Primary Holding

The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petitions, with a majority finding the issues either moot or not properly raised. The Court was divided on whether the 1973 Constitution had been validly ratified, but a majority considered it effectively in force.

Background

Following the declaration of Martial Law and the drafting of a new Constitution by the 1971 Constitutional Convention, President Marcos submitted the proposed constitution for ratification via Citizens Assemblies, bypassing a traditional plebiscite. This prompted several legal challenges questioning the process and the President's authority.

Facts

• 1. President Marcos, after placing the Philippines under Martial Law, issued decrees related to amending the Constitution.
• 2. Instead of a traditional plebiscite, the President utilized Citizens Assemblies to ratify the new Constitution.
• 3. These assemblies consisted of citizens 15 years and older.
• 4. Proclamation No. 1102 declared that the proposed Constitution had been ratified by an overwhelming majority of the Citizens Assemblies.
• 5. Petitioners argued that this process violated the 1935 Constitution's requirements for amendments.
• 6. Senators also argued they were prevented from performing their duties due to the implementation of the new Constitution.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The President lacked the authority to create Citizens Assemblies or to use them to ratify the Constitution.
• 2. The Citizens Assemblies were not a valid substitute for a plebiscite as defined by the 1935 Constitution, specifically Article XV and Article V.
• 3. The 1935 Constitution limits suffrage to citizens 21 years or older who can read and write, a requirement not met by the Citizens Assemblies.
• 4. Martial Law conditions prevented a free and informed vote.
• 5. Proclamation No. 1102 was invalid because it was based on an unconstitutional ratification process.
• 6. The Senate was prevented from convening, violating the rights of elected senators.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. The issue was a political question, not subject to judicial review.
• 2. The Constitutional Convention had the authority to propose a new Constitution.
• 3. There was substantial compliance with Article XV of the 1935 Constitution.
• 4. The Constitution was properly submitted to the people in a free, orderly, and honest election (referring to the Citizens Assemblies).
• 5. Proclamation No. 1102 was conclusive upon the courts.
• 6. The amending process outlined in Article XV of the 1935 Constitution is not exclusive of other modes of amendment.

Issues

• 1. Is the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 a political question, and thus non-justiciable?
• 2. Was the 1973 Constitution ratified in accordance with Article XV of the 1935 Constitution?
• 3. Did the President have the authority to create Citizens Assemblies and use them for ratification?
• 4. Does Article V of the 1935 Constitution limit suffrage in plebiscites to qualified voters as defined therein?

Ruling

• 1. The Court held that the issue of validity of Proclamation No. 1102 was justiciable.
• 2. However, a majority of the Court dismissed the petitions, with varying opinions.
• 3. Some justices believed the issue was moot, while others believed the Court should not rule on the validity of the Proclamation.
• 4. Despite finding flaws in the ratification process, some justices recognized the new Constitution as legitimately in force due to practical and political considerations.

Doctrines

• 1. Political Question Doctrine: This doctrine posits that certain issues are inherently political and best resolved by the political branches of government, not the judiciary. The court rejected this argument, asserting its duty to interpret the Constitution.
• 2. Separation of Powers: The principle that governmental powers are divided among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This was central to the discussion of whether the President overstepped his authority.
• 3. Stare Decisis: The legal principle of following precedents set in previous court decisions.
• 4. Substantial Compliance: The argument that even if the exact requirements of a law or constitution are not met, the action is valid if there is sufficient adherence to the spirit and intent.
• 5. Justiciability: Whether a matter is appropriate for judicial review.
• 6. Mootness: Whether a case presents a live controversy at the time of review.

Precedents Cited

• 1. Tañada v. Cuenco: Used to define "political question."
• 2. Luther v. Borden: The Solicitor General invoked this to support the non-justiciability argument, but the Court distinguished it.
• 3. Baker v. Carr: The Court cited this case which held that an issue was justiciable and non-political.
• 4. Powell v. McCormack: Same as above.
• 5. Tolentino v. Commission on Elections: Relevant in discussing the 1971 Constitutional Convention, plebiscites, and constitutional amendments.
• 6. Barcelona v. Baker and Montenegro v. Castañeda: abandoned insofar as they adhered to the political-question theory.
• 7. Gonzales v. Commission on Elections: Modified the political-question theory adopted in Mabanag v. Lopez Vito.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. 1935 Constitution, Article V, Section 1: Qualifications for suffrage.
• 2. 1935 Constitution, Article XV: Amendment process.
• 3. 1935 Constitution, Article X, Sections 1 and 2: Establishes the Commission on Elections.
• 4. Revised Administrative Code, Section 63: Regarding executive orders and proclamations.
• 5. Republic Act No. 3590 (Revised Barrio Charter), Sections 4, 6, and 10: Pertaining to barrio assemblies and plebiscites.