CASE:

    PLANAS  VS.  COMELEC  (49  SCRA  105) • January  7,  1973:  General  Order  20  =  suspending  of  plebiscite  until  further  
DATE:     January  22,  1973   notice  +  suspending  Dec.  17,  1972  Presidential  Order  
• SC:  Refrain  from  deciding  since  no  date/conditions  of  plebiscite  +  postponing  of  
NATURE:   Original  Action  in  the  SC  
the  President  after  CONSULTATION  with  Congress  and  COMELEC  
PONENTE:   Concepcion,  C.J.   • January  12,  1973:  Petitioner’s  Urgent  Motion  
  o PD  86  =  organizing  Citizens  Assemblies  to  be  consulted  on  public  ques.  
SUMMARY:   • SC:  Required  respondents  to  Comment  on  “Urgent  Motion”  
• Charito  Planas  filed  a  petition  to  the  SC  in  order  to  prohibit   • Petitioner:  Filing  of  Supplemental  Motion  for  Restraining  Order  +  Inclusion  of  
implementation  of  (PD)  No.  73  by  scheduling  a  plebiscite  to  ratify  or  reject   additional  respondents  
the  proposed  constitutional  amendments  submitted  by  the  1971   • While  hearing:  call  from  Secretary  of  Justice  to  CJ  =  to  deliver  to  him  copy  of  
Constitutional  convention.  This  was  done  by  citing  other  constitutional   Proclamation  1102  upon  order  of  President  (as  announced  in  open  court):  
provisions  and  other  identical  actions  that  were  filed  including  a   o Proclamation  1102  =  announcing  ratification  by  Filipino  people  of  the  
supplemental  urgent  motion  for  issuance  of  restraining  order  for  the   1971  Constitutional  Convention  
implementation  of  (PD)  No.  73  and  all  other  proclamations  relating  to   o WHEREAS,  creation  of  Citizens  Assemblies  
such.  The  SC  justices  decided  on  a  vote  of  6  to  3  to  dismiss  all  petitions.  It   o WHEREAS,  to  broaden  base  of  citizen  participation  
was  found  that  the  said  amendment  was  unnecessary  to  pass.     o WHEREAS,  14M  votes  vs.  743k  
FACTS:   o WHEREAS,  vote  of  Barangays/Citizen  Assemblies  =  plebiscite  
  o WHEREAS,  more  than  95%  in  favor  of  New  Constitution  
• March  16,  1967:  Congress  called  for  a  convention  to  propose  amendment.   • Respondents’  defenses:  
Later  held  on  November  10,  1970   o Questions  are  political  
• June  1,  1971:  the  convention  began  to  preform  its  functions     o ConCon  acted  freely  and  with  authority  not  only  to  propose,  but  to  
create  a  constitution  that  will  supersede  current  
• September  1972:  While  Convention  in  session,  President  Marcos’  Proclamation  
o President’s  call  for  plebiscite/appropriate  VALID  
No.  1081  placing  Philippines  in  Martial  Law  
o No  improper  submission;  there  can  be  plebiscite  under  Martial  Law  
• November  29,  1972:  Convention  approves  Proposed  Constitution  
o Argument  that  proposed  constitution  vague/incomplete,  and  
• November  30,  1972:  PD  73  =  (the  president)  submitting  to  Filipino  people  for  
unconstitutional  delegation  of  powers  =  NOT  RELEVANT/without  merit  
ratification  or  rejection  of  Constitution  
• SC:  Each  member  to  write  his  own  views;  CJ  to  state  result  of  voting  
• December  7,  1972:  Petition  by  Charito  Planas  vs.  COMELEC,  Treasurer  of  
o Concepcion,  Makalintal,  Zaldivar,  Castro,  Fernando,  Teehankee,  and  
Philippines,  and  Auditor  General  to  PREVENT/NULLIFY  implementation  of  PD  73  
Esguerra  =  CONCUR  
o PD  73  had  no  legal  effect  because  only  for  the  Congress  can  call  for  a  
o Barredo  =  CONCUR  +  DISSENT  
plebiscite    
o Makasiar  =  CONCUR  as  recapitulated  
o No  proper  submission  of  Proposed  Constitution  since  no  freedom  of  
o Antonio  =  CONCUR  (Separate  Opinion)  
speech  since  Martial  Law  
 
o No  sufficient  time  to  inform  people  of  contents  
• Filing  of  other  identical  actions    
CONCEPCION,  C.J.  (concur)  
• All  cases  required  to  file  Answer;  agreement  to  continue  hearing  jointly;    
submission  of  notes  for  points  they  want  to  stress    
• December  17,  1972:  Presidential  Order  to  suspend  effects    of  PD  1081  (Martial    
Law)  for  free  and  open  debate  of  the  proposed  constitution    
 
ISSUES:    
   
(1) WON  PD  73  is  judiciable,  and/or  as  a  result,  valid  or  invalid?    
(2) WON  1971  Constitutional  Convention  exceeded  authority  in  approving  
• Repugnancy  =  election  contemplated  (Art.  15)  VS  existence  of  Martial  Law;  
Secs.  2,3  (2)  and  Article  12  
GRANT  petition  BUT  moot/academic  
(3) WON  Martial  Law  affects  validity  of  amendment  submission  to  people  
(4) WON  petitions  contesting  legality  PN  1101  be  dismissed   • Question  of  fact  =  cannot  be  predetermine  AND  not  necessarily  preclude  
  possibility  of  adequate  freedom  
HELD:   • Not  raised  =  not  PROPERLY  raised;  cannot  pass  upon  question  
  • Falls  short  =  Citizens  Assemblies  not  confirming  to  Constitution,  BUT  law  in  
(1) PD  73  is  legally  justiciable.  6-­‐3  justices  believed  that  it  had  become  moot   force  already  
and  academic  due  to  suspension  and  subsequent  passing  of  PN  1102    
(2) 6  justices  believed  it  was  mood  and  academic;  5  justices  voted  to  uphold    
to  the  authority  of  the  convention.  Likewise  concurred  that  they  still  held  
RATIO/REASONING:  
authority  
 
(3) Martial  Law  did  not  necessarily  prevent  the  ratification  of  the  said  
I. Judicial  review  shall  mean  to  include  Presidential  decrees  which  have  the  
proposed  constitution.  However,  the  issue  with  regard  to  the  validity  of  
force  and  effect  of  legislation,  making  it  justiciable.  
PD  1102  was  not  properly  raised  although  it  did  fall  short  in  conforming  
 
to  Art  15.    
Alternate  Ratio:  Justiciability  of  Presidential  Decrees  are  mandated  by  
(4) YES  
Sec.  2,  Article  8  of  the  1935  Constitution,  expressly  providing  for  the  
  authority  of  the  SC  to  review  cases  involving  said  issue.  
   
  II. Authority  of  Constitutional  Conventions  shall  mean  to  be  legally  free  in  
  postulating  any  amendments  it  may  deem  fit  to  propose,  except  in  cases  
of  Jus  Cogens  
   
  • Jus  Cogens  =  concept  in  international  law  
  • Convention  powers  delegated  by  the  people,  and  unless  ratified  by  
  election,  cannot  be  valid  as  part  of  the  Constitution  
   
  Petitioners  in  G.R.  No.  L-­‐35948  maintain  that  the  1971  Constitutional  
  Convention  had  exceeded  its  authority  in  approving  Sections  2,  3  (par.  2)  
  and  12  of  Article  XVII  of  the  proposed  Constitution.  Regardless  of  the  
wisdom  and  moral  aspects  of  the  contested  provisions  of  the  proposed  
 
Constitution,  it  is  my  considered  view  that  the  Convention  was  legally  
 
free  to  postulate  any  amendment  it  may  deem  fit  to  propose  —  save  
 
perhaps  what  is  or  may  be  inconsistent  with  what  is  now  known,  
 
particularly  in  international  law,  as  Jus  Cogens  —  not  only  because  the  
Convention  exercised  sovereign  powers  delegated  thereto  by  the  people  
—  although  insofar  only  as  the  determination  of  the  proposals  to  be  
made  and  formulated  by  said  body  is  concerned  —  but,  also,  because  
said  proposals  cannot  be  valid  as  part  of  our  Fundamental  Law  unless  
and  until  "approved  by  the  majority  of  the  votes  cast  at  an  election  at  
which"  "  said  proposals  "are  submitted  to  the  people  for  their  
ratification,"  as  provided  in  Section  1  of  Art.  XV  of  the  1935  Constitution.  
 
DIFFERENT  OPINIONS    
 
MAKALINTAL  and  CASTRO,  JJ.  (concur)  
 
I. ISSUES  1,  2,  and  3  of  petitioners  are  MOOT  AND  ACADEMIC.  
 
• Issue  1  =  President  no  power  to  call  a  plebiscite  for  ratification  
• Issue  2  =  Draft  is  vague  and  incomplete  
• Issue  3  =  Time  for  draft  too  inadequate  to  inform  people  
• Plebiscite  did  not  take  place  (postponement)  
o ALSO,  since  Citizens  Assemblies  made  unlikely  that  plebiscite  
will  be  ever  held  
• Ratification  also  took  place  already  (Proclamation  1102)  
• IF  TO  BE  ASSAILED,  amendments  not  to  be  treated  as  proposals  but  
already  as  PROVISIONS  of  the  Constitution  
• GR  L-­‐35948  attempt  to  question  validity  of  Proclamation  1102  
o Not  raised/argued  
o May  be  ventilated  only  by  appropriate  case/pleadings/parties  
 
ZALDIVAR,  J.  (dissent)  
• Disagrees  that  the  cases  involved  have  become  moot  and  
academic  simply  because  the  relief  prayed  for  the  petitioners  
cannot  be  granted  after  Proclamation  1102  by  the  president  
• A  case  cannot  become  moot  when  substantial  rights  and  
issues  still  neglected  and  are  not  settled.