Scribd
Upload
58 views2 pages

Javellana v. Executive Secretary

This case involved a challenge to the ratification of the 1973 Philippine Constitution. Josue Javellana filed a petition arguing that the President did not have the authority to implement the proposed constitution without valid ratification. The Supreme Court ruled that while the proposed constitution was not validly ratified according to the process outlined in the 1935 Constitution, it could still be recognized if acquiesced to by the people. The Court dismissed the petition, with some justices arguing that determining the effectiveness of the new constitution involved non-judicial considerations beyond the Court's competence.

Uploaded by

katryn marie aquino bajo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
58 views2 pages

Javellana v. Executive Secretary

This case involved a challenge to the ratification of the 1973 Philippine Constitution. Josue Javellana filed a petition arguing that the President did not have the authority to implement the proposed constitution without valid ratification. The Supreme Court ruled that while the proposed constitution was not validly ratified according to the process outlined in the 1935 Constitution, it could still be recognized if acquiesced to by the people. The Court dismissed the petition, with some justices arguing that determining the effectiveness of the new constitution involved non-judicial considerations beyond the Court's competence.

Uploaded by

katryn marie aquino bajo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

KATRYN MARIE A.

BAJO
Constitutional Law 1

7. JAVELLANA V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, G. R. No. L-36142, March 31,


1973
FACTS:

On January 20, 1973, Josue Javellana filed Case G.R. No. L-36142, as a
“Filipino citizen, and aqualified and registered voter” and as “a class suit, for
himself, and in behalf of all citizensand voters similarly situated against the
Executive Secretary and the Secretaries of NationalDefense, Justice and Finance,
to restrain said respondents “and their subordinates or agentsfrom implementing
any of the provisions of the propose Constitution not found in thepresent
Constitution” referring to that of 1935. Javellana alleged that the President
ordered“the immediate implementation of the New Constitution, thru his
Cabinet, and that thelatter are acting without or in excess of jurisdiction in
implementing the said proposedConstitution. He construed that the President is
without authority to create the CitizensAssemblies; to approve the proposed
Constitution; proclaim the ratification; and that theelection held to ratify the
proposed Constitution was not a free election, hence null andvoid

ISSUE/S:

1. Whether or not 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.
2. Whether or not the proposed Constitution acquiesced in (with or
without valid ratification) by the people.

RULING:

1. Court held that the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional


Conventionwas not validly ratified in accordance with Article
XV, section 1 of the 1935Constitution, which provides only one
way for ratification, i.e., “in an election or plebiscite held in accordance
with law and participated in only by qualified and dulyregistered voters.
However, it is conceded that the doctrine stated in some
Americandecisions to the effect that independently of the validity of the
ratification, a newConstitution once accepted acquiesced in by
the people must be accordedrecognition by the Court.”

2. On the fourth question, 6 justices voted to DISMISS the petition. Justice


Makalintaland Castro so voted on the strength of their view that “The
effectivity of the saidConstitution, in the final analysis, is the basic and
ultimate question posed by thesecases to resolve which considerations
other than judicial, and therefore beyond thecompetence of this Court,
are relevant and unavoidable

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy