Planas Vs Comelec 6r4rs

JILL DE DUMO | C2012 | CONSTI I | M.V.F. LEONEN

Page 1

CASE: PLANAS VS. COMELEC (49 SCRA 105) DATE: January 22, 1973 NATURE: Original Action in the SC PONENTE: Concepcion, C.J. FACTS: •

• • • •

•

• • • •

March 1967: Congress ed Resolution 2, amended by Resolution 4, calling a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments o Resolution 2 implemented by RA 6132, approved August 1970 November 1970: Election of Convention delegates + performing of function September 1972: While Convention in session, President Marcos’ Proclamation No. 1081 placing Philippines in Martial Law November 29, 1972: Convention approves Proposed Constitution November 30, 1972: PD 73 = submitting to Filipino people for ratification or rejection of Constitution, December 7, 1972: Petition by Charito Planas vs. COMELEC, Treasurer of Philippines, and Auditor General to PREVENT implementation of PD 73 o PD provisions only lodged to Congress (i.e. calling, setting of guidelines, prescription of ballots, appropriation of public funds) o No proper submission of Proposed Constitution since no freedom of speech since Martial Law o No sufficient time to inform people of contents Filing of other identical actions (i.e. Sanidad vs. COMELEC, etc.) All cases required to file Answer; agreement to continue hearing tly; submission of notes for points they want to stress December 17, 1972: Presidential Order to suspend effects of PD 1081 for free and open debate of the proposed constitution January 7, 1973: General Order 20 = suspending of plebiscite until further notice + suspending Dec. 17, 1972 Presidential Order

• •

• •

SC: Refrain from deciding since no date/conditions of plebiscite + postponing of the President after CONSULTATION with Congress and COMELEC January 12, 1973: Petitioner’s Urgent Motion o PD 86 = organizing Citizens Assemblies to be consulted on public ques. o Asking the following, among others: - 1. The New Society - 2. Congress should meet again in regular session? • COMMENT: Citizens Assemblies = plebiscite of Constitution • COMMENT: If Citizens Assemblies approve = ratification - 3. Do you want a plebiscite to be called to ratify Consti? • COMMENT: Sick and tired of frequent elections - 6. Do you want martial law to continue? • COMMENT: We want Marcos to continue; to exercise power with more authority; to be strong and firm; if all else fails, to declare a revolutionary government WITHOUT ad interim Assembly o Question 3 byes question of validity of plebiscite in SC o If Answer to questions (approve new Consti + wanting a plebiscite) is affirmative, then nation in fait accompli (*action completed even before parties affected by it, as in a position to query/reverse it). o Petition will become moot and academic; Constitution will be deemed ratified with all its defects o Crisis in the country: Which Constitution will be in effect? SC: Required respondents to Comment on “Urgent Motion” Petitioner: Filing of Supplemental Motion for Restraining Order + Inclusion of additional respondents o All other officials/persons + AGENTS who may be assigned tasks relating to the Citizens Assemblies SINCE PD 73 not the only question, but ALL OTHER similar decree, law, etc. (HENCE, includes PD 86)

JILL DE DUMO | C2012 | CONSTI I | M.V.F. LEONEN

Page 2 Election - Consti qualified voters ed voters secrecy of ballot provision on free, orderly, honest election

•

•

SC: Each member to write his own views; CJ to state result of voting o Concepcion, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, and Esguerra = CONCUR o Barredo = CONCUR + DISSENT o Makasiar = CONCUR as recapitulated o Antonio = CONCUR (Separate Opinion)

•

Votes per issue: SEE NEXT COLUMN

no provision

Lack of time since during formation of Citizens Assemblies, mechanics of organization still being discussed - Lack of experience of local organizers - Absence of sufficient guidelines o Conflict in country: those who adhere to old Constitution vs. New o Serious attack to jurisdiction of SC: argument that Gen Order 3 pursuant to Transitory Provisions of New Constitution placed PD 73 and 86 beyond reach of the SC While hearing: call from Secretary of Justice to CJ = to deliver to him copy of Proclamation 1102 upon order of President (as announced in open court): o Proclamation 1102 = announcing ratification by Filipino people of the 1971 Constitutional Convention o WHEREAS, creation of Citizens Assemblies o WHEREAS, to broaden base of citizen participation o WHEREAS, 14M votes vs. 743k o WHEREAS, vote of Barangays/Citizen Assemblies = plebiscite o WHEREAS, more than 95% in favor of New Constitution Respondents’ defenses: o Questions are political o ConCon acted freely and with authority not only to propose, but to create a constitution that will supersede current o President’s call for plebiscite/appropriate VALID o No improper submission; there can be plebiscite under Martial Law o Argument that proposed constitution vague/incomplete, and unconstitutional delegation of powers = NOT RELEVANT/without merit o

•

Citizens Assemblies regardless of qualification 15 yr olds and up vote by raising hands

CONCEPCION, C.J. (concur) ISSUES: (1) (2) (3) (4)

WON PD 73 merits judicial review WON 1971 ConCon exceeded authority in approving Secs. 2-3, Article 17 WON President has authority to issue PD 73 WON Martial Law affects validity of amendment submission to people

JILL DE DUMO | C2012 | CONSTI I | M.V.F. LEONEN

Page 3

• • • •

Repugnancy = election contemplated (Art. 15) VS existence of Martial Law; GRANT petition BUT moot/academic Question of fact = cannot be predetermine AND not necessarily preclude possibility of adequate freedom Not raised = not PROPERLY raised; cannot upon question Falls short = Citizens Assemblies not confirming to Constitution, BUT law in force already

RATIO/REASONING: I.

is or may be inconsistent with what is now known, particularly in international law, as Jus Cogens — not only because the Convention exercised sovereign powers delegated thereto by the people — although insofar only as the determination of the proposals to be made and formulated by said body is concerned — but, also, because said proposals cannot be valid as part of our Fundamental Law unless and until "approved by the majority of the votes cast at an election at which" " said proposals "are submitted to the people for their ratification," as provided in Section 1 of Art. XV of the 1935 Constitution. III.

NOT DECIDED UPON DUE TO POSTPONEMENT

IV.

NOT DECIDED UPON DUE TO:

Judicial review shall mean to include Presidential decrees which have the force and effect of legislation, making it justiciable.

• • •

Alternate Ratio: Justiciability of Presidential Decrees are mandated by Sec. 2, Article 8 of the 1935 Constitution, expressly providing for the authority of the SC to review cases involving said issue. II.

Authority of Constitutional Conventions shall mean to be legally free in postulating any amendments it may deem fit to propose, except in cases of Jus Cogens • •

Jus Cogens = concept in international law Convention powers delegated by the people, and unless ratified by election, cannot be valid as part of the Constitution

Petitioners in G.R. No. L-35948 maintain that the 1971 Constitutional Convention had exceeded its authority in approving Sections 2, 3 (par. 2) and 12 of Article XVII of the proposed Constitution. Regardless of the wisdom and moral aspects of the contested provisions of the proposed Constitution, it is my considered view that the Convention was legally free to postulate any amendment it may deem fit to propose — save perhaps what

•

Intimately related to Proclamation 1102 HOWEVER, question not explicitly raised Petitioner: Issue argued in Supplemental Motion o SC: not adequately argued upon by parties considering TPI Petition must NOT be dismissed; to give time to discuss

MAKALINTAL and CASTRO, JJ. (concur) I.

ISSUES 1, 2, and 3 of petitioners are MOOT AND ACADEMIC. • • • • • •

Issue 1 = President no power to call a plebiscite for ratification Issue 2 = Draft is vague and incomplete Issue 3 = Time for draft too inadequate to inform people Plebiscite did not take place (postponement) o ALSO, since Citizens Assemblies made unlikely that plebiscite will be ever held Ratification also took place already (Proclamation 1102) IF TO BE ASSAILED, amendments not to be treated as proposals but already as PROVISIONS of the Constitution

JILL DE DUMO | C2012 | CONSTI I | M.V.F. LEONEN

Page 4 •

GR L-35948 attempt to question validity of Proclamation 1102 o Not raised/argued o May be ventilated only by appropriate case/pleadings/parties

ZALDIVAR, J. (dissent)