CHARITO PLANAS, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Planas versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is Charito Planas versus the Commission on Elections and the other public officers charged with carrying out Presidential Decree No. 73, a petition filed directly with the Supreme Court to stop the holding of a plebiscite on the proposed Constitution. It matters for two reasons. First, it is the classic case on the political question doctrine and on the presumption of regularity that attaches to the official acts of the President. Second, it shows how a case can be rendered moot by supervening events, and how the Court treats a prayer for injunction once the act sought to be enjoined has already been done.

Procedural History

Charito Planas filed her petition as an original action in the Supreme Court, seeking to enjoin the Commission on Elections, the Treasurer of the Philippines, and the Auditor General from implementing Presidential Decree No. 73. Substantially identical petitions were filed by other citizens, and the Court heard them jointly. The respondents were ordered to answer, the cases were argued, and the parties submitted their notes on the points they wished to stress. While the cases were pending, the plebiscite was postponed, and the Court deferred decision. Later, the petitioners filed urgent motions asking the Court to rule at once, and the Court heard the motions. It was during that hearing that the Court was informed of Proclamation No. 1102, which the President had just signed.

Facts

Congress called a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, and the delegates were elected in November 1970. The Convention began its work in June 1971. While it was in session, in September 1972, the President issued Proclamation No. 1081 placing the entire Philippines under martial law. In November 1972 the Convention approved its proposed Constitution. The next day the President issued Presidential Decree No. 73, submitting the proposed Constitution to the Filipino people for ratification or rejection and setting the plebiscite for January 15, 1973.

Charito Planas then filed her petition, arguing that the Decree had no force and effect as law, because the calling of the plebiscite, the setting of guidelines, the prescription of the ballots, and the appropriation of public funds were, by the Constitution, lodged exclusively in Congress. She also argued that there could be no proper submission to the people, there being no freedom of speech, press, and assembly, and no sufficient time to inform the people of the contents of the proposed Constitution.

The President later suspended the effects of martial law for purposes of free and open debate, then postponed the plebiscite. The petitioners pressed for an immediate decision, fearing that the proposed Constitution would be submitted instead to the Citizens Assemblies, and that an affirmative result would present the Court with a fait accompli — a thing already done. On January 17, 1973, during the hearing of the motions, the President signed Proclamation No. 1102, announcing that the proposed Constitution had been ratified by an overwhelming majority of the votes cast by the members of the Citizens Assemblies.

Issues

• Whether or not Presidential Decree No. 73 is invalid because the calling of a plebiscite and the appropriation of funds therefor belong exclusively to Congress.
• Whether or not the proposed Constitution was validly ratified by the votes of the Citizens Assemblies.
• Whether or not the Court may enjoin the implementation of Presidential Decree No. 73 and the proclamation of ratification.

Applicable Provisions

Article Fifteen of the 1935 Constitution, on the submission of amendments for ratification, provides:

The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.

This provision is the textual anchor of the petitioners' argument that the power to call a plebiscite and appropriate funds is legislative, and that the President cannot exercise it by decree.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court did not reach a definitive ruling on the validity of Presidential Decree No. 73, because the plebiscite it called was postponed and never held. The Court noted that the main objection was that the President lacked legislative authority to call a plebiscite and appropriate funds, a power that Congress unquestionably could exercise.

On the second issue, the Court held that the ratification of the proposed Constitution by the Citizens Assemblies was a political question, the determination of which is committed to the people and to the political departments of the government. The Court applied the presumption of regularity to the official acts of the President, and it declined to substitute its judgment for that of the political branches on a matter of this character.

On the third issue, the Court held that the prayer for injunction had become moot. The act sought to be enjoined — the submission of the proposed Constitution to the people and the proclamation of its ratification — had already been done. An injunction cannot undo what has already been accomplished.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain three rules. First, the question of whether a proposed Constitution has been ratified by the people is a political question, committed to the political departments and not to the courts. Second, official acts of the President enjoy the presumption of regularity, and courts will not lightly set them aside. Third, a case becomes moot when the act sought to be enjoined has already been performed, and the Court will not issue an injunction that can have no practical effect. These rules tie directly to Article Fifteen of the 1935 Constitution, which lodges the implementing power in Congress, and to the Court's refusal to interfere with the political determination of ratification.

Disposition

The petitions were dismissed, and the Court declined to enjoin the implementation of Presidential Decree No. 73 or the proclamation of ratification, the acts complained of having already been accomplished.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the ratification of a Constitution by the people is a political question, and the official acts of the President carry the presumption of regularity. Examiners use this case to test the political question doctrine, the presumption of regularity, and the rule on mootness in injunction suits.