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-36142 March 31, 1973
FACTS
Present Case
Josue Javellana filed a case against the Executive Secretary and the Secretaries of National
Defense, et al. to restrain the respondents from implementing any of the provisions of the
propose Constitution.
Javellana claimed that the President had announced the immediate implementation of the New
Constitution, thru his Cabinet and respondents. He also alleged that the latter were acting
without or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing the said proposed Constitution, and that the
President was without power to proclaim the ratification by the Filipino. He claimed that the
election held to ratify the proposed constitution was not a free election, hence null and void.
Petitioner also invoked that the alleged so-called Citizens' Assemblies (participated by persons
who were 15 years of age or older, regardless of qualification) which were created as an
instrumentality for the ratification of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines was
inherently illegal and unconstitutional.
PROCEDURAL BACK GROUND
The Background of the Case
The Congress of the Philippines passed Resolution No. 2 which was amended by Resolution No.
4, calling a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. The 1971 Constitutional
Convention began to perform its function. During its session, on September 21, 1972, the
President issued Proclamation No. 1081 placing the Philippines under Martial Law. On
November 29, 1972, the convention approved its Proposed Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines. Then the President issued P.D. No. 73 submitting to the Filipino people for
ratification or rejection the Constitution approved by the 1971 Constitutional Convention.
Thereafter, Charito Planas filed a case against the COMELEC to enjoin the respondents from
implementing P.D. No. 73 on the ground that it has no force and effect of law.
On December 17, 1972, the President suspend the effect of Proclamation No. 1081 for the
purpose of free and open debate on the proposed constitution.
While the case was pending, the President issued Proclamation No. 1102, announcing the
ratification by the Filipino People the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional
Convention. Thereafter, the Court dismissed the case.
ISSUE
Whether or not the new or revised Constitution proposed by 1971 Constitutional Convention was
not ratified in accordance with the provision of the 1935 Constitution?
HOLDING
Yes. The new or revised Constitution proposed by 1971 Constitutional Convention was not
ratified in accordance with the provision of the 1935 Constitution.
The court held that section 1 of Art. V of the Constitution was a limitation upon the exercise of
the right of suffrage. Only those who were "citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified
by law, who were twenty-one years of age or over and were able to read and write, and who shall
have resided in the Philippines for one year and in the municipality wherein they propose to vote
for at least six months preceding the election," may exercise the right of suffrage in the
Philippines.
In this case, the proceedings held in the Citizen’s Assemblies were irregular because the persons
who were allowed to vote in the said Assemblies lacked the qualifications prescribed in Section
1 Art. V of the Constitution. Under the 1935 Constitution persons below twenty-one (21) years
old could not exercise the right of suffrage, without a previous amendment of the Constitution.
And, since there is no way separate the votes of those less than 21 years of age from those of the
qualified voters, the proceedings in the Citizens' Assemblies must be considered null and void.
Moreover, the Court held that the term "votes cast" were choices made on ballots and not orally
or by raising hands by the persons taking part in plebiscites. Hence, the voting in the Citizens'
Assemblies was null and void ab initio.
