ALON, J.

, dissenting:

IS THE ISSUE OF THE VALIDITY OF PROCLAMATION 1102 A POLITICAL QUESTION?

Article XV of the 1935 Constitution - Section 1. The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of
three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately,
may propose amendments to this Constitution or call a convention for that purpose. Such amendments
shall be valid as part of this Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at
which the amendments are submitted to the people for their ratification.

PD NO. 86 – A “Strengthening and defining the role of barangays”

1. The present barangays (citizens assemblies) are created under Presidential Decree No. 86 dated
December 31, 1972, shall constitute the base for citizen participation in governmental affairs and their
collective views shall be considered in the formulation of national policies or programs and, wherever
practicable, shall be translated into concrete and specific decision;

PD No. 86 – B “Defining Further the Role of Barangays

WHEREAS, on the basis of the said petitions, it is evident that the people believe that the submission of
the proposed Constitution to the Citizens Assemblies or Barangays should be taken as a plebiscite in
itself in view of the fact that freedom of debate has always been limited to the leadership in political,
economic and social fields, and that it is now necessary to bring this down to the level of the people
themselves through the Barangays or Citizens Assemblies;

The vote of the people in the referendum in the Citizens Assemblies held on January 10 to 15, 1973, in
pursuant to Proclamation 1102, can be viewed as more than a legal act, but rather that of a political act.

 As such the enforcement of the 1973 constitution is even firmer than any previous ratification
plebiscite cases.
 That the enforcement of the 1973 constitution as a political act, which leaps through the legal
requisites of its enforcement, is the will or act of the people by which the referendum they had
partaken to can be construed also in compliance with Article XV of the 1935 constitution

Particularly, as with the issuance of PD No. 86 A & B, the referendum by which was created by the
Citizens Assemblies held down the pertinent questions that would constitute their vote which would
constitute the ratification of the 1973 constitution.

 The important questions therein is question No. 3 “Do you want a plebiscite to be called to ratify
the new Constitution?” and that the relevant comment for that particular question is that: by
the approval of the Citizens Assemblies of the new constitution then the new constitution
should be deemed ratified.
 Whereas other pertinent questions also included the likes of: “Do you approve of the citizens
assemblies as the base of popular government to decide issues of national interests?”, “ Do you
approve of the New Constitution?” These are questions of direct inquiries about the desire of
the voters regarding the matters of the plebescite
  And as such as it was that 14,976,561 members of all Barangays ( Citizens Assemblies) voted for
the adoption of the proposed Constitution, as against 743,869 who voted for its rejection.

The main contention of the petitioners is that Proclamation 1102, that of which announced the full and
effective operation of the 1973 constitution, is that it was not under the full guidance of the COMELEC
which since the meaning of “election” would necessitate the guidance of the COMELEC considering that
the last three or four ratification plebiscites were handled thereof.

 Also, according to them, the results of the referendum were manufactured, and that the
imposition of martial law it self creates constructive duress which would deprive voters the
complete freedom needed in ascertaining their vote in the referendum.
 On the other hand, the contention raised by Solicitor General as counsel for the respondents is
that the matter raised in the petitions is a political one which the courts have no authority to
inquire into.
 Nevertheless, there had been substantial compliance with Article XV of the 1935 constitution,
and that it is an undeniable fact that the voting in the referendum has resulted in the approval
by the people of the New Constitution. Its not that the people voted completely bereft of any
general knowledge as per the matter at hand.

As stated by Justice Barredo in his concurring opinion towards the case: “I can believe that the figures
referred to in the proclamation may not be accurate, but I cannot say in conscience that all of them are
manufactured or prefabricated, simply because I saw with my own eyes that people did actually
gathered and listened to the discussions, if only brief and inadequate for those who are abreast of
current events and general occurrences, and that they did vote nonetheless”

And even though there may be technical obstacles or legal obstacles that may thwart the ratification of
the new constitution, and the fact that a majority of the people have given acceptance to the new
constitution, it necessarily follow that the will of the majority, that of the sovereign, trumps whatever
legal obstacle exists therein. Even though the constitution is the supreme law of the land, the sovereign
is still the supreme power of the land. Much like a sovereign monarch is exempted from the laws which
creates.

Even though Martial law may have given duress to the voters, I do not think it warrants the complete
disregard of the results of the referendum. Although the restrictions on the freedom of speech, the
press and movement during martial law do have their corresponding adverse effects on the area of
information, the only real threat to his freedom of choice to vote is the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus.

 A man even though bereft with knowledge or have little information of the choices of which his
vote would be cast would still nonetheless vote with his “gut” feeling.
As we know that in the basic lessons of political science, and even that of law, would have the sovereign
as the supreme authority and power of the land of which they govern. The sovereign will always transcend
any form of legal system of which it is related to. It is absurd to think that a sovereign would allow itself
to be limited by the laws it creates, for doing so is pointlessly limiting oneself to a natural right of authority.
The only time a sovereign is limited by a law is an agreement with any other sovereign; in this case,
however, it is otherwise.

A motion for reconsideration is, to my mind, the same as questioning the ultimate authority of the
sovereign. The vote of the people in the referendum in the Citizens Assemblies held on January 10 to 15,
1973, in pursuant to Proclamation 1102, can be viewed as more than a legal act, but rather as a political
act which makes the enforcement of the 1973 constitution to be even firmer than any previous ratification
plebiscite cases that our country has experienced. The enforcement of the 1973 constitution as a political
act leaps through the legal requisites for its enforcement, because it is the will and act of the people by
partaking into the referendum and plebiscite, and as such it can be construed as a sovereign act.

The issuance of Presidential Decree Nos 86-A & 86-B, which created the Citizens Assemblies, and thus the
referendum, held down the pertinent questions that would make their answers akin to a vote that would
later on constitute the ratification of the 1973 constitution. The important questions thereof:

QUESTION No.1 “Do you approve of the citizens assemblies as the base of popular government to
decide issues of national interests?”

QUESTION No. 2 “Do you approve of the New Constitution?”

These are questions that if interpreted in its most basic logic would easily make it a question of the desire
of the voters regarding the matters of the plebiscite. It is quite silly to interpret it as having any other
notion that would otherwise deceive the public, for the very wording of the texts itself is already in a
barebone manner.

The other pertinent question that solidified the act of the people during the ratification is:

QUESTION No. 3 “Do you want a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new Constitution?”

Again, this is another easily discernible question that requires little cognitive ability to interpret. The vote
of the Citizens Assemblies is considerable to be the plebiscite that which would ratify the New
Constitution. Associate it with the fact that an overwhelming majority voted for the adoption of the new
constitution, then it is easily presumable that the people knew what they were voting for. Even though
that there may be voting anomalies that had occurred, I concur with the opinion made by then Justice
Barredo saying that:

“I can believe that the figures referred to in the proclamation may not be accurate, but I
cannot say in conscience that all of them are manufactured or prefabricated, simply because I
saw with my own eyes that people did actually gathered and listened to the discussions, if only
brief and inadequate for those who are abreast of current events and general occurrences, and
that they did vote nonetheless”

The other main contention of the petitioners back then, which must still be elucidated up to now, is that
the issue of Proclamation 1102, that which announced the full force and effectivity of the 1973
constitution, necessitated the guidance of the plebiscite by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), since
they are, after all, the institution that regulates and oversee those related to elections and the electorate,
and that the past few ratification plebiscites were handled by them. However, since we consider the 1935
constitution as the previous Supreme Law of the Land, then in Article XV Section 1 thereof did not state
otherwise that the COMELEC or any institution similar to it should handle constitutional amendments or
changes. Then it is only logical that the administrative procedures made in pursuant to the plebiscite had
been substantially complied with in accordance to Article XV of the 1935 constitution, and that it is an
undeniable fact that the voting in the referendum has resulted in the approval by the people of the New
Constitution.

The other contention is that Martial law may have given duress to the voters. Though Martial Law was
enforced by Reason of State, it cannot be denied that Martial Law have given societal restriction in the
practice of the usual freedoms. The freedom of speech, the press and movement during Martial Law do
have their corresponding adverse effects on the area of information, however it does not warrant the
complete disregard of the results of the referendum. Also, which I think is the most salient point not
considered by the petitioners is that, a man even though bereft with knowledge or have little information
of the choices of which his vote would be cast into would still, nonetheless, vote with his “gut” feeling. If
every man requires full information on the choices for voting, then no man shall even consider voting at
all.

In conclusion, even though there may be technical or legal obstacles that may thwart the ratification of
the New Constitution, and the fact that a majority of the people have given acceptance to the New
Constitution, it necessarily follows that the will of the people, that of the sovereign, trumps whatever legal
obstacle exists. It must be put on note that there is no such thing as a parameter that measures how
much and what constitutes “the sovereign people”, much like there is no measurement for the
consideration of a democratic revolution as an act of the people, for it is absurd to consider the entirety
of the citizens of a state to partake in revolutionary actions as the full sovereign act. By doing so is to
disregard past revolutions of history as mere rebellious acts by a small group of people.

As such, even though the constitution is the supreme law of the land, the sovereign is still the supreme
power of the land by which all government authority emanates from them.