Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
I. Alleged Academic Futility of Further Proceedings in GR-L36135 (case filed by Jose Puyat and Jose Roy) (NO)
A. RESPONDENT (Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza): The requisite 8 votes out of the 10 present justices en banc will not
be reached
o Due to the intended dissents of 3 justices – no point to talk about this
o Justice Barredo: The 1935 Constitution “has passed pro tanto into history”
o Justice Antonio: Court is not competent to act (perhaps invoking the political question doctrine, or the concept of in
vacuo, therefore a lack of controversy due to an allegedly, already in power, newly ratified, Constitution); there is
no judicial standard available.
o Justice Esguerra: There is a lack of evidence to say that the citizens’ assembly was unlawfully held; a fait accompli
Constitution is now present and in force
B. COUNTER - ARGUMENT OF CJ CONCEPCION
o Justice Barredo, in the oral arguments, was willing to change his mind, depending on the convincing power of the
petitioners, therefore the majority 8 was still possible
o 2/3 is needed, yes, for laws and treaties but there is precedent in the unanimous resolution of the court, penned
by former C.J. Moran, dated September 16, 1949:
The 2/3rds rule does not apply to an executive order; the majority 6 votes “is enough to nullify them”
Revised Administrative Code 63: Executive Proclamation has the same force of an Executive Order
II. Does the issue on the validity of Proclamation 1102 partake the nature of a political, non-justiciable question? (JUSTICIABLE)
A. RESPONDENT (Sol. Gen):
o The Court derives its authority now from the 1973 Constitution
o To deny the mandate (in the form of the 1973 Constitution) of ~15M Filipinos is an overreaching of judicial review.
o The “government” has been re-arranged according to it
o Foreign governments recognize it
o Plebiscite cases are not precedents
o It is a political question
B. COUNTER - ARGUMENT OF C.J. C
o Court is not asked to invalidate the 1973 Constitution; the petition is CHALLENGING THE RATIFICATION PROCESS
o Court derives its authority to analyze amendment proceedings not from the AMENDED constitution, but from the
PREVIOUS CONSTITUTION that PRESCRIBES the process of amendment
o Therefore, it must follow Article XV of the 1935 Constitution on Transitory Provisions
o Under this reasoning, CJ Concepcion dissects Proclamation 1102, Political versus Justiciable Questions, and the
inapplicability of Luther v. Borden & Baker v. Carr as precedents
1. Proclamation 1102
Dispositive of the proclamation was not a logical conclusion from the premises (provided by the
“Whereas”) because the Presidential ratification of 1973 Constitution (dispositive part) is founded on
premises that do not enable ratification of a Constitution under the 1935 Constitution
Lack of elections that should be theoretically supervised solely by the COMELEC
Lack of records, as no ballots were used
No vote of secrecy, as it is was only a raise of hands
Records show that the substitute assemblies could not have all been convened bet. Jan. 10 - Jan. 15
Therefore a Justiciable Question, because the President has NO POWER to RATIFY a
CONSTITUTION under his own rules not pursuant to the 1935 Constitution, therefore an abuse
of discretion.
2. Separation of Powers
3 branches have separation of power
Actions of branches within OWN sphere = POLITICAL
Unlimited power within their sphere, and what applies within their sphere, without implications
outside their sphere, or to human rights, etc.
BUT this comes hand in hand with checks and balances, thus once the power of one branch
encroaches the other, it becomes JUSTICIABLE
The coverage of Justiciability:
If limits, conditions and qualifications of power were met/not met
Legality, not the wisdom, of certain acts
Therefore, it is the duty of the courts to determine whether another branch has kept within its
Constitutional Limits
Justice Laurel - “In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only Constitutional organ
which can be called upon to determine the allocation of powers between several departments of
the government.”
Explicit in the 1935 Constitution for amendments – “unless the manner is followed, the judiciary
as the interpreters of that Constitution will declare an amendment invalid.”
III. Has the Proposed New or Revised Constitution been ratified conformably to said Art. XV of the 1935 Constitution? (N0)
A. RESPONDENT (Sol. Gen):
Election Code for the minimum age of voters only guarantees right to suffrage for 21 and above?
B. COUNTER – ARGUMENT OF C.J. C
o Analysis of the Rules of Amendment
1. To start the process of changing the Constitution
Convention – 3/4s of Houses of Congress voting separately
Ratification of people at an election
2. Voters must be above 21, and the process must be handled exclusively by the COMELEC (not present in the
case at bar)
o On Suffrage and Elections
1. Article XV declares WHO can vote; it is not a right otherwise
2. Constitution specifies WHO has right to suffrage; it does not also imply that suffrage is only for elections
only, because it also covers plebiscites
3. Aside from the age barrier for Citizens’ Assembly, the lack of ballots proves no prima facie evidence to
confirm the age of voters; no means to knowing who voted
4. Barrio assemblies are managed by the Executive
o Differentiation of the processes
1. IDEAL PROCESS
COMELEC is the sole arbiter
Shift power from the executive, who could influence of the results
2. WHAT HAPPENED
Citizens Assembly set the guidelines, gave the referendum, submitted to the local
governments, then to the Department of Interior Government and Community
Development – this is not pursuant to the process where COMELEC handles it.
IV. Has the proposed Constitution aforementioned been approved by a majority of the in the Citizens’ Assemblies allegedly held
throughout the Philippines? (NO)
A. RESPONDENT (Sol. Gen):
o Proclamation is conclusive in itself
o Overwhelming majority proves its “efficiency” as the new law of the land
o The process of showing the votes to the President was clear and orderly
1. Municipalities reported to Provincial Associations
2. Provincial Associations reported to Department of Local Government and Community Development
3. Francisco Cruz, President of the National Association of Barangays, brings this report to Marcos
4. Marcos declares Proclamation 1102 with the evidence at hand
B. COUNTER – ARGUMENT OF C.J. C:
o On Proclamation 1102 and the Certification of the President of the Results
1. It is a fallacy to “assume as a fact the very premise on which it is predicated”
2. Proclamation 1102, in itself, is definitely not prima facie in itself
3. Proclamations of this nature require prima facie evidence – to make confirming or challenging possible
4. It also requires the COMELEC to TABULATE & CERTIFY the results of the election
5. Article X bestows the power of the declaring electoral results to the COMELEC, NOT to the President
o On the Process utilized during the citizens’ assemblies
1. Francisco Cruz was not registered in any barrio council
2. There is no physical evidence of his report
3. There is reason to believe that the citizens DID NOT now that this was a plebiscite
4. If the assembly was the plebiscite, what was the plebiscite postponed by General Order 20?
o On the Questions Used
1. “Do you approve of the new Constitution?”
Approval, by the majority, is necessary, but is not sufficient to imply effectivity of a new
Constitution
Effectivity as the law of the land has conforming to Art. XV on Transitory Provisions as a
necessary pre-requisite; this is absence
2. “Do you want a plebiscite to be called?”
This is an unnecessary question, if the assembly was already that aforementioned
plebiscite
o It is hard to accept that this was done nationwide; some barangays in Manila did not have one, and many
citizens were not informed
o Resolutions and Implementing Regulations were not set in stone even DURING the duration of the assembly
(Bataan example)
o Has the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention been ratified validly (with
substantial, if not strict, compliance) conformably to the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions
(6) – Makalintal,, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee Conception (NOT RATIFIED)
(4) – Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra (RATIFIED)
o Has the aforementioned proposed Constitution been acquiesced in (with or without valid ratification) by
the people
(4) – Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra (PEOPLE HAVE ACQUIESCED)
(2) – Zaldivar, Concepcion (NO – no free expression under Martial Law)
(1) – Fernando (qualified NO – hard to determine under Martial Law)
(3) – Makalintal, Castro, Teehankee (No knowledge to say so)
DECISION:
On the basis of question # 4, majority decides to reject petitions, 6 – 4
“There is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and in effect.”