Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 44 views

    Javellana V Executive Secretary

    Uploaded by

    Anjanette Mangalindan
    The petitioner challenged the validity of the ratification of the proposed new constitution by the people under martial law. The Supreme Court held that determining whether a constitution was validly amended is the duty of the judiciary, and in this case the ratification did not comply with the requirements of the 1935 Constitution. While martial law was in effect, the Court could not say that the people truly acquiesced to the proposed constitution. However, the majority dismissed the case as considerations beyond the judicial were now relevant given that the new constitution was already in force.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Javellana V Executive Secretary

    Uploaded by

    Anjanette Mangalindan
    44 views1 page
    The petitioner challenged the validity of the ratification of the proposed new constitution by the people under martial law. The Supreme Court held that determining whether a constitution was validly amended is the duty of the judiciary, and in this case the ratification did not comply with the requirements of the 1935 Constitution. While martial law was in effect, the Court could not say that the people truly acquiesced to the proposed constitution. However, the majority dismissed the case as considerations beyond the judicial were now relevant given that the new constitution was already in force.

    Original Description:

    Javellana v Executive Secretary

    Original Title

    Javellana v Executive Secretary

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner challenged the validity of the ratification of the proposed new constitution by the people under martial law. The Supreme Court held that determining whether a constitution was validly amended is the duty of the judiciary, and in this case the ratification did not comply with the requirements of the 1935 Constitution. While martial law was in effect, the Court could not say that the people truly acquiesced to the proposed constitution. However, the majority dismissed the case as considerations beyond the judicial were now relevant given that the new constitution was already in force.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    44 views1 page

    Javellana V Executive Secretary

    Uploaded by

    Anjanette Mangalindan
    The petitioner challenged the validity of the ratification of the proposed new constitution by the people under martial law. The Supreme Court held that determining whether a constitution was validly amended is the duty of the judiciary, and in this case the ratification did not comply with the requirements of the 1935 Constitution. While martial law was in effect, the Court could not say that the people truly acquiesced to the proposed constitution. However, the majority dismissed the case as considerations beyond the judicial were now relevant given that the new constitution was already in force.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    JOSUE JAVELLANA, petitioner, vs.

    THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF


    NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AND THE SECRETARY OF
    FINANCE, respondents.

    G.R. No. L-36164, March 31, 1973, Justice Roberto Concepcion.

    FACTS:

    While the Convention was in session, the President issued Proclamation No. 1081 placing the entire
    Philippines under Martial Law. Then, the Convention approved its Proposed Constitution of the
    Republic of the Philippines. The next day, the President of the Philippines issued Presidential Decree
    No. 73, “submitting to the Filipino people for ratification or rejection the Constitution of the Republic
    of the Philippines proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention, and appropriating funds therefor,”
    as well as setting the plebiscite for said ratification or rejection of the Proposed Constitution .

    Petitioner Javellana filed an action to restrain respondent from implementing any of the provisions of
    the proposed constitution not found in the present constitution. Petitioner alleged that, respondents are
    acting without or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing proposed constitution and that the
    president is without power to proclaim the ratification by the Filipino people of the proposed
    constitution.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the issue on the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 partake of the nature of a political,
    and, hence, non- justiciable question.

    HELD:

    No. The Court declared that, it is the absolute duty of the judiciary to determine whether the
    Constitution has been amended in the manner required by the constitution; in the case at bar, even
    though there was claimed approval by the people, the Court may determine whether or not Article XV
    of the 1935 Constitution has been complied with. This hold that the issue on the validity of
    Proclamation No. 1102 presents a justiciable and non-political question. The Constitution proposed by
    the 1971 Convention was not validly ratified in accordance with Article XV section 1 of the 1935
    Constitution which provides only one way for ratification (election or plebiscite held in accordance
    with law and only with qualified voters). Due to the environmental and social conditions in the
    Philippines (i.e. martial law), the Court cannot honestly say that the people acquiesced to the proposed
    Constitution. The majority ruled to dismiss the cases as the effectivity of the proposed Constitution is
    the basic issue posed by the cases which considerations other than judicial are relevant and
    unavoidable. The new constitution is in force as there are not enough votes to say otherwise.

    You might also like