Do you still want a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new Constitution?
" —
would be an attempt to by-pass and short-circuit this Honorable Court before which the question of the validity of the plebiscite on the
proposed Constitution is now pending;
"16. That petitioners have reason to fear, and therefore allege, that if an affirmative answer to the two questions just referred to will be
reported then this Honorable Court and the entire nation will be confronted with a fait accompli which has been attained in a highly
unconstitutional and undemocratic manner;
"17. That the fait accompli would consist in the supposed expression of the people approving the proposed Constitution;
"18. That, if such event would happen, then the case before this Honorable Court could, to all intents and purposes, become moot because,
petitioners fear, and they therefore allege, that on the basis of such supposed expression of the will of the people through the Citizens
Assemblies, it would be announced that the proposed Constitution, with all its defects, both congenital and otherwise, has been ratified;
"19. That, in such a situation the Philippines will be facing a real crisis and there is likelihood of confusion if not chaos, because then, the
people and their officials will not know which Constitution is in force.
"20. That the crisis mentioned above can only be avoided if this Honorable Court will immediately decide and announce its decision on the
present petition;
"21. That with the withdrawal by the President of the limited freedom of discussion on the proposed Constitution which was given to the
people pursuant to Sec. 3 of Presidential Decree No. 73, the opposition of respondents to petitioners' prayer at the plebiscite be prohibited
has now collapsed and that a free plebiscite can no longer be held."
At about the same time, a similar prayer was made in a "manifestation" filed by the petitioners in L-35949, "Gerardo Roxas, et al. v.
Commission on Elections, et al.," and L-35942, "Sedfrey A. Ordoñez, et al. v. The National Treasurer, et al."
The next day, January 13, 1973, which was a Saturday, the Court issued a resolution requiring the respondents in said three (3) cases to
comment on said "urgent motion" and "manifestation," "not later than Tuesday noon, January 16, 1973." Prior thereto, or on January 15,
1973, shortly before noon, the petitioners in said Case G.R. No. L-35948 riled a "supplemental motion for issuance of restraining order and
inclusion of additional respondents," praying —
"... that a restraining order be issued enjoining and restraining respondent Commission on Elections, as well as the Department of Local
Governments and its head, Secretary Jose Roño; the Department of Agrarian Reforms and its head, Secretary Conrado Estrella; the
National Ratification Coordinating Committee and its Chairman, Guillermo de Vega; their deputies, subordinates and substitutes, and all
other officials and persons who may be assigned such task, from collecting, certifying, and announcing and reporting to the President or
other officials concerned, the so-called Citizens' Assemblies referendum results allegedly obtained when they were supposed to have met
during the period comprised between January 10 and January 15, 1973, on the two questions quoted in paragraph 1 of this Supplemental
Urgent Motion."
In support of this prayer, it was alleged —
COMMENTS ON
QUESTION No. 1
In order to broaden the base of citizens' participation in government.
QUESTION No. 2
But we do not want the Ad Interim Assembly to be convoked. Or if it is to be convened at all, it
should not be done so until after at least seven (7) years from the approval of the New
Constitution by the Citizens Assemblies.
QUESTION No. 3
The vote of the Citizens Assemblies should already be considered the plebiscite on the New
Constitution.
If the Citizens Assemblies approve of the New Constitution, then the new Constitution should be
deemed ratified.
QUESTION No. 4
We are sick and tired of too frequent elections. We are fed up with politics, of so many debates
and so much expenses.
QUESTION No. 5
Probably a period of at least seven (7) years moratorium on elections will be enough for stability
to be established in the country, for reforms to take root and normalcy to return.
QUESTION No. 6
We want President Marcos to continue with Martial Law. We want him to exercise his powers with
more authority. We want him to be strong and firm so that he can accomplish all his reform
programs and establish normalcy in the country. If all other measures fail, we want President
Marcos to declare a revolutionary government along the lines of the new Constitution without the
ad interim Assembly."
"Attention is respectfully invited to the comments on "Question No. 3," which reads: —
QUESTION No. 3
The vote of the Citizens Assemblies should be considered the plebiscite on the New Constitution.
If the Citizens Assemblies approve of the New Constitution, then the new Constitution should be
deemed ratified.
This, we are afraid, and therefore allege, is pregnant with ominous possibilities.
14. That, in the meantime, speaking on television and over the radio, on January 7, 1973, the President announced
that the limited freedom of debate on the proposed Constitution was being withdrawn and that the proclamation of
martial law and the orders and decrees issued thereunder would thenceforth strictly be enforced [Daily Express,
January 8, 1973];
15. That petitioners have reason to fear, and therefore state, that the question added in the last list of questions to be
asked to the Citizens Assemblies, namely: —
Do you approve of the New
Constitution? —
in relation to the question following it: —
public of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-36142 March 31, 1973
JOSUE JAVELLANA, petitioner,
vs.
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AND THE SECRETARY
OF FINANCE, respondents.
G.R. No. L-36164 March 31, 1973
VIDAL TAN, J. ANTONIO ARANETA, ALEJANDRO ROCES, MANUEL CRUDO, ANTONIO U. MIRANDA, EMILIO DE PERALTA AND
LORENZO M. TAÑADA, petitioners,
vs.
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE , THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARY OF LAND
REFORM, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE AUDITOR GENERAL, THE BUDGET COMMISSIONER, THE CHAIRMAN
OF PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON REORGANIZATION, THE TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS AND THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE, respondents.
G.R. No. L-36165 March 31, 1973.
GERARDO ROXAS, AMBROSIO PADILLA, JOVITO R. SALONGA, SALVADOR H. LAUREL, RAMON V. MITRA, JR. and EVA
ESTRADA-KALAW, petitioners,
vs.
ALEJANDRO MELCHOR, in his capacity as Executive Secretary; JUAN PONCE ENRILE, in his capacity as Secretary of National
Defense; General ROMEO ESPINO, in his capacity as Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines; TANCIO E.
CASTAÑEDA, in his capacity as Secretary General Services; Senator GIL J. PUYAT, in his capacity as President of the Senate; and
Senator JOSE ROY, his capacity, as President Pro Tempore of the of the Senate, respondents.
G.R. No. L-36236 March 31, 1973
EDDIE B. MONTECLARO, [personally and in his capacity as President of the National Press Club of the Philippines], petitioner,
vs.
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF PUBLIC INFORMATION, THE AUDITOR GENERAL, THE BUDGET
COMMISSIONER & THE NATIONAL TREASURER, respondents.
G.R. No. L-36283 March 31, 1973
NAPOLEON V. DILAG, ALFREDO SALAPANTAN, JR., LEONARDO ASODISEN, JR., and RAUL M. GONZALEZ, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE HONORABLE
BUDGET COMMISSIONER, THE HONORABLE AUDITOR GENERAL, respondents.
Ramon A. Gonzales for petitioner Josue Javellana.
Lorenzo M. Tañada and Associates for petitioners Vidal Tan, et al.
Tañada, Salonga, Ordoñez, Rodrigo, Sanidad, Roxas. Gonzales and Arroyo for petitioners Gerardo Roxas, et al.
Joker P. Arroyo and Rogelio B. Padilla for petitioner Eddie Monteclaro.
Raul M. Gonzales and Associates for petitioners Napoleon V. Dilag, et al.
Arturo M. Tolentino for respondents Gil J. Puyat and Jose Roy.
Office of the Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Solicitor Vicente V. Mendoza and Solicitor Reynato S. Puno for other respondents.
RESOLUTION
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
The above-entitled five (5) cases are a sequel of cases G.R. Nos. L-35925,
L-35929, L-35940, L-35941, L-35942, L-35948, L-35953, L-35961, L-35965 and
L-35979, decided on January 22, 1973, to which We will hereafter refer collectively as the plebiscite cases.
Background of the Plebiscite Cases.
The factual setting thereof is set forth in the decision therein rendered, from which We quote:
On March 16, 1967, Congress of the Philippines passed Resolution No. 2, which was amended by Resolution No. 4 of
said body, adopted on June 17, 1969, calling a Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the
Philippines. Said Resolution No. 2, as amended, was implemented by Republic Act No. 6132, approved on August 24,
1970, pursuant to the provisions of which the election of delegates to said Convention was held on November 10,
1970, and the 1971 Constitutional Convention began to perform its functions on June 1, 1971. While the Convention
was in session on September 21, 1972, the President issued Proclamation No. 1081 placing the entire Philippines
under Martial Law. On November 29, 1972, the Convention approved its Proposed Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines. The next day, November 30, 1972, the President of the Philippines issued Presidential Decree No. 73,
"submitting to the Filipino people for ratification or rejection the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines proposed
by the 1971 Constitutional Convention, and appropriating funds therefor," as well as setting the plebiscite for said
ratification or rejection of the Proposed Constitution on January 15, 1973.
Soon after, or on December 7, 1972, Charito Planas filed, with this Court, Case G.R. No. L-35925, against the
Commission on Elections, the Treasurer of the Philippines and the Auditor General, to enjoin said "respondents or their
agents from implementing Presidential Decree No. 73, in any manner, until further orders of the Court," upon the
grounds, inter alia, that said Presidential Decree "has no force and effect as law because the calling ... of such
plebiscite, the setting of guidelines for the conduct of the same, the prescription of the ballots to be used and the
question to be answered by the voters, and the appropriation of public funds for the purpose, are, by the Constitution,
lodged exclusively in Congress ...," and "there is no proper submission to the people of said Proposed Constitution set
for January 15, 1973, there being no freedom of speech, press and assembly, and there being no sufficient time to
inform the people of the contents thereof."
