Planas v COMELEC

(49 SCRA 105)

Ponente: Concepcion, C.J.
Facts:
On 1 June 1971, a Constitutional Convention was held topropose amendments to the Constitution of the
Philippines. While the Conventionis in session on 21 September 1972, the entire Philippines were placed
undermartial law by virtue of Proclamation No. 1081. On 29 November 1972, theConvention approved its
proposed Constitution. The next day the Presidentissued PD No. 73 submitting to the Filipino people for
ratification orrejection the Constitution of the republic of the Philippines proposed by the 1971Constitutional
Convention, and appropriating funds therefor, as well assetting the Plebiscite for said ratification. On 7
December 1972, CharitoPlanas petitioned the Court to enjoin respondents from implementing PD No. 73on the
grounds that the calling of plebiscite and appropriation of public fundsare lodged exclusively in the Congress
and that there being no freedom ofspeech, press and assembly and no sufficient time to inform the people of
thecontents thereof, there is no proper submission to the people of said proposedConstitution. On 17 December
1972, the President temporarily suspended theeffects of PD 1080 for purpose of free and open debate on the
proposedConstitution. On 23 December 1972, the Plebiscite was postponed until furthernotice by the
President. Thereby the Court refrained from ruling on the cases.On 12 January 1973, petitioners filed an
urgent motion praying for theresolution of the cases as soon as possible.
Issues:
1. WON thevalidity of PD 73 is justiciable on the ground that the question at hand ispolitical in nature.
2. WON PD 73is valid.
3. WON theConstitutional Convention have the authority to pass the proposed Constitution.
4. WONmartial law affected the proper submission of the proposed Constitution to aplebiscite.

Held:
1. Yes. TheCourt finds that the issue aforementioned is a justiciable one since theassailed decree purports to
have the force and effect of legislation, not onlybecause of the long list decided by the Court on the acts of the
Executive, butalso of Subdivision (1) of Section 2, Article VIII of the 1935 Constitution.
2. The validityof PD 73 was declared moot and academic by the Court because the plebiscite ordainedin said
Decree has been postponed.
3. Yes.The Court held that the Constitutional Convention was legally free to postulateany amendment it may
deem fit to propose for as long as they adhere to Section1 of Article XIV of the 1935 Constitution.
4. Theissue involves question of fact which cannot be predetermined, and that martiallaw per se does not
necessarily barthe factual possibility of adequate freedom.