Javellana vs Executive Secretary

September 10, 2017 | Author: emmaniago08 | Category: Ratification, Constitution, Official Documents, Jurisdiction, Constitutional Law
Share Embed Donate

Short Description

Download Javellana vs Executive Secretary...




FACTS On January 20, 1973, petitioner, Josue Javellana filed a case from implementing any of the provisions of the proposed Constitution not found in the present Constitution, the 1935 Constitution. The petitioner alleged for the following; 1. The president had announced the immediate implementation of the new Constitution thru his Cabinet, including the respondents 2. The respondents are acting without, or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing the said proposed Constitution 3. The president as a Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, is without authority to create the citizens assemblies 4. That the respondents are without power to approve the proposed Constitution 5. That the president is without power to proclaim the ratification of the Filipino people of the proposed constitution 6. The election held to ratify the proposed Constitution was not a free election, hence, null and void.

ISSUES Whether or not; 1. The issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 a justiciable, or political and therefore non-justiciable, question? 2. The Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention been ratified validly (with substantial, if not strict, compliance) conformably to the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions? 3. The aforementioned proposed Constitution acquiesced in (with or without valid ratification) by the people? 4. Petitioners entitled to relief? 5. The aforementioned proposed Constitution in force?


The issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 presents a justiciable and non-political question.

One of the principal bases of the non-justiciability of so-called political questions is the principle of separation of powers characteristic of the Presidential system of government the functions of which are classified or divided, by reason of their nature, into three (3) categories, namely: 1) those involving the making of laws, which are allocated to the legislative department; 2) those concerned mainly with the enforcement of such laws and of judicial decisions applying and/or interpreting the same, which belong to the executive department; and 3) those dealing with the settlement of disputes, controversies or conflicts involving rights, duties or prerogatives that are legally demandable and enforceable, which are apportioned to courts of justice. Within its own sphere but only within such sphere each department is supreme and independent of the others, and each is devoid of authority, not only to encroach upon the powers or field of action assigned to any of the other departments, but, also, to inquire into or pass upon the advisability or wisdom of the acts performed, measures taken or decisions made by the other departments provided that such acts, measures or decisions are within the area allocated thereto by the Constitution. 2. The constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention was not validly ratified in accordance with Article XV, Section of the 1935 Constitution. However, in its political aspect, the people may have cast their favourable votes in the belief that in doing so they did the part required of them by Article XV, which is what counts most. 3. There was no majority vote reached by the court. Three (3) judges expressed their lack of knowledge or competence to rule on the question, in their statement that under the regime of martial law, free expressions of opinions through the usual media are restricted and they have no means of knowing to the point of judicial certainty, whether the people have accepted the Constitution. 4. The court has voted to dismiss the petitions. The effectivity of the Constitution, in the final analysis, is the basic and ultimate question posed by the cases to resolve which considerations other than judicial, and therefore, beyond the competence of the court, is relevant and unavoidable. The 1935 Constitution has pro tanto passed into history and has been legitimately supplanted by the Constitution in force by virtue of Proclamation 1102. 5. The proposed Constitution is in force by the virtue of the people’s acceptance.

View more...


Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.