Upload
sylvia-villalobos
View
225
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/29/2019 JOSUE JAVELLANA powerpoint llb m2
1/22
JOSUE JAVELLANA,vs.THE EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY50 SCRA 30
G.R. No. L-36142 March31, 1973
7/29/2019 JOSUE JAVELLANA powerpoint llb m2
2/22
7/29/2019 JOSUE JAVELLANA powerpoint llb m2
3/22
G.R. No. L-35149 June 23,
1988
EDUARDO QUINTERO, petitioner,
vs.
THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, HON. ELIAS
ASUNCION, Judge of the Court of
First Instance of Manila, and HON.
JOSE FLAMINIANO, City Fiscal ofPasay City, respondents.
Quintero delivered to the Con-Con the aggregate amount of
the "payola" he himself had received, the amount of eleven
thousand one hundred fifty pesos (P11,150.00) in cash,preserved intact for delivery to the proper officials of the
Con-Con
7/29/2019 JOSUE JAVELLANA powerpoint llb m2
4/22
Our plebiscites
With this in mind, I put together this chart, which lists the plebiscites on
constitutional amendments that took place from 1935 to 1987. As a kind of frame
of reference, Ive also included similar data concerning presidential elections that
took place soon before or after these plebiscites. And then, the figures, whenavailable, for total registered voters and the figures for our national population as
a whole.
7/29/2019 JOSUE JAVELLANA powerpoint llb m2
5/22
1973-1984: The New Society Plebiscites
As for the Marcos plebiscites from 1973 to 1984, they were conducted in a
manner entirely different from the 1935-1967 plebiscites and that held in 1987. So
they are not part of a piece. What Marcos was trying to capitalize on was the
familiarity of the public with referenda as a democratic process.
Marcoss political problem was that his 1969 term expired on December 30, 1973;
and that, ideally, the extinction of the 1935 Constitution should be accomplished
by means of the process set out in it. An additional problem arose, when some
senators tried to organize a ruckus in Congress, in time for the 1973 Regular
Session scheduled to begin on January 22, 1973.
7/29/2019 JOSUE JAVELLANA powerpoint llb m2
6/22
The Constitutional Convention had approved a draft acceptable to President
Marcos in late 1972 and presented it to him, formally, on December 1, 1972; hed
accordingly issued a proclamation calling for a plebiscite to ratify or reject the
new Constitution.
It seems that Marcos got wind of the possibility public opinion had swung against
ratification. So if he held a plebiscite, he might lose; and win or lose, Congress or
at least the Senate if not the House, seemed hell-bent on challenging martial law
when it resumed session on January 22; that challenge, among other things,
might stiffen the spine of the Supreme Court. So something had to be done beforeJanuary 22.
7/29/2019 JOSUE JAVELLANA powerpoint llb m2
7/22
This concern is reflected in his December 23, 1972 announcement postponing the
plebiscite; statements in December 29 in the state-controlled media warning of a
constitutional crisis if senators insisted on convening in January, 1973; then, his decree
creating Barangay Assemblies on January 5; then, having created a new mechanism,
his January 7 order stating that the plebiscite originally scheduled for January 15 might
be held on February 19 or March 15 as alternate dates; in other words, he postponedthe only option, a plebiscite, to create two tracks, the barangay or citizens assembly and
plebiscite paths.
Prior to martial law, Marcos had been admiringly described by his critics as engaging in
Ju-Jitsu, and he handled the possibility that Congress would convene, under the
provisions of the 1935 Constitution, and the difficulty represented by a plebiscite in theold manner leading to the rejection of the new constitution, by scrapping the rules.
7/29/2019 JOSUE JAVELLANA powerpoint llb m2
8/22
He lowered the voting age from 18 to15
and illiterates were allowed to vote. From
January 10 to 15, a series of citizens
assemblies were held, in lieu of aplebiscite in the manner specified by the
1935 Constitution. The results of the
January 10-15, 1973 were:
Question One: Whether to adopt the
proposed (1973) Constitution:
14,976,561 (90.67%) Yes
743,869 (9.33%) No
Question Two: Whether the public still
wanted a plebiscite to be called to ratify the
Constitution:
14,298,814 No
7/29/2019 JOSUE JAVELLANA powerpoint llb m2
9/22
With total valid votes at 15,720,430 (compare this figure with the 1967 plebiscite and
1969 presidential election figures; the Supreme Court itself, in its decision on the
ratification of the 1973 Constitution, mentioned the total number of registered voters
21 years of age or over in the entire Philippines, available in January 1973, was less
than 12 million: this suggests the boost in voting numbers provided by relaxing voting
requirements such as age or literacy; except that Marcos, as a shrewd and self-
confident strategist, didnt rely on subordinates to scrounge around for a will I win by 1
million margin, but rather, created an infintely safer margin for himself of nearly 3 million
votes!).
Two days later (January 17), President Marcos certified that the new constitution had
been ratified. And then, he padlocked Congress, which he argued, was now defunct. All
that was left was for the Supreme Court to declare the process valid. This, the Supreme
Court did in Javellana v. Executive Secretary on March 31, 1973. Chief Justice
Concepcion wrote the decision, stated his objections, and retired ahead of schedule inmuted protest.
7/29/2019 JOSUE JAVELLANA powerpoint llb m2
10/22
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
FELIX MAKASIAR -law sch oo l
classmate President Ferdinand
E. Marco s
Claudio Teehankee
ROBERTO R. CONCEPCION
QUERUBI MAKALINTAL
CALIXTO ZALDIVAR
FRED RUIZ CASTRO
ENRIQUE FERNANDOANTONIO BARREDO
SALVADOR ESGUERRA
FELIX ANTONIO
7/29/2019 JOSUE JAVELLANA powerpoint llb m2
11/22
1. Is the issue ofthe validity of
Proclamation No. 1102a justiciable or political
and therefore non-
justiciable question?
7/29/2019 JOSUE JAVELLANA powerpoint llb m2
12/22
Six members of the court held that the issue of the validity of
Proclamation No. 1102 presents a justiciable and non-political question.
Two of whom did not vote squarely on this question, but only, inferentially, in
their discussion of the second question.
One justice qualified his vote stating that, inasmuch as it is claimed that therehas been approval by the people, the court may inquire into the question of
whether or not there has actually been approval and in the affirmative, the
court should keep its hands off out of respect to the peoples will, but in the
negative, the court may determine from both factual and legal angles whether
or not Article XV of the 1935 Constitution has been complied with.
Three members held that the issue is political and beyond the ambit ofjudicial inquiry.
7/29/2019 JOSUE JAVELLANA powerpoint llb m2
13/22
2. Has the Constitution proposed bythe 1971 Constitutional Convention been
ratified validly(with substantial, if not
strict, compliance) conformably to the
applicable constitutional and statutory
provisions?
7/29/2019 JOSUE JAVELLANA powerpoint llb m2
14/22
Six members of the Court also
hold that the Constitution proposed by
the 1971 Constitutional Convention was
not validly ratified in accordance with
Article XV, section 1 of the 1935
Constitution, which provides only oneway for ratification, i.e., "in an election
or plebiscite held in accordance with
law and participated in only by qualified
and duly registered voters." One justice
qualified his vote, stating that "(A)s to
whether or not the 1973 Constitutionhas been validly ratified pursuant to
Article XV, I still maintain that in the
light of traditional concepts regarding
the meaning and intent of said Article,
the referendum in the Citizens'
Assemblies, specially in the manner the
votes therein were cast, reported andcanvassed, falls short of the
requirements thereof. In view, however,
of the fact that I have no means of
refusing to recognize as a judge that
factually there was voting and that the
majority of the votes were for
considering as approved the 1973
Constitution without the necessity of
the usual form of plebiscite followed in
past ratifications, I am constrained to
hold that, in the political sense, if not in
the orthodox legal sense, the peoplemay be deemed to have cast their
favorable votes in the belief that in
doing so they did the part required of
them by Article XV, hence, it may be
said that in its political aspect, which is
what counts most, after all, said Articlehas been substantially complied with,
and, in effect, the 1973Constitution has beenconstitutionally ratified." Threemembers of the Court hold thatunder their view there has beenin effect substantialcompliance with theconstitutional requirements forvalid ratification.
7/29/2019 JOSUE JAVELLANA powerpoint llb m2
15/22
3. Has the
aforementioned proposedConstitution acquiesced in
(with or without valid
ratification) by the people?
7/29/2019 JOSUE JAVELLANA powerpoint llb m2
16/22
No, majority vote has beenreached by the Court. Fourmembers of the court hold that"the people have already acceptedthe 1973 Constitution."Twomembers of the Court hold thatthere can be no free expression,and there has even been noexpression, by the people qualifiedto vote all over the Philippines, of
their acceptance or repudiation ofthe proposed Constitution under
Martial Law. Justice Fernando
states that "(I)f it is conceded that
the doctrine stated in some
American decisions to the effect
that independently of the validityof the ratification, a new
Constitution once accepted
acquiesced in by the people must
be accorded recognition by the
Court, I am not at this stage
prepared to state that such
doctrine calls for application in
view of the shortness of time that
has elapsed and the difficulty ofascertaining what is the mind of
the people in the absence of the
freedom of debate that is a
concomitant feature of martial
law." Three members of the Court
express their lack of knowledgeand/or competence to rule on the
question. They stated that "Under a
regime of martial law, with the free
expression of opinions through the
usual media vehicle restricted,
(they) have no means of knowing,to the point of judicial certainty,
whether the people have accepted
the Constitution."
7/29/2019 JOSUE JAVELLANA powerpoint llb m2
17/22
Are
PetitionersEntitled to
Relief?
7/29/2019 JOSUE JAVELLANA powerpoint llb m2
18/22
On the fourthquestion of relief, six(6) members of theCourt, namely,Justices Makalintal,Castro, Barredo,Makasiar, Antonio andEsguerra voted toDISMISS the petition.
7/29/2019 JOSUE JAVELLANA powerpoint llb m2
19/22
Justice Makalintal andCastro so voted on thestrength of their view thatThe effectivity of the said
constitution, in the final
analysis, is the basic and
ultimate question posed by
these cases to resolve which
considerations other than
judicial, and thereforebeyond the competence of
this Court, are relevant and
unavoidable.
7/29/2019 JOSUE JAVELLANA powerpoint llb m2
20/22
Four (4) members ofthe Court, namely,Justices Zaldivar,Fernando,Teehankee andmyself voted todeny respondentsmotion to dismissand to give duecourse to thepetitions.
ARE PETIONERS ENTITLEDTO RELIEF?
7/29/2019 JOSUE JAVELLANA powerpoint llb m2
21/22
5. Is theaforementioned
proposed
Constitution in
force?
7/29/2019 JOSUE JAVELLANA powerpoint llb m2
22/22
Four members of the Court hold
that it is in force by virtue of the
people's acceptance thereof;
Four members of the Court cast
no vote thereon on the premisestated in their votes on the third
question that they could not state
with judicial certainty whether the
people have accepted or not
accepted the Constitution; and
Two members of the Court votedthat the Constitution proposed by
the 1971 Constitutional
Convention is not in force;
with the result that there are not
enough votes to declare that thenew Constitution is not in force.
ACCORDINGLY, by virtue of themajority of six (6) votes ofJustices Makalintal, Castro,Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio andEsguerra with the four (4)dissenting votes of the ChiefJustice and Justices Zaldivar,Fernando and Teehankee, all theaforementioned cases are herebydismissed. This being the vote ofthe majority, there is no furtherjudicial obstacle to the newConstitution being considered inforce and effect.