& i%proper topass upon an& issue the factual settin" $hereof %a& still be %ateriall& altered.

9f: On $hether or not the holdin" of the plebiscite durin" %artial la$ $ould %ateriall& affect proper sub%issioninsofar as the freedo% supposed to attend it is concerned, a"ree $ith the respondents that this is a 8uestion ofact $hich cannot be pre7deter%ined and that it $ould, therefore, be the burden of the petitioners to sho$ b&evidence that such freedo% had been actuall& and substantiall& i%paired. hen one recalls that %easures$ere ta?en b& the President precisel& to provide the $idest opportunit& for free debate and votin", consistent$ith the nature and purpose of the plebiscite but at the sa%e ti%e safe"uardin" the ob4ectives of the %artial la$proclai%ed b& hi%, $hich %easures he had to $ithdra$ onl& $hen in his 4ud"%ent he dee%ed it to be sore8uired b& public safet&, it does not see% alto"ether lo"ical to assu%e that the e0istence of %artial la$ per sedeprives the people of the essence of free suffra"e. Martial la$ i%ple%ented Philippine st&le, to use an apte0pression, does not carr& $ith it necessaril& all the i%plications thereof as these are ?no$n in other lands andin the recorded precedents.

Co%in" no$ to No. 9#:, it is evident that under the theor& above7referred to that as a"ent of the Convention, thePresident could devise other for%s of plebiscite to deter%ine the $ill of the %a4orit& of the people vis7a7vis theratification of the proposed Constitution, believe that the establish%ent of the Citi=ens Asse%blies as a %odeof such plebiscite cannot be said to be clearl& be&ond the conte%plation of Article K> of the Constitution of1*5. t %ust be observed, ho$ever, that under Article K of the sa%e Constitution, it is the Co%%ission onElections that is supposed to 2have e0clusive char"e of the enforce%ent and ad%inistration of all la$s relativeto the conduct of elections ...2 and this function cannot be re%oved fro% the Co%%ission $hether b& Con"ressor b& the President.2 /his constitutional point see%s to have been overloo?ed in the proceedin"s in the

Asse%blies, since it does not appear fro% an& of the official docu%ents relative thereto that the sa%e havebeen underta?en or held under the char"e of the Co%%ission.

Besides, feel cannot bear evidence to histor& and the future "enerations of our people that in fact, theans$erin" of the 8uestions and the canvassin" and reportin" of the referendu% in the Asse%blies throu"houtthe countr& $ere done e0actl& in the %anner and for% that the& should have been done, in the li"ht oftraditional concepts related to plebiscites as $e ?no$ the%. Other$ise stated, a% not satisfied that Article K>of the 1*5 Constitution has been full& co%plied $ith. B& this, do not %ean that it $as not ri"ht to use the

Asse%blies; $hat a% sa&in" is that, on the basis of facts a% ta?in" 4udicial notice of, the procedure ofans$erin", canvassin" and reportin" adopted, $hich, b& the $a&, $as far fro% bein" unifor% in all the

Asse%blies, $as not up to standard in %an& places, 4ud"ed on the basis of the re8uire%ents of the prevailin"election la$s.



On the other hand, in spite of these considerations, do not find %&self in a position to den& the factualassertion in Procla%ation 11+# that %ore than 1' %illion 3ilipinos have %anifested approval of the proposedConstitution and $ould consider the sa%e as alread& ratified b& the%. understand that this nu%ber $asdeter%ined on the basis of s$orn reports of the respective heads of the Asse%blies. )uch bein" the case, a%faced $ith proof $hich have no $a& of dul& controvertin" that our people have spo?en. consider itunde%ocratic, i%practical and unrealistic to close %& e&es to that vital fact. And since in a de%ocrac& the $ill othe people is the supre%e la$, hold that it $ould be i%proper for the Court to en4oin an& act done or to bedone pursuant to the procla%ation in dispute. believe that $hatever le"al fla$s there %i"ht have been in the

procedure pursued leadin" to the issuance of said procla%ation %a& be dee%ed alread& cured b& the apparen$ill of the people ho$ever i%perfectl&, under le"al and technical standards, the sa%e has been e0pressed. /o"rant the pra&er of petitioners no$ $ould be tanta%ount to def&in" the ver& soverei"n people b& $ho% and for$ho% the Constitution has been ordained, absent an& de%onstrated facts sho$in" that the& prefer the stat$s6$o, $hich the Convention $as precisel& called to chan"e %eanin"full&, to the $ide7ran"e refor%s ever&bod&can see are bein" effected in practicall& all levels of the "overn%ent and all sectors of societ&. ithal, to issuean& such in4unctive $rit at this sta"e of denounce%ent of national events is to court conse8uences too horribleto i%a"ine.

/o the possible stricture that persons less than t$ent&7one &ears of a"e $ere allo$ed to participate and vote insaid Asse%blies, %& reaction is that a% not sure that Article > of the 1*5 Constitution, vie$ed in the li"ht ofthe perceptible universal drift to$ards the enfranchise%ent of the &outh, %a& not be construed as per%ittin"

le"islative enlar"e%ent of the de%ocratic base of "overn%ent authorit&, since the said Article does not sa& thatthose thereb& 8ualified are the onl& ones $ho can vote 7 the lan"ua"e bein" si%pl& that 2suffra"e %a& bee0ercised b& %ale citi=ens of the Philippines not other$ise dis8ualified b& la$, $ho are t$ent&7one &ears of a"eor over and are able to read and $rite, and $ho shall have resided in the Philippines for one &ear and in the%unicipalit& $herein the& propose to vote for at least si0 %onths precedin" the election. ...,2 $hich, to %e,strictl& spea?in", onl& "uarantees the ri"ht of suffra"e to those enu%erated but does not den& to the le"islaturethe po$er to include others $ho in its $isdo% it believes should also en4o& such ri"ht. n an& event, it isele%entar& under our election la$ and 4urisprudence that should it appear that dis8ualified persons havesucceeded in votin" in an election, such election is not thereb& necessaril& rendered $holl& ille"al, but the votesof such persons are onl& correspondin"l& deducted after bein" dul& identified. Accordin"l&, on the pre%ise thatthe inclusion of those belo$ #1 is ille"al, their votes %a& be deducted fro% the 1',+++,+++ or soafore%entioned, and a% certain no one $ill den& that the re%ainder $ould still be substantiall& sufficient to

constitute a reco"ni=able %andate of the people, for under nor%al circu%stances $hich %ust be presu%ed, an%a?in" the %ost liberal esti%ate, the votes of the under a"ed voters a%on" the% could not have been %orethan one7third of said nu%ber. ndeed, at the %ost, if this point had been considered before the issuance ofProcla%ation 11+#, an in4unction %i"ht have issued to restrain the under a"ed persons fro% participatin" in thereferendu%, but no$ that the result thereof is a fait accompli , cannot see ho$ such a possible fla$ can be ofan& %aterial conse8uence.

As %a& be noted, have ta?en it upon %&self to rule on the le"al issues surroundin" Procla%ation 11+#.ndeed, feel ver& stron"l& that, as a %e%ber of the )upre%e Court, it is %& dut& to our people to enli"htenthe% as to said issues. /he e&es of the $hole countr& have been pinned on Is since the Convention approvedthe draft of the Constitution in 8uestion on Nove%ber *+, 1!#, and the President called, on ece%ber 1, 1!#thru Presidential ecree No. !*, for a plebiscite scheduled to be held on (anuar& 15, 1!*, for its ratification.

Concerned citi=ens purportin" to spea? for the people have precisel& co%e to the Court challen"in" the le"alit&of the procedure thus pursued as not bein" in consonance $ith the a%endin" process specified in the 1*5Constitution and pra&in" that the Court en4oin the continued adoption of said procedure. Ever&bod& ?no$s thatthe& ca%e to Is $ith the conviction that the Court $ould not hesitate to pla& its role as the final authorit&desi"nated b& the Constitution itself to interpret and construe its provisions.

Accordin"l&, e "ave due course to their petitions, and for t$o da&s, ece%ber 1- and 1, e heard brilliantand learned counsel of both sides ar"ue elo8uentl&, even $ith obvious patriotic fervor but in vie$ of thecircu%stances related in the separate opinion of the Chief (ustice, e $ere unable to decide the cases even alate as (anuar& 1*, 1!*. Petitioners then ca%e $ith %otions ur"entl& see?in" an earl& decision, and soonafter, or, on (anuar& 15, 1!*, petitioners in .R. No. 7*5'- filed a supple%ental petition relative to the latest



develop%ents involvin" the creation of Citi=ens Asse%blies and the persistent reports indicatin" al%ost to acertaint& that a procla%ation $ould be issued doin" a$a& $ith the usual plebiscite procedure and alread&proclai%in" the proposed Constitution as ratified and in force, on the basis alone of the favorable result of areferendu% in said Asse%blies. /heir %ain pra&er $as for Is to issue a $rit of prohibition a"ainst thesub%ission and approval of the reports of the results of said referendu%. e i%%ediatel& re8uired therespondents to ans$er the supple%ental petition not later than (anuar& 16 and set the case for hearin" on(anuar& 1! at *+ ocloc? in the %ornin".

n closin" his ar"u%ents before the Court that fateful %ornin", )enator oren=o /anada, the tenacious counselfor petitioners, pleaded earnestl&, even after the Chief (ustice had read to hi% in open session the te0t ofProcla%ation 11+# $hich had 4ust been delivered b& the )ecretar& of (ustice, that the Court rule s8uarel& on thissues petitioners have raised. @e told Is that it is secondar& $hether Our 4ud"%ent should be favorable orunfavorable to petitioners, $hat is %ost i%portant is for the people to ?no$ $hether or not the provisions of theConstitution have been observed.

ndeed, no "raver responsibilit& rests on the shoulders of the Court. And as see it, e cannot shir? thatresponsibilit& b& alle"in" technical e0cuses $hich sincerel& believe are at best of controversial tenabilit&.

cannot share the vie$ that the validit& and constitutionalit& of Procla%ation 11+# have not been sub%itted toIs for resolution in these proceedin"s. %aintain that for all intents and purposes, the supple%ental %otion of

)enator /anada of (anuar& 15 placed those transcendental issues before Is. Not onl& in his pleadin" but %oreso in his oral ar"u%ent, )enator /anada, $ith all the vi"or of his %ind and the sincere patriotis% of his heart,contended that $ith the creation of the Citi=ens Asse%blies and the referendu% bein" conducted therein, andparticularl& in vie$ of the t$o 8uestions to be ans$ered, na%el&, 2o &ou approve of the proposedconstitutionG2 and 2o &ou $ant the plebiscite to be heldG2, there $as no doubt that Article K> of theConstitution $as bein" b&passed and that this Court $as bein" 2short7circuited.2 n ter%s that could not havebeen plainer, he pointed to the i%pendin" probabilit& of the issuance of a procla%ation of the nature ofProcla%ation 11+#, and he pra&ed elo8uentl&, that e should act $ithout loss of ti%e to stop the purportedreports of the referendu% so as to re%ove the basis for such feared eventualit&. )o %uch so, that after theChief (ustice read the procla%ation to hi%, he dra%aticall& e0clai%ed, 2 have been confir%ed.2 Others $ouldhave said, 2Consu%%atu% est2

Inder these circu%stances, cannot see ho$ it can be held that e can refrain fro% rulin" on the le"al andconstitutional si"nificance of Procla%ation 11+#. At the ver& least, the present state of the case of Vidal *an" etal. vs. Comelec" et al., .R. No. 7*5'-, i%poses upon Is the ineludible obli"ation to rule $hether or not eshould have en4oined the sub%ission of the reports of the Asse%blies, as de%anded b& petitioners, it bein"evident that as )enator /anada contended said reports $ere to be utili=ed as basis for the issuance of aprocla%ation declarin" the proposed Constitution as ratified and alread& in force. n si%ilar past cases toonu%erous to cite, this Court and all courts in the countr&, dare sa&, have al$a&s considered the consu%%ationof a threatened act, after the petition to en4oin it has been sub%itted to the courts 4urisdiction, as fit sub4ect forits disposition, $ithin the sa%e proceedin"s, to the e0tent that the courts even issue %andator& in4unctions, inappropriate cases, for the respondents to undo $hat has alread& been done $ithout havin" to hold an& furtherhearin". t is clai%ed that the parties %ust be full& heard D but have $e not heard enou"h fro% the%G @as not)enator /anada presented all his ar"u%ents in support of his supple%ental petitionG And if he has not, is it the

fault of the CourtG s it fair to all concerned that such possible o%ission be considered as a "round for Our$ithholdin" Our 4ud"%ent on $hat under the la$ and the rules is alread& properl& before Is for resolutionG/ruth to tell, cannot i%a"ine a fuller ventilation of the cause of an& other petitioner $ho has co%e to this Courtthan petitioners in .R. No. 7*5'-. Rarel& has the Court held hearin"s for da&s and %ore unusuall& has it"iven an& counsel al%ost unli%ited ti%e to spea?, but these e have done in these cases. Can an& part& as?for %oreG f at all, onl& the respondents have not ade8uatel& presented their side insofar as the supple%entalpetition is concerned, but, a"ain, it cannot be said that the& have not had the opportunit& to do so. /he Actin")olicitor eneral has un8ualifiedl& filed his ans$er on behalf of all the respondents, and to %e, his atte%pt toi%press the Court that the ne$ respondents have not been su%%oned and that the sub4ect petition is pre%isedon probabilities and con4ectures is of no %o%ent, considerin" the "rave i%portance of the issues and the ur"ennecessit& of disposin" the% e0peditiousl& and $ithout unnecessar& loss of fateful ti%e. Of course, respect the



reasons of %& collea"ues $ho cannot see it %& $a&, but as far as a% concerned, this is as appropriate a caseand an occasion as an& can be to resolve all the funda%ental issues raised b& petitioners, and to leave the%unresolved no$ $ould be practicall& invitin" so%e non7confor%ists to challen"e the Constitution and to ?eepnot onl& the $heels of the transition at a standstill, but $orse, also the ani%us of the people in suspendedani%ation frau"ht $ith an0iet&, $ith all the dire conse8uences such a situation entails.

)o%e le"alists $ould call the "overn%ent under the proclai%ed Constitution a revolutionar& "overn%ent, butthe President denies that it is, because, accordin" to hi%, it is to operate under a Constitution ratified b& the

people. At this crucial %o%ent in the histor& of the nation, e need not bother about variant no%enclatures;these can be sub4ective and are, in an& event, unsubstantial. hat is of supre%e and ut%ost i%portance is thatthe people be told $hat e0actl& the situation is, sans the veneer of $hat %i"ht turn out after all to be aninaccurate appellation. /he people %ust ?no$ the real score, and, as a %e%ber of the )upre%e Court, do nothesitate to tell the% that, as have alread& e0plained above, in %& honest opinion, the purported ratification ofthe Constitution attested in Procla%ation 11+# and based on the referendu% a%on" the Citi=ens Asse%bliesfalls short of bein" in strict confor%it& $ith the re8uire%ents of Article K> of the 1*5 Constitution. %ust hasteto add, ho$ever, that such unfortunate dra$bac? not$ithstandin", and considerin" all other relevantcircu%stances, principall&, the na?ed proof before Is indicatin" that the people approve of it, earnestl& andsincerel& believe that the ne$ Constitution is le"all& reco"ni=able and should be reco"ni=ed as le"iti%atel& inforce.

reiterate have no le"al %eans of den&in" it to be a fact, as stated in the procla%ation, that 1',+++,+++3ilipinos have %anifested in the referendu% in the Citi=ens Asse%blies their approval of this Constitution. Andeven if e considered that said referendu% $as held under the ae"is of full i%ple%entation of the %artial la$proclai%ed b& the President under Procla%ation 1+-1, as %andated b& eneral Order No. #+, e $ould not bable to i"nore that the "overn%ent under this Constitution is $ell or"ani=ed and is in stable, effective andco%plete control of the $hole Philippine territor&, and $hat is %ore pertinentl& i%portant, that this Constitutionpur"ed as it is no$ of its Achilles heel, the nteri% National Asse%bl&, %a& fairl& be said to be acceptable"enerall& to the people, e%bod&in" as it does %eanin"ful refor%s desi"ned to chec?, if not to eradicate the theprevalent causes of $idespread popular restiveness and activis% $hich has alread& assu%ed practicall& theproportions of an ar%ed insur"enc& or rebellion so%eho$ endan"erin" the securit& and safet& of theconstituted "overn%ent, if not the inte"rit& of the nation. And in connection $ith the i%ple%entation of %artialla$ thus ordered, as have alread& noted earlier in this opinion, its bein" done Philippine st&le %a& be of so%e

relevance, since such enforce%ent is not characteri=ed b& the ri"or that the usual concept of %artial la$connotes, hence, an& su""estion of constructive duress relative to the proceedin"s in the Asse%blies and theBaran"a&s %a& not full& hold $ater. Ipon these pre%ises, it is %& considered opinion that if in an& sense thepresent "overn%ent and Constitution %a& be vie$ed as revolutionar&, because the& ca%e into bein", strictl&spea?in", e0tra7constitutionall& or outside the pale of the 1*5 Constitution, the& are nonetheless entitled to beaccorded le"iti%ate standin", for all intents and purposes and for all concerned, under the universall& acceptedprinciple that a revolution, $hether violent or bloodless, is ille"al onl& $hen it fails to "ain the support of thepeople. ndeed, under these circu%stances, cannot resist the te%ptation of as?in", is it 4uridicall& possible forthis Court to declare unconstitutional and $ithout force and effect the ver& Constitution under $hich it presentl&e0istsG a% inclined to hold that the ans$er to this 8uestion can onl& be in the ne"ative. Conse8uentl&,petitioners are not entitled to an& 4udicial relief and, have no alternative but to vote for the dis%issal of thesupple%ental petition of (anuar& 15, 1!*.

n conclusion, hold that the 1*5 Constitution has pro tanto passed into histor& and has been le"iti%atel&supplanted b& the Constitution no$ in force b& virtue of Procla%ation 11+#, issued pursuant to the certifiedresults of the referendu% in the Citi=ens Asse%blies all over the countr& favorin" its adoption and enforce%ent.

on" live our countr&, the Philippines od bless our people, the 3ilipino people

AL%/AR, J., dissentin"



cannot a"ree $ith %& $orth& collea"ues $ho hold the vie$ that the petitions in all these have beco%e %ootand acade%ic si%pl& because the relief pra&ed for b& petitioners cannot be "ranted after Procla%ation No.11+# $as issued b& the President of the Philippines. A case does not beco%e %oot $here there re%ainsubstantial ri"hts or issues that are controverted and $hich are not settled. 1 /his Court has decided cases eveif no positive relief, as pra&ed for b& a part& in the case, could be "ranted, or even if a part& has $ithdra$n hisappeal, if the case presented to the court for resolution is a clear violation of the Constitution or of funda%entalpersonal ri"hts of libert& and propert&. 2

n the present cases it is in the public interest that this Court renders a rulin" on the transcendental issuesbrou"ht about b& the petition D issues $hich %ust be resolved b& this Court as the "uardian of the Constitutionof this Republic.

3or a co%prehensive appraisal of the facts and circu%stances relevant to the resolution of the issues involvedin these cases, e shall narrate pertinent events, as sho$n in the record.

On ece%ber 1, 1!# the President of the Philippines, in his capacit& as Co%%ander7in7Chief of all the Ar%ed3orces of the Philippines and actin" pursuant to Procla%ation No. 1+-1, dated )epte%ber #1, 1!#, issuedPresidential ecree No. !*, sub%ittin" to the 3ilipino people for ratification or re4ection the Constitution of theRepublic of the Philippines proposed b& the 1!1 Constitutional Convention, and appropriatin" funds for thepurpose. /he ecree states that the sa%e $as issued pursuant to Resolution No. 5-'* of the 1!1

Constitutional Convention proposin" 2to President 3erdinand E. Marcos that a decree be issued callin" aplebiscite for the ratification of the proposed ne$ Constitution on such appropriate date as he shall deter%ineand providin" for the necessar& funds therefor.2 2 3 /he decree set the plebiscite for (anuar& 15, 1!* andappropriated the su% of P15,+++,+++.++ to carr& out the purpose of the decree. /he ecree provided for thepublication of the proposed Constitution, the disse%ination of infor%ation re"ardin" the proposed Constitution,the application of the provisions of the Election Code of 1!1 to the plebiscite insofar as the& are notinconsistent $ith the provisions of the decree, speciall& statin" that the provisions of said Code re"ardin" theri"ht and obli"ations of political parties and candidates shall not appl& to the plebiscite. /he ecree furtherprovided for a calendar for the plebiscite, for the re"istration of voters, for the constitution of the board ofinspectors, for $atchers, for precincts and pollin" places, for the official ballots to be used, for the preparationand trans%ission of plebiscite returns, for the canvass of the returns b& the cit&, %unicipalit&, and the %unicipaldistrict board of canvassers, for the canvass b& the Co%%ission on Elections and the procla%ation of the

results b& said Co%%ission, for supplies and services needed for the holdin" of the plebiscite, and on theauthorit& "iven to the Co%%ission on Elections to pro%ul"ate rules and re"ulations necessar& to carr& out theprovisions of the ecree.

On ece%ber 1, 1!#, the President of the Philippines also issued eneral Order No. 1!, orderin" anden4oinin" the Ar%ed 3orces of the Philippines and all other depart%ents and a"encies of the overn%ent toallo$ and encoura"e public and free discussions and debates on the proposed Constitution before theplebiscite set for (anuar& 15, 1!*.

urin" the first half of the %onth of ece%ber 1!#, the petitioners, in the ten cases no$ before this Court, filedpetitions for prohibition $ith preli%inar& in4unction, see?in" to prevent the holdin" of the plebiscite on (anuar&15, 1!*. /he petitioners 8uestion the validit& of Presidential ecree No. !*, principall& upon the "round that it

is not in the po$er of the President of the Philippines to call a plebiscite for the ratification or re4ection of theproposed Constitution and to appropriate public funds for the purpose. /he petitioners also %aintain that theperiod of onl& about '5 da&s fro% the date of the approval of the proposed Constitution b& the ConstitutionalConvention on Nove%ber *+, 1!# to (anuar& 15, 1!*, $as not a sufficient ti%e for the electorate of thiscountr& to be properl& infor%ed re"ardin" the provisions of the proposed Constitution, and the electorate couldnot therefore vote intelli"entl& on $hether to ratif& or to re4ect the proposed Constitution, and so there could beno proper sub%ission of the proposed Constitution to the electorate. /he petitioners further %aintain that thecountr& bein" under %artial la$ there could not be a free sub%ission of the proposed Constitution to theelectorate. n so%e of the petitions, the petitioners also %aintain that the proposed Constitution containsprovisions $hich are be&ond the po$er of the Constitutional Convention to adopt or to propose. All the



petitioners pra&ed this Court to issue a $rit of preli%inar& in4unction or restrainin" order to prevent therespondents in each of the petitions fro% i%ple%entin" Presidential ecree No. !*. /his Court, ho$ever, didnot issue the preli%inar& in4unction, nor the restrainin" order, pra&ed for. /his Court re8uired the respondents ineach petition to ans$er the petition, and set the cases for hearin" on the petition for preli%inar& in4unction andon the %erits of the case for ece%ber 1-, 1!#. @earin"s $ere actuall& held for t$o da&s D on ece%ber 1-and 1, 1!#.

On ece%ber *1, 1!#, $hile these cases $ere pendin" before this Court, the President of the Philippines

issued Presidential ecree No. -6 creatin" the Citi=ens Asse%blies throu"hout the countr&. A%on" others,ecree No. -6 provides that there is created a citi=en asse%bl& in each barrio in %unicipalities, and in eachdistrict in chartered cities, provided that in the case of Manila and other chartered cities $here there are nobarrios there shall be a citi=en asse%bl& in ever& $ard; that the citi=en asse%blies shall consist of all persons$ho are residents of the barrio, district, or $ard for at least si0 %onths, 15 &ears of a"e or over, citi=ens of thePhilippines, and $ho are re"istered in the list of citi=ens asse%bl& %e%bers ?ept b& the barrio, district or $ardsecretar&. As stated in the decree, the purpose of establishin" the citi=ens asse%blies is to broaden the base ofthe citi=ens participation in the de%ocratic process and to afford a%ple opportunities for the citi=enr& to e0presstheir vie$s on i%portant national issues.

On (anuar& 5, 1!* the President of the Philippines issued Presidential ecree No. -67A $hich, a%on" others,provided for the sub%ission to the citi=ens asse%blies created under Presidential ecree No. -6 8uestions to

be ans$ered, and a%on" those 8uestions are these t$o 91: 2o &ou approve of the ne$ ConstitutionG2; 9#: 2&ou still $ant a plebiscite to be called to ratif& the ne$ Constitution G2

On (anuar& !, 1!* the President issued eneral Order No. #+, orderin" the postpone%ent of the plebiscitethat had been scheduled for (anuar& 15, 1!*. )aid "eneral order reads as follo$s

ENERA ORER NO. #+

@EREA), pursuant to Presidential ecree No. !* dated ece%ber 1, 1!#, a plebiscite hasbeen called on (anuar& 15, 1!* at $hich the proposed Constitution of the Philippines shall besub%itted to the people for ratification or re4ection;

@EREA), Presidential ecree No. -6, dated ece%ber *1, 1!#, created Citi=ens Asse%bliesso as to afford a%ple opportunities for the citi=enr& to e0press their vie$s on i%portant nationalissues;

@EREA), one of the 8uestions presented to the Citi=ens Asse%blies is 2o &ou li?e theplebiscite on the proposed Constitution to be held laterG

@EREA), it is necessar& to hold in abe&ance the plebiscite until the peoples preference hasbeen ascertained;

NO, /@ERE3ORE, , 3ERNAN E. MARCO), Co%%ander7in7Chief of all the Ar%ed 3orces

of the Philippines, and pursuant to Procla%ation No. 1+-1, dated )epte%ber #1, 1!#, dohereb& order that the plebiscite scheduled to be held on (anuar& 15, 1!*, be postponed untilfurther notice.

further order that the provision of )ection * of Presidential ecree No. !* insofar as the& allo$free public discussion of the proposed Constitution, as $ell as %& order of ece%ber 1!, 1!#,te%poraril& suspendin" the effects of Procla%ation No. 1+-1 for the purposes of free and opendebate on the proposed Constitution, be suspended in the %eanti%e.

one in the Cit& of the Manila, this !th da& of (anuar&, in the &ear of Our ord, nineteen hundredand sevent&7three.



9)"d.: 3ERNAN E. MARCO)PresidentRepublic of the Philippines

B& the President

9)"d.: AE(ANRO MEC@ORE0ecutive )ecretar&

As of the da& $hen the above78uoted eneral Order No. #+ $as issued these cases $ere all pendin" decisionbefore this Court.

At this 4uncture a% "oin" to particulari=e %& discussion on case .R. No. 7*5'- 9>idal /an, et al., petitionervs. Co%%ission on Elections, et al., respondents:. hat sa& in connection $ith the >idal /an case %a& also beconsidered in relation $ith the other cases before Is.

On (anuar& 1#, 1!* counsel for the petitioners in the /an case filed an 2Ir"ent Motion 3or Earl& ecision2,alle"in", a%on" others, that it $as announced that votin" b& the Citi=ens Asse%blies $ould be held on (anuar1+ to 15, 1!* $hereb& the Citi=ens Asse%blies $ould be as?ed a nu%ber of 8uestions, a%on" the% thefollo$in"

91: o &ou approve of Citi=ens Asse%blies as the base of popular "overn%ent to decide issuesof national interestsG

9#: o &ou approve of the ne$ ConstitutionG

9*: o &ou $ant a plebiscite to be called to ratif& the ne$ ConstitutionG

9': o &ou $ant the elections to be held in Nove%ber, 1!* in accordance $ith the provisions ofthe 1*5 ConstitutionG

95: f the election $ould not be held, $hen do &ou $ant the ne0t elections to be calledG

96: o &ou $ant %artial la$ to continueG

Counsel for the petitioners also alle"ed that petitioners had reasons to fear that the 8uestion 2o &ou approveof the ne$ ConstitutionG2, in relation to the 8uestion follo$in" it 2o &ou still $ant a plebiscite to be called toratif& the ne$ ConstitutionG2, $ould be an atte%pt to b&pass and short7circuit this Court before $hich the8uestion re"ardin" the validit& of the plebiscite scheduled for (anuar& 15, 1!* on the proposed Constitution$as pendin" resolution. Counsel for petitioners also alle"ed that the& had reasons to fear 2that if an affir%ativeans$er to the t$o 8uestions 4ust referred to $ould be reported then this @onorable Court and the entire nation$ould be confronted $ith a fait accompli $hich has been attained in a hi"hl& unconstitutional and unde%ocratic%anner;2 and 2the fait accompli $ould consist in the supposed e0pression of the people approvin" the propose

Constitution.2 Counsel further states 2that if such event $ould happen then the case before this @onorableCourt could, to all intents and purposes, beco%e %oot because, petitioners fear, and the& therefore alle"e, thaton the basis of such supposed e0pression of the $ill of the people throu"h the Citi=ens Asse%blies, it $ould beannounced that the proposed Constitution $ith all its defects, both con"enital and other$ise, has been ratified2and 2that in such a situation, the Philippines $ould be facin" a real crisis and there is a li?elihood of confusion ifnot chaos, because then, the people and their officials $ould not ?no$ $hich Constitution is in force.2 &

On (anuar& 1*, 1!* this Court ordered the )olicitor eneral to ans$er the ur"ent %otion of the petitioners,dated (anuar& 1#, 1!*.



On (anuar& 15, 1!* counsel for petitioners filed 2A )upple%ental Motion for ssuance of Restrainin" Order andfor nclusion of Additional Respondents.2 /he respondents sou"ht to be added $ere the epart%ent of ocalovern%ents and its head, )ecretar& (ose Rono; the epart%ent of A"rarian Refor%s and its head, )ecretar&Conrado Estrella; and the National Ratification Coordinatin" Co%%ittee and its chair%an, uiller%o de >e"a. ntheir supple%ental %otion for the issuance of restrainin" order en4oinin" the ori"inal respondents, as $ell as theadditional respondents, and their deputies, subordinates andJor substitutes fro% collectin", certif&in",announcin" and reportin" to the President or other officials concerned, the Citi=ens Asse%bl& referendu%results that $ould be obtained in the votin" held durin" the period co%prised bet$een (anuar& 1+ and (anuar&

15, 1!*, particularl& on the t$o 8uestions 91: 2o &ou approve of the ne$ ConstitutionG2, and 9#: 2o &ou still$ant a plebiscite to be called for the ratification of the ne$ ConstitutionG2 Counsel for petitioners further alle"edthat for lac? of %aterial ti%e the appropriate a%ended petition to include the ne$ respondents could not beco%pleted because the sub%ission of the proposed Constitution to the Citi=ens Asse%blies $as not %ade?no$n to the public until (anuar& 11, 1!*, but nevertheless the ne$ respondents could properl& be includedbecause in their petition petitioners pra&ed 2for the annul%ent not onl& of Presidential ecree No. !* but also oan& si%ilar decree, procla%ation, order or instruction2 so that Presidential ecree Nos. -6 9and -67A: in so farat least as the& atte%pt to sub%it the proposed Constitution to a plebiscite b& the Citi=ens Asse%blies areproperl& in issue in the case, and those $ho enforce, i%ple%ent and carr& out said Presidential decrees and thinstructions incidental thereto clearl& fall $ithin the scope of the petition. Moreover, counsel for petitionersalle"es that in the ori"inal petition the& pra&ed for the issuance of a $rit of preli%inar& in4unction restrainin" notonl& the ori"inal respondents, but also their a"ents fro% the perfor%ance of acts, i%ple%entin", or tendin" to

i%ple%ent, Presidential ecree No. !* or an& other si%ilar decree, order, instructions, or procla%ation inrelation to the holdin" of the plebiscite in 8uestion on (anuar& 15, 1!*, and that the& had also pra&ed for suchother relief $hich %a& be 4ust and e8uitable. Counsel for petitioners stressed the plea that unless the petition isdecided i%%ediatel& and the respondents $ere restrained or en4oined fro% collectin", certif&in", reportin", orannouncin" to the President the result of the alle"ed votin" of the so7called Citi=ens Asse%blies irreparableda%a"e $ould be caused to the Republic of the Philippines, to the 3ilipino people and to the cause of freedo%and de%ocrac&, because after the result of the supposed votin" on the t$o precise 8uestions that the&%entioned shall have been announced, a conflict $ould arise bet$een those $ho %aintain that the 1*5Constitution is still in force, on the one hand, and those $ho %aintain that the old Constitution is superseded b&the proposed Constitution on the other hand, thereb& creatin" confusion if not chaos; and that even the

4urisdiction of this Court $ould be sub4ect to serious attac?s because the advocates of the theor& that theproposed Constitution had been ratified b& reason of the announce%ent of the results of the proceedin"s of the

Citi=ens Asse%blies $ould ar"ue that eneral Order No. *, $hich $ould also be dee%ed ratified pursuant tothe /ransitor& Provisions of the proposed Constitution, had placed Presidential ecrees No. !* and No. -6 9and-67A: be&ond the reach and 4urisdiction of this Court.

/his Court re8uired the )olicitor eneral to co%%ent on the supple%ental %otion and set the said %otion forhearin" on (anuar& 1!, 1!*.

On (anuar& 1!, 1!* the ur"ent %otion of (anuar& 1#, 1!* and the supple%ental %otion for the issuance ofthe restrainin" order and the inclusion of additional respondents $ere heard on oral ar"u%ents b& counsel forthe petitioners and the )olicitor eneral. /o$ards the end of the hearin", and $hile counsel for the petitioners$as ans$erin" 8uestions fro% Me%bers of this Court, the Chief (ustice received a cop& of Procla%ation No.11+# of the President of the Philippines 2announcin" the ratification b& the 3ilipino people of the Constitution

proposed b& the 1!1 Constitutional Convention.2 /he Chief (ustice read in open court, for the record,Procla%ation No. 11+#. )aid Procla%ation reads as follo$s

PROCAMA/ON NO. 11+#





@EREA), Citi=ens Asse%blies $ere created in barrios in %unicipalities and in districtsJ$ardsin chartered cities pursuant to Presidential ecree No. -6, dated ece%ber *1, 1!#, co%posedof all persons $ho are residents of the barrio, district or $ard for at least si0 %onths, fifteen &earsof a"e or over, citi=ens of the Philippines and $ho are re"istered in the list of Citi=en Asse%bl&%e%bers ?ept b& the barrio, district or $ard secretar&;

@EREA), the said Citi=ens Asse%blies $ere established precisel& to broaden the base ofciti=en participation in the de%ocratic process and to afford a%ple opportunit& for the citi=enr& to

e0press their vie$s on i%portant national issues;

@EREA), respondin" to the cla%or of the people and pursuant to Presidential ecree No. -67 A, dated (anuar& 5, 1!*, the follo$in" 8uestions $ere posed before the Citi=ens Asse%blies orBaran"a&s o &ou approve of the Ne$ ConstitutionG o &ou still $ant a plebiscite to be called tratif& the ne$ ConstitutionG

@EREA), fourteen %illion nine hundred sevent&7si0 thousand five hundred si0t&7one91',!6,561: %e%bers of all the Baran"a&s 9Citi=ens Asse%blies: voted for the adoption of theproposed Constitution, as a"ainst seven hundred fort&7three thousand ei"ht hundred si0t&7nine9!'*,-6: $ho voted for its re4ection; $hile on the 8uestion as to $hether or not the people $ouldstill li?e a plebiscite to be called to ratif& the ne$ Constitution, fourteen %illion t$o hundred

ninet&7ei"ht thousand ei"ht hundred fourteen 91',#-,-1': ans$ered that there $as no need fora plebiscite and that the vote of the Baran"a& 9Citi=ens Asse%blies: should be considered as avote in a plebiscite;

@EREA), since the referendu% results sho$ that %ore than ninet&7five 95: per cent of the%e%bers of the Baran"a&s 9Citi=ens Asse%blies: are in favor of the ne$ Constitution,the 4atip$nan ng )ga (aranga& has stron"l& reco%%ended that the Ne$ Constitution shouldalread& be dee%ed ratified b& the 3ilipino people;

NO, /@ERE3ORE, , 3ERNAN E. MARCO), President of the Philippines, b& virtue of thepo$ers in %e vested b& the Constitution, do hereb& certif& and proclai% that the Constitutionproposed b& the nineteen hundred and sevent&7one 91!1: Constitutional Convention has beenratified b& an over$hel%in" %a4orit& of all of the votes cast b& the %e%bers of all the Baran"a&9Citi=ens Asse%blies: throu"hout the Philippines, and has thereb& co%e into effect.


one in the Cit& of Manila, this 1!th da& of (anuar& in the &ear of Our ord, nineteen hundredand sevent&7three.

3ERNAN E.MARCO)

President of thePhilippines

B& the President


And so, $hat the petitioners had feared, as e0pressed in their ur"ent %otion for earl& decision and in theirsupple%ental %otion to issue restrainin" order, etc., that the results of the votin" in the Citi=ens Asse%blies%i"ht be ta?en as a basis for proclai%in" the ratification of the proposed Constitution, had actuall& happened.



And so, $hat the petitioners in all the ten cases no$ before Is D a%on" the% civic leaders, ne$spaper%en,)enators and Con"ress%en, Me%bers of the 1!1 Constitutional Convention, and professionals D had tried toprevent fro% happenin", that is, the procla%ation of the ratification of the proposed constitution on the basis ofthe affir%ative votes that %i"ht be cast in the plebiscite that $as set for (anuar& 15, 1!* pursuant toPresidential ecree No. !*, the le"alit& of $hich decree $as bein" 8uestioned b& petitioners, had happened.

/he crucial 8uestion before this Court is $hether or not Presidential Procla%ation No. 11+# announcin" theratification of the proposed Constitution of 1!# is in accordance $ith the Constitution and has the effect of

%a?in" the proposed Constitution of 1!# effective and in force as of (anuar& 1!, 1!* $hen the procla%ation$as issued. /his is, believe, the vital 8uestion that this Court is called upon to resolve, and it is for this reasonthat believe that this case has not been %oot and acade%ic. hile it is true that the relief pra&ed for b& thepetitioners, that the ori"inal respondents be en4oined fro% i%ple%entin" Presidential ecree No. !*, cannotno$ be "ranted, Procla%ation No. 11+# nevertheless has the effect of consu%%atin" the ratification of theproposed Constitution D the ver& event $hich the petitioners had precisel& sou"ht to prevent fro% happenin"$hen the& filed their petitions. Presidential Procla%ation No. 11+# has a tre%endous effect upon the political,econo%ic and social life of the people of this countr&. believe, therefore, that this Court should not indul"e inthe niceties of procedural technicalities and evade the tas? of declarin" $hether or not the Constitutionproposed b& 1!1 Convention has been validl& ratified as announced in said Procla%ation No. 11+#. /his Couris called upon to "ive the people of this Republic the proper orientation re"ardin" the effect of said Procla%atioNo. 11+#. /hat orientation $ill onl& co%e about $hen this @i"hest Court of the land has rendered a rulin" on

$hether or not said Procla%ation No. 11+# is valid.

cannot a"ree $ith the vie$ of so%e of %& collea"ues that this Court cannot %a?e a rulin" on the 8uestion of$hether or not Procla%ation No. 11+# is valid, because the validit& of said procla%ation is not the %atter that iss8uarel& presented to this Court for resolution b& the petitions in these cases. believe, ho$ever, that this Courshould not close its e&es to the fact that in the ten petitions that are before this Court the unifor% pra&ers of thepetitioners are to en4oin the i%ple%entation of Presidential ecree No. !* and to nullif& said decree D precisel&in order to prevent the ratification of the Constitution proposed b& the 1!1 Convention in a %anner that is not iaccordance $ith the Constitution and the la$. )o %uch so that in .R. No. 7*5'- 9/an, et al. v. Co%elec, etal.: the petitioners, a%on" others, pra&ed that 4ud"%ent be rendered declarin"2 ... Presidential ecree No. !* oan& si%ilar decree, procla%ation, order or instruction unconstitutional, null and void and %a?in" the $rit ofpreli%inar& in4unction per%anent.2 t is not difficult to understand that the purpose of the petitioners $as to

invalidate an& and all orders, decrees and procla%ations that are corollar& or related to Presidential ecree No!* $hich had for its %ain purpose to sub%it the Constitution proposed b& the 1!1 Convention to a plebisciteon (anuar& 15, 1!* and thereb& deter%ine $hether the people approve or re4ect the proposed Constitution. Ase have adverted to, the ob4ective of the petitioners $as to prevent the ratification of the proposed constitutionin a %anner that is offensive to the Constitution and the la$. All orders, decrees, instructions, or procla%ations%ade after the issuance of Presidential ecree No. !*, $hich have for their purpose either to supple%entPresidential ecree No. !* or to acco%plish throu"h other %eans or %ethods $hat Presidential ecree No. !*$as issued for, are enco%passed $ithin the pra&er of petitioners to nullif& 2an& si%ilar decree, procla%ation,order, or instruction2. Presidential ecrees Nos. -6 and -67A are such 2si%ilar2 decrees, because, as it turnedout, Presidential ecree No. -6 provided for the or"ani=ation of the citi=ens asse%blies $hich beca%e theforu%s $here the 8uestion of $hether to ratif& or to re4ect the proposed Constitution $as sub%itted; and, as itturned out, Presidential ecree No. -67A provided for the ver& 8uestion $hich other$ise the voters $ould have

been as?ed to ans$er 2Les2 or 2No2 in the plebiscite $hich had been provided for in Presidential ecree No. !*n other $ords, Presidential ecree No. -6 supplanted Presidential ecree No. !* in so far as the latter decreeprovided for the foru% $here the 8uestion $as to be as?ed; $hile Presidential ecree No. -67A supplantedPresidential ecree No. !* in so far as the latter decree provided for the 8uestion to be as?ed re"ardin" theproposed Constitution. And finall& because Presidential Procla%ation No. 11+# has for its basis $hat $as donepursuant to Presidential ecrees Nos. -6 and -67A, it follo$s that Procla%ation No. 11+# is 4ust the2procla%ation2 that the petitioners sou"ht to nullif& or invalidate if issued.

believe that the effects of Procla%ation No. 11+# have an inti%ate bearin" on the ob4ectives of the petitioners$hen the& filed the instant petitions for prohibition, and so said procla%ation has to be considered alon" $ith althe issues raised b& the petitioners in the cases at bar. More so, because said Procla%ation No. 11+# $as read



into the record b& the Chief (ustice of this Court durin" the hearin" of 7*5'- 9/an vs. Co%elec:, in open courton (anuar& 1!, 1!*. believe that this Court %ust not i"nore Procla%ation No. 11+# in relation to the %attersand to the issues ventilated before this Court. Procla%ation No. 11+# $as for%all& brou"ht to the attention ofthis Court. t is %& vie$ that this Court should not evade its dut& of definin" for the benefit of the people of thisRepublic the le"al and constitutional nature and effects of that procla%ation. , for one, as a hu%ble %e%ber ofthis Court, feel it %& dut& to sa& $hat thin?, and believe, about Procla%ation No. 11+#. do this not because oan& desire on %& part to obstruct the $or?in"s of the a"encies and instru%entalities of our overn%ent, or tofoster a%on" the people in our countr& an attitude of disrespect or dislo&alt& to$ards the constituted authorities

that presentl& run the affairs of our overn%ent. a% onl& doin" $hat believe is %& s$orn dut& to perfor%.

/he ratification of the Constitution proposed b& the 1!1 Constitutional Convention %ust be done in accordance$ith the provisions of )ection 1, Article K> of the 1*5 Constitution of the Philippines, $hich reads

)ection 1. /he Con"ress in 4oint session asse%bled b& a vote of three fourths of all the Me%berof the )enate and of the @ouse of Representatives votin" separatel&, %a& propose a%end%entsto the Constitution or call a convention for that purpose. )uch a%end%ents shall be valid as partof this Constitution $hen approved b& a %a4orit& of the votes cast at an election at $hich thea%end%ents are sub%itted to the people for their ratification.

t is in consonance $ith the above78uoted provision of the 1*5 Constitution that on March 16, 16!, the

Con"ress of the Philippines passed Resolution No. # callin" a convention to propose a%end%ents to theConstitution of the Philippines. )ec. ! of said Resolution No. # reads as follo$s

)ection !. /he a%end%ents proposed b& the Convention shall be valid and considered part ofthe Constitution $hen approved b& a %a4orit& of the votes cast in an election $hich the& aresub%itted to the people for their ratification pursuant to Article K> of the Constitution.

t follo$s that fro% the ver& resolution of the Con"ress of the Philippines $hich called for the 1!1 ConstitutionaConvention there $as a clear %andate that the a%end%ent proposed b& the 1!1 Convention, in order to bevalid and considered part of the Constitution, %ust be approved b& %a4orit& of the votes cast in an election at$hich the& are sub%itted to the people for their ratification as provided in the Constitution.

/his Court, in the case of /olentino vs. Co%%ission on Elections, 7*51'+, October 16, 1!1 9'1 )CRA !15:,spea?in" throu"h Mr. (ustice Barredo, said

/he Constitutional Convention of 1!1, as an& other convention of the sa%e nature, owes itse!istence and derives all its a$thorit& and power from the e!isting Constit$tion of the Philippines/his Convention has not been called b& the people directl& as in the case of a revolutionar&convention $hich drafts the first Constitution of an entirel& ne$ "overn%ent born of either a $arof liberation fro% a %other countr& or of a revolution a"ainst an e0istin" "overn%ent or of abloodless sei=ure of po$er a la co$p co$p d7 etat . As to such ?ind of conventions, it is absolutel&true that the convention is co%pletel& $ithout restraint and o%nipotent all $ise, and it is as tosuch conventions that the re%ar?s of ele"ate Manuel Ro0as of the Constitutional Convention o1*' 8uoted b& )enator Pelae= refer. No a%ount of rationali=ation can belie the fact that thecurrent convention ca%e into bein" onl& because it $as called b& a resolution of a 4oint sessionof Con"ress actin" as a constituent asse%bl& b& authorit& of )ection 1, Article K> of the presentConstitution ...

000 000 000

As to %atters not related to its internal operation and the perfor%ance of its assi"ned %ission topropose a%end%ents to the Constitution, the Convention and its officers and %e%bers are alls$b%ect to all the provisions of the e!isting Constit$tion. No$ $e hold that even as to its



latter tas/ of proposing amendments to the Constit$tion" it is s$b%ect to the provisions of Section1 of Article 8V .

n Procla%ation No. 11+#, issued on (anuar& 1!, 1!*, the President of the Philippines certified that as a resultof the votin" before the baran"a&s 9Citi=ens Asse%blies: 1',!6,561 %e%bers of the baran"a&s voted for theadoption of the proposed Constitution, as a"ainst !'*,-6 $ho voted for its re4ection, and on the basis of theover$hel%in" %a4orit& of the votes cast b& the %e%bers of all the baran"a&s throu"hout the Philippines thePresident proclai%ed that the Constitution proposed b& the 1!1 Convention has been ratified and has thereb&

co%e into effect.

t is ver& plain fro% the ver& $ordin"s of Procla%ation No. 11+# that the provisions of )ection 1 of Article K> ofthe Constitution of 1*5 $as not co%plied $ith. t is not necessar& that evidence be produced before this Courtto sho$ that no elections $ere held in accordance $ith the provisions of the Election Code. Procla%ation No.11+# une8uivocabl& states that the proposed Constitution of 1!# $as voted upon b& the baran"a&s. t is ver&clear, therefore, that the votin" held in these baran"a&s is not the election conte%plated in the provisions of)ection 1, Article K>, of the 1*5 Constitution. /he election conte%plated in said constitutional provision is anelection held in accordance $ith the provisions of the election la$, $here onl& the 8ualified and re"isteredvoters of the countr& $ould cast their votes, $here official ballots prepared for the purpose are used, $here thevoters $ould prepare their ballots in secret inside the votin" booths in the pollin" places established in thedifferent election precincts throu"hout the countr&, $here the election is conducted b& election inspectors dul&

appointed in accordance $ith the election la$, $here the votes are canvassed and reported in a %annerprovided for in the election la$. t $as this ?ind of election that $as held on Ma& 1', 1*5, $hen the Constitutionof 1*5 $as ratified; on April *+, 1*!, $hen the a%end%ent to the Constitution providin" for o%ens )uffra"e$as ratified; on (une 1-, 1'+, $hen the 1'+ A%end%ents to the Constitution $ere ratified; on March 11, 1'$hen the Parit& A%end%ent to the Constitution $as ratified; and on Nove%ber 1', 16! $hen the a%end%entsto the Constitution to increase the nu%ber of Me%bers of the @ouse of Representatives and to allo$ theMe%bers of Con"ress to run in the elections for ele"ates to the Constitutional Convention of 1!1 $erere4ected.

cannot see an& valid reason $h& the practice or procedure in the past, in i%ple%entin" the constitutionalprovision re8uirin" the holdin" of an election to ratif& or re4ect an a%end%ent to the Constitution, has not beenfollo$ed in the case of the Constitution proposed b& the 1!1 Constitutional Convention.

t is %& vie$ that the President of the Philippines cannot b& decree order the ratification of the proposed 1!#Constitution thru a votin" in the baran"a&s and %a?e said result the basis for proclai%in" the ratification of theproposed constitution. t is ver& clear, to %e, that Procla%ation No. 11+# $as issued in co%plete disre"ard, or,in violation, of the provisions of )ection 1 of Article > of the 1*5 Constitution.

Procla%ation No. 11+# %entions, further%ore, that on the 8uestion as to $hether or not the people $ould stillli?e a plesbiscite to be called to ratif& the ne$ Constitution, 1',#-,-1' %e%bers of the baran"a&s ans$eredthat there $as no need for a plebiscite but that the vote of the baran"a&s should be considered a vote in aplebiscite. t $ould thus appear that the baran"a&s assu%ed the po$er to deter%ine $hether a plebiscite asordained in the Constitution be held or not. ndeed, the provision of )ection 1, Article K> of the Constitution $asco%pletel& disre"arded.

/he affir%ative votes cast in the baran"a&s are not the votes conte%plated in )ection 1 of Article K> of the1*5 Constitution. /he votes conte%plated in said constitutional provision are votes obtained throu"h theelection processes as provided b& la$.

An election is the e%bodi%ent of the popular $ill, the e0pression of the soverei"n po$er of thepeople. n co%%on parlance an election is the act of castin" and receivin" the ballots, countin"the%, and %a?in" the return.2 9@ontiveros vs. Altavas, #' Phil. 6*#, 6*!:.



Election2 i%plies a choice b& an electoral bod& at the ti%e and substantiall& in the %anner and$ith the safe"uards provided b& la$ $ith respect to so%e 8uestion or issue. 9effel v. Bro$n,Co%. Pl., 15 N.E. #d -+!, -+- cited in # C.(.). 1* at footnote 6.5:.

... the statutor& %ethod $hereb& 6$alified voters or electors pass on various public %atterssub%itted to the% D the election of officers, national, state, count&, to$nship D the passin" onvarious other 8uestions sub%itted for their deter%ination 9# C.(.). 1*, citin" o$a7llinois as Elec. Co. v. Cit& of Bettendorf, '1 N.. #d 1, 5, #'1 o$a *5-:.

Election2 is e0pression of choice b& voters of bod& politic. 9insbur" v. iles, !# ).. #d '*-,#5' &. !#+, in ords and Phrases, Per%anent Edition, p. #*':.

/he ri"ht to vote %a& be e0ercised onl& on co%pliance $ith such statutor& re8uire%ents as havebeen set up b& the le"islature, 9People e0 rel. Ra"o v. ips?& 6* N.E. #d 6'#, *#! . App. 6*;Rothfels v. )outh$orth, *56 P. #d 61#, 11 Itah #d 16 in # C.(.). *-:. 9E%phasis supplied:

n this connection herein 8uote the pertinent provisions of the Election Code of 1!1

)ec. #. Applicabilit& of this Act . D All elections of Public officers e0cept barrio officialsand plebiscitesshall be conducted in the %anner provided b& this Code.

)ec. . 9ecessit& of registration to be entitled to vote. D n order that a 8ualified voter %a& votein an& re"ular or special election or in an& plebiscite, he %ust be re"istered in the per%anent listof voters for the cit&, %unicipalit& or %unicipal district in $hich he resides Provided, /hat noperson shall re"ister %ore than once $ithout first appl&in" for cancellation of his previousre"istration. 9E%phasis supplied:. *: Please see also )ections 1++71+#, Election Code of 1!1,R.A. No. 6*--:.

t is stated in Procla%ation No. 11+# that the votin" $as done b& the %e%bers of citi=ens asse%blies $ho are15 &ears of a"e or over. Inder the provision of )ection 1 of Article > of the 1*5 Constitution the a"ere8uire%ent to be a 8ualified voter is #1 &ears or over.

But $hat is %ore note$orth& is the fact that the votin" in the baran"a&s, e0cept in ver& fe$ instances, $as doneb& the raisin" of hands b& the persons indiscri%inatel& "athered to participate in the votin", $here even childrenbelo$ 15 &ears of a"e $ere included. /his is a %atter of co%%on observation, or of co%%on ?no$led"e, $hichthe Court %a& ta?e 4udicial notice of. /o consider the votes in the baran"a&s as e0pressive of the popular $illand use the% as the basis in declarin" $hether a Constitution is ratified or re4ected is to resort to a votin" b&de%onstrations, $hich $ould %ean the rule of the cro$d, $hich is onl& one de"ree hi"her than the rule b& the%ob. Certainl&, so i%portant a 8uestion as to $hether the Constitution, $hich is the supre%e la$ of the land,should be ratified or not, %ust not be decided b& si%pl& "atherin" people and as?in" the% to raise their handsin ans$er to the 8uestion of $hether the& vote for or a"ainst a proposed Constitution. /he election processesas provided b& la$ should be strictl& observed in deter%inin" the $ill of the soverei"n people in a de%ocrac&. our Republic the $ill of the people %ust be e0pressed throu"h the ballot in a %anner that is provided b& la$.

t is said that in a de%ocrac& the $ill of the people is the supre%e la$. ndeed, the people are soverei"n, but the$ill of the people %ust be e0pressed in a %anner as the la$ and the de%ands of a $ell7ordered societ& re8uire/he rule of la$ %ust prevail even over the apparent $ill of the %a4orit& of the people, if that $ill had not beene0pressed, or obtained, in accordance $ith the la$. Inder the rule of la$ public 8uestions %ust be decided inaccordance $ith the Constitution and the la$. /his is speciall& true in the case of the adoption of a constitutionor in the ratification of an a%end%ent to the Constitution.

/he follo$in" citations are, to %e, ver& relevant in the effort to deter%ine $hether the proposed Constitution of1!# had been validl& ratified or not



hen it is said that 2the people2 have the ri"ht to alter or a%end the constitution, it %ust not beunderstood that this ter% necessaril& includes all the inhabitants of the state. )ince the 8uestionof the adoption or re4ection of a proposed ne$ constitution or constitutional a%end%ent %ust beans$ered b& a vote, the deter%ination of it rests $ith those $ho, b& the e0istin" constitution, areaccorded the ri"ht of suffra"e, But the 8ualified electors %ust be understood in this, as in %an&other cases, as representin" those $ho have not the ri"ht to participate in the ballot. f aconstitution should be abro"ated, and a ne$ one adopted, b& the $hole %ass of people in astate, actin" throu"h representatives not chosen b& the 2people2 in the political sense of the

ter%, but b& the "eneral bod& of the populace, the %ove%ent $ould be e0tra7le"al. 9(lac/7sConstit$tional Law , )econd Edition, pp. '!7'-:.

/he theor& of our political s&ste% is that the ulti%ate soverei"nt& is in the people, fro% $ho%sprin"s all le"iti%ate authorit&. /he people of the Inion created a national constitution, andconferred upon it po$ers of soverei"nt& over certain sub4ects, and the people of each )tatecreated a )tate "overn%ent, to e0ercise the re%ainin" po$ers of soverei"nt& so far as the& $eredisposed to allo$ the% to be e0ercised at all. B& the constitution $hich the& establish, the& notonl& tie up the hands of their official a"encies, but their o$n hands as $ell; and neither theofficers of the )tate, nor the $hole people as an a""re"ate bod&, are at libert& to ta?e action inopposition to this funda%ental la$. 9Coole&s Constitutional i%itations, -th Edition, >ol. , p, -1cited in raha% v. (ones, * )o. #d. !61, !-#:.

/he theor& that a favorable vote b& the electorate, ho$ever unani%ous, on a proposal to a%enda constitution, %a& cure, render innocous, all or an& antecedent failures to observe co%%ands othat Constitution in respect of the for%ulation or sub%ission of proposed a%end%ents thereto,does not prevail in Alaba%a, $here the doctrine of the stated theor& $as denied, in obviouseffect, b& the pronounce%ent 6+ &ears a"o of broad, $holeso%e constitutional principles inCollier v. 3riersons$pra, as 8uoted in the ori"inal opinion, ante. /he people the%selves arebound b& the Constitution; and, bein" so bound, are po$erless, $hatever their nu%bers, tochan"e or th$art its %andates, e0cept throu"h the peaceful %eans of a constitutionalconvention, or of a%end%ent accordin" to the %ode therein prescribed, or throu"h the e0ertionof the ori"inal ri"ht of revolution. /he Constitution %a& be set aside b& revolution, but it can onl&be a%ended in the $a& it provides,2 said @obson, C.(., in McCrear& v. )peer, 156 &. !-*, !1,

16# ).. , 1+*. (ohnson v. Craft, et al., -! )o. *!5, *-5, *-! On Rehearin":.

/he fact that a %a4orit& voted for the a%end%ent, unless the vote $as ta?en as provided b& theConstitution, is not sufficient to %a?e a chan"e in that instru%ent. hether a proposeda%end%ent has been le"all& adopted is a 4udicial 8uestion, for the court %ust uphold andenforce the Constitution as $ritten until it is a%ended in the $a& $hich it provides for. ood v./oo?er 15 Mont. -, *! Pac. -'+, #5 .R.A. 56+; McConau"ht& v. )tate, 1+6 Minn. '+, 11 N..'+-; Oa?land Pavin" Co%pan& v. @ilton, 6 Cal. ', 11 Pac. *; Itter v. Mosel&, 16 daho #!',1++ Pac. 15-, 1** A%. )t. Rep. ', 1- Ann. Cas. !#*. 9McCrear& v. )peer, 16# ).. , 1+':.

Provisions of a constitution re"ulatin" its o$n a%end%ent, ... are not %erel& director&, but are%andator&; and a strict observance of ever& substantial re8uire%ent is essential to the validit& o

the proposed a%end%ent. /hese provisions are as bindin" on the people as on the le"islature,and the for%er are po$erless b& vote of acceptance to "ive le"al sanction to an a%end%ent thesub%ission of $hich $as %ade in disre"ard of the li%itations contained in the constitution. 916C.(.). *57*6 cited in raha% v. (ones, * )o. #d !61, !-#:.

t is said that chaos and confusion in the "overn%ental affairs of the )tate $ill result fro% theCourts action in declarin" the proposed constitutional a%end%ent void. /his state%ent is "rossland %anifestl& inaccurate. f confusion and chaos should ensue, it $ill not be due to the action othe Court but $ill be the result of the failure of the drafters of the 4oint resolution to observe,follo$ and obe& the plain essential provisions of the Constitution. 3urther%ore, to sa& that,



unless the Court disre"ards its s$orn dut& to enforce the Constitution, chaos and confusion $illresult, is an inherentl& $ea? ar"u%ent in favor of the alle"ed constitutionalit& of the proposeda%end%ent. t is obvious that, if the Court $ere to countenance the violations of the sacra%entaprovisions of the Constitution, those $ho $ould thereafter desire to violate it and disre"ard itsclear %andator& provisions $ould resort to the sche%e of involvin" and confusin" the affairs, ofthe )tate and then si%pl& tell the Court that it $as po$erless to e0ercise one of its pri%ar&functions b& renderin" the proper decree to %a?e the Constitution effective, 9raha% v. (ones, *)o. #d. !61, !*7!':.

n our 4urisprudence find an instance $here this Court did not allo$ the $ill of the %a4orit& to prevail, becausethe re8uire%ents of the la$ $ere not, co%plied $ith. n the case of )onsale v. 9ico, -* Phil. !5-, Monsale andNico $ere both candidates for the office of Municipal Ma&or of Mia"ao, loilo, in the elections of Nove%ber 11,1'!. Monsale had dul& filed his certificate of candidac& before the e0piration of the period for the filin" of thesa%e. @o$ever, on October 1+, 1'!, after the period for the filin" of certificates of candidac&, Monsale$ithdre$ his certificate of candidac&. But on Nove%ber !, 1'! Monsale atte%pted to revive his certificate ofcandidac& b& $ithdra$in" the $ithdra$al of his certificate of candidac&. /he Co%%ission on Elections, onNove%ber -, 1'!, ruled that Monsale could no lon"er be a candidate. Monsale nevertheless proceeded $ithhis candidac&. /he boards of inspectors in Mia"ao, ho$ever, did not count the votes cast for Monsale upon the"round that the votes cast for hi% $ere stra& votes, because he $as considered as havin" no certificate ofcandidac&. On the other hand, the boards of inspectors credited Nico $ith #,#1 votes, and Nico $as

proclai%ed elected. Monsale filed a protest a"ainst the election of Nico in the Court of 3irst nstance of loilo. nthe count of the ballots durin" the proceedin"s in the trial court it appeared that Monsale had obtained #,-!!votes $hile Nico obtained #,#!6 votes, or a %ar"in of 6+1 votes in favor of Monsale. /he Court of 3irst nstanceof loilo decided the election protest in favor of Monsale. Ipon appeal b& Nico, this Court reversed the decisionof the lo$er court. /his Court declared that because Monsale $ithdre$ his certificate of candidac& his atte%ptto revive it b& $ithdra$in" his $ithdra$al of his certificate of candidac& did not restore the effectiveness of hiscertificate of candidac&, and this court declared Nico the $inner in spite of the fact that Monsale had obtained%ore votes than he.

e have cited this Monsale case to sho$ that the $ill of the %a4orit& of the voters $ould not be "iven effect, asdeclared b& this Court, if certain le"al re8uire%ents have not been co%plied $ith in order to render the votesvalid and effective to decide the result of an election.

And so, in the cases no$ before this Court, the fact that the votin" in the citi=ens asse%blies 9baran"a&s: is nothe election that is provided for in the 1*5 Constitution for the ratification of the a%end%ent to the Constitutionthe affir%ative votes cast in those asse%blies can not be %ade the basis for declarin" the ratification of theproposed 1!# Constitution, in spite of the fact that it $as reported that 1',!6,561 %e%bers of the citi=ensasse%blies voted for the adoption as a"ainst !'*,-6 for the re4ection, because the votes thus obtained $erenot in accordance $ith the provisions of )ection 1 of Article K> of the 1*5 Constitution of the Philippines. /herule of la$ %ust be upheld.

M& last observation One of the valid "rounds a"ainst the holdin" of the plebiscite on (anuar& 15, 1!*, asprovided in Presidential ecree No. !*, is that there is no freedo% on the part of the people to e0ercise theirri"ht of choice, because of the e0istence of %artial la$ in our countr&. /he sa%e "round holds true as re"ards

the votin" of the baran"a&s on (anuar& 1+ to 15, 1!*. More so, because b& eneral Order No. #+, issued on(anuar& !, 1!*, the President of the Philippines ordered 2that the provisions of )ection * of Presidentialecree No. 1* in so far as the& allo$ free public discussion of the proposed constitution, as $ell as %& order ofece%ber 1!, 1!# te%poraril& suspendin" the effects of Procla%ation No. 1+-1 for the purpose of free andopen debate on the proposed constitution, be suspended in the %eanti%e.2 5 t is, therefore, %& vie$ that votin"in the baran"a&s on (anuar& 1+715, 1!* $as not free, and so this is one added reason $h& the results of thevotin" in the baran"a&s should not be %ade the basis for the procla%ation of the ratification of the proposedConstitution.



t is %& vie$, therefore, that Procla%ation No. 11+# is repu"nant to the 1*5 Constitution, and so it is invalid,and should not be "iven effect. /he Constitution of 1!# proposed b& the 1!1 Constitutional Conventionshould be considered as not &et ratified b& the people of this Republic, and so it should not be "iven force andeffect.

urin" the deliberation of these cases b& this Court, a su""estion $as %ade that because of the transcendentaeffect of Procla%ation No. 11+# on the countr&, the petitioners in these cases, speciall& the petitioners in 7*5'- 9>idal /an, et al. vs. Co%elec, et al.:, be "iven a period of ten da&s to %ove in the pre%ises, considerin"

that the issuance of Procla%ation No. 11+# ca%e as a surprise to the petitioners and the& had no opportunit& todefine their stand on said Procla%ation in relation to their petitions. /he %a4orit& of the Court, ho$ever, $ere noin favor of the idea. e0pressed %&self, and so e0press no$, that a% in favor of "rantin" the petitioners theopportunit& to articulate their stand re"ardin" Procla%ation No. 11+# so that the ob4ection of so%e %e%bers ofthis Court to pass upon the validit& of said procla%ation upon the "round that it is not in issue in these cases%a& be %et, and so that the validit& of Procla%ation No. 11+#, and the 8uestion of $hether or not the proposed1!# Constitution has been validl& ratified, %a& be resolved b& this Court once and for all.

At an& rate, $hether the petitioners are "ranted opportunit& to define their stand on Procla%ation No. 11+#, ornot, hu%bl& sub%it this opinion for $hatever if %a& be $orth, $ith the hope that the officials and the citi=ens othis countr& $ill ta?e note of it, and ponder over it. a% onl& doin" %& dut& accordin" to the li"ht that od has"iven %e.

S!ara"! O4n4on

MAALNTAL an6 CASTRO, JJ., concurrin"

/he principal relief pra&ed for in the petition in .R. NO. 7*5'- is to declare 2)ections #, * 9par #:, and 1# of Article K>, of the 1!# raft on proposed Constitution approved b& the 1!1 Constitutional Convention on

Nove%ber *+, 1!# as $ell as Presidential ecree No. !* or an& si%ilar decree, procla%ation, order orinstruction unconstitutional, null and void, ...2 Basicall&, althou"h couched in different lan"ua"e, it is the sa%erelief sou"ht in the other petitions.

Article K> contains the transitor& provisions. )ection # thereof refers to the %e%bership of the interi% Nationa Asse%bl&, $hich includes, a%on" others, 2those ele"ates to the 91!1: Constitutional Convention $ho haveopted to serve therein b& votin" affir%ativel& for this Article.2 )ection * 9par. #: provides that 29A:llprocla%ations, orders, decrees, instructions, and acts pro%ul"ated, issued, or done b& the incu%bent Presidenshall be part of the la$ of the land, and shall re%ain valid, le"al, bindin", and effective even after liftin" of%artial la$ or the ratification of this Constitution, unless %odified, revo?ed, or superseded b& subse8uentprocla%ations, orders, decrees, instructions, or other acts of the incu%bent President, or unless e0pressl& ande0plicitl& %odified or repealed b& the re"ular National Asse%bl&.2 And )ection 1# states in part 2All treaties,

e0ecutive a"ree%ents, and contracts entered into b& the overn%ent, or an& subdivision, a"enc&, orinstru%entalit& thereof, includin" "overn%ent7o$ned or controlled corporations, are hereb& reco"ni=ed as le"avalid, and bindin" ...2

Presidential ecree No. !*, issued on ece%ber 1, 1!#, called for a plebiscite to be held on (anuar& 15,1!*, $herein the proposed Constitution $ould be sub%itted for ratification. At the sa%e ti%e it appropriated thsu% of P15,+++,+++.++ for that purpose. t $as pri%aril& to stop the said plebiscite fro% bein" held that thesepetitions $ere filed.

/he specific "rounds alle"ed in the petition in .R. No. 7*5'- to support the relief pra&ed for $hich are fairl&representative of the others, read as follo$s



. /he President of the Philippines has no po$er to call a plebiscite for the ratification or re4ectionof the 1!# raft; neither has he the po$er to appropriate funds for the holdin" of the saidplebiscite.

. /he 1!# raft is va"ue and inco%plete. t %a?es an unconstitutional dele"ation of po$er. And it contains provisions $hich $ere be&ond the po$er of the convention to enact. All thesehave %ade the 1!# raft unfit for 2proper sub%ission2 to the people.

. /he period of ti%e bet$een Nove%ber *+, 1!# $hen the 1!# raft $as approved, and(anuar& 15, 1!*, the date the plebiscite $ill be held, is too inade8uate for the people to beinfor%ed of the contents of the 1!# raft, and to stud& and discuss the% so that the& couldthereafter intelli"entl& cast their vote.

/o$ards the end of ece%ber 1!# it $as announced in the ne$spapers that the President had postponed theplebiscite to a date to be fi0ed later, althou"h tentativel& 3ebruar& 1 and March 5, 1!* $ere %entioned. /heannounce%ent $as %ade officiall& in eneral Order No. #+, dated (anuar& !, 1!*. /hen on (anuar& 1!, 1!*the President issued Procla%ation No 11+#, certif&in" that the proposed Constitution had been ratified b& theCiti=ens Asse%blies created under Presidential ecree No. -6, issued on ece%ber *1, 1!#, and thattherefore it had beco%e effective.

n vie$ of the fore"oin" develop%ents $hich supervened after the petitions herein and the ans$ers thereto$ere filed and the cases ar"ued b& the parties, the issues raised in "rounds Nos. and above8uoted havebeco%e %oot. /he plebiscite sou"ht to be en4oined did not ta?e place on (anuar& 15, 1!*. ndeed, itspostpone%ent to so%e indefinite date in the future rendered the petition also pre%ature. But of course $hetherthe petition is %oot or pre%ature %a?es no %aterial difference as far as these cases are concerned, since theannounced ratification of the proposed Constitution b& the Citi=ens Asse%blies has %ade it unli?el& that an&plebiscite $ill be held.

ith respect to "round No. $e are of the opinion that the 8uestion of $hether or not the proposals referred tob& the petitioners, specificall& )ecs. #, * 9par. #: and 1#, $ere proper for sub%ission to the people for ratificatiohas li?e$ise beco%e %oot because of the Presidents Procla%ation No. 11+# certif&in" that such ratification haalread& ta?en place. f the& %a& be assailed at all as invalid it should be not as %ere proposals b& theConvention but alread& as provisions of the Constitution, and certainl& not in the present cases in the state in$hich the& have been sub%itted for decision.

/here $as an atte%pt on the part of counsel for the petitioner in .R. No. 7*5'- durin" the oral ar"u%ent onhis ur"ent %otion for earl& decision to 8uestion the validit& of Procla%ation No. 11+#. /his 8uestion is not $ithinthe purvie$ of the petition and involves issues $hich have neither been raised nor ar"ued herein, havin" arisenin a ne$ and different settin" and fra%e of reference, and hence %a& onl& be ventilated, if at all, in anappropriate case or at least throu"h appropriate pleadin"s so that the parties %a& be dul& heard.

e therefore vote to dis%iss the petitions.

TEEHANEE, J., concurrin"

ithout pre4udice to the filin" of a separate e0tended opinion, concur $ith the Chief (ustice in his separateopinion and add the follo$in" brief co%%ents.

/he )olicitor enerals Office on behalf of respondents %anifested as of its last co%%ent of (anuar& 16, 1!*that 29:ith respect to the state%ent in the (oint Manifestation that Presidential ecree No. !* $hich calls forthe holdin" of the plebiscite on (anuar& 15, 1!* still stands, the plebiscite scheduled to be held on (anuar& 151!* has been postponed until further notice b& virtue of eneral Order No. #+, dated (anuar& !, 1!*, ofPresident 3erdinand E. Marcos.2



On the other hand, Presidential Procla%ation No. 11+# issued on (anuar& 1!, 1!* recites as a pre%isethereof,inter alia, that 2since the referendu% results sho$ that %ore than ninet&7five 95: per cent of the%e%bers of the Baran"a&s 9Citi=ens Asse%blies: 1 are in favor of the Ne$ Constitution, the atipunan n" M"aBaran"a& has stron"l& reco%%ended that the ne$ Constitution should alread& be dee%ed ratified b& the3ilipino people.2 2

Inder the circu%stances of record fro% $hich it appears that no election 9or plebiscite: for the purpose hasbeen called and held, 3 it $ould be pre%ature for no$ to hold that the averred ratification of the Constitution

proposed b& the 1!1 Constitutional Convention has %et the re8uire%ents of Article K> of the Constitution that29):uch a%end%ents shall be valid as part of this Constitution $hen approved b& a %a4orit& of the votes cast atan election at $hich the a%end%ents are sub%itted to the people for their ratification2 or of section 16 of ArticleK> of the proposed Constitution itself that 29/:his Constitution shall ta?e effect i%%ediatel& upon its ratificationb& a %a4orit& of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose.2

ith the result reached b& the Court, and the renderin" %oot of the issues raised a"ainst the validit& ofPresidential ecree No. !*, do not dee% it necessar& to reach and pass upon the "rave constitutional8uestion in its t$o aspects 9a: $hether the Constitutional Convention %a& assu%e the po$er to call theplebiscite 9a po$er historicall& e0ercised b& Con"ress: and to appropriate funds therefor a"ainst theConstitutional %andate lod"in" such po$er in Con"ress & and 9b: $hether the Constitutional Convention %a&dele"ate such assu%ed po$er to the President D absent an& sho$in" of $illful default or incapacit& on the par

of Con"ress to dischar"e it.

B& the sa%e to?en, it is unnecessar& to resolve the e8uall& "rave 8uestion of $hether certain %atters adoptedand proposed b& the 1!1 Constitutional Convention $ere $ltra vires, e.". sections # and 15 of Article K>9/ransitor& Provisions: providin" for the dele"ates of said Convention to constitute the %a4orit& ofan interim National Asse%bl& and e%po$erin" such Asse%bl& 2upon special call b& the interim Pri%eMinister ..., b& a %a4orit& vote of all its %e%bers, 9to: propose a%end%ents to this Constitution 9$hich: shallta?e effect $hen ratified in accordance $ith Article )i0teen hereof2, $hich $ould appear to be in violation of theaccepted principles "overnin" constitutional conventions that the& beco%e f$nct$s officio upon co%pletion oftheir function to for%ulate and adopt a%end%ents to the Constitution 5 for the peoples ratification or re4ection inthe %anner ordained in the Constitution D since such convention controlled interim National Asse%bl& %a&continue proposin" Constitutional a%end%ents b& mere ma%orit& vote in contrast to the reg$lar national

asse%bl& $hich $ould re8uire 2a vote of three5fo$rths of all its members2 to propose such a%end%ents. 7

ANTONO, J., concurrin"

/he historical events of the last fe$ da&s have rendered the petitions 9.R. Nos. 7*5#5, 7*5#, 7*5'+, *5'1, 7*5'#, 7*5'-, 7*55*, 7*561, 7*565 and 7*5!:, includin" the supple%ental petition %ootand should be dis%issed.

ithout pre4udice to a %ore e0tended opinion later, concur in the vie$ that i%plicit in the po$er of theConstitutional Convention to propose a%end%ents to the Constitution is its authorit& to order an election at$hich such a%end%ents are to be sub%itted to the people for ratification and, $ithin the narro$ ran"e i%pliedas necessar& for the business of sub%ittin" the a%end%ents to the people, the capacit& to appropriate %one&for the e0penses necessar& to %a?e such sub%ittal effective. ndependentl& therefore of the 8uestion, $hetheror not the President %a& le"islate durin" %artial la$, it $as certainl& $ithin the authorit& of the President toissue such %easures, actin" as a"ent for and in behalf of the Constitutional Convention to call for a plebiscite,prescribe its ter%s and appropriate %one& for said purpose.

/he opinion that the President, as a"ent of the Convention, could device other for%s of election to deter%inethe $ill of the %a4orit& of the people on the ratification of the proposed Constitution, establishes a principle thatis, not entirel& devoid of precedent. /he present Constitution of the Inited )tates $as ratified in a %anner not inaccord $ith the first Constitution of the Inited )tates, $hich $as the Articles of Confederation. /he violation$as deliberate, but Madison, ho$ever defended the %ethod provided for the adoption of the ne$ Constitution



b& sa&in" that it $as a case 2of absolute necessit&2 $hich forced the fra%ers of the ne$ Constitution to resort2to the "reat principle of self7preservation; to the transcendental la$ of nature and of natures od, $hichdeclares that the safet& and happiness of societ& are the ob4ects at $hich all political institutions ai%, and to$hich all such institutions %ust be sacrificed.2 hile a"ree that this precedent is never one that $ould 4ustif&"overn%ental or"ans in i"norin" constitutional restraints, the fact is the people the%selves had alread& acted badoptin" the procedure devised in the e0pression of their soverei"n $ill.

/o the contention of one of the petitioners, that the draft of the Constitution contains provisions be&ond the

po$er of the Constitutional Convention to sub%it for ratification, suffice it to state that there is nothin" that canle"all& prevent a convention fro% actuall& revisin" the entire Constitution for, in the final anal&sis, it is theapproval of the people that "ives validit& to an& proposal of a%end%ent or revision.

concur in the opinion that %artial rule per se, in the li"ht of conte%porar& events, does not $arrant thepresu%ption that the results of the plebiscite of ratification is not a "enuine and free e0pression of the popular$ill.

t poses a 8uestion of fact $hich, in the absence of an& 4udiciall& discoverable and %ana"eable standards, or$here the access to relevant infor%ation is insufficient to assure the correct deter%ination of the issue, do notfeel that this Court is co%petent to act.

f the ratification of the ne$ Constitution and the ne$ "overn%ent erected thereon, is not $hat it is representedto be, the e0pression of the $ill of the %a4orit& or the people are dissatisfied, the& have a%ple re%ed&. /heinstru%ent itself provides a%end%ent and chan"e. 3or the onl& and proper $a& in $hich it should be re%ediedis the people actin" as a bod& politic. /hese 8uestions relate to %atters not to be settled on strict le"alprinciples. 3or the ne$ Constitution has been pro%ul"ated and "reat interests have alread& arisen under it. /hepolitical or"an in the "overn%ent has reco"ni=ed it and has co%%enced the i%ple%entation of its provisions.Inder such circu%stances the Court should therefore refrain fro% precipitatin" i%possible situations $hich%i"ht other$ise rip the delicate social and political fabric.

/he theor& of presu%ptive collective duress under %artial rule is perhaps valid in an& other cli%e. n the case abar, it flies a"ainst the star? realit& of the factual settin". /o insist upon it is to i"nore the historical facts thatcul%inated in the national referendu%. /he people $anted a revolutionar& chan"e. /he& $ere a$are of the%anifold proble%s of the nation D its povert&, corruption, in4ustice, subversion and insur"enc& and cri%inalit&./he s$eepin" and dra%atic refor%s durin" the last fe$ %onths buo&ed up the hopes of the people that thru theinstru%entalit& of a ne$ charter these "ains of the co%%on$eal %a& be conserved and further enlar"ed. n thea%bience of such a historical settin", it $ould have been presu%ptuous to assu%e that the 8ualified voters inthe reportedl& %ore than fourteen %illion 3ilipinos $ho voted for the ne$ charter, did so not $ith freedo% butfro% fear. )uch a posture, cannot accept, for that $ould de%ean the coura"e, inte"rit& and $isdo% of thepeople the%selves.

n all other respects, the opinion of (ustice Barredo, %erits %& concurrence.

ESGUERRA, J., concurrin"

vote to den& all petitions see?in" to prohibit the holdin" of the plebiscite on (anuar& 15, 1!*, on theConstitution of Nove%ber *+, 1!#, as provided for in Presidential ecree No. !* of ece%ber 1, 1!#.)pecificall&, vote to den& the supple%ental petition in .R. No. 7*5'- see?in" to restrain the Citi=ens

Asse%blies referendu% in connection $ith that ratification of said Constitution.

M& reasons are si%ple and need no elaborate and len"th& discussion.

1. n the first place, these cases have been %oot and acade%ic as the holdin" of the plebiscite scheduled for(anuar& 15, 1!*, has been indefinitel& postponed under eneral Order No. #+ dated (anuar& !, 1!*.Conse8uentl&, there is nothin" %ore to prohibit or restrain.



#. n the second place, the supple%ental petition in .R. No. 7*5'- to restrain the respondents, includin"three additional parties, na%el& )ecretar& (ose Rono as head of the epart%ent of ocal overn%ents;)ecretar& Conrado Estrella, as head of the epart%ent of A"rarian Refor%s and )ecretar& uiller%o de >e"a,as Chair%an of the National Ratification Coordinatin" Co%%ittee, $ho $ere not dul& served $ith su%%ons andhave never been heard, has been rendered futile as the Citi=ens Asse%blies have e0pressed their decisions toratif& the 1!# Constitution and said officers have reported to the President and on the basis thereof he hasannounced the ratification of said Constitution b& Procla%ation No. 11+#, dated (anuar& 1!, 1!*, effective 1#++ ocloc? noon of said date. @ence there is also nothin" %ore to restrain or prohibit as the acts sou"ht to be

stopped have been full& acco%plished.

do not atte%pt to assail the validit& of Procla%ation No. 11+# as the Court is not in possession of an& evidenceto overthro$ the veracit& of the facts therein related, there bein" no case for%all& filed $ith the Court attac?in"the validit& of said Procla%ation, and, %oreover, the parties responsible for the holdin" of the referendu% orplebiscite b& the Citi=ens Asse%blies, $hich ratified the proposed Constitution, have not bein" i%pleaded andafforded a chance to be heard. n brief, there is absolutel& no basis for %a?in" a pronounce%ent on the validit&of the said procla%ation, and to do so $ould be si%pl& tidin" rou"h shod over the $ell7beaten road of dueprocess of la$ $hich basicall& re8uires notice and full and fair hearin".

ithout an& co%petent evidence do not pretend to ?no$ %ore about the circu%stances attendin" the holdin"of said referendu% or plebiscite and cannot sa& that it $as not plainfull& held. assu%e that $hat the

procla%ation sa&s on its face is true and until overco%e b& satisfactor& evidence, of $hich there is absolutel&nothin" before Is, cannot subscribe to the clai% that such plebiscite $as not held accordin"l&.

At this sta"e, $hether or not there $as a valid ratification of the 1!# Constitution cannot be resolved $ithoutraisin" the le"alit& of the overn%ent under $hich $e are no$ operatin" as of (anuar& 1!, 1!*. @ence e$ould be confronted $ith a political 8uestion $hich is be&ond the 4urisdiction of this Court to settle. accept as afait acco%pli that the Constitution adopted on Nove%ber *+, 1!#, has been dul& ratified, and consider thatan& assault a"ainst it as $ell as the %anner of its ratification has been innocuous. @avin" been invested $ithfull force and effect b& the approval of an over$hel%in" %a4orit& of the people, to %ount an attac? a"ainst itno$ $ould be nothin" less than fi"htin" the $ind%ills in on Hui4ote fashion. do not $ish to e%ulate thatuni8ue literar& character and prefer to ta?e thin"s in the li"ht of the star? realities of the present. have al$a&sadhered to the idea that the practical approach to an& 8uestion &ields the happiest solution, instead of soarin"

in fli"hts of fantasies and losin" ones self in idle %etaph&sical adventures.

*ERNAN%O, J., concurrin" and dissentin"

hile a% in a"ree%ent $ith the resolution of the Court dis%issin" the petitions for their bein" %oot andacade%ic, feel that a brief separate opinion e0pressin" %& vie$s on certain le"al issues $ould not be a%iss,considerin" the transcendental character of the suits before us. ndisputabl&, the& involve the crucial roleassu%ed b& the E0ecutive in the proposed sub%ission of the ne$ Constitution, perhaps unavoidabl& thrustupon hi% in vie$ of the declaration of %artial la$. t is reassurin" that there is a reiteration of the principle thatthe a%endin" process, both as to proposal and ratification, raises a 4udicial 8uestion. Not$ithstandin" the vi"orand plausibilit& $ith $hich the )olicitor7eneral stressed $hat for hi% is the political nature of the controvers&,$ith considerable support fro% authorities on constitutional la$ partial to the 4udicial restraint approach, it $ould

be, for %e, a plain abdication of the trust reposed in this Court, if it $ould rule itself as devoid of authorit& toin8uire into the validit& of the steps ta?en to$ards the ratification of the proposed a%end%ents. /he %ost that can concede is that $here the effect of the nullification sou"ht is to prevent the soverei"n people fro%e0pressin" their $ill, the ut%ost caution and circu%spection should be e0ercised.

No$, as to the %erits of the issues that $ould have called for resolution, $ere it not for the %atter beco%in"%oot and acade%ic. hile not s8uarel& raised, the 8uestion of $hether or not a constitutional convention could"o on %eetin" $ith %artial la$ in force has a pre4udicial aspect. 3ollo$in" the rulin" in $ncan v.4ahanamo/$ 1 that e"islature and courts continue to function even under such period, bein" not %erel&cherished "overn%ental institutions but indispensable to the operation of "overn%ent, there is no doubt in %&



%ind that the sa%e principle should li?e$ise appl& to a constituent bod&. /o the contention pressed b& )enator/anada, as counsel, in *an v. Commission on 'lections, that the proposed Constitution contains provisionsbe&ond the po$er of the Constitutional Convention to sub%it for ratification, it see%s to %e a sufficient ans$erthat once convened, the area open for deliberation to a Constitutional Convention and thereafter to bee%bodied in proposed a%end%ents if approved b& the %a4orit&, is practicall& li%itless. 2 n that sense, it can betrul& stated that the Convention can propose an&thin" but conclude nothin". As $as inti%ated b& (usticeMa?asiar, spea?in" for the Court in el Rosario v. Comelec , 3 2$hether the Constitutional Convention $ill onl&propose a%end%ents to the Constitution or entirel& overhaul the present Constitution and propose an entirel&

ne$ Constitution based on an ideolo"& forei"n to the de%ocratic s&ste%, is of no %o%ent; because the sa%e$ill be sub%itted to the people for ratification. Once ratified b& the soverei"n people, there can be no debateabout the validit& of the ne$ Constitution.2 & Once its $or? of draftin" has been co%pleted, it could itself directthe sub%ission to the people for ratification as conte%plated in Article K> of the Constitution. @ere it did not doso. ith Con"ress not bein" in session, could the President, b& the decree under 8uestion, call for such aplebisciteG Inder such circu%stances, a ne"ative ans$er certainl& could result in the $or? of the Conventionbein" rendered nu"ator&. /he vie$ has been repeatedl& e0pressed in %an& A%erican state court decisions thatto avoid such undesirable conse8uence, the tas? of sub%ission beco%es %inisterial, $ith the political branchesdevoid of an& discretion as to the holdin" of an election for that purpose. 5 Nor is the appropriation b& hi% of thea%ount necessar& to be considered as offensive to the Constitution. f it $ere done b& hi% in his capacit& asPresident, such an ob4ection $ould indeed have been for%idable, not to sa& insur%ountable. f theappropriation $ere %ade in his capacit& as a"ent of the Convention to assure that there be the sub%ission to

the people, then such an ar"u%ent loses force. /he Convention itself could have done so. 7

t is understandable$h& it should be thus. f it $ere other$ise, then a le"islative bod&, the appropriatin" ar% of the "overn%ent,could conceivabl& %a?e use of such authorit& to co%pel the Convention to sub%it to its $ishes, on pain of beinrendered financiall& distrau"ht. /he President then, if perfor%in" his role as its a"ent, could be held as notdevoid of such co%petence. /hat brin"s %e to the ar"u%ent as to the absence of proper sub%ission,developed $ith the custo%ar& learnin" and persuasiveness b& )enators /anada and )alon"a. ith all duereco"nition of their forensic s?ill, prefer to rel& on $hat, for %e, is the correct principle announced in theopinion of the Chief (ustice in Gonzales v. Commission on 'lections 2A considerable portion of the people%a& not ?no$ ho$ over 16+ of the proposed %a0i%u% of representative districts are actuall& apportioned b&R.B.@. No. 1 a%on" the provinces in the Philippines. t is not i%probable, ho$ever, that the& are not interestedin the details of the apportion%ent, or that a careful readin" thereof %a& tend in their si%ple %inds, to i%pair aclear vision thereof. Ipon the other hand, those $ho are %ore sophisticated, %a& enli"hten the%selves

sufficientl& b& readin" the copies of the proposed a%end%ents posted in public places, the copies ?ept in thepollin" places and the te0t of contested resolutions, as printed in full on the bac? of the ballots the& $ill use. t isli?e$ise, conceivable that as %an& people, if not %ore, %a& fail to reali=e or envisa"e the effect of R.B.@. No. *upon the $or? of the Constitutional Convention or upon the future of our Republic. But, then, nobod& can foretesuch effect $ith certaint&. 3ro% our vie$point, the provisions of Article K> of the Constitution are satisfied solon" as the electorate ?no$s that R.B.@. No. * per%its Con"ress%en to retain their seats as le"islators, even ifthe& should run for and assu%e the functions of dele"ates to the Convention. e are i%pressed b& the factorsconsidered b& our distin"uished and estee%ed brethren, $ho opine other$ise, but, $e feel that such factorsaffect the wisdom of Republic Act No. '1* and that of R.B.@. Nos. 1 and *, not the a$thorit& of Con"ress toapprove the sa%e. /he s&ste% of chec?s and balances underl&in" the 4udicial po$er to stri?e do$n acts of theE0ecutive or of Con"ress transcendin" the confines set forth in the funda%ental la$s is not in dero"ation of theprinciple of separation of po$ers, pursuant to $hich each depart%ent is supre%e $ithin its o$n sphere. /he

deter%ination of the conditions under $hich the proposed a%end%ents shall be sub%itted to the people isconcededl& a %atter $hich falls $ithin the le"islative sphere. e do not believe it has been satisfactoril& sho$nthat Con"ress has e0ceeded the li%its thereof in enactin" Republic Act No. '1*.2 9

Nonetheless, $ere it not for the fact that the %atter had beco%e %oot and acade%ic, a% for "rantin" thepetitions in vie$ of $hat, for %e, is the repu"nanc& bet$een an election conte%plated under Article K> of theConstitution in herein the voters can freel& re"ister their $ill, $hether it be for approval or disapproval, and thee0istence of %artial la$, $ith its connotation that dissent %a& be frau"ht $ith unpleasant conse8uences. hileit is to be ad%itted that the Ad%inistration has done its best to alleviate such a state of %ind, cannot in allhonest& sa&, althou"h a% prepared to concede that %a& labor under a sense of undue pessi%is%, that the%o%entu% of fear necessaril& incident to such a re"i%e has been reduced to a %ini%u%. fail to see then the



e0istence of that indispensable condition of freedo% that $ould validate the ratification process as conte%plateb& the Constitution. As to the validit& of Procla%ation No. 11+#, adherence to $hat for %e are funda%entalconcepts of 4udicial revie$ precludes it this state the e0pression of an& opinion. t $ould, at the ver& least, bepre%ature. 1'

$ARRE%O, J., concurrin" and dissentin"

ith full consciousness of the transcendental conse8uences of the action the Court is ta?in" in these cases, no

onl& upon %e personall& and as a %e%ber of the )upre%e Court but upon the Court itself as the "uardian ofthe Constitution, $hich all its %e%bers have sole%nl& s$orn in the na%e of od to uphold and defend, andafter lon" and serious consideration of all aspects and an"les of the issues sub%itted for resolution b& theparties, have co%e to the sincere conviction that the petitions herein should be dis%issed, includin" thesupple%ental petition filed b& petitioners in .R. No. 7*5'-, $ith the conse8uent denial of the %otion for theissuance of a $rit of preli%inar& in4unction or a te%porar& restrainin" order en4oinin" in effect an& act $hich$ould i%pl& "ivin" force and effect to the 1!# Constitution $hich President 3erdinand E. Marcos proclai%edas ratified in Procla%ation No. 11+# as of t$elve ocloc? noon on (anuar& 1!, 1!*. ithout pre4udice to a %oree0tended opinion later, %& reasons for this conclusion are as follo$s

As of toda&, t$o %atters present the%selves for Our i%%ediate resolution, na%el&, 91: the petitions in all ofthese cases pra&in" for a $rit of prohibition a"ainst the i%ple%entation of Presidential ecree No. !* callin" for

and settin" the date and the %anner of holdin" the plebiscite for the ratification of the Constitution proposed b&the 1!1 Constitutional Convention, the date set bein" (anuar& 15, 1!*, and 9#: the supple%ental petition,$ith pra&er for the issuance of a $rit of preli%inar& in4unction or a restrainin" order, in .R. No. 7*5'- toen4oin $hatever ratification of the said Constitution $ould be proposed b& the Citi=ens Asse%blies, establishedunder Presidential ecrees Nos. -6, -67A, and -67B, and, correspondin"l&, an& act $hich $ould "ive force andeffect to such ratification, should it be proclai%ed, $hich, b& the $a&, ever&bod& ?no$s $as alread& done atabout 11++ ocloc? A.M. on (anuar& 1!, 1!*.

As to No. 91:, vote to dis%iss the ori"inal petitions in all these cases for the si%ple reason that the alle"ed"rounds thereof are either untenable or have been pre%ature, if not so%eho$ %oot and acade%ic, at least,%ean$hile that the plebiscite had not been reset. 1

9a: /here is no 8uestion that the %atter of $hether or not Presidential ecree No. !* is valid is a 4usticiable oneand not political, hence $ithin the 4urisdiction of this Court to resolve. /olentino v. Co%elec, .R. No. 7*'15+,October 16, 1!1, '1 )CRA !+# is sufficient authorit& for this pose.

9b: On the other hand, a% of the considered vie$ that it is not $ithin the co%petence of this Court to pass onthe propriet& or $isdo% of an& part or provision of the Constitution as proposed b& the Convention. /heConvention $as called for the purpose of proposin" a%end%ents to the Constitution, and li?e an& ConstitutionaConvention it $as co%pletel& and absolutel& free to %a?e an& proposal, $hether or not consonant $ith the1*5 Constitution. /he theor& of ultra7vires proposals advanced b& petitioners is to %e $ithout sufficient le"albasis.

9c: Much less can accept the vie$ that the Conventions tas? $as li%ited to proposin" specific a%end%ents tobeco%e either as ne$ parts of the e0istin" Constitution or as replace%ents of correspondin" portions thereof,for even if there $ere an& theoretical basis for petitioners posture in this re"ard, feel safe in sa&in" that $henthe people elected the dele"ates to the Convention and $hen the dele"ates the%selves $ere ca%pai"nin"such li%itation of the scope of their function and ob4ective $as not in their %inds. ithal, considerin" thenu%ber and nature of the proposals alread& bein" publicl& discussed before and after said election, to follo$petitioners su""estion $ould have produced confusion and probabl& insur%ountable difficulties even in thefra%in" and phrasin" alone of the a%end%ents so that the& %a& easil& and clearl& 4ibe $ith the other parts ofthe e0istin" Constitution.



9d: Re"ardin" the alle"ed lac? of le"islative po$er of the President to issue Presidential ecree No. !*, %aintain that independentl& of the issue of $hether or not the President %a& le"islate durin" %artial la$ relativeto %atters not connected $ith the re8uire%ents of suppressin" the ar%ed insur"enc& and the %aintenance ofpeace and order, it $as $ithin the prero"ative of the President to issue said decree, considerin" that in doin" sohe %erel& acted as a"ent for and on behalf of the Constitutional Convention, $hich, in %& opinion $ritten for theCourt in the /olentino case, individuall& held, had the po$er to call for a plebiscite, prescribe its ter%s andappropriate %one& for the purpose. isre"ardin" i%%aterial niceties of for% and lan"ua"e, and loo?in" to itsobvious intent and purpose, hold that Resolution No. 5-'* of the Convention, approved on Nove%ber ##,

1!#, dele"ated to the President in plenar& ter%s the callin" of the plebiscite, and since the ordinar& rulesre8uirin" the la&in" do$n of standards in the dele"ation of le"islative functions bindin" Con"ress do not, to %&%ind, appl& to the Convention, if onl& because the latter occupies a hi"her plane of le"islative authorit& thanCon"ress in %atters related to the acco%plish%ent of its ob4ectives, it follo$s that Presidential ecree No. !*$as validl& issued.

9e: All the other ob4ections to said decree $ere rendered pre%ature, if not so%eho$ %oot and acade%ic for theti%e bein", because under eneral Order No. #+, dated (anuar& !, 1!*, the President postponed theplebiscite until further notice. )uch bein" the case, nobod& could positivel& sa& that the President $ould notallo$ Con"ress to pass a plebiscite la$ or that he $ould not lift %artial la$ b& then or that the contracts,e0ecutive orders, treaties, procla%ations, decrees, etc. that are supposed to be ratified to"ether $ith theConstitution itself $ould not be published, for the proper infor%ation of all concerned before the ne0t date to be

fi0ed for the plebiscite. n other $ords, no one could sa& that appropriate steps $ould not be ta?en to %eet theob4ections alle"ed in the petitions before the plebiscite $ould be actuall& held. t is, indeed, 4udiciall& i%proper topass upon an& issue the factual settin" $hereof %a& still be %ateriall& altered.

9f: On $hether or not the holdin" of the plebiscite durin" %artial la$ $ould %ateriall& affect proper sub%issioninsofar as the freedo% supposed to attend it is concerned, a"ree $ith the respondents that this is a 8uestion ofact $hich cannot be pre7deter%ined and that it $ould, therefore, be the burden of the petitioners to sho$ b&evidence that such freedo% had been actuall& and substantiall& i%paired. hen one recalls that %easures$ere ta?en b& the President precisel& to provide the $idest opportunit& for free debate and votin", consistent$ith the nature and purpose of the plebiscite but at the sa%e ti%e safe"uardin" the ob4ectives of the %artial la$proclai%ed b& hi%, $hich %easures he had to $ithdra$ onl& $hen in his 4ud"%ent he dee%ed it to be sore8uired b& public safet&, it does not see% alto"ether lo"ical to assu%e that the e0istence of %artial la$ per se

deprives the people of the essence of free suffra"e. Martial la$ i%ple%ented Philippine st&le, to use an apte0pression, does not carr& $ith it necessaril& all the i%plications thereof as these are ?no$n in other lands andin the recorded precedents.

Co%in" no$ to No. 9#:, it is evident that under the theor& above7referred to that as a"ent of the Convention, thePresident could devise other for%s of plebiscite to deter%ine the $ill of the %a4orit& of the people vis7a7vis theratification of the proposed Constitution, believe that the establish%ent of the Citi=ens Asse%blies as a %odeof such plebiscite cannot be said to be clearl& be&ond the conte%plation of Article K> of the Constitution of1*5. t %ust be observed, ho$ever, that under Article K of the sa%e Constitution, it is the Co%%ission onElections that is supposed to 2have e0clusive char"e of the enforce%ent and ad%inistration of all la$s relativeto the conduct of elections ...2 and this function cannot be re%oved fro% the Co%%ission $hether b& Con"ressor b& the President.2 /his constitutional point see%s to have been overloo?ed in the proceedin"s in the

Asse%blies, since it does not appear fro% an& of the official docu%ents relative thereto that the sa%e havebeen underta?en or held under the char"e of the Co%%ission.

Besides, feel cannot bear evidence to histor& and the future "enerations of our people that in fact, theans$erin" of the 8uestions and the canvassin" and reportin" of the referendu% in the Asse%blies throu"houtthe countr& $ere done e0actl& in the %anner and for% that the& should have been done, in the li"ht oftraditional concepts related to plebiscites as $e ?no$ the%. Other$ise stated, a% not satisfied that Article K>of the 1*5 Constitution has been full& co%plied $ith. B& this, do not %ean that it $as not ri"ht to use the

Asse%blies; $hat a% sa&in" is that, on the basis of facts a% ta?in" 4udicial notice of, the procedure ofans$erin", canvassin" and reportin" adopted, $hich, b& the $a&, $as far fro% bein" unifor% in all the



Asse%blies, $as not up to standard in %an& places, 4ud"ed on the basis of the re8uire%ents of the prevailin"election la$s.

On the other hand, in spite of these considerations, do not find %&self in a position to den& the factualassertion in Procla%ation 11+# that %ore than 1' %illion 3ilipinos have %anifested approval of the proposedConstitution and $ould consider the sa%e as alread& ratified b& the%. understand that this nu%ber $asdeter%ined on the basis of s$orn reports of the respective heads of the Asse%blies. )uch bein" the case, a%faced $ith proof $hich have no $a& of dul& controvertin" that our people have spo?en. consider it

unde%ocratic, i%practical and unrealistic to close %& e&es to that vital fact. And since in a de%ocrac& the $ill othe people is the supre%e la$, hold that it $ould be i%proper for the Court to en4oin an& act done or to bedone pursuant to the procla%ation in dispute. believe that $hatever le"al fla$s there %i"ht have been in theprocedure pursued leadin" to the issuance of said procla%ation %a& be dee%ed alread& cured b& the apparen$ill of the people ho$ever i%perfectl&, under le"al and technical standards, the sa%e has been e0pressed. /o"rant the pra&er of petitioners no$ $ould be tanta%ount to def&in" the ver& soverei"n people b& $ho% and for$ho% the Constitution has been ordained, absent an& de%onstrated facts sho$in" that the& prefer the stat$s6$o, $hich the Convention $as precisel& called to chan"e %eanin"full&, to the $ide7ran"e refor%s ever&bod&can see are bein" effected in practicall& all levels of the "overn%ent and all sectors of societ&. ithal, to issuean& such in4unctive $rit at this sta"e of denounce%ent of national events is to court conse8uences too horribleto i%a"ine.

/o the possible stricture that persons less than t$ent&7one &ears of a"e $ere allo$ed to participate and vote insaid Asse%blies, %& reaction is that a% not sure that Article > of the 1*5 Constitution, vie$ed in the li"ht ofthe perceptible universal drift to$ards the enfranchise%ent of the &outh, %a& not be construed as per%ittin"le"islative enlar"e%ent of the de%ocratic base of "overn%ent authorit&, since the said Article does not sa& thatthose thereb& 8ualified are the onl& ones $ho can vote 7 the lan"ua"e bein" si%pl& that 2suffra"e %a& bee0ercised b& %ale citi=ens of the Philippines not other$ise dis8ualified b& la$, $ho are t$ent&7one &ears of a"eor over and are able to read and $rite, and $ho shall have resided in the Philippines for one &ear and in the%unicipalit& $herein the& propose to vote for at least si0 %onths precedin" the election. ...,2 $hich, to %e,strictl& spea?in", onl& "uarantees the ri"ht of suffra"e to those enu%erated but does not den& to the le"islaturethe po$er to include others $ho in its $isdo% it believes should also en4o& such ri"ht. n an& event, it isele%entar& under our election la$ and 4urisprudence that should it appear that dis8ualified persons havesucceeded in votin" in an election, such election is not thereb& necessaril& rendered $holl& ille"al, but the votes

of such persons are onl& correspondin"l& deducted after bein" dul& identified. Accordin"l&, on the pre%ise thatthe inclusion of those belo$ #1 is ille"al, their votes %a& be deducted fro% the 1',+++,+++ or soafore%entioned, and a% certain no one $ill den& that the re%ainder $ould still be substantiall& sufficient toconstitute a reco"ni=able %andate of the people, for under nor%al circu%stances $hich %ust be presu%ed, an%a?in" the %ost liberal esti%ate, the votes of the under a"ed voters a%on" the% could not have been %orethan one7third of said nu%ber. ndeed, at the %ost, if this point had been considered before the issuance ofProcla%ation 11+#, an in4unction %i"ht have issued to restrain the under a"ed persons fro% participatin" in thereferendu%, but no$ that the result thereof is a fait accompli , cannot see ho$ such a possible fla$ can be ofan& %aterial conse8uence.

As %a& be noted, have ta?en it upon %&self to rule on the le"al issues surroundin" Procla%ation 11+#.ndeed, feel ver& stron"l& that, as a %e%ber of the )upre%e Court, it is %& dut& to our people to enli"hten

the% as to said issues. /he e&es of the $hole countr& have been pinned on Is since the Convention approvedthe draft of the Constitution in 8uestion on Nove%ber *+, 1!#, and the President called, on ece%ber 1, 1!#thru Presidential ecree No. !*, for a plebiscite scheduled to be held on (anuar& 15, 1!*, for its ratification.Concerned citi=ens purportin" to spea? for the people have precisel& co%e to the Court challen"in" the le"alit&of the procedure thus pursued as not bein" in consonance $ith the a%endin" process specified in the 1*5Constitution and pra&in" that the Court en4oin the continued adoption of said procedure. Ever&bod& ?no$s thatthe& ca%e to Is $ith the conviction that the Court $ould not hesitate to pla& its role as the final authorit&desi"nated b& the Constitution itself to interpret and construe its provisions.

Accordin"l&, e "ave due course to their petitions, and for t$o da&s, ece%ber 1- and 1, e heard brilliantand learned counsel of both sides ar"ue elo8uentl&, even $ith obvious patriotic fervor but in vie$ of the



circu%stances related in the separate opinion of the Chief (ustice, e $ere unable to decide the cases even alate as (anuar& 1*, 1!*. Petitioners then ca%e $ith %otions ur"entl& see?in" an earl& decision, and soonafter, or, on (anuar& 15, 1!*, petitioners in .R. No. 7*5'- filed a supple%ental petition relative to the latestdevelop%ents involvin" the creation of Citi=ens Asse%blies and the persistent reports indicatin" al%ost to acertaint& that a procla%ation $ould be issued doin" a$a& $ith the usual plebiscite procedure and alread&proclai%in" the proposed Constitution as ratified and in force, on the basis alone of the favorable result of areferendu% in said Asse%blies. /heir %ain pra&er $as for Is to issue a $rit of prohibition a"ainst thesub%ission and approval of the reports of the results of said referendu%. e i%%ediatel& re8uired the

respondents to ans$er the supple%ental petition not later than (anuar& 16 and set the case for hearin" on(anuar& 1! at *+ ocloc? in the %ornin".

n closin" his ar"u%ents before the Court that fateful %ornin", )enator oren=o /anada, the tenacious counselfor petitioners, pleaded earnestl&, even after the Chief (ustice had read to hi% in open session the te0t ofProcla%ation 11+# $hich had 4ust been delivered b& the )ecretar& of (ustice, that the Court rule s8uarel& on thissues petitioners have raised. @e told Is that it is secondar& $hether Our 4ud"%ent should be favorable orunfavorable to petitioners, $hat is %ost i%portant is for the people to ?no$ $hether or not the provisions of theConstitution have been observed.

ndeed, no "raver responsibilit& rests on the shoulders of the Court. And as see it, e cannot shir? thatresponsibilit& b& alle"in" technical e0cuses $hich sincerel& believe are at best of controversial tenabilit&.

cannot share the vie$ that the validit& and constitutionalit& of Procla%ation 11+# have not been sub%itted toIs for resolution in these proceedin"s. %aintain that for all intents and purposes, the supple%ental %otion of)enator /anada of (anuar& 15 placed those transcendental issues before Is. Not onl& in his pleadin" but %oreso in his oral ar"u%ent, )enator /anada, $ith all the vi"or of his %ind and the sincere patriotis% of his heart,contended that $ith the creation of the Citi=ens Asse%blies and the referendu% bein" conducted therein, andparticularl& in vie$ of the t$o 8uestions to be ans$ered, na%el&, 2o &ou approve of the proposedconstitutionG2 and 2o &ou $ant the plebiscite to be heldG2, there $as no doubt that Article K> of theConstitution $as bein" b&passed and that this Court $as bein" 2short7circuited.2 n ter%s that could not havebeen plainer, he pointed to the i%pendin" probabilit& of the issuance of a procla%ation of the nature ofProcla%ation 11+#, and he pra&ed elo8uentl&, that e should act $ithout loss of ti%e to stop the purportedreports of the referendu% so as to re%ove the basis for such feared eventualit&. )o %uch so, that after the

Chief (ustice read the procla%ation to hi%, he dra%aticall& e0clai%ed, 2 have been confir%ed.2 Others $ouldhave said, 2Consu%%atu% est2

Inder these circu%stances, cannot see ho$ it can be held that e can refrain fro% rulin" on the le"al andconstitutional si"nificance of Procla%ation 11+#. At the ver& least, the present state of the case of Vidal *an" etal. vs. Comelec" et al., .R. No. 7*5'-, i%poses upon Is the ineludible obli"ation to rule $hether or not eshould have en4oined the sub%ission of the reports of the Asse%blies, as de%anded b& petitioners, it bein"evident that as )enator /anada contended said reports $ere to be utili=ed as basis for the issuance of aprocla%ation declarin" the proposed Constitution as ratified and alread& in force. n si%ilar past cases toonu%erous to cite, this Court and all courts in the countr&, dare sa&, have al$a&s considered the consu%%ationof a threatened act, after the petition to en4oin it has been sub%itted to the courts 4urisdiction, as fit sub4ect forits disposition, $ithin the sa%e proceedin"s, to the e0tent that the courts even issue %andator& in4unctions, in

appropriate cases, for the respondents to undo $hat has alread& been done $ithout havin" to hold an& furtherhearin". t is clai%ed that the parties %ust be full& heard D but have $e not heard enou"h fro% the%G @as not)enator /anada presented all his ar"u%ents in support of his supple%ental petitionG And if he has not, is it thefault of the CourtG s it fair to all concerned that such possible o%ission be considered as a "round for Our$ithholdin" Our 4ud"%ent on $hat under the la$ and the rules is alread& properl& before Is for resolutionG/ruth to tell, cannot i%a"ine a fuller ventilation of the cause of an& other petitioner $ho has co%e to this Courtthan petitioners in .R. No. 7*5'-. Rarel& has the Court held hearin"s for da&s and %ore unusuall& has it"iven an& counsel al%ost unli%ited ti%e to spea?, but these e have done in these cases. Can an& part& as?for %oreG f at all, onl& the respondents have not ade8uatel& presented their side insofar as the supple%entalpetition is concerned, but, a"ain, it cannot be said that the& have not had the opportunit& to do so. /he Actin")olicitor eneral has un8ualifiedl& filed his ans$er on behalf of all the respondents, and to %e, his atte%pt to



i%press the Court that the ne$ respondents have not been su%%oned and that the sub4ect petition is pre%isedon probabilities and con4ectures is of no %o%ent, considerin" the "rave i%portance of the issues and the ur"ennecessit& of disposin" the% e0peditiousl& and $ithout unnecessar& loss of fateful ti%e. Of course, respect thereasons of %& collea"ues $ho cannot see it %& $a&, but as far as a% concerned, this is as appropriate a caseand an occasion as an& can be to resolve all the funda%ental issues raised b& petitioners, and to leave the%unresolved no$ $ould be practicall& invitin" so%e non7confor%ists to challen"e the Constitution and to ?eepnot onl& the $heels of the transition at a standstill, but $orse, also the ani%us of the people in suspendedani%ation frau"ht $ith an0iet&, $ith all the dire conse8uences such a situation entails.

)o%e le"alists $ould call the "overn%ent under the proclai%ed Constitution a revolutionar& "overn%ent, butthe President denies that it is, because, accordin" to hi%, it is to operate under a Constitution ratified b& thepeople. At this crucial %o%ent in the histor& of the nation, e need not bother about variant no%enclatures;these can be sub4ective and are, in an& event, unsubstantial. hat is of supre%e and ut%ost i%portance is thatthe people be told $hat e0actl& the situation is, sans the veneer of $hat %i"ht turn out after all to be aninaccurate appellation. /he people %ust ?no$ the real score, and, as a %e%ber of the )upre%e Court, do nothesitate to tell the% that, as have alread& e0plained above, in %& honest opinion, the purported ratification ofthe Constitution attested in Procla%ation 11+# and based on the referendu% a%on" the Citi=ens Asse%bliesfalls short of bein" in strict confor%it& $ith the re8uire%ents of Article K> of the 1*5 Constitution. %ust hasteto add, ho$ever, that such unfortunate dra$bac? not$ithstandin", and considerin" all other relevantcircu%stances, principall&, the na?ed proof before Is indicatin" that the people approve of it, earnestl& and

sincerel& believe that the ne$ Constitution is le"all& reco"ni=able and should be reco"ni=ed as le"iti%atel& inforce.

reiterate have no le"al %eans of den&in" it to be a fact, as stated in the procla%ation, that 1',+++,+++3ilipinos have %anifested in the referendu% in the Citi=ens Asse%blies their approval of this Constitution. Andeven if e considered that said referendu% $as held under the ae"is of full i%ple%entation of the %artial la$proclai%ed b& the President under Procla%ation 1+-1, as %andated b& eneral Order No. #+, e $ould not bable to i"nore that the "overn%ent under this Constitution is $ell or"ani=ed and is in stable, effective andco%plete control of the $hole Philippine territor&, and $hat is %ore pertinentl& i%portant, that this Constitutionpur"ed as it is no$ of its Achilles heel, the nteri% National Asse%bl&, %a& fairl& be said to be acceptable"enerall& to the people, e%bod&in" as it does %eanin"ful refor%s desi"ned to chec?, if not to eradicate the theprevalent causes of $idespread popular restiveness and activis% $hich has alread& assu%ed practicall& the

proportions of an ar%ed insur"enc& or rebellion so%eho$ endan"erin" the securit& and safet& of theconstituted "overn%ent, if not the inte"rit& of the nation. And in connection $ith the i%ple%entation of %artialla$ thus ordered, as have alread& noted earlier in this opinion, its bein" done Philippine st&le %a& be of so%erelevance, since such enforce%ent is not characteri=ed b& the ri"or that the usual concept of %artial la$connotes, hence, an& su""estion of constructive duress relative to the proceedin"s in the Asse%blies and theBaran"a&s %a& not full& hold $ater. Ipon these pre%ises, it is %& considered opinion that if in an& sense thepresent "overn%ent and Constitution %a& be vie$ed as revolutionar&, because the& ca%e into bein", strictl&spea?in", e0tra7constitutionall& or outside the pale of the 1*5 Constitution, the& are nonetheless entitled to beaccorded le"iti%ate standin", for all intents and purposes and for all concerned, under the universall& acceptedprinciple that a revolution, $hether violent or bloodless, is ille"al onl& $hen it fails to "ain the support of thepeople. ndeed, under these circu%stances, cannot resist the te%ptation of as?in", is it 4uridicall& possible forthis Court to declare unconstitutional and $ithout force and effect the ver& Constitution under $hich it presentl&

e0istsG a% inclined to hold that the ans$er to this 8uestion can onl& be in the ne"ative. Conse8uentl&,petitioners are not entitled to an& 4udicial relief and, have no alternative but to vote for the dis%issal of thesupple%ental petition of (anuar& 15, 1!*.

n conclusion, hold that the 1*5 Constitution has pro tanto passed into histor& and has been le"iti%atel&supplanted b& the Constitution no$ in force b& virtue of Procla%ation 11+#, issued pursuant to the certifiedresults of the referendu% in the Citi=ens Asse%blies all over the countr& favorin" its adoption and enforce%ent.

on" live our countr&, the Philippines od bless our people, the 3ilipino people



AL%/AR, J., dissentin"

cannot a"ree $ith %& $orth& collea"ues $ho hold the vie$ that the petitions in all these have beco%e %ootand acade%ic si%pl& because the relief pra&ed for b& petitioners cannot be "ranted after Procla%ation No.11+# $as issued b& the President of the Philippines. A case does not beco%e %oot $here there re%ainsubstantial ri"hts or issues that are controverted and $hich are not settled. 1 /his Court has decided cases eveif no positive relief, as pra&ed for b& a part& in the case, could be "ranted, or even if a part& has $ithdra$n hisappeal, if the case presented to the court for resolution is a clear violation of the Constitution or of funda%ental

personal ri"hts of libert& and propert&. 2

n the present cases it is in the public interest that this Court renders a rulin" on the transcendental issuesbrou"ht about b& the petition D issues $hich %ust be resolved b& this Court as the "uardian of the Constitutionof this Republic.

3or a co%prehensive appraisal of the facts and circu%stances relevant to the resolution of the issues involvedin these cases, e shall narrate pertinent events, as sho$n in the record.

On ece%ber 1, 1!# the President of the Philippines, in his capacit& as Co%%ander7in7Chief of all the Ar%ed3orces of the Philippines and actin" pursuant to Procla%ation No. 1+-1, dated )epte%ber #1, 1!#, issuedPresidential ecree No. !*, sub%ittin" to the 3ilipino people for ratification or re4ection the Constitution of theRepublic of the Philippines proposed b& the 1!1 Constitutional Convention, and appropriatin" funds for thepurpose. /he ecree states that the sa%e $as issued pursuant to Resolution No. 5-'* of the 1!1Constitutional Convention proposin" 2to President 3erdinand E. Marcos that a decree be issued callin" aplebiscite for the ratification of the proposed ne$ Constitution on such appropriate date as he shall deter%ineand providin" for the necessar& funds therefor.2 2 3 /he decree set the plebiscite for (anuar& 15, 1!* andappropriated the su% of P15,+++,+++.++ to carr& out the purpose of the decree. /he ecree provided for thepublication of the proposed Constitution, the disse%ination of infor%ation re"ardin" the proposed Constitution,the application of the provisions of the Election Code of 1!1 to the plebiscite insofar as the& are notinconsistent $ith the provisions of the decree, speciall& statin" that the provisions of said Code re"ardin" theri"ht and obli"ations of political parties and candidates shall not appl& to the plebiscite. /he ecree furtherprovided for a calendar for the plebiscite, for the re"istration of voters, for the constitution of the board ofinspectors, for $atchers, for precincts and pollin" places, for the official ballots to be used, for the preparation

and trans%ission of plebiscite returns, for the canvass of the returns b& the cit&, %unicipalit&, and the %unicipaldistrict board of canvassers, for the canvass b& the Co%%ission on Elections and the procla%ation of theresults b& said Co%%ission, for supplies and services needed for the holdin" of the plebiscite, and on theauthorit& "iven to the Co%%ission on Elections to pro%ul"ate rules and re"ulations necessar& to carr& out theprovisions of the ecree.

On ece%ber 1, 1!#, the President of the Philippines also issued eneral Order No. 1!, orderin" anden4oinin" the Ar%ed 3orces of the Philippines and all other depart%ents and a"encies of the overn%ent toallo$ and encoura"e public and free discussions and debates on the proposed Constitution before theplebiscite set for (anuar& 15, 1!*.

urin" the first half of the %onth of ece%ber 1!#, the petitioners, in the ten cases no$ before this Court, filedpetitions for prohibition $ith preli%inar& in4unction, see?in" to prevent the holdin" of the plebiscite on (anuar&15, 1!*. /he petitioners 8uestion the validit& of Presidential ecree No. !*, principall& upon the "round that itis not in the po$er of the President of the Philippines to call a plebiscite for the ratification or re4ection of theproposed Constitution and to appropriate public funds for the purpose. /he petitioners also %aintain that theperiod of onl& about '5 da&s fro% the date of the approval of the proposed Constitution b& the ConstitutionalConvention on Nove%ber *+, 1!# to (anuar& 15, 1!*, $as not a sufficient ti%e for the electorate of thiscountr& to be properl& infor%ed re"ardin" the provisions of the proposed Constitution, and the electorate couldnot therefore vote intelli"entl& on $hether to ratif& or to re4ect the proposed Constitution, and so there could beno proper sub%ission of the proposed Constitution to the electorate. /he petitioners further %aintain that thecountr& bein" under %artial la$ there could not be a free sub%ission of the proposed Constitution to the



electorate. n so%e of the petitions, the petitioners also %aintain that the proposed Constitution containsprovisions $hich are be&ond the po$er of the Constitutional Convention to adopt or to propose. All thepetitioners pra&ed this Court to issue a $rit of preli%inar& in4unction or restrainin" order to prevent therespondents in each of the petitions fro% i%ple%entin" Presidential ecree No. !*. /his Court, ho$ever, didnot issue the preli%inar& in4unction, nor the restrainin" order, pra&ed for. /his Court re8uired the respondents ineach petition to ans$er the petition, and set the cases for hearin" on the petition for preli%inar& in4unction andon the %erits of the case for ece%ber 1-, 1!#. @earin"s $ere actuall& held for t$o da&s D on ece%ber 1-and 1, 1!#.

On ece%ber *1, 1!#, $hile these cases $ere pendin" before this Court, the President of the Philippinesissued Presidential ecree No. -6 creatin" the Citi=ens Asse%blies throu"hout the countr&. A%on" others,ecree No. -6 provides that there is created a citi=en asse%bl& in each barrio in %unicipalities, and in eachdistrict in chartered cities, provided that in the case of Manila and other chartered cities $here there are nobarrios there shall be a citi=en asse%bl& in ever& $ard; that the citi=en asse%blies shall consist of all persons$ho are residents of the barrio, district, or $ard for at least si0 %onths, 15 &ears of a"e or over, citi=ens of thePhilippines, and $ho are re"istered in the list of citi=ens asse%bl& %e%bers ?ept b& the barrio, district or $ardsecretar&. As stated in the decree, the purpose of establishin" the citi=ens asse%blies is to broaden the base ofthe citi=ens participation in the de%ocratic process and to afford a%ple opportunities for the citi=enr& to e0presstheir vie$s on i%portant national issues.

On (anuar& 5, 1!* the President of the Philippines issued Presidential ecree No. -67A $hich, a%on" others,provided for the sub%ission to the citi=ens asse%blies created under Presidential ecree No. -6 8uestions tobe ans$ered, and a%on" those 8uestions are these t$o 91: 2o &ou approve of the ne$ ConstitutionG2; 9#: 2&ou still $ant a plebiscite to be called to ratif& the ne$ Constitution G2

On (anuar& !, 1!* the President issued eneral Order No. #+, orderin" the postpone%ent of the plebiscitethat had been scheduled for (anuar& 15, 1!*. )aid "eneral order reads as follo$s

ENERA ORER NO. #+

@EREA), pursuant to Presidential ecree No. !* dated ece%ber 1, 1!#, a plebiscite hasbeen called on (anuar& 15, 1!* at $hich the proposed Constitution of the Philippines shall besub%itted to the people for ratification or re4ection;

@EREA), Presidential ecree No. -6, dated ece%ber *1, 1!#, created Citi=ens Asse%bliesso as to afford a%ple opportunities for the citi=enr& to e0press their vie$s on i%portant nationalissues;

@EREA), one of the 8uestions presented to the Citi=ens Asse%blies is 2o &ou li?e theplebiscite on the proposed Constitution to be held laterG

@EREA), it is necessar& to hold in abe&ance the plebiscite until the peoples preference hasbeen ascertained;

NO, /@ERE3ORE, , 3ERNAN E. MARCO), Co%%ander7in7Chief of all the Ar%ed 3orcesof the Philippines, and pursuant to Procla%ation No. 1+-1, dated )epte%ber #1, 1!#, dohereb& order that the plebiscite scheduled to be held on (anuar& 15, 1!*, be postponed untilfurther notice.

further order that the provision of )ection * of Presidential ecree No. !* insofar as the& allo$free public discussion of the proposed Constitution, as $ell as %& order of ece%ber 1!, 1!#,te%poraril& suspendin" the effects of Procla%ation No. 1+-1 for the purposes of free and opendebate on the proposed Constitution, be suspended in the %eanti%e.



one in the Cit& of the Manila, this !th da& of (anuar&, in the &ear of Our ord, nineteen hundredand sevent&7three.

9)"d.: 3ERNAN E. MARCO)PresidentRepublic of the Philippines

B& the President

9)"d.: AE(ANRO MEC@ORE0ecutive )ecretar&

As of the da& $hen the above78uoted eneral Order No. #+ $as issued these cases $ere all pendin" decisionbefore this Court.

At this 4uncture a% "oin" to particulari=e %& discussion on case .R. No. 7*5'- 9>idal /an, et al., petitionervs. Co%%ission on Elections, et al., respondents:. hat sa& in connection $ith the >idal /an case %a& also beconsidered in relation $ith the other cases before Is.

On (anuar& 1#, 1!* counsel for the petitioners in the /an case filed an 2Ir"ent Motion 3or Earl& ecision2,alle"in", a%on" others, that it $as announced that votin" b& the Citi=ens Asse%blies $ould be held on (anuar1+ to 15, 1!* $hereb& the Citi=ens Asse%blies $ould be as?ed a nu%ber of 8uestions, a%on" the% thefollo$in"

91: o &ou approve of Citi=ens Asse%blies as the base of popular "overn%ent to decide issuesof national interestsG

9#: o &ou approve of the ne$ ConstitutionG

9*: o &ou $ant a plebiscite to be called to ratif& the ne$ ConstitutionG

9': o &ou $ant the elections to be held in Nove%ber, 1!* in accordance $ith the provisions ofthe 1*5 ConstitutionG

95: f the election $ould not be held, $hen do &ou $ant the ne0t elections to be calledG

96: o &ou $ant %artial la$ to continueG

Counsel for the petitioners also alle"ed that petitioners had reasons to fear that the 8uestion 2o &ou approveof the ne$ ConstitutionG2, in relation to the 8uestion follo$in" it 2o &ou still $ant a plebiscite to be called toratif& the ne$ ConstitutionG2, $ould be an atte%pt to b&pass and short7circuit this Court before $hich the8uestion re"ardin" the validit& of the plebiscite scheduled for (anuar& 15, 1!* on the proposed Constitution$as pendin" resolution. Counsel for petitioners also alle"ed that the& had reasons to fear 2that if an affir%ative

ans$er to the t$o 8uestions 4ust referred to $ould be reported then this @onorable Court and the entire nation$ould be confronted $ith a fait accompli $hich has been attained in a hi"hl& unconstitutional and unde%ocratic%anner;2 and 2the fait accompli $ould consist in the supposed e0pression of the people approvin" the proposeConstitution.2 Counsel further states 2that if such event $ould happen then the case before this @onorableCourt could, to all intents and purposes, beco%e %oot because, petitioners fear, and the& therefore alle"e, thaton the basis of such supposed e0pression of the $ill of the people throu"h the Citi=ens Asse%blies, it $ould beannounced that the proposed Constitution $ith all its defects, both con"enital and other$ise, has been ratified2and 2that in such a situation, the Philippines $ould be facin" a real crisis and there is a li?elihood of confusion ifnot chaos, because then, the people and their officials $ould not ?no$ $hich Constitution is in force.2 &



On (anuar& 1*, 1!* this Court ordered the )olicitor eneral to ans$er the ur"ent %otion of the petitioners,dated (anuar& 1#, 1!*.

On (anuar& 15, 1!* counsel for petitioners filed 2A )upple%ental Motion for ssuance of Restrainin" Order andfor nclusion of Additional Respondents.2 /he respondents sou"ht to be added $ere the epart%ent of ocalovern%ents and its head, )ecretar& (ose Rono; the epart%ent of A"rarian Refor%s and its head, )ecretar&Conrado Estrella; and the National Ratification Coordinatin" Co%%ittee and its chair%an, uiller%o de >e"a. ntheir supple%ental %otion for the issuance of restrainin" order en4oinin" the ori"inal respondents, as $ell as the

additional respondents, and their deputies, subordinates andJor substitutes fro% collectin", certif&in",announcin" and reportin" to the President or other officials concerned, the Citi=ens Asse%bl& referendu%results that $ould be obtained in the votin" held durin" the period co%prised bet$een (anuar& 1+ and (anuar&15, 1!*, particularl& on the t$o 8uestions 91: 2o &ou approve of the ne$ ConstitutionG2, and 9#: 2o &ou still$ant a plebiscite to be called for the ratification of the ne$ ConstitutionG2 Counsel for petitioners further alle"edthat for lac? of %aterial ti%e the appropriate a%ended petition to include the ne$ respondents could not beco%pleted because the sub%ission of the proposed Constitution to the Citi=ens Asse%blies $as not %ade?no$n to the public until (anuar& 11, 1!*, but nevertheless the ne$ respondents could properl& be includedbecause in their petition petitioners pra&ed 2for the annul%ent not onl& of Presidential ecree No. !* but also oan& si%ilar decree, procla%ation, order or instruction2 so that Presidential ecree Nos. -6 9and -67A: in so farat least as the& atte%pt to sub%it the proposed Constitution to a plebiscite b& the Citi=ens Asse%blies areproperl& in issue in the case, and those $ho enforce, i%ple%ent and carr& out said Presidential decrees and th

instructions incidental thereto clearl& fall $ithin the scope of the petition. Moreover, counsel for petitionersalle"es that in the ori"inal petition the& pra&ed for the issuance of a $rit of preli%inar& in4unction restrainin" notonl& the ori"inal respondents, but also their a"ents fro% the perfor%ance of acts, i%ple%entin", or tendin" toi%ple%ent, Presidential ecree No. !* or an& other si%ilar decree, order, instructions, or procla%ation inrelation to the holdin" of the plebiscite in 8uestion on (anuar& 15, 1!*, and that the& had also pra&ed for suchother relief $hich %a& be 4ust and e8uitable. Counsel for petitioners stressed the plea that unless the petition isdecided i%%ediatel& and the respondents $ere restrained or en4oined fro% collectin", certif&in", reportin", orannouncin" to the President the result of the alle"ed votin" of the so7called Citi=ens Asse%blies irreparableda%a"e $ould be caused to the Republic of the Philippines, to the 3ilipino people and to the cause of freedo%and de%ocrac&, because after the result of the supposed votin" on the t$o precise 8uestions that the&%entioned shall have been announced, a conflict $ould arise bet$een those $ho %aintain that the 1*5Constitution is still in force, on the one hand, and those $ho %aintain that the old Constitution is superseded b&

the proposed Constitution on the other hand, thereb& creatin" confusion if not chaos; and that even the 4urisdiction of this Court $ould be sub4ect to serious attac?s because the advocates of the theor& that theproposed Constitution had been ratified b& reason of the announce%ent of the results of the proceedin"s of theCiti=ens Asse%blies $ould ar"ue that eneral Order No. *, $hich $ould also be dee%ed ratified pursuant tothe /ransitor& Provisions of the proposed Constitution, had placed Presidential ecrees No. !* and No. -6 9and-67A: be&ond the reach and 4urisdiction of this Court.

/his Court re8uired the )olicitor eneral to co%%ent on the supple%ental %otion and set the said %otion forhearin" on (anuar& 1!, 1!*.

On (anuar& 1!, 1!* the ur"ent %otion of (anuar& 1#, 1!* and the supple%ental %otion for the issuance ofthe restrainin" order and the inclusion of additional respondents $ere heard on oral ar"u%ents b& counsel for

the petitioners and the )olicitor eneral. /o$ards the end of the hearin", and $hile counsel for the petitioners$as ans$erin" 8uestions fro% Me%bers of this Court, the Chief (ustice received a cop& of Procla%ation No.11+# of the President of the Philippines 2announcin" the ratification b& the 3ilipino people of the Constitutionproposed b& the 1!1 Constitutional Convention.2 /he Chief (ustice read in open court, for the record,Procla%ation No. 11+#. )aid Procla%ation reads as follo$s

PROCAMA/ON NO. 11+#





@EREA), Citi=ens Asse%blies $ere created in barrios in %unicipalities and in districtsJ$ardsin chartered cities pursuant to Presidential ecree No. -6, dated ece%ber *1, 1!#, co%posedof all persons $ho are residents of the barrio, district or $ard for at least si0 %onths, fifteen &earsof a"e or over, citi=ens of the Philippines and $ho are re"istered in the list of Citi=en Asse%bl&%e%bers ?ept b& the barrio, district or $ard secretar&;

@EREA), the said Citi=ens Asse%blies $ere established precisel& to broaden the base ofciti=en participation in the de%ocratic process and to afford a%ple opportunit& for the citi=enr& toe0press their vie$s on i%portant national issues;

@EREA), respondin" to the cla%or of the people and pursuant to Presidential ecree No. -67 A, dated (anuar& 5, 1!*, the follo$in" 8uestions $ere posed before the Citi=ens Asse%blies orBaran"a&s o &ou approve of the Ne$ ConstitutionG o &ou still $ant a plebiscite to be called tratif& the ne$ ConstitutionG

@EREA), fourteen %illion nine hundred sevent&7si0 thousand five hundred si0t&7one91',!6,561: %e%bers of all the Baran"a&s 9Citi=ens Asse%blies: voted for the adoption of theproposed Constitution, as a"ainst seven hundred fort&7three thousand ei"ht hundred si0t&7nine9!'*,-6: $ho voted for its re4ection; $hile on the 8uestion as to $hether or not the people $ouldstill li?e a plebiscite to be called to ratif& the ne$ Constitution, fourteen %illion t$o hundredninet&7ei"ht thousand ei"ht hundred fourteen 91',#-,-1': ans$ered that there $as no need fora plebiscite and that the vote of the Baran"a& 9Citi=ens Asse%blies: should be considered as avote in a plebiscite;

@EREA), since the referendu% results sho$ that %ore than ninet&7five 95: per cent of the%e%bers of the Baran"a&s 9Citi=ens Asse%blies: are in favor of the ne$ Constitution,the 4atip$nan ng )ga (aranga& has stron"l& reco%%ended that the Ne$ Constitution shouldalread& be dee%ed ratified b& the 3ilipino people;

NO, /@ERE3ORE, , 3ERNAN E. MARCO), President of the Philippines, b& virtue of thepo$ers in %e vested b& the Constitution, do hereb& certif& and proclai% that the Constitutionproposed b& the nineteen hundred and sevent&7one 91!1: Constitutional Convention has beenratified b& an over$hel%in" %a4orit& of all of the votes cast b& the %e%bers of all the Baran"a&9Citi=ens Asse%blies: throu"hout the Philippines, and has thereb& co%e into effect.


one in the Cit& of Manila, this 1!th da& of (anuar& in the &ear of Our ord, nineteen hundredand sevent&7three.

3ERNAN E.MARCO)President of thePhilippines

B& the President




And so, $hat the petitioners had feared, as e0pressed in their ur"ent %otion for earl& decision and in theirsupple%ental %otion to issue restrainin" order, etc., that the results of the votin" in the Citi=ens Asse%blies%i"ht be ta?en as a basis for proclai%in" the ratification of the proposed Constitution, had actuall& happened.

And so, $hat the petitioners in all the ten cases no$ before Is D a%on" the% civic leaders, ne$spaper%en,)enators and Con"ress%en, Me%bers of the 1!1 Constitutional Convention, and professionals D had tried toprevent fro% happenin", that is, the procla%ation of the ratification of the proposed constitution on the basis ofthe affir%ative votes that %i"ht be cast in the plebiscite that $as set for (anuar& 15, 1!* pursuant toPresidential ecree No. !*, the le"alit& of $hich decree $as bein" 8uestioned b& petitioners, had happened.

/he crucial 8uestion before this Court is $hether or not Presidential Procla%ation No. 11+# announcin" theratification of the proposed Constitution of 1!# is in accordance $ith the Constitution and has the effect of%a?in" the proposed Constitution of 1!# effective and in force as of (anuar& 1!, 1!* $hen the procla%ation$as issued. /his is, believe, the vital 8uestion that this Court is called upon to resolve, and it is for this reasonthat believe that this case has not been %oot and acade%ic. hile it is true that the relief pra&ed for b& thepetitioners, that the ori"inal respondents be en4oined fro% i%ple%entin" Presidential ecree No. !*, cannotno$ be "ranted, Procla%ation No. 11+# nevertheless has the effect of consu%%atin" the ratification of theproposed Constitution D the ver& event $hich the petitioners had precisel& sou"ht to prevent fro% happenin"$hen the& filed their petitions. Presidential Procla%ation No. 11+# has a tre%endous effect upon the political,econo%ic and social life of the people of this countr&. believe, therefore, that this Court should not indul"e inthe niceties of procedural technicalities and evade the tas? of declarin" $hether or not the Constitution

proposed b& 1!1 Convention has been validl& ratified as announced in said Procla%ation No. 11+#. /his Couris called upon to "ive the people of this Republic the proper orientation re"ardin" the effect of said Procla%atioNo. 11+#. /hat orientation $ill onl& co%e about $hen this @i"hest Court of the land has rendered a rulin" on$hether or not said Procla%ation No. 11+# is valid.

cannot a"ree $ith the vie$ of so%e of %& collea"ues that this Court cannot %a?e a rulin" on the 8uestion of$hether or not Procla%ation No. 11+# is valid, because the validit& of said procla%ation is not the %atter that iss8uarel& presented to this Court for resolution b& the petitions in these cases. believe, ho$ever, that this Courshould not close its e&es to the fact that in the ten petitions that are before this Court the unifor% pra&ers of thepetitioners are to en4oin the i%ple%entation of Presidential ecree No. !* and to nullif& said decree D precisel&in order to prevent the ratification of the Constitution proposed b& the 1!1 Convention in a %anner that is not iaccordance $ith the Constitution and the la$. )o %uch so that in .R. No. 7*5'- 9/an, et al. v. Co%elec, et

al.: the petitioners, a%on" others, pra&ed that 4ud"%ent be rendered declarin"2 ... Presidential ecree No. !* oan& si%ilar decree, procla%ation, order or instruction unconstitutional, null and void and %a?in" the $rit ofpreli%inar& in4unction per%anent.2 t is not difficult to understand that the purpose of the petitioners $as toinvalidate an& and all orders, decrees and procla%ations that are corollar& or related to Presidential ecree No!* $hich had for its %ain purpose to sub%it the Constitution proposed b& the 1!1 Convention to a plebisciteon (anuar& 15, 1!* and thereb& deter%ine $hether the people approve or re4ect the proposed Constitution. Ase have adverted to, the ob4ective of the petitioners $as to prevent the ratification of the proposed constitutionin a %anner that is offensive to the Constitution and the la$. All orders, decrees, instructions, or procla%ations%ade after the issuance of Presidential ecree No. !*, $hich have for their purpose either to supple%entPresidential ecree No. !* or to acco%plish throu"h other %eans or %ethods $hat Presidential ecree No. !*$as issued for, are enco%passed $ithin the pra&er of petitioners to nullif& 2an& si%ilar decree, procla%ation,order, or instruction2. Presidential ecrees Nos. -6 and -67A are such 2si%ilar2 decrees, because, as it turned

out, Presidential ecree No. -6 provided for the or"ani=ation of the citi=ens asse%blies $hich beca%e theforu%s $here the 8uestion of $hether to ratif& or to re4ect the proposed Constitution $as sub%itted; and, as itturned out, Presidential ecree No. -67A provided for the ver& 8uestion $hich other$ise the voters $ould havebeen as?ed to ans$er 2Les2 or 2No2 in the plebiscite $hich had been provided for in Presidential ecree No. !*n other $ords, Presidential ecree No. -6 supplanted Presidential ecree No. !* in so far as the latter decreeprovided for the foru% $here the 8uestion $as to be as?ed; $hile Presidential ecree No. -67A supplantedPresidential ecree No. !* in so far as the latter decree provided for the 8uestion to be as?ed re"ardin" theproposed Constitution. And finall& because Presidential Procla%ation No. 11+# has for its basis $hat $as donepursuant to Presidential ecrees Nos. -6 and -67A, it follo$s that Procla%ation No. 11+# is 4ust the2procla%ation2 that the petitioners sou"ht to nullif& or invalidate if issued.



believe that the effects of Procla%ation No. 11+# have an inti%ate bearin" on the ob4ectives of the petitioners$hen the& filed the instant petitions for prohibition, and so said procla%ation has to be considered alon" $ith althe issues raised b& the petitioners in the cases at bar. More so, because said Procla%ation No. 11+# $as readinto the record b& the Chief (ustice of this Court durin" the hearin" of 7*5'- 9/an vs. Co%elec:, in open courton (anuar& 1!, 1!*. believe that this Court %ust not i"nore Procla%ation No. 11+# in relation to the %attersand to the issues ventilated before this Court. Procla%ation No. 11+# $as for%all& brou"ht to the attention ofthis Court. t is %& vie$ that this Court should not evade its dut& of definin" for the benefit of the people of thisRepublic the le"al and constitutional nature and effects of that procla%ation. , for one, as a hu%ble %e%ber of

this Court, feel it %& dut& to sa& $hat thin?, and believe, about Procla%ation No. 11+#. do this not because oan& desire on %& part to obstruct the $or?in"s of the a"encies and instru%entalities of our overn%ent, or tofoster a%on" the people in our countr& an attitude of disrespect or dislo&alt& to$ards the constituted authoritiesthat presentl& run the affairs of our overn%ent. a% onl& doin" $hat believe is %& s$orn dut& to perfor%.

/he ratification of the Constitution proposed b& the 1!1 Constitutional Convention %ust be done in accordance$ith the provisions of )ection 1, Article K> of the 1*5 Constitution of the Philippines, $hich reads

)ection 1. /he Con"ress in 4oint session asse%bled b& a vote of three fourths of all the Me%berof the )enate and of the @ouse of Representatives votin" separatel&, %a& propose a%end%entsto the Constitution or call a convention for that purpose. )uch a%end%ents shall be valid as partof this Constitution $hen approved b& a %a4orit& of the votes cast at an election at $hich the

a%end%ents are sub%itted to the people for their ratification.

t is in consonance $ith the above78uoted provision of the 1*5 Constitution that on March 16, 16!, theCon"ress of the Philippines passed Resolution No. # callin" a convention to propose a%end%ents to theConstitution of the Philippines. )ec. ! of said Resolution No. # reads as follo$s

)ection !. /he a%end%ents proposed b& the Convention shall be valid and considered part ofthe Constitution $hen approved b& a %a4orit& of the votes cast in an election $hich the& aresub%itted to the people for their ratification pursuant to Article K> of the Constitution.

t follo$s that fro% the ver& resolution of the Con"ress of the Philippines $hich called for the 1!1 ConstitutionaConvention there $as a clear %andate that the a%end%ent proposed b& the 1!1 Convention, in order to bevalid and considered part of the Constitution, %ust be approved b& %a4orit& of the votes cast in an election at$hich the& are sub%itted to the people for their ratification as provided in the Constitution.

/his Court, in the case of /olentino vs. Co%%ission on Elections, 7*51'+, October 16, 1!1 9'1 )CRA !15:,spea?in" throu"h Mr. (ustice Barredo, said

/he Constitutional Convention of 1!1, as an& other convention of the sa%e nature, owes itse!istence and derives all its a$thorit& and power from the e!isting Constit$tion of the Philippines/his Convention has not been called b& the people directl& as in the case of a revolutionar&convention $hich drafts the first Constitution of an entirel& ne$ "overn%ent born of either a $arof liberation fro% a %other countr& or of a revolution a"ainst an e0istin" "overn%ent or of abloodless sei=ure of po$er a la co$p co$p d7 etat . As to such ?ind of conventions, it is absolutel&true that the convention is co%pletel& $ithout restraint and o%nipotent all $ise, and it is as tosuch conventions that the re%ar?s of ele"ate Manuel Ro0as of the Constitutional Convention o1*' 8uoted b& )enator Pelae= refer. No a%ount of rationali=ation can belie the fact that thecurrent convention ca%e into bein" onl& because it $as called b& a resolution of a 4oint sessionof Con"ress actin" as a constituent asse%bl& b& authorit& of )ection 1, Article K> of the presentConstitution ...

000 000 000



As to %atters not related to its internal operation and the perfor%ance of its assi"ned %ission topropose a%end%ents to the Constitution, the Convention and its officers and %e%bers are alls$b%ect to all the provisions of the e!isting Constit$tion. No$ $e hold that even as to itslatter tas/ of proposing amendments to the Constit$tion" it is s$b%ect to the provisions of Section1 of Article 8V .

n Procla%ation No. 11+#, issued on (anuar& 1!, 1!*, the President of the Philippines certified that as a resultof the votin" before the baran"a&s 9Citi=ens Asse%blies: 1',!6,561 %e%bers of the baran"a&s voted for the

adoption of the proposed Constitution, as a"ainst !'*,-6 $ho voted for its re4ection, and on the basis of theover$hel%in" %a4orit& of the votes cast b& the %e%bers of all the baran"a&s throu"hout the Philippines thePresident proclai%ed that the Constitution proposed b& the 1!1 Convention has been ratified and has thereb&co%e into effect.

t is ver& plain fro% the ver& $ordin"s of Procla%ation No. 11+# that the provisions of )ection 1 of Article K> ofthe Constitution of 1*5 $as not co%plied $ith. t is not necessar& that evidence be produced before this Courtto sho$ that no elections $ere held in accordance $ith the provisions of the Election Code. Procla%ation No.11+# une8uivocabl& states that the proposed Constitution of 1!# $as voted upon b& the baran"a&s. t is ver&clear, therefore, that the votin" held in these baran"a&s is not the election conte%plated in the provisions of)ection 1, Article K>, of the 1*5 Constitution. /he election conte%plated in said constitutional provision is anelection held in accordance $ith the provisions of the election la$, $here onl& the 8ualified and re"istered

voters of the countr& $ould cast their votes, $here official ballots prepared for the purpose are used, $here thevoters $ould prepare their ballots in secret inside the votin" booths in the pollin" places established in thedifferent election precincts throu"hout the countr&, $here the election is conducted b& election inspectors dul&appointed in accordance $ith the election la$, $here the votes are canvassed and reported in a %annerprovided for in the election la$. t $as this ?ind of election that $as held on Ma& 1', 1*5, $hen the Constitutionof 1*5 $as ratified; on April *+, 1*!, $hen the a%end%ent to the Constitution providin" for o%ens )uffra"e$as ratified; on (une 1-, 1'+, $hen the 1'+ A%end%ents to the Constitution $ere ratified; on March 11, 1'$hen the Parit& A%end%ent to the Constitution $as ratified; and on Nove%ber 1', 16! $hen the a%end%entsto the Constitution to increase the nu%ber of Me%bers of the @ouse of Representatives and to allo$ theMe%bers of Con"ress to run in the elections for ele"ates to the Constitutional Convention of 1!1 $erere4ected.

cannot see an& valid reason $h& the practice or procedure in the past, in i%ple%entin" the constitutionalprovision re8uirin" the holdin" of an election to ratif& or re4ect an a%end%ent to the Constitution, has not beenfollo$ed in the case of the Constitution proposed b& the 1!1 Constitutional Convention.

t is %& vie$ that the President of the Philippines cannot b& decree order the ratification of the proposed 1!#Constitution thru a votin" in the baran"a&s and %a?e said result the basis for proclai%in" the ratification of theproposed constitution. t is ver& clear, to %e, that Procla%ation No. 11+# $as issued in co%plete disre"ard, or,in violation, of the provisions of )ection 1 of Article > of the 1*5 Constitution.

Procla%ation No. 11+# %entions, further%ore, that on the 8uestion as to $hether or not the people $ould stillli?e a plesbiscite to be called to ratif& the ne$ Constitution, 1',#-,-1' %e%bers of the baran"a&s ans$eredthat there $as no need for a plebiscite but that the vote of the baran"a&s should be considered a vote in a

plebiscite. t $ould thus appear that the baran"a&s assu%ed the po$er to deter%ine $hether a plebiscite asordained in the Constitution be held or not. ndeed, the provision of )ection 1, Article K> of the Constitution $asco%pletel& disre"arded.

/he affir%ative votes cast in the baran"a&s are not the votes conte%plated in )ection 1 of Article K> of the1*5 Constitution. /he votes conte%plated in said constitutional provision are votes obtained throu"h theelection processes as provided b& la$.



An election is the e%bodi%ent of the popular $ill, the e0pression of the soverei"n po$er of thepeople. n co%%on parlance an election is the act of castin" and receivin" the ballots, countin"the%, and %a?in" the return.2 9@ontiveros vs. Altavas, #' Phil. 6*#, 6*!:.

Election2 i%plies a choice b& an electoral bod& at the ti%e and substantiall& in the %anner and$ith the safe"uards provided b& la$ $ith respect to so%e 8uestion or issue. 9effel v. Bro$n,Co%. Pl., 15 N.E. #d -+!, -+- cited in # C.(.). 1* at footnote 6.5:.

... the statutor& %ethod $hereb& 6$alified voters or electors pass on various public %atterssub%itted to the% D the election of officers, national, state, count&, to$nship D the passin" onvarious other 8uestions sub%itted for their deter%ination 9# C.(.). 1*, citin" o$a7llinois as Elec. Co. v. Cit& of Bettendorf, '1 N.. #d 1, 5, #'1 o$a *5-:.

Election2 is e0pression of choice b& voters of bod& politic. 9insbur" v. iles, !# ).. #d '*-,#5' &. !#+, in ords and Phrases, Per%anent Edition, p. #*':.

/he ri"ht to vote %a& be e0ercised onl& on co%pliance $ith such statutor& re8uire%ents as havebeen set up b& the le"islature, 9People e0 rel. Ra"o v. ips?& 6* N.E. #d 6'#, *#! . App. 6*;Rothfels v. )outh$orth, *56 P. #d 61#, 11 Itah #d 16 in # C.(.). *-:. 9E%phasis supplied:

n this connection herein 8uote the pertinent provisions of the Election Code of 1!1

)ec. #. Applicabilit& of this Act . D All elections of Public officers e0cept barrio officialsand plebiscitesshall be conducted in the %anner provided b& this Code.

)ec. . 9ecessit& of registration to be entitled to vote. D n order that a 8ualified voter %a& votein an& re"ular or special election or in an& plebiscite, he %ust be re"istered in the per%anent listof voters for the cit&, %unicipalit& or %unicipal district in $hich he resides Provided, /hat noperson shall re"ister %ore than once $ithout first appl&in" for cancellation of his previousre"istration. 9E%phasis supplied:. *: Please see also )ections 1++71+#, Election Code of 1!1,R.A. No. 6*--:.

t is stated in Procla%ation No. 11+# that the votin" $as done b& the %e%bers of citi=ens asse%blies $ho are15 &ears of a"e or over. Inder the provision of )ection 1 of Article > of the 1*5 Constitution the a"ere8uire%ent to be a 8ualified voter is #1 &ears or over.

But $hat is %ore note$orth& is the fact that the votin" in the baran"a&s, e0cept in ver& fe$ instances, $as doneb& the raisin" of hands b& the persons indiscri%inatel& "athered to participate in the votin", $here even childrenbelo$ 15 &ears of a"e $ere included. /his is a %atter of co%%on observation, or of co%%on ?no$led"e, $hichthe Court %a& ta?e 4udicial notice of. /o consider the votes in the baran"a&s as e0pressive of the popular $illand use the% as the basis in declarin" $hether a Constitution is ratified or re4ected is to resort to a votin" b&de%onstrations, $hich $ould %ean the rule of the cro$d, $hich is onl& one de"ree hi"her than the rule b& the%ob. Certainl&, so i%portant a 8uestion as to $hether the Constitution, $hich is the supre%e la$ of the land,

should be ratified or not, %ust not be decided b& si%pl& "atherin" people and as?in" the% to raise their handsin ans$er to the 8uestion of $hether the& vote for or a"ainst a proposed Constitution. /he election processesas provided b& la$ should be strictl& observed in deter%inin" the $ill of the soverei"n people in a de%ocrac&. our Republic the $ill of the people %ust be e0pressed throu"h the ballot in a %anner that is provided b& la$.

t is said that in a de%ocrac& the $ill of the people is the supre%e la$. ndeed, the people are soverei"n, but the$ill of the people %ust be e0pressed in a %anner as the la$ and the de%ands of a $ell7ordered societ& re8uire/he rule of la$ %ust prevail even over the apparent $ill of the %a4orit& of the people, if that $ill had not beene0pressed, or obtained, in accordance $ith the la$. Inder the rule of la$ public 8uestions %ust be decided inaccordance $ith the Constitution and the la$. /his is speciall& true in the case of the adoption of a constitutionor in the ratification of an a%end%ent to the Constitution.



/he follo$in" citations are, to %e, ver& relevant in the effort to deter%ine $hether the proposed Constitution of1!# had been validl& ratified or not

hen it is said that 2the people2 have the ri"ht to alter or a%end the constitution, it %ust not beunderstood that this ter% necessaril& includes all the inhabitants of the state. )ince the 8uestionof the adoption or re4ection of a proposed ne$ constitution or constitutional a%end%ent %ust beans$ered b& a vote, the deter%ination of it rests $ith those $ho, b& the e0istin" constitution, areaccorded the ri"ht of suffra"e, But the 8ualified electors %ust be understood in this, as in %an&

other cases, as representin" those $ho have not the ri"ht to participate in the ballot. f aconstitution should be abro"ated, and a ne$ one adopted, b& the $hole %ass of people in astate, actin" throu"h representatives not chosen b& the 2people2 in the political sense of theter%, but b& the "eneral bod& of the populace, the %ove%ent $ould be e0tra7le"al. 9(lac/7sConstit$tional Law , )econd Edition, pp. '!7'-:.

/he theor& of our political s&ste% is that the ulti%ate soverei"nt& is in the people, fro% $ho%sprin"s all le"iti%ate authorit&. /he people of the Inion created a national constitution, andconferred upon it po$ers of soverei"nt& over certain sub4ects, and the people of each )tatecreated a )tate "overn%ent, to e0ercise the re%ainin" po$ers of soverei"nt& so far as the& $eredisposed to allo$ the% to be e0ercised at all. B& the constitution $hich the& establish, the& notonl& tie up the hands of their official a"encies, but their o$n hands as $ell; and neither the

officers of the )tate, nor the $hole people as an a""re"ate bod&, are at libert& to ta?e action inopposition to this funda%ental la$. 9Coole&s Constitutional i%itations, -th Edition, >ol. , p, -1cited in raha% v. (ones, * )o. #d. !61, !-#:.

/he theor& that a favorable vote b& the electorate, ho$ever unani%ous, on a proposal to a%enda constitution, %a& cure, render innocous, all or an& antecedent failures to observe co%%ands othat Constitution in respect of the for%ulation or sub%ission of proposed a%end%ents thereto,does not prevail in Alaba%a, $here the doctrine of the stated theor& $as denied, in obviouseffect, b& the pronounce%ent 6+ &ears a"o of broad, $holeso%e constitutional principles inCollier v. 3riersons$pra, as 8uoted in the ori"inal opinion, ante. /he people the%selves arebound b& the Constitution; and, bein" so bound, are po$erless, $hatever their nu%bers, tochan"e or th$art its %andates, e0cept throu"h the peaceful %eans of a constitutional

convention, or of a%end%ent accordin" to the %ode therein prescribed, or throu"h the e0ertionof the ori"inal ri"ht of revolution. /he Constitution %a& be set aside b& revolution, but it can onl&be a%ended in the $a& it provides,2 said @obson, C.(., in McCrear& v. )peer, 156 &. !-*, !1,16# ).. , 1+*. (ohnson v. Craft, et al., -! )o. *!5, *-5, *-! On Rehearin":.

/he fact that a %a4orit& voted for the a%end%ent, unless the vote $as ta?en as provided b& theConstitution, is not sufficient to %a?e a chan"e in that instru%ent. hether a proposeda%end%ent has been le"all& adopted is a 4udicial 8uestion, for the court %ust uphold andenforce the Constitution as $ritten until it is a%ended in the $a& $hich it provides for. ood v./oo?er 15 Mont. -, *! Pac. -'+, #5 .R.A. 56+; McConau"ht& v. )tate, 1+6 Minn. '+, 11 N..'+-; Oa?land Pavin" Co%pan& v. @ilton, 6 Cal. ', 11 Pac. *; Itter v. Mosel&, 16 daho #!',1++ Pac. 15-, 1** A%. )t. Rep. ', 1- Ann. Cas. !#*. 9McCrear& v. )peer, 16# ).. , 1+':.

Provisions of a constitution re"ulatin" its o$n a%end%ent, ... are not %erel& director&, but are%andator&; and a strict observance of ever& substantial re8uire%ent is essential to the validit& othe proposed a%end%ent. /hese provisions are as bindin" on the people as on the le"islature,and the for%er are po$erless b& vote of acceptance to "ive le"al sanction to an a%end%ent thesub%ission of $hich $as %ade in disre"ard of the li%itations contained in the constitution. 916C.(.). *57*6 cited in raha% v. (ones, * )o. #d !61, !-#:.

t is said that chaos and confusion in the "overn%ental affairs of the )tate $ill result fro% theCourts action in declarin" the proposed constitutional a%end%ent void. /his state%ent is "rossl



and %anifestl& inaccurate. f confusion and chaos should ensue, it $ill not be due to the action othe Court but $ill be the result of the failure of the drafters of the 4oint resolution to observe,follo$ and obe& the plain essential provisions of the Constitution. 3urther%ore, to sa& that,unless the Court disre"ards its s$orn dut& to enforce the Constitution, chaos and confusion $illresult, is an inherentl& $ea? ar"u%ent in favor of the alle"ed constitutionalit& of the proposeda%end%ent. t is obvious that, if the Court $ere to countenance the violations of the sacra%entaprovisions of the Constitution, those $ho $ould thereafter desire to violate it and disre"ard itsclear %andator& provisions $ould resort to the sche%e of involvin" and confusin" the affairs, of

the )tate and then si%pl& tell the Court that it $as po$erless to e0ercise one of its pri%ar&functions b& renderin" the proper decree to %a?e the Constitution effective, 9raha% v. (ones, *)o. #d. !61, !*7!':.

n our 4urisprudence find an instance $here this Court did not allo$ the $ill of the %a4orit& to prevail, becausethe re8uire%ents of the la$ $ere not, co%plied $ith. n the case of )onsale v. 9ico, -* Phil. !5-, Monsale andNico $ere both candidates for the office of Municipal Ma&or of Mia"ao, loilo, in the elections of Nove%ber 11,1'!. Monsale had dul& filed his certificate of candidac& before the e0piration of the period for the filin" of thesa%e. @o$ever, on October 1+, 1'!, after the period for the filin" of certificates of candidac&, Monsale$ithdre$ his certificate of candidac&. But on Nove%ber !, 1'! Monsale atte%pted to revive his certificate ofcandidac& b& $ithdra$in" the $ithdra$al of his certificate of candidac&. /he Co%%ission on Elections, onNove%ber -, 1'!, ruled that Monsale could no lon"er be a candidate. Monsale nevertheless proceeded $ith

his candidac&. /he boards of inspectors in Mia"ao, ho$ever, did not count the votes cast for Monsale upon the"round that the votes cast for hi% $ere stra& votes, because he $as considered as havin" no certificate ofcandidac&. On the other hand, the boards of inspectors credited Nico $ith #,#1 votes, and Nico $asproclai%ed elected. Monsale filed a protest a"ainst the election of Nico in the Court of 3irst nstance of loilo. nthe count of the ballots durin" the proceedin"s in the trial court it appeared that Monsale had obtained #,-!!votes $hile Nico obtained #,#!6 votes, or a %ar"in of 6+1 votes in favor of Monsale. /he Court of 3irst nstanceof loilo decided the election protest in favor of Monsale. Ipon appeal b& Nico, this Court reversed the decisionof the lo$er court. /his Court declared that because Monsale $ithdre$ his certificate of candidac& his atte%ptto revive it b& $ithdra$in" his $ithdra$al of his certificate of candidac& did not restore the effectiveness of hiscertificate of candidac&, and this court declared Nico the $inner in spite of the fact that Monsale had obtained%ore votes than he.

e have cited this Monsale case to sho$ that the $ill of the %a4orit& of the voters $ould not be "iven effect, asdeclared b& this Court, if certain le"al re8uire%ents have not been co%plied $ith in order to render the votesvalid and effective to decide the result of an election.

And so, in the cases no$ before this Court, the fact that the votin" in the citi=ens asse%blies 9baran"a&s: is nothe election that is provided for in the 1*5 Constitution for the ratification of the a%end%ent to the Constitutionthe affir%ative votes cast in those asse%blies can not be %ade the basis for declarin" the ratification of theproposed 1!# Constitution, in spite of the fact that it $as reported that 1',!6,561 %e%bers of the citi=ensasse%blies voted for the adoption as a"ainst !'*,-6 for the re4ection, because the votes thus obtained $erenot in accordance $ith the provisions of )ection 1 of Article K> of the 1*5 Constitution of the Philippines. /herule of la$ %ust be upheld.

M& last observation One of the valid "rounds a"ainst the holdin" of the plebiscite on (anuar& 15, 1!*, asprovided in Presidential ecree No. !*, is that there is no freedo% on the part of the people to e0ercise theirri"ht of choice, because of the e0istence of %artial la$ in our countr&. /he sa%e "round holds true as re"ardsthe votin" of the baran"a&s on (anuar& 1+ to 15, 1!*. More so, because b& eneral Order No. #+, issued on(anuar& !, 1!*, the President of the Philippines ordered 2that the provisions of )ection * of Presidentialecree No. 1* in so far as the& allo$ free public discussion of the proposed constitution, as $ell as %& order ofece%ber 1!, 1!# te%poraril& suspendin" the effects of Procla%ation No. 1+-1 for the purpose of free andopen debate on the proposed constitution, be suspended in the %eanti%e.2 5 t is, therefore, %& vie$ that votin"in the baran"a&s on (anuar& 1+715, 1!* $as not free, and so this is one added reason $h& the results of thevotin" in the baran"a&s should not be %ade the basis for the procla%ation of the ratification of the proposedConstitution.



t is %& vie$, therefore, that Procla%ation No. 11+# is repu"nant to the 1*5 Constitution, and so it is invalid,and should not be "iven effect. /he Constitution of 1!# proposed b& the 1!1 Constitutional Conventionshould be considered as not &et ratified b& the people of this Republic, and so it should not be "iven force andeffect.

urin" the deliberation of these cases b& this Court, a su""estion $as %ade that because of the transcendentaeffect of Procla%ation No. 11+# on the countr&, the petitioners in these cases, speciall& the petitioners in 7*5'- 9>idal /an, et al. vs. Co%elec, et al.:, be "iven a period of ten da&s to %ove in the pre%ises, considerin"

that the issuance of Procla%ation No. 11+# ca%e as a surprise to the petitioners and the& had no opportunit& todefine their stand on said Procla%ation in relation to their petitions. /he %a4orit& of the Court, ho$ever, $ere noin favor of the idea. e0pressed %&self, and so e0press no$, that a% in favor of "rantin" the petitioners theopportunit& to articulate their stand re"ardin" Procla%ation No. 11+# so that the ob4ection of so%e %e%bers ofthis Court to pass upon the validit& of said procla%ation upon the "round that it is not in issue in these cases%a& be %et, and so that the validit& of Procla%ation No. 11+#, and the 8uestion of $hether or not the proposed1!# Constitution has been validl& ratified, %a& be resolved b& this Court once and for all.

At an& rate, $hether the petitioners are "ranted opportunit& to define their stand on Procla%ation No. 11+#, ornot, hu%bl& sub%it this opinion for $hatever if %a& be $orth, $ith the hope that the officials and the citi=ens othis countr& $ill ta?e note of it, and ponder over it. a% onl& doin" %& dut& accordin" to the li"ht that od has"iven %e.

*oo"no"!

Concepcion, C.(. concurrin"

1 Mun. of Malaban" v. Benito, 7#-11*, March #-, 16; NAA)A v. Pi"uin", et al., 7 *55!*,Oct. 11, 16-; 3ernande= v. P. Cuerva Co., 7#111', Nov. #5, 16!; on=ales v. Co%%issionon Elections, 7#-##', Nov. #, 16!; Bara idasan v. COMEEC, 7#-+-, Oct. #5, 16!; Munof )an (uan v. NAA)A, 7##+'!, Au". *1, 16!; Mun. of )an (oa8uin v. )iva, 71-!+, March1-, 16!; Pela&o v. Auditor eneral, 7#*-#5, ec. #', 165; Philippine Constitution Associationv. i%ene=, 7#**#6, ec. 1-, 165; Mun. of a Carlota v. NAA)A, 7#+#*#, )ept. *+, 16';uevara v. nocentes, 7#55!!, March 15, 166; illera v. 3ernande=, 7#+!'1, (an. *1, 16';)i"uiente v. )ecretar& of (ustice, 7#+*!+, Nov. #, 16*; Mun. of Na"uilian v. NAA)A, 71-5'+, Nov. #, 16*; @errera v. i$a", 7#++!, )ept. *+, 16*; A&tona v. Castillo, 71*1*,(an. 1, 16#; a Mallorca, etc. v. Ra%os, et al., 715'!6, )ept. 1, 161; /an v. e eon, et al.,715#5', )ept. 16, 161; Macias v. Co%%ission on Elections, 71-6-', )ept. 1', 161;Philippine /obacco 3lue7Curin" Redr&in" Corp. v. )abu"o, et al., 716+1!, Au". *1, 161;Miller v. Mardo, 7151*-, (ul& *1, 161; Cu Bu ion" v. Estrella, et al.,71'#1#, (ul& *1, 161; Pa%pan"a )u"ar evelop%ent Co., nc. v. 3uentes, et al., 71'!*-, (ul&*1, 161; Earnsha$ oc?s @onolulu ron or?s v. Mardo, et al., 71'!5, (ul& *1, 161;i$ana" v. Central A=ucarera on Pedro, 715*!#, (ul& *1, 161; ecura v. Re"ional Office No.*, etc., 7155-#, (ul& *1, 161; Pito"o v. )en Bee /radin" Co., et al., 7156*, (ul& *1, 161;Pascual v. )ecretar& of Public or?s and Co%%unications, 71+'+5, ec. #, 16+; Coro%inas(r. v. abor )tandards Co%%ission, 71'-*!, (une *+, 161; Cit& of Ba"uio v. NAA)A, 7

1#+*#, Au". *1, 15; Cit& of Cebu v. NAA)A, 71#-#, April #+, 16+; Montes v. Civil )erviceBoard of Appeals, 1+1 Phil. '+; Rutter v. Esteban, * Phil. 6-; Araneta v. in"lasan, -' Phil.*6-; Borro%eo v. Mariano, '1 Phil. *##.

# Reiterated in the afore%entioned Proposed Constitution )ubdivision 9#: 9a: of )ection 5, Article K thereofF.

/eehan?ee, (., concurrin"



1 )uch Citi=ens Asse%blies, as stated in the procla%ation, $ere created in barrios in%unicipalities and in districtsJ$ards in chartered cities pursuant to Presidential ecree No. -6,dated ece%ber *1, 1!#, co%posed of all persons $ho are residents of the barrio, district or$ard for at least si0 %onths, fifteen &ears of a"e or over, citi=ens of the Philippines and $ho arere"istered in the list of Citi=en Asse%bl& %e%bers ?ept b& the barrio, district or $ard secretar&.29#nd $hereas clause:

# 6th $hereas clause.

* /he conduct of such elections 9or plebiscite: is, under Article K of the Constitution, entrusted tothe Co%%ission on Elections $hich has 2e0clusive char"e2 9)ee (ustice Barredos separateopinion, p. !:. Inder Article > of the Constitution, the ri"ht of suffra"e is li%ited to 8ualified anddul& re"istered voters, 2$ho are #1 &ears of a"e or over and are able to read and $rite.2/olentino vs. Co%elec, infra, in den&in" reconsideration, prohibited the sub%ittal in an advanceelection of the Con7Cons Or"anic Res. No. 1 proposin" to lo$er the votin" a"e to 1-, as a piece7%eal and inco%plete a%end%ent and re4ected the contention 2that the end sou"ht to beachieved is to be desired.2 As per Barredo, (., 2if this ?ind of a%end%ent is allo$ed, thePhilippines $ill appear before the $orld to be in the absurd position of bein" the onl& countr& $ita Constitution containin" a provision so ephe%eral no one ?no$s until $hen it $ill be actuall& inforce.2

' Article >, sec. #*, par. # of the Constitution, provides that 2No %one& shall be paid out of the/reasur& e0cept in pursuance of an appropriation %ade b& la$.2

5 Cf. /olentino vs. Co%elec, 7*'15+, Oct. 16, 1!1 and Resolution on %otion forreconsideration $ith concurrin" opinions. Nov. ', 1!1.

6 )ee te0t, Presidential ecree No. !*.

! Article K>, sec. 1, par. 1 of the proposed Constitution.

Barredo, (., concurrin" and dissentin"

1 t $as a"reed in the deliberations that the validit& of Presidential ecree No. !* $ould bepassed upon as if Procla%ation 11+# did not e0ist, and after$ards, for those $ho $ould li?e toe0press their vie$s on the %atter, the validit& of Procla%ation 11+# itself, hence the tenses and%oods in this discussion.

# Inder the Constitution of 1*5, both Article K and Article K> use the sa%e $ord 2election2,hence, the plebiscite conte%plated in the latter Article %ust be dee%ed to be intended to beincluded a%on" the elections placed under the char"e of the Co%%ission, irrespective of thefor% to be e%plo&ed therein.

3ernando, (., concurrin" and dissentin"

1 *#! I) *+' 91'6:.

# E0 parte erb& #+5 P. #! 91##:.

* 7*#'!6, Oct. #+, 1!+, *5 )CRA *6!.

' :bid , *6.



5 Cf. oehler v. @ill, 1' N !*-, 6+ o$a 5'* 91--*:; @atch v. )tone%an, 6 P. !*', 66 Cal. 6*#91--5:; Mac%illan v. Blattner #5 N #'5, 6! o$a #-! 91-5:; )tate v. Po$ell, #! )o #!, !!Miss. 5'* 91++:; @a%%ond v. Clar?, !1 )E '!, 1*6 a. *1* 9111:; )tate v. @all, 1!1 N #1*'' N '5 911:; @a%ilton v. >au"han, 1! N 5**, #1# Mich. *1 91#+: ; )tate v. )%ith, 1*-NE --1, 1+5 Ohio )t. 5!+ 91##: oone& v. eeper, ## P. *65, 1'5 O?l. #+# 91*+:; )choolistrict v. Cit& of Pontiac, #'! N '!', #6# Mich. **- 91**:.

6 Accordin" to Art. >, )ec. #*. par. # of the Constitution 2No %one& shall be paid out of the

/reasur& e0cept in pursuance of an appropriation %ade b& la$.2

! Cf. @utcheson v. on=ales, !1 P. #d 1'+ 91*!: )tate )%ith, 1-' ) #d 5- 91'5:.

- 7#-16 and #-##', Nove%ber , 16!, #1 )CRA !!'.

:bid , -+17-+#.

1+ Cf. An"ara v. Electoral Co%%ission, 6* Phil. 1* 91*6:; People v. >era, 65 Phil. 56 91*!:;Planas v. il, 6! Phil. 6# 91*: /an v. Macapa"al, 7#'161, 3eb. #, 1!#, '* )CRA 6!!.

aldivar, (., dissentin"

1 Reserve ite ns. Co., allas, /e0. v. 3ranfather, ##5 P. #d 1+*5, 1+*6, 1#* Colo. !!, * A..R#d 1'6; Appeal of 3ran? 3oundries Corporation, 56 N.E. #d 6', 65#, 65*, *#*, . App. 5' in#!A ords and Phrases, p. 1'5.

# riven?o vs. Re"ister of eeds, ! Phil. '61; Philippine Association of Colle"es andIniversities vs. )ecretar& of Education, ! Phil. -+6; @ebron vs. Re&es, 1+' Phil. 1!5.

* Anne0 1 of the Ans$er of the Respondents in 7*5'- sho$s the resolution of theConstitutional Convention of Nove%ber ##, 1!#, proposin" to President Marcos that a decreebe issued callin" for a plebiscite is Resolution No. #. 2Resolution No. 5-'*2 is as stated in

Presidential ecree No. !*.

' ords $ithin 8uotation %ar?s in this para"raph are as 8uoted fro% the Ir"ent Motion 3orecision in 7*5'-, dated (anuar& 1#, 1!*.

5 As 8uoted fro% eneral Order No. #+, (anuar& !, 1!*.

5 planas v comelec

Documents