G.R. No. L-36142, L-36164, L-36165, L-36236, L-36283. March 31, 1973.
JOSUE JAVELLANA, VIDAL TAN, ET AL., GERARDO ROXAS, ET AL., EDDIE B. MONTECLARO, and NAPOLEON V. DILAG, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions challenged the validity of Presidential Proclamation No. 1102, which announced the ratification of the 1973 Constitution. Petitioners, including citizens, taxpayers, and members of the legislature, argued that the ratification process was constitutionally infirm. They contended that the required plebiscite under the 1935 Constitution was not properly held, as the citizen assemblies or “barangays” convened for the purpose were not the legitimate plebiscitary body envisioned by law. The respondents, representing the executive branch, defended the proclamation, asserting that the new Constitution had been validly ratified through these citizen assemblies, reflecting the sovereign will of the people.
The core dispute centered on whether the ratification complied with the amendment process of the 1935 Constitution. Petitioners maintained that the Commission on Elections, not the barangays, had exclusive authority to conduct plebiscites. They further argued that the proceedings lacked the safeguards of a genuine plebiscite, such as proper voter registration and secret ballot. The government countered that the assemblies constituted a novel and direct form of democratic expression, transcending formalistic requirements.

ISSUE

The principal issue was whether Presidential Proclamation No. 1102, declaring the 1973 Constitution ratified, was valid and constitutional.

RULING

The Court, in a divided resolution, dismissed the petitions. The majority, through the opinion of Chief Justice Concepcion, effectively declined to rule on the substantive merits, adopting a posture of political question and acknowledging the de facto existence of the new government. The legal logic was rooted in the doctrine of effectiveness and the principle that a court cannot negate the legitimacy of an established government operating under a new constitution. The resolution held that the question of the Constitution’s ratification had become political, beyond judicial review, as the new framework was already in operation, governing the nation with the acquiescence of the people.
The ruling emphasized that for the Court to invalidate the proclamation would lead to chaos and a vacuum of authority. It recognized the reality of the new constitutional order’s implementation. The dissenting opinions, notably from Justices Fernando and Teehankee, argued vigorously for judicial duty, contending that the Court should have addressed the constitutional defects in the ratification process. They maintained that the failure to hold a proper plebiscite as mandated by the 1935 Constitution was a justiciable issue, and the Court’s avoidance of it abdicated its responsibility to uphold the supreme law. Nonetheless, the majority position prevailed, cementing the legal foundation of the 1973 Constitution based on the principle of factual establishment and political necessity.