G.R. No. L-35925, L-35929, L-35940, L-35941, L-35942, L-35948, L-35953, L-35961, L-35965, L-35979. January 22, 1973.
CHARITO PLANAS, PABLO C. SANIDAD, GERARDO ROXAS, et al., EDDIE B. MONTECLARO, SEDFREY A. ORDOÑEZ, et al., VIDAL TAN, et al., JOSE W. DIOKNO, et al., JACINTO JIMENEZ, RAUL M. GONZALES, and ERNESTO HIDALGO, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al., respondents.

FACTS

A series of consolidated petitions were filed assailing Presidential Decree No. 73, which scheduled a plebiscite for January 15, 1973, for the ratification of the proposed Constitution drafted by the 1971 Constitutional Convention. The petitioners, including various citizens and lawmakers, sought to enjoin its implementation. They argued that the President, having proclaimed martial law through Proclamation No. 1081, lacked the authority to call such a plebiscite, as that power resided exclusively in Congress. They further contended that a genuine plebiscite was impossible due to the suspension of civil liberties and insufficient time for public deliberation on the proposed charter.
During the pendency of these cases, significant supervening events occurred. The President, on December 23, 1972, announced the postponement of the plebiscite. Subsequently, on January 7, 1973, he issued General Order No. 20, formally resetting it. Most critically, before the Court could render a decision, the President issued Proclamation No. 1102 on January 17, 1973, declaring that the proposed Constitution had been ratified by the Filipino people in citizen assemblies held from January 10 to 15 and was therefore in full force and effect.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the petitions have been rendered moot and academic by the issuance of Proclamation No. 1102, which declared the ratification of the new Constitution.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed all petitions. The legal logic rests on the doctrine of mootness. A case becomes moot when there is no longer any justiciable controversy or when the issues presented have ceased to exist. The Court held that the issuance of Proclamation No. 1102, declaring the new Constitution ratified and in effect, fundamentally altered the factual landscape. The central prayer of the petitions was to stop the plebiscite scheduled for January 15, 1973. With the President’s subsequent proclamation that the Constitution had already been ratified through an alternative process (citizen assemblies), the scheduled plebiscite was effectively superseded. The object of the petitions—to prevent that specific plebiscite—had thus been overtaken by events.
The Court emphasized that its duty is to decide actual controversies, not to rule on abstract questions. Since the act sought to be enjoined (the January 15 plebiscite under P.D. No. 73) was no longer impending due to the proclamation of an accomplished fact (the ratification and effectivity of a new Constitution), any ruling on the legality of the decree would be ineffectual. The new fundamental law was already purportedly in operation, presenting a political question beyond the Court’s judicial review under the circumstances. Therefore, the cases were rendered moot and academic, leaving the Court with no proper subject for adjudication.