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 cases are a direct sequel to the “Plebiscite Cases” decided on January 22, 1973. In those prior cases, petitioners challenged Presidential Decree No. 73, which called a plebiscite for January 15, 1973, to ratify the proposed 1973 Constitution. The Supreme Court, in a divided vote, dismissed those petitions, with six Justices voting to grant the writs and six voting to dismiss. The pivotal seventh vote, that of Justice Makasiar, was to dismiss the petitions “for being moot and academic,” as he found the issues had been overtaken by subsequent events. Before the Court could render a formal decision, President Marcos issued General Order No. 20, declaring the continuation of martial law and indefinitely postponing the January 15 plebiscite.
Subsequently, the President issued Presidential Decree No. 86-B on January 7, 1973, which referred the ratification of the proposed Constitution to the Barangays (Citizens Assemblies). From January 10 to 15, 1973, these assemblies were convened and reportedly voted overwhelmingly for ratification. On January 17, 1973, the President issued Proclamation No. 1102, announcing that the proposed Constitution had been ratified by the Filipino people and was therefore in effect. The present petitions were filed directly challenging the validity of this ratification process and seeking to enjoin the implementation of the new Constitution.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether the 1973 Constitution was validly ratified in accordance with the amendment process prescribed by the 1935 Constitution, thereby rendering the petitions seeking to enjoin its implementation moot.

RULING

The Court, by a vote of six to four, dismissed the petitions. The majority, through Chief Justice Concepcion, held that the issue of the Constitution’s validity had become a political question beyond judicial review. The legal logic is that the Court’s inquiry into the ratification process was rendered inoperative by the actual establishment of a new constitutional order. The majority reasoned that the Constitution’s assertion of being in force, coupled with its actual implementation by the government (e.g., the creation of an interim National Assembly and the reorganization of the judiciary under its transitory provisions), presented the Court with a fait accompli. To declare the ratification invalid would create a catastrophic legal vacuum, as there would be no functioning constitution to govern the republic. The Court cited the doctrine of “effectivity,” concluding that where a new constitution has been adopted and is already operative, the judiciary must recognize it as the supreme law, regardless of procedural irregularities in its adoption. The dissenters, notably Justices Fernando and Teehankee, vigorously argued that the Court abdicated its duty by refusing to rule on the clear legal requirements for ratification under the 1935 Constitution, which mandated a proper plebiscite. They contended that the barangay referendum lacked the constitutional safeguards of a genuine plebiscite and that the political question doctrine was improperly invoked to avoid a decisive judicial determination. Nonetheless, the majority resolution effectively gave judicial imprimatur to the 1973 Constitution.