G.R. No. L-36142, L-36164, L-36165, L-36236, L-36283. March 31, 1973.
JOSUE JAVELLANA, et al., petitioners, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, et al., respondents.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions challenged the validity of the ratification of the 1973 Constitution. Petitioners, including prominent political figures and citizens, sought to nullify Presidential Proclamation No. 1102, which certified and proclaimed that the proposed Constitution had been ratified by the people through the Citizens’ Assemblies (Barangays). The central factual contention was that the process employed—a series of meetings and voice votes in these assemblies from January 10-15, 1973—did not constitute a valid plebiscite or election as historically and legally understood for constitutional ratification. Petitioners argued this method bypassed the explicit constitutional and statutory safeguards, including voter registration, secret ballots, and the oversight of the Commission on Elections, which were mandated by Article XV, Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution and the 1971 Election Code.
The government, through the Solicitor General, defended the proclamation. It asserted that the act of the Citizens’ Assemblies was a legitimate, non-traditional expression of the sovereign will, effective and sufficient for ratification. The government’s position was that the extraordinary circumstances and the direct, massive participation in the assemblies fulfilled the constitutional requirement of approval by the people, rendering the formalities of the Election Code inapplicable or subordinate to the demonstrated popular assent.

ISSUE

The principal legal issue was whether the act of the Citizens’ Assemblies, as certified by Proclamation No. 1102, constituted a valid ratification of the 1973 Constitution in accordance with the requirements of the 1935 Constitution.

RULING

The Court, in a divided resolution, dismissed the petitions. The majority, through the lead opinion, held that there was no justiciable controversy and that the question posed was political in nature. The legal logic proceeded on the premise that the Court could not inquire into the factual basis of the President’s proclamation regarding the people’s ratification. The act of certification by the Executive, declaring the Constitution ratified, was considered a political question beyond judicial review. The Court reasoned that the authority to determine whether the constitutional amendment process had been properly followed rested with the political departments of government—the Executive and the Legislature—and their conclusive pronouncement on the matter was binding on the judiciary.
The ruling effectively accepted the government’s position that the sovereign people, through the Barangays, had spoken in a manner they deemed appropriate. By declining to rule on the substantive merits of whether the process complied with Article XV of the 1935 Constitution, the Court treated the ratification as an accomplished fact. The separate opinions reflected deep divisions: some Justices concurred, emphasizing the need for stability; others dissented, vigorously arguing that the Court abdicated its duty to uphold the clear procedural mandates of the fundamental law, thereby sanctioning a radical departure from established constitutional amendment processes without judicial scrutiny. The resolution allowed the 1973 Constitution to remain in force.