JOSUE JAVELLANA, PETITIONER, VS. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AND THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, RESPONDENTS.

Javellana versus Executive Secretary

The Case

This is Javellana versus the Executive Secretary, decided on the thirty-first of March, 1973. The petitioner, Josue Javellana, a private citizen, brought an original action in the Supreme Court against the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of National Defense, the Secretary of Justice, and the Secretary of Finance, asking the Court to declare the proposed Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines invalid and without force and effect, and to restrain the respondents from implementing it. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's reckoning with the ratification of the 1973 Constitution through the Citizens Assemblies, and it is the source of the doctrine that the Court will not interfere with the political question of whether a constitution has been ratified by the people.

Procedural History

This case is a sequel to the plebiscite cases, a group of petitions filed in December 1972 by Charito Planas, Pablo Sanidad, Gerardo Roxas and others, Eddie Monteclaro, Sedfrey Ordoñez and others, Vidal Tan and others, Jose Diokno and Benigno Aquino, Jacinto Jimenez, Raul Gonzales, and Ernesto Hidalgo, all seeking to enjoin the holding of a plebiscite on the proposed Constitution under Presidential Decree Number 73. The Court heard those petitions jointly in December 1972, but deferred decision when the plebiscite was postponed by General Order Number 20. On the twelfth of January, 1973, the petitioners in one of those cases filed an urgent motion asking that the case be decided at once, in view of the announced submission of the proposed Constitution to the Citizens Assemblies. The Court required comments and answers, and set the matter for hearing. While the hearing was in progress on the seventeenth of January, 1973, the Secretary of Justice delivered to the Chief Justice a copy of Proclamation Number 1102, announcing the ratification of the proposed Constitution by the Filipino people. The present petition of Josue Javellana was then filed as an original action in the Supreme Court.

Facts

On the sixteenth of March, 1967, Congress passed Resolution Number 2, later amended by Resolution Number 4, calling a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. The convention was implemented by Republic Act Number 6132, the delegates were elected in November 1970, and the 1971 Constitutional Convention began its functions on the first of June, 1971. While the convention was in session, on the twenty-first of September, 1972, the President issued Proclamation Number 1081 placing the entire Philippines under martial law. On the twenty-ninth of November, 1972, the convention approved its proposed Constitution, and the next day the President issued Presidential Decree Number 73, submitting the proposed Constitution to the Filipino people for ratification or rejection and setting the plebiscite for the fifteenth of January, 1973.

Various citizens filed petitions in the Supreme Court to stop the plebiscite, questioning the President's authority to call it and appropriate funds for it, and questioning the freedom and sufficiency of the submission. The plebiscite was then postponed indefinitely by General Order Number 20, and the Court deferred its decision. In the meantime, the President issued Presidential Decree Number 86 organizing the Citizens Assemblies, and these assemblies were asked a series of questions, including whether they approved of the New Constitution and whether they still wanted a plebiscite to ratify it.

The petitioners in the earlier cases moved for immediate decision, fearing that an affirmative answer to those questions would present the Court with a fait accompli, a completed fact, and render the cases moot. On the seventeenth of January, 1973, while the Court was hearing the matter, Proclamation Number 1102 was issued, announcing that the proposed Constitution had been ratified by the Filipino people through the Citizens Assemblies. Josue Javellana then filed this petition to declare the proposed Constitution invalid.

Issues

• Whether or not the proposed Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines was validly ratified by the Filipino people through the Citizens Assemblies.
• Whether or not the question of the validity of the ratification of the proposed Constitution is a political question that the Supreme Court may not pass upon.
• Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for, including the declaration that the proposed Constitution is without force and effect.

Applicable Provisions

Article Fifteen of the 1935 Constitution provides:

The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to propose amendments to this Constitution.

This provision bears on the case because the petitioners argued that the ratification of constitutional amendments must follow the manner prescribed by the Constitution, through a proper election or plebiscite, and not through the Citizens Assemblies.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the proposed Constitution had been ratified by the Filipino people. The Court noted that the question of ratification had already been submitted to and answered by the people, and that the Court could not ignore the reality that the proposed Constitution had been approved. The Court reasoned that the ratification of a constitution is an act of the sovereign people, and that the Court must give effect to the will of the people as expressed in the ratification.

On the second issue, the Court held that the question of whether the proposed Constitution had been ratified is a political question. The Court reasoned that the determination of whether a constitution has been ratified by the people is a matter committed to the political departments of the government, and that the Court will not interfere with the political question of the ratification of a constitution. The Court quoted the following:

The question whether or not the Constitution has been ratified by the people is a political question, and the Court will not interfere with the political departments of the government in the determination of such question.

On the third issue, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the reliefs prayed for, because the proposed Constitution had been ratified and was in force, and because the question of ratification is a political question.

Doctrine

The doctrine of this case is that the question of whether a constitution has been ratified by the people is a political question, and the Supreme Court will not interfere with the political departments of the government in the determination of such question. The Court will not declare a constitution invalid on the ground that it was not validly ratified, where the ratification has been announced and the people have accepted it. This doctrine is tied to Article Fifteen of the 1935 Constitution, which provides that Congress shall have the sole power to propose amendments to the Constitution, and to the principle that the ratification of a constitution is an act of the sovereign people.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, and the proposed Constitution was declared to be in force and effect.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the question of whether a constitution has been ratified by the people is a political question, and the Court will not interfere with the political departments in its determination. Examiners like to use this case to test the political question doctrine and the power of the Supreme Court to review the ratification of a constitution.