lawphil

Today is Wednesday, August 07, 2013

Search

Republic of the hilippines SUPREME COURT !anila "# $A#%

G.R. No. L-36142 March 31, 1973 JOSUE JAVELLANA, petitioner, &s' T E E!ECUT"VE SECRETAR#, T E SECRETAR# O$ NAT"ONAL %E$ENSE, T E SECRETAR# O$ JUST"CE AN% T E SECRETAR# O$ $"NANCE, respondents' G.R. No. L-36164 March 31, 1973 V"%AL TAN, J. ANTON"O ARANETA, ALEJAN%RO ROCES, MANUEL CRU%O, ANTON"O U. M"RAN%A, EM"L"O %E PERALTA AN% LOREN&O M. TA'A%A, petitioners, &s' T E E!ECUT"VE SECRETAR#, T E SECRETAR# O$ $"NANCE , T E SECRETAR# O$ JUST"CE, T E SECRETAR# O$ LAN% RE$ORM, T E SECRETAR# O$ NAT"ONAL %E$ENSE, T E AU%"TOR GENERAL, T E (U%GET COMM"SS"ONER, T E C A"RMAN O$ PRES"%ENT"AL COMM"SS"ON ON REORGAN"&AT"ON, T E TREASURER O$ T E P "L"PP"NES, T E COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS AN% T E COMM"SS"ONER O$ C"V"L SERV"CE, respondents' G.R. No. L-3616) March 31, 1973. GERAR%O RO!AS, AM(ROS"O PA%"LLA, JOV"TO R. SALONGA, SALVA%OR . LAUREL, RAMON V. M"TRA, JR. a*+ EVA ESTRA%A-,ALA-, petitioners, &s' ALEJAN%RO MELC OR, .* h./ ca0ac.12 a/ E34c51.64 S4cr41ar27 JUAN PONCE ENR"LE, .* h./ ca0ac.12 a/ S4cr41ar2 o8 Na1.o*a9 %484*/47 G4*4ra9 ROMEO ESP"NO, .* h./ ca0ac.12 a/ Ch.48 o8 S1a88 o8 1h4 Ar:4+ $orc4/ o8 1h4 Ph.9.00.*4/7 TANC"O E. CASTA'E%A, .* h./ ca0ac.12 a/ S4cr41ar2 G4*4ra9 S4r6.c4/7 S4*a1or G"L J. PU#AT, .* h./ ca0ac.12 a/ Pr4/.+4*1 o8 1h4 S4*a147 a*+ S4*a1or JOSE RO#, h./ ca0ac.12, a/ Pr4/.+4*1 Pro T4:0or4 o8 1h4 o8 1h4 S4*a14, respondents' G.R. No. L-36236 March 31, 1973 E%%"E (. MONTECLARO, ;04r/o*a992 a*+ .* h./ ca0ac.12 a/ Pr4/.+4*1 o8 1h4 Na1.o*a9 Pr4// C95< o8 1h4 Ph.9.00.*4/=, petitioner, &s' T E E!ECUT"VE SECRETAR#, T E SECRETAR# O$ PU(L"C "N$ORMAT"ON, T E AU%"TOR GENERAL, T E (U%GET COMM"SS"ONER > T E NAT"ONAL TREASURER, respondents' G.R. No. L-362?3 March 31, 1973 NAPOLEON V. %"LAG, AL$RE%O SALAPANTAN, JR., LEONAR%O ASO%"SEN, JR., a*+ RAUL M. GON&ALE&, petitioners, &s' T E ONORA(LE E!ECUT"VE SECRETAR#, T E ONORA(LE SECRETAR# O$ NAT"ONAL %E$ENSE, T E ONORA(LE (U%GET COMM"SS"ONER, T E ONORA(LE AU%"TOR GENERAL, respondents' Ramon A. Gonzales for petitioner Josue Javellana. Lorenzo M. Taada and Associates for petitioners Vidal Tan, et al. Taada, Salonga, rdoez, Rodrigo, Sanidad, Ro!as. Gonzales and Arro"o for petitioners Gerardo Ro!as, et al.

Jo#er $. Arro"o and Rogelio %. $adilla for petitioner &ddie Monteclaro.

Raul M. Gonzales and Associates for petitioners 'apoleon V. (ilag, et al. Arturo M. Tolentino for respondents Gil J. $u"at and Jose Ro". ffice of t)e Solicitor General &stelito $. Mendoza, Solicitor Vicente V. Mendoza and Solicitor Re"nato S. $uno for ot)er respondents. R"S()*T+(#

CONCEPC"ON, C.J.: The abo&e,entitled fi&e -./ cases are a se0uel of cases 1'R' #os' ),3.22., ),3.222, ),3.230, ),3.231, ),3.232, ),3.234, ),3.2.3, ),3.251, ),3.25. and ),3.272, decided on 6anuary 22, 1273, to which We will hereafter refer collecti&ely as the plebiscite cases' %ac#ground of t)e $le*iscite +ases. The factual setting thereof is set forth in the decision therein rendered, fro7 which We 0uote8 (n !arch 15, 1257, %ongress of the hilippines passed Resolution #o' 2, which was a7ended by Resolution #o' 3 of said body, adopted on 6une 17, 1252, calling a %on&ention to propose a7end7ents to the %onstitution of the hilippines' Said Resolution #o' 2, as a7ended, was i7ple7ented by Republic Act #o' 5132, appro&ed on August 23, 1270, pursuant to the pro&isions of which the election of delegates to said %on&ention was held on #o&e7ber 10, 1270, and the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention began to perfor7 its functions on 6une 1, 1271' While the %on&ention was in session on Septe7ber 21, 1272, the resident issued rocla7ation #o' 1041 placing the entire hilippines under !artial )aw' (n #o&e7ber 22, 1272, the %on&ention appro&ed its roposed %onstitution of the Republic of the hilippines' The ne9t day, #o&e7ber 30, 1272, the resident of the hilippines issued residential :ecree #o' 73, ;sub7itting to the <ilipino people for ratification or re=ection the %onstitution of the Republic of the hilippines proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention, and appropriating funds therefor,; as well as setting the plebiscite for said ratification or re=ection of the roposed %onstitution on 6anuary 1., 1273' Soon after, or on :ece7ber 7, 1272, %harito lanas filed, with this %ourt, %ase 1'R' #o' ),3.22., against the %o77ission on "lections, the Treasurer of the hilippines and the Auditor 1eneral, to en=oin said ;respondents or their agents fro7 i7ple7enting residential :ecree #o' 73, in any 7anner, until further orders of the %ourt,; upon the grounds, inter alia, that said residential :ecree ;has no force and effect as law because the calling ''' of such plebiscite, the setting of guidelines for the conduct of the sa7e, the prescription of the ballots to be used and the 0uestion to be answered by the &oters, and the appropriation of public funds for the purpose, are, by the %onstitution, lodged e9clusi&ely in %ongress ''',; and ;there is no proper sub7ission to the people of said roposed %onstitution set for 6anuary 1., 1273, there being no freedo7 of speech, press and asse7bly, and there being no sufficient ti7e to infor7 the people of the contents thereof'; Substantially identical actions were filed, on :ece7ber 4, 1272, by ablo %' Sanidad against the %o77ission on "lections -%ase 1'R' #o' ), 3.222/ on :ece7ber 11, 1272, by 1erardo Ro9as, et al', against the %o77ission on "lections, the :irector of rinting, the #ational Treasurer and the Auditor 1eneral -%ase 1'R' ),3.230/, by "ddie $' !onteclaro against the %o77ission on "lections and the Treasurer of the hilippines -%ase 1'R' #o' ),3.231/, and by Sedfrey (rdo>e?, et al' against the #ational Treasurer and the %o77ission on "lections -%ase 1'R' #o' ),3.232/@ on :ece7ber 12, 1272, by Aidal Tan, et al', against the %o77ission on "lections, the Treasurer of the hilippines, the Auditor 1eneral and the :irector of rinting -%ase 1'R' #o' ),3.234/ and by 6ose W' :ioBno and $enigno S' A0uino against the %o77ission on "lections -%ase 1'R' #o' ),3.2.3/@ on :ece7ber 13, 1272, by 6acinto 6i7ene? against the %o77ission on "lections, the Auditor 1eneral, the Treasurer of the hilippines and the :irector of the $ureau of rinting -%ase 1'R' #o' ),3.251/, and by Raul !' 1on?ales against the %o77ission on "lections, the $udget %o77issioner, the #ational Treasurer and the Auditor 1eneral -%ase 1'R' #o' ),3.25./@ and on :ece7ber 15, 1272, by "rnesto %' Cidalgo against the %o77ission on "lections, the Secretary of "ducation, the #ational Treasurer and the Auditor 1eneral -%ase 1'R' #o' ),3.272/' +n all these cases, e9cept the last -1'R' #o' ),3.272/, the respondents were re0uired to file their answers ;not later than 12800 -oDclocB/ noon of Saturday, :ece7ber 15, 1272'; Said cases were, also, set for hearing and partly heard on !onday, :ece7ber 14, 1272, at 2830 a'7' The hearing was continued on :ece7ber 12, 1272' $y agree7ent of the parties, the afore7entioned last case E 1'R' #o' ),3.272 E was, also, heard, =ointly with the others, on :ece7ber 12, 1272' At the conclusion of the hearing, on that date, the parties in all of the afore7entioned cases were gi&en a short period of ti7e within which ;to sub7it their notes on the points they desire to stress'; Said notes were filed on different dates, between

:ece7ber 21, 1272, and 6anuary 3, 1273' !eanwhile, or on :ece7ber 17, 1272, the resident had issued an order te7porarily suspending the effects of rocla7ation #o' 1041, for the purpose of free and open debate on the roposed %onstitution' (n :ece7ber 23, the resident announced the postpone7ent of the plebiscite for the ratification or re=ection of the roposed %onstitution' #o for7al action to this effect was taBen until 6anuary 7, 1273, when 1eneral (rder #o' 20 was issued, directing ;that the plebiscite scheduled to be held on 6anuary 1., 1274, be postponed until further notice'; Said 1eneral (rder #o' 20, 7oreo&er, ;suspended in the 7eanti7e; the ;order of :ece7ber 17, 1272, te7porarily suspending the effects of rocla7ation #o' 1041 for purposes of free and open debate on the proposed %onstitution'; +n &iew of these e&ents relati&e to the postpone7ent of the afore7entioned plebiscite, the %ourt dee7ed it fit to refrain, for the ti7e being, fro7 deciding the afore7entioned cases, for neither the date nor the conditions under which said plebiscite would be held were Bnown or announced officially' Then, again, %ongress was, pursuant to the 123. %onstitution, scheduled to 7eet in regular session on 6anuary 22, 1273, and since the 7ain ob=ection to residential :ecree #o' 73 was that the resident does not ha&e the legislati&e authority to call a plebiscite and appropriate funds therefor, which %ongress un0uestionably could do, particularly in &iew of the for7al postpone7ent of the plebiscite by the resident E reportedly after consultation with, a7ong others, the leaders of %ongress and the %o77ission on "lections E the %ourt dee7ed it 7ore i7perati&e to defer its final action on these cases' ;+n the afternoon of 6anuary 12, 1273, the petitioners in %ase 1'R' #o' ),3.234 filed an ;urgent 7otion,; praying that said case be decided ;as soon as possible, preferably not later than 6anuary 1., 1273'; +t was alleged in said 7otion, inter alia8 ;5' That the resident subse0uently announced the issuance of residential :ecree #o' 45 organi?ing the so,called %iti?ens Asse7blies, to be consulted on certain public 0uestions F$ulletin Today, 6anuary 1, 1273G@ ;7' That thereafter it was later announced that ;the Asse7blies will be asBed if they fa&or or oppose E F1G The #ew Society@ F2G Refor7s instituted under !artial )aw@ F3G The holding of a plebiscite on the proposed new %onstitution and when -the tentati&e new dates gi&en following the postpone7ent of the plebiscite fro7 the original date of 6anuary 1. are <ebruary 12 and !arch ./@ F3G The opening of the regular session slated on 6anuary 22 in accordance with the e9isting %onstitution despite !artial )aw'; F$ulletin Today, 6anuary 3, 1273'G ;4' That it was later reported that the following are to be the for7s of the 0uestions to be asBed to the %iti?ens Asse7blies8 E F1G :o you appro&e of the #ew SocietyH F2G :o you appro&e of the refor7 7easures under 7artial lawH F3G :o you thinB that %ongress should 7eet again in regular sessionH F3G Cow soon would you liBe the plebiscite on the new %onstitution to be heldH F$ulletin Today, 6anuary ., 1273G' ;2' That the &oting by the so,called %iti?ens Asse7blies was announced to taBe place during the period fro7 6anuary 10 to 6anuary 1., 1273@ ;10' That on 6anuary 10, 1273, it was reported that on 7ore 0uestion would be added to the four -3/ 0uestion pre&iously announced, and that the for7s of the 0uestion would be as follows8 E F1G :o you liBe the #ew SocietyH F2G :o you liBe the refor7s under 7artial lawH F3G :o you liBe %ongress again to hold sessionsH

F3G :o you liBe the plebiscite to be held laterH F.G (o "ou li#e t)e ,a" $resident Marcos running t)e affairs of t)e government- F$ulletin Today, 6anuary 10, 1273@ e7phasis an additional 0uestion'G ;11' That on 6anuary 11, 1273, it was reported that si9 -5/ 7ore 0uestions would be sub7itted to the so, called %iti?ens Asse7blies8 E F1G :o you appro&e of the citi?ens asse7blies as the base of popular go&ern7ent to decide issues of national interestsH F2G (o "ou approve of t)e ne, +onstitutionF3G :o you want a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new %onstitutionH F3G :o you want the elections to be held in #o&e7ber, 1273 in accordance with the pro&isions of the 123. %onstitutionH F.G +f the elections would not be held, when do you want the ne9t elections to be calledH F5G :o you want 7artial law to continueH F$ulletin Today, 6anuary 11, 1273@ e7phasis suppliedG ;12' That according to reports, the returns with respect to the si9 -5/ additional 0uestions 0uoted abo&e will be on a for7 si7ilar or identical to Anne9 ;A; hereof@ ;13' That attached to page 1 of Anne9 ;A; is another page, which we 7arBed as Anne9 ;A,1;, and which reads8 E %(!!"#TS (# I*"ST+(# #o' 1 +n order to broaden the base of citi?ensD participation in go&ern7ent' I*"ST+(# #o' 2 $ut we do not want the Ad +nteri7 Asse7bly to be con&oBed' (r if it is to be con&ened at all, it should not be done so until after at least se&en -7/ years fro7 the appro&al of the #ew %onstitution by the %iti?ens Asse7blies' I*"ST+(# #o' 3 The &ote of the %iti?ens Asse7blies should already be considered the plebiscite on the #ew %onstitution' +f the %iti?ens Asse7blies appro&e of the #ew %onstitution, then the new %onstitution should be dee7ed ratified' I*"ST+(# #o' 3 We are sicB and tired of too fre0uent elections' We are fed up with politics, of so 7any debates and so 7uch e9penses' I*"ST+(# #o' . robably a period of at least se&en -7/ years 7oratoriu7 on elections will be enough for stability to be established in the country, for refor7s to taBe root and nor7alcy to return' I*"ST+(# #o' 5 We want resident !arcos to continue with !artial )aw' We want hi7 to e9ercise his powers with 7ore authority' We want hi7 to be strong and fir7 so that he can acco7plish all his refor7 progra7s and establish nor7alcy in the country' +f all other 7easures fail, we want resident !arcos to declare a re&olutionary go&ern7ent along the lines of the

new %onstitution without the ad interi7 Asse7bly'; ;Attention is respectfully in&ited to the co77ents on ;Iuestion #o' 3,; which reads8 E I*"ST+(# #o' 3 The &ote of the %iti?ens Asse7blies should be considered the plebiscite on the #ew %onstitution' +f the %iti?ens Asse7blies appro&e of the #ew %onstitution, then the new %onstitution should be dee7ed ratified' This, we are afraid, and therefore allege, is pregnant with o7inous possibilities' 13' That, in the 7eanti7e, speaBing on tele&ision and o&er the radio, on 6anuary 7, 1273, the resident announced that the li7ited freedo7 of debate on the proposed %onstitution was being withdrawn and that the procla7ation of 7artial law and the orders and decrees issued thereunder would thenceforth strictly be enforced F:aily "9press, 6anuary 4, 1273G@ 1.' That petitioners ha&e reason to fear, and therefore state, that the 0uestion added in the last list of 0uestions to be asBed to the %iti?ens Asse7blies, na7ely8 E :o you appro&e of the #ew %onstitutionH E in relation to the 0uestion following it8 E :o you still want a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new %onstitutionH; E would be an atte7pt to by,pass and short,circuit this Conorable %ourt before which the 0uestion of the &alidity of the plebiscite on the proposed %onstitution is now pending@ ;15' That petitioners ha&e reason to fear, and therefore allege, that if an affir7ati&e answer to the two 0uestions =ust referred to will be reported then this Conorable %ourt and the entire nation will be confronted with a fait accompli which has been attained in a highly unconstitutional and unde7ocratic 7anner@ ;17' That the fait accompli would consist in the supposed e9pression of the people appro&ing the proposed %onstitution@ ;14' That, if such e&ent would happen, then the case before this Conorable %ourt could, to all intents and purposes, beco7e 7oot because, petitioners fear, and they therefore allege, that on the basis of such supposed e9pression of the will of the people through the %iti?ens Asse7blies, it would be announced that the proposed %onstitution, with all its defects, both congenital and otherwise, has been ratified@ ;12' That, in such a situation the hilippines will be facing a real crisis and there is liBelihood of confusion if not chaos, because then, the people and their officials will not Bnow which %onstitution is in force' ;20' That the crisis 7entioned abo&e can only be a&oided if this Conorable %ourt will i77ediately decide and announce its decision on the present petition@ ;21' That with the withdrawal by the resident of the li7ited freedo7 of discussion on the proposed %onstitution which was gi&en to the people pursuant to Sec' 3 of residential :ecree #o' 73, the opposition of respondents to petitionersD prayer at the plebiscite be prohibited has now collapsed and that a free plebiscite can no longer be held'; At about the sa7e ti7e, a si7ilar prayer was 7ade in a ;7anifestation; filed by the petitioners in ),3.232, ;1erardo Ro9as, et al' &' %o77ission on "lections, et al',; and ),3.232, ;Sedfrey A' (rdo>e?, et al' &' The #ational Treasurer, et al'; The ne9t day, 6anuary 13, 1273, which was a Saturday, the %ourt issued a resolution re0uiring the respondents in said three -3/ cases to co77ent on said ;urgent 7otion; and ;7anifestation,; ;not later than Tuesday noon, 6anuary 15, 1273'; rior thereto, or on 6anuary 1., 1273, shortly before noon, the petitioners in said %ase 1'R' #o' ),3.234 riled a ;supple7ental 7otion for issuance of restraining order and inclusion of additional respondents,; praying E

;''' that a restraining order be issued en=oining and restraining respondent %o77ission on "lections, as well as the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents and its head, Secretary 6ose Ro>o@ the :epart7ent of Agrarian Refor7s and its head, Secretary %onrado "strella@ the #ational Ratification %oordinating %o77ittee and its %hair7an, 1uiller7o de Aega@ their deputies, subordinates and substitutes, and all other officials and persons who 7ay be assigned such tasB, fro7 collecting, certifying, and announcing and reporting to the resident or other officials concerned, the so,called %iti?ensD Asse7blies referendu7 results allegedly obtained when they were supposed to ha&e 7et during the period co7prised between 6anuary 10 and 6anuary 1., 1273, on the two 0uestions 0uoted in paragraph 1 of this Supple7ental *rgent !otion'; +n support of this prayer, it was alleged E ;3' That petitioners are now before this Conorable %ourt in order to asB further that this Conorable %ourt issue a restraining order en=oining herein respondents, particularly respondent %o77ission on "lections as well as the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents and its head, Secretary 6ose Ro>o@ the :epart7ent of Agrarian Refor7s and its head, Secretary %onrado "strella@ the #ational Ratification %oordinating %o77ittee and its %hair7an, 1uiller7o de Aega@ and their deputies, subordinates andJor substitutes, fro7 collecting, certifying, announcing and reporting to the resident the supposed %iti?ensD Asse7blies referendu7 results allegedly obtained when they were supposed to ha&e 7et during the period between 6anuary 10 and 6anuary 1., 1273, particularly on the two 0uestions 0uoted in paragraph 1 of this Supple7ental *rgent !otion@ ;3' That the proceedings of the so,called %iti?ensD Asse7blies are illegal, null and &oid particularly insofar as such proceedings are being 7ade the basis of a supposed consensus for the ratification of the proposed %onstitution because8 E FaG The elections conte7plated in the %onstitution, Article KA, at which the proposed constitutional a7end7ents are to be sub7itted for ratification, are elections at which only 0ualified and duly registered &oters are per7itted to &ote, whereas, the so called %iti?ensD Asse7blies were participated in by persons 1. years of age and older, regardless of 0ualifications or lacB thereof, as prescribed in the "lection %ode@ FbG "lections or plebiscites for the ratification of constitutional a7end7ents conte7plated in Article KA of the %onstitution ha&e pro&isions for the secrecy of choice and of &ote, which is one of the safeguards of freedo7 of action, but &otes in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies were open and were cast by raising hands@ FcG The "lection %ode 7aBes a7ple pro&isions for free, orderly and honest elections, and such pro&isions are a 7ini7u7 re0uire7ent for elections or plebiscites for the ratification of constitutional a7end7ents, but there were no si7ilar pro&isions to guide and regulate proceedings of the so called %iti?ensD Asse7blies@ FdG +t is seriously to be doubted that, for lacB of 7aterial ti7e, 7ore than a handful of the so called %iti?ensD Asse7blies ha&e been actually for7ed, because the 7echanics of their organi?ation were still being discussed a day or so before the day they were supposed to begin functioning8 E ; ro&incial go&ernors and city and 7unicipal 7ayors had been 7eeting with barrio captains and co77unity leaders since last !onday F6anuary 4, 1273/ to thresh out the 7echanics in the for7ation of the %iti?ens Asse7blies and the topics for discussion'; F$ulletin Today, 6anuary 10, 1273G ;+t should be recalled that the %iti?ensD Asse7blies were ordered for7ed only at the beginning of the year F:aily "9press, 6anuary 1, 1273G, and considering the lacB of e9perience of the local organi?ers of said asse7blies, as well as the absence of sufficient guidelines for organi?ation, it is too 7uch to belie&e that such asse7blies could be organi?ed at such a short notice' ;.' That for lacB of 7aterial ti7e, the appropriate a7ended petition to include the additional officials and go&ern7ent agencies 7entioned in paragraph 3 of this Supple7ental *rgent !otion could not be co7pleted because, as noted in the *rgent !otion of 6anuary 12, 1273, the sub7ission of the proposed %onstitution to the %iti?ensD Asse7blies was not 7ade Bnown to the public until 6anuary 11, 1273' $ut be that as it 7ay, the said additional officials and agencies 7ay be properly included in the petition at bar because8 E FaG The herein petitioners ha&e prayed in their petition for the annul7ent not only of residential :ecree #o' 73, but also of ;any si7ilar decree, procla7ation, order or

instruction' so that residential :ecree #o' 45, insofar at least as it atte7pts to sub7it the proposed %onstitution to a plebiscite by the so,called %iti?ensD Asse7blies, is properly in issue in this case, and those who enforce, i7ple7ent, or carry out the said residential :ecree #o' 45' and the instructions incidental thereto clearly fall within the scope of this petition@ FbG +n their petition, petitioners sought the issuance of a writ of preli7inary in=unction restraining not only the respondents na7ed in the petition but also their ;agents; fro7 i7ple7enting not only residential :ecree #o' 73, but also ;any other si7ilar decree, order, instruction, or procla7ation in relation to the holding of a plebiscite on 6anuary 1., 1273 for the purpose of sub7itting to the <ilipino people for their ratification or re=ection the 1272 :raft or proposed %onstitution appro&ed by the %onstitutional %on&ention on #o&e7ber 30, 1272;@ and finally, FcG etitioners prayed for such other relief which 7ay be =ust and e0uitable' Fp' 32, etitionG' ;Therefore, &iewing the case fro7 all angles, the officials and go&ern7ent agencies 7entioned in paragraph 3 of this Supple7ental *rgent !otion, can lawfully be reached by the processes of this Conorable %ourt by reason of this petition, considering, further7ore, that the %o77ission on "lections has under our laws the power, a7ong others, of8 E -a/ :irect and i77ediate super&ision and control o&er national, pro&incial, city, 7unicipal and 7unicipal district officials re0uired by law to perfor7 duties relati&e to the conduct of elections on 7atters pertaining to the enforce7ent of the pro&isions of this %ode '''; F"lection %ode of 1271, Sec' 3G' ;5' That unless the petition at bar is decided i77ediately and the %o77ission on "lections, together with the officials and go&ern7ent agencies 7entioned in paragraph 3 of this Supple7ental *rgent !otion are restrained or en=oined fro7 collecting, certifying, reporting or announcing to the resident the results of the alleged &oting of the so,called %iti?ensD Asse7blies, irreparable da7age will be caused to the Republic of the hilippines, the <ilipino people, the cause of freedo7 an de7ocracy, and the petitioners herein because8 FaG After the result of the supposed &oting on the 0uestions 7entioned in paragraph 1 hereof shall ha&e been announced, a conflict will arise between those who 7aintain that the 123. %onstitution is still in force, on the one hand, and those who will 7aintain that it has been superseded by the proposed %onstitution, on the other, thereby creating confusion, if not chaos@ FbG "&en the =urisdiction of this %ourt will be sub=ect to serious attacB because the ad&ocates of the theory that the proposed %onstitution has been ratified by reason of the announce7ent of the results of the proceedings of the so,called %iti?ensD Asse7blies will argue that, 1eneral (rder #o' 3, which shall also be dee7ed ratified pursuant to the Transitory ro&isions of the proposed %onstitution, has placed residential :ecree #os' 73 and 45 beyond the reach and =urisdiction of this Conorable %ourt'; (n the sa7e date E 6anuary 1., 1273 E the %ourt passed a resolution re0uiring the respondents in said case 1'R' #o' ),3.234 to file ;file an answer to the said 7otion not later than 3 '!', Tuesday, 6anuary 15, 1273,; and setting the 7otion for hearing ;on 6anuary 17, 1273, at 2830 a'7'; While the case was being heard, on the date last 7entioned, at noonti7e, the Secretary of 6ustice called on the writer of this opinion and said that, upon instructions of the resident, he -the Secretary of 6ustice/ was deli&ering to hi7 -the writer/ a copy of rocla7ation #o' 1102, which had =ust been signed by the resident' Thereupon, the writer returned to the Session Call and announced to the %ourt, the parties in 1'R' #o' ), 3.234 E inas7uch as the hearing in connection therewith was still going on E and the public there present that the resident had, according to infor7ation con&eyed by the Secretary of 6ustice, signed said rocla7ation #o' 1102, earlier that 7orning' Thereupon, the writer read rocla7ation #o' 1102 which is of the following tenor8 ;$L TC" R"S+:"#T (< TC" C+)+ ; R(%)A!AT+(# #(' 1102 ;A##(*#%+#1 TC" RAT+<+%AT+(# $L TC" <+)+ +#( "( )" (< TC" %(#ST+T*T+(# R( (S": $L TC" 1271 %(#ST+T*T+(#A) %(#A"#T+(#' ;WC"R"AS, the %onstitution proposed by the nineteen hundred se&enty,one %onstitutional %on&ention is +#"S

sub=ect to ratification by the <ilipino people@ ;WC"R"AS, %iti?ens Asse7blies were created in barrios, in 7unicipalities and in districtsJwards in chartered cities pursuant to residential :ecree #o' 45, dated :ece7ber 31, 1272, co7posed of all persons who are residents of the barrio, district or ward for at least si9 7onths, fifteen years of age or o&er, citi?ens of the hilippines and who are registered in the list of %iti?en Asse7bly 7e7bers Bept by the barrio, district or ward secretary@ ;WC"R"AS, the said %iti?ens Asse7blies were established precisely to broaden the base of citi?en participation in the de7ocratic process and to afford a7ple opportunity for the citi?enry to e9press their &iews on i7portant national issues@ ;WC"R"AS, responding to the cla7or of the people and pursuant to residential :ecree #o' 45,A, dated 6anuary ., 1273, the following 0uestions were posed before the %iti?ens Asse7blies or $arangays8 :o you appro&e of the #ew %onstitutionH :o you still want a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new %onstitutionH ;WC"R"AS, fourteen 7illion nine hundred se&enty,si9 thousand fi&e hundred si9ty,one -13,275,.51/ 7e7bers of all the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ &oted for the adoption of the proposed %onstitution, as against se&en hundred forty,three thousand eight hundred si9ty,nine -733,452/ who &oted for its re=ection@ while on the 0uestion as to whether or not the people would still liBe a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new %onstitution, fourteen 7illion two hundred ninety,eight thousand eight hundred fourteen -13,224,413/ answered that there was no need for a plebiscite and that the &ote of the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ should be considered as a &ote in a plebiscite@ ;WC"R"AS, since the referendu7 results show that 7ore than ninety,fi&e -2./ per cent of the 7e7bers of the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ are in fa&or of the new %onstitution, the .atipunan ng Mga %aranga" has strongly reco77ended that the new %onstitution should already be dee7ed ratified by the <ilipino people@ ;#(W, TC"R"<(R", +, <"R:+#A#: "' !AR%(S, resident of the hilippines, by &irtue of the powers in 7e &ested by the %onstitution, do hereby certify and proclai7 that the %onstitution proposed by the nineteen hundred and se&enty,one -1271/ %onstitutional %on&ention has been ratified by an o&erwhel7ing 7a=ority of all of the &otes cast by the 7e7bers of all the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ throughout the hilippines, and has thereby co7e into effect' ;+# W+T#"SS WC"R"(<, + ha&e hereunto set 7y hand and caused the seal of the Republic of the hilippines to be affi9ed' ;:one in the %ity of !anila, this 17th day of 6anuary, in the year of (ur )ord, nineteen hundred and se&enty,three' -Sgd'/ <"R:+#A#: "' !AR%(S ; resident of the hilippines ;$y the resident8 ;A)"6A#:R( !")%C(R ;"9ecuti&e Secretary; Such is the bacBground of the cases sub7itted deter7ination' After ad7itting so7e of the allegations 7ade in the petition in ),3.234 and denying the other allegations thereof, respondents therein alleged in their answer thereto, by way affir7ati&e defenses8 1/ that the ;0uestions raised; in said petition ;are political in character;@ 2/ that ;the %onstitutional %on&ention acted freely and had plenary authority to propose not only a7end7ents but a %onstitution which would supersede the present %onstitution;@ 3/ that ;the residentDs call for a plebiscite and the appropriation of funds for this purpose are &alid;@ 3/ that ;there is not an i7proper sub7ission; and ;there can be a plebiscite under !artial )aw;@ and ./ that the ;argu7ent that the roposed %onstitution is &ague and inco7plete, 7aBes an unconstitutional delegation of power, includes a referendu7 on the procla7ation of !artial )aw and purports to e9ercise =udicial power; is ;not rele&ant and ''' without 7erit'; +dentical defenses were set up in the other cases under consideration' +77ediately after the hearing held on 6anuary 17, 1273, or since the afternoon of that date, the !e7bers of the %ourt ha&e been deliberating on the afore7entioned cases and, after e9tensi&e discussions on the 7erits thereof, ha&e dee7ed it best that each !e7ber write his own &iews thereon and that thereafter the %hief 6ustice should state the result or the &otes thus cast on the points in issue' Cence, the indi&idual &iews of 7y brethren in the %ourt are set forth in the opinions attached hereto, e9cept that, instead of

writing their separate opinions, so7e !e7bers ha&e preferred to 7erely concur in the opinion of one of our colleagues' Then the writer of said decision e9pressed his own opinion on the issues in&ol&ed therein, after which he recapitulated the &iews of the !e7bers of the %ourt, as follows8 1' There is unani7ity on the =usticiable nature of the issue on the legality of residential :ecree #o' 73' 2' (n the &alidity of the decree itself, 6ustices !aBalintal, %astro, <ernando, TeehanBee, "sguerra and 7yself, or si9 -5/ !e7bers of the %ourt, are of the opinion that the issue has beco7e 7oot and acade7ic, whereas 6ustices $arredo, !aBasiar and Antonio &oted to uphold the &alidity of said :ecree' 3' (n the authority of the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention to pass the proposed %onstitution or to incorporate therein the pro&isions contested by the petitioners in ),3.234, 6ustices !aBalintal, %astro, TeehanBee and "sguerra opine that the issue has beco7e 7oot and acade7ic' 6ustices <ernando, $arredo, !aBasiar, Antonio and 7yself ha&e &oted to uphold the authority of the %on&ention' 3' 6ustice <ernando, liBewise, e9pressed the &iew that the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention had authority to continue in the perfor7ance of its functions despite the procla7ation of !artial )aw' +n effect, 6ustices $arredo, !aBasiar and Antonio hold the sa7e &iew' .' (n the 0uestion whether the procla7ation of !artial )aw affected the proper sub7ission of the proposed %onstitution to a plebiscite, insofar as the freedo7 essential therefor is concerned, 6ustice <ernando is of the opinion that there is a repugnancy between the election conte7plated under Art' KA of the 123. %onstitution and the e9istence of !artial )aw, and would, therefore, grant the petitions were they not 7oot and acade7ic' 6ustices $arredo, Antonio and "sguerra are of the opinion that issue in&ol&es 0uestions of fact which cannot be predeter7ined, and that !artial )aw per se does not necessarily preclude the factual possibility of ade0uate freedo7, for the purposes conte7plated' 5' (n residential rocla7ation #o' 1102, the following &iews were e9pressed8 a' 6ustices !aBalintal, %astro, <ernando, TeehanBee, !aBasiar, "sguerra and 7yself are of the opinion that the 0uestion of &alidity of said rocla7ation has not been properly raised before the %ourt, which, accordingly, should not pass upon such 0uestion' b' 6ustice $arredo holds that the issue on the constitutionality of rocla7ation #o' 1102 has been sub7itted to and should be deter7ined by the %ourt, and that the ;purported ratification of the roposed %onstitution ''' based on the referendu7 a7ong %iti?ensD Asse7blies falls short of being in strict confor7ity with the re0uire7ents of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution,; but that such unfortunate drawbacB notwithstanding, ;considering all other related rele&ant circu7stances, ''' the new %onstitution is legally recogni?able and should be recogni?ed as legiti7ately in force'; c' 6ustice Maldi&ar 7aintains un0ualifiedly that the roposed %onstitution has not been ratified in accordance with Article KA of the 123. %onstitution, and that, accordingly, it has no force and effect whatsoe&er' d' 6ustice Antonio feels ;that the %ourt is not co7petent to act; on the issue whether the roposed %onstitution has been ratified by the people or not, ;in the absence of any =udicially disco&erable and 7anageable standards,; since the issue ;poses a 0uestion of fact' 7' (n the 0uestion whether or not these cases should be dis7issed, 6ustices !aBalintal, %astro, $arredo, !aBasiar, Antonio and "sguerra &oted in the affir7ati&e, for the reasons set forth in their respecti&e opinions' 6ustices <ernando, TeehanBee, and the writer si7ilarly &oted, e9cept as regards %ase #o' ), 3.234 as to which they &oted to grant to the petitioners therein a reasonable period of ti7e within which to file appropriate pleadings should they wish to contest the legality of residential rocla7ation #o' 1102' 6ustice Maldi&ar fa&ors the granting of said period to the petitioners in said %ase #o' ),3.234 for the afore7entioned purpose, but he belie&es, in effect, that the %ourt should go farther and decide on the 7erits e&eryone of the cases under consideration' Accordingly, the %ourt E acting in confor7ity with the position taBen by si9 -5/ of its 7e7bers, 1 with three -3/ 7e7bers dissenting, 2 with respect to 1'R' #o' ),3.234, only and another 7e7ber 3 dissenting, as regards all of the cases dis7issed the sa7e, without special pronounce7ent as to costs' T)e $resent +ases

rior thereto, or on 6anuary 20, 1273, 6osue 6a&ellana filed %ase 1'R' #o' ),35132 against the "9ecuti&e Secretary and the Secretaries of #ational :efense, 6ustice and <inance, to restrain said respondents ;and their subordinates or agents fro7 i7ple7enting any of the pro&isions of the propose %onstitution not found in the present %onstitution; E referring to that of 123.' The petition therein, filed by 6osue 6a&ellana, as a ;<ilipino citi?en, and a 0ualified and registered &oter; and as ;a class suit, for hi7self, and in behalf of all citi?ens and &oters si7ilarly situated,; was a7ended on or about 6anuary 23, 1273' After reciting in substance the facts set forth in the decision in the plebiscite cases, 6a&ellana alleged that the resident had announced ;the i77ediate i7ple7entation of the #ew %onstitution, thru his %abinet, respondents including,; and that the latter ;are acting without, or in e9cess of =urisdiction in i7ple7enting the said proposed %onstitution; upon the ground8 ;that the resident, as %o77ander,in,%hief of the Ar7ed <orces of the hilippines, is without authority to create the %iti?ens Asse7blies;@ that the sa7e ;are without power to appro&e the proposed %onstitution ''';@ ;that the resident is without power to proclai7 the ratification by the <ilipino people of the proposed %onstitution;@ and ;that the election held to ratify the proposed %onstitution was not a free election, hence null and &oid'; Si7ilar actions were filed, on 6anuary 23, 1273, by Aidal Tan, 6' Antonio Araneta, Ale=andro Roces, !anuel %rudo, Antonio *' !iranda, "7ilio de eralta and )oren?o !' Ta>ada, against the "9ecuti&e Secretary, the Secretaries of <inance, 6ustice, )and Refor7, and #ational :efense, the Auditor 1eneral, the $udget %o77issioner, the %hair7an of the residential %o77ission on Reorgani?ation, the Treasurer of the hilippines, the %o77ission on "lections and the %o77issioner of %i&il Ser&ice 4 on <ebruary 3, 1273, by "ddie !onteclaro, personally and as resident of the #ational ress %lub of the hilippines, against the "9ecuti&e Secretary, the Secretary of ublic +nfor7ation, the Auditor 1eneral, the $udget %o77issioner and the #ational Treasurer ) and on <ebruary 12, 1273, by #apoleon A' :ilag, Alfredo Salapantan, 6r', )eonardo Asodisen, 6r' and Raul !' 1on?ales, 6 against the "9ecuti&e Secretary, the Secretary of #ational :efense, the $udget %o77issioner and the Auditor 1eneral' )iBewise, on 6anuary 23, 1273, 1erardo Ro9as, A7brosio adilla, 6o&ito R' Salonga, Sal&ador C' )aurel, 7 Ra7on A' !itra, 6r' and "&a "strada,Nalaw, the first as ;duly elected Senator and !inority <loor )eader of the Senate,; and others as ;duly elected 7e7bers; thereof, filed %ase 1'R' #o' ),3515., against the "9ecuti&e Secretary, the Secretary #ational :efense, the %hief of Staff of the Ar7ed <orces of the hilippines, the Secretary of 1eneral Ser&ices, the resident and the resident ro Te7pore of the Senate' +n their petition E as a7ended on 6anuary 25, 1273 E petitioners 1erardo Ro9as, et al' allege, inter alia, that the ter7 of office of three of the afore7entioned petitioners ? would e9pire on :ece7ber 31, 127., and that of the others 9 on :ece7ber 31, 1277@ that pursuant to our 123. %onstitution, ;which is still in force %ongress of the hilippines ;7ust con&ene for its 4th Session on !onday, 6anuary 22, 1273, at 10800 A'!', which is regular custo7ary hour of its opening session;@ that ;on said day, fro7 10800 A'!' up to the afternoon,; said petitioner ;along with their other colleagues, were unlawfully pre&ented fro7 using the Senate Session Call, the sa7e ha&ing been closed by the authorities in physical possession and control the )egislati&e $uilding;@ that ;-a/t about .800 to 5800 '!' the said day, the pre7ises of the entire )egislati&e $uilding were ordered cleared by the sa7e authorities, and no one was allowed to enter and ha&e access to said pre7ises;@ that ;-r/espondent Senate resident 1il 6' uyat and, in his absence, respondent resident ro Te7pore 6ose Roy we asBed by petitioning Senators to perfor7 their duties under the law and the Rules of the Senate, but unlawfully refrained and continue to refrain fro7 doing so;@ that the petitioners ready and willing to perfor7 their duties as duly elected 7e7bers of the Senate of the hilippines,; but respondent Secretary of #ational :efense, "9ecuti&e Secretary and %hief of Staff, ;through their agents and representati&es, are pre&enting petitioners fro7 perfor7ing their duties as duly elected Senators of the hilippines;@ that ;the Senate pre7ise in the %ongress of the hilippines $uilding ''' are occupied by and are under the physical control of the ele7ents 7ilitary organi?ations under the direction of said respondents;@ that, as per ;official reports, the :epart7ent of 1eneral Ser&ices ''' is now the ci&ilian agency in custody of the pre7ises of the )egislati&e $uilding;@ that respondents ;ha&e unlawfully e9cluded and pre&ented, and continue to so e9clude and pre&ent; the petitioners ;fro7 the perfor7ance of their sworn duties, in&oBing the alleged appro&al of the 1272 -1273/ %onstitution of the hilippines by action of the so,called %iti?ensD Asse7blies on 6anuary 10, 1273 to 6anuary 1., 1273, as stated in and by &irtue of rocla7ation #o' 1102 signed and issued by the resident of the hilippines;@ that ;the alleged creation of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies as instru7entalities for the ratification of the %onstitution of the Republic of the hilippines; is inherently illegal and palpably unconstitutional@ that respondents Senate resident and Senate resident ro Te7pore ;ha&e unlawfully refrained and continue to refrain fro7 andJor unlawfully neglected and continue to neglect the perfor7ance of their duties and functions as such officers under the law and the Rules of the Senate; 0uoted in the petition@ that because of e&ents super&ening the institution of the plebiscite cases, to which reference has been 7ade in the preceding pages, the Supre7e %ourt dis7issed said cases on 6anuary 22, 1273, by a 7a=ority &ote, upon the ground that the petitions therein had beco7e 7oot and acade7ic@ that the alleged ratification of the 1272 -1273/ %onstitution ;is illegal, unconstitutional and &oid and ''' can not ha&e superseded and re&oBed the 123. %onstitution,; for the reasons specified in the petition as a7ended@ that, by acting as they did, the respondents and their ;agents, representati&es and subordinates '''ha&e e9cluded the petitioners fro7 an office to which; they ;are lawfully entitled;@ that ;respondents 1il 6' uyat and 6ose Roy ha&e unlawfully refrained fro7 con&ening the Senate for its 4th session, assu7ing general =urisdiction o&er the Session Call and the pre7ises of the Senate and ''' continue such inaction up to this ti7e and ''' a writ of mandamus is warranted in order to co7pel the7 to co7ply with the duties and functions specifically en=oined by law;@ and that ;against the abo&e 7entioned unlawful acts of the respondents, the petitioners ha&e no appeal nor other speedy and ade0uate re7edy in the ordinary course of law e9cept by in&oBing the e0uitable re7edies of mandamus and prohibition with the pro&isional re7edy of preli7inary 7andatory in=unction'; re7ised upon the foregoing allegations, said petitioners prayed that, ;pending hearing on the 7erits, a writ of preli7inary 7andatory in=unction be issued ordering respondents "9ecuti&e Secretary, the Secretary of #ational :efense, the %hief of Staff of the Ar7ed <orces of the hilippines, and the ''' Secretary of 1eneral Ser&ice, as well as all their agents, representati&es and subordinates to &acate the pre7ises of the Senate of the hilippines and to deli&er physical possession of the sa7e to the resident of the Senate or his authori?ed representati&e;@ and that hearing, =udg7ent be rendered declaring null and rocla7ation #o' 1102 ''' and any order, decree, procla7ation ha&ing the sa7e i7port and ob=ecti&e, issuing writs of prohibition and mandamus, as prayed for against abo&e,7entioned respondents, and 7aBing the writ in=unction per7anent@ and that a writ

of mandamus be issued against the respondents 1il 6' uyat and 6ose Roy directing the7 to co7ply with their duties and functions as resident and resident ro Te7pore, respecti&ely, of the Senate of hilippines, as pro&ided by law and the Rules of the Senate'; Re0uired to co77ent on the abo&e,7entioned petitions andJor a7ended petitions, respondents filed, with the lea&e %ourt first had and obtained, a consolidated co77ent on said petitions andJor a7ended petitions, alleging that the sa7e ought to ha&e been dis7issed outright@ contro&erting petitionersD allegations concerning the alleged lacB i7pair7ent of the freedo7 of the 1271 %onstitution %on&ention to appro&e the proposed %onstitution, its alleged lacB of authority to incorporate certain contested pro&isions thereof, the alleged lacB of authority of the resident to create and establish %iti?ensD Asse7blies ;for the purpose sub7itting to the7 the 7atter of ratification of the new %onstitution,; the alleged ;i7proper or inade0uate sub7iss of the proposed constitution,; the ;procedure for ratification adopted ''' through the %iti?ens Asse7blies;@ a 7aintaining that8 1/ ;-t/he %ourt is without =urisdiction to act on these petitions;@ 2/ the 0uestions raised therein are ;political in character and therefore non=usticiable;@ 3/ ;there substantial co7pliance with Article KA of the 1 %onstitution;@ 3/ ;-t/he %onstitution was properly sub7itted the people in a free, orderly and honest election@ ./ ; rocla7ation #o' 1102, certifying the results of the election, is conclusi&e upon the courts;@ and 5/ ;-t/he a7ending process outlined in Article KA of the 123. %onstitution is not e9clusi&e of other 7odes of a7end7ent'; Respondents uyat and Roy, in said %ase 1'R' #o' ),3515., filed their separate co77ent therein, alleging that ;-t/he sub=ect 7atter; of said case ;is a highly political 0uestion which, under the circu7stances, this '''%ourt would not be in a position to act upon =udicially,; and that, in &iew of the opinions e9pressed by three 7e7bers of this %ourt in its decision in the plebiscite cases, in effect upholding the &alidity of rocla7ation #o' 1102, ;further proceedings in this case 7ay only be an acade7ic e9ercise in futility'; (n <ebruary ., 1273, the %ourt issued a resolution re0uiring respondents in ),35235 to co77ent on the petition therein not later than Saturday, <ebruary 10, 1273, and setting the case for hearing on <ebruary 12, 1273, at 2830 a'7' $y resolution dated <ebruary 7, 1273, this %ourt resol&ed to consider the co77ents of the respondents in cases 1'R' #os' ),35132, ),35153, and ), 3515., as 7otions to dis7iss the petitions therein, and to set said cases for hearing on the sa7e date and ti7e as ),35235' (n that date, the parties in 1'R' #o' ),35243 1@ agreed that the sa7e be, liBewise, heard, as it was, in fact, heard =ointly with the afore7entioned cases 1'R' #os' ),35132, ),35153, ),3515. and ),35235' The hearing, which began on <ebruary 12, 1273, shortly after 2830 a'7', was continued not only that afternoon, but, also, on <ebruary 13, 13, 1. and 15, 7orning and afternoon, after which the parties were granted up to <ebruary 23, 1273, noon, within which to sub7it their notes of oral argu7ents and additional argu7ents, as well as the docu7ents re0uired of the7 or whose presentation was reser&ed by the7' The sa7e resolution granted the parties until !arch 1, 1273, to reply to the notes filed by their respecti&e opponents' %ounsel for the petitioners in 1'R' #os' ),35153 and ),3515. filed their afore7entioned notes on <ebruary 23, 1273, on which date the Solicitor 1eneral sought an e9tension of ti7e up to !arch 3, 1273, within which to file his notes, which was granted, with the understanding that said notes shall include his reply to the notes already filed by the petitioners in 1'R' #os' ),35153 a ),3515.' %ounsel for the petitioners, liBewise, 7o&ed and were granted an e9tension of ti7e, to e9pire on !arch 10, 1273, within which to file, as they did, their notes in reply to those sub7itted by the Solicitor 1eneral on !arch 3, 1273' (n !arch 21, 1273, petitioners in ),3515. filed a ;!anifestation a Supple7ental Re=oinder,; whereas the (ffice of the Solicitor 1eneral sub7itted in all these cases a ;Re=oinder etitionersD Replies'; After deliberating on these cases, the 7e7bers of the %ourt agreed that each would write his own opinion and ser&e a copy thereof on his colleagues, and this they did' Subse0uently, the %ourt discussed said opinions and &otes were cast thereon' Such indi&idual opinions are appended hereto' Accordingly, the writer will first e9press his person opinion on the issues before the %ourt' After the e9position his aforesaid opinion, the writer will 7aBe, concurrently with his colleagues in the %ourt, a resu7e of su77ary of the &otes cast by the7 in these cases' /riter0s $ersonal +' Alleged academic futilit" of furt)er proceedings in G.R. L123435. This defense or theory, set up by counsel for respondents 1il 6' uyat and 6ose Roy in 1'R' #o' ),3515., and, also, by the Solicitor 1eneral, is predicated upon the fact that, in (ur decision in the plebiscite cases, !r' 6ustice $arredo had e9pressed the &iew that the 123. %onstitution had ;pro tanto passed into history; and ;been legiti7ately supplanted by the %onstitution now in force by &irtue of rocla7ation #o' 1102 ''';@ that !r' 6ustice Antonio did not feel ;that this %ourt co7petent to act; in said cases ;in the absence of any =udicially disco&erable and 7anageable standards; and because ;the access to rele&ant infor7ation is insufficient to assure the correct deter7ination of the issue,; apart fro7 the circu7stance that ;the new constitution has been pro7ulgated and great interests ha&e already arisen under it; and that the political organ of the 1o&ern7ent has recogni?ed its pro&isions@ whereas, !r' 6ustice "sguerra had postulated that ;-w/ithout any co7petent e&idence ''' about the circu7stances attending the holding; of the ;referendu7 or plebiscite; thru the %iti?ensD Asse7blies, he ;cannot say that it was not lawfully held; and that, accordingly, he assumed ;that what the procla7ation -#o' 1102/ says on its face is true and until o&erco7e by satisfactory e&idence; he could not ;subscribe to the clai7 that such plebiscite was not held accordingly;@ and that he accepted ;as a fait accompli that the %onstitution adopted -by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention/ on #o&e7ber 30, 1272, has been duly pinion

ratified' %ounsel for respondents 1il 6' uyat and 6ose Roy goes on to say that, under these circu7stances, ;it see7s re7ote or i7probable that the necessary eight -4/ &otes under the 123. %onstitution, and 7uch less the ten -10/ &otes re0uired by the 1272 -1273/ %onstitution, can be obtained for the relief sought in the A7ended etition; in 1'R' #o' ),3515.' + a7 unable to share this &iew' To begin with, !r' 6ustice $arredo announced publicly, in open court, during the hearing of these cases, that he was and is willing to be con&inced that his afore7entioned opinion in the plebiscite cases should be reconsidered and changed' +n effect, he thus declared that he had an open 7ind in connection with the cases at bar, and that in deciding the sa7e he would not necessarily adhere to said opinion if the petitioners herein succeeded in con&incing hi7 that their &iew should be sustained' Secondly, counsel for the aforesaid respondents had apparently assu7ed that, under the 123. %onstitution, eight -4/ &otes are necessary to declare in&alid the contested rocla7ation #o' 1102' + do not belie&e that this assu7ption is borne out by any pro&ision of said %onstitution' Section 10 of Article A+++ thereof reads8 All cases in&ol&ing the constitutionality of a treaty or law shall be heard and decided by the Supre7e %ourt in *anc, and no treaty or law 7ay be declared unconstitutional without the concurrence of two thirds of all the 7e7bers of the %ourt' ursuant to this section, the concurrence of two,thirds of all the !e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt is re0uired only to declare ;treaty or law; unconstitutional' %onstruing said pro&ision, in a resolution dated Septe7ber 15, 1232, then %hief 6ustice !oran, &oicing the unanimous &iew of the !e7bers of this %ourt, postulated8
''' There is not)ing either in the %onstitution or in the 6udiciary Act re0uiring the &ote of eight 6ustices to nullify a rule or regulation or an e9ecuti&e order issued by the resident' +t is &ery significant that in the pre&ious drafts of section 10, Article A+++ of the %onstitution, ;e9ecuti&e order; and ;regulation; ,ere included a7ong those that re0uired for their nullification the &ote of two,thirds of all the 7e7bers of the %ourt' $ut ;e9ecuti&e order; and ;regulation; were later deleted fro7 the final draft -Aruego, The <ra7ing of the hilippine %onstitution, Aol' +, pp' 32., 325/, and t)us a mere ma6orit" of si! mem*ers of t)is +ourt is enoug) to nullif" t)em ' 11

The distinction is not without reasonable foundation' The two thirds &ote -eight F4G &otes/ re0uire7ent, indeed, was 7ade to apply only to treaty and law, because, in these cases, the participation of the two other depart7ents of the go&ern7ent E the "9ecuti&e and the )egislati&e E is present, which circu7stance is absent in the case of rules, regulations and e9ecuti&e orders' +ndeed, a law -statute/ passed by %ongress is sub=ect to the appro&al or &eto of the resident, whose disappro&al cannot be o&erridden e9cept by the &ote of two,thirds -2J3/ of all 7e7bers of each Couse of %ongress' 12 A treaty is entered into by the resident with the concurrence of the Senate, 13 which is not re0uired in the case of rules, regulations or e9ecuti&e orders which are e9clusi&e acts of the resident' Cence, to nullify the sa7e, a lesser nu7ber of &otes is necessary in the Supre7e %ourt than that re0uired to in&alidate a law or treaty' Although the foregoing refers to rules, regulations and e9ecuti&e orders issued by the resident, the dictu7 applies with e0ual force to e9ecuti&e procla7ation, liBe said rocla7ation #o' 1102, inas7uch as the authority to issue the sa7e is go&erned by section 53 of the Re&ised Ad7inistrati&e %ode, which pro&ides8 Ad7inistrati&e acts and co77ands of the -1o&ernor,1eneral/ resident of the hilippines touching the organi?ation or 7ode of operation of the 1o&ern7ent or rearranging or read=usting any of the districts, di&isions, parts or ports of the - hilippine +slands/ hilippines and all acts and co77ands go&erning the general perfor7ance of duties by public e7ployees or disposing of issues of general concern shall be 7ade effecti&e in e9ecuti&e orders'
"9ecuti&e orders fi9ing the dates when specific laws, resolutions, or orders are to ha&e or cease to -ha&e/ effect and an" information concerning matters of pu*lic moment deter7ined by law, resolution, or e9ecuti&e orders, 7ay be pro7ulgated in an e9ecuti&e procla7ation, ,it) all t)e force of an e!ecutive order' 14

+n fact, while e9ecuti&e order e7body ad7inistrati&e acts or co77ands of the resident, e9ecuti&e procla7ations are 7ainly infor7ati&e and declaratory in character, and so does counsel for respondents 1il 6' uyat and 6ose Roy 7aintain in 1'R' #o' ),3515.' 1) As conse0uence, an e9ecuti&e procla7ation has no more than ;the force of an e9ecuti&e order,; so that, for the Supre7e %ourt to declare such procla7ation unconstitutional, under the 123. %onstitution, the sa7e nu7ber of &otes needed to in&alidate an e9ecuti&e order, rule or regulation E na7ely, si9 -5/ &otes E would suffice' As regards the applicability of the pro&isions of the proposed new %onstitution, appro&ed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention, in the deter7ination of the 0uestion whether or not it is now in force, it is ob&ious that such 0uestion depends upon whether or not the said new %onstitution has been ratified in accordance with the re0uire7ents of the 123. %onstitution, upon the authority of which said %onstitutional %on&ention was called and appro&ed the proposed %onstitution' +t is well settled that the 7atter of ratification of an a7end7ent to the %onstitution should be settled by appl"ing t)e provisions of t)e +onstitution in force at t)e time of t)e alleged ratification, or t)e old +onstitution' 16

++ (oes t)e issue on t)e validit" of $roclamation 'o. 4478 parta#e of t)e nature of a political, and, )ence, non16usticia*le 9uestionThe Solicitor 1eneral 7aintains in his co77ent the affir7ati&e &iew and this is his 7ain defense' +n support thereof, he alleges that ;petitioners would ha&e this %ourt declare as in&alid the #ew %onstitution of the Republic; fro7 which E he clai7s E ;this %ourt now deri&es its authority;@ that ;nearly 1. 7illion of our body politic fro7 the age of 1. years ha&e 7andated this %onstitution to be the #ew %onstitution and the prospect of unsettling acts done in reliance on it caution against interposition of the power of =udicial re&iew;@ that ;in the case of the #ew %onstitution, the go&ern7ent has been recogni?ed in accordance with the #ew %onstitution;@ that ;the countryDs foreign relations are now being conducted in accordance with the new charter;@ that ;foreign go&ern7ents ha&e taBen note of it;@ that the ;plebiscite cases; are ;not precedents for holding 0uestions regarding proposal and ratification =usticiable;@ and that ;to abstain fro7 =udg7ent on the ulti7ate issue of constitutionality is not to abdicate duty'; At the outset, it is ob&ious to 7e that We are not being asBed to ;declare; the ne, %onstitution in&alid' What petitioners dispute is the theory that it has been &alidly ratified by the people, especially that they ha&e done so in accordance ,it) Article :V of t)e 4;25 +onstitution' The petitioners 7aintain that the conclusion reached by the %hief "9ecuti&e in the dispositi&e portion of rocla7ation #o' 1102 is not borne out by the whereases preceding the sa7e, as the predicates fro7 which said conclusion was drawn@ that the plebiscite or ;election; re0uired in said Article KA has not been held@ that the %hief "9ecuti&e has no authority, under the 123. %onstitution, to dispensewith said election or plebiscite@ that the proceedings before the %iti?ensD Asse7blies did not constitute and 7ay not be considered as such plebiscite@ that the facts of record abundantly show that the afore7entioned Asse7blies could not ha&e been held throughout the hilippines fro7 6anuary 10 to 6anuary 1., 1273@ and that, in any e&ent, the proceedings in said Asse7blies are null and &oid as an alleged ratification of the new %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention, not only because of the circu7stances under which said Asse7blies had been created and held, but, also, because persons dis0ualified to &ote under Article A of the %onstitution were allowed to participate therein, because the pro&isions of our "lection %ode were not obser&ed in said Asse7blies, because the sa7e were not held under the super&ision of the %o77ission on "lections, in &iolation of section 2 of Article K of the 123. %onstitution, and because the e9istence of !artial )aw and 1eneral (rder #o' 20, withdrawing or suspending the li7ited freedo7 to discuss the 7erits and de7erits of said proposed %onstitution, i7paired the peopleDs freedo7 in &oting thereon, particularly a viva voce, as it was done in 7any instances, as well as their ability to ha&e a reasonable Bnowledge of the contents of the docu7ent on which they were allegedly called upon to e9press their &iews' Referring now 7ore specifically to the issue on whether the new %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention has been ratified in accordance with the pro&isions of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution is a political 0uestion or not, + do not hesitate to state that the answer 7ust be in the negati&e' +ndeed, such is the position taBen by this %ourt, 17 in an endless line of decisions, too long to lea&e any roo7 for possible doubt that said issue is inherently and essentially =usticiable' Such, also, has been the consistent position of the courts of the *nited States of A7erica, whose decisions ha&e a persuasi&e effect in this =urisdiction, our constitutional syste7 in the 123. %onstitution being patterned after that of the *nited States' $esides, no plausible reason has, to 7y 7ind, been ad&anced to warrant a departure fro7 said position, consistently with the for7 of go&ern7ent established under said %onstitution'' Thus, in the afore7entioned plebiscite cases, 1? /e re6ected the theory of the respondents therein that the 0uestion whether residential :ecree #o' 73 calling a plebiscite to be held on 6anuary 1., 1273, for the ratification or re=ection of the proposed new %onstitution, was &alid or not, was not a proper sub=ect of =udicial in0uiry because, they clai7ed, it partooB of a political nature, and We unanimousl" declared that the issue was a6usticia*le one' /it) identical unanimit", We o&erruled the respondentsD contention in the 1271 )a*eas corpuscases, 19 0uestioning (ur authority to deter7ine the constitutional sufficiency of the factual bases of the residential procla7ation suspending the pri&ilege of the writ of )a*eas corpus on August 21, 1271, despite the opposite &iew taBen by this %ourt in %arcelona v. %a#er 2@ and Montenegro v. +astaeda, 21 insofar as it adhered to the for7er case, which &iew We, accordingly, abandoned and refused to apply' <or the sa7e reason, We did not apply and e9pressly 7odified, in Gonzales v. +ommission on &lections, 22 the political,0uestion theory adopted in Ma*anag v. Lopez Vito' 23 Cence, respondents herein urge *s to reconsider the action thus taBen by the %ourt and to re&ert to and follow the &iews e9pressed in %arcelon v. %a#er and Ma*anag v. Lopez Vito' 24 The reasons adduced in support thereof are, howe&er, substantially the sa7e as those gi&en in support of the political,0uestion theory ad&anced in said )a*eas corpus and plebiscite cases, which were carefully considered by this %ourt and found by it to be legally unsound and constitutionally untenable' As a conse0uence, (ur decision in the afore7entioned )a*eas corpus cases partaBes of the nature and effect of a stare decisis, which gained added weight by its &irtual reiteration in the plebiscite cases' The reason why the issue under consideration and other issues of si7ilar character are =usticiable, not political, is plain and si7ple' (ne of the principal bases of the non,=usticiability of so,called political 0uestions is the principle of separation of powers E characteristic of the residential syste7 of go&ern7ent E the functions of which are classified or di&ided, by reason of their nature, into three -3/ categories, na7ely8 1/ those in&ol&ing the 7aBing of laws, which are allocated to the legislati&e depart7ent@ 2/ those concerned 7ainly with the enforce7ent of such laws and of =udicial decisions applying andJor interpreting the sa7e, which belong to the e9ecuti&e depart7ent@ and 3/ those dealing with the settle7ent of disputes, contro&ersies or conflicts in&ol&ing rights, duties or prerogati&es that are legally de7andable and enforceable, which are apportioned to courts of =ustice' Within its own sphere E but onl" ,it)in such sphere E each depart7ent is supre7e and independent of the others, and each is de&oid of authority, not only to encroach upon the powers or field of action assigned to any of the other depart7ents, but, also, to in0uire into or pass upon the ad&isability or ,isdom of the acts perfor7ed, 7easures taBen or decisions 7ade by the other

depart7ents E pro&ided that such acts, 7easures or decisions are ,it)inthe area allocated thereto by the %onstitution'

2)

This principle of separation of powers under the presidential syste7 goes hand in hand with the syste7 of checBs and balances, under which each depart7ent is &ested by the <unda7ental )aw with so7e powers to forestall, restrain or arrest a possible or actual 7isuse or abuse of powers by the other depart7ents' Cence, the appointing power of the "9ecuti&e, his pardoning power, his &eto power, his authority to call the )egislature or %ongress to special sessions and e&en to prescribe or li7it the ob=ect or ob=ects of legislation that 7ay be taBen up in such sessions, etc' %on&ersely, %ongress or an agency or ar7 thereof E such as the co77ission on Appoint7ents E 7ay appro&e or disappro&e so7e appoint7ents 7ade by the resident' +t, also, has the power of appropriation, to ;define, prescribe, and apportion the =urisdiction of the &arious courts,; as well as that of i7peach7ent' *pon the other hand, under the =udicial power &ested by the %onstitution, the ;Supre7e %ourt and ''' such inferior courts as 7ay be established by law,; 7ay settle or decide with finality, not only =usticiable contro&ersies between pri&ate indi&iduals or entities, but, also, disputes or conflicts between a pri&ate indi&idual or entity, on the one hand, and an officer or branch of the go&ern7ent, on the other, or between two -2/ officers or branches of ser&ice, when the latter officer or branch is charged with acting without =urisdiction or in e9cess thereof or in &iolation of law' And so, when a power &ested in said officer or branch of the go&ern7ent is a*solute or un9ualified, the acts in the e9ercise of such power are said to be political in nature, and, conse0uently, non, =usticiable or beyond =udicial re&iew' (therwise, courts of =ustice would be arrogating upon the7sel&es a power conferred by the %onstitution upon another branch of the ser&ice to the e9clusion of the others' Cence, in Taada v. +uenco, 26 this %ourt 0uoted with appro&al fro7 +n re !c%onaughy, 27 the following8 ;At the threshold of the case we are 7et with the assertion that the 0uestions in&ol&ed are political, and not =udicial' +f this is correct, the court has no =urisdiction as the certificate of the state can&assing board would then be final, regardless of the actual &ote upon the a7end7ent' The 0uestion thus raised is a funda7ental one@ *ut it )as *een so often decided contrar" to t)e vie, contended for *" t)e Attorne" General t)at it ,ould seem to *e finall" settled. 999 999 999 ;''' What is generally 7eant, when it is said that a 0uestion is political, and not =udicial, is that it is a matter ,)ic) is to *e e!ercised *" t)e people in t)eir primar" political capacit" , or that it has been specifically delegated to so7e other depart7ent or particular officer of the go&ern7ent, ,it) discretionar" po,er to act' See State vs. +unning)am, 41 Wis' 327, #'W' 723, 1. )'R'A' .51@ <n re Gunn, .0 Nan' 1..@ 32 ac' 370, 234, 12 )'R'A' .12@ Green vs. Mills, 52 <ed' 4.2, 15 %'%'A' .15, 30 )'R'A' 20@ =letc)er vs. Tuttle 1.1 +ll' 31, 37 #'"' 543, 2. )'R'A' 133, 32 A7' St' Rep' 220' Thus the Legislature ma" in its discretion deter7ine whether it will pass law or sub7it a proposed constitutional a7end7ent to the people' The courts ha&e no =udicial control o&er such 7atters, not 7erely because t)e" involve political 9uestions, but because they are 7atters which the people ha&e by the %onstitution delegated to the )egislature' The 1o&ernor 7ay e9ercise the powers delegated hi7, free fro7 =udicial control, so long as )e o*serves t)e la,s act ,it)in t)e limits of t)e po,er conferred ' Cisdiscretionar" acts cannot be controllable, not pri7arily because they are of a politics nature, but because the %onstitution and laws ha&e placed the particular 7atter under his control' %ut ever" officer under constitutional government must act accordingl" to la, and su*6ect its restrictions, and ever" departure t)erefrom or disregard t)ereof must su*6ect )im to t)at restraining and controlling po,er of t)e people, acting t)roug) t)e agenc" of t)e 6udiciar"> for it must *e remem*ered t)at t)e people act t)roug) courts, as ,ell as t)roug) t)e e!ecutive or t)e Legislature' (ne depart7ent is =ust as representati&e as the other, and t)e 6udiciar" is t)e department ,)ic) is c)arged ,it) t)e special dut" of determining t)e limitations ,)ic) t)e la, places upon all official action' The recognition of this principle, unBnown e9cept in 1reat $ritain and A7erica, is necessar", to ?t)e end t)at t)e government ma" *e one of la,s and not of men ; E words which Webster said were t)e greatest contained in any written constitutional docu7ent'; -"7phasis supplied'/ and, in an atte7pt to describe the nature of a political 0uestion in ter7s, it was hoped, understandable to the lay7en, We added that ;''' the ter7 ;political 0uestion; connotes, in legal parlance, what it 7eans in ordinary parlance, na7ely, a 0uestion of policy; in 7atters concerning the go&ern7ent of a State, as a body politic' ;+n other words, in the language of %orpus 6uris Secundu7 -supra/, it refers to ;those 0uestions which, under the %onstitution, are to be decided *" t)e people in their so&ereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionar" aut)orit" has been delegated to the )egislature or e9ecuti&e branch of the go&ern7ent'; +t is concerned with issues dependent upon the ,isdom, not legalit", of a particular 7easure'; Accordingly, when the grant of power is 0ualified, conditional or sub=ect to li7itations, the issue on whether or not the prescribed 0ualifications or conditions ha&e been 7et, or the li7itations respected, is =usticiable or non,political, the cru9 of the proble7 being one of legalit" or validit" of the contested act, not its wisdo7' (therwise, said 0ualifications, conditions or li7itations E particularly those prescribed or i7posed by the %onstitution E would be set at naught' What is 7ore, the =udicial in0uiry into such issue and the settle7ent thereof are the mainfunctions of courts of =ustice under the residential for7 of go&ern7ent adopted in our 123. %onstitution, and the syste7 of checBs and balances, one of its basic predicates' As a conse0uence, We ha&e neither the authority nor the discretion to decline passing upon said issue, but are under t)e inelucta*le o*ligation E 7ade particularly 7ore e9acting and pere7ptory by our oath, as 7e7bers of the highest %ourt of the land, to support and defend the %onstitution E to settle it' This e9plains why, in Miller v. Jo)nson, 2? it was held that courts ha&e a ;dut", rather than a power;, to deter7ine whether another branch of the go&ern7ent has ;Bept ,it)in constitutional limits'; #ot satisfied with this postulate, the court went farther and stressed that, if the %onstitution pro&ides how it 7ay be a7ended E as it is in our 123. %onstitution E ;then, unless t)e manner is follo,ed, t)e 6udiciar" as t)e interpreter of t)at constitution, ,ill declare t)e amendment invalid '; 29 +n

fact, this &ery %ourt E speaBing through 6ustice )aurel, an outstanding authority on hilippine %onstitutional )aw, as well as one of the highly respected and fore7ost leaders of the %on&ention that drafted the 123. %onstitution E declared, as early as 6uly 1., 1235, that ;-i/n ti7es of social dis0uietude or political e9cite7ent, the great land7arBs of the %onstitution are apt to be forgotten or 7arred, if not entirely obliterated' +n cases of conflict, the 6udicial depart7ent is the onl" constitutional organ which can be called upon to deter7ine the proper allocation of powers between the se&eral depart7ents; of the go&ern7ent' 3@ The Solicitor 1eneral has in&oBed Lut)er v. %orden 31 in support of his stand that the issue under consideration is non,=usticiable in nature' #either the factual bacBground of that case nor the action taBen therein by the <ederal Supre7e %ourt has any si7ilarity with or bearing on the cases under consideration' Lut)er v. %orden was an action for trespass filed by )uther with the %ircuit %ourt of the *nited States against $orden and others for ha&ing forcibly entered into )utherDs house, in Rhode +sland, so7eti7e in 1432' The defendants who were in the 7ilitary ser&ice of said for7er colony of "ngland, alleged in their defense that they had acted in obedience to the co77ands of a superior officer, because )uther and others were engaged in a conspiracy to o&erthrow the go&ern7ent by force and the state had been placed by co7petent authority under !artial )aw' Such authority was the charter go&ern7ent of Rhode +sland at the ti7e of the :eclaration of +ndependence, for E unliBe other states which adopted a new %onstitution upon secession fro7 "ngland E Rhode +sland retained its for7 of go&ern7ent under a $ritish %harter, 7aBing only such alterations, by acts of the )egislature, as were necessary to adapt it to its subse0uent condition as an independent state' +t was under this for7 of go&ern7ent when Rhode +sland =oined other A7erican states in the :eclaration of +ndependence and, by subse0uently ratifying the %onstitution of the *nited States, beca7e a 7e7ber of the *nion' +n 1433, it adopted a new %onstitution' rior thereto, howe&er, 7any citi?ens had beco7e dissatisfied with the charter go&ern7ent' !e7orials addressed by the7 to the )egislature ha&ing failed to bring about the desired effect, 7eetings were held and associations for7ed E by those who belonged to this seg7ent of the population E which e&entually resulted in a con&ention called for the drafting of a new %onstitution to be sub7itted to the people for their adoption or re=ection' The con&ention was not authori?ed by any law of the e9isting go&ern7ent' The delegates to such con&ention fra7ed a new %onstitution which was sub7itted to the people' *pon the return of the &otes cast by the7, the con&ention declared that said %onstitution had been adopted and ratified by a 7a=ority of the people and beca7e the para7ount law and %onstitution of Rhode +sland' The charter go&ern7ent, which was supported by a large nu7ber of citi?ens of the state, contested, howe&er, the &alidity of said proceedings' This notwithstanding, one Tho7as W' :orr, who had been elected go&ernor under the new %onstitution of the rebels, prepared to assert authority by force of ar7s, and 7any citi?ens asse7bled to support hi7' Thereupon, the charter go&ern7ent passed an Act declaring the state under !artial )aw and adopted 7easures to repel the threatened attacB and subdue the rebels' This was the state of affairs when the defendants, who were in the 7ilitary ser&ice of the charter go&ern7ent and were to arrest )uther, for engaging in the support of the rebel go&ern7ent E which was ne&er able to e9ercise an" authority in the state E broBe into his house' !eanwhile, the charter go&ern7ent had taBen 7easures to call its own con&ention to re&ise the e9isting for7 of go&ern7ent' "&entually, a new constitution was drafted by a con&ention held under the authority of the charter go&ern7ent, and thereafter was adopted and ratified by the people' ;-T/he ti7es and places at which the &otes were to be gi&en, the persons who were to recei&e and return the7, and the 0ualifications of the &oters )aving all *een previousl" aut)orized and provided for *" la, passed *" t)e c)arter government,; the latter for7ally surrendered all of its powers to the new go&ern7ent, established under its authority, in !ay 1433, which had been in operation uninterruptedl" since then' About a year before, or in !ay 1432, :orr, at the head of a 7ilitary force, had 7ade an unsuccessful atte7pt to taBe possession of the state arsenal in ro&idence, but he was repulsed, and, after an ;asse7blage of so7e hundreds of ar7ed 7en under his co77and at %hepatchet in the 6une following, which dispersed upon approach of the troops of the old go&ern7ent, no further effort was 7ade to establish; his go&ern7ent' ;''' until the %onstitution of 1433; E adopted under the auspices of the charter go&ern7ent E ;went into operation, the charter go&ern7ent continued to assert its authority and e9ercise its powers and to enforce o*edience t)roug)out t)e state ''' '; Ca&ing offered to introduce e&idence to pro&e that the constitution of the rebels had been ratified by the 7a=ority of the people, which the %ircuit %ourt re=ected, apart fro7 rendering =udg7ent for the defendants, the plaintiff tooB the case for re&iew to the <ederal Supre7e %ourt which affir7ed the action of the %ircuit %ourt, stating8 +t is worthy of re7arB, howe&er, when we are referring to the authority of State decisions, that the trial of Tho7as W' :orr tooB place after the constitution of 1433 went into operation' T)e 6udges ,)o decided t)at case )eld t)eir aut)orit" under t)at constitution and it is admitted on all )ands t)at it ,as adopted *" t)e people of t)e State, and is t)e la,ful and esta*lis)ed government. <t is t)e decision, t)erefore, of a State court, ,)ose 6udicial aut)orit" to decide upon t)e constitution and la,s of R)ode <sland is not 9uestioned *" eit)er part" to this contro&ersy, although the go&ern7ent under which it acted was fra7ed and adopted under the sanction and laws of the charter go&ern7ent' T)e point, t)en, raised )ere )as *een alread" decided *" t)e courts of R)ode <sland ' The 0uestion relates, altogether, to the constitution and laws of t)at State, and t)e ,ell settled rule in t)is court is, t)at t)e courts of t)e @nited States adopt and follo, t)e decisions of t)e State courts in 9uestions ,)ic) concern merel" t)e constitution and la,s of t)e State'

@pon ,)at ground could t)e +ircuit +ourt of t)e @nited States ,)ic) tried t)is case )ave departed from t)is rule, and disregarded and overruled t)e decisions of t)e courts of R)ode <sland- *ndoubtedly the courts of the *nited States ha&e certain powers under the %onstitution and laws of the *nited States which do not belong to the State courts' $ut t)e po,er of determining t)at a State government )as *een la,full" esta*lis)ed, ,)ic) t)e courts of t)e State diso,n and repudiate, is not one of t)em. @pon suc) a 9uestion t)e courts of t)e @nited States are *ound to follo, t)e decisions of t)e State tri*unals , and 7ust therefore regard the charter go&ern7ent as the lawful and established go&ern7ent during the ti7e of this contest' 32

+t is thus apparent that the conte9t within which the case of Lut)er v. %orden was decided is basically and funda7entally different fro7 that of the cases at bar' To begin with, the case did not in&ol&e a federal 0uestion, but one purely 7unicipal in nature' Cence, the <ederal Supre7e %ourt was ;bound to follow the decisions of the State tribunals; of Rhode +sland upholding the constitution adopted under the authority of the charter go&ern7ent' Whate&er else was said in that case constitutes, therefore, an o*iter dictum' $esides, no decision analogous to that rendered by the State %ourt of Rhode +sland e9ists in the cases at bar' Secondly, the states of the *nion ha&e a 7easure of internal sovereignt" upon which the <ederal 1o&ern7ent 7ay not encroach, whereas ours is a unitary for7 of go&ern7ent, under which our local go&ern7ents deri&e their authority fro7 the national go&ern7ent' Again, unli#e our 123. %onstitution, the charter or organic law of Rhode +sland contained nopro&ision on the 7anner, procedure or conditions for its a7end7ent' Then, too, the case of Lut)er v. %orden hinged 7ore on the 0uestion of recognition of government, than on recognition of constitution, and there is a funda7ental difference between these two -2/ types of recognition, the first being generally conceded to be a political 0uestion, whereas the nature of the latter depends upon a nu7ber of factors, one of the7 being whether the new %onstitution has been adopted in the 7anner prescribed in the %onstitution in force at the ti7e of the purported ratification of the for7er, which is essentiall" a 6usticia*le0uestion' There was, in Lut)er v. %orden, a conflict between t,o -2/ rival go&ern7ents, antagonistic to each other, which is absent in the present cases' Cere, the 1o&ern7ent established under the 123. %onstitution is the &ery sa7e go&ern7ent whose "9ecuti&e :epart7ent has urged the adoption of the new or re&ised %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention and now alleges that it has been ratified by the people' +n short, the &iews e9pressed by the <ederal Supre7e %ourt in Lut)er v. %orden, decided in 1432, on 7attersot)er than those referring to its power to re&iew decisions of a state court concerning the constitution and go&ern7ent of t)at state, not the <ederal %onstitution or 1o&ern7ent, are 7anifestly neither, controlling, nor e&en persuasi&e in the present cases, ha&ing as the =ederal Supre7e %ourt ad7itted E no authority whatsoe&er to pass upon such 7atters or to re&iew decisions of said state court thereon' +n fact, referring to that case, the Supre7e %ourt of !innessota had the following to say8
Lut)er v. %orden, 7 Cow' 1, 12 )' "d' .41, is always cited by those who assert that the courts ha&e no power to deter7ine 0uestions of a political character' +t is interesting historically, but it has not t)e slig)testapplication to the case at bar' When carefully analy?ed, it appears that it 7erely deter7ines that the federal courts ,ill accept as final and controlling a decision of t)e )ig)est court of a state upon a 9uestion of t)e construction of t)e +onstitution of t)e state' ''' ' 33

%a#er v. +arr, 34 cited by respondents, in&ol&ed an action to annul a Tennessee statute apportioning the seats in the 1eneral Asse7bly a7ong the counties of the State, upon the theory that the legislation &iolated the e0ual protection clause' A district court dis7issed the case upon the ground, a7ong others, that the issue was a political one, but, after a painstaBing re&iew of the =urisprudence on the 7atter, the <ederal Supre7e %ourt reversed the appealed decision and held that said issue ,as 6usticia*le and non,political, inas7uch as8;''' -d/eciding whether a 7atter has in any 7easure been co77itted by the %onstitution to anot)er branch of go&ern7ent, or whether the action of that branch e!ceeds whate&er authority has been co77itted, is itself a delicate e9ercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsi*ilit" of t)is +ourt as ultimate interpreter of t)e +onstitution ''' '; Si7ilarly, in $o,ell v. Mc+ormac#, 3) the sa7e %ourt, speaBing through then %hief 6ustice Warren, re&ersed a decision of the %ourt of Appeals of #ew LorB affir7ing that of a <ederal :istrict %ourt, dis7issing owellDs action for a declaratory =udg7ent declaring thereunder that he E whose 0ualifications were uncontested E had been unlawfully e9cluded fro7 the 20th %ongress of the *'S' Said dis7issal was predicated upon the ground, inter alia, that the issue was political, but the <ederal Supre7e %ourt held that it ,as clearl" a 6usticia*le one' The Supre7e %ourt of !innessota undertooB a careful re&iew of A7erican =urisprudence on the 7atter' (wing to the lucidity of its appraisal thereof, We append the sa7e to this opinion as Anne9 A thereof' After an, e9hausti&e analysis of the cases on this sub=ect, the %ourt concluded8
The authorities are thus practicall" uniform in holding that whether a constitutional a7end7ent has been properly adopted according to the re0uire7ents of an e9isting %onstitution is a 6udicial 9uestion' There can be little doubt that the consensus of =udicial opinion is to the effect that it is the a*solute dut" of the =udiciary to deter7ine whether the %onstitution has been a7ended in the 7anner re0uired by the %onstitution, unless a special tribunal has been created to deter7ine the 0uestion@ and e&en then 7any of the courts hold that the tribunal cannot be per7itted to illegally a7end the organic law' ''' ' 36

+n the light of the foregoing, and considering that Art' KA of our 123. %onstitution prescribes the 7ethod or procedure for its a7end7ent, it is clear to 7y 7ind that the 0uestion whether or not the re&ised %onstitution drafted by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention has been ratified in accordance with said Art' KA is a =usticiable one and non,political in nature, and that it is not only

sub=ect to =udicial in0uiry, but, also, that it is the %ourtDs bounden dut" to decide such 0uestion' The Supre7e %ourt of the *nited States has 7eaningfully postulated that ;the courts cannot re=ect as Dno law suitD ; E because it allegedly in&ol&es a political 0uestion E ;a bona fide contro&ersy as to whether so7e action deno7inated ;political; e!ceeds constitutional aut)orit"'; 37 +++ Aas t)e proposed ne, or revised +onstitution *een ratified conforma*l" to said Art. :V of t)e 4;25 +onstitutionetitioners in ),35132 7aintain the negati&e &iew, upon ground8 1/ that the resident ;is without authority to create the %iti?ensD Asse7blies; through which, respondents 7aintain, the proposed new %onstitution has been ratified@ that said Asse7blies ;are without power to appro&e the proposed %onstitution;@ 3/ that the resident ;is without power to proclai7 the ratification by the <ilipino people of the proposed %onstitution;@ and 3/ that ;the election held -in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies/ to ratify the proposed %onstitution was not a free election, hence null and &oid'; Apart fro7 substantially reiterating these grounds support of said negati&e &iew, the petitioners in ),35153 contend8 1/ that the resident ;has no power to call a plebiscite for the ratification or re=ection; of the proposed new %onstitution or ;to appropriate funds for the holding of the said plebiscite;@ 2/ that the proposed new or re&ised %onstitution ;is &ague and inco7plete,; as well as ;contains pro&isions which are beyond the powers of the 1271 %on&ention to enact,; thereby rendering it ;unfit for ''' sub7ission the people@; 3/ that ;-t/he period of ti7e between #o&e7ber 1272 when the 1272 draft was appro&ed and 6anuary 11,1., 1273,; when the %iti?ensD Asse7blies supposedly ratified said draft, ;was too short, worse still, there was practically no ti7e for the %iti?ensD Asse7blies to discuss the 7erits of the %onstitution which the 7a=ority of the7 ha&e not read a which they ne&er Bnew would be sub7itted to the7 ratification until they were asBed the 0uestion E ;do you appro&e of the #ew %onstitutionH; during the said days of the &oting;@ and that ;-t/here was altogether no freedo7 discussion and no opportunity to concentrate on the 7atter sub7itted to the7 when the 1272 draft was supposedly sub7itted to the %iti?ensD Asse7blies for ratification'; etitioner in ),35235 added, as argu7ents in support of the negati&e &iew, that 8 1/ ;-w/ith a go&ern7ent,controlled press, there can ne&er be a fair and proper sub7ission of the proposed %onstitution to the people;@ and 2/ rocla7ation #o' 1102 is null and &oid ;-i/nas7uch as the ratification process; prescribed ;in the 123. %onstitution was not followed'; $esides adopting substantially so7e of the grounds relied upon by the petitioners in the abo&e,7entioned cases, the petitioners in ),35243 argue that ;-t/he creation of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies as the &ehicle for the ratification of the %onstitution was a deception upon the people since the resident announced the postpone7ent of the 6anuary 1., 1273 plebiscite to either <ebruary 12 or !arch ., 1273'; 3? The reasons adduced by the petitioners in ),3515. in fa&or of the negati&e &iew ha&e already been set forth earlier in this opinion' Cence, it is unnecessary to reproduce the7 here' So it is, with respect to the positions taBen in ),3515. by counsel for therein respondents 1il 6' uyat and 6ose Roy E although 7ore will be said later about the7 E and by the Solicitor 1eneral, on behalf of the other respondents in that case and the respondents in the other cases' 1' /)at is t)e procedure prescri*ed *" t)e 4;25 +onstitution for its amendment*nder section 1 of Art' KA of said %onstitution, three -3/ steps are essential, na7ely8 1' That the a7end7ents to the %onstitution be proposed either by %ongress or by a con&ention called for that purpose, ;by a &ote of three,fourths of all the !e7bers of the Senate and the Couse of Representati&es &oting separately,; but ;in =oint session asse7bled;@ 2' That such a7end7ents be ;sub7itted to the people for their ratification; at an ;election;@ and 3' That such a7end7ents be ;appro&ed by a 7a=ority of the &otes cast; in said election' %o7pliance with the first re0uire7ent is &irtually conceded, although the petitioners in ),35153 0uestion the authority of the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention to incorporate certain pro&isions into the draft of the new or re&ised %onstitution' The 7ain issue in these fi&e -./ cases hinges, therefore, on whether or not the last two -2/ re0uire7ents ha&e been co7plied with' 2' Aas t)e contested draft of t)e ne, or revised +onstitution *een su*mitted to t)e people for t)eir ratification conforma*l" to Art. :V of t)e +onstitution+n this connection, other pro&isions of the 123. %onstitution concerning ;elections; 7ust, also, be taBen into account, na7ely, section + of Art' A and Art' K of said %onstitution' The for7er reads8 Section 1' Suffrage 7ay be e9ercised by 7ale citi?ens of the hilippines not otherwise dis0ualified by law, who are twenty,one years of age or o&er and are able to read and write, and who shall ha&e resided in the hilippines for one year and in the 7unicipality wherein they propose to &ote for at least si9 7onths

preceding the election' The #ational Asse7bly shall e9tend the right of suffrage to wo7en, if in a plebiscite which shall be held for that purpose within two years after the adoption of this %onstitution, not less than three hundred thousand wo7en possessing the necessary 0ualifications shall &ote affir7ati&ely on the 0uestion' Sections 1 and 2 of Art' K of the %onstitution ordain in part8 Section 1' There shall be an independent %o77ission on "lections co7posed of a %hair7an and two other !e7bers to be appointed by the resident with the consent of the %o77ission on Appoint7ents, who shall hold office for a ter7 of nine years and 7ay not be reappointed' ''' 999 999 999 Sec' 2' The %o77ission on "lections shall ha&e e!clusive charge of the enforce7ent and ad7inistration of all la,s relati&e to the conduct of elections and shall e9ercise all other functions which 7ay be conferred upon it by law' +t shall decide, sa&e those in&ol&ing the right to &ote, allad7inistrati&e 0uestions, affecting elections, including the deter7ination of the nu7ber and location of polling places, and the appoint7ent of election inspectors and of other election officials' All la, enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of t)e Government, when so re0uired by the %o77ission, shall act as its deputies for the purpose of insuring fee, orderl", and )onest elections ' The decisions, orders, and rulings of the %o77ission shall be sub=ect to re&iew *" t)e Supreme +ourt'
999 999 999 39

a' /)o ma" vote in a ple*iscite under Art. V of t)e +onstitutionetitioners 7aintain that section 1 of Art' A of the %onstitution is a limitation upon the e9ercise of the right of suffrage' They clai7 that no other persons than ;citi?ens of the hilippines not otherwise dis0ualified by law, who are twenty,one years of age or o&er and are able to read and write, and who shall ha&e resided in the hilippines for one year and in the 7unicipality wherein they propose to &ote for at least si9 7onths preceding the election,; 7ay e9ercise the right of suffrage in the hilippines' *pon the other hand, the Solicitor 1eneral contends that said pro&ision 7erely guarantees the right of suffrage to persons possessing the afore7entioned 0ualifications and none of the dis0ualifications, prescribed by law, and that said right 7ay be &ested by co7petent authorities in persons lac#ing so7e or all of the afore7entioned 0ualifications, and possessing so7e of the aforesaid dis0ualifications' +n support of this &iew, he in&oBes the per7issi&e nature of the language E ;-s/uffrage 7ay be e9ercised; E used in section 1 of Art' A of the %onstitution, and the pro&isions of the Re&ised $arrio %harter, Republic Act #o' 3.20, particularly sections 3 and 5 thereof, pro&iding that citi?ens of the hilippines ;eighteen years of age or o&er,; who are registered in the list of barrio asse7bly 7e7bers, shall be 7e7bers thereof and 7ay participate as such in the plebiscites prescribed in said Act' + cannot accept the Solicitor 1eneralDs theory' Art' A of the %onstitution declares ,)o 7ay e9ercise the right of suffrage, so that those lacBing the 0ualifications therein prescribed 7ay not e9ercise such right' This &iew is borne out by the records of the %onstitutional %on&ention that drafted the 123. %onstitution' +ndeed, section 1 of Art' A of the 123. %onstitution was largely based on the report of the co77ittee on suffrage of the %on&ention that drafted said %onstitution which report was, in turn, ;strongly influenced by the election laws then in force in the hilippines ''' '; 4@ ; Said co77ittee had reco77ended8 1/ ;That the right of suffrage should e9ercised onl" by 7ale citi?ens of the hilippines'; 2/ ;That should be limited to those who could read and write'; 3/ ;That the dut" to &ote should be 7ade o*ligator"'; +t appears that the first reco77endation was discussed e9tensi&ely in the %on&ention, and that, by way of co7pro7ise, it was e&entually agreed to include, in section 1 of Art' A of the %onstitution, the second sentence thereof i7posing upon the #ational Asse7bly established by the original %onstitution E instead of the bica7eral %ongress subse0uently created by a7end7ent said %onstitution E the duty to ;e9tend the right of suffrage wo7en, if in a plebiscite to, be held for that purpose within two years after the adoption of this %onstitution, not less than three hundred thousand wo7en possessing the necessary 0ualifications shall &ote affir7ati&ely on the 0uestion'; 41 The third reco77endation on ;co7pulsory; &oting was, also debated upon rather e9tensi&ely, after which it was re=ected by the %on&ention' 42 This accounts, in 7y opinion, for the per7issi&e language used in the first sentence of said Art' A' :espite so7e debates on the age 0ualification E a7end7ent ha&ing been proposed to reduce the sa7e to 14 or 20, which were re=ected, and the residence 0ualification, as well as the dis0ualifications to the e9ercise of the right of suffrage E the second reco77endation limiting the right of suffrage to those who could ;read and write; was E in the language of :r' 6ose !' Aruego, one of the :elegates to said %on&ention E ;readil" approved in the %on&ention without any dissenting &ote,; although there was so7e debate on whether the <unda7ental )aw should specify the language or dialect that the &oter could read and write, which was decided in the negati&e' 43 What is rele&ant to the issue before *s is the fact that the constitutional pro&ision under consideration was 7eant to be and is a grant or conferment of a right to persons possessing the 0ualifications and none of the dis0ualifications therein 7entioned, which in turn, constitute a limitation of or restriction to said right, and cannot, accordingly, be dispensed with, e9cept by constitutional a7end7ent' (b&iously, e&ery such constitutional grant or confer7ent of a right is necessarily a negation of the authority of %ongress or of any other branch of the 1o&ern7ent to deny said right to the sub=ect of the grant E and, in this sense only, 7ay the sa7e partaBe of the nature of a guarantee' $ut, this does not i7ply not e&en re7otely, that the <unda7ental )aw allows %ongress or anybody else to &est in those lacBing the 0ualifications and ha&ing the dis0ualifications 7entioned in the

%onstitution the right of suffrage' At this =uncture, it is noteworthy that the co77ittee on suffrage responsible for the adoption of section 1 of Art' A of the %onstitution was ;strongly influenced by the election laws then in force in the hilippines'; (ur first "lection )aw was Act 1.42, passed on 6anuary 2, 1207, which was partly a7ended by Acts 1552, 1702, 1725 and 1754, and incorporated into the Ad7inistrati&e %ode of 1215 E Act 25.7 E as chapter 20 thereof, and then in the Ad7inistrati&e %ode of 1217 E Act 2711 E as chapter 14 thereof, which, in turn, was a7ended by Act 3347, appro&ed on :ece7ber 3, 1227' Sections 331 and 332 of said %ode of 1217, prescribing, respecti&ely, the 0ualifications for and dis0ualifications fro7 &oting, are 0uoted below' 44 +n all of these legislati&e acts, the pro&isions concerning the 0ualifications of &oters partooB of the nature of a grant or recognition of the right of suffrage, and, hence, of a denial thereof to those who lacBed the re0uisite 0ualification and possessed any of the statutory dis0ualifications' +n short, the history of section 1, Art' A of the %onstitution, shows beyond doubt than the sa7e conferred E not guaranteed E the authority to persons ha&ing the 0ualifications prescribed therein and none of dis0ualifications to be specified in ordinary laws and, necessary i7plication, denied such right to those lacBing any said 0ualifications, or )aving any of the afore7entioned dis0ualifications' This &iew is further bolstered by the fact that the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention sought the sub7ission to a plebiscite of a ;partial a7end7ent; to said section 1 of Art' A of the 123. %onstitution, by reducing the &oting age fro7 twenty,one -21/ years to eighteen -14/ years, which, howe&er, did not 7ateriali?e on account of the decision of this %ourt in Tolentino v. +ommission on &lections, 4) granting the writs, of prohibition and in=unction therein applied for, upon the ground that, under the %onstitution, all of the a7end7ents adopted by the %on&ention should be sub7itted in ;an election; or a single election, not separately or in se&eral or distinct elections, and that the proposed a7end7ent sought to be sub7itted to a plebiscite was not even a complete a7end7ent, but a ;partial a7end7ent; of said section 1, ,)ic) could *e amended furt)er, after its ratification, had the sa7e taBen place, so that the afore7entioned partial a7end7ent was, for legal purposes, no 7ore than a provisional ortemporar" a7end7ent' Said partial a7end7ent was predicated upon the generally accepted conte7porary construction that, under the 123. %onstitution, persons below twenty,one -21/ years of age could not e9ercise the right of suffrage, without a pre&ious a7end7ent of the %onstitution' *pon the other hand, the 0uestion, whether 14,year,old 7e7bers of barrio asse7blies 7ay &ote in barrio asse7bly plebiscites is, to say the least, a debatable one' +ndeed, there see7s to be a conflict between the last paragraph of said section 5 of Rep' Act #o' 3.20, 46 pursuant to which the ;7a=ority &ote of all the barrio asse7bly mem*ers; -which include all barrio residents 14 years of age or o&er, duly registered in the list of barrio asse7bly 7e7bers/ is necessary for the appro&al, in an asse7bly plebiscite, of ;any budgetary, supple7ental appropriations or special ta9 ordinances,; whereas, according to the paragraph preceding the penulti7ate one of said section, 47 ;-a/ll duly registered barrio asse7bly 7e7bers 9ualified to vote; E who, pursuant to section 10 of the sa7e Act, 7ust be citi?ens ;of the hilippines, t,ent"1one "ears of age or over, able to read and write,; and residents the barrio ;during the si9 7onths i77ediately preceding election, duly registered in the list of &oters; and ; otherwise dis0ualified '''; E =ust liBe the pro&isions of present and past election codes of the hilippines and Art' A of the 123. %onstitution E ;7ay &ote in the plebiscite'; + belie&e, howe&er, that the apparent conflict should resol&ed in fa&or of the 21,year,old 7e7bers of the asse7bly, not only because this interpretation is in accord with Art' A the %onstitution, but, also, because pro&isions of a %onstitution E particularly of a written and rigid one, liBe ours generally accorded a 7andatory status E unless the intention to the contrary is 7anifest, which is not so as regards said Art' A E for otherwise they would not ha&e been considered sufficiently i7portant to be included in the <unda7ental )aw of the land' 4? $esides, it would be illogical, if not absurd, belie&e that Republic Act #o' 3.20 re0uires, for the most important 7easures for which it de7ands E in addition to fa&orable action of the *arrio council E the appro&al of *arrio assem*l" through aple*iscite, lesser 0ualifications than those prescribed in dealing with ordinary 7easures for which such plebiscite need not be held' +t is si7ilarly inconcei&able that those who drafted the 123. %onstitution intended section 1 of Art' A thereof to apply onl" to elections of pu*lic officers, not to ple*iscites for the ratification of a7end7ents to the <unda7ental )aw or re&ision thereof, or of an entirely new %onstitution, and per7it the legislature to re0uire lesser 0ualifications for such ratification, notwithstanding the fact that the ob=ect thereof 7uch 7ore i7portant E if not funda7ental, such as the basic changes introduced in the draft of the re&ised %onstitution adopted by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention, which a intended to be in force per7anently, or, at least, for 7any decades, and to affect the way of life of the nation E and, accordingly, de7ands greater e9perience and 7aturity on the part of the electorate than that re0uired for the election of public officers, 49 whose a&erage ter7 ranges fro7 2 to 5 years' +t is ad7itted that persons 1. years of age or o&er, but below 21 years, regardless of whether or not they possessed the other 0ualifications laid down in both the %onstitution and the present "lection %ode, )@ and of whether or not they are dis0ualified under the pro&isions of said %onstitution and %ode, )1 or those of Republic Act #o' 3.20, )2 ha&e participated and &oted in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies that ha&e allegedly ratified the new or re&ised %onstitution drafted by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention' +n fact, according to the latest official data, the total nu7ber of registered &oters 21 years of age or o&er in the entire hilippines, a&ailable in 6anuary 1273, was less than 12 7illion' Let, rocla7ation #o' 1102 states that 13,275,.5 ;7e7bers of all the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ &oted for the adoption of the proposed %onstitution, as against ''' 733,452 who &oted for its re=ection,; whereas, on the 0uestion whether or not the people still wanted a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new %onstitution, ;''' 13,224,413 answered that there was no need for a plebiscite and that the &ote of the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ should be considered as a &ote in a plebiscite'; +n other words, it is conceded that the nu7ber of people who allegedly &oted at the %iti?ensD Asse7blies for e!ceeded t)e num*er of registered voters under the "lection %ode in force in 6anuary 1273'

+t is thus clear that the proceedings held in such %iti?ensD Asse7blies E and We ha&e 7ore to say on this point in subse0uent pages E were funda7entally irregular, in that persons lacBing the 0ualifications prescribed in section 1 of Art' A of the %onstitution were allowed to &ote in said Asse7blies' And, since there is no 7eans by which the in&alid &otes of those less than 21 years of age can be separated or segregated fro7 those of the 0ualified &oters, the proceedings in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies 7ust be considered null and &oid' )3 +t has been held that ;-t/he power to re=ect an entire poll ''' s)ould *e e!ercised ''' in a case where it is impossi*leto ascertain with reasonable certainty the true &ote,; as where ;it is impossi*le to separate the legal &otes fro7 the illegal or spurious ''' '; )4 +n @sman v. +ommission on &lections, et al', )) We held8 Se&eral circu7stances, defying e9act description and dependent 7ainly on the factual 7ilieu of the particular contro&ersy, ha&e the effect of destroying the integrity and authenticity of disputed election returns and of a&oiding their prima facie &alue and character' +f satisfactorily pro&en, although in a su77ary proceeding, such circu7stances as alleged by the affected or interested parties, sta7p the election returns with the indelible 7arB of falsity and irregularity, and, conse0uently, of unreliability, and =ustify their e9clusion fro7 the can&ass' Then, too, the 123. %onstitution re0uires ;a 7a=ority of the &otes cast; for a proposed a7end7ent to the <unda7ental )aw to be ;&alid; as part thereof, and the ter7 ;&otes cast; has a well,settled 7eaning'
The ter7 ;&otes cast; ''' was held in Smit) v. Renville +ount" +ommissioners, 5. #'W' 2.5, 53 !inn' 15, to ha&e been used as an e0ui&alent of ;*allots cast'; )6 The word ;cast; is defined as ;to deposit for7ally or officially';
)7

+t see7s to us that a &ote is cast when a *allot is deposited indicating a ;choice'; ''' The word ;cast; 7eans ;deposit -a *allot/ for7ally or officially ''' '
''' +n si7ple words, we would define a ;&ote cast; as the e9ercise on a *allot of the choice of the &oter on the 7easure proposed' )?

+n short, said Art' KA en&isages E with the ter7 ;&otes cast; E choices 7ade on *allots E not orally or by raising E by the persons taBing part in plebiscites' This is but natural and logical, for, since the early years of the A7erican regi7e, we had adopted the Australian $allot Syste7, with its 7a=or characteristics, na7ely, uniform official *allots prepared and furnished by the 1o&ern7ent and secrecy in the &oting, with the ad&antage of Beeping records that per7it =udicial in0uiry, when necessary, into the accuracy of the election returns' And the 123. %onstitution has been consistently interpreted in all plebiscites for the ratification re=ection of proposed a7end7ents thereto, fro7 123. to 1257' Cence, the viva voce &oting in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies was and is null and &oid a* initio' b' Ao, s)ould t)e ple*iscite *e )eld- B+ M&L&+ supervision indispensa*le> essential re9uisitesC 6ust as essential as co7pliance with said Art' A of the 12 %onstitution is that of Art' K thereof, particularly its sections 1 and 2' +ndeed, section 1 pro&ides that ;-t/here shall be an independent %o77ission on "lections ''' '; The point to be stressed here is the ter7 ;independent'; +ndeed, why was the ter7 usedH +n the absence of said constitutional pro&ision as to the independence of the %o77ission, would it ha&e been depends upon either %ongress or the 6udiciaryH The answer 7ust be the negati&e, because the functions of the %o77ission E ;enforce7ent and ad7inistration; of election laws E are neither legislati&e nor =udicial in nature, and, hence, beyond the field allocated to either %ongress or courts of =ustice' Said functions are by their nature essentially e!ecutive, for which reason, the %o77ission would be under the ;control; of the resident, pursuant to section 10, paragraph -1/ of Art' A++ of the %onstitution, if Art' K thereof did not e9plicitly declare that it -the %o77ission/ is an ;independent; body' +n other words, in a7ending the original 123. %onstitution, by inserting therein said Art' K, on the %o77ission on "lections, the purpose was to 7aBe said %o77ission independent principall" of t)e +)ief &!ecutive' And the reason therefor is, also, ob&ious' rior to the creation of the %o77ission on "lections as a constitutional organ, election laws in the hilippines were enforced by the then :epart7ent of the +nterior, through its "9ecuti&e $ureau, one of the offices under the super&ision and control of said :epart7ent' The sa7e E liBe other depart7ents of the "9ecuti&e $ranch of the 1o&ern7ent E was, in turn, under the control of the %hief "9ecuti&e, before the adoption of the 123. %onstitution, and had been E until the abolition of said :epart7ent, so7eti7e ago E under the control of the resident of the hilippines, since the effecti&ity of said <unda7ental )aw' *nder the pro&isions thereof, the "9ecuti&e could so use his power of control o&er the :epart7ent of the +nterior and its "9ecuti&e $ureau as to place the 7inority party at such a great, if not decisi&e, disad&antage, as to depri&e it, in effect, of the opportunity to defeat the political party in power, and, hence, to enable the sa7e to perpetuate itself therein' To forestall this possibility, the original 123. %onstitution was a7ended by the establish7ent of the %o77ission on "lections as a constitutional body independent primaril" of t)e $resident of the hilippines' The independence of the %o77ission was sought to be strengthened by the long ter7 of office of its 7e7bers E nine -2/ years, e9cept those first appointed )9 E the longest under the %onstitution, second only to that of the Auditor 1eneral 6@@ by pro&iding

that they 7ay not be re7o&ed fro7 office e9cept by i7peach7ent, placing the7, in this respect, on the sa7e plane as the resident, the Aice, resident, the 6ustices of the Supre7e %ourt and the Auditor 1eneral@ that they 7ay not be reappointed@ that their salaries, ;shall be neither increased nor di7inished during their ter7 of office;@ that the decisions the %o77ission ;shall be sub=ect to re&iew by the Supre7e %ourt; only 61@ that ;-n/o pardon, parole, or suspension sentence for the &iolation of any election law 7ay be granted without the fa&orable reco77endation of the %o77ission; 62@ and, that its chair7an and 7e7bers ;shall not, during the continuance in office, engage in the practice of any profession or inter&ene, directly or indirectly, in the 7anage7ent or control of any pri&ate enterprise which in anyway 7ay affected by the functions of their office@ nor shall they, directly or indirectly, be financially interested in any contract with the 1o&ern7ent or any subdi&ision or instru7entality thereof'; 63 Thus, the fra7ers of the a7end7ent to the original %onstitution of 123. endea&ored to do e&erything possible protect and insure the independence of each 7e7ber of the %o77ission' With respect to the functions thereof as a body, section 2 of said Art' K ordains that ;-t/he %o77ission on "lections shall ha&e e!clusive charge of the enforce7ent and ad7inistration all laws relati&e to the conduct of elections,; apart fro7 such other ;functions which 7ay be conferred upon it by law'; +t further pro&ides that the %o77ission ;shall decide, sa&e those in&ol&ing the right to &ote, all ad7inistrati&e 0uestion affecting elections, including the deter7ination of the nu7ber and location of polling places, and the appoint7ent of election inspectors and of other election officials'; And, to forests possible conflicts or frictions between the %o77ission, on one hand, and the other offices or agencies of the e9ecuti&e depart7ent, on the other, said section 2 postulates that ;BaCll law enforce7ent agencies and instru7entalities of the 1o&ern7ent, when so re9uired by the %o77ission, shall act as its deputies for the purpose of insuring free, orderly, and honest elections'; #ot satisfied with this, it declares, in effect, that ;-t/he decisions, orders, and ruling of the %o77ission; shall not be sub=ect to re&iew, e9cept by the Supre7e %ourt' +n accordance with the letter and spirit of said Art' K of the %onstitution, Rep' Act #o' 5344, otherwise Bnown as the "lection %ode of 1271, i7ple7ents the constitutional powers of the %o77ission on "lections and grants additional powers thereto, so7e of which are enu7erated in sections . and 5 of said Act, 0uoted below' 64 !oreo&er, said Act contains, inter alia, detailed pro&isions regulating contributions and other -corrupt/ practices@ the establish7ent of election precincts@ the designation and arrange7ent of polling places, including &oting booths, to protect the secrecy of the ballot@ for7ation of lists of &oters, the identification and registration of &oters, the proceedings therefor, as well as for the inclusion in, or e9clusion or cancellation fro7 said list and the publication thereof@ the establish7ent of 7unicipal, pro&incial and files of registered &oters@ the co7position and appoint7ent of board of election inspectors@ the particulars of the official ballots to be used and the precautions to be taBen to insure authenticity thereof@ the procedure for the casting of &otes@ the counting of &otes by boards of inspectors@ the rules for the appreciation of ballots and the preparation and disposition of election returns@ the constitution and operation of 7unicipal, pro&incials and national boards of can&assers@ the presentation of the political parties andJor their candidates in each election precinct@ the procla7ation of the results, including, in the case of election of public officers, election contests@ and the =urisdiction of courts of =ustice in cases of &iolation of the pro&isions of said "lection %ode and the penalties for such &iolations' <ew laws 7ay be found with such 7eticulous and elaborate set of pro&isions ai7ed at ;insuring free, orderly, and honest election,; as en&isaged in section 2 of Art' K of the %onstitution' Let, none of the foregoing constitutional and statutory pro&isions was followed by the so,called $arangays or %iti?ensD Asse7blies' And no reasons ha&e been gi&en, or e&en soug)t to be gi&en therefor' +n 7any, if not 7ost, instances, the election were held a viva voce, thus depri&ing the electorate of the right to &ote secretly E one of the 7ost, funda7ental and critical features of our election laws fro7 ti7e i77e7orial E particularly at a ti7e when the sa7e was of utmosti7portance, owing to the e!istence of Martial La,' +n Glen v. Gnau, 6) in&ol&ing the casting of 7any &otes, openly, without co7plying with the re0uire7ents of the law pertinent thereto, it was held that the ;election officers; in&ol&ed ; cannot *e too strongl" condemned; therefor and that if they ;could legally dispense with such re0uire7ent ''' they could with e0ual propriety dispense with all of the7, including t)e one t)at t)e vote s)all *e *" secret *allot, or even *" *allot at all ''' '; !oreo&er, upon the for7al presentation to the "9ecuti&e of the proposed %onstitution drafted by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention, or on :ece7ber 1, 1272, residential :ecree #o' 73 -on the &alidity of which E which was contested in the plebiscite cases, as well as in the 1272 )a*eas corpus cases 66 E We need not, in the case of bar, e9press any opinion/ was issued, calling a plebiscite, to be held on 6anuary 1., 1273, at which the proposed %onstitution would be sub7itted to the people for ratification or re=ection@ directing the publication of said proposed %onstitution@ and declaring, inter alia, that ;-t/he pro&ision of the "lection %ode of 1271, insofar as they are not inconsistent; with said decree E e9cepting those ;regarding right and obligations of political parties and candidates; E ;s)all appl" to the conduct of the plebiscite'; +ndeed, section 2 of said "lection %ode of 1271 pro&ides that ;-a/ll elections of public officers e9cept barrio officials and ple*iscites shall be conducted in the 7anner pro&ided by this %ode'; 1eneral (rder #o' 20, dated 6anuary 7, 1273, postponing until further notice, ;the plebiscite scheduled to be held on 6anuary 1., 1273,; said nothing about the procedure to be followed in plebiscite to taBe place at such notice, and no other order or decree has been brought to (ur attention, e9pressly or i7pliedly repealing the pro&isions of residential :ecree 73, insofar as said procedure is concerned' *pon the other hand, said 1eneral (rder #o' 20 e9pressly suspended ;the pro&isions of Section 3 of residential :ecree #o' 73 insofar as they allow free public discussion of proposed %onstitution ''' te7porarily suspending effects of rocla7ation #o' 1041 for the purposes of free open dabate on the proposed %onstitution ''' '; This specific 7ention of the portions of the decrees or orders or instructions suspended by 1eneral (rder #o' 20 necessarily i7plies that all other portions of said decrees, orders or instructions E and, hence, the pro&isions of residential :ecree #o' 73 outlining the procedure to be followed in the plebiscite for ratification or re=ection of the proposed %onstitution E re7ained in force, assu7ing that said :ecree is &alid' +t is clai7ed that by &irtue of residential :ecree #o' 45,A E the te9t of which is 0uoted below
67

E the "9ecuti&e declared, inter

alia, that the collecti&e &iews e9pressed in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies ;shall be considered in the for7ulation of national policies or progra7s and, where&er practicable, shall be translated into concrete and specific decision;@ that such %iti?ensD Asse7blies ;shall consider &ital national issues ''' liBe the holding of the plebiscite on the new %onstitution ''' and others in the future, which shall ser&e as guide or *asis for action or decision by the national go&ern7ent;@ and that the %iti?ensD Asse7blies ;shall conduct between 6anuary 10 and 1., 1273, a referendum on i7portant national issues, including those specified in paragraph 2 hereof, and sub7it the results thereof to the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents and %o77unity :e&elop7ent i77ediately thereafter, ''' '; As in residential :ecree #o' 45, this :ecree #o' 45,A does not and cannot e9clude the e9ercise of the constitutional super&isory power of the %o77ission on "lections or its participation in the proceedings in said Asse7blies, if the sa7e had been intended to constitute the ;election; or lebiscite re0uired Art' A of the 123. %onstitution' The pro&ision of :ecree #o' 45,A directing the i77ediate sub7ission of the result thereof to the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents %o77unity :e&elop7ent is not necessarily inconsistent with, and 7ust be subordinate to the constitutional power of the %o77ission on "lections to e9ercise its ;e9clusi&e authority o&er the enforce7ent and ad7inistration of all laws to the conduct of elections,; if the proceedings in the Asse7blies would partaBe of the nature of an ;election; or plebiscite for the ratification or re=ection of the proposed %onstitution' We are told that residential :ecree #o' 45 was further a7ended by residential :ecree #o' 45,$, dated 1273, ordering ;that i7portant national issues shall fro7 ti7e to ti7e@ be referred to the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ for resolution in accordance with residential :ecree #o' 45,A dated 6anuary ., 1273 and that the initial referendu7 include the 7atter of ratification of the %onstitution by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention; and that ;-t/he Secretary of the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents and %o77unity :e&elop7ent shall insure the i7ple7entation of this order'; As in the case of residential :ecrees #os' 45 and 45,A, the foregoing directi&es do not necessarily e9clude e9ercise of the powers &ested by the 123. %onstitution in the %o77ission on "lections, e&en if the "9ecuti&e had the authority to repeal Art' K of our <unda7ental )aw E which he does not possess' %opy of residential :ecree #o' 45,$ is appended hereto as Anne9 $ hereof' The point is that, such of the $arrio Asse7blies as were held tooB place without the inter&ention of the %o77ission on "lections, and without co7plying with the pro&isions of the "lection %ode of 1271 or e&en of those of residential :ecree #o' 73' What is 7ore, they were held under the super&ision of t)e ver" officers and agencies of t)e &!ecutive (epartment soug)t to *e e!cluded therefro7 by Art' K of the 123. %onstitution' Worse still, said officers and agencies of the 123. %onstitution would be fa&ored thereby, owing to the practical indefinite e9tension of their respecti&e ter7s of office in conse0uence of section 2 of the Transitory ro&isions, found in Art' KA++ of the proposed %onstitution, without any elections therefor' And the procedure therein 7ostly followed is such that there is no reasona*le means of c)ec#ing the accuracy of the returns files by the officers who conducted said plebiscites' This is another patent &iolation of Art' of the %onstitution which can hardly be sanctioned' And, since the pro&isions of this article for7 part of the fundamental sche7e set forth in the 123. %onstitution, as a7ended, to insure the ;free, orderly, and honest; e9pression of the peopleDs will, the afore7entioned &iolation thereof renders null and &oid the contested proceedings or alleged plebiscite in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies, insofar as the sa7e are clai7ed to ha&e ratified the re&ised %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention' ;''' BaCll t)e aut)orities agree that the legal definition of an election, as well as that which is usually and ordinarily understood by the ter7, is a choosing or as election by those ha&ing a right to participate -in the selection/ of those who shall fill the offices, or of t)e adoption or re6ection of an" pu*lic measure affecting t)e territor" involved' 1. %yc' 272@ Le,is v. %o"nton, 2. %olo' 345, .. ac' 732@ Saunders v. Aa"nes, 13 %al' 13.@ Seaman v. %aug)man, 42 +owa 215, 37 #'W' 1021, 11 )'R'A' 3.3@ State v. Airs), 12. +nd' 207, 23 #'"' 1052, 2 )'R'A' 170@ $ou&ierDs )aw :ictionary' 6? +A Aas t)e proposed +onstitution aforementioned *een approved *" a ma6orit" of t)e people in +itizens0 Assem*lies allegedl" )eld t)roug)out t)e $)ilippinesRespondents 7aintain the affir7ati&e, relying upon rocla7ation #o' 1102, the &alidity of which is precisely being contested by petitioners herein' Respondents clai7 that said procla7ation is ;conclusi&e; upon this %ourt, or is, at least, entitled to full faith and credence, as an enrolled bill@ that the proposed %onstitution has been, in fact, ratified, appro&ed or adopted by the ;o&erwhel7ing; 7a=ority of the people@ that Art' KA of the 123. %onstitution has thus been ;substancially; co7plied with@ and that the %ourt refrain fro7 passing upon the &alidity of rocla7ation #o' 1102, not only because such 0uestion is political in nature, but, also, because should the %ourt in&alidate the procla7ation, the for7er would, in effect, &eto the action of the people in who7 so&ereignty resides and fro7 its power are deri&ed' The 7a=or flaw in this process of rationali?ation is that it assu7es, as a fact, the &ery pre7ise on which it is predicated, and which, 7oreo&er, is contested by the petitioners' As the Supre7e %ourt of !innessota has aptly put it E ''' ever" officer under a constitutional go&ern7ent 7ust act according to law and sub=ect to its restrictions, and ever" departure therefro7 or disregard thereof 7ust sub=ect hi7 to the restraining and controlling of the people, acting t)roug) t)e agenc" of t)e 6udiciar"> for it must *e remem*ered t)at t)e people act t)roug) courts, as well as through the e9ecuti&e or the )egislature' (ne depart7ent is =ust as representati&e as the other, and t)e 6udiciar" is t)e department ,)ic) is c)arged ,it) t)e special dut" of determining t)e limitations ,)ic) t)e la, places upon all official action ' ''' ' Accordingly, the issue boils downs to whether or not the "9ecuti&e acted within the li7its of his authority when he certified in

rocla7ation #o' 1102 ;that the %onstitution proposed by the nineteen hundred and se&enty,one -1271/ %onstitutional %on&ention has been ratified by an o&erwhel7ing 7a=ority of all of the &otes cast by the 7e7bers of all the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ throughout the hilippines and has thereby co7e into effect'; +n this connection, it is not clai7ed that the %hief "9ecuti&e had personal Bnowledge of the data he certified in said procla7ation' !oreo&er, Art' K of the 123. %onstitution was precisely inserted to place *e"ond the "9ecuti&e the power to super&ise or e&en e9ercise an" authority whatsoe&er o&er ;all laws relati&e to the conduct of elections,; and, hence, whether the elections are for the choice or selection of public officers or for the ratification or re=ection of any proposed a7end7ent, or re&ision of the <unda7ental )aw, since the proceedings for the latter are, also, referred to in said Art' KA as ;elections;' The Solicitor 1eneral stated, in his argu7ent before this %ourt, that he had been infor7ed that there was in each 7unicipality a 7unicipal association of presidents of the citi?ensD asse7blies for each barrio of the 7unicipality@ that the president of each such 7unicipal association for7ed part of a pro&incial or city association of presidents of such 7unicipal associations@ that the president of each one of these pro&incial or city associations in turn for7ed part of a #ational Association or <ederation of residents of such ro&incial or %ity Associations@ and that one <rancisco %ru? fro7 asig, Ri?al, as resident of said #ational Association or <ederation, reported to the resident of the hilippines, in the 7orning of 6anuary 17, 1273, the total result of the &oting in the citi?ensD asse7blies all o&er the country fro7 6anuary 10 to 6anuary 1., 1273' The Solicitor 1eneral further inti7ated that the said 7unicipal associations had reported the results of the citi?ensD asse7blies in their respecti&e 7unicipalities to the corresponding ro&incial Association, which, in turn, trans7itted the results of the &oting in the to the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents and %o77unity :e&elop7ent, which tabulated the results of the &oting in the citi?ensD asse7blies throughout the hilippines and then turned the7 o&er to !r' <ranciso %ru?, as resident or acting resident of the #ational Association or <ederation, whereupon !r' %ru?, acting in a cere7onial capacity, reported said results -tabulated by the :epart7ent of 1o&ern7ents and %o77unity :e&elop7ent/ to the %hief "9ecuti&e, who, accordingly, issued rocla7ation #o' 1102' The record shows, howe&er, that !r' %ru? was not even a mem*er of any barrio council since 1272, so that he could possibly ha&e been a mem*er on 6anuary 17, 1273, of a municipal association of presidents of barrio or ward citi?ensD asse7blies, 7uch less of a ro&incial, %ity or #ational Association or <ederation of $residents of any such pro&incial or city associations' Secondly, at the conclusion of the hearing of these cases <ebruary 15, 1273, and in the resolution of this %ourt of sa7e date, the Solicitor 1eneral was asBed to sub7it, together with his notes on his oral argu7ent, a true copy of afore7entioned report of !r' %ru? to the resident and of ;-p/rocla7ation, decree, instruction, order, regulation or circular, if any, creating or directing or authori?ing creation, establish7ent or organi?ation; of said 7unicipal, pro&incial and national associations, but neither a copy of alleged report to the resident, nor a copy of any ;-p/rocla7ation, decree, instruction, order, regulation or circular,; has been sub7itted to this %ourt' +n the absence of said report, ;-p/rocla7ation, decree, instruction,; etc', rocla7ation #o' 1102 is de&oid of any factual and legalfoundation' Cence, the conclusion set forth in the dispositi&e portion of said rocla7ation #o' 1102, to the effect that the proposed new or re&ised %onstitution had been ratified by 7a=ority of the &otes cast by the people, can not possibly ha&e any legal effect or &alue' The theory that said procla7ation is ;conclusi&e upon %ourt is clearly untenable' +f it were, acts of the "9ecuti&e and those of %ongress could not possibly be annulled or in&alidated by courts of =ustice' Let, such is not the case' +n fact, e&en a resolution of %ongress declaring that a gi&en person has been elected resident or Aice, resident of the hilippines as provided in t)e +onstitution, 69 is not conclusi&e upon the courts' +t is no more than prima facie e&idence of what is attested to by said resolution' 7@ +f assailed directly in appropriate proceedings, such as an election protest, if and when authori?ed by law, as it is in the hilippines, the %ourt 7ay recei&e e&idence and declare, in accordance therewith, who was duly elected to the office in&ol&ed' 71 +f prior to the creation of the residential "lectoral Tribunal, no such protest could be filed, it was not because the resolution of %ongress declaring who had been elected resident or Aice, resident was conclusive upon courts of =ustice, but because there was no la, per7itting the filing of such protest and declaring ,)at court or *od" would hear and decide the sa7e' So, too, a declaration to the effect that a gi&en a7end7ent to the %onstitution or re&ised or new %onstitution has been ratified by a 7a=ority of the &otes cast therefor, ma" *e dul" assailed in court and *e t)e o*6ect of 6udicial in9uir", in direct proceedings therefor E such as the cases at bar E and the issue raised therein ma" and s)ould *e decided in accordance with the e&idence presented' The case of +n re !c%onaughy 72 is s0uarely in point' ;As the %onstitution stood fro7 the organi?ation of the state; E of !innessota E ;all ta9es were re0uired to be raised under the syste7 Bnown as the Dgeneral property ta9'D :issatisfaction with the results of this 7ethod and the de&elop7ent of 7ore scientific and satisfactory 7ethods of raising re&enue induced the )egislature to sub7it to the people an a7end7ent to the %onstitution which pro&ided 7erely that ta9es shall be unifor7 upon the sa7e class of sub=ects' This proposed a7end7ent was sub7itted at the general election held in #o&e7ber, 1205, and in due ti7e it was certified by the state can&assing board and proclai7ed by the 1o&ernor as ha&ing been legally adopted' Acting upon the assu7ption that the a7end7ent had beco7e a part of the %onstitution, the )egislature enacted statutes pro&iding for a State Ta9 %o77ission and a 7ortgage registry ta9, and the latter statute, upon the sa7e theory, was held constitutional; by said %ourt' ;The district court found that the a7end7ent had no in fact been adopted, and on this appeal; the Supre7e %ourt was ;re9uired to determine t)e correctness of that conclusion'; Referring to the effect of the certification of the State $oard of %an&assers created by the )egislature and of theproclamation 7ade by the 1o&ernor based thereon, the %ourt held8 ;+t will be noted that this board does no 7ore than tabulate the reports recei&ed fro7 the &arious county board and add up and certify the results' State &' !ason, 3. Wash' 233, 44 ac' 125, 2 )'R'A' -*'S'/ 1221' +t is settled law that the decisions of election officers, and can&assing boards are not conclusive and that t)e final decision must rest ,it) t)e courts, unless the law declares that the decisions of the board shall be

final; E and there is no such law in the cases at bar' ;''' The correctness of the conclusion of the state board rests upon the correctness of the returns 7ade by the county boards and it is inconceiva*le that it was intended that this state7ent of result should be final and conclusive regardless of t)e actual facts' The procla7ation of the 1o&ernor adds not)ing in the way of conclusi&eness to the legal effect of the action of the can&assing board' +ts purpose is to for7ally notify the people of the state of the result of the &oting as found by the can&assing board' 6a7es on %onst' %on&' -3th "d'/ sec' .23'; +n %ott v. /artz, 73 the %ourt revie,ed the state7ent of results of the election 7ade by the can&assing board, in order that the true results could be =udicially deter7ined' And so did the court in Rice v. $almer' 74 +nas7uch as Art' K of the 123. %onstitution places under the ;e9clusi&e; charge of the %o77ission on "lections, ;the enforce7ent and ad7inistration of all laws relati&e to the conduct of elections,; independentl" of the "9ecuti&e, and t)ere is not even a certification *" t)e +ommission in support of the alleged results of the citi?ensD asse7blies relied upon in rocla7ation #o' 1102 D apart fro7 the fact that on 6anuary 17, 1273 neither the alleged president of the <ederation of ro&incial or %ity $arangays nor the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents had certified to the resident the alleged result of the citi?ensD asse7blies all o&er the hilippines E it follows necessarily that, fro7 a constitutional and legal &iewpoint, rocla7ation #o' 1102 is not e&en prima facie e&idence of the alleged ratification of the proposed %onstitution' Referring particularly to the cases before *s, it will be noted that, as pointed out in the discussion of the preceding topic, the new or re&ised %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention was not ratified in accordance with the pro&isions of the 123. %onstitution' +n fact, it )as not even *een, ratified in accordance ,it) said proposed +onstitution , the 7ini7u7 age re0uire7ent therein for the e9ercise of the right of suffrage being eig)teen -14/ years, apart fro7 the fact that Art' A+ of the proposed %onstitution re0uires ;secret; &oting, which was not obser&ed in 7any, if not 7ost, %iti?ensD Asse7blies' $esides, *ot) the 123. %onstitution and the proposed %onstitution re0uire a ;7a=ority of the &otes cast; in an election or plebiscite called for the ratification of an a7end7ent or re&ision of the first %onstitution or the effecti&ity of the proposed %onstitution, and the phrase ;&otes cast; has been construed to 7ean ;&otes 7ade in writing not orally, as it was in 7any %iti?ensD Asse7blies'7) "&en counsel for 1il 6' uyat and 6ose Roy, as respondents in ),3515., asserts openly that Art' KA of the %onstitution has not been co7plied with, and since the alleged substantial co7pliance with the re0uire7ents thereof partaBes of the nature of a defense set up by the other respondents in these cases, the burden of pro&ing such defense E which, if true, should be within their peculiar Bnowledge E is clearly on such respondents' Accordingly, if despite the e9tensi&e notes and docu7ents sub7itted by the parties herein, the 7e7bers of the %ourt do not Bnow or are not prepared to say whether or not the 7a=ority of the people or of those who tooB part in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies ha&e assented to the proposed %onstitution, the logical step would be to gi&e due course to these cases, re0uire the respondents to file their answers, and the plaintiffs their reply, and, thereafter, to recei&e the pertinent e&idence and then proceed to the deter7ination of the issues raised thereby' (therwise, we would be placing upon the petitioners the burden of dispro&ing a defense set up by the respondents, who ha&e not so far established the truth of such defense' "&en 7ore i7portant, and decisi&e, than the foregoing is the circu7stance that there is a7ple reason to belie&e that 7any, if not 7ost, of the people did not Bnow that the %iti?ensD Asse7blies were, at the ti7e they were held, plebiscites for the ratification or re=ection of the proposed %onstitution' Cence, in (ur decision in the plebiscite cases, We said, inter alia8 !eanwhile, or on :ece7ber 17, 1272, the resident had issued an order te7porarily suspending the effects of rocla7ation #o' 1041, for the purpose of free and open debate on the roposed %onstitution' (n :ece7ber 23, the resident announced the postpone7ent of the plebiscite for the ratification or re=ection of the roposed %onstitution' #o for7al action to this effect was taBen until 6anuary 7, 1273, when 1eneral (rder #o' 20 was issued, directing ;that the plebiscite scheduled to be held on 6anuary 1., 1273, be postponed until further notice'; Said 1eneral (rder #o' 20, 7oreo&er, ;suspended in the 7eanti7e; the ;order of :ece7ber 17, 1272, te7porarily suspending the effects of rocla7ation #o' 1041 for purposes of free and open debate on the proposed %onstitution' <n vie, of t)ese events relative to t)e postponement of t)e aforementioned ple*iscite, t)e +ourt deemed it fit to refrain, for t)e time *eing, from deciding t)e aforementioned cases, for neit)er t)e date nor t)e conditions under ,)ic) said ple*iscite ,ould *e )eld ,ere #no,n or announced officiall". T)en again, +ongress ,as, pursuant to t)e 4;25 +onstitution, sc)eduled to meet in regular session on Januar" 88, 4;E2, and since t)e main o*6ection to $residential (ecree 'o. E2 ,as t)at t)e $resident does not )ave t)e legislative aut)orit" to call a ple*iscite and appropriate funds t)erefor, ,)ic) +ongress un9uestiona*l" could do, particularl" in vie, of t)e formal postponement of t)e ple*iscite *" t)e $resident D reportedl" after consultation ,it), among ot)ers, t)e leaders of +ongress and t)e +ommission on &lections D t)e +ourt deemed it more imperative to defer its final action on t)ese cases ' And, apparently, the parties in said cases entertained the sa7e belief, for, on :ece7ber 23, 1272 E four -3/ days after the last hearing of said cases 76 E the resident announced the postponement of the plebiscite scheduled by residential :ecree #o' 73 to be held on 6anuary 1., 1273, after consultation with the %o77ission on "lections and the leaders of %ongress, owing to doubts on the sufficiency of the ti7e a&ailable to translate the proposed %onstitution into so7e local dialects and to co7ply with so7e pre,electoral re0uire7ents, as well as to afford the people a reasonable opportunity to be posted on the contents and i7plications of said transcendental docu7ent' (n 6anuary 7, 1273, 1eneral (rder #o' 20 was issued for7ally, postponing said plebiscite ;until further notice'; Cow can said postponement be reconciled with the theory that the proceedings in the %iti?ensD

Asse7blies scheduled to be held fro7 6anuary 10 to 6anuary 1., 1273, were ;plebiscites,; in effect, accelerated, according to the theory of the Solicitor 1eneral, for the ratification of the proposed %onstitutionH +f said Asse7blies were 7eant to be the plebiscites or elections en&isaged in Art' KA of the %onstitution, what, then, was the ;plebiscite; postponed by 1eneral (rder #o' 20H *nder these circu7stances, it was only reasonable for the people who attended such asse7blies to belie&e that the sa7e were not an ;election; or plebiscite for the ratification or adoption of said proposed %onstitution' And, this belief is further bolstered up by the 0uestions propounded in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies, na7ely8 F1G :o you liBe the #ew SocietyH F2G :o you liBe the refor7s under 7artial lawH F3G :o you liBe %ongress again to hold sessionsH F3G :o you liBe the plebiscite to be held laterH F.G (o "ou li#e t)e ,a" $resident Marcos is running t)e affairs of t)e government- F$ulletin Today, 6anuary 10, 1273@ e7phasis an additional 0uestion'G F5G :o you appro&e of the citi?ens asse7blies as the base of popular go&ern7ent to decide issues of national interestsH F7G :o you appro&e of the new %onstitutionH F4G :o you want a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new %onstitutionH F2G :o you want the elections to be held in #o&e7ber, 1273 in accordance with the pro&isions of the 123. %onstitutionH F10G +f the elections would not be held, when do you want the ne9t elections to be calledH F11G :o you want 7artial law to continueH F$ulletin Today, 6anuary 11, 1273G To begin with, 0uestions nos' 1, 2, 3, 3, ., 5, 2, 10 and 11 are not proper in a plebiscite for the ratification of a proposed %onstitution or of a proposed a7end7ent thereto' Secondly, neither is the language of 0uestion #o' 7 E ;:o you appro&e the new %onstitutionH; (ne appro&es ;of; the act of another which does not need such appro&al for the effecti&ity of said act, which the first person, howe&er, finds to be good, wise satisfactory' The appro&al of the 7a=ority of the &otes cast in plebiscite is, howe&er, essential for an a7end7ent to the %onstitution to be &alid as part thereof' Thirdly, if the proceedings in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies constituted a plebiscite 0uestion #o' 4 would ha&e been unnecessary and i7proper, regardless of whether 0uestion #o' 7 were answered affir7ati&ely or negati&ely' +f the 7a=ority of the answers to 0uestion #o' 7 were in the affir7ati&e, the proposed %onstitution would ha&e beco7e effecti&e and no other plebiscite could be held thereafter in connection therewith, e&en if the 7a=ority of the answers to 0uestion #o' 4 were, also, in the affir7ati&e' +f the 7a=ority of the answers to 0uestion #o' 7 were in the negati&e, neither 7ay another plebiscite be held, e&en if the 7a=ority of the answers to 0uestion #o' 4 were in the affir7ati&e' +n either case, not 7ore than one plebiscite could be held for the ratification or re=ection of the proposed %onstitution' +n short, the insertion of said two -2/ 0uestions E apart fro7 the other 0uestions ad&erted to abo&e E indicates strongly that the proceedings therein did not partaBe of the nature of a plebiscite or election for the ratification or re=ection of the proposed %onstitution' +ndeed, + can not, in good conscience, declare that the proposed %onstitution has been appro&ed or adopted by the people in the citi?ensD asse7blies all o&er the hilippines, when it is, to 7y 7ind, a 7atter of =udicial Bnowledge that there ha&e been no such citi?ensD asse7blies in man" parts of !anila and suburbs, not to say, also, in other parts of the hilippines' +n a letter of 1o&ernor "fren $' ascual of $ataan, dated 6anuary 1., 1273, to the %hief "9ecuti&e, the for7er reported8 ''' This report includes a resu7ee -sic/ of the acti&ities we undertooB in effecting the referendum on the ele&en 0uestions you wanted our people consulted on and the Su77ary of Results thereof for each 7unicipality and for the whole pro&ince' 999 999 999 ''' (ur initial plans and preparations, howe&er, dealt only on the original fi&e 0uestions' %onse0uently, when ,e received an instruction on Januar" 47 to c)ange the 0uestions, ,e urgentl" suspended all sc)eduled +itizens Assem*l" meetings on t)at da" and called all !ayors, %hiefs of (ffices and other go&ern7ent officials to another conference to discuss with the7 the new set of guidelines and 7aterials to be used' n Januar" 44, ... anot)er instruction from t)e top ,as received to include the original fi&e 0uestions a7ong those to be discussed and asBed in the %iti?ensD Asse7bly 7eetings' With this latest order, ,e

again )ad to ma#e modifications in our instructions to all those 7anaging and super&ising the holding of the %iti?ensD Asse7bly 7eetings throughout the pro&ince' ''' Aside fro7 the coordinators we had fro7 the (ffice of the 1o&ernor, the splendid cooperation and support e9tended by al7ost all government officials and emplo"ees in the pro&ince, particularly of the :epart7ent of "ducation, % and A%: personnel, pro&ided us with enough hands to trouble shoot and i7ple7ent sudden changes in the instructions anyti7e and anywhere needed' ''' ''' As to our people, in general, their enthusiastic participation showed their preference and readiness to accept this new 7ethod of go&ern7ent to people consultation in s)aping up go&ern7ent policies' Thus, as late as 6anuary 10, 1273, the $ataan officials had to suspend ;all scheduled %iti?ensD Asse7bly 7eetings '''; and call all a&ailable officials ;''' to discuss with the7 t)e ne, set of guidelines and 7aterials to be used ''' '; Then, ;on 6anuary 11 ''' another instruction fro7 the top was recei&ed to include the original fi&e 0uestions a7ong those be discussed and asBed in the %iti?ensD Asse7bly 7eetings' With this latest order, we again had to 7aBe 7odifications in our instructions to all those 7anaging and super&ising holding of the %iti?ensD Asse7bly 7eetings throughout pro&ince' ''' As to our people, in general, their enthusiastic participation showed their preference and readiness to accept the new 7ethod of go&ern7ent to people consultation in s)aping up go&ern7ent policies'; This co77unication 7anifestly shows8 1/ that, as late a 6anuary 11, 1273, the $ataan officials had still to discussE not put into operation E 7eans and ways to carry out the changing instructions fro7 the top on how to organi?e the citi?ensD asse7blies, what to do therein and e&en what 0uestions or topics to propound or touch in said asse7blies@ 2/ that the asse7blies would in&ol&e no 7ore than consultations or dialogues between people and go&ern7ent E not decisions be 7ade *" t)e people@ and 3/ that said consultations were ai7ed only at ;shaping up government policies; and, hence could not, and did not, partaBe of the nature of a plebiscite for the ratification or re=ection of a proposed a7end7ent of a new or re&ised %onstitution for the latter does not entail the for7ulation of a polic" of t)e Government, but the 7aBing of decision *" t)e people on the new way of life, as a nation, they wish to ha&e, once the proposed %onstitution shall ha&e been ratified' +f this was the situation in $ataan E one of the pro&inces nearest to !anila E as late as 6anuary 11, 1273, one can easily i7agine the predica7ent of the local officials and people in the re7ote barrios in northern and southern )u?on, in the $icol region, in the Aisayan +slands and !indanao' +n fact, se&eral 7e7bers of the %ourt, including those of their i77ediate fa7ilies and their household, although duly registered &oters in the area of 1reater !anila, were not even notified that citi?ensD asse7blies would be held in the places where their respecti&e residences were located' +n the rohibition and A7end7ent case, 77 attention was called to the ;dut" cast upon the court of ta#ing 6udicial cognizance of anything affecting the e9istence and &alidity of any law or portion of the %onstitution ''' '; +n line with its own pronounce7ent in another case, the <ederal Supre7e %ourt of the *nited States stressed, in %a#er v. +arr, 7? that ;a court is not at liberty to s)ut its e"es to an o*vious mista#e, when thevalidit" of t)e la, depends upon the truth of what is declared'; +n the light of the foregoing, + cannot see how the 0uestion under consideration can be answered or resol&ed otherwise than in the negati&e' A Aave t)e people ac9uiesced in t)e proposed +onstitution+t is urged that the present 1o&ern7ent of the hilippines is now and has been run, since 6anuary 17, 1271, under the %onstitution drafted by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention@ that the political depart7ent of the 1o&ern7ent has recogni?ed said re&ised %onstitution@ that our foreign relations are being conducted under such new or re&ised %onstitution@ that the )egislati&e :epart7ent has recogni?ed the sa7e@ and that the people, in general, ha&e, by their acts or o7issions, indicated their confor7ity thereto' As regards the so,called political organs of the 1o&ern7ent, gather that respondents refer 7ainly to the offices under the "9ecuti&e :epart7ent' +n a sense, the latter perfor7s so7e functions which, fro7 a constitutional &iewpoint, are politics in nature, such as in recogni?ing a new state or go&ern7ent, in accepting diplo7atic representati&es accredited to our 1o&ern7ent, and e&en in de&ising ad7inistrati&e 7eans and ways to better carry into effect' Acts of %ongress which define the goals or ob=ecti&es thereof, but are either i7precise or silent on the particular 7easures to be resorted to in order to achie&e the said goals or delegate the power to do so, e9pressly or i7pliedly, to the "9ecuti&e' This, notwithstanding, the political organ of a go&ern7ent that purports to be republican is essentially the %ongress or )egislati&e :epart7ent' Whate&er 7ay be the functions allocated to the "9ecuti&e :epart7ent E specially under a written, rigid %onstitution with a republican syste7 of 1o&ern7ent liBe ours E the role of that :epart7ent is inherently, basically and funda7entally e9ecuti&e in nature E to ;taBe care that the laws be faithfully e9ecuted,; in the language of our 123. %onstitution' 79 %onse0uently, + a7 not prepared to concede that the acts the officers and offices of the "9ecuti&e :epart7ent, in line with rocla7ation #o' 1102, connote a recognition thereof o an ac0uiescence thereto' Whether they recogni?ed the proposed %onstitution or ac0uiesce thereto or not is so7ething that cannot legally, 7uch less necessarily or e&en nor7ally, be deduced fro7 their acts in accordance therewith, because the are *ound to obey and act in confor7ity with the orders of the resident, under whose ;control; they are, pursuant to t)e 4;25 +onstitution' They ha&e absolutely no ot)er c)oice, specially in &iew of rocla7ation #o' 1041 placing the hilippines under !artial )aw' $esides, by &irtue of the &ery decrees, orders and instructions

issued by the resident thereafter, he had assu7ed all powers of 1o&ern7ent E although so7e 0uestion his authority to do so E and, conse0uently, there is hardly anything he has done since the issuance of rocla7ation #o' 1102, on 6anuary 17, 1273 E declaring that the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention has been ratified by the o&erwhel7ing 7a=ority of the people E that he could not do under the authority he clai7ed to ha&e under !artial )aw, since Septe7ber 21, 1272, e9cept the power of super&ision o&er inferior courts and its personnel, which said proposed %onstitution would place under the Supre7e %ourt, and which the resident has not ostensibly e9ercised, e9cept as to so7e 7inor routine 7atters, which the :epart7ent of 6ustice has continued to handle, this %ourt ha&ing preferred to 7aintain the status 9uo in connection therewith pending final deter7ination of these cases, in which the effecti&ity of the afore7entioned %onstitution is disputed' Then, again, a gi&en depart7ent of the 1o&ern7ent cannot generally be said to ha&e ;recogni?ed; its o,n acts' Recognition nor7ally connotes the acBnowledg7ent by a party of the acts of anot)er' Accordingly, when a subordinate officer or office of the 1o&ern7ent co7plies with the co77ands of a superior officer or office, under whose super&ision and control he or it is, the for7er 7erely o*e"s the latter' Strictly speaBing, and fro7 a legal and constitutional &iewpoint, there is no act of recognition in&ol&ed therein' +ndeed, the lower officer or office, if he or it acted otherwise, would =ust be guilty of insubordination' Thus, for instance, the case of Ta"lor v. +ommon,ealt) ?@ E cited by respondents herein in support of the theory of the peopleDs ac0uiescence E in&ol&ed a constitution ordained in 1202 and ;proclai7ed by a con&ention duly called by a direct &ote of the people of the state to re&ise and a7end the %onstitution of 1452' The result of the worB of that %on&ention has been recogni?ed, accepted and acted upon as the onl" &alid %onstitution of the State; by E 1' The ;1o&ernor of the State in swearing fidelity to it and proclai7ing it, as directed thereby;@ 2' The ;)egislature in its formal official act adopting a 6oint resolution, 6uly 1., 1202, recogni?ing the %onstitution ordained by the %on&ention ''';@ 3' The ;indi&idual oaths of its 7e7bers to support it, and *" its )aving *een engaged for nearl" a "ear, in legislating under it and putting its pro&isions into operation ''';@ 3' The ;=udiciary in taBing the oath prescribed thereby to support it and by enforcing its pro&isions ''';@ and .' The ;people in their pri7ary capacity by peacefully accepting it and ac0uiescing in it, by registering as &oters under it to the e9tent of thousands throughout the State, and by &oting, under its pro&isions, at a general election for their representati&es in the %ongress of the *nited States'; #ote that the #ew %onstitution of Airginia, drafted by a con&ention whose 7e7bers were elected directly by the people, was not sub7itted to the people for ratification or re=ection thereof' $ut, it was recogni?ed, not by the con&ention itself, but by ot)er sectors of the 1o&ern7ent, na7ely, the 1o&ernor@ the )egislature E not 7erely by indi&idual acts of its 7e7bers, but by formal 6oint resolution of its two -2/ cha7bers@ by the =udiciary@ and by the people, in the &arious ways specified abo&e' What is 7ore, there was no martial la,' +n the present cases, none of the foregoing acts of ac0uiescence was present' Worse still, there is 7artial law, the strict enforcement of which was announced s)ortl" *efore the alleged citi?ensD asse7blies' To top it all, in the Taylor case, the effecti&ity of the contested a7end7ent was not contested =udicially until about one B4C "ear after the a7end7ent had been put into operation in all branches of the 1o&ern7ent, and co7plied with by the people who participated in the elections held pursuant to the pro&isions of the new %onstitution' +n the cases under consideration, the legality of residential :ecree #o' 73 calling a plebiscite to be held on 6anuary 1., 1273, was i7pugned as early as :ece7ber 7, 1272, or fi&e -./ weeBs *efore the scheduled plebiscite, whereas the &alidity of rocla7ation #o' 1102 declaring on 6anuary 17, 1273, that the proposed %onstitution had been ratified E despite 1eneral (rder #o' 20, issued on 6anuary 7, 1272, for7ally and officially suspending the plebiscite until further notice E was i7pugned as early as 6anuary 20, 1273, when ),35132 was filed, or t)ree B2C da"s after the issuance of rocla7ation #o' 1102' +t is further alleged that a 7a=ority of the 7e7bers of our Couse of Representati&es and Senate ha&e ac0uiesced in the new or re&ised %onstitution, by filing written state7ents opting to ser&e in the Ad +nteri7 Asse7bly established in the Transitory ro&isions of said %onstitution' +ndi&idual acts of recognition by 7e7bers of our legislature, as well as of other collegiate bodies under the go&ern7ent, are in&alid as acts of said legislature or bodies, unless its 7e7bers ha&e perfor7ed said acts in session dul" assem*led, or unless the law pro&ides otherwise, and there is no such law in the hilippines' This is a well,established principle of Ad7inistrati&e )aw and of the )aw of ublic (fficers, and no plausible reason has been adduced to warrant departure therefro7' ?1 +ndeed, if the 7e7bers of %ongress were generally agreeable to the proposed %onstitution, why did it beco7e necessary to padlocB its pre7ises to pre&ent its 7eeting in session on 6anuary 22, 1273, and thereafter as pro&ided in the 123. %onstitutionH +t is true that, theoretically, the 7e7bers of %ongress, if bent on discharging their functions under said %onstitution, could ha&e 7et in any other place, the building in which they perfor7 their duties being i77aterial to the legality of their official acts' The force of this argu7ent is, howe&er, offset or dissipated by the fact that, on or about :ece7ber 27, 1272, i77ediately after a conference between the "9ecuti&e, on the one hand, and 7e7bers of %ongress, on the other, so7e of who7 e9pressed the wish to 7eet in session on 6anuary 22, 1273, as pro&ided in the 123. %onstitution, a :aily "9press colu7nist - ri7iti&o !i=ares/ attributed to residential Assistant 1uiller7o de Aega a state7ent to the effect that ;Dcertain 7e7bers of the Senate appear to be 7issing the point in issueD when they reportedly insisted on ta#ing up first t)e 9uestion of convening +ongress '; The :aily "9press of that date, ?2 liBewise, headlined, on its front page, a ;Senatorial $lotAgainst D!artial )aw 1o&ern7entD :isclosed;'

Then, in its issue of :ece7ber 22, 1272, the sa7e paper i7puted to the "9ecuti&e an appeal ;to di&erse groups in&ol&ed in a conspirac" to under7ine; his powers; under 7artial law todesist from provo#ing a constitutional crisis ''' ,)ic) ma" result in t)e e!ercise *" me of aut)orit" < )ave not e!ercised'; #o 7atter how good the intention behind these state7ent 7ay ha&e been, the idea i7plied therein was too clear an ominous for any 7e7ber of %ongress who thought of organi?ing, holding or taBing part in a session of %ongress, not to get the i7pression that he could hardly do so without in&iting or risBing the application of !artial )aw to hi7' *nder these conditions, + do not feel =ustified in holding that the failure of the 7e7bers of %ongress to 7eet since 6anuary 22, 1273, was due to their recognition, ac0uiescence in or confor7ity with the pro&isions of the afore7entioned %onstitution, or its alleged ratification' <or the sa7e reasons, especially because of rocla7ation #o' 1041, placing the entire hilippines under !artial )aw, neither a7 + prepared to declare that the peopleDs inaction as regards rocla7ation #o' 1102, and their co7pliance with a nu7ber of residential orders, decrees andJor instructions E so7e or 7any of which ha&e ad7ittedly had salutary effects E issued subse0uently thereto a7ounts, constitutes or attests to a ratification, adoption or appro&al of said rocla7ation #o' 1102' +n the words of the %hief "9ecuti&e, ;7artial law connotes po,er of t)e gun, 7eant coercion by the 7ilitary, and compulsion and intimidation'; ?3 The failure to use the gun against those who compl" with the orders of the party wielding the weapon does not detract fro7 the inti7idation that !artial )aw necessarily connotes' +t 7ay reflect the good, reasonable and wholeso7e attitude of the person who has the gun, either pointed at others, without pulling the trigger, or 7erely Bept in its holster, but not without warning that he 7ay or would use it if he dee7ed it necessary' Still, the inti7idation is there, and inaction or obedience of the people, under these conditions, is not necessarily an act of confor7ity or ac0uiescence' This is specially so when we consider that the 7asses are, by and large, unfamiliar with the parlia7entary syste7, the new for7 of go&ern7ent introduced in the proposed %onstitution, with the particularity that it is not even identicalto that e9isting in "ngland and other parts of the world, and that even e!perienced la,"ers and social scientists find it difficult to grasp the full i7plications of so7e pro&isions incorporated therein' As regards the applicability to these cases of the ;enrolled bill; rule, it is well to re7e7ber that the sa7e refers to a docu7ent certified to the resident E for his action under the %onstitution E by the Senate resident and the SpeaBer of the Couse of Representati&es, and attested to by the Secretary of the Senate and the Secretary of the Couse of Representati&es, concerning legislati&e 7easures appro&ed by the two Couses of %ongress' The argu7ent of the Solicitor 1eneral is, roughly, this8 +f the enrolled bill is entitled to full faith and credence and, to this e9tent, it is conclusi&e upon the resident and the =udicial branch of the 1o&ern7ent, why should rocla7ation #o' 1102 7erit less consideration than in enrolled billH $efore answering this 0uestion, + would liBe to asB the following8 +f, instead of being certified by the afore7entioned officers of %ongress, the so,called enrolled bill were certified by, say, the resident of the Association of Sugar lanters andJor !illers of the hilippines, and the 7easure in 0uestion were a proposed legislation concerning Sugar lantations and !ills sponsored by said Association, which e&en prepared the draft of said legislation, as well as lobbied actually for its appro&al, for which reason the officers of the Association, particularly, its afore7entioned president E whose honesty and integrity are un0uestionable E were present at the deliberations in %ongress when the sa7e appro&ed the proposed legislation, would the enrolled bill rule apply theretoH Surely, the answer would ha&e to be in the negati&e' WhyH Si7ply, because said Association resident has absolutely no official authority to perfor7 in connection therewith, and, hence, his certification is legally, as good as non,e9istent' Si7ilarly, a certification, if any, of the Secretary of the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents and %o77unity :e&elop7ent about the tabulated results of the &oting in the %iti?ens Asse7blies allegedly )eld all over the hilippines E and the records do not show that any such certification, to the resident of the hilippines or to the resident <ederation or #ational Association of presidents of ro&incial Associations of presidents of 7unicipal association presidents of barrio or ward asse7blies of citi?ens E would not, legally and constitutionally, be worth the paper on which it is written' WhyH $ecause said :epart7ent Secretary is not the officer designated by law to superintend plebiscites or elections held for the ratification or re=ection of a proposed a7end7ent or re&ision of the %onstitution and, hence, to tabulate the results thereof' Worse still, it is the depart7ent which, according to Article K of the %onstitution, should not and 7ust not be all participate in said plebiscite E if plebiscite there was' After citing appro&ingly its ruling in @nited States v. Sandoval, ?4 the Cighest %ourt of the *nited States that courts ;will not stand impotent before an ob&ious instance of a manifestl" unaut)orized e!ercise of po,er'; ?) + cannot honestly say, therefore, that the people i7pliedly or e9pressly indicated their confor7ity to the proposed %onstitution' A+ Are t)e $arties entitled to an" relief$efore atte7pting to answer this 0uestion, a few words be said about the procedure followed in these fi&e -./ cases' +n this connection, it should be noted that the %ourt has not decided whether or not to gi&e due course to the petitions herein or to re0uire the respondents to answer thereto' +nstead, it has re0uired the respondents to co77ent on the respecti&e petitions E with three -3/ 7e7bers of the &oting to dis7iss the7 outright E and then considers co77ents thus sub7itted by the respondents as 7otions to dis7iss, as well as set the sa7e for hearing' This was due to the transcendental nature of the 7ain issue raised, the necessity of deciding the sa7e with ut7ost dispatch, and the 7ain defense set up by respondents herein, na7ely, the alleged political nature of said issue, placing the sa7e, according to respondents, beyond the a7bit of =udicial in0uiry and deter7ination' +f this defense was sustained, the cases could readily be dis7issed@ but, owing to the i7portance of the 0uestions in&ol&ed, a reasoned resolution was de7anded by public interest' At the sa7e ti7e, respondents had cautioned

against a =udicial in0uiry into the 7erits of the issues posed on account of the 7agnitude of the e&il conse0uences, it was clai7ed, which would result fro7 a decision thereon, if ad&erse to the 1o&ern7ent' As a 7atter of fact, so7e of those issues had been raised in the plebiscite cases, which were dis7issed as 7oot and acade7ic, owing to the issuance of rocla7ation #o' 1102 subse0uently to the filing of said cases, although before the rendition of =udg7ent therein' Still one of the 7e7bers of the %ourt -6ustice Maldi&ar/ was of the opinion that the afore7entioned issues should be settled in said cases, and he, accordingly, filed an opinion passing upon the 7erits thereof' (n the other hand, three -3/ 7e7bers of the %ourt E 6ustices $arredo, Antonio and "sguerra E filed separate opinions fa&orable to the respondents in the plebiscite cases, 6ustice $arredo holding ;that the 123. %onstitution has pro tanto passed into history and has been legiti7ately supplanted by the %onstitution in force by &irtue of rocla7ation 1102'; ?6 When the petitions at bar were filed, the sa7e three -3/ 7e7bers of the %ourt, conse0uently, &oted for the dis7issal of said petitions' The 7a=ority of the 7e7bers of the %ourt did not share, howe&er, either &iew, belie&ing that the 7ain 0uestion that arose before the rendition of said =udg7ent had not been sufficiently discussed and argued as the nature and i7portance thereof de7anded' The parties in the cases at bar were accordingly gi&en e&ery possible opportunity to do so and to elucidate on and discuss said 0uestion' Thus, apart fro7 hearing the parties in oral argu7ent for fi&e -./ consecuti&e days E 7orning and afternoon, or a total of e9actly 25 hours and 31 7inutes E the respecti&e counsel filed e9tensi&e notes on their or argu7ents, as well as on such additional argu7ents as they wished to sub7it, and reply notes or 7e7oranda, in addition to re=oinders thereto, aside fro7 a si?eable nu7ber of docu7ent in support of their respecti&e contentions, or as re0uired by the %ourt' The argu7ents, oral and written, sub7itted ha&e been so e9tensi&e and e9hausti&e, and the docu7ents filed in support thereof so nu7erous and bulBy, that, for all intents and purposes, the situation is as if E disregarding for7s E the petitions had been gi&en due course and the cases had been sub7itted for decision' Accordingly, the 7a=ority of the 7e7bers of the %ourt belie&e that they should e9press their &iews on the afore7entioned issues as if the sa7e were being decided on the 7erits, and they ha&e done so in their indi&idual opinion attached hereto' Cence, the resu7e of the &otes cast and the tenor of the resolution, in the last pages hereof, despite the fact that technically the %ourt has not, as yet, for7ally gi&en due course to the petitions herein' And, now, here are m" &iews on the reliefs sought by the parties' +n ),3515., it is clear that we should not issue the writ of mandamus prayed for against 1il 6' uyat and 6ose Roy, resident and resident ro Te7pore respecti&ely of the Senate, it being settled in our =urisdiction, based upon the theory of separation of powers, that the =udiciary will not issue such writ to the head of a co,e0ual depart7ent, liBe the afore7entioned officers of the Senate' +n all other respects and with regard to the other respondent in said case, as well as in cases ),35132, ),35153, ),35235 and ), 35243, 7y &ote is that the petitions therein should be gi&en due course, there being 7ore than prima facie showing that the proposed %onstitution has not been ratified in accordance with Article KA of the 123. %onstitution, either strictly, substantially, or has been ac0uiesced in by the people or 7a=ority thereof@ that said proposed %onstitution is not in force and effect@ and that the 123. %onstitution is still the <unda7ental )aw of the )and, without pre=udice to the sub7ission of said proposed %onstitution to the people at a plebiscite for its ratification or re=ection in accordance with Articles A, K and KA of the 123. %onstitution and the pro&isions of the Re&ised "lection %ode in force at the ti7e of such plebiscite' erhaps others would feel that 7y position in these cases o&erlooBs what they 7ight consider to be the de7ands of ;=udicial states7anship,; whate&er 7ay be the 7eaning of such phrase' + a7 aware of this possibility, if not probability@ but ;=udicial states7anship,; though consistent with Rule of )aw, cannot prevail o&er the latter' A7ong consistent ends or consistent &alues, there always is a hierarchy, a rule of priority' We 7ust reali?e that the #ew Society has 7any achie&e7ents which would ha&e been &ery difficult, if not i7possible, to acco7plish under the old dispensation' $ut, in and for t)e 6udiciar", statesmans)ip should not pre&ail o&er the Rule of )aw' +ndeed, t)e primac" of t)e la, or of t)e Rule of La, and fait)ful ad)erence t)ereto are *asic, fundamental and essential parts of statesmans)ip itself' Resume of t)e Votes +ast and t)e +ourt0s Resolution As earlier stated, after the sub7ittal by the 7e7bers of the %ourt of their indi&idual opinions andJor concurrences as appended hereto, the writer will now 7aBe, with the concurrence of his colleagues, a resu7e or su77ary of the &otes cast by each of the7' +t should be stated that by &irtue of the &arious approaches and &iews e9pressed during the deliberations, it was agreed to synthesi?e the basic issues at bar in broad general ter7s in fi&e 0uestions for purposes of taBing the &otes' +t was further agreed of course that each 7e7ber of the %ourt would e9pound in his indi&idual opinion andJor concurrence his own approach to the stated issues and deal with the7 and state -or not/ his opinion thereon singly or =ointly and with such priority, 0ualifications and 7odifications as he 7ay dee7 proper, as well as discuss thereon other related issues which he 7ay consider &ital and rele&ant to the cases at bar' The fi&e 0uestions thus agreed upon as reflecting the basic issues herein in&ol&ed are the following8

1' +s the issue of the &alidity of rocla7ation #o' 1102 a =usticiable, or political and therefore non,=usticiable, 0uestionH 2' Cas the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention been ratified &alidly -with substantial, if not strict, co7pliance/ confor7ably to the applicable constitutional and statutory pro&isionsH 3' Cas the afore7entioned proposed %onstitution ac0uiesced in -with or without &alid ratification/ by the peopleH 3' Are petitioners entitled to reliefH and .' +s the afore7entioned proposed %onstitution in forceH The results of the &oting, pre7ised on the indi&idual &iews e9pressed by the 7e7bers of the %ourt in their respect opinions andJor concurrences, are as follows8 1' (n the first issue in&ol&ing the political,0uestion doctrine 6ustices !aBalintal, Maldi&ar, %astro, <ernando, TeehanBee and 7yself, or si9 -5/ 7e7bers of the %ourt, hold that the issue of the &alidity of rocla7ation #o' 1102 presents a =usticiable and non,political 0uestion' 6ustices !aBalintal and %astro did not &ote s0uarely on this 0uestion, but, only inferentially, in their discussion of the second 0uestion' 6ustice $arredo 0ualified his &ote, stating that ;inas7uch as it is clai7ed there has been appro&al by the people, the %ourt 7ay in0uire into the 0uestion of whether or not there has actually been such an appro&al, and, in the affir7ati&e, the %ourt should Beep hands,off out of respect to the peopleDs will, but, in negati&e, the %ourt 7ay deter7ine fro7 both factual and legal angles whether or not Article KA of the 123. %onstitution been co7plied with'; 6ustices !aBasiar, Antonio, "sguerra, or three -3/ 7e7bers of the %ourt hold that the issue is political and ;beyond the a7bit of =udicial in0uiry'; 2' (n the second 0uestion of &alidity of the ratification, 6ustices !aBalintal, Maldi&ar, %astro, <ernando, TeehanBee and 7yself, or si9 -5/ 7e7bers of the %ourt also hold that the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention was not &alidly ratified in accordance with Article KA, section 1 of the 123. %onstitution, which pro&ides only one way for ratification, i'e', ;in an election or plebiscite held in accordance with law and participated in only by 0ualified and duly registered &oters' ?7 6ustice $arredo 0ualified his &ote, stating that ;-A/s to whether or not the 1273 %onstitution has been &alidly ratified pursuant to Article KA, + still 7aintain that in the light of traditional concepts regarding the 7eaning and intent of said Article, the referendu7 in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies, specially in the 7anner the &otes therein were cast, reported and can&assed, falls short of the re0uire7ents thereof' +n &iew, howe&er, of the fact that + ha&e no 7eans of refusing to recogni?e as a =udge that factually there was &oting and that the 7a=ority of the &otes were for considering as appro&ed the 1273 %onstitution without the necessity of the usual for7 of plebiscite followed in past ratifications, + a7 constrained to hold that, in the political sense, if not in the orthodo9 legal sense, the people 7ay be dee7ed to ha&e cast their fa&orable &otes in the belief that in doing so they did the part re0uired of the7 by Article KA, hence, it 7ay be said that in its political aspect, which is what counts 7ost, after all, said Article has been substantially co7plied with, and, in effect, the 1273 %onstitution has been constitutionally ratified'; 6ustices !aBasiar, Antonio and "sguerra, or three -3/ 7e7bers of the %ourt hold that under their &iew there has been in effect substantial co7pliance with the constitutional re0uire7ents for &alid ratification' 3' (n the third 0uestion of ac0uiescence by the <ilipino people in the afore7entioned proposed %onstitution, no 7a=ority &ote has been reached by the %ourt' <our -3/ of its 7e7bers, na7ely, 6ustices $arredo, !aBasiar, Antonio and "sguerra hold that ;the people ha&e already accepted the 1273 %onstitution'; Two -2/ 7e7bers of the %ourt, na7ely, 6ustice Maldi&ar and 7yself hold that there can be no free e9pression, and there has e&en been no e9pression, by the people 0ualified to &ote all o&er the hilippines, of their acceptance or repudiation of the proposed %onstitution under !artial )aw' 6ustice <ernando states that ;-+/f it is conceded that the doctrine stated in so7e A7erican decisions to the effect that independently of the &alidity of the ratification, a new %onstitution once accepted ac0uiesced in by the people 7ust be accorded recognition by the %ourt, + a7 not at this stage prepared to state that such doctrine calls for application in &iew of the shortness of ti7e that has elapsed and the difficulty of ascertaining what is the 7ind of the people in the absence of the freedo7 of debate that is a conco7itant feature of 7artial law'; ?? Three -3/ 7e7bers of the %ourt e9press their lacB of Bnowledge andJor co7petence to rule on the 0uestion' 6ustices !aBalintal and %astro are =oined by 6ustice TeehanBee in their state7ent that ;*nder a regi7e of 7artial law, with the free e9pression of opinions through the usual 7edia &ehicle restricted, -they/ ha&e no 7eans of Bnowing, to the point of =udicial certainty, whether the people ha&e accepted the %onstitution'; ?9 3' (n the fourth 0uestion of relief, si9 -5/ 7e7bers of the %ourt, na7ely, 6ustices !aBalintal, %astro, $arredo, !aBasiar, Antonio and "sguerra &oted to :+S!+SS the petition' 6ustice !aBalintal and %astro so &oted on the strength of their &iew that ;-T/he effecti&ity of the said %onstitution, in the final analysis, is the basic and ulti7ate 0uestion posed by these cases to resol&e which considerations other than =udicial, an therefore beyond the co7petence of this %ourt, 9@ are rele&ant and una&oidable'; 91 <our -3/ 7e7bers of the %ourt, na7ely, 6ustices Maldi&ar, <ernando, TeehanBee and 7yself &oted to deny respondentsD 7otion

to dis7iss and to gi&e due course to the petitions' .' (n the fifth 0uestion of whether the new %onstitution of 1273 is in force8 <our -3/ 7e7bers of the %ourt, na7ely, 6ustices $arredo, !aBasiar, Antonio and "sguerra hold that it is in force by &irtue of the peopleDs acceptance thereof@ <our -3/ 7e7bers of the %ourt, na7ely, 6ustices !aBalintal, %astro, <ernando and TeehanBee cast no &ote thereon on the pre7ise stated in their &otes on the third 0uestion that they could not state with =udicial certainty whether the people ha&e accepted or not accepted the %onstitution@ and Two -2/ 7e7bers of the %ourt, na7ely, 6ustice Maldi&ar and 7yself &oted that the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention is not in force@ with the result that there are not enough &otes to declare that the new %onstitution is not in force' A%%(R:+#1)L, by &irtue of the 7a=ority of si9 -5/ &otes of 6ustices !aBalintal, %astro, $arredo, !aBasiar, Antonio and "sguerra with the four -3/ dissenting &otes of the %hief 6ustice and 6ustices Maldi&ar, <ernando and TeehanBee, all the afore7entioned cases are hereby dis7issed' This being the &ote of the 7a=ority, there is no further =udicial obstacle to the new %onstitution being considered in force and effect' +t is so ordered' Ma#alintal, +astro, %arredo, Ma#asiar, Antonio and &sguerra, JJ., concur. A##"K A "RT+#"#T (RT+(#S (< TC" !+##"SS(TA S* R"!" %(*RT :"%+S+(# (# TC" %AS" <' R& Mc+ 'A@GAF ;-a/ An e9a7ination of the decisions shows that the courts )ave almost uniforml" e!ercised t)e aut)orit" to determine t)e validit" of t)e proposal, su*mission, or ratification of constitutional amendments. +t has been6udiciall" determined whether a proposed a7end7ent received t)e constitutional ma6orit" of votes -:ayton &' St' aul, 22 !inn' 300@ Rice &' al7er, 74 ArB' 332, 25 S'W' 325@ $ott &' Wurt?, 53 #'6' )aw, 242, 33 Atl' 733, 441, 3. )'R'A' 2.1@ State &' <oraBer, 35 (hio St' 577, 23 #'"' 32l@ 5 )'R'A' 322@ Tecu7seh #ational $anB A' Saunders, .1 #eb' 401, 71 #'W' 772@ 1reen &' State $oard, . +daho, 130, 37 ac' 2.2, 2. A7' St' Rep' 152@ +n re :enny, 1.5 +nd' 103, .2 #'"' 3.2, .1 )'R'A' 722@ Nnight &' Shelton F%'%'G 133 <ed' 323/@ whether a proposed a7end7ent is a single a7end7ent, within the constitutional re0uire7ent that e&ery a7end7ent 7ust be separately sub7itted -State &' owell, 77 !iss' .33, 27 South' 227@ 1abbert &' %hicago, etc', R' %o', 171 !o' 43, 70 S'W' 421@ State &' Ti77e, .3 Wis' 314, 11 #'W' 74.@ +n re :enny, 1.5 +nd' 103, .2 #'"' 3.2, .1 )'R'A' 722@ )obaugh &' %ooB, 127 +owa, 141, 102 #'W' 1121@ eople &' Sours, 31 %olo' 352, 73 ac' 157, 102 A7' St' Rep' 33@ State &' $oard, 33 !ont' 325, 47 ac' 3.0@ State &' Winnett F#eb'G 110 #'W' 1113, 10 )'R'A' F#'S'G 132/@ whether the failure to enter the resolution of sub7ission upon the legislati&e =ournals in&alidates the a7end7ent -Noehler &' Cill, 50 +owa, .33,13 #'W' 734,1. #'W' 502@ (aBland a&ing %o' &' Cilton, 52 %al' 372, 11 ac' 3@ West &' State, .0 <la' 1.3, 32 South' 312@ :urfee &' Carper, 22 !ont' 3.3, .5 ac' .5@ State &' Tufly, 12 #e&' 321, 12 ac' 43., 3 A7' St' Rep' 42./@ ,)et)er t)e description of t)e amendment and t)e form of t)e *allot are sufficient -Russell &' %roy, 153 ! 52, 53 S'W' 432@ State &' Winnett F #eb'G 110 #'W' 1113, )'R'A' F#'S'G 132@ !urphy %hair %o' &' Attorney 1eneral F!ich'G 112 #'W' 127/@ whether the 7ethod of sub7ission sufficient -)o&ett &' <erguson,, 10 S':' 33, 71 #'W' 75.@ Russell &' %roy, 153 !o' 52, 53 S'W' 432/@ whether the publication of the a7end7ent or of a notice relati&e to it is sufficient -%o7' &' 1riest, 125 a' 325, 35 Atl' .0., .0 )'R'A' .54@ Russell &' %roy, 153 !o' 52, 53 S'W' 432/@ whether the sub7ission 7ay be well by resolution as by a legislati&e act appro&ed by the e9ecuti&e -%o7' &' 1riest, 125 a' 325, 35 Atl' .0., .0 )'R' .54@ Warfield &i Aandi&er, 101 !d' 74, 50 Atl' .34@ "dward )esueur, 132 !o' 310, 33 S'W' 1130, 31 )'R'A' 41.@ Cays &' Cays, . +daho, 1.3, 37 ac' 732@ State &' :ahl, 5 #':' 41, 5 #'W' 314, 33 )'R'A' 27/@ at ,)at election t)e amendment *e su*mitted - eople &' %urry, 130 %al' 42, 52 ac' .15/' +n Ric) v. %oard of +anvassers, 100 !ich' 3.4, .2 #'W' 143, the court said8 ;+t is contended that the deter7ination of the 0uestion whether an a7end7ent to the %onstitution has been carried in&ol&es the e9ercise of political, and not =udicial, power' +f this be so, it follows that the pro7ulgation of any purported a7end7ent by the e9ecuti&e or any e9ecuti&e depart7ent is final, and that the action cannot be 0uestioned by the =udiciary@ *ut, ,it) reference to t)e conditions precedent to su*mitting a proposed amendment to a vote of t)e people, it )as *een repeatedl" )eld, *" courts of t)e )ig)est respecta*ilit", t)at it is ,it)in

t)e po,er of t)e 6udiciar" to in9uire into t)e 9uestion, even in a collateral proceeding ' ''' +t is to be noted that under section 1 of article 20 of the %onstitution of the state no a7end7ent can beco7e a part of the %onstitution until ratified *" a vote of t)e people' (ne prere0uisite is e0ually as essential as the other' The a7end7ent 7ust first recei&e the re0uisite 7a=ority in the )egislature, and afterwards be adopted by the re0uisite &ote' ''' +t is the fact of a 7a=ority &ote which 7aBes the a7end7ent a part of the %onstitution'; ;+n considering the cases it is necessary to note whether in the particular case the court was called upon to deter7ine between rival governments, or whether the )egislature, or so7e board or official, had legall" performed t)e dut" imposed *" t)e +onstitution or statutes' +n re State v. Mc%ride, 3 !o' 303, 22 A7' :ec' 535, it was held that the 1eneral Asse7bly, under t)e po,er granted *" t)e +onstitution, could change the %onstitution onl" in t)e manner prescri*ed *" it, and that it ,as t)e dut" of t)e court to deter7ine whether all prere0uisites had been co7plied with' +n +ollier v. =rierson, 23 Ala' 100, it was held that a %onstitution can be changes only by the peoplein convention or in a 7ode described *" t)e +onstitution itself, and that if the latter 7ode is adopted ever" re9uisite of t)e +onstitution must *e o*served ' D+t has been said,; says the court, ;that certain acts are to be done, certain re0uisitions are to be obser&ed, before a change can be effected@ but to what purpose are these acts re0uired, or these re0uisitions en=oined, if the )egislature or any other depart7ent of the go&ern7ent can dispense with the7' To do so would be to &iolate the instru7ent which they are sworn to support@ and ever" principle of pu*lic la, and sound constitutional polic" re9uires t)e court to pronounce against ever" amendment ,)ic) is s)o,n not to )ave *een made in accordance ,it) t)e rules prescri*ed *" t)e fundamental la,'D ;+n State v. S,ift, 52 +nd' .0., it was said that8 DThe people of a state 7ay for7 an original %onstitution, or abrogate an old one and for7 a new one, at any ti7e, without any political restriction, e!cept the %onstitution of the *nited States, but if t)e" underta#e to add an amendment , by the authority of legislation to a %onstitution already in e9istence, they can do it only by the 7ethod pointed out by the %onstitution to which the a7end7ent is added' The power to a7end a %onstitution by legislati&e action does not confer the power to *rea# it, any 7ore than it confers the power to legislate on any other sub=ect contrary to its prohibitions'D So, in State v. Timme, .3 Wis' 314, 11 #'W' 74., it was held that no a7end7ents can be 7ade to the %onstitution of the state ,it)out a compliance ,it) t)e provisions t)ereof , both in the passage of such a7end7ent by the )egislature and t)e manner of su*mitting it to t)e people' The courts ha&e not all agreed as to the strictness of co7pliance which should be re0uired' ;+n the rohibition and A7end7ent %ase, 23 Nan' 700, the court determined 6udiciall" whether an a7end7ent to the %onstitution had been legally adopted' After appro&ing the state7ent 0uoted fro7 +ollier v. =rierson, supra, that Dwe entertain no dou*t that, to change the %onstitution in an other 7ode than by a con&ention, ever" re9uisite ,)ic) is demanded *" t)e instrument itself must *e o*served, and t)e omission of an" one is fatal to t)e amendment ,D the court held that, Das substance of right is grander and 7ore potent than 7ethods of for7,D there had been substantial co7pliance with the constitutional re0uire7ent that a proposed a7end7ent to the %onstitution 7ust be entered at lengt) on the legislati&e =ournal' +t appears that the =oint resolution 7aBing sub7ission si7ply pro&ided that a proposition should be sub7itted to the electors at the general election of 1440' +t did not declare that the 7achinery of the general election law should control, or t)at an" particular officers or *oard ,ould receive, count, or canvass t)e votes cast. %ut t)e e!isting election mac)iner" ,as ade9uate , and the &otes were recei&ed, counted, and can&assed, and the result declared as fully as though it had been in ter7s so ordered' T)ese met)ods )ad *een follo,ed in t)e adoption of previous amendments, and was held that, conceding the irregularity of the proceedings the )egislature and the doubtful scope of the pro&isions for the election, yet in &iew of the &ery uncertainty of such pro&ision the past legislative )istor" of si7ilar propositions, theuniversal prior ac9uiescence in the sa7e for7s of procedure and the popular and unc)allenged acceptance of the legal pendency before the people of the 0uestion of the a7end7ent for decision, and in &iew of t)e dut" cast upon t)e court ta#ing 6udicial #no,ledge of an"t)ing affecting t)e e!istence and validit" of an" la, or portion of t)e +onstitution, it 7ust be ad=udged that the proposed a7end7ent beca7e part of the %onstitution' The effect was to hold that a pro&ision of the %onstitution re0uiring the proposed a7end7ent to be entered in full on the =ournals was director", and not 7andatory' This li*eral &iew was appro&ed in State &' Winnett -#eb'/ 110 #' 1113, 10 )'R'A' -#'S'/ 132, and eople &' Sours, 31 %olo' 352, ac' 157, 102 A7' St' Rep' 33' $ut it has not been uni&ersally accepted' ;+n a#land $aving +o. v. Ailton, 52 %al' 372, 11 ac' 3, the court, in co77enting upon the Nansas case said8 DThe reasoning by which the learned court reached the conclusion it did is not based on an" sound legal principles, but contrar" to t)em' 'eit)er the argu7ent nor the conclusion can co77and our assent or appro&al' The argu7ent is illogical, and based on pre7ises which are ,it)out an" sound foundation, and rests merel" on assumption'D See, also, the well,considered case of .adderl" v. $ortland, 33 (r' 114, 73 ac' 710, 7. ac' 222' Allthese cases concede t)e 6urisdiction of t)e court to deter7ine whether, in sub7itting a proposed a7end7ent to the people, the )egislature legall" o*served t)e constitutional provisions as to t)e manner of procedure ' +nLivermore v. /aite, 102 %al' 113, 35 ac' 323, 2. )'R'A' 312, the court, at the instance of a citi?en and a ta9payer, restrained the Secretary of State fro7 taBing steps to sub7it to the people a proposed a7end7ent to the %onstitution agreed to by the )egislature on the ground that the )egislature had not acted in confor7ity with the %onstitution and that the proposed a7end7ent was of such a character that it could not properly beco7e a part of the %onstitution' The Supre7e %ourt of %olorado, in $eople v. Sours, supra, refused to e9ercise this authority' ;The entire 0uestion recei&ed elaborate consideration in Noehler &' Cill, 50 +owa, .33, 13 #'W' 734, 1. #'W' 502' The a7end7ent, which concededl" )ad *een adopted *" t)e people, had not, *efore its su*mission, *een entered in full upon t)e legislative 6ournals, as re0uired by the %onstitution, and it was held that this was a material&ariance in both for7 and substance fro7 the constitutional re0uire7ents, and that the a7end7ent did not, therefore, beco7e a part of the %onstitution' As to the clai7 that the 0uestion was political, and not =udicial, it was said that, while it is not co7petent for courts to in0uire into the &alidity of the %onstitution and the for7 of go&ern7ent under which they the7sel&es e9ist, and fro7 which they deri&e their powers, yet, ,)ere t)e e!isting +onstitution prescri*es a met)od for its o,n amendment, an amendment t)ereto, to *e valid, must *e adopted in strict conformit" to t)at met)od@ and it is the dut" of the courts in a proper case, when an a7end7ent does not relate to their own power or functions, to in9uire whether, in the adoption of the a7end7ent, t)e provisions of t)e e!isting +onstitution

)ave *een o*served, and, if not, to declare t)e amendment invalid and of no force' This case was followed in State v. %roo#)art, 113 +owa, 2.0, 43 #'W' 1053' ;+n @niversit" v. Mc<ver, 72 #'%' 75, the 0uestion whether a proposed a7end7ent to the %onstitution had been legally adopted was treated as a 6udicial 0uestion' $y the %onstitution a proposed a7end7ent was re0uired to be appro&ed by )egislatures before its sub7ission to the people' +n this instance a bill was passed which contained 17 a7end7ents' The ne9t )egislature re6ected ; and adopted 4 of the a7end7ents, and sub7itted the7 to the people' T)e ma6orit" of t)e people voted for t)eir adoption@ but it was contended that the %onstitution conte7plated and re0uired that the sa7e bill and the sa7e a7end7ents, ,it)out c)ange, should appro&ed by both )egislatures, and that it did not follow because the second )egislature adopted separately G out of 4Ea7end7ents adopted by the first )egislature, it would ha&e adopted the 17, or any of the7, if they had been &oted upon the second in the for7 adopted by the first body' The substance of the contention was that there had not been a concurrence of the t,o )egislatures on the sa7e a7end7ents, according to the letter and spirit of the %onstitution' The court held that the power of the )egislature in sub7itting a7end7ents could not be distinguished fro7 the powers of con&ention, and that, as the people had spoBen and ratified the a7end7ents, they beca7e a part of the %onstitution' ;+n /esting)ausen v. $eople, 33 !ich' 25., 5 #'W' 531, it was held that prior to 1475 a proposed a7end7ent to %onstitution could not be sub7itted to the people at any other than a general election@ but, as the a7end7ent under consideration had been sub7itted after the %onstitution been changed, it had been legally sub7itted and adopted' ;+n State v. $o,ell, 77 !iss' .33, 27 South' 227, the 0uestion whether an a7end7ent to the %onstitution had been legally sub7itted and adopted by the people ,as held to be =udicial, and not political, in its nature' The a7end7ent under consideration c)anged the %onstitution by pro&iding for an electi&e, instead of an appointi&e, =udiciary' +t was contented that the a7end7ents had been improperl" sub7itted and adopted by a 7a=ority of the 0ualified &oters &oting at election, as re0uired by the %onstitution' The law did direct how the result of the election should be deter7ined' T)e Legislature by =oint resolution recited that the election had been duly held throughout the state, and, as it appeared fro7 the returns 7ade to the Secretary of State, that 21,152 &otes were cast in fa&or of, and 4,533 &otes against, the a7end7ent, it resol&ed Dthat said a7end7ent be, and hereby is, insertedinto the %onstitution of the state of !ississippi as a part of the %onstitution'D +n fact, the a7end7ent was notsub7itted in t)e manner prescribed by the %onstitution, and it did not receive a ma6orit" of all t)e 9ualified voters voting at t)e election' +t was argued that the rules prescribed by the %onstitution ;are all for the guidance of the )egislature, and fro7 the &ery nature of the thing the )egislature 7ust be the e!clusive =udge of all 0uestions to be 7easured or deter7ined by these rules' Whether the 0uestion be political, and certainly a legislati&e one, or =udicial, to be deter7ined by the courts, this section of rules, not only of procedure, but of final =udg7ent as well, confides to the separate 7agistracy of the legislative depart7ent full power to hear, consider, and ad=udge that 0uestion' The )egislature puts the 0uestion to the 9ualified electors' The 9ualified electors answer bacB to the )egislature' ;+f it shall appear; to the )egislature that its 0uestion has been answered in the affir7ati&e, the a7end7ent is inserted and 7ade a part of the %onstitution' The 1o&ernor and the courts ha&e no authority to speaB at any stage of the proceedings between the so&ereign and the )egislature, and when the 7atter is thus concluded it is closed, and the =udiciary is as powerless to interfere as the e9ecuti&e'D $ut it was held that the 0uestion whether the proposition sub7itted to the &oters constituted one, or 7ore than one, a7end7ent, ,)et)er t)e su*mission ,as according to t)e re9uirements of t)e +onstitution , and whether the proposition was in fact adopted, were all =udicial, and not political, 0uestions' DWe do not,D said %hief 6ustice Whitfield, DseeB a =urisdiction not i7posed upon us by the %onstitution' /e could not, if ,e ,ould, escape t)e e!ercise of t)at 6urisdiction which the %onstitution has i7posed upon us' +n the particular instance in which we are now acting, our duty to Bnow what the %onstitution of the state is, and in accordance with our oaths to support and 7aintain it in its integrity, i7posed on us a 7ost difficult and e7barrassing duty, one ,)ic) ,e )ave not soug)t, *ut one ,)ic), li#e all ot)ers, must *e disc)arged '; ;+n %ott v. /urtz, 53 #'6' )aw, 242, 33 Atl' 733, 441, 3. )'R'A' 2.1, it was held that it was the dut" of the =udicial depart7ent of the go&ern7ent to determine ,)et)er t)e legislative department or its officers )ad o*served t)e constitutional in6unctions in attempting to amend t)e +onstitution, and to annul t)eir acts if t)e" )ad not done so ' The case is an interesting and well, considered one' The %onstitution pro&ided the 7anner in which proposed a7end7ents should be sub7itted to the people, but did not pro&ide a met)od for canvassing the &otes' The )egislature ha&ing agreed to certain proposed a7end7ents, passed an act for sub7itting the sa7e to the people' This statute pro&ided for the trans7ission to the Secretary of State of certificate showing the result of the &oting throughout the state, and 7ade it the duty of the 1o&ernor at the designated ti7e su77on four or 7ore Senators, who, with the 1o&ernor, should constitute a board of state can&assers to can&ass and esti7ate the &otes for and against each a7end7ent' This board was to deter7ine and declare which of the proposed a7end7ents had been adopted and to deli&er a state7ent of the results to the Secretary of State, and ;any proposed a7end7ent, which by said certificate and deter7ination of the board of can&assers shall appear to ha&e recei&ed in its fa&or the 7a=ority of all the &otes cast in the state for and against said proposed a7end7ent, shall fro7 the ti7e of filing such certificate be and beco7e an a7end7ent to and a part of the %onstitution of the state@ and it shall be the duty of the 1o&ernor of the state forthwith, after such a deter7ination, to issue a procla7ation declaring which of the said proposed a7end7ents ha&e been adopted by the people'; This board was re0uired to file a state7ent of the result of the election, and the 1o&ernor to issue his procla7ation declaring that the a7end7ent had been adopted and beco7e a part of the %onstitution' At the instance of a ta9payer the Supre7e %ourt allo,ed a writ ofcertiorari to remove into t)e court for revie, the state7ent of the results of the election 7ade by the can&assing board, in order t)at it mig)t *e 6udiciall" determined whether on the facts shown in that state7ent the board had legally deter7ined that the proposed a7end7ent had been adopted' The Supre7e %ourt decided that the concurrence of the board of state can&assers and the e9ecuti&e depart7ent of the go&ern7ent in their respecti&e official functions placed the sub=ect,7atter *e"ond the cogni?ance of the =udicial depart7ent of the state' The %ourt of Appeals, after a full re&iew of the authorities, reversed this decision, and held that the 0uestions were of a 6udicial nature, and properly deter7inable by the court on their 7erits' !r' 6ustice :i9on, after stating the facts, said8 D+t thus beco7es 7anifest that there was present in the Supre7e %ourt, and is now pending in this court, e&ery ele7ent tending to 7aintain =urisdiction o&er the sub=ect,7atter, unless it be true, as insisted, that the =udicial

depart7ent of the go&ern7ent has not the right to consider whether the legislati&e depart7ent and its agencies ha&e obser&ed constitutional in=unctions in atte7pting to a7end the %onstitution, and to annul t)eir acts in case t)at t)e" )ave not done so' That such a proposition is not true see7s to be indicated by the ,)ole history of =urisprudence in this country'D The court, after considering the case on the 7erits, held that the proper conclusion had been drawn therefro7, and that the a7end7ent in 0uestion was legally sub7itted and adopted' ;The recent case of Rice v. $almer, 74 ArB' 332, 25 S'W' 325, presented the identical 0uestion which we ha&e under consideration' +n reference to the contention that the %onstitution intended to delegate to the SpeaBer of the Couse of Representati&es the power to deter7ine whether an a7end7ent had been adopted, and that the 0uestion was political, and not =udicial, the court obser&ed8 ;The argu7ent has often been 7ade in si7ilar cases to the courts, and it is found in 7any dissenting opinions@ but, with probably a fe, e9ceptions, it is not found in anyprevailing opinion'; ;+n State v. Too#er, 1. !ont' 4, 37 ac' 430, 2. )'R'A' .50, it was held that the constitutional re0uire7ent of publication of a proposed constitutional pro&ision for three 7onths prior to the election at which it is to be sub7itted to the people is mandator" and that noncompliance t)ere,it) renders t)e adoption of an amendment of no effect '; A##"K $ !A)A%AOA#1 !A#+)A $L TC" R"S+:"#T (< TC" C+)+ R"S+:"#T+A) :"%R"" #(' 45,$ (efining =urt)er t)e Role of %aranga"s B+itizens Assem*liesC WC"R"AS, since their creation pursuant to residential :ecree #o' 45 dated :ece7ber 31, 1272, the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ ha&e petitioned the (ffice of the resident to sub7it to the7 for resolution i7portant national issues@ WC"R"AS, one of the 0uestions persistently 7ention refers to the ratification of the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention@ WC"R"AS, on the basis of the said petitions, it is e&ident that the people belie&e that the sub7ission of the proposed %onstitution to the %iti?ens Asse7blies or $arangays should taBen as a plebiscite in itself in &iew of the fact that freedo7 of debate has always been li7ited to the leadership in political, econo7ic and social fields, and that it is now necessary to bring this down to the le&el of the people the7sel&es through the $arangays or %iti?ens Asse7blies@ #(W, TC"R"<(R", +, <"R:+#A#: "' !AR%(S, resident of the hilippines, by &irtue of the powers in 7e &ested by the %onstitution, do hereby order that i7portant national issues shall fro7 ti7e to ti7e be referred to the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ for resolution in accordance with residential :ecree #o' 45,A dated 6anuary ., 1273 an that the initial referendu7 shall include the 7atter of ratification of the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention' The Secretary of the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent shall insure the i7ple7entation of this (rder' :one in the %ity of !anila, this 7th day of 6anuary in the year of (ur )ord, nineteen hundred and se&enty,three' -S1:'/ <"R:+#A#: "' !AR%(S $y the resident8 -S1:'/ A)"6A#:R( !")%C(R "9ecuti&e Secretary +#"S

S40ara14 O0.*.o*/

MA,AL"NTAL, J., concurring8 CASTRO, J., concurring8 The preli7inary 0uestion before this %ourt was whether or not the petitioners had 7ade out a sufficient prima faciecase in their petitions to =ustify their being gi&en due course' %onsidering on the one hand the urgency of the 7atter and on the other hand its transcendental i7portance, which suggested the need for hearing the side of the respondents before that preli7inary 0uestion was resol&ed, We re0uired the7 to sub7it their co77ents on the petitions' After the co77ents were filed We considered the7 as 7otions to dis7iss so that they could be orally argued' As it turned out, the hearing lasted fi&e days, 7orning and afternoon, and could not ha&e been 7ore e9hausti&e if the petitions had been gi&en due course fro7 the beginning' The 7a=or thrust of the petitions is that the act of the %iti?ens Asse7blies as certified and proclai7ed by the resident on 6anuary 17, 1273 - rocla7ation #o' 1102/ was not an act of ratification, let alone a &alid one, of the proposed %onstitution, because it was not in accordance with the e9isting %onstitution -of 123./ and the "lection %ode of 1271' (ther grounds are relied upon by the petitioners in support of their basic proposition, but to our 7ind they are 7erely subordinate and peripheral' Article KA, Section 1, of the 123. %onstitution pro&ides that a7end7ents -proposed either by %ongress in =oint session or by a %on&ention called by it for the purpose/ ;shall be &alid part of this %onstitution when appro&ed by a 7a=ority of &otes cast at an election at which the a7end7ents sub7itted to the people for their ratification'; At the ti7e %onstitution was appro&ed by the %onstitutional %on&ention on <ebruary 4, 123., and ratified in a plebiscite held on following !ay 13, the word ;election; had already a definite 7eaning in our law and =urisprudence' +t was not a &ague and a7orphous concept, but a procedure prescribed by statute ascertaining the peopleDs choices a7ong candidates for public offices, or their will on i7portant 7atters sub7itted to the pursuant to law, for appro&al' +t was in this sense that word was used by the fra7ers in Article KA -also in Articles A+ and A++/, and in accordance with such procedure that plebiscites were held to ratify the &ery sa7e %onstitution in 123. as well as the subse0uent a7end7ents thereto, thus8 in 1232 -(rdinance appended to the %onstitution/@ 1230 -establish7ent of a bica7eral legislature@ eligibility of the resident and the Aice resident for re election@ creation of the %o77ission of "lections/@ 1237 - arity A7end7ent/@ and 1257 -increase in 7e7bership of the Couse of Representati&es and eligibility of 7e7bers of %ongress to run for the %onstitutional %on&ention without forfeiture of their offices/' The "lection %ode of 1271, in its Section 2, states that ;all elections of public officers e9cept barrio officials and ple*iscites shall be conducted in the 7anner pro&ided by this %ode'; This is a statutory re0uire7ent designed, as were the other election laws pre&iously in force, to carry out the constitutional 7andate relati&e to the e9ercise of the right suffrage, and with specific reference to the ter7 ;plebiscites,; the pro&ision of Article KA regarding ratification of constitutional a7end7ents' The 7anner of conducting elections and plebiscites pro&ided by the %ode is spelled out in other sections thereof' Section 22 re0uires that 0ualified &oters be registered in a per7anent list, the 0ualifications being those set forth in Article A, Section 1, of the 123. %onstitution on the basis of age -21/, literacy and residence' These 0ualifications are reiterated in Section 101 of the "lection %ode' Section 102 enu7erates the classes of persons dis0ualified to &ote' Succeeding sections prescribe the election paraphernalia to be used, the procedure for registering &oters, the records, of registration and the custody thereof, the description and printing of official ballots, the actual casting of &otes and their subse0uent counting by the boards of inspectors, the rules for appreciation of ballots, and then the can&ass and procla7ation of the results' With specific reference to the ratification of the 1272 draft %onstitution, se&eral additional circu7stances should be considered8 -1/ This draft was prepared and appro&ed by a %on&ention which had been con&ened pursuant to Resolution #o' 2 passed by %ongress on !arch 15, 1257, which pro&ides8 Sec' 7' The a7end7ents proposed by the %on&ention shall be &alid and considered part of the %onstitution when appro&ed by a 7a=ority of the votes cast in an election at which they are sub7itted to the people for their ratification pursuant to Article KA of the %onstitution' -2/ Article KA++, Section 15, of the draft itself states8 Sec' 15' This %onstitution shall taBe effect i77ediately upon its ratification by a 7a=ority of the &otes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose and, e9cept as herein pro&ided, shall supersede the %onstitution of nineteen hundred and thirty,fi&e and all a7end7ents thereto' The sa7e procedure is prescribed in Article KA+, Section 2, for the ratification of any future a7end7ent to or re&ision of the said %onstitution' -3/ After the draft %onstitution was appro&ed by the %onstitutional %on&ention on #o&e7ber 30, 1272 the said body adopted Resolution #o' .433, proposing ;to resident <erdinand "' !arcos that a decree be issued calling a ple*iscite for the ratification of the proposed #ew %onstitution on such appropriate date as he shall deter7ine and pro&iding for the necessary funds therefor'; ursuant to said Resolution the resident issued :ecree #o' 73 on the sa7e day, calling a plebiscite to be held on 6anuary 1., 1273, at which the proposed %onstitution ;shall be sub7itted to the people for ratification or re=ection'; The :ecree had eighteen -14/ sections in all, prescribing in detail the different steps to be taBen to carry out the process of ratification, such as8 -a/ publication of the proposed %onstitution in "nglish and ilipino@ -b/ freedo7 of infor7ation and discussion@ -c/ registration of &oters8 -d/ appoint7ent of boards of election inspectors and designation of watchers in each precinct@ -e/ printing of official

ballots@ -f/ 7anner of &oting to insure freedo7 and secrecy thereof@ -g/ can&ass of plebiscite returns@ and -h/ in general, co7pliance with the pro&isions of the "lection %ode of 1271, with the %o77ission on "lections e9ercising its constitutional and statutory powers of super&ision of the entire process' There can hardly be any doubt that in e&erybodyDs &iew E fro7 the fra7ers of the 123. %onstitution through all the %ongresses since then to the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention E a7end7ents to the %onstitution should be ratified in only one way, that is, in an election or plebiscite held in accordance with law and participated in only by 0ualified and duly registered &oters' +ndeed, so concerned was this %ourt with the i7portance and indispensability of co7plying with the 7andate of the -123./ %onstitution in this respect that in the recent case of Tolentino vs. +ommission on &lections, #o' ),331.0, (ctober 15, 1271 -31 S%RA 702/, a resolution of the -1271/ %onstitutional %on&ention sub7itting a proposed a7end7ent for ratification to a plebiscite to be held in #o&e7ber 1271 was declared null and &oid' The a7end7ent sought to reduce the &oting age fro7 twenty,one to eighteen years and was appro&ed by the %on&ention for sub7ission to a plebiscite ahead of and separately fro7 other a7end7ents still being or to be considered by it, so as to enable the youth to be thus enfranchised to participate in the plebiscite for the ratification of such other a7end7ents later' This %ourt held that such separate sub7ission was &iolati&e of Article KA, Section 1, of the %onstitution, which conte7plated that ;all the a7end7ents to be proposed by the sa7e %on&ention 7ust be sub7itted to the people in a single ;election; or plebiscite'; A Thus a gra77atical construction based on a singular, instead of plural, rendition of the word ;election; was considered a sufficient ground to rule out the plebiscite which had been called to ratify a proposed a7end7ent in accordance with the procedure and under all the safeguards pro&ided in the "lection )aw' +n the cases now before *s what is at issue is not 7erely the ratification of =ust one a7end7ent, as in Tolentino vs. + M&L&+, but the ratification of an entire charter setting up a new for7 of go&ern7ent@ and the issue has arisen not because of a disputed construction of one word or one pro&ision in the 123. %onstitution but because no election or plebiscite in accordance with that %onstitution and with the "lection %ode of 1271 was held for the purpose of such ratification' The %iti?ens Asse7blies which purportedly ratified the draft %onstitution were created by residential :ecree #o' 45 dated :ece7ber 31, 1272, ;to broaden the base of citi?en participation in the de7ocratic process and to afford a7ple opportunities for the citi?enry to e!press t)eir vie,s on i7portant national issues'; The Asse7blies ;shall consist of all persons who are residents of the barrio, district or ward for at least si9 7onths, fifteen years of age or o&er, citi?ens of the hilippines and who are registered in the lists of %iti?en Asse7bly 7e7bers Bept by the barrio, district or ward secretary'; $y residential :ecree #o' 45, A, dated 6anuary ., 1273, the Asse7blies were con&ened for a referendu7 between 6anuary 10 and 1., to ;consider &ital national issues now confronting the country, liBe the holding of the plebiscite on the new %onstitution, the continuation of 7artial rule, the con&ening of %ongress on 6anuary 22, 1273, and the holding of elections in #o&e7ber 1273'; (n 6anuary ., 1273 the newspapers ca7e out with a list of four 0uestions to be sub7itted to the %iti?ens Asse7blies, the fourth one being as follows8 ;Cow soon would you liBe plebiscite on the new %onstitution to be heldH; +t should be noted in this connection that the resident had pre&iously announced that he had ordered the postpone7ent of plebiscite which he had called for 6anuary 1., 1273 - residential :ecree #o' 73/ for the ratification of the %onstitution, and that he was considering two new dates for the purpose E <ebruary 12 or !arch .@ that he had ordered that the registration of &oters -pursuant to :ecree #o' 73/ be e9tended to acco77odate new &oters@ and that copies of the new %onstitution would be distributed in eight dialects the people' -%ulletin Toda", :ece7ber 23, 1272'/ (n 6anuary 10, 1273 it was reported that one 7ore 0uestion would be added to the original four which were to be sub7itted to the %iti?ens Asse7blies' The 0uestion concerning plebiscite was reworded as follows8 ;:o you liBe the plebiscite to be held laterH; The i7plication, it 7ay liBewise be noted, was that the Asse7blies should e9press their &iews as to the plebiscite should be held, not as to whether or not it should be held at all' The ne9t day, 6anuary 11, it was reported that si9 additional 0uestions would be sub7itted, na7ely8 -1/ :o you appro&e of the citi?ens asse7blies as the base of popular go&ern7ent to decide issues of national interestH -2/ (o "ou approve of t)e ne, +onstitution-3/ (o "ou ,ant a ple*iscite to *e called to ratif" t)e ne, +onstitution-3/ :o you want the elections to be held in #o&e7ber, 1273 accordance with the pro&isions of the 123. %onstitutionH -./ +f the elections would not be held, when do you want the ne9t elections to be calledH -5/ :o you want 7artial law to continueH F$ulletin Today, 6anuary 11, 1273@ e7phasis suppliedG' Appended to the si9 additional 0uestions abo&e 0uoted were the suggested answers, thus8 %(!!"#TS (#

I*"ST+(# #o' 1 +n order to broaden the base of citi?ensD participation in go&ern7ent' I*"ST+(# #o' 2 $ut we do not want the Ad +nteri7 Asse7bly to be con&oBed' (r if it is to be con&ened at all, it should not be done so until after at least se&en -7/ years fro7 the appro&al of the #ew %onstitution by the %iti?ens Asse7blies' I*"ST+(# #o' 3 +f the %iti?ens Asse7blies appro&e of the #ew %onstitution, then the new %onstitution should be dee7ed ratified' The &ote of the %iti?ens Asse7blies should already be considered the plebiscite on the #ew %onstitution' I*"ST+(# #o' 3 We are sicB and tired of too fre0uent elections' We are fed up with politics, of so 7any debates and so 7uch e9penses' I*"ST+(# #o' . robably a period of at least se&en -7/ years 7oratoriu7 on elections will be enough for stability to be established in the country, for refor7s to taBe root and nor7alcy to return' I*"ST+(# #o' 5 We want resident !arcos to continue with !artial )aw' We want hi7 to e9ercise his powers with 7ore authority' We want hi7 to be strong and fir7 so that he can acco7plish all his refor7 progra7 and establish nor7alcy in the country' +f all other 7easures fail, we want resident !arcos to declare a re&olutionary go&ern7ent along the lines of the new %onstitution without the ad interi7 Asse7bly' So it was that on 6anuary 11, 1273, the second day of the purported referendu7, the suggestion was broached, for the first ti7e, that the plebiscite should be done away with and a fa&orable &ote by the Asse7blies dee7ed e0ui&alent ratification' This was done, not in the 0uestionnaire itself, but in the suggested answer to 0uestion #o' 3' Strangely, howe&er, it was not si7ilarly suggested that an unfa&orable &ote be considered as re=ection' There should be no serious dispute as to the fact that the 7anner in which the &oting was conducted in the %iti?en Asse7blies, assu7ing that such &oting was held, was not within the intend7ent of Article KA, Section 1, of the 123. %onstitution nor in accordance with the "lection %ode of 1271' The referendu7 can by no 7eans be considered as the plebiscite conte7plated in Section 2 of said %ode and in Article KA++, Section 15, of the draft %onstitution itself, or as the election intended by %ongress when it passed Resolution #o' 2 on !arch 15, 1257 calling a %on&ention for the re&ision of the 123. %onstitution' The %iti?ens Asse7blies were not li7ited to 0ualified, let alone registered &oters, but included all citi?ens fro7 the age of fifteen, and regardless of whether or not they were illiterates, feeble,7inded, or e9 con&icts A E these being the classes of persons e9pressly dis0ualified fro7 &oting by Section 102 of the "lection %ode' +n short, the constitutional and statutory 0ualifications were not considered in the deter7ination of who should participate' #o official ballots were used in the &oting@ it was done 7ostly by accla7ation or open show of hands' Secrecy, which is one of the essential features of the election process, was not therefore obser&ed' #o set of rules for counting the &otes or of tabulating the7 and reporting the figures was prescribed or followed' The %o77ission on "lections, which is the constitutional body charged with the enforce7ent and ad7inistration of all laws relati&e to the conduct of elections, tooB no part at all, either by way of super&ision or in the assess7ent of the results' +t has been suggested that since according to rocla7ation #o' 1102 the o&erwhel7ing 7a=ority of all the 7e7bers of the %iti?ens Asse7blies had &oted for the adoption of the proposed %onstitution there was a substantial co7pliance with Article KA, Section 1, of the 123. %onstitution and with the "lection %ode of 1271' The suggestion 7isses the point entirely' +t is of the essence of a &alid e9ercise of the right of suffrage that not only 7ust a 7a=ority or plurality of the &oters carry the day but that the sa7e 7ust be duly ascertained in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law' +n other words the &ery e9istence of such 7a=ority or plurality depends upon the 7anner of its ascertain7ent, and to conclude that it e9ists e&en if it has not been ascertained according to law is si7ply to beg the issue, or to assu7e the &ery fact to be established' (therwise no election or plebiscite could be 0uestioned for non,co7pliance with the pro&isions of the "lection )aw as long as it is certified that a 7a=ority of the citi?ens had &oted fa&orably or ad&ersely on whate&er it was that was sub7itted to the7 to &ote upon' Cowe&er, a finding that the ratification of the draft %onstitution by the %iti?ens Asse7blies, as certified by the resident in rocla7ation #o' 1102, was not in accordance with the constitutional and statutory procedure laid down for the purpose does not

0uite resol&e the 0uestions raised in these cases' Such a finding, in our opinion, is on a 7atter which is essentially =usticiable, that is, within the power of this %ourt to in0uire into' +t i7ports nothing 7ore than a si7ple reading and application of the pertinent pro&isions of the 123. %onstitution, of the "lection %ode and of other related laws and official acts' #o 0uestion of wisdo7 or of policy is in&ol&ed' $ut fro7 this finding it does not necessarily follow that this %ourt 7ay =ustifiably declare that the %onstitution has not beco7e effecti&e, and for that reason gi&e due course to these petitions or grant the writs herein prayed for' The effecti&ity of the said %onstitution, in the final analysis, is the basic and ulti7ate 0uestion posed by these cases, to resol&e which considerations other than =udicial, and therefore beyond the co7petence of this %ourt, are rele&ant and una&oidable' Se&eral theories ha&e been ad&anced respecti&ely by the parties' The petitioners lay stress on the in&alidity of the ratification process adopted by the %iti?ens Asse7blies and on that pre7ise would ha&e this %ourt grant the reliefs they seeB' The respondents represented by the Solicitor 1eneral, whose theory 7ay be taBen as the official position of the 1o&ern7ent, challenge the =urisdiction of this %ourt on the ground that the 0uestions raised in the petitions are political and therefore non, =usticiable, and that in any case popular ac0uiescence in the new %onstitution and the prospect of unsettling acts done in reliance thereon should caution against interposition of the power of =udicial re&iew' Respondents 1il 6' uyat and 6ose Roy -in ),3515./, in their respecti&e capacities as resident and resident ro Te7pore of the Senate of the hilippines, and through their counsel, Senator Arturo Tolentino, liBewise in&oBe the political 0uestion doctrine, but on a ground not concurred in by the Solicitor 1eneral, na7ely, that appro&al of the 1273 %onstitution by the people was 7ade under a re&olutionary go&ern7ent, in the course of a successful political re&olution, which was con&erted by act of the people to the present de 6urego&ern7ent under the 1273 %onstitution'; Ceretofore, constitutional disputes which ha&e co7e before this %ourt for ad=udication proceeded on the assu7ption, conceded by all, that the %onstitution was in full force and effect, with the power and authority of the entire 1o&ern7ent behind it@ and the tasB of this %ourt was si7ply to deter7ine whether or not the particular act or statute that was being challenged contra&ened so7e rule or 7andate of that %onstitution' The process e7ployed was one of interpretation and synthesis' +n the cases at bar there is no such assu7ption8 the %onstitution -123./ has been derogated and its continued e9istence as well as the &alidity of the act of derogation is issue' The legal proble7 posed by the situation is aggra&ated by the fact that the political ar7s of the 1o&ern7ent E the "9ecuti&e :epart7ents and the two Couses of %ongress E ha&e accepted the new %onstitution as effecti&e8 the for7er by organi?ing the7sel&es and discharging their functions under it, and the latter by not con&ening on 6anuary 22, 1273 or at any ti7e thereafter, as ordained by the 123. %onstitution, and in the case of a 7a=ority of the 7e7bers by e9pressing their option to ser&e in the +nteri7 #ational Asse7bly in accordance with Article KA+++, Section 2, of the 1273 %onstitution' A The theory ad&anced by Senator Tolentino, as counsel for respondents uyat and Roy, 7ay be taBen up and restated at sa7e length if only because it would constitute, if sustained, the 7ost con&enient ground for the in&ocation of the political,0uestion doctrine' +n support of his theory, Senator Tolentino contends that after resident !arcos declared 7artial law on Septe7ber 21, 1272 - rocla7ation #o' 1041/ he established a re&olutionary go&ern7ent when he issued 1eneral (rder #o' 1 the ne9t day, wherein he proclai7ed ;that + shall go&ern the nation and direct the operation of the entire go&ern7ent, including all its agencies and instru7entalities, in 7y capacity, and shall e9ercise all the powers and prerogati&es appurtenant and incident to 7y position as such %o77ander,in,%hief of all the Ar7ed <orces of the hilippines'; $y this order, it is pointed out, the %o77ander,in,%hief of the Ar7ed <orces assu7ed all the powers of go&ern7ent E e9ecuti&e, legislati&e, and =udicial@ and thereafter proceeded to e9ercise such powers by a series of (rders and :ecrees which a7ounted to legislati&e enact7ents not =ustified under 7artial law and, in so7e instances, trenched upon the do7ain of the =udiciary, by re7o&ing fro7 its =urisdiction certain classes of cases, such as ;those in&ol&ing the &alidity, legality, or constitutionality of rocla7ation #o' 1041, or of any decree, order or act issued, pro7ulgated or perfor7ed by 7e or by 7y duly designated representati&e pursuant thereto'; -1eneral (rder #o' 3 as a7ended by 1eneral (rder #o' 3,A, dated Septe7ber 23, 1272'/ The ratification by the %iti?ens Asse7blies, it is a&erred, was the cul7inating act of the re&olution, which thereupon con&erted the go&ern7ent into a de 6ure one under the 1273 %onstitution' +f indeed it be accepted that the %iti?ens Asse7blies had ratified the 1273 %onstitution and that such ratification as well as the establish7ent of the go&ern7ent thereunder for7ed part of a re&olution, albeit peaceful, then the issue of whether or not that %onstitution has beco7e effecti&e and, as necessary corollary, whether or not the go&ern7ent legiti7ately functions under it instead of under the 123. %onstitution, is political and therefore non,=udicial in nature' *nder such a postulate what the people did in the %iti?en Asse7blies should be taBen as an e9ercise of the ulti7ate so&ereign power' +f they had risen up in ar7s and by force deposed the then e9isting go&ern7ent and set up a new go&ern7ent in its place, there could not be the least doubt that their act would be political and not sub=ect to =udicial re&iew but only to the =udg7ent of the sa7e body politic act, in the conte9t =ust set forth, is based on realities' +f a new go&ern7ent gains authority and do7inance through force, it can be effecti&ely challenged only by a stronger force@ =udicial dictu7 can pre&ail against it' We do not see that situation would be any different, as far as the doctrine of =udicial re&iew is concerned, if no force had been resorted to and the people, in defiance of the e9isting %onstitution but peacefully because of the absence of any appreciable opposition, ordained a new %onstitution and succeeded in ha&ing the go&ern7ent operate under it' Against such a reality there can be no ade0uate =udicial relief@ and so courts forbear to taBe cogni?ance of the 0uestion but lea&e it to be decided through political 7eans' The logic of the political,0uestion doctrine is illustrated in state7ent of the *'S' Supre7e %ourt in a case A relied upon, curiously enough, by the Solicitor 1eneral, who disagrees with the re&olutionary go&ern7ent theory of Senator Tolentino' The case in&ol&ed the issue of which of two opposing go&ern7ents struggling for supre7acy in the State of Rhode +sland was the lawful one' The issue had pre&iously co7e up in se&eral other cases before the courts of the State, which unifor7ly held that the in0uiry belonged to the political power and not to the =udicial' %o77enting on the ruling thus arri&ed at, the *'S' Supre7e %ourt said8 ;And if a State court should enter upon the in0uiry proposed in this case, and should co7e to the conclusion that the go&ern7ent under which it acted had been put aside and displaced by an opposing go&ern7ent, it would cease to be a court, and incapable of pronouncing a =udicial decision upon the 0uestion it undertooB to try' +f it decides at all as a court, it necessarily affir7s the e9istence and authority of the go&ern7ent under which it is e9ercising =udicial power'; +n other words, since the court would ha&e

no choice but to decide in one way alone in order to be able to decide at all, the 0uestion could not be considered proper for =udicial deter7ination' +t should be noted that the abo&e state7ent fro7 )uther &s' $orden would be applicable in the cases at bar only on the pre7ise that the ratification of the %onstitution was a re&olutionary act and that the go&ern7ent now functioning it is the product of such re&olution' Cowe&er, we are not prepared to agree that the pre7ise is =ustified' +n the first, place, with specific reference to the 0uestioned ratification, se&eral significant circu7stances 7ay be noted' -1/ The %iti?ens Asse7blies were created, according to residential :ecree #o' 45, ;to broaden the base of citi?en participation in the de7ocratic process and to afford a7ple opportunities for the citi?enry to e!press t)eir vie,s on i7portant national issues'; -2/ The resident announced, according to the (ail" &!press of 6anuary 2, 1273, that ;the referendu7 will be in the nature of a loose consultation with the people'; -3/ The 0uestion, as sub7itted to the7 on the particular point at issue here, was ;:o you a approve of the %onstitutionH; -3/ resident !arcos, in proclai7ing that the %onstitution had been ratified, stated as follows8 ;-S/ince the referendu7 results show that 7ore than ninety,fi&e -2./ per cent of the 7e7bers of the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ are in fa&or of the new %onstitution, the .atipunan ng mga %aranga" has strongl" recommended that the new %onstitution should already *e deemed ratified by the <ilipino people'; -./ There was not enough ti7e for the %iti?ens Asse7blies to really fa7iliari?e the7sel&es with the %onstitution, 7uch less with the 7any other sub=ects that were sub7itted to the7' +n fact the plebiscite planned for 6anuary 1., 1273 under residential :ecree #o' 73 had been postponed to an indefinite date, the reasons for the postpone7ent being, as attributed to the resident in the newspapers, that ;there was little ti7e to ca7paign for or against ratification; -(ail" &!press, :ec' 22, 1272/@ that he would base his decision -as to the date, of the plebiscite/ on the co7pliance by the %o77ission -on "lections/ on the publication re0uire7ent of the new %harter and on the position taBen by national leaders; -(ail" &!press, :ec' 23, 1272/@ and that ;the postpone7ent would gi&e us 7ore ti7e to debate on the 7erits of the %harter'; -%ulletin Toda", :ec' 23, 1272'/ The circu7stances abo&e enu7erated lead us to the conclusion that the %iti?ens Asse7blies could not ha&e understood the referendu7 to be for the ratification of the %onstitution, but only for the e9pression of their &iews on a consultati&e basis' +ndeed, if the e9pression of those &iews had been intended as an act of ratification -or of re=ection as a logical corollary/ E there would ha&e been no need for the .atipunan ng mga %aranga" to recommend that the %onstitution should already be dee7ed ratified, for reco77endation i7ports recognition of so7e higher authority in who7 the final decision rests' $ut then the resident, pursuant to such reco77endation, did proclai7 that the %onstitution had been ratified and had co7e into effect' The 7ore rele&ant consideration, therefore, as far as we can see, should be as to what the resident had in 7ind in con&ening the %iti?ens Asse7blies, sub7itting the %onstitution to the7 and proclai7ing that the fa&orable e9pression of their &iews was an act of ratification' +n this respect sub=ecti&e factors, which defy =udicial analysis and ad=udication, are necessarily in&ol&ed' +n positing the proble7 within an identifiable fra7e of reference we find no need to consider whether or not the regi7e established by resident !arcos since he declared 7artial law and under which the new %onstitution was sub7itted to the %iti?ens Asse7blies was a re&olutionary one' The pi&otal 0uestion is rather whether or not the effecti&ity of the said %onstitution by &irtue of residential rocla7ation #o' 1102, upon the reco77endation of the .atipunan ng mga %aranga", was intended to be definite and irre&ocable, regardless of non,co7pliance with the pertinent constitutional and statutory pro&isions prescribing the procedure for ratification' We 7ust confess that after considering all the a&ailable e&idence and all the rele&ant circu7stances we ha&e found no reasonably reliable answer to the 0uestion' (n one hand we read, for instance, the following public state7ents of the resident8 SpeaBing about the procla7ation of 7artial law, he said8 + reiterate what + ha&e said in the past8 there is no turning bacB for our people' We ha&e co77itted oursel&es to this re&olution' We ha&e pledged to it our future, our fortunes, our li&es, our destiny' We ha&e burned our bridges behind us' )et no 7an 7isunderstand the strength of our resolution' -A Report to the #ation, 6an' 7, 1273'/ (n the occasion of the signing of rocla7ation #o' 1102 on 6anuary 17, 1273, the resident said the following, a7ong other things8 ''' We can, perhaps deli7it the power of the people to speaB on legal 7atters, on =usticiable 7atters, on 7atters that 7ay co7e before the e9perts and interpreters of the law' $ut we cannot dis0ualify the people fro7 speaBing on what we and the people consider purely political 7atters especially those that affect the funda7ental law of the land' ''' The political 0uestions that were presented to the people are e9actly those that refer to the for7 of go&ern7ent which the people want ''' The i7plications of disregarding the peopleDs will are too aweso7e to be e&en considered' <or if any power in go&ern7ent should e&en dare to disregard the peopleDs will there would be &alid ground for re&olt' ''' )et it be Bnown to e&erybody that the people ha&e spoBen and they will no longer tolerate any atte7pt to under7ine the stability of their Republic@ they will rise up in ar7s not in re&olt against the Republic *ut

in protection of t)e Repu*lic ,)ic) t)e" )ave installed' +t is 0uite clear when the people say, we ratify the %onstitution, that they 7ean they will not discard, the %onstitution' (n 6anuary 12, 1273 the (ail" &!press published state7ent of the resident 7ade the day before, fro7 which the following portion is 0uoted8 ''' the ti7es are too gra&e and the staBes too high for us per7it the custo7ary concessions to traditional de7ocratic process to hold bacB our peopleDs clear and une0ui&ocal resol&e and 7andate to 7eet and o&erco7e the e9traordinary challenges presented by these e9traordinary ti7es' (n the sa7e occasion of the signing of rocla7ation #o' 1102 the resident 7ade pointed reference to ;the de7and of so7e of our citi?ens ''' that when all other 7easures should fail, that the resident be directed to organi?e and establish a Re&olutionary 1o&ern7ent,; but in the ne9t breath added8 ;''' if we do ratify the %onstitution, how can we speaB of Re&olutionary 1o&ern7entH They cannot be co7patible '''; ;-+/t is 7y feeling,; he said, ;that the %iti?ensD Asse7blies which sub7itted this reco77endation 7erely sought articulate their i7patience with the status 9uo that has brought about anarchy, confusion and 7isery to the 7asses '''; The only alternati&es which the resident clearly i7plied by the foregoing state7ents were the ratification of the new %onstitution and the establish7ent of a re&olutionary go&ern7ent, the latter being unnecessary, in his opinion, because precisely the %onstitution had been ratified' The third ob&ious alternati&e was entirely ruled out, na7ely, a return to the 123. %onstitution, for it was the status 9uo under that %onstitution that had caused ;anarchy, confusion and 7isery'; The 7essage see7s clear8 rather than return to such status 9uo, he would heed the reco77endation of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies to establish a re&olutionary go&ern7ent, because that would be the only other way to carry out the refor7s he had en&isioned and initiated E refor7s which, in all fairness and honesty, 7ust be gi&en credit for the i7pro&ed 0uality of life in its 7any aspects, e9cept only in the field of ci&il liberties' +f there is any significance, both e9plicit and i7plicit, and certainly un7istaBable, in the foregoing pronounce7ents, it is that the step taBen in connection with the ratification of the %onstitution was 7eant to be irre&ersible, and that nothing anyone could say would 7aBe the least difference' And if this is a correct and accurate assess7ent of the situation, then we would say that since it has been brought about by political action and is now 7aintained by the go&ern7ent that is in undisputed authority and do7inance, the 7atter lies beyond the power of =udicial re&iew' (n the other hand, by a&owals no less significant if not so e7phatic in ter7s, resident !arcos has professed fealty to the %onstitution' +n ;TodayDs Re&olution8 :e7ocracy; he says8 + belie&e, therefore, in the necessity of Re&olution as an instru7ent of indi&idual and social change ''' but that in a de7ocratic society, re&olution is of necessity, constitutional, peaceful, and legal' +n his TA address of Septe7ber 23, 1272, resident !arcos told the nation8 + ha&e proclai7ed 7artial law in accordance with the powers vested in t)e $resident *" t)e +onstitution of t)e $)ilippines' 999 999 999 + repeat, this is not a 7ilitary taBeo&er of ci&il go&ern7ent functions' The 1o&ern7ent of the Repu*lic of t)e $)ilippines ,)ic) ,as esta*lis)ed *" our people in 4;H3 continues ' 999 999 999 + assure you that + a7 utili?ing this power vested in me *" t)e +onstitution to sa&e the Republic and refor7 our society''' + ha&e had to use this constitutional power in order that we 7ay not co7pletely lose the ci&il rights and freedo7 which we cherish''' ''' We are against the wall' We 7ust now defend the Republic ,it) t)e stronger po,ers of t)e +onstitution' -Aital :ocu7ents, pp' 1,12@ e7phasis supplied/' +n the report of an inter&iew granted by the resident to the #ewsweeB !aga?ine -published in the issue of 6anuary 22, 1273/, the following appears8 999 999 999 I' #ow that you ha&e gotten off the constitutional tracB, wonDt you be in serious trouble if you run into critical proble7s with your progra7sH

R' + ha&e ne&er gotten off the constitutional tracB' "&erything + a7 doing is in accordance with the 123. %onstitution' The only thing is that instead of 14,year,olds &oting, we ha&e allowed 1.,year,olds the right to &ote' $ut the 1.,year,olds of today are high,school students, if not graduates, and they are better infor7ed than 7y conte7poraries at that age' (n the 7atter of whether it is constitutional to proclai7 7artial law, it is constitutional because the %onstitution pro&ides for it in the e&ent of in&asion, insurrection, rebellion or i77ediate danger thereof' We 7ay 0uarrel about whether what we ha&e gone through is sufficient cause to proclai7 7artial law but at the &ery least there is a danger of rebellion because so 7any of our soldiers ha&e been Billed' Lou 7ust re7e7ber this -7artial law pro&ision/ was lifted fro7 the A7erican legislation that was the funda7ental law of our country' 999 999 999 +n the light of this see7ing a7bi&alence, the choice of what course of action to pursue belongs to the resident' We ha&e earlier 7ade reference to sub=ecti&e factors on which this %ourt, to our 7ind, is in no position to pass =udg7ent' A7ong the7 is the residentDs own assess7ent of the will of the people as e9pressed through the %iti?ens Asse7blies and of the i7portance of the 1273 %onstitution to the successful i7ple7entation of the social and econo7ic refor7s he has started or en&isioned' +f he should decide that there is no turning bacB, that what the people reco77ended through the %iti?ens Asse7blies, as they were reported to hi7, de7and that the action he tooB pursuant thereto be final and irre&ocable, then =udicial re&iew is out of the 0uestion' +n articulating our &iew that the procedure of ratification that was followed was not in accordance with the 123. %onstitution and related statutes, we ha&e discharged our sworn duty as we concei&e it to be' The resident should now perhaps decide, if he has not already decided, whether adherence to such procedure is weighty enough a consideration, if only to dispel any cloud of doubt that 7ay now and in the future shroud the nationDs %harter' +n the deliberations of this %ourt one of the issues for7ulated for resolution is whether or not the new %onstitution, since its sub7ission to the %iti?ens Asse7blies, has found acceptance a7ong the people, such issue being related to the political 0uestion theory propounded by the respondents' We ha&e not tarried on the point at all since we find no reliable basis on which to for7 a =udg7ent' *nder a regi7e of 7artial law, with the free e9pression of opinions through the usual 7edia &ehicles restricted, we ha&e no 7eans of Bnowing, to the point of =udicial certainty, whether the people ha&e accepted the %onstitution' +n any e&ent, we do not find the issue decisi&e insofar as our &ote in these cases is concerned' To interpret the %onstitution E that is =udicial' That the %onstitution should be dee7ed in effect because of popular ac0uiescence E that is political, and therefore beyond the do7ain of =udicial re&iew' We therefore &ote not to gi&e due course to the instant petitions' (ARRE%O, J., concurring8 As far as + a7 concerned, + regard the present petitions as no 7ore than 7ere reiterations of the Supple7ental etitions filed by %ounsel )oren?o !' Ta>ada on 6anuary 1., 1273 in the so called lebiscite %ases decided by this %ourt on 6anuary 22, 1274' (f course, there are a7plifications of so7e of the grounds pre&iously alleged and in the course of the unprecedented fi&e,day hearing that was held fro7 <ebruary 12 to 15 last, 7ore e9tensi&e and illu7inating argu7ents were heard by *s, but, in 7y esti7ation, and with due recognition of the sincerety, brilliance and elo0uence of counsels, nothing 7ore cogent and co7pelling than what had already been pre&iously presented by %ounsel Ta>ada is before *s now' Accordingly, + cannot see any reason why + should change the position + tooB in regard to the earlier cases' + reiterate, therefore, the &ote + cast when these petitions were initially considered by the %ourt@ na7ely, to dis7iss the7' +n &iew, howe&er, of the transcendental i7portance of the issues before the %ourt and the significance to our people and in history of the indi&idual stands of the 7e7bers of the %ourt in relation to said issues and to the final outco7e of these cases, and considering that + reser&ed before the filing of a 7ore e9tended opinion, + will taBe this opportunity to e9plain further why + hold that the 1273 %onstitution is already in force, if only to clarify that apart fro7 the peopleDs right of re&olution to which + 7ade pointed reference in 7y pre&ious opinion, + can see now, after further reflection, that the &ote of the people in the referendu7 in the %iti?ens Asse7blies held on 6anuary 10 to 1., 1273, upon the result of which rocla7ation 1102 is based, 7ay be &iewed 7ore i7portantly as a political act than as a purely legal one with the result that such &ote to consider the 1273 %onstitution as ratified without the necessity of holding a plebiscite in the for7 followed in the pre&ious ratification plebiscites in 123. of the %onstitution itself, 1237 of wo7enDs suffrage, 1232 of the a7end7ents to the (rdinance Appended to the %onstitution, 1230 of the re,election of the resident, the bica7eral legislature and the %o77ission on "lections, 1237 of the parity a7end7ent and 1257, re=ecting the proposed increase in the 7e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es and eligibility of 7e7bers of %ongress to the %onstitutional %on&ention, 7ay be dee7ed as a &alid ratification substantially in co7pliance with the basic intent of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' +f indeed this e9planation 7ay be considered as a 7odification of 7y rationali?ation then, + wish to e7phasi?e that 7y position as to the funda7ental issue regarding the enforceability of the new %onstitution is e&en fir7er now than e&er before' As + shall elucidate anon, para7ount considerations of national i7port ha&e led 7e to the con&iction that the best interests of all concerned would be best ser&ed by the Supre7e %ourt holding that the 1273 %onstitution is now in force, not necessarily as a conse0uence of the re&olutionary concept pre&iously suggested by 7e, but upon the ground that as a political, 7ore than as a legal, act of the people, the result of the referendu7 7ay be construed as a co7pliance with the substantiality of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution'

+ The facts that ga&e rise to these proceedings are historical and well Bnown' 1enerally, they 7ay be taBen =udicial notice of' They re&ol&e around the purported ratification of the %onstitution of 1273 declared in rocla7ation 1102 issued by the resident on 6anuary 17, 1273' ursuant to a =oint resolution of the %ongress sitting as a constituent asse7bly appro&ed on !arch 15, 1257, delegates to a constitutional con&ention to propose a7end7ents to the %onstitution of 123. were elected in accordance with the i7ple7enting law, Republic Act 5132, on #o&e7ber 10, 1270' Nnown as the %onstitutional %on&ention of 1271, the asse7bly began its sessions on 6une 1, 1271' After encountering a lot of difficulties, due to bitter ri&alries o&er i7portant positions and co77ittees and an inco7prehensible fear of o&erconcentrating powers in their officers, the delegates went about their worB in co7parati&ely slow pace, and by the third 0uarter of 1272 had finished deliberations and second,reading &oting only on an insignificant nu7ber of proposals E until Septe7ber 21, 1272, when the resident, not altogether une9pectedly, yet abruptly, issued rocla7ation 1041 declaring 7artial law throughout the country' An atte7pt was 7ade to ha&e the %on&ention recessed until after the lifting of 7artial law, and not long after the 7otion of :elegate Nalaw to such effect was turned down, the acti&ities within the asse7bly shifted to high gear' As if un7indful of the arrest and continued detention of se&eral of its 7e7bers, the con&ention gathered swift 7o7entu7 in its worB, and on #o&e7ber 30, 1272, it appro&ed by o&erwhel7ing &ote the draft of a co7plete constitution, instead of 7ere specific a7end7ents of particular portions of the %onstitution of 123.' #eedless to say, before 7artial law was declared, there was full and unli7ited co&erage of the worBings in the con&ention by the 7ass 7edia' At the sa7e ti7e, public debates and discussions on &arious aspects of proposed a7end7ents were not unco77on' "arlier, on #o&e7ber 22, 1272, the %on&ention had Resolution #o' .433 proposing ;to resident <erdinand !arcos that a decree be issued calling a plebiscite for ratification of the proposed new %onstitution on appropriate date as he shall deter7ine and pro&iding for necessary funds therefor'; Acting under this authority, :ece7ber 1, 1272, the resident issued residential :ecree #o' 73 sub7itting the draft constitution for ratification by the people at a plebiscite set for 6anuary 1., 1273' This order contained pro&isions 7ore or less si7ilar to the plebiscite laws passed by %ongress relati&e to the past plebiscites held in connection with pre&ious proposed a7end7ents' +n connection with the plebiscite thus conte7plated, 1eneral (rder #o' 17 was issued ordering and en=oining the authorities to allow and encourage public and free discussions on proposed constitution' #ot only this, subse0uently, under date of :ece7ber 17, 1272, the resident ordered the suspension the effects of 7artial law and lifted the suspension of pri&ilege of the writ of )a*eas corpus insofar as acti&ities connected with the ratification of the draft constitution were concerned' These two orders were not, howe&er, to last &ery long' (n 6anuary 7, 1273, the resident, in&oBing infor7ation related to hi7 that the area of public debate and discussion had opened by his pre&ious orders was being taBen ad&antage of by sub&ersi&e ele7ents to defeat the purposes for which they were issued and to fo7ent public confusion, withdrew said orders and en=oined full and stricter i7ple7entation of 7artial law' +n the 7eanti7e, the resident had issued on :ece7ber 3, 1272 residential :ecree #o' 45 creating %iti?ens Asse7blies ;so as to afford a7ple opportunities for the citi?enry to e9press their &iews on i7portant national issues; and one of the 0uestions presented to said asse7blies was8 ;:o you liBe the plebiscite on the proposed %onstitution to be held later; So, the sa7e order of 6anuary 7, 1273, 1eneral (rder #o' 20, the resident ordered, ;that the plebiscite scheduled to be held 6anuary 1., 1273, be postponed until further notice;' +n the 7eanwhile also, on 6anuary ., 1273, the resident issued residential :ecree, #o' 45,A pro&iding as follows8 R"S+:"#T+A) :"%R"" #(' 45,A STR"#1TC"#+#1 A#: :"<+#+#1 TC" R()" (< $ARA#1ALS -%+T+M"#S ASS"!$)+"S/ WC"R"AS, on the basis of preli7inary and initial reports fro7 the field as gathered fro7 barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ that ha&e so far been established, the people would liBe to decide for the7sel&es 0uestions or issues, both local and national, affecting their day,to,day li&es and their future@ WC"R"AS, the barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ would liBe the7sel&es to be the &ehicle for e9pressing the &iews of the people on i7portant national issues@ WC"R"AS, such barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ desire that they be gi&en legal status and due recognition as constituting the genuine, legiti7ate and &alid e9pression of the popular will@ and WC"R"AS, the people would liBe the citi?ens asse7blies to conduct i77ediately a referendu7 on certain specified 0uestions such as the ratification of the new %onstitution, continuance of 7artial law, the con&ening of %ongress on 6anuary 22, 1273, and the elections in #o&e7ber 1273 pursuant to the 123. %onstitution' #(W, TC"R"<(R", +, <"R:+#A#: "' !AR%(S, resident of the hilippines, by &irtue of the powers &ested in 7e by the %onstitution as %o77ander,in,%hief of all Ar7ed <orces of the hilippines, do

hereby declare as part of the law of the land the following8 1' The present barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ are created under residential :ecree #o' 45 dated :ece7ber 31, 1272, shall constitute the base for citi?en participation in go&ern7ental affairs and their collecti&e &iews shall be considered in the for7ulation of national policies or progra7s and, where&er practicable, shall be translated into concrete and specific decision@ 2' Such barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ shall consider &ital national issues now confronting the country, liBe the holding of the plebiscite on the new %onstitution, the continuation of 7artial rule, the con&ening of %ongress on 6anuary 22, 1273, and the holding of elections in #o&e7ber 1273, and others in the future, which shall ser&e as guide or basis for action or decision by the national go&ern7ent@ 3' The barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ shall conduct between 6anuary 10 and 1., 1273, a referendu7 on i7portant national issues, including those specified in paragraph 2 hereof, and sub7it results thereof to the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents %o77unity :e&elop7ent i77ediately thereafter, pursuant to e9press will of the people as reflected in the reports gathered fro7 the 7any thousands of barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ throughout the country' 3' This :ecree shall taBe effect i77ediately' :one in the %ity of !anila, this .th day of 6anuary, in the year of (ur )ord, nineteen hundred and se&enty three' And on 6anuary 7, 1273, this was followed by residential :ecree #o' 45,$ reading thus8 R"S+:"#T+A) :"%R"" #(' 45,$ :"<+#+#1 <*RTC"R TC" R()" (< $ARA#1ALS -%+T+M"#S ASS"!$)+"S/ WC"R"AS, since their creation pursuant to residential :ecree #o' 45 dated :ece7ber 31, 1272, the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ ha&e petitioned the (ffice of the resident to sub7it the7 for resolution i7portant national issues@ WC"R"AS, one of the 0uestions persistently 7entioned refers to the ratification of the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention@ WC"R"AS, on the basis of the said petitions, it is e&ident that the people belie&e that the sub7ission of the proposed %onstitution to the %iti?ens Asse7blies or $arangays should be taBen as a plebiscite in itself in &iew of the fact that freedo7 of debate has always been li7ited to the leadership in political, econo7ic and social fields, and that it is now necessary to bring this down to the le&el of the people the7sel&es through the $arangays or %iti?ens Asse7blies@ #(W TC"R"<(R", +, <"R:+#A#: "' !AR%(S, resident of the hilippines, by &irtue of the powers in 7e &ested by the %onstitution, do hereby order that i7portant national issues shall fro7 ti7e to ti7e be referred to the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ for resolution in accordance with residential :ecree #o' 45,A dated 6anuary ., 1273 and that the initial referendu7 shall include the 7atter of ratification of the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention' The Secretary of the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents and %o77unity :e&elop7ent shall insure the i7ple7entation of this (rder' :one in the %ity of !anila, this 7th day of 6anuary in the year of (ur )ord, nineteen hundred and se&enty, three' And so it was that by 6anuary 10, 1273, when the %iti?ens Asse7blies thus created started the referendu7 which was held fro7 said date to 6anuary 1., 1273, the following 0uestions were sub7itted to the78 -1/ :o you liBe the #ew SocietyH -2/ :o you liBe the refor7s under 7artial lawH -3/ :o you liBe %ongress again to hold sessionsH -3/ :o you liBe the plebiscite to be held laterH

-./ :o you liBe the way resident !arcos is running the affairs of the go&ern7entH' but on 6anuary 11, 1273, si9 0uestions were added as follows8 -1/ :o you appro&e of the citi?ens asse7blies as the base of popular go&ern7ent to decide issues of national interestsH -2/ :o you appro&e of the #ew %onstitutionH -3/ :o you want a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new %onstitutionH -3/ :o you want the elections to be held in #o&e7ber, 1273 in accordance with the pro&isions of the 123. %onstitutionH -./ +f the elections would not be held, when do you want it to be calledH -5/ :o you want 7artial law to continueH +t is not seriously denied that together with the 0uestion the &oters were furnished ;co77ents; on the said 0uestions 7ore or less suggesti&e of the answer desired' +t 7ay assu7ed that the said ;co77ents; ca7e fro7 official sources, albeit specifically unidentified' As petitioners point out, the 7ost rele&ant of these ;co77ents; were the following8 %(!!"#TS (# 999 999 999 I*"ST+(# #o' 2 $ut we do not want the Ad +nteri7 Asse7bly to be con&oBe' (r if it is to be con&ened at all, it should not be done so until after at least se&en -7/ years fro7 the appro&al of the #ew %onstitution by the %iti?ens Asse7blies' I*"ST+(# #o' 3 The &ote of the %iti?ens Asse7blies should already be considered the plebiscite on the #ew %onstitution' +f the %iti?ens Asse7blies appro&e of the new %onstitution then the new %onstitution should be dee7ed ratified' The Solicitor 1eneral clai7s, and there see7s to be showing otherwise, that the results of the referendu7 were deter7ined in the following 7anner8 Thereafter, the results of the &oting were collated and sent to the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents' The trans7ission of the results was 7ade by telegra7, telephone, the pro&incial go&ern7ent SS$ Syste7 in each pro&ince connecting all towns@ the SS$ co77unication of the A%: connecting 7ost pro&inces@ the :epart7ent of ublic +nfor7ation #etworB Syste7@ the Weather $ureau %o77unication Syste7 connecting all pro&incial capitals and the #ational %i&il :efense #etworB connecting all pro&incial capitals' The certificates of results were then flown to !anila to confir7 the pre&ious figures recei&ed by the afore7entioned 7eans of trans7ission' The certificates of results tallied with the pre&ious figures taBen with the e9ception of few cases of clerical errors' The :epart7ent adopted a syste7 of regionali?ing the recei&ing section of the %iti?ens Asse7blies operation at the :epart7ent wherein the identity of the barrio and the pro&ince was i77ediately gi&en to a staff in charge of each region' "&ery afternoon at 2800 oDclocB, the 11 regions sub7itted the figures they recei&ed fro7 the field to the central co77ittee to tabulate the returns' The last figures were tabulated at 12 7idnight of 6anuary 15, 1273 and early 7orning of 6anuary 17, 1273 and were then co77unicated to the resident by the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents' The de&elop7ent cul7inated in the issuance by the resident of rocla7ation 1102 on 6anuary 17, 1273' Said procla7ation reads8 R(%)A!AT+(# #(' 1102 A##(*#%+#1 TC" RAT+<+%AT+(# $L TC" <+)+ +#( "( )" (< TC" %(#ST+T*T+(# R( (S": $L TC" 1271 %(#ST+T*T+(#A) %(#A"#T+(#' WC"R"AS, the %onstitution proposed by the nineteen hundred se&enty,one %onstitutional %on&ention is

sub=ect to ratification by the <ilipino people@ WC"R"AS, %iti?ens Asse7blies were created in barrios in 7unicipalities and in districtsJwards in chartered cities pursuant to residential :ecree #o' 5, dated :ece7ber 31, 1272, co7posed of all persons who are residents of the barrio, district or ward for at least si9 7onths, fifteen years of age or o&er, citi?ens of the hilippines and who are registered in the list of %iti?en Asse7bly 7e7bers Bept by the barrio, district or ward secretary@ WC"R"AS, the said %iti?ens Asse7blies were establish precisely to broaden the base of citi?en participation in the de7ocratic process and to afford a7ple opportunity for the citi?en to e9press their &iews on i7portant national issues@ WC"R"AS, responding to the cla7or of the people an pursuant to residential :ecree #o' 45,A, dated 6anuary ., 1273, the following 0uestions were posed before %iti?ensD Asse7blies or $arangays8 :o you appro&e of the #ew %onstitutionH :o you still want a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new %onstitutionH WC"R"AS, fourteen 7illion nine hundred se&enty,si9 thousand fi&e hundred si9ty one -13,275,.51/ 7e7bers of all the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ &oted for the adoption of the proposed %onstitution, as against se&en hundred forty,three thousand eight hundred si9ty nine -733,452/ who &oted for its re=ection@ while on the 0uestion as to whether or not the people would still liBe a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new %onstitution fourteen 7illion two hundred ninety,eight thousand eight hundred fourteen -13,224,413/ answered that there was no need for plebiscite and that the &ote of the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ should be considered as a &ote in a plebiscite@ WC"R"AS, since the referendu7 results show that 7ore than ninety,fi&e -2./ percent of the 7e7bers of the $arangays -%iti?en Asse7blies/ are in fa&or of the #ew %onstitution, the Natipunan ng !ga $arangay has strongly reco77ended that the new %onstitution should already be dee7ed ratified by the <ilipino people@ #(W, TC"R"<(R", +, <"R:+#A#: "' !AR%(S, resident of the hilippines, by &irtue of the powers in 7e &ested by the %onstitution, do hereby certify and proclai7 that the %onstitution proposed by the nineteen hundred and se&enty,one -1271/ %onstitutional %on&ention has been ratified by an o&erwhel7ingly 7a=ority of all of the &otes cast by the 7e7bers of all the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ throughout the hilippines, and has thereby co7e into effect' +# W+T#"SS WC"R"(<, + ha&e hereunto set 7y hand and caused the seal of the Republic of the hilippines to be affi9ed' :one in the %ity of !anila, this 17th day of 6anuary, in the year of (ur )ord, nineteen hundred and se&enty,three' The first atte7pt to 0uestion the steps =ust enu7erated taBen by the resident was in the so,called lebiscite %ases, ten in nu7ber, which were filed by different petitioners during the first half of :ece7ber 1272' 1 Their co77on target then was residential :ecree #o' 73, but before the said cases could be decided, the series of 7o&es tending in effect to 7aBe the7 7oot and acade7ic insofar as they referred e9clusi&ely to the said residential :ecree began to taBe shape upon the issuance of residential :ecree #o' 45,A, 0uoted abo&e' And when residential :ecree #o' 45,$, also abo&e 0uoted, was issued and the si9 additional 0uestions which were first publici?ed on 6anuary 11, 1273 were Bnown, together with the ;co77ents;, petitioners sensed that a new and unorthodo9 procedure was being adopted to secure appro&al by the people of the new %onstitution, hence %ounsel Ta>ada, not being satisfied with the fate of his urgent 7otion for early decision of the abo&e ten cases dated 6anuary 12, 1273, filed on 6anuary 1., 1273, his supple7ental 7otion seeBing the prohibition against and in=unction of the proceedings going on' rincipal ob=ecti&e was to pre&ent that the resident be furnished the report of the results of the referendu7 and thereby disable hi7 fro7 carrying out what petitioners were apprehensi&ely foreseeing would be done E the issuance of so7e Bind of procla7ation, order or decree, declaring that the new %onstitution had been ratified' Reacting swiftly, the %ourt resol&ed on the sa7e day, 6anuary 1., which was !onday, to consider the supple7ental 7otion as a supple7ental petition and to re0uire the respondents to answer the sa7e the ne9t Wednesday, 6anuary 17th, before the hour of the hearing of the petition which set for 2830 oDclocB in the 7orning of that day' The details what happened that 7orning for7 part of the recital of facts the decision rendered by this %ourt in the ten cases on 6anuary 22, 1273 and need not be repeated here' Suffice it to state no that before the hearing could be closed and while %ounsel Ta>ada was still insisting on his prayer for preli7inary in=unction or restraining order, the Secretary of 6ustice arri&ed and personally handed to the %hief 6ustice a copy rocla7ation 1102 which had been issued at about 11800 oDclocB that sa7e 7orning' +n other words, the &aliant and persistent efforts of petitioners and their counsels were o&ertaBen by ad&erse de&elop7ents, and in the 7ind of the 7a=ority of the 7e7bers of the %ourt, the cases had beco7e acade7ic' <or 7y part, + tooB the &iew that e&en on the basis of the supple7ental petition and the answer thereto filed by respondents, the %ourt could already decide on the funda7ental issue of the &alidity rocla7ation 1102, as 6ustices Maldi&ar, Antonio and "sguerra also belie&ed, inas7uch as %ounsel Ta>adaDs pleading and argu7ent had anticipated its issuance, but the 7a=ority felt it was not ready to resol&e the 7atter, for lacB, according the7, of full &entilation, and so, the decision reser&ed petitioners the filing of the ;appropriate; cases, e&idently, the present ones'

++ At the threshold, + find 7yself confronted by a 7atter which, although belie&ed to be inconse0uential by 7y learned brethren, + strongly feel needs special attention' + refer to the point raised by %ounsel Arturo !' Tolentino for respondent 1il 6' uyat and 6ose Roy, who ha&e been sued as resident and resident ro Te7pore of the Senate, to the effect that change in the co7position of the Supre7e %ourt pro&ided for the 1273 %onstitution, fro7 the 11,7an tribunal under the 123. %onstitution to a 1.,7an %ourt, 7aBes of these cases which were filed after 6anuary 17, 1273 the date when rocla7ation 1102 declared the new %onstitution as ratified, political nature and beyond our =urisdiction' The 7ain consideration sub7itted in this connection is that inas7uch as the nu7ber &otes needed for a decision of this %ourt has been increased fro7 si9 to eight in ordinary cases and fro7 eight to ten for the declaration of unconstitutionality of a treaty, e9ecuti&e agree7ent 2 or law, the %ourt would ha&e to resol&e first as a pre=udicial 0uestion whether the %ourt is acting in these cases as the 1.,7an or the 11,7an %ourt, in which e&ent, it would be faced with the dile77a that if it acts either as the for7er or as the latter, it would be pre=udging the &ery 7atter in issue one way or the other, and, in effect, it would be choosing between two constitutions, which is a political deter7ination not within the %ourtDs co7petence' While + agree that the proble7 is at first blush rather in&ol&ed, + do not share the &iew that the pre7ises laid down by counsel necessarily preclude this %ourt fro7 taBing a definite stand on whether the %ourt is acting in these cases as the 1.,!an or the 11,7an %ourt' + feel &ery strongly that the issue should not be ignored or dodged, if only to 7aBe the world Bnow that the Supre7e %ourt of the hilippines is ne&er incogni?ant of the capacity in which it is acting, 7uch less lacBing in courage or wisdo7 to resol&e an issue that relates directly to its own co7position' What a disgrace it would be to ad7it that this Supre7e %ourt does not Bnow, to use a co77on apt e9pression, whether it is fish or fowl' Withal, scholars and researchers who 7ight go o&er our records in the future will ine&itably e9a7ine 7inutely how each of us &oted and upon what considerations we ha&e indi&idually acted, and, indeed, doubts 7ay arise as to whether or not, despite the general result we 7ight announce, there had been the re0uisite nu7ber of &otes for a &alid collegiate action' <or instance, it 7ay be argued that the present cases do not in&ol&e an issue of unconstitutionality, hence, if we are acting as the 11,7an %ourt, only si9 &otes would suffice to declare rocla7ation 1102 ineffecti&e, and if upon analysis of our respecti&e opinions it should be inferable therefro7 that si9 of us ha&e considered the 7atter before the %ourt as =usticiable and at the sa7e ti7e ha&e found the procedure of ratification adopted in residential :ecrees 45,A and 45,$ and related orders of the resident as not being in confor7ity with Article KA of the old %onstitution, a cloud would e9ist as to efficacy of the dispositi&e portion of (ur decision dis7iss these cases, e&en if we ha&e it understood that by the &ote of =ustices in fa&or of such dis7issal, We intended to 7ean the i7ple7entation or enforce7ent of the new %onstitution now being done could continue' $e that as it 7ay, + a7 against lea&ing such an i7portant point open to speculation' $y nature + a7 a&erse to a7biguity and e0ui&ocation and as a 7e7ber of the Supre7e %ourt, last thing + should Bnowingly countenance is uncertainty as to the =uridical significance of any decision of the %ourt which is precisely being looBed upon as the ha&en in which doubts are supposed to be authoritati&ely dispelled' $esides, fro7 &ery nature of things, one thing is indubitably beyond dispute E we cannot act in both capacities of a 1.,7an and an 11,7an %ourt at the sa7e ti7e, in liBe 7anner that it is inconcei&able that the 123. and 1273 %onstitution can be considered by *s both in force' (ur inescapable duty is to 7aBe a choice between the7, according to what law and other considerations inherent to our function dictate' + cannot bear the thought that so7eone 7ay so7eday say that the Supre7e %ourt of the hilippines once decided a case without Bnowing the basis of its author to act or that it was e&er wanting in =udicial courage to define the sa7e' Accordingly, with full consciousness of 7y li7itations but co7pelled by 7y sense of duty and propriety to straighten out this gra&e of issue touching on the capacity in which the %ourt acting in these cases, + hold that we ha&e no alternati&e but adopt in the present situation the orthodo9 rule that when &alidity of an act or law is challenged as being repugnant constitutional 7andate, the sa7e is allowed to ha&e effect until the Supre7e %ourt rules that it is unconstitutional' Stated differently, We ha&e to proceed on the assu7ption that the new %onstitution is in force and that We are acting in these cases as the 1.,7an Supre7e %ourt pro&ided for there %ontrary to counselDs contention, there is here no pre=udg7ent for or against any of the two constitutions' The truth of 7atter is si7ply that in the nor7al and logical conduct go&ern7ental acti&ities, it is neither practical nor wise to defer the course of any action until after the courts ha&e ascertained their legality, not only because if that were to be the rule, the functioning of go&ern7ent would correspondingly be undesirably hesitati&e and cu7berso7e, but 7ore i7portantly, because the courts 7ust at the first instance accord due respect to the acts of the other depart7ents, as otherwise, the s7ooth running of the go&ern7ent would ha&e to depend entirely on the unani7ity of opinions a7ong all its depart7ents, which is hardly possible, unless it is assu7ed that only the =udges ha&e the e9clusi&e prerogati&e of 7aBing and enforcing the law, aside fro7 being its sole interpreter, which is contrary to all nor7s of =uridical and political thinBing' To 7y Bnowledge, there is yet no country in the world that has recogni?ed =udicial supre7acy as its basic go&ern7ental principle, no 7atter how desirable we 7ight belie&e the idea to be' +ndeed, it is not hard to &isuali?e the difficulty if not absurdity of (ur acting on the assu7ption that this %ourt is still functioning under the 123. %onstitution' +t is undeniable that the whole go&ern7ent, including the pro&incial, 7unicipal and barrio units and not e9cluding the lower courts up to the %ourt of Appeals, is operating under the 1273 %onstitution' Al7ost daily, presidential orders and decrees of the 7ost legislati&e character affecting practically e&ery aspect of go&ern7ental and pri&ate acti&ity as well as the relations between the go&ern7ent and the citi?enry are pouring out fro7 !alaca>ang under the authority of said %onstitution' (n the other hand, ta9es are being e9acted and penalties in connection therewith are being i7posed under said orders and decrees' (bligations ha&e been contracted and business and industrial plans ha&e been and are being pro=ected pursuant to the7' :isplace7ents of public officials and e7ployees in big nu7bers are going on in obedience to the7' <or the ten =ustices of the Supre7e %ourt to constitute an island of resistance in the 7idst of these de&elop7ents, which e&en unreasoning obstinacy cannot ignore, 7uch less i7pede, is uni7aginable, let alone the absurd and co7plicated conse0uences such a

position entails in the internal worBings within the =udiciary a7ount its different co7ponents, what with the lower courts considering such orders and decrees as for7ing part of the law of the land in 7aBing their orders and decisions, whereas the Supre7e %ourt is holding, as it were, their effecti&ity at bay if it is not being indifferent to or ignoring the7' +t is suggested that the resident, being a 7an of law, co77itted to abide by the decision of the Supre7e %ourt, and if the %ourt feels that it cannot in the 7eanti7e consider the enforce7ent of the new %onstitution, he can wait for its decision' Accepting the truth of this assertion, it does necessarily follow that by this attitude of the resident, considers the Supre7e %ourt as still operating under the %onstitution' Iuite on the contrary, it is a fact that he has gi&en instructions for the pay7ent of the =ustices in accordance with the rate fi9ed in the #ew %onstitution' #ot only that, official alter ego, the Secretary of 6ustice, has been sho&ing this %ourt, since 6anuary 14, 1273, all 7atters related to the ad7inistrati&e super&ision of the lower courts which by the new charter has been transferred fro7 the :epart7ent of 6ustice to the Supre7e %ourt, and as far as + Bnow, resident has not counter7anded the SecretaryDs steps in that direction' That, on the other hand, the resident has not aug7ented the =ustices of the %ourt to co7plete the prescribed nu7ber of fifteen is, in 7y appraisal, of no conse0uence considering that with the presence of ten =ustices who are the %ourt now, there is a worBing 0uoru7, and the addition of new =ustices cannot in anyway affect the &oting on the constitutional 0uestions now before *s because, while there sufficient =ustices to declare by their unani7ous &ote illegality of rocla7ation 1102, the &otes of the =ustices to added would only be co77itted to upholding the sa7e, since they cannot by any standard be e9pected to &ote against legality of the &ery %onstitution under which they would be appointed' !oreo&er, what 7aBes the pre7ise of presu7pti&e &alid preferable and, e&en i7perati&e, is that We are dealing here with a whole constitution that radically 7odifies or alters only the for7 of our go&ern7ent fro7 presidential parlia7entary but also other constitutionally institutions &itally affecting all le&els of society' +t is, to 7ind, unrealistic to insist on that, funda7entally, the 1273 %onstitution is the sa7e 123. %onstitution, with a few i7pro&e7ents' A cursory perusal of the for7er should con&ince anyone that it is in essence a new one' While it does retain republicanis7 as the basic go&ern7ental tenet, the institutional changes introduced thereby are rather radical and its social orientation is decidedly 7ore socialistic, =ust as its nationalistic features are so7ewhat different in certain respects' (ne cannot but note that the change e7braces practically e&ery part of the old charter, fro7 its prea7ble down to its a7ending and effecti&ity clauses, in&ol&ing as they do the state7ent of general principles, the citi?enship and suffrage 0ualifications, the articles on the for7 of go&ern7ent, the =udiciary pro&isions, the spelling out of the duties and responsibilities not only of citi?ens but also of officers of the go&ern7ent and the pro&isions on the national econo7y as well as the patri7ony of the nation, not to 7ention the distincti&e features of the general pro&isions' What is 7ore, the transitory pro&isions notably depart fro7 traditional and orthodo9 &iews in that, in general, the powers of go&ern7ent during the interi7 period are 7ore or less concentrated in the resident, to the e9tent that the continuation or discontinuance of what is now practically a one,7an,rule, is e&en left to his discretion' #otably, the e9press ratification of all procla7ations, orders, decrees and acts pre&iously issued or done by the resident, ob&iously 7eant to enco7pass those issued during 7artial law, is a co77it7ent to the concept of 7artial law powers being i7ple7ented by resident !arcos, in defiance of traditional &iews and pre&ailing =urisprudence, to the effect that the "9ecuti&eDs power of legislation during a regi7e of 7artial law is all inclusi&e and is not li7ited to the 7atters de7anded by 7ilitary necessity' +n other words, the new constitution unliBe any other constitution countenances the institution by the e9ecuti&e of refor7s which nor7ally is the e9clusi&e attribute of the legislature' Withal, the best proofs that by its e9pressed and i7plied intent, the %onstitution of 1273 is a new one, are that -1/ Section 15 of its Article KA++ which pro&ides that this constitution shall ;supersede the %onstitution of nineteen hundred and thirty,fi&e and all a7end7ents thereto; and -2/ its transitory pro&isions e9pressly continue the effecti&ity of e9isting laws, offices and courts as well as the tenure of all incu7bent officials, not ad&ersely affected by it, which would ha&e been unnecessary if the old constitution were being 7erely a7ended' The new %onstitution, in its Section 10, Article KA++, pro&ides that ;-T/he incu7bent 7e7bers of the 6udiciary -which include the %hief 6ustice and Associate 6ustices of Supre7e %ourt/ 7ay continue in office -under the constitution/ until they reach the age of se&enty years, etc'; $y &irtue of the presu7pti&e &alidity of the new charter, all of for7 part of the 1.,7an,%ourt pro&ided for therein correspondingly, We ha&e in legal conte7plation, ceased in the 7eanwhile to be 7e7bers of the 11,7an,%ourt in the 123. %onstitution' Should the %ourt finally decide that the %onstitution is in&alid, then We would auto7atically re&ert to our positions in the 11,7an, %ourt, otherwise, We would =ust continue to be in our 7e7bership in the 1.,7an,%ourt, unless We feel We cannot in conscience accept the legality of e9istence' (n the other hand, if it is assu7ed that We are the 11,7an,%ourt and it happens that (ur collecti&e decision is in fa&or of the new constitution, it would be proble7atical for any dissenting =ustice to consider hi7self as included auto7atically in the 1.,7an,%ourt, since that would tanta7ount to accepting a position he does not honestly belie&e e9ists' +++ +n brief, the 7ain contention of the petitioners is that rocla7ation 1102 is in&alid because the ratification of the 1273 %onstitution it purports to declare as ha&ing taBen place as a result of the referendu7 abo&e,referred to is ineffecti&e since it cannot be said on the basis of the said referendu7 that said %onstitution has been ;appro&ed by a 7a=ority of the &otes cast at an election; in the 7anner prescribed by Article KA the %onstitution of 123.' !ore specifically, they 7aintain that the word ;election; in the said Article has already ac0uired a definite accepted 7eaning out of the consistent holding in the past of ratification plebiscites, and accordingly, no other for7 of ratification can be considered conte7plated by the fra7ers of the (ld %onstitution than that which had been followed 123., 1237, 1232, 1230, 1235 and 1257, the last three or four which were held under the super&ision of the %o77ission on "lections' <urther7ore, they e7phatically deny the &eracity of the proclai7ed results of the referendu7 because, according to the7 the referendu7 was a farce and its results were 7anufactured or prefabricated, considering that !r' <rancisco %ru?, who is supposed to ha&e sub7itted the final report to the resident, which ser&ed as basis for rocla7ation 1102, had no official authority to render the sa7e, and it is inconcei&able and hu7anly i7possible for anyone to ha&e been able to gather, tabulate and can&ass the 1. 7illion &otes allegedly reported within the short period of ti7e e7ployed' (f course, they also

contend that in any e&ent, there was no proper sub7ission because 7artial law per se creates constructi&e duress which depri&es the &oters of the co7plete freedo7 needed for the e9ercise of their right of choice and actually, there was neither ti7e nor opportunity for real debate before they &oted' (n the other hand, the position of the Solicitor 1eneral as counsel for the respondents is that the 7atter raised in the petitions is a political one which the courts are not supposed to in0uire into, and, anyway, there has been a substantial co7pliance with Article KA of the 123. %onstitution, inas7uch as, disregarding unessential 7atters of for7, the undeniable fact is that the &oting in the referendu7 resulted in the appro&al by the people of the #ew %onstitution' + need not dwell at length on these &ariant positions of the parties' +n 7y separate opinion in the lebiscite %ases, + already 7ade the obser&ation that in &iew of the lacB of sole7nity and regularity in the &oting as well as in the 7anner of reporting and can&assing conducted in connection with the referendu7, + cannot say that Article KA of the (ld %onstitution has been co7plied with, albeit + held that nonetheless, the %onstitution of 1273 is already in force' +n order, howe&er, to 7aBe 7yself clearer on so7e rele&ant points, + would liBe to add a few considerations to what + ha&e already said in the for7er cases' +n 7y opinion in those cases, the 7ost i7portant point + tooB into account was that in the face of the residential certification through rocla7ation 1102 itself that the #ew %onstitution has been appro&ed by a 7a=ority of the people and ha&ing in 7ind facts of general Bnowledge which + ha&e =udicial notice of, + a7 in no position to deny that the result of the referendu7 was as the resident had stated' + can belie&e that the figures referred to in the procla7ation 7ay not accurate, but + cannot say in conscience that all of the7 are 7anufactured or prefabricated, si7ply because + saw with own eyes that people did actually gather and listen discussions, if brief and inade0uate for those who are abreast of current e&ents and general occurrences, and that they did &ote' + belie&e + can safely say that what + ha&e seen ha&e also been seen by 7any others throughout the country and unless it can be assu7ed, which honestly, + do not belie&e to be possible, that in fact there were actually no 7eetings held and no &oting done in 7ore places than those wherein there were such 7eetings and &otings, + a7 not prepared to discredit entirely the declaration that there was &oting and that the 7a=ority of the &otes were in fa&or of the #ew %onstitution' +f in fact there were substantially less than 13 7illion &otes of appro&al, the real figure, in 7y esti7ate, could still be significant enough and legally sufficient to ser&e as basis for a &alid ratification' +t is contended, howe&er, that the understanding was that the referendu7 a7ong the %iti?ens Asse7blies was to be in the nature 7erely of a loose consultation and not an outright sub7ission for purposes of ratification' + can see that at the outset, when the first set of 0uestions was released, such 7ay ha&e been the idea' +t 7ust not be lost sight of, howe&er, that if the newspaper reports are to be belie&ed, and + say this only because petitioners would consider the newspapers as the official ga?ettes of the ad7inistration, the last set of si9 0uestions were included precisely because the reaction to the idea of 7ere consultation was that the people wanted greater direct participation, thru the %iti?ens Asse7blies, in decision,7aBing regarding 7atters of &ital national interest' Thus, looBing at things 7ore understandingly and realistically the two 0uestions e7phasi?ed by counsel, na7ely, -1/ :o yo appro&e of the #ew %onstitutionH and -2/ :o you want plebiscite to be called to ratify the new %onstitutionH should be considered no longer as loose consultations but as direct in0uiries about the desire of the &oters regarding the 7atters 7entioned' Accordingly, + taBe it that if the 7a=ority had e9pressed disappro&al of the new %onstitution, the logical conse0uence would ha&e been the co7plete abandon7ent of the idea of holding any plebiscite at all' (n the other hand, it is &ery plain to see that since the 7a=ority has already appro&ed the new %onstitution, a plebiscite would be superfluous' %lear as these rationali?ations 7ay be, it 7ust ha&e been thought that if the holding of a plebiscite was to be abandoned, there should be a direct and e9pressed desire of the people to such effect in order to forestall as 7uch as possible any serious contro&ersy regarding the non,holding of the plebiscite re0uired by the letter of Section 15 of Article KA++, the effecti&ity clause, of the new %onstitution' (ddly enough, the ;co77ents; acco7panying the 0uestions do strongly suggest this &iew' And as it turned out, the 7a=ority found no necessity in holding a plebiscite' +n connection with the 0uestion, :o you appro&e of the #ew %onstitutionH capital is being 7ade of the point that as so fra7ed, the thrust of the said 0uestion does not seeB an answer of fact but of opinion' +t is argued that it would ha&e been factual were it worded categorically thus E :o you appro&e the #ew %onstitutionH The contention would ha&e been weighty were it not unrealistic' + re7e7ber distinctly that the obser&ation regarding the construction of the sub=ect 0uestion was not originally 7ade by any of the talented counsels for petitioners' +t ca7e fro7 !r' 6ustice <red Rui? %astro whose 7astery of the "nglish language can rightly be the cause of en&y of e&en professors of "nglish' #one of the other 7e7bers of the %ourt, as far as + can recall, e&er noticed how the said 0uestion is phrased, or if anyone of *s did, + a7 not aware that he ga&e it 7ore than passing attention' What + 7ean is that if neither any of the distinguished and learned counsels nor any 7e7ber of the %ourt understood the said 0uestion otherwise than calling for a factual answer instead of a 7ere opinion, how could anyone e9pect the 7illions of unlettered 7e7bers of the %iti?ens Asse7blies to ha&e noticed the point brought out by 6ustice %astroH Truth to tell, + 7yself did not reali?e the difference until 6ustice %astro ga&e it e7phasis' $esides, reading the 0uestion in the light of the acco7panying ;co77ent; corresponding to it in particular, + a7 certain that any one who answered the sa7e understood it in no other sense than a direct in0uiry as to whether or not, as a 7atter of fact, he appro&es the #ew %onstitution, and naturally, affir7ati&e answer 7ust be taBen as a categorical &ote of appro&al thereof, considering, particularly, that according to the reported result of the referendu7 said answer was e&en coupled with the re0uest that the resident defer the con&ening of the +nteri7 #ational Asse7bly' +t is also contended that because of this reference in answer to that 0uestion to the defer7ent of the con&ening of the interi7 asse7bly, the said answer is at best a conditional appro&al not proper nor acceptable for purposes of ratification plebiscite' The contention has no basis' +n interest of accuracy, the additional answer proposed in pertinent ;co77ent; reads as follows8 ;$ut we do not want Ad +nteri7 Asse7bly to be con&oBed etc'; (n the assu7ption that the actual answer, as reported, was of si7ilar tenor, it is not fair to ascribe to it the i7position of a condition' At 7ost, the intention is no 7ore than a suggestion or a wish'

As regards said ;co77ents;, it 7ust be considered that a 7artial law was declared, the circu7stances surrounding 7aBing of the %onstitution ac0uired a different and 7ore 7eaningful aspect, na7ely, the for7ation of a new society' <ro7 the point of &iew of the resident and on the basis of intelligence reports a&ailable to hi7, the only way to 7eet situation created by the sub&ersi&e ele7ents was to introduce i77ediately effecti&e refor7s calculated to redee7 the people fro7 the depth of retrogression and stagnation caused by ra7pant graft and corruption in high places, influence peddling, oligarchic political practices, pri&ate ar7ies, anarchy, deteriorating conditions of peace and order, the so ine0ualities widening the gap between the rich and the poor, and 7any other deplorable long standing 7aladies crying for early relief and solution' :efinitely, as in the case of rebellious 7o&e7ent that threatened the Iuirino Ad7inistration, the re7edy was far fro7 using bullets alone' +f a constitution was to be appro&ed as an effecti&e instru7ent towards the eradication of such gra&e proble7s, it had to be appro&ed without loss of ti7e and sans the cu7berso7e processes that, fro7 the realistic &iewpoint, ha&e in the past obstructed rather than hastened the progress of the people' Stated otherwise, in the conte9t of actualities, the e&ident ob=ecti&e in ha&ing a new constitution is to establish new directions in the pursuit of the national aspirations and the carrying out of national policies' (nly by bearing these considerations in 7ind can the ;co77ents; already referred to be properly appreciated' To others said ;co77ents; 7ay appear as e&idence of corruption of the will of those who attended the asse7blies, but actually, they 7ay also be &iewed in the sa7e light as the sa7ple ballots co77only resorted to in the elections of officials, which no one can contend are per se7eans of coercion' )et us not forget that the ti7es are abnor7al, and prolonged dialogue and e9change of ideas are not generally possible, nor practical, considering the need for faster decisions and 7ore resolute action' After all &oting on a whole new constitution is different fro7 &oting on one, two or three specific proposed a7end7ents, the for7er calls for nothing 7ore than a collecti&e &iew of all the pro&isions of the whole charter, for necessarily, one has to taBe the good together with the bad in it' +t is rare for anyone to re=ect a constitution only because of a few specific ob=ectionable features, no 7atter how substantial, considering the e&er present possibility that after all it 7ay be cured by subse0uent a7end7ent' Accordingly, there was need to indicate to the people the paths open to the7 in their 0uest for the better7ent of their conditions, and as long as it is not shown that those who did not agree to the suggestions in the ;co77ents; were actually co7pelled to &ote against their will, + a7 not con&inced that the e9istence of said ;co77ents; should 7aBe any appreciable difference in the courtDs appraisal of the result of the referendu7' + 7ust confess that the fact that the referendu7 was held during 7artial law detracts so7ehow fro7 the &alue that the referendu7 would otherwise ha&e had' As + inti7ated, howe&er, in 7y for7er opinion, it is not fair to conde7n and disregard the result of the referendu7 barely because of 7artial law per se' <or one thing, 7any of the ob=ectionable features of 7artial law ha&e not actually 7ateriali?ed, if only because the i7ple7entation of 7artial law since its inception has been generally characteri?ed by restraint and consideration, thanBs to the e9pressed wishes of the resident that the sa7e be 7ade ; hilippine style;, which 7eans without the rigor that has attended it in other lands and other ti7es' !oreo&er, although the restrictions on the freedo7 of speech, the press and 7o&e7ent during 7artial law do ha&e their corresponding ad&erse effects on the area of infor7ation which should be open to a &oter, in its real sense what ;chills; his freedo7 of choice and 7ars his e9ercise of discretion is suspension of the pri&ilege of the writ of )a*eas corpus' The reason is si7ply that a 7an 7ay freely and correctly &ote e&en if the needed infor7ation he possesses as to the candidates or issues being &oted upon is 7ore or less inco7plete, but when he is sub=ect to arrest and detention without in&estigation and without being infor7ed of the cause thereof, that is so7ething else which 7ay actually cause hi7 to cast a capti&e &ote' Thus it is the suspension of the writ of )a*eas corpus acco7panying 7artial law that can cause possible restraint on the freedo7 choice in an election held during 7artial law' +t is a fact, howe&er, borne by history and actual e9perience, that in the hilippines, the suspension of the pri&ilege of the writ )a*eas corpus has ne&er produced any chilling effect upon the &oters, since it is Bnown by all that only those who run afoul the law, sa&ing inconse0uential instances, ha&e any cause for apprehension in regard to the conduct by the7 of the nor7al acti&ities of life' And so it is recorded that in the elections 12.1 and 1271, held while the pri&ilege of writ of )a*eas corpus was under suspension, the <ilipino &oters ga&e the then opposition parties o&erwhel7ing if not sweeping &ictories, in defiance of the respecti&e ad7inistrations that ordered the suspensions' At this =uncture, + thinB it is fit to 7aBe it clear that + a7 not trying to show that the result of the referendu7 7ay considered as sufficient basis for declaring that the #ew %onstitution has been ratified in accordance with the a7ending clause of the 123. %onstitution' + reiterate that in point of law, + find neither strict nor substantial co7pliance' The foregoing discussion is only to counter, if + 7ay, certain i7pression regarding the general conditions obtaining during and in relation to the referendu7 which could ha&e in one way or another affected the e9ercise of the freedo7 of choice and the use of discretion by the 7e7bers of the %iti?ens Asse7blies, to the end that as far as the sa7e conditions 7ay be rele&ant in 7y subse0uent discussions of the acceptance by the people of the #ew %onstitution they 7ay also be considered' +A +t is 7y sincere con&iction that the %onstitution of 1273 has been accepted or adopted by the people' And on this pre7ise, 7y considered opinion is that the %ourt 7ay no longer decide these cases on the basis of purely legal considerations' <actors which are non,legal but ne&ertheless ponderous and co7pelling cannot be ignored, for their rele&ancy is inherent in the issue itself to be resol&ed' +n 7y opinion in the lebiscite %ases, + =oined 7y colleagues in holding that the 0uestion of whether or not there was proper sub7ission under residential :ecree #o' 73 is =usticiable, and + still hold that the propriety of sub7ission under any other law or in any other for7 is constitutionally a fit sub=ect for in0uiry by the courts' The ruling in the decided cases relied upon by petitioners are to this effect' +n &iew, howe&er, of the factual bacBground of the cases at bar which include ratification itself, it is necessary for 7e to point out that when it co7es to ratification, + a7 persuaded that there should be a boundary beyond which the co7petence of the courts no longer has any reason for being, because the other side is e9clusi&ely political territory reser&ed for their own do7inion by the people'

The 7ain basis of 7y opinion in the pre&ious cases was acceptance by the people' (thers 7ay feel there is not enough indication of such acceptance in the record and in the circu7stances the %ourt can taBe =udicial notice of' <or 7y part, + consider it unnecessary to be strictly =udicial in in0uiring into such fact' $eing personally aware, as + ha&e already stated, that the %iti?ens Asse7blies did 7eet and &ote, if irregularly and crudely, it is not for 7e to resort, for the purposes of these cases, to =udicial tape and 7easure, to find out with absolute precision the &eracity of the total nu7ber of &otes actually cast' After all, the clai7s that upon a co7parison of conflicting reports, cases of e9cess &otes 7ay be found, e&en if e9trapolated will not, as far as + can figure out, suffice to o&erco7e the outco7e officially announced' Rather than try to for7 a conclusion out of the raw e&idence before *s which the parties did not care to really co7plete, + feel safer by referring to the results announced in the procla7ation itself' 1i&ing substantial allowances for possible error and downright 7anipulation, it 7ust not be o&erlooBed that, after all, their ha&ing been accepted and adopted by the resident, based on official reports sub7itted to hi7 in due course of perfor7ance of duty of appropriate subordinate officials, ele&ated the7 to the category of an act of a coordinate depart7ent of the go&ern7ent which under the principle separation of powers is clothed with presu7pti&e correctness or at least entitled to a high degree of acceptability, until o&erco7e by better e&idence, which in these cases does not e9ist' +n any e&ent, considering that due to the unorthodo9y of the procedure adopted and the difficulty of an accurate checBing of all the figures, + a7 unable to concei&e of any 7anageable 7eans of ac0uiring infor7ation upon which to predicate a denial, + ha&e no alternati&e but to rely on what has been officially declared' At this point, + would &enture to e9press the feeling that if it were not generally conceded that there has been sufficient showing of the acceptance in 0uestion by this ti7e, there would ha&e been already de7onstrati&e and significant indications of a rather widespread, if not organi?ed resistance in one for7 or another' !uch as they are to be gi&en due recognition as 7agnificent 7anifestations of loyalty and de&otion to principles, + cannot accord to the filing of these cases as indicati&e enough of the general attitude of the people' +t is true that in the opinion + had the pri&ilege of penning the %ourt in Tolentino &s' %o7elec, 31 S%RA 702, + 7ade strong and une0ui&ocal pronounce7ents to the effect that any a7end7ent to the %onstitution of 123., to be &alid, 7ust appear to ha&e been 7ade in strict confor7ity with the re0uire7ents of Article KA thereof' What is 7ore, that decision asserted =udicial co7petence to in0uire into the 7atter of co7pliance or non co7pliance as a =usticiable 7atter' + still belie&e in the correctness of those &iews and + would e&en add that + sincerely feel it reflects the spirit of the said constitutional pro&ision' Without trying to strain any point howe&er, +, sub7it the following considerations in the conte9t of the peculiar circu7stances of the cases now at bar, which are entirely different fro7 those in the bacBdrop of the Tolentino rulings + ha&e referred to' 1' %onsider that in the present case what is in&ol&ed is not =ust an a7end7ent of a particular pro&ision of an e9isting %onstitution@ here, it is, as + ha&e discussed earlier abo&e, an entirely new %onstitution that is being proposed' This i7portant circu7stance 7aBes a great deal of difference' #o less than counsel Tolentino for herein respondents uyat and Roy, who was hi7self the petitioner in the case + ha&e =ust referred to is, now in&iting (ur attention to the e9act language of Article KA and suggesting that the said Article 7ay be strictly applied to proposed a7end7ents but 7ay hardly go&ern the ratification of a new %onstitution' +t is particularly stressed that the Article specifically refers to nothing else but ;a7end7ents to this %onstitution; which if ratified ;shall be &alid as part of this %onstitution'; +ndeed, how can a whole new constitution be by any 7anner of reasoning an a7end7ent to any other constitution and how can it, if ratified, for7 part of such other constitutionH +n fact, in the Tolentino case + already so7ehow hinted this point when + 7ade reference in the resolution denying the 7otion for reconsideration to the fact that Article KA 7ust be followed ;as long as any a7end7ent is for7ulated and sub7itted under the aegis of the present %harter'; Said resolution e&en added' ;-T/his is not to say that the people 7ay not, in the e9ercise of their inherent re&olutionary powers, a7end the %onstitution or pro7ulgate an entirely new one otherwise';' +t is not strange at all to thinB that the a7ending clause of a constitution should be confined in its application only to proposed changes in any part of the sa7e constitution itself, for the &ery fact that a new constitution is being adopted i7plies a general intent to put aside the whole of the old one, and what would be really incongrous is the idea that in such an e&entuality, the new %onstitution would sub=ect its going into effect to any pro&ision of the constitution it is to supersede, to use the language precisely of Section 5, Article KA++, the effecti&ity clause, of the #ew %onstitution' !y understanding is that generally, constitutions are self, born, they &ery rarely, if at all, co7e into being, by &irtue of any pro&ision of another constitution' 3 This 7ust be the reason why e&ery constitution has its own effecti&ity clause, so that if, the %onstitutional %on&ention had only anticipated the idea of the referendu7 and pro&ided for such a 7ethod to be used in the ratification of the #ew %onstitution, + would ha&e had serious doubts as to whether Article KA could ha&e had priority of application' 2' When an entirely new constitution is proposed to supersede the e9isting one, we cannot but taBe into consideration the forces and the circu7stances dictating the replace7ent' <ro7 the &ery nature of things, the proposal to ordain a new constitution 7ust be &iewed as the 7ost elo0uent e9pression of a peopleDs resolute deter7ination to bring about a 7assi&e change of the e9isting order, a 7eaningful transfor7ation of the old society and a responsi&e refor7ation of the conte7porary institutions and principles' Accordingly, should any 0uestion arise as to its effecti&ity and there is so7e reasonable indication that the new charter has already recei&ed in one way or another the sanction of the people, + would hold that the better rule is for the courts to defer to the peopleDs =udg7ent, so long as they are con&inced of the fact of their appro&al, regardless of the for7 by which it is e9pressed pro&ided it be reasonably feasible and reliable' (therwise stated, in such instances, the courts should not bother about in0uiring into co7pliance with technical re0uisites, and as a 7atter of policy should consider the 7atter non,=usticiable' 3' There is still another circu7stance which + consider to be of great rele&ancy' + refer to the ostensible reaction of the co7ponent ele7ents, both collecti&e and indi&idual, of the %ongress of the hilippines' #either the Senate nor the Couse of Representati&es has been reported to ha&e e&en 7ade any appreciable effort or atte7pt to con&ene as they were supposed to do under the %onstitution of 123. on 6anuary 22, 1273 for the regular session' +t 7ust be assu7ed that being co7posed of e9perienced, Bnowledgeable and courageous 7e7bers, it would not ha&e been difficult for said parlia7entary bodies to ha&e concei&ed so7e

ingenious way of gi&ing e&idence of their deter7ined adherence to the %onstitution under which they were elected' <ranBly, 7uch as + ad7ire the efforts of the handful of senators who had their picture taBen in front of the padlocBed portals of the Senate cha7ber, + do not feel warranted to accord such act as enough toBen of resistance' As counsel Tolentino has infor7ed the court, there was noting to stop the senators and the congress7en to 7eet in any other con&enient place and so7ehow officially organi?e the7sel&es in a way that can logically be considered as a session, e&en if nothing were done than to 7erely call the roll and disperse' %ounsel Tolentino e&en pointed out that if there were not enough 7e7bers to for7 a 9uoru7, any s7aller group could ha&e ordered the arrest of the absent 7e7bers' And with particular rele&ance to the present cases, it was not constitutionally indispensable for the presiding officers to issue any call to the 7e7bers to con&ene, hence the present prayers for mandamus ha&e no legal and factual bases' And to top it all, 0uite to the contrary, the records of the %o77ission on "lections show that at least 1. of 23 senators and o&er 2. out of less than 120 7e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es, ha&e officially and in writing e9ercised the option gi&en to the7 to =oin the +nteri7 #ational Asse7bly under the #ew %onstitution, thereby 7anifesting their acceptance of the new charter' #ow, ha&ing these facts in 7ind, and it being ob&ious that of the three great depart7ents of the go&ern7ent under the 123. %onstitution, two, the "9ecuti&e and the )egislati&e, ha&e already accepted the #ew %onstitution and recogni?ed its enforceability and enforce7ent, + cannot see how this Supre7e %ourt can by =udicial fiat hold bacB the political de&elop7ents taBing place and for the saBe of being the guardian of the %onstitution and the defender of its integrity and supre7acy 7aBe its =udicial power pre&ail against the decision of those who were duly chosen by the people to be their authori?ed spoBes7en and representati&es' +t is not alone the physical futility of such a gesture that concerns 7e' !ore than that, there is the starB reality that the Senators and the %ongress7en, no less than the resident, ha&e taBen the sa7e oath of loyalty to the %onstitution that we, the 6ustices, ha&e taBen and they are, therefore, e0ually bound with *s to preser&e and protect the %onstitution' +f as the representati&es of the people, they ha&e already opted to accept the #ew %onstitution as the 7ore effecti&e instru7ent for fulfill7ent of the national destiny, + really wonder if there is e&en any idealistic worth in our desperately clinging by (ursel&es alone to (ur sworn duty &is,a,&is the 123. %onstitution' %onscious of the declared ob=ecti&es of the new dispensation and cogni?ant of the decisi&e steps being with the least loss of ti7e, towards their acco7plish7ent, cannot but feel apprehensi&e that instead of ser&ing the best interests of our people, which to 7e is in reality the real 7eaning of our oath of office, the %ourt 7ight be standing in the way of the &ery thing our belo&ed country needs to retrie&e its past glory and greatness' +n other words, it is 7y con&iction that what these cases de7and 7ost of all is not a decision de7onstrati&e of our legal erudition and Solo7onic wisdo7 but an all rounded =udg7ent resulting fro7 the consideration of all rele&ant circu7stances, principally the political, or, in brief, a decision 7ore political than legal, which a court can render only by deferring to the apparent =udg7ent of the people and the announce7ent thereof by the political depart7ents of the go&ern7ent and declaring the 7atter non,=usticiable' 3' Aiewed fro7 the strictly legal angle and in the light of =udicial 7ethods of ascertain7ent, + cannot agree with the Solicitor 1eneral that in the legal sense, there has been at least substantial co7pliance with Article KA of the 123. %onstitution, but what + can see is that in a political sense, the answers to the referendu7 0uestions were not gi&en by the people as legal conclusions' + taBe it that when they answered that by their signified appro&al of the #ew %onstitution, they do not consider it necessary to hold a plebiscite, they could not ha&e had in 7ind any intent to do what was constitutionally i7proper' $asically accusto7ed to proceed along constitutional channels, they 7ust ha&e acted in the honest con&iction that what was being done was in confor7ity with pre&ailing constitutional standards' We are not to assu7e that the so&ereign people were indulging in a futile e9ercise of their supre7e political right to choose the funda7ental charter by which their li&es, their liberties and their fortunes shall be safeguarded' +n other words, we 7ust perforce infer that they 7eant their decision to count, and it behoo&es this %ourt to render =udg7ent herein in that conte9t' +t is 7y considered opinion that &iewed understandingly and realistically, there is 7ore than sufficient ground to hold that, =udged by such intent and, particularly, fro7 the political standpoint, the ratification of the 1273 %onstitution declared in rocla7ation 1102 co7plies substantially with Article KA of the 123. %harter, specially when it is considered that the 7ost i7portant ele7ent of the ratification therein conte7plated is not in the word ;election;, which concei&ably can be in 7any feasible and 7anageable for7s but in the word ;appro&ed; which 7ay be said to constitute the substantiality of the whole article, so long as such appro&al is reasonably ascertained' +n the last analysis, therefore, it can be rightly said, e&en if only in a broad sense, that the ratification here in 0uestion was constitutionally =ustified and =ustifiable' .' <inally, if any doubt should still linger as to the legiti7acy of the #ew %onstitution on legal grounds, the sa7e should be dispelled by &iewing the situation in the 7anner suggested by %ounsel Tolentino and by the writer of this opinion in his separate opinion, oft,referred to abo&e, in the lebiscite %ases E that is, as an e9tra constitutional e9ercise by the people, under the leadership of resident !arcos, of their inalienable right to change their funda7ental charter by any 7eans they 7ay dee7 appropriate, the 7o7ent they are con&inced that the e9isting one is no longer responsi&e to their funda7ental, political and social needs nor conduci&e to the ti7ely attain7ent of their national destiny' This is not only the teaching of the A7erican :eclaration of +ndependence but is indeed, a truth that is self,e&ident' !ore, it should be regarded as i7plied in e&ery constitution that regardless of the language of its a7ending clause, once the people ha&e gi&en their sanction to a new charter, the latter 7ay be dee7ed as constitutionally per7issible e&en fro7 the point of &iew of the preceding constitution' Those who 7ay feel restrained to consider this &iew out of respect to the i7port of Tolentino &s' %o7elec, supra', would be well ad&ised to bear in 7ind that the case was decided in the conte9t of sub7ission, not acco7plished ratification' A The language of the disputed a7ending clause of the 123. %onstitution should not be dee7ed as the be all and end all the nation' !ore i7portant than e&en the %onstitution itself with all its e9cellent features, are the people li&ing under it E their happiness, their posterity and their national destiny' There is nothing that cannot be sacrificed in the pursuit of these ob=ecti&es, which constitute the totality of the reasons for national e9istence' The sacred liberties and freedo7 enshrined in it and the co77it7ent and consecration thereof to the for7s of de7ocracy we ha&e hitherto obser&ed are 7ere integral parts of this

totality@ they are less i7portant by the7sel&es' What see7s to 7e to be bothering 7any of our country7en now is that by denying the present petitions, the %ourt would be dee7ed as sanctioning, not only the de&iations fro7 traditional de7ocratic concepts and principles but also the 0ualified curtail7ent of indi&idual liberties now being practiced, and this would a7ount, it is feared, to a repudiation of our oath to support and defend the %onstitution of 123.' This is certainly so7ething one 7ust gra&ely ponder upon' When + consider, howe&er, that the resident, the Aice resident, the 7e7bers of both Couses of %ongress, not to speaB of all e9ecuti&e depart7ents and bureaus under the7 as well as all the lower courts, including the %ourt of Appeals ha&e already accepted the #ew %onstitution as an instru7ent of a 7eaningful nationwide,all,le&el change in our go&ern7ent and society purported to 7aBe 7ore realistic and feasible, rather than idealistic and cu7berso7ely deliberati&e, the attain7ent of our national aspirations, + a7 led to wonder whether or not we, as 7e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt are being true to our duty to our people by refusing to follow suit and accept the realities of the 7o7ent, despite our being con&inced of the sincerity and laudableness of their ob=ecti&es, only because we feel that by the peopleDs own act of ratifying the %onstitution of 123., they ha&e so encased the7sel&es within its pro&isions and 7ay, therefore, no longer taBe 7easures to redee7 the7sel&es fro7 the situation brought about by the deficiencies of the old order, unless they act in strict confor7ity therewith' + cannot belie&e that any people can be so stifled and enchained' +n any e&ent, + consider it a 1od,gi&en attribute of the people to disengage the7sel&es, if necessary, fro7 any co&enant that would obstruct their taBing what subse0uently appears to the7 to be the better road to the pro7otion and protection of their welfare' And once they ha&e 7ade their decision in that respect, whether sophisticatedly or crudely, whether in legal for7 or otherwise, certainly, there can be no court or power on earth that can re&erse the7' + would not be hu7an if + should be insensiti&e to the passionate and elo0uent appeals of %ounsels Ta>ada and Salonga that these cases be decided on the basis of conscience' That is e9actly what + a7 doing' $ut if counsel 7ean that only by granting their petitions can this %ourt be worthily the bulwarB of the peopleDs faith in the go&ern7ent, + cannot agree, albeit 7y ad7iration and respect are all theirs for their ?eal and tenacity, their industry and wisdo7, their patriotis7 and de&otion to principle' Aerily, they ha&e brought out e&erything in the <ilipino that these cases de7and' +n ti7es of national e7ergencies and crises, not arising fro7 foreign in&asion, we need not fear playing opposite roles, as long as we are all ani7ated by sincere lo&e of country and ai7 e9clusi&ely at the attain7ent of the national destiny' (ur heroes of the past, Ri?al, $onifacio, Aguinaldo, Antonio )una, !abini and so also with our patriots of the recent generations, Iue?on, (s7e>a, Ro9as, )aurel and Recto, to 7ention only so7e of the7, had their differences of &iews E and they did not hesitate to taBe dia7etrically opposing sides E that e&en reached tragic proportions, but all of the7 are ad7ired and &enerated' +t is 7y faith that to act with absolute loyalty to our country and people is 7ore i7portant than loyalty to any particular precept or pro&ision of the %onstitution or to the %onstitution itself' !y oath to abide by the %onstitution binds 7e to whate&er course of action + feel sincerely is de7anded by the welfare and best interests of the people' +n this 7o7entous =uncture of our history, what is i7perati&e is national unity' !ay 1od grant that the contro&ersies the e&ents leading to these cases ha&e entail will heal after the decision herein is pro7ulgated, so that all us <ilipinos 7ay fore&er =oin hands in the pursuit of our national destiny' +# A+"W (< A)) TC" <(R"1(+#1, + &ote to dis7iss these petitions for mandamus and prohibition without costs' MA,AS"AR, J., concurring8 Assu7ing, without conceding, that Article KA of the 123. %onstitution prescribes a procedure for the ratification of constitutional a7end7ents or of a new %onstitution and that such procedure was no co7plied with, the &alidity of residential rocla7ation #o' 1102 is a political, not a =usticiable, issue@ for it is inseparably or ine9tricably linB with and striBes at, because it is decisi&e of, the &alidity of ratification and adoption of, as well as ac0uiescence of people in, the 1273 %onstitution and the legiti7acy of the go&ern7ent organi?ed and operating thereunder' And being political, it is beyond the a7bit of =udicial in0uiry, tested by the definition of a political 0uestion enunciated inTaada, et. al. vs. +uenco, et al' -103 hil' 10.1/, aside fro7 the fact the this &iew will not do &iolence to rights &ested under the new %onstitution, to international co77it7ents forged pursuant thereto and to decisions rendered by the =udicial as well as 0uasi,=udicial tribunals organi?ed and functioning or whose =urisdiction has been altered by the 1273 %onstitution and the go&ern7ent established thereunder, and will dissipate any confusion in the 7inds of the citi?enry, who ha&e been obeying the 7andates of the new %onstitution, as well as e9ercising the rights and perfor7ing the obligations defined by the new %onstitution, and decrees and orders issued in i7ple7entation of the sa7e and cooperating with the ad7inistration in the reno&ation of our social, econo7ic and political syste7 as re,structured by the 1273 %onstitution and by the i7ple7enting decrees and orders -see !iller &s' 6ohnson, 14 SW .22, .22,.25, 1422/' +n 12.7, !r' %hief 6ustice Roberto %oncepcion, then Associate 6ustice, in behalf of the %ourt, defined a political 0uestion as one which, under the %onstitution, is ;to be decided by the people in their so&ereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority had been delegated to the )egislature or "9ecuti&e branch of the go&ern7ent'; -Ta>ada, et al' &s' %uenco, et al', supra/' Article KA of the 123. %onstitution pro&ides8 ;Such a7end7ents shall be &alid as part of this %onstitution when appro&ed by a 7a=ority of the &otes cast at an election at which the a7end7ents are sub7itted to the people for ratification'; *nder Article KA of the 123. %onstitution, the power to propose constitutional a7end7ents is &ested in %ongress or in a constitutional con&ention@ while the power to ratify or re=ect such proposed a7end7ents or new %onstitution is reser&ed by the so&ereign people' The nullification of rocla7ation #o' 1102 would ine&itably render inoperati&e the 1273 %onstitution, which is in fact the e9press

prayer of the petitioners in 1'R' #o' ),35153' Regardless of the 7odality of sub7ission or ratification or adoption E e&en if it de&iates fro7 or &iolates the procedure delineated therefore by the old %onstitution E once the new %onstitution is ratified, adopted andJor ac0uiesced in by the people or ratified e&en by a body or agency not duly authori?ed therefor but is subse0uently adopted or recogni?ed by the people and by the other official organs and functionaries of the go&ern7ent established under such a new %onstitution, this %ourt is precluded fro7 in0uiring into the &alidity of such ratification, adoption or ac0uiescence and of the conse0uent effecti&ity of the new %onstitution' This is as it should be in a de7ocracy, for the people are the repository of all so&ereign powers as well as the source of all go&ern7ental authority - ole &s' 1ray, 103 S( 2nd 431 F12.4G/' This basic de7ocratic concept is e9pressly restated in Section 1 of Article ++ of the :eclaration of rinciples of the 123. and 1273 %onstitutions, thus8 ;So&ereignty resides in the people and all go&ern7ent authority e7anates fro7 the7'; The legality of the sub7ission is no longer rele&ant@ because the ratification, adoption andJor ac0uiescence by the people cures any infir7ity in its sub7ission or any other irregularities therein which are dee7ed 7andatory before sub7ission as they are considered 7erely directory after such ratification or adoption or ac0uiescence by the people' As !r' 6ustice $rewer, then of the Nansas State Supre7e %ourt and later Associate 6ustice of the <ederal Supre7e %ourt, stated in re rohibitory A7end7ent %ases -23 Nansas 700 P 710 Reprint 322, .05/8 ; T)e t,o important, vital elements of t)e Legislature and a ma6orit" of t)e popular vote. %e"ond t)ese, ot)er provisions are mere mac)ineries and forms. T)e" ma" not *e disregarded, *ecause *" t)em certaint" as to t)e essentials is secured. %ut t)e" are not t)emselves t)e essentials '; -%ited in )arBen &s' 1ronna, 24. #W .2, 51,53, 1232/' This was the ruling by the A7erican Supre7e %ourt in the 1232 case of +oleman vs. Miller -307 *'S' 333, 43 )'ed' 134./, where %hief 6ustice Cughes, speaBing for the 7a=ority, stated that8 ''' Thus the political depart7ents of the go&ern7ent dealt with the effect of both pre&ious re=ection and atte7pted withdrawal and deter7ined that both were ineffectual in the presence of an actual ratification ''' ' This decision by the political depart7ents of the 1o&ern7ent as to the &alidity of the adoption of the <ourteenth a7end7ent has been accepted' We thinB that in accordance with this historic precedent the 0uestion of the efficacy of ratifications by state legislatures, in the light of pre&ious re=ection or atte7pted withdrawal, should be regarded as a political 0uestion pertaining to the political depart7ents, with the ulti7ate authority in the %ongress in the e9ercise of its control o&er the pro7ulgation of the adoption of the a7end7ent' This &iew was liBewise e7phasi?ed by !r' 6ustice $lacB in his concurring opinion, in which !r' 6ustices Roberts, <ranBfurter, and :ouglas =oin, thus8 The %onstitution grants %ongress e9clusi&e power to control sub7ission of constitutional a7end7ents' <inal deter7ination by %ongress that ratification by three,fourths of the States has taBen place ;is conclusi&e upon the courts'; +n the e9ercise of that power, %ongress, of course, is go&erned by the %onstitution' Cowe&er, whether sub7ission, inter&ening procedure or %ongressional deter7ination of ratification confor7s to the co77ands of the %onstitution, calls for decisions by a ;political depart7ent; of 0uestions of a type which this %ourt has fre0uently designated ;political'; And decision of a ;political 0uestion; by the ;political depart7ent; to which the %onstitution has co77itted it ;conclusi&ely binds the =udges, as well as all other officers, citi?ens and sub=ects of'''go&ern7ent'; rocla7ation under authority of %ongress that an a7end7ent has been ratified will carry with it a sole7n assurance by the %ongress that ratification has taBen place as the %onstitution co77ands' *pon this assurance a proclai7ed a7end7ent 7ust be accepted as a part of the %onstitution, lea&ing to the =udiciary its traditional authority of interpretation' To the e9tent that the %ourtDs opinion in the present case e&en i7pliedly assu7es a power to 7aBe =udicial interpretation of the e9clusi&e constitutional authority of %ongress o&er sub7ission and ratification of a7end7ents, we are unable to agree''' -A7erican %onstitutional +ssues, by ritchett, 1252 "d', p' 33/' The doctrine in the aforesaid case of %ole7an &s' !iller was adopted by (ur Supre7e %ourt in toto in Ma*anag vs. Lopez Vito -74 hil' 1/' The ruling in the cases of Gonzales vs. +omelec, et al' -),24223, #o&' 22, 1257, 21 S%RA 773/ and Tolentino vs. +omelec, et al' -),331.0, (ct' 15, 1271, 31 S%RA 702/ on which petitioners place great reliance E that the courts 7ay re&iew the propriety of a sub7ission of a proposed constitutional a7end7ent *efore t)e ratification or adoption of suc) proposed amendment *" t)e sovereign people, hardly applies to the cases at bar@ because the issue in&ol&ed in the aforesaid cases refers to only the propriety of the sub7ission of a proposed constitutional a7end7ent to the people for ratification, unliBe the present petitions, which challenge ine&itably the &alidity of the 1273 %onstitution after its ratification or adoption thru ac0uiescence by the so&ereign people' As heretofore stated, it is specious and pure sophistry to ad&ance the reasoning that the present petitions pray only for the nullification of the 1273 %onstitution and the go&ern7ent operating thereunder' +t should be stressed that e&en in the 1on?ales case, supra, We held that8 +ndeed, the power to a7end the %onstitution or to propose a7end7ents thereto is not included in the general grant of legislati&e powers to %ongress' +t is part of the inherent powers of the people E as the repository of so&ereignty in a republican state, such as ours E to 7aBe, and hence, to a7end their own

<unda7ental )aw' %ongress 7ay propose a7end7ents to the sa7e e9plicitly grants such power' Cence, when e9ercising the sa7e, it is said that Senators and !e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es act, not as 7e7bers, but as co7ponent ele7ents of a constituent assem*l"' When acting as such, the 7e7bers of +ongress deri&e their authority fro7 the %onstitution, unli#e t)e people, when perfor7ing the sa7e function, for their authority does not e7anate fro7 the %onstitution E they are t)e ver" source of all powers of go&ern7ent, including t)e +onstitution itself' -21 S%RA 747/ We did not categorically and entirely o&erturn the doctrine in Ma*anag vs. Lopez Vito -74 hil' 1/ that both the proposal to a7end and the ratification of such a constitutional a7end7ent are political in nature for7ing as they do the essential parts of one political sche7e E the a7ending process' W" 7erely stated therein that the force of the ruling in the said case of Ma*anag vs. Lopez Vito has been weaBened by subse0uent cases' Thus, We pronounced therein8 +t is true that in !abanag &s' )ope? Aito, this %ourt characteri?ing the issue sub7itted thereto as a political one, declined to pass upon the 0uestion whether or not a gi&en nu7ber of &otes cast in %ongress in fa&or of a proposed a7end7ent to the %onstitution E which was being sub7itted to the people for ratification E satisfied the three fourths &ote re0uire7ent of the funda7ental law' The force of this precedent has been weaBened, howe&er, by Suanes &s' %hief Accountant of the Senate, A&elino &s' %uenco, Ta>ada &s' %uenco and !acias &s' %o77ission on "lections' +n the first, we held the officers and e7ployees of the Senate "lectoral Tribunal are super&ision and control, not of that of the Senate resident, clai7ed by the latter@ in the second, this %ourt proceeded to deter7ine the nu7ber of Senators necessary for a 9uoru7 in the Senate@ in the third we nullified the election, by Senators belonging to the party ha&ing the largest nu7ber of &otes in said cha7ber purporting to act on behalf of the party ha&ing the second largest nu7ber of &otes therein, of two -2/ Senators belonging to the first party, as 7e7bers, for the second party, of the Senate "lectoral Tribunal@ and in the fourth, we declared unconstitutional an act of %ongress purporting to apportion the representati&e districts for the Couse of Representati&es, upon the ground that the apportion7ent had not been 7ade as 7ay be possible according to the nu7ber of inhabitants of each pro&ince' Thus we re=ected the theory ad&anced in these four -3/ cases, that the issues therein raised were political 0uestions the deter7ination of which is beyond =udicial re&iew' -21 S%RA pp' 74.,745/@ for which reason We concluded +n short, the issue whether or not a resolution of %ongress before acting as a constituent asse7bly E &iolates the %onstitution is essentially =usticiable, not political, and, hence, sub=ect to =udicial re&iew, and to t)e e!tent t)at t)is vie, ma" *e inconsistent ,it) t)e stand ta#en in Ma*anag vs. Lopez Vito, t)e latter s)ould *e deemed modified accordingl" ' -p' 747, e7phasis supplied'/ +n the Tolentino case, supra, We reiterated the foregoing state7ents -31 S%RA 703,713/' The ine&itable conse0uence therefore is that the &alidity of the ratification or adoption of or ac0uiescence by the people in the 1273 %onstitution, re7ains a political issue re7o&ed fro7 the =urisdiction of this %ourt to re&iew' (ne 7ore word about the 1on?ales and Tolentino cases' $oth pri7arily stressed on the i7propriety of the sub7ission of a proposed constitutional a7end7ent' %ourts do not deal with propriety or wisdo7 or absence of either of an official act or of a law' 6udicial power concerns only with the legality or illegality, constitutionality or unconstitutionality of an act8 it in0uires into the e9istence of power or lacB of it' 6udicial wisdo7 is not to be pitted against the wisdo7 of the political depart7ent of the go&ern7ent' The classic e9a7ple of an illegal sub7ission that did not i7pair the &alidity of the ratification or adoption of a new %onstitution is the case of the <ederal %onstitution of the *nited States' +t should be recalled that the thirteen -13/ original states of the A7erican *nion E which succeeded in liberating the7sel&es fro7 "ngland after the re&olution which began on April 12, 177. with the sBir7ish at )e9ington, !assachusetts and ended with the surrender of 1eneral %ornwallis at LorBtown, Airginia, on (ctober 12, 1741-"ncyclopedia $rit', Aol' +, 1233 "d', p' 775/ E adopted their Articles of %onfederation and erpetual *nion, that was written fro7 1775 to 1777 and ratified on !arch 1, 1741 -"ncyclopedia $rit', Aol' ++, 1255 "d', p' .2./' About si9 thereafter, the %ongress of the %onfederation passed a resolution on <ebruary 21, 1747 calling for a <ederal %onstitutional %on&ention ?for t)e sole and e!press purpose of revising t)e articles of confederation ''' '; -Appendi9 +, <ederalist, !odern )ibrary ed', p' .77, e7phasis supplied/' The %on&ention con&ened at hiladelphia on !ay 13, 1747' Article K+++ of the Articles of %onfederation and erpetual *nion stated specifically8 The articles of this confederation shall be in&iolably obser&ed in e&ery state, and the union shall be perpetual@ nor s)all an" alterations at an" time )ereafter *e made in an" of t)em> unless suc) alteration *e agreed to in a congress of t)e united states, and *e after,ards confirmed *" t)e legislatures of ever" state' -See the <ederalist, Appendi9 ++, !odern )ibrary "d', 1237, p' .43@ e7phasis supplied'/ $ut the foregoing re0uire7ents prescribed by the Articles of %onfederation and erpetual *nion for the alteration for the ratification of the <ederal %onstitution as drafted by the hiladelphia %on&ention were not followed' <earful the said <ederal

%onstitution would not be ratified by the legislatures as prescribed, the hiladelphia %on&ention adopted a resolution re0uesting the %ongress of the %onfederation to pass a resolution pro&iding that the %onstitution should be sub7itted to elected state con&entions and if ratified by the con&entions in nine -2/ states, not necessarily in all thirteen -13/ states, the said %onstitution shall taBe effect' Thus, history rofessor "dward "arle !ead of rinceton *ni&ersity recorded that8 +t would ha&e been a counsel of perfection to consign the new constitution to the tender 7ercies of the legislatures of each and all of the 13 states' "9perience clearly indicated that ratification then would ha&e had the sa7e chance as the scriptural ca7el passing through the eye of a needle' <t ,as t)erefore determined to recommend to +ongress t)at t)e ne, +onstitution *e su*mitted to conventions in t)e several states especiall" elected to pass upon it and t)at, furt)ermore, t)e ne, government s)ould go into effect if and ,)en it s)ould *e ratified *" nine of t)e t)irteen states ''' ' -The <ederalist, !odern )ibrary "d', 1237, +ntroduction by "dward "arle !ead, pp' &iii,i9@ e7phasis supplied/ Cistorian Sa7uel "liot !orison si7ilarly recounted8 The %on&ention, anticipating that the influence of 7any state politicians would be Antifederalist, pro&ided for ratification of the %onstitution by popularly elected con&entions in each state' Suspecting that Rhode +sland, at least, would pro&e recalcitrant, it declared that the %onstitution would go into effect as soon as nine states ratified' The con&ention 7ethod had the further ad&antage that =udges, 7inisters, and others ineligible to state legislatures, could be elected to a con&ention' The nine,state pro&ision was, of course, 7ildly re&olutionary' $ut the %ongress of the %onfederation, still sitting in #ew LorB to carry on federal go&ern7ent until relie&ed, for7ally sub7itted the new constitution to the states and politely faded out before the first presidential inauguration' -The (9ford Cistory of the A7' eople, by Sa7uel "liot !orison, 125. ed', p' 312/' And so the A7erican %onstitution was ratified by nine -2/ states on 6une 21, 1744 and by the last four states on !ay 22, 1720 -12 %'6' p' 572 footnote, 15 %'6'S', 27' E by the state con&entions and not by all thirteen -13/ state legislatures as re0uired by Article K+++ of the Articles of %onfederation and erpetual *nion afore0uoted D and in spite of the fact that the <ederal %onstitution as originally adopted suffers fro7 two basic infir7ities, na7ely, t)e a*sence of a *ill of Rig)ts and of a provision affirming t)e po,er of 6udicial revie,' The liberties of the A7erican people were guaranteed by subse0uent a7end7ents to the <ederal %onstitution' The doctrine of =udicial re&iew has beco7e part of A7erican constitutional law only by &irtue of a =udicial pronounce7ent by %hief 6ustice !arshall in the case of Mar*ur" vs. Madison -1403, 1 %ranch 137/' *ntil this date, no challenge has been launched against the &alidity of the ratification of the A7erican %onstitution, nor against the legiti7acy of the go&ern7ent organi?ed and functioning thereunder' +n the 1235 case of /)eeler vs. %oard of Trustees -37 S" 2nd 322, 325,330/, which enunciated the principle that the &alidity of a new or re&ised %onstitution does not depend on the 7ethod of its sub7ission or ratification by the people, but on t)e fact or fiat or approval or adoption or ac9uiescence *" t)e people ,)ic) fact of ratification or adoption or ac9uiescence is all t)at is essential, the %ourt cited precisely the case of the irregular re&ision and ratification by state con&entions of the <ederal %onstitution, thus8 #o case identical in its facts with the case now under consideration has been called to our attention, and we ha&e found none' /e t)in# t)at t)e principle ,)ic) ,e appl" in t)e instant case ,as ver" clearl" applied in t)e creation of t)e constitution of t)e @nited States. T)e convention created *" a resolution of +ongress )ad aut)orit" to do one t)ing, and one onl", to ,it, amend t)e articles of confederation. T)is t)e" did not do, *ut su*mitted to t)e sovereign po,er, t)e people, a ne, constitution. <n t)is manner ,as t)e constitution of t)e @nited States su*mitted to t)e people and it *ecame operative as t)e organic la, of t)is nation ,)en it )ad *een properl" adopted *" t)e people ' o7eroyDs %onstitutional )aw, p' .., discussing the con&ention that for7ulated the constitution of the *nited States, has this to say8 ;T)e convention proceeded to do, and did accomplis), ,)at t)e" ,ere not aut)orized to do *" a resolution of +ongress t)at called t)em toget)er. T)at resolution plainl" contemplated amendments to t)e articles of confederation, to *e su*mitted to and passed *" t)e +ongress, and after,ards ratified *" all t)e State legislatures, in t)e manner pointed out *" t)e e!isting organic la,. %ut t)e convention soon *ecame convinced t)at an" amendments ,ere po,erless to effect a cure> t)at t)e disease ,as too deepl" seated to *e reac)ed suc) tentative means. T)e" sa, t)at t)e s"stem t)e" ,ere called to improve must *e totall" a*andoned, and t)at t)e national idea must *e re1 esta*lis)ed at t)e center of t)eir political societ"' +t was ob=ected by so7e 7e7bers, that they had no power, no authority, to construct a new go&ern7ent' They had no authority, if their decisions were to be final@ and no authority whatsoe&er, under the articles of confederation, to adopt the course they did' $ut they Bnew that their labors were only to be suggestions@ and that they as well as any pri&ate indi&iduals, and any pri&ate indi&iduals as well as they, had a right to propose a plan of go&ern7ent to the people for their adoption' They were, in fact, a 7ere asse7blage of pri&ate citi?ens, and their worB had no 7ore

binding sanction than a constitution drafted by !r' Ca7ilton in his office would ha&e had' The people, by their e9pressed will, transfor7ed this suggestion, this proposal, into an organic law, and the people 7ight ha&e done the sa7e with a constitution sub7itted to the7 by a single citi?en'; 999 999 999 ''' /)en t)e people adopt a completel" revised or ne, constitution, t)e framing or su*mission of t)e instrument is not ,)at gives it *inding force and effect. T)e fiat of t)e people and onl" t)e fiat of t)e people, can *reat)e life into a constitution ' 999 999 999 ''' /e do not )esitate to sa" t)at a court is never 6ustified in placing *" implication a limitation upon t)e sovereign. T)is ,ould *e an aut)orized e!ercise of sovereign po,er *" t)e court ' +n State v. S,ift, 52 +nd' .0., .12, the +ndiana Supre7e %ourt said8 ;The people of a State 7ay for7 an original constitution, or abrogate an old one and for7 a new one, at any ti7e, without any political restriction e9cept the constitution of the *nited States@ ''' '; -37 S" 327,324, 322, e7phasis supplied'/ +n the 1203 case of /eston vs. R"an, the %ourt held8 +t re7ains to be said that if we felt at liberty to pass upon this 0uestion, and were co7pelled to hold that the act of <ebruary 23, 1447, is unconstitutional and &oid, it would not, in our opinion, by any 7eans follow that the a7end7ent is not a part of our state %onstitution' +n the recent case of Ta"lor vs. +ommon,ealt) -Aa'/ 33 S'"' 7.3, t)e Supreme +ourt of Virginia )old t)at t)eir state +onstitution of 4;78, )aving *een ac#no,ledged and accepted *" t)e officers administering t)e state government, and *" t)e people, and *eing in force ,it)out opposition, must *e regarded as an e!isting +onstitution irrespective of t)e 9uestion as to ,)et)er or not t)e convention ,)ic) promulgated it )ad aut)orit" so to do ,it)out su*mitting it to a vote of t)e people' +n %rittle v. $eople, 2 #eb' 124, is a si7ilar holding as to certain pro&isions of the #ebrasBa %onstitution of 1445, which were added by the )egislature at the re0uire7ent of %ongress, though ne&er sub7itted to the people for their appro&al'; -27 #W 332,3.0@ e7phasis supplied/' Against the decision in the Wheeler case, supra, confir7ing the &alidity of the ratification and adoption of the A7erican %onstitution, in spite of the fact that such ratification was in clear &iolation of the prescription on alteration and ratification of the Articles of %onfederation and erpetual *nion, petitioners in 1'R' #o' ),3515. dis7issed this 7ost significant historical fact by calling the <ederal %onstitution of the *nited States as a re&olutionary one, in&oBing the opinion e9pressed in Aol' 15, %orpus 6uris Secundu7, p' 27, that it was a re&olutionary constitution because it did not obey the re0uire7ent that the Articles of %onfederation and erpetual *nion can be a7ended only with the consent of all thirteen -13/ state legislatures' This opinion does not cite any decided case, but 7erely refers to the footnotes on the brief historic account of the *nited States %onstitution on p' 572 of Aol' 12, %6S' etitioners, on p' 14 of their 7ain #otes, refer *S to pp' 270,315 of the !ford Aistor" of t)e American $eople, 125. "d' by Sa7uel "liot !orison, who discusses the Articles of %onfederation and erpetual *nion in %hapter KA+++ captioned ;Re&olutionary %onstitution !aBing, 177. 1741; -pp' 270,241/' +n %hapter KK on ;The %reati&e eriod in olitics, 174.,1744,; rofessor !orison delineates the genesis of the <ederal %onstitution, but does not refer to it e&en i7plicitly as re&olutionary constitution -pp' 227,315/' Cowe&er, the <ederal %onstitution 7ay be considered re&olutionary fro7 the &iew point of !c+&er if the ter7 revolution is understood in ;its wider sense to e7brace decisi&e changes in the character of go&ern7ent, e&en though they do not in&ol&e the &iolent o&erthrow of an established order, ''' '; -R'!' !ac+&er, The Web of 1o&ern7ent, 125. ed', p' 203/' +t is rather ridiculous to refer to the A7erican %onstitution as a re&olutionary constitution' The Articles of %onfederation and erpetual *nion that was in force fro7 6uly 12, 1775 to 1744, forged as it was during the war of independence was a re&olutionary constitution of the thirteen -13/ states' +n the e9isting <ederal %onstitution of the *nited States which was adopted se&en -7/ or nine -2/ years after the thirteen -13/ states won their independence and long after popular support for the go&ern7ent of the %onfederation had stabili?ed was not a product of a re&olution' The <ederal %onstitution was a ;creation of the brain and purpose of 7an; in an era of peace' +t can only be considered re&olutionary in the sense that it is a radical departure fro7 its predecessor, the Articles of %onfederation and erpetual *nion' +t is e0ually absurd to affir7 that the present <ederal %onstitution of the *nited States is not the successor to the Articles of %onfederation and erpetual *nion' The fallacy of the state7ent is so ob&ious that no further refutation is needed' As heretofore stated, the issue as to the &alidity of rocla7ation #o' 1102 striBes at the &alidity and enforceability of the 1273 %onstitution and of the go&ern7ent established and operating thereunder' etitioners pray for a declaration that the 1273 %onstitution is inoperati&e -),35153/' +f rocla7ation #o' 1102 is nullified, then there is no &alid ratification of the 1273 %onstitution and the ine&itable conclusion is that the go&ern7ent organi?ed and functioning thereunder is not a legiti7ate go&ern7ent' That the issue of the legiti7acy of a go&ern7ent is liBewise political and not =usticiable, had long been decided as early as the 1432 case of Lut)er vs. %orden -7 Cow' 1, 12 )'ed', .41/, affir7ed in the 1200 case of Ta"lor vs. %ec#)am -174 *'S' .34, 33 )'ed' 1147/ and re,enunciated in 1212 in the case of $acific States Telep)one and Telegrap) +ompan" vs. regon -223 *'S'

114, 133,1.1, .5 )'ed' 377,345/' $ecause it reaffir7ed the pronounce7ents in both $orden and $ecBha7 cases, it is sufficient for us to 0uote the decision in acific States Telephone and Telegraph %o', supra, penned by !r' %hief 6ustice White, who re, stated8 +n &iew of the i7portance of the sub=ect, the apparent 7isapprehension on one side and see7ing 7isconception on the other, suggested by the argu7ent as to the full significance of the pre&ious doctrine, we do not content oursel&es with a 7ere citation of the cases, but state more at lengt) t)an ,e ot)er,ise ,ould t)e issues and t)e doctrine e!pounded in t)e leading and a*solutel" controlling case E Lut)er v. %orden, E Ao,. 4, 48 L.ed. 5G4. 999 999 999 ''' (n this sub=ect it was said -p' 34/8 ;=or if t)is court is aut)orized to enter upon this in0uiry, proposed by the plaintiff, and it should be decided that the character go&ern7ent had no legal e9istence during the period of ti7e abo&e 7entioned, E if it had been annulled by the adoption of the opposing go&ern7ent, E t)en t)e la,s passed *" its legislature during t)at time ,ere nullities> its ta!es ,rongfull" collected, its salaries and compensations to its officers illegall" paid > its pu*lic accounts improperl" settled and t)e 6udgments and sentences of its courts in civil and criminal cases null and void, and t)e officers ,)o carried t)eir decisions into operation ans,era*le as trespassers, if not in some cases as criminals '; 999 999 999 ;The fourth section of the fourth article of the %onstitution of the *nited States shall guarantee to e&ery state in the *nion a republican for7 of go&ern7ent, and shall protect each of the7 against in&asion@ and on the application of the )egislature or of the "9ecuti&e -when the legislature cannot be con&ened/ against do7estic &iolence' ;*nder this article of the %onstitution it rests with %ongress to decide what go&ern7ent is established one in a state' <or, as the *nited State guarantee to each state a republican go&ern7ent, +ongress must necessaril" decide ,)at government is esta*lis)ed in t)e state *efore it can determine ,)et)er it is repu*lican or not. And ,)en t)e senators and representatives of a state are admitted into t)e +ouncils of t)e @nion, t)e aut)orit" of t)e government under ,)ic) t)e" ,ere appointed, as ,ell as its repu*lican c)aracter, is recognized *" t)e proper constitutional aut)orit". And its decision is *inding on ever" ot)er department of t)e government, and could not *e 9uestioned in a 6udicial tri*unal ' +t is true that the contest in this case did not last long enough to bring the 7atter to this issue@ and as no senators or representati&es were elected under the authority of the go&ern7ent of which !r' :orr was the head, %ongress was not called upon to decide the contro&ersy' Fet t)e rig)t to decide is placed t)ere and not in t)e courts'; 999 999 999 ''' We do not stop to cite other cases which indirectly or incidentally refer to the sub=ect, but conclude by directing attention to the state7ent by the court, speaBing through !r' %hief 6ustice <uller, in Taylor &s' $ecBha7, 174 *'S' .34, 33 )'ed' 1147, 20 Sup' %t' Rep' 420, 1002, where, after disposing of a contention 7ade concerning the 13th A7end7ent, and co7ing to consider a proposition which was necessary to be decided concerning the nature and effect of the guaranty of S 3 of article 3, it was said -p' .74/8 ;$ut it is said that the 13th A7end7ent 7ust be read with S 3 of article 3, of the %onstitution, pro&iding that the *nited States shall guarantee to e&ery state in this *nion a republican for7 of go&ern7ent, and shall protect each of the7 against in&asion@ and on application of the legislature, or the "9ecuti&e -when the legislature cannot be con&ened/, against do7estic &iolence'; 999 999 999 ;<t ,as long ago settled t)at t)e enforcement of t)is guarant" *elonged to t)e political department. Lut)er v. %orden, 7 Cow' 1, 12 )'ed' .41' +n that case it was held that the 0uestion, which of the two opposing go&ern7ents of Rhode +sland, na7ely, the charter go&ern7ent or the go&ern7ent established by a &oluntary con&ention, was the legiti7ate one, was a 0uestion for the deter7ination of the political depart7ent@ and when that depart7ent had decided, the courts were bound to taBe notice of the decision and follow it'; 999 999 999 As t)e issues presented, in their &ery essence, are, and )ave long since *" t)is +ourt *een, definitel" determined to *e political and governmental, and e7braced within the scope of the scope of the powers

conferred upon %ongress, and not, t)erefore ,it)in t)e reac) of 6udicial po,er, it follo,s t)at t)e case presented is not ,it)in our 6urisdiction , and the writ of error 7ust therefore be, and it is, dis7issed for want of =urisdiction' -223 *'S' pp' 132,1.1@ e7phasis supplied/' "&en a constitutional a7end7ent that is only pro7ulgated by the %onstitutional %on&ention without authority therefor and without sub7itting the sa7e to the people for ratification, beco7es &alid, when recogni?ed, accepted and acted upon the by %hief of State and other go&ern7ent functionaries, as well as by the people' +n the 1203 case of Ta"lor vs. +ommon,ealt) -33 S" 7.3, 7../, the %ourt ruled8 The sole ground urged in support of the contention that %onstitution proclai7ed in 1202 is in&alid is that it was ordained and pro7ulgated by the con&ention without being sub7itted for ratification or re=ection by the people of the co77onwealth' The %onstitution of 1202 was ordained and proclai7ed by con&ention duly called by direct &ote of the people of the state to re&ise and a7end the %onstitution of 1452' The result of the worB that the con&ention has been recogni?ed, accepted, and acted upon as the only &alid %onstitution of the state by the 1o&ernor in swearing fidelity to it and proclai7ing it, as directed thereby@ by the )egislature in its for7al official act adopting a =oint resolution, 6uly 1., 1202, recogni?ing the %onstitution ordained by the con&ention which asse7bled in the city of Rich7ond on the 12th day of 6une 1201, as the %onstitution of Airginia@ by the indi&idual oaths of 7e7bers to support it, and by its ha&ing been engaged for nearly a year in legislating under it and putting its pro&isions into operation but the =udiciary in taBing the oath prescribed thereby to support and by enforcing its pro&isions@ and by the people in their pri7ary capacity by peacefully accepting it and ac0uiescing in it, registering as &oters under it to the e9tent of thousands through the state, and by &oting, under its pro&isions, at a general election for their representati&es in the %ongress of the *nited States' -p' 7../' The %ourt in the Taylor case abo&e,7entioned further said8 While constitutional procedure for adoption or proposal to a7end the constitution 7ust be duly followed, without o7itting any re0uisite steps, courts should uphold a7end7ent, unless satisfied that the %onstitution was &iolated in sub7itting the proposal' ''' Su*stance more t)an form must *e regarded in considering ,)et)er t)e complete constitutional s"stem for su*mitting t)e proposal to amend t)e constitution ,as o*served' +n the 122. case of Ta"lor vs. .ing -130 A 307, 304 310/, the %ourt stated8 There 7ay be technical error in the 7anner in which a proposed a7end7ent is adopted, or in its ad&ertise7ent, yet, if followed, unob=ected to, by appro&al of the electors, it beco7es part of the %onstitution' )egal co7plaints to the sub7ission 7ay be 7ade prior to taBing the &ote, but, if once sanctioned, the a7end7ent is e7bodied therein, and cannot be attacBed, either directly or collaterally, because of any 7istaBe antecedent thereto' "&en though it be sub7itted at an i7proper ti7e, it is effecti&e for all purposes when accepted by the 7a=ority' Armstrong v. .ing, 241 a' 207, 125 A' 253' -130 A 302/' "&en if the act of the %onstitutional %on&ention is beyond its authority, such act beco7es &alid upon ratification or adoption or ac0uiescence by the people' Thus, in the 120. case of &! parte $ir7ingha7 and A'R' %o7pany -32 S( pp' 114 P 123/, the Alaba7a Supre7e %ourt upheld this principle and stated that8 ;The authorities are al7ost unifor7 that this ratification of an unauthori?ed act by the people -and the people are the principal in this instance/ renders the act &alid and binding'; +t has liBewise been held that it is not necessar" t)at voters ratif"ing t)e ne, +onstitution are registered in t)e *oo# of voters> it is enoug) t)at t)e" are electors voting on t)e ne, +onstitution ' -$ott &s' Wurts, 30 A 730 F1422G@ 3. )RA 2.1, e7phasis supplied/' +n the 12.5 case of T)omson vs. $eoples State %an# -7. #W 2nd 370, 37./, the Supre7e %ourt of Wisconsin ruled that ;irregularity in the procedure for the sub7ission of the proposed constitutional a7end7ent will not defeat the ratification by the people'; Again, in the 12.4 case of S,aim vs. Tuscaloosa +ount" -103 S( 2nd 752/, the Alaba7a Supre7e %ourt pronounced that ;the irregularity in failing to publish the proposed constitutional a7end7ent once in each of the 3 calendar weeBs ne9t preceding the calendar weeB in which the election was held or once in each of the 7,day periods i77ediately preceding the day of the election as re0uired by the %onstitution, did not in&alidate the a7end7ent which was ratified by the people'; The sa7e principle was reiterated in 1251 by the Mississippi Supreme +ourt in %arnes, et al. v. Ladner -131/ S( 2nd 3. 352/, where they ad7itted irregularities or illegalities co77itted in the procedure for sub7ission of the proposed constitutional a7end7ent to the people for ratification consisted of8 ;-a/ the alleged failure of the county election co77issioners of the se&eral counties to pro&ide a sufficient nu7ber of ballot bo9es Dsecured by good and substantial locBs,D as pro&ided by Section 3232, %ode of 1232, Rec', to be used in the holding of the special election on the constitutional a7end7ent, and -b/ the alleged failure of the State "lection %o77issioners to co7ply with the re0uire7ents of %ode Sections 3203 and 320. in the appoint7ent of election co77issioners in each of the 42 counties' T)e irregularities complained of, even if proved, ,ere not suc) irregularities

,ould )ave invalidated t)e election'; -"7phasis supplied@ see also Syl&ester &s' Tindall, 4 S( 2nd 422@ 1.3 <la' 553/' "&en prior to the election in #o&e7ber, 1270 of delegates of the %onstitutional %on&ention and during the deliberations of the %onstitutional %on&ention fro7 6une 1, 1271 until 7artial law was proclai7ed on Sept' 21, 1272, the salient refor7s contained in the 1273 %onstitution which ha&e long been desired by the people, had been thoroughly discussed in the &arious co77ittees of the %onstitutional %on&ention, on the floor of the %on&ention itself, in ci&ic foru7s and in all the 7edia of infor7ation' !any of the decrees pro7ulgated by the %hief "9ecuti&e fro7 Sept' 22, 1272 to 6an' 17, 1273 i7ple7ent so7e of the refor7s and had been ratified in Sec' 3-2/ of Article KA++ of the 1273 %onstitution' etitioners cannot safely state that during 7artial law the 7a=ority of the people cannot freely &ote for these refor7s and are not co7plying with the i7ple7enting decrees pro7ulgated by the resident' <ree election is not ine&itably inco7patible with 7artial law' We had free elections in 12.1 and 1271 when the opposition won si9 out of eight senatorial seats despite the suspension of the pri&ileges of the writ of )a*eas corpus -see )ansang &s' 1arcia, et al', :ec' 13, 1271, 32 S%RA 334/, which suspension i7plies constraint on indi&idual freedo7 as the procla7ation of 7artial law' +n both situations, there is no total blacBout of hu7an rights and ci&il liberties' All the local go&ern7ents, do7inated either by #acionalistas or )iberals, as well as officials of the )egislati&e and "9ecuti&e branches of the go&ern7ent elected andJor appointed under the 123. %onstitution ha&e either recogni?ed or are now functioning under the 1273 %onstitution, aside fro7 the fact of its ratification by the so&ereign people through the %iti?ens Asse7blies' #inety,fi&e -2./ of a total of one hundred ten -110/ 7e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es including the SpeaBer and the SpeaBer ro Te7pore as well as about ele&en -11/ %ongress7en who belong to the )iberal arty and fifteen -1./ of a total of twenty,four -23/ senators including )iberal senators "dgar *' +larde and 6ohn (s7e>a opted to ser&e in the +nteri7 Asse7bly, according to the certification of the %o77ission on "lections dated <ebruary 12, 1273 -Anne9 Re=oinder,3 to %onsolidated Re=oinder of petitioners in ),3515./' (nly the fi&e -./ petitioners in ),3515. close their eyes to a fait accompli' All the other functionaries recogni?e the new go&ern7ent and are perfor7ing their duties and e9ercising their powers under the 1273 %onstitution, including the lower courts' The ci&il courts, 7ilitary tribunals and 0uasi,=udicial bodies created by presidential decrees ha&e decided so7e cri7inal, ci&il and ad7inistrati&e cases pursuant to such decrees' The foreign a7bassadors who were accredited to the Republic of the hilippines before 7artial law continue to ser&e as such in our country@ while two new a7bassadors ha&e been accepted by the hilippines after the ratification of the 1273 %onstitution on 6anuary 17, 1273' %opies of the 1273 %onstitution had been furnished the *nited #ations (rgani?ation and practically all the other countries with which the hilippines has diplo7atic relations' #o ad&erse reaction fro7 the *nited #ations or fro7 the foreign states has been 7anifested' (n the contrary, our per7anent delegate to the *nited #ations (rgani?ation and our diplo7atic representati&es abroad appointed before 7artial law continue to re7ain in their posts and are perfor7ing their functions as such under the 1273 %onstitution' "&en the %o77ission on "lections is now i7ple7enting the pro&isions of the 1273 %onstitution by re0uiring all election registrars to register 14,year olds and abo&e whether literates or not, who are 0ualified electors under the 1273 %onstitution -see pars' 1, A-c/, -d/, P -e/ of Anne9 A to #otes of respondents uyat and Roy in ),3515./' +n brief, it cannot be said that the people are ignoring the 1273 %onstitution and the go&ern7ent which is enforcing the sa7e for o&er 10 weeBs now With the petitioners herein, secessionists, rebels and sub&ersi&es as the only possible e9ceptions, the rest of the citi?enry are co7plying with decrees, orders and circulars issued by the incu7bent resident i7ple7enting the 1273 %onstitution' (f happy rele&ance on this point is the holding in Miller vs. Jo)nson 14 SW .228 +f a set of 7en, not selected by the people according to the for7s of law, were to for7ulate an instru7ent and declare it the constitution, it would undoubtedly be the duty of the courts declare its worB a nullity' This would be re&olution, and this the courts of the e9isting go&ern7ent 7ust resist until they are o&erturned by power, and a new go&ern7ent established' T)e convention, )o,ever, ,as t)e offspring of la,. T)e instrument ,)ic) ,e are as#ed to declare invalid as a constitution )as *een made and promulgated according to t)e forms of la,. <t is a matter of current )istor" t)at *ot) t)e e!ecutive and legislative *ranc)es of t)e government )ave recognized its validit" as a constitution , and are now daily doing so' +s the 0uestion, t)erefore, one of a 6udicial c)aracter- +t is our undoubted duty, if a statute be unconstitutional to so declare it@ also, if a pro&ision of the state constitution be in conflict with the federal constitution, to hold the for7er in&alid' $ut this is a &ery different case' <t ma" *e said, )o,ever, t)at, for ever" violation of or non1compliance ,it) t)e la,, t)ere s)ould *e a remed" in t)e courts. T)is is not, )o,ever, al,a"s t)e case. =or instance, t)e po,er of a court as to t)e acts of t)e ot)er departments of t)e government is not an a*solute one, *ut merel" to determine ,)et)er t)e" )ave #ept ,it)in constitutional limits, it is a dut" rat)er t)an a po,er, T)e 6udiciar" cannot compel a co1e9ual department to perform a dut"' +t is responsible to the people@ but if it does act, then, when the 0uestion is properly presented, it is the duty of the court to say whether it has confor7ed to the organic law' /)ile t)e 6udiciar" s)ould protect t)e rig)ts of t)e people ,it) great care and 6ealous", *ecause t)is is its dut", and also *ecause, in times of great popular e!citement, it is usuall" t)eir last resort, "et it s)ould at t)e same time *e careful to overstep t)e proper *ounds of its po,er, as *eing per)aps e9uall" dangerous> and especiall" ,)ere suc) momentous results mig)t follo, as ,ould *e li#el" in t)is instance, if t)e po,er of

t)e 6udiciar" permitted, and its dut" re9uired, t)e overt)ro, of t)e ,or# of t)e convention ' After the A7erican Re&olution the state of Rhode +sland retained its colonial character as its constitution, and no law e9isted pro&iding for the 7aBing of a new one' +n 1431 public 7eetings were held, resulting in the election of a con&ention to for7 a new one, E to be sub7itted to a popular &ote' The con&ention fra7ed one, sub7itted it to a &ote, and declared it adopted' "lections were held for state officers, who proceeded to organi?e a new go&ern7ent' The charter go&ern7ent did not ac0uiesce in these proceedings, and finally declared the state under 7artial law' +t called another con&ention, which in 1433 for7ed a new constitution' /)et)er t)e c)arter government, or t)e one esta*lis)ed *" t)e voluntar" convention, ,as t)e legitimate one, ,as uniforml" )eld *" t)e courts of t)e state not to *e a 6udicial, *ut a political 9uestion> and t)e political department )aving recognized t)e one, it ,as )eld to *e t)e dut" of t)e 6udiciar" to follo, its decision. T)e supreme court of t)e @nited States, in Lut)er v. %orden, E Ao,. 4, ,)ile not e!pressl" deciding t)e principle, as it )eld t)e federal court, "et in t)e argument approves it, and in su*stance sa"s t)at ,)ere t)e political department )as decided suc) a matter t)e 6udiciar" s)ould a*ide *" it' )et us illustrate the difficulty of a court deciding the 0uestion8 Suppose this court were to hold that the con&ention, when it reasse7bled, had no power to 7aBe any 7aterial a7end7ent, and that such as were 7ade are &oid by reason of the people ha&ing theretofore appro&ed the instru7ent' Then, ne9t, this court 7ust deter7ine what a7end7ents were 7aterial@ and we find the court, in effect, 7aBing a constitution' This would be arrogating so&ereignty to itself' erhaps the 7e7bers of the court 7ight differ as to what a7end7ents are 7aterial, and the result would be confusion and anarchy' (ne =udge 7ight say that all the a7end7ents, 7aterial and i77aterial, were &oid@ another, that the con&ention had then the i7plied power to correct palpable errors, and then the court 7ight differ as to what a7end7ents are 7aterial' +f the instru7ent as ratified by the people could not be corrected or altered at all, or if the court 7ust deter7ine what changes were 7aterial, then the instru7ent, as passed upon by the people or as fi9ed by the court would be lacBing a pro7ulgation by the con&ention@ and, if this be essential, then the 0uestion would arise, what constitution are we now li&ing under, and what is the organic law of the stateH A suggestion of these 7atters shows what endless confusion and har7 to the state 7ight and liBely would arise' <f, t)roug) error of opinion, t)e convention e!ceeded its po,er, and t)e people are dissatisfied, t)e" )ave ample remed", ,it)out t)e 6udiciar" *eing as#ed to overstep t)e proper limits of its po,er. T)e instrument provides for amendment and c)ange. <f a ,rong )as *een done, it can, in t)e proper ,a" in ,)ic) it s)ould *e remedied, is *" t)e people acting as a *od" politic ' +t is not a 0uestion of whether 7erely an a7end7ent to a constitution, 7ade without calling a con&ention, has been adopted, as re0uired by that constitution' +f it pro&ides how it is to be done, then, unless the 7anner be followed, the =udiciary, as the interpreter of that constitution, will declare the a7end7ent in&alid' .oe)ler v. Aill, 50 +owa, .33, 13 #'W' Rep' 734, and 1. #'W' Rep' 502@ State v. Tuff", 1 #e&' 321, 12 ac' Rep' 43.' %ut it is a case ,)ere a ne, constitution )as *een formed and promulgated according to t)e forms of la,. Great interests )ave alread" arisen under it> important rig)ts e!ist *" virtue of it> persons )ave *een convicted of t)e )ig)est crime #no,n to t)e la,, according to its provisions> t)e political po,er of t)e government )as in man" ,a"s recognized it> and, under suc) circumstances, it is our dut" to treat and regard it as a valid constitution, and no, t)e organic la, of our common,ealt) ' We need not consider the &alidity of the a7end7ents 7ade after the con&ention reasse7bled' +f the 7aBing of the7 was in e9cess of its powers, yet, as the entire instru7ent has been recogni?ed as &alid in the 7anner suggested, it would be e0ually an abuse of power by the =udiciary and &iolati&e of the rights of the people, E who can and properly should re7edy the 7atter, if not to their liBing, E if it were to declare the instru7ent of a portion in&alid, and bring confusion and anarchy upon the state' -e7phasis supplied/' +f this %ourt in0uires into the &alidity of rocla7ation #o' 1102 and conse0uently of the adoption of the 1273 %onstitution it would be e9ercising a &eto power on the act of the so&ereign people, of who7 this %ourt is 7erely an agent, which to say the least, would be ano7alous' This %ourt cannot dictate to our principal, the so&ereign people, as to how the appro&al of the new %onstitution should be 7anifested or e9pressed' The so&ereign people ha&e spoBen and we 7ust abide by their decision, regardless of our notion as to what is the proper 7ethod of gi&ing assent to the new %harter' +n this respect, W" cannot presu7e to Bnow better than the incu7bent %hief "9ecuti&e, who, unliBe the 7e7bers of this %ourt, only last 6anuary 4, 1273, We affir7ed in smea vs. Marcos- res' "lection %ontest #o' 3, 6an' 4, 1273/, was re,elected by the &ote of o&er . 7illion electors in 1252 for another ter7 of four years until noon of :ece7ber 30, 1273 under the 123. %onstitution' This %ourt, not ha&ing a si7ilar 7andate by direct fiat fro7 the so&ereign people, to e9ecute the law and ad7inister the affairs of go&ern7ent, 7ust restrain its enthusias7 to sally forth into the do7ain of political action e9pressly and e9clusi&ely reser&ed by the so&ereign people the7sel&es' The people in Article KA of the 123. %onstitution did not intend to tie their hands to a specific procedure for popular ratification of their organic law' That would be inco7patible with their so&ereign character of which We are re7inded by Section 1, of Article ++ of both the 123. and the 1273 %onstitutions' The opinion of 6udge Tho7as !c+ntire %ooley that the so&ereign people cannot &iolate the procedure for ratification which they the7sel&es define in their %onstitution, cannot apply to a unitary state liBe the Republic of the hilippines' Cis opinion e9pressed in 1454 7ay apply to a <ederal State liBe the *nited States, in order to secure and preser&e the e9istence of the <ederal Republic of the *nited States against any radical inno&ation initiated by the citi?ens of the fifty -.0/ different states of the

A7erican *nion, which states 7ay be =ealous of the powers of the <ederal go&ern7ent presently granted by the A7erican %onstitution' This dangerous possibility does not obtain in the case of our Republic' Then again, 6udge %ooley ad&anced the aforesaid opinion in 1454 when he wrote his opus ;%onstitutional )i7itations'; A -Aol' 5, "ncyclopedia $rit', 1252 ed' pp' 33. 335/' +t is possible that, were he li&e today, in a 7ilieu &astly different fro7 1454 to 1424, he 7ight ha&e altered his &iews on the 7atter' "&en if conclusi&eness is to be denied to the truth of the declaration by the resident in rocla7ation #o' 1102 that the people through their %iti?ensD Asse7blies had o&erwhel7ingly appro&ed the new %onstitution due regard to a separate, coordinate and co,e0ual branch of the go&ern7ent de7ands adherence to the presu7ption of correctness of the residentDs declaration' Such presu7ption is accorded under the law and =urisprudence to officials in the lower le&els of the "9ecuti&e branch, there is no o&er, riding reason to deny the sa7e to the %hief of State as head of the "9ecuti&e $ranch' W" cannot re&erse the rule on presu7ptions, without being presu7ptuous, in the face of the certifications by the (ffice the Secretary of the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent' -Anne9es 1, to 1,", Anne9es 2 to 2,( to the co7pliance with 7anifestation filed by the Solicitor 1eneral on behalf of the respondents public officers dated !arch 7, 1273/' There is nothing in the records that contradicts, 7uch less o&erthrow the results of the referendu7 as certified' !uch less are We =ustified in re&ersing the burden of proof E by shifting it fro7 the petitioners to the respondents' *nder the rules on pleadings, the petitioners ha&e the duty to de7onstrate by clear and con&incing e&idence their clai7 that the people did not ratify through the %iti?ensD Asse7blies nor adopt by ac0uiescence the 1273 %onstitution' And ha&e failed to do so' #o 7e7ber of this Tribunal is =ustified in resol&ing the issues posed by the cases at bar on the basis of reports relayed to hi7 fro7 pri&ate sources which could be biased and hearsay, aside fro7 the fact that such reports are not contained in the record' rocla7ation #o' 1102 is not =ust an ordinary act of the %hief "9ecuti&e' +t is a well,nigh sole7n declaration which announces the highest act of the so&ereign people E their imprimatur to the basic %harter that shall go&ern their li&es hereafter E 7ay be for decades, if not for generations' etitioners decry that e&en 1.,year olds, e9 con&icts and illiterates were allowed to &ote in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies, despite their ad7ission that the ter7 ;=ilipino people; in the prea7ble as well as ?people? in Sections 1 and . of Article ++ of the 123. %onstitution and in Section 1-3/ of Article +++ of the $ill of Rights includes all <ilipino citi?ens of all ages, of both se9es, whether literate or illiterate, whether peaceful citi?ens, rebels, secessionists, con&icts or e9,con&icts' Without ad7itting that e9,con&icts &oted in the referendu7, about which no proof was e&en offered, these sectors of our citi?enry, who7 petitioners see7 to regard with conte7pt or decision and who7 petitioners would deny their so&ereign right to pass upon the basic %harter that shall go&ern their li&es and the li&es of their progenies, are entitled as 7uch as the educated, the law abiding, and those who are 21 years of age or abo&e to e9press their confor7ity or non confor7ity to the proposed %onstitution, because their staBe under the new %harter is not any less than the staBe of the 7ore fortunate a7ong us' As a 7atter of fact, these citi?ens, whose =uridical personality or capacity to act is li7ited by age, ci&il interdiction or ignorance deser&e 7ore solicitude fro7 the State than the rest of the citi?enry' +n the ulti7ate analysis, the inclusion of those fro7 1. years up to below 21 years old, the e9,con&icts and the ignorant, is 7ore de7ocratic as it broadens the base of de7ocracy and therefore 7ore faithful to the e9press affir7ation in Section 1 of Article ++ of the :eclaration of rinciples that ;so&ereignty resides in the people and all go&ern7ent authority e7anates fro7 the7'; !oreo&er, e9,con&icts granted absolute pardon are 0ualified to &ote' #ot all e9,con&icts are banned fro7 &oting' (nly those who had been sentenced to at least one year i7prison7ent are disenfranchised but they reco&er their right of suffrage upon e9piration of ten years after ser&ice of sentence -Sec' 102, 1271 Re&' "lec' %ode/' <urther7ore, e9,con&icts and i7beciles constitute a &ery negligible nu7ber in any locality or barrio, including the localities of petitioners' +ncluded liBewise in the delegated authority of the resident, is the prerogati&e to proclai7 the results of the plebiscite or the &oting the %iti?ensD Asse7blies' etitioners deny the accuracy or correctness of rocla7ation #o' 1102 that the 1273 %onstitution was ratified by the o&erwhel7ing &ote of close to 1. 7illion citi?ens because there was no official certification to the results of the sa7e fro7 the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents' $ut there was such certification as per Anne9 1 to 1,A to the #otes sub7itted by the Solicitor 1eneral counsel for respondents public officers' This should suffice to dispose of this point' "&en in the absence of such certification, in 7uch the sa7e way that in passing law, %ongress or the legislati&e body is presu7ed to be in possession of the facts upon which such laws are predicated -6ustice <ernando, The ower of 6udicial Re&iew, 1257 "d', pp' 112,11 citing )oren?o &s' :ir', etc', F1227G .0 hil' .2. and (D1on7ore, et al8 &s' Cartford, etc', F1231G 242 *'S' 2.1/, it should liBewise be presu7ed that the resident was in possession of the fact upon which rocla7ation #o' 1102 was based' This presu7ption is further strengthened by the fact that the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents, the :epart7ent #ational :efense and the hilippine %onstabulary as well the $ureau of osts are all under the resident, which offices as his alter ego, are presu7pti&ely acting for and in behalf of the resident and their acts are &alid until disappro&ed or reprobated by the resident - lanas &s' 1il, 57 hil' 52@ Aillen &s' Secretary of +nterior, 57 hil' 3.1/' To deny the truth or the procla7ation of the resident as to the o&erwhel7ing 7a=ority &ote in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies in fa&or of the new %onstitution, is to charge the resident with falsification, which is a 7ost grie&ous accusation' *nder the, rules of pleadings and e&idence, the petitioners ha&e the burden of proof by preponderance of e&idence in ci&il cases and by proof beyond reasonable doubt in cri7inal prosecutions, where the accused is always presu7ed to be innocent' !ust this constitutional right be re&ersed si7ply because the petitioner all assert the contraryH +s the rule of law they pretend in&oBe only &alid as long as it fa&ors the7H The presu7ption of regularity in the perfor7ance of official functions is accorded by the law and =urisprudence to acts of public officers whose category in the official hierarchy is &ery 7uch lower than that of the %hief of State' What reason is there to withhold such a presu7ption in fa&or of the residentH :oes the fact that the resident belong to the party in power and that four -3/ of the fi&e -./ senators who are petitioners in ),3515. belong to the opposition party, =ustify a discri7ination against the

resident in 7atters of this natureH *nsupported as their word is by any credible and co7petent e&idence under the rules of e&idence, 7ust the word of the petitioners pre&ail o&er that of the %hief "9ecuti&e, because they happen to be for7er senators and delegates to the %onstitutional %on&entionH !ore than any of the petitioners herein in all these cases, the incu7bent resident reali?es that he risBs the wrath of his people being &isited upon hi7 and the ad&erse or hostile &erdict of history@ because of the restrictions on the ci&il liberties of his people, ine&itable conco7itants of 7artial law, which necessarily entail so7e degree of sacrifice on the part of the citi?enry' *ntil the contrary is established or de7onstrated, herein petitioners should grant that the %hief "9ecuti&e is 7oti&ated by what is good for the security and stability of the country, for the progress and happiness of the people' All the petitioners herein cannot stand on the proposition that the rights under the 123. %onstitution are absolute and in&ulnerable to li7itations that 7ay be needed for the purpose of bringing about the refor7s for which the petitioners pretend to be cla7oring for and in behalf of the people' The fi&e -./ petitioners in ),3515. and four -3/ of the se&en -7/ petitioners in ),35153 were all participants in the political dra7a of this country since 1235' They are witness to the frustrations of well,7eaning residents who wanted to effect the refor7s, especially for the benefit of the landless and the laboring class D how politics and political bargaining had sty7ied the effectuation of such refor7s thru legislation' The eight -4/ petitioners in ),35153 and ),3515. 7ay not ha&e participated in the syste7atic blocBing of the desired refor7s in %ongress or outside of it@ but the 0uestion 7ay be asBed as to what e9actly they did to support such refor7s' <or the last se&en -7/ decades since the turn of the century, for the last thirty,fi&e -3./ years since the establish7ent of the %o77onwealth go&ern7ent in 123. and for the last twenty se&en -27/ years since the inauguration of the Republic on 6uly 3, 1235, no tangible substantial refor7 had been effected, funded and seriously i7ple7ented, despite the &iolent uprisings in the thirties, and fro7 1235 to 12.2, and the &iolent de7onstrations of recent 7e7ory' %ongress and the oligarchs acted liBe ostriches, ;burying their heads in ti7eless sand' ;#ow the hopes for the long,awaited refor7s to be within a year or to are brighter' +t would see7 therefore to the duty of e&eryone including herein petitioners to gi&e the present leadership the opportunity to institute and carry out the needed refor7s as pro&ided for in the new or 1273 %onstitution and thru the 7eans prescribed in that sa7e %onstitution' As stated in Wheeler &s' $oard of Trustees, ;a court is ne&er =ustified in placing by i7plication a li7itation upon the so&ereign'; This %ourt in the 1on?ales and Tolentino cases transcended its proper sphere and encroached upon the pro&ince e9clusi&ely reser&ed to and by the so&ereign people' This %ourt did not heed to the principle that the courts are not the fountain of all re7edies for all wrongs' W" cannot presu7e that we alone can speaB with wisdo7 as against the =udg7ent of the people on the basic instru7ent which affects their &ery li&es' W" cannot deter7ine what is good for the people or ought to be their funda7ental law' W" can only e9ercise the power delegated to *s by the so&ereign people, to apply and interpret the %onstitution and the laws for the benefit of the people, not against the7 nor to pre=udice the7' W" cannot perfor7 an act ini7ical to the interest of (ur principal, who at any ti7e 7ay directly e9ercise their so&ereign power ratifying a new %onstitution in the 7anner con&enient to the7' +t is pertinent to asB whether the present Supre7e %ourt can function under the 123. %onstitution without being a part of the go&ern7ent established pursuant thereto' *nliBe in the $orden case, supra, where there was at least another go&ern7ent clai7ing to be the legiti7ate organ of the state of Rhode +sland -although only on paper as it had no established organ e9cept :orr who represented hi7self to be its head@ in the cases at bar there is no other go&ern7ent distinct fro7 and 7aintaining a position against the e9isting go&ern7ent headed by the incu7bent %hief "9ecuti&e' -See Taylor &s' %o77onwealth, supra/' There is not e&en a rebel go&ern7ent duly organi?ed as such e&en only for do7estic purposes, let alone a rebel go&ern7ent engaged in international negotiations' As heretofore stated, both the e9ecuti&e branch and the legislati&e branch established under the 123. %onstitution had been supplanted by the go&ern7ent functioning under the 1273 %onstitution as of 6anuary 17, 1273' The &ice president elected under the 123. %onstitution does not asset any clai7 to the leadership of the Republic of the hilippines' %an this Supre7e %ourt legally e9ist without being part of any go&ern7entH $rilliant counsel for petitioners in ),3515. has been 0uite e9tra&agant in his appraisal of %hief 6ustice Roger $rooBe Taney who7 he calls the ;hero of the A7erican $ar,; because during the A7erican ci&il war he apparently had the courage to nullify the procla7ation of resident )incoln suspending the pri&ileges of the writ of )a*eas corpus in &! parte !erry7an -<ederal %ase #o' 2347 F1451G/' $ut who e9actly was %hief 6ustice Roger $rooBe TaneyH The "ditorial $oard of Aol' 21 of the "ncyclopedia $rit', 1255 ed' -pp' 774,772, 1252 ed', pp' 5.3,5.7/, briefly recounts that he was born in 1777 in %al&ert %ounty, !aryland, of parents who were landed aristocrats as well as sla&e owners' +nheriting the traditional conser&atis7 of his parents who belonged to the landed aristocracy, Taney beca7e a lawyer in 1722, practiced law and was later appointed Attorney 1eneral of !aryland' Ce also was a 7e7ber of the !aryland state legislature for se&eral ter7s' Ce was a leader of the <ederalist arty, which disintegrated after the war of 1412, co7pelling hi7 to =oin the :e7ocratic arty of Andrew 6acBson, also a sla&e owner and landed aristocrat, who later appointed hi7 first as Attorney 1eneral of the *nited States, then Secretary of the Treasury and in 1435 %hief 6ustice of the *nited States Supre7e %ourt to succeed %hief 6ustice 6ohn !arshall, in which position he continued for 24 years until he died on (ctober 21, 1453' Cis death ;went largely unnoticed and unregretted'; $ecause he hi7self was a sla&e owner and a landed aristocrat, %hief 6ustice Taney sy7pathi?ed with the Southern States and, e&en while %hief 6ustice, hoped that the Southern States would be allowed to secede peacefully fro7 the *nion' That he had no sy7pathy for the #egroes was re&ealed by his decision in (red Scott vs. Sandford -12 Cow' 324 F14.7G/ where he pronounced that the A7erican #egro is not entitled to the rights of an A7erican citi?en and that his status as a sla&e is deter7ined by his returning to a sla&e state' (ne can therefore discern his hostility towards resident )incoln when he decided "9 parte !erry7an, which ani7osity to say the least does no befit a =udicial 7ind' Such a 7an could hardly be spoBen of as a hero of the A7erican $ar, least of all of the A7erican nation' The choice of heroes should not be e9pressed indiscri7inately =ust to e7bellish oneDs rhetoric' :istinguished counsel in ),3515. appears to ha&e co77itted another historical error, which 7ay be due to his rhetorical in the "ncyclopedia $ritannica -Aol' 2, 1252 ed', pp' .04,.02/ to this effect' (n the contrary, "ncyclopedia $ritannica -Aol' 17 "ncyclopedia $rit', 1255 P 1252 eds', 732,733/, refers to !arshal Cenri hilippe etain as the genuine hero or ;Sa&ior of Aerdun;@ because he held Aerdun against the 1215 offensi&e of the 1er7an ar7y at the cost of 3.0,000 of his <rench soldiers,

who were then de7orali?ed and plotting 7utiny' %ertainly, the sur&i&ing 7e7bers of the fa7ily of !arshal etain would not relish the error' And neither would the 7e7bers of the clan of !arshal <och acBnowledge the undeser&ed accolade, although !arshal <och has a distinct place in history on his own 7erits' The foregoing clarification is offered in the interest of true scholarship and historical accuracy, so that the historians, researchers and students 7ay not be led astray or be confused by estee7ed counselDs elo0uence and 7astery of the spoBen and written word as well as by his e7inence as law professor, author of law booBs, political leader, and 7e7ber of the newly integrated hilippine $ar' +t is 0uite intriguing why the e7inent counsel and co,petitioner in ),35153 did not address liBewise his challenge to the fi&e -./ senators who are petitioners in ),3515. to also act as ;heroes and idealists,; to defy the resident by holding sessions by the7sel&es alone in a hotel or in their houses if they can 7uster a 0uoru7 or by causing the arrest of other senators to secure a 0uoru7 and thereafter re7o&e respondents uyat and Roy -A&elino, et al' &s' %uenco, et al' F1232G 43 hil' 17/, if they belie&e 7ost &ehe7ently in the =ustice and correctness of their position that the 1273 %onstitution has not been &alidly ratified, adopted or ac0uiesced in by the people since 6anuary 14, 1273 until the present' The proclai7ed con&iction of petitioners in ),3515. on this issue would ha&e a ring of credibility, if they proceeded first to hold a ru7p session outside the legislati&e building@ because it is not unreasonable to de7and or to e9act that he who e9horts others to be bra&e 7ust first de7onstrate his own courage' Surely, they will not affir7 that the 7ere filing of their petition in ),3515. already 7ade the7 ;heroes and idealists'; The challenge liBewise see7s to insinuate that the 7e7bers of this %ourt who disagree with petitionersD &iews are 7aterialistic cowards or 7ercenary fence,sitters' The %ourt need not be re7inded of its sole7n duty and how to perfor7 it' W" refuse to belie&e that petitioners and their learned as well as illustrious counsels, scholars and liberal thinBers that they are, do not recogni?e the sincerity of those who entertain opinions that clash with their own' Such an attitude does not sit well with the dictu7 that ;We can differ without being difficult@ we can disagree without being disagreeable,; which distinguished counsel in ), 3515. is wont to 0uote' W" reser&e the right to prepare an e9tensi&e discussion of the other points raised by petitioners, which We do not find now necessary to deal with in &iew of (ur opinion on the 7ain issue' +# A+"W (< TC" <(R"1(+#1, A)) TC" "T+T+(#S +# TC"S" <+A" %AS"S SA @L( %& (<SM<SS&(. MA,AS"AR, J., concurring8 ursuant to (ur reser&ation, We now discuss the other issues raised by the petitioners' << "A"# +< +SS*" +S 6*ST+%+A$)", "( )"DS RAT+<+%AT+(#, A:( T+(# (R A%I*+"S%"#%" %R"AT"S STR(#1 R"S*! T+(# (< AA)+:+TL (< 1273 %(#ST+T*T+(#' As inti7ated in the aforecited cases, e&en the courts, which affir7 the proposition that the 0uestion as to whether a constitutional a7end7ent or the re&ised or new %onstitution has been &alidly sub7itted to the people for ratification in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the e9isting %onstitution, is a =usticiable 0uestion, accord all presumption of validit" to t)e constitutional amendment or t)e revised or ne, +onstitution after t)e government officials or t)e people )ave adopted or ratified or ac9uiesced in t)e ne, +onstitution or amendment, alt)oug) t)ere ,as an illegal or irregular or no su*mission at all to t)e people ' -%ollier &s' 1ray, 3th :ec' :ig' 23. F1233G, Ca77ond &s' %larB, 71 S" 342,343@ eople &s' Sours, 31 %olo' 352, 73 ac' 157, 102 A7' St' Rep' 33@ Tho7pson &s' Winneth, 74 #eb' 372, 110 #W 1113, 10 )'R'A' F#'S'G 132@ State &s' )aylin, 52 (hio St' Rep' 1, 54 #" .73@ Weston &s' Ryan, 70 #eb' 211, 27 #W 337@ %o7bs &s' State, 41 1a' 740, 4 S" 314@ Woodward &s' State, 103 1a' 325, 30 S" .22@ %orre &s' %ooney, 70 !ont' 3.., 22. 1007, 1002/' As late as 1271, the courts stressed that the constitutional a7end7ent or the new %onstitution should not be conde7ned ;unless our =udg7ent its nullity is 7anifest beyond reasonable doubt; -1271 case of !oore &s' Shanahan, 345 ac' 2d .05, 207 Nan' 1, 53.@ and the 12.5 case of Tipton &s' S7ith, et al', supra/' !r' 6ustice "nri0ue !' <ernando, speaBing for the %ourt, pronounced that the presu7ption of constitutionality 7ust persist in the absence of factual foundation of record to o&erthrow such presu7ption -"r7ita,!alate Cotel, etc' &s' %ity !ayor, ),23524, 6uly 31, 1257, 20 S%RA 432/' <<< %(#ST+T*T+(#A) %(#A"#T+(# E %(,"I*A) W+TC A#: +#:" "#:"#T (< %(#1R"SS, "K"%*T+A" A#: 6*:+%+ARL' The %onstitutional %on&ention is co,ordinate and co,e0ual with, as well as independent of, the three grand depart7ents of the 1o&ern7ent, na7ely, the legislati&e, the e9ecuti&e and the =udicial' As a fourth separate and distinct branch, to e7phasi?e its independence, the %on&ention cannot be dictated to by either of the other three depart7ents as to the content as well as the for7 of the %harter that it proposes' +t en=oys the sa7e i77unity fro7 interference or super&ision by any of the aforesaid branches of the 1o&ern7ent in its proceedings, including the printing of its own =ournals -Ta>ada and <ernando, %onstitution of the hilippines, 12.2 ed', Aol' +, pp' 4 2@ !alcol7 and )aurel, hil' %onst' )aw, p' 22@ <rant? &s' Autry, 21 ac' 123/' +7plicit in that independence, for the purpose of 7aintaining the sa7e uni7paired and in order that its worB will not be frustrated, the %on&ention has the power to fi9 the date for the plebiscite and to pro&ide funds therefor' To deny the %on&ention such prerogati&e, would lea&e it at the tender 7ercy of both legislati&e and e9ecuti&e branches of the 1o&ern7ent' An unsy7pathetic

%ongress would not be disposed to sub7it the proposed %onstitution drafted by the %onstitutional %on&ention to the people for ratification, 7uch less appropriate the necessary funds therefor' That could ha&e been the fate of the 1273 %onstitution, because the sa7e abolished the Senate by creating a unica7eral #ational Asse7bly to be presided by a ri7e !inister who wields both legislati&e and e9ecuti&e powers and is the actual %hief "9ecuti&e, for the resident conte7plated in the new %onstitution e9ercises pri7arily cere7onial prerogati&es' The new %onstitution liBewise shortened abruptly the ter7s of the 7e7bers of the present %ongress -whose ter7s end on :ece7ber 31, 1273, 127. and 1277/ which pro&ides that the new %onstitution shall taBe effect i77ediately upon its ratification -Sec' 15, Article KA++, 1273 %onstitution/' The fact that Section 2 of the sa7e Article KA+++ secures to the 7e7bers of %ongress 7e7bership in the interi7 #ational Asse7bly as long as they opt to ser&e therein within thirty -30/ days after the ratification of the proposed %onstitution, affords the7 little co7fort@ because the con&ening of the interi7 #ational Asse7bly depends upon the incu7bent resident -under Sec' 3F1G, Art' KA++, 1273 %onstitution/' *nder the foregoing circu7stances, the 7e7bers of %ongress, who were elected under the 123. %onstitution, would not be disposed to call a plebiscite and appropriate funds therefor to enable the people to pass upon the 1273 %onstitution, ratification of which 7eans their eli7ination fro7 the political scene' They will not pro&ide the 7eans for their own li0uidation' $ecause the %onstitutional %on&ention, by necessary i7plication as it is indispensable to its independence and effecti&eness, possesses the power to call a plebiscite and to appropriate funds for the purpose, it inescapably 7ust ha&e the power to delegate the sa7e to the resident, who, in esti7ation of the %on&ention can better deter7ine appropriate ti7e for such a referendu7 as well as the a7ount necessary to effect the sa7e@ for which reason the %on&ention thru Resolution #o' 22 appro&ed on #o&e7ber 22, 1272, which superseded Resolution #o' .433 adopted on #o&e7ber 15, 1272, proposed to the resident ;that a decree be issued calling a plebiscite for the ratification of the proposed new %onstitution such appropriate date as he shall deter7ine and pro&iding for the necessary funds therefor, ''',; after stating in ;whereas; clauses that the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention e9pected to co7plete its worB by the end of #o&e7ber, 1272 that the urgency of instituting refor7s rendered i7perati&e the early appro&al of the new %onstitution, and that the national and local leaders desire that there be continuity in the i77ediate transition fro7 the old to the new %onstitution' +f %ongress can legally delegate to the %hief "9ecuti&e or his subaltern the power to pro7ulgate subordinate rules and regulations to i7ple7ent the law, this authority to delegate i7ple7enting rules should not be denied to the %onstitutional %on&ention, a co,e0ual body' Apart fro7 the delegation to the %hief "9ecuti&e of the power to call a plebiscite and to appropriate funds therefor by the %onstitutional %on&ention thru its Resolution #o' 22, the organi?ation of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies for consultation on national issues, is co7prehended within the ordinance,7aBing power of the resident under Section 53 of the Re&ised Ad7inistrati&e %ode, which e9pressly confers on the %hief "9ecuti&e the po,er to promulgate administrative acts and commands touc)ing on t)e organization or mode of operation of t)e government or re,arranging or re,ad=usting any district, di&ision or part of the hilippines ;or disposing of issues of general concern ''' '; -"7phasis supplied/' Cence, as consultati&e bodies representing the localities including the barrios, their creation by the resident thru residential :ecree #o' 45 of :ece7ber 31, 1272, cannot be successfully challenged' The e7ploy7ent by the resident of these %iti?ensD Asse7blies for consultation on the 1273 %onstitution or on whether there was further need of a plebiscite thereon, E both issues of national concern E is still within the delegated authority reposed in hi7 by the %onstitutional %on&ention as aforesaid' +t should be noted that Resolution #o' 22, which superseded Resolution #o' .433, does not prescribe that the plebiscite 7ust be conducted by the %o77ission on "lections in accordance with the pro&isions of the 1271 Re&ised "lection %ode' +f that were the intention of the %onstitutional %on&ention in 7aBing the delegation, it could ha&e easily included the necessary phrase for the purpose, so7e such phrase liBe ;to call a plebiscite to be super&ised by the %o77ission on "lections in accordance with the pro&isions of the 1271 Re&ised "lection %ode -or with e9isting laws/'; That the %onstitutional %on&ention o7itted such phrase, can only 7ean that it left to the resident the deter7ination of the 7anner by which the plebiscite should be conducted, who shall super&ise the plebiscite, and who can participate in the plebiscite' The fact that said Resolution #o' 22 e9pressly states ;that copies of this resolution as appro&ed in plenary session be trans7itted to the resident of the hilippines and the %o77ission on "lections for i7ple7entation,; did not in effect designate the %o77ission on "lections as super&isor of the plebiscite' The copies of said resolution that were trans7itted to the %o77ission on "lections at best ser&e 7erely to notify the %o77ission on "lections about said resolution, but not to direct said body to super&ise the plebiscite' The calling as well as conduct of the plebiscite was left to the discretion of the resident, who, because he is in possession of all the facts funnelled to hi7 by his intelligence ser&ices, was in the superior position to decide when the plebiscite shall be held, how it shall be conducted and who shall o&ersee it' +t should be noted that in appro&ing said Resolution #o' 22, the %onstitutional %on&ention itself recogni?ed the &alidity of, or &alidated residential rocla7ation #o' 1041 placing the entire country under 7artial law by resol&ing to ;propose to resident <erdinand "' !arcos that a decree be issued calling a plebiscite ''' '; The use of the ter7 ;decree; is significant for the basic orders regulating the conduct of all inhabitants are issued in that for7 and no7enclature by the resident as the %o77ander in %hief and enforcer of 7artial law' %onse0uently, the issuance by the resident of residential :ecree #o' 73 on :ece7ber 1, 1272 setting the plebiscite on 6anuary 1., 1273 and appropriating funds therefor pursuant to said Resolution #o' 22, is a &alid e9ercise of such delegated authority' Such delegation, unliBe the delegation by %ongress of the rule,7aBing power to the %hief "9ecuti&e or to any of his subalterns, does not need sufficient standards to circu7scribe the e9ercise of the power delegated, and is beyond the co7petence of this %ourt to nullify' $ut e&en if ade0uate criteria should be re0uired, the sa7e are contained in the ;Whereas; clauses of the

%onstitutional %on&ention Resolution #o' 22, thus8 WC"R"AS, the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention is e9pected to co7plete its worB of drafting a proposed new %onstitution for the Republic by the end of #o&e7ber, 1272@ WC"R"AS, in &iew of the urgency of instituting refor7s, the early appro&al of the #ew %onstitution has beco7e i7perati&e@ WC"R"AS, it is the desire of the national and local leaders that there be continuity in the i77ediate political transition fro7 the old to the #ew %onstitution@; -Anne9 ;1; of Answer, Res' #o' 22, %onstitutional %on&ention/' As !r' 6ustice <ernando, with who7 !essrs' 6ustices $arredo, Antonio and the writer concurred in the lebiscite %ases, stated8 ''' (nce this worB of drafting has been co7pleted, it could itself direct the sub7ission to the people for ratification as conte7plated in Article KA of the %onstitution' Cere it did not do so' With %ongress not being in session, could the resident, by the decree under 0uestion, call for such a plebisciteH *nder such circu7stances, a negative ans,er certainl" could result in t)e ,or# of t)e +onvention *eing rendered nugator"' The &iew has been repeatedly e9pressed in 7any A7erican state court decisions that to a&oid such undesirable conse0uence the tasB of sub7ission beco7es 7inisterial, with the political branches de&oid of any discretion as to the holding of an election for that purpose' #or is the appropriation by hi7 of the a7ount necessary to be considered as offensi&e to the %onstitution' <f it ,ere done *" )im in )is capacit" as $resident, suc) an o*6ection ,ould indeed )ave *een formida*le, not to sa" insurmounta*le. <f t)e appropriation ,ere made in )is capacit" as agent of t)e +onvention to assure t)at t)ere *e su*mission to t)e people, t)en suc) an argument loses force ' T)e +onvention itself could )ave done so' +t is understandable why it should be thus' <f it ,ere ot)er,ise, t)en a legislative *od", t)e appropriating arm of t)e government, could conceiva*l" ma#e use of suc) aut)orit" to compel t)e +onvention to su*mit to its ,is)es, on pain of *eing rendered financiall" distraug)t. T)e $resident t)en, if performing )is role as its agent, could *e )eld as not devoid of suc) competence ' -pp' 2,3, concurring opinion of 6' <ernando in ),3.22., etc', e7phasis supplied/' <V AA1*"#"SS (R A!$+1*+TL :("S #(T +#AA)+:AT" TC" 1273 %(#ST+T*T+(# -1/ etitions challenge the 1273 draft as &ague and inco7plete, and alluded to their argu7ents during the hearings on :ece7ber 14 and 12, 1272 on the lebiscite %ases' $ut the inclusion of 0uestionable or a7biguous pro&isions does not affect the &alidity of the ratification or adoption of the 1273 %onstitution itself - ope &s' 1ray, 103 S(, 2d 431@ 7th :ec' pp' 212,212, 12.5,1255/' Ale9ander Ca7ilton, one of the leading founders and defenders of the A7erican %onstitution, answering the critics of the <ederal %onstitution, stated that8 ;+ ne&er e9pect to see a perfect worB fro7 i7perfect 7an' The result of the deliberations of all collecti&e bodies 7ust necessarily be a co7pound, as well of the errors and pre=udices as of the good sense and wisdo7, of the indi&iduals of who7 they are co7posed' The co7pacts which are to e7brace thirteen distinct States in a co77on bond of a7ity and union, 7ust necessarily be a co7pro7ise of as 7any dissi7ilar interests and inclinations' Cow can perfection spring fro7 such 7aterialsH; -The <ederalist, !odern )ibrary "d', pp' 99,99i/' -2/ The 1273 %onstitution is liBewise i7pugned on the ground that it contains pro&isions which are ultra vires or beyond the power of the %onstitutional %on&ention to propose' This ob=ection relates to the wisdo7 of changing the for7 of go&ern7ent fro7 residential to arlia7entary and including such pro&isions as Section 3 of Article +A, Section 1. of Article K+A and Sections 3-2/ and 12 of Article KA++ in the 1273 %onstitution' Article +A E Sec' 3' The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and sei?ures of whate&er nature and for any purpose shall not be &iolated, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue e!cept upon pro*a*le cause to *e determined *" t)e 6udge, or suc) ot)er responsi*le officer as ma" *e aut)orized *" la, , after e9a7ination under oath or affir7ation of the co7plainant and the witnesses 7ay produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be sei?ed' Article K+A E Sec' 1.' Any pro&ision of paragraph one, Section fourteen, Article "ight and of this Article notwithstanding, the ri7e !inister 7ay enter into international treaties or agree7ents as the national

welfare and interest 7ay re0uire'; -Without the consent of the #ational Asse7bly'/ Article KA++ E Sec' 3-2/ All procla7ations, orders, decrees, instructions, and acts pro7ulgated, issued, or done by the incu7bent resident shall be part of the law of the land, and shall re7ain &alid, legal, binding and effecti&e e&en after lifting of 7artial law or the ratification of this %onstitution, unless 7odified, re&oBed, or superseded by subse0uent procla7ations, orders, decrees, instructions, or other acts of the incu7bent resident, or unless e9pressly and e9plicitly 7odified or repealed by the regular #ational Asse7bly' 999 999 999 Sec' 12' All treaties, e9ecuti&e agree7ents, and contracts entered into by the 1o&ern7ent, or any subdi&ision, agency, or instru7entality thereof, including go&ern7ent,owned or controlled corporations, are hereby recogni?ed as legal, &alid and binding' When the national interest so re0uires, the incu7bent resident of the hilippines or the interi7 ri7e !inister 7ay re&iew all contracts, concessions, per7its, or other for7s of pri&ileges for the e9ploration, de&elop7ent, e9ploitation, or utili?ation of natural resources entered into, granted, issued or ac0uired before the ratification of this %onstitution' +n the lebiscite %ases -),3.22., ),3.222, ),3.230, ),3.232, ),3.234, ),3.2.3, ),3.251, ),3.25., P ),3.272/, %hief 6ustice Roberto %oncepcion, concurred in by 6ustices <ernando, $arredo, Antonio and the writer, o&erruled this ob=ection, thus8 ''' Regardless of the wisdo7 and 7oral aspects of the contested pro&isions of the proposed %onstitution, it is 7y considered &iew that the %on&ention was legally dee7ed fit to propose E sa&e perhaps what is or 7ay be insistent with what is now Bnown, particularly in international law, as Jus +ogens E not only because the %on&ention e9ercised so&ereign powers delegated thereto by the people E although insofar only as the deter7ination of the proposals to be 7ade and for7ulated by said body is concerned E but also, because said proposals cannot be &alid as part of our <unda7ental )aw unless and until ;appro&ed by the 7a=ority of the &otes cast at an election which; said proposals ;are sub7itted to the people for their ratification,; as pro&ided in Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' - p' 17,14, :ecision in ),3.22., etc'/' This %ourt liBewise enunciated in (el Rosario vs. +omelec -),32375, (ct' 20, 1270, 3. S%RA 357/ that the %onstitutional %on&ention has the authority to ;entirely o&erhaul the present %onstitution and propose an entirely new %onstitution based on an ideology foreign to the de7ocratic syste7 '''@ because the sa7e will be sub7itted to the people for ratification' (nce ratified by the so&ereign people, there can be no debate about the &alidity of the new %onstitution'; !r' 6ustice <ernando, concurring in the sa7e lebiscite %ases, cited the foregoing pronounce7ent in the :el Rosario case, supra, and added8 ;''' it see7s to 7e a sufficient answer that once con&ened, the area open for deliberation to a constitutional con&ention ''', is practically li7itless; -citing %f' Noehler &s' Cill, 13 #W 734, 50 +owa .33 F1443G@ Catch Stone7an, 5 733, 55 %al' 532 F144.G@ !ac!illan &' $lattner, 2. #W 23., 57 +owa 247 F142.G@ State &' owell, 27 S( 227, 77 !iss' .33 F1200G@ Ca77ond &' %larB, 71 S" 372, 135 1a' 313 F1211G@ Ca7ilton &' Aaughan, 172 #W .33, 212 !ich' 31 F1220G@ State &' S7ith, 134 #" 441, 10. (hio St' .70 F1222G@ )ooney &s' )eeper, 222 35., 13. (Bl' 202 F1230G@ School :istrict &s' %ity of ontiac, 237 #W 373, 252 !ich' 334 F1233G/' !r' 6ustice $arredo, in his concurring opinion in said lebiscite %ases, e9pressed the &iew ;that when the people elected the delegates to the %on&ention and when the delegates the7sel&es were ca7paigning, such li7itation of the scope of their function and ob=ecti&e was not in their 7inds'; V 1273 %(#ST+T*T+(# :*)L A:( T": A#: R(!*)1AT":' etitioners ne9t clai7 that the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention ad=ourned on #o&e7ber 30, 1272 without officially pro7ulgating the said %onstitution in <ilipino as re0uired by Sections 3-1/ of Article KA on 1eneral ro&isions of the 1273 %onstitution' This clai7 is without 7erit because their Anne9 ;!; is the <ilipino &ersion of the 1273 %onstitution, liBe the "nglish &ersion, contains the certification by resident :iosdado !acapagal of the %onstitutional %on&ention, duly attested by its Secretary, that the proposed %onstitution, appro&ed on second reading on the 27th day of #o&e7ber, 1272 and on third reading in the %on&entionDs 221st plenary session on #o&e7ber 22, 1272 and accordingly signed on #o&e7ber 1272 by the delegates whose signatures are thereunder affi9ed' +t should be recalled that %onstitutional %on&ention resident :iosdado !acapagal was, as resident of the Republic 1252 to 125., then the titular head of the )iberal arty to which four -3/ of the petitioners in ),3515. including their counsel, for7er Senator 6o&ito Salonga, belong' Are they repudiating and disowning their for7er party leader and benefactorH V< ART+%)" KA (< 123. %(#ST+T*T+(# :("S #(T

R"S%R+$" A#L R(%":*R" <(R RAT+<+%AT+(# (< 1273 %(#ST+T*T+(#' -1/ Article KA of the 123. %onstitution si7ply pro&ides that ;such a7end7ents shall be &alid as part of this %onstitution when appro&ed by a 7a=ority of the &otes cast at an election at which the a7end7ents are sub7itted to the people for ratification'; $ut petitioners construe the aforesaid pro&ision to read8 ;Such a7end7ents shall be &alid as part of this %onstitution when appro&ed by a 7a=ority of the &otes cast at an election called *" +ongress at which the a7end7ents are sub7itted for ratification by the 9ualified electors defined in Article V )ereof, supervised *" t)e +ommission on &lections in accordance ,it) t)e e!isting election la, and after suc) amendments s)all )ave *een pu*lis)ed in all t)e ne,spapers of general circulation for at least four mont)s prior to suc) election'; This position certainly i7poses li7itation on the so&ereign people, who ha&e the sole power of ratification, which i7position by the %ourt is ne&er =ustified -Wheeler &s' $oard of Trustees, supra/' +n effect, petitioners and their counsels are a7ending by a strained and tortured construction Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' This is a clear case of usurpation of so&ereign power they do not possess E through so7e Bind of esca7otage' This %ourt should not co77it such a gra&e error in the guise of =udicial interpretation' +n all the cases where the court held that illegal or irregular sub7ission, due to absence of substantial co7pliance with the procedure prescribed by the %onstitution andJor the law, nullifies the proposed a7end7ent or the new %onstitution, the procedure prescribed by the state %onstitution is so detailed that it specifies that the sub7ission should be at a general or special election, or at the election for 7e7bers of the State legislature only or of all state officials only or of local officials only, or of both state and local officials@ fi9es the date of the election or plebiscite li7its the sub7ission to only electors or 0ualified electors@ prescribes the publication of the proposed a7end7ent or a new %onstitution for a specific period prior to the election or plebiscite@ and designates the officer to conduct the plebiscite, to can&ass and to certify the results, including the for7 of the ballot which should so state the substance of the proposed a7end7ents to enable the &oter to &ote on each a7end7ent separately or authori?es e9pressly the %onstitutional %on&ention or the legislature to deter7ine the procedure or certain details thereof' See the State %onstitutions of Alaba7a F1201G@ Ari?ona F1212G@ ArBansas F1473G@ %olorado F1275G@ %onnecticut F1414G@ <lorida F1447G@ 1eorgia F123.G@ +llinois F1270G@ +ndiana F14.1G@ +owa F14.7G@ Nansas F1451G@ NentucBy F1421G@ )ouisiana F1221G@ !aryland F1457G@ !assachusetts F1720G@ !ichigan F1202G@ !innesota F14.7G@ !ississippi F1420G@ and !issouri F123.G/' As typical e9a7ples8 %onstitution of Alaba7a -1201/8 Article KA+++' !ode of A7ending the %onstitution Sec' 243' )egislati&e roposals' A7end7ents 7ay be proposed to this %onstitution by the legislature in the 7anner following8 The proposed a7end7ents shall be read in the house in which they originate on three se&eral days, and, if upon the third reading, three,fifths of all the 7e7bers elected to that house shall &ote in fa&or thereof, the proposed a7end7ents shall be sent to the other house, in which they shall liBewise be read on three se&eral days, and if upon the third reading, three,fifths of all the 7e7bers elected that house shall &ote in fa&or of the proposed a7end7ents, the legislature s)all order an election *" t)e 9ualified electors of t)e state upon suc) proposed amendments, to *e )eld eit)er at t)e general election ne!t succeeding t)e session of the legislature at which the a7end7ents are proposed or upon anot)er da" appointed *" t)e legislature, not less t)an t)ree mont)s after t)e final ad6ournment of the session of the legislature at which the a7end7ents were proposed' 'otice of suc) election, together with the proposed a7end7ents, shall be gi&en by procla7ation of the go&ernor, ,)ic) s)all *e pu*lis)ed in ever" count" in such 7anner as the legislature shall direct, for at least eig)t successive ,ee#s ne!t preceding t)e da" appointed for suc) election ' (n the day so appointed an election shall be held for the &ote of the 0ualified electors of the state upon the proposed a7end7ents' +f such election be held on the day of the general election, the officers of such general election shall open a poll for the &ote of the 0ualified electors upon the proposed a7end7ents@ if it be held on a day other than that of a general election, officers for such election shall be appointed@ and the election shall be held in all things in accordance with the law go&erning general elections' +n all elections upon such proposed a7end7ents, t)e votes cast t)ereat s)all *e canvassed, ta*ulated, and returns t)ereof *e made to t)e secretar" of state, and counted, in the sa7e 7anner as in elections for representati&es to the legislature@ and if it shall thereupon appear that a 7a=ority of the 0ualified electors who &oted at such election upon the proposed a7end7ents &oted in fa&or of the sa7e, such a7end7ents shall be &alid to all intents and purposes as parts of this %onstitution' The result of such election shall be 7ade Bnown by procla7ation of the go&ernor' Representation in the legislature shall be based upon population, and such basis of representation shall not be changed by constitutional a7end7ents' Sec' 24.' <or7 of ballot for a7end7ent' *pon the ballots used at all elections pro&ided for in section 243 of this %onstitution, the substance or sub=ect 7atter of each proposed a7end7ent shall be so printed that the nature thereof shall be clearly indicated' <ollowing each proposed a7end7ent on the ballot shall be printed the word ;Les; and i77ediately under that shall be printed the word ;#o;' The choice of the elector shall be indicated by a cross 7arB 7ade by hi7 or under his direction, opposite the word

e9pressing his desire, and no a7end7ent shall be adopted unless it recei&es the affir7ati&e &ote of a 7a=ority of all the 0ualified electors who &ote at such election' %onstitution of ArBansas -1473/8 Article K+K' !iscellaneous ro&isions' Sec' 22' %onstitutional a7end7ents' "ither branch of the 1eneral Asse7bly at a regular session thereof 7ay propose a7end7ents to this %onstitution, and, if the sa7e be agreed to by a 7a=ority of all the 7e7bers, elected to each house, such proposed a7end7ents s)all *e entered on t)e 6ournal ,it) t)e "eas and na"s, and pu*lis)ed in at least one ne,spaper in eac) count", ,)ere a ne,spaper is pu*lis)ed, for si! mont)s immediatel" preceding t)e ne!t general election for Senators and Representatives, at ,)ic) time t)e same s)all *e su*mitted to t)e electors of t)e State for approval or re6ection, and if a 7a=ority of the electors &oting at such election adopt such a7end7ents, the sa7e shall beco7e a part of this %onstitution@ *ut no more t)an t)ree amendments s)all *e proposed or su*mitted at t)e same time. T)e" s)all *e so su*mitted as to ena*le t)e electors to vote on eac) amendment separatel"' %onstitution of Nansas -1451/8 Article K+A' A7end7ents' Sec' 1' roposal of a7end7ents@ publications@ elections' ropositions for the a7end7ent of this constitution 7ay be 7ade by either branch of the legislature@ and if two thirds of all the 7e7bers elected to each house shall concur therein, such proposed a7end7ents, together with the yeas and nays, shall be entered on the =ournal@ and the secretary of state shall cause the sa7e to be published in at least one newspaper in each county of the state where a newspaper is published, for three 7onths preceding the ne9t election for representati&es, at which ti7e, the sa7e shall be sub7itted to the electors, for their appro&al or re=ection@ and if a 7a=ority of the electors &oting on said a7end7ents, at said election, shall adopt the a7end7ents, the sa7e shall beco7e a part of the constitution' When 7ore than one a7end7ent shall be sub7itted at the sa7e ti7e, they shall be so sub7itted as to enable the electors to &ote on each a7end7ents separately@ and not 7ore than three propositions to a7end shall be sub7itted at the sa7e election' %onstitution of !aryland -1457/8 Article K+A' A7end7ents to the %onstitution' Sec' 1' roposal in general asse7bly@ publication@ sub7ission to &oters@ go&ernorDs procla7ation' The 1eneral Asse7bly 7ay propose A7end7ents to this %onstitution@ pro&ided that each A7end7ent shall be e7braced in a separate bill, e7bodying the Article or Section, as the sa7e will stand when a7ended and passed by three fifths of all the 7e7bers elected to each of the two Couses, by yeas and nays, to be entered on the 6ournals with the proposed A7end7ent' The bill or bills proposing a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall be published by order of the 1o&ernor, in at least two newspapers, in each %ounty, where so 7any 7ay be published, and where not 7ore than one 7ay be published, then in the newspaper, and in three newspapers published in the %ity of $alti7ore, once a weeB for four weeBs i77ediately preceding the ne9t ensuing general election, at which the proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall be sub7itted, in a for7 to be prescribed by the 1eneral Asse7bly, to the 0ualified &oters of the State for adoption or re=ection' The &otes cast for and against said proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents, se&erally, shall be returned to the 1o&ernor, in the 7anner prescribed in other cases, and if it shall appear to the 1o&ernor that a 7a=ority of the &otes cast at said election on said a7end7ent or a7end7ents, se&erally, were cast in fa&or thereof, the 1o&ernor shall, by his procla7ation, declare the said a7end7ent or a7end7ents ha&ing recei&ed said 7a=ority of &otes, to ha&e been adopted by the people of !aryland as part of the %onstitution thereof, and henceforth said a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall be part of the said %onstitution' When two or 7ore a7end7ents shall be sub7itted in the 7anner aforesaid, to the &oters of this State at the sa7e election, they shall be so sub7itted as that each a7end7ent shall be &oted on separately' %onstitution of !issouri -123./8 Article K++' A7ending the %onstitution' Sec' 2-b/' Sub7ission of a7end7ents proposed by general asse7bly or by the initiati&e' All a7end7ents proposed by the general asse7bly or by the initiati&e shall be sub7itted to the electors for their appro&al or re=ection by official ballot title as 7ay be pro&ided by law, on a separate ballot without party designation, at the ne9t general election, or at a special election called by the go&ernor prior thereto, at which he 7ay sub7it any of the a7end7ents' #o such proposed a7end7ent shall contain 7ore than one a7ended and re&ised article of this constitution, or one new article which shall not contain 7ore than

one sub=ect and 7atters properly connected therewith' +f possible, each proposed a7end7ent shall be published once a weeB for two consecuti&e weeBs in two newspapers of different political faith in each county, the last publication to be not 7ore than thirty nor less than fifteen days ne9t preceding the election' +f there be but one newspaper in any county, publication of four consecuti&e weeBs shall be 7ade' +f a 7a=ority of the &otes cast thereon is in fa&or of any a7end7ent, the sa7e shall taBe effect at the end of thirty days after the election' !ore than one a7end7ent at the sa7e election shall be so sub7itted as to enable the electors to &ote on each a7end7ent separately' Article KA of the 123. %onstitution does not re0uire a specific procedure, 7uch less a detailed procedure for sub7ission or ratification' As heretofore stated, it does not specify what Bind of election at which the new %onstitution shall be sub7itted@ nor does it designate the %o77ission on "lections to super&ise the plebiscite' #either does it li7it the ratification to the 0ualified electors as defined in Article A of the 123. %onstitution' !uch less does it re0uire the publication of the proposed %onstitution for any specific period before the plebiscite nor does it e&en insinuate that the plebiscite should be super&ised in accordance with the e9isting election law' -2/ As afore0uoted, Article KA does not indicate the procedure for sub7ission of the proposed %onstitution to the people for ratification' +t does not 7aBe any reference to the %o77ission on "lections as the body that shall super&ise the plebiscite' And Article KA could not 7aBe any reference to the %o77ission on "lections because the original 123. %onstitution as ratified on !ay 13, 123. by the people did not contain Article K on the %o77ission on "lections, which article was included therein pursuant to an a7end7ent by that #ational Asse7bly proposed only about fi&e -./ years later E on April 11, 1230, ratified by the people on 6une 14, 1230 as appro&ed by the resident of the *nited States on :ece7ber 1230 -see Su7ulong &s' %o77ission, 70 hil' 703, 713, 71.@ 1on?ales, hil' %onst' )aw, 1255 ed', p' 13/' So it cannot be said that the original fra7ers of the 123. %onstitution as ratified !ay 13, 123. intended that a body Bnown as the %o77ission on "lections should be the one to super&ise the plebiscite, because the %o77ission on "lections was not in e9istence then as was created only by %o77onwealth Act #o' 507 appro&ed on August 22, 1230 and a7ended by %o77onwealth Act #o' 5.7 appro&ed on 6une 21, 1231 -see Ta>ada P %arreon, olitical )aw of the hilippines, Aol' +, 1251 ed', pp' 37.,375@ Su7ulong &s' %o77ission, 170 hil' 703, 704, 71.@ 73 hil' 244, 220,300@ Ta>ada P <ernando, %onstitution of the hilippines, 12.3 ed', Aol' +, p' ., Aol' ++, pp' 11,12/' $ecause before August, 1230 the %o77ission on "lection was not yet in e9istence, the for7er :epart7ent of +nterior -now :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents and %o77unity :e&elop7ent/ super&ised the plebiscites on the 1237 a7end7ent on wo7anDs suffrage, the 1232 a7end7ent to the (rdinance appended to the 123. %onstitution -Tydings,NocialBowsBi Act of the *'S' %ongress/ and the three 1230 a7end7ents on the establish7ent of a bica7eral %ongress, the re,election of the resident and the Aice, resident, and the creation of the %o77ission on "lections -ratified on 6une 14, 1230/' The super&ision of said plebiscites by the then :epart7ent of +nterior was not auto7atic, but by &irtue of an e9press authori?ation in %o77onwealth Act #os' 33, 32 and .17' +f the #ational Asse7bly then intended that the %o77ission on "lections should also super&ise the plebiscite for ratification of constitutional a7end7ents or re&ision, it should ha&e liBewise proposed the corresponding a7end7ent to Article KA by pro&iding therein that the plebiscite on a7end7ents shall be super&ised by the %o77ission on "lections' 3/ +f the fra7ers of the 123. %onstitution and the people in ratifying the sa7e on !ay 13, 123. wanted that only the 0ualified &oters under Article A of the 123. %onstitution should participate in the referendu7 on any a7end7ent or re&ision thereof, they could ha&e pro&ided the sa7e in 123. or in the 1230 a7end7ent by =ust adding a few words to Article KA by changing the last phrase to ;sub7itted for ratification to the 0ualified electors as defined in Article A hereof,; or so7e such si7ilar phrases' Then again, the ter7 ;people; in Article KA cannot be understood to e9clusi&ely refer to the 0ualified electors under Article A of the 123. %onstitution because the said ter7 ;people; as used in se&eral pro&isions of the 123. %onstitution, does not ha&e a unifor7 7eaning' Thus in the prea7ble, the ter7 ;<ilipino people; refer, to all <ilipino citi?ens of all ages of both se9es' +n Section 1 of Article ++ on the :eclaration of rinciples, the ter7 ;people; in who7 so&ereignty resides and fro7 who7 all go&ern7ent authority e7anates, can only refer also to <ilipino citi?ens of all ages and of both se9es' $ut in Section . of the sa7e Article ++ on social =ustice, the ter7 ;people; co7prehends not only <ilipino citi?ens but also all aliens residing in the country of all ages and of both se9es' )iBewise, that is the sa7e connotation of the ter7 ;people; e7ployed in Section 1-3/ of Article +++ on the $ill of Rights concerning searches and sei?ures' When the 123. %onstitution wants to li7it action or the e9ercise of a right to the electorate, it does so e9pressly as the case of the election of senators and congress7en' Section 2 Article A+ e9pressly pro&ides that the senators ;shall be chosen at large by the 0ualified electors of the hilippines as 7ay pro&ided by law'; Section . of the sa7e Article A+ specifically pro&ides that congress7en shall ;be elected by the 0ualified electors'; The only pro&ision that see7s to sustain the theory of petitioners that the ter7 ;people; in Article KA should refer to the 0ualified electors as defined in Article A of the 123. %onstitution is the pro&ision that the resident and Aice, resident shall be elected ;by direct &ote of the people'; -Sec' 2 of Art' A++ of the 123. %onstitution/' $ut this alone cannot be conclusi&e as to such construction, because of e9plicit pro&isions of Sections 2 and . of Article A+, which specifically prescribes that the senators and congress7en shall be elected by the 0ualified electors' As aforesaid, 7ost of the constitutions of the &arious states of the *nited States, specifically delineate in detail procedure of ratification of a7end7ents to or re&ision of said %onstitutions and e9pressly re0uire ratification by 0ualified electors, not by the generic ter7 ;people;'

The proposal sub7itted to the (?a7is %o77ittee on the A7ending rocess of the 1233,3. %onstitutional %on&ention satisfied t)at t)e amendment s)all *e su*mitted to 9ualified election for ratification. T)is proposal ,as not accepted indicating t)at t)e 4;2H125 +onstitutional +onvention did intend to limit t)e term ?people? in Article :V of t)e 4;25 +onstitution to 9ualified electors onl"' As abo&e de7onstrated, the 1233,3. %onstitutional %on&ention li7its the use of the ter7 ;0ualified electors; to elections of public officials' +t did not want to tie the hands of succeeding future constitutional con&entions as to who should ratify the proposed a7end7ent or re&ision' -3/ +t is not e9actly correct to opine that Article KA of 123. %onstitution on constitutional a7end7ent conte7plates the auto7atic applicability of election laws to plebiscites on proposed constitutional a7end7ents or re&ision' The &ery phraseology of the specific laws enacted by the #ational Asse7bly and later by %ongress, indicates that there is need of a statute e9pressly authori?ing the application of the election laws to plebiscites of this nature' Thus, %o7' Act #o' 33 on the wo7anDs suffrage a7end7ent enacted on Septe7ber 30, 1235, consists of 12 sections and, aside fro7 pro&iding that ;there shall be held a ple*iscite on =rida", April 27, 4;2E, on the 0uestion of wo7anDs suffrage ''' and that said a7end7ent s)all *e pu*lis)ed in the (fficial 1a?ette in "nglish and Spanish for three consecuti&e issues at least fifteen B45C da"s prior to said election, ... and s)all *e posted in a conspicuous place in its municipal and provincial office *uilding and in its polling place not later t)an April 88, 4;2E; -Sec' 12, %o7' Act #o' 33/, specifies that the pro&isions of the "lection )aw regarding, the holding of aspecial election, insofar as said pro&isions are not in conflict with it, should apply to the said plebiscite -Sec' 3, %o7' Act #o' 33/1@ and, that the &otes cast according to the returns of the board of inspectors s)all *e counted *" t)e 'ational Assem*l" -Sec' 10, %o7' Act #o' 33/' The election laws then in force before 1234 were found in Sections 322,343 of the Re&ised Ad7inistrati&e %ode' Sec' 1 of %o7' Act #o' 3.7, the pre&ious "lection %ode enacted on August 22, 1234, 7aBes it e9pressly applicable to plebiscites' Let the subse0uent laws, na7ely, %o7' Act #os' 322 and .17 and Rep' Act #o' 73 calling for the plebiscite on the constitutional a7end7ents in 1232, 1230 and 1235, including the a7end7ent creating the %o77ission on "lections, specifically pro&ided that the pro&isions of the e9isting election law shall apply to such plebiscites insofar as they are not inconsistent with the aforesaid %o7' Act #os' 322 and .17, as well as Rep' Act #o' 73' Thus E %o77onwealth Act #o' 322, enacted on Septe7ber 12, 1232, calling for a plebiscite on the proposed a7end7ents to the %onstitution adopted by the #ational Asse7bly on Septe7ber 1., 1232, consists of 4 sections and pro&ides that the proposed a7end7ents to the %onstitution adopted in Resolution #o' 32 on Septe7ber 1., 1232 ;shall be sub7itted to the <ilipino people for appro&al or disappro&al at a general election to be held throughout the hilippines on Tuesday, (ctober 23, 1232;@ that the a7end7ents to said %onstitution proposed in ;Res' #o' 34, adopted on the sa7e date, shall be sub7itted at following election of local officials,; -Sec' 1, %o7' Act #o' 322/ that the said a7end7ents shall be published in "nglish and Spanish in three consecuti&e issues of the (fficial 1a?ette at least ten B47C da"s prior to t)e elections @ that copies thereof shall be posted not later than (ctober 20, 1232 -Sec' 2, %o7' Act 322/@ that the election shall be conducted according to provisions of t)e &lection +ode insofar as t)e same ma" *e applica*le @ that within thirty -30/ days after the election, Spea#er of t)e 'ational Assem*l" s)all re9uest t)e $resident to call a special session of t)e Assem*l" for the purpose of can&assing the returns and certify the results thereof -Sec' 5, %o7' Act #o' 322/' %o77onwealth Act #o' .17, consisting of 11 sections, was appro&ed on April 2., 1230 and pro&ided, a7ong others8 that the plebiscite on the constitutional a7end7ents pro&iding bica7eral %ongress, re,election of the resident and Aice, resident, and the creation of a %o77ission on "lections shall be held at a general election on 6une 14, 1230 -Sec' 1/@ that said a7end7ents shall be published in three consecuti&e issues of the (fficial 1a?ette in "nglish and Spanish at least 20 days prior to the election and posted in e&ery local go&ern7ent office building and polling place not later than !ay 14, 1230 -Sec' 2/@ that the election shall be conducted in confor7ity with the "lection %ode insofar as the sa7e 7ay be applicable -Sec' 3/ that copies of the returns shall be forwarded to the Secretary of #ational Asse7bly and the Secretary of +nterior -Sec' 7/@ that the #ational Asse7bly shall can&ass the returns to certify the results at a special session to be called by resident -Sec' 4/' Republic Act #o' 73 appro&ed on (ctober 21, 1235 calling for a plebiscite on the parity a7end7ent consists of 4 sections pro&ides that the A7end7ent ;shall be sub7itted to the people, for appro&al or disappro&al, at a general election which shall be held on Marc) 44, 4;HE, in accordance with the pro&isions of this Act; -Sec' 1, R'A' #o' 73/@ that the said a7end7ent shall be pu*lis)ed in "nglish and Spanish in three consecuti&e issues of the (fficial 1a?ette at least 87 da"s prior to t)e election@ that copies of the sa7e shall be posted in a conspicuous place and in e&ery polling place not later t)an =e*ruar" 44, 4;HE -Section 2, R'A' #o' 73/@ t)at t)e provisions of +om. Act 'o. 25E B&lection +odeC and %o7' Act #o' 5.7 creating the %o77ission on "lections, s)all appl" to t)e election insofar as t)e" are not inconsistent ,it) t)is Act -Sec' 3, R'A' #o' 73/@ and that within 30 days after the election, the Senate and Couse of Representati&es shall hold a =oint session to can&ass the returns and certify the results thereof -Section 5, R'A' #o' 73/' <ro7 the foregoing pro&isions, it is patent that Article KA of the 123. %onstitution does not conte7plate nor en&ision the auto7atic application of the election law@ and e&en at that, not all the pro&isions of the election law were 7ade applicable because the &arious laws aforecited contain se&eral pro&isions which are inconsistent with the pro&isions of the Re&ised "lection %ode -%o7' Act #o' 3.7/' !oreo&er, it should be noted that the period for the publication of the copies of the proposed a7end7ents was about 10 days, 1. days or 20 days, and for posting at least 3 days, 4 days or 30 days' Republic Acts #os' 140 and 5344 liBewise e9pressly pro&ide that the "lection %ode shall apply to plebiscites -See' 2, R'A' #o'

140, as a7ended, and Section 2, Rep' Act #o' 5344/' +f the "lection %ode ipso facto applies to plebiscites under Article KA of the 123. %onstitution, there would be no need for %ongress to e9pressly pro&ide therefor in the election laws enacted after the inauguration of the %o77onwealth go&ern7ent under the 123. %onstitution' -./ Article KA of the 123. %onstitution does not specify who can &ote and how they shall &ote' *nliBe the &arious State %onstitutions of the A7erican *nion -with few e9ceptions/, Article KA does not state that only 0ualified electors can &ote in the plebiscite' As abo&e,inti7ated, 7ost of the %onstitutions of the &arious states of the *nited States pro&ide for &ery detailed a7ending process and specify that only 0ualified electors can &ote at such plebiscite or election' %ongress itself, in enacting Republic Act #o' 3.20, otherwise Bnown as the $arrio %harter, which was appro&ed on 6une 17, 1257 and superseded Republic Act #o' 2370, e9panded the 7e7bership of the barrio asse7bly to include citi?ens who are at least 14 years of age, whether literate or not, pro&ided they are also residents of the barrio for at least 5 7onths -Sec' 3, R'A' #o' 3.20/' Sec' 3' The barrio asse7bly' E The barrio asse7bly shall consist of all persons who are residents of the barrio for at least si9 7onths, eig)teen "ears of age or over, citi?ens of the Republic of the hilippines and who are dul" registered in t)e list of *arrio assem*l" mem*ers Bept by the $arrio Secretary' The *arrio assem*l" s)all meet at least once a "ear to )ear t)e annual report of t)e *arrio council concerning t)e activities and finances of t)e *arrio ' +t shall 7eet also at the case of the barrio council or upon written petition of at least (ne,Tenth of the 7e7bers of the barrio asse7bly' #o 7eeting of the barrio asse7bly shall taBe place unless notice is gi&en one weeB prior to the 7eeting e9cept in 7atters in&ol&ing public safety or security in which case notice within a reasonable ti7e shall be sufficient' The barrio captain, or in his absence, the council7an acting as barrio captain, or an" assem*l" mem*er selected during t)e meeting, s)all act as presiding officer at all meetings of t)e *arrio assem*l" ' The barrio secretary or in his absence, an" mem*er designated *" t)e presiding officer to act as secretar" s)all disc)arge t)e duties of secretar" of t)e *arrio assem*l" ' <or the purpose of conducting business and taBing any official action in the barrio asse7bly, it is necessary that at least one1fift) of t)e mem*ers of t)e *arrio assem*l" *e present to constitute a 9uorum. All actions s)all re9uire a ma6orit" vote of t)ese present at t)e meeting t)ere *eing a 9uorum ' Sec' .' owers of the barrio asse7bly' E The powers of the barrio asse7bly shall be as follows8 a' To reco77end to the barrio council the adoption of 7easures for the welfare of the barrio@ b' To decide on the holding of a plebiscite as pro&ided for in Section 5 of this Act@ c' To act on budgetary and supple7ental appropriations and special ta9 ordinances sub7itted for its appro&al by the barrio council@ and d' To hear the annual report council concerning the acti&ities and finances of the asse7bly' Sec' 5' lebiscite' E A plebiscite 7ay be held in the barrio when authori?ed by a 7a=ority &ote of the 7e7bers present in the barrio asse7bly, there being a 0uoru7, or when called by at least four 7e7bers of the barrio council@ ro&ided, howe&er, That no plebiscite shall be held until after thirty days fro7 its appro&al by either body, and such plebiscite has been gi&en the widest publicity in the barrio, stating the date, ti7e, and place thereof, the 0uestions or issues to be decided, action to be taBen by the &oters, and such other infor7ation rele&ant to the holding of the plebiscite' All dul" registered *arrio assem*l" mem*ers 9ualified to vote ma" vote in t)e ple*iscite. Voting procedures ma" *e made eit)er in ,riting as in regular election, andIor declaration *" t)e voters to the board of election tellers' The board of election tellers shall be the sa7e board en&isioned by section 4, paragraph 2 of this Act, in case of &acancies in this body, the barrio council 7ay fill the sa7e' A ple*iscite ma" *e called to decide on t)e recall of an" mem*er of t)e *arrio council ' A plebiscite shall be called to approve an" *udgetar", supplemental appropriations or special ta! ordinances ' =or ta#ing action on an" of t)e a*ove enumerated measures, ma6orit" vote of all t)e *arrio assem*l"

mem*ers registered in t)e list of *arrio secretar" is necessar" ' 999 999 999 Sec 10' Iualifications of &oters and candidates' E "&ery citi?en of the hilippines, twenty,one years of age or o&er, able to read and write, who has been a resident of the barrio during the si9 7onths i77ediately preceding the election, duly registered in the list of &oters Bept by the barrio secretary, who is not otherwise dis0ualified, ma" vote or *e a candidate in t)e *arrio elections ' The following persons shall not be 0ualified to &ote8 a' Any person who has been sentenced by final =udg7ent to suffer one year or 7ore of i7prison7ent, within two years after ser&ice of his sentence@ b' Any person who has &iolated his allegiance to the Republic of the hilippines@ and c' +nsane or feeble,7inded persons' All these barrio asse7bly 7e7bers, who are at least 14 years of age, although illiterate, 7ay &ote at the plebiscite on the recall of any 7e7ber of the barrio council or on a budgetary, supple7ental appropriation, or special ordinances, a &alid action on which re0uires ;a 7a=ority &ote of all of the barrio asse7bly 7e7bers registered in the list of the barrio secretary; -par' ., Sec' 5, R'A' #o' 3.20/' Such plebiscite 7ay be authori?ed by a 7a=ority &ote of the 7e7bers present in the barrio asse7bly, there being a 0uoru7 -par' 1, Sec' 5/' Cowe&er, in the case of election of barrio officials, only <ilipino citi?ens, who are at least 21 years of age, able to read and write, residents of the barrio during the 5 7onths i77ediately preceding the election and duly registered in the list of &oters Bept by the barrio secretary, not otherwise dis0ualified, 7ay &ote -Sec' 10, R'A' #o' 3.20/' aragraph 2 of Section 5 liBewise authori?es open &oting as it pro&ides that ;&oting procedures 7ay be 7ade ''' either in writing as in regular elections, andJor declaration *" t)e voters to the board of election tellers'; That said paragraph 2 of Section 5 pro&ides that ;all duly registered barrio asse7bly 7e7bers 0ualified to &ote 7ay &ote in the plebiscite,; cannot sustain the position of petitioners in 1'R' #o' ),3515. that only those who are 21 years of age and abo&e and who possess all other 0ualifications of a &oter under Section 10 of R'A' #o' 3.20, can &ote on the plebiscites referred to in Section 5@ because paragraph 3 of Section 5 does not e9pressly li7it the &oting to those with the 0ualifications under Section 10 as said Section 5 does not distinguish between those who are 21 or abo&e on the one hand and those 14 or abo&e but below 21 on the other, and whether literate or not, to constitute a 0uoru7 of the barrio asse7bly' %onse0uently, on 0uestions sub7itted for plebiscite, all the registered 7e7bers of the barrio asse7bly can &ote as long as they are 14 years of age or abo&e@ and that only those who are 21 years of age or o&er and can read and write, can &ote in the elections of barrio officials' (therwise there was no sense in e9tending 7e7bership in the barrio asse7bly to those who are at least 14 years of age, whether literate or not' Republic Act #o' 3.20 could si7ply ha&e restated Section 3 of Republic Act #o' 2370, the old $arrio %harter, which pro&ided that only those who are 21 and abo&e can be 7e7bers of the barrio asse7bly' %ounsels Salonga and Ta>ada as well as all the petitioners in ),3515. and two of the petitioners in ),35153 participated in the enact7ent of Republic Act #o' 3.20 and should ha&e Bnown the intend7ent of %ongress in e9panding the 7e7bership of the barrio asse7bly to include all those 14 years of age and abo&e, whether literate or not' +f %ongress in the e9ercise of its ordinary legislati&e power, not as a constituent asse7bly, can include 14,year olds as 0ualified electors for barrio plebiscites, this prerogati&e can also be e9ercised by the %hief "9ecuti&e as delegate of the %onstitutional %on&ention in regard to the plebiscite on the 1273 %onstitution' As heretofore stated, the state7ent by the resident in residential rocla7ation #o' 1102 that the 1273 %onstitution was o&erwhel7ingly ratified by the people through the %iti?ensD Asse7blies in a referendu7 conducted fro7 6anuary 10 to 1., 1273, should be accorded the presu7ption of correctness@ because the sa7e was based on the certification by the Secretary of the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent who tabulated the results of the referendu7 all o&er the country' The accuracy of such tabulation and certification by the said :epart7ent Secretary should liBewise be presu7ed@ because it was done in the regular perfor7ance of his official functions aside fro7 the fact that the act of the :epart7ent Secretary, as an alter ego of the resident, is presu7pti&ely the act of the resident hi7self unless the latter disappro&es or reprobates the sa7e -Aillena &s' Secretary of +nterior, 57 hil' 3.1 /' The truth of the certification by the :epart7ent Secretary and the %hief "9ecuti&e on the results of the referendu7, is further strengthened by the affida&its and certifications of 1o&ernor +sidro Rodrigue? of Ri?al, !ayor #orberto S' A7oranto of Iue?on %ity and %ouncilor "duardo T' arades of Iue?on %ity' The procedure for the ratification of the 1237 a7end7ent on wo7an suffrage, the 1232 a7end7ent to the ordinance appended to the 123. %onstitution, the 1230 a7end7ents establishing the bica7eral %ongress, creating the %o77ission on "lections and

pro&iding for two consecuti&e ter7s for the resident, and the 1237 parity a7end7ent, cannot be in&oBed@ because those a7end7ents were proposed by the #ational Asse7bly as e9pressly authori?ed by Article A of the 123. %onstitution respecting wo7an suffrage and as a constituent asse7bly in all the other a7end7ents afore7entioned and therefore as such, %ongress had also the authority to prescribe the procedure for the sub7ission of the proposed a7end7ents to the 123. %onstitution' +n the cases at bar, the 1273 %onstitution was proposed by an independent %onstitutional %on&ention, which as heretofore discussed, has the e0ual power to prescribe the 7odality for the sub7ission of the 1273 %onstitution to the people for ratification or delegate the sa7e to the resident of the Republic' The certification of 1o&ernor +sidro Rodrigue? of Ri?al and !ayor #orberto A7oranto could be utili?ed as the basis for the e9trapolation of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies in all the other pro&inces, cities and 7unicipalities in all the other pro&inces, cities and 7unicipalities, and the affir7ati&e &otes in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies resulting fro7 such e9trapolation would still constitute a 7a=ority of the total &otes cast in fa&or of the 1273 %onstitution' As clai7ed by petitioners in ),3515., against the certification of the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent that in Ri?al there were 1,125,000 Les &otes and 100,310 #o &otes, the certification of 1o&ernor +sidro Rodrigue? of Ri?al, shows only 513,1.7 Les &otes against 222,.30 #o &otes' +n %a&ite pro&ince, there were 232,442 Les &otes against 12,252 #o &otes as disclosed in Anne9 1,A of respondentsD %o7pliance -the certification by the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent/, while the alleged certification of 1o&ernor )ino $ocalan of %a&ite shows only 125,153 Les &otes and .,.77 #o &otes' +f such a ratio is e9tended by way of e9trapolation to the other pro&inces, cities and towns of the country, the result would still be an o&erwhel7ing &ote in fa&or of the 1273 %onstitution' The alleged certification by 1o&ernor )ino $ocalan of %a&ite, is not true@ because in his duly acBnowledged certification dated !arch 15, 1273, he states that since the declaration of 7artial law and up to the present ti7e, he has been under house arrest in his residence in *rdaneta Aillage, !aBati, Ri?al@ that he ne&er participated in the conduct of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies on 6anuary 10 1., 1273 in the pro&ince of %a&ite@ that the acting chair7an and coordinator of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies at that ti7e was Aice, 1o&ernor :o7inador %a7erino@ and that he was shown a letter for his signature during the conduct of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies, which he did not sign but which he referred to Aice,1o&ernor %a7erino -Anne9 1,Re=oinder of the Sol' 1en' dated !arch 20, 1273/' !ayor ablo %uneta liBewise e9ecuted an affida&it dated !arch 15, 1273 stating that on 6anuary 1., 1273, he caused the preparation of a letter addressed to Secretary 6ose Ro>o of the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent showing the results of the referendu7 in asay %ity@ that on the sa7e day, there were still in any %iti?ensD Asse7blies holding referendu7 in asay %ity, for which reason he did not send the aforesaid letter pending sub7ittal of the other results fro7 the said %iti?ensD Asse7blies@ and that in the afternoon of 6anuary 1., 1273, he indorsed the co7plete certificate of results on the referendu7 in asay %ity to the (ffice of the resident -Anne9 .,Re=oinder of Sol' 1en' dated !arch 20, 1273/' ablo <' Sa7onte, Assistant %ity Treasurer and (fficer in %harge of asay %ity also issued an affida&it dated !arch 1., 1273 stating that a certain Atty' :elia Sutton of the Salonga )aw (ffice asBed hi7 for the results of the referendu7@ that he infor7ed her that he had in his possession unsigned copies of such results which 7ay not be considered official as they had then no Bnowledge whether the original thereof had been signed by the 7ayor@ and that in spite of his ad&ice that said unsigned copies were not official, she re0uested hi7 if she could gi&e her the unofficial copies thereof, which he ga&e in good faith -Anne9 %, Re=oinder to the Sol' 1en'/' There were 114,010 Les &otes as against .,.44 #o &otes in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies of Iue?on city -Anne9 A to etitionersD #otes in ),3515./' The fact that a certain !rs' Re7edio 1utierre?, wife of alleged barrio treasurer <austino 1utierre?, of barrio South Triangle, Iue?on %ity, states that ;as far as we Bnow, there has been no %iti?ensD Asse7bly 7eeting in our Area, particularly in 6anuary of this year,; does not necessarily 7ean that there was no such 7eeting in said barrio@ for she 7ay not ha&e been notified thereof and as a result she was not able to attend said 7eeting' !uch less can it be a basis for the clai7 that there was no 7eeting at all in the other barrios of Iue?on %ity' The barrio captain or the secretary of the barrio asse7bly could ha&e been a credible witness' %ouncilor "duardo T' aredes, chair7an of the Secretariat of Iue?on %ity Ratification and %oordinating %ouncil, certified on !arch 12, 1273 that as such chair7an he was in charge of the co7pilation and tabulation of the results of the referendu7 a7ong the %iti?ensD Asse7blies in Iue?on %ity based on the results sub7itted to the Secretariat by the different %iti?ensD Asse7blies@ but 7any results of the referendu7 were sub7itted direct to the national agencies ha&ing to do with such acti&ity and all of which he has no Bnowledge, participation and control -Anne9 3 Re=oinder of the Sol' 1en'/' 1o&ernor +sidro Rodrigue? of Ri?al issued a certification dated !arch 15, 1273 that he prepared a letter to the resident dated 6anuary 1., 1273 infor7ing hi7 of the results of the referendu7 in Ri?al, in co7pliance with the instruction of the #ational Secretariat to sub7it such letter 2 or 3 days fro7 6anuary 10 to show the trend of &oting in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies@ that the figures 513,1.7 and 222,.30 7entioned in said letter were based on the certificates of results in his possession as of 6anuary 13, 1273, which results were 7ade the basis of the co7putation of the percentage of voting trend in t)e province> t)at )is letter ,as never intended to s)o, t)e final or complete result in t)e referendum in t)e province as said referendum ,as t)en still going on from Januar" 4H14E, 4;E2, for ,)ic) reason t)e said letter merel" stated t)at it ,as onl" a ?summar" result?> and that after 6anuary 1., 1273, he sent to the #ational Secretariat all the certificates of results in 25 7unicipalities of Ri?al for final tabulation -Anne9 3,Re=oinder of the Sol' 1en'@ e7phasis supplied/'

)ydia !' "ncarnacion, acting chief of the Records Section, :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent, issued a certificate dated !arch 15, 1273 that she was shown 9ero9 copies of unsigned letters allegedly co7ing fro7 1o&ernor )ino $ocalan dated 6anuary 1., 1273 and 7arBed ;Re=oinder Anne9 %a&ite; addressed to the resident of the hilippines through the Secretary of the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent and another unsigned letter reportedly fro7 !ayor ablo %uneta dated 6anuary 1., 1273 and 7arBed ;Re=oinder Anne9 asay %ity; addressed to the Secretary of the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent@ that both 9ero9 copies of the unsigned letters contain figures showing the results of the referendu7 of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies in those areas@ and that the said letters were not recei&ed by her office and that her records do not show any such docu7ents recei&ed by her office -Anne9 2,Re=oinder of the Sol' 1en'/' Thus it would see7 that petitioners in ),3515. ha&e atte7pted to decei&e this %ourt by representing said unsigned letters andJor certificates as duly signed andJor containing the co7plete returns of the &oting in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies' The obser&ation We 7ade with respect to the discrepancy between the nu7ber of Les &otes and #o &otes contained in the su77ary report of 1o&ernor Rodrigue? of Ri?al as well as those contained in the alleged report of 1o&ernor )ino $ocalan of %a&ite who repudiated the sa7e as not ha&ing been signed by hi7 for he was then under house arrest, on the one hand, and the nu7ber of &otes certified by the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent, on the other, to the effect that e&en assu7ing the correctness of the figures insisted on by counsel for petitioners in ),3515., if they were e9trapolated and applied to the other pro&inces and cities of the country, the Les &otes would still be o&erwhel7ingly greater than the #o &otes, applies e0ually to the alleged discrepancy between the figures contained in the certification of the Secretary of the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent and the figures furnished to counsel for petitioners in ),3515. concerning the referendu7 in %a7arines Sur, $ataan and #egros (ccidental' The fact that the referendu7 in the 7unicipality of asacao, %a7arines Sur, shows that there were 7ore &otes in favor of t)e ple*iscite to *e )eld later than those against, only ser&e to e7phasi?e that there was freedo7 of &oting a7ong the 7e7bers of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies all o&er the country during the referendu7 fro7 6anuary 10 to 1., 1273 -Anne9,5 %a7arines Sur to Re=oinder of etitioners in ),3515./' +f there was no such freedo7 of choice, those who wanted a plebiscite would not outnu7ber those against holding such plebiscite' The letter of 1o&ernor <eli9 (' Alfelor, Sr' dated 6anuary 1273 confir7s the ;strong 7anifestation of appro&al of the new %onstitution by al7ost 27Q by the 7e7bers of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies in %a7arines Sur; -Anne9,%a7arines Sur to Re=oinder of etitioners in ),3515./' The report of 1o&ernor "fren $' ascual of $ataan shows that the 7e7bers of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies &oted o&erwhel7ingly in fa&or of the new %onstitution despite the fact that the second set of 0uestions including the 0uestion ;:o you appro&e of the new %onstitutionH; was recei&ed only on 6anuary 10' ro&incial 1o&ernor ascual stated that ;orderly conduct and fa&orable results of the referendu7; were due not only to the coordinated efforts and cooperation of all teachers and go&ern7ent e7ployees in the area but also to the enthusiastic participation by the people, showing ;their preference and readiness to accept this new 7ethod of go&ern7ent to people consultation in shaping up go&ern7ent policies'; -Anne9,$ataan to Re=oinder of etitioners in ),3515./' As heretofore stated, it is not necessary that &oters ratifying the new %onstitution are registered in the booB of &oters@ it is enough that they are electors &oting on the new %onstitution -$ott &s' Wurts, 30 A 730 F1424G@ 33 A 733, 441 F1422G@ 3. )RA 2.1/' The fact that the nu7ber of actual &oters in the referendu7 in certain localities 7ay e9ceed the nu7ber of &oters actually registered for the 1271 elections, can only 7ean that the e9cess represents the 0ualified &oters who are not yet registered including those who are at least 1. years of age and the illiterates' Although e9,con&icts 7ay ha&e &oted also in the referendu7, so7e of the7 7ight ha&e been granted absolute pardon or were sentenced to less than one year i7prison7ent to 0ualify the7 to &ote -Sec' 201, 1271 Re&' "lection %ode/' At any rate, the e9,con&icts constitute a negligible nu7ber, discounting which would not tilt the scale in fa&or of the negati&e &otes' Si7ilarly, the fact that !ayor !arcial <' Sa7son of %aloocan %ity, who belongs to the )iberal arty, stated in his letter dated !arch 13, 1273 that he does not ;feel authori?ed by the proper authorities to confir7 or deny the data; concerning the nu7ber of participants, the Les &otes and #o &otes in the referendu7 on the new %onstitution a7ong the 7e7bers of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies in %aloocan %ity, does not necessarily gi&e rise to the inference that !ayor Sa7son of %aloocan %ity is being inti7idated, ha&ing been recently released fro7 detention@ because in the sa7e letter of !ayor Sa7son, he suggested to counsel for petitioners in ),3515. that he can secure ;the true and legiti7ate results of the referendu7; fro7 the (ffice of the resident -Anne9 %aloocan,$ to Re=oinder of etitioners in ),3515./' Why did not learned and e7inent counsel heed such suggestionH %ounsel for petitioners in ),3515., to sustain their position, relies hea&ily on the co7putation of the esti7ated turno&er in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies referendu7 on 6anuary 10 to 1., 1273 by a certain rofessor $en=a7in R' Salonga, of the !apua +nstitute of Technology, ostensibly a close relati&e of for7er Senator 6o&ito R' Salonga, e7inent counsel for petitioners in ),3515. -Anne9 !,as a7ended, to %onsolidated Re=oinder of petitioners in ),3515. to the #otes of Argu7ents and !e7orandu7 of respondents/' rofessor Salonga is not a 0ualified statistician, which all the 7ore i7pairs his credibility' :irector Tito A' !i=ares of the $ureau of %ensus and Statistics, in his letter dated !arch 15, 1273 address to the Secretary of the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent, refutes the said co7putation of rofessor $en=a7in R' Salonga, thus8 1/ + do not 0uite understand why - roble7 1/ all 0ualified registered &oters and the 1.,20,year,old youths -1272/ will ha&e to be esti7ated in order to gi&e a 101'2Q esti7ate of the percentage participation of the

;1.,20 year old plus total nu7ber of 0ualified &oters; which does not dee7 to answer the proble7' This co7putation apparently fails to account for so7e .'5 7illion persons ;21 years old and o&er; who were not registered &oters -%(!")"%/, but who 7ight be 0ualified to participate at the %iti?enDs Asse7bly' 2/ The official population pro=ection of this office -7ediu7 assu7ption/ for ;1. year olds and o&er; as of 6anuary 1, 1273 is 22'.05 7illion' +f total nu7ber of participants at the %iti?ensD Asse7bly Referendu7 held on 6anuary 10,1., 1273 was 15'702 7illion, participation rate will therefore be the ratio of the latter figure to the for7er which gi&es 73'2Q' 3/ 1 cannot also understand c,2 ;Solution to roble7 11'; The ;difference or i7plied nu7ber of 1.,20 year olds; of .,032,205 would represent really not only all 1.,year olds and o&er who participated at the %iti?ensD Asse7bly but 7ight not ha&e been registered &oters at the ti7e, assu7ing that all the 11,551,202 registered &oted at %iti?ensD Asse7bly' Cence, the ;esti7ate percentage participation of 1., 20 years olds; of 10.'5Q does not see7 to pro&ide any 7eaningful infor7ation' To obtain the participation rate of ;1.,20 years old; one 7ust di&ide the nu7ber in this age group, which was esti7ated to be 3'721 7illion as of 6anuary 1, 1273 by the population of ;1. years old and o&er; for the sa7e period which was esti7ated to be 22'.05 7illion, gi&ing 21'0Q' +n roble7 +++, it should be obser&ed that registered &oters also include na7es of &oters who are already dead' +t cannot therefore be assu7ed that all of the7 participated at the %iti?ensD Asse7bly' +t can therefore be inferred that ;a total nu7ber of persons 1. and o&er un0ualifiedJdis0ualified to &ote; will be 7ore than 10,.34,127 and hence the ;difference or i7plied nu7ber of registered &oters that participated; will be less than 5,1.3,514' + ha&e reser&ations on whether an ;appropriate nu7ber of 0ualified &oters that supposedly &oted; could be 7eaningfully esti7ated' ./ The last re7arB will therefore 7aBe the ratio -a/ FSolution to roble7G 7ore than 1'71 and that for -b/, accordingly, will also be less than 35'4Q'; -Anne9 < Re=oinder/' <ro7 the foregoing analysis of the :irector of %ensus and Statistics as of 6anuary 21, 1273, the official population pro=ection for 1.,year olds and o&er is 22,.05,000' +f 15,702,000 &oted in the referendu7, the participation ratio would be 73'2Q of 22,.05,000' +f the registered electors as of the election of #o&e7ber 4, 1271 nu7bered 11,551,202, the difference between 15,702,000 who participated in the referendu7 and the registered electors of 11,551,202 for the #o&e7ber 4, 1271 elections, is .,030,021, which 7ay include not only the 1.,year olds and abo&e but below 21 but also the 0ualified electors who were not registered before the #o&e7ber 4, 1271 elections as well as illiterates who are 1. years old and abo&e but below 21' !oreo&er, in the last residential election in #o&e7ber, 1252, We found that the incu7bent resident obtained o&er .,000,000 &otes as against about 3,000,000 &otes for his ri&al ) Senator Sergio (s7e>a, 6r', garnering a 7a=ority of fro7 about 425,324 to 1,335,114 -(s7e>a, 6r' &s' !arcos, residential "lection %ontest #o' 3, 6an' 4, 1273/' The petitioners in all the cases at bar cannot state with =ustification that those who &oted for the incu7bent resident in 1252 did not &ote in fa&or of the 1273 %onstitution during the referendu7 fro7 6anuary 10 to 1., 1273' +t should also be stressed that 7any of the partisans of the resident in the 1252 residential elections, ha&e se&eral 7e7bers in their fa7ilies and relati&es who are 0ualified to participate in the referendu7 because they are 1. years or abo&e including illiterates, which fact should necessarily aug7ent the nu7ber of &otes who &oted for the 1273 %onstitution' -5/ +t is also urged that 7artial law being the rule of force, is necessarily inconsistent with freedo7 of choice, because the people fear to disagree with the resident and %o77ander,in,%hief of the Ar7ed <orces of the hilippines and therefore cannot &oice &iews opposite to or critical of the position of the resident on the 1273 %onstitution and on the 7ode of its ratification' +t is also clai7ed or urged that there can be no free choice during 7artial law which ine&itably generates fear in the indi&idual' "&en without 7artial law, the penal, ci&il or ad7inistrati&e sanction pro&ided for the &iolation of ordinarily engenders fear in the indi&idual which persuades the indi&idual to co7ply with or obey the law' $ut before 7artial law was proclai7ed, 7any indi&iduals fear such sanctions of the law because of lacB of effecti&e e0ual enforce7ent or i7ple7entation thereof E in brief, co7part7entali?ed =ustice and e9traneous pressures and influences frustrated the fir7 and =ust enforce7ent of the laws' The fear that is generated by 7artial law is 7erely the fear of i77ediate e9ecution and swift enforce7ent of the law and therefore i77ediate infliction of the punish7ent or sanction prescribed by the law whene&er it is transgressed during the period of 7artial law' This is not the fear that affects the &otersD freedo7 of choice or freedo7 to &ote for or against the 1273 %onstitution' Those who cringe in fear are the cri7inals or the law &iolators' Surely, petitioners do not co7e under such category' -7/ etitioners liBewise clai7 that open &oting by viva voce or raising of hands &iolates the secrecy of the ballot as by the election laws' $ut the 123. %onstitution does not re0uire secret &oting' We search in &ain for such guarantee or prescription in said organic law' The %o77ission on "lections under the 1230 A7end7ent, e7bodied as Article K is 7erely 7andated to insure ;free, orderly and honest election'; %ongress, under its plenary law,7aBing authority, could ha&e &alidly prescribed in the election law open &oting in the election of public officers, without trenching upon the %onstitution' Any ob=ection to such a statute

concerns its wisdo7 or propriety, not its legality or constitutionality' Secret balloting was de7anded by partisan strife in elections for electi&e officials' artisanship based on party or personal loyalties does not generally obtain in a plebiscite on proposed constitutional a7end7ents or on a new %onstitution' We ha&e seen e&en before and during 7artial law that &oting in 7eetings of go&ern7ent agencies or pri&ate organi?ations is usually done openly' This is specially true in sessions of %ongress, pro&incial boards, city councils, 7unicipal boards and barrio councils when &oting on national or local issues, not on personalities' Then again, open &oting was not a uni&ersal pheno7enon in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies' +t 7ight ha&e been true in certain areas, but that does not necessarily 7ean that it was done throughout the country' The recent e9a7ple of an open &oting is the last election on !arch 3, 1273 of the #ational ress %lub officers who were elected by accla7ation presided o&er by its for7er president, petitioner "duardo !onteclaro in ),35235 -see $ulletin Today, p' 4, !arch 3, 1273 issue/' There can be no 7ore hardboiled group of persons than newspaper7en, who cannot say that &oting a7ong the7 by accla7ation was characteri?ed by fear a7ong the 7e7bers of the #ational ress %lub' !oreo&er, petitioners would not be willing to affir7 that all the 7e7bers of the citi?enry of this country are against the new %onstitution' They will not deny that there are those who fa&or the sa7e, e&en a7ong the 300,000 teachers a7ong who7 officers of the :epart7ent of "ducation ca7paigned for the ratification of the new %onstitution' #ot one of the petitioners can say that the co77on 7an E far7er, laborer, fisher7an, lowly e7ployee, =eepney dri&er, ta9i dri&er, bus dri&er, pedestrian, sales7an, or salesgirl E does not want the new %onstitution, or the refor7s pro&ided for therein' -4/ etitioners liBewise clai7 that there was no sufficient publicity gi&en to the new %onstitution' This is 0uite inaccurate@ because e&en before the election in #o&e7ber, 1270 of delegates to the %onstitutional %on&ention, the proposed refor7s were already discussed in &arious foru7s and through the press as well as other 7edia of infor7ation' Then after the %onstitutional %on&ention con&ened in 6une, 1271, specific refor7s ad&anced by the delegates were discussed both in co77ittee hearings as well as in the tri,7edia E the press, radio and tele&ision' rinted 7aterials on the proposed refor7s were circulated by their proponents' <ro7 6une, 1271 to #o&e7ber 22, 1272, refor7s were openly discussed and debated e9cept for a few days after the procla7ation of 7artial law on Septe7ber 21, 1272' <ro7 the ti7e the %onstitutional %on&ention recon&ened in (ctober, 1272 until 6anuary 7, 1273, the pro&isions of the new %onstitution were debated and discussed in foru7s sponsored by pri&ate organi?ations uni&ersities and debated o&er the radio and on tele&ision' The hilippines is a literate country, second only to 6apan in the <ar "ast, and 7ore literate perhaps than 7any of 7id,western and southern states of the A7erican *nion and Spain' !any residents in about 1,.00 towns and 33,000 barrios of the country ha&e radios' "&en the illiterates listened to radio broadcasts on and discussed the pro&isions of the 1273 %onstitution' As reported by the e7inent and widely read colu7nist, Teodoro Aalencia in his colu7n in $ulletin Today, !arch 3, 1273 issue, ;(tto )ang, Collywood producer director -Tora, Tora, Tora/ went around the country doing a 30,7inute docu7entary on the hilippines for A7erican tele&ision stated that what i7pressed hi7 7ost in his tra&el throughout the country was the general acceptance of the #ew Society by the people which he saw in his 5,weeB tra&el fro7 Aparri to 6olo'; The report of <ranB Aaleo -$ulletin Today, !arch 3 and 3, 1273 and :aily "9press, !arch 3, and Sunday "9press, !arch 3/, Secretary of the *nited States Senate, who conducted a personal sur&ey of the country as delegate of Senator !iBe !ansfield, %hair7an, %o77ittee on *S, hilippine relations, states8 Martial la, )as paved t)e ,a" for a re1ordering of t)e *asic social structure of t)e $)ilippines ' resident !arcos has been pro7pt and sure,footed in using the power of presidential decree under 7artial law for this purpose' Ae )as zeroed in on areas ,)ic) )ave *een ,idel" recognized as prime sources of t)e nation0s difficulties E land tenanc", official corruption, ta! evasion and a*use of oligarc)ic economic po,er' %learly, he Bnows the targets' What is not yet certain is how accurate ha&e been his shots' 'evert)eless, t)ere is mar#ed pu*lic support for )is leaders)ip and tangi*le alternatives )ave not *een fort)coming. T)at ,ould suggest t)at )e ma" not *e stri#ing too far from t)e mar# ' The *nited States business co77unity in !anila see7s to ha&e been re,assured by recent de&elop7ents ''' ' -"7phasis supplied'/ etitioners cannot safely assu7e that all the peaceful citi?ens of the country, who constitute the 7a=ority of the population, do not liBe the refor7s stipulated in the new %onstitution, as well as the decrees, orders and circulars issued to i7ple7ent the sa7e' +t should be recalled, as hereinbefore stated, that all these refor7s were the sub=ect of discussion both in the co77ittee hearings and on the floor of the %onstitutional %on&ention, as well as in public foru7s sponsored by concerned citi?ens or ci&ic organi?ations at which %on,%on delegates as well as other Bnowledgeable personages e9pounded their &iews thereon and in all the 7edia of infor7ation before the procla7ation of 7artial law on Septe7ber 21, 1272' This is the reason why the %onstitutional %on&ention, after spending close to 30 7illion during the period fro7 6une 1, 1271 to #o&e7ber 22, 1272, found it e9pedient to accelerate their proceedings in #o&e7ber, 1272 because all &iews that could possibly be said on the proposed pro&isions of the 1273 %onstitution were already e9pressed and circulated' The 1273 %onstitution 7ay contain so7e unwise pro&isions' $ut this ob=ection to such unwise or &ague pro&isions, as heretofore stated, refers to the wisdo7 of the aforesaid pro&isions, which issue is not for this %ourt to decide@ otherwise We will be substituting (ur =udg7ent for the =udg7ent of the %onstitutional %on&ention and in effect acting as a constituent asse7bly'

A+ R"S+:"#T AS %(!!A#:"R +# %C+"< "K"R%+S"S )"1+S)AT+A" (W"RS :*R+#1 !ART+A) )AW' The position of the respondent public officers that under7artial law, the resident as %o77ander,in,%hief is &ested with legislati&e powers, is sustained by the ruling in the 1232 case of .uroda vs. Jalandoni, et al' -43 hil' 171, 177,174/ which reiterates the 123. case of Famas)ita vs. St"er -7. hil' .53, .71,72/' The trial of 1eneral Nuroda was after the surrender of 6apan on (ctober 2, 123. -23 "ncyc' $rit' 1252 ed', p' 722/ and hence no 7ore 7artial law in the hilippines' ''' %onse0uently, in the pro7ulgation and enforce7ent of "9ecuti&e (rder #o' 54, the resident of the hilippines has acted in confor7ity with the generally accepted principles and policies of international law which are part of our %onstitution' T)e promulgation of said e!ecutive order is an e!ercise *" t)e $resident of )is po,ers as +ommander in +)ief of all our armed forces, as upheld by this %ourt in the case of Famas)ita vs. St"ver -),122, 32 (ff' 1a?', 553/ when we said E ;War is not ended si7ply because hostilities ha&e ceased' After cessation of ar7ed hostilities, incidents of war 7ay re7ain pending which should be disposed of as in ti7e of war' ;An important incident to a conduct of ,ar is t)e adoption measures *" t)e militar" command not onl" to repel and defeat t)e enemies *ut to seize and su*6ect to disciplinar" measures t)ose enemies ,)o in t)eir attempt to t),art or impede our militar" effort )ave violated t)e la, of ,ar'; -"9 parte Iuirin, 317 *'S', 1@ 53 Sup' %t', 2'/ +ndeed, the power to create a 7ilitary co77ission for the trial and punish7ent of war cri7inals is an aspect of waging war' And, in the language of a writer, a 7ilitary co77ission ;has =urisdiction so long as the technical state of war continues' This includes the period of an ar7istice, or 7ilitary occupation, up to the effecti&e date of treaty of peace, and 7ay e9tend beyond, by treaty agree7ent'; -%owles, Trial of War %ri7inals by !ilitary Tribunals, A7erican $ar Association 6ournal, 6une, 1233/' +onse9uentl", t)e $resident as +ommander1in1+)ief is full" empo,ered to consummate t)is unfinis)ed aspect of ,ar, na7ely the trial and punish7ent of war cri7inals, through the issuance and enforce7ent of "9ecuti&e (rder #o' 54' -43 hil' 177,174@ e7phasis supplied/' %hief 6ustice Stone of the *nited States Supre7e %ourt liBewise appears to subscribe to this &iew, when, in his concurring opinion in :uncan &s' Nahana7oBu -327 *'S' 303 F1235G/, he defined 7artial law as ; t)e e!ercise of t)e po,er ,)ic) resides in t)e e!ecutive *ranc) of t)e government to preserve order and insure t)e pu*lic safet" in times of emergenc", ,)en ot)er *ranc)es of t)e government are una*le to function, or t)eir functioning ,ould itself t)reaten t)e pu*lic safet" '; -"7phasis supplied/' There is an i7plied recognition in the aforesaid definition of 7artial law that e&en in places where the courts can function, such operation of the courts 7ay be affected by 7artial law s)ould t)eir ?functioning ''' t)reaten t)e pu*lic safet"'? +t is possible that the courts, in asserting their authority to pass upon 0uestions which 7ay ad&ersely affect the conduct of the puniti&e ca7paign against rebels, secessionists, dissidents as well as sub&ersi&es, 7artial law 7ay restrict such =udicial function until the danger to the security of the state and of the people shall ha&e been deci7ated' The foregoing &iew appears to be shared by Rossiter when he stated8 <inally, t)is strong government, ,)ic) in some instances mig)t *ecome an outrig)t dictators)ip, can )ave no ot)er purposes t)an t)e preservation of t)e independence of t)e state, t)e maintenance of t)e e!isting constitutional order, and t)e defense of t)e political and social li*erties of t)e people ' +t is i7portant to recogni?e the true and li7ited ends of any practical application of the principle of constitutional dictatorship' erhaps the 7atter 7ay be 7ost clearly stated in this way8 the go&ern7ent of a free state is proceeding on its way and 7eeting the usual proble7s of peace and nor7al ti7es within the li7iting fra7eworB of its established constitutional order' The functions of go&ern7ent are parceled out a7ong a nu7ber of 7utually independent offices and institutions@ the power to e9ercise those functions is circu7scribed by well,established laws, custo7s, and constitutional prescriptions@ and the people for who7 this go&ern7ent was instituted are in possession of a lengthy catalogue of econo7ic, political, and social rights which their leaders recogni?e as inherent and inalienable' A severe crisis arises E t)e countr" is invaded *" a )ostile po,er, or a dissident segment of t)e citizenr" revolts, or t)e impact of a ,orld1,ide depression t)reatens to *ring t)e nation0s econom" in ruins. T)e government meets t)e crisis *" assuming more po,ers and respecting fe,er rig)ts. T)e result is a regime ,)ic) can act ar*itraril" and even dictatoriall" in t)e s,ift adaption of measures designed to save t)e state and its people from t)e destructive effects of t)e particular crisis' And the narrow duty to be pursued by this strong go&ern7ent, this constitutional dictatorshipH Si7ply this and nothing 7ore8 to end t)e crisis and restore normal times. T)e government assumes no po,er and a*ridges no rig)t unless plainl" indispensa*le to t)at end @ it e9tends no further in ti7e than the attain7ent of that end@ and it 7aBes no alteration in the political, social and econo7ic structure of the nation which cannot be eradicated with the restoration of nor7al ti7es' +n short, the ai7 of constitutional dictatorship is the co7plete restoration of the status 9uo ante *ellum' This

historical fact does not co7port with philosophical theory, t)at t)ere never )as *een a perfect constitutional dictators)ip, is an assertion t)at can *e made ,it)out fear of contradiction. %ut t)is is true of all institutions of government, and t)e principle of constitutional dictators)ip remains eternall" valid no matter )o, often and seriousl" it ma" )ave *een violated in practice ' -%onstitutional :ictatorship, 1234 ed', by %linton )' Rossiter, p' 7@ e7phasis supplied'/ <inally, Rossiter e9pressly recogni?es that during 7artial law, the %hief "9ecuti&e e9ercises legislati&e power, whether of te7porary or per7anent character, thus8 T)e measures adopted in t)e prosecution of a constitutional dictators)ip s)ould never *e permanent in c)aracter or effect' "7ergency powers are strictly conditioned by their purpose and this purpose is the restoration of nor7al conditions' The actions directed to t)is end s)ould t)erefore *e provisional ' <or e9a7ple, measures of a legislative nature ,)ic) ,or# a lasting c)ange in t)e structure of the state or constitute per7anent derogations fro7 e9isting law s)ould not *e adopted under an e7ergency enabling act, at least not ,it)out t)e positivel" registered approval of t)e legislature ' er7anent laws, whether adopted in regular or irregular ti7es, are for parlia7ents to enact' $y this sa7e toBen, the decisions and sentences of e9traordinary courts should be re&iewed by the regular courts after the ter7ination of the crisis' %ut ,)at if a radical act of permanent c)aracter, one ,or#ing lasting c)anges in t)e political and social fa*ric, is indispensa*le to the successful prosecution of the particular constitutional dictatorshipH T)e onl" ans,er can *eJ it must *e resolutel" ta#en and openl" ac#no,ledged. $resident Lincoln found it necessar" to proceed to t)e revolutionar" step of emancipation in aid of )is conservative purpose of preserving t)e @nion@ as a constitutional dictator he had a 7oral right to taBe this radical action' 'evert)eless, it is imperative t)at an" action ,it) suc) lasting effects s)ould eventuall" receive t)e positive approval of t)e people or of t)eir representatives in t)e legislature ' - ' 303, e7phasis supplied/' <ro7 the foregoing citations, under 7artial law occasioned by se&ere crisis generated by re&olution, insurrection or econo7ic depression or dislocation, the go&ern7ent e9ercises 7ore powers and respects fewer rights in order ;to end the crisis and restore nor7al ti7es'; The go&ern7ent can assu7e additional powers indispensable to the attain7ent of that end E the co7plete restoration of peace' +n our particular case, eradication of the causes that incited rebellion and sub&ersion as secession, is the sine 9ua non to the co7plete restoration of nor7alcy' "9ercise of legislati&e power by the resident as %o77ander in %hief, upon his procla7ation of 7artial law, is =ustified because, as he professes, it is directed towards the institution of radical refor7s essential to the eli7ination of the causes of rebellious, insurgent or sub&ersi&e conspiracies and the conse0uent dis7antling of the rebellious, insurgent or sub&ersi&e apparatus' Cence, the issuance of residential :ecree #os' 45 and 45,A as well as rocla7ation #o' 1102 is indispensable to the effectuation of the refor7s within the shortest possible ti7e to hasten the restoration of nor7alcy' ;!ust the go&ern7ent be too strong for the liberties of the people@ or 7ust it be too weaB to 7aintain its e9istenceH; That was the dile77a that &e9ed resident )incoln during the A7erican %i&il War, when without e9press authority in the %onstitution and the laws of the *nited States, he suspended one basic hu7an freedo7 E the pri&ilege of the writ of )a*eas corpus E in order to preser&e with per7anence the A7erican *nion, the <ederal %onstitution of the *nited States and all the ci&il liberties of the A7erican people' This is the sa7e dile77a that presently confronts the %hief "9ecuti&e of the Republic of the hilippines, who, 7ore than the %ourts and %ongress, 7ust, by e9press constitutional 7andate, secure the safety of our Republic and the rights as well as li&es of the people against open rebellion, insidious sub&ersion secession' The %hief "9ecuti&e announced repeatedly that in choosing to proclai7 7artial law, the power e9pressly &ested in hi7 by the 123. %onstitution -Sec' 10F2G, Art' A++, 123. %onstitution/ to insure our national and indi&idual sur&i&al in peace and freedo7, he is in effect waging a peaceful, de7ocratic re&olution fro7 the center against the &iolent re&olution and sub&ersion being 7ounted by the econo7ic oligarchs of the e9tre7e right, who resist refor7s to 7aintain their econo7ic hege7ony, and the co77unist rebels a !aoist oriented secessionists of the e9tre7e left who de7and swift institution of refor7s' +n the e9ercise of his constitutional and statutory powers, to sa&e the state and to protect the citi?enry against actual and threatened assaults fro7 insurgents, secessionists and sub&ersi&es, doctrinaire concepts and principles, no 7atter how re&ered they 7ay be by =urisprudence and ti7e, should not be regarded as pere7ptory co77ands@ otherwise the dead hand of the past will regulate and control the security and happiness of the li&ing present' A contrary &iew would be to deny the self,e&ident proposition that constitutions and laws are 7ere instru7ents for the well,being, peace, security and prosperity of the country and its citi?enry' The law as a 7eans of social control is not static but dyna7ic' araphrasing !r' 6ustice <ranBfurter, the %onstitution is neither a printed finality nor the i7prison7ent of the past, but the enfolding of the future' +n the &ein of !r' 6ustice Col7es, the 7eaning of the words of the %onstitution is not to be deter7ined by 7erely opening a dictionary' +ts ter7s 7ust be construed in the conte9t of the realities in the life of a nation it is intended to ser&e' $ecause e9perience 7ay teach one generation to doubt the &alidity and efficacy of the concepts e7bodied in the e9isting %onstitution and persuade another generation to abandon the7 entirely, heed should be paid to the wise counsel of so7e learned =urists that in the resolution of constitutional 0uestions E liBe those posed before *s E the blending of idealis7 and practical wisdo7 or progressi&e legal realis7 should be applied -see Ale9ander !' $icBel, the Supre7e %ourt and the +dea of rogress, 1270 ed', pp' 12,21/' To 6ustice <ranBfurter, la, is ?a vital agenc" for )uman *etterment? and constitutional la, ?is applied politics using t)e ,ord in its no*le sense'; -<ranBfurter, )aw and olitics, 1232 ed', pp' 3 P 5@ e7phasis supplied/' 6ustice $randeis ga&e utterance to the truth that ; ur +onstitution is not a straig)t 6ac#et. <t is a living organism. As such, it is capa*le of gro,t) E or e9pansion and adaptation to ne, conditions' 1rowth i7plies changes, political, econo7ic and social'; -$randeis apers, Car&ard )aw School@ e7phasis supplied/' Car&ard rofessor Tho7as Reed owell e7phasi?es ;practical wisdo7,; for

;t)e logic of constitutional la, is t)e common sense of t)e Supreme +ourt '; - owell, the Aalidity of State )egislation, under the Webb,Nenyon )aw, 2 Southern )aw Iuarterly, pp' 112, 134,132, cited in $icBelDs (pus, supra@ e7phasis supplied/' The eternal parado9 in this finite world of 7ortal and fallible 7en is that nothing is per7anent e9cept change' )i&ing organis7s as well as 7an,7ade institutions are not i77utable' %i&ili?ed 7en organi?e the7sel&es into a State only for the purpose of ser&ing their supre7e interest E their welfare' To achie&e such end, they created an agency Bnown as the go&ern7ent' <ro7 the sa&age era thru ancient ti7es, the !iddle Ages, the :arB Ages and the Renaissance to this era of sophisticated electronics and nuclear weaponry, states and go&ern7ents ha&e 7utated in their search for the 7agic instru7ent for their well,being' +t was trial and error then as it is still now' olitical philosophies and constitutional concepts, for7s and Binds of go&ern7ent, had been adopted, o&erturned, discarded, re,adopted or 7odified to suit the needs of a gi&en society at a particular gi&en epoch' This is true of constitutions and laws because they are not ;the infallible instru7ents of a 7anifest destiny'; #o 7atter how we want the law to be stable, it cannot stand still' As !r' 6ustice Col7es aptly obser&ed, e&ery ;constitution is an e9peri7ent as all life is an e9peri7ent,; -Abrah7s &s' *'S', 2.0 *S 515, 531/ for ;the life of the law is not logic, but e9perience'; +n the pontifical tones of !r' 6ustice $en=a7in #athan %ardo?o, ;so long as society is inconstant, there can be no constancy in law,; and ;there will be change whether we will it or not'; As 6ustice 6ose ' )aurel was wont to say, ;We cannot, %anute,liBe, co77and the wa&es of progress to halt'; Thus, political scientists and =urists no longer e9alt with &ehe7ence a ;go&ern7ent that go&erns least'; Adherents there are to the poetic dictu7 of Ale9ander ope8 ;<or for7s of go&ern7ent let fools contest@ whate&er is best ad7inistered is best'; - oe7s of ope, 1231 %a7bridge ed', p' 7.0/' +n between, the shades &ary fro7 direct de7ocracy, representati&e de7ocracy, welfare states, socialist de7ocracy, 7itigated socialis7, to outright co77unis7 which degenerated in so7e countries into totalitarianis7 or authoritarianis7' Cence, e&en the scholar, who ad&ances acade7ic opinions unrelated to factual situations in the seclusion of his i&ory tower, 7ust perforce sub7it to the ine9orable law of change in his &iews, concepts, 7ethods and techni0ues when brought into the actual arena of conflict as a public functionary E face to face with the practical proble7s of state, go&ern7ent and public ad7inistration' And so it is that so7e learned =urists, in the resolution of constitutional issues that i77ediately affect the li&es, liberties and fortunes of the citi?ens and the nation, reco77end the blending of idealis7 with practical wisdo7 which legal thinBers prefer to identify as progressi&e legal realis7' The national leader, who wields the powers of go&ern7ent, 7ust and has to inno&ate if he 7ust go&ern effecti&ely to ser&e the supre7e interests of the people' This is especially true in ti7es of great crises where the need for a leader with &ision, i7agination, capacity for decision and courageous action is greater, to preser&e the unity of people, to pro7ote their well,being, and to insure the safety and stability of the Republic' When the 7ethods of rebellion and sub&ersion ha&e beco7e co&ert, subtle and insidious, there should be a recognition of the corresponding authority on the part of the %o77ander,in,%hief of the Ar7ed <orces to utili?e all the a&ailable techni0ues to suppress the peril to the security of the go&ern7ent and the State' (&er a century and a half ago, Tho7as 6efferson, one of the founding fathers of the A7erican %onstitution and for7er resident of the *nited States, who personifies the progressi&e liberal, spoBe the truth when he said that so7e 7en ;ascribe 7en of the preceding age a wisdo7 7ore than hu7an, and suppose what they did to be beyond a7end7ent' ''' $ut + Bnow also, that laws and institutions 7ust go hand in hand with the progress of the hu7an 7ind' As that beco7es 7ore de&eloped, 7ore enlightened, as new disco&eries are 7ade, new truths disclosed and 7anners and opinions change, with the change of circu7stances, institutions 7ust also ad&ance, and Beep pace with the ti7es'; -Aol' 12, "ncyclopedia $ritanica, 1252 ed', p' 242/' The wisdo7 of the decision of the %hief "9ecuti&e can only be =udged in the perspecti&e of history' +t cannot be ade0uately and fairly appraised within the present a7bience, charged as it is with so 7uch tension and e7otion, if not partisan passion' The analytical, ob=ecti&e historians will write the final &erdict in the sa7e way that they pronounced =udg7ent on resident Abraha7 )incoln who suspended the pri&ilege of the writ of )a*eas corpuswithout any constitutional or statutory authority therefor and of resident <ranBlin :elano Roose&elt who appro&ed the procla7ation of 7artial law in 1231 by the go&ernor of Cawaii throughout the Cawaiian territory' resident )incoln not only e7ancipated the #egro sla&es in A7erica, but also sa&ed the <ederal Republic of the *nited States fro7 disintegration by his suspension of the pri&ilege of the writ of )a*eas corpus, which power the A7erican %onstitution and %ongress did not then e9pressly &est in hi7' #o one can deny that the successful defense and preser&ation of the territorial integrity of the *nited States was due in part, if not to a great e9tent, to the procla7ation of 7artial law o&er the territory of Cawaii E 7ain bastion of the outer periphery or the outpost of the A7erican defense peri7eter in the acific E which protected the *nited States 7ainland not only fro7 actual in&asion but also fro7 aerial or na&al bo7bard7ent by the ene7y' arenthetically, the i7partial obser&er cannot accurately conclude that the A7erican Supre7e %ourt acted with courage in its decision in the cases of &! parte Milligan and (uncan vs. .a)anamo#u -filed on !ay 10, 145. argued on !arch . to 13, 1455, decided on April 3, 1455, and opinion deli&ered on :ece7ber 17, 1455/ after the lifting of the procla7ation suspending the pri&ilege of the writ of )a*eas corpus, long after the %i&il War and the Second World ended respecti&ely on April 2 or 25, 14,5. -Aol' 1, "ncyclopedia $ritannica, 1252 ed', pp' 730, 732/ and on Septe7ber 2, 123. -Aol' 23, "ncyclopedia $ritannica, 1252 ed', p' 722/' Was the delay on the part of the A7erican Supre7e %ourt in deciding these cases against the position of the *nited States resident E in suspending the pri&ilege of the writ of )a*eas corpus in one case and appro&ing the procla7ation of 7artial law in the other E deliberate as an act of =udicial states7anship and recognition on their part that an ad&erse court ruling during the period of such a gra&e crisis 7ight =eopardi?e the sur&i&al of the <ederal Republic of the *nited States in its life,and,death struggle against an organi?ed and well ar7ed rebellion within its own borders and against a for7idable ene7y fro7 without its territorial confines during the last global ar7ageddonH A+++ :(%TR+#" (< S" ARAT+(# (< (W"RS R"%)*:"S

MA'(AM@S A1A+#ST S"#AT(RS' +n 1'R' #o' ),3515., mandamus will not lie to co7pel respondents 1il uyat and 6ose Roy to con&ene the Senate of the hilippines e&en on the assu7ption that the 123. %onstitution still subsists@ because pursuant to the doctrine of separation of powers under the 123. %onstitution, the processes of this %ourt cannot legally reach a coordinate branch of the go&ern7ent or its head' This is a proble7 that is addressed to the Senate itself for resolution@ for it is purely an internal proble7 of the Senate' +f a 7a=ority of the senators can con&ene, they can elect a new Senate resident and a new Senate resident ro Te7pore' $ut if they ha&e no 0uoru7, those present can order the arrest of the absent 7e7bers -Sec' 10F2G, Art' A+, 123. %onstitution/' +f this fails, then there is no re7edy e9cept an appeal to the people' The dictu7 u*i 6us, u*i remedium, is not absolute and certainly does not =ustify the in&ocation of the power of this %ourt to co7pel action on the part of a co,e0ual body or its leadership' This was e7phasi?ed with sufficient clarity by this %ourt in the 1232 case of A&elino &s' %uenco -43 hil' 17, 22,23/, with which the distinguished counsels for the petitioners in ),35153 and ),3515. are fa7iliar' We stress that the doctrine of separation of powers and the political nature of the contro&ersy such as this, preclude the interposition of the 6udiciary to nullify an act of a coordinate body or to co77and perfor7ance by the head of such a co,ordinate body of his functions'' !ystifying is the posture taBen by counsels for petitioners in referring to the political 0uestion doctrine E al7ost in 7ocBery E as a 7agic for7ula which should be disregarded by this %ourt, forgetting that this 7agic for7ula constitutes an essential sBein in the constitutional fabric of our go&ern7ent, which, together with other basic constitutional precepts, conser&es the unity of our people, strengthens the structure of the go&ern7ent and assures the continued stability of the country against the forces of di&ision, if not of anarchy' !oreo&er, if they ha&e a 9uoru7, the senators can 7eet anywhere' Aalidity of the acts of the Senate does not depend on the place of session@ for the %onstitution does not designate the place of such a 7eeting' Section 2 of Article A+ i7poses upon %ongress to con&ene in regular session e&ery year on the 3th !onday of 6anuary, unless a different date is fi9ed by law, or on special session called by the resident' As for7er Senator Arturo Tolentino, counsel for respondents uyat and Roy in ),3515., stated, the duty to con&ene is addressed to all 7e7bers of %ongress, not 7erely to its presiding officers' The fact that the doors of %ongress are padlocBed, will not pre&ent the senators E especially the petitioners in ),3515. E if they are 7inded to do so, fro7 7eeting elsewhere E at the SunBen 1ardens, at the )uneta +ndependence 1randstand, in any of the big hotels or theaters, in their own houses, or at the Araneta %oliseu7, which is owned by the father,in,law of petitioner 1erardo Ro9as in ),3515.' Cowe&er, a session by the Senate alone would be purely an e9ercise in futility, for it cannot &alidly 7eet without the lower Couse -Sec' 10F.G, Art' A+, 123. %onstitution/' Cence, this petition by fi&e for7er senators for mandamus in ),3515. is useless' And as pointed out by for7er Senator Arturo Tolentino, counsel for respondents uyat and Roy, mandamus will lie only if there is a law i7posing on the respondents the duty to con&ene the body' The rule i7posing such a duty in&oBed by petitioners in ), 3515. is purely an internal rule of the Senate@ it is not a law because it is not enacted by both Couses and appro&ed by the resident' The %onstitutional pro&ision on the con&ening of %ongress, is addressed to the indi&idual 7e7bers of the legislati&e body -Sec' 2, Art' A+ of 123. %onstitution/' +K T( #*))+<L R(%)A!AT+(# #(' 1102 A#: 1273 %(#ST+T*T+(# R"I*+R"S "+1CT (R T"# A(T"S (< S* R"!" %(*RT' The petitioners in ),35153 and ),35235 specifically pray for a declaration that the alleged ratification of the 1273 %onstitution is null and &oid and that the said 1273 %onstitution be declared unenforceable and inoperati&e' As heretofore stated, rocla7ation #o' 1102 is an enact7ent of the resident as %o77ander,in,%hief during 7artial law as directly delegated to hi7 by Section 10-2/ of Article A++ of the 123. %onstitution' A declaration that the 1273 %onstitution is unenforceable and inoperati&e is practically deciding that the sa7e is unconstitutional' The proposed %onstitution is an act of the %onstitutional %on&ention, which is co,e0ual and coordinate with as well as independent of either %ongress or the %hief "9ecuti&e' Cence, its final act, the 1273 %onstitution, 7ust ha&e the sa7e category at the &ery least as the act of %ongress itself' %onse0uently, the re0uired &ote to nullify rocla7ation #o' 1102 and the 1273 %onstitution should be eight -4/ under Section 10 of Article A+++ of the 123. %onstitution in relation to Section 2 of the 6udiciary Act or Republic Act #o' 225, as a7ended, or should be ten -10/ under Section 2-2/ of Article K of the 1273 %onstitution' Should the re0uired &ote of eight -4/ or ten -10/, as the case 7ay be, for the declaration of in&alidity or unconstitutionality be not achie&ed, the 1273 %onstitution 7ust be dee7ed to be &alid, in force and operati&e' K

ART+%)" (< <A+TC W" yield to no 7an as de&otees of hu7an rights and ci&il liberties' )iBe Tho7as 6efferson, We swear ;eternal hostility towards any for7 of tyranny o&er the 7ind of 7an; as well as towards bigotry and intolerance, which are anathe7a to a free spirit' $ut hu7an rights and ci&il liberties under a de7ocratic or republican state are ne&er absolute and ne&er i77une to restrictions essential to the co77on weal' A ci&ili?ed society cannot long endure without peace and order, the 7aintenance of which is the pri7ary function of the go&ern7ent' #either can ci&ili?ed society sur&i&e without the natural right to defend itself against all dangers that 7ay destroy its life, whether in the for7 of in&asion fro7 without or rebellion and sub&ersion fro7 within' This is the first law of nature and ranBs second to none in the hierarchy of all &alues, whether hu7an or go&ern7ental' "&ery citi?en, who prides hi7self in being a 7e7ber or a ci&ili?ed society under an established go&ern7ent, i7pliedly sub7its to certain constraints on his freedo7 for the general welfare and the preser&ation of the State itself, e&en as he reser&es to hi7self certain rights which constitute li7itations on the powers of go&ern7ent' $ut when there is an ine&itable clash between an e9ertion of go&ern7ental authority and the assertion of indi&idual freedo7, the e9ercise of which freedo7 i7perils the State and the ci&ili?ed society to which the indi&idual belongs, there can be no alternati&e but to sub7it to the superior right of the go&ern7ent to defend and preser&e the State' +n the language of !r' 6ustice Col7es E often in&oBed by herein petitioners E ;when it co7es to a decision in&ol&ing its -state life, the ordinary rights of indi&iduals 7ust yield to what he -the resident/ dee7s the necessities of the 7o7ent' ublic danger warrants the substitution of e9ecuti&e process for =udicial process' -See Neely &s' Sanders, 22 *'S' 331, 335, 2. ) ed' 327, 324/' This was ad7itted with regard to Billing 7en in the actual clash of ar7s' And we thinB it is ob&ious, although it was disputed, that the sa7e is true of te7porary detention to pre&ent apprehended har7'; -!oyer &s' eabody, 212 *'S' 77, 4., .3 ) ed', 311, 317/' The rhetoric of freedo7 alone is not enough' +t 7ust be the rhetoric of freedo7 with order and security for all, that should be the shibboleth@ for freedo7 cannot be en=oyed in an en&iron7ent of disorder and anarchy' The incu7bent %hief "9ecuti&e who was trying to gain the support for his refor7 progra7 long before Septe7ber 21, 1272, reali?ed al7ost too late that he was being decei&ed by his party7ates as well as by the opposition, who pro7ised hi7 cooperation, which pro7ises were either offered as a bargaining le&erage to secure concessions fro7 hi7 or to delay the institution of the needed refor7s' The people ha&e been &icti7i?ed by such bargaining and dilly,dallying' To &ert a terrifying blood bath and the breaBdown of the Republic, the incu7bent resident proclai7ed 7artial law to sa&e the Republic fro7 being o&errun by co77unists, secessionists and rebels by effecting the desired refor7s in order to eradicate the e&ils that plague our society, which e&ils ha&e been e7ployed by the co77unists, the rebels and secessionists to e9hort the citi?enry to rise against the go&ern7ent' $y eli7inating the e&ils, the ene7ies of the Republic will be deci7ated' Cow 7any of the petitioners and their counsels ha&e been utili?ing the rebels, secessionists and co77unists for their own personal or political purposes and how 7any of the7 are being used in turn by the aforesaid ene7ies of the State for their own purposesH +f the petitioners are sincere in their e9pression of concern for the greater 7ass of the populace, 7ore than for their own sel&es, they should be willing to gi&e the incu7bent %hief "9ecuti&e a chance to i7ple7ent the desired refor7s' The incu7bent resident assured the nation that he will go&ern within the fra7eworB of the %onstitution and if at any ti7e, before nor7alcy is restored, the people thru their %iti?ensD Asse7blies, cease to belie&e in his leadership, he will step down &oluntarily fro7 the residency' $ut if, as apprehended by the petitioners, he abuses and brutali?es the people, then to the battle7ents we 7ust go to 7an the ra7parts against tyranny' This, it is belie&ed, he Bnows only too well@ because he is aware that he who rides the tiger will e&entually end inside the tigerDs sto7ach' Ce who toys with re&olution will be swallowed by that sa7e re&olution' Cistory is replete with e9a7ples of libertarians who turned tyrants and were burned at staBe or beheaded or hanged or guillotined by the &ery people who7 they at first cha7pioned and later decei&ed' The 7ost bloody of such 7ass e9ecutions by the wrath of a wronged people, was the decapitation by guillotine of about 1.,000 <rench7en including the leaders of the <rench re&olution, liBe Robespierre, :anton, :es7oulins and !arat' Ce is fully cogni?ant of the lessons of history' C"#%", TC" :+S!+SSA) (< TC"S" <+A" %AS"S +S 6*ST+<+":' ESGUERRA, J., concurring8 These petitions seeB to stop and prohibit the respondents "9ecuti&e (fficers fro7 i7ple7enting the %onstitution signed on #o&e7ber 30, 1272@ in ),3515., to co7pel respondents 1il uyat and 6ose 6' Roy, resident and resident ro,Te7pore, respecti&ely, of the Senate under the 123. %onstitution, to con&ene the Senate in regular session which should ha&e started on 6anuary 22, 1273@ to nullify rocla7ation #o' 1102 of the resident, issued on 6anuary 17, 1273, which declared the ratification of the %onstitution on #o&e7ber 30, 1272, by the <ilipino people, through the barangays or %iti?ens Asse7blies established under residential :ecree #o' 45 issued on :ece7ber 31, 1272, which were e7powered under residential :ecree #o' 45,A, issued on 6anuary ., 1273, to act in connection with the ratification of said %onstitution' 1rounds for the petitions are as follows8 1' That the %onstitutional %on&ention was not a free foru7 for the 7aBing of a %onstitution after the declaration of !artial )aw on Septe7ber 21, 1272' 2' The %on&ention was not e7powered to incorporate certain pro&isions in the 1272 %onstitution because they are highly unwise and ob=ectionable and the people were not sufficiently infor7ed about the7' 3' The resident had no authority to create and e7power the %iti?ensD Asse7blies to ratify the new %onstitution at the

referendu7 conducted in connection therewith, as said asse7blies were 7erely for consultati&e purposes, and 3' The pro&isions of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution prescribing the 7anner of a7ending the sa7e were not duly obser&ed' The petitions were not gi&en due course i77ediately but were referred to the Solicitor 1eneral as counsel for the respondents for co77ent, with three 7e7bers of the %ourt, including the undersigned, &oting to dis7iss the7 outright' The co77ents were considered 7otions to dis7iss which were set for hearing and e9tensi&ely argued' Thereafter both parties sub7itted their notes and 7e7oranda on their oral argu7ents' +' The issues raised for deter7ination, on which the resolution of the !otion to :is7iss hinges, are as follows8 1' +s the 0uestion presented political and, hence, beyond the co7petence of this %ourt to decide, or is it =usticiable and fit for =udicial deter7inationH 2' Was the new %onstitution of #o&e7ber 30, 1272, ratified in accordance with the a7ending process prescribed by Article KA of the 123. %onstitutionH 3' Cas the new %onstitution been accepted and ac0uiesced in by the <ilipino peopleH 3' +s the new %onstitution actually in force and effectH .' +f the answers to 0uestions #os' 3 and 3 be in the affir7ati&e, are petitioners entitled to the reliefs prayed forH ++' The pi&otal 0uestion in these cases is whether the issue raised is highly political and, therefore, not =usticiable' + 7aintain that this %ourt should abstain fro7 assu7ing =urisdiction, but, instead, as an act of =udicial states7anship, should dis7iss the petitions' +n resol&ing whether or not the 0uestion presented is political, =oint discussion of issues #os' 1, 3 and 3 is necessary so as to arri&e at a logical conclusion' <or after the acceptance of a new %onstitution and ac0uiescence therein by the people by putting it into practical operation, any 0uestion regarding its &alidity should be foreclosed and all debates on whether it was duly or lawfully ushered into e9istence as the organic law of the state beco7e political and not =udicial in character' The undisputed facts that led to the issuance of rocla7ation #o' 1102 and residential :ecrees #os' 45 and 45,A are fully set forth in the 7a=ority and dissenting opinions in the lebiscite cases decided on 6anuary 22, 1273, and need not be repeated here' etitioners seeB to set at naught rocla7ation #o' 1102 and residential :ecrees #os' 45 and 45,A, clai7ing that the ratification of the new %onstitution pursuant to the said decrees is in&alid and of no effect' residential :ecree #o' 45 organi?ed the barangays or %iti?ens Asse7blies co7posed of all citi?ens at least fifteen years of age, and through these asse7blies the proposed 1272 %onstitution was sub7itted to the people for ratification' rocla7ation #o' 1102 of the resident announced or declared the result of the referendu7 or plebiscite conducted through the %iti?ens Asse7blies, and that 13,275,.51 7e7bers thereof &oted for the ratification of the new %onstitution and 733,452 &oted against it' etitioners assail these two acts of the resident as unauthori?ed and de&oid of legal effect' $ut looBing through the &eneer of =udicial confor7ity with which the petitions ha&e been adroitly contri&ed, what is sought to be in&alidated is the new %onstitution itself E the &ery fra7eworB of the present 1o&ern7ent since 6anuary 17, 1273' The reason is ob&ious' The residential decrees set up the 7eans for the ratification and acceptance of the new %onstitution and rocla7ation #o' 1102 si7ply announced the result of the referendu7 or plebiscite by the people through the %iti?ens Asse7blies' The 1o&ern7ent under the new %onstitution has been running on its tracBs nor7ally and apparently without obstruction in the for7 of organi?ed resistance capable of =eopardi?ing its e9istence and disrupting its operation' *lti7ately the issue is whether the new %onstitution 7ay be set aside by this %ourt' $ut has it the power and authority to assu7e such a stupendous tasB when the result of such in&alidation would be to sub=ect this nation to di&isi&e contro&ersies that 7ay totally destroy the social order which the 1o&ern7ent under the new %onstitution has been ad7irably protecting and pro7oting under !artial )awH That the new %onstitution has taBen deep root and the people are happy and contended with it is a li&ing reality which the 7ost articulate critics of the new order cannot deny' 2. out of 104 7e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es ha&e opted to ser&e in the interi7 #ational Asse7bly pro&ided for under the new %onstitution' 1. out of 23 Senators ha&e done liBewise' The 7e7bers of the %ongress did not 7eet any7ore last 6anuary 22, 1273, not because they were really pre&ented fro7 so doing but because of no serious effort on their parts to assert their offices under the 123. %onstitution' +n brief, the )egislati&e :epart7ent under the 123. %onstitution is a thing of the past' The "9ecuti&e :epart7ent has been fully reorgani?ed@ the appoint7ents of Bey e9ecuti&e officers including those of the Ar7ed <orces were e9tended and they tooB an oath to support and defend the new %onstitution' The courts, e9cept the Supre7e %ourt by reason of these cases, ha&e ad7inistered =ustice under the new constitution' All go&ern7ent offices ha&e dealt with the public and perfor7ed their functions according to the new %onstitution and laws pro7ulgated thereunder' +f the real purpose of the petitions is to set aside the new %onstitution, how can this %ourt =ustify its assu7ption of =urisdiction

when no power has ''' conferred upon it the =urisdiction to declare the %onstitution or any part thereof null and &oidH +t is the height of absurdity and i7pudence for a court to wage open war against the organic act to which it owes its e9istence' The situation in which this %ourt finds itself does not per7it it to pass upon the 0uestion whether or not the new %onstitution has entered into force and has superseded the 123. %onstitution' +f it declares that the present %onstitution has not been &alidly ratified, it has to uphold the 123. %onstitution as still the pre&ailing organic law' The result would be too ano7alous to describe, for then this %ourt would ha&e to declare that it is go&erned by one %onstitution or the 123. %onstitution, and the legislati&e and e9ecuti&e branches by another or the 1272 %onstitution' +f it declares that the 1272 %onstitution is now operati&e, how can it e9ercise =udicial discretion in these cases when it would ha&e no other choice but to uphold the new %onstitution as against any other oneH +n the circu7stances it would be bereft of =udicial attributes as the 7atter would then be not 7eet for =udicial deter7ination, but one addressed to the so&ereign power of the people who ha&e already spoBen and deli&ered their 7andate by accepting the funda7ental law on which the go&ern7ent of this Republic is now functioning' To deny that the new %onstitution has been accepted and actually is in operation would be flying in the face of reason and pounding oneDs bare head against a &eritable stone wall or a hea&ily reinforced concrete, or si7ply ;BicBing the deadly pricBs; with oneDs bare foot in an effort to eli7inate the lethal points' When a %onstitution has been in operation for so7eti7e, e&en without popular ratification at that, sub7ission of the people thereto by the organi?ation of the go&ern7ent pro&ided therein and obser&ance of its prescriptions by public officers chosen thereunder, is indicati&e of appro&al' %ourts should be slow in nullifying a %onstitution clai7ed to ha&e been adopted not in accordance with constitutional or statutory directi&es F!iller &s' 6ohnson, 22 Ny' .42@ 142 S'W' .22@ Taylor &s %o77onwealth, 101@ Aa' 422@ 33 S'"' 7.3@ S7ith &s' 1ood, 33 < 203, 207@ Wiston &s' Ryan, 70 #eb' 211@ 27 #'W' 337G' +n Miller vs. Jo)nson, supra, the %ourt said8 ''' $ut it is a case where a new constitution has been for7ed and pro7ulgated according to the for7s of law' 1reat interests ha&e already arisen under it@ i7portant rights e9ist by &irtue of it@ persons ha&e been con&icted of the highest cri7es Bnown to the law, according to its pro&isions@ the political power of the go&ern7ent has in 7any ways recogni?ed it@ and, under suc) circumstances, it is our dut" to treat and regard it as a valid constitution, and no, t)e organic la, of our state ' We need not consider the &alidity of the a7end7ents 7ade after the con&ention reasse7bled' <f t)e ma#ing of t)em ,as in e!cess of its po,er, "et as t)e entire instrument )as *een recognized as valid in t)e manner suggested, it ,ould *e e9uall" an a*use of po,er *" t)e 6udiciar", and violative of t)e rig)ts of t)e people, D ,)o can and properl" s)ould remed" t)e matter, if not to t)eir li#ing, D if it ,ere to declare t)e instrument or a portion invalid, and *ring confusion and anarc)" upon t)e state ' -"7phasis supplied/ +n Smit) vs. Good, supra, the %ourt said8 +t is said that a state court is forbidden fro7 entering upon such an in0uiry ,)en applied to a ne, constitution, and not an amendment, because the =udicial power presupposes an established go&ern7ent, and if the authority of that go&ern7ent is annulled and o&erthrown, the power of its courts is annulled with it@ therefore, if a state court should enter upon such an in0uiry, co7e to the conclusion that the go&ern7ent under which it acted had been displaced by an opposing go&ern7ent, it would cease to be a court, and it would be incapable of pronouncing a =udicial decision upon the 0uestion before it@ but, if it decides at all, it 7ust necessarily affir7 the e9istence of the go&ern7ent under which it e9ercises its =udicial powers' -"7phasis supplied/ These rules are all traceable to Lut)er vs. %orden, 34 *'S -7 Cow'/, 12 )' "d' .41, .24 -1432/ where it was held8 6udicial power presupposes an established go&ern7ent capable of enacting laws and enforcing their e9ecution, and appointing =udges to e9pound and ad7inister the7' The acceptance of the =udicial office is a recognition of the authority of go&ern7ent fro7 which it is deri&ed' And if the authority of the go&ern7ent is annulled and o&erthrown, the power of its courts and other officers is annulled with it' And if a State court should enter upon the in0uiry proposed in this case, and should co7e to conclusion that the go&ern7ent under which it acted had been put aside and displaced by an opposing go&ern7ent it would cease to be a court, and be incapable of pronouncing a =udicial decision upon the 0uestion it undertooB to try' +f it decides at all as a court, it necessarily affir7s the e9istence and authority of the go&ern7ent under which it is e9ercising =udicial power' The foreign relations of the Republic of the hilippines ha&e been nor7ally conducted on the basis of the new %onstitution and no state with which we 7aintain diplo7atic relations has withdrawn its recognition of our go&ern7ent' -<or particulars about e9ecuti&e acts done under the new %onstitution, see pages 22,2. of the %o77ents of the Solicitor 1eneral, dated <ebruary 3, 1273'/ %ertainly the in&alidation of rocla7ation #o' 1102 and residential :ecrees #os' 45 and 45,A by this %ourt would s7acB of plain political 7eddling which is described by the *nited States Supre7e %ourt as ;entering a political thicBet; in %olegro&e &s' 1reen, 324 *'S' p' .32' At this =uncture it would be the part of wisdo7 for this %ourt to adopt the proper attitude towards political uphea&als and reali?e that the 0uestion before *s is political and not fit for =udicial deter7ination' <or a political 0uestion is one entrusted to the people for =udg7ent in their so&ereign capacity -Ta>ada &s' %uenco, 1'R' #o' ),10.20, <eb' 24,1257@ 100 hil'

1101/, or to a co,e0ual and coordinate branch of the 1o&ern7ent -Aera &s' Arellano, 77 hil' 122@ !abanag &s' )ope? Aito, 74 hil' 1@ Ale=andrino &s' Iue?on, 35 hil' 3.@ %abili &s' <rancisco, 1'R' #o' 3534, !ay 4, 1231/' A case in&ol&es a political 0uestion when there would be ;the i7possibility of undertaBing independent resolutions without e9pressing a lacB of respect due to coordinate branches of go&ern7ent;, or when there is ;the potentiality of e7barrass7ent fro7 7ultifarious pronounce7ents by &arious depart7ents on one 0uestion'; To preser&e the prestige and e7inence that this %ourt has long en=oyed as the ;ulti7ate organ of the ;Supre7e )aw of the )and; in that &ast range of legal proble7s often strongly entangled in popular feeling on which this %ourt 7ust pronounce;, let us harBen to the following ad7onition of 6ustice <ranBfurter in his dissent in %a#er vs. +arr, 352 *'S' 145@ 42 S' %t' 521@ 7 )' "d' 2d' 5538 The %ourtDs authority E possessed neither of the purse nor the sword E ultimatel" rests on sustained pu*lic confidence in its moral sanction. Suc) feeling must *e nouris)ed *" t)e +ourt0s complete detac)ment, in fact and appearance, from political entanglements and a*stention from in6ecting itself into t)e clas) of political forces in political settlement ' '''; -"7phasis supplied/ The people ha&e accepted and sub7itted to a %onstitution to replace the 123. %onstitution' The new organic law is now in the plenitude of its efficacy and &igor' We are now li&ing under its aegis and protection and only the cynics will deny this' This %ourt should not in the least atte7pt to act as a super,legislature or a super,board of can&assers and sow confusion and discord a7ong our people by pontificating there was no &alid ratification of the new %onstitution' The sober reali?ation of its proper role and delicate function and its consciousness of the li7itations on its co7petence, especially situations liBe this, are 7ore in Beeping with the preser&ation of our de7ocratic tradition than the blatant decla7ations of those who wish the %ourt to engage in their brand of acti&is7 and would not 7ind plunging it into the whirlpool of passion and e7otion in an effort to capture the into9icating applause of the 7ultitude' <or all the foregoing, + &ote to dis7iss all petitions' MA):+AAR, 6', concurring and dissenting8 +n these fi&e cases, the 7ain issue to be resol&ed by %ourt is whether or not the %onstitution proposed by the %onstitutional %on&ention of 1271 had been ratified in accordance with the pro&isions of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' +n the plebiscite cases, which were decided by this %ourt on 6anuary 22, 1273 1, + held the &iew that this issue could be properly resol&ed by this %ourt, and that it was in the public interest that this %ourt should declare then whether or not the proposed %onstitution had been &alidly ratified' The 7a=ority of this %ourt, howe&er, was of the &iew that the issue was not s0uarely raised in those cases, and so the %ourt, as a body, did 7aBe any categorical pronounce7ent on the 0uestion of whether or not the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %on&ention was &alidly ratified' + was the only one who e9pressed the opinion that the proposed %onstitution was not &alidly ratified and therefore ;it should not be gi&en force and effect'; The %ourt is now called upon to declare, and to infor7 the people of this country, whether or not that proposed %onstitution had been &alidly ratified and had co7e into effect' The Solicitor 1eneral, howe&er, contends that this %ourt has no =urisdiction to resol&e the issue that we ha&e 7entioned because that issue is a political 0uestion that cannot be decided by this %ourt' This contention by the Solicitor 1eneral is untenable' A political 0uestion relates to ;those 0uestions which under the %onstitution are to be decided by the people in their so&ereign capacity or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislati&e, or to the e9ecuti&e, branch of the go&ern7ent' 2 The courts ha&e the power to deter7ine whether the acts of the e9ecuti&e are authori?ed by the %onstitution and the laws whene&er they are brought before the court in a =udicial proceeding' The =udicial depart7ent of the go&ern7ent e9ercises a sort of controlling, or rather restraining, power o&er the two other depart7ents of the go&ern7ent' "ach of the three depart7ents, within its proper constitutional sphere, acts independently of the other, and restraint is only placed on one depart7ent when that sphere is actually transcended' While a court 7ay not restrain the e9ecuti&e fro7 co77itting an unlawful act, it 7ay, when the legality of such an act is brought before it in a =udicial proceeding, declare it to be &oid, the sa7e as it 7ay declare a law enacted by the legislature to be unconstitutional' 3 +t is a settled doctrine that e&ery officer under a constitutional go&ern7ent 7ust act according to law and sub=ect to its restrictions, and e&ery departure therefro7, or disregard thereof, 7ust sub=ect hi7 to the restraining and controlling power of the people, acting through the agency of the =udiciary' +t 7ust be re7e7bered that the people act through the courts, as well as through the e9ecuti&e or the legislature' (ne depart7ent is =ust as representati&e as the other, and =udiciary is the depart7ent which is charged with the special duty of deter7ining the li7itations which the law places upon all official actions 4' +n the case of Gonzales v. +ommission on &lections ), this %ourt ruled that the issue as to whether or not a resolution of %ongress acting as a constituent asse7bly &iolates the %onstitution is not a political 0uestion and is therefore sub=ect to =udicial re&iew' +n the case of Avelino v. +uenco 6, this %ourt held that the e9ception to the rule that courts will not interfere with a political 0uestion affecting another depart7ent is when such political 0uestion in&ol&es an issue as to the construction and interpretation of the pro&ision of the constitution' And so, it has been held that the 0uestion of whether a constitution shall be a7ended or not is a political 0uestion which is not in the power of the court to decide, but whether or not the constitution has been legally a7ended is a =usticiable 0uestion' 7 !y study on the sub=ect of whether a 0uestion before the court is political or =udicial, based on decisions of the courts in the *nited States E where, after all, our constitutional syste7 has been patterned to a large e9tent E 7ade 7e arri&e at the considered &iew that it is in the power of this %ourt, as the ulti7ate interpreter of the %onstitution, to deter7ine the &alidity of the proposal, the sub7ission, and the ratification of any change in the %onstitution' Ratification or non,ratification of a constitutional

a7end7ent is a &ital ele7ent in the procedure to a7end the constitution, and + belie&e that the %ourt can in0uire into, and decide on, the 0uestion of whether or not an a7end7ent to the constitution, as in the present cases, has been ratified in accordance with the re0uire7ents prescribed in the %onstitution that was a7ended' And so, in the cases now before *s, + belie&e that the 0uestion of whether or not the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention had been &alidly ratified or not is a =usticiable 0uestion' The %hief 6ustice, in his opinion, has discussed lengthily the sub=ect on whether or not, the cases, before *s in&ol&e a political, or a =udicial, 0uestion' + fully concur with his conclusion that the 0uestion in&ol&ed in these cases is =usticiable' (n the 0uestion now of whether or not the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention has been &alidly ratified, + a7 reproducing herein pertinent portions of 7y dissenting opinion in the plebiscite cases8 The ratification of the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention 7ust be done in accordance with the pro&isions of Section 1, Article KA of the 123. %onstitution of the hilippines, which reads8 ;Section 1' The %ongress in =oint session asse7bled by a &ote of three fourths of all the !e7bers of the Senate and of the Couse of Representati&es &oting separately, 7ay propose a7end7ents to the %onstitution or call a con&ention for that purpose' Such a7end7ents shall be &alid as part of this %onstitution when appro&ed by a 7a=ority of the &otes cast at an election at which the a7end7ents are sub7itted to the people for their ratification'; +t is in consonance with the abo&e0uoted pro&ision of the 123. %onstitution that on !arch 15, 1257, the %ongress of the hilippines Resolution #o' 2 calling a con&ention to propose a7end7ents to the %onstitution of the hilippines' Sec' 7 of said Resolution #o' 2 reads as follows8 ;Section 7' The a7end7ents proposed by the %on&ention shall be &alid and considered part of the %onstitution when appro&ed by a 7a=ority of the &otes cast in an election at which they are sub7itted to the people for their ratification pursuant to Article KA of the %onstitution' +t follows that fro7 the &ery resolution of the %ongress of the hilippines which called for the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention, there was a clear 7andate that the a7end7ents proposed by the 1271 %on&ention, in order to be &alid and considered part of the %onstitution, 7ust be appro&ed by 7a=ority of the &otes cast in an election at which they are sub7itted to the people for the ratification as pro&ided in the %onstitution' This %ourt, in the case of Tolentino vs. +ommission &lections, ),3.130, (ctober 15, 1271 -31 S%RA 71./, speaBing through !r' 6ustice $arredo, said8 ;The %onstitutional %on&ention of 1271, as any other con&ention of the sa7e nature, o,es its e!istence and all its aut)orit" and po,er from t)e e!isting +onstitution of t)e $)ilippines' This %on&ention has not been called by the people directly as in the case of a re&olutionary con&ention which drafts the first %onstitution of an entirely new go&ern7ent born of either a war of liberation fro7 a 7other country or of re&olution against an e9isting go&ern7ent or of a bloodless sei?ure of power a la coup d0etat' As to such Bind of con&entions, it is absolutely true that the con&ention is co7pletely without restraint and o7nipotent all wise, and it as to such con&entions that the re7arBs of :elegate !anuel Ro9as of the %onstitutional %on&ention of 1233 0uoted by Senator elae? refer' #o a7ount of rationali?ation can belie the fact that the current con&ention ca7e into being only because it was called by a resolution of a =oint session of %ongress acting as a constituent asse7bly by authority of Section 1, Article KA of the present %onstitution ''' '; 999 999 999 ;As to 7atters not related to its internal operation and the perfor7ance of its assigned 7ission to propose a7end7ents to the %onstitution, the %on&ention and its officers and 7e7bers are all su*6ect to all t)e provisions of t)e e!isting +onstitution ' #ow we hold that e&en as to its latter tas# of proposing amendments to t)e +onstitution, it is su*6ect to t)e provisions of Section 4 of Article :V'; +n rocla7ation #o' 1102, issued on 6anuary 17, 1273, the resident of the hilippines certified that as a result of the &oting before the barangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ 13,275,.51 7e7bers of the barangays &oted for the adoption of the proposed %onstitution, as against 733,452 who &oted for its re=ection, and on the basis of the o&erwhel7ing 7a=ority of the &otes cast by the 7e7bers of all the barangays throughout the hilippines, the resident proclai7ed that the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %on&ention has

been ratified and has thereby co7e into effect' +t is &ery plain fro7 the &ery wordings of rocla7ation #o' 1102 that the pro&isions of Section 1 of Article KA of the %onstitution of 123. were not co7plied with' +t is not necessary that e&idence be produced before this %ourt to show that no elections were held in accordance with the pro&isions of the "lection %ode' rocla7ation #o' 1102 une0ui&ocally states that the proposed %onstitution of 1272 was &oted upon by the barangays' +t is &ery clear, therefore, that the &oting held in these barangays is not the election conte7plated in the pro&isions of Section 1, Article KA, of the 123. %onstitution' The election conte7plated in said constitutional pro&ision is an election held in accordance with the pro&isions of the election law, where only the 0ualified and registered &oters of the country would cast their &otes, where official ballots prepared for the purpose are used, where the &oters would prepare their ballots in secret inside the &oting booths in the polling places established in the different election precincts throughout the country, where the election is conducted by election inspectors duly appointed in accordance with the election law, where the &otes are can&assed and reported in a 7anner pro&ided for in the election law' +t was this Bind of election that was held on !ay 13, 123., when the %onstitution of 123. was ratified@ on April 30, 1237, when the a7end7ent to the %onstitution pro&iding for Wo7enDs Suffrage was ratified@ on 6une 14, 1230, when the 1230 A7end7ents to the %onstitution were ratified@ on !arch 11, 1237 when the arity A7end7ent to the %onstitution was ratified@ and on #o&e7ber 13, 1257 when the a7end7ents to the %onstitution to increase the nu7ber of !e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es and to allow the !e7bers of %ongress to run in the elections for :elegates to the %onstitutional %on&ention of 1271 were re=ected' + cannot see any &alid reason why the practice or procedure in the past, in i7ple7enting the constitutional pro&ision re0uiring the holding, of an election to ratify or re=ect an a7end7ent to the %onstitution, has not been followed in the case of the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention' +t is 7y &iew that the resident of the hilippines cannot by decree order the ratification of the proposed 1272 %onstitution thru a &oting in the barangays and 7aBe said result the basis for proclai7ing the ratification of the proposed constitution' +t is &ery clear, to 7e, that rocla7ation #o' 1102 was issued in co7plete disregard or in &iolation, of the pro&isions of Section 1 of Article K of the 123. %onstitution' rocla7ation #o' 1102 7entions, further7ore, that on the 0uestion as to whether or not the people would still liBe a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new %onstitution, 13,224,413 7e7bers of the barangays answered that there was no need for a plebiscite but that the &ote of the barangays should be considered a &ote in a plebiscite' +t would thus appear that the barangays assu7ed the power to deter7ine whether a plebiscite as ordained in the %onstitution be held or not' +ndeed, the pro&ision of Section 1, Article KA of the %onstitution was co7pletely disregarded' The affir7ati&e &otes cast in the barangays are not the &otes conte7plated in Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' The &otes conte7plated in said constitutional pro&ision are &otes obtained through the election processes as pro&ided by law' ;An election is the e7bodi7ent of the popular will, the e9pression of the so&ereign power of the people' +n co77on parlance, an election is the act of casting and recei&ing the ballots, counting the7, and 7aBing the return'; -Conti&eros &s' Alta&as, 23 hil' 532, 537/' ;"lection; i7plies a choice by an electoral body at the ti7e and substantially in the 7anner and with the safeguards pro&ided by law with respect to so7e 0uestion or issue' -)effel &' $rown, %o7' 1', 1.2 #'"' 2d 407, 404 cited in 22 %'6'S' 13 at footnote 5'./' ;''' the statutory 7ethod whereby 9ualified voters or electors pass on &arious public 7atters sub7itted to the7 E the election of officers, national, state, county, township E the passing on &arious other 0uestions sub7itted for their deter7ination'; -22 %'6'S' 13, citing +owa,+llinois 1as P "lec' %o' &' %ity of $ettendorf, 31 #'W' 2d 1, ., 231 +owa 3.4/' ;"lection; is e9pression of choice by voters of body politic' -1insburg &' 1iles, 72 S'W' 2d 334, 2.3 Ny' 720, in Words and hrases, er7anent "dition, p' 233/' ;The right to &ote 7ay be e9ercised only on co7pliance with such statutory re0uire7ents as ha&e been set by the legislature'; - eople e9 rel' Rago &' )ipsBy, 53 #'"' 2d 532, 327 +++' App' 53@ Rothfels &' Southworth, 3.5 ' 2d 512, 11 *tah 2d 152 in 22 %'6'S' 34/' -"7phasis supplied/' +n this connection + herein 0uote the pertinent pro&isions of the "lection %ode of 12718 ;Sec' 2' Applica*ilit" of t)is Act' E All elections of public officers e9cept barrio officials and plebiscites shall be conducted in the 7anner pro&ided by this %ode';

;Sec 22' 'ecessit" of registration to *e entitled to vote' E +n order that a 0ualified &oter 7ay &ote in any regular or special election or in any plebiscite, he 7ust be registered in the per7anent list of &oters for the city, 7unicipality or 7unicipal district in which he resides8 ro&ided, that no person shall register 7ore than once without first applying for cancellation of his pre&ious registration'; -"7phasis supplied/' - lease see also Sections 100,102, "lection %ode of 1271, R'A' #o' 5344/ +t is stated in rocla7ation #o' 1102 that the &oting was done by the 7e7bers of citi?ens asse7blies who are 1. years of age or o&er' *nder the pro&ision of Section + of Article A of the 123. %onstitution, the age re0uire7ent to be a 0ualified &oter is 21 years or o&er' $ut what is 7ore noteworthy is the fact that the &oting in the barangays, e9cept in &ery few instances, was done by the raising of hands by the persons indiscri7inately gathered to participate in the &oting, where e&en children below 1. years of age were included' This is a 7atter of co77on obser&ation, or of co77on Bnowledge, which the %ourt 7ay taBe =udicial notice of' To consider the &otes in the barangays as e9pressi&e of the popular will and use the7 as the basis in declaring whether a %onstitution is ratified or re=ected is to resort to a &oting by de7onstrations, which is would 7ean the rule of the crowd, which is only one degree higher than the rule by the 7ob' %ertainly, so i7portant a 0uestion as to whether the %onstitution, which is the supre7e law of the land, should be ratified or not, 7ust not be decided by si7ply gathering people and asBing the7 to raise their hands in answer to the 0uestion of whether the &ote for or against a proposed %onstitution' The election as pro&ided by law should be strictly obser&ed in deter7ining the will of the so&ereign people in a de7ocracy' +n our Republic, the will of the people 7ust be e9pressed through the ballot in a 7anner that is pro&ided by law' +t is said that in a de7ocracy, the will of the people is the supre7e law' +ndeed, the people are so&ereign, but the will of the people 7ust be e9pressed in a 7anner as the law and the de7ands a well,ordered society re0uire' The rule of law 7ust pre&ail e&en o&er the apparent will of the 7a=ority of the people, if that will had not been e9pressed, or obtained, in accordance with the law' *nder the rule of law, public 0uestions 7ust be decided in accordance with the %onstitution and the law' This is specially true in the case of adoption of a constitution or in the ratification of an a7end7ent to the %onstitution' The following citations are, to 7e, &ery rele&ant in the effort to deter7ine whether the proposed %onstitution of 1272 had been &alidly ratified, or not8 ;When it is said that ;the people; ha&e the right to alter or a7end the constitution, it 7ust not be understood that ter7 necessarily includes all the inhabitants of the state' Since the 0uestion of the adoption or re=ection of a proposed new constitution or constitutional a7end7ent 7ust be answered a &ote, the deter7ination of it rests with those who, by e9isting constitution, are accorded the right of suffrage' $ut the 0ualified electors 7ust be understood in this, as in 7any other cases, as representing those who ha&e not the right to participate in the ballot' +f a constitution should be abrogated and a new one adopted, by the whole 7ass of people in a state acting through representati&es not chosen by the ;people; in political sense of the ter7, but by the general body of the populace, the 7o&e7ent would be e9tra,legal'; -$+acBDs %onstitutional )aw, Second "dition, pp' 37,34/' ;The theory of our political syste7 is that the ulti7ate so&ereignty is in the people, fro7 who7 springs all legiti7ate authority' The people of the *nion created a national constitution, and conferred upon it powers of so&ereignty on certain sub=ects, and the people of each State created a State go&ern7ent, to e9ercise the re7aining powers of so&ereignty so far as they were disposed to allow the7 to be e9ercised at all' $y the constitution which they establish, they not only tie up the hands of their official agencies, but their own hands as well@ and neither the officers of the State, nor the whole people as an aggregate body, are at liberty to taBe action in opposition to this funda7ental law'; -%ooleyDs %onstitutional )i7itations, 4th "dition, Aol' +, p' 41 cited in 1raha7 &' 6ones, 3 So' 2d' 751, 742/' ;The theory that a fa&orable &ote by the electorate, howe&er unani7ous, on a proposal to a7end a constitution, 7ay cure, render innocuous, all or any antecedent failures to obser&e co77ands of that %onstitution in respect of the for7ulation or sub7ission of proposed a7end7ents thereto, does not pre&ail in Alaba7a, where the doctrine of the stated theory was denied, in ob&ious effect, by the pronounce7ent 50 years ago of broad, wholeso7e constitutional principles in +ollier v. =rierson, supra, as 0uoted in the original opinion, ante' The people the7sel&es are bound by the %onstitution@ and, being so bound, are powerless, whate&er their nu7bers, to change or thwart its 7andates, e9cept through the peaceful 7eans of a constitutional con&ention, or of an a7end7ent according to the 7ode therein prescribed, or through the e9ertion of the original right of re&olution' ;The %onstitution 7ay be set aside by re&olution, but it can only be a7ended in the way it pro&ides,; said Cobson, %'6', in !c%reary &' Speer, 1.5 Ny' 743, 721, 152 S'W' 22, 103'

-6ohnson &s' %raft, et al', 47 So' 37., 34., 347, (n Rehearing/' ;The fact that a 7a=ority &oted for the a7end7ent, unless the &ote was taBen as pro&ided by the %onstitution, is not sufficient to 7aBe a change in that instru7ent' Whether a proposed a7end7ent has been legally adopted is a =udicial 0uestion, for the court 7ust uphold and enforce the %onstitution as written until it is a7ended in the way which it pro&ides for'; /ood v. Too#er, 1. !ont' 4, 37 ac 430, 2. )'R'A' .50@Mc+onaug)t" v. State, 105 !inn' 302, 112 #'W' 304@ a#land $aving +ompan" v. Ailton, 52 %al' 322, 11 ac' 3@ @tter v. Mosel", 15 +daho 273, 100 ac' 12.4, 133 A7' St' Rep' 23, 14 Ann' %as' 723' -!c%reary &' Speer, 152 S'W' 22, 103/' ; ro&isions of a constitution regulating its own a7end7ent, ''' are not 7erely directory, but are 7andatory@ and a strict obser&ance of e&ery substantial 7andatory@ and a strict obser&ance of e&ery substantial re0uire7ent is essential to the &alidity of the proposed a7end7ent' These pro&isions are as binding on the people as on the legislature, and the for7er are powerless by &ote of acceptance to gi&e legal sanction to an a7end7ent the sub7ission of which was 7ade in disregard of the li7itations contained in the constitution'; -15 %'6'S' 3.,35' cited in 1raha7 &' 6ones, 3 So' 2d 751, 742/' ;+t is said that chaos and confusion in the go&ern7ent affairs of the State will result fro7 the %ourtDs action in declaring the proposed constitutional a7end7ent &oid' This state7ent is grossly and 7anifestly inaccurate' +f confusion and chaos should ensue, it will not be due to the action of the %ourt but will be the result of the failure of the drafters =oint resolution to obser&e, follow and obey the plain essential pro&isions of the %onstitution' <urther7ore, to say that, the %ourt disregards its sworn duty to enforce the %onstitution, chaos and confusion will result, is an inherently weaB argu7ent in fa&or of the alleged constitutionality of the proposed a7end7ent' +t is ob&ious that, if the %ourt were to countenance the &iolations of the sacra7ental pro&isions %onstitution, those who would thereafter desire to &iolate it disregard its clear 7andatory pro&isions would resort to the sche7e of in&ol&ing and confusing the affairs of the State then si7ply tell the %ourt that it was powerless to e9ercise one of its pri7ary functions by rendering the proper decree to 7aBe the %onstitution effecti&e'; -1raha7 &' 6ones, 3 So' 2d' 751, 723,723/' +n our =urisprudence + find an instance where this %ourt did not allow the will of the 7a=ority to pre&ail, because the re0uire7ents of the law were not co7plied with' +n the case of Monsale v. 'ico, 43 hil' 7.4, !onsale and #ico were both candidates for the office of !unicipal !ayor of !iagao, +loilo, in the elections of #o&e7ber 11, 1237' !onsale had duly filed his certificate of candidacy before the e9piration of the period for the filing of the sa7e' Cowe&er, on (ctober 10, 1237, after the period for the filing of the certificate of candidacy, !onsale withdrew his certificate of candidacy' $ut on #o&e7ber 7, 1237 !onsale atte7pted to re&i&e his certificate of candidacy by withdrawing the withdrawal of certificate of candidacy' The %o77ission on "lections, #o&e7ber 4, 1237, ruled that !onsale could no longer be a candidate' !onsale ne&ertheless proceeded with his candidacy' The boards of inspectors in !iagao, howe&er, did not count the &otes cast for !onsale upon the ground that the &otes cast for hi7 were stray &otes, because he was considered as ha&ing no certificate of candidacy' (n the other hand, the boards of inspectors credited #ico with 2,221 &otes, and #ico was proclai7ed elected' !onsale filed a protest against the election of #ico in the %ourt of <irst +nstance of +loilo' +n the count of the ballots during the proceedings in the trial court, it appeared that !onsale had obtained 2,477 &otes while #ico obtained 2,275 &otes, or a 7argin of 501 &otes in fa&or of !onsale' The %ourt of <irst +nstance of +loilo decided the election protest in fa&or of !onsale' *pon appeal by #ico, this %ourt re&ersed the decision of the lower court' This %ourt declared that because !onsale withdrew his certificate of candidacy, his atte7pt to re&i&e it by withdrawing his withdrawal of his certificate of candidacy did not restore the effecti&eness of his certificate of candidacy, and this %ourt declared #ico the winner in spite of the fact that !onsale had obtained 7ore &otes than he' We ha&e cited this !onsale case to show that the will of the 7a=ority of the &oters would not be gi&en effect, as declared by this %ourt, if certain legal re0uire7ents ha&e not been co7plied with in order to render the &otes &alid and effecti&e to decide the result of an election' And so, in the cases now before this %ourt, the fact that the &oting in the citi?ens asse7blies -barangays/ is not the election that is pro&ided for in the 123. %onstitution for the ratification of the a7end7ent to the %onstitution, the affir7ati&e &otes cast in those asse7blies can not be 7ade the basis for declaring the ratification of the proposed 1272 %onstitution, in spite of the fact that it was reported that 13,275,.51 7e7bers of the citi?ens asse7blies &oted for the adoption as against 733,452 for the re=ection, because the &otes thus obtained were not in accordance with the pro&isions of Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution of the hilippines' The rule of law 7ast be upheld' !y last obser&ation8 (ne of the &alid grounds against the holding of the plebiscite on 6anuary 1., 1273, as pro&ided in residential :ecree #o' 73, is that there is no freedo7 on the part of the people to e9ercise their right of choice because of the e9istence of 7artial law in our country' The sa7e ground holds true as

regards to the &oting of the barangays on 6anuary 10 to 1., 1273' !ore so, because by 1eneral (rder #o' 20, issued on 6anuary 7, 1273, the resident of the hilippines ordered ;that the pro&isions of Section 3 of residential :ecree #o' 73 in so far as they allow free public discussion of the proposed constitution, as well as 7y order of :ece7ber 17, 1272 te7porarily suspending the effects of rocla7ation #o' 1041 for the purpose of free and open debate on the proposed constitution, be suspended in the 7eanti7e'; +t is, therefore, 7y &iew that &oting in the barangays on 6anuary 10, 1273 was not free, and so this is one added reason why the results of the &oting in the barangays should not be 7ade the basis for procla7ation of the ratification of the proposed %onstitution' +t is 7y &iew, therefore, that rocla7ation #o' 1102 repugnant to the 123. %onstitution, and so it is in&alid, and should not be gi&en effect' The %onstitution of 1272 proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention should be considered as not yet ratified by the people of this Republic, and so it should not be gi&en force and effect' +t is urged by the Solicitor 1eneral, howe&er, that the &oting in the citi?ens asse7blies was a substantial co7pliance with the pro&isions of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' The Solicitor 1eneral 7aintains that the pri7ary thrust of the pro&ision of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution is that ;to be &alid, a7end7ents 7ust gain the appro&al of the 7a=ority recognition of the de7ocratic postulate that so&ereign resides in the people'; +t is not disputed that in a de7ocratic so&ereignty resides in the people' $ut the ter7 ?people? 7ust be understood in its constitutional 7eaning, and they are ;those persons who are per7itted by the %onstitution to e9ercise the electi&e franchise'; ? Thus, in Section 2 of Article A++ of the 123. %onstitution, it is pro&ided that ;the resident shall hold his office during a ter7 of four years and, together with the Aice, resident chosen for the sa7e ter7, shall be elected by direct &ote of the people'''; %ertainly under that constitutional pro&ision, the ?people? who elect directly the resident and the Aice, resident are no other than the persons who, under the pro&isions of the sa7e %onstitution, are granted the right to &ote' +n liBe 7anner the pro&ision in Section 1 of Article ++ of the 123. %onstitution which says ;So&ereignty resides in the people and all go&ern7ent authority e7anates fro7 the7;, the ;people; who e9ercise the so&ereign power are no other than the persons who ha&e the right to &ote under the %onstitution' +n the case of Garc)itorena vs. +rescini 9, this %ourt, speaBing through !r' 6ustice 6ohnson, said, ;+n de7ocracies, the people, co7bined, represent the so&ereign power of the State' Their so&ereign authority is e9pressed through the ballot, of the 0ualified &oters, in duly appointed elections held fro7 ti7e to ti7e, by 7eans of which they choose their officials for definite fi9ed periods, and to who7 they entrust, for the ti7e being, as their representati&es, the e9ercise of the powers of go&ern7ent'; +n the case of Mo"a v. (el =ierro, 1@ this %ourt, speaBing through !r' 6ustice )aurel, said, ;As long as popular go&ern7ent is an end to be achie&ed and safeguarded, suffrage, whate&er 7ay be the 7odality and for7 de&ised, 7ust continue to be the 7eans by which the great reser&oir of power 7ust be e7ptied into the receptacular agencies wrought by the people through their %onstitution in the interest of good go&ern7ent and the co77on weal' Republicanis7, in so far as it i7plies the adoption of a representati&e type of go&ern7ent, necessarily points to the enfranc)ised citizen as a particle of popular sovereignt" and as t)e ultimate source of t)e esta*lis)ed aut)orit" '; And in the case of A*anil v. Justice of t)e $eace of %acolod , 11 this %ourt said8 ;+n the sche7e of our present republican go&ern7ent, the people are allo,ed to )ave a voice t)erein t)roug) t)e instrumentalit" of suffrage to be a&ailed of by those possessing certain prescribed 0ualifications' The people, in clothing a citi?en with the electi&e franchise for the purpose of securing a consistent and perpetual ad7inistration of the go&ern7ent they ordain, charge hi7 with the perfor7ance of a duty in the nature of a public trust, and in that respect constitute )im a representative of t)e ,)ole people' This duty re0uires that the pri&ilege thus bestowed e9clusi&ely for the benefit of the citi?en or class of citi?ens professing it, but in good faith and with an intelligent ?eal for the general benefit and welfare of the state' -*'S' &' %ruiBshauB, 22 *'S' .44/'''; There is no 0uestion, therefore, that when we talB of so&ereign people, what is 7eant are the people who act through the duly 0ualified and registered &oters who &ote during an election that is held as pro&ided in the %onstitution or in the law' The ter7 ;election; as used in Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution should be construed along with the ter7 ;election; as used in the ro&isions of Section 3 of the hilippine +ndependence Act of the %ongress of the *nited States, popularly Bnown as the Tydings,!c:uffie )aw - ublic Act #o' 127/' Said Section 3 of the Tydings,!c:uffie )aw pro&ides as follows8 Section H' After the resident of the *nited States certified that the constitution confor7s with the pro&isions of this act, it shall be sub7itted to the people of the hilippine +slands for their ratification or re=ection at an election to he held within 7onths after the date of such certification, on a date to be fi9ed by the hilippine )egislature at ,)ic) election, t)e 9ualified voters of t)e $)ilippine <slands s)all )ave an opportunit" to vote directl" or against t)e proposed constitution and ordinances append thereto' Such election shall be held in such 7anner as 7ay prescribed by the hilippine )egislature to which the return of the election shall be 7ade' The hilippine )egislature shall certify the result to the 1o&ernor,1eneral of the hilippine +slands, together with a state7ent of the &otes cast, and a copy of said constitution ordinances' +f a 7a=ority of the &otes cast shall be for the constitution, such &ote shall be dee7ed an e9pression of the will of the people of the hilippine +ndependence, and the 1o&ernor,1eneral shall, within thirty days after receipt of the certification fro7 the hilippine )egislature, issue a procla7ation for the election of officers of the go&ern7ent of the %o77onwealth of the hilippine +slands pro&ided for in the %onstitution''' +t can safely be said, therefore, that when the fra7ers of the 123. %onstitution used, the word ;election; in Section + Article KA of the 123. %onstitution they had no other idea in 7ind e9cept the elections that were periodically held in the hilippines for the choice of public officials prior to the drafting of the 123. %onstitution, and also the ;election; 7entioned in the +ndependence Act at which ;the 0ualified &oters of the hilippine +slands shall ha&e an opportunity to &ote directly for or against the proposed constitution'''; +t is but logical to e9pect that the fra7ers of the 123. %onstitution would pro&ide a 7ode of ratifying an

a7end7ent to that %onstitution si7ilar to the 7ode of ratifying the original %onstitution itself' +t is clear therefore, that the ratification or any a7end7ent to the 123. %onstitution could only be done by holding an election, as the ter7 ;election; was understood, and practiced, when the 123. %onstitution as drafted' The alleged referendu7 in the citi?ens asse7blies E participated in by persons aged 1. years or 7ore, regardless of whether they were 0ualified &oters or not, &oting by raising their hands, and the results of the &oting reported by the barrio or ward captain, to the 7unicipal 7ayor, who in turn sub7itted the report to the pro&incial 1o&ernor, and the latter forwarding the reports to the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents, all without the inter&ention of the %o77ission on "lections which is the constitutional body which has e9clusi&e charge of the enforce7ent and ad7inistration of all laws, relati&e to the conduct of elections E was not only a non,substantial co7pliance with the pro&isions of Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution but a downright &iolation of said constitutional pro&ision' +t would be indulging in sophistry to 7aintain that the &oting in the citi?ens asse7blies a7ounted to a substantial co7pliance with the re0uire7ents prescribed in Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' +t is further contended by the Solicitor 1eneral, that e&en if the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention was not ratified in accordance with the pro&isions of Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution, the fact is that after the resident of the hilippines had issued rocla7ation #o' 1102 declaring that the said proposed %onstitution ;has been ratified by o&erwhel7ing 7a=ority of all the &otes cast by the 7e7bers of all the barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ throughout the hilippines and had thereby co7e into effect; the people ha&e accepted the new %onstitution' What appears to 7e, howe&er, is that practically it is only the officials and e7ployees under the e9ecuti&e depart7ent of the 1o&ern7ent who ha&e been perfor7ing their duties apparently in obser&ance of the pro&isions of the new %onstitution' +t could not be otherwise, because the resident of the hilippines, who is the head of the e9ecuti&e depart7ent, had proclai7ed that the new %onstitution had co7e into effect, and his office had taBen the steps to i7ple7ent the pro&isions of the new %onstitution' True it is, that so7e 22 7e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es and 1. 7e7bers of the Senate, of the %ongress of the hilippines had e9pressed their option to ser&e in the interi7 #ational Asse7bly that is pro&ided for in Section 2 of Article KA++ of the proposed %onstitution' +t 7ust be noted, howe&er, that of the 1. senators who e9pressed their option to ser&e in the interi7 #ational Asse7bly only one the7 tooB his oath of office@ and of the 22 7e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es who opted to ser&e in the interi7 #ational Asse7bly, only 22 tooB their oath of office' The fact that only one Senator out of 23, and only 22 Representati&e out of 110, tooB their oath of office, is an indication that only a s7all portion of the 7e7bers of %ongress had 7anifested the acceptance of the new %onstitution' +t is in the taBing of the oath of office where the affiant says that he swears to ;support and defend the %onstitution; that the acceptance of the %onstitution is 7ade 7anifest' + agree with counsel petitioners in ),3515. -1erardo Ro9as, et al' &' Ale=andro !elchor, et al'/ when he said that the 7e7bers of %ongress who opted to ser&e in the interi7 #ational Asse7bly did only e! a*undante cautela, or by way of a precaution, 7aBing sure, that in the e&ent the new %onstitution beco7es definitely effecti&e and the interi7 #ational Asse7bly con&ened, they can participate in legislati&e worB in the capacity as duly elected representati&es of the people, which otherwise they could not do if they did not 7anifest their option to ser&e, and that option had to be 7ade within 30 day fro7 6anuary 17, 1273, the date when rocla7ation #o' 110 was issued' (f course, if the proposed %onstitution does not beco7e effecti&e, they continue to be 7e7bers of %ongress under the 123. %onstitution' )et it be considered that the 7e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es were elected in 1252 to ser&e a ter7 which will yet e9pire on :ece7ber 31, 1273' Whereas, of the Senators who opted to ser&e in the interi7 #ational Asse7bly, the ter7 of so7e of the7 will yet e9pire on :ece7ber 31, 1273, so7e on :ece7ber 31, 127., and the rest on :ece7ber 31, 1277' )et if be noted that 2 Senators did not opt to ser&e in the interi7 #ational Asse7bly, and 14 7e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es also did not opt to ser&e in the interi7 #ational Asse7bly' #either can it be said that the people ha&e accepted the new %onstitution' + cannot, in conscience, accept the reported affir7ati&e &otes in the citi?ens asse7blies as a true and correct e9pression by the people of their appro&al, or acceptance, of the proposed %onstitution' + ha&e 7y serious doubts regarding the freedo7 of the people to e9press their &iews regarding the proposed %onstitution during the &oting in the citi?ens asse7blies, and + ha&e also 7y serious doubts regarding the truthfulness and accuracy of the reports of the &oting in the citi?ens asse7blies' This doubt has been engendered in 7y 7ind after a careful e9a7ination and study of the records of these cases, particularly with respect to the reports of the &oting in the citi?ens asse7blies' erhaps, it 7ay be said that the people, or the inhabitants of this country, ha&e ac0uiesced to the new %onstitution, in the sense that they ha&e continued to li&e peacefully and orderly under the go&ern7ent that has been e9isting since 6anuary 17, 1273 when it was proclai7ed that the new %onstitution ca7e into effect' $ut what could the people doH +n the sa7e way that the people ha&e li&ed under 7artial law since Septe7ber 23, 1272, they also ha&e to li&e under the go&ern7ent as it now e9ists, and as it has e9isted since the declaration of 7artial law on Septe7ber 21, 1272, regardless of what %onstitution is operati&e E whether it is the 123. %onstitution or the new %onstitution' +ndeed, there is nothing that the people can do under the circu7stances actually pre&ailing in our country today E circu7stances, Bnown to all, and which + do not consider necessary to state in this opinion' + cannot agree, therefore, with 7y worthy colleagues in the %ourt who hold the &iew that the people ha&e accepted the new %onstitution, and that because the people ha&e accepted it, the new %onstitution should be considered as in force, regardless of the fact that it was not ratified in accordance with the pro&isions of Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' +t is 7y honest &iew that the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention has not co7e into effect' + do not say, howe&er, that the proposed %onstitution is in&alid' To 7e, the &alidity of the proposed %onstitution is not in issue in the cases before *s' What the petitioners assail is not the &alidity of the proposed %onstitution but the &alidity of residential rocla7ation #o' 1102 which declares the proposed %onstitution as ha&ing been ratified and has co7e into effect' +t being 7y considered &iew that the ratification of the proposed %onstitution, as proclai7ed in rocla7ation #o' 1102, is not in accordance with the pro&isions of Section 1 of Article KA, of the 123. %onstitution, + hold that rocla7ation #o' 1102 is in&alid and should not be gi&en force and effect' Their proposed %onstitution, therefore, should be considered as not yet &alidly ratified, and so it is not in force' The proposed %onstitution 7ay still be sub7itted to a plebiscite in confor7ity with Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' +ncidentally, + 7ust state that the %onstitution is still in force, and this %ourt is still functioning under the 123.

%onstitution' + sincerely belie&e that the proposed %onstitution 7ay still be sub7itted to the people in an election or plebiscite held in accordance with the pro&isions of Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' +n fact, as we ha&e ad&erted to in this opinion, this was the 7andate of %ongress when, on !arch 15, 1257, it passed Resolution #o' 2 calling a con&ention to propose a7end7ents to the 123. %onstitution' The %ourt 7ay taBe =udicial notice of the fact that the resident of the hilippines has reassured the nation that the go&ern7ent of our Republic since the declaration of 7artial law is not a re&olutionary go&ern7ent, and that he has been acting all the way in consonance with his powers under the %onstitution' The people of this Republic has reason to be happy because, according to the resident, we still ha&e a constitutional go&ern7ent' +t being 7y &iew that the 123. %onstitution is still in force, + belie&e %ongress 7ay still con&ene and pass a law calling for an election at which the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention will be sub7itted to the people their ratification or re=ection' A plebiscite called pursuant to Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution is an assurance to our people that we still ha&e in our country the Rule of )aw and that the de7ocratic syste7 of go&ern7ent that has been i7planted in our country by the A7ericans, and which has beco7e part of our social and political fabric, is still a reality' The &iews that + ha&e e9pressed in this opinion are inspired by a desire on 7y part to bring about stability in de7ocratic and constitutional syste7 in our country' + feel that if this %ourt would gi&e its i7pri7atur to the ratification of the proposed %onstitution, as announced in rocla7ation #o' 1102, it being &ery clear that the pro&isions of Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution had not been co7plied with, We will be opening the gates for a si7ilar disregard of the %onstitution in the future' What + 7ean is that if this %ourt now declares that a new %onstitution is now in force because the 7e7bers of the citi?ens asse7blies had appro&ed the said new %onstitution, although that appro&al was not in accordance with the procedure and the re0uire7ents prescribed in the 123. %onstitution, it can happen again in so7e future ti7e that so7e a7end7ents to the %onstitution 7ay be adopted, e&en in a 7anner contrary to the e9isting %onstitution and the law, and then said proposed a7end7ent is sub7itted to the people in any 7anner and what will 7atter is that a basis is clai7ed that there was appro&al by the people' There will not be stability in our constitutional syste7, and necessarily no stability in our go&ern7ent' As a 7e7ber of this %ourt + only wish to contribute 7y hu7ble efforts to pre&ent the happening of such a situation in the future' +t appearing to 7e that the announced ratification of the proposed %onstitution through the &oting in the citi?ens asse7blies is a clear &iolation of the 123. %onstitution, what + say in this opinion is si7ply an endea&or on 7y part to be true to 7y oath of office to defend and support the 123. %onstitution' + a7 inspired by what the great =urist and states7an, 6ose ' )aurel, said8 )et our =udges be as it were the &estal Beepers of the purity and sanctity of our %onstitution, and the protection and &indication of popular rights will be safe and secure in their re&erential guardianship' + only wish to help pre&ent, if + can, de7ocracy and the liberties of our people fro7 &anishing in our land, because, as 6ustice 1eorge Sutherland of the *' S' Supre7e %ourt said8 -t/he saddest epitaph which can be car&ed in 7e7ory of a &anished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a sa&ing hand while yet there was ti7e' + concur fully with the personal &iews e9pressed by the %hief 6ustice in the opinion that he has written in these cases' Along with hi7, + &ote to deny the 7otion to dis7iss and gi&e due course to the petitions in these cases' $ERNAN%O, J., dissenting8 #o 0uestion 7ore 7o7entous, none i7pressed with such transcendental significance is liBely to confront this %ourt in the near or distant future as that posed by these petitions' <or while the specific substanti&e issue is the &alidity of residential rocla7ation #o' 1102, an ad&erse =udg7ent 7ay be fraught with conse0uences that, to say the least, are far,reaching in its i7plications' As stressed by respondents, ;what petitioners really seeB to in&alidate is the new %onstitution'; 1 Strict accuracy would of course 0ualify such state7ent that what is in dispute, as noted in the opinion of the %hief 6ustice, goes only as far as the &alidity of its ratification' +t could &ery well be though that the ulti7ate outco7e is not confined within such li7it, and this is not to deny that under its aegis, there ha&e been 7arBed gains in the social and econo7ic sphere, but gi&en the pre7ise of continuity in a regi7e under a funda7ental law, which itself e9plicitly recogni?es the need for change and the process for bringing it about, 2 it see7s to 7e that the 7ore appropriate course is this %ourt to gi&e heed to the plea of petitioners that the 7ost serious attention be paid to their sub7ission that the challenged e9ecuti&e act fails to 7eet the test of constitutionality' *nder the circu7stances, with regret and with due respect for the opinion of 7y brethren, + 7ust perforce dissent' +t would follow therefore that the legal position taBen by the %hief 6ustice as set forth with his usual lucidity and thoroughness has, on the whole, 7y concurrence, sub=ect, of course, to reser&ations insofar as it contains &iews and nuances to which + ha&e in the past e9pressed doubts' #onetheless, + feel that a brief e9pression of the reasons for the stand + taBe would not be a7iss' +n coping with its responsibility arising fro7 the function of =udicial re&iew, this %ourt is not e9pected to be an oracle gi&en to utterances of eternal &erities, but certainly it is 7ore than =ust a Been but passi&e obser&er of the conte7porary scene' +t is, by &irtue of its role under the separation of powers concept, in&ol&ed not necessarily as a participant in the for7ation of go&ern7ent policy, but as an arbiter of its legality' "&en then, there is realis7 in what )erner did say about the A7erican Supre7e %ourt as ;the focal point of a set of dyna7ic forces which Fcould playG ha&oc with the land7arBs of the A7erican state and deter7ine the power configuration of the day'; 3 That is why there is this caveat' +n the *nited States as here, the e9ercise of the power of =udicial re&iew is conditioned on the necessity that the decision of a case or contro&ersy before it so re0uires' To repeat, the 6ustices of the highest tribunal are not, as 6ustice <ranBfurter 7ade clear, ;architects of policy' They can nullify the policy of

others, they are incapable of fashioning their own solutions for social proble7s'; 4 #onetheless, as was stressed by rofessors $lacB ) and !urphy, 6 a Supre7e %ourt by the conclusion it reaches and the decision it renders does not 7erely checB the coordinate branches, but also by its appro&al sta7ps with legiti7acy the action taBen' Thus in affir7ing constitutional supre7acy, the political depart7ents could seeB the aid of the =udiciary' <or the assent it gi&es to what has been done conduces to its support in a regi7e where the rule of law holds sway' +n discharging such a role, this %ourt 7ust necessarily taBe in account not only what the e9igent needs of the present de7and but what 7ay lie ahead in the une9plored and unBnown &istas of the future' +t 7ust guard against the pitfall of lacB of understanding of the do7inant forces at worB to seeB a better life for all, especially those suffering fro7 the pangs of po&erty and disease, by a blind deter7ination to adhere to the status 9uo' +t would be tragic, and a clear case of its being recreant to its trust, if the suspicion can with reason be entertained that its approach a7ounts 7erely to a 7ilitant &igilantis7 that is &iolently opposed to any for7 of social change' +t follows then that it does not suffice that recourse be had only to what passes for scholarship in the law that could be 7arred by inapplicable erudition and narrow legalis7' "&en with due recognition, such factors, howe&er, + cannot, for reasons to be set 7ore lengthily and in the light of the opinion of the %hief 6ustice, reach the sa7e result as the 7a=ority of 7y brethren' <or, in the last analysis, it is 7y fir7 con&iction that the institution of =udicial re&iew speaBs too clearly for the point to be 7issed that official action, e&en with due allowance 7ade for the good faith that in&ariably inspires the step taBen, has to face the gauntlet of a court suit whene&er there is a proper case with the appropriate parties' 1' Respondents are acting in the soundest constitutional tradition when, at the outset, they would seeB a dis7issal of these petitions' <or the7, the 0uestion raised is political and thus beyond the =urisdiction of this %ourt' Such an approach cannot be indicted for unorthodo9y' +t is i7plicit in the concept of the rule of law that rights belong to the people and the go&ern7ent possesses powers only' "ssentially then, unless such an authority 7ay either be predicated on e9press or i7plied grant in the %onstitution or the statutes, an e9ercise thereof cannot sur&i&e an in0uiry as to its &alidity' Respondents through Solicitor, 1eneral !endo?a would deny our co7petence to proceed further' +t is their &iew, &igorously pressed and plausibly asserted, that since what is in&ol&ed is not 7erely the effecti&ity of an a7end7ent but the actual co7ing into effect of a new constitution, the 7atter is not =usticiable' The i77ediate reaction is that such a contention is to be tested in the light of the funda7ental doctrine of separation of powers that it is not only the function but the sole7n duty of the =udiciary to deter7ine what the law is and to apply it in cases and contro&ersies that call for decision' 7 Since the %onstitution pre,e7inently occupies the highest rung in the hierarchy of legal nor7s, it is in the =udiciary, ulti7ately this Tribunal, that such a responsibility is &ested' With the 123. %onstitution containing, as abo&e noted, an e9plicit article on the sub=ect of a7end7ents, it would follow that the presu7ption to be indulged in is that the 0uestion of whether there has been deference to its ter7s is for this %ourt to pass upon' What is 7ore, the 1on?ales, ? Tolentino 9 and lanas 1@ cases speaB une0ui&ocally to that effect' #or is it a &alid ob=ection to this conclusion that what was in&ol&ed in those cases was the legality of the sub7ission and not ratification, for fro7 the &ery language of the controlling article, the two &ital steps are proposal and ratification, which as pointed out in (illon v. Gloss, 11 ;cannot be treated as unrelated acts, but as succeeding steps in a single endea&or'; 12 (nce an aspect thereof is &iewed as =udicial, there would be no =ustification for considering the rest as de&oid of that character' +t would be for 7e then an indefensible retreat, deri&ing no =ustification fro7 circu7stances of weight and gra&ity, if this %ourt were to accede to what is sought by respondents and rule that the 0uestion before us is political' (n this point, it 7ay not be inappropriate to refer to a separate opinion of 7ine in Lansang v. Garcia' 13 Thus8 ;The ter7 has been 7ade applicable to contro&ersies clearly non,=udicial and therefore beyond its =urisdiction or to an issue in&ol&ed in a case appropriately sub=ect to its cogni?ance, as to which there has been a prior legislati&e or e9ecuti&e deter7ination to which deference 7ust be paid' +t has liBewise been e7ployed loosely to characteri?e a suit where the party proceeded against is the resident or %ongress, or any branch thereof' +f to be deli7ited with accuracy, ;political 0uestions; should refer to such as would under the %onstitution be decided by the people in their so&ereign capacity or in regard to full discretionary authority is &ested either in the resident or %ongress' +t is thus beyond the co7petence of the =udiciary to pass upon' *nless clearly falling within the for7ulation, the decision reached by the political branches whether in the for7 of a congressional act or an e9ecuti&e order could be tested in court' Where pri&ate rights are affected, the =udiciary has no choice but to looB into its &alidity' +t is not to be lost sight of that such a power co7es into play if there be an appropriate proceeding that 7ay be filed only after each coordinate branch has acted' "&en when the residency or %ongress possesses plenary powers, its i7pro&ident e9ercise or the abuse thereof, if shown, 7ay gi&e rise to a =usticiable contro&ersy' <or the constitutional grant of authority is usually unrestricted' There are li7its to what 7ay be done and how it is to be acco7plished' #ecessarily then, the courts in the proper e9ercise of =udicial re&iew could in0uire into the 0uestion of whether or not either of the two coordinate branches has adhered to what is laid down by the %onstitution' The 0uestion thus posed is =udicial rather than political'; 14 The &iew entertained by rofessor :odd is not too dissi7ilar' <or hi7 such a ter7 ;is e7ployed to designate certain types of functions co77itted to the political organs of go&ern7ent -the legislati&e and e9ecuti&e depart7ents, or either of the7/ and not sub=ect to =udicial in&estigation'; 1) After a thorough study of A7erican =udicial decisions, both federal and state, he could conclude8 ;The field of =udicial nonenforceability is i7portant, but is not large when contrasted with the whole body of written constitutional te9ts' The e9ceptions fro7 =udicial enforceability fall pri7arily within the field of public or go&ern7ental interests'; 16 #or was rofessor WestonDs for7ulation any different' As was e9pressed by hi78 ;6udicial 0uestions, in what 7ay be thought the 7ore useful sense, are those which the so&ereign has set to be decided in the courts' olitical 0uestions, si7ilarly, are those which the so&ereign has entrusted to the so,called political depart7ents of go&ern7ent or has reser&ed to be settled by its own e9tra,go&ern7ental action'; 17 What appears undeniable then both fro7 the standpoint of hilippine as well as A7erican decisions is the care and circu7spection re0uired before the conclusion is warranted that the 7atter at issue is beyond =udicial cogni?ance, a political 0uestion being raised' 2' The sub7ission of respondents on this sub=ect of political 0uestion, ad7ittedly one of co7ple9ity and i7portance, deser&es to be pursued further' They would deri&e 7uch aid and co7fort fro7 the writings of both rofessor $icBel 1? of Lale and rofessor <reund 19 of Car&ard, both of who7 in turn are unabashed ad7irers of 6ustice $randeis' Whate&er be the 7erit inherent in their lacB of enthusias7 for a 7ore acti&e and positi&e role that 7ust be played by the *nited States Supre7e %ourt in constitutional

litigation, it 7ust be =udged in the light of our own history' +t cannot be denied that fro7 the well nigh four decades of constitutionalis7 in the hilippines, e&en discounting an al7ost si7ilar period of ti7e dating fro7 the inception of A7erican so&ereignty, there has sprung a tradition of what has been aptly ter7ed as =udicial acti&is7' Such an approach could be traced to the &aledictory address before the 123. %onstitutional %on&ention of %laro !' Recto' Ce spoBe of the trust reposed in the =udiciary in these words8 ;+t is one of the parado9es of de7ocracy that the people at ti7es place 7ore confidence in instru7entalities of the State other than those directly chosen by the7 for the e9ercise of their so&ereignty'; 20 +t would thus appear that e&en then this %ourt was e9pected not to assu7e an attitude of ti7idity and hesitancy when a constitutional 0uestion is posed' There was the assu7ption of course that it would face up to such a tasB, without regard to political considerations and with no thought e9cept that of discharging its trust' Witness these words 6ustice )aurel in an early land7arB case, $eople v. Vera, 21 decided in 12378 ;+f it is e&er necessary for us to 7aBe &ehe7ent affir7ance during this for7ati&e period of political history, it is that we are independent of the "9ecuti&e no less than of the )egislati&e depart7ent of our go&ern7ent E independent in the perfor7ance of our functions, undeterred by any consideration, free fro7 politics, indifferent to popularity, and unafraid of criticis7 in the acco7plish7ent of our sworn duty as we see it and as we understand it'; 22 The hope of course was that such assertion of independence i7partiality was not 7ere rhetoric' That is a 7atter 7ore appropriately left to others to deter7ine' +t suffices to staBe that what elicits appro&al on the part of our people of a =udiciary e&er alert to in0uire into alleged breaches of the funda7ental law is the reali?ation that to do so is 7erely to do what is e9pected of it and that thereby there is no in&asion of spheres appropriately belonging to the political branches' <or it needs to be Bept in Bind always that it can act only when there is a suit with proper parties before it, wherein rights appropriate for =udicial enforce7ent are sought to be &indicated' Then, too, it does not approach constitutional 0uestions with dog7atis7 or apodictic certainty nor &iew the7 fro7 the shining cliffs of perfection' This is not to say though that it is satisfied with an e7piricis7 untroubled by the search for =ural consistency and rational coherence' A balance has to be strucB' So =uridical realis7 re0uires' (nce allowance 7ade that for all its care and circu7spection this %ourt 7anned by hu7an beings fettered by fallibility, nonetheless earnestly and sincerely stri&ing to do right, the public acceptance of its &igorous pursuit of the tasB of assuring that the %onstitution be obeyed is easy to understand' +t has not in the past shirBed its responsibility to ascertain whether there has been co7pliance with and fidelity to constitutional re0uire7ents' Such is the teaching of a host of cases fro7 Angara v. &lectoral +ommission 23 to $lanas v. +ommission on &lections' 24 +t should continue to e9ercise its =urisdiction, e&en in the face of a plausible but not sufficiently persuasi&e insistence that the 7atter before it is political' #or a7 + persuaded that the reading of the current drift in A7erican legal scholarship by the Solicitor,1eneral and his e0ually able associates presents the whole picture' (n the 0uestion of =udicial re&iew, it is not a case of blacB and white@ there are shaded areas' +t goes too far, in 7y &iew, if the perspecti&e is one of dissatisfaction, with its o&ertones of distrust' This e9pression of disappro&al has not escaped :ean Rostow of Lale, who began one of his 7ost celebrated legal essays' The :e7ocratic %haracter of 6udicial Re&iew, thus8 ;A the7e of uneasiness, and e&en of guilt, colors the literature about =udicial re&iew' !any of those who ha&e talBed, lectured, and written about the %onstitution ha&e been troubled by a sense that =udicial re&iew is unde7ocratic'; 2) Ce went on to state8 ;6udicial re&iew, they ha&e urged, is an unde7ocratic shoot on an otherwise respectable tree' +t should be cut off, or at least Bept pruned and inconspicuous'; 26 Cis &iew was precisely the opposite' Thus8 ;The power of constitutional re&iew, to be e9ercised by so7e part of the go&ern7ent, is i7plicit in the conception of a written constitution delegating li7ited powers' A written constitution would pro7ote discord rather than order in society if there were no accepted authority to construe it, at the least in case of conflicting action by different branches of go&ern7ent or of constitutionally unauthori?ed go&ern7ental action against indi&iduals' The li7itation and separation of powers, if they are to sur&i&e, re0uire a procedure for independent 7ediation and construction to reconcile the ine&itable disputes o&er the boundaries of constitutional power which arise in the process of go&ern7ent'; 27 !ore than that, he tooB pains to e7phasi?e8 ;Whether another 7ethod of enforcing the %onstitution could ha&e been de&ised, the short answer is that no such 7ethod de&eloped' The argu7ent o&er the constitutionality of =udicial re&iew has long since been settled by history' The power and duty of the Supre7e %ourt to declare statutes or e9ecuti&e action unconstitutional in appropriate cases is part of the li&ing %onstitution' DThe course of constitutional history,D !r' 6ustice <ranBfurter recently re7arBed, Dhas cast responsibilities upon the Supre7e %ourt which it would be ;stultification; for it to e&ade'D ; 2? #or is it only :ean Rostow who could point <ranBfurter, reputed to belong to the sa7e school of thought opposed to =udicial acti&is7, if not its leading ad&ocate during his long stay in the *nited States Supre7e %ourt, as one fully cogni?ant of the stig7a that attaches to a tribunal which neglects to 7eet the de7ands of =udicial re&iew' There is a state7ent of si7ilar i7portance fro7 rofessor !ason8 ;+n Stein v. 'e, For#<ranBfurter re7arBed, so7ewhat self,consciously perhaps, that the Dduty of deference cannot be allowed i7perceptibly to slide into abdication'D ; 29 rofessor NonefsBy, liBe :ean Rostow, could not accept characteri?ation of =udicial re&iew as unde7ocratic' Thus his study of Col7es and $randeis, the following appears8 ;When it is said that =udicial re&iew is an unde7ocratic feature of our political syste7, it ought also to be re7e7bered that architects of that syste7 did not e0uate constitutional go&ern7ent with unbridled 7a=ority rule' (ut of their concern for political stability and security for pri&ate rights, ''', they designed a structure whose Beystone was to consist of barriers to the untra77eled e9ercise of power by any group' They percei&ed no contradiction between effecti&e go&ern7ent and constitutional checBs' To 6a7es !adison, who 7ay legiti7ately be regarded as the philosopher of the %onstitution, the sche7e of 7utual restraints was the best answer to what he &iewed as the chief proble7 in erecting a syste7 of free representati&e go&ern7ent8 D+n fra7ing a go&ern7ent which is to be ad7inistered by 7en o&er 7en, the great difficulty lies in this8 you 7ust first enable the go&ern7ent to control the go&erned@ and in the ne9t place oblige it to control itself'D ; 3@ There is thus an ine&itability to the flowering of =udicial re&iew' %ould it be that the tone of discontent apparent in the writings of e7inent authorities on the sub=ect e&ince at the 7ost fears that the A7erican Supre7e %ourt 7ight o&erstep the bounds allotted to the =udiciaryH +t cannot be a denial of the fitness of such co7petence being &ested in =udges and of their being called upon to fulfill such a trust whene&er appropriate to the decision of a case before the7' That is why it has been correctly 7aintained that notwithstanding the absence of any e9plicit pro&ision in the funda7ental law of the *nited States %onstitution, that distinguished A7erican constitutional historian, rofessor %orwin, could rightfully state that =udicial re&iew ;is si7ply incidental to the power of courts to interpret the law, of which the %onstitution is part, in connection with the decision of cases'; 31 This is not to deny that

there are those who would place the bla7e or the credit, depending upon oneDs predilection, on !arshallDs epochal opinion inMar*ur" v. Madison' 32 %urtis belonged to that persuasion' As he put it8 ;The proble7 was gi&en no answer by the %onstitution' A hole was left where the %ourt 7ight dri&e in the peg of =udicial supre7acy, if it could' And that is what 6ohn !arshall did'; 33 At any rate there was so7ething in the soil of A7erican =uristic thought resulting in this tree of =udicial power so precariously planted by !arshall striBing deep roots and showing wonderful &itality and hardiness' +t now do7inates the A7erican legal scene' Through it, %hief 6ustice Cughes, before occupying that e9alted position, could state in a lecture8 ;We are under a %onstitution, but the %onstitution is what the =udges say it is ''' '; 34 The abo&e state7ent is 7ore than =ust an aphoris7 that lends itself to inclusion in =udicial anthologies or bar association speeches' +t could and did pro&oBe fro7 6ustice 6acBson, an e9ponent of the =udicial restraint school of thought, this 7eaningful 0uery8 ;The %onstitution nowhere pro&ides that it shall be what the =udges say it is' Cow, did it co7e about that the state7ent not only could be but could beco7e current as the 7ost understandable co7prehensi&e su77ary of A7erican %onstitutional lawH; 3) +t is no wonder that rofessor Caines could pithily and succinctly su7 up the place of the highest A7erican tribunal in the sche7e of things in this wise8 ;The Supre7e %ourt of the *nited States has co7e to be regarded as the uni0ue feature of the A7erican go&ern7ental syste7'; 36 )et 7e not be 7isunderstood' There is here no atte7pt to close oneDs eyes to a discernible tendency on the part of so7e distinguished faculty 7inds to looB asBance at what for the7 7ay be inad&isable e9tension of =udicial authority' <or such indeed is the case as reflected in two leading cases of recent &intage, %a#er v. +arr, 37 decided in 1252 and $o,ell v. Mac+ormac#, 3? in 1252, both noted in the opinion of the %hief 6ustice' The for7er disregarded the warning of 6ustice <ranBfurter in %olegro&e &' 1reen 32 about the A7erican Supre7e %ourt declining =urisdiction on the 0uestion of apportion7ent as to do so would cut &ery deep into the &ery being of %ongress'; 4@ <or hi7, the =udiciary ;ought not to enter this political thicBet'; $aBer has since then been followed@ it has spawned a host of cases' 41 owell, on the 0uestion of the power of a legislati&e body to e9clude fro7 its ranBs a person whose 0ualifications are uncontested, for 7any the &ery staple of what is essentially political, certainly goes e&en further than the authoritati&e hilippine decision of Vera v. Avelino, 42 +t does looB then that e&en in the *nited States, the plea for =udicial self,restraint, e&en if gi&en &oice by those co7petent in the field of constitutional law, has fallen on deaf ears' There is in the co77ents of respondents an e9cerpt fro7 rofessor <reund 0uoting fro7 one of his essays appearing in a &olu7e published in 1254' +t is not without interest to note that in another paper, also included therein, he was less than asserti&e about the necessity for self,restraint and apparently 7indful of the clai7s of =udicial acti&is7' Thus8 ;<irst of all, the %ourt has a responsibility to 7aintain the constitutional order, the distribution of public power, and the li7itations on that power'; 43 As for rofessor $icBel, it has been said that as counsel for the #ew LorB Ti7es in the fa7ous Aietna7 papers case, 44 he was less than insistent on the A7erican Supre7e %ourt e9ercising =udicial self,restraint' There are signs that the contending forces on such 0uestion, for so7e an une0ual contest, are now 0uiescent' The fer&or that characteri?ed the e9pression of their respecti&e points of &iew appears to ha&e been 7ini7i?ed' #ot that it is to be e9pected that it will entirely disappear, considering how dearly cherished are, for each group, the con&ictions, pre=udices one 7ight e&en say, entertained' At least what once was fitly characteri?ed as the boo7ing guns of rhetoric, co7ing fro7 both directions, ha&e been 7uted' (f late, scholarly disputations ha&e been centered on the standards that should go&ern the e9ercise of the power of =udicial re&iew' +n his celebrated Col7es lecture in 12.2 at the Car&ard )aw School, rofessor Wechsler ad&ocated as basis for decision what he ter7ed neutral principles of constitutional law' 4) +t has brought forth a plethora of law re&iew articles, the reaction ranging fro7 guarded confor7ity to caustic criticis7' 46 There was, to be sure, no clear call to a court in effect abandoning the responsibility incu7bent on it to Beep go&ern7ental agencies within constitutional channels' The 7atter has been put in te7perate ter7s by rofessor <ranB thus8 ;When allowance has been 7ade for all factors, it ne&ertheless see7s to 7e that the doctrine of political 0uestions ought to be &ery sharply confined to where the functional reasons =ustify it and that in a gi&e in&ol&ing its e9pansion there should be careful consideration also of the social considerations which 7ay 7ilitate against it' The doctrine has a certain specious char7 because of its nice intellectualis7 and because of the fine deference it per7its to e9pertise, to secret Bnowledge, and to the prerogati&es of others' +t should not be allowed to grow as a 7erely intellectual plant'; 47 +t is difficult for 7e at least, not to be swayed by appraisal, co7ing fro7 such i7peccable sources of the worth and significance of =udicial re&iew in the *nited States' + cannot resist the conclusion then that the &iews ad&anced on this sub=ect by distinguished counsel for petitioners, with Senators )oren?o !' Ta>ada and 6o&ito Salonga at the &an, rather than the ad&ocacy of the Solicitor,1eneral, possess the greater weight and carry persuasion' So 7uch then for the in&ocation of the political 0uestion principle as a bar to the e9ercise of our =urisdiction' 3' That brings 7e to the issue of the &alidity of the ratification' The crucial point that had to be 7et is whether rocla7ation #o' 1102 7anifests fidelity to the e9plicit ter7s of Article KA' There is, of course, the &iew not offensi&e to reason that a sense of the realities should te7per the rigidity of de&otion to the strict letter of the te9t to allow deference to its spirit to control' With due recognition of its force in constitutional litigation, 4? if 7y reading of the e&ents and the process that led to such procla7ation, so clearly set forth in the opinion of the %hief 6ustice, is not inaccurate, then it cannot be confidently asserted that there was such co7pliance' +t would be to rely on con=ectural assu7ptions that did founder on the rocB of the undisputed facts' Any other conclusion would, for 7e, re0uire an interpretation that borders on the strained' So it has to be if one does not lose sight of how the article on a7end7ents is phrased' A word, to paraphrase 6ustice Col7es 7ay not be a crystal, transparent and unchanged, but it is not, to borrow fro7 )earned Cand, that e7inent =urist, a rubber band either' +t would be unwarranted in 7y &iew then to assert that the re0uire7ents of the 123. %onstitution ha&e been 7et' There are A7erican decisions, 49 and they are not few in nu7ber, which re0uire that there be obedience to the literal ter7s of the applicable pro&ision' +t is understandable why it should be thus' +f the %onstitution is the supre7e law, then its 7andate 7ust be fulfilled' #o e&asion is tolerated' Sub7ission to its co77ands can be shown only if each and e&ery word is gi&en 7eaning rather than ignored or disregarded' This is not to deny that a recognition conclusi&e effect attached to the electorate 7anifesting its will to &ote affir7ati&ely on the a7end7ents proposed poses an obstacle to the =udiciary being insistent on the ut7ost regularity' $riefly stated, substantial co7pliance is enough' A great 7any A7erican State decisions 7ay be cited in support of such a doctrine' )@ "&en if the assu7ption be indulged in that Article KA is not phrased in ter7s too clear to be 7isread, so that this %ourt is called upon to gi&e 7eaning and perspecti&e to what could be considered words of &ague generality, pregnant with uncertainty, still

whate&er obscurity it possesses is illu7ined when the light of the pre&ious legislation is thrown on it' +n the first %o77onwealth Act, )1 sub7itting to the <ilipino people for appro&al or disappro&al certain a7end7ents to the original ordinance appended to the 123. %onstitution, it was 7ade that the election for such purpose was to ;be conducted in confor7ity with the pro&isions of the "lection %ode insofar as the sa7e 7ay be applicable'; )2 Then ca7e the statute, )3 calling for the plebiscite on the three 1230 a7end7ents pro&iding for the plebiscite on the three 1230 a7end7ents pro&iding for a bica7eral %ongress or a Senate and a Couse of Representati&es to taBe the place of a unica7eral #ational Asse7bly, )4 reducing the ter7 of the resident to four years but allowing his re,election with the li7itation that he cannot ser&e 7ore than eight consecuti&e years, ))and creating an independent %o77ission on "lections' )6 Again, it was e9pressly pro&ided that the election ;shall be conducted in confor7ity with the pro&isions of the "lection %ode in so far as the sa7e 7ay be applicable'; )7The appro&al of the present parity a7end7ent was by &irtue of a Republic Act )? which specifically 7ade applicable the then "lection %ode' )9 There is a si7ilar pro&ision in the legislation, 6@ which in cote7plation of the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention, saw to it that there be an increase in the 7e7bership of the Couse of Representati&es a 7a9i7u7 of one hundred eighty and assured the eligibility of senators and representati&es to beco7e 7e7bers of such constituent body without forfeiting their seats, as proposed a7end7ents to be &oted on in the 1257 elections' 61 That is the consistent course of interpretation followed by the legislati&e branch' +t is 7ost persuasi&e, if not controlling' The restraints thus i7posed would set li7its to the residential action taBen, e&en on the assu7ption that either as an agent of the %onstitutional %on&ention or under his 7artial law prerogati&es, he was not de&oid of power to specify the 7ode of ratification' (n two &ital points, who can &ote and how they register their will, Article KA had been gi&en a definiti&e construction' That is why + fail to see sufficient =ustification for this %ourt affi9ing the i7pri7atur of its appro&al on the 7ode e7ployed for the ratification of the re&ised %onstitution as reflected in rocla7ation #o' 1102' 3' #or is the 7atter before us solely to be deter7ined by the failure to co7ply with the re0uire7ents of Article KA' +ndependently of the lacB of &alidity of the ratification of the new %onstitution, if it be accepted by the people, in who7 so&ereignty resides according to the %onstitution, 62 then this %ourt cannot refuse to yield assent to such a political decision of the ut7ost gra&ity, conclusi&e in its effect' Such a funda7ental principle is 7eaningless if it does not i7ply, to follow )asBi, that the nation as a whole constitutes the ;single center of ulti7ate reference,; necessarily the possessor of that ;power that is able to resol&e disputes by saying the last word'; 63 +f the origins of the de7ocratic polity enshrined in the 123. %onstitution with the declaration that the hilippines is a republican state could be traced bacB to Athens and to Ro7e, it is no doubt true, as !c+&er pointed out, that only with the recognition of the nation as the separate political unit in public law is there the =uridical recognition of the people co7posing it ;as the source of political authority'; 64 <ro7 the7, as %orwin did stress, e7anate ;the highest possible e7bodi7ent of hu7an will,; 6) which is supre7e and 7ust be obeyed' To a&oid any confusion and in the interest of clarity, it should be e9pressed in the 7anner ordained by law' "&en if such is not the case, howe&er, once it is 7anifested, it is to be accepted as final and authoritati&e' The go&ern7ent which is 7erely an agency to register its co77ands has no choice but to sub7it' +ts officials 7ust act accordingly' #o agency is e9e7pt such a duty, not e&en this %ourt' +n that sense, the lacB of regularity in the 7ethod e7ployed to register its wishes is fatal in its conse0uences' (nce the fact of acceptance by people of a new funda7ental law is 7ade e&ident, the =udiciary is left with no choice but to accord it recognition' The obligation to render it obeisance falls on the courts as well' There are A7erican State decisions that enunciate such a doctrine' While certainly not controlling, they are not entirely bereft of persuasi&e significance' +n Miller v. Jo)nson, 66 decided in 1422, it was set forth in the opinion of %hief 6ustice Colt that on !ay 3, 1420, an act was passed in NentucBy, pro&iding for the calling of a con&ention for the purpose of fra7ing a new constitution and the election of delegates' +t pro&ided that before any for7 of constitution 7ade by the7 should beco7e operati&e, it should be sub7itted to the &ote of the state and ratified by a 7a=ority of those &oting' The constitution then in force authori?ed the legislature, the preli7inary steps ha&ing been taBen, to call a con&ention ;for the purpose of readopting, a7ending, or changing; it contained no pro&ision gi&ing the legislature the power to re0uire a sub7ission of its worB to a &ote of the people' The con&ention 7et in Septe7ber, 1420' $y April, 1421, it co7pleted a draft of a constitution, sub7itted it to a popular &ote, and then ad=ourned until Septe7ber following' When the con&ention reasse7bled, the delegates 7ade nu7erous changes in instru7ent' As thus a7ended, it was pro7ulgated by the con&ention of Septe7ber 24, 1421, as the new constitution' An action was brought to challenge its &alidity' +t failed in the lower court' +n affir7ing such =udg7ent dis7issing the action, %hief 6ustice Colt stated8 ;+f a set of 7en, not selected by the people according to the for7s of law, were to for7ulate an instru7ent and declare it the constitution, it would undoubtedly be the duty of the courts to declare its worB a nullity' This would be re&olution, and this the courts of the e9isting go&ern7ent 7ust resist until they are o&erturned by power, and a new go&ern7ent established' The con&ention, howe&er, was the offspring of law' The instru7ent which we are asBed to declare in&alid as a constitution has been 7ade and pro7ulgated according to the for7s of law' +t is a 7atter of current history that both the e9ecuti&e and legislati&e branches of the go&ern7ent ha&e recogni?ed its &alidity as a constitution, and are now daily doing so' ''' While the =udiciary should protect the rights of the people with great care and =ealousy, because this is its duty, and also because@ in ti7es of great popular e9cite7ent, it is usually their last resort, yet it should at the sa7e ti7e be careful not to o&erstep the proper bounds of its power, as being perhaps e0ually dangerous@ and especially where such 7o7entous results 7ight follow as would be liBely in this instance, if the power of the =udiciary per7itted, and its duty re0uires, the o&erthrow of the worB of the con&ention'; 67 +n Ta"lor v. +ommon,ealt), 6? a 1203 decision, it was contended that the Airginia %onstitution reclai7ed in 1202 is in&alid as it was ordained and pro7ulgated by the con&ention without being sub7itted for ratification or re=ection by the people' The %ourt re=ected such a &iew' As stated in the opinion of 6ustice Carrison8 ;The %onstitution of 1202 was ordained and proclai7ed by a con&ention duly called by direct &ote of the people of the state to re&ise and a7end the %onstitution of 1452' The result of the worB of the con&ention has been recogni?ed, accepted, and acted upon as the only &alid %onstitution of the state by the 1o&ernor in swearing fidelity to it and proclai7ing it, as directed thereby@ by the )egislature in its for7al official act adopting a =oint resolution, 6uly 1., 1202, recogni?ing the %onstitution ordained by the con&ention which asse7bled in the city of Rich7ond on the 12th day of 6une, 1201, as the %onstitution of Airginia@ by the indi&idual oaths of 7e7bers to support it, and by enforcing its pro&isions@ and the people in their pri7ary capacity by peacefully accepting it and ac0uiescing in it, by registering as &oters under it to the e9tent of thousands throughout the state, and by &oting, under its pro&isions, at a general election for their representati&es in the %ongress of the *nited States' The %onstitution ha&ing been thus acBnowledged and accepted by the office ad7inistering the

go&ern7ent and by the people of the state, and there being no go&ern7ent in e9istence under the %onstitution of 1452 opposing or denying its &alidity, we ha&e no difficulty in holding that the %onstitution in 0uestion, which went into effect at noon on the 10th day of 6uly, 1202, is the only rightful, &alid, and e9isting %onstitution of this state, and that to it all the citi?ens of Airginia owe their obedience and loyal allegiance'; 69 +t cannot be plausibly asserted then that pre7ises &alid in law are lacBing for the clai7 that the re&ised %onstitution has been accepted by the <ilipino people' What is 7ore, so it has been argued, it is not 7erely a case of its being i7plied' Through the %iti?ens Asse7blies, there was a plebiscite with the result as indicated in rocla7ation #o' 1102' <ro7 the standpoint of respondents then, they could allege that there was 7ore than =ust 7ere ac0uiescence by the so&ereign people' +ts will was thus e9pressed for7ally and un7istaBably' +t 7ay be added that there was nothing inherently ob=ectionable in the infor7al 7ethod followed in ascertaining its preference' #or is the fact that <ilipinos of both se9es abo&e the age of fifteen were gi&en the opportunity to &ote to be deplored' The greater the base of 7ass participation, the 7ore there is fealty to the de7ocratic concept' +t does logically follow liBewise that such circu7stances being conceded, then no =ustifiable 0uestion 7ay be raised' This %ourt is to respect what had thus recei&ed the peopleDs sanction' That is not for 7e though whole of it' <urther scrutiny e&en then is not entirely foreclosed' There is still an aspect that is =udicial, an in0uiry 7ay be had as to whether such indeed was the result' This is no 7ore than what the courts do in election cases' There are other factors to bear in 7ind' The fact that the resident so certified is well,nigh conclusi&e' There is in addition the e&idence flowing fro7 the conditions of peace and stability' There thus appears to be confor7ity to the e9isting order of things' The daily course of e&ents yields such a conclusion' What is 7ore, the officials under the 123. %onstitution, including practically all Representati&es and a 7a=ority of the Senators, ha&e signified their assent to it' The thought persists, howe&er, that as yet sufficient ti7e has not elapsed to be really certain' #or is this all' There is for 7e an obstacle to the petitions being dis7issed for such ascertain7ent of popular will did taBe place during a period of 7artial law' +t would ha&e been different had there been that freedo7 of debate with the least interference, thus allowing a free 7arBet of ideas' +f it were thus, it could be truly said that there was no barrier to liberty of choice' +t would be a clear,cut decision either way' (ne could be certain as to the fact of the acceptance of the new or of adherence to the old' This is not to deny that &otes are cast by indi&iduals with their personal concerns upper7ost in 7ind, worried about their i77ediate needs and capti&e to their e9isting 7oods' That is inherent in any hu7an institution, 7uch 7ore so in a de7ocratic polity' #or is it open to any &alid ob=ection because in the final analysis the state e9ists for the indi&iduals who in their collecti&ity co7pose it' Whate&er be their &iews, they are entitled to respect' +t is difficult for 7e, howe&er, at this stage to feel secure in the con&iction that they did utili?e the occasion afforded to gi&e e9pression to what was really in their hearts' This is not to i7ply that such doubt could not be dispelled by e&idence to the contrary' +f the petitions be dis7issed howe&er, then such opportunity is fore&er lost' .' With the foregoing legal principles in 7ind, + find 7yself unable to =oin the ranBs of 7y estee7ed brethren who &ote for the dis7issal of these petitions' + cannot yield an affir7ati&e response to the plea of respondents to consider the 7atter closed, the proceedings ter7inated once and for all' +t is not an easy decision to reach' +t has occasioned deep thought and considerable soul,searching' <or there are counter&ailing considerations that e9ert a co7pulsion not easy to resist' +t can be asserted with truth, especially in the field of social and econo7ic rights, that with the re&ised %onstitution, there is an auspicious beginning for further progress' Then too it could resol&e what appeared to be the deepening contradictions of political life, reducing at ti7es go&ern7ental authority to near i7potence and i7parting a sense of disillusion7ent in de7ocratic processes' +t is not too 7uch to say therefore that there had indeed been the re&ision of a funda7ental law to &itali?e the &ery &alues out of which de7ocracy grows' +t is one which has all the ear7arBs of being responsi&e to the do7inant needs of the ti7es' +t represents an outlooB cogni?ant of the tensions of a turbulent era that is the present' That is why for so7e what was done represented an act of courage and faith, coupled with the hope that the solution arri&ed at is a harbinger of a bright and rosy future' +t is such a co7fort then that e&en if 7y appraisal of the situation had co77anded a 7a=ority, there is not, while these lawsuits are being further considered, the least interference, with the e9ecuti&e depart7ent' The resident in the discharge of all his functions is entitled to obedience' Ce re7ains co77ander,in,chief with all the constitutional powers it i7plies' ublic officials can go about their accusto7ed tasBs in accordance with the re&ised %onstitution' They can pursue e&en the tenor of their ways' They are free to act according to its tenets' That was so these past few weeBs, e&en petitions were filed' There was not at any ti7e any thought of any restraining order' So it was before' That is how things are e9pected to re7ain e&en if the 7otions to dis7iss were not granted' +t 7ight be asBed though, suppose the petitions should pre&ailH What thenH "&en so, the decision of this %ourt need not be e9ecutory right away' Such a disposition of a case before this %ourt is not no&el' That was how it was done in the "7ergency owers Act contro&ersy' 7@ (nce co7pliance is had with the re0uire7ents of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution, to assure that the co7ing force of the re&ised charter is free fro7 any taint of infir7ity, then all doubts are set at rest' <or so7e, to so &iew the 0uestion before us is to be caught in a web of unreality, to cherish illusions that cannot stand the test of actuality' What is 7ore, it 7ay gi&e the i7pression of reliance on what 7ay, for the practical 7an of affairs, be no 7ore than gossa7er distinctions and sterile refine7ents unrelated to e&ents' That 7ay be so, but + find it i7possible to transcend what for 7e are the i7plications of traditional constitutionalis7' This is not to assert that an occupant of the bench is bound to apply with unde&iating rigidity doctrines which 7ay ha&e ser&ed their day' Ce could at ti7es e&en looB upon the7 as 7ere scribblings in the sands to be washed away by the ad&ancing tides of the present' The introduction of no&el concepts 7ay be carried only so far though' As %ardo?o put the 7atter8 ;The =udge, e&en when he is free, is still not wholly free' Ce is not to inno&ate at pleasure' Ce is not a Bnight,errant, roa7ing at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness' Ce is to draw his inspiration fro7 consecrated principles' Ce is not to yield to spas7odic senti7ent, to &ague and unregulated bene&olence' Ce is to e9ercise a discretion infor7ed by tradition, 7ethodi?ed by analogy, disciplined by syste7, and subordinated to ;the pri7ordial necessity of order in the social life'; Wide enough in all conscience is the field of discretion that re7ains'; 71 !oreo&er what 7ade it difficult for this %ourt to apply settled principles, which for 7e ha&e not lost their &alidity, is traceable to the fact that the re&ised %onstitution was 7ade to taBe effect i77ediately upon ratification' +f a period of ti7e were allowed to elapse precisely to enable the =udicial power to be e9ercised, no co7plication would ha&e arisen' )iBewise, had there been only one or two a7end7ents, no such

proble7 would be before us' That is why + do not see sufficient =ustification for the orthodo9ies of constitutional law not to operate' "&en with full reali?ation then that the approach pursued is not all that it ought to ha&e been and the process of reasoning not without its shortco7ings, the basic pre7ises of a constitutional de7ocracy, as + understand the7 and as set forth in the preceding pages, co7pel 7e to &ote the way + did' TEE AN,EE, J., dissenting8 The 7asterly opinion of the %hief 6ustice wherein he painstaBingly deals with the 7o7entous issues of the cases at bar in all their co7ple9ity co77ands 7y concurrence' + would herein 7aBe an e9position of the funda7ental reasons and considerations for 7y stand' The unprecedented and precedent,setting issue sub7itted by petitioners for the %ourtDs resolution is the &alidity and constitutionality of residential rocla7ation #o' 1102 issued on 6anuary 17, 1273, certifying and proclai7ing that the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention ;has been ratified by an o&erwhel7ing 7a=ority of all the &otes cast by the 7e7bers of all the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ throughout the hilippines, and has thereby co7e into effect'; !ore specifically, the issue sub7itted is whether the purported ratification of the proposed %onstitution by 7eans of the %iti?ens Asse7blies has substantially co7plied with the 7andate of Article KA of the e9isting %onstitution of 123. that duly proposed a7end7ents thereto, in toto or parts thereof, ;shall be &alid as part of this %onstitution when appro&ed by a ma6orit" of the votes cast at an election at which the a7end7ents are su*mitted to the peoplefor their ratification'; 1 A necessary corollary issue is whether the purported ratification of the proposed %onstitution as signed on #o&e7ber 30, 1272 by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention 7ay be said also to ha&e substantially co7plied with its own 7andate that ;-T/his %onstitution shall taBe i77ediately upon its ratification by a ma6orit" of the votes cast in aple*iscite called for t)e purpose and e9cept as herein pro&ided, shall supersede the %onstitution of #ineteen hundred and thirty,fi&e and all a7end7ents thereto'; 2 Respondents contend that ;-A/lthough apparently what is sought to be annulled is rocla7ation #o' 1102, what petitioners really seeB to in&alidate is the new %onstitution;, and their actions 7ust be dis7issed, *ecause8 E ;the %ourt 7ay not in0uire into the validit" of the procedure for ratification; which is ?political in character; and that ;what is sought to be in&alidated is not an act of the resident but of the people@ E ;-T/he fact of approval of the new %onstitution by an o&erwhel7ing 7a=ority of the &otes cast asdeclared and certified in rocla7ation #o' 1102 is conclusive on the courts@ E ; rocla7ation #o' 1102 was issued by the resident in the e9ercise of legislati&e power under 7artial law' ''' Alternati&ely, or conte7poraneously, he did so as ;agent; of the %onstitutional %on&ention@; E ;alleged defects, such as absence of secret voting, enfranchise7ent of persons less than 21 years, non supervision -by/ the +omelec are 7atters not re9uired by Article KA of the 123. %onstitution;@ -sic/ E ;after ratification, whate&er defects there 7ight ha&e been in the procedure are o&erco7e andmooted -and muted/ by the fact of ratification;@ and
E ;-A/ssu7ing finally that Article KA of the 123. %onstitution was not strictly followed, the ratification of the new %onstitution 7ust nonetheless be respected' <or the procedure outlined in Article KA was not intended to be e9clusi&e of other procedures, especially one which conte7plates popular and direct participation of the citi?enry ''' '; 3

To test the &alidity of respondentsD sub7ittal that the %ourt, in annulling rocla7ation #o' 1102 would really be ;in&alidating the new %onstitution;, the ter7s and pre7ises of the issues ha&e to be defined'
E Respondents the7sel&es assert that ; rocla7ation #o' 1102 ''' is plainly 7erely declarator" of the fact that the 1273 %onstitution has been ratified and has co7e into force' 4 E The 7easure of the fact of ratification is Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' This has been consistently held by the %ourt in the Gonzales8 ) and Tolentino 6 cases' E +n the Tolentino case, this %ourt e7phasi?ed ;that the pro&isions of Section 1 of Article KA of the %onstitution, dealing with the procedure or manner of amending the funda7ental law are binding upon the %on&ention and the other depart7ents of the go&ern7ent' +t 7ust be added that ''' they are no

less *indingupon the people'; 7 E +n the sa7e Tolentino case, this %ourt further proclai7ed that ;as long as any a7end7ent is for7ulated and sub7itted under the aegis of the present %harter, any proposal for such a7end7ent which is not in confor7ity with the letter, spirit and intent of the +)arter for effecting a7end7ents, cannot recei&e the sanction of this %ourt'; ? E As continues to be held by a 7a=ority of this %ourt, proposed a7end7ents to the %onstitution ;should be ratified in only one way, that is, in an election or plebiscite held in accordance with law and participated in only by 0ualified and duly registered &oters; 9 and under the super&ision of the %o77ission on "lections' 1@

E Cence, if the %ourt declares rocla7ation 1102 null and &oid because on its face, the purported ratification of the proposed %onstitution has not faithfully nor substantially obser&ed nor co7plied with the 7andatory re0uire7ents of Article KA of the -123./ %onstitution, it would not be ;in&alidating; the proposed new %onstitution but would be si7ply declaring that the announced fact of ratification thereof by 7eans of the %iti?ens Asse7blies referendu7s does not pass the constitutional test and that the proposed new %onstitution has not constitutionally co7e into e9istence' E Since rocla7ation 1102 is acBnowledged by respondent to be ;plainly 7erely declaratory; of the disputed fact of ratification, they cannot assu7e the &ery fact to be established and beg the issue by citing the self,sa7e declaration as proof of the purported ratification therein declared' What co7plicates the cases at bar is the fact that the proposed 1272 %onstitution was enforced as ha&ing i77ediately taBen effect upon the issuance on 6anuary 17, 1273 of rocla7ation 1102 and the 0uestion of whether ;confusion and disorder in go&ern7ent affairs would -not/ result; fro7 a =udicial declaration of nullity of the purported ratification is raised by the Solicitor, 1eneral on behalf of respondents' A co7parable precedent of great crisis proportions is found in the "7ergency owers cases, 11 wherein the %ourt in its Resolution of Septe7ber 15, 1232 after =udg7ent was initially not obtained on August 25, 1232 for lacB of the re0uired si9 -5/ &otes, finally declared in effect that the pre,war e7ergency powers delegated by %ongress to the resident, under %o77onwealth Act 571 in pursuance of Article A+, section 25 of the %onstitution, had ceased and beca7e inoperati&e at the latest in !ay, 1235 when %ongress 7et in its first regular session on !ay 2., 1235' Then %hief 6ustice !anuel A' !oran recited the great interests and i7portant rights that had arisen under e9ecuti&e orders ;issued in good faith and with the best of intentions by three successi&e residents, and so7e of the7 7ay ha&e already produced e9tensi&e effects on the life of the nation; E in the sa7e 7anner as 7ay ha&e arisen under the bona fide acts of the resident now in the honest belief that the 1272 %onstitution had been &alidly ratified by 7eans of the %iti?ens Asse7blies referendu7s E and indicated the proper course and solution therefor, which were duly abided by and confusion and disorder as well as har7 to public interest and innocent parties thereby a&oided as follows8
*pon the other hand, while + belie&e that the e7ergency powers had ceased in 6une 123., + a7 not prepared to hold that all e9ecuti&e orders issued thereafter under %o77onwealth Act #o' 571, are per se null and &oid' +t 7ust be borne in 7ind that these e9ecuti&e orders had been issued in good faith and with the best of intentions by three successi&e residents, and so7e of the7 7ay ha&e already produced e9tensi&e effects in the life of the nation' We ha&e, for instance, "9ecuti&e (rder #o' 73, issued on #o&e7ber 12, 123., appropriating the su7 of 5,7.0,000 for public worBs@ "9ecuti&e (rder #o' 45, issued on 6anuary 7, 1235, amending a previous order regarding t)e organization of t)e Supreme +ourt @ "9ecuti&e (rder #o' 42, issued on 6anuary 1, 1235, reorgani?ing %ourts of <irst +nstance@ "9ecuti&e (rder #o' 143, issued on #o&e7ber 12, 1234, controlling rice and palay to co7bat hunger@ and other e9ecuti&e orders appropriating funds for other purposes' The conse0uences of a *lan#et nullification of all these e9ecuti&e orders will be un0uestionably serious and )armful. And + hold that before nullifying the7, ot)er important circumstances should be in9uired into, as for instance, whether or not they ha&e been ratified by %ongress e9pressly or i7pliedly, whether their purposes ha&e already been acco7plished entirely or partially, and in the last instance, to what e9tent@ ac0uiescence of litigants@ de facto officers@ acts and contracts of parties acting in good faith@ etc' +t is 7y opinion that each e9ecuti&e order 7ust be &iewed in the light of its peculiar circu7stances, and, if necessary and possible, nullifying it, precautionary 7easures should be taBen to avoid )arm to public interest and innocent parties' 12

+nitially, then %hief 6ustice !oran &oted with a 7a=ority of the %ourt to grant the Araneta and 1uerrero petitions holding null and &oid the e9ecuti&e orders on rentals and e9port control but to defer =udg7ent on the Rodrigue? and $arredo petitions for =udicial declarations of nullity of the e9ecuti&e orders appropriating the 1232,12.0 fiscal year budget for the go&ern7ent and 5 7illion for the holding of the 1232 national elections' After rehearsing, he further &oted to also declare null and &oid the last two e9ecuti&e orders appropriating funds for the 1232 budget and elections, co7pleting the ;sufficient 7a=ority; of si9 against four dissenting =ustices ;to pronounce a &alid =udg7ent on that 7atter'; 13 Then %hief 6ustice !oran, who penned the %ourtDs 7a=ority resolution, e9plained his &ote for annul7ent despite the great difficulties and possible ;har7ful conse0uences; in the following passage, which bears re,reading8 Cowe&er, now that the holding of a special session of %ongress for the purpose of re7edying the nullity of the e9ecuti&e orders in 0uestion appears re7ote and uncertain, + a7 co7pelled to, and do hereby, gi&e

7y un0ualified concurrence in the decision penned by !r' 6ustice Tuason declaring that these two e9ecuti&e orders were issued without authority of law' While in &oting for a te7porary defer7ent of the =udg7ent + was 7o&ed by the belief that positi&e co7pliance with the %onstitution by the other branches of the 1o&ern7ent, which is our pri7e concern in all these cases, would be effected, and indefinite defer7ent will produce the opposite result because it would legiti7i?e a prolonged or per7anent e&asion of our organic law' "9ecuti&e orders which are, in our opinion, repugnant to the %onstitution, would be gi&en per7anent life, opening the way or practices which 7ay under7ine our constitutional structure' The har7ful conse0uences which, as + en&isioned in 7y concurring opinion, would co7e to pass should the said e9ecuti&e orders be i77ediately declared null and &oid are still real' They ha&e not disappeared by reason of the fact that a special session of %ongress is not now forthco7ing' Cowe&er, the re7edy now lies in the hands of the %hief "9ecuti&e and of %ongress, for the %onstitution &ests in the for7er the power to call a special session should the need for one arise, and in the latter, the power to pass a &alid appropriations act' That %ongress 7ay again fail to pass a &alid appropriations act is a re7ote possibility, for under the circu7stances it fully reali?es its great responsibility of sa&ing the nation fro7 breaBing down@ and further7ore, the resident in the e9ercise of his constitutional powers 7ay, if he so desires, co7pel %ongress to re7ain in special session till it appro&es the legislati&e 7easures 7ost needed by the country' :e7ocracy is on trial in the hilippines, and surely it will e7erge &ictorious as a per7anent way of life in this country, if each of the great branches of the 1o&ern7ent, within its own allocated sphere, co7plies with its own constitutional duty, unco7pro7isingly and regardless of difficulties'
(ur Republic is still young, and the &ital principles underlying its organic structure should be 7aintained fir7 and strong, hard as the best of steel, so as to insure its growth and de&elop7ent along solid lines of a stable and &igorous de7ocracy' 14

The late 6ustice edro Tuason who penned the initial 7a=ority =udg7ent -declaring null and &oid the rental and e9port control e9ecuti&e orders/ liBewise obser&ed that ;-T/he truth is that under our concept of constitutional go&ern7ent, in ti7es of e9tre7e perils 7ore than in nor7al circu7stances Dthe &arious branches, e9ecuti&e, legislati&e, and =udicial,D gi&en the ability to act, are called upon Dto perfor7 the duties discharge the responsibilities co77itted to respecti&ely'D ; 1) +t should be duly acBnowledged that the %ourtDs tasB of discharging its duty and responsibility has been considerably lightened by the residentDs public 7anifestation of adherence to constitutional processes and of worBing within the proper constitutional fra7eworB as per his press conference of 6anuary 20,1273, wherein he stated that ;-T/he Supre7e %ourt is the final arbiter of the %onstitution' +t can and will probably deter7ine the &alidity of this %onstitution' + did not want to talB about this because actually there is a case pending before the Supre7e %ourt' $ut suffice it to say that + recogni?e the power of the Supre7e %ourt' With respect to appoint7ents, the 7atter falls under a general pro&ision which authori?es the ri7e !inister to appoint additional 7e7bers to the Supre7e %ourt' *ntil the 7atter of the new %onstitution is decided, + ha&e no intention of utili?ing that power'; 16 Thus, it is that as in an analogous situation wherein the state Supre7e %ourt of !ississippi held that the 0uestions of whether the sub7ission of the proposed constitutional a7end7ent of the State %onstitution pro&iding for an electi&e, instead of an appointi&e, =udiciary and whether the proposition was in fact adopted, were =ustifiable and not political 0uestions, we 7ay echo the words therein of %hief 6ustice Whitfield that ;-W/e do not seeB a =urisdiction not i7posed upon us by the %onstitution' We could not, if we would, escape the e9ercise of that =urisdiction which the %onstitution has i7posed upon us' +n the particular instance in which we are now acting, our duty to Bnow what the %onstitution of the state is, and in accordance with our oaths to support and 7aintain it in its integrity, i7posed on us a 7ost difficult and e7barrassing duty, one which we ha&e not sought, but one which, liBe all others, 7ust be discharged'; 17 +n confronting the issues at bar, then, with due regard for 7y colleaguesD contrary &iews, we are faced with the hard choice of 7aintaining a fir7 and strict E perhaps, e&en rigid E stand that the %onstitution is a ; superior paramount la,, unc)angea*le *" ordinar" means; sa&e in the particular 7ode and 7anner prescribed therein by the people, who, in %ooleyDs words, so ;tied up -not only/ the hands of their official agencies, but their own hands as well; 1? in the e9ercise of their so&ereign will or a liberal and fle9ible stand that would consider co7pliance with the constitutional article on the a7ending process as 7erely directory rather than 7andatory' The first choice of a strict stand, as applied to the cases at bar, signifies that the %onstitution 7ay be a7ended in toto or otherwise e!clusivel" ;by appro&al by a 7a=ority of the votes cast an election at which the a7end7ents are sub7itted to the people for their ratification;, 19 participated in onl" by 9ualified and duly registered &oters t,ent"1one "ears of age or o&er 2@ and duly supervised by the %o77ission on "lections, 21 in accordance with the cited 7andatory constitutional re0uire7ents' The alternati&e choice of a liberal stand would per7it a disregard of said re0uire7ents on the theory urged by respondents that ;the procedure outlined in Article KA was not intended to be e!clusive of other procedures especially one which conte7plates popular and direct participation of the citi?enry;, 22 that the constitutional age and literacy re0uire7ents and other statutory

safeguards for ascertaining the will of the 7a=ority of the people 7ay liBewise be changed as ;suggested, if not prescribed, by the people -through the %iti?ens Asse7blies/ the7sel&es;, 23 and that the %o7elec is constitutionally ;7andated to o&ersee ''' elections -of public officers/ andnot plebiscites'; 24 To paraphrase *'S' %hief 6ustice 6ohn !arshall who first declared in the historic 1403 case of Mar*ur" vs. Madison 2) the *'S' Supre7e %ourtDs power of =udicial re&iew and to declare &oid laws repugnant to the %onstitution, there is no 7iddle ground between these two alternati&es' As !arshall e9pounded it8 ;-T/he %onstitution is either a superior para7ount law, unchangeable by ordinary 7eans, or it is on a le&el with ordinary legislati&e acts, and, liBe other acts, alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it' +f the for7er part of the alternati&e be true, then a legislati&e act, contrary to the %onstitution, is not law@ if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd atte7pts on the part of a people, to li7it a power, in its own nature, illi7itable'; As was to be restated by 6ustice 6ose ' )aurel a century and a third later in the 1235 land7arB case of Angara vs. &lectoral +ommission, 26 ;-T/he %onstitution sets forth in no uncertain language the restrictions and li7itations upon go&ern7ental powers and agencies' +f these restrictions and li7itations are transcended it would be inconcei&able if the %onstitution had not pro&ided for a 7echanis7 by which to direct the course of go&ern7ent along constitutional channels, for then the distribution of powers would be 7ere &erbiage, the bill of rights 7ere e9pressions of senti7ent, and the principles of good go&ern7ent 7ere political apotheg7s' %ertainly, the li7itations of good go&ern7ent and restrictions e7bodied in our %onstitution are real as they should be in any li&ing %onstitution'; 6ustice )aurel pointed out that in contrast to the *nited States %onstitution, the hilippine %onstitution as ;a definition of the powers of go&ern7ent; placed upon the =udiciary the great burden of ;deter7ining the nature, scope and e9tent of such powers; and stressed that ;when the =udiciary 7ediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority o&er the other depart7ents ''' but only asserts the sole7n and sacred obligation entrusted to it by the %onstitution to deter7ine conflicting clai7s of authority under the %onstitution and to establish for the parties in an actual contro&ersy the rights which the instru7ent secures and guarantees to the7'; ++ !arshall was to utter 7uch later in the e0ually historic 1412 case of Mc+ulloc) vs. Mar"land 27 the ;cli7actic phrase,; 2? ;we 7ust ne&er forget that it is a constitution we are e9pounding,; E ter7ed by 6ustice <ranBfurter as ;the single 7ost i7portant utterance in the literature of constitutional law E 7ost i7portant because 7ost co7prehensi&e and co7prehending'; 29 This enduring concept to 7y 7ind per7eated to this %ourtDs e9position and rationale in the hall7arB case of Tolentino, wherein we re=ected the contentions on the %on&entionDs behalf ;that the issue ''' is a political 0uestion and that the %on&ention being a legislati&e body of the highest order is so&ereign, and as such, its acts i7pugned by petitioner are beyond the control of %ongress and the %ourts'; 3@ This %ourt therein 7ade its une9uivocal choice of strictly re0uiring fait)ful -which really includes substantial/ co7pliance with the mandator" re0uire7ents of the amending process' 1' +n denying reconsideration of our =udg7ent of (ctober 15, 1271 prohibiting the sub7ittal in an ad&ance election of 1271 %onstitutional %on&entionDs (rganic Resolution #o' 1 proposing to a7end Article A, section 1 of the %onstitution by lowering the &oting age to 14 years -&ice 21 years/ 30a ;without pre=udice to other a7end7ents that will be proposed in the future ''' on other portions of the a7ended section;, this %ourt stated that ;the constitutional pro&ision in 0uestion -as proposed/ presents no doubt which 7ay be resol&ed in fa&or of respondents and inter&enors' We do not belie&e such doubt can e9ist only because it is urged that the end sought to be achie&ed is to be desired' araphrasing no less than the resident of %onstitutional %on&ention of 1233, %laro !' Recto, let those who would put aside, in&oBing grounds at best contro&ersial, any 7andate of the funda7ental law purportedly in order to attain so7e laudable ob=ecti&e bear in 7ind that so7eday so7ehow others with purportedly 7ore laudable ob=ecti&es 7ay taBe ad&antage of the precedent and continue the destruction of the %onstitution, 7aBing those who laid down the precedent of =ustifying de&iations fro7 the re0uire7ents of the %onstitution the &icti7s of their own folly'; 31 2' This %ourt held in Tolentino that8
''' as to 7atters not related to its internal operation and the perfor7ance of its assigned 7ission to propose a7end7ents to the %onstitution, the %on&ention and its officers and 7e7bers are all sub=ect to all the pro&isions of the e9isting %onstitution' #ow We hold that e&en as to its latter tasB of proposing a7end7ents to the %onstitution, it is sub=ect to the pro&isions of Section 1 of Article :V' This 7ust be so, because it is plain to *s that the fra7ers of the %onstitution tooB care that the process of a7ending the sa7e should not be undertaBen with the sa7e ease and facilit" in changing an ordinary legislation' %onstitution 7aBing is the 7ost &alued power, second to none, of the people in a constitutional de7ocracy such as the one our founding fathers ha&e chosen for this nation, and which we of the succeeding generations generally cherish' And because the %onstitution affects the lives, fortunes, future and ever" ot)er conceiva*le aspect of the li&es of all t)e people within the country and those sub=ect to its so&ereignty, e&ery degree of care is taBen in preparing and drafting it' A constitution worthy of the people for deliberation and study' +t is ob&ious that correspondingly,an" amendment of the %onstitution is of no less i7portance than the whole %onstitution itself, and perforce 7ust be concei&ed and prepared with as 7uch care and deliberation' <ro7 the &ery nature of things, the drafters of an original constitution, as already obser&ed earlier, operate without any li7itations, restraints or inhibitions sa&e those that they 7ay i7pose upon the7sel&es' This is not necessarily true of subse0uent con&entions called to a7end the original constitution' 1enerally, the fra7ers of the latter see to it that their handiworB is not lightly treated and as easily 7utilated or changed, not only for reasons purely

personal but 7ore i7portantly, because written constitutions are supposed to be designed so as to last for so7e ti7e, if not for ages, or for, at least, as long as they can be adopted to the needs and e9igencies of the people, hence, they 7ust be insulated against precipitate and hasty actions 7oti&ated by 7ore or less passing political 7oods or fancies' Thus, as a rule, the original constitutions carry with the7 li7itations and conditions, 7ore or less stringent, made so *" t)e people t)emselves, in regard to the process of their amendment' And when such li7itations or conditions are so incorporated in the original constitution, it does not lie in the delegates of any subse0uent con&ention to clai7 that they 7ay ignore and disregard such conditions because they are powerful and o7nipotent as their original counterparts' 32

3' This %ourt in Tolentino liBewise for7ally adopted the doctrine of proper su*mission first ad&anced in Gonzales vs. +omelec 33, thus8
We are certain no one can deny that in order that a plebiscite for the ratification of an a7end7ent to the %onstitution 7ay be &alidly held, it 7ust pro&ide the &oter not only sufficient time but ample *asis for anintelligent appraisal of the nature of a7end7ent per se as well as its relation to the other parts of the %onstitution with which it has to for7 a har7onious whole' +n the conte9t of the present state of things, where the %on&ention hardly started considering the 7erits of hundreds, if not thousands, proposals to a7end the e9isting %onstitution, to present to people any single proposal or a few of the7 cannot co7ply with this re0uire7ent' We are of the opinion that the present %onstitution does not conte7plate in Section 1 of Article KA a plebiscite or ;election; wherein the people are in the darB as to fra7e of reference they can base their =udg7ent on' We re=ect the rationali?ation that the present %onstitution is a possible fra7e of reference, for the si7ple reason that inter&enors the7sel&es are stating the sole purpose of the proposed a7end7ent is to enable the eighteen year olds to taBe part in the election for the ratification of the %onstitution to be drafted by the %on&ention' +n brief, under the proposed plebiscite, there can be, in the language of 6ustice Sanche?, speaBing for the si9 7e7bers of the %ourt in 1on?ales, supra, Dno proper su*mission'D ; 34

3' <our other 7e7bers of the %ourt 3) in a separate concurrence in Tolentino, e9pressed their ;essential agree7ent; with 6ustice Sanche?D separate opinion in Gonzales on the need for ;fair su*mission -and/ intelligent re6ection; as ;minimum re0uire7ents that 7ust be 7et in order that there can be a proper su*mission to the people of a proposed constitutional a7end7ent; thus8
''' a7end7ents 7ust be fairly laid before the people for their blessing or spurning' The people are not to be 7ere rubber sta7ps' They are not to &ote blindly' They 7ust be afforded a7ple opportunity to 7ull o&er the original pro&isions, co7pare the7 with the proposed a7end7ents, and try to reach a conclusion as the dictates of their conscience suggest, free fro7 the incubus of e9traneous or possibly insidious influences' We belie&e the word ;sub7itted; can only 7ean that the go&ern7ent, within its 7a9i7u7 capabilities, should strain e&ery effort to infor7 e&ery citi?en of the pro&isions to be a7ended, and the proposed a7end7ents and the 7eaning, nature and effects thereof' $y this, we are not to be understood as saying that, if one citi?en or 100 citi?ens or 1,000 citi?ens cannot be reached, then there is no sub7ission within the 7eaning of the word as intended by the fra7ers of the %onstitution' What the %onstitution in effect directs is that the go&ern7ent, in sub7itting an a7end7ent for ratification, should put e&ery instru7entality or agency within its structural fra7eworB to enlighten the people, educate the7 with respect to their act of ratification or re=ection' <or as we ha&e earlier stated, one thing is sub7ission and another is ratification' There must be fair su*mission, intelligent consent or re6ection' 36

They stressed further the need for undivided attention, sufficient information and full de*ate, confor7ably to the intend7ent of Article KA, section 1 of the %onstitution, in this wise8 A nu7ber of doubts or 7isgi&ings could concei&ably and logically assail the a&erage &oter' Why should the &oting age be lowered at all, in the first placeH Why should the new &oting age be precisely 14 years, and not 12 or 20H And why not 17H (r e&en 15 or 1.H +s the 14,year old as 7ature as the 21,year old, so that there is no need of an educational 0ualification to entitle hi7 to &oteH +n this age of per7issi&eness and dissent, can the 14,year old be relied upon to &ote with =udiciousness when the 21,year old, in the past elections, has not perfor7ed so wellH +f the proposed a7end7ent is &oted down by the people, will the %onstitutional %on&ention insist on the said a7end7entH Why is there an unsee7ly haste on the part of the %onstitutional %on&ention in ha&ing this particular proposed a7end7ent ratified at this particular ti7eH :o so7e of the 7e7bers of the %on&ention ha&e future political plans which they want to begin to subser&e by the appro&al this year of this a7end7entH +f this a7end7ent is appro&ed, does it thereby 7ean that the 14,year old should not also shoulder the 7oral and legal responsibilities of the 21,year oldH Will he be re0uired to co7pulsory 7ilitary ser&ice under the colorsH Will the contractual consent be reduced to 14 yearsH +f + &ote against the a7end7ent, will + not be unfair to 7y own child who will be 14 years old, co7e 1273H The abo&e are =ust sa7plings fro7 here, there and e&erywhere E fro7 a do7ain -of searching 0uestions/ the bounds of which are not i77ediately ascertainable' Surely, 7any 7ore 0uestions can be added to the already long litany' And the answers cannot e9cept as the 0uestions are de*ated full", pondered upon purposefull", and accorded undivided attention'
Scanning the conte7porary scene, we say that the people are not, and by election ti7e will not be, sufficientl" informed of the meaning, nature and effects of the proposed constitutional a7end7ent' They ha&e not been afforded ample time to deliberate thereon conscientiously' They ha&e been and are effecti&ely distracted fro7

afull and dispassionate consideration of t)e merits and demerits of the proposed a7end7ent by their traditional per&asi&e in&ol&e7ent in local elections and politics' They cannot thus weigh in tran0uility the need for and the wisdo7 proposed a7end7ent' 37

.' This %ourt therein dis7issed the plea of disregarding 7andatory re0uire7ents of the a7ending process ;in fa&or of allowing the so&ereign people to e9press their decision on the proposed a7end7ents; as ;anachronistic in the real constitutionalis7 and repugnant to the essence of the rule of law,; in the following ter7s8
''' The prea7ble of the %onstitution says that the %onstitution has been ordained by the D<ilipino people, i7ploring the aid of :i&ine ro&idence'D Section 1 of Article KA is nothing than a part of the %onstitution thusordained *" t)e people' Cence, in construing said section, We 7ust read it as if the people had said, DThis %onstitution 7ay be amended, but it is our ,ill that the a7end7ent 7ust be proposed and su*mitted to *s for ratification onl" in t)e manner )erein provided'D ''' Accordingly, the real issue here cannot be whether or not the a7ending process delineated by the present %onstitution 7ay be disregarded in fa&or of allowing the so&ereign people to e9press their decision on the proposed a7end7ents, if only because it is e&ident that the &ery idea of departing fro7 the funda7ental law is anac)ronistic in t)e realm of constitutionalism and repugnant to t)e essence of t)e rule of la,@ rather, it is whether or not the pro&isional nature of the proposed a7end7ent and the manner of its su*mission to the people for ratification or re=ection conform with the mandate of t)e peoplethe7sel&es in such regard, as e9pressed in, the %onstitution itself' 3?

5' This %ourt, in not heeding the popular cla7or, thus stated its position8 ;-+/t would be tragic and contrary to the plain co7pulsion of these perspecti&es, if the %ourt were to allow itself in deciding this case to be carried astray by considerations other than the imperatives of the rule of la, and of the applicable pro&isions of the +onstitution' #eedless to say, in a larger 7easure than when it binds other depart7ents of the go&ern7ent or any other official or entity, the %onstitution i7poses upon the %ourt the sacred duty to gi&e 7eaning and &igor to the %onstitution, by interpreting and construing its pro&isions in appropriate cases with the proper parties and by striBing down any act &iolati&e thereof' Cere, as in all other cases, We are resol&ed to disc)arge that dut"' 39 7' The %hief 6ustice, in his separate opinion in Tolentino concurring with this %ourtDs denial of the 7otion for reconsideration, succinctly restated this %ourtDs position on the funda7entals, as follows8 E (n the pre7ature sub7ission of a partial a7end7ent proposal, with a ;te7porary pro&isional or tentati&e character;8 E ;''' a partial a7end7ent would depri&e the &oters of the conte9t which is usually necessary for the7 to 7aBe a reasona*l" intelligent appraisal of the issue sub7itted for their ratification or re=ection' ''' Then, too, the sub7ission to a plebiscite of a partial a7end7ent, without a definite frame of reference, is fraught with possibilities which 7ay =eopardi?e the social fabric' <or one thing, it opens the door to wild speculations' +t offers a7ple opportunities for o&er?ealous leaders and 7e7bers of opposing political ca7ps to unduly e9aggerate the pros and cons of the partial a7end7ent proposed' +n short, it is apt to breed false )opes and create ,rong impressions' As a conse0uence, it is bound to unduly strain the peopleDs faith in the soundness and &alidity of de7ocratic processes and institutions' E (n the plea to allow sub7ission to the so&ereign people of the ;frag7entary and inco7plete; proposal, although inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the %onstitution8 ;The &iew, has, also, ad&anced that the foregoing considerations are not decisi&e on the issue before *s, inas7uch as the people are sovereign, and the partial a7end7ent in&ol&ed in this case is being sub7itted to the7' The issue before *s is whether or not said partial a7end7ent ma" be validl" su*mitted to the people for ratification ;in a plebiscite coincide with the local elections in #o&e7ber 1271,; and t)is particular issue will not be sub7itted to the people' What is 7ore, the %onstitution does not per7it its sub7ission to the people' The 0uestion sought to be settled in the scheduled plebiscite is whether or not the people are in fa&or of the reduction of the &oting age' E (n a ;political; rather than ;legalistic; approach8 ;+s this approach to the proble7 too ;legalisticH; This ter7 has possible connotations' +t 7ay 7ean strict ad)erence to t)e la,, which in the case at bar is the Supreme La, of the land' (n point, suffice it to say that, in co7pliance with the specific 7an of such Supre7e )aw, the 7e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt taBen the re0uisite ;oath to support and defend the %onstitution'; ''' Then, again, the ter7 ;legalistic; 7ay be used to suggest in&ersely that the so7ewhat strained interpretation of the %onstitution being urged upon this %ourt be tolerated or, at least, o&erlooBed, upon the theory that the partial a7end7ent on &oting age is badly needed and reflects the will of the people, specially the youth' This course of action fa&ors, in effect, adoption of a political approac), inas7uch as the ad&isability of the a7end7ent and an appraisal of the peopleDs feeling thereon political matters' +n fact, apart fro7 the ob&ious 7essage of the 7ass 7edia, and, at ti7es, of the pulpit, the %ourt has been literally bo7barded with scores of handwritten letters, al7ost all of which bear the pen7anship and the signature of girls, as well as letterhead of so7e sectarian educational institutions, generally stating that the writer is 14 years of age and urging that she or he be allowed to &ote' Thus, the pressure of public opinion has brought to bear hea&ily upon the %ourt for a reconsideration of its decision in the case at bar' As abo&e stated, howe&er, the ,isdom of the a7end7ent and the popularit" thereof are political

0uestions beyond our pro&ince' +n fact, respondents and the inter&enors originally 7aintained that We ha&e no =urisdiction to entertain the petition herein, upon the ground that the issue therein raised is a political one' Aside fro7 the absence of authority to pass upon political 0uestion, it is ob&iously i7proper and unwise for the bench to de&elop into such 0uestions owing to the danger of getting involved in politics, 7ore liBely of a partisan nature, and, hence, of i7pairing the i7age and the usefulness of courts of =ustice as ob=ecti&e and i7partial arbiters of =usticiable contro&ersies' Then, too, the suggested course of action, if adopted, would constitute a grie&ous disser&ice to the people and the &ery %on&ention itself' +ndeed, the latter and the %onstitution it is in the process of drafting stand essentially for the Rule of )aw' Cowe&er, as the Supre7e )aw of the land, a %onstitution would not be worthy of its na7e, and the %on&ention called upon to draft it would be engaged in a futile undertaBing, if we did not e9act fait)ful ad)erence to the fundamental tenets set forth in the %onstitution and co7pliance with its pro&isions were not obligatory' +f we, in effect, appro&ed, consented to or e&en o&erlooBed a circu7&ention of said tenets and pro&isions, because of the good intention with which Resolution #o' 1 is ani7ated, the %ourt would thereby beco7e theJudge of the good or *ad intentions of the %on&ention and thus be in&ol&ed in a 0uestion essentially political in nature'
This is confir7ed by the plea 7ade in the 7otions for reconsideration in fa&or of the e9ercise of =udicial states7anship in deciding the present case' +ndeed, ;politics; is the word co77only used to epito7i?e co7pro7ise, e&en with principles, for the saBe of political e9pediency or the ad&ance7ent of the bid for power of a gi&en political party' *pon the other hand, states7anship is the e9pression usually a&ailed of to refer to high politics or politics on the highest le&el' +n any e&ent, politics, political approach, political e9pediency and states7anship are generally associated, and often identified, with the dictu7 that ; t)e end 6ustifies t)e means'; + earnestly hope that the ad7inistration of =ustice in this country and the Supre7e %ourt, in particular, will adhere to or appro&e or indorse such dictu7'; 4@

Tolentino, he pointed out that although ;-!/o&antsD sub7ittal that ;-T/he pri7ary purpose for the sub7ission of the proposed a7end7ent lowering the &oting age to the plebiscite on #o&e7ber 4, 1271 is to enable the youth 14 to 20 years who co7prise 7ore than three -3/ 7illion of our population to participate in the ratification of the new %onstitution in so far as ;to allow young people who would be go&erned by the %onstitution to be gi&en a say on what Bind of %onstitution they will ha&e; is a laudable end, ''' those urging the &itality and i7portance of the proposed constitutional a7end7ent and its appro&al ahead of the co7plete and final draft of the %onstitution 7ust seeB a &alid solution to achie&e it in a 7anner sanctioned by the a7endatory process ordained by our people in the present %onstitution; 41 E so that there 7ay be ;sub7itted, not piece,7eal, but by way of co7plete and final a7end7ents as an integrated whole -integrated either with the subsisting %onstitution or with the new proposed %onstitution/'''; 2' The uni&ersal &alidity of the &ital constitutional precepts and principles abo&e,enunciated can hardly be gainsaid' + fail to see the atte7pted distinction of restricting their application to proposals for a7end7ents of particular pro&isions of the %onstitution and not to so,called entirely new %onstitutions' A7end7ents to an e9isting %onstitution presu7ably 7ay be only of certain parts or in toto, and in the latter case would rise to an entirely new %onstitution' Where this %ourt held in Tolentino that ;an" a7end7ent of the %onstitution is of no less i7portance than the whole %onstitution itself and perforce 7ust be concei&ed and prepared with as 7uch care and deliberation;, it would appeal that the re&erse would e0ually be true@ which is to say, that the adoption of a whole new %onstitution would be of no less i7portance than any particular a7end7ent and therefore the necessary care and deliberation as well as the 7andatory restrictions and safeguards in the a7ending process ordained by the people the7sel&es so that ;they -7ay/ be insulated against precipitate and hasty actions 7oti&ated by 7ore or less passing political 7oods or fancies; 7ust necessarily e0ually apply thereto' +++ 1' To restate the basic pre7ises, the people pro&ided in Article KA of the %onstitution for the a7ending process onl" ;by appro&al by a 7a=ority of the &otes cast at an election at which the -duly proposed/ a7end7ents are sub7itted to the people for their ratification'; The people ordained in Article A, section 1 that only those thereby enfranchised and granted the right of suffrage 7ay speaB the ;,ill of t)e *od" politic?, viz, 9ualified literate voters t,ent" one "ears of age or o&er with one yearDs residence in the 7unicipality where they ha&e registered' The people, not as yet satisfied, further pro&ided by a7end7ent duly appro&ed in 1230 in accordance with Article KA, for the creation of an independent %o77ission on "lections with ;e!clusive c)arge; for the purpose of ;insuring free, orderly and honest elections; and ascertaining the true will of the electorate E and 7ore, as ruled by this %ourt in Tolentino, in the case of proposed constitutional a7end7ents, insuring proper su*mission to the electorate of such proposals' 42 2' A !assachussets case 43 with a constitutional syste7 and pro&isions analogous to ours, best defined the uses of the ter7 ?people? as a *od" politic and ?people? in t)e political sense who are synony7ous with the 0ualified &oters granted the right to &ote by the e9isting %onstitution and who therefore are ;the sole organs through which the will of the body politic can be e9pressed'; +t was pointed out therein that ;-T/he word DpeopleD 7ay ha&e so7ewhat &arying significations dependent upon the connection in which it is used' +n so7e connections in the %onstitution it is confined to citi?ens and 7eans the sa7e as citi?ens' +t e9cludes

aliens' +t includes 7en, wo7en and children' +t co7prehends not only the sane, co7petent, law,abiding and educated, but also those who are wholly or in part dependents and charges upon society by reason of i77aturity, 7ental or 7oral deficiency or lacB of the co77on essentials of education' All these persons are secured funda7ental guarantees of the %onstitution in life, liberty and property and the pursuit of happiness, e9cept as these 7ay be li7ited for the protection of society'; +n the sense of ;body politic -as/ for7ed by &oluntary association of indi&iduals; go&erned by a constitution and co77on laws in a ;social co7pact ''' for the co77on good; and in another sense of ;people; in a ;practical sense; for ;political purposes; it was therein fittingly stated that in this sense, ;people; co7prises 7any who, by reason of want of years, of capacity or of the educational re0uire7ents of Article 20 of the a7end7ents of the %onstitution, can ha&e no &oice in any go&ern7ent and who yet are entitled to all the i77unities and protection established by the %onstitution' D $eopleD in t)is aspect is coe!tensive with the *od" politic' $ut it is ob&ious that DpeopleD cannot be used with this broad 7eaning of political signification' The DpeopleD in this connection 7eans that part of the entire body of inhabitants who under the %onstitution are intrusted with the e9ercise of the so&ereign power and the conduct of go&ern7ent' The 0people0 in t)e +onstitution in a practical sense 7eans those who under the e9isting %onstitution possess the right to e9ercise the electi&e franchise and who, while that instru7ent re7ains in force unchanged, will be the sole organs through which the ,ill of the *od" politic can be e!pressed' D$eople0 for political purposes 7ust be considered s"non"mous with 9ualified voters'D ; As was also ruled by the *'S' Supre7e %ourt, ;''' While the people are thus the source of political power, their go&ern7ents, national and state, ha&e been li7ited by constitutions, and they ha&e the7sel&es thereby set bounds to their own power, as against the sudden i7pulse of 7ere 7a=orities'; 44 <ro7 the te9t of Article KA of our %onstitution, re0uiring appro&al of a7end7ent proposals ;by a 7a=ority of the votes cast at an election at which the a7end7ents are sub7itted to the people for their ratification;, it see7s ob&ious as abo&e,stated that ;people; as therein used 7ust be considered synony7ous with ;9ualified voters; as enfranchised under Article A, section 1 of the %onstitution D since only ;people; who are 0ualified &oters can e9ercise the right of suffrage and cast their &otes' 3' Sound constitutional policy and the sheer necessity of ade0uate safeguards as ordained by the %onstitution and i7ple7enting statutes to ascertain and record the will of the people in free, orderly and honest elections super&ised by the %o7elec 7aBe it i7perati&e that there be strict adherence to the constitutional re0uire7ents laid down for the process of a7ending in toto or in part the supre7e law of the land' "&en at barrio le&el 3. the Re&ised $arrio %harter fi9es certain safeguards for the holding of barrio plebiscites thus8 ;S"%' 5' $le*iscite' D A plebiscite 7ay be held in the barrio when authori?ed by a 7a=ority &ote of the 7e7bers present in the barrio asse7bly, there being a 9uorum, or when called by at least four 7e7bers of the barrio council8 $rovided, )o,ever, That no plebiscite shall be held until after thirty days fro7 its appro&al by either body, and such plebiscite has been gi&en the widest publicity in the barrio, stating the date, ti7e and place thereof, the 0uestions or issues to be decided, action to be taBen by the &oters, and such other infor7ation rele&ant to the holding of the plebiscite'; 46 As to &oting at such barrio plebiscites, the %harter further re0uires that ;-A/ll dul" registered barrio asse7bly 7e7bers 9ualified to vote 7ay &ote in the plebiscite' Aoting procedures 7ay be 7ade either in ,riting as in regular elections, andJor declaration by the &oters to t)e *oard of election tellers'; 47 The sub=ects of the barrio plebiscites are liBewise deli7ited thus8 ;A plebiscite 7ay be called to decide on the recall of any 7e7ber of the barrio council' A plebiscite shall be called to appro&e any budgetary, supple7ental appropriations or special ta9 ordinances; and the re0uired 7a=ority &ote is specified8 ;-</or taBing action on any of the abo&e enu7erated 7easures, 7a=ority &ote of all the barrio asse7bly 7e7bers registered in t)e list of t)e *arrio secretar" is necessary'; 4? The 9ualifications for voters in such barrio plebiscites and elections of barrio officials 49 co7ply with the suffrage 0ualifications of Article A, section 1 of the %onstitution and pro&ide that ;-S/"%' 10' Kualifications of Voters and +andidates ' D "&ery citi?en of the hilippines, t,ent" one "ears of age or o&er, a*le to read and ,rite, who has been a resident of the barrio during the si9 7onths i77ediately preceding the election, dul" registered in t)e list of voters *" t)e *arrio secretar", who is not otherwise dis0ualified, 7ay &ote or be a candidate in the barrio elections'; )@ +A 1' Since it appears on the face of rocla7ation 1102 that the 7andatory re0uire7ents under the abo&e,cited constitutional articles ha&e not been co7plied with and that no election or plebiscite for ratification as therein pro&ided as well as in section 15 of Article KA++ of the proposed %onstitution itself )1 has been called or held, there cannot be said to ha&e been a &alid ratification' 2' etitioners raised serious 0uestions as to the &eracity and genuineness of the reports or certificates of results purportedly showing unaccountable discrepancies in se&en figures in =ust fi&e pro&inces )2 between the reports as certified by the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents and the reports as directly sub7itted by the pro&incial and city e9ecuti&es, which latter reports respondents disclai7ed inter alia as not final and co7plete or as not signed@ )3whether the reported &otes of appro&al of the proposed %onstitution conditioned upon the non,con&ening of the interi7 #ational Asse7bly pro&ided in Article KA++, section 1 thereof, )4 7ay be considered as &alid@ the allegedly huge and unifor7 &otes reported@ and 7any others' 3' These 0uestions only ser&e to =ustify and show the basic &alidity of the uni&ersal principle go&erning written constitutions that proposed a7end7ents thereto or in replace7ent thereof 7ay be ratified only in the particular 7ode or 7anner prescribed therein

by the people' *nder Article KA, section 1 of our %onstitution, a7end7ents thereto 7ay be ratified only in the one way therein pro&ided, i'e' in an election or plebiscite held in accordance with law and duly super&ised by the %o77ission on "lections, and which is participated in only by 0ualified and duly registered &oters' +n this 7anner, the safeguards pro&ided by the election code generally assure the true ascertain7ent of the results of the &ote and interested parties would ha&e an opportunity to thresh out properly before the %o7elec all such 0uestions in pre,procla7ation proceedings' 3' At any rate, unless respondents seriously intend to 0uestion the &ery state7ents and pronounce7ents in rocla7ation 1102 itself which shows on its face, as already stated, that the 7andatory a7ending process re0uired by the -123./ %onstitution was not obser&ed, the cases at bar need not reach the stage of answering the host of 0uestions, raised by petitioners against the procedure obser&ed by the %iti?ens Asse7blies and the reported referendu7 results D since the purported ratification is rendered nugatory by &irtue of such non,obser&ance' .' <inally, as to respondentsD argu7ent that the resident issued rocla7ation 1102 ;as ;agent; of the %onstitutional %on&ention; )) under Resolution #o' .433 appro&ed on #o&e7ber 22, 1273, and ;as agent of the %on&ention the resident could de&ise other for7s of plebiscite to deter7ine the will of the 7a=ority &is,a,&is the ratification of the proposed %onstitution'; )6 The 7inutes of #o&e7ber 22, 1272, of the %on&ention, howe&er, do not at all support this contention' (n the contrary, the said 7inutes fully show that the %on&entionDs proposal and ;agency; was that the resident issue a decree precisely calling a ple*iscite for the ratification of the proposed new %onstitution on an appropriate date, under the charge of the +omelec, and with a reasonable period for an infor7ation ca7paign, as follows8 12' *pon recognition by the %hair, :elegate :ua&it 7o&ed for the appro&al of the resolution, the resolution portion of which read as follows8 ;R"S()A":, AS +T +S C"R"$L R"S()A":, that the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention propose to resident <erdinand "' !arcos that a decree be issued calling a plebiscite for the ratification of the proposed #ew %onstitution on such appropriate date as he shall deter7ine and pro&iding for the necessary funds therefor, and that copies of this resolution as appro&ed in plenary session be trans7itted to the resident of the hilippines and the %o77ission on "lections for i7ple7entation'; Ce suggested that in &iew of the e9pected appro&al of the final draft of the new %onstitution by the end of #o&e7ber 1272 according to the %on&entionDs ti7etable, it would be necessary to lay the groundworB for the appropriate agencies of the go&ern7ent to undertaBe the necessary preparation for the plebiscite' 999 999 999 12'2 +nterpellating, :elegate i7entel -A'/ contended that the resolution was unnecessary because section 1., Article KA++ on the Transitory ro&ision, which had already been appro&ed on second and third readings, pro&ided that the new constitution should be ratified in a plebiscite called for the purpose by the incu7bent resident' :elegate :ua&it replied that the pro&ision referred to did notinclude the appropriation of funds for t)e ple*iscite and that, 7oreo&er, the resolution was intended to ser&e for7al notice to the $resident and t)e +ommission on &lections to initiate t)e necessar" preparations ' 999 999 999 12'3 +nterpellating, :elegate !adarang suggested that a reasona*le period for an information campaign was necessary in order to properly apprise the people of the i7plications and significance of the new charter' :elegate :ua&it agreed, adding that this was precisely why the resolution was 7odified to gi&e the resident the discretion to choose the 7ost appropriate date for the plebiscite' 12'. :elegate )aggui asBed whether a for7al co77unication to the resident infor7ing hi7 of the adoption of the new %onstitution would not suffice considering that under Section 1. of the Transitory ro&isions, the resident would be duty,bound to call a plebiscite for its ratification' :elegate :ua&it replied in the negati&e, adding that the resolution was necessary to ser&e notice to the proper authorities to prepare ever"t)ing necessar" for t)e ple*iscite' 12'5 +n reply to :elegate $ritanico, :elegate :ua&it stated that the mec)anics for the holding of theple*iscite would be laid do,n *" t)e +ommission on &lections in coordination with the resident' 12'7 :elegate %atan in0uired if such 7echanics for the plebiscite could include a partial lifting of martial la, in order to allow the people to asse7ble peaceably to discuss the new %onstitution' :elegate :ua&it suggested that the %o77ittee on lebiscite and Ratification could coordinate with the %(!")"% on the 7atter' 12'4 :elegate 1u?7an 7o&ed for the pre&ious 0uestion' The %hair declared that there was one 7ore

interpellant and that a prior reser&ation had been 7ade for the presentation of such a 7otion' 1'4a :elegate 1u?7an withdrew his 7otion' 12'2 :elegate Astilla suggested in his interpellation that there was actually no need for such a resolution in &iew of the pro&ision of section 1., Article KA++ on the Transitory ro&isions' :elegate :ua&it disagreed, pointing out that the said pro&ision did not pro&ide for the funds necessary for the purpose' 13' :elegate (?a7i? then 7o&ed to close the debate and proceed to the period of a7end7ent' 13'1 <loor )eader !onte=o stated that there were no reser&ations to a7end the resolution' 13'2 :elegate (?a7i? then 7o&ed for the pre&ious 0uestion' Sub7itted to a &ote, the 7otion was appro&ed' *pon re0uest of the %hair, :elegate :ua&it restated the resolution for &oting' 13'1' :elegate (rdo>e? 7o&ed for no7inal &oting' Sub7itted to a &ote, the 7otion was lost'
13'2' Thereupon, the %hair sub7itted the resolution to a &ote' +t was appro&ed by a show of hands'
)7

+, therefore, &ote to deny respondentsD 7otion to dis7iss and to gi&e due course to the petitions' ro7ulgated8 6une 3, 1273 A ANTON"O, J., concurring8 +n confor7ity with 7y reser&ation, + shall discuss the grounds for 7y concurrence' + +t is 7y &iew that to preser&e the independence of the State, the 7aintenance of the e9isting constitutional order and the defense of the political and social liberties of the people, in ti7es of a gra&e e7ergency, when the legislati&e branch of the go&ern7ent is unable to function or its functioning would itself threaten the public safety, the %hief "9ecuti&e 7ay pro7ulgate 7easures legislati&e in character, for the successful prosecution of such ob=ecti&es' <or the ; residentDs power as %o77ander, in,chief has been transfor7ed fro7 a si7ple power of 7ilitary co77and to a &ast reser&oir of indeter7inate powers in ti7e of e7ergency' ''' +n other words, the principal canons of constitutional interpretation are ''' set aside so far as concerns both the scope of the national power and the capacity of the resident to gather unto hi7self all constitutionally a&ailable powers in order the 7ore effecti&ely to focus the7 upon the tasB of the hour'; -%orwin, The resident8 (ffice P owers, pp' 317, 314, F1234G/' 1' The procla7ation of 7artial rule, ushered the co77ence7ent of a crisis go&ern7ent in this country' +n ter7s of power, crisis go&ern7ent in a constitutional de7ocracy entails the concentration of go&ern7ental power' ;The 7ore co7plete the separation of powers in a constitutional syste7, the 7ore difficult, and yet the 7ore necessary; according to Rossiter, ;will be their fusion in ti7e of crisis''' The power of the state in crisis 7ust not only be concentrated and e9panded, it 7ust be freed fro7 the nor7al syste7 of constitutional and legal li7itations' (ne of the basic features of e7ergency powers is the release of the go&ern7ent fro7 the paralysis of constitutional restraints; -Rossiter, %onstitutional :ictatorship, p' 220/' +t is clearly recogni?ed that in 7o7ents of peril the effecti&e action of the go&ern7ent is channeled through the person of the %hief "9ecuti&e' ;"nergy in the e9ecuti&e,; according to Ca7ilton, ;is essential to the protection of the co77unity against foreign attacBs ''' to the protection of property against those irregular and high,handed co7binations which so7eti7es interrupt the ordinary course of =ustice@ to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of a7bition, of faction, and of anarchy'; -The <ederalist, #u7ber 70/' ;The entire strength of the nation;, said 6ustice $rewer in the :ebs case -1.4 *'S' .53@ 32 )' ed' 1022/, ;7ay be used to enforce in any part of the land the full and free e9ercise of all national powers and the security of all rights entrusted by the constitution to its care'; The 7arshalling and e7ploy7ent of the ;strength of the nation; are 7atters for the discretion of the %hief "9ecuti&e' The residentDs powers in ti7e of e7ergency defy precise definition since t)eir e!tent and limitations are largel" dependent upon conditions and circumstance s' 2' The power of the resident to act decisi&ely in a crisis has been grounded on the broad confer7ent upon the residency of the "9ecuti&e power, with the added specific grant of power under the ;%o77ander,in,%hief; clause of the constitution' The contours of such powers ha&e been shaped 7ore by a long line of historical precedents of residential action in ti7es of crisis, rather than =udicial interpretation' )incoln wedded his powers under the ;co77ander,in,chief; clause with his duty ;to taBe care that the laws be faithfully e9ecuted,; to =ustify the series of e9traordinary 7easures which he tooB D the calling of &olunteers for 7ilitary ser&ice, the aug7entation of the regular ar7y and na&y, the pay7ent of two 7illion dollars fro7 unappropriated funds in the Treasury to persons unauthori?ed to recei&e it, the closing of the ost (ffice to ;treasonable correspondence;, the blocBade of southern ports, the suspension of the writ of )a*eas corpus, the arrest and detention of persons ;who were represented to hi7; as being engaged in or conte7plating ;treasonable practices; D all this for the 7ost part,it)out t)e least statutor" aut)orization ' Those actions were =ustified by the i7perati&es of his logic, that the resident 7ay, in an e7ergency thought by

hi7 to re0uire it, partially suspend the constitution' Thus his fa7ous 0uestion8 ;Are all laws but one to be une9ecuted, and the 1o&ern7ent itself go to pieces lest that one be &iolatedH; The actions of )incoln ;assert for the resident;, according to %orwin, ;an initiati&e of indefinite scope and legislati&e in effect in 7eeting the do7estic aspects of a war e7ergency'; -%orwin, The resident8 (ffice P owers, p' 240 F1234G/' The facts of the ci&il war ha&e shown conclusi&ely that in 7eeting the do7estic proble7s as a conse0uence of a great war, an indefinite power 7ust be attributed to the resident to taBe e7ergency 7easures' The concept of ;e7ergency; under which the %hief "9ecuti&e e9ercised e9traordinary powers underwent correlati&e enlarge7ent during the first and second World Wars' <ro7 its narrow concept as an ;e7ergency; in ti7e of war during the %i&il War and World War +, the concept has been e9panded in World War ++ to include the ;e7ergency; preceding the war and e&en after it' ;The Second World War; obser&ed %orwin and Noenig, was the <irst World War writ large, and the 0uasi,legislati&e powers of <ranBlin Roose&elt as ;%o77ander,in,%hief in warti7e;''' burgeoned correspondingly' The precedents were there to be sure, 7ost of the7 fro7 the <irst World War, but they proliferated a7a?ingly' What is 7ore, Roose&elt tooB his first step toward war so7e fifteen 7onths before our entrance into s)ooting ,ar' This step occurred in Septe7ber, 1230, when he handed o&er fifty so,called o&erage destroyers to 1reat $ritain' The truth is, they were not o&erage, but had been recently reconditioned and reco77issioned' ''' Actually, what resident Roose&elt did was to ta#e over for t)e nonce +ongress0s po,er to dispose of propert" of t)e @nited States -Article +A, Section 3/ and to repeal at least t,o statutes'; -%orwin P Noenig, The residency Today, #ew LorB *ni&ersity ress, 12.5@ sf %orwin, The resident8 (ffice and owers, 1234'/ The creation of public offices is a power confided by the constitution to %ongress' And yet resident Wilson, during World War + on the basis of his powers under the ;%o77ander,in,%hief; clause created ;offices; which were copied in la&ish scale by resident Roose&elt in World War ++' +n April 1232, thirty,fi&e ;e9ecuti&e agencies; were purely of residential creation' (n 6une 7, 1231 on the basis of his powers as ;%o77ander,in,%hief;, he issued an e9ecuti&e order sei?ing the #orth A7erican A&iation plant of +nglewood, %alifornia, where production stopped as a conse0uence of a striBe' This was =ustified by the go&ern7ent as the e9ercise of presidential power growing out of the ;duty constitutionally and inherently resting upon the resident to e9ert his ci&il and 7ilitary as well as his 7oral authority to Beep the defense efforts of the *nited States a going concern; as well as ;to obtain supplies for which %ongress has appropriated 7oney, and which it has directed the resident to obtain'; (n a si7ilar =ustification, other plants and industries were taBen o&er by the go&ern7ent' +t is true that in Loungstown Sheet P Tube &s' Sawyer -333 *'S' .72@ 72 S' %t' 453@ 25 )' "d' 11.3, F12.2G/, the Supre7e %ourt of the *nited States did not sustain the clai7s that the resident could, as the #ationDs %hief "9ecuti&e and %o77ander,in,%hief of the ar7ed forces, &alidly order the sei?ure of 7ost of the countryDs steel 7ills' The %ourt howe&er did not face the naBed 0uestion of the residentDs power to sei?e steel plants in the absence of any congressional enact7ent or e9pressions of policy' The 7a=ority of the %ourt found that this legislati&e occupation of the field 7ade untenable the residentDs clai7 of authority to sei?e the plants as an e9ercise of inherent e9ecuti&e power or as %o77ander,in,%hief' 6ustice %larB, in his concurrence to the 7ain opinion of the %ourt, e9plicitly asserted that the resident does possess, in the absence of restricti&e legislation, a residual or resultant po,er a*ove or in conse9uence of )is granted po,ers, to deal with e7ergencies that he regards as threatening the national security' The sa7e &iew was shared with &ague 0ualification by 6ustices <ranBfurter and 6acBson, two of the concurring 6ustices' The three dissenting 6ustices, speaBing through %hief 6ustice Ainson, apparently went further by 0uoting with appro&al a passage e9tracted fro7 the brief of the go&ern7ent in the case of @nited States vs. Mid,est il +o', -235 *'S' 3.2 .2 )' "d' 573, 3. S' %t' 302/ where the court sustained the power of the resident to order withdrawals fro7 the public do7ain not only without %ongressional sanction but e&en contrary to %ongressional statutes' +t is e&ident therefore that the Steel Sei?ure %ase, cannot be in&oBed as an authority to support the &iew that the resident in ti7es of a gra&e crisis does not possess a residual power abo&e or in conse0uence of his granted powers, to deal with e7ergencies that he regards as threatening the national security' The lesson of the Steel Sei?ure case, according to %orwin and Noenig, ;*n0uestionably ''' tends to supple7ent presidential e7ergency power to adopt te7porary re7edial legislation when %ongress has been, in the =udg7ent of the resident, unduly re7iss in taBing cogni?ance of and acting on a gi&en situation'; -%orwin and Noenig, The residency Today, #ew LorB *ni&ersity ress, 12.5/' The accu7ulation of precedents has thus built up the presidential power under e7ergency conditions to ;di7ensions of e9ecuti&e prerogati&e as described by 6ohn )ocBe, of a power to wit, to fill needed gaps in the law, or e&en to supersede it so far as 7ay be re0uisite to reali?e t)e fundamental la, of nature and government, namel", t)at as muc) as ma" *e all t)e mem*ers of societ" are to *e preserved'; -%orwin and Noenig, The residency Today/' +n the light of the accu7ulated precedents, how could it be reasonably argued therefore, that the resident had no power to issue residential :ecree #os' 45 and 45,A as well as rocla7ation #o' 1102, since these 7easures were considered indispensable to effect the desired refor7s at the shortest ti7e possible and hasten the restoration of nor7alcyH +t is una&ailing for petitioners to contend that we are not faced by an actual ;shooting war; for todayDs concept of the e7ergency which =ustified the e9ercise of those powers has of necessity been e9panded to 7eet the e9igencies of new dangers and crisis that directly threaten the nationDs continued and constitutional e9istence' <or as %orwin obser&ed8 ;''' today the concept of DwarD as a special type of e7ergency warranting the reali?ation of constitutional li7itations tends to spread, as it were, in both directions, so that there is not only ;the war before the war,; but the Dwar after the war'D +ndeed, in the econo7ic crisis fro7 which the #ew :eal 7ay be said to ha&e issued, the nation was confronted in the opinion of the late resident with an De7ergency greater than warD@ and in sustaining certain of the #ew :eal 7easures the %ourt in&oBed the =ustification of De7ergency'D +n the final result constitutional practices of warti7e ha&e 7oulded the %onstitution to greater or less e9tent for peaceti7e as well, see7 liBely to do so still 7ore pronouncedly under fresh conditions of crisis'; -%orwin, <*id' p' 314'/ The sa7e &iew was e9pressed by Rossiter thus8 The second crisis is re*ellion, when the authority of a constitutional go&ern7ent is resisted openly by large nu7bers of citi?ens who are engaged in &iolent insurrection against enforce7ent of its laws or are

bent on capturing it illegally or destroying it altogether' The third crisis, one recogni?ed particularly in 7odern ti7es as sanctioning e7ergency action by constitutional go&ern7ents, is economic depression' The econo7ic troubles which plagued all the countries of the world in the early thirties in&ol&ed go&ern7ental 7ethods of an un0uestionably dictatorial character in 7any de7ocracies' +t was thereby acBnowledged that an econo7ic e9istence as a war or a rebellion' And these are not the only cases which ha&e =ustified e9traordinary go&ern7ental action in nations liBe the *nited States' <ire, flood, drought, earth0uaBe, riots, great striBes ha&e all been dealt with by unusual and of dictatorial 7ethods' Wars are not won by debating societies, rebellions are not suppressed by =udicial in=unctions, ree7ploy7ent of twel&e 7illion =obless citi?ens will not be effected through a scrupulous regard for the tenets of free enterprise, hardships caused by the eruptions of nature cannot be 7itigated letting nature taBe its course' The %i&il War, the depression of 1233 and the recent global conflict were not and could not ha&e been successfully resol&ed by go&ern7ents si7ilar to those of 6a7es $uchanan, Willia7 Coward Taft, or %al&in %oolidge' -Rossiter, %onstitutional :ictatorship D %risis of 1o&ern7ent in the !odern :e7ocracies, p' 5 F1234/' ++ We are ne9t confronted with the insistence of etitioners that the referendu7 in 0uestion not ha&ing been done inaccordance with the pro&isions of e9isting election laws, which only 0ualified &oters who are allowed to participate, under the super&ision of the %o77ission on "lections, the new %onstitution, should therefore be a nullity' Such an argu7ent is predicated upon an assu7ption, that Article KA of the 123. %onstitution pro&ides the 7ethod for the revision of the constitution, and auto7atically apply in the final appro&al of such proposed new %onstitution the pro&isions of the election law and those of Article A and K of the old %onstitution' We search in &ain for any pro&ision in the old charter specifically pro&iding for such procedure in the case of a total revision or a rewriting of the ,)ole constitution' 1' There is clearly a distinction between revision and amendment of an e9isting constitution' Re&ision 7ay in&ol&e a rewriting of the ,)ole constitution' The act of amending a constitution, on the other hand, en&isages a change of only specific pro&isions' The intention of an act to a7end is not the change of the entire constitution but only the improvement of specific parts of the e9isting constitution of the addition of pro&isions dee7ed essential as a conse0uence of new constitutions or the eli7ination of parts already considered obsolete or unresponsi&e to the needs of the ti7es' 1 The 1273 %onstitution is not a 7ere amendment to the 123. %onstitution' +t is a co7pletely new funda7ental charter e7bodying new political, social and econo7ic concepts' According to an e7inent authority on olitical )aw, ;The %onstitution of the hilippines and that of the *nited States e9pressly pro&ide 7erely for 7ethods of amendment. T)e" are silent on t)e su*6ect of revision' $ut this is not a fatal o7ission' There is nothing that can legally pre&ent a con&ention fro7 actually re&ising the %onstitution of the hilippines or of the *nited States e&en were such con&entions called 7erely for the purpose of proposing and sub7itting a7end7ents to the people' <or in the final analysis, it is the approval of t)e people that gives validit" to any proposal of a7end7ent or re&ision'; -Sinco, hilippine olitical )aw, p' 32/' Since the 123. %onstitution does not specifically pro&ide for the 7ethod or procedure for the revision or for the appro&al of a new constitution, should it now be held, that the people ha&e placed such restrictions on the7sel&es that they are not disabled fro7 e9ercising their right as the ulti7ate source of political power fro7 changing the old constitution which, in their &iew, was not responsi&e to their needs and in adopting a new charter of go&ern7ent to enable the7 to rid the7sel&es fro7 the shacBles of traditional nor7s and to pursue with new dyna7is7 the reali?ation of their true longings and aspirations, e9cept in the 7anner and for7 pro&ided by %ongress for pre&ious plebiscitesH Was not the e9pansion of the base of political participation, by the inclusion of the youth in the process of ratification who after all constitute the preponderant 7a=ority 7ore in accord with the spirit and philosophy of the constitution that political power is inherent in the people collecti&elyH As clearly e9pounded by 6ustice !aBasiar, in his opinion, in all the cases cited where the %ourts held that the sub7ission of the proposed a7end7ent was illegal due to the absence of substantial co7pliance with the procedure prescribed by the constitution, the procedure prescribed by the state %onstitution, is so detailed, that specified the manner in which such sub7ission shall be 7ade, the persons 9ualified to vote for the sa7e, the date of election and other definite standards, fro7 which the court could safely ascertain whether or not the sub7ission was in accordance with the %onstitution' Thus the case of +n re !c%onaughy -112 #'"' 304/ relied upon in one of the dissenting opinions in&ol&ed in the application of the pro&isions of the state %onstitution of !innesota which clearly prescribed in detail the procedure under which the %onstitution 7ay be a7ended or re&ised' 2 This is not true with our %onstitution' +n the case of revision there are no ;standards 7eet for =udicial =udg7ent'; 3 The fra7ers of our %onstitution were free to pro&ide in the %onstitution the 7ethod or procedure for the re&ision or rewriting of the entire constitution, and if such was their intention, they could and should ha&e so pro&ided' recedents were not wanting' The constitutions of the &arious states of the A7erican *nion did pro&ide for procedures for their amendment and 7ethods for their revision' 4 %ertainly We cannot, under the guise of interpretation, 7odify, re&ise, a7end, re7odel or rewrite the 123. %harter' To declare what the law is, or has been, is a =udicial power, but to declare what the law shall be is not within (ur =udicial co7petence and authority' *pon the other hand, since our funda7ental charter has not pro&ided the 7ethod or procedure for the re&ision or co7plete change of the %onstitution, it is e&ident that the people ha&e reser&ed such power in the7sel&es' They decided to e9ercise it not through their legislature, but through a %on&ention e9pressly chosen for that purpose' The %on&ention as an independent and

so&ereign body has drafted not an a7end7ent but a co7pletely new %onstitution, which decided to sub7it to the people for appro&al, not through an act of %ongress, but by 7eans of decrees to be pro7ulgated by the resident' +n &iew of the inability of %ongress to act, it was within the constitutional powers of the resident, either as agent of the %onstitutional %on&ention, or under his authority under 7artial law, to pro7ulgate the necessary 7easures for the ratification of the proposed new %onstitution' The adoption the new %harter was considered as a necessary basis for all the refor7s set in 7otion under the new society, to root out the causes of unrest' The i7perati&es of the e7ergency underscored the urgency of its adoption' The people in accepting such procedure and in &oting o&erwhel7ingly for the appro&al of the new %onstitution ha&e, in effect, ratified the 7ethod and procedure taBen' ;When the people adopt co7pletely re&ised or new constitution,; said the %ourt in Wheeler &' $oard of Trustees -37 S" 2nd 322, 325,330/, ;the fra7ing or sub7ission of the instru7ent is not what gi&es it binding force and effect' The fiat of the people, and only the fiat of the people, can breathe life into a constitution'; This has to be so because, in our political syste7, all political power is inherent in the people and free go&ern7ents are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit' Thus Section 1 of Article ++ of the 123. %onstitution declares that8 ;So&ereignty resides in the people and all go&ern7ent authority e7anate fro7 the7'; "&idently the ter7 people refers to the entire citizenr" and not 7erely to the electorate, for the latter is only a fraction of the people and is only an organ of go&ern7ent for the election of go&ern7ent officials' +++ The 7ore co7pelling 0uestion, howe&er is8 Cas this %ourt the authority to nullify an entire %onstitution that is already effective as it has been accepted and ac0uiesced in by the people as shown by their co7pliance with the decree pro7ulgated thereunder, their cooperation in its i7ple7entation, and is now 7aintained by the 1o&ern7ent that is in undisputed authority and do7inanceH (f course it is argued that ac0uiescence by the people can be deduced fro7 their acts of confor7ity, because under a regi7e of 7artial law the people are bound to obey and act in confor7ity with the orders of the resident, and has absolutely no other choice' The flaw of this argu7ent lies in its application of a 7ere theoretical assu7ption based on the e9periences of other nations on an entirely different factual setting' Such an assu7ption flounders on the rocB of reality' +t is true that as a general rule 7artial law is the use of 7ilitary forces to perfor7 the functions of ci&il go&ern7ent' So7e courts ha&e &iewed it as a 7ilitary regi7e which can be i7posed in e7ergency situations' +n other words, 7artial rule e9ists when the 7ilitary rises superior to the ci&il power in the e9ercise of so7e or all the functions of go&ern7ent' Such is not the case in this country' The go&ern7ent functions thru its ci&ilian officials' The supre7acy of the ci&il o&er the 7ilitary authority is 7anifest' "9cept for the i7position of curfew hours and other restrictions re0uired for the security of the State, the people are free to pursue their ordinary concerns' +n short, the e9isting regi7e in this %ountry, does not contain the oppressi&e features, generally associated with a regi7e of !artial law in other countries' ;*pon the other hand the 7asses of our people ha&e accepted it, because of its 7anifold blessings' The once downtrodden rice tenant has at long last been e7ancipated D a consu77ation de&outly wished by e&ery hilippine resident since the 1230Ds' The laborer now holds his head high because his rights are a7ply protected and respected'; A A new sense of discipline has swiftly spread beyond the corridors of go&ern7ent into the social order' Responding to the challenges of the #ew Society, the people ha&e turned in half a 7illion loose firear7s, paid their ta9es on undeclared goods and inco7e in unprecedented nu7bers and a7ount, lent their labors in 7assi&e cooperation D in land refor7, in the repair of diBes, irrigation ditches, roads and bridges, in reforestation, in the physical transfor7ation of the en&iron7ent to 7aBe ours a cleaner and greener land' ;The entire country is turning into one &ast garden growing food for the body, for thought and for the soul'; A !ore i7portant the co77on 7an has at long last been freed fro7 the incubus of fear' ;!artial law has pa&ed the way for a re,ordering of the basic social structure of the hilippines; reported <ranB Aaleo to the *nited States Senate' ; resident !arcos has been pro7pt and sure,footed in using the power of presidential decree under 7artial law for this purpose' Ce has ?eroed in on areas which ha&e been widely recogni?ed as pri7e sources of the nationDs difficulties D land tenancy, official corruption, ta9 e&asion and abuse of oligarchic econo7ic power' %learly he Bnows his targets ''' t)ere is mar#ed pu*lic support for his leadership'''; -$ulletin Today, !arch 3 and 3, 1273/'' +n a si7ilar &ein, %')' Sul?berger, a foreign affairs colu7nist wrote, in the April 11 issue of The #ew LorB Ti7es8 :uring his first residential ter7 -125.,1252/, !r' !arcos was discouraged by the failure of legislators to appro&e urgently needed refor7s' Ce found his second ter7 further frustrated by spread riots, a !aoist uprising in )u?on and a 7uch 7ore serious !osle7 insurrection in the southern islands fro7 !indanao across the Sulu archipelago to the frontier regions of !alaysia and +ndonesia' !anila clai7s this war is !aoist,coordinated' !r' !arcos has now in effect taBen all the reins of power and 7aBes no pro7ise as to when he will relin0uish the7' $ut, while fettering a free press, ter7inating %ongress and locBing up so7e opponents -7any of who7 were later a7nestied/, )e )as )auled t)e $)ilippines out of stagnation ' Sharecropping is being ended as 7ore than three 7illion acres of arable land are redistributed with state funds' #ew roads ha&e been started' The educational syste7 is undergoing re&ision, a corruption is di7inished' +n non,co77unist Asia it is &irtually i7possible to wholly end it and this disagreeable pheno7enon still reaches &ery high' !r' !arcos, an i7aginati&e, gifted 7an, hopes to reshape society by creating an agrarian 7iddle,class to

replace the archaic sharecropper,absentee landlord relationship' Ce is e&en pushing for a birth control progra7 with the tacit acceptance of the %atholic %hurch' Ce has started labor refor7s and increased wages' -:aily "9press, April 1., 1273/ As e9plained in this writerDs opinion of April 23, 1273 on the ;%onstancia; and ;!anifestation; of counsel for petitioners8 The new %onstitution is considered effective ;if the nor7s created in confor7ity with it are by and large applied and obeyed' As soon as the old %onstitution loses its effecti&eness and the new %onstitution has beco7e effecti&e, the acts that appear with the sub=ecti&e 7eaning of creating or applying legal nor7s are no longer interpreted by presupposing the old basic nor7, but by presupposing the new one' The statutes issued under the old %onstitution and not taBen o&er are no longer regarded as &alid, and the organs authori?ed by the old %onstitution no longer co7petent'; -Nelsen, ure Theory of )aw, F1257G'/ The essentially political nature of the 0uestion is at once 7ade 7anifest by understanding that in the final analysis, what is assailed is not 7erely the &alidity of rocla7ation #o' 1102 of the resident, which is 7erely declaratory of the fact of appro&al or ratification, but the legiti7acy of the go&ern7ent' +t is addressed 7ore to the fra7eworB and political character of this 1o&ern7ent which now functions under the new %harter' +t seeBs to nullify a %onstitution that is already effective' +n such a situation, We do not see how the 0uestion posed by petitioners could be =udicially decided' ;6udicial power presupposes an established go&ern7ent capable of enacting laws and enforcing their e9ecution, and of appointing =udges to e9pound and ad7inister the7' +f it decides at all as a court, it necessarily affir7s the e9istence and authority of the go&ern7ent under which it is e9ercising =udicial power'; -)uther &' $orden, 34 *'S' F7 Cow'G 1, 12 )' "d' .24'/ +n other words, where a co7plete change in the funda7ental law has been effected through political action, the %ourt whose e9istence is affected by such change is, in the words of !r' !el&ille <uller Weston, ;precluded fro7 passing upon the fact of change by a logical difficulty which is not to be sur7ounted'; ) Such change in the organic law relates to the e9istence of a prior point in the %ourtDs ;chain of title; to its authority and ;does not relate 7erely to a 0uestion of the hori?ontal distribution of powers'; 6 +t in&ol&es in essence a 7atter which ;the so&ereign has entrusted to the so,called political depart7ents of go&ern7ent or has reser&ed to be settled by its own e9tra go&ern7ental action'; 7 The non,=udicial character of such a 0uestion has been recogni?ed in A7erican law' ;<ro7 its earliest opinions this %ourt has consistently recogni?ed,; said 6ustice <ranBfurter, in his illu7inating dissent in $aBer &' %arr, 352 *'S' 145, 7 )' "d' 2d' 533, 722, 725, 727/, ;a class of contro&ersies which do not lend the7sel&es to =udicial standards and =udicial re7edies' To classify the &arious instances as ;political 0uestions; is rather a for7 of stating this conclusion than re&ealing of analysis ''' The cru9 of the 7atter is that courts are not fit instru7ents of decision where what is essentially at staBe is the co7position of those large contests of policy traditionally fought out in non,=udicial foru7s, by which go&ern7ents and the actions of go&ern7ents are 7ade and un7ade'; The di&ersity of &iews contained in the opinions of the 7e7bers of this %ourt, in the cases at bar, cannot be a case on ;right; or ;wrong; &iews of the %onstitution' +t is one of attitudes and &alues' <or there is scarcely any principle, authority or interpretation which has not been countered by the opposite' At botto7, it is the degree of oneDs faith D in the nationDs leadership and in the 7aturity of =udg7ent of our people' +# A+"W (< TC" <(R"1(+#1, the dis7issal of these fi&e cases, and the conclusion of this %ourt in its =udg7ent of !arch 0uestion beco7es wholly 7oot e9cept for this consideration, that, when the =udges as indi&iduals or as a body of indi&iduals co7e to decide which Bing or which constitution they will support and assert to represent, it 7ay often be good =udg7ent for the7 to follow the lead of the 7en who as a practical 7atter are liBely to be looBed to by the people as 7ore representati&e of the7sel&es and con&ersely are liBely to be 7ore directly in touch with popular senti7ent' +f, howe&er, the =udges hold too strong &iews of their own to be able to taBe this course, they 7ay follow their own leads at their own ha?ard' #o 0uestion of law is in&ol&ed' - olitical Iuestions, 34 Car&ard )aw Re&iew F1223,2.G, pp' 30., 302'/ 31, 1273 are fully =ustified' %arredo, Ma#asiar and &sguerra, JJ., concur. A "#:+K T( ( +#+(#

-1'R' #os' ),35132, 35153, 3515., 35235 P 35243/ R(A+S+(#S (< STAT" %(#ST+T*T+(#S S "%+<+%A))L R(A+:+#1 <(R A!"#:!"#T A#: R"A+S+(# R 1' AlasBa -12.2/ D Art' K+++' Amendment and Revision' Sec' 1' Amendments' A7end7ents to this constitution 7ay be proposed by a two,thirds &ote of each house of the legislature' The secretary of state shall prepare a ballot title and proposition su77ari?ing each proposed a7end7ent, and shall place the7

on the ballot for the ne9t statewide election' +f a 7a=ority of the &otes cast on the proposition fa&or the amendment, it beco7es effecti&e thirty days after the certification of the election returns by the secretary of state' Sec' 2' +onvention' The legislature 7ay call constitutional con&entions at any ti7e' Sec' 3' +all *" referendum' +f during any ten,year period a constitutional con&ention has not been held, the secretary of state shall place on the ballot for the ne9t general election the 0uestion8 ;Shall there be a %onstitutional %on&entionH; +f a 7a=ority of the &otes cast on the 0uestion are in the negati&e, the 0uestion need not be placed on the ballot until the end of the ne9t ten,year period' +f a 7a=ority of the &otes cast on the 0uestion are in the affir7ati&e, delegates to the con&ention shall be chosen at the ne9t regular statewide election, unless the legislature pro&ides for the election of the election delegates at a special election' The secretary of state shall issue the call for the con&ention' *nless other pro&isions ha&e been 7ade by law, the call shall confor7 as nearly as possible to the act calling the AlasBa %onstitutional %on&ention of 12.., including, but not li7ited to, nu7ber of 7e7bers, districts, election and certification of delegates, and sub7ission and ratification of revisions and ordinances' ''' ' Sec' 3' $o,ers' %onstitutional con&entions shall ha&e plenary power to a7end or re&ise the constitution, sub=ect only to ratification by the people' #o call for a constitutional con&ention shall li7it these powers of the con&ention' 2' %alifornia -1472/ D Art' KA+++' Amending and Revising t)e +onstitution ' Sec' 1' +onstitutional amendments' Any a7end7ent or a7end7ents to this %onstitution 7ay be proposed in the Senate or Asse7bly, and if two,thirds of all the 7e7bers elected to each of the houses shall &ote in fa&or thereof, such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall be entered in their 6ournals, with the yeas and nays taBen thereon@ and it shall be the duty of the )egislature to sub7it such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents to the people in such 7anner, and at such ti7e, and after such publication as 7ay be dee7ed e9pedient' Should 7ore a7end7ents than one be sub7itted at the sa7e election they shall be so prepared and distinguished, by nu7bers or otherwise, that each can be &oted on separately' +f the people shall appro&e and ratify such a7end7ent or a7end7ents, or any of the7, by a 7a=ority of the 0ualified electors &oting thereon such a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall beco7e a part of this constitution' Sec' 2' +onstitutional convention' Whene&er two,thirds of the 7e7bers elected to each branch of the )egislature shall dee7 it necessary to re&ise this %onstitution, they shall reco77end to the electors to &ote at the ne9t general for or against a %on&ention for that purpose, and if a 7a=ority of the electors &oting at such election on the proposition for a %on&ention shall &ote in fa&or thereof, the )egislature shall, at its ne9t session, pro&ide by law for calling the sa7e' The %on&ention shall consist of a nu7ber of delegates not to e9ceed that of both branches of the )egislature, who shall be chosen in the sa7e 7anner, and ha&e the sa7e 0ualifications, as !e7bers of the )egislature' The delegates so elected shall 7eet within three 7onths after their election at such place as the )egislature 7ay direct' At a special election to be pro&ided for by law, the +onstitution that 7ay be agreed upon by such %on&ention s)all *e su*mitted to t)e people for t)eir ratification or re6ection, in suc) manner as t)e +onvention ma" determine' The returns of such election shall, in such 7anner as the %on&ention shall direct, be certified to the "9ecuti&e of the State, who shall call to his assistance the %ontroller, Treasurer, and Secretary of State, and co7pare the returns so certified to hi7@ and it shall be the duty of the "9ecuti&e to declare, by his procla7ation, such %onstitution, as 7ay ha&e been ratified by a 7a=ority of all the &otes cast at such special election, to be the %onstitution of the State of %alifornia' 3' %olorado -1475/ D Art' K+K' Amendments' Sec' 1' +onstitutional convention> )o, called ' The general asse7bly 7ay at any ti7e be a &ote of two,thirds of the 7e7bers elected to each house, reco77end to the electors of the state, to &ote at the ne9t general election for or against a con&ention to revise, alter and amend this constitution@ and if a 7a=ority of those &oting on the 0uestion shall declare in fa&or of such con&ention, the general asse7bly shall, at the ne9t session, pro&ide for the calling thereof' The nu7ber of 7e7bers of the con&ention shall be twice that of the senate and they shall be elected in the sa7e 7anner, at the sa7e places, and in the sa7e districts' The general asse7bly shall, in the act calling the con&ention, designate the day, hour and place of its 7eeting@ fi9 the pay of its 7e7bers and officers, and pro&ide for the pay7ent of the sa7e, together with the necessary e9penses of the con&ention' $efore proceeding, the 7e7bers shall taBe an oath to support the constitution of the *nited States, and of the state of %olorado, and to faithfully discharge their duties as 7e7bers of the con&ention' The 0ualifications of 7e7bers shall be the sa7e as of 7e7bers of the senate@ and &acancies occurring shall be filled in the 7anner pro&ided for filling &acancies in the general asse7bly' Said convention shall 7eet within three 7onths after such election and prepare suchrevisions, alterations or a7end7ents to the constitution as 7ay be dee7ed necessary@ which shall be sub7itted to the electors for their ratification or re=ection at an election appointed *" t)e convention for t)at purpose , not less than two nor 7ore than si9 7onths after ad=ourn7ent thereof@ and unless so sub7itted and appro&ed by a 7a=ority of the electors &oting at the election, no such re&ision, alteration or a7end7ent shall taBe effect' Sec' 2' Amendments to constitution> )o, adopted' Any a7end7ent or a7end7ents to this constitution 7ay be proposed in either house of the general asse7bly, and if the sa7e shall be &oted for by two,thirds of all the 7e7bers elected to each house, such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents, together with the ayes and noes of each house hereon, shall be entered in full on their respecti&e =ournals@ the proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall be published with the laws of that session of the general asse7bly, and the secretary of state shall also cause the said a7end7ent or a7end7ents to be published in full in not 7ore than one newspaper of general circulation in each county, for four successi&e weeBs pre&ious to the ne9t general election for 7e7bers of the general asse7bly@ and at said election the said a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall be sub7itted to the 9ualifiedelectors of the state for their appro&al or re=ection, and such as are appro&ed by a 7a=ority of those &oting thereon

shall beco7e part of this constitution' ro&ided, that if 7ore than one a7end7ent be sub7itted at any general election, each of said a7end7ents shall be &oted upon separately and &otes thereon cast shall be separately counted the sa7e as though but one a7end7ent was sub7itted' $ut the general asse7bly shall ha&e no po,er to propose amendments to more t)an si! articles of t)is constitution at the sa7e session' 3' :elaware -1427/ D Art' KA+' Amendments and +onventions' Sec' 1' $roposal of constitutional amendments in general assem*l"> procedure ' Any a7end7ent or a7end7ents to this %onstitution 7ay be proposed in the Senate or Couse of Representati&es@ and if the sa7e shall be agreed to by two,thirds of all the 7e7bers elected to each Couse, such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall be entered on their =ournals, with the yeas and nays taBen thereon, and the Secretary of State shall cause such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents to be published three 7onths before the ne9t general election in at least three newspapers in each %ounty in which such newspaper shall be published@ and if in the 1eneral Asse7bly ne9t after the said election such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall upon yea and nay &ote *e agreed to *" t,o1t)irds of all t)e mem*ers elected to eac) Aouse, t)e same s)all t)ereupon *ecome part of t)e +onstitution' Sec' 2' +onstitutional conventions> procedure> compensation of delegates> 9uorum> po,ers and duties> vacancies ' The 1eneral Asse7bly by a two,thirds &ote of all the 7e7bers elected to each Couse 7ay fro7 ti7e to ti7e pro&ide for the sub7ission to the 0ualified electors of the State at the general election ne9t thereafter the 0uestion, ;Shall there be a %on&ention to re&ise the %onstitution and a7end the sa7eH@; and upon such sub7ission, if a 7a=ority of those &oting on said 0uestion shall decide in fa&or of a %on&ention for such purpose, the 1eneral Asse7bly at its ne9t session shall pro&ide for the election of delegates to such con&ention at the ne9t general election' Such %on&ention shall be co7posed of forty,one delegates, one of who7 shall be chosen fro7 each Representati&e :istrict by the 0ualified electors thereof, and two of who7 shall be chosen fro7 #ew %astle %ounty, two fro7 Nent %ounty and two fro7 Susse9 %ounty by the 0ualified electors thereof respecti&ely' The delegates so chosen shall con&ene at the %apital of the State on the first Tuesday in Septe7ber ne9t after their election' "&ery delegate shall recei&e for his ser&ices such co7pensation as shall be pro&ided by law' A 7a=ority of the %on&ention shall constitute a 0uoru7 for the transaction of business' The %on&ention shall ha&e the power to appoint such officers, e7ployees and assistants as it 7ay be dee7 necessary, and fi9 their co7pensation, and pro&ide for the printing of its docu7ents, =ournals, debates and proceedings' The %on&ention shall deter7ine the rules of its proceedings, and be the =udge of the elections, returns and 0ualifications of its 7e7bers' Whene&er there shall be a &acancy in the office of delegate fro7 any district or county by reason of failure to elect, ineligibility, death, resignation or otherwise, a writ of election to fill such &acancy shall be issued by the 1o&ernor, and such &acancy shall be filled by the 0ualified electors of such district or county' .' <lorida -1447/ D Art' KA++' Amendments' Sec' 1' Met)od of amending constitution' "ither branch of the )egislature, at any regular session, or at any special or e9tra, ordinary session thereof called for such purpose either in the go&ernorDs original call or any a7end7ent thereof, 7ay propose the re&ision or a7end7ent of any portion or portions of this %onstitution' Any such re&ision or a7end7ent 7ay relate to one sub=ect or any nu7ber of sub=ects, but no a7end7ent shall consist of 7ore than one re&ised article of the %onstitution' +f the proposed re&ision or a7end7ent is agreed to by three,fifths of the 7e7bers elected to each house, it shall be entered upon their respecti&e =ournals with the yeas and nays and published in one newspaper in each county where a newspaper is published for two ti7es, one publication to be 7ade not earlier than ten weeBs and the other not later than si9 weeBs, i77ediately preceding the election at which the sa7e is to be &oted upon, and thereupon sub7itted to the electors of the State for appro&al or re=ection at the ne9t general election, pro&ided, howe&er, that such revision or amendment 7ay be sub7itted for appro&al or re=ection in a special election under the conditions described in and in the 7anner pro&ided by Section 3 of Article KA++ of the %onstitution' +f a 7a=ority of the electors &oting upon the a7end7ent adopt such a7end7ent the sa7e shall beco7e a part of this %onstitution' Sec' 2' Met)od of revising constitution' +f at any ti7e the )egislature, by a &ote of two,thirds of all the 7e7bers of both Couses, shall deter7ine that a revision of this %onstitution is necessary, such deter7ination shall be entered upon their respecti&e 6ournals, with yeaDs and nayDs thereon' #otice of said action shall be published weeBly in one newspaper in e&ery county in which a newspaper is published, for three 7onths preceding the ne9t general election of Representati&es, and in those countries where no newspaper is published, notice shall be gi&en by posting at the se&eral polling precincts in such counties for si9 weeBs ne9t preceding said election' The electors at said election 7ay &ote for or against the re&ision in 0uestion' +f a 7a=ority of the electors so &oting be in fa&or of re&ision, the )egislature chosen at such election shall pro&ide by law for a %on&ention to re&ise the %onstitution, said %on&ention to be held within si9 7onths after the passage of such law' The %on&ention shall consist of a nu7ber e0ual to the 7e7bership of the Couse of Representati&es, and shall be apportioned a7ong the se&eral counties in the sa7e 7anner as 7e7bers of said Couse' 5' +daho -1420/ D Art' K+K' Amendments' Sec' 1' Ao, amendments ma" *e proposed ' Any a7end7ent or a7end7ents to this %onstitution 7ay be proposed in either branch of the legislature, and if the sa7e shall be agreed to by two,thirds of all the 7e7bers of each of the two houses, &oting separately, such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall, with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered on their =ournals, and it shall be the duty of the legislature to sub7it such a7end7ent or a7end7ents to the electors of the state at the ne9t general election, and cause the sa7e to be published without delay for at least si9 consecuti&e weeBs, prior to said election, in not less

than one newspaper of the general circulation published in each county@ and if a 7a=ority of the electors shall ratify the sa7e, such a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall beco7e a part of this %onstitution' Sec' 3' Revision or amendments *" convention' Whene&er two,thirds of the 7e7bers elected to each branch of the legislature shall dee7 it necessary to call a con&ention to revise or amend this %onstitution, they shall reco77end to the electors to &ote at the ne9t general election, for or against a con&ention, and if a 7a=ority of all the electors &oting at said election shall ha&e &oted for a con&ention, the legislature shall at the ne9t session pro&ide by law for calling the sa7e@ and such con&ention shall consist of a nu7ber of 7e7bers, not less than double the nu7ber of the 7ost nu7erous branch of the legislature' 7' +owa -14.7/ D Art' K' Amendments to t)e +onstitution' Sec' 3' +onvention' At the general election to be held in the year one thousand eight hundred and se&enty, and in each tenth year thereafter, and also at such ti7es as the 1eneral Asse7bly 7ay, by law, pro&ide, the 0uestion, ;Shall there be a %on&ention to revise the %onstitution, and amend the sa7eH; shall be decided by the electors 0ualified to &ote for 7e7bers of the 1eneral Asse7bly@ and in case a 7a=ority of the electors so 0ualified, &oting at such election, for and against such proposition, shall decide in fa&or of a %on&ention for such purpose, the 1eneral Asse7bly, at its ne9t session, shall pro&ide by law for the election of delegates to such %on&ention' 4' !ichigan -1202/ D Art' KA++' Amendments and Revision' Sec' 1' Amendments to constitution> proposal *" legislature> su*mission to electors ' Any a7end7ent or a7end7ents to this constitution 7ay be proposed in the senate or house of representati&es' +f the sa7e shall be agreed to by 2J3 of the 7e7bers elected to each house, such amendment or amendments shall be entered on the =ournals, respecti&ely, with the yeas and nays taBen thereon@ and the sa7e shall be sub7itted to the electors at the ne9t spring or autu7n election thereafter, as the legislature shall direct@ and, if a 7a=ority of the electors 9ualified to vote for 7e7bers of the legislature &oting thereon shall ratify and appro&e such a7end7ent or a7end7ents, the sa7e shall beco7e part of the constitution' Sec' 3' General revision> convention> procedure ' At the $iennial Spring "lection to be held in the year 1251, in each si9teenth year thereafter and at such ti7es as 7ay be pro&ided by law, the 0uestion of a General Revision of the %onstitution shall be sub7itted to the "lectors 0ualified to &ote for 7e7bers of the )egislature' +n case a 7a=ority of the "lectors &oting on the 0uestion shall decide in fa&or of a %on&ention for such purpose, at an "lection to be held not later than four 7onths after the roposal shall ha&e been certified as appro&ed, the "lectors of each Couse of Representati&es :istrict as then organi?ed shall "lect (ne :elegate for each "lectors of each Senatorial :istrict as then organi?ed shall "lect (ne :elegate for each State Senator to which the :istrict is entitled' The :elegates so elected shall con&ene at the %apital %ity on the <irst Tuesday in (ctober ne9t succeeding such election, and shall continue their sessions until the business of the con&ention shall be co7pleted' A 7a=ority of the delegates elected shall constitute a 0uoru7 for the transaction of business' ''' #o proposed constitution or amendment adopted by such con&ention shall be sub7itted to the electors for appro&al as hereinafter pro&ided unless by the assent of a 7a=ority of all the delegates elected to the con&ention, the yeas and nays being entered on the =ournal' Any proposed constitution or a7end7ents adopted by such con&ention shall be sub7itted to the 9ualified electors in the 7anner pro&ided by such con&ention on the first !onday in April following the final ad=ourn7ent of the con&ention@ but, in case an inter&al of at least 20 days shall not inter&ene between such final ad=ourn7ent and the date of such election' *pon the appro&al of such constitution or a7end7ents by a 7a=ority of the 0ualified electors &oting thereon such constitution or a7end7ents shall taBe effect on the first day of 6anuary following the appro&al thereof' 2' !innesota -14.7/ D Art' K+A' Amendments to t)e +onstitution' Sec' 1' Amendments to constitution> ma6orit" vote of electors voting ma#es amendment valid ' Whene&er a 7a=ority of both houses of the legislature shall dee7 it necessary to alter or a7end this %onstitution, they 7ay proposed such alterations or amendments, which proposed a7end7ents shall be published with the laws which ha&e been passed at the sa7e session, and said a7end7ents shall be sub7itted to the people for their appro&al or re=ection at any general election, and if it shall appear, in a 7anner to be pro&ided by law, that a 7a=ority of all the electors &oting at said election shall ha&e &oted for and ratified such alterations or a7end7ents, the sa7e shall be &alid to all intents and purposes as a part of this %onstitution' +f two or 7ore alterations or amendments shall be sub7itted at the sa7e ti7e, it shall be so regulated that the &oters shall &ote for or against each separately' Sec' 2' Revision of constitution' Whene&er two,thirds of the 7e7bers elected to each branch of the legislature shall thinB it necessary to call a con&ention to re&ise this %onstitution, they shall reco77end to the electors to &ote at the ne9t general election for 7e7bers of the legislature, for or against a con&ention@ and if a 7a=ority of all the electors &oting at said election shall ha&e &oted for a con&ention, the legislature shall, at their ne9t session, pro&ide by law for calling the sa7e' The con&ention shall consist of as 7any 7e7bers as the Couse of Representati&es, who shall be chosen in the sa7e 7anner, and shall 7eet within three 7onths after their election for the purpose aforesaid' Sec' 3' Su*mission to people of revised constitution drafted at convention ' Any con&ention called to re&ise this constitution shall sub7it any re&ision thereof by said con&ention to the people of the State of !innesota for their appro&al or re=ection at the ne9t general election held not less than 20 days after the adoption of such revision, and, if it shall appear in the 7anner provided *" la, that three,fifths of all the electors &oting on the 0uestion shall ha&e &oted for and ratified such re&ision, the sa7e shall constitute a new constitution of the State of !innesota' Without such sub7ission and ratification, said re&ision shall be of no

force or effect' Section 2 of Article +A of the %onstitution shall not apply to election to the con&ention' 10' #e&ada -1453/ D Art' 15' Amendments' Sec' 1' +onstitutional amendments> procedure' Any a7end7ent or a7end7ents to this %onstitution 7ay be proposed in the Senate or Asse7bly@ and if the sa7e shall be agreed to by a !a=ority of all the 7e7bers elected to each of the two houses, such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall be entered on their respecti&e =ournals, with the Leas and #ays taBen thereon, and referred to the )egislature then ne9t to be chosen, and shall be published for three 7onths ne9t preceding the ti7e of 7aBing such choice' And if in the )egislature ne9t chosen as aforesaid, such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall be agreed to by a 7a=ority of all the 7e7bers elected to each house, then it shall be the duty of the )egislature to sub7it such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents to the people, in such 7anner and at such ti7e as the )egislature shall prescribe@ and if the people shall appro&e and ratify such a7end7ent or a7end7ents by a 7a=ority of the electors 0ualified to &ote for 7e7bers of the )egislature &oting thereon, such a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall beco7e a part of the %onstitution' Sec' 2' +onvention for revision of constitution> procedure ' +f at any ti7e the )egislature by a &ote of two,thirds of the !e7bers elected to each house, shall deter7ine that it is necessary to cause a re&ision of t)is entire +onstitution they shall reco77end to the electors at the ne9t election for !e7bers of the )egislature, to &ote for or against a con&ention, and if it shall appear that a 7a=ority of the electors &oting at such election, shall ha&e &oted in fa&or of calling a %on&ention, the )egislature shall, at its ne9t session pro&ide by law for calling a %on&ention to be holden within si9 7onths after the passage of such law, and such %on&ention shall consist of a nu7ber of !e7bers not less that of both branches of the legislature' +n deter7ining what is a 7a=ority of the electors &oting such election, reference shall be had to the highest nu7ber of &ote cast at such election for the candidates of any office or on any 0uestion' 11' #ew Ca7spire -1743/ E Art' 22' Revision of constitution provided for' +t shall be the duty of the select7en, and assessors, of the se&eral towns and places in this state, in warning the first annual 7eetings for the choice of senators, after the e9piration of se&en years fro7 the adoption of this constitution, as a7ended, to insert e9pressly in the warrant this purpose, a7ong the others for the 7eeting, to wit, to taBe the sense of the 0ualified &oters on the sub=ect of a revision of t)e constitution@ and, the 7eeting being warned accordingly, and not otherwise, the 7oderator shall taBe the sense of the 0ualified &oters present as to the necessity of a re&ision@ and a return of the nu7ber of &otes for and against such necessity, shall be 7ade by the clerB sealed up, and directed to the general court at their then ne9t session@ and if, it shall appear to the general court by such return, that the sense of the people of the state has taBen, and that, in the opinion of the 7a=ority of the 0ualified &oters in the state, present and &oting at said 7eetings, there is a necessity for a revision of the constitution, it shall be the duty of the general court to call a con&ention for that purpose, otherwise the general court shall direct the sense of the people to be taBen, and then proceed in the 7anner before 7entioned' The delegates to be chosen in the sa7e 7anner, and proportioned, as the representati&es to the general court@ pro&ided that no alterations shall be 7ade in this constitution, before the sa7e shall be laid before the towns and unincorporated places, and appro&ed by two thirds of the 0ualified &oters present and &oting on the sub=ect' 12' (Blaho7a -1207/ D Art' KK+A' +onstitutional Amendments' Sec' 1' Amendments proposed *" legislature> a su*mission to vote' Any amendment or amendments to this %onstitution 7ay be proposed in either branch of the )egislature, and if the sa7e shall be agreed to by a 7a=ority of all the 7e7bers elected to each of the two houses, such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall, with yeas and nays thereon, be entered in their =ournals and referred by the Secretary of State to the people for their appro&al or re=ection, at the ne9t regular general election, e9cept when the )egislature, by a two,thirds &ote of each house, shall order a special election for that purpose' +f a 7a=ority of all the electors &oting at such election shall &ote in fa&or of any a7end7ent thereto, it shall thereby beco7e a part of this %onstitution' +f two or 7ore a7end7ents are proposed they shall be sub7itted in such 7anner that electors 7ay &ote for or against the7 separately' #o proposal for the a7end7ent or alteration of this %onstitution which is sub7itted to the &oters shall e7brace 7ore than one general sub=ect and the &oters shall &ote separately for or against each proposal sub7itted@ pro&ided, howe&er, that in the sub7ission of proposals for the amendment of this %onstitution by articles, which e7brace one general sub=ect, each proposed article shall be dee7ed a single proposals or proposition Sec' 2' +onstitutional convention to propose amendments or ne, constitution ' #o con&ention shall be called by the )egislature to propose alterations, revisions, or a7end7ents to this %onstitution, or to propose a ne, +onstitution, unless the law pro&iding for such con&ention shall first be appro&ed by the people on a referendu7 &ote at a regular or special election, and any a7end7ents, alterations, re&isions, or new %onstitution, proposed by such con&ention, shall be sub7itted to the electors of the State at a general or special election and be appro&ed by a 7a=ority of the electors &oting thereon, before the sa7e shall beco7e effecti&e ro&ided, That the 0uestion of such proposed con&ention shall be sub7itted to the people at least once in e&ery twenty years' 13' (regon -14.2/ D Art' KA++' Amendments and Revisions' Sec' 1' Met)od of amending constitution' Any a7end7ent or a7end7ents to this %onstitution 7ay be proposed in either branch

of the legislati&e asse7bly, and if the sa7e shall be agreed to by a 7a=ority of all the 7e7bers elected to each of the two houses, such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall, with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered in their =ournals and referred by the secretary of state to the people for their appro&al or re=ection, at the ne9t regular election, e9cept when the legislati&e asse7bly shall order a special election for that purpose' +f a 7a=ority of the electors &oting on any such a7end7ent shall &ote in fa&or thereof, it shall thereby beco7e a part of this %onstitution' The &otes for and against such amendment, or amendments, se&erally, whether proposed by the legislati&e asse7bly or by initiati&e petition, shall be can&assed by the secretary of state in the presence of the go&ernor, and if it shall appear to the go&ernor that the 7a=ority of the &otes cast at said election on said a7end7ent, or a7end7ents, se&erally, are cast in fa&or thereof, it shall be his duty forthwith after such can&ass, by his procla7ation, to declare the said a7end7ent, or a7end7ents, se&erally, ha&ing recei&ed said 7a=ority of &otes to ha&e been adopted by the people of (regon as part of the %onstitution thereof, and the sa7e shall be in effect as a part of the %onstitution fro7 the date of such procla7ation' When two or 7ore a7end7ents shall be sub7itted in the 7anner aforesaid to the &oters of this state at the sa7e election, they shall be so sub7itted that each a7end7ent shall be &oted on separately' #o con&ention shall be called to a7end or propose a7end7ents to this %onstitution, or to propose a ne, +onstitution, unless the law pro&iding for such con&ention shall first be appro&ed by the people on a referendu7 &ote at a regular general election' This article shall not be construed to i7pair the right of the people to a7end this %onstitution by &ote upon an initiati&e petition therefor' Sec' 2' Met)od of revising constitution' -1/ +n addition to the power to a7end this %onstitution granted by section 1, Article +A, and section 1 of this Article, a revision of all or part of t)is +onstitution 7ay be proposed in either house of the )egislati&e Asse7bly and, if the proposed re&ision is agreed to by at least two,thirds of all the 7e7bers of each house, the proposed re&ision shall, with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered in their =ournals and referred by the Secretary of State to the people for their appro&al or re=ection, notwithstanding section 1, Article +A of this %onstitution, at the ne9t regular state,wide pri7ary election, e9cept when the )egislati&e Asse7bly orders a special election for that purpose' A proposed re&ision 7ay deal with 7ore than one sub=ect and shall be &oted upon as one 0uestion' The &otes for and against the proposed re&ision shall be can&assed by the Secretary of State in the presence of the 1o&ernor and, if it appears to the 1o&ernor that the 7a=ority of the &otes cast in the election on the proposed re&ision are in fa&or of the proposed re&ision, he shall, pro7ptly following the can&ass, declare, by his procla7ation, that the proposed re&ision has recei&ed a 7a=ority of &otes and has been adopted by the people as the %onstitution of the State of (regon, as the case 7ay be' The revision shall be in effect as the %onstitution or as a part of this %onstitution fro7 the date of such procla7ation' 13' *tah -1425/ D Art' 23' Amendments' Sec' 1' Amendments> met)od of proposal and approval' Any a7end7ents to his %onstitution 7ay be proposed in either house of the )egislature, and if two,thirds of all the 7e7bers elected of the two houses, shall &ote in fa&or thereof, such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall be entered on their respecti&e =ournals with the yeas and nays taBen thereon@ and the )egislature shall cause the sa7e to be published in at least one newspaper in e&ery county of the State, where a newspaper is published, for two 7onths i77ediately preceding the ne9t general election, at which ti7e the said a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall be sub7itted to the electors of the State, for their appro&al or re=ection, and if a 7a=ority of the electors &oting thereon shall appro&e the sa7e, such a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall beco7e part of this %onstitution' +f two or 7ore a7end7ents are proposed, they shall be so sub7itted as to enable the electors to &ote on each of the7 separately' Sec' 2' Revision of t)e +onstitution *" convention ' Whene&er two,thirds of the 7e7bers, elected to each branch of the )egislature, shall dee7 it necessary to call a con&ention to revise or amend this %onstitution, they shall reco77end to the electors to &ote at the ne9t general election, for or against a con&ention, and, if a 7a=ority of all the electors, &oting at such election, shall &ote for a con&ention' The )egislature, at its ne9t session, shall pro&ide by law for calling the sa7e' The con&ention shall consist of not less than the nu7ber of 7e7bers in both branches of the )egislature' 1.' Wyo7ing -1420/ D Art' KK' Amendments' Sec' 1' $rocedure for amendments' Any amendment or amendments to this %onstitution 7ay be proposed in either branch of the legislature, and, if the sa7e shall be agreed to by two,thirds of all the 7e7bers of the two houses, &oting separately, such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall, with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered on their =ournals, and it shall be the duty of the legislature to sub7it such a7end7ent or a7end7ents to the electors of the state at the ne9t general election, in at least one newspaper of general circulation, published in each county, and if a 7a=ority of the electors shall ratify the sa7e, such a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall beco7e a part of this constitution' Sec' 2' Ao, voted for' +f two or 7ore a7end7ents are proposed, they shall be sub7itted in such 7anner that the electors shall &ote for or against each of the7 separately' Sec' 3' +onstitutional convention> provision for' Whene&er two,thirds of the 7e7bers elected to each branch of the legislature shall dee7 it necessary to call a con&ention to revise or amend this constitution, they shall reco77end to the electors to &ote at the ne9t general election for or against a con&ention, and if a 7a=ority of all the electors &oting at such election shall ha&e &oted for a con&ention, the legislature shall at the ne9t session pro&ide by a law for calling the sa7e@ and such con&ention shall consist of a nu7ber of 7e7bers, not less than double that of the 7ost nu7erous branch of the legislature' Sec' 3' 'e, constitution' Any constitution adopted by such con&ention shall ha&e no &alidity until it has been sub7itted to and adopted by the people'

S40ara14 O0.*.o*/ MA,AL"NTAL, J., concurring8 CASTRO, J., concurring8 The preli7inary 0uestion before this %ourt was whether or not the petitioners had 7ade out a sufficient prima faciecase in their petitions to =ustify their being gi&en due course' %onsidering on the one hand the urgency of the 7atter and on the other hand its transcendental i7portance, which suggested the need for hearing the side of the respondents before that preli7inary 0uestion was resol&ed, We re0uired the7 to sub7it their co77ents on the petitions' After the co77ents were filed We considered the7 as 7otions to dis7iss so that they could be orally argued' As it turned out, the hearing lasted fi&e days, 7orning and afternoon, and could not ha&e been 7ore e9hausti&e if the petitions had been gi&en due course fro7 the beginning' The 7a=or thrust of the petitions is that the act of the %iti?ens Asse7blies as certified and proclai7ed by the resident on 6anuary 17, 1273 - rocla7ation #o' 1102/ was not an act of ratification, let alone a &alid one, of the proposed %onstitution, because it was not in accordance with the e9isting %onstitution -of 123./ and the "lection %ode of 1271' (ther grounds are relied upon by the petitioners in support of their basic proposition, but to our 7ind they are 7erely subordinate and peripheral' Article KA, Section 1, of the 123. %onstitution pro&ides that a7end7ents -proposed either by %ongress in =oint session or by a %on&ention called by it for the purpose/ ;shall be &alid part of this %onstitution when appro&ed by a 7a=ority of &otes cast at an election at which the a7end7ents sub7itted to the people for their ratification'; At the ti7e %onstitution was appro&ed by the %onstitutional %on&ention on <ebruary 4, 123., and ratified in a plebiscite held on following !ay 13, the word ;election; had already a definite 7eaning in our law and =urisprudence' +t was not a &ague and a7orphous concept, but a procedure prescribed by statute ascertaining the peopleDs choices a7ong candidates for public offices, or their will on i7portant 7atters sub7itted to the pursuant to law, for appro&al' +t was in this sense that word was used by the fra7ers in Article KA -also in Articles A+ and A++/, and in accordance with such procedure that plebiscites were held to ratify the &ery sa7e %onstitution in 123. as well as the subse0uent a7end7ents thereto, thus8 in 1232 -(rdinance appended to the %onstitution/@ 1230 -establish7ent of a bica7eral legislature@ eligibility of the resident and the Aice resident for re election@ creation of the %o77ission of "lections/@ 1237 - arity A7end7ent/@ and 1257 -increase in 7e7bership of the Couse of Representati&es and eligibility of 7e7bers of %ongress to run for the %onstitutional %on&ention without forfeiture of their offices/' The "lection %ode of 1271, in its Section 2, states that ;all elections of public officers e9cept barrio officials and ple*iscites shall be conducted in the 7anner pro&ided by this %ode'; This is a statutory re0uire7ent designed, as were the other election laws pre&iously in force, to carry out the constitutional 7andate relati&e to the e9ercise of the right suffrage, and with specific reference to the ter7 ;plebiscites,; the pro&ision of Article KA regarding ratification of constitutional a7end7ents' The 7anner of conducting elections and plebiscites pro&ided by the %ode is spelled out in other sections thereof' Section 22 re0uires that 0ualified &oters be registered in a per7anent list, the 0ualifications being those set forth in Article A, Section 1, of the 123. %onstitution on the basis of age -21/, literacy and residence' These 0ualifications are reiterated in Section 101 of the "lection %ode' Section 102 enu7erates the classes of persons dis0ualified to &ote' Succeeding sections prescribe the election paraphernalia to be used, the procedure for registering &oters, the records, of registration and the custody thereof, the description and printing of official ballots, the actual casting of &otes and their subse0uent counting by the boards of inspectors, the rules for appreciation of ballots, and then the can&ass and procla7ation of the results' With specific reference to the ratification of the 1272 draft %onstitution, se&eral additional circu7stances should be considered8 -1/ This draft was prepared and appro&ed by a %on&ention which had been con&ened pursuant to Resolution #o' 2 passed by %ongress on !arch 15, 1257, which pro&ides8 Sec' 7' The a7end7ents proposed by the %on&ention shall be &alid and considered part of the %onstitution when appro&ed by a 7a=ority of the votes cast in an election at which they are sub7itted to the people for their ratification pursuant to Article KA of the %onstitution' -2/ Article KA++, Section 15, of the draft itself states8 Sec' 15' This %onstitution shall taBe effect i77ediately upon its ratification by a 7a=ority of the &otes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose and, e9cept as herein pro&ided, shall supersede the %onstitution of nineteen hundred and thirty,fi&e and all a7end7ents thereto' The sa7e procedure is prescribed in Article KA+, Section 2, for the ratification of any future a7end7ent to or re&ision of the said %onstitution' -3/ After the draft %onstitution was appro&ed by the %onstitutional %on&ention on #o&e7ber 30, 1272 the said body adopted

Resolution #o' .433, proposing ;to resident <erdinand "' !arcos that a decree be issued calling a ple*iscite for the ratification of the proposed #ew %onstitution on such appropriate date as he shall deter7ine and pro&iding for the necessary funds therefor'; ursuant to said Resolution the resident issued :ecree #o' 73 on the sa7e day, calling a plebiscite to be held on 6anuary 1., 1273, at which the proposed %onstitution ;shall be sub7itted to the people for ratification or re=ection'; The :ecree had eighteen -14/ sections in all, prescribing in detail the different steps to be taBen to carry out the process of ratification, such as8 -a/ publication of the proposed %onstitution in "nglish and ilipino@ -b/ freedo7 of infor7ation and discussion@ -c/ registration of &oters8 -d/ appoint7ent of boards of election inspectors and designation of watchers in each precinct@ -e/ printing of official ballots@ -f/ 7anner of &oting to insure freedo7 and secrecy thereof@ -g/ can&ass of plebiscite returns@ and -h/ in general, co7pliance with the pro&isions of the "lection %ode of 1271, with the %o77ission on "lections e9ercising its constitutional and statutory powers of super&ision of the entire process' There can hardly be any doubt that in e&erybodyDs &iew E fro7 the fra7ers of the 123. %onstitution through all the %ongresses since then to the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention E a7end7ents to the %onstitution should be ratified in only one way, that is, in an election or plebiscite held in accordance with law and participated in only by 0ualified and duly registered &oters' +ndeed, so concerned was this %ourt with the i7portance and indispensability of co7plying with the 7andate of the -123./ %onstitution in this respect that in the recent case of Tolentino vs. +ommission on &lections, #o' ),331.0, (ctober 15, 1271 -31 S%RA 702/, a resolution of the -1271/ %onstitutional %on&ention sub7itting a proposed a7end7ent for ratification to a plebiscite to be held in #o&e7ber 1271 was declared null and &oid' The a7end7ent sought to reduce the &oting age fro7 twenty,one to eighteen years and was appro&ed by the %on&ention for sub7ission to a plebiscite ahead of and separately fro7 other a7end7ents still being or to be considered by it, so as to enable the youth to be thus enfranchised to participate in the plebiscite for the ratification of such other a7end7ents later' This %ourt held that such separate sub7ission was &iolati&e of Article KA, Section 1, of the %onstitution, which conte7plated that ;all the a7end7ents to be proposed by the sa7e %on&ention 7ust be sub7itted to the people in a single ;election; or plebiscite'; A Thus a gra77atical construction based on a singular, instead of plural, rendition of the word ;election; was considered a sufficient ground to rule out the plebiscite which had been called to ratify a proposed a7end7ent in accordance with the procedure and under all the safeguards pro&ided in the "lection )aw' +n the cases now before *s what is at issue is not 7erely the ratification of =ust one a7end7ent, as in Tolentino vs. + M&L&+, but the ratification of an entire charter setting up a new for7 of go&ern7ent@ and the issue has arisen not because of a disputed construction of one word or one pro&ision in the 123. %onstitution but because no election or plebiscite in accordance with that %onstitution and with the "lection %ode of 1271 was held for the purpose of such ratification' The %iti?ens Asse7blies which purportedly ratified the draft %onstitution were created by residential :ecree #o' 45 dated :ece7ber 31, 1272, ;to broaden the base of citi?en participation in the de7ocratic process and to afford a7ple opportunities for the citi?enry to e!press t)eir vie,s on i7portant national issues'; The Asse7blies ;shall consist of all persons who are residents of the barrio, district or ward for at least si9 7onths, fifteen years of age or o&er, citi?ens of the hilippines and who are registered in the lists of %iti?en Asse7bly 7e7bers Bept by the barrio, district or ward secretary'; $y residential :ecree #o' 45, A, dated 6anuary ., 1273, the Asse7blies were con&ened for a referendu7 between 6anuary 10 and 1., to ;consider &ital national issues now confronting the country, liBe the holding of the plebiscite on the new %onstitution, the continuation of 7artial rule, the con&ening of %ongress on 6anuary 22, 1273, and the holding of elections in #o&e7ber 1273'; (n 6anuary ., 1273 the newspapers ca7e out with a list of four 0uestions to be sub7itted to the %iti?ens Asse7blies, the fourth one being as follows8 ;Cow soon would you liBe plebiscite on the new %onstitution to be heldH; +t should be noted in this connection that the resident had pre&iously announced that he had ordered the postpone7ent of plebiscite which he had called for 6anuary 1., 1273 - residential :ecree #o' 73/ for the ratification of the %onstitution, and that he was considering two new dates for the purpose E <ebruary 12 or !arch .@ that he had ordered that the registration of &oters -pursuant to :ecree #o' 73/ be e9tended to acco77odate new &oters@ and that copies of the new %onstitution would be distributed in eight dialects the people' -%ulletin Toda", :ece7ber 23, 1272'/ (n 6anuary 10, 1273 it was reported that one 7ore 0uestion would be added to the original four which were to be sub7itted to the %iti?ens Asse7blies' The 0uestion concerning plebiscite was reworded as follows8 ;:o you liBe the plebiscite to be held laterH; The i7plication, it 7ay liBewise be noted, was that the Asse7blies should e9press their &iews as to the plebiscite should be held, not as to whether or not it should be held at all' The ne9t day, 6anuary 11, it was reported that si9 additional 0uestions would be sub7itted, na7ely8 -1/ :o you appro&e of the citi?ens asse7blies as the base of popular go&ern7ent to decide issues of national interestH -2/ (o "ou approve of t)e ne, +onstitution-3/ (o "ou ,ant a ple*iscite to *e called to ratif" t)e ne, +onstitution-3/ :o you want the elections to be held in #o&e7ber, 1273 accordance with the pro&isions of the 123. %onstitutionH -./ +f the elections would not be held, when do you want the ne9t elections to be calledH

-5/ :o you want 7artial law to continueH F$ulletin Today, 6anuary 11, 1273@ e7phasis suppliedG' Appended to the si9 additional 0uestions abo&e 0uoted were the suggested answers, thus8 %(!!"#TS (# I*"ST+(# #o' 1 +n order to broaden the base of citi?ensD participation in go&ern7ent' I*"ST+(# #o' 2 $ut we do not want the Ad +nteri7 Asse7bly to be con&oBed' (r if it is to be con&ened at all, it should not be done so until after at least se&en -7/ years fro7 the appro&al of the #ew %onstitution by the %iti?ens Asse7blies' I*"ST+(# #o' 3 +f the %iti?ens Asse7blies appro&e of the #ew %onstitution, then the new %onstitution should be dee7ed ratified' The &ote of the %iti?ens Asse7blies should already be considered the plebiscite on the #ew %onstitution' I*"ST+(# #o' 3 We are sicB and tired of too fre0uent elections' We are fed up with politics, of so 7any debates and so 7uch e9penses' I*"ST+(# #o' . robably a period of at least se&en -7/ years 7oratoriu7 on elections will be enough for stability to be established in the country, for refor7s to taBe root and nor7alcy to return' I*"ST+(# #o' 5 We want resident !arcos to continue with !artial )aw' We want hi7 to e9ercise his powers with 7ore authority' We want hi7 to be strong and fir7 so that he can acco7plish all his refor7 progra7 and establish nor7alcy in the country' +f all other 7easures fail, we want resident !arcos to declare a re&olutionary go&ern7ent along the lines of the new %onstitution without the ad interi7 Asse7bly' So it was that on 6anuary 11, 1273, the second day of the purported referendu7, the suggestion was broached, for the first ti7e, that the plebiscite should be done away with and a fa&orable &ote by the Asse7blies dee7ed e0ui&alent ratification' This was done, not in the 0uestionnaire itself, but in the suggested answer to 0uestion #o' 3' Strangely, howe&er, it was not si7ilarly suggested that an unfa&orable &ote be considered as re=ection' There should be no serious dispute as to the fact that the 7anner in which the &oting was conducted in the %iti?en Asse7blies, assu7ing that such &oting was held, was not within the intend7ent of Article KA, Section 1, of the 123. %onstitution nor in accordance with the "lection %ode of 1271' The referendu7 can by no 7eans be considered as the plebiscite conte7plated in Section 2 of said %ode and in Article KA++, Section 15, of the draft %onstitution itself, or as the election intended by %ongress when it passed Resolution #o' 2 on !arch 15, 1257 calling a %on&ention for the re&ision of the 123. %onstitution' The %iti?ens Asse7blies were not li7ited to 0ualified, let alone registered &oters, but included all citi?ens fro7 the age of fifteen, and regardless of whether or not they were illiterates, feeble,7inded, or e9 con&icts A E these being the classes of persons e9pressly dis0ualified fro7 &oting by Section 102 of the "lection %ode' +n short, the constitutional and statutory 0ualifications were not considered in the deter7ination of who should participate' #o official ballots were used in the &oting@ it was done 7ostly by accla7ation or open show of hands' Secrecy, which is one of the essential features of the election process, was not therefore obser&ed' #o set of rules for counting the &otes or of tabulating the7 and reporting the figures was prescribed or followed' The %o77ission on "lections, which is the constitutional body charged with the enforce7ent and ad7inistration of all laws relati&e to the conduct of elections, tooB no part at all, either by way of super&ision or in the assess7ent of the results' +t has been suggested that since according to rocla7ation #o' 1102 the o&erwhel7ing 7a=ority of all the 7e7bers of the %iti?ens Asse7blies had &oted for the adoption of the proposed %onstitution there was a substantial co7pliance with Article KA, Section 1, of the 123. %onstitution and with the "lection %ode of 1271' The suggestion 7isses the point entirely' +t is of the essence of a &alid e9ercise of the right of suffrage that not only 7ust a 7a=ority or plurality of the &oters carry the day but that the sa7e 7ust be duly ascertained in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law' +n other words the &ery e9istence of such 7a=ority or plurality depends upon the 7anner of its ascertain7ent, and to conclude that it e9ists e&en if it has not been

ascertained according to law is si7ply to beg the issue, or to assu7e the &ery fact to be established' (therwise no election or plebiscite could be 0uestioned for non,co7pliance with the pro&isions of the "lection )aw as long as it is certified that a 7a=ority of the citi?ens had &oted fa&orably or ad&ersely on whate&er it was that was sub7itted to the7 to &ote upon' Cowe&er, a finding that the ratification of the draft %onstitution by the %iti?ens Asse7blies, as certified by the resident in rocla7ation #o' 1102, was not in accordance with the constitutional and statutory procedure laid down for the purpose does not 0uite resol&e the 0uestions raised in these cases' Such a finding, in our opinion, is on a 7atter which is essentially =usticiable, that is, within the power of this %ourt to in0uire into' +t i7ports nothing 7ore than a si7ple reading and application of the pertinent pro&isions of the 123. %onstitution, of the "lection %ode and of other related laws and official acts' #o 0uestion of wisdo7 or of policy is in&ol&ed' $ut fro7 this finding it does not necessarily follow that this %ourt 7ay =ustifiably declare that the %onstitution has not beco7e effecti&e, and for that reason gi&e due course to these petitions or grant the writs herein prayed for' The effecti&ity of the said %onstitution, in the final analysis, is the basic and ulti7ate 0uestion posed by these cases, to resol&e which considerations other than =udicial, and therefore beyond the co7petence of this %ourt, are rele&ant and una&oidable' Se&eral theories ha&e been ad&anced respecti&ely by the parties' The petitioners lay stress on the in&alidity of the ratification process adopted by the %iti?ens Asse7blies and on that pre7ise would ha&e this %ourt grant the reliefs they seeB' The respondents represented by the Solicitor 1eneral, whose theory 7ay be taBen as the official position of the 1o&ern7ent, challenge the =urisdiction of this %ourt on the ground that the 0uestions raised in the petitions are political and therefore non, =usticiable, and that in any case popular ac0uiescence in the new %onstitution and the prospect of unsettling acts done in reliance thereon should caution against interposition of the power of =udicial re&iew' Respondents 1il 6' uyat and 6ose Roy -in ),3515./, in their respecti&e capacities as resident and resident ro Te7pore of the Senate of the hilippines, and through their counsel, Senator Arturo Tolentino, liBewise in&oBe the political 0uestion doctrine, but on a ground not concurred in by the Solicitor 1eneral, na7ely, that appro&al of the 1273 %onstitution by the people was 7ade under a re&olutionary go&ern7ent, in the course of a successful political re&olution, which was con&erted by act of the people to the present de 6urego&ern7ent under the 1273 %onstitution'; Ceretofore, constitutional disputes which ha&e co7e before this %ourt for ad=udication proceeded on the assu7ption, conceded by all, that the %onstitution was in full force and effect, with the power and authority of the entire 1o&ern7ent behind it@ and the tasB of this %ourt was si7ply to deter7ine whether or not the particular act or statute that was being challenged contra&ened so7e rule or 7andate of that %onstitution' The process e7ployed was one of interpretation and synthesis' +n the cases at bar there is no such assu7ption8 the %onstitution -123./ has been derogated and its continued e9istence as well as the &alidity of the act of derogation is issue' The legal proble7 posed by the situation is aggra&ated by the fact that the political ar7s of the 1o&ern7ent E the "9ecuti&e :epart7ents and the two Couses of %ongress E ha&e accepted the new %onstitution as effecti&e8 the for7er by organi?ing the7sel&es and discharging their functions under it, and the latter by not con&ening on 6anuary 22, 1273 or at any ti7e thereafter, as ordained by the 123. %onstitution, and in the case of a 7a=ority of the 7e7bers by e9pressing their option to ser&e in the +nteri7 #ational Asse7bly in accordance with Article KA+++, Section 2, of the 1273 %onstitution' A The theory ad&anced by Senator Tolentino, as counsel for respondents uyat and Roy, 7ay be taBen up and restated at sa7e length if only because it would constitute, if sustained, the 7ost con&enient ground for the in&ocation of the political,0uestion doctrine' +n support of his theory, Senator Tolentino contends that after resident !arcos declared 7artial law on Septe7ber 21, 1272 - rocla7ation #o' 1041/ he established a re&olutionary go&ern7ent when he issued 1eneral (rder #o' 1 the ne9t day, wherein he proclai7ed ;that + shall go&ern the nation and direct the operation of the entire go&ern7ent, including all its agencies and instru7entalities, in 7y capacity, and shall e9ercise all the powers and prerogati&es appurtenant and incident to 7y position as such %o77ander,in,%hief of all the Ar7ed <orces of the hilippines'; $y this order, it is pointed out, the %o77ander,in,%hief of the Ar7ed <orces assu7ed all the powers of go&ern7ent E e9ecuti&e, legislati&e, and =udicial@ and thereafter proceeded to e9ercise such powers by a series of (rders and :ecrees which a7ounted to legislati&e enact7ents not =ustified under 7artial law and, in so7e instances, trenched upon the do7ain of the =udiciary, by re7o&ing fro7 its =urisdiction certain classes of cases, such as ;those in&ol&ing the &alidity, legality, or constitutionality of rocla7ation #o' 1041, or of any decree, order or act issued, pro7ulgated or perfor7ed by 7e or by 7y duly designated representati&e pursuant thereto'; -1eneral (rder #o' 3 as a7ended by 1eneral (rder #o' 3,A, dated Septe7ber 23, 1272'/ The ratification by the %iti?ens Asse7blies, it is a&erred, was the cul7inating act of the re&olution, which thereupon con&erted the go&ern7ent into a de 6ure one under the 1273 %onstitution' +f indeed it be accepted that the %iti?ens Asse7blies had ratified the 1273 %onstitution and that such ratification as well as the establish7ent of the go&ern7ent thereunder for7ed part of a re&olution, albeit peaceful, then the issue of whether or not that %onstitution has beco7e effecti&e and, as necessary corollary, whether or not the go&ern7ent legiti7ately functions under it instead of under the 123. %onstitution, is political and therefore non,=udicial in nature' *nder such a postulate what the people did in the %iti?en Asse7blies should be taBen as an e9ercise of the ulti7ate so&ereign power' +f they had risen up in ar7s and by force deposed the then e9isting go&ern7ent and set up a new go&ern7ent in its place, there could not be the least doubt that their act would be political and not sub=ect to =udicial re&iew but only to the =udg7ent of the sa7e body politic act, in the conte9t =ust set forth, is based on realities' +f a new go&ern7ent gains authority and do7inance through force, it can be effecti&ely challenged only by a stronger force@ =udicial dictu7 can pre&ail against it' We do not see that situation would be any different, as far as the doctrine of =udicial re&iew is concerned, if no force had been resorted to and the people, in defiance of the e9isting %onstitution but peacefully because of the absence of any appreciable opposition, ordained a new %onstitution and succeeded in ha&ing the go&ern7ent operate under it' Against such a reality there can be no ade0uate =udicial relief@ and so courts forbear to taBe cogni?ance of the 0uestion but lea&e it to be decided through political 7eans' The logic of the political,0uestion doctrine is illustrated in state7ent of the *'S' Supre7e %ourt in a case A relied upon, curiously enough, by the Solicitor 1eneral, who disagrees with the re&olutionary go&ern7ent theory of Senator Tolentino' The case in&ol&ed the issue of which of two opposing go&ern7ents struggling for supre7acy in the State of Rhode +sland was the lawful

one' The issue had pre&iously co7e up in se&eral other cases before the courts of the State, which unifor7ly held that the in0uiry belonged to the political power and not to the =udicial' %o77enting on the ruling thus arri&ed at, the *'S' Supre7e %ourt said8 ;And if a State court should enter upon the in0uiry proposed in this case, and should co7e to the conclusion that the go&ern7ent under which it acted had been put aside and displaced by an opposing go&ern7ent, it would cease to be a court, and incapable of pronouncing a =udicial decision upon the 0uestion it undertooB to try' +f it decides at all as a court, it necessarily affir7s the e9istence and authority of the go&ern7ent under which it is e9ercising =udicial power'; +n other words, since the court would ha&e no choice but to decide in one way alone in order to be able to decide at all, the 0uestion could not be considered proper for =udicial deter7ination' +t should be noted that the abo&e state7ent fro7 )uther &s' $orden would be applicable in the cases at bar only on the pre7ise that the ratification of the %onstitution was a re&olutionary act and that the go&ern7ent now functioning it is the product of such re&olution' Cowe&er, we are not prepared to agree that the pre7ise is =ustified' +n the first, place, with specific reference to the 0uestioned ratification, se&eral significant circu7stances 7ay be noted' -1/ The %iti?ens Asse7blies were created, according to residential :ecree #o' 45, ;to broaden the base of citi?en participation in the de7ocratic process and to afford a7ple opportunities for the citi?enry to e!press t)eir vie,s on i7portant national issues'; -2/ The resident announced, according to the (ail" &!press of 6anuary 2, 1273, that ;the referendu7 will be in the nature of a loose consultation with the people'; -3/ The 0uestion, as sub7itted to the7 on the particular point at issue here, was ;:o you a approve of the %onstitutionH; -3/ resident !arcos, in proclai7ing that the %onstitution had been ratified, stated as follows8 ;-S/ince the referendu7 results show that 7ore than ninety,fi&e -2./ per cent of the 7e7bers of the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ are in fa&or of the new %onstitution, the .atipunan ng mga %aranga" has strongl" recommended that the new %onstitution should already *e deemed ratified by the <ilipino people'; -./ There was not enough ti7e for the %iti?ens Asse7blies to really fa7iliari?e the7sel&es with the %onstitution, 7uch less with the 7any other sub=ects that were sub7itted to the7' +n fact the plebiscite planned for 6anuary 1., 1273 under residential :ecree #o' 73 had been postponed to an indefinite date, the reasons for the postpone7ent being, as attributed to the resident in the newspapers, that ;there was little ti7e to ca7paign for or against ratification; -(ail" &!press, :ec' 22, 1272/@ that he would base his decision -as to the date, of the plebiscite/ on the co7pliance by the %o77ission -on "lections/ on the publication re0uire7ent of the new %harter and on the position taBen by national leaders; -(ail" &!press, :ec' 23, 1272/@ and that ;the postpone7ent would gi&e us 7ore ti7e to debate on the 7erits of the %harter'; -%ulletin Toda", :ec' 23, 1272'/ The circu7stances abo&e enu7erated lead us to the conclusion that the %iti?ens Asse7blies could not ha&e understood the referendu7 to be for the ratification of the %onstitution, but only for the e9pression of their &iews on a consultati&e basis' +ndeed, if the e9pression of those &iews had been intended as an act of ratification -or of re=ection as a logical corollary/ E there would ha&e been no need for the .atipunan ng mga %aranga" to recommend that the %onstitution should already be dee7ed ratified, for reco77endation i7ports recognition of so7e higher authority in who7 the final decision rests' $ut then the resident, pursuant to such reco77endation, did proclai7 that the %onstitution had been ratified and had co7e into effect' The 7ore rele&ant consideration, therefore, as far as we can see, should be as to what the resident had in 7ind in con&ening the %iti?ens Asse7blies, sub7itting the %onstitution to the7 and proclai7ing that the fa&orable e9pression of their &iews was an act of ratification' +n this respect sub=ecti&e factors, which defy =udicial analysis and ad=udication, are necessarily in&ol&ed' +n positing the proble7 within an identifiable fra7e of reference we find no need to consider whether or not the regi7e established by resident !arcos since he declared 7artial law and under which the new %onstitution was sub7itted to the %iti?ens Asse7blies was a re&olutionary one' The pi&otal 0uestion is rather whether or not the effecti&ity of the said %onstitution by &irtue of residential rocla7ation #o' 1102, upon the reco77endation of the .atipunan ng mga %aranga", was intended to be definite and irre&ocable, regardless of non,co7pliance with the pertinent constitutional and statutory pro&isions prescribing the procedure for ratification' We 7ust confess that after considering all the a&ailable e&idence and all the rele&ant circu7stances we ha&e found no reasonably reliable answer to the 0uestion' (n one hand we read, for instance, the following public state7ents of the resident8 SpeaBing about the procla7ation of 7artial law, he said8 + reiterate what + ha&e said in the past8 there is no turning bacB for our people' We ha&e co77itted oursel&es to this re&olution' We ha&e pledged to it our future, our fortunes, our li&es, our destiny' We ha&e burned our bridges behind us' )et no 7an 7isunderstand the strength of our resolution' -A Report to the #ation, 6an' 7, 1273'/ (n the occasion of the signing of rocla7ation #o' 1102 on 6anuary 17, 1273, the resident said the following, a7ong other things8 ''' We can, perhaps deli7it the power of the people to speaB on legal 7atters, on =usticiable 7atters, on 7atters that 7ay co7e before the e9perts and interpreters of the law' $ut we cannot dis0ualify the people fro7 speaBing on what we and the people consider purely political 7atters especially those that affect the funda7ental law of the land' ''' The political 0uestions that were presented to the people are e9actly those that refer to the for7 of

go&ern7ent which the people want ''' The i7plications of disregarding the peopleDs will are too aweso7e to be e&en considered' <or if any power in go&ern7ent should e&en dare to disregard the peopleDs will there would be &alid ground for re&olt' ''' )et it be Bnown to e&erybody that the people ha&e spoBen and they will no longer tolerate any atte7pt to under7ine the stability of their Republic@ they will rise up in ar7s not in re&olt against the Republic *ut in protection of t)e Repu*lic ,)ic) t)e" )ave installed' +t is 0uite clear when the people say, we ratify the %onstitution, that they 7ean they will not discard, the %onstitution' (n 6anuary 12, 1273 the (ail" &!press published state7ent of the resident 7ade the day before, fro7 which the following portion is 0uoted8 ''' the ti7es are too gra&e and the staBes too high for us per7it the custo7ary concessions to traditional de7ocratic process to hold bacB our peopleDs clear and une0ui&ocal resol&e and 7andate to 7eet and o&erco7e the e9traordinary challenges presented by these e9traordinary ti7es' (n the sa7e occasion of the signing of rocla7ation #o' 1102 the resident 7ade pointed reference to ;the de7and of so7e of our citi?ens ''' that when all other 7easures should fail, that the resident be directed to organi?e and establish a Re&olutionary 1o&ern7ent,; but in the ne9t breath added8 ;''' if we do ratify the %onstitution, how can we speaB of Re&olutionary 1o&ern7entH They cannot be co7patible '''; ;-+/t is 7y feeling,; he said, ;that the %iti?ensD Asse7blies which sub7itted this reco77endation 7erely sought articulate their i7patience with the status 9uo that has brought about anarchy, confusion and 7isery to the 7asses '''; The only alternati&es which the resident clearly i7plied by the foregoing state7ents were the ratification of the new %onstitution and the establish7ent of a re&olutionary go&ern7ent, the latter being unnecessary, in his opinion, because precisely the %onstitution had been ratified' The third ob&ious alternati&e was entirely ruled out, na7ely, a return to the 123. %onstitution, for it was the status 9uo under that %onstitution that had caused ;anarchy, confusion and 7isery'; The 7essage see7s clear8 rather than return to such status 9uo, he would heed the reco77endation of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies to establish a re&olutionary go&ern7ent, because that would be the only other way to carry out the refor7s he had en&isioned and initiated E refor7s which, in all fairness and honesty, 7ust be gi&en credit for the i7pro&ed 0uality of life in its 7any aspects, e9cept only in the field of ci&il liberties' +f there is any significance, both e9plicit and i7plicit, and certainly un7istaBable, in the foregoing pronounce7ents, it is that the step taBen in connection with the ratification of the %onstitution was 7eant to be irre&ersible, and that nothing anyone could say would 7aBe the least difference' And if this is a correct and accurate assess7ent of the situation, then we would say that since it has been brought about by political action and is now 7aintained by the go&ern7ent that is in undisputed authority and do7inance, the 7atter lies beyond the power of =udicial re&iew' (n the other hand, by a&owals no less significant if not so e7phatic in ter7s, resident !arcos has professed fealty to the %onstitution' +n ;TodayDs Re&olution8 :e7ocracy; he says8 + belie&e, therefore, in the necessity of Re&olution as an instru7ent of indi&idual and social change ''' but that in a de7ocratic society, re&olution is of necessity, constitutional, peaceful, and legal' +n his TA address of Septe7ber 23, 1272, resident !arcos told the nation8 + ha&e proclai7ed 7artial law in accordance with the powers vested in t)e $resident *" t)e +onstitution of t)e $)ilippines' 999 999 999 + repeat, this is not a 7ilitary taBeo&er of ci&il go&ern7ent functions' The 1o&ern7ent of the Repu*lic of t)e $)ilippines ,)ic) ,as esta*lis)ed *" our people in 4;H3 continues ' 999 999 999 + assure you that + a7 utili?ing this power vested in me *" t)e +onstitution to sa&e the Republic and refor7 our society''' + ha&e had to use this constitutional power in order that we 7ay not co7pletely lose the ci&il rights and freedo7 which we cherish''' ''' We are against the wall' We 7ust now defend the Republic ,it) t)e stronger po,ers of t)e +onstitution' -Aital :ocu7ents, pp' 1,12@ e7phasis supplied/' +n the report of an inter&iew granted by the resident to the #ewsweeB !aga?ine -published in the issue of 6anuary 22, 1273/,

the following appears8 999 999 999 I' #ow that you ha&e gotten off the constitutional tracB, wonDt you be in serious trouble if you run into critical proble7s with your progra7sH R' + ha&e ne&er gotten off the constitutional tracB' "&erything + a7 doing is in accordance with the 123. %onstitution' The only thing is that instead of 14,year,olds &oting, we ha&e allowed 1.,year,olds the right to &ote' $ut the 1.,year,olds of today are high,school students, if not graduates, and they are better infor7ed than 7y conte7poraries at that age' (n the 7atter of whether it is constitutional to proclai7 7artial law, it is constitutional because the %onstitution pro&ides for it in the e&ent of in&asion, insurrection, rebellion or i77ediate danger thereof' We 7ay 0uarrel about whether what we ha&e gone through is sufficient cause to proclai7 7artial law but at the &ery least there is a danger of rebellion because so 7any of our soldiers ha&e been Billed' Lou 7ust re7e7ber this -7artial law pro&ision/ was lifted fro7 the A7erican legislation that was the funda7ental law of our country' 999 999 999 +n the light of this see7ing a7bi&alence, the choice of what course of action to pursue belongs to the resident' We ha&e earlier 7ade reference to sub=ecti&e factors on which this %ourt, to our 7ind, is in no position to pass =udg7ent' A7ong the7 is the residentDs own assess7ent of the will of the people as e9pressed through the %iti?ens Asse7blies and of the i7portance of the 1273 %onstitution to the successful i7ple7entation of the social and econo7ic refor7s he has started or en&isioned' +f he should decide that there is no turning bacB, that what the people reco77ended through the %iti?ens Asse7blies, as they were reported to hi7, de7and that the action he tooB pursuant thereto be final and irre&ocable, then =udicial re&iew is out of the 0uestion' +n articulating our &iew that the procedure of ratification that was followed was not in accordance with the 123. %onstitution and related statutes, we ha&e discharged our sworn duty as we concei&e it to be' The resident should now perhaps decide, if he has not already decided, whether adherence to such procedure is weighty enough a consideration, if only to dispel any cloud of doubt that 7ay now and in the future shroud the nationDs %harter' +n the deliberations of this %ourt one of the issues for7ulated for resolution is whether or not the new %onstitution, since its sub7ission to the %iti?ens Asse7blies, has found acceptance a7ong the people, such issue being related to the political 0uestion theory propounded by the respondents' We ha&e not tarried on the point at all since we find no reliable basis on which to for7 a =udg7ent' *nder a regi7e of 7artial law, with the free e9pression of opinions through the usual 7edia &ehicles restricted, we ha&e no 7eans of Bnowing, to the point of =udicial certainty, whether the people ha&e accepted the %onstitution' +n any e&ent, we do not find the issue decisi&e insofar as our &ote in these cases is concerned' To interpret the %onstitution E that is =udicial' That the %onstitution should be dee7ed in effect because of popular ac0uiescence E that is political, and therefore beyond the do7ain of =udicial re&iew' We therefore &ote not to gi&e due course to the instant petitions' (ARRE%O, J., concurring8 As far as + a7 concerned, + regard the present petitions as no 7ore than 7ere reiterations of the Supple7ental etitions filed by %ounsel )oren?o !' Ta>ada on 6anuary 1., 1273 in the so called lebiscite %ases decided by this %ourt on 6anuary 22, 1274' (f course, there are a7plifications of so7e of the grounds pre&iously alleged and in the course of the unprecedented fi&e,day hearing that was held fro7 <ebruary 12 to 15 last, 7ore e9tensi&e and illu7inating argu7ents were heard by *s, but, in 7y esti7ation, and with due recognition of the sincerety, brilliance and elo0uence of counsels, nothing 7ore cogent and co7pelling than what had already been pre&iously presented by %ounsel Ta>ada is before *s now' Accordingly, + cannot see any reason why + should change the position + tooB in regard to the earlier cases' + reiterate, therefore, the &ote + cast when these petitions were initially considered by the %ourt@ na7ely, to dis7iss the7' +n &iew, howe&er, of the transcendental i7portance of the issues before the %ourt and the significance to our people and in history of the indi&idual stands of the 7e7bers of the %ourt in relation to said issues and to the final outco7e of these cases, and considering that + reser&ed before the filing of a 7ore e9tended opinion, + will taBe this opportunity to e9plain further why + hold that the 1273 %onstitution is already in force, if only to clarify that apart fro7 the peopleDs right of re&olution to which + 7ade pointed reference in 7y pre&ious opinion, + can see now, after further reflection, that the &ote of the people in the referendu7 in the %iti?ens Asse7blies held on 6anuary 10 to 1., 1273, upon the result of which rocla7ation 1102 is based, 7ay be &iewed 7ore i7portantly as a political act than as a purely legal one with the result that such &ote to consider the 1273 %onstitution as ratified without the necessity of holding a plebiscite in the for7 followed in the pre&ious ratification plebiscites in 123. of the %onstitution itself, 1237 of wo7enDs suffrage, 1232 of the a7end7ents to the (rdinance Appended to the %onstitution, 1230 of the re,election of the resident, the bica7eral legislature and the %o77ission on "lections, 1237 of the parity a7end7ent and 1257, re=ecting the proposed increase in the 7e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es and eligibility of 7e7bers of %ongress to the %onstitutional %on&ention, 7ay be dee7ed as a &alid ratification substantially in co7pliance with the basic intent of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' +f indeed this e9planation 7ay be considered as a 7odification of 7y rationali?ation then, + wish to

e7phasi?e that 7y position as to the funda7ental issue regarding the enforceability of the new %onstitution is e&en fir7er now than e&er before' As + shall elucidate anon, para7ount considerations of national i7port ha&e led 7e to the con&iction that the best interests of all concerned would be best ser&ed by the Supre7e %ourt holding that the 1273 %onstitution is now in force, not necessarily as a conse0uence of the re&olutionary concept pre&iously suggested by 7e, but upon the ground that as a political, 7ore than as a legal, act of the people, the result of the referendu7 7ay be construed as a co7pliance with the substantiality of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' + The facts that ga&e rise to these proceedings are historical and well Bnown' 1enerally, they 7ay be taBen =udicial notice of' They re&ol&e around the purported ratification of the %onstitution of 1273 declared in rocla7ation 1102 issued by the resident on 6anuary 17, 1273' ursuant to a =oint resolution of the %ongress sitting as a constituent asse7bly appro&ed on !arch 15, 1257, delegates to a constitutional con&ention to propose a7end7ents to the %onstitution of 123. were elected in accordance with the i7ple7enting law, Republic Act 5132, on #o&e7ber 10, 1270' Nnown as the %onstitutional %on&ention of 1271, the asse7bly began its sessions on 6une 1, 1271' After encountering a lot of difficulties, due to bitter ri&alries o&er i7portant positions and co77ittees and an inco7prehensible fear of o&erconcentrating powers in their officers, the delegates went about their worB in co7parati&ely slow pace, and by the third 0uarter of 1272 had finished deliberations and second,reading &oting only on an insignificant nu7ber of proposals E until Septe7ber 21, 1272, when the resident, not altogether une9pectedly, yet abruptly, issued rocla7ation 1041 declaring 7artial law throughout the country' An atte7pt was 7ade to ha&e the %on&ention recessed until after the lifting of 7artial law, and not long after the 7otion of :elegate Nalaw to such effect was turned down, the acti&ities within the asse7bly shifted to high gear' As if un7indful of the arrest and continued detention of se&eral of its 7e7bers, the con&ention gathered swift 7o7entu7 in its worB, and on #o&e7ber 30, 1272, it appro&ed by o&erwhel7ing &ote the draft of a co7plete constitution, instead of 7ere specific a7end7ents of particular portions of the %onstitution of 123.' #eedless to say, before 7artial law was declared, there was full and unli7ited co&erage of the worBings in the con&ention by the 7ass 7edia' At the sa7e ti7e, public debates and discussions on &arious aspects of proposed a7end7ents were not unco77on' "arlier, on #o&e7ber 22, 1272, the %on&ention had Resolution #o' .433 proposing ;to resident <erdinand !arcos that a decree be issued calling a plebiscite for ratification of the proposed new %onstitution on appropriate date as he shall deter7ine and pro&iding for necessary funds therefor'; Acting under this authority, :ece7ber 1, 1272, the resident issued residential :ecree #o' 73 sub7itting the draft constitution for ratification by the people at a plebiscite set for 6anuary 1., 1273' This order contained pro&isions 7ore or less si7ilar to the plebiscite laws passed by %ongress relati&e to the past plebiscites held in connection with pre&ious proposed a7end7ents' +n connection with the plebiscite thus conte7plated, 1eneral (rder #o' 17 was issued ordering and en=oining the authorities to allow and encourage public and free discussions on proposed constitution' #ot only this, subse0uently, under date of :ece7ber 17, 1272, the resident ordered the suspension the effects of 7artial law and lifted the suspension of pri&ilege of the writ of )a*eas corpus insofar as acti&ities connected with the ratification of the draft constitution were concerned' These two orders were not, howe&er, to last &ery long' (n 6anuary 7, 1273, the resident, in&oBing infor7ation related to hi7 that the area of public debate and discussion had opened by his pre&ious orders was being taBen ad&antage of by sub&ersi&e ele7ents to defeat the purposes for which they were issued and to fo7ent public confusion, withdrew said orders and en=oined full and stricter i7ple7entation of 7artial law' +n the 7eanti7e, the resident had issued on :ece7ber 3, 1272 residential :ecree #o' 45 creating %iti?ens Asse7blies ;so as to afford a7ple opportunities for the citi?enry to e9press their &iews on i7portant national issues; and one of the 0uestions presented to said asse7blies was8 ;:o you liBe the plebiscite on the proposed %onstitution to be held later; So, the sa7e order of 6anuary 7, 1273, 1eneral (rder #o' 20, the resident ordered, ;that the plebiscite scheduled to be held 6anuary 1., 1273, be postponed until further notice;' +n the 7eanwhile also, on 6anuary ., 1273, the resident issued residential :ecree, #o' 45,A pro&iding as follows8 R"S+:"#T+A) :"%R"" #(' 45,A STR"#1TC"#+#1 A#: :"<+#+#1 TC" R()" (< $ARA#1ALS -%+T+M"#S ASS"!$)+"S/ WC"R"AS, on the basis of preli7inary and initial reports fro7 the field as gathered fro7 barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ that ha&e so far been established, the people would liBe to decide for the7sel&es 0uestions or issues, both local and national, affecting their day,to,day li&es and their future@ WC"R"AS, the barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ would liBe the7sel&es to be the &ehicle for e9pressing the &iews of the people on i7portant national issues@ WC"R"AS, such barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ desire that they be gi&en legal status and due recognition as constituting the genuine, legiti7ate and &alid e9pression of the popular will@ and WC"R"AS, the people would liBe the citi?ens asse7blies to conduct i77ediately a referendu7 on

certain specified 0uestions such as the ratification of the new %onstitution, continuance of 7artial law, the con&ening of %ongress on 6anuary 22, 1273, and the elections in #o&e7ber 1273 pursuant to the 123. %onstitution' #(W, TC"R"<(R", +, <"R:+#A#: "' !AR%(S, resident of the hilippines, by &irtue of the powers &ested in 7e by the %onstitution as %o77ander,in,%hief of all Ar7ed <orces of the hilippines, do hereby declare as part of the law of the land the following8 1' The present barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ are created under residential :ecree #o' 45 dated :ece7ber 31, 1272, shall constitute the base for citi?en participation in go&ern7ental affairs and their collecti&e &iews shall be considered in the for7ulation of national policies or progra7s and, where&er practicable, shall be translated into concrete and specific decision@ 2' Such barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ shall consider &ital national issues now confronting the country, liBe the holding of the plebiscite on the new %onstitution, the continuation of 7artial rule, the con&ening of %ongress on 6anuary 22, 1273, and the holding of elections in #o&e7ber 1273, and others in the future, which shall ser&e as guide or basis for action or decision by the national go&ern7ent@ 3' The barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ shall conduct between 6anuary 10 and 1., 1273, a referendu7 on i7portant national issues, including those specified in paragraph 2 hereof, and sub7it results thereof to the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents %o77unity :e&elop7ent i77ediately thereafter, pursuant to e9press will of the people as reflected in the reports gathered fro7 the 7any thousands of barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ throughout the country' 3' This :ecree shall taBe effect i77ediately' :one in the %ity of !anila, this .th day of 6anuary, in the year of (ur )ord, nineteen hundred and se&enty three' And on 6anuary 7, 1273, this was followed by residential :ecree #o' 45,$ reading thus8 R"S+:"#T+A) :"%R"" #(' 45,$ :"<+#+#1 <*RTC"R TC" R()" (< $ARA#1ALS -%+T+M"#S ASS"!$)+"S/ WC"R"AS, since their creation pursuant to residential :ecree #o' 45 dated :ece7ber 31, 1272, the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ ha&e petitioned the (ffice of the resident to sub7it the7 for resolution i7portant national issues@ WC"R"AS, one of the 0uestions persistently 7entioned refers to the ratification of the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention@ WC"R"AS, on the basis of the said petitions, it is e&ident that the people belie&e that the sub7ission of the proposed %onstitution to the %iti?ens Asse7blies or $arangays should be taBen as a plebiscite in itself in &iew of the fact that freedo7 of debate has always been li7ited to the leadership in political, econo7ic and social fields, and that it is now necessary to bring this down to the le&el of the people the7sel&es through the $arangays or %iti?ens Asse7blies@ #(W TC"R"<(R", +, <"R:+#A#: "' !AR%(S, resident of the hilippines, by &irtue of the powers in 7e &ested by the %onstitution, do hereby order that i7portant national issues shall fro7 ti7e to ti7e be referred to the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ for resolution in accordance with residential :ecree #o' 45,A dated 6anuary ., 1273 and that the initial referendu7 shall include the 7atter of ratification of the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention' The Secretary of the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents and %o77unity :e&elop7ent shall insure the i7ple7entation of this (rder' :one in the %ity of !anila, this 7th day of 6anuary in the year of (ur )ord, nineteen hundred and se&enty, three' And so it was that by 6anuary 10, 1273, when the %iti?ens Asse7blies thus created started the referendu7 which was held fro7 said date to 6anuary 1., 1273, the following 0uestions were sub7itted to the78 -1/ :o you liBe the #ew SocietyH

-2/ :o you liBe the refor7s under 7artial lawH -3/ :o you liBe %ongress again to hold sessionsH -3/ :o you liBe the plebiscite to be held laterH -./ :o you liBe the way resident !arcos is running the affairs of the go&ern7entH' but on 6anuary 11, 1273, si9 0uestions were added as follows8 -1/ :o you appro&e of the citi?ens asse7blies as the base of popular go&ern7ent to decide issues of national interestsH -2/ :o you appro&e of the #ew %onstitutionH -3/ :o you want a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new %onstitutionH -3/ :o you want the elections to be held in #o&e7ber, 1273 in accordance with the pro&isions of the 123. %onstitutionH -./ +f the elections would not be held, when do you want it to be calledH -5/ :o you want 7artial law to continueH +t is not seriously denied that together with the 0uestion the &oters were furnished ;co77ents; on the said 0uestions 7ore or less suggesti&e of the answer desired' +t 7ay assu7ed that the said ;co77ents; ca7e fro7 official sources, albeit specifically unidentified' As petitioners point out, the 7ost rele&ant of these ;co77ents; were the following8 %(!!"#TS (# 999 999 999 I*"ST+(# #o' 2 $ut we do not want the Ad +nteri7 Asse7bly to be con&oBe' (r if it is to be con&ened at all, it should not be done so until after at least se&en -7/ years fro7 the appro&al of the #ew %onstitution by the %iti?ens Asse7blies' I*"ST+(# #o' 3 The &ote of the %iti?ens Asse7blies should already be considered the plebiscite on the #ew %onstitution' +f the %iti?ens Asse7blies appro&e of the new %onstitution then the new %onstitution should be dee7ed ratified' The Solicitor 1eneral clai7s, and there see7s to be showing otherwise, that the results of the referendu7 were deter7ined in the following 7anner8 Thereafter, the results of the &oting were collated and sent to the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents' The trans7ission of the results was 7ade by telegra7, telephone, the pro&incial go&ern7ent SS$ Syste7 in each pro&ince connecting all towns@ the SS$ co77unication of the A%: connecting 7ost pro&inces@ the :epart7ent of ublic +nfor7ation #etworB Syste7@ the Weather $ureau %o77unication Syste7 connecting all pro&incial capitals and the #ational %i&il :efense #etworB connecting all pro&incial capitals' The certificates of results were then flown to !anila to confir7 the pre&ious figures recei&ed by the afore7entioned 7eans of trans7ission' The certificates of results tallied with the pre&ious figures taBen with the e9ception of few cases of clerical errors' The :epart7ent adopted a syste7 of regionali?ing the recei&ing section of the %iti?ens Asse7blies operation at the :epart7ent wherein the identity of the barrio and the pro&ince was i77ediately gi&en to a staff in charge of each region' "&ery afternoon at 2800 oDclocB, the 11 regions sub7itted the figures they recei&ed fro7 the field to the central co77ittee to tabulate the returns' The last figures were tabulated at 12 7idnight of 6anuary 15, 1273 and early 7orning of 6anuary 17, 1273 and were then co77unicated to the resident by the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents' The de&elop7ent cul7inated in the issuance by the resident of rocla7ation 1102 on 6anuary 17, 1273' Said procla7ation

reads8 R(%)A!AT+(# #(' 1102 A##(*#%+#1 TC" RAT+<+%AT+(# $L TC" <+)+ +#( "( )" (< TC" %(#ST+T*T+(# R( (S": $L TC" 1271 %(#ST+T*T+(#A) %(#A"#T+(#' WC"R"AS, the %onstitution proposed by the nineteen hundred se&enty,one %onstitutional %on&ention is sub=ect to ratification by the <ilipino people@ WC"R"AS, %iti?ens Asse7blies were created in barrios in 7unicipalities and in districtsJwards in chartered cities pursuant to residential :ecree #o' 5, dated :ece7ber 31, 1272, co7posed of all persons who are residents of the barrio, district or ward for at least si9 7onths, fifteen years of age or o&er, citi?ens of the hilippines and who are registered in the list of %iti?en Asse7bly 7e7bers Bept by the barrio, district or ward secretary@ WC"R"AS, the said %iti?ens Asse7blies were establish precisely to broaden the base of citi?en participation in the de7ocratic process and to afford a7ple opportunity for the citi?en to e9press their &iews on i7portant national issues@ WC"R"AS, responding to the cla7or of the people an pursuant to residential :ecree #o' 45,A, dated 6anuary ., 1273, the following 0uestions were posed before %iti?ensD Asse7blies or $arangays8 :o you appro&e of the #ew %onstitutionH :o you still want a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new %onstitutionH WC"R"AS, fourteen 7illion nine hundred se&enty,si9 thousand fi&e hundred si9ty one -13,275,.51/ 7e7bers of all the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ &oted for the adoption of the proposed %onstitution, as against se&en hundred forty,three thousand eight hundred si9ty nine -733,452/ who &oted for its re=ection@ while on the 0uestion as to whether or not the people would still liBe a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new %onstitution fourteen 7illion two hundred ninety,eight thousand eight hundred fourteen -13,224,413/ answered that there was no need for plebiscite and that the &ote of the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ should be considered as a &ote in a plebiscite@ WC"R"AS, since the referendu7 results show that 7ore than ninety,fi&e -2./ percent of the 7e7bers of the $arangays -%iti?en Asse7blies/ are in fa&or of the #ew %onstitution, the Natipunan ng !ga $arangay has strongly reco77ended that the new %onstitution should already be dee7ed ratified by the <ilipino people@ #(W, TC"R"<(R", +, <"R:+#A#: "' !AR%(S, resident of the hilippines, by &irtue of the powers in 7e &ested by the %onstitution, do hereby certify and proclai7 that the %onstitution proposed by the nineteen hundred and se&enty,one -1271/ %onstitutional %on&ention has been ratified by an o&erwhel7ingly 7a=ority of all of the &otes cast by the 7e7bers of all the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ throughout the hilippines, and has thereby co7e into effect' +# W+T#"SS WC"R"(<, + ha&e hereunto set 7y hand and caused the seal of the Republic of the hilippines to be affi9ed' :one in the %ity of !anila, this 17th day of 6anuary, in the year of (ur )ord, nineteen hundred and se&enty,three' The first atte7pt to 0uestion the steps =ust enu7erated taBen by the resident was in the so,called lebiscite %ases, ten in nu7ber, which were filed by different petitioners during the first half of :ece7ber 1272' 1 Their co77on target then was residential :ecree #o' 73, but before the said cases could be decided, the series of 7o&es tending in effect to 7aBe the7 7oot and acade7ic insofar as they referred e9clusi&ely to the said residential :ecree began to taBe shape upon the issuance of residential :ecree #o' 45,A, 0uoted abo&e' And when residential :ecree #o' 45,$, also abo&e 0uoted, was issued and the si9 additional 0uestions which were first publici?ed on 6anuary 11, 1273 were Bnown, together with the ;co77ents;, petitioners sensed that a new and unorthodo9 procedure was being adopted to secure appro&al by the people of the new %onstitution, hence %ounsel Ta>ada, not being satisfied with the fate of his urgent 7otion for early decision of the abo&e ten cases dated 6anuary 12, 1273, filed on 6anuary 1., 1273, his supple7ental 7otion seeBing the prohibition against and in=unction of the proceedings going on' rincipal ob=ecti&e was to pre&ent that the resident be furnished the report of the results of the referendu7 and thereby disable hi7 fro7 carrying out what petitioners were apprehensi&ely foreseeing would be done E the issuance of so7e Bind of procla7ation, order or decree, declaring that the new %onstitution had been ratified' Reacting swiftly, the %ourt resol&ed on the sa7e day, 6anuary 1., which was !onday, to consider the supple7ental 7otion as a supple7ental petition and to re0uire the respondents to answer the sa7e the ne9t Wednesday, 6anuary 17th, before the hour of the hearing of the petition which set for 2830 oDclocB in the 7orning of that day' The details what happened that 7orning for7 part of the recital of facts the decision rendered by this %ourt in the ten cases on 6anuary 22, 1273 and need not be repeated here' Suffice it to state no that before the hearing could be closed and while %ounsel Ta>ada was still insisting on his prayer for preli7inary in=unction or restraining order, the Secretary of 6ustice arri&ed and personally handed to the %hief 6ustice a copy rocla7ation 1102 which had been issued at about 11800 oDclocB that sa7e 7orning' +n other words, the &aliant and persistent efforts of petitioners and their counsels were o&ertaBen by ad&erse de&elop7ents, and in the 7ind of the 7a=ority of the 7e7bers of the %ourt, the cases had beco7e acade7ic' <or 7y part, + tooB the &iew that e&en on the basis of the supple7ental petition and the

answer thereto filed by respondents, the %ourt could already decide on the funda7ental issue of the &alidity rocla7ation 1102, as 6ustices Maldi&ar, Antonio and "sguerra also belie&ed, inas7uch as %ounsel Ta>adaDs pleading and argu7ent had anticipated its issuance, but the 7a=ority felt it was not ready to resol&e the 7atter, for lacB, according the7, of full &entilation, and so, the decision reser&ed petitioners the filing of the ;appropriate; cases, e&idently, the present ones' ++ At the threshold, + find 7yself confronted by a 7atter which, although belie&ed to be inconse0uential by 7y learned brethren, + strongly feel needs special attention' + refer to the point raised by %ounsel Arturo !' Tolentino for respondent 1il 6' uyat and 6ose Roy, who ha&e been sued as resident and resident ro Te7pore of the Senate, to the effect that change in the co7position of the Supre7e %ourt pro&ided for the 1273 %onstitution, fro7 the 11,7an tribunal under the 123. %onstitution to a 1.,7an %ourt, 7aBes of these cases which were filed after 6anuary 17, 1273 the date when rocla7ation 1102 declared the new %onstitution as ratified, political nature and beyond our =urisdiction' The 7ain consideration sub7itted in this connection is that inas7uch as the nu7ber &otes needed for a decision of this %ourt has been increased fro7 si9 to eight in ordinary cases and fro7 eight to ten for the declaration of unconstitutionality of a treaty, e9ecuti&e agree7ent 2 or law, the %ourt would ha&e to resol&e first as a pre=udicial 0uestion whether the %ourt is acting in these cases as the 1.,7an or the 11,7an %ourt, in which e&ent, it would be faced with the dile77a that if it acts either as the for7er or as the latter, it would be pre=udging the &ery 7atter in issue one way or the other, and, in effect, it would be choosing between two constitutions, which is a political deter7ination not within the %ourtDs co7petence' While + agree that the proble7 is at first blush rather in&ol&ed, + do not share the &iew that the pre7ises laid down by counsel necessarily preclude this %ourt fro7 taBing a definite stand on whether the %ourt is acting in these cases as the 1.,!an or the 11,7an %ourt' + feel &ery strongly that the issue should not be ignored or dodged, if only to 7aBe the world Bnow that the Supre7e %ourt of the hilippines is ne&er incogni?ant of the capacity in which it is acting, 7uch less lacBing in courage or wisdo7 to resol&e an issue that relates directly to its own co7position' What a disgrace it would be to ad7it that this Supre7e %ourt does not Bnow, to use a co77on apt e9pression, whether it is fish or fowl' Withal, scholars and researchers who 7ight go o&er our records in the future will ine&itably e9a7ine 7inutely how each of us &oted and upon what considerations we ha&e indi&idually acted, and, indeed, doubts 7ay arise as to whether or not, despite the general result we 7ight announce, there had been the re0uisite nu7ber of &otes for a &alid collegiate action' <or instance, it 7ay be argued that the present cases do not in&ol&e an issue of unconstitutionality, hence, if we are acting as the 11,7an %ourt, only si9 &otes would suffice to declare rocla7ation 1102 ineffecti&e, and if upon analysis of our respecti&e opinions it should be inferable therefro7 that si9 of us ha&e considered the 7atter before the %ourt as =usticiable and at the sa7e ti7e ha&e found the procedure of ratification adopted in residential :ecrees 45,A and 45,$ and related orders of the resident as not being in confor7ity with Article KA of the old %onstitution, a cloud would e9ist as to efficacy of the dispositi&e portion of (ur decision dis7iss these cases, e&en if we ha&e it understood that by the &ote of =ustices in fa&or of such dis7issal, We intended to 7ean the i7ple7entation or enforce7ent of the new %onstitution now being done could continue' $e that as it 7ay, + a7 against lea&ing such an i7portant point open to speculation' $y nature + a7 a&erse to a7biguity and e0ui&ocation and as a 7e7ber of the Supre7e %ourt, last thing + should Bnowingly countenance is uncertainty as to the =uridical significance of any decision of the %ourt which is precisely being looBed upon as the ha&en in which doubts are supposed to be authoritati&ely dispelled' $esides, fro7 &ery nature of things, one thing is indubitably beyond dispute E we cannot act in both capacities of a 1.,7an and an 11,7an %ourt at the sa7e ti7e, in liBe 7anner that it is inconcei&able that the 123. and 1273 %onstitution can be considered by *s both in force' (ur inescapable duty is to 7aBe a choice between the7, according to what law and other considerations inherent to our function dictate' + cannot bear the thought that so7eone 7ay so7eday say that the Supre7e %ourt of the hilippines once decided a case without Bnowing the basis of its author to act or that it was e&er wanting in =udicial courage to define the sa7e' Accordingly, with full consciousness of 7y li7itations but co7pelled by 7y sense of duty and propriety to straighten out this gra&e of issue touching on the capacity in which the %ourt acting in these cases, + hold that we ha&e no alternati&e but adopt in the present situation the orthodo9 rule that when &alidity of an act or law is challenged as being repugnant constitutional 7andate, the sa7e is allowed to ha&e effect until the Supre7e %ourt rules that it is unconstitutional' Stated differently, We ha&e to proceed on the assu7ption that the new %onstitution is in force and that We are acting in these cases as the 1.,7an Supre7e %ourt pro&ided for there %ontrary to counselDs contention, there is here no pre=udg7ent for or against any of the two constitutions' The truth of 7atter is si7ply that in the nor7al and logical conduct go&ern7ental acti&ities, it is neither practical nor wise to defer the course of any action until after the courts ha&e ascertained their legality, not only because if that were to be the rule, the functioning of go&ern7ent would correspondingly be undesirably hesitati&e and cu7berso7e, but 7ore i7portantly, because the courts 7ust at the first instance accord due respect to the acts of the other depart7ents, as otherwise, the s7ooth running of the go&ern7ent would ha&e to depend entirely on the unani7ity of opinions a7ong all its depart7ents, which is hardly possible, unless it is assu7ed that only the =udges ha&e the e9clusi&e prerogati&e of 7aBing and enforcing the law, aside fro7 being its sole interpreter, which is contrary to all nor7s of =uridical and political thinBing' To 7y Bnowledge, there is yet no country in the world that has recogni?ed =udicial supre7acy as its basic go&ern7ental principle, no 7atter how desirable we 7ight belie&e the idea to be' +ndeed, it is not hard to &isuali?e the difficulty if not absurdity of (ur acting on the assu7ption that this %ourt is still functioning under the 123. %onstitution' +t is undeniable that the whole go&ern7ent, including the pro&incial, 7unicipal and barrio units and not e9cluding the lower courts up to the %ourt of Appeals, is operating under the 1273 %onstitution' Al7ost daily, presidential orders and decrees of the 7ost legislati&e character affecting practically e&ery aspect of go&ern7ental and pri&ate acti&ity as well as the relations between the go&ern7ent and the citi?enry are pouring out fro7 !alaca>ang under the authority of said

%onstitution' (n the other hand, ta9es are being e9acted and penalties in connection therewith are being i7posed under said orders and decrees' (bligations ha&e been contracted and business and industrial plans ha&e been and are being pro=ected pursuant to the7' :isplace7ents of public officials and e7ployees in big nu7bers are going on in obedience to the7' <or the ten =ustices of the Supre7e %ourt to constitute an island of resistance in the 7idst of these de&elop7ents, which e&en unreasoning obstinacy cannot ignore, 7uch less i7pede, is uni7aginable, let alone the absurd and co7plicated conse0uences such a position entails in the internal worBings within the =udiciary a7ount its different co7ponents, what with the lower courts considering such orders and decrees as for7ing part of the law of the land in 7aBing their orders and decisions, whereas the Supre7e %ourt is holding, as it were, their effecti&ity at bay if it is not being indifferent to or ignoring the7' +t is suggested that the resident, being a 7an of law, co77itted to abide by the decision of the Supre7e %ourt, and if the %ourt feels that it cannot in the 7eanti7e consider the enforce7ent of the new %onstitution, he can wait for its decision' Accepting the truth of this assertion, it does necessarily follow that by this attitude of the resident, considers the Supre7e %ourt as still operating under the %onstitution' Iuite on the contrary, it is a fact that he has gi&en instructions for the pay7ent of the =ustices in accordance with the rate fi9ed in the #ew %onstitution' #ot only that, official alter ego, the Secretary of 6ustice, has been sho&ing this %ourt, since 6anuary 14, 1273, all 7atters related to the ad7inistrati&e super&ision of the lower courts which by the new charter has been transferred fro7 the :epart7ent of 6ustice to the Supre7e %ourt, and as far as + Bnow, resident has not counter7anded the SecretaryDs steps in that direction' That, on the other hand, the resident has not aug7ented the =ustices of the %ourt to co7plete the prescribed nu7ber of fifteen is, in 7y appraisal, of no conse0uence considering that with the presence of ten =ustices who are the %ourt now, there is a worBing 0uoru7, and the addition of new =ustices cannot in anyway affect the &oting on the constitutional 0uestions now before *s because, while there sufficient =ustices to declare by their unani7ous &ote illegality of rocla7ation 1102, the &otes of the =ustices to added would only be co77itted to upholding the sa7e, since they cannot by any standard be e9pected to &ote against legality of the &ery %onstitution under which they would be appointed' !oreo&er, what 7aBes the pre7ise of presu7pti&e &alid preferable and, e&en i7perati&e, is that We are dealing here with a whole constitution that radically 7odifies or alters only the for7 of our go&ern7ent fro7 presidential parlia7entary but also other constitutionally institutions &itally affecting all le&els of society' +t is, to 7ind, unrealistic to insist on that, funda7entally, the 1273 %onstitution is the sa7e 123. %onstitution, with a few i7pro&e7ents' A cursory perusal of the for7er should con&ince anyone that it is in essence a new one' While it does retain republicanis7 as the basic go&ern7ental tenet, the institutional changes introduced thereby are rather radical and its social orientation is decidedly 7ore socialistic, =ust as its nationalistic features are so7ewhat different in certain respects' (ne cannot but note that the change e7braces practically e&ery part of the old charter, fro7 its prea7ble down to its a7ending and effecti&ity clauses, in&ol&ing as they do the state7ent of general principles, the citi?enship and suffrage 0ualifications, the articles on the for7 of go&ern7ent, the =udiciary pro&isions, the spelling out of the duties and responsibilities not only of citi?ens but also of officers of the go&ern7ent and the pro&isions on the national econo7y as well as the patri7ony of the nation, not to 7ention the distincti&e features of the general pro&isions' What is 7ore, the transitory pro&isions notably depart fro7 traditional and orthodo9 &iews in that, in general, the powers of go&ern7ent during the interi7 period are 7ore or less concentrated in the resident, to the e9tent that the continuation or discontinuance of what is now practically a one,7an,rule, is e&en left to his discretion' #otably, the e9press ratification of all procla7ations, orders, decrees and acts pre&iously issued or done by the resident, ob&iously 7eant to enco7pass those issued during 7artial law, is a co77it7ent to the concept of 7artial law powers being i7ple7ented by resident !arcos, in defiance of traditional &iews and pre&ailing =urisprudence, to the effect that the "9ecuti&eDs power of legislation during a regi7e of 7artial law is all inclusi&e and is not li7ited to the 7atters de7anded by 7ilitary necessity' +n other words, the new constitution unliBe any other constitution countenances the institution by the e9ecuti&e of refor7s which nor7ally is the e9clusi&e attribute of the legislature' Withal, the best proofs that by its e9pressed and i7plied intent, the %onstitution of 1273 is a new one, are that -1/ Section 15 of its Article KA++ which pro&ides that this constitution shall ;supersede the %onstitution of nineteen hundred and thirty,fi&e and all a7end7ents thereto; and -2/ its transitory pro&isions e9pressly continue the effecti&ity of e9isting laws, offices and courts as well as the tenure of all incu7bent officials, not ad&ersely affected by it, which would ha&e been unnecessary if the old constitution were being 7erely a7ended' The new %onstitution, in its Section 10, Article KA++, pro&ides that ;-T/he incu7bent 7e7bers of the 6udiciary -which include the %hief 6ustice and Associate 6ustices of Supre7e %ourt/ 7ay continue in office -under the constitution/ until they reach the age of se&enty years, etc'; $y &irtue of the presu7pti&e &alidity of the new charter, all of for7 part of the 1.,7an,%ourt pro&ided for therein correspondingly, We ha&e in legal conte7plation, ceased in the 7eanwhile to be 7e7bers of the 11,7an,%ourt in the 123. %onstitution' Should the %ourt finally decide that the %onstitution is in&alid, then We would auto7atically re&ert to our positions in the 11,7an, %ourt, otherwise, We would =ust continue to be in our 7e7bership in the 1.,7an,%ourt, unless We feel We cannot in conscience accept the legality of e9istence' (n the other hand, if it is assu7ed that We are the 11,7an,%ourt and it happens that (ur collecti&e decision is in fa&or of the new constitution, it would be proble7atical for any dissenting =ustice to consider hi7self as included auto7atically in the 1.,7an,%ourt, since that would tanta7ount to accepting a position he does not honestly belie&e e9ists' +++ +n brief, the 7ain contention of the petitioners is that rocla7ation 1102 is in&alid because the ratification of the 1273 %onstitution it purports to declare as ha&ing taBen place as a result of the referendu7 abo&e,referred to is ineffecti&e since it cannot be said on the basis of the said referendu7 that said %onstitution has been ;appro&ed by a 7a=ority of the &otes cast at an election; in the 7anner prescribed by Article KA the %onstitution of 123.' !ore specifically, they 7aintain that the word ;election; in the said Article has already ac0uired a definite accepted 7eaning out of the consistent holding in the past of ratification plebiscites, and accordingly, no other for7 of ratification can be considered conte7plated by the fra7ers of the (ld %onstitution than that which had been followed 123., 1237, 1232, 1230, 1235 and 1257, the last three or four which were held under the super&ision of the

%o77ission on "lections' <urther7ore, they e7phatically deny the &eracity of the proclai7ed results of the referendu7 because, according to the7 the referendu7 was a farce and its results were 7anufactured or prefabricated, considering that !r' <rancisco %ru?, who is supposed to ha&e sub7itted the final report to the resident, which ser&ed as basis for rocla7ation 1102, had no official authority to render the sa7e, and it is inconcei&able and hu7anly i7possible for anyone to ha&e been able to gather, tabulate and can&ass the 1. 7illion &otes allegedly reported within the short period of ti7e e7ployed' (f course, they also contend that in any e&ent, there was no proper sub7ission because 7artial law per se creates constructi&e duress which depri&es the &oters of the co7plete freedo7 needed for the e9ercise of their right of choice and actually, there was neither ti7e nor opportunity for real debate before they &oted' (n the other hand, the position of the Solicitor 1eneral as counsel for the respondents is that the 7atter raised in the petitions is a political one which the courts are not supposed to in0uire into, and, anyway, there has been a substantial co7pliance with Article KA of the 123. %onstitution, inas7uch as, disregarding unessential 7atters of for7, the undeniable fact is that the &oting in the referendu7 resulted in the appro&al by the people of the #ew %onstitution' + need not dwell at length on these &ariant positions of the parties' +n 7y separate opinion in the lebiscite %ases, + already 7ade the obser&ation that in &iew of the lacB of sole7nity and regularity in the &oting as well as in the 7anner of reporting and can&assing conducted in connection with the referendu7, + cannot say that Article KA of the (ld %onstitution has been co7plied with, albeit + held that nonetheless, the %onstitution of 1273 is already in force' +n order, howe&er, to 7aBe 7yself clearer on so7e rele&ant points, + would liBe to add a few considerations to what + ha&e already said in the for7er cases' +n 7y opinion in those cases, the 7ost i7portant point + tooB into account was that in the face of the residential certification through rocla7ation 1102 itself that the #ew %onstitution has been appro&ed by a 7a=ority of the people and ha&ing in 7ind facts of general Bnowledge which + ha&e =udicial notice of, + a7 in no position to deny that the result of the referendu7 was as the resident had stated' + can belie&e that the figures referred to in the procla7ation 7ay not accurate, but + cannot say in conscience that all of the7 are 7anufactured or prefabricated, si7ply because + saw with own eyes that people did actually gather and listen discussions, if brief and inade0uate for those who are abreast of current e&ents and general occurrences, and that they did &ote' + belie&e + can safely say that what + ha&e seen ha&e also been seen by 7any others throughout the country and unless it can be assu7ed, which honestly, + do not belie&e to be possible, that in fact there were actually no 7eetings held and no &oting done in 7ore places than those wherein there were such 7eetings and &otings, + a7 not prepared to discredit entirely the declaration that there was &oting and that the 7a=ority of the &otes were in fa&or of the #ew %onstitution' +f in fact there were substantially less than 13 7illion &otes of appro&al, the real figure, in 7y esti7ate, could still be significant enough and legally sufficient to ser&e as basis for a &alid ratification' +t is contended, howe&er, that the understanding was that the referendu7 a7ong the %iti?ens Asse7blies was to be in the nature 7erely of a loose consultation and not an outright sub7ission for purposes of ratification' + can see that at the outset, when the first set of 0uestions was released, such 7ay ha&e been the idea' +t 7ust not be lost sight of, howe&er, that if the newspaper reports are to be belie&ed, and + say this only because petitioners would consider the newspapers as the official ga?ettes of the ad7inistration, the last set of si9 0uestions were included precisely because the reaction to the idea of 7ere consultation was that the people wanted greater direct participation, thru the %iti?ens Asse7blies, in decision,7aBing regarding 7atters of &ital national interest' Thus, looBing at things 7ore understandingly and realistically the two 0uestions e7phasi?ed by counsel, na7ely, -1/ :o yo appro&e of the #ew %onstitutionH and -2/ :o you want plebiscite to be called to ratify the new %onstitutionH should be considered no longer as loose consultations but as direct in0uiries about the desire of the &oters regarding the 7atters 7entioned' Accordingly, + taBe it that if the 7a=ority had e9pressed disappro&al of the new %onstitution, the logical conse0uence would ha&e been the co7plete abandon7ent of the idea of holding any plebiscite at all' (n the other hand, it is &ery plain to see that since the 7a=ority has already appro&ed the new %onstitution, a plebiscite would be superfluous' %lear as these rationali?ations 7ay be, it 7ust ha&e been thought that if the holding of a plebiscite was to be abandoned, there should be a direct and e9pressed desire of the people to such effect in order to forestall as 7uch as possible any serious contro&ersy regarding the non,holding of the plebiscite re0uired by the letter of Section 15 of Article KA++, the effecti&ity clause, of the new %onstitution' (ddly enough, the ;co77ents; acco7panying the 0uestions do strongly suggest this &iew' And as it turned out, the 7a=ority found no necessity in holding a plebiscite' +n connection with the 0uestion, :o you appro&e of the #ew %onstitutionH capital is being 7ade of the point that as so fra7ed, the thrust of the said 0uestion does not seeB an answer of fact but of opinion' +t is argued that it would ha&e been factual were it worded categorically thus E :o you appro&e the #ew %onstitutionH The contention would ha&e been weighty were it not unrealistic' + re7e7ber distinctly that the obser&ation regarding the construction of the sub=ect 0uestion was not originally 7ade by any of the talented counsels for petitioners' +t ca7e fro7 !r' 6ustice <red Rui? %astro whose 7astery of the "nglish language can rightly be the cause of en&y of e&en professors of "nglish' #one of the other 7e7bers of the %ourt, as far as + can recall, e&er noticed how the said 0uestion is phrased, or if anyone of *s did, + a7 not aware that he ga&e it 7ore than passing attention' What + 7ean is that if neither any of the distinguished and learned counsels nor any 7e7ber of the %ourt understood the said 0uestion otherwise than calling for a factual answer instead of a 7ere opinion, how could anyone e9pect the 7illions of unlettered 7e7bers of the %iti?ens Asse7blies to ha&e noticed the point brought out by 6ustice %astroH Truth to tell, + 7yself did not reali?e the difference until 6ustice %astro ga&e it e7phasis' $esides, reading the 0uestion in the light of the acco7panying ;co77ent; corresponding to it in particular, + a7 certain that any one who answered the sa7e understood it in no other sense than a direct in0uiry as to whether or not, as a 7atter of fact, he appro&es the #ew %onstitution, and naturally, affir7ati&e answer 7ust be taBen as a categorical &ote of appro&al thereof, considering, particularly, that according to the reported result of the referendu7 said answer was e&en coupled with the re0uest that the resident defer the con&ening of the +nteri7 #ational Asse7bly' +t is also contended that because of this reference in answer to that 0uestion to the defer7ent of the con&ening of the interi7

asse7bly, the said answer is at best a conditional appro&al not proper nor acceptable for purposes of ratification plebiscite' The contention has no basis' +n interest of accuracy, the additional answer proposed in pertinent ;co77ent; reads as follows8 ;$ut we do not want Ad +nteri7 Asse7bly to be con&oBed etc'; (n the assu7ption that the actual answer, as reported, was of si7ilar tenor, it is not fair to ascribe to it the i7position of a condition' At 7ost, the intention is no 7ore than a suggestion or a wish' As regards said ;co77ents;, it 7ust be considered that a 7artial law was declared, the circu7stances surrounding 7aBing of the %onstitution ac0uired a different and 7ore 7eaningful aspect, na7ely, the for7ation of a new society' <ro7 the point of &iew of the resident and on the basis of intelligence reports a&ailable to hi7, the only way to 7eet situation created by the sub&ersi&e ele7ents was to introduce i77ediately effecti&e refor7s calculated to redee7 the people fro7 the depth of retrogression and stagnation caused by ra7pant graft and corruption in high places, influence peddling, oligarchic political practices, pri&ate ar7ies, anarchy, deteriorating conditions of peace and order, the so ine0ualities widening the gap between the rich and the poor, and 7any other deplorable long standing 7aladies crying for early relief and solution' :efinitely, as in the case of rebellious 7o&e7ent that threatened the Iuirino Ad7inistration, the re7edy was far fro7 using bullets alone' +f a constitution was to be appro&ed as an effecti&e instru7ent towards the eradication of such gra&e proble7s, it had to be appro&ed without loss of ti7e and sans the cu7berso7e processes that, fro7 the realistic &iewpoint, ha&e in the past obstructed rather than hastened the progress of the people' Stated otherwise, in the conte9t of actualities, the e&ident ob=ecti&e in ha&ing a new constitution is to establish new directions in the pursuit of the national aspirations and the carrying out of national policies' (nly by bearing these considerations in 7ind can the ;co77ents; already referred to be properly appreciated' To others said ;co77ents; 7ay appear as e&idence of corruption of the will of those who attended the asse7blies, but actually, they 7ay also be &iewed in the sa7e light as the sa7ple ballots co77only resorted to in the elections of officials, which no one can contend are per se7eans of coercion' )et us not forget that the ti7es are abnor7al, and prolonged dialogue and e9change of ideas are not generally possible, nor practical, considering the need for faster decisions and 7ore resolute action' After all &oting on a whole new constitution is different fro7 &oting on one, two or three specific proposed a7end7ents, the for7er calls for nothing 7ore than a collecti&e &iew of all the pro&isions of the whole charter, for necessarily, one has to taBe the good together with the bad in it' +t is rare for anyone to re=ect a constitution only because of a few specific ob=ectionable features, no 7atter how substantial, considering the e&er present possibility that after all it 7ay be cured by subse0uent a7end7ent' Accordingly, there was need to indicate to the people the paths open to the7 in their 0uest for the better7ent of their conditions, and as long as it is not shown that those who did not agree to the suggestions in the ;co77ents; were actually co7pelled to &ote against their will, + a7 not con&inced that the e9istence of said ;co77ents; should 7aBe any appreciable difference in the courtDs appraisal of the result of the referendu7' + 7ust confess that the fact that the referendu7 was held during 7artial law detracts so7ehow fro7 the &alue that the referendu7 would otherwise ha&e had' As + inti7ated, howe&er, in 7y for7er opinion, it is not fair to conde7n and disregard the result of the referendu7 barely because of 7artial law per se' <or one thing, 7any of the ob=ectionable features of 7artial law ha&e not actually 7ateriali?ed, if only because the i7ple7entation of 7artial law since its inception has been generally characteri?ed by restraint and consideration, thanBs to the e9pressed wishes of the resident that the sa7e be 7ade ; hilippine style;, which 7eans without the rigor that has attended it in other lands and other ti7es' !oreo&er, although the restrictions on the freedo7 of speech, the press and 7o&e7ent during 7artial law do ha&e their corresponding ad&erse effects on the area of infor7ation which should be open to a &oter, in its real sense what ;chills; his freedo7 of choice and 7ars his e9ercise of discretion is suspension of the pri&ilege of the writ of )a*eas corpus' The reason is si7ply that a 7an 7ay freely and correctly &ote e&en if the needed infor7ation he possesses as to the candidates or issues being &oted upon is 7ore or less inco7plete, but when he is sub=ect to arrest and detention without in&estigation and without being infor7ed of the cause thereof, that is so7ething else which 7ay actually cause hi7 to cast a capti&e &ote' Thus it is the suspension of the writ of )a*eas corpus acco7panying 7artial law that can cause possible restraint on the freedo7 choice in an election held during 7artial law' +t is a fact, howe&er, borne by history and actual e9perience, that in the hilippines, the suspension of the pri&ilege of the writ )a*eas corpus has ne&er produced any chilling effect upon the &oters, since it is Bnown by all that only those who run afoul the law, sa&ing inconse0uential instances, ha&e any cause for apprehension in regard to the conduct by the7 of the nor7al acti&ities of life' And so it is recorded that in the elections 12.1 and 1271, held while the pri&ilege of writ of )a*eas corpus was under suspension, the <ilipino &oters ga&e the then opposition parties o&erwhel7ing if not sweeping &ictories, in defiance of the respecti&e ad7inistrations that ordered the suspensions' At this =uncture, + thinB it is fit to 7aBe it clear that + a7 not trying to show that the result of the referendu7 7ay considered as sufficient basis for declaring that the #ew %onstitution has been ratified in accordance with the a7ending clause of the 123. %onstitution' + reiterate that in point of law, + find neither strict nor substantial co7pliance' The foregoing discussion is only to counter, if + 7ay, certain i7pression regarding the general conditions obtaining during and in relation to the referendu7 which could ha&e in one way or another affected the e9ercise of the freedo7 of choice and the use of discretion by the 7e7bers of the %iti?ens Asse7blies, to the end that as far as the sa7e conditions 7ay be rele&ant in 7y subse0uent discussions of the acceptance by the people of the #ew %onstitution they 7ay also be considered' +A +t is 7y sincere con&iction that the %onstitution of 1273 has been accepted or adopted by the people' And on this pre7ise, 7y considered opinion is that the %ourt 7ay no longer decide these cases on the basis of purely legal considerations' <actors which are non,legal but ne&ertheless ponderous and co7pelling cannot be ignored, for their rele&ancy is inherent in the issue itself to be resol&ed' +n 7y opinion in the lebiscite %ases, + =oined 7y colleagues in holding that the 0uestion of whether or not there was proper sub7ission under residential :ecree #o' 73 is =usticiable, and + still hold that the propriety of sub7ission under any other law or in any other for7 is constitutionally a fit sub=ect for in0uiry by the courts' The ruling in the decided cases relied upon by

petitioners are to this effect' +n &iew, howe&er, of the factual bacBground of the cases at bar which include ratification itself, it is necessary for 7e to point out that when it co7es to ratification, + a7 persuaded that there should be a boundary beyond which the co7petence of the courts no longer has any reason for being, because the other side is e9clusi&ely political territory reser&ed for their own do7inion by the people' The 7ain basis of 7y opinion in the pre&ious cases was acceptance by the people' (thers 7ay feel there is not enough indication of such acceptance in the record and in the circu7stances the %ourt can taBe =udicial notice of' <or 7y part, + consider it unnecessary to be strictly =udicial in in0uiring into such fact' $eing personally aware, as + ha&e already stated, that the %iti?ens Asse7blies did 7eet and &ote, if irregularly and crudely, it is not for 7e to resort, for the purposes of these cases, to =udicial tape and 7easure, to find out with absolute precision the &eracity of the total nu7ber of &otes actually cast' After all, the clai7s that upon a co7parison of conflicting reports, cases of e9cess &otes 7ay be found, e&en if e9trapolated will not, as far as + can figure out, suffice to o&erco7e the outco7e officially announced' Rather than try to for7 a conclusion out of the raw e&idence before *s which the parties did not care to really co7plete, + feel safer by referring to the results announced in the procla7ation itself' 1i&ing substantial allowances for possible error and downright 7anipulation, it 7ust not be o&erlooBed that, after all, their ha&ing been accepted and adopted by the resident, based on official reports sub7itted to hi7 in due course of perfor7ance of duty of appropriate subordinate officials, ele&ated the7 to the category of an act of a coordinate depart7ent of the go&ern7ent which under the principle separation of powers is clothed with presu7pti&e correctness or at least entitled to a high degree of acceptability, until o&erco7e by better e&idence, which in these cases does not e9ist' +n any e&ent, considering that due to the unorthodo9y of the procedure adopted and the difficulty of an accurate checBing of all the figures, + a7 unable to concei&e of any 7anageable 7eans of ac0uiring infor7ation upon which to predicate a denial, + ha&e no alternati&e but to rely on what has been officially declared' At this point, + would &enture to e9press the feeling that if it were not generally conceded that there has been sufficient showing of the acceptance in 0uestion by this ti7e, there would ha&e been already de7onstrati&e and significant indications of a rather widespread, if not organi?ed resistance in one for7 or another' !uch as they are to be gi&en due recognition as 7agnificent 7anifestations of loyalty and de&otion to principles, + cannot accord to the filing of these cases as indicati&e enough of the general attitude of the people' +t is true that in the opinion + had the pri&ilege of penning the %ourt in Tolentino &s' %o7elec, 31 S%RA 702, + 7ade strong and une0ui&ocal pronounce7ents to the effect that any a7end7ent to the %onstitution of 123., to be &alid, 7ust appear to ha&e been 7ade in strict confor7ity with the re0uire7ents of Article KA thereof' What is 7ore, that decision asserted =udicial co7petence to in0uire into the 7atter of co7pliance or non co7pliance as a =usticiable 7atter' + still belie&e in the correctness of those &iews and + would e&en add that + sincerely feel it reflects the spirit of the said constitutional pro&ision' Without trying to strain any point howe&er, +, sub7it the following considerations in the conte9t of the peculiar circu7stances of the cases now at bar, which are entirely different fro7 those in the bacBdrop of the Tolentino rulings + ha&e referred to' 1' %onsider that in the present case what is in&ol&ed is not =ust an a7end7ent of a particular pro&ision of an e9isting %onstitution@ here, it is, as + ha&e discussed earlier abo&e, an entirely new %onstitution that is being proposed' This i7portant circu7stance 7aBes a great deal of difference' #o less than counsel Tolentino for herein respondents uyat and Roy, who was hi7self the petitioner in the case + ha&e =ust referred to is, now in&iting (ur attention to the e9act language of Article KA and suggesting that the said Article 7ay be strictly applied to proposed a7end7ents but 7ay hardly go&ern the ratification of a new %onstitution' +t is particularly stressed that the Article specifically refers to nothing else but ;a7end7ents to this %onstitution; which if ratified ;shall be &alid as part of this %onstitution'; +ndeed, how can a whole new constitution be by any 7anner of reasoning an a7end7ent to any other constitution and how can it, if ratified, for7 part of such other constitutionH +n fact, in the Tolentino case + already so7ehow hinted this point when + 7ade reference in the resolution denying the 7otion for reconsideration to the fact that Article KA 7ust be followed ;as long as any a7end7ent is for7ulated and sub7itted under the aegis of the present %harter'; Said resolution e&en added' ;-T/his is not to say that the people 7ay not, in the e9ercise of their inherent re&olutionary powers, a7end the %onstitution or pro7ulgate an entirely new one otherwise';' +t is not strange at all to thinB that the a7ending clause of a constitution should be confined in its application only to proposed changes in any part of the sa7e constitution itself, for the &ery fact that a new constitution is being adopted i7plies a general intent to put aside the whole of the old one, and what would be really incongrous is the idea that in such an e&entuality, the new %onstitution would sub=ect its going into effect to any pro&ision of the constitution it is to supersede, to use the language precisely of Section 5, Article KA++, the effecti&ity clause, of the #ew %onstitution' !y understanding is that generally, constitutions are self, born, they &ery rarely, if at all, co7e into being, by &irtue of any pro&ision of another constitution' 3 This 7ust be the reason why e&ery constitution has its own effecti&ity clause, so that if, the %onstitutional %on&ention had only anticipated the idea of the referendu7 and pro&ided for such a 7ethod to be used in the ratification of the #ew %onstitution, + would ha&e had serious doubts as to whether Article KA could ha&e had priority of application' 2' When an entirely new constitution is proposed to supersede the e9isting one, we cannot but taBe into consideration the forces and the circu7stances dictating the replace7ent' <ro7 the &ery nature of things, the proposal to ordain a new constitution 7ust be &iewed as the 7ost elo0uent e9pression of a peopleDs resolute deter7ination to bring about a 7assi&e change of the e9isting order, a 7eaningful transfor7ation of the old society and a responsi&e refor7ation of the conte7porary institutions and principles' Accordingly, should any 0uestion arise as to its effecti&ity and there is so7e reasonable indication that the new charter has already recei&ed in one way or another the sanction of the people, + would hold that the better rule is for the courts to defer to the peopleDs =udg7ent, so long as they are con&inced of the fact of their appro&al, regardless of the for7 by which it is e9pressed pro&ided it be reasonably feasible and reliable' (therwise stated, in such instances, the courts should not bother about in0uiring into co7pliance with technical re0uisites, and as a 7atter of policy should consider the 7atter non,=usticiable'

3' There is still another circu7stance which + consider to be of great rele&ancy' + refer to the ostensible reaction of the co7ponent ele7ents, both collecti&e and indi&idual, of the %ongress of the hilippines' #either the Senate nor the Couse of Representati&es has been reported to ha&e e&en 7ade any appreciable effort or atte7pt to con&ene as they were supposed to do under the %onstitution of 123. on 6anuary 22, 1273 for the regular session' +t 7ust be assu7ed that being co7posed of e9perienced, Bnowledgeable and courageous 7e7bers, it would not ha&e been difficult for said parlia7entary bodies to ha&e concei&ed so7e ingenious way of gi&ing e&idence of their deter7ined adherence to the %onstitution under which they were elected' <ranBly, 7uch as + ad7ire the efforts of the handful of senators who had their picture taBen in front of the padlocBed portals of the Senate cha7ber, + do not feel warranted to accord such act as enough toBen of resistance' As counsel Tolentino has infor7ed the court, there was noting to stop the senators and the congress7en to 7eet in any other con&enient place and so7ehow officially organi?e the7sel&es in a way that can logically be considered as a session, e&en if nothing were done than to 7erely call the roll and disperse' %ounsel Tolentino e&en pointed out that if there were not enough 7e7bers to for7 a 9uoru7, any s7aller group could ha&e ordered the arrest of the absent 7e7bers' And with particular rele&ance to the present cases, it was not constitutionally indispensable for the presiding officers to issue any call to the 7e7bers to con&ene, hence the present prayers for mandamus ha&e no legal and factual bases' And to top it all, 0uite to the contrary, the records of the %o77ission on "lections show that at least 1. of 23 senators and o&er 2. out of less than 120 7e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es, ha&e officially and in writing e9ercised the option gi&en to the7 to =oin the +nteri7 #ational Asse7bly under the #ew %onstitution, thereby 7anifesting their acceptance of the new charter' #ow, ha&ing these facts in 7ind, and it being ob&ious that of the three great depart7ents of the go&ern7ent under the 123. %onstitution, two, the "9ecuti&e and the )egislati&e, ha&e already accepted the #ew %onstitution and recogni?ed its enforceability and enforce7ent, + cannot see how this Supre7e %ourt can by =udicial fiat hold bacB the political de&elop7ents taBing place and for the saBe of being the guardian of the %onstitution and the defender of its integrity and supre7acy 7aBe its =udicial power pre&ail against the decision of those who were duly chosen by the people to be their authori?ed spoBes7en and representati&es' +t is not alone the physical futility of such a gesture that concerns 7e' !ore than that, there is the starB reality that the Senators and the %ongress7en, no less than the resident, ha&e taBen the sa7e oath of loyalty to the %onstitution that we, the 6ustices, ha&e taBen and they are, therefore, e0ually bound with *s to preser&e and protect the %onstitution' +f as the representati&es of the people, they ha&e already opted to accept the #ew %onstitution as the 7ore effecti&e instru7ent for fulfill7ent of the national destiny, + really wonder if there is e&en any idealistic worth in our desperately clinging by (ursel&es alone to (ur sworn duty &is,a,&is the 123. %onstitution' %onscious of the declared ob=ecti&es of the new dispensation and cogni?ant of the decisi&e steps being with the least loss of ti7e, towards their acco7plish7ent, cannot but feel apprehensi&e that instead of ser&ing the best interests of our people, which to 7e is in reality the real 7eaning of our oath of office, the %ourt 7ight be standing in the way of the &ery thing our belo&ed country needs to retrie&e its past glory and greatness' +n other words, it is 7y con&iction that what these cases de7and 7ost of all is not a decision de7onstrati&e of our legal erudition and Solo7onic wisdo7 but an all rounded =udg7ent resulting fro7 the consideration of all rele&ant circu7stances, principally the political, or, in brief, a decision 7ore political than legal, which a court can render only by deferring to the apparent =udg7ent of the people and the announce7ent thereof by the political depart7ents of the go&ern7ent and declaring the 7atter non,=usticiable' 3' Aiewed fro7 the strictly legal angle and in the light of =udicial 7ethods of ascertain7ent, + cannot agree with the Solicitor 1eneral that in the legal sense, there has been at least substantial co7pliance with Article KA of the 123. %onstitution, but what + can see is that in a political sense, the answers to the referendu7 0uestions were not gi&en by the people as legal conclusions' + taBe it that when they answered that by their signified appro&al of the #ew %onstitution, they do not consider it necessary to hold a plebiscite, they could not ha&e had in 7ind any intent to do what was constitutionally i7proper' $asically accusto7ed to proceed along constitutional channels, they 7ust ha&e acted in the honest con&iction that what was being done was in confor7ity with pre&ailing constitutional standards' We are not to assu7e that the so&ereign people were indulging in a futile e9ercise of their supre7e political right to choose the funda7ental charter by which their li&es, their liberties and their fortunes shall be safeguarded' +n other words, we 7ust perforce infer that they 7eant their decision to count, and it behoo&es this %ourt to render =udg7ent herein in that conte9t' +t is 7y considered opinion that &iewed understandingly and realistically, there is 7ore than sufficient ground to hold that, =udged by such intent and, particularly, fro7 the political standpoint, the ratification of the 1273 %onstitution declared in rocla7ation 1102 co7plies substantially with Article KA of the 123. %harter, specially when it is considered that the 7ost i7portant ele7ent of the ratification therein conte7plated is not in the word ;election;, which concei&ably can be in 7any feasible and 7anageable for7s but in the word ;appro&ed; which 7ay be said to constitute the substantiality of the whole article, so long as such appro&al is reasonably ascertained' +n the last analysis, therefore, it can be rightly said, e&en if only in a broad sense, that the ratification here in 0uestion was constitutionally =ustified and =ustifiable' .' <inally, if any doubt should still linger as to the legiti7acy of the #ew %onstitution on legal grounds, the sa7e should be dispelled by &iewing the situation in the 7anner suggested by %ounsel Tolentino and by the writer of this opinion in his separate opinion, oft,referred to abo&e, in the lebiscite %ases E that is, as an e9tra constitutional e9ercise by the people, under the leadership of resident !arcos, of their inalienable right to change their funda7ental charter by any 7eans they 7ay dee7 appropriate, the 7o7ent they are con&inced that the e9isting one is no longer responsi&e to their funda7ental, political and social needs nor conduci&e to the ti7ely attain7ent of their national destiny' This is not only the teaching of the A7erican :eclaration of +ndependence but is indeed, a truth that is self,e&ident' !ore, it should be regarded as i7plied in e&ery constitution that regardless of the language of its a7ending clause, once the people ha&e gi&en their sanction to a new charter, the latter 7ay be dee7ed as constitutionally per7issible e&en fro7 the point of &iew of the preceding constitution' Those who 7ay feel restrained to consider this &iew out of respect to the i7port of Tolentino &s' %o7elec, supra', would be well ad&ised to bear in 7ind that the case was decided in the conte9t of sub7ission, not acco7plished ratification' A The language of the disputed a7ending clause of the 123. %onstitution should not be dee7ed as the be all and end all the

nation' !ore i7portant than e&en the %onstitution itself with all its e9cellent features, are the people li&ing under it E their happiness, their posterity and their national destiny' There is nothing that cannot be sacrificed in the pursuit of these ob=ecti&es, which constitute the totality of the reasons for national e9istence' The sacred liberties and freedo7 enshrined in it and the co77it7ent and consecration thereof to the for7s of de7ocracy we ha&e hitherto obser&ed are 7ere integral parts of this totality@ they are less i7portant by the7sel&es' What see7s to 7e to be bothering 7any of our country7en now is that by denying the present petitions, the %ourt would be dee7ed as sanctioning, not only the de&iations fro7 traditional de7ocratic concepts and principles but also the 0ualified curtail7ent of indi&idual liberties now being practiced, and this would a7ount, it is feared, to a repudiation of our oath to support and defend the %onstitution of 123.' This is certainly so7ething one 7ust gra&ely ponder upon' When + consider, howe&er, that the resident, the Aice resident, the 7e7bers of both Couses of %ongress, not to speaB of all e9ecuti&e depart7ents and bureaus under the7 as well as all the lower courts, including the %ourt of Appeals ha&e already accepted the #ew %onstitution as an instru7ent of a 7eaningful nationwide,all,le&el change in our go&ern7ent and society purported to 7aBe 7ore realistic and feasible, rather than idealistic and cu7berso7ely deliberati&e, the attain7ent of our national aspirations, + a7 led to wonder whether or not we, as 7e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt are being true to our duty to our people by refusing to follow suit and accept the realities of the 7o7ent, despite our being con&inced of the sincerity and laudableness of their ob=ecti&es, only because we feel that by the peopleDs own act of ratifying the %onstitution of 123., they ha&e so encased the7sel&es within its pro&isions and 7ay, therefore, no longer taBe 7easures to redee7 the7sel&es fro7 the situation brought about by the deficiencies of the old order, unless they act in strict confor7ity therewith' + cannot belie&e that any people can be so stifled and enchained' +n any e&ent, + consider it a 1od,gi&en attribute of the people to disengage the7sel&es, if necessary, fro7 any co&enant that would obstruct their taBing what subse0uently appears to the7 to be the better road to the pro7otion and protection of their welfare' And once they ha&e 7ade their decision in that respect, whether sophisticatedly or crudely, whether in legal for7 or otherwise, certainly, there can be no court or power on earth that can re&erse the7' + would not be hu7an if + should be insensiti&e to the passionate and elo0uent appeals of %ounsels Ta>ada and Salonga that these cases be decided on the basis of conscience' That is e9actly what + a7 doing' $ut if counsel 7ean that only by granting their petitions can this %ourt be worthily the bulwarB of the peopleDs faith in the go&ern7ent, + cannot agree, albeit 7y ad7iration and respect are all theirs for their ?eal and tenacity, their industry and wisdo7, their patriotis7 and de&otion to principle' Aerily, they ha&e brought out e&erything in the <ilipino that these cases de7and' +n ti7es of national e7ergencies and crises, not arising fro7 foreign in&asion, we need not fear playing opposite roles, as long as we are all ani7ated by sincere lo&e of country and ai7 e9clusi&ely at the attain7ent of the national destiny' (ur heroes of the past, Ri?al, $onifacio, Aguinaldo, Antonio )una, !abini and so also with our patriots of the recent generations, Iue?on, (s7e>a, Ro9as, )aurel and Recto, to 7ention only so7e of the7, had their differences of &iews E and they did not hesitate to taBe dia7etrically opposing sides E that e&en reached tragic proportions, but all of the7 are ad7ired and &enerated' +t is 7y faith that to act with absolute loyalty to our country and people is 7ore i7portant than loyalty to any particular precept or pro&ision of the %onstitution or to the %onstitution itself' !y oath to abide by the %onstitution binds 7e to whate&er course of action + feel sincerely is de7anded by the welfare and best interests of the people' +n this 7o7entous =uncture of our history, what is i7perati&e is national unity' !ay 1od grant that the contro&ersies the e&ents leading to these cases ha&e entail will heal after the decision herein is pro7ulgated, so that all us <ilipinos 7ay fore&er =oin hands in the pursuit of our national destiny' +# A+"W (< A)) TC" <(R"1(+#1, + &ote to dis7iss these petitions for mandamus and prohibition without costs' MA,AS"AR, J., concurring8 Assu7ing, without conceding, that Article KA of the 123. %onstitution prescribes a procedure for the ratification of constitutional a7end7ents or of a new %onstitution and that such procedure was no co7plied with, the &alidity of residential rocla7ation #o' 1102 is a political, not a =usticiable, issue@ for it is inseparably or ine9tricably linB with and striBes at, because it is decisi&e of, the &alidity of ratification and adoption of, as well as ac0uiescence of people in, the 1273 %onstitution and the legiti7acy of the go&ern7ent organi?ed and operating thereunder' And being political, it is beyond the a7bit of =udicial in0uiry, tested by the definition of a political 0uestion enunciated inTaada, et. al. vs. +uenco, et al' -103 hil' 10.1/, aside fro7 the fact the this &iew will not do &iolence to rights &ested under the new %onstitution, to international co77it7ents forged pursuant thereto and to decisions rendered by the =udicial as well as 0uasi,=udicial tribunals organi?ed and functioning or whose =urisdiction has been altered by the 1273 %onstitution and the go&ern7ent established thereunder, and will dissipate any confusion in the 7inds of the citi?enry, who ha&e been obeying the 7andates of the new %onstitution, as well as e9ercising the rights and perfor7ing the obligations defined by the new %onstitution, and decrees and orders issued in i7ple7entation of the sa7e and cooperating with the ad7inistration in the reno&ation of our social, econo7ic and political syste7 as re,structured by the 1273 %onstitution and by the i7ple7enting decrees and orders -see !iller &s' 6ohnson, 14 SW .22, .22,.25, 1422/' +n 12.7, !r' %hief 6ustice Roberto %oncepcion, then Associate 6ustice, in behalf of the %ourt, defined a political 0uestion as one which, under the %onstitution, is ;to be decided by the people in their so&ereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority had been delegated to the )egislature or "9ecuti&e branch of the go&ern7ent'; -Ta>ada, et al' &s' %uenco, et al', supra/' Article KA of the 123. %onstitution pro&ides8 ;Such a7end7ents shall be &alid as part of this %onstitution when appro&ed by a

7a=ority of the &otes cast at an election at which the a7end7ents are sub7itted to the people for ratification'; *nder Article KA of the 123. %onstitution, the power to propose constitutional a7end7ents is &ested in %ongress or in a constitutional con&ention@ while the power to ratify or re=ect such proposed a7end7ents or new %onstitution is reser&ed by the so&ereign people' The nullification of rocla7ation #o' 1102 would ine&itably render inoperati&e the 1273 %onstitution, which is in fact the e9press prayer of the petitioners in 1'R' #o' ),35153' Regardless of the 7odality of sub7ission or ratification or adoption E e&en if it de&iates fro7 or &iolates the procedure delineated therefore by the old %onstitution E once the new %onstitution is ratified, adopted andJor ac0uiesced in by the people or ratified e&en by a body or agency not duly authori?ed therefor but is subse0uently adopted or recogni?ed by the people and by the other official organs and functionaries of the go&ern7ent established under such a new %onstitution, this %ourt is precluded fro7 in0uiring into the &alidity of such ratification, adoption or ac0uiescence and of the conse0uent effecti&ity of the new %onstitution' This is as it should be in a de7ocracy, for the people are the repository of all so&ereign powers as well as the source of all go&ern7ental authority - ole &s' 1ray, 103 S( 2nd 431 F12.4G/' This basic de7ocratic concept is e9pressly restated in Section 1 of Article ++ of the :eclaration of rinciples of the 123. and 1273 %onstitutions, thus8 ;So&ereignty resides in the people and all go&ern7ent authority e7anates fro7 the7'; The legality of the sub7ission is no longer rele&ant@ because the ratification, adoption andJor ac0uiescence by the people cures any infir7ity in its sub7ission or any other irregularities therein which are dee7ed 7andatory before sub7ission as they are considered 7erely directory after such ratification or adoption or ac0uiescence by the people' As !r' 6ustice $rewer, then of the Nansas State Supre7e %ourt and later Associate 6ustice of the <ederal Supre7e %ourt, stated in re rohibitory A7end7ent %ases -23 Nansas 700 P 710 Reprint 322, .05/8 ; T)e t,o important, vital elements of t)e Legislature and a ma6orit" of t)e popular vote. %e"ond t)ese, ot)er provisions are mere mac)ineries and forms. T)e" ma" not *e disregarded, *ecause *" t)em certaint" as to t)e essentials is secured. %ut t)e" are not t)emselves t)e essentials '; -%ited in )arBen &s' 1ronna, 24. #W .2, 51,53, 1232/' This was the ruling by the A7erican Supre7e %ourt in the 1232 case of +oleman vs. Miller -307 *'S' 333, 43 )'ed' 134./, where %hief 6ustice Cughes, speaBing for the 7a=ority, stated that8 ''' Thus the political depart7ents of the go&ern7ent dealt with the effect of both pre&ious re=ection and atte7pted withdrawal and deter7ined that both were ineffectual in the presence of an actual ratification ''' ' This decision by the political depart7ents of the 1o&ern7ent as to the &alidity of the adoption of the <ourteenth a7end7ent has been accepted' We thinB that in accordance with this historic precedent the 0uestion of the efficacy of ratifications by state legislatures, in the light of pre&ious re=ection or atte7pted withdrawal, should be regarded as a political 0uestion pertaining to the political depart7ents, with the ulti7ate authority in the %ongress in the e9ercise of its control o&er the pro7ulgation of the adoption of the a7end7ent' This &iew was liBewise e7phasi?ed by !r' 6ustice $lacB in his concurring opinion, in which !r' 6ustices Roberts, <ranBfurter, and :ouglas =oin, thus8 The %onstitution grants %ongress e9clusi&e power to control sub7ission of constitutional a7end7ents' <inal deter7ination by %ongress that ratification by three,fourths of the States has taBen place ;is conclusi&e upon the courts'; +n the e9ercise of that power, %ongress, of course, is go&erned by the %onstitution' Cowe&er, whether sub7ission, inter&ening procedure or %ongressional deter7ination of ratification confor7s to the co77ands of the %onstitution, calls for decisions by a ;political depart7ent; of 0uestions of a type which this %ourt has fre0uently designated ;political'; And decision of a ;political 0uestion; by the ;political depart7ent; to which the %onstitution has co77itted it ;conclusi&ely binds the =udges, as well as all other officers, citi?ens and sub=ects of'''go&ern7ent'; rocla7ation under authority of %ongress that an a7end7ent has been ratified will carry with it a sole7n assurance by the %ongress that ratification has taBen place as the %onstitution co77ands' *pon this assurance a proclai7ed a7end7ent 7ust be accepted as a part of the %onstitution, lea&ing to the =udiciary its traditional authority of interpretation' To the e9tent that the %ourtDs opinion in the present case e&en i7pliedly assu7es a power to 7aBe =udicial interpretation of the e9clusi&e constitutional authority of %ongress o&er sub7ission and ratification of a7end7ents, we are unable to agree''' -A7erican %onstitutional +ssues, by ritchett, 1252 "d', p' 33/' The doctrine in the aforesaid case of %ole7an &s' !iller was adopted by (ur Supre7e %ourt in toto in Ma*anag vs. Lopez Vito -74 hil' 1/' The ruling in the cases of Gonzales vs. +omelec, et al' -),24223, #o&' 22, 1257, 21 S%RA 773/ and Tolentino vs. +omelec, et al' -),331.0, (ct' 15, 1271, 31 S%RA 702/ on which petitioners place great reliance E that the courts 7ay re&iew the propriety of a sub7ission of a proposed constitutional a7end7ent *efore t)e ratification or adoption of suc) proposed amendment *" t)e sovereign people, hardly applies to the cases at bar@ because the issue in&ol&ed in the aforesaid cases refers to only the propriety of the sub7ission of a proposed constitutional a7end7ent to the people for ratification, unliBe the present petitions, which challenge ine&itably the &alidity of the 1273 %onstitution after its ratification or adoption thru ac0uiescence by the so&ereign people' As heretofore stated, it is specious and pure sophistry to ad&ance the reasoning that the present petitions pray only for the nullification of the 1273 %onstitution and the go&ern7ent operating thereunder'

+t should be stressed that e&en in the 1on?ales case, supra, We held that8 +ndeed, the power to a7end the %onstitution or to propose a7end7ents thereto is not included in the general grant of legislati&e powers to %ongress' +t is part of the inherent powers of the people E as the repository of so&ereignty in a republican state, such as ours E to 7aBe, and hence, to a7end their own <unda7ental )aw' %ongress 7ay propose a7end7ents to the sa7e e9plicitly grants such power' Cence, when e9ercising the sa7e, it is said that Senators and !e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es act, not as 7e7bers, but as co7ponent ele7ents of a constituent assem*l"' When acting as such, the 7e7bers of +ongress deri&e their authority fro7 the %onstitution, unli#e t)e people, when perfor7ing the sa7e function, for their authority does not e7anate fro7 the %onstitution E they are t)e ver" source of all powers of go&ern7ent, including t)e +onstitution itself' -21 S%RA 747/ We did not categorically and entirely o&erturn the doctrine in Ma*anag vs. Lopez Vito -74 hil' 1/ that both the proposal to a7end and the ratification of such a constitutional a7end7ent are political in nature for7ing as they do the essential parts of one political sche7e E the a7ending process' W" 7erely stated therein that the force of the ruling in the said case of Ma*anag vs. Lopez Vito has been weaBened by subse0uent cases' Thus, We pronounced therein8 +t is true that in !abanag &s' )ope? Aito, this %ourt characteri?ing the issue sub7itted thereto as a political one, declined to pass upon the 0uestion whether or not a gi&en nu7ber of &otes cast in %ongress in fa&or of a proposed a7end7ent to the %onstitution E which was being sub7itted to the people for ratification E satisfied the three fourths &ote re0uire7ent of the funda7ental law' The force of this precedent has been weaBened, howe&er, by Suanes &s' %hief Accountant of the Senate, A&elino &s' %uenco, Ta>ada &s' %uenco and !acias &s' %o77ission on "lections' +n the first, we held the officers and e7ployees of the Senate "lectoral Tribunal are super&ision and control, not of that of the Senate resident, clai7ed by the latter@ in the second, this %ourt proceeded to deter7ine the nu7ber of Senators necessary for a 9uoru7 in the Senate@ in the third we nullified the election, by Senators belonging to the party ha&ing the largest nu7ber of &otes in said cha7ber purporting to act on behalf of the party ha&ing the second largest nu7ber of &otes therein, of two -2/ Senators belonging to the first party, as 7e7bers, for the second party, of the Senate "lectoral Tribunal@ and in the fourth, we declared unconstitutional an act of %ongress purporting to apportion the representati&e districts for the Couse of Representati&es, upon the ground that the apportion7ent had not been 7ade as 7ay be possible according to the nu7ber of inhabitants of each pro&ince' Thus we re=ected the theory ad&anced in these four -3/ cases, that the issues therein raised were political 0uestions the deter7ination of which is beyond =udicial re&iew' -21 S%RA pp' 74.,745/@ for which reason We concluded +n short, the issue whether or not a resolution of %ongress before acting as a constituent asse7bly E &iolates the %onstitution is essentially =usticiable, not political, and, hence, sub=ect to =udicial re&iew, and to t)e e!tent t)at t)is vie, ma" *e inconsistent ,it) t)e stand ta#en in Ma*anag vs. Lopez Vito, t)e latter s)ould *e deemed modified accordingl" ' -p' 747, e7phasis supplied'/ +n the Tolentino case, supra, We reiterated the foregoing state7ents -31 S%RA 703,713/' The ine&itable conse0uence therefore is that the &alidity of the ratification or adoption of or ac0uiescence by the people in the 1273 %onstitution, re7ains a political issue re7o&ed fro7 the =urisdiction of this %ourt to re&iew' (ne 7ore word about the 1on?ales and Tolentino cases' $oth pri7arily stressed on the i7propriety of the sub7ission of a proposed constitutional a7end7ent' %ourts do not deal with propriety or wisdo7 or absence of either of an official act or of a law' 6udicial power concerns only with the legality or illegality, constitutionality or unconstitutionality of an act8 it in0uires into the e9istence of power or lacB of it' 6udicial wisdo7 is not to be pitted against the wisdo7 of the political depart7ent of the go&ern7ent' The classic e9a7ple of an illegal sub7ission that did not i7pair the &alidity of the ratification or adoption of a new %onstitution is the case of the <ederal %onstitution of the *nited States' +t should be recalled that the thirteen -13/ original states of the A7erican *nion E which succeeded in liberating the7sel&es fro7 "ngland after the re&olution which began on April 12, 177. with the sBir7ish at )e9ington, !assachusetts and ended with the surrender of 1eneral %ornwallis at LorBtown, Airginia, on (ctober 12, 1741-"ncyclopedia $rit', Aol' +, 1233 "d', p' 775/ E adopted their Articles of %onfederation and erpetual *nion, that was written fro7 1775 to 1777 and ratified on !arch 1, 1741 -"ncyclopedia $rit', Aol' ++, 1255 "d', p' .2./' About si9 thereafter, the %ongress of the %onfederation passed a resolution on <ebruary 21, 1747 calling for a <ederal %onstitutional %on&ention ?for t)e sole and e!press purpose of revising t)e articles of confederation ''' '; -Appendi9 +, <ederalist, !odern )ibrary ed', p' .77, e7phasis supplied/' The %on&ention con&ened at hiladelphia on !ay 13, 1747' Article K+++ of the Articles of %onfederation and erpetual *nion stated specifically8 The articles of this confederation shall be in&iolably obser&ed in e&ery state, and the union shall be perpetual@ nor s)all an" alterations at an" time )ereafter *e made in an" of t)em> unless suc) alteration

*e agreed to in a congress of t)e united states, and *e after,ards confirmed *" t)e legislatures of ever" state' -See the <ederalist, Appendi9 ++, !odern )ibrary "d', 1237, p' .43@ e7phasis supplied'/ $ut the foregoing re0uire7ents prescribed by the Articles of %onfederation and erpetual *nion for the alteration for the ratification of the <ederal %onstitution as drafted by the hiladelphia %on&ention were not followed' <earful the said <ederal %onstitution would not be ratified by the legislatures as prescribed, the hiladelphia %on&ention adopted a resolution re0uesting the %ongress of the %onfederation to pass a resolution pro&iding that the %onstitution should be sub7itted to elected state con&entions and if ratified by the con&entions in nine -2/ states, not necessarily in all thirteen -13/ states, the said %onstitution shall taBe effect' Thus, history rofessor "dward "arle !ead of rinceton *ni&ersity recorded that8 +t would ha&e been a counsel of perfection to consign the new constitution to the tender 7ercies of the legislatures of each and all of the 13 states' "9perience clearly indicated that ratification then would ha&e had the sa7e chance as the scriptural ca7el passing through the eye of a needle' <t ,as t)erefore determined to recommend to +ongress t)at t)e ne, +onstitution *e su*mitted to conventions in t)e several states especiall" elected to pass upon it and t)at, furt)ermore, t)e ne, government s)ould go into effect if and ,)en it s)ould *e ratified *" nine of t)e t)irteen states ''' ' -The <ederalist, !odern )ibrary "d', 1237, +ntroduction by "dward "arle !ead, pp' &iii,i9@ e7phasis supplied/ Cistorian Sa7uel "liot !orison si7ilarly recounted8 The %on&ention, anticipating that the influence of 7any state politicians would be Antifederalist, pro&ided for ratification of the %onstitution by popularly elected con&entions in each state' Suspecting that Rhode +sland, at least, would pro&e recalcitrant, it declared that the %onstitution would go into effect as soon as nine states ratified' The con&ention 7ethod had the further ad&antage that =udges, 7inisters, and others ineligible to state legislatures, could be elected to a con&ention' The nine,state pro&ision was, of course, 7ildly re&olutionary' $ut the %ongress of the %onfederation, still sitting in #ew LorB to carry on federal go&ern7ent until relie&ed, for7ally sub7itted the new constitution to the states and politely faded out before the first presidential inauguration' -The (9ford Cistory of the A7' eople, by Sa7uel "liot !orison, 125. ed', p' 312/' And so the A7erican %onstitution was ratified by nine -2/ states on 6une 21, 1744 and by the last four states on !ay 22, 1720 -12 %'6' p' 572 footnote, 15 %'6'S', 27' E by the state con&entions and not by all thirteen -13/ state legislatures as re0uired by Article K+++ of the Articles of %onfederation and erpetual *nion afore0uoted D and in spite of the fact that the <ederal %onstitution as originally adopted suffers fro7 two basic infir7ities, na7ely, t)e a*sence of a *ill of Rig)ts and of a provision affirming t)e po,er of 6udicial revie,' The liberties of the A7erican people were guaranteed by subse0uent a7end7ents to the <ederal %onstitution' The doctrine of =udicial re&iew has beco7e part of A7erican constitutional law only by &irtue of a =udicial pronounce7ent by %hief 6ustice !arshall in the case of Mar*ur" vs. Madison -1403, 1 %ranch 137/' *ntil this date, no challenge has been launched against the &alidity of the ratification of the A7erican %onstitution, nor against the legiti7acy of the go&ern7ent organi?ed and functioning thereunder' +n the 1235 case of /)eeler vs. %oard of Trustees -37 S" 2nd 322, 325,330/, which enunciated the principle that the &alidity of a new or re&ised %onstitution does not depend on the 7ethod of its sub7ission or ratification by the people, but on t)e fact or fiat or approval or adoption or ac9uiescence *" t)e people ,)ic) fact of ratification or adoption or ac9uiescence is all t)at is essential, the %ourt cited precisely the case of the irregular re&ision and ratification by state con&entions of the <ederal %onstitution, thus8 #o case identical in its facts with the case now under consideration has been called to our attention, and we ha&e found none' /e t)in# t)at t)e principle ,)ic) ,e appl" in t)e instant case ,as ver" clearl" applied in t)e creation of t)e constitution of t)e @nited States. T)e convention created *" a resolution of +ongress )ad aut)orit" to do one t)ing, and one onl", to ,it, amend t)e articles of confederation. T)is t)e" did not do, *ut su*mitted to t)e sovereign po,er, t)e people, a ne, constitution. <n t)is manner ,as t)e constitution of t)e @nited States su*mitted to t)e people and it *ecame operative as t)e organic la, of t)is nation ,)en it )ad *een properl" adopted *" t)e people ' o7eroyDs %onstitutional )aw, p' .., discussing the con&ention that for7ulated the constitution of the *nited States, has this to say8 ;T)e convention proceeded to do, and did accomplis), ,)at t)e" ,ere not aut)orized to do *" a resolution of +ongress t)at called t)em toget)er. T)at resolution plainl" contemplated amendments to t)e articles of confederation, to *e su*mitted to and passed *" t)e +ongress, and after,ards ratified *" all t)e State legislatures, in t)e manner pointed out *" t)e e!isting organic la,. %ut t)e convention soon *ecame convinced t)at an" amendments ,ere po,erless to effect a cure> t)at t)e disease ,as too deepl" seated to *e reac)ed suc) tentative means. T)e" sa, t)at t)e s"stem t)e" ,ere called to improve must *e totall" a*andoned, and t)at t)e national idea must *e re1 esta*lis)ed at t)e center of t)eir political societ"' +t was ob=ected by so7e 7e7bers, that they had no

power, no authority, to construct a new go&ern7ent' They had no authority, if their decisions were to be final@ and no authority whatsoe&er, under the articles of confederation, to adopt the course they did' $ut they Bnew that their labors were only to be suggestions@ and that they as well as any pri&ate indi&iduals, and any pri&ate indi&iduals as well as they, had a right to propose a plan of go&ern7ent to the people for their adoption' They were, in fact, a 7ere asse7blage of pri&ate citi?ens, and their worB had no 7ore binding sanction than a constitution drafted by !r' Ca7ilton in his office would ha&e had' The people, by their e9pressed will, transfor7ed this suggestion, this proposal, into an organic law, and the people 7ight ha&e done the sa7e with a constitution sub7itted to the7 by a single citi?en'; 999 999 999 ''' /)en t)e people adopt a completel" revised or ne, constitution, t)e framing or su*mission of t)e instrument is not ,)at gives it *inding force and effect. T)e fiat of t)e people and onl" t)e fiat of t)e people, can *reat)e life into a constitution ' 999 999 999 ''' /e do not )esitate to sa" t)at a court is never 6ustified in placing *" implication a limitation upon t)e sovereign. T)is ,ould *e an aut)orized e!ercise of sovereign po,er *" t)e court ' +n State v. S,ift, 52 +nd' .0., .12, the +ndiana Supre7e %ourt said8 ;The people of a State 7ay for7 an original constitution, or abrogate an old one and for7 a new one, at any ti7e, without any political restriction e9cept the constitution of the *nited States@ ''' '; -37 S" 327,324, 322, e7phasis supplied'/ +n the 1203 case of /eston vs. R"an, the %ourt held8 +t re7ains to be said that if we felt at liberty to pass upon this 0uestion, and were co7pelled to hold that the act of <ebruary 23, 1447, is unconstitutional and &oid, it would not, in our opinion, by any 7eans follow that the a7end7ent is not a part of our state %onstitution' +n the recent case of Ta"lor vs. +ommon,ealt) -Aa'/ 33 S'"' 7.3, t)e Supreme +ourt of Virginia )old t)at t)eir state +onstitution of 4;78, )aving *een ac#no,ledged and accepted *" t)e officers administering t)e state government, and *" t)e people, and *eing in force ,it)out opposition, must *e regarded as an e!isting +onstitution irrespective of t)e 9uestion as to ,)et)er or not t)e convention ,)ic) promulgated it )ad aut)orit" so to do ,it)out su*mitting it to a vote of t)e people' +n %rittle v. $eople, 2 #eb' 124, is a si7ilar holding as to certain pro&isions of the #ebrasBa %onstitution of 1445, which were added by the )egislature at the re0uire7ent of %ongress, though ne&er sub7itted to the people for their appro&al'; -27 #W 332,3.0@ e7phasis supplied/' Against the decision in the Wheeler case, supra, confir7ing the &alidity of the ratification and adoption of the A7erican %onstitution, in spite of the fact that such ratification was in clear &iolation of the prescription on alteration and ratification of the Articles of %onfederation and erpetual *nion, petitioners in 1'R' #o' ),3515. dis7issed this 7ost significant historical fact by calling the <ederal %onstitution of the *nited States as a re&olutionary one, in&oBing the opinion e9pressed in Aol' 15, %orpus 6uris Secundu7, p' 27, that it was a re&olutionary constitution because it did not obey the re0uire7ent that the Articles of %onfederation and erpetual *nion can be a7ended only with the consent of all thirteen -13/ state legislatures' This opinion does not cite any decided case, but 7erely refers to the footnotes on the brief historic account of the *nited States %onstitution on p' 572 of Aol' 12, %6S' etitioners, on p' 14 of their 7ain #otes, refer *S to pp' 270,315 of the !ford Aistor" of t)e American $eople, 125. "d' by Sa7uel "liot !orison, who discusses the Articles of %onfederation and erpetual *nion in %hapter KA+++ captioned ;Re&olutionary %onstitution !aBing, 177. 1741; -pp' 270,241/' +n %hapter KK on ;The %reati&e eriod in olitics, 174.,1744,; rofessor !orison delineates the genesis of the <ederal %onstitution, but does not refer to it e&en i7plicitly as re&olutionary constitution -pp' 227,315/' Cowe&er, the <ederal %onstitution 7ay be considered re&olutionary fro7 the &iew point of !c+&er if the ter7 revolution is understood in ;its wider sense to e7brace decisi&e changes in the character of go&ern7ent, e&en though they do not in&ol&e the &iolent o&erthrow of an established order, ''' '; -R'!' !ac+&er, The Web of 1o&ern7ent, 125. ed', p' 203/' +t is rather ridiculous to refer to the A7erican %onstitution as a re&olutionary constitution' The Articles of %onfederation and erpetual *nion that was in force fro7 6uly 12, 1775 to 1744, forged as it was during the war of independence was a re&olutionary constitution of the thirteen -13/ states' +n the e9isting <ederal %onstitution of the *nited States which was adopted se&en -7/ or nine -2/ years after the thirteen -13/ states won their independence and long after popular support for the go&ern7ent of the %onfederation had stabili?ed was not a product of a re&olution' The <ederal %onstitution was a ;creation of the brain and purpose of 7an; in an era of peace' +t can only be considered re&olutionary in the sense that it is a radical departure fro7 its predecessor, the Articles of %onfederation and erpetual *nion' +t is e0ually absurd to affir7 that the present <ederal %onstitution of the *nited States is not the successor to the Articles of %onfederation and erpetual *nion' The fallacy of the state7ent is so ob&ious that no further refutation is needed' As heretofore stated, the issue as to the &alidity of rocla7ation #o' 1102 striBes at the &alidity and enforceability of the 1273 %onstitution and of the go&ern7ent established and operating thereunder' etitioners pray for a declaration that the 1273 %onstitution is inoperati&e -),35153/' +f rocla7ation #o' 1102 is nullified, then there is no &alid ratification of the 1273 %onstitution and the ine&itable conclusion is that the go&ern7ent organi?ed and functioning thereunder is not a legiti7ate

go&ern7ent' That the issue of the legiti7acy of a go&ern7ent is liBewise political and not =usticiable, had long been decided as early as the 1432 case of Lut)er vs. %orden -7 Cow' 1, 12 )'ed', .41/, affir7ed in the 1200 case of Ta"lor vs. %ec#)am -174 *'S' .34, 33 )'ed' 1147/ and re,enunciated in 1212 in the case of $acific States Telep)one and Telegrap) +ompan" vs. regon -223 *'S' 114, 133,1.1, .5 )'ed' 377,345/' $ecause it reaffir7ed the pronounce7ents in both $orden and $ecBha7 cases, it is sufficient for us to 0uote the decision in acific States Telephone and Telegraph %o', supra, penned by !r' %hief 6ustice White, who re, stated8 +n &iew of the i7portance of the sub=ect, the apparent 7isapprehension on one side and see7ing 7isconception on the other, suggested by the argu7ent as to the full significance of the pre&ious doctrine, we do not content oursel&es with a 7ere citation of the cases, but state more at lengt) t)an ,e ot)er,ise ,ould t)e issues and t)e doctrine e!pounded in t)e leading and a*solutel" controlling case E Lut)er v. %orden, E Ao,. 4, 48 L.ed. 5G4. 999 999 999 ''' (n this sub=ect it was said -p' 34/8 ;=or if t)is court is aut)orized to enter upon this in0uiry, proposed by the plaintiff, and it should be decided that the character go&ern7ent had no legal e9istence during the period of ti7e abo&e 7entioned, E if it had been annulled by the adoption of the opposing go&ern7ent, E t)en t)e la,s passed *" its legislature during t)at time ,ere nullities> its ta!es ,rongfull" collected, its salaries and compensations to its officers illegall" paid > its pu*lic accounts improperl" settled and t)e 6udgments and sentences of its courts in civil and criminal cases null and void, and t)e officers ,)o carried t)eir decisions into operation ans,era*le as trespassers, if not in some cases as criminals '; 999 999 999 ;The fourth section of the fourth article of the %onstitution of the *nited States shall guarantee to e&ery state in the *nion a republican for7 of go&ern7ent, and shall protect each of the7 against in&asion@ and on the application of the )egislature or of the "9ecuti&e -when the legislature cannot be con&ened/ against do7estic &iolence' ;*nder this article of the %onstitution it rests with %ongress to decide what go&ern7ent is established one in a state' <or, as the *nited State guarantee to each state a republican go&ern7ent, +ongress must necessaril" decide ,)at government is esta*lis)ed in t)e state *efore it can determine ,)et)er it is repu*lican or not. And ,)en t)e senators and representatives of a state are admitted into t)e +ouncils of t)e @nion, t)e aut)orit" of t)e government under ,)ic) t)e" ,ere appointed, as ,ell as its repu*lican c)aracter, is recognized *" t)e proper constitutional aut)orit". And its decision is *inding on ever" ot)er department of t)e government, and could not *e 9uestioned in a 6udicial tri*unal ' +t is true that the contest in this case did not last long enough to bring the 7atter to this issue@ and as no senators or representati&es were elected under the authority of the go&ern7ent of which !r' :orr was the head, %ongress was not called upon to decide the contro&ersy' Fet t)e rig)t to decide is placed t)ere and not in t)e courts'; 999 999 999 ''' We do not stop to cite other cases which indirectly or incidentally refer to the sub=ect, but conclude by directing attention to the state7ent by the court, speaBing through !r' %hief 6ustice <uller, in Taylor &s' $ecBha7, 174 *'S' .34, 33 )'ed' 1147, 20 Sup' %t' Rep' 420, 1002, where, after disposing of a contention 7ade concerning the 13th A7end7ent, and co7ing to consider a proposition which was necessary to be decided concerning the nature and effect of the guaranty of S 3 of article 3, it was said -p' .74/8 ;$ut it is said that the 13th A7end7ent 7ust be read with S 3 of article 3, of the %onstitution, pro&iding that the *nited States shall guarantee to e&ery state in this *nion a republican for7 of go&ern7ent, and shall protect each of the7 against in&asion@ and on application of the legislature, or the "9ecuti&e -when the legislature cannot be con&ened/, against do7estic &iolence'; 999 999 999 ;<t ,as long ago settled t)at t)e enforcement of t)is guarant" *elonged to t)e political department. Lut)er v. %orden, 7 Cow' 1, 12 )'ed' .41' +n that case it was held that the 0uestion, which of the two opposing go&ern7ents of Rhode +sland, na7ely, the charter go&ern7ent or the go&ern7ent established by a &oluntary con&ention, was the legiti7ate one, was a 0uestion for the deter7ination of the political depart7ent@ and when that depart7ent had decided, the courts were bound to taBe notice of the decision

and follow it'; 999 999 999 As t)e issues presented, in their &ery essence, are, and )ave long since *" t)is +ourt *een, definitel" determined to *e political and governmental, and e7braced within the scope of the scope of the powers conferred upon %ongress, and not, t)erefore ,it)in t)e reac) of 6udicial po,er, it follo,s t)at t)e case presented is not ,it)in our 6urisdiction , and the writ of error 7ust therefore be, and it is, dis7issed for want of =urisdiction' -223 *'S' pp' 132,1.1@ e7phasis supplied/' "&en a constitutional a7end7ent that is only pro7ulgated by the %onstitutional %on&ention without authority therefor and without sub7itting the sa7e to the people for ratification, beco7es &alid, when recogni?ed, accepted and acted upon the by %hief of State and other go&ern7ent functionaries, as well as by the people' +n the 1203 case of Ta"lor vs. +ommon,ealt) -33 S" 7.3, 7../, the %ourt ruled8 The sole ground urged in support of the contention that %onstitution proclai7ed in 1202 is in&alid is that it was ordained and pro7ulgated by the con&ention without being sub7itted for ratification or re=ection by the people of the co77onwealth' The %onstitution of 1202 was ordained and proclai7ed by con&ention duly called by direct &ote of the people of the state to re&ise and a7end the %onstitution of 1452' The result of the worB that the con&ention has been recogni?ed, accepted, and acted upon as the only &alid %onstitution of the state by the 1o&ernor in swearing fidelity to it and proclai7ing it, as directed thereby@ by the )egislature in its for7al official act adopting a =oint resolution, 6uly 1., 1202, recogni?ing the %onstitution ordained by the con&ention which asse7bled in the city of Rich7ond on the 12th day of 6une 1201, as the %onstitution of Airginia@ by the indi&idual oaths of 7e7bers to support it, and by its ha&ing been engaged for nearly a year in legislating under it and putting its pro&isions into operation but the =udiciary in taBing the oath prescribed thereby to support and by enforcing its pro&isions@ and by the people in their pri7ary capacity by peacefully accepting it and ac0uiescing in it, registering as &oters under it to the e9tent of thousands through the state, and by &oting, under its pro&isions, at a general election for their representati&es in the %ongress of the *nited States' -p' 7../' The %ourt in the Taylor case abo&e,7entioned further said8 While constitutional procedure for adoption or proposal to a7end the constitution 7ust be duly followed, without o7itting any re0uisite steps, courts should uphold a7end7ent, unless satisfied that the %onstitution was &iolated in sub7itting the proposal' ''' Su*stance more t)an form must *e regarded in considering ,)et)er t)e complete constitutional s"stem for su*mitting t)e proposal to amend t)e constitution ,as o*served' +n the 122. case of Ta"lor vs. .ing -130 A 307, 304 310/, the %ourt stated8 There 7ay be technical error in the 7anner in which a proposed a7end7ent is adopted, or in its ad&ertise7ent, yet, if followed, unob=ected to, by appro&al of the electors, it beco7es part of the %onstitution' )egal co7plaints to the sub7ission 7ay be 7ade prior to taBing the &ote, but, if once sanctioned, the a7end7ent is e7bodied therein, and cannot be attacBed, either directly or collaterally, because of any 7istaBe antecedent thereto' "&en though it be sub7itted at an i7proper ti7e, it is effecti&e for all purposes when accepted by the 7a=ority' Armstrong v. .ing, 241 a' 207, 125 A' 253' -130 A 302/' "&en if the act of the %onstitutional %on&ention is beyond its authority, such act beco7es &alid upon ratification or adoption or ac0uiescence by the people' Thus, in the 120. case of &! parte $ir7ingha7 and A'R' %o7pany -32 S( pp' 114 P 123/, the Alaba7a Supre7e %ourt upheld this principle and stated that8 ;The authorities are al7ost unifor7 that this ratification of an unauthori?ed act by the people -and the people are the principal in this instance/ renders the act &alid and binding'; +t has liBewise been held that it is not necessar" t)at voters ratif"ing t)e ne, +onstitution are registered in t)e *oo# of voters> it is enoug) t)at t)e" are electors voting on t)e ne, +onstitution ' -$ott &s' Wurts, 30 A 730 F1422G@ 3. )RA 2.1, e7phasis supplied/' +n the 12.5 case of T)omson vs. $eoples State %an# -7. #W 2nd 370, 37./, the Supre7e %ourt of Wisconsin ruled that ;irregularity in the procedure for the sub7ission of the proposed constitutional a7end7ent will not defeat the ratification by the people'; Again, in the 12.4 case of S,aim vs. Tuscaloosa +ount" -103 S( 2nd 752/, the Alaba7a Supre7e %ourt pronounced that ;the irregularity in failing to publish the proposed constitutional a7end7ent once in each of the 3 calendar weeBs ne9t preceding the calendar weeB in which the election was held or once in each of the 7,day periods i77ediately preceding the day of the election as re0uired by the %onstitution, did not in&alidate the a7end7ent which was ratified by the people'; The sa7e principle was reiterated in 1251 by the Mississippi Supreme +ourt in %arnes, et al. v. Ladner -131/ S( 2nd 3. 352/,

where they ad7itted irregularities or illegalities co77itted in the procedure for sub7ission of the proposed constitutional a7end7ent to the people for ratification consisted of8 ;-a/ the alleged failure of the county election co77issioners of the se&eral counties to pro&ide a sufficient nu7ber of ballot bo9es Dsecured by good and substantial locBs,D as pro&ided by Section 3232, %ode of 1232, Rec', to be used in the holding of the special election on the constitutional a7end7ent, and -b/ the alleged failure of the State "lection %o77issioners to co7ply with the re0uire7ents of %ode Sections 3203 and 320. in the appoint7ent of election co77issioners in each of the 42 counties' T)e irregularities complained of, even if proved, ,ere not suc) irregularities ,ould )ave invalidated t)e election'; -"7phasis supplied@ see also Syl&ester &s' Tindall, 4 S( 2nd 422@ 1.3 <la' 553/' "&en prior to the election in #o&e7ber, 1270 of delegates of the %onstitutional %on&ention and during the deliberations of the %onstitutional %on&ention fro7 6une 1, 1271 until 7artial law was proclai7ed on Sept' 21, 1272, the salient refor7s contained in the 1273 %onstitution which ha&e long been desired by the people, had been thoroughly discussed in the &arious co77ittees of the %onstitutional %on&ention, on the floor of the %on&ention itself, in ci&ic foru7s and in all the 7edia of infor7ation' !any of the decrees pro7ulgated by the %hief "9ecuti&e fro7 Sept' 22, 1272 to 6an' 17, 1273 i7ple7ent so7e of the refor7s and had been ratified in Sec' 3-2/ of Article KA++ of the 1273 %onstitution' etitioners cannot safely state that during 7artial law the 7a=ority of the people cannot freely &ote for these refor7s and are not co7plying with the i7ple7enting decrees pro7ulgated by the resident' <ree election is not ine&itably inco7patible with 7artial law' We had free elections in 12.1 and 1271 when the opposition won si9 out of eight senatorial seats despite the suspension of the pri&ileges of the writ of )a*eas corpus -see )ansang &s' 1arcia, et al', :ec' 13, 1271, 32 S%RA 334/, which suspension i7plies constraint on indi&idual freedo7 as the procla7ation of 7artial law' +n both situations, there is no total blacBout of hu7an rights and ci&il liberties' All the local go&ern7ents, do7inated either by #acionalistas or )iberals, as well as officials of the )egislati&e and "9ecuti&e branches of the go&ern7ent elected andJor appointed under the 123. %onstitution ha&e either recogni?ed or are now functioning under the 1273 %onstitution, aside fro7 the fact of its ratification by the so&ereign people through the %iti?ens Asse7blies' #inety,fi&e -2./ of a total of one hundred ten -110/ 7e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es including the SpeaBer and the SpeaBer ro Te7pore as well as about ele&en -11/ %ongress7en who belong to the )iberal arty and fifteen -1./ of a total of twenty,four -23/ senators including )iberal senators "dgar *' +larde and 6ohn (s7e>a opted to ser&e in the +nteri7 Asse7bly, according to the certification of the %o77ission on "lections dated <ebruary 12, 1273 -Anne9 Re=oinder,3 to %onsolidated Re=oinder of petitioners in ),3515./' (nly the fi&e -./ petitioners in ),3515. close their eyes to a fait accompli' All the other functionaries recogni?e the new go&ern7ent and are perfor7ing their duties and e9ercising their powers under the 1273 %onstitution, including the lower courts' The ci&il courts, 7ilitary tribunals and 0uasi,=udicial bodies created by presidential decrees ha&e decided so7e cri7inal, ci&il and ad7inistrati&e cases pursuant to such decrees' The foreign a7bassadors who were accredited to the Republic of the hilippines before 7artial law continue to ser&e as such in our country@ while two new a7bassadors ha&e been accepted by the hilippines after the ratification of the 1273 %onstitution on 6anuary 17, 1273' %opies of the 1273 %onstitution had been furnished the *nited #ations (rgani?ation and practically all the other countries with which the hilippines has diplo7atic relations' #o ad&erse reaction fro7 the *nited #ations or fro7 the foreign states has been 7anifested' (n the contrary, our per7anent delegate to the *nited #ations (rgani?ation and our diplo7atic representati&es abroad appointed before 7artial law continue to re7ain in their posts and are perfor7ing their functions as such under the 1273 %onstitution' "&en the %o77ission on "lections is now i7ple7enting the pro&isions of the 1273 %onstitution by re0uiring all election registrars to register 14,year olds and abo&e whether literates or not, who are 0ualified electors under the 1273 %onstitution -see pars' 1, A-c/, -d/, P -e/ of Anne9 A to #otes of respondents uyat and Roy in ),3515./' +n brief, it cannot be said that the people are ignoring the 1273 %onstitution and the go&ern7ent which is enforcing the sa7e for o&er 10 weeBs now With the petitioners herein, secessionists, rebels and sub&ersi&es as the only possible e9ceptions, the rest of the citi?enry are co7plying with decrees, orders and circulars issued by the incu7bent resident i7ple7enting the 1273 %onstitution' (f happy rele&ance on this point is the holding in Miller vs. Jo)nson 14 SW .228 +f a set of 7en, not selected by the people according to the for7s of law, were to for7ulate an instru7ent and declare it the constitution, it would undoubtedly be the duty of the courts declare its worB a nullity' This would be re&olution, and this the courts of the e9isting go&ern7ent 7ust resist until they are o&erturned by power, and a new go&ern7ent established' T)e convention, )o,ever, ,as t)e offspring of la,. T)e instrument ,)ic) ,e are as#ed to declare invalid as a constitution )as *een made and promulgated according to t)e forms of la,. <t is a matter of current )istor" t)at *ot) t)e e!ecutive and legislative *ranc)es of t)e government )ave recognized its validit" as a constitution , and are now daily doing so' +s the 0uestion, t)erefore, one of a 6udicial c)aracter- +t is our undoubted duty, if a statute be unconstitutional to so declare it@ also, if a pro&ision of the state constitution be in conflict with the federal constitution, to hold the for7er in&alid' $ut this is a &ery different case' <t ma" *e said, )o,ever, t)at, for ever" violation of or non1compliance ,it) t)e la,, t)ere s)ould *e a remed" in t)e courts. T)is is not, )o,ever, al,a"s t)e case. =or instance, t)e po,er of a court as to t)e acts of t)e ot)er departments of t)e government is not an a*solute one, *ut merel" to determine ,)et)er t)e" )ave #ept ,it)in constitutional limits, it is a dut" rat)er t)an a po,er, T)e 6udiciar" cannot compel a co1e9ual department to perform a dut"' +t is responsible to the people@ but if it does act, then, when the 0uestion is properly

presented, it is the duty of the court to say whether it has confor7ed to the organic law' /)ile t)e 6udiciar" s)ould protect t)e rig)ts of t)e people ,it) great care and 6ealous", *ecause t)is is its dut", and also *ecause, in times of great popular e!citement, it is usuall" t)eir last resort, "et it s)ould at t)e same time *e careful to overstep t)e proper *ounds of its po,er, as *eing per)aps e9uall" dangerous> and especiall" ,)ere suc) momentous results mig)t follo, as ,ould *e li#el" in t)is instance, if t)e po,er of t)e 6udiciar" permitted, and its dut" re9uired, t)e overt)ro, of t)e ,or# of t)e convention ' After the A7erican Re&olution the state of Rhode +sland retained its colonial character as its constitution, and no law e9isted pro&iding for the 7aBing of a new one' +n 1431 public 7eetings were held, resulting in the election of a con&ention to for7 a new one, E to be sub7itted to a popular &ote' The con&ention fra7ed one, sub7itted it to a &ote, and declared it adopted' "lections were held for state officers, who proceeded to organi?e a new go&ern7ent' The charter go&ern7ent did not ac0uiesce in these proceedings, and finally declared the state under 7artial law' +t called another con&ention, which in 1433 for7ed a new constitution' /)et)er t)e c)arter government, or t)e one esta*lis)ed *" t)e voluntar" convention, ,as t)e legitimate one, ,as uniforml" )eld *" t)e courts of t)e state not to *e a 6udicial, *ut a political 9uestion> and t)e political department )aving recognized t)e one, it ,as )eld to *e t)e dut" of t)e 6udiciar" to follo, its decision. T)e supreme court of t)e @nited States, in Lut)er v. %orden, E Ao,. 4, ,)ile not e!pressl" deciding t)e principle, as it )eld t)e federal court, "et in t)e argument approves it, and in su*stance sa"s t)at ,)ere t)e political department )as decided suc) a matter t)e 6udiciar" s)ould a*ide *" it' )et us illustrate the difficulty of a court deciding the 0uestion8 Suppose this court were to hold that the con&ention, when it reasse7bled, had no power to 7aBe any 7aterial a7end7ent, and that such as were 7ade are &oid by reason of the people ha&ing theretofore appro&ed the instru7ent' Then, ne9t, this court 7ust deter7ine what a7end7ents were 7aterial@ and we find the court, in effect, 7aBing a constitution' This would be arrogating so&ereignty to itself' erhaps the 7e7bers of the court 7ight differ as to what a7end7ents are 7aterial, and the result would be confusion and anarchy' (ne =udge 7ight say that all the a7end7ents, 7aterial and i77aterial, were &oid@ another, that the con&ention had then the i7plied power to correct palpable errors, and then the court 7ight differ as to what a7end7ents are 7aterial' +f the instru7ent as ratified by the people could not be corrected or altered at all, or if the court 7ust deter7ine what changes were 7aterial, then the instru7ent, as passed upon by the people or as fi9ed by the court would be lacBing a pro7ulgation by the con&ention@ and, if this be essential, then the 0uestion would arise, what constitution are we now li&ing under, and what is the organic law of the stateH A suggestion of these 7atters shows what endless confusion and har7 to the state 7ight and liBely would arise' <f, t)roug) error of opinion, t)e convention e!ceeded its po,er, and t)e people are dissatisfied, t)e" )ave ample remed", ,it)out t)e 6udiciar" *eing as#ed to overstep t)e proper limits of its po,er. T)e instrument provides for amendment and c)ange. <f a ,rong )as *een done, it can, in t)e proper ,a" in ,)ic) it s)ould *e remedied, is *" t)e people acting as a *od" politic ' +t is not a 0uestion of whether 7erely an a7end7ent to a constitution, 7ade without calling a con&ention, has been adopted, as re0uired by that constitution' +f it pro&ides how it is to be done, then, unless the 7anner be followed, the =udiciary, as the interpreter of that constitution, will declare the a7end7ent in&alid' .oe)ler v. Aill, 50 +owa, .33, 13 #'W' Rep' 734, and 1. #'W' Rep' 502@ State v. Tuff", 1 #e&' 321, 12 ac' Rep' 43.' %ut it is a case ,)ere a ne, constitution )as *een formed and promulgated according to t)e forms of la,. Great interests )ave alread" arisen under it> important rig)ts e!ist *" virtue of it> persons )ave *een convicted of t)e )ig)est crime #no,n to t)e la,, according to its provisions> t)e political po,er of t)e government )as in man" ,a"s recognized it> and, under suc) circumstances, it is our dut" to treat and regard it as a valid constitution, and no, t)e organic la, of our common,ealt) ' We need not consider the &alidity of the a7end7ents 7ade after the con&ention reasse7bled' +f the 7aBing of the7 was in e9cess of its powers, yet, as the entire instru7ent has been recogni?ed as &alid in the 7anner suggested, it would be e0ually an abuse of power by the =udiciary and &iolati&e of the rights of the people, E who can and properly should re7edy the 7atter, if not to their liBing, E if it were to declare the instru7ent of a portion in&alid, and bring confusion and anarchy upon the state' -e7phasis supplied/' +f this %ourt in0uires into the &alidity of rocla7ation #o' 1102 and conse0uently of the adoption of the 1273 %onstitution it would be e9ercising a &eto power on the act of the so&ereign people, of who7 this %ourt is 7erely an agent, which to say the least, would be ano7alous' This %ourt cannot dictate to our principal, the so&ereign people, as to how the appro&al of the new %onstitution should be 7anifested or e9pressed' The so&ereign people ha&e spoBen and we 7ust abide by their decision, regardless of our notion as to what is the proper 7ethod of gi&ing assent to the new %harter' +n this respect, W" cannot presu7e to Bnow better than the incu7bent %hief "9ecuti&e, who, unliBe the 7e7bers of this %ourt, only last 6anuary 4, 1273, We affir7ed in smea vs. Marcos- res' "lection %ontest #o' 3, 6an' 4, 1273/, was re,elected by the &ote of o&er . 7illion electors in 1252 for another ter7 of four years until noon of :ece7ber 30, 1273 under the 123. %onstitution' This %ourt, not ha&ing a si7ilar 7andate by direct fiat fro7 the so&ereign people, to e9ecute the law and ad7inister the affairs of go&ern7ent, 7ust restrain its enthusias7 to sally forth into the do7ain of political action e9pressly and e9clusi&ely reser&ed by the so&ereign people the7sel&es' The people in Article KA of the 123. %onstitution did not intend to tie their hands to a specific procedure for popular ratification of their organic law' That would be inco7patible with their so&ereign character of which We are re7inded by Section 1, of Article ++

of both the 123. and the 1273 %onstitutions' The opinion of 6udge Tho7as !c+ntire %ooley that the so&ereign people cannot &iolate the procedure for ratification which they the7sel&es define in their %onstitution, cannot apply to a unitary state liBe the Republic of the hilippines' Cis opinion e9pressed in 1454 7ay apply to a <ederal State liBe the *nited States, in order to secure and preser&e the e9istence of the <ederal Republic of the *nited States against any radical inno&ation initiated by the citi?ens of the fifty -.0/ different states of the A7erican *nion, which states 7ay be =ealous of the powers of the <ederal go&ern7ent presently granted by the A7erican %onstitution' This dangerous possibility does not obtain in the case of our Republic' Then again, 6udge %ooley ad&anced the aforesaid opinion in 1454 when he wrote his opus ;%onstitutional )i7itations'; A -Aol' 5, "ncyclopedia $rit', 1252 ed' pp' 33. 335/' +t is possible that, were he li&e today, in a 7ilieu &astly different fro7 1454 to 1424, he 7ight ha&e altered his &iews on the 7atter' "&en if conclusi&eness is to be denied to the truth of the declaration by the resident in rocla7ation #o' 1102 that the people through their %iti?ensD Asse7blies had o&erwhel7ingly appro&ed the new %onstitution due regard to a separate, coordinate and co,e0ual branch of the go&ern7ent de7ands adherence to the presu7ption of correctness of the residentDs declaration' Such presu7ption is accorded under the law and =urisprudence to officials in the lower le&els of the "9ecuti&e branch, there is no o&er, riding reason to deny the sa7e to the %hief of State as head of the "9ecuti&e $ranch' W" cannot re&erse the rule on presu7ptions, without being presu7ptuous, in the face of the certifications by the (ffice the Secretary of the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent' -Anne9es 1, to 1,", Anne9es 2 to 2,( to the co7pliance with 7anifestation filed by the Solicitor 1eneral on behalf of the respondents public officers dated !arch 7, 1273/' There is nothing in the records that contradicts, 7uch less o&erthrow the results of the referendu7 as certified' !uch less are We =ustified in re&ersing the burden of proof E by shifting it fro7 the petitioners to the respondents' *nder the rules on pleadings, the petitioners ha&e the duty to de7onstrate by clear and con&incing e&idence their clai7 that the people did not ratify through the %iti?ensD Asse7blies nor adopt by ac0uiescence the 1273 %onstitution' And ha&e failed to do so' #o 7e7ber of this Tribunal is =ustified in resol&ing the issues posed by the cases at bar on the basis of reports relayed to hi7 fro7 pri&ate sources which could be biased and hearsay, aside fro7 the fact that such reports are not contained in the record' rocla7ation #o' 1102 is not =ust an ordinary act of the %hief "9ecuti&e' +t is a well,nigh sole7n declaration which announces the highest act of the so&ereign people E their imprimatur to the basic %harter that shall go&ern their li&es hereafter E 7ay be for decades, if not for generations' etitioners decry that e&en 1.,year olds, e9 con&icts and illiterates were allowed to &ote in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies, despite their ad7ission that the ter7 ;=ilipino people; in the prea7ble as well as ?people? in Sections 1 and . of Article ++ of the 123. %onstitution and in Section 1-3/ of Article +++ of the $ill of Rights includes all <ilipino citi?ens of all ages, of both se9es, whether literate or illiterate, whether peaceful citi?ens, rebels, secessionists, con&icts or e9,con&icts' Without ad7itting that e9,con&icts &oted in the referendu7, about which no proof was e&en offered, these sectors of our citi?enry, who7 petitioners see7 to regard with conte7pt or decision and who7 petitioners would deny their so&ereign right to pass upon the basic %harter that shall go&ern their li&es and the li&es of their progenies, are entitled as 7uch as the educated, the law abiding, and those who are 21 years of age or abo&e to e9press their confor7ity or non confor7ity to the proposed %onstitution, because their staBe under the new %harter is not any less than the staBe of the 7ore fortunate a7ong us' As a 7atter of fact, these citi?ens, whose =uridical personality or capacity to act is li7ited by age, ci&il interdiction or ignorance deser&e 7ore solicitude fro7 the State than the rest of the citi?enry' +n the ulti7ate analysis, the inclusion of those fro7 1. years up to below 21 years old, the e9,con&icts and the ignorant, is 7ore de7ocratic as it broadens the base of de7ocracy and therefore 7ore faithful to the e9press affir7ation in Section 1 of Article ++ of the :eclaration of rinciples that ;so&ereignty resides in the people and all go&ern7ent authority e7anates fro7 the7'; !oreo&er, e9,con&icts granted absolute pardon are 0ualified to &ote' #ot all e9,con&icts are banned fro7 &oting' (nly those who had been sentenced to at least one year i7prison7ent are disenfranchised but they reco&er their right of suffrage upon e9piration of ten years after ser&ice of sentence -Sec' 102, 1271 Re&' "lec' %ode/' <urther7ore, e9,con&icts and i7beciles constitute a &ery negligible nu7ber in any locality or barrio, including the localities of petitioners' +ncluded liBewise in the delegated authority of the resident, is the prerogati&e to proclai7 the results of the plebiscite or the &oting the %iti?ensD Asse7blies' etitioners deny the accuracy or correctness of rocla7ation #o' 1102 that the 1273 %onstitution was ratified by the o&erwhel7ing &ote of close to 1. 7illion citi?ens because there was no official certification to the results of the sa7e fro7 the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents' $ut there was such certification as per Anne9 1 to 1,A to the #otes sub7itted by the Solicitor 1eneral counsel for respondents public officers' This should suffice to dispose of this point' "&en in the absence of such certification, in 7uch the sa7e way that in passing law, %ongress or the legislati&e body is presu7ed to be in possession of the facts upon which such laws are predicated -6ustice <ernando, The ower of 6udicial Re&iew, 1257 "d', pp' 112,11 citing )oren?o &s' :ir', etc', F1227G .0 hil' .2. and (D1on7ore, et al8 &s' Cartford, etc', F1231G 242 *'S' 2.1/, it should liBewise be presu7ed that the resident was in possession of the fact upon which rocla7ation #o' 1102 was based' This presu7ption is further strengthened by the fact that the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents, the :epart7ent #ational :efense and the hilippine %onstabulary as well the $ureau of osts are all under the resident, which offices as his alter ego, are presu7pti&ely acting for and in behalf of the resident and their acts are &alid until disappro&ed or reprobated by the resident - lanas &s' 1il, 57 hil' 52@ Aillen &s' Secretary of +nterior, 57 hil' 3.1/' To deny the truth or the procla7ation of the resident as to the o&erwhel7ing 7a=ority &ote in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies in fa&or of the new %onstitution, is to charge the resident with falsification, which is a 7ost grie&ous accusation' *nder the, rules of pleadings and e&idence, the petitioners ha&e the burden of proof by preponderance of e&idence in ci&il cases and by proof beyond reasonable doubt in cri7inal prosecutions, where the accused is always presu7ed to be innocent' !ust this constitutional right be re&ersed si7ply because the petitioner all

assert the contraryH +s the rule of law they pretend in&oBe only &alid as long as it fa&ors the7H The presu7ption of regularity in the perfor7ance of official functions is accorded by the law and =urisprudence to acts of public officers whose category in the official hierarchy is &ery 7uch lower than that of the %hief of State' What reason is there to withhold such a presu7ption in fa&or of the residentH :oes the fact that the resident belong to the party in power and that four -3/ of the fi&e -./ senators who are petitioners in ),3515. belong to the opposition party, =ustify a discri7ination against the resident in 7atters of this natureH *nsupported as their word is by any credible and co7petent e&idence under the rules of e&idence, 7ust the word of the petitioners pre&ail o&er that of the %hief "9ecuti&e, because they happen to be for7er senators and delegates to the %onstitutional %on&entionH !ore than any of the petitioners herein in all these cases, the incu7bent resident reali?es that he risBs the wrath of his people being &isited upon hi7 and the ad&erse or hostile &erdict of history@ because of the restrictions on the ci&il liberties of his people, ine&itable conco7itants of 7artial law, which necessarily entail so7e degree of sacrifice on the part of the citi?enry' *ntil the contrary is established or de7onstrated, herein petitioners should grant that the %hief "9ecuti&e is 7oti&ated by what is good for the security and stability of the country, for the progress and happiness of the people' All the petitioners herein cannot stand on the proposition that the rights under the 123. %onstitution are absolute and in&ulnerable to li7itations that 7ay be needed for the purpose of bringing about the refor7s for which the petitioners pretend to be cla7oring for and in behalf of the people' The fi&e -./ petitioners in ),3515. and four -3/ of the se&en -7/ petitioners in ),35153 were all participants in the political dra7a of this country since 1235' They are witness to the frustrations of well,7eaning residents who wanted to effect the refor7s, especially for the benefit of the landless and the laboring class D how politics and political bargaining had sty7ied the effectuation of such refor7s thru legislation' The eight -4/ petitioners in ),35153 and ),3515. 7ay not ha&e participated in the syste7atic blocBing of the desired refor7s in %ongress or outside of it@ but the 0uestion 7ay be asBed as to what e9actly they did to support such refor7s' <or the last se&en -7/ decades since the turn of the century, for the last thirty,fi&e -3./ years since the establish7ent of the %o77onwealth go&ern7ent in 123. and for the last twenty se&en -27/ years since the inauguration of the Republic on 6uly 3, 1235, no tangible substantial refor7 had been effected, funded and seriously i7ple7ented, despite the &iolent uprisings in the thirties, and fro7 1235 to 12.2, and the &iolent de7onstrations of recent 7e7ory' %ongress and the oligarchs acted liBe ostriches, ;burying their heads in ti7eless sand' ;#ow the hopes for the long,awaited refor7s to be within a year or to are brighter' +t would see7 therefore to the duty of e&eryone including herein petitioners to gi&e the present leadership the opportunity to institute and carry out the needed refor7s as pro&ided for in the new or 1273 %onstitution and thru the 7eans prescribed in that sa7e %onstitution' As stated in Wheeler &s' $oard of Trustees, ;a court is ne&er =ustified in placing by i7plication a li7itation upon the so&ereign'; This %ourt in the 1on?ales and Tolentino cases transcended its proper sphere and encroached upon the pro&ince e9clusi&ely reser&ed to and by the so&ereign people' This %ourt did not heed to the principle that the courts are not the fountain of all re7edies for all wrongs' W" cannot presu7e that we alone can speaB with wisdo7 as against the =udg7ent of the people on the basic instru7ent which affects their &ery li&es' W" cannot deter7ine what is good for the people or ought to be their funda7ental law' W" can only e9ercise the power delegated to *s by the so&ereign people, to apply and interpret the %onstitution and the laws for the benefit of the people, not against the7 nor to pre=udice the7' W" cannot perfor7 an act ini7ical to the interest of (ur principal, who at any ti7e 7ay directly e9ercise their so&ereign power ratifying a new %onstitution in the 7anner con&enient to the7' +t is pertinent to asB whether the present Supre7e %ourt can function under the 123. %onstitution without being a part of the go&ern7ent established pursuant thereto' *nliBe in the $orden case, supra, where there was at least another go&ern7ent clai7ing to be the legiti7ate organ of the state of Rhode +sland -although only on paper as it had no established organ e9cept :orr who represented hi7self to be its head@ in the cases at bar there is no other go&ern7ent distinct fro7 and 7aintaining a position against the e9isting go&ern7ent headed by the incu7bent %hief "9ecuti&e' -See Taylor &s' %o77onwealth, supra/' There is not e&en a rebel go&ern7ent duly organi?ed as such e&en only for do7estic purposes, let alone a rebel go&ern7ent engaged in international negotiations' As heretofore stated, both the e9ecuti&e branch and the legislati&e branch established under the 123. %onstitution had been supplanted by the go&ern7ent functioning under the 1273 %onstitution as of 6anuary 17, 1273' The &ice president elected under the 123. %onstitution does not asset any clai7 to the leadership of the Republic of the hilippines' %an this Supre7e %ourt legally e9ist without being part of any go&ern7entH $rilliant counsel for petitioners in ),3515. has been 0uite e9tra&agant in his appraisal of %hief 6ustice Roger $rooBe Taney who7 he calls the ;hero of the A7erican $ar,; because during the A7erican ci&il war he apparently had the courage to nullify the procla7ation of resident )incoln suspending the pri&ileges of the writ of )a*eas corpus in &! parte !erry7an -<ederal %ase #o' 2347 F1451G/' $ut who e9actly was %hief 6ustice Roger $rooBe TaneyH The "ditorial $oard of Aol' 21 of the "ncyclopedia $rit', 1255 ed' -pp' 774,772, 1252 ed', pp' 5.3,5.7/, briefly recounts that he was born in 1777 in %al&ert %ounty, !aryland, of parents who were landed aristocrats as well as sla&e owners' +nheriting the traditional conser&atis7 of his parents who belonged to the landed aristocracy, Taney beca7e a lawyer in 1722, practiced law and was later appointed Attorney 1eneral of !aryland' Ce also was a 7e7ber of the !aryland state legislature for se&eral ter7s' Ce was a leader of the <ederalist arty, which disintegrated after the war of 1412, co7pelling hi7 to =oin the :e7ocratic arty of Andrew 6acBson, also a sla&e owner and landed aristocrat, who later appointed hi7 first as Attorney 1eneral of the *nited States, then Secretary of the Treasury and in 1435 %hief 6ustice of the *nited States Supre7e %ourt to succeed %hief 6ustice 6ohn !arshall, in which position he continued for 24 years until he died on (ctober 21, 1453' Cis death ;went largely unnoticed and unregretted'; $ecause he hi7self was a sla&e owner and a landed aristocrat, %hief 6ustice Taney sy7pathi?ed with the Southern States and, e&en while %hief 6ustice, hoped that the Southern States would be allowed to secede peacefully fro7 the *nion' That he had no sy7pathy for the #egroes was re&ealed by his decision in (red Scott vs. Sandford -12 Cow' 324 F14.7G/ where he pronounced that the A7erican #egro is not entitled to the rights of an A7erican citi?en and that his status as a sla&e is deter7ined by his returning to a sla&e state' (ne can therefore discern his hostility towards resident )incoln when he decided "9 parte !erry7an, which ani7osity to say the least does no befit a =udicial 7ind' Such a 7an could hardly be spoBen of as a hero of the A7erican $ar, least of all of the

A7erican nation' The choice of heroes should not be e9pressed indiscri7inately =ust to e7bellish oneDs rhetoric' :istinguished counsel in ),3515. appears to ha&e co77itted another historical error, which 7ay be due to his rhetorical in the "ncyclopedia $ritannica -Aol' 2, 1252 ed', pp' .04,.02/ to this effect' (n the contrary, "ncyclopedia $ritannica -Aol' 17 "ncyclopedia $rit', 1255 P 1252 eds', 732,733/, refers to !arshal Cenri hilippe etain as the genuine hero or ;Sa&ior of Aerdun;@ because he held Aerdun against the 1215 offensi&e of the 1er7an ar7y at the cost of 3.0,000 of his <rench soldiers, who were then de7orali?ed and plotting 7utiny' %ertainly, the sur&i&ing 7e7bers of the fa7ily of !arshal etain would not relish the error' And neither would the 7e7bers of the clan of !arshal <och acBnowledge the undeser&ed accolade, although !arshal <och has a distinct place in history on his own 7erits' The foregoing clarification is offered in the interest of true scholarship and historical accuracy, so that the historians, researchers and students 7ay not be led astray or be confused by estee7ed counselDs elo0uence and 7astery of the spoBen and written word as well as by his e7inence as law professor, author of law booBs, political leader, and 7e7ber of the newly integrated hilippine $ar' +t is 0uite intriguing why the e7inent counsel and co,petitioner in ),35153 did not address liBewise his challenge to the fi&e -./ senators who are petitioners in ),3515. to also act as ;heroes and idealists,; to defy the resident by holding sessions by the7sel&es alone in a hotel or in their houses if they can 7uster a 0uoru7 or by causing the arrest of other senators to secure a 0uoru7 and thereafter re7o&e respondents uyat and Roy -A&elino, et al' &s' %uenco, et al' F1232G 43 hil' 17/, if they belie&e 7ost &ehe7ently in the =ustice and correctness of their position that the 1273 %onstitution has not been &alidly ratified, adopted or ac0uiesced in by the people since 6anuary 14, 1273 until the present' The proclai7ed con&iction of petitioners in ),3515. on this issue would ha&e a ring of credibility, if they proceeded first to hold a ru7p session outside the legislati&e building@ because it is not unreasonable to de7and or to e9act that he who e9horts others to be bra&e 7ust first de7onstrate his own courage' Surely, they will not affir7 that the 7ere filing of their petition in ),3515. already 7ade the7 ;heroes and idealists'; The challenge liBewise see7s to insinuate that the 7e7bers of this %ourt who disagree with petitionersD &iews are 7aterialistic cowards or 7ercenary fence,sitters' The %ourt need not be re7inded of its sole7n duty and how to perfor7 it' W" refuse to belie&e that petitioners and their learned as well as illustrious counsels, scholars and liberal thinBers that they are, do not recogni?e the sincerity of those who entertain opinions that clash with their own' Such an attitude does not sit well with the dictu7 that ;We can differ without being difficult@ we can disagree without being disagreeable,; which distinguished counsel in ), 3515. is wont to 0uote' W" reser&e the right to prepare an e9tensi&e discussion of the other points raised by petitioners, which We do not find now necessary to deal with in &iew of (ur opinion on the 7ain issue' +# A+"W (< TC" <(R"1(+#1, A)) TC" "T+T+(#S +# TC"S" <+A" %AS"S SA @L( %& (<SM<SS&(. MA,AS"AR, J., concurring8 ursuant to (ur reser&ation, We now discuss the other issues raised by the petitioners' << "A"# +< +SS*" +S 6*ST+%+A$)", "( )"DS RAT+<+%AT+(#, A:( T+(# (R A%I*+"S%"#%" %R"AT"S STR(#1 R"S*! T+(# (< AA)+:+TL (< 1273 %(#ST+T*T+(#' As inti7ated in the aforecited cases, e&en the courts, which affir7 the proposition that the 0uestion as to whether a constitutional a7end7ent or the re&ised or new %onstitution has been &alidly sub7itted to the people for ratification in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the e9isting %onstitution, is a =usticiable 0uestion, accord all presumption of validit" to t)e constitutional amendment or t)e revised or ne, +onstitution after t)e government officials or t)e people )ave adopted or ratified or ac9uiesced in t)e ne, +onstitution or amendment, alt)oug) t)ere ,as an illegal or irregular or no su*mission at all to t)e people ' -%ollier &s' 1ray, 3th :ec' :ig' 23. F1233G, Ca77ond &s' %larB, 71 S" 342,343@ eople &s' Sours, 31 %olo' 352, 73 ac' 157, 102 A7' St' Rep' 33@ Tho7pson &s' Winneth, 74 #eb' 372, 110 #W 1113, 10 )'R'A' F#'S'G 132@ State &s' )aylin, 52 (hio St' Rep' 1, 54 #" .73@ Weston &s' Ryan, 70 #eb' 211, 27 #W 337@ %o7bs &s' State, 41 1a' 740, 4 S" 314@ Woodward &s' State, 103 1a' 325, 30 S" .22@ %orre &s' %ooney, 70 !ont' 3.., 22. 1007, 1002/' As late as 1271, the courts stressed that the constitutional a7end7ent or the new %onstitution should not be conde7ned ;unless our =udg7ent its nullity is 7anifest beyond reasonable doubt; -1271 case of !oore &s' Shanahan, 345 ac' 2d .05, 207 Nan' 1, 53.@ and the 12.5 case of Tipton &s' S7ith, et al', supra/' !r' 6ustice "nri0ue !' <ernando, speaBing for the %ourt, pronounced that the presu7ption of constitutionality 7ust persist in the absence of factual foundation of record to o&erthrow such presu7ption -"r7ita,!alate Cotel, etc' &s' %ity !ayor, ),23524, 6uly 31, 1257, 20 S%RA 432/' <<< %(#ST+T*T+(#A) %(#A"#T+(# E %(,"I*A) W+TC A#: +#:" "#:"#T (< %(#1R"SS, "K"%*T+A" A#: 6*:+%+ARL' The %onstitutional %on&ention is co,ordinate and co,e0ual with, as well as independent of, the three grand depart7ents of the 1o&ern7ent, na7ely, the legislati&e, the e9ecuti&e and the =udicial' As a fourth separate and distinct branch, to e7phasi?e its independence, the %on&ention cannot be dictated to by either of the other three depart7ents as to the content as well as the

for7 of the %harter that it proposes' +t en=oys the sa7e i77unity fro7 interference or super&ision by any of the aforesaid branches of the 1o&ern7ent in its proceedings, including the printing of its own =ournals -Ta>ada and <ernando, %onstitution of the hilippines, 12.2 ed', Aol' +, pp' 4 2@ !alcol7 and )aurel, hil' %onst' )aw, p' 22@ <rant? &s' Autry, 21 ac' 123/' +7plicit in that independence, for the purpose of 7aintaining the sa7e uni7paired and in order that its worB will not be frustrated, the %on&ention has the power to fi9 the date for the plebiscite and to pro&ide funds therefor' To deny the %on&ention such prerogati&e, would lea&e it at the tender 7ercy of both legislati&e and e9ecuti&e branches of the 1o&ern7ent' An unsy7pathetic %ongress would not be disposed to sub7it the proposed %onstitution drafted by the %onstitutional %on&ention to the people for ratification, 7uch less appropriate the necessary funds therefor' That could ha&e been the fate of the 1273 %onstitution, because the sa7e abolished the Senate by creating a unica7eral #ational Asse7bly to be presided by a ri7e !inister who wields both legislati&e and e9ecuti&e powers and is the actual %hief "9ecuti&e, for the resident conte7plated in the new %onstitution e9ercises pri7arily cere7onial prerogati&es' The new %onstitution liBewise shortened abruptly the ter7s of the 7e7bers of the present %ongress -whose ter7s end on :ece7ber 31, 1273, 127. and 1277/ which pro&ides that the new %onstitution shall taBe effect i77ediately upon its ratification -Sec' 15, Article KA++, 1273 %onstitution/' The fact that Section 2 of the sa7e Article KA+++ secures to the 7e7bers of %ongress 7e7bership in the interi7 #ational Asse7bly as long as they opt to ser&e therein within thirty -30/ days after the ratification of the proposed %onstitution, affords the7 little co7fort@ because the con&ening of the interi7 #ational Asse7bly depends upon the incu7bent resident -under Sec' 3F1G, Art' KA++, 1273 %onstitution/' *nder the foregoing circu7stances, the 7e7bers of %ongress, who were elected under the 123. %onstitution, would not be disposed to call a plebiscite and appropriate funds therefor to enable the people to pass upon the 1273 %onstitution, ratification of which 7eans their eli7ination fro7 the political scene' They will not pro&ide the 7eans for their own li0uidation' $ecause the %onstitutional %on&ention, by necessary i7plication as it is indispensable to its independence and effecti&eness, possesses the power to call a plebiscite and to appropriate funds for the purpose, it inescapably 7ust ha&e the power to delegate the sa7e to the resident, who, in esti7ation of the %on&ention can better deter7ine appropriate ti7e for such a referendu7 as well as the a7ount necessary to effect the sa7e@ for which reason the %on&ention thru Resolution #o' 22 appro&ed on #o&e7ber 22, 1272, which superseded Resolution #o' .433 adopted on #o&e7ber 15, 1272, proposed to the resident ;that a decree be issued calling a plebiscite for the ratification of the proposed new %onstitution such appropriate date as he shall deter7ine and pro&iding for the necessary funds therefor, ''',; after stating in ;whereas; clauses that the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention e9pected to co7plete its worB by the end of #o&e7ber, 1272 that the urgency of instituting refor7s rendered i7perati&e the early appro&al of the new %onstitution, and that the national and local leaders desire that there be continuity in the i77ediate transition fro7 the old to the new %onstitution' +f %ongress can legally delegate to the %hief "9ecuti&e or his subaltern the power to pro7ulgate subordinate rules and regulations to i7ple7ent the law, this authority to delegate i7ple7enting rules should not be denied to the %onstitutional %on&ention, a co,e0ual body' Apart fro7 the delegation to the %hief "9ecuti&e of the power to call a plebiscite and to appropriate funds therefor by the %onstitutional %on&ention thru its Resolution #o' 22, the organi?ation of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies for consultation on national issues, is co7prehended within the ordinance,7aBing power of the resident under Section 53 of the Re&ised Ad7inistrati&e %ode, which e9pressly confers on the %hief "9ecuti&e the po,er to promulgate administrative acts and commands touc)ing on t)e organization or mode of operation of t)e government or re,arranging or re,ad=usting any district, di&ision or part of the hilippines ;or disposing of issues of general concern ''' '; -"7phasis supplied/' Cence, as consultati&e bodies representing the localities including the barrios, their creation by the resident thru residential :ecree #o' 45 of :ece7ber 31, 1272, cannot be successfully challenged' The e7ploy7ent by the resident of these %iti?ensD Asse7blies for consultation on the 1273 %onstitution or on whether there was further need of a plebiscite thereon, E both issues of national concern E is still within the delegated authority reposed in hi7 by the %onstitutional %on&ention as aforesaid' +t should be noted that Resolution #o' 22, which superseded Resolution #o' .433, does not prescribe that the plebiscite 7ust be conducted by the %o77ission on "lections in accordance with the pro&isions of the 1271 Re&ised "lection %ode' +f that were the intention of the %onstitutional %on&ention in 7aBing the delegation, it could ha&e easily included the necessary phrase for the purpose, so7e such phrase liBe ;to call a plebiscite to be super&ised by the %o77ission on "lections in accordance with the pro&isions of the 1271 Re&ised "lection %ode -or with e9isting laws/'; That the %onstitutional %on&ention o7itted such phrase, can only 7ean that it left to the resident the deter7ination of the 7anner by which the plebiscite should be conducted, who shall super&ise the plebiscite, and who can participate in the plebiscite' The fact that said Resolution #o' 22 e9pressly states ;that copies of this resolution as appro&ed in plenary session be trans7itted to the resident of the hilippines and the %o77ission on "lections for i7ple7entation,; did not in effect designate the %o77ission on "lections as super&isor of the plebiscite' The copies of said resolution that were trans7itted to the %o77ission on "lections at best ser&e 7erely to notify the %o77ission on "lections about said resolution, but not to direct said body to super&ise the plebiscite' The calling as well as conduct of the plebiscite was left to the discretion of the resident, who, because he is in possession of all the facts funnelled to hi7 by his intelligence ser&ices, was in the superior position to decide when the plebiscite shall be held, how it shall be conducted and who shall o&ersee it' +t should be noted that in appro&ing said Resolution #o' 22, the %onstitutional %on&ention itself recogni?ed the &alidity of, or &alidated residential rocla7ation #o' 1041 placing the entire country under 7artial law by resol&ing to ;propose to resident <erdinand "' !arcos that a decree be issued calling a plebiscite ''' '; The use of the ter7 ;decree; is significant for the basic orders regulating the conduct of all inhabitants are issued in that for7 and no7enclature by the resident as the %o77ander in %hief and enforcer of 7artial law' %onse0uently, the issuance by the resident of residential :ecree #o' 73 on :ece7ber 1, 1272 setting the plebiscite on 6anuary 1., 1273 and appropriating funds therefor pursuant to said Resolution #o' 22, is a &alid

e9ercise of such delegated authority' Such delegation, unliBe the delegation by %ongress of the rule,7aBing power to the %hief "9ecuti&e or to any of his subalterns, does not need sufficient standards to circu7scribe the e9ercise of the power delegated, and is beyond the co7petence of this %ourt to nullify' $ut e&en if ade0uate criteria should be re0uired, the sa7e are contained in the ;Whereas; clauses of the %onstitutional %on&ention Resolution #o' 22, thus8 WC"R"AS, the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention is e9pected to co7plete its worB of drafting a proposed new %onstitution for the Republic by the end of #o&e7ber, 1272@ WC"R"AS, in &iew of the urgency of instituting refor7s, the early appro&al of the #ew %onstitution has beco7e i7perati&e@ WC"R"AS, it is the desire of the national and local leaders that there be continuity in the i77ediate political transition fro7 the old to the #ew %onstitution@; -Anne9 ;1; of Answer, Res' #o' 22, %onstitutional %on&ention/' As !r' 6ustice <ernando, with who7 !essrs' 6ustices $arredo, Antonio and the writer concurred in the lebiscite %ases, stated8 ''' (nce this worB of drafting has been co7pleted, it could itself direct the sub7ission to the people for ratification as conte7plated in Article KA of the %onstitution' Cere it did not do so' With %ongress not being in session, could the resident, by the decree under 0uestion, call for such a plebisciteH *nder such circu7stances, a negative ans,er certainl" could result in t)e ,or# of t)e +onvention *eing rendered nugator"' The &iew has been repeatedly e9pressed in 7any A7erican state court decisions that to a&oid such undesirable conse0uence the tasB of sub7ission beco7es 7inisterial, with the political branches de&oid of any discretion as to the holding of an election for that purpose' #or is the appropriation by hi7 of the a7ount necessary to be considered as offensi&e to the %onstitution' <f it ,ere done *" )im in )is capacit" as $resident, suc) an o*6ection ,ould indeed )ave *een formida*le, not to sa" insurmounta*le. <f t)e appropriation ,ere made in )is capacit" as agent of t)e +onvention to assure t)at t)ere *e su*mission to t)e people, t)en suc) an argument loses force ' T)e +onvention itself could )ave done so' +t is understandable why it should be thus' <f it ,ere ot)er,ise, t)en a legislative *od", t)e appropriating arm of t)e government, could conceiva*l" ma#e use of suc) aut)orit" to compel t)e +onvention to su*mit to its ,is)es, on pain of *eing rendered financiall" distraug)t. T)e $resident t)en, if performing )is role as its agent, could *e )eld as not devoid of suc) competence ' -pp' 2,3, concurring opinion of 6' <ernando in ),3.22., etc', e7phasis supplied/' <V AA1*"#"SS (R A!$+1*+TL :("S #(T +#AA)+:AT" TC" 1273 %(#ST+T*T+(# -1/ etitions challenge the 1273 draft as &ague and inco7plete, and alluded to their argu7ents during the hearings on :ece7ber 14 and 12, 1272 on the lebiscite %ases' $ut the inclusion of 0uestionable or a7biguous pro&isions does not affect the &alidity of the ratification or adoption of the 1273 %onstitution itself - ope &s' 1ray, 103 S(, 2d 431@ 7th :ec' pp' 212,212, 12.5,1255/' Ale9ander Ca7ilton, one of the leading founders and defenders of the A7erican %onstitution, answering the critics of the <ederal %onstitution, stated that8 ;+ ne&er e9pect to see a perfect worB fro7 i7perfect 7an' The result of the deliberations of all collecti&e bodies 7ust necessarily be a co7pound, as well of the errors and pre=udices as of the good sense and wisdo7, of the indi&iduals of who7 they are co7posed' The co7pacts which are to e7brace thirteen distinct States in a co77on bond of a7ity and union, 7ust necessarily be a co7pro7ise of as 7any dissi7ilar interests and inclinations' Cow can perfection spring fro7 such 7aterialsH; -The <ederalist, !odern )ibrary "d', pp' 99,99i/' -2/ The 1273 %onstitution is liBewise i7pugned on the ground that it contains pro&isions which are ultra vires or beyond the power of the %onstitutional %on&ention to propose' This ob=ection relates to the wisdo7 of changing the for7 of go&ern7ent fro7 residential to arlia7entary and including such pro&isions as Section 3 of Article +A, Section 1. of Article K+A and Sections 3-2/ and 12 of Article KA++ in the 1273 %onstitution' Article +A E Sec' 3' The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and sei?ures of whate&er nature and for any purpose shall not be &iolated, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue e!cept upon pro*a*le cause to *e determined *" t)e 6udge, or suc) ot)er responsi*le officer as ma" *e aut)orized *" la, , after e9a7ination under oath or affir7ation of the co7plainant and the witnesses 7ay produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be sei?ed'

Article K+A E Sec' 1.' Any pro&ision of paragraph one, Section fourteen, Article "ight and of this Article notwithstanding, the ri7e !inister 7ay enter into international treaties or agree7ents as the national welfare and interest 7ay re0uire'; -Without the consent of the #ational Asse7bly'/ Article KA++ E Sec' 3-2/ All procla7ations, orders, decrees, instructions, and acts pro7ulgated, issued, or done by the incu7bent resident shall be part of the law of the land, and shall re7ain &alid, legal, binding and effecti&e e&en after lifting of 7artial law or the ratification of this %onstitution, unless 7odified, re&oBed, or superseded by subse0uent procla7ations, orders, decrees, instructions, or other acts of the incu7bent resident, or unless e9pressly and e9plicitly 7odified or repealed by the regular #ational Asse7bly' 999 999 999 Sec' 12' All treaties, e9ecuti&e agree7ents, and contracts entered into by the 1o&ern7ent, or any subdi&ision, agency, or instru7entality thereof, including go&ern7ent,owned or controlled corporations, are hereby recogni?ed as legal, &alid and binding' When the national interest so re0uires, the incu7bent resident of the hilippines or the interi7 ri7e !inister 7ay re&iew all contracts, concessions, per7its, or other for7s of pri&ileges for the e9ploration, de&elop7ent, e9ploitation, or utili?ation of natural resources entered into, granted, issued or ac0uired before the ratification of this %onstitution' +n the lebiscite %ases -),3.22., ),3.222, ),3.230, ),3.232, ),3.234, ),3.2.3, ),3.251, ),3.25., P ),3.272/, %hief 6ustice Roberto %oncepcion, concurred in by 6ustices <ernando, $arredo, Antonio and the writer, o&erruled this ob=ection, thus8 ''' Regardless of the wisdo7 and 7oral aspects of the contested pro&isions of the proposed %onstitution, it is 7y considered &iew that the %on&ention was legally dee7ed fit to propose E sa&e perhaps what is or 7ay be insistent with what is now Bnown, particularly in international law, as Jus +ogens E not only because the %on&ention e9ercised so&ereign powers delegated thereto by the people E although insofar only as the deter7ination of the proposals to be 7ade and for7ulated by said body is concerned E but also, because said proposals cannot be &alid as part of our <unda7ental )aw unless and until ;appro&ed by the 7a=ority of the &otes cast at an election which; said proposals ;are sub7itted to the people for their ratification,; as pro&ided in Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' - p' 17,14, :ecision in ),3.22., etc'/' This %ourt liBewise enunciated in (el Rosario vs. +omelec -),32375, (ct' 20, 1270, 3. S%RA 357/ that the %onstitutional %on&ention has the authority to ;entirely o&erhaul the present %onstitution and propose an entirely new %onstitution based on an ideology foreign to the de7ocratic syste7 '''@ because the sa7e will be sub7itted to the people for ratification' (nce ratified by the so&ereign people, there can be no debate about the &alidity of the new %onstitution'; !r' 6ustice <ernando, concurring in the sa7e lebiscite %ases, cited the foregoing pronounce7ent in the :el Rosario case, supra, and added8 ;''' it see7s to 7e a sufficient answer that once con&ened, the area open for deliberation to a constitutional con&ention ''', is practically li7itless; -citing %f' Noehler &s' Cill, 13 #W 734, 50 +owa .33 F1443G@ Catch Stone7an, 5 733, 55 %al' 532 F144.G@ !ac!illan &' $lattner, 2. #W 23., 57 +owa 247 F142.G@ State &' owell, 27 S( 227, 77 !iss' .33 F1200G@ Ca77ond &' %larB, 71 S" 372, 135 1a' 313 F1211G@ Ca7ilton &' Aaughan, 172 #W .33, 212 !ich' 31 F1220G@ State &' S7ith, 134 #" 441, 10. (hio St' .70 F1222G@ )ooney &s' )eeper, 222 35., 13. (Bl' 202 F1230G@ School :istrict &s' %ity of ontiac, 237 #W 373, 252 !ich' 334 F1233G/' !r' 6ustice $arredo, in his concurring opinion in said lebiscite %ases, e9pressed the &iew ;that when the people elected the delegates to the %on&ention and when the delegates the7sel&es were ca7paigning, such li7itation of the scope of their function and ob=ecti&e was not in their 7inds'; V 1273 %(#ST+T*T+(# :*)L A:( T": A#: R(!*)1AT":' etitioners ne9t clai7 that the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention ad=ourned on #o&e7ber 30, 1272 without officially pro7ulgating the said %onstitution in <ilipino as re0uired by Sections 3-1/ of Article KA on 1eneral ro&isions of the 1273 %onstitution' This clai7 is without 7erit because their Anne9 ;!; is the <ilipino &ersion of the 1273 %onstitution, liBe the "nglish &ersion, contains the certification by resident :iosdado !acapagal of the %onstitutional %on&ention, duly attested by its Secretary, that the proposed %onstitution, appro&ed on second reading on the 27th day of #o&e7ber, 1272 and on third reading in the %on&entionDs 221st plenary session on #o&e7ber 22, 1272 and accordingly signed on #o&e7ber 1272 by the delegates whose signatures are thereunder affi9ed' +t should be recalled that %onstitutional %on&ention resident :iosdado !acapagal was, as resident of the Republic 1252 to 125., then the titular head of the )iberal arty to which four -3/ of the petitioners in ),3515. including their

counsel, for7er Senator 6o&ito Salonga, belong' Are they repudiating and disowning their for7er party leader and benefactorH V< ART+%)" KA (< 123. %(#ST+T*T+(# :("S #(T R"S%R+$" A#L R(%":*R" <(R RAT+<+%AT+(# (< 1273 %(#ST+T*T+(#' -1/ Article KA of the 123. %onstitution si7ply pro&ides that ;such a7end7ents shall be &alid as part of this %onstitution when appro&ed by a 7a=ority of the &otes cast at an election at which the a7end7ents are sub7itted to the people for ratification'; $ut petitioners construe the aforesaid pro&ision to read8 ;Such a7end7ents shall be &alid as part of this %onstitution when appro&ed by a 7a=ority of the &otes cast at an election called *" +ongress at which the a7end7ents are sub7itted for ratification by the 9ualified electors defined in Article V )ereof, supervised *" t)e +ommission on &lections in accordance ,it) t)e e!isting election la, and after suc) amendments s)all )ave *een pu*lis)ed in all t)e ne,spapers of general circulation for at least four mont)s prior to suc) election'; This position certainly i7poses li7itation on the so&ereign people, who ha&e the sole power of ratification, which i7position by the %ourt is ne&er =ustified -Wheeler &s' $oard of Trustees, supra/' +n effect, petitioners and their counsels are a7ending by a strained and tortured construction Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' This is a clear case of usurpation of so&ereign power they do not possess E through so7e Bind of esca7otage' This %ourt should not co77it such a gra&e error in the guise of =udicial interpretation' +n all the cases where the court held that illegal or irregular sub7ission, due to absence of substantial co7pliance with the procedure prescribed by the %onstitution andJor the law, nullifies the proposed a7end7ent or the new %onstitution, the procedure prescribed by the state %onstitution is so detailed that it specifies that the sub7ission should be at a general or special election, or at the election for 7e7bers of the State legislature only or of all state officials only or of local officials only, or of both state and local officials@ fi9es the date of the election or plebiscite li7its the sub7ission to only electors or 0ualified electors@ prescribes the publication of the proposed a7end7ent or a new %onstitution for a specific period prior to the election or plebiscite@ and designates the officer to conduct the plebiscite, to can&ass and to certify the results, including the for7 of the ballot which should so state the substance of the proposed a7end7ents to enable the &oter to &ote on each a7end7ent separately or authori?es e9pressly the %onstitutional %on&ention or the legislature to deter7ine the procedure or certain details thereof' See the State %onstitutions of Alaba7a F1201G@ Ari?ona F1212G@ ArBansas F1473G@ %olorado F1275G@ %onnecticut F1414G@ <lorida F1447G@ 1eorgia F123.G@ +llinois F1270G@ +ndiana F14.1G@ +owa F14.7G@ Nansas F1451G@ NentucBy F1421G@ )ouisiana F1221G@ !aryland F1457G@ !assachusetts F1720G@ !ichigan F1202G@ !innesota F14.7G@ !ississippi F1420G@ and !issouri F123.G/' As typical e9a7ples8 %onstitution of Alaba7a -1201/8 Article KA+++' !ode of A7ending the %onstitution Sec' 243' )egislati&e roposals' A7end7ents 7ay be proposed to this %onstitution by the legislature in the 7anner following8 The proposed a7end7ents shall be read in the house in which they originate on three se&eral days, and, if upon the third reading, three,fifths of all the 7e7bers elected to that house shall &ote in fa&or thereof, the proposed a7end7ents shall be sent to the other house, in which they shall liBewise be read on three se&eral days, and if upon the third reading, three,fifths of all the 7e7bers elected that house shall &ote in fa&or of the proposed a7end7ents, the legislature s)all order an election *" t)e 9ualified electors of t)e state upon suc) proposed amendments, to *e )eld eit)er at t)e general election ne!t succeeding t)e session of the legislature at which the a7end7ents are proposed or upon anot)er da" appointed *" t)e legislature, not less t)an t)ree mont)s after t)e final ad6ournment of the session of the legislature at which the a7end7ents were proposed' 'otice of suc) election, together with the proposed a7end7ents, shall be gi&en by procla7ation of the go&ernor, ,)ic) s)all *e pu*lis)ed in ever" count" in such 7anner as the legislature shall direct, for at least eig)t successive ,ee#s ne!t preceding t)e da" appointed for suc) election ' (n the day so appointed an election shall be held for the &ote of the 0ualified electors of the state upon the proposed a7end7ents' +f such election be held on the day of the general election, the officers of such general election shall open a poll for the &ote of the 0ualified electors upon the proposed a7end7ents@ if it be held on a day other than that of a general election, officers for such election shall be appointed@ and the election shall be held in all things in accordance with the law go&erning general elections' +n all elections upon such proposed a7end7ents, t)e votes cast t)ereat s)all *e canvassed, ta*ulated, and returns t)ereof *e made to t)e secretar" of state, and counted, in the sa7e 7anner as in elections for representati&es to the legislature@ and if it shall thereupon appear that a 7a=ority of the 0ualified electors who &oted at such election upon the proposed a7end7ents &oted in fa&or of the sa7e, such a7end7ents shall be &alid to all intents and purposes as parts of this %onstitution' The result of such election shall be 7ade Bnown by procla7ation of the go&ernor' Representation in the legislature shall be based upon population, and such basis of representation shall not be changed by constitutional a7end7ents'

Sec' 24.' <or7 of ballot for a7end7ent' *pon the ballots used at all elections pro&ided for in section 243 of this %onstitution, the substance or sub=ect 7atter of each proposed a7end7ent shall be so printed that the nature thereof shall be clearly indicated' <ollowing each proposed a7end7ent on the ballot shall be printed the word ;Les; and i77ediately under that shall be printed the word ;#o;' The choice of the elector shall be indicated by a cross 7arB 7ade by hi7 or under his direction, opposite the word e9pressing his desire, and no a7end7ent shall be adopted unless it recei&es the affir7ati&e &ote of a 7a=ority of all the 0ualified electors who &ote at such election' %onstitution of ArBansas -1473/8 Article K+K' !iscellaneous ro&isions' Sec' 22' %onstitutional a7end7ents' "ither branch of the 1eneral Asse7bly at a regular session thereof 7ay propose a7end7ents to this %onstitution, and, if the sa7e be agreed to by a 7a=ority of all the 7e7bers, elected to each house, such proposed a7end7ents s)all *e entered on t)e 6ournal ,it) t)e "eas and na"s, and pu*lis)ed in at least one ne,spaper in eac) count", ,)ere a ne,spaper is pu*lis)ed, for si! mont)s immediatel" preceding t)e ne!t general election for Senators and Representatives, at ,)ic) time t)e same s)all *e su*mitted to t)e electors of t)e State for approval or re6ection, and if a 7a=ority of the electors &oting at such election adopt such a7end7ents, the sa7e shall beco7e a part of this %onstitution@ *ut no more t)an t)ree amendments s)all *e proposed or su*mitted at t)e same time. T)e" s)all *e so su*mitted as to ena*le t)e electors to vote on eac) amendment separatel"' %onstitution of Nansas -1451/8 Article K+A' A7end7ents' Sec' 1' roposal of a7end7ents@ publications@ elections' ropositions for the a7end7ent of this constitution 7ay be 7ade by either branch of the legislature@ and if two thirds of all the 7e7bers elected to each house shall concur therein, such proposed a7end7ents, together with the yeas and nays, shall be entered on the =ournal@ and the secretary of state shall cause the sa7e to be published in at least one newspaper in each county of the state where a newspaper is published, for three 7onths preceding the ne9t election for representati&es, at which ti7e, the sa7e shall be sub7itted to the electors, for their appro&al or re=ection@ and if a 7a=ority of the electors &oting on said a7end7ents, at said election, shall adopt the a7end7ents, the sa7e shall beco7e a part of the constitution' When 7ore than one a7end7ent shall be sub7itted at the sa7e ti7e, they shall be so sub7itted as to enable the electors to &ote on each a7end7ents separately@ and not 7ore than three propositions to a7end shall be sub7itted at the sa7e election' %onstitution of !aryland -1457/8 Article K+A' A7end7ents to the %onstitution' Sec' 1' roposal in general asse7bly@ publication@ sub7ission to &oters@ go&ernorDs procla7ation' The 1eneral Asse7bly 7ay propose A7end7ents to this %onstitution@ pro&ided that each A7end7ent shall be e7braced in a separate bill, e7bodying the Article or Section, as the sa7e will stand when a7ended and passed by three fifths of all the 7e7bers elected to each of the two Couses, by yeas and nays, to be entered on the 6ournals with the proposed A7end7ent' The bill or bills proposing a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall be published by order of the 1o&ernor, in at least two newspapers, in each %ounty, where so 7any 7ay be published, and where not 7ore than one 7ay be published, then in the newspaper, and in three newspapers published in the %ity of $alti7ore, once a weeB for four weeBs i77ediately preceding the ne9t ensuing general election, at which the proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall be sub7itted, in a for7 to be prescribed by the 1eneral Asse7bly, to the 0ualified &oters of the State for adoption or re=ection' The &otes cast for and against said proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents, se&erally, shall be returned to the 1o&ernor, in the 7anner prescribed in other cases, and if it shall appear to the 1o&ernor that a 7a=ority of the &otes cast at said election on said a7end7ent or a7end7ents, se&erally, were cast in fa&or thereof, the 1o&ernor shall, by his procla7ation, declare the said a7end7ent or a7end7ents ha&ing recei&ed said 7a=ority of &otes, to ha&e been adopted by the people of !aryland as part of the %onstitution thereof, and henceforth said a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall be part of the said %onstitution' When two or 7ore a7end7ents shall be sub7itted in the 7anner aforesaid, to the &oters of this State at the sa7e election, they shall be so sub7itted as that each a7end7ent shall be &oted on separately' %onstitution of !issouri -123./8 Article K++' A7ending the %onstitution' Sec' 2-b/' Sub7ission of a7end7ents proposed by general asse7bly or by the initiati&e' All a7end7ents

proposed by the general asse7bly or by the initiati&e shall be sub7itted to the electors for their appro&al or re=ection by official ballot title as 7ay be pro&ided by law, on a separate ballot without party designation, at the ne9t general election, or at a special election called by the go&ernor prior thereto, at which he 7ay sub7it any of the a7end7ents' #o such proposed a7end7ent shall contain 7ore than one a7ended and re&ised article of this constitution, or one new article which shall not contain 7ore than one sub=ect and 7atters properly connected therewith' +f possible, each proposed a7end7ent shall be published once a weeB for two consecuti&e weeBs in two newspapers of different political faith in each county, the last publication to be not 7ore than thirty nor less than fifteen days ne9t preceding the election' +f there be but one newspaper in any county, publication of four consecuti&e weeBs shall be 7ade' +f a 7a=ority of the &otes cast thereon is in fa&or of any a7end7ent, the sa7e shall taBe effect at the end of thirty days after the election' !ore than one a7end7ent at the sa7e election shall be so sub7itted as to enable the electors to &ote on each a7end7ent separately' Article KA of the 123. %onstitution does not re0uire a specific procedure, 7uch less a detailed procedure for sub7ission or ratification' As heretofore stated, it does not specify what Bind of election at which the new %onstitution shall be sub7itted@ nor does it designate the %o77ission on "lections to super&ise the plebiscite' #either does it li7it the ratification to the 0ualified electors as defined in Article A of the 123. %onstitution' !uch less does it re0uire the publication of the proposed %onstitution for any specific period before the plebiscite nor does it e&en insinuate that the plebiscite should be super&ised in accordance with the e9isting election law' -2/ As afore0uoted, Article KA does not indicate the procedure for sub7ission of the proposed %onstitution to the people for ratification' +t does not 7aBe any reference to the %o77ission on "lections as the body that shall super&ise the plebiscite' And Article KA could not 7aBe any reference to the %o77ission on "lections because the original 123. %onstitution as ratified on !ay 13, 123. by the people did not contain Article K on the %o77ission on "lections, which article was included therein pursuant to an a7end7ent by that #ational Asse7bly proposed only about fi&e -./ years later E on April 11, 1230, ratified by the people on 6une 14, 1230 as appro&ed by the resident of the *nited States on :ece7ber 1230 -see Su7ulong &s' %o77ission, 70 hil' 703, 713, 71.@ 1on?ales, hil' %onst' )aw, 1255 ed', p' 13/' So it cannot be said that the original fra7ers of the 123. %onstitution as ratified !ay 13, 123. intended that a body Bnown as the %o77ission on "lections should be the one to super&ise the plebiscite, because the %o77ission on "lections was not in e9istence then as was created only by %o77onwealth Act #o' 507 appro&ed on August 22, 1230 and a7ended by %o77onwealth Act #o' 5.7 appro&ed on 6une 21, 1231 -see Ta>ada P %arreon, olitical )aw of the hilippines, Aol' +, 1251 ed', pp' 37.,375@ Su7ulong &s' %o77ission, 170 hil' 703, 704, 71.@ 73 hil' 244, 220,300@ Ta>ada P <ernando, %onstitution of the hilippines, 12.3 ed', Aol' +, p' ., Aol' ++, pp' 11,12/' $ecause before August, 1230 the %o77ission on "lection was not yet in e9istence, the for7er :epart7ent of +nterior -now :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents and %o77unity :e&elop7ent/ super&ised the plebiscites on the 1237 a7end7ent on wo7anDs suffrage, the 1232 a7end7ent to the (rdinance appended to the 123. %onstitution -Tydings,NocialBowsBi Act of the *'S' %ongress/ and the three 1230 a7end7ents on the establish7ent of a bica7eral %ongress, the re,election of the resident and the Aice, resident, and the creation of the %o77ission on "lections -ratified on 6une 14, 1230/' The super&ision of said plebiscites by the then :epart7ent of +nterior was not auto7atic, but by &irtue of an e9press authori?ation in %o77onwealth Act #os' 33, 32 and .17' +f the #ational Asse7bly then intended that the %o77ission on "lections should also super&ise the plebiscite for ratification of constitutional a7end7ents or re&ision, it should ha&e liBewise proposed the corresponding a7end7ent to Article KA by pro&iding therein that the plebiscite on a7end7ents shall be super&ised by the %o77ission on "lections' 3/ +f the fra7ers of the 123. %onstitution and the people in ratifying the sa7e on !ay 13, 123. wanted that only the 0ualified &oters under Article A of the 123. %onstitution should participate in the referendu7 on any a7end7ent or re&ision thereof, they could ha&e pro&ided the sa7e in 123. or in the 1230 a7end7ent by =ust adding a few words to Article KA by changing the last phrase to ;sub7itted for ratification to the 0ualified electors as defined in Article A hereof,; or so7e such si7ilar phrases' Then again, the ter7 ;people; in Article KA cannot be understood to e9clusi&ely refer to the 0ualified electors under Article A of the 123. %onstitution because the said ter7 ;people; as used in se&eral pro&isions of the 123. %onstitution, does not ha&e a unifor7 7eaning' Thus in the prea7ble, the ter7 ;<ilipino people; refer, to all <ilipino citi?ens of all ages of both se9es' +n Section 1 of Article ++ on the :eclaration of rinciples, the ter7 ;people; in who7 so&ereignty resides and fro7 who7 all go&ern7ent authority e7anates, can only refer also to <ilipino citi?ens of all ages and of both se9es' $ut in Section . of the sa7e Article ++ on social =ustice, the ter7 ;people; co7prehends not only <ilipino citi?ens but also all aliens residing in the country of all ages and of both se9es' )iBewise, that is the sa7e connotation of the ter7 ;people; e7ployed in Section 1-3/ of Article +++ on the $ill of Rights concerning searches and sei?ures' When the 123. %onstitution wants to li7it action or the e9ercise of a right to the electorate, it does so e9pressly as the case of the election of senators and congress7en' Section 2 Article A+ e9pressly pro&ides that the senators ;shall be chosen at large by the 0ualified electors of the hilippines as 7ay pro&ided by law'; Section . of the sa7e Article A+ specifically pro&ides that congress7en shall ;be elected by the 0ualified electors'; The only pro&ision that see7s to sustain the theory of petitioners that the ter7 ;people; in Article KA should refer to the 0ualified electors as defined in Article A of the 123. %onstitution is the pro&ision that the resident and Aice, resident shall be elected ;by direct &ote of the people'; -Sec' 2 of Art' A++ of the 123. %onstitution/' $ut this alone cannot be conclusi&e as to such construction, because of e9plicit pro&isions of Sections 2 and . of

Article A+, which specifically prescribes that the senators and congress7en shall be elected by the 0ualified electors' As aforesaid, 7ost of the constitutions of the &arious states of the *nited States, specifically delineate in detail procedure of ratification of a7end7ents to or re&ision of said %onstitutions and e9pressly re0uire ratification by 0ualified electors, not by the generic ter7 ;people;' The proposal sub7itted to the (?a7is %o77ittee on the A7ending rocess of the 1233,3. %onstitutional %on&ention satisfied t)at t)e amendment s)all *e su*mitted to 9ualified election for ratification. T)is proposal ,as not accepted indicating t)at t)e 4;2H125 +onstitutional +onvention did intend to limit t)e term ?people? in Article :V of t)e 4;25 +onstitution to 9ualified electors onl"' As abo&e de7onstrated, the 1233,3. %onstitutional %on&ention li7its the use of the ter7 ;0ualified electors; to elections of public officials' +t did not want to tie the hands of succeeding future constitutional con&entions as to who should ratify the proposed a7end7ent or re&ision' -3/ +t is not e9actly correct to opine that Article KA of 123. %onstitution on constitutional a7end7ent conte7plates the auto7atic applicability of election laws to plebiscites on proposed constitutional a7end7ents or re&ision' The &ery phraseology of the specific laws enacted by the #ational Asse7bly and later by %ongress, indicates that there is need of a statute e9pressly authori?ing the application of the election laws to plebiscites of this nature' Thus, %o7' Act #o' 33 on the wo7anDs suffrage a7end7ent enacted on Septe7ber 30, 1235, consists of 12 sections and, aside fro7 pro&iding that ;there shall be held a ple*iscite on =rida", April 27, 4;2E, on the 0uestion of wo7anDs suffrage ''' and that said a7end7ent s)all *e pu*lis)ed in the (fficial 1a?ette in "nglish and Spanish for three consecuti&e issues at least fifteen B45C da"s prior to said election, ... and s)all *e posted in a conspicuous place in its municipal and provincial office *uilding and in its polling place not later t)an April 88, 4;2E; -Sec' 12, %o7' Act #o' 33/, specifies that the pro&isions of the "lection )aw regarding, the holding of aspecial election, insofar as said pro&isions are not in conflict with it, should apply to the said plebiscite -Sec' 3, %o7' Act #o' 33/1@ and, that the &otes cast according to the returns of the board of inspectors s)all *e counted *" t)e 'ational Assem*l" -Sec' 10, %o7' Act #o' 33/' The election laws then in force before 1234 were found in Sections 322,343 of the Re&ised Ad7inistrati&e %ode' Sec' 1 of %o7' Act #o' 3.7, the pre&ious "lection %ode enacted on August 22, 1234, 7aBes it e9pressly applicable to plebiscites' Let the subse0uent laws, na7ely, %o7' Act #os' 322 and .17 and Rep' Act #o' 73 calling for the plebiscite on the constitutional a7end7ents in 1232, 1230 and 1235, including the a7end7ent creating the %o77ission on "lections, specifically pro&ided that the pro&isions of the e9isting election law shall apply to such plebiscites insofar as they are not inconsistent with the aforesaid %o7' Act #os' 322 and .17, as well as Rep' Act #o' 73' Thus E %o77onwealth Act #o' 322, enacted on Septe7ber 12, 1232, calling for a plebiscite on the proposed a7end7ents to the %onstitution adopted by the #ational Asse7bly on Septe7ber 1., 1232, consists of 4 sections and pro&ides that the proposed a7end7ents to the %onstitution adopted in Resolution #o' 32 on Septe7ber 1., 1232 ;shall be sub7itted to the <ilipino people for appro&al or disappro&al at a general election to be held throughout the hilippines on Tuesday, (ctober 23, 1232;@ that the a7end7ents to said %onstitution proposed in ;Res' #o' 34, adopted on the sa7e date, shall be sub7itted at following election of local officials,; -Sec' 1, %o7' Act #o' 322/ that the said a7end7ents shall be published in "nglish and Spanish in three consecuti&e issues of the (fficial 1a?ette at least ten B47C da"s prior to t)e elections @ that copies thereof shall be posted not later than (ctober 20, 1232 -Sec' 2, %o7' Act 322/@ that the election shall be conducted according to provisions of t)e &lection +ode insofar as t)e same ma" *e applica*le @ that within thirty -30/ days after the election, Spea#er of t)e 'ational Assem*l" s)all re9uest t)e $resident to call a special session of t)e Assem*l" for the purpose of can&assing the returns and certify the results thereof -Sec' 5, %o7' Act #o' 322/' %o77onwealth Act #o' .17, consisting of 11 sections, was appro&ed on April 2., 1230 and pro&ided, a7ong others8 that the plebiscite on the constitutional a7end7ents pro&iding bica7eral %ongress, re,election of the resident and Aice, resident, and the creation of a %o77ission on "lections shall be held at a general election on 6une 14, 1230 -Sec' 1/@ that said a7end7ents shall be published in three consecuti&e issues of the (fficial 1a?ette in "nglish and Spanish at least 20 days prior to the election and posted in e&ery local go&ern7ent office building and polling place not later than !ay 14, 1230 -Sec' 2/@ that the election shall be conducted in confor7ity with the "lection %ode insofar as the sa7e 7ay be applicable -Sec' 3/ that copies of the returns shall be forwarded to the Secretary of #ational Asse7bly and the Secretary of +nterior -Sec' 7/@ that the #ational Asse7bly shall can&ass the returns to certify the results at a special session to be called by resident -Sec' 4/' Republic Act #o' 73 appro&ed on (ctober 21, 1235 calling for a plebiscite on the parity a7end7ent consists of 4 sections pro&ides that the A7end7ent ;shall be sub7itted to the people, for appro&al or disappro&al, at a general election which shall be held on Marc) 44, 4;HE, in accordance with the pro&isions of this Act; -Sec' 1, R'A' #o' 73/@ that the said a7end7ent shall be pu*lis)ed in "nglish and Spanish in three consecuti&e issues of the (fficial 1a?ette at least 87 da"s prior to t)e election@ that copies of the sa7e shall be posted in a conspicuous place and in e&ery polling place not later t)an =e*ruar" 44, 4;HE -Section 2, R'A' #o' 73/@ t)at t)e provisions of +om. Act 'o. 25E B&lection +odeC and %o7' Act #o' 5.7 creating the %o77ission on "lections, s)all appl" to t)e election insofar as t)e" are not inconsistent ,it) t)is Act -Sec' 3, R'A' #o' 73/@ and that within 30 days after the election, the Senate and Couse of Representati&es shall hold a =oint session to can&ass the returns and certify the results thereof -Section 5, R'A' #o' 73/' <ro7 the foregoing pro&isions, it is patent that Article KA of the 123. %onstitution does not conte7plate nor en&ision the auto7atic application of the election law@ and e&en at that, not all the pro&isions of the election law were 7ade applicable

because the &arious laws aforecited contain se&eral pro&isions which are inconsistent with the pro&isions of the Re&ised "lection %ode -%o7' Act #o' 3.7/' !oreo&er, it should be noted that the period for the publication of the copies of the proposed a7end7ents was about 10 days, 1. days or 20 days, and for posting at least 3 days, 4 days or 30 days' Republic Acts #os' 140 and 5344 liBewise e9pressly pro&ide that the "lection %ode shall apply to plebiscites -See' 2, R'A' #o' 140, as a7ended, and Section 2, Rep' Act #o' 5344/' +f the "lection %ode ipso facto applies to plebiscites under Article KA of the 123. %onstitution, there would be no need for %ongress to e9pressly pro&ide therefor in the election laws enacted after the inauguration of the %o77onwealth go&ern7ent under the 123. %onstitution' -./ Article KA of the 123. %onstitution does not specify who can &ote and how they shall &ote' *nliBe the &arious State %onstitutions of the A7erican *nion -with few e9ceptions/, Article KA does not state that only 0ualified electors can &ote in the plebiscite' As abo&e,inti7ated, 7ost of the %onstitutions of the &arious states of the *nited States pro&ide for &ery detailed a7ending process and specify that only 0ualified electors can &ote at such plebiscite or election' %ongress itself, in enacting Republic Act #o' 3.20, otherwise Bnown as the $arrio %harter, which was appro&ed on 6une 17, 1257 and superseded Republic Act #o' 2370, e9panded the 7e7bership of the barrio asse7bly to include citi?ens who are at least 14 years of age, whether literate or not, pro&ided they are also residents of the barrio for at least 5 7onths -Sec' 3, R'A' #o' 3.20/' Sec' 3' The barrio asse7bly' E The barrio asse7bly shall consist of all persons who are residents of the barrio for at least si9 7onths, eig)teen "ears of age or over, citi?ens of the Republic of the hilippines and who are dul" registered in t)e list of *arrio assem*l" mem*ers Bept by the $arrio Secretary' The *arrio assem*l" s)all meet at least once a "ear to )ear t)e annual report of t)e *arrio council concerning t)e activities and finances of t)e *arrio ' +t shall 7eet also at the case of the barrio council or upon written petition of at least (ne,Tenth of the 7e7bers of the barrio asse7bly' #o 7eeting of the barrio asse7bly shall taBe place unless notice is gi&en one weeB prior to the 7eeting e9cept in 7atters in&ol&ing public safety or security in which case notice within a reasonable ti7e shall be sufficient' The barrio captain, or in his absence, the council7an acting as barrio captain, or an" assem*l" mem*er selected during t)e meeting, s)all act as presiding officer at all meetings of t)e *arrio assem*l" ' The barrio secretary or in his absence, an" mem*er designated *" t)e presiding officer to act as secretar" s)all disc)arge t)e duties of secretar" of t)e *arrio assem*l" ' <or the purpose of conducting business and taBing any official action in the barrio asse7bly, it is necessary that at least one1fift) of t)e mem*ers of t)e *arrio assem*l" *e present to constitute a 9uorum. All actions s)all re9uire a ma6orit" vote of t)ese present at t)e meeting t)ere *eing a 9uorum ' Sec' .' owers of the barrio asse7bly' E The powers of the barrio asse7bly shall be as follows8 a' To reco77end to the barrio council the adoption of 7easures for the welfare of the barrio@ b' To decide on the holding of a plebiscite as pro&ided for in Section 5 of this Act@ c' To act on budgetary and supple7ental appropriations and special ta9 ordinances sub7itted for its appro&al by the barrio council@ and d' To hear the annual report council concerning the acti&ities and finances of the asse7bly' Sec' 5' lebiscite' E A plebiscite 7ay be held in the barrio when authori?ed by a 7a=ority &ote of the 7e7bers present in the barrio asse7bly, there being a 0uoru7, or when called by at least four 7e7bers of the barrio council@ ro&ided, howe&er, That no plebiscite shall be held until after thirty days fro7 its appro&al by either body, and such plebiscite has been gi&en the widest publicity in the barrio, stating the date, ti7e, and place thereof, the 0uestions or issues to be decided, action to be taBen by the &oters, and such other infor7ation rele&ant to the holding of the plebiscite' All dul" registered *arrio assem*l" mem*ers 9ualified to vote ma" vote in t)e ple*iscite. Voting procedures ma" *e made eit)er in ,riting as in regular election, andIor declaration *" t)e voters to the board of election tellers' The board of election tellers shall be the sa7e board en&isioned by section 4, paragraph 2 of this Act, in case of &acancies in this body, the barrio council 7ay fill the sa7e'

A ple*iscite ma" *e called to decide on t)e recall of an" mem*er of t)e *arrio council ' A plebiscite shall be called to approve an" *udgetar", supplemental appropriations or special ta! ordinances ' =or ta#ing action on an" of t)e a*ove enumerated measures, ma6orit" vote of all t)e *arrio assem*l" mem*ers registered in t)e list of *arrio secretar" is necessar" ' 999 999 999 Sec 10' Iualifications of &oters and candidates' E "&ery citi?en of the hilippines, twenty,one years of age or o&er, able to read and write, who has been a resident of the barrio during the si9 7onths i77ediately preceding the election, duly registered in the list of &oters Bept by the barrio secretary, who is not otherwise dis0ualified, ma" vote or *e a candidate in t)e *arrio elections ' The following persons shall not be 0ualified to &ote8 a' Any person who has been sentenced by final =udg7ent to suffer one year or 7ore of i7prison7ent, within two years after ser&ice of his sentence@ b' Any person who has &iolated his allegiance to the Republic of the hilippines@ and c' +nsane or feeble,7inded persons' All these barrio asse7bly 7e7bers, who are at least 14 years of age, although illiterate, 7ay &ote at the plebiscite on the recall of any 7e7ber of the barrio council or on a budgetary, supple7ental appropriation, or special ordinances, a &alid action on which re0uires ;a 7a=ority &ote of all of the barrio asse7bly 7e7bers registered in the list of the barrio secretary; -par' ., Sec' 5, R'A' #o' 3.20/' Such plebiscite 7ay be authori?ed by a 7a=ority &ote of the 7e7bers present in the barrio asse7bly, there being a 0uoru7 -par' 1, Sec' 5/' Cowe&er, in the case of election of barrio officials, only <ilipino citi?ens, who are at least 21 years of age, able to read and write, residents of the barrio during the 5 7onths i77ediately preceding the election and duly registered in the list of &oters Bept by the barrio secretary, not otherwise dis0ualified, 7ay &ote -Sec' 10, R'A' #o' 3.20/' aragraph 2 of Section 5 liBewise authori?es open &oting as it pro&ides that ;&oting procedures 7ay be 7ade ''' either in writing as in regular elections, andJor declaration *" t)e voters to the board of election tellers'; That said paragraph 2 of Section 5 pro&ides that ;all duly registered barrio asse7bly 7e7bers 0ualified to &ote 7ay &ote in the plebiscite,; cannot sustain the position of petitioners in 1'R' #o' ),3515. that only those who are 21 years of age and abo&e and who possess all other 0ualifications of a &oter under Section 10 of R'A' #o' 3.20, can &ote on the plebiscites referred to in Section 5@ because paragraph 3 of Section 5 does not e9pressly li7it the &oting to those with the 0ualifications under Section 10 as said Section 5 does not distinguish between those who are 21 or abo&e on the one hand and those 14 or abo&e but below 21 on the other, and whether literate or not, to constitute a 0uoru7 of the barrio asse7bly' %onse0uently, on 0uestions sub7itted for plebiscite, all the registered 7e7bers of the barrio asse7bly can &ote as long as they are 14 years of age or abo&e@ and that only those who are 21 years of age or o&er and can read and write, can &ote in the elections of barrio officials' (therwise there was no sense in e9tending 7e7bership in the barrio asse7bly to those who are at least 14 years of age, whether literate or not' Republic Act #o' 3.20 could si7ply ha&e restated Section 3 of Republic Act #o' 2370, the old $arrio %harter, which pro&ided that only those who are 21 and abo&e can be 7e7bers of the barrio asse7bly' %ounsels Salonga and Ta>ada as well as all the petitioners in ),3515. and two of the petitioners in ),35153 participated in the enact7ent of Republic Act #o' 3.20 and should ha&e Bnown the intend7ent of %ongress in e9panding the 7e7bership of the barrio asse7bly to include all those 14 years of age and abo&e, whether literate or not' +f %ongress in the e9ercise of its ordinary legislati&e power, not as a constituent asse7bly, can include 14,year olds as 0ualified electors for barrio plebiscites, this prerogati&e can also be e9ercised by the %hief "9ecuti&e as delegate of the %onstitutional %on&ention in regard to the plebiscite on the 1273 %onstitution' As heretofore stated, the state7ent by the resident in residential rocla7ation #o' 1102 that the 1273 %onstitution was o&erwhel7ingly ratified by the people through the %iti?ensD Asse7blies in a referendu7 conducted fro7 6anuary 10 to 1., 1273, should be accorded the presu7ption of correctness@ because the sa7e was based on the certification by the Secretary of the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent who tabulated the results of the referendu7 all o&er the country' The accuracy of such tabulation and certification by the said :epart7ent Secretary should liBewise be presu7ed@ because it was done in the regular perfor7ance of his official functions aside fro7 the fact that the act of the :epart7ent Secretary, as an alter ego of the resident, is presu7pti&ely the act of the resident hi7self unless the latter disappro&es or reprobates the sa7e -Aillena &s' Secretary of +nterior, 57 hil' 3.1 /' The truth of the certification by the :epart7ent Secretary and the %hief "9ecuti&e on the results of the referendu7, is further strengthened by the affida&its and certifications of 1o&ernor +sidro Rodrigue? of Ri?al,

!ayor #orberto S' A7oranto of Iue?on %ity and %ouncilor "duardo T' arades of Iue?on %ity' The procedure for the ratification of the 1237 a7end7ent on wo7an suffrage, the 1232 a7end7ent to the ordinance appended to the 123. %onstitution, the 1230 a7end7ents establishing the bica7eral %ongress, creating the %o77ission on "lections and pro&iding for two consecuti&e ter7s for the resident, and the 1237 parity a7end7ent, cannot be in&oBed@ because those a7end7ents were proposed by the #ational Asse7bly as e9pressly authori?ed by Article A of the 123. %onstitution respecting wo7an suffrage and as a constituent asse7bly in all the other a7end7ents afore7entioned and therefore as such, %ongress had also the authority to prescribe the procedure for the sub7ission of the proposed a7end7ents to the 123. %onstitution' +n the cases at bar, the 1273 %onstitution was proposed by an independent %onstitutional %on&ention, which as heretofore discussed, has the e0ual power to prescribe the 7odality for the sub7ission of the 1273 %onstitution to the people for ratification or delegate the sa7e to the resident of the Republic' The certification of 1o&ernor +sidro Rodrigue? of Ri?al and !ayor #orberto A7oranto could be utili?ed as the basis for the e9trapolation of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies in all the other pro&inces, cities and 7unicipalities in all the other pro&inces, cities and 7unicipalities, and the affir7ati&e &otes in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies resulting fro7 such e9trapolation would still constitute a 7a=ority of the total &otes cast in fa&or of the 1273 %onstitution' As clai7ed by petitioners in ),3515., against the certification of the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent that in Ri?al there were 1,125,000 Les &otes and 100,310 #o &otes, the certification of 1o&ernor +sidro Rodrigue? of Ri?al, shows only 513,1.7 Les &otes against 222,.30 #o &otes' +n %a&ite pro&ince, there were 232,442 Les &otes against 12,252 #o &otes as disclosed in Anne9 1,A of respondentsD %o7pliance -the certification by the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent/, while the alleged certification of 1o&ernor )ino $ocalan of %a&ite shows only 125,153 Les &otes and .,.77 #o &otes' +f such a ratio is e9tended by way of e9trapolation to the other pro&inces, cities and towns of the country, the result would still be an o&erwhel7ing &ote in fa&or of the 1273 %onstitution' The alleged certification by 1o&ernor )ino $ocalan of %a&ite, is not true@ because in his duly acBnowledged certification dated !arch 15, 1273, he states that since the declaration of 7artial law and up to the present ti7e, he has been under house arrest in his residence in *rdaneta Aillage, !aBati, Ri?al@ that he ne&er participated in the conduct of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies on 6anuary 10 1., 1273 in the pro&ince of %a&ite@ that the acting chair7an and coordinator of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies at that ti7e was Aice, 1o&ernor :o7inador %a7erino@ and that he was shown a letter for his signature during the conduct of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies, which he did not sign but which he referred to Aice,1o&ernor %a7erino -Anne9 1,Re=oinder of the Sol' 1en' dated !arch 20, 1273/' !ayor ablo %uneta liBewise e9ecuted an affida&it dated !arch 15, 1273 stating that on 6anuary 1., 1273, he caused the preparation of a letter addressed to Secretary 6ose Ro>o of the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent showing the results of the referendu7 in asay %ity@ that on the sa7e day, there were still in any %iti?ensD Asse7blies holding referendu7 in asay %ity, for which reason he did not send the aforesaid letter pending sub7ittal of the other results fro7 the said %iti?ensD Asse7blies@ and that in the afternoon of 6anuary 1., 1273, he indorsed the co7plete certificate of results on the referendu7 in asay %ity to the (ffice of the resident -Anne9 .,Re=oinder of Sol' 1en' dated !arch 20, 1273/' ablo <' Sa7onte, Assistant %ity Treasurer and (fficer in %harge of asay %ity also issued an affida&it dated !arch 1., 1273 stating that a certain Atty' :elia Sutton of the Salonga )aw (ffice asBed hi7 for the results of the referendu7@ that he infor7ed her that he had in his possession unsigned copies of such results which 7ay not be considered official as they had then no Bnowledge whether the original thereof had been signed by the 7ayor@ and that in spite of his ad&ice that said unsigned copies were not official, she re0uested hi7 if she could gi&e her the unofficial copies thereof, which he ga&e in good faith -Anne9 %, Re=oinder to the Sol' 1en'/' There were 114,010 Les &otes as against .,.44 #o &otes in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies of Iue?on city -Anne9 A to etitionersD #otes in ),3515./' The fact that a certain !rs' Re7edio 1utierre?, wife of alleged barrio treasurer <austino 1utierre?, of barrio South Triangle, Iue?on %ity, states that ;as far as we Bnow, there has been no %iti?ensD Asse7bly 7eeting in our Area, particularly in 6anuary of this year,; does not necessarily 7ean that there was no such 7eeting in said barrio@ for she 7ay not ha&e been notified thereof and as a result she was not able to attend said 7eeting' !uch less can it be a basis for the clai7 that there was no 7eeting at all in the other barrios of Iue?on %ity' The barrio captain or the secretary of the barrio asse7bly could ha&e been a credible witness' %ouncilor "duardo T' aredes, chair7an of the Secretariat of Iue?on %ity Ratification and %oordinating %ouncil, certified on !arch 12, 1273 that as such chair7an he was in charge of the co7pilation and tabulation of the results of the referendu7 a7ong the %iti?ensD Asse7blies in Iue?on %ity based on the results sub7itted to the Secretariat by the different %iti?ensD Asse7blies@ but 7any results of the referendu7 were sub7itted direct to the national agencies ha&ing to do with such acti&ity and all of which he has no Bnowledge, participation and control -Anne9 3 Re=oinder of the Sol' 1en'/' 1o&ernor +sidro Rodrigue? of Ri?al issued a certification dated !arch 15, 1273 that he prepared a letter to the resident dated 6anuary 1., 1273 infor7ing hi7 of the results of the referendu7 in Ri?al, in co7pliance with the instruction of the #ational Secretariat to sub7it such letter 2 or 3 days fro7 6anuary 10 to show the trend of &oting in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies@ that the figures 513,1.7 and 222,.30 7entioned in said letter were based on the certificates of results in his possession as of 6anuary 13, 1273, which results were 7ade the basis of the co7putation of the percentage of voting trend in t)e province> t)at )is letter ,as never intended to s)o, t)e final or complete result in t)e referendum in t)e province as said referendum ,as t)en still going on

from Januar" 4H14E, 4;E2, for ,)ic) reason t)e said letter merel" stated t)at it ,as onl" a ?summar" result?> and that after 6anuary 1., 1273, he sent to the #ational Secretariat all the certificates of results in 25 7unicipalities of Ri?al for final tabulation -Anne9 3,Re=oinder of the Sol' 1en'@ e7phasis supplied/' )ydia !' "ncarnacion, acting chief of the Records Section, :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent, issued a certificate dated !arch 15, 1273 that she was shown 9ero9 copies of unsigned letters allegedly co7ing fro7 1o&ernor )ino $ocalan dated 6anuary 1., 1273 and 7arBed ;Re=oinder Anne9 %a&ite; addressed to the resident of the hilippines through the Secretary of the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent and another unsigned letter reportedly fro7 !ayor ablo %uneta dated 6anuary 1., 1273 and 7arBed ;Re=oinder Anne9 asay %ity; addressed to the Secretary of the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent@ that both 9ero9 copies of the unsigned letters contain figures showing the results of the referendu7 of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies in those areas@ and that the said letters were not recei&ed by her office and that her records do not show any such docu7ents recei&ed by her office -Anne9 2,Re=oinder of the Sol' 1en'/' Thus it would see7 that petitioners in ),3515. ha&e atte7pted to decei&e this %ourt by representing said unsigned letters andJor certificates as duly signed andJor containing the co7plete returns of the &oting in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies' The obser&ation We 7ade with respect to the discrepancy between the nu7ber of Les &otes and #o &otes contained in the su77ary report of 1o&ernor Rodrigue? of Ri?al as well as those contained in the alleged report of 1o&ernor )ino $ocalan of %a&ite who repudiated the sa7e as not ha&ing been signed by hi7 for he was then under house arrest, on the one hand, and the nu7ber of &otes certified by the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent, on the other, to the effect that e&en assu7ing the correctness of the figures insisted on by counsel for petitioners in ),3515., if they were e9trapolated and applied to the other pro&inces and cities of the country, the Les &otes would still be o&erwhel7ingly greater than the #o &otes, applies e0ually to the alleged discrepancy between the figures contained in the certification of the Secretary of the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent and the figures furnished to counsel for petitioners in ),3515. concerning the referendu7 in %a7arines Sur, $ataan and #egros (ccidental' The fact that the referendu7 in the 7unicipality of asacao, %a7arines Sur, shows that there were 7ore &otes in favor of t)e ple*iscite to *e )eld later than those against, only ser&e to e7phasi?e that there was freedo7 of &oting a7ong the 7e7bers of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies all o&er the country during the referendu7 fro7 6anuary 10 to 1., 1273 -Anne9,5 %a7arines Sur to Re=oinder of etitioners in ),3515./' +f there was no such freedo7 of choice, those who wanted a plebiscite would not outnu7ber those against holding such plebiscite' The letter of 1o&ernor <eli9 (' Alfelor, Sr' dated 6anuary 1273 confir7s the ;strong 7anifestation of appro&al of the new %onstitution by al7ost 27Q by the 7e7bers of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies in %a7arines Sur; -Anne9,%a7arines Sur to Re=oinder of etitioners in ),3515./' The report of 1o&ernor "fren $' ascual of $ataan shows that the 7e7bers of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies &oted o&erwhel7ingly in fa&or of the new %onstitution despite the fact that the second set of 0uestions including the 0uestion ;:o you appro&e of the new %onstitutionH; was recei&ed only on 6anuary 10' ro&incial 1o&ernor ascual stated that ;orderly conduct and fa&orable results of the referendu7; were due not only to the coordinated efforts and cooperation of all teachers and go&ern7ent e7ployees in the area but also to the enthusiastic participation by the people, showing ;their preference and readiness to accept this new 7ethod of go&ern7ent to people consultation in shaping up go&ern7ent policies'; -Anne9,$ataan to Re=oinder of etitioners in ),3515./' As heretofore stated, it is not necessary that &oters ratifying the new %onstitution are registered in the booB of &oters@ it is enough that they are electors &oting on the new %onstitution -$ott &s' Wurts, 30 A 730 F1424G@ 33 A 733, 441 F1422G@ 3. )RA 2.1/' The fact that the nu7ber of actual &oters in the referendu7 in certain localities 7ay e9ceed the nu7ber of &oters actually registered for the 1271 elections, can only 7ean that the e9cess represents the 0ualified &oters who are not yet registered including those who are at least 1. years of age and the illiterates' Although e9,con&icts 7ay ha&e &oted also in the referendu7, so7e of the7 7ight ha&e been granted absolute pardon or were sentenced to less than one year i7prison7ent to 0ualify the7 to &ote -Sec' 201, 1271 Re&' "lection %ode/' At any rate, the e9,con&icts constitute a negligible nu7ber, discounting which would not tilt the scale in fa&or of the negati&e &otes' Si7ilarly, the fact that !ayor !arcial <' Sa7son of %aloocan %ity, who belongs to the )iberal arty, stated in his letter dated !arch 13, 1273 that he does not ;feel authori?ed by the proper authorities to confir7 or deny the data; concerning the nu7ber of participants, the Les &otes and #o &otes in the referendu7 on the new %onstitution a7ong the 7e7bers of the %iti?ensD Asse7blies in %aloocan %ity, does not necessarily gi&e rise to the inference that !ayor Sa7son of %aloocan %ity is being inti7idated, ha&ing been recently released fro7 detention@ because in the sa7e letter of !ayor Sa7son, he suggested to counsel for petitioners in ),3515. that he can secure ;the true and legiti7ate results of the referendu7; fro7 the (ffice of the resident -Anne9 %aloocan,$ to Re=oinder of etitioners in ),3515./' Why did not learned and e7inent counsel heed such suggestionH %ounsel for petitioners in ),3515., to sustain their position, relies hea&ily on the co7putation of the esti7ated turno&er in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies referendu7 on 6anuary 10 to 1., 1273 by a certain rofessor $en=a7in R' Salonga, of the !apua +nstitute of Technology, ostensibly a close relati&e of for7er Senator 6o&ito R' Salonga, e7inent counsel for petitioners in ),3515. -Anne9 !,as a7ended, to %onsolidated Re=oinder of petitioners in ),3515. to the #otes of Argu7ents and !e7orandu7 of respondents/' rofessor Salonga is not a 0ualified statistician, which all the 7ore i7pairs his credibility' :irector Tito A' !i=ares of the $ureau of %ensus and Statistics, in his letter dated !arch 15, 1273 address to the Secretary of the :epart7ent of )ocal

1o&ern7ent and %o77unity :e&elop7ent, refutes the said co7putation of rofessor $en=a7in R' Salonga, thus8 1/ + do not 0uite understand why - roble7 1/ all 0ualified registered &oters and the 1.,20,year,old youths -1272/ will ha&e to be esti7ated in order to gi&e a 101'2Q esti7ate of the percentage participation of the ;1.,20 year old plus total nu7ber of 0ualified &oters; which does not dee7 to answer the proble7' This co7putation apparently fails to account for so7e .'5 7illion persons ;21 years old and o&er; who were not registered &oters -%(!")"%/, but who 7ight be 0ualified to participate at the %iti?enDs Asse7bly' 2/ The official population pro=ection of this office -7ediu7 assu7ption/ for ;1. year olds and o&er; as of 6anuary 1, 1273 is 22'.05 7illion' +f total nu7ber of participants at the %iti?ensD Asse7bly Referendu7 held on 6anuary 10,1., 1273 was 15'702 7illion, participation rate will therefore be the ratio of the latter figure to the for7er which gi&es 73'2Q' 3/ 1 cannot also understand c,2 ;Solution to roble7 11'; The ;difference or i7plied nu7ber of 1.,20 year olds; of .,032,205 would represent really not only all 1.,year olds and o&er who participated at the %iti?ensD Asse7bly but 7ight not ha&e been registered &oters at the ti7e, assu7ing that all the 11,551,202 registered &oted at %iti?ensD Asse7bly' Cence, the ;esti7ate percentage participation of 1., 20 years olds; of 10.'5Q does not see7 to pro&ide any 7eaningful infor7ation' To obtain the participation rate of ;1.,20 years old; one 7ust di&ide the nu7ber in this age group, which was esti7ated to be 3'721 7illion as of 6anuary 1, 1273 by the population of ;1. years old and o&er; for the sa7e period which was esti7ated to be 22'.05 7illion, gi&ing 21'0Q' +n roble7 +++, it should be obser&ed that registered &oters also include na7es of &oters who are already dead' +t cannot therefore be assu7ed that all of the7 participated at the %iti?ensD Asse7bly' +t can therefore be inferred that ;a total nu7ber of persons 1. and o&er un0ualifiedJdis0ualified to &ote; will be 7ore than 10,.34,127 and hence the ;difference or i7plied nu7ber of registered &oters that participated; will be less than 5,1.3,514' + ha&e reser&ations on whether an ;appropriate nu7ber of 0ualified &oters that supposedly &oted; could be 7eaningfully esti7ated' ./ The last re7arB will therefore 7aBe the ratio -a/ FSolution to roble7G 7ore than 1'71 and that for -b/, accordingly, will also be less than 35'4Q'; -Anne9 < Re=oinder/' <ro7 the foregoing analysis of the :irector of %ensus and Statistics as of 6anuary 21, 1273, the official population pro=ection for 1.,year olds and o&er is 22,.05,000' +f 15,702,000 &oted in the referendu7, the participation ratio would be 73'2Q of 22,.05,000' +f the registered electors as of the election of #o&e7ber 4, 1271 nu7bered 11,551,202, the difference between 15,702,000 who participated in the referendu7 and the registered electors of 11,551,202 for the #o&e7ber 4, 1271 elections, is .,030,021, which 7ay include not only the 1.,year olds and abo&e but below 21 but also the 0ualified electors who were not registered before the #o&e7ber 4, 1271 elections as well as illiterates who are 1. years old and abo&e but below 21' !oreo&er, in the last residential election in #o&e7ber, 1252, We found that the incu7bent resident obtained o&er .,000,000 &otes as against about 3,000,000 &otes for his ri&al ) Senator Sergio (s7e>a, 6r', garnering a 7a=ority of fro7 about 425,324 to 1,335,114 -(s7e>a, 6r' &s' !arcos, residential "lection %ontest #o' 3, 6an' 4, 1273/' The petitioners in all the cases at bar cannot state with =ustification that those who &oted for the incu7bent resident in 1252 did not &ote in fa&or of the 1273 %onstitution during the referendu7 fro7 6anuary 10 to 1., 1273' +t should also be stressed that 7any of the partisans of the resident in the 1252 residential elections, ha&e se&eral 7e7bers in their fa7ilies and relati&es who are 0ualified to participate in the referendu7 because they are 1. years or abo&e including illiterates, which fact should necessarily aug7ent the nu7ber of &otes who &oted for the 1273 %onstitution' -5/ +t is also urged that 7artial law being the rule of force, is necessarily inconsistent with freedo7 of choice, because the people fear to disagree with the resident and %o77ander,in,%hief of the Ar7ed <orces of the hilippines and therefore cannot &oice &iews opposite to or critical of the position of the resident on the 1273 %onstitution and on the 7ode of its ratification' +t is also clai7ed or urged that there can be no free choice during 7artial law which ine&itably generates fear in the indi&idual' "&en without 7artial law, the penal, ci&il or ad7inistrati&e sanction pro&ided for the &iolation of ordinarily engenders fear in the indi&idual which persuades the indi&idual to co7ply with or obey the law' $ut before 7artial law was proclai7ed, 7any indi&iduals fear such sanctions of the law because of lacB of effecti&e e0ual enforce7ent or i7ple7entation thereof E in brief, co7part7entali?ed =ustice and e9traneous pressures and influences frustrated the fir7 and =ust enforce7ent of the laws' The fear that is generated by 7artial law is 7erely the fear of i77ediate e9ecution and swift enforce7ent of the law and therefore i77ediate infliction of the punish7ent or sanction prescribed by the law whene&er it is transgressed during the period of 7artial law' This is not the fear that affects the &otersD freedo7 of choice or freedo7 to &ote for or against the 1273 %onstitution' Those who cringe in fear are the cri7inals or the law &iolators' Surely, petitioners do not co7e under such category' -7/ etitioners liBewise clai7 that open &oting by viva voce or raising of hands &iolates the secrecy of the ballot as by the election

laws' $ut the 123. %onstitution does not re0uire secret &oting' We search in &ain for such guarantee or prescription in said organic law' The %o77ission on "lections under the 1230 A7end7ent, e7bodied as Article K is 7erely 7andated to insure ;free, orderly and honest election'; %ongress, under its plenary law,7aBing authority, could ha&e &alidly prescribed in the election law open &oting in the election of public officers, without trenching upon the %onstitution' Any ob=ection to such a statute concerns its wisdo7 or propriety, not its legality or constitutionality' Secret balloting was de7anded by partisan strife in elections for electi&e officials' artisanship based on party or personal loyalties does not generally obtain in a plebiscite on proposed constitutional a7end7ents or on a new %onstitution' We ha&e seen e&en before and during 7artial law that &oting in 7eetings of go&ern7ent agencies or pri&ate organi?ations is usually done openly' This is specially true in sessions of %ongress, pro&incial boards, city councils, 7unicipal boards and barrio councils when &oting on national or local issues, not on personalities' Then again, open &oting was not a uni&ersal pheno7enon in the %iti?ensD Asse7blies' +t 7ight ha&e been true in certain areas, but that does not necessarily 7ean that it was done throughout the country' The recent e9a7ple of an open &oting is the last election on !arch 3, 1273 of the #ational ress %lub officers who were elected by accla7ation presided o&er by its for7er president, petitioner "duardo !onteclaro in ),35235 -see $ulletin Today, p' 4, !arch 3, 1273 issue/' There can be no 7ore hardboiled group of persons than newspaper7en, who cannot say that &oting a7ong the7 by accla7ation was characteri?ed by fear a7ong the 7e7bers of the #ational ress %lub' !oreo&er, petitioners would not be willing to affir7 that all the 7e7bers of the citi?enry of this country are against the new %onstitution' They will not deny that there are those who fa&or the sa7e, e&en a7ong the 300,000 teachers a7ong who7 officers of the :epart7ent of "ducation ca7paigned for the ratification of the new %onstitution' #ot one of the petitioners can say that the co77on 7an E far7er, laborer, fisher7an, lowly e7ployee, =eepney dri&er, ta9i dri&er, bus dri&er, pedestrian, sales7an, or salesgirl E does not want the new %onstitution, or the refor7s pro&ided for therein' -4/ etitioners liBewise clai7 that there was no sufficient publicity gi&en to the new %onstitution' This is 0uite inaccurate@ because e&en before the election in #o&e7ber, 1270 of delegates to the %onstitutional %on&ention, the proposed refor7s were already discussed in &arious foru7s and through the press as well as other 7edia of infor7ation' Then after the %onstitutional %on&ention con&ened in 6une, 1271, specific refor7s ad&anced by the delegates were discussed both in co77ittee hearings as well as in the tri,7edia E the press, radio and tele&ision' rinted 7aterials on the proposed refor7s were circulated by their proponents' <ro7 6une, 1271 to #o&e7ber 22, 1272, refor7s were openly discussed and debated e9cept for a few days after the procla7ation of 7artial law on Septe7ber 21, 1272' <ro7 the ti7e the %onstitutional %on&ention recon&ened in (ctober, 1272 until 6anuary 7, 1273, the pro&isions of the new %onstitution were debated and discussed in foru7s sponsored by pri&ate organi?ations uni&ersities and debated o&er the radio and on tele&ision' The hilippines is a literate country, second only to 6apan in the <ar "ast, and 7ore literate perhaps than 7any of 7id,western and southern states of the A7erican *nion and Spain' !any residents in about 1,.00 towns and 33,000 barrios of the country ha&e radios' "&en the illiterates listened to radio broadcasts on and discussed the pro&isions of the 1273 %onstitution' As reported by the e7inent and widely read colu7nist, Teodoro Aalencia in his colu7n in $ulletin Today, !arch 3, 1273 issue, ;(tto )ang, Collywood producer director -Tora, Tora, Tora/ went around the country doing a 30,7inute docu7entary on the hilippines for A7erican tele&ision stated that what i7pressed hi7 7ost in his tra&el throughout the country was the general acceptance of the #ew Society by the people which he saw in his 5,weeB tra&el fro7 Aparri to 6olo'; The report of <ranB Aaleo -$ulletin Today, !arch 3 and 3, 1273 and :aily "9press, !arch 3, and Sunday "9press, !arch 3/, Secretary of the *nited States Senate, who conducted a personal sur&ey of the country as delegate of Senator !iBe !ansfield, %hair7an, %o77ittee on *S, hilippine relations, states8 Martial la, )as paved t)e ,a" for a re1ordering of t)e *asic social structure of t)e $)ilippines ' resident !arcos has been pro7pt and sure,footed in using the power of presidential decree under 7artial law for this purpose' Ae )as zeroed in on areas ,)ic) )ave *een ,idel" recognized as prime sources of t)e nation0s difficulties E land tenanc", official corruption, ta! evasion and a*use of oligarc)ic economic po,er' %learly, he Bnows the targets' What is not yet certain is how accurate ha&e been his shots' 'evert)eless, t)ere is mar#ed pu*lic support for )is leaders)ip and tangi*le alternatives )ave not *een fort)coming. T)at ,ould suggest t)at )e ma" not *e stri#ing too far from t)e mar# ' The *nited States business co77unity in !anila see7s to ha&e been re,assured by recent de&elop7ents ''' ' -"7phasis supplied'/ etitioners cannot safely assu7e that all the peaceful citi?ens of the country, who constitute the 7a=ority of the population, do not liBe the refor7s stipulated in the new %onstitution, as well as the decrees, orders and circulars issued to i7ple7ent the sa7e' +t should be recalled, as hereinbefore stated, that all these refor7s were the sub=ect of discussion both in the co77ittee hearings and on the floor of the %onstitutional %on&ention, as well as in public foru7s sponsored by concerned citi?ens or ci&ic organi?ations at which %on,%on delegates as well as other Bnowledgeable personages e9pounded their &iews thereon and in all the 7edia of infor7ation before the procla7ation of 7artial law on Septe7ber 21, 1272' This is the reason why the %onstitutional %on&ention, after spending close to 30 7illion during the period fro7 6une 1, 1271 to #o&e7ber 22, 1272, found it e9pedient to accelerate their proceedings in #o&e7ber, 1272 because all &iews that could possibly be said on the proposed pro&isions of the 1273 %onstitution were already e9pressed and circulated' The 1273 %onstitution 7ay contain so7e unwise pro&isions' $ut this ob=ection to such unwise or &ague pro&isions, as heretofore stated, refers to the wisdo7 of the aforesaid pro&isions, which issue

is not for this %ourt to decide@ otherwise We will be substituting (ur =udg7ent for the =udg7ent of the %onstitutional %on&ention and in effect acting as a constituent asse7bly' A+ R"S+:"#T AS %(!!A#:"R +# %C+"< "K"R%+S"S )"1+S)AT+A" (W"RS :*R+#1 !ART+A) )AW' The position of the respondent public officers that under7artial law, the resident as %o77ander,in,%hief is &ested with legislati&e powers, is sustained by the ruling in the 1232 case of .uroda vs. Jalandoni, et al' -43 hil' 171, 177,174/ which reiterates the 123. case of Famas)ita vs. St"er -7. hil' .53, .71,72/' The trial of 1eneral Nuroda was after the surrender of 6apan on (ctober 2, 123. -23 "ncyc' $rit' 1252 ed', p' 722/ and hence no 7ore 7artial law in the hilippines' ''' %onse0uently, in the pro7ulgation and enforce7ent of "9ecuti&e (rder #o' 54, the resident of the hilippines has acted in confor7ity with the generally accepted principles and policies of international law which are part of our %onstitution' T)e promulgation of said e!ecutive order is an e!ercise *" t)e $resident of )is po,ers as +ommander in +)ief of all our armed forces, as upheld by this %ourt in the case of Famas)ita vs. St"ver -),122, 32 (ff' 1a?', 553/ when we said E ;War is not ended si7ply because hostilities ha&e ceased' After cessation of ar7ed hostilities, incidents of war 7ay re7ain pending which should be disposed of as in ti7e of war' ;An important incident to a conduct of ,ar is t)e adoption measures *" t)e militar" command not onl" to repel and defeat t)e enemies *ut to seize and su*6ect to disciplinar" measures t)ose enemies ,)o in t)eir attempt to t),art or impede our militar" effort )ave violated t)e la, of ,ar'; -"9 parte Iuirin, 317 *'S', 1@ 53 Sup' %t', 2'/ +ndeed, the power to create a 7ilitary co77ission for the trial and punish7ent of war cri7inals is an aspect of waging war' And, in the language of a writer, a 7ilitary co77ission ;has =urisdiction so long as the technical state of war continues' This includes the period of an ar7istice, or 7ilitary occupation, up to the effecti&e date of treaty of peace, and 7ay e9tend beyond, by treaty agree7ent'; -%owles, Trial of War %ri7inals by !ilitary Tribunals, A7erican $ar Association 6ournal, 6une, 1233/' +onse9uentl", t)e $resident as +ommander1in1+)ief is full" empo,ered to consummate t)is unfinis)ed aspect of ,ar, na7ely the trial and punish7ent of war cri7inals, through the issuance and enforce7ent of "9ecuti&e (rder #o' 54' -43 hil' 177,174@ e7phasis supplied/' %hief 6ustice Stone of the *nited States Supre7e %ourt liBewise appears to subscribe to this &iew, when, in his concurring opinion in :uncan &s' Nahana7oBu -327 *'S' 303 F1235G/, he defined 7artial law as ; t)e e!ercise of t)e po,er ,)ic) resides in t)e e!ecutive *ranc) of t)e government to preserve order and insure t)e pu*lic safet" in times of emergenc", ,)en ot)er *ranc)es of t)e government are una*le to function, or t)eir functioning ,ould itself t)reaten t)e pu*lic safet" '; -"7phasis supplied/' There is an i7plied recognition in the aforesaid definition of 7artial law that e&en in places where the courts can function, such operation of the courts 7ay be affected by 7artial law s)ould t)eir ?functioning ''' t)reaten t)e pu*lic safet"'? +t is possible that the courts, in asserting their authority to pass upon 0uestions which 7ay ad&ersely affect the conduct of the puniti&e ca7paign against rebels, secessionists, dissidents as well as sub&ersi&es, 7artial law 7ay restrict such =udicial function until the danger to the security of the state and of the people shall ha&e been deci7ated' The foregoing &iew appears to be shared by Rossiter when he stated8 <inally, t)is strong government, ,)ic) in some instances mig)t *ecome an outrig)t dictators)ip, can )ave no ot)er purposes t)an t)e preservation of t)e independence of t)e state, t)e maintenance of t)e e!isting constitutional order, and t)e defense of t)e political and social li*erties of t)e people ' +t is i7portant to recogni?e the true and li7ited ends of any practical application of the principle of constitutional dictatorship' erhaps the 7atter 7ay be 7ost clearly stated in this way8 the go&ern7ent of a free state is proceeding on its way and 7eeting the usual proble7s of peace and nor7al ti7es within the li7iting fra7eworB of its established constitutional order' The functions of go&ern7ent are parceled out a7ong a nu7ber of 7utually independent offices and institutions@ the power to e9ercise those functions is circu7scribed by well,established laws, custo7s, and constitutional prescriptions@ and the people for who7 this go&ern7ent was instituted are in possession of a lengthy catalogue of econo7ic, political, and social rights which their leaders recogni?e as inherent and inalienable' A severe crisis arises E t)e countr" is invaded *" a )ostile po,er, or a dissident segment of t)e citizenr" revolts, or t)e impact of a ,orld1,ide depression t)reatens to *ring t)e nation0s econom" in ruins. T)e government meets t)e crisis *" assuming more po,ers and respecting fe,er rig)ts. T)e result is a regime ,)ic) can act ar*itraril" and even dictatoriall" in t)e s,ift adaption of measures designed to save t)e state and its people from t)e destructive effects of t)e particular crisis' And the narrow duty to be pursued by this strong go&ern7ent, this constitutional dictatorshipH Si7ply this and nothing 7ore8 to end t)e crisis and restore normal times. T)e government assumes no po,er and a*ridges no rig)t unless plainl" indispensa*le to t)at end @ it

e9tends no further in ti7e than the attain7ent of that end@ and it 7aBes no alteration in the political, social and econo7ic structure of the nation which cannot be eradicated with the restoration of nor7al ti7es' +n short, the ai7 of constitutional dictatorship is the co7plete restoration of the status 9uo ante *ellum' This historical fact does not co7port with philosophical theory, t)at t)ere never )as *een a perfect constitutional dictators)ip, is an assertion t)at can *e made ,it)out fear of contradiction. %ut t)is is true of all institutions of government, and t)e principle of constitutional dictators)ip remains eternall" valid no matter )o, often and seriousl" it ma" )ave *een violated in practice ' -%onstitutional :ictatorship, 1234 ed', by %linton )' Rossiter, p' 7@ e7phasis supplied'/ <inally, Rossiter e9pressly recogni?es that during 7artial law, the %hief "9ecuti&e e9ercises legislati&e power, whether of te7porary or per7anent character, thus8 T)e measures adopted in t)e prosecution of a constitutional dictators)ip s)ould never *e permanent in c)aracter or effect' "7ergency powers are strictly conditioned by their purpose and this purpose is the restoration of nor7al conditions' The actions directed to t)is end s)ould t)erefore *e provisional ' <or e9a7ple, measures of a legislative nature ,)ic) ,or# a lasting c)ange in t)e structure of the state or constitute per7anent derogations fro7 e9isting law s)ould not *e adopted under an e7ergency enabling act, at least not ,it)out t)e positivel" registered approval of t)e legislature ' er7anent laws, whether adopted in regular or irregular ti7es, are for parlia7ents to enact' $y this sa7e toBen, the decisions and sentences of e9traordinary courts should be re&iewed by the regular courts after the ter7ination of the crisis' %ut ,)at if a radical act of permanent c)aracter, one ,or#ing lasting c)anges in t)e political and social fa*ric, is indispensa*le to the successful prosecution of the particular constitutional dictatorshipH T)e onl" ans,er can *eJ it must *e resolutel" ta#en and openl" ac#no,ledged. $resident Lincoln found it necessar" to proceed to t)e revolutionar" step of emancipation in aid of )is conservative purpose of preserving t)e @nion@ as a constitutional dictator he had a 7oral right to taBe this radical action' 'evert)eless, it is imperative t)at an" action ,it) suc) lasting effects s)ould eventuall" receive t)e positive approval of t)e people or of t)eir representatives in t)e legislature ' - ' 303, e7phasis supplied/' <ro7 the foregoing citations, under 7artial law occasioned by se&ere crisis generated by re&olution, insurrection or econo7ic depression or dislocation, the go&ern7ent e9ercises 7ore powers and respects fewer rights in order ;to end the crisis and restore nor7al ti7es'; The go&ern7ent can assu7e additional powers indispensable to the attain7ent of that end E the co7plete restoration of peace' +n our particular case, eradication of the causes that incited rebellion and sub&ersion as secession, is the sine 9ua non to the co7plete restoration of nor7alcy' "9ercise of legislati&e power by the resident as %o77ander in %hief, upon his procla7ation of 7artial law, is =ustified because, as he professes, it is directed towards the institution of radical refor7s essential to the eli7ination of the causes of rebellious, insurgent or sub&ersi&e conspiracies and the conse0uent dis7antling of the rebellious, insurgent or sub&ersi&e apparatus' Cence, the issuance of residential :ecree #os' 45 and 45,A as well as rocla7ation #o' 1102 is indispensable to the effectuation of the refor7s within the shortest possible ti7e to hasten the restoration of nor7alcy' ;!ust the go&ern7ent be too strong for the liberties of the people@ or 7ust it be too weaB to 7aintain its e9istenceH; That was the dile77a that &e9ed resident )incoln during the A7erican %i&il War, when without e9press authority in the %onstitution and the laws of the *nited States, he suspended one basic hu7an freedo7 E the pri&ilege of the writ of )a*eas corpus E in order to preser&e with per7anence the A7erican *nion, the <ederal %onstitution of the *nited States and all the ci&il liberties of the A7erican people' This is the sa7e dile77a that presently confronts the %hief "9ecuti&e of the Republic of the hilippines, who, 7ore than the %ourts and %ongress, 7ust, by e9press constitutional 7andate, secure the safety of our Republic and the rights as well as li&es of the people against open rebellion, insidious sub&ersion secession' The %hief "9ecuti&e announced repeatedly that in choosing to proclai7 7artial law, the power e9pressly &ested in hi7 by the 123. %onstitution -Sec' 10F2G, Art' A++, 123. %onstitution/ to insure our national and indi&idual sur&i&al in peace and freedo7, he is in effect waging a peaceful, de7ocratic re&olution fro7 the center against the &iolent re&olution and sub&ersion being 7ounted by the econo7ic oligarchs of the e9tre7e right, who resist refor7s to 7aintain their econo7ic hege7ony, and the co77unist rebels a !aoist oriented secessionists of the e9tre7e left who de7and swift institution of refor7s' +n the e9ercise of his constitutional and statutory powers, to sa&e the state and to protect the citi?enry against actual and threatened assaults fro7 insurgents, secessionists and sub&ersi&es, doctrinaire concepts and principles, no 7atter how re&ered they 7ay be by =urisprudence and ti7e, should not be regarded as pere7ptory co77ands@ otherwise the dead hand of the past will regulate and control the security and happiness of the li&ing present' A contrary &iew would be to deny the self,e&ident proposition that constitutions and laws are 7ere instru7ents for the well,being, peace, security and prosperity of the country and its citi?enry' The law as a 7eans of social control is not static but dyna7ic' araphrasing !r' 6ustice <ranBfurter, the %onstitution is neither a printed finality nor the i7prison7ent of the past, but the enfolding of the future' +n the &ein of !r' 6ustice Col7es, the 7eaning of the words of the %onstitution is not to be deter7ined by 7erely opening a dictionary' +ts ter7s 7ust be construed in the conte9t of the realities in the life of a nation it is intended to ser&e' $ecause e9perience 7ay teach one generation to doubt the &alidity and efficacy of the concepts e7bodied in the e9isting %onstitution and persuade another generation to abandon the7 entirely, heed should be paid to the wise counsel of so7e learned =urists that in the resolution of constitutional 0uestions E liBe those posed before *s E the blending of idealis7 and practical wisdo7 or progressi&e legal realis7 should be applied -see Ale9ander !' $icBel, the Supre7e %ourt and the +dea of rogress, 1270 ed', pp' 12,21/' To 6ustice <ranBfurter, la, is ?a vital agenc" for )uman *etterment? and constitutional la, ?is applied politics using t)e ,ord in its no*le sense'; -<ranBfurter, )aw and olitics, 1232 ed', pp' 3 P 5@ e7phasis supplied/' 6ustice

$randeis ga&e utterance to the truth that ; ur +onstitution is not a straig)t 6ac#et. <t is a living organism. As such, it is capa*le of gro,t) E or e9pansion and adaptation to ne, conditions' 1rowth i7plies changes, political, econo7ic and social'; -$randeis apers, Car&ard )aw School@ e7phasis supplied/' Car&ard rofessor Tho7as Reed owell e7phasi?es ;practical wisdo7,; for ;t)e logic of constitutional la, is t)e common sense of t)e Supreme +ourt '; - owell, the Aalidity of State )egislation, under the Webb,Nenyon )aw, 2 Southern )aw Iuarterly, pp' 112, 134,132, cited in $icBelDs (pus, supra@ e7phasis supplied/' The eternal parado9 in this finite world of 7ortal and fallible 7en is that nothing is per7anent e9cept change' )i&ing organis7s as well as 7an,7ade institutions are not i77utable' %i&ili?ed 7en organi?e the7sel&es into a State only for the purpose of ser&ing their supre7e interest E their welfare' To achie&e such end, they created an agency Bnown as the go&ern7ent' <ro7 the sa&age era thru ancient ti7es, the !iddle Ages, the :arB Ages and the Renaissance to this era of sophisticated electronics and nuclear weaponry, states and go&ern7ents ha&e 7utated in their search for the 7agic instru7ent for their well,being' +t was trial and error then as it is still now' olitical philosophies and constitutional concepts, for7s and Binds of go&ern7ent, had been adopted, o&erturned, discarded, re,adopted or 7odified to suit the needs of a gi&en society at a particular gi&en epoch' This is true of constitutions and laws because they are not ;the infallible instru7ents of a 7anifest destiny'; #o 7atter how we want the law to be stable, it cannot stand still' As !r' 6ustice Col7es aptly obser&ed, e&ery ;constitution is an e9peri7ent as all life is an e9peri7ent,; -Abrah7s &s' *'S', 2.0 *S 515, 531/ for ;the life of the law is not logic, but e9perience'; +n the pontifical tones of !r' 6ustice $en=a7in #athan %ardo?o, ;so long as society is inconstant, there can be no constancy in law,; and ;there will be change whether we will it or not'; As 6ustice 6ose ' )aurel was wont to say, ;We cannot, %anute,liBe, co77and the wa&es of progress to halt'; Thus, political scientists and =urists no longer e9alt with &ehe7ence a ;go&ern7ent that go&erns least'; Adherents there are to the poetic dictu7 of Ale9ander ope8 ;<or for7s of go&ern7ent let fools contest@ whate&er is best ad7inistered is best'; - oe7s of ope, 1231 %a7bridge ed', p' 7.0/' +n between, the shades &ary fro7 direct de7ocracy, representati&e de7ocracy, welfare states, socialist de7ocracy, 7itigated socialis7, to outright co77unis7 which degenerated in so7e countries into totalitarianis7 or authoritarianis7' Cence, e&en the scholar, who ad&ances acade7ic opinions unrelated to factual situations in the seclusion of his i&ory tower, 7ust perforce sub7it to the ine9orable law of change in his &iews, concepts, 7ethods and techni0ues when brought into the actual arena of conflict as a public functionary E face to face with the practical proble7s of state, go&ern7ent and public ad7inistration' And so it is that so7e learned =urists, in the resolution of constitutional issues that i77ediately affect the li&es, liberties and fortunes of the citi?ens and the nation, reco77end the blending of idealis7 with practical wisdo7 which legal thinBers prefer to identify as progressi&e legal realis7' The national leader, who wields the powers of go&ern7ent, 7ust and has to inno&ate if he 7ust go&ern effecti&ely to ser&e the supre7e interests of the people' This is especially true in ti7es of great crises where the need for a leader with &ision, i7agination, capacity for decision and courageous action is greater, to preser&e the unity of people, to pro7ote their well,being, and to insure the safety and stability of the Republic' When the 7ethods of rebellion and sub&ersion ha&e beco7e co&ert, subtle and insidious, there should be a recognition of the corresponding authority on the part of the %o77ander,in,%hief of the Ar7ed <orces to utili?e all the a&ailable techni0ues to suppress the peril to the security of the go&ern7ent and the State' (&er a century and a half ago, Tho7as 6efferson, one of the founding fathers of the A7erican %onstitution and for7er resident of the *nited States, who personifies the progressi&e liberal, spoBe the truth when he said that so7e 7en ;ascribe 7en of the preceding age a wisdo7 7ore than hu7an, and suppose what they did to be beyond a7end7ent' ''' $ut + Bnow also, that laws and institutions 7ust go hand in hand with the progress of the hu7an 7ind' As that beco7es 7ore de&eloped, 7ore enlightened, as new disco&eries are 7ade, new truths disclosed and 7anners and opinions change, with the change of circu7stances, institutions 7ust also ad&ance, and Beep pace with the ti7es'; -Aol' 12, "ncyclopedia $ritanica, 1252 ed', p' 242/' The wisdo7 of the decision of the %hief "9ecuti&e can only be =udged in the perspecti&e of history' +t cannot be ade0uately and fairly appraised within the present a7bience, charged as it is with so 7uch tension and e7otion, if not partisan passion' The analytical, ob=ecti&e historians will write the final &erdict in the sa7e way that they pronounced =udg7ent on resident Abraha7 )incoln who suspended the pri&ilege of the writ of )a*eas corpuswithout any constitutional or statutory authority therefor and of resident <ranBlin :elano Roose&elt who appro&ed the procla7ation of 7artial law in 1231 by the go&ernor of Cawaii throughout the Cawaiian territory' resident )incoln not only e7ancipated the #egro sla&es in A7erica, but also sa&ed the <ederal Republic of the *nited States fro7 disintegration by his suspension of the pri&ilege of the writ of )a*eas corpus, which power the A7erican %onstitution and %ongress did not then e9pressly &est in hi7' #o one can deny that the successful defense and preser&ation of the territorial integrity of the *nited States was due in part, if not to a great e9tent, to the procla7ation of 7artial law o&er the territory of Cawaii E 7ain bastion of the outer periphery or the outpost of the A7erican defense peri7eter in the acific E which protected the *nited States 7ainland not only fro7 actual in&asion but also fro7 aerial or na&al bo7bard7ent by the ene7y' arenthetically, the i7partial obser&er cannot accurately conclude that the A7erican Supre7e %ourt acted with courage in its decision in the cases of &! parte Milligan and (uncan vs. .a)anamo#u -filed on !ay 10, 145. argued on !arch . to 13, 1455, decided on April 3, 1455, and opinion deli&ered on :ece7ber 17, 1455/ after the lifting of the procla7ation suspending the pri&ilege of the writ of )a*eas corpus, long after the %i&il War and the Second World ended respecti&ely on April 2 or 25, 14,5. -Aol' 1, "ncyclopedia $ritannica, 1252 ed', pp' 730, 732/ and on Septe7ber 2, 123. -Aol' 23, "ncyclopedia $ritannica, 1252 ed', p' 722/' Was the delay on the part of the A7erican Supre7e %ourt in deciding these cases against the position of the *nited States resident E in suspending the pri&ilege of the writ of )a*eas corpus in one case and appro&ing the procla7ation of 7artial law in the other E deliberate as an act of =udicial states7anship and recognition on their part that an ad&erse court ruling during the period of such a gra&e crisis 7ight =eopardi?e the sur&i&al of the <ederal Republic of the *nited States in its life,and,death struggle against an organi?ed and well ar7ed rebellion within its own borders and against a for7idable ene7y fro7 without its territorial confines during the last global ar7ageddonH

A+++ :(%TR+#" (< S" ARAT+(# (< (W"RS R"%)*:"S MA'(AM@S A1A+#ST S"#AT(RS' +n 1'R' #o' ),3515., mandamus will not lie to co7pel respondents 1il uyat and 6ose Roy to con&ene the Senate of the hilippines e&en on the assu7ption that the 123. %onstitution still subsists@ because pursuant to the doctrine of separation of powers under the 123. %onstitution, the processes of this %ourt cannot legally reach a coordinate branch of the go&ern7ent or its head' This is a proble7 that is addressed to the Senate itself for resolution@ for it is purely an internal proble7 of the Senate' +f a 7a=ority of the senators can con&ene, they can elect a new Senate resident and a new Senate resident ro Te7pore' $ut if they ha&e no 0uoru7, those present can order the arrest of the absent 7e7bers -Sec' 10F2G, Art' A+, 123. %onstitution/' +f this fails, then there is no re7edy e9cept an appeal to the people' The dictu7 u*i 6us, u*i remedium, is not absolute and certainly does not =ustify the in&ocation of the power of this %ourt to co7pel action on the part of a co,e0ual body or its leadership' This was e7phasi?ed with sufficient clarity by this %ourt in the 1232 case of A&elino &s' %uenco -43 hil' 17, 22,23/, with which the distinguished counsels for the petitioners in ),35153 and ),3515. are fa7iliar' We stress that the doctrine of separation of powers and the political nature of the contro&ersy such as this, preclude the interposition of the 6udiciary to nullify an act of a coordinate body or to co77and perfor7ance by the head of such a co,ordinate body of his functions'' !ystifying is the posture taBen by counsels for petitioners in referring to the political 0uestion doctrine E al7ost in 7ocBery E as a 7agic for7ula which should be disregarded by this %ourt, forgetting that this 7agic for7ula constitutes an essential sBein in the constitutional fabric of our go&ern7ent, which, together with other basic constitutional precepts, conser&es the unity of our people, strengthens the structure of the go&ern7ent and assures the continued stability of the country against the forces of di&ision, if not of anarchy' !oreo&er, if they ha&e a 9uoru7, the senators can 7eet anywhere' Aalidity of the acts of the Senate does not depend on the place of session@ for the %onstitution does not designate the place of such a 7eeting' Section 2 of Article A+ i7poses upon %ongress to con&ene in regular session e&ery year on the 3th !onday of 6anuary, unless a different date is fi9ed by law, or on special session called by the resident' As for7er Senator Arturo Tolentino, counsel for respondents uyat and Roy in ),3515., stated, the duty to con&ene is addressed to all 7e7bers of %ongress, not 7erely to its presiding officers' The fact that the doors of %ongress are padlocBed, will not pre&ent the senators E especially the petitioners in ),3515. E if they are 7inded to do so, fro7 7eeting elsewhere E at the SunBen 1ardens, at the )uneta +ndependence 1randstand, in any of the big hotels or theaters, in their own houses, or at the Araneta %oliseu7, which is owned by the father,in,law of petitioner 1erardo Ro9as in ),3515.' Cowe&er, a session by the Senate alone would be purely an e9ercise in futility, for it cannot &alidly 7eet without the lower Couse -Sec' 10F.G, Art' A+, 123. %onstitution/' Cence, this petition by fi&e for7er senators for mandamus in ),3515. is useless' And as pointed out by for7er Senator Arturo Tolentino, counsel for respondents uyat and Roy, mandamus will lie only if there is a law i7posing on the respondents the duty to con&ene the body' The rule i7posing such a duty in&oBed by petitioners in ), 3515. is purely an internal rule of the Senate@ it is not a law because it is not enacted by both Couses and appro&ed by the resident' The %onstitutional pro&ision on the con&ening of %ongress, is addressed to the indi&idual 7e7bers of the legislati&e body -Sec' 2, Art' A+ of 123. %onstitution/' +K T( #*))+<L R(%)A!AT+(# #(' 1102 A#: 1273 %(#ST+T*T+(# R"I*+R"S "+1CT (R T"# A(T"S (< S* R"!" %(*RT' The petitioners in ),35153 and ),35235 specifically pray for a declaration that the alleged ratification of the 1273 %onstitution is null and &oid and that the said 1273 %onstitution be declared unenforceable and inoperati&e' As heretofore stated, rocla7ation #o' 1102 is an enact7ent of the resident as %o77ander,in,%hief during 7artial law as directly delegated to hi7 by Section 10-2/ of Article A++ of the 123. %onstitution' A declaration that the 1273 %onstitution is unenforceable and inoperati&e is practically deciding that the sa7e is unconstitutional' The proposed %onstitution is an act of the %onstitutional %on&ention, which is co,e0ual and coordinate with as well as independent of either %ongress or the %hief "9ecuti&e' Cence, its final act, the 1273 %onstitution, 7ust ha&e the sa7e category at the &ery least as the act of %ongress itself' %onse0uently, the re0uired &ote to nullify rocla7ation #o' 1102 and the 1273 %onstitution should be eight -4/ under Section 10 of Article A+++ of the 123. %onstitution in relation to Section 2 of the 6udiciary Act or Republic Act #o' 225, as a7ended, or should be ten -10/ under Section 2-2/ of Article K of the 1273 %onstitution' Should the re0uired &ote of eight -4/ or ten -10/, as the case 7ay be, for the declaration of in&alidity or unconstitutionality be not achie&ed, the 1273 %onstitution 7ust be dee7ed to be &alid, in force and operati&e'

K ART+%)" (< <A+TC W" yield to no 7an as de&otees of hu7an rights and ci&il liberties' )iBe Tho7as 6efferson, We swear ;eternal hostility towards any for7 of tyranny o&er the 7ind of 7an; as well as towards bigotry and intolerance, which are anathe7a to a free spirit' $ut hu7an rights and ci&il liberties under a de7ocratic or republican state are ne&er absolute and ne&er i77une to restrictions essential to the co77on weal' A ci&ili?ed society cannot long endure without peace and order, the 7aintenance of which is the pri7ary function of the go&ern7ent' #either can ci&ili?ed society sur&i&e without the natural right to defend itself against all dangers that 7ay destroy its life, whether in the for7 of in&asion fro7 without or rebellion and sub&ersion fro7 within' This is the first law of nature and ranBs second to none in the hierarchy of all &alues, whether hu7an or go&ern7ental' "&ery citi?en, who prides hi7self in being a 7e7ber or a ci&ili?ed society under an established go&ern7ent, i7pliedly sub7its to certain constraints on his freedo7 for the general welfare and the preser&ation of the State itself, e&en as he reser&es to hi7self certain rights which constitute li7itations on the powers of go&ern7ent' $ut when there is an ine&itable clash between an e9ertion of go&ern7ental authority and the assertion of indi&idual freedo7, the e9ercise of which freedo7 i7perils the State and the ci&ili?ed society to which the indi&idual belongs, there can be no alternati&e but to sub7it to the superior right of the go&ern7ent to defend and preser&e the State' +n the language of !r' 6ustice Col7es E often in&oBed by herein petitioners E ;when it co7es to a decision in&ol&ing its -state life, the ordinary rights of indi&iduals 7ust yield to what he -the resident/ dee7s the necessities of the 7o7ent' ublic danger warrants the substitution of e9ecuti&e process for =udicial process' -See Neely &s' Sanders, 22 *'S' 331, 335, 2. ) ed' 327, 324/' This was ad7itted with regard to Billing 7en in the actual clash of ar7s' And we thinB it is ob&ious, although it was disputed, that the sa7e is true of te7porary detention to pre&ent apprehended har7'; -!oyer &s' eabody, 212 *'S' 77, 4., .3 ) ed', 311, 317/' The rhetoric of freedo7 alone is not enough' +t 7ust be the rhetoric of freedo7 with order and security for all, that should be the shibboleth@ for freedo7 cannot be en=oyed in an en&iron7ent of disorder and anarchy' The incu7bent %hief "9ecuti&e who was trying to gain the support for his refor7 progra7 long before Septe7ber 21, 1272, reali?ed al7ost too late that he was being decei&ed by his party7ates as well as by the opposition, who pro7ised hi7 cooperation, which pro7ises were either offered as a bargaining le&erage to secure concessions fro7 hi7 or to delay the institution of the needed refor7s' The people ha&e been &icti7i?ed by such bargaining and dilly,dallying' To &ert a terrifying blood bath and the breaBdown of the Republic, the incu7bent resident proclai7ed 7artial law to sa&e the Republic fro7 being o&errun by co77unists, secessionists and rebels by effecting the desired refor7s in order to eradicate the e&ils that plague our society, which e&ils ha&e been e7ployed by the co77unists, the rebels and secessionists to e9hort the citi?enry to rise against the go&ern7ent' $y eli7inating the e&ils, the ene7ies of the Republic will be deci7ated' Cow 7any of the petitioners and their counsels ha&e been utili?ing the rebels, secessionists and co77unists for their own personal or political purposes and how 7any of the7 are being used in turn by the aforesaid ene7ies of the State for their own purposesH +f the petitioners are sincere in their e9pression of concern for the greater 7ass of the populace, 7ore than for their own sel&es, they should be willing to gi&e the incu7bent %hief "9ecuti&e a chance to i7ple7ent the desired refor7s' The incu7bent resident assured the nation that he will go&ern within the fra7eworB of the %onstitution and if at any ti7e, before nor7alcy is restored, the people thru their %iti?ensD Asse7blies, cease to belie&e in his leadership, he will step down &oluntarily fro7 the residency' $ut if, as apprehended by the petitioners, he abuses and brutali?es the people, then to the battle7ents we 7ust go to 7an the ra7parts against tyranny' This, it is belie&ed, he Bnows only too well@ because he is aware that he who rides the tiger will e&entually end inside the tigerDs sto7ach' Ce who toys with re&olution will be swallowed by that sa7e re&olution' Cistory is replete with e9a7ples of libertarians who turned tyrants and were burned at staBe or beheaded or hanged or guillotined by the &ery people who7 they at first cha7pioned and later decei&ed' The 7ost bloody of such 7ass e9ecutions by the wrath of a wronged people, was the decapitation by guillotine of about 1.,000 <rench7en including the leaders of the <rench re&olution, liBe Robespierre, :anton, :es7oulins and !arat' Ce is fully cogni?ant of the lessons of history' C"#%", TC" :+S!+SSA) (< TC"S" <+A" %AS"S +S 6*ST+<+":' ESGUERRA, J., concurring8 These petitions seeB to stop and prohibit the respondents "9ecuti&e (fficers fro7 i7ple7enting the %onstitution signed on #o&e7ber 30, 1272@ in ),3515., to co7pel respondents 1il uyat and 6ose 6' Roy, resident and resident ro,Te7pore, respecti&ely, of the Senate under the 123. %onstitution, to con&ene the Senate in regular session which should ha&e started on 6anuary 22, 1273@ to nullify rocla7ation #o' 1102 of the resident, issued on 6anuary 17, 1273, which declared the ratification of the %onstitution on #o&e7ber 30, 1272, by the <ilipino people, through the barangays or %iti?ens Asse7blies established under residential :ecree #o' 45 issued on :ece7ber 31, 1272, which were e7powered under residential :ecree #o' 45,A, issued on 6anuary ., 1273, to act in connection with the ratification of said %onstitution' 1rounds for the petitions are as follows8 1' That the %onstitutional %on&ention was not a free foru7 for the 7aBing of a %onstitution after the declaration of !artial )aw on Septe7ber 21, 1272' 2' The %on&ention was not e7powered to incorporate certain pro&isions in the 1272 %onstitution because they are highly unwise

and ob=ectionable and the people were not sufficiently infor7ed about the7' 3' The resident had no authority to create and e7power the %iti?ensD Asse7blies to ratify the new %onstitution at the referendu7 conducted in connection therewith, as said asse7blies were 7erely for consultati&e purposes, and 3' The pro&isions of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution prescribing the 7anner of a7ending the sa7e were not duly obser&ed' The petitions were not gi&en due course i77ediately but were referred to the Solicitor 1eneral as counsel for the respondents for co77ent, with three 7e7bers of the %ourt, including the undersigned, &oting to dis7iss the7 outright' The co77ents were considered 7otions to dis7iss which were set for hearing and e9tensi&ely argued' Thereafter both parties sub7itted their notes and 7e7oranda on their oral argu7ents' +' The issues raised for deter7ination, on which the resolution of the !otion to :is7iss hinges, are as follows8 1' +s the 0uestion presented political and, hence, beyond the co7petence of this %ourt to decide, or is it =usticiable and fit for =udicial deter7inationH 2' Was the new %onstitution of #o&e7ber 30, 1272, ratified in accordance with the a7ending process prescribed by Article KA of the 123. %onstitutionH 3' Cas the new %onstitution been accepted and ac0uiesced in by the <ilipino peopleH 3' +s the new %onstitution actually in force and effectH .' +f the answers to 0uestions #os' 3 and 3 be in the affir7ati&e, are petitioners entitled to the reliefs prayed forH ++' The pi&otal 0uestion in these cases is whether the issue raised is highly political and, therefore, not =usticiable' + 7aintain that this %ourt should abstain fro7 assu7ing =urisdiction, but, instead, as an act of =udicial states7anship, should dis7iss the petitions' +n resol&ing whether or not the 0uestion presented is political, =oint discussion of issues #os' 1, 3 and 3 is necessary so as to arri&e at a logical conclusion' <or after the acceptance of a new %onstitution and ac0uiescence therein by the people by putting it into practical operation, any 0uestion regarding its &alidity should be foreclosed and all debates on whether it was duly or lawfully ushered into e9istence as the organic law of the state beco7e political and not =udicial in character' The undisputed facts that led to the issuance of rocla7ation #o' 1102 and residential :ecrees #os' 45 and 45,A are fully set forth in the 7a=ority and dissenting opinions in the lebiscite cases decided on 6anuary 22, 1273, and need not be repeated here' etitioners seeB to set at naught rocla7ation #o' 1102 and residential :ecrees #os' 45 and 45,A, clai7ing that the ratification of the new %onstitution pursuant to the said decrees is in&alid and of no effect' residential :ecree #o' 45 organi?ed the barangays or %iti?ens Asse7blies co7posed of all citi?ens at least fifteen years of age, and through these asse7blies the proposed 1272 %onstitution was sub7itted to the people for ratification' rocla7ation #o' 1102 of the resident announced or declared the result of the referendu7 or plebiscite conducted through the %iti?ens Asse7blies, and that 13,275,.51 7e7bers thereof &oted for the ratification of the new %onstitution and 733,452 &oted against it' etitioners assail these two acts of the resident as unauthori?ed and de&oid of legal effect' $ut looBing through the &eneer of =udicial confor7ity with which the petitions ha&e been adroitly contri&ed, what is sought to be in&alidated is the new %onstitution itself E the &ery fra7eworB of the present 1o&ern7ent since 6anuary 17, 1273' The reason is ob&ious' The residential decrees set up the 7eans for the ratification and acceptance of the new %onstitution and rocla7ation #o' 1102 si7ply announced the result of the referendu7 or plebiscite by the people through the %iti?ens Asse7blies' The 1o&ern7ent under the new %onstitution has been running on its tracBs nor7ally and apparently without obstruction in the for7 of organi?ed resistance capable of =eopardi?ing its e9istence and disrupting its operation' *lti7ately the issue is whether the new %onstitution 7ay be set aside by this %ourt' $ut has it the power and authority to assu7e such a stupendous tasB when the result of such in&alidation would be to sub=ect this nation to di&isi&e contro&ersies that 7ay totally destroy the social order which the 1o&ern7ent under the new %onstitution has been ad7irably protecting and pro7oting under !artial )awH That the new %onstitution has taBen deep root and the people are happy and contended with it is a li&ing reality which the 7ost articulate critics of the new order cannot deny' 2. out of 104 7e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es ha&e opted to ser&e in the interi7 #ational Asse7bly pro&ided for under the new %onstitution' 1. out of 23 Senators ha&e done liBewise' The 7e7bers of the %ongress did not 7eet any7ore last 6anuary 22, 1273, not because they were really pre&ented fro7 so doing but because of no serious effort on their parts to assert their offices under the 123. %onstitution' +n brief, the )egislati&e :epart7ent under the 123. %onstitution is a thing of the past' The "9ecuti&e :epart7ent has been fully reorgani?ed@ the appoint7ents of Bey e9ecuti&e officers including those of the Ar7ed <orces were e9tended and they tooB an oath to support and defend the new %onstitution' The courts, e9cept the Supre7e %ourt by reason of these cases, ha&e ad7inistered =ustice under the new constitution' All go&ern7ent offices ha&e dealt with the public and perfor7ed their functions according to the new %onstitution and laws

pro7ulgated thereunder' +f the real purpose of the petitions is to set aside the new %onstitution, how can this %ourt =ustify its assu7ption of =urisdiction when no power has ''' conferred upon it the =urisdiction to declare the %onstitution or any part thereof null and &oidH +t is the height of absurdity and i7pudence for a court to wage open war against the organic act to which it owes its e9istence' The situation in which this %ourt finds itself does not per7it it to pass upon the 0uestion whether or not the new %onstitution has entered into force and has superseded the 123. %onstitution' +f it declares that the present %onstitution has not been &alidly ratified, it has to uphold the 123. %onstitution as still the pre&ailing organic law' The result would be too ano7alous to describe, for then this %ourt would ha&e to declare that it is go&erned by one %onstitution or the 123. %onstitution, and the legislati&e and e9ecuti&e branches by another or the 1272 %onstitution' +f it declares that the 1272 %onstitution is now operati&e, how can it e9ercise =udicial discretion in these cases when it would ha&e no other choice but to uphold the new %onstitution as against any other oneH +n the circu7stances it would be bereft of =udicial attributes as the 7atter would then be not 7eet for =udicial deter7ination, but one addressed to the so&ereign power of the people who ha&e already spoBen and deli&ered their 7andate by accepting the funda7ental law on which the go&ern7ent of this Republic is now functioning' To deny that the new %onstitution has been accepted and actually is in operation would be flying in the face of reason and pounding oneDs bare head against a &eritable stone wall or a hea&ily reinforced concrete, or si7ply ;BicBing the deadly pricBs; with oneDs bare foot in an effort to eli7inate the lethal points' When a %onstitution has been in operation for so7eti7e, e&en without popular ratification at that, sub7ission of the people thereto by the organi?ation of the go&ern7ent pro&ided therein and obser&ance of its prescriptions by public officers chosen thereunder, is indicati&e of appro&al' %ourts should be slow in nullifying a %onstitution clai7ed to ha&e been adopted not in accordance with constitutional or statutory directi&es F!iller &s' 6ohnson, 22 Ny' .42@ 142 S'W' .22@ Taylor &s %o77onwealth, 101@ Aa' 422@ 33 S'"' 7.3@ S7ith &s' 1ood, 33 < 203, 207@ Wiston &s' Ryan, 70 #eb' 211@ 27 #'W' 337G' +n Miller vs. Jo)nson, supra, the %ourt said8 ''' $ut it is a case where a new constitution has been for7ed and pro7ulgated according to the for7s of law' 1reat interests ha&e already arisen under it@ i7portant rights e9ist by &irtue of it@ persons ha&e been con&icted of the highest cri7es Bnown to the law, according to its pro&isions@ the political power of the go&ern7ent has in 7any ways recogni?ed it@ and, under suc) circumstances, it is our dut" to treat and regard it as a valid constitution, and no, t)e organic la, of our state ' We need not consider the &alidity of the a7end7ents 7ade after the con&ention reasse7bled' <f t)e ma#ing of t)em ,as in e!cess of its po,er, "et as t)e entire instrument )as *een recognized as valid in t)e manner suggested, it ,ould *e e9uall" an a*use of po,er *" t)e 6udiciar", and violative of t)e rig)ts of t)e people, D ,)o can and properl" s)ould remed" t)e matter, if not to t)eir li#ing, D if it ,ere to declare t)e instrument or a portion invalid, and *ring confusion and anarc)" upon t)e state ' -"7phasis supplied/ +n Smit) vs. Good, supra, the %ourt said8 +t is said that a state court is forbidden fro7 entering upon such an in0uiry ,)en applied to a ne, constitution, and not an amendment, because the =udicial power presupposes an established go&ern7ent, and if the authority of that go&ern7ent is annulled and o&erthrown, the power of its courts is annulled with it@ therefore, if a state court should enter upon such an in0uiry, co7e to the conclusion that the go&ern7ent under which it acted had been displaced by an opposing go&ern7ent, it would cease to be a court, and it would be incapable of pronouncing a =udicial decision upon the 0uestion before it@ but, if it decides at all, it 7ust necessarily affir7 the e9istence of the go&ern7ent under which it e9ercises its =udicial powers' -"7phasis supplied/ These rules are all traceable to Lut)er vs. %orden, 34 *'S -7 Cow'/, 12 )' "d' .41, .24 -1432/ where it was held8 6udicial power presupposes an established go&ern7ent capable of enacting laws and enforcing their e9ecution, and appointing =udges to e9pound and ad7inister the7' The acceptance of the =udicial office is a recognition of the authority of go&ern7ent fro7 which it is deri&ed' And if the authority of the go&ern7ent is annulled and o&erthrown, the power of its courts and other officers is annulled with it' And if a State court should enter upon the in0uiry proposed in this case, and should co7e to conclusion that the go&ern7ent under which it acted had been put aside and displaced by an opposing go&ern7ent it would cease to be a court, and be incapable of pronouncing a =udicial decision upon the 0uestion it undertooB to try' +f it decides at all as a court, it necessarily affir7s the e9istence and authority of the go&ern7ent under which it is e9ercising =udicial power' The foreign relations of the Republic of the hilippines ha&e been nor7ally conducted on the basis of the new %onstitution and no state with which we 7aintain diplo7atic relations has withdrawn its recognition of our go&ern7ent' -<or particulars about e9ecuti&e acts done under the new %onstitution, see pages 22,2. of the %o77ents of the Solicitor 1eneral, dated <ebruary 3, 1273'/ %ertainly the in&alidation of rocla7ation #o' 1102 and residential :ecrees #os' 45 and 45,A by this %ourt would s7acB of plain political 7eddling which is described by the *nited States Supre7e %ourt as ;entering a political thicBet; in %olegro&e &s'

1reen, 324 *'S' p' .32' At this =uncture it would be the part of wisdo7 for this %ourt to adopt the proper attitude towards political uphea&als and reali?e that the 0uestion before *s is political and not fit for =udicial deter7ination' <or a political 0uestion is one entrusted to the people for =udg7ent in their so&ereign capacity -Ta>ada &s' %uenco, 1'R' #o' ),10.20, <eb' 24,1257@ 100 hil' 1101/, or to a co,e0ual and coordinate branch of the 1o&ern7ent -Aera &s' Arellano, 77 hil' 122@ !abanag &s' )ope? Aito, 74 hil' 1@ Ale=andrino &s' Iue?on, 35 hil' 3.@ %abili &s' <rancisco, 1'R' #o' 3534, !ay 4, 1231/' A case in&ol&es a political 0uestion when there would be ;the i7possibility of undertaBing independent resolutions without e9pressing a lacB of respect due to coordinate branches of go&ern7ent;, or when there is ;the potentiality of e7barrass7ent fro7 7ultifarious pronounce7ents by &arious depart7ents on one 0uestion'; To preser&e the prestige and e7inence that this %ourt has long en=oyed as the ;ulti7ate organ of the ;Supre7e )aw of the )and; in that &ast range of legal proble7s often strongly entangled in popular feeling on which this %ourt 7ust pronounce;, let us harBen to the following ad7onition of 6ustice <ranBfurter in his dissent in %a#er vs. +arr, 352 *'S' 145@ 42 S' %t' 521@ 7 )' "d' 2d' 5538 The %ourtDs authority E possessed neither of the purse nor the sword E ultimatel" rests on sustained pu*lic confidence in its moral sanction. Suc) feeling must *e nouris)ed *" t)e +ourt0s complete detac)ment, in fact and appearance, from political entanglements and a*stention from in6ecting itself into t)e clas) of political forces in political settlement ' '''; -"7phasis supplied/ The people ha&e accepted and sub7itted to a %onstitution to replace the 123. %onstitution' The new organic law is now in the plenitude of its efficacy and &igor' We are now li&ing under its aegis and protection and only the cynics will deny this' This %ourt should not in the least atte7pt to act as a super,legislature or a super,board of can&assers and sow confusion and discord a7ong our people by pontificating there was no &alid ratification of the new %onstitution' The sober reali?ation of its proper role and delicate function and its consciousness of the li7itations on its co7petence, especially situations liBe this, are 7ore in Beeping with the preser&ation of our de7ocratic tradition than the blatant decla7ations of those who wish the %ourt to engage in their brand of acti&is7 and would not 7ind plunging it into the whirlpool of passion and e7otion in an effort to capture the into9icating applause of the 7ultitude' <or all the foregoing, + &ote to dis7iss all petitions' MA):+AAR, 6', concurring and dissenting8 +n these fi&e cases, the 7ain issue to be resol&ed by %ourt is whether or not the %onstitution proposed by the %onstitutional %on&ention of 1271 had been ratified in accordance with the pro&isions of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' +n the plebiscite cases, which were decided by this %ourt on 6anuary 22, 1273 1, + held the &iew that this issue could be properly resol&ed by this %ourt, and that it was in the public interest that this %ourt should declare then whether or not the proposed %onstitution had been &alidly ratified' The 7a=ority of this %ourt, howe&er, was of the &iew that the issue was not s0uarely raised in those cases, and so the %ourt, as a body, did 7aBe any categorical pronounce7ent on the 0uestion of whether or not the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %on&ention was &alidly ratified' + was the only one who e9pressed the opinion that the proposed %onstitution was not &alidly ratified and therefore ;it should not be gi&en force and effect'; The %ourt is now called upon to declare, and to infor7 the people of this country, whether or not that proposed %onstitution had been &alidly ratified and had co7e into effect' The Solicitor 1eneral, howe&er, contends that this %ourt has no =urisdiction to resol&e the issue that we ha&e 7entioned because that issue is a political 0uestion that cannot be decided by this %ourt' This contention by the Solicitor 1eneral is untenable' A political 0uestion relates to ;those 0uestions which under the %onstitution are to be decided by the people in their so&ereign capacity or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislati&e, or to the e9ecuti&e, branch of the go&ern7ent' 2 The courts ha&e the power to deter7ine whether the acts of the e9ecuti&e are authori?ed by the %onstitution and the laws whene&er they are brought before the court in a =udicial proceeding' The =udicial depart7ent of the go&ern7ent e9ercises a sort of controlling, or rather restraining, power o&er the two other depart7ents of the go&ern7ent' "ach of the three depart7ents, within its proper constitutional sphere, acts independently of the other, and restraint is only placed on one depart7ent when that sphere is actually transcended' While a court 7ay not restrain the e9ecuti&e fro7 co77itting an unlawful act, it 7ay, when the legality of such an act is brought before it in a =udicial proceeding, declare it to be &oid, the sa7e as it 7ay declare a law enacted by the legislature to be unconstitutional' 3 +t is a settled doctrine that e&ery officer under a constitutional go&ern7ent 7ust act according to law and sub=ect to its restrictions, and e&ery departure therefro7, or disregard thereof, 7ust sub=ect hi7 to the restraining and controlling power of the people, acting through the agency of the =udiciary' +t 7ust be re7e7bered that the people act through the courts, as well as through the e9ecuti&e or the legislature' (ne depart7ent is =ust as representati&e as the other, and =udiciary is the depart7ent which is charged with the special duty of deter7ining the li7itations which the law places upon all official actions 4' +n the case of Gonzales v. +ommission on &lections ), this %ourt ruled that the issue as to whether or not a resolution of %ongress acting as a constituent asse7bly &iolates the %onstitution is not a political 0uestion and is therefore sub=ect to =udicial re&iew' +n the case of Avelino v. +uenco 6, this %ourt held that the e9ception to the rule that courts will not interfere with a political 0uestion affecting another depart7ent is when such political 0uestion in&ol&es an issue as to the construction and interpretation of the pro&ision of the constitution' And so, it has been held that the 0uestion of whether a constitution shall be a7ended or not is a political 0uestion which is not in the power of the court to decide, but whether or not the constitution has been legally a7ended is a =usticiable 0uestion' 7 !y study on the sub=ect of whether a 0uestion before the court is political or =udicial, based on decisions of the courts in the

*nited States E where, after all, our constitutional syste7 has been patterned to a large e9tent E 7ade 7e arri&e at the considered &iew that it is in the power of this %ourt, as the ulti7ate interpreter of the %onstitution, to deter7ine the &alidity of the proposal, the sub7ission, and the ratification of any change in the %onstitution' Ratification or non,ratification of a constitutional a7end7ent is a &ital ele7ent in the procedure to a7end the constitution, and + belie&e that the %ourt can in0uire into, and decide on, the 0uestion of whether or not an a7end7ent to the constitution, as in the present cases, has been ratified in accordance with the re0uire7ents prescribed in the %onstitution that was a7ended' And so, in the cases now before *s, + belie&e that the 0uestion of whether or not the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention had been &alidly ratified or not is a =usticiable 0uestion' The %hief 6ustice, in his opinion, has discussed lengthily the sub=ect on whether or not, the cases, before *s in&ol&e a political, or a =udicial, 0uestion' + fully concur with his conclusion that the 0uestion in&ol&ed in these cases is =usticiable' (n the 0uestion now of whether or not the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention has been &alidly ratified, + a7 reproducing herein pertinent portions of 7y dissenting opinion in the plebiscite cases8 The ratification of the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention 7ust be done in accordance with the pro&isions of Section 1, Article KA of the 123. %onstitution of the hilippines, which reads8 ;Section 1' The %ongress in =oint session asse7bled by a &ote of three fourths of all the !e7bers of the Senate and of the Couse of Representati&es &oting separately, 7ay propose a7end7ents to the %onstitution or call a con&ention for that purpose' Such a7end7ents shall be &alid as part of this %onstitution when appro&ed by a 7a=ority of the &otes cast at an election at which the a7end7ents are sub7itted to the people for their ratification'; +t is in consonance with the abo&e0uoted pro&ision of the 123. %onstitution that on !arch 15, 1257, the %ongress of the hilippines Resolution #o' 2 calling a con&ention to propose a7end7ents to the %onstitution of the hilippines' Sec' 7 of said Resolution #o' 2 reads as follows8 ;Section 7' The a7end7ents proposed by the %on&ention shall be &alid and considered part of the %onstitution when appro&ed by a 7a=ority of the &otes cast in an election at which they are sub7itted to the people for their ratification pursuant to Article KA of the %onstitution' +t follows that fro7 the &ery resolution of the %ongress of the hilippines which called for the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention, there was a clear 7andate that the a7end7ents proposed by the 1271 %on&ention, in order to be &alid and considered part of the %onstitution, 7ust be appro&ed by 7a=ority of the &otes cast in an election at which they are sub7itted to the people for the ratification as pro&ided in the %onstitution' This %ourt, in the case of Tolentino vs. +ommission &lections, ),3.130, (ctober 15, 1271 -31 S%RA 71./, speaBing through !r' 6ustice $arredo, said8 ;The %onstitutional %on&ention of 1271, as any other con&ention of the sa7e nature, o,es its e!istence and all its aut)orit" and po,er from t)e e!isting +onstitution of t)e $)ilippines' This %on&ention has not been called by the people directly as in the case of a re&olutionary con&ention which drafts the first %onstitution of an entirely new go&ern7ent born of either a war of liberation fro7 a 7other country or of re&olution against an e9isting go&ern7ent or of a bloodless sei?ure of power a la coup d0etat' As to such Bind of con&entions, it is absolutely true that the con&ention is co7pletely without restraint and o7nipotent all wise, and it as to such con&entions that the re7arBs of :elegate !anuel Ro9as of the %onstitutional %on&ention of 1233 0uoted by Senator elae? refer' #o a7ount of rationali?ation can belie the fact that the current con&ention ca7e into being only because it was called by a resolution of a =oint session of %ongress acting as a constituent asse7bly by authority of Section 1, Article KA of the present %onstitution ''' '; 999 999 999 ;As to 7atters not related to its internal operation and the perfor7ance of its assigned 7ission to propose a7end7ents to the %onstitution, the %on&ention and its officers and 7e7bers are all su*6ect to all t)e provisions of t)e e!isting +onstitution ' #ow we hold that e&en as to its latter tas# of proposing amendments to t)e +onstitution, it is su*6ect to t)e provisions of Section 4 of Article :V'; +n rocla7ation #o' 1102, issued on 6anuary 17, 1273, the resident of the hilippines certified that as a result of the &oting before the barangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ 13,275,.51 7e7bers of the barangays &oted for the adoption of the proposed %onstitution, as against 733,452 who &oted for its re=ection, and on

the basis of the o&erwhel7ing 7a=ority of the &otes cast by the 7e7bers of all the barangays throughout the hilippines, the resident proclai7ed that the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %on&ention has been ratified and has thereby co7e into effect' +t is &ery plain fro7 the &ery wordings of rocla7ation #o' 1102 that the pro&isions of Section 1 of Article KA of the %onstitution of 123. were not co7plied with' +t is not necessary that e&idence be produced before this %ourt to show that no elections were held in accordance with the pro&isions of the "lection %ode' rocla7ation #o' 1102 une0ui&ocally states that the proposed %onstitution of 1272 was &oted upon by the barangays' +t is &ery clear, therefore, that the &oting held in these barangays is not the election conte7plated in the pro&isions of Section 1, Article KA, of the 123. %onstitution' The election conte7plated in said constitutional pro&ision is an election held in accordance with the pro&isions of the election law, where only the 0ualified and registered &oters of the country would cast their &otes, where official ballots prepared for the purpose are used, where the &oters would prepare their ballots in secret inside the &oting booths in the polling places established in the different election precincts throughout the country, where the election is conducted by election inspectors duly appointed in accordance with the election law, where the &otes are can&assed and reported in a 7anner pro&ided for in the election law' +t was this Bind of election that was held on !ay 13, 123., when the %onstitution of 123. was ratified@ on April 30, 1237, when the a7end7ent to the %onstitution pro&iding for Wo7enDs Suffrage was ratified@ on 6une 14, 1230, when the 1230 A7end7ents to the %onstitution were ratified@ on !arch 11, 1237 when the arity A7end7ent to the %onstitution was ratified@ and on #o&e7ber 13, 1257 when the a7end7ents to the %onstitution to increase the nu7ber of !e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es and to allow the !e7bers of %ongress to run in the elections for :elegates to the %onstitutional %on&ention of 1271 were re=ected' + cannot see any &alid reason why the practice or procedure in the past, in i7ple7enting the constitutional pro&ision re0uiring the holding, of an election to ratify or re=ect an a7end7ent to the %onstitution, has not been followed in the case of the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention' +t is 7y &iew that the resident of the hilippines cannot by decree order the ratification of the proposed 1272 %onstitution thru a &oting in the barangays and 7aBe said result the basis for proclai7ing the ratification of the proposed constitution' +t is &ery clear, to 7e, that rocla7ation #o' 1102 was issued in co7plete disregard or in &iolation, of the pro&isions of Section 1 of Article K of the 123. %onstitution' rocla7ation #o' 1102 7entions, further7ore, that on the 0uestion as to whether or not the people would still liBe a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new %onstitution, 13,224,413 7e7bers of the barangays answered that there was no need for a plebiscite but that the &ote of the barangays should be considered a &ote in a plebiscite' +t would thus appear that the barangays assu7ed the power to deter7ine whether a plebiscite as ordained in the %onstitution be held or not' +ndeed, the pro&ision of Section 1, Article KA of the %onstitution was co7pletely disregarded' The affir7ati&e &otes cast in the barangays are not the &otes conte7plated in Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' The &otes conte7plated in said constitutional pro&ision are &otes obtained through the election processes as pro&ided by law' ;An election is the e7bodi7ent of the popular will, the e9pression of the so&ereign power of the people' +n co77on parlance, an election is the act of casting and recei&ing the ballots, counting the7, and 7aBing the return'; -Conti&eros &s' Alta&as, 23 hil' 532, 537/' ;"lection; i7plies a choice by an electoral body at the ti7e and substantially in the 7anner and with the safeguards pro&ided by law with respect to so7e 0uestion or issue' -)effel &' $rown, %o7' 1', 1.2 #'"' 2d 407, 404 cited in 22 %'6'S' 13 at footnote 5'./' ;''' the statutory 7ethod whereby 9ualified voters or electors pass on &arious public 7atters sub7itted to the7 E the election of officers, national, state, county, township E the passing on &arious other 0uestions sub7itted for their deter7ination'; -22 %'6'S' 13, citing +owa,+llinois 1as P "lec' %o' &' %ity of $ettendorf, 31 #'W' 2d 1, ., 231 +owa 3.4/' ;"lection; is e9pression of choice by voters of body politic' -1insburg &' 1iles, 72 S'W' 2d 334, 2.3 Ny' 720, in Words and hrases, er7anent "dition, p' 233/' ;The right to &ote 7ay be e9ercised only on co7pliance with such statutory re0uire7ents as ha&e been set by the legislature'; - eople e9 rel' Rago &' )ipsBy, 53 #'"' 2d 532, 327 +++' App' 53@ Rothfels &' Southworth, 3.5 ' 2d 512, 11 *tah 2d 152 in 22 %'6'S' 34/' -"7phasis supplied/' +n this connection + herein 0uote the pertinent pro&isions of the "lection %ode of 12718 ;Sec' 2' Applica*ilit" of t)is Act' E All elections of public officers e9cept barrio officials and plebiscites

shall be conducted in the 7anner pro&ided by this %ode'; ;Sec 22' 'ecessit" of registration to *e entitled to vote' E +n order that a 0ualified &oter 7ay &ote in any regular or special election or in any plebiscite, he 7ust be registered in the per7anent list of &oters for the city, 7unicipality or 7unicipal district in which he resides8 ro&ided, that no person shall register 7ore than once without first applying for cancellation of his pre&ious registration'; -"7phasis supplied/' - lease see also Sections 100,102, "lection %ode of 1271, R'A' #o' 5344/ +t is stated in rocla7ation #o' 1102 that the &oting was done by the 7e7bers of citi?ens asse7blies who are 1. years of age or o&er' *nder the pro&ision of Section + of Article A of the 123. %onstitution, the age re0uire7ent to be a 0ualified &oter is 21 years or o&er' $ut what is 7ore noteworthy is the fact that the &oting in the barangays, e9cept in &ery few instances, was done by the raising of hands by the persons indiscri7inately gathered to participate in the &oting, where e&en children below 1. years of age were included' This is a 7atter of co77on obser&ation, or of co77on Bnowledge, which the %ourt 7ay taBe =udicial notice of' To consider the &otes in the barangays as e9pressi&e of the popular will and use the7 as the basis in declaring whether a %onstitution is ratified or re=ected is to resort to a &oting by de7onstrations, which is would 7ean the rule of the crowd, which is only one degree higher than the rule by the 7ob' %ertainly, so i7portant a 0uestion as to whether the %onstitution, which is the supre7e law of the land, should be ratified or not, 7ust not be decided by si7ply gathering people and asBing the7 to raise their hands in answer to the 0uestion of whether the &ote for or against a proposed %onstitution' The election as pro&ided by law should be strictly obser&ed in deter7ining the will of the so&ereign people in a de7ocracy' +n our Republic, the will of the people 7ust be e9pressed through the ballot in a 7anner that is pro&ided by law' +t is said that in a de7ocracy, the will of the people is the supre7e law' +ndeed, the people are so&ereign, but the will of the people 7ust be e9pressed in a 7anner as the law and the de7ands a well,ordered society re0uire' The rule of law 7ust pre&ail e&en o&er the apparent will of the 7a=ority of the people, if that will had not been e9pressed, or obtained, in accordance with the law' *nder the rule of law, public 0uestions 7ust be decided in accordance with the %onstitution and the law' This is specially true in the case of adoption of a constitution or in the ratification of an a7end7ent to the %onstitution' The following citations are, to 7e, &ery rele&ant in the effort to deter7ine whether the proposed %onstitution of 1272 had been &alidly ratified, or not8 ;When it is said that ;the people; ha&e the right to alter or a7end the constitution, it 7ust not be understood that ter7 necessarily includes all the inhabitants of the state' Since the 0uestion of the adoption or re=ection of a proposed new constitution or constitutional a7end7ent 7ust be answered a &ote, the deter7ination of it rests with those who, by e9isting constitution, are accorded the right of suffrage' $ut the 0ualified electors 7ust be understood in this, as in 7any other cases, as representing those who ha&e not the right to participate in the ballot' +f a constitution should be abrogated and a new one adopted, by the whole 7ass of people in a state acting through representati&es not chosen by the ;people; in political sense of the ter7, but by the general body of the populace, the 7o&e7ent would be e9tra,legal'; -$+acBDs %onstitutional )aw, Second "dition, pp' 37,34/' ;The theory of our political syste7 is that the ulti7ate so&ereignty is in the people, fro7 who7 springs all legiti7ate authority' The people of the *nion created a national constitution, and conferred upon it powers of so&ereignty on certain sub=ects, and the people of each State created a State go&ern7ent, to e9ercise the re7aining powers of so&ereignty so far as they were disposed to allow the7 to be e9ercised at all' $y the constitution which they establish, they not only tie up the hands of their official agencies, but their own hands as well@ and neither the officers of the State, nor the whole people as an aggregate body, are at liberty to taBe action in opposition to this funda7ental law'; -%ooleyDs %onstitutional )i7itations, 4th "dition, Aol' +, p' 41 cited in 1raha7 &' 6ones, 3 So' 2d' 751, 742/' ;The theory that a fa&orable &ote by the electorate, howe&er unani7ous, on a proposal to a7end a constitution, 7ay cure, render innocuous, all or any antecedent failures to obser&e co77ands of that %onstitution in respect of the for7ulation or sub7ission of proposed a7end7ents thereto, does not pre&ail in Alaba7a, where the doctrine of the stated theory was denied, in ob&ious effect, by the pronounce7ent 50 years ago of broad, wholeso7e constitutional principles in +ollier v. =rierson, supra, as 0uoted in the original opinion, ante' The people the7sel&es are bound by the %onstitution@ and, being so bound, are powerless, whate&er their nu7bers, to change or thwart its 7andates, e9cept through the peaceful 7eans of a constitutional con&ention, or of an a7end7ent according to the 7ode therein prescribed, or through the e9ertion of the original right of re&olution' ;The %onstitution 7ay be set aside by re&olution, but it can only be a7ended in the way it

pro&ides,; said Cobson, %'6', in !c%reary &' Speer, 1.5 Ny' 743, 721, 152 S'W' 22, 103' -6ohnson &s' %raft, et al', 47 So' 37., 34., 347, (n Rehearing/' ;The fact that a 7a=ority &oted for the a7end7ent, unless the &ote was taBen as pro&ided by the %onstitution, is not sufficient to 7aBe a change in that instru7ent' Whether a proposed a7end7ent has been legally adopted is a =udicial 0uestion, for the court 7ust uphold and enforce the %onstitution as written until it is a7ended in the way which it pro&ides for'; /ood v. Too#er, 1. !ont' 4, 37 ac 430, 2. )'R'A' .50@Mc+onaug)t" v. State, 105 !inn' 302, 112 #'W' 304@ a#land $aving +ompan" v. Ailton, 52 %al' 322, 11 ac' 3@ @tter v. Mosel", 15 +daho 273, 100 ac' 12.4, 133 A7' St' Rep' 23, 14 Ann' %as' 723' -!c%reary &' Speer, 152 S'W' 22, 103/' ; ro&isions of a constitution regulating its own a7end7ent, ''' are not 7erely directory, but are 7andatory@ and a strict obser&ance of e&ery substantial 7andatory@ and a strict obser&ance of e&ery substantial re0uire7ent is essential to the &alidity of the proposed a7end7ent' These pro&isions are as binding on the people as on the legislature, and the for7er are powerless by &ote of acceptance to gi&e legal sanction to an a7end7ent the sub7ission of which was 7ade in disregard of the li7itations contained in the constitution'; -15 %'6'S' 3.,35' cited in 1raha7 &' 6ones, 3 So' 2d 751, 742/' ;+t is said that chaos and confusion in the go&ern7ent affairs of the State will result fro7 the %ourtDs action in declaring the proposed constitutional a7end7ent &oid' This state7ent is grossly and 7anifestly inaccurate' +f confusion and chaos should ensue, it will not be due to the action of the %ourt but will be the result of the failure of the drafters =oint resolution to obser&e, follow and obey the plain essential pro&isions of the %onstitution' <urther7ore, to say that, the %ourt disregards its sworn duty to enforce the %onstitution, chaos and confusion will result, is an inherently weaB argu7ent in fa&or of the alleged constitutionality of the proposed a7end7ent' +t is ob&ious that, if the %ourt were to countenance the &iolations of the sacra7ental pro&isions %onstitution, those who would thereafter desire to &iolate it disregard its clear 7andatory pro&isions would resort to the sche7e of in&ol&ing and confusing the affairs of the State then si7ply tell the %ourt that it was powerless to e9ercise one of its pri7ary functions by rendering the proper decree to 7aBe the %onstitution effecti&e'; -1raha7 &' 6ones, 3 So' 2d' 751, 723,723/' +n our =urisprudence + find an instance where this %ourt did not allow the will of the 7a=ority to pre&ail, because the re0uire7ents of the law were not co7plied with' +n the case of Monsale v. 'ico, 43 hil' 7.4, !onsale and #ico were both candidates for the office of !unicipal !ayor of !iagao, +loilo, in the elections of #o&e7ber 11, 1237' !onsale had duly filed his certificate of candidacy before the e9piration of the period for the filing of the sa7e' Cowe&er, on (ctober 10, 1237, after the period for the filing of the certificate of candidacy, !onsale withdrew his certificate of candidacy' $ut on #o&e7ber 7, 1237 !onsale atte7pted to re&i&e his certificate of candidacy by withdrawing the withdrawal of certificate of candidacy' The %o77ission on "lections, #o&e7ber 4, 1237, ruled that !onsale could no longer be a candidate' !onsale ne&ertheless proceeded with his candidacy' The boards of inspectors in !iagao, howe&er, did not count the &otes cast for !onsale upon the ground that the &otes cast for hi7 were stray &otes, because he was considered as ha&ing no certificate of candidacy' (n the other hand, the boards of inspectors credited #ico with 2,221 &otes, and #ico was proclai7ed elected' !onsale filed a protest against the election of #ico in the %ourt of <irst +nstance of +loilo' +n the count of the ballots during the proceedings in the trial court, it appeared that !onsale had obtained 2,477 &otes while #ico obtained 2,275 &otes, or a 7argin of 501 &otes in fa&or of !onsale' The %ourt of <irst +nstance of +loilo decided the election protest in fa&or of !onsale' *pon appeal by #ico, this %ourt re&ersed the decision of the lower court' This %ourt declared that because !onsale withdrew his certificate of candidacy, his atte7pt to re&i&e it by withdrawing his withdrawal of his certificate of candidacy did not restore the effecti&eness of his certificate of candidacy, and this %ourt declared #ico the winner in spite of the fact that !onsale had obtained 7ore &otes than he' We ha&e cited this !onsale case to show that the will of the 7a=ority of the &oters would not be gi&en effect, as declared by this %ourt, if certain legal re0uire7ents ha&e not been co7plied with in order to render the &otes &alid and effecti&e to decide the result of an election' And so, in the cases now before this %ourt, the fact that the &oting in the citi?ens asse7blies -barangays/ is not the election that is pro&ided for in the 123. %onstitution for the ratification of the a7end7ent to the %onstitution, the affir7ati&e &otes cast in those asse7blies can not be 7ade the basis for declaring the ratification of the proposed 1272 %onstitution, in spite of the fact that it was reported that 13,275,.51 7e7bers of the citi?ens asse7blies &oted for the adoption as against 733,452 for the re=ection, because the &otes thus obtained were not in accordance with the pro&isions of Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution of the hilippines' The rule of law 7ast be upheld' !y last obser&ation8 (ne of the &alid grounds against the holding of the plebiscite on 6anuary 1., 1273, as pro&ided in residential :ecree #o' 73, is that there is no freedo7 on the part of the people to e9ercise

their right of choice because of the e9istence of 7artial law in our country' The sa7e ground holds true as regards to the &oting of the barangays on 6anuary 10 to 1., 1273' !ore so, because by 1eneral (rder #o' 20, issued on 6anuary 7, 1273, the resident of the hilippines ordered ;that the pro&isions of Section 3 of residential :ecree #o' 73 in so far as they allow free public discussion of the proposed constitution, as well as 7y order of :ece7ber 17, 1272 te7porarily suspending the effects of rocla7ation #o' 1041 for the purpose of free and open debate on the proposed constitution, be suspended in the 7eanti7e'; +t is, therefore, 7y &iew that &oting in the barangays on 6anuary 10, 1273 was not free, and so this is one added reason why the results of the &oting in the barangays should not be 7ade the basis for procla7ation of the ratification of the proposed %onstitution' +t is 7y &iew, therefore, that rocla7ation #o' 1102 repugnant to the 123. %onstitution, and so it is in&alid, and should not be gi&en effect' The %onstitution of 1272 proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention should be considered as not yet ratified by the people of this Republic, and so it should not be gi&en force and effect' +t is urged by the Solicitor 1eneral, howe&er, that the &oting in the citi?ens asse7blies was a substantial co7pliance with the pro&isions of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' The Solicitor 1eneral 7aintains that the pri7ary thrust of the pro&ision of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution is that ;to be &alid, a7end7ents 7ust gain the appro&al of the 7a=ority recognition of the de7ocratic postulate that so&ereign resides in the people'; +t is not disputed that in a de7ocratic so&ereignty resides in the people' $ut the ter7 ?people? 7ust be understood in its constitutional 7eaning, and they are ;those persons who are per7itted by the %onstitution to e9ercise the electi&e franchise'; ? Thus, in Section 2 of Article A++ of the 123. %onstitution, it is pro&ided that ;the resident shall hold his office during a ter7 of four years and, together with the Aice, resident chosen for the sa7e ter7, shall be elected by direct &ote of the people'''; %ertainly under that constitutional pro&ision, the ?people? who elect directly the resident and the Aice, resident are no other than the persons who, under the pro&isions of the sa7e %onstitution, are granted the right to &ote' +n liBe 7anner the pro&ision in Section 1 of Article ++ of the 123. %onstitution which says ;So&ereignty resides in the people and all go&ern7ent authority e7anates fro7 the7;, the ;people; who e9ercise the so&ereign power are no other than the persons who ha&e the right to &ote under the %onstitution' +n the case of Garc)itorena vs. +rescini 9, this %ourt, speaBing through !r' 6ustice 6ohnson, said, ;+n de7ocracies, the people, co7bined, represent the so&ereign power of the State' Their so&ereign authority is e9pressed through the ballot, of the 0ualified &oters, in duly appointed elections held fro7 ti7e to ti7e, by 7eans of which they choose their officials for definite fi9ed periods, and to who7 they entrust, for the ti7e being, as their representati&es, the e9ercise of the powers of go&ern7ent'; +n the case of Mo"a v. (el =ierro, 1@ this %ourt, speaBing through !r' 6ustice )aurel, said, ;As long as popular go&ern7ent is an end to be achie&ed and safeguarded, suffrage, whate&er 7ay be the 7odality and for7 de&ised, 7ust continue to be the 7eans by which the great reser&oir of power 7ust be e7ptied into the receptacular agencies wrought by the people through their %onstitution in the interest of good go&ern7ent and the co77on weal' Republicanis7, in so far as it i7plies the adoption of a representati&e type of go&ern7ent, necessarily points to the enfranc)ised citizen as a particle of popular sovereignt" and as t)e ultimate source of t)e esta*lis)ed aut)orit" '; And in the case of A*anil v. Justice of t)e $eace of %acolod , 11 this %ourt said8 ;+n the sche7e of our present republican go&ern7ent, the people are allo,ed to )ave a voice t)erein t)roug) t)e instrumentalit" of suffrage to be a&ailed of by those possessing certain prescribed 0ualifications' The people, in clothing a citi?en with the electi&e franchise for the purpose of securing a consistent and perpetual ad7inistration of the go&ern7ent they ordain, charge hi7 with the perfor7ance of a duty in the nature of a public trust, and in that respect constitute )im a representative of t)e ,)ole people' This duty re0uires that the pri&ilege thus bestowed e9clusi&ely for the benefit of the citi?en or class of citi?ens professing it, but in good faith and with an intelligent ?eal for the general benefit and welfare of the state' -*'S' &' %ruiBshauB, 22 *'S' .44/'''; There is no 0uestion, therefore, that when we talB of so&ereign people, what is 7eant are the people who act through the duly 0ualified and registered &oters who &ote during an election that is held as pro&ided in the %onstitution or in the law' The ter7 ;election; as used in Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution should be construed along with the ter7 ;election; as used in the ro&isions of Section 3 of the hilippine +ndependence Act of the %ongress of the *nited States, popularly Bnown as the Tydings,!c:uffie )aw - ublic Act #o' 127/' Said Section 3 of the Tydings,!c:uffie )aw pro&ides as follows8 Section H' After the resident of the *nited States certified that the constitution confor7s with the pro&isions of this act, it shall be sub7itted to the people of the hilippine +slands for their ratification or re=ection at an election to he held within 7onths after the date of such certification, on a date to be fi9ed by the hilippine )egislature at ,)ic) election, t)e 9ualified voters of t)e $)ilippine <slands s)all )ave an opportunit" to vote directl" or against t)e proposed constitution and ordinances append thereto' Such election shall be held in such 7anner as 7ay prescribed by the hilippine )egislature to which the return of the election shall be 7ade' The hilippine )egislature shall certify the result to the 1o&ernor,1eneral of the hilippine +slands, together with a state7ent of the &otes cast, and a copy of said constitution ordinances' +f a 7a=ority of the &otes cast shall be for the constitution, such &ote shall be dee7ed an e9pression of the will of the people of the hilippine +ndependence, and the 1o&ernor,1eneral shall, within thirty days after receipt of the certification fro7 the hilippine )egislature, issue a procla7ation for the election of officers of the go&ern7ent of the %o77onwealth of the hilippine +slands pro&ided for in the %onstitution''' +t can safely be said, therefore, that when the fra7ers of the 123. %onstitution used, the word ;election; in Section + Article KA of the 123. %onstitution they had no other idea in 7ind e9cept the elections that were periodically held in the hilippines for the choice of public officials prior to the drafting of the 123. %onstitution, and also the ;election; 7entioned in the +ndependence Act at which ;the 0ualified &oters of the hilippine +slands shall ha&e an opportunity to &ote directly for or against the proposed constitution'''; +t is but logical to e9pect that the fra7ers of the 123. %onstitution would pro&ide a 7ode of ratifying an

a7end7ent to that %onstitution si7ilar to the 7ode of ratifying the original %onstitution itself' +t is clear therefore, that the ratification or any a7end7ent to the 123. %onstitution could only be done by holding an election, as the ter7 ;election; was understood, and practiced, when the 123. %onstitution as drafted' The alleged referendu7 in the citi?ens asse7blies E participated in by persons aged 1. years or 7ore, regardless of whether they were 0ualified &oters or not, &oting by raising their hands, and the results of the &oting reported by the barrio or ward captain, to the 7unicipal 7ayor, who in turn sub7itted the report to the pro&incial 1o&ernor, and the latter forwarding the reports to the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents, all without the inter&ention of the %o77ission on "lections which is the constitutional body which has e9clusi&e charge of the enforce7ent and ad7inistration of all laws, relati&e to the conduct of elections E was not only a non,substantial co7pliance with the pro&isions of Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution but a downright &iolation of said constitutional pro&ision' +t would be indulging in sophistry to 7aintain that the &oting in the citi?ens asse7blies a7ounted to a substantial co7pliance with the re0uire7ents prescribed in Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' +t is further contended by the Solicitor 1eneral, that e&en if the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention was not ratified in accordance with the pro&isions of Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution, the fact is that after the resident of the hilippines had issued rocla7ation #o' 1102 declaring that the said proposed %onstitution ;has been ratified by o&erwhel7ing 7a=ority of all the &otes cast by the 7e7bers of all the barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ throughout the hilippines and had thereby co7e into effect; the people ha&e accepted the new %onstitution' What appears to 7e, howe&er, is that practically it is only the officials and e7ployees under the e9ecuti&e depart7ent of the 1o&ern7ent who ha&e been perfor7ing their duties apparently in obser&ance of the pro&isions of the new %onstitution' +t could not be otherwise, because the resident of the hilippines, who is the head of the e9ecuti&e depart7ent, had proclai7ed that the new %onstitution had co7e into effect, and his office had taBen the steps to i7ple7ent the pro&isions of the new %onstitution' True it is, that so7e 22 7e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es and 1. 7e7bers of the Senate, of the %ongress of the hilippines had e9pressed their option to ser&e in the interi7 #ational Asse7bly that is pro&ided for in Section 2 of Article KA++ of the proposed %onstitution' +t 7ust be noted, howe&er, that of the 1. senators who e9pressed their option to ser&e in the interi7 #ational Asse7bly only one the7 tooB his oath of office@ and of the 22 7e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es who opted to ser&e in the interi7 #ational Asse7bly, only 22 tooB their oath of office' The fact that only one Senator out of 23, and only 22 Representati&e out of 110, tooB their oath of office, is an indication that only a s7all portion of the 7e7bers of %ongress had 7anifested the acceptance of the new %onstitution' +t is in the taBing of the oath of office where the affiant says that he swears to ;support and defend the %onstitution; that the acceptance of the %onstitution is 7ade 7anifest' + agree with counsel petitioners in ),3515. -1erardo Ro9as, et al' &' Ale=andro !elchor, et al'/ when he said that the 7e7bers of %ongress who opted to ser&e in the interi7 #ational Asse7bly did only e! a*undante cautela, or by way of a precaution, 7aBing sure, that in the e&ent the new %onstitution beco7es definitely effecti&e and the interi7 #ational Asse7bly con&ened, they can participate in legislati&e worB in the capacity as duly elected representati&es of the people, which otherwise they could not do if they did not 7anifest their option to ser&e, and that option had to be 7ade within 30 day fro7 6anuary 17, 1273, the date when rocla7ation #o' 110 was issued' (f course, if the proposed %onstitution does not beco7e effecti&e, they continue to be 7e7bers of %ongress under the 123. %onstitution' )et it be considered that the 7e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es were elected in 1252 to ser&e a ter7 which will yet e9pire on :ece7ber 31, 1273' Whereas, of the Senators who opted to ser&e in the interi7 #ational Asse7bly, the ter7 of so7e of the7 will yet e9pire on :ece7ber 31, 1273, so7e on :ece7ber 31, 127., and the rest on :ece7ber 31, 1277' )et if be noted that 2 Senators did not opt to ser&e in the interi7 #ational Asse7bly, and 14 7e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es also did not opt to ser&e in the interi7 #ational Asse7bly' #either can it be said that the people ha&e accepted the new %onstitution' + cannot, in conscience, accept the reported affir7ati&e &otes in the citi?ens asse7blies as a true and correct e9pression by the people of their appro&al, or acceptance, of the proposed %onstitution' + ha&e 7y serious doubts regarding the freedo7 of the people to e9press their &iews regarding the proposed %onstitution during the &oting in the citi?ens asse7blies, and + ha&e also 7y serious doubts regarding the truthfulness and accuracy of the reports of the &oting in the citi?ens asse7blies' This doubt has been engendered in 7y 7ind after a careful e9a7ination and study of the records of these cases, particularly with respect to the reports of the &oting in the citi?ens asse7blies' erhaps, it 7ay be said that the people, or the inhabitants of this country, ha&e ac0uiesced to the new %onstitution, in the sense that they ha&e continued to li&e peacefully and orderly under the go&ern7ent that has been e9isting since 6anuary 17, 1273 when it was proclai7ed that the new %onstitution ca7e into effect' $ut what could the people doH +n the sa7e way that the people ha&e li&ed under 7artial law since Septe7ber 23, 1272, they also ha&e to li&e under the go&ern7ent as it now e9ists, and as it has e9isted since the declaration of 7artial law on Septe7ber 21, 1272, regardless of what %onstitution is operati&e E whether it is the 123. %onstitution or the new %onstitution' +ndeed, there is nothing that the people can do under the circu7stances actually pre&ailing in our country today E circu7stances, Bnown to all, and which + do not consider necessary to state in this opinion' + cannot agree, therefore, with 7y worthy colleagues in the %ourt who hold the &iew that the people ha&e accepted the new %onstitution, and that because the people ha&e accepted it, the new %onstitution should be considered as in force, regardless of the fact that it was not ratified in accordance with the pro&isions of Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' +t is 7y honest &iew that the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention has not co7e into effect' + do not say, howe&er, that the proposed %onstitution is in&alid' To 7e, the &alidity of the proposed %onstitution is not in issue in the cases before *s' What the petitioners assail is not the &alidity of the proposed %onstitution but the &alidity of residential rocla7ation #o' 1102 which declares the proposed %onstitution as ha&ing been ratified and has co7e into effect' +t being 7y considered &iew that the ratification of the proposed %onstitution, as proclai7ed in rocla7ation #o' 1102, is not in accordance with the pro&isions of Section 1 of Article KA, of the 123. %onstitution, + hold that rocla7ation #o' 1102 is in&alid and should not be gi&en force and effect' Their proposed %onstitution, therefore, should be considered as not yet &alidly ratified, and so it is not in force' The proposed %onstitution 7ay still be sub7itted to a plebiscite in confor7ity with Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' +ncidentally, + 7ust state that the %onstitution is still in force, and this %ourt is still functioning under the 123.

%onstitution' + sincerely belie&e that the proposed %onstitution 7ay still be sub7itted to the people in an election or plebiscite held in accordance with the pro&isions of Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' +n fact, as we ha&e ad&erted to in this opinion, this was the 7andate of %ongress when, on !arch 15, 1257, it passed Resolution #o' 2 calling a con&ention to propose a7end7ents to the 123. %onstitution' The %ourt 7ay taBe =udicial notice of the fact that the resident of the hilippines has reassured the nation that the go&ern7ent of our Republic since the declaration of 7artial law is not a re&olutionary go&ern7ent, and that he has been acting all the way in consonance with his powers under the %onstitution' The people of this Republic has reason to be happy because, according to the resident, we still ha&e a constitutional go&ern7ent' +t being 7y &iew that the 123. %onstitution is still in force, + belie&e %ongress 7ay still con&ene and pass a law calling for an election at which the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention will be sub7itted to the people their ratification or re=ection' A plebiscite called pursuant to Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution is an assurance to our people that we still ha&e in our country the Rule of )aw and that the de7ocratic syste7 of go&ern7ent that has been i7planted in our country by the A7ericans, and which has beco7e part of our social and political fabric, is still a reality' The &iews that + ha&e e9pressed in this opinion are inspired by a desire on 7y part to bring about stability in de7ocratic and constitutional syste7 in our country' + feel that if this %ourt would gi&e its i7pri7atur to the ratification of the proposed %onstitution, as announced in rocla7ation #o' 1102, it being &ery clear that the pro&isions of Section 1 of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution had not been co7plied with, We will be opening the gates for a si7ilar disregard of the %onstitution in the future' What + 7ean is that if this %ourt now declares that a new %onstitution is now in force because the 7e7bers of the citi?ens asse7blies had appro&ed the said new %onstitution, although that appro&al was not in accordance with the procedure and the re0uire7ents prescribed in the 123. %onstitution, it can happen again in so7e future ti7e that so7e a7end7ents to the %onstitution 7ay be adopted, e&en in a 7anner contrary to the e9isting %onstitution and the law, and then said proposed a7end7ent is sub7itted to the people in any 7anner and what will 7atter is that a basis is clai7ed that there was appro&al by the people' There will not be stability in our constitutional syste7, and necessarily no stability in our go&ern7ent' As a 7e7ber of this %ourt + only wish to contribute 7y hu7ble efforts to pre&ent the happening of such a situation in the future' +t appearing to 7e that the announced ratification of the proposed %onstitution through the &oting in the citi?ens asse7blies is a clear &iolation of the 123. %onstitution, what + say in this opinion is si7ply an endea&or on 7y part to be true to 7y oath of office to defend and support the 123. %onstitution' + a7 inspired by what the great =urist and states7an, 6ose ' )aurel, said8 )et our =udges be as it were the &estal Beepers of the purity and sanctity of our %onstitution, and the protection and &indication of popular rights will be safe and secure in their re&erential guardianship' + only wish to help pre&ent, if + can, de7ocracy and the liberties of our people fro7 &anishing in our land, because, as 6ustice 1eorge Sutherland of the *' S' Supre7e %ourt said8 -t/he saddest epitaph which can be car&ed in 7e7ory of a &anished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a sa&ing hand while yet there was ti7e' + concur fully with the personal &iews e9pressed by the %hief 6ustice in the opinion that he has written in these cases' Along with hi7, + &ote to deny the 7otion to dis7iss and gi&e due course to the petitions in these cases' $ERNAN%O, J., dissenting8 #o 0uestion 7ore 7o7entous, none i7pressed with such transcendental significance is liBely to confront this %ourt in the near or distant future as that posed by these petitions' <or while the specific substanti&e issue is the &alidity of residential rocla7ation #o' 1102, an ad&erse =udg7ent 7ay be fraught with conse0uences that, to say the least, are far,reaching in its i7plications' As stressed by respondents, ;what petitioners really seeB to in&alidate is the new %onstitution'; 1 Strict accuracy would of course 0ualify such state7ent that what is in dispute, as noted in the opinion of the %hief 6ustice, goes only as far as the &alidity of its ratification' +t could &ery well be though that the ulti7ate outco7e is not confined within such li7it, and this is not to deny that under its aegis, there ha&e been 7arBed gains in the social and econo7ic sphere, but gi&en the pre7ise of continuity in a regi7e under a funda7ental law, which itself e9plicitly recogni?es the need for change and the process for bringing it about, 2 it see7s to 7e that the 7ore appropriate course is this %ourt to gi&e heed to the plea of petitioners that the 7ost serious attention be paid to their sub7ission that the challenged e9ecuti&e act fails to 7eet the test of constitutionality' *nder the circu7stances, with regret and with due respect for the opinion of 7y brethren, + 7ust perforce dissent' +t would follow therefore that the legal position taBen by the %hief 6ustice as set forth with his usual lucidity and thoroughness has, on the whole, 7y concurrence, sub=ect, of course, to reser&ations insofar as it contains &iews and nuances to which + ha&e in the past e9pressed doubts' #onetheless, + feel that a brief e9pression of the reasons for the stand + taBe would not be a7iss' +n coping with its responsibility arising fro7 the function of =udicial re&iew, this %ourt is not e9pected to be an oracle gi&en to utterances of eternal &erities, but certainly it is 7ore than =ust a Been but passi&e obser&er of the conte7porary scene' +t is, by &irtue of its role under the separation of powers concept, in&ol&ed not necessarily as a participant in the for7ation of go&ern7ent policy, but as an arbiter of its legality' "&en then, there is realis7 in what )erner did say about the A7erican Supre7e %ourt as ;the focal point of a set of dyna7ic forces which Fcould playG ha&oc with the land7arBs of the A7erican state and deter7ine the power configuration of the day'; 3 That is why there is this caveat' +n the *nited States as here, the e9ercise of the power of =udicial re&iew is conditioned on the necessity that the decision of a case or contro&ersy before it so re0uires' To repeat, the 6ustices of the highest tribunal are not, as 6ustice <ranBfurter 7ade clear, ;architects of policy' They can nullify the policy of

others, they are incapable of fashioning their own solutions for social proble7s'; 4 #onetheless, as was stressed by rofessors $lacB ) and !urphy, 6 a Supre7e %ourt by the conclusion it reaches and the decision it renders does not 7erely checB the coordinate branches, but also by its appro&al sta7ps with legiti7acy the action taBen' Thus in affir7ing constitutional supre7acy, the political depart7ents could seeB the aid of the =udiciary' <or the assent it gi&es to what has been done conduces to its support in a regi7e where the rule of law holds sway' +n discharging such a role, this %ourt 7ust necessarily taBe in account not only what the e9igent needs of the present de7and but what 7ay lie ahead in the une9plored and unBnown &istas of the future' +t 7ust guard against the pitfall of lacB of understanding of the do7inant forces at worB to seeB a better life for all, especially those suffering fro7 the pangs of po&erty and disease, by a blind deter7ination to adhere to the status 9uo' +t would be tragic, and a clear case of its being recreant to its trust, if the suspicion can with reason be entertained that its approach a7ounts 7erely to a 7ilitant &igilantis7 that is &iolently opposed to any for7 of social change' +t follows then that it does not suffice that recourse be had only to what passes for scholarship in the law that could be 7arred by inapplicable erudition and narrow legalis7' "&en with due recognition, such factors, howe&er, + cannot, for reasons to be set 7ore lengthily and in the light of the opinion of the %hief 6ustice, reach the sa7e result as the 7a=ority of 7y brethren' <or, in the last analysis, it is 7y fir7 con&iction that the institution of =udicial re&iew speaBs too clearly for the point to be 7issed that official action, e&en with due allowance 7ade for the good faith that in&ariably inspires the step taBen, has to face the gauntlet of a court suit whene&er there is a proper case with the appropriate parties' 1' Respondents are acting in the soundest constitutional tradition when, at the outset, they would seeB a dis7issal of these petitions' <or the7, the 0uestion raised is political and thus beyond the =urisdiction of this %ourt' Such an approach cannot be indicted for unorthodo9y' +t is i7plicit in the concept of the rule of law that rights belong to the people and the go&ern7ent possesses powers only' "ssentially then, unless such an authority 7ay either be predicated on e9press or i7plied grant in the %onstitution or the statutes, an e9ercise thereof cannot sur&i&e an in0uiry as to its &alidity' Respondents through Solicitor, 1eneral !endo?a would deny our co7petence to proceed further' +t is their &iew, &igorously pressed and plausibly asserted, that since what is in&ol&ed is not 7erely the effecti&ity of an a7end7ent but the actual co7ing into effect of a new constitution, the 7atter is not =usticiable' The i77ediate reaction is that such a contention is to be tested in the light of the funda7ental doctrine of separation of powers that it is not only the function but the sole7n duty of the =udiciary to deter7ine what the law is and to apply it in cases and contro&ersies that call for decision' 7 Since the %onstitution pre,e7inently occupies the highest rung in the hierarchy of legal nor7s, it is in the =udiciary, ulti7ately this Tribunal, that such a responsibility is &ested' With the 123. %onstitution containing, as abo&e noted, an e9plicit article on the sub=ect of a7end7ents, it would follow that the presu7ption to be indulged in is that the 0uestion of whether there has been deference to its ter7s is for this %ourt to pass upon' What is 7ore, the 1on?ales, ? Tolentino 9 and lanas 1@ cases speaB une0ui&ocally to that effect' #or is it a &alid ob=ection to this conclusion that what was in&ol&ed in those cases was the legality of the sub7ission and not ratification, for fro7 the &ery language of the controlling article, the two &ital steps are proposal and ratification, which as pointed out in (illon v. Gloss, 11 ;cannot be treated as unrelated acts, but as succeeding steps in a single endea&or'; 12 (nce an aspect thereof is &iewed as =udicial, there would be no =ustification for considering the rest as de&oid of that character' +t would be for 7e then an indefensible retreat, deri&ing no =ustification fro7 circu7stances of weight and gra&ity, if this %ourt were to accede to what is sought by respondents and rule that the 0uestion before us is political' (n this point, it 7ay not be inappropriate to refer to a separate opinion of 7ine in Lansang v. Garcia' 13 Thus8 ;The ter7 has been 7ade applicable to contro&ersies clearly non,=udicial and therefore beyond its =urisdiction or to an issue in&ol&ed in a case appropriately sub=ect to its cogni?ance, as to which there has been a prior legislati&e or e9ecuti&e deter7ination to which deference 7ust be paid' +t has liBewise been e7ployed loosely to characteri?e a suit where the party proceeded against is the resident or %ongress, or any branch thereof' +f to be deli7ited with accuracy, ;political 0uestions; should refer to such as would under the %onstitution be decided by the people in their so&ereign capacity or in regard to full discretionary authority is &ested either in the resident or %ongress' +t is thus beyond the co7petence of the =udiciary to pass upon' *nless clearly falling within the for7ulation, the decision reached by the political branches whether in the for7 of a congressional act or an e9ecuti&e order could be tested in court' Where pri&ate rights are affected, the =udiciary has no choice but to looB into its &alidity' +t is not to be lost sight of that such a power co7es into play if there be an appropriate proceeding that 7ay be filed only after each coordinate branch has acted' "&en when the residency or %ongress possesses plenary powers, its i7pro&ident e9ercise or the abuse thereof, if shown, 7ay gi&e rise to a =usticiable contro&ersy' <or the constitutional grant of authority is usually unrestricted' There are li7its to what 7ay be done and how it is to be acco7plished' #ecessarily then, the courts in the proper e9ercise of =udicial re&iew could in0uire into the 0uestion of whether or not either of the two coordinate branches has adhered to what is laid down by the %onstitution' The 0uestion thus posed is =udicial rather than political'; 14 The &iew entertained by rofessor :odd is not too dissi7ilar' <or hi7 such a ter7 ;is e7ployed to designate certain types of functions co77itted to the political organs of go&ern7ent -the legislati&e and e9ecuti&e depart7ents, or either of the7/ and not sub=ect to =udicial in&estigation'; 1) After a thorough study of A7erican =udicial decisions, both federal and state, he could conclude8 ;The field of =udicial nonenforceability is i7portant, but is not large when contrasted with the whole body of written constitutional te9ts' The e9ceptions fro7 =udicial enforceability fall pri7arily within the field of public or go&ern7ental interests'; 16 #or was rofessor WestonDs for7ulation any different' As was e9pressed by hi78 ;6udicial 0uestions, in what 7ay be thought the 7ore useful sense, are those which the so&ereign has set to be decided in the courts' olitical 0uestions, si7ilarly, are those which the so&ereign has entrusted to the so,called political depart7ents of go&ern7ent or has reser&ed to be settled by its own e9tra,go&ern7ental action'; 17 What appears undeniable then both fro7 the standpoint of hilippine as well as A7erican decisions is the care and circu7spection re0uired before the conclusion is warranted that the 7atter at issue is beyond =udicial cogni?ance, a political 0uestion being raised' 2' The sub7ission of respondents on this sub=ect of political 0uestion, ad7ittedly one of co7ple9ity and i7portance, deser&es to be pursued further' They would deri&e 7uch aid and co7fort fro7 the writings of both rofessor $icBel 1? of Lale and rofessor <reund 19 of Car&ard, both of who7 in turn are unabashed ad7irers of 6ustice $randeis' Whate&er be the 7erit inherent in their lacB of enthusias7 for a 7ore acti&e and positi&e role that 7ust be played by the *nited States Supre7e %ourt in constitutional

litigation, it 7ust be =udged in the light of our own history' +t cannot be denied that fro7 the well nigh four decades of constitutionalis7 in the hilippines, e&en discounting an al7ost si7ilar period of ti7e dating fro7 the inception of A7erican so&ereignty, there has sprung a tradition of what has been aptly ter7ed as =udicial acti&is7' Such an approach could be traced to the &aledictory address before the 123. %onstitutional %on&ention of %laro !' Recto' Ce spoBe of the trust reposed in the =udiciary in these words8 ;+t is one of the parado9es of de7ocracy that the people at ti7es place 7ore confidence in instru7entalities of the State other than those directly chosen by the7 for the e9ercise of their so&ereignty'; 20 +t would thus appear that e&en then this %ourt was e9pected not to assu7e an attitude of ti7idity and hesitancy when a constitutional 0uestion is posed' There was the assu7ption of course that it would face up to such a tasB, without regard to political considerations and with no thought e9cept that of discharging its trust' Witness these words 6ustice )aurel in an early land7arB case, $eople v. Vera, 21 decided in 12378 ;+f it is e&er necessary for us to 7aBe &ehe7ent affir7ance during this for7ati&e period of political history, it is that we are independent of the "9ecuti&e no less than of the )egislati&e depart7ent of our go&ern7ent E independent in the perfor7ance of our functions, undeterred by any consideration, free fro7 politics, indifferent to popularity, and unafraid of criticis7 in the acco7plish7ent of our sworn duty as we see it and as we understand it'; 22 The hope of course was that such assertion of independence i7partiality was not 7ere rhetoric' That is a 7atter 7ore appropriately left to others to deter7ine' +t suffices to staBe that what elicits appro&al on the part of our people of a =udiciary e&er alert to in0uire into alleged breaches of the funda7ental law is the reali?ation that to do so is 7erely to do what is e9pected of it and that thereby there is no in&asion of spheres appropriately belonging to the political branches' <or it needs to be Bept in Bind always that it can act only when there is a suit with proper parties before it, wherein rights appropriate for =udicial enforce7ent are sought to be &indicated' Then, too, it does not approach constitutional 0uestions with dog7atis7 or apodictic certainty nor &iew the7 fro7 the shining cliffs of perfection' This is not to say though that it is satisfied with an e7piricis7 untroubled by the search for =ural consistency and rational coherence' A balance has to be strucB' So =uridical realis7 re0uires' (nce allowance 7ade that for all its care and circu7spection this %ourt 7anned by hu7an beings fettered by fallibility, nonetheless earnestly and sincerely stri&ing to do right, the public acceptance of its &igorous pursuit of the tasB of assuring that the %onstitution be obeyed is easy to understand' +t has not in the past shirBed its responsibility to ascertain whether there has been co7pliance with and fidelity to constitutional re0uire7ents' Such is the teaching of a host of cases fro7 Angara v. &lectoral +ommission 23 to $lanas v. +ommission on &lections' 24 +t should continue to e9ercise its =urisdiction, e&en in the face of a plausible but not sufficiently persuasi&e insistence that the 7atter before it is political' #or a7 + persuaded that the reading of the current drift in A7erican legal scholarship by the Solicitor,1eneral and his e0ually able associates presents the whole picture' (n the 0uestion of =udicial re&iew, it is not a case of blacB and white@ there are shaded areas' +t goes too far, in 7y &iew, if the perspecti&e is one of dissatisfaction, with its o&ertones of distrust' This e9pression of disappro&al has not escaped :ean Rostow of Lale, who began one of his 7ost celebrated legal essays' The :e7ocratic %haracter of 6udicial Re&iew, thus8 ;A the7e of uneasiness, and e&en of guilt, colors the literature about =udicial re&iew' !any of those who ha&e talBed, lectured, and written about the %onstitution ha&e been troubled by a sense that =udicial re&iew is unde7ocratic'; 2) Ce went on to state8 ;6udicial re&iew, they ha&e urged, is an unde7ocratic shoot on an otherwise respectable tree' +t should be cut off, or at least Bept pruned and inconspicuous'; 26 Cis &iew was precisely the opposite' Thus8 ;The power of constitutional re&iew, to be e9ercised by so7e part of the go&ern7ent, is i7plicit in the conception of a written constitution delegating li7ited powers' A written constitution would pro7ote discord rather than order in society if there were no accepted authority to construe it, at the least in case of conflicting action by different branches of go&ern7ent or of constitutionally unauthori?ed go&ern7ental action against indi&iduals' The li7itation and separation of powers, if they are to sur&i&e, re0uire a procedure for independent 7ediation and construction to reconcile the ine&itable disputes o&er the boundaries of constitutional power which arise in the process of go&ern7ent'; 27 !ore than that, he tooB pains to e7phasi?e8 ;Whether another 7ethod of enforcing the %onstitution could ha&e been de&ised, the short answer is that no such 7ethod de&eloped' The argu7ent o&er the constitutionality of =udicial re&iew has long since been settled by history' The power and duty of the Supre7e %ourt to declare statutes or e9ecuti&e action unconstitutional in appropriate cases is part of the li&ing %onstitution' DThe course of constitutional history,D !r' 6ustice <ranBfurter recently re7arBed, Dhas cast responsibilities upon the Supre7e %ourt which it would be ;stultification; for it to e&ade'D ; 2? #or is it only :ean Rostow who could point <ranBfurter, reputed to belong to the sa7e school of thought opposed to =udicial acti&is7, if not its leading ad&ocate during his long stay in the *nited States Supre7e %ourt, as one fully cogni?ant of the stig7a that attaches to a tribunal which neglects to 7eet the de7ands of =udicial re&iew' There is a state7ent of si7ilar i7portance fro7 rofessor !ason8 ;+n Stein v. 'e, For#<ranBfurter re7arBed, so7ewhat self,consciously perhaps, that the Dduty of deference cannot be allowed i7perceptibly to slide into abdication'D ; 29 rofessor NonefsBy, liBe :ean Rostow, could not accept characteri?ation of =udicial re&iew as unde7ocratic' Thus his study of Col7es and $randeis, the following appears8 ;When it is said that =udicial re&iew is an unde7ocratic feature of our political syste7, it ought also to be re7e7bered that architects of that syste7 did not e0uate constitutional go&ern7ent with unbridled 7a=ority rule' (ut of their concern for political stability and security for pri&ate rights, ''', they designed a structure whose Beystone was to consist of barriers to the untra77eled e9ercise of power by any group' They percei&ed no contradiction between effecti&e go&ern7ent and constitutional checBs' To 6a7es !adison, who 7ay legiti7ately be regarded as the philosopher of the %onstitution, the sche7e of 7utual restraints was the best answer to what he &iewed as the chief proble7 in erecting a syste7 of free representati&e go&ern7ent8 D+n fra7ing a go&ern7ent which is to be ad7inistered by 7en o&er 7en, the great difficulty lies in this8 you 7ust first enable the go&ern7ent to control the go&erned@ and in the ne9t place oblige it to control itself'D ; 3@ There is thus an ine&itability to the flowering of =udicial re&iew' %ould it be that the tone of discontent apparent in the writings of e7inent authorities on the sub=ect e&ince at the 7ost fears that the A7erican Supre7e %ourt 7ight o&erstep the bounds allotted to the =udiciaryH +t cannot be a denial of the fitness of such co7petence being &ested in =udges and of their being called upon to fulfill such a trust whene&er appropriate to the decision of a case before the7' That is why it has been correctly 7aintained that notwithstanding the absence of any e9plicit pro&ision in the funda7ental law of the *nited States %onstitution, that distinguished A7erican constitutional historian, rofessor %orwin, could rightfully state that =udicial re&iew ;is si7ply incidental to the power of courts to interpret the law, of which the %onstitution is part, in connection with the decision of cases'; 31 This is not to deny that

there are those who would place the bla7e or the credit, depending upon oneDs predilection, on !arshallDs epochal opinion inMar*ur" v. Madison' 32 %urtis belonged to that persuasion' As he put it8 ;The proble7 was gi&en no answer by the %onstitution' A hole was left where the %ourt 7ight dri&e in the peg of =udicial supre7acy, if it could' And that is what 6ohn !arshall did'; 33 At any rate there was so7ething in the soil of A7erican =uristic thought resulting in this tree of =udicial power so precariously planted by !arshall striBing deep roots and showing wonderful &itality and hardiness' +t now do7inates the A7erican legal scene' Through it, %hief 6ustice Cughes, before occupying that e9alted position, could state in a lecture8 ;We are under a %onstitution, but the %onstitution is what the =udges say it is ''' '; 34 The abo&e state7ent is 7ore than =ust an aphoris7 that lends itself to inclusion in =udicial anthologies or bar association speeches' +t could and did pro&oBe fro7 6ustice 6acBson, an e9ponent of the =udicial restraint school of thought, this 7eaningful 0uery8 ;The %onstitution nowhere pro&ides that it shall be what the =udges say it is' Cow, did it co7e about that the state7ent not only could be but could beco7e current as the 7ost understandable co7prehensi&e su77ary of A7erican %onstitutional lawH; 3) +t is no wonder that rofessor Caines could pithily and succinctly su7 up the place of the highest A7erican tribunal in the sche7e of things in this wise8 ;The Supre7e %ourt of the *nited States has co7e to be regarded as the uni0ue feature of the A7erican go&ern7ental syste7'; 36 )et 7e not be 7isunderstood' There is here no atte7pt to close oneDs eyes to a discernible tendency on the part of so7e distinguished faculty 7inds to looB asBance at what for the7 7ay be inad&isable e9tension of =udicial authority' <or such indeed is the case as reflected in two leading cases of recent &intage, %a#er v. +arr, 37 decided in 1252 and $o,ell v. Mac+ormac#, 3? in 1252, both noted in the opinion of the %hief 6ustice' The for7er disregarded the warning of 6ustice <ranBfurter in %olegro&e &' 1reen 32 about the A7erican Supre7e %ourt declining =urisdiction on the 0uestion of apportion7ent as to do so would cut &ery deep into the &ery being of %ongress'; 4@ <or hi7, the =udiciary ;ought not to enter this political thicBet'; $aBer has since then been followed@ it has spawned a host of cases' 41 owell, on the 0uestion of the power of a legislati&e body to e9clude fro7 its ranBs a person whose 0ualifications are uncontested, for 7any the &ery staple of what is essentially political, certainly goes e&en further than the authoritati&e hilippine decision of Vera v. Avelino, 42 +t does looB then that e&en in the *nited States, the plea for =udicial self,restraint, e&en if gi&en &oice by those co7petent in the field of constitutional law, has fallen on deaf ears' There is in the co77ents of respondents an e9cerpt fro7 rofessor <reund 0uoting fro7 one of his essays appearing in a &olu7e published in 1254' +t is not without interest to note that in another paper, also included therein, he was less than asserti&e about the necessity for self,restraint and apparently 7indful of the clai7s of =udicial acti&is7' Thus8 ;<irst of all, the %ourt has a responsibility to 7aintain the constitutional order, the distribution of public power, and the li7itations on that power'; 43 As for rofessor $icBel, it has been said that as counsel for the #ew LorB Ti7es in the fa7ous Aietna7 papers case, 44 he was less than insistent on the A7erican Supre7e %ourt e9ercising =udicial self,restraint' There are signs that the contending forces on such 0uestion, for so7e an une0ual contest, are now 0uiescent' The fer&or that characteri?ed the e9pression of their respecti&e points of &iew appears to ha&e been 7ini7i?ed' #ot that it is to be e9pected that it will entirely disappear, considering how dearly cherished are, for each group, the con&ictions, pre=udices one 7ight e&en say, entertained' At least what once was fitly characteri?ed as the boo7ing guns of rhetoric, co7ing fro7 both directions, ha&e been 7uted' (f late, scholarly disputations ha&e been centered on the standards that should go&ern the e9ercise of the power of =udicial re&iew' +n his celebrated Col7es lecture in 12.2 at the Car&ard )aw School, rofessor Wechsler ad&ocated as basis for decision what he ter7ed neutral principles of constitutional law' 4) +t has brought forth a plethora of law re&iew articles, the reaction ranging fro7 guarded confor7ity to caustic criticis7' 46 There was, to be sure, no clear call to a court in effect abandoning the responsibility incu7bent on it to Beep go&ern7ental agencies within constitutional channels' The 7atter has been put in te7perate ter7s by rofessor <ranB thus8 ;When allowance has been 7ade for all factors, it ne&ertheless see7s to 7e that the doctrine of political 0uestions ought to be &ery sharply confined to where the functional reasons =ustify it and that in a gi&e in&ol&ing its e9pansion there should be careful consideration also of the social considerations which 7ay 7ilitate against it' The doctrine has a certain specious char7 because of its nice intellectualis7 and because of the fine deference it per7its to e9pertise, to secret Bnowledge, and to the prerogati&es of others' +t should not be allowed to grow as a 7erely intellectual plant'; 47 +t is difficult for 7e at least, not to be swayed by appraisal, co7ing fro7 such i7peccable sources of the worth and significance of =udicial re&iew in the *nited States' + cannot resist the conclusion then that the &iews ad&anced on this sub=ect by distinguished counsel for petitioners, with Senators )oren?o !' Ta>ada and 6o&ito Salonga at the &an, rather than the ad&ocacy of the Solicitor,1eneral, possess the greater weight and carry persuasion' So 7uch then for the in&ocation of the political 0uestion principle as a bar to the e9ercise of our =urisdiction' 3' That brings 7e to the issue of the &alidity of the ratification' The crucial point that had to be 7et is whether rocla7ation #o' 1102 7anifests fidelity to the e9plicit ter7s of Article KA' There is, of course, the &iew not offensi&e to reason that a sense of the realities should te7per the rigidity of de&otion to the strict letter of the te9t to allow deference to its spirit to control' With due recognition of its force in constitutional litigation, 4? if 7y reading of the e&ents and the process that led to such procla7ation, so clearly set forth in the opinion of the %hief 6ustice, is not inaccurate, then it cannot be confidently asserted that there was such co7pliance' +t would be to rely on con=ectural assu7ptions that did founder on the rocB of the undisputed facts' Any other conclusion would, for 7e, re0uire an interpretation that borders on the strained' So it has to be if one does not lose sight of how the article on a7end7ents is phrased' A word, to paraphrase 6ustice Col7es 7ay not be a crystal, transparent and unchanged, but it is not, to borrow fro7 )earned Cand, that e7inent =urist, a rubber band either' +t would be unwarranted in 7y &iew then to assert that the re0uire7ents of the 123. %onstitution ha&e been 7et' There are A7erican decisions, 49 and they are not few in nu7ber, which re0uire that there be obedience to the literal ter7s of the applicable pro&ision' +t is understandable why it should be thus' +f the %onstitution is the supre7e law, then its 7andate 7ust be fulfilled' #o e&asion is tolerated' Sub7ission to its co77ands can be shown only if each and e&ery word is gi&en 7eaning rather than ignored or disregarded' This is not to deny that a recognition conclusi&e effect attached to the electorate 7anifesting its will to &ote affir7ati&ely on the a7end7ents proposed poses an obstacle to the =udiciary being insistent on the ut7ost regularity' $riefly stated, substantial co7pliance is enough' A great 7any A7erican State decisions 7ay be cited in support of such a doctrine' )@ "&en if the assu7ption be indulged in that Article KA is not phrased in ter7s too clear to be 7isread, so that this %ourt is called upon to gi&e 7eaning and perspecti&e to what could be considered words of &ague generality, pregnant with uncertainty, still

whate&er obscurity it possesses is illu7ined when the light of the pre&ious legislation is thrown on it' +n the first %o77onwealth Act, )1 sub7itting to the <ilipino people for appro&al or disappro&al certain a7end7ents to the original ordinance appended to the 123. %onstitution, it was 7ade that the election for such purpose was to ;be conducted in confor7ity with the pro&isions of the "lection %ode insofar as the sa7e 7ay be applicable'; )2 Then ca7e the statute, )3 calling for the plebiscite on the three 1230 a7end7ents pro&iding for the plebiscite on the three 1230 a7end7ents pro&iding for a bica7eral %ongress or a Senate and a Couse of Representati&es to taBe the place of a unica7eral #ational Asse7bly, )4 reducing the ter7 of the resident to four years but allowing his re,election with the li7itation that he cannot ser&e 7ore than eight consecuti&e years, ))and creating an independent %o77ission on "lections' )6 Again, it was e9pressly pro&ided that the election ;shall be conducted in confor7ity with the pro&isions of the "lection %ode in so far as the sa7e 7ay be applicable'; )7The appro&al of the present parity a7end7ent was by &irtue of a Republic Act )? which specifically 7ade applicable the then "lection %ode' )9 There is a si7ilar pro&ision in the legislation, 6@ which in cote7plation of the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention, saw to it that there be an increase in the 7e7bership of the Couse of Representati&es a 7a9i7u7 of one hundred eighty and assured the eligibility of senators and representati&es to beco7e 7e7bers of such constituent body without forfeiting their seats, as proposed a7end7ents to be &oted on in the 1257 elections' 61 That is the consistent course of interpretation followed by the legislati&e branch' +t is 7ost persuasi&e, if not controlling' The restraints thus i7posed would set li7its to the residential action taBen, e&en on the assu7ption that either as an agent of the %onstitutional %on&ention or under his 7artial law prerogati&es, he was not de&oid of power to specify the 7ode of ratification' (n two &ital points, who can &ote and how they register their will, Article KA had been gi&en a definiti&e construction' That is why + fail to see sufficient =ustification for this %ourt affi9ing the i7pri7atur of its appro&al on the 7ode e7ployed for the ratification of the re&ised %onstitution as reflected in rocla7ation #o' 1102' 3' #or is the 7atter before us solely to be deter7ined by the failure to co7ply with the re0uire7ents of Article KA' +ndependently of the lacB of &alidity of the ratification of the new %onstitution, if it be accepted by the people, in who7 so&ereignty resides according to the %onstitution, 62 then this %ourt cannot refuse to yield assent to such a political decision of the ut7ost gra&ity, conclusi&e in its effect' Such a funda7ental principle is 7eaningless if it does not i7ply, to follow )asBi, that the nation as a whole constitutes the ;single center of ulti7ate reference,; necessarily the possessor of that ;power that is able to resol&e disputes by saying the last word'; 63 +f the origins of the de7ocratic polity enshrined in the 123. %onstitution with the declaration that the hilippines is a republican state could be traced bacB to Athens and to Ro7e, it is no doubt true, as !c+&er pointed out, that only with the recognition of the nation as the separate political unit in public law is there the =uridical recognition of the people co7posing it ;as the source of political authority'; 64 <ro7 the7, as %orwin did stress, e7anate ;the highest possible e7bodi7ent of hu7an will,; 6) which is supre7e and 7ust be obeyed' To a&oid any confusion and in the interest of clarity, it should be e9pressed in the 7anner ordained by law' "&en if such is not the case, howe&er, once it is 7anifested, it is to be accepted as final and authoritati&e' The go&ern7ent which is 7erely an agency to register its co77ands has no choice but to sub7it' +ts officials 7ust act accordingly' #o agency is e9e7pt such a duty, not e&en this %ourt' +n that sense, the lacB of regularity in the 7ethod e7ployed to register its wishes is fatal in its conse0uences' (nce the fact of acceptance by people of a new funda7ental law is 7ade e&ident, the =udiciary is left with no choice but to accord it recognition' The obligation to render it obeisance falls on the courts as well' There are A7erican State decisions that enunciate such a doctrine' While certainly not controlling, they are not entirely bereft of persuasi&e significance' +n Miller v. Jo)nson, 66 decided in 1422, it was set forth in the opinion of %hief 6ustice Colt that on !ay 3, 1420, an act was passed in NentucBy, pro&iding for the calling of a con&ention for the purpose of fra7ing a new constitution and the election of delegates' +t pro&ided that before any for7 of constitution 7ade by the7 should beco7e operati&e, it should be sub7itted to the &ote of the state and ratified by a 7a=ority of those &oting' The constitution then in force authori?ed the legislature, the preli7inary steps ha&ing been taBen, to call a con&ention ;for the purpose of readopting, a7ending, or changing; it contained no pro&ision gi&ing the legislature the power to re0uire a sub7ission of its worB to a &ote of the people' The con&ention 7et in Septe7ber, 1420' $y April, 1421, it co7pleted a draft of a constitution, sub7itted it to a popular &ote, and then ad=ourned until Septe7ber following' When the con&ention reasse7bled, the delegates 7ade nu7erous changes in instru7ent' As thus a7ended, it was pro7ulgated by the con&ention of Septe7ber 24, 1421, as the new constitution' An action was brought to challenge its &alidity' +t failed in the lower court' +n affir7ing such =udg7ent dis7issing the action, %hief 6ustice Colt stated8 ;+f a set of 7en, not selected by the people according to the for7s of law, were to for7ulate an instru7ent and declare it the constitution, it would undoubtedly be the duty of the courts to declare its worB a nullity' This would be re&olution, and this the courts of the e9isting go&ern7ent 7ust resist until they are o&erturned by power, and a new go&ern7ent established' The con&ention, howe&er, was the offspring of law' The instru7ent which we are asBed to declare in&alid as a constitution has been 7ade and pro7ulgated according to the for7s of law' +t is a 7atter of current history that both the e9ecuti&e and legislati&e branches of the go&ern7ent ha&e recogni?ed its &alidity as a constitution, and are now daily doing so' ''' While the =udiciary should protect the rights of the people with great care and =ealousy, because this is its duty, and also because@ in ti7es of great popular e9cite7ent, it is usually their last resort, yet it should at the sa7e ti7e be careful not to o&erstep the proper bounds of its power, as being perhaps e0ually dangerous@ and especially where such 7o7entous results 7ight follow as would be liBely in this instance, if the power of the =udiciary per7itted, and its duty re0uires, the o&erthrow of the worB of the con&ention'; 67 +n Ta"lor v. +ommon,ealt), 6? a 1203 decision, it was contended that the Airginia %onstitution reclai7ed in 1202 is in&alid as it was ordained and pro7ulgated by the con&ention without being sub7itted for ratification or re=ection by the people' The %ourt re=ected such a &iew' As stated in the opinion of 6ustice Carrison8 ;The %onstitution of 1202 was ordained and proclai7ed by a con&ention duly called by direct &ote of the people of the state to re&ise and a7end the %onstitution of 1452' The result of the worB of the con&ention has been recogni?ed, accepted, and acted upon as the only &alid %onstitution of the state by the 1o&ernor in swearing fidelity to it and proclai7ing it, as directed thereby@ by the )egislature in its for7al official act adopting a =oint resolution, 6uly 1., 1202, recogni?ing the %onstitution ordained by the con&ention which asse7bled in the city of Rich7ond on the 12th day of 6une, 1201, as the %onstitution of Airginia@ by the indi&idual oaths of 7e7bers to support it, and by enforcing its pro&isions@ and the people in their pri7ary capacity by peacefully accepting it and ac0uiescing in it, by registering as &oters under it to the e9tent of thousands throughout the state, and by &oting, under its pro&isions, at a general election for their representati&es in the %ongress of the *nited States' The %onstitution ha&ing been thus acBnowledged and accepted by the office ad7inistering the

go&ern7ent and by the people of the state, and there being no go&ern7ent in e9istence under the %onstitution of 1452 opposing or denying its &alidity, we ha&e no difficulty in holding that the %onstitution in 0uestion, which went into effect at noon on the 10th day of 6uly, 1202, is the only rightful, &alid, and e9isting %onstitution of this state, and that to it all the citi?ens of Airginia owe their obedience and loyal allegiance'; 69 +t cannot be plausibly asserted then that pre7ises &alid in law are lacBing for the clai7 that the re&ised %onstitution has been accepted by the <ilipino people' What is 7ore, so it has been argued, it is not 7erely a case of its being i7plied' Through the %iti?ens Asse7blies, there was a plebiscite with the result as indicated in rocla7ation #o' 1102' <ro7 the standpoint of respondents then, they could allege that there was 7ore than =ust 7ere ac0uiescence by the so&ereign people' +ts will was thus e9pressed for7ally and un7istaBably' +t 7ay be added that there was nothing inherently ob=ectionable in the infor7al 7ethod followed in ascertaining its preference' #or is the fact that <ilipinos of both se9es abo&e the age of fifteen were gi&en the opportunity to &ote to be deplored' The greater the base of 7ass participation, the 7ore there is fealty to the de7ocratic concept' +t does logically follow liBewise that such circu7stances being conceded, then no =ustifiable 0uestion 7ay be raised' This %ourt is to respect what had thus recei&ed the peopleDs sanction' That is not for 7e though whole of it' <urther scrutiny e&en then is not entirely foreclosed' There is still an aspect that is =udicial, an in0uiry 7ay be had as to whether such indeed was the result' This is no 7ore than what the courts do in election cases' There are other factors to bear in 7ind' The fact that the resident so certified is well,nigh conclusi&e' There is in addition the e&idence flowing fro7 the conditions of peace and stability' There thus appears to be confor7ity to the e9isting order of things' The daily course of e&ents yields such a conclusion' What is 7ore, the officials under the 123. %onstitution, including practically all Representati&es and a 7a=ority of the Senators, ha&e signified their assent to it' The thought persists, howe&er, that as yet sufficient ti7e has not elapsed to be really certain' #or is this all' There is for 7e an obstacle to the petitions being dis7issed for such ascertain7ent of popular will did taBe place during a period of 7artial law' +t would ha&e been different had there been that freedo7 of debate with the least interference, thus allowing a free 7arBet of ideas' +f it were thus, it could be truly said that there was no barrier to liberty of choice' +t would be a clear,cut decision either way' (ne could be certain as to the fact of the acceptance of the new or of adherence to the old' This is not to deny that &otes are cast by indi&iduals with their personal concerns upper7ost in 7ind, worried about their i77ediate needs and capti&e to their e9isting 7oods' That is inherent in any hu7an institution, 7uch 7ore so in a de7ocratic polity' #or is it open to any &alid ob=ection because in the final analysis the state e9ists for the indi&iduals who in their collecti&ity co7pose it' Whate&er be their &iews, they are entitled to respect' +t is difficult for 7e, howe&er, at this stage to feel secure in the con&iction that they did utili?e the occasion afforded to gi&e e9pression to what was really in their hearts' This is not to i7ply that such doubt could not be dispelled by e&idence to the contrary' +f the petitions be dis7issed howe&er, then such opportunity is fore&er lost' .' With the foregoing legal principles in 7ind, + find 7yself unable to =oin the ranBs of 7y estee7ed brethren who &ote for the dis7issal of these petitions' + cannot yield an affir7ati&e response to the plea of respondents to consider the 7atter closed, the proceedings ter7inated once and for all' +t is not an easy decision to reach' +t has occasioned deep thought and considerable soul,searching' <or there are counter&ailing considerations that e9ert a co7pulsion not easy to resist' +t can be asserted with truth, especially in the field of social and econo7ic rights, that with the re&ised %onstitution, there is an auspicious beginning for further progress' Then too it could resol&e what appeared to be the deepening contradictions of political life, reducing at ti7es go&ern7ental authority to near i7potence and i7parting a sense of disillusion7ent in de7ocratic processes' +t is not too 7uch to say therefore that there had indeed been the re&ision of a funda7ental law to &itali?e the &ery &alues out of which de7ocracy grows' +t is one which has all the ear7arBs of being responsi&e to the do7inant needs of the ti7es' +t represents an outlooB cogni?ant of the tensions of a turbulent era that is the present' That is why for so7e what was done represented an act of courage and faith, coupled with the hope that the solution arri&ed at is a harbinger of a bright and rosy future' +t is such a co7fort then that e&en if 7y appraisal of the situation had co77anded a 7a=ority, there is not, while these lawsuits are being further considered, the least interference, with the e9ecuti&e depart7ent' The resident in the discharge of all his functions is entitled to obedience' Ce re7ains co77ander,in,chief with all the constitutional powers it i7plies' ublic officials can go about their accusto7ed tasBs in accordance with the re&ised %onstitution' They can pursue e&en the tenor of their ways' They are free to act according to its tenets' That was so these past few weeBs, e&en petitions were filed' There was not at any ti7e any thought of any restraining order' So it was before' That is how things are e9pected to re7ain e&en if the 7otions to dis7iss were not granted' +t 7ight be asBed though, suppose the petitions should pre&ailH What thenH "&en so, the decision of this %ourt need not be e9ecutory right away' Such a disposition of a case before this %ourt is not no&el' That was how it was done in the "7ergency owers Act contro&ersy' 7@ (nce co7pliance is had with the re0uire7ents of Article KA of the 123. %onstitution, to assure that the co7ing force of the re&ised charter is free fro7 any taint of infir7ity, then all doubts are set at rest' <or so7e, to so &iew the 0uestion before us is to be caught in a web of unreality, to cherish illusions that cannot stand the test of actuality' What is 7ore, it 7ay gi&e the i7pression of reliance on what 7ay, for the practical 7an of affairs, be no 7ore than gossa7er distinctions and sterile refine7ents unrelated to e&ents' That 7ay be so, but + find it i7possible to transcend what for 7e are the i7plications of traditional constitutionalis7' This is not to assert that an occupant of the bench is bound to apply with unde&iating rigidity doctrines which 7ay ha&e ser&ed their day' Ce could at ti7es e&en looB upon the7 as 7ere scribblings in the sands to be washed away by the ad&ancing tides of the present' The introduction of no&el concepts 7ay be carried only so far though' As %ardo?o put the 7atter8 ;The =udge, e&en when he is free, is still not wholly free' Ce is not to inno&ate at pleasure' Ce is not a Bnight,errant, roa7ing at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness' Ce is to draw his inspiration fro7 consecrated principles' Ce is not to yield to spas7odic senti7ent, to &ague and unregulated bene&olence' Ce is to e9ercise a discretion infor7ed by tradition, 7ethodi?ed by analogy, disciplined by syste7, and subordinated to ;the pri7ordial necessity of order in the social life'; Wide enough in all conscience is the field of discretion that re7ains'; 71 !oreo&er what 7ade it difficult for this %ourt to apply settled principles, which for 7e ha&e not lost their &alidity, is traceable to the fact that the re&ised %onstitution was 7ade to taBe effect i77ediately upon ratification' +f a period of ti7e were allowed to elapse precisely to enable the =udicial power to be e9ercised, no co7plication would ha&e arisen' )iBewise, had there been only one or two a7end7ents, no such

proble7 would be before us' That is why + do not see sufficient =ustification for the orthodo9ies of constitutional law not to operate' "&en with full reali?ation then that the approach pursued is not all that it ought to ha&e been and the process of reasoning not without its shortco7ings, the basic pre7ises of a constitutional de7ocracy, as + understand the7 and as set forth in the preceding pages, co7pel 7e to &ote the way + did' TEE AN,EE, J., dissenting8 The 7asterly opinion of the %hief 6ustice wherein he painstaBingly deals with the 7o7entous issues of the cases at bar in all their co7ple9ity co77ands 7y concurrence' + would herein 7aBe an e9position of the funda7ental reasons and considerations for 7y stand' The unprecedented and precedent,setting issue sub7itted by petitioners for the %ourtDs resolution is the &alidity and constitutionality of residential rocla7ation #o' 1102 issued on 6anuary 17, 1273, certifying and proclai7ing that the %onstitution proposed by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention ;has been ratified by an o&erwhel7ing 7a=ority of all the &otes cast by the 7e7bers of all the $arangays -%iti?ens Asse7blies/ throughout the hilippines, and has thereby co7e into effect'; !ore specifically, the issue sub7itted is whether the purported ratification of the proposed %onstitution by 7eans of the %iti?ens Asse7blies has substantially co7plied with the 7andate of Article KA of the e9isting %onstitution of 123. that duly proposed a7end7ents thereto, in toto or parts thereof, ;shall be &alid as part of this %onstitution when appro&ed by a ma6orit" of the votes cast at an election at which the a7end7ents are su*mitted to the peoplefor their ratification'; 1 A necessary corollary issue is whether the purported ratification of the proposed %onstitution as signed on #o&e7ber 30, 1272 by the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention 7ay be said also to ha&e substantially co7plied with its own 7andate that ;-T/his %onstitution shall taBe i77ediately upon its ratification by a ma6orit" of the votes cast in aple*iscite called for t)e purpose and e9cept as herein pro&ided, shall supersede the %onstitution of #ineteen hundred and thirty,fi&e and all a7end7ents thereto'; 2 Respondents contend that ;-A/lthough apparently what is sought to be annulled is rocla7ation #o' 1102, what petitioners really seeB to in&alidate is the new %onstitution;, and their actions 7ust be dis7issed, *ecause8 E ;the %ourt 7ay not in0uire into the validit" of the procedure for ratification; which is ?political in character; and that ;what is sought to be in&alidated is not an act of the resident but of the people@ E ;-T/he fact of approval of the new %onstitution by an o&erwhel7ing 7a=ority of the &otes cast asdeclared and certified in rocla7ation #o' 1102 is conclusive on the courts@ E ; rocla7ation #o' 1102 was issued by the resident in the e9ercise of legislati&e power under 7artial law' ''' Alternati&ely, or conte7poraneously, he did so as ;agent; of the %onstitutional %on&ention@; E ;alleged defects, such as absence of secret voting, enfranchise7ent of persons less than 21 years, non supervision -by/ the +omelec are 7atters not re9uired by Article KA of the 123. %onstitution;@ -sic/ E ;after ratification, whate&er defects there 7ight ha&e been in the procedure are o&erco7e andmooted -and muted/ by the fact of ratification;@ and
E ;-A/ssu7ing finally that Article KA of the 123. %onstitution was not strictly followed, the ratification of the new %onstitution 7ust nonetheless be respected' <or the procedure outlined in Article KA was not intended to be e9clusi&e of other procedures, especially one which conte7plates popular and direct participation of the citi?enry ''' '; 3

To test the &alidity of respondentsD sub7ittal that the %ourt, in annulling rocla7ation #o' 1102 would really be ;in&alidating the new %onstitution;, the ter7s and pre7ises of the issues ha&e to be defined'
E Respondents the7sel&es assert that ; rocla7ation #o' 1102 ''' is plainly 7erely declarator" of the fact that the 1273 %onstitution has been ratified and has co7e into force' 4 E The 7easure of the fact of ratification is Article KA of the 123. %onstitution' This has been consistently held by the %ourt in the Gonzales8 ) and Tolentino 6 cases' E +n the Tolentino case, this %ourt e7phasi?ed ;that the pro&isions of Section 1 of Article KA of the %onstitution, dealing with the procedure or manner of amending the funda7ental law are binding upon the %on&ention and the other depart7ents of the go&ern7ent' +t 7ust be added that ''' they are no

less *indingupon the people'; 7 E +n the sa7e Tolentino case, this %ourt further proclai7ed that ;as long as any a7end7ent is for7ulated and sub7itted under the aegis of the present %harter, any proposal for such a7end7ent which is not in confor7ity with the letter, spirit and intent of the +)arter for effecting a7end7ents, cannot recei&e the sanction of this %ourt'; ? E As continues to be held by a 7a=ority of this %ourt, proposed a7end7ents to the %onstitution ;should be ratified in only one way, that is, in an election or plebiscite held in accordance with law and participated in only by 0ualified and duly registered &oters; 9 and under the super&ision of the %o77ission on "lections' 1@

E Cence, if the %ourt declares rocla7ation 1102 null and &oid because on its face, the purported ratification of the proposed %onstitution has not faithfully nor substantially obser&ed nor co7plied with the 7andatory re0uire7ents of Article KA of the -123./ %onstitution, it would not be ;in&alidating; the proposed new %onstitution but would be si7ply declaring that the announced fact of ratification thereof by 7eans of the %iti?ens Asse7blies referendu7s does not pass the constitutional test and that the proposed new %onstitution has not constitutionally co7e into e9istence' E Since rocla7ation 1102 is acBnowledged by respondent to be ;plainly 7erely declaratory; of the disputed fact of ratification, they cannot assu7e the &ery fact to be established and beg the issue by citing the self,sa7e declaration as proof of the purported ratification therein declared' What co7plicates the cases at bar is the fact that the proposed 1272 %onstitution was enforced as ha&ing i77ediately taBen effect upon the issuance on 6anuary 17, 1273 of rocla7ation 1102 and the 0uestion of whether ;confusion and disorder in go&ern7ent affairs would -not/ result; fro7 a =udicial declaration of nullity of the purported ratification is raised by the Solicitor, 1eneral on behalf of respondents' A co7parable precedent of great crisis proportions is found in the "7ergency owers cases, 11 wherein the %ourt in its Resolution of Septe7ber 15, 1232 after =udg7ent was initially not obtained on August 25, 1232 for lacB of the re0uired si9 -5/ &otes, finally declared in effect that the pre,war e7ergency powers delegated by %ongress to the resident, under %o77onwealth Act 571 in pursuance of Article A+, section 25 of the %onstitution, had ceased and beca7e inoperati&e at the latest in !ay, 1235 when %ongress 7et in its first regular session on !ay 2., 1235' Then %hief 6ustice !anuel A' !oran recited the great interests and i7portant rights that had arisen under e9ecuti&e orders ;issued in good faith and with the best of intentions by three successi&e residents, and so7e of the7 7ay ha&e already produced e9tensi&e effects on the life of the nation; E in the sa7e 7anner as 7ay ha&e arisen under the bona fide acts of the resident now in the honest belief that the 1272 %onstitution had been &alidly ratified by 7eans of the %iti?ens Asse7blies referendu7s E and indicated the proper course and solution therefor, which were duly abided by and confusion and disorder as well as har7 to public interest and innocent parties thereby a&oided as follows8
*pon the other hand, while + belie&e that the e7ergency powers had ceased in 6une 123., + a7 not prepared to hold that all e9ecuti&e orders issued thereafter under %o77onwealth Act #o' 571, are per se null and &oid' +t 7ust be borne in 7ind that these e9ecuti&e orders had been issued in good faith and with the best of intentions by three successi&e residents, and so7e of the7 7ay ha&e already produced e9tensi&e effects in the life of the nation' We ha&e, for instance, "9ecuti&e (rder #o' 73, issued on #o&e7ber 12, 123., appropriating the su7 of 5,7.0,000 for public worBs@ "9ecuti&e (rder #o' 45, issued on 6anuary 7, 1235, amending a previous order regarding t)e organization of t)e Supreme +ourt @ "9ecuti&e (rder #o' 42, issued on 6anuary 1, 1235, reorgani?ing %ourts of <irst +nstance@ "9ecuti&e (rder #o' 143, issued on #o&e7ber 12, 1234, controlling rice and palay to co7bat hunger@ and other e9ecuti&e orders appropriating funds for other purposes' The conse0uences of a *lan#et nullification of all these e9ecuti&e orders will be un0uestionably serious and )armful. And + hold that before nullifying the7, ot)er important circumstances should be in9uired into, as for instance, whether or not they ha&e been ratified by %ongress e9pressly or i7pliedly, whether their purposes ha&e already been acco7plished entirely or partially, and in the last instance, to what e9tent@ ac0uiescence of litigants@ de facto officers@ acts and contracts of parties acting in good faith@ etc' +t is 7y opinion that each e9ecuti&e order 7ust be &iewed in the light of its peculiar circu7stances, and, if necessary and possible, nullifying it, precautionary 7easures should be taBen to avoid )arm to public interest and innocent parties' 12

+nitially, then %hief 6ustice !oran &oted with a 7a=ority of the %ourt to grant the Araneta and 1uerrero petitions holding null and &oid the e9ecuti&e orders on rentals and e9port control but to defer =udg7ent on the Rodrigue? and $arredo petitions for =udicial declarations of nullity of the e9ecuti&e orders appropriating the 1232,12.0 fiscal year budget for the go&ern7ent and 5 7illion for the holding of the 1232 national elections' After rehearsing, he further &oted to also declare null and &oid the last two e9ecuti&e orders appropriating funds for the 1232 budget and elections, co7pleting the ;sufficient 7a=ority; of si9 against four dissenting =ustices ;to pronounce a &alid =udg7ent on that 7atter'; 13 Then %hief 6ustice !oran, who penned the %ourtDs 7a=ority resolution, e9plained his &ote for annul7ent despite the great difficulties and possible ;har7ful conse0uences; in the following passage, which bears re,reading8 Cowe&er, now that the holding of a special session of %ongress for the purpose of re7edying the nullity of the e9ecuti&e orders in 0uestion appears re7ote and uncertain, + a7 co7pelled to, and do hereby, gi&e

7y un0ualified concurrence in the decision penned by !r' 6ustice Tuason declaring that these two e9ecuti&e orders were issued without authority of law' While in &oting for a te7porary defer7ent of the =udg7ent + was 7o&ed by the belief that positi&e co7pliance with the %onstitution by the other branches of the 1o&ern7ent, which is our pri7e concern in all these cases, would be effected, and indefinite defer7ent will produce the opposite result because it would legiti7i?e a prolonged or per7anent e&asion of our organic law' "9ecuti&e orders which are, in our opinion, repugnant to the %onstitution, would be gi&en per7anent life, opening the way or practices which 7ay under7ine our constitutional structure' The har7ful conse0uences which, as + en&isioned in 7y concurring opinion, would co7e to pass should the said e9ecuti&e orders be i77ediately declared null and &oid are still real' They ha&e not disappeared by reason of the fact that a special session of %ongress is not now forthco7ing' Cowe&er, the re7edy now lies in the hands of the %hief "9ecuti&e and of %ongress, for the %onstitution &ests in the for7er the power to call a special session should the need for one arise, and in the latter, the power to pass a &alid appropriations act' That %ongress 7ay again fail to pass a &alid appropriations act is a re7ote possibility, for under the circu7stances it fully reali?es its great responsibility of sa&ing the nation fro7 breaBing down@ and further7ore, the resident in the e9ercise of his constitutional powers 7ay, if he so desires, co7pel %ongress to re7ain in special session till it appro&es the legislati&e 7easures 7ost needed by the country' :e7ocracy is on trial in the hilippines, and surely it will e7erge &ictorious as a per7anent way of life in this country, if each of the great branches of the 1o&ern7ent, within its own allocated sphere, co7plies with its own constitutional duty, unco7pro7isingly and regardless of difficulties'
(ur Republic is still young, and the &ital principles underlying its organic structure should be 7aintained fir7 and strong, hard as the best of steel, so as to insure its growth and de&elop7ent along solid lines of a stable and &igorous de7ocracy' 14

The late 6ustice edro Tuason who penned the initial 7a=ority =udg7ent -declaring null and &oid the rental and e9port control e9ecuti&e orders/ liBewise obser&ed that ;-T/he truth is that under our concept of constitutional go&ern7ent, in ti7es of e9tre7e perils 7ore than in nor7al circu7stances Dthe &arious branches, e9ecuti&e, legislati&e, and =udicial,D gi&en the ability to act, are called upon Dto perfor7 the duties discharge the responsibilities co77itted to respecti&ely'D ; 1) +t should be duly acBnowledged that the %ourtDs tasB of discharging its duty and responsibility has been considerably lightened by the residentDs public 7anifestation of adherence to constitutional processes and of worBing within the proper constitutional fra7eworB as per his press conference of 6anuary 20,1273, wherein he stated that ;-T/he Supre7e %ourt is the final arbiter of the %onstitution' +t can and will probably deter7ine the &alidity of this %onstitution' + did not want to talB about this because actually there is a case pending before the Supre7e %ourt' $ut suffice it to say that + recogni?e the power of the Supre7e %ourt' With respect to appoint7ents, the 7atter falls under a general pro&ision which authori?es the ri7e !inister to appoint additional 7e7bers to the Supre7e %ourt' *ntil the 7atter of the new %onstitution is decided, + ha&e no intention of utili?ing that power'; 16 Thus, it is that as in an analogous situation wherein the state Supre7e %ourt of !ississippi held that the 0uestions of whether the sub7ission of the proposed constitutional a7end7ent of the State %onstitution pro&iding for an electi&e, instead of an appointi&e, =udiciary and whether the proposition was in fact adopted, were =ustifiable and not political 0uestions, we 7ay echo the words therein of %hief 6ustice Whitfield that ;-W/e do not seeB a =urisdiction not i7posed upon us by the %onstitution' We could not, if we would, escape the e9ercise of that =urisdiction which the %onstitution has i7posed upon us' +n the particular instance in which we are now acting, our duty to Bnow what the %onstitution of the state is, and in accordance with our oaths to support and 7aintain it in its integrity, i7posed on us a 7ost difficult and e7barrassing duty, one which we ha&e not sought, but one which, liBe all others, 7ust be discharged'; 17 +n confronting the issues at bar, then, with due regard for 7y colleaguesD contrary &iews, we are faced with the hard choice of 7aintaining a fir7 and strict E perhaps, e&en rigid E stand that the %onstitution is a ; superior paramount la,, unc)angea*le *" ordinar" means; sa&e in the particular 7ode and 7anner prescribed therein by the people, who, in %ooleyDs words, so ;tied up -not only/ the hands of their official agencies, but their own hands as well; 1? in the e9ercise of their so&ereign will or a liberal and fle9ible stand that would consider co7pliance with the constitutional article on the a7ending process as 7erely directory rather than 7andatory' The first choice of a strict stand, as applied to the cases at bar, signifies that the %onstitution 7ay be a7ended in toto or otherwise e!clusivel" ;by appro&al by a 7a=ority of the votes cast an election at which the a7end7ents are sub7itted to the people for their ratification;, 19 participated in onl" by 9ualified and duly registered &oters t,ent"1one "ears of age or o&er 2@ and duly supervised by the %o77ission on "lections, 21 in accordance with the cited 7andatory constitutional re0uire7ents' The alternati&e choice of a liberal stand would per7it a disregard of said re0uire7ents on the theory urged by respondents that ;the procedure outlined in Article KA was not intended to be e!clusive of other procedures especially one which conte7plates popular and direct participation of the citi?enry;, 22 that the constitutional age and literacy re0uire7ents and other statutory

safeguards for ascertaining the will of the 7a=ority of the people 7ay liBewise be changed as ;suggested, if not prescribed, by the people -through the %iti?ens Asse7blies/ the7sel&es;, 23 and that the %o7elec is constitutionally ;7andated to o&ersee ''' elections -of public officers/ andnot plebiscites'; 24 To paraphrase *'S' %hief 6ustice 6ohn !arshall who first declared in the historic 1403 case of Mar*ur" vs. Madison 2) the *'S' Supre7e %ourtDs power of =udicial re&iew and to declare &oid laws repugnant to the %onstitution, there is no 7iddle ground between these two alternati&es' As !arshall e9pounded it8 ;-T/he %onstitution is either a superior para7ount law, unchangeable by ordinary 7eans, or it is on a le&el with ordinary legislati&e acts, and, liBe other acts, alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it' +f the for7er part of the alternati&e be true, then a legislati&e act, contrary to the %onstitution, is not law@ if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd atte7pts on the part of a people, to li7it a power, in its own nature, illi7itable'; As was to be restated by 6ustice 6ose ' )aurel a century and a third later in the 1235 land7arB case of Angara vs. &lectoral +ommission, 26 ;-T/he %onstitution sets forth in no uncertain language the restrictions and li7itations upon go&ern7ental powers and agencies' +f these restrictions and li7itations are transcended it would be inconcei&able if the %onstitution had not pro&ided for a 7echanis7 by which to direct the course of go&ern7ent along constitutional channels, for then the distribution of powers would be 7ere &erbiage, the bill of rights 7ere e9pressions of senti7ent, and the principles of good go&ern7ent 7ere political apotheg7s' %ertainly, the li7itations of good go&ern7ent and restrictions e7bodied in our %onstitution are real as they should be in any li&ing %onstitution'; 6ustice )aurel pointed out that in contrast to the *nited States %onstitution, the hilippine %onstitution as ;a definition of the powers of go&ern7ent; placed upon the =udiciary the great burden of ;deter7ining the nature, scope and e9tent of such powers; and stressed that ;when the =udiciary 7ediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority o&er the other depart7ents ''' but only asserts the sole7n and sacred obligation entrusted to it by the %onstitution to deter7ine conflicting clai7s of authority under the %onstitution and to establish for the parties in an actual contro&ersy the rights which the instru7ent secures and guarantees to the7'; ++ !arshall was to utter 7uch later in the e0ually historic 1412 case of Mc+ulloc) vs. Mar"land 27 the ;cli7actic phrase,; 2? ;we 7ust ne&er forget that it is a constitution we are e9pounding,; E ter7ed by 6ustice <ranBfurter as ;the single 7ost i7portant utterance in the literature of constitutional law E 7ost i7portant because 7ost co7prehensi&e and co7prehending'; 29 This enduring concept to 7y 7ind per7eated to this %ourtDs e9position and rationale in the hall7arB case of Tolentino, wherein we re=ected the contentions on the %on&entionDs behalf ;that the issue ''' is a political 0uestion and that the %on&ention being a legislati&e body of the highest order is so&ereign, and as such, its acts i7pugned by petitioner are beyond the control of %ongress and the %ourts'; 3@ This %ourt therein 7ade its une9uivocal choice of strictly re0uiring fait)ful -which really includes substantial/ co7pliance with the mandator" re0uire7ents of the amending process' 1' +n denying reconsideration of our =udg7ent of (ctober 15, 1271 prohibiting the sub7ittal in an ad&ance election of 1271 %onstitutional %on&entionDs (rganic Resolution #o' 1 proposing to a7end Article A, section 1 of the %onstitution by lowering the &oting age to 14 years -&ice 21 years/ 30a ;without pre=udice to other a7end7ents that will be proposed in the future ''' on other portions of the a7ended section;, this %ourt stated that ;the constitutional pro&ision in 0uestion -as proposed/ presents no doubt which 7ay be resol&ed in fa&or of respondents and inter&enors' We do not belie&e such doubt can e9ist only because it is urged that the end sought to be achie&ed is to be desired' araphrasing no less than the resident of %onstitutional %on&ention of 1233, %laro !' Recto, let those who would put aside, in&oBing grounds at best contro&ersial, any 7andate of the funda7ental law purportedly in order to attain so7e laudable ob=ecti&e bear in 7ind that so7eday so7ehow others with purportedly 7ore laudable ob=ecti&es 7ay taBe ad&antage of the precedent and continue the destruction of the %onstitution, 7aBing those who laid down the precedent of =ustifying de&iations fro7 the re0uire7ents of the %onstitution the &icti7s of their own folly'; 31 2' This %ourt held in Tolentino that8
''' as to 7atters not related to its internal operation and the perfor7ance of its assigned 7ission to propose a7end7ents to the %onstitution, the %on&ention and its officers and 7e7bers are all sub=ect to all the pro&isions of the e9isting %onstitution' #ow We hold that e&en as to its latter tasB of proposing a7end7ents to the %onstitution, it is sub=ect to the pro&isions of Section 1 of Article :V' This 7ust be so, because it is plain to *s that the fra7ers of the %onstitution tooB care that the process of a7ending the sa7e should not be undertaBen with the sa7e ease and facilit" in changing an ordinary legislation' %onstitution 7aBing is the 7ost &alued power, second to none, of the people in a constitutional de7ocracy such as the one our founding fathers ha&e chosen for this nation, and which we of the succeeding generations generally cherish' And because the %onstitution affects the lives, fortunes, future and ever" ot)er conceiva*le aspect of the li&es of all t)e people within the country and those sub=ect to its so&ereignty, e&ery degree of care is taBen in preparing and drafting it' A constitution worthy of the people for deliberation and study' +t is ob&ious that correspondingly,an" amendment of the %onstitution is of no less i7portance than the whole %onstitution itself, and perforce 7ust be concei&ed and prepared with as 7uch care and deliberation' <ro7 the &ery nature of things, the drafters of an original constitution, as already obser&ed earlier, operate without any li7itations, restraints or inhibitions sa&e those that they 7ay i7pose upon the7sel&es' This is not necessarily true of subse0uent con&entions called to a7end the original constitution' 1enerally, the fra7ers of the latter see to it that their handiworB is not lightly treated and as easily 7utilated or changed, not only for reasons purely

personal but 7ore i7portantly, because written constitutions are supposed to be designed so as to last for so7e ti7e, if not for ages, or for, at least, as long as they can be adopted to the needs and e9igencies of the people, hence, they 7ust be insulated against precipitate and hasty actions 7oti&ated by 7ore or less passing political 7oods or fancies' Thus, as a rule, the original constitutions carry with the7 li7itations and conditions, 7ore or less stringent, made so *" t)e people t)emselves, in regard to the process of their amendment' And when such li7itations or conditions are so incorporated in the original constitution, it does not lie in the delegates of any subse0uent con&ention to clai7 that they 7ay ignore and disregard such conditions because they are powerful and o7nipotent as their original counterparts' 32

3' This %ourt in Tolentino liBewise for7ally adopted the doctrine of proper su*mission first ad&anced in Gonzales vs. +omelec 33, thus8
We are certain no one can deny that in order that a plebiscite for the ratification of an a7end7ent to the %onstitution 7ay be &alidly held, it 7ust pro&ide the &oter not only sufficient time but ample *asis for anintelligent appraisal of the nature of a7end7ent per se as well as its relation to the other parts of the %onstitution with which it has to for7 a har7onious whole' +n the conte9t of the present state of things, where the %on&ention hardly started considering the 7erits of hundreds, if not thousands, proposals to a7end the e9isting %onstitution, to present to people any single proposal or a few of the7 cannot co7ply with this re0uire7ent' We are of the opinion that the present %onstitution does not conte7plate in Section 1 of Article KA a plebiscite or ;election; wherein the people are in the darB as to fra7e of reference they can base their =udg7ent on' We re=ect the rationali?ation that the present %onstitution is a possible fra7e of reference, for the si7ple reason that inter&enors the7sel&es are stating the sole purpose of the proposed a7end7ent is to enable the eighteen year olds to taBe part in the election for the ratification of the %onstitution to be drafted by the %on&ention' +n brief, under the proposed plebiscite, there can be, in the language of 6ustice Sanche?, speaBing for the si9 7e7bers of the %ourt in 1on?ales, supra, Dno proper su*mission'D ; 34

3' <our other 7e7bers of the %ourt 3) in a separate concurrence in Tolentino, e9pressed their ;essential agree7ent; with 6ustice Sanche?D separate opinion in Gonzales on the need for ;fair su*mission -and/ intelligent re6ection; as ;minimum re0uire7ents that 7ust be 7et in order that there can be a proper su*mission to the people of a proposed constitutional a7end7ent; thus8
''' a7end7ents 7ust be fairly laid before the people for their blessing or spurning' The people are not to be 7ere rubber sta7ps' They are not to &ote blindly' They 7ust be afforded a7ple opportunity to 7ull o&er the original pro&isions, co7pare the7 with the proposed a7end7ents, and try to reach a conclusion as the dictates of their conscience suggest, free fro7 the incubus of e9traneous or possibly insidious influences' We belie&e the word ;sub7itted; can only 7ean that the go&ern7ent, within its 7a9i7u7 capabilities, should strain e&ery effort to infor7 e&ery citi?en of the pro&isions to be a7ended, and the proposed a7end7ents and the 7eaning, nature and effects thereof' $y this, we are not to be understood as saying that, if one citi?en or 100 citi?ens or 1,000 citi?ens cannot be reached, then there is no sub7ission within the 7eaning of the word as intended by the fra7ers of the %onstitution' What the %onstitution in effect directs is that the go&ern7ent, in sub7itting an a7end7ent for ratification, should put e&ery instru7entality or agency within its structural fra7eworB to enlighten the people, educate the7 with respect to their act of ratification or re=ection' <or as we ha&e earlier stated, one thing is sub7ission and another is ratification' There must be fair su*mission, intelligent consent or re6ection' 36

They stressed further the need for undivided attention, sufficient information and full de*ate, confor7ably to the intend7ent of Article KA, section 1 of the %onstitution, in this wise8 A nu7ber of doubts or 7isgi&ings could concei&ably and logically assail the a&erage &oter' Why should the &oting age be lowered at all, in the first placeH Why should the new &oting age be precisely 14 years, and not 12 or 20H And why not 17H (r e&en 15 or 1.H +s the 14,year old as 7ature as the 21,year old, so that there is no need of an educational 0ualification to entitle hi7 to &oteH +n this age of per7issi&eness and dissent, can the 14,year old be relied upon to &ote with =udiciousness when the 21,year old, in the past elections, has not perfor7ed so wellH +f the proposed a7end7ent is &oted down by the people, will the %onstitutional %on&ention insist on the said a7end7entH Why is there an unsee7ly haste on the part of the %onstitutional %on&ention in ha&ing this particular proposed a7end7ent ratified at this particular ti7eH :o so7e of the 7e7bers of the %on&ention ha&e future political plans which they want to begin to subser&e by the appro&al this year of this a7end7entH +f this a7end7ent is appro&ed, does it thereby 7ean that the 14,year old should not also shoulder the 7oral and legal responsibilities of the 21,year oldH Will he be re0uired to co7pulsory 7ilitary ser&ice under the colorsH Will the contractual consent be reduced to 14 yearsH +f + &ote against the a7end7ent, will + not be unfair to 7y own child who will be 14 years old, co7e 1273H The abo&e are =ust sa7plings fro7 here, there and e&erywhere E fro7 a do7ain -of searching 0uestions/ the bounds of which are not i77ediately ascertainable' Surely, 7any 7ore 0uestions can be added to the already long litany' And the answers cannot e9cept as the 0uestions are de*ated full", pondered upon purposefull", and accorded undivided attention'
Scanning the conte7porary scene, we say that the people are not, and by election ti7e will not be, sufficientl" informed of the meaning, nature and effects of the proposed constitutional a7end7ent' They ha&e not been afforded ample time to deliberate thereon conscientiously' They ha&e been and are effecti&ely distracted fro7

afull and dispassionate consideration of t)e merits and demerits of the proposed a7end7ent by their traditional per&asi&e in&ol&e7ent in local elections and politics' They cannot thus weigh in tran0uility the need for and the wisdo7 proposed a7end7ent' 37

.' This %ourt therein dis7issed the plea of disregarding 7andatory re0uire7ents of the a7ending process ;in fa&or of allowing the so&ereign people to e9press their decision on the proposed a7end7ents; as ;anachronistic in the real constitutionalis7 and repugnant to the essence of the rule of law,; in the following ter7s8
''' The prea7ble of the %onstitution says that the %onstitution has been ordained by the D<ilipino people, i7ploring the aid of :i&ine ro&idence'D Section 1 of Article KA is nothing than a part of the %onstitution thusordained *" t)e people' Cence, in construing said section, We 7ust read it as if the people had said, DThis %onstitution 7ay be amended, but it is our ,ill that the a7end7ent 7ust be proposed and su*mitted to *s for ratification onl" in t)e manner )erein provided'D ''' Accordingly, the real issue here cannot be whether or not the a7ending process delineated by the present %onstitution 7ay be disregarded in fa&or of allowing the so&ereign people to e9press their decision on the proposed a7end7ents, if only because it is e&ident that the &ery idea of departing fro7 the funda7ental law is anac)ronistic in t)e realm of constitutionalism and repugnant to t)e essence of t)e rule of la,@ rather, it is whether or not the pro&isional nature of the proposed a7end7ent and the manner of its su*mission to the people for ratification or re=ection conform with the mandate of t)e peoplethe7sel&es in such regard, as e9pressed in, the %onstitution itself' 3?

5' This %ourt, in not heeding the popular cla7or, thus stated its position8 ;-+/t would be tragic and contrary to the plain co7pulsion of these perspecti&es, if the %ourt were to allow itself in deciding this case to be carried astray by considerations other than the imperatives of the rule of la, and of the applicable pro&isions of the +onstitution' #eedless to say, in a larger 7easure than when it binds other depart7ents of the go&ern7ent or any other official or entity, the %onstitution i7poses upon the %ourt the sacred duty to gi&e 7eaning and &igor to the %onstitution, by interpreting and construing its pro&isions in appropriate cases with the proper parties and by striBing down any act &iolati&e thereof' Cere, as in all other cases, We are resol&ed to disc)arge that dut"' 39 7' The %hief 6ustice, in his separate opinion in Tolentino concurring with this %ourtDs denial of the 7otion for reconsideration, succinctly restated this %ourtDs position on the funda7entals, as follows8 E (n the pre7ature sub7ission of a partial a7end7ent proposal, with a ;te7porary pro&isional or tentati&e character;8 E ;''' a partial a7end7ent would depri&e the &oters of the conte9t which is usually necessary for the7 to 7aBe a reasona*l" intelligent appraisal of the issue sub7itted for their ratification or re=ection' ''' Then, too, the sub7ission to a plebiscite of a partial a7end7ent, without a definite frame of reference, is fraught with possibilities which 7ay =eopardi?e the social fabric' <or one thing, it opens the door to wild speculations' +t offers a7ple opportunities for o&er?ealous leaders and 7e7bers of opposing political ca7ps to unduly e9aggerate the pros and cons of the partial a7end7ent proposed' +n short, it is apt to breed false )opes and create ,rong impressions' As a conse0uence, it is bound to unduly strain the peopleDs faith in the soundness and &alidity of de7ocratic processes and institutions' E (n the plea to allow sub7ission to the so&ereign people of the ;frag7entary and inco7plete; proposal, although inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the %onstitution8 ;The &iew, has, also, ad&anced that the foregoing considerations are not decisi&e on the issue before *s, inas7uch as the people are sovereign, and the partial a7end7ent in&ol&ed in this case is being sub7itted to the7' The issue before *s is whether or not said partial a7end7ent ma" be validl" su*mitted to the people for ratification ;in a plebiscite coincide with the local elections in #o&e7ber 1271,; and t)is particular issue will not be sub7itted to the people' What is 7ore, the %onstitution does not per7it its sub7ission to the people' The 0uestion sought to be settled in the scheduled plebiscite is whether or not the people are in fa&or of the reduction of the &oting age' E (n a ;political; rather than ;legalistic; approach8 ;+s this approach to the proble7 too ;legalisticH; This ter7 has possible connotations' +t 7ay 7ean strict ad)erence to t)e la,, which in the case at bar is the Supreme La, of the land' (n point, suffice it to say that, in co7pliance with the specific 7an of such Supre7e )aw, the 7e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt taBen the re0uisite ;oath to support and defend the %onstitution'; ''' Then, again, the ter7 ;legalistic; 7ay be used to suggest in&ersely that the so7ewhat strained interpretation of the %onstitution being urged upon this %ourt be tolerated or, at least, o&erlooBed, upon the theory that the partial a7end7ent on &oting age is badly needed and reflects the will of the people, specially the youth' This course of action fa&ors, in effect, adoption of a political approac), inas7uch as the ad&isability of the a7end7ent and an appraisal of the peopleDs feeling thereon political matters' +n fact, apart fro7 the ob&ious 7essage of the 7ass 7edia, and, at ti7es, of the pulpit, the %ourt has been literally bo7barded with scores of handwritten letters, al7ost all of which bear the pen7anship and the signature of girls, as well as letterhead of so7e sectarian educational institutions, generally stating that the writer is 14 years of age and urging that she or he be allowed to &ote' Thus, the pressure of public opinion has brought to bear hea&ily upon the %ourt for a reconsideration of its decision in the case at bar' As abo&e stated, howe&er, the ,isdom of the a7end7ent and the popularit" thereof are political

0uestions beyond our pro&ince' +n fact, respondents and the inter&enors originally 7aintained that We ha&e no =urisdiction to entertain the petition herein, upon the ground that the issue therein raised is a political one' Aside fro7 the absence of authority to pass upon political 0uestion, it is ob&iously i7proper and unwise for the bench to de&elop into such 0uestions owing to the danger of getting involved in politics, 7ore liBely of a partisan nature, and, hence, of i7pairing the i7age and the usefulness of courts of =ustice as ob=ecti&e and i7partial arbiters of =usticiable contro&ersies' Then, too, the suggested course of action, if adopted, would constitute a grie&ous disser&ice to the people and the &ery %on&ention itself' +ndeed, the latter and the %onstitution it is in the process of drafting stand essentially for the Rule of )aw' Cowe&er, as the Supre7e )aw of the land, a %onstitution would not be worthy of its na7e, and the %on&ention called upon to draft it would be engaged in a futile undertaBing, if we did not e9act fait)ful ad)erence to the fundamental tenets set forth in the %onstitution and co7pliance with its pro&isions were not obligatory' +f we, in effect, appro&ed, consented to or e&en o&erlooBed a circu7&ention of said tenets and pro&isions, because of the good intention with which Resolution #o' 1 is ani7ated, the %ourt would thereby beco7e theJudge of the good or *ad intentions of the %on&ention and thus be in&ol&ed in a 0uestion essentially political in nature'
This is confir7ed by the plea 7ade in the 7otions for reconsideration in fa&or of the e9ercise of =udicial states7anship in deciding the present case' +ndeed, ;politics; is the word co77only used to epito7i?e co7pro7ise, e&en with principles, for the saBe of political e9pediency or the ad&ance7ent of the bid for power of a gi&en political party' *pon the other hand, states7anship is the e9pression usually a&ailed of to refer to high politics or politics on the highest le&el' +n any e&ent, politics, political approach, political e9pediency and states7anship are generally associated, and often identified, with the dictu7 that ; t)e end 6ustifies t)e means'; + earnestly hope that the ad7inistration of =ustice in this country and the Supre7e %ourt, in particular, will adhere to or appro&e or indorse such dictu7'; 4@

Tolentino, he pointed out that although ;-!/o&antsD sub7ittal that ;-T/he pri7ary purpose for the sub7ission of the proposed a7end7ent lowering the &oting age to the plebiscite on #o&e7ber 4, 1271 is to enable the youth 14 to 20 years who co7prise 7ore than three -3/ 7illion of our population to participate in the ratification of the new %onstitution in so far as ;to allow young people who would be go&erned by the %onstitution to be gi&en a say on what Bind of %onstitution they will ha&e; is a laudable end, ''' those urging the &itality and i7portance of the proposed constitutional a7end7ent and its appro&al ahead of the co7plete and final draft of the %onstitution 7ust seeB a &alid solution to achie&e it in a 7anner sanctioned by the a7endatory process ordained by our people in the present %onstitution; 41 E so that there 7ay be ;sub7itted, not piece,7eal, but by way of co7plete and final a7end7ents as an integrated whole -integrated either with the subsisting %onstitution or with the new proposed %onstitution/'''; 2' The uni&ersal &alidity of the &ital constitutional precepts and principles abo&e,enunciated can hardly be gainsaid' + fail to see the atte7pted distinction of restricting their application to proposals for a7end7ents of particular pro&isions of the %onstitution and not to so,called entirely new %onstitutions' A7end7ents to an e9isting %onstitution presu7ably 7ay be only of certain parts or in toto, and in the latter case would rise to an entirely new %onstitution' Where this %ourt held in Tolentino that ;an" a7end7ent of the %onstitution is of no less i7portance than the whole %onstitution itself and perforce 7ust be concei&ed and prepared with as 7uch care and deliberation;, it would appeal that the re&erse would e0ually be true@ which is to say, that the adoption of a whole new %onstitution would be of no less i7portance than any particular a7end7ent and therefore the necessary care and deliberation as well as the 7andatory restrictions and safeguards in the a7ending process ordained by the people the7sel&es so that ;they -7ay/ be insulated against precipitate and hasty actions 7oti&ated by 7ore or less passing political 7oods or fancies; 7ust necessarily e0ually apply thereto' +++ 1' To restate the basic pre7ises, the people pro&ided in Article KA of the %onstitution for the a7ending process onl" ;by appro&al by a 7a=ority of the &otes cast at an election at which the -duly proposed/ a7end7ents are sub7itted to the people for their ratification'; The people ordained in Article A, section 1 that only those thereby enfranchised and granted the right of suffrage 7ay speaB the ;,ill of t)e *od" politic?, viz, 9ualified literate voters t,ent" one "ears of age or o&er with one yearDs residence in the 7unicipality where they ha&e registered' The people, not as yet satisfied, further pro&ided by a7end7ent duly appro&ed in 1230 in accordance with Article KA, for the creation of an independent %o77ission on "lections with ;e!clusive c)arge; for the purpose of ;insuring free, orderly and honest elections; and ascertaining the true will of the electorate E and 7ore, as ruled by this %ourt in Tolentino, in the case of proposed constitutional a7end7ents, insuring proper su*mission to the electorate of such proposals' 42 2' A !assachussets case 43 with a constitutional syste7 and pro&isions analogous to ours, best defined the uses of the ter7 ?people? as a *od" politic and ?people? in t)e political sense who are synony7ous with the 0ualified &oters granted the right to &ote by the e9isting %onstitution and who therefore are ;the sole organs through which the will of the body politic can be e9pressed'; +t was pointed out therein that ;-T/he word DpeopleD 7ay ha&e so7ewhat &arying significations dependent upon the connection in which it is used' +n so7e connections in the %onstitution it is confined to citi?ens and 7eans the sa7e as citi?ens' +t e9cludes

aliens' +t includes 7en, wo7en and children' +t co7prehends not only the sane, co7petent, law,abiding and educated, but also those who are wholly or in part dependents and charges upon society by reason of i77aturity, 7ental or 7oral deficiency or lacB of the co77on essentials of education' All these persons are secured funda7ental guarantees of the %onstitution in life, liberty and property and the pursuit of happiness, e9cept as these 7ay be li7ited for the protection of society'; +n the sense of ;body politic -as/ for7ed by &oluntary association of indi&iduals; go&erned by a constitution and co77on laws in a ;social co7pact ''' for the co77on good; and in another sense of ;people; in a ;practical sense; for ;political purposes; it was therein fittingly stated that in this sense, ;people; co7prises 7any who, by reason of want of years, of capacity or of the educational re0uire7ents of Article 20 of the a7end7ents of the %onstitution, can ha&e no &oice in any go&ern7ent and who yet are entitled to all the i77unities and protection established by the %onstitution' D $eopleD in t)is aspect is coe!tensive with the *od" politic' $ut it is ob&ious that DpeopleD cannot be used with this broad 7eaning of political signification' The DpeopleD in this connection 7eans that part of the entire body of inhabitants who under the %onstitution are intrusted with the e9ercise of the so&ereign power and the conduct of go&ern7ent' The 0people0 in t)e +onstitution in a practical sense 7eans those who under the e9isting %onstitution possess the right to e9ercise the electi&e franchise and who, while that instru7ent re7ains in force unchanged, will be the sole organs through which the ,ill of the *od" politic can be e!pressed' D$eople0 for political purposes 7ust be considered s"non"mous with 9ualified voters'D ; As was also ruled by the *'S' Supre7e %ourt, ;''' While the people are thus the source of political power, their go&ern7ents, national and state, ha&e been li7ited by constitutions, and they ha&e the7sel&es thereby set bounds to their own power, as against the sudden i7pulse of 7ere 7a=orities'; 44 <ro7 the te9t of Article KA of our %onstitution, re0uiring appro&al of a7end7ent proposals ;by a 7a=ority of the votes cast at an election at which the a7end7ents are sub7itted to the people for their ratification;, it see7s ob&ious as abo&e,stated that ;people; as therein used 7ust be considered synony7ous with ;9ualified voters; as enfranchised under Article A, section 1 of the %onstitution D since only ;people; who are 0ualified &oters can e9ercise the right of suffrage and cast their &otes' 3' Sound constitutional policy and the sheer necessity of ade0uate safeguards as ordained by the %onstitution and i7ple7enting statutes to ascertain and record the will of the people in free, orderly and honest elections super&ised by the %o7elec 7aBe it i7perati&e that there be strict adherence to the constitutional re0uire7ents laid down for the process of a7ending in toto or in part the supre7e law of the land' "&en at barrio le&el 3. the Re&ised $arrio %harter fi9es certain safeguards for the holding of barrio plebiscites thus8 ;S"%' 5' $le*iscite' D A plebiscite 7ay be held in the barrio when authori?ed by a 7a=ority &ote of the 7e7bers present in the barrio asse7bly, there being a 9uorum, or when called by at least four 7e7bers of the barrio council8 $rovided, )o,ever, That no plebiscite shall be held until after thirty days fro7 its appro&al by either body, and such plebiscite has been gi&en the widest publicity in the barrio, stating the date, ti7e and place thereof, the 0uestions or issues to be decided, action to be taBen by the &oters, and such other infor7ation rele&ant to the holding of the plebiscite'; 46 As to &oting at such barrio plebiscites, the %harter further re0uires that ;-A/ll dul" registered barrio asse7bly 7e7bers 9ualified to vote 7ay &ote in the plebiscite' Aoting procedures 7ay be 7ade either in ,riting as in regular elections, andJor declaration by the &oters to t)e *oard of election tellers'; 47 The sub=ects of the barrio plebiscites are liBewise deli7ited thus8 ;A plebiscite 7ay be called to decide on the recall of any 7e7ber of the barrio council' A plebiscite shall be called to appro&e any budgetary, supple7ental appropriations or special ta9 ordinances; and the re0uired 7a=ority &ote is specified8 ;-</or taBing action on any of the abo&e enu7erated 7easures, 7a=ority &ote of all the barrio asse7bly 7e7bers registered in t)e list of t)e *arrio secretar" is necessary'; 4? The 9ualifications for voters in such barrio plebiscites and elections of barrio officials 49 co7ply with the suffrage 0ualifications of Article A, section 1 of the %onstitution and pro&ide that ;-S/"%' 10' Kualifications of Voters and +andidates ' D "&ery citi?en of the hilippines, t,ent" one "ears of age or o&er, a*le to read and ,rite, who has been a resident of the barrio during the si9 7onths i77ediately preceding the election, dul" registered in t)e list of voters *" t)e *arrio secretar", who is not otherwise dis0ualified, 7ay &ote or be a candidate in the barrio elections'; )@ +A 1' Since it appears on the face of rocla7ation 1102 that the 7andatory re0uire7ents under the abo&e,cited constitutional articles ha&e not been co7plied with and that no election or plebiscite for ratification as therein pro&ided as well as in section 15 of Article KA++ of the proposed %onstitution itself )1 has been called or held, there cannot be said to ha&e been a &alid ratification' 2' etitioners raised serious 0uestions as to the &eracity and genuineness of the reports or certificates of results purportedly showing unaccountable discrepancies in se&en figures in =ust fi&e pro&inces )2 between the reports as certified by the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents and the reports as directly sub7itted by the pro&incial and city e9ecuti&es, which latter reports respondents disclai7ed inter alia as not final and co7plete or as not signed@ )3whether the reported &otes of appro&al of the proposed %onstitution conditioned upon the non,con&ening of the interi7 #ational Asse7bly pro&ided in Article KA++, section 1 thereof, )4 7ay be considered as &alid@ the allegedly huge and unifor7 &otes reported@ and 7any others' 3' These 0uestions only ser&e to =ustify and show the basic &alidity of the uni&ersal principle go&erning written constitutions that proposed a7end7ents thereto or in replace7ent thereof 7ay be ratified only in the particular 7ode or 7anner prescribed therein

by the people' *nder Article KA, section 1 of our %onstitution, a7end7ents thereto 7ay be ratified only in the one way therein pro&ided, i'e' in an election or plebiscite held in accordance with law and duly super&ised by the %o77ission on "lections, and which is participated in only by 0ualified and duly registered &oters' +n this 7anner, the safeguards pro&ided by the election code generally assure the true ascertain7ent of the results of the &ote and interested parties would ha&e an opportunity to thresh out properly before the %o7elec all such 0uestions in pre,procla7ation proceedings' 3' At any rate, unless respondents seriously intend to 0uestion the &ery state7ents and pronounce7ents in rocla7ation 1102 itself which shows on its face, as already stated, that the 7andatory a7ending process re0uired by the -123./ %onstitution was not obser&ed, the cases at bar need not reach the stage of answering the host of 0uestions, raised by petitioners against the procedure obser&ed by the %iti?ens Asse7blies and the reported referendu7 results D since the purported ratification is rendered nugatory by &irtue of such non,obser&ance' .' <inally, as to respondentsD argu7ent that the resident issued rocla7ation 1102 ;as ;agent; of the %onstitutional %on&ention; )) under Resolution #o' .433 appro&ed on #o&e7ber 22, 1273, and ;as agent of the %on&ention the resident could de&ise other for7s of plebiscite to deter7ine the will of the 7a=ority &is,a,&is the ratification of the proposed %onstitution'; )6 The 7inutes of #o&e7ber 22, 1272, of the %on&ention, howe&er, do not at all support this contention' (n the contrary, the said 7inutes fully show that the %on&entionDs proposal and ;agency; was that the resident issue a decree precisely calling a ple*iscite for the ratification of the proposed new %onstitution on an appropriate date, under the charge of the +omelec, and with a reasonable period for an infor7ation ca7paign, as follows8 12' *pon recognition by the %hair, :elegate :ua&it 7o&ed for the appro&al of the resolution, the resolution portion of which read as follows8 ;R"S()A":, AS +T +S C"R"$L R"S()A":, that the 1271 %onstitutional %on&ention propose to resident <erdinand "' !arcos that a decree be issued calling a plebiscite for the ratification of the proposed #ew %onstitution on such appropriate date as he shall deter7ine and pro&iding for the necessary funds therefor, and that copies of this resolution as appro&ed in plenary session be trans7itted to the resident of the hilippines and the %o77ission on "lections for i7ple7entation'; Ce suggested that in &iew of the e9pected appro&al of the final draft of the new %onstitution by the end of #o&e7ber 1272 according to the %on&entionDs ti7etable, it would be necessary to lay the groundworB for the appropriate agencies of the go&ern7ent to undertaBe the necessary preparation for the plebiscite' 999 999 999 12'2 +nterpellating, :elegate i7entel -A'/ contended that the resolution was unnecessary because section 1., Article KA++ on the Transitory ro&ision, which had already been appro&ed on second and third readings, pro&ided that the new constitution should be ratified in a plebiscite called for the purpose by the incu7bent resident' :elegate :ua&it replied that the pro&ision referred to did notinclude the appropriation of funds for t)e ple*iscite and that, 7oreo&er, the resolution was intended to ser&e for7al notice to the $resident and t)e +ommission on &lections to initiate t)e necessar" preparations ' 999 999 999 12'3 +nterpellating, :elegate !adarang suggested that a reasona*le period for an information campaign was necessary in order to properly apprise the people of the i7plications and significance of the new charter' :elegate :ua&it agreed, adding that this was precisely why the resolution was 7odified to gi&e the resident the discretion to choose the 7ost appropriate date for the plebiscite' 12'. :elegate )aggui asBed whether a for7al co77unication to the resident infor7ing hi7 of the adoption of the new %onstitution would not suffice considering that under Section 1. of the Transitory ro&isions, the resident would be duty,bound to call a plebiscite for its ratification' :elegate :ua&it replied in the negati&e, adding that the resolution was necessary to ser&e notice to the proper authorities to prepare ever"t)ing necessar" for t)e ple*iscite' 12'5 +n reply to :elegate $ritanico, :elegate :ua&it stated that the mec)anics for the holding of theple*iscite would be laid do,n *" t)e +ommission on &lections in coordination with the resident' 12'7 :elegate %atan in0uired if such 7echanics for the plebiscite could include a partial lifting of martial la, in order to allow the people to asse7ble peaceably to discuss the new %onstitution' :elegate :ua&it suggested that the %o77ittee on lebiscite and Ratification could coordinate with the %(!")"% on the 7atter' 12'4 :elegate 1u?7an 7o&ed for the pre&ious 0uestion' The %hair declared that there was one 7ore

interpellant and that a prior reser&ation had been 7ade for the presentation of such a 7otion' 1'4a :elegate 1u?7an withdrew his 7otion' 12'2 :elegate Astilla suggested in his interpellation that there was actually no need for such a resolution in &iew of the pro&ision of section 1., Article KA++ on the Transitory ro&isions' :elegate :ua&it disagreed, pointing out that the said pro&ision did not pro&ide for the funds necessary for the purpose' 13' :elegate (?a7i? then 7o&ed to close the debate and proceed to the period of a7end7ent' 13'1 <loor )eader !onte=o stated that there were no reser&ations to a7end the resolution' 13'2 :elegate (?a7i? then 7o&ed for the pre&ious 0uestion' Sub7itted to a &ote, the 7otion was appro&ed' *pon re0uest of the %hair, :elegate :ua&it restated the resolution for &oting' 13'1' :elegate (rdo>e? 7o&ed for no7inal &oting' Sub7itted to a &ote, the 7otion was lost'
13'2' Thereupon, the %hair sub7itted the resolution to a &ote' +t was appro&ed by a show of hands'
)7

+, therefore, &ote to deny respondentsD 7otion to dis7iss and to gi&e due course to the petitions' ro7ulgated8 6une 3, 1273 A ANTON"O, J., concurring8 +n confor7ity with 7y reser&ation, + shall discuss the grounds for 7y concurrence' + +t is 7y &iew that to preser&e the independence of the State, the 7aintenance of the e9isting constitutional order and the defense of the political and social liberties of the people, in ti7es of a gra&e e7ergency, when the legislati&e branch of the go&ern7ent is unable to function or its functioning would itself threaten the public safety, the %hief "9ecuti&e 7ay pro7ulgate 7easures legislati&e in character, for the successful prosecution of such ob=ecti&es' <or the ; residentDs power as %o77ander, in,chief has been transfor7ed fro7 a si7ple power of 7ilitary co77and to a &ast reser&oir of indeter7inate powers in ti7e of e7ergency' ''' +n other words, the principal canons of constitutional interpretation are ''' set aside so far as concerns both the scope of the national power and the capacity of the resident to gather unto hi7self all constitutionally a&ailable powers in order the 7ore effecti&ely to focus the7 upon the tasB of the hour'; -%orwin, The resident8 (ffice P owers, pp' 317, 314, F1234G/' 1' The procla7ation of 7artial rule, ushered the co77ence7ent of a crisis go&ern7ent in this country' +n ter7s of power, crisis go&ern7ent in a constitutional de7ocracy entails the concentration of go&ern7ental power' ;The 7ore co7plete the separation of powers in a constitutional syste7, the 7ore difficult, and yet the 7ore necessary; according to Rossiter, ;will be their fusion in ti7e of crisis''' The power of the state in crisis 7ust not only be concentrated and e9panded, it 7ust be freed fro7 the nor7al syste7 of constitutional and legal li7itations' (ne of the basic features of e7ergency powers is the release of the go&ern7ent fro7 the paralysis of constitutional restraints; -Rossiter, %onstitutional :ictatorship, p' 220/' +t is clearly recogni?ed that in 7o7ents of peril the effecti&e action of the go&ern7ent is channeled through the person of the %hief "9ecuti&e' ;"nergy in the e9ecuti&e,; according to Ca7ilton, ;is essential to the protection of the co77unity against foreign attacBs ''' to the protection of property against those irregular and high,handed co7binations which so7eti7es interrupt the ordinary course of =ustice@ to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of a7bition, of faction, and of anarchy'; -The <ederalist, #u7ber 70/' ;The entire strength of the nation;, said 6ustice $rewer in the :ebs case -1.4 *'S' .53@ 32 )' ed' 1022/, ;7ay be used to enforce in any part of the land the full and free e9ercise of all national powers and the security of all rights entrusted by the constitution to its care'; The 7arshalling and e7ploy7ent of the ;strength of the nation; are 7atters for the discretion of the %hief "9ecuti&e' The residentDs powers in ti7e of e7ergency defy precise definition since t)eir e!tent and limitations are largel" dependent upon conditions and circumstance s' 2' The power of the resident to act decisi&ely in a crisis has been grounded on the broad confer7ent upon the residency of the "9ecuti&e power, with the added specific grant of power under the ;%o77ander,in,%hief; clause of the constitution' The contours of such powers ha&e been shaped 7ore by a long line of historical precedents of residential action in ti7es of crisis, rather than =udicial interpretation' )incoln wedded his powers under the ;co77ander,in,chief; clause with his duty ;to taBe care that the laws be faithfully e9ecuted,; to =ustify the series of e9traordinary 7easures which he tooB D the calling of &olunteers for 7ilitary ser&ice, the aug7entation of the regular ar7y and na&y, the pay7ent of two 7illion dollars fro7 unappropriated funds in the Treasury to persons unauthori?ed to recei&e it, the closing of the ost (ffice to ;treasonable correspondence;, the blocBade of southern ports, the suspension of the writ of )a*eas corpus, the arrest and detention of persons ;who were represented to hi7; as being engaged in or conte7plating ;treasonable practices; D all this for the 7ost part,it)out t)e least statutor" aut)orization ' Those actions were =ustified by the i7perati&es of his logic, that the resident 7ay, in an e7ergency thought by

hi7 to re0uire it, partially suspend the constitution' Thus his fa7ous 0uestion8 ;Are all laws but one to be une9ecuted, and the 1o&ern7ent itself go to pieces lest that one be &iolatedH; The actions of )incoln ;assert for the resident;, according to %orwin, ;an initiati&e of indefinite scope and legislati&e in effect in 7eeting the do7estic aspects of a war e7ergency'; -%orwin, The resident8 (ffice P owers, p' 240 F1234G/' The facts of the ci&il war ha&e shown conclusi&ely that in 7eeting the do7estic proble7s as a conse0uence of a great war, an indefinite power 7ust be attributed to the resident to taBe e7ergency 7easures' The concept of ;e7ergency; under which the %hief "9ecuti&e e9ercised e9traordinary powers underwent correlati&e enlarge7ent during the first and second World Wars' <ro7 its narrow concept as an ;e7ergency; in ti7e of war during the %i&il War and World War +, the concept has been e9panded in World War ++ to include the ;e7ergency; preceding the war and e&en after it' ;The Second World War; obser&ed %orwin and Noenig, was the <irst World War writ large, and the 0uasi,legislati&e powers of <ranBlin Roose&elt as ;%o77ander,in,%hief in warti7e;''' burgeoned correspondingly' The precedents were there to be sure, 7ost of the7 fro7 the <irst World War, but they proliferated a7a?ingly' What is 7ore, Roose&elt tooB his first step toward war so7e fifteen 7onths before our entrance into s)ooting ,ar' This step occurred in Septe7ber, 1230, when he handed o&er fifty so,called o&erage destroyers to 1reat $ritain' The truth is, they were not o&erage, but had been recently reconditioned and reco77issioned' ''' Actually, what resident Roose&elt did was to ta#e over for t)e nonce +ongress0s po,er to dispose of propert" of t)e @nited States -Article +A, Section 3/ and to repeal at least t,o statutes'; -%orwin P Noenig, The residency Today, #ew LorB *ni&ersity ress, 12.5@ sf %orwin, The resident8 (ffice and owers, 1234'/ The creation of public offices is a power confided by the constitution to %ongress' And yet resident Wilson, during World War + on the basis of his powers under the ;%o77ander,in,%hief; clause created ;offices; which were copied in la&ish scale by resident Roose&elt in World War ++' +n April 1232, thirty,fi&e ;e9ecuti&e agencies; were purely of residential creation' (n 6une 7, 1231 on the basis of his powers as ;%o77ander,in,%hief;, he issued an e9ecuti&e order sei?ing the #orth A7erican A&iation plant of +nglewood, %alifornia, where production stopped as a conse0uence of a striBe' This was =ustified by the go&ern7ent as the e9ercise of presidential power growing out of the ;duty constitutionally and inherently resting upon the resident to e9ert his ci&il and 7ilitary as well as his 7oral authority to Beep the defense efforts of the *nited States a going concern; as well as ;to obtain supplies for which %ongress has appropriated 7oney, and which it has directed the resident to obtain'; (n a si7ilar =ustification, other plants and industries were taBen o&er by the go&ern7ent' +t is true that in Loungstown Sheet P Tube &s' Sawyer -333 *'S' .72@ 72 S' %t' 453@ 25 )' "d' 11.3, F12.2G/, the Supre7e %ourt of the *nited States did not sustain the clai7s that the resident could, as the #ationDs %hief "9ecuti&e and %o77ander,in,%hief of the ar7ed forces, &alidly order the sei?ure of 7ost of the countryDs steel 7ills' The %ourt howe&er did not face the naBed 0uestion of the residentDs power to sei?e steel plants in the absence of any congressional enact7ent or e9pressions of policy' The 7a=ority of the %ourt found that this legislati&e occupation of the field 7ade untenable the residentDs clai7 of authority to sei?e the plants as an e9ercise of inherent e9ecuti&e power or as %o77ander,in,%hief' 6ustice %larB, in his concurrence to the 7ain opinion of the %ourt, e9plicitly asserted that the resident does possess, in the absence of restricti&e legislation, a residual or resultant po,er a*ove or in conse9uence of )is granted po,ers, to deal with e7ergencies that he regards as threatening the national security' The sa7e &iew was shared with &ague 0ualification by 6ustices <ranBfurter and 6acBson, two of the concurring 6ustices' The three dissenting 6ustices, speaBing through %hief 6ustice Ainson, apparently went further by 0uoting with appro&al a passage e9tracted fro7 the brief of the go&ern7ent in the case of @nited States vs. Mid,est il +o', -235 *'S' 3.2 .2 )' "d' 573, 3. S' %t' 302/ where the court sustained the power of the resident to order withdrawals fro7 the public do7ain not only without %ongressional sanction but e&en contrary to %ongressional statutes' +t is e&ident therefore that the Steel Sei?ure %ase, cannot be in&oBed as an authority to support the &iew that the resident in ti7es of a gra&e crisis does not possess a residual power abo&e or in conse0uence of his granted powers, to deal with e7ergencies that he regards as threatening the national security' The lesson of the Steel Sei?ure case, according to %orwin and Noenig, ;*n0uestionably ''' tends to supple7ent presidential e7ergency power to adopt te7porary re7edial legislation when %ongress has been, in the =udg7ent of the resident, unduly re7iss in taBing cogni?ance of and acting on a gi&en situation'; -%orwin and Noenig, The residency Today, #ew LorB *ni&ersity ress, 12.5/' The accu7ulation of precedents has thus built up the presidential power under e7ergency conditions to ;di7ensions of e9ecuti&e prerogati&e as described by 6ohn )ocBe, of a power to wit, to fill needed gaps in the law, or e&en to supersede it so far as 7ay be re0uisite to reali?e t)e fundamental la, of nature and government, namel", t)at as muc) as ma" *e all t)e mem*ers of societ" are to *e preserved'; -%orwin and Noenig, The residency Today/' +n the light of the accu7ulated precedents, how could it be reasonably argued therefore, that the resident had no power to issue residential :ecree #os' 45 and 45,A as well as rocla7ation #o' 1102, since these 7easures were considered indispensable to effect the desired refor7s at the shortest ti7e possible and hasten the restoration of nor7alcyH +t is una&ailing for petitioners to contend that we are not faced by an actual ;shooting war; for todayDs concept of the e7ergency which =ustified the e9ercise of those powers has of necessity been e9panded to 7eet the e9igencies of new dangers and crisis that directly threaten the nationDs continued and constitutional e9istence' <or as %orwin obser&ed8 ;''' today the concept of DwarD as a special type of e7ergency warranting the reali?ation of constitutional li7itations tends to spread, as it were, in both directions, so that there is not only ;the war before the war,; but the Dwar after the war'D +ndeed, in the econo7ic crisis fro7 which the #ew :eal 7ay be said to ha&e issued, the nation was confronted in the opinion of the late resident with an De7ergency greater than warD@ and in sustaining certain of the #ew :eal 7easures the %ourt in&oBed the =ustification of De7ergency'D +n the final result constitutional practices of warti7e ha&e 7oulded the %onstitution to greater or less e9tent for peaceti7e as well, see7 liBely to do so still 7ore pronouncedly under fresh conditions of crisis'; -%orwin, <*id' p' 314'/ The sa7e &iew was e9pressed by Rossiter thus8 The second crisis is re*ellion, when the authority of a constitutional go&ern7ent is resisted openly by large nu7bers of citi?ens who are engaged in &iolent insurrection against enforce7ent of its laws or are

bent on capturing it illegally or destroying it altogether' The third crisis, one recogni?ed particularly in 7odern ti7es as sanctioning e7ergency action by constitutional go&ern7ents, is economic depression' The econo7ic troubles which plagued all the countries of the world in the early thirties in&ol&ed go&ern7ental 7ethods of an un0uestionably dictatorial character in 7any de7ocracies' +t was thereby acBnowledged that an econo7ic e9istence as a war or a rebellion' And these are not the only cases which ha&e =ustified e9traordinary go&ern7ental action in nations liBe the *nited States' <ire, flood, drought, earth0uaBe, riots, great striBes ha&e all been dealt with by unusual and of dictatorial 7ethods' Wars are not won by debating societies, rebellions are not suppressed by =udicial in=unctions, ree7ploy7ent of twel&e 7illion =obless citi?ens will not be effected through a scrupulous regard for the tenets of free enterprise, hardships caused by the eruptions of nature cannot be 7itigated letting nature taBe its course' The %i&il War, the depression of 1233 and the recent global conflict were not and could not ha&e been successfully resol&ed by go&ern7ents si7ilar to those of 6a7es $uchanan, Willia7 Coward Taft, or %al&in %oolidge' -Rossiter, %onstitutional :ictatorship D %risis of 1o&ern7ent in the !odern :e7ocracies, p' 5 F1234/' ++ We are ne9t confronted with the insistence of etitioners that the referendu7 in 0uestion not ha&ing been done inaccordance with the pro&isions of e9isting election laws, which only 0ualified &oters who are allowed to participate, under the super&ision of the %o77ission on "lections, the new %onstitution, should therefore be a nullity' Such an argu7ent is predicated upon an assu7ption, that Article KA of the 123. %onstitution pro&ides the 7ethod for the revision of the constitution, and auto7atically apply in the final appro&al of such proposed new %onstitution the pro&isions of the election law and those of Article A and K of the old %onstitution' We search in &ain for any pro&ision in the old charter specifically pro&iding for such procedure in the case of a total revision or a rewriting of the ,)ole constitution' 1' There is clearly a distinction between revision and amendment of an e9isting constitution' Re&ision 7ay in&ol&e a rewriting of the ,)ole constitution' The act of amending a constitution, on the other hand, en&isages a change of only specific pro&isions' The intention of an act to a7end is not the change of the entire constitution but only the improvement of specific parts of the e9isting constitution of the addition of pro&isions dee7ed essential as a conse0uence of new constitutions or the eli7ination of parts already considered obsolete or unresponsi&e to the needs of the ti7es' 1 The 1273 %onstitution is not a 7ere amendment to the 123. %onstitution' +t is a co7pletely new funda7ental charter e7bodying new political, social and econo7ic concepts' According to an e7inent authority on olitical )aw, ;The %onstitution of the hilippines and that of the *nited States e9pressly pro&ide 7erely for 7ethods of amendment. T)e" are silent on t)e su*6ect of revision' $ut this is not a fatal o7ission' There is nothing that can legally pre&ent a con&ention fro7 actually re&ising the %onstitution of the hilippines or of the *nited States e&en were such con&entions called 7erely for the purpose of proposing and sub7itting a7end7ents to the people' <or in the final analysis, it is the approval of t)e people that gives validit" to any proposal of a7end7ent or re&ision'; -Sinco, hilippine olitical )aw, p' 32/' Since the 123. %onstitution does not specifically pro&ide for the 7ethod or procedure for the revision or for the appro&al of a new constitution, should it now be held, that the people ha&e placed such restrictions on the7sel&es that they are not disabled fro7 e9ercising their right as the ulti7ate source of political power fro7 changing the old constitution which, in their &iew, was not responsi&e to their needs and in adopting a new charter of go&ern7ent to enable the7 to rid the7sel&es fro7 the shacBles of traditional nor7s and to pursue with new dyna7is7 the reali?ation of their true longings and aspirations, e9cept in the 7anner and for7 pro&ided by %ongress for pre&ious plebiscitesH Was not the e9pansion of the base of political participation, by the inclusion of the youth in the process of ratification who after all constitute the preponderant 7a=ority 7ore in accord with the spirit and philosophy of the constitution that political power is inherent in the people collecti&elyH As clearly e9pounded by 6ustice !aBasiar, in his opinion, in all the cases cited where the %ourts held that the sub7ission of the proposed a7end7ent was illegal due to the absence of substantial co7pliance with the procedure prescribed by the constitution, the procedure prescribed by the state %onstitution, is so detailed, that specified the manner in which such sub7ission shall be 7ade, the persons 9ualified to vote for the sa7e, the date of election and other definite standards, fro7 which the court could safely ascertain whether or not the sub7ission was in accordance with the %onstitution' Thus the case of +n re !c%onaughy -112 #'"' 304/ relied upon in one of the dissenting opinions in&ol&ed in the application of the pro&isions of the state %onstitution of !innesota which clearly prescribed in detail the procedure under which the %onstitution 7ay be a7ended or re&ised' 2 This is not true with our %onstitution' +n the case of revision there are no ;standards 7eet for =udicial =udg7ent'; 3 The fra7ers of our %onstitution were free to pro&ide in the %onstitution the 7ethod or procedure for the re&ision or rewriting of the entire constitution, and if such was their intention, they could and should ha&e so pro&ided' recedents were not wanting' The constitutions of the &arious states of the A7erican *nion did pro&ide for procedures for their amendment and 7ethods for their revision' 4 %ertainly We cannot, under the guise of interpretation, 7odify, re&ise, a7end, re7odel or rewrite the 123. %harter' To declare what the law is, or has been, is a =udicial power, but to declare what the law shall be is not within (ur =udicial co7petence and authority' *pon the other hand, since our funda7ental charter has not pro&ided the 7ethod or procedure for the re&ision or co7plete change of the %onstitution, it is e&ident that the people ha&e reser&ed such power in the7sel&es' They decided to e9ercise it not through their legislature, but through a %on&ention e9pressly chosen for that purpose' The %on&ention as an independent and

so&ereign body has drafted not an a7end7ent but a co7pletely new %onstitution, which decided to sub7it to the people for appro&al, not through an act of %ongress, but by 7eans of decrees to be pro7ulgated by the resident' +n &iew of the inability of %ongress to act, it was within the constitutional powers of the resident, either as agent of the %onstitutional %on&ention, or under his authority under 7artial law, to pro7ulgate the necessary 7easures for the ratification of the proposed new %onstitution' The adoption the new %harter was considered as a necessary basis for all the refor7s set in 7otion under the new society, to root out the causes of unrest' The i7perati&es of the e7ergency underscored the urgency of its adoption' The people in accepting such procedure and in &oting o&erwhel7ingly for the appro&al of the new %onstitution ha&e, in effect, ratified the 7ethod and procedure taBen' ;When the people adopt co7pletely re&ised or new constitution,; said the %ourt in Wheeler &' $oard of Trustees -37 S" 2nd 322, 325,330/, ;the fra7ing or sub7ission of the instru7ent is not what gi&es it binding force and effect' The fiat of the people, and only the fiat of the people, can breathe life into a constitution'; This has to be so because, in our political syste7, all political power is inherent in the people and free go&ern7ents are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit' Thus Section 1 of Article ++ of the 123. %onstitution declares that8 ;So&ereignty resides in the people and all go&ern7ent authority e7anate fro7 the7'; "&idently the ter7 people refers to the entire citizenr" and not 7erely to the electorate, for the latter is only a fraction of the people and is only an organ of go&ern7ent for the election of go&ern7ent officials' +++ The 7ore co7pelling 0uestion, howe&er is8 Cas this %ourt the authority to nullify an entire %onstitution that is already effective as it has been accepted and ac0uiesced in by the people as shown by their co7pliance with the decree pro7ulgated thereunder, their cooperation in its i7ple7entation, and is now 7aintained by the 1o&ern7ent that is in undisputed authority and do7inanceH (f course it is argued that ac0uiescence by the people can be deduced fro7 their acts of confor7ity, because under a regi7e of 7artial law the people are bound to obey and act in confor7ity with the orders of the resident, and has absolutely no other choice' The flaw of this argu7ent lies in its application of a 7ere theoretical assu7ption based on the e9periences of other nations on an entirely different factual setting' Such an assu7ption flounders on the rocB of reality' +t is true that as a general rule 7artial law is the use of 7ilitary forces to perfor7 the functions of ci&il go&ern7ent' So7e courts ha&e &iewed it as a 7ilitary regi7e which can be i7posed in e7ergency situations' +n other words, 7artial rule e9ists when the 7ilitary rises superior to the ci&il power in the e9ercise of so7e or all the functions of go&ern7ent' Such is not the case in this country' The go&ern7ent functions thru its ci&ilian officials' The supre7acy of the ci&il o&er the 7ilitary authority is 7anifest' "9cept for the i7position of curfew hours and other restrictions re0uired for the security of the State, the people are free to pursue their ordinary concerns' +n short, the e9isting regi7e in this %ountry, does not contain the oppressi&e features, generally associated with a regi7e of !artial law in other countries' ;*pon the other hand the 7asses of our people ha&e accepted it, because of its 7anifold blessings' The once downtrodden rice tenant has at long last been e7ancipated D a consu77ation de&outly wished by e&ery hilippine resident since the 1230Ds' The laborer now holds his head high because his rights are a7ply protected and respected'; A A new sense of discipline has swiftly spread beyond the corridors of go&ern7ent into the social order' Responding to the challenges of the #ew Society, the people ha&e turned in half a 7illion loose firear7s, paid their ta9es on undeclared goods and inco7e in unprecedented nu7bers and a7ount, lent their labors in 7assi&e cooperation D in land refor7, in the repair of diBes, irrigation ditches, roads and bridges, in reforestation, in the physical transfor7ation of the en&iron7ent to 7aBe ours a cleaner and greener land' ;The entire country is turning into one &ast garden growing food for the body, for thought and for the soul'; A !ore i7portant the co77on 7an has at long last been freed fro7 the incubus of fear' ;!artial law has pa&ed the way for a re,ordering of the basic social structure of the hilippines; reported <ranB Aaleo to the *nited States Senate' ; resident !arcos has been pro7pt and sure,footed in using the power of presidential decree under 7artial law for this purpose' Ce has ?eroed in on areas which ha&e been widely recogni?ed as pri7e sources of the nationDs difficulties D land tenancy, official corruption, ta9 e&asion and abuse of oligarchic econo7ic power' %learly he Bnows his targets ''' t)ere is mar#ed pu*lic support for his leadership'''; -$ulletin Today, !arch 3 and 3, 1273/'' +n a si7ilar &ein, %')' Sul?berger, a foreign affairs colu7nist wrote, in the April 11 issue of The #ew LorB Ti7es8 :uring his first residential ter7 -125.,1252/, !r' !arcos was discouraged by the failure of legislators to appro&e urgently needed refor7s' Ce found his second ter7 further frustrated by spread riots, a !aoist uprising in )u?on and a 7uch 7ore serious !osle7 insurrection in the southern islands fro7 !indanao across the Sulu archipelago to the frontier regions of !alaysia and +ndonesia' !anila clai7s this war is !aoist,coordinated' !r' !arcos has now in effect taBen all the reins of power and 7aBes no pro7ise as to when he will relin0uish the7' $ut, while fettering a free press, ter7inating %ongress and locBing up so7e opponents -7any of who7 were later a7nestied/, )e )as )auled t)e $)ilippines out of stagnation ' Sharecropping is being ended as 7ore than three 7illion acres of arable land are redistributed with state funds' #ew roads ha&e been started' The educational syste7 is undergoing re&ision, a corruption is di7inished' +n non,co77unist Asia it is &irtually i7possible to wholly end it and this disagreeable pheno7enon still reaches &ery high' !r' !arcos, an i7aginati&e, gifted 7an, hopes to reshape society by creating an agrarian 7iddle,class to

replace the archaic sharecropper,absentee landlord relationship' Ce is e&en pushing for a birth control progra7 with the tacit acceptance of the %atholic %hurch' Ce has started labor refor7s and increased wages' -:aily "9press, April 1., 1273/ As e9plained in this writerDs opinion of April 23, 1273 on the ;%onstancia; and ;!anifestation; of counsel for petitioners8 The new %onstitution is considered effective ;if the nor7s created in confor7ity with it are by and large applied and obeyed' As soon as the old %onstitution loses its effecti&eness and the new %onstitution has beco7e effecti&e, the acts that appear with the sub=ecti&e 7eaning of creating or applying legal nor7s are no longer interpreted by presupposing the old basic nor7, but by presupposing the new one' The statutes issued under the old %onstitution and not taBen o&er are no longer regarded as &alid, and the organs authori?ed by the old %onstitution no longer co7petent'; -Nelsen, ure Theory of )aw, F1257G'/ The essentially political nature of the 0uestion is at once 7ade 7anifest by understanding that in the final analysis, what is assailed is not 7erely the &alidity of rocla7ation #o' 1102 of the resident, which is 7erely declaratory of the fact of appro&al or ratification, but the legiti7acy of the go&ern7ent' +t is addressed 7ore to the fra7eworB and political character of this 1o&ern7ent which now functions under the new %harter' +t seeBs to nullify a %onstitution that is already effective' +n such a situation, We do not see how the 0uestion posed by petitioners could be =udicially decided' ;6udicial power presupposes an established go&ern7ent capable of enacting laws and enforcing their e9ecution, and of appointing =udges to e9pound and ad7inister the7' +f it decides at all as a court, it necessarily affir7s the e9istence and authority of the go&ern7ent under which it is e9ercising =udicial power'; -)uther &' $orden, 34 *'S' F7 Cow'G 1, 12 )' "d' .24'/ +n other words, where a co7plete change in the funda7ental law has been effected through political action, the %ourt whose e9istence is affected by such change is, in the words of !r' !el&ille <uller Weston, ;precluded fro7 passing upon the fact of change by a logical difficulty which is not to be sur7ounted'; ) Such change in the organic law relates to the e9istence of a prior point in the %ourtDs ;chain of title; to its authority and ;does not relate 7erely to a 0uestion of the hori?ontal distribution of powers'; 6 +t in&ol&es in essence a 7atter which ;the so&ereign has entrusted to the so,called political depart7ents of go&ern7ent or has reser&ed to be settled by its own e9tra go&ern7ental action'; 7 The non,=udicial character of such a 0uestion has been recogni?ed in A7erican law' ;<ro7 its earliest opinions this %ourt has consistently recogni?ed,; said 6ustice <ranBfurter, in his illu7inating dissent in $aBer &' %arr, 352 *'S' 145, 7 )' "d' 2d' 533, 722, 725, 727/, ;a class of contro&ersies which do not lend the7sel&es to =udicial standards and =udicial re7edies' To classify the &arious instances as ;political 0uestions; is rather a for7 of stating this conclusion than re&ealing of analysis ''' The cru9 of the 7atter is that courts are not fit instru7ents of decision where what is essentially at staBe is the co7position of those large contests of policy traditionally fought out in non,=udicial foru7s, by which go&ern7ents and the actions of go&ern7ents are 7ade and un7ade'; The di&ersity of &iews contained in the opinions of the 7e7bers of this %ourt, in the cases at bar, cannot be a case on ;right; or ;wrong; &iews of the %onstitution' +t is one of attitudes and &alues' <or there is scarcely any principle, authority or interpretation which has not been countered by the opposite' At botto7, it is the degree of oneDs faith D in the nationDs leadership and in the 7aturity of =udg7ent of our people' +# A+"W (< TC" <(R"1(+#1, the dis7issal of these fi&e cases, and the conclusion of this %ourt in its =udg7ent of !arch 0uestion beco7es wholly 7oot e9cept for this consideration, that, when the =udges as indi&iduals or as a body of indi&iduals co7e to decide which Bing or which constitution they will support and assert to represent, it 7ay often be good =udg7ent for the7 to follow the lead of the 7en who as a practical 7atter are liBely to be looBed to by the people as 7ore representati&e of the7sel&es and con&ersely are liBely to be 7ore directly in touch with popular senti7ent' +f, howe&er, the =udges hold too strong &iews of their own to be able to taBe this course, they 7ay follow their own leads at their own ha?ard' #o 0uestion of law is in&ol&ed' - olitical Iuestions, 34 Car&ard )aw Re&iew F1223,2.G, pp' 30., 302'/ 31, 1273 are fully =ustified' %arredo, Ma#asiar and &sguerra, JJ., concur. A "#:+K T( ( +#+(#

-1'R' #os' ),35132, 35153, 3515., 35235 P 35243/ R(A+S+(#S (< STAT" %(#ST+T*T+(#S S "%+<+%A))L R(A+:+#1 <(R A!"#:!"#T A#: R"A+S+(# R 1' AlasBa -12.2/ D Art' K+++' Amendment and Revision' Sec' 1' Amendments' A7end7ents to this constitution 7ay be proposed by a two,thirds &ote of each house of the legislature' The secretary of state shall prepare a ballot title and proposition su77ari?ing each proposed a7end7ent, and shall place the7

on the ballot for the ne9t statewide election' +f a 7a=ority of the &otes cast on the proposition fa&or the amendment, it beco7es effecti&e thirty days after the certification of the election returns by the secretary of state' Sec' 2' +onvention' The legislature 7ay call constitutional con&entions at any ti7e' Sec' 3' +all *" referendum' +f during any ten,year period a constitutional con&ention has not been held, the secretary of state shall place on the ballot for the ne9t general election the 0uestion8 ;Shall there be a %onstitutional %on&entionH; +f a 7a=ority of the &otes cast on the 0uestion are in the negati&e, the 0uestion need not be placed on the ballot until the end of the ne9t ten,year period' +f a 7a=ority of the &otes cast on the 0uestion are in the affir7ati&e, delegates to the con&ention shall be chosen at the ne9t regular statewide election, unless the legislature pro&ides for the election of the election delegates at a special election' The secretary of state shall issue the call for the con&ention' *nless other pro&isions ha&e been 7ade by law, the call shall confor7 as nearly as possible to the act calling the AlasBa %onstitutional %on&ention of 12.., including, but not li7ited to, nu7ber of 7e7bers, districts, election and certification of delegates, and sub7ission and ratification of revisions and ordinances' ''' ' Sec' 3' $o,ers' %onstitutional con&entions shall ha&e plenary power to a7end or re&ise the constitution, sub=ect only to ratification by the people' #o call for a constitutional con&ention shall li7it these powers of the con&ention' 2' %alifornia -1472/ D Art' KA+++' Amending and Revising t)e +onstitution ' Sec' 1' +onstitutional amendments' Any a7end7ent or a7end7ents to this %onstitution 7ay be proposed in the Senate or Asse7bly, and if two,thirds of all the 7e7bers elected to each of the houses shall &ote in fa&or thereof, such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall be entered in their 6ournals, with the yeas and nays taBen thereon@ and it shall be the duty of the )egislature to sub7it such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents to the people in such 7anner, and at such ti7e, and after such publication as 7ay be dee7ed e9pedient' Should 7ore a7end7ents than one be sub7itted at the sa7e election they shall be so prepared and distinguished, by nu7bers or otherwise, that each can be &oted on separately' +f the people shall appro&e and ratify such a7end7ent or a7end7ents, or any of the7, by a 7a=ority of the 0ualified electors &oting thereon such a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall beco7e a part of this constitution' Sec' 2' +onstitutional convention' Whene&er two,thirds of the 7e7bers elected to each branch of the )egislature shall dee7 it necessary to re&ise this %onstitution, they shall reco77end to the electors to &ote at the ne9t general for or against a %on&ention for that purpose, and if a 7a=ority of the electors &oting at such election on the proposition for a %on&ention shall &ote in fa&or thereof, the )egislature shall, at its ne9t session, pro&ide by law for calling the sa7e' The %on&ention shall consist of a nu7ber of delegates not to e9ceed that of both branches of the )egislature, who shall be chosen in the sa7e 7anner, and ha&e the sa7e 0ualifications, as !e7bers of the )egislature' The delegates so elected shall 7eet within three 7onths after their election at such place as the )egislature 7ay direct' At a special election to be pro&ided for by law, the +onstitution that 7ay be agreed upon by such %on&ention s)all *e su*mitted to t)e people for t)eir ratification or re6ection, in suc) manner as t)e +onvention ma" determine' The returns of such election shall, in such 7anner as the %on&ention shall direct, be certified to the "9ecuti&e of the State, who shall call to his assistance the %ontroller, Treasurer, and Secretary of State, and co7pare the returns so certified to hi7@ and it shall be the duty of the "9ecuti&e to declare, by his procla7ation, such %onstitution, as 7ay ha&e been ratified by a 7a=ority of all the &otes cast at such special election, to be the %onstitution of the State of %alifornia' 3' %olorado -1475/ D Art' K+K' Amendments' Sec' 1' +onstitutional convention> )o, called ' The general asse7bly 7ay at any ti7e be a &ote of two,thirds of the 7e7bers elected to each house, reco77end to the electors of the state, to &ote at the ne9t general election for or against a con&ention to revise, alter and amend this constitution@ and if a 7a=ority of those &oting on the 0uestion shall declare in fa&or of such con&ention, the general asse7bly shall, at the ne9t session, pro&ide for the calling thereof' The nu7ber of 7e7bers of the con&ention shall be twice that of the senate and they shall be elected in the sa7e 7anner, at the sa7e places, and in the sa7e districts' The general asse7bly shall, in the act calling the con&ention, designate the day, hour and place of its 7eeting@ fi9 the pay of its 7e7bers and officers, and pro&ide for the pay7ent of the sa7e, together with the necessary e9penses of the con&ention' $efore proceeding, the 7e7bers shall taBe an oath to support the constitution of the *nited States, and of the state of %olorado, and to faithfully discharge their duties as 7e7bers of the con&ention' The 0ualifications of 7e7bers shall be the sa7e as of 7e7bers of the senate@ and &acancies occurring shall be filled in the 7anner pro&ided for filling &acancies in the general asse7bly' Said convention shall 7eet within three 7onths after such election and prepare suchrevisions, alterations or a7end7ents to the constitution as 7ay be dee7ed necessary@ which shall be sub7itted to the electors for their ratification or re=ection at an election appointed *" t)e convention for t)at purpose , not less than two nor 7ore than si9 7onths after ad=ourn7ent thereof@ and unless so sub7itted and appro&ed by a 7a=ority of the electors &oting at the election, no such re&ision, alteration or a7end7ent shall taBe effect' Sec' 2' Amendments to constitution> )o, adopted' Any a7end7ent or a7end7ents to this constitution 7ay be proposed in either house of the general asse7bly, and if the sa7e shall be &oted for by two,thirds of all the 7e7bers elected to each house, such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents, together with the ayes and noes of each house hereon, shall be entered in full on their respecti&e =ournals@ the proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall be published with the laws of that session of the general asse7bly, and the secretary of state shall also cause the said a7end7ent or a7end7ents to be published in full in not 7ore than one newspaper of general circulation in each county, for four successi&e weeBs pre&ious to the ne9t general election for 7e7bers of the general asse7bly@ and at said election the said a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall be sub7itted to the 9ualifiedelectors of the state for their appro&al or re=ection, and such as are appro&ed by a 7a=ority of those &oting thereon

shall beco7e part of this constitution' ro&ided, that if 7ore than one a7end7ent be sub7itted at any general election, each of said a7end7ents shall be &oted upon separately and &otes thereon cast shall be separately counted the sa7e as though but one a7end7ent was sub7itted' $ut the general asse7bly shall ha&e no po,er to propose amendments to more t)an si! articles of t)is constitution at the sa7e session' 3' :elaware -1427/ D Art' KA+' Amendments and +onventions' Sec' 1' $roposal of constitutional amendments in general assem*l"> procedure ' Any a7end7ent or a7end7ents to this %onstitution 7ay be proposed in the Senate or Couse of Representati&es@ and if the sa7e shall be agreed to by two,thirds of all the 7e7bers elected to each Couse, such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall be entered on their =ournals, with the yeas and nays taBen thereon, and the Secretary of State shall cause such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents to be published three 7onths before the ne9t general election in at least three newspapers in each %ounty in which such newspaper shall be published@ and if in the 1eneral Asse7bly ne9t after the said election such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall upon yea and nay &ote *e agreed to *" t,o1t)irds of all t)e mem*ers elected to eac) Aouse, t)e same s)all t)ereupon *ecome part of t)e +onstitution' Sec' 2' +onstitutional conventions> procedure> compensation of delegates> 9uorum> po,ers and duties> vacancies ' The 1eneral Asse7bly by a two,thirds &ote of all the 7e7bers elected to each Couse 7ay fro7 ti7e to ti7e pro&ide for the sub7ission to the 0ualified electors of the State at the general election ne9t thereafter the 0uestion, ;Shall there be a %on&ention to re&ise the %onstitution and a7end the sa7eH@; and upon such sub7ission, if a 7a=ority of those &oting on said 0uestion shall decide in fa&or of a %on&ention for such purpose, the 1eneral Asse7bly at its ne9t session shall pro&ide for the election of delegates to such con&ention at the ne9t general election' Such %on&ention shall be co7posed of forty,one delegates, one of who7 shall be chosen fro7 each Representati&e :istrict by the 0ualified electors thereof, and two of who7 shall be chosen fro7 #ew %astle %ounty, two fro7 Nent %ounty and two fro7 Susse9 %ounty by the 0ualified electors thereof respecti&ely' The delegates so chosen shall con&ene at the %apital of the State on the first Tuesday in Septe7ber ne9t after their election' "&ery delegate shall recei&e for his ser&ices such co7pensation as shall be pro&ided by law' A 7a=ority of the %on&ention shall constitute a 0uoru7 for the transaction of business' The %on&ention shall ha&e the power to appoint such officers, e7ployees and assistants as it 7ay be dee7 necessary, and fi9 their co7pensation, and pro&ide for the printing of its docu7ents, =ournals, debates and proceedings' The %on&ention shall deter7ine the rules of its proceedings, and be the =udge of the elections, returns and 0ualifications of its 7e7bers' Whene&er there shall be a &acancy in the office of delegate fro7 any district or county by reason of failure to elect, ineligibility, death, resignation or otherwise, a writ of election to fill such &acancy shall be issued by the 1o&ernor, and such &acancy shall be filled by the 0ualified electors of such district or county' .' <lorida -1447/ D Art' KA++' Amendments' Sec' 1' Met)od of amending constitution' "ither branch of the )egislature, at any regular session, or at any special or e9tra, ordinary session thereof called for such purpose either in the go&ernorDs original call or any a7end7ent thereof, 7ay propose the re&ision or a7end7ent of any portion or portions of this %onstitution' Any such re&ision or a7end7ent 7ay relate to one sub=ect or any nu7ber of sub=ects, but no a7end7ent shall consist of 7ore than one re&ised article of the %onstitution' +f the proposed re&ision or a7end7ent is agreed to by three,fifths of the 7e7bers elected to each house, it shall be entered upon their respecti&e =ournals with the yeas and nays and published in one newspaper in each county where a newspaper is published for two ti7es, one publication to be 7ade not earlier than ten weeBs and the other not later than si9 weeBs, i77ediately preceding the election at which the sa7e is to be &oted upon, and thereupon sub7itted to the electors of the State for appro&al or re=ection at the ne9t general election, pro&ided, howe&er, that such revision or amendment 7ay be sub7itted for appro&al or re=ection in a special election under the conditions described in and in the 7anner pro&ided by Section 3 of Article KA++ of the %onstitution' +f a 7a=ority of the electors &oting upon the a7end7ent adopt such a7end7ent the sa7e shall beco7e a part of this %onstitution' Sec' 2' Met)od of revising constitution' +f at any ti7e the )egislature, by a &ote of two,thirds of all the 7e7bers of both Couses, shall deter7ine that a revision of this %onstitution is necessary, such deter7ination shall be entered upon their respecti&e 6ournals, with yeaDs and nayDs thereon' #otice of said action shall be published weeBly in one newspaper in e&ery county in which a newspaper is published, for three 7onths preceding the ne9t general election of Representati&es, and in those countries where no newspaper is published, notice shall be gi&en by posting at the se&eral polling precincts in such counties for si9 weeBs ne9t preceding said election' The electors at said election 7ay &ote for or against the re&ision in 0uestion' +f a 7a=ority of the electors so &oting be in fa&or of re&ision, the )egislature chosen at such election shall pro&ide by law for a %on&ention to re&ise the %onstitution, said %on&ention to be held within si9 7onths after the passage of such law' The %on&ention shall consist of a nu7ber e0ual to the 7e7bership of the Couse of Representati&es, and shall be apportioned a7ong the se&eral counties in the sa7e 7anner as 7e7bers of said Couse' 5' +daho -1420/ D Art' K+K' Amendments' Sec' 1' Ao, amendments ma" *e proposed ' Any a7end7ent or a7end7ents to this %onstitution 7ay be proposed in either branch of the legislature, and if the sa7e shall be agreed to by two,thirds of all the 7e7bers of each of the two houses, &oting separately, such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall, with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered on their =ournals, and it shall be the duty of the legislature to sub7it such a7end7ent or a7end7ents to the electors of the state at the ne9t general election, and cause the sa7e to be published without delay for at least si9 consecuti&e weeBs, prior to said election, in not less

than one newspaper of the general circulation published in each county@ and if a 7a=ority of the electors shall ratify the sa7e, such a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall beco7e a part of this %onstitution' Sec' 3' Revision or amendments *" convention' Whene&er two,thirds of the 7e7bers elected to each branch of the legislature shall dee7 it necessary to call a con&ention to revise or amend this %onstitution, they shall reco77end to the electors to &ote at the ne9t general election, for or against a con&ention, and if a 7a=ority of all the electors &oting at said election shall ha&e &oted for a con&ention, the legislature shall at the ne9t session pro&ide by law for calling the sa7e@ and such con&ention shall consist of a nu7ber of 7e7bers, not less than double the nu7ber of the 7ost nu7erous branch of the legislature' 7' +owa -14.7/ D Art' K' Amendments to t)e +onstitution' Sec' 3' +onvention' At the general election to be held in the year one thousand eight hundred and se&enty, and in each tenth year thereafter, and also at such ti7es as the 1eneral Asse7bly 7ay, by law, pro&ide, the 0uestion, ;Shall there be a %on&ention to revise the %onstitution, and amend the sa7eH; shall be decided by the electors 0ualified to &ote for 7e7bers of the 1eneral Asse7bly@ and in case a 7a=ority of the electors so 0ualified, &oting at such election, for and against such proposition, shall decide in fa&or of a %on&ention for such purpose, the 1eneral Asse7bly, at its ne9t session, shall pro&ide by law for the election of delegates to such %on&ention' 4' !ichigan -1202/ D Art' KA++' Amendments and Revision' Sec' 1' Amendments to constitution> proposal *" legislature> su*mission to electors ' Any a7end7ent or a7end7ents to this constitution 7ay be proposed in the senate or house of representati&es' +f the sa7e shall be agreed to by 2J3 of the 7e7bers elected to each house, such amendment or amendments shall be entered on the =ournals, respecti&ely, with the yeas and nays taBen thereon@ and the sa7e shall be sub7itted to the electors at the ne9t spring or autu7n election thereafter, as the legislature shall direct@ and, if a 7a=ority of the electors 9ualified to vote for 7e7bers of the legislature &oting thereon shall ratify and appro&e such a7end7ent or a7end7ents, the sa7e shall beco7e part of the constitution' Sec' 3' General revision> convention> procedure ' At the $iennial Spring "lection to be held in the year 1251, in each si9teenth year thereafter and at such ti7es as 7ay be pro&ided by law, the 0uestion of a General Revision of the %onstitution shall be sub7itted to the "lectors 0ualified to &ote for 7e7bers of the )egislature' +n case a 7a=ority of the "lectors &oting on the 0uestion shall decide in fa&or of a %on&ention for such purpose, at an "lection to be held not later than four 7onths after the roposal shall ha&e been certified as appro&ed, the "lectors of each Couse of Representati&es :istrict as then organi?ed shall "lect (ne :elegate for each "lectors of each Senatorial :istrict as then organi?ed shall "lect (ne :elegate for each State Senator to which the :istrict is entitled' The :elegates so elected shall con&ene at the %apital %ity on the <irst Tuesday in (ctober ne9t succeeding such election, and shall continue their sessions until the business of the con&ention shall be co7pleted' A 7a=ority of the delegates elected shall constitute a 0uoru7 for the transaction of business' ''' #o proposed constitution or amendment adopted by such con&ention shall be sub7itted to the electors for appro&al as hereinafter pro&ided unless by the assent of a 7a=ority of all the delegates elected to the con&ention, the yeas and nays being entered on the =ournal' Any proposed constitution or a7end7ents adopted by such con&ention shall be sub7itted to the 9ualified electors in the 7anner pro&ided by such con&ention on the first !onday in April following the final ad=ourn7ent of the con&ention@ but, in case an inter&al of at least 20 days shall not inter&ene between such final ad=ourn7ent and the date of such election' *pon the appro&al of such constitution or a7end7ents by a 7a=ority of the 0ualified electors &oting thereon such constitution or a7end7ents shall taBe effect on the first day of 6anuary following the appro&al thereof' 2' !innesota -14.7/ D Art' K+A' Amendments to t)e +onstitution' Sec' 1' Amendments to constitution> ma6orit" vote of electors voting ma#es amendment valid ' Whene&er a 7a=ority of both houses of the legislature shall dee7 it necessary to alter or a7end this %onstitution, they 7ay proposed such alterations or amendments, which proposed a7end7ents shall be published with the laws which ha&e been passed at the sa7e session, and said a7end7ents shall be sub7itted to the people for their appro&al or re=ection at any general election, and if it shall appear, in a 7anner to be pro&ided by law, that a 7a=ority of all the electors &oting at said election shall ha&e &oted for and ratified such alterations or a7end7ents, the sa7e shall be &alid to all intents and purposes as a part of this %onstitution' +f two or 7ore alterations or amendments shall be sub7itted at the sa7e ti7e, it shall be so regulated that the &oters shall &ote for or against each separately' Sec' 2' Revision of constitution' Whene&er two,thirds of the 7e7bers elected to each branch of the legislature shall thinB it necessary to call a con&ention to re&ise this %onstitution, they shall reco77end to the electors to &ote at the ne9t general election for 7e7bers of the legislature, for or against a con&ention@ and if a 7a=ority of all the electors &oting at said election shall ha&e &oted for a con&ention, the legislature shall, at their ne9t session, pro&ide by law for calling the sa7e' The con&ention shall consist of as 7any 7e7bers as the Couse of Representati&es, who shall be chosen in the sa7e 7anner, and shall 7eet within three 7onths after their election for the purpose aforesaid' Sec' 3' Su*mission to people of revised constitution drafted at convention ' Any con&ention called to re&ise this constitution shall sub7it any re&ision thereof by said con&ention to the people of the State of !innesota for their appro&al or re=ection at the ne9t general election held not less than 20 days after the adoption of such revision, and, if it shall appear in the 7anner provided *" la, that three,fifths of all the electors &oting on the 0uestion shall ha&e &oted for and ratified such re&ision, the sa7e shall constitute a new constitution of the State of !innesota' Without such sub7ission and ratification, said re&ision shall be of no

force or effect' Section 2 of Article +A of the %onstitution shall not apply to election to the con&ention' 10' #e&ada -1453/ D Art' 15' Amendments' Sec' 1' +onstitutional amendments> procedure' Any a7end7ent or a7end7ents to this %onstitution 7ay be proposed in the Senate or Asse7bly@ and if the sa7e shall be agreed to by a !a=ority of all the 7e7bers elected to each of the two houses, such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall be entered on their respecti&e =ournals, with the Leas and #ays taBen thereon, and referred to the )egislature then ne9t to be chosen, and shall be published for three 7onths ne9t preceding the ti7e of 7aBing such choice' And if in the )egislature ne9t chosen as aforesaid, such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall be agreed to by a 7a=ority of all the 7e7bers elected to each house, then it shall be the duty of the )egislature to sub7it such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents to the people, in such 7anner and at such ti7e as the )egislature shall prescribe@ and if the people shall appro&e and ratify such a7end7ent or a7end7ents by a 7a=ority of the electors 0ualified to &ote for 7e7bers of the )egislature &oting thereon, such a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall beco7e a part of the %onstitution' Sec' 2' +onvention for revision of constitution> procedure ' +f at any ti7e the )egislature by a &ote of two,thirds of the !e7bers elected to each house, shall deter7ine that it is necessary to cause a re&ision of t)is entire +onstitution they shall reco77end to the electors at the ne9t election for !e7bers of the )egislature, to &ote for or against a con&ention, and if it shall appear that a 7a=ority of the electors &oting at such election, shall ha&e &oted in fa&or of calling a %on&ention, the )egislature shall, at its ne9t session pro&ide by law for calling a %on&ention to be holden within si9 7onths after the passage of such law, and such %on&ention shall consist of a nu7ber of !e7bers not less that of both branches of the legislature' +n deter7ining what is a 7a=ority of the electors &oting such election, reference shall be had to the highest nu7ber of &ote cast at such election for the candidates of any office or on any 0uestion' 11' #ew Ca7spire -1743/ E Art' 22' Revision of constitution provided for' +t shall be the duty of the select7en, and assessors, of the se&eral towns and places in this state, in warning the first annual 7eetings for the choice of senators, after the e9piration of se&en years fro7 the adoption of this constitution, as a7ended, to insert e9pressly in the warrant this purpose, a7ong the others for the 7eeting, to wit, to taBe the sense of the 0ualified &oters on the sub=ect of a revision of t)e constitution@ and, the 7eeting being warned accordingly, and not otherwise, the 7oderator shall taBe the sense of the 0ualified &oters present as to the necessity of a re&ision@ and a return of the nu7ber of &otes for and against such necessity, shall be 7ade by the clerB sealed up, and directed to the general court at their then ne9t session@ and if, it shall appear to the general court by such return, that the sense of the people of the state has taBen, and that, in the opinion of the 7a=ority of the 0ualified &oters in the state, present and &oting at said 7eetings, there is a necessity for a revision of the constitution, it shall be the duty of the general court to call a con&ention for that purpose, otherwise the general court shall direct the sense of the people to be taBen, and then proceed in the 7anner before 7entioned' The delegates to be chosen in the sa7e 7anner, and proportioned, as the representati&es to the general court@ pro&ided that no alterations shall be 7ade in this constitution, before the sa7e shall be laid before the towns and unincorporated places, and appro&ed by two thirds of the 0ualified &oters present and &oting on the sub=ect' 12' (Blaho7a -1207/ D Art' KK+A' +onstitutional Amendments' Sec' 1' Amendments proposed *" legislature> a su*mission to vote' Any amendment or amendments to this %onstitution 7ay be proposed in either branch of the )egislature, and if the sa7e shall be agreed to by a 7a=ority of all the 7e7bers elected to each of the two houses, such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall, with yeas and nays thereon, be entered in their =ournals and referred by the Secretary of State to the people for their appro&al or re=ection, at the ne9t regular general election, e9cept when the )egislature, by a two,thirds &ote of each house, shall order a special election for that purpose' +f a 7a=ority of all the electors &oting at such election shall &ote in fa&or of any a7end7ent thereto, it shall thereby beco7e a part of this %onstitution' +f two or 7ore a7end7ents are proposed they shall be sub7itted in such 7anner that electors 7ay &ote for or against the7 separately' #o proposal for the a7end7ent or alteration of this %onstitution which is sub7itted to the &oters shall e7brace 7ore than one general sub=ect and the &oters shall &ote separately for or against each proposal sub7itted@ pro&ided, howe&er, that in the sub7ission of proposals for the amendment of this %onstitution by articles, which e7brace one general sub=ect, each proposed article shall be dee7ed a single proposals or proposition Sec' 2' +onstitutional convention to propose amendments or ne, constitution ' #o con&ention shall be called by the )egislature to propose alterations, revisions, or a7end7ents to this %onstitution, or to propose a ne, +onstitution, unless the law pro&iding for such con&ention shall first be appro&ed by the people on a referendu7 &ote at a regular or special election, and any a7end7ents, alterations, re&isions, or new %onstitution, proposed by such con&ention, shall be sub7itted to the electors of the State at a general or special election and be appro&ed by a 7a=ority of the electors &oting thereon, before the sa7e shall beco7e effecti&e ro&ided, That the 0uestion of such proposed con&ention shall be sub7itted to the people at least once in e&ery twenty years' 13' (regon -14.2/ D Art' KA++' Amendments and Revisions' Sec' 1' Met)od of amending constitution' Any a7end7ent or a7end7ents to this %onstitution 7ay be proposed in either branch

of the legislati&e asse7bly, and if the sa7e shall be agreed to by a 7a=ority of all the 7e7bers elected to each of the two houses, such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall, with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered in their =ournals and referred by the secretary of state to the people for their appro&al or re=ection, at the ne9t regular election, e9cept when the legislati&e asse7bly shall order a special election for that purpose' +f a 7a=ority of the electors &oting on any such a7end7ent shall &ote in fa&or thereof, it shall thereby beco7e a part of this %onstitution' The &otes for and against such amendment, or amendments, se&erally, whether proposed by the legislati&e asse7bly or by initiati&e petition, shall be can&assed by the secretary of state in the presence of the go&ernor, and if it shall appear to the go&ernor that the 7a=ority of the &otes cast at said election on said a7end7ent, or a7end7ents, se&erally, are cast in fa&or thereof, it shall be his duty forthwith after such can&ass, by his procla7ation, to declare the said a7end7ent, or a7end7ents, se&erally, ha&ing recei&ed said 7a=ority of &otes to ha&e been adopted by the people of (regon as part of the %onstitution thereof, and the sa7e shall be in effect as a part of the %onstitution fro7 the date of such procla7ation' When two or 7ore a7end7ents shall be sub7itted in the 7anner aforesaid to the &oters of this state at the sa7e election, they shall be so sub7itted that each a7end7ent shall be &oted on separately' #o con&ention shall be called to a7end or propose a7end7ents to this %onstitution, or to propose a ne, +onstitution, unless the law pro&iding for such con&ention shall first be appro&ed by the people on a referendu7 &ote at a regular general election' This article shall not be construed to i7pair the right of the people to a7end this %onstitution by &ote upon an initiati&e petition therefor' Sec' 2' Met)od of revising constitution' -1/ +n addition to the power to a7end this %onstitution granted by section 1, Article +A, and section 1 of this Article, a revision of all or part of t)is +onstitution 7ay be proposed in either house of the )egislati&e Asse7bly and, if the proposed re&ision is agreed to by at least two,thirds of all the 7e7bers of each house, the proposed re&ision shall, with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered in their =ournals and referred by the Secretary of State to the people for their appro&al or re=ection, notwithstanding section 1, Article +A of this %onstitution, at the ne9t regular state,wide pri7ary election, e9cept when the )egislati&e Asse7bly orders a special election for that purpose' A proposed re&ision 7ay deal with 7ore than one sub=ect and shall be &oted upon as one 0uestion' The &otes for and against the proposed re&ision shall be can&assed by the Secretary of State in the presence of the 1o&ernor and, if it appears to the 1o&ernor that the 7a=ority of the &otes cast in the election on the proposed re&ision are in fa&or of the proposed re&ision, he shall, pro7ptly following the can&ass, declare, by his procla7ation, that the proposed re&ision has recei&ed a 7a=ority of &otes and has been adopted by the people as the %onstitution of the State of (regon, as the case 7ay be' The revision shall be in effect as the %onstitution or as a part of this %onstitution fro7 the date of such procla7ation' 13' *tah -1425/ D Art' 23' Amendments' Sec' 1' Amendments> met)od of proposal and approval' Any a7end7ents to his %onstitution 7ay be proposed in either house of the )egislature, and if two,thirds of all the 7e7bers elected of the two houses, shall &ote in fa&or thereof, such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall be entered on their respecti&e =ournals with the yeas and nays taBen thereon@ and the )egislature shall cause the sa7e to be published in at least one newspaper in e&ery county of the State, where a newspaper is published, for two 7onths i77ediately preceding the ne9t general election, at which ti7e the said a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall be sub7itted to the electors of the State, for their appro&al or re=ection, and if a 7a=ority of the electors &oting thereon shall appro&e the sa7e, such a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall beco7e part of this %onstitution' +f two or 7ore a7end7ents are proposed, they shall be so sub7itted as to enable the electors to &ote on each of the7 separately' Sec' 2' Revision of t)e +onstitution *" convention ' Whene&er two,thirds of the 7e7bers, elected to each branch of the )egislature, shall dee7 it necessary to call a con&ention to revise or amend this %onstitution, they shall reco77end to the electors to &ote at the ne9t general election, for or against a con&ention, and, if a 7a=ority of all the electors, &oting at such election, shall &ote for a con&ention' The )egislature, at its ne9t session, shall pro&ide by law for calling the sa7e' The con&ention shall consist of not less than the nu7ber of 7e7bers in both branches of the )egislature' 1.' Wyo7ing -1420/ D Art' KK' Amendments' Sec' 1' $rocedure for amendments' Any amendment or amendments to this %onstitution 7ay be proposed in either branch of the legislature, and, if the sa7e shall be agreed to by two,thirds of all the 7e7bers of the two houses, &oting separately, such proposed a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall, with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered on their =ournals, and it shall be the duty of the legislature to sub7it such a7end7ent or a7end7ents to the electors of the state at the ne9t general election, in at least one newspaper of general circulation, published in each county, and if a 7a=ority of the electors shall ratify the sa7e, such a7end7ent or a7end7ents shall beco7e a part of this constitution' Sec' 2' Ao, voted for' +f two or 7ore a7end7ents are proposed, they shall be sub7itted in such 7anner that the electors shall &ote for or against each of the7 separately' Sec' 3' +onstitutional convention> provision for' Whene&er two,thirds of the 7e7bers elected to each branch of the legislature shall dee7 it necessary to call a con&ention to revise or amend this constitution, they shall reco77end to the electors to &ote at the ne9t general election for or against a con&ention, and if a 7a=ority of all the electors &oting at such election shall ha&e &oted for a con&ention, the legislature shall at the ne9t session pro&ide by a law for calling the sa7e@ and such con&ention shall consist of a nu7ber of 7e7bers, not less than double that of the 7ost nu7erous branch of the legislature' Sec' 3' 'e, constitution' Any constitution adopted by such con&ention shall ha&e no &alidity until it has been sub7itted to and adopted by the people'

$oo1*o14/ 1 6ustices !aBalintal, %astro, $arredo, !aBasiar, Antonio and "sguerra' 2 %hief 6ustice %oncepcion and 6ustices <ernando and TeehanBee' 3 6ustice Maldi&ar' 3 %ase 1'R' #o' ),35153' . %ase 1'R' #o' ),35235' 5 %ase 1'R' #o' ),35223' 7 Who withdrew as petitioner on 6anuary 2., 1273' 4 (riginally, 1erardo Ro9as, A7brosio adilla and Sal&ador C' )aurel' #ow, after the withdrawal of the latter, the first two -2/ only' 2 #a7ely, 6o&ito R' Salonga, Ra7on A' !itra, 6r' and "&a "strada,Nalaw' 10 #apoleon A' :ilag, et al' &' "9ecuti&e Secretary, et al' 11 Araneta &' :inglasan, 43 hil' 331, 337,334' See, also, 1on?ales &' %o77ission on "lections, ),24125 P ),24223, #o&' 2, 1257' "7phasis ours' 12 Art' A+, sec' 20-1/, %onstitution' 13 Art' A++, sec' 10-7/, %onstitution' 13 "7phasis ours' 1. See page 3, last paragraph, of his %o77ent dated <eb' 5, 1273' 15 +n re (pinion of 6ustices, 107 Atl' 573, . A')'R' 1312@ %rawford &' 1ilchrist, .2 So' Rep' 253@ !cAda7s &' Cenley, 273 S'W' 3..@ "gbert &' %ity of :unseith, 73 #':' 1, 154 A')'R' 521, 23 #'W' 2d' 207@ State e9 rel' )andis, Atty' 1en' &' Tho7pson, 153 So' Rep' 270@ St' )ouis $rewing Association &' !oore, 53 )' ed' 237@ "llingha7 &' :ye, 22 #'"' Rep' 1, 14@ 6ohnson &' %raft, 47 So' Rep' 37.' 17 !un' of !alabang &' $enito, ),24113, !ar' 24, 1252@ #AWASA &' iguing, et al', ),3..73, (ct' 11, 1254@ <ernande? &' ' %uer&a P %o', ),21113, #o&' 2., 1257@ 1on?ales &' %o77ission on "lections, ), 24223, #o&' 22, 1257@ $ara )idasan &' %(!")"%, ),24042, (ct' 2., 1257@ !un' of San 6uan &' #AWASA, ),22037, Aug' 31, 1257@ !un' of San 6oa0uin &' Si&a, ),12470, !ar' 14, 1257@ elayo &' Auditor 1eneral, ),2342., :ec' 23, 125.@ hilippine %onstitution Association &' 1i7ene?, ),23325, :ec' 14, 125.@ !un' of )a %arlota &' #AWASA, ),20232, Sept' 30, 1253@ 1ue&ara &' +nocentes, ),2..77, !ar' 1., 1255@ 1illera &' <ernande?, ),20731, 6an' 31, 1253@ Siguiente &' Secretary of 6ustice, ),20370, #o&' 22, 1253@ !un' of #aguilian &' #AWASA, ),14.30, #o&' 22, 1253@ Cerrera &' )iwag, ),20072, Sept' 30, 1253@ Aytona &' %astillo, ),12313, 6an' 12, 1252@ )a !allorca, etc' &' Ra7os, et al', ),1.375, Sept' 12, 1251@ Tan &' :e )eon, et al', ),1.2.3, Sept' 15, 1251@ !acias &' %o77ission on "lections, ),14543, Sept' 13, 1251@ hilippine Tobacco <lue,%uring P Redrying %orp' &' Sabugo, et al', ),15017, Aug' 31, 1251@ !iller &' !ardo, ),1.134, 6uly 31, 1251@ %u $u )iong &' "strella, et al', ),13212, 6uly 31, 1251@ a7panga Sugar :e&elop7ent %o', +nc' &' <uentes, et al', ),13734, 6uly 31, 1251@ "arnshaw :ocBs P Conolulu +ron WorBs &' !ardo, et al', ),137.2, 6uly 31, 1251@ )iwanag &' %entral A?ucarera :on edro, ),1.372, 6uly 31, 1251@ )ecura &' Regional (ffice #o' 3, etc', ),1..42, 6uly 31, 1251@ itogo &' Sen $ee Trading %o', et al', ),1.523, 6uly 31, 1251@ ascual &' Sec' of ublic WorBs and %o77unications, ), 1030., :ec' 22, 1250@ %oro7inas, 6r' &' )abor Standards %o77ission, ),13437, 6une 30, 1251@ %ity of $aguio &' #AWASA, ),12032, Aug' 31, 12.2@ %ity of %ebu &' #AWASA, ),12422, April 20,1250@ !ontes &' %i&il Ser&ice $oard of Appeals, 101 hil' 320, Rutter &' "steban, 23 hil' 54@ Araneta &' :inglasan, 43 hil' 354@ $orro7eo &' !ariano, 31 hil' 322' 14 1'R' #os' ),3.22., ),3.222, ),3.230, ),3.231, ),3.232, ),3.234, ),3.2.3, ),3.251, ),3.25. and ),3.272, decided on 6anuary 22, 1273'' 12 ),33253, Teodosio )ansang, et al' &' $rigadier,1eneral "duardo !' 1arcia@ ),3325., Rogelio A' Arienda &' Secretary of #ational :efense, et al'@ ),33273, )u?&i7indo :a&id &' 1en' "duardo 1arcia, et al'@ ),33252, <elicidad 1' rudente &' 1eneral !anuel Lan, et al'@ ),33003, :o7ingo "' de )ara &' $rigadier,1eneral "duardo !' 1arcia@ ),33013, Reynaldo Ri7ando &' $rig' 1en' "duardo !' 1arcia@ ),

33032, %arlos %' Rabago &' $rig' 1en' "duardo 1arcia, et al'@ ),3325., Antolin (reta, 6r' &' 1en' "duardo 1arcia, et al'@ and ),33332, 1ary $' (li&ar, et al' &' 1en' "duardo 1arcia, et al' 20 . hil' 47' 21 21 hil' 442' 22 1'R' #os' ),24125 and ),24223, #o&' 2, 1257' 23 74 hil' 1' 23 Supra' 2. +n re !c%onaughy, 112 #'W' 304, 317' 25 103 hil' 10.1, 1057' 27 112 #'W' 304, 311, 317' 24 22 Ny' .42,14 S'W' .22, .23' 22 %iting Noehler &' Cill, 50 +owa .33, 13 #'W' Rep' 734, and 1. #'W' Rep' 502@ State &' Tufly, 12 #e&' 321, 12 ac' Rep' 43.' 30 Angara &' "lectoral %o77ission, 53 hil' 132, 1.7' "7phasis ours' 31 12 )' ed' .41 -1432/' 32 )uther &' $orden, supra, p' .24' "7phasis ours' 33 +n re !c%onaughy, supra, p' 315' "7phasis ours' 33 352 *'S' 145, 7 )' ed' 2d' 553, 42 S' %t' 521 -!arch 25, 1252/' 3. 32. *'S' 345, 23 )' ed' 2d' 321, 42 S' %t' 1233 -1252/' 35 +n re !c%onaughy, 112 #'W' 304, 31.' "7phasis ours' The obser&ation as to the unifor7ity of authorities on the 7atter has been reiterated in Winget &' Col7, 233 #'W' 322, 332' 37 $aBer &' %arr, 352 *'S' 145, 7 )' ed' 2d 553, 545, 42 S' %t' 521' 34 See p' . of the etition' 32 "7phasis ours' 30 The <ra7ing of the hilippine %onstitution, by Aruego, Aol' + p' 21.' 31 The <ra7ing of the hilippine %onstitution, by Aruego, Aol' + pp' 21., 221, 227,224' 32 <*id', pp' 222,223' 33 <d', pp' 223,227' 33 S"%' 331' Kualifications prescri*ed for voters' D "&ery 7ale person who is not a citi?en or sub=ect of a foreign power, twenty,one years of age or o&er, who shall ha&e been a resident of the hilippines for one year and of the 7unicipality in which he shall offer to &ote for si9 7onths ne9t preceding the day of &oting is entitled to &ote in all elections if co7prised within either of the following three classes8 ;-a/ Those who, under the laws in force in the hilippine +slands upon the twenty,eighth day of August, nineteen hundred and si9teen, were legal &oters and had e9ercised the right of suffrage' ;-b/ Those who own real property to the &alue of fi&e hundred pesos, declared in their na7e for ta9ation purposes for a period not less than one year prior to the date of the election, or who annually pay thirty pesos or 7ore of the established ta9es'

;-c/ Those who are able to read and write either Spanish, "nglish, or a nati&e language' ;S"%' 332' (is9ualifications' D The following persons shall be dis0ualified fro7 &oting8 ;-a/ Any person who, since the thirteenth day of August, eighteen hundred and ninety,eight, has been sentenced by final =udg7ent to suffer not less than eighteen 7onths of i7prison7ent, such disability not ha&ing been re7o&ed by plenary pardon' ;-b/ Any person who has &iolated an oath of allegiance taBen by hi7 to the *nited States' ;-c/ +nsane or feeble,7inded persons' ;-d/ :eaf,7utes who cannot read and write' ;-e/ "lectors registered under subsection -c/ of the ne9t preceding section who, after failing to 7aBe a sworn state7ent to the satisfaction of the board of inspectors at any of its two 7eetings for registration and re&ision, that they are incapacitated preparing their ballots due to per7anent physical disability, present the7sel&es at the hour of &oting as incapacitated, irrespecti&e whether such incapacity be real or feigned'; 3. ),331.0, (ctober 15 and #o&e7ber 3, 1271' 35 ;<or taBing action on any of the abo&e enu7erated 7easures, 7a=ority &ote of all the barrio asse7bly mem*ers registered in the list of the barrio secretary is necessary'; 37 ;All duly registered barrio asse7bly 7e7bers 9ualified to vote 7ay &ote in the plebiscite' Aoting procedures 7ay be 7ade either in writing as in regular elections, andJor declaration by the &oters to the board of election tellers' The board of election tellers shall be the sa7e board en&isioned by section 4, paragraph 2 of this Act, in case of &acancies in this body, the barrio council 7ay fill the sa7e'; 34 "dwards &' )esueur, 33 S'W' 1130@ 6ohnson &' 1rand <orBs %ounty, 113 #'W' 1071@ "llingha7 &' :ye -1212/, 174 +nd' 335, 22 #'"' 1@ State &' !arcus, 150 Wis' 3.3, 1.2 #'W' 312' 32 +n Alcantara &' Secretary of the +nterior, 51 hil' 3.2, this %ourt held that ;when a state constitution enu7erates and fi9es the 0ualifications of those ,)o ma" e!ercise t)e rig)t of suffrage , the legislaturecannot taBe fro7 nor add to said 0ualifications unless the power to do so is conferred upon it by the constitution itself'; Since suffrage, according to Webster, is a &oice gi&en not only in the choice of a 7an for an office or trust, but, also, in deciding a controverted 9uestion, it follows, considering the said ruling in Alcantara, that the constitutional 0ualifications for &oters apply e0ually to &oters in elections to public office and to &oters in a plebiscite' Si7ilarly, the Re&ised "lection %ode pro&ides in its section 2 that all elections of public officers by the people and all votings in connection ,it) ple*iscites shall be conducted in confor7ity with the pro&isions of said %ode' .0 Republic Act #o' 5344, section 101 of which, in part, pro&ides8 ;S"%' 101' Kualifications prescri*ed for a voter' D "&ery citi?en of the hilippines, not otherwise dis0ualified by law, twenty,one years of age or o&er, able to read and write, who shall ha&e resided in the hilippines for one year and in the city, 7unicipality or 7unicipal district wherein he proposes to &ote for at least si9 7onths i77ediately preceding the election, 7ay &ote at any election' 999 999 999 .1 ;S"%' 102' (is9ualifications' D The following persons shall not be 0ualified to &ote8 ;-a/ Any person who has been sentenced by final =udg7ent to suffer an i7prison7ent of not less than one year, such disability not ha&ing been re7o&ed by plenary pardon8 $rovided, )o,ever, That any person dis0ualified to &ote under this paragraph shall auto7atically reac0uire the right to &ote upon e9piration of ten years after ser&ice of sentence unless during such period, he shall ha&e been sentenced by final =udg7ent to suffer an i7prison7ent of not less than one year' ;-b/ Any person who has been ad=udged by final =udg7ent by co7petent court of ha&ing &iolated his allegiance to the Republic of the hilippines'

;-c/ +nsane or feeble,7inded persons' ;-d/ ersons who cannot prepare their ballots the7sel&es'; .2 ;S"%' 10' ''' ;The following persons shall not be 0ualified to &ote8 ;a' Any person who has been sentenced by final =udg7ent to suffer one year or 7ore of i7prison7ent, within two years after ser&ice of his sentence@ ;b' Any person who has &iolated his allegiance to the Republic of the hilippines@ and ;c' +nsane or feeble,7inded persons'; .3 20 %'6', 172,141, 0uoted in :e7etrio &' )ope?, .0 hil' 3., 50' See, also, 1architorena &' %rescini, 32 hil' 2.4' .3 $aldauf &' 1unson, 4 ' 2d' 25.' See, also, !artin &' !c1arr, 117 ' 323, 1lenn &' 1nau, 53 S'W' 2d' 154' "7phasis ours' .. ),3332. and ),33033, :ece7ber 22, 1271' .5 CopBins &' %ity of :uluth, 43 #'W' .35, .34' "7phasis ours' .7 !addo9 &' $oard of State %an&assers, 132 ' 2d' 112, 11.' "7phasis ours' .4 ort of al7 $each :istrict &' State, 22 So' 2d' .41, .42,.43' "7phasis ours' .2 Art' K, section 1 of the 123. %onstitution' 50 Ten -10/ years' 51 Art' K, section 2 of the 123. %onstitution' 52 <*id' 53 Art' K, section 3 of the 123. %onstitution' 53 ;S"%' .' rganization of t)e +ommission on &lections ' D The %o77ission shall adopt its own rules of procedure' Two 7e7bers of the %o77ission shall constitute a 9uoru7' The concurrence of two 7e7bers shall be necessary for the pronounce7ent or issuance of a decision, order or ruling' ;The %o77ission shall ha&e an e9ecuti&e and such other subordinate officers and e7ployees as 7ay be necessary for the efficient perfor7ance of its functions and duties, all of who7 shall be appointed by the %o77ission in accordance with the %i&il Ser&ice )aw and rules' ;The e9ecuti&e officer of the %o77ission, under the direction of the %hair7an, shall, ha&e charge of the ad7inistrati&e business of the %o77ission, shall ha&e the power to ad7inister oaths in connection with all 7atters in&ol&ing the business of the %o77ission, and shall perfor7 such, other duties as 7ay he re0uired of hi7 by the %o77ission' ;S"%' 5' $o,er of t)e +ommission to <nvestigate and to Aear +ontrovers" and <ssue Su*poena ' DThe %o77ission or any of the 7e7bers thereof shall, in co7pliance with the re0uire7ent of due process, ha&e the power to su77on the parties to a contro&ersy pending before it, issue su*poenaeand su*poenae duces tecum and otherwise taBe testi7ony in any in&estigation or hearing pending before it, and delegate such power to any officer of the %o77ission who shall be a 7e7ber of the hilippine $ar' +n case of failure of a witness to attend, the %o77ission, upon proof of ser&ice of thesu*poenae to said witness, 7ay issue a warrant to arrest the witness land bring hi7 before the %o77ission or officer before who7 his attendance is re0uired' The %o77ission shall ha&e the power to punish conte7pts pro&ided for in the Rules of %ourt under the contro&ersy sub7itted to the %o77ission shall after co7plaince with the re0uire7ents of due process be heard and decided by it within thirty days after sub7ission of the case' ;The %o77ission 7ay, when it so re0uires, deputi?ed any 7e7ber of any national or local law enforce7ent agency andJor instru7entality of the go&ern7ent to e9ecute under its direct and i77ediate

super&ision any of its final decisions, orders, instructions or rulings' ;Any decision, order or ruling of the %o77ission on election contro&ersies 7ay be re&iewed by the Supre7e %ourt by writ of a certiorari in accordance with the Rules of %ourt or such applicable laws as 7ay enacted' ;Any &iolation of any final e9ecutory decision, order or ruling of the %o77ission shall constitute conte7pt thereof'; 5. 53 S'W' 2d' 154' 55 ),3..34, Roses, et al' &' Secretary of #ational :efense, et al'@ ),3..32, :ioBno &' Con' "nrile, et al'@ ),3..30, Soli&en, et al' &' Secretary of #ational :efense, et al'@ ),3..35, A0uino, 6r', et al' &' Con' "nrile, et al'@ ),3..37, 1arcia ++ &' Con' "nrile, et al'@ ),3..57 :oronila, et al' &' Secretary of #ational :efense, et al'@ ),3..73, Randon &' Con' "nrile, et al' 57 ; R"S+:"#T+A) :"%R"" #(' 45,A ;STR"#1TC"#+#1 A#: :"<+#+#1 TC" R()" (< $ARA#1ALS -%+T+M"#S ASS"!$)+"S/' ;WC"R"AS, on the basis of preli7inary and initial reports fro7 the field as gathered fro7 barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ ha&e so far been established, the people would liBe to decide the7sel&es 0uestions or issues, both local and national, affecting their day to day li&es and their future' ;WC"R"AS, the barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ would liBe the7sel&es to be the &ehicle for e9pressing the &iews of the people on i7portant national issues@ ;WC"R"AS, such barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ desire that they be gi&en legal status and due recognition as constituting the genuine, legiti7ate and &alid e9pression of the popular will@ and ;WC"R"AS, the people would liBe the citi?ens asse7blies to conduct i77ediately a referendu7 on certain specified 0uestions such as the ratification of the new %onstitution, continuance of 7artial law, the con&ening of %ongress on 6anuary 22, 1273, and the elections in #o&e7ber 1273 pursuant to the 123. %onstitution' ;#(W, TC"R"<(R", +, <"R:+#A#: "' !AR%(S, resident of the hilippines, by &irtue of the powers &ested in 7e by the %onstitution as %o77ander,in,%hief of all Ar7ed <orces of the hilippines, do hereby declare as part of the law of the land the following' ;1' The present barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ are created under residential :ecree #o' 45 dated :ece7ber 31, 1272, shall constitute the base for citi?en participation in go&ern7ental affairs and their collecti&e &iews shall be considered in the for7ulation of national policies or progra7s and, where&er practicable, shall be translated into concrete and specific decision@ ;2' Such barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ shall consider &ital national issues now confronting the country, liBe the holding of the plebiscite on the new %onstitution, the continuation of 7artial rule, the con&ening of %ongress on 6anuary 22, 1273, and the holding of elections in #o&e7ber 1273, and others in the future, which shall serve as guide or *asis for action or decision *" t)e national government @ ;3' The barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ shall conduct between 6anuary 10 and 1., 1273, a referendu7 on i7portant national issues, including those specified in paragraph 2 hereof, and sub7it the results thereof to the :epart7ent of )ocal 1o&ern7ents and %o77unity :e&elop7ent i77ediately thereafter, pursuant to the e9press will of the people as reflected in the reports gathered fro7 the 7any thousands of barangays -citi?ens asse7blies/ throughout the country' ;3' This :ecree shall taBe effect i77ediately' ;:one in the %ity of !anila, this .th day of 6anuary, in the year of (ur )ord, nineteen hundred and se&enty,three'; -"7phasis ours'/' 54 !cNinney &' $aBer, 140 Ny' .25 203 S'W' 303, 303' "7phasis ours' 52 Art' A++, section 2, 123. %onstitution' 70 !ichael W' Roche &' )a7b, 305 #'L'S' 2d' .1. -:ec' 17, 1252/@ State e9 rel' Sathre &' $ryne, 2.4 #'W' 121@ State e9 rel' Shri&er &' Cayes, 75 #'"' 2d' 452@ S7ith &' $angha7, 75 p 2d' 1022' !cNi7 &'

$rast, 117 S'"' 47.@ Cead &' Wood, 107 So' 4.3@ State e9 rel' Watson &' igg, 35 #'"' 2d' 232' 71 See cases cited in the preceding footnote' See, also, Tiegs &' atterson, 314 ' 2d' .44@ State e9 rel' $rown &' St' 6oseph %ircuit %ourt, 2. #'"' 2d' 532@ Willia7son &' State "lection $oard, 331 ' 2d' 3.2, $aBer &' %onway, 104 So' 14@ %ohoon &' Swain, . S'"' 2d' 1@ State e9 rel' !itchell &' Walcott, 43 A' 2d' 752@ :oyle &' Ries, 24. #'W' 340@ 1rossglaus &' $oard of "lections of StarB %ounty, 44 #'"' 2d' 23.@ WalBer &' Cughes, 35 A' 2d' 37@ Reese &' :e7psey, 1.2 ' 2d' 1.7@ :odd &' 1ower, 52 S'W' 2d' 1@ 1alloway &' $radburn, 42 S'W' 1013@ Cagan &' Cenry, 75 S'W' 2d' 223' 72 105 !inn 322, 112 #'W' 304, 302' 73 53 #'6' )aw, 242, cited in +n re !c%onaughy, supra' 73 74 ArB' 332, 25 S'W' 325, cited in +n re !c%onaughy, supra' 7. See cases listed on pages 10.,105, footnotes .5, .7 and .4' 75 (n :ece7ber 12, 1272' 77 23 Nansas 700, 713' See, also, State e9 rel' Willia7s &' Robb, 143 ' 2d' 223, 224@ Carris &' Shanahan, 347 ' 2d' 771, 743, 74.' 74 352 *'S' 145, 7 )'ed' 2d' 553, 543, citing %haselton %orp' &' Sinclair, 253 *'S' .33, .37, .34, 54 )' ed' 431, 433, 33 S' %t' 30.' 72 Art' A++, section 10, paragraph -1/' 40 101 Aa' .22, 33 S'"' 7.3' 41 !arifos0ue, et al' &' )una, 101 hil' 1223 -unreported/@ 37 A7' 6ur' 552@ 52 %'6'S' 732,7.0@ 1ue&ara &' +nocentes, ),2..77, !arch 1., 1255' 42 Which, in so7e respects, is regarded as an organ of the Ad7inistration, and the news ite7s published therein are indisputably censored by the :epart7ent of ublic +nfor7ation' 43 :aily "9press, #o&e7ber 22, 1272, p' 3' "7phasis ours' 43 231 *'S' 24, .4 )' ed' 107, 113, 33 S' %t' 1' 4. $aBer &' %arr, 352 *'S' 145, 7 )' ed' 2d' 553, 42 S'%t' 521' 45 6ustice $arredoDs opinion in the plebiscite cases' 47 6oint (pinion of 6ustices !aBalintal and %astro, p' 1.3' 44 6ustice $arredoDs language' 42 At p' 1.3, =oint opinion of 6ustices !aBalintal and %astro' 20 6oint (pinion of 6ustices !aBalintal and %astro, p' 1.3' 21 At p' 4, <dem' A##"K $ S The undersigned -6ustice Iuerube %' !aBalintal/ who had reser&ed his right to do so, filed a separate dissenting opinion when the %ourt denied a 7otion for reconsideration, and &oted in fa&or of the &alidity of the 0uestioned Resolution' !r' 6ustice "nri0ue !' <ernando =oined in the dissent' S Thus by residential :ecree #o' 45 what the %onstitutional %on&ention itself had proposed unsuccessfully as an a7end7ent to the 123. %onstitution, reducing the &oting age fro7 21 to 14, but the sub7ission of which to a plebiscite was declared in&alid by this %ourt in Tolentino &s' %(!")"%, beca7e a reality of an e&en 7ore far,reaching i7port D since fifteen,year olds were included in the %iti?ens Asse7blies' S According to the Solicitor 1eneral 22 %ongress7en and 1. Senators -both nu7bers constituting

7a=orities/ ha&e e9pressed their option' S )uther &' $orden, 34 *'S' -7 Caw'/ 1, 12 )' "d' .41 -1432/' $ARR":(, 6', %(#%*RR+#18 1 %harito lanas &s' %o7elec, et al', ),3.22., 6anuary 22, 1273@ ablo %' Sanidad &s' %o7elec, ),3.222, 6anuary 22, 1273@ 1erardo Ro9as, etc', et al' &s' %o7elec, et al', ),3.230, 6anuary 22, 1273@ "ddie $' !onteclaro &s' %o7elec, et al', ),3.231, 6anuary 22, 1273@ Sedfrey A' (rdo>e?, et al', &s' The #ational Treasurer of the hilippines, et al', ),3.232, 6anuary 22, 1273@ Aidal Tan, et al', &s' %o7elec, et al', ),3.234, 6anuary 22, 1273@ 6ose W' :ioBno, et al', &s' %o7elec, ),3.2.3, 6anuary 22, 1273@ 6acinto 6i7ene? &s' %o7elec, et al', ),3.251, 6anuary 22, 1273@ Raul !' 1on?ales &s' %o7elec, et al', ),3.25., 6anuary 22, 1273 and "rnesto Cidalgo &s' %o7elec, et al', ), 3.272, 6anuary 22, 1273' 2 "9ecuti&e Agree7ents are not included in the corresponding pro&ision of the 123. %onstitution' 3 +t !ust be recalled that in the Tolentino case, the %onstitutional %on&ention intended to sub7it one a7end7ent which was to for7 part of the %onstitution still being prepared by it separately fro7 the rest of the other parts of such constitution still unfinished, and We held that a piece,7eal sub7ission was i7proper' We had no occasion to e9press any &iew as to how a whole new %onstitution 7ay be ratified' S +n 1440, he also wrote his ;%onstitutional )aw'; 6udge %ooley, who was born in Attica, #ew LorB in 1423, died in 1424' 6udge %ooley was also professor and later dean of the )aw :epart7ent of the *ni&ersity of !ichigan and 6ustice of the State Supre7e %ourt of !ichigan fro7 1453 to 144., when he failed to win re,election to the court' "S1*"RRA, 6', %(#%*RR+#18 1 %harito lanas &' %o77ission on "lections, et al', ),3.22.@ ablo %' Sanidad &' %o77ission on "lections, ),3.222@ 1erardo Ro9as, etc', et al' &' %o77ission on "lections, et al', ),3.230@ "ddie $' !onteclaro &' The %o77ission on "lections, et al', Sedfrey A' (rdo>e?, et al' &' The #ational Treasurer of hilippines, et al', ),3.232@ Aidal Tan, et al' &' %o77ission on "lections, et al', ),3.234@ 6ose W' :ioBno, et al' &' The %o77ission on "lections, ),3.2.3@ 6acinto 6i7ene? &' %o77ission on "lections, et al', ),3.251@ Raul !' 1on?ales &' The Conorable %o77ission on "lections, et al', ),3.25.@ "rnesto Cidalgo &' %o77ission "lections, et al', ),3.272' 2 See Ta>ada, et al' &' %uenco, ),10.20, <eb' 24, 12.7@ $aBer &' %arr, 352 *'S' 145 -1252/' 3 See 15 A7' 6ur' 2d' p' 354, #ote 13, and cases cited therein' 3 %ooBe &' +&erson, 104 !inn' 344, 122 #W 2.1' . ),34125, #o&e7ber 2, 1257, 21 S%RA 773' 5 43 hil' 12.7' 7 !c%onaughy &' Secretary of State, 112 #'W' 304, 313@ 32A Words and hrases p' .15' See also the plebiscite cases, 7entioned in footnote 1, ante' 4 %ooley, %onstitutional )i7itation, 4th "d', Aol' +, p' 42' 2 32 hil' 2.4, 254' 10 52 hil' 122, 203' 11 70 hil' 24, 31' <"R#A#:(, 6', dissenting8 1 !e7orandu7 for Respondents, 2' 2 According to the 123. %onstitution8 ;The %ongress in =oint session asse7bled, by a &ote of three, fourths of all the 7e7bers of the Senate and of the Couse of Representati&es &oting separately 7ay propose a7end7ents to this %onstitution or call a con&ention for that purpose' Such a7end7ents shall

be &alid as part of this %onstitution when appro&ed by a 7a=ority of the &otes cast at an election at which the a7end7ents are sub7itted to the people for their ratification'; Art' KA, Section 1' 3 )erner, +deas are Weapons, 325 -1232/' "arlier, in this collection of essays, )erner 7ade this not, entirely,inaccurate obser&ation8 ;#o go&ern7ental institution that consists of a group of legal technicians appointed for life can e&er hope to cope with, 7uch less sol&e, the e9igent proble7s of our polity'; <*id, 231' Ce was referring of course to the Supre7e %ourt of the *nited States' 3 <ranBfurter, !r' 6ustice Col7es and the Supre7e %ourt, 2.,25 -1234/' . $lacB, The eople and the %ourt -1250/' 5 !urphy, "le7ents of 6udicial Strategy -1253/' 7 %f' Angara &' "lectoral %o77ission, 53 hil' 132 -1235/@ Ta>ada &' %uenco, 103 hil' 10.1 -12.7/@ Aera &' Arca, ),2.721, !ay 25, 1252, 24 S%RA 3.1' 4 1on?ales &' %o77ission on "lections, ),24125, #o&' 2, 1257, 21 S%RA 773' 2 Tolentino &' %o77ission on "lections, ),231.0, (ct' 15, 1271, 31 S%RA 702' 10 lanas &' %o77ission on "lections, ),3.22., 6an' 2., 1273' 11 2.5 *S 354 -1221/' 12 <*id, 373,37.' 13 ),33253, :ec' 11, 1271, 32 S%RA 334' 13 <*id, .03,.0.' 1. :odd, 6udicially #onenforceable ro&isions of %onstitutions, in + Selected "ssays on %onstitutional )aw 3.., 347 -1234/' 15 <*id, 32.' +7 Weston, olitical Iuestions, + Selected "ssays an %onstitutional )aw 314, 322 -1234/'' 14 %f' $icBel, The )east :angerous $ranch -1252/' 12 %f' <reund, (n *nderstanding the Supre7e %ourt -12.0/' Also his The Supre7e %ourt of the *nited States -1252/' 20 )aurel, S', A++ roceedings of the hilippine %onstitutional %on&ention -1233,123./, Appendi9 ), 400' 21 5. hil' .5 -1237/' 22 <*id, 25' 23 53 hil' 132 -1235/' 23 ),3.22., 6anuary 22, 1273' 2. Rostow, The :e7ocratic %haracter of 6udicial Re&iew in Selected "ssays on %onstitutional )aw 1234 1252, 1, 2 -1253/' 25 <*id' 27 <*id, 3' 24 <*id, 3,3' The decision of 6ustice <ranBfurter referred to is that of Rochin &' eople of %alifornia, 332 *S 15. -12.2/' 22 !ason, The Supre7e %ourt fro7 Taft to Warren, 1.3 -1257/' The words of 6ustice <ranBfurter found in

his opinion in Stein &' #ew LorB, 335 *S 1.5 -12.3/' 30 NonefsBy, The )egacy of Col7es and $randeis, 223 -12.5/' 31 %orwin, 6udicial Re&iew in + Selected "ssays on %onstitutional )aw, 332, 3.0 -1234/' 32 1 %ranch 137 -1403/' 33 %urtis, )ions *nder the Throne, 12 -1237/' 33 Addresses and apers of %harles "&ans Cughes, 132,130 -1204/' 3. 6acBson, Robert C' The Struggle for 6udicial Supre7acy, 3 -1232/' 35 Caines, %harles 1ro&e, The Role of the Supre7e %ourt in A7erican 1o&ern7ent and olitics, 1742, 143., 3 -1250/' 37 352 *S 145' 34 32. *S 345' 32 324 *S .32 -1235/' 30 <*id, ..5' 31 %f' Wesberry &' Sanders, 375 *S 1, 11 ) ed 2d 341, 43 S %t' -1253/@ Wright &' RocBefeller, 375 *S .2, 11 ) ed 2d .12, 43 S %t -1253/@ Reynolds &' Si7s, 377 *S .33, 12 ) ed 2d .05, 43 S %t 1352 -1253/@ W!%A &' )o7en?o, 377 *S 533, 12 ) ed 2d .54, 43 S %t' -1253/@ !aryland %o77ittee &' Tauses, 377 *S 5.5, 12 ) ed 2d .2., 43 S %t' 1332 -1253/@ :a&is &' !ann, 377 *S 574, 12 ) ed 2d 502, 43 S %t' 13.3 -1253/@ Ro7an &' SincocB, 377 *S 52., 12 ) ed 2d 520, 43 S'%t' 1352 -1253/@ )ucas &' %olorado 1eneral Asse7bly, 377 *S 713, ) ed 2d 532, 43 S %t' 1372 -1253/@ <ortson &' :orsey, 372 us 333, 13 ) ed 2d 301, 4. S %t' 324 -125./@ $urns &' Richardson, 343 *S 73, 15 ) ed 2d 375, 45 S %t' 1245 -1255/@ Sailors &' Nent $oard of "ducation, 347 *S 10., 14 ) ed 2d 5.0, 47 S %t' 1.32 -1257/@ :usch &' :a&is, 347 *S 112, 14 ) ed 2d 5.5, 47 S %t' 1..3 -1257/' 32 77 hil' 122 -1235/' 33 <*id, .5' 33 #ew LorB Ti7es %o7pany &' *nited States, 22 ) ed' 422 -1271/' 3. Wechsler, Toward #eutral rinciples of %onstitutional )aw, 72 Car&' )aw Re&iew 77 -12.2/' +t is the first essay in his rinciples, olitics and <unda7ental )aw' 35 The principal articles are8 ollaB, %onstitutional Ad=udication8 Relati&e or Absolute #eutrality, 11 6' ub' )' 34 -1252/@ Rostow, A7erican )egal Realis7 and the Sense of rofession, 33 RocBy !t' )' Re&' 123, 135,35 -1252/@ CenBin, So7e Reflections on %urrent %onstitutional %ontro&ersy, 102 *' a' )' Re&' 537 -1251/@ Censon, A %riticis7 of %riticis78 +n re !eaning, 22 <ordha7 )' Re&' ..3 -1251/@ !iller, A #ote on the %riticis7 of Supre7e %ourt :ecisions, 10 6' ub' )' 132 -1251/, Wright, The Supre7e %ourt %annot be #eutral, 30 Te9as )' Re&' .22 -1251/@ Arnold, rofessor CartDs Theology, 73 Car&' )' Re&' 1224 -1250/@ $lacB, The )awfulness of the Segration :ecisions, 52 Lale )' 6' 321 -1250/@ 1riswold, (f Ti7e and Attitudes8 rofessor art and 6udge Arnold, 73 Car&' )' Re&' 41 -1250/@ Narst, )egislati&e <acts in %onstitutional )itigation, 1250 Supre7e %ourt Re&' 7.@ !iller and Cowell The !yth of #eutrality in %onstitutional Ad=udication, 27*' %hi' )' Re&' 551 -1250/@ !ueller P Schwart?, The rinciple of #eutral rinciples, 7 *'%')'A')' Re&' .71 -1250/@ Cart, <orward, The Ti7e %hart of the 6ustices, 73 Car&' )' Re&' 43 -12.2/@ ollaB, Racial :o7ination and 6udicial +ntegrity8 A Reply to rofessor Wechsler, 104 *' a' )' Re&' 1 -12.2/' 37 %ahn, Supre7e %ourt and Supre7e )aw, 30 -12.3/' 35 %f' Ta>ada &' %uenco, 103 hil' 10.1, 1042 -12.7/' 32 %ollier &' <rierson, 123 Ala' 100 -14.3/@ 1reen &' Weller, 32 !iss' 5.0 -14.5/@ enn &' Tollison, 25 ArB' .3. -1471/@ Noehler &' Cill, 50 +owa .33, 13 #W 734 -1443/@ !c!illan &' $lattner, 57 +owa 247, 2. #W 23. -144./@ State &' :a&is, 2: #eb' 220, 12 ac' 423 -1444/@ State &' TooBer, 1. !ont' 4, 37 ac' 430 -1423/@ Russie &' $ra??ell, 124 !o' 23, 30 SW .25 -142./@ State &' owell, 77 !iss' .33, 27 So' 227 -1200/@ State &' $rooBhart, 113 +owa 2.0, 43 #W 1053 -1201/@ +n re :enny, 1.5 +nd' 103, .2 #" 3.2

-1201/@ *tter &' !oseley, 15 +daho 273, 100 ' 10.4 -1202/@ Willis &' Nalbach, 102 Aa' 37., 53 S" 332 -1202/@ eople e9 rel' Swift &' )uce, 73 !isc' Rep' ..1, 133 *S 2 -1212/@ !c%reary &' Speer, 1.5 Ny' 743, 152 SW 22 -1213/@ State &' :onald, 150 Wis' 21, 1.1 #W 331 -121./@ State &' !arcus, 150 Wis' 3.3, 1.2 #W 312 -121./@ State &' %a7pbell, 23 (hio St' 303, 11. #" 22 -1215/@ +n re (pinion of 6ustices, 225 !ars' 507, 11. #" 221 -1217/@ Scott &' Aouchan, 202 !ich' 522, 154 #W 702 -1214/@ Cooper &' State, 42 So' .23, 205 Ala' 371 -1221/@ Swit?er &' State, 103 (hio St' 305, 133 #" ..2 -1221/@ 6ohnson &' %raft, 47 So' 37., 20. Ala' 345 -1221/@ +n re (pinion of the 6ustices, 237 !ars' .42, 130 #" 202 -1221/@ ower &' Robertson, 130 !iss' 144, 23 So' 752 -1222/@ Ca7ilton &' :eland, 121 #W 422, 221 !ich' .31 -1223/@ +n re +nitiati&e etition, 42 (Bl' 123, 213 ' 145 -1223/@ Ar7strong &' Ning, 241 a' 207, 125 A' 253 -1223/@ !cAda7s &' Cenley, 152 ArB' 27, 273 SW 3.. -122./@ Ceinitsh &' <loyd, 130 S% 333, 125 S" 335 -122./@ State &' Mi77er7an, 147 Wis' 140, 203 #W 403 -122./@ $rown &' %ity of #ew LorB, 12. !isc' Rep' 1, 210 #LS 745 -1225/@ State e9 rel' $ahns &' %ity of #ew (rleans, 153 )a' 777 So' 714 -1227/@ :uncan &' Record ub' %o', 13. S% 125, 133 S" 31 -1224/@ )ane &' )uBens, 34 +daho .17, 243 ' .32 -1222/@ School :ist' of %ity of ontiac &' %ity of ontiac, 252 !ich' 334, 237 #W 373 -1233/@ %ollier &' 1ray, 115 <la' 43., 1.7 So' 30 -1233/@ +n re (pinion to 1o&ernor, .. R'+' .5, 174 A' 333 -123./@ State e9 rel )andis &' Tho7pson, 120 <la' 450,153 So' 270 -123./@ Tausig &' )awrence, 324 a' 304, 127 A' 23. -1234/@ :owns &' %ity of $ro7ingha7, 230 Ala' 177, 124 So' 231 -1230/@ 1raha7 &' 6ones, 124 )a' .07, 3 So' 2d 751 -1231/@ earson &' Taylor, 1.2 <la' 77., 32 So' 2d 425 -1237/@ al7er &' :unn, 215 S% ..4, .2 S" 1.4 -12.0/' .0 %f' Wells &' $ain, 7. a' St' 32, 1. A7' Rep' .53 -1473/@ Senate <ile #o' 31, 2. #eb' 453, 31 #W 241 -1442/@ State &' 1rey, 21 #e&' 374, 32 ac' 120 -1423/@ #esbit &' eople, 12 %olo' 331, 35 ac' 221 -1423/@ Cays &' Cays, . +daho 1.3, 37 ' 732 -1427/@ )o&ett &' <erguson, 10 S: 33, 71 #W 7.5 -1427/@ Russell &' 1rey, 153 !o' 52, 53 SW 432 -1201/@ 1abbert &' %hicago, R'+' Ry' %o' 171 !o' 43, 70 SW -1202/@ eople &' Sours, 31 %olo' 352, 102 73 ' 157 -1203/@ eople &' )oo7is, 13. !ich' ..5, 24 #W 252 -1203/@ West &' State, .0 <la' 1.3, 32 So' 312 -120./@ State &' Winnett, 74 #eb' 372, 110 #W 113 -1207/@ <arrell &' ort of %olu7bia, .0 (r' 152, 23 ' 2.3 -1204/@ +n re !cconaughy, 105 !inn' 322, 112 #W 304 -1202/@ <letcher &' 1ifford, 20 +daho 14, 11. ' 423 -1211/@ Ca77ond &' %larB, 135 1a' 313, 71 S" 372 -1211/, %rawford &' 1ilchrist, 53 <la' 31, .2 So' 253 -1212/@ %udihee &' helps, 75 Wash' 313, 135 ' 357 -1213/@ State &' <airley, 75 Wash' 332, 135 ' 373 -1213/@ Tabor &' %ity of Walla Walla, 77 Wash' .72, 137 ' 1030 -1213/@ State &' Alderson, 32 !ont' 347, 132 ' 210 -1213/@ Ra7sey &' ersinger, 33 (Bl' 31,131 ' 13 -1213/@ %ress &' "stes, 33 (Bl' 213 ' 311 -1213/@ %ooney &' <oote, 132 1a' 537, 43 S" .37 -1213/@ Cildreth &' Taylor, 117 ArB' 35., 17. SW 30 -121./@ 6ones &' !c:ade, 200 Ala' 230, 7. So' 244 -1217/@ State &' Wet?, 30 #':' 222, 154 #W 43. -1214/@ "9 arte !ing, 32 #e&' 372, 141 ' 312 -1212/@ )ee A' rice, .3 *tah, 373, 141 ' 234 -1212/, "rwin &' #olan, 240 !o' 301, 217 SW 7.2 -1222/@ $oyd &' (lcott, 102 (r' 327, 202 ' 331 -1221/@ Tho7pson &' )i&ingston, 115 S'%' 312, 107 S" .41 -1221/@ ThrailBill &' S7ith, 105 (hio St' 1, 134 #" .32 -1222/@ $rawner &' %urran, 131 +nd' .45, 112 A' 2.0 -1222/@ <ahey &' CacB7ann, 221 !o' 3.1 SW 7.2 -1222/@ 1oolsby &' Stephens, 1.. 1a' .22, 117 S" 332 -1223/@ !anos &' State, 24 Ta9' %r' 47, 253 SW 310 -1223/@ State &' Mi77er7ann, 147 Wis' 140, 204 #W 403 -122./@ Taylor &' Ning, 243 a' 23., 130 A' 307 -122./@ $oard of )i0uidation of State :ebt of )ouisiana &' Whitney,%entral Trust and Sa&ings $anB, 154 )a' .50, 122 So' 4.0 -1222/@ State &' %line, 114 #eb' 1.0, 223 #W 5 -1222/@ %alifornia TeacherDs AssDn' &' %ollins, 1 %al' 2d 202, 33 ' 2d 133 -1233/@ %ollier &' 1ray, 115 <la' 43., 1.7 So' 30 -1233/@ State e9 rel' &' State $ldg' %o77ission &' S7ith, 33. !o' 430, 73 SW 2d 27 -1233/@ !ayer &' Ada7s, 142 1a' .23, 145 S" 320 -1235/@ :oody &' State e9 rel' !obile %ounty, 233 Ala' 247, 171 So' .03 -1237/@ Swanson &' State, 132 #eb' 42, 271 #W 253 -1237/@ Stonns &' CecB, 234 Ala' 125, 120 So' 74 -1232/@ 1raha7 &' 6ones, 124 )a' .07, 3 So' 2d 751 -1231/@ +n re +nitiati&e etition #o' 223, 127 (Bl' 332, 172 ' 2d 323 -1235/@ %ity of 6acBson &' #i7s, 315 !ich' 523, 25 #W 2d .52 -1237/@ Neenan &' rice, 54 +daho 323, 12. ' 2d 552 -1234/' .1 %o77onwealth Act #o' 322 -1232/' .2 <*id, Section 3' .3 %o77onwealth Act #o' .17 -1230/' .3 Article A+ of the 123. %onstitution' .. Article A++ of the 123. %onstitution' .5 +t is to be noted that under %o77onwealth Act #o' 507 -1230/, subse0uently a7ended by %o77onwealth Act #o' 5.7 -1230/, there was a statutory creation of an independent %o77ission on "lections' .7 Section 3, %o77onwealth Act #o' .17' .4 Republic Act #o' 73 -1235/' .2 Section 3 of Republic Act 73 reads as follows8 ;The pro&isions of %o77onwealth Act #u7bered Three

Cundred and fifty,se&en, otherwise Bnown as the "lection %ode, and %o77onwealth #u7bered Si9 hundred and fifty,se&en, entitled ;An Act to Reorgani?e the %o77ission on "lections,; is so far as they are not inconsistent herewith, are hereby 7ade applicable to the election pro&ided for in this Act'; 50 Republic Act 3213 -1257/' 51 Section 3 of Republic Act 3213 reads thus8 ;The pro&isions of Republic Act #u7bered (ne hundred eighty, as a7ended, insofar as they are not inconsistent herewith, are 7ade applicable to the election pro&ided for in this Act'; +t is to be re7e7bered that in the plebiscite held, the two proposals last' %f' on this point, 1on?ales &' %o77ission on "lections, ),24125, #o&' 2, 1257, 21 S%RA 773' 52 The 123. %onstitution pro&ides8 ;The hilippines is a republican state' So&ereignty resides in the people and all go&ern7ent authority e7anates fro7 the7'; Article ++, Section 1' 53 )asBi, 1ra77ar of olitics, 3th ed', 33 -1237/' 53 !cl&er, The Web of 1o&ern7ent, 43 -1237/' 5. %orwin, The Cigher )aw $acBground of A7erican %onstitutional )aw, in 1 Selected "ssays on %onstitutional )aw 3 -1234/' 55 22 Ny' .42, 14 SW .22' 57 <*id, .23' 54 101 Aa' 422, 33 S" 7.3' 52 <*id, 7..' A si7ilar approach 7ay be noted in Arie &' State, 23 (Bl' 155, 100 ' 23 -1202/ and Ca77ond &' %larB, 135 1a' 313, 71 S" 372 -1211/' 70 Araneta &' :inglasan' 43 hil' 354 -1232/' 71 %ardo?o, The #ature of the 6udicial rocess, 131 -1221/' T""CA#N"", 6', dissenting8 1 Section 1, which is the lone section of Art' KA@ e7phasis supplied' 2 Article KA++, section 15, proposed %onstitution of #o&' 30,1272@ e7phasis supplied' 3 All 0uotations fro7 respondentsD 7e7o of argu7ents dated !arch 2, 1273, pp' 2,.@ e7phasis supplied' 3 RespondentsD 7e7o dated !arch 2, 1273, p' 4@ e7phasis supplied' . 1on?ales &s' %o7elec, 21 S%RA 773 -#o' 2, 1257/' 5 Tolentino &s' %o7elec, 31 S%RA 702 -(ct' 15, 1271/' 7 Resolution on 7otion for reconsideration in Tolentino %o7elec, ),331.0@ dated #o&' 3, 1271, at page 3, per $arredo, 6' with se&en 6ustices concurring@ e7phasis supplied' 4 <dem, at page 3, e7phasis supplied' 2 6oint opinion of 66' !aBalintal and %astro, p' 1.3' 10 Article K, sec' 1 of the %onstitution entrusts ;e9clusi&e charge; of the conduct of elections to the %o7elec' See also the "lection %ode of 1271' 11 Araneta &s' :inglasan -),2033/@ Araneta &s' Angeles -),27.5/@ Rodrigue? &s' Treasurer -),30.3/@ 1uerrero &s' %o77issioner of %usto7s@ and $arredo &s' %o7elec -),30.5/, =ointly decided and reported in 43 hil' 354' 12 <dem, at pp' 343,34.@ e7phasis supplied' 13 <dem, at p' 337'

13 <dem, at pp' 33.,337' 1. <dem, at p' 343' 6ustice Tuason further duly noted that ;These obser&ations, though beyond the issue as for7ulated in this decision, 7ay, we trust, also ser&e to answer the &ehe7ent plea that for good of the #ation, the resident should retain his e9traordinary powers as long as tur7oil and other ills directly or indirectly traceable to the late war harass the hilippines'; 15 etitioner !onteclaroDs notes of oral argu7ent dated <ebruary 23, 1273, p' 2, and Anne9 A thereof' 17 State &s' owell, 77 !iss' .33, 27 south 227' 14 %ooleyDs %onstitutional )i7itations, 4th "d', Aol' +, p' 41' 12 Article KA, sec' 1, %onstitution' 20 Article A, sec' 1, %onstitution' 21 Article K, sec' 2, %onstitution' 22 RespondentsD 7e7o dated !arch 2, 1273, p' .' 23 RespondentsD %o77ent dated <eb' 3, 1273, p' 57' 23 <dem, at p' 35@ note in parentheses supplied' 2. 1 %ranch 137 -1403/' 25 53 hil' 133 -1235/' 27 3 Wheaton 315 -1412/' 24 :ean ollaBDs ;The %onstitution and the Supre7e %ourt;, Aol' 1, p' 221' 22 6ustice <eli9 <ranBfurter, (f )aw and !en -12.5/, p' .' 30 Tolentino &s' %o7elec ),331.0@ decision of (ctober 15, 1271, per $arredo, 6' at p' 4' 30a %on,%on Res' #o' 1 proposing the urgent lowering of the &oting age to enfranchise the 14,year olds retained the ;per7issi&e; language of section 1, Art' A' Thus, the proposed a7end7ent read ;Section 1' Suffrage ma" be e9ercised by -7ale/ citi?ens of the hilippines not otherwise dis0ualified by law, who are -twenty one/ "+1CT""# years of age or o&er and are able to read and write '''; 31 Resolution of #o&' 3, 1271, per $arredo, 6' at p' 1.' 32 :ecision of (ct' 15, 1271, at p' 21' 33 21 S%RA 773 -#o&' 2, 1257/' 33 :ecision of (ct' 15, 1271, at p' 23' 3. Reyes, 6'$')' -now retired/, Maldi&ar, %astro and !aBasiar, 66' 35 <dem at pp' 1,2' 37 <dem at p' 3' 34 Resolution of #o&' 3, 1271 in Tolentino, per $arredo, 6'@ pp' 3,3' 32 :ecision of (ct' 15, 1271 in Tolentino, per $arredo, 6' at p' 12' 30 All 0uotations are fro7 the %hief 6usticeDs concurring opinion in Tolentino, pp' 3,7' 31 Separate op' of 6' TeehanBee concurring in Res' of #o' 3, 1271 in Tolentino, pp' 4, 2, 10' 32 This %ourt thus declared in Tolentino the %on,%on &oting age reduction resolution as null and &oid and

prohibited its sub7ittal at the 1271 elections for lacB of proper sub7ission since it did not ;pro&ide the &oter ''' a7ple basis for an intelligent appraisal of the a7end7ent' ;:ec' of (ctober 15, 1271, per $arredo, 6' 33 +n re,(pinion of 6ustices, 11. #'"' Rep' 222,223' 33 :uncan &s' !c%all, 132 *'S' 332, 3. )' "d' 212' 3. ;$arrios are units of 7unicipalities or 7unicipal districts in which they are situated ''' '; Rep' Act 3.20, sec' 2' 35 Rep' Act 3.20, sec' 5, par' 1' 37 <dem, par' 2' 34 <dem, par' 3 and 3, e7phasis supplied' 32 (ne barrio lieutenant and si9 barrio council7en@ ;Aoting shall be by secret ballot' ''' '; <dem, sec' 4' .0 <dem, sec' 10, italics supplied' The sa7e section further dis0ualifies persons con&icted by final =udg7ent to suffer one year or 7ore of i7prison7ent ;within two years after ser&ice; or who ha&e &iolated their allegiance to the Republic and insane or feeble,7inded persons' .1 Supra, p' 2' .2 Ri?al, %a&ite, $ataan, %a7arines Sur and #egros (ccidental, petitionersD 7anifestation and supple7ental re=oinder dated !arch 21, 1273 in ),3515.' .3 RespondentsD re=oinder dated !arch 20, 1273 and sur,re=oinder dated !arch 22, 1273' .3 *nder rocla7ation #o' 1103 dated 6an' 17, 1273, it is recited that ;fourteen 7illion nine hundred se&enty si9 thousand fi&e hundred si9ty one -13,275,.51/ 7e7bers of all the $arangays &oted for the adoption of the proposed %onstitution, as against se&en hundred forty,three thousand eight hundred si9ty nine -733,452/ who &oted for its re=ection@ but a 7a=ority of those who appro&ed the new %onstitution conditioned their &otes on the de7and that the interim #ational Asse7bly pro&ided in its Transitory ro&isions should not be con&ened'; .. RespondentsD 7e7o dated !arch 2, 1273, supra, p' 2' .5 As restated by $arredo, 6' in his separate op' in the plebiscite cases, who, howe&er, did not looB on the sa7e with fa&or, since the constitutional point -that the %o7elec has e9clusi&e charge of the conduct of elections and plebiscites/ see7s to ha&e been o&erlooBed in the Asse7blies'; .7 %on&ention !inutes of #o&' 22, 1272 sub7itted as Anne9 A of petitioner,delegate Sedfrey A' (rdo>e? et' al' in the plebiscite case ),3.2032, par' 12 of petition and ad7itted in par' 3 of answer of therein respondents dated :ec' 1., 1272' A#T(#+(, 6', %(#%*RR+#18 S <irst decision pro7ulgated by <irst :i&ision of the Supre7e %ourt' 1 ;When a house is co7pletely de7olished and another is erected on the sa7e location, do you ha&e a changed, repaired and altered house, or do you ha&e a new houseH So7e of the 7aterial contained in the old house 7ay be used again, so7e of the roo7s 7ay be constructed the sa7e, but this does not alter the fact that you ha&e altogether another or a new house' We conclude that the instru7ent as contained in 1a' )' 123., pp' 4 to 42, inclusi&e, is not an a7end7ent to the constitution of 1477@ but on the contrary it is a co7pletely re&ised or new %onstitution'; -Wheeler &' $oard of Trustees, 37 S'"' 2d 322, 327/' ;"&ery proposal which affects a change in a %onstitution or adds or taBes away fro7 it is an ;a7end7entD, while a ;re&ision; i7plies a re,e9a7ination and state7ent of the %onstitution, or so7e part of it, in a corrected or i7pro&ed for7'; -%onst' Secs' 125, 127, Staples &' 1il7er, 33 S'"' 2d 32, .3 143 Aa' 513/' ;A7end7ent; and ;re&ision; of constitution are separate procedures each ha&ing a substantial field of application not 7ere alternati&e procedures in the sa7e field'; -!c<adden &' 6ordan, 125 ' 2d 747, 727

32 %al' 2d 330/' 2 %f' Sections 1 and 2 of Article K+A, %onstitution of !innesota in Appendi9' 3 $aBer &' %arr, 352 *'S' 145@ 7 )' ed' 553' 3 %f' State %onstitutions of AlasBa, %alifornia, :elaware, <lorida, !ichigan, !innesota, #e&ada, #ew Ca7pshire, (Blaho7a, (regon, *tah and Wyo7ing in Appendi9 to this opinion' S )eon (' Ty, Se&en !onths of !artial )aw, :aily "9press' S anora7a, !ay 5, 1273' . ;A written constitution is susceptible of change in two ways8 by re&olution, which i7plies action not pursuant to any pro&ision of the constitution itself@ and by re&ision, which i7plies action pursuant to so7e procedural pro&ision in the constitution' This distinction is concerned with the 9uare and not with the 9uantum of change' +t 7ay be significant, howe&er, that the alleged alteration does or does not purport to affect the e9istence of the court itself' +n the nature of things, a re&olutionary charge does not ad7it =udicial power as such to deter7ine the fact of its occurrence' +f re&olutionary constitution sets up a court differently constituted fro7 the pre,re&olutionary court, neither tribunal is confronted with a substantial proble7, for neither can deny the act by which it was created without denying the fact of its creation' Thus the Supre7e %ourt in Lut)er v. %orden -supra/ uses language substantially parallel with what has been indicated abo&e as logical e9planation of the (u#e of For#0scase' <or the court to gi&e serious =udicial consideration to such a 0uestion would present ;the singular spectacle of a court sitting as a court to declare that we are not a court'; -$rittle &' eople, 2 #eb' 124, 213 F1473G'/ And e&en the alleged new constitution purports to lea&e intact the for7er court and to per7it its worB to go on without hiatus, the decision which the =udges 7ust 7aBe is still an indi&idual choice to be 7ade by the7 as a 7atter of practical politics' Two co77issions are being held out to the7, and if they will act as a court they 7ust assess under which co77ission they are acting' To put the 7atter another way, it 7ust be true that in the first case abo&e D of two constitutions purporting to establish two different courts, D the 7en who were =udges under the old regi7e and the 7en who are called to be =udges under the new ha&e each to decide as indi&iduals what they are to do@ and it 7ay be that they choose at gra&e peril with the factional outco7e still uncertain' And, although it is e0ually ob&ious, the situation is logically identical where the sa7e 7en are no7inated to constitute the court under both the old and new constitution, at a ti7e when the alleged change is occurring D if it is E peaceably and against a placid popular bacBground' !en under such circu7stances 7ay write 7ost praiseworthily principles of states7anship, upon so&ereignty and, its nature 7odes of action, and upon the bases of go&ern7ent, to =ustify the choice between the two co77issions' They can assert their choice in the course of purported =udicial action' $ut they cannot decide as a court, for the decision, once 7ade, by a retroacti&e hypothesis e9cludes any assu7ption of contro&ersiality in the pre7ises'' ;Where the alleged change occurs not through re&olutionary 7easures but through what has been called re&ision, these logical difficulties disappear in one aspect, but beco7e far 7ore e7barrassing in another' Where the alteration purports to be 7ade along the lines of a procedural 7ethod laid down in the constitution, there is a standard which the court can apply and, by so doing, it can percei&e =udicially whether or not the change has followed the prescribed lines' +f it has, there is no difficulty in pronouncing as a 7atter of law its acco7plish7ent' (nly one e9ception is possible, na7ely, the ease where the alteration purports at once to abolish the court or to depose its personnel' Then, although there would be a 0uestion of law to be decided, it 7ay be wondered who there is to decide it' Suppose, howe&er, the 7ode of change has failed in so7e way to confor7 to a directory pro&ision of the a7ending clause of the constitution@ is the court to declare the atte7pt at alteration unsuccessfulH +t would see7 as a 7atter of law that it 7ust do so@ and yet what is the situation if the proponents of the change say, ;+t is true that this 7easure failed under the a7ending clause, but as a re&olutionary 7easure it was a success and we insist upon its recognition'; %learly the 7e7bers of the court are now 7ore badly than e&er entangled in the logical difficulties which attend a purported =udicial pronounce7ent upon the achie&e7ent or non, achie&e7ent of re&olutionary change' <or the te7ptation will be great to treat the 7atter as a legal 0uestion' The ti7es are peaceful' The changes probably do no affect the tenure of 7any offices of any branch of the go&ern7ent' The popular inertia is liBely to allow the court successfully to assu7e the 0uestion to be one of law' The path of fallacy is not too striBingly fallacious to the uncritical obser&er' +t 7ay lead to =ust results' The =udgesD personal inclinations will be to show deference to the e9pression of popular senti7ent which has been gi&en' And yet, if they declare the change in force, they are truly 7aBing a personal declaration that they belie&e the change to be the directly e9pressed will of the so&ereign, which will they assert to be law, but the fact of e9istence of which will D and this is the real decision D is not ascertainable in the gi&en case by any legal 7eans' +t is sub7itted that this is true, and that the conclusions offered in the discussion of re&olutionary change are true, also, whether the9uantum of change in&ol&ed be &ast or al7ost negligible' ;The net result of the preceding discussion is this8 that in al7ost the whole field of proble7s which

the(u#e of For#0s case and the A7erican constitutional a7end7ent cases present, the court as a court is precluded fro7 passing upon the fact of change by a logical difficulty which is not to be sur7ounted' +t follows that there is no roo7 for considering whether the court ought graciously and deferentially to looB to the e9ecuti&e or legislati&e for a decision that a change has or has not taBen place' 5 P 7 <*id' pp' 301, 30.' A "#:+K T( ( +#+(#'

R The inclusion in the Appendi9 of pro&isions for A7end7ent and Re&ision in State %onstitutions, adopted after 123., is only to stress the fact that the distinction between A7end7ent and Re&ision of %onstitution, which e9isted at the ti7e of the adoption of the 123. %onstitution, has continued up to the present'
The )awphil ro=ect , Arellano )aw <oundation

G.R. No. 1221)6 $4<r5ar2 3, 1997 MAN"LA PR"NCE OTEL petitioner, &s' GOVERNMENT SERV"CE "NSURANCE S#STEM, MAN"LA OTEL CORPORAT"ON, COMM"TTEE ON PR"VAT"&AT"ON a*+ O$$"CE O$ T E GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL, respondents'

(ELLOS"LLO, J.: The =i<ipino =irst $olic" enshrined in the 1247 %onstitution, i'e', in t)e grant of rig)ts, privileges, and concessions covering t)e national econom" and patrimon", t)e State s)all give preference to 9ualified =ilipinos , 1 is in oBed by petitioner in its bid to ac0uire .1Q of the shares of the !anila Cotel %orporation -!C%/ which owns the historic !anila Cotel' (pposing, respondents 7aintain that the pro&ision is not self,e9ecuting but re0uires an i7ple7enting legislation for its enforce7ent' %orollarily, they asB whether the .1Q shares for7 part of the national econo7y and patri7ony co&ered by the protecti&e 7antle of the %onstitution' The contro&ersy arose when respondent 1o&ern7ent Ser&ice +nsurance Syste7 -1S+S/, pursuant to the pri&ati?ation progra7 of the hilippine 1o&ern7ent under rocla7ation #o' .0 dated 4 :ece7ber 1245, decided to sell through public bidding 30Q to .1Q of the issued and outstanding shares of respondent !C%' The winning bidder, or the e&entual ;strategic partner,; is to provide management e!pertise andIor an international mar#etingIreservation s"stem, and financial support to strengt)en t)e profita*ilit" and performance of t)e Manila Aotel' 2 +n a close bidding held on 14 Septe7ber 122. only two -2/ bidders participated8 petitioner !anila rince Cotel %orporation, a <ilipino corporation, which offered to buy .1Q of the !C% or 1.,300,000 shares at 31'.4 per share, and Renong $erhad, a !alaysian fir7, with +TT,Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for the sa7e nu7ber of shares at 33'00 per share, or 2'32 7ore than the bid of petitioner' ertinent pro&isions of the bidding rules prepared by respondent 1S+S state E +' "K"%*T+(# (< TC" #"%"SSARL %(#TRA%TS W+TC 1S+SJ!C% E 1' The Cighest $idder 7ust co7ply with the conditions set forth below by (ctober 23, 122. -reset to #o&e7ber 3, 122./ or the Cighest $idder will lose the right to purchase the $locB of Shares and 1S+S will instead offer the $locB of Shares to the other Iualified $idders8 a' The Cighest $idder 7ust negotiate and e9ecute with the 1S+SJ!C% the !anage7ent %ontract, +nternational !arBetingJReser&ation Syste7 %ontract or other type of contract specified by the Cighest $idder in its strategic plan for the !anila Cotel' ' ' ' b' The Cighest $idder 7ust e9ecute the StocB urchase and Sale Agree7ent with 1S+S ' ' ' ' N' :"%)ARAT+(# (< TC" W+##+#1 $+::"RJSTRAT"1+% ART#"R E The Cighest $idder will be declared the Winning $idderJStrategic artner after the following conditions are 7et8

a' "9ecution of the necessary contracts with 1S+SJ!C% not later than (ctober 23, 122. -reset to #o&e7ber 3, 122./@ and
b' Re0uisite appro&als fro7 the 1S+SJ!C% and %( -%o77ittee on ri&ati?ation/J(1%% -(ffice of the 1o&ern7ent %orporate %ounsel/ are obtained' 3

ending the declaration of Renong $erhad as the winning bidderJstrategic partner and the e9ecution of the necessary contracts, petitioner in a letter to respondent 1S+S dated 24 Septe7ber 122. 7atched the bid price of 33'00 per share tendered by Renong $erhad' 4 +n a subse0uent letter dated 10 (ctober 122. petitioner sent a 7anagerDs checB issued by hiltrust $anB for Thirty,three !illion esos - 33'000'000'00/ as %id Securit" to matc) t)e *id of t)e Mala"sian Group, Messrs ' Renong %er)ad ' ' ' ) which respondent 1S+S refused to accept' (n 17 (ctober 122., perhaps apprehensi&e that respondent 1S+S has disregarded the tender of the 7atching bid and that the sale of .1Q of the !C% 7ay be hastened by respondent 1S+S and consu77ated with Renong $erhad, petitioner ca7e to this %ourt on prohibition and mandamus' (n 14 (ctober 122. the %ourt issued a te7porary restraining order en=oining respondents fro7 perfecting and consu77ating the sale to the !alaysian fir7' (n 10 Septe7ber 1225 the instant case was accepted by the %ourt &n %anc after it was referred to it by the <irst :i&ision' The case was then set for oral argu7ents with for7er %hief 6ustice "nri0ue !' <ernando and <r' 6oa0uin 1' $ernas, S'6', as amici curiae' +n the 7ain, petitioner in&oBes Sec' 10, second par', Art' K++, of the 1247 %onstitution and sub7its that the !anila Cotel )as *een identified ,it) t)e =ilipino nation and )as practicall" *ecome a )istorical monument ,)ic) reflects t)e vi*ranc" of $)ilippine )eritage and culture' <t is a proud legac" of an earlier generation of =ilipinos ,)o *elieved in t)e no*ilit" and sacredness of independence and its po,er and capacit" to release t)e full potential of t)e =ilipino people' To all intents and purposes, it )as *ecome a part of t)e national patrimon" ' 6 etitioner also argues that since .1Q of the shares of the !C% carries with it the ownership of the business of the hotel which is owned by respondent 1S+S, a go&ern7ent,owned and controlled corporation, the hotel business of respondent 1S+S being a part of the touris7 industry is un0uestionably a part of the national econo7y' Thus, any transaction in&ol&ing .1Q of the shares of stocB of the !C% is clearly co&ered by the ter7 national econom", to which Sec' 10, second par', Art' K++, 1247 %onstitution, applies' 7 +t is also the thesis of petitioner that since !anila Cotel is part of the national patri7ony and its business also un0uestionably part of the national econo7y petitioner should be preferred after it has 7atched the bid offer of the !alaysian fir7' <or the bidding rules 7andate that if for an" reason, t)e Aig)est %idder cannot *e a,arded t)e %loc# of S)ares, GS<S ma" offer t)is to t)e ot)er Kualified %idders t)at )ave validl" su*mitted *ids provided t)at t)ese Kualified %idders are ,illing to matc) t)e )ig)est *id in terms of price per s)are ' ? Respondents e9cept' They 7aintain that8 =irst, Sec' 10, second par', Art' K++, of the 1247 %onstitution is 7erely a state7ent of principle and policy since it is not a self1e!ecuting provision and re9uires implementing legislationBsC . . . T)us, for t)e said provision to perate, t)ere must *e e!isting la,s ?to la" do,n conditions under ,)ic) *usiness ma" *e done'; 9 Second, granting that this pro&ision is self,e9ecuting, !anila Cotel does not fall under the ter7 national patri7ony which only refers to lands of the public do7ain, waters, 7inerals, coal, petroleu7 and other 7ineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or ti7ber, wildlife, flora and fauna and all 7arine wealth in its territorial sea, and e9clusi&e 7arine ?one as cited in the first and second paragraphs of Sec' 2, Art' K++, 1247 %onstitution' According to respondents, while petitioner speaBs of the guests who ha&e slept in the hotel and the e&ents that ha&e transpired therein which 7aBe the hotel historic, these alone do not 7aBe the hotel fall under the patrimon"of the nation' What is 7ore, the 7andate of the %onstitution is addressed to the State, not to respondent 1S+S which possesses a personality of its own separate and distinct fro7 the hilippines as a State' T)ird, granting that the !anila Cotel for7s part of the national patrimon", the constitutional pro&ision in&oBed is still inapplicable since what is being sold is only .1Q of the outstanding shares of the corporation, not the hotel building nor the land upon which the building stands' %ertainly, .1Q of the e0uity of the !C% cannot be considered part of the national patrimon"' !oreo&er, if the disposition of the shares of the !C% is really contrary to the %onstitution, petitioner should ha&e 0uestioned it right fro7 the beginning and not after it had lost in the bidding' =ourt), the reliance by petitioner on par' A', subpar' 6' 1', of the bidding rules which pro&ides that if for an" reason, t)e Aig)est %idder cannot *e a,arded t)e %loc# of S)ares, GS<S ma" offer t)is to t)e ot)er Kualified %idders t)at )ave validl" su*mitted *ids provided t)at t)ese Kualified %idders are ,illing to matc) t)e )ig)est *id in terms of price per s)are, is 7isplaced' Respondents postulate that the pri&ilege of sub7itting a 7atching bid has not yet arisen since it only taBes place if for an" reason, t)e Aig)est %idder cannot *e a,arded t)e %loc# of S)ares ' Thus the sub7ission by petitioner of a 7atching bid is pre7ature since Renong $erhad could still &ery well be awarded the blocB of shares and the condition gi&ing rise to the e9ercise of the pri&ilege to sub7it a 7atching bid had not yet taBen place' =inall", the prayer for prohibition grounded on gra&e abuse of discretion should fail since respondent 1S+S did not e9ercise its discretion in a capricious, whi7sical 7anner, and if e&er it did abuse its discretion it was not so patent

and gross as to a7ount to an e&asion of a positi&e duty or a &irtual refusal to perfor7 a duty en=oined by law' Si7ilarly, the petition for mandamus should fail as petitioner has no clear legal right to what it de7ands and respondents do not ha&e an i7perati&e duty to perfor7 the act re0uired of the7 by petitioner' We now resol&e' A constitution is a syste7 of funda7ental laws for the go&ernance and ad7inistration of a nation' +t is supre7e, i7perious, absolute and unalterable e9cept by the authority fro7 which it e7anates' +t has been defined as the fundamental and paramount la, of t)e nation' 1@ +t prescribes the per7anent fra7eworB of a syste7 of go&ern7ent, assigns to the different depart7ents their respecti&e powers and duties, and establishes certain fi9ed principles on which go&ern7ent is founded' The funda7ental conception in other words is that it is a supre7e law to which all other laws 7ust confor7 and in accordance with which all pri&ate rights 7ust be deter7ined and all public authority ad7inistered' 11 *nder the doctrine of constitutional supre7acy, if a law or contract &iolates any nor7 of the constitution that law or contract whether pro7ulgated by the legislati&e or by the e9ecuti&e branch or entered into by pri&ate persons for pri&ate purposes is null and &oid and without any force and effect' Thus, since t)e +onstitution is t)e fundamental, paramount and supreme la, of t)e nation, it is deemed ,ritten in ever" statute and contrac t' Ad7ittedly, so7e constitutions are 7erely declarations of policies and principles' Their pro&isions co77and the legislature to enact laws and carry out the purposes of the fra7ers who 7erely establish an outline of go&ern7ent pro&iding for the different depart7ents of the go&ern7ental 7achinery and securing certain funda7ental and inalienable rights of citi?ens' 12 A pro&ision which lays down a general principle, such as those found in Art' ++ of the 1247 %onstitution, is usually not self,e9ecuting' $ut a pro&ision which is co7plete in itself and beco7es operati&e without the aid of supple7entary or enabling legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by 7eans of which the right it grants 7ay be en=oyed or protected, is self,e9ecuting' Thus a constitutional pro&ision is self,e9ecuting if the nature and e9tent of the right conferred and the liability i7posed are fi9ed by the constitution itself, so that they can be deter7ined by an e9a7ination and construction of its ter7s, and there is no language indicating that the sub=ect is referred to the legislature for action' 13 As against constitutions of the past, 7odern constitutions ha&e been generally drafted upon a different principle and ha&e often beco7e in effect e9tensi&e codes of laws intended to operate directly upon the people in a 7anner si7ilar to that of statutory enact7ents, and the function of constitutional con&entions has e&ol&ed into one 7ore liBe that of a legislati&e body' Cence, unless it is e9pressly pro&ided that a legislati&e act is necessary to enforce a constitutional 7andate, the presu7ption now is that all pro&isions of the constitution are self,e9ecuting +f the constitutional pro&isions are treated as re0uiring legislation instead of self,e9ecuting, the legislature would ha&e the power to ignore and practically nullify the 7andate of the funda7ental law' 14 This can be cataclys7ic' That is why the pre&ailing &iew is, as it has always been, that E
' ' ' in case of doubt, the %onstitution should be considered self,e9ecuting rather than non,self,e9ecuting ' ' ' ' *nless the contrary is clearly intended, the pro&isions of the %onstitution should be considered self, e9ecuting, as a contrary rule would gi&e the legislature discretion to deter7ine when, or whether, they shall be effecti&e' These pro&isions would be subordinated to the will of the law7aBing body, which could 7aBe the7 entirely 7eaningless by si7ply refusing to pass the needed i7ple7enting statute' 1)

Respondents argue that Sec' 10, second par', Art' K++, of the 1247 %onstitution is clearly not self,e9ecuting, as they 0uote fro7 discussions on the floor of the 1245 %onstitutional %o77ission E !R' R(:R+1(' !ada7 resident, + a7 asBing this 0uestion as the %hair7an of the %o77ittee on Style' +f the wording of ; R"<"R"#%"; is gi&en to I*A)+<+": <+)+ +#(S,; can it be understood as a preference to 0ualified <ilipinos vis1a1 vis <ilipinos who are not 0ualified' So, why do we not 7aBe it clearH To 0ualified <ilipinos as against aliensH TC" R"S+:"#T' What is the 0uestion of %o77issioner RodrigoH +s it to re7o&e the word ;I*A)+<+":H;' !R' R(:R+1(' #o, no, but say definitely ;T( I*A)+<+": <+)+ +#(S; as against who7H As against aliens or o&er aliensH !R' #())":(' !ada7 resident, + thinB that is understood' We use the word ;I*A)+<+":; because the e!isting la,s or prospective la,s ,ill al,a"s la" do,n conditions under ,)ic) *usiness ma" *e done' =or e!ample, 9ualifications on t)e setting up of ot)er financial structures, et cetera -e7phasis supplied by respondents/ !R' R(:R+1(' +t is =ust a 7atter of style'
!R' #())":( Les, 16

Iuite apparently, Sec' 10, second par', of Art K++ is couched in such a way as not to 7aBe it appear that it is non, self,e9ecuting but si7ply for purposes of style' $ut, certainly, the legislature is not precluded fro7 enacting other further laws to enforce the constitutional pro&ision so long as the conte7plated statute s0uares with the

%onstitution' !inor details 7ay be left to the legislature without i7pairing the self,e9ecuting nature of constitutional pro&isions' +n self,e9ecuting constitutional pro&isions, the legislature 7ay still enact legislation to facilitate the e9ercise of powers directly granted by the constitution, further the operation of such a pro&ision, prescribe a practice to be used for its enforce7ent, pro&ide a con&enient re7edy for the protection of the rights secured or the deter7ination thereof, or place reasonable safeguards around the e9ercise of the right' The 7ere fact that legislation 7ay supple7ent and add to or prescribe a penalty for the &iolation of a self,e9ecuting constitutional pro&ision does not render such a pro&ision ineffecti&e in the absence of such legislation' The o7ission fro7 a constitution of any e9press pro&ision for a re7edy for enforcing a right or liability is not necessarily an indication that it was not intended to be self,e9ecuting' The rule is that a self,e9ecuting pro&ision of the constitution does not necessarily e9haust legislati&e power on the sub=ect, but any legislation 7ust be in har7ony with the constitution, further the e9ercise of constitutional right and 7aBe it 7ore a&ailable' 17 Subse0uent legislation howe&er does not necessarily 7ean that the sub=ect constitutional pro&ision is not, by itself, fully enforceable' Respondents also argue that the non,self,e9ecuting nature of Sec' 10, second par', of Art' K++ is i7plied fro7 the tenor of the first and third paragraphs of the sa7e section which undoubtedly are not self,e9ecuting' 1? The argu7ent is flawed' +f the first and third paragraphs are not self,e9ecuting because %ongress is still to enact 7easures to encourage the for7ation and operation of enterprises fully owned by <ilipinos, as in the first paragraph, and the State still needs legislation to regulate and e9ercise authority o&er foreign in&est7ents within its national =urisdiction, as in the third paragraph, then a fortiori, by the sa7e logic, the second paragraph can only be self,e9ecuting as it does not by its language re0uire any legislation in order to gi&e preference to 0ualified <ilipinos in the grant of rights, pri&ileges and concessions co&ering the national econo7y and patri7ony' A constitutional pro&ision 7ay be self, e9ecuting in one part and non,self,e9ecuting in another' 19 "&en the cases cited by respondents holding that certain constitutional pro&isions are 7erely state7ents of principles and policies, which are basically not self,e9ecuting and only placed in the %onstitution as 7oral incenti&es to legislation, not as =udicially enforceable rights E are si7ply not in point' %asco v' $)ilippine Amusements and Gaming +orporation 2@ speaBs of constitutional pro&isions on personal dignity, 21 the sanctity of fa7ily life, 22 the &ital role of the youth in nation,building 23 the pro7otion of social =ustice, 24 and the &alues of education' 2) Tolentino v' Secretar" of =inance 26 refers to the constitutional pro&isions on social =ustice and hu7an rights 27 and on education' 2? )astly, .ilos*a"an, <nc' v' Morato 29 cites pro&isions on the pro7otion of general welfare, 3@ the sanctity of fa7ily life, 31 the &ital role of the youth in nation,building 32 and the pro7otion of total hu7an liberation and de&elop7ent' 33 A reading of these pro&isions indeed clearly shows that they are not =udicially enforceable constitutional rights but 7erely guidelines for legislation' The &ery ter7s of the pro&isions 7anifest that they are only principles upon which the legislations 7ust be based' Res ipsa lo9uitur' (n the other hand, Sec' 10, second par', Art' K++ of the of the 1247 %onstitution is a 7andatory, positi&e co77and which is co7plete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or i7ple7enting laws or rules for its enforce7ent' <ro7 its &ery words the pro&ision does not re0uire any legislation to put it in operation' +t is per se =udicially enforceable When our %onstitution 7andates that LiMn t)e grant of rig)ts, privileges, and concessions covering national econom" and patrimon", t)e State s)all give preference to 9ualified =ilipinos , it 7eans =ust that E 0ualified <ilipinos shall be preferred' And when our %onstitution declares that a right e9ists in certain specified circu7stances an action 7ay be 7aintained to enforce such right notwithstanding the absence of any legislation on the sub=ect@ conse0uently, if there is no statute especially enacted to enforce such constitutional right, such right enforces itself by its own inherent potency and puissance, and fro7 which all legislations 7ust taBe their bearings' Where there is a right there is a re7edy' @*i 6us i*i remedium' As regards our national patrimon", a 7e7ber of the 1245 %onstitutional %o77ission
34

e9plains E

The patri7ony of the #ation that should be conser&ed and de&eloped refers not only to out rich natural resources but also to the cultural heritage of out race' +t also refers to our intelligence in arts, sciences and letters' Therefore, we should de&elop not only our lands, forests, 7ines and other natural resources but also the 7ental ability or faculty of our people' We agree' +n its plain and ordinary 7eaning, the ter7 patri7ony pertains to heritage' 3) When the %onstitution speaBs of national patri7ony, it refers not only to the natural resources of the hilippines, as the %onstitution could ha&e &ery well used the ter7 natural resources, but also to the cultural )eritage of the <ilipinos' !anila Cotel has beco7e a land7arB E a li&ing testi7onial of hilippine heritage' While it was restricti&ely an A7erican hotel when it first opened in 1212, it i77ediately e&ol&ed to be truly <ilipino, <or7erly a concourse for the elite, it has since then beco7e the &enue of &arious significant e&ents which ha&e shaped hilippine history' +t was called the +ultural +enter of t)e 4;270s' +t was the site of the festi&ities during the inauguration of the hilippine %o77onwealth' :ubbed as the fficial Guest Aouse of t)e $)ilippine Government ' it plays host to dignitaries and official &isitors who are accorded the traditional hilippine hospitality' 36 The history of the hotel has been chronicled in the booB T)e Manila Aotel8 T)e Aeart and Memor" of a +it"' 37:uring World War ++ the hotel was con&erted by the 6apanese !ilitary Ad7inistration into a 7ilitary head0uarters' When the A7erican forces returned to recapture !anila the hotel was selected by the 6apanese together with +ntra7uros as

the two -2/ places fro their final stand' Thereafter, in the 12.0Ds and 1250Ds, the hotel beca7e the center of political acti&ities, playing host to al7ost e&ery political con&ention' +n 1270 the hotel reopened after a reno&ation and reaped nu7erous international recognitions, an acBnowledg7ent of the <ilipino talent and ingenuity' +n 1245 the hotel was the site of a failed coup d0 etat where an aspirant for &ice,president was ;proclai7ed; resident of the hilippine Republic' <or 7ore than eight -4/ decades !anila Cotel has bore 7ute witness to the triu7phs and failures, lo&es and frustrations of the <ilipinos@ its e9istence is i7pressed with public interest@ its own historicity associated with our struggle for so&ereignty, independence and nationhood' Aerily, !anila Cotel has beco7e part of our national econo7y and patri7ony' <or sure, .1Q of the e0uity of the !C% co7es within the pur&iew of the constitutional shelter for it co7prises the 7a=ority and controlling stocB, so that anyone who ac0uires or owns the .1Q will ha&e actual control and 7anage7ent of the hotel' +n this instance, .1Q of the !C% cannot be disassociated fro7 the hotel and the land on which the hotel edifice stands' %onse0uently, we cannot sustain respondentsD clai7 that the=ilipino =irst $olic" pro&ision is not applicable since ,)at is *eing sold is onl" 54N of the outstanding s)ares of t)e corporation, not t)e Aotel *uilding nor t)e land upon ,)ic) t)e *uilding stands ' 3? The argu7ent is pure sophistry' The ter7 9ualified =ilipinos as used in (ur %onstitution also includes corporations at least 50Q of which is owned by <ilipinos' This is &ery clear fro7 the proceedings of the 1245 %onstitutional %o77ission TC" R"S+:"#T' %o77issioner :a&ide is recogni?ed' !R' :AA+:"' + would liBe to introduce an a7end7ent to the #olledo a7end7ent' And the a7end7ent would consist in substituting the words ;I*A)+<+": <+)+ +#(S; with the following8 ;%+T+M"#S (< TC" C+)+ +#"S (R %(R (RAT+(#S (R ASS(%+AT+(#S WC(S" %A +TA) (R %(#TR())+#1 ST(%N +S WC())L (W#": $L S*%C %+T+M"#S' 999 999 999 !R' !(#S(:' !ada7 resident, apparently the proponent is agreeable, but we ha&e to raise a 0uestion' Suppose it is a corporation that is 40,percent <ilipino, do we not gi&e it preferenceH !R' :AA+:"' The #olledo a7end7ent would refer to an indi&idual <ilipino' What about a corporation wholly owned by <ilipino citi?ensH !R' !(#S(:' At least 50 percent, !ada7 resident' !R' :AA+:"' +s that the intentionH !R' !(#S(:' Les, because, in fact, we would be li7iting it if we say that the preference should only be 100,percent <ilipino' !R8 :AA+:"' + want to get that 7eaning clear because ;I*A)+<+": <+)+ +#(S; 7ay refer only to indi&iduals and not to =uridical personalities or entities'
!R' !(#S(:' We agree, !ada7 resident'
39

999 999 999 !R' R(:R+1(' $efore we &ote, 7ay + re0uest that the a7end7ent be read again'
!R' #())":(' The a7end7ent will read8 ;+# TC" 1RA#T (< R+1CTS, R+A+)"1"S A#: %(#%"SS+(#S %(A"R+#1 TC" #AT+(#A) "%(#(!L A#: ATR+!(#L, TC" STAT" SCA)) 1+A" R"<"R"#%" T( I*A)+<+": <+)+ +#(S'; And the word ;<ilipinos; here, as intended by the proponents, will include not only indi&idual <ilipinos but also <ilipino,controlled entities or entities fully,controlled by <ilipinos' 4@

The phrase preference to 0ualified <ilipinos was e9plained thus E !R' <(M' !ada7 resident, + would liBe to re0uest %o77issioner #olledo to please restate his a7end7ent so that + can asB a 0uestion' !R' #())":(' ;+# TC" 1RA#T (< R+1CTS, R+A+)"1"S A#: %(#%"SS+(#S %(A"R+#1 TC" #AT+(#A) "%(#(!L A#: ATR+!(#L, TC" STAT" SCA)) 1+A" R"<"R"#%" T( I*A)+<+": <+)+ +#(S';

!R <(M' +n connection with that a7end7ent, if a foreign enterprise is 0ualified and a <ilipino enterprise is also 0ualified, will the <ilipino enterprise still be gi&en a preferenceH !R' #())":(' (b&iously' !R' <(M' +f the foreigner is 7ore 0ualified in so7e aspects than the <ilipino enterprise, will the <ilipino still be preferredH !R' #())":(' The answer is ;yes';
!R' <(M' ThanB you, 41

"9pounding further on the =ilipino =irst $olic" pro&ision %o77issioner #olledo continues E
!R' #())":(' Les, !ada7 resident' +nstead of ;!*ST,; it will be ;SCA)) E TC" STAT" SCA)) 1lA" R"<"R"#%" T( I*A)+<+": <+)+ +#(S' This e7bodies the so,called ;<ilipino <irst; policy' That 7eans that <ilipinos should be gi&en preference in the grant of concessions, pri&ileges and rights co&ering the national patri7ony' 42

The e9change of &iews in the sessions of the %onstitutional %o77ission regarding the sub=ect pro&ision was still further clarified by %o77issioner #olledo 43 B aragraph 2 of Section 10 e9plicitly 7andates the ; ro,<ilipino; bias in all econo7ic concerns' +t is better Bnown as the <+)+ +#( <+RST olicy ' ' ' This pro&ision was ne&er found in pre&ious %onstitutions ' ' ' ' The ter7 ;0ualified <ilipinos; si7ply 7eans that preference shall be gi&en to those citi?ens who can 7aBe a &iable contribution to the co77on good, because of credible co7petence and efficiency' +t certainly does #(T 7andate the pa7pering and preferential treat7ent to <ilipino citi?ens or organi?ations that are inco7petent or inefficient, since such an indiscri7inate preference would be counter producti&e and ini7ical to the co77on good' +n the granting of econo7ic rights, pri&ileges, and concessions, when a choice has to be 7ade between a ;0ualified foreigner; end a ;0ualified <ilipino,; the latter shall be chosen o&er the for7er'; )astly, the word 9ualified is also deter7inable' etitioner was so considered by respondent 1S+S and selected as one of the 9ualified *idders' +t was pre,0ualified by respondent 1S+S in accordance with its own guidelines so that the sole inference here is that petitioner has been found to be possessed of pro&en 7anage7ent e9pertise in the hotel industry, or it has significant e0uity ownership in another hotel co7pany, or it has an o&erall 7anage7ent and 7arBeting proficiency to successfully operate the !anila Cotel' 44 The penchant to try to whittle away the 7andate of the %onstitution by arguing that the sub=ect pro&ision is not self, e9ecutory and re0uires i7ple7enting legislation is 0uite disturbing' The atte7pt to &iolate a clear constitutional pro&ision E by the go&ern7ent itself E is only too distressing' To adopt such a line of reasoning is to renounce the duty to ensure faithfulness to the %onstitution' <or, e&en so7e of the pro&isions of the %onstitution which e&idently need i7ple7enting legislation ha&e =uridical life of their own and can be the source of a =udicial re7edy' We cannot si7ply afford the go&ern7ent a defense that arises out of the failure to enact further enabling, i7ple7enting or guiding legislation' +n fine, the discourse of <r' 6oa0uin 1' $ernas, S'6', on constitutional go&ern7ent is apt E
The e9ecuti&e depart7ent has a constitutional duty to i7ple7ent laws, including the %onstitution, e&en before %ongress acts E pro&ided that there are disco&erable legal standards for e9ecuti&e action' When the e9ecuti&e acts, it 7ust be guided by its own understanding of the constitutional co77and and of applicable laws' The responsibility for reading and understanding the %onstitution and the laws is not the sole prerogati&e of %ongress' +f it were, the e9ecuti&e would ha&e to asB %ongress, or perhaps the %ourt, for an interpretation e&ery ti7e the e9ecuti&e is confronted by a constitutional co77and' That is not how constitutional go&ern7ent operates' 4)

Respondents further argue that the constitutional pro&ision is addressed to the State, not to respondent 1S+S which by itself possesses a separate and distinct personality' This argu7ent again is at best specious' +t is undisputed that the sale of .1Q of the !C% could only be carried out with the prior appro&al of the State acting through respondent %o77ittee on ri&ati?ation' As correctly pointed out by <r' 6oa0uin 1' $ernas, S'6', this fact alone 7aBes the sale of the assets of respondents 1S+S and !C% a ;state action'; +n constitutional =urisprudence, the acts of persons distinct fro7 the go&ern7ent are considered ;state action; co&ered by the %onstitution -1/ when the acti&ity it engages in is a ?pu*lic function@? -2/ when the go&ern7ent is so significantly in&ol&ed with the pri&ate actor as to 7aBe the go&ern7ent responsible for his action@ and, -3/ when the go&ern7ent has appro&ed or authori?ed the action' +t is e&ident that the act of respondent 1S+S in selling .1Q of its share in respondent !C% co7es under the second and third categories of ;state action'; Without doubt therefore the transaction' although entered into by respondent 1S+S, is in fact a transaction of the State and therefore sub=ect to the constitutional co77and' 46

When the %onstitution addresses the State it refers not only to the people but also to the go&ern7ent as ele7ents of the State' After all, go&ern7ent is co7posed of three -3/ di&isions of power E legislati&e, e9ecuti&e and =udicial' Accordingly, a constitutional 7andate directed to the State is correspondingly directed to the three-3/ branches of go&ern7ent' +t is undeniable that in this case the sub=ect constitutional in=unction is addressed a7ong others to the "9ecuti&e :epart7ent and respondent 1S+S, a go&ern7ent instru7entality deri&ing its authority fro7 the State' +t should be stressed that while the !alaysian fir7 offered the higher bid it is not yet the winning bidder' The bidding rules e9pressly pro&ide that the highest bidder shall only be declared the winning bidder after it has negotiated and e9ecuted the necessary contracts, and secured the re0uisite appro&als' Since the ; =ilipino =irst $olic" pro&ision of the %onstitution bestows preference on 0ualified <ilipinos the 7ere tending of the highest bid is not an assurance that the highest bidder will be declared the winning bidder' Resultantly, respondents are not bound to 7aBe the award yet, nor are they under obligation to enter into one with the highest bidder' <or in choosing the awardee respondents are 7andated to abide by the dictates of the 1247 %onstitution the pro&isions of which are presu7ed to be Bnown to all the bidders and other interested parties' Adhering to the doctrine of constitutional supre7acy, the sub=ect constitutional pro&ision is, as it should be, i7pliedly written in the bidding rules issued by respondent 1S+S, lest the bidding rules be nullified for being &iolati&e of the %onstitution' +t is a basic principle in constitutional law that all laws and contracts 7ust confor7 with the funda7ental law of the land' Those which &iolate the %onstitution lose their reason for being' aragraph A' 6' 1 of the bidding rules pro&ides that LifM for an" reason t)e Aig)est %idder cannot *e a,arded t)e %loc# of S)ares, GS<S ma" offer t)is to ot)er Kualified %idders t)at )ave validl" su*mitted *ids provided t)at t)ese Kualified %idders are ,illing to matc) t)e )ig)est *id in terms of price per s)are' 47 %ertainly, the constitutional 7andate itself is reason enoug) not to award the blocB of shares i77ediately to the foreign bidder notwithstanding its sub7ission of a higher, or e&en the highest, bid' +n fact, we cannot concei&e of a stronger reason than the constitutional in=unction itself' +n the instant case, where a foreign fir7 sub7its the highest bid in a public bidding concerning the grant of rights, pri&ileges and concessions co&ering the national econo7y and patri7ony, thereby e9ceeding the bid of a <ilipino, there is no 0uestion that the <ilipino will ha&e to be allowed to 7atch the bid of the foreign entity' And if the <ilipino 7atches the bid of a foreign fir7 the award should go to the <ilipino' +t 7ust be so if we are to gi&e life and 7eaning to the =ilipino =irst $olic" pro&ision of the 1247 %onstitution' <or, while this 7ay neither be e9pressly stated nor conte7plated in the bidding rules, the constitutional fiat is, o7nipresent to be si7ply disregarded' To ignore it would be to sanction a perilous sBirting of the basic law' This %ourt does not discount the apprehension that this policy 7ay discourage foreign in&estors' $ut the %onstitution and laws of the hilippines are understood to be always open to public scrutiny' These are gi&en factors which in&estors 7ust consider when &enturing into business in a foreign =urisdiction' Any person therefore desiring to do business in the hilippines or with any of its agencies or instru7entalities is presu7ed to Bnow his rights and obligations under the %onstitution and the laws of the foru7' The argu7ent of respondents that petitioner is now estopped fro7 0uestioning the sale to Renong $erhad since petitioner was well aware fro7 the beginning that a foreigner could participate in the bidding is 7eritless' *ndoubtedly, <ilipinos and foreigners aliBe were in&ited to the bidding' $ut foreigners 7ay be awarded the sale only if no <ilipino 0ualifies, or if the 0ualified <ilipino fails to 7atch the highest bid tendered by the foreign entity' +n the case before us, while petitioner was already preferred at the inception of the bidding because of the constitutional 7andate, petitioner had not yet 7atched the bid offered by Renong $erhad' Thus it did not ha&e the right or personality then to co7pel respondent 1S+S to accept its earlier bid' Rightly, only after it had 7atched the bid of the foreign fir7 and the apparent disregard by respondent 1S+S of petitionerDs 7atching bid did the latter ha&e a cause of action' $esides, there is no ti7e fra7e for in&oBing the constitutional safeguard unless perhaps the award has been finally 7ade' To insist on selling the !anila Cotel to foreigners when there is a <ilipino group willing to 7atch the bid of the foreign group is to insist that go&ern7ent be treated as any other ordinary 7arBet player, and bound by its 7istaBes or gross errors of =udg7ent, regardless of the conse0uences to the <ilipino people' The 7isco7prehension of the %onstitution is regrettable' Thus we would rather re7edy the indiscretion while there is still an opportunity to do so than let the go&ern7ent de&elop the habit of forgetting that the %onstitution lays down the basic conditions and para7eters for its actions' Since petitioner has already 7atched the bid price tendered by Renong $erhad pursuant to the bidding rules, respondent 1S+S is left with no alternati&e but to award to petitioner the blocB of shares of !C% and to e9ecute the necessary agree7ents and docu7ents to effect the sale in accordance not only with the bidding guidelines and procedures but with the %onstitution as well' The refusal of respondent 1S+S to e9ecute the corresponding docu7ents with petitioner as pro&ided in the bidding rules after the latter has 7atched the bid of the !alaysian fir7 clearly constitutes gra&e abuse of discretion' The =ilipino =irst $olic" is a product of hilippine nationalis7' +t is e7bodied in the 1247 %onstitution not 7erely to be used as a guideline for future legislation but pri7arily to be enforced@ so 7ust it be enforced' This %ourt as the ulti7ate guardian of the %onstitution will ne&er shun, under any reasonable circu7stance, the duty of upholding the

7a=esty of the %onstitution which it is tasBed to defend' +t is worth e7phasi?ing that it is not the intention of this %ourt to i7pede and di7inish, 7uch less under7ine, the influ9 of foreign in&est7ents' <ar fro7 it, the %ourt encourages and welco7es 7ore business opportunities but a&owedly sanctions the preference for <ilipinos whene&er such preference is ordained by the %onstitution' The position of the %ourt on this 7atter could ha&e not been 7ore appropriately articulated by %hief 6ustice #ar&asa E As scrupulously as it has tried to obser&e that it is not its function to substitute its =udg7ent for that of the legislature or the e9ecuti&e about the wisdo7 and feasibility of legislation econo7ic in nature, the Supre7e %ourt has not been spared criticis7 for decisions percei&ed as obstacles to econo7ic progress and de&elop7ent ' ' ' in connection with a te7porary in=unction issued by the %ourtDs <irst :i&ision against the sale of the !anila Cotel to a !alaysian <ir7 and its partner, certain state7ents were published in a 7a=or daily to the effect that in=unction ;again de7onstrates that the hilippine legal syste7 can be a 7a=or obstacle to doing business here'
)et it be stated for the record once again that while it is no business of the %ourt to inter&ene in contracts of the Bind referred to or set itself up as the =udge of whether they are &iable or attainable, it is its bounden duty to 7aBe sure that they do not &iolate the %onstitution or the laws, or are not adopted or i7ple7ented with gra&e abuse of discretion a7ounting to lacB or e9cess of =urisdiction' +t will ne&er shirB that duty, no 7atter how buffeted by winds of unfair and ill,infor7ed criticis7' 4?

ri&ati?ation of a business asset for purposes of enhancing its business &iability and pre&enting further losses, regardless of the character of the asset, should not taBe precedence o&er non,7aterial &alues' A co77ercial, nay e&en a budgetary, ob=ecti&e should not be pursued at the e9pense of national pride and dignity' <or the %onstitution enshrines higher and nobler non,7aterial &alues' +ndeed, the %ourt will always defer to the %onstitution in the proper go&ernance of a free society@ after all, there is nothing so sacrosanct in any econo7ic policy as to draw itself beyond =udicial re&iew when the %onstitution is in&ol&ed' 49 #ationalis7 is inherent, in the &ery concept of the hilippines being a de7ocratic and republican state, with so&ereignty residing in the <ilipino people and fro7 who7 all go&ern7ent authority e7anates' +n nationalis7, the happiness and welfare of the people 7ust be the goal' The nation,state can ha&e no higher purpose' Any interpretation of any constitutional pro&ision 7ust adhere to such basic concept' rotection of foreign in&est7ents, while laudible, is 7erely a policy' +t cannot o&erride the de7ands of nationalis7' )@ The !anila Cotel or, for that 7atter, .1Q of the !C%, is not =ust any co77odity to be sold to the highest bidder solely for the saBe of pri&ati?ation' We are not talBing about an ordinary piece of property in a co77ercial district' We are talBing about a historic relic that has hosted 7any of the 7ost i7portant e&ents in the short history of the hilippines as a nation' We are talBing about a hotel where heads of states would prefer to be housed as a strong 7anifestation of their desire to cloaB the dignity of the highest state function to their official &isits to the hilippines' Thus the !anila Cotel has played and continues to play a significant role as an authentic repository of twentieth century hilippine history and culture' +n this sense, it has beco7e truly a reflection of the <ilipino soul E a place ,it) a )istor" of grandeur> a most )istorical setting t)at )as pla"ed a part in t)e s)aping of a countr" ' )1 This %ourt cannot e9tract rhy7e nor reason fro7 the deter7ined efforts of respondents to sell the historical land7arB E this Grand ld (ame of hotels in Asia E to a total stranger' <or, indeed, the con&eyance of this epic e9ponent of the <ilipino psyche to alien hands cannot be less than 7ephistophelian for it is, in whate&er 7anner &iewed, a &eritable alienation of a nationDs soul for so7e pieces of foreign sil&er' And so we asB8 What ad&antage, which cannot be e0ually drawn fro7 a 0ualified <ilipino, can be gained by the <ilipinos !anila Cotel E and all that it stands for E is sold to a non,<ilipinoH Cow 7uch of national pride will &anish if the nationDs cultural heritage is entrusted to a foreign entityH (n the other hand, how 7uch dignity will be preser&ed and reali?ed if the national patri7ony is safeBept in the hands of a 9ualified, ?ealous and well,7eaning <ilipinoH This is the plain and si7ple 7eaning of the =ilipino =irst $olic" pro&ision of the hilippine %onstitution' And this %ourt, heeding the clarion call of the %onstitution and accepting the duty of being the elderly watch7an of the nation, will continue to respect and protect the sanctity of the %onstitution' WC"R"<(R", respondents 1(A"R#!"#T S"RA+%" +#S*RA#%" SLST"!, !A#+)A C(T") %(R (RAT+(#, %(!!+TT"" (# R+AAT+MAT+(# and (<<+%" (< TC" 1(A"R#!"#T %(R (RAT" %(*#S") are directed to %"AS" and :"S+ST fro7 selling .1Q of the shares of the !anila Cotel %orporation to R"#(#1 $"RCA:, and to A%%" T the 7atching bid of petitioner !A#+)A R+#%" C(T") %(R (RAT+(# to purchase the sub=ect .1Q of the shares of the !anila Cotel %orporation at 33'00 per share and thereafter to e9ecute the necessary clearances and to do such other acts and deeds as 7ay be necessary for purpose' S( (R:"R":' Regalado, (avide, Jr., Romero, .apunan, =rancisco and Aermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.

S40ara14 O0.*.o*/

PA%"LLA, J., concurring8 + concur with the ponencia of !r' 6ustice $ellosillo' At the sa7e ti7e, + would liBe to e9pound a bit 7ore on the concept of national patri7ony as including within its scope and 7eaning institutions such as the !anila Cotel' +t is argued by petitioner that the !anila Cotel co7es under ;national patri7ony; o&er which 0ualified <ilipinos ha&e the preference, in ownership and operation' The %onstitutional pro&ision on point states8 999 999 999
+n the grant of rights, pri&ileges, and concessions co&ering the national econo7y and patri7ony, the State shall 1i&e preference to 0ualified <ilipinos' 1

etitionerDs argu7ent, + belie&e, is well taBen' *nder the 1247 %onstitution, ;national patri7ony; consists of the natural resources pro&ided by Al7ighty 1od - rea7ble/ in our territory -Article +/ consisting of land, sea, and air' 2study of the 123. %onstitution, where the concept of ;national patri7ony; originated, would show that its fra7ers decided to adopt the e&en 7ore co7prehensi&e e9pression ; atri7ony of the #ation; in the belief that the phrase encircles a concept e7bracing not only their natural resources of the country but practically e&erything that belongs to the <ilipino people, the tangible and the 7aterial as well as the intangible and the spiritual assets and possessions of the people' +t is to be noted that the fra7ers did not stop with conser&ation' They Bnew that conser&ation alone does not spell progress@ and that this 7ay be achie&ed only through de&elop7ent as a correlati&e factor to assure to the people not only the e9clusi&e ownership, but also the e9clusi&e benefits of their national patri7ony/' 3 !oreo&er, the concept of national patri7ony has been &iewed as referring not only to our rich natural resources but also to the cultural heritage of our race' 4 There is no doubt in 7y 7ind that the !anila Cotel is &ery 7uch a part of our national patri7ony and, as such, deser&es constitutional protection as to who shall own it and benefit fro7 its operation' This institution has played an i7portant role in our nationDs history, ha&ing been the &enue of 7any a historical e&ent, and ser&ing as it did, and as it does, as the hilippine 1uest Couse for &isiting foreign heads of state, dignitaries, celebrities, and others' ) +t is therefore our duty to protect and preser&e it for future generations of <ilipinos' As resident !anuel )' Iue?on once said, we 7ust e9ploit the natural resources of our country, but we should do so with' an eye to the welfare of the future generations' +n other words, the leaders of today are the trustees of the patri7ony of our race' To preser&e our national patri7ony and reser&e it for <ilipinos was the intent of the distinguished gentle7en who first fra7ed our %onstitution' Thus, in debating the need for nationali?ation of our lands and natural resources, one e9pounded that we should ;put 7ore teeth into our laws, and@ not 7aBe the nationali?ation of our lands and natural resources a sub=ect of ordinary legislation but of constitutional enact7ent; 6 To 0uote further8 ;)et not our children be 7ere tenants and trespassers in their own country' )et us preser&e and be0ueath to the7 what is rightfully theirs, free fro7 all foreign liens and encu7brances;' 7 #ow, a word on preference' +n 7y &iew ;preference to 0ualified <ilipinos;, to be 7eaningful, 7ust refer not only to things that are peripheral, collateral, or tangential' +t 7ust touch and affect the &ery ;heart of the e9isting order'; +n the field of public bidding in the ac0uisition of things that pertain to the national patri7ony, preference to 0ualified <ilipinos 7ust allow a 0ualified <ilipino to 7atch or e0ual the higher bid of a non,<ilipino@ the preference shall not operate only when the bids of the 0ualified <ilipino and the non,<ilipino are e0ual in which case, the award should undisputedly be 7ade to the 0ualified <ilipino' The %onstitutional preference should gi&e the 0ualified <ilipino an opportunity to 7atch or e0ual the higher bid of the non,<ilipino bidder if the preference of the 0ualified <ilipino bidder is to be significant at all' +t is true that in this present age of globali?ation of attitude towards foreign in&est7ents in our country, stress is on the eli7ination of barriers to foreign trade and in&est7ent in the country' While go&ern7ent agencies, including the courts should re,condition their thinBing to such a trend, and 7aBe it easy and e&en attracti&e for foreign in&estors to co7e to our shores, yet we should not preclude oursel&es fro7 reser&ing to us <ilipinos certain areas where our national identity, culture and heritage are in&ol&ed' +n the hotel industry, for instance, foreign in&estors ha&e established the7sel&es creditably, such as in the Shangri,)a, the #iBBo, the eninsula, and !andarin Cotels' This should not stop us fro7 retaining .1Q of the capital stocB of the !anila Cotel %orporation in the hands of <ilipinos' This would be in Beeping with the intent of the <ilipino people to preser&e our national patri7ony, including our historical and cultural heritage in the hands of <ilipinos'

G.R. No. L-234?

$4<r5ar2 27, 19)@

GREGOR"O PER$ECTO, plaintiff,appellee, &s' ("("ANO MEER, Co994c1or o8 "*14r*a9 R464*54, defendant,appellant' =irst Assistant Solicitor General Ro*erto A. Gianzon and Solicitor =rancisco +arreon for oppositor and appellant. Gregorio Perfecto in )is o,n *e)alf. (ENG&ON, J.C +n April, 1237 the %ollector of +nternal Re&enue re0uired !r' 6ustice 1regorio P4r84c1o to pay inco7e ta9 upon his salary as 7e7ber of this %ourt during the year 1235' After paying the a7ount - 402/, he instituted this action in the !anila %ourt of <irst +nstance contending that the assess7ent was illegal, his salary not being ta9able for the reason that i7position of ta9es thereon would reduce it in &iolation of the %onstitution' The !anila =udge upheld his contention, and re0uired the refund of the a7ount collected' The defendant appealed' The death of !r' 6ustice P4r84c1o has freed us fro7 the e7barrass7ent of passing upon the clai7 of a colleague' Still, as the outco7e indirectly affects all the 7e7bers of the %ourt, consideration of the 7atter is not without its &e9ing feature' Let ad=udication 7ay not be declined, because -a/ we are not legally dis0ualified@ -b/ =urisdiction 7ay not be renounced, ad it is the defendant who appeals to this %ourt, and there is no other tribunal to which the contro&ersy 7ay be referred@ -c/ supre7e courts in the *nited States ha&e decided si7ilar disputes relating to the7sel&es@ -d/ the 0uestion touches all the 7e7bers of the =udiciary fro7 top to botto7@ and -e/ the issue in&ol&es the right of other constitutional officers whose co7pensation is e0ually protected by the %onstitution, for instance, the resident, the Auditor,1eneral and the 7e7bers of the %o77ission on "lections' Anyway the sub=ect has been thoroughly discussed in 7any A7erican lawsuits and opinions, and we shall hardly do nothing 7ore than to borrow therefro7 and to co7pare their conclusions to local conditions' There shall be little occasion to for7ulate new propositions, for the situation is not unprecedented' (ur %onstitution pro&ides in its Article A+++, section 2, that the 7e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt and all =udges of inferior courts ;shall recei&e such co7pensation as 7ay be fi9ed by law, which shall not be di7inished during their continuance in office'; +t also pro&ides that ;until %ongress shall pro&ide otherwise, the %hief 6ustice of the Supre7e %ourt shall recei&e an annual co7pensation of si9teen thousand pesos;' When in 123. !r' 6usticeP4r84c1o assu7ed office, %ongress had not ;pro&ided otherwise;, by fi9ing a different salary for associate =ustices' Ce recei&ed salary at the rate pro&ided by the %onstitution, i'e', fifteen thousand pesos a year' #ow, does the i7position of an inco7e ta9 upon this salary in 1235 a7ount to a di7inution thereofH' A note found at page .33 of &olu7e 11 of the A7erican )aw Reports answers the 0uestion in the affir7ati&e' +t says8 Where the %onstitution of a state pro&ides that the salaries of its =udicial officers shall not be dis7issed during their continuance in office, it had been held that the state legislature cannot i7pose a ta9 upon the co7pensation paid to the =udges of its court' #ew (rleans 6' )ea -14.2/ 13 )a' Ann' 123@ (pinion of Attorney,1eneral if #' %' -14.5/ 34 #' %' -3 6ones, )'/ App9' 1@ Re Ta9ation of Salaries of 6udges -1202/ 131 #' %' 522, 32 S' "' 270@ %o7' e9' rel' Cepburn 6' !ann -1433/ . Watts P S,' - a'/ 303 Fbut see to the contrary the earlier and 7uch critici?ed case of #orthu7berland county 6' %hap7an -1422/ 2 Rawle - a'/ 73GS A different rule pre&ails in Wisconsin, according to the sa7e annotation' Another state holding the contrary &iew is !issouri' The %onstitution of the *nited States, liBes ours, forbids the di7inution of the co7pensation of 6udges of the Supre7e %ourt and of inferior courts' The <ederal 1o&ern7ents has an inco7e ta9 law' :oes it e7brace the salaries of federal =udgesH +n answering this 0uestion, we should consider four periods8 <irst period' #o atte7pts was 7ade to ta9 the co7pensation of <ederal =udges up to 1452 1' Second period' 1452,1214' +n 6uly, 1452, a statute was passed sub=ecting the salaries of ;ci&il officers of the *nited States; to an inco7e ta9 of three per cent' Re&enue officers, construed it as including the co7pensation of all =udges@ but %hief 6ustice Taney, speaBing for the =udiciary, wrote to the Secretary of the Treasury a letter of protest saying, a7ong other things8

The act in 0uestion, as you interpret it, di7inishes the co7pensation of e&ery =udge 3 per cent, and if it can be di7inished to that e9tent by the na7e of a ta9, it 7ay, in the sa7e way, be reduced fro7 ti7e to ti7e, at the pleasure of the legislature' The =udiciary is one of the three great depart7ents of the go&ern7ent, created and established by the %onstitution' +ts duties and powers are specifically set forth, and are of a character that re0uires it to be perfectly independent of the two other depart7ents, and in order to place it beyond the reach and abo&e e&en the suspicion of any such influence, the power to reduce their co7pensation is e9pressly withheld fro7 %ongress, and e9cepted fro7 their powers of legislation' )anguage could not be 7ore plain than that used in the %onstitution' +t is, 7oreo&er, one of its 7ost i7portant and essential pro&isions' <or the articles which li7its the powers of the legislati&e and e9ecuti&e branches of the go&ern7ent, and those which pro&ide safeguards for the protection of the citi?en in his person and property, would be of little &alue without a =udiciary to uphold and 7aintain the7, which was free fro7 e&ery influence, direct and indirect, that 7ight by possibility in ti7es of political e9cite7ent warp their =udg7ents' *pon these grounds + regard an act of %ongress retaining in the Treasury a portion of the %o7pensation of the =udges, as unconstitutional and &oid2' The protest was unheeded, although it apparently bore the appro&al of the whole Supre7e %ourt, that ordered it printed a7ong its records' $ut in 1452 Attorney,1eneral Coar upon the re0uest of the Secretary of the Treasury rendered an opinion agreeing with the %hief 6ustice' The collection of the ta9 was conse0uently discontinued and the a7ounts theretofore recei&ed were all refunded' <or half a century thereafter =udgesD salaries were not ta9ed as inco7e'3 Third period' 1212,1234' The <ederal +nco7e Ta9 Act of <ebruary 23, 1212 e9pressly pro&ided that ta9able inco7e shall include ;the co7pensation of the =udges of the Supre7e %ourt and inferior courts of the *nited States;' *nder such Act, Walter "&ans, *nited States =udge since 1422, paid inco7e ta9 on his salary@ and 7aintaining that the i7post reduced his co7pensation, he sued to reco&er the 7oney he had deli&ered under protest' Ce was upheld in 1220 by the Supre7e %ourt in an epoch,7aBing decision' S, e9plaining the purpose, history and 7eaning of the %onstitutional pro&ision forbidding i7pair7ent of =udicial salaries and the effect of an inco7e ta9 upon the salary of a =udge' With what purpose does the %onstitution pro&ide that the co7pensation of the =udges ;shall not be di7inished during their continuance in office;H +s it pri7arily to benefit the =udges, or rather to pro7ote the public weal by gi&ing the7 that independence which 7aBes for an i7partial and courageous discharge of the =udicial functionH :oes the pro&ision 7erely forbid direct di7inution, such as e9pressly reducing the co7pensation fro7 a greater to a less su7 per year, and thereby lea&e the way open for indirect, yet effecti&e, di7inution, such as withholding or calling bacB a part as ta9 on the wholeH (r does it 7ean that the =udge shall ha&e a sure and continuing right to the co7pensation, whereon he confidently 7ay rely for his support during his continuance in office, so that he need ha&e no apprehension lest his situation in this regard 7ay be changed to his disad&antageH The %onstitution was fra7ed on the funda7ental theory that a larger 7easure of liberty and =ustice would be assured by &esting the three powers E the legislati&e, the e9ecuti&e, and the =udicial E in separate depart7ents, each relati&ely independent of the others and it was recogni?ed that without this independence E if it was not 7ade both real and enduring E the separation would fail of its purpose' all agreed that restraints and checBs 7ust be i7posed to secure the re0uisite 7easure of independence@ for otherwise the legislati&e depart7ent, inherently the strongest, 7ight encroach on or e&en co7e to do7inate the others, and the =udicial, naturally the weaBest, 7ight be dwarf or swayed by the other two, especially by the legislati&e' The particular need for 7aBing the =udiciary independent was elaborately pointed our by Ale9ander Ca7ilton in the <ederalist, #o' 74, fro7 which we e9cerpt the following8 999 999 999

At a later period 6ohn !arshall, whose rich e9perience as lawyer, legislator, and chief =ustice enable hi7 to speaB as no one else could, tersely said -debates Aa' 1on&' 1422,1431, pp' 515, 512/8 ' ' ' (ur courts are the balance wheel of our whole constitutional syste7@ and our is the only constitutional syste7 so balanced and controlled' (ther constitutional syste7s lacBs co7plete poise and certainly of operation because they lacB the support and interpretation of authoritati&e, undisputable courts of law' +t is clear beyond all need of e9position that for the definite 7aintenance of constitutional understandings it is indispensable, aliBe for the preser&ation of the liberty of the indi&idual and for the preser&ation of the integrity of the powers of the go&ern7ent, that there should be so7e nonpolitical foru7 in which those understandings can be i7partially debated and deter7ined' That foru7 our courts supply' There the indi&idual 7ay assert his rights@ there the go&ern7ent 7ust accept definition of its authority' There the indi&idual 7ay challenge the legality of go&ern7ental action and ha&e it ad=udged by the test of funda7ental principles, and that test the

go&ern7ent 7ust abide@ there the go&ern7ent can checB the too aggressi&e self,assertion of the indi&idual and establish its power upon lines which all can co7prehend and heed' The constitutional powers of the courts constitute the ulti7ate safeguard aliBe of indi&idual pri&ilege and of go&ern7ental prerogati&e' +t is in this sense that our =udiciary is the balance wheel of our entire syste7@ it is 7eant to 7aintain that nice ad=ust7ent between indi&idual rights and go&ern7ental powers which constitutes political liberty' %onstitutional go&ern7ent in the *nited States, pp' 17, 132' %onscious in the nature and scope of the power being &ested in the national courts, recogni?ing that they would be charge with responsibilities 7ore delicate and i7portant than any e&er before confide to =udicial tribunals, and appreciating that they were to be, in the words of 1eorge Washington, ;the Beystone of our political fabric;, the con&ention with unusual accord incorporated in the %onstitution the pro&ision that the =udges ;shall hold their offices during good beha&ior, and shall at stated ti7es recei&e for their ser&ices a co7pensation which shall not be di7inished during their continuance in office'; %an there be any doubt that the two things thus coupled in place E the clause in respect of tenure during good beha&iour and that in respect of an undi7inishable co7pensation,were e0ually coupled in purposeH And is it not plain that their purposes was to in&est the =udges with an independence in Beeping with the delicacy and i7portance of their tasB, and with the i7perati&e need for its i7partial and fearless perfor7anceH !r' Ca7ilton said in e9planation and support of the pro&ision -<ederalist #o' 72/8 ;#e9t to per7anency in office, nothing can contribute 7ore to the independence of the =udges than a fi9ed pro&ision for their support' ' ' ' +n the general course of hu7an nature, a power o&er a 7anDs subsistence a7ounts to a power o&er his will' 999 999 999

These considerations 7aBe it &ery plain, as we thinB, that the pri7ary purpose of the prohibition against di7inution was not to benefit the =udges, but, liBe the clause in respect of tenure, to attract good and co7petent 7en to the bench, and to pro7ote that independence of action and =udg7ent which is essential to the 7aintenance of the guaranties, li7itations, and per&ading principles of the constitution, and to the ad7iration of =ustice without respect to persons, and with e0ual concern for the poor and the rich' 999 999 999

$ut it is urged that what plaintiff was 7ade to pay bacB was an inco7e ta9, and that a liBe ta9 was e9acted of others engaged in pri&ate e7ploy7ent' +f the ta9 in respect of his co7pensation be prohibited, it can find no =ustification in the ta9ation of other inco7e as to which there is no prohibition, for, of course, doing what the %onstitution per7its gi&es no license to do what it prohibits' The prohibition is general, contains no e9cepting words, and appears to be directed against all di7inution, whether for one purpose or another@ and the reason for its adoption, as publicly assigned at the ti7e and co77only accepted e&er since, 7aBe with i7pelling force for the conclusion that the fathers of the %onstitution intended to prohibit di7inution by ta9ation as well as otherwise, that they regarded the independence of the =udges as of far greater i7portance than any re&enue that could co7e fro7 ta9ing their salaries' -A7erican law Reports, annotated, Aol' 11, pp' .22,2.@ "&ans &s' 1ore, supra'/ +n Septe7ber 1, 1212, Sa7uel 6' 1raha7 assu7ed office as =udge of the *nites States court of clai7s' Cis salary was ta9ed by &irtue of the sa7e ti7e inco7e ta9 of <ebruary 23, 1212' At the ti7e he 0ualified, a statute fi9ed his salary at 7,.00' Ce filed action for rei7burse7ent, sub7itting the sa7e theory on which "&ans 6' 1ore had been decided' The Supre7e %ourt of the *nited States in 122. reaffir7ed that decision' +t o&erruled the distinction offered by Solicitor,1eneral $ecB that 6udge 1raha7 tooB office after the inco7e ta9 had been le&ied on =udicial salaries, -"&ans 0ualified before/, and that %ongress had power ;to i7pose ta9es which should apply to the salaries of <ederal =udges appointed after the enact7ent of the ta9ing statute'; -The law had 7ade no distinction as to =udges appointed before or after its passage/ <ourth period' 1232 E <oiled in their pre&ious atte7pts, the Re&enue 7en persisted, and succeeded in inserting in the *nited States Re&enue Act of 6une, 1232 the 7odified pro&iso that ;gross inco7e; on which ta9es were payable included the co7pensation ;of =udges of courts of the *nited States taBing office after June 3, 4;28;' 6oseph W' Woodrough 0ualified as *nited States circuit =udge on !ay 1, 1233' Cis salary as =udge was ta9ed, and before the Supre7e %ourt of the *nited States the issue of decrease of re7uneration again ca7e up' That court, howe&er, ruled against hi7, declaring -in 1232/ that %ongress had the power to adopt the law' +t said8 The 0uestion i77ediately before us is whether %ongress e9ceeded its constitutional power in pro&iding that *nited States =udges appointed after the Re&enue Act of 1232 shall not en=oy i77unity fro7 the incidence of ta9ation to which e&eryone else within the defined classes of inco7e is sub=ected' Thereby, of course, %ongress has co77itted itself to the position that a non,discri7inatory ta9 laid generally on net inco7e is not, when applied to the inco7e of federal =udge, a di7inution of his salary within the prohibition of Article 3, Sec' 1 of the %onstitution' To suggest that it 7aBes inroads upon the independence of =udges who tooB office after the %ongress has thus charged the7 with the co77on duties of citi?enship, by 7aBing the7 bear their ali0uot share of the cost of 7aintaining the 1o&ern7ent, is to tri&iali?e the great historic

e9perience on which the fra7ers based the safeguards of Article 3, Sec' 1' To sub=ect the7 to a general ta9 is 7erely to recogni?e that =udges also are citi?ens, and that their particular function in go&ern7ent does not generate an i77unity fro7 sharing with their fellow citi?ens the 7aterial burden of the go&ern7ent whose %onstitution and laws they are charged with ad7inistering' -(D!alley &s' Woodrough, .2 S' %t' 434, A' )' R' 1372'/ #ow, the case for the defendant,appellant %ollector of +nternal Re&enue is pre7ised 7ainly on this decision -#ote A/' Ce clai7s it holds ;that federal =udges are sub=ect to the pay7ent of inco7e ta9es without &iolating the constitutional prohibition against the reduction of their salaries during their continuance in office;, and that it ;is a co7plete repudiation of the ratio decidenci of &vans vs. Gore;' To grasp the full i7port of the (D!alley precedent, we should bear in 7ind that8 1' +t does not entirely o&erturn !iles &s' 1raha7' ;To t)e e!tent that what the %ourt now says is inconsistent with what said in Miles vs. Gra)am, the latter can not sur&i&e;, 6ustice <ranBfurter announced' 2' +t does not e9pressly touch nor a7end the doctrine in &vans vs, Gore, although it indicates that the %ongressional Act in dispute a&oided in part the conse0uences of that case' %arefully analy?ing the three cases -"&ans, !iles and (D!alley/ and piecing the7 together, the logical conclusion 7ay be reached that although %ongress 7ay &alidly declare by law that salaries of =udges appointed t)ereaftershall be ta9ed as inco7e -(D!alley &s' Woodrough/ it 7ay not ta9 the salaries of those =udges alread" in office at the ti7e of such declaration because such ta9ation would di7inish their salaries -"&ans &s' 1ore@ !iles &s' 1raha7/' +n this 7anner the rationali?ing principle that will har7oni?e the allegedly discordant decision 7ay be condensed' $y the way, 6ustice <ranBfurter, writing the (D!alley decision, says the "&ans precedent 7et with disfa&or fro7 legal scholarship opinion' "9a7ining the issues of Car&ard )aw re&iew at the ti7e of &vans vs. Gore -<ranBfurter is a Car&ard graduate and professor/, we found that such school publication critici?ed it' $elie&ing this to be the ;inarticulate consideration that 7ay ha&e influenced the grounds on which the case went off; 3, we looBed into the criticis7, and disco&ered that it was predicated on the position that the 15th A7end7ent e7powered %ongress ;to collect ta9es on inco7es fro7 whate&er source deri&ed; admitting of no e9ception' Said the Car&ard )aw 6ournal8 +n the recent case of "&ans &s' 1ore the Supre7e %ourt of the *nited States decided that by ta9ing the salary of a federal =udge as a part of his inco7e, %ongress was in effect reducing his salary and thus &iolating Art' +++, sec' 1, of the %onstitution' Ad7itting for the present purpose that such a ta9 really is a reduction of salary, e&en so it would see7 that the words of the a7end7ent gi&ing power to ta9 Dinco7es, fro7 whate&er source deri&edD, are sufficiently strong to o&errule pro tanto the pro&isions of Art' +++, sec' 1' $ut, two years ago, the court had already suggested that the a7end7ent in no way e9tended the sub=ects open to federal ta9ation' The decision in "&ans &s' 1ore affir7s that &iew, and &irtually striBes fro7 the a7end7ent the words ;fro7 whate&er source deri&ed;' -Car&ard law Re&iew, &ol' 33, p' 70/ The *nites States %ourtDs shift of position. 7ight be attributed to the abo&e detraction which, without appearing on the surface, led to <ranBfurterDs sweeping e9pression about =udges being also citi?ens liable to inco7e ta9' $ut it 7ust be re7e7bered that undisclosed factor E the 15th A7end7ent E has no counterpart in the hilippine legal syste7' (ur %onstitution does not repeat it' Wherefore, as the underlying influence and the unuttered reason has no &alidity in this =urisdiction, the broad generality loses 7uch of its force' Anyhow the (D!alley case declares no 7ore than that %ongress ma" validl" enact a la, ta9ing the salaries of =udges appointed after its passage' Cere in the hilippines no such law has been appro&ed' $esides, it is 7arBworthy that, as 6udge Woodrough had 0ualified after t)e e!press legislative declaration ta9ing salaries, he could not &ery well co7plain' The *nited States Supre7e %ourt probably had in 7ind what in other cases was 7aintained, na7ely, that the ta9 le&ied on the salary in effect decreased the e7olu7ents of the office and therefore the =udge 0ualified ,it) suc) reduced emoluments'5 The (D!alley ruling does not co&er the situation in which =udges already in office are 7ade to pay ta9 by e9ecuti&e interpretation, without e9press legislati&e declaration' That state of affairs is controlled by the ad7inistrati&e and =udicial standards herein,before described in the ;second period; of the <ederal 1o&ern7ent, na7ely, the &iews of %hief 6ustice Taney and of Attorney,1eneral Coar and the constant practice fro7 1452 to 1234, i'e', when the +nco7e Ta9 )aw 7erely ta9es ;inco7e; in general, it does not include salaries of =udges protected fro7 di7inution' +n this connection the respondent would 7aBe capital of the circu7stance that the Act of 1232, upheld in the (D!alley case, has subse0uently been a7ended by 7aBing it applicable e&en to =udges ,)o too# office *efore1232' This shows, the appellant argues, that %ongress interprets the (D!alley ruling to per7it legislati&e ta9ation of the salary of =udges whether appointed before the ta9 or after' The answer to this is that the <ederal Supre7e %ourt e9pressly withheld opinion on that a7end7ent in the (D!alley case' Which is significant' Anyway, and again, there is here no congressional directi&e ta9ing =udgesD salaries' Wherefore, unless and until our )egislature appro&es an a7end7ent to the +nco7e Ta9 )aw e9pressly ta9ing ;that salaries of =udges thereafter appointed;, the (D!alley case is not rele&ant' As in the *nited States during the second

period, we 7ust hold that salaries of =udges are not included in the word ;inco7e; ta9ed by the +nco7e Ta9 )aw' Two para7ount circu7stances 7ay additionally be indicated, to wit8 <irst, when the +nco7e Ta9 )aw was first applied to the hilippines 1213, ta9able ;inco7e; did not include salaries of =udicial officers when these are protected fro7 di7inution' That was the pre&ailing official belief in the *nited States, which 7ust be dee7ed to ha&e been transplanted here@7 and second, when the hilippine %onstitutional %on&ention appro&ed -in 123./ the prohibition against di7inution off the =udgesD co7pensation, the <ederal principle was Bnown that inco7e ta9 on =udicial salaries really i7pairs the7' &vans vs. Gore and Miles vs. Gra)am were then outstanding doctrines@ and the inference is not illogical that in restraining the i7pair7ent of =udicial co7pensation the <athers of the %onstitution intended to preclude ta9ation of the sa7e'4 +t see7s that prior to the (D!alley decision the hilippine 1o&ern7ent did not collect inco7e ta9 on salaries of =udges' This 7ay be gleaned fro7 1eneral %ircular #o' 332 of the :epart7ent of <inance dated !arch 3, 1230, which says in part8 999 999 999

The 0uestion of whether or not the salaries of =udges should be taBen into account in co7puting additional residence ta9es is closely linBed with the liability of =udges to inco7e ta9 on their salaries, in fact, whate&er resolution is adopted with respect to either of said ta9es be followed with respect to the other' The opinion of the Supre7e %ourt of the *nited States in the case of 0Malle" v. /oodroug), .2 S' %t' 434, to which the attention of this depart7ent has been drawn, appears to ha&e enunciated a new doctrine regarding the liability of =udges to inco7e ta9 upon their salaries' +n &iew of the fact that the 0uestion is of great significance, the 7atter was taBen up in the %ouncil of State, and the Conorable, the Secretary of 6ustice was re0uested to gi&e an opinion on whether or not, ha&ing in 7ind the said decision of the Supre7e %ourt of the *nited States in the case of 0Malle" v. /oodroug), there is =ustification in reversing our present ruling to t)e effect t)at 6udges are not lia*le to ta! on t)eir salaries ' After going o&er the opinion of the court in the said case, the Conorable, the Secretary of 6ustice, stated that although the ruling of the Supre7e %ourt of the *nited States is not binding in the hilippines, the doctrine therein enunciated )as resolved t)e issue of t)e ta!a*ilit" of 6udges0 salaries into a 9uestion of polic" ' <orthwith, Cis "9cellency the resident decided that the best policy to adopt would be to collect inco7e and additional residence ta9es fro7 the resident of the hilippines, the 7e7bers of the 6udiciary, and the Auditor 1eneral, and the undersigned was authori?ed to act accordingly' +n &iew of the foregoing, inco7e and additional residence ta9es should be le&ied on the salaries recei&ed by the resident of the hilippines, 7e7bers of the 6udiciary, and the Auditor 1eneral during the calendar year 1232 and thereafter' ' ' ' ' -"7phasis ours'/ (f course, the Secretary of 6ustice correctly opined that the (D!alley decision ;resol&ed the issue of ta9ability of =udgesD salaries into a 9uestion of polic"'; $ut that policy 7ust be enunciated by %ongressional enact7ent, as was done in the (D!alley case, not by "9ecuti&e <iat or interpretation' This is not proclai7ing a general ta9 i77unity for 7en on the bench' These pay ta9es' *pon buying gasoline, or other co77odities, they pay the corresponding duties' (wning real property, they pay ta9es thereon' And on inco7es other than their =udicial salary, assess7ents are le&ied' +t is only when the ta9 is charged directly on their salary and the effect of the ta9 is to di7inish their official stipend E that the ta9ation 7ust be resisted as an infringe7ent of the funda7ental charter' 6udges would indeed be hapless guardians of the %onstitution if they did not percei&e and blocB encroach7ents upon their prerogati&es in whate&er for7' The undi7inishable character of =udicial salaries is not a 7ere pri&ilege of =udges E personal and therefore wai&able E but a basic li7itation upon legislati&e or e9ecuti&e action i7posed in the public interest' -"&ans &s' 1ore/ +ndeed the e9e7ption of the =udicial salary fro7 reduction by ta9ation is not really a gratuity or pri&ilege' )et the highest court of !aryland speaB8 The e9e7ption of the =udicial co7pensation fro7 reduction is not in any true sense a gratuity, pri&ilege or e9e7ption' +t is essentially and pri7arily co7pensation based upon &aluable consideration' The co&enant on the part of the go&ern7ent is a guaranty whose fulfill7ent is as 7uch as part of the consideration agreed as is the 7oney salary' The undertaBing has its own particular &alue to the citi?ens in securing the independence of the =udiciary in crises@ and in the establish7ent of the co7pensation upon a per7anent foundation whereby =udicial prefer7ent 7ay be prudently accepted by those who are 0ualified by talent, Bnowledge, integrity and capacity, but are not possessed of such a pri&ate fortune as to 7aBe an assured salary an ob=ect of personal concern' (n the other hand, the 7e7bers of the =udiciary relin0uish their position at the bar, with all its professional e7olu7ents, se&er their connection with their clients, and dedicate the7sel&es e9clusi&ely to the discharge of the onerous duties of their high office' So, it is irrefutable that they guaranty against a reduction of salary by the i7position of a ta9 is not an e9e7ption fro7 ta9ation in the sense of freedo7 fro7 a burden or ser&ice to which others are liable' The e9e7ption for a public purpose or a &alid consideration is 7erely a no7inal e9e7ption, since the &alid and full consideration or the

public purpose pro7oted is recei&ed in the place of the ta9' Theory and ractice of Ta9ation -1200/, :' A' Wells, p' .31' -1ordy &s' :ennis -!d'/ 1232, . Atl' Rep' 2d Series, p' 40/ +t is hard to see, appellants asserts, how the i7position of the inco7e ta9 7ay i7peril the independence of the =udicial depart7ent' The danger 7ay be de7onstrated' Suppose there is power to ta9 the salary of =udges, and the =udiciary incurs the displeasure of the )egislature and the "9ecuti&e' +n retaliation the inco7e ta9 law is a7ended so as to le&y a 30 per cent on all salaries of go&ern7ent officials on the le&el of =udges' This naturally reduces the salary of the =udges by 30 per cent, but they 7ay not gru7ble because the ta9 is general on all recei&ing the sa7e a7ount of earning, and affects the "9ecuti&e and the )egislati&e branches in e0ual 7easure' Cowe&er, 7eans are pro&ided thereafter in other laws, for the increase of salaries of the "9ecuti&e and the )egislati&e branches, or their per0uisites such as allowances, per die7s, 0uarters, etc' that actually co7pensate for the 30 per cent reduction on their salaries' Result8 6udges co7pensation is thereby di7inished during their incu7bency thanBs to the inco7e ta9 law' %onse0uence8 6udges 7ust ;toe the line; or else' Second conse0uence8 So7e few =udges 7ight falter@ the great 7a=ority will not' $ut Bnowing the frailty of hu7an nature, and this chinB in the =udicial ar7or, will the parties losing their cases against the "9ecuti&e or the %ongress belie&e that the =udicature has not yielded to their pressureH Respondent asserts in argu7entation that by e9ecuti&e order the resident has sub=ected his salary to the inco7e ta9 law' +n our opinion this shows ob&iously that, without such &oluntary act of the resident, his salary would not be ta9able, because of constitutional protection against di7inution' To argue fro7 this e9ecuti&e gesture that the =udiciary could, and should act in liBe 7anner is to assu7e that, in the 7atter of co7pensation and power and need of security, the =udiciary is on a par with the "9ecuti&e' Such assu7ption certainly ignores the pre&ailing state of affairs' The =udg7ent will be affir7ed' So ordered'

G.R. No. 1?))72

$4<r5ar2 7, 2@12

C "NA NAT"ONAL MAC "NER# > EDU"PMENT CORP. EGROUPF, etitioner, &s' ON. CESAR %. SANTAMAR"A, .* h./ o88.c.a9 ca0ac.12 a/ Pr4/.+.*G J5+G4 o8 (ra*ch 14), R4G.o*a9 Tr.a9 Co5r1 o8 MaHa1. C.12, ERM"N"O ARR# L. RODUE, JR., JOEL R. (UTU#AN, ROGER R. RA#EL, ROMEL R. (AGARES, C R"STOP ER $RANC"SCO C. (OLAST"G, LEAGUE O$ UR(AN POOR $OR ACT"ON ELUPAF, ,"LUSAN NG MARAL"TA SA ME#CAUA#AN E,MM-LUPA C APTERF, %AN"LO M. CAL%ERON, V"CENTE C. AL(AN, MERL#N M. VAAL, LOL"TA S. DU"NONES, R"CAR%O %. LANO&O, JR., CONC "TA G. GO&O, MA. TERESA %. &EPE%A, JOSE$"NA A. LANO&O, a*+ SERG"O C. LEGASP", JR., ,AL"PUNAN NG %AMA#ANG MA " "RAP E,A%AMA#F, E%# CLER"GO, RAMM"L %"NGAL, NELSON (. TERRA%O, CARMEN %EUN"%A, a*+ E%UAR%O LEGSON, Respondents' :"%+S+(# SERENO, J.: This is a etition for Re&iew on %ertiorari with rayer for the +ssuance of a Te7porary Restraining (rder -TR(/ andJor reli7inary +n=unction assailing the 30 Septe7ber 2004 :ecision and . :ece7ber 2004 Resolution of the %ourt of Appeals -%A/ in %ATG.R' S #o' 1033.1'1 (n 13 Septe7ber 2002, petitioner %hina #ational !achinery P "0uip7ent %orp' -1roup/ -%#!"1/, represented by its chairperson, Ren Congbin, entered into a !e7orandu7 of *nderstanding with the #orth )u?on Railways %orporation -#orthrail/, represented by its president, 6ose )' %ortes, 6r' for the conduct of a feasibility study on a possible railway line fro7 !anila to San <ernando, )a *nion -the #orthrail ro=ect/' 2 (n 30 August 2003, the "9port +7port $anB of %hina -"K+! $anB/ and the :epart7ent of <inance of the hilippines -:(</ entered into a !e7orandu7 of *nderstanding -Aug 30 !(*/, wherein %hina agreed to e9tend referential $uyerUs %redit to the hilippine go&ern7ent to finance the #orthrail ro=ect' 3 The %hinese go&ern7ent designated "K+! $anB as the lender, while the hilippine go&ern7ent na7ed the :(< as the borrower' 4 *nder the Aug 30 !(*, "K+! $anB agreed to e9tend an a7ount not e9ceeding *S: 300,000,000 in fa&or of the :(<, payable in 20 years, with a .,year grace period, and at the rate of 3Q per annu7' 5 (n 1 (ctober 2003, the %hinese A7bassador to the hilippines, Wang %hungui -A7b' Wang/, wrote a letter to :(< Secretary 6ose +sidro %a7acho -Sec' %a7acho/ infor7ing hi7 of %#!"1Us designation as the ri7e %ontractor for the #orthrail ro=ect'6 (n 30 :ece7ber 2003, #orthrail and %#!"1 e9ecuted a %ontract Agree7ent for the construction of Section +, hase + of the #orth )u?on Railway Syste7 fro7 %aloocan to !alolos on a turnBey basis -the %ontract Agree7ent/'7 The contract price for the #orthrail ro=ect was pegged at *S: 321,0.0,000' 8

(n 25 <ebruary 2003, the hilippine go&ern7ent and "K+! $anB entered into a counterpart financial agree7ent T $uyer %redit )oan Agree7ent #o' $)A 030.. -the )oan Agree7ent/' 9 +n the )oan Agree7ent, "K+! $anB agreed to e9tend referential $uyerUs %redit in the a7ount of *S: 300,000,000 in fa&or of the hilippine go&ern7ent in order to finance the construction of hase + of the #orthrail ro=ect' 10 (n 13 <ebruary 2005, respondents filed a %o7plaint for Annul7ent of %ontract and +n=unction with *rgent !otion for Su77ary Cearing to :eter7ine the "9istence of <acts and %ircu7stances 6ustifying the +ssuance of Writs of reli7inary rohibitory and !andatory +n=unction andJor TR( against %#!"1, the (ffice of the "9ecuti&e Secretary, the :(<, the :epart7ent of $udget and !anage7ent, the #ational "cono7ic :e&elop7ent Authority and #orthrail'11 The case was docBeted as %i&il %ase #o' 05,203 before the Regional Trial %ourt, #ational %apital 6udicial Region, !aBati %ity, $ranch 13. -RT% $r' 13./' +n the %o7plaint, respondents alleged that the %ontract Agree7ent and the )oan Agree7ent were &oid for being contrary to -a/ the %onstitution@ -b/ Republic Act #o' 2143 -R'A' #o' 2143/, otherwise Bnown as the 1o&ern7ent rocure7ent Refor7 Act@ -c/ residential :ecree #o' 133., otherwise Bnown as the 1o&ern7ent Auditing %ode@ and -d/ "9ecuti&e (rder #o' 222, otherwise Bnown as the Ad7inistrati&e %ode'12 RT% $r' 13. issued an (rder dated 17 !arch 2005 setting the case for hearing on the issuance of in=uncti&e reliefs'13 (n 22 !arch 2005, %#!"1 filed an *rgent !otion for Reconsideration of this (rder' 14 $efore RT% $r' 13. could rule thereon, %#!"1 filed a !otion to :is7iss dated 12 April 2005, arguing that the trial court did not ha&e =urisdiction o&er -a/ its person, as it was an agent of the %hinese go&ern7ent, 7aBing it i77une fro7 suit, and -b/ the sub=ect 7atter, as the #orthrail ro=ect was a product of an e9ecuti&e agree7ent' 15 (n 1. !ay 2007, RT% $r' 13. issued an (7nibus (rder denying %#!"1Us !otion to :is7iss and setting the case for su77ary hearing to deter7ine whether the in=uncti&e reliefs prayed for should be issued' 16 %#!"1 then filed a !otion for Reconsideration,17 which was denied by the trial court in an (rder dated 10 !arch 2004' 18Thus, %#!"1 filed before the %A a etition for %ertiorari with rayer for the +ssuance of TR( andJor Writ of reli7inary +n=unction dated 3 April 2004'19 +n the assailed :ecision dated 30 Septe7ber 2004, the appellate court dis7issed the etition for %ertiorari'20Subse0uently, %#!"1 filed a !otion for Reconsideration, 21 which was denied by the %A in a Resolution dated . :ece7ber 2004'22 Thus, %#!"1 filed the instant etition for Re&iew on %ertiorari dated 21 6anuary 2002, raising the following issues8 23 Whether or not petitioner %#!"1 is an agent of the so&ereign eopleUs Republic of %hina' Whether or not the #orthrail contracts are products of an e9ecuti&e agree7ent between two so&ereign states' Whether or not the certification fro7 the :epart7ent of <oreign Affairs is necessary under the foregoing circu7stances' Whether or not the act being undertaBen by petitioner %#!"1 is an act =ure i7perii' Whether or not the %ourt of Appeals failed to a&oid a procedural li7bo in the lower court' Whether or not the #orthrail ro=ect is sub=ect to co7petiti&e public bidding' Whether or not the %ourt of Appeals ignored the ruling of this Conorable %ourt in the #eri case' %#!"1 prays for the dis7issal of %i&il %ase #o' 05,203 before RT% $r' 13. for lacB of =urisdiction' +t liBewise re0uests this %ourt for the issuance of a TR( and, later on, a writ of preli7inary in=unction to restrain public respondent fro7 proceeding with the disposition of %i&il %ase #o' 05,203' The cru9 of this case boils down to two 7ain issues, na7ely8 1' Whether %#!"1 is entitled to i77unity, precluding it fro7 being sued before a local court' 2' Whether the %ontract Agree7ent is an e9ecuti&e agree7ent, such that it cannot be 0uestioned by or before a local court' $.r/1 .//54C -h41h4r CNMEG ./ 4*1.194+ 1o .::5*.12 This %ourt e9plained the doctrine of so&ereign i77unity in Aol" See v. Rosario,24 to wit8 There are two conflicting concepts of so&ereign i77unity, each widely held and fir7ly established' According to the classical or absolute theory, a /o64r4.G* ca**o1, I.1ho51 .1/ co*/4*1, <4 :a+4 a r4/0o*+4*1 .* 1h4 co5r1/ o8 a*o1h4r /o64r4.G*. According to the newer or restricti&e theory, 1h4 .::5*.12 o8 1h4 /o64r4.G* ./ r4coG*.J4+ o*92 I.1h r4Gar+ 1o 05<9.c ac1/ or ac1/ jure imperii o8 a /1a14, <51 *o1 I.1h r4Gar+ 1o 0r.6a14 ac1/ or ac1/ jure gestionis' -"7phasis supplied@ citations o7itted'/

999

999

999

The restricti&e theory ca7e about because of the entry of so&ereign states into purely co77ercial acti&ities re7otely connected with the discharge of go&ern7ental functions' This is particularly true with respect to the %o77unist states which tooB control of nationali?ed business acti&ities and international trading' +n 6*S!A1 &' #ational )abor Relations %o77ission, 25 this %ourt affir7ed the hilippinesU adherence to the restricti&e theory as follows8 The doctrine of state i77unity fro7 suit has undergone further 7eta7orphosis' The &iew e&ol&ed that the e9istence of a contract does not, per se, 7ean that so&ereign states 7ay, at all ti7es, be sued in local courts' The co7ple9ity of relationships between so&ereign states, brought about by their increasing co77ercial acti&ities, 7othered a 7ore restrictive application of the doctrine' 999 999 999

As it stands now, the application of the doctrine of i77unity fro7 suit has been restricted to so&ereign or go&ern7ental acti&ities -6ure imperii/' The 7antle of state i77unity cannot be e9tended to co77ercial, pri&ate and proprietary acts -6ure gestionis/'26 -"7phasis supplied'/ Since the hilippines adheres to the restricti&e theory, it is crucial to ascertain the legal nature of the act in&ol&ed T whether the entity clai7ing i77unity perfor7s go&ern7ental, as opposed to proprietary, functions' As held in *nited States of A7erica &' Rui? T27 The restricti&e application of State i77unity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of co77ercial transactions of the foreign so&ereign, its co77ercial acti&ities or econo7ic affairs' Stated differently, a State 7ay be said to ha&e descended to the le&el of an indi&idual and can thus be dee7ed to ha&e tacitly gi&en its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts' +t does not apply where the contract relates to the e9ercise of its so&ereign functions'28 A' %#!"1 is engaged in a proprietary acti&ity' A threshold 0uestion that 7ust be answered is whether %#!"1 perfor7s go&ern7ental or proprietary functions' A thorough e9a7ination of the basic facts of the case would show that %#!"1 is engaged in a proprietary acti&ity' The parties e9ecuted the %ontract Agree7ent for the purpose of constructing the )u?on Railways, &i?8 29 WC"R"AS the "7ployer -#orthrail/ desired to construct the railways for7 %aloocan to !alolos, section +, hase + of hilippine #orth )u?on Railways ro=ect -hereinafter referred to as TC" R(6"%T/@ A#: WC"R"AS the %ontractor has offered to pro&ide the ro=ect on TurnBey basis, including design, 7anufacturing, supply, construction, co77issioning, and training of the "7ployerUs personnel@ A#: WC"R"AS the )oan Agree7ent of the referential $uyerUs %redit between "9port,+7port $anB of %hina and :epart7ent of <inance of Republic of the hilippines@ #(W, TC"R"<(R", the parties agree to sign this %ontract for the +7ple7entation of the ro=ect' The abo&e,cited portion of the %ontract Agree7ent, howe&er, does not on its own re&eal whether the construction of the )u?on railways was 7eant to be a proprietary endea&or' +n order to fully understand the intention behind and the purpose of the entire undertaBing, the %ontract Agree7ent 7ust not be read in isolation' +nstead, it 7ust be construed in con=unction with three other docu7ents e9ecuted in relation to the #orthrail ro=ect, na7ely8 -a/ the !e7orandu7 of *nderstanding dated 13 Septe7ber 2002 between #orthrail and %#!"1@ 30 -b/ the letter of A7b' Wang dated 1 (ctober 2003 addressed to Sec' %a7acho@ 31 and -c/ the )oan Agree7ent'32 1' !e7orandu7 of *nderstanding dated 13 Septe7ber 2002 The !e7orandu7 of *nderstanding dated 13 Septe7ber 2002 shows that %#!"1 sought the construction of the )u?on Railways as a proprietary &enture' The rele&ant parts thereof read8 WC"R"AS, %#!"1 has the financial capability, professional co7petence and technical e9pertise to assess the state of the F!ain )ine #orth -!)#/G and reco77end i7ple7entation plans as well as undertaBe its rehabilitation andJor 7oderni?ation@ WC"R"AS, %#!"1 has e9pressed interest in the rehabilitation andJor 7oderni?ation of the !)# fro7 !etro !anila to San <ernando, )a *nion passing through the pro&inces of $ulacan, a7panga, Tarlac, angasinan and )a *nion -the V ro=ectU/@

WC"R"AS, the #(RTCRA+) %(R ' welco7es %#!"1Us proposal to undertaBe a <easibility Study -the ;Study;/ at no cost to #(RTCRA+) %(R '@ WC"R"AS, the #(RTCRA+) %(R ' also welco7es %#!"1Us interest in undertaBing the ro=ect with SupplierUs %redit and intends to e7ploy %#!"1 as the %ontractor for the ro=ect sub=ect to co7pliance with hilippine and %hinese laws, rules and regulations for the selection of a contractor@ WC"R"AS, the #(RTCRA+) %(R ' considers %#!"1Us proposal ad&antageous to the 1o&ern7ent of the Republic of the hilippines and has therefore agreed to assist %#!"1 in the conduct of the aforesaid Study@ 999 ++' A R(AA) R(%"SS 999 999

2'1 As soon as possible after co7pletion and presentation of the Study in accordance with aragraphs 1'3 and 1'3 abo&e and in co7pliance with necessary go&ern7ental laws, rules, regulations and procedures re0uired fro7 both parties, the parties shall co77ence the preparation and negotiation of the ter7s and conditions of the %ontract -the ;%ontract;/ to be entered into between the7 on the i7ple7entation of the ro=ect' The parties shall use their best endea&ors to for7ulate and finali?e a %ontract with a &iew to signing the %ontract within one hundred twenty -120/ days fro7 %#!"1Us presentation of the Study'33 -"7phasis supplied/ %learly, it was %#!"1 that initiated the undertaBing, and not the %hinese go&ern7ent' The <easibility Study was conducted not because of any diplo7atic gratuity fro7 or e9ercise of so&ereign functions by the %hinese go&ern7ent, but was plainly a business strategy e7ployed by %#!"1 with a &iew to securing this co77ercial enterprise' 2' )etter dated 1 (ctober 2003 That %#!"1, and not the %hinese go&ern7ent, initiated the #orthrail ro=ect was confir7ed by A7b' Wang in his letter dated 1 (ctober 2003, thus8 1' %#!"1 has the pro&en co7petence and capability to undertaBe the ro=ect as e&idenced by the ranBing of 32 gi&en by the "#R a7ong 22. global construction co7panies' 2' %#!"1 already signed an !(* with the #orth )u?on Railways %orporation last Septe7ber 13, 2000 during the &isit of %hair7an )i eng' Such being the case, they ha&e already established an initial worBing relationship with your #orth )u?on Railways %orporation' This would categori?e %#!"1 as the state corporation within the eopleUs Republic of %hina which initiated our 1o&ern7entUs in&ol&e7ent in the ro=ect' 3' A7ong the &arious state corporations of the eopleUs Republic of %hina, only %#!"1 has the ad&antage of being fully fa7iliar with the current re0uire7ents of the #orthrail ro=ect ha&ing already acco7plished a <easibility Study which was used as inputs by the #orth )u?on Railways %orporation in the appro&als -sic/ process re0uired by the Republic of the hilippines' 34 -"7phasis supplied'/ Thus, the desire of %#!"1 to secure the #orthrail ro=ect was in the ordinary or regular course of its business as a global construction co7pany' The i7ple7entation of the #orthrail ro=ect was intended to generate profit for %#!"1, with the %ontract Agree7ent placing a contract price of *S: 321,0.0,000 for the &enture' 35 The use of the ter7 ;state corporation; to refer to %#!"1 was only descripti&e of its nature as a go&ern7ent,owned andJor ,controlled corporation, and its assign7ent as the ri7ary %ontractor did not i7ply that it was acting on behalf of %hina in the perfor7ance of the latterUs so&ereign functions' To i7ply otherwise would result in an absurd situation, in which all %hinese corporations owned by the state would be auto7atically considered as perfor7ing go&ern7ental acti&ities, e&en if they are clearly engaged in co77ercial or proprietary pursuits' 3' The )oan Agree7ent %#!"1 clai7s i77unity on the ground that the Aug 30 !(* on the financing of the #orthrail ro=ect was signed by the hilippine and %hinese go&ern7ents, and its assign7ent as the ri7ary %ontractor 7eant that it was bound to perfor7 a go&ern7ental function on behalf of %hina' Cowe&er, the )oan Agree7ent, which originated fro7 the sa7e Aug 30 !(*, belies this reasoning, &i?8 Article 11' 999 -=/ %o77ercial Acti&ity The e9ecution and deli&ery of this Agree7ent by the $orrower constitute, and the $orrowerUs perfor7ance of and co7pliance with its obligations under this Agree7ent will constitute, 0r.6a14 a*+ co::4rc.a9 ac1/ +o*4 a*+ 04r8or:4+ 8or co::4rc.a9 05r0o/4/ 5*+4r 1h4 9aI/ o8 1h4 R405<9.c o8 1h4 Ph.9.00.*4/ a*+ *4.1h4r 1h4 (orroI4r *or a*2 o8 .1/ a//41/ ./ 4*1.194+ 1o a*2 .::5*.12 or 0r.6.94G4 E/o64r4.G* or o1h4rI./4F 8ro: /5.1, 434c51.o* or a*2 o1h4r 94Ga9 0roc4// I.1h r4/04c1 1o .1/ o<9.Ga1.o*/ 5*+4r 1h./ AGr44:4*1, a/ 1h4 ca/4 :a2 <4, .* a*2 K5r./+.c1.o*. #otwithstanding the foregoing, the $orrower does not wai&e any i77unity with respect of its assets which are -i/ used by a diplo7atic or consular 7ission of the $orrower and -ii/ assets of a 7ilitary character and under control of a 7ilitary authority or defense agency and -iii/ located in the

hilippines and dedicated to public or go&ern7ental use -as distinguished fro7 patri7onial assets or assets dedicated to co77ercial use/' -"7phasis supplied'/ -B/ roceedings to "nforce Agree7ent +n any proceeding in the Republic of the hilippines to enforce this Agree7ent, the choice of the laws of the eopleUs Republic of %hina as the go&erning law hereof will be recogni?ed and such law will be applied' The wai&er of i77unity by the $orrower, the irre&ocable sub7issions of the $orrower to the non,e9clusi&e =urisdiction of the courts of the eopleUs Republic of %hina and the appoint7ent of the $orrowerUs %hinese rocess Agent is legal, &alid, binding and enforceable and any =udg7ent obtained in the eopleUs Republic of %hina will be if introduced, e&idence for enforce7ent in any proceedings against the $orrower and its assets in the Republic of the hilippines pro&ided that -a/ the court rendering =udg7ent had =urisdiction o&er the sub=ect 7atter of the action in accordance with its =urisdictional rules, -b/ the Republic had notice of the proceedings, -c/ the =udg7ent of the court was not obtained through collusion or fraud, and -d/ such =udg7ent was not based on a clear 7istaBe of fact or law' 36 <urther, the )oan Agree7ent liBewise contains this e9press wai&er of i77unity8 1.'. Wai&er of +77unity The $orrower irre&ocably and unconditionally wai&es, any i77unity to which it or its property 7ay at any ti7e be or beco7e entitled, whether characteri?ed as so&ereign i77unity or otherwise, fro7 any suit, =udg7ent, ser&ice of process upon it or any agent, e9ecution on =udg7ent, set,off, attach7ent prior to =udg7ent, attach7ent in aid of e9ecution to which it or its assets 7ay be entitled in any legal action or proceedings with respect to this Agree7ent or any of the transactions conte7plated hereby or hereunder' #otwithstanding the foregoing, the $orrower does not wai&e any i77unity in respect of its assets which are -i/ used by a diplo7atic or consular 7ission of the $orrower, -ii/ assets of a 7ilitary character and under control of a 7ilitary authority or defense agency and -iii/ located in the hilippines and dedicated to a public or go&ern7ental use -as distinguished fro7 patri7onial assets or assets dedicated to co77ercial use/' 37 Thus, despite petitionerUs clai7 that the "K+! $anB e9tended financial assistance to #orthrail because the banB was 7andated by the %hinese go&ern7ent, and not because of any 7oti&ation to do business in the hilippines, 38it is clear fro7 the foregoing pro&isions that the #orthrail ro=ect was a purely co77ercial transaction' Ad7ittedly, the )oan Agree7ent was entered into between "K+! $anB and the hilippine go&ern7ent, while the %ontract Agree7ent was between #orthrail and %#!"1' Although the %ontract Agree7ent is silent on the classification of the legal nature of the transaction, the foregoing pro&isions of the )oan Agree7ent, which is an ine9tricable part of the entire undertaBing, nonetheless re&eal the intention of the parties to the #orthrail ro=ect to classify the whole &enture as co77ercial or proprietary in character' Thus, piecing together the content and tenor of the %ontract Agree7ent, the !e7orandu7 of *nderstanding dated 13 Septe7ber 2002, A7b' WangUs letter dated 1 (ctober 2003, and the )oan Agree7ent would re&eal the desire of %#!"1 to construct the )u?on Railways in pursuit of a purely co77ercial acti&ity perfor7ed in the ordinary course of its business' $' %#!"1 failed to adduce e&idence that it is i77une fro7 suit under %hinese law' "&en assu7ing arguendo that %#!"1 perfor7s go&ern7ental functions, such clai7 does not auto7atically &est it with i77unity' This &iew finds support in !along &' hilippine #ational Railways, in which this %ourt held that ;-i/77unity fro7 suit is deter7ined by the character of the ob=ects for which the entity was organi?ed'; 39 +n this regard, this %ourtUs ruling in :eutsche 1esellschaft <Wr Technische Musa77enarbeit -1TM/ &' %A 40 7ust be e9a7ined' +n :eutsche 1esellschaft, 1er7any and the hilippines entered into a Technical %ooperation Agree7ent, pursuant to which both signed an arrange7ent pro7oting the Social Cealth +nsuranceT#etworBing and "7power7ent -SC+#"/ pro=ect' The two go&ern7ents na7ed their respecti&e i7ple7enting organi?ations8 the :epart7ent of Cealth -:(C/ and the hilippine Cealth +nsurance %orporation - C+%/ for the hilippines, and 1TM for the i7ple7entation of 1er7anyUs contributions' +n ruling that 1TM was not i77une fro7 suit, this %ourt held8 The argu7ents raised by 1TM and the F(ffice of the Solicitor 1eneral -(S1/G are rooted in se&eral indisputable facts' The SC+#" pro=ect was i7ple7ented pursuant to the bilateral agree7ents between the hilippine and 1er7an go&ern7ents' 1TM was tasBed, under the 1221 agree7ent, with the i7ple7entation of the contributions of the 1er7an go&ern7ent' The acti&ities perfor7ed by 1TM pertaining to the SC+#" pro=ect are go&ern7ental in nature, related as they are to the pro7otion of health insurance in the hilippines' The fact that 1TM entered into e7ploy7ent contracts with the pri&ate respondents did not dis0ualify it fro7 in&oBing i77unity fro7 suit, as held in cases such as Coly See &' Rosario, 6r', which set forth what re7ains &alid doctrine8 %ertainly, the 7ere entering into a contract by a foreign state with a pri&ate party cannot be the ulti7ate test' Such an act can only be the start of the in0uiry' The logical 0uestion is whether the foreign state is engaged in the acti&ity in the regular course of business' +f the foreign state is not engaged regularly in a business or trade, the particular act or transaction 7ust then be tested by its nature' +f the act is in pursuit of a so&ereign acti&ity, or an incident thereof, then it is an act =ure i7perii, especially when it is not undertaBen for gain or profit'

$eyond dispute is the tenability of the co77ent points -sic/ raised by 1TM and the (S1 that 1TM was not perfor7ing proprietary functions notwithstanding its entry into the particular e7ploy7ent contracts' Let there is an e0ually funda7ental pre7ise which 1TM and the (S1 fail to address, na7ely8 +s 1TM, by conception, able to en=oy the <ederal RepublicUs i77unity fro7 suitH The principle of state i77unity fro7 suit, whether a local state or a foreign state, is reflected in Section 2, Article KA+ of the %onstitution, which states that ;the State 7ay not be sued without its consent'; Who or what consists of ;the State;H <or one, the doctrine is a&ailable to foreign States insofar as they are sought to be sued in the courts of the local State, necessary as it is to a&oid ;unduly &e9ing the peace of nations'; +f the instant suit had been brought directly against the <ederal Republic of 1er7any, there would be no doubt that it is a suit brought against a State, and the only necessary in0uiry is whether said State had consented to be sued' Cowe&er, the present suit was brought against 1TM' +t is necessary for us to understand what precisely are the para7eters of the legal personality of 1TM' Co5*/49 8or GT& charac14r.J4/ GT& a/ L1h4 .:094:4*1.*G aG4*c2 o8 1h4 Go64r*:4*1 o8 1h4 $4+4ra9 R405<9.c o8 G4r:a*2,L a depiction si7ilarly adopted by the (S1' Assu7ing that the characteri?ation is correct, .1 +o4/ *o1 a51o:a1.ca992 .*64/1 GT& I.1h 1h4 a<.9.12 1o .*6oH4 S1a14 .::5*.12 8ro: /5.1. The distinction lies in whether the agency is incorporated or unincorporated' 999 999 999

State i77unity fro7 suit 7ay be wai&ed by general or special law' The special law can taBe the for7 of the original charter of the incorporated go&ern7ent agency' 6urisprudence is replete with e9a7ples of incorporated go&ern7ent agencies which were ruled not entitled to in&oBe i77unity fro7 suit, owing to pro&isions in their charters 7anifesting their consent to be sued' 999 999 999

+t is useful to note that on the part of the hilippine go&ern7ent, it had designated two entities, the :epart7ent of Cealth and the hilippine Cealth +nsurance %orporation - C+%/, as the i7ple7enting agencies in behalf of the hilippines' The C+% was established under Republic Act #o' 747., Section 15 -g/ of which grants the corporation the power ;to sue and be sued in court'; Applying the pre&iously cited =urisprudence, C+% would not en=oy i77unity fro7 suit e&en in the perfor7ance of its functions connected with SC+#", howe&er, -sic/ go&ern7ental in nature as -sic/ they 7ay be' "/ GT& a* .*cor0ora14+ aG4*c2 o8 1h4 G4r:a* Go64r*:4*1M Th4r4 ./ /o:4 :2/14r2 /5rro5*+.*G 1ha1 N54/1.o*. N4.1h4r GT& *or 1h4 OSG Go <42o*+ 1h4 c9a.: 1ha1 041.1.o*4r ./ L1h4 .:094:4*1.*G aG4*c2 o8 1h4 Go64r*:4*1 o8 1h4 $4+4ra9 R405<9.c o8 G4r:a*2.L (n the other hand, pri&ate respondents asserted before the )abor Arbiter that 1TM was ;a pri&ate corporation engaged in the i7ple7entation of de&elop7ent pro=ects'; The )abor Arbiter accepted that clai7 in his (rder denying the !otion to :is7iss, though he was silent on that point in his :ecision' #e&ertheless, pri&ate respondents argue in their %o77ent that the finding that 1TM was a pri&ate corporation ;was ne&er contro&erted, and is therefore dee7ed ad7itted'; +n its Reply, 1TM contro&erts that finding, saying that it is a 7atter of public Bnowledge that the status of petitioner 1TM is that of the ;i7ple7enting agency,; and not that of a pri&ate corporation' +n truth, pri&ate respondents were unable to adduce any e&idence to substantiate their clai7 that 1TM was a ;pri&ate corporation,; and the )abor Arbiter acted rashly in accepting such clai7 without e9planation' $ut *4.1h4r ha/ GT& /5009.4+ a*2 46.+4*c4 +48.*.*G .1/ 94Ga9 *a15r4 <42o*+ 1ha1 o8 1h4 <ar4 +4/cr.01.64 L.:094:4*1.*G aG4*c2.L Th4r4 ./ *o +o5<1 1ha1 1h4 1991 AGr44:4*1 +4/.G*a14+ GT& a/ 1h4 L.:094:4*1.*G aG4*c2L .* <4ha98 o8 1h4 G4r:a* Go64r*:4*1. #41 1h4 ca1ch ./ 1ha1 /5ch 14r: ha/ *o 0r4c./4 +48.*.1.o* 1ha1 ./ r4/0o*/.64 1o o5r co*c4r*/. "*h4r4*192, a* aG4*1 ac1/ .* <4ha98 o8 a 0r.*c.0a9, a*+ 1h4 GT& ca* <4 /a.+ 1o ac1 .* <4ha98 o8 1h4 G4r:a* /1a14. (51 1ha1 ./ a/ 8ar a/ L.:094:4*1.*G aG4*c2L co59+ 1aH4 5/. Th4 14r: <2 .1/498 +o4/ *o1 /50092 Ih41h4r GT& ./ .*cor0ora14+ or 5*.*cor0ora14+, Ih41h4r .1 ./ oI*4+ <2 1h4 G4r:a* /1a14 or <2 0r.6a14 .*14r4/1/, Ih41h4r .1 ha/ K5r.+.ca9 04r/o*a9.12 .*+404*+4*1 o8 1h4 G4r:a* Go64r*:4*1 or *o*4 a1 a99. 999 999 999

AGa.*, I4 ar4 5*c4r1a.* o8 1h4 corr4/0o*+.*G 94Ga9 .:09.ca1.o*/ 5*+4r G4r:a* 9aI /5rro5*+.*G La 0r.6a14 co:0a*2 oI*4+ <2 1h4 $4+4ra9 R405<9.c o8 G4r:a*2.L #41 1aH.*G 1h4 +4/cr.01.o* o* 8ac4 6a954, 1h4 a00ar4*1 4N5.6a94*1 5*+4r Ph.9.00.*4 9aI ./ 1ha1 o8 a cor0ora1.o* orGa*.J4+ 5*+4r 1h4 Cor0ora1.o* Co+4 <51 oI*4+ <2 1h4 Ph.9.00.*4 Go64r*:4*1, or a Go64r*:4*1-oI*4+ or co*1ro994+ cor0ora1.o* I.1ho51 or.G.*a9 char14r. A*+ .1 <4ar/ *o1.c4 1ha1 S4c1.o* 36 o8 1h4 Cor0ora14 Co+4 /1a14/ 1ha1 L;4=64r2 cor0ora1.o* .*cor0ora14+ 5*+4r 1h./ Co+4 ha/ 1h4 0oI4r a*+ ca0ac.12 3 3 3 1o /54 a*+ <4 /54+ .* .1/ cor0ora14 *a:4.L +t is entirely possible that under 1er7an law, an entity such as 1TM or particularly 1TM itself has not been &ested or has been specifically depri&ed the power and capacity to sue andJor be sued' Let in the proceedings below and before this %ourt, GT& ha/ 8a.94+ 1o 4/1a<9./h 1ha1 5*+4r G4r:a* 9aI, .1 ha/ *o1 co*/4*14+ 1o <4 /54+ +4/0.14 .1 <4.*G oI*4+ <2 1h4 $4+4ra9 R405<9.c o8 G4r:a*2. -4 a+h4r4 1o 1h4 r594 1ha1 .* 1h4 a</4*c4 o8 46.+4*c4

1o 1h4 co*1rar2, 8or4.G* 9aI/ o* a 0ar1.c59ar /5<K4c1 ar4 0r4/5:4+ 1o <4 1h4 /a:4 a/ 1ho/4 o8 1h4 Ph.9.00.*4/, a*+ 8o99oI.*G 1h4 :o/1 .*1499.G4*1 a//5:01.o* I4 ca* Ga1h4r, GT& ./ aH.* 1o a Go64r*:4*1a9 oI*4+ or co*1ro994+ cor0ora1.o* I.1ho51 or.G.*a9 char14r Ih.ch, <2 6.r154 o8 1h4 Cor0ora1.o* Co+4, ha/ 430r4//92 co*/4*14+ 1o <4 /54+. At the &ery least, liBe the )abor Arbiter and the %ourt of Appeals, this %ourt has no basis in fact to conclude or presu7e that 1TM en=oys i77unity fro7 suit' 41-"7phasis supplied'/ Applying the foregoing ruling to the case at bar, it is readily apparent that %#!"1 cannot clai7 i77unity fro7 suit, e&en if it contends that it perfor7s go&ern7ental functions' +ts designation as the ri7ary %ontractor does not auto7atically grant it i77unity, =ust as the ter7 ;i7ple7enting agency; has no precise definition for purposes of ascertaining whether 1TM was i77une fro7 suit' Although %#!"1 clai7s to be a go&ern7ent,owned corporation, it failed to adduce e&idence that it has not consented to be sued under %hinese law' Thus, following this %ourtUs ruling in :eutsche 1esellschaft, in the absence of e&idence to the contrary, %#!"1 is to be presu7ed to be a go&ern7ent,owned and ,controlled corporation without an original charter' As a result, it has the capacity to sue and be sued under Section 35 of the %orporation %ode' %' %#!"1 failed to present a certification fro7 the :epart7ent of <oreign Affairs' +n Coly See,42 this %ourt reiterated the oft,cited doctrine that the deter7ination by the "9ecuti&e that an entity is entitled to so&ereign or diplo7atic i77unity is a political 0uestion conclusi&e upon the courts, to wit8 +n ublic +nternational )aw, when a state or international agency wishes to plead so&ereign or diplo7atic i77unity in a foreign court, it re0uests the <oreign (ffice of the state where it is sued to con&ey to the court that said defendant is entitled to i77unity' 999 999 999

+n the hilippines, the practice is for the foreign go&ern7ent or the international organi?ation to first secure an e9ecuti&e endorse7ent of its clai7 of so&ereign or diplo7atic i77unity' $ut how the hilippine <oreign (ffice con&eys its endorse7ent to the courts &aries' +n <nternational +at)olic Migration +ommission v. +alle6a, 120 S%RA 130 -1220/, the Secretary of <oreign Affairs =ust sent a letter directly to the Secretary of )abor and "7ploy7ent, infor7ing the latter that the respondent,e7ployer could not be sued because it en=oyed diplo7atic i77unity' +n/orld Aealt) rganization v. A9uino, 34 S%RA 232 -1272/, the Secretary of <oreign Affairs sent the trial court a telegra7 to that effect' +n %aer v. Tizon, .7 S%RA 1 -1273/, the *'S' "7bassy asBed the Secretary of <oreign Affairs to re0uest the Solicitor 1eneral to 7aBe, in behalf of the %o77ander of the *nited States #a&al $ase at (longapo %ity, Ma7bales, a ;suggestion; to respondent 6udge' The Solicitor 1eneral e7bodied the ;suggestion; in a !anifestation and !e7orandu7 as amicus curiae' +n the case at bench, the :epart7ent of <oreign Affairs, through the (ffice of )egal Affairs 7o&ed with this %ourt to be allowed to inter&ene on the side of petitioner' The %ourt allowed the said :epart7ent to file its 7e7orandu7 in support of petitionerUs clai7 of so&ereign i77unity' +n so7e cases, the defense of so&ereign i77unity was sub7itted directly to the local courts by the respondents through their pri&ate counsels -Ra0ui?a &' $radford, 7. hil' .0 F123.G@ !i0uiabas &' hilippine,RyuByus %o77and, 40 hil' 252 F1234G@ *nited States of A7erica &' 1uinto, 142 S%RA 533 F1220G and co7panion cases/' +n cases where the foreign states bypass the <oreign (ffice, the courts can in0uire into the facts and 7aBe their own deter7ination as to the nature of the acts and transactions in&ol&ed' 43 -"7phasis supplied'/ The 0uestion now is whether any agency of the "9ecuti&e $ranch can 7aBe a deter7ination of i77unity fro7 suit, which 7ay be considered as conclusi&e upon the courts' This %ourt, in :epart7ent of <oreign Affairs -:<A/ &' #ational )abor Relations %o77ission -#)R%/,44 e7phasi?ed the :<AUs co7petence and authority to pro&ide such necessary deter7ination, to wit8 The :<AUs function includes, a7ong its other 7andates, the deter7ination of persons and institutions co&ered by diplo7atic i77unities, a deter7ination which, when challenge, -sic/ entitles it to seeB relief fro7 the court so as not to seriously i7pair the conduct of the countryDs foreign relations' The :<A 7ust be allowed to plead its case whene&er necessary or ad&isable to enable it to help Beep the credibility of the hilippine go&ern7ent before the international co77unity' When international agree7ents are concluded, the parties thereto are dee7ed to ha&e liBewise accepted the responsibility of seeing to it that their agree7ents are duly regarded' +n our country, this tasB falls principally of -sic/ the :<A as being the highest e9ecuti&e depart7ent with the co7petence and authority to so act in this aspect of the international arena' 45 -"7phasis supplied'/ <urther, the fact that this authority is e9clusi&e to the :<A was also e7phasi?ed in this %ourtUs ruling in :eutsche 1esellschaft8 +t is to be recalled that the )abor Arbiter, in both of his rulings, noted that it was i7perati&e for petitioners to secure fro7 the :epart7ent of <oreign Affairs ;a certification of respondentsU diplo7atic status and entitle7ent to diplo7atic pri&ileges including i77unity fro7 suits'; The re0uire7ent 7ight not necessarily be i7perati&e' Cowe&er, had 1TM obtained such certification fro7 the :<A, it would ha&e pro&ided factual basis for its clai7 of i77unity that would, at the &ery least, establish a disputable e&identiary presu7ption that the foreign party is indeed i77une

which the opposing party will ha&e to o&erco7e with its own factual e&idence' We do not see why 1TM could not ha&e secured such certification or endorse7ent fro7 the :<A for purposes of this case' %ertainly, it would ha&e been highly prudential for 1TM to obtain the sa7e after the )abor Arbiter had denied the 7otion to dis7iss' Still, e&en at this =uncture, we do not see any e&idence that the :<A, the office of the e9ecuti&e branch in charge of our diplo7atic relations, has indeed endorsed 1TMUs clai7 of i77unity' +t 7ay be possible that 1TM tried, but failed to secure such certification, due to the sa7e concerns that we ha&e discussed herein' Would the fact that the Solicitor 1eneral has endorsed 1TMUs clai7 of StateUs i77unity fro7 suit before this %ourt sufficiently substitute for the :<A certificationH #ote that the rule in public international law 0uoted in Coly See referred to endorse7ent by the <oreign (ffice of the State where the suit is filed, such foreign office in the hilippines being the :epart7ent of <oreign Affairs' #owhere in the %o77ent of the (S1 is it 7anifested that the :<A has endorsed 1TMUs clai7, or that the (S1 had solicited the :<AUs &iews on the issue' The argu7ents raised by the (S1 are &irtually the sa7e as the argu7ents raised by 1TM without any indication of any special and distinct perspecti&e 7aintained by the hilippine go&ern7ent on the issue' The %o77ent filed by the (S1 does not inspire the sa7e degree of confidence as a certification fro7 the :<A would ha&e elicited' 46 -"7phasis supplied'/ +n the case at bar, %#!"1 offers the %ertification e9ecuted by the "cono7ic and %o77ercial (ffice of the "7bassy of the eopleUs Republic of %hina, stating that the #orthrail ro=ect is in pursuit of a so&ereign acti&ity'47Surely, this is not the Bind of certification that can establish %#!"1Us entitle7ent to i77unity fro7 suit, as Coly See une0ui&ocally refers to the deter7ination of the ;<oreign (ffice of the state where it is sued'; <urther, %#!"1 also clai7s that its i77unity fro7 suit has the e9ecuti&e endorse7ent of both the (S1 and the (ffice of the 1o&ern7ent %orporate %ounsel -(1%%/, which 7ust be respected by the courts' Cowe&er, as e9pressly enunciated in :eutsche 1esellschaft, this deter7ination by the (S1, or by the (1%% for that 7atter, does not inspire the sa7e degree of confidence as a :<A certification' "&en with a :<A certification, howe&er, it 7ust be re7e7bered that this %ourt is not precluded fro7 7aBing an in0uiry into the intrinsic correctness of such certification' :' An agree7ent to sub7it any dispute to arbitration 7ay be construed as an i7plicit wai&er of i77unity fro7 suit' +n the *nited States, the <oreign So&ereign +77unities Act of 1275 pro&ides for a wai&er by i7plication of state i77unity' +n the said law, the agree7ent to sub7it disputes to arbitration in a foreign country is construed as an i7plicit wai&er of i77unity fro7 suit' Although there is no si7ilar law in the hilippines, there is reason to apply the legal reasoning behind the wai&er in this case' The %onditions of %ontract,48 which is an integral part of the %ontract Agree7ent, 49 states8 33' S"TT)"!"#T (< :+S *T"S A#: AR$+TRAT+(# 33'1' A7icable Settle7ent $oth parties shall atte7pt to a7icably settle all disputes or contro&ersies arising fro7 this %ontract before the co77ence7ent of arbitration' 33'2' Arbitration All disputes or contro&ersies arising fro7 this %ontract which cannot be settled between the "7ployer and the %ontractor shall be sub7itted to arbitration in accordance with the *#%+TRA) Arbitration Rules at present in force and as 7ay be a7ended by the rest of this %lause' The appointing authority shall be Cong Nong +nternational Arbitration %enter' The place of arbitration shall be in Cong Nong at Cong Nong +nternational Arbitration %enter -CN+A%/' *nder the abo&e pro&isions, if any dispute arises between #orthrail and %#!"1, both parties are bound to sub7it the 7atter to the CN+A% for arbitration' +n case the CN+A% 7aBes an arbitral award in fa&or of #orthrail, its enforce7ent in the hilippines would be sub=ect to the Special Rules on Alternati&e :ispute Resolution -Special Rules/' Rule 13 thereof pro&ides for the Recognition and "nforce7ent of a <oreign Arbitral Award' *nder Rules 13'2 and 13'3 of the Special Rules, the party to arbitration wishing to ha&e an arbitral award recogni?ed and enforced in the hilippines 7ust petition the proper regional trial court -a/ where the assets to be attached or le&ied upon is located@ -b/ where the acts to be en=oined are being perfor7ed@ -c/ in the principal place of business in the hilippines of any of the parties@ -d/ if any of the parties is an indi&idual, where any of those indi&iduals resides@ or -e/ in the #ational %apital 6udicial Region' <ro7 all the foregoing, it is clear that %#!"1 has agreed that it will not be afforded i77unity fro7 suit' Thus, the courts ha&e the co7petence and =urisdiction to ascertain the &alidity of the %ontract Agree7ent' S4co*+ .//54C -h41h4r 1h4 Co*1rac1 AGr44:4*1 ./ a* 434c51.64 aGr44:4*1 Article 2-1/ of the Aienna %on&ention on the )aw of Treaties -Aienna %on&ention/ defines a treaty as follows8

FAGn international agree7ent concluded between States in written for7 and go&erned by international law, whether e7bodied in a single instru7ent or in two or 7ore related instru7ents and whate&er its particular designation' +n %a"an Muna v. Romulo, this %ourt held that an e9ecuti&e agree7ent is si7ilar to a treaty, e9cept that the for7er -a/ does not re0uire legislati&e concurrence@ -b/ is usually less for7al@ and -c/ deals with a narrower range of sub=ect 7atters'50 :espite these differences, to be considered an e9ecuti&e agree7ent, the following three re0uisites pro&ided under the Aienna %on&ention 7ust ne&ertheless concur8 -a/ the agree7ent 7ust be between states@ -b/ it 7ust be written@ and -c/ it 7ust go&erned by international law' The first and the third re0uisites do not obtain in the case at bar' A. +'M&G is neit)er a government nor a government agenc". The %ontract Agree7ent was not concluded between the hilippines and %hina, but between #orthrail and %#!"1'51 $y the ter7s of the %ontract Agree7ent, #orthrail is a go&ern7ent,owned or ,controlled corporation, while %#!"1 is a corporation duly organi?ed and created under the laws of the eopleUs Republic of %hina' 52Thus, both #orthrail and %#!"1 entered into the %ontract Agree7ent as entities with personalities distinct and separate fro7 the hilippine and %hinese go&ern7ents, respecti&ely' #either can it be said that %#!"1 acted as agent of the %hinese go&ern7ent' As pre&iously discussed, the fact that A7b' Wang, in his letter dated 1 (ctober 2003, 53 described %#!"1 as a ;state corporation; and declared its designation as the ri7ary %ontractor in the #orthrail ro=ect did not 7ean it was to perfor7 so&ereign functions on behalf of %hina' That label was only descripti&e of its nature as a state,owned corporation, and did not preclude it fro7 engaging in purely co77ercial or proprietary &entures' %. T)e +ontract Agreement is to *e governed *" $)ilippine la,. Article 2 of the %onditions of %ontract,54 which under Article 1'1 of the %ontract Agree7ent is an integral part of the latter, states8 A )+%A$)" )AW A#: 1(A"R#+#1 )A#1*A1"

The contract shall in all respects be read and construed in accordance with the laws of the hilippines' The contract shall be written in "nglish language' All correspondence and other docu7ents pertaining to the %ontract which are e9changed by the parties shall be written in "nglish language' Since the %ontract Agree7ent e9plicitly pro&ides that hilippine law shall be applicable, the parties ha&e effecti&ely conceded that their rights and obligations thereunder are not go&erned by international law' +t is therefore clear fro7 the foregoing reasons that the %ontract Agree7ent does not partaBe of the nature of an e9ecuti&e agree7ent' +t is 7erely an ordinary co77ercial contract that can be 0uestioned before the local courts' WC"R"<(R", the instant etition is %EN"E%' etitioner %hina #ational !achinery P "0uip7ent %orp' -1roup/ is not entitled to i77unity fro7 suit, and the %ontract Agree7ent is not an e9ecuti&e agree7ent' %#!"1Us prayer for the issuance of a TR( andJor Writ of reli7inary +n=unction is :"#+": for being 7oot and acade7ic' This case is R"!A#:": to the Regional Trial %ourt of !aBati, $ranch 13., for further proceedings as regards the &alidity of the contracts sub=ect of %i&il %ase #o' 05,203' #o pronounce7ent on costs of suit' S( (R:"R":' G.R. No. 792)3 March 1, 1993 UN"TE% STATES O$ AMER"CA a*+ MA!"NE (RA%$OR%, petitioners, &s' ON. LU"S R. RE#ES, a/ Pr4/.+.*G J5+G4 o8 (ra*ch 22, R4G.o*a9 Tr.a9 Co5r1 o8 Ca6.14, a*+ NEL"A T. MONTO#A, respondents' Luna, Sison O Manas for petitioners. &vel"n R. (ominguez for private respondent.

%AV"%E, JR., J.:

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 5. of the Rules of %ourt' etitioners would ha&e *s annul and set aside, for ha&ing been issued with gra&e abuse of discretion a7ounting to lacB of =urisdiction, the Resolution of 17 6uly 1247 of $ranch 22 of the Regional Trial %ourt -RT%/ of %a&ite in %i&il %ase #o' 223,47' The said resolution denied, for lacB of 7erit, petitionersD 7otion to dis7iss the said case and granted the pri&ate respondentDs 7otion for the issuance of a writ of preli7inary attach7ent' )iBewise sought to be set aside is the writ of attach7ent subse0uently issued by the RT% on 24 6uly 1247' The doctrine of state i77unity is at the core of this contro&ersy' The readings disclose the following 7aterial operati&e facts8 ri&ate respondent, hereinafter referred to as !ontoya, is an A7erican citi?en who, at the ti7e 7aterial to this case, was e7ployed as an identification -+':'/ checBer at the *'S' #a&y "9change -#"K/ at the 6oint *nited States !ilitary Assistance 1roup -6*S!A1/ head0uarters in Iue?on %ity' She is 7arried to one "dgardo C' !ontoya, a <ilipino, A7erican ser&ice7an e7ployed by the *'S' #a&y and stationed in San <rancisco, %alifornia' etitioner !a9ine $radford, hereinafter referred to as $radford, is liBewise an A7erican citi?en who was the acti&ity e9change 7anager at the said 6*S!A1 Cead0uarters' As a conse0uence of an incident which occurred on 22 6anuary 1247 whereby her body and belongings were searched after she had bought so7e ite7s fro7 the retail store of the #"K 6*S!A1, where she had purchasing pri&ileges, and while she was already at the parBing area, !ontoya filed on 7 !ay 1247 a co7plaint 1 with the Regional Trial %ourt of her place of residence E %a&ite E against $radford for da7ages due to the oppressi&e and discri7inatory acts co77itted by the latter in e9cess of her authority as store 7anager of the #"K 6*S!A1' The co7plaint, docBeted as %i&il %ase #o' 223,47 and subse0uently raffled off to $ranch 22 at +7us, %a&ite, alleges the following, 7aterial operati&e facts8 999 999 999 3' That on 6anuary 22, 1247, after worBing as the duty +: checBer fro7 783. to 1183. a'7', plaintiff went shopping and left the store at l2800 noon of that day@ 3' That on the way to her car while already outside the store, !rs' Long Nennedy, also an +: checBer, upon the instruction of the store 7anager, !s' !a9ine $radford, approached plaintiff and infor7ed her that she needed to search her bags@ .' That plaintiff went to defendant, who was then outside the store talBing to so7e 7en, to protest the search but she was infor7ed by the defendant that the search is to be 7ade on all 6us7ag e7ployees that day@ 5' That the search was thereafter 7ade on the person, car and bags of the plaintiff by !rs' Long Nennedy in the presence of the defendant and nu7erous curious onlooBers@ 7' That ha&ing found nothing irregular on her person and belongings, plaintiff was allowed to lea&e the pre7ises@ 4' That feeling aggrie&ed, plaintiff checBed the records and disco&ered that she was the only one whose person and belonging was -sic/ searched that day contrary to defendantDs allegation as set forth in par' . hereof and as e&idenced by the 7e7orandu7 dated 6anuary 30, 1247 7ade by other <ilipino 6us7ag e7ployees, a photocopy of which is hereto attached as A##"K ;A; and 7ade integral -sic/ part hereof8 2' That 7oreo&er, a checB with #a&y "9change Security !anager, R')' Roynon on 6anuary 27, 1247 was 7ade and she was infor7ed by !r' Roynon that it is a 7atter of policy that custo7ers and e7ployees of #"K 6us7ag are not searched outside the store unless there is a &ery strong e&idence of a wrongdoing@ 10' That plaintiff Bnows of no circu7stances sufficient to trigger suspicion of a wrongdoing on her part but on the other hand, is aware of the propensity of defendant to lay suspicion on <ilipinos for theft andJor shoplifting@ 11' That plaintiff for7ally protested the illegal search on <ebruary 13, 1247 in a letter addressed to !r' R')' Roynon, a photocopy of which is hereto attached as A##"K ;$; and 7ade integral - sic/ part hereof@ but no action was undertaBen by the said officer@ 12' That the illegal search on the person and belongings of the plaintiff in front of 7any people has sub=ected the plaintiff to speculations of theft, shoplifting and such other wrongdoings and has e9posed her to conte7pt and ridicule which was caused her undue e7barrass7ent and indignity@

13' That since the act could not ha&e been 7oti&ated by other -sic/ reason than racial discri7ination in our own land, the act constitute -sic/ a blow to our national pride and dignity which has caused the plaintiff a feeling of anger for which she suffers sleepless nights and wounded feelings@ 13' That considering the abo&e, plaintiff is entitled to be co7pensated by way of 7oral da7ages in the a7ount of .00,000'00@
1.' That to ser&e as a deterrent to those inclined to follow the oppressi&e act of the defendant, e9e7plary da7ages in the a7ount of 100,000'00 should also be awarded' 2

She then prayed for =udg7ent ordering $radford to pay her .00,000'00 as 7oral da7ages, 100,000'00 as e9e7plary da7ages and reasonable attorneyDs fees plus the costs of the suit' 3 Su77ons and a copy of the co7plaint were ser&ed on $radford on 13 !ay 1247' +n response thereto, she filed two -2/ 7otions for e9tension of ti7e to file her Answer which were both granted by the trial court' The first was filed through Atty' !iguel <a7ularcano, 6r', who asBed for a 20,day e9tension fro7 24 !ay 1247' The second, filed through the law fir7 of )una, Sison and !anas, sought a 1.,day e9tension fro7 17 6une 1247' 4 Thus, $radford had up to 1 6uly 1247 to file her Answer' +nstead of doing so, howe&er, she, together with the go&ern7ent of the *nited States of A7erica -hereinafter referred to as the public petitioner/, filed on 2. 6une 1247, also through the law fir7 of )una, Sison and !anas, a !otion to :is7iss ) based on the following grounds8 1/ -This/ action is in effect a suit against the *nited States of A7erica, a foreign so&ereign i77une fro7 suit without its consent for the cause of action pleaded in the co7plaint@ and
2/ :efendant, !a9ine $radford, as 7anager of the *S #a&y "9change $ranch at 6*S!A1, Iue?on %ity, is i77une fro7 suit for act-s/ done by her in the perfor7ance of her official functions under the hilippines,*nited States !ilitary Assistance Agree7ent of 1237 and !ilitary $ases Agree7ent of 1237, as a7ended' 6

+n support of the 7otion, the petitioners clai7ed that 6*S!A1, co7posed of an Ar7y, #a&y and Air 1roup, had been established under the hilippine,*nited States !ilitary Assistance Agree7ent entered into on 21 !arch 1237 to i7ple7ent the *nited StatesD progra7 of rendering 7ilitary assistance to the hilippines' +ts head0uarters in Iue?on %ity is considered a te7porary installation under the pro&isions of Article KK+ of the !ilitary $ases Agree7ent of 1237' Thereunder, ;it is 7utually agreed that the *nited States shall ha&e the rights, power and authority within the bases which are necessary for the establish7ent, use and operation and defense thereof or appropriate for the control thereof'; The 1272 a7end7ent of the !ilitary $ases Agree7ent 7ade it clear that the *nited States shall ha&e ;the use of certain facilities and areas within the bases and shall ha&e effecti&e co77and and control o&er such facilities and o&er *nited States personnel, e7ployees, e0uip7ent and 7aterial'; 6*S!A1 7aintains, at its Iue?on %ity head0uarters, a #a&y "9change referred to as the #"K,6*S!A1' %hecBing of purchases at the #"K is a routine procedure obser&ed at base retail outlets to protect and safeguard 7erchandise, cash and e0uip7ent pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3-b/ of #AAR"SA)"A%T S*$+% +#ST' ..00'1' 7Thus, $radfordDs order to ha&e purchases of all e7ployees checBed on 22 6anuary 1247 was 7ade in the e9ercise of her duties as !anager of the #"K,6*S!A1' They further clai7ed that the #a&y "9change -#AA"K/, an instru7entality of the *'S' 1o&ern7ent, is considered essential for the perfor7ance of go&ern7ental functions' +ts 7ission is to pro&ide a con&enient and reliable source, at the lowest practicable cost, of articles and ser&ices re0uired for the well,being of #a&y personnel, and of funds to be used for the latterDs welfare and recreation' !ontoyaDs co7plaint, relating as it does to the 7ission, functions and responsibilities of a unit of the *nited States #a&y, cannot then be allowed' To do so would constitute a &iolation of the 7ilitary bases agree7ent' !oreo&er, the rights, powers and authority granted by the hilippine go&ern7ent to the *nited States within the *'S' installations would be illusory and acade7ic unless the latter has effecti&e co77and and control o&er such facilities and o&er A7erican personnel, e7ployees, e0uip7ent and 7aterial' Such rights, power and authority within the bases can only be e9ercised by the *nited States through the officers and officials of its ar7ed forces, such as $radford' %aer vs' Tizon ? and @nited States of America vs' Ruiz 9 were in&oBed to support these clai7s' (n 5 6uly 1247, !ontoya filed a 7otion for preli7inary attach7ent 1@ on the ground that $radford was about to depart fro7 the country and was in the process of re7o&ing andJor disposing of her properties with intent to defraud her creditors' (n 13 6uly 1247, !ontoya filed her opposition to the 7otion to dis7iss 11 alleging therein that the grounds proffered in the latter are bereft of 7erit because -a/ $radford, in ordering the search upon her person and belongings outside the #"K 6*S!A1 store in the presence of onlooBers, had co77itted an i7proper, unlawful and highly discri7inatory act against a <ilipino e7ployee and had e9ceeded the scope of her authority@ -b/ ha&ing e9ceeded her authority, $radford cannot rely on the so&ereign i77unity of the public petitioner because her liability is personal@ -c/ hilippine courts are &ested with =urisdiction o&er the case because $radford is a ci&ilian e7ployee who had co77itted the challenged act outside the *'S' !ilitary $ases@ such act is not one of those e9e7pted fro7 the =urisdiction of hilippine courts@ and -d/ hilippine courts can in0uire into the factual circu7stances of the case to deter7ine whether or not $radford had acted within or outside the scope of her authority' (n 15 6uly 1247, public petitioner and $radford filed a reply to !ontoyaDs opposition and an opposition to the 7otion for preli7inary attach7ent' 12

(n 17 6uly 1247, 13 the trial court 14 resol&ed both the 7otion to dis7iss and the 7otion for preli7inary attach7ent in this wise8 (n the 7otion to dis7iss, the grounds and argu7ents interposed for the dis7issal of this case are deter7ined to be not indubitable' Cence, the 7otion is denied for lacB of 7erit' The 7otion for preli7inary attach7ent is granted in the interest of =ustice, upon the plaintiffDs filing of a bond in the su7 of .0,000'00' *pon !ontoyaDs filing of the re0uired bond, the trial court issued on 24 6uly 1247 an (rder 1) decreeing the issuance of a writ of attach7ent and directing the sheriff to ser&e the writ i77ediately at the e9pense of the pri&ate respondent' The writ of attach7ent was issued on that sa7e date' 16 +nstead of filing a 7otion to reconsider the last two -2/ orders, or an answer E insofar as $radford is concerned E both the latter and the public petitioner filed on 5 August 1247 the instant petition to annul and set aside the abo&e Resolution of 17 6uly 1247 and the writ of attach7ent issued pursuant thereto' As grounds therefor, they allege that8
10' The respondent =udge co77itted a gra&e abuse of discretion a7ounting to lacB of =urisdiction in denying the 7otion to dis7iss the co7plaint in %i&il %ase #o' 223,47 ;for lacB of 7erit'; <or the action was in effect a suit against the *nited States of A7erica, a foreign so&ereign i77une fro7 suit without its consent for the cause of action pleaded in the co7plaint, while its co,petitioner was i77une fro7 suit for act-s/ done by her in the perfor7ance of her official functions as 7anager of the *S #a&y "9change $ranch at the Cead0uarters of 6*S!A1, under the hilippines,*nited States !ilitary Assistance Agree7ent of 1237 and !ilitary $ases Agree7ent of 1237, as a7ended' 17

(n . August 1247, the trial court set %i&il %ase #o' 223,47 for pre,trial and trial on 27 August 1247 at 2830 a'7' (n 12 August 1247, this %ourt resol&ed to re0uire the respondents to co77ent on the petition' (n 12 August 1247, petitioners filed with the trial court a !otion to Suspend roceedings 2@ which the latter denied in its (rder of 21 August 1247'
19

1?

21

+n the 7eanti7e, howe&er, for failure to file an answer, $radford was declared in default in %i&il %ase #o' 223,47 and !ontoya was allowed to present her e&idence e!1parte' 22 She thus tooB the witness stand and presented !rs' #a7 Thi !oore and !rs' !iss Lu as her witnesses' (n 10 Septe7ber 1247, the trial court rendered its decision which reads8
23

in %i&il %ase #o' 223,47, the dispositi&e portion of

rescinding fro7 the foregoing, it is hereby deter7ined that the unreasonable search on the plaintiffDs person and bag caused -sic/ done recBlessly and oppressi&ely by the defendant, &iolated, i7paired and under7ined the plaintiffDs liberty guaranteed by the %onstitution, entitling her to 7oral and e9e7plary da7ages against the defendant' The search has unduly sub=ected the plaintiff to intense hu7iliation and indignities and had conse0uently ridiculed and e7barrassed publicly said plaintiff so gra&ely and i77easurably' WC"R"<(R", =udg7ent is hereby rendered for the plaintiff and against the defendant !a9ine $radford assessing the latter to pay unto the for7er the su7s of 300,000'00 for 7oral da7ages, 100,000'00 for e9e7plary da7ages and .0,000'00 for actual e9penses and attorneyDs fees' #o costs'
S( (R:"R":' 24

$radford recei&ed a copy of the decision on 21 Septe7ber 1247' (n that sa7e date, she and the public petitioner filed with this %ourt a etition for Restraining (rder 2) which sought to ha&e the trial courtDs decision &acated and to pre&ent the e9ecution of the sa7e@ it was also prayed that the trial court be en=oined fro7 continuing with %i&il %ase #o' 223,47' We noted this pleading in the Resolution of 23 Septe7ber 1247' 26 +n the 7eanti7e, since no 7otion for reconsideration or appeal had been interposed by $radford challenging the 10 Septe7ber 1247 :ecision which she had recei&ed on 21 Septe7ber 1247, respondent 6udge issued on 13 (ctober 1247 an order directing that an entry of final =udg7ent be 7ade' A copy thereof was recei&ed by $radford on 21 (ctober, 1247' 27 Also on 13 (ctober 1247, !ontoya filed her %o77ent with (pposition to the etition for Restraining (rder' 2?Respondent 6udge had earlier filed his own %o77ent to the petition on 13 Septe7ber 1247'

29

(n 27 (ctober 1247, !ontoya filed before the trial court a 7otion for the e9ecution of the :ecision of 10 Septe7ber 1247 which petitioners opposed on the ground that although this %ourt had not yet issued in this case a te7porary restraining order, it had ne&ertheless resol&ed to re0uire the respondents to co77ent on the petition' +t was further a&erred that e9ecution thereof would cause $radford gra&e in=ury@ 7oreo&er, enforce7ent of a writ of e9ecution 7ay lead to regrettable incidents and unnecessarily co7plicate the situation in &iew of the public petitionerDs position on the issue of the i77unity of its e7ployees' +n its Resolution of 11 #o&e7ber 1247, the trial court directed the issuance of a writ of e9ecution' 3@ %onse0uently, the petitioners filed on 3 :ece7ber 1247, a !anifestation and !otion reciting the foregoing incidents obtaining before the trial court and praying that their petition for a restraining order be resol&ed' 31 (n 7 :ece7ber 1247, this %ourt issued a Te7porary Restraining (rder ;"#6(+#+#1 the respondents and the ro&incial Sheriff of asig, !etro !anila, fro7 enforcing the :ecision dated Septe7ber 10, 1247, and the Writs of Attach7ent and "9ecution issued in %i&il %ase #o' 223,47'; 32 (n 24 #o&e7ber 1244, after the pri&ate respondent filed a Re=oinder to the %onsolidated Reply to the %o77ents filed by the petitioners, this %ourt ga&e due course to the petition and re0uired the parties to sub7it their respecti&e 7e7oranda, etitioners filed their !e7orandu7 on 4 <ebruary 1242 33 while pri&ate respondent filed her !e7orandu7 on 13 #o&e7ber 1220' 34 The Bernel issue presented in this case is whether or not the trial court co77itted gra&e abuse of discretion in denying the 7otion to dis7iss based on the following grounds8 -a/ the co7plaint in %i&il %ase #o' 223,47 is in effect a suit against the public petitioner, a foreign so&ereign i77une fro7 suit which has not gi&en consent to such suit and -b/ $radford is i77une fro7 suit for acts done by her in the perfor7ance of her official functions as 7anager of the *'S' #a&y "9change of 6*S!A1 pursuant to the hilippines,*nited States !ilitary Assistance Agree7ent of 1237 and the !ilitary $ases Agree7ent of 1237, as a7ended' Aside fro7 7aintaining the affir7ati&e &iew, the public petitioner and $radford e&en go further by asserting that e&en if the latterDs act were ultra &ires she would still be i77une fro7 suit for the rule that public officers or e7ployees 7ay be sued in their personal capacity for ultra &ires and tortious acts is ;do7estic law; and not applicable in +nternational )aw' +t is clai7ed that the application of the i77unity doctrine does not turn upon the lawlessness of the act or o7ission attributable to the foreign national for if this were the case, the concept of i77unity would be 7eaningless as in0uiry into the lawlessness or illegality of the act or o7ission would first ha&e to be 7ade before considering the 0uestion of i77unity@ in other words, i77unity will lie only if such act or o7ission is found to be lawful' (n the other hand, !ontoya sub7its that $radford is not co&ered by the protecti&e 7antle of the doctrine of so&ereign i77unity fro7 suit as the latter is a 7ere ci&ilian e7ployee of 6*S!A1 perfor7ing non,go&ern7ental and proprietary functions' And e&en assu7ing arguendo that $radford is perfor7ing go&ern7ental functions, she would still re7ain outside the co&erage of the doctrine of state i77unity since the act co7plained of is ultra viresor outside the scope of her authority' What is being 0uestioned is not the fact of search alone, but also the 7anner in which the sa7e was conducted as well as the fact of discri7ination against <ilipino e7ployees' $radfordDs authority to order a search, it is asserted, should ha&e been e9ercised with restraint and should ha&e been in accordance with the guidelines and procedures laid down by the cited ;#AAR"SA)"A%T, Subic +nst'; !oreo&er, ultra &ires acts of a public officer or e7ployee, especially tortious and cri7inal acts, are his pri&ate acts and 7ay not be considered as acts of the State' Such officer or e7ployee alone is answerable for any liability arising therefro7 and 7ay thus be proceeded against in his personal capacity' !ontoya further argues that both the acts and person of $radford are not e9e7pt fro7 the hilippine courtsD =urisdiction because -a/ the search was conducted in a parBing lot at Scout $orro7eo, Iue?on %ity, outside the 6*S!A1 store and, therefore, outside the territorial control of the *'S' !ilitary $ases in the hilippines@ -b/ $radford does not possess diplo7atic i77unity under Article 15-b/ of the 12.3 !ilitary Assistance Agree7ent creating the 6*S!A1 which pro&ides that only the %hief of the !ilitary Ad&isory 1roup and not 7ore than si9 -5/ other senior 7e7bers thereof designated by hi7 will be accorded diplo7atic i77unity@ 3) and -c/ the acts co7plained of do not fall under those offenses where the *'S' has been gi&en the right to e9ercise its =urisdiction -per Article 13 of the 1237 !ilitary $ases Agree7ent, as a7ended by the, !ende?,$lair #otes of 10 August 125./' 36 <inally, !ontoya 7aintains that at the &ery least, hilippine courts 7ay in0uire into the factual circu7stances of the case to deter7ine whether petitioner $radford is i77une fro7 suit or e9e7pt fro7 hilippine =urisdiction' To rule otherwise would render the hilippine courts powerless as they 7ay be easily di&ested of their =urisdiction upon the 7ere in&ocation of this principle of i77unity fro7 suit' A careful re&iew of the records of this case and a =udicious scrutiny of the argu7ents of both parties yield nothing but the weaBness of the petitionersD stand' While this can be easily de7onstrated, We shall first consider so7e procedural 7atters' :espite the fact that public petitioner was not i7pleaded as a defendant in %i&il %ase #o' 223,47, it ne&ertheless =oined $radford in the 7otion to dis7iss E on the theory that the suit was in effect against it E without, howe&er,

first ha&ing obtained lea&e of court to inter&ene therein' This was a procedural lapse, if not a downright i7proper legal tacB' Since it was not i7pleaded as an original party, the public petitioner could, on its own &olition, =oin in the case only by inter&ening therein@ such inter&ention, the grant of which is discretionary upon the court, 37 7ay be allowed only upon a prior 7otion for lea&e with notice to all the parties in the action' (f course, !ontoya could ha&e also i7pleaded the public petitioner as an additional defendant by a7ending the co7plaint if she so belie&ed that the latter is an indispensible or necessary party' Since the trial court entertained the 7otion to dis7iss and the subse0uent pleadings filed by the public petitioner and $radford, it 7ay be dee7ed to ha&e allowed the public petitioner to inter&ene' %orollarily, because of its &oluntary appearance, the public petitioner 7ust be dee7ed to ha&e sub7itted itself to the =urisdiction of the trial court' !oreo&er, the said 7otion does not specify any of the grounds for a 7otion to dis7iss enu7erated in Section 1, Rule 15 of the Rules of %ourt' +t 7erely recites state i77unity on the part of the public petitioner and i77unity on the part of $radford for the reason that the act i7puted to her was done in the perfor7ance of her official functions' The upshot of this contention is actually lac# of cause of action E a specific ground for dis7issal under the aforesaid Rule E because assu7ing arguendo that !ontoyaDs rights had been &iolated by the public petitioner and $radford, resulting in da7age or in=ury to the for7er, both would not be liable therefor, and no action 7ay be 7aintained thereon, because of the principle of state i77unity' The test of the sufficiency of the facts to constitute a cause of action is whether or not, ad7itting the facts alleged in the co7plaint, the court could render a &alid =udg7ent upon the sa7e, in accordance with the prayer in the co7plaint' 3? A 7otion to dis7iss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action hypothetically ad7its the truth of the allegations in the co7plaint' +n deciding a 7otion to dis7iss, a court 7ay grant, deny, allow a7end7ents to the pleadings or defer the hearing and deter7ination of the sa7e if the ground alleged does not appear to be indubitable' 39 +n the instant case, while the trial court concluded that ;the grounds and argu7ents interposed for the dis7issal; are not ;indubitable,; it denied the 7otion for lac# of merit' What the trial court should ha&e done was to defer there solution on the 7otion instead of denying it for lacB of 7erit' +n any e&ent, whate&er 7ay or should ha&e been done, the public petitioner and $radford were not e9pected to accept the &erdict, 7aBing their recourse to this %ourt &ia the instant petition ine&itable' Thus, whether the trial court should ha&e deferred resolution on or denied outright the 7otion to dis7iss for lacB of 7erit is no longer pertinent or rele&ant' The co7plaint in %i&il %ase #o' 223,47 is for da7ages arising fro7 what !ontoya describes as an ;illegal search; on her ;person and belongings; conducted outside the 6*S!A1 pre7ises in front of 7any people and upon the orders of $radford, who has the propensity for laying suspicion on <ilipinos for theft or shoplifting' +t is a&erred that the said search was directed only against !ontoya' Cowsoe&er &iewed, it is beyond doubt that !ontoyaDs cause of action is pre7ised on the theory that the acts co7plained of were co77itted by $radford not only outside the scope of her authority E or 7ore specifically, in her pri&ate capacity E but also outside the territory where she e9ercises such authority, that is, outside the #"K, 6*S!A1 E particularly, at the parBing area which has not been shown to for7 part of the facility of which she was the 7anager' $y their 7otion to dis7iss, public petitioner and $radford are dee7ed to ha&e hypothetically ad7itted the truth of the allegation in the co7plaint which support this theory' The doctrine of state i77unity and the e9ceptions thereto are su77ari?ed in S)auf vs' +ourt of Appeals, 4@ thus8
+' The rule that a state 7ay not be sued without its consent, now e9pressed in Article KA+ Section 3, of the 1247 %onstitution, is one of the generally accepted principles of international law that we ha&e adopted as part of the law of our land under Article ++, Section 2' This latter pro&ision 7erely reiterates a policy earlier e7bodied in the 123. and 1273 %onstitutions and also intended to 7anifest our resol&e to abide by the rules of the international co77unity' 41 While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it is also applicable to co7plaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly perfor7ed by the7 in the discharge of their duties' The rule is that if the =udg7ent against such officials will re0uire the state itself to perfor7 an affir7ati&e act to satisfy the sa7e, such as the appropriation of the a7ount needed to pay the da7ages awarded against the7, the suit 7ust be regarded as against the state itself although it has not been for7ally i7pleaded' 42 +t 7ust be noted, howe&er, that the rule is not so all,enco7passing as to be applicable under all circu7stances' +t is a different 7atter where the public official is 7ade to account in his capacity as such for acts contrary to law and in=urious to the rights of plaintiff' As was clearly set forth by 6ustice Maldi&ar in :irector of the $ureau of Teleco77unications, et al' &s' Aligaen, etc', et al' 43 ;+nas7uch as the State authori?es only legal acts by its officers, unauthori?ed acts of go&ern7ent officials or officers are not acts of the State,

and an action against the officials or officers by one whose rights ha&e been in&aded or &iolated by such acts, for the protection of his rights, is not a suit against the State within the rule of i77unity of the State fro7 suit' +n the sa7e tenor, it has been said that an action at law or suit in e0uity against a State officer or the director of a State depart7ent on the ground that, while clai7ing to act or the State, he &iolates or in&ades the personal and property rights of the plaintiff, under an unconstitutional act or under an assu7ption of authority which he does not ha&e, is not a suit against the State within the constitutional pro&ision that the State 7ay not be sued without its consent'; 44 The rationale for this ruling is that the doctrinaire of state i77unity cannot be used as an instru7ent for perpetrating an in=ustice' 4)

+n the case of %aer, etc. vs. Tizon, etc., et al., 46 it was ruled that8 There should be no 7isinterpretation of the scope of the decision reached by this %ourt' etitioner, as the %o77ander of the *nited States #a&al $ase in (longapo, does not possess diplo7atic i77unity' Ce 7ay therefore be proceeded against in his personal capacity, or when the action taBen by hi7 cannot be i7puted to the go&ern7ent which he represents' Also, in Animos, et al. vs. $)ilippine Veterans Affairs ffice, et al.,
47

we held that8

' ' ' it is e0ually well,settled that where a litigation 7ay ha&e ad&erse conse0uences on the public treasury, whether in the disburse7ents of funds or loss of property, the public official proceeded against not being liable in his personal capacity, then the doctrine of non,suability 7ay appropriately be in&oBed' +t has no application, howe&er, where the suit against such a functionary had to be instituted because of his failure to co7ply with the duty i7posed by statute appropriating public funds for the benefit of plaintiff or petitioner' ' ' ' '
The aforecited authorities are clear on the 7atter' They state that the doctrine of i77unity fro7 suit will not apply and 7ay not be in&oBed where the public official is being sued in his pri&ate and personal capacity as an ordinary citi?en' The cloaB of protection afforded the officers and agents of the go&ern7ent is re7o&ed the 7o7ent they are sued in their indi&idual capacity' This situation usually arises where the public official acts without authority or in e9cess of the powers &ested in hi7' +t is a well,settled principle of law that a public official 7ay be liable in his personal pri&ate capacity for whate&er da7age he 7ay ha&e caused by his act done with 7alice and in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority or =urisdiction' 4? The agents and officials of the *nited States ar7ed forces stationed in %larB Air $ase are no e9ception to this rule' +n the case of *nited States of A7erica, et al' &s' 1uinto, etc', et al', ante, 49 we declared8

+t bears stressing at this point that the abo&e obser&ations do not confer on the *nited States of A7erica $lanBet i77unity for all acts done by it or its agents in the hilippines' #either 7ay the other petitioners clai7 that they are also insulated fro7 suit in this country 7erely because they ha&e acted as agents of the *nited States in the discharge of their official functions' Since it is apparent fro7 the co7plaint that $radford was sued in her pri&ate or personal capacity for acts allegedly done beyond the scope and e&en beyond her place of official functions, said co7plaint is not then &ulnerable to a 7otion to dis7iss based on the grounds relied upon by the petitioners because as a conse0uence of the hypothetical ad7ission of the truth of the allegations therein, the case falls within the e9ception to the doctrine of state i77unity' +n the recent cases of /illiams vs. Rarang )@ and Minuc)er vs. +ourt of Appeals, )1 this %ourt reiterated this e9ception' +n the for7er, this %ourt obser&ed8 There is no 0uestion, therefore, that the two -2/ petitioners acti&ely participated in screening the features and articles in the (: as part of their official functions' *nder the rule that *'S' officials in the perfor7ance of their official functions are i77une fro7 suit, then it should follow that petitioners 7ay not be held liable for the 0uestioned publication' +t is to be noted, howe&er, that the petitioners were sued in their personal capacities for their alleged tortious acts in publishing a libelous article' The 0uestion, therefore, arises E are A7erican na&al officers who co77it a cri7e or tortious act while discharging official functions still co&ered by the principle of state i77unity fro7 suitH ursuing the 0uestion further, does the grant of rights, power, and authority to the *nited States under the R ,*S $ases Treaty co&er i77unity of its officers fro7 cri7es and tortsH (ur answer is #o'

+n the latter, e&en on the clai7 of diplo7atic i77unity E which $radford does not in fact pretend to ha&e in the instant case as she is not a7ong those granted diplo7atic i77unity under Article 15-b/ of the 12.3 !ilitary Assistance Agree7ent creating the 6*S!A1 )2 E this %ourt ruled8 "&en Article 31 of the Aienna %on&ention on :iplo7atic Relations ad7its of e9ceptions' +t reads8 1' A diplo7atic agent shall en=oy i77unity fro7 the cri7inal =urisdiction of the recei&ing State' Ce shall also en=oy i77unity fro7 its ci&il and ad7inistrati&e =urisdiction e9cept in the case of8 999 999 999 -c/ an action relating to any professional or co77ercial acti&ity e9ercised by the diplo7atic agent in the recei&ing State outside )is official functions-"7phasis supplied/' There can be no doubt that on the basis of the allegations in the co7plaint, !ontoya has a sufficient and &iable cause of action' $radfordDs purported non,suability on the ground of state i77unity is then a defense which 7ay be pleaded in the answer and pro&en at the trial' Since $radford did not file her Answer within the regle7entary period, the trial court correctly declared her in default upon 7otion of the pri&ate respondent' The =udg7ent then rendered against her on 10 Septe7ber 1247 after the e! parte reception of the e&idence for the pri&ate respondent and before this %ourt issued the Te7porary Restraining (rder on 7 :ece7ber 1247 cannot be i7pugned' The filing of the instant petition and the Bnowledge thereof by the trial court did not pre&ent the latter fro7 proceeding with %i&il %ase #o' 223,47' ;+t is ele7entary that the 7ere pendency of a special ci&il action for certiorari, co77enced in relation to a case pending before a lower %ourt, does not interrupt the course of the latter when there is no writ of in=unction restraining it'; )3 WC"R"<(R", the instant petition is :"#+": for lacB of 7erit' The Te7porary Restraining (rder of 7 :ece7ber 1247 is hereby )+<T":' %osts against petitioner $radford' S( (R:"R":' G.R. No. L-14639 March 2), 1919

&ACAR"AS V"LLAV"CENC"O, ET AL., petitioners, &s' JUSTO LU,(AN, ET AL., respondents' Alfonso Mendoza for petitioners. +it" =iscal (iaz for respondents. MALCOLM, J.C The annals of =uridical history fail to re&eal a case 0uite as re7arBable as the one which this application for )a*eas corpus sub7its for decision' While hardly to be e9pected to be 7et with in this 7odern epoch of triu7phant de7ocracy, yet, after all, the cause presents no great difficulty if there is Bept in the forefront of our 7inds the basic principles of popular go&ern7ent, and if we gi&e e9pression to the para7ount purpose for which the courts, as an independent power of such a go&ern7ent, were constituted' The pri7ary 0uestion is D Shall the =udiciary per7it a go&ern7ent of the 7en instead of a go&ern7ent of laws to be set up in the hilippine +slandsH (7itting 7uch e9traneous 7atter, of no 7o7ent to these proceedings, but which 7ight pro&e profitable reading for other depart7ents of the go&ern7ent, the facts are these8 The !ayor of the city of !anila, 6usto )uBban, for the best of all reasons, to e9ter7inate &ice, ordered the segregated district for wo7en of ill repute, which had been per7itted for a nu7ber of years in the city of !anila, closed' $etween (ctober 15 and (ctober 2., 1214, the wo7en were Bept confined to their houses in the district by the police' resu7ably, during this period, the city authorities 0uietly perfected arrange7ents with the $ureau of )abor for sending the wo7en to :a&ao, !indanao, as laborers@ with so7e go&ern7ent office for the use of the coastguard cutters +orregidor and 'egros, and with the %onstabulary for a guard of soldiers' At any rate, about 7idnight of (ctober 2., the police, acting pursuant to orders fro7 the chief of police, Anton Coh7ann and the !ayor of the city of !anila, 6usto )uBban, descended upon the houses, hustled so7e 170 in7ates into patrol wagons, and placed the7 aboard the stea7ers that awaited their arri&al' The wo7en were gi&en no opportunity to collect their belongings, and apparently were under the i7pression that they were being taBen to a police station for an in&estigation' They had no Bnowledge that they were destined for a life in !indanao' They had not been asBed if they wished to depart fro7 that region and had neither directly nor indirectly gi&en their consent to the deportation' The in&oluntary guests were recei&ed on board the stea7ers by a

representati&e of the $ureau of )abor and a detach7ent of %onstabulary soldiers' The two stea7ers with their unwilling passengers sailed for :a&ao during the night of (ctober 2.' The &essels reached their destination at :a&ao on (ctober 22' The wo7en were landed and receipted for as laborers by <rancisco Sales, pro&incial go&ernor of :a&ao, and by <eliciano L>igo and Rafael %astillo' The go&ernor and the )acendero L>igo, who appear as parties in the case, had no pre&ious notification that the wo7en were prostitutes who had been e9pelled fro7 the city of !anila' The further happenings to these wo7en and the serious charges growing out of alleged ill,treat7ent are of public interest, but are not essential to the disposition of this case' Suffice it to say, generally, that so7e of the wo7en 7arried, others assu7ed 7ore or less clandestine relations with 7en, others went to worB in different capacities, others assu7ed a life unBnown and disappeared, and a goodly portion found 7eans to return to !anila' To turn bacB in our narrati&e, =ust about the ti7e the +orregidor and the 'egros were putting in to :a&ao, the attorney for the relati&es and friends of a considerable nu7ber of the deportees presented an application for )a*eas corpus to a 7e7ber of the Supre7e %ourt' Subse0uently, the application, through stipulation of the parties, was 7ade to include all of the wo7en who were sent away fro7 !anila to :a&ao and, as the sa7e 0uestions concerned the7 all, the application will be considered as including the7' The application set forth the salient facts, which need not be repeated, and alleged that the wo7en were illegally restrained of their liberty by 6usto )uBban, !ayor of the city of !anila, Anton Coh7ann, chief of police of the city of !anila, and by certain unBnown parties' The writ was 7ade returnable before the full court' The city fiscal appeared for the respondents, )uBban and Coh7ann, ad7itted certain facts relati&e to se0uestration and deportation, and prayed that the writ should not be granted because the petitioners were not proper parties, because the action should ha&e been begun in the %ourt of <irst +nstance for :a&ao, :epart7ent of !indanao and Sulu, because the respondents did not ha&e any of the wo7en under their custody or control, and because their =urisdiction did not e9tend beyond the boundaries of the city of !anila' According to an e9hibit attached to the answer of the fiscal, the 170 wo7en were destined to be laborers, at good salaries, on the )aciendas of L>igo and 1o&ernor Sales' +n open court, the fiscal ad7itted, in answer to 0uestion of a 7e7ber of the court, that these wo7en had been sent out of !anila without their consent' The court awarded the writ, in an order of #o&e7ber 3, that directed 6usto )uBban, !ayor of the city of !anila, Anton Coh7ann, chief of police of the city of !anila, <rancisco Sales, go&ernor of the pro&ince of :a&ao, and <eliciano L>igo, an )acendero of :a&ao, to bring before the court the persons therein na7ed, alleged to be depri&ed of their liberty, on :ece7ber 2, 1214' $efore the date 7entioned, se&en of the wo7en had returned to !anila at their own e9pense' (n 7otion of counsel for petitioners, their testi7ony was taBen before the clerB of the Supre7e %ourt sitting as co77issioners' (n the day na7ed in the order, :ece7ber 2nd, 1214, none of the persons in whose behalf the writ was issued were produced in court by the respondents' +t has been shown that three of those who had been able to co7e bacB to !anila through their own efforts, were notified by the police and the secret ser&ice to appear before the court' The fiscal appeared, repeated the facts 7ore co7prehensi&ely, reiterated the stand taBen by hi7 when pleading to the original petition copied a telegra7 fro7 the !ayor of the city of !anila to the pro&incial go&ernor of :a&ao and the answer thereto, and telegra7s that had passed between the :irector of )abor and the attorney for that $ureau then in :a&ao, and offered certain affida&its showing that the wo7en were contained with their life in !indanao and did not wish to return to !anila' Respondents Sales answered alleging that it was not possible to fulfill the order of the Supre7e %ourt because the wo7en had ne&er been under his control, because they were at liberty in the ro&ince of :a&ao, and because they had 7arried or signed contracts as laborers' Respondent L>igo answered alleging that he did not ha&e any of the wo7en under his control and that therefore it was i7possible for hi7 to obey the 7andate' The court, after due deliberation, on :ece7ber 10, 1214, pro7ulgated a second order, which related that the respondents had not co7plied with the original order to the satisfaction of the court nor e9plained their failure to do so, and therefore directed that those of the wo7en not in !anila be brought before the court by respondents )uBban, Coh7ann, Sales, and L>igo on 6anuary 13, 1212, unless the wo7en should, in written state7ents &oluntarily 7ade before the =udge of first instance of :a&ao or the clerB of that court, renounce the right, or unless the respondents should de7onstrate so7e other legal 7oti&es that 7ade co7pliance i7possible' +t was further stated that the 0uestion of whether the respondents were in conte7pt of court would later be decided and the reasons for the order announced in the final decision' $efore 6anuary 13, 1212, further testi7ony including that of a nu7ber of the wo7en, of certain detecti&es and police7en, and of the pro&incial go&ernor of :a&ao, was taBen before the clerB of the Supre7e %ourt sitting as co77issioner and the clerB of the %ourt of <irst +nstance of :a&ao acting in the sa7e capacity' (n 6anuary 13, 1212, the respondents technically presented before the %ourt the wo7en who had returned to the city through their own efforts and eight others who had been brought to !anila by the respondents' Attorneys for the respondents, by their returns, once again recounted the facts and further endea&ored to account for all of the persons in&ol&ed in the )a*eas corpus' +n substance, it was stated that the respondents, through their representati&es and agents, had succeeded in bringing fro7 :a&ao with their consent eight wo7en@ that eighty,one wo7en were found in :a&ao who, on notice that if they desired they could return to !anila, transportation fee, renounced the right through sworn state7ents@ that fifty,nine had already returned to !anila by other 7eans, and that despite all efforts to find the7 twenty,si9 could not be located' $oth counsel for petitioners and the city fiscal were per7itted to sub7it 7e7oranda' The first for7ally asBed the court to find 6usto )uBban, !ayor of the city of !anila, Anton Coh7ann, chief of police of the city of !anila, 6ose Rodrigue? and <ernando (rda9, 7e7bers of the police force of the city of !anila, <eliciano L>igo, an )acendero of :a&ao, !odesto 6oa0uin, the attorney for the $ureau of )abor, and Anacleto :ia?, fiscal of the city of !anila, in conte7pt of court' The city fiscal re0uested that the replica al

memorandum de los recurridos, -reply to respondentsD 7e7orandu7/ dated 6anuary 2., 1212, be strucB fro7 the record' +n the second order, the court pro7ised to gi&e the reasons for granting the writ of )a*eas corpus in the final decision' We will now proceed to do so' (ne fact, and one fact only, need be recalled D these one hundred and se&enty wo7en were isolated fro7 society, and then at night, without their consent and without any opportunity to consult with friends or to defend their rights, were forcibly hustled on board stea7ers for transportation to regions unBnown' :espite the feeble atte7pt to pro&e that the wo7en left &oluntarily and gladly, that such was not the case is shown by the 7ere fact that the presence of the police and the constabulary was dee7ed necessary and that these officers of the law chose the shades of night to cloaB their secret and stealthy acts' +ndeed, this is a fact i7possible to refute and practically ad7itted by the respondents' With this situation, a court would ne9t e9pect to resol&e the 0uestion D $y authority of what law did the !ayor and the %hief of olice presu7e to act in deporting by duress these persons fro7 !anila to another distant locality within the hilippine +slandsH We turn to the statutes and we find E Alien prostitutes can be e9pelled fro7 the hilippine +slands in confor7ity with an Act of congress' The 1o&ernor, 1eneral can order the e&iction of undesirable aliens after a hearing fro7 the +slands' Act #o' .12 of the hilippine %o77ission and section 733 of the Re&ised (rdinances of the city of !anila pro&ide for the con&iction and punish7ent by a court of =ustice of any person who is a co77on prostitute' Act #o' 422 authori?es the return of any citi?en of the *nited States, who 7ay ha&e been con&icted of &agrancy, to the ho7eland' #ew LorB and other States ha&e statutes pro&iding for the co77it7ent to the Couse of Refuge of wo7en con&icted of being co77on prostitutes' Always a lawX "&en when the health authorities co7pel &accination, or establish a 0uarantine, or place a leprous person in the %ulion leper colony, it is done pursuant to so7e law or order' $ut one can search in &ain for any law, order, or regulation, which e&en hints at the right of the !ayor of the city of !anila or the chief of police of that city to force citi?ens of the hilippine +slands D and these wo7en despite their being in a sense lepers of society are ne&ertheless not chattels but hilippine citi?ens protected by the sa7e constitutional guaranties as are other citi?ens D to change their do7icile fro7 !anila to another locality' (n the contrary, hilippine penal law specifically punishes any public officer who, not being e9pressly authori?ed by law or regulation, co7pels any person to change his residence' +n other countries, as in Spain and 6apan, the pri&ilege of do7icile is dee7ed so i7portant as to be found in the $ill of Rights of the %onstitution' *nder the A7erican constitutional syste7, liberty of abode is a principle so deeply i7bedded in =urisprudence and considered so ele7entary in nature as not e&en to re0uire a constitutional sanction' "&en the 1o&ernor,1eneral of the hilippine +slands, e&en the resident of the *nited States, who has often been said to e9ercise 7ore power than any Bing or potentate, has no such arbitrary prerogati&e, either inherent or e9press' !uch less, therefore, has the e9ecuti&e of a 7unicipality, who acts within a sphere of delegated powers' +f the 7ayor and the chief of police could, at their 7ere behest or e&en for the 7ost praiseworthy of 7oti&es, render the liberty of the citi?en so insecure, then the presidents and chiefs of police of one thousand other 7unicipalities of the hilippines ha&e the sa7e pri&ilege' +f these officials can taBe to the7sel&es such power, then any other official can do the sa7e' And if any official can e9ercise the power, then all persons would ha&e =ust as 7uch right to do so' And if a prostitute could be sent against her wishes and under no law fro7 one locality to another within the country, then officialdo7 can hold the sa7e club o&er the head of any citi?en' )aw defines power' %enturies ago !agna %harta decreed that D ;#o free7an shall be taBen, or i7prisoned, or be dissei?ed of his freehold, or liberties, or free custo7s, or be outlawed, or e9iled, or any other wise destroyed@ nor will we pass upon hi7 nor conde7n hi7, but by lawful =udg7ent of his peers or by the law of the land' We will sell to no 7an, we will not deny or defer to any 7an either =ustice or right'; -!agna %harta, 2 Cen', 111, 122., %ap' 22@ 1 eng' stat' at )arge, 7'/ #o official, no 7atter how high, is abo&e the law' The courts are the foru7 which functionate to safeguard indi&idual liberty and to punish official transgressors' ;The law,; said 6ustice !iller, deli&ering the opinion of the Supre7e %ourt of the *nited States, ;is the only supre7e power in our syste7 of go&ern7ent, and e&ery 7an who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the 7ore strongly bound to sub7it to that supre7acy, and to obser&e the li7itations which it i7poses upon the e9ercise of the authority which it gi&es'; -*'S' vs. )ee F1442G, 105 *'S', 125, 220'/ ;The &ery idea,; said 6ustice !atthews of the sa7e high tribunal in another case, ;that one 7an 7ay be co7pelled to hold his life, or the 7eans of li&ing, or any 7aterial right essential to the en=oy7ent of life, at the 7ere will of another, see7s to be intolerable in any country where freedo7 pre&ails, as being the essence of sla&ery itself'; -LicB Wo vs. CopBins F1445G, 114 *'S', 3.5, 370'/ All this e9plains the 7oti&e in issuing the writ of )a*eas corpus, and 7aBes clear why we said in the &ery beginning that the pri7ary 0uestion was whether the courts should per7it a go&ern7ent of 7en or a go&ern7ent of laws to be established in the hilippine +slands' What are the re7edies of the unhappy &icti7s of official oppressionH The re7edies of the citi?en are three8 -1/ %i&il action@ -2/ cri7inal action, and -3/ )a*eas corpus' The first is an optional but rather slow process by which the aggrie&ed party 7ay recoup 7oney da7ages' +t 7ay still rest with the parties in interest to pursue such an action, but it was ne&er intended effecti&ely and pro7ptly to 7eet any such situation as that now before us'

As to cri7inal responsibility, it is true that the enal %ode in force in these +slands pro&ides8 Any public officer not thereunto authori?ed by law or by regulations of a general character in force in the hilippines who shall banish any person to a place 7ore than two hundred Bilo7eters distant fro7 his do7icile, e9cept it be by &irtue of the =udg7ent of a court, shall be punished by a fine of not less than three hundred and twenty,fi&e and not 7ore than three thousand two hundred and fifty pesetas' Any public officer not thereunto e9pressly authori?ed by law or by regulation of a general character in force in the hilippines who shall co7pel any person to change his do7icile or residence shall suffer the penalty of destierro and a fine of not less than si9 hundred and twenty,fi&e and not 7ore than si9 thousand two hundred and fifty pesetas' -Art' 211'/ We entertain no doubt but that, if, after due in&estigation, the proper prosecuting officers find that any public officer has &iolated this pro&ision of law, these prosecutors will institute and press a cri7inal prosecution =ust as &igorously as they ha&e defended the sa7e official in this action' #e&ertheless, that the act 7ay be a cri7e and that the persons guilty thereof can be proceeded against, is no bar to the instant proceedings' To 0uote the words of 6udge %ooley in a case which will later be referred to D ;+t would be a 7onstrous ano7aly in the law if to an application by one unlawfully confined, ta be restored to his liberty, it could be a sufficient answer that the confine7ent was a cri7e, and therefore 7ight be continued indefinitely until the guilty party was tried and punished therefor by the slow process of cri7inal procedure'; -+n the 7atter of 6acBson F1457G, 1. !ich', 315, 333'/ The writ of )a*eas corpus was de&ised and e9ists as a speedy and effectual re7edy to relie&e persons fro7 unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedo7' Any further rights of the parties are left untouched by decision on the writ, whose principal purpose is to set the indi&idual at liberty' 1ranted that )a*eas corpus is the proper re7edy, respondents ha&e raised three specific ob=ections to its issuance in this instance' The fiscal has argued -l/ that there is a defect in parties petitioners, -2/ that the Supre7e %ourt should not a assu7e =urisdiction, and -3/ that the person in 0uestion are not restrained of their liberty by respondents' +t was finally suggested that the =urisdiction of the !ayor and the chief of police of the city of !anila only e9tends to the city li7its and that perforce they could not bring the wo7en fro7 :a&ao' The first defense was not presented with any &igor by counsel' The petitioners were relati&es and friends of the deportees' The way the e9pulsion was conducted by the city officials 7ade it i7possible for the wo7en to sign a petition for )a*eas corpus' +t was conse0uently proper for the writ to be sub7itted by persons in their behalf' -%ode of %ri7inal rocedure, sec' 74@ %ode of %i&il rocedure, sec' .27'/ The law, in its ?ealous regard for personal liberty, e&en 7aBes it the duty of a court or =udge to grant a writ of )a*eas corpus if there is e&idence that within the courtDs =urisdiction a person is un=ustly i7prisoned or restrained of his liberty, though no application be 7ade therefor' -%ode of %ri7inal rocedure, sec' 23'/ etitioners had standing in court' The fiscal ne9t contended that the writ should ha&e been asBed for in the %ourt of <irst +nstance of :a&ao or should ha&e been 7ade returnable before that court' +t is a general rule of good practice that, to a&oid unnecessary e9pense and incon&enience, petitions for )a*eas corpus should be presented to the nearest =udge of the court of first instance' $ut this is not a hard and fast rule' The writ of )a*eas corpus 7ay be granted by the Supre7e %ourt or any =udge thereof enforcible anywhere in the hilippine +slands' -%ode of %ri7inal rocedure, sec' 72@ %ode of %i&il rocedure, sec' .25'/ Whether the writ shall be 7ade returnable before the Supre7e %ourt or before an inferior court rests in the discretion of the Supre7e %ourt and is dependent on the particular circu7stances' +n this instance it was not shown that the %ourt of <irst +nstance of :a&ao was in session, or that the wo7en had any 7eans by which to ad&ance their plea before that court' (n the other hand, it was shown that the petitioners with their attorneys, and the two original respondents with their attorney, were in !anila@ it was shown that the case in&ol&ed parties situated in different parts of the +slands@ it was shown that the wo7en 7ight still be i7prisoned or restrained of their liberty@ and it was shown that if the writ was to acco7plish its purpose, it 7ust be taBen cogni?ance of and decided i77ediately by the appellate court' The failure of the superior court to consider the application and then to grant the writ would ha&e a7ounted to a denial of the benefits of the writ' The last argu7ent of the fiscal is 7ore plausible and 7ore difficult to 7eet' When the writ was prayed for, says counsel, the parties in whose behalf it was asBed were under no restraint@ the wo7en, it is clai7ed, were free in :a&ao, and the =urisdiction of the 7ayor and the chief of police did not e9tend beyond the city li7its' At first blush, this is a tenable position' (n closer e9a7ination, acceptance of such dictu7 is found to be per&ersi&e of the first principles of the writ of )a*eas corpus' A pri7e specification of an application for a writ of )a*eas corpus is restraint of liberty' The essential ob=ect and purpose of the writ of )a*eas corpus is to in0uire into all 7anner of in&oluntary restraint as distinguished fro7 &oluntary, and to relie&e a person therefro7 if such restraint is illegal' Any restraint which will preclude freedo7 of action is sufficient' The forcible taBing of these wo7en fro7 !anila by officials of that city, who handed the7 o&er to other parties, who deposited the7 in a distant region, depri&ed these wo7en of freedo7 of loco7otion =ust as effecti&ely as if they had been i7prisoned' laced in :a&ao without either 7oney or personal belongings, they were pre&ented fro7 e9ercising the liberty of going when and where they pleased' The restraint of liberty which began in !anila continued until the aggrie&ed parties were returned to !anila and released or until they freely and truly wai&ed his right'

%onsider for a 7o7ent what an agree7ent with such a defense would 7ean' The chief e9ecuti&e of any 7unicipality in the hilippines could forcibly and illegally taBe a pri&ate citi?en and place hi7 beyond the boundaries of the 7unicipality, and then, when called upon to defend his official action, could cal7ly fold his hands and clai7 that the person was under no restraint and that he, the official, had no =urisdiction o&er this other 7unicipality' We belie&e the true principle should be that, if the respondent is within the =urisdiction of the court and has it in his power to obey the order of the court and thus to undo the wrong that he has inflicted, he should be co7pelled to do so' "&en if the party to who7 the writ is addressed has illegally parted with the custody of a person before the application for the writ is no reason why the writ should not issue' +f the 7ayor and the chief of police, acting under no authority of law, could deport these wo7en fro7 the city of !anila to :a&ao, the sa7e officials 7ust necessarily ha&e the sa7e 7eans to return the7 fro7 :a&ao to !anila' The respondents, within the reach of process, 7ay not be per7itted to restrain a fellow citi?en of her liberty by forcing her to change her do7icile and to a&ow the act with i7punity in the courts, while the person who has lost her birthright of liberty has no effecti&e recourse' The great writ of liberty 7ay not thus be easily e&aded' +t 7ust be that so7e such 0uestion has heretofore been presented to the courts for decision' #e&ertheless, strange as it 7ay see7, a close e9a7ination of the authorities fails to re&eal any analogous case' %ertain decisions of respectable courts are howe&er &ery persuasi&e in nature' A 0uestion ca7e before the Supre7e %ourt of the State of !ichigan at an early date as to whether or not a writ of)a*eas corpus would issue fro7 the Supre7e %ourt to a person within the =urisdiction of the State to bring into the State a 7inor child under guardianship in the State, who has been and continues to be detained in another State' The 7e7bership of the !ichigan Supre7e %ourt at this ti7e was notable' +t was co7posed of !artin, chief =ustice, and %ooley, %a7pbell, and %hristiancy, =ustices' (n the 0uestion presented the court was e0ually di&ided' %a7pbell, 6', with who7 concurred !artin, %' 6', held that the writ should be 0uashed' %ooley, 6', one of the 7ost distinguished A7erican =udges and law,writers, with who7 concurred %hristiancy, 6', held that the writ should issue' Since the opinion of 6ustice %a7pbell was predicated to a large e9tent on his conception of the "nglish decisions, and since, as will hereafter appear, the "nglish courts ha&e taBen a contrary &iew, only the following elo0uent passages fro7 the opinion of 6ustice %ooley are 0uoted8 + ha&e not yet seen sufficient reason to doubt the power of this court to issue the present writ on the petition which was laid before us' ' ' ' +t would be strange indeed if, at this late day, after the eulogiu7s of si9 centuries and a half ha&e been e9pended upon the !agna %harta, and ri&ers of blood shed for its establish7ent@ after its 7any confir7ations, until %oBe could declare in his speech on the petition of right that ;!agna %harta was such a fellow that he will ha&e no so&ereign,; and after the e9tension of its benefits and securities by the petition of right, bill of rights and )a*eas corpus acts, it should now be disco&ered that e&asion of that great clause for the protection of personal liberty, which is the life and soul of the whole instru7ent, is so easy as is clai7ed here' +f it is so, it is i7portant that it be deter7ined without delay, that the legislature 7ay apply the proper re7edy, as + can not doubt they would, on the sub=ect being brought to their notice' ' ' ' The second proposition D that the statutory pro&isions are confined to the case of i7prison7ent within the state D see7s to 7e to be based upon a 7isconception as to the source of our =urisdiction' +t was ne&er the case in "ngland that the court of BingDs bench deri&ed its =urisdiction to issue and enforce this writ fro7 the statute' Statutes were not passed to gi&e the right, but to co7pel the obser&ance of rights which e9isted' ' ' ' The i7portant fact to be obser&ed in regard to the 7ode of procedure upon this writ is, that it is directed to and ser&ed upon, not the person confined, but his =ailor' +t does not reach the for7er e9cept through the latter' The officer or person who ser&es it does not unbar the prison doors, and set the prisoner free, but the court relie&es hi7 by co7pelling the oppressor to release his constraint' The whole force of the writ is spent upon the respondent, and if he fails to obey it, the 7eans to be resorted to for the purposes of co7pulsion are fine and i7prison7ent' This is the ordinary 7ode of affording relief, and if any other 7eans are resorted to, they are only au9iliary to those which are usual' T)e place of confinement is, t)erefore, not important to t)e relief, if t)e guilt" part" is ,it)in reac) of process, so t)at *" t)e po,er of t)e court )e can *e compelled to release )is grasp' The difficulty of affording redress is not increased by the confine7ent being beyond the li7its of the state, e9cept as greater distance 7ay affect it' The i7portant 0uestion is, where the power of control e9ercisedH And + a7 aware of no other re7edy' -+n the 7atter of 6acBson F1457G, 1. !ich', 315'/ The opinion of 6udge %ooley has since been accepted as authoritati&e by other courts' -Ri&ers vs. !itchell F1441G, .7 +owa, 123@ $reene vs. eople F1211G, %olo', 117 ac' Rep', 1000@ &! parte Loung F1422G, .0 <ed', .25'/ The "nglish courts ha&e gi&en careful consideration to the sub=ect' Thus, a child had been taBen out of "nglish by the respondent' A writ of )a*eas corpus was issued by the IueenDs $ench :i&ision upon the application of the 7other and her husband directing the defendant to produce the child' The =udge at cha7bers ga&e defendant until a certain date to produce the child, but he did not do so' Cis return stated that the child before the issuance of the writ had been handed o&er by hi7 to another@ that it was no longer in his custody or control, and that it was i7possible for hi7 to obey the writ' Ce was found in conte7pt of court' (n appeal, the court, through )ord "sher, !' R', said8

A writ of )a*eas corpus was ordered to issue, and was issued on 6anuary 22' That writ co77anded the defendant to ha&e the body of the child before a =udge in cha7bers at the Royal %ourts of 6ustice i77ediately after the receipt of the writ, together with the cause of her being taBen and detained' T)at is a command to *ring t)e c)ild *efore t)e 6udge and must *e o*e"ed, unless some la,ful reason can *e s)o,n to e!cuse t)e nonproduction of t)e c)ild. <f it could *e s)o,n t)at *" reason of )is )aving la,full" parted ,it) t)e possession of t)e c)ild *efore t)e issuing of t)e ,rit, t)e defendant )ad no longer po,er to produce t)e c)ild, t)at mig)t *e an ans,er> *ut in t)e a*sence of an" la,ful reason )e is *ound to produce t)e c)ild, and, if )e does not, )e is in contempt of t)e +ourt for not o*e"ing t)e ,rit ,it)out la,ful e!cuse ' !any efforts ha&e been 7ade in argu7ent to shift the 0uestion of conte7pt to so7e anterior period for the purpose of showing that what was done at so7e ti7e prior to the writ cannot be a conte7pt' $ut the 0uestion is not as to what was done before the issue of the writ' The 0uestion is whether there has been a conte7pt in disobeying the writ it was issued by not producing the child in obedience to its co77ands' -The Iueen vs. $ernardo F1442G, 23 I' $' :', 30.' See also to the sa7e effect the +rish case of <n re !atthews, 12 +r' %o7' )aw Rep' F#' S'G, 233@ The Iueen vs. $arnardo, 1ossageDs %ase F1420G, 23 I' $' :', 243'/ A decision co7ing fro7 the <ederal %ourts is also of interest' A )a*eas corpus was directed to the defendant to ha&e before the circuit court of the :istrict of %olu7bia three colored persons, with the cause of their detention' :a&is, in his return to the writ, stated on oath that he had purchased the negroes as sla&es in the city of Washington@ that, as he belie&ed, they were re7o&ed beyond the :istrict of %olu7bia before the ser&ice of the writ of )a*eas corpus, and that they were then beyond his control and out of his custody' The e&idence tended to show that :a&is had re7o&ed the negroes because he suspected they would apply for a writ of )a*eas corpus' The court held the return to be e&asi&e and insufficient, and that :a&is was bound to produce the negroes, and :a&is being present in court, and refusing to produce the7, ordered that he be co77itted to the custody of the 7arshall until he should produce the negroes, or be otherwise discharged in due course of law' The court afterwards ordered that :a&is be released upon the production of two of the negroes, for one of the negroes had run away and been lodged in =ail in !aryland' :a&is produced the two negroes on the last day of the ter7' -*nited States vs. :a&is F1432G, . %ranch %'%', 522, <ed' %as' #o' 13225' See also Robb vs. %onnolly F1443G, 111 *'S', 523@ %hurch on Cabeas, 2nd ed', p' 170'/ We find, therefore, both on reason and authority, that no one of the defense offered by the respondents constituted a legiti7ate bar to the granting of the writ of )a*eas corpus' There re7ains to be considered whether the respondent co7plied with the two orders of the Supre7e %ourt awarding the writ of )a*eas corpus, and if it be found that they did not, whether the conte7pt should be punished or be taBen as purged' The first order, it will be recalled, directed 6usto )uBban, Anton Coh7ann, <rancisco Sales, and <eliciano L>igo to present the persons na7ed in the writ before the court on :ece7ber 2, 1214' The order was dated #o&e7ber 3, 1214' The respondents were thus gi&en a7ple ti7e, practically one 7onth, to co7ply with the writ' As far as the record discloses, the !ayor of the city of !anila waited until the 21st of #o&e7ber before sending a telegra7 to the pro&incial go&ernor of :a&ao' According to the response of the attorney for the $ureau of )abor to the telegra7 of his chief, there were then in :a&ao wo7en who desired to return to !anila, but who should not be per7itted to do so because of ha&ing contracted debts' The half,hearted effort naturally resulted in none of the parties in 0uestion being brought before the court on the day na7ed' <or the respondents to ha&e fulfilled the courtDs order, three optional courses were open8 -1/ They could ha&e produced the bodies of the persons according to the co77and of the writ@ or -2/ they could ha&e shown by affida&it that on account of sicBness or infir7ity those persons could not safely be brought before the court@ or -3/ they could ha&e presented affida&its to show that the parties in 0uestion or their attorney wai&ed the right to be present' -%ode of %ri7inal rocedure, sec' 47'/ They did not produce the bodies of the persons in whose behalf the writ was granted@ they did not show i7possibility of perfor7ance@ and they did not present writings that wai&ed the right to be present by those interested' +nstead a few stereotyped affida&its purporting to show that the wo7en were contended with their life in :a&ao, so7e of which ha&e since been repudiated by the signers, were appended to the return' That through ordinary diligence a considerable nu7ber of the wo7en, at least si9ty, could ha&e been brought bacB to !anila is de7onstrated to be found in the 7unicipality of :a&ao, and that about this nu7ber either returned at their own e9pense or were produced at the second hearing by the respondents' The court, at the ti7e the return to its first order was 7ade, would ha&e been warranted su77arily in finding the respondents guilty of conte7pt of court, and in sending the7 to =ail until they obeyed the order' Their e9cuses for the non,production of the persons were far fro7 sufficient' The, authorities cited herein pertaining to so7ewhat si7ilar facts all tend to indicate with what e9actitude a )a*eas corpus writ 7ust be fulfilled' <or e9a7ple, in 1ossageDs case, supra, the !agistrate in referring to an earlier decision of the %ourt, said8 ; /e t)oug)t t)at, )aving *roug)t a*out t)at state of t)ings *" )is o,n illegal act, )e must ta#e t)e conse9uences @ and we said that he was bound to use e&ery effort to get the child bacB@ that he 7ust do 7uch 7ore than write letters for the purpose@ that he 7ust ad&ertise in A7erica, and e&en if necessary hi7self go after the child, and do e&erything that 7ortal 7an could do in the 7atter@ and that the court would only accept clear proof of an absolute i7possibility by way of e9cuse'; +n other words, the return did not show that e&ery possible effort to produce the wo7en was 7ade by the respondents' That the court forebore at this ti7e to taBe drastic action was because it did not wish to see presented to the public ga?e the spectacle of a clash between e9ecuti&e officials and the =udiciary, and because it desired to gi&e the respondents another chance to de7onstrate their good faith and to 7itigate their wrong'

+n response to the second order of the court, the respondents appear to ha&e beco7e 7ore ?ealous and to ha&e shown a better spirit' Agents were dispatched to !indanao, placards were posted, the constabulary and the 7unicipal police =oined in rounding up the wo7en, and a stea7er with free transportation to !anila was pro&ided' While charges and counter,charges in such a bitterly contested case are to be e9pected, and while a critical reading of the record 7ight re&eal a failure of literal fulfill7ent with our 7andate, we co7e to conclude that there is a substantial co7pliance with it' (ur finding to this effect 7ay be influenced so7ewhat by our sincere desire to see this unhappy incident finally closed' +f any wrong is now being perpetrated in :a&ao, it should recei&e an e9ecuti&e in&estigation' +f any particular indi&idual is still restrained of her liberty, it can be 7ade the ob=ect of separate )a*eas corpus proceedings' Since the writ has already been granted, and since we find a substantial co7pliance with it, nothing further in this connection re7ains to be done' The attorney for the petitioners asBs that we find in conte7pt of court 6usto )uBban, !ayor of the city of !anila, Anton Coh7ann, chief of police of the city of !anila, 6ose Rodrigue?, and <ernando (rda9, 7e7bers of the police force of the city of !anila, !odesto 6oa0uin, the attorney for the $ureau of )abor, <eliciano L>igo, an )acenderoof :a&ao, and Anacleto :ia?, <iscal of the city of !anila' The power to punish for conte7pt of court should be e9ercised on the preser&ati&e and not on the &indicti&e principle' (nly occasionally should the court in&oBe its inherent power in order to retain that respect without which the ad7inistration of =ustice 7ust falter or fail' #e&ertheless when one is co77anded to produce a certain person and does not do so, and does not offer a &alid e9cuse, a court 7ust, to &indicate its authority, ad=udge the respondent to be guilty of conte7pt, and 7ust order hi7 either i7prisoned or fined' An officerDs failure to produce the body of a person in obedience to a writ of )a*eas corpus when he has power to do so, is a conte7pt co77itted in the face of the court' -&! parte Sterns F1444G, 77 %al', 1.5@ +n re atterson F1444G, 22 #' %', 307'/ With all the facts and circu7stances in 7ind, and with =udicial regard for hu7an i7perfections, we cannot say that any of the respondents, with the possible e9ception of the first na7ed, has flatly disobeyed the court by acting in opposition to its authority' Respondents Coh7ann, Rodrigue?, (rda9, and 6oa0uin only followed the orders of their chiefs, and while, under the law of public officers, this does not e9onerate the7 entirely, it is ne&ertheless a powerful 7itigating circu7stance' The )acendero L>igo appears to ha&e been drawn into the case through a 7isconstruction by counsel of telegraphic co77unications' The city fiscal, Anacleto :ia?, would see7 to ha&e done no 7ore than to fulfill his duty as the legal representati&e of the city go&ern7ent' <inding hi7 innocent of any disrespect to the court, his counter,7otion to striBe fro7 the record the 7e7orandu7 of attorney for the petitioners, which brings hi7 into this undesirable position, 7ust be granted' When all is said and done, as far as this record discloses, the official who was pri7arily responsible for the unlawful deportation, who ordered the police to acco7plish the sa7e, who 7ade arrange7ents for the stea7ers and the constabulary, who conducted the negotiations with the $ureau of )abor, and who later, as the head of the city go&ern7ent, had it within his power to facilitate the return of the unfortunate wo7en to !anila, was 6usto )uBban, the !ayor of the city of !anila' Cis intention to suppress the social e&il was co77endable' Cis 7ethods were unlawful' Cis regard for the writ of )a*eas corpus issued by the court was only tardily and reluctantly acBnowledged' +t would be possible to turn to the pro&isions of section .35 of the %ode of %i&il rocedure, which relates to the penalty for disobeying the writ, and in pursuance thereof to re0uire respondent )uBban to forfeit to the parties aggrie&ed as 7uch as 300 each, which would reach to 7any thousands of pesos, and in addition to deal with hi7 as for a conte7pt' So7e 7e7bers of the court are inclined to this stern &iew' +t would also be possible to find that since respondent )uBban did co7ply substantially with the second order of the court, he has purged his conte7pt of the first order' So7e 7e7bers of the court are inclined to this 7erciful &iew' $etween the two e9tre7es appears to lie the correct finding' The failure of respondent )uBban to obey the first 7andate of the court tended to belittle and e7barrass the ad7inistration of =ustice to such an e9tent that his later acti&ity 7ay be considered only as e9tenuating his conduct' A no7inal fine will at once co77and such respect without being unduly oppressi&e Dsuch an a7ount is 100' +n resu7e D as before stated, no further action on the writ of )a*eas corpus is necessary' The respondents Coh7ann, Rodrigue?, (rda9, 6oa0uin, L>igo, and :ia? are found not to be in conte7pt of court' Respondent )uBban is found in conte7pt of court and shall pay into the office of the clerB of the Supre7e %ourt within fi&e days the su7 of one hundred pesos - 100/' The 7otion of the fiscal of the city of !anila to striBe fro7 the record theReplica al Memorandum de los Recurridos of 6anuary 2., 1212, is granted' %osts shall be ta9ed against respondents' So ordered' +n concluding this tedious and disagreeable tasB, 7ay we not be per7itted to e9press the hope that this decision 7ay ser&e to bulwarB the fortifications of an orderly go&ern7ent of laws and to protect indi&idual liberty fro7 illegal encroach7ent'

This is 1oogleDs cache of http8JJwww'lawphil'netJ=ud=urisJ=uri2003Jdec2003JgrY127442Y2003'ht7l ' +t is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 31 6ul 2013 1183.802 1!T' The current page could ha&e changed in the 7eanti7e' )earn

7ore Tip8 To 0uicBly find your search ter7 on this page, press C1r9O$ or -$ -!ac/ and use the find bar' Te9t,only &ersion These search ter7s are highlighted8 Gr 127??2

G.R. No. 127??2

%4c4:<4r 1, 2@@4

LA (UGAL-(PLAAN TR"(AL ASSOC"AT"ON, "NC., R40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ Cha.r:a* $PLONG M"GUEL M. LUMA#ONG7 -"G(ERTO E. TA'A%A7 PONC"ANO (ENNAGEN7 JA"ME TA%EO7 RENATO R. CONSTANT"NO JR.7 $PLONG AGUST"N M. %A("E7 RO(ERTO P. AMLO#7 RAD"M L. %A("E7 S"MEON . %OLOJO7 "MEL%A M. GAN%ON7 LEN# (. GUSANAN7 MARCELO L. GUSANAN7 DU"NTOL A. LA(UA#AN7 LOM"NGGES %. LA-A#7 (EN"TA P. TACUA#AN7 M.*or/ JOL# L. (UGO#, R40r4/4*14+ <2 ./ $a1h4r UN%ERO %. (UGO# a*+ ROGER M. %A%"NG7 R40r4/4*14+ <2 ./ $a1h4r ANTON"O L. %A%"NG7 ROM# M. LAGARO, R40r4/4*14+ <2 ./ $a1h4r TOT"NG A. LAGARO7 M",EN# JONG (. LUMA#ONG, R40r4/4*14+ <2 ./ $a1h4r M"GUEL M. LUMA#ONG7 RENE T. M"GUEL, R40r4/4*14+ <2 ./ Mo1h4r E%"T A T. M"GUEL7 AL%EMAR L. SAL, R40r4/4*14+ <2 ./ $a1h4r %ANN# M. SAL7 %A"S# RECARSE, R40r4/4*14+ <2 4r Mo1h4r L#%"A S. SANTOS7 E%-AR% M. EMU#7 ALAN P. MAMPARA"R7 MAR"O L. MANGCAL7 AL%EN S. TUSAN7 AMPARO S. #AP7 V"RG"L"O CULAR7 MARV"C M.V.$. LEONEN7 JUL"A REG"NA CULAR, G"AN CARLO CULAR, V"RG"L"O CULAR JR., R40r4/4*14+ <2 Th4.r $a1h4r V"RG"L"O CULAR7 PAUL ANTON"O P. V"LLAMOR, R40r4/4*14+ <2 ./ Par4*1/ JOSE V"LLAMOR a*+ EL"&A(ET PUA-V"LLAMOR7 ANA G"N"NA R. TALJA, R40r4/4*14+ <2 4r $a1h4r MAR"O JOSE (. TALJA7 S ARMA"NE R. CUNANAN, R40r4/4*14+ <2 4r $a1h4r AL$RE%O M. CUNANAN7 ANTON"O JOSE A. V"TUG """, R40r4/4*14+ <2 ./ Mo1h4r ANNAL"&A A. V"TUG, LEAN %. NARVA%E&, R40r4/4*14+ <2 ./ $a1h4r MANUEL E. NARVA%E& JR.7 ROSER"O MARALAG L"NGAT"NG, R40r4/4*14+ <2 4r $a1h4r R"O OL"MP"O A. L"NGAT"NG7 MAR"O JOSE (. TALJA7 %AV"% E. %E VERA7 MAR"A M"LAGROS L. SAN JOSE7 Sr. SUSAN O. (OLAN"O, ON%7 LOL"TA G. %EMONTEVER%E7 (ENJ"E L. NEDU"NTO71 ROSE L"L"A S. ROMANO7 RO(ERTO S. VER&OLA7 E%UAR%O AUREL"O C. RE#ES7 LEAN LOUEL A. PER"A, R40r4/4*14+ <2 ./ $a1h4r ELP"%"O V. PER"A7 2 GREEN $ORUM P "L"PP"NES7 GREEN $ORUM -ESTERN V"SA#AS EG$--VF7 ENV"RONMENTAL LEGAL ASS"STANCE CENTER EELACF7 ,A"SA AN TUNGO SA ,AUNLARAN NG ,ANA#UNAN AT REPORMANG PANSA,A AN E,A"SA ANF73 PARTNERS "P $OR AGRAR"AN RE$ORM a*+ RURAL %EVELOPMENT SERV"CES, "NC. EPARR%SF7 P "L"PP"NE PARTNERS "P $OR T E %EVELOPMENT O$ UMAN RESOURCES "N T E RURAL AREAS, "NC. EP "L% RRAF7 -OMENPS LEGAL (UREAU E-L(F7 CENTER $OR ALTERNAT"VE %EVELOPMENT "N"T"AT"VES, "NC. ECA%"F7 UPLAN% %EVELOPMENT "NST"TUTE EU%"F7 ,"NA"#A AN $OUN%AT"ON, "NC.7 SENTRO NG ALTERNAT"(ONG L"NGAP PANL"GAL ESAL"GANF7 a*+ LEGAL R"G TS AN% NATURAL RESOURCES CENTER, "NC. ELRCF, petitioners, &s' V"CTOR O. RAMOS, S4cr41ar2, %40ar1:4*1 o8 E*6.ro*:4*1 a*+ Na15ra9 R4/o5rc4/ E%ENRF7 ORAC"O RAMOS, %.r4c1or, M.*4/ a*+ G4o/c.4*c4/ (5r4a5 EMG(-%ENRF7 RU(EN TORRES, E34c51.64 S4cr41ar27 a*+ -MC EP "L"PP"NESF, "NC.,4 respondents'

R"S()*T+(#

PANGAN"(AN, J.C All 7ineral resources are owned by the State' Their e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation -":*/ 7ust always be sub=ect to the full control and super&ision of the State' !ore specifically, gi&en the inade0uacy of <ilipino capital and technology in large1scale ":* acti&ities, the State 7ay secure the help of foreign co7panies in all rele&ant 7atters ,, especially financial and technical assistance ,, pro&ided that, at all ti7es, the State 7aintains its right of full control' The foreign assistor or contractor assu7es all financial, technical and entrepreneurial risBs in the ":* acti&ities@ hence, it 7ay be gi&en reasonable 7anage7ent, operational, 7arBeting, audit and other prerogati&es to protect its in&est7ents and to enable the business to succeed' <ull control is not anathe7atic to day,to,day 7anage7ent by the contractor, pro&ided that the State retains the power to direct o&erall strategy@ and to set aside, re&erse or 7odify plans and actions of the contractor' The idea of full control is si7ilar to that which is e9ercised by the board of directors of a pri&ate corporation8 the perfor7ance of 7anagerial, operational, financial, 7arBeting and other functions 7ay be delegated to subordinate officers or gi&en to contractual entities, but the board retains full residual control of the business'

Who or what organ of go&ern7ent actually e9ercises this power of control on behalf of the StateH The %onstitution is crystal clear8 the Pr4/.+4*1' +ndeed, the %hief "9ecuti&e is the official constitutionally 7andated to ;enter into agree7ents with foreign owned corporations'; (n the other hand, %ongress 7ay re&iew the action of the resident once it is notified of ;e&ery contract entered into in accordance with this FconstitutionalG pro&ision within thirty days fro7 its e9ecution'; +n contrast to this e9press 7andate of the resident and %ongress in the ":* of natural resources, Article K++ of the %onstitution is silent on the role of the =udiciary' Cowe&er, should the resident andJor %ongress gra&ely abuse their discretion in this regard, the courts 7ay ,, in a proper case ,, e9ercise their residual duty under Article A+++' %learly then, the =udiciary should not inordinately interfere in the e9ercise of this presidential power of control o&er the ":* of our natural resources' The %onstitution should be read in broad, life,gi&ing stroBes' +t should not be used to strangulate econo7ic growth or to ser&e narrow, parochial interests' Rather, it should be construed to grant the resident and %ongress sufficient discretion and reasonable leeway to enable the7 to attract foreign in&est7ents and e9pertise, as well as to secure for our people and our posterity the blessings of prosperity and peace' (n the basis of this control standard, this %ourt upholds the constitutionality of the hilippine !ining )aw, its +7ple7enting Rules and Regulations ,, insofar as they relate to financial and technical agree7ents ,, as well as the sub=ect <inancial and Technical Assistance Agree7ent -<TAA/'. Background The etition for rohibition and !anda7us before the %ourt challenges the constitutionality of -1/ Republic Act #o' FRAG 7232 -The hilippine !ining Act of 122./@ -2/ its +7ple7enting Rules and Regulations -:"#R Ad7inistrati&e (rder #o' F:A(G 25,30/@ and -3/ the <TAA dated !arch 30, 122., 5 e9ecuted by the go&ern7ent with Western !ining %orporation - hilippines/, +nc' -W!% /'7 (n 6anuary 27, 2003, the %ourt en *anc pro7ulgated its :ecision4 granting the etition and declaring the unconstitutionality of certain pro&isions of RA 7232, :A( 25,30, as well as of the entire <TAA e9ecuted between the go&ern7ent and W!% , 7ainly on the finding that <TAAs are /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/ 0roh.<.14+ <2 1h4 19?7 Co*/1.151.o*. The :ecision strucB down the sub=ect <TAA for being si7ilar to ser&ice contracts, 2 which, though per7itted under the 1273 %onstitution,10 were subse0uently denounced for being antithetical to the principle of so&ereignty o&er our natural resources, because they allowed foreign control o&er the e9ploitation of our natural resources, to the pre=udice of the <ilipino nation' The :ecision 0uoted se&eral legal scholars and authors who had critici?ed ser&ice contracts for, inter alia, &esting in the foreign contractor e!clusive 7anage7ent and control of the enterprise, including operation of the field in the e&ent petroleu7 was disco&ered@ control of production, e9pansion and de&elop7ent@ nearly unfettered control o&er the disposition and sale of the products disco&eredJe9tracted@ effecti&e ownership of the natural resource at the point of e9traction@ and beneficial ownership of our econo7ic resources' According to the :ecision, the 1247 %onstitution -Section 2 of Article K++/ effecti&ely banned such ser&ice contracts' Subse0uently, respondents filed separate !otions for Reconsideration' +n a Resolution dated !arch 2, 2003, the %ourt re0uired petitioners to co77ent thereon' +n the Resolution of 6une 4, 2003, it set the case for (ral Argu7ent on 6une 22, 2003' After hearing the opposing sides, the %ourt re0uired the parties to sub7it their respecti&e !e7oranda in a7plification of their argu7ents' +n a Resolution issued later the sa7e day, 6une 22, 2003, the %ourt noted, inter alia, the !anifestation and !otion -in lieu of co77ent/ filed by the (ffice of the Solicitor 1eneral -(S1/ on behalf of public respondents' The (S1 said that it was not interposing any ob=ection to the !otion for +nter&ention filed by the %ha7ber of !ines of the hilippines, +nc' -%! / and was in fact =oining and adopting the latterDs !otion for Reconsideration'

!e7oranda were accordingly filed by the inter&enor as well as by petitioners, public respondents, and pri&ate respondent, dwelling at length on the three issues discussed below' )ater, W!% sub7itted its Reply !e7orandu7, while the (S1 ,, in obedience to an (rder of this %ourt ,, filed a %o7pliance sub7itting copies of 7ore <TAAs entered into by the go&ern7ent' Three Issues Identified by the Court :uring the (ral Argu7ent, the %ourt identified the three issues to be resol&ed in the present contro&ersy, as follows8 1' Cas the case been rendered 7oot by the sale of W!% shares in W!% to Sagittarius -50 percent of SagittariusD e0uity is owned by <ilipinos andJor <ilipino,owned corporations while 30 percent is owned by +ndophil Resources #), an Australian co7pany/ and by the subse0uent transfer and registration of the <TAA fro7 W!% to SagittariusH

2' Assu7ing that the case has been rendered 7oot, would it still be proper to resol&e the constitutionality of the assailed pro&isions of the !ining )aw, :A( 25,30 and the W!% <TAAH 3' What is the proper interpretation of the phrase Agreements <nvolving &it)er Tec)nical or =inancial Assistancecontained in paragraph 3 of Section 2 of Article K++ of the %onstitutionH hou!d the "otion for #econsideration Be $ranted% RespondentsD and inter&enorDs !otions for Reconsideration should be granted, for the reasons discussed below' The foregoing three issues identified by the %ourt shall now be taBen up seriatim. $.r/1 "//54C "ootness +n declaring unconstitutional certain pro&isions of RA 7232, :A( 25,30, and the W!% <TAA, the 7a=ority :ecision agreed with petitionersD contention that the sub=ect <TAA had been e9ecuted in &iolation of Section 2 of Article K++ of the 1247 %onstitution' According to petitioners, the <TAAs entered into by the go&ern7ent with foreign,owned corporations are li7ited by the fourth paragraph of the said pro&ision to agree7ents in&ol&ing onl" tec)nical or financial assistance for large,scale e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation of 7inerals, petroleu7 and other 7ineral oils' <urther7ore, the foreign contractor is allegedly per7itted by the <TAA in 0uestion to fully 7anage and control the 7ining operations and, therefore, to ac0uire ;beneficial ownership; of our 7ineral resources' The :ecision 7erely shrugged off the !anifestation by W! % infor7ing the %ourt -1/ that on 6anuary 23, 2001, W!% had sold all its shares in W!% to Sagittarius !ines, +nc', 50 percent of whose e0uity was held by <ilipinos@ and -2/ that the assailed <TAA had liBewise been transferred fro7 W!% to Sagittarius' 11 The ponencia declared that the instant case had not been rendered 7oot by the transfer and registration of the <TAA to a <ilipino,owned corporation, and that the &alidity of the said transfer re7ained in dispute and awaited final =udicial deter7ination'12 atently therefore, the :ecision is anchored on the assu7ption that W!% had re7ained a foreign corporation' The cru9 of this issue of 7ootness is the fact that W!% , at t)e time it entered into t)e =TAA, happened to be wholly owned by W!% Resources +nternational ty', )td' -W!%/, which in turn was a wholly owned subsidiary of Western !ining %orporation Coldings )td', a publicly listed 7a=or Australian 7ining and e9ploration co7pany' The nullity of the <TAA was ob&iously pre7ised upon the contractor being a 8or4.G* corporation' Cad the <TAA been originally issued to a <ilipino,owned corporation, there would ha&e been no constitutionality issue to speaB of' *pon the other hand, the con&eyance of the W!% <TAA to a <ilipino corporation can be liBened to the sale of land to a foreigner who subse0uently ac0uires <ilipino citi?enship, or who later resells the sa7e land to a <ilipino citi?en' The con&eyance would be &alidated, as the property in 0uestion would no longer be owned by a dis0ualified &endee' And, inas7uch as the <TAA is to be i7ple7ented now by a <ilipino corporation, it is no longer possible for the %ourt to declare it unconstitutional' The case pending in the %ourt of Appeals is a dispute between two <ilipino co7panies -Sagittarius and )epanto/, both clai7ing the right to purchase the foreign shares in W!% ' So, regardless of which side e&entually wins, the <TAA would still be in the hands of a 0ualified <ilipino co7pany' %onsidering that there is no longer any =usticiable contro&ersy, the plea to nullify the !ining )aw has beco7e a &irtual petition for declaratory relief, o&er which this %ourt has no original =urisdiction' +n their <inal !e7orandu7, howe&er, petitioners argue that the case has not beco7e 7oot, considering the in&alidity of the alleged sale of the shares in W!% fro7 W!% to Sagittarius, and of the transfer of the <TAA fro7 W!% to Sagittarius, resulting in the change of contractor in the <TAA in 0uestion' And e&en assu7ing that the said transfers were &alid, there still e9ists an actual case predicated on the in&alidity of RA 7232 and its +7ple7enting Rules and Regulations -:A( 25,30/' resently, we shall discuss petitionersD ob=ections to the transfer of both the shares and the <TAA' /e s)all ta#e up t)e alleged invalidit" of RA E;H8 and (A ;31H7 later on in t)e discussion of t)e t)ird issue. 'o Transgression of t)e +onstitution *" t)e Transfer of t)e /M+$ S)ares etitioners clai7, first, that the alleged in&alidity of the transfer of t)e /M+$ s)ares to Sagittarius &iolates the fourth paragraph of Section 2 of Article K++ of the %onstitution@ second, that it is contrary to the pro&isions of the W!% <TAA itself@ and t)ird, that the sale of the shares is suspect and should therefore be the sub=ect of a case in which its &alidity 7ay properly be litigated' (n the first ground, petitioners assert that paragraph 3 of Section 2 of Article K++ per7its the go&ern7ent to enter into <TAAs only with foreign,owned corporations' etitioners insist that the first paragraph of this constitutional pro&ision li7its the participation of <ilipino corporations in the e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation of natural resources to only three species of contracts ,, production sharing, co,production and =oint &enture ,, to the e9clusion

of all other arrange7ents or &ariations thereof, and the W!% <TAA 7ay therefore not be &alidly assu7ed and i7ple7ented by Sagittarius' <n s)ort, petitioners claim t)at a =ilipino corporation is not allo,ed *" t)e +onstitution to enter into an =TAA ,it) t)e government. Cowe&er, a te9tual analysis of the first paragraph of Section 2 of Article K++ does not support petitionersD argu7ent' The pertinent part of the said pro&ision states8 ?Sec. 8. ! ! ! T)e e!ploration, development and utilization of natural resources s)all *e under t)e full control and supervision of t)e State. T)e State ma" directl" underta#e suc) activities, or it ma" enter into co1production, 6oint venture, or production1s)aring agreements ,it) =ilipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least si!t" per centum of ,)ose capital is o,ned *" suc) citizens. ! ! !.? #owhere in the pro&ision is there any e9press li7itation or restriction insofar as arrange7ents other than the three afore7entioned contractual sche7es are concerned' #either can one reasonably discern any i7plied stricture to that effect' $esides, there is no basis to belie&e that the fra7ers of the %onstitution, a 7a=ority of who7 were ob&iously concerned with furthering the de&elop7ent and utili?ation of the countryDs natural resources, could ha&e wanted to restrict <ilipino participation in that area' This point is clear, especially in the light of the o&erarching constitutional principle of gi&ing preference and priority to <ilipinos and <ilipino corporations in the de&elop7ent of our natural resources' $esides, e&en assu7ing -purely for argu7entDs saBe/ that a constitutional li7itation barring <ilipino corporations fro7 holding and i7ple7enting an <TAA actually e9ists, ne&ertheless, such pro&ision would apply only to the transfer of the <TAA to Sagittarius, but definitely not to the sale of W!%Ds e0uity staBe in W!% to Sagittarius' (therwise, an unreasonable curtail7ent of property rights without due process of law would ensue' etitionersD argu7ent 7ust therefore fail' =TAA 'ot <ntended Solel" for =oreign +orporation "0ually barren of 7erit is the second ground cited by petitioners ,, that the <TAA was intended to apply solely to a foreign corporation, as can allegedly be seen fro7 the pro&isions therein' They 7anage to cite only one W!% <TAA pro&ision that can be regarded as clearly intended to apply only to a foreign contractor8 Section 12, which pro&ides for international co77ercial arbitration under the auspices of the +nternational %ha7ber of %o77erce, after local re7edies are e9hausted' This pro&ision, howe&er, does not necessarily i7ply that the W!% <TAA cannot be transferred to and assu7ed by a <ilipino corporation liBe Sagittarius, in ,)ic) event t)e said provision s)ould simpl" *e disregarded as a superfluit". 'o 'eed for a Separate Litigation of t)e Sale of S)ares etitioners clai7 as third ground the ;suspicious; sale of shares fro7 W!% to Sagittarius@ hence, the need to litigate it in a separate case' Section 30 of RA 7232 -the !ining )aw/ allegedly re0uires the residentDs prior appro&al of a transfer' A re,reading of the said pro&ision, howe&er, leads to a different conclusion' ?Sec. H7. Assign7entJTransfer ,, A financial or tec)nical assistance agreement ma" *e assigned or transferred, in ,)ole or in part, to a 9ualified person su*6ect to t)e prior approval of t)e $residentJ $rovided, T)at t)e $resident s)all notif" +ongress of ever" financial or tec)nical assistance agreement assigned or converted in accordance ,it) t)is provision ,it)in t)irt" B27C da"s from t)e date of t)e approval t)ereof.? Section H7 e!pressl" applies to t)e assignment or transfer of t)e =TAA, not to t)e sale and transfer of s)ares of stoc# in /M+$' !oreo&er, when the transferee of an <TAA is another foreign corporation, there is a logical application of the re0uire7ent of prior appro&al by the resident of the Republic and notification to %ongress in the e&ent of assign7ent or transfer of an <TAA' +n this situation, such appro&al and notification are appropriate safeguards, considering that the new contractor is the sub=ect of a foreign go&ern7ent' (n the other hand, when the transferee of the <TAA happens to be a =ilipino corporation, the need for such safeguard is not critical@ hence, the lacB of prior appro&al and notification 7ay not be dee7ed fatal as to render the transfer in&alid' $esides, it is not as if appro&al by the resident is entirely absent in this instance' As pointed out by pri&ate respondent in its !e7orandu7,13 the issue of appro&al is the sub=ect of one of the cases brought by )epanto against Sagittarius in GR #o' 152331' That case in&ol&ed the re&iew of the :ecision of the %ourt of Appeals dated #o&e7ber 21, 2003 in %A,GR S #o' 73151, which affir7ed the :"#R (rder dated :ece7ber 31, 2001 and the :ecision of the (ffice of the resident dated 6uly 23, 2002, both approving the assign7ent of the W!% <TAA to Sagittarius' etitioners also 0uestion the sale price and the financial capacity of the transferee' According to the :eed of Absolute Sale dated 6anuary 23, 2001, e9ecuted between W!% and Sagittarius, the price of the W!% shares was fi9ed at *SZ2,47.,000, e0ui&alent to ..3 7illion at an e9change rate of .581' Sagittarius had an authori?ed capital stocB of 2.0 7illion and a paid up capital of 50 7illion' Therefore, at the ti7e of appro&al of the sale by the :"#R, the debt,to,e0uity ratio of the transferee was o&er 281 ,, hardly ideal for an <TAA contractor, according to petitioners'

Cowe&er, pri&ate respondents counter that the :eed of Sale specifically pro&ides that the pay7ent of the purchase price would taBe place onl" after Sagittarius0 commencement of commercial production from mining operations , if at all' %onse0uently, under the circu7stances, we belie&e it would not be reasonable to conclude, as petitioners did, that the transfereeDs high debt,to,e0uity ratio per se necessarily carried negati&e i7plications for the enterprise@ and it would certainly be i7proper to in&alidate the sale on that basis, as petitioners propose' =TAA 'ot Void, T)us Transferra*le To bolster further their clai7 that the case is not 7oot, petitioners insist that the <TAA is &oid and, hence cannot be transferred@ and that its transfer does not operate to cure the constitutional infir7ity that is inherent in it@ neither will a change in the circu7stances of one of the parties ser&e to ratify the &oid contract' While the discussion in their <inal !e7orandu7 was sBi7py, petitioners in their %o77ent -on the !R/ did ratiocinate that this %ourt had declared the <TAA to be &oid because, at the ti7e it was e9ecuted with W!% , the latter was a fully foreign,owned corporation, in which the for7er &ested full control and 7anage7ent with respect to the e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation of 7ineral resources, contrary to the pro&isions of paragraph 3 of Section 2 of Article K++ of the %onstitution' And since the <TAA was per se &oid, no &alid right could be transferred@ neither could it be ratified, so petitioners conclude' etitioners ha&e assu7ed as fact that which has yet to be established' =irst and fore7ost, the :ecision of this %ourt declaring the <TAA &oid has not yet beco7e final' That was precisely the reason the %ourt still heard (ral Argu7ent in this case' Second, the <TAA does not &est in the foreign corporation full control and super&ision o&er the e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation of 7ineral resources, to the e9clusion of the go&ern7ent' This point will be dealt with in greater detail below@ but for now, suffice it to say that a perusal of the <TAA pro&isions will pro&e that the go&ern7ent has effecti&e o&erall direction and control of the 7ining operations, including 7arBeting and product pricing, and that the contractorDs worB progra7s and budgets are sub=ect to its re&iew and appro&al or disappro&al' As will be detailed later on, the go&ern7ent does not ha&e to 7icro,7anage the 7ining operations and dip its hands into the day,to,day 7anage7ent of the enterprise in order to be considered as ha&ing o&erall control and direction' $esides, for practical and prag7atic reasons, there is a need for go&ern7ent agencies to delegate certain aspects of the 7anage7ent worB to the contractor' Thus the basis for declaring the <TAA &oid still has to be re&isited, ree9a7ined and reconsidered' etitioners sniff at the citation of +)avez v. $u*lic &states Aut)orit",13 and Aalili v. +A,1. clai7ing that the doctrines in these cases are wholly inapplicable to the instant case' +)avez clearly teaches8 ?T)us, t)e +ourt )as ruled consistentl" t)at ,)ere a =ilipino citizen sells land to an alien ,)o later sells t)e land to a =ilipino, t)e invalidit" of t)e first transfer is corrected *" t)e su*se9uent sale to a citizen. Similarl", ,)ere t)e alien ,)o *u"s t)e land su*se9uentl" ac9uires $)ilippine citizens)ip, t)e sale is validated since t)e purpose of t)e constitutional *an to limit land o,ners)ip to =ilipinos )as *een ac)ieved. <n s)ort, t)e la, disregards t)e constitutional dis9ualification of t)e *u"er to )old land if t)e land is su*se9uentl" transferred to a 9ualified part", or t)e *u"er )imself *ecomes a 9ualified part".?15 +n their %o77ent, petitioners contend that in +)avez and Aalili, the ob=ect of the transfer -the land/ was not what was assailed for alleged unconstitutionality' Rather, it was the transaction that was assailed@ hence subse0uent co7pliance with constitutional pro&isions would cure its infir7ity' +n contrast, in the instant case it is the <TAA itself, the ob=ect of the transfer, that is being assailed as in&alid and unconstitutional' So, petitioners clai7 that the subse0uent transfer of a &oid <TAA to a <ilipino corporation would not cure the defect' etitioners are confusing the7sel&es' The present etition has been filed, precisely because the grantee of the <TAA was a wholly owned subsidiary of a foreign corporation' +t cannot be gainsaid that anyone would ha&e asserted that the sa7e <TAA was &oid if it had at the outset been issued to a <ilipino corporation' The <TAA, therefore, is not per se defecti&e or unconstitutional' +t was 0uestioned only because it had been issued to an allegedly non,0ualified, foreign,owned corporation' We belie&e that this case is clearly analogous to Aalili, in which the land ac0uired by a non,<ilipino was re,con&eyed to a 0ualified &endee and the original transaction was thereby cured' araphrasing Aalili, the sa7e rationale applies to the instant case8 assu7ing arguendo the in&alidity of its prior grant to a foreign corporation, the disputed <TAA ,, being now held by a <ilipino corporation ,, can no longer be assailed@ the ob=ecti&e of the constitutional pro&ision ,, to Beep the e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation of our natural resources in <ilipino hands ,, has been ser&ed' !ore accurately speaBing, the present situation is one degree better than that obtaining in Aalili, in which the original sale to a non,<ilipino was clearly and indisputably &iolati&e of the constitutional prohibition and thus &oid a* initio. +n the present case, the issuanceJgrant of the sub=ect <TAA to the then foreign,owned W!% was notillegal, &oid or unconstitutional at the ti7e' The 7atter had to be brought to court, precisely for ad=udication as to whether the <TAA and the !ining )aw had indeed &iolated the %onstitution' Since, up to this point, the decision of this %ourt declaring the <TAA &oid has yet to beco7e final, to all intents and purposes, the <TAA 7ust be dee7ed &alid and constitutional'17

At botto7, we find co7pletely outlandish petitionersD contention that an <TAA could be entered into by the go&ern7ent only with a foreign corporation, never ,it) a =ilipino enterprise' +ndeed, the nationalistic pro&isions of the %onstitution are all anchored on the protection of <ilipino interests' Cow petitioners can now argue that foreigners ha&e the e9clusi&e right to <TAAs totally o&erturns the entire basis of the etition ,, preference for the <ilipino in the e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation of our natural resources' <t does not ta#e deep #no,ledge of la, and logic to understand t)at ,)at t)e +onstitution grants to foreigners s)ould *e e9uall" availa*le to =ilipinos. S4co*+ "//54C &hether the Court Can ti!! 'ecide the Case, (ven )ssuming It Is "oot All the protagonists are in agree7ent that the %ourt has =urisdiction to decide this contro&ersy, e&en assu7ing it to be 7oot' etitioners stress the following points' =irst, while a case beco7es 7oot and acade7ic when ?t)ere is no more actual controvers" *et,een t)e parties or no useful purpose can *e served in passing upon t)e merits,? 14 what is at issue in the instant case is not only the &alidity of the W!% <TAA, but also the constitutionality of RA 7232 and its +7ple7enting Rules and Regulations' Second, the acts of pri&ate respondent cannot operate to cure the law of its alleged unconstitutionality or to di&est this %ourt of its =urisdiction to decide' T)ird, the %onstitution i7poses upon the Supre7e %ourt the duty to declare in&alid any law that offends the %onstitution' etitioners also argue that no a7endatory laws ha&e been passed to 7aBe the !ining Act of 122. confor7 to constitutional strictures -assu7ing that, at present, it does not/@ that public respondents will continue to i7ple7ent and enforce the statute until this %ourt rules otherwise@ and that the said law continues to be the source of legal authority in accepting, processing and appro&ing nu7erous applications for 7ining rights' +ndeed, it appears that as of 6une 30, 2002, so7e 33 <TAA applications had been filed with the !ines and 1eosciences $ureau -!1$/, with an aggregate area of 2,053,204'5. hectares ,, spread o&er )u?on, the Aisayas and !indanao12 ,, applied for' +t 7ay be a bit far,fetched to assert, as petitioners do, that each and e&ery <TAA that was entered into under the pro&isions of the !ining Act ;in&ites potential litigation; for as long as the constitutional issues are not resol&ed with finality' #e&ertheless, ,e must concede t)at t)ere e!ists t)e distinct possi*ilit" t)at one or more of t)e future =TAAs ,ill *e t)e su*6ect of "et anot)er suit grounded on constitutional issues. $ut of e0ual if not greater significance is the cloud of uncertainty hanging o&er the 7ining industry, which is e&en now scaring away foreign in&est7ents' Attesting to this cli7ate of an9iety is the fact that the %ha7ber of !ines of the hilippines saw the urgent need to inter&ene in the case and to present its position during the (ral Argu7ent@ and that Secretary 1eneral Ro7ulo #eri of the #ational "cono7ic :e&elop7ent Authority -#":A/ re0uested this %ourt to allow hi7 to speaB, during that (ral Argu7ent, on the econo7ic conse0uences of the :ecision of 6anuary 27, 2003'20 We are con&inced' /e no, agree t)at t)e +ourt must recognize t)e e!ceptional c)aracter of t)e situation and t)e paramount pu*lic interest involved, as ,ell as t)e necessit" for a ruling to put an end to t)e uncertainties plaguing t)e mining industr" and t)e affected communities as a result of dou*ts cast upon t)e constitutionalit" and validit" of t)e Mining Act, t)e su*6ect =TAA and future =TAAs, and t)e need to avert a multiplicit" of suits. araphrasingGonzales v. +ommission on &lections,21 it is e&ident that strong reasons of public policy de7and that the constitutionality issue be resol&ed now'22 +n further support of the i77ediate resolution of the constitutionality issue, public respondents cite Acop v. Guingona,23 to the effect that the courts will decide a 0uestion ,, otherwise 7oot and acade7ic ,, if it is ?capa*le of repetition, "et evading revie,.?23 ublic respondents asB the %ourt to a&oid a situation in which the constitutionality issue 7ay again arise with respect to another <TAA, the resolution of which 7ay not be achie&ed until after it has beco7e too late for our 7ining industry to grow out of its infancy' They also recall Salonga v. +ruz $ao,2. in which this %ourt declared that ?BtC)e +ourt also )as t)e dut" to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines or rules. <t )as t)e s"m*olic function of educating t)e *enc) and *ar on t)e e!tent of protection given *" constitutional guarantees. ! ! !.? The 7ootness of the case in relation to the W!% <TAA led the undersigned ponente to state in his dissent to the :ecision that there was no 7ore =usticiable contro&ersy and the plea to nullify the !ining )aw has beco7e a &irtual petition for declaratory relief' 25 The entry of the %ha7ber of !ines of the hilippines, +nc', howe&er, has put into focus the seriousness of the allegations of unconstitutionality of RA 7232 and :A( 25,30 which con&erts the case to one for prohibition27 in the enforce7ent of the said law and regulations' +ndeed, this %! entry brings to fore that the real issue in this case is whether paragraph 3 of Section 2 of Article K++ of the %onstitution is contra&ened by RA 7232 and :A( 25,30, not whether it was &iolated by specific acts i7ple7enting RA 7232 and :A( 25,30' ;FWGhen an act of the legislati&e depart7ent is seriously alleged to ha&e infringed the %onstitution, settling the contro&ersy beco7es the duty of this %ourt' $y the 7ere enact7ent of the 0uestioned law or the appro&al of the challenged action, the dispute is said to ha&e ripened into a =udicial

contro&ersy e&en without any other o&ert act';24 This ruling can be traced fro7 Taada v. Angara,22 in which the %ourt said8 ;+n seeBing to nullify an act of the hilippine Senate on the ground that it contra&enes the %onstitution, the petition no doubt raises a =usticiable contro&ersy' /)ere an action of t)e legislative *ranc) is seriousl" alleged to )ave infringed t)e +onstitution, it *ecomes not onl" t)e rig)t *ut in fact t)e dut" of t)e 6udiciar" to settle t)e dispute. 999999999 ;As this %ourt has repeatedly and fir7ly e7phasi?ed in 7any cases, it will not shirB, digress fro7 or abandon its sacred duty and authority to uphold the %onstitution in 7atters that in&ol&e gra&e abuse of discretion brought before it in appropriate cases, co77itted by any officer, agency, instru7entality or depart7ent of the go&ern7ent';30 Additionally, the entry of %! into this case has also effecti&ely forestalled any possible ob=ections arising fro7 the standing or legal interest of the original parties' <or all the foregoing reasons, we belie&e that the %ourt should proceed to a resolution of the constitutional issues in this case' Th.r+ "//54C The Proper Interpretation of the Constitutiona! Phrase *)greements Invo!ving (ither Technica! or +inancia! )ssistance* The constitutional pro&ision at the nucleus of the contro&ersy is paragraph 3 of Section 2 of Article K++ of the 1247 %onstitution' +n order to appreciate its conte9t, Section 2 is reproduced in full8 ?Sec. 8. All lands of t)e pu*lic domain, ,aters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and ot)er mineral oils, all forces of potential energ", fis)eries, forests or tim*er, ,ildlife, flora and fauna, and ot)er natural resources are o,ned *" t)e State. /it) t)e e!ception of agricultural lands, all ot)er natural resources s)all not *e alienated. T)e e!ploration, development and utilization of natural resources s)all *e under t)e full control and supervision of t)e State. T)e State ma" directl" underta#e suc) activities, or it ma" enter into co1production, 6oint venture or production1s)aring agreements ,it) =ilipino citizens or corporations or associations at least si!t" per centum of ,)ose capital is o,ned *" suc) citizens. Suc) agreements ma" *e for a period not e!ceeding t,ent"1five "ears, rene,a*le for not more t)an t,ent"1five "ears, and under suc) terms and conditions as ma" *e provided *" la,. <n cases of ,ater rig)ts for irrigation, ,ater suppl", fis)eries, or industrial uses ot)er t)an t)e development of ,ater po,er, *eneficial use ma" *e t)e measure and limit of t)e grant. ?T)e State s)all protect t)e nation0s marine ,ealt) in its arc)ipelagic ,aters, territorial sea, and e!clusive economic zone, and reserve its use and en6o"ment e!clusivel" to =ilipino citizens. ?T)e +ongress ma", *" la,, allo, small1scale utilization of natural resources *" =ilipino citizens, as ,ell as cooperative fis) farming, ,it) priorit" to su*sistence fis)ermen and fis)1,or#ers in rivers, la#es, *a"s and lagoons. ?T)e $resident ma" enter into agreements ,it) foreign1o,ned corporations invo!ving either technica! or financia! assistance for !arge,sca!e e-p!oration, deve!opment, and uti!i.ation of minera!s, petro!eum, and other minera! oi!s according to t)e general terms and conditions provided *" la,, *ased on real contri*utions to t)e economic gro,t) and general ,elfare of t)e countr". <n suc) agreements, t)e State s)all promote t)e development and use of local scientific and tec)nical resources. ?T)e $resident s)all notif" t)e +ongress of ever" contract entered into in accordance ,it) t)is provision, ,it)in t)irt" da"s from its e!ecution.?31 'o Restriction of Meaning *" a Aerba )egis <nterpretation To interpret the foregoing pro&ision, petitioners ada7antly assert that the language of the %onstitution should pre&ail@ that the pri7ary 7ethod of interpreting it is to seeB the ordinary 7eaning of the words used in its pro&isions' They rely on rulings of this %ourt, such as the following8 ?T)e fundamental principle in constitutional construction )o,ever is t)at t)e primar" source from ,)ic) to ascertain constitutional intent or purpose is t)e language of t)e provision itself. T)e presumption is t)at t)e ,ords in ,)ic) t)e constitutional provisions are couc)ed e!press t)e o*6ective soug)t to *e attained. <n ot)er ,ords, &erba legis prevails. nl" ,)en t)e meaning of t)e ,ords used is unclear and e9uivocal s)ould resort *e made to e!traneous aids of construction and interpretation, suc) as t)e proceedings of t)e

+onstitutional +ommission or +onvention to s)ed lig)t on and ascertain t)e true intent or purpose of t)e provision *eing construed.?32 Aery recently, in =rancisco v. T)e Aouse of Representatives,33 this %ourt indeed had the occasion to reiterate the well,settled principles of constitutional construction8 ?=irst, &erba legis, t)at is, ,)erever possi*le, t)e ,ords used in t)e +onstitution must *e given t)eir ordinar" meaning e!cept ,)ere tec)nical terms are emplo"ed. ! ! !. !!!!!!!!! ?Second, ,)ere t)ere is am*iguit", ratio legis est ani7a. T)e ,ords of t)e +onstitution s)ould *e interpretedin accordance ,it) t)e intent of its framers. ! ! !. !!!!!!!!! ?=inall", ut 7agis &aleat 0ua7 pereat' T)e +onstitution is to *e interpreted as a ,)ole.?33 <or ease of reference and in consonance with ver*a legis, we reconstruct and stratify the afore0uoted Section 2 as follows8 1' All natural resources are owned by the State' "9cept for agricultural lands, natural resources cannot be alienated by the State' 2' The e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation -":*/ of natural resources shall be under the full control and super&ision of the State' 3' The State 7ay undertaBe these ":* acti&ities through either of the following8 -a/ $y itself directly and solely -b/ $y -i/ co,production@ -ii/ =oint &enture@ or -iii/ production sharing agree7ents with <ilipino citi?ens or corporations, at least 50 percent of the capital of which is owned by such citi?ens 3' Small1scale utili?ation of natural resources 7ay be allowed by law in fa&or of <ilipino citi?ens' .' <or large1scale ":* of 7inerals, petroleu7 and other 7ineral oils, the resident 7ay enter into ;agree7ents with foreign,owned corporations in&ol&ing either technical or financial assistance according to the general ter7s and conditions pro&ided by law 9 9 9'; #ote that in all the three foregoing 7ining acti&ities ,, e!ploration, development and utilization ,, the State 7ay undertaBe such ":* acti&ities by itself or in tandem with <ilipinos or <ilipino corporations, e9cept in two instances8first, in s7all,scale utili?ation of natural resources, which <ilipinos 7ay be allowed by law to undertaBe@ andsecond, in large,scale ":* of 7inerals, petroleu7 and 7ineral oils, which 7ay be undertaBen by the State &ia ;agreements ,it) foreign1o,ned corporations involving eit)er tec)nical or financial assistance ; as pro&ided by law' etitioners clai7 that the phrase ?agreements ! ! ! involving eit)er tec)nical or financial assistance? si7ply 7eanstechnical assistance or financial assistance agree7ents, nothing 7ore and nothing else' They insist that there is no a7biguity in the phrase, and that a plain reading of paragraph 3 0uoted abo&e leads to the inescapable conclusion that what a foreign,owned corporation 7ay enter into with the go&ern7ent is 7erely an agree7ent foreit)er financial or technical assistance onl", for the large,scale e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation of 7inerals, petroleu7 and other 7ineral oils@ such a li7itation, they argue, e9cludes foreign 7anage7ent and operation of a 7ining enterprise' 3. This restricti&e interpretation, petitioners belie&e, is in line with the general policy enunciated by the %onstitution reser&ing to <ilipino citi?ens and corporations the use and en=oy7ent of the countryDs natural resources' They 7aintain that this %ourtDs :ecision35 of 6anuary 27, 2003 correctly declared the W!% <TAA, along with pertinent pro&isions of RA 7232, &oid for allowing a foreign contractor to ha&e direct and e9clusi&e 7anage7ent of a 7ining enterprise' Allowing such a pri&ilege not only runs counter to the ;full control and super&ision; that the State is constitutionally 7andated to e9ercise o&er the e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation of the countryDs natural resources@ doing so also &ests in the foreign co7pany ;beneficial ownership; of our 7ineral resources' +t will be recalled that the :ecision of 6anuary 27, 2003 ?eroed in on ;7anage7ent or other for7s of assistance; or other acti&ities associated with the ;ser&ice contracts; of the 7artial law regi7e, since ?t)e management or operation of mining activities *" foreign contractors, ,)ic) is t)e primar" feature of service contracts, ,as precisel" t)e evil t)at t)e drafters of t)e 4;GE +onstitution soug)t to eradicate.? (n the other hand, the inter&enor 37 and public respondents argue that the <TAA allowed by paragraph 3 is not 7erely an agree7ent for supplying li7ited and specific financial or technical ser&ices to the State' Rather, such

<TAA is a co7prehensi&e agree7ent for the foreign,owned corporationDs integrated e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation of 7ineral, petroleu7 or other 7ineral oils on a large,scale basis' The agree7ent, therefore, authori?es the foreign contractorDs rendition of a whole range of integrated and co7prehensi&e ser&ices, ranging fro7 the disco&ery to the de&elop7ent, utili?ation and production of 7inerals or petroleu7 products' We do not see how applying a strictly literal or ver*a legis interpretation of paragraph 3 could ine9orably lead to the conclusions arri&ed at in the ponencia. =irst, the draftersD choice of words ,, their use of the phrase agreements ! ! ! invo!ving eit)er tec)nical or financial assistance ,, does not indicate the intent to e!clude other 7odes of assistance' The drafters opted to use involving when they could ha&e si7ply said agreements forfinancial or tec)nical assistance, if that was their intention to begin with' +n this case, the li7itation would be &ery clear and no further debate would ensue' +n contrast, the use of the word ;in&ol&ing; signifies the 0o//.<.9.12 o8 1h4 .*c95/.o* o8 o1h4r 8or:/ o8 a//./1a*c4 or ac1.6.1.4/ ha&ing to do with, otherwise related to or co7patible with financial or technical assistance' The word ;in&ol&ing; as used in this conte9t has three connotations that can be differentiated thus8 one, the sense of ;concerning,; ;ha&ing to do with,; or ;affecting;@ t,o, ;entailing,; ;re0uiring,; ;i7plying; or ;necessitating;@ and t)ree, ;including,; ;containing; or ;co7prising';34 lainly, none of the three connotations con&ey a sense of e9clusi&ity' !oreo&er, the word ;in&ol&ing,; when understood in the sense of ;including,; as in including tec)nical or financial assistance, necessarily i7plies that there are activities ot)er t)an those that are being included' +n other words, if an agree7ent includes technical or financial assistance, there is apart fro7 such assistance ,, so7ething else already in, and co&ered or 7ay be co&ered by, the said agree7ent' +n short, it allows for the possibility that 7atters, other than those e9plicitly 7entioned, could be 7ade part of the agree7ent' Thus, we are now led to the conclusion that the use of the word ;in&ol&ing; i7plies that these agree7ents with foreign corporations are not li7ited to 7ere financial or technical assistance' The difference in sense beco7es &ery apparent when we =u9tapose ;agree7ents for technical or financial assistance; against ;agree7ents inc!uding technical or financial assistance'; This 7uch is unalterably clear in a ver*a legis approach' Second, if the real intention of the drafters was to confine foreign corporations to financial or technical assistance and nothing 7ore, their language would ha&e certainly been so 5*:./1aHa<92 r4/1r.c1.64 a*+ /1r.*G4*1 as to lea&e no doubt in anyoneDs 7ind about their true intent' <or e9a7ple, they would ha&e used the sentence foreign corporations are abso!ute!y prohibited from involvement in t)e management or operation of mining or similar ventures or words of si7ilar i7port' A search for such stringent wording yields negati&e results' Thus, /e come to the inevitab!e conc!usion that there /as a conscious and de!iberate decision to avoid the use of restrictive /ording that bespeaks an intent not to use the e-pression *agreements - - - invo!ving either technica! or financia! assistance* in an e-c!usionary and !imiting manner. (eletion of ?Service +ontracts? to Avoid $itfalls of $revious +onstitutions, 'ot to %an Service +ontracts $er Se Third, we do not see how a ver*a legis approach leads to the conclusion that ?t)e management or operation of mining activities *" foreign contractors, ,)ic) is t)e primar" feature of service contracts, ,as precisel" t)e evil t)at t)e drafters of t)e 4;GE +onstitution soug)t to eradicate.? #owhere in the abo&e,0uoted Section can be discerned the ob=ecti&e to Beep out of foreign hands the 7anage7ent or operation of 7ining acti&ities or the plan to eradicate ser&ice contracts as these were understood in the 1273 %onstitution' Still, petitioners 7aintain that the deletion or o7ission fro7 the 1247 %onstitution of the ter7 ;ser&ice contracts; found in the 1273 %onstitution sufficiently pro&es the draftersD intent to e9clude foreigners fro7 the 7anage7ent of the affected enterprises' To our 7ind, howe&er, such intent cannot be definiti&ely and conclusi&ely established fro7 the 7ere failure to carry the sa7e e9pression or ter7 o&er to the new %onstitution, absent a 7ore specific, e9plicit and une0ui&ocal state7ent to that effect' What petitioners seeB -a co7plete ban on foreign participation in the 7anage7ent of 7ining operations, as pre&iously allowed by the earlier %onstitutions/ is nothing short of bringing about a 7o7entous sea change in the econo7ic and de&elop7ental policies@ and the funda7entally capitalist, free,enterprise philosophy of our go&ern7ent' We cannot i7agine such a radical s)ift being undertaBen by our go&ern7ent, to the great pre=udice of the 7ining sector in particular and our econo7y in general, 7erely on the basis of the omission of the ter7s service contract fro7 or the failure to carry the7 o&er to the new %onstitution' There has to be a 7uch 7ore definite and e&en unarguable basis for such a drastic re&ersal of policies' =ourt), a literal and restricti&e interpretation of paragraph 3, such as that proposed by petitioners, suffers fro7 certain internal logical inconsistencies that generate a7biguities in the understanding of the pro&ision' As the inter&enor pointed out, there has ne&er been any constitutional or statutory pro&ision that reser&ed to <ilipino citi?ens or corporations, at least 50 percent of which is <ilipino,owned, the rendition of financial or technical assistance to co7panies engaged in 7ining or the de&elop7ent of any other natural resource' The taBing out of foreign,currency or peso,deno7inated loans or any other Bind of financial assistance, as well as the rendition of technical assistance ,, whether to the State or to any other entity in the hilippines ,, has ne&er been restricted in fa&or of <ilipino citi?ens or corporations ha&ing a certain 7ini7u7 percentage of <ilipino e0uity' Such a restriction

would certainly be preposterous and unnecessary' As a 7atter of fact, financial, and e&en technical assistance,regardless of the nationality of its source, would be welco7ed in the 7ining industry anyti7e with open ar7s, on account of the dearth of local capital and the need to continually update technological Bnow,how and i7pro&e technical sBills' There was therefore no need for a constitutional pro&ision specifically allowing foreign,owned corporations to render financial or technical assistance, whether in respect of 7ining or so7e other resource de&elop7ent or co77ercial acti&ity in the hilippines' Th4 9a/1 0o.*1 *44+/ 1o <4 4:0ha/.J4+C .8 :4r492 8.*a*c.a9 or 14ch*.ca9 a//./1a*c4 aGr44:4*1/ ar4 a99oI4+, 1h4r4 Io59+ <4 *o *44+ 1o 9.:.1 1h4: 1o !arge,sca!e mining operations, a/ 1h4r4 Io59+ <4 8ar Gr4a14r *44+ 8or 1h4: .* 1h4 /:a994r-/ca94 :.*.*G ac1.6.1.4/ Ea*+ 464* .* *o*-:.*.*G ar4a/F. O<6.o5/92, 1h4 0ro6./.o* .* N54/1.o* Ia/ .*14*+4+ 1o r484r 1o aGr44:4*1/ o1h4r 1ha* 1ho/4 8or :4r4 8.*a*c.a9 or 14ch*.ca9 a//./1a*c4. +n liBe 7anner, there would be no need to re0uire the resident of the Republic to report to %ongress, if only financial or technical assistance agree7ents are in&ol&ed' Such agree7ents are in the nature of foreign loans that ,, pursuant to Section 20 of Article A++32 of the 1247 %onstitution ,, the resident 7ay contract or guarantee, 7erely with the prior concurrence of the !onetary $oard' +n turn, the $oard is re0uired to report to %ongress ,it)in t)irt" da"s from t)e end of ever" 9uarter of t)e calendar "ear, not thirty days after the agree7ent is entered into' And if paragraph 3 per7its only agree7ents for loans and other for7s of financial, or technical assistance, what is the point of re0uiring that they be *ased on real contri*utions to t)e economic gro,t) and general ,elfare of t)e countr"H <or instance, how is one to 7easure and assess the ;real contributions; to the ;econo7ic growth; and ;general welfare; of the country that 7ay ensue fro7 a foreign,currency loan agree7ent or a technical,assistance agree7ent for, say, the refurbishing of an e9isting power generating plant for a 7ining operation so7ewhere in !indanaoH Such a criterion would 7aBe 7ore sense when applied to a 7a=or business in&est7ent in a principal sector of the industry' The conclusion is clear and inescapable ,, a ver*a legis construction shows that paragraph 3 is not to be understood as one li7ited only to foreign loans -or other for7s of financial support/ and to technical assistance' There is definitely 7ore to it than that' Th4/4 ar4 0ro6./.o*/ 04r:.11.*G 0ar1.c.0a1.o* <2 8or4.G* co:0a*.4/7 r4N5.r.*G 1h4 Pr4/.+4*1P/ r40or1 1o Co*Gr4//7 a*+ 5/.*G, a/ 2ar+/1.cH, co*1r.<51.o*/ <a/4+ o* 4co*o:.c GroI1h a*+ G4*4ra9 I498ar4. Th4/4 I4r4 *4.1h4r acc.+4*1a992 .*/4r14+ .*1o 1h4 Co*/1.151.o* *or car494//92 co<<94+ 1oG41h4r <2 1h4 +ra814r/ .* 9.0 /4r6.c4 1o /ha99oI *a1.o*a9./:. The pro&isions patently ha&e significance and usefulness in a conte9t that allows agree7ents with foreign co7panies to include 7ore than 7ere financial or technical assistance' =ift), it is argued that Section 2 of Article K++ authori?es nothing 7ore than a rendition of specific and li7ited financial ser&ice or technical assistance by a foreign co7pany' This argu7ent begs the 0uestion ;To who7 or for who7 would it be rendered;H or Who is being assistedH +f the answer is ;The State,; then it necessarily i7plies that the State itself is the one directl" and solel" undertaBing the large,scale e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation of a 7ineral resource, so it follows that the State 7ust itself bear the liability and cost of repaying the financing sourced fro7 the foreign lender andJor of paying co7pensation to the foreign entity rendering technical assistance' Cowe&er, it is of co77on Bnowledge, and of =udicial notice as well, that the go&ern7ent is and has for 7any 7any years been financially strapped, to the point that e&en the 7ost essential ser&ices ha&e suffered serious curtail7ents ,, education and health care, for instance, not to 7ention =udicial ser&ices ,, ha&e had to 7aBe do with inade0uate budgetary allocations' Thus, go&ern7ent has had to resort to build,operate,transfer and si7ilar arrange7ents with the pri&ate sector, in order to get &ital infrastructure pro=ects built without any go&ern7ental outlay' The &ery recent brouhaha o&er the gargantuan ;fiscal crisis; or ;budget deficit; 7erely confir7s what the ordinary citi?en has suspected all along' After the reality checB, one will ha&e to ad7it the i7plausibility of a direct undertaBing ,, by the State itself ,, of large1scale e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation of 7inerals, petroleu7 and other 7ineral oils' Such an undertaBing entails not only hu7ongous capital re0uire7ents, but also the attendant risB of ne&er finding and de&eloping econo7ically &iable 0uantities of 7inerals, petroleu7 and other 7ineral oils' 30 +t is e0ually difficult to i7agine that such a pro&ision restricting foreign co7panies to the rendition of only financial or technical assistance to the go&ern7ent was deliberately crafted by the drafters of the %onstitution, who were all well aware of the capital,intensi&e and technology,oriented nature of large,scale 7ineral or petroleu7 e9traction and the countryDs deficiency in precisely those areas'31 To say so would be tanta7ount to asserting that the pro&ision was purposely designed to ladle the large,scale de&elop7ent and utili?ation of 7ineral, petroleu7 and related resources with i7possible conditions@ and to re7ain fore&er and per7anently ;reser&ed; for future generations of <ilipinos' A More Reasona*le Loo# at t)e +)arter0s $lain Language Si!t), we shall now looB closer at the plain language of the %harter and e9a7ining the logical inferences' The drafters chose to e7phasi?e and highlight agreements ! ! ! involving eit)er tec)nical or financial assistance in relation to foreign corporationsD participation in large,scale ":*' The inclusion of this clause on ;technical or

financial assistance; recogni?es the fact that foreign business entities and 7ultinational corporations are the ones with the resources and Bnow,how to pro&ide technical andJor financial assistance of the 7agnitude and type re0uired for large,scale e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation of these resources' The drafters ,, whose ranBs included 7any acade7icians, econo7ists, business7en, lawyers, politicians and go&ern7ent officials ,, were not unfa7iliar with the practices of foreign corporations and 7ultinationals' #either were they so na[&e as to belie&e that these entities would pro&ide ;assistance; without conditionalities or so7e 9uid pro 9uo' :efinitely, as business persons well Bnow and as a 7atter of =udicial notice, this 7atter is not =ust a 0uestion of signing a pro7issory note or e9ecuting a technology transfer agree7ent' <oreign corporations usually re0uire that they be gi&en a say in the 7anage7ent, for instance, of day,to,day operations of the =oint &enture' They would de7and the appoint7ent of their own 7en as, for e9a7ple, operations 7anagers, technical e9perts, 0uality control heads, internal auditors or co7ptrollers' <urther7ore, they would probably re0uire seats on the $oard of :irectors ,, all these to ensure the success of the enterprise and the repay7ent of the loans and other financial assistance and to 7aBe certain that the funding and the technology they supply would not go to waste' *lti7ately, they would also want to protect their business reputation and botto7 lines' 32 +n short, the drafters will ha&e to be credited with enough prag7atis7 and sa&&y to Bnow that these foreign entities will not enter into such ;agree7ents in&ol&ing assistance; without re0uiring arrange7ents for the protection of their in&est7ents, gains and benefits' Thus, by specifying such ;agree7ents in&ol&ing assistance,; the drafters necessarily ga&e i7plied assent to e&erything that these agree7ents necessarily entailed@ or that could reasonably be dee7ed necessary to 7aBe the7 tenable and effecti&e, including 7anage7ent authority with respect to the day,to,day operations of the enterprise and 7easures for the protection of the interests of the foreign corporation, R(A+:": TCAT hilippine so&ereignty o&er natural resources and full control o&er the enterprise undertaBing the ":* acti&ities re7ain fir7ly in the State' $etitioners0 T)eor" (eflated *" t)e A*sence of +losing1 ut Rules or Guidelines Sevent) and final point regarding the plain,language approach, one of the practical difficulties that results fro7 it is the fact that there is nothing by way of transitory pro&isions that would ser&e to confir7 the theory that the o7ission of the ter7 ;ser&ice contract; fro7 the 1247 %onstitution signaled the de7ise of ser&ice contracts' The fra7ers Bnew at the ti7e they were deliberating that there were &arious ser&ice contracts e9tant and in force and effect, including those in the petroleu7 industry' !any of these ser&ice contracts were long,ter7 -2. years/ and had se&eral 7ore years to run' <f t)e" )ad meant to *an service contracts altoget)er, t)e" ,ould )ave )ad to provide for t)e termination or pretermination of t)e e!isting contracts. Accordingl", t)e" ,ould )ave supplied t)e specifics and t)e when and how of effecting t)e e!tinguis)ment of t)ese e!isting contracts Bor at least t)e mec)anics for determining t)emC> and of putting in place t)e means to address t)e 6ust claims of t)e contractors for compensation for t)eir investments, lost opportunities, and so on, if not for t)e recover" t)ereof. +f the fra7ers had intended to put an end to ser&ice contracts, they would ha&e at least left specific instructions to %ongress to deal with these closing,out issues, perhaps by way of general guidelines and a ti7eline within which to carry the7 out' The following are so7e e9tant e9a7ples of such transitory guidelines set forth in Article KA+++ of our %onstitution8 ?Section 82. Advertising entities affected *" paragrap) B8C, Section 44 of Article :V< of t)is +onstitution s)all )ave five "ears from its ratification to compl" on a graduated and proportionate *asis ,it) t)e minimum =ilipino o,ners)ip re9uirement t)erein. 999999999 ?Section 85. After t)e e!piration in 4;;4 of t)e Agreement *et,een t)e Repu*lic of t)e $)ilippines and t)e @nited States of America concerning militar" *ases, foreign militar" *ases, troops, or facilities s)all not *e allo,ed in t)e $)ilippines e!cept under a treat" dul" concurred in *" t)e Senate and, ,)en t)e +ongress so re9uires, ratified *" a ma6orit" of t)e votes cast *" t)e people in a national referendum )eld for t)at purpose, and recognized as a treat" *" t)e ot)er contracting State. ?Section 83. T)e aut)orit" to issue se9uestration or freeze orders under $roclamation 'o. 2 dated Marc) 85, 4;G3 in relation to t)e recover" of ill1gotten ,ealt) s)all remain operative for not more t)an eig)teen mont)s after t)e ratification of t)is +onstitution. Ao,ever, in t)e national interest, as certified *" t)e $resident, t)e +ongress ma" e!tend suc) period. A se9uestration or freeze order s)all *e issued onl" upon s)o,ing of a prima facie case. T)e order and t)e list of t)e se9uestered or frozen properties s)all fort),it) *e registered ,it) t)e proper court. =or orders issued *efore t)e ratification of t)is +onstitution, t)e corresponding 6udicial action or proceeding s)all *e

filed ,it)in si! mont)s from its ratification. =or t)ose issued after suc) ratification, t)e 6udicial action or proceeding s)all *e commenced ,it)in si! mont)s from t)e issuance t)ereof. T)e se9uestration or freeze order is deemed automaticall" lifted if no 6udicial action or proceeding is commenced as )erein provided.? 33G +t is inconcei&able that the drafters of the %onstitution would lea&e such an i7portant 7atter ,, an e9pression of so&ereignty as it were ,, indefinitely hanging in the air in a for7less and ineffecti&e state' +ndeed, the co7plete absence of e&en a general fra7eworB only ser&es to further deflate petitionersD theory, liBe a childDs balloon losing its air' *nder the circu7stances, the logical inconsistencies resulting fro7 petitionersD literal and purely ver*a legisapproach to paragraph 3 of Section 2 of Article K++ co7pel a resort to other aids to interpretation' $etitioners0 $osture Also 'egated *" Ratio )egis "t Ani7a Thus, in order to resolve t)e inconsistencies, incongruities and am*iguities encountered and to suppl" t)e deficiencies of t)e plain1language approac), t)ere is a need for recourse to t)e proceedings of t)e 4;G3 +onstitutional +ommission. There is a need for ratio legis et anima. Service +ontracts 'ot ?(econstitutionalized? ertinent portions of the deliberations of the 7e7bers of the %onstitutional %o77ission -%on%o7/ conclusi&ely show that they discussed agreements involving eit)er tec)nical or financial assistance in the sa7e breadth asservice contracts and used the ter7s interchangeably' The following e9change between %o77issioner 6a7ir -sponsor of the pro&ision/ and %o77issioner Suare? irrefutably pro&es that the ;agree7ents in&ol&ing technical or financial assistance; were none other than ser&ice contracts' TC" R"S+:"#T' %o77issioner 6a7ir is recogni?ed' We are still on Section 3' !R' 6A!+R' Les, !ada7 resident' With respect to the second paragraph of Section 3, 7y a7end7ent by substitution reads8 TC" R"S+:"#T !AL "#T"R +#T( A1R""!"#TS W+TC <(R"+1#,(W#": %(R (RAT+(#S +#A()A+#1 "+TC"R T"%C#+%A) (R <+#A#%+A) ASS+STA#%" <(R )AR1",S%A)" "K )(RAT+(#, :"A")( !"#T A#: *T+)+MAT+(# (< #AT*RA) R"S(*R%"S A%%(R:+#1 T( TC" T"R!S A#: %(#:+T+(#S R(A+:": $L )AW' !R' A+))"1AS' The %o77ittee accepts the a7end7ent' %o77issioner Suare? will gi&e the bacBground' !R' 6A!+R' ThanB you' TC" R"S+:"#T' %o77issioner Suare? is recogni?ed' !R' S*AR"M' ThanB you, !ada7 resident' Will %o77issioner 6a7ir answer a few clarificatory 0uestionsH !R' 6A!+R' Les, !ada7 resident' !R' S*AR"M' This particular portion of the section has reference to Iha1 Ia/ 0o059ar92 H*oI* <48or4 a/ /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/, a7ong other things, is that correctH !R' 6A!+R' Les, !ada7 resident' !R' S*AR"M' As it is for7ulated, the resident 7ay enter into /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/ but sub=ect to the guidelines that 7ay be pro7ulgated by %ongressH !R' 6A!+R' That is correct' !R' S*AR"M' Therefore, that aspect of negotiation and consu77ation will fall on the resident, not upon %ongressH !R' 6A!+R' That is also correct, !ada7 resident' !R' S*AR"M' "9cept that all of 1h4/4 co*1rac1/, /4r6.c4 or o1h4rI./4, 7ust be 7ade strictly in accordance with guidelines prescribed by %ongressH

!R' 6A!+R' That is also correct' !R' S*AR"M' And the 1entle7an is thinBing in ter7s of a law that unifor7ly co&ers situations of the sa7e natureH !R' 6A!+R' That is 100 percent correct' !R' S*AR"M' + thanB the %o77issioner' !R' 6A!+R' ThanB you &ery 7uch'33 The following e9change lea&es no doubt that the co77issioners Bnew e9actly what they were dealing with8 ser&ice contracts' TC" R"S+:"#T' %o77issioner 1ascon is recogni?ed' !R' 1AS%(#' %o77issioner 6a7ir had proposed an a7end7ent with regard to special /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/which was accepted by the %o77ittee' Since the %o77ittee has accepted it, + would liBe to asB so7e 0uestions' TC" R"S+:"#T' %o77issioner 1ascon 7ay proceed' !R' 1AS%(#' As it is proposed now, such /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/ will be entered into by the resident with the guidelines of a general law on /4r6.c4 co*1rac1 to be enacted by %ongress' +s that correctH !R' A+))"1AS' The %o77issioner is right, !ada7 resident' !R' 1AS%(#' According to the original proposal, if the resident were to enter into a particular agree7ent, he would need the concurrence of %ongress' #ow that it has been changed by the proposal of %o77issioner 6a7ir in that %ongress will set the general law to which the resident shall co7ply, the resident will, therefore, not need the concurrence of %ongress e&ery ti7e he enters into /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/' +s that correctH !R' A+))"1AS' That is right' !R' 1AS%(#' The proposed a7end7ent of %o77issioner 6a7ir is in indirect contrast to 7y proposed a7end7ent, so + would liBe to ob=ect and present 7y proposed a7end7ent to the body' 999999999 !R' 1AS%(#' Les, it will be up to the body' + feel that the general law to be set by %ongress as regard /4r6.c4 co*1rac1 aGr44:4*1/ which the resident will enter into 7ight be too general or since we do not Bnow the content yet of such a law, it 7ight be that certain agree7ents will be detri7ental to the interest of the <ilipinos' This is in direct contrast to 7y proposal which pro&ides that there be effecti&e constraints in the i7ple7entation of /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/' So instead of a general law to be passed by %ongress to ser&e as a guideline to the resident when entering into /4r6.c4 co*1rac1 aGr44:4*1/, + propose that e&ery /4r6.c4 co*1rac1 entered into by the resident would need the concurrence of %ongress, so as to assure the <ilipinos of their interests with regard to the issue in Section 3 on all lands of the public do7ain' !y alternati&e a7end7ent, which we will discuss later, reads8 TCAT TC" R"S+:"#T SCA)) "#T"R +#T( S*%C A1R""!"#TS (#)L W+TC TC" %(#%*RR"#%" (< TW(,TC+R:S A(T" (< A)) TC" !"!$"RS (< %(#1R"SS S+TT+#1 S" ARAT")L' 999999999 !R' $"#1M(#' The reason we 7ade that shift is that we reali?ed the original proposal could breed corruption' $y the way, this is not =ust confined to /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/ but also to 8.*a*c.a9 a//./1a*c4' +f we are going to 7aBe e&ery single contract sub=ect to the concurrence of %ongress T which, according to the %o77issionerDs a7end7ent is the concurrence of two,thirds of %ongress &oting separately T then -1/ there is a &ery great chance that each contract will be different fro7 another@ and -2/ there is a great te7ptation that it would breed corruption because of the great lobbying that is going to happen' And we do not want to sub=ect our legislature to that' #ow, to answer the %o77issionerDs apprehension, by ;general law,; we do not 7ean state7ents of 7otherhood' %ongress can build all the restrictions that it wishes into that general law so that e&ery contract

entered into by the resident under that specific area will ha&e to be unifor7' The resident has no choice but to follow all the guidelines that will be pro&ided by law' !R' 1AS%(#' $ut 7y basic proble7 is that we do not Bnow as of yet the contents of such a general law as to how 7uch constraints there will be in it' And to 7y 7ind, although the %o77itteeDs contention that the regular concurrence fro7 %ongress would sub=ect %ongress to e9tensi&e lobbying, + thinB that is a risB we will ha&e to taBe since %ongress is a body of representati&es of the people whose 7e7bership will be changing regularly as there will be changing circu7stances e&ery ti7e certain agree7ents are 7ade' +t would be best then to Beep in tab and attuned to the interest of the <ilipino people, whene&er the resident enters into any agree7ent with regard to such an i7portant 7atter as 14ch*.ca9 or 8.*a*c.a9 a//./1a*c4 8or 9arG4-/ca94 4309ora1.o*, +4649o0:4*1 a*+ 51.9.Ja1.o* o8 *a15ra9 r4/o5rc4/ or /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/ , the peopleDs elected representati&es should be on top of it' 999999999 !R' ( )"' !ada7 resident, we do not need to suspend the session' +f %o77issioner 1ascon needs a few 7inutes, + can fill up the re7aining ti7e while he co7pletes his proposed a7end7ent' + =ust wanted to asB %o77issioner 6a7ir whether he would entertain a 7inor a7end7ent to his a7end7ent, and it reads as follows8 TC" R"S+:"#T SCA)) S*$S"I*"#T)L #(T+<L %(#1R"SS (< "A"RL SERV"CE CONTRACT"#T"R": +#T( +# A%%(R:A#%" W+TC TC" 1"#"RA) )AW' + thinB the reason is, if + 7ay state it briefly, as %o77issioner $eng?on said, %ongress can always change the general law later on to confor7 to new perceptions of standards that should be built into /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/' $ut the only way %ongress can do this is if there were a notification re0uire7ent fro7 the (ffice of the resident that such /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/had been entered into, sub=ect then to the scrutiny of the !e7bers of %ongress' This pertains to a situation where the /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/ are already entered into, and all that this a7end7ent seeBs is the reporting re0uire7ent fro7 the (ffice of the resident' Will %o77issioner 6a7ir entertain thatH !R' 6A!+R' + will gladly do so, if it is still within 7y power' !R' A+))"1AS' Les, the %o77ittee accepts the a7end7ent' 999999999 SR' TA#' !ada7 resident, 7ay + asB a 0uestionH TC" R"S+:"#T' %o77issioner Tan is recogni?ed' SR' TA#' A7 + correct in thinBing that the only difference between these future /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/ and the past /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/ under !r' !arcos is the general law to be enacted by the legislature and the notification of %ongress by the residentH That is the only difference, is it notH !R' A+))"1AS' That is right' SR' TA#' So those are the safeguards' !R' A+))"1AS' Les' There was no law at all go&erning /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/ before' SR' TA#' ThanB you, !ada7 resident' 3. More T)an Mere =inancial and Tec)nical Assistance &ntailed *" t)e Agreements The clear words of %o77issioner 6ose #' #olledo 0uoted below e9plicitly and elo0uently de7onstrate that the drafters Bnew that the agree7ents with foreign corporations were going to entail not 7ere technical or financial assistance but, rather, foreign investment in and management of an enterprise involved in large1scale e!ploration,development and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and ot)er mineral oils ' TC" R"S+:"#T' %o77issioner #olledo is recogni?ed' !R' #())":(' !ada7 resident, + ha&e the per7ission of the Acting <loor )eader to speaB for only two 7inutes in fa&or of the a7end7ent of %o77issioner 1ascon' TC" R"S+:"#T' %o77issioner #olledo 7ay proceed' !R' #())":(' With due respect to the 7e7bers of the %o77ittee and %o77issioner 6a7ir, + a7 in fa&or of the ob=ection of %o77issioner 1ascon'

!ada7 resident, + was one of those who refused to sign the 1273 %onstitution, and one of the reasons is that there were 7any pro&isions in the Transitory ro&isions therein that fa&ored aliens' + was shocBed when + read a pro&ision authori?ing /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/ while we, in this %onstitutional %o77ission, pro&ided for <ilipino control of the econo7y' We are, therefore, pro&iding for e9ceptional instances where aliens 7ay circu7&ent <ilipino control of our econo7y' And one way of circu7&enting the rule in fa&or of <ilipino control of the econo7y is to recogni?e /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/' As far as + a7 concerned, if + should ha&e 7y own way, + a7 for the co7plete deletion of this pro&ision' oI464r, I4 ar4 0r4/4*1.*G a co:0ro:./4 in the sense that we are re0uiring a two, thirds &ote of all the !e7bers of %ongress as a safeguard' + thinB we should not 7istrust the future !e7bers of %ongress by saying that the purpose of this pro&ision is to a&oid corruption' We cannot clai7 that they are less patriotic than we are' + thinB the !e7bers of this %o77ission should Bnow that entering into /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/ is an e9ception to the rule on protection of natural resources for the interest of the nation, and therefore, being an e9ception it should be sub=ect, whene&er possible, to stringent rules' +t see7s to 7e that we are liberali?ing the rules in fa&or of aliens' + say these things with a hea&y heart, !ada7 resident' + do not clai7 to be a nationalist, but + lo&e 7y country' A91ho5Gh I4 *44+ .*64/1:4*1/, I4 :5/1 a+o01 /a84G5ar+/ that are truly reflecti&e of the senti7ents of the people and not 7ere cos7etic safeguards as they now appear in the 6a7ir a7end7ent' -Applause/ ThanB you, !ada7 resident'35 Another e9cerpt, featuring then %o77issioner -now %hief 6ustice/ Cilario 1' :a&ide 6r', indicates the li7itations of the scope of such ser&ice contracts ,, t)e" are valid onl" in regard to minerals, petroleum and ot)er mineral oils, not to all natural resources' TC" R"S+:"#T' %o77issioner :a&ide is recogni?ed' !R' :AA+:"' ThanB you, !ada7 resident' This is an a7end7ent to the 6a7ir a7end7ent and also to the (ple a7end7ent' + propose to delete ;#AT*RA) R"S(*R%"S; and substitute it with the following8 !+#"RA)S, "TR()"*! A#: (TC"R !+#"RA) (+)S' (n the (ple a7end7ent, + propose to add8 TC" #(T+<+%AT+(# T( %(#1R"SS SCA)) $" W+TC+# TC+RTL :ALS <R(! TC" "K"%*T+(# (< TC" S"RA+%" %(#TRA%T' TC" R"S+:"#T' What does the %o77ittee say with respect to the first a7end7ent in lieu of ;#AT*RA) R"S(*R%"S;H !R' A+))"1AS' %ould %o77issioner :a&ide e9plain thatH !R' :AA+:"' !ada7 resident, with the use of ;#AT*RA) R"S(*R%"S; here, it would necessarily include all lands of the public do7ain, our 7arine resources, forests, parBs and so on' So we would liBe to li7it the scope of these /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/ to those areas really where these 7ay be needed, the e9ploitation, de&elop7ent and e9ploration of 7inerals, petroleu7 and other 7ineral oils' And so, we belie&e that we should really, if we want to grant /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/ at all, li7it the sa7e to o*92 1ho/4 0ar1.c59ar ar4a/ Ih4r4 $.9.0.*o ca0.1a9 :a2 *o1 <4 /588.c.4*1, and not to all natural resources' !R' S*AR"M' 6ust a point of clarification again, !ada7 resident' When the %o77issioner 7ade those enu7erations and specifications, + suppose he deliberately did not include ;agricultural land;H !R' :AA+:"' That is precisely the reason we ha&e to enu7erate what these resources are into which/4r6.c4 co*1rac1/ 7ay enter' So, beyond the reach of any /4r6.c4 co*1rac1 will be lands of the public do7ain, ti7berlands, forests, 7arine resources, fauna and flora, wildlife and national parBs' 37 After the 6a7ir a7end7ent was &oted upon and appro&ed by a &ote of 21 to 10 with 2 abstentions, %o77issioner :a&ide 7ade the following state7ent, which is &ery rele&ant to our 0uest8 TC" R"S+:"#T' %o77issioner :a&ide is recogni?ed' !R' :AA+:"' + a7 &ery glad that %o77issioner adilla e7phasi?ed 7inerals, petroleu7 and 7ineral oils' The %o77ission has =ust appro&ed the possible foreign entry into the de&elop7ent, e9ploration and utili?ation of these 7inerals, petroleu7 and other 7ineral oils by &irtue of the 6a7ir a7end7ent' + &oted in fa&or of the 6a7ir a7end7ent because it will e&entually gi&e way to &esting in e9clusi&ely <ilipino citi?ens and corporations wholly owned by <ilipino citi?ens the right to utili?e the other natural resources' This 7eans that as a 7atter of policy, natural resources should be utili?ed and e9ploited only by <ilipino citi?ens or corporations wholly owned by such citi?ens' $ut by &irtue of the 6a7ir a7end7ent, since we feel that <ilipino capital 7ay not be enough for the de&elop7ent and utili?ation of 7inerals, petroleu7 and other 7ineral oils, the resident can enter into /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/ with foreign corporations precisely for the

de&elop7ent and utili?ation of such resources' And so, there is nothing to fear that we will stagnate in the de&elop7ent of 7inerals, petroleu7 and 7ineral oils <4ca5/4 I4 *oI a99oI /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/' 9 9 9';34 The foregoing are 7ere frag7ents of the fra7ersD lengthy discussions of the pro&ision dealing with agreements ! ! ! involving eit)er tec)nical or financial assistance, which ulti7ately beca7e paragraph 3 of Section 2 of Article K++ of the %onstitution' $eyond any doubt, the 7e7bers of the %on%o7 were actually debating about the 7artial,law, era /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/ for ,)ic) t)e" ,ere crafting a00ro0r.a14 /a84G5ar+/' +n the &oting that led to the appro&al of Article K++ by the %on%o7, the e9planations gi&en by %o77issioners 1ascon, 1arcia and Tadeo indicated that they had &oted to re=ect this pro&ision on account of their ob=ections to the ;constitutionali?ation; of the ;ser&ice contract; concept' !r' 1ascon said, ?< felt t)at if ,e ,ould constitutionalize an" provision on service contracts, t)is s)ould al,a"s *e ,it) t)e concurrence of +ongress and not guided onl" *" a general la, to *e promulgated *" +ongress.? 32 !r' 1arcia e9plained, ? ervice contracts are given constitutional legitimization in Sec. 2, even ,)en t)e" )ave *een proven to *e inimical to t)e interests of t)e nation, providing, as t)e" do, t)e legal loop)ole for t)e e!ploitation of our natural resources for t)e *enefit of foreign interests.? .0 )iBewise, !r' Tadeo cited inter alia the fact that ser&ice contracts continued to subsist, enabling foreign interests to benefit fro7 our natural resources' .1 "1 Ia/ har+92 9.H492 1ha1 1h4/4 G4*194:4* Io59+ ha64 o<K4c14+ /o /1r4*5o5/92, ha+ 1h4 0ro6./.o* ca994+ 8or :4r4 14ch*.ca9 or 8.*a*c.a9 a//./1a*c4 a*+ *o1h.*G :or4. The deliberations of the %on%o7 and so7e co77issionersD e9planation of their &otes lea&e no roo7 for doubt that the ser&ice contract concept precisely underpinned the co77issionersD understanding of the ;agree7ents in&ol&ing either technical or financial assistance'; Summation of t)e +oncom (eli*erations At this point, we su7 up the 7atters established, based on a careful reading of the %on%o7 deliberations, as follows8 \ +n their deliberations on what was to beco7e paragraph 3, the fra7ers used the ter7 service contracts in referring to agreements ! ! ! involving eit)er tec)nical or financial assistance. \ They spoBe of service contracts as the concept was understood in the 1273 %onstitution' \ +t was ob&ious fro7 their discussions that they were not about to ban or eradicate service contracts' \ +nstead, t)e" ,ere plainl" crafting provisions to put in place safeguards t)at ,ould eliminate or minimize t)e a*uses prevalent during t)e marital la, regime' +n brief, they were going to per7it ser&ice contracts with foreign corporations as contractors, but with safety 7easures to pre&ent abuses, as an e9ception to the general nor7 established in the first paragraph of Section 2 of Article K++' This pro&ision reser&es or li7its to <ilipino citi?ens ,, and corporations at least 50 percent of which is owned by such citi?ens ,, the e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation of natural resources' \ This pro&ision was pro7pted by the percei&ed insufficiency of <ilipino capital and the felt need for foreign in&est7ents in the ":* of 7inerals and petroleu7 resources' \ The fra7ers for the 7ost part debated about the sort of safeguards that would be considered ade0uate and reasonable' $ut so7e of the7, ha&ing 7ore ;radical; leanings, wanted to ban ser&ice contracts altogether@ for the7, the pro&ision would per7it aliens to e9ploit and benefit fro7 the nationDs natural resources, which they felt should be reser&ed only for <ilipinos' \ +n the e9planation of their &otes, the indi&idual co77issioners were heard by the entire body' They sounded off their indi&idual opinions, openly enunciated their philosophies, and supported or attacBed the pro&isions with fer&or' "&eryoneDs &iewpoint was heard' \ +n the final &oting, the Article on the #ational "cono7y and atri7ony ,, including paragraph 3 allowing ser&ice contracts with foreign corporations as an e9ception to the general nor7 in paragraph 1 of Section 2 of the sa7e article ,, was resoundingly appro&ed by a &ote of 32 to 7, with 2 abstentions' Agreements <nvolving Tec)nical or =inancial Assistance Are Service +ontracts /it) Safeguards

<ro7 the foregoing, we are i7pelled to conclude that the phrase agreements involving eit)er tec)nical or financial assistance, referred to in paragraph 3, are in fact service contracts. $ut unliBe those of the 1273 &ariety, the new ones are between foreign corporations acting as contractors on the one hand@ and on the other, the go&ern7ent as principal or ;owner; of the worBs' +n the new ser&ice contracts, the foreign contractors pro&ide capital, technology and technical Bnow,how, and 7anagerial e9pertise in the creation and operation of large,scale 7iningJe9tracti&e enterprises@ and the go&ern7ent, through its agencies -:"#R, !1$/, acti&ely e9ercises control and super&ision o&er the entire operation' Such ser&ice contracts 7ay be entered into onl" ,it) respect to minerals, petroleum and ot)er mineral oils ' The grant thereof is sub=ect to se&eral safeguards, a7ong which are these re0uire7ents8 -1/ The ser&ice contract shall be crafted in accordance with a general law that will set standard or unifor7 ter7s, conditions and re0uire7ents, presu7ably to attain a certain unifor7ity in pro&isions and a&oid the possible insertion of ter7s disad&antageous to the country' -2/ The resident shall be the signatory for the go&ern7ent because, supposedly before an agree7ent is presented to the resident for signature, it will ha&e been &etted se&eral ti7es o&er at different le&els to ensure that it confor7s to law and can withstand public scrutiny' -3/ Within thirty days of the e9ecuted agree7ent, the resident shall report it to %ongress to gi&e that branch of go&ern7ent an opportunity to looB o&er the agree7ent and interpose ti7ely ob=ections, if any' @se of t)e Record of t)e +on+om to Ascertain <ntent At this =uncture, we shall address, rather than gloss o&er, the use of the ;fra7ersD intent; approach, and the criticis7 hurled by petitioners who 0uote a ruling of this %ourt8 ?/)ile it is permissi*le in t)is 6urisdiction to consult t)e de*ates and proceedings of t)e constitutional convention in order to arrive at t)e reason and purpose of t)e resulting +onstitution, resort t)ereto ma" *e )ad onl" ,)en ot)er guides fail as said proceedings are po,erless to var" t)e terms of t)e +onstitution ,)en t)e meaning is clear. (e*ates in t)e constitutional convention 0 are of &alue as showing the &iews of the indi&idual 7e7bers, and as indicating the reason for their &otes, but they gi&e us no light as to the &iews of the large 7a=ority who did not talB, 7uch less the 7ass of our fellow citi?ens whose &otes at the polls ga&e that instru7ent the force of funda7ental law' We thinB it safer to construe the constitution fro7 what appears upon its face'D T)e proper interpretation t)erefore depends more on )o, it ,as understood *" t)e people adopting it t)an in t)e framers0 understanding t)ereof.? .2 The notion that the deliberations reflect only the &iews of those 7e7bers who spoBe out and not the &iews of the 7a=ority who re7ained silent should be clarified' We 7ust ne&er forget that those who spoBe out were heard by those who re7ained silent and did not react' +f the latter were silent because they happened not to be present at the ti7e, they are presu7ed to ha&e read the 7inutes and Bept abreast of the deliberations' $y re7aining silent, they are dee7ed to ha&e signified their assent to andJor confor7ity with at least so7e of the &iews propounded or their lacB of ob=ections thereto' +t was incu7bent upon the7, as representati&es of the entire <ilipino people, to follow the deliberations closely and to speaB their 7inds on the 7atter if they did not see eye to eye with the proponents of the draft pro&isions' +n any e&ent, each and e&ery one of the co77issioners had the opportunity to speaB out and to &ote on the 7atter' !oreo&er, the indi&idual e9planations of &otes are on record, and they show where each delegate stood on the issues. "* /5:, I4 ca**o1 co:0941492 +4*.Gra14 1h4 6a954 or 5/4859*4// o8 1h4 r4cor+ o8 1h4 Co*Co:, /.:092 <4ca5/4 c4r1a.* :4:<4r/ cho/4 *o1 1o /04aH o51. +t is contended that the deliberations therein did not necessarily reflect the thinBing of the &oting population that participated in the referendu7 and ratified the %onstitution' Aerily, whether we liBe it or not, it is a bit too 7uch to assu7e that e&ery one of those who &oted to ratify the proposed %harter did so only after carefully reading and 7ulling o&er it, pro&ision by pro&ision' )iBewise, it appears rather e9tra&agant to assu7e that e&ery one of those who did in fact bother to read the draft %harter actually understood the i7port of its pro&isions, 7uch less analy?ed it &is,],&is the pre&ious %onstitutions' We belie&e that in reality, a good percentage of those who &oted in fa&or of it did so 7ore out of faith and trust' <or the7, it was the product of the hard worB and careful deliberation of a group of intelligent, dedicated and trustworthy 7en and wo7en of integrity and con&iction, whose lo&e of country and fidelity to duty could not be 0uestioned' +n short, a large proportion of the &oters &oted ;yes; because the drafters, or a 7a=ority of the7, endorsed the proposed %onstitution' What this fact translates to is the inescapable conclusion that 7any of the &oters in the referendu7 did not for7 their own isolated =udg7ent about the draft %harter, 7uch less about particular pro&isions therein' They only relied or fell bacB and acted upon the fa&orable endorse7ent or reco77endation of the fra7ers as a group' +n other words, by &oting "es, they 7ay be dee7ed to ha&e signified their &oluntary adoption of the

understanding and interpretation of the delegates with respect to the proposed %harter and its particular pro&isions' ;+f itDs good enough for the7, itDs good enough for 7e@; or, in 7any instances, ;+f itDs good enough for resident %ory A0uino, itDs good enough for 7e'; And e&en for those who &oted based on their own indi&idual assess7ent of the proposed %harter, there is no e&idence a&ailable to indicate that their assess7ent or understanding of its pro&isions was in fact different fro7 that of the drafters' This unwritten assu7ption see7s to be petitionersD as well' <or all we Bnow, this seg7ent of &oters 7ust ha&e read and understood the pro&isions of the %onstitution in the sa7e way the fra7ers had, an assu7ption that would account for the fa&orable &otes' <unda7entally speaBing, in the process of rewriting the %harter, the 7e7bers of the %on%o7 as a group were supposed to represent the entire <ilipino people' Thus, we cannot but regard their &iews as being &ery 7uch indicati&e of the thinBing of the people with respect to the 7atters deliberated upon and to the %harter as a whole' "1 ./ 1h4r48or4 r4a/o*a<94 a*+ 5*a6o.+a<94 1o :aH4 1h4 8o99oI.*G co*c95/.o*, <a/4+ o* 1h4 a<o64 arG5:4*1/. A/ Ir.114* <2 1h4 8ra:4r/ a*+ ra1.8.4+ a*+ a+o014+ <2 1h4 04o094, 1h4 Co*/1.151.o* a99oI/ 1h4 co*1.*54+ 5/4 o8 /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/ I.1h 8or4.G* cor0ora1.o*/ -- a/ co*1rac1or/ Iho Io59+ .*64/1 .* a*+ o04ra14 a*+ :a*aG4 431rac1.64 4*14r0r./4/, /5<K4c1 1o 1h4 8599 co*1ro9 a*+ /504r6./.o* o8 1h4 S1a14 -- /a*/ 1h4 a<5/4/ o8 1h4 0a/1 r4G.:4. Th4 05r0o/4 ./ c94arC 1o +4649o0 a*+ 51.9.J4 o5r :.*4ra9, 041ro945: a*+ o1h4r r4/o5rc4/ o* a 9arG4 /ca94 8or 1h4 .::4+.a14 a*+ 1a*G.<94 <4*48.1 o8 1h4 $.9.0.*o 04o094. +n &iew of the foregoing discussion, we should re&erse the :ecision of 6anuary 27, 2003, and in fact now hold a &iew different fro7 that of the :ecision, which had these findings8 -a/ paragraph 3 of Section 2 of Article K++ li7its foreign in&ol&e7ent in the local 7ining industry to agree7ents strictly for either financial or technical assistance only@ -b/ the sa7e paragraph precludes agree7ents that grant to foreign corporations the 7anage7ent of local 7ining operations, as such agree7ents are purportedly in the nature of ser&ice contracts as these were understood under the 1273 %onstitution@ -c/ these ser&ice contracts were supposedly ;de,constitutionali?ed; and proscribed by the o7ission of the ter7 service contracts fro7 the 1247 %onstitution@ -d/ since the W!% <TAA contains pro&isions per7itting the foreign contractor to 7anage the concern, the said <TAA is in&alid for being a prohibited ser&ice contract@ and -e/ pro&isions of RA 7232 and :A( 25,30, which liBewise grant 7anagerial authority to the foreign contractor, are also in&alid and unconstitutional' @ltimate TestJ State0s ?+ontrol? (eterminative of +onstitutionalit" $ut we are not yet at the end of our 0uest' <ar fro7 it' +t see7s that we are confronted with a possible collision of constitutional pro&isions' (n the one hand, paragraph 1 of Section 2 of Article K++ e9plicitly 7andates the State to e9ercise ;full control and super&ision; o&er the e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation of natural resources' (n the other hand, paragraph 3 per7its safeguarded ser&ice contracts with foreign contractors' #or7ally, pursuant thereto, the contractors e9ercise 7anage7ent prerogati&es o&er the 7ining operations and the enterprise as a whole' There is thus a legiti7ate ground to be concerned that either the StateDs full control and super&ision 7ay rule out any e9ercise of 7anage7ent authority by the foreign contractor@ or, the other way around, allowing the foreign contractor full 7anage7ent prerogati&es 7ay ulti7ately negate the StateDs full control and super&ision' *t !agis Aaleat Iua7 ereat *nder the third principle of constitutional construction laid down in =rancisco ,, ut magis valeat 9uam pereat 11e&ery part of the %onstitution is to be gi&en effect, and the %onstitution is to be read and understood as a har7onious whole' Thus, ?full control and supervision? *" t)e State must *e understood as one t)at does not preclude t)e legitimate e!ercise of management prerogatives *" t)e foreign contractor. $efore any further discussion, we 7ust stress the pri7acy and supre7acy of the principle of so&ereignty and State control and super&ision o&er all aspects of e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation of the countryDs natural resources, as 7andated in the first paragraph of Section 2 of Article K++' $ut in the ne9t breadth we ha&e to point out that ;full control and super&ision; cannot be taBen literally to 7ean that the State controls and super&ises ever"t)ing involved, do,n to t)e minutest details , and 7aBes all decisionsre0uired in the 7ining operations' This strained concept of control and super&ision o&er the 7ining enterprise would render i7possible the legiti7ate e9ercise by the contractors of a reasonable degree of 7anage7ent prerogati&e and authority necessary and indispensable to their proper functioning' <or one thing, such an interpretation would discourage foreign entry into large,scale e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation acti&ities@ and result in the un7itigated stagnation of this sector, to the detri7ent of our nationDs de&elop7ent' This scenario renders paragraph 3 inoperati&e and useless' And as respondents ha&e correctly pointed out, the go&ern7ent does not ha&e to 7icro,7anage the 7ining operations and dip its hands into the day, to,day affairs of the enterprise in order for it to be considered as ha&ing full control and super&ision' The concept of control.3 adopted in Section 2 of Article K++ 7ust be taBen to 7ean less than dictatorial, all, enco7passing control@ but ne&ertheless sufficient to gi&e the State the power to direct, restrain, regulate and go&ern

the affairs of the e9tracti&e enterprises' %ontrol by the State 7ay be on a 7acro le&el, through the establish7ent of policies, guidelines, regulations, industry standards and si7ilar 7easures that would enable the go&ern7ent to control the conduct of affairs in &arious enterprises and restrain acti&ities dee7ed not desirable or beneficial' The end in &iew is ensuring that these enterprises contribute to the econo7ic de&elop7ent and general welfare of the country, conser&e the en&iron7ent, and uplift the well,being of the affected local co77unities' Such a concept of control would be co7patible with per7itting the foreign contractor sufficient and reasonable 7anage7ent authority o&er the enterprise it in&ested in, in order to ensure that it is operating efficiently and profitably, to protect its in&est7ents and to enable it to succeed' Th4 N54/1.o* 1o <4 a*/I4r4+, 1h4*, ./ Ih41h4r RA 7942 a*+ .1/ ":094:4*1.*G R594/ 4*a<94 1h4 Go64r*:4*1 1o 434rc./4 1ha1 +4Gr44 o8 co*1ro9 /588.c.4*1 1o +.r4c1 a*+ r4G59a14 1h4 co*+5c1 o8 a88a.r/ o8 .*+.6.+5a9 4*14r0r./4/ a*+ r4/1ra.* 5*+4/.ra<94 ac1.6.1.4/. (n the resolution of these 0uestions will depend the &alidity and constitutionality of certain pro&isions of the hilippine !ining Act of 122. -RA 7232/ and its +7ple7enting Rules and Regulations -:A( 25,30/, as well as the W!% <TAA' +ndeed, petitioners charge.3 that RA 7232, as well as its +7ple7enting Rules and Regulations, 7aBes it possible for <TAA contracts to cede full control and 7anage7ent of 7ining enterprises o&er to fully foreign,owned corporations, with the result that the State is allegedly reduced to a passi&e regulator dependent on sub7itted plans and reports, with weaB re&iew and audit powers' The State does not supposedly act as the owner of the natural resources for and on behalf of the <ilipino people@ it practically has little effecti&e say in the decisions 7ade by the enterprise' etitioners then conclude that the law, the i7ple7enting regulations, and the W!% <TAA cede ;beneficial ownership; of the 7ineral resources to the foreign contractor' A careful scrutiny of the pro&isions of RA 7232 and its +7ple7enting Rules belies petitionersD clai7s' araphrasing the %onstitution, Section 3 of the statute clearly affir7s the StateDs control thus8 ?Sec. H. ,ners)ip of Mineral Resources. P Mineral resources are o,ned *" t)e State and t)e e!ploration, development, utilization and processing t)ereof s)all *e under its full control and supervision. T)e State ma" directl" underta#e suc) activities or it ma" enter into mineral agreements ,it) contractors. ?T)e State s)all recognize and protect t)e rig)ts of t)e indigenous cultural communities to t)eir ancestral lands as provided for *" t)e +onstitution'; The afore0uoted pro&ision is substanti&ely reiterated in Section 2 of :A( 25,30 as follows8 ?Sec. 8. (eclaration of $olic". All mineral resources in pu*lic and private lands ,it)in t)e territor" and e!clusive economic zone of t)e Repu*lic of t)e $)ilippines are o,ned *" t)e State. <t s)all *e t)e responsi*ilit" of t)e State to promote t)eir rational e!ploration, development, utilization and conservation t)roug) t)e com*ined efforts of t)e Government and private sector in order to en)ance national gro,t) in a ,a" t)at effectivel" safeguards t)e environment and protects t)e rig)ts of affected communities.? Sufficient +ontrol ver Mining perations Vested in t)e State *" RA E;H8 and (A ;31H7 RA 7232 pro&ides for the StateDs control and super&ision o&er 7ining operations' The following pro&isions thereof establish the 7echanis7 of inspection and &isitorial rights o&er 7ining operations and institute reportorial re0uire7ents in this 7anner8 1' Sec' 4 which pro&ides for the :"#RDs power of o&er,all super&ision and periodic re&iew for ;the conser&ation, 7anage7ent, de&elop7ent and proper use of the StateDs 7ineral resources;@ 2' Sec' 2 which authori?es the !ines and 1eosciences $ureau -!1$/ under the :"#R to e9ercise ;direct charge in the ad7inistration and disposition of 7ineral resources;, and e7powers the !1$ to ;7onitor the co7pliance by the contractor of the ter7s and conditions of the 7ineral agree7ents;, ;confiscate surety and perfor7ance bonds;, and deputi?e whene&er necessary any 7e7ber or unit of the hil' #ational olice, barangay, duly registered non,go&ern7ental organi?ation -#1(/ or any 0ualified person to police 7ining acti&ities@ 3' Sec' 55 which &ests in the Regional :irector ;e9clusi&e =urisdiction o&er safety inspections of all installations, whether surface or underground;, utili?ed in 7ining operations' 3' Sec' 3., which incorporates into all <TAAs the following ter7s, conditions and warranties8 ;-g/ !ining operations shall be conducted in accordance with the pro&isions of the Act and its +RR'

;-h/ WorB progra7s and 7ini7u7 e9penditures co77it7ents' 999999999 ;-B/ Re0uiring proponent to effecti&ely use appropriate anti,pollution technology and facilities to protect the en&iron7ent and restore or rehabilitate 7ined,out areas' ;-l/ The contractors shall furnish the 1o&ern7ent records of geologic, accounting and other rele&ant data for its 7ining operation, and that booBs of accounts and records shall be open for inspection by the go&ern7ent' 9 9 9' ;-7/ Re0uiring the proponent to dispose of the 7inerals at the highest price and 7ore ad&antageous ter7s and conditions' ;-n/ 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 ;-o/ Such other ter7s and conditions consistent with the %onstitution and with this Act as the Secretary 7ay dee7 to be for the best interest of the State and the welfare of the <ilipino people'; The foregoing pro&isions of Section 3. of RA 7232 are also reflected and i7ple7ented in Section .5 -g/, -h/, -l/, -7/ and -n/ of the +7ple7enting Rules, :A( 25,30' !oreo&er, RA 7232 and :A( 25,30 also pro&ide &arious stipulations confir7ing the go&ern7entDs control o&er 7ining enterprises8 \ The contractor is to relin0uish to the go&ern7ent those portions of the contract area not needed for 7ining operations and not co&ered by any declaration of 7ining feasibility -Section 3.,e, RA 7232@ Section 50, :A( 25,30/' \ The contractor 7ust co7ply with the pro&isions pertaining to 7ine safety, health and en&iron7ental protection -%hapter K+, RA 7232@ %hapters KA and KA+, :A( 25,30/' \ <or &iolation of any of its ter7s and conditions, go&ern7ent 7ay cancel an <TAA' -%hapter KA++, RA 7232@ %hapter KK+A, :A( 25,30/' \ An <TAA contractor is obliged to open its booBs of accounts and records for inspection by the go&ern7ent -Section .5,7, :A( 25,30/' \ An <TAA contractor has to dispose of the 7inerals and by,products at the highest 7arBet price and register with the !1$ a copy of the sales agree7ent -Section .5,n, :A( 25,30/' \ !1$ is 7andated to 7onitor the contractorDs co7pliance with the ter7s and conditions of the <TAA@ and to deputi?e, when necessary, any 7e7ber or unit of the hilippine #ational olice, the barangay or a :"#R, accredited nongo&ern7ental organi?ation to police 7ining acti&ities -Section 7,d and ,f, :A( 25,30/' \ An <TAA cannot be transferred or assigned without prior appro&al by the resident -Section 30, RA 7232@ Section 55, :A( 25,30/' \ A 7ining pro=ect under an <TAA cannot proceed to the constructionJde&elop7entJutili?ation stage, unless its :eclaration of !ining ro=ect <easibility has been appro&ed by go&ern7ent -Section 23, RA 7232/' \ The :eclaration of !ining ro=ect <easibility filed by the contractor cannot be appro&ed without sub7ission of the following docu7ents8 1' Appro&ed 7ining pro=ect feasibility study -Section .3,d, :A( 25,30/ 2' Appro&ed three,year worB progra7 -Section .3,a,3, :A( 25,30/ 3' "n&iron7ental co7pliance certificate -Section 70, RA 7232/ 3' Appro&ed en&iron7ental protection and enhance7ent progra7 -Section 52, RA 7232/ .' Appro&al by the Sangguniang anlalawiganJ$ayanJ$arangay -Section 70, RA 7232@ Section 27, RA 7150/ 5' <ree and prior infor7ed consent by the indigenous peoples concerned, including pay7ent of royalties through a !e7orandu7 of Agree7ent -Section 15, RA 7232@ Section .2, RA 4371/

\ The <TAA contractor is obliged to assist in the de&elop7ent of its 7ining co77unity, pro7otion of the general welfare of its inhabitants, and de&elop7ent of science and 7ining technology -Section .7, RA 7232/' \ The <TAA contractor is obliged to sub7it reports -on 0uarterly, se7i,annual or annual basis as the case 7ay be@ per Section 270, :A( 25,30/, pertaining to the following8 1' "9ploration 2' :rilling 3' !ineral resources and reser&es 3' "nergy consu7ption .' roduction 5' Sales and 7arBeting 7' "7ploy7ent 4' ay7ent of ta9es, royalties, fees and other 1o&ern7ent Shares 2' !ine safety, health and en&iron7ent 10' )and use 11' Social de&elop7ent 12' "9plosi&es consu7ption \ An <TAA pertaining to areas within go&ern7ent reser&ations cannot be granted without a written clearance fro7 the go&ern7ent agencies concerned -Section 12, RA 7232@ Section .3, :A( 25,30/' \ An <TAA contractor is re0uired to post a financial guarantee bond in fa&or of the go&ern7ent in an a7ount e0ui&alent to its e9penditures obligations for any particular year' This re0uire7ent is apart fro7 the representations and warranties of the contractor that it has access to all the financing, 7anagerial and technical e9pertise and technology necessary to carry out the ob=ecti&es of the <TAA -Section 3.,b, ,e, and ,f, RA 7232/' \ (ther reports to be sub7itted by the contractor, as re0uired under :A( 25,30, are as follows8 an en&iron7ental report on the rehabilitation of the 7ined,out area andJor 7ine wasteJtailing co&ered area, and anti,pollution 7easures undertaBen -Section 3.,a,2/@ annual reports of the 7ining operations and records of geologic accounting -Section .5,7/@ annual progress reports and final report of e9ploration acti&ities -Section .5,2/' \ (ther progra7s re0uired to be sub7itted by the contractor, pursuant to :A( 25,30, are the following8 a safety and health progra7 -Section 133/@ an en&iron7ental worB progra7 -Section 154/@ an annual en&iron7ental protection and enhance7ent progra7 -Section 171/' The foregoing ga7ut of re0uire7ents, regulations, restrictions and li7itations i7posed upon the <TAA contractor by the statute and regulations easily o&erturns petitionersD contention' The setup under RA 7232 and :A( 25,30 hardly relegates the State to the role of a ;passi&e regulator; dependent on sub7itted plans and reports' (n the contrary, the go&ern7ent agencies concerned are e7powered to appro&e or disappro&e ,, hence, to influence, direct and change ,, the &arious worB progra7s and the corresponding 7ini7u7 e9penditure co77it7ents for each of the e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation phases of the 7ining enterprise' (nce these plans and reports are appro&ed, the contractor is bound to co7ply with its co77it7ents therein' <igures for 7ineral production and sales are regularly 7onitored and sub=ected to go&ern7ent re&iew, in order to ensure that the products and by,products are disposed of at the best prices possible@ e&en copies of sales agree7ents ha&e to be sub7itted to and registered with !1$' And the contractor is 7andated to open its booBs of accounts and records for scrutiny, so as to enable the State to deter7ine if the go&ern7ent share has been fully paid' The State 7ay liBewise co7pel the contractorDs co7pliance with 7andatory re0uire7ents on 7ine safety, health and en&iron7ental protection, and the use of anti,pollution technology and facilities' !oreo&er, the contractor is also obligated to assist in the de&elop7ent of the 7ining co77unity and to pay royalties to the indigenous peoples concerned'

%ancellation of the <TAA 7ay be the penalty for &iolation of any of its ter7s and conditions andJor nonco7pliance with statutes or regulations' This general, all,around, 7ultipurpose sanction is no trifling 7atter, especially to a contractor who 7ay ha&e yet to reco&er the tens or hundreds of 7illions of dollars sunB into a 7ining pro=ect' (&erall, considering the pro&isions of the statute and the regulations =ust discussed, we belie&e that the State definitely possesses the 7eans by which it can ha&e the ulti7ate word in the operation of the enterprise, set directions and ob=ecti&es, and detect de&iations and nonco7pliance by the contractor@ liBewise, it has the capability to enforce co7pliance and to i7pose sanctions, should the occasion therefor arise' "* o1h4r Ior+/, 1h4 $TAA co*1rac1or ./ *o1 8r44 1o +o Iha1464r .1 094a/4/ a*+ G41 aIa2 I.1h .17 o* 1h4 co*1rar2, .1 I.99 ha64 1o 8o99oI 1h4 Go64r*:4*1 9.*4 .8 .1 Ia*1/ 1o /1a2 .* 1h4 4*14r0r./4. "*495c1a<92 1h4*, RA 7942 a*+ %AO 96-4@ 64/1 .* 1h4 Go64r*:4*1 :or4 1ha* a /588.c.4*1 +4Gr44 o8 co*1ro9 a*+ /504r6./.o* o64r 1h4 co*+5c1 o8 :.*.*G o04ra1.o*/. Section 2Ba9C of RA E;H8 'ot @nconstitutional An ob=ection has been e9pressed that Section 3-a0/ .. of RA 7232 ,, which allows a foreign contractor to apply for and hold an e!ploration permit 11 is unconstitutional' The reasoning is that Section 2 of Article K++ of the %onstitution does not allow foreign,owned corporations to undertaBe 7ining operations directly' They 7ay act only as contractors of the State under an <TAA@ and the State, as the party directly undertaBing e9ploitation of its natural resources, 7ust hold through the go&ern7ent all e9ploration per7its and si7ilar authori?ations' Cence, Section 3-a0/, in per7itting foreign,owned corporations to hold e9ploration per7its, is unconstitutional' The ob=ection, howe&er, is not well,founded' While the %onstitution 7andates the State to e9ercise full control and super&ision o&er the e9ploitation of 7ineral resources, no,)ere does it re9uire t)e government to )old all e!ploration permits and similar aut)orizations. +n fact, there is no prohibition at all against foreign or local corporations or contractors holding e9ploration per7its' The reason is not hard to see' ursuant to Section 20 of RA 7232, an e9ploration per7it 7erely grants to a 0ualified person the right to conduct e!ploration for all 7inerals in specified areas' Suc) a permit does not amount to an aut)orization to e!tract and carr" off t)e mineral resources t)at ma" *e discovered. This phase in&ol&es nothing but e9penditures for e9ploring the contract area and locating the 7ineral bodies' As no e9traction is in&ol&ed, there are no re&enues or inco7es to speaB of' +n short, the e9ploration per7it is an authori?ation for the grantee to spend its own funds on e9ploration progra7s that are pre,appro&ed by the go&ern7ent, without any right to reco&er anything should no 7inerals in co77ercial 0uantities be disco&ered' The State risBs nothing and loses nothing by granting these per7its to local or foreign fir7s@ in fact, it stands to gain in the for7 of data generated by the e9ploration acti&ities' ursuant to Section 23 of RA 7232, an e9ploration per7it grantee who deter7ines the co77ercial &iability of a 7ining area 7ay, within the ter7 of the per7it, file with the !1$ a declaration of 7ining pro=ect feasibility acco7panied by a worB progra7 for de&elop7ent' The appro&al of the 7ining pro=ect feasibility and co7pliance with other re0uire7ents of RA 7232 &ests in the grantee the e9clusi&e right to an ! SA or any other 7ineral agree7ent, or to an <TAA' Thus, the per7it grantee 7ay apply for an ! SA, a =oint &enture agree7ent, a co,production agree7ent, or an <TAA o&er the per7it area, and the application shall be appro&ed if the per7it grantee 7eets the necessary 0ualifications and the ter7s and conditions of any such agree7ent' Therefore, the contractor will be in a position to e9tract 7inerals and earn re&enues only when the ! SA or another 7ineral agree7ent, or an <TAA, is granted' At that point, the contractorDs rights and obligations will be co&ered by an <TAA or a 7ineral agree7ent' $ut prior to the issuance of such <TAA or 7ineral agree7ent, the e9ploration per7it grantee -or prospecti&e contractor/ cannot yet be dee7ed to ha&e entered into any contract or agree7ent with the State, and the grantee would definitely need to ha&e so7e docu7ent or instru7ent as e&idence of its right to conduct e9ploration worBs within the specified area' This need is 7et by the e9ploration per7it issued pursuant to Sections 3-a0/, 20 and 23 of RA 7232' "* <r.48, 1h4 4309ora1.o* 04r:.1 /4r64/ a 0rac1.ca9 a*+ 94G.1.:a14 05r0o/4 .* 1ha1 .1 0ro14c1/ 1h4 .*14r4/1/ a*+ 0r4/4r64/ 1h4 r.Gh1/ o8 1h4 4309ora1.o* 04r:.1 Gra*144 E1h4 Io59+-<4 co*1rac1orF -- 8or4.G* or 9oca9 -- +5r.*G 1h4 04r.o+ o8 1.:4 1ha1 .1 ./ /04*+.*G h4a6.92 o* 4309ora1.o* IorH/, I.1ho51 241 <4.*G a<94 1o 4ar* r464*54/ 1o r4co50 a*2 o8 .1/ .*64/1:4*1/ a*+ 4304*+.15r4/. !inus this per7it and the protection it affords, the e9ploration worBs and e9penditures 7ay end up benefiting only clai7,=u7pers' Such a possibility tends to discourage in&estors and contractors' Thus, Section 3-a0/ of RA 7232 7ay not be dee7ed unconstitutional' T)e Terms of t)e /M+$ =TAA A (eference to State +ontrol A perusal of the W!% <TAA also re&eals a slew of stipulations pro&iding for State control and super&ision8

1' The contractor is obligated to account for the &alue of production and sale of 7inerals -%lause 1'3/' 2' The contractorDs worB progra7, acti&ities and budgets 7ust be appro&ed byJon behalf of the State -%lause 2'1/' 3' The :"#R secretary has the power to e9tend the e9ploration period -%lause 3'2,a/' 3' Appro&al by the State is necessary for incorporating lands into the <TAA contract area -%lause 3'3,c/' .' The $ureau of <orest :e&elop7ent is &ested with discretion in regard to appro&ing the inclusion of forest reser&es as part of the <TAA contract area -%lause 3'./' 5' The contractor is obliged to relin0uish periodically parts of the contract area not needed for e9ploration and de&elop7ent -%lause 3'5/' 7' A :eclaration of !ining <easibility 7ust be sub7itted for appro&al by the State -%lause 3'5,b/' 4' The contractor is obligated to report to the State its e9ploration acti&ities -%lause 3'2/' 2' The contractor is re0uired to obtain State appro&al of its worB progra7s for the succeeding two,year periods, containing the proposed worB acti&ities and e9penditures budget related to e9ploration -%lause .'1/' 10' The contractor is re0uired to obtain State appro&al for its proposed e9penditures for e9ploration acti&ities -%lause .'2/' 11' The contractor is re0uired to sub7it an annual report on geological, geophysical, geoche7ical and other infor7ation relating to its e9plorations within the <TAA area -%lause .'3,a/' 12' The contractor is to sub7it within si9 7onths after e9piration of e9ploration period a final report on all its findings in the contract area -%lause .'3,b/' 13' The contractor, after conducting feasibility studies, shall sub7it a declaration of 7ining feasibility, along with a description of the area to be de&eloped and 7ined, a description of the proposed 7ining operations and the technology to be e7ployed, and a proposed worB progra7 for the de&elop7ent phase, for appro&al by the :"#R secretary -%lause .'3/' 13' The contractor is obliged to co7plete the de&elop7ent of the 7ine, including construction of the production facilities, within the period stated in the appro&ed worB progra7 -%lause 5'1/' 1.' The contractor is obligated to sub7it for appro&al of the :"#R secretary a worB progra7 co&ering each period of three fiscal years -%lause 5'2/' 15' The contractor is to sub7it reports to the :"#R secretary on the production, ore reser&es, worB acco7plished and worB in progress, profile of its worB force and 7anage7ent staff, and other technical infor7ation -%lause 5'3/' 17' Any e9pansions, 7odifications, i7pro&e7ents and replace7ents of 7ining facilities shall be sub=ect to the appro&al of the secretary -%lause 5'3/' 14' The State has control with respect to the a7ount of funds that the contractor 7ay borrow within the hilippines -%lause 7'2/' 12' The State has super&isory power with respect to technical, financial and 7arBeting issues -%lause 10'1, a/' 20' The contractor is re0uired to ensure 50 percent <ilipino e0uity in the contractor, within ten years of reco&ering specified e9penditures, unless not so re0uired by subse0uent legislation -%lause 10'1/' 21' The State has the right to ter7inate the <TAA for the contractorDs unre7edied substantial breach thereof -%lause 13'2/@ 22' The StateDs appro&al is needed for any assign7ent of the <TAA by the contractor to an entity other than an affiliate -%lause 13'1/' We should elaborate a little on the worB progra7s and budgets, and what they 7ean with respect to the StateDs ability to e9ercise full control and effecti&e super&ision o&er the enterprise' <or instance, throughout the initial fi&e, year e!ploration and feasi*ilit" p)ase of the pro=ect, the contractor is 7andated by %lause .'1 of the W!% <TAA

to sub7it a series of worB progra7s -copy furnished the director of !1$/ to the :"#R secretary for approval. The progra7s will detail the contractorDs proposed e!ploration activities and *udget co&ering each subse0uent period of two fiscal years' +n other words, the concerned go&ern7ent officials will be infor7ed beforehand of the proposed e9ploration acti&ities and e9penditures of the contractor for each succeeding two,year period, with the right to appro&eJdisappro&e the7 or re0uire changes or ad=ust7ents therein if dee7ed necessary' )iBewise, under %lause .'2-a/, the a7ount that the contractor was supposed to spend for e9ploration acti&ities during the first contract year of the e9ploration period was fi9ed at not less than 23 7illion@ and then for the succeeding years, the a7ount shall be as agreed between the :"#R secretary and the contractor prior to the co77ence7ent of each subse0uent fiscal year' +f no such agree7ent is arri&ed upon, the pre&ious yearDs e9penditure co77it7ent shall apply' This pro&ision alone grants the go&ern7ent through the :"#R secretary a &ery big say in the e9ploration phase of the pro=ect' This fact is not so7ething to be taBen lightly, considering that the government )as a*solutel" no contri*ution to t)e e!ploration e!penditures or ,or# activities and "et is given veto po,er over suc) a critical aspect of t)e pro6ect' We cannot but construe as &ery significant such a degree of control o&er the pro=ect and, resultantly, o&er the 7ining enterprise itself' <ollowing its e9ploration acti&ities or feasibility studies, if the contractor belie&es that any part of the contract area is liBely to contain an econo7ic 7ineral resource, it shall sub7it to the :"#R secretary a declaration of 7ining feasibility -per %lause .'3 of the <TAA/, together with a technical description of the area delineated for de&elop7ent and production, a description of t)e proposed mining operations including t)e tec)nolog" to *e used, a ,or# program for development, an environmental impact statement, and a description of t)e contri*utions to t)e economic and general ,elfare of the country to be generated by the 7ining operations -pursuant to %lause .'./' The wor# program for development is sub=ect to the approval of t)e (&'R secretar". *pon its appro&al, the contractor 7ust co7ply with it and co7plete the de&elop7ent of the 7ine, including the construction of production facilities and installation of 7achinery and e0uip7ent, within the period pro&ided in the appro&ed worB progra7 for de&elop7ent -per %lause 5'1/' Thus, notably, the de&elop7ent phase of the pro=ect is liBewise sub=ect to the control and super&ision of the go&ern7ent' +t cannot be e7phasi?ed enough that the proper and ti7ely construction and deploy7ent of the production facilities and the de&elop7ent of the 7ine are of pi&otal significance to the success of the 7ining &enture' Any 7issteps here will potentially be &ery costly to re7edy' Cence, the sub7ission of the worB progra7 for de&elop7ent to the :"#R secretary for appro&al is particularly noteworthy, considering that so 7any 7illions of dollars worth of in&est7ents ,, courtesy of the contractor ,, are 7ade to depend on the StateDs consideration and action' Throughout the operating period, the contractor is re0uired to sub7it to the :"#R secretary for appro&al, copy furnished the director of !1$, worB progra7s co&ering each period of three fiscal years -per %lause 5'2/' :uring the sa7e period -per %lause 5'3/, the contractor is 7andated to sub7it &arious 0uarterly and annual reports to the :"#R secretary, copy furnished the director of !1$, on the tonnages of production in ter7s of ores and concentrates, with corresponding grades, &alues and destinations@ reports of sales@ total ore reser&es, total tonnage of ores, worB acco7plished and worB in progress -installations and facilities related to 7ining operations/, in&est7ents 7ade or co77itted, and so on and so forth' *nder Section A+++, during the period of 7ining operations, the contractor is also re0uired to sub7it to the :"#R secretary -copy furnished the director of !1$/ the worB progra7 and corresponding budget for the contract area, describing the 7ining operations that are proposed to be carried out during the period co&ered' The secretary is, of course, entitled to grant or deny appro&al of any worB progra7 or budget andJor propose re&isions thereto' (nce the progra7Jbudget has been appro&ed, the contractor shall co7ply therewith' <n sum, t)e a*ove provisions of t)e /M+$ =TAA ta#en toget)er, far from constituting a surrender of control and a grant of *eneficial o,ners)ip of mineral resources to t)e contractor in 9uestion, <4/1oI 50o* 1h4 S1a14 :or4 1ha* a+4N5a14 co*1ro9 a*+ /504r6./.o* o64r 1h4 ac1.6.1.4/ o8 1h4 co*1rac1or a*+ 1h4 4*14r0r./4. 'o Surrender of +ontrol @nder t)e /M+$ =TAA etitioners, howe&er, taBe ai7 at %lause 4'2, 4'3, and 4'. of the W!% <TAA which, they say, a7ount to a relin0uish7ent of control by the State, since it ;cannot truly i7pose its own discretion; in respect of the sub7itted worB progra7s' ?G.8. T)e Secretar" s)all *e deemed to )ave approved an" /or# $rogramme or %udget or variation t)ereofsu*mitted *" t)e +ontractor unless ,it)in si!t" B37C da"s after su*mission *" t)e +ontractor t)e Secretar" gives notice declining suc) approval or proposing a revision of certain features and specif"ing its reasons t)erefor B0t)e Re6ection 'otice0C.

G.2. <f t)e Secretar" gives a Re6ection 'otice, t)e $arties s)all promptl" meet and endeavor to agree on amendments to t)e /or# $rogramme or %udget. <f t)e Secretar" and t)e +ontractor fail to agree on t)e proposed revision ,it)in 27 da"s from deliver" of t)e Re6ection 'otice t)en t)e /or# $rogramme or %udget or variation t)ereof proposed *" t)e +ontractor s)all *e deemed approved, so as not to unnecessaril" dela" t)e performance of t)e Agreement. G.H. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! G.5. So far as is practica*le, t)e +ontractor s)all compl" ,it) an" approved /or# $rogramme and %udget. <t is recognized *" t)e Secretar" and t)e +ontractor t)at t)e details of an" /or# $rogrammes or %udgets ma" re9uire c)anges in t)e lig)t of c)anging circumstances. T)e +ontractor ma" ma#e suc) c)anges ,it)out approval of t)e Secretar" provided t)e" do not c)ange t)e general o*6ective of an" /or# $rogramme, nor entail a do,n,ard variance of more t)an t,ent" per centum B87percentC of t)e relevant %udget. All ot)er variations to an approved /or# $rogramme or %udget s)all *e su*mitted for approval of t)e Secretar" '; <ro7 the pro&isions 0uoted abo&e, petitioners generali?e by asserting that the go&ern7ent does not participate in 7aBing critical decisions regarding the operations of the 7ining fir7' <urther7ore, while the State can re0uire the sub7ission of worB progra7s and budgets, the decision of the contractor will still pre&ail, if the parties ha&e a difference of opinion with regard to 7atters affecting operations and 7anage7ent' We hold, howe&er, that the foregoing pro&isions do not 7anifest a relin0uish7ent of control' <or instance, %lause 4'2 7erely pro&ides a 7echanis7 for pre&enting the business or 7ining operations fro7 grinding to a co7plete halt as a result of possibly o&er,long and un=ustified delays in the go&ern7entDs handling, processing and appro&al of sub7itted worB progra7s and budgets' Anyway, the pro&ision does gi&e the :"#R secretary 7ore than sufficient ti7e -50 days/ to react to sub7itted worB progra7s and budgets' +t cannot be supposed that proper grounds for ob=ecting thereto, if any e9ist, cannot be disco&ered within a period of two 7onths' (n the other hand, %lause 4'3 seeBs to pro&ide a te7porary, stop,gap solution in the e&ent a disagree7ent o&er the sub7itted worB progra7 or budget arises between the State and the contractor and results in a stale7ate or i7passe, in order that there will be no unreasonably long delays in the perfor7ance of the worBs' These te7porary or stop,gap solutions are not necessarily e&il or wrong' #either does it follow that the go&ern7ent will ine9orably be aggrie&ed if and when these te7porary re7edies co7e into play' =irst, a&oidance of long delays in these situations will undoubtedly redound to the benefit of the State as well as the contractor' Second, who is to say that the worB progra7 or budget proposed by the contractor and dee7ed appro&ed under %lause 4'3 would not be the better or 7ore reasonable or 7ore effecti&e alternati&eH The contractor, being the ;insider,; as it were, 7ay be said to be in a better position than the State ,, an outsider looBing in ,, to deter7ine what worB progra7 or budget would be appropriate, 7ore effecti&e, or 7ore suitable under the circu7stances' All things considered, we taBe e9ception to the characteri?ation of the :"#R secretary as a subser&ient nonentity who7 the contractor can o&errule at will, on account of %lause 4'3' And neither is it true that under the sa7e clause, the :"#R secretary has no authority whatsoe&er to disappro&e the worB progra7' As Respondent W!% reasoned in its Reply,!e7orandu7, the State ,, despite %lause 4'3 ,, still has control o&er the contract area and it 7ay, as so&ereign authority, prohibit worB thereon until the dispute is resol&ed' And ulti7ately, the State 7ay ter7inate the agree7ent, pursuant to %lause 13'2 of the sa7e <TAA, citing substantial breach thereof' Cence, it clearly retains full and effecti&e control of the e9ploitation of the 7ineral resources' (n the other hand, %lause 4'. is 7erely an acBnowledg7ent of the partiesD need for fle9ibility, gi&en that no one can accurately forecast under all circu7stances, or predict how situations 7ay change' Cence, while appro&ed worB progra7s and budgets are to be followed and co7plied with as far as practicable, there 7ay be instances in which changes will ha&e to be effected, and effected rapidly, since e&ents 7ay taBe shape and unfold with suddenness and urgency' Thus, %lause 4'. allows the contractor to 7o&e ahead and 7aBe changes without the e9press or i7plicit appro&al of the :"#R secretary' Such changes are, howe&er, sub=ect to certain conditions that will ser&e to li7it or restrict the &ariance and pre&ent the contractor fro7 straying &ery far fro7 what has been appro&ed' %lause 4'. pro&ides the contractor a certain a7ount of fle9ibility to 7eet une9pected situations, while still guaranteeing that the appro&ed worB progra7s and budgets are not abandoned altogether' %lause 4'. does not constitute proof that the State has relin0uished control' And ulti7ately, should there be disagree7ent with the actions taBen by the contractor in this instance as well as under %lause 4'3 discussed abo&e, the :"#R secretary 7ay resort to cancellationJter7ination of the <TAA as the ulti7ate sanction' (iscretion to Select +ontract Area 'ot an A*dication of +ontrol #e9t, petitioners co7plain that the contractor has full discretion to select ,, and the go&ern7ent has no say whatsoe&er as to ,, the parts of the contract area to be relin0uished pursuant to %lause 3'5 of the W!% <TAA'.5This clause, howe&er, does not constitute abdication of control' Rather, it is a 7ere acBnowledg7ent of the fact that the contractor will ha&e deter7ined, after appropriate e9ploration worBs, which portions of the contract area do not contain 7inerals in co77ercial 0uantities sufficient to =ustify de&eloping the sa7e and ought therefore to be

relin0uished' The State cannot =ust substitute its =udg7ent for that of the contractor and dictate upon the latter which areas to gi&e up' !oreo&er, we can be certain that the contractorDs self,interest will propel proper and efficient relin0uish7ent' According to pri&ate respondent,.7 a 7ining co7pany tries to relin0uish as 7uch non,7ineral areas as soon as possible, because the annual occupation fees paid to the go&ern7ent are based on the total hectarage of the contract area, net of the areas relin0uished' Thus, the larger the re7aining area, the heftier the a7ount of occupation fees to be paid by the contractor' Accordingly, relin0uish7ent is not an issue, gi&en that the contractor will not want to pay the annual occupation fees on the non,7ineral parts of its contract area' #either will it want to relin0uish pro7ising sites, which other contractors 7ay subse0uently picB up' Government 'ot a Su*contractor etitioners further 7aintain that the contractor can co7pel the go&ern7ent to e9ercise its power of e7inent do7ain to ac0uire surface areas within the contract area for the contractorDs use' %lause 10'2 -e/ of the W!% <TAA pro&ides that the go&ern7ent agrees that the contractor shall ?BeC )ave t)e rig)t to re9uire t)e Government at t)e +ontractor0s o,n cost, to purc)ase or ac9uire surface areas for and on *e)alf of t)e +ontractor at suc) price and terms as ma" *e accepta*le to t)e contractor. At t)e termination of t)is Agreement suc) areas s)all *e sold *" pu*lic auction or tender and t)e +ontractor s)all *e entitled to reim*ursement of t)e costs of ac9uisition and maintenance, ad6usted for inflation, from t)e proceeds of sale.? According to petitioners, ;government *ecomes a su*contractor to t)e contractor ; and 7ay, on account of this pro&ision, be co7pelled ;to ma#e use of its po,er of eminent domain, not for pu*lic purposes *ut on *e)alf of a private part", i.e., t)e contractor.; !oreo&er, the power of the courts to deter7ine the a7ount corresponding to the constitutional re0uire7ent of =ust co7pensation has allegedly also been contracted away by the go&ern7ent, on account of the latterDs co77it7ent that the ac0uisition shall be at such ter7s as 7ay be acceptable to the contractor' Cowe&er, pri&ate respondent has proffered a logical e9planation for the pro&ision' .4 Section 10'2-e/ conte7plates a situation applicable to foreign,owned corporations' W!% , at the ti7e of the e9ecution of the <TAA, was a foreign, owned corporation and therefore not 0ualified to own land' As contractor, it has at so7e future date to construct the infrastructure ,, the 7ine processing plant, the ca7p site, the tailings da7, and other infrastructure ,, needed for the large,scale 7ining operations' +t will then ha&e to identify and pinpoint, within the <TAA contract area, the particular surface areas with fa&orable topography dee7ed ideal for such infrastructure and will need to ac0uire the surface rights' The State owns the 7ineral deposits in the earth, and is also 0ualified to own land' Section 10'2-e/ sets forth the 7echanis7 whereby the foreign,owned contractor, dis0ualified to own land, identifies to the go&ern7ent the specific surface areas within the <TAA contract area to be ac0uired for the 7ine infrastructure' The go&ern7ent then ac0uires ownership of the surface land areas on behalf of the contractor, in order to enable the latter to proceed to fully i7ple7ent the <TAA' The contractor, of course, shoulders the purchase price of the land' Cence, the pro&ision allows it, after ter7ination of the <TAA, to be rei7bursed fro7 proceeds of the sale of the surface areas, which the go&ern7ent will dispose of through public bidding' +t should be noted that this pro&ision will not be applicable to Sagittarius as the present <TAA contractor, since it is a <ilipino corporation 0ualified to own and hold land' As such, it 7ay therefore freely negotiate with the surface rights owners and ac0uire the surface property in its own right' %learly, petitioners ha&e needlessly =u7ped to unwarranted conclusions, without being aware of the rationale for the said pro&ision' That pro&ision does not call for the e9ercise of the power of e7inent do7ain ,, and deter7ination of =ust co7pensation is not an issue ,, as 7uch as it calls for a 0ualified party to ac0uire the surface rights on behalf of a foreign,owned contractor' Rather than ha&ing the foreign contractor act through a du77y corporation, ha&ing the State do the purchasing is a better alternati&e' This will at least cause the go&ern7ent to be aware of such transactionJs and foster transparency in the contractorDs dealings with the local property owners' The go&ern7ent, then, will not act as a subcontractor of the contractor@ rat)er, it ,ill facilitate t)e transaction and ena*le t)e parties to avoid a tec)nical violation of t)e Anti1 (umm" La,. A*sence of $rovision Re9uiring Sale at $osted $rices 'ot $ro*lematic The supposed absence of any pro&ision in the W!% <TAA directly and e9plicitly re0uiring the contractor to sell t)e mineral products at posted or mar#et prices is not a proble7' Apart fro7 %lause 1'3 of the <TAA obligating the contractor to account for the total &alue of 7ineral production and the sale of 7inerals, we can also looB to Section 3. of RA 7232, which incorporates into all <TAAs certain ter7s, conditions and warranties, including the following8

?BlC T)e contractors s)all furnis) t)e Government records of geologic, accounting and ot)er relevant data for its mining operation, and t)at *oo#s of accounts and records s)all *e open for inspection *" t)e government. ! ! ! BmC Re9uiring t)e proponent to dispose of t)e minerals at t)e )ig)est price and more advantageous terms and conditions'; <or that 7atter, Section .5-n/ of :A( 22,.5 specifically obligates an <TAA contractor to dispose of the 7inerals and by,products at the highest 7arBet price and to register with the !1$ a copy of the sales agree7ent' After all, the pro&isions of pre&ailing statutes as well as rules and regulations are dee7ed written into contracts' +ontractor0s Rig)t to Mortgage 'ot *6ectiona*le $er Se etitioners also 0uestion the absolute right of the contractor under %lause 10'2 -l/ to 7ortgage and encu7ber not only its rights and interests in the <TAA and the infrastructure and i7pro&e7ents introduced, but also t)e mineral products e!tracted' ri&ate respondents do not touch on this 7atter, but we belie&e that this pro&ision 7ay ha&e to do with the conditions i7posed by the creditor,banBs of the then foreign contractor W!% to secure the lendings 7ade or to be 7ade to the latter' (rdinarily, banBs lend not only on the security of 7ortgages on fi9ed assets, but also on encu7brances of goods produced that can easily be sold and con&erted into cash that can be applied to the repay7ent of loans' $anBs e&en lend on the security of accounts recei&able that are collectible within 20 days' .2 +t is not unco77on to find that a debtor corporation has e9ecuted deeds of assign7ent ;by way of security; o&er the production for the ne9t twel&e 7onths andJor the proceeds of the sale thereof ,, or the corresponding accounts recei&able, if sold on ter7s ,, in fa&or of its creditor,banBs' Such deeds 7ay include authori?ing the creditors to sell the products the7sel&es and to collect the sales proceeds andJor the accounts recei&able' Seen in this conte9t, %lause 10'2-l/ is not so7ething out of the ordinary or ob=ectionable' +n any case, as will be e9plained below, e&en if it is allowed to mortgage or encum*er the 7ineral end,products the7sel&es, the contractor is not freed of its obligation to pay the go&ern7ent its basic and additional shares in the net 7ining re&enue, which is the essential thing to consider' +n brief, the alarum raised o&er the contractorDs right to 7ortgage the 7inerals is si7ply unwarranted' 6ust the sa7e, the contractor 7ust account for the &alue of 7ineral production and the sales proceeds therefro7' )iBewise, under the W!% <TAA, the go&ern7ent re7ains entitled to its si9ty percent share in the net 7ining re&enues of the contractor' The latterDs right to 7ortgage the 7inerals does not negate the StateDs right to recei&e its share of net 7ining re&enues' S)are)olders =ree to Sell T)eir Stoc#s etitioners liBewise critici?e %lause 10'2-B/, which gi&es the contractor authority ;to change its e0uity structure at any ti7e'; This pro&ision 7ay see7 so7ewhat unusual, but considering that W!% then was 100 percent foreign, owned, any change would 7ean that such percentage would either stay unaltered or be decreased in fa&or of <ilipino ownership' !oreo&er, the foreign,held shares 7ay change hands freely' Such e&entuality is as it should be' We belie&e it is not necessary for go&ern7ent to atte7pt to li7it or restrict the freedo7 of the shareholders in the contractor to freely transfer, dispose of or encu7ber their shareholdings, consonant with the unfettered e9ercise of their business =udg7ent and discretion' Rather, ,)at is critical is t)at, regardless of t)e identit", nationalit" and percentage o,ners)ip of t)e various s)are)olders of t)e contractor 11 and regardless of ,)et)er t)ese s)are)olders decide to ta#e t)e compan" pu*lic, float *onds and ot)er fi!ed1income instruments, or allo, t)e creditor1*an#s to ta#e an e9uit" position in t)e compan" 11 t)e foreign1o,ned contractor is al,a"s in a position to render t)e services re9uired under t)e =TAA, under t)e direction and control of t)e government. +ontractor0s Rig)t to As# =or Amendment 'ot A*solute With respect to %lauses 10'3-e/ and -i/, petitioners co7plain that these pro&isions bind go&ern7ent to allow a7end7ents to the <TAA if re0uired by banBs and other financial institutions as part of the conditions for new lendings' Cowe&er, we do not find anything wrong with %lause 10'3-e/, which only states that ?if t)e +ontractor see#s to o*tain financing contemplated )erein from *an#s or ot)er financial institutions, Bt)e Government s)allC cooperate ,it) t)e +ontractor in suc) efforts provided t)at suc) financing arrangements ,ill in no event reduce t)e +ontractor0s o*ligations or t)e Government0s rig)ts )ereunder.? The colatilla ob&iously safeguards the StateDs interests@ if breached, it will gi&e the go&ern7ent cause to ob=ect to the proposed a7end7ents' (n the other hand, %lause 10'3-i/ pro&ides that ?t)e Government s)all favoura*l" consider an" re9uest from Lt)eM +ontractor for amendments of t)is Agreement ,)ic) are necessar" in order for t)e +ontractor to successfull" o*tain t)e financing.? etitioners see in this pro&ision a co7plete renunciation of control' We disagree'

The pro&iso does not say that the go&ern7ent shall grant any re0uest for a7end7ent' %lause 10'3-i/ only obliges the State to fa&orably consider any such re0uest, which is not at all unreasonable, as it is not e0ui&alent to saying that the go&ern7ent 7ust auto7atically consent to it' This pro&ision should be read together with the rest of the <TAA pro&isions instituting go&ern7ent control and super&ision o&er the 7ining enterprise' The clause should not be gi&en an interpretation that enables the contractor to wiggle out of the restrictions i7posed upon it by 7erely suggesting that certain a7end7ents are re0uested by the lenders' Rather, it is up to the contractor to pro&e to the go&ern7ent that the re0uested changes to the <TAA are indispensable, as they enable the contractor to obtain the needed financing@ that without such contract changes, the funders would absolutely refuse to e9tend the loan@ that there are no other sources of financing a&ailable to the contractor -a &ery unliBely scenario/@ and that without the needed financing, the e9ecution of the worB progra7s will not proceed' $ut the botto7 line is, in the e9ercise of its power of control, the go&ern7ent has the final sa" on whether to appro&e or disappro&e such re0uested a7end7ents to the <TAA' <n s)ort, approval t)ereof is not mandator" on t)e part of t)e government. "* 8.*4, 1h4 8or4Go.*G 46a95a1.o* a*+ a*a92/./ o8 1h4 a8or4:4*1.o*4+ $TAA 0ro6./.o*/ /588.c.4*192 o64r15r*/ 041.1.o*4r/P 9.1a*2 o8 o<K4c1.o*/ 1o a*+ cr.1.c./:/ o8 1h4 S1a14P/ a994G4+ 9acH o8 co*1ro9. =inancial %enefits 'ot Surrendered to t)e +ontractor (ne of the 7ain reasons certain pro&isions of RA 7232 were strucB down was the finding 7entioned in the :ecision that beneficial ownership of the 7ineral resources had been con&eyed to the contractor' This finding was based on the underlying assu7ption, co77on to the said pro&isions, that the foreign contractor 7anages the 7ineral resources in the sa7e way that foreign contractors in ser&ice contracts used to' ?%" allo,ing foreign contractors to manage or operate all t)e aspects of t)e mining operation, t)e a*ove1cited provisions of R.A. 'o. E;H8 )ave in effect conveyed beneficia! o/nership over t)e nation0s mineral resources to t)ese contractors, leaving t)e State ,it) not)ing *ut *are title t)ereto.? 50 As the W!% <TAA contained si7ilar pro&isions dee7ed by the ponente to be abhorrent to the %onstitution, the :ecision strucB down the %ontract as well' $eneficial ownership has been defined as ownership recogni?ed by law and capable of being enforced in the courts at the suit of the beneficial owner' 51 $lacBDs La, (ictionar" indicates that the ter7 is used in two senses8first, to indicate the interest of a beneficiary in trust property -also called ;e0uitable ownership;/@ and second, to refer to the power of a corporate shareholder to buy or sell the shares, though the shareholder is not registered in the corporationDs booBs as the owner'52 *sually, beneficial ownership is distinguished fro7 naBed ownership, which is the en=oy7ent of all the benefits and pri&ileges of ownership, as against possession of the bare title to property' An assiduous e9a7ination of the W!% <TAA unco&ers no indication that it confers upon W!% ownership, beneficial or otherwise, of the 7ining property it is to de&elop, the 7inerals to be produced, or the proceeds of their sale, which can be legally asserted and enforced as against the State' As public respondents correctly point out, any interest the contractor 7ay ha&e in the proceeds of the 7ining operation is 7erely the e0ui&alent of the consideration the go&ern7ent has undertaBen to pay for its ser&ices' All lawful contracts re0uire such 7utual prestations, and the W!% <TAA is no different' The contractor co77its to perfor7 certain ser&ices for the go&ern7ent in respect of the 7ining operation, and in turn it is to be co7pensated out of the net 7ining re&enues generated fro7 the sale of 7ineral products' What would be ob=ectionable is a contractual pro&ision that unduly benefits the contractor far in e9cess of the ser&ice rendered or &alue deli&ered, if any, in e9change therefor' A careful perusal of the statute itself and its i7ple7enting rules re&eals that neither RA 7232 nor :A( 22,.5 can be said to con&ey beneficial ownership of any 7ineral resource or product to any foreign <TAA contractor' &9uita*le S)aring of =inancial %enefits (n the contrary, :A( 22,.5, entitled ?Guidelines &sta*lis)ing t)e =iscal Regime of =inancial or Tec)nical Assistance Agreements? ai7s to ensure an e0uitable sharing of the benefits deri&ed fro7 7ineral resources' These benefits are to be e0uitably shared a7ong the go&ern7ent -national and local/, the <TAA contractor, and the affected co77unities' The purpose is to ensure sustainable 7ineral resources de&elop7ent@ and a fair, e0uitable, co7petiti&e and stable in&est7ent regi7e for the large,scale e9ploration, de&elop7ent and co77ercial utili?ation of 7inerals' T)e general frame,or# or concept follo,ed in crafting t)e fiscal regime of t)e =TAA is *ased on t)e principle t)at t)e government e!pects real contri*utions to t)e economic gro,t) and general ,elfare of t)e countr", ,)ile t)e contractor e!pects a reasona*le return on its investments in t)e pro6ect. 53 Specifically, under the fiscal regi7e, the go&ern7entDs e9pectation is, inter alia, the receipt of its share fro7 the ta9es and fees nor7ally paid by a 7ining enterprise' (n the other hand, the <TAA contractor is granted by the go&ern7ent certain fiscal and non,fiscal incenti&es 53 to help support the for7erDs cash flow during the 7ost critical phase -cost reco&ery/ and to 7aBe the hilippines co7petiti&e with other 7ineral,producing countries' After the contractor has reco&ered its initial in&est7ent, it will pay all the nor7al ta9es and fees co7prising the basic share of

the go&ern7ent, plus an additional share for the go&ern7ent based on the options and for7ulae set forth in :A( 22,.5' The said :A( spells out the financial benefits the go&ern7ent will recei&e fro7 an <TAA, referred to as ;the 1o&ern7ent Share,; co7posed of a basic government share a*+ a* additiona! government share. The <a/.c Go64r*:4*1 /har4 is co7prised of all direct ta9es, fees and royalties, as well as other pay7ents 7ade by the contractor during the ter7 of the <TAA' These are a7ounts paid directly to -i/ the national go&ern7ent -through the $ureau of +nternal Re&enue, $ureau of %usto7s, !ines P 1eosciences $ureau and other national go&ern7ent agencies i7posing ta9es or fees/, -ii/ the local go&ern7ent units where the 7ining acti&ity is conducted, and -iii/ persons and co77unities directly affected by the 7ining pro=ect' The 7a=or ta9es and other pay7ents constituting the basic go&ern7ent share are enu7erated below8 5. ay7ents to the #ational 1o&ern7ent8 \ "9cise ta9 on 7inerals , 2 percent of the gross output of 7ining operations \ %ontractorD inco7e ta9 , 7a9i7u7 of 32 percent of ta9able inco7e for corporations \ %usto7s duties and fees on i7ported capital e0uip7ent ,the rate is set by the Tariff and %usto7s %ode -3,7 percent for che7icals@ 3,10 percent for e9plosi&es@ 3,1. percent for 7echanical and electrical e0uip7ent@ and 3,10 percent for &ehicles, aircraft and &essels \ AAT on i7ported e0uip7ent, goods and ser&ices T 10 percent of &alue \ Royalties due the go&ern7ent on 7inerals e9tracted fro7 7ineral reser&ations, if applicable T . percent of the actual 7arBet &alue of the 7inerals produced \ :ocu7entary sta7p ta9 , the rate depends on the type of transaction \ %apital gains ta9 on traded stocBs , . to 10 percent of the &alue of the shares \ Withholding ta9 on interest pay7ents on foreign loans ,1. percent of the a7ount of interest \ Withholding ta9 on di&idend pay7ents to foreign stocBholders T 1. percent of the di&idend \ Wharfage and port fees \ )icensing fees -for e9a7ple, radio per7it, firear7s per7it, professional fees/ \ (ther national ta9es and fees' ay7ents to )ocal 1o&ern7ents8 \ )ocal business ta9 , a 7a9i7u7 of 2 percent of gross sales or receipts -the rate &aries a7ong local go&ern7ent units/ \ Real property ta9 , 2 percent of the fair 7arBet &alue of the property, based on an assess7ent le&el set by the local go&ern7ent \ Special education le&y , 1 percent of the basis used for the real property ta9 \ (ccupation fees , h .0 per hectare per year@ h 100 per hectare per year if located in a 7ineral reser&ation \ %o77unity ta9 , 7a9i7u7 of h 10,.00 per year \ All other local go&ern7ent ta9es, fees and i7posts as of the effecti&e date of the <TAA , the rate and the type depend on the local go&ern7ent (ther ay7ents8 \ Royalty to indigenous cultural co77unities, if any T 1 percent of gross output fro7 7ining operations \ Special allowance , pay7ent to clai7 owners and surface rights holders

Apart fro7 the basic share, an a++.1.o*a9 Go64r*:4*1 /har4 is also collected fro7 the <TAA contractor in accordance with the second paragraph of Section 41 of RA 7232, which pro&ides that the go&ern7ent share shall be co7prised of, among ot)er t)ings, certain ta9es, duties and fees' The sub=ect pro&iso reads8 ?T)e Government s)are in a financial or tec)nical assistance agreement s)all consist of, among other things, t)e contractor0s corporate income ta!, e!cise ta!, special allo,ance, ,it))olding ta! due from t)e contractor0s foreign stoc#)olders arising from dividend or interest pa"ments to t)e said foreign stoc#)older in case of a foreign national, and all suc) ot)er ta!es, duties and fees as provided for under e!isting la,s.? -$old types supplied'/ The go&ern7ent, through the :"#R and the !1$, has interpreted the insertion of the phrase among ot)er t)ingsas signifying that the go&ern7ent is entitled to an ;additional go&ern7ent share; to be paid by the contractor apart fro7 the ;basic share,; in order to attain a fifty,fifty sharing of net benefits fro7 7ining' The a++.1.o*a9 Go64r*:4*1 /har4 is co7puted by using one of three options or sche7es presented in :A( 22,.58 -1/ a fifty,fifty sharing in the cu7ulati&e present &alue of cash flows@ -2/ the share based on e9cess profits@ and -3/ the sharing based on the cu7ulati&e net 7ining re&enue' The particular for7ula to be applied will be selected by the contractor, with a written notice to the go&ern7ent prior to the co77ence7ent of the de&elop7ent and construction phase of the 7ining pro=ect'55 roceeds fro7 the go&ern7ent shares arising fro7 an <TAA contract are distributed to and recei&ed by the different le&els of go&ern7ent in the following proportions8 #ational 1o&ern7ent ro&incial 1o&ern7ent !unicipal 1o&ern7ent Affected $arangays .0 percent 10 percent 20 percent 20 percent

The portion of re&enues re7aining after the deduction of the basic and additional go&ern7ent shares is what goes to the contractor' Government0s S)are in an =TAA 'ot +onsisting Solel" of Ta!es, (uties and =ees +n connection with the foregoing discussion on the <a/.c a*+ a++.1.o*a9 Go64r*:4*1 shares, it is pertinent at this =uncture to 7ention the criticis7 le&eled at the second paragraph of Section 41 of RA 7232, 0uoted earlier' The said pro&iso has been denounced, because, allegedly, the StateDs share in <TAAs with foreign contractors has been li7ited to ta9es, fees and duties only@ in effect, the State has been depri&ed of a s)are in t)e after1ta! income of the enterprise' +n the face of this allegation, one has to consider that the law does not define the ter7 among ot)er t)ings> and the (ffice of the Solicitor 1eneral, in its !otion for Reconsideration, appears to ha&e erroneously clai7ed that the phrase refers to indirect ta!es' The law pro&ides no definition of the ter7 among ot)er t)ings, for the reason that %ongress deliberately a&oided setting unnecessary li7itations as to what 7ay constitute co7pensation to the State for the e9ploitation and use of 7ineral resources' $ut the inclusion of that phrase clearly and un7istaBably re&eals the legislative intent to )ave t)e State collect more t)an 6ust t)e usual ta!es, duties and fees ' %ertainly, there is nothing in that phrase ,, or in the second paragraph of Section 41 ,, that would suggest that such phrase should be interpreted as referring only to ta9es, duties, fees and the liBe' recisely for that reason, to fulfill the legislati&e intent behind the inclusion of the phrase among ot)er t)ings in the second paragraph of Section 41,57 the :"#R structured and for7ulated in :A( 22,.5 the said a++.1.o*a9 Go64r*:4*1 /har4. Such a share was to consist not of ta9es, but of a /har4 .* 1h4 4ar*.*G/ or ca/h 89oI/ o8 1h4 :.*.*G 4*14r0r./4. The additional go&ern7ent share was to be paid by the contractor on top of the basic share, so as to achie&e a fift"1fift" s)aring 11 between the go&ern7ent and the contractor ,, of net *enefits from mining' <n t)e Ramos1(eVera paper, t)e e!planation of t)e 1hr44 o01.o*/ or 8or:59a/54 ,, presented in (A ;;153 for t)e computation of t)e additional government s)are 11 serves to de*un# t)e claim t)at t)e government0s ta#e from an =TAA consists solel" of ta!es, fees and duties. *nfortunately, the (ffice of the Solicitor 1eneral ,, although in possession of the rele&ant data ,, failed to fully replicate or echo the pertinent elucidation in the Ra7os,:eAera paper regarding the three sche7es or options for co7puting the additional go&ern7ent share presented in :A( 22,.5' Cad due care been taBen by the (S1, the %ourt would ha&e been duly apprised of the real nature and particulars of the additional share'

$ut, perhaps, on account of the esoteric discussion in the Ra7os,:eAera paper, and the e&en 7ore abstruse 7athe7atical =argon e7ployed in :A( 22,.5, the (S1 o7itted any 7ention of the three options' +nstead, the (S1 sBipped to a side discussion of the effect of indirect ta!es, which had not)ing at all to do ,it) t)e additional government s)are, to *egin ,it). *nfortunately, this 7o&e created the wrong i7pression, pointed out in 6ustice Antonio T' %arpioDs (pinion, that the (S1 had taBen the position that the additional go&ern7ent share consisted of indirect ta9es' +n any e&ent, what is 0uite e&ident is the fact that the a++.1.o*a9 Go64r*:4*1 /har4, as for7ulated, has nothing to do with ta9es ,, direct or indirect ,, or with duties, fees or charges' To repeat, it is o&er and abo&e the basic go&ern7ent share co7posed of ta9es and duties' Si7ply put, the additional share 7ay be -a/ an a7ount that will result in a .0,.0 sharing of the cu7ulati&e present &alue of the cas) flo,s52 of t)e enterprise@ -b/ an a7ount e0ui&alent to 2. percent of the additional or e!cess profits of t)e enterprise , recBoned against a bench7arB return on in&est7ents@ or -c/ an a7ount that will result in a fifty,fifty sharing of the cu7ulati&e net mining revenue fro7 the end of the reco&ery period up to the ta9able year in 0uestion' The contractor is re0uired to select one of the three options or for7ulae for co7puting the additional share, an option it will apply to all of its 7ining operations' As used abo&e, ;net 7ining re&enue; is defined as the gross output fro7 7ining operations for a calendar year, less deductible e9penses -inclusi&e of ta9es, duties and fees/' Such re&enue would roughly be e0ui&alent to ;ta9able inco7e; or income *efore income ta!' :efinitely, as co7pared with, say, calculating the a++.1.o*a9 Go64r*:4*1 /har4 on the basis of net inco7e -after inco7e ta9/, the net 7ining re&enue is a better and 7uch 7ore reasonable basis for such co7putation, as it gi&es a truer picture of the profitability of the co7pany' To de7onstrate that the three options or for7ulations will operate as intended, !essrs' Ra7os and de Aera also perfor7ed so7e 0uantifications of the go&ern7ent share &ia a financial 7odeling of each of the three options discussed abo&e' They found that the go&ern7ent would get the highest share fro7 the option that is based on the net 7ining re&enue, as co7pared with the other two options, considering only the basic and the additional shares@ and that, e&en though production rate decreases, the go&ern7ent share will actually increase when the net 7ining re&enue and the additional profit,based options are used' <urther7ore, it should be noted that the three options or for7ulae do not "et ta#e into account t)e indirect ta!es70and ot)er financial contri*utions71 of mining pro6ects' These indirect ta9es and other contributions are real and actual benefits en=oyed by the <ilipino people andJor go&ern7ent' #ow, if so7e of the 0uantifiable ite7s are taBen into account in the co7putations, the financial 7odeling would show that the total go&ern7ent share increases to 50 percent or )ig)er ,, in one instance, as 7uch as 77 percent and e&en 42 percent ,, of the net present &alue of total benefits fro7 the pro=ect' As noted in the Ra7os,:eAera paper, these results are not at all shabby, considering that the contractor puts in all the capital re0uire7ents and assu7es all the risBs, without the go&ern7ent ha&ing to contribute or risB anything' :espite the foregoing e9planation, 6ustice %arpio still insisted during the %ourtDs deliberations that the phrase among ot)er t)ings refers only to ta9es, duties and fees' We are bewildered by his position' (n the one hand, he conde7ns the !ining )aw for allegedly li7iting the go&ern7entDs benefits only to ta9es, duties and fees@ and on the other, he refuses to allow the State to benefit fro7 the correct and proper interpretation of the :"#RJ!1$' To re7o&e all doubts then, we hold that the StateDs share is not li7ited to ta9es, duties and fees only and that the :"#RJ!1$ interpretation of the phrase among ot)er t)ings is correct' :efinitely, this :"#RJ!1$ interpretation is not only legally sound, but also greatly ad&antageous to the go&ern7ent' (ne last point on the sub=ect' The legislature acted =udiciously in not defining the ter7s among ot)er t)ings and, instead, lea&ing it to the agencies concerned to de&ise and de&elop the &arious 7odes of arri&ing at a reasonable and fair a7ount for the a++.1.o*a9 Go64r*:4*1 /har4. As can be seen fro7 :A( 22,.5, the agencies concerned did an ad7irable =ob of concei&ing and de&eloping not =ust one for7ula, but three different for7ulae for arri&ing at the additional go&ern7ent share' "ach of these options is 0uite fair and reasonable@ and, as !essrs' Ra7os and :e Aera stated, other alternati&es or sche7es for a possible i7pro&e7ent of the fiscal regi7e for <TAAs are also being studied by the go&ern7ent' $esides, not locBing into a fi9ed definition of the ter7 among ot)er t)ings will ulti7ately be 7ore beneficial to the go&ern7ent, as it will ha&e that innate fle9ibility to ad=ust to and cope with rapidly changing circu7stances, particularly those in the international 7arBets' Such fle9ibility is especially significant for the go&ern7ent in ter7s of helping our 7ining enterprises re7ain co7petiti&e in world 7arBets despite challenging and shifting econo7ic scenarios' "* co*c95/.o*, I4 /1r4// 1ha1 I4 +o *o1 /har4 1h4 6.4I 1ha1 .* $TAA/ I.1h 8or4.G* co*1rac1or/ 5*+4r RA 7942, 1h4 Go64r*:4*1P/ /har4 ./ 9.:.14+ 1o 1a34/, 844/ a*+ +51.4/. Co*/4N54*192, I4 8.*+ 1h4 a11acH/ o* 1h4 /4co*+ 0araGra0h o8 S4c1.o* ?1 o8 RA 7942 1o1a992 5*Iarra*14+. +ollections 'ot Made @ncertain *" t)e T)ird $aragrap) of Section G4 The third or last paragraph of Section 4172 pro&ides that the go&ern7ent share in <TAAs shall be collected when the contractor shall ha&e reco&ered its pre,operating e9penses and e9ploration and de&elop7ent e9penditures' The

ob=ection has been ad&anced that, on account of the pro&iso, the collection of the StateDs share is not e&en certain, as there is no ti7e li7it in RA 7232 for this grace period or reco&ery period' We belie&e that %ongress did not set any ti7e li7it for the grace period, preferring to lea&e it to the concerned agencies, which are, on account of their technical e9pertise and training, in a better position to deter7ine the appropriate durations for such reco&ery periods' After all, these reco&ery periods are deter7ined, to a great e9tent, by technical and technological factors peculiar to the 7ining industry' $esides, with de&elop7ents and ad&ances in technology and in the geosciences, we cannot discount the possibility of shorter reco&ery periods' At any rate, the concerned agencies ha&e not been re7iss in this area' The 122. and 1225 +7ple7enting Rules and Regulations of RA 7232 specify that the period of reco&ery, recBoned fro7 the date of co77ercial operation, shall be for a period not e!ceeding five "ears, or until t)e date of actua! recover", ,)ic)ever comes earlier' Approval of $re1 perating &!penses Re9uired *" RA E;H8 Still, RA 7232 is critici?ed for allegedly not re0uiring go&ern7ent appro&al of pre,operating, e9ploration and de&elop7ent e9penses of the foreign contractors, who are in effect gi&en unfettered discretion to deter7ine the a7ounts of such e9penses' Supposedly, nothing pre&ents the contractors fro7 recording such e9penses in a7ounts e0ual to the 7ining re&enues anticipated for the first 10 or 1. years of co77ercial production, with the result that the share of the State will be ?ero for the first 10 or 1. years' !oreo&er, under the circu7stances, the go&ern7ent would be unable to say when it would start to recei&e its share under the <TAA' We belie&e that the argu7ent is based on incorrect infor7ation as well as speculation' (b&iously, certain crucial pro&isions in the !ining )aw were o&erlooBed' Section 23, dealing with the rights and obligations of the e9ploration per7it grantee, states8 ?T)e permittee s)all underta#e e!ploration ,or# on t)e area as specified *" its permit *ased on an approved ,or# program.? The ne9t pro&iso reads8 ?An" e!penditure in e!cess of t)e "earl" *udget of t)e approved ,or# program ma" *e carried for,ard and credited to t)e succeeding "ears covering t)e duration of t)e permit. ! ! !.? -underscoring supplied/ %learly, e&en at the stage of application for an e9ploration per7it, the applicant is re0uired to sub7it ,, for appro&al by the go&ern7ent ,, a proposed worB progra7 for e9ploration, containing a yearly budget of proposed e9penditures' The State has the opportunity to pass upon -and appro&e or re=ect/ such proposed e9penditures, with the foreBnowledge that ,, if appro&ed ,, these will subse0uently be recorded as pre,operating e9penses that the contractor will ha&e to recoup o&er the grace period' That is not all' *nder Section 23, an e9ploration per7it holder who deter7ines the co77ercial &iability of a pro=ect co&ering a 7ining area 7ay, within the ter7 of the per7it, file with the !ines and 1eosciences $ureau a declaration of mining pro6ect feasi*ilit". This declaration is to be acco7panied by a ,or# program for development for the $ureauDs appro&al, the necessary prelude for entering into an <TAA, a 7ineral production sharing agree7ent -! SA/, or so7e other 7ineral agree7ent' At this stage, too, the go&ern7ent ob&iously has the opportunity to appro&e or re=ect the proposed worB progra7 and budgeted e9penditures for development ,or#s on the pro=ect' Such e9penditures will ulti7ately beco7e the pre,operating and de&elop7ent costs that will ha&e to be reco&ered by the contractor' #aturally, with the sub7ission of appro&ed worB progra7s and budgets for the e9ploration and the de&elop7entJconstruction phases, the go&ern7ent will be able to scrutini?e and approve or re6ect such e9penditures' +t will be well,infor7ed as to the a7ounts of pre,operating and other e9penses that the contractor 7ay legiti7ately reco&er and the appro9i7ate period of ti7e needed to effect such a reco&ery' There is therefore no way the contractor can =ust rando7ly post any a7ount of pre,operating e9penses and e9pect to reco&er the sa7e' The aforecited pro&isions on appro&ed worB progra7s and budgets ha&e counterparts in Section 3., which deals with the ter7s and conditions e9clusi&ely applicable to <TAAs' The said pro&ision re0uires certain ter7s and conditions to be incorporated into <TAAs@ a7ong the7, ?a firm commitment ! ! ! of an amount corresponding to t)e e!penditure o*ligation t)at ,ill *e invested in t)e contract area? and ?representations and ,arranties ! ! ! to timel" deplo" t)ese Ffinancing, 7anagerial and technical e9pertise and technologicalG resources under its supervision pursuant to t)e periodic ,or# programs and related *udgets ! ! !,? as well as ?,or# programs andminimum e!penditures commitments.? -underscoring supplied/ *narguably, gi&en the pro&isions of Section 3., the State has e&ery opportunity to pass upon the proposed e9penditures under an <TAA and approve or re6ect t)em. +t has access to all the infor7ation it 7ay need in order to deter7ine in ad&ance the a7ounts of pre,operating and de&elop7ental e9penses that will ha&e to be reco&ered by the contractor and the a7ount of ti7e needed for such reco&ery' "* /5::ar2, I4 ca**o1 aGr44 1ha1 1h4 1h.r+ or 9a/1 0araGra0h o8 S4c1.o* ?1 o8 RA 7942 ./ .* a*2 :a**4r 5*co*/1.151.o*a9. 'o (eprivation of %eneficial Rig)ts +t is also clai7ed that aside fro7 the second and the third paragraphs of Section 41 -discussed abo&e/, Sections 40, 43 and 112 of RA 7232 also operate to depri&e the State of beneficial rights of ownership o&er 7ineral resources@

and gi&e the7 away for free to pri&ate business enterprises -including foreign owned corporations/' )iBewise, the said pro&isions ha&e been construed as constituting, together with Section 41, an ingenious atte7pt to resurrect the old and discredited syste7 of ;license, concession or lease'; Specifically, Section 40 is conde7ned for li7iting the StateDs share in a 7ineral production,sharing agree7ent -! SA/ to =ust the e9cise ta9 on the 7ineral product' *nder Section 1.1-A/ of the Ta9 %ode, such ta9 is only 2 percent of the 7arBet &alue of the gross output of the 7inerals' The colatilla in Section 43, the portion considered offensi&e to the %onstitution, reiterates the sa7e li7itation 7ade in Section 40' 73 +t should be pointed out that Section 40 and the colatilla in Section 43 pertain onl" to M$SAs and )ave no application to =TAAs' These particular statutory pro&isions do not co7e within the issues that were defined and delineated by this %ourt during the (ral Argu7ent ,, particularly the third issue, which pertained e9clusi&ely to <TAAs' #either did the parties argue upon the7 in their pleadings' Cence, this %ourt cannot 7aBe any pronounce7ent in t)is case regarding the constitutionality of Sections 40 and 43 without &iolating the funda7ental rules of due process' +ndeed, the two pro&isos will ha&e to await another case specifically placing the7 in issue' (n the other hand, Section 11273 is disparaged for allegedly re&erting <TAAs and all 7ineral agree7ents to the old and discredited ;license, concession or lease; syste7' This Section states in rele&ant part that ?t)e provisions of +)apter :<V Fwhich includes Sections 40 to 42G on government s)are in mineral production1s)aring agreement ! ! ! s)all immediatel" govern and appl" to a mining lessee or contractor.? -underscoring supplied/ This pro&ision is construed as signifying that the 2 percent e9cise ta9 which, pursuant to Section 40, co7prises the go&ern7ent share in ! SAs shall now also constitute the go&ern7ent share in <TAAs ,, as well as in co,production agree7ents and =oint &enture agree7ents ,, to the e9clusion of re&enues of any other nature or fro7 any other source' Apart fro7 the fact that Section 112 liBewise does not co7e within the issues delineated by this %ourt during the (ral Argu7ent, and was ne&er touched upon by the parties in their pleadings, it 7ust also be noted that the criticis7 hurled against this Section is rooted in unwarranted conclusions 7ade without considering other rele&ant pro&isions in the statute' Whether Section 112 7ay properly apply to co,production or =oint &enture agree7ents, the fact of the 7atter is that it cannot *e made to appl" to =TAAs' =irst, Section 112 does not specifically 7ention or refer to <TAAs@ the only reason it is being applied to the7 at all is the fact that it happens to use the word ;contractor'; Cence, it is a bit of a stretch to insist that it co&ers <TAAs as well' Second, 7ineral agree7ents, of which there are three types ,, ! SAs, co,production agree7ents, and =oint &enture agree7ents ,, are co&ered by %hapter A of RA 7232' (n the other hand, <TAAs are co&ered by and in fact are the sub=ect of %hapter A+, an entirely different chapter altogether' The law ob&iously intends to treat the7 as a breed apart fro7 7ineral agree7ents, since Section 3. -found in %hapter A+/ creates a long list of specific ter7s, conditions, co77it7ents, representations and warranties ,, which ha&e not been 7ade applicable to 7ineral agree7ents ,, to be incorporated into <TAAs' T)ird, under Section 32, the <TAA contractor is gi&en the option to ;downgrade; ,, to con&ert the <TAA into a 7ineral agree7ent at any ti7e during the ter7 if the econo7ic &iability of the contract area is inade0uate to sustain large,scale 7ining operations' Thus, there is no reason to thinB that the law through Section 112 intends to e9act fro7 <TAA contractors 7erely the sa7e go&ern7ent share -a 2 percent e9cise ta9/ that it apparently de7ands fro7 contractors under the three for7s of 7ineral agree7ents' "* <r.48, S4c1.o* 112 +o4/ *o1 a0092 1o $TAA/. #otwithstanding the foregoing e9planation, 6ustices %arpio and !orales 7aintain that the %ourt 7ust rule no, on the constitutionality of Sections 40, 43 and 112, allegedly because the W!% <TAA contains a pro&ision which grants the contractor unbridled and ;auto7atic; authority to con&ert the <TAA into an ! SA@ and should such con&ersion happen, the State would be pre=udiced since its share would be li7ited to the 2 percent e9cise ta9' 6ustice %arpio adds that there are fi&e ! SAs already signed =ust awaiting the =udg7ent of this %ourt on respondentsD and inter&enorDs !otions for Reconsideration' We hold howe&er that, at this point, this argu7ent is based on pure speculation' The %ourt cannot rule on 7ere sur7ises and hypothetical assu7ptions, without fir7 factual anchor' We repeat8 basic due process re0uires that we hear the parties who ha&e a real legal interest in the ! SAs -i'e' the parties who e9ecuted the7/ before these ! SAs can be re&iewed, or worse, strucB down by the %ourt' Anything less than that re0uire7ent would be arbitrary and capricious' +n any e&ent, the con&ersion of the present <TAA into an ! SA is proble7atic' =irst, the contractor 7ust co7ply with the law, particularly Section 32 of RA 7232@ inter alia, it 7ust con&incingly show that the ;econo7ic &iability of the contract is found to be inade0uate to =ustify large,scale 7ining operations@; second, it 7ust contend with the residentDs e9ercise of the power of State control o&er the ":* of natural resources@ and t)ird, it will ha&e to risB a possible declaration of the unconstitutionality -in a proper case/ of Sections 40, 43 and 112' The first re0uire7ent is not as si7ple as it looBs' Section 32 conte7plates a situation in which an <TAA has already been e9ecuted and entered into, and is presu7ably being i7ple7ented, when the contractor ;disco&ers; that the 7ineral ore reser&es in the contract area are not sufficient to =ustify large,scale 7ining, and thus the contractor re0uests the con&ersion of the <TAA into an ! SA' The contractor in effect needs to e9plain why, despite its e9ploration acti&ities, including the conduct of &arious geologic and other scientific tests and procedures in the contract area, it was unable to deter7ine correctly the 7ineral ore reser&es and the econo7ic &iability of the area' The contractor 7ust e9plain why, after conducting such e9ploration acti&ities, it decided to file a declaration of

7ining feasibility, and to apply for an <TAA, thereby leading the State to belie&e that the area could sustain large, scale 7ining' The contractor 7ust =ustify fully why its earlier findings, based on scientific procedures, tests and data, turned out to be wrong, or were way off' +t 7ust liBewise pro&e that its new findings, also based on scientific tests and procedures, are correct' Right away, this puts the contractorDs technical capabilities and e9pertise into serious doubt' We wonder if anyone would relish being in this situation' The State could e&en 0uestion and challenge the contractorDs 0ualification and co7petence to continue the acti&ity under an ! SA' A99 .* a99, Ih.94 1h4r4 :a2 <4 coG4*1 Gro5*+/ 1o a//a.9 1h4 a8or4c.14+ S4c1.o*/, 1h./ Co5r1 -- o* co*/.+4ra1.o*/ o8 +54 0roc4// -- ca**o1 r594 50o* 1h4: h4r4. A*2Ia2, .8 9a14r o* 1h4/4 S4c1.o*/ ar4 +4c9ar4+ 5*co*/1.151.o*a9, /5ch +4c9ara1.o* I.99 *o1 a884c1 1h4 o1h4r 0or1.o*/ /.*c4 1h42 ar4 c94ar92 /40ara<94 8ro: 1h4 r4/1. ur Mineral Resources 'ot Given A,a" for =ree *" RA E;H8 #e&ertheless, if only to disabuse our 7inds, we should address the contention that our 7ineral resources are effecti&ely gi&en away for free by the law -RA 7232/ in general and by Sections 40, 41, 43 and 112 in particular' <oreign contractors do not =ust walt? into town one day and lea&e the ne9t, taBing away 7ineral resources ,it)out pa"ing an"t)ing' +n order to get at the 7inerals, they ha&e to in&est huge su7s of 7oney -tens or hundreds of 7illions of dollars/ in e9ploration worBs first' +f the e9ploration pro&es unsuccessful, all the cash spent thereon will not be returned to the foreign in&estors@ rather, those funds will ha&e been infused into the local econo7y, to re7ain there per7anently' The benefits therefro7 cannot be si7ply ignored' And assu7ing that the foreign contractors are successful in finding ore bodies that are &iable for co77ercial e9ploitation, they do not =ust plucB out the 7inerals and cart the7 off' They ha&e first to build ca7p sites and roadways@ dig 7ine shafts and connecting tunnels@ prepare tailing ponds, storage areas and &ehicle depots@ install their 7achinery and e0uip7ent, generator sets, pu7ps, water tanBs and sewer syste7s, and so on' +n short, they need to e9pend a great deal 7ore of their funds for facilities, e0uip7ent and supplies, fuel, salaries of local labor and technical staff, and other operating e9penses' +n the 7eanti7e, they also ha&e to pay ta9es, 7.duties, fees, and royalties' All told, the e9ploration, pre,feasibility, feasibility, de&elop7ent and construction phases together add up to as 7any as ele&en years' 75 The contractors ha&e to continually shell out funds for the duration of o&er a decade, before they can co77ence co77ercial production fro7 which they would e&entually deri&e re&enues' All that 7oney translates into a lot of ;pu7p,pri7ing; for the local econo7y' 1ranted that the contractors are allowed subse0uently to reco&er their pre,operating e9penses, still, that e&entuality will happen only after they shall ha&e first put out t)e cas) and fueled the econo7y' !oreo&er, in the process of recouping their in&est7ents and costs, the foreign contractors do not actuall" pull out t)e mone" from t)e econom"' Rather, they reco&er or recoup their in&est7ents out of actual co77ercial production by not paying a portion of the basic go&ern7ent share corresponding to national ta9es, along with the additional go&ern7ent share, for a period of not 7ore than fi&e years77 counted fro7 the co77ence7ent of co77ercial production' +t 7ust be noted that t)ere can *e no recover" ,it)out commencing actual commercial production ' +n the 7eanti7e that the contractors are recouping costs, they need to continue operating@ in order to do so, they ha&e to disburse 7oney to 7eet their &arious needs' +n short, 7oney is continually infused into the econo7y' The foregoing discussion should ser&e to rid us of the 7istaBen belief that, since the foreign contractors are allowed to reco&er their in&est7ents and costs, the end result is that they practically get the 7inerals for free, which lea&es the <ilipino people none the better for it' All %usinesses &ntitled to +ost Recover" Let it *e put on record t)at not onl" foreign contractors, *ut all *usinessmen and all *usiness entities in general, )ave to recoup t)eir investments and costs. That is one of the first things a student learns in business school' Regardless of its nationality, and whether or not a business entity has a fi&e,year cost reco&ery period, it will ,, 7ust ,, ha&e to recoup its in&est7ents, one way or another' This is =ust co77on business sense' Reco&ery of in&est7ents is absolutely indispensable for business sur&i&al@ and business sur&i&al ensures soundness of the econo7y, which is critical and contributory to the general welfare of the people' &ven government corporations must recoup t)eir investments in order to survive and continue in operation. And, as the preceding discussion has shown, there is no business that gets ahead or earns profits without any cost to it' +t 7ust also be stressed that, though the State owns &ast 7ineral wealth, such wealth is not readily accessible or transfor7able into usable and negotiable currency without the inter&ention of the credible 7ining co7panies' Those untapped 7ineral resources, hidden beneath tons of earth and rocB, 7ay as well not be there for all the good they do us right now' They ha&e first to be e9tracted and con&erted into 7arBetable for7, and the country needs the foreign contractorDs funds, technology and Bnow,how for that'

After about ele&en years of pre,operation and another fi&e years for cost reco&ery, the foreign contractors will ha&e =ust broBen e&en' +s it liBely that they would at that point stop their operations and lea&eH %ertainly not' They ha&e yet to 7aBe profits' Thus, for the re7ainder of the contract ter7, they 7ust stri&e to 7aintain profitability' :uring this period, they pay the whole of the *asic government s)are and t)e additional government s)are ,)ic), ta#en toget)er ,it) indirect ta!es and ot)er contri*utions, amount to appro!imatel" 37 percent or more of t)e entire financial *enefits generated *" t)e mining venture. +n su7, we can hardly talB about foreign contractors taBing our 7ineral resources for free' +t taBes a lot of hard cash to e&en begin to do what they do' And ,)at t)e" do in t)is countr" ultimatel" *enefits t)e local econom", gro,s *usinesses, generates emplo"ment, and creates infrastructure , as discussed abo&e' Cence, we definitely disagree with the sweeping clai7 that no <TAA under Section 41 will e&er 7aBe any real contribution to the growth of the econo7y or to the general welfare of the country' This is not a plea for foreign contractors' Rat)er, t)is is a 9uestion of focusing t)e 6udicial spotlig)t s9uarel" on all t)e pertinent facts as t)e" *ear upon t)e issue at )and, in order to avoid leaping precipitatel" to ill1conceived conclusions not solidl" grounded upon fact. Repatriation of After1Ta! <ncome Another ob=ection points to the alleged failure of the !ining )aw to ensure real contributions to the econo7ic growth and general welfare of the country, as 7andated by Section 2 of Article K++ of the %onstitution' ursuant to Section 41 of the law, the entire after,ta9 inco7e arising fro7 the e9ploitation of 7ineral resources owned by the State supposedly belongs to the foreign contractors, which will naturally repatriate the said after,ta9 inco7e to their ho7e countries, thereby resulting in no real contribution to the econo7ic growth of this country' %learly, this contention is pre7ised on erroneous assu7ptions' =irst, as already discussed in detail hereinabo&e, the concerned agencies ha&e correctly interpreted the second paragraph of Section 41 of RA 7232 to 7ean that the go&ern7ent is entitled to an additional share, to be co7puted based on any one of the following factors8 net 7ining re&enues, the present &alue of the cash flows, or e9cess profits recBoned against a bench7arB rate of return on in&est7ents' So it is not correct to say that all of the after,ta9 inco7e will accrue to the foreign <TAA contractor, as the go&ern7ent effectivel" receives a significant portion t)ereof' Second, the foreign contractors can hardly ?repatriate t)e entire after1ta! income to t)eir )ome countries.? "&en a bit of Bnowledge of corporate finance will show that it will be i7possible to 7aintain a business as a ;going concern; if the entire ;net profit; earned in any particular year will be taBen out and repatriated' The ;net inco7e; figure reflected in the botto7 line is a 7ere accounting figure not necessarily corresponding to cash in the banB, or other 0uicB assets' +n order to produce and set aside cash in an a7ount e0ui&alent to the botto7 line figure, one 7ay need to sell off assets or i77ediately collect recei&ables or li0uidate short,ter7 in&est7ents@ but doing so 7ay &ery liBely disrupt nor7al business operations' +n ter7s of cash flows, the funds corresponding to the net inco7e as of a particular point in ti7e are actuall" in usein the nor7al course of business operations' ulling out such net inco7e disrupts t)e cas) flo,s and cas) position of t)e enterprise and, depending on the a7ount being taBen out, could seriously cripple or endanger the nor7al operations and financial health of the business enterprise' "* /hor1, *o /a*4 <5/.*4// 04r/o*, co*c4r*4+ I.1h :a.*1a.*.*G 1h4 :.*.*G 4*14r0r./4 a/ a Go.*G co*c4r* a*+ H440.*G a 8oo1ho9+ .* .1/ :arH41, ca* a88or+ 1o r40a1r.a14 1h4 4*1.r4 a814r-1a3 .*co:4 1o 1h4 ho:4 co5*1r2. T)e State0s Receipt of Si!t" $ercent of an =TAA +ontractor0s After1Ta! <ncome 'ot Mandator" We now co7e to the ne9t ob=ection which runs this way8 +n <TAAs with a foreign contractor, the State 7ust recei&e at least 50 percent of the after,ta9 inco7e fro7 the e9ploitation of its 7ineral resources' This share is the e0ui&alent of the constitutional re0uire7ent that at least 50 percent of the capital, and hence 50 percent of the inco7e, of 7ining co7panies should re7ain in <ilipino hands' =irst, we fail to see how we can properly conclude that the %onstitution 7andates the State to e9tract at least 50 percent of the after,ta9 inco7e fro7 a 7ining co7pany run by a foreign contractor' The argu7ent is that the %harter re0uires the StateDs partner in a co,production agree7ent, =oint &enture agree7ent or ! SA to be a <ilipino corporation -at least 50 percent owned by <ilipino citi?ens/' We 0uestion the logic of this reasoning, pre7ised on a supposedly parallel or analogous situation' We are, after all, dealing with an essentiall" different e9uation, one that in&ol&es different ele7ents' Th4 Char14r +.+ *o1 .*14*+ 1o 8.3 a* .ro*-c9a+ r594 o* 1h4 6@ 04rc4*1 /har4, a009.ca<94 1o a99 /.15a1.o*/ a1 a99 1.:4/ a*+ .* a99 c.rc5:/1a*c4/. +f e&er such was the intention of the fra7ers, they would ha&e spelt it out in blacB and white' Ver*a legis will ser&e to dispel unwarranted and untenable conclusions' Second, if we would bother to do the 7ath, we 7ight better appreciate the i7pact -and reasonableness/ of what we are de7anding of the foreign contractor' )et us use a simplified illustration' )et us base it on gross re&enues of, say, .00' After deducting operating e9penses, but prior to inco7e ta9, suppose a 7ining fir7 7aBes a ta!a*le

income of 100' A corporate inco7e ta9 of 32 percent results in 32 of ta9able inco7e going to the go&ern7ent, lea&ing the 7ining fir7 with 54' 1o&ern7ent then taBes 37 percent t)ereof, e0ui&alent to 30'40, lea&ing only 27'20 for the 7ining fir7' At this point the go&ern7ent has pocBeted 32'00 plus 30'40, or a total of 72'40 for e&ery 100 of ta9able inco7e, lea&ing the 7ining fir7 with only 27'20' $ut that is not all' The go&ern7ent has also taBen 2 percent e9cise ta9 ;off the top,; e0ui&alent to another 10' *nder the 7ini7u7 50 percent proposal, the go&ern7ent nets around 42'40 -not counting other ta9es, duties, fees and charges/ fro7 a ta9able inco7e of 100 -assu7ing gross re&enues of .00, for purposes of illustration/' (n the other hand, the foreign contractor, ,)ic) provided all t)e capital, e9uipment and la*or, and too# all t)e entrepreneurial ris#s 11 recei&es 27'20' (ne cannot but wonder whether such a distribution is e&en re7otely e0uitable and reasonable, considering the nature of t)e mining *usiness' The a7ount of 42'40 out of 100'00 is really a lot T it does not 7atter that we call part of it e!cise ta!or income ta!, and another portion thereof income from e!ploitation of mineral resources ' So7e 7ight thinB it wonderful to be able to taBe the lionDs share of the benefits' $ut we ha&e to asB oursel&es if we are really serious in attracting the in&est7ents that are the indispensable and Bey ele7ent in generating the 7onetary benefits of which we wish to taBe the lionDs share' $a.r*4// ./ a cr4+o *o1 o*92 .* 9aI, <51 a9/o .* <5/.*4//. T)ird, the 50 percent rule in the petroleu7 industry cannot be insisted upon at all ti7es in the 7ining business' The reason happens to be the fact that in petroleu7 operations, the bulB of e9penditures is in e9ploration, but once the contractor has found and tapped into the deposit, subse0uent in&est7ents and e9penditures are relati&ely 7ini7al' The crude -or gas/ Beeps gushing out, and the worB entailed is =ust a 7atter of piping, transporting and storing' #ot so in 7ineral 7ining' The ore body does not pop out on its own' "&en after it has been located, the contractor 7ust continually in&est in 7achineries and e9pend funds to dig and build tunnels in order to access and e9tract the 7inerals fro7 underneath hundreds of tons of earth and rocB' As already stated, the nu7erous intrinsic differences in&ol&ed in their respecti&e operations and re0uire7ents, cost structures and in&est7ent needs render it highly inappropriate to use petroleu7 operations <TAAs as bench7arBs for 7ining <TAAs' Aerily, we cannot =ust ignore the realities of the distinctl" different situations and stubbornly insist on the ;7ini7u7 50 percent'; T)e Mining and t)e il <ndustries (ifferent =rom &ac) t)er To stress, there is no independent s)o,ing that the taBing of at least a 50 percent share in the after,ta9 inco7e of a mining co7pany operated by a foreign contractor is fair and reasona*le under most if not all circumstances ' The fact that so7e petroleu7 co7panies liBe Shell acceded to such percentage of sharing does not ipso facto mean t)at it is per se reasona*le and applica*le to non1petroleum situations Bt)at is, mining companiesC as ,ell ' We can taBe =udicial notice of the fact that there are, after all, numerous intrinsic differences involved in t)eir respective operations and e9uipment or tec)nological re9uirements, costs structures and capital investment needs, and product pricing and mar#ets' There is no s)o,ing, for instance, that 7ining co7panies can readily cope with a 50 percent go&ern7ent share in the sa7e way petroleu7 co7panies apparently can' What we ha&e is a suggestion to enforce the 50 percent 0uota on the basis of a dis=ointed analogy' The only factor co77on to the two disparate situations is the e9traction of natural resources' +ndeed, we should taBe note of the fact that %ongress 7ade a distinction between 7ining fir7s and petroleu7 co7panies' +n Republic Act #o' 7722 ,, ?An Act Reducing t)e &!cise Ta! Rates on Metallic and 'on1Metallic Minerals and Kuarr" Resources, Amending for t)e $urpose Section 454BaC of t)e 'ational <nternal Revenue +ode, as amended? 11 the law7aBers fi9ed the e9cise ta9 rate on 7etallic and non,7etallic 7inerals at t,o percentof the actual 7arBet &alue of the annual gross output at the ti7e of re7o&al' Cowe&er, in the case of petroleu7, the law7aBers set the e9cise ta9 rate for the first ta9able sale at fifteen percent of the fair international 7arBet price thereof' There 7ust ha&e been a ver" sound reason that i7pelled %ongress to i7pose two &ery dissi7ilar e9cise ta9 rate' We cannot assu7e, without proof, that our honorable legislators acted arbitrarily, capriciously and whi7sically in this instance' We cannot =ust ignore the reality of two distinctly different situations and stubbornly insist on going ;7ini7u7 50 percent'; To repeat, the 7ere fact that gas and oil e9ploration contracts grant the State 50 percent of the net re&enues does not necessarily i7ply that 7ining contracts should liBewise yield a 7ini7u7 of 50 percent for the State' Jumping to t)at erroneous conclusion is li#e comparing apples ,it) oranges. T)e e!ploration, development and utilization of gas and oil are simpl" different from t)ose of mineral resources. To stress again, the 7ain risB in gas and oil is in the e9ploration' $ut once oil in co77ercial 0uantities is strucB and the wells are put in place, the risB is relati&ely o&er and blacB gold si7ply flows out continuously withcomparativel" less need for fresh in&est7ents and technology'

(n the other hand, e&en if 7inerals are found in &iable 0uantities, there is still need for continuous fres) capital and e9pertise to dig the 7ineral ores fro7 the 7ines' 6ust because deposits of 7ineral ores are found in one area is no guarantee that an e0ual a7ount can be found in the ad=acent areas' There are si7ply continuing risBs and need for 7ore capital, e9pertise and industry all the ti7e' #ote, howe&er, that the indirect benefits ,, apart fro7 the cash re&enues ,, are 7uch 7ore in the 7ineral industry' As 7ines are e9plored and e9tracted, &ast e7ploy7ent is created, roads and other infrastructure are built, and other 7ultiplier effects arise' (n the other hand, once oil wells start producing, there is less need for e7ploy7ent' Roads and other public worBs need not be constructed continuously' +n fine, there is no basis for saying that go&ern7ent re&enues fro7 the oil industry and fro7 the 7ineral industries are to be identical all the ti7e' =ourt), to our 7ind, the proffered ;7ini7u7 50 percent; suggestion tends to limit t)e fle!i*ilit" and tie t)e )ands of government, ulti7ately ha7pering the countryDs co7petiti&eness in the international 7arBet, to the detri7ent of the <ilipino people' This ;you,ha&e,to,gi&e,us,50,percent,of,after,ta9,inco7e,or,we,donDt,do, business,with,you; approach is 0uite perilous' True, this situation 7ay not see7 too unpalatable to the foreign contractor during good years, when international 7arBet prices are up and the 7ining fir7 7anages to Beep its costs in checB' Cowe&er, under unfa&orable econo7ic and business conditions, with costs spiraling sBywards and 7inerals prices plu77eting, a 7ining fir7 7ay consider itself lucBy to 7aBe =ust 7ini7al profits' The infle9ible, car&ed,in,granite de7and for a 50 percent go&ern7ent share 7ay spell the end of the 7ining &enture, scare away potential in&estors, and thereby further worsen the already dis7al econo7ic scenario' !oreo&er, such an unbending or unyielding policy pre&ents the go&ern7ent fro7 responding appropriately to changing econo7ic conditions and shifting 7arBet forces' T)is infle!i*ilit" furt)er renders our countr" less attractive as an investment option compared ,it) ot)er countries. And fift), for this %ourt to decree i7periously that the go&ern7entDs share should be not less than 50 percent of the after,ta9 inco7e of <TAA contractors at all ti7es is nothing short of dictating upon the go&ern7ent' The result, ironically, is that t)e State ends up losing control ' To a&oid co7pro7ising the StateDs full control and super&ision o&er the e9ploitation of 7ineral resources, this %ourt 7ust bacB off fro7 insisting upon a ;7ini7u7 50 percent; rule' +t is sufficient that the State has the power and 7eans, should it so decide, to get a 50 percent share -or 7ore/ in the contractorDs net 7ining re&enues or after,ta9 inco7e, or whate&er other basis the go&ern7ent 7ay decide to use in recBoning its share' <t is not necessar" for it to do so in ever" case, regardless of circumstances ' +n fact, the go&ern7ent 7ust be trusted, 7ust be accorded the liberty and the ut7ost fle9ibility to deal, negotiate and transact with contractors and third parties as it sees fit@ and upon ter7s that it ascertains to be 7ost fa&orable or 7ost acceptable under t)e circumstances, e&en if it 7eans agreeing to less than 50 percent' #othing 7ust pre&ent the State fro7 agreeing to a share less than that, should it be dee7ed fit@ otherwise the State will be depri&ed of full control o&er 7ineral e9ploitation that the %harter has &ested in it' To stress again, t)ere is simpl" no constitutional or legal provision fi!ing t)e minimum s)are of t)e government in an +T)) at 50 percent of the net profit' <or this %ourt to decree such 7ini7u7 is to wade into =udicial legislation, and thereby inordinately i7pinge on the control po,er of the State' )et it be clear8 the %ourt is not against the grant of 7ore benefits to the State@ in fact, the 7ore the better' +f during the <TAA negotiations, the resident can secure 50 percent,74 or e&en 20 percent, then all the better for our people' $ut, if under the peculiar circumstances of a specific contract, the resident could secure only .0 percent or .. percent, so be it' #eedless to say, the resident will ha&e to report -and be responsible for/ the specific <TAA to %ongress, and e&entually to the people' <inally, if it should later be found that the share agreed to is grossl" disadvantageous to the go&ern7ent, the officials responsible for entering into such a contract on its behalf will ha&e to answer to the courts for their 7alfeasance' And the contract pro&ision &oided' $ut this %ourt would abuse its own authority should it force the go&ern7entDs hand to adopt the 50 percent de7and of so7e of our estee7ed colleagues' +apital and &!pertise $rovided, Fet All Ris#s Assumed *" +ontractor Cere, we will repeat what has not been e7phasi?ed and appreciated enough8 t)e fact t)at t)e contractor in an =TAA provides all t)e needed capital, tec)nical and managerial e!pertise, and tec)nolog" re9uired to underta#e t)e pro6ect. +n regard to the W!% <TAA, the then foreign,owned W!% as contractor co77itted, at the &ery outset, to 7aBe capital in&est7ents of up to *SZ.0 7illion in that single 7ining pro=ect' W!% clai7s to ha&e already poured in well o&er 400 7illion into the country as of <ebruary 1224, with 7ore in the pipeline' These resources, &alued in the tens or hundreds of 7illions of dollars, are in&ested in a 7ining pro=ect that pro&ides no assurance whatsoe&er that any part of the in&est7ent will be ulti7ately recouped' At the sa7e ti7e, the contractor 7ust co7ply with legally i7posed en&iron7ental standards and the social obligations, for which it also co77its to 7aBe significant e9penditures of funds' Throughout, the contractor assu7es all the risBs72 of the business, as 7entioned earlier' These risBs are indeed &ery high, considering that the rate of success in e9ploration is e9tre7ely low' The probability of finding any 7ineral or petroleu7 in co77ercially &iable

0uantities is esti7ated to be about 181,000 only' (n that sli7 chance rides the contractorDs hope of recouping in&est7ents and generating profits' And when the contractor has recouped its initial in&est7ents in the pro=ect, the go&ern7ent share increases to si9ty percent of net benefits ,, without the State e&er being in peril of incurring costs, e9penses and losses' And e&en in the worst possible scenario ,, an absence of co77ercial 0uantities of 7inerals to =ustify de&elop7ent ,, the contractor would already ha&e spent se&eral 7illion pesos for e9ploration worBs, before arri&ing at the point in which it can 7aBe that deter7ination and decide to cut its losses' +n fact, during the first year alone of the e9ploration period, the contractor was already co77itted to spend not less than 23 7illion' The <TAA therefore clearly ensures benefits for the local econo7y, courtesy of the contractor' A99 .* a99, 1h./ /4150 ca**o1 <4 r4Gar+4+ a/ +./a+6a*1aG4o5/ 1o 1h4 S1a14 or 1h4 $.9.0.*o 04o0947 .1 c4r1a.*92 ca**o1 <4 /a.+ 1o co*642 <4*48.c.a9 oI*4r/h.0 o8 o5r :.*4ra9 r4/o5rc4/ 1o 8or4.G* co*1rac1or/. (eductions Allo,ed *" t)e /M+$ =TAA Reasona*le etitioners 0uestion whether the StateDs weaB control 7ight render the sharing arrange7ents ineffecti&e' They cite the so,called ;suspicious; deductions allowed by the W!% <TAA in arri&ing at the net 7ining re&enue, which is the basis for co7puting the go&ern7ent share' The W!% <TAA, for instance, allows e9penditures for ;de&elop7ent within and outside t)e +ontract Area relating to the !ining (perations,; 40 ;consulting fees incurred both inside and outside t)e $)ilippines for worB related directly to the !ining (perations,;41 and ;the establish7ent and ad7inistration of field offices including ad7inistrati&e o&erheads incurred within and outside t)e $)ilippines which are properly allocatable to the !ining (perations and reasonably related to the perfor7ance of the %ontractorDs obligations and e9ercise of its rights under this Agree7ent'; 42 +t is 0uite well Bnown, howe&er, that 7ining co7panies do perfor7 so7e 7arBeting acti&ities abroad in respect of selling their 7ineral products and by,products' Cence, it would not be i7proper to allow the deduction ofreasona*le consulting fees incurred abroad, as well as ad7inistrati&e e9penses and o&erheads related to 7arBeting offices also located abroad ,, pro&ided that these deductions are directly related or properly allocatable to the 7ining operations and reasonably related to the perfor7ance of the contractorDs obligations and e9ercise of its rights' +n any e&ent, 7ore facts are needed' *ntil we see how these pro&isions actually operate, 7ere ;suspicions; will not suffice to propel this %ourt into taBing action' Section E.; of t)e /M+$ =TAA <nvalid and (isadvantageous Ca&ing defended the W!% <TAA, we shall now turn to two defecti&e pro&isos' )et us start with Section 7'2 of the W!% <TAA' While Section 7'7 gi&es the go&ern7ent a 50 percent share in the net 7ining re&enues of W!% fro7 the co77ence7ent of co77ercial production, Section 7'2 depri&es the go&ern7ent of part or all of the said 50 percent' *nder the latter pro&ision, should W!% Ds foreign shareholders ,, who originally owned 100 percent of the e0uity ,, sell 50 percent or 7ore of its outstanding capital stocB to a <ilipino citi?en or corporation, the State loses its right to recei&e its 50 percent share in net 7ining re&enues under Section 7'7' Section 7'2 pro&ides8 T)e percentage of 'et Mining Revenues pa"a*le to t)e Government pursuant to +lause E.E s)all *e reduced *" 4percent of 'et Mining Revenues for ever" 4percent o,ners)ip interest in t)e +ontractor Bi.e., /M+$C )eld *" a Kualified &ntit"'43 "&idently, what Section 7'7 grants to the State is taBen away in the ne9t breath by Section 7'2 ,it)out an" offsetting compensation to t)e State. Thus, in reality, the State has no &ested right to recei&e any inco7e fro7 the <TAA for the e9ploitation of its 7ineral resources' Worse, it would see7 that what is gi&en to the State in Section 7'7 is *" mere tolerance of /M+$0s foreign stoc#)olders, who can at any ti7e cut off the go&ern7entDs entire 50 percent share' They can do so by si7ply selling 50 percent of W!% Ds outstanding capital stocB to a hilippine citi?en or corporation' !oreo&er, the proceeds of such sale will of course accrue to the foreign stocBholders of W!% , not to the State' The sale of 50 percent of W!% Ds outstanding e0uity to a corporation that is 50 percent <ilipino,owned and 30 percent foreign,owned will still trigger the operation of Section 7'2' "ffecti&ely, the State will lose its right to recei&e all 50 percent of the net 7ining re&enues of W!% @ and foreign stoc#)olders ,ill o,n *eneficiall" up to 3H percent of /M+$, consisting of the re7aining 30 percent foreign e0uity therein, plus the 23 percent pro,rata share in the buyer,corporation'43 +n fact, the 6anuary 23, 2001 sale by W!% Ds foreign stocBholder of the entire outstanding e0uity in W!% to Sagittarius !ines, +nc' ,, a do7estic corporation at least 50 percent <ilipino owned ,, 7ay be dee7ed to ha&e auto7atically triggered the operation of Section 7'2, without need of further action by any party, and re7o&ed the StateDs right to recei&e the 50 percent share in net 7ining re&enues'

At botto7, Section 7'2 has the effect of depri&ing the State of its 50 percent share in the net 7ining re&enues of W!% ,it)out an" offset or compensation ,)atsoever ' +t is possible that the inclusion of the offending pro&ision was initially pro7pted by the desire to pro&ide so7e for7 of incenti&e for the principal foreign stocBholder in W!% to e&entually reduce its e0uity position and ulti7ately di&est in fa&or of <ilipino citi?ens and corporations' Cowe&er, as finally structured, Section 7'2 has the deleterious effect of depri&ing go&ern7ent of the entire 50 percent share in W!% Ds net 7ining re&enues, without any for7 of co7pensation whatsoe&er' Such an outco7e is co7pletely unacceptable' The whole point of de&eloping the nationDs natural resources is to benefit the <ilipino people, future generations included' And the State as so&ereign and custodian of the nationDs natural wealth is 7andated to protect, conser&e, preser&e and de&elop that part of the national patri7ony for their benefit' Cence, the %harter lays great e7phasis on ;real contributions to the econo7ic growth and general welfare of the country; 4. as essential guiding principles to be Bept in 7ind when negotiating the ter7s and conditions of <TAAs' "arlier, we held -1/ that the State 7ust be accorded the liberty and the ut7ost fle9ibility to deal, negotiate and transact with contractors and third parties as it sees fit, and upon ter7s that it ascertains to be 7ost fa&orable or 7ost acceptable under the circu7stances, e&en if that should 7ean agreeing to less than 50 percent@ -2/ that it is not necessary for the State to e9tract a 50 percent share in e&ery case and regardless of circu7stances@ and -3/ that should the State be pre&ented fro7 agreeing to a share less than 50 percent as it dee7s fit, it will be depri&ed of the full control o&er 7ineral e9ploitation that the %harter has &ested in it' That full control is ob&iously not an end in itself@ it e9ists and subsists precisely because of the need to ser&e and protect the national interest' +n this instance, national interest finds particular application in the protection of the national patri7ony and the de&elop7ent and e9ploitation of the countryDs 7ineral resources for the benefit of the <ilipino people and the enhance7ent of econo7ic growth and the general welfare of the country' U*+o5<14+92, /5ch 8599 co*1ro9 ca* <4 :./5/4+ a*+ a<5/4+, a/ I4 *oI I.1*4//. Section 7'2 of the W!% <TAA effectivel" gives a,a" t)e State0s s)are of net mining revenues Bprovided for in Section E.EC ,it)out an"t)ing in e!c)ange ' !oreo&er, this outco7e constitutes un6ust enric)ment on the part of the local and foreign stocBholders of W!% ' $y their 7ere di&est7ent of up to 50 percent e0uity in W!% in fa&or of <ilipino citi?ens andJor corporations, the local and foreign stocBholders get a windfall' Their share in the net 7ining re&enues of W!% is auto7atically increased, without their ha&ing to pay the go&ern7ent anything for it' +n short, the pro&ision in 0uestion is without a doubt grossl" disadvantageous to t)e government, detrimental to t)e interests of t)e =ilipino people, and violative of pu*lic polic". !oreo&er, it has been reiterated in nu7erous decisions 45 that the parties to a contract 7ay establish any agree7ents, ter7s and conditions that they dee7 con&enient@ but these should not be contrary to law, 7orals, good custo7s, public order or public policy' 47 $eing precisely &iolati&e of anti,graft pro&isions and contrary to public policy, Section 7'2 7ust therefore be stricBen off as in&alid' Whether the go&ern7ent officials concerned acceded to that pro&ision by sheer 7istaBe or with full awareness of the ill conse0uences, is of no 7o7ent' +t is hornbooB doctrine that the principle of estoppel does not operate against the go&ern7ent for the act of its agents,44 and that it is ne&er estopped by any 7istaBe or error on their part' 42 +t is therefore possible and proper to rectify the situation at this ti7e' !oreo&er, we 7ay also say that the <TAA in 0uestion does not in&ol&e 7ere contractual rights@ being i7pressed as it is with public interest, the contractual pro&isions and stipulations 7ust yield to the co77on good and the national interest' Since the offending pro&ision is &ery 7uch separable20 fro7 Section 7'7 and the rest of the <TAA, the deletion of Section 7'2 can be done without affecting or re0uiring the in&alidation of the W!% <TAA itself' Such a deletion will preser&e for the go&ern7ent its due share of the benefits' This way, the 7andates of the %onstitution are co7plied with and the interests of the go&ern7ent fully protected, while the business operations of the contractor are not needlessly disrupted' Section E.GBeC of t)e /M+$ =TAA Also <nvalid and (isadvantageous Section 7'4-e/ of the W!% <TAA is liBewise in&alid' +t pro&ides thus8 ?E.G T)e Government S)are s)all *e deemed to include all of t)e follo,ing sumsJ ?BaC all Government ta!es, fees, levies, costs, imposts, duties and ro"alties including e!cise ta!, corporate income ta!, customs dut", sales ta!, value added ta!, occupation and regulator" fees, Government controlled price sta*ilization sc)emes, an" ot)er form of Government *ac#ed sc)emes, an" ta! on dividend pa"ments *" t)e +ontractor or its Affiliates in respect of revenues from t)e Mining perations and an" ta! on interest on domestic and foreign loans or ot)er financial arrangements or accommodations, including loans e!tended to t)e +ontractor *" its stoc#)olders> ?B*C an" pa"ments to local and regional government, including ta!es, fees, levies, costs, imposts, duties, ro"alties, occupation and regulator" fees and infrastructure contri*utions>

?BcC an" pa"ments to lando,ners, surface rig)ts )olders, occupiers, indigenous people or +laimo,ners> ?BdC costs and e!penses of fulfilling t)e +ontractor0s o*ligations to contri*ute to national development in accordance ,it) +lause 47.4BiC B4C and 47.4BiC B8C> ?BeC an amount e9uivalent to ,)atever *enefits t)at ma" *e e!tended in t)e future *" t)e Government to t)e +ontractor or to financial or tec)nical assistance agreement contractors in general> ?BfC all of t)e foregoing items ,)ic) )ave not previousl" *een offset against t)e Government S)are in an earlier =iscal Fear, ad6usted for inflation.? Bunderscoring suppliedC Section 7'4-e/ is out of place in the <TAA' +t 7aBes no sense why, for instance, 7oney spent by the go&ern7ent for the benefit of the contractor in building roads leading to the 7ine site should still be deductible fro7 the StateDs share in net 7ining re&enues' Allowing this deduction results in benefiting the contractor twice o&er' +t constitutesun=ust enrich7ent on the part of the contractor at the e9pense of the go&ern7ent, since the latter is effecti&ely being 7ade to pay twice for the sa7e ite7' 21 <or being grossly disad&antageous and pre=udicial to the go&ern7ent and contrary to public policy, Section 7'4-e/ is undoubtedly in&alid and 7ust be declared to be without effect' <ortunately, this pro&ision can also easily be stricBen off without affecting the rest of the <TAA' 'ot)ing Left ver After (eductions+n connection with Section 7'4, an ob=ection has been raised8 Specified in Section 7'4 are nu7erous ite7s of deduction fro7 the StateDs 50 percent share' After taBing these into account, will the State e&er recei&e anything for its ownership of the 7ineral resourcesH We are confident that under nor7al circu7stances, the answer will be 24/. +f we e9a7ine the &arious ite7s of ;deduction; listed in Section 7'4 of the W!% <TAA, we will find that they correspond closely to the co7ponents or ele7ents of the <a/.c Go64r*:4*1 /har4 established in :A( 22,.5, as discussed in the earlier part of this (pinion' )iBewise, the balance of the go&ern7entDs 50 percent share ,, after netting out the ite7s of deduction listed in Section 7'4 ,,corresponds closely to the a++.1.o*a9 Go64r*:4*1 /har4 pro&ided for in :A( 22,.5 which, we once again stress, has nothing at all to do with indirect ta9es' The Ra7os,:eAera paper 22 concisely presents the fiscal contribution of an <TAA under :A( 22,.5 in this e0uation8 Receipts fro7 an <TAA ^ basic go&Dt share _ addDl go&Dt share Transposed into a si7ilar e0uation, the fiscal pay7ents syste7 fro7 the W!% <TAA assu7es the following for7ulation8 1o&ern7entDs 50 percent share in net 7ining re&enues of W!% ^ ite7s listed in Sec' 7'4 of the <TAA _ balance of 1o&Dt share, payable 3 7onths fro7 the end of the fiscal year +t should beco7e apparent that the fiscal arrange7ent under the W!% <TAA is &ery si7ilar to that under :A( 22, .5, with the ;balance of go&ern7ent share payable 3 7onths fro7 end of fiscal year; being the e0ui&alent of the a++.1.o*a9 Go64r*:4*1 /har4 co7puted in accordance with the ;net,7ining,re&enue,based option; under :A( 22,.5, as discussed abo&e' As we ha&e e7phasi?ed earlier, we find each of the three options for co7puting the a++.1.o*a9 Go64r*:4*1 /har4 ,, as presented in :A( 22,.5 ,, to be sound and reasonable' -4 1h4r48or4 co*c95+4 1ha1 1h4r4 ./ *o1h.*G .*h4r4*192 Iro*G .* 1h4 fisca! regime o8 1h4 -MCP $TAA, a*+ c4r1a.*92 *o1h.*G 1o Iarra*1 1h4 .*6a9.+a1.o* o8 1h4 $TAA .* .1/ 4*1.r412. Section 2.2 of t)e /M+$ =TAA +onstitutional Section 3'3 of the W!% <TAA is assailed for &iolating supposed constitutional restrictions on the ter7 of <TAAs' The pro&ision in 0uestion reads8 ?2.2 T)is Agreement s)all *e rene,ed *" t)e Government for a furt)er period of t,ent"1five B85C "ears under t)e same terms and conditions provided t)at t)e +ontractor lodges a re9uest for rene,al ,it) t)e Government not less t)an si!t" B37C da"s prior to t)e e!pir" of t)e initial term of t)is Agreement and provided t)at t)e +ontractor is not in *reac) of an" of t)e re9uirements of t)is Agreement. ; Allegedly, the abo&e pro&ision runs afoul of Section 2 of Article K++ of the 1247 %onstitution, which states8

?Sec. 8. All lands of t)e pu*lic domain, ,aters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and ot)er mineral oils, all forces of potential energ", fis)eries, forests or tim*er, ,ildlife, flora and fauna, and ot)er natural resources are o,ned *" t)e State. /it) t)e e!ception of agricultural lands, all ot)er natural resources s)all not *e alienated. T)e e!ploration, development and utilization of natural resources s)all *e under t)e full control and supervision of t)e State. T)e State ma" directl" underta#e suc) activities, or it ma" enter into co1production, 6oint venture or production1s)aring agreements ,it) =ilipino citizens or corporations or associations at least si!t" per centum of ,)ose capital is o,ned *" suc) citizens. uch agreements may be for a period not e-ceeding t/enty,five years, rene/ab!e for not more than t/enty,five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by !a/. <n cases of ,ater rig)ts for irrigation, ,ater suppl", fis)eries, or industrial uses ot)er t)an t)e development of ,ater po,er, *eneficial use ma" *e t)e measure and limit of t)e grant. ?T)e State s)all protect t)e nation0s marine ,ealt) in its arc)ipelagic ,aters, territorial sea, and e!clusive economic zone, and reserve its use and en6o"ment e!clusivel" to =ilipino citizens. ?T)e +ongress ma", *" la,, allo, small1scale utilization of natural resources *" =ilipino citizens, as ,ell as cooperative fis) farming, ,it) priorit" to su*sistence fis)ermen and fis)1,or#ers in rivers, la#es, *a"s and lagoons. ?T)e $resident ma" enter into agreements ,it) foreign1o,ned corporations involving eit)er tec)nical or financial assistance for large1scale e!ploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and ot)er mineral oils according to t)e general terms and conditions provided *" la,, *ased on real contri*utions to t)e economic gro,t) and general ,elfare of t)e countr". <n suc) agreements, t)e State s)all promote t)e development and use of local scientific and tec)nical resources. ?T)e $resident s)all notif" t)e +ongress of ever" contract entered into in accordance ,it) t)is provision, ,it)in t)irt" da"s from its e!ecution.?23 We hold that the ter7 li7itation of twenty,fi&e years does not apply to <TAAs' The reason is that the abo&e pro&ision is found within paragraph 1 of Section 2 of Article K++, which refers to 7ineral agree7ents ,, co,production agree7ents, =oint &enture agree7ents and 7ineral production,sharing agree7ents ,, which the go&ern7ent 7ay enter into with <ilipino citi?ens and corporations, at least 50 percent owned by <ilipino citi?ens' The word ;such; clearly refers to these three 7ineral agree7ents ,, % As, 6AAs and ! SAs ,, not to <TAAs' Specifically, <TAAs are co&ered by paragraphs 3 and . of Section 2 of Article K++ of the %onstitution' +t will be noted that t)ere are no term limitations pro&ided for in the said paragraphs dealing with <TAAs' This shows that <TAAs are sui generis, in a class of their own' This o7ission was ob&iously a deliberate 7o&e on the part of the fra7ers' They probably reali?ed that <TAAs would be different in 7any ways fro7 ! SAs, 6AAs and % As' The reason the fra7ers did not fi9 ter7 li7itations applicable to <TAAs is that they preferred to lea&e the 7atter to the discretion of the legislature andJor the agencies in&ol&ed in i7ple7enting the laws pertaining to <TAAs, in order to gi&e the latter enough fle9ibility and elbow roo7 to 7eet changing circu7stances' #ote also that, as pre&iously stated, the e9ploratory phrases of an <TAA lasts up to ele&en years' Thereafter, a few 7ore years would be gobbled up in start,up operations' +t 7ay taBe fifteen years before an <TAA contractor can start earning profits' And thus, the period of 2. years 7ay really be short for an <TAA' %onsider too that in this Bind of agree7ent, the contractor assu7es all entrepreneurial risBs' +f no co77ercial 0uantities of 7inerals are found, the contractor bears all financial losses' To co7pensate for this long gestation period and e9tra business risBs, it would not be totally unreasonable to allow it to continue ":* acti&ities for another twenty fi&e years' +n any e&ent, the co7plaint is that, in essence, Section 3'3 gi&es the contractor the power to co7pel the go&ern7ent to renew the W!% <TAA for another 2. years and depri&es the State of any say on whether to renew the contract' While we agree that Section 3'3 could ha&e been worded so as to pre&ent it fro7 fa&oring the contractor, this pro&ision does not &iolate any constitutional li7its, since the said ter7 li7itation does not apply at all to <TAAs' #either can the pro&ision be dee7ed in any 7anner to be illegal, as no law is being &iolated thereby' +t is certainly not illegal for the go&ern7ent to wai&e its option to refuse the renewal of a co77ercial contract' Aerily, the go&ern7ent did not ha&e to agree to Section 3'3' +t could ha&e said ;#o; to the stipulation, but it did not' +t appears that, in the process of negotiations, the other contracting party was able to con&ince the go&ern7ent to agree to the renewal ter7s' *nder the circu7stances, it does not see7 proper for this %ourt to inter&ene and step in to undo what 7ight ha&e perhaps been a possible 7iscalculation on the part of the State' +f go&ern7ent belie&es that it is or will be aggrie&ed by the effects of Section 3'3, the re7edy is the renegotiation of the pro&ision in order to pro&ide the State the option to not renew the <TAA' =inancial %enefits for =oreigners 'ot =or*idden *" t)e +onstitution

$efore lea&ing this sub=ect 7atter, we find it necessary for us to rid oursel&es of the false belief that the %onstitution so7ehow forbids foreign,owned corporations fro7 deri&ing financial benefits fro7 the de&elop7ent of our natural or 7ineral resources' The %onstitution has ne&er prohibited foreign corporations fro7 ac0uiring and en=oying ;beneficial interest; in the de&elop7ent of hilippine natural resources' The State itself need not directly undertaBe e9ploration, de&elop7ent, and utili?ation acti&ities' Alternati&ely, the %onstitution authori?es the go&ern7ent to enter into =oint &enture agree7ents -6AAs/, co,production agree7ents -% As/ and 7ineral production sharing agree7ents -! SAs/ with contractors who are <ilipino citi?ens or corporations that are at least 50 percent <ilipino,owned' They 7ay do the actual ;dirty worB; ,, the 7ining operations' +n the case of a 50 percent <ilipino,owned corporation, the 30 percent indi&idual andJor corporate non1=ilipino sta#e)olders ob&iously participate in the beneficial interest deri&ed fro7 the de&elop7ent and utili?ation of our natural resources' They 7ay recei&e by way of di&idends, up to 30 percent of the contractorDs earnings fro7 the 7ining pro=ect' )iBewise, they 7ay ha&e a say in the decisions of the board of directors, since they are entitled to representation therein to the e9tent of their e0uity participation, which the %onstitution per7its to be up to 30 percent of the contractorDs e0uity' Cence, the non,<ilipino staBeholders 7ay in that 7anner also participate in the 7anage7ent of the contractorDs natural resource de&elop7ent worB' All of this is per7itted by our %onstitution, for any natural resource, and without li7itation e&en in regard to the 7agnitude of the 7ining pro=ect or operations -see paragraph 1 of Section 2 of Article K++/' +t is clear, then, that there is not)ing in)erentl" ,rong ,it) or constitutionall" o*6ectiona*le a*out t)e idea of foreign individuals and entities )aving or en6o"ing ?*eneficial interest? in 11 and participating in t)e management of operations relative to 11 t)e e!ploration, development and utilization of our natural resources. =TAA More Advantageous T)an t)er Sc)emes Li#e +$A, JVA and M$SA A final point on the sub=ect of beneficial interest' We belie&e the <TAA is a 7ore ad&antageous proposition for the go&ern7ent as co7pared with other agree7ents per7itted by the %onstitution' +n a % A that the go&ern7ent enters into with one or 7ore contractors, the go&ern7ent s)all provide inputs to t)e mining operations ot)er t)an t)e mineral resource itself.23 +n a 6AA, a 6A co7pany is organi?ed by the go&ern7ent and the contractor, with both parties ha&ing e0uity shares -in&est7ents/@ and the contractor is granted the e9clusi&e right to conduct 7ining operations and to e9tract 7inerals found in the area'2. (n the other hand, in an ! SA, the go&ern7ent grants the contractor the e9clusi&e right to conduct 7ining operations within the contract area and s)ares in t)e gross output@ and the contractor pro&ides the necessary financing, technology, 7anage7ent and 7anpower' The point being 7ade here is that, in two of the three types of agree7ents under consideration, the government )as to ante up some ris# capital for t)e enterprise' +n other words, go&ern7ent funds -public 7oneys/ are withdrawn fro7 other possible uses, put to worB in the &enture and placed at ris# in case t)e venture fails ' This notwithstanding, 7anage7ent and control of the operations of the enterprise are ,, in all three arrange7ents ,, in t)e )ands of t)e contractor, with the go&ern7ent being 7ainly a silent partner' The three types of agree7ent 7entioned abo&e apply to any natural resource, without li7itation and regardless of the si?e or 7agnitude of the pro=ect or operations' +n contrast to the foregoing arrange7ents, and pursuant to paragraph 3 of Section 2 of Article K++, the <TAA is li7ited to large,scale pro=ects and only for 7inerals, petroleu7 and other 7ineral oils' Cere, the %onstitution re7o&es the 30 percent cap on foreign ownership and allows the foreign corporation to own up to 100 percent of the e0uity' <ilipino capital 7ay not be sufficient on account of the si?e of the pro=ect, so the foreign entity 7ay ha&e to ante up all the risB capital' %orrelati&ely, the foreign staBeholder bears up to 100 percent of the risB of loss if the pro=ect fails' +n respect of the particular <TAA granted to it, W!% -then 100 percent foreign owned/ was responsible, as contractor, for pro&iding the entire e0uity, including all the inputs for the pro=ect' +t was to bear 100 percent of the risB of loss if the pro=ect failed, but its 7a9i7u7 potential ;beneficial interest; consisted only of 30 percent of the net beneficial interest, because the other 50 percent is the share of the go&ern7ent, which will ne&er be e9posed to any risB of loss whatsoe&er' +n consonance with the degree of risB assu7ed, the <TAA &ested in W!% the da"1to1da" management of t)e mining operations' Still such 7anage7ent is sub=ect to the o&erall control and super&ision of the State in ter7s of regular reporting, appro&als of worB progra7s and budgets, and so on' So, one needs to consider in relati&e ter7s, the costs of inputs for, degree of risB attendant to, and benefits deri&ed or to be deri&ed fro7 a % A, a 6AA or an ! SA &is,],&is those pertaining to an <TAA' +t 7ay not be realistically asserted that the foreign grantee of an <TAA is being unduly fa&ored or benefited as co7pared with a foreign

staBeholder in a corporation holding a % A, a 6AA or an ! SA' Seen the other way around, the go&ern7ent is definitely better off with an <TAA than a % A, a 6AA or an ! SA' (evelopmental $olic" on t)e Mining <ndustr" :uring the (ral Argu7ent and in their <inal !e7orandu7 , petitioners repeatedly urged the %ourt to consider whether 7ining as an industry and econo7ic acti&ity deser&ed to be accorded priority, preference and go&ern7ent support as against, say, agriculture and other acti&ities in which <ilipinos and the hilippines 7ay ha&e an ;econo7ic ad&antage'; <or instance, a recent *S study25 reportedly e9a7ined the econo7ic perfor7ance of all local *S counties that were dependent on 7ining and 20 percent of whose labor earnings between 1270 and 2000 ca7e fro7 7ining enterprises' The study ,, co&ering 100 *S counties in 2. states dependent on 7ining ,, showed that per capita inco7e grew about 30 percent less in 7ining,dependent co77unities in the 1240s and 2. percent less for the entire period 1240 to 2000@ the le&el of per capita inco7e was also lower' Therefore, gi&en the slower rate of growth, the gap between these and other local counties increased' etitioners in&ite attention to the (K<A! America Report0s warning to de&eloping nations that 7ining brings with it serious econo7ic proble7s, including increased regional ine0uality, une7ploy7ent and po&erty' They also cite the final report27 of the "9tracti&e +ndustries Re&iew pro=ect co77issioned by the World $anB -the W$,"+R Report/, which warns of en&iron7ental degradation, social disruption, conflict, and une&en sharing of benefits with local co77unities that bear the negati&e social and en&iron7ental i7pact' The Report suggests that countries need to decide on the best way to e9ploit their natural resources, in order to 7a9i7i?e the &alue added fro7 the de&elop7ent of their resources and ensure that they are on the path to sustainable de&elop7ent once the resources run out' Whate&er priority or preference 7ay be gi&en to 7ining &is,],&is other econo7ic or non,econo7ic acti&ities is a 0uestion of policy that the resident and %ongress will ha&e to address@ it is not for this %ourt to decide' T)is +ourt declares ,)at t)e +onstitution and t)e la,s sa", interprets onl" ,)en necessar", and refrains from delving into matters of polic"' Suffice it to say that the State control accorded by the %onstitution o&er 7ining acti&ities assures a proper balancing of interests' !ore pointedly, such control will enable the resident to de7and the best 7ining practices and the use of the best a&ailable technologies to protect the en&iron7ent and to rehabilitate 7ined,out areas' +ndeed, under the !ining )aw, the go&ern7ent can ensure the protection of the en&iron7ent during and after 7ining' +t can liBewise pro&ide for the 7echanis7s to protect the rights of indigenous co77unities, and thereby 7old a 7ore socially, responsi&e, culturally,sensiti&e and sustainable 7ining industry' "arly on during the launching of the residential !ineral +ndustry "n&iron7ental Awards on <ebruary 5, 1227, then resident <idel A' Ra7os captured the essence of balanced and sustainable 7ining in these words8 ?Long term, )ig) profit mining translates into )ig)er revenues for government, more decent 6o*s for t)e population, more ra, materials to feed t)e engines of do,nstream and allied industries, and improved c)ances of )uman resource and countr"side development *" creating self1reliant communities a,a" from ur*an centers. !!!!!!!!! ?Against a fragile and finite environment, it is sustaina*ilit" t)at )olds t)e #e". <n sustaina*le mining, ,e ta#e a middle ground ,)ere *ot) production and protection goals are *alanced, and ,)ere parties1in1interest come to terms'; #either has the present leadership been re7iss in addressing the concerns of sustainable 7ining operations' Recently, on 6anuary 15, 2003 and April 20, 2003, resident 1loria !acapagal Arroyo issued "9ecuti&e (rders #os' 270 and 270,A, respecti&ely, ;to pro7ote responsi*le 7ineral resources e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation, in order to enhance econo7ic growth, in a 7anner that adheres to the principles of sustainable de&elop7ent and with due regard for =ustice and e0uity, sensiti&ity to the culture of the <ilipino people and respect for hilippine so&ereignty';24 RE$UTAT"ON O$ %"SSENTS The %ourt will now taBe up a nu7ber of other specific points raised in the dissents of 6ustices %arpio and !orales' 1' 6ustice !orales introduced us to Cugh !organ, for7er president and chief e9ecuti&e officer of Western !ining %orporation -W!%/ and for7er president of the Australian !ining +ndustry %ouncil, who spearheaded the &ociferous opposition to the filing by aboriginal peoples of nati&e title clai7s against 7ining co7panies in Australia in the after7ath of the land7arB Ma*o decision by the Australian Cigh %ourt' According to sources 0uoted by our estee7ed colleague, !organ was also a rac./1 and a <.Go1' +n the course of protesting Ma*o, !organ allegedly uttered derogatory re7arBs belittling the aboriginal culture and race'

An unwritten caveat of this introduction is that this %ourt should be careful not to per7it the entry of the liBes of Cugh !organ and his hordes of alleged racist,bigots at W!%' With all due respect, such scare tactics should ha&e no place in the discussion of this case' We are deliberating on the constitutionality of RA 7232, :A( 25,30 and the <TAA originally granted to W!% , which had been transferred to Sagittarius !ining, a <ilipino corporation' We are not discussing the apparition of white Anglo,Sa9on racistsJbigots 7assing at our gates' 2' (n the proper interpretation of the phrase agreements involving eit)er tec)nical or financial assistance, 6ustice !orales points out that at ti7es we ;con&eniently o7itted; the use of the dis=uncti&e eit)erQor, which according to her denotes restriction@ hence the phrase 7ust be dee7ed to connote restriction and li7itation' $ut, as 6ustice %arpio hi7self pointed out during the (ral Argu7ent, the dis=uncti&e phrase eit)er tec)nical or financial assistance would, strictly speaBing, literally 7ean that a foreign contractor 7ay pro&ide only one or the other, but not both' And if both technical and financial assistance were re0uired for a pro=ect, the State would ha&e to deal with at least two different foreign contractors ,, one for financial and the other for technical assistance' And following on that, a foreign contractor, though &ery 7uch 0ualified to pro&ide both Binds of assistance, would ne&ertheless be prohibited fro7 pro&iding one Bind as soon as it shall ha&e agreed to pro&ide the other' $ut if the %ourt should follow this restricti&e and literal construction, can we really find two -or 7ore/ contractors who are willing to participate in one single pro=ect ,, one to pro&ide the ;financial assistance; only and the other the ;technical assistance; e9clusi&ely@ it would be e9cellent if these two or 7ore contractors happen to be willing and are able to cooperate and worB closely together on the sa7e pro=ect -e&en if they are otherwise co7petitors/' And it would be superb if no conflicts would arise between or a7ong the7 in the entire course of the contract' $ut what are the chances things will turn out this way in the real worldH To thinB that the fra7ers deliberately i7posed this Bind of restriction is to say that they were either e9ceedingly opti7istic, or incredibly na[&e' This begs the 0uestion ,, What laudable ob=ecti&e or purpose could possibly be ser&ed by such strict and restricti&e literal interpretationH 3' %iting posa v. =actoran Jr., 6ustice !orales clai7s that a ser&ice contract is not a contract or propert" rig)t ,)ic) merits protection *" t)e due process clause of t)e +onstitution, but 7erely a license or pri&ilege which 7ay be &alidly re&oBed, rescinded or withdrawn by e9ecuti&e action whene&er dictated by public interest or public welfare' posa cites Tan v. (irector of =orestr" and Fsmael v. (eput" &!ecutive Secretar" as authority' The latter cases dealt specifically with 1.:<4r 9.c4*/4/ o*92' posa allegedly reiterated that a license is merel" a permit or privilege to do ,)at ot)er,ise ,ould *e unla,ful, and is not a contract *et,een t)e aut)orit", federal, state or municipal, granting it and t)e person to ,)om it is granted> neit)er is it propert" or a propert" rig)t, nor does it create a vested rig)t> nor is it ta!ation. T)us t)is +ourt )eld t)at t)e granting of license does not create irrevoca*le rig)ts, neit)er is it propert" or propert" rig)ts. Should posa be dee7ed applicable to the case at bar, on the argu7ent that natural resources are also in&ol&ed in this situationH We do not thinB so' A grantee of a ti7ber license, per7it or license agree7ent gets to cut the ti7ber already growing on the surface@ it need not dig up tons of earth to get at the logs' +n a logging concession, the in&est7ent of the licensee is not as substantial as the in&est7ent of a large,scale 7ining contractor' +f a ti7ber license were re&oBed, the licensee pacBs up its gear and 7o&es to a new area applied for, and starts o&er@ what it lea&es behind are 7ainly the trails leading to the logging site' +n contrast, the 7ining contractor will ha&e sunB a great deal of 7oney -tens of 7illions of dollars/ into the ground, so to speaB, for e9ploration acti&ities, for de&elop7ent of the 7ine site and infrastructure, and for the actual e9ca&ation and e9traction of 7inerals, including the e9tensi&e tunneling worB to reach the ore body' The cancellation of the 7ining contract will utterly depri&e the contractor of its in&est7ents -i'e', pre&ent reco&ery of in&est7ents/, 7ost of which cannot be pulled out' To say that an <TAA is =ust liBe a 7ere ti7ber license or per7it and does not in&ol&e contract or property rights which 7erit protection by the due process clause of the %onstitution, and 7ay therefore be re&oBed or cancelled in the blinB of an eye, is to adopt a well,nigh confiscatory stance@ at the &ery least, it is downright dis7issi&e of the property rights of businesspersons and corporate entities that ha&e in&est7ents in the 7ining industry, whose in&est7ents, operations and e9penditures do contribute to the general welfare of the people, the coffers of go&ern7ent, and the strength of the econo7y' Such a pronounce7ent will surely discourage in&est7ents -local and foreign/ which are critically needed to fuel the engine of econo7ic growth and 7o&e this country out of the rut of po&erty' +n su7, posa is not applicable' 3' 6ustice !orales ad&erts to the supposedly ;clear intention; of the fra7ers of the %onstitution to reser&e our natural resources e9clusi&ely for the <ilipino people' She then 0uoted fro7 the records of the %on%o7 deliberations a passage in which then %o77issioner :a&ide e9plained his &ote, arguing in the process that aliens ought not be allowed to participate in the en=oy7ent of our natural resources' (ne passage does not suffice to capture the tenor or substance of the entire e9tensi&e deliberations of the co77issioners, or to re&eal the clear intention of the fra7ers as a group' A re,reading of the entire deliberations -0uoted here earlier/ is necessary if we are to understand the true intent of the fra7ers'

.' Since 123., the <ilipino people, through their %onstitution, ha&e decided that the retardation or delay in the e9ploration, de&elop7ent or utili?ation of the nationDs natural resources is 7erely secondary to the protection and preser&ation of their ownership of the natural resources, so says 6ustice !orales, citing Aruego' +f it is true that the fra7ers of the 1247 %onstitution did not care 7uch about alle&iating the retardation or delay in the de&elop7ent and utili?ation of our natural resources, why did they bother to write paragraph 3 at allH Were they 7erely paying lip ser&ice to large,scale e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ationH They could ha&e =ust co7pletely ignored the sub=ect 7atter and left it to be dealt with through a future constitutional a7end7ent' $ut we ha&e to har7oni?e e&ery part of the %onstitution and to interpret each pro&ision in a 7anner that would gi&e life and 7eaning to it and to the rest of the pro&isions' +t is ob&ious that a literal interpretation of paragraph 3 will render it utterly inutile and inoperati&e' 5' According to 6ustice !orales, the deliberations of the %onstitutional %o77ission do not support our contention that the fra7ers, by specifying such agree7ents in&ol&ing financial or technical assistance, necessarily ga&e i7plied assent to e&erything that these agree7ents i7plicitly entailed, or that could reasonably be dee7ed necessary to 7aBe the7 tenable and effecti&e, including 7anage7ent authority in the day,to,day operations' As proof thereof, she 0uotes one single passage fro7 the %on%o7 deliberations, consisting of an e9change a7ong %o77issioners Tingson, 1arcia and !onsod' Cowe&er, the 0uoted e9change does not ser&e to contradict our argu7ent@ it e&en bolsters it' %o77' %hristian !onsod was 0uoted as saying8 ?!!! < t)in# ,e )ave to ma#e a distinction t)at it is not reall" realistic to sa" t)at ,e ,ill *orro, on our o,n terms. Ma"*e ,e can sa" t)at ,e in)erited un6ust loans, and ,e ,ould li#e to repa" t)ese on terms t)at are not pre6udicial to our o,n gro,t). %ut t)e general statement t)at ,e s)ould onl" *orro, on our o,n terms is a *it unrealistic.? %o77' !onsod is one who Bnew whereof he spoBe' 7' 6ustice !orales also declares that the opti7al ti7e for the con&ersion of an <TAA into an ! SA is after co7pletion of the e9ploration phase and =ust before undertaBing the de&elop7ent and construction phase, on account of the fact that the re0uire7ent for a 7ini7u7 in&est7ent of Z.0 7illion is applicable only during the de&elop7ent, construction and utili?ation phase, but not during the e9ploration phase, when the foreign contractor need 7erely co7ply with 7ini7u7 ground e9penditures' Thus by con&erting, the foreign contractor 7a9i7i?es its profits by a&oiding its obligation to 7aBe the 7ini7u7 in&est7ent of Z.0 7illion' This argu7ent forgets that the foreign contractor is in the ga7e precisely to 7aBe 7oney' +n order to co7e anywhere near profitability, the contractor 7ust first e9tract and sell the 7ineral ore' +n order to do that, it 7ust also de&elop and construct the 7ining facilities, set up its 7achineries and e0uip7ent and dig the tunnels to get to the deposit' The contractor is thus co7pelled to e9pend funds in order to 7aBe profits' +f it decides to cut bacB on in&est7ents and e9penditures, it will necessarily sacrifice the pace of de&elop7ent and utili?ation@ it will necessarily sacrifice the a7ount of profits it can 7aBe fro7 the 7ining operations' +n fact, at certain less,than,opti7al le&els of operation, the strea7 of re&enues generated 7ay not e&en be enough to co&er &ariable e9penses, let alone o&erhead e9penses@ this is a dis7al situation anyone would want to a&oid' +n order to 7aBe 7oney, one has to spend 7oney' This truis7 applies to the 7ining industry as well' 4' !ortgaging the 7inerals to secure a foreign <TAA contractorDs obligations is ano7alous, according to 6ustice !orales since the contractor was fro7 the beginning obliged to pro&ide all financing needed for the 7ining operations' Cowe&er, the 7ortgaging of 7inerals by the contractor does not necessarily signify that the contractor is unable to pro&ide all financing re0uired for the pro=ect, or that it does not ha&e the financial capability to undertaBe large,scale operations' !ortgaging of 7ineral products, =ust liBe the assign7ent -by way of security/ of 7anufactured goods and goods in in&entory, and the assign7ent of recei&ables, is an ordinary re0uire7ent of banBs, e&en in the case of clients with 7ore than sufficient financial resources' And nowadays, e&en the richest and best 7anaged corporations 7aBe use of banB credit facilities ,, it does not necessarily signify that they do not ha&e the financial resources or are unable to pro&ide the financing on their own@ it is =ust a 7anner of 7a9i7i?ing the use of their funds' 2' :oes the contractor in reality ac0uire the surface rights ;for free,; by &irtue of the fact that it is entitled to rei7burse7ent for the costs of ac0uisition and 7aintenance, ad=usted for inflationH We thinB not' The ;rei7burse7ent; is possible only at the end of the ter7 of the contract, when the surface rights will no longer be needed, and the land pre&iously ac0uired will ha&e to be disposed of, in which case the contractor gets rei7burse7ent fro7 the sales proceeds' The contractor has to pay out the ac0uisition price for the land' That 7oney will belong to the seller of the land' (nly if and when the land is finally sold off will the contractor get any rei7burse7ent' +n other words, the contractor will ha&e been cash,out for the entire duration of the ter7 of the contract ,, 2. or .0 years, depending' +f we calculate the cost of 7oney at say 12 percent per annu7, that is the cost or opportunity loss to the contractor, in addition to the a7ount of the ac0uisition price' 12 percent per annu7 for .0 years is 500 percent@ this, without any co7pounding yet' The cost of 7oney is therefore at least 500 percent of the original ac0uisition cost@ it is in addition to the ac0uisition cost' ;<or free;H #ot by a long shot' 10' The contractor will ac0uire and hold up to .,000 hectaresH We doubt it' The ac0uisition by the State of land for the contractor is =ust to enable the contractor to establish its 7ine site, build its facilities, establish a tailings pond, set up its 7achinery and e0uip7ent, and dig 7ine shafts and tunnels, etc' +t is i7possible that the surface re0uire7ent will aggregate .,000 hectares' !uch of the operations will consist of the tunneling and digging underground, which will not re0uire possessing or using any land surface' .,000 hectares is way too 7uch for the needs of a 7ining operator' +t si7ply will not spend its cash to ac0uire property that it will not need@ the cash 7ay be better e7ployed for the actual 7ining operations, to yield a profit'

11' 6ustice %arpio clai7s that the phrase among ot)er t)ings -found in the second paragraph of Section 41 of the !ining Act/ is being incorrectly treated as a delegation of legislati&e power to the :"#R secretary to issue :A( 22, .5 and prescribe the for7ulae therein on the StateDs share fro7 7ining operations' Ce adds that the phrase among ot)er t)ings was not intended as a delegation of legislati&e power to the :"#R secretary, 7uch less could it be dee7ed a &alid delegation of legislati&e power, since there is nothing in the second paragraph of Section 41 which can be said to grant any delegated legislati&e power to the :"#R secretary' And e&en if there were, such delegation would be &oid, for lacB of any standards by which the delegated power shall be e9ercised' While there is nothing in the second paragraph of Section 41 which can directly be construed as a delegation of legislati&e power to the :"#R secretary, it does not 7ean that :A( 22,.5 is in&alid per se, or that the secretary acted without any authority or =urisdiction in issuing :A( 22,.5' As we stated earlier in our rologue, ?/)o or ,)at organ of government actuall" e!ercises t)is po,er of control on *e)alf of t)e State- T)e +onstitution is cr"stal clearJ t)e President. <ndeed, t)e +)ief &!ecutive is t)e official constitutionall" mandated to 0enter into agreements ,it) foreign o,ned corporations.0 n t)e ot)er )and, +ongress ma" revie, t)e action of t)e $resident once it is notified of 0ever" contract entered into in accordance ,it) t)is LconstitutionalM provision ,it)in t)irt" da"s from its e!ecution.0? +t is the resident who is constitutionally 7andated 1o 4*14r .*1o $TAA/ with foreign corporations, and in doing so, it is within the residentDs prerogati&e 1o /04c.82 c4r1a.* 14r:/ a*+ co*+.1.o*/ of the <TAAs, for e9a7ple, the fiscal regi7e of <TAAs ,, i'e', the sharing of the net 7ining re&enues between the contractor and the State' $eing the residentDs alter ego with respect to the control and super&ision of the 7ining industry, the :"#R secretary, acting for the resident, is necessarily clothed with the re0uisite authority and power to draw up guidelines delineating certain ter7s and conditions, and specifying therein the ter7s of sharing of benefits fro7 7ining, to be applicable to <TAAs in general' +t is i7portant to re7e7ber that :A( 22,.5 has been in e9istence for al7ost si9 years, and has not been a7ended or re&oBed by the resident' T)e issuance of (A ;;153 did not involve t)e e!ercise of delegated legislative po,er. The legislature did not delegate the power to deter7ine the nature, e9tent and co7position of the ite7s that would co7e under the phrase among ot)er t)ings. The legislatureDs power pertains to the i7position of ta9es, duties and fees' This power was not delegated to the :"#R secretary' $ut the power to negotiate and enter into <TAAs was withheld fro7 %ongress, and reser&ed for the resident' +n deter7ining the sharing of 7ining benefits, i'e', in specifying what the phrase among ot)er t)ings include, the resident -through the secretary acting in hisJher behalf/ was not deter7ining the a7ount or rate of ta9es, duties and fees, but rather the a7ount of +#%(!" to be deri&ed fro7 7inerals to be e9tracted and sold, inco7e which belongs to the State as owner of the 7ineral resources' We 7ay say that, in the second paragraph of Section 41, the legislature in a sense intruded partially into the residentDs sphere of authority when the for7er pro&ided that ?T)e Government s)are in financial or tec)nical assistance agreement s)all consist of, among ot)er t)ings, t)e contractor0s corporate income ta!, e!cise ta!, special allo,ance, ,it))olding ta! due from t)e contractor0s foreign stoc#)olders arising from dividend or interest pa"ments to t)e said foreign stoc#)older in case of a foreign national and all suc) ot)er ta!es, duties and fees as provided for under e!isting la,s.?-+talics supplied/ $ut it did not usurp the residentDs authority since the pro&ision 7erely included the enu7erated ite7s as part of the go&ern7ent share, without foreclosing or in any way pre&enting -as in fact %ongress could not &alidly pre&ent/ the resident fro7 deter7ining what constitutes the StateDs co7pensation deri&ed fro7 <TAAs' +n this case, the resident in effect directed the inclusion or addition of ;other things,; viz., +#%(!" for the owner of the resources, in the go&ern7entDs share, while adopting the ite7s enu7erated by %ongress as part of the go&ern7ent share also' 12' 6ustice %arpioDs insistence on applying the e6usdem generis rule of statutory construction to the phrase among ot)er t)ings is therefore useless, and 7ust fall by the wayside' There is no point trying to construe that phrase in relation to the enu7eration of ta9es, duties and fees found in paragraph 2 of Section 41, precisely because *the constitutiona! po/er to prescribe the sharing of mining income bet/een the tate and mining companies,*to 0uote 6ustice %arpio pursuant to an <TAA is co*/1.151.o*a992 9o+G4+ I.1h 1h4 Pr4/.+4*1, *o1 I.1h Co*Gr4//. +t thus 7aBes no sense to persist in gi&ing the phrase among ot)er t)ings a restricted 7eaning referring only to ta9es, duties and fees' 13' Strangely, 6ustice %arpio clai7s that the :"#R secretary can change the for7ulae in :A( 22,.5 any ti7e e&en without the appro&al of the resident, and the secretary is the sole authority to deter7ine the a7ount of consideration that the State shall recei&e in an <TAA, because Section . of the :A( states that ?!!! an" amendment of an =TAA ot)er t)an t)e provision on fiscal regime s)all re9uire t)e negotiation ,it) t)e 'egotiation $anel and t)e recommendation of t)e Secretar" for approval of t)e $resident !!!? ' Allegedly, because of that pro&ision, if an a7end7ent in the <TAA in&ol&es non,fiscal 7atters, the a7end7ent re0uires appro&al of the resident, but if the a7end7ent in&ol&es a change in the fiscal regi7e, the :"#R secretary has the final authority, and appro&al of the resident 7ay be dispensed with@ hence the secretary is 7ore powerful than the resident' We belie&e there is so7e distortion resulting fro7 the 0uoted pro&ision being taBen out of conte9t' Section . of :A( 22,.5 reads as follows8

;Section .' Status of "9isting <TAAs' All <TAAs appro&ed prior to the effecti&ity of this Ad7inistrati&e (rder shall re7ain &alid and be recogni?ed by the 1o&ern7ent8 ro&ided, That should a %ontractor desire to a7end its <TAA, it shall do so by filing a )etter of +ntent -)(+/ to the Secretary thru the :irector' ro&ided, further, That if the %ontractor desires to a7end the fiscal regi7e of its <TAA, it 7ay do so by seeBing for the a7end7ent of its <TAADs whole fiscal regi7e by adopting the fiscal regi7e pro&ided hereof8 ro&ided, finally, That any a7end7ent of an <TAA other than the pro&ision on fiscal regi7e shall re0uire the negotiation with the #egotiating anel and the reco77endation of the Secretary for appro&al of the resident of the Republic of the hilippines'; -underscoring supplied/ +t looBs liBe another case of 7isapprehension' The pro&iso being ob=ected to by 6ustice %arpio is actually preceded by a phrase that re0uires a contractor desiring to a7end the fiscal regi7e of its <TAA, to a7end thesa7e by adopting the fiscal regi7e prescribed in :A( 22,.5 ,, i'e', solely in that 7anner, and in no ot)er'O<6.o5/92, /.*c4 %AO 99-)6 Ia/ .//54+ <2 1h4 /4cr41ar2 5*+4r 1h4 a51hor.12 a*+ I.1h 1h4 0r4/5:4+ a00ro6a9 o8 1h4 Pr4/.+4*1, 1h4 a:4*+:4*1 o8 a* $TAA <2 :4r492 a+o01.*G 1h4 8./ca9 r4G.:4 0r4/cr.<4+ .* /a.+ %AO 99-)6 Ea*+ *o1h.*G :or4F *44+ *o1 ha64 1h4 430r4// c94ara*c4 o8 1h4 Pr4/.+4*1 a*2:or4. +t is as if the sa7e had been pre,appro&ed' We cannot fatho7 the co7plaint that that 7aBes the secretary 7ore powerful than the resident, or that the for7er is trying to hide things fro7 the resident or %ongress' 13' $ased on the first sentence of Section . of :A( 22,.5, which states ;FAGll <TAAs appro&ed prior to the effecti&ity of this Ad7inistrati&e (rder shall re7ain &alid and be recogni?ed by the 1o&ern7ent;, 6ustice %arpio concludes that said Ad7inistrati&e (rder allegedly 434:01/ <TAAs appro&ed prior to its effecti&ity ,, liBe the W!% <TAA ,, fro7 ha&ing to pay the State any share fro7 their 7ining inco7e, apart fro7 ta9es, duties and fees' We disagree' What we see in blacB and white is the state7ent that the <TAAs appro&ed before the :A( ca7e into effect are to continue to be &alid and will be recogni?ed by the State' 'ot)ing is said a*out t)eir fiscal regimes.%ertainly, there is no basis to clai7 that the contractors under said <TAAs were being e9e7pted fro7 paying the go&ern7ent a share in their 7ining inco7es' <or the record, the W!% <TAA is #(T and has ne&er been e9e7pt fro7 paying the go&ern7ent share' Th4 -MCP $TAA ha/ .1/ oI* 8./ca9 r4G.:4 -- S4c1.o* 7.7 -- Ih.ch G.64/ 1h4 Go64r*:4*1 a 6@ 04rc4*1 /har4 .* 1h4 *41 :.*.*G r464*54/ o8 -MCP 8ro: 1h4 co::4*c4:4*1 o8 co::4rc.a9 0ro+5c1.o*. <or that &ery reason, we ha&e ne&er said that :A( 22,.5 is the basis for clai7ing that the W!% <TAA has a consideration' Cence, we find 0uite out of place 6ustice %arpioDs state7ent that ironicall", (A ;;153, t)e ver" aut)orit" cited to support t)e claim t)at t)e /M+$ =TAA )as a consideration, does not appl" to t)e /M+$ =TAA. %" its o,n e!press terms, (A ;;153 does not appl" to =TAAs e!ecuted *efore t)e issuance of (A ;;153, li#e t)e /M+$ =TAA. T)e ma6orit"0s position )as allegedl" no leg to stand on since even (A ;;153, assuming it is valid, cannot save t)e /M+$ =TAA from ,ant of consideration. "&en assu7ing arguendo that :A( 22,.5 does not apply to the W!% <TAA, ne&ertheless, the W!% <TAA has its own fiscal regi7e, found in Section 7'7 thereof' Cence, there is no such thing as ;want of consideration; here' Still 7ore startling is this clai78 T)e ma6orit" supposedl" agrees t)at t)e provisions of t)e /M+$ =TAA, ,)ic) grant a s)am consideration to t)e State, are void. Since t)e ma6orit" agrees t)at t)e /M+$ =TAA )as a s)am consideration, t)e /M+$ =TAA t)us lac#s t)e t)ird element of a valid contract. T)e (ecision s)ould declare t)e /M+$ =TAA void for ,ant of consideration unless it treats t)e contract as an M$SA under Section G7. <ndeed t)e onl" recourse of /M+$ to save t)e validit" of its contract is to convert it into an M$SA. To clarify, we said that Sections 7'2 and 7'4-e/ of the W!% <TAA are pro&isions grossly disad&antageous to go&ern7ent and detri7ental to the interests of the <ilipino people, as well as &iolati&e of public policy, and 7ust therefore be stricBen off as in&alid' Since the offending pro&isions are &ery 7uch separable fro7 Section 7'7 and the rest of the <TAA, the deletion of Sections 7'2 and 7'4-e/ can be done without affecting or re0uiring the in&alidation of the W!% <TAA itself, and such deletion will preser&e for go&ern7ent its due share of the 50 percent benefits' Therefore, the W!% <TAA is #(T bereft of a &alid consideration -assu7ing for the nonce that indeed this is the ;consideration; of the <TAA/' SUMMAT"ON To conclude, a su77ary of the Bey points discussed abo&e is now in order' T)e Meaning of ?Agreements <nvolving &it)er Tec)nical or =inancial Assistance? Applying fa7iliar principles of constitutional construction to the phrase agreements involving eit)er tec)nical or financial assistance, the fra7ersD choice of words does not indicate the intent to e9clude other 7odes of assistance, but rather i7plies that there are ot)er t)ings being included or possibly being 7ade part of the agree7ent, apart fro7 financial or technical assistance' The drafters a&oided the use of restricti&e and stringent phraseology@ a ver*a legis scrutiny of Section 2 of Article K++ of the %onstitution discloses not e&en a hint of a desire to prohibit foreign in&ol&e7ent in the 7anage7ent or operation of 7ining acti&ities, or to eradicate ser&ice contracts' Such 7o&es would necessarily i7ply an underlying drastic shift in funda7ental econo7ic and de&elop7ental policies of the

State' That change re0uires a 7uch 7ore definite and irrefutable basis than 7ere o7ission of the words ;ser&ice contract; fro7 the new %onstitution' <urther7ore, a literal and restrictive interpretation of t)is paragrap) leads to logical inconsistencies. A constitutional pro&ision specifically allowing foreign,owned corporations to render financial or technical assistancein respect of 7ining or any other co77ercial acti&ity was clearly unnecessary@ the pro&ision was 7eant to refer to 7ore than 7ere financial or technical assistance' Also, if paragraph 3 per7its only agree7ents for financial or technical assistance, there would be no point in re0uiring that they be ?*ased on real contri*utions to t)e economic gro,t) and general ,elfare of t)e countr".? And considering that there were &arious long,ter7 ser&ice contracts still in force and effect at the ti7e the new %harter was being drafted, the absence of any transitory pro&isions to go&ern the ter7ination and closing,out of the then e9isting ser&ice contracts strongly 7ilitates against the theory that the 7ere o7ission of ;ser&ice contracts; signaled their prohibition by the new %onstitution' Resort to the deliberations of the %onstitutional %o77ission is therefore una&oidable, and a careful scrutiny thereof conclusi&ely shows that the %on%o7 7e7bers discussed agreements involving eit)er tec)nical or financial assistance in the sa7e sense as service contracts and used the ter7s interchangeably' The drafters in fact Bnew that the agree7ents with foreign corporations were going to entail not 7ere technical or financial assistance but, rather, foreign in&est7ent in and 7anage7ent of an enterprise for large1scale e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation of 7inerals' The fra7ers spoBe about ser&ice contracts as the concept was understood in the 1273 %onstitution' +t is ob&ious fro7 their discussions that they did not intend to ban or eradicate ser&ice contracts' +nstead, they were intent on crafting pro&isions to put in place safeguards that would eli7inate or 7ini7i?e the abuses pre&alent during the 7artial law regi7e' "* <r.48, 1h42 I4r4 Go.*G 1o 04r:.1 /4r6.c4 co*1rac1/ I.1h 8or4.G* cor0ora1.o*/ a/ co*1rac1or/, <51 I.1h /a8412 :4a/5r4/ 1o 0r464*1 a<5/4/, a/ a* 43c401.o* 1o 1h4 G4*4ra9 *or: 4/1a<9./h4+ .* 1h4 8.r/1 0araGra0h o8 S4c1.o* 2 o8 Ar1.c94 !"", Ih.ch r4/4r64/ or 9.:.1/ 1o $.9.0.*o c.1.J4*/ a*+ cor0ora1.o*/ a1 94a/1 6@ 04rc4*1 oI*4+ <2 /5ch c.1.J4*/ 1h4 4309ora1.o*, +4649o0:4*1 a*+ 51.9.Ja1.o* o8 :.*4ra9 or 041ro945: r4/o5rc4/. This was pro7pted by the percei&ed insufficiency of <ilipino capital and the felt need for foreign e9pertise in the ":* of 7ineral resources' :espite strong opposition fro7 so7e %on%o7 7e7bers during the final &oting, the Article on the #ational "cono7y and atri7ony ,, including paragraph 3 allowing ser&ice contracts with foreign corporations as an e9ception to the general nor7 in paragraph 1 of Section 2 of the sa7e Article ,, was resoundingly and o&erwhel7ingly appro&ed' The drafters, 7any of who7 were econo7ists, acade7icians, lawyers, businesspersons and politicians Bnew that foreign entities will not enter into agree7ents in&ol&ing assistance without re0uiring 7easures of protection to ensure the success of the &enture and repay7ent of their in&est7ents, loans and other financial assistance, and ulti7ately to protect the business reputation of the foreign corporations' The drafters, by specifying such agree7ents in&ol&ing assistance, necessarily ga&e i7plied assent to e&erything that these agree7ents entailed or that could reasonably be dee7ed necessary to 7aBe the7 tenable and effecti&e ,, including 7anage7ent authority with respect to the day,to,day operations of the enterprise, and 7easures for the protection of the interests of the foreign corporation, at least to the e9tent that they are consistent with hilippine so&ereignty o&er natural resources, the constitutional re0uire7ent of State control, and beneficial ownership of natural resources re7aining &ested in the State' <ro7 the foregoing, it is clear that agreements involving eit)er tec)nical or financial assistance referred to in paragraph 3 are in fact ser&ice contracts, but such new ser&ice contracts are between foreign corporations acting as contractors on the one hand, and on the other hand go&ern7ent as principal or ;owner; -of the worBs/, whereby the foreign contractor pro&ides the capital, technology and technical Bnow,how, and 7anagerial e9pertise in the creation and operation of the large,scale 7iningJe9tracti&e enterprise, and go&ern7ent through its agencies -:"#R, !1$/ acti&ely e9ercises full control and super&ision o&er the entire enterprise' Such ser&ice contracts 7ay be entered into onl" with respect to 7inerals, petroleu7 and other 7ineral oils' The grant of such ser&ice contracts is sub=ect to se&eral safeguards, a7ong the78 -1/ that the ser&ice contract be crafted in accordance with a general law setting standard or unifor7 ter7s, conditions and re0uire7ents@ -2/ the resident be the signatory for the go&ern7ent@ and -3/ the resident report the e9ecuted agree7ent to %ongress within thirty days' @ltimate TestJ =ull State +ontrol To repeat, the pri7acy of the principle of the StateDs so&ereign ownership of all 7ineral resources, and its full control and super&ision o&er all aspects of e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation of natural resources 7ust be upheld' $ut ;full control and super&ision; cannot be taBen literally to 7ean that the State controls and super&ises ever"t)ing do,n to t)e minutest details and ma#es all re9uired actions , as this would render i7possible the legiti7ate e9ercise by the contractor of a reasonable degree of 7anage7ent prerogati&e and authority, indispensable to the proper functioning of the 7ining enterprise' Also, go&ern7ent need not 7icro,7anage 7ining operations and day,to,day affairs of the enterprise in order to be considered as e9ercising full control and super&ision'

+ontrol, as utili?ed in Section 2 of Article K++, 7ust be taBen to 7ean a degree of control sufficient to enable the State to direct, restrain, regulate and go&ern the affairs of the e9tracti&e enterprises' %ontrol by the State 7ay be on a 7acro le&el, through the establish7ent of policies, guidelines, regulations, industry standards and si7ilar 7easures that would enable go&ern7ent to regulate the conduct of affairs in &arious enterprises, and restrain acti&ities dee7ed not desirable or beneficial, with the end in &iew of ensuring that these enterprises contribute to the econo7ic de&elop7ent and general welfare of the country, conser&e the en&iron7ent, and uplift the well,being of the local affected co77unities' Such a degree of control would be co7patible with per7itting the foreign contractor sufficient and reasonable 7anage7ent authority o&er the enterprise it has in&ested in, to ensure efficient and profitable operation' Government Granted =ull +ontrol *" RA E;H8 and (A ;31H7 $aseless are petitionersD sweeping clai7s that RA 7232 and its +7ple7enting Rules and Regulations 7aBe it possible for <TAA contracts to cede full control and 7anage7ent of 7ining enterprises o&er to fully foreign owned corporations' "0ually wobbly is the assertion that the State is reduced to a passi&e regulator dependent on sub7itted plans and reports, with weaB re&iew and audit powers and little say in the decision,7aBing of the enterprise, for which reasons ;beneficial ownership; of the 7ineral resources is allegedly ceded to the foreign contractor' As discussed hereinabo&e, the StateDs full control and super&ision o&er 7ining operations are ensured through the following pro&isions in RA 72328 Sections 4, 2, 15, 12, 23, 3.F-b/, -e/, -f/, -g/, -h/, -B/, -l/, -7/ and -o/G, 30, .7, 55, 52, 70, and %hapters K+ and KA++@ as well as the following pro&isions of :A( 25,308 Sections7F-d/ and -f/G, 3.-a,2/, .3F-a,3/ and -d/G, .3, .5F-g/, -h/, -l/, -7/ and -n/G, .5-2/, 50, 55, 133, 154, 171 and 270, and also %hapters KA, KA+ and KK+A' Through the foregoing pro&isions, the go&ern7ent agencies concerned are e7powered to appro&e or disappro&e ,, hence, in a position to influence, direct, and change ,, the &arious worB progra7s and the corresponding 7ini7u7 e9penditure co77it7ents for each of the e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation phases of the enterprise' (nce they ha&e been appro&ed, the contractorDs co7pliance with its co77it7ents therein will be 7onitored' <igures for 7ineral production and sales are regularly 7onitored and sub=ected to go&ern7ent re&iew, to ensure that the products and by,products are disposed of at the best prices@ copies of sales agree7ents ha&e to be sub7itted to and registered with !1$' The contractor is 7andated to open its booBs of accounts and records for scrutiny, to enable the State to deter7ine that the go&ern7ent share has been fully paid' The State 7ay liBewise co7pel co7pliance by the contractor with 7andatory re0uire7ents on 7ine safety, health and en&iron7ental protection, and the use of anti,pollution technology and facilities' The contractor is also obligated to assist the de&elop7ent of the 7ining co77unity, and pay royalties to the indigenous peoples concerned' And &iolation of any of the <TAADs ter7s and conditions, andJor non,co7pliance with statutes or regulations, 7ay be penali?ed by cancellation of the <TAA' Such sanction is significant to a contractor who 7ay ha&e yet to reco&er the tens or hundreds of 7illions of dollars sunB into a 7ining pro=ect' (&erall, the State definitely has a pi&otal say in the operation of the indi&idual enterprises, and can set directions and ob=ecti&es, detect de&iations and non,co7pliances by the contractor, and enforce co7pliance and i7pose sanctions should the occasion arise' Cence, RA 7232 and :A( 25,30 &est in go&ern7ent 7ore than a sufficient degree of control and super&ision o&er the conduct of 7ining operations' Section 3-a0/ of RA 7232 was ob=ected to as being unconstitutional for allowing a foreign contractor to apply for and hold an e9ploration per7it' :uring the e9ploration phase, the per7it grantee -and prospecti&e contractor/ is spending and in&esting hea&ily in e9ploration acti&ities without yet being able to e9tract 7inerals and generate re&enues' The e9ploration per7it issued under Sections 3-a0/, 20 and 23 of RA 7232, which allows e9ploration but not e9traction, ser&es to protect the interests and rights of the e9ploration per7it grantee -and would,be contractor/, foreign or local' (therwise, the e9ploration worBs already conducted, and e9penditures already 7ade, 7ay end up only benefiting clai7,=u7pers' Thus, Section 3-a0/ of RA 7232 is not unconstitutional' /M+$ =TAA Li#e,ise Gives t)e State =ull +ontrol and Supervision The W!% <TAA obligates the contractor to account for the &alue of production and sale of 7inerals -%lause 1'3/@ re0uires that the contractorDs worB progra7, acti&ities and budgets be appro&ed by the State -%lause 2'1/@ gi&es the :"#R secretary power to e9tend the e9ploration period -%lause 3'2,a/@ re0uires appro&al by the State for incorporation of lands into the contract area -%lause 3'3,c/@ re0uires $ureau of <orest :e&elop7ent appro&al for inclusion of forest reser&es as part of the <TAA contract area -%lause 3'./@ obligates the contractor to periodically relin0uish parts of the contract area not needed for e9ploration and de&elop7ent -%lause 3'5/@ re0uires sub7ission of a declaration of 7ining feasibility for appro&al by the State -%lause 3'5,b/@ obligates the contractor to report to the State the results of its e9ploration acti&ities -%lause 3'2/@ re0uires the contractor to obtain State appro&al for its worB progra7s for the succeeding two year periods, containing the proposed worB acti&ities and e9penditures budget related to e9ploration -%lause .'1/@ re0uires the contractor to obtain State appro&al for its proposed e9penditures for

e9ploration acti&ities -%lause .'2/@ re0uires the contractor to sub7it an annual report on geological, geophysical, geoche7ical and other infor7ation relating to its e9plorations within the <TAA area -%lause .'3,a/@ re0uires the contractor to sub7it within si9 7onths after e9piration of e9ploration period a final report on all its findings in the contract area -%lause .'3,b/@ re0uires the contractor after conducting feasibility studies to sub7it a declaration of 7ining feasibility, along with a description of the area to be de&eloped and 7ined, a description of the proposed 7ining operations and the technology to be e7ployed, and the proposed worB progra7 for the de&elop7ent phase, for appro&al by the :"#R secretary -%lause .'3/@ obligates the contractor to co7plete the de&elop7ent of the 7ine, including construction of the production facilities, within the period stated in the appro&ed worB progra7 -%lause 5'1/@ re0uires the contractor to sub7it for appro&al a worB progra7 co&ering each period of three fiscal years -%lause 5'2/@ re0uires the contractor to sub7it reports to the secretary on the production, ore reser&es, worB acco7plished and worB in progress, profile of its worB force and 7anage7ent staff, and other technical infor7ation -%lause 5'3/@ sub=ects any e9pansions, 7odifications, i7pro&e7ents and replace7ents of 7ining facilities to the appro&al of the secretary -%lause 5'3/@ sub=ects to State control the a7ount of funds that the contractor 7ay borrow within the hilippines -%lause 7'2/@ sub=ects to State super&isory power any technical, financial and 7arBeting issues -%lause 10'1,a/@ obligates the contractor to ensure 50 percent <ilipino e0uity in the contractor within ten years of reco&ering specified e9penditures unless not so re0uired by subse0uent legislation -%lause 10'1/@ gi&es the State the right to ter7inate the <TAA for unre7edied substantial breach thereof by the contractor -%lause 13'2/@ re0uires State appro&al for any assign7ent of the <TAA by the contractor to an entity other than an affiliate -%lause 13'1/' +n short, the afore7entioned pro&isions of the W!% <TAA, far fro7 constituting a surrender of control and a grant of beneficial ownership of 7ineral resources to the contractor in 0uestion, &est the State with control and super&ision o&er practically all aspects of the operations of the <TAA contractor, including the charging of pre, operating and operating e9penses, and the disposition of 7ineral products' There is liBewise no relin0uish7ent of control on account of specific pro&isions of the W!% <TAA' %lause 4'2 pro&ides a 7echanis7 to pre&ent the 7ining operations fro7 grinding to a co7plete halt as a result of possible delays of 7ore than 50 days in the go&ern7entDs processing and appro&al of sub7itted worB progra7s and budgets' %lause 4'3 seeBs to pro&ide a te7porary, stop,gap solution in case a disagree7ent between the State and the contractor -o&er the proposed worB progra7 or budget sub7itted by the contractor/ should result in a deadlocB or i7passe, to a&oid unreasonably long delays in the perfor7ance of the worBs' The State, despite %lause 4'3, still has control o&er the contract area, and it 7ay, as so&ereign authority, prohibit worB thereon until the dispute is resol&ed, or it 7ay ter7inate the <TAA, citing substantial breach thereof' Cence, the State clearly retains full and effecti&e control' %lause 4'., which allows the contractor to 7aBe changes to appro&ed worB progra7s and budgets without the prior appro&al of the :"#R secretary, sub=ect to certain li7itations with respect to the &arianceJs, 7erely pro&ides the contractor a certain a7ount of fle9ibility to 7eet une9pected situations, while still guaranteeing that the appro&ed worB progra7s and budgets are not abandoned altogether' And if the secretary disagrees with the actions taBen by the contractor in this instance, he 7ay also resort to cancellationJter7ination of the <TAA as the ulti7ate sanction' %lause 3'5 of the W!% <TAA gi&es the contractor discretion to select parts of the contract area to be relin0uished' The State is not in a position to substitute its =udg7ent for that of the contractor, who Bnows e9actly which portions of the contract area do not contain 7inerals in co77ercial 0uantities and should be relin0uished' Also, since the annual occupation fees paid to go&ern7ent are based on the total hectarage of the contract area, net of the areas relin0uished, the contractorDs self,interest will assure proper and efficient relin0uish7ent' %lause 10'2-e/ of the W!% <TAA does not 7ean that the contractor can co7pel go&ern7ent to use its power of e7inent do7ain' +t conte7plates a situation in which the contractor is a foreign,owned corporation, hence, not 0ualified to own land' The contractor identifies the surface areas needed for it to construct the infrastructure for 7ining operations, and the State then ac0uires the surface rights on behalf of the for7er' The pro&ision does not call for the e9ercise of the power of e7inent do7ain -or deter7ination of =ust co7pensation/@ it seeBs to a&oid a &iolation of the anti,du77y law' %lause 10'2-l/ of the W!% <TAA gi&ing the contractor the right to 7ortgage and encu7ber the 7ineral products e9tracted 7ay ha&e been a result of conditions i7posed by creditor,banBs to secure the loan obligations of W!% ' $anBs lend also upon the security of encu7brances on goods produced, which can be easily sold and con&erted into cash and applied to the repay7ent of loans' Thus, %lause 10'2-l/ is not so7ething out of the ordinary' #either is it ob=ectionable, because e&en though the contractor is allowed to 7ortgage or encu7ber the 7ineral end,products the7sel&es, the contractor is not thereby relie&ed of its obligation to pay the go&ern7ent its basic and additional shares in the net 7ining re&enue' The contractorDs ability to 7ortgage the 7inerals does not negate the StateDs right to recei&e its share of net 7ining re&enues' %lause 10'2-B/ which gi&es the contractor authority ;to change its e0uity structure at any ti7e,; 7eans that W!% , which was then 100 percent foreign owned, could per7it <ilipino e0uity ownership' !oreo&er, what is i7portant is that the contractor, regardless of its ownership, is always in a position to render the ser&ices re0uired under the <TAA, under the direction and control of the go&ern7ent'

%lauses 10'3-e/ and -i/ bind go&ern7ent to allow a7end7ents to the <TAA if re0uired by banBs and other financial institutions as part of the conditions of new lendings' There is nothing ob=ectionable here, since %lause 10'3-e/ also pro&ides that such financing arrange7ents should in no e&ent reduce the contractorDs obligations or the go&ern7entDs rights under the <TAA' %lause 10'3-i/ pro&ides that go&ern7ent shall ;fa&ourably consider; any re0uest for a7end7ents of this agree7ent necessary for the contractor to successfully obtain financing' There is no renunciation of control, as the pro&iso does not say that go&ern7ent shall auto7atically grant any such re0uest' Also, it is up to the contractor to pro&e the need for the re0uested changes' The go&ern7ent always has the final say on whether to appro&e or disappro&e such re0uests' "* 8.*4, 1h4 $TAA 0ro6./.o*/ +o *o1 r4+5c4 or a<+.ca14 S1a14 co*1ro9. 'o Surrender of =inancial %enefits The second paragraph of Section 41 of RA 7232 has been denounced for allegedly li7iting the StateDs share in <TAAs with foreign contractors to =ust ta9es, fees and duties, and depri&ing the State of a share in the after,ta9 inco7e of the enterprise' Cowe&er, the inclusion of the phrase ?among ot)er t)ings? in the second paragraph of Section 41 clearly and un7istaBably re&eals the legislati&e intent to ha&e the State collect more t)an 6ust t)e usual ta!es, duties and fees' Thus, :A( 22,.5, the ?Guidelines &sta*lis)ing t)e =iscal Regime of =inancial or Tec)nical Assistance Agreements,? spells out the financial benefits go&ern7ent will recei&e fro7 an <TAA, as consisting of not only a<a/.c Go64r*:4*1 /har4, co7prised of all direct ta9es, fees and royalties, as well as other pay7ents 7ade by the contractor during the ter7 of the <TAA, but also an a++.1.o*a9 Go64r*:4*1 /har4, being a /har4 .* 1h4 4ar*.*G/ or ca/h 89oI/ o8 1h4 :.*.*G 4*14r0r./4, so as to achie&e a fifty,fifty sharing of net benefits fro7 7ining between the go&ern7ent and the contractor' The a++.1.o*a9 Go64r*:4*1 /har4 is co7puted using one of three -3/ options or sche7es detailed in :A( 22, .5, viz., -1/ the fifty,fifty sharing of cu7ulati&e present &alue of cash flows@ -2/ the e9cess profit,related additional go&ern7ent share@ and -3/ the additional sharing based on the cu7ulati&e net 7ining re&enue' Whiche&er option or co7putation is used, the additional go&ern7ent share has nothing to do with ta9es, duties, fees or charges' The portion of re&enues re7aining after the deduction of the basic and additional go&ern7ent shares is what goes to the contractor' The basic go&ern7ent share and the additional go&ern7ent share do not yet taBe into account the indirect ta9es and other financial contributions of 7ining pro=ects, which are real and actual benefits en=oyed by the <ilipino people@ if these are taBen into account, total go&ern7ent share increases to 50 percent or higher -as 7uch as 77 percent, and 42 percent in one instance/ of the net present &alue of total benefits fro7 the pro=ect' The third or last paragraph of Section 41 of RA 7232 is sla77ed for deferring the pay7ent of the go&ern7ent share in <TAAs until after the contractor shall ha&e reco&ered its pre,operating e9penses, e9ploration and de&elop7ent e9penditures' Allegedly, the collection of the StateDs share is rendered uncertain, as there is no ti7e li7it in RA 7232 for this grace period or reco&ery period' $ut although RA 7232 did not li7it the grace period, the concerned agencies -:"#R and !1$/ in for7ulating the 122. and 1225 +7ple7enting Rules and Regulations pro&ided that the period of reco&ery, recBoned fro7 the date of co77ercial operation, shall be for a period not e9ceeding fi&e years, or until the date of actual reco&ery, whiche&er co7es earlier' And since RA 7232 allegedly does not re0uire go&ern7ent appro&al for the pre,operating, e9ploration and de&elop7ent e9penses of the foreign contractors, it is feared that such e9penses could be bloated to wipe out 7ining re&enues anticipated for 10 years, with the result that the StateDs share is ?ero for the first 10 years' Cowe&er, the argu7ent is based on incorrect infor7ation' *nder Section 23 of RA 7232, the applicant for e9ploration per7it is re0uired to sub7it a proposed worB progra7 for e9ploration, containing a yearly budget of proposed e9penditures, which the State passes upon and either appro&es or re=ects@ if appro&ed, the sa7e will subse0uently be recorded as pre,operating e9penses that the contractor will ha&e to recoup o&er the grace period' *nder Section 23, when an e9ploration per7ittee files with the !1$ a declaration of 7ining pro=ect feasibility, it 7ust sub7it a worB progra7 for de&elop7ent, with corresponding budget, for appro&al by the $ureau, before go&ern7ent 7ay grant an <TAA or ! SA or other 7ineral agree7ents@ again, go&ern7ent has the opportunity to appro&e or re=ect the proposed worB progra7 and budgeted e9penditures for de&elop7ent worBs, which will beco7e the pre,operating and de&elop7ent costs that will ha&e to be reco&ered' 1o&ern7ent is able to Bnow ahead of ti7e the a7ounts of pre,operating and other e9penses to be reco&ered, and the appro9i7ate period of ti7e needed therefor' The aforecited pro&isions ha&e counterparts in Section 3., which deals with the ter7s and conditions e9clusi&ely applicable to <TAAs' <n sum, t)e t)ird or last paragrap) of Section G4 of RA E;H8 cannot *e deemed defective. Section 40 of RA 7232 allegedly li7its the StateDs share in a 7ineral production,sharing agree7ent -! SA/ to =ust the e9cise ta9 on the 7ineral product, i'e', only 2 percent of 7arBet &alue of the 7inerals' The colatilla in Section 43 reiterates the sa7e li7itation in Section 40' oI464r, 1h4/4 1Io 0ro6./.o*/ 04r1a.* o*92 1o MPSA/, a*+ ha64 *o

a009.ca1.o* 1o $TAA/. Th4/4 0ar1.c59ar 0ro6./.o*/ +o *o1 co:4 I.1h.* 1h4 .//54/ +48.*4+ <2 1h./ Co5r1. 4*c4, o* +54 0roc4// Gro5*+/, *o 0ro*o5*c4:4*1 ca* <4 :a+4 .* 1h./ ca/4 .* r4/04c1 o8 1h4 co*/1.151.o*a9.12 o8 S4c1.o*/ ?@ a*+ ?4. Section 112 is disparaged for re&erting <TAAs and all 7ineral agree7ents to the old ;license, concession or lease; syste7, because it allegedly effecti&ely reduces the go&ern7ent share in <TAAs to =ust the 2 percent e9cise ta9 which pursuant to Section 40 co7prises the go&ern7ent share in ! SAs' Cowe&er, Section 112 liBewise does not co7e within the issues delineated by this %ourt, and was ne&er touched upon by the parties in their pleadings' !oreo&er, Section 112 7ay not properly apply to <TAAs' T)e mining la, o*viousl" meant to treat =TAAs as a *reed apart from mineral agreements ' There is absolutely no basis to belie&e that the law intends to e9act fro7 <TAA contractors 7erely the sa7e go&ern7ent share -i'e', the 2 percent e9cise ta9/ that it apparently de7ands fro7 contractors under the three for7s of 7ineral agree7ents' While there is ground to belie&e that Sections 40, 43 and 112 are indeed unconstitutional, they cannot be ruled upon here' +n any e&ent, they are separable@ thus, a later finding of nullity will not affect the rest of RA 7232' "* 8.*4, 1h4 cha994*G4+ 0ro6./.o*/ o8 RA 7942 ca**o1 <4 /a.+ 1o /5rr4*+4r 8.*a*c.a9 <4*48.1/ 8ro: a* $TAA 1o 1h4 8or4.G* co*1rac1or/. !oreo&er, there is no concrete basis for the &iew that, in <TAAs with a foreign contractor, the State 7ust recei&e at least 50 percent of the after,ta9 inco7e fro7 the e9ploitation of its 7ineral resources, and that such share is the e0ui&alent of the constitutional re0uire7ent that at least 50 percent of the capital, and hence 50 percent of the inco7e, of 7ining co7panies should re7ain in <ilipino hands' "&en if the State is entitled to a 50 percent share fro7 other 7ineral agree7ents -% A, 6AA and ! SA/, that would not create a parallel or analogous situation for <TAAs' We are dealing with an essentially different e0uation' Cere we ha&e the old apples and oranges syndro7e' The %harter did not intend to fi9 an iron,clad rule of 50 percent share, applicable to all situations, regardless of circu7stances' There is no indication of such an intention on the part of the fra7ers' !oreo&er, the ter7s and conditions of petroleu7 <TAAs cannot ser&e as standards for 7ineral 7ining <TAAs, because 1h4 14ch*.ca9 a*+ o04ra1.o*a9 r4N5.r4:4*1/, co/1 /1r5c15r4/ a*+ .*64/1:4*1 *44+/ o8 o88-/hor4 041ro945: 4309ora1.o* a*+ +r.99.*G co:0a*.4/ +o *o1 ha64 1h4 r4:o14/1 r4/4:<9a*c4 1o 1ho/4 o8 o*-/hor4 :.*.*G co:0a*.4/. To taBe the position that go&ern7entDs share 7ust be not less than 50 percent of after,ta9 inco7e of <TAA contractors is nothing short of this %ourt dictating upon the go&ern7ent' T)e State resultantl" ends up losing control. To a&oid co7pro7ising the StateDs full control and super&ision o&er the e9ploitation of 7ineral resources, there 7ust be no atte7pt to i7pose a ;7ini7u7 50 percent; rule' +t is sufficient that the State has the power and 7eans, should it so decide, to get a 50 percent share -or greater/@ and it is not necessary that the State does so in ever" case' <nvalid $rovisions of t)e /M+$ =TAA Section 7'2 of the W!% <TAA clearly renders illusory the StateDs 50 percent share of W!% Ds re&enues' *nder Section 7'2, should W!% Ds foreign stocBholders -who originally owned 100 percent of the e0uity/ sell 50 percent or 7ore of their e0uity to a <ilipino citi?en or corporation, the State loses its right to recei&e its share in net 7ining re&enues under Section 7'7, without any offsetting co7pensation to the State' And what is gi&en to the State in Section 7'7 is by 7ere tolerance of W!% Ds foreign stocBholders, who can at any ti7e cut off the go&ern7entDs entire share by si7ply selling 50 percent of W!% Ds e0uity to a hilippine citi?en or corporation' +n fact, the sale by W!% Ds foreign stocBholder on 6anuary 23, 2001 of the entire outstanding e0uity in W!% to Sagittarius !ines, +nc', a do7estic corporation at least 50 percent <ilipino owned, can be dee7ed to ha&e auto7atically triggered the operation of Section 7'2 and re7o&ed the StateDs right to recei&e its 50 percent share' Section 7'2 of the W!% <TAA has effecti&ely gi&en away the StateDs share without anything in e9change' !oreo&er, it constitutes un=ust enrich7ent on the part of the local and foreign stocBholders in W!% , because by the 7ere act of di&est7ent, the local and foreign stocBholders get a windfall, as their share in the net 7ining re&enues of W!% is auto7atically increased, without ha&ing to pay anything for it' $eing grossly disad&antageous to go&ern7ent and detri7ental to the <ilipino people, as well as &iolati&e of public policy, Section 7'2 7ust therefore be stricBen off as in&alid' The <TAA in 0uestion does not in&ol&e 7ere contractual rights but, being i7pressed as it is with public interest, the contractual pro&isions and stipulations 7ust yield to the co77on good and the national interest' Since the offending pro&ision is &ery 7uch separable fro7 the rest of the <TAA, the deletion of Section 7'2 can be done without affecting or re0uiring the in&alidation of the entire W!% <TAA itself' Section 7'4-e/ of the W!% <TAA liBewise is in&alid, since by allowing the su7s spent by go&ern7ent for the benefit of the contractor to be deductible fro7 the StateDs share in net 7ining re&enues, it results in benefiting the contractor twice o&er' This constitutes un=ust enrich7ent on the part of the contractor, at the e9pense of go&ern7ent' <or being grossly disad&antageous and pre=udicial to go&ern7ent and contrary to public policy, Section 7'4-e/ 7ust also be declared without effect' +t 7ay liBewise be stricBen off without affecting the rest of the <TAA'

EP"LOGUE A<T"R A)) +S SA+: A#: :(#", it is clear that there is unani7ous agree7ent in the %ourt upon the Bey principle that the State 7ust e9ercise full control and super&ision o&er the e9ploration, de&elop7ent and utili?ation of 7ineral resources' T)e cru! of t)e controvers" is t)e amount of discretion to *e accorded t)e &!ecutive (epartment, particularl" t)e $resident of t)e Repu*lic, in respect of negotiations over t)e terms of =TAAs, particularl" ,)en it comes to t)e government s)are of financial *enefits from =TAAs. The %ourt belie&es that it is not unconstitutional to allow a wide degree of discretion to the %hief "9ecuti&e, gi&en the nature and co7ple9ity of such agree7ents, the hu7ongous a7ounts of capital and financing re0uired for large,scale 7ining operations, the co7plicated technology needed, and the intricacies of international trade, coupled with the StateDs need to 7aintain fle9ibility in its dealings, in order to preser&e and enhance our countryDs co7petiti&eness in world 7arBets' We are all, in one way or another, sorely affected by the recently reported scandals in&ol&ing corruption in high places, duplicity in the negotiation of 7ulti,billion peso go&ern7ent contracts, huge payoffs to go&ern7ent officials, and other 7alfeasances@ and perhaps, there is the desire to see so7e 7easures put in place to pre&ent further abuse' oI464r, +.c1a1.*G 50o* 1h4 Pr4/.+4*1 Iha1 :.*.:5: /har4 1o G41 8ro: a* $TAA ./ *o1 1h4 /o951.o*. +t sets a bad precedent since such a 7o&e institutionali?es the &ery reduction if not depri&ation of the StateDs control' The re7edy 7ay be worse than the proble7 it was 7eant to address' +n any e&ent, pro&isions in such future agree7ents which 7ay be suspected to be grossly disad&antageous or detri7ental to go&ern7ent 7ay be challenged in court, and the culprits haled before the bar of =ustice' Aerily, under the doctrine of separation of powers and due respect for co,e0ual and coordinate branches of go&ern7ent, this %ourt 7ust restrain itself fro7 intruding into policy 7atters and 7ust allow the resident and %ongress 7a9i7u7 discretion in using the resources of our country and in securing the assistance of foreign groups to eradicate the grinding po&erty of our people and answer their cry for &iable e7ploy7ent opportunities in the country' ;T)e 6udiciar" is loat) to interfere ,it) t)e due e!ercise *" coe9ual *ranc)es of government of t)eir official functions';22 As aptly spelled out se&en decades ago by 6ustice 1eorge !alcol7, ; Just as t)e Supreme +ourt, as t)e guardian of constitutional rig)ts, s)ould not sanction usurpations *" an" ot)er department of government, so s)ould it as strictl" confine its o,n sp)ere of influence to t)e po,ers e!pressl" or *" implication conferred on it *" t)e rganic Act';100 )et the de&elop7ent of the 7ining industry be the responsibility of the political branches of go&ern7ent' And let not this %ourt interfere inordinately and unnecessarily' The %onstitution of the hilippines is the supre7e law of the land' +t is the repository of all the aspirations and hopes of a99 the people' We fully sy7pathi?e with the plight of etitioner )a $ugal $Dlaan and other tribal groups, and co77end their efforts to uplift their co77unities' Cowe&er, we cannot =ustify the in&alidation of an otherwise constitutional statute along with its i7ple7enting rules, or the nullification of an otherwise legal and binding <TAA contract' We 7ust ne&er forget that it is not only our less pri&ileged brethren in tribal and cultural co77unities who deser&e the attention of this %ourt@ rather, all parties concerned ,, including the State itself, the contractor -whether <ilipino or foreign/, and the &ast 7a=ority of our citi?ens ,, e0ually deser&e the protection of the law and of this %ourt' To stress, the benefits to be deri&ed by the State fro7 7ining acti&ities 7ust ulti7ately ser&e the great 7a=ority of our fellow citi?ens' They ha&e as 7uch right and interest in the proper and well,ordered de&elop7ent and utili?ation of the countryDs 7ineral resources as the petitioners' Whether we consider the near ter7 or taBe the longer &iew, we cannot o&ere7phasi?e the need for an a00ro0r.a14 <a9a*c.*G o8 .*14r4/1/ a*+ *44+/ ,, the need to de&elop our stagnating 7ining industry and e9tract what #":A Secretary Ro7ulo #eri esti7ates is so7e *SZ430 billion -appro9' h 37'03 trillion/ worth of 7ineral wealth lying hidden in the ground, in order to =u7pstart our floundering econo7y on the one hand, and on the other, the need to enhance our nationalistic aspirations, protect our indigenous co77unities, and pre&ent irre&ersible ecological da7age' This %ourt cannot but be 7indful that any decision rendered in this case will ulti7ately i7pact not only the cultural co77unities which lodged the instant etition, and not only the larger co77unity of the <ilipino people now struggling to sur&i&e a7idst a fiscalJbudgetary deficit, e&er increasing prices of fuel, food, and essential co77odities and ser&ices, the shrinBing &alue of the local currency, and a go&ern7ent ha7strung in its deli&ery of basic ser&ices by a se&ere lacB of resources, *ut also countless future generations of =ilipinos ' <or this latter group of <ilipinos yet to be born, their e&entual access to education, health care and basic ser&ices, their o&erall le&el of well,being, the &ery shape of their li&es are e&en now being deter7ined and affected partly by the policies and directions being adopted and i7ple7ented by go&ern7ent today' And in part *" t)e t)is Resolution rendered *" t)is +ourt toda". Aerily, the 7ineral wealth and natural resources of this country are 7eant to benefit not 7erely a select group of people li&ing in the areas locally affected by 7ining acti&ities, but the entire <ilipino nation, present and future, to

who7 the 7ineral wealth really belong' This %ourt has therefore weighed carefully the rights and interests of all concerned, and decided for the greater good of the greatest nu7ber' 6*ST+%" <(R A)), not =ust for so7e@ 6*ST+%" <(R TC" R"S"#T A#: TC" <*T*R", not =ust for the here and now' - ERE$ORE, the %ourt R&S LV&S to GRA'T the respondentsD and the inter&enorsD !otions for Reconsideration@ to R&V&RS& and S&T AS<(& this %ourtDs 6anuary 27, 2003 :ecision@ to (<SM<SS the etition@ and to issue this new =udg7ent declaring + 'ST<T@T< 'AL -1/ Republic Act #o' 7232 -the hilippine !ining )aw/, -2/ its +7ple7enting Rules and Regulations contained in :"#R Ad7inistrati&e (rder -:A(/ #o' 2530 ,, insofar as they relate to financial and technical assistance agree7ents referred to in paragraph 3 of Section 2 of Article K++ of the %onstitution@ and -3/ the <inancial and Technical Assistance Agree7ent -<TAA/ dated !arch 30, 122. e9ecuted by the go&ern7ent and Western !ining %orporation hilippines +nc' -W!% /, e9cept Sections 7'4 and 7'2 of the sub=ect <TAA which are hereby +#AA)+:AT": for being contrary to public policy and for being grossly disad&antageous to the go&ern7ent' S( (R:"R":

G.R. No. 1741)3

Oc1o<4r 2), 2@@6 6,327,9)2 REG"STERE%

RAUL L. LAM("NO a*+ ER"CO (. AUMENTA%O, TOGET ER -"T VOTERS, etitioners, &s' T E COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 ALTERNAT"VE LA- GROUPS, "NC., +nter&enor' 9 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 9

ONEVO"CE "NC., C R"ST"AN S.MONSO%, RENE (. A&UR"N, MANUEL L. DUE&ON """, (ENJAM"N T. TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE, a*+ CARLOS P. ME%"NA, JR., +nter&enors' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 9 ATT#. PETE DU"R"NO DUA%RA, +nter&enor' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 (A#AN r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ Cha.r04r/o* %r. Caro9.*a PaGa+5a*-Ara599o, (A#AN MUNA r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ Cha.r04r/o* %r. R42*a9+o L4/aca, ,"LUSANG MA#O UNO r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ S4cr41ar2 G4*4ra9 Jo49 MaG95*/o+, EA% r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ S4cr41ar2 G4*4ra9 %r. G4*4 A9Jo*a N./04ro/, ECUMEN"CAL ("S OPS $ORUM r40r4/4*14+ <2 $r. %.o*.1o Ca<.99a/, M"GRANTE r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ Cha.r04r/o* Co*c40c.o* (raGa/-R4Ga9a+o, GA(R"ELA r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ S4cr41ar2 G4*4ra9 E:4r4*c.a*a +4 J4/5/, GA(R"ELA -OMENPS PART# r40r4/4*14+ <2 S4c. G4*. Cr./1.*a Pa9a<a2, ANA,(A#AN r40r4/4*14+ <2 Cha.r04r/o* E94a*or +4 G5J:a*, LEAGUE O$ $"L"P"NO STU%ENTS r40r4/4*14+ <2 Cha.r V4*c4r Cr./o/1o:o Pa9a<a2, JOJO P"NE%A o8 1h4 L4aG54 o8 Co*c4r*4+ Pro84//.o*a9/ a*+ (5/.*4//:4*, %R. %AR(# SANT"AGO o8 1h4 So9.+ar.12 o8 4a91h AGa.*/1 Char14r Cha*G4, %R. REG"NAL% PAMUGAS o8 4a91h Ac1.o* 8or 5:a* R.Gh1/, +nter&enors' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, MAR"O JO#O AGUJA, a*+ ANA T ERESA ONT"VEROS(ARADUEL,+nter&enors' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 ARTURO M. %E CASTRO, +nter&enor' 9 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 9 TRA%E UN"ON CONGRESS O$ T E P "L"PP"NES, +nter&enor' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 LU-AL AT" R"CASA ANTON"NO, +nter&enor'

9 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 9 P "L"PP"NE CONST"TUT"ON ASSOC"AT"ON EP "LCONSAF, CONRA%O $. ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLE%O, MAR"ANO M. TAJON, $RO"LAN M. (ACUNGAN, JOADU"N T. VENUS, JR., $ORTUNATO P. AGUAS, a*+ AMA%O GAT "NC"ONG, +nter&enors' 9 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 9 RONAL% L. A%AMAT, ROLAN%O MANUEL R"VERA, a*+ RUELO (A#A, +nter&enors' 9 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 9 P "L"PP"NE TRANSPORT AN% GENERAL -OR,ERS ORGAN"&AT"ON EPTG-OF a*+ MR. V"CTOR"NO $. (ALA"S, +nter&enors' 9 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 9 SENATE O$ T E P "L"PP"NES, r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ Pr4/.+4*1, MANUEL V"LLAR, JR., +nter&enor' 9 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 9 SULONG (A#AN MOVEMENT $OUN%AT"ON, "NC., +nter&enor' 9 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 9 JOSE ANSELMO ". CA%"&, (#RON %. (OCAR, MA. TAN#A ,AR"NA A. LAT, ANTON"O L. SALVA%OR, a*+ RAN%ALL TA(A#O#ONG, +nter&enors' 9 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 9 "NTEGRATE% (AR O$ T E P "L"PP"NES, CE(U C"T# AN% CE(U PROV"NCE C APTERS, +nter&enors' 9 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 SENATE M"NOR"T# LEA%ER ADU"L"NO D. P"MENTEL, JR. a*+ SENATORS SERG"O R. OSMENA """, JAM(# MA%R"GAL, J"NGGO# ESTRA%A, AL$RE%O S. L"M a*+ PAN$"LO LACSON, +nter&enors' 9 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 JOSEP EJERC"TO ESTRA%A a*+ P-ERSA NG MASANG P"L"P"NO, +nter&enors' 9 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 174299 Oc1o<4r 2), 2@@6

MAR-LEN A("GA"L ("NA#, SO$RON"O UNTALAN, JR., a*+ RENE A.V. SAGU"SAG, etitioners, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, r40r4/4*14+ <2 Cha.r:a* (ENJAM"N S. A(ALOS, SR., a*+ Co::.//.o*4r/ RESURRECC"ON &. (ORRA, $LORENT"NO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. (RA-NER, RENE V. SARM"ENTO, N"CO%EMO T. $ERRER, a*+ Joh* %o4 a*+ P414r %o4,, Respondent'

:"%+S+(#

CARP"O, J.: Th4 Ca/4 These are consolidated petitions on the Resolution dated 31 August 2005 of the %o77ission on "lections -;COMELEC;/ denying due course to an initiati&e petition to a7end the 1247 %onstitution' A*14c4+4*1 $ac1/

(n 1. <ebruary 2005, petitioners in 1'R' #o' 1731.3, na7ely Raul )' La:<.*o and "rico $' Au7entado -;La:<.*o 1roup;/, with other groups1 and indi&iduals, co77enced gathering signatures for an initiati&e petition to change the 1247 %onstitution' (n 2. August 2005, the La:<.*o 1roup filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiati&e petition under Section .-b/ and -c/ 2 and Section 73 of Republic Act #o' 573. or the +nitiati&e and Referendu7 Act -;RA 573.;/' The La:<.*o 1roup alleged that their petition had the support of 5,327,2.2 indi&iduals constituting at least twel&eper centum -12Q/ of all registered &oters, with each legislati&e district represented by at least three per centum-3Q/ of its registered &oters' The La:<.*o 1roup also clai7ed that COMELEC election registrars had &erified the signatures of the 5'3 7illion indi&iduals' The La:<.*o 1roupDs initiati&e petition changes the 1247 %onstitution by 7odifying Sections 1,7 of Article A+ -)egislati&e :epart7ent/3 and Sections 1,3 of Article A++ -"9ecuti&e :epart7ent/ . and by adding Article KA+++ entitled ;Transitory ro&isions';5 These proposed changes will shift the present $ica7eral, residential syste7 to a *nica7eral, arlia7entary for7 of go&ern7ent' The La:<.*o 1roup prayed that after due publication of their petition, the COMELEC should sub7it the following proposition in a plebiscite for the &otersD ratification8 :( L(* A R(A" TC" A!"#:!"#T (< ART+%)"S A+ A#: A++ (< TC" 1247 %(#ST+T*T+(#, %CA#1+#1 TC" <(R! (< 1(A"R#!"#T <R(! TC" R"S"#T $+%A!"RA), R"S+:"#T+A) T( A *#+%A!"RA), AR)+A!"#TARL SLST"!, A#: R(A+:+#1 ART+%)" KA+++ AS TRA#S+T(RL R(A+S+(#S <(R TC" (R:"R)L SC+<T <R(! (#" SLST"! T( TC" (TC"RH (n 30 August 2005, the La:<.*o 1roup filed an A7ended etition with the COMELEC indicating 7odifications in the proposed Article KA+++ -Transitory ro&isions/ of their initiati&e' 7 Th4 R59.*G o8 1h4 COMELEC (n 31 August 2005, the COMELEC issued its Resolution denying due course to the La:<.*o 1roupDs petition for lacB of an enabling law go&erning initiati&e petitions to a7end the %onstitution' The COMELEC in&oBed this %ourtDs ruling in Santiago v. +ommission on &lections4 declaring RA 573. inade0uate to i7ple7ent the initiati&e clause on proposals to a7end the %onstitution' 2 +n 1'R' #o' 1731.3, the La:<.*o 1roup prays for the issuance of the writs of certiorari and 7anda7us to set aside the COMELEC Resolution of 31 August 2005 and to co7pel the COMELEC to gi&e due course to their initiati&e petition' The La:<.*o 1roup contends that the COMELEC co77itted gra&e abuse of discretion in denying due course to their petition since antiago is not a binding precedent' Alternati&ely, the La:<.*o 1roup clai7s that antiago binds only the parties to that case, and their petition deser&es cogni?ance as an e9pression of the ;will of the so&ereign people'; +n 1'R' #o' 173222, petitioners -;$inay 1roup;/ pray that the %ourt re0uire respondent COMELEC %o77issioners to show cause why they should not be cited in conte7pt for the %(!")"%Ds &erification of signatures and for ;entertaining; the La:<.*o 1roupDs petition despite the per7anent in=unction in antiago' The %ourt treated the $inay 1roupDs petition as an opposition,in,inter&ention' +n his %o77ent to the La:<.*o 1roupDs petition, the Solicitor 1eneral =oined causes with the petitioners, urging the %ourt to grant the petition despite the antiago ruling' The Solicitor 1eneral proposed that the %ourt treat RA 573. and its i7ple7enting rules ;as te7porary de&ises to i7ple7ent the syste7 of initiati&e'; Aarious groups and indi&iduals sought inter&ention, filing pleadings supporting or opposing the La:<.*o 1roupDs petition' The supporting inter&enors10 unifor7ly hold the &iew that the COMELEC co77itted gra&e abuse of discretion in relying on antiago' (n the other hand, the opposing inter&enors 11 hold the contrary &iew and 7aintain that antiago is a binding precedent' The opposing inter&enors also challenged -1/ the La:<.*o1roupDs standing to file the petition@ -2/ the &alidity of the signature gathering and &erification process@ -3/ the La:<.*o 1roupDs co7pliance with the 7ini7u7 re0uire7ent for the percentage of &oters supporting an initiati&e petition under Section 2, Article KA++ of the 1247 %onstitution@12 -3/ the nature of the proposed changes as re&isions and not 7ere a7end7ents as pro&ided under Section 2, Article KA++ of the 1247 %onstitution@ and -./ the La:<.*o 1roupDs co7pliance with the re0uire7ent in Section 10-a/ of RA 573. li7iting initiati&e petitions to only one sub=ect' The %ourt heard the parties and inter&enors in oral argu7ents on 25 Septe7ber 2005' After recei&ing the partiesD 7e7oranda, the %ourt considered the case sub7itted for resolution' Th4 "//54/ The petitions raise the following issues8 1' Whether the La:<.*o 1roupDs initiati&e petition co7plies with Section 2, Article KA++ of the %onstitution on a7end7ents to the %onstitution through a peopleDs initiati&e@

2' Whether this %ourt should re&isit its ruling in antiago declaring RA 573. ;inco7plete, inade0uate or wanting in essential ter7s and conditions; to i7ple7ent the initiati&e clause on proposals to a7end the %onstitution@ and 3' Whether the COMELEC co77itted gra&e abuse of discretion in denying due course to the La:<.*o 1roupDs petition' Th4 R59.*G o8 1h4 Co5r1 There is no 7erit to the petition' The La:<.*o 1roup 7iserably failed to co7ply with the basic re0uire7ents of the %onstitution for conducting a peopleDs initiati&e' Thus, there is e&en no need to re&isit antiago, as the present petition warrants dis7issal based alone on the La:<.*o 1roupDs glaring failure to co7ply with the basic re0uire7ents of the %onstitution' <or following the %ourtDs ruling in Santiago, no gra&e abuse of discretion is attributable to the %o77ision on "lections' 0. The Initiative Petition 'oes 1ot Comp!y /ith ection 2, )rtic!e 34II of the Constitution on 'irect Proposa! by the Peop!e Section 2, Article KA++ of the %onstitution is the go&erning constitutional pro&ision that allows a peopleDs initiati&e to propose a7end7ents to the %onstitution' This section states8 Sec' 2' A7end7ents to this %onstitution 7ay liBewise be +.r4c192 0ro0o/4+ <2 1h4 04o094 1hro5Gh .*.1.a1.64 50o* a 041.1.o* of at least twel&e per centum of the total nu7ber of registered &oters of which e&ery legislati&e district 7ust be represented by at least three per centum of the registered &oters therein' 9 9 9 9 -"7phasis supplied/ The deliberations of the %onstitutional %o77ission &i&idly e9plain the 7eaning of an a7end7ent ; +.r4c192 0ro0o/4+ <2 1h4 04o094 1hro5Gh .*.1.a1.64 50o* a 041.1.o*,; thus8 !R' R(:R+1(8 )et us looB at the 7echanics' )et us say so7e &oters want to propose a constitutional a7end7ent' "/ 1h4 +ra81 o8 1h4 0ro0o/4+ co*/1.151.o*a9 a:4*+:4*1 r4a+2 1o <4 /hoI* 1o 1h4 04o094 Ih4* 1h42 ar4 a/H4+ 1o /.G*H !R' S*AR"M8 Tha1 ca* <4 r4a/o*a<92 a//5:4+, !ada7 resident' !R' R(:R+1(8 What does the sponsor 7eanH Th4 +ra81 ./ r4a+2 a*+ /hoI* 1o 1h4: <48or4 1h42 /.G*' #ow, who prepares the draftH !R' S*AR"M8 The people the7sel&es, !ada7 resident' !R' R(:R+1(8 #o, because <48or4 1h42 /.G* 1h4r4 ./ a9r4a+2 a +ra81 /hoI* 1o 1h4: and they are asBed whether or not they want to propose this constitutional a7end7ent' !R' S*AR"M8 As it is en&isioned, any <ilipino can 0r40ar4 1ha1 0ro0o/a9 a*+ 0a// .1 aro5*+ 8or /.G*a15r4'13 -"7phasis supplied/ %learly, the fra7ers of the %onstitution intended that the ; +ra81 o8 1h4 0ro0o/4+ co*/1.151.o*a9 a:4*+:4*1; should be ;r4a+2 a*+ /hoI*; to the people ;<48or4; they sign such proposal' The fra7ers plainly stated that ;<48or4 1h42 /.G* 1h4r4 ./ a9r4a+2 a +ra81 /hoI* 1o 1h4:'; The fra7ers also ;4*6./.o*4+; that the people should sign o* 1h4 0ro0o/a9 .1/498 because the proponents 7ust ;0r40ar4 1ha1 0ro0o/a9 a*+ 0a// .1 aro5*+ 8or /.G*a15r4'; The essence of a7end7ents ;+.r4c192 0ro0o/4+ <2 1h4 04o094 1hro5Gh .*.1.a1.64 50o* a 041.1.o*; is that1h4 4*1.r4 0ro0o/a9 o* .1/ 8ac4 ./ a 041.1.o* <2 1h4 04o094' This 7eans two essential ele7ents 7ust be present' <irst, the people 7ust author and thus sign the entire proposal' #o agent or representati&e can sign on their behalf' Second, as an initiati&e upon a petition, the proposal 7ust be e7bodied in a petition' These essential ele7ents are present only if the full te9t of the proposed a7end7ents is 8.r/1 /hoI* to the people who e9press their assent by signing such co7plete proposal in a petition' Th5/, a* a:4*+:4*1 ./ L+.r4c192 0ro0o/4+ <2 1h4 04o094 1hro5Gh .*.1.a1.64 50o* a 041.1.o*L o*92 .8 1h4 04o094 /.G* o* a 041.1.o* 1ha1 co*1a.*/ 1h4 8599 1431 o8 1h4 0ro0o/4+ a:4*+:4*1/' The full te9t of the proposed a7end7ents 7ay be either written on the face of the petition, or attached to it' +f so attached, the petition 7ust state the fact of such attach7ent' This is an assurance that e&ery one of the se&eral 7illions of signatories to the petition had seen the full te9t of the proposed a7end7ents before signing' (therwise, it is physically i7possible, gi&en the ti7e constraint, to pro&e that e&ery one of the 7illions of signatories had seen the full te9t of the proposed a7end7ents before signing'

The fra7ers of the %onstitution directly borrowed13 the concept of peopleDs initiati&e fro7 the *nited States where &arious State constitutions incorporate an initiati&e clause' +n al7ost all States 1. which allow initiati&e petitions, 1h4 5*<4*+.*G r4N5.r4:4*1 ./ 1ha1 1h4 04o094 :5/1 8.r/1 /44 1h4 8599 1431 o8 1h4 0ro0o/4+ a:4*+:4*1/ <48or4 1h42 /.G* 1o /.G*.82 1h4.r a//4*1, a*+ 1ha1 1h4 04o094 :5/1 /.G* o* a* .*.1.a1.64 041.1.o* 1ha1 co*1a.*/ 1h4 8599 1431 o8 1h4 0ro0o/4+ a:4*+:4*1/'15 The rationale for this re0uire7ent has been repeatedly e9plained in se&eral decisions of &arious courts' Thus, inCape..uto v. tate Ba!!ot Commission, the upreme Court of "assachusetts, affir7ed by the <irst %ircuit %ourt of Appeals, declared8 ;A= /.G*a15r4 r4N5.r4:4*1 Io59+ <4 :4a*.*G94// .8 1h4 04r/o* /50092.*G 1h4 /.G*a15r4 ha/ *o1 8.r/1 /44* Iha1 .1 ./ 1ha1 h4 or /h4 ./ /.G*.*G' <urther, and 7ore i7portantly, loose interpretation of the subscription re0uire7ent can pose a significant potential for fraud' A person per7itted to describe orally the contents of an initiati&e petition to a potential signer, without the signer ha&ing actually e9a7ined the petition, could easily 7islead the signer by, for e9a7ple, o7itting, downplaying, or e&en flatly 7isrepresenting, portions of the petition that 7ight not be to the signerDs liBing' Th./ +a*G4r /44:/ 0ar1.c59ar92 ac514 Ih4*, .* 1h./ ca/4, 1h4 04r/o* G.6.*G 1h4 +4/cr.01.o* ./ 1h4 +ra814r o8 1h4 041.1.o*, Iho o<6.o5/92 ha/ a 64/14+ .*14r4/1 .* /44.*G 1ha1 .1 G41/ 1h4 r4N5./.14 /.G*a15r4/ 1o N5a9.82 8or 1h4 <a99o1'17 -$oldfacing and underscoring supplied/ )iBewise, in 5err v. Bradbury,14 the %ourt of Appeals of (regon e9plained8 The purposes of ;full te9t; pro&isions that apply to a7end7ents by initiati&e co77only are described in si7ilar ter7s' 9 9 9 -Th4 05r0o/4 o8 1h4 8599 1431 r4N5.r4:4*1 ./ 1o 0ro6.+4 /588.c.4*1 .*8or:a1.o* /o 1ha1 r4G./14r4+ 6o14r/ ca* .*1499.G4*192 46a95a14 Ih41h4r 1o /.G* 1h4 .*.1.a1.64 041.1.o*. ;/@ 9 9 9 -publication of full te9t of a7ended constitutional pro&ision re0uired because it is ;essential for the elector to ha&e 9 9 9 the section which is proposed to be added to or subtracted fro7' +f he is to &ote intelligently, he 7ust ha&e this Bnowledge' (therwise in 7any instances he would be re0uired to &ote in the darB';/ -"7phasis supplied/ !oreo&er, ;an initiati&e signer 7ust be infor7ed at the ti7e of signing of the *a15r4 a*+ 4884c1 of that which is proposed; and failure to do so is ;+4c401.64 a*+ :./94a+.*G; which renders the initiati&e &oid'12 Section 2, Article KA++ of the %onstitution does not e9pressly state that the petition 7ust set forth the full te9t of the proposed a7end7ents' Cowe&er, the deliberations of the fra7ers of our %onstitution clearly show that the fra7ers intended to adopt the rele&ant A7erican =urisprudence on peopleDs initiati&e' +n particular, the deliberations of the %onstitutional %o77ission 4309.c.192 r464a9 that the fra7ers intended 1ha1 1h4 04o094 :5/1 8.r/1 /44 1h4 8599 1431 o8 1h4 0ro0o/4+ a:4*+:4*1/ <48or4 1h42 /.G*, a*+ 1ha1 1h4 04o094 :5/1 /.G* o* a 041.1.o* co*1a.*.*G /5ch 8599 1431' +ndeed, Section .-b/ of Republic Act #o' 573., the +nitiati&e and Referendu7 Act that the La:<.*o 1roup in&oBes as &alid, re0uires that the people 7ust sign the ;041.1.o* 3 3 3 a/ /.G*a1or.4/'; The proponents of the initiati&e secure the signatures fro7 the people' The proponents secure the signatures in their pri&ate capacity and not as public officials' The proponents are not disinterested parties who can i7partially e9plain the ad&antages and disad&antages of the proposed a7end7ents to the people' The proponents present fa&orably their proposal to the people and do not present the argu7ents against their proposal' The proponents, or their supporters, often pay those who gather the signatures' Thus, there is no presu7ption that the proponents obser&ed the constitutional re0uire7ents in gathering the signatures' The proponents bear the burden of pro&ing that they co7plied with the constitutional re0uire7ents in gathering the signatures , 1ha1 1h4 041.1.o* co*1a.*4+, or .*cor0ora14+ <2 a11ach:4*1, 1h4 8599 1431 o8 1h4 0ro0o/4+ a:4*+:4*1/' The La:<.*o 1roup did not attach to their present petition with this %ourt a copy of the paper that the people signed as their initiati&e petition' The La:<.*o 1roup sub7itted to this %ourt a copy of a /.G*a15r4 /h44120 after the oral argu7ents of 25 Septe7ber 2005 when they filed their !e7orandu7 on 11 (ctober 2005' The signature sheet with this %ourt during the oral argu7ents was the signature sheet attached 21 to the opposition in inter&ention filed on 7 Septe7ber 2005 by inter&enor Atty' ete Iuirino,Iuadra' The signature sheet attached to Atty' IuadraDs opposition and the signature sheet attached to the La:<.*o1roupDs !e7orandu7 are the /a:4' We reproduce below the signature sheet in full8 ro&ince8 %ityJ!unicipality8 )egislati&e :istrict8 $arangay8 #o' of Aerified Signatures8 R( (S+T+(#8 ;:( L(* A R(A" (< TC" A!"#:!"#T (< ART+%)"S A+ A#: A++ (< TC" 1247 %(#ST+T*T+(#, %CA#1+#1 TC" <(R! (< 1(A"R#!"#T <R(! TC" R"S"#T $+%A!"RA),

R"S+:"#T+A) T( A *#+%A!"RA), AR)+A!"#TARL SLST"! (< 1(A"R#!"#T, +# (R:"R T( A%C+"A" 1R"AT"R "<<+%+"#%L, S+! )+%+TL A#: "%(#(!L +# 1(A"R#!"#T@ A#: R(A+:+#1 A# ART+%)" KA+++ AS TRA#S+T(RL R(A+S+(#S <(R TC" (R:"R)L SC+<T <R(! (#" SLST"! T( A#(TC"RH; < )ere*" A$$R V& t)e proposed amendment to t)e 4;GE +onstitution. M" signature )erein ,)ic) s)all form part of t)e petition for initiative to amend t)e +onstitution signifies m" support for t)e filing t)ereof ' recinct #u7ber 1 2 3 3 . 5 7 4 2 10 YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY $arangay (fficial - rint #a7e and Sign/ YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Witness - rint #a7e and Sign/ YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Witness - rint #a7e and Sign/ #a7e )ast #a7e, <irst #a7e, !'+' Address $irthdate !!J::JLL Signature Aerification

Th4r4 ./ *o1 a /.*G94 Ior+, 0hra/4, or /4*14*c4 o8 1431 o8 1h4 La:<.*o Gro50P/ 0ro0o/4+ cha*G4/ .* 1h4 /.G*a15r4 /h441. N4.1h4r +o4/ 1h4 /.G*a15r4 /h441 /1a14 1ha1 1h4 1431 o8 1h4 0ro0o/4+ cha*G4/ ./ a11ach4+ 1o .1' etitioner Atty' Raul La:<.*o ad7itted this during the oral argu7ents before this %ourt on 25 Septe7ber 2005' The signature sheet 7erely asBs a 0uestion whether the people appro&e a shift fro7 the $ica7eral, residential to the *nica7eral, arlia7entary syste7 of go&ern7ent' Th4 /.G*a15r4 /h441 +o4/ *o1 /hoI 1o 1h4 04o094 1h4 +ra81 o8 1h4 0ro0o/4+ cha*G4/ <48or4 1h42 ar4 a/H4+ 1o /.G* 1h4 /.G*a15r4 /h441 ' %learly, the signature sheet is not the ;petition; that the fra7ers of the %onstitution en&isioned when they for7ulated the initiati&e clause in Section 2, Article KA++ of the %onstitution' etitioner Atty' La:<.*o, howe&er, e9plained that during the signature,gathering fro7 <ebruary to August 2005, the La:<.*o 1roup circulated, together with the signature sheets, printed copies of the La:<.*o 1roupDs draft petition which they later filed on 2. August 2005 with the COMELEC' When asBed if his group also circulated the draft of their a7ended petition filed on 30 August 2005 with the COMELEC, Atty' La:<.*o initially replied that they circulated both' Cowe&er, Atty' La:<.*o changed his answer and stated that what his group circulated was the draft of the 30 August 2005 a7ended petition, not the draft of the 2. August 2005 petition' The La:<.*o 1roup would ha&e this %ourt belie&e that they prepared the draft of the 30 August 2005 a7ended petition a9:o/1 /464* :o*1h/ 4ar9.4r .* $4<r5ar2 2@@6 when they started gathering signatures' etitioner "rico $' Au7entadoDs ;AerificationJ%ertification; of the 2. August 2005 petition, as well as of the 30 August 2005 a7ended petition, filed with the COMELEC, states as follows8 + ha&e caused the preparation of the foregoing FA7endedG etition in 7y personal capacity as a registered &oter, 8or a*+ o* <4ha98 o8 1h4 U*.o* o8 Loca9 A51hor.1.4/ o8 1h4 Ph.9.00.*4/, a/ /hoI* <2 ULAP R4/o951.o* No. 2@@6-@2 h4r41o a11ach4+, and as representati&e of the 7ass of signatories hereto' -"7phasis supplied/ The La:<.*o 1roup failed to attach a copy of *)A Resolution #o' 2005,02 to the present petition' Cowe&er, the ;(fficial Website of the *nion of )ocal Authorities of the hilippines; 22 has posted the full te9t of Resolution #o' 2005,02, which pro&ides8 RESOLUT"ON NO. 2@@6-@2 RESOLUT"ON SUPPORT"NG T E PROPOSALS O$ T E PEOPLEPS CONSULTAT"VE COMM"SS"ON ON C ARTER C ANGE T ROUG PEOPLEPS "N"T"AT"VE AN% RE$EREN%UM AS A MO%E O$ AMEN%"NG T E 19?7 CONST"TUT"ON - EREAS, there is a need for the *nion of )ocal Authorities of the hilippines -*)A / to adopt a co77on stand on the approach to support the proposals of the eopleDs %onsultati&e %o77ission on %harter %hange@

- EREAS, *)A 7aintains its un0ualified support to the agenda of Cer "9cellency resident 1loria !acapagal,Arroyo for constitutional refor7s as e7bodied in the *)A 6oint :eclaration for %onstitutional Refor7s signed by the 7e7bers of the *)A and the 7a=ority coalition of the Couse of Representati&es in !anila Cotel so7eti7e in (ctober 200.@ - EREAS, the eopleDs %onsultati&e %o77ission on %harter %hange created by Cer "9cellency to reco77end a7end7ents to the 1247 %onstitution has sub7itted its final report so7eti7e in :ece7ber 200.@ - EREAS, the *)A is 7indful of the current political de&elop7ents in %ongress which 7ilitates against the use of the e9peditious for7 of a7ending the 1247 %onstitution@ - EREAS, sub=ect to the ratification of its institutional 7e7bers and the failure of %ongress to a7end the %onstitution as a constituent asse7bly, *)A has unani7ously agreed to pursue the constitutional refor7 agenda through eopleDs +nitiati&e and Referendu7 without pre=udice to other prag7atic 7eans to pursue the sa7e@ - ERE$ORE, (E "T RESOLVE% AS "T "S ERE(# RESOLVE%, T AT ALL T E MEM(ER-LEAGUES O$ T E UN"ON O$ LOCAL AUT OR"T"ES O$ T E P "L"PP"NES EULAPF SUPPORT T E PORPOSALS ES"CF O$ T E PEOPLEPS CONSULATAT"VE ES"CF COMM"SS"ON ON C ARTER C ANGE T ROUG PEOPLEPS "N"T"AT"VE AN% RE$EREN%UM AS A MO%E O$ AMEN%"NG T E 19?7 CONST"TUT"ON7 %ONE, during the *)A #ational "9ecuti&e $oard special 7eeting held on 13 6anuary 2005 at the %entury arB Cotel, !anila'23 -*nderscoring supplied/ *)A Resolution #o' 2005,02 +o4/ *o1 a51hor.J4 petitioner Au7entado to prepare the 2. August 2005 petition, or the 30 August 2005 a7ended petition, filed with the COMELEC' *)A Resolution #o' 2005,02 ;/500or1E/F 1h4 0or0o/a9/ E/.cF o8 1h4 Co*/59a1a1.64 E/.cF Co::.//.o* o* Char14r Cha*G4 through peopleDs initiati&e and referendu7 as a 7ode of a7ending the 1247 %onstitution'; The proposals of the %onsultati&e %o77ission23 are6a/192 +.884r4*1 fro7 the proposed changes of the La:<.*o 1roup in the 2. August 2005 petition or 30 August 2005 a7ended petition filed with the COMELEC' <or e9a7ple, the proposed re&isions of the %onsultati&e %o77ission affect a99 0ro6./.o*/ of the e9isting %onstitution, 8ro: 1h4 Pr4a:<94 1o 1h4 Tra*/.1or2 Pro6./.o*/' The proposed re&isions ha&e profound i7pact on the 6udiciary and the #ational atri7ony pro&isions of the e9isting %onstitution, pro&isions that the La:<.*o1roupDs proposed changes do not touch' The La:<.*o 1roupDs proposed changes purport to affect only Articles A+ and A++ of the e9isting %onstitution, including the introduction of new Transitory ro&isions' The *)A adopted Resolution #o' 2005,02 on 13 6anuary 2005 or 7ore than si9 7onths before the filing of the 2. August 2005 petition or the 30 August 2005 a7ended petition with the COMELEC' Cowe&er, *)A Resolution #o' 2005,02 does not establish that *)A or the La:<.*o 1roup caused the circulation of the draft petition, together with the signature sheets, si9 7onths before the filing with the COMELEC' (n the contrary, ULAP R4/o951.o* No. 2@@6-@2 ca/1/ Gra64 +o5<1 o* 1h4 La:<.*o Gro50P/ c9a.: 1ha1 1h42 c.rc59a14+ 1h4 +ra81 041.1.o* 1oG41h4r I.1h 1h4 /.G*a15r4 /h441/. ULAP R4/o951.o* No. 2@@6-@2 +o4/ *o1 r484r a1 a99 1o 1h4 +ra81 041.1.o* or 1o 1h4 La:<.*o Gro50P/ 0ro0o/4+ cha*G4/' +n their !anifestation e9plaining their a7ended petition before the COMELEC, the La:<.*o 1roup declared8 After the etition was filed, etitioners belatedly reali?ed that the proposed a7end7ents alleged in the etition, 7ore specifically, paragraph 3 of Section 3 and paragraph 2 of Section . of the Transitory ro&isions were inaccurately stated and failed to correctly reflect their proposed a7end7ents' The La:<.*o 1roup did not allege that they were a7ending the petition because the a7ended petition was what they had shown to the people during the <ebruary to August 2005 signature,gathering' +nstead, the La:<.*o1roup alleged that the petition of 2. August 2005 ;inaccurately stated and failed to correctly reflect their proposed a7end7ents'; The La:<.*o 1roup *464r a994G4+ in the 2. August 2005 petition or the 30 August 2005 a7ended petition with the COMELEC that they circulated printed copies of the draft petition together with the signature sheets' )iBewise, the La:<.*o 1roup did *o1 allege in their present petition before this %ourt that they circulated printed copies of the draft petition together with the signature sheets' The signature sheets do not also contain any indication that the draft petition is attached to, or circulated with, the signature sheets' +t is only in their %onsolidated Reply to the (pposition,in,+nter&entions that the La:<.*o 1roup first clai7ed that they circulated the ;petition for initiati&e filed with the COMELEC,; thus8 FTGhere is persuasi&e authority to the effect that LEIFh4r4 1h4r4 ./ *o1 E/.cF 8ra5+, a /.G*4r Iho +.+ *o1 r4a+ 1h4 :4a/5r4 a11ach4+ 1o a r484r4*+5: 041.1.o* ca**o1 N54/1.o* h./ /.G*a15r4 o* 1h4 Gro5*+ 1ha1 h4 +.+ *o1 5*+4r/1a*+ 1h4 *a15r4 o8 1h4 ac1.L F42 %'6'S' S124h' !o' State 6' Sulli&an, 223, S'W' 327,

243 !o' .35'G Thus, 1h4 r4G./14r4+ 6o14r/ Iho /.G*4+ 1h4 /.G*a15r4 /h441/ c.rc59a14+ 1oG41h4r I.1h 1h4 041.1.o* 8or .*.1.a1.64 8.94+ I.1h 1h4 COMELEC <49oI, are presu7ed to ha&e understood the proposition contained in the petition' -"7phasis supplied/ The La:<.*o 1roupDs state7ent that they circulated to the people ;1h4 041.1.o* 8or .*.1.a1.64 8.94+ I.1h 1h4COMELEC; appears an afterthought, 7ade after the inter&enors +ntegrated $ar of the hilippines -%ebu %ity %hapter and %ebu ro&ince %hapters/ and Atty' Iuadra had pointed out that the signature sheets did not contain the te9t of the proposed changes' +n their %onsolidated Reply, the La:<.*o 1roup alleged that they circulated ;1h4 041.1.o* 8or .*.1.a1.64; but failed to 7ention the a:4*+4+ 041.1.o*' This contradicts what Atty' La:<.*ofinally stated during the oral argu7ents that what they circulated was the draft of the a:4*+4+ 041.1.o* of 30 August 2005' The La:<.*o 1roup cites as authority +orpus Juris Secundum, stating that ;a signer who did not read 1h4 :4a/5r4 attached 1o a r484r4*+5: 041.1.o* cannot 0uestion his signature on the ground that he did not understand the nature of the act'; The La:<.*o 1roup 0uotes an authority that cites a 0ro0o/4+ cha*G4attached 1o 1h4 041.1.o* /.G*4+ <2 1h4 04o094' "&en the authority the La:<.*o 1roup 0uotes re0uires that the proposed change 7ust be attached to the petition' The sa7e authority the La:<.*o 1roup 0uotes re0uires the people to sign on the petition itself' +ndeed, it is basic in A7erican =urisprudence that the proposed a7end7ent 7ust be incorporated with, or attached to, the initiati&e petition signed by the people' +n the present initiati&e, the La:<.*o 1roupDs proposed changes were not incorporated with, or attached to, the signature sheets' The La:<.*o 1roupDs citation of +orpus Juris Secundum pulls the rug fro7 under their feet' +t is e9tre7ely doubtful that the La:<.*o 1roup prepared, printed, circulated, fro7 <ebruary to August 2005 during the signature,gathering period, the draft of the petition or a7ended petition they filed later with the COMELEC' The La:<.*o 1roup are less than candid with this %ourt in their belated clai7 that they printed and circulated, together with the signature sheets, the petition or a7ended petition' N464r1h494//, 464* assuming1h4 La:<.*o Gro50 c.rc59a14+ 1h4 a:4*+4+ 041.1.o* +5r.*G 1h4 /.G*a15r4-Ga1h4r.*G 04r.o+, 1h4La:<.*o Gro50 a+:.114+ c.rc59a1.*G o*92 very !imited copies o8 1h4 041.1.o*' :uring the oral argu7ents, A112. La:<.*o e-press!y admitted 1ha1 1h42 0r.*14+ o*92 1@@,@@@ co0.4/ o8 1h4 +ra81 041.1.o* 1h42 8.94+ :or4 1ha* /.3 :o*1h/ 9a14r I.1h 1h4 COMELEC' Atty' La:<.*o added that he also asBed other supporters to print additional copies of the draft petition but he could not state with certainty how 7any additional copies the other supporters printed' A112. La:<.*o co59+ o*92 a//5r4 1h./ Co5r1 o8 1h4 0r.*1.*G o8 1@@,@@@ co0.4/ <4ca5/4 h4 h.:/498 ca5/4+ 1h4 0r.*1.*G o8 1h4/4 1@@,@@@ co0.4/ ' )iBewise, in the La:<.*o 1roupDs !e7orandu7 filed on 11 (ctober 2005, 1h4 La:<.*o Gro50 430r4//92 a+:.1/ 1ha1 L041.1.o*4r La:<.*o .*.1.a14+ 1h4 0r.*1.*G a*+ r40ro+5c1.o* o8 1@@,@@@ co0.4/ o8 1h4 041.1.o* 8or .*.1.a1.64 3 3 3.L2. Th./ a+:.//.o* <.*+/ 1h4 La:<.*o Gro50 a*+ 4/1a<9./h4/ <42o*+ a*2 +o5<1 1ha1 1h4 La:<.*o Gro50 8a.94+ 1o /hoI 1h4 8599 1431 o8 1h4 0ro0o/4+ cha*G4/ 1o 1h4 Gr4a1 :aKor.12 o8 1h4 04o094 Iho /.G*4+ 1h4 /.G*a15r4 /h441/' Thus, of the 5'3 7illion signatories, only 100,000 signatories could ha&e recei&ed with certainty one copy each of the petition, assu7ing a 100 percent distribution with no wastage' +f Atty' La:<.*o and co7pany attached one copy of the petition to each signature sheet, only 100,000 signature sheets could ha&e circulated with the petition' "ach signature sheet contains space for ten signatures' Assu7ing ten people signed each of these 100,000 signature sheets with the attached petition, the 7a9i7u7 nu7ber of people who saw the petition before they signed the signature sheets would not e9ceed 1,000,000' With only 100,000 printed copies of the petition, it would be physically i7possible for all or a great 7a=ority of the 5'3 7illion signatories to ha&e seen the petition before they signed the signature sheets' Th4 .*4/ca0a<94 co*c95/.o* ./ 1ha1 1h4 La:<.*o Gro50 8a.94+ 1o /hoI 1o 1h4 6.3 :.99.o* /.G*a1or.4/ 1h4 8599 1431 o8 1h4 0ro0o/4+ cha*G4/' +f e&er, not 7ore than one 7illion signatories saw the petition before they signed the signature sheets' +n any e&ent, the La:<.*o 1roupDs signature sheets do not contain the full te9t of the proposed changes, either on the face of the signature sheets, or as attach7ent with an indication in the signature sheet of such attach7ent'P41.1.o*4r A112. La:<.*o a+:.114+ 1h./ +5r.*G 1h4 ora9 arG5:4*1/, a*+ 1h./ a+:.//.o* <.*+/ 1h4 La:<.*oGro50. Th./ 8ac1 ./ a9/o o<6.o5/ 8ro: a :4r4 r4a+.*G o8 1h4 /.G*a15r4 /h441. Th./ o:.//.o* ./ 8a1a9' The failure to so include the te9t of the proposed changes in the signature sheets renders the initiati&e &oid for non,co7pliance with the constitutional re0uire7ent that the a7end7ent 7ust be ; +.r4c192 0ro0o/4+ <2 1h4 04o094 1hro5Gh .*.1.a1.64 50o* a 041.1.o*'; The signature sheet is not the ;041.1.o*; en&isioned in the initiati&e clause of the %onstitution' <or sure, the great 7a=ority of the 5'3 7illion people who signed the signature sheets did not see the full te9t of the proposed changes before signing' They could not ha&e Bnown the nature and effect of the proposed changes, a7ong which are8

1' The 14r: 9.:.1/ o* :4:<4r/ o8 1h4 94G./9a15r4 I.99 <4 9.814+ and thus 7e7bers of arlia7ent can be re,elected indefinitely@25 2' The interi7 arlia7ent can continue to function indefinitely until its 7e7bers, who are al7ost all the present 7e7bers of %ongress, decide to call for new parlia7entary elections' Thus, the :4:<4r/ o8 1h4 .*14r.: Par9.a:4*1 I.99 +414r:.*4 1h4 430.ra1.o* o8 1h4.r oI* 14r: o8 o88.c4 @ 27 3' Within 3. days fro7 the ratification of the proposed changes, 1h4 .*14r.: Par9.a:4*1 /ha99 co*64*4 1o 0ro0o/4 85r1h4r a:4*+:4*1/ or r46./.o*/ 1o 1h4 Co*/1.151.o*'24 These three specific a7end7ents are not stated or e&en indicated in the La:<.*o 1roupDs signature sheets' The people who signed the signature sheets had no idea that they were proposing these a7end7ents' These three proposed changes are highly contro&ersial' The people could not ha&e inferred or di&ined these proposed changes 7erely fro7 a reading or rereading of the contents of the signature sheets' :uring the oral argu7ents, petitioner Atty' La:<.*o stated that he and his group a//5r4+ 1h4 04o094 +5r.*G 1h4 /.G*a15r4-Ga1h4r.*G 1ha1 1h4 494c1.o*/ 8or 1h4 r4G59ar Par9.a:4*1 Io59+ <4 h49+ +5r.*G 1h4 2@@7 9oca9 494c1.o*/ if the proposed changes were ratified before the 2007 local elections' Cowe&er, the te9t of the proposed changes <49.4/ this' The proposed Section .-2/, Article KA+++ on Transitory ro&isions, as found in the a7ended petition, states8 Section .-2/' The interi7 arlia7ent shall pro&ide for the election of the 7e7bers of arlia7ent, Ih.ch /ha99 <4 /2*chro*.J4+ a*+ h49+ /.:591a*4o5/92 I.1h 1h4 494c1.o* o8 a99 9oca9 Go64r*:4*1 o88.c.a9/ ' 9 9 9 9 -"7phasis supplied/ Section .-2/ does not state that the elections for the regular arlia7ent will be held si7ultaneously with the 2007 local elections' This section 7erely re0uires that the elections for the regular arlia7ent shall be held si7ultaneously with the local elections I.1ho51 /04c.82.*G 1h4 24ar' etitioner Atty' La:<.*o, who clai7s to be the principal drafter of the proposed changes, could ha&e easily written the word ;ne9t; before the phrase ;election of all local go&ern7ent officials'; This would ha&e insured that the elections for the regular arlia7ent would be held in the ne9t local elections following the ratification of the proposed changes' Cowe&er, the absence of the word ;*431; allows the interi7 arlia7ent to schedule the elections for the regular arlia7ent si7ultaneously with a*2 future local elections' Thus, the 7e7bers of the interi7 arlia7ent will decide the e9piration of their own ter7 of office' This allows incu7bent 7e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es to hold office beyond their current three,year ter7 of office, and possibly e&en beyond the fi&e,year ter7 of office of regular 7e7bers of the arlia7ent' C4r1a.*92, 1h./ ./ co*1rar2 1o 1h4 r40r4/4*1a1.o*/ o8 A112. La:<.*o a*+ h./ Gro50 1o 1h4 6.3 :.99.o* 04o094 Iho /.G*4+ 1h4 /.G*a15r4 /h441/. A112. La:<.*o a*+ h./ Gro50 +4c4.64+ 1h4 6.3 :.99.o* /.G*a1or.4/, a*+ 464* 1h4 4*1.r4 *a1.o*' This lucidly shows the a</o9514 *44+ for the people to sign an initiati&e petition that contains the full te9t of the proposed a7end7ents to a&oid fraud or 7isrepresentation' +n the present initiati&e, the 5'3 7illion signatories had to rely on the 64r<a9 r40r4/4*1a1.o*/ of Atty' La:<.*o and his group because the signature sheets did not contain the full te9t of the proposed changes' The result is a Gra*+ +4c401.o* on the 5'3 7illion signatories who were led to belie&e that the proposed changes would re0uire the holding in 2007 of elections for the regular arlia7ent si7ultaneously with the local elections' The La:<.*o 1roupDs initiati&e springs another surprise on the people who signed the signature sheets' The proposed changes 7andate the interi7 arlia7ent to 7aBe further a7end7ents or re&isions to the %onstitution' The proposed Section 3-3/, Article KA+++ on Transitory ro&isions, pro&ides8 Section 3-3/' Within forty,fi&e days fro7 ratification of these a7end7ents, the interi7 arlia7ent /ha99 co*64*4 1o 0ro0o/4 a:4*+:4*1/ 1o, or r46./.o*/ o8, 1h./ Co*/1.151.o* consistent with the principles of local autono7y, decentrali?ation and a strong bureaucracy' -"7phasis supplied/ :uring the oral argu7ents, Atty' La:<.*o stated that this pro&ision is a ;surplusage; and the %ourt and the people should si7ply ignore it' <ar fro7 being a surplusage, this pro&ision in&alidates the La:<.*o 1roupDs initiati&e' Section 3-3/ is a sub=ect 7atter 1o1a992 5*r49a14+ to the shift fro7 the $ica7eral, residential to the *nica7eral, arlia7entary syste7' A7erican =urisprudence on initiati&es outlaws this as 9oGro99.*G , when the initiati&e petition incorporates an unrelated sub=ect 7atter in the sa7e petition' This puts the people in a dile77a since they can answer only either yes or no to the entire proposition, forcing the7 to sign a petition that effecti&ely contains two propositions, one of which they 7ay find unacceptable' *nder A7erican =urisprudence, the effect of logrolling is to *599.82 1h4 4*1.r4 0ro0o/.1.o* and not only the unrelated sub=ect 7atter' Thus, in +ine v. +irestone,22 the Supre7e %ourt of <lorida declared8

Co:<.*.*G :591.094 0ro0o/.1.o*/ .*1o o*4 0ro0o/a9 co*/1.1514/ L9oGro99.*G,L Ih.ch, .8 o5r K5+.c.a9 r4/0o*/.<.9.12 ./ 1o :4a* a*21h.*G, I4 ca**o1 04r:.1' The &ery broadness of the proposed a7end7ent a7ounts to logrolling because the electorate cannot Bnow what it is &oting on , the a7end7entDs proponentsD si7plistic e9planation re&eals only the tip of the iceberg' 9 9 9 9 The ballot 7ust gi&e the electorate fair notice of the proposed a7end7ent being &oted on' 9 9 9 9 The ballot language in the instant case fails to do that' The &ery broadness of the proposal 7aBes it i7possible to state what it will affect and effect and &iolates the re0uire7ent that proposed a7end7ents e7brace only one sub=ect' -"7phasis supplied/ )ogrolling confuses and e&en decei&es the people' +n 6ute )ir )!aska v. "c)!pine,30 the Supre7e %ourt of AlasBa warned against ;inad&ertence, stealth and fraud; in logrolling8 Whene&er a bill beco7es law through the initiati&e process, all of the proble7s that the single,sub=ect rule was enacted to pre&ent are e9acerbated' There is a greater danger of logrolling, or the deliberate inter7ingling of issues to increase the liBelihood of an initiati&eDs passage, and 1h4r4 ./ a Gr4a14r o00or15*.12 8or L.*a+64r14*c4, /14a91h a*+ 8ra5+L .* 1h4 4*ac1:4*1-<2-.*.1.a1.64 0roc4//' The drafters of an initiati&e operate independently of any structured or super&ised process' They often e7phasi?e particular pro&isions of their proposition, while re7aining silent on other -7ore co7ple9 or less appealing/ pro&isions, when co77unicating to the public' 9 9 9 "*+44+, .*.1.a1.64 0ro:o14r/ 120.ca992 5/4 /.:09./1.c a+64r1./.*G 1o 0r4/4*1 1h4.r .*.1.a1.64 1o 0o14*1.a9 041.1.o*-/.G*4r/ a*+ 464*15a9 6o14r/' !any &oters will ne&er read the full te9t of the initiati&e before the election' !ore i7portantly, there is no process for a7ending or splitting the se&eral pro&isions in an initiati&e proposal' These difficulties clearly distinguish the initiati&e fro7 the legislati&e process' -"7phasis supplied/ Thus, the present initiati&e appears 7erely a preli7inary step for further a7end7ents or re&isions to be undertaBen by the interi7 arlia7ent as a constituent asse7bly' The people who signed the signature sheets could not ha&e Bnown that their signatures would be used to propose an a7end7ent :a*+a1.*G the interi7 arlia7ent to propose 85r1h4r a7end7ents or re&isions to the %onstitution' Apparently, the La:<.*o 1roup inserted the proposed Section 3-3/ to co:049 the interi7 arlia7ent to a7end or re&ise again the %onstitution within 3. days fro7 ratification of the proposed changes, or <48or4 1h4 Ma2 2@@7 494c1.o*/' +n the absence of the proposed Section 3-3/, the interi7 arlia7ent has the discretion whether to a7end or re&ise again the %onstitution' With the proposed Section 3-3/, the initiati&e proponents want the interi7 arlia7ent :a*+a14+ to i77ediately a7end or re&ise again the %onstitution' Cowe&er, the signature sheets do not e9plain the reason for this rush in a7ending or re&ising again so soon the %onstitution' The signature sheets do not also e9plain what specific a7end7ents or re&isions the initiati&e proponents want the interi7 arlia7ent to 7aBe, and why there is a need for such further a7end7ents or re&isions' Th4 04o094 ar4 aGa.* 9481 .* 1h4 +arH 1o 8a1ho: 1h4 *a15r4 a*+ 4884c1 o8 1h4 0ro0o/4+ cha*G4/' %ertainly, such an initiati&e is not ;directly proposed by the people; because the people do not e&en Bnow the nature and effect of the proposed changes' There is another intriguing pro&ision inserted in the La:<.*o 1roupDs a7ended petition of 30 August 2005' The proposed Section 3-3/ of the Transitory ro&isions states8 Section 3-3/' Senators whose ter7 of office ends in 2010 shall be 7e7bers of arlia7ent until noon of the thirtieth day of 6une 2010' After 30 6une 2010, not one of the present Senators will re7ain as 7e7ber of arlia7ent if the interi7 arlia7ent does not schedule elections for the regular arlia7ent by 30 6une 2010' Cowe&er, there is no counterpart pro&ision for the present 7e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es e&en if their ter7 of office will all end on 30 6une 2007, three years earlier than that of half of the present Senators' Thus, all the present 7e7bers of the Couse will re7ain 7e7bers of the interi7 arlia7ent after 30 6une 2010' The ter7 of the incu7bent resident ends on 30 6une 2010' Thereafter, the ri7e !inister e9ercises all the powers of the resident' +f the interi7 arlia7ent does not schedule elections for the regular arlia7ent by 30 6une 2010, the ri7e !inister will co7e only fro7 the present 7e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es to the 43c95/.o* of the present Senators' The signature sheets do not e9plain this discri7ination against the Senators' Th4 6.3 :.99.o* 04o094 Iho /.G*4+ 1h4 /.G*a15r4 /h441/ co59+ *o1 ha64 H*oI* 1ha1 1h4.r /.G*a15r4/ Io59+ <4 5/4+ 1o +./cr.:.*a14 aGa.*/1 1h4 S4*a1or/. Th42 co59+ *o1 ha64 H*oI* 1ha1 1h4.r /.G*a15r4/ Io59+ <4 5/4+ 1o 9.:.1, a814r 3@ J5*4 2@1@, 1h4 .*14r.: Par9.a:4*1P/ cho.c4 o8 Pr.:4 M.*./14r o*92 1o :4:<4r/ o8 1h4 43./1.*G o5/4 o8 R40r4/4*1a1.64/. An initiati&e that gathers signatures fro7 the people without 8.r/1 /hoI.*g to the people the full te9t of the proposed a7end7ents is 7ost liBely a deception, and can operate as a G.Ga*1.c 8ra5+ o* 1h4 04o094' That is why the %onstitution re0uires that an initiati&e 7ust be ;+.r4c192 0ro0o/4+ <2 1h4 04o094 3 3 3 .* a 041.1.o*; , 7eaning that the people 7ust sign on a petition that contains the full te9t of the proposed a7end7ents' (n so &ital an issue as a7ending the nationDs funda7ental law, the writing of the te9t of the proposed a7end7ents cannot be h.++4* 8ro: 1h4 04o094 under a general or special power of attorney to unna7ed, faceless, and unelected indi&iduals'

The %onstitution entrusts to the people the power to directly propose a7end7ents to the %onstitution' This %ourt trusts the wisdo7 of the people e&en if the 7e7bers of this %ourt do not personally Bnow the people who sign the petition' oI464r, 1h./ 1r5/1 4:a*a14/ 8ro: a 85*+a:4*1a9 a//5:01.o*C 1h4 8599 1431 o8 1h4 0ro0o/4+ a:4*+:4*1 ./ 8.r/1 /hoI* 1o 1h4 04o094 <48or4 1h42 /.G* 1h4 041.1.o*, *o1 a814r 1h42 ha64 /.G*4+ 1h4 041.1.o* ' +n short, the La:<.*o 1roupDs initiati&e is &oid and unconstitutional because it dis7ally fails to co7ply with the re0uire7ent of Section 2, Article KA++ of the %onstitution that the initiati&e 7ust be ; +.r4c192 0ro0o/4+ <2 1h4 04o094 1hro5Gh .*.1.a1.64 50o* a 041.1.o*'; 2. The Initiative 4io!ates ection 2, )rtic!e 34II of the Constitution 'isa!!o/ing #evision through Initiatives A peopleDs initiati&e to change the %onstitution applies only to an a7end7ent of the %onstitution and not to its re&ision' +n contrast, %ongress or a constitutional con&ention can propose both a7end7ents and re&isions to the %onstitution' Article KA++ of the %onstitution pro&ides8 ART"CLE !V"" AMEN%MENTS OR REV"S"ONS Sec' 1' A*2 a:4*+:4*1 1o, or r46./.o* o8, 1h./ Co*/1.151.o* 7ay be proposed by8 -1/ The Co*Gr4//, upon a &ote of three,fourths of all its !e7bers, or -2/ A co*/1.151.o*a9 co*64*1.o*' Sec' 2' A:4*+:4*1/ 1o 1h./ Co*/1.151.o* 7ay liBewise be directly proposed by the people through initiati&e 9 9 9' -"7phasis supplied/ Article KA++ of the %onstitution speaBs of three 7odes of a7ending the %onstitution' The first 7ode is through %ongress upon three,fourths &ote of all its !e7bers' The second 7ode is through a constitutional con&ention' The third 7ode is through a peopleDs initiati&e' Section 1 of Article KA++, referring to the first and second 7odes, applies to ;FAGny a7end7ent to, or re&ision of, this %onstitution'; +n contrast, Section 2 of Article KA++, referring to the third 7ode, applies only to ;FAG7end7ents to this %onstitution'; This distinction was .*14*1.o*a9 as shown by the following deliberations of the %onstitutional %o77ission8 !R' S*AR"M8 ThanB you, !ada7 resident' !ay we respectfully call the attention of the !e7bers of the %o77ission that pursuant to the 7andate gi&en to us last night, we sub7itted this afternoon a co7plete %o77ittee Report #o' 7 which e7bodies the proposed pro&ision go&erning the 7atter of initiati&e' This is now co&ered by Section 2 of the co7plete co77ittee report' With the per7ission of the !e7bers, 7ay + 0uote Section 28 The people 7ay, after fi&e years fro7 the date of the last plebiscite held, directly propose a7end7ents to this %onstitution thru initiati&e upon petition of at least ten percent of the registered &oters' This co7pletes the blanBs appearing in the original %o77ittee Report #o' 7' This proposal was suggested on the theory that this 7atter of initiati&e, which ca7e about because of the e9traordinary de&elop7ents this year, has to be separated fro7 the traditional 7odes of a7ending the %onstitution as e7bodied in Section 1' Th4 co::.1144 :4:<4r/ 8491 1ha1 1h./ /2/14: o8 .*.1.a1.64 /ho59+ <4 9.:.14+ 1o a:4*+:4*1/ 1o 1h4 Co*/1.151.o* a*+ /ho59+ *o1 4314*+ 1o 1h4 r46./.o* o8 1h4 4*1.r4 Co*/1.151.o*, /o I4 r4:o64+ .1 8ro: 1h4 o04ra1.o* o8 S4c1.o* 1 o8 1h4 0ro0o/4+ Ar1.c94 o* A:4*+:4*1 or R46./.o*. 9 9 9 9 9999 !S' AI*+#(8 F+G a7 seriously bothered by pro&iding this process of initiati&e as a separate section in the Article on A7end7ent' Would the sponsor be a7enable to accepting an a7end7ent in ter7s of realigning Section 2 as another subparagraph -c/ of Section 1, instead of setting it up as another separate section as if it were a self,e9ecuting pro&isionH !R' S*AR"M8 We would be a7enable e9cept that, as we clarified a while ago, 1h./ 0roc4// o8 .*.1.a1.64 ./ 9.:.14+ 1o 1h4 :a114r o8 a:4*+:4*1 a*+ /ho59+ *o1 430a*+ .*1o a r46./.o* Ih.ch co*14:09a14/ a 1o1a9 o64rha59 o8 1h4 Co*/1.151.o*' That was the sense that was con&eyed by the %o77ittee' !S' AI*+#(8 "* o1h4r Ior+/, 1h4 Co::.1144 Ia/ a114:01.*G 1o +./1.*G5./h 1h4 co64raG4 o8 :o+4/ EaF a*+ E<F .* S4c1.o* 1 1o .*c95+4 1h4 0roc4// o8 r46./.o*7 Ih4r4a/, 1h4 0roc4// o8 .*.1.a1.o* 1o a:4*+, Ih.ch ./ G.64* 1o 1h4 05<9.c, Io59+ o*92 a0092 1o a:4*+:4*1/M

!R' S*AR"M8 Tha1 ./ r.Gh1. Tho/4 I4r4 1h4 14r:/ 4*6./.o*4+ .* 1h4 Co::.1144' !S' AI*+#(8 + thanB the sponsor@ and thanB you, !ada7 resident' 9999 !R' !AA!$(#18 M2 8.r/1 N54/1.o*C Co::.//.o*4r %a6.+4P/ 0ro0o/4+ a:4*+:4*1 o* 9.*4 1 r484r/ 1o La:4*+:4*1/.L %o4/ .1 *o1 co64r 1h4 Ior+ Lr46./.o*L a/ +48.*4+ <2 Co::.//.o*4r Pa+.99a Ih4* h4 :a+4 1h4 +./1.*c1.o* <41I44* 1h4 Ior+/ La:4*+:4*1/L a*+ Lr46./.o*LM !R' :AA+:"8 No, .1 +o4/ *o1, <4ca5/4 La:4*+:4*1/L a*+ Lr46./.o*L /ho59+ <4 co64r4+ <2 S4c1.o* 1. So .*/o8ar a/ .*.1.a1.64 ./ co*c4r*4+, .1 ca* o*92 r49a14 1o La:4*+:4*1/L *o1 Lr46./.o*.L !R' !AA!$(#18 ThanB you'31 -"7phasis supplied/ There can be no 7istaBe about it' The fra7ers of the %onstitution .*14*+4+, a*+ Iro14, a clear distinction between ;a7end7ent; and ;re&ision; of the %onstitution' The fra7ers .*14*+4+, a*+ Iro14, that only %ongress or a constitutional con&ention 7ay propose re&isions to the %onstitution' The fra7ers .*14*+4+, a*+ Iro14, that a peopleDs initiati&e 7ay propose only a7end7ents to the %onstitution' Where the intent and language of the %onstitution clearly withhold fro7 the people the power to propose re&isions to the %onstitution, the people cannot propose re&isions e&en as they are e7powered to propose a7end7ents' This has been the consistent ruling of state supre7e courts in the *nited States' Thus, in "c+adden v. Jordan,32the Supre7e %ourt of %alifornia ruled8 Th4 .*.1.a1.64 0oI4r r4/4r64+ <2 1h4 04o094 <2 a:4*+:4*1 1o 1h4 Co*/1.151.o* 3 3 3 a009.4/ o*92 1o 1h4 0ro0o/.*G a*+ 1h4 a+o01.*G or r4K4c1.*G o8 P9aI/ a*+ a:4*+:4*1/ 1o 1h4 Co*/1.151.o*P a*+ +o4/ *o1 05r0or1 1o 4314*+ 1o a co*/1.151.o*a9 r46./.o*' 9 9 9 9 +t is thus clear that a re&ision of the %onstitution 7ay be acco7plished only through ratification by the people of a re&ised constitution proposed by a con&ention called for that purpose as outlined hereinabo&e' %onse0uently if the scope of the proposed initiati&e 7easure -hereinafter ter7ed Dthe 7easureD/ now before us is so broad that if such 7easure beca7e law a substantial re&ision of our present state %onstitution would be effected, then the 7easure 7ay not properly be sub7itted to the electorate until and unless it is first agreed upon by a constitutional con&ention, and the writ sought by petitioner should issue' 9 9 9 9 -"7phasis supplied/ )iBewise, the Supre7e %ourt of (regon ruled in 7o!mes v. )pp!ing833 +t is well established that when a constitution specifies the 7anner in which it 7ay be a7ended or re&ised, it can be altered by those who fa&or a7end7ents, re&ision, or other change only through the use of one of the specified 7eans' The constitution itself recogni?es that there is a difference between an a7end7ent and a re&ision@ and it is ob&ious fro7 an e9a7ination of the 7easure here in 0uestion that it is not an a7end7ent as that ter7 is generally understood and as it is used in Article +A, Section 1' The docu7ent appears to be based in large part on the re&ision of the constitution drafted by the D%o77ission for %onstitutional Re&isionD authori?ed by the 1251 )egislati&e Asse7bly, 9 9 9 and sub7itted to the 1253 )egislati&e Asse7bly' +t failed to recei&e in the Asse7bly the two,thirdDs 7a=ority &ote of both houses re0uired by Article KA++, Section 2, and hence failed of adoption, 9 9 9' While differing fro7 that docu7ent in 7aterial respects, the 7easure sponsored by the plaintiffs is, ne&ertheless, a thorough o&erhauling of the present constitution 9 9 9' To call it an a7end7ent is a 7isno7er' Whether it be a re&ision or a new constitution, it is not such a 7easure as can be sub7itted to the people through the initiati&e' +f a re&ision, it is sub=ect to the re0uire7ents of Article KA++, Section 2-1/@ if a new constitution, it can only be proposed at a con&ention called in the 7anner pro&ided in Article KA++, Section 1' 9999 Si7ilarly, in this =urisdiction there can be no dispute that a peopleDs initiati&e can only propose a7end7ents to the %onstitution since the %onstitution itself li7its initiati&es to a7end7ents' There can be no de&iation fro7 the constitutionally prescribed 7odes of r46./.*G the %onstitution' A popular cla7or, e&en one bacBed by 5'3 7illion signatures, cannot =ustify a de&iation fro7 the specific 7odes prescribed in the %onstitution itself' As the Supre7e %ourt of (Blaho7a ruled in In re Initiative Petition 1o. 89:833 "1 ./ a 85*+a:4*1a9 0r.*c.094 1ha1 a co*/1.151.o* ca* o*92 <4 r46./4+ or a:4*+4+ .* 1h4 :a**4r 0r4/cr.<4+ <2 1h4 .*/1r5:4*1 .1/498, a*+ 1ha1 a*2 a114:01 1o r46./4 a co*/1.151.o* .* a :a**4r o1h4r 1ha* 1h4 o*4 0ro6.+4+ .* 1h4 .*/1r5:4*1 ./ a9:o/1 .*6ar.a<92 1r4a14+ a/ 431ra-co*/1.151.o*a9 a*+ r46o951.o*ar2' 9 9 9 9 ;While it is uni&ersally conceded that the people are so&ereign and that they ha&e

power to adopt a constitution and to change their own worB at will, they 7ust, in doing so, act in an orderly 7anner and according to the settled principles of constitutional law' And where the people, in adopting a constitution, ha&e prescribed the 7ethod by which the people 7ay alter or a7end it, an atte7pt to change the funda7ental law in &iolation of the self,i7posed restrictions, is unconstitutional'; 9 9 9 9 -"7phasis supplied/ This %ourt, whose 7e7bers are sworn to defend and protect the %onstitution, cannot shirB fro7 its sole7n oath and duty to insure co7pliance with the clear co77and of the %onstitution ` that a peopleDs initiati&e 7ay only a7end, ne&er re&ise, the %onstitution' The 0uestion is, does the )a7bino 1roupDs initiati&e constitute an a7end7ent or re&ision of the %onstitutionH +f the )a7bino 1roupDs initiati&e constitutes a re&ision, then the present petition should be dis7issed for being outside the scope of Section 2, Article KA++ of the %onstitution' %ourts ha&e long recogni?ed the distinction between an a7end7ent and a re&ision of a constitution' (ne of the earliest cases that recogni?ed the distinction described the funda7ental difference in this 7anner8 FTGhe &ery ter7 ;constitution; i7plies an instru7ent of a per7anent and abiding nature, and the 0ro6./.o*/ co*1a.*4+ 1h4r4.* 8or .1/ r46./.o* .*+.ca14 1h4 I.99 o8 1h4 04o094 1ha1 1h4 5*+4r92.*G 0r.*c.094/ 50o* Ih.ch .1 r4/1/, a/ I499 a/ 1h4 /5</1a*1.a9 4*1.r412 o8 1h4 .*/1r5:4*1 , shall be of a liBe per7anent and abiding nature' (n the other hand, the significance of the ter7 ;a7end7ent; i7plies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instru7ent as will effect an i7pro&e7ent, or better carry out the purpose for which it was fra7ed'3. -"7phasis supplied/ Re&ision broadly i7plies a change that a914r/ a <a/.c 0r.*c.094 .* 1h4 co*/1.151.o* , liBe altering the principle of separation of powers or the syste7 of checBs,and,balances' There is also re&ision if the change a914r/ 1h4 /5</1a*1.a9 4*1.r412 o8 1h4 co*/1.151.o*, a/ Ih4* 1h4 cha*G4 a884c1/ /5</1a*1.a9 0ro6./.o*/ o8 1h4 co*/1.151.o*' (n the other hand, a7end7ent broadly refers to a cha*G4 1ha1 a++/, r4+5c4/, or +49414/ I.1ho51 a914r.*G 1h4 <a/.c 0r.*c.094 .*6o964+' Re&ision generally affects se&eral pro&isions of the constitution, while a7end7ent generally affects only the specific pro&ision being a7ended' +n %alifornia where the initiati&e clause allows a7end7ents but not re&isions to the constitution =ust liBe in our %onstitution, courts ha&e de&eloped a 1Io-0ar1 14/18 the 0uantitati&e test and the 0ualitati&e test' The 0uantitati&e test asBs whether the proposed change is ;so e9tensi&e in its pro&isions as to change directly the Dsubstantial entiretyD of the constitution by the deletion or alteration of nu7erous e9isting pro&isions'; 35 The court e9a7ines only the nu7ber of pro&isions affected and does not consider the degree of the change' The 0ualitati&e test in0uires into the 0ualitati&e effects of the proposed change in the constitution' The 7ain in0uiry is whether the change will ;acco7plish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic go&ern7ental plan as to a7ount to a re&ision';37 Whether there is an alteration in the structure of go&ern7ent is a proper sub=ect of in0uiry' Thus, ;a change in the nature of FtheG basic go&ern7ental plan; includes ;change in its funda7ental fra7eworB or the funda7ental powers of its $ranches'; 34 A change in the nature of the basic go&ern7ental plan also includes changes that ;=eopardi?e the traditional for7 of go&ern7ent and the syste7 of checB and balances'; 32 *nder both the 0uantitati&e and 0ualitati&e tests, the )a7bino 1roupDs initiati&e is a re&ision and not 7erely an a7end7ent' Iuantitati&ely, the )a7bino 1roupDs proposed changes o&erhaul two articles , Article A+ on the )egislature and Article A++ on the "9ecuti&e , affecting a total of 10. pro&isions in the entire %onstitution'30Iualitati&ely, the proposed changes alter substantially the basic plan of go&ern7ent, fro7 presidential to parlia7entary, and fro7 a bica7eral to a unica7eral legislature' A change in the structure of go&ern7ent is a re&ision of the %onstitution, as when the three great co,e0ual branches of go&ern7ent in the present %onstitution are reduced into two' Th./ a914r/ 1h4 /40ara1.o* o8 0oI4r/ .* 1h4 Co*/1.151.o*' A shift fro7 the present $ica7eral, residential syste7 to a *nica7eral, arlia7entary syste7 is a re&ision of the %onstitution' !erging the legislati&e and e9ecuti&e branches is a radical change in the structure of go&ern7ent' The abolition alone of the (ffice of the resident as the locus of "9ecuti&e ower alters the separation of powers and thus constitutes a re&ision of the %onstitution' )iBewise, the abolition alone of one cha7ber of %ongress alters the syste7 of checBs,and,balances within the legislature and constitutes a re&ision of the %onstitution' (2 a*2 94Ga9 14/1 a*+ 5*+4r a*2 K5r./+.c1.o*, a shift fro7 a $ica7eral, residential to a *nica7eral, arlia7entary syste7, in&ol&ing the abolition of the (ffice of the resident and the abolition of one cha7ber of %ongress, is beyond doubt a re&ision, not a 7ere a7end7ent' (n the face alone of the )a7bino 1roupDs proposed changes, it is readily apparent that the changes will ra+.ca992 a914r 1h4 8ra:4IorH o8 Go64r*:4*1 a/ /41 8or1h .* 1h4 Co*/1.151.o*' <ather 6oa0uin $ernas, S'6', a leading 7e7ber of the %onstitutional %o77ission, writes8 An a7end7ent en&isages an alteration of one or a few specific and separable pro&isions' The guiding original intention of an a7end7ent is to i7pro&e specific parts or to add new pro&isions dee7ed necessary to 7eet new conditions or to suppress specific portions that 7ay ha&e beco7e obsolete or that are =udged to be dangerous' +n

re&ision, howe&er, the guiding original intention and plan conte7plates a re,e9a7ination of the entire docu7ent, or of pro&isions of the docu7ent which ha&e o&er,all i7plications for the entire docu7ent, to deter7ine how and to what e9tent they should be altered' Th5/, 8or .*/1a*c4 a /I.1ch 8ro: 1h4 0r4/.+4*1.a9 /2/14: 1o a 0ar9.a:4*1ar2 /2/14: Io59+ <4 a r46./.o* <4ca5/4 o8 .1/ o64r-a99 .:0ac1 o* 1h4 4*1.r4 co*/1.151.o*a9 /1r5c15r4. So Io59+ a /I.1ch 8ro: a <.ca:4ra9 /2/14: 1o a 5*.ca:4ra9 /2/14: <4 <4ca5/4 o8 .1/ 4884c1 o* o1h4r .:0or1a*1 0ro6./.o*/ o8 1h4 Co*/1.151.o*'31 -"7phasis supplied/ +n )dams v. $unter,32 an initiati&e petition proposed the a7end7ent of the <lorida State constitution to /h.81 8ro: a <.ca:4ra9 1o a 5*.ca:4ra9 94G./9a15r4' The issue turned on whether the initiati&e ;was defecti&e and unauthori?ed where FtheG proposed a7end7ent would 9 9 9 affect se&eral other pro&isions of FtheG %onstitution'; The Supre7e %ourt of <lorida, striBing down the initiati&e as outside the scope of the initiati&e clause, ruled as follows8 The proposal here to a7end Section 1 of Article +++ of the 1254 %onstitution to pro&ide for a *nica7eral )egislature a884c1/ *o1 o*92 :a*2 o1h4r 0ro6./.o*/ o8 1h4 Co*/1.151.o* <51 0ro6.+4/ 8or a cha*G4 .* 1h4 8or: o8 1h4 94G./9a1.64 <ra*ch o8 Go64r*:4*1 , which has been in e9istence in the *nited States %ongress and in all of the states of the nation, e9cept one, since the earliest days' "1 Io59+ <4 +.88.c591 1o 6./5a9.J4 a :or4 r46o951.o*ar2 cha*G4' The concept of a Couse and a Senate is basic in the A7erican for7 of go&ern7ent' "1 Io59+ *o1 o*92 ra+.ca992 cha*G4 1h4 Iho94 0a114r* o8 Go64r*:4*1 .* 1h./ /1a14 a*+ 14ar a0ar1 1h4 Iho94 8a<r.c o8 1h4 Co*/1.151.o*, <51 Io59+ 464* a884c1 1h4 0h2/.ca9 8ac.9.1.4/ *4c4//ar2 1o carr2 o* Go64r*:4*1. 9999 We conclude with the obser&ation that if such proposed a7end7ent were adopted by the people at the 1eneral "lection and if the )egislature at its ne9t session should fail to sub7it further a7end7ents to re&ise and clarify the nu7erous inconsistencies and conflicts which would result, or if after sub7ission of appropriate a7end7ents the people should refuse to adopt the7, si7ple chaos would pre&ail in the go&ern7ent of this State' The sa7e result would obtain fro7 an a7end7ent, for instance, of Section 1 of Article A, to pro&ide for only a Supre7e %ourt and %ircuit %ourts,and there could be other e9a7ples too nu7erous to detail' These e9a7ples point unerringly to the answer' The purpose of the long and arduous worB of the hundreds of 7en and wo7en and 7any sessions of the )egislature in bringing about the %onstitution of 1254 was to eli7inate inconsistencies and conflicts and to gi&e the State a worBable, accordant, ho7ogenous and up,to,date docu7ent' All of this could disappear &ery 0uicBly if we were to hold that it could be a7ended in the 7anner proposed in the initiati&e petition here'33 -"7phasis supplied/ The rationale of the )dams decision applies with greater force to the present petition' The )a7bino 1roupDs initiati&e not only seeBs a shift fro7 a bica7eral to a unica7eral legislature, it also seeBs to 7erge the e9ecuti&e and legislati&e depart7ents' The initiati&e in )dams did not e&en touch the e9ecuti&e depart7ent' +n )dams, the Supre7e %ourt of <lorida enu7erated 14 sections of the <lorida %onstitution that would be affected by the shift fro7 a bica7eral to a unica7eral legislature' +n the )a7bino 1roupDs present initiati&e, *o 94// 1ha* 1@) 0ro6./.o*/ o8 1h4 Co*/1.151.o* Io59+ <4 a884c14+ based on the count of Associate 6ustice Ro7eo 6' %alle=o, Sr'33 There is no doubt that the )a7bino 1roupDs present initiati&e seeBs far 7ore radical changes in the structure of go&ern7ent than the initiati&e in )dams' The )a7bino 1roup theori?es that the difference between ;a7end7ent; and ;re&ision; is only o*4 o8 0roc4+5r4, *o1 o8 /5</1a*c4' The )a7bino 1roup posits that when a deliberati&e body drafts and proposes changes to the %onstitution, substanti&e changes are called ;re&isions; because :4:<4r/ o8 1h4 +49.<4ra1.64 <o+2 IorH 85991.:4 o* 1h4 cha*G4/' Cowe&er, the sa7e substanti&e changes, when proposed through an initiati&e, are called ;a7end7ents; <4ca5/4 1h4 cha*G4/ ar4 :a+4 <2 or+.*ar2 04o094 Iho +o *o1 :aH4 a* Locc50a1.o*, 0ro84//.o*, or 6oca1.o*L o51 o8 /5ch 4*+4a6or. Thus, the )a7bino 1roup 7aBes the following e9position of their theory in their !e7orandu78 22' With this distinction in 7ind, we note that the constitutional pro&isions e9pressly pro&ide for both ;a7end7ent; and ;re&ision; when it speaBs of legislators and constitutional delegates, while the sa7e pro&isions e9pressly pro&ide only for ;a7end7ent; when it speaBs of the people' +t would see7 that the apparent distinction is based on the actual e9perience of the people, that on one hand the co77on people in general are not e9pected to worB full,ti7e on the 7atter of correcting the constitution because that is not their occupation, profession or &ocation@ while on the other hand, the legislators and constitutional con&ention delegates are e9pected to worB full,ti7e on the sa7e 7atter because that is their occupation, profession or &ocation' Th5/, 1h4 +.884r4*c4 <41I44* 1h4 Ior+/ Lr46./.o*L a*+ La:4*+:4*1L 04r1a.* o*92 1o 1h4 0roc4// or 0roc4+5r4 o8 co:.*G 50 I.1h 1h4 corr4c1.o*/, for purposes of interpreting the constitutional pro&isions' 100' S1a14+ o1h4rI./4, 1h4 +.884r4*c4 <41I44* La:4*+:4*1L a*+ Lr46./.o*L ca**o1 r4a/o*a<92 <4 .* 1h4 /5</1a*c4 or 4314*1 o8 1h4 corr4c1.o*' 9 9 9 9 -*nderlining in the original@ boldfacing supplied/

The )a7bino 1roup in effect argues that if %ongress or a constitutional con&ention had drafted the sa7e proposed changes that the )a7bino 1roup wrote in the present initiati&e, the changes would constitute a re&ision of the %onstitution' Th5/, 1h4 La:<.*o Gro50 co*c4+4/ 1ha1 1h4 0ro0o/4+ cha*G4/ .* 1h4 0r4/4*1 .*.1.a1.64 co*/1.1514 a r46./.o* .8 Co*Gr4// or a co*/1.151.o*a9 co*64*1.o* ha+ +ra814+ 1h4 cha*G4/ ' Cowe&er, since the )a7bino 1roup as pri&ate indi&iduals drafted the proposed changes, the changes are 7erely a7end7ents to the %onstitution' The )a7bino 1roup tri&iali?es the serious 7atter of changing the funda7ental law of the land' The 430r4// .*14*1 o8 1h4 8ra:4r/ a*+ 1h4 09a.* 9a*G5aG4 o8 1h4 Co*/1.151.o* contradict the )a7bino 1roupDs theory' Where the intent of the fra7ers and the language of the %onstitution are clear and plainly stated, courts do not de&iate fro7 such categorical intent and language' 3. Any theory espousing a construction contrary to such intent and language deser&es scant consideration' !ore so, if such theory wreaBs ha&oc by creating inconsistencies in the for7 of go&ern7ent established in the %onstitution' Such a theory, de&oid of any =urisprudential 7ooring and in&iting inconsistencies in the %onstitution, only e9poses the fli7siness of the )a7bino 1roupDs position' Any theory ad&ocating that a proposed change in&ol&ing a radical structural change in go&ern7ent does not constitute a re&ision =ustly deser&es re=ection' The )a7bino 1roup si7ply recycles a theory that initiati&e proponents in A7erican =urisdictions ha&e atte7pted to ad&ance without any success' +n ;o/e v. 5eis!ing,35 the Supre7e %ourt of (regon r4K4c14+ 1h./ 1h4or2, thus8 !abon argues that Article KA++, section 2, does not apply to changes to the constitution proposed by initiati&e' ./ 1h4or2 ./ 1ha1 Ar1.c94 !V"", /4c1.o* 2 :4r492 0ro6.+4/ a 0roc4+5r4 <2 Ih.ch 1h4 94G./9a15r4 ca* 0ro0o/4 a r46./.o* o8 1h4 co*/1.151.o*, <51 .1 +o4/ *o1 a884c1 0ro0o/4+ r46./.o*/ .*.1.a14+ <2 1h4 04o094' laintiffs argue that the proposed ballot 7easure constitutes a wholesale change to the constitution that cannot be enacted through the initiati&e process' They assert that the distinction between a7end7ent and re&ision is deter7ined by re&iewing the scope and sub=ect 7atter of the proposed enact7ent, and that re&isions are not li7ited to ;a for7al o&erhauling of the constitution'; They argue that this ballot 7easure proposes far reaching changes outside the lines of the original instru7ent, including profound i7pacts on e9isting funda7ental rights and radical restructuring of the go&ern7entDs relationship with a defined group of citi?ens' laintiffs assert that, because the proposed ballot 7easure ;will refashion the 7ost basic principles of (regon constitutional law,; the trial court correctly held that it &iolated Article KA++, section 2, and cannot appear on the ballot without the prior appro&al of the legislature' We first address !abonDs argu7ent that Article KA++, section 2-1/, does not prohibit re&isions instituted by initiati&e' +n Aolmes v. Appling, 9 9 9, the Supre7e %ourt concluded that a re&ision of the constitution 7ay not be acco7plished by initiati&e, because of the pro&isions of Article KA++, section 2' After re&iewing Article KA++, section1, relating to proposed a7end7ents , the court said8 ;<ro7 the foregoing it appears that Article +A, Section 1, authori?es the use of the initiati&e as a 7eans of a7ending the (regon %onstitution, but it contains no si7ilar sanction for its use as a 7eans of re&ising the constitution'; 9 9 9 9 +t then re&iewed Article KA++, section 2, relating to revisions, and said8 ;+t is the only section of the constitution which pro&ides the 7eans for constitutional re&ision and it e9cludes the idea that an indi&idual, through the initiati&e, 7ay place such a 7easure before the electorate'; 9 9 9 9 Accor+.*G92, I4 r4K4c1 Ma<o*P/ arG5:4*1 1ha1 Ar1.c94 !V"", /4c1.o* 2, +o4/ *o1 a0092 1o co*/1.151.o*a9 r46./.o*/ 0ro0o/4+ <2 .*.1.a1.64' -"7phasis supplied/ Si7ilarly, this %ourt 7ust re=ect the )a7bino 1roupDs theory which negates the e9press intent of the fra7ers and the plain language of the %onstitution' We can &isuali?e a7end7ents and re&isions as a spectru7, at one end green for a7end7ents and at the other end red for re&isions' Towards the 7iddle of the spectru7, colors fuse and difficulties arise in deter7ining whether there is an a7end7ent or re&ision' The present initiati&e is indisputably located at the far end of the red spectru7 where re&ision begins' The present initiati&e seeBs a radical o&erhaul of the e9isting separation of powers a7ong the three co,e0ual depart7ents of go&ern7ent, re0uiring far,reaching a7end7ents in se&eral sections and articles of the %onstitution' Where the proposed change applies only to a specific pro&ision of the %onstitution without affecting any other section or article, the change 7ay generally be considered an a7end7ent and not a re&ision' <or e9a7ple, a change reducing the &oting age fro7 14 years to 1. years 37 is an a7end7ent and not a re&ision' Si7ilarly, a change reducing <ilipino ownership of 7ass 7edia co7panies fro7 100 percent to 50 percent is an a7end7ent and not a re&ision'34 Also, a change re0uiring a college degree as an additional 0ualification for election to the residency is an a7end7ent and not a re&ision'32 The changes in these e9a7ples do not entail any 7odification of sections or articles of the %onstitution other than the specific pro&ision being a7ended' These changes do not also affect the structure of go&ern7ent or the syste7

of checBs,and,balances a7ong or within the three branches' These three e9a7ples are located at the far green end of the spectru7, opposite the far red end where the re&ision sought by the present petition is located' Cowe&er, there can be no fi9ed rule on whether a change is an a7end7ent or a re&ision' A change in a single word of one sentence of the %onstitution 7ay be a re&ision and not an a7end7ent' <or e9a7ple, the substitution of the word ;republican; with ;7onarchic; or ;theocratic; in Section 1, Article ++ .0 of the %onstitution radically o&erhauls the entire structure of go&ern7ent and the funda7ental ideological basis of the %onstitution' Thus, each specific change will ha&e to be e9a7ined case,by,case, depending on how it affects other pro&isions, as well as how it affects the structure of go&ern7ent, the carefully crafted syste7 of checBs,and,balances, and the underlying ideological basis of the e9isting %onstitution' Since a re&ision of a constitution affects basic principles, or se&eral pro&isions of a constitution, a +49.<4ra1.64 <o+2 I.1h r4cor+4+ 0roc44+.*G/ is best suited to undertaBe a re&ision' A re&ision re0uires har7oni?ing not only se&eral pro&isions, but also the altered principles with those that re7ain unaltered' Thus, constitutions nor7ally authori?e deliberati&e bodies liBe constituent asse7blies or constitutional con&entions to undertaBe re&isions' (n the other hand, constitutions allow peopleDs initiati&es, which do not ha&e fi9ed and identifiable deliberati&e bodies or recorded proceedings, to undertaBe only a7end7ents and not re&isions' +n the present initiati&e, the )a7bino 1roupDs proposed Section 2 of the Transitory ro&isions states8 Section 2' *pon the e9piration of the ter7 of the incu7bent resident and Aice resident, with the e9ception of Sections 1, 2, 3, 3, ., 5 and 7 of Article A+ of the 1247 %onstitution which shall hereby be a7ended and Sections 14 and 23 which shall be deleted, all other Sections of Article A+ are hereby retained and renu7bered se0uentially as Section 2, ad seriati7 up to 25, 5*94// 1h42 ar4 .*co*/./14*1 I.1h 1h4 Par9.a:4*1ar2 /2/14: o8 Go64r*:4*1, .* Ih.ch ca/4, 1h42 /ha99 <4 a:4*+4+ 1o co*8or: I.1h a 5*.ca:4ra9 0ar9.a:4*1ar2 8or: o8 Go64r*:4*1 @ 9 9 9 9 -"7phasis supplied/ The basic rule in statutory construction is that if a later law is irreconcilably inconsistent with a prior law, the later law pre&ails' This rule also applies to construction of constitutions' Cowe&er, the )a7bino 1roupDs draft of Section 2 of the Transitory ro&isions turns on its head this rule of construction by stating that in case of such irreconcilable inconsistency, the earlier pro&ision ;/ha99 <4 a:4*+4+ to confor7 with a unica7eral parlia7entary for7 of go&ern7ent'; The effect is to free?e the two irreconcilable pro&isions until the earlier one ;shall be a7ended,; which re0uires a future separate constitutional a7end7ent' Reali?ing the absurdity of the need for such an a7end7ent, petitioner Atty' )a7bino readily conceded during the oral argu7ents that the re0uire7ent of a future a7end7ent is a ;surplusage'; +n short, Atty' )a7bino wants to reinstate the rule of statutory construction so that the later pro&ision auto7atically pre&ails in case of irreconcilable inconsistency' Cowe&er, it is not as si7ple as that' The irreconcilable inconsistency en&isioned in the proposed Section 2 of the Transitory ro&isions is not between a pro&ision in Article A+ of the 1247 %onstitution and a pro&ision in the proposed changes' The inconsistency is between a pro&ision in Article A+ of the 1247 %onstitution and the ;Par9.a:4*1ar2 /2/14: o8 Go64r*:4*1,; and the inconsistency shall be resol&ed in fa&or of a ;5*.ca:4ra9 0ar9.a:4*1ar2 8or: o8 Go64r*:4*1'; #ow, what ;5*.ca:4ra9 0ar9.a:4*1ar2 8or: o8 Go64r*:4*1; do the )a7bino 1roupDs proposed changes refer to ` the $angladeshi, Singaporean, +sraeli, or #ew Mealand 7odels, which are a7ong the 84I countries with5*.ca:4ra9 0ar9.a:4*1/H The proposed changes could *o1 possibly refer to the traditional and well,Bnown parlia7entary for7s of go&ern7ent ` the $ritish, <rench, Spanish, 1er7an, +talian, %anadian, Australian, or !alaysian 7odels, which ha&e all <.ca:4ra9 parlia7ents' :id the people who signed the signature sheets reali?e that they were adopting the $angladeshi, Singaporean, +sraeli, or #ew Mealand parlia7entary for7 of go&ern7entH This dri&es ho7e the point that the peopleDs initiati&e is not 7eant for re&isions of the %onstitution but only for a7end7ents' A shift fro7 the present $ica7eral, residential to a *nica7eral, arlia7entary syste7 re0uires har7oni?ing se&eral pro&isions in 7any articles of the %onstitution' Re&ision of the %onstitution through a peopleDs initiati&e will only result in gross absurdities in the %onstitution' +n su7, there is no doubt whatsoe&er that the )a7bino 1roupDs initiati&e is a re&ision and not an a7end7ent' Thus, the present initiati&e is &oid and unconstitutional because it &iolates Section 2, Article KA++ of the %onstitution li7iting the scope of a peopleDs initiati&e to L;A=:4*+:4*1/ 1o 1h./ Co*/1.151.o*.L 3' ) #evisit of antiago v. C<"(;(C is 1ot 1ecessary The present petition warrants dis7issal for failure to co7ply with the basic re0uire7ents of Section 2, Article KA++ of the %onstitution on the conduct and scope of a peopleDs initiati&e to a7end the %onstitution' There is no need to re&isit this %ourtDs ruling in antiago declaring RA 573. ;inco7plete, inade0uate or wanting in essential ter7s and conditions; to co&er the syste7 of initiati&e to a7end the %onstitution' An affir7ation or re&ersal of antiago will not change the outco7e of the present petition' Thus, this %ourt 7ust decline to re&isit antiago which effecti&ely ruled that RA 573. does not co7ply with the re0uire7ents of the %onstitution to i7ple7ent the initiati&e clause on a7end7ents to the %onstitution'

This %ourt 7ust a&oid re&isiting a ruling in&ol&ing the constitutionality of a statute if the case before the %ourt can be resol&ed on so7e other grounds' Such a&oidance is a logical conse0uence of the well,settled doctrine that courts will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute if the case can be resol&ed on so7e other grounds' .1 #e&ertheless, e&en assu7ing that RA 573. is &alid to i7ple7ent the constitutional pro&ision on initiati&es to a7end the %onstitution, this will not change the result here because the present petition &iolates Section 2, Article KA++ of the %onstitution' To be a &alid initiati&e, the present initiati&e 7ust 8.r/1 co:092 with Section 2, Article KA++ of the %onstitution e&en before co7plying with RA 573.' "&en then, the present initiati&e &iolates Section .-b/ of RA 573. which re0uires that the ;petition for an initiati&e on the 1247 %onstitution 7ust ha&e at least twel&e per centum -12Q/ of the total nu7ber of registered &oters a/ /.G*a1or.4/'; Section .-b/ of RA 573. re0uires that the people 7ust sign the L041.1.o* 3 3 3 a/ /.G*a1or.4/.L The 5'3 7illion signatories did not sign the petition of 2. August 2005 or the a7ended petition of 30 August 2005 filed with the %(!")"%' O*92 A112. La:<.*o, A112. %4:o/1h4*4/ (. %o*a1o, a*+ A112. A9<4r1o C. AGra /.G*4+ 1h4 041.1.o* a*+ a:4*+4+ 041.1.o* a/ co5*/49/ 8or LRa59 L. La:<.*o a*+ Er.co (. A5:4*1a+o, P41.1.o*4r/ '; +n the %(!")"%, the )a7bino 1roup, clai7ing to act ;together with; the 5'3 7illion signatories, 7erely attached the signature sheets to the petition and a7ended petition' Thus, the petition and a7ended petition filed with the %(!")"% did not e&en co7ply with the basic re0uire7ent of RA 573. that the )a7bino 1roup clai7s as &alid' The )a7bino 1roupDs logrolling initiati&e also &iolates Section 10-a/ of RA 573. stating, ; No 041.1.o* 4:<rac.*G :or4 1ha* o*4 E1F /5<K4c1 /ha99 <4 /5<:.114+ 1o 1h4 494c1ora14@ 9 9 9'; The proposed Section 3-3/ of the Transitory ro&isions, 7andating the interi7 arlia7ent to propose further a7end7ents or re&isions to the %onstitution, is a sub=ect 7atter totally unrelated to the shift in the for7 of go&ern7ent' Since the present initiati&e e7braces 7ore than one sub=ect 7atter, RA 573. prohibits sub7ission of the initiati&e petition to the electorate' Thus, e&en if RA 573. is &alid, the )a7bino 1roupDs initiati&e will still fail' :. The C<"(;(C 'id 1ot Commit $rave )buse of 'iscretion in 'ismissing the ;ambino $roup=s Initiative +n dis7issing the )a7bino 1roupDs initiati&e petition, the %(!")"% en banc 7erely followed this %ourtDs ruling in antiago and Peop!e=s Initiative for #eform, "oderni.ation and )ction >PI#")? v. C<"(;(C '.2 <or following this %ourtDs ruling, no gra&e abuse of discretion is attributable to the %(!")"%' (n this ground alone, the present petition warrants outright dis7issal' Thus, this %ourt should reiterate its 5*a*.:o5/ ruling in PI#")8 The %ourt ruled, first, by a unani7ous &ote, that no gra&e abuse of discretion could be attributed to the public respondent %(!")"% in dis7issing the petition filed by +R!A therein, it appearing that it only co7plied with the dispositions in the :ecisions of this %ourt in 1'R' #o' 12732., pro7ulgated on !arch 12, 1227, and its Resolution of 6une 10, 1227' @. Conc!usion The %onstitution, as the funda7ental law of the land, deser&es the ut7ost respect and obedience of all the citi?ens of this nation' #o one can tri&iali?e the %onstitution by ca&alierly a7ending or re&ising it in blatant &iolation of the clearly specified 7odes of a7end7ent and re&ision laid down in the %onstitution itself' To allow such change in the funda7ental law is to set adrift the %onstitution in unchartered waters, to be tossed and turned by e&ery do7inant political group of the day' +f this %ourt allows today a ca&alier change in the %onstitution outside the constitutionally prescribed 7odes, to7orrow the new do7inant political group that co7es will de7and its own set of changes in the sa7e ca&alier and unconstitutional fashion' A re&ol&ing,door constitution does not augur well for the rule of law in this country' An o&erwhel7ing 7a=ority a 16,622,111 6o14r/ co:0r./.*G 76.3 04rc4*1 o8 1h4 1o1a9 6o14/ ca/1 .3 a appro&ed our %onstitution in a national plebiscite held on 11 <ebruary 1247' Tha1 a00ro6a9 ./ 1h4 5*:./1aHa<94 6o.c4 o8 1h4 04o094, 1h4 8599 430r4//.o* o8 1h4 04o094P/ /o64r4.G* I.99. Tha1 a00ro6a9 .*c95+4+ 1h4 0r4/cr.<4+ :o+4/ 8or a:4*+.*G or r46./.*G 1h4 Co*/1.151.o*. #o a7ount of signatures, not e&en the 5,327,2.2 7illion signatures gathered by the )a7bino 1roup, can change our %onstitution contrary to the specific 7odes that the people, in their so&ereign capacity, prescribed when they ratified the %onstitution' The alternati&e is an e9tra,constitutional change, which 7eans /5<64r1.*G 1h4 04o094P/ /o64r4.G* I.99 a*+ +./car+.*G 1h4 Co*/1.151.o*' This is one act the %ourt cannot and should ne&er do' As the ulti7ate guardian of the %onstitution, this %ourt is sworn to perfor7 its sole7n duty to defend and protect the %onstitution, which e7bodies the real so&ereign will of the people' +ncantations of ;peopleDs &oice,; ;peopleDs so&ereign will,; or ;let the people decide; cannot o&erride the specific 7odes of changing the %onstitution as prescribed in the %onstitution itself' (therwise, the %onstitution ` the peopleDs funda7ental co&enant that pro&ides enduring stability to our society ` beco7es easily susceptible to 7anipulati&e changes by political groups gathering signatures through false pro7ises' Then, the %onstitution ceases to be the bedrocB of the nationDs stability'

The )a7bino 1roup clai7s that their initiati&e is the ;peopleDs &oice'; Cowe&er, the )a7bino 1roup unabashedly states in *)A Resolution #o' 2005,02, in the &erification of their petition with the %(!")"%, that ;*)A 7aintains its 5*N5a9.8.4+ /500or1 1o 1h4 aG4*+a of Cer "9cellency resident 1loria !acapagal,Arroyo for constitutional refor7s'; The )a7bino 1roup thus ad7its that their ;peopleDs; initiati&e is an ;un0ualified support to the agenda; of the incu7bent resident to change the %onstitution' This forewarns the %ourt to be wary of incantations of ;peopleDs &oice; or ;so&ereign will; in the present initiati&e' This %ourt cannot betray its pri7ordial duty to defend and protect the %onstitution' The %onstitution, which e7bodies the peopleDs so&ereign will, is the bible of this %ourt' Th./ Co5r1 43./1/ 1o +484*+ a*+ 0ro14c1 1h4 Co*/1.151.o*' To allow this constitutionally infir7 initiati&e, propelled by decepti&ely gathered signatures, to alter basic principles in the %onstitution is to allow a desecration of the %onstitution' To allow such alteration and desecration is to lose this %ourtDs raison d0etre' - ERE$ORE, we %"SM"SS the petition in 1'R' #o' 1731.3' SO OR%ERE%. $angani*an, +.J., $uno, Kuisum*ing, Fnares1Santiago, Sandoval1Gutierrez, Austria1Martinez, +orona, +arpio Morales, +alle6o, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, +)ico1'azario, Garcia, and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur' YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY EN (ANC G.R. No. 1741)3 Oc1o<4r 2), 2@@6 RAUL L. LAM("NO AN% ER"CO (. AUMENTA%O, TOGET ER -"T COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS ET AL. 6,327,9)2 REG"STERE% VOTERS V.

SEPARATE CONCURR"NG OP"N"ON PANGAN"(AN, CJ.C Without the rule of law, there can be no lasting prosperity and certainly no liberty' $e&erley !c)achlin 1 %hief 6ustice of %anada After a deep reflection on the issues raised and a careful e&aluation of the partiesD respecti&e argu7ents ,, both oral and written ,, as well as the enlightened and enlightening (pinions sub7itted by 7y estee7ed colleagues, + a7 fully con&inced that the present etition 7ust be dis7issed' + write, howe&er, to show that 7y present disposition is co7pletely consistent with 7y pre&ious (pinions and &otes on the two e9tant Supre7e %ourt cases in&ol&ing an initiati&e to change the %onstitution' +n 7y Separate (pinion in Santiago v. +omelec,2 + opined ;that taBen together and interpreted properly and liberally, the %onstitution -particularly Art' KA++, Sec' 2/, Republic Act 573. and %o7elec Resolution 2300 pro&ide 7ore than sufficient YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY DS"%' 2' A7end7ents to this %onstitution 7ay liBewise be directly proposed by the people through initiati&e upon a petition of at least twel&e per centu7 of the total nu7ber of registered &oters, of which e&ery legislati&e district 7ust be represented by at least three per centu7 of the registered &oters therein' #o a7end7ent under this section shall be authori?ed within fi&e years following the ratification of this %onstitution nor oftener than once e&ery fi&e years thereafter'D ;With all due respect, + find the 7a=orityDs position all too sweeping and all too e9tre7ist' +t is e0ui&alent to burning the whole house to e9ter7inate the rats, and to Billing the patient to relie&e hi7 of pain' What %iti?en :elfin wants the %o7elec to do we should re=ect' $ut we should not thereby pree7pt any future effort to e9ercise the right of initiati&e correctly and =udiciously' The fact that the :elfin etition proposes a 7isuse of initiati&e does not =ustify a ban against its proper use' +ndeed, there is a right way to do the right thing at the right ti7e and for the right reason'

Taken Together and Interpreted Proper!y, the Constitution, #.). 9A8@ and Come!ec #eso!ution 28BB )re ufficient to Imp!ement Constitutiona! Initiatives ;While R'A' 573. 7ay not be a perfect law, it was E as the 7a=ority openly concedes E intended by the legislature to co&er and, + respectfully sub7it, it contains enough pro&isions to effectuate an initiati&e on the %onstitution' + co7pletely agree with the inspired and inspiring opinions of !r' 6ustice Reynato S' uno and !r' 6ustice Ricardo 6' <rancisco that RA 573., the Roco law on initiati&e, sufficiently i7ple7ents the right of the people to initiate a7end7ents to the %onstitution' Such &iews, which + shall no longer repeat nor elaborate on, are thoroughly consistent with this %ourtDs unani7ous en banc rulings in Su*ic %a" Metropolitan Aut)orit" vs. +ommission on &lections , that ;pro&isions for initiati&e ' ' ' are -to be/ liberally construed to effectuate their purposes, to facilitate and not ha7per the e9ercise by the &oters of the rights granted thereby;@ and in 1arcia &s' %o7elec, that any ;effort to tri&iali?e the effecti&eness of peopleDs initiati&es ought to be re=ected'; ;#o law can co7pletely and absolutely co&er all ad7inistrati&e details' +n recognition of this, R'A' 573. wisely e7powered the %o77ission on "lection ;to pro7ulgate such rules and regulations as 7ay be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act'; And pursuant thereto, the %o7elec issued its Resolution 2300 on 15 6anuary 1221' Such Resolution, by its &ery words, was pro7ulgated ;to go&ern the conduct of initiati&e on the %onstitution and initiati&e and referendu7 on national and local laws,; not by the incu7bent %o77ission on "lections but by one then co7posed of Acting %hairperson Caydee $' Lorac, %o77s' Alfredo authority to i7ple7ent, effectuate and reali?e our peopleDs power to a7end the %onstitution'; YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY "' Abueg, 6r', )eopoldo )' Africa, Andres R' <lores, :ario %' Ra7a and !agdara $' :i7aa7pao' All of these %o77issioners who signed Resolution 2300 ha&e retired fro7 the %o77ission, and thus we cannot ascribe any &ile 7oti&e unto the7, other than an honest, sincere and e9e7plary effort to gi&e life to a cherished right of our people' ;The 7a=ority argues that while Resolution 2300 is &alid in regard to national laws and local legislations, it is &oid in reference to constitutional a7end7ents' There is no basis for such differentiation' The source of and authority for the Resolution is the sa7e law, R'A' 573.' ;+ respectfully sub7it that taBen together and interpreted properly and liberally, the %onstitution -particularly Art' KA++, Sec' 2/, R'A' 573. and %o7elec Resolution 2300 pro&ide 7ore than sufficient authority to i7ple7ent, effectuate and reali?e our peopleDs power to a7end the %onstitution' Petitioner 'e!fin and the Pedrosa pouses hou!d 1ot Be "u..!ed ;+ a7 glad the 7a=ority decided to heed our plea to lift the te7porary restraining order issued by this %ourt on 14 :ece7ber 1225 insofar as it prohibited etitioner :elfin and the Spouses edrosa fro7 e9ercising their right of initiati&e' +n fact, + belie&e that such restraining order as against pri&ate respondents should not ha&e been issued, in the first place' While + agree that the %o7elec should be stopped fro7 using public funds and go&ern7ent resources to help the7 gather signatures, + fir7ly belie&e that this %ourt has no power to restrain the7 fro7 e9ercising their right of initiati&e' The right to propose a7end7ents to the %onstitution is really a species of the right of free speech and free asse7bly' And certainly, it would be tyrannical and despotic to stop anyone fro7 speaBing freely and persuading others to confor7 to hisJher beliefs' As the e7inent Aoltaire once said, D+ 7ay disagree with what you say, but + will defend to the death your right to say it'D After all, freedo7 is not really for the thought we agree with, but as 6ustice Col7es wrote, Dfreedo7 for the thought that we hate'D E0.9oG54 ;$y way of epilogue, let 7e stress the guiding tenet of 7y Separate (pinion' +nitiati&e, liBe referendu7 and recall, is a new and treasured feature of the <ilipino constitutional syste7' All three are institutionali?ed legacies of the world,ad7ired ":SA people power' )iBe elections and plebiscites, they are hallowed e9pressions of popular so&ereignty' They are sacred de7ocratic rights of our people to be used as Si9 7onths after, in 7y Separate (pinion in $eople0s <nitiative for Reform, Modernization and Action B$<RMAC v. +omelec,3 + =oined the rest of the 7e7bers of the %ourt in ruling ;by a unani7ous &ote, that no gra&e abuse of discretion could be attributed to the %o7elec in dis7issing the petition filed by YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

%onstitution 9 9 9'; While concededly, petitioners in this case were not direct parties in Santiago, nonetheless the %ourtDs in=unction against the %o7elec co&ered A#L petition, not =ust the :elfin petition which was the i77ediate sub=ect of said case' A/ a +.//4*14r .* Sa*1.aGo, " <49.464+, a*+ /1.99 +o, 1ha1 1h4 :aKor.12 Gra6492 4rr4+ .* r4*+4r.*G /5ch a /I440.*G .*K5*c1.o*, <51 " ca**o1 8a591 1h4 Co:494c 8or co:092.*G I.1h 1h4 r59.*G 464* .8 .1, 1oo, +./aGr44+ I.1h /a.+ +4c./.o*P/ ratio decidendi. R4/0o*+4*1 Co:494c Ia/ +.r4c192 4*Ko.*4+ <2 1h4 h.Gh4/1 Co5r1 o8 1h4 9a*+. "1 ha+ *o cho.c4 <51 1o o<42. "1/ o<4+.4*c4 ca**o1 co*/1.1514 Gra64 a<5/4 o8 +./cr41.o*. Refusal to act on the +R!A petition was the only recourse open to the %o7elec' Any other 7ode of action would ha&e constituted defiance of the %ourt and would ha&e been strucB down as gra&e abuse of discretion and contu7acious disregard of this %ourtDs supre7acy as the final arbiter of =usticiable contro&ersies' S4co*+ "//54C ufficiency of #) 9A8@ L" r404a1 :2 8.r: 94Ga9 0o/.1.o* 1ha1 RA 673) ./ a+4N5a14 1o co64r .*.1.a1.64/ o* 1h4 Co*/1.151.o*, a*+ 1ha1 Iha1464r a+:.*./1ra1.64 +41a.9/ :a2 ha64 <44* o:.114+ .* /a.+ 9aI ar4 /a1./8ac1or.92 0ro6.+4+ <2 Co:494c R4/o951.o* 23@@. The pro7ulgation of Resolution 2300 is sanctioned by Section 2, Article +K,% of the %onstitution, which &ests upon the %o7elec the power to ;enforce and ad7inister all laws and regulations relati&e to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, .*.1.a1.64, referendu7 and recall'; The (7nibus "lection %ode liBewise e7powers the electoral body to ;pro7ulgate rules and regulations i7ple7enting the pro&isions of this %ode or other laws which the %o77ission is re0uired to enforce and ad7inister 9 9 9'; <inally and 7ost rele&antly, Section 20 of Ra 573. specifically authori?es %o7elec ;to pro7ulgate rules and regulations as 7ay be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act'; ;+n 7y dissent in Santiago, + wrote that ;there is a r.Gh1 Ia2 to do the r.Gh1 1h.*G at the r.Gh1 1.:4 and for the r.Gh1 r4a/o*'; )et 7e e9plain further' The #ight Thing ;A peopleDs initiati&e is direct de7ocracy in action' +t is the right thing that citi?ens 7ay a&ail the7sel&es of to articulate their will' +t is a new and treasured feature of the <ilipino constitutional syste7' "&en the 7a=ority i7plicitly conceded its &alue and worth in our legal fir7a7ent when it i7plored %ongress ;not to tarry any longer in co7plying with the constitutional 7andate to pro&ide for i7ple7entation of the right -of initiati&e/ of the people 9 9 9'; Cence, in the en *anc case of Su*ic %a" Metropolitan Aut)orit" vs. +omelec, F1'R' #o' 12.315, Septe7ber 25, 1225G, this %ourt unani7ously held that ;-l/iBe elections, initiati&e and referendu7 are powerful and &aluable 7odes of e9pressing popular +R!A therein,; since the %o77ission had ;only co7plied; with the antiago :ecision' YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY so&ereignty' And this %ourt as a 7atter of policy and doctrine will e9ert e&ery effort to nurture, protect and pro7ote their legiti7ate e9ercise'; The #ight &ay ;<ro7 the outset, + ha&e already 7aintained the &iew that ;taBen together and interpreted properly and liberally, the %onstitution -particularly Art' KA++, Sec' 2/, RA 573. and %o7elec Resolution 2300 pro&ide 7ore than sufficient authority to i7ple7ent, effectuate and reali?e our peopleDs power to a7end the %onstitution'; )et 7e now de7onstrate the ade0uacy of RA 573. by outlining, in concrete ter7s, the steps to be taBen T the right way T to a7end the %onstitution through a peopleDs initiati&e' ; ursuant to Section 3-f/ of the law, the %o7elec shall prescribe the for7 of the petition which shall contain the proposition and the re0uired nu7ber of signatories' *nder Sec' .-c/ thereof, the petition shall state the following8 Dc'1 contents or te9t of the Fpro&ision or pro&isionsG sought to be 9 9 9 a7ended, 9 9 9@ c'2 the proposition Fin full te9tG@ c'3 the reason or reasons therefor Ffully and clearly e9plainedG@ c'3 that it is not one of e9ceptions pro&ided herein@ c'. signatures of the petitioners or registered &oters@ and c'5 an abstract or su77ary proposition in not 7ore than one hundred -100/ words which shall be legibly written or printed at the top of e&ery page of the petition'D

;Section 4-f/ of %o7elec Resolution 2300 additionally re0uires that the petition include a for7al designation of the duly authori?ed representati&es of the signatories' ;$eing a constitutional re0uire7ent, the nu7ber of signatures beco7es a condition precedent to the filing of the petition, and is =urisdictional' Without such re0uisite signatures, the %o77ission shall motu proprio re=ect the petition' ;Where the initiators ha&e substantially co7plied with the abo&e re0uire7ents, they 7ay thence file the petition with the %o7elec which is tasBed to deter7ine the sufficiency thereof and to &erify the signatures on the basis of the registry list of &oters, &otersD affida&its and &otersD identification cards' +n deciding whether the petition is sufficient, the %o7elec shall also deter7ine if the proposition is proper for an initiati&e, i.e., if it consists of an a7end7ent, not a re&ision, of the %onstitution' Any decision of the electoral body 7ay be appealed to the Supre7e %ourt within thirty -30/ days fro7 notice' + added ;that 7y position upholding the ade0uacy of RA 573. and the &alidity of %o7elec Resolution 2300 will notipso RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR ;Within thirty -30/ days fro7 receipt of the petition, and after the deter7ination of its sufficiency, the %o7elec shall publish the sa7e in <ilipino and "nglish at least twice in newspapers of general and local circulation, and set the date of the plebiscite' The conduct of the plebiscite should not be earlier than si9ty -50/ days, but not later than ninety -20/ days after certification by the %o7elec of the sufficiency of the petition' The proposition, if appro&ed by a 7a=ority of the &otes cast in the plebiscite, beco7es effecti&e as of the day of the plebiscite' ;<ro7 the foregoing, it should be clear that 7y position upholding the ade0uacy of RA 573. and the &alidity of %o7elec Resolution 2300 will not ipso facto &alidate the +R!A petition and auto7atically lead to a plebiscite to a7end the %onstitution' <ar fro7 it' A7ong others, +R!A 7ust still satisfactorily hurdle the following searching issues8 1' :oes the proposed change T the lifting of the ter7 li7its of electi&e officials ,, constitute a 7ere a7end7ent and not a re&ision of the %onstitutionH 2' Which registry of &oters will be used to &erify the signatures in the petitionH This 0uestion is rele&ant considering that under RA 4142, the old registry of &oters used in the 122. national elections was &oided after the barangay elections on !ay 12, 1227, while the new list 7ay be used starting only in the elections of !ay 1224' 3' :oes the cla7or for the proposed change in the %onstitution really e7anate fro7 the people who signed the petition for initiati&eH (r it is the beneficiaries of ter7 e9tension who are in fact orchestrating such 7o&e to ad&ance their own political self,interestH 3' Are the si9 7illion signatures genuine and &erifiableH :o they really belong to 0ualified war7 bodies co7prising at least 12Q of the registered &oters nationwide, of which e&ery legislati&e district is represented by at least 3Q of the registered &oters thereinH ;+ shall e9pound on the third 0uestion in the ne9t section, The Right Reason' Iuestion #os' 1 and 2 abo&e, while i7portant, are basically legal in character and can be deter7ined by argu7entation and 7e7oranda' Cowe&er, Iuestion #o' 3 in&ol&es not only legal issues but gargantuan hurdles of factual deter7ination' This to 7y 7ind is the crucible, the lit7us test, of a peopleDs petition for initiati&e' +f herein petitioners, led by +R!A, succeed in proving ,, not =ust alleging ,, that si9 7illion &oters of this country indeed want to a7end the %onstitution, what power on earth can stop the7H #ot this %ourt, not the %o7elec, not e&en the resident or %ongress' facto &alidate the +R!A petition and auto7atically lead to a plebiscite to a7end the %onstitution' <ar fro7 it'; + stressed that +R!A 7ust show the following, a:o*G o1h4r/8 YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY ;+t tooB only one 7illion people to stage a peaceful re&olution at ":SA, and the &ery rafters and foundations of the 7artial law society tre7bled, 0uaBed and cru7bled' (n the other hand, +R!A and its co,petitioners are clai7ing that they ha&e gathered si9 7illion signatures' +f, as clai7ed by 7any, these si9 7illion signatures are fraudulent, then let the7 be e9posed and da7ned for all history in a signature,&erification process conducted under our open syste7 of legal ad&ocacy' ;!ore than anything else, it is the truth that +, as a 7e7ber of this %ourt and as a citi?en of this country, would liBe to seeB8 Are these si9 7illion signatures realH $y insisting on an entirely new doctrine of statutory inade0uacy, the 7a=ority effecti&ely suppressed the 0uest for that truth'

T)e Rig)t Reason ;As 7entioned, the third 0uestion that 7ust be answered, e&en if the ade0uacy of RA 573. and the &alidity of %o7elec Resolution 2300 were upheld by the 7a=ority is8 :oes the cla7or for the proposed change to the %onstitution really e7anate fro7 the people who signed the petition for initiati&eH (r is it the beneficiaries of ter7 e9tension who are in fact orchestrating such 7o&e to ad&ance their own political self,interestsH +n other words, is +R!ADs e9ercise of the right to initiati&e being done in accordance with our %onstitution and our lawsH +s such atte7pted e9ercise legiti7ateH ;+n Garcia vs. +ommission on &lections, we described initiati&e, along with referendu7, as the Dulti7ate weapon of the people to negate go&ern7ent 7alfeasance and 7isfeasance'D +n Su*ic %a", we specified that Dinitiati&e is entirely the worB of the electorate 9 9 9 a process of law7aBing by the people the7sel&es without the participation and against the wishes of their elected representati&es'D A/ 0o*4*14 o8 ubic Bay, " /1a*+ 8o5r/N5ar4 o* 1h./ 0r.*c.094C Th4 r.Gh1 1o a:4*+ 1hro5Gh .*.1.a1.64 <49o*G/ o*92 1o 1h4 04o094 Q *o1 1o 1h4 Go64r*:4*1 a*+ .1/ :.*.o*/. This principle finds clear support fro7 utterances of 7any constitutional co77issioners liBe those 0uoted below8 ;F+nitiati&e isG a reser&e power of the so&ereign people, when they are dissatisfied with the #ational Asse7bly 9 9 9 FandG precisely a fallbacB position of the people in the e&ent that they are dissatisfied'; ,, %o77issioner (ple ;F+nitiati&e isG a checB on a legislati&e that is not responsi&e Fand resorted toG only if the legislature is not as responsi&e to the &ital and urgent needs of people'; ,, %o77issioner 1ascon -1/ The proposed change ,, the lifting of ter7 li7its of electi&e officials ,, ;constituteFsG a 7ere a7end7ent and not a re&ision of the %onstitution'; YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY ;F+nitiati&e is anG e9traordinary power gi&en to the people FandG reser&ed for the people FwhichG should not be fri&olously resorted to'; ,, %o77issioner Ro7ulo ;+ndeed, if the powers,that,be desire to a7end the %onstitution, or e&en to re&ise it, our %harter itself pro&ides the7 other ways of doing so, na7ely, by calling a constitutional con&ention or constituting %ongress into a constituent asse7bly' These are officialdo7Ds weapons' $ut initiati&e belongs to the people' ;+n the present case, are +R!A and its co,petitioners legiti7ate peopleDs organi?ations or are they 7erely fronts for incu7bents who want to e9tend their ter7sH This is a factual 0uestion which, unfortunately, cannot be 6udiciall" answered any7ore, because the Supre7e %ourt 7a=ority ruled that the law that i7ple7ents it, RA 573., is inade0uate or insufficient insofar as initiati&es to the %onstitutions are concerned' With such ruling, the 7a=ority effecti&ely abrogated a constitutional right of our people' That is why in 7y Separate (pinion in Santiago, + e9clai7ed that such precipitate action ;is e0ui&alent to burning the whole house to e9ter7inate the rats, and to Billing the patient to relie&e hi7 of pain'; + fir7ly 7aintain that to defeat +R!ADs effort, there is no need to ;burn; the constitutional right to initiati&e' +f +R!ADs e9ercise is not ;legiti7ate,; it can be e9posed as such in the ways + ha&e discussed T short of abrogating the right itself' (n the other hand, if +R!ADs position is pro&en to be legiti7ate T if it hurdles the four issues + outlined earlier T by all 7eans, we should allow and encourage it' $ut the 7a=orityDs theory of statutory inade0uacy has pre,e7pted T unnecessarily and in&alidly, in 7y &iew T any =udicial deter7ination of such legiti7acy or illegiti7acy' +t has silenced the 0uest for truth into the interstices of the +R!A petition' The #ight Time ;The %onstitution itself sets a ti7e li7itation on when changes thereto 7ay be proposed' Section 2 of Article KA++ precludes a7end7ents ;within fi&e years following FitsG ratification 9 9 9 nor oftener than once e&ery fi&e years thereafter'; Since its ratification, the 1247 %onstitution has ne&er been a7ended' Cence, the fi&e,year prohibition is now inoperati&e and a7end7ents 7ay theoretically be proposed at any ti7e' ;$e that as it 7ay, + belie&e T gi&en the present circu7stances T that there is no 7ore ti7e to lift ter7 li7its to enable incu7bents to seeB reelection in the !ay 11, 1224 polls' $etween today and the ne9t national -2/ The ;si9 7illion signatures are genuine and &erifiable;@ and they ;really belong to 0ualified war7 bodies co7prising at YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY elections, less than eight -4/ 7onths re7ain' Santiago, where the single issue of the sufficiency of RA 573. was resol&ed, tooB this %ourt three -3/ 7onths, and another two -2/ 7onths to decide the 7otion for reconsideration' The instant case, where the sa7e issue is also raised by the petitioners, tooB two 7onths,

not counting a possible 7otion for reconsideration' These ti7e spans could not be abbre&iated any further, because due process re0uires that all parties be gi&en sufficient ti7e to file their pleadings' ;Thus, e&en if the %ourt were to rule now in fa&or of the ade0uacy of RA 573. T as + belie&e it should T and allow the %o7elec to act on the +R!A petition, such eight,7onth period will not be enough to tacBle the four weighty issues + 7entioned earlier, considering that two of the7 in&ol&e tedious factual 0uestions' The %o7elecDs decision on any of these issues can still be ele&ated to this %ourt for re&iew, and reconsiderations on our decisions on each of those issues 7ay again be sought' ;%o7elecDs herculean tasB alone of &erifying each of the si9 7illion signatures is enor7ously ti7e, consu7ing, considering that any person 7ay 0uestion the authenticity of each and e&ery signature, initially before the election registrar, then before the %o7elec on appeal and finally, before this %ourt in a separate proceeding' !oreo&er, the plebiscite itself T assu7ing such stage can be reached T 7ay be scheduled only after si9ty -50/ but not 7ore than ninety -20/ days, fro7 the ti7e the %o7elec and this %ourt, on appeal, finally declare the petition to be sufficient' ;!eanwhile, under %o7elec Resolution 2235, political parties, groups organi?ations or coalitions 7ay start selecting their official candidates for resident, Aice resident and Senators on #o&e7ber 27, 1227@ the period for filing certificates of candidacy is fro7 6anuary 11 to <ebruary 2, 1224@ the election period and ca7paign for national officials start on <ebruary 10, 1224, while the ca7paign period for other electi&e officials, on !arch 17, 1224' This 7eans, by the ti7e +R!ADs proposition is ready T if e&er T for sub7ission directly to the &oters at large, it will ha&e been o&erco7e by the elections' Ti7e will si7ply run out on +R!A,if t)e intention is to lift term limits in time for t)e 4;;G elections. ;That ter7 li7its 7ay no longer be lifted prior to the 1224 elections &ia a peopleDs initiati&e does not detract one whit fro7 -1/ 7y fir7 con&iction that RA 573. is sufficient and ade0uate to i7ple7ent this constitutional right and, 7ore i7portant, -2/ 7y faith in the power of the people to initiate changes in local and national laws and the %onstitution' +n fact, + thinB the %ourt can deliberate on these two ite7s e&en 7ore serenely and wisely now that the debates will be free fro7 the din and distraction of the 1224 elections' After all, =urisprudence is not 7erely for the here and now but, 7ore so, for the hereafter and the 7orrow' )et 7e therefore stress, by way of epilogue, 7y unbending credo in fa&or of our peopleDs right to initiati&e' least 12Q of the registered &oters nationwide, of which e&ery legislati&e district is represented by at least 3Q of the registered &oters therein'; YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY (pi!ogue ;+ belie&e in de7ocracy T in our peopleDs natural right to deter7ine our own destiny' ;+ belie&e in the process of initiati&e as a de7ocratic 7ethod of enabling our people to e9press their will and chart their history' +nitiati&e is an alternati&e to bloody re&olution, internal chaos and ci&il strife' +t is an inherent right of the people T as basic as the right to elect, the right to self,deter7ination and the right to indi&idual liberties' + belie&e that <ilipinos ha&e the ability and the capacity to rise abo&e the7sel&es, to use this right of initiati&e wisely and 7aturely, and to choose what is best for the7sel&es and their posterity' ;Such beliefs, howe&er, should not be e0uated with a desire to perpetuate a particular official or group of officials in power' <ar fro7 it' Such perpetuation is anathe7a to de7ocracy' !y fir7 con&iction that there is an ade0uate law i7ple7enting the constitutional right of initiati&e does not ipso facto result in the &ictory of the +R!A petition or of any proposed constitutional change' There are, after all, sufficient safeguards to guarantee the proper use of such constitutional right and to forestall its 7isuse and abuse' =irst, initiati&e cannot be used to re&ise the %onstitution, only to a7end it' Second, the petitionersD signatures 7ust be &alidated against an e9isting list of &oters andJor &otersD identification cards' T)ird, initiati&e is a re&erse power of and by the people, not of incu7bent officials and their 7achinators' =ourt) and 7ost i7portant of all, the signatures 7ust be &erified as real and genuine@ not concocted, fictitious or fabricated' The only legal way to do this is to enable the %o77ission on "lections to conduct a nationwide &erification process as 7andated by the %onstitution and the law' Such &erification, it bears stressing, is sub=ect to re&iew by this %ourt' ;There were, by the 7ost generous esti7ate, only a 7illion people who gathered at ":SA in 1245, and yet they changed the history of our country' +R!A clai7s si9 ti7es that nu7ber, not =ust fro7 the #ational %apital Region but fro7 all o&er the country' +s this clai7 through the in&ention of its no&el theory of statutory insufficiency, the %ourtDs 7a=ority has stifled the only legal 7ethod of deter7ining whether +R!A is real or not, whether there is indeed a popular cla7or to lift ter7 li7its of elected officials, and whether si9 7illion &oters want to initiate a7end7ents to their 7ost basic law' +n suppressing a =udicial answer to such 0uestions, the %ourt 7ay ha&e unwittingly yielded to +R!A the benefit of the legal presu7ption of legality and regularity' +n its 7isplaced ?eal to e9ter7inate the rats, it burned down the whole house' +t uncere7oniously di&ested the people of a basic constitutional right'

+n both (pinions, + concluded that we 7ust i7ple7ent ;the right thing Finitiati&eG in the right way at the right ti7e and for the right reason'; +n the present case, + steadfastly stand by 7y foregoing (pinions in Santiago and $<RMA. Tested against the7, the present etition of Raul )a7bino and "rico Au7entado 7ust be :+S!+SS":' U*8or15*a1492, 1h4 right thing./ <4.*G r5/h4+ .* 1h4 /rong /ay a*+ 8or 1h4 /rong reasons' )et 7e e9plain' 1o $rave )buse of 'iscretion by Come!ec As in $<RMA, + find no gra&e abuse of discretion in %o7elecDs dis7issal of the )a7bino etition' After all, the %o77ission 7erely followed the holding in Santiago per7anently YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY ;+n the ulti7ate, the 7ission of the =udiciary is to disco&er truth and to 7aBe it pre&ail' This 7ission is undertaBen not only to resol&e the &agaries of present e&ents but also to build the pathways of to7orrow' The su7 total of the entire process of ad&ersarial litigation is the &erity of facts and the application of law thereto' $y the 7a=ority cop,out in this 7ission of disco&ery, our country and our people ha&e been depri&ed not only of a basic constitutional right, as earlier noted, but also of the =udicial opportunity to &erify the truth'; en=oining the poll body ;fro7 entertaining or taBing cogni?ance of any petition for initiati&e on a7end7ents to the %onstitution until a sufficient law shall ha&e been &alidly enacted to pro&ide for the i7ple7entation of the syste7'; "*+44+, 1h4 Co:494c +.+ *o1 6.o9a14 1h4 Co*/1.151.o*, 1h4 9aI/ or a*2 K5r./0r5+4*c4 '4 N4.1h4r ca* Ih.:, ca0r.c4, ar<.1rar.*4// or 04r/o*a9 <.a/ <4 a11r.<514+ 1o 1h4 Co::.//.o* '5 Iuite the contrary, it prudently followed this %ourtDs =urisprudence in Santiago and $<RMA' "&en assu7ing arguendo that %o7elec erred in ruling on a &ery difficult and unsettled 0uestion of law, this %ourt still cannot attribute gra&e abuse of discretion to the poll body with respect to that action'6 The present )a7bino etition is in e9actly the sa7e situation as that of +R!A in 1227' The differences pointed out by 6ustice Reynato S' uno are, with due respect, superficial' +t is argued that, unliBe the present )a7bino etition, $<RMA did not contain &erified signatures' These are distinctions that do not 7aBe a difference' recisely, 6ustice uno is urging a re7and, because the &erification issue is ;contentious; and re7ains unpro&en by petitioners' C94ar92, <o1h 1h4 P"RMA a*+ 1h4 La:<.*o P41.1.o*/ co*1a.* 5*64r.8.4+ /.G*a15r4/. Th4r48or4, 1h42 <o1h +4/4r64 1h4 /a:4 1r4a1:4*1C %"SM"SSAL. $esides, the o*92 r4a/o* gi&en in the unani7ous Resolution on $<RMA v. +omelec was that the %o77ission had ;only co7plied; with this %ourtDs :ecision in Santiago, the sa7e reason gi&en by %o7elec in this case' The Separate (pinions in +R!A ga&e no other reason' No o*4 arG54+, 464* r4:o1492, 1ha1 1h4 P"RMA P41.1.o* /ho59+ ha64 <44* +./:.//4+ <4ca5/4 1h4 /.G*a15r4/ I4r4 5*64r.8.4+. To stress, + adhere to 7y (pinion in $<RMA that, ;FbGeing a constitutional re0uire7ent, the nu7ber of signatures beco7es a condition precedent to the filing of the petition, and is =urisdictional' 7 Without those signatures, the %o7elec shall motu proprio re=ect the petition'; So, until and unless Santiago is re&isited and changed by this %ourt or the legal 7oorings of the e9ercise of the right are substantially changed, 1h4 Co:494c ca**o1 <4 8a5914+ 8or ac1.*G .* accor+ I.1h 1h./ Co5r1P/ 0ro*o5*c4:4*1/' Respondent %o77ission has *o +./cr41.o*, 5*+4r a*2 G5./4, 1o r485/4 4*8orc4:4*1 o8 a*2 8.*a9 +4c./.o* o8 1h./ Co5r1'8 The refusal of the poll body to act on the )a7bino etition was its only recourse' Any other 7ode of action would appear not only presu7ptuous, but also conte7ptuous' +t would ha&e constituted defiance of the %ourt and would ha&e surely been strucB down as gra&e abuse of discretion and contu7acious disregard of the supre7acy of this %ourt as the final arbiter of =usticiable contro&ersies' "&en assu7ing further that this %ourt rules, as + belie&e it should -for the reasons gi&en in 7y (pinions in Santiago and +R!A/, that Republic Act 573. is indeed sufficient to i7ple7ent an initiati&e to a7end the %onstitution, still, no gra&e abuse of discretion can be attributed to the %o7elec for 7erely following pre&ailing =urisprudence e9tant at the ti7e it rendered its ruling in 0uestion' <n!y )mendments, 1ot #evisions + reiterate that o*92 a:4*+:4*1/, *o1 r46./.o*/, :a2 <4 1h4 0ro04r /5<K4c1 o8 a* .*.1.a1.64 to change the %onstitution' This principle is crystal clear fro7 e&en a laypersonDs reading of the basic law' 9

+ sub7it that changing the syste7 of go&ern7ent fro7 presidential to parlia7entary and the for7 of the legislature fro7 bica7eral to unica7eral conte7plates a* o64rha59 o8 1h4 /1r5c15r4 o8 Go64r*:4*1 ' The ponencia has a7ply de7onstrated that the 7erger of the legislati&e and the e9ecuti&e branches under a unica7eral,parlia7entary syste7, ;FbGy any legal test and under any =urisdiction,; will ;radically alter the fra7eworB of go&ern7ent as set forth in the %onstitution'; +ndeed, the proposed changes ha&e an o&erall i7plication on the entire %onstitution@ they effecti&ely rewrite its 7ost i7portant and basic pro&isions' The proli9ity and co7ple9ity of the changes cannot be categori?ed, e&en by se7antic generosity, as ;a7end7ents'; +n addition, 7ay + say that of the three 7odes of changing the %onstitution, re&isions -or a7end7ents/ 7ay be proposed only through the first two8 by %ongress or by a constitutional con&ention' *nder the third 7ode ,, peopleDs initiati&e ,, only a7end7ents are allowed' !any of the =usticesD (pinions ha&e cited the historical, philosophical and =urisprudential bases of their respecti&e positions' + will not add to the woes of the reader by reiterating the7 here' Suffice it to say that, to 7e, the practical test to differentiate an a7end7ent fro7 a re&ision is found in the %onstitution itself8 a r46./.o* :a2 <4 +o*4 o*92 Ih4* 1h4 0ro0o/4+ cha*G4 ca* <4 +ra814+, +48.*4+, ar1.c59a14+, +./c5//4+ a*+ aGr44+ 50o* a814r a :a15r4 a*+ +4:ocra1.c +4<a14 .* a +49.<4ra1.64 <o+2 9.H4 Co*Gr4// or a Co*64*1.o*. The changes proposed 7ust necessarily be scrutini?ed, as their adoption or non, adoption 7ust result fro7 an .*8or:4+ K5+G:4*1' +ndeed, the constitutional bodies that drafted the 123., the 1272 and the 1247 %onstitutions had to spend 7any 7onths of purposeful discussions, de7ocratic debates and rounds of &oting before they could agree on the wordings co&ering the philosophy, the underlying principles, and the structure of go&ern7ent of our Republic' Aerily, e&en bills creating or changing the ad7inistrati&e structure of local go&ern7ents taBe se&eral weeBs or e&en 7onths of drafting, reading, and debating before %ongress can appro&e the7' Cow 7uch 7ore when it co7es to constitutional changesH A change in the for7 of go&ern7ent of our country fro7 presidential,bica7eral to parlia7entary,unica7eral is 7onu7ental' "&en the initiati&e proponents ad7it this fact' So, why should a re&ision be ra77ed down our peopleDs throats without the benefit of intelligent discussion in a deliberati&e asse7blyH Added to the constitutional 7andate barring re&isions is the pro&ision of RA 573. e9pressly prohibiting petitions for initiati&e fro7 ;e7bracing 7ore than one sub=ect 7atter'; 10 The present initiati&e co&ers at least two sub=ects8 -1/ the shift fro7 a presidential to a parlia7entary for7 of go&ern7ent@ and -2/ the change fro7 a bica7eral to a unica7eral legislature'11 Thus, e&en under Republic Act 573. ,, the law that 6ustice uno and + hold to be sufficient and &alid ,, the )a7bino etition deser&es dis7issal' 02 Percent and 8 Percent Thresho!ds 1ot Proven by Petitioners The 9.1:5/ 14/1 of a peopleDs petition for initiati&e is its ability to 7uster the constitutional re0uire7ent that it be supported by at least 12 percent of the registered &oters nationwide, of which at least 3 percent of the registered &oters in e&ery legislati&e district 7ust be represented' As pointed out by +nter&enors (ne Aoice, +nc', et al', howe&er, records show that there was a failure to 7eet the 7ini7u7 percentages re0uired' 12 "&en 6ustice uno concedes that the 12 percent and 3 percent constitutional re0uire7ents in&ol&e ;contentious facts,; which ha&e not been pro&en by the )a7bino etition' Thus, he is urging a re7and to the %o7elec' $ut a re7and is both .:0r5+4*1 a*+ 851.94' +t is i7prudent because the %onstitution itself 7andates the said re0uisites of an initiati&e petition' +n other words, a 041.1.o* 1ha1 +o4/ *o1 /hoI 1h4 r4N5.r4+ 04rc4*1aG4/ ./ 8a1a992 +484c1.64 a*+ :5/1 <4 +./:.//4+, as the :elfin etition was, in Santiago' <urther7ore, as the ponencia had discussed e9tensi&ely, the present etition is &oid and unconstitutional' +t points out that the etition dis7ally fails to co7ply with the constitutional re0uire7ent that an initiati&e 7ust be directly proposed by the people' Specifically, the ponencia has a7ply established that petitioners were unable to show that the )a7bino etition contained, or incorporated by attach7ent, the full te9t of the proposed changes' So, too, a re7and is futile' E64* .8 1h4 r4N5.r4+ 04rc4*1aG4/ ar4 0ro64* <48or4 1h4 Co::.//.o*, 1h4 P41.1.o* :5/1 /1.99 <4 +./:.//4+ 8or 0ro0o/.*G a r46./.o*, *o1 a* a:4*+:4*1, .* Gro// 6.o9a1.o* o8 1h4 Co*/1.151.o* ' At the &ery least, it proposes 7ore than one sub=ect, in &iolation of Republic Act 573.' S5::a1.o* etitioners plead with this %ourt to hear the &oice of the people because, in the words of 6ustice uno who supports the7, the ;peopleDs &oice is so&ereign in a de7ocracy'; ", 1oo, <49.464 .* h44+.*G 1h4 04o094P/ 6o.c4' + reiterate 7y Separate (pinion in +R!A that ;initiati&e is a de7ocratic 7ethod of enabling our people to e9press their will and chart their history' 9 9 9' + belie&e that <ilipinos

ha&e the ability and the capacity to rise abo&e the7sel&es, to use this right of initiati&e wisely and 7aturely, and to choose what is best for the7sel&es and their posterity'; This belief will not, howe&er, auto7atically and blindly result in an initiati&e to change the %onstitution, because the present etition &iolates the following8 \ The Co*/1.151.o* -specifically Article KA++, which allows only a7end7ents, not re&isions, and re0uires definite percentages of &erified signatures/ \ The 9aI -specifically, Republic Act 573., which prohibits petitions containing 7ore than one sub=ect/ \ J5r./0r5+4*c4 -specifically, $<RMA v. +omelec, which dis7issed the etition then under consideration on the ground that, by following the Santiago ruling, the %o7elec had not gra&ely abused its discretion/' + sub7it further that a re7and of the )a7bino etition is both i7prudent and futile' !ore tellingly, it is a co0-o51, a ha*+-Ia/h.*G already discredited 2000 years ago' "*/14a+ o8 8.*G4r-0o.*1.*G, + belie&e we 7ust confront the issues head on, because the people e9pect no less fro7 this august and &enerable institution of supre7e =ustice' E0.9oG54 At botto7, 1h4 .//54 .* 1h./ ca/4 ./ /.:092 1h4 R594 o8 LaI'13 +nitiati&e, liBe referendu7 and recall, is a treasured feature of the <ilipino constitutional syste7' +t was born out of our world,ad7ired and often,i7itated eople ower, but .1/ :./5/4 a*+ a<5/4 :5/1 <4 r4/o951492 r4K4c14+ ' :e7ocracy 7ust be cherished, but 7ob rule &an0uished' The %onstitution is a /acr4+ /oc.a9 co:0ac1, forged between the go&ern7ent and the people, between each indi&idual and the rest of the citi?enry' Through it, the people ha&e sole7nly e9pressed their will that all of the7 shall be go&erned by laws, and their rights li7ited by agreed,upon co&enants to pro7ote the co77on good' +f we are to uphold the Rule of )aw and re=ect the rule of the 7ob, I4 :5/1 8a.1h85992 a<.+4 <2 1h4 0roc4//4/ 1h4 Co*/1.151.o* ha/ or+a.*4+ in order to bring about a 04ac4859, K5/1 a*+ h5:a*4 /oc.412' Assu7ing arguendothat si9 7illion people allegedly ga&e their assent to the proposed changes in the %onstitution, they are ne&ertheless /1.99 <o5*+ <2 1h4 /oc.a9 co64*a*1 ,, the present %onstitution ,, which was ratified by a far greater 7a=ority al7ost twenty years ago'14 + do not denigrate the 7a=esty of the so&ereign will@ rather, + ele&ate our society to the loftiest perch, because o5r Go64r*:4*1 :5/1 r4:a.* a/ o*4 o8 9aI/ a*+ *o1 o8 :4*. *pon assu7ing office, each of the =ustices of the Supre7e %ourt tooB a sole7n oath to uphold the %onstitution' $eing the protectors of the funda7ental law as the highest e9pression of the so&ereign will, they 7ust sub=ect to the strictest scrutiny a*2 a114:01 1o cha*G4 .1, 94/1 .1 <4 1r.6.a9.J4+ a*+ +4Gra+4+ <2 1h4 a//a591/ o8 1h4 :o< a*+ o8 .99-co*c4.64+ +4/.G*/' The %ourt 7ust single,7indedly +484*+ 1h4 Co*/1.151.o* 8ro: <oG5/ 488or1/ falsely attributed to the so&ereign people' The =udiciary 7ay be the weaBest branch of go&ern7ent' #onetheless, when ranged against incessant &oices fro7 the 7ore powerful branches of go&ern7ent, it should ne&er cower in sub7ission' (n the other hand, + daresay that the sa7e weaBness of the %ourt beco7es its strength when it speaBs independently through decisions that rightfully uphold 1h4 /50r4:ac2 o8 1h4 Co*/1.151.o* a*+ 1h4 R594 o8 LaI' The strength of the =udiciary lies not in its lacB of brute power, but in its 7oral courage to perfor7 its constitutional duty at all ti7es against all odds' "1/ :.Gh1 ./ .* .1/ <4.*G r.Gh1'15 :uring the past weeBs, 7edia outfits ha&e been abla?e with reports and innuendoes about alleged carrots offered and sticBs drawn by those interested in the outco7e of this case' 16 There being no =udicial proof of these allegations, + shall not co77ent on the7 for the nonce, e9cept to 0uote the 1ood $ooB, which says, ;There is nothing hidden that will not be re&ealed, and nothing secret that will not be Bnown and co7e to light'; 17 Aerily, the Supre7e %ourt is now on the crossroads of history' $y its decision, the %ourt and each of its 7e7bers shall be =udged by posterity' Ten years, fifty years, a hundred years ,, or e&en a thousand years ,, fro7 now, what the %ourt did here, and how each =ustice opined and &oted, will still be talBed about, either in sha7e or in pride' +ndeed, the hand,washing of ontius ilate, the abo7ination of (red Scott, and the loathing of Javellana still linger and haunt to this day' )et not this case fall into the sa7e da7nation' Rather, let this %ourt be Bnown throughout the nation and the world for its .*+404*+4*c4, .*14Gr.12, .*+5/1r2 a*+ .*1499.G4*c4' WC"R"<(R", + &ote to 'I "I G.R. No. 2@3766 the etition'

A0r.9 2, 2@13

ATONG PAGLAUM, "NC., r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ Pr4/.+4*1, Mr. A9a* "Go1, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent'

9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No/. 2@3?1?-19 A,O ("COL POL"T"CAL PART# EA,(F, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS EN (ANC, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@3922 ASSOC"AT"ON O$ P "L"PP"NE ELECTR"C COOPERAT"VES EAPECF,r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ Pr4/.+4*1 Co*Gr4//:a* Po*c.a*o %. Pa252o, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@3936 A,S#ON MAGSASA,A-PART"%O T"N"G NG MASA, r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ Pr4/.+4*1 M.cha49 A<a/ ,.+a, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS EN (ANC, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@39)? ,APAT"RAN NG MGA NA,ULONG NA -ALANG SALA, "NC. E,A,USAF, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@396@ 1/1 CONSUMERS ALL"ANCE $OR RURAL ENERG#, "NC. E1-CAREF, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS EN (ANC, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@3976 ALL"ANCE $OR RURAL AN% AGRAR"AN RECONSTRUCT"ON, "NC. EARAROF, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@39?1 ASSOC"AT"ON $OR R"G TEOUSNESS A%VOCAC# ON LEA%ERS "P EARALF PART#-L"ST, r40r4/4*14+ h4r4.* <2 M/. Lo5r+4/ L. AG5/1.*, 1h4 0ar12R/ S4cr41ar2 G4*4ra9, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@4@@2 ALL"ANCE $OR RURAL CONCERNS, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent'

9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@4@94 ALL"ANCE $OR NAT"ONAL"SM AN% %EMOCRAC# EANA%F, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@41@@ 1-(RO P "L"PP"NE GUAR%"ANS (ROT ER OO%, "NC., E1(RO-PG("F 8or:4r92 PG(", etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS EN (ANC, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@4122 1 GUAR%"ANS NAT"ONAL"ST P "L"PP"NES, "NC., E1GANAPSGUAR%"ANSF, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS EN (ANC co:0o/4+ o8 S"!TO S. (R"LLANTES, JR., Cha.r:a*, RENE V. SARM"ENTO, Co::.//.o*4r,LUCEN"TO N. TAGLE, Co::.//.o*4r,ARMAN%O C. VELASCO, Co::.//.o*4r,EL"AS R. #USOP , Co::.//.o*4r, a*+C R"ST"AN RO(ERT S. L"M, Co::.//.o*4r,Respondents' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@412) AGAPA# NG "N%"GENOUS PEOPLES R"G TS ALL"ANCE, "NC. EA-"PRAF, r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ S4cr41ar2 G4*4ra9,Ro*a9+ %. Macara.G, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS EN (ANC, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@4126 ,AAGAPA# NG NAG,A,A"SANG AG"LANG P"L"P"NONG MAGSASA,A E,APF, 8or:4r92 H*oI* a/ A,O AG"LA NG NAG,A,A"SANG MAGSASA,A EA,O AG"LAF, r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ S4cr41ar2 G4*4ra9, L4o R. Sa* (54*a64*15ra, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@4139 ALA( NG MAMAMA A#AG EALAMF, r40r4/4*14+ <2 A112. (4r14*. Ca1a95Ta Ca5/.*G, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@4141 (ANTA# PART# L"ST, r40r4/4*14+ <2 Mar.a E6a*G49.*a $. Pa90ara*, Pr4/.+4*1, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@41)3

PASANG MAS%A NAT"ON-"%E PART# <2 .1/ Pr4/.+4*1 Ro<4r1o L,a O<41L Mar1.*, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondents' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@41)? A(ROA% PART# L"ST, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, C A"RMAN S"!TO S. (R"LLANTES, JR., COMM"SS"ONERS RENE V. SARM"ENTO, ARMAN%O C. VELASCO, EL"AS R. #USOP , C R"ST"AN RO(ERT S. L"M, MAR"A GRAC"A C"ELO M. PA%ACA, LUCEN"TO TAGLE, AN% ALL OT ER PERSONS ACT"NG ON T E"R (E AL$, Respondents' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@4174 AANGAT TA#O PART# L"ST-PART#, r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ Pr4/.+4*1 S.:4o* T. S.96a, Jr., etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS EN (ANC, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@4216 COCO$E%-P "L"PP"NE COCONUT PRO%UCERS $E%ERAT"ON, "NC., etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@422@ A(ANG L"NG,O% PART#-L"ST, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS EN (ANC, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@4236 $"RM 24-, ASSOC"AT"ON, "NC., etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@423? ALL"ANCE O$ ("COLNON PART# EA(PF, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS EN (ANC, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@4239 GREEN $ORCE $OR T E ENV"RONMENT SONS AN% %AUG TERS O$ MOT ER EART EGREEN$ORCEF, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@424@

AGR"-AGRA NA REPORMA PARA SA MAGSASA,A NG P"L"P"NAS MOVEMENT EAGR"F, r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ S4cr41ar2 G4*4ra9, M.cha49 R2a* A. E*r.N54J, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS EN (ANC, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@4263 A (LESSE% PART# L"ST A.,.A. (LESSE%$E%ERAT"ON O$ $ARMERS AN% $"S ERMEN "NTERNAT"ONAL, "NC., etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@431? UN"TE% MOVEMENT AGA"NST %RUGS $OUN%AT"ON EUN"MA%F PART#-L"ST, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@4321 ANG AGR",ULTURA NAT"N "SULONG EAAN"F, r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ S4cr41ar2 G4*4ra9 Jo/4 C. Po9.car0.o, Jr., etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@4323 (A#AN" PART#L"ST a/ r40r4/4*14+ <2 o:4r (54*o, $.1r29.* %a9ha*.,"/ra49 +4 Ca/1ro, %a*14 Na6arroa*+ G5.9.*G Ma:o*+.o*G, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, C A"RMAN S"!TO S. (R"LLANTES, JR., COMM"SS"ONERS RENE V. SARM"ENTO, LUCEN"TO N. TAGLE, ARMAN%O C. VELASCO, EL"AS R. #USOP , C R"ST"AN RO(ERT S. L"M, a*+ MAR"A GRAC"A C"ELO M. PA%ACA, Respondents' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@4341 ACT"ON LEAGUE O$ "N%"GENOUS MASSESEAL"MF PART#-L"ST, r40r4/4*14+ h4r4.* <2 .1/ Pr4/.+4*1 $a1a*. S. A<+59 Ma9.H, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@43)6 (UT"L $ARMERS PART#, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@43)? ALL"ANCE O$ A%VOCATES "N M"N"NGA%VANCEMENT $OR NAT"ONAL PROGRESS EAAMAF, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS EN (ANC, Respondent' etitioner,

9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@43)9 SOC"AL MOVEMENT $OR ACT"VERE$ORM AN% TRANSPARENC# ESMARTF, r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ Cha.r:a*, Car9.1o (. C5<49o, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS EN (ANC, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@4364 A% ",A"N AT ,"LUSAN NG OR%"NAR#ONG-TAO, PARA SA LUPA, PA(A A#, ANAP(U A# AT ,AUNLARAN EA,O (U A#F, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS EN (ANC, S"!TO S. (R"LLANTES, JR., RENE V. SARM"ENTO, LUCEN"TO N. TAGLE, ARMAN%O C. VELASCO, EL"AS R. #USOP , C R"ST"AN RO(ERT S. L"M, a*+ MA. GRAC"A C"ELO M. PA%ACA, .* 1h4.r ca0ac.1.4/ a/ Co::.//.o*4r/ 1h4r4o8, Respondents' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@4367 A,(A# ,ALUSUGAN "NCORPORAT"ONEA,"NF, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@437@ A,O AN ("SA#A EAA(F, r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/S4cr41ar2 G4*4ra9, Ro+o98o T. T5aJo*, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@4374 ("N "-PART"%O NG MGA MAGSASA,A PARA SA MGA MAGSASA,A, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS EN (ANC, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@4379 ALAGA% NG S"N"NG EAS"NF r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ Pr4/.+4*1, $a24 Ma2<4994 Lor4*J, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@4394 ASSOC"AT"ON O$ GUAR% UT"L"T# ELPER, A"%ER, R"%ER, %R"VERS%OMEST"C AGENT AN% NANN# O$ T E P "L"PP"NES, "NC. EGUAR%JANF, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@44@2 ,AL",ASAN PART#-L"ST, r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ Pr4/.+4*1, C94:4*14 G. (a51./1a, Jr., a*+ S4cr41ar2 G4*4ra9, $ra*c4/ D. D5.:0o, etitioner, ELPER, JAN"TOR, etitioner,

&s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS EN (ANC, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@44@? P"L"P"NO ASSOC"AT"ON $OR COUNTR#-UR(AN POOR #OUT A%VANCEMENT AN% -EL$ARE EPAC#A-F, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@441@ 1-UN"TE% TRANSPORT ,OAL"S#ON E1-UTA,F, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@4421 COAL"T"ON O$ ASSOC"AT"ONS O$ SEN"OR C"T"&ENS "N T E P "L"PP"NES, "NC. SEN"OR C"T"&EN PART#L"ST, r40r4/4*14+ h4r4.* <2 .1/ 1/1 *o:.*44 a*+ Cha.r:a*, $ra*c./co G. %a1o9, Jr., etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@442) COAL"T"ON O$ ASSOC"AT"ONS O$ SEN"OR C"T"&ENS "N T E P "L"PP"NES, "NC., etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS a*+ AN# O$ "TS O$$"CERS AN% AGENTS, ACT"NG $OR AN% "N "TS (E AL$, "NCLU%"NG T E C A"R AN% MEM(ERSO$ T E COMM"SS"ON, Respondents' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@4426 ASSOC"AT"ON O$ LOCAL AT LET"CS ENTREPRENEURS AN% O((#"STS, "NC. EALA-E F, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS EN (ANC, S"!TO S. (R"LLANTES, JR., RENE V. SARM"ENTO, LUCEN"TO N. TAGLE, ARMAN%O C. VELASCO, EL"AS R. #USOP , C R"ST"AN RO(ERT S. L"M, a*+ MA. GRAC"A C"ELO M. PA%ACA, .* 1h4.r r4/04c1.64 ca0ac.1.4/ a/ COMELEC Cha.r04r/o* a*+ Co::.//.o*4r/, Respondents' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@442? ANG GAL"NG P"NO# EAGF, r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ S4cr41ar2 G4*4ra9, (4r*ar+o R. Cor499a, Jr., etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@443) 1 ALL"ANCE A%VOCAT"NG AUTONOM# PART# E1AAAPF, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS EN (ANC, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@4436

A(#AN "LONGGO PART# EA"F, r40r4/4*14+ <2.1/ Par12 Pr4/.+4*1, Ro943 T. S509.co, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS EN (ANC, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@44)) MAN"LA TEAC ER SAV"NGS AN% LOAN ASSOC"AT"ON, "NC., etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS EN (ANC, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@44?4 PART"%O NG (A#AN ANG ("%A EP((F, r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ S4cr41ar2 G4*4ra9, RoG4r M. $4+4raJo, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@44?) ALL"ANCE O$ ORGAN"&AT"ONS, NET-OR,S AN% ASSOC"AT"ONS O$ T E P "L"PP"NES, "NC. EALONAF, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS EN (ANC, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@44?6 1/1 ,A(AL",AT NG (A#AN G"N A-ANG SANG,ATAU AN E1/1 ,A(AG"SF, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, Respondent' 9,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,9 G.R. No. 2@449@ P"L"P"NAS PARA SA P"NO# EPPPF, etitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS EN (ANC, Respondent' "R)AS,$"R#A$",S :"%+S+(# CARP"O, J.: Th4 Ca/4/ These cases constitute .3 etitions for +ertiorari and etitions for +ertiorari and rohibition1 filed by .2 party,list groups and organi?ations assailing the Resolutions issued by the %o77ission on "lections -%(!")"%/ dis0ualifying the7 fro7 participating in the 13 !ay 2013 party,list elections, either by denial of their petitions for registration under the party,list syste7, or cancellation of their registration and accreditation as party,list organi?ations' This %ourt resol&ed to consolidate the .3 petitions in the Resolutions dated 13 #o&e7ber 2012, 2 20 #o&e7ber 2012,3 27 #o&e7ber 2012,3 3 :ece7ber 2012,. 11 :ece7ber 2012,5 and 12 <ebruary 2013'7 Th4 $ac1/ ursuant to the pro&isions of Republic Act #o' 7231 -R'A' #o' 7231/ and %(!")"% Resolution #os' 2355 and 2.31, appro9i7ately 240 groups and organi?ations registered and 7anifested their desire to participate in the 13 !ay 2013 party,list elections' G.R. SPP No. Gro50 Gro5*+/ 8or %4*.a9

No. A. V.a 1h4 COMELEC E* (a*cR/ a51o:a1.c r46.4I o8 1h4 COMELEC %.6./.o*R/ r4/o951.o*/ a00ro6.*G r4G./1ra1.o* o8 Gro50/SorGa*.Ja1.o*/ R4/o951.o* +a14+ 23 No64:<4r 2@124 1 203372 12,022 - )!/ Alagad ng Sining -AS+#/ , The ;artists; sector is not considered 7arginali?ed and underrepresented@ , <ailure to pro&e tracB record@ and , <ailure of the no7inees to 0ualify under RA 7231 and Ang $agong $ayani'

O:*.<5/ R4/o951.o* +a14+ 27 No64:<4r 2@122 2 2033.. 12,031 - )!/ !anila Teachers Sa&ings and )oan Association, +nc' -!anila Teachers/ Association of )ocal Athletics "ntrepreneurs and Cobbyists, +nc' -A)A,"C/ , A non,stocB sa&ings and loan association cannot be considered 7arginali?ed and underrepresented@ and , The first and second no7inees are not teachers by profession' , <ailure to show that its 7e7bers belong to the 7arginali?ed@ and , <ailure of the no7inees to 0ualify'

203325

12,011 - )!/

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 27 No64:<4r 2@1210 3 20333. 12,0.7 - )!/ 1 Alliance Ad&ocating Autono7y arty -1AAA / , <ailure of the no7inees to 0ualify8 although registering as a regional political party, two of the no7inees are not residents of the region@ and four of the fi&e no7inees do not belong to the 7arginali?ed and underrepresented'

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 27 No64:<4r 2@1211 . 203357 12,103 - )/ ABbay Nalusugan -AN+#/, +nc' , <ailure of the group to show that its no7inees belong to the urban poor sector'

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 29 No64:<4r 2@1212 5 203370 12,011 / ABo An $isaya -AA$/ , <ailure to represent a 7arginali?ed sector of society, despite the for7ation of a sectoral wing for the benefit of far7ers of Region 4@ , %onstituency has district representati&es@ , )acB of tracB record in representing peasants and far7ers@ and , #o7inees are neither far7ers nor peasants'

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 4 %4c4:<4r 2@1213 7 203335 12,002 - /, 12,15. - )!/ Abyan +longgo arty -A+/ , <ailure to show that the party represents a 7arginali?ed and underrepresented sector, as the ro&ince of +loilo has district representati&es@ , *ntruthful state7ents in the 7e7orandu7@ and , Withdrawal of three of its

fi&e no7inees' R4/o951.o* +a14+ 4 %4c4:<4r 2@1213 4 20334. 12,17. - )/ Alliance of (rgani?ations, #etworBs and Associations of the hilippines, +nc' -A)(#A/ , <ailure to establish that the group can represent 13 sectors@ , The sectors of ho7eownersU associations, entrepreneurs and cooperati&es are not 7arginali?ed and underrepresented@ and , The no7inees do not belong to the 7arginali?ed and underrepresented'

(. V.a 1h4 COMELEC E* (a*cR/ r46.4I o* :o1.o* 8or r4co*/.+4ra1.o* o8 1h4 COMELEC %.6./.o*R/ r4/o951.o*/ +4*2.*G r4G./1ra1.o* o8 Gro50/ a*+ orGa*.Ja1.o*/ R4/o951.o* +a14+ 7 No64:<4r 2@121. 2 203132 12,127 - )/ Alab ng !a7a7ahayag -A)A!/ , <ailure to pro&e tracB record as an organi?ation@ , <ailure to show that the group actually represents the 7arginali?ed and underrepresented@ and , <ailure to establish that the group can represent all sectors it seeBs to represent'

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 7 No64:<4r 2@1215 10 203302 12,051 / NaliBasan arty,)ist -NA)+NASA#/ , The group reflects an ad&ocacy for the en&iron7ent, and is not representati&e of the 7arginali?ed and underrepresented@ , There is no proof that 7a=ority of its 7e7bers belong to the 7arginali?ed and underrepresented@ , The group represents sectors with conflicting interests@ and , The no7inees do not belong to the sector which the group clai7s to represent'

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 14 No64:<4r 2@1217 11 203323 12,13. - )/ Association of 1uard, *tility Celper, Aider, Rider, :ri&erJ :o7estic Celper, 6anitor, Agent and #anny of the hilippines, +nc' -1*AR:6A#/ , <ailure to pro&e 7e7bership base and tracB record@ , <ailure to present acti&ities that sufficiently benefited its intended constituency@ and , The no7inees do not belong to any of the sectors which the group seeBs to represent'

R4/o951.o* +a14+ ) %4c4:<4r 2@1214 12 203320 12,073 - )!/ ilipinas ara sa inoy / , <ailure to show that the group represents a 7arginali?ed and underrepresented sector, as Region 12 has district representati&es@ and , <ailure to show a tracB

record of undertaBing progra7s for the welfare of the sector the group seeBs to represent' +n a Resolution dated . :ece7ber 2012,12 the %(!")"% "n $anc affir7ed the %(!")"% Second :i&isionUs resolution to grant artido ng $ayan ng $idaUs - $$/ registration and accreditation as a political party in the #ational %apital Region' Cowe&er, $$ was denied participation in the 13 !ay 2013 party,list elections because $$ does not represent any ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented; sector@ $$ failed to apply for registration as a party,list group@ and $$ failed to establish its tracB record as an organi?ation that seeBs to uplift the li&es of the ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented';20 These 13 petitioners -AS+#, !anila Teachers, A)A,"C, 1AAA , AN+#, AA$, A+, A)(#A, A)A!, NA)+NASA#, 1*AR:6A#, , and $$/ were not able to secure a 7andatory in=unction fro7 this %ourt' The %(!")"%, on 7 6anuary 2013 issued Resolution #o' 2503, 21 and e9cluded the na7es of these 13 petitioners in the printing of the official ballot for the 13 !ay 2013 party,list elections' ursuant to paragraph 222 of Resolution #o' 2.13, the %(!")"% "n $anc scheduled su77ary e&identiary hearings to deter7ine whether the groups and organi?ations that filed 7anifestations of intent to participate in the 13 !ay 2013 party,list elections ha&e continually co7plied with the re0uire7ents of R'A' #o' 7231 and Ang $agong $ayani,(<W )abor arty &' %(!")"%23 -Ang $agong $ayani/' The %(!")"% dis0ualified the following groups and organi?ations fro7 participating in the 13 !ay 2013 party,list elections8 G.R. No. SPP No. Gro50 Gro5*+/ 8or %4*.a9

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 1@ Oc1o<4r 2@1223 1 203414, 12 12,1.3 - )!/ 12,177 - )!/ AN( $icol olitical arty -AN$/ Retained registration and accreditation as a political party, but denied participation in the !ay 2013 party,list elections , <ailure to represent any 7arginali?ed and underrepresented sector@ , The $icol region already has representati&es in %ongress@ and , The no7inees are not 7arginali?ed and underrepresented'

O:*.<5/ R4/o951.o* +a14+ 11 Oc1o<4r 2@122. 2 2@3766 12,151 - )!/ Atong aglau7, +nc' -Atong aglau7/ %ancelled registration and accreditation , The no7inees do not belong to the sectors which the party represents@ and , The party failed to file its State7ent of %ontributions and "9penditures for the 2010 "lections' %ancelled registration and accreditation , <ailure to co7ply, and for &iolation of election laws@ , The no7inees do not represent the sectors which the party represents@ and , There is doubt that the party is organi?ed for religious purposes' %ancelled registration and accreditation , <ailure of the no7inees to 0ualify@ and , <ailure of the party to pro&e that 7a=ority of its 7e7bers belong to the sectors it seeBs to represent'

203241

12,147 - )!/

Association for Righteousness Ad&ocacy on )eadership -ARA)/

203002

12,144 - )!/

Alliance for Rural %oncerns -AR%/

203314

12,220 - )!/

*nited !o&e7ent Against :rugs <oundation -*#+!A:/

%ancelled registration and accreditation , The sectors of drug counsellors and lecturers, &eterans and the youth, are not 7arginali?ed and underrepresented@ , <ailure to establish tracB record@ and , <ailure of the no7inees to 0ualify as representati&es of the youth and young urban professionals'

O:*.<5/ R4/o951.o* +a14+ 16 Oc1o<4r 2@1225 5 203100 12,125 - )!/ 1,$ro hilippine 1uardians $rotherhood, +nc' -1$R(, 1$+/ %ancelled registration , <ailure to define the sector it seeBs to represent@ and , The no7inees do not belong to a 7arginali?ed and underrepresented sector' %ancelled registration , The party is a 7ilitary fraternity@ , The sector of co77unity &olunteer worBers is too broad to allow for 7eaningful representation@ and , The no7inees do not appear to belong to the sector of co77unity &olunteer worBers' %ancelled registration , Three of the se&en no7inees do not belong to the sector of far7ers and fisher7en, the sector sought to be represented@ and , #one of the no7inees are registered &oters of Region K+, the region sought to be represented'

203122

12,223 - )!/

1 1uardians #ationalist hilippines, +nc' -11A#A J 1*AR:+A#S/

20325

12,2.7 - )!/

$lessed <ederation of <ar7ers and <isher7en +nternational, +nc' -A $)"SS": arty,)ist/

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 16 Oc1o<4r 2@1227 2 203250 12,250 - )!/ 1st %onsu7ers Alliance for Rural "nergy, +nc' -1,%AR"/ %ancelled registration , The sector of rural energy consu7ers is not 7arginali?ed and underrepresented@ , The partyUs tracB record is related to electric cooperati&es and not rural energy consu7ers@ and , The no7inees do not belong to the sector of rural energy consu7ers'

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 16 Oc1o<4r 2@1224 10 203222 12,201 - )!/ Association of hilippine "lectric %ooperati&es -A "%/ %ancelled registration and accreditation , <ailure to represent a 7arginali?ed and underrepresented sector@ and , The no7inees do not belong to the sector that the party clai7s to represent'

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 23 Oc1o<4r 2@1222

11 203173

12,232 - )!/

Aangat Tayo arty,)ist arty - AT /

%ancelled registration and accreditation , The incu7bent representati&e in %ongress failed to author or sponsor bills that are beneficial to the sectors that the party represents -wo7en, elderly, youth, urban poor/@ and , The no7inees do not belong to the 7arginali?ed sectors that the party seeBs to represent'

O:*.<5/ R4/o951.o* +a14+ 24 Oc1o<4r 2@1230 12 203275 12,244 - )!/ Alliance for Rural and Agrarian Reconstruction, +nc' -ARAR(/ %ancelled registration and accreditation , The interests of the peasant and urban poor sectors that the party represents differ@ , The no7inees do not belong to the sectors that the party seeBs to represent@ , <ailure to show that three of the no7inees are bona fide party 7e7bers@ and , )acB of a $oard resolution to participate in the party,list elections'

O:*.<5/ R4/o951.o* +a14+ 24 Oc1o<4r 2@1231 13 203230 12,272 - )!/ Agri,Agra na Repor7a ara sa !agsasaBa ng ilipinas !o&e7ent -A1R+/ %ancelled registration , The party ceased to e9ist for 7ore than a year i77ediately after the !ay 2010 elections@ , The no7inees do not belong to the sector of peasants and far7ers that the party seeBs to represent@ , (nly four no7inees were sub7itted to the %(!")"%@ and , <ailure to show 7eaningful acti&ities for its constituency' %ancelled registration , <ailure to show that 7a=ority of its 7e7bers are 7arginali?ed and underrepresented@ , <ailure to pro&e that four of its nine no7inees actually belong to the far7ers sector@ and , <ailure to show that fi&e of its nine no7inees worB on uplifting the li&es of the 7e7bers of the sector' %ancelled registration , The !anifestation of +ntent and %ertificate of #o7ination were not signed by an appropriate officer of the party@ , <ailure to show tracB record for the far7ers and peasants sector@ and , <ailure to show that no7inees actually belong to the sector, or that they ha&e

13 203235

12,234 - )!/

ABsyon !agsasaBa, artido Tinig ng !asa -AN!A, T!/

1. 203125

12,253 - )!/

Naagapay ng #agBaBaisang Agilang ilipinong !agsasaBa -NA /

undertaBen 7eaningful acti&ities for the sector' 15 203353 12,140 - )!/ AdhiBain at Nilusan ng (rdinaryong Tao ara sa )upa, abahay, Canapbuhay at Naunlaran -AN(,$ACAL/ The True !arcos )oyalist -for 1od, %ountry and eople/ Association of the hilippines, +nc' -$A#TAL/ ilipino Association for %ountry T *rban oor Louth Ad&ance7ent and Welfare - A % LAW / %ancelled registration , <ailure to show that no7inees actually belong to the sector, or that they ha&e undertaBen 7eaningful acti&ities for the sector'

17 203131

12,222 - )!/

%ancelled registration , <ailure to show that 7a=ority of its 7e7bers are 7arginali?ed and underrepresented@ and , <ailure to pro&e that two of its no7inees actually belong to the 7arginali?ed and underrepresented' %ancelled registration , %hange of sector -fro7 urban poor youth to urban poor/ necessitates a new application@ , <ailure to show tracB record for the 7arginali?ed and underrepresented@ , <ailure to pro&e that 7a=ority of its 7e7bers and officers are fro7 the urban poor sector@ and , The no7inees are not 7e7bers of the urban poor sector' %ancelled registration , The party represents dri&ers and operators, who 7ay ha&e conflicting interests@ and , #o7inees are either operators or for7er operators' %ancelled registration , <ailure to pro&e that na Walang Sala, +nc' -NAN*SA/ 7a=ority of its officers and 7e7bers belong to the 7arginali?ed and underrepresented@ , The incu7bent representati&e in %ongress failed to author or sponsor bills that are beneficial to the sector that the party represents -persons i7prisoned without proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt/@ , <ailure to show tracB record for the 7arginali?ed and underrepresented@ and , The no7inees did not appear to be 7arginali?ed and underrepresented'

14 203304

12,217 - )!/

12 2031.3

12,277 - )!/

asang !asda #ationwide arty - ASA#1 !AS:A/

20 2032.4

12,01. - )!/

Napatiran ng 7ga #aBulong na Walang Sala, +nc' -NAN*SA/

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 3@ Oc1o<4r 2@1232 21 203324 12,2.5 - )!/ Ang 1aling inoy -A1/ %ancelled registration and accreditation

, <ailure to attend the su77ary hearing@ , <ailure to show tracB record for the 7arginali?ed and underrepresented@ and , The no7inees did not appear to be 7arginali?ed and underrepresented' R4/o951.o* +a14+ 7 No64:<4r 2@1233 22 203023 12,14. - )!/ Alliance for #ationalis7 and :e7ocracy -A#A:/ %ancelled registration and accreditation , <ailure to represent an identifiable 7arginali?ed and underrepresented sector@ , (nly three no7inees were sub7itted to the %(!")"%@ , The no7inees do not belong to the 7arginali?ed and underrepresented@ and , <ailure to sub7it its State7ent of %ontribution and "9penditures for the 2007 "lections'

O:*.<5/ R4/o951.o* +a14+ 7 No64:<4r 2@1233 23 203232 12,050 - )!/ 1reen <orce for the "n&iron7ent Sons and :aughters of !other "arth -1R""#<(R%"/ %ancelled registration and accreditation , The party is an ad&ocacy group and does not represent the 7arginali?ed and underrepresented@ , <ailure to co7ply with the tracB record re0uire7ent@ and , The no7inees are not 7arginali?ed citi?ens' %ancelled registration and accreditation , The no7inees do not belong to the sector that the party seeBs to represent -urban poor and peasants of the #ational %apital Region/@ , (nly two of its no7inees reside in the #ational %apital Region@ and , <ailure to co7ply with the tracB record re0uire7ent' %ancelled registration and accreditation , <ailure to establish that its no7inees are 7e7bers of the indigenous people in the !indanao and %ordilleras sector that the party seeBs to represent@ , (nly two of the partyUs no7inees reside in the !indanao and %ordilleras@ and , Three of the no7inees do not appear to belong to the 7arginali?ed'

23 203235

12,2.3 - )!/

<ir7 23,N Association, +nc' -<+R! 23,N/

2. 203331

12,252 - )!/

Action )eague of +ndigenous !asses -A)+!/

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 7 No64:<4r 2@123. 25 2033.4 12,203 - )!/ Alliance of Ad&ocates in !ining %ancelled registration , The sector it represents is a specifically defined group

Ad&ance7ent for #ational rogress -AA!A/ R4/o951.o* +a14+ 7 No64:<4r 2@1235 27 2033.2 12,272 - )!/ Social !o&e7ent for Acti&e Refor7 and Transparency -S!ART/

which 7ay not be allowed registration under the party,list syste7@ and , <ailure to establish that the no7inees actually belong to the sector'

%ancelled registration , The no7inees are dis0ualified fro7 representing the sectors that the party represents@ , <ailure to co7ply with the tracB record re0uire7ent@ and , There is doubt as to whether 7a=ority of its 7e7bers are 7arginali?ed and underrepresented'

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 7 No64:<4r 2@1237 24 203234 12,173 - )!/ Alliance of $icolnon arty -A$ / %ancelled registration and accreditation , :efecti&e registration and accreditation dating bacB to 2010@ , <ailure to represent any sector@ and , <ailure to establish that the no7inees are e7ployed in the construction industry, the sector it clai7s to represent'

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 7 No64:<4r 2@1234 22 203323 12,210 - )!/ $ayani arty )ist -$ALA#+/ %ancelled registration and accreditation , <ailure to pro&e a tracB record of trying to uplift the 7arginali?ed and underrepresented sector of professionals@ and , (ne no7inee was declared un0ualified to represent the sector of professionals'

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 7 No64:<4r 2@1232 30 203321 12,2.2 - )!/ Ang AgriBultura #atin +sulong -AA#+/ %ancelled registration and accreditation , <ailure to establish a tracB record of enhancing the li&es of the 7arginali?ed and underrepresented far7ers which it clai7s to represent@ and , !ore than a 7a=ority of the partyUs no7inees do not belong to the far7ers sector'

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 7 No64:<4r 2@1230 31 20312. 12,222 - )!/ Agapay ng +ndigenous eoples Rights Alliance, +nc' -A,+ RA/ %ancelled registration and accreditation , <ailure to pro&e that its fi&e no7inees are 7e7bers of the indigenous people sector@ , <ailure to pro&e that its fi&e no7inees acti&ely participated in the undertaBings of the party@ and , <ailure to pro&e that its fi&e no7inees are bona fide

7e7bers' R4/o951.o* +a14+ 7 No64:<4r 2@1231 32 203215 12,202 - )!/ hilippine %oconut roducers <ederation, +nc' -%(%(<":/ %ancelled registration and accreditation , The party is affiliated with pri&ate and go&ern7ent agencies and is not 7arginali?ed@ , The party is assisted by the go&ern7ent in &arious pro=ects@ and , The no7inees are not 7e7bers of the 7arginali?ed sector of coconut far7ers and producers'

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 7 No64:<4r 2@1232 33 203220 12,234 - )!/ Abang )ingBod arty,)ist -A$A#1 )+#1N(:/ %ancelled registration , <ailure to establish a tracB record of continuously representing the peasant far7ers sector@ , <ailure to show that its 7e7bers actually belong to the peasant far7ers sector@ and , <ailure to show that its no7inees are 7arginali?ed and underrepresented, ha&e acti&ely participated in progra7s for the ad&ance7ent of far7ers, and adhere to its ad&ocacies'

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 14 No64:<4r 2@1233 33 2031.4 12,1.4 - )!/ Action $rotherhood for Acti&e :rea7ers, +nc' -A$R(A:/ %ancelled registration and accreditation , <ailure to show that the party is actually able to represent all of the sectors it clai7s to represent@ , <ailure to show a co7plete tracB record of its acti&ities since its registration@ and , The no7inees are not part of any of the sectors which the party seeBs to represent'

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 2? No64:<4r 2@1233 3. 203373 12,224 - )!/ $inhi, artido ng 7ga !agsasaBa ara sa 7ga !agsasaBa -$+#C+/ %ancelled registration and accreditation , The party recei&es assistance fro7 the go&ern7ent through the :epart7ent of Agriculture@ and , <ailure to pro&e that the group is 7arginali?ed and underrepresented'

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 2? No64:<4r 2@123. 35 2033.5 12,135 - )!/ $util <ar7ers arty -$*T+)/ %ancelled registration and accreditation , <ailure to establish that the agriculture and cooperati&e sectors are 7arginali?ed and underrepresented@ and , The partyUs no7inees neither appear to belong to

the sectors they seeB to represent, nor to ha&e acti&ely participated in the undertaBings of the party' R4/o951.o* +a14+ 3 %4c4:<4r 2@1235 37 203345 12,123 - )!/ 1st NabaliBat ng $ayan 1inhawang SangBatauhan -1st NA$A1+S/ %ancelled registration and accreditation , :eclaration of untruthful state7ents@ , <ailure to e9ist for at least one year@ and , #one of its no7inees belong to the labor, fisherfolB, and urban poor indigenous cultural co77unities sectors which it seeBs to represent'

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 4 %4c4:<4r 2@1237 34 203310 12,124 - )!/ 1,*nited Transport Noalisyon -1,*TAN/ %ancelled accreditation , The party represents dri&ers and operators, who 7ay ha&e conflicting interests@ and , The partyUs no7inees do not belong to any 7arginali?ed and underrepresented sector'

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 4 %4c4:<4r 2@1234 32 203321, 20332. 12,1.7 - )!/, 12,121 - )!/ %oalition of Senior %iti?ens in the hilippines, +nc' -S"#+(R %+T+M"#S/ %ancelled registration , The party &iolated election laws because its no7inees had a ter7,sharing agree7ent'

These 32 petitioners -AN$, Atong aglau7, ARA), AR%, *#+!A:, 1$R(, 1$+, 11A#A J1*AR:+A#S, A $)"SS": arty,)ist, 1,%AR", A "%, AT, ARAR(, A1R+, AN!A, T!, NA , AN(,$ACAL, $A#TAL, A%LAW, ASA#1 !AS:A, NAN*SA, A1, A#A:, 1R""#<(R%", <+R! 23,N, A)+!, AA!A, S!ART, A$ , $ALA#+, AA#+, A,+ RA, %(%(<":, A$A#1 )+#1N(:, A$R(A:, $+#C+, $*T+), 1st NA$A1+S, 1,*TAN, S"#+(R %+T+M"#S/ were able to secure a 7andatory in=unction fro7 this %ourt, directing the %(!")"% to include the na7es of these 32 petitioners in the printing of the official ballot for the 13 !ay 2013 party,list elections' etitioners prayed for the issuance of a te7porary restraining order andJor writ of preli7inary in=unction' This %ourt issued Status Iuo Ante (rders in all petitions' This :ecision go&erns only the .3 consolidated petitions that were granted Status Iuo Ante (rders, na7ely8 G.R. No. SPP No. Gro50

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 13 No64:<4r 2@12 203414,12 12,1.3 - )!/ 12,177 - )!/ 12,147 - )!/ 12,144 - )!/ 12,201 - )!/ 12,250 - )!/ 12,234 - )!/ 12,01. AN( $icol olitical arty -AN$/

203241 203002 203222 203250

Association for Righteousness Ad&ocacy on )eadership -ARA)/ Alliance for Rural %oncerns -AR%/ Association of hilippine "lectric %ooperati&es -A "%/ 1st %onsu7ers Alliance for Rural "nergy, +nc' -1,%AR"/ ABsyon !agsasaBa, artido Tinig ng !asa -AN!A, T!/ Napatiran ng 7ga #aBulong na Walang Sala,

203235 2032.4

- )!/ 203275 12,244 - )!/

+nc' -NAN*SA/ Alliance for Rural and Agrarian Reconstruction, +nc' -ARAR(/

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 2@ No64:<4r 2@12 203023 20312. 203100 12,14. - )!/ 12,222 - )!/ 12,125 - )!/ Alliance for #ationalis7 and :e7ocracy -A#A:/ Agapay ng +ndigenous eoples Rights Alliance, +nc' -A,+ RA/ 1,$ro hilippine 1uardians $rotherhood, +nc' -1$R(, 1$+/

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 27 No64:<4r 2@12 203131 12,222 - )!/ 12,272 - )!/ 12,202 - )!/ 12,1.4 - )!/ The True !arcos )oyalist -for 1od, %ountry and eople/ Association of the hilippines, +nc' -$A#TAL/ Agri,Agra na Repor7a ara sa !agsasaBa ng ilipinas !o&e7ent -A1R+/ hilippine %oconut roducers <ederation, +nc' -%(%(<":/ Action $rotherhood for Acti&e :rea7er, +nc' -A$R(A:/

203230 203215 2031.4

R4/o951.o*/ +a14+ 4 %4c4:<4r 2@12 203122 2@3766 203314 203253 203173 203125 203353 12,223 - )!/ 12,151 - )!/ 12,220 - )!/ 12,2.7 - )!/ 12,232 - )!/ 12,253 - )!/ 12,140 - )!/ 12,127 - )/ 12,234 - )!/ 12,2.3 - )!/ 12,173 - )!/ 12,050 - )!/ 12,2.2 - )!/ 12,210 - )!/ 12,252 - )!/ 12,203 - )!/ 1 1uardians #ationalist hilippines, +nc' -11A#A J1*AR:+A#S/ Atong aglau7, +nc' -Atong aglau7/ *nited !o&e7ent Against :rugs <oundation -*#+!A:/ $lessed <ederation of <ar7ers and <isher7en +nternational, +nc' -A $)"SS": arty,)ist/ Aangat Tayo arty,)ist arty -AT/ Naagapay ng #agBaBaisang Agilang ilipinong !agsasaBa -NA / AdhiBain at Nilusan ng (rdinaryong Tao ara sa )upa, abahay, Canapbuhay at Naunlaran -AN(,$ACAL/ Alab ng !a7a7ahayag -A)A!/ Abang )ingBod arty,)ist -A$A#1 )+#1N(:/ <ir7 23,N Association, +nc' -<+R! 23,N/ Alliance of $icolnon arty -A$ / 1reen <orce for the "n&iron7ent Sons and :aughters of !other "arth -1R""#<(R%"/ Ang AgriBultura #atin +sulong -AA#+/ $ayani arty )ist -$ALA#+/ Action )eague of +ndigenous !asses -A)+!/ Alliance of Ad&ocates in !ining Ad&ance7ent for #ational rogress -AA!A/

203132 203220 203235 203234 203232 203321 203323 203331 2033.4

2033.2 2033.5

12,272 - )!/ 12,135 - )!/

Social !o&e7ent for Acti&e Refor7 and Transparency -S!ART/ $util <ar7ers arty -$*T+)/

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 11 %4c4:<4r 2@12 203302 203323 12,051 - )/ 12,13. - )/ NaliBasan arty,)ist -NA)+NASA#/ Association of 1uard, *tility Celper, Aider, Rider, :ri&erJ:o7estic Celper, 6anitor, Agent and #anny of the hilippines, +nc' -1*AR:6A#/ ilipino Association for %ountry T *rban oor Louth Ad&ance7ent and Welfare - A%LAW/ Ang 1aling inoy -A1/ ilipinas ara sa inoy Alagad ng Sining -AS+#/ ABbay Nalusugan -AN+#/ Association of )ocal Athletics "ntrepreneurs and Cobbyists, +nc' -A)A,"C/ !anila Teachers Sa&ings and )oan Association, +nc' -!anila Teachers/ $inhi, artido ng 7ga !agsasaBa ara sa 7ga !agsasaBa -$+#C+/ / ABo An $isaya -AA$/ 1 Alliance Ad&ocating Autono7y arty -1AAA / 1st NabaliBat ng $ayan 1inhawang SangBatauhan -1st NA$A1+S/ 1,*nited Transport Noalisyon -1,*TAN/ %oalition of Senior %iti?ens in the hilippines, +nc' -S"#+(R %+T+M"#S/ /

203304 203324 203320 203372 203357 203325 2033.. 203373 203370 20333. 203345 203310 203321, 20332.

12,217 - )!/ 12,2.5 - )!/ 12,073 - )!/ 12,022 - )!/ 12,103 - )/ 12,011 - )!/ 12,031 - )!/ 12,224 - )!/ 12,011 12,0.7 - )!/ 12,123 - )!/ 12,124 - )!/ 12,1.7 - )!/ 12,121 - )!/ 12,002 12,15. - )!/ /,

203335

Abyan +longgo arty -A+/

20334. 203343

12,17. - )/ 11,002

Alliance of (rgani?ations, #etworBs and Associations of the hilippines, +nc' -A)(#A/ artido ng $ayan ng $ida - $$/

R4/o951.o* +a14+ 11 %4c4:<4r 2@12 2031.3 12,277 - )!/ asang !asda #ationwide arty - ASA#1 !AS:A/ Th4 "//54/ We rule upon two issues8 first, whether the %(!")"% co77itted gra&e abuse of discretion a7ounting to lacB or e9cess of =urisdiction in dis0ualifying petitioners fro7 participating in the 13 !ay 2013 party,list elections, either by denial of their new petitions for registration under the party,list syste7, or by cancellation of their e9isting registration and accreditation as party,list organi?ations@ and second, whether the criteria for participating in the party,list syste7 laid down in Ang %agong %a"ani and %aranga" Association for 'ational Advancement and Transparenc" v. +ommission on &lections32 -%A'AT/ should be applied by the %(!")"% in the co7ing 13 !ay 2013 party,list elections'

Th4 Co5r1R/ R59.*G We hold that the %(!")"% did not co77it gra&e abuse of discretion in following pre&ailing decisions of this %ourt in dis0ualifying petitioners fro7 participating in the co7ing 13 !ay 2013 party,list elections' Cowe&er, since the %ourt adopts in this :ecision new para7eters in the 0ualification of national, regional, and sectoral parties under the party,list syste7, thereby abandoning the rulings in the decisions applied by the %(!")"% in dis0ualifying petitioners, we re7and to the %(!")"% all the present petitions for the %(!")"% to deter7ine who are 0ualified to register under the party,list syste7, and to participate in the co7ing 13 !ay 2013 party,list elections, under the new para7eters prescribed in this :ecision' Th4 Par12-L./1 S2/14: The 1247 %onstitution pro&ides the basis for the party,list syste7 of representation' Si7ply put, the party,list syste7 is intended to de7ocrati?e political power by gi&ing political parties that cannot win in legislati&e district elections a chance to win seats in the Couse of Representati&es' .0 The &oter elects two representati&es in the Couse of Representati&es8 one for his or her legislati&e district, and another for his or her party,list group or organi?ation of choice' The 1247 %onstitution pro&ides8 Section ., Article A+ -1/ The Couse of Representati&es shall be co7posed of not 7ore than two hundred and fifty 7e7bers, unless otherwise fi9ed by law, who shall be elected fro7 legislati&e districts apportioned a7ong the pro&inces, cities, and the !etropolitan !anila area in accordance with the nu7ber of their respecti&e inhabitants, and on the basis of a unifor7 and progressi&e ratio, and those who, as pro&ided by law, shall be elected through a party,list syste7 of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organi?ations' -2/ The party,list representati&es shall constitute twenty per centu7 of the total nu7ber of representati&es including those under the party list' <or three consecuti&e ter7s after the ratification of this %onstitution, one, half of the seats allocated to party,list representati&es shall be filled, as pro&ided by law, by selection or election fro7 the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural co77unities, wo7en, youth, and such other sectors as 7ay be pro&ided by law, e9cept the religious sector' Sections 7 and 4, Article +K,% Sec' 7' #o &otes cast in fa&or of a political party, organi?ation, or coalition shall be &alid, e9cept for those registered under the party,list syste7 as pro&ided in this %onstitution' Sec' 4' olitical parties, or organi?ations or coalitions registered under the party,list syste7, shall not be represented in the &otersU registration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of can&assers, or other si7ilar bodies' Cowe&er, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law' %o77issioner %hristian S' !onsod, the 7ain sponsor of the party,list syste7, stressed that ; 1h4 0ar12-9./1 /2/14: ./ *o1 /2*o*2:o5/ I.1h 1ha1 o8 1h4 /4c1ora9 r40r4/4*1a1.o* ';.1 The constitutional pro&isions on the party,list syste7 should be read in light of the following discussion a7ong its fra7ers8 !R' !(#S(:8 9 9 9' + would liBe to 7aBe a distinction fro7 the beginning that the proposal for the party list syste7 is not synony7ous with that of the sectoral representation' recisely, the party list syste7 seeBs to a&oid the dile77a of choice of sectors and who constitute the 7e7bers of the sectors' +n 7aBing the proposal on the party list syste7, we were 7ade aware of the proble7s precisely cited by %o77issioner $acani of which sectors will ha&e reser&ed seats' +n effect, a sectoral representation in the Asse7bly would 7ean that certain sectors would ha&e reser&ed seats@ that they will choose a7ong the7sel&es who would sit in those reser&ed seats' And then, we ha&e the proble7 of which sector because as we will notice in rocla7ation #o' 2, the sectors cited were the far7ers, fisher7en, worBers, students, professionals, business, 7ilitary, acade7ic, ethnic and other si7ilar groups' So these are the nine sectors that were identified here as ;sectoral representati&es; to be represented in this %o77ission' The proble7 we had in trying to approach sectoral representation in the Asse7bly was whether to stop at these nine sectors or include other sectors' And we went through the e9ercise in a caucus of which sector should be included which went up to 13 sectors' And as we all Bnow, the longer we 7aBe our enu7eration, the 7ore li7iting the law beco7e because when we 7aBe an enu7eration we e9clude those who are not in the enu7eration' Second, we had the proble7 of who co7prise the far7ers' )et us =ust say the far7ers and the laborers' These days, there are 7any citi?ens who are called ;hyphenated citi?ens'; A doctor 7ay be a far7er@ a lawyer 7ay also be a far7er' And so, it is up to the discretion of the person to say ;+ a7 a far7er; so he would be included in that sector' The third proble7 is that when we go into a reser&ed seat syste7 of sectoral representation in the Asse7bly, we are, in effect, gi&ing so7e people two &otes and other people one &ote' We sought to a&oid these proble7s by presenting a party list syste7' *nder the party list syste7, there are no reser&ed seats for sectors' )et us say, laborers and far7ers can for7 a sectoral party or a sectoral organi?ation that will then register and present candidates of their party' Cow do the 7echanics goH "ssentially, under the party list syste7, e&ery &oter has two

&otes, so there is no discri7ination' <irst, he will &ote for the representati&e of his legislati&e district' That is one &ote' +n that sa7e ballot, he will be asBed8 What party or organi?ation or coalition do you wish to be represented in the Asse7blyH And here will be attached a list of the parties, organi?ations or coalitions that ha&e been registered with the %(!")"% and are entitled to be put in that list' This can be a regional party, a sectoral party, a national party, *#+:(, !agsasaBa or a regional party in !indanao' (ne need not be a far7er to say that he wants the far7ersD party to be represented in the Asse7bly' Any citi?en can &ote for any party' At the end of the day, the %(!")"% will then tabulate the &otes that had been garnered by each party or each organi?ation E one does not ha&e to be a political party and register in order to participate as a party E and count the &otes and fro7 there deri&e the percentage of the &otes that had been cast in fa&or of a party, organi?ation or coalition' When such parties register with the %(!")"%, we are assu7ing that .0 of the 2.0 seats will be for the party list syste7' So, we ha&e a li7it of 30 percent of .0' That 7eans that the 7a9i7u7 that any party can get out of these .0 seats is 1.' When the parties register they then sub7it a list of 1. na7es' They ha&e to sub7it these na7es because these no7inees ha&e to 7eet the 7ini7u7 0ualifications of a !e7ber of the #ational Asse7bly' At the end of the day, when the &otes are tabulated, one gets the percentages' )et us say, *#+:( gets 10 percent or 1. percent of the &otes@ N!* gets . percent@ a wo7enUs party gets 2 1J2 percent and anybody who has at least 2 1J2 percent of the &ote 0ualifies and the .0 seats are apportioned a7ong all of these parties who get at least 2 1J2 percent of the &ote' What does that 7eanH +t 7eans that any group or party who has a constituency of, say, .00,000 nationwide gets a seat in the #ational Asse7bly' What is the =ustification for thatH When we allocate legislati&e districts, we are saying that any district that has 200,000 &otes gets a seat' There is no reason why a group that has a national constituency, e&en if it is a sectoral or special interest group, should not ha&e a &oice in the #ational Asse7bly' +t also 7eans that, let us say, there are three or four labor groups, they all register as a party or as a group' +f each of the7 gets only one percent or fi&e of the7 get one percent, they are not entitled to any representati&e' So, they will begin to thinB that if they really ha&e a co77on interest, they should band together, for7 a coalition and get fi&e percent of the &ote and, therefore, ha&e two seats in the Asse7bly' Those are the dyna7ics of a party list syste7' We feel that this approach gets around the 7echanics of sectoral representation while at the sa7e ti7e 7aBing sure that those who really ha&e a national constituency or sectoral constituency will get a chance to ha&e a seat in the #ational Asse7bly' These sectors or these groups 7ay not ha&e the constituency to win a seat on a legislati&e district basis' They 7ay not be able to win a seat on a district basis but surely, they will ha&e &otes on a nationwide basis' The purpose of this is to open the syste7' +n the past elections, we found out that there were certain groups or parties that, if we count their &otes nationwide@ ha&e about 1,000,000 or 1,.00,000 &otes' $ut they were always third place or fourth place in each of the districts' So, they ha&e no &oice in the Asse7bly' $ut this way, they would ha&e fi&e or si9 representati&es in the Asse7bly e&en if they would not win indi&idually in legislati&e districts' So, that is essentially the 7echanics, the purpose and ob=ecti&es of the party list syste7' $+SC( $A%A#+8 !ada7 resident, a7 + right in interpreting that when we speaB now of party list syste7 though we refer to sectors, we would be referring to sectoral party list rather than sectors and party listH !R' !(#S(:8 As a 7atter of fact, if this body accepts the party list syste7, we do not e&en ha&e to 7ention sectors because the sectors would be included in the party list syste7' Th42 ca* <4 /4c1ora9 0ar1.4/ I.1h.* 1h4 0ar12 9./1 /2/14:. !R' !(#S(:' !ada7 resident, + =ust want to say that we suggested or proposed the party list syste7 because we wanted to open up the political syste7 to a pluralistic society through a 7ultiparty syste7' 9 9 9 -4 ar4 8or o04*.*G 50 1h4 /2/14:, a*+ I4 Io59+ 9.H4 64r2 :5ch 8or 1h4 /4c1or/ 1o <4 1h4r4. Tha1 ./ Ih2 o*4 o8 1h4 Ia2/ 1o +o 1ha1 ./ 1o 051 a c4.9.*G o* 1h4 *5:<4r o8 r40r4/4*1a1.64/ 8ro: a*2 /.*G94 0ar12 1ha1 ca* /.1 I.1h.* 1h4 )@ a99oca14+ 5*+4r 1h4 0ar12 9./1 /2/14: ' 9 9 9' 999 !R' !(#S(:' Ma+a: Pr4/.+4*1, 1h4 ca*+.+ac2 8or 1h4 19? /4a1/ ./ *o1 9.:.14+ 1o 0o9.1.ca9 0ar1.4/. M2 N54/1.o* ./ 1h./C Ar4 I4 Go.*G 1o c9a//.82 8or 43a:094 Chr./1.a* %4:ocra1/ a*+ Soc.a9 %4:ocra1/ a/ 0o9.1.ca9 0ar1.4/M Ca* 1h42 r5* 5*+4r 1h4 0ar12 9./1 co*c401 or :5/1 1h42 <4 5*+4r 1h4 +./1r.c1 94G./9a1.o* /.+4 o8 .1 o*92M !R' A+))A%(RTA' "* r4092 1o 1ha1 N54r2, " 1h.*H 1h4/4 0ar1.4/ 1ha1 1h4 Co::.//.o*4r :4*1.o*4+ ca* 8.49+ ca*+.+a14/ 8or 1h4 S4*a14 a/ I499 a/ 8or 1h4 o5/4 o8 R40r4/4*1a1.64/. L.H4I./4, 1h42 ca* a9/o 8.49+ /4c1ora9 ca*+.+a14/ 8or 1h4 2@ 04rc4*1 or 3@ 04rc4*1, Ih.ch464r ./ a+o014+, o8 1h4 /4a1/ 1ha1 I4 ar4 a99oca1.*G 5*+4r 1h4 0ar12 9./1 /2/14:' !R' !(#S(:' "* o1h4r Ior+/, 1h4 Chr./1.a* %4:ocra1/ ca* 8.49+ +./1r.c1 ca*+.+a14/ a*+ ca* a9/o 0ar1.c.0a14 .* 1h4 0ar12 9./1 /2/14:M

!R' A+))A%(RTA' -h2 *o1M -h4* 1h42 co:4 1o 1h4 0ar12 9./1 /2/14:, 1h42 I.99 <4 8.49+.*G o*92 /4c1ora9 ca*+.+a14/' !R' !(#S(:' Ma2 " <4 c9ar.8.4+ o* 1ha1M Ca* UN"%O 0ar1.c.0a14 .* 1h4 0ar12 9./1 /2/14:M !R' A+))A%(RTA' #4/, Ih2 *o1M $or a/ 9o*G a/ 1h42 8.49+ ca*+.+a14/ Iho co:4 8ro: 1h4 +.884r4*1 :arG.*a9.J4+ /4c1or/ 1ha1 I4 /ha99 +4/.G*a14 .* 1h./ Co*/1.151.o*. !R' !(#S(:' Suppose Senator Ta>ada wants to run under $ALA# group and says that he represents the far7ers, would he 0ualifyH !R' A+))A%(RTA' #o, Senator Ta>ada would not 0ualify' !R' !(#S(:' $ut *#+:( can field candidates under the party list syste7 and say 6uan dela %ru? is a far7er' Who would pass on whether he is a far7er or notH !R' TA:"(' Nay %o77issioner !onsod, gusto Bo la7ang linawin ito' Po9.1.ca9 0ar1.4/, 0ar1.c59ar92 :.*or.12 0o9.1.ca9 0ar1.4/, ar4 *o1 0roh.<.14+ 1o 0ar1.c.0a14 .* 1h4 0ar12 9./1 494c1.o* .8 1h42 ca* 0ro64 1ha1 1h42 ar4 a9/o orGa*.J4+ a9o*G /4c1ora9 9.*4/. !R' !(#S(:' What the %o77issioner is saying is that all political parties can participate because it is precisely the contention of political parties that they represent the broad base of citi?ens and that all sectors are represented in the7' Would the %o77issioner agreeH !R' TA:"(' Ang punto la7ang na7in, pag pinayagan 7o ang *#+:( na isang political party, it will do7inate the party list at 7awawalang saysay din yung sector' )ala7unin 7is7o ng political parties ang party list syste7' 1usto Bo la7ang bigyan ng diin ang ;reser&e'; Cindi ito reser&e seat sa 7arginali?ed sectors' Nung titingnan natin itong 124 seats, reser&ed din ito sa political parties' !R' !(#S(:' Cindi po reser&ed iyon Basi anybody can run there' $ut 7y 0uestion to %o77issioner Aillacorta and probably also to %o77issioner Tadeo is that under this syste7, would *#+:( be banned fro7 running under the party list syste7H !R' A+))A%(RTA' No, a/ " /a.+, UN"%O :a2 8.49+ /4c1ora9 ca*+.+a14/. O* 1ha1 co*+.1.o* a9o*4, UN"%O :a2 <4 a99oI4+ 1o r4G./14r 8or 1h4 0ar12 9./1 /2/14: ' !R' !(#S(:' Ma2 " .*N5.r4 8ro: Co::.//.o*4r Ta+4o .8 h4 /har4/ 1ha1 a*/I4rM !R' TA:"(' Th4 /a:4' !R' A+))A%(RTA' P5I4+4 0o a*G UN"%O, 04ro /a /4c1ora9 9.*4/' !R' !(#S(:8 Sino po ang 7agsasabi Bung iyong Bandidato ng *#+:( ay hindi talagang labor leader or isang laborerH Cali7bawa, abogado ito' !R' TA:"(8 +yong 7echanics' !R' !(#S(:8 Cindi po 7echanics iyon because we are trying to sol&e an inherent proble7 of sectoral representation' !y 0uestion is8 Suppose *#+:( fields a labor leader, would he 0ualifyH !R' TA:"(8 Th4 COMELEC :a2 9ooH .*1o 1h4 1r51h o8 Ih41h4r or *o1 a 0o9.1.ca9 0ar12 ./ r4a992 orGa*.J4+ a9o*G a /04c.8.c /4c1ora9 9.*4. "8 /5ch ./ 64r.8.4+ or co*8.r:4+, 1h4 0o9.1.ca9 0ar12 :a2 /5<:.1 a 9./1 o8 .*+.6.+5a9/ Iho ar4 ac15a992 :4:<4r/ o8 /5ch /4c1or/. Th4 9./1/ ar4 1o <4 05<9./h4+ 1o G.64 .*+.6.+5a9/ or orGa*.Ja1.o*/ <49o*G.*G 1o /5ch /4c1or 1h4 cha*c4 1o 0r4/4*1 46.+4*c4 co*1ra+.c1.*G c9a.:/ o8 :4:<4r/h.0 .* 1h4 /a.+ /4c1or or 1o N54/1.o* 1h4 c9a.:/ o8 1h4 43./14*c4 o8 /5ch /4c1ora9 orGa*.Ja1.o*/ or 0ar1.4/. Th./ 0roc44+.*G /ha99 <4 co*+5c14+ <2 1h4 COMELEC a*+ /ha99 <4 /5::ar2 .* charac14r. "* o1h4r Ior+/, COMELEC +4c./.o*/ o* 1h./ :a114r ar4 8.*a9 a*+ 5*a004a9a<94. 52 -"7phasis supplied/ +ndisputably, the fra7ers of the 1247 %onstitution intended the party,list syste7 to include not only sectoral parties but also non,sectoral parties' The fra7ers intended the sectoral parties to constitute a part, but not the entirety, of the party,list syste7' A/ 4309a.*4+ <2 Co::.//.o*4r -.98r4+o V.99acor1a, 0o9.1.ca9 0ar1.4/ ca* 0ar1.c.0a14 .* 1h4 0ar12-9./1 /2/14: L$or a/ 9o*G a/ 1h42 8.49+ ca*+.+a14/ Iho co:4 8ro: 1h4 +.884r4*1 :arG.*a9.J4+ /4c1or/ 1ha1 I4 /ha99 +4/.G*a14 .* 1h./ Co*/1.151.o*.L53 +n fact, the fra7ers &oted down, 12,22, a proposal to reser&e per7anent seats to sectoral parties in the Couse of Representati&es, or alternati&ely, to reser&e the party,list syste7 e9clusi&ely to sectoral parties' As clearly e9plained by 6ustice 6ose %' Aitug in his :issenting (pinion in Ang $agong $ayani8

The draft pro&isions on what was to beco7e Article A+, Section ., subsection -2/, of the 1247 %onstitution tooB off fro7 two staunch positions E the first headed by %o77issioner Aillacorta, ad&ocating that of the 20 per centu7 of the total seats in %ongress to be allocated to party,list representati&es half were to be reser&ed to appointees fro7 the 7arginali?ed and underrepresented sectors' The proposal was opposed by so7e %o77issioners' !r' !onsod e9pressed the difficulty in deli7iting the sectors that needed representation' Ce was of the &iew that reser&ing seats for the 7arginali?ed and underrepresented sectors would stunt their de&elop7ent into full,pledged parties e0uipped with electoral 7achinery potent enough to further the sectoral interests to be represented' The Aillacorta group, on the other hand, was apprehensi&e that pitting the unorgani?ed and less,7oneyed sectoral groups in an electoral contest would be liBe placing babes in the lionDs den, so to speaB, with the bigger and 7ore established political parties ulti7ately gobbling the7 up' R'A' 7231 recogni?ed this concern when it banned the first fi&e 7a=or political parties on the basis of party representation in the Couse of Representati&es fro7 participating in the party,list syste7 for the first party,list elections held in 1224 -and to be auto7atically lifted starting with the 2001 elections/' The ad&ocates for per7anent seats for sectoral representati&es 7ade an effort towards a co7pro7ise E that the party,list syste7 be open only to underrepresented and 7arginali?ed sectors' This proposal was further whittled down by allocating only half of the seats under the party,list syste7 to candidates fro7 the sectors which would garner the re0uired nu7ber of &otes' The 7a=ority was unyielding' Aoting 12,22, the proposal for per7anent seats, and in the alternati&e the reser&ation of the party,list syste7 to the sectoral groups, was &oted down' The only concession the Aillacorta group was able to 7uster was an assurance of reser&ed seats for selected sectors for three consecuti&e ter7s after the enact7ent of the 1247 %onstitution, by which ti7e they would be e9pected to gather and solidify their electoral base and brace the7sel&es in the 7ulti,party electoral contest with the 7ore &eteran political groups'54 -"7phasis supplied/ Thus, in the end, the proposal to gi&e per7anent reser&ed seats to certain sectors was out&oted' +nstead, the reser&ation of seats to sectoral representati&es was only allowed for the first three consecuti&e ter7s' 55 There can be no doubt whatsoe&er that the fra7ers of the 1247 %onstitution e9pressly re=ected the proposal to 7aBe the party,list syste7 e9clusi&ely for sectoral parties only, and that they clearly intended the party,list syste7 to include both sectoral and non,sectoral parties' The co77on deno7inator between sectoral and non,sectoral parties is that they cannot e9pect to win in legislati&e district elections but they can garner, in nationwide elections, at least the sa7e nu7ber of &otes that winning candidates can garner in legislati&e district elections' The party,list syste7 will be the entry point to 7e7bership in the Couse of Representati&es for both these non,traditional parties that could not co7pete in legislati&e district elections' The indisputable intent of the fra7ers of the 1247 %onstitution to include in the party,list syste7 both sectoral and non,sectoral parties is c94ar92 Ir.114* in Section .-1/, Article A+ of the %onstitution, which states8 Section .' -1/ The Couse of Representati&e shall be co7posed of not 7ore that two hundred and fifty 7e7bers, unless otherwise fi9ed by law, who shall be elected fro7 legislati&e districts apportioned a7ong the pro&inces, cities, and the !etropolitan !anila area in accordance with the nu7ber of their respecti&e inhabitants, and on the basis of a unifor7 and progressi&e ratio, and 1ho/4 Iho, a/ 0ro6.+4+ <2 9aI, /ha99 <4 494c14+ 1hro5Gh a 0ar12-9./1 /2/14: o8 r4G./14r4+ *a1.o*a9, r4G.o*a9, a*+ /4c1ora9 0ar1.4/ or orGa*.Ja1.o*/ ' -"7phasis supplied/ Section .-1/, Article A+ of the %onstitution is crystal,clear that there shall be La 0ar12-9./1 /2/14: o8 r4G./14r4+ *a1.o*a9, r4G.o*a9, a*+ /4c1ora9 0ar1.4/ or orGa*.Ja1.o*/.L The co77as after the words ;national,; and ;regional,; separate national and regional parties fro7 sectoral parties' Cad the fra7ers of the 1247 %onstitution intended national and regional parties to be at the sa7e ti7e sectoral, they would ha&e stated ;national and regional sectoral parties'; They did not, precisely because it was ne&er their intention to 7aBe the party,list syste7 e9clusi&ely sectoral' What the fra7ers intended, and what they e9pressly wrote in Section .-1/, could not be any clearer8 the party,list syste7 is co7posed of three different groups, and the sectoral parties belong to only one of the three groups' The te9t of Section .-1/ lea&es no roo7 for any doubt that national and regional parties are separate fro7 sectoral parties' Thus, the party,list syste7 is co7posed of 1hr44 +.884r4*1 Gro50/C -1/ national parties or organi?ations@ -2/ regional parties or organi?ations@ and -3/ sectoral parties or organi?ations' #ational and regional parties or organi?ations are +.884r4*1 fro7 sectoral parties or organi?ations' #ational and regional parties or organi?ations need not be organi?ed along sectoral lines and need not represent any particular sector' !oreo&er, Section .-2/, Article A+ of the 1247 %onstitution 7andates that, during the first three consecuti&e ter7s of %ongress after the ratification of the 1247 %onstitution, ;one,half of the seats allocated to party,list representati&es shall be filled, as pro&ided by law, by selection or election fro7 the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural co77unities, wo7en, youth, and such other sectors as 7ay be pro&ided by law, e9cept the religious sector'; This pro&ision clearly shows again that the party,list syste7 is not e9clusi&ely for sectoral parties for two ob&ious reasons' =irst, the other one,half of the seats allocated to party,list representati&es would naturally be open to non,sectoral party,list representati&es, clearly negating the idea that the party,list syste7 is e9clusi&ely for sectoral parties

representing the ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented'; Second, the reser&ation of one,half of the party,list seats to sectoral parties applies only for the first ;three consecuti&e ter7s after the ratification of this %onstitution,; clearly 7aBing the party,list syste7 fully open after the end of the first three congressional ter7s' This 7eans that, after this period, there will be no seats reser&ed for any class or type of party that 0ualifies under the three groups constituting the party,list syste7' 4*c4, 1h4 c94ar .*14*1, 430r4// Ior+.*G, a*+ 0ar12-9./1 /1r5c15r4 or+a.*4+ .* S4c1.o* )E1F a*+ E2F, Ar1.c94 V" o8 1h4 19?7 Co*/1.151.o* ca**o1 <4 +./0514+C 1h4 0ar12-9./1 /2/14: ./ *o1 8or /4c1ora9 0ar1.4/ o*92, <51 a9/o 8or *o*-/4c1ora9 0ar1.4/. Republic Act #o' 7231 or the arty,)ist Syste7 Act, which is the law that i7ple7ents the party,list syste7 prescribed in the %onstitution, pro&ides8 Section 3' :efinition of Ter7s' -a/ The party,list syste7 is a 7echanis7 of proportional representation in the election of representati&es to the Couse of Representati&es fro7 national, regional and sectoral parties or organi?ations or coalitions thereof registered with the %o77ission on "lections -%(!")"%/' %o7ponent parties or organi?ations of a coalition 7ay participate independently pro&ided the coalition of which they for7 part does not participate in the party,list syste7' -b/ A 0ar12 :4a*/ 4.1h4r a 0o9.1.ca9 0ar12 or a /4c1ora9 0ar12 or a coa9.1.o* o8 0ar1.4/. -c/ A 0o9.1.ca9 0ar12 r484r/ 1o a* orGa*.J4+ Gro50 o8 c.1.J4*/ a+6oca1.*G a* .+4o9oG2 or 09a18or:, 0r.*c.094/ a*+ 0o9.c.4/ 8or 1h4 G4*4ra9 co*+5c1 o8 Go64r*:4*1 a*+ Ih.ch, a/ 1h4 :o/1 .::4+.a14 :4a*/ o8 /4c5r.*G 1h4.r a+o01.o*, r4G59ar92 *o:.*a14/ a*+ /500or1/ c4r1a.* o8 .1/ 94a+4r/ a*+ :4:<4r/ a/ ca*+.+a14/ 8or 05<9.c o88.c4. +t is a national party when its constituency is spread o&er the geographical territory of at least a 7a=ority of the regions' +t is a regional party when its constituency is spread o&er the geographical territory of at least a 7a=ority of the cities and pro&inces co7prising the region' -d/ A /4c1ora9 0ar12 r484r/ 1o a* orGa*.J4+ Gro50 o8 c.1.J4*/ <49o*G.*G 1o a*2 o8 1h4 /4c1or/ 4*5:4ra14+ .* S4c1.o* ) h4r4o8 Iho/4 0r.*c.0a9 a+6ocac2 04r1a.*/ 1o 1h4 /04c.a9 .*14r4/1 a*+ co*c4r*/ o8 1h4.r /4c1or. -e/ A sectoral organi?ation refers to a group of citi?ens or a coalition of groups of citi?ens who share si7ilar physical attributes or characteristics, e7ploy7ent, interests or concerns' -f/ A coalition refers to an aggrupation of duly registered national, regional, sectoral parties or organi?ations for political andJor election purposes' -"7phasis supplied/ Section 3-a/ of R'A' #o' 7231 defines a ;party; as L4.1h4r a 0o9.1.ca9 0ar12 or a /4c1ora9 0ar12 or a coalition of parties'; %learly, a political party is different fro7 a sectoral party' Section 3-c/ of R'A' #o' 7231 further pro&ides that a L0o9.1.ca9 0ar12 refers to an orGa*.J4+ Gro50 o8 c.1.J4*/ a+6oca1.*G a* .+4o9oG2 or 09a18or:, 0r.*c.094/ a*+ 0o9.c.4/ 8or 1h4 G4*4ra9 co*+5c1 o8 Go64r*:4*1.L (n the other hand, Section 3-d/ of R'A' #o' 7231 pro&ides that a ;/4c1ora9 0ar12 refers to an organi?ed group of citi?ens belonging to any of the sectors enu7erated in Section . hereof Iho/4 0r.*c.0a9 a+6ocac2 04r1a.*/ 1o 1h4 /04c.a9 .*14r4/1 a*+ co*c4r*/ o8 1h4.r /4c1or.L R'A' #o' 7231 pro&ides different definitions for a political and a sectoral party' (b&iously, they are separate and distinct fro7 each other' R.A. No. 7941 +o4/ *o1 r4N5.r4 *a1.o*a9 a*+ r4G.o*a9 0ar1.4/ or orGa*.Ja1.o*/ 1o r40r4/4*1 1h4 L:arG.*a9.J4+ a*+ 5*+4rr40r4/4*14+L /4c1or/. To re0uire all national and regional parties under the party,list syste7 to represent the ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented; is to depri&e and e9clude, by =udicial fiat, ideology,based and cause,oriented parties fro7 the party,list syste7' Cow will these ideology,based and cause,oriented parties, who cannot win in legislati&e district elections, participate in the electoral process if they are e9cluded fro7 the party,list syste7H To e9clude the7 fro7 the party,list syste7 is to pre&ent the7 fro7 =oining the parlia7entary struggle, lea&ing as their only option the ar7ed struggle' To e9clude the7 fro7 the party,list syste7 is, apart fro7 being ob&iously senseless, patently contrary to the clear intent and e9press wording of the 1247 %onstitution and R'A' #o' 7231' *nder the party,list syste7, an ideology,based or cause,oriented political party is clearly different fro7 a sectoral party' A political party need not be organi?ed as a sectoral party and need not represent any particular sector' There is no re0uire7ent in R'A' #o' 7231 that a national or regional political party 7ust represent a ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented; sector' +t is sufficient that the political party consists of citi?ens who ad&ocate the sa7e ideology or platfor7, or the sa7e go&ernance principles and policies, r4Gar+94// o8 1h4.r 4co*o:.c /1a15/ a/ c.1.J4*/. Section . of R'A' #o' 7231 states that ;the sectors shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolB, urban poor, indigenous cultural co77unities, 49+4r92, handicapped, Io:4*, 2o51h, &eterans, o&erseas worBers, and 0ro84//.o*a9/.L56The sectors 7entioned in Section . are not all necessarily ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented'; <or sure, ;professionals; are not by definition ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented,; not e&en the elderly, wo7en, and the

youth' Cowe&er, professionals, the elderly, wo7en, and the youth 7ay ;lacB well,defined political constituencies,; and can thus organi?e the7sel&es into sectoral parties in ad&ocacy of the special interests and concerns of their respecti&e sectors' Section 5 of R'A' #o' 7231 pro&ides another co7pelling reason for holding that the law does not re0uire national or regional parties, as well as certain sectoral parties in Section . of R'A' #o' 7231, to represent the ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented'; Section 5 pro&ides the grounds for the %(!")"% to refuse or cancel the registration of parties or organi?ations after due notice and hearing' Section 5' Refusal andJor %ancellation of Registration' E The %(!")"% 7ay, 7otu proprio or upon &erified co7plaint of any interested party, refuse or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organi?ation or coalition on any of the following grounds8 -1/ +t is a religious sect or deno7ination, organi?ation or association organi?ed for religious purposes@ -2/ +t ad&ocates &iolence or unlawful 7eans to seeB its goal@ -3/ +t is a foreign party or organi?ation@ -3/ +t is recei&ing support fro7 any foreign go&ern7ent, foreign political party, foundation, organi?ation, whether directly or through any of its officers or 7e7bers or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes@ -./ +t &iolates or fails to co7ply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections@ -5/ +t declares untruthful state7ents in its petition@ -7/ +t has ceased to e9ist for at least one -1/ year@ or -4/ +t fails to participate in the last two -2/ preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centu7 -2Q/ of the &otes cast under the party,list syste7 in the two -2/ preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered' #one of the 4 grounds to refuse or cancel registration refers to non,representation of the ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented'; The phrase L:arG.*a9.J4+ a*+ 5*+4rr40r4/4*14+L appears only once in R'A' #o' 7231, in Section 2 on :eclaration of olicy'57 Section 2 seeBs ;to pro7ote proportional representation in the election of representati&es to the Couse of Representati&es through the party,list syste7,; which will enable <ilipinos belonging to theL:arG.*a9.J4+ a*+ 5*+4rr40r4/4*14+ /4c1or/, orGa*.Ja1.o*/ a*+ 0ar1.4/, a*+ Iho 9acH I499-+48.*4+ 0o9.1.ca9 co*/1.154*c.4/,L to beco7e 7e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es' While the policy declaration in Section 2 of R'A' #o' 7231 broadly refers to ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented sectors, organi?ations and parties,; the specific i7ple7enting pro&isions of R'A' #o' 7231 do not define or re0uire that the sectors, organi?ations or parties 7ust be ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented'; (n the contrary, to e&en interpret that all the sectors 7entioned in Section . are ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented; would lead to absurdities' Cow then should we har7oni?e the broad policy declaration in Section 2 of R'A' #o' 7231 with its specific i7ple7enting pro&isions, bearing in 7ind the applicable pro&isions of the 1247 %onstitution on the 7atterH The phrase L:arG.*a9.J4+ a*+ 5*+4rr40r4/4*14+L should r484r o*92 1o 1h4 /4c1or/ .* S4c1.o* ) 1ha1 ar4,by their nature, 4co*o:.ca992 L:arG.*a9.J4+ a*+ 5*+4rr40r4/4*14+.L These sectors are8 labor, peasant, fisherfolB, urban poor, indigenous cultural co77unities, handicapped, &eterans, o&erseas worBers, and other si7ilar sectors' $or 1h4/4 /4c1or/, a :aKor.12 o8 1h4 :4:<4r/ o8 1h4 /4c1ora9 0ar12 :5/1 <49o*G 1o 1h4 L:arG.*a9.J4+ a*+ 5*+4rr40r4/4*14+.L Th4 *o:.*44/ o8 1h4 /4c1ora9 0ar12 4.1h4r :5/1 <49o*G 1o 1h4 /4c1or, or :5/1 ha64 a 1racH r4cor+ o8 a+6ocac2 8or 1h4 /4c1or r40r4/4*14+. $elonging to the ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented; sector does not 7ean one 7ust ;wallow in po&erty, destitution or infir7ity'; +t is sufficient that one, or his or her sector, is below the 7iddle class' !ore specifically, the econo7ically ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented; are those who fall in the low inco7e group as classified by the #ational Statistical %oordination $oard' 58 The recognition that national and regional parties, as well as sectoral parties of professionals, the elderly, wo7en and the youth, need not be ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented; will allow s7all ideology,based and cause,oriented parties who lacB ;well,defined political constituencies; a chance to win seats in the Couse of Representati&es' (n the other hand, li7iting to the ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented; the /4c1ora9 parties for labor, peasant, fisherfolB, urban poor, indigenous cultural co77unities, handicapped, &eterans, o&erseas worBers, and other sectors that by their nature are econo7ically at the 7argins of society, will gi&e the ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented; an opportunity to liBewise win seats in the Couse of Representati&es'

This interpretation will har7oni?e the 1247 %onstitution and R'A' #o' 7231 and will gi&e rise to a 7ulti,party syste7 where those ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented,; both in economic and ideo!ogica! status, will ha&e the opportunity to send their own 7e7bers to the Couse of Representati&es' This interpretation will also 7aBe the party,list syste7 honest and transparent, eli7inating the need for relati&ely well,off party,list representati&es to 7as0uerade as ;wallowing in po&erty, destitution and infir7ity,; e&en as they attend sessions in %ongress riding in S*As' The 7a=or political parties are those that field candidates in the legislati&e district elections' !a=or political parties cannot participate in the party,list elections since they neither lacB ;well,defined political constituencies; nor represent ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented; sectors' Th5/, 1h4 *a1.o*a9 or r4G.o*a9 0ar1.4/ 5*+4r 1h4 0ar129./1 /2/14: ar4 *4c4//ar.92 1ho/4 1ha1 +o *o1 <49o*G 1o :aKor 0o9.1.ca9 0ar1.4/. This auto7atically reser&es the national and regional parties under the party,list syste7 to those who ;lacB well,defined political constituencies,; gi&ing the7 the opportunity to ha&e 7e7bers in the Couse of Representati&es' To recall, Ang $agong $ayani e9pressly declared, in its second guideline for the accreditation of parties under the party,list syste7, that ;while e&en 7a=or political parties are e9pressly allowed by RA 7231 and the %onstitution to participate in the party,list syste7, they 7ust co7ply with the declared statutory policy of enabling V<ilipino citi?ens belonging to 7arginali?ed and underrepresented sectors 999 to be elected to the Couse of Representati&es'U ;Cowe&er, the re0uire7ent in Ang $agong $ayani, in its second guideline, that ;the political party 999 7ust represent the 7arginali?ed and underrepresented,; auto7atically dis0ualified 7a=or political parties fro7 participating in the party,list syste7' This .*h4r4*1 .*co*/./14*c2 in Ang $agong $ayani has been co7pounded by the %(!")"%Us refusal to register sectoral wings officially organi?ed by 7a=or political parties' $A#AT 7erely for7ali?ed the pre&ailing practice when it 430r4//92 0roh.<.14+ 7a=or political parties fro7 participating in the party, list syste7, e&en through their sectoral wings' Section 11 of R'A' #o' 7231 e9pressly prohibited the L8.r/1 8.64 E)F :aKor 0o9.1.ca9 0ar1.4/ on the basis of party representation in the Couse of Representati&es at the start of the Tenth %ongress; fro7 participating in the !ay 1244 party,list elections'59 Th5/, :aKor 0o9.1.ca9 0ar1.4/ ca* 0ar1.c.0a14 .* /5</4N54*1 0ar12-9./1 494c1.o*/ /.*c4 1h4 0roh.<.1.o* ./ 430r4//92 9.:.14+ o*92 1o 1h4 19?? 0ar12-9./1 494c1.o*/. Cowe&er, 7a=or political parties should participate in party,list elections only through their sectoral wings' The participation of 7a=or political parties through their sectoral wings, a 7a=ority of whose 7e7bers are ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented; or lacBing in ;well, defined political constituencies,; will facilitate the entry of the ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented; and those who ;lacB well,defined political constituencies; as 7e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es' The 1247 %onstitution and R'A' #o' 7231 allow 7a=or political parties to participate in party,list elections so as to encourage the7 to worB assiduously in e9tending their constituencies to the ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented; and to those who ;lacB well,defined political constituencies'; The participation of 7a=or political parties in party,list elections 7ust be geared towards the entry, as 7e7bers of the Couse of Representati&es, of the ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented; and those who ;lacB well,defined political constituencies,; gi&ing the7 a &oice in law,7aBing' Thus,to participate in party,list elections, a 7a=or political party that fields candidates in the legislati&e district elections 7ust organi?e a sectoral wing, liBe a labor, peasant, fisherfolB, urban poor, professional, wo7en or youth wing, that can register under the party,list syste7' Such sectoral wing of a 7a=or political party 7ust ha&e its own constitution, by,laws, platfor7 or progra7 of go&ern7ent, officers and 7e7bers, a 7a=ority of who7 7ust belong to the sector represented' The sectoral wing is in itself an independent sectoral party, and is linBed to a 7a=or political party through a coalition' This linBage is allowed by Section 3 of R'A' #o' 7231, which pro&ides that ;co7ponent parties or organi?ations of a coalition 7ay participate independently -in party,list elections/ pro&ided the coalition of which they for7 part does not participate in the party,list syste7'; Section 2 of R'A' #o' 7231 prescribes the 0ualifications of party,list no7inees' This pro&ision prescribes a special 0ualification only for the no7inee fro7 the youth sector' Section 2' Iualifications of arty,)ist #o7inees' #o person shall be no7inated as party,list representati&e unless he is a natural,born citi?en of the hilippines, a registered &oter, a resident of the hilippines for a period of not less than one -1/ year i77ediately preceding the day of the election, able to read and write, a bona fide 7e7ber of the party or organi?ation which he seeBs to represent for at least ninety -20/ days preceding the day of the election, and is at least twenty,fi&e -2./ years of age on the day of the election' +n case of a no7inee of the youth sector, he 7ust at least be twenty,fi&e -2./ but not 7ore than thirty -30/ years of age on the day of the election' Any youth sectoral representati&e who attains the age of thirty -30/ during his ter7 shall be allowed to continue in office until the e9piration of his ter7'
4S,p)i4

A party,list no7inee 7ust be a bona fide 7e7ber of the party or organi?ation which he or she seeBs to represent' "* 1h4 ca/4 o8 /4c1ora9 0ar1.4/, 1o <4 a <o*a 8.+4 0ar12-9./1 *o:.*44 o*4 :5/1 4.1h4r <49o*G 1o 1h4 /4c1or r40r4/4*14+, or ha64 a 1racH r4cor+ o8 a+6ocac2 8or /5ch /4c1or.

+n dis0ualifying petitioners, the %(!")"% used the criteria prescribed in Ang $agong $ayani and $A#AT' Ang $agong $ayani laid down the guidelines for 0ualifying those who desire to participate in the party,list syste78 +irst, 1h4 0o9.1.ca9 0ar12, /4c1or, orGa*.Ja1.o* or coa9.1.o* :5/1 r40r4/4*1 1h4 :arG.*a9.J4+ a*+ 5*+4rr40r4/4*14+ Gro50/ .+4*1.8.4+ .* S4c1.o* ) o8 RA 7941. 9 9 9 Second, while e&en 7a=or political parties are e9pressly allowed by RA 7231 and the %onstitution to participate in the party,list syste7, they 7ust co7ply with the declared statutory policy of enabling ;<ilipino citi?ens belonging to 7arginali?ed and underrepresented sectors 9 9 9 to be elected to the Couse of Representati&es'; 9 9 9' 9999 Third, 9 9 9 the religious sector 7ay not be represented in the party,list syste7' 9 9 9' 9999 <ourth, a party or an organi?ation 7ust not be dis0ualified under Section 5 of RA 7231, which enu7erates the grounds for dis0ualification as follows8 ;-1/ +t is a religious sect or deno7ination, organi?ation or association, organi?ed for religious purposes@ -2/ +t ad&ocates &iolence or unlawful 7eans to seeB its goal@ -3/ +t is a foreign party or organi?ation@ -3/ +t is recei&ing support fro7 any foreign go&ern7ent, foreign political party, foundation, organi?ation, whether directly or through any of its officers or 7e7bers or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes@ -./ +t &iolates or fails to co7ply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections@ -5/ +t declares untruthful state7ents in its petition@ -7/ +t has ceased to e9ist for at least one -1/ year@ or -4/ +t fails to participate in the last two -2/ preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centu7 -2Q/ of the &otes cast under the party,list syste7 in the two -2/ preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered'; <ifth, the party or organi?ation 7ust not be an ad=unct of, or a pro=ect organi?ed or an entity funded or assisted by, the go&ern7ent' 9 9 9' 9999 Si!t), the party 7ust not only co7ply with the re0uire7ents of the law@ its no7inees 7ust liBewise do so' Section 2 of RA 7231 reads as follows8 ;S"% 2' Kualifications of $art"1List 'ominees ' , #o person shall be no7inated as party,list representati&e unless he is a natural,born citi?en of the hilippines, a registered &oter, a resident of the hilippines for a period of not less than one -1/year i77ediately preceding the day of the election, able to read and write, a *ona fide 7e7ber of the party or organi?ation which he seeBs to represent for at least ninety -20/ days preceding the day of the election, and is at least twenty,fi&e -2./ years of age on the day of the election' +n case of a no7inee of the youth sector, he 7ust at least be twenty,fi&e -2./ but not 7ore than thirty -30/ years of age on the day of the election' Any youth sectoral representati&e who attains the age of thirty -30/ during his ter7 shall be allowed to continue in office until the e9piration of his ter7'; eventh, *o1 o*92 1h4 ca*+.+a14 0ar12 or orGa*.Ja1.o* :5/1 r40r4/4*1 :arG.*a9.J4+ a*+ 5*+4rr40r4/4*14+ /4c1or/7 /o a9/o :5/1 .1/ *o:.*44/. 9 9 9' "ighth, 9 9 9 the no7inee 7ust liBewise be able to contribute to the for7ulation and enact7ent of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole' -"7phasis supplied/ +n 2002, by a &ote of 4,7 in $A#AT, this %ourt stretched the Ang %agong %a"ani ruling further' +n $A#AT, the 7a=ority officially e9cluded 7a=or political parties fro7 participating in party,list elections, 60 abandoning e&en the lip, ser&ice that Ang %agong %a"ani accorded to the 1247 %onstitution and R'A'#o' 7231 that 7a=or political parties can participate in party,list elections'

The 7inority in $A#AT, howe&er, belie&ed that 7a=or political parties can participate in the party,list syste7 through their sectoral wings' The 7inority e9pressed that ;FeG9cluding the 7a=or political parties in party,list elections is 7anifestly against the %onstitution, the intent of the %onstitutional %o77ission, and R'A' #o' 7231' This %ourt cannot engage in socio,political engineering and =udicially legislate the e9clusion of 7a=or political parties fro7 the party,list elections in patent &iolation of the %onstitution and the law'; 61 The e9peri7entations in socio,political engineering ha&e only resulted in confusion and absurdity in the party,list syste7' Such e9peri7entations, in clear contra&ention of the 1247 %onstitution and R'A' #o' 7231, 7ust now co7e to an end' We cannot, howe&er, fault the %(!")"% for following pre&ailing =urisprudence in dis0ualifying petitioners' +n following pre&ailing =urisprudence, the %(!")"% could not ha&e co77itted gra&e abuse of discretion' Cowe&er, for the co7ing 13 !ay 2013 party,list elections, we 7ust now i7pose and 7andate the party,list syste7 ac15a992 4*6./.o*4+ a*+ a51hor.J4+ under the 1247 %onstitution and R'A' #o' 7231' +n $A#AT, this %ourt de&ised a new for7ula in the allocation of party,list seats, re&ersing the %(!")"%Ds allocation which followed the then pre&ailing for7ula in Ang $agong $ayani' +n %A'AT, howe&er, the %ourt did not declare that the %(!")"% co77itted gra&e abuse of discretion' Si7ilarly, e&en as we acBnowledge here that the %(!")"% did not co77it gra&e abuse of discretion, we declare that it would not be in accord with the 1247 %onstitution and R'A' #o' 7231 to apply the criteria in Ang %agong %a"ani and $A#AT in deter7ining who are 0ualified to participate .* 1h4 co:.*G 13 Ma2 2@13 0ar12-9./1 494c1.o*/. <or this purpose, we suspend our rule62 that a party 7ay appeal to this %ourt fro7 decisions or orders of the %(!")"% only if the %(!")"% co77itted gra&e abuse of discretion' Thus, we re7and all the present petitions to the %(!")"%' +n deter7ining who 7ay participate in the co7ing 13 !ay 2013 and subse0uent party,list elections, the %(!")"% shall adhere to the following para7eters8 1' Three different groups 7ay participate in the party,list syste78 -1/ national parties or organi?ations, -2/ regional parties or organi?ations, and -3/ sectoral parties or organi?ations' 2' #ational parties or organi?ations and regional parties or organi?ations do not need to organi?e along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented; sector' 3' olitical parties can participate in party,list elections pro&ided they register under the party,list syste7 and do not field candidates in legislati&e district elections' A political party, whether 7a=or or not, that fields candidates in legislati&e district elections can participate in party,list elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately register under the party,list syste7' The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party, and is linBed to a political party through a coalition' 3' Sectoral parties or organi?ations 7ay either be ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented; or lacBing in ;well, defined political constituencies'; +t is enough that their principal ad&ocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector' The sectors that are ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented; include labor, peasant, fisherfolB, urban poor, indigenous cultural co77unities, handicapped, &eterans, and o&erseas worBers' The sectors that lacB ;well,defined political constituencies; include professionals, the elderly, wo7en, and the youth' .' A 7a=ority of the 7e7bers of sectoral parties or organi?ations that represent the ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented; 7ust belong to the ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented; sector they represent' Si7ilarly, a 7a=ority of the 7e7bers of sectoral parties or organi?ations that lacB ;well,defined political constituencies; 7ust belong to the sector they represent' The no7inees of sectoral parties or organi?ations that represent the ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented,; or that represent those who lacB ;well,defined political constituencies,; either 7ust belong to their respecti&e sectors, or 7ust ha&e a tracB record of ad&ocacy for their respecti&e sectors' The no7inees of national and regional parties or organi?ations 7ust be bona,fide 7e7bers of such parties or organi?ations' 5' #ational, regional, and sectoral parties or organi?ations shall not be dis0ualified if so7e of their no7inees are dis0ualified, pro&ided that they ha&e at least one no7inee who re7ains 0ualified' The %(!")"% e9cluded fro7 participating in the 13 !ay 2013 party,list elections those that did not satisfy these two criteria8 -1/ all national, regional, and sectoral groups or organi?ations 7ust represent the ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented; sectors, and -2/ all no7inees 7ust belong to the ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented; sector they represent' etitioners 7ay ha&e been dis0ualified by the %(!")"% because as political or regional parties they are not organi?ed along sectoral lines and do not represent the ;7arginali?ed and underrepresented'; Also, petitionersD no7inees who do not belong to the sectors they represent 7ay ha&e been dis0ualified, although they 7ay ha&e a tracB record of ad&ocacy for their sectors' )iBewise, no7inees of non,sectoral parties 7ay ha&e been dis0ualified because they do not belong to any sector' !oreo&er, a party 7ay ha&e been dis0ualified because one or 7ore of its no7inees failed to 0ualify, e&en if the party has at least one re7aining 0ualified no7inee' As discussed abo&e, the dis0ualification of petitioners, and their no7inees, under such circu7stances is contrary to the 1247 %onstitution and R'A' #o' 7231' This %ourt is sworn to uphold the 1247 %onstitution, apply its pro&isions faithfully, and desist fro7 engaging in socio,econo7ic or political e9peri7entations contrary to what the %onstitution has ordained' 6udicial power does not include the power to re,write the %onstitution' Thus, the present petitions should be re7anded to the %(!")"% not

because the %(!")"% co77itted gra&e abuse of discretion in dis0ualifying petitioners, but because petitioners 7ay now possibly 0ualify to participate in the co7ing 13 !ay 2013 party,list elections under the new para7eters prescribed by this %ourt' WC"R"<(R", all the present .3 petitions are 1RA#T":' The 13 petitions, which ha&e been granted Status Iuo Ante (rders but without 7andatory in=unction to include the na7es of petitioners in the printing of ballots, are re7anded to the %o77ission on "lections only for deter7ination whether petitioners are 0ualified to register under the party,list syste7 under the para7eters prescribed in this :ecision but they shall not participate in the 13 !ay 2013 part,list elections' The 31 petitions, which ha&e been granted 7andatory in=unctions to include the na7es of petitioners in the printing of ballots, are re7anded to the %o77ission on "lections for deter7ination whether petitioners are 0ualified to register under the party,list syste7 and to participate in the 13 !ay 2013 party,list elections under the para7eters prescribed in this :ecision' The %o77ission on "lections 7ay conduct su77ary e&identiary hearings for this purpose' This :ecision is i77ediately e9ecutory' S( (R:"R":'

G.R. No. L-2?21

March 4, 1949

JOSE AVEL"NO, petitioner, &s' MAR"ANO J. CUENCO, respondent' Vicente J. =rancisco for petitioner. ffice of t)e Solicitor General =eli! Angelo %autista, Ramon (io#no and Lorenzo M. Taada for respondent. Tee)an#ee, =ernando, Sunico O Rodrigo> Vera, Montesines O 'avarro> =eli!*erto M. Serrano and Vicente del Rosario as amici curiae. RESOLUT"ON +n 1'R' #o' ),2421, )ve!ino vs. Cuenco, the %ourt by a &ote of si9 =ustices against four resol&ed to deny the petition' Without pre=udice to the pro7ulgation of a 7ore e9tended opinion, this is now written briefly to e9plain the principal grounds for the denial' The %ourt belie&es the following essential facts ha&e been established8 +n the session of the Senate of <ebruary 14, 1232, Senator )oren?o !' Ta>adare 0uested that his right to speaB on the ne9t session day, <ebruary 21, 1232, to for7ulate charges against the then Senate resident 6ose A649.*o be reser&ed' Cis re0uest was appro&ed' (n <ebruary 21, 1232, hours before the opening of the session Senator Ta>ada and Senator Ta>ada and Senator rospero Sanidad filed with the Secretary of the Senate a resolution enu7erating charges against the then Senate resident and ordering the in&estigation thereof' Although a sufficient nu7ber of senators to constitute a 9uorum were at the Senate session hall at the appointed ti7e -10800 A'!'/, and the petitioner was already in his office, said petitioner delayed his appearance at the session hall until about 1183. A'!' When he finally ascended the rostru7, he did not i77ediately open the session, but instead re0uested fro7 the Secretary a copy of the resolution sub7itted by Senators Ta>ada and Sanidad and in the presence of the public he read slowly and carefully said resolution, after which he called and conferred with his colleagues Senator <rancisco and Tirona' Shortly before 12800 noon, due to the session be opened, the petitioner finally called the 7eeting to order' "9cept Senator Sotto who was confined in a hospital and Senator %onfesor who is in the *nited States, all the Senator were present' Senator Sanidad, following a long established practice, 7o&ed that the roll call be dispensed with, but Senator Tirona opposed said 7otion, ob&iously in pursuance of a pre7editated plan of petitioner and his partisans to 7aBe use of dilatory tactics to pre&ent Senator Ta>ada fro7 deli&ering his pri&ilege speech' The roll was called' Senator Sanidad ne9t 7o&ed, as is the usual practice, to dispense with the reading of the 7inutes, but this 7otion was liBewise opposed by Senator Tirona and :a&id, e&idently, again, in pursuance of the abo&e,7entioned conspiracy' $efore and after the roll call and before and after the reading of the 7inutes, Senator Ta>ada repeatedly stood up to clai7 his right to deli&er his one,hour pri&ilege speech but the petitioner, then presiding, continuosly ignored hi7@

and when after the reading of the 7inutes, Senator Ta>ada instead on being recogni?ed by the %hair, the petitioner announced that he would order the arrest of any senator who would speaB without being pre&iously recogni?ed by hi7, but all the while, tolerating the actions of his follower, Senator Tirona, who was continuously shouting at Senator Sanidad ;(ut of orderX; e&eryti7e the latter would asB for recognition of Senator Ta>ada' At this =uncture, so7e disorderly conduct broBe out in the Senate gallery, as if by pre,arrange7ent' At about this sa7e ti7e Senator ablo Angeles :a&id, one of the petitionerDs followers, was recogni?ed by petitioner, and he 7o&ed for ad=ourn7ent of session, e&idently, again, in pursuance of the abo&e,7entioned conspiracy to 7u??le Senator Ta>ada' Senator Sanidad registered his opposition to the ad=ourn7ent of the session and this opposition was seconded by herein respondent who 7o&ed that the 7otion of ad=ourn7ent be sub7itted to a &ote' Another co77otion ensued' Senator :a&id reiterated his 7otion for ad=ourn7ent and herein respondent also reiterated his opposition to the ad=ourn7ent and again 7o&ed that the 7otion of Senator :a&id be sub7itted to a &ote' Suddenly, the petitioner banged the ga&el and abandoning the %hair hurriedly walBed out of the session hall followed by Senator :a&id, Tirona, <rancisco, Torres, !agalona and %larin, while the rest of the senators re7ained' Whereupon Senator !elencio Arran?, Senate resident ro,te7pore, urged by those senators present tooB the %hair and proceeded with the session' Senator %abili stood up, and asBed that it be 7ade of record E it was so 7ade E that the deliberate abandon7ent of the %hair by the petitioner, 7ade it incu7bent upon Senate resident ro,te7pore Arran? and the re7aining 7e7bers of the Senate to continue the session in order not to paraly?e the functions of the Senate' Senate resident ro,te7pore Arran? then suggested that respondent be designated to preside o&er the session which suggestion was carried unani7ously' the respondent thereupon tooB the %hair' *pon 7otion of Senator Arran?, which was appro&ed 1regorio Abad was appointedActing Secretary, because the Assistance Secretary, who was then acting as Secretary, had followed the petitioner when the latter abandoned the session' Senator Ta>ada, after being recogni?ed by the %hair, was then finally able to deli&er his pri&ilege speech' Thereafter Senator Sanidad read aloud the co7plete te9t of said Resolution -#o' 54/, and sub7itted his 7otion for appro&al thereof and the sa7e was unani7ously appro&ed' With Senate resident ro,te7pore Arran? again occupying the %hair, after the respondent had yielded it to hi7, Senator Sanidad introduced Resolution #o' 57, entitled ;Resolution declaring &acant the position of the resident of the Senate and designated the Conorable !ariano 6esus C54*co Acting resident of the Senate'; ut to a &ote, the said resolution was unani7ously appro&ed' Senator C54*co tooB the oath' The ne9t day the resident of the hilippines recogni?ed the respondent as acting president of the hilippines Senate' $y his petition in this 9uo ,arranto proceeding petitioners asBed the %ourt to declare hi7 the rightful resident of the hilippines senate and oust respondent' The %ourt has e9a7ined all principal angles of the contro&ersy and belie&es that these are the crucial points8 a' :oes the %ourt ha&e =urisdiction o&er the sub=ect,7atterH *' +f it is has, were resolution #os' 54 and 57 &alidly appro&edH c' Should the petition be grantedH To the first 0uestion, the answer is in the negati&e, in &iew of the separation of powers, the political nature of the contro&ersy -Ale=andrino &s' Iue?on, 35 hil', 43@ Aera &s' A649.*o, 77 hil', 122@ !abanag &s' )ope? Aito, 74 hil', 1/ and the constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its own president, which power should not be interfered with, nor taBen o&er, by the =udiciary' We refused to taBe cogni?ance of the Aera case e&en if the rights of the electors of the suspended senators were alleged affected ,it)out an" immediate remed"' A fortiori we should abstain in this case because the selection of the presiding officer affect only the Senators the7sel&es who are at liberty at an" time to choose their officers, change or reinstate the7' Anyway, if, as the petition 7ust i7ply to be acceptable, the 7a=ority of the Senators want petitioner to preside, his re7edy lies in the Senate Session Call E not in the Supre7e %ourt'

The %ourt will not sally into the legiti7ate do7ain of the Senate on the plea that our refusal to intercede 7ight lead into a crisis, e&en a resolution' #o state of things has been pro&ed that 7ight change the te7per of the <ilipino people as a peaceful and law,abiding citi?ens' And we should not allow oursel&es to be sta7peded into a rash action inconsistent with the cal7 that should characteri?ed =udicial deliberations' The precedent of Werts vs. Roger does not apply, because a7ong other reasons, the situation is not where two sets of senators ha&e constituted the7sel&es into t,o senates actually functioning as such, -as in said Werts case/, there being no 0uestion that there is presently one $)ilippines Senate onl"' To their credit be it recorded that petitioner and his partisans ha&e not erected the7sel&es into anot)er Senate' The petitionerDs clai7 is 7erely that respondent has not been duly elected in his place in the sa7e one hilippines Senate' +t is further7ore belie&ed that the recognition accorded by the %hief "9ecuti&e to the respondent 7aBes it ad&isable, 7ore than e&er, to adopt the hands,off policy wisely enunciated by this %ourt in 7atters of si7ilar nature' The second 0uestion depends upon these sub,0uestions' -1/ Was the session of the so,called ru7p Senate a continuation of the session &alidly asse7bled with twenty two Senators in the 7orning of <ebruary 21, 1232H@ -2/ Was there a 9uorum in that sessionH !r' 6ustice !onte7ayor and !r' 6ustice Reyes dee7 it useless, for the present to pass on these 0uestions once it is held, as they do, that the %ourt has no =urisdiction o&er the case' What follows is the opinion of the other four on those four on those sub,0uestions' Supposing that the %ourt has =urisdiction, there is unani7ity in the &iew that the session under Senator Arran? was a continuation of the 7orning session and that a 7inority of ten senators 7ay not, by lea&ing the Call, pre&ent the other twel&e senators fro7 passing a resolution that 7et with their unani7ous endorse7ent' The answer 7ight be different had the resolution been appro&ed only by ten or less' +f the ru7p session was not a continuation of the 7orning session, was it &alidly constitutedH +n other words, was there the 7a=ority re0uired by the %onstitution for the transaction of the business of the SenateH 6ustice aras, <eria, ablo and $eng?on say there was, firstly because the 7inute say so, secondly, because at the beginning of such session there were at least fourteen senators including Senators endatun and )ope?, and thirdly because in &iew of the absence fro7 the country of Senator To7as %onfesor twel&e senators constitute a 7a=ority of the Senate of twel&e three senators' When the %onstitution declares that a 7a=ority of ;each Couse; shall constitute a9uorum, ;the Couse8 does not 7ean ;all; the 7e7bers' "&en a 7a=ority of all the 7e7bers constitute ;the Couse;' -!issouri ac' vs. Nansas, 53 )aw ed' F*' S'G, p' 232/' There is a difference between a 7a=ority of ;the Couse;, the latter re0uiring less nu7ber than the first' Therefore an absolute 7a=ority -12/ of all the 7e7bers of the Senate less one -23/, constitutes constitutional 7a=ority of the Senate for the purpose of a 9uorum' !r' 6ustice ablo belie&es further7ore than e&en if the twel&e did not constitute a 9uorum, they could ha&e ordered the arrest of one, at least, of the absent 7e7bers@ if one had been so arrested, there would be no doubt Iuoru7 then, and Senator C54*co would ha&e been elected =ust the sa7e inas7uch as there would be ele&en for C54*co, one against and one abstained' +n fine, all the four =ustice agree that the %ourt being confronted with the practical situation that of the twenty three senators who 7ay participate in the Senate deliberations in the days i77ediately after this decision, twel&e senators will support Senator C54*co and, at 7ost, ele&en will side with Senator A649.*o, it would be 7ost in=udicious to declare the latter as the rightful resident of the Senate, that office being essentially one that depends e9clusi&ely upon the will of the 7a=ority of the senators, the rule of the Senate about tenure of the resident of that body being a7enable at any ti7e by that 7a=ority' And at any session hereafter held with thirteen or 7ore senators, in order to a&oid all contro&ersy arising fro7 the di&ergence of opinion here about 9uorum and for the benefit of all concerned,the said twel&e senators who appro&ed the resolutions herein in&ol&ed could ratify all their acts and thereby place the7 beyond the shadow of a doubt' As already stated, the si9 =ustices hereinabo&e 7entioned &oted to dis7iss the petition' Without costs' G.R. No. 12?@)) A0r.9 1?, 2@@1

M"R"AM %E$ENSOR SANT"AGO, petitioner, &s' SAN%"GAN(A#AN, $RANC"S E. GARC "TORENA, JOSE S. (ALAJA%"A AN% M"N"TA V. C "CO-NA&AR"O, AS PRES"%"NG JUST"CE AN% MEM(ERS O$ T E $"RST %"V"S"ON, respondents' V"TUG, J.C The %ourt is called upon to re&iew the act of the Sandiganbayan, and how far it can go, in ordering the pre&enti&e suspension of petitioner, !7e' Senator !iria7 :efensor,Santiago, in connection with pending in cri7inal cases filed against her for alleged &iolation of Republic Act #o' 3012, as a7ended, otherwise Bnown as the Anti,1raft and %orrupt ractices Act' The instant case arose fro7 co7plaints filed by a group of e7ployees of the %o77ission of +77igration and :eportation -%+:/ against petitioner, then %+: %o77issioner, for alleged &iolation of the Anti,1raft and %orrupt ractices Act' The in&estigating panel, that tooB o&er the case fro7 in&estigator 1ualberto dela )lana after ha&ing

been constituted by the :eputy (7buds7an for )u?on upon petitionerDs re0uest, ca7e up with a resolution which it referred, for appro&al, to the (ffice of the Special rosecutor -(S / and the (7buds7an' +n his !e7orandu7, dated 25 April 1221, the (7buds7an directed the (S to file the appropriate infor7ations against petitioner' (n 13 !ay 1221, (S sub7itted to the (7buds7an the infor7ations for clearance@ appro&ed, forthwith, three infor7ations were filed on e&en date' +n %ri7inal %ase #o' 15524 filed before the Sandiganbayan, petitioner was indicted thusly8 ;That on or about (ctober 17, 1244, or so7eti7e prior or subse0uent thereto, in !anila, hilippines and within the =urisdiction of this Conorable %ourt, accused !+R+A! :"<"#S(R,SA#T+A1(, a public officer, being then the %o77issioner of the %o77ission on +77igration and :eportation, with e&ident bad faith and 7anifest partiality in the e9ercise of her official functions, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and cri7inally appro&e the application for legali?ation for the stay of the following aliens8 6ha7tani Shalini #arendra, Ting SioB Cun, %hing Suat )iong Ting, %u Nui ein *y, %u Nui we *y, Cong Shao 1uan, Cong Kiao Luan, Ku )i Kuan, Iui !ing Kia (ng, Wu Sui Kin Iiui, Wu Cong 1uan Iui R $etty 1o, Wu Cong Ru Iui R !ary 1o Ku R Lin Lin Nua, Cong Shao Cua Ku, Cong Shao Wei Ku, )u Shing Iing, )u Shi Tian, )u Se %hong, Shi Iing Lu, Ku Angun R Ku An %in, Ku inting, Wang Kiu 6in, %ai ian ian, %ai Wen Ku, %ai !in !in, %ai ing ing, %hoi Nin NwoB R $ernardo Suare?, Len )iang 6u R 6eslyn 1an, %ai Lan #an, Len )ing %hien R %hris7ayne 1an, So %hen Lueh,(, %ai La Rong, who arri&ed in the hilippines after 6anuary 1, 1243 in &iolation of "9ecuti&e (rder #o' 323 dated April 13, 1244 which prohibits the legali?ation of said dis0ualified aliens Bnowing fully well that said aliens are dis0ualified thereby gi&ing unwarranted benefits to said aliens whose stay in the hilippines was unlawfully legali?ed by said accused'; 1 Two other cri7inal cases, one for &iolation of the pro&isions of residential :ecree #o' 35 and the other for libel, were filed with the Regional Trial %ourt of !anila, docBeted, respecti&ely, #o' 21,23... and #o' 21,23427' ursuant to the infor7ation filed with the Sandiganbayan, residing 6ustice <rancis "' 1architorena issued an order for the arrest of petitioner, fi9ing the bail at <ifteen Thousand - 1.,000'00/ esos' etitioner posted a cash bail without need for physical appearance as she was then recuperating fro7 in=uries sustained in a &ehicular accident' The Sandiganbayan granted her pro&isional liberty until 0. 6une 1221 or until her physical condition would warrant her physical appearance in court' *pon 7anifestation by the (7buds7an, howe&er, that petitioner was able to co7e unaided to his office on 20 !ay 1221, Sandiganbayan issued an order setting the arraign7ent on 27 !ay 1221' !eanwhile, petitioner 7o&ed for the cancellation of her cash bond and prayed that she be allowed pro&isional liberty upon a recogni?ance' (n 23 !ay 1221, petitioner filed, concurrently, a etition for +ertiorari with prohibition and reli7inary +n=unction before the %ourt, docBeted G.R' #o' 22242,20, seeBing to en=oin the Sandiganbayan fro7 proceeding with %ri7inal %ase #o' 15524 and a 7otion before the Sandiganbayan to 7eanwhile defer her arraign7ent' The %ourt taBing cogni?ance of the petition issued a te7porary restraining order' The Sandiganbayan, thus infor7ed, issued an order deferring petitionerDs arraign7ent and the consideration of her 7otion to cancel the cash bond until further ad&ice fro7 the %ourt' (n 13 6anuary 1222, the %ourt rendered its decision dis7issing the petition and lifting the te7porary restraining order' The subse0uent 7otion for reconsideration filed by petitioner pro&ed una&ailing' (n 05 6uly 1222, in the waBe of media reports announcing petitionerDs intention to accept a fellowship fro7 the 6ohn <' Nennedy School of 1o&ern7ent at Car&ard *ni&ersity, the Sandiganbayan issued an order to en=oin petitioner fro7 lea&ing the country' (n 1. (ctober 1222, petitioner 7o&ed to inhibit Sandiganbayan residing 6ustice 1architorena fro7 the case and to defer her arraign7ent pending action on her 7otion to inhibit' (n 02 #o&e7ber 1222, her 7otion was denied by the Sandiganbayan' The following day, she filed anew a etition for +ertiorari and rohibition with urgent rayer for reli7inary +n=unction with the %ourt, docBeted G.R' #o' 22242,20' At the sa7e ti7e, petitioner filed a 7otion for bill of particulars with the Sandiganbayan asse&erating that the na7es of the aliens whose applications she purportedly appro&ed and thereby supposedly e9tended undue ad&antage were conspicuously o7itted in the co7plaint' The %ourt, in its resolution of 12 #o&e7ber 1222, directed the Sandiganbayan to reset petitionerDs arraign7ent not later than fi&e days fro7 receipt of notice thereof' (n 07 :ece7ber 1222, the (S and the (7buds7an filed with the Sandiganbayan a 7otion to ad7it thirty,two a7ended infor7ations' etitioner 7o&ed for the dis7issal of the 32 infor7ations' The court, in its 11th !arch 1223 resolution, denied her 7otion to dis7iss the said infor7ations and directed her to post bail on the cri7inal cases, docBeted %ri7inal %ase #o' 14371,14302, filed against her' *nrelenting, petitioner, once again ca7e to this %ourt &ia a etition for +ertiorari, docBeted G.R' #o' 102255, assailing the 03rd !arch 1223 resolution of the Sandiganbayan which resol&ed not to dis0ualify its residing

6ustice, as well as its 13th !arch 1223 resolution ad7itting the 32 A7ended +nfor7ations, and seeBing the nullification thereof' +nitially, the %ourt issued a te7porary restraining order directing residing 6ustice 1architorena to cease and desist fro7 sitting in the case, as well as fro7 enforcing the 11th !arch 1223 resolution ordering petitioner to post bail bonds for the 32 a7ended infor7ations, and fro7 proceedings with her arraign7ent on 12 April 1223 until the 7atter of his dis0ualification would ha&e been resol&ed by the %ourt' (n 02 :ece7ber 1223, the %ourt, in its decision in G.R' 102255, directed the (S and (7buds7an to consolidate the 32 a7ended infor7ations' %onfor7ably therewith, all the 32 infor7ations were consolidated into one infor7ation under %ri7inal %ase #o' 15524' etitioner, then filed with the Sandiganbayan a !otion to ;Redeter7ine robable %ause; and to dis7iss or 0uash said infor7ation' ending the resolution of this incident, the prosecution filed on 31 6uly 122. with the Sandiganbayan a 7otion to issue an order suspending petitioner' (n 03 August 122., the Sandiganbayan resol&ed to allow the testi7ony of one Rodolfo edellaga - edellaga/' The presentation was scheduled on 1. Septe7ber 122.' +n the interi7, the Sandiganbayan directed petitioner to file her opposition to the 31st 6uly 122. 7otion of the prosecution within fifteen -1./ days fro7 receipt thereof' (n 14 August 122., petitioner sub7itted to the Sandiganbayan a 7otion for reconsideration of its 03rd August 122. order which would allow the testi7ony of edellaga' The incident, later denied by the Sandiganbayan, was ele&ated to the %ourt via a etition for Re&iew on +ertiorari, entitled ;!iria7 :efensor,Santiago &s' Sandiganbayan,; docBeted G.R' #o' 123722' (n 22 August 122., petitioner filed her opposition to the 7otion of the prosecution to suspend her' (n 2. 6anuary 1225, the Sandiganbayan resol&ed8 ;WC"R"<(R", for all the foregoing, the %ourt hereby grants the 7otion under consideration and hereby suspends the accused !iria7 :efensor,Santiago fro7 her position as Senator of the Republic of the hilippines and fro7 any other go&ern7ent position she 7ay be holding at present or hereafter' Cer suspension shall be for ninety -20/ days only and shall taBe effect i77ediately upon notice' ;)et a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Con' "rnesto !aceda, Senate resident, Senate of the hilippines, "9ecuti&e Couse, Taft A&e', !anila, through the Con' Secretary of the Senate, for the i7ple7entation of the suspension herein ordered' The Secretary of the Senate shall infor7 this %ourt of the action taBen thereon within fi&e -./ days fro7 receipt hereof' ;The said official shall liBewise infor7 this %ourt of the actual date of i7ple7entation of the suspension order as well as the e9piry of the ninetieth day thereof so that the sa7e 7ay be lifted at that ti7e'; 2 Cence, the instant recourse' The petition assails the authority of the Sandiganbayan to decree a ninety,day pre&enti&e suspension of !7e' !iria7 :efensor,Santiago, a Senator of the Republic of the hilippines, fro7 any go&ern7ent position, and furnishing a copy thereof to the Senate of the hilippines for the i7ple7entation of the suspension order' The authority of the Sandiganbayan to order the pre&enti&e suspension of an incu7bent public official charged with &iolation of the pro&isions of Republic Act #o' 3012 has both legal and =urisprudential support' Section 13 of the statute pro&ides8 ;S"%T+(# 13' Suspension and loss of *enefits' E Any incu7bent public officer against who7 any cri7inal prosecution under a &alid infor7ation under this Act or under Title 7, $ooB ++ of the Re&ised enal %ode or for any offense in&ol&ing fraud upon go&ern7ent or public funds or property whether as a si7ple or as a co7ple9 offense and in whate&er stage of e9ecution and 7ode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended fro7 office' Should he be con&icted by final =udg7ent, he shall lose all retire7ent or gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is ac0uitted, he shall be entitled to reinstate7ent and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to recei&e during suspension, unless in the 7eanti7e ad7inistrati&e proceedings ha&e been filed against hi7' ;+n the e&ent that such con&icted officer, who 7ay ha&e already been separated fro7 the ser&ice, has already recei&ed such benefits he shall be liable to restitute the sa7e to the 1o&ern7ent' - As amended *" %$ %lg. 4;5, Marc) 43, 4;G8/'; +n the relati&ely recent case of Segovia vs. Sandigan*a"an, 3 the %ourt reiterated8

;The &alidity of Section 13, R'A' 3012, as a7ended E treating of the suspension pendente lite of an accused public officer E 7ay no longer be put at issue, ha&ing been repeatedly upheld by this %ourt' ;999 999 999

;The pro&ision of suspension pendente lite applies to all persons indicted upon a &alid infor7ation under the Act, whether they be appointi&e or electi&e officials@ or per7anent or te7porary e7ployees, or pertaining to the career or non,career ser&ice'; 4 +t would appear, indeed, to be a 7inisterial duty of the court to issue an order of suspension upon deter7ination of the &alidity of the infor7ation filed before it' (nce the infor7ation is found to be sufficient in for7 and substance, the court is bound to issue an order of suspension as a 7atter of course, and there see7s to be ; no ifs and *utsabout it'; . "9plaining the nature of the pre&enti&e suspension, the %ourt in the case of %a"ot vs. Sandigan*a"an5 obser&ed8 ;9 9 9 ' +t is not a penalty because it is not i7posed as a result of =udicial proceedings' +n fact, if ac0uitted, the official concerned shall be entitled to reinstate7ent and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to recei&e during suspension'; 7 +n issuing the pre&enti&e suspension of petitioner, the Sandiganbayan 7erely adhered to the clear and une0ui&ocal 7andate of the law, as well as the =urisprudence in which the %ourt has, 7ore than once, upheld SandiganbayanDs authority to decree the suspension of public officials and e7ployees indicted before it' Section 13 of Republic Act #o' 3012 does not state that the public officer concerned 7ust be suspended only in the office where he is alleged to ha&e co77itted the acts with which he has been charged' T)us, it )as *een )eld t)at t)e use of t)e ,ord ?office? ,ould indicate t)at it applies to an" office ,)ic) t)e officer c)arged ma" *e )olding, and not onl" t)e particular office under ,)ic) )e stands accused ' 4 &n passant, while the i7position of suspension is not auto7atic or self,operati&e as the &alidity of the infor7ation 7ust be deter7ined in a pre,suspension hearing, there is no hard and fast rule as to the conduct thereof' +t has been said that E ;D9 9 9 ' #o specific rules need be laid down for such pre,suspension hearing' Suffice it to state that the accused should be gi&en a fair and ade0uate opportunity to challenge the AA)+:+TL (< TC" %R+!+#A) R(%"":+#1S against hi7 e'g' that he has not been afforded the right of due preli7inary in&estigation@ that the acts for which he stands charged do not constitute a &iolation of the pro&isions of Republic Act 3012 or the bribery pro&isions of the Re&ised enal %ode which would warrant his 7andatory suspension fro7 office under section 13 of the Act@ or he 7ay present a 7otion to 0uash the infor7ation on any of the grounds pro&ided for in Rule 117 of the Rules of %ourt 9 9 9 'D ;999 999 999

;)iBewise, he is accorded the right to challenge the propriety of his prosecution on the ground that the acts for which he is charged do not constitute a &iolation of Rep' Act 3012, or of the pro&isions on bribery of the Re&ised enal %ode, and the right to present a 7otion to 0uash the infor7ation on any other grounds pro&ided in Rule 117 of the Rules of court' ;Cowe&er, a challenge to the &alidity of the cri7inal proceedings on the ground that the acts for which the accused is charged do not constitute a &iolation of the pro&isions of Rep' Act 3012, or of the pro&isions on bribery of the re&ised enal %ode, should be treated only in the sa7e 7anner as a challenge to the cri7inal proceeding by way of a 7otion to 0uash on the ground pro&ided in aragraph -a/, Section 2 of Rule 117 of the Rules of %ourt, i'e', that the facts charged do not constitute an offense' +n other words, a resolution of the challenge to the &alidity of the cri7inal proceeding, on such ground, should be li7ited to an in0uiry whether the facts alleged in the infor7ation, if hypothetically ad7itted, constitute the ele7ents of an offense punishable under Rep' Act 3012 or the pro&isions on bribery of the Re&ised enal %ode'; 2 The law does not re0uire that the guilt of the accused 7ust be established in a presuspension proceeding before trial on the 7erits proceeds' #either does it conte7plate a proceeding to deter7ine -1/ the strength of the e&idence of culpability against hi7, -2/ the gra&ity of the offense charged, or -3/ whether or not his continuance in office could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other e&idence before the court could ha&e a &alid basis in decreeing pre&enti&e suspension pending the trial of the case' All it secures to the accused is ade0uate opportunity to challenge the &alidity or regularity of the proceedings against hi7, such as, that he has not been afforded the right to due preli7inary in&estigation, that the acts i7puted to hi7 do not constitute a specific cri7e warranting his 7andatory suspension fro7 office under Section 13 of Republic Act #o' 3012, or that the infor7ation is sub=ect to 0uashal on any of the grounds set out in Section 3, Rule 117, of the Re&ised Rules on %ri7inal rocedure' 10 The instant petition is not the first ti7e that an incident relating to petitionerDs case before the Sandiganbayan has been brought to this %ourt' +n pre&ious occasions, the %ourt has been called upon to resol&e se&eral other 7atters

on the sub=ect' Thus8 -1/ +n Santiago vs. Vas9uez, 11 petitioner sought to en=oin the Sandiganbayan fro7 proceeding with %ri7inal %ase #o' 15524 for &iolation of Republic Act #o' 3012@ -2/ in Santiago vs. Vas9uez, 12petitioner sought the nullification of the hold departure order issued by the Sandiganbayan &ia a ;!otion to Restrain the Sandiganbayan fro7 "nforcing its Cold :eparture (rder with rayer for +ssuance of a Te7porary Restraining (rder andJor reli7inary +n=unction, with !otion to set ending +ncident for Cearing@ -3/ in Santiago vs. Garc)itorena, 13 petitioner sought the nullification of the resolution, dated 03 !arch 1223, in %ri7inal %ase #o' 15524 of the Sandiganbayan -<irst :i&ision/ and to declare residing 6ustice 1architorena dis0ualified fro7 acting in said cri7inal case, and the resolution, dated 13 !arch 1223, which dee7ed as ;filed; the 32 a7ended infor7ations against her@ and -3/ in Miriam (efensor Santiago vs. Sandigan*a"an, 14 petitioner assailed the denial by the Sandiganbayan of her 7otion for reconsideration fro7 its 03rd August 122. order allowing the testi7ony of edellaga' +n one of these cases, 15 the %ourt declared8 ;We note that petitioner had pre&iously filed two petitions before us in&ol&ing %ri7inal %ase #o' 15524 - G.R' #os' 22242,22220@ G.R' #o' 107.24/' etitioner has not e9plained why she failed to raise the issue of the delay in the preli7inary in&estigation and the filing of the infor7ation against her in those petitions' A piece, 7eal presentation of issues, liBe the splitting of causes of action, is self,defeating' ; etitioner ne9t clai7s that the A7ended infor7ations did not charge any offense punishable under Section 3 -e/ of RA' #o' 3012 because the official acts co7plained therein were authori?ed under "9ecuti&e (rder #o' 323 and that the $oard of %o77issioners of the $ureau of +n&estigation adopted the policy of appro&ing applications for legali?ation of spouses and un7arried, 7inor children of ;0ualified aliens; e&en though they had arri&ed in the hilippines after :ece7ber 31, 1243' She concludes that the Sandiganbayan erred in not granting her 7otion to 0uash the infor7ations -Rollo, pp' 2.,31/' ;+n a 7otion to 0uash, the accused the accused ad7its hypothetically the allegations of fact in the infor7ation - eople &s' Supnad, 7 S%RA 503 F1253G/' Therefore, petitioner ad7itted hypothetically in her 7otion that8 -1/ She was a public officer, -2/ She appro&ed the application for legali?ation of the stay of aliens, who arri&ed in the hilippines after 6anuary 1, 1243@ -3/ Those aliens were dis0ualified@ -3/ She was cogni?ant of such fact@ and -./ She acted in De&ident bad faith and 7anifest partiality in the e9ecution of her official functions'D ;The foregoing allegations of fact constitute the ele7ents of the offense defined in Section 3 -e/ of R'A' #o' 3012'; 16 The pronounce7ent, upholding the &alidity of the infor7ation filed against petitioner, behoo&ed Sandiganbayan to discharge its 7andated duty to forthwith issue the order of pre&enti&e suspension' The order of suspension prescribed by Republic Act #o' 3012 is distinct fro7 the power of %ongress to discipline its own ranBs under the %onstitution which pro&ides that each E ;9 9 9 ' house 7ay deter7ine the rules of its proceedings, punish its !e7bers for disorderly beha&ior, and, with the concurrence of two,thirds of all its !e7bers, suspend or e9pel a !e7ber' A penalty of suspension, when i7posed, shall not e9ceed si9ty days'; 17 The suspension conte7plated in the abo&e constitutional pro&ision is a puniti&e 7easure that is i7posed upon deter7ination by the Senate or the Couse of Representati&es, as the case 7ay be, upon an erring 7e7ber' Thus, in its resolution in the case of +eferino $aredes, Jr. vs. Sandigan*a"an, et al', 18 the %ourt affir7ed the order of suspension of %ongress7an aredes by the Sandiganbayan, despite his protestations on the encroach7ent by the court on the prerogati&es of %ongress' The %ourt ruled8 ;9 9 9 ' etitionerDs in&ocation of Section 15 -3/, Article A+ of the %onstitution E which deals with the power of each Couse of %ongress inter alia to Dpunish its !e7bers for disorderly beha&ior,D and Dsuspend or e9pel a !e7berD by a &ote of two,thirds of all its !e7bers sub=ect to the 0ualification that the penalty of suspension, when i7posed, should not e9ceed si9ty days E is una&ailing, as it appears to be 0uite distinct fro7 the suspension spoBen of in Section 13 of RA 3012, which is not a penalty but a preli7inary, pre&enti&e 7easure, prescinding fro7 the fact that the latter is not being i7posed on petitioner for 7isbeha&ior as a !e7ber of the Couse of Representati&es'; The doctrine of separation of powers by itself 7ay not be dee7ed to ha&e effecti&ely e9cluded 7e7bers of %ongress fro7 Republic Act #o' 3012 nor fro7 its sanctions' The 7a9i7 si7ply recogni?es each of the three co, e0ual and independent, albeit coordinate, branches of the go&ern7ent E the )egislati&e, the "9ecuti&e and the

6udiciary E has e9clusi&e prerogati&es and cogni?ance within its own sphere of influence and effecti&ely pre&ents one branch fro7 unduly intruding into the internal affairs of either branch' arenthetically, it 7ight be well to elaborate a bit' Section 1, Article A+++, of the 1247 %onstitution, e7powers the %ourt to act not only in the settle7ent of ;actual contro&ersies in&ol&ing rights which are legally de7andable and enforceable,; but also in the deter7ination of ;whether or not there has been a gra&e abuse of discretion a7ounting to lacB or e9cess of =urisdiction on t)e part of an" *ranc) or instrumentalit" of t)e Government ' The pro&ision allowing the %ourt to looB into any possible gra&e abuse of discretion co77itted by any go&ern7ent instru7entality has e&idently been couched in general ter7s in order to 7aBe it 7alleable to =udicial interpretation in the light of any e7erging 7ilieu' +n its nor7al concept, the ter7 has been said to i7ply an arbitrary, despotic, capricious or whi7sical e9ercise of =udg7ent a7ounting to lacB or e9cess of =urisdiction' When the 0uestion, howe&er, pertains to an affair internal to either of %ongress or the "9ecuti&e, the %ourt subscribes to the &iew 19t)at unless an infringement of an" specific +onstitutional proscription t)ere*" in)eres t)e +ourt s)ould not deign su*stitute its o,n 6udgment over t)at of an" of t)e ot)er t,o *ranc)es of government. <t is an impairment or a clear disregard of a specific constitutional precept or provision t)at can un*olt t)e steel door for Judicial intervention ' +f any part of the %onstitution is not, or ceases to be, responsi&e to conte7porary needs, it is the people, not the %ourt, who 7ust pro7ptly react in the 7anner prescribed by the %harter itself' Repu*lic Act 'o. 274; does not e!clude from its coverage t)e mem*ers of +ongress and t)at, t)erefore, t)e Sandigan*a"an did not err in t)us decreeing t)e assailed preventive suspension order ' Attention 7ight be called to the fact that %ri7inal %ase #o' 15524 has been decided by the <irst :i&ision of the Sandiganbayan on 05 :ece7ber 1222, ac0uitting herein petitioner' The %ourt, ne&ertheless, dee7s it appropriate to render this decision for future guidance on the significant issue raised by petitioner' WC"R"<(R", the instant petition for certiorari is :+S!+SS":' #o costs' S( (R:"R":' G.R. No. 1?@643 March 2), 2@@?

ROMULO L. NER", petitioner, &s' SENATE COMM"TTEE ON ACCOUNTA("L"T# O$ PU(L"C O$$"CERS AN% "NVEST"GAT"ONS, SENATE COMM"TTEE ON TRA%E AN% COMMERCE, AN% SENATE COMM"TTEE ON NAT"ONAL %E$ENSE AN% SECUR"T#, respondents' :"%+S+(# LEONAR%O-%E CASTRO, J.C At bar is a petition for certiorari under Rule 5. of the Rules of %ourt assailing the show cause L4114r1 dated #o&e7ber 22, 2007 and conte7pt (rder2 dated 6anuary 30, 2004 concurrently issued by respondent Senate %o77ittees on Accountability of ublic (fficers and +n&estigations, 3 Trade and %o77erce,3 and #ational :efense and Security. against petitioner Ro7ulo )' #eri, for7er :irector 1eneral of the #ational "cono7ic and :e&elop7ent Authority -#":A/' The facts, as culled fro7 the pleadings, are as follows8 (n April 21, 2007, the :epart7ent of Transportation and %o77unication -:(T%/ entered into a contract with Mhong King Teleco77unications "0uip7ent -MT"/ for the supply of e0uip7ent and ser&ices for the #ational $roadband #etworB -#$#/ ro=ect in the a7ount of *'S' Z 322,341,220 -appro9i7ately 15 $illion esos/' The ro=ect was to be financed by the eopleDs Republic of %hina' +n connection with this #$# ro=ect, &arious Resolutions were introduced in the Senate, as follows8 -1/ P.S. R4/. No. 127, introduced by Senator A0uilino I' i7entel, 6r', entitled R"S()*T+(# :+R"%T+#1 TC" $)*" R+$$(# %(!!+TT"" A#: TC" %(!!+TT"" (# TRA:" A#: +#:*STRL T( +#A"ST+1AT", +# A+: (< )"1+S)AT+(#, TC" %+R%*!STA#%"S )"A:+#1 T( TC" A R(AA) (< TC" $R(A:$A#: %(#TRA%T W+TC MT" A#: TC" R()" )AL": $L TC" (<<+%+A)S %(#%"R#": +# 1"TT+#1 +T %(#S*!!AT": A#: T( !AN" R"%(!!"#:AT+(#S T( CA)" T( TC" %(*RTS (< )AW TC" "RS(#S R"S (#S+$)" <(R A#L A#(!A)L +# %(##"%T+(# TC"R"W+TC A#: T( )*1 TC" )(( C()"S, +< A#L +# TC" $(T )AW A#: (TC"R "RT+#"#T )"1+S)AT+(#S' -2/ P.S. R4/. No. 144, introduced by Senator !ar Ro9as, entitled b R"S()*T+(# *R1+#1 R"S+:"#T 1)(R+A !A%A A1A) ARR(L( T( :+R"%T TC" %A#%"))AT+(# (< TC" MT" %(#TRA%T

-3/ P.S. R4/. No. 129, introduced by Senator anfilo !' )acson, entitled R"S()*T+(# :+R"%T+#1 TC" %(!!+TT"" (# #AT+(#A) :"<"#S" A#: S"%*R+TL T( %(#:*%T A# +#I*+RL +# A+: (< )"1+S)AT+(# +#T( TC" #AT+(#A) S"%*R+TL +! )+%AT+(#S (< AWAR:+#1 TC" #AT+(#A) $R(A:$A#: #"TW(RN %(#TRA%T T( TC" %C+#"S" <+R! MC(#1 K+#1 T")"%(!!*#+%AT+(#S "I*+ !"#T %(! A#L )+!+T": -MT" %(R (RAT+(#/ W+TC TC" "#: +# A+"W (< R(A+:+#1 R"!":+A) )"1+S)AT+(# TCAT W+)) R(T"%T (*R #AT+(#A) S(A"R"+1#TL, S"%*R+TL A#: T"RR+T(R+A) +#T"1R+TL' -3/ P.S. R4/. No. 136, introduced by Senator !iria7 :efensor Santiago, entitled R"S()*T+(# :+R"%T+#1 TC" R( "R S"#AT" %(!!+TT"" T( %(#:*%T A# +#I*+RL, +# A+: (< )"1+S)AT+(#, (# TC" )"1A) A#: "%(#(!+% 6*ST+<+%AT+(# (< TC" #AT+(#A) $R(A:$A#: #"TW(RN -#$#/ R(6"%T (< TC" #AT+(#A) 1(A"R#!"#T' At the sa7e ti7e, the in&estigation was clai7ed to be rele&ant to the consideration of three -3/ pending bills in the Senate, to wit8 1' S4*a14 (.99 No. 1793, introduced by Senator !ar Ro9as, entitled A# A%T S*$6"%T+#1 TR"AT+"S, +#T"R#AT+(#A) (R "K"%*T+A" A1R""!"#TS +#A()A+#1 <*#:+#1 +# TC" R(%*R"!"#T (< +#<RASTR*%T*R" R(6"%TS, 1((:S, A#: %(#S*)T+#1 S"RA+%"S T( $" +#%)*:": +# TC" S%( " A#: A )+%AT+(# (< C+)+ +#" R(%*R"!"#T )AWS, A!"#:+#1 <(R TC" *R (S" R" *$)+% A%T #(' 2143, (TC"RW+S" N#(W# AS TC" 1(A"R#!"#T R(%*R"!"#T R"<(R! A%T, A#: <(R (TC"R *R (S"S@ 2' S4*a14 (.99 No. 1794, introduced by Senator !ar Ro9as, entitled A# A%T +! (S+#1 SA<"1*AR:S +# %(#TRA%T+#1 )(A#S %)ASS+<+": AS (<<+%+A) :"A")( !"#T ASS+STA#%", A!"#:+#1 <(R TC" *R (S" R" *$)+% A%T #(' 4142, AS A!"#:": $L R" *$)+% A%T #(' 4..., (TC"RW+S" N#(W# AS TC" (<<+%+A) :"A")( !"#T ASS+STA#%" A%T (< 1225, A#: <(R (TC"R *R (S"S@ and 3' S4*a14 (.99 No. 1317, introduced by Senator !iria7 :efensor Santiago, entitled A# A%T !A#:AT+#1 %(#%*RR"#%" T( +#T"R#AT+(#A) A1R""!"#TS A#: "K"%*T+A" A1R""!"#TS' Respondent %o77ittees initiated the in&estigation by sending in&itations to certain personalities and cabinet officials in&ol&ed in the #$# ro=ect' etitioner was a7ong those in&ited' Ce was su77oned to appear and testify on Septe7ber 14, 20, and 25 and (ctober 2., 2007' Cowe&er, he attended only the Septe7ber 25 hearing, clai7ing he was ;out of town; during the other dates' +n the Septe7ber 14, 2007 hearing, business7an 6ose de Aenecia +++ testified that se&eral high e9ecuti&e officials and power broBers were using their influence to push the appro&al of the #$# ro=ect by the #":A' +t appeared that the ro=ect was initially appro&ed as a $uild,(perate,Transfer -$(T/ pro=ect but, on !arch 22, 2007, the #":A ac0uiesced to con&ert it into a go&ern7ent,to,go&ern7ent pro=ect, to be financed through a loan fro7 the %hinese 1o&ern7ent' (n Septe7ber 25, 2007, petitioner testified before respondent %o77ittees for ele&en -11/ hours' Ce disclosed that then %o77ission on "lections -%(!")"%/ %hair7an $en=a7in Abalos offered hi7 200 !illion in e9change for his appro&al of the #$# ro=ect' Ce further narrated that he infor7ed resident Arroyo about the bribery atte7pt and that she instructed hi7 not to accept the bribe' Cowe&er, when probed further on what they discussed about the #$# ro=ect, petitioner refused to answer, in&oBing ;e9ecuti&e pri&ilege;' +n particular, he refused to answer the 0uestions on -a/ whether or not resident Arroyo followed up the #$# ro=ect, 5 -b/ whether or not she directed hi7 to prioriti?e it,7 and -c/ whether or not she directed hi7 to appro&e' 4 *nrelenting, respondent %o77ittees issued a Su*poena Ad Testificandum to petitioner, re0uiring hi7 to appear and testify on #o&e7ber 20, 2007' Cowe&er, in the )etter dated #o&e7ber 1., 2007, "9ecuti&e Secretary "duardo R' "r7ita re0uested respondent %o77ittees to dispense with petitionerDs testi7ony on the ground of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege' The pertinent portion of the letter reads8 With reference to the su*poena ad testificandum issued to Secretary Ro7ulo #eri to appear and testify again on 20 #o&e7ber 2007 before the 6oint %o77ittees you chair, it will be recalled that Sec' #eri had already testified and e9hausti&ely discussed the MT" J #$# pro=ect, including his con&ersation with the resident thereon last 25 Septe7ber 2007' AsBed to elaborate further on his con&ersation with the resident, Sec' #eri asBed for ti7e to consult with his superiors in line with the ruling of the Supre7e %ourt in Senate v. &rmita, 344 S%RA 1 -2005/' Specifically, Sec' #eri sought guidance on the possible in&ocation of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege on the following 0uestions, to wit8

aF -h41h4r 1h4 Pr4/.+4*1 8o99oI4+ 50 1h4 EN(NF 0roK4c1M <F -4r4 2o5 +.c1a14+ 1o 0r.or.1.J4 1h4 &TEM cF -h41h4r 1h4 Pr4/.+4*1 /a.+ 1o Go ah4a+ a*+ a00ro64 1h4 0roK4c1 a814r <4.*G 1o9+ a<o51 1h4 a994G4+ <r.<4M <ollowing the ruling in Senate v. &rmita, the foregoing 0uestions fall under con&ersations and correspondence between the resident and public officials which are considered e9ecuti&e pri&ilege -Almonte v. Vas9uez, 1'R' 2.537, 23 !ay 122.@ +)avez v. $&A, 1'R' 1332.0, 6uly 2, 2002/' !aintaining the confidentiality of con&ersations of the resident is necessary in the e9ercise of her e9ecuti&e and policy decision 7aBing process' The e9pectation of a resident to the confidentiality of her con&ersations and correspondences, liBe the &alue which we accord deference for the pri&acy of all citi?ens, is the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, ob=ecti&e, and e&en blunt or harsh opinions in residential decision,7aBing' :isclosure of con&ersations of the resident will ha&e a chilling effect on the resident, and will ha7per her in the effecti&e discharge of her duties and responsibilities, if she is not protected by the confidentiality of her con&ersations' The conte9t in which e9ecuti&e pri&ilege is being in&oBed is that the infor7ation sought to be disclosed 7ight i7pair our diplo7atic as well as econo7ic relations with the eopleDs Republic of %hina' 1i&en the confidential nature in which these infor7ation were con&eyed to the resident, he cannot pro&ide the %o77ittee any further details of these con&ersations, without disclosing the &ery thing the pri&ilege is designed to protect' +n light of the abo&e considerations, this (ffice is constrained to in&oBe the settled doctrine of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege as refined in Senate v. &rmita, and has ad&ised Secretary #eri accordingly' %onsidering that Sec' #eri has been lengthily interrogated on the sub=ect in an unprecedented 11,hour hearing, wherein he has answered all 0uestions propounded to hi7 e9cept the foregoing 0uestions in&ol&ing e9ecuti&e pri&ilege, we therefore re0uest that his testi7ony on 20 #o&e7ber 2007 on the MT" J #$# pro=ect be dispensed with' (n #o&e7ber 20, 2007, petitioner did not appear before respondent %o77ittees' Thus, on #o&e7ber 22, 2007, the latter issued the show cause )etter re0uiring hi7 to e9plain why he should not be cited in conte7pt' The )etter reads8 Since you ha&e failed to appear in the said hearing, the %o77ittees on Accountability of ublic (fficers and +n&estigations -$lue Ribbon/, Trade and %o77erce and #ational :efense and Security re0uire you to show cause why you should not be cited in conte7pt under Section 5, Article 5 of the Rules of the %o77ittee on Accountability of ublic (fficers and +n&estigations -$lue Ribbon/' The Senate e9pects your e9planation on or before 2 :ece7ber 2007' (n #o&e7ber 22, 2007, petitioner replied to respondent %o77ittees, 7anifesting that it was not his intention to ignore the Senate hearing and that he thought the only re7aining 0uestions were those he clai7ed to be co&ered by e9ecuti&e pri&ilege, thus8 +t was not 7y intention to snub the last Senate hearing' +n fact, + ha&e cooperated with the tasB of the Senate in its in0uiry in aid of legislation as shown by 7y al7ost 11 hours stay during the hearing on 25 Septe7ber 2007' :uring said hearing, + answered all the 0uestions that were asBed of 7e, sa&e for those which + thought was co&ered by e9ecuti&e pri&ilege, and which was confir7ed by the "9ecuti&e Secretary in his )etter 1. #o&e7ber 2007' +n good faith, after that e9hausti&e testi7ony, + thought that what re7ained were only the three 0uestions, where the "9ecuti&e Secretary clai7ed e9ecuti&e pri&ilege' Cence, his re0uest that 7y presence be dispensed with' $e that as it 7ay, should there be new 7atters that were not yet taBen up during the 25 Septe7ber 2007 hearing, 7ay + be furnished in ad&ance as to what else + need to clarify, so that as a resource person, + 7ay ade0uately prepare 7yself' +n addition, petitioner sub7itted a letter prepared by his counsel, Atty' Antonio R' $autista, stating, a7ong others that8 -1/ his -petitioner/ non,appearance was upon the order of the resident@ and -2/ his con&ersation with resident Arroyo dealt with delicate and sensiti&e national security and diplo7atic 7atters relating to the i7pact of the bribery scandal in&ol&ing high go&ern7ent officials and the possible loss of confidence of foreign in&estors and lenders in the hilippines' The letter ended with a reiteration of petitionerDs re0uest that he ;be furnished in ad&ance; as to what else he needs to clarify so that he 7ay ade0uately prepare for the hearing' +n the interi7, on :ece7ber 7, 2007, petitioner filed with this %ourt the present petition for certiorari assailing the show cause L4114r dated #o&e7ber 22, 2007'

Respondent %o77ittees found petitionerDs e9planations unsatisfactory' Without responding to his re0uest for ad&ance notice of the 7atters that he should still clarify, they issued the Or+4r dated 6anuary 30, 2004, citing hi7 in conte7pt of respondent %o77ittees and ordering his arrest and detention at the (ffice of the Senate Sergeant,At, Ar7s until such ti7e that he would appear and gi&e his testi7ony' The said (rder states8 OR%ER <or failure to appear and testify in the %o77itteeDs hearing on Tuesday, Septe7ber 14, 2007@ Thursday, Septe7ber 20, 2007@ Thursday, (ctober 2., 2007@ and Tuesday, #o&e7ber 20, 2007, despite personal notice and Subpoenas Ad Testificandu7 sent to and recei&ed by hi7, which thereby delays, i7pedes and obstructs, as it has in fact delayed, i7peded and obstructed the in0uiry into the sub=ect reported irregularities, A#: for failure to e9plain satisfactorily why he should not be cited for conte7pt -#eri letter of 22 #o&e7ber 2007/, herein attached/ ROMULO L. NER" ./ h4r4<2 c.14+ .* co*14:01 o8 1h./ E/.cF Co::.1144/ a*+ or+4r4+ arr4/14+ a*+ +41a.*4+ .* 1h4 O88.c4 o8 1h4 S4*a14 S4rG4a*1-A1-Ar:/ 5*1.9 /5ch 1.:4 1ha1 h4 I.99 a004ar a*+ G.64 h./ 14/1.:o*2. The Sergeant,At,Ar7s is hereby directed to carry out and i7ple7ent this (rder and 7aBe a return hereof within twenty four -23/ hours fro7 its enforce7ent' S( (R:"R":' (n the sa7e date, petitioner 7o&ed for the reconsideration of the abo&e (rder' 2 Ce insisted that he has not shown ;any conte7ptible conduct worthy of conte7pt and arrest'; Ce e7phasi?ed his willingness to testify on new 7atters, howe&er, respondent %o77ittees did not respond to his re0uest for ad&ance notice of 0uestions' Ce also 7entioned the petition for certiorari he filed on :ece7ber 7, 2007' According to hi7, this should restrain respondent %o77ittees fro7 enforcing the show cause )etter ;through the issuance of declaration of conte7pt; and arrest' +n &iew of respondent %o77itteesD issuance of the conte7pt (rder, petitioner filed on <ebruary 1, 2004 aSupplemental $etition for +ertiorari -/it) @rgent Application for TR I$reliminar" <n6unction /, seeBing to restrain the i7ple7entation of the said conte7pt (rder' (n <ebruary ., 2004, the %ourt issued a Status Kuo Ante rder -a/ en=oining respondent %o77ittees fro7 i7ple7enting their contempt rder, -</ re0uiring the parties to obser&e the status 0uo pre&ailing prior to the issuance of the assailed order, and -c/ re0uiring respondent %o77ittees to file their co77ent' etitioner contends that respondent %o77itteesD show cause L4114r and conte7pt (rder were issued with gra&e abuse of discretion a7ounting to lacB or e9cess of =urisdiction' Ce stresses that his con&ersations with resident Arroyo are ;ca*+.+ +./c5//.o*/ :4a*1 1o 4309or4 o01.o*/ .* :aH.*G 0o9.c2 +4c./.o*/'; According to hi7, these discussions ;+I491 o* 1h4 .:0ac1 o8 1h4 <r.<4r2 /ca*+a9 .*6o96.*G h.Gh Go64r*:4*1 o88.c.a9/ o* 1h4 co5*1r2P/ +.09o:a1.c r49a1.o*/ a*+ 4co*o:.c a*+ :.9.1ar2 a88a.r/ a*+ 1h4 0o//.<94 9o// o8 co*8.+4*c4 o8 8or4.G* .*64/1or/ a*+ 94*+4r/ .* 1h4 Ph.9.00.*4/'; Ce also e7phasi?es that his clai7 of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege is upon the order of the resident and within the para7eters laid down in Senate v. &rmita10 and @nited States v. Re"nolds'11 )astly, he argues that he is precluded fro7 disclosing co77unications 7ade to hi7 in official confidence under Section 712 of Republic Act #o' 5713, otherwise Bnown as +ode of +onduct and &t)ical Standards for $u*lic fficials and &mplo"ees , and Section 2313 -e/ of Rule 130 of the Rules of %ourt' Respondent %o77ittees assert the contrary' They argue that -1/ petitionerDs testi7ony is 7aterial and pertinent in the in&estigation conducted in aid of legislation@ -2/ there is no &alid =ustification for petitioner to clai7 e9ecuti&e pri&ilege@ -3/ there is no abuse of their authority to order petitionerDs arrest@ and -3/ petitioner has not co7e to court with clean hands' +n the oral argu7ent held last !arch 3, 2004, the following issues were &entilated8 1. What co77unications between the resident and petitioner #eri are co&ered by the principle of De9ecuti&e pri&ilegeDH 1.a :id "9ecuti&e Secretary "r7ita correctly in&oBe the principle of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege, by order of the resident, to co&er E.F con&ersations of the resident in the e9ercise of her e9ecuti&e and policy decision,7aBing and E..F infor7ation, which 7ight i7pair our diplo7atic as well as econo7ic relations with the eopleDs Republic of %hinaH 1.<. :id petitioner #eri correctly in&oBe e9ecuti&e pri&ilege to a&oid testifying on his con&ersations with the resident on the #$# contract on his assertions that the said con&ersations L+4a91 I.1h +49.ca14 a*+ /4*/.1.64 *a1.o*a9 /4c5r.12 a*+ +.09o:a1.c :a114r/ r49a1.*G 1o 1h4 .:0ac1 o8 <r.<4r2 /ca*+a9 .*6o96.*G h.Gh Go64r*:4*1 o88.c.a9/ a*+ 1h4 0o//.<94 9o// o8 co*8.+4*c4 o8 8or4.G* .*64/1or/ a*+ 94*+4r/ .* 1h4 Ph.9.00.*4/L 9 9 9 within the principles laid down in Senate &' "r7ita -344 S%RA 1 F2005G/H

1.c Will the clai7 of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege in this case &iolate the following pro&isions of the %onstitution8 S4c. 2?, Ar1. "" -<ull public disclosure of all transactions in&ol&ing public interest/ S4c. 7, Ar1. """ -The right of the people to infor7ation on 7atters of public concern/ S4c. 1, Ar1. !" - ublic office is a public trust/ S4c. 17, Ar1. V"" -The resident shall ensure that the laws be faithfully e9ecuted/ and the due process clause and the principle of separation of powersH 2. What is the proper procedure to be followed in in&oBing e9ecuti&e pri&ilegeH 3. :id the Senate %o77ittees gra&ely abuse their discretion in ordering the arrest of petitioner for non, co7pliance with the subpoenaH After the oral argu7ent, the parties were directed to 7anifest to the %ourt within twenty,four -23/ hours if they are a7enable to the %ourtDs proposal of allowing petitioner to i77ediately resu7e his testi7ony before the Senate %o77ittees to answer the other 0uestions of the Senators without pre=udice to the decision on the 7erits of this pending petition' +t was understood that petitioner 7ay in&oBe e9ecuti&e pri&ilege in the course of the Senate %o77ittees proceedings, and if the respondent %o77ittees disagree thereto, the unanswered 0uestions will be the sub=ect of a supple7ental pleading to be resol&ed along with the three -3/ 0uestions sub=ect of the present petition'13 At the sa7e ti7e, respondent %o77ittees were directed to sub7it se&eral pertinent docu7ents' 1. The Senate did not agree with the proposal for the reasons stated in the !anifestation dated !arch ., 2004' As to the re0uired docu7ents, the Senate and respondent %o77ittees 7anifested that they would not be able to sub7it the latterDs ;!inutes of all 7eetings; and the ;!inute $ooB; because it has ne&er been the ;historical and traditional legislati&e practice to Beep the7';15 They instead sub7itted the Transcript of Stenographic #otes of respondent %o77itteesD =oint public hearings' (n !arch 17, 2004, the (ffice of the Solicitor 1eneral -(S1/ filed a Motion for Leave to <ntervene and to Admit Attac)ed Memorandum , founded on the following argu7ents8 E1F The co77unications between petitioner and the resident are co&ered by the principle of ;e9ecuti&e pri&ilege'; E2F etitioner was not su77oned by respondent Senate %o77ittees in accordance with the law,7aBing bodyDs power to conduct in0uiries in aid of legislation as laid down in Section 21, Article A+ of the %onstitution and Senate v. &rmita' E3F Respondent Senate %o77ittees gra&ely abused its discretion for alleged non,co7pliance with theSu*poena dated #o&e7ber 13, 2007' The %ourt granted the (S1Ds 7otion the ne9t day, !arch 14, 2004' As the foregoing facts unfold, related e&ents transpired' (n !arch 5, 2004, resident Arroyo issued !e7orandu7 %ircular #o' 1.1, re&oBing "9ecuti&e (rder #o' 353 and !e7orandu7 %ircular #o' 104' She ad&ised e9ecuti&e officials and e7ployees to follow and abide by the %onstitution, e9isting laws and =urisprudence, including, a7ong others, the case of Senate v. &rmita17 when they are in&ited to legislati&e in0uiries in aid of legislation' At the core of this contro&ersy are the two -2/ crucial 0ueries, to wit8 +irst, are the co77unications elicited by the sub=ect three -3/ 0uestions co&ered by e9ecuti&e pri&ilegeH )nd second, did respondent %o77ittees co77it gra&e abuse of discretion in issuing the conte7pt Or+4rH We grant the petition' At the outset, a gli7pse at the land7arB case of Senate v. &rmita14 beco7es i7perati&e' Senate draws in bold stroBes the distinction between the 94G./9a1.64 and o64r/.Gh1 powers of the %ongress, as e7bodied under Sections 21 and 22, respecti&ely, of Article A+ of the %onstitution, to wit8

S"%T+(# 21' The Senate or the Couse of Representati&es or any of its respecti&e co77ittees 7ay conduct in0uiries .* a.+ o8 94G./9a1.o* in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure' The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such in0uiries shall be respected' S"%T+(# 22' The heads of depart7ent 7ay upon their own initiati&e, with the consent of the resident, or upon the re0uest of either Couse, or as the rules of each Couse shall pro&ide, appear before and be heard by such Couse on any 7atter pertaining to their depart7ents' Written 0uestions shall be sub7itted to the resident of the Senate or the SpeaBer of the Couse of Representati&es at least three days before their scheduled appearance' +nterpellations shall not be li7ited to written 0uestions, but 7ay co&er 7atters related thereto' When the security of the state or the public interest so re0uires and the resident so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in e9ecuti&e session' Senate cautions that while the abo&e pro&isions are closely related and co7ple7entary to each other, they should not be considered as pertaining to the sa7e power of %ongress' Section 21 relates to the power to conduct in0uiries in aid of legislation' +ts ai7 is to elicit infor7ation that 7ay be used for legislation' (n the other hand, Section 22 pertains to the power to conduct a 0uestion hour, the ob=ecti&e of which is to obtain infor7ation in pursuit of %ongressD o&ersight function'12 Si7ply stated, while both powers allow %ongress or any of its co77ittees to conduct in0uiry, their o<K4c1.64/ are different' This distinction gi&es birth to another distinction with regard to the use of co7pulsory process' *nliBe in Section 21, %ongress ca**o1 co7pel the appearance of e9ecuti&e officials under Section 22' The %ourtDs pronounce7ent in Senate v. &rmita20 is clear8 When %ongress 7erely seeBs to be infor7ed on how depart7ent heads are i7ple7enting the statutes which it has issued, its right to such infor7ation is not as i7perati&e as that of the resident to who7, as %hief "9ecuti&e, such depart7ent heads 7ust gi&e a report of their perfor7ance as a 7atter of duty' +n such instances, Section 22, in Beeping with the separation of powers, states that %ongress 7ay only re9uest their appearance' #onetheless, when the in0uiry in which %ongress re0uires their appearance is Din aid of legislationD under Section 21, the appearance is mandator" for the sa7e reasons stated in Arnault' "* 8.*4, 1h4 o64r/.Gh1 85*c1.o* o8 Co*Gr4// :a2 <4 8ac.9.1a14+ <2 co:059/or2 0roc4// o*92 1o 1h4 4314*1 1ha1 .1 ./ 04r8or:4+ .* 05r/5.1 o8 94G./9a1.o* ' This is consistent with the intent discerned fro7 the deliberations of the %onstitutional %o77ission *lti7ately, the power of %ongress to co7pel the appearance of e9ecuti&e officials under section 21 and the lacB of it under Section 22 find their basis in the principle of separation of powers' While the e9ecuti&e branch is a co,e0ual branch of the legislature, it cannot frustrate the power of %ongress to legislate by refusing to co7ply with its de7ands for infor7ation' -"7phasis supplied'/ The a&ailability of the power of =udicial re&iew to resol&e the issues raised in this case has also been settled inSenate v. &rmita, when it held8 As e&idenced by the A7erican e9perience during the so,called ;!c%arthy era,; howe&er, the right of %ongress to conduct in0uiries in aid of legislation is, in theory, no less susceptible to abuse than e9ecuti&e or =udicial power' +t 7ay thus be sub=ected to =udicial re&iew pursuant to the %ourtDs certiorari powers under Section 1, Article A+++ of the %onstitution' Cence, this decision' I The Communications (!icited by the Three >8? Cuestions are Covered by (-ecutive Privi!ege We start with the basic pre7ises where the parties ha&e conceded' The power of %ongress to conduct in0uiries in aid of legislation is broad' This is based on the proposition that a legislati&e body cannot legislate wisely or effecti&ely in the absence of infor7ation respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change' 21 +ne&itably, ad=unct thereto is the co7pulsory process to enforce it' $ut, the power, broad as it is, has li7itations' To be &alid, it is i7perati&e that it is done in accordance with the Senate or Couse duly published rules of procedure and that the rights of the persons appearing in or affected by such in0uiries be respected' The power e9tends e&en to e9ecuti&e officials and the only way for the7 to be e9e7pted is through a &alid clai7 of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege'22 This directs us to the consideration of the 0uestion ,, ./ 1h4r4 a r4coG*.J4+ c9a.: o8 434c51.64 0r.6.94G4 +4/0.14 1h4 r46oca1.o* o8 E.O. 464M ), There is a #ecogni.ed C!aim of (-ecutive Privi!ege 'espite the #evocation of (.<. :9:

At this =uncture, it 7ust be stressed that the re&ocation of "'(' 353 does not in any way di7inish our concept of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege' This is because this concept has %onstitutional underpinnings' *nliBe the *nited States which has further accorded the concept with statutory status by enacting the =reedom of <nformation Act23 and the=ederal Advisor" +ommittee Act,23 the hilippines has retained its constitutional origination, occasionally interpreted only by this %ourt in &arious cases' The 7ost recent of these is the case of Senate v. &rmita where this %ourt declared unconstitutional substantial portions of "'(' 353' +n this regard, it is worthy to note that "9ecuti&e "r7itaDs )etter dated #o&e7ber 1., 2007 li7its its bases for the clai7 of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege to Senate v. &rmita,Almonte v. Vas9uez,2. and +)avez v. $&A'25 There was ne&er a 7ention of "'(' 353' While these cases, especially Senate v. &rmita,27 ha&e co7prehensi&ely discussed the concept of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege, we dee7 it i7perati&e to e9plore it once 7ore in &iew of the cla7or for this %ourt to clearly define the co77unications co&ered by e9ecuti&e pri&ilege' The 'i!on and post1/atergate cases established the broad contours of the 0r4/.+4*1.a9 co::5*.ca1.o*/ 0r.6.94G4'24 +n @nited States v. 'i!on,22 the *'S' %ourt recogni?ed a great public interest in preser&ing ;1h4 co*8.+4*1.a9.12 o8 co*64r/a1.o*/ 1ha1 1aH4 09ac4 .* 1h4 Pr4/.+4*1P/ 04r8or:a*c4 o8 h./ o88.c.a9 +51.4/ '; +t thus considered presidential co77unications as ;0r4/5:01.6492 0r.6.94G4+'; Apparently, the presu7ption is founded on the ;Pr4/.+4*1P/ G4*4ra9.J4+ .*14r4/1 .* co*8.+4*1.a9.12'; The pri&ilege is said to be necessary to guarantee the candor of presidential ad&isors and to pro&ide ;1h4 Pr4/.+4*1 a*+ 1ho/4 Iho a//./1 h.:U I.1h 8r44+o: 1o 4309or4 a914r*a1.64/ .* 1h4 0roc4// o8 /ha0.*G 0o9.c.4/ a*+ :aH.*G +4c./.o*/ a*+ 1o +o /o .* a Ia2 :a*2 Io59+ <4 5*I.99.*G 1o 430r4// 43c401 0r.6a1492'; +n <n ReJ Sealed +ase,30 the *'S' %ourt of Appeals del&ed deeper' +t ruled that there are two -2/ Binds of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege@ one is the 0r4/.+4*1.a9 co::5*.ca1.o*/ 0r.6.94G4 a*+, 1h4 o1h4r ./ 1h4 +49.<4ra1.64 0roc4// 0r.6.94G4' The for7er pertains to ;co::5*.ca1.o*/, +oc5:4*1/ or o1h4r :a14r.a9/ 1ha1 r4894c1 0r4/.+4*1.a9 +4c./.o*-:aH.*G a*+ +49.<4ra1.o*/ a*+ 1ha1 1h4 Pr4/.+4*1 <49.464/ /ho59+ r4:a.* co*8.+4*1.a9 '; The latter includes Da+6./or2 o0.*.o*/, r4co::4*+a1.o*/ a*+ +49.<4ra1.o*/ co:0r./.*G 0ar1 o8 a 0roc4// <2 Ih.ch Go64r*:4*1a9 +4c./.o*/ a*+ 0o9.c.4/ ar4 8or:59a14+ '; Accordingly, they are characteri?ed by 7arBed distinctions' Pr4/.+4*1.a9 co::5*.ca1.o*/ 0r.6.94G4 applies to+4c./.o*-:aH.*G o8 1h4 Pr4/.+4*1 while, the +49.<4ra1.64 0roc4// 0r.6.94G4, to +4c./.o*-:aH.*G o8 434c51.64 o88.c.a9/' The first is rooted in the constitutional principle of separation of power and the residentDs uni0ue constitutional role@ the /4co*+ on co77on law pri&ilege' *nliBe the +49.<4ra1.64 0roc4// 0r.6.94G4, the0r4/.+4*1.a9 co::5*.ca1.o*/ 0r.6.94G4 applies 1o +oc5:4*1/ .* 1h4.r 4*1.r412, a*+ co64r/ 8.*a9 a*+ 0o/1+4c./.o*a9 :a14r.a9/ a/ I499 a/ 0r4-+49.<4ra1.64 o*4/31 As a conse0uence, congressional or =udicial negation of the 0r4/.+4*1.a9 co::5*.ca1.o*/ 0r.6.94G4 is always sub=ect to greater scrutiny than denial of the+49.<4ra1.64 0roc4// 0r.6.94G4' Turning on who are the officials co&ered by the 0r4/.+4*1.a9 co::5*.ca1.o*/ 0r.6.94G4, <n ReJ Sealed +aseconfines the pri&ilege only to White Couse Staff that has ;operational pro9i7ity; to direct presidential decision, 7aBing' Thus, the pri&ilege is 7eant to enco7pass only those functions that for7 the core of presidential authority, in&ol&ing what the court characteri?ed as ;0uintessential and non,delegable residential power,; such as co77ander,in,chief power, appoint7ent and re7o&al power, the power to grant pardons and reprie&es, the sole, authority to recei&e a7bassadors and other public officers, the power to negotiate treaties, etc' 32 The situation in 6udicial Watch, +nc' &' :epart7ent of 6ustice33 tested the <n ReJ Sealed +ase principles' There, while the presidential decision in&ol&ed is the e9ercise of the residentDs pardon power, a non,delegable, core,presidential function, the :eputy Attorney 1eneral and the ardon Attorney were dee7ed to be too re7ote fro7 the resident and his senior White Couse ad&isors to be protected' The %ourt conceded that functionally those officials were perfor7ing a tasB directly related to the residentDs pardon power, but concluded that an organi?ational test was 7ore appropriate for confining the potentially broad sweep that would result fro7 the <n ReJ Sealed +ase0s functional test' The 7a=ority concluded that, the lesser protections of the deliberati&e process pri&ilege would suffice' That pri&ilege was, howe&er, found insufficient to =ustify the confidentiality of the 3,331 withheld docu7ents' $ut 7ore specific classifications of co77unications co&ered by e9ecuti&e pri&ilege are 7ade in older cases' %ourts ruled early that the "9ecuti&e has a right to withhold docu7ents that 7ight re&eal :.9.1ar2 or /1a14 /4cr41/,33.+4*1.12 o8 Go64r*:4*1 .*8or:4r/ .* /o:4 c.rc5:/1a*c4/ ,,3. and .*8or:a1.o* r49a14+ 1o 04*+.*G .*64/1.Ga1.o*/'35 An area where the pri&ilege is highly re&ered is in 8or4.G* r49a1.o*/' +n @nited States v. +urtiss1 /rig)t &!port +orp'37 the *'S' %ourt, citing resident 1eorge Washington, pronounced8 The nature of foreign negotiations re0uires caution, and their success 7ust often depend on secrecy, and e&en when brought to a conclusion, a full disclosure of all the 7easures, de7ands, or e&entual concessions which 7ay ha&e been proposed or conte7plated would be e9tre7ely i7politic, for this 7ight ha&e a pernicious influence on future negotiations or produce i77ediate incon&eniences, perhaps danger and 7ischief, in relation to other powers' The necessity of such caution and secrecy was one cogent reason for &esting the power of 7aBing treaties in the resident, with the ad&ice and consent of the Senate, the principle on which the body was for7ed confining it to a s7all nu7ber of 7e7bers' To ad7it, then, a right in

the Couse of Representati&es to de7and and to ha&e as a 7atter of course all the papers respecting a negotiation with a foreign power would be to establish a dangerous precedent' !a=ority of the abo&e =urisprudence ha&e found their way in our =urisdiction' +n +)avez v. $+GG34, this %ourt held that there is a ;go&ern7ental pri&ilege against public disclosure with respect to state secrets regarding 7ilitary, diplo7atic and other security 7atters'; +n +)avez v. $&A,32 there is also a recognition of the confidentiality of residential con&ersations, correspondences, and discussions in closed,door %abinet 7eetings' +n Senate v. &rmita, the concept of 0r4/.+4*1.a9 co::5*.ca1.o*/ 0r.6.94G4 is fully discussed' As 7ay be gleaned fro7 the abo&e discussion, the clai7 of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege is highly recogni?ed in cases where the sub=ect of in0uiry relates to a power te9tually co77itted by the %onstitution to the resident, such as the area of 7ilitary and foreign relations' *nder our %onstitution, the resident is the repository of the co77ander,in, chief,30 appointing,31 pardoning,32 and diplo7atic33 powers' %onsistent with the doctrine of separation of powers, the infor7ation relating to these powers 7ay en=oy greater confidentiality than others' The abo&e cases, especially, 'i!on, <n Re Sealed +ase and Judicial /atc), so7ehow pro&ide the ele7ents of0r4/.+4*1.a9 co::5*.ca1.o*/ 0r.6.94G4, to wit8 1/ The protected co77unication 7ust relate to a ;0uintessential and non,delegable presidential power'; 2/ The co77unication 7ust be authored or ;solicited and recei&ed; by a close ad&isor of the resident or the resident hi7self' The =udicial test is that an ad&isor 7ust be in ;operational pro9i7ity; with the resident' 3/ The 0r4/.+4*1.a9 co::5*.ca1.o*/ 0r.6.94G4 re7ains a 0ualified pri&ilege that 7ay be o&erco7e by a showing of ade0uate need, such that the infor7ation sought ;liBely contains i7portant e&idence; and by the una&ailability of the infor7ation elsewhere by an appropriate in&estigating authority' 33 +n the case at bar, "9ecuti&e Secretary "r7ita pre7ised his clai7 of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege on the ground that the co77unications elicited by the three -3/ 0uestions ;fall under con&ersation and correspondence between the resident and public officials; necessary in ;her e9ecuti&e and policy decision,7aBing process; and, that ;the infor7ation sought to be disclosed 7ight i7pair our diplo7atic as well as econo7ic relations with the eopleDs Republic of %hina'; Si7ply put, the bases are 0r4/.+4*1.a9 co::5*.ca1.o*/ 0r.6.94G4 and e9ecuti&e pri&ilege on 7atters relating to +.09o:ac2 or 8or4.G* r49a1.o*/' *sing the abo&e ele7ents, we are con&inced that, indeed, the co77unications elicited by the three -3/ 0uestions are co&ered by the 0r4/.+4*1.a9 co::5*.ca1.o*/ 0r.6.94G4' +irst, the co77unications relate to a ;0uintessential and non,delegable power; of the resident, i'e' the power to enter into an e9ecuti&e agree7ent with other countries' This authority of the resident to enter into e!ecutive agreements without the concurrence of the )egislature has traditionally been recogni?ed in hilippine =urisprudence' 3. econd, the co77unications are ;recei&ed; by a close ad&isor of the resident' *nder the ;operational pro9i7ity; test, petitioner can be considered a close ad&isor, being a 7e7ber of resident ArroyoDs cabinet' And third, there is no ade0uate showing of a co7pelling need that would =ustify the li7itation of the pri&ilege and of the 5*a6a.9a<.9.12 of the infor7ation elsewhere by an appropriate in&estigating authority' The third ele7ent deser&es a lengthy discussion' @nited States v. 'i!on held that a clai7 of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege is sub=ect to <a9a*c.*G aGa.*/1 o1h4r .*14r4/1' +n other words, confidentiality in e9ecuti&e pri&ilege is *o1 a</o951492 protected by the %onstitution' The *'S' %ourt held8 F#Geither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high,le&el co77unications, without 7ore, can sustain an absolute, un0ualified residential pri&ilege of i77unity fro7 =udicial process under all circu7stances' The foregoing is consistent with the earlier case of 'i!on v. Sirica,35 where it was held that 0r4/.+4*1.a9 co::5*.ca1.o*/ are presu7pti&ely pri&ileged and that the presu7ption can be o&erco7e only by 7ere showing of public need by the branch seeBing access to con&ersations' The courts are en=oined to resol&e the co7peting interests of the political branches of the go&ern7ent ;in the 7anner that preser&es the essential functions of each $ranch';37 Cere, the record is bereft of any categorical e9planation fro7 respondent %o77ittees to show a co7pelling or citical need for the answers to the three -3/ 0uestions in the enact7ent of a law' +nstead, the 0uestions &eer 7ore towards the e9ercise of the legislati&e o&ersight function under Section 22 of Article A+ rather than Section 21 of the sa7e Article' Senate v. &rmita ruled that the ;1h4 o64r/.Gh1 85*c1.o* o8 Co*Gr4// :a2 <4 8ac.9.1a14+ <2 co:059/or2 0roc4// o*92 1o 1h4 4314*1 1ha1 .1 ./ 04r8or:4+ .* 05r/5.1 o8 94G./9a1.o* '; +t is conceded that it is difficult to draw the line between an in0uiry in aid of legislation and an in0uiry in the e9ercise of o&ersight function of %ongress' +n this regard, 7uch will depend on the content of the 0uestions and the 7anner the in0uiry is conducted'

Respondent %o77ittees argue that a clai7 of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege does not guard against a possible disclosure of a cri7e or wrongdoing' We see no dispute on this' +t is settled in @nited States v. 'i!on34 that ;de7onstrated, specific need for e&idence in 04*+.*G cr.:.*a9 1r.a9; outweighs the residentDs ;generali?ed interest in confidentiality'; Cowe&er, the present caseDs distinction with the 'i!on case is &ery e&ident' +n 'i!on, there is a pending cri7inal proceeding where the infor7ation is re0uested and it is the de7ands of due process of law and the fair ad7inistration of cri7inal =ustice that the infor7ation be disclosed' This is the reason why the *'S' %ourt was 0uicB to ;9.:.1 1h4 /co04 o8 .1/ +4c./.o*'; +t stressed that it is ;*o1 co*c4r*4+ h4r4 I.1h 1h4 <a9a*c4 <41I44* 1h4 Pr4/.+4*1P/ G4*4ra9.J4+ .*14r4/1 .* co*8.+4*1.a9.12 3 3 3 a*+ co*Gr4//.o*a9 +4:a*+/ 8or .*8or:a1.o* '; *nliBe in #i9on, the infor7ation here is elicited, not in a cri7inal proceeding, but in a legislati&e in0uiry' +n this regard, Senate &' "r7ita stressed that the &alidity of the clai7 of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege depends not only on the ground in&oBed but, also, on the 0roc4+5ra9 /411.*G or the co*1431 in which the clai7 is 7ade' <urther7ore, in 'i!on, the resident did not interpose any clai7 of need to protect 7ilitary, diplo7atic or sensiti&e national security secrets' +n the present case, "9ecuti&e Secretary "r7ita categorically clai7s e9ecuti&e pri&ilege on the grounds of 0r4/.+4*1.a9 co::5*.ca1.o*/ 0r.6.94G4 in relation to her e9ecuti&e and policy decision,7aBing process and diplo7atic secrets' The respondent %o77ittees should cautiously tread into the in&estigation of 7atters which 7ay present a conflict of interest that 7ay pro&ide a ground to inhibit the Senators participating in the in0uiry if later on an i7peach7ent proceeding is initiated on the sa7e sub=ect 7atter of the present Senate in0uiry' ertinently, in Senate Select +ommittee on $residential +ampaign Activities v. 'i!on ,32 it was held that since an i7peach7ent proceeding had been initiated by a Couse %o77ittee, the Senate Select %o77itteeDs i77ediate o&ersight need for fi&e presidential tapes should gi&e way to the Couse 6udiciary %o77ittee which has the constitutional authority to in0uire into presidential i7peach7ent' The %ourt e9pounded on this issue in this wise8 +t is true, of course, that the "9ecuti&e cannot, any 7ore than the other branches of go&ern7ent, in&oBe a general confidentiality pri&ilege to shield its officials and e7ployees fro7 in&estigations by the proper go&ern7ental institutions into possible cri7inal wrongdoing' The %ongress learned this as to its own pri&ileges in Gravel v. @nited States, as did the =udicial branch, in a sense, in +lar# v. @nited States, and the e9ecuti&e branch itself in 'i!on v. Sirica' (51 5*+4r 1i-on v. irica, 1h4 /hoI.*G r4N5.r4+ 1o o64rco:4 1h4 0r4/5:01.o* 8a6or.*G co*8.+4*1.a9.12 15r*4+, not on the nature of the presidential conduct that the subpoenaed 7aterial 7ight re&eal, but, instead, o* 1h4 *a15r4 a*+ a00ro0r.a14*4// o8 1h4 85*c1.o* .* 1h4 04r8or:a*c4 o8 Ih.ch 1h4 :a14r.a9 Ia/ /o5Gh1, a*+ 1h4 +4Gr44 1o Ih.ch 1h4 :a14r.a9 Ia/ *4c4//ar2 1o .1/ 8598.99:4*1. 4r4 a9/o o5r 1a/H r4N5.r4/ a*+ o5r +4c./.o* .:09.4/ *o K5+G:4*1 Iha1464r co*c4r*.*G 0o//.<94 0r4/.+4*1.a9 .*6o964:4*1 .* c590a<94 ac1.6.12. O* 1h4 co*1rar2, I4 1h.*H 1h4 /588.c.4*c2 o8 1h4 Co::.1144P/ /hoI.*G :5/1 +404*+ /o9492 o* Ih41h4r 1h4 /5<0o4*a4+ 46.+4*c4 ./ +4:o*/1ra<92 cr.1.ca9 1o 1h4 r4/0o*/.<94 8598.99:4*1 o8 1h4 Co::.1144P/ 85*c1.o*/' +n its initial briefs here, the %o77ittee argued that it has shown e9actly this' +t contended that resolution, on the basis of the subpoenaed tapes, of the conflicts in the testi7ony before it Dwould aid in a deter7ination whether legislati&e in&ol&e7ent in political ca7paigns is necessaryD and Dcould help engender the public support needed for basic refor7s in our electoral syste7'D !oreo&er, %ongress has, according to the %o77ittee, power to o&ersee the operations of the e9ecuti&e branch, to in&estigate instances of possible corruption and 7alfeasance in office, and to e9pose the results of its in&estigations to public &iew' The %o77ittee says that with respect to Watergate,related 7atters, this power has been delegated to it by the Senate, and that to e9ercise its power responsibly, it 7ust ha&e access to the subpoenaed tapes' We turn first to the latter contention' +n the circu7stances of this case, we need neither deny that the %ongress 7ay ha&e, 0uite apart fro7 its legislati&e responsibilities, a general o&ersight power, nor e9plore what the lawful reach of that power 7ight be under the %o77itteeDs constituent resolution' Since passage of that resolution, the Couse %o77ittee on the 6udiciary has begun an in0uiry into presidential i7peach7ent' The in&estigati&e authority of the 6udiciary %o77ittee with respect to presidential conduct has an e9press constitutional source' 9 9 9 -4 ha64 <44* /hoI* *o 46.+4*c4 .*+.ca1.*G 1ha1 Co*Gr4// .1/498 a11ach4/ a*2 0ar1.c59ar 6a954 1o 1h./ .*14r4/1. "* 1h4/4 c.rc5:/1a*c4/, I4 1h.*H 1h4 *44+ 8or 1h4 1a04/ 0r4:./4+ /o9492 o* a* a//4r14+ 0oI4r 1o .*64/1.Ga14 a*+ .*8or: ca**o1 K5/1.82 4*8orc4:4*1 o8 1h4 Co::.1144P/ /5<0o4*a. The sufficiency of the %o77itteeDs showing of need has co7e to depend, therefore, entirely on whether the subpoenaed 7aterials are critical to the perfor7ance of its legislati&e functions' There is a clear difference between %ongressD legislati&e tasBs and the responsibility of a grand =ury, or any institution engaged in liBe functions' -h.94 8ac1-8.*+.*G <2 a 94G./9a1.64 co::.1144 ./ 5*+4*.a<92 a 0ar1 o8 .1/ 1a/H, 94G./9a1.64 K5+G:4*1/ *or:a992 +404*+ :or4 o* 1h4 0r4+.c14+ co*/4N54*c4/ o8 0ro0o/4+ 94G./9a1.64 ac1.o*/ a*+ 1h4.r 0o9.1.ca9 acc401a<.9.12, 1ha* o* 0r4c./4 r4co*/1r5c1.o* o8 0a/1 464*1/ @ %ongress fre0uently legislates on the basis of conflicting infor7ation pro&ided in its hearings' +n contrast, the responsibility of the grand =ury turns entirely on its ability to deter7ine whether there is probable cause to belie&e that certain na7ed indi&iduals did or did not co77it specific cri7es' +f, for e9a7ple, as in 'i!on v. Sirica, one of those cri7es is per=ury concerning the content of certain con&ersations, the grand =uryDs need for the 7ost precise e&idence, the e9act te9t of oral state7ents recorded in their original for7, is undeniable' -4 /44 *o co:0ara<94 *44+ .* 1h4 94G./9a1.64 0roc4//, a1 94a/1 *o1 .* 1h4 c.rc5:/1a*c4/ o8 1h./ ca/4 ' +ndeed, whate&er force there 7ight once ha&e been in the %o77itteeDs argu7ent that the subpoenaed 7aterials are necessary to its legislati&e =udg7ents has been substantially under7ined by subse0uent e&ents' -"7phasis supplied/

Respondent %o77ittees further contend that the grant of petitionerDs clai7 of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege &iolates the constitutional pro&isions on the right of the people to infor7ation on 7atters of public concern' .0 We 7ight ha&e agreed with such contention if petitioner did not appear before the7 at all' $ut petitioner 7ade hi7self a&ailable to the7 during the Septe7ber 25 hearing, where he was 0uestioned for ele&en -11/ hours' #ot only that, he e9pressly 7anifested his willingness to answer 7ore 0uestions fro7 the Senators, with the e9ception only of those co&ered by his clai7 of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege' The right to public infor7ation, liBe any other right, is sub=ect to li7itation' Section 7 of Article +++ pro&ides8 The right of the people to infor7ation on 7atters of public concern shall be recogni?ed' Access to official records, and to docu7ents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to go&ern7ent research data used as basis for policy de&elop7ent, shall be afforded the citi?en, /5<K4c1 1o /5ch 9.:.1a1.o*/ a/ :a2 <4 0ro6.+4+ <2 9aI' The pro&ision itself e9pressly pro&ides the li7itation, i'e' a/ :a2 <4 0ro6.+4+ <2 9aI' So7e of these laws are Section 7 of Republic Act -R'A'/ #o' 5713,.1 Article 222.2 of the Re&ised enal %ode, Section 3 -B/.3 of R'A' #o' 3012, and Section 23-e/.3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of %ourt' These are in addition to what our body of =urisprudence classifies as confidential.. and what our %onstitution considers as belonging to the larger concept of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege' %learly, there is a recogni?ed public interest in the confidentiality of certain infor7ation' We find the infor7ation sub=ect of this case belonging to such Bind' !ore than anything else, though, the right of %ongress or any of its %o77ittees to obtain infor7ation in aid of legislation cannot be e0uated with the peopleDs right to public infor7ation' The for7er cannot clai7 that e&ery legislati&e in0uiry is an e9ercise of the peopleDs right to infor7ation' The distinction between such rights is laid down in Senate v. &rmita8 There are, it bears noting, clear distinctions between the right of %ongress to infor7ation which underlies the power of in0uiry and the right of people to infor7ation on 7atters of public concern' <or one, the de7and of a citi?en for the production of docu7ents pursuant to his right to infor7ation does not ha&e the sa7e obligatory force as a su*poena duces tecum issued by %ongress' #either does the right to infor7ation grant a citi?en the power to e9act testi7ony fro7 go&ern7ent officials' These powers belong only to %ongress, not to an indi&idual citi?en' Th5/, Ih.94 Co*Gr4// ./ co:0o/4+ o8 r40r4/4*1a1.64/ 494c14+ <2 1h4 04o094, .1 +o4/ *o1 8o99oI, 43c401 .* a h.Gh92 N5a9.8.4+ /4*/4, 1ha1 .* 464r2 434rc./4 o8 .1/ 0oI4r o8 .*N5.r2, 1h4 04o094 ar4 434rc./.*G 1h4.r r.Gh1 1o .*8or:a1.o*. The 7e7bers of respondent %o77ittees should not in&oBe as =ustification in their e9ercise of power a right properly belonging to the people in general' This is because when they discharge their power, they do so as public officials and 7e7bers of %ongress' $e that as it 7ay, the right to infor7ation 7ust be balanced with and should gi&e way, in appropriate cases, to constitutional precepts particularly those pertaining to delicate interplay of e9ecuti&e,legislati&e powers and pri&ileges which is the sub=ect of careful re&iew by nu7erous decided cases' B, The C!aim of (-ecutive Privi!ege is Proper!y Invoked We now proceed to the issue ,, /hether the c!aim is proper!y invoked by the President. 6urisprudence teaches that for the clai7 to be properly in&oBed, there 7ust be a for7al clai7 of pri&ilege, lodged by the head of the depart7ent which has control o&er the 7atter';.5 A for7al and proper clai7 of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege re0uires a ;precise and certain reason; for preser&ing their confidentiality' .7 The )etter dated #o&e7ber 17, 2007 of "9ecuti&e Secretary "r7ita satisfies the re0uire7ent' +t ser&es as the for7al clai7 of pri&ilege' There, he e9pressly states that ;1h./ O88.c4 ./ co*/1ra.*4+ 1o .*6oH4 1h4 /41194+ +oc1r.*4 o8 434c51.64 0r.6.94G4 a/ r48.*4+ .* enate v. (rmita, a*+ ha/ a+6./4+ S4cr41ar2 N4r. accor+.*G92 '; (b&iously, he is referring to the (ffice of the resident' That is 7ore than enough co7pliance' +n Senate v. &rmita, a less categorical letter was e&en ad=udged to be sufficient' With regard to the e9istence of ;precise and certain reason,; we find the grounds relied upon by "9ecuti&e Secretary "r7ita specific enough so as not ;to lea&e respondent %o77ittees in the darB on how the re0uested infor7ation could be classified as pri&ileged'; The case of Senate v. &rmita only re0uires that an allegation be 7ade ;whether the infor7ation de7anded in&ol&es 7ilitary or diplo7atic secrets, closed,door %abinet 7eetings, etc'; The particular ground 7ust only be specified' The enu7eration is not e&en intended to be co7prehensi&e'; .4The following state7ent of grounds satisfies the re0uire7ent8 The conte9t in which e9ecuti&e pri&ilege is being in&oBed is that the infor7ation sought to be disclosed 7ight i7pair our diplo7atic as well as econo7ic relations with the eopleDs Republic of %hina' 1i&en the confidential nature in which these infor7ation were con&eyed to the resident, he cannot pro&ide the %o77ittee any further details of these con&ersations, without disclosing the &ery thing the pri&ilege is designed to protect'

At any rate, as held further in Senate v. &rmita, .2 the %ongress 7ust not re0uire the e9ecuti&e to state the reasons for the clai7 with such particularity as to co7pel disclosure of the infor7ation which the pri&ilege is 7eant to protect' This is a 7atter of respect to a coordinate and co,e0ual depart7ent' II #espondent Committees Committed $rave )buse of 'iscretion in Issuing the Contempt <rder 1ra&e abuse of discretion 7eans ;such capricious and whi7sical e9ercise of =udg7ent as is e0ui&alent to lacB of =urisdiction, or, in other words where the power is e9ercised in an arbitrary or despotic 7anner by reason of passion or personal hostility and it 7ust be so patent and gross as to a7ount to an e&asion of positi&e duty or to a &irtual refusal to perfor7 the duty en=oined or to act at all in conte7plation of law'; 50 +t 7ust be reiterated that when respondent %o77ittees issued the show cause )etter dated #o&e7ber 22, 2007, petitioner replied i77ediately, 7anifesting that it was not his intention to ignore the Senate hearing and that he thought the only re7aining 0uestions were the three -3/ 0uestions he clai7ed to be co&ered by e9ecuti&e pri&ilege' +n addition thereto, he sub7itted Atty' $autistaDs letter, stating that his non,appearance was upon the order of the resident and specifying the reasons why his con&ersations with resident Arroyo are co&ered by e9ecuti&e pri&ilege' (o1h corr4/0o*+4*c4/ .*c95+4 a* 430r4//.o* o8 h./ I.99.*G*4// 1o 14/1.82 aGa.*, 0ro6.+4+ h4 L<4 85r*./h4+ .* a+6a*c4L co0.4/ o8 1h4 N54/1.o*/' Without responding to his re0uest for ad&ance list of 0uestions, respondent %o77ittees issued the (rder dated 6anuary 30, 2004, citing hi7 in conte7pt of respondent %o77ittees and ordering his arrest and detention at the (ffice of the Senate Sergeant,At,Ar7s until such ti7e that he would appear and gi&e his testi7ony' Thereupon, petitioner filed a 7otion for reconsideration, infor7ing respondent %o77ittees that he had filed the present petition for certiorari' Respondent %o77ittees co77itted gra&e abuse of discretion in issuing the conte7pt Or+4r in &iew of fi&e -./ reasons' +irst, there being a legiti7ate clai7 of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege, the issuance of the conte7pt (rder suffers fro7 constitutional infir7ity' econd, respondent %o77ittees did not co7ply with the re0uire7ent laid down in Senate v. &rmita that the in&itations should contain the ;possible needed statute which pro7pted the need for the in0uiry,; along with ;the usual indication of the sub=ect of in0uiry and the N54/1.o*/ relati&e to and in furtherance thereof'; %o7pliance with this re0uire7ent is i7perati&e, both under Sections 21 and 22 of Article A+ of the %onstitution' This 7ust be so to ensure that the rights of both persons a004ar.*G .* or a884c14+ by such in0uiry are respected as 7andated by said Section 21 and by &irtue of the e9press language of Section 22' *nfortunately, despite petitionerDs repeated de7ands, respondent %o77ittees did not send hi7 an ad&ance list of 0uestions' Third, a reading of the transcript of respondent %o77itteesD 6anuary 30, 2004 proceeding re&eals that only a 7inority of the 7e7bers of the Senate $lue Ribbon %o77ittee was present during the deliberation' 51 Section 14 of the Rules of $rocedure Governing <n9uiries in Aid of Legislation pro&ides that8 ;The %o77ittee, <2 a 6o14 o8 :aKor.12 of all its 7e7bers, 7ay punish for conte7pt any witness before it who disobeys any order of the %o77ittee or refuses to be sworn or to testify or to answer proper 0uestions by the %o77ittee or any of its 7e7bers'; %learly, the needed &ote is a :aKor.12 of all the 7e7bers of the %o77ittee' Apparently, 7e7bers who did not actually participate in the deliberation were 7ade to sign the conte7pt (rder' Thus, there is a cloud of doubt as to the &alidity of the conte7pt (rder dated 6anuary 30, 2004' We 0uote the pertinent portion of the transcript, thus8 T E C A"RMAN ESEN. CA#ETANO, AF. $or c9ar.8.ca1.o*. 3 3 3 Th4 Cha.r I.99 ca99 4.1h4r a ca5c5/ or I.99 a/H 1h4 Co::.1144 o* R594/ .8 1h4r4 ./ a 0ro<94:. M4a*.*G, .8 I4 +o *o1 ha64 1h4 /588.c.4*1 *5:<4r/. (51 .8 I4 ha64 a /588.c.4*1 *5:<4r, I4 I.99 K5/1 ho9+ a ca5c5/ 1o <4 a<94 1o .:094:4*1 1ha1 r.Gh1 aIa2 <4ca5/4UAGa.*, o5r R594/ 0ro6.+4 1ha1 a*2 o*4 h49+ .* co*14:01 a*+ or+4r4+ arr4/14+, *44+ 1h4 co*c5rr4*c4 o8 a :aKor.12 o8 a99 :4:<4r/ o8 1h4 /a.+ co::.1144 a*+ I4 ha64 1hr44 co::.1144/ co*+5c1.*G 1h./. So thanB you &ery 7uch to the 7e7bersc SEN. P"MENTEL. Mr. Cha.r:a*. T E C A"RMAN ESEN. CA#ETANO,AF. Ma2 " r4coG*.J4 1h4 M.*or.12 L4a+4r a*+ G.64 h.: 1h4 89oor, S4*a1or P.:4*149. SEN. P"MENTEL. Mr. Cha.r:a*, 1h4r4 ./ *o 0ro<94:, " 1h.*H, I.1h co*/591.*G 1h4 o1h4r co::.1144/. (51 " a: o8 1h4 o0.*.o* 1ha1 1h4 (954 R.<<o* Co::.1144 ./ 1h4 94a+ co::.1144, a*+ 1h4r48or4, .1 /ho59+ ha64 0r484r4*c4 .* 4*8orc.*G .1/ oI* +4c./.o*/. M4a*.*G 1o /a2, .1 ./ *o1 /o:41h.*G 1ha1 ./

/5<K4c1 1o co*/591a1.o* I.1h o1h4r co::.1144/. " a: *o1 /5r4 1ha1 ./ 1h4 r.Gh1 .*14r0r41a1.o*. " 1h.*H 1ha1 o*c4 I4 +4c.+4 h4r4, I4 4*8orc4 Iha1 I4 +4c.+4, <4ca5/4 o1h4rI./4, <48or4 I4 H*oI .1, o5r +414r:.*a1.o* ./ Ia14r4+ +oI* <2 +49a2 a*+, 2o5 H*oI, 1h4 /o-ca994+ Lco*/591a1.o*L 1ha1 .*46.1a<92 I.99 ha64 1o 1aH4 09ac4 .8 I4 8o99oI 1h4 0r4:./4 1ha1 ha/ <44* 4309a.*4+. So 7y suggestion, !r' %hair7an, is the $lue Ribbon %o77ittee should not forget itDs the lead co77ittee here, and therefore, the will of the lead co77ittee pre&ails o&er all the other, you, Bnow reser&ations that other co77ittees 7ight ha&e who are only secondary or e&en tertiary co77ittees, !r' %hair7an' T E C A"RMAN ESEN. CA#ETANO, A.F ThanB you &ery 7uch to the !inority )eader' And + agree with the wisdo7 of his state7ents' + was 7erely 7entioning that under Section 5 of the Rules of the %o77ittee and under Section 5, ;The %o77ittee by a &ote of a 7a=ority of all its 7e7bers 7ay punish for conte7pt any witness before it who disobeys any order of the %o77ittee'; So the $lue Ribbon %o77ittee is 7ore than willing to taBe that responsibility' (51 I4 o*92 ha64 /.3 :4:<4r/ h4r4 1o+a2, " a: 1h4 /464*1h a/ cha.r a*+ /o I4 ha64 *o1 :41 1ha1 *5:<4r ' So + a7 7erely stating that, sir, that when we will prepare the docu7entation, if a 7a=ority of all 7e7bers sign and + a7 following the Sabio &' 1ordon rule wherein + do belie&e, if + a7 not 7istaBen, %hair7an 1ordon prepared the docu7entation and then either in caucus or in session asBed the other 7e7bers to sign' And once the signatures are obtained, solely for the purpose that Secretary #eri or !r' )o?ada will not be able to legally 0uestion our subpoena as being insufficient in accordance with law' SEN. P"MENTEL' !r' %hair7an, the caution that the chair is suggesting is &ery well,taBen' $ut +Dd liBe to ad&ert to the fact that the 0uoru7 of the co77ittee is only two as far as + re7e7ber' Any two,7e7ber senators attending a Senate co77ittee hearing pro&ide that 0uoru7, and therefore there is 7ore than a 0uoru7 de7anded by our Rules as far as we are concerned now, and acting as $lue Ribbon %o77ittee, as Senator "nrile pointed out' +n any e&ent, the signatures that will follow by the additional 7e7bers will only tend to strengthen the deter7ination of this %o77ittee to put its foot forward T put down on what is happening in this country, !r' %hair7an, because it really looBs terrible if the pri7ary %o77ittee of the Senate, which is the $lue Ribbon %o77ittee, cannot e&en sanction people who openly defy, you Bnow, the su77ons of this %o77ittee' + Bnow that the %hair is going through an agoni?ing 7o7ent here' + Bnow that' $ut nonetheless, + thinB we ha&e to uphold, you Bnow, the institution that we are representing because the alternati&e will be a disaster for all of us, !r' %hair7an' So ha&ing said that, +Dd liBe to reiterate 7y point' T E C A"RMAN ESEN. CA#ETANO, A.F <irst of all, + agree 100 percent with the intentions of the !inority )eader' (51 941 :4 64r2 r4/04c185992 +./aGr44 I.1h 1h4 94Ga9 r4N5.r4:4*1/. (4ca5/4, 24/, I4 ca* ha64 a h4ar.*G .8 I4 ar4 o*92 1Io <51 <o1h 5*+4r S4c1.o* 1? o8 1h4 R594/ o8 1h4 S4*a14 a*+ 5*+4r S4c1.o* 6 o8 1h4 R594/ o8 1h4 (954 R.<<o* Co::.1144, 1h4r4 ./ a *44+ 8or a :aKor.12 o8 a99 :4:<4r/ .8 .1 ./ a ca/4 o8 co*14:01 a*+ arr4/1' So, + a7 si7ply trying to a&oid the court rebuBing the %o77ittee, which will instead of strengthening will weaBen us' $ut + do agree, !r' !inority )eader, that we should push for this and show the e9ecuti&e branch that the well,decided T the issue has been decided upon the Sabio &ersus 1ordon case' And itDs &ery clear that we are all allowed to call witnesses' And if they refure or they disobey not only can we cite the7 in conte7pt and ha&e the7 arrested' 9 9 9 52 +ourth, we find 7erit in the argu7ent of the (S1 that respondent %o77ittees liBewise &iolated Section 21 of Article A+ of the %onstitution, re0uiring that the in0uiry be in accordance with the ; +592 05<9./h4+ r594/ o8 0roc4+5r4'; We 0uote the (S1Ds e9planation8 The phrase Dduly published rules of procedureD re0uires the Senate of e&ery %ongress to publish its rules of procedure go&erning in0uiries in aid of legislation because e&ery Senate is distinct fro7 the one before it or after it' Since Senatorial elections are held e&ery three -3/ years for one,half of the SenateDs 7e7bership, the co7position of the Senate also changes by the end of each ter7' "ach Senate 7ay thus enact a different set of rules as it 7ay dee7 fit' No1 ha6.*G 05<9./h4+ .1/ #u!es of Procedure, 1h4 /5<K4c1 h4ar.*G/ .* a.+ o8 94G./9a1.o* co*+5c14+ <2 1h4 141h S4*a14, ar4 1h4r48or4, 0roc4+5ra992 .*8.r:' )nd fifth, respondent %o77itteesD issuance of the conte7pt (rder is arbitrary and precipitate' +t 7ust be pointed out that respondent %o77ittees did not 8.r/1 pass upon the clai7 of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege and infor7 petitioner of their ruling' +nstead, they curtly dis7issed his e9planation as ;unsatisfactory; and si7ultaneously issued the (rder citing hi7 in conte7pt and ordering his i77ediate arrest and detention' A fact worth highlighting is that 041.1.o*4r ./ *o1 a* 5*I.99.*G I.1*4//' Ce 7anifested se&eral ti7es his readiness to testify before respondent %o77ittees' Ce refused to answer the three -3/ 0uestions because he was ordered by the resident to clai7 e9ecuti&e pri&ilege' +t behoo&es respondent %o77ittees to first rule on the clai7 of e9ecuti&e pri&ilege and infor7 petitioner of their finding thereon, instead of pere7ptorily dis7issing his e9planation as ;unsatisfactory'; *ndoubtedly, respondent %o77itteesD actions constitute gra&e abuse of discretion for being arbitrary and for denying petitioner due process of law' The sa7e 0uality afflicted their conduct when they -a/ disregarded petitionerDs 7otion for reconsideration alleging that he had filed the present petition before this %ourt and -b/ ignored petitionerDs repeated re0uest for an ad&ance list of 0uestions, if there be any aside fro7 the three -3/ 0uestions as to which he clai7ed to be co&ered by e9ecuti&e pri&ilege'

"&en the courts are repeatedly ad&ised to e9ercise the power of conte7pt =udiciously and sparingly with ut7ost self, restraint with the end in &iew of utili?ing the sa7e for correction and preser&ation of the dignity of the court, not for retaliation or &indication'53 Respondent %o77ittees should ha&e e9ercised the sa7e restraint, after all petitioner is not e&en an ordinary witness' Ce holds a high position in a co,e0ual branch of go&ern7ent' +n this regard, it is i7portant to 7ention that 7any incidents of =udicial re&iew could ha&e been a&oided if powers are discharged with circu7spection and deference' %onco7itant with the doctrine of separation of powers is the 7andate to obser&e respect to a co,e0ual branch of the go&ern7ent' (ne last word' The %ourt was accused of atte7pting to abandon its constitutional duty when it re0uired the parties to consider a proposal that would lead to a possible co7pro7ise' The accusation is far fro7 the truth' The %ourt did so, only to test a tool that other =urisdictions find to be effecti&e in settling si7ilar cases, to a&oid a piece7eal consideration of the 0uestions for re&iew and to a&ert a constitutional crisis between the e9ecuti&e and legislati&e branches of go&ern7ent' +n @nited States v. American Tel. O Tel +o',53 the court refrained fro7 deciding the case because of its desire to a&oid a resolution that 7ight disturb the balance of power between the two branches and inaccurately reflect their true needs' +nstead, it re7anded the record to the :istrict %ourt for further proceedings during which the parties are re0uired to negotiate a settle7ent' +n the subse0uent case of @nited States v. American Tel. OTel +o',5. it was held that ;7uch of this spirit of co7pro7ise is reflected in the generality of language found in the %onstitution'; +t proceeded to state8 *nder this &iew, the coordinate branches do not e9ist in an e9clusi&ely ad&ersary relationship to one another when a conflict in authority arises' Rather each branch should taBe cogni?ance of an i7plicit constitutional 7andate to seeB opti7al acco77odation through a realistic e&aluation of the needs of the conflicting branches in the particular fact situation' +t thereafter concluded that8 ;Th4 S40ara1.o* o8 PoI4r/ o814* .:0a.r/ 488.c.4*c2, .* 14r:/ o8 +./0a1ch a*+ 1h4 .::4+.a14 85*c1.o*.*G o8 Go64r*:4*1. "1 ./ 1h4 9o*G-14r: /1a2.*G 0oI4r o8 Go64r*:4*1 1ha1 ./ 4*ha*c4+ <2 1h4 :515a9 acco::o+a1.o* r4N5.r4+ <2 1h4 /40ara1.o* o8 0oI4r/'; +n rendering this decision, the %ourt e7phasi?es once 7ore that the basic principles of constitutional law cannot be subordinated to the needs of a particular situation' As 7agistrates, our 7andate is to rule ob=ecti&ely and dispassionately, always 7indful of !r' 6ustice Col7esD warning on the dangers inherent in cases of this nature, thus8 ;so7e accident of i77ediate and o&erwhel7ing interestcappeals to the feelings and distorts the =udg7ent' These i77ediate interests e9ercise a Bind of hydraulic pressure which 7aBes what pre&iously was clear see7 doubtful, and before which e&en well settled principles of law will bend'; 55 +n this present crusade to ;search for truth,; we should turn to the funda7ental constitutional principles which underlie our tripartite syste7 of go&ern7ent, where the )egislature enacts the law, the 6udiciary interprets it and the "9ecuti&e i7ple7ents it' They are considered separate, co,e0ual, coordinate and supre7e within their respecti&e spheres but, i7bued with a syste7 of checBs and balances to pre&ent unwarranted e9ercise of power' The %ourtDs 7andate is to preser&e these constitutional principles at all ti7es to Beep the political branches of go&ern7ent within constitutional bounds in the e9ercise of their respecti&e powers and prerogati&es, e&en if it be in the search for truth' This is the only way we can preser&e the stability of our de7ocratic institutions and uphold the Rule of )aw' - ERE$ORE, 1h4 041.1.o* ./ h4r4<2 GRANTE%. The sub=ect (rder dated 6anuary 30, 2004, citing petitioner Ro7ulo )' #eri in conte7pt of the Senate %o77ittees and directing his arrest and detention, is hereby nullified' SO OR%ERE%. G.R. No. 2@2242 A0r.9 16, 2@13

$RANC"SCO ". C AVE&, etitioner, &s' JU%"C"ALAN% (AR COUNC"L, SEN. $RANC"S JOSEP G. ESCU%ERO a*+ REP. N"EL C. TUPAS, JR.,Respondents' R"S()*T+(# MEN%O&A, J.: This resol&es the !otion for Reconsideration1 filed by the (ffice of the Solicitor 1eneral -(S1/ on behalf of the respondents, Senator <rancis 6oseph 1' "scudero and %ongress7an #iel %' Tupas, 6r' -respondents/, duly opposed2 by the petitioner, for7er Solicitor 1eneral <rancisco +' %ha&e? -petitioner/'

$y way of recapitulation, the present action ste77ed fro7 the une9pected departure of for7er %hief 6ustice Renato %' %orona on !ay 22, 2012, and the no7ination of petitioner, as his potential successor' +n his initiatory pleading, petitioner asBed the %ourt to deter7ine 1G whether the first paragraph of Section 4, Article A+++ of the 1247 %onstitution allows 7ore than one -1/ 7e7ber of %ongress to sit in the 6$%@ and 2G if the practice of ha&ing two -2/ representati&es fro7 each Couse of %ongress with one -1/ &ote each is sanctioned by the %onstitution' (n 6uly 17, 2012, the %ourt handed down the assailed sub=ect decision, disposing the sa7e in the following 7anner8 WC"R"<(R", the petition is 1RA#T":' The current nu7erical co7position of the 6udicial and $ar %ouncil is declared *#%(#ST+T*T+(#A)' The 6udicial and $ar %ouncil is hereby en=oined to reconstitute itself so that only one -1/ 7e7ber of %ongress will sit as a representati&e in its proceedings, in accordance with Section 4-1/, Article A+++ of the 1247 %onstitution' This disposition is i77ediately e9ecutory' S( (R:"R":' (n 6uly 31, 2012, following respondentsU 7otion for reconsideration and with due regard to Senate Resolution #os' 111,3 112,4 113,5 and 113,6 the %ourt set the sub=ect 7otion for oral argu7ents on August 2, 2012' 7 (n August 3, 2012, the %ourt discussed the 7erits of the argu7ents and agreed, in the 7eanti7e, to suspend the effects of the second paragraph of the dispositi&e portion of the 6uly 17, 2012 :ecision which decreed that it was i77ediately e9ecutory' The decretal portion of the August 3, 2012 Resolution 8 reads8 WC"R"<(R", the parties are hereby directed to sub7it their respecti&e !"!(RA#:A within ten -10/ days fro7 notice' *ntil further orders, the %ourt hereby S*S "#:S the effect of the second paragraph of the dispositi&e portion of the %ourtUs 6uly 17, 2012 :ecision, which reads8 ;This disposition is i77ediately e9ecutory'; 9 ursuant to the sa7e resolution, petitioner and respondents filed their respecti&e 7e7oranda' 10 $rief State7ent of the Antecedents +n this disposition, it bears reiterating that fro7 the birth of the hilippine Republic, the e9ercise of appointing 7e7bers of the 6udiciary has always been the e9clusi&e prerogati&e of the e9ecuti&e and legislati&e branches of the go&ern7ent' )iBe their progenitor of A7erican origins, both the !alolos %onstitution 11 and the 123. %onstitution12 &ested the power to appoint the 7e7bers of the 6udiciary in the resident, sub=ect to confir7ation by the %o77ission on Appoint7ents' +t was during these ti7es that the country beca7e witness to the deplorable practice of aspirants seeBing confir7ation of their appoint7ent in the 6udiciary to ingratiate the7sel&es with the 7e7bers of the legislati&e body' 13 Then, under the 1273 %onstitution, 14 with the fusion of the e9ecuti&e and legislati&e powers in one body, the appoint7ent of =udges and =ustices ceased to be sub=ect of scrutiny by another body' The power beca7e e9clusi&e and absolute to the "9ecuti&e, sub=ect only to the condition that the appointees 7ust ha&e all the 0ualifications and none of the dis0ualifications' ro7pted by the cla7or to rid the process of appoint7ents to the 6udiciary of the e&ils of political pressure and partisan acti&ities,15 the 7e7bers of the %onstitutional %o77ission saw it wise to create a separate, co7petent and independent body to reco77end no7inees to the resident' Thus, it concei&ed of a body, representati&e of all the staBeholders in the =udicial appoint7ent process, and called it the 6udicial and $ar %ouncil -6$%/' The <ra7ers carefully worded Section 4, Article A+++ of the 1247 %onstitution in this wise8 Section 4' -1/ A 6udicial and $ar %ouncil is hereby created under the super&ision of the Supre7e %ourt co7posed of the %hief 6ustice as e9 officio %hair7an, the Secretary of 6ustice, and a representati&e of the %ongress as e9 officio !e7bers, a representati&e of the +ntegrated $ar, a professor of law, a retired !e7ber of the Supre7e %ourt, and a representati&e of the pri&ate sector' <ro7 the 7o7ent of the creation of the 6$%, %ongress designated one -1/ representati&e to sit in the 6$% to act as one of the e9,officio 7e7bers'16 ursuant to the constitutional pro&ision that %ongress is entitled to one -1/ representati&e, each Couse sent a representati&e to the 6$%, not together, but alternately or by rotation' +n 1223, the se&en,7e7ber co7position of the 6$% was substantially altered' An eighth 7e7ber was added to the 6$% as the two -2/ representati&es fro7 %ongress began sitting si7ultaneously in the 6$%, with each ha&ing one, half -1J2/ of a &ote'17
4S,p)i4

+n 2001, the 6$% "n $anc decided to allow the representati&es fro7 the Senate and the Couse of Representati&es one full &ote each'18 +t has been the situation since then'

1rounds relied upon by Respondents Through the sub=ect 7otion, respondents pray that the %ourt reconsider its decision and dis7iss the petition on the following grounds8 1G that allowing only one representati&e fro7 %ongress in the 6$% would lead to absurdity considering its bica7eral nature@ 2G that the failure of the <ra7ers to 7aBe the proper ad=ust7ent when there was a shift fro7 unilateralis7 to bica7eralis7 was a plain o&ersight@ 3G that two representati&es fro7 %ongress would not sub&ert the intention of the <ra7ers to insulate the 6$% fro7 political partisanship@ and 3G that the rationale of the %ourt in declaring a se&en,7e7ber co7position would pro&ide a solution should there be a stale7ate is not e9actly correct' While the %ourt 7ay find so7e sense in the reasoning in a7plification of the third and fourth grounds listed by respondents, still, it finds itself unable to re&erse the assailed decision on the principal issues co&ered by the first and second grounds for lacB of 7erit' Significantly, the conclusion arri&ed at, with respect to the first and second grounds, carries greater bearing in the final resolution of this case' As these two issues are interrelated, the %ourt shall discuss the7 =ointly' R59.*G o8 1h4 Co5r1 The %onstitution e&inces the direct action of the <ilipino people by which the funda7ental powers of go&ern7ent are established, li7ited and defined and by which those powers are distributed a7ong the se&eral depart7ents for their safe and useful e9ercise for the benefit of the body politic' 19 The <ra7ers reposed their wisdo7 and &ision on one supre7a le9 to be the ulti7ate e9pression of the principles and the fra7eworB upon which go&ern7ent and society were to operate' Thus, in the interpretation of the constitutional pro&isions, the %ourt fir7ly relies on the basic postulate that the <ra7ers 7ean what they say' The language used in the %onstitution 7ust be taBen to ha&e been deliberately chosen for a definite purpose' "&ery word e7ployed in the %onstitution 7ust be interpreted to e9ude its deliberate intent which 7ust be 7aintained in&iolate against disobedience and defiance' What the %onstitution clearly says, according to its te9t, co7pels acceptance and bars 7odification e&en by the branch tasBed to interpret it' <or this reason, the %ourt cannot accede to the argu7ent of plain o&ersight in order to =ustify constitutional construction' As stated in the 6uly 17, 2012 :ecision, in opting to use the singular letter ;a; to describe ;representati&e of %ongress,; the <ilipino people through the <ra7ers intended that %ongress be entitled to only one -1/ seat in the 6$%' Cad the intention been otherwise, the %onstitution could ha&e, in no uncertain ter7s, so pro&ided, as can be read in its other pro&isions' A reading of the 1247 %onstitution would re&eal that se&eral pro&isions were indeed ad=usted as to be in tune with the shift to bica7eralis7' (ne e9a7ple is Section 3, Article A++, which pro&ides that a tie in the presidential election shall be broBen ;by a 7a=ority of all the !e7bers of both Couses of the %ongress, &oting separately'; 20 Another is Section 4 thereof which re0uires the no7inee to replace the Aice, resident to be confir7ed ;by a 7a=ority of all the !e7bers of both Couses of the %ongress, &oting separately'; 21 Si7ilarly, under Section 14, the procla7ation of 7artial law or the suspension of the pri&ilege of the writ of habeas corpus 7ay be re&oBed or continued by the %ongress, &oting separately, by a &ote of at least a 7a=ority of all its !e7bers'; 22 +n all these pro&isions, the bica7eral nature of %ongress was recogni?ed and, clearly, the corresponding ad=ust7ents were 7ade as to how a 7atter would be handled and &oted upon by its two Couses' Thus, to say that the <ra7ers si7ply failed to ad=ust Section 4, Article A+++, by sheer inad&ertence, to their decision to shift to a bica7eral for7 of the legislature, is not persuasi&e enough' Respondents cannot =ust lean on plain o&ersight to =ustify a conclusion fa&orable to the7' +t is &ery clear that the <ra7ers were not Been on ad=usting the pro&ision on congressional representation in the 6$% because it was not in the e9ercise of its pri7ary function T to legislate' 6$% was created to support the e9ecuti&e power to appoint, and %ongress, as one whole body, was 7erely assigned a contributory non,legislati&e function' The underlying reason for such a li7ited participation can easily be discerned' %ongress has two -2/ Couses' The need to recogni?e the e9istence and the role of each Couse is essential considering that the %onstitution e7ploys precise language in laying down the functions which particular Couse plays, regardless of whether the two Couses consu77ate an official act by &oting =ointly or separately' Whether in the e9ercise of its legislati&e23 or its non, legislati&e functions such as inter alia, the power of appropriation, 24 the declaration of an e9istence of a state of war,25 can&assing of electoral returns for the resident and Aice, resident, 26 and i7peach7ent,27 the dichoto7y of each Couse 7ust be acBnowledged and recogni?ed considering the interplay between these two Couses' +n all these instances, each Couse is constitutionally granted with powers and functions peculiar to its nature and with Been consideration to 1/ its relationship with the other cha7ber@ and 2/ in consonance with the principle of checBs and balances, as to the other branches of go&ern7ent' +n checBered contrast, there is essentially no interaction between the two Couses in their participation in the 6$%' #o 7echanis7 is re0uired between the Senate and the Couse of Representati&es in the screening and no7ination of =udicial officers' Rather, in the creation of the 6$%, the <ra7ers arri&ed at a uni0ue syste7 by adding to the four -3/ regular 7e7bers, three -3/ representati&es fro7 the 7a=or branches of go&ern7ent , the %hief 6ustice as e9, officio %hair7an -representing the 6udicial :epart7ent/, the Secretary of 6ustice -representing the "9ecuti&e

:epart7ent/, and a representati&e of the %ongress -representing the )egislati&e :epart7ent/' The total is se&en -7/, not eight' +n so pro&iding, the <ra7ers si7ply ga&e recognition to the )egislature, not because it was in the interest of a certain constituency, but in re&erence to it as a 7a=or branch of go&ern7ent' (n this score, a !e7ber of %ongress, Con' Si7eon A' :atu7anong, fro7 the Second :istrict of !aguindanao, sub7itted his well,considered position28 to then %hief 6ustice Reynato S' uno8 + hu7bly reiterate 7y position that there should be only one representati&e of %ongress in the 6$% in accordance with Article A+++, Section 4 -1/ of the 1247 %onstitution 9 9 9' The aforesaid pro&ision is clear and una7biguous and does not need any further interpretation' erhaps, it is apt to 7ention that the oft,repeated doctrine that ;construction and interpretation co7e only after it has been de7onstrated that application is i7possible or inade0uate without the7'; <urther, to allow %ongress to ha&e two representati&es in the %ouncil, with one &ote each, is to negate the principle of e0uality a7ong the three branches of go&ern7ent which is enshrined in the %onstitution' +n &iew of the foregoing, + &ote for the proposition that the %ouncil should adopt the rule of single representation of %ongress in the 6$% in order to respect and gi&e the right 7eaning to the abo&e,0uoted pro&ision of the %onstitution' -"7phases and underscoring supplied/ (n !arch 13, 2007, then Associate 6ustice )eonardo A' Iuisu7bing, also a 6$% %onsultant, sub7itted to the %hief 6ustice and e9,officio 6$% %hair7an his opinion,29 which reads8 4' Two things can be gleaned fro7 the e9cerpts and citations abo&e8 the creation of the 6$% is intended to curtail the influence of politics in %ongress in the appoint7ent of =udges, and the understanding is that se&en -7/ persons will co7pose the 6$%' As such, the interpretation of two &otes for %ongress runs counter to the intend7ent of the fra7ers' Such interpretation actually gi&es %ongress 7ore influence in the appoint7ent of =udges' Also, two &otes for %ongress would increase the nu7ber of 6$% 7e7bers to eight, which could lead to &oting deadlocB by reason of e&en,nu7bered 7e7bership, and a clear &iolation of 7 enu7erated 7e7bers in the %onstitution' -"7phases and underscoring supplied/ +n an undated position paper, 30 then Secretary of 6ustice Agnes AST :e&anadera opined8 As can be gleaned fro7 the abo&e constitutional pro&ision, the 6$% is co7posed of se&en -7/ representati&es co7ing fro7 different sectors' <ro7 the enu7eration it is patent that each category of 7e7bers pertained to a single indi&idual only' Thus, while we do not lose sight of the bica7eral nature of our legislati&e depart7ent, it is beyond dispute that Art' A+++, Section 4 -1/ of the 1247 %onstitution is e9plicit and specific that ;%ongress; shall ha&e only ;999 a representati&e'; Thus, two -2/ representati&es fro7 %ongress would increase the nu7ber of 6$% 7e7bers to eight -4/, a nu7ber beyond what the %onstitution has conte7plated' -"7phases and underscoring supplied/ +n this regard, the scholarly dissection on the 7atter by retired 6ustice %onsuelo Lnares,Santiago, a for7er 6$% consultant, is worth reiterating' 31 Thus8 A perusal of the records of the %onstitutional %o77ission re&eals that the co7position of the 6$% reflects the %o77issionUs desire ;to ha&e in the %ouncil a representation for the 7a=or ele7ents of the co77unity'; 999 The e9, officio 7e7bers of the %ouncil consist of representati&es fro7 the three 7ain branches of go&ern7ent while the regular 7e7bers are co7posed of &arious staBeholders in the =udiciary' The un7istaBeable tenor of Article A+++, Section 4-1/ was to treat each e9,officio 7e7ber as representing one co,e0ual branch of go&ern7ent' 999 Thus, the 6$% was designed to ha&e se&en &oting 7e7bers with the three e9,officio 7e7bers ha&ing e0ual say in the choice of =udicial no7inees' 999 #o parallelis7 can be drawn between the representati&e of %ongress in the 6$% and the e9ercise by %ongress of its legislati&e powers under Article A+ and constituent powers under Article KA++ of the %onstitution' %ongress, in relation to the e9ecuti&e and =udicial branches of go&ern7ent, is constitutionally treated as another co,e0ual branch in the 7atter of its representati&e in the 6$%' (n the other hand, the e9ercise of legislati&e and constituent powers re0uires the Senate and the Couse of Representati&es to coordinate and act as distinct bodies in furtherance of %ongressU role under our constitutional sche7e' While the latter =ustifies and, in fact, necessitates the separateness of the two Couses of %ongress as they relate inter se, no such dichoto7y need be 7ade when %ongress interacts with the other two co,e0ual branches of go&ern7ent' +t is 7ore in Beeping with the co,e0ual nature of the three go&ern7ental branches to assign the sa7e weight to considerations that any of its representati&es 7ay ha&e regarding aspiring no7inees to the =udiciary' The representati&es of the Senate and the Couse of Representati&es act as such for one branch and should not ha&e any 7ore 0uantitati&e influence as the other branches in the e9ercise of prerogati&es e&enly bestowed upon the

three' Sound reason and principle of e0uality a7ong the three branches support this conclusion' F"7phases and underscoring suppliedG The argu7ent that a senator cannot represent a 7e7ber of the Couse of Representati&es in the 6$% and &ice, &ersa is, thus, 7isplaced' +n the 6$%, any 7e7ber of %ongress, whether fro7 the Senate or the Couse of Representati&es, is constitutionally e7powered to represent the entire %ongress' +t 7ay be a constricted constitutional authority, but it is not an absurdity' <ro7 this score ste7s the conclusion that the lone representati&e of %ongress is entitled to one full &ote' This pronounce7ent effecti&ely disallows the sche7e of splitting the said &ote into half -1J2/, between two representati&es of %ongress' #ot only can this unsanctioned practice cause disorder in the &oting process, it is clearly against the essence of what the %onstitution authori?ed' After all, basic and reasonable is the rule that what cannot be legally done directly cannot be done indirectly' To per7it or tolerate the splitting of one &ote into two or 7ore is clearly a constitutional circu7&ention that cannot be countenanced by the %ourt' Succinctly put, when the %onstitution en&isioned one 7e7ber of %ongress sitting in the 6$%, it is sensible to presu7e that this representation carries with hi7 one full &ote' +t is also an error for respondents to argue that the resident, in effect, has 7ore influence o&er the 6$% si7ply because all of the regular 7e7bers of the 6$% are his appointees' The principle of checBs and balances is still safeguarded because the appoint7ent of all the regular 7e7bers of the 6$% is sub=ect to a stringent process of confir7ation by the %o77ission on Appoint7ents, which is co7posed of 7e7bers of %ongress' RespondentsU contention that the current irregular co7position of the 6$% should be accepted, si7ply because it was only 0uestioned for the first ti7e through the present action, deser&es scant consideration' Well,settled is the rule that acts done in &iolation of the %onstitution no 7atter how fre0uent, usual or notorious cannot de&elop or gain acceptance under the doctrine of estoppel or laches, because once an act is considered as an infringe7ent of the %onstitution it is &oid fro7 the &ery beginning and cannot be the source of any power or authority' +t would not be a7iss to point out, howe&er, that as a general rule, an unconstitutional act is not a law@ it confers no rights@ it i7poses no duties@ it affords no protection@ it creates no office@ it is inoperati&e as if it has not been passed at all' This rule, howe&er, is not absolute' *nder the doctrine of operati&e facts, actions pre&ious to the declaration of unconstitutionality are legally recogni?ed' They are not nullified' This is essential in the interest of fair play' To reiterate the doctrine enunciated in lanters roducts, +nc' &' <ertiphil %orporation8 32 The doctrine of operati&e fact, as an e9ception to the general rule, only applies as a 7atter of e0uity and fair play' +t nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recogni?ing that the e9istence of a statute prior to a deter7ination of unconstitutionality is an operati&e fact and 7ay ha&e conse0uences which cannot always be ignored' The past cannot always be erased by a new =udicial declaration' The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will i7pose an undue burden on those who ha&e relied on the in&alid law' Thus, it was applied to a cri7inal case when a declaration of unconstitutionality would put the accused in double =eopardy or would put in li7bo the acts done by a 7unicipality in reliance upon a law creating it' 33 *nder the circu7stances, the %ourt finds the e9ception applicable in this case and holds that notwithstanding its finding of unconstitutionality in the current co7position of the 6$%, all its prior official actions are nonetheless &alid' %onsidering that the %ourt is duty bound to protect the %onstitution which was ratified by the direct action of the <ilipino people, it cannot correct what respondents percei&e as a 7istaBe in its 7andate' #either can the %ourt, in the e9ercise of its power to interpret the spirit of the %onstitution, read into the law so7ething that is contrary to its e9press pro&isions and =ustify the sa7e as correcting a percei&ed inad&ertence' To do so would otherwise sanction the %ourt action of 7aBing a7end7ent to the %onstitution through a =udicial pronounce7ent' +n other words, the %ourt cannot supply the legislati&e o7ission' According to the rule of casus o7issus ;a case o7itted is to be held as intentionally o7itted';34 ;The principle proceeds fro7 a reasonable certainty that a particular person, ob=ect or thing has been o7itted fro7 a legislati&e enu7eration'; 35 ursuant to this, ;the %ourt cannot under its power of interpretation supply the o7ission e&en though the o7ission 7ay ha&e resulted fro7 inad&ertence or because the case in 0uestion was not foreseen or conte7plated'; 36 ;The %ourt cannot supply what it thinBs the legislature would ha&e supplied had its attention been called to the o7ission, as that would be =udicial legislation'; 37 Stated differently, the %ourt has no power to add another 7e7ber by =udicial construction' The call for =udicial acti&is7 fails to stir the sensibilities of the %ourt tasBed to guard the %onstitution against usurpation' The %ourt re7ains steadfast in confining its powers in the sphere granted by the %onstitution itself' 6udicial acti&is7 should ne&er be allowed to beco7e =udicial e9uberance' 38 +n cases liBe this, no a7ount of practical logic or con&enience can con&ince the %ourt to perfor7 either an e9cision or an insertion that will change the 7anifest intent of the <ra7ers' To broaden the scope of congressional representation in the 6$% is tanta7ount to the inclusion of a sub=ect 7atter which was not included in the pro&ision as enacted' True to its constitutional 7andate, the %ourt cannot craft and tailor constitutional pro&isions in order to acco77odate all of situations no 7atter how ideal or reasonable the proposed solution 7ay sound' To the e9ercise of this intrusion, the %ourt declines'

WC"R"<(R", the !otion for Reconsideration filed by respondents is hereby :"#+":' The suspension of the effects of the second paragraph of the dispositi&e portion of the 6uly 17, 2012 :ecision of the %ourt, which reads, ;This disposition is i77ediately e9ecutory,; is hereby )+<T":' S( (R:"R":' G.R. No. 191@@2 March 17, 2@1@

ARTURO M. %E CASTRO, etitioner, &s' JU%"C"AL AN% (AR COUNC"L EJ(CF a*+ PRES"%ENT GLOR"A MACAPAGAL - ARRO#O, Respondents' 9 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,9 G.R. No. 191@32 JA"ME N. SOR"ANO, etitioner, &s' JU%"C"AL AN% (AR COUNC"L EJ(CF, Respondent' 9 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,9 G.R. No. 191@)7 P "L"PP"NE CONST"TUT"ON ASSOC"AT"ON EP "LCONSAF, etitioner, &s' JU%"C"AL AN% (AR COUNC"L EJ(CF, Respondent' 9 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,9 A.M. No. 1@-2-)-SC "N RE APPL"CA("L"T# O$ SECT"ON 1), ART"CLE V"" O$ T E CONST"TUT"ON TO APPO"NTMENTS TO T E JU%"C"AR#, ESTEL"TO P. MEN%O&A, etitioner, 9 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,9 G.R. No. 191149 JO N G. PERALTA, etitioner, &s' JU%"C"AL AN% (AR COUNC"L EJ(CF. Respondent' PETER "RV"NG CORVERA7 C R"ST"AN RO(ERT S. L"M7 AL$ONSO V. TAN, JR.7 NAT"ONAL UN"ON O$ PEOPLEPS LA-#ERS7 MARLOU (. U(ANO7 "NTEGRATE% (AR O$ T E P "L"PP"NES-%AVAO %EL SUR C APTER, r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ "::4+.a14 Pa/1 Pr4/.+4*1, ATT#. "SRAEL"TO P. TORREON, a*+ 1h4 9a114r .* h./ oI* 04r/o*a9 ca0ac.12 a/ a MEM(ER o8 1h4 P "L"PP"NE (AR7 M"TC ELL JO N L. (O"SER7 (AGONG AL#ANSANG (A#AN E(A#ANF C A"RMAN %R. CAROL"NA P. ARAULLO7 (A#AN SECRETAR# GENERAL RENATO M. RE#ES, JR.7 CON$E%ERAT"ON $OR UN"T#, RECOGN"T"ON AN% A%VANCE-MENT O$ GOVERNMENT EMPLO#EES ECOURAGEF C A"RMAN $ER%"NAN% GA"TE7 ,AL"PUNAN NG %AMA#ANG MA " "RAP E,A%AMA#F SECRETAR# GENERAL GLOR"A ARELLANO7 AL#ANSA NG NAG,A,A"SANG ,A(ATAAN NG SAM(A#ANAN PARA SA ,AUNLARAN EANA,(A#ANF C A"RMAN ,EN LEONAR% RAMOS7 TA#O ANG PAG-ASA CONVENOR ALV"N PETERS7 LEAGUE O$ $"L"P"NO STU%ENTS EL$SF C A"RMAN JAMES MAR, TERR# LACUANAN R"%ON7 NAT"ONAL UN"ON O$ STU%ENTS O$ T E P "L"PP"NES ENUSPF C A"RMAN E"NSTE"N RECE%ES7 COLLEGE E%"TORS GU"L% O$ T E P "L"PP"NES ECEGPF C A"RMAN V"JAE ALDU"SOLA7 a*+ STU%ENT C R"ST"AN MOVEMENT O$ T E P "L"PP"NES ESCMPF C A"RMAN MA. CR"ST"NA ANGELA GUEVARRA7 -AL%EN $. (ELLO a*+ LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES7 -OMEN TR"AL LA-#ERS ORGAN"&AT"ON O$ T E P "L"PP"NES, r40r4/4*14+ <2 #OLAN%A DU"SUM("NG-JAVELLANA7 (ELLE&A ALOJA%O %EMA"S"P7 TERES"TA GAN%"ONCO-OLE%AN7 MA. VERENA ,AS"LAG-V"LLANUEVA7 MAR"L#N STA. ROMANA7 LEON"LA %E JESUS7 a*+ GU"NEVERE %E LEON. +nter&enors' 9 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,9 G.R. No. 191342 ATT#. AMA%OR &. TOLENT"NO, JR., E"(P Go64r*or-So51h4r* L5Jo*F, a*+ ATT#. ROLAN% (. "NT"NG E"(P1o&ernor,"astern Aisayas/, etitioners,

&s' JU%"C"AL AN% (AR COUNC"L EJ(CF, Respondent' 9 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,9 G.R. No. 19142@ P "L"PP"NE (AR ASSOC"AT"ON, "NC., etitioner, &s' JU%"C"AL AN% (AR COUNC"L a*+ ER E!CELLENC# GLOR"A MACAPAGAL-ARRO#O, Respondents' :"%+S+(# (ERSAM"N, J.: The co7pulsory retire7ent of %hief 6ustice Reynato S' uno by !ay 17, 2010 occurs =ust days after the co7ing presidential elections on !ay 10, 2010' "&en before the e&ent actually happens, it is gi&ing rise to 7any legal dile77as' !ay the incu7bent resident appoint his successor, considering that Section 1., Article A++ -"9ecuti&e :epart7ent/ of the %onstitution prohibits the resident or Acting resident fro7 7aBing appoint7ents within two 7onths i77ediately before the ne9t presidential elections and up to the end of his ter7 , e9cept te7porary appoint7ents to e9ecuti&e positions when continued &acancies therein will pre=udice public ser&ice or endanger public safetyH What is the rele&ance of Section 3 -1/, Article A+++ -6udicial :epart7ent/ of the %onstitution, which pro&ides that any &acancy in the Supre7e %ourt shall be filled within 20 days fro7 the occurrence thereof, to the 7atter of the appoint7ent of his successorH !ay the 6udicial and $ar %ouncil -6$%/ resu7e the process of screening the candidates no7inated or being considered to succeed %hief 6ustice uno, and sub7it the list of no7inees to the incu7bent resident e&en during the period of the prohibition under Section 1., Article A++H :oes 7anda7us lie to co7pel the sub7ission of the shortlist of no7inees by the 6$%H recds of the %onsolidated %ases etitioners Arturo !' :e %astro and 6ohn 1' eralta respecti&ely co77enced 1'R' #o' 121002 1 and 1'R' #o' 1211322 as special ci&il actions for certiorari and 7anda7us, praying that the 6$% be co7pelled to sub7it to the incu7bent resident the list of at least three no7inees for the position of the ne9t %hief 6ustice' +n 1'R' #o' 121032,3 6ai7e #' Soriano, &ia his petition for prohibition, proposes to pre&ent the 6$% fro7 conducting its search, selection and no7ination proceedings for the position of %hief 6ustice' +n 1'R' #o' 1210.7, a special ci&il action for 7anda7us, 4 the hilippine %onstitution Association - C+)%(#SA/ wants the 6$% to sub7it its list of no7inees for the position of %hief 6ustice to be &acated by %hief 6ustice uno upon his retire7ent on !ay 17, 2010, because the incu7bent resident is not co&ered by the prohibition that applies only to appoint7ents in the "9ecuti&e :epart7ent' +n Ad7inistrati&e !atter #o' 10,2,.,S%,5 petitioner "stelito !' !endo?a, a for7er Solicitor 1eneral, seeBs a ruling fro7 the %ourt for the guidance of the 6$% on whether Section 1., Article A++ applies to appoint7ents to the 6udiciary' +n 1'R' #o' 121332,6 which the %ourt consolidated on !arch 2, 2010 with the petitions earlier filed, petitioners A7ador M' Tolentino, 6r' and Roland $' +nting, +ntegrated $ar of the hilippines -+$ / 1o&ernors for Southern )u?on and "astern Aisayas, respecti&ely, want to en=oin and restrain the 6$% fro7 sub7itting a list of no7inees for the position of %hief 6ustice to the resident for appoint7ent during the period pro&ided for in Section 1., Article A++' All the petitions now before the %ourt pose as the principal legal 0uestion whether the incu7bent resident can appoint the successor of %hief 6ustice uno upon his retire7ent' That 0uestion is undoubtedly i7pressed with transcendental i7portance to the #ation, because the appoint7ent of the %hief 6ustice is any residentUs 7ost i7portant appoint7ent' A precedent fre0uently cited is +n Re Appoint7ents :ated !arch 30, 1224 of Con' !ateo A' Aalen?uela and Con' lacido $' Aallarta as 6udges of the Regional Trial %ourt of $ranch 52, $ago %ity and of $ranch 23, %abanatuan %ity, respecti&ely -Aalen?uela/,7 by which the %ourt held that Section 1., Article A++ prohibited the e9ercise by the resident of the power to appoint to =udicial positions during the period therein fi9ed' +n 1'R' #o' 121002, :e %astro sub7its that the conflicting opinions on the issue e9pressed by legal lu7inaries T one side holds that the incu7bent resident is prohibited fro7 7aBing appoint7ents within two 7onths i77ediately before the co7ing presidential elections and until the end of her ter7 of office as resident on 6une 30, 2010, while the other insists that the prohibition applies only to appoint7ents to e9ecuti&e positions that 7ay influence the election and, anyway, para7ount national interest =ustifies the appoint7ent of a %hief 6ustice during the election ban T has i7pelled the 6$% to defer the decision to who7 to send its list of at least three no7inees, whether to the incu7bent resident or to her successor'8 Ce opines that the 6$% is thereby arrogating unto itself ;the =udicial function that is not conferred upon it by the %onstitution,; which has li7ited it to the tasB of reco77ending

appointees to the 6udiciary, but has not e7powered it to ;finally resol&e constitutional 0uestions, which is the power &ested only in the Supre7e %ourt under the %onstitution'; As such, he contends that the 6$% acted with gra&e abuse of discretion in deferring the sub7ission of the list of no7inees to the resident@ and that a ;final and definiti&e resolution of the constitutional 0uestions raised abo&e would diffuse -sic/ the tension in the legal co77unity that would go a long way to Beep and 7aintain stability in the =udiciary and the political syste7'; 9 +n 1'R' #o' 121032, Soriano offers the &iew that the 6$% co77itted a gra&e abuse of discretion a7ounting to lacB or e9cess of its =urisdiction when it resol&ed unani7ously on 6anuary 14, 2010 to open the search, no7ination, and selection process for the position of %hief 6ustice to succeed %hief 6ustice uno, because the appointing authority for the position of %hief 6ustice is the Supre7e %ourt itself, the residentUs authority being li7ited to the appoint7ent of the !e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt' Cence, the 6$% should not inter&ene in the process, unless a no7inee is not yet a !e7ber of the Supre7e %ourt' 10 <or its part, C+)%(#SA obser&es in its petition in 1'R' #o' 1210.7 that ;unorthodo9 and e9ceptional circu7stances spawned by the discordant interpretations, due perhaps to a perfunctory understanding, of Sec' 1., Art' A++ in relation to Secs' 3-1/, 4-./ and 2, Art' A+++ of the %onstitution; ha&e bred ;a fren?ied infla77atory legal debate on the constitutional pro&isions 7entioned that has di&ided the bench and the bar and the general public as well, because of its di7ensional i7pact to the nation and the people,; thereby fashioning ;transcendental 0uestions or issues affecting the 6$%Us proper e9ercise of its ;principal function of reco77ending appointees to the 6udiciary; by sub7itting only to the resident -not to the ne9t resident/ ;a list of at least three no7inees prepared by the 6udicial and $ar %ouncil for e&ery &acancy; fro7 which the 7e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt and =udges of the lower courts 7ay be appointed';11 C+)%(#SA further belie&es and sub7its that now is the ti7e to re&isit and re&iew Aalen?uela, the ;strange and e9otic :ecision of the %ourt en banc'; 12 eralta states in his petition in 1'R' #o' 121132 that 7anda7us can co7pel the 6$% ;to i77ediately trans7it to the resident, within a reasonable ti7e, its no7ination list for the position of chief =ustice upon the 7andatory retire7ent of %hief 6ustice Reynato S' uno, in co7pliance with its 7andated duty under the %onstitution; in the e&ent that the %ourt resol&es that the resident can appoint a %hief 6ustice e&en during the election ban under Section 1., Article A++ of the %onstitution'13 The petitioners in 1'R' #o' 121332 insist that there is an actual contro&ersy, considering that the ;6$% has initiated the process of recei&ing applications for the position of %hief 6ustice and has in fact begun the e&aluation process for the applications to the position,; and ;is perilously near co7pleting the no7ination process and co7ing up with a list of no7inees for sub7ission to the resident, entering into the period of the ban on 7idnight appoint7ents on !arch 10, 2010,; which ;only highlights the pressing and co7pelling need for a writ of prohibition to en=oin such alleged 7inisterial function of sub7itting the list, especially if it will be cone within the period of the ban on 7idnight appoint7ents';14 Antecedents These cases trace their genesis to the contro&ersy that has arisen fro7 the forthco7ing co7pulsory retire7ent of %hief 6ustice uno on !ay 17, 2010, or se&en days after the presidential election' *nder Section 3-1/, in relation to Section 2, Article A+++, that ;&acancy shall be filled within ninety days fro7 the occurrence thereof; fro7 a ;list of at least three no7inees prepared by the 6udicial and $ar %ouncil for e&ery &acancy'; (n :ece7ber 22, 2002, %ongress7an !atias A' :efensor, an e9 officio 7e7ber of the 6$%, addressed a letter to the 6$%, re0uesting that the process for no7inations to the office of the %hief 6ustice be co77enced i77ediately' +n its 6anuary 14, 2010 7eeting en banc, therefore, the 6$% passed a resolution, 15 which reads8 The 6$%, in its en banc 7eeting of 6anuary 14, 2010, unani7ously agreed to start the process of filling up the position of %hief 6ustice to be &acated on !ay 17, 2010 upon the retire7ent of the incu7bent %hief 6ustice Conorable Reynato S' uno' +t will publish the opening of the position for applications or reco77endations@ deliberate on the list of candidates@ publish the na7es of candidates@ accept co77ents on or opposition to the applications@ conduct public inter&iews of candidates@ and prepare the shortlist of candidates' As to the ti7e to sub7it this shortlist to the proper appointing authority, in the light of the %onstitution, e9isting laws and =urisprudence, the 6$% welco7es and will consider all &iews on the 7atter' 14 6anuary 2010' -sgd'/ !A' )*+SA :' A+))ARA!A %lerB of %ourt P "9,(fficio Secretary 6udicial and $ar %ouncil

As a result, the 6$% opened the position of %hief 6ustice for application or reco77endation, and published for that purpose its announce7ent dated 6anuary 20, 2010, 16 viz8 The 6udicial and $ar %ouncil -6$%/ announces the opening for application or reco77endation, of the position of %C+"< 6*ST+%" (< TC" S* R"!" %(*RT, which will be &acated on 17 !ay 2010 upon the retire7ent of the incu7bent %hief 6ustice, C(#' R"L#AT( S' *#(' Applications or reco77endations for this position 7ust be sub7itted not later than 3 <ebruary 2010 -Thursday/ to the 6$% Secretariat 9998 The announce7ent was published on 6anuary 20, 2010 in the hilippine :aily +n0uirer and The hilippine Star' 17 %onfor7ably with its e9isting practice, the 6$% ;auto7atically considered; for the position of %hief 6ustice the fi&e 7ost senior of the Associate 6ustices of the %ourt, na7ely8 Associate 6ustice Antonio T' %arpio@ Associate 6ustice Renato %' %orona@ Associate 6ustice %onchita %arpio !orales@ Associate 6ustice resbitero 6' Aelasco, 6r'@ and Associate 6ustice Antonio "duardo $' #achura' Cowe&er, the last two declined their no7ination through letters dated 6anuary 14, 2010 and 6anuary 2., 2010, respecti&ely' 18 (thers either applied or were no7inated' Aictor <ernande?, the retired :eputy (7buds7an for )u?on, applied, but later for7ally withdrew his na7e fro7 consideration through his letter dated <ebruary 4, 2010' %andidates who accepted their no7inations without conditions were Associate 6ustice Renato %' %orona@ Associate 6ustice Teresita 6' )eonardo,:e %astro@ Associate 6ustice Arturo :' $rion@ and Associate 6ustice "dilberto 1' Sando&al -Sandiganbayan/' %andidates who accepted their no7inations with conditions were Associate 6ustice Antonio T' %arpio and Associate 6ustice %onchita %arpio !orales' 19 :eclining their no7inations were Atty' Cenry Aillarica -&ia telephone con&ersation with the "9ecuti&e (fficer of the 6$% on <ebruary ., 2010/ and Atty' 1regorio !' $atiller, 6r' -&ia telephone con&ersation with the "9ecuti&e (fficer of the 6$% on <ebruary 4, 2010/' 20 The 6$% e9cluded fro7 consideration for7er RT% 6udge <lorentino <loro -for failure to 7eet the standards set by the 6$% rules/@ and Special rosecutor :ennis Ailla,+gnacio of the (ffice of the (7buds7an -due to cases pending in the (ffice of the (7buds7an/'21 +n its 7eeting of <ebruary 4, 2010, the 6$% resol&ed to proceed to the ne9t step of announcing the na7es of the following candidates to in&ite the public to file their sworn co7plaint, written report, or opposition, if any, not later than <ebruary 22, 2010, to wit8 Associate 6ustice %arpio, Associate 6ustice %orona, Associate 6ustice %arpio !orales, Associate 6ustice )eonardo,:e %astro, Associate 6ustice $rion, and Associate 6ustice Sando&al' The announce7ent ca7e out in the hilippine :aily +n0uirer and The hilippine Star issues of <ebruary 13, 2010' 22 +ssues Although it has already begun the process for the filling of the position of %hief 6ustice uno in accordance with its rules, the 6$% is not yet decided on when to sub7it to the resident its list of no7inees for the position due to the contro&ersy now before us being yet unresol&ed' +n the 7eanwhile, ti7e is 7arching in 0uicB step towards !ay 17, 2010 when the &acancy occurs upon the retire7ent of %hief 6ustice uno' The actions of the 6$% ha&e sparBed a &igorous debate not only a7ong legal lu7inaries, but also a7ong non,legal 0uarters, and brought out highly disparate opinions on whether the incu7bent resident can appoint the ne9t %hief 6ustice or not' etitioner !endo?a notes that in Aalen?uela, which in&ol&ed the appoint7ents of two =udges of the Regional Trial %ourt, the %ourt addressed this issue now before us as an ad7inistrati&e 7atter ;to a&oid any possible pole7ics concerning the 7atter,; but he opines that the pole7ics leading to Aalen?uela ;would be 7iniscule FsicG co7pared to the ;pole7ics; that ha&e now erupted in regard to the current contro&ersy,; and that unless ;put to a halt, and this 7ay only be achie&ed by a ruling fro7 the %ourt, the integrity of the process and the credibility of whoe&er is appointed to the position of %hief 6ustice, 7ay irreparably be i7paired'; 23 Accordingly, we refra7e the issues as sub7itted by each petitioner in the order of the chronological filing of their petitions' G.R. No. 191@@2 a' :oes the 6$% ha&e the power and authority to resol&e the constitutional 0uestion of whether the incu7bent resident can appoint a %hief 6ustice during the election ban periodH b' :oes the incu7bent resident ha&e the power and authority to appoint during the election ban the successor of %hief 6ustice uno when he &acates the position of %hief 6ustice on his retire7ent on !ay 17, 2010H G.R. No. 191@32 a' +s the power to appoint the %hief 6ustice &ested in the Supre7e %ourt en bancH

G.R. No. 191@)7 a' +s the constitutional prohibition against appoint7ent under Section 1., Article A++ of the %onstitution applicable only to positions in the "9ecuti&e :epart7entH b' Assu7ing that the prohibition under Section 1., Article A++ of the %onstitution also applies to 7e7bers of the 6udiciary, 7ay such appoint7ents be e9cepted because they are i7pressed with public interest or are de7anded by the e9igencies of public ser&ice, thereby =ustifying these appoint7ents during the period of prohibitionH c' :oes the 6$% ha&e the authority to decide whether or not to include and sub7it the na7es of no7inees who 7anifested interest to be no7inated for the position of %hief 6ustice on the understanding that hisJher no7ination will be sub7itted to the ne9t resident in &iew of the prohibition against presidential appoint7ents fro7 !arch 11, 2010 until 6une 30, 2010H A. M. No. 1@-2-)-SC a' :oes Section 1., Article A++ of the %onstitution apply to appoint7ents to positions in the 6udiciary under Section 2, Article A+++ of the %onstitutionH b' !ay resident 1loria !acapagal,Arroyo 7aBe appoint7ents to the 6udiciary after !arch 10, 2010, including that for the position of %hief 6ustice after %hief 6ustice uno retires on !ay 17, 2010H G.R. No. 191149 a' :oes the 6$% ha&e the discretion to withhold the sub7ission of the short list to resident 1loria !acapagal,ArroyoH G.R. No. 191342 a' :oes the 6$% ha&e the authority to sub7it the list of no7inees to the incu7bent resident without co77itting a gra&e &iolation of the %onstitution and =urisprudence prohibiting the incu7bent resident fro7 7aBing 7idnight appoint7ents two 7onths i77ediately preceding the ne9t presidential elections until the end of her ter7H b' +s any act perfor7ed by the 6$%, including the &etting of the candidates for the position of %hief 6ustice, constitutionally in&alid in &iew of the 6$%Ds illegal co7position allowing each 7e7ber fro7 the Senate and the Couse of Representati&es to ha&e one &ote eachH (n <ebruary 15, 2010, the %ourt directed the 6$% and the (ffice of the Solicitor 1eneral -(S1/ to co77ent on the consolidated petitions, e9cept that filed in 1'R' #o' 121332' (n <ebruary 25, 2010, the 6$% sub7itted its co77ent, reporting therein that the ne9t stage of the process for the selection of the no7inees for the position of %hief 6ustice would be the public inter&iew of the candidates and the preparation of the short list of candidates, ;including the inter&iew of the constitutional e9perts, as 7ay be needed';24 +t stated825 )iBewise, the 6$% has yet to taBe a position on when to sub7it the shortlist to the proper appointing authority, in light of Section 3 -1/, Article A+++ of the %onstitution, which pro&ides that &acancy in the Supre7e %ourt shall be filled within ninety -20/ days fro7 the occurrence thereof, Section 1., Article A++ of the %onstitution concerning the ban on residential appoint7ents ;two -2/ 7onths i77ediately before the ne9t presidential elections and up to the end of his ter7; and Section 251 -g/, Article KK++ of the (7nibus "lection %ode of the hilippines' 12' Since the Conorable Supre7e %ourt is the final interpreter of the %onstitution, the 6$% will be guided by its decision in these consolidated etitions and Ad7inistrati&e !atter' (n <ebruary 25, 2010, the (S1 also sub7itted its co77ent, essentially stating that the incu7bent resident can appoint the successor of %hief 6ustice uno upon his retire7ent by !ay 17, 2010' The (S1 insists that8 -a/ a writ of prohibition cannot issue to pre&ent the 6$% fro7 perfor7ing its principal function under the %onstitution to reco77end appointees in the 6udiciary@ -b/ the 6$%Ds function to reco77end is a ;continuing process,; which does not begin with each &acancy or end with each no7ination, because the goal is ;to sub7it the list of no7inees to !alaca>ang on the &ery day the &acancy arises;@ 26 the 6$% was thus acting within its =urisdiction when it co77enced and set in 7otion the process of selecting the no7inees to be sub7itted to the resident for the position of %hief 6ustice to be &acated by %hief 6ustice uno@ 27 -c/ petitioner SorianoDs theory that it is the Supre7e %ourt, not the resident, who has the power to appoint the %hief 6ustice, is incorrect, and proceeds fro7 his 7isinterpretation of the phrase ;7e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt; found in Section 2, Article A+++ of the %onstitution as referring only to the Associate 6ustices, to the e9clusion of the %hief 6ustice@ 28 -d/ a writ of

7anda7us can issue to co7pel the 6$% to sub7it the list of no7inees to the resident, considering that its duty to prepare the list of at least three no7inees is un0ualified, and the sub7ission of the list is a 7inisterial act that the 6$% is 7andated to perfor7 under the %onstitution@ as such, the 6$%, the nature of whose principal function is e9ecuti&e, is not &ested with the power to resol&e who has the authority to appoint the ne9t %hief 6ustice and, therefore, has no discretion to withhold the list fro7 the resident@ 29 and -e/ a writ of 7anda7us cannot issue to co7pel the 6$% to include or e9clude particular candidates as no7inees, considering that there is no i7perati&e duty on its part to include in or e9clude fro7 the list particular indi&iduals, but, on the contrary, the 6$%Ds deter7ination of who it no7inates to the resident is an e9ercise of a discretionary duty' 30 The (S1 contends that the incu7bent resident 7ay appoint the ne9t %hief 6ustice, because the prohibition under Section 1., Article A++ of the %onstitution does not apply to appoint7ents in the Supre7e %ourt' +t argues that any &acancy in the Supre7e %ourt 7ust be filled within 20 days fro7 its occurrence, pursuant to Section 3-1/, Article A+++ of the %onstitution@ 31 that in their deliberations on the 7andatory period for the appoint7ent of Supre7e %ourt 6ustices, the fra7ers neither 7entioned nor referred to the ban against 7idnight appoint7ents, or its effects on such period, or &ice &ersa@32 that had the fra7ers intended the prohibition to apply to Supre7e %ourt appoint7ents, they could ha&e easily e9pressly stated so in the %onstitution, which e9plains why the prohibition found in Article A++ -"9ecuti&e :epart7ent/ was not written in Article A+++ -6udicial :epart7ent/@ and that the fra7ers also incorporated in Article A+++ a7ple restrictions or li7itations on the residentDs power to appoint 7e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt to ensure its independence fro7 ;political &icissitudes; and its ;insulation fro7 political pressures,; 33 such as stringent 0ualifications for the positions, the establish7ent of the 6$%, the specified period within which the resident shall appoint a Supre7e %ourt 6ustice' The (S1 posits that although Aalen?uela in&ol&ed the appoint7ent of RT% 6udges, the situation now refers to the appoint7ent of the ne9t %hief 6ustice to which the prohibition does not apply@ that, at any rate, Aalen?uela e&en recogni?ed that there 7ight be ;the i7perati&e need for an appoint7ent during the period of the ban,; liBe when the 7e7bership of the Supre7e %ourt should be ;so reduced that it will ha&e no 0uoru7, or should the &oting on a particular i7portant 0uestion re0uiring e9peditious resolution be di&ided;@ 34 and that Aalen?uela also recogni?ed that the filling of &acancies in the 6udiciary is undoubtedly in the public interest, 7ost especially if there is any co7pelling reason to =ustify the 7aBing of the appoint7ents during the period of the prohibition' 35 )astly, the (S1 urges that there are now undeniably co7pelling reasons for the incu7bent resident to appoint the ne9t %hief 6ustice, to wit8 -a/ a deluge of cases in&ol&ing sensiti&e political issues is ;0uite e9pected;@ 36 -b/ the %ourt acts as the residential "lectoral Tribunal - "T/, which, sitting en banc, is the sole =udge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and 0ualifications of the resident and Aice resident and, as such, has ;the power to correct 7anifest errors on the state7ent of &otes -S(A/ and certificates of can&ass -%(%/;@ 37 -c/ if history has shown that during ordinary ti7es the %hief 6ustice was appointed i77ediately upon the occurrence of the &acancy, fro7 the ti7e of the effecti&ity of the %onstitution, there is now e&en 7ore reason to appoint the ne9t %hief 6ustice i77ediately upon the retire7ent of %hief 6ustice uno@ 38 and -d/ should the ne9t %hief 6ustice co7e fro7 a7ong the incu7bent Associate 6ustices of the Supre7e %ourt, thereby causing a &acancy, it also beco7es incu7bent upon the 6$% to start the selection process for the filling up of the &acancy in accordance with the constitutional 7andate'39 (n !arch 2, 2010, the %ourt ad7itted the following co77entsJoppositions,in,inter&ention, to wit8 -a/ The opposition,in,inter&ention dated <ebruary 22, 2010 of Atty' eter +r&ing %or&era -%or&era/@ 40 -b/ The opposition,in,inter&ention dated <ebruary 22, 2010 of Atty' %hristian Robert S' )i7 -)i7/@ -c/ The opposition,in,inter&ention dated <ebruary 23, 2010 of Atty' Alfonso A' Tan, 6r' -Tan/@ -d/ The co77entJopposition,in,inter&ention dated !arch 1, 2010 of the #ational *nion of eopleDs )awyers -#* )/@ -e/ The opposition,in,inter&ention dated <ebruary 2., 2010 of Atty' !arlou $' *bano -*bano/@ -f/ The opposition,in,inter&ention dated <ebruary 2., 2010 of +ntegrated $ar of the hilippines,:a&ao del Sur %hapter and its +77ediate ast resident, Atty' +sraelito ' Torreon -+$ , :a&ao del Sur/@ -g/ The opposition,in,inter&ention dated <ebruary 25, 2010 of Atty' !itchell 6ohn )' $oiser -$oiser/@ -h/The consolidated co77entJopposition,in,inter&ention dated <ebruary 25, 2010 of $ALA# %hair7an :r' %arolina ' Araullo@ $ALA# Secretary 1eneral Renato !' Reyes, 6r'@ %onfederation for *nity, Recognition and Ad&ance7ent of 1o&ern7ent "7ployees -%(*RA1"/ %hair7an <erdinand 1aite@ Nalipunan ng :a7ayang !ahihirap -NA:A!AL/ Secretary 1eneral 1loria Arellano@ Alyansa ng #agBaBaisang Nabataan ng Sa7ayanan ara sa Naunlaran -A#AN$ALA#/ %hair7an Nen )eonard Ra7os@ Tayo ang ag,asa %on&enor Al&in eters@ )eague of <ilipino Students -)<S/ %hair7an 6a7es !arB Terry )acuanan Ridon@ #ational *nion of Students of the hilippines -#*S / %hair7an "instein Recedes, %ollege "ditors 1uild of the hilippines -%"1 / %hair7an Ai=ae Al0uisola@ and Student %hristian !o&e7ent of the hilippines -S%! / %hair7an !a' %ristina Angela 1ue&arra -$ALA# et al'/@

-i/ The opposition,in,inter&ention dated !arch 3, 2010 of Walden <' $ello and )oretta Ann ' Rosales -$ello et al'/@ and -=/ The consolidated co77entJopposition,in,inter&ention dated !arch 3, 2010 of the Wo7en Trial )awyers (rgani?ation of the hilippines -WT)( /, represented by Atty' Lolanda Iuisu7bing,6a&ellana@ Atty' $elle?a Alo=ado :e7aisip@ Atty' Teresita 1andionco,(ledan@ Atty' !a' Aerena Nasilag,Aillanue&a@ Atty' !arilyn Sta' Ro7ana@ Atty' )eonila de 6esus@ and Atty' 1uine&ere de )eon -WT)( /' +nter&enors Tan, WT)( , $ALA# et al', %or&era, +$ :a&ao del Sur, and #* ) taBe the position that :e %astroDs petition was bereft of any basis, because under Section 1., Article A++, the outgoing resident is constitutionally banned fro7 7aBing any appoint7ents fro7 !arch 10, 2010 until 6une 30, 2010, including the appoint7ent of the successor of %hief 6ustice uno' Cence, 7anda7us does not lie to co7pel the 6$% to sub7it the list of no7inees to the outgoing resident if the constitutional prohibition is already in effect' Tan adds that the prohibition against 7idnight appoint7ents was applied by the %ourt to the appoint7ents to the 6udiciary 7ade by then resident Ra7os, with the %ourt holding that the duty of the resident to fill the &acancies within 20 days fro7 occurrence of the &acancies -for the Supre7e %ourt/ or fro7 the sub7ission of the list -for all other courts/ was not an e9cuse to &iolate the constitutional prohibition' +nter&enors Tan, *bano, $oiser, %or&era, #*) , $ALA# et al., and $ello et al' oppose the insistence that Aalen?uela recogni?es the possibility that the resident 7ay appoint the ne9t %hief 6ustice if e9igent circu7stances warrant the appoint7ent, because that recognition is o*iter dictum@ and a&er that the absence of a %hief 6ustice or e&en an Associate 6ustice does not cause epic da7age or absolute disruption or paralysis in the operations of the 6udiciary' They insist that e&en without the successor of %hief 6ustice uno being appointed by the incu7bent resident, the %ourt is allowed to sit and ad=udge en banc or in di&isions of three, fi&e or se&en 7e7bers at its discretion@ that a full 7e7bership of the %ourt is not necessary@ that petitioner :e %astroDs fears are unfounded and baseless, being based on a 7ere possibility, the occurrence of which is entirely unsure@ that it is not in the national interest to ha&e a %hief 6ustice whose appoint7ent is unconstitutional and, therefore, &oid@ and that such a situation will create a crisis in the =udicial syste7 and will worsen an already &ulnerable political situation' ice is i7perati&e for the stability of the =udicial syste7 and the political situation in the country when the election, related 0uestions reach the %ourt as false, because there is an e9isting law on filling the &oid brought about by a &acancy in the office of %hief 6ustice@ that the law is Section 12 of the 6udiciary Act of 1234, which has not been repealed by $atas a7bansa $lg' 122 or any other law@ that a te7porary or an acting %hief 6ustice is not anathe7a to =udicial independence@ that the designation of an acting %hief 6ustice is not only pro&ided for by law, but is also dictated by practical necessity@ that the practice was intended to be enshrined in the 1247 %onstitution, but the %o77issioners decided not to write it in the %onstitution on account of the settled practice@ that the practice was followed under the 1247 %onstitution, when, in 1222, at the end of the ter7 of %hief 6ustice !arcelo $' <ernan, Associate 6ustice Andres #ar&asa assu7ed the position as Acting %hief 6ustice prior to his official appoint7ent as %hief 6ustice@ that said filling up of a &acancy in the office of the %hief 6ustice was acBnowledged and e&en used by analogy in the case of the &acancy of the %hair7an of the %o77ission on "lections, per %rillantes v. Forac, 122 S%RA 3.4@ and that the history of the Supre7e %ourt has shown that this rule of succession has been repeatedly obser&ed and has beco7e a part of its tradition' +nter&enors *bano, $oiser, #* ), %or&era, and )i7 7aintain that the (7nibus "lection %ode penali?es as an election offense the act of any go&ern7ent official who appoints, pro7otes, or gi&es any increase in salary or re7uneration or pri&ilege to any go&ern7ent official or e7ployee during the period of 3. days before a regular election@ that the pro&ision co&ers all appointing heads, officials, and officers of a go&ern7ent office, agency or instru7entality, including the resident@ that for the incu7bent resident to appoint the ne9t %hief 6ustice upon the retire7ent of %hief 6ustice uno, or during the period of the ban under the (7nibus "lection %ode, constitutes an election offense@ that e&en an appoint7ent of the ne9t %hief 6ustice prior to the election ban is funda7entally in&alid and without effect because there can be no appoint7ent until a &acancy occurs@ and that the &acancy for the position can occur only by !ay 17, 2010' +nter&enor $oiser adds that :e %astroDs prayer to co7pel the sub7ission of no7inees by the 6$% to the incu7bent resident is off,tangent because the position of %hief 6ustice is still not &acant@ that to speaB of a list, 7uch 7ore a sub7ission of such list, before a &acancy occurs is glaringly pre7ature@ that the proposed ad&ance appoint7ent by the incu7bent resident of the ne9t %hief 6ustice will be unconstitutional@ and that no list of no7inees can be sub7itted by the 6$% if there is no &acancy' All the inter&enors,oppositors sub7it that Section 1., Article A++ 7aBes no distinction between the Binds of appoint7ents 7ade by the resident@ and that the %ourt, in Aalen?uela, ruled that the appoint7ents by the resident of the two =udges during the prohibition period were &oid' +nter&enor WT)( posits that Section 1., Article A++ of the 1247 %onstitution does not apply only to the appoint7ents in the "9ecuti&e :epart7ent, but also to =udicial appoint7ents, contrary to the sub7ission of C+)%(#SA@ that Section 1. does not distinguish@ and that Aalen?uela already interpreted the prohibition as applicable to =udicial appoint7ents'

+nter&enor WT)( further posits that petitioner SorianoDs contention that the power to appoint the %hief 6ustice is &ested, not in the resident, but in the Supre7e %ourt, is utterly baseless, because the %hief 6ustice is also a !e7ber of the Supre7e %ourt as conte7plated under Section 2, Article A+++@ and that, at any rate, the ter7 ;7e7bers; was interpreted in Aargas &' Rillaro?a -1'R' #o' ),1512, <ebruary 25, 1234/ to refer to the %hief 6ustice and the Associate 6ustices of the Supre7e %ourt@ that C+)%(#SADs prayer that the %ourt pass a resolution declaring that persons who 7anifest their interest as no7inees, but with conditions, shall not be considered no7inees by the 6$% is dia7etrically opposed to the argu7ents in the body of its petition@ that such glaring inconsistency between the allegations in the body and the relief prayed for highlights the lacB of 7erit of C+)%(#SADs petition@ that the role of the 6$% cannot be separated fro7 the constitutional prohibition on the resident@ and that the %ourt 7ust direct the 6$% to follow the rule of law, that is, to sub7it the list of no7inees only to the ne9t duly elected resident after the period of the constitutional ban against 7idnight appoint7ents has e9pired' (ppositor +$ :a&ao del Sur opines that the 6$% , because it is neither a =udicial nor a 0uasi,=udicial body , has no duty under the %onstitution to resol&e the 0uestion of whether the incu7bent resident can appoint a %hief 6ustice during the period of prohibition@ that e&en if the 6$% has already co7e up with a short list, it still has to bow to the strict li7itations under Section 1., Article A++@ that should the 6$% defer sub7ission of the list, it is not arrogating unto itself a =udicial function, but si7ply respecting the clear 7andate of the %onstitution@ and that the application of the general rule in Section 1., Article A++ to the 6udiciary does not &iolate the principle of separation of powers, because said pro&ision is an e9ception' (ppositors #* ), %or&era, )i7 and $ALA# et al' state that the 6$%Ds act of no7inating appointees to the Supre7e %ourt is purely 7inisterial and does not in&ol&e the e9ercise of =udg7ent@ that there can be no default on the part of the 6$% in sub7itting the list of no7inees to the resident, considering that the call for applications only begins fro7 the occurrence of the &acancy in the Supre7e %ourt@ and that the co77ence7ent of the process of screening of applicants to fill the &acancy in the office of the %hief 6ustice only begins fro7 the retire7ent on !ay 17, 2010, for, prior to this date, there is no definite legal basis for any party to clai7 that the sub7ission or non,sub7ission of the list of no7inees to the resident by the 6$% is a 7atter of right under law' The 7ain 0uestion presented in all the filings herein , because it in&ol&es two see7ingly conflicting pro&isions of the %onstitution , i7perati&ely de7ands the attention and resolution of this %ourt, the only authority that can resol&e the 0uestion definiti&ely and finally' The i7perati&e de7and rests on the e&er,present need, first, to safeguard the independence, reputation, and integrity of the entire 6udiciary, particularly this %ourt, an institution that has been unnecessarily dragged into the harsh pole7ics brought on by the contro&ersy@ second, to settle once and for all the doubt about an outgoing residentDs power to appoint to the 6udiciary within the long period starting two 7onths before the presidential elections until the end of the presidential ter7@ and third, to set a definite guideline for the 6$% to follow in the discharge of its pri7ary office of screening and no7inating 0ualified persons for appoint7ent to the 6udiciary' Thus, we resol&e' Ruling of the %ourt ;ocus tandi o8 P41.1.o*4r/ The preli7inary issue to be settled is whether or not the petitioners ha&e locus standi' $lacB defines locus standi as ;a right of appearance in a court of =ustice on a gi&en 0uestion'; 41 +n public or constitutional litigations, the %ourt is often burdened with the deter7ination of the locus standi of the petitioners due to the e&er,present need to regulate the in&ocation of the inter&ention of the %ourt to correct any official action or policy in order to a&oid obstructing the efficient functioning of public officials and offices in&ol&ed in public ser&ice' +t is re0uired, therefore, that the petitioner 7ust ha&e a personal staBe in the outco7e of the contro&ersy, for, as indicated in Agan, 6r' &' hilippine +nternational Air Ter7inals %o', +nc'842 The 0uestion on legal standing is whether such parties ha&e ;alleged such a personal staBe in the outco7e of the contro&ersy as to assure that concrete ad&erseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illu7ination of difficult constitutional 0uestions'; 43 Accordingly, it has been held that the interest of a person assailing the constitutionality of a statute 7ust be direct and personal' Ce 7ust be able to show, not only that the law or any go&ern7ent act is in&alid, but also that he sustained or is in i77inent danger of sustaining so7e direct in=ury as a result of its enforce7ent, and not 7erely that he suffers thereby in so7e indefinite way' +t 7ust appear that the person co7plaining has been or is about to be denied so7e right or pri&ilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be sub=ected to so7e burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act co7plained of'44 +t is true that as early as in 1237, in $eople v. Vera,45 the %ourt adopted the direct in=ury test for deter7ining whether a petitioner in a public action had locus standi' There, the %ourt held that the person who would assail the &alidity of a statute 7ust ha&e ;a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct in=ury as a result'; Vera was followed in +ustodio v. $resident of t)e Senate,46 Manila Race Aorse Trainers0

Association v. (e la =uente,47 Anti1+)inese League of t)e $)ilippines v. =eli!,48 and $ascual v. Secretar" of $u*lic /or#s.49 Let, the %ourt has also held that the re0uire7ent of locus standi, being a 7ere procedural technicality, can be wai&ed by the %ourt in the e9ercise of its discretion' <or instance, in 1232, in Araneta v. (inglasan,50 the %ourt liberali?ed the approach when the cases had ;transcendental i7portance'; So7e notable contro&ersies whose petitioners did not pass the direct in6ur" test were allowed to be treated in the sa7e way as in Araneta v. (inglasan'51 +n the 127. decision in A9uino v. +ommission on &lections,52 this %ourt decided to resol&e the issues raised by the petition due to their ;far,reaching i7plications,; e&en if the petitioner had no personality to file the suit' The liberal approach of A9uino v. +ommission on &lections has been adopted in se&eral notable cases, per7itting ordinary citi?ens, legislators, and ci&ic organi?ations to bring their suits in&ol&ing the constitutionality or &alidity of laws, regulations, and rulings' 53 Cowe&er, the assertion of a public right as a predicate for challenging a supposedly illegal or unconstitutional e9ecuti&e or legislati&e action rests on the theory that the petitioner represents the public in general' Although such petitioner 7ay not be as ad&ersely affected by the action co7plained against as are others, it is enough that he sufficiently de7onstrates in his petition that he is entitled to protection or relief fro7 the %ourt in the &indication of a public right' Iuite often, as here, the petitioner in a public action sues as a citi?en or ta9payer to gain locus standi' That is not surprising, for e&en if the issue 7ay appear to concern only the public in general, such capacities nonetheless e0uip the petitioner with ade0uate interest to sue' +n (avid v. Macapagal1Arro"o,54 the %ourt aptly e9plains why8 %ase law in 7ost =urisdictions now allows both ;citi?en; and ;ta9payer; standing in public actions' The distinction was first laid down in %eauc)amp v. Sil#,55 where it was held that the plaintiff in a ta9payerDs suit is in a different category fro7 the plaintiff in a citi?enDs suit' "* 1h4 8or:4r, 1h4 09a.*1.88 ./ a884c14+ <2 1h4 4304*+.15r4 o8 05<9.c 85*+/, Ih.94 .* 1h4 9a114r, h4 ./ <51 1h4 :4r4 .*/1r5:4*1 o8 1h4 05<9.c co*c4r*. As held by the #ew LorB Supre7e %ourt in $eople e! rel +ase v. +ollins856 ;"* :a114r o8 :4r4 05<9.c r.Gh1, hoI464rU1h4 04o094 ar4 1h4 r4a9 0ar1.4/U"1 ./ a1 94a/1 1h4 r.Gh1, .8 *o1 1h4 +512, o8 464r2 c.1.J4* 1o .*14r84r4 a*+ /44 1ha1 a 05<9.c o884*c4 <4 0ro04r92 05r/54+ a*+ 05*./h4+, a*+ 1ha1 a 05<9.c Gr.46a*c4 <4 r4:4+.4+ '; With respect to ta9payerDs suits, Terr v. Jordan57 held that ;1h4 r.Gh1 o8 a c.1.J4* a*+ a 1a30a24r 1o :a.*1a.* a* ac1.o* .* co5r1/ 1o r4/1ra.* 1h4 5*9aI859 5/4 o8 05<9.c 85*+/ 1o h./ .*K5r2 ca**o1 <4 +4*.4+.;58 etitioners :e %astro -1'R' #o' 121002/, Soriano -1'R' #o' 121032/ and eralta -1'R' #o' 121132/ all assert their right as citi?ens filing their petitions on behalf of the public who are directly affected by the issue of the appoint7ent of the ne9t %hief 6ustice' :e %astro and Soriano further clai7 standing as ta9payers, with Soriano a&erring that he is affected by the continuing proceedings in the 6$%, which in&ol&e ;unnecessary, if not, illegal disburse7ent of public funds';59 C+)%(#SA alleges itself to be a non,stocB, non,profit organi?ation e9isting under the law for the purpose of defending, protecting, and preser&ing the %onstitution and pro7oting its growth and flowering' +t also alleges that the %ourt has recogni?ed its legal standing to file cases on constitutional issues in se&eral cases' 60 +n A'!' #o' 10,2,.,S%, !endo?a states that he is a citi?en of the hilippines, a 7e7ber of the hilippine $ar engaged in the acti&e practice of law, and a for7er Solicitor 1eneral, for7er !inister of 6ustice, for7er !e7ber of the +nteri7 $atasang a7bansa and the Regular $atasang a7bansa, and for7er 7e7ber of the <aculty of the %ollege of )aw of the *ni&ersity of the hilippines' The petitioners in 1'R' #o' 121332 are the 1o&ernors of the +ntegrated $ar of the hilippines -+$ / for Southern )u?on and "astern Aisayas' They allege that they ha&e the legal standing to en=oin the sub7ission of the list of no7inees by the 6$% to the resident, for ;FaGn ad=udication of the proper interpretation and application of the constitutional ban on 7idnight appoint7ents with regard to respondent 6$%Ds function in sub7itting the list of no7inees is well within the concern of petitioners, who are duty bound to ensure that obedience and respect for the %onstitution is upheld, 7ost especially by go&ern7ent offices, such as respondent 6$%, who are specifically tasBed to perfor7 crucial functions in the whole sche7e of our de7ocratic institution'; They further allege that, reposed in the7 as 7e7bers of the $ar, is a clear legal interest in the process of selecting the 7e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt, and in the selection of the %hief 6ustice, considering that the person appointed beco7es a 7e7ber of the body that has constitutional super&ision and authority o&er the7 and other 7e7bers of the legal profession' 61 The %ourt rules that the petitioners ha&e each de7onstrated ade0uate interest in the outco7e of the contro&ersy as to &est the7 with the re0uisite locus standi' The issues before us are of transcendental i7portance to the people as a whole, and to the petitioners in particular' +ndeed, the issues affect e&eryone -including the petitioners/, regardless of oneDs personal interest in life, because they concern that great doubt about the authority of the incu7bent resident to appoint not only the successor of the retiring incu7bent %hief 6ustice, but also others who 7ay ser&e in the 6udiciary, which already suffers fro7 a far too great nu7ber of &acancies in the ranBs of trial =udges throughout the country'

+n any e&ent, the %ourt retains the broad discretion to wai&e the re0uire7ent of legal standing in fa&or of any petitioner when the 7atter in&ol&ed has transcendental i7portance, or otherwise re0uires a liberali?ation of the re0uire7ent'62 Let, if any doubt still lingers about the locus standi of any petitioner, we dispel the doubt now in order to re7o&e any obstacle or obstruction to the resolution of the essential issue s0uarely presented herein' We are not to shirB fro7 discharging our sole7n duty by reason alone of an obstacle 7ore technical than otherwise' +n Agan, 6r' &' hilippine +nternational Air Ter7inals %o', +nc',63 we pointed out8 ;Standing is a peculiar concept in constitutional law because in so7e cases, suits are not brought by parties who ha&e been personally in=ured by the operation of a law or any other go&ern7ent act but by concerned citi?ens, ta9payers or &oters who actually sue in the public interest'; $ut e&en if, strictly speaBing, the petitioners ;are not co&ered by the definition, it is still within the wide discretion of the %ourt to wai&e the re0uire7ent and so re7o&e the i7pedi7ent to its addressing and resol&ing the serious constitutional 0uestions raised'; 64 6usticiability +nter&enor #* ) 7aintains that there is no actual case or contro&ersy that is appropriate or ripe for ad=udication, considering that although the selection process co77enced by the 6$% is going on, there is yet no final list of no7inees@ hence, there is no i77inent contro&ersy as to whether such list 7ust be sub7itted to the incu7bent resident, or reser&ed for sub7ission to the inco7ing resident' +nter&enor Tan raises the lacB of any actual =usticiable contro&ersy that is ripe for =udicial deter7ination, pointing out that petitioner :e %astro has not e&en shown that the 6$% has already co7pleted its selection process and is now ready to sub7it the list to the incu7bent resident@ and that petitioner :e %astro is 7erely presenting a hypothetical scenario that is clearly not sufficient for the %ourt to e9ercise its power of =udicial re&iew' +nter&enors %or&era and )i7 separately opine that :e %astroDs petition rests on an o&erbroad and &ague allegation of political tension, which is insufficient basis for the %ourt to e9ercise its power of =udicial re&iew' +nter&enor $ALA# et al' contend that the petitioners are seeBing a 7ere ad&isory opinion on what the 6$% and the resident should do, and are not in&oBing any issues that are =usticiable in nature' +nter&enors $ello et al' sub7it that there e9ist no conflict of legal rights and no assertion of opposite legal clai7s in any of the petitions@ that C+)%(#SA does not allege any action taBen by the 6$%, but si7ply a&ers that the conditional 7anifestations of two !e7bers of the %ourt, accented by the di&ided opinions and interpretations of legal e9perts, or associations of lawyers and law students on the issues published in the daily newspapers are ;7atters of para7ount and transcendental i7portance to the bench, bar and general public;@ that C+)%(#SA fails not only to cite any legal duty or allege any failure to perfor7 the duty, but also to indicate what specific action should be done by the 6$%@ that !endo?a does not e&en atte7pt to portray the 7atter as a contro&ersy or conflict of rights, but, instead, prays that the %ourt should ;rule for the guidance of; the 6$%@ that the fact that the %ourt super&ises the 6$% does not auto7atically i7ply that the %ourt can rule on the issues presented in the !endo?a petition, because super&ision in&ol&es o&ersight, which 7eans that the subordinate officer or body 7ust first act, and if such action is not in accordance with prescribed rules, then, and only then, 7ay the person e9ercising o&ersight order the action to be redone to confor7 to the prescribed rules@ that the !endo?a petition does not allege that the 6$% has perfor7ed a specific act susceptible to correction for being illegal or unconstitutional@ and that the !endo?a petition asBs the %ourt to issue an ad&isory ruling, not to e9ercise its power of super&ision to correct a wrong act by the 6$%, but to declare the state of the law in the absence of an actual case or contro&ersy' We hold that the petitions set forth an actual case or contro&ersy that is ripe for =udicial deter7ination' The reality is that the 6$% already co77enced the proceedings for the selection of the no7inees to be included in a short list to be sub7itted to the resident for consideration of which of the7 will succeed %hief 6ustice uno as the ne9t %hief 6ustice' Although the position is not yet &acant, the fact that the 6$% began the process of no7ination pursuant to its rules and practices, although it has yet to decide whether to sub7it the list of no7inees to the incu7bent outgoing resident or to the ne9t resident, 7aBes the situation ripe for =udicial deter7ination, because the ne9t steps are the public inter&iew of the candidates, the preparation of the short list of candidates, and the ;inter&iew of constitutional e9perts, as 7ay be needed'; A part of the 0uestion to be re&iewed by the %ourt is whether the 6$% properly initiated the process, there being an insistence fro7 so7e of the oppositors,inter&enors that the 6$% could only do so once the &acancy has occurred -that is, after !ay 17, 2010/' Another part is, of course, whether the 6$% 7ay resu7e its process until the short list is prepared, in &iew of the pro&ision of Section 3-1/, Article A+++, which un0ualifiedly re0uires the resident to appoint one fro7 the short list to fill the &acancy in the Supre7e %ourt -be it the %hief 6ustice or an Associate 6ustice/ within 20 days fro7 the occurrence of the &acancy' The ripeness of the contro&ersy for =udicial deter7ination 7ay not be doubted' The challenges to the authority of the 6$% to open the process of no7ination and to continue the process until the sub7ission of the list of no7inees@ the insistence of so7e of the petitioners to co7pel the 6$% through 7anda7us to sub7it the short list to the incu7bent resident@ the counter,insistence of the inter&enors to prohibit the 6$% fro7 sub7itting the short list to the incu7bent resident on the ground that said list should be sub7itted instead to the ne9t resident@ the strong

position that the incu7bent resident is already prohibited under Section 1., Article A++ fro7 7aBing any appoint7ents, including those to the 6udiciary, starting on !ay 10, 2010 until 6une 30, 2010@ and the contrary position that the incu7bent resident is not so prohibited are only so7e of the real issues for deter7ination' All such issues establish the ripeness of the contro&ersy, considering that for so7e the short list 7ust be sub7itted before the &acancy actually occurs by !ay 17, 2010' The outco7e will not be an abstraction, or a 7erely hypothetical e9ercise' The resolution of the contro&ersy will surely settle , with finality , the nagging 0uestions that are pre&enting the 6$% fro7 7o&ing on with the process that it already began, or that are reasons persuading the 6$% to desist fro7 the rest of the process' We need not await the occurrence of the &acancy by !ay 17, 2010 in order for the principal issue to ripe for =udicial deter7ination by the %ourt' +t is enough that one alleges conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but see7ingly proscribed by the %onstitution' A reasonable certainty of the occurrence of the percei&ed threat to a constitutional interest is sufficient to afford a basis for bringing a challenge, pro&ided the %ourt has sufficient facts before it to enable it to intelligently ad=udicate the issues' 65 Cerein, the facts are not in doubt, for only legal issues re7ain' Substanti&e !erits + rohibition under Section 1., Article A++ does not apply to appoint7ents to fill a &acancy in the Supre7e %ourt or to other appoint7ents to the 6udiciary Two constitutional pro&isions are see7ingly in conflict' The first, Section 1., Article A++ -"9ecuti&e :epart7ent/, pro&ides8 Section 1.' Two 7onths i77ediately before the ne9t presidential elections and up to the end of his ter7, a resident or Acting resident shall not 7aBe appoint7ents , e9cept te7porary appoint7ents to e9ecuti&e positions when continued &acancies therein will pre=udice public ser&ice or endanger public safety' The other, Section 3 -1/, Article A+++ -6udicial :epart7ent/, states8 Section 3' -1/' The Supre7e %ourt shall be co7posed of a %hief 6ustice and fourteen Associate 6ustices' +t 7ay sit en banc or in its discretion, in di&ision of three, fi&e, or se&en !e7bers' Any &acancy shall be filled within ninety days fro7 the occurrence thereof' +n the consolidated petitions, the petitioners, with the e9ception of Soriano, Tolentino and +nting, sub7it that the incu7bent resident can appoint the successor of %hief 6ustice uno upon his retire7ent on !ay 17, 2010, on the ground that the prohibition against presidential appoint7ents under Section 1., Article A++ does not e9tend to appoint7ents in the 6udiciary' The %ourt agrees with the sub7ission' <irst' The records of the deliberations of the %onstitutional %o77ission re&eal that the fra7ers de&oted ti7e to 7eticulously drafting, styling, and arranging the %onstitution' Such 7eticulousness indicates that the organi?ation and arrange7ent of the pro&isions of the %onstitution were not arbitrarily or whi7sically done by the fra7ers, but purposely 7ade to reflect their intention and 7anifest their &ision of what the %onstitution should contain' The %onstitution consists of 14 Articles, three of which e7body the allocation of the aweso7e powers of go&ern7ent a7ong the three great depart7ents, the )egislati&e -Article A+/, the "9ecuti&e -Article A++/, and the 6udicial :epart7ents -Article A+++/' The arrange7ent was a true recognition of the principle of separation of powers that underlies the political structure, as %onstitutional %o77issioner Adolfo S' A?cuna -later a worthy 7e7ber of the %ourt/ e9plained in his sponsorship speech8 We ha&e in the political part of this %onstitution opted for the separation of powers in go&ern7ent because we belie&e that the only way to protect freedo7 and liberty is to separate and di&ide the aweso7e powers of go&ern7ent' Cence, we return to the separation of powers doctrine and the legislati&e, e9ecuti&e and =udicial depart7ents'66 As can be seen, Article A++ is de&oted to the "9ecuti&e :epart7ent, and, a7ong others, it lists the powers &ested by the %onstitution in the resident' The presidential power of appoint7ent is dealt with in Sections 13, 1. and 15 of the Article' Article A+++ is dedicated to the 6udicial :epart7ent and defines the duties and 0ualifications of !e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt, a7ong others' Section 3-1/ and Section 2 of this Article are the pro&isions specifically pro&iding for the appoint7ent of Supre7e %ourt 6ustices' +n particular, Section 2 states that the appoint7ent of Supre7e %ourt 6ustices can only be 7ade by the resident upon the sub7ission of a list of at least three no7inees by the 6$%@

Section 3-1/ of the Article 7andates the resident to fill the &acancy within 20 days fro7 the occurrence of the &acancy' Cad the fra7ers intended to e9tend the prohibition contained in Section 1., Article A++ to the appoint7ent of !e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt, they could ha&e e9plicitly done so' They could not ha&e ignored the 7eticulous ordering of the pro&isions' They would ha&e easily and surely written the prohibition 7ade e9plicit in Section 1., Article A++ as being e0ually applicable to the appoint7ent of !e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt in Article A+++ itself, 7ost liBely in Section 3 -1/, Article A+++' That such specification was not done only re&eals that the prohibition against the resident or Acting resident 7aBing appoint7ents within two 7onths before the ne9t presidential elections and up to the end of the residentDs or Acting residentDs ter7 does not refer to the !e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt' Although Aalen?uela67 ca7e to hold that the prohibition co&ered e&en =udicial appoint7ents, it cannot be disputed that the Aalen?uela dictu7 did not fir7ly rest on the deliberations of the %onstitutional %o77ission' Thereby, the confir7ation 7ade to the 6$% by then Senior Associate 6ustice <loren? :' Regalado of this %ourt, a for7er 7e7ber of the %onstitutional %o77ission, about the prohibition not being intended to apply to the appoint7ents to the 6udiciary, which confir7ation Aalen?uela e&en e9pressly 7entioned, should pre&ail' Rele&antly, Aalen?uela ad&erted to the intent of the fra7ers in the genesis of Section 3 -1/, Article A+++, &i?8 A' <ntent of t)e +onstitutional +ommission The =ournal of the %o77ission which drew up the present %onstitution discloses that the original proposal was to ha&e an ele&en,7e7ber Supre7e %ourt' %o77issioner "ulogio )eru7 wanted to increase the nu7ber of 6ustices to fifteen' Ce also wished to ensure that that nu7ber would not be reduced for any appreciable length of ti7e -e&en only te7porarily/, and to this end proposed that any &acancy ;7ust be filled within two 7onths fro7 the date that the &acancy occurs'; Cis proposal to ha&e a 1.,7e7ber %ourt was not initially adopted' ersisting howe&er in his desire to 7aBe certain that the si?e of the %ourt would not be decreased for any substantial period as a result of &acancies, )eru7 proposed the insertion in the pro&ision -anent the %ourtDs 7e7bership/ of the sa7e 7andate that ;+# %AS" (< A#L AA%A#%L, TC" SA!" SCA)) $" <+))": W+TC+# TW( !(#TCS <R(! (%%*RR"#%" TC"R"(<'; Ce later agreed to suggestions to 7aBe the period three, instead of two, 7onths' As thus a7ended, the proposal was appro&ed' As it turned out, howe&er, the %o77ission ulti7ately agreed on a fifteen,7e7ber %ourt' Thus it was that the section fi9ing the co7position of the Supre7e %ourt ca7e to include a co77and to fill up any &acancy therein within 20 days fro7 its occurrence' +n this connection, it 7ay be pointed out that that instruction that any ;&acancy s)all *e filled within ninety days; -in the last sentence of Section 3 -1/ of Article A+++/ contrasts with the prohibition in Section 1., Article A++, which is couched in stronger negative language , that ;a resident or Acting resident s)all not 7aBe appoint7entsc; The co77ission later appro&ed a proposal of %o77issioner Cilario 1' :a&ide, 6r' -now a !e7ber of this %ourt/ to add to what is now Section 2 of Article A+++, the following paragraph8 ;W+TC R"S "%T T( )(W"R %(*RTS, TC" R"S+:"#T SCA)) +SS*" TC" A (+#T!"#T W+TC+# #+#"TL :ALS <R(! TC" S*$!+SS+(# (< TC" )+ST; -of no7inees by the 6udicial and $ar %ouncil to the resident/' :a&ide stated that his purpose was to pro&ide a ;unifor7 rule; for lower courts' According to hi7, the 20,day period should be counted fro7 sub7ission of the list of no7inees to the resident in &iew of the possibility that the resident 7ight re=ect the list sub7itted to hi7 and the 6$% thus need 7ore ti7e to sub7it a new one' (n the other hand, Section 1., Article A++ , which in effect depri&es the resident of his appointing power ;two 7onths i77ediately before the ne9t presidential elections up to the end of his ter7; , was appro&ed without discussion'68 Cowe&er, the reference to the records of the %onstitutional %o77ission did not ad&ance or support the result in Aalen?uela' <ar to the contrary, the records disclosed the e9press intent of the fra7ers to enshrine in the %onstitution, upon the initiati&e of %o77issioner "ulogio )eru7, ;a co77and Fto the residentG to fill up any &acancy therein within 20 days fro7 its occurrence,; which e&en Aalen?uela conceded' 69 The e9changes during deliberations of the %onstitutional %o77ission on (ctober 4, 1245 further show that the filling of a &acancy in the Supre7e %ourt within the 20,day period was a true 7andate for the resident, &i?8 !R' :" %ASTR(' + understand that our =ustices now in the Supre7e %ourt, together with the %hief 6ustice, are only 11' !R' %(#%" %+(#' Les' !R' :" %ASTR(' And the second sentence of this subsection reads8 ;Any &acancy shall be filled within ninety days fro7 the occurrence thereof'; !R' %(#%" %+(#' That is right' !R' :" %ASTR(' +s this now a 7andate to the e9ecuti&e to fill the &acancyH

!R' %(#%" %+(#' That is right' That is borne out of the fact that in the past 30 years, seldo7 has the %ourt had a co7plete co7ple7ent'70 !oreo&er, the usage in Section 3-1/, Article A+++ of the word shall , an i7perati&e, operating to i7pose a duty that 7ay be enforced71 , should not be disregarded' Thereby, Sections 3-1/ i7poses on the resident the i7perati&e duty to 7aBe an appoint7ent of a !e7ber of the Supre7e %ourt within 20 days fro7 the occurrence of the &acancy' The failure by the resident to do so will be a clear disobedience to the %onstitution' The 20,day li7itation fi9ed in Section 3-1/, Article A+++ for the resident to fill the &acancy in the Supre7e %ourt was undoubtedly a special pro&ision to establish a definite 7andate for the resident as the appointing power, and cannot be defeated by 7ere =udicial interpretation in Aalen?uela to the effect that Section 1., Article A++ pre&ailed because it was ;couched in stronger negati&e language'; Such interpretation e&en turned out to be con=ectural, in light of the records of the %onstitutional %o77issionDs deliberations on Section 3 -1/, Article A+++' Cow Aalen?uela =ustified its pronounce7ent and result is hardly warranted' According to an authority on statutory construction872 999 the court should seeB to a&oid any conflict in the pro&isions of the statute by endea&oring to har7oni?e and reconcile e&ery part so that each shall be effecti&e' +t is not easy to draft a statute, or any other writing for that 7atter, which 7ay not in so7e 7anner contain conflicting pro&isions' $ut what appears to the reader to be a conflict 7ay not ha&e see7ed so to the drafter' *ndoubtedly, each pro&ision was inserted for a definite reason' (ften by considering the enact7ent in its entirety, what appears to be on its face a conflict 7ay be cleared up and the pro&isions reconciled' %onse0uently, that construction which will lea&e e&ery word operati&e will be fa&ored o&er one which lea&es so7e word or pro&ision 7eaningless because of inconsistency' $ut a word should not be gi&en effect, if to do so gi&es the statute a 7eaning contrary to the intent of the legislature' (n the other hand, if full effect cannot be gi&en to the words of a statute, they 7ust be 7ade effecti&e as far as possible' #or should the pro&isions of a statute which are inconsistent be har7oni?ed at a sacrifice of the legislati&e intention' +t 7ay be that two pro&isions are irreconcilable@ if so, the one which e9presses the intent of the law,7aBers should control' And the arbitrary rule has been fre0uently announced that where there is an irreconcilable conflict between the different pro&isions of a statute, the pro&ision last in order of position will pre&ail, since it is the latest e9pression of the legislati&e will' (b&iously, the rule is sub=ect to deser&ed criticis7' +t is seldo7 applied, and probably then only where an irreconcilable conflict e9ists between different sections of the sa7e act, and after all other 7eans of ascertaining the 7eaning of the legislature ha&e been e9hausted' Where the conflict is between two statutes, 7ore 7ay be said in fa&or of the ruleDs application, largely because of the principle of i7plied repeal' +n this connection, C+)%(#SADs urging of a re&isit and a re&iew of Aalen?uela is ti7ely and appropriate' Aalen?uela arbitrarily ignored the e9press intent of the %onstitutional %o77ission to ha&e Section 3 -1/, Article A+++ stand independently of any other pro&ision, least of all one found in Article A++' +t further ignored that the two pro&isions had no irreconcilable conflict, regardless of Section 1., Article A++ being couched in the negati&e' As =udges, we are not to unduly interpret, and should not accept an interpretation that defeats the intent of the fra7ers'73 %onse0uently, prohibiting the incu7bent resident fro7 appointing a %hief 6ustice on the pre7ise that Section 1., Article A++ e9tends to appoint7ents in the 6udiciary cannot be sustained' A 7isinterpretation liBe Aalen?uela should not be allowed to last after its false pre7ises ha&e been e9posed' 73 +t will not do to 7erely distinguish Aalen?uela fro7 these cases, for the result to be reached herein is entirely inco7patible with what Aalen?uela decreed' %onse0uently, Aalen?uela now deser&es to be 0uicBly sent to the dustbin of the unworthy and forgettable' We re&erse Aalen?uela' Second' Section 1., Article A++ does not apply as well to all other appoint7ents in the 6udiciary' There is no 0uestion that one of the reasons underlying the adoption of Section 1. as part of Article A++ was to eli7inate 7idnight appoint7ents fro7 being 7ade by an outgoing %hief "9ecuti&e in the 7old of the appoint7ents dealt with in the leading case of Aytona &' %astillo' 7. +n fact, in Aalen?uela, the %ourt so obser&ed, stating that8 999 it appears that Section 1., Article A++ is directed against two types of appoint7ents8 -1/ those 7ade for buying &otes and -2/ those 7ade for partisan considerations' The first refers to those appoint7ents 7ade within the two 7onths preceding a residential election and are si7ilar to those which are declared election offenses in the (7nibus "lection %ode, viz'8 999 The second type of appoint7ents prohibited by Section 1., Article A++ consists of the so,called ;7idnight; appoint7ents' +n A"tona v. +astillo, it was held that after the procla7ation of :iosdado !acapagal as duly elected resident, resident %arlos ' 1arcia, who was defeated in his bid for reelection, beca7e no 7ore than a

;caretaBer; ad7inistrator whose duty was to ;prepare for the orderly transfer of authority to the inco7ing resident'; Said the %ourt8 ;The filling up of &acancies in i7portant positions, if few, and so spaced as to afford so7e assurance of deliberate action and careful consideration of the need for the appoint7ent and appointeeDs 0ualifications 7ay undoubtedly be per7itted' $ut the issuance of 3.0 appoint7ents in one night and the planned induction of al7ost all of the7 in a few hours before the inauguration of the new resident 7ay, with so7e reason, be regarded by the latter as an abuse of residential prerogati&es, the steps taBen being apparently a 7ere partisan effort to fill all &acant positions irrespecti&e of fitness and other conditions, and thereby to depri&e the new ad7inistration of an opportunity to 7aBe the corresponding appoint7ents'; As indicated, the %ourt recogni?ed that there 7ay well be appoint7ents to i7portant positions which ha&e to be 7ade e&en after the procla7ation of the new resident' Such appoint7ents, so long as they are ;few and so spaced as to afford so7e assurance of deliberate action and careful consideration of the need for the appoint7ent and the appointeeDs 0ualifications,; can be 7ade by the outgoing resident' Accordingly, se&eral appoint7ents 7ade by resident 1arcia, which were shown to ha&e been well considered, were upheld' Section 1., Article A++ has a broader scope than the Aytona ruling' +t 7ay not unreasonably be dee7ed to conte7plate not only ;7idnight; appoint7ents , those 7ade ob&iously for partisan reasons as shown by their nu7ber and the ti7e of their 7aBing , but also appoint7ents presu7ed 7ade for the purpose of influencing the outco7e of the residential election' (n the other hand, the e9ception in the sa7e Section 1. of Article A++ , allowing appoint7ents to be 7ade during the period of the ban therein pro&ided , is 7uch narrower than that recogni?ed in A"tona' The e9ception allows only the 7aBing of temporar" appoint7ents to e!ecutive positions when continued &acancies will pre6udice pu*lic service or endanger pu*lic safet"' (b&iously, the article greatly restricts the appointing power of the resident during the period of the ban' %onsidering the respecti&e reasons for the ti7e fra7es for filling &acancies in the courts and the restriction on the residentDs power of appoint7ent, it is this %ourtDs &iew that, as a general proposition, in case of conflict, the for7er should yield to the latter' Surely, the pre&ention of &ote,buying and si7ilar e&ils outweighs the need for a&oiding delays in filling up of court &acancies or the disposition of so7e cases' Te7porary &acancies can abide the period of the ban which, incidentally and as earlier pointed out, co7es to e9ist only once in e&ery si9 years' !oreo&er, those occurring in the lower courts can be filled te7porarily by designation' $ut prohibited appoint7ents are long,lasting and per7anent in their effects' They 7ay, as earlier pointed out, in fact influence the results of elections and, for that reason, their 7aBing is considered an election offense' 75 1i&en the bacBground and rationale for the prohibition in Section 1., Article A++, we ha&e no doubt that the %onstitutional %o77ission confined the prohibition to appoint7ents 7ade in the "9ecuti&e :epart7ent' The fra7ers did not need to e9tend the prohibition to appoint7ents in the 6udiciary, because their establish7ent of the 6$% and their sub=ecting the no7ination and screening of candidates for =udicial positions to the unhurried and deliberate prior process of the 6$% ensured that there would no longer be 7idnight appoint7ents to the 6udiciary' +f 7idnight appoint7ents in the 7old of Aytona were 7ade in haste and with irregularities, or 7ade by an outgoing %hief "9ecuti&e in the last days of his ad7inistration out of a desire to sub&ert the policies of the inco7ing resident or for partisanship,77 the appoint7ents to the 6udiciary 7ade after the establish7ent of the 6$% would not be suffering fro7 such defects because of the 6$%Ds prior processing of candidates' +ndeed, it is a9io7atic in statutory construction that the ascertain7ent of the purpose of the enact7ent is a step in the process of ascertaining the intent or 7eaning of the enact7ent, because the reason for the enact7ent 7ust necessarily shed considerable light on ;the law of the statute,; i'e', the intent@ hence, the enact7ent should be construed with reference to its intended scope and purpose, and the court should seeB to carry out this purpose rather than to defeat it' 74 Also, the inter&ention of the 6$% eli7inates the danger that appoint7ents to the 6udiciary can be 7ade for the purpose of buying &otes in a co7ing presidential election, or of satisfying partisan considerations' The e9perience fro7 the ti7e of the establish7ent of the 6$% shows that e&en candidates for =udicial positions at any le&el bacBed by people influential with the resident could not always be assured of being reco77ended for the consideration of the resident, because they first had to undergo the &etting of the 6$% and pass 7uster there' +ndeed, the creation of the 6$% was precisely intended to de,politici?e the 6udiciary by doing away with the inter&ention of the %o77ission on Appoint7ents' This insulating process was absent fro7 the Aytona 7idnight appoint7ent' Third' As earlier stated, the non,applicability of Section 1., Article A++ to appoint7ents in the 6udiciary was confir7ed by then Senior Associate 6ustice Regalado to the 6$% itself when it 7et on !arch 2, 1224 to discuss the 0uestion raised by so7e sectors about the ;constitutionality of 999 appoint7ents; to the %ourt of Appeals in light of the forthco7ing presidential elections' Ce assured that ;on the basis of the -%onstitutional/ %o77issionDs records, the election ban had no application to appoint7ents to the %ourt of Appeals'; 72 This confir7ation was accepted by the 6$%, which then sub7itted to the resident for consideration the no7inations for the eight &acancies in the %ourt of Appeals'40 The fault of Aalen?uela was that it accorded no weight and due consideration to the confir7ation of 6ustice Regalado' Aalen?uela was weaB, because it relied on interpretation to deter7ine the intent of the fra7ers rather

than on the deliberations of the %onstitutional %o77ission' !uch of the unfounded doubt about the residentDs power to appoint during the period of prohibition in Section 1., Article A++ could ha&e been dispelled since its pro7ulgation on #o&e7ber 2, 1224, had Aalen?uela properly acBnowledged and relied on the confir7ation of a distinguished 7e7ber of the %onstitutional %o77ission liBe 6ustice Regalado' <ourth' (f the 23 sections in Article A++, three -i'e', Section 13, Section1., and Section 15/ concern the appointing powers of the resident' Section 13 speaBs of the power of the succeeding resident to re&oBe appoint7ents 7ade by an Acting resident,41 and e&idently refers only to appoint7ents in the "9ecuti&e :epart7ent' +t has no application to appoint7ents in the 6udiciary, because te7porary or acting appoint7ents can only under7ine the independence of the 6udiciary due to their being re&ocable at will' 42 The letter and spirit of the %onstitution safeguard that independence' Also, there is no law in the booBs that authori?es the re&ocation of appoint7ents in the 6udiciary' rior to their 7andatory retire7ent or resignation, =udges of the first and second le&el courts and the 6ustices of the third le&el courts 7ay only be re7o&ed for cause, but the !e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt 7ay be re7o&ed only by i7peach7ent' Section 15 co&ers only the presidential appoint7ents that re0uire confir7ation by the %o77ission on Appoint7ents' Thereby, the %onstitutional %o77ission restored the re0uire7ent of confir7ation by the %o77ission on Appoint7ents after the re0uire7ent was re7o&ed fro7 the 1273 %onstitution' Let, because of Section 2 of Article A+++, the restored re0uire7ent did not include appoint7ents to the 6udiciary' 43 Section 13, Section 1., and Section 15 are ob&iously of the sa7e character, in that they affect the power of the resident to appoint' The fact that Section 13 and Section 15 refer only to appoint7ents within the "9ecuti&e :epart7ent renders conclusi&e that Section 1. also applies only to the "9ecuti&e :epart7ent' This conclusion is consistent with the rule that e&ery part of the statute 7ust be interpreted with reference to the conte9t , i.e. that e&ery part 7ust be considered together with the other parts, and Bept subser&ient to the general intent of the whole enact7ent'43 +t is absurd to assu7e that the fra7ers deliberately situated Section 1. between Section 13 and Section 15, if they intended Section 1. to co&er all Binds of presidential appoint7ents' +f that was their intention in respect of appoint7ents to the 6udiciary, the fra7ers, if only to be clear, would ha&e easily and surely inserted a si7ilar prohibition in Article A+++, 7ost liBely within Section 3 -1/ thereof' <ifth' To hold liBe the %ourt did in Aalen?uela that Section 1. e9tends to appoint7ents to the 6udiciary further under7ines the intent of the %onstitution of ensuring the independence of the 6udicial :epart7ent fro7 the "9ecuti&e and )egislati&e :epart7ents' Such a holding will tie the 6udiciary and the Supre7e %ourt to the fortunes or 7isfortunes of political leaders &ying for the residency in a presidential election' %onse0uently, the wisdo7 of ha&ing the new resident, instead of the current incu7bent resident, appoint the ne9t %hief 6ustice is itself suspect, and cannot ensure =udicial independence, because the appointee can also beco7e beholden to the appointing authority' +n contrast, the appoint7ent by the incu7bent resident does not run the sa7e risB of co7pro7ising =udicial independence, precisely because her ter7 will end by 6une 30, 2010' Si9th' The argu7ent has been raised to the effect that there will be no need for the incu7bent resident to appoint during the prohibition period the successor of %hief 6ustice uno within the conte9t of Section 3 -1/, Article A+++, because anyway there will still be about 3. days of the 20 days 7andated in Section 3-1/, Article A+++ re7aining' The argu7ent is flawed, because it is focused only on the co7ing &acancy occurring fro7 %hief 6ustice unoDs retire7ent by !ay 17, 2010' +t ignores the need to apply Section 3-1/ to e&ery situation of a &acancy in the Supre7e %ourt' The argu7ent also rests on the fallacious assu7ption that there will still be ti7e re7aining in the 20,day period under Section 3-1/, Article A+++' The fallacy is easily de7onstrable, as the (S1 has shown in its co77ent' Section 3 -3/, Article A++ re0uires the regular elections to be held on the second !onday of !ay, letting the elections fall on !ay 4, at the earliest, or !ay 13, at the latest' +f the regular presidential elections are held on !ay 4, the period of the prohibition is 11. days' +f such elections are held on !ay 13, the period of the prohibition is 102 days' "ither period of the prohibition is longer than the full 7andatory 20,day period to fill the &acancy in the Supre7e %ourt' The result is that there are at least 12 occasions -i'e', the difference between the shortest possible period of the ban of 102 days and the 20,day 7andatory period for appoint7ents/ in which the outgoing resident would be in no position to co7ply with the constitutional duty to fill up a &acancy in the Supre7e %ourt' +t is safe to assu7e that the fra7ers of the %onstitution could not ha&e intended such an absurdity' +n fact, in their deliberations on the 7andatory period for the appoint7ent of Supre7e %ourt 6ustices under Section 3 -1/, Article A+++, the fra7ers neither discussed, nor 7entioned, nor referred to the ban against 7idnight appoint7ents under Section 1., Article A++, or its effects on the 20,day period, or &ice &ersa' They did not need to, because they ne&er intended Section 1., Article A++ to apply to a &acancy in the Supre7e %ourt, or in any of the lower courts' Se&enth' As a 7atter of fact, in an e9tre7e case, we can e&en raise a doubt on whether a 6$% list is necessary at all for the resident , any resident , to appoint a %hief 6ustice if the appointee is to co7e fro7 the ranBs of the sitting =ustices of the Supre7e %ourt'

Sec' 2, Article A+++ says8 999' The !e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt 999 shall be appointed by the resident fro7 a list of at least three no7inees prepared by the 6udicial and $ar %ouncil for any &acancy' Such appoint7ents need no confir7ation' 999 The pro&ision clearly refers to an appointee co7ing into the Supre7e %ourt fro7 the outside, that is, a non,7e7ber of the %ourt aspiring to beco7e one' +t speaBs of candidates for the Supre7e %ourt, not of those who are already 7e7bers or sitting =ustices of the %ourt, all of who7 ha&e pre&iously been &etted by the 6$%' %an the resident, therefore, appoint any of the incu7bent 6ustices of the %ourt as %hief 6usticeH The 0uestion is not s0uarely before us at the 7o7ent, but it should lend itself to a deeper analysis if and when circu7stances per7it' +t should be a good issue for the proposed %onstitutional %on&ention to consider in the light of Senate resident 6uan once "nrileDs state7ent that the resident can appoint the %hief 6ustice fro7 a7ong the sitting =ustices of the %ourt e&en without a 6$% list' ++ The 6udiciary Act of 1234 The posture has been taBen that no urgency e9ists for the resident to appoint the successor of %hief 6ustice uno, considering that the 6udiciary Act of 1234 can still address the situation of ha&ing the ne9t resident appoint the successor' Section 12 of the 6udiciary Act of 1234 states8 Section 12' Aacancy in (ffice of %hief 6ustice' , +n case of a &acancy in the office of %hief 6ustice of the Supre7e %ourt or of his inability to perfor7 the duties and powers of his office, they shall de&ol&e upon the Associate 6ustice who is first in precedence, until such disability is re7o&ed, or another %hief 6ustice is appointed and duly 0ualified' This pro&ision shall apply to e&ery Associate 6ustice who succeeds to the office of %hief 6ustice' The pro&ision calls for an Acting %hief 6ustice in the e&ent of a &acancy in the office of the %hief 6ustice, or in the e&ent that the %hief 6ustice is unable to perfor7 his duties and powers' +n either of such circu7stances, the duties and powers of the office of the %hief 6ustice shall de&ol&e upon the Associate 6ustice who is first in precedence until a new %hief 6ustice is appointed or until the disability is re7o&ed' #otwithstanding that there is no pressing need to dwell on this peripheral 7atter after the %ourt has hereby resol&ed the 0uestion of conse0uence, we do not find it a7iss to confront the 7atter now' We cannot agree with the posture' A re&iew of Sections 3-1/ and 2 of Article A+++ shows that the Supre7e %ourt is co7posed of a %hief 6ustice and 13 Associate 6ustices, who all shall be appointed by the resident fro7 a list of at least three no7inees prepared by the 6$% for e&ery &acancy, which appoint7ents re0uire no confir7ation by the %o77ission on Appoint7ents' With reference to the %hief 6ustice, he or she is appointed by the resident as %hief 6ustice, and the appoint7ent is ne&er in an acting capacity' The e9press reference to a %hief 6ustice abhors the idea that the fra7ers conte7plated an Acting %hief 6ustice to head the 7e7bership of the Supre7e %ourt' (therwise, they would ha&e si7ply written so in the %onstitution' %onse0uently, to rely on Section 12 of the 6udiciary Act of 1234 in order to forestall the i7perati&e need to appoint the ne9t %hief 6ustice soonest is to defy the plain intent of the %onstitution' <or sure, the fra7ers intended the position of %hief 6ustice to be per7anent, not one to be occupied in an acting or te7porary capacity' +n relation to the sche7e of things under the present %onstitution, Section 12 of the 6udiciary Act of 1234 only responds to a rare situation in which the new %hief 6ustice is not yet appointed, or in which the incu7bent %hief 6ustice is unable to perfor7 the duties and powers of the office' +t ought to be re7e7bered, howe&er, that it was enacted because the %hief 6ustice appointed under the 123. %onstitution was sub=ect to the confir7ation of the %o77ission on Appoint7ents, and the confir7ation process 7ight taBe longer than e9pected' The appoint7ent of the ne9t %hief 6ustice by the incu7bent resident is preferable to ha&ing the Associate 6ustice who is first in precedence taBe o&er' *nder the %onstitution, the heads of the )egislati&e and "9ecuti&e :epart7ents are popularly elected, and whoe&er are elected and proclai7ed at once beco7e the leaders of their respecti&e :epart7ents' Cowe&er, the lacB of any appointed occupant of the office of %hief 6ustice har7s the independence of the 6udiciary, because the %hief 6ustice is the head of the entire 6udiciary' The %hief 6ustice perfor7s functions absolutely significant to the life of the nation' With the entire Supre7e %ourt being the residential "lectoral Tribunal, the %hief 6ustice is the %hair7an of the Tribunal' There being no obstacle to the appoint7ent of the ne9t %hief 6ustice, aside fro7 its being 7andatory for the incu7bent resident to 7aBe within

the 20,day period fro7 !ay 17, 2010, there is no =ustification to insist that the successor of %hief 6ustice uno be appointed by the ne9t resident' Cistorically, under the present %onstitution, there has been no wide gap between the retire7ent and the resignation of an incu7bent %hief 6ustice, on one hand, and the appoint7ent to and assu7ption of office of his successor, on the other hand' As su77ari?ed in the co77ent of the (S1, the chronology of succession is as follows8 1' When %hief 6ustice %laudio TeehanBee retired on April 14, 1244, %hief 6ustice edro Lap was appointed on the sa7e day@ 2' When %hief 6ustice Lap retired on 6uly 1, 1244, %hief 6ustice !arcelo <ernan was appointed on the sa7e day@ 3' When %hief 6ustice <ernan resigned on :ece7ber 7, 1221, %hief 6ustice Andres #ar&asa was appointed the following day, :ece7ber 4, 1221@ 3' When %hief 6ustice #ar&asa retired on #o&e7ber 22, 1224, %hief 6ustice Cilario :a&ide, 6r' was sworn into office the following early 7orning of #o&e7ber 30, 1224@ .' When %hief 6ustice :a&ide retired on :ece7ber 12, 200., %hief 6ustice Arte7io anganiban was appointed the ne9t day, :ece7ber 20, 200.@ and 5' When %hief 6ustice anganiban retired on :ece7ber 5, 2005, %hief 6ustice Reynato S' uno tooB his oath as %hief 6ustice at 7idnight of :ece7ber 5, 2005' 4. """ -r.1 o8 :a*+a:5/ +o4/ *o1 9.4 aGa.*/1 1h4 J(C !ay the 6$% be co7pelled to sub7it the list of no7inees to the residentH Mandamus shall issue when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the perfor7ance of an act that the law specifically en=oins as a duty resulting fro7 an office, trust, or station' 45 +t is proper when the act against which it is directed is one addressed to the discretion of the tribunal or officer' Mandamus is not a&ailable to direct the e9ercise of a =udg7ent or discretion in a particular way' 47 <or mandamus to lie, the following re0uisites 7ust be co7plied with8 -a/ the plaintiff has a clear legal right to the act de7anded@ -b/ it 7ust be the duty of the defendant to perfor7 the act, because it is 7andated by law@ -c/ the defendant unlawfully neglects the perfor7ance of the duty en=oined by law@ -d/ the act to be perfor7ed is 7inisterial, not discretionary@ and -e/ there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and ade0uate re7edy in the ordinary course of law' Section 4-./ and Section 2, Article A+++, 7andate the 6$% to sub7it a list of at least three no7inees to the resident for e&ery &acancy in the 6udiciary8 Section 4' 999 -./ The %ouncil /ha99 ha64 1h4 0r.*c.0a9 85*c1.o* o8 r4co::4*+.*G a00o.*144/ to the 6udiciary' 999 Section 2' The !e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt and =udges of lower courts shall be appointed by the resident fro7 a 9./1 o8 a1 94a/1 1hr44 *o:.*44/ 0r40ar4+ <2 1h4 J5+.c.a9 a*+ (ar Co5*c.9 8or 464r2 6aca*c2. Such appoint7ents need no confir7ation' <or the lower courts, 1h4 Pr4/.+4*1 /ha99 .//54 1h4 a00o.*1:4*1/ I.1h.* *.*412 +a2/ 8ro: 1h4 /5<:.//.o* o8 1h4 9./1. Cowe&er, Section 3-1/ and Section 2, Article A+++, 7andate the resident to fill the &acancy in the Supre7e %ourt within 20 days fro7 the occurrence of the &acancy, and within 20 days fro7 the sub7ission of the list, in the case of the lower courts' The 20,day period is directed at the resident, not at the 6$%' Thus, the 6$% should start the process of selecting the candidates to fill the &acancy in the Supre7e %ourt before the occurrence of the &acancy' *nder the %onstitution, it is 7andatory for the 6$% to sub7it to the resident the list of no7inees to fill a &acancy in the Supre7e %ourt in order to enable the resident to appoint one of the7 within the 20,day period fro7 the occurrence of the &acancy' The 6$% has no discretion to sub7it the list to the resident after the &acancy occurs, because that shortens the 20,day period allowed by the %onstitution for the resident to 7aBe the appoint7ent' <or the 6$% to do so will be unconscionable on its part, considering that it will thereby effecti&ely and illegally depri&e the resident of the a7ple ti7e granted under the %onstitution to reflect on the 0ualifications of the no7inees na7ed in the list of the 6$% before 7aBing the appoint7ent'

The duty of the 6$% to sub7it a list of no7inees before the start of the residentDs 7andatory 20,day period to appoint is 7inisterial, but its selection of the candidates whose na7es will be in the list to be sub7itted to the resident lies within the discretion of the 6$%' The ob=ect of the petitions for 7anda7us herein should only refer to the duty to sub7it to the resident the list of no7inees for e&ery &acancy in the 6udiciary, because in order to constitute unlawful neglect of duty, there 7ust be an un=ustified delay in perfor7ing that duty' 44 <or mandamus to lie against the 6$%, therefore, there should be an une9plained delay on its part in reco77ending no7inees to the 6udiciary, that is, in sub7itting the list to the resident' The distinction between a 7inisterial act and a discretionary one has been delineated in the following 7anner8 The distinction between a 7inisterial and discretionary act is well delineated' A 05r492 :.*./14r.a9 ac1 or +512 ./ o*4 Ih.ch a* o88.c4r or 1r.<5*a9 04r8or:/ .* a G.64* /1a14 o8 8ac1/, .* a 0r4/cr.<4+ :a**4r, .* o<4+.4*c4 1o 1h4 :a*+a14 o8 a 94Ga9 a51hor.12, I.1ho51 r4Gar+ 1o or 1h4 434rc./4 o8 h./ oI* K5+G:4*1 50o* 1h4 0ro0r.412 or .:0ro0r.412 o8 1h4 ac1 +o*4. +f the 9aI .:0o/4/ a +512 50o* a 05<9.c o88.c4r a*+ G.64/ h.: 1h4 r.Gh1 1o +4c.+4 hoI or Ih4* 1h4 +512 /ha99 <4 04r8or:4+, /5ch +512 ./ +./cr41.o*ar2 and not 7inisterial' The +512 ./ :.*./14r.a9 o*92 Ih4* 1h4 +./charG4 o8 1h4 /a:4 r4N5.r4/ *4.1h4r 1h4 434rc./4 o8 o88.c.a9 +./cr41.o* or K5+G:4*1'42 Accordingly, we find no sufficient grounds to grant the petitions for 7anda7us and to issue a writ of 7anda7us against the 6$%' The actions for that purpose are pre7ature, because it is clear that the 6$% still has until !ay 17, 2010, at the latest, within which to sub7it the list of no7inees to the resident to fill the &acancy created by the co7pulsory retire7ent of %hief 6ustice uno' "V -r.1 o8 0roh.<.1.o* +o4/ *o1 9.4 aGa.*/1 1h4 J(C +n light of the foregoing dis0uisitions, the conclusion is ineluctable that only the resident can appoint the %hief 6ustice' Cence, SorianoDs petition for prohibition in 1'R' #o' 121032, which proposes to pre&ent the 6$% fro7 inter&ening in the process of no7inating the successor of %hief 6ustice uno, lacBs 7erit' (n the other hand, the petition for prohibition in 1'R' #o' 121332 is si7ilarly de&oid of 7erit' The challenge 7ounted against the co7position of the 6$% based on the allegedly unconstitutional allocation of a &ote each to the e9 officio 7e7bers fro7 the Senate and the Couse of Representati&es, thereby pre=udicing the chances of so7e candidates for no7ination by raising the 7ini7u7 nu7ber of &otes re0uired in accordance with the rules of the 6$%, is not based on the petitionersD actual interest, because they ha&e not alleged in their petition that they were no7inated to the 6$% to fill so7e &acancies in the 6udiciary' Thus, the petitioners lacB locus standi on that issue' - ERE$ORE, the %ourt8 1' :is7isses the petitions for certiorari and 7anda7us in 1'R' #o' 121002 and 1'R' #o' 121132, and the petition for 7anda7us in 1'R' #o' 1210.7 for being pre7ature@ 2' :is7isses the petitions for prohibition in 1'R' #o' 121032 and 1'R' #o' 121332 for lacB of 7erit@ and 3' 1rants the petition in A'!' #o' 10,2,.,S% and, accordingly, directs the 6udicial and $ar %ouncil8 -a/ To resu7e its proceedings for the no7ination of candidates to fill the &acancy to be created by the co7pulsory retire7ent of %hief 6ustice Reynato S' uno by !ay 17, 2010@ -b/ To prepare the short list of no7inees for the position of %hief 6ustice@ -c/ To sub7it to the incu7bent resident the short list of no7inees for the position of %hief 6ustice on or before !ay 17, 2010@ and -d/ To continue its proceedings for the no7ination of candidates to fill other &acancies in the 6udiciary and sub7it to the resident the short list of no7inees corresponding thereto in accordance with this decision' S( (R:"R":' G.R. No. 191@@2 A0r.9 2@, 2@1@

ARTURO M. %E CASTRO, etitioner, &s' JU%"C"AL AN% (AR COUNC"L EJ(CF a*+ PRES"%ENT GLOR"A MACAPAGAL - ARRO#O, Respondents' 9 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,9

G.R. No. 191@32 JA"ME N. SOR"ANO, etitioner, &s' JU%"C"AL AN% (AR COUNC"L EJ(CF, Respondent' 9 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,9 G.R. No. 191@)7 P "L"PP"NE CONST"TUT"ON ASSOC"AT"ON EP "LCONSAF, etitioner, &s' JU%"C"AL AN% (AR COUNC"L EJ(CF, Respondent' 9 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,9 A.M. No. 1@-2-)-SC "N RE APPL"CA("L"T# O$ SECT"ON 1), ART"CLE V"" O$ T E CONST"TUT"ON TO APPO"NTMENTS TO T E JU%"C"AR#, ESTEL"TO P. MEN%O&A, etitioner, 9 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,9 G.R. No. 191149 JO N G. PERALTA, etitioner, &s' JU%"C"AL AN% (AR COUNC"L EJ(CF. Respondent' PETER "RV"NG CORVERA7 C R"ST"AN RO(ERT S. L"M7 AL$ONSO V. TAN, JR.7 NAT"ONAL UN"ON O$ PEOPLERS LA-#ERS7 MARLOU (. U(ANO7 "NTEGRATE% (AR O$ T E P "L"PP"NES-%AVAO %EL SUR C APTER, r40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ "::4+.a14 Pa/1 Pr4/.+4*1, ATT#. "SRAEL"TO P. TORREON, a*+ 1h4 9a114r .* h./ oI* 04r/o*a9 ca0ac.12 a/ a MEM(ER o8 1h4 P "L"PP"NE (AR7 M"TC ELL JO N L. (O"SER7 (AGONG AL#ANSANG (A#AN E(A#ANF C A"RMAN %R. CAROL"NA P. ARAULLO7 (A#AN SECRETAR# GENERAL RENATO M. RE#ES, JR.7 CON$E%ERAT"ON $OR UN"T#, RECOGN"T"ON AN% A%VANCE-MENT O$ GOVERNMENT EMPLO#EES ECOURAGEF C A"RMAN $ER%"NAN% GA"TE7 ,AL"PUNAN NG %AMA#ANG MA " "RAP E,A%AMA#F SECRETAR# GENERAL GLOR"A ARELLANO7 AL#ANSA NG NAG,A,A"SANG ,A(ATAAN NG SAM(A#ANAN PARA SA ,AUNLARAN EANA,(A#ANF C A"RMAN ,EN LEONAR% RAMOS7 TA#O ANG PAG-ASA CONVENOR ALV"N PETERS7 LEAGUE O$ $"L"P"NO STU%ENTS EL$SF C A"RMAN JAMES MAR, TERR# LACUANAN R"%ON7 NAT"ONAL UN"ON O$ STU%ENTS O$ T E P "L"PP"NES ENUSPF C A"RMAN E"NSTE"N RECE%ES7 COLLEGE E%"TORS GU"L% O$ T E P "L"PP"NES ECEGPF C A"RMAN V"JAE ALDU"SOLA7 a*+ STU%ENT C R"ST"AN MOVEMENT O$ T E P "L"PP"NES ESCMPF C A"RMAN MA. CR"ST"NA ANGELA GUEVARRA7 -AL%EN $. (ELLO a*+ LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES7 -OMEN TR"AL LA-#ERS ORGAN"&AT"ON O$ T E P "L"PP"NES, r40r4/4*14+ <2 #OLAN%A DU"SUM("NG-JAVELLANA7 (ELLE&A ALOJA%O %EMA"S"P7 TERES"TA GAN%"ONCO-OLE%AN7 MA. VERENA ,AS"LAG-V"LLANUEVA7 MAR"L#N STA. ROMANA7 LEON"LA %E JESUS7 a*+ GU"NEVERE %E LEON7 ADU"L"NO D. P"MENTEL, JR.7+nter&enors' 9 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,9 G.R. No. 191342 ATT#. AMA%OR &. TOLENT"NO, JR., E"(P Go64r*or-So51h4r* L5Jo*F, a*+ ATT#. ROLAN% (. "NT"NG E"(P1o&ernor,"astern Aisayas/, etitioners, &s' JU%"C"AL AN% (AR COUNC"L EJ(CF, Respondent' 9 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,9 G.R. No. 19142@ P "L"PP"NE (AR ASSOC"AT"ON, "NC., etitioner, &s' JU%"C"AL AN% (AR COUNC"L a*+ ER E!CELLENC# GLOR"A MACAPAGAL-ARRO#O, Respondents' R"S()*T+(# (ERSAM"N, J.:

(n !arch 17, 2010, the %ourt pro7ulgated its decision, holding8 WC"R"<(R", the %ourt8 1' :is7isses the petitions for certiorari and 7anda7us in 1'R' #o' 121002 and 1'R' #o' 121132, and the petition for 7anda7us in 1'R' #o' 1210.7 for being pre7ature@ 2' :is7isses the petitions for prohibition in 1'R' #o' 121032 and 1'R' #o' 121332 for lacB of 7erit@ and 3' 1rants the petition in A'!' #o' 10,2,.,S% and, accordingly, directs the 6udicial and $ar %ouncil8 -a/ To resu7e its proceedings for the no7ination of candidates to fill the &acancy to be created by the co7pulsory retire7ent of %hief 6ustice Reynato S' uno by !ay 17, 2010@ -b/ To prepare the short list of no7inees for the position of %hief 6ustice@ -c/ To sub7it to the incu7bent resident the short list of no7inees for the position of %hief 6ustice on or before !ay 17, 2010@ and -d/ To continue its proceedings for the no7ination of candidates to fill other &acancies in the 6udiciary and sub7it to the resident the short list of no7inees corresponding thereto in accordance with this decision' S( (R:"R":' !otions for Reconsideration etitioners 6ai7e #' Soriano -1'R' #o' 121032/, A7ador M' Tolentino and Roland $' +nting -1'R' #o' 121332/, and hilippine $ar Association -1'R' #o' 121320/, as well as inter&enors +ntegrated $ar of the hilippines,:a&ao del Sur -+$ ,:a&ao del Sur, et al'/@ %hristian Robert S' )i7@ eter +r&ing %or&era@ $agong Alyansang $ayan and others -$ALA#, et al'/@ Alfonso A' Tan, 6r'@ the Wo7en Trial )awyers (rgani?ation of the hilippines -WT)( /@ !arlou $' *bano@ !itchell 6ohn )' $oiser@ and Walden <' $ello and )oretta Ann ' Rosales -$ello, et al'/, filed their respecti&e 7otions for reconsideration' Also filing a 7otion for reconsideration was Senator A0uilino I' i7entel, 6r', whose belated inter&ention was allowed' We su77ari?e the argu7ents and sub7issions of the &arious 7otions for reconsideration, in the aforegi&en order8 Soriano 1' The %ourt has not s0uarely ruled upon or addressed the issue of whether or not the power to designate the %hief 6ustice belonged to the Supre7e %ourt en banc' 2' The !endo?a petition should ha&e been dis7issed, because it sought a 7ere declaratory =udg7ent and did not in&ol&e a =usticiable contro&ersy' 3' All 6ustices of the %ourt should participate in the ne9t deliberations' The 7ere fact that the %hief 6ustice sits as e9 officio head of the 6$% should not pre&ail o&er the 7ore co7pelling state interest for hi7 to participate as a !e7ber of the %ourt' Tolentino and +nting 1' A plain reading of Section 1., Article A++ does not lead to an interpretation that e9e7pts =udicial appoint7ents fro7 the e9press ban on 7idnight appoint7ents' 2' +n e9cluding the 6udiciary fro7 the ban, the %ourt has 7ade distinctions and has created e9e7ptions when none e9ists' 3' The ban on 7idnight appoint7ents is placed in Article A++, not in Article A+++, because it li7its an e9ecuti&e, not a =udicial, power' 3' Resort to the deliberations of the %onstitutional %o77ission is superfluous, and is powerless to &ary the ter7s of the clear prohibition' .' The %ourt has gi&en too 7uch credit to the position taBen by 6ustice Regalado' Thereby, the %ourt has raised the %onstitution to the le&el of a &enerated te9t whose intent can only be di&ined by its fra7ers as to be outside the real7 of understanding by the so&ereign people that ratified it'

5' Aalen?uela should not be re&ersed' 7' The petitioners, as ta9payers and lawyers, ha&e the clear legal standing to 0uestion the illegal co7position of the 6$%' hilippine $ar Association 1' The %ourtUs strained interpretation of the %onstitution &iolates the basic principle that the %ourt should not for7ulate a rule of constitutional law broader than what is re0uired by the precise facts of the case' 2' %onsidering that Section 1., Article A++ is clear and straightforward, the only duty of the %ourt is to apply it' The pro&ision e9pressly and clearly pro&ides a general li7itation on the appointing power of the resident in prohibiting the appoint7ent of any person to any position in the 1o&ern7ent without any 0ualification and distinction' 3' The %ourt gra&ely erred in unilaterally ignoring the constitutional safeguard against 7idnight appoint7ents' 3' The %onstitution has installed two constitutional safeguards8, the prohibition against 7idnight appoint7ents, and the creation of the 6$%' +t is not within the authority of the %ourt to prefer one o&er the other, for the %ourtUs duty is to apply the safeguards as they are, not as the %ourt liBes the7 to be' .' The %ourt has erred in failing to apply the basic principles of statutory construction in interpreting the %onstitution' 5' The %ourt has erred in relying hea&ily on the title, chapter or section headings, despite precedents on statutory construction holding that such headings carried &ery little weight' 7' The %onstitution has pro&ided a general rule on 7idnight appoint7ents, and the only e9ception is that on te7porary appoint7ents to e9ecuti&e positions' 4' The %ourt has erred in directing the 6$% to resu7e the proceedings for the no7ination of the candidates to fill the &acancy to be created by the co7pulsory retire7ent of %hief 6ustice uno with a &iew to sub7itting the list of no7inees for %hief 6ustice to resident Arroyo on or before !ay 17, 2010' The %onstitution grants the %ourt only the power of super&ision o&er the 6$%@ hence, the %ourt cannot tell the 6$% what to do, how to do it, or when to do it, especially in the absence of a real and =usticiable case assailing any specific action or inaction of the 6$%' 2' The %ourt has engaged in rendering an ad&isory opinion and has indulged in speculations' 10' The constitutional ban on appoint7ents being already in effect, the %ourtUs directing the 6$% to co7ply with the decision constitutes a culpable &iolation of the %onstitution and the co77ission of an election offense' 11' The %ourt cannot re&erse on the basis of a secondary authority a doctrine unani7ously for7ulated by the %ourt en banc' 12' The practice has been for the 7ost senior 6ustice to act as %hief 6ustice whene&er the incu7bent is indisposed' Thus, the appoint7ent of the successor %hief 6ustice is not urgently necessary' 13' The principal purpose for the ban on 7idnight appoint7ents is to arrest any atte7pt to prolong the outgoing residentUs powers by 7eans of pro9ies' The atte7pt of the incu7bent resident to appoint the ne9t %hief 6ustice is undeniably intended to perpetuate her power beyond her ter7 of office' +$ ,:a&ao del Sur, et al' 1' +ts language being una7biguous, Section 1., Article A++ of the %onstitution applies to appoint7ents to the 6udiciary' Cence, no cogent reason e9ists to warrant the re&ersal of the Aalen?uela pronounce7ent' 2' Section 15, Article A++ of the %onstitution pro&ides for presidential appoint7ents to the %onstitutional %o77issions and the 6$% with the consent of the %o77ission on Appoint7ents' +ts phrase ;other officers whose appoint7ents are &ested in hi7 in this %onstitution; is enough proof that the li7itation on the appointing power of the resident e9tends to appoint7ents to the 6udiciary' Thus, Section 13, Section 1., and Section 15 of Article A++ apply to all presidential appoint7ents in the "9ecuti&e and 6udicial $ranches of the 1o&ern7ent' 3' There is no e&idence that the fra7ers of the %onstitution abhorred the idea of an Acting %hief 6ustice in all cases'

)i7 1' There is no =usticiable contro&ersy that warrants the %ourtUs e9ercise of =udicial re&iew' 2' The election ban under Section 1., Article A++ applies to appoint7ents to fill a &acancy in the %ourt and to other appoint7ents to the 6udiciary' 3' The creation of the 6$% does not =ustify the re7o&al of the safeguard under Section 1. of Article A++ against 7idnight appoint7ents in the 6udiciary' %or&era 1' The %ourtUs e9clusion of appoint7ents to the 6udiciary fro7 the %onstitutional ban on 7idnight appoint7ents is based on an interpretation beyond the plain and une0ui&ocal language of the %onstitution' 2' The intent of the ban on 7idnight appoint7ents is to co&er appoint7ents in both the "9ecuti&e and 6udicial :epart7ents' The application of the principle of &erba legis -ordinary 7eaning/ would ha&e ob&iated dwelling on the organi?ation and arrange7ent of the pro&isions of the %onstitution' +f there is any a7biguity in Section 1., Article A++, the intent behind the pro&ision, which is to pre&ent political partisanship in all branches of the 1o&ern7ent, should ha&e controlled' 3' A plain reading is preferred to a contorted and strained interpretation based on co7part7entali?ation and physical arrange7ent, especially considering that the %onstitution 7ust be interpreted as a whole' 3' Resort to the deliberations or to the personal interpretation of the fra7ers of the %onstitution should yield to the plain and une0ui&ocal language of the %onstitution' .' There is no sufficient reason for re&ersing Aalen?uela, a ruling that is reasonable and in accord with the %onstitution' $ALA#, et al' 1' The %ourt erred in granting the petition in A'!' #o' 10,2,.,S%, because the petition did not present a =usticiable contro&ersy' The issues it raised were not yet ripe for ad=udication, considering that the office of the %hief 6ustice was not yet &acant and that the 6$% itself has yet to decide whether or not to sub7it a list of no7inees to the resident' 2' The collecti&e wisdo7 of Aalen?uela %ourt is 7ore i7portant and co7pelling than the opinion of 6ustice Regalado' 3' +n ruling that Section 1., Article A++ is in conflict with Section 3-1/, Article A+++, the %ourt has &iolated the principle of ut 7agis &aleat 0ua7 pereat -which 7andates that the %onstitution should be interpreted as a whole, such that any conflicting pro&isions are to be har7oni?ed as to fully gi&e effect to all/' There is no conflict between the pro&isions@ they co7ple7ent each other' 3' The for7 and structure of the %onstitutionUs titles, chapters, sections, and drafts7anship carry little weight in statutory construction' The clear and plain language of Section 1., Article A++ precludes interpretation' Tan, 6r' 1' The factual antecedents do not present an actual case or contro&ersy' The clash of legal rights and interests in the present case are 7erely anticipated' "&en if it is anticipated with certainty, no actual &acancy in the position of the %hief 6ustice has yet occurred' 2' The ruling that Section 1., Article A++ does not apply to a &acancy in the %ourt and the 6udiciary runs in conflict with long standing principles and doctrines of statutory construction' The pro&ision ad7its only one e9ception, te7porary appoint7ents in the "9ecuti&e :epart7ent' Thus, the %ourt should not distinguish, because the law itself 7aBes no distinction' 3' Aalen?uela was erroneously re&ersed' The fra7ers of the %onstitution clearly intended the ban on 7idnight appoint7ents to co&er the 7e7bers of the 6udiciary' Cence, gi&ing 7ore weight to the opinion of 6ustice Regalado to re&erse the en banc decision in Aalen?uela was unwarranted' 3' Section 1., Article A++ is not inco7patible with Section 3-1/, Article A+++' The 20,day 7andate to fill any &acancy lasts until August 1., 2010, or a 7onth and a half after the end of the ban' The ne9t resident has roughly the sa7e ti7e of 3. days as the incu7bent resident -i'e', 33 days/ within which to scrutini?e and study the 0ualifications of the ne9t %hief 6ustice' Thus, the 6$% has 7ore than enough opportunity to e9a7ine the no7inees without haste and political uncertainty'
1avvphi1

.' When the constitutional ban is in place, the 20,day period under Section 3-1/, Article A+++ is suspended' 5' There is no basis to direct the 6$% to sub7it the list of no7inees on or before !ay 17, 2010' The directi&e to the 6$% sanctions a culpable &iolation of the %onstitution and constitutes an election offense' 7' There is no pressing necessity for the appoint7ent of a %hief 6ustice, because the %ourt sits en banc, e&en when it acts as the sole =udge of all contests relati&e to the election, returns and 0ualifications of the resident and Aice, resident' <ourteen other !e7bers of the %ourt can &alidly co7prise the residential "lectoral Tribunal' WT)( 1' The %ourt e9ceeded its =urisdiction in ordering the 6$% to sub7it the list of no7inees for %hief 6ustice to the resident on or before !ay 17, 2010, and to continue its proceedings for the no7ination of the candidates, because it granted a relief not prayed for@ i7posed on the 6$% a deadline not pro&ided by law or the %onstitution@ e9ercised control instead of 7ere super&ision o&er the 6$%@ and lacBed sufficient &otes to re&erse Aalen?uela' 2' +n interpreting Section 1., Article A++, the %ourt has ignored the basic principle of statutory construction to the effect that the literal 7eaning of the law 7ust be applied when it is clear and una7biguous@ and that we should not distinguish where the law does not distinguish' 3' There is no urgency to appoint the ne9t %hief 6ustice, considering that the 6udiciary Act of 1234 already pro&ides that the power and duties of the office de&ol&e on the 7ost senior Associate 6ustice in case of a &acancy in the office of the %hief 6ustice' *bano 1' The language of Section 1., Article A++, being clear and une0ui&ocal, needs no interpretation 2' The %onstitution 7ust be construed in its entirety, not by resort to the organi?ation and arrange7ent of its pro&isions' 3' The opinion of 6ustice Regalado is irrele&ant, because Section 1., Article A++ and the pertinent records of the %onstitutional %o77ission are clear and una7biguous' 3' The %ourt has erred in ordering the 6$% to sub7it the list of no7inees to the resident by !ay 17, 2010 at the latest, because no specific law re0uires the 6$% to sub7it the list of no7inees e&en before the &acancy has occurred' $oiser 1' *nder Section 1., Article A++, the only e9e7ption fro7 the ban on 7idnight appoint7ents is the te7porary appoint7ent to an e9ecuti&e position' The li7itation is in Beeping with the clear intent of the fra7ers of the %onstitution to place a restriction on the power of the outgoing %hief "9ecuti&e to 7aBe appoint7ents' 2' To e9e7pt the appoint7ent of the ne9t %hief 6ustice fro7 the ban on 7idnight appoint7ents 7aBes the appointee beholden to the outgoing %hief "9ecuti&e, and co7pro7ises the independence of the %hief 6ustice by ha&ing the outgoing resident be continually influential' 3' The %ourtUs re&ersal of Aalen?uela without stating the sufficient reason &iolates the principle of stare decisis' $ello, et al' 1' Section 1., Article A++ does not distinguish as to the type of appoint7ents an outgoing resident is prohibited fro7 7aBing within the prescribed period' lain te9tual reading and the records of the %onstitutional %o77ission support the &iew that the ban on 7idnight appoint7ents e9tends to =udicial appoint7ents' 2' Super&ision of the 6$% by the %ourt in&ol&es o&ersight' The subordinate sub=ect to o&ersight 7ust first act not in accord with prescribed rules before the act can be redone to confor7 to the prescribed rules' 3' The %ourt erred in granting the petition in A'!' #o' 10,2,.,S%, because the petition did not present a =usticiable contro&ersy' i7entel

1' Any constitutional interpretati&e changes 7ust be reasonable, rational, and confor7able to the general intent of the %onstitution as a li7itation to the powers of 1o&ern7ent and as a bastion for the protection of the rights of the people' Thus, in har7oni?ing see7ingly conflicting pro&isions of the %onstitution, the interpretation should always be one that protects the citi?enry fro7 an e&er e9panding grant of authority to its representati&es' 2' The decision e9pands the constitutional powers of the resident in a 7anner totally repugnant to republican constitutional de7ocracy, and is tanta7ount to a =udicial a7end7ent of the %onstitution without proper authority' %o77ents The (ffice of the Solicitor 1eneral -(S1/ and the 6$% separately represent in their respecti&e co77ents, thus8 (S1 1' The 6$% 7ay be co7pelled to sub7it to the resident a short list of its no7inees for the position of %hief 6ustice' 2' The incu7bent resident has the power to appoint the ne9t %hief 6ustice' 3' Section 1., Article A++ does not apply to the 6udiciary' 3' The principles of constitutional construction fa&or the e9e7ption of the 6udiciary fro7 the ban on 7idnight appoint7ents'
1awph!1

.' The %ourt has the duty to consider and resol&e all issues raised by the parties as well as other related 7atters' 6$% 1' The consolidated petitions should ha&e been dis7issed for pre7aturity, because the 6$% has not yet decided at the ti7e the petitions were filed whether the incu7bent resident has the power to appoint the new %hief 6ustice, and because the 6$%, ha&ing yet to inter&iew the candidates, has not sub7itted a short list to the resident' 2' The state7ent in the decision that there is a doubt on whether a 6$% short list is necessary for the resident to appoint a %hief 6ustice should be strucB down as bereft of constitutional and legal basis' The state7ent under7ines the independence of the 6$%' 3' The 6$% will abide by the final decision of the %ourt, but in accord with its constitutional 7andate and its i7ple7enting rules and regulations' <or his part, petitioner "stelito ' !endo?a -A'!' #o' 10,2,.,S%/ sub7its his co77ent e&en if the (S1 and the 6$% were the only ones the %ourt has re0uired to do so' Ce states that the 7otions for reconsideration were directed at the ad7inistrati&e 7atter he initiated and which the %ourt resol&ed' Cis co77ent asserts8 1' The grounds of the 7otions for reconsideration were already resol&ed by the decision and the separate opinion' 2' The ad7inistrati&e 7atter he brought in&oBed the %ourtUs power of super&ision o&er the 6$% as pro&ided by Section 4-1/, Article A+++ of the %onstitution, as distinguished fro7 the %ourtUs ad=udicatory power under Section 1, Article A+++' +n the for7er, the re0uisites for =udicial re&iew are not re0uired, which was whyValenzuela was docBeted as an ad7inistrati&e 7atter' %onsidering that the 6$% itself has yet to taBe a position on when to sub7it the short list to the proper appointing authority, it has effecti&ely solicited the e9ercise by the %ourt of its power of super&ision o&er the 6$%' 3' To apply Section 1., Article A++ to Section 3-1/ and Section 2, Article A+++ is to a7end the %onstitution' 3' The portions of the deliberations of the %onstitutional %o77ission 0uoted in the dissent of 6ustice %arpio !orales, as well as in so7e of the 7otions for reconsideration do not refer to either Section 1., Article A++ or Section 3-1/, Article A+++, but to Section 13, Article A++ -on nepotis7/' Ruling We deny the 7otions for reconsideration for lacB of 7erit, for all the 7atters being thereby raised and argued, not being new, ha&e all been resol&ed by the decision of !arch 17, 2010'

#onetheless, the %ourt opts to dwell on so7e 7atters only for the purpose of clarification and e7phasis' <irst8 !ost of the 7o&ants contend that the principle of stare decisis is controlling, and accordingly insist that the %ourt has erred in disobeying or abandoning Aalen?uela' 1 The contention has no basis' Stare decisis deri&es its na7e fro7 the )atin 7a9i7 stare decisis et non 0uieta 7o&ere, i'e', to adhere to precedent and not to unsettle things that are settled' +t si7ply 7eans that a principle underlying the decision in one case is dee7ed of i7perati&e authority, controlling the decisions of liBe cases in the sa7e court and in lower courts within the sa7e =urisdiction, unless and until the decision in 0uestion is re&ersed or o&erruled by a court of co7petent authority' The decisions relied upon as precedents are co77only those of appellate courts, because the decisions of the trial courts 7ay be appealed to higher courts and for that reason are probably not the best e&idence of the rules of law laid down' 2 6udicial decisions assu7e the sa7e authority as a statute itself and, until authoritati&ely abandoned, necessarily beco7e, to the e9tent that they are applicable, the criteria that 7ust control the actuations, not only of those called upon to abide by the7, but also of those duty,bound to enforce obedience to the7' 3 +n a hierarchical =udicial syste7 liBe ours, the decisions of the higher courts bind the lower courts, but the courts of co,ordinate authority do not bind each other' The one highest court does not bind itself, being in&ested with the innate authority to rule according to its best lights'3 The %ourt, as the highest court of the land, 7ay be guided but is not controlled by precedent' Thus, the %ourt, especially with a new 7e7bership, is not obliged to follow blindly a particular decision that it deter7ines, after re, e9a7ination, to call for a rectification'. The adherence to precedents is strict and rigid in a co77on,law setting liBe the *nited Ningdo7, where =udges 7aBe law as binding as an Act of arlia7ent' 5 $ut ours is not a co77on,law syste7@ hence, =udicial precedents are not always strictly and rigidly followed' A =udicial pronounce7ent in an earlier decision 7ay be followed as a precedent in a subse0uent case only when its reasoning and =ustification are rele&ant, and the court in the latter case accepts such reasoning and =ustification to be applicable to the case' The application of the precedent is for the saBe of con&enience and stability' <or the inter&enors to insist that Aalen?uela ought not to be disobeyed, or abandoned, or re&ersed, and that its wisdo7 should guide, if not control, the %ourt in this case is, therefore, de&oid of rationality and foundation' They see7 to con&eniently forget that the %onstitution itself recogni?es the innate authority of the %ourt en banc to 7odify or re&erse a doctrine or principle of law laid down in any decision rendered en banc or in di&ision' 7 Second8 So7e inter&enors are grossly 7isleading the public by their insistence that the %onstitutional %o77ission e9tended to the 6udiciary the ban on presidential appoint7ents during the period stated in Section 1., Article A++' The deliberations that the dissent of 6ustice %arpio !orales 0uoted fro7 the records of the %onstitutional %o77ission did not concern either Section 1., Article A++ or Section 3-1/, Article A+++, but only Section 13, Article A++, a pro&ision on nepotis7' The records of the %onstitutional %o77ission show that %o77issioner Cilario 1' :a&ide, 6r' had proposed to include =udges and =ustices related to the resident within the fourth ci&il degree of consanguinity or affinity a7ong the persons who7 the resident 7ight not appoint during his or her tenure' +n the end, howe&er, %o77issioner :a&ide, 6r' withdrew the proposal to include the 6udiciary in Section 13, Article A++ ;-t/o a&oid any further co7plication,;4 such that the final &ersion of the second paragraph of Section 13, Article A++ e&en co7pletely o7its any reference to the 6udiciary, to wit8 Section 13' 999 The spouse and relati&es by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth ci&il degree of the resident shall not during his tenure be appointed as !e7bers of the %onstitutional %o77issions, or the (ffice of the (7buds7an, or as Secretaries, *ndersecretaries, chair7en or heads of bureaus or offices, including go&ern7ent,owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries' )ast8 The 7o&ants taBe the 7a=ority to tasB for holding that Section 1., Article A++ does not apply to appoint7ents in the 6udiciary' They a&er that the %ourt either ignored or refused to apply 7any principles of statutory construction' The 7o&ants gra&ely err in their posture, and are the7sel&es apparently contra&ening their a&owed reliance on the principles of statutory construction' <or one, the 7o&ants, disregarding the absence fro7 Section 1., Article A++ of the e9press e9tension of the ban on appoint7ents to the 6udiciary, insist that the ban applied to the 6udiciary under the principle of &erba legis' That is self,contradiction at its worst' Another instance is the 7o&antsU unhesitating willingness to read into Section 3-1/ and Section 2, both of Article A+++, the e9press applicability of the ban under Section 1., Article A++ during the period pro&ided therein, despite the silence of said pro&isions thereon' Let, construction cannot supply the o7ission, for doing so would generally constitute an encroach7ent upon the field of the %onstitutional %o77ission' Rather, Section 3-1/ and Section 2

should be left as they are, gi&en that their 7eaning is clear and e9plicit, and no words can be interpolated in the7'2 +nterpolation of words is unnecessary, because the law is 7ore than liBely to fail to e9press the legislati&e intent with the interpolation' +n other words, the addition of new words 7ay alter the thought intended to be con&eyed' And, e&en where the 7eaning of the law is clear and sensible, either with or without the o7itted word or words, interpolation is i7proper, because the pri7ary source of the legislati&e intent is in the language of the law itself'10 Thus, the decision of !arch 17, 2010 has fittingly obser&ed8 Cad the fra7ers intended to e9tend the prohibition contained in Section 1., Article A++ to the appoint7ent of !e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt, they could ha&e e9plicitly done so' They could not ha&e ignored the 7eticulous ordering of the pro&isions' They would ha&e easily and surely written the prohibition 7ade e9plicit in Section 1., Article A++ as being e0ually applicable to the appoint7ent of !e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt in Article A+++ itself, 7ost liBely in Section 3 -1/, Article A+++' That such specification was not done only re&eals that the prohibition against the resident or Acting resident 7aBing appoint7ents within two 7onths before the ne9t presidential elections and up to the end of the residentUs or Acting residentUs ter7 does not refer to the !e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt' We cannot per7it the 7eaning of the %onstitution to be stretched to any unintended point in order to suit the purposes of any 0uarter' <inal Word +t has been insinuated as part of the pole7ics attendant to the contro&ersy we are resol&ing that because all the !e7bers of the present %ourt were appointed by the incu7bent resident, a 7a=ority of the7 are now granting to her the authority to appoint the successor of the retiring %hief 6ustice' The insinuation is 7isguided and utterly unfair' The !e7bers of the %ourt &ote on the sole basis of their conscience and the 7erits of the issues' Any clai7 to the contrary proceeds fro7 7alice and condescension' #either the outgoing resident nor the present !e7bers of the %ourt had arranged the current situation to happen and to e&ol&e as it has' #one of the !e7bers of the %ourt could ha&e pre&ented the !e7bers co7posing the %ourt when she assu7ed the residency about a decade ago fro7 retiring during her prolonged ter7 and tenure, for their retire7ents were 7andatory' Let, she is now left with an i7perati&e duty under the %onstitution to fill up the &acancies created by such ine9orable retire7ents within 20 days fro7 their occurrence' Cer official duty she 7ust co7ply with' So 7ust we ours who are tasBed by the %onstitution to settle the contro&ersy' A%%(R:+#1)L, the 7otions for reconsideration are denied with finality' S( (R:"R":' A.M. No. 9?-)-@1-SC No64:<4r 9, 199? "* R4 A00o.*1:4*1/ +a14+ March 3@, 199? o8 o*. Ma14o A. Va94*J549a a*+ o*. P9ac.+o (. Va99ar1a a/ J5+G4/ o8 1h4 R4G.o*a9 Tr.a9 Co5r1 o8 (ra*ch 62, (aGo C.12 a*+ o8 (ra*ch 24, Ca<a*a*a15a* C.12, r4/04c1.6492.

NARVASA, C.J.: The 0uestion presented for resolution in the ad7inistrati&e 7atter at bar is whether, during the period of the ban on appoint7ents i7posed by Section 1., Article A++ of the, %onstitution, the resident is nonetheless re0uired to fill &acancies in the =udiciary, in &iew of Sections 3-1/ and 2 of Article A+++' A corollary 0uestion is whether he can 7aBe appoint7ents to the =udiciary during the period of the ban in the interest of public ser&ice' Resolution of the issues is needful@ it will preclude a recurrence of any conflict in the 7atter of no7inations and appoint7ents to the 6udiciary E as that here in&ol&ed E between the %hief "9ecuti&e, on the one hand, and on the other, the Supre7e %ourt and the 6uducial and $ar %ouncil o&er which the %ourt e9ercises general super&ision and wields specific powers including the assign7ent to it of other functions and duties in addition to its principal one of reco77ending appointees to the 6udiciary, and the deter7ination of its !e7bers e7olu7ents' 1 +' T)e Relevant =acts The Resolution of the %ourt &n %anc, handed down on !ay 13, 1224, sets out the rele&ant facts and is for that reason hereunder reproduced in full'

Referred to the %ourt &n %anc by the %hief 6ustice are the appoint7ents signed by Cis "9cellency the resident under date of !arch 30, 1224 of Con' Ma14o A' Va94*J549a and Con' lacido $' Aallarta as 6udges of the Regional Trial %ourt of $ranch 52, $ago %ity and of $ranch 23, %abanatuan %ity, respecti&ely' The appoint7ents were recei&ed at the %hief 6usticeDs cha7bers on !ay 12, 1224' The referral was 7ade in &iew of the serious constitutional issue concerning said appoint7ents arising fro7 the pertinent antecedents' The issue was first &entilated at the 7eeting of the 6udicial and $ar %ouncil on !arch 2, 1224' The 7eeting had been called, according to the %hief 6ustice as &! fficio %hair7an, to discuss the 0uestion raised by so7e sectors about the ;constitutionality of AA appoint7ents; to the %ourt of Appeals, specifically, in light of the forthco7ing presidential elections' Attention was drawn to Section 1., Article A++ of the %onstitution reading as follows8 Sec' 1.' Two 7onths i77ediately before the ne9t presidential elections and up to the end of his, ter7, a resident or Acting resident shall not 7aBe appoint7ents, e9cept te7porary appoint7ents to e9ecuti&e positions when continued &acancies therein will pre=udice public ser&ice or endanger public safety' (n the other hand, appoint7ents to fill &acancies in the Supre7e %ourt during the period 7entioned in the pro&ision =ust 0uoted could see7ingly be =ustified by another pro&ision of the sa7e %onstitution Section 3 -1/ of Article A+++ which states8 Sec' 3 -1/ The Supre7e %ourt shall be co7posed of a %hief 6ustice and fourteen Associate 6ustices' AA AA' Any &acancy shall be filled within ninety days fro7 the occurrence thereof' Also pertinent although not specifically discussed is Section 2 of the sa7e Article A+++ which pro&ides that for the lower courts, the resident shall issue the appoint7ents E fro7 a list of at least three no7inees prepared by the %ouncil for e&ery &acancy E within ninety days fro7 the sub7ission of the list' The &iew was then e9pressed by Senior Associate 6ustice <loren? :' Regalado, %onsultant of the %ouncil, who had been a 7e7ber of the %o77ittee of the "9ecuti&e :epart7ent and of the %o77ittee on the 6udicial :epart7ent of the 1245 %onstitutional %o77ission, that on the basis of the co77issionDs records, the election ban had no application to appoint7ents to the %ourt of Appeals' Without any e9tended discussion or any prior research and study on the part of the other !e7bers of the 6$%, this hypothesis was accepted, and was then sub7itted to the resident for consideration, together with the %ouncilDs no7inations for eight -4/ &acancies in the %ourt of Appeals' (n April 5, 1224 the %hief 6ustice recei&ed an official co77unication fro7 the "9ecuti&e Secretary trans7itting the appoint7ents of eight -4/ Associate 6ustices of the %ourt of Appeals all of which had been duly signed on !arch 11, 1224 by Cis "9cellency the resident' +n &iew of the fact that all the appoint7ents had been sign on !arch 11, 1224 E the day i77ediately before the co77ence7ent of the ban on appoint7ents i7posed by Section 1., Article A++ of the %onstitution E who i7pliedly but no less clearly indicated that the residentDs (ffice did not agree with the hypothesis that appoint7ents to the 6udiciary were not co&ered by said ban, the %hief 6ustice resol&ed to defer consideration of no7inations for the &acancy in the Supre7e %ourt created by the retire7ent of Associate 6ustice Ricardo 6' <rancisco, specially considering that the %ourt had scheduled sessions in $a0uio %ity in April, 1224, that the legislatureDs representati&es to the 6$% were occupied with the forthco7ing elections, and that a 7e7ber of the %ouncil was going on a trip out of the country' (n !ay 3, 1224, the %hief 6ustice recei&ed a letter fro7 the resident, addressed to the 6$%, re0uesting trans7ission of the ;list of final no7inees; for the &acancy ;no later than Wednesday, !ay 5, 1224; in &iew of the duty i7posed on hi7 by the %onstitution ;to fill up the &acancy AA within ninety -20/ days fro7 <ebruary 13, 1224, the date the present &acancy occurred' (n !ay ., 1224, Secretary of 6ustice Sil&estre $ello +++ re0uested the %hief 6ustice for ;guidance; respecting the e9pressed desire of the ;regular 7e7bers; of the 6$% to hold a 7eeting i77ediately to fill up the &acancy in the %ourt in line with the residentDs letter of !ay 3' The %hief 6ustice ad&ised Secretary $ello to await the reply that he was drafting to the residentDs co77unication, a copy of which he would gi&e the Secreatary the following day' (n !ay 5, 1224 the %hief 6ustice sent his reply to the resident' Ce began by stating that no sessions had been scheduled for the %ouncil until after the !ay elections for the reason that apparently the residentDs (ffice did not share the &iew posited by the 6$% that Section 1., Article A++ of the %onstitution had no application to 6$%,reco77endend appoint7ents E the appoint7ents to the %ourt of Appeals ha&ing been all unifor7ly dated !arch 11, 1224, before the co77ence7ent of the prohibition in said pro&ision E thus gi&ing rise to the ;need to undertaBe further study of the

7atter,; prescinding fro7 ;the,desire to a&oid any constitutional isssue regarding the appoint7ent to the 7entioned &acancy; and the further fact that ;certain senior 7e7bers of the %ourt of Appeals AA-had/ asBed the %ouncil to reopen the 0uestion of their e9clusion on account of age fro7 such -final/ list'; Ce closed with the assurance that the 6$% e9pected to deliberate on the no7inations ;forthwith upon the co7pletion of the co7ing elections'; The letter was deli&ered to !alaca>ang at about . oDclocB in the afternoon of !ay 5, 1224 and a copy gi&en to the (ffice of 6ustice Secretary $ello shortly before that hour' +t would appear, howe&er, that the 6ustice Secretary and the regular 7e7bers of the %ouncil had already taBen action without awaiting the %hief 6usticeDs pro7ised response to the residentDs letter of !ay 3, 1224' (n that day, !ay 5, 1224, they 7et at so7e undisclosed place, deliberated, and ca7e to an agree7ent on a resolution which they caused to be reduced to writing and thereafter signed' +n that two,page Resolution they drew attention to Section 3 -1/, Article A+++ of the %onstitution -o7itting any 7ention of Section 1., Article A++/ as well as to the residentDs letter of !ay 3 in which he ;e7phatically re0uested that the re0uired list of final no7inees be sub7itted to hi7@; and pointing out that the ;%ouncil would be re7iss in its duties; should it fail to sub7it said no7inations, closed with an appeal that the %hief 6ustice con&ene the %ouncil for the purpose ;on !ay 7, 1224, at 2800 oDclocB in the afternoon'; This Resolution they trans7itted to the %hief 6ustice together with their letter, also dated !ay 5, in which they e7phasi?ed that ;we are pressed for ti7e; again drawing attention to Section 3 -1/' Article A+++ of the %onstitution -and again o7itting any reference to Section 1., Article A++/' They ended their letter with the following intriguing paragraph8 Should the %hief 6ustice be not disposed to call for the 7eeting aforesaid, the undersigned 7e7bers constituting the 7a=ority will be constrained to con&ene the %ouncil for the purpose of co7plying with its %onstitutional 7andate8 +t see7s e&ident, as =ust inti7ated, that the resolution and the co&ering letter were deliberated on, prepared and signed hours before deli&ery of the %hief 6usticeDs letter to the resident and the 6ustice Secretary' Since the !e7bers of the %ouncil appeared deter7ined to hold a 7eeting regardless of the %hief 6usticeDs wishes, the latter con&oBed the %ouncil to a 7eeting at 3 oDclocB in the afternoon of !ay 7, 1224' resent at the 7eeting were the %hief 6ustice, Secretary $ello, e! officio 7e7ber and the regular 7e7bers of the %ouncil8 6ustice Regino Cer7osisi7a' Atty' Teresita %ru? Sison, 6udge %esar %' erale=o' Also present, on in&itation of the %hief 6ustice, were 6ustices Cilario 1' :a&ide, 6r', <lerida Ruth ' Ro7ero, 6osue #' $ellosillo, Reynato S' uno, 6ose %' Aitug, Aicente A' !endo?a, Arte7io A' anganiban, Antonio !' !artine?, )eonardo A' Iuisu7bing and <idel ' urisi7a' The %hief 6ustice re&iewed the e&ents leading to the session, and after discussion, the body agreed to gi&e the resident ti7e to answer the %hief 6usticeDs letter of !ay 5, 1224' (n !ay 7, 1224, the %hief 6ustice recei&ed a letter fro7 his "9cellency the resident in reply to his letter of !ay 5 -which the resident said had been ;recei&ed early this 7orning;/' The resident e9pressed the &iew that ;the election,ban pro&ision -Article A++, Sec' 1./ AA applies only to e!ecutive appointments or appoint7ents in the e9ecuti&e branch of go&ern7ent,; the whole article being ;entitled D"K"%*T+A" :" ART!"#T';D Ce also obser&ed that further proof of his theory ;is the fact that appoint7ents to the =udiciary ha&e special, specific pro&isions applicable to the7; - citing Article A+++, Sec, 3 -1/ and Article A+++, Section 2' +n &iew thereof, he ;fir7ly and respectfully reiterate-d/ AA -his/ re0uest for the 6udicial and $ar %ouncil to trans7it AA the final list of no7inees for the lone Supre7e %ourt &acancy'; The %hief 6ustice replied to the letter the following day, !ay 4, 1224' Since the %hief 6usticeDs letter e9plains the issue 0uite, plainly, it is here 0uoted in full' ThanB you for your letter of !ay 7, 1224, responding to 7y own co77unication of !ay 5, 1224 which, + would liBe to say reflects the collecti&e senti7ents of 7y colleagues in the Supre7e %ourt' Nnowing how busy you are, + will deal straightaway with the points set out in your letter' The dating of the latest appoint7ents to the %ourt of Appeals was ad&erted to 7erely to e9plain how we in the %ourt and the 6$% ca7e to ha&e the i7pression that you did not share the &iew e9pressed in the 6$% 7inutes of !arch 2, 1224 that there is no election ban with regard to the 6$% appoint7ents' $e this as it 7ay, the %ourt feels that there is a serious 0uestion concerning the 7atter in light of the see7ingly inconsistent pro&ision of the %onstitution' The first of these is Section 1., Article A++, which reads8 Sec' 1.' Two 7onths i77ediately before the ne9t presidential elections and up to the end of his ter7, a resident or Acting resident shall not 7aBe appoint7ents, e9cept

te7porary appoint7ents to e9ecuti&e positions when continued &acancies therein will pre=udice public ser&ice or endanger public safety' The second is Section 3 -1/ of Article A+++ which states8 Sec' 3 -1/ The Supre7e %ourt shall be co7posed of a %hief 6ustice and fourteen Associate 6ustices'AA AA Any &acancy shall be filled within ninety days fro7 the occurrence thereof' As you can see, Lour "9cellency, Section 1. of Article A++ i7poses a direct prohibition on the resident8 he ;shall not 7aBe appoint7ents; within the period 7entioned, and since there is no specification of which appoint7ents are proscribed, the sa7e 7ay be considered as applying to all appoint7ents of any Bind and nature' This is the general rule then, the only e9ception being only as regards ;e9ecuti&e positions; as to which ;te7porary appoint7ents 7ay be 7ade within the interdicted period ;when continued &acancies therein will pre=udice public ser&ice or endanger public safety'; As the e9ception 7aBes reference only to ;e9ecuti&e; positions, it would see7 that ;=udicial; positions are co&ered by the general rule' (n the other hand, Section 3 -1/ of Article A+++, re0uires that any &acancy in the Supre7e %ourt ;shall be filled within ninety days fro7 the occurrence thereof'; *nliBe Section 1. Article A++, the duty of filling the &acancy is not specifically i7posed on the resident@ hence, it 7ay be inferred that it is a duty shared by the 6udicial and $ar %ouncil and the resident' #ow, in &iew of the general prohibition in the first,0uoted pro&ision, how is the re0uire7ent of filling in the %ourt within ninety days to be construedH (ne interpretation that i77ediately suggests itself is that Section 3 -1/, Article A+++ is a general pro&ision while Section 1., Article A++ is a particular one@ that is to say, nor7ally, when there are no presidential elections E which after all, occur only e&ery si9 years E Section 3 -1/, Article A+++ shall apply8 &acancies in the Supre7e %ourt shall be filled within 20 days@ but when -as now/ there are presidential elections, the prohibition in Section 1., Article A++ co7es into play8 the resident shall not 7aBe any appoint7ents' The reason for said prohibition, according to <r' 6' $ernas, S'6', an authority on %onstitutional )aw and hi7self a 7e7ber of the %onstitutional %o77ission, is ;-i/n order not to tie the hands of the inco7ing resident through 7idnight appoint7ents'; Another interpretation is that put forth in the !inutes of the 6$% 7eeting of !arch 2, 1224' + 7ust e7phasi?e that the &alidity of any appoint7ent to the Supre7e %ourt at this ti7e hinges on the correct interpretation of the foregoing sections of the %onstitution' (n account of the i7portance of the 0uestion, + consulted the %ourt about it but, as + stated in 7y letter of !ay 5, 1224, ;it declined to taBe any position, since ob&iously there had not been enough ti7e to deli&arate on the sa7e AA-although it/ did agree that further study wass necessary AA' Since the 0uestion has actually co7e up, and its i7portance cannot be gainsaid, and it is the %ourt that is e7powered under the %onstitution to 7aBe an authoritati&e interpretation of its -pro&isions/ or of those of any other law' + belie&e that the %ourt 7ay now perhaps consider the issue ripe for deter7ination and co7e to grips with it, to a&oid any possible pole7ics concerning the 7atter' Cowe&er the %ourt resol&es the issue, no serious pre=udice will be done' Should the %ourt rule that the resident is indeed prohibited to 7aBe appoint7ents in a presidential election year, then any appoint7ent Atte7pted within the proscribed period would be &oid anyway' +f the %ourt should ad=udge that the ban has no application to appoint7ents to the Supre7e %ourt, the 6$% 7ay sub7it no7inations and the resident 7ay 7aBe the appoint7ent forthwith upon such ad=udg7ent' The 7atter is a delicate one, 0uite ob&iously, and 7ust thus be dealt with with ut7ost circu7spection, to a&oid any 0uestion regarding the &alidity of an appoint7ent to the %ourt at this ti7e, or any accusation of ;7idnight; appoint7ents or rash hasty action on the part of the 6$% or the resident +n &iew thereof, and upon the ad&ice and consent of the !e7bers of the %ourt, + a: re0uesting the regular !e7bers of the 6udicial $ar %ouncil to defer action on the 7atter until further de&ice by the %ourt' + earnestly 7aBe the sa7e re0uest of you, Lour "9cellency' + assure you, howe&er that as befits a 7atter in which the %hief "9ecuti&e has e&inced 7uch interest, 7y colleagues and + will gi&e it preferential and e9peditious attention and consideration' To this end, + intend to con&ene the %ourt by ne9t weeB, at the latest' (n !ay 4, 1224, again on the insistence of the regular !e7bers of the 6$%, another 7eeting was held at which were present the %hief 6ustice, the Secretary of 6ustice and the three regular, !e7bers abo&e 7entioned, as well as 6ustices Cilario 1' :a&ide, 6r', <lerida Ruth ' Ro7ero, 6osue #' $ellosillo, Reynato S' uno, 6ose %' Aitug, Santiago !' Napunan, Aicente A' !endo?a, Arte7io A' anganiban, Antonio !' !artine?, )eonardo A' Iuisu7bing and <idel ' urisi7a' The 7eeting closed with a resolution that ;the constitutional pro&isions AA -in 0uestion/ be referred to the Supre7e %ourt &n %anc for appropriate action, together with the re0uest that the Supre7e %ourt

consider that the ninety,day period stated in Section 3 -1/, Article A+++ be suspended or interrupted in &iew of the peculiar circu7stances' AA' (n !ay 12, 1224, the %hief 6ustice recei&ed fro7 !alaca>ang the appoint7ents of two -2/ 6udges of the Regional Trial %ourt 7entioned abo&e' This places on the %hief 6ustice the obligation of acting thereon8 i'e', trans7itting the appoint7ents to the appointees so that they 7ight taBe their oaths and assu7e the duties of their office' The trouble is that in doing so, the %hief 6ustice runs the risB of acting in a 7anner inconsistent with the %onstitution, for these appoint7ents appear prima facie, at least, to be e9pressly prohibited by Section 1., Article A++ of the %harter' This circu7stance, and the referral of the constitutional 0uestion to the %ourt in &irtue of the Resolution of !ay 4, 1224, supraoperate to raise a =usticiable issue before the %ourt, an issue of sufficient i7portance to warrant consideration and ad=udication on the 7erits' Accordingly, the %ourt Resol&ed to -1/ %(#S+:"R the case at bar an ad7inistrati&e 7atter and cause it to be appropriately docBeted8 -2/ to :+R"%T the %lerB of %ourt to i77ediately ser&e copies of this Resolution on -a/ the (ffice of the resident, -b/ the (ffice of the Solicitor 1eneral' -c/ Con' Ma14oA' Va94*J549a, and -d/ Con' lacido $' Aallarta -at their addresses recorded in the 6udicial and $ar %ouncil/@ and -3/ to R"I*+R" the (ffice of the resident, the (ffice of the Solicitor 1eneral, Con'Ma14o A' Va94*J549a, and Con' lacido $' Aallarta to file their co77ents on this Resolution within fifteen -1./ days fro7 notice thereof' The %ourt further Resol&ed that -1/ pending the foregoing proceedings and the deliberation by the %ourt on the 7atter, and until further orders, no action be taBen on the appoint7ents of Con'Va94*J549a and Con' Aallarta which in the 7eanti7e shall be held in abeyance and not gi&en any effect and said appointees shall refrain fro7 taBing their oath of office@ and that -2/ e9ercising its power of super&ision o&er the 6udicial and $ar %ouncil, said %ouncil and its e! officio and regular !e7bers herein 7entioned be +#STR*%T":, as they are herby +#STR*%T":, to defer all action on the 7atter of no7inations to fill up the lone &acancy in the Supre7e %ourt or any other &acancy until further orders' S( (R:"R":'

A.M. No. 1@-4-22-SC

S4014:<4r 2?, 2@1@

REC S4*.or.12 A:o*G 1h4 $o5 E4F Mo/1 R4c4*1 A000o.*1:4*1/ 1o 1h4 Po/.1.o* o8 A//oc.a14 J5/1.c4/ o8 1h4 Co5r1 o8 A004a9/. R"S()*T+(# CORONA, C.J.: (n !arch 10, 2010, the (ffice of the resident trans7itted to the Supre7e %ourt the appoint7ents of %ourt Appeals -%A/ Associate 6ustices !yra 1' <ernande?, "duardo $' eralta, 6r', Ra7on aul )' Cernando and #ina 1' Antonio,Aalen?uela' Their respecti&e appoint7ent papers were attached to the trans7ittal letter which read8 ON. RE#NATO S. PUNO Ch.48 J5/1.c4 Supre7e %ourt of the hilippines !anila Re8 A00o.*1:4*1/ 1o 1h4 J5+.c.ar2 Sir8 + a: pleased to trans7it the appoint7ent papers of the following8 A00o.*144/ 999 . 5 7 4 999 Con' #ina 1' Antonio,Aalen?uela Con' !yra 1' <ernande? Con' "duardo $' eralta, 6r' Con' Ra7on aul )' Cernando Po/.1.o*/ 999 Associate 6ustice, %A Associate 6ustice, %A Associate 6ustice, %A Associate 6ustice, %A

999 !arch 10, 2010' Aery truly yours, -Sgd'/ )"A#:R( R' !"#:(MA

999

999

The respecti&e appoint7ent papers of 6ustices <ernande?, eralta, 6r', Cernando and Antonio,Aalen?uela bore the following dates and bar code nu7bers8 Na:4 o8 A//oc.a14 J5/1.c4 6ustice <ernande? 6ustice eralta, 6r' 6ustice Cernando 6ustice Antonio,Aalen?uela %a14 o8 A00o.*1:4*1 <ebruary 15, 2010 <ebruary 15, 2010 <ebruary 15, 2010 <ebruary 23, 2010 (ar Co+4 No. ..355 ..357 ..354 ..35.

All four newly appointed %A 6ustices tooB their oath before then Associate 6ustice, now %hief 6ustice, Renato %' %orona on !arch 10, 2010' After so7e initial confusion, the four 6ustices were finally listed in the roster of the %A 6ustices in the following order of seniority8 6ustice <ernande? -as 7ost senior/, 6ustice eralta, 6r', 6ustice Cernando and 6ustice Antonio, Aalen?uela -as 7ost =unior/' The ranBing was based in a letter dated !arch 2., 2010 sub7itted by the 7e7bers of the %A %o77ittee on Rules to %A residing 6ustice Andres $' Reyes, 6r' According to the %A %o77ittee on Rules, there appears to be a conflict between certain pro&isions of the 2002 +nternal Rules of the %ourt of Appeals -2002 +R%A/' +n particular, Section 1, Rule + thereof pro&ides8 R*)" + TC" %(*RT, +TS (R1A#+MAT+(# A#: (<<+%+A)S Section 1' %o7position of the %ourt of Appeals' E *nless otherwisepro&ided by law, the %ourt of Appeals is co7posed of a residing 6ustice and si9ty,eight -54/ Associate 6ustices' +t sits en banc, or in twenty,three -23/ :i&isions of three -3/ 6ustices each' The 7e7bers of the %ourt are classified into three groups according to the order of their seniority' Th4 +a14 a*+ /4N54*c4 o8 1h4 a00o.*1:4*1 o8 1h4 J5/1.c4/ +414r:.*4 1h4.r /4*.or.12 co5r1I.+4' When a senior 7e7ber is designated to act as %hairperson of a :i&ision, heJshe shall be designated as an ;Acting %hairperson;' +n liBe 7anner, a =unior 7e7ber designated to act as senior 7e7ber of a :i&ision shall be an ;Acting Senior !e7ber;' -"7phasis supplied/ (n the other hand, Section 1, Rule ++ thereof states8 R*)" ++ R*)" (# R"%":"#%" A#: R(T(%() Section 1' %oncept' E The residing 6ustice en=oys precedence o&er all the other 7e7bers of the %ourt in all official functions' Th4 A//oc.a14 J5/1.c4/ /ha99 ha64 0r4c4+4*c4 accor+.*G 1o 1h4 or+4r o8 1h4.r a00o.*1:4*1/ a/ o88.c.a992 1ra*/:.114+ 1o 1h4 S50r4:4 Co5r1' -"7phasis supplied/ The %A %o77ittee on Rules opined8 As between the foregoing pro&isions, it 7ay be conceded that Section 1, Rule ++ should pre&ail o&er Section 1, Rule + pursuant to the basic rule of statutory construction that gi&es pre7iu7 to a specific pro&ision o&er a general one' Cowe&er, recBoned alongside the circu7stances surrounding the appoint7ent of the abo&e,na7ed Associate 6ustices, it is our considered &iew that any conflict between or confusion engendered by the abo&e,0uoted pro&isions should be resol&ed in accordance with Republic Act No' 4235, entitled ;An Act %reating Additional :i&isions in the %ourt of Appeals, +ncreasing the #u7ber of %ourt of Appeals 6ustices fro7 <ifty,(ne -.1/ to Si9ty, #ine -52/, A7ending for the urpose $atas a7bansa $ilang 122, As A7ended, (therwise Nnown as the 6udiciary Reorgani?ation Act of 1220, Appropriating <unds Therefor, and for (ther urposes'; Section of said lawcategorically states8 ;Section 1' Section 3, %hapter 1 of $atas a7bansa $lg' 122, as a7ended, is hereby further a7ended to read as follows8

VSec' 3' (rgani?ation' E There is hereby created a %ourt of Appeals which shall consist of a residing 6ustice and si9ty,eight -54/ Associate 6ustices who shall be appointed by the resident of the hilippines' The residing 6ustice shall be so designated in his appoint7ent, and the Associate 6ustices shall ha&e precedence according to the dates of their respecti&e appoint7ents, or when the appoint7ents of two or 7ore of the7 shall bear the sa7e date, according to the order in which their appoint7ents were issued by the resident'U; 1 "&ident fro7 the foregoing pro&ision is a clear legislati&e intent to deter7ine the order of precedence seniority of this %ourtUs 6ustices ;according to the dates of their respecti&e appoint7ents'; +n addition to the general rule of construction that applicable legal pro&isions should, as far as practicable, always be har7oni?ed with each other, the spirit and intent behind Republic Act No' 4235 should be gi&en precedence if only because it is the enabling law to which the +R%A should confor7' !oreo&er, gi&en its clarity, it also goes without saying that Section 1 of the law should be applied according to its literal tenor, without e0ui&ocation and further need of e9tended ratiocination fro7 the %o77ittee' Applying Section 1, Rule + and Section +, Rule ++ of the +R%A &is,a,&is Section 1 of Republic Act No' 4235, the order of precedenceJseniority a7ong 6ustices <ernande?, eralta, 6r' and Cernando should be deter7ined according to the chronological order indicated in the !arch 10, 2010 letter of trans7ittal fro7 Con' "9ecuti&e secretary )eandro R' !endo?aand the barcodes acco7panying their respecti&e appoint7ent papers' (n the other hand, ha&ing been appointed on <ebruary 15, 2010, it logically follows that said 6ustices collecti&ely ha&e precedenceJseniority o&er 6ustice Aalen?uela who, despite the place7ent of her na7e in said trans7ittal letter before the na7es of the other three new =ustices of the %ourt of Appeals and the lower bar code nu7ber acco7panying her appointed, was appointed only on <ebruary 23, 2010' 999 999 999

While ob&iously intended to authenticate the appoint7ent papers under consideration, the 7echanically,sta7ped barcode cannot pre&ail o&er the date of appoint7ent indicated in the residentUs own handwriting' Ca&ing been personally signed and dated by the resident who is the appointing authority, the practical and legal i7port of said appoint7ent papers of the 6ustices concerned should be upheld o&er that of the !arch 10, 2010 trans7ittal letter fro7 the "9ecuti&e Secretary' "1 /ho59+, hoI464r, <4 0o.*14+ o51 1ha1 1h4 8or4Go.*G .*14r0r41a1.o* o8 1h4 R594 o* 0r4c4+4*c4 a*+ /4*.or.12 /ho59+ o*92 a0092 1o 1h4 a<o64 *a:4+ A//oc.a14 J5/1.c4/, .* 6.4I o8 1h4 04c59.ar c.rc5:/1a*c4/ Ih.ch a114*+4+ 1h4 .//5a*c4S1ra*/:.//.o* o8 1h4.r a00o.*1:4*1 0a04r/ '2 6ustice Antonio,Aalen?uela disagreed with the interpretation of the %A %o77ittee on Rules, insisting that she is the 7ost senior a7ong the four newly appointed %A Associate 6ustices pursuant to Section 1, Rule 2 of the 2002 +R%A which pro&ides that seniority of the Associate 6ustices shall be deter7ined ;according to the order of their appoint7ents as trans7itted to the Supre7e %ourt'; She argued that ;the final act in the process of appointing a 7e7ber of the 6udiciary is the trans7ittal of the appoint7ent to the Supre7e %ourt'; She also tooB ;serious e9ception; to the state7ent of the %A %o77ittee on Rules that ;the foregoing interpretation of the Rule on precedence and seniority should only apply to the abo&e na7ed Associate 6ustices, in &iew of the peculiar circu7stances which attended the issuanceJtrans7ission of their appoint7ent papers'; According to her, there was nothing no&el or peculiar about the circu7stances attending the issuance and trans7ission of the four newly appointed 7e7bers of the %A'
4avvp)i4

The 7atter was referred to the %A en banc for appropriate action' After deliberation, the %A en banc adopted the opinion of the %A Rules %o77ittee' This was appro&ed by this %ourt in a resolution dated 6uly 20, 2010' 6ustice Antonio,Aalen?uela now seeBs reconsideration of this %ourtUs resolution dated 6uly 20, 2010' She insists that all four %A Associate 6ustices whose seniority is in&ol&ed in this 7atter ;were appointed on !arch 10, 2010, the day that their appoint7ents were trans7itted by the (ffice of the resident; to this %ourt' We disagree' An appoint7ent to a public office is the une0ui&ocal act, of one who has the authority, of designating or selecting an indi&idual to discharge and perfor7 the duties and functions of an office or trust' 3 Where the power of appoint7ent is absolute and the appointee has been deter7ined upon, *o further consent or appro&al is necessary and the for7al e&idence of the appoint7ent, the co77ission, 7ay issue at once' 3 The appoint7ent is dee7ed co7plete once the last act re0uired of the appointing authority has been co7plied with' . +n Aalencia &' eralta,5 the %ourt ruled that a written 7e7orial that can render title to public office indubitable is re0uired' This written 7e7orial is Bnown as the co77ission' <or purposes of co7pletion of the appoint7ent process, the appoint7ent is co7plete when the co77ission is signed by the e9ecuti&e, and sealed if necessary, and is ready to be deli&ered or trans7itted to the appointee' 7 Thus, trans7ittal of the co77ission is an act which is done after the appoint7ent has already been co7pleted' +t is not re0uired to co7plete the appoint7ent but only to facilitate the effecti&ity of the appoint7ent by the appointeeUs receipt and acceptance thereof' <or purposes of appoint7ents to the =udiciary, therefore, the date the co77ission has been signed by the resident -which is the date appearing on the face of such docu7ent/ is the date of the appoint7ent' Such date will deter7ine the seniority of the 7e7bers of the %ourt of Appeals in connection with Section 3, %hapter + of $ 122, as a7ended

by RA 4235' +n other words, the earlier the date of the co77ission of an appointee, the 7ore senior heJshe is o&er the other subse0uent appointees' +t is only when the appoint7ents of two or 7ore appointees bear the sa7e date that the order of issuance of the appoint7ents by the resident beco7es 7aterial' This pro&ision of statutory law -Section 3, %hapter + of $ 122, as a7ended by RA 4235/ controls o&er the pro&isions of the 2002 +R%A which gi&es pre7iu7 to the order of appoint7ents as trans7itted to this %ourt' Rules i7ple7enting a particular law cannot o&erride but 7ust gi&e way to the law they seeB to i7ple7ent' +n &iew of the foregoing, the %A en banc acted correctly when it adopted the &iew of the %A Rules %o77ittee insofar as the recBoning of the seniority of %A 6ustices <ernande?, eralta, 6r', Cernando and Antonio,Aalen?uela is concerned but erred when it declared that the %A Rules %o77itteeUs interpretation applies only to the case of the four afore7entioned 6ustices' WC"R"<(R", the 7otion for reconsideration of %A 6ustice Antonio,Aalen?uela is hereby %EN"E% I.1h 8.*a9.12' S( (R:"R":' G.R. No. 19161? No64:<4r 23, 2@1@

ATT#. ROMULO (. MACAL"NTAL, etitioner, &s' PRES"%ENT"AL ELECTORAL TR"(UNAL, Respondent' :"%+S+(# NAC URA, J.: %onfronting us is an undesignated petition1 filed by Atty' Ro7ulo $' !acalintal -Atty' !acalintal/, that 0uestions the constitution of the residential "lectoral Tribunal - "T/ as an illegal and unauthori?ed progeny of Section 3, 2Article A++ of the %onstitution8 The Supre7e %ourt, sitting en banc, shall be the sole =udge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and 0ualifications of the resident or Aice, resident, and 7ay pro7ulgate its rules for the purpose' While petitioner concedes that the Supre7e %ourt is ;authori?ed to pro7ulgate its rules for the purpose,; he chafes at the creation of a purportedly ;separate tribunal; co7ple7ented by a budget allocation, a seal, a set of personnel and confidential e7ployees, to effect the constitutional 7andate' etitionerUs a&er7ent is supposedly supported by the pro&isions of the 200. Rules of the residential "lectoral Tribunal -200. "T Rules/, 3specifically8 -1/ Rule 3 which pro&ides for 7e7bership of the "T wherein the %hief 6ustice and the Associate 6ustices are designated as ;%hair7an and !e7bers,; respecti&ely@ -2/ Rule 4-e/ which authori?es the %hair7an of the "T to appoint e7ployees and confidential e7ployees of e&ery 7e7ber thereof@ -3/ Rule 2 which pro&ides for a separate ;Ad7inistrati&e Staff of the Tribunal; with the appoint7ent of a %lerB and a :eputy %lerB of the Tribunal who, at the discretion of the "T, 7ay designate the %lerB of %ourt -en banc/ as the %lerB of the Tribunal@ and -3/ Rule 11 which pro&ides for a ;seal; separate and distinct fro7 the Supre7e %ourt seal' 1rudgingly, petitioner throws us a bone by acBnowledging that the in&oBed constitutional pro&ision does allow the ;appoint7ent of additional personnel'; <urther, petitioner highlights our decision in $uac &' %(!")"%4 which peripherally declared that ;contests in&ol&ing the resident and the Aice, resident fall within the e9clusi&e original =urisdiction of the "T, 9 9 9 in the e9ercise of 0uasi,=udicial power'; (n this point, petitioner reiterates that the constitution of the "T, with the designation of the !e7bers of the %ourt as %hair7an and !e7bers thereof, contra&enes Section 12, Article A+++ of the %onstitution, which prohibits the designation of !e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt and of other courts established by law to any agency perfor7ing 0uasi,=udicial or ad7inistrati&e functions' The (ffice of the Solicitor 1eneral -(S1/, as directed in our Resolution dated April 5, 2010, filed a %o77ent5thereon' At the outset, the (S1 points out that the petition filed by Atty' !acalintal is unspecified and without statutory basis@ ;the liberal approach in its preparation 9 9 9 is a &iolation of the well Bnown rules of practice and pleading in this =urisdiction'; +n all, the (S1 crystalli?es the following issues for resolution of the %ourt8 +

WC"TC"R 9 9 9 "T+T+(#"R CAS )(%*S STA#:+ T( <+)" TC" +#STA#T "T+T+(#' ++ WC"TC"R 9 9 9 TC" %R"AT+(# (< TC" R"S+:"#T+A) ")"%T(RA) TR+$*#A) +S *#%(#ST+T*T+(#A) <(R $"+#1 A A+()AT+(# (< ARA1RA C 7, S"%T+(# 3 (< ART+%)" A++ (< TC" 1247 %(#ST+T*T+(#' +++ WC"TC"R 9 9 9 TC" :"S+1#AT+(# (< !"!$"RS (< TC" S* R"!" %(*RT AS !"!$"RS (< TC" R"S+:"#T+A) ")"%T(RA) TR+$*#A) +S *#%(#ST+T*T+(#A) <(R $"+#1 A A+()AT+(# (< S"%T+(# 12, ART+%)" A+++ (< TC" 1247 %(#ST+T*T+(#'6 +n his Reply,7 petitioner 7aintains that8 1' Ce has legal standing to file the petition gi&en his a&er7ent of transcendental i7portance of the issues raised therein@ 2' The creation of the "T, a separate tribunal fro7 the Supre7e %ourt, &iolates Section 3, Article A++ of the %onstitution@ and 3' The "T, being a separate tribunal, e9ercises 0uasi,=udicial functions contrary to Section 12, Article A+++ of the %onstitution' We winnow the 7eanderings of petitioner into the singular issue of whether the constitution of the "T, co7posed of the !e7bers of this %ourt, is unconstitutional, and &iolates Section 3, Article A++ and Section 12, Article A+++ of the %onstitution' $ut first, we dispose of the procedural issue of whether petitioner has standing to file the present petition' The issue of locus standi is deri&ed fro7 the following re0uisites of a =udicial in0uiry8 1' There 7ust be an actual case or contro&ersy@ 2' The 0uestion of constitutionality 7ust be raised by the proper party@ 3' The constitutional 0uestion 7ust be raised at the earliest possible opportunity@ and 3' The decision of the constitutional 0uestion 7ust be necessary to the deter7ination of the case itself' 8 (n 7ore than one occasion we ha&e characteri?ed a proper party as one who has sustained or is in i77ediate danger of sustaining an in=ury as a result of the act co7plained of' 9 The dust has long settled on the test laid down in $aBer &' %arr810 ;whether the party has alleged such a personal staBe in the outco7e of the contro&ersy as to assure that concrete ad&erseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illu7ination of difficult 0uestions'; 11 *ntil and unless such actual or threatened in=ury is established, the co7plainant is not clothed with legal personality to raise the constitutional 0uestion' (ur pronounce7ents in :a&id &' !acapagal,Arroyo 12 illu7inate8 The difficulty of deter7ining locus standi arises in public suits' Cere, the plaintiff who asserts a ;public right; in assailing an allegedly illegal official action, does so as a representati&e of the general public' Ce 7ay be a person who is affected no differently fro7 any other person' Ce could be suing as a ;stranger,; or in the category of a ;citi?en,; or ;ta9payer'; +n either case, he has to ade0uately show that he is entitled to seeB =udicial protection' +n other words, he has to 7aBe out a sufficient interest in the &indication of the public order and the securing of relief as a; citi?en; or ;ta9payer'; 9999 Cowe&er, to pre&ent =ust about any person fro7 seeBing =udicial interference in any official policy or act with which he disagreed with, and thus hinders the acti&ities of go&ern7ental agencies engaged in public ser&ice, the *nited States Supre7e %ourt laid down the 7ore stringent ;direct in=ury; test in "9 arte )e&itt, later reaffir7ed in Tileston &' *ll7an' The sa7e %ourt ruled that for a pri&ate indi&idual to in&oBe the =udicial power to deter7ine the &alidity of an e9ecuti&e or legislati&e action, he 7ust show that he has sustained a direct in=ury as a result of that action, and it is not sufficient that he has a general interest co77on to all 7e7bers of the public' This %ourt adopted the ;direct in=ury; test in our =urisdiction' +n eople &' Aera, it held that the person who i7pugns the &alidity of a statute 7ust ha&e ;a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct in=ury as a result'; The Aera doctrine was upheld in a litany of cases, such as, %ustodio &' resident of

the Senate, !anila Race Corse TrainersU Association &' :e la <uente, ascual &' Secretary of ublic WorBs and Anti,%hinese )eague of the hilippines &' <eli9' Cowe&er, being a 7ere procedural technicality, the re0uire7ent of locus standi 7ay be wai&ed by the %ourt in the e9ercise of its discretion' This was done in the 1232 "7ergency owers %ases, Araneta &' :inglasan, where the ;transcendental i7portance; of the cases pro7pted the %ourt to act liberally' Such liberality was neither a rarity nor accidental' +n A0uino &' %o7elec, this %ourt resol&ed to pass upon the issues raised due to the ;far,reaching i7plications; of the petition notwithstanding its categorical state7ent that petitioner therein had no personality to file the suit' +ndeed, there is a chain of cases where this liberal policy has been obser&ed, allowing ordinary citi?ens, 7e7bers of %ongress, and ci&ic organi?ations to prosecute actions in&ol&ing the constitutionality or &alidity of laws, regulations and rulings' 9999 $y way of su77ary, the following rules 7ay be culled fro7 the cases decided by this %ourt' Ta9payers, &oters, concerned citi?ens, and legislators 7ay be accorded standing to sue, pro&ided that the following re0uire7ents are 7et8 -1/ cases in&ol&e constitutional issues@ -2/ for ta9payers, there 7ust be a clai7 of illegal disburse7ent of public funds or that the ta9 7easure is unconstitutional@ -3/ for &oters, there 7ust be a showing of ob&ious interest in the &alidity of the election law in 0uestion@ -3/ for concerned citi?ens, there 7ust be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental i7portance which 7ust be settled early@ and -./ for legislators, there 7ust be a clai7 that the official action co7plained of infringes upon their prerogati&es as legislators' %ontrary to the well,settled actual and direct in=ury test, petitioner has si7ply alleged a generali?ed interest in the outco7e of this case, and succeeds only in 7uddling the issues' aragraph 2 of the petition reads8 2' 9 9 9 Since the creation and continued operation of the "T in&ol&es the use of public funds and the issue raised herein is of transcendental i7portance, it is petitionerUs hu7ble sub7ission that, as a citi?en, a ta9payer and a 7e7ber of the $AR, he has the legal standing to file this petition' $ut e&en if his sub7ission is &alid, petitionerUs standing is still i7periled by the white elephant in the petition, i'e', his appearance as counsel for for7er resident 1loria !acapagal,Arroyo -!acapagal,Arroyo/ in the election protest filed by 2003 presidential candidate <ernando oe, 6r' before the residential "lectoral Tribunal, 13because =udicial in0uiry, as 7entioned abo&e, re0uires that the constitutional 0uestion be raised at the earliest possible opportunity'14 Such appearance as counsel before the Tribunal, to our 7ind, would ha&e been the first opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of the TribunalUs constitution' Although there are recogni?ed e9ceptions to this re0uisite, we find none in this instance' etitioner is un7istaBably estopped fro7 assailing the =urisdiction of the "T before which tribunal he had ubi0uitously appeared and had acBnowledged its =urisdiction in 2003' Cis failure to raise a seasonable constitutional challenge at that ti7e, coupled with his unconditional acceptance of the TribunalUs authority o&er the case he was defending, translates to the clear absence of an indispensable re0uisite for the proper in&ocation of this %ourtUs power of =udicial re&iew' "&en on this score alone, the petition ought to be dis7issed outright' rior to petitionerUs appearance as counsel for then protestee !acapagal,Arroyo, we had occasion to affir7 the grant of original =urisdiction to this %ourt as a residential "lectoral Tribunal in the auspicious case of Tecson &' %o77ission on "lections'15 Thus , etitioners Tecson, et al', in 1'R' #o' 151333, and Aele?, in 1'R' #o' 151533, in&oBe the pro&isions of Article A++, Section 3, paragraph 7, of the 1247 %onstitution in assailing the =urisdiction of the %(!")"% when it tooB cogni?ance of S A #o' 03,003 and in urging the Supre7e %ourt to instead taBe on the petitions they directly instituted before it' The %onstitutional pro&ision cited reads8 ;The Supre7e %ourt, sitting en *anc, shall be the sole =udge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and 0ualifications of the resident or Aice, resident, and 7ay pro7ulgate its rules for the purpose'; The pro&ision is an inno&ation of the 1247 %onstitution' The o7ission in the 123. and the 1273 %onstitution to designate any tribunal to be the sole =udge of presidential and &ice,presidential contests, has constrained this %ourt to declare, in )ope? &s' Ro9as, as ;not -being/ =usticiable; contro&ersies or disputes in&ol&ing contests on the elections, returns and 0ualifications of the resident or Aice, resident' The constitutional lapse pro7pted %ongress,

on 21 6une 12.7, to enact Republic Act #o' 1723, ?An Act +onstituting an <ndependent $residential &lectoral Tri*unal to Tr", Aear and (ecide $rotests +ontesting t)e &lection of t)e $resident1&lect and t)e Vice1$resident1 &lect of t)e $)ilippines and $roviding for t)e Manner of Aearing t)e Same.? Republic Act 1723 designated the %hief 6ustice and the Associate 6ustices of the Supre7e %ourt to be the 7e7bers of the tribunal' Although the subse0uent adoption of the parlia7entary for7 of go&ern7ent under the 1273 %onstitution 7ight ha&e i7plicitly affected Republic Act #o' 1723, the statutory set,up, nonetheless, would now be dee7ed re&i&ed under the present Section 3, paragraph 7, of the 1247 %onstitution' <or7er %hief 6ustice Reynato S' uno, in his separate opinion, was e&en 7ore categorical8 The %ourt is unani7ous on the issue of =urisdiction' +t has no =urisdiction on the Tecson and Aalde? petitions' etitioners cannot in&oBe Article A++, Section 3, par' 7 of the %onstitution which pro&ides8 ;The Supre7e %ourt, sitting en *anc shall be the sole =udge of all contests relating to the election, returns and 0ualifications of the resident or Aice resident and 7ay pro7ulgate its rules for the purpose'; The word ;contest; in the pro&ision 7eans that the =urisdiction of this %ourt can only be in&oBed after the election and procla7ation of a resident or Aice resident' There can be no ;contest; before a winner is proclai7ed' 16 Si7ilarly, in her separate opinion, 6ustice Alicia Austria,!artine? declared8 1'R' #os' 151333 and 151533 in&oBe the %ourtUs e9clusi&e =urisdiction under the last paragraph of Section 3, Article A++ of the 1247 %onstitution' + agree with the 7a=ority opinion that these petitions should be dis7issed outright for pre7aturity' The %ourt has no =urisdiction at this point of ti7e to entertain said petitions' The Supre7e %ourt, as a residential "lectoral Tribunal - "T/, the Senate "lectoral Tribunal -S"T/ and Couse of Representati&es "lectoral Tribunal -CR"T/ are electoral tribunals, each specifically and e9clusi&ely clothed with =urisdiction by the %onstitution to act respecti&ely as ;sole =udge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and 0ualifications; of the resident and Aice, resident, Senators, and Representati&es' +n a litany of cases, this %ourt has long recogni?ed that these electoral tribunals e9ercise =urisdiction o&er election contests only after a candidate has already been proclai7ed winner in an election' Rules 13 and 1. of the Rules of the residential "lectoral Tribunal pro&ide that, for resident or Aice, resident, election protest or 9uo ,arranto 7ay be filed after t)e proclamation of t)e ,inner'17 etitioner, a pro7inent election lawyer who has filed se&eral cases before this %ourt in&ol&ing constitutional and election law issues, including, a7ong others, the constitutionality of certain pro&isions of Republic Act -R'A'/ #o' 2142 -The (&erseas Absentee Aoting Act of 2003/, 18 cannot clai7 ignorance of8 -1/ the in&ocation of our =urisdiction under Section 3, Article A++ of the %onstitution@ and -2/ the unani7ous holding thereon' *n0uestionably, the o&erarching fra7eworB affir7ed in Tecson &' %o77ission on "lections 19 is that the Supre7e %ourt has original =urisdiction to decide presidential and &ice,presidential election protests while concurrently acting as an independent "lectoral Tribunal' :espite the foregoing, petitioner is ada7ant on his contention that the pro&ision, as worded, does not authori?e the constitution of the "T' And although he concedes that the Supre7e %ourt 7ay pro7ulgate its rules for this purpose, petitioner is insistent that the constitution of the "T is unconstitutional' Cowe&er, petitioner a&ers that it allows the %ourt to appoint additional personnel for the purpose, notwithstanding the silence of the constitutional pro&ision' etitionerUs pastiche argu7ents are all hurled at the %ourt, hopeful that at least one 7ight possibly sticB' $ut these argu7ents fail to elucidate on the scope of the rules the Supre7e %ourt is allowed to pro7ulgate' Apparently, petitionerUs concept of this ad=unct of =udicial power is &ery restricti&e' <ortunately, thanBs in no part to petitionerUs opinion, we are guided by well,settled principles of constitutional construction' Aerba legis dictates that where&er possible, the words used in the %onstitution 7ust be gi&en their ordinary 7eaning e9cept where technical ter7s are e7ployed, in which case the significance thus attached to the7 pre&ails' This %ourt, speaBing through for7er %hief 6ustice "nri0ue <ernando, in 6'!' Tuason P %o', +nc' &' )and Tenure Ad7inistration20 instructs8 As the %onstitution is not pri7arily a lawyerUs docu7ent, it being essential for the rule of law to obtain that it should e&er be present in the peopleUs consciousness, its language as 7uch as possible should be understood in the sense they ha&e in co77on use' What it says according to the te9t of the pro&ision to be construed co7pels acceptance and negates the power of the courts to alter it, based on the postulate that the fra7ers and the people 7ean what they say' Thus these are cases where the need for construction is reduced to a 7ini7u7' Cowe&er, where there is a7biguity or doubt, the words of the %onstitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its fra7ers or ratio legis et ani7a' A doubtful pro&ision 7ust be e9a7ined in light of the history of the ti7es, and the condition and circu7stances surrounding the fra7ing of the %onstitution' 21 +n following this guideline, courts should bear in 7ind the ob=ect sought to be acco7plished in adopting a doubtful constitutional pro&ision, and

the e&ils sought to be pre&ented or re7edied'22 %onse0uently, the intent of the fra7ers and the people ratifying the constitution, and not the panderings of self,indulgent 7en, should be gi&en effect' )ast, ut 7agis &aleat 0ua7 pereat T the %onstitution is to be interpreted as a whole' We intoned thus in the land7arB case of %i&il )iberties *nion &' "9ecuti&e Secretary8 23 +t is a well,established rule in constitutional construction that no one pro&ision of the %onstitution is to be separated fro7 all the others, to be considered alone, but that all the pro&isions bearing upon a particular sub=ect are to be brought into &iew and to be so interpreted as to effectuate the great purposes of the instru7ent' Sections bearing on a particular sub=ect should be considered and interpreted together as to effectuate the whole purpose of the %onstitution and one section is not to be allowed to defeat another, if by any reasonable construction, the two can be 7ade to stand together' +n other words, the court 7ust har7oni?e the7, if practicable, and 7ust lean in fa&or of a construction which will render e&ery word operati&e, rather than one which 7ay 7aBe the words idle and nugatory' We had earlier e9pounded on this rule of construction in %hiongbian &' :e )eon, et al',
24

to wit8

FTGhe 7e7bers of the %onstitutional %on&ention could not ha&e dedicated a pro&ision of our %onstitution 7erely for the benefit of one person without considering that it could also affect others' When they adopted subsection 2, they per7itted, if not willed, that said pro&ision should function to the full e9tent of its substance and its ter7s, not by itself alone, but in con=unction with all other pro&isions of that great docu7ent' (n its face, the contentious constitutional pro&ision does not specify the establish7ent of the "T' $ut neither does it preclude, 7uch less prohibit, otherwise' +t entertains di&ergent interpretations which, though unacceptable to petitioner, do not include his restricti&e &iew T one which really does not offer a solution' Section 3, Article A++ of the %onstitution, the pro&ision under scrutiny, should be read with other related pro&isions of the %onstitution such as the parallel pro&isions on the "lectoral Tribunals of the Senate and the Couse of Representati&es' $efore we resort to the records of the %onstitutional %o77ission, we discuss the fra7eworB of =udicial power 7apped out in the %onstitution' %ontrary to petitionerUs assertion, the Supre7e %ourtUs constitutional 7andate to act as sole =udge of election contests in&ol&ing our countryUs highest public officials, and its rule,7aBing authority in connection therewith, is not restricted@ it includes all necessary powers i7plicit in the e9ercise thereof' We recall the unprecedented and trailbla?ing case of !arcos &' !anglapus8 25 The 1247 %onstitution has fully restored the separation of powers of the three great branches of go&ern7ent' To recall the words of 6ustice )aurel in Angara &' "lectoral %o77ission, ;the %onstitution has blocBed but with deft stroBes and in bold lines, allot7ent of power to the e9ecuti&e, the legislati&e and the =udicial depart7ents of the go&ern7ent'; Thus, the 1247 %onstitution e9plicitly pro&ides that ;FtGhe legislati&e power shall be &ested in the %ongress of the hilippines; FArt' A+, Sec' 1G, ;FtGhe e9ecuti&e power shall be &ested in the resident of the hilippines; FArt' A++, Sec' 1G, and ;FtGhe =udicial power shall be &ested in one Supre7e %ourt and in such lower courts as 7ay be established by law; FArt' A+++, Sec' 1G' These pro&isions not only establish a separation of powers by actual di&ision but also confer plenary legislati&e, e9ecuti&e and =udicial powers sub=ect only to li7itations pro&ided in the %onstitution' <or as the Supre7e %ourt in (ca7po &' %abangis pointed out ;a grant of the legislati&e power 7eans a grant of all legislati&e power@ and a grant of the =udicial power 7eans a grant of all the =udicial power which 7ay be e9ercised under the go&ern7ent'; The %ourt could not ha&e been 7ore e9plicit then on the plenary grant and e9ercise of =udicial power' lainly, the abstraction of the Supre7e %ourt acting as a residential "lectoral Tribunal fro7 the une0ui&ocal grant of =urisdiction in the last paragraph of Section 3, Article A++ of the %onstitution is sound and tenable' The 7irabile dictu of the grant of =urisdiction to this %ourt, albeit found in the Article on the e9ecuti&e branch of go&ern7ent, and the constitution of the "T, is e&ident in the discussions of the %onstitutional %o77ission' (n the e9ercise of this %ourtUs =udicial power as sole =udge of presidential and &ice,presidential election contests, and to pro7ulgate its rules for this purpose, we find the proceedings in the %onstitutional %o77ission 7ost instructi&e8 !R' :AA+:"' (n line 2., after the words ;Aice, resident,; + propose to add A#: !AL R(!*)1AT" +TS R*)"S <(R TC" *R (S"' This refers to the Supre7e %ourt sitting en banc' This is also to confer on the Supre7e %ourt e9clusi&e authority to enact the necessary rules while acting as sole =udge of all contests relating to the election, returns and 0ualifications of the resident or Aice, resident' !R' R"1A)A:(' !y personal position is that the rule,7aBing power of the Supre7e %ourt with respect to its internal procedure is already i7plicit under the Article on the 6udiciary@ considering, howe&er, that according to the %o77issioner, the purpose of this is to indicate the sole power of the Supre7e %ourt without inter&ention by the legislature in the pro7ulgation of its rules on this particular point, + thinB + will personally reco77end its acceptance to the %o77ittee'26

9999 !R' #())":(' 9 9 9' With respect to Sections 10 and 11 on page 4, + understand that the %o77ittee has also created an "lectoral Tribunal in the Senate and a %o77ission on Appoint7ents which 7ay co&er 7e7bership fro7 both Couses' $ut 7y 0uestion is8 +t see7s to 7e that the co77ittee report does not indicate which body should pro7ulgate the rules that shall go&ern the "lectoral Tribunal and the %o77ission on Appoint7ents' Who shall then pro7ulgate the rules of these bodiesH !R' :AA+:"' The "lectoral Tribunal itself will establish and pro7ulgate its rules because it is a body distinct and independent already fro7 the Couse, and so with the %o77ission on Appoint7ents also' +t will ha&e the authority to pro7ulgate its own rules'27 (n another point of discussion relati&e to the grant of =udicial power, but e0ually cogent, we listen to for7er %hief 6ustice Roberto %oncepcion8 !R' S*AR"M' ThanB you' Would the %o77issioner not consider that &iolati&e of the doctrine of separation of powersH !R' %(#%" %+(#' + thinB %o77issioner $ernas e9plained that this is a contest between two parties' This is a =udicial power' !R' S*AR"M' We Bnow, but practically the %o77ittee is gi&ing to the =udiciary the right to declare who will be the resident of our country, which to 7e is a political action' !R' %(#%" %+(#' There are legal rights which are enforceable under the law, and these are essentially =usticiable 0uestions' !R' S*AR"M' +f the election contest pro&ed to be long, burdenso7e and tedious, practically all the ti7e of the Supre7e %ourt sitting en banc would be occupied with it considering that they will be going o&er 7illions and 7illions of ballots or election returns, !ada7 resident' 28 "choing the sa7e senti7ent and affir7ing the grant of =udicial power to the Supre7e %ourt, 6ustice <loren? :' Regalado29 and <r' 6oa0uin $ernas30 both opined8 !R' A+))A%(RTA' ThanB you &ery 7uch, !ada7 resident' + a7 not sure whether %o77issioner Suare? has e9pressed his point' (n page 2, the fourth paragraph of Section 3 pro&ides8 The Supre7e %ourt, sitting en banc, shall be the sole =udge of all contests relating to the election, returns and 0ualifications of the resident or Aice, resident' !ay + seeB clarification as to whether or not the 7atter of deter7ining the outco7e of the contests relating to the election returns and 0ualifications of the resident or Aice, resident is purely a political 7atter and, therefore, should not be left entirely to the =udiciary' Will the abo&e,0uoted pro&ision not i7pinge on the doctrine of separation of powers between the e9ecuti&e and the =udicial depart7ents of the go&ern7entH !R' R"1A)A:(' #o, + really do not feel that would be a proble7' This is a new pro&ision incidentally' +t was not in the 123. %onstitution nor in the 1273 %onstitution' !R' A+))A%(RTA' That is right' !R' R"1A)A:(' We feel that it will not be an intrusion into the separation of powers guaranteed to the =udiciary because this is strictly an ad&ersarial and =udicial proceeding' !R' A+))A%(RTA' !ay + Bnow the rationale of the %o77ittee because this supersedes Republic Act 72.0 which pro&ides for the residential "lectoral TribunalH <R' $"R#AS' recisely, this is necessary' "lection contests are, by their nature, =udicial' Therefore, they are cogni?able only by courts' +f, for instance, we did not ha&e a constitutional pro&ision on an electoral tribunal for the Senate or an electoral tribunal for the Couse, nor7ally, as co7posed, that cannot be gi&en =urisdiction o&er contests' So, the bacBground of this is really the case of Ro9as &' )ope?' The 1entle7an will re7e7ber that in that election, )ope? was declared winner' Ce filed a protest before the Supre7e %ourt because there was a republic act which

created the Supre7e %ourt as the residential "lectoral Tribunal' The 0uestion in this case was whether new powers could be gi&en the Supre7e %ourt by law' +n effect, the conflict was actually whether there was an atte7pt to create two Supre7e %ourts and the answer of the Supre7e %ourt was8 ;#o, this did not in&ol&e the creation of two Supre7e %ourts, but precisely we are gi&ing new =urisdiction to the Supre7e %ourt, as it is allowed by the %onstitution' %ongress 7ay allocate &arious =urisdictions'; $efore the passage of that republic act, in case there was any contest between two presidential candidates or two &ice,presidential candidates, no one had =urisdiction o&er it' So, it beca7e necessary to create a residential "lectoral Tribunal' What we ha&e done is to constitutionali?e what was statutory but it is not an infringe7ent on the separation of powers because the power being gi&en to the Supre7e %ourt is a =udicial power' 31 *n7istaBable fro7 the foregoing is that the e9ercise of our power to =udge presidential and &ice,presidential election contests, as well as the rule,7aBing power ad=unct thereto, is plenary@ it is not as restricti&e as petitioner would interpret it' +n fact, for7er %hief 6ustice Cilario 1' :a&ide, 6r', who proposed the insertion of the phrase, intended the Supre7e %ourt to e9ercise e9clusi&e authority to pro7ulgate its rules of procedure for that purpose' To this, 6ustice Regalado forthwith assented and then e7phasi?ed that the sole power ought to be without inter&ention by the legislati&e depart7ent' "&idently, e&en the legislature cannot li7it the =udicial power to resol&e presidential and &ice, presidential election contests and our rule,7aBing power connected thereto' To foreclose all argu7ents of petitioner, we reiterate that the establish7ent of the "T si7ply constitutionali?ed what was statutory before the 1247 %onstitution' The e9periential conte9t of the "T in our country cannot be denied'32 %onse0uently, we find it i7perati&e to trace the historical antecedents of the "T' Article A++, Section 3, paragraph 7 of the 1247 %onstitution is an inno&ation' The precursors of the present %onstitution did not contain si7ilar pro&isions and instead &ested upon the legislature all phases of presidential and &ice,presidential elections T fro7 the can&assing of election returns, to the procla7ation of the president,elect and the &ice,president elect, and e&en the deter7ination, by ordinary legislation, of whether such procla7ations 7ay be contested' *nless the legislature enacted a law creating an institution that would hear election contests in the residential and Aice, residential race, a defeated candidate had no legal right to de7and a recount of the &otes cast for the office in&ol&ed or to challenge the ineligibility of the proclai7ed candidate' "ffecti&ely, presidential and &ice,presidential contests were non,=usticiable in the then pre&ailing 7ilieu' The o7ission in the 123. %onstitution was intentional' +t was 7ainly influenced by the absence of a si7ilar pro&ision in its pattern, the <ederal %onstitution of the *nited States' Rather, the creation of such tribunal was left to the deter7ination of the #ational Asse7bly' The =ournal of the 123. %onstitutional %on&ention is crystal clear on this point8 :elegate Saguin' T <or an infor7ation' +t see7s that this %onstitution does not contain any pro&ision with respect to the entity or body which will looB into the protests for the positions of the resident and Aice, resident' resident Recto' T #either does the A7erican constitution contain a pro&ision o&er the sub=ect' :elegate Saguin' T $ut then, who will decide these protestsH resident Recto' T + suppose that the #ational Asse7bly will decide on that' 33 To fill the &oid in the 123. %onstitution, the #ational Asse7bly enacted R'A' #o' 1723, establishing an independent "T to try, hear, and decide protests contesting the election of resident and Aice, resident' The %hief 6ustice and the Associate 6ustices of the Supre7e %ourt were tasBed to sit as its %hair7an and !e7bers, respecti&ely' +ts co7position was e9tended to retired Supre7e %ourt 6ustices and incu7bent %ourt of Appeals 6ustices who 7ay be appointed as substitutes for ill, absent, or te7porarily incapacitated regular 7e7bers' The ele&en,7e7ber tribunal was e7powered to pro7ulgate rules for the conduct of its proceedings' +t was 7andated to sit en banc in deciding presidential and &ice,presidential contests and authori?ed to e9ercise powers si7ilar to those conferred upon courts of =ustice, including the issuance of subpoena, taBing of depositions, arrest of witnesses to co7pel their appearance, production of docu7ents and other e&idence, and the power to punish conte7ptuous acts and bearings' The tribunal was assigned a %lerB, subordinate officers, and e7ployees necessary for the efficient perfor7ance of its functions' R'A' #o' 1723 was i7plicitly repealed and superseded by the 1273 %onstitution which replaced the bica7eral legislature under the 123. %onstitution with the unica7eral body of a parlia7entary go&ern7ent' With the 1273 %onstitution, a "T was rendered irrele&ant, considering that the resident was not directly chosen by the people but elected fro7 a7ong the 7e7bers of the #ational Asse7bly, while the position of Aice, resident was constitutionally non,e9istent'

+n 1241, se&eral 7odifications were introduced to the parlia7entary syste7' "9ecuti&e power was restored to the resident who was elected directly by the people' An "9ecuti&e %o77ittee was for7ed to assist the resident in the perfor7ance of his functions and duties' "&entually, the "9ecuti&e %o77ittee was abolished and the (ffice of Aice, resident was installed anew' These changes pro7pted the #ational Asse7bly to re&i&e the "T by enacting, on :ece7ber 3, 124., $atas a7bansa $ilang -$' ' $lg'/ 443, entitled ;An Act %onstituting an +ndependent residential "lectoral Tribunal to Try, Cear and :ecide "lection %ontests in the (ffice of the resident and Aice, resident of the hilippines, Appropriating <unds Therefor and <or (ther urposes'; This tribunal was co7posed of nine 7e7bers, three of who7 were the %hief 6ustice of the Supre7e %ourt and two Associate 6ustices designated by hi7, while the si9 were di&ided e0ually between representati&es of the 7a=ority and 7inority parties in the $atasang a7bansa' Aside fro7 the license to wield powers aBin to those of a court of =ustice, the "T was per7itted to reco77end the prosecution of persons, whether public officers or pri&ate indi&iduals, who in its opinion had participated in any irregularity connected with the can&assing andJor acco7plishing of election returns' The independence of the tribunal was highlighted by a pro&ision allocating a specific budget fro7 the national treasury or Special Acti&ities <und for its operational e9penses' +t was e7powered to appoint its own clerB in accordance with its rules' Cowe&er, the subordinate officers were strictly e7ployees of the =udiciary or other officers of the go&ern7ent who were 7erely designated to the tribunal' After the historic eople ower Re&olution that ended the 7artial law era and installed %ora?on A0uino as resident, ci&il liberties were restored and a new constitution was for7ed' With R'A' #o' 1723 as fra7eworB, the 1245 %onstitutional %o77ission transfor7ed the then statutory "T into a constitutional institution, albeit without its traditional no7enclature8 <R' $"R#AS' 9 9 9' 9 9 9' So it beca7e necessary to create a residential "lectoral Tribunal' What we ha&e done is to constitutionali?e what was statutory but it is not an infringe7ent on the separation of powers because the power being gi&en to the Supre7e %ourt is a =udicial power' 34 %learly, petitionerUs bete noire of the "T and the e9ercise of its power are unwarranted' Cis argu7ents that8 -1/ the %hief 6ustice and Associate 6ustices are referred to as ;%hair7an; and ;!e7bers,; respecti&ely@ -2/ the "T uses a different seal@ -3/ the %hair7an is authori?ed to appoint personnel@ and -3/ additional co7pensation is allocated to the ;!e7bers,; in order to bolster his clai7 of infir7ity in the establish7ent of the "T, are too superficial to 7erit further attention by the %ourt' $e that as it 7ay, we hasten to clarify the structure of the "T as a legiti7ate progeny of Section 3, Article A++ of the %onstitution, co7posed of 7e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt, sitting en banc' The following e9change in the 1245 %onstitutional %o77ission should pro&ide enlighten7ent8 !R' S*AR"M' ThanB you' )et 7e proceed to line 23, page 2, wherein it is pro&ided, and + 0uote8 The Supre7e %ourt, sitting en bancF,G shall be the sole =udge of all contests relating to the election, returns and 0ualifications of the resident or Aice, resident' Are we not gi&ing enor7ous worB to the Supre7e %ourt especially when it is directed to sit en banc as the sole =udge of all presidential and &ice,presidential election contestsH !R' S*!*)(#1' That 0uestion will be referred to %o77issioner %oncepcion' !R' %(#%" %+(#' This function was discharged by the Supre7e %ourt twice and the Supre7e %ourt was able to dispose of each case in a period of one year as pro&ided by law' (f course, that was probably during the late 1250s and early 1270s' + do not Bnow how the present Supre7e %ourt would react to such circu7stances, but there is also the 0uestion of who else would hear the election protests' !R' S*AR"M' We are asBing this 0uestion because between lines 23 to 2., there are no rules pro&ided for the hearings and there is not ti7e li7it or duration for the election contest to be decided by the Supre7e %ourt' Also, we will ha&e to consider the historical bacBground that when R'A' 1723, which organi?ed the residential "lectoral Tribunal, was pro7ulgated on 6une 21, 12.7, at least three fa7ous election contests were presented and two of the7 ended up in withdrawal by the protestants out of sheer frustration because of the delay in the resolution of the cases' + a7 referring to the electoral protest that was lodged by for7er resident %arlos ' 1arcia against our ;Babalen; for7er resident :iosdado !acapagal in 1251 and the &ice,presidential election contest filed by the late Senator 1erardo Ro9as against Aice, resident <ernando )ope? in 125.'

!R' %(#%" %+(#' + cannot answer for what the protestants had in 7ind' $ut when that protest of Senator Ro9as was withdrawn, the results were already a&ailable' Senator Ro9as did not want to ha&e a decision ad&erse to hi7' The &otes were being counted already, and he did not get what he e9pected so rather than ha&e a decision ad&erse to his protest, he withdrew the case' 9999 !R' S*AR"M' + see' So the %o77ission would not ha&e any ob=ection to &esting in the Supre7e %ourt this 7atter of resol&ing presidential and &ice,presidential contestsH !R' %(#%" %+(#' ersonally, + would not ha&e any ob=ection' !R' S*AR"M' ThanB you' Would the %o77issioner not consider that &iolati&e of the doctrine of separation of powersH !R' %(#%" %+(#' + thinB %o77issioner $ernas e9plained that this is a contest between two parties' This is a =udicial power' !R' S*AR"M' We Bnow, but practically the %o77ittee is gi&ing to the =udiciary the right to declare who will be the resident of our country, which to 7e is a political action' !R' %(#%" %+(#' There are legal rights which are enforceable under the law, and these are essentially =usticiable 0uestions' !R' S*AR"M' +f the election contest pro&ed to be long, burdenso7e and tedious, practically all the ti7e of the Supre7e %ourt sitting en banc would be occupied with it considering that they will be going o&er 7illions and 7illions of ballots or election returns, !ada7 resident' !R' %(#%" %+(#' The ti7e consu7ed or to be consu7ed in this contest for resident is dependent upon they Bey nu7ber of tea7s of re&isors' + ha&e no e9perience insofar as contests in other offices are concerned' !R' S*AR"M' Although there is a re0uire7ent here that the Supre7e %ourt is 7andated to sit en bancH !R' %(#%" %+(#' Les' !R' S*AR"M' + see' !R' %(#%" %+(#' The steps in&ol&ed in this contest are8 <irst, the ballot bo9es are opened before tea7s of three, generally, a representati&e each of the court, of the protestant and of the ;protestee'; +t is all a 0uestions of how 7any tea7s are organi?ed' (f course, that can be e9pensi&e, but it would be e9pensi&e whate&er court one would choose' There were ti7es that the Supre7e %ourt, with so7eti7es .0 tea7s at the sa7e ti7e worBing, would classify the ob=ections, the Bind of proble7s, and the court would only go o&er the ob=ected &otes on which the parties could not agree' So it is not as aweso7e as it would appear insofar as the %ourt is concerned' What is aweso7e is the cost of the re&ision of the ballots because each party would ha&e to appoint one representati&e for e&ery tea7, and that 7ay taBe 0uite a big a7ount' !R' S*AR"M' +f we draw fro7 the %o77issionerUs e9perience which he is sharing with us, what would be the reasonable period for the election contest to be decidedH !R' %(#%" %+(#' +nsofar as the Supre7e %ourt is concerned, the Supre7e %ourt always 7anages to dispose of the case in one year' !R' S*AR"M' +n one year' ThanB you for the clarification' 35 (b&ious fro7 the foregoing is the intent to bestow independence to the Supre7e %ourt as the "T, to undertaBe the Cerculean tasB of deciding election protests in&ol&ing presidential and &ice,presidential candidates in accordance with the process outlined by for7er %hief 6ustice Roberto %oncepcion' +t was 7ade in response to the concern aired by delegate 6ose "' Suare? that the additional duty 7ay pro&e too burdenso7e for the Supre7e %ourt' This e9plicit grant of independence and of the plenary powers needed to discharge this burden =ustifies the budget allocation of the "T' The confer7ent of additional =urisdiction to the Supre7e %ourt, with the duty characteri?ed as an ;aweso7e; tasB, includes the 7eans necessary to carry it into effect under the doctrine of necessary i7plication' 36 We cannot o&ere7phasi?e that the abstraction of the "T fro7 the e9plicit grant of power to the Supre7e %ourt, gi&en our abundant e9perience, is not unwarranted'

A plain reading of Article A++, Section 3, paragraph 7, readily re&eals a grant of authority to the Supre7e %ourt sitting en banc' +n the sa7e &ein, although the 7ethod by which the Supre7e %ourt e9ercises this authority is not specified in the pro&ision, the grant of power does not contain any li7itation on the Supre7e %ourtUs e9ercise thereof' The Supre7e %ourtUs 7ethod of deciding presidential and &ice,presidential election contests, through the "T, is actually a deri&ati&e of the e9ercise of the prerogati&e conferred by the afore0uoted constitutional pro&ision' Thus, the subse0uent directi&e in the pro&ision for the Supre7e %ourt to ;pro7ulgate its rules for the purpose'; The confer7ent of full authority to the Supre7e %ourt, as a "T, is e0ui&alent to the full authority conferred upon the electoral tribunals of the Senate and the Couse of Representati&es, i'e', the Senate "lectoral Tribunal -S"T/ and the Couse of Representati&es "lectoral Tribunal -CR"T/, 37 which we ha&e affir7ed on nu7erous occasions'38 articularly cogent are the discussions of the %onstitutional %o77ission on the parallel pro&isions of the S"T and the CR"T' The discussions point to the ine&itable conclusion that the different electoral tribunals, with the Supre7e %ourt functioning as the "T, are constitutional bodies, independent of the three depart7ents of go&ern7ent T "9ecuti&e, )egislati&e, and 6udiciary T but not separate therefro7' !R' !AA!$(#1' 9 9 9' !y 0uestions will be &ery basic so we can go as fast as we can' +n the case of the electoral tribunal, either of the Couse or of the Senate, is it correct to say that these tribunals are constitutional creationsH + will distinguish these with the case of the Tanodbayan and the Sandiganbayan which are created by 7andate of the %onstitution but they are not constitutional creations' +s that a good distinctionH 9999 !R' !AA!$(#1' %ould we, therefore, say that either the Senate "lectoral Tribunal or the Couse "lectoral Tribunal is a constitutional bodyH !R' AM%*#A' +t is, !ada7 resident' !R' !AA!$(#1' +f it is a constitutional body, is it then sub=ect to constitutional restrictionsH !R' AM%*#A' +t would be sub=ect to constitutional restrictions intended for that body' !R' !AA!$(#1' + see' $ut + want to find out if the ruling in the case of Aera &' A&elino, 77 hil' 122, will still be applicable to the present bodies we are creating since it ruled that the electoral tribunals are not separate depart7ents of the go&ern7ent' Would that ruling still be &alidH !R' AM%*#A' Les, they are not separate depart7ents because the separate depart7ents are the legislati&e, the e9ecuti&e and the =udiciary@ but they are constitutional bodies' 39 The &iew taBen by 6ustices Adolfo S' A?cuna40 and Regalado "' !aa7bong41 is schooled by our holding in )ope? &' Ro9as, et al'842 Section 1 of Republic Act #o' 1723, which pro&ides that8 ;There shall be an independent residential "lectoral Tribunal 9 9 9 which shall be the sole =udge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and 0ualifications of the president,elect and the &ice,president,elect of the hilippines'; has the effect of gi&ing said defeated candidate the legal right to contest =udicially the election of the resident,elect of Aice, resident,elect and to de7and a recount of the &otes case for the office in&ol&ed in the litigation, as well as to secure a =udg7ent declaring that he is the one elected president or &ice,president, as the case 7ay be, and that, as such, he is entitled to assu7e the duties attached to said office' And by pro&iding, further, that the residential "lectoral Tribunal ;shall be co7posed of the %hief 6ustice and the other ten !e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt,; said legislation has conferred upon such %ourt an additional original =urisdiction of an e9clusi&e character' Republic Act #o' 1723 has not created a new or separate court' +t has 7erely conferred upon the Supre7e %ourt the functions of a residential "lectoral Tribunal' The result of the enact7ent 7ay be liBened to the fact that courts of first instance perfor7 the functions of such ordinary courts of first instance, those of court of land registration, those of probate courts, and those of courts of =u&enile and do7estic relations' +t is, also, co7parable to the situation obtaining when the 7unicipal court of a pro&incial capital e9ercises its authority, pursuant to law, o&er a li7ited nu7ber of cases which were pre&iously within the e9clusi&e =urisdiction of courts of first instance' +n all of these instances, the court -court of first instance or 7unicipal court/ is only one, although the functions 7ay be distinct and, e&en, separate' Thus the powers of a court of first instance, in the e9ercise of its =urisdiction o&er ordinary ci&il cases, are broader than, as well as distinct and separate fro7, those of the sa7e court acting as a court of land registration or a probate court, or as a court of =u&enile and do7estic relations' So too, the authority of

the 7unicipal court of a pro&incial capital, when acting as such 7unicipal court, is, territorially 7ore li7ited than that of the sa7e court when hearing the afore7entioned cases which are pri7ary within the =urisdiction of courts of first instance' +n other words, there is only one court, although it 7ay perfor7 the functions pertaining to se&eral types of courts, each ha&ing so7e characteristics different fro7 those of the others' +ndeed, the Supre7e %ourt, the %ourt of Appeals and courts of first instance, are &ested with original =urisdiction, as well as with appellate =urisdiction, in conse0uence of which they are both trial courts and, appellate courts, without detracting fro7 the fact that there is only one Supre7e %ourt, one %ourt of Appeals, and one court of first instance, clothed with authority to discharge said dual functions' A court of first instance, when perfor7ing the functions of a probate court or a court of land registration, or a court of =u&enile and do7estic relations, although with powers less broad than those of a court of first instance, hearing ordinary actions, is not inferior to the latter, for one cannot be inferior to itself' So too, the residential "lectoral Tribunal is not inferior to the Supre7e %ourt, since it is the sa7e %ourt although the functions peculiar to said Tribunal are 7ore li7ited in scope than those of the Supre7e %ourt in the e9ercise of its ordinary functions' Cence, the enact7ent of Republic Act #o' 1723, does not entail an assu7ption by %ongress of the power of appoint7ent &ested by the %onstitution in the resident' +t 7erely connotes the i7position of additional duties upon the !e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt' $y the sa7e toBen, the "T is not a separate and distinct entity fro7 the Supre7e %ourt, albeit it has functions peculiar only to the Tribunal' +t is ob&ious that the "T was constituted in i7ple7entation of Section 3, Article A++ of the %onstitution, and it faithfully co7plies T not unlawfully defies T the constitutional directi&e' The adoption of a separate seal, as well as the change in the no7enclature of the %hief 6ustice and the Associate 6ustices into %hair7an and !e7bers of the Tribunal, respecti&ely, was designed si7ply to highlight the singularity and e9clusi&ity of the TribunalUs functions as a special electoral court' As regards petitionerUs clai7 that the "T e9ercises 0uasi,=udicial functions in contra&ention of Section 12, Article A+++ of the %onstitution, we point out that the issue in $uac &' %(!")"% 43 in&ol&ed the characteri?ation of the enforce7ent and ad7inistration of a law relati&e to the conduct of a plebiscite which falls under the =urisdiction of the %o77ission on "lections' Cowe&er, petitioner latches on to the enu7eration in $uac which declared, in an obiter, that ;contests in&ol&ing the resident and the Aice, resident fall within the e9clusi&e original =urisdiction of the "T, also in the e9ercise of 0uasi,=udicial power'; The issue raised by petitioner is 7ore i7agined than real' Section 12, Article A+++ of the %onstitution reads8 S"%' 12' The !e7bers of the Supre7e %ourt and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency perfor7ing 0uasi,=udicial or ad7inistrati&e functions' The traditional grant of =udicial power is found in Section 1, Article A+++ of the %onstitution which pro&ides that the power ;shall be &ested in one Supre7e %ourt and in such lower courts as 7ay be established by law'; %onsistent with our presidential syste7 of go&ern7ent, the function of ;dealing with the settle7ent of disputes, contro&ersies or conflicts in&ol&ing rights, duties or prerogati&es that are legally de7andable and enforceable; 44 is apportioned to courts of =ustice' With the ad&ent of the 1247 %onstitution, =udicial power was e9panded to include ;the duty of the courts of =ustice to settle actual contro&ersies in&ol&ing rights which are legally de7andable and enforceable, and to deter7ine whether or not there has been a gra&e abuse of discretion a7ounting to lacB or e9cess of =urisdiction on the part of any branch or instru7entality of the 1o&ern7ent'; 45 The power was e9panded, but it re7ained absolute' The set up e7bodied in the %onstitution and statutes characteri?es the resolution of electoral contests as essentially an e9ercise of =udicial power'
4avvp)i4

At the barangay and 7unicipal le&els, original and e9clusi&e =urisdiction o&er election contests is &ested in the 7unicipal or 7etropolitan trial courts and the regional trial courts, respecti&ely' At the higher le&els T city, pro&incial, and regional, as well as congressional and senatorial T e9clusi&e and original =urisdiction is lodged in the %(!")"% and in the Couse of Representati&es and Senate "lectoral Tribunals, which are not, strictly and literally speaBing, courts of law' Although not courts of law, they are, nonetheless, e7powered to resol&e election contests which in&ol&e, in essence, an e9ercise of =udicial power, because of the e9plicit constitutional e7power7ent found in Section 2-2/, Article +K,% -for the %(!")"%/ and Section 17, Article A+ -for the Senate and Couse "lectoral Tribunals/ of the %onstitution' $esides, when the %(!")"%, the CR"T, and the S"T decide election contests, their decisions are still sub=ect to =udicial re&iew T &ia a petition for certiorari filed by the proper party T if there is a showing that the decision was rendered with gra&e abuse of discretion tanta7ount to lacB or e9cess of =urisdiction' 46 +t is also beyond ca&il that when the Supre7e %ourt, as "T, resol&es a presidential or &ice,presidential election contest, it perfor7s what is essentially a =udicial power' +n the land7arB case of Angara &' "lectoral %o77ission,476ustice 6ose ' )aurel enucleated that ;it would be inconcei&able if the %onstitution had not pro&ided for a 7echanis7 by which to direct the course of go&ern7ent along constitutional channels'; +n fact, Angara pointed out that ;FtGhe %onstitution is a definition of the powers of go&ern7ent'; And yet, at that ti7e, the 123. %onstitution did not contain the e9panded definition of =udicial power found in Article A+++, Section 1, paragraph 2 of the present %onstitution'

With the e9plicit pro&ision, the present %onstitution has allocated to the Supre7e %ourt, in con=unction with latterUs e9ercise of =udicial power inherent in all courts,48 the tasB of deciding presidential and &ice,presidential election contests, with full authority in the e9ercise thereof' The power wielded by "T is a deri&ati&e of the plenary =udicial power allocated to courts of law, e9pressly pro&ided in the %onstitution' (n the whole, the %onstitution draws a thin, but, ne&ertheless, distinct line between the "T and the Supre7e %ourt' +f the logic of petitioner is to be followed, all !e7bers of the %ourt, sitting in the Senate and Couse "lectoral Tribunals would &iolate the constitutional proscription found in Section 12, Article A+++' Surely, the petitioner will be a7ong the first to acBnowledge that this is not so' The %onstitution which, in Section 17, Article A+, e9plicitly pro&ides that three Supre7e %ourt 6ustices shall sit in the Senate and Couse "lectoral Tribunals, respecti&ely, effecti&ely e9e7pts the 6ustices,!e7bers thereof fro7 the prohibition in Section 12, Article A+++' +n the sa7e &ein, it is the %onstitution itself, in Section 3, Article A++, which e9e7pts the !e7bers of the %ourt, constituting the "T, fro7 the sa7e prohibition' We ha&e pre&iously declared that the "T is not si7ply an agency to which !e7bers of the %ourt were designated' (nce again, the "T, as intended by the fra7ers of the %onstitution, is to be an institution independent, but not separate, fro7 the =udicial depart7ent, i'e', the Supre7e %ourt' !c%ulloch &' State of !aryland 49 proclai7ed that ;FaG power without the 7eans to use it, is a nullity'; The &ehicle for the e9ercise of this power, as intended by the %onstitution and specifically 7entioned by the %onstitutional %o77issioners during the discussions on the grant of power to this %ourt, is the "T' Thus, a 7icroscopic &iew, liBe the petitionerUs, should not constrict an absolute and constitutional grant of =udicial power' (ne final note' Although this %ourt has no control o&er contrary people and naysayers, we reiterate a word of caution against the filing of baseless petitions which only clog the %ourtUs docBet' The petition in the instant case belongs to that classification' WC"R"<(R", the petition is :+S!+SS":' %osts against petitioner' S( (R:"R":' A.M. No. @9-)-2-SC %4c4:<4r 14, 2@1@

"N T E MATTER O$ T E (RE-"NG CONTROVERS"ES "N T E ELECT"ON "N T E "NTEGRATE% (AR O$ T E P "L"PP"NES 9 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,9 A.C. No. ?292 ATT#S. MARC"AL M. MAGS"NO, MANUEL M. MARAM(A a*+ NASSER MARO OMSAL"C, %o7plainants,

&s' ATT#S. ROGEL"O A. V"NLUAN, A(ELAR%O C. ESTRA%A, (ON"$AC"O T. (ARAN%ON, JR., EVERG"STO S. ESCALON a*+ RA#MUN% JORGE A. MERCA%O, Respondents' R"S()*T+(# CORONA, C.J.: This resol&es the abo&e 7atter in&ol&ing the leadership contro&ersy at the +ntegrated $ar of the hilippines -+$ / and the ad7inistrati&e case that was filed against so7e of the high,ranBing officers of the +$ on account thereof' +' Antecedents The %ourt in an "n $anc Resolution dated 6une 2, 2002 created a Special -+n&estigating/ %o77ittee 1 to looB into the ;brewing contro&ersies in the +$ elections, specifically in the elections of Aice, resident for the 1reater !anila Region and "9ecuti&e Aice, resident of the +$ itself 999 and any other election contro&ersy in&ol&ing other chapters of the +$ , if any;, that includes as well the election of the 1o&ernors for Western !indanao and Western Aisayas' %onse0uently, the Special %o77ittee called the +$ officers in&ol&ed to a preli7inary conference on 6une 10, 2002' With respect thereto, Atty' Rogelio A' Ainluan then sub7itted a reli7inary %onference $rief on the sa7e day' :uring the conference it was deter7ined that the in&estigation would focus on the following issues or contro&ersies8 1' What is the correct interpretation of Section 31, Article A of the +$ $y,)aws which pro&ides8

;S"%' 31' !e7bership' T The 7e7bership -of :elegates/ shall consist of all the %hapter residents and, in the case of %hapters entitled to 7ore than one :elegate each, the Aice, residents of the %hapters and such additional :elegates as the %hapters are entitled to' *nless the Aice, resident is already a :elegate, he shall be an alternate :elegate' Additional :elegates and alternates shall in proper cases be elected by the $oard of (fficers of the %hapter' !e7bers of the $oard of 1o&ernors who are not :elegates shall be 7e7bers e9 officio of the Couse, without the right to &ote'; 2' Who was &alidly elected 1o&ernor for the 1reater !anila RegionH 3' Who was &alidly elected 1o&ernor for Western Aisayas RegionH 3' Who was &alidly elected 1o&ernor for Western !indanao RegionH .' Who was &alidly elected +$ "9ecuti&e Aice resident for the ne9t ter7H 5' What is the liability, if any, of respondent Atty' Rogelio A' Ainluan under the ad7inistrati&e co7plaint for ;gra&e professional 7isconduct, &iolation of attorneyUs oath, and acts ini7ical to the +$ ; filed against hi7 by Attys' !arcial !agsino, !anuel !ara7ba and #asser !aroho7salicH !eanwhile, a Supple7ental %o7plaint dated 6une 11, 2002 was recei&ed fro7 Attys' !agsino, !ara7ba and !aroho7salic regarding the earlier co7plaint that they filed last !ay 21, 2002 against Atty' Ainluan' As such, then +$ resident <eliciano !' $autista and then "9ecuti&e Aice resident -"A / Ainluan agreed to sub7it their respecti&e position papers on the abo&e issues and contro&ersies' Also, Atty' Ainluan was re0uired to file his answer to the ad7inistrati&e co7plaint against hi7' A osition aper dated 6une 1., 2002 was then recei&ed fro7 Atty' Ainluan' Attys' "lpidio 1' Soriano, +++ and "rwin !' <ortunato also filed their osition apers both dated 6une 1., 2002' +t appears that an earlier osition aper also dated 6une 1., 2002 was sub7itted by Atty' $en=a7in $' )anto' <or their part, Attys' $autista, !ara7ba and !agsino filed their osition aper dated 6une 15, 2002' +ncidentally, in a !anifestation liBewise dated 6une 15, 2002 Attys' $autista, !ara7ba and !arcial !' !agsino sub7itted the sa7e paper but already bearing the signature of Atty' $autista' Atty' #asser A' !aroho7salic sub7itted his osition aper dated 6une 17, 2002' The Special %o77ittee, in the course of its in&estigation, further recei&ed a letter dated 6une 22, 2002 fro7 Atty' Ale9 )' !acalawi, resident of the +$ )anao del Sur %hapter' As to the ad7inistrati&e case filed against hi7, Atty' Ainluan, as respondent, filed his %o77ent dated 6une 1., 2002' +n turn, Attys' !agsino, !ara7ba and !aroho7salic, as co7plainants, sub7itted their Reply dated 6une 23, 2002' The Special %o77ittee then sub7itted a Report and Reco77endation dated 6uly 2, 2002 the dispositi&e portion of which read as follows8 A' That to a&oid further contro&ersy regarding its proper interpretation and i7ple7entation, Sec' 31, Article A, of the $y,)aws should be a7ended as follows -suggested a7end7ents are in bold print/8 ;S"%' 31' !e7bership' T The 7e7bership of the Couse of :elegates shall consist of all the %hapter residents and in the case of %hapters entitled to 7o-r/e than on-e/ :elegate each, the Aice resident of the %hapters and such additional :elegates as the %hapters are entitled to' *nless the Aice resident is already -a/ delegate, he shall be an alternate :elegate' Additional :elegates and their respecti&e alternates shall be elected fro7, and by, the $oard of (fficers of the %hapter' +f the :elegate chosen is incapacitated, or dis0ualified, or resigns, or refuses to ser&e, and there are enough 7e7bers of the $oard to be elected as :elegates, then the $oard of (fficers shall elect the additional delegates and alternates fro7 the general 7e7bership of the %hapter, and his corresponding alternate shall taBe his place'; $' That to a&oid any a7biguity as to how the resident shall preside and &ote in 7eetings of the Couse of :elegates, paragraph -g/, Sec' 33, Article A of the $y,)aws should be a7ended as follows8 ;-g/ +n all 7eetings and deliberations of the Couse, whether in annual or special con&ention, the resident shall preside, or the "9ecuti&e Aice resident, if the resident is absent or incapacitated, but neither of the7 shall &ote e9cept to breaB a tie'; %' Si7ilarly, Sec' 32, Article A+ of the $y,)aws, on 7eetings of the $oard of 1o&ernors, should be a7ended to read as follows8

;Sec' 32' !eetings' T The $oard shall 7eet regularly once a 7onth, on such date and such ti7e and place as it shall designate' Special 7eetings 7ay be called by the resident, and shall be called by hi7 upon the written re0uest of fi&e -./ 7e7bers of the $oard' The resident shall not &ote e9cept to breaB a tie in the &oting' When for any reason, the resident cannot preside on account of his absence, incapacity, or refusal to call a 7eeting, the "9ecuti&e Aice resident shall preside, there being a 0uoru7 to transact business, but he 7ay not &ote e9cept to breaB a tie' :' That Sec' 33, Article A+ of the $y,)aws, on the procedure for appro&ing a resolution by the $oard of 1o&ernors without a 7eeting, should be a7ended by adding the following e9ception thereto so that the procedure 7ay not be abused in connection with any election in the +$ 8 ;This pro&ision shall not apply when the $oard shall hold an election or hear and decide an election protest'; "' That the pro&ision for the strict i7ple7entation of the rotation rule a7ong the %hapters in the Regions for the election of the 1o&ernor for the regions, -as ordered by this Conorable %ourt in $ar !atter #o' .45, !ay 13, 1221/ should be incorporated in Sec' 32, Article A+ of the $y,)aws, as follows8 ;Sec' 32' #o7ination and election of the 1o&ernors' T At least one -1/ 7onth before the national con&ention the delegates fro7 each region shall elect the 1o&ernor for their region, who shall be chosen by rotation which is 7andatory and shall be strictly i7ple7ented a7ong the %hapters in the region' When a %hapter wai&es its turn in the rotation order, its place shall redound to the ne9t %hapter in the line' #e&ertheless, the for7er 7ay reclai7 its right to the 1o&ernorship at any ti7e before the rotation is co7pleted@ otherwise, it will ha&e to wait for its turn in the ne9t round, in the sa7e place that it had in the round co7pleted' <' That in &iew of the fact that the +$ no longer elects its resident, because the "9ecuti&e Aice resident auto7atically succeeds the resident at the end of his ter7, Sec' 37, Article A++ of the $y,)aws should be a7ended by deleting the pro&ision for the election of the resident' !oreo&er, for the strict i7ple7entation of the rotation rule, the %o77ittee reco77ends that there should be a sanction for its &iolation, thus8 ;Sec' 37' #ational (fficers' T The +ntegrated $ar of the hilippines shall ha&e a resident, an "9ecuti&e Aice resident, and nine -2/ regional 1o&ernors' The "9ecuti&e Aice resident shall be elected on a strict rotation basis by the $oard of 1o&ernors fro7 a7ong the7sel&es, by the &ote of at least fi&e -./ 1o&ernors' The 1o&ernors shall be e9 officio Aice resident for their respecti&e regions' There shall also be a Secretary and Treasurer of the $oard of 1o&ernors' ;The &iolation of the rotation rule in any election shall be penali?ed by annul7ent of the election and dis0ualification of the offender fro7 election or appoint7ent to any office in the +$ '; 1' That Atty' !anuel !' !ara7ba should be declared the duly elected 1o&ernor of the 1reater !anila Region for the 2002,2011 ter7' C' That Atty' "rwin <ortunato of the Ro7blon %hapter should be declared the duly elected 1o&ernor of the Western Aisayas Region for the 2002,2011 ter7' +' That a special election should be held in the Western !indanao Region, within fifteen -1./ days fro7 notice, to elect the 1o&ernor of that region for the 2002,2011 ter7' +n accordance with the rotation rule, only the si9 -5/ %hapters in the region that ha&e not yet been elected to the $oard of 1o&ernors, na7ely8 Ma7boanga Sibugay, Ma7boanga del #orte, Ma-7/boanga del Sur, )anao del #orte, !isa7is (ccidental, and !aguindanao,%otabato %ity, shall participate in the election' 6' That, thereafter, a special election should also be held by the $oard of 1o&ernors to elect the "9ecuti&e Aice resident for the 2002,2011 ter7 with strict obser&ance of the rotation rule' +nas7uch as for the past nine -2/ ter7s, i'e', since the 1221,1223 ter7, the no7inees of the Western Aisayas and "astern !indanao Regions ha&e not yet been elected "9ecuti&e Aice resident of the +$ , the special election shall choose only between the no7inees of these two -2/ regions who shall beco7e the "9ecuti&e Aice resident for the 2002,2011 ter7, in accordance with the strict rotation rule' N' That the high,handed and di&isi&e tactics of Atty' Rogelio A' Ainluan and his group of 1o&ernors, Abelardo "strada, $onifacio $arandon, 6r', "&ergisto "scalon, and Ray7und !ercado, which disrupted the peaceful and orderly flow of business in the +$ , caused chaos in the #ational (ffice, bitter disagree7ents, and ill,feelings, and al7ost disintegrated the +ntegrated $ar, constituted gra&e professional 7isconduct which should be appropriately sanctioned to discourage its repetition in the future' ++' <indings of the Special %o77ittee +n its Report and Reco77endation dated 6uly 2, 2002, the Special %o77ittee disclosed when it was discussing the $oard of (fficers of each chapter that8

The go&ern7ent of a %hapter is &ested in its $oard of (fficers co7posed of nine -2/ officers, na7ely8 the resident, Aice, resident, Secretary, Treasurer, and fi&e -./ :irectors who shall be elected by the 7e7bers of the %hapter at the biennial 7eeting on the last Saturday of <ebruary, and shall hold office for a ter7 of two -2/ years fro7 the first day of April following their election and until their successors shall ha&e been duly chosen and 0ualified' <or the 2002,2011 ter7, the election of %hapter officers was held on <ebruary 24, 2002' +n 1243 up to 122., the Iue?on %ity %hapter elected the usual nine -2/ officers to its $oard of (fficers and they were all delegates to the Couse of :elegates' $eginning with the 1227,1222 ter7, when it added a ublic Relations (fficer - 'R'('/ and Auditor to its $oard of (fficers, the nu7ber of delegates allotted to the %hapter was also increased to ele&en -11/ liBe the 7e7bership in its $oard of (fficers, pursuant to a reapportion7ent of delegates by the $oard of 1o&ernors under Sec' 30, Art' A of the $y,)aws' *p to the 2007,2002 ter7, all the officers of the I% %hapter were also the %hapterUs delegates to the Couse of :elegates' Atty' Aictoria )oan?on who has been an officer of the %hapter in &arious capacities since 2003, liBe her fellow officers in the $oard, auto7atically beca7e a delegate since 2003 up to this ti7e' <or the 2002,2011 ter7, the $oard of (fficers of the +$ ,I% %hapter that assu7ed office on April 1, 2002, is co7posed of si9 -5/ officers and -./ directors, na7ely8 resident , , , , , , , , , , Tran0uil Sal&ador +++ Aice resident , , , , , , 6onas %abochan Secretary , , , , , , , , , , %hristian <ernande? Treasurer , , , , , , , , , , Aictoria )oan?on Auditor , , , , , , , , , , , 1inger Anne %astillo 'R'(' , , , , , , , , , , , , "rnesto Tabu=ara +++ :irector , , , , , , , , , , , Annalou #achura :irector , , , , , , , , , , , !elody Sa7paga :irector , , , , , , , , , , , <rancois Ri&era :irector , , , , , , , , , , , 6oseph %ere?o :irector , , , , , , , , , , , !arita +ris )a0ui +t is i7portant to be an officer of oneUs %hapter and a delegate to the Couse of :elegates, because a delegate gets to elect the 1o&ernor for the Region -which 7ust rotate a7ong the %hapters in the region/' The 1o&ernor of the Region beco7es a 7e7ber of the $oard of 1o&ernors, and gets to elect, or be elected, as the ne9t +$ "9ecuti&e Aice resident who auto7atically beco7es resident for the ne9t succeeding ter7 -which 7ust also rotate a7ong the Regions/'2 The Special %o77ittee then pointed out that with respect to the +$ $oard of 1o&ernors this consists of ;nine -2/ 1o&ernors fro7 the nine -2/ Regions' (ne -1/ 1o&ernor for each Region shall be elected by the 7e7bers of the Couse of :elegates fro7 that region only' The 1o&ernors, the resident and the "9ecuti&e Aice, resident shall hold office for a ter7 of two -2/ years fro7 6uly 1 i77ediately following their election, up to 6une 30 of their second year in office and until their successors shall ha&e been duly chosen and 0ualified'; +t was further added by the %o77ittee that8 At least one -1/ 7onth before the national con&ention, the delegates fro7 each Region shall elect the 1o&ernor for their region' The +$ $y,)aws pro&ide that ;starting in 1223,122., the principle on rotation shall be strictly i7ple7ented so that all prior elections for 1o&ernor in the region shall be recBoned with or considered in deter7ining who should be 1o&ernor to be selected fro7 the different chapters to represent the region in the $oard of 1o&ernors' Cence, the go&ernorship of the region shall rotate a7ong the chapters in the region' The 1o&ernors,elect shall, by a &ote of at least fi&e -./, choose an "9ecuti&e Aice, resident, 9 9 9 either fro7 a7ong the7sel&es or fro7 other 7e7bers of the +ntegrated $ar' The "9ecuti&e Aice, resident shall auto7atically beco7e resident for the ne9t succeeding ter7' The residency shall rotate a7ong the nine -2/ Regions' 3 According to the %o77ittee, the ;rotation of the position of 1o&ernor of a region a7ong the %hapters was ordered by the Supre7e %ourt in its Resolution dated !ay 13, 1221 in $ar !atter #o' .45 -%larification Re8 $ar !atter #o' 321, Atty' Ro7ulo T' %apulong petitioner/;' With respect thereto, it was re&ealed that8

ursuant to the principle of rotation, the go&ernorship of a region shall rotate once in as 7any ter7s as the nu7ber of chapters there are in the region, to gi&e e&ery chapter a chance to represent the region in the $oard of 1o&ernors' Thus, in a region co7posed of . chapters, each chapter is entitled to the go&ernorship once in e&ery . ter7s, or once e&ery ten -10/ years, since a ter7 is two -2/ years' The record of the #ational +$ Secretariat shows that during the past fi&e -./ ter7s, fro7 1222 up to 2002, the 1!R -1reater !anila Region/ go&ernorship was occupied by the fi&e -./ chapters of the region as follows8 1222,2001 ,,,,, 6ose ' +caonapo ,,,,,,,,,,,, !anila +++ 2001,2003 ,,,,, Santos A' %atubay, 6r' ,,,, Iue?on%ity 2003,200. ,,,,, Rosario Setias,Reyes ,,,,,, !anila ++ 200.,2007 ,,,,, Alicia A' Risos,Aidal ,,,,,, !anila + 2007,2002 ,,,,, !arcial !' !agsino ,,,,,,, !anila +A +n the ne9t round, which starts with the 2002,2011 ter7, the sa7e order of rotation should be followed by the fi&e -./ chapters, i'e', !anila +++ shall begin the round, to be followed by Iue?on %ity for 2011,2013 ter7, !anila for the 2013,201. ter7, !anila + for the 201.,2017 ter7, and !anila +A for the 2017,2012 ter7' +n the Western Aisayas Region which is co7posed of ten -10/ chapters, each chapter is entitled to represent the go&ernorship of the region once e&ery ten -10/ ter7s' The first chapter to occupy the go&ernorship, 7ust wait for the nine -2/ other chapters to ser&e their respecti&e ter7s, before it 7ay ha&e its turn again as 1o&ernor of the region' The sa7e rule applies to the Western !indanao Region which is co7posed of twel&e -12/ chapters' (n April 2., 2002, the election of 1o&ernors for the nine -2/ +$ regions proceeded as scheduled, presided o&er by their respecti&e outgoing 1o&ernor'3 +t was then cited by the Special %o77ittee that ;Sec' 37, Art' A++ of the $y,)aws, as a7ended by $ar !atter 321, (ct' 5, 1242, pro&ides that the "9ecuti&e Aice resident shall be chosen by the $oard of 1o&ernors fro7 a7ong the nine -2/ regional go&ernors' The "9ecuti&e Aice resident shall auto7atically beco7e resident for the ne9t succeeding ter7' The residency shall rotate a7ong the nine Regions'; <urther, the %o77ittee a&erred that8 The list of national presidents furnished the Special %o77ittee by the +$ #ational Secretariat, shows that the go&ernors of the following regions were resident of the +$ during the past nine -2/ ter7s -1221,2002/8 #u7eriano Tanopo, 6r' - angasinan/ ,,, %entral )u?on ,,, 1221,1223 !er&in 1' "ncanto -Iue?on %ity/ ,,,,,, !anila ,,,,,,,,,,,, 1223,122. Raul R' Angangco -!aBati/ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Southern )u?on , 122.,1227 6ose Aguila 1rapilon -$iliran/ ,,,,,,,,,,, "astern Aisayas T 1227,1222 Arthur :' )i7 -Ma7basulta/ ,,,,,,,,,,,,, Western !indanao,1222,2001 Teofilo S' ilando, 6r' -Nalinga,Apayao/,#orthern )u?on T 2001,2003 6ose Ansel7o +' %adi? -%a7arines Sur/ T$icolandia ,,,,,,,, 2003,200. 6ose Ansel7o +' %adi? -%a7arines Sur/ T$icolandia ,,,,200.,Aug 2005 6ose Aicente $' Sala?ar -Albay/ ,,,,,,,,,, $icolandia ,,, Aug' 2005,2007 <eliciano !' $autista - angasinan/ ,,,,,, %entral )u?on ,,,, 2007,2002 (nly the go&ernors of the Western Aisayas and "astern !indanao regions ha&e not yet had their turn as "9ecuti&e Aice resident cu7 ne9t +$ resident, while %entral )u?on and $icolandia ha&e had two -2/ ter7s already' Therefore, either the go&ernor of the Western Aisayas Region, or the go&ernor of the "astern !indanao Region should be elected as "9ecuti&e Aice, resident for the 2002,2011 ter7' The one who is not chosen for this ter7, shall ha&e his turn in the ne9t -2011,2013/ ter7' Afterwards, another rotation shall co77ence with 1reater !anila in the lead, followed by Southern )u?on, "astern Aisayas, Western !indanao, #orthern )u?on, $icolandia, %entral )u?on, and either Western Aisayas or "astern !indanao at the end of the round' .

The %o77ittee then disclosed that the contro&ersies in&ol&ed herein and should be resol&ed are the following8 -+/ the dispute concerning additional delegates of the I% %hapter to the Couse of :elegates@ -++/ the election of the 1o&ernor for the 1reater !anila Region -1!R/@ -+++/ the election of 1o&ernor for the Western Aisayas Region@ -+A/ the election of 1o&ernor for the Western !indanao Region@ -A/ the resolution of the election protests@ -A+/ the election of the +$ "9ecuti&e Aice resident for the 2002,2011 ter7@ and, -A++/ the ad7inistrati&e co7plaint against "A Rogelio Ainluan' +n addressing the abo&e contro&ersies, the %o77ittee arri&ed at the following findings and conclusions8 +' The silence of Sec' 31, Art' A of the +$ $y,)aws on who 7ay be elected as additional delegates and alternates by the re7aining 7e7bers of the $oard of (fficers of the %hapter when the %hapter is entitled to 7ore than two -2/ delegates to the Couse of :elegates, is the root cause of the conflicting resolutions of the $autista and Ainluan factions on the proper interpretation of the afore7entioned pro&ision of the $y,)aws' According to the Resolution #o' KA+++,2002 dated April 17, 2002 of the $autista 1roup, ;the additional delegateJs shall be elected by the $oard of (fficers of the %hapter only fro7 a7ong the re7aining duly elected officers and 7e7bers of the $oard, in consideration of their 7andate fro7 the general 7e7bership' According to the Resolution #o' KA+++,2002 -Special,23 April 2002/ of the Ainluan 1roup, ;the election of the additional delegateJs for the %hapters entitled to 7ore than two -2/ delegates shall be elected by the $oard of (fficers of the %hapter fro7 a7ong the general 7e7bership who are in good standing to include the re7aining duly elected officers and 7e7bers of the $oard'; The %o77ittee finds the 0ualification introduced by Resolution #o' KA+++,2002 T ;that the additional delegateJs and alternates 7ust be elected fro7 a7ong the re7aining officers of the %hapter; T to be consistent with the precedent set by Section 31 itself in appointing 7e7bers of the $oard of (fficers, na7ely, -a/ the president of the %hapter as the delegate, and the &ice president as the alternate, or second, delegate to the Couse of :elegates, when the %hapter is entitled to two -2/ delegates' There is a 7anifest intention in Sec' 31, Art' A of the $y,)aws to reser&e 7e7bership in the Couse of :elegates -which is the deliberati&e body of the +$ / for the elected officers of the %hapter since they ha&e already recei&ed the 7andate of the general 7e7bership of the %hapter' <or the past four -3/ ter7s -2003,2011/, Atty' )oan?on has been an officer and delegate of the I% %hapter to the Couse of :elegates, until the Ainluan 1roup introduced its own interpretation of the afore7entioned pro&ision of the $y,)aws and elected non,officers of the %hapter as delegates to the Couse of :elegates in lieu of herself and Atty' )a0ui' We find the Ainluan 1roupUs interpretation of Sec' 31, Art' A, of the $y,)aws in Resolution #o' KA+++,2002 -Special T 23 April 2002/ to be in error and de&oid of rational and historical bases' ++' Attys' Aictoria )oan?on and !arite )a0ui were properly recogni?ed as delegates of the I% %hapter by the residing (fficer, 1!R 1o&ernor !arcial !agsino, during the election on April 2., 2002 of the 1o&ernor for the 1reater !anila Region, in accordance with the guideline in Resolution #o' KA+++,2002' The argu7ent of the I%,%hapter resident Tran0uil Sal&ador, that Attys' )oan?on and )a0ui were not delegates because they were not elected by the I%,$oard of (fficers, is not well taBen' Sec' 31, Art' A of the $y,)aws pro&ides that8 ;Additional :elegates and alternates shall in proper cases be elected by the $oard of (fficers of the %hapter'; The I% %hapter is not a ;proper case; for the election of additional delegates by the $oard of (fficers because the %hapter is entitled to the sa7e nu7ber of delegates -11/ to the Couse, as the nu7ber of officers in its $oard of (fficers' +ts officers are ipso facto the %hapterUs delegates to the Couse' There is no need for the $oard of (fficers to conduct an election' A ;proper case; for the election of additional delegates and alternates by the $oard of (fficers occurs when the nu7ber of additional delegates and alternates for the %hapter is less than the 7e7bers of the $oard of (fficers, for, then, the $oard of (fficers 7ust select, and elect, who a7ong the7sel&es should be the additional delegateJs and alternates of the %hapter to the Couse of :elegates' That has ne&er been the case of the I% %hapter' +++' Atty' !anuel !ara7ba -!anila +++ %hapter/ was &alidly elected as 1!R 1o&ernor for the 2002,2011 ter7, not only because he out&oted his ri&al, Atty' "lpidio Soriano -Iue?on %ity %hapter/, but also because under the principle of rotation of the go&ernorship -$ar !atter #o' .45, !ay 13, 1221/ since the fi&e -./ chapters of the 1reater !anila Region ha&e all represented the region in the $oard of 1o&ernors during the past fi&e -./ ter7s, in the following order8 1222,2001 ,,,,,,,, !anila +++ ,,,,,,,, 6ose ' +caonapo

2001,2003 ,,,,,,,, Iue?on %ity ,,,,, Santos A' %atubay, 6r' 2003,200. ,,,,,,,, !anila ++ ,,,,,,,,,, Rosario Setias,Reyes 200.,2007 ,,,,,,,, !anila + ,,,,,,,,,,, Alicia A' Risos,Aidal 2007,2002 ,,,,,,,, !anila +A ,,,,,,,,, !arcial !' !agsino it is now the turn of the representati&e of the !anila +++ %hapter to sit again in the $oard of 1o&ernors for the ne9t round which begins in the 2002,2011 ter7' The !anila +++ representati&e, Atty' !anuel !' !ara7ba, has e&ery right to the position not only because he won the election with 13 &otes in his fa&or against 12 for Atty' Soriano, but also because his election follows the rotation rule decreed by the Supre7e %ourt' (n the other hand, the election of Atty' Soriano -I% %hapter/ in the special election that was presided o&er by "A Ainluan on !ay 3, 2002, was a nullity on three -3/ grounds8 <irst, because Atty' Soriano already lost the election on April 2., 2002' Second, the special election conducted by the Ainluan 1roup on !ay 3, 2-00/4 was illegal because it was not called nor presided o&er by the regional 1o&ernor' Third, Atty' Soriano is dis0ualified to run for 1!R 1o&ernor for the 2002,2011 ter7 because his ;election; as such would &iolate the rotation rule which the Supre7e %ourt re0uires to be ;strictly i7ple7ented;' *nder the rotation rule, the 1!R go&ernorship for the 2002,2011 ter7 belongs to the !anila +++ %hapter, not to the I% %hapter, whose turn will co7e two -2/ years later, in 2011,2013 yet' +A' Atty' "rwin <ortunato of the Ro7blon %hapter was duly elected as 1o&ernor for the Western Aisayas Region for the 2002,2011 ter7, not only because he obtained the highest nu7ber of &otes a7ong the three -3/ candidates for the position, but also because under the rotation rule, it is now the turn of the Ro7blon %hapter to represent the Western Aisayas Region in the +$ $oard of 1o&ernors' The contention of the protestants, Attys' %ornelio Aldon -Anti0ue %hapter/ and $en=a7in (rtega -#egros (ccidental %hapter/ that the rotation rule in Sections 37 and 32 of the +$ $y,)aws is not 7andatory but only directory, betrays their ignorance of the resolution of the Supre7e %ourt in $ar !atter #o' .45 dated !ay 15, 1221, ruling that ;the principle on rotation shall be strictly i7ple7ented so that all prior elections for go&ernor in the region shall be recBoned with or considered in deter7ining who should be the go&ernor to be selected fro7 the different chapters to represent the region in the $oard of 1o&ernors'; A' #either Atty' #asser !aroho7salic nor Atty' $en=a7in )anto is 0ualified to be elected 1o&ernor of Western !indanao Region' Sec' 32, Art' A+ of the +$ $y,)aws pro&ides that8 ;Starting in 1223,122., the principle of rotation in the position of go&ernor a7ong the different chapters to represent the region in the $oard of 1o&ernors shall be strictly i7ple7ented' *nder Sec' 37, Art' A+ of the $y,)aws, the 1o&ernor of a region shall be elected by the 7e7bers of the Couse of :elegates fro7 that region only' Since the delegate of a %hapter to the Couse of :elegates is the resident of the %hapter, not the $oard of (fficers, the no7inee of the %hapter resident, not the no7inee of the $oard of (fficers, is the &alid no7inee for 1o&ernor of the Region' Cowe&er, under the rotation rule, it is not the )anao del Sur %hapter that should represent the Western !indanao Region in the $oard of 1o&ernors for the 2002,2011 ter7' The record of the +$ #ational Secretariat shows that, starting in 1223,122. when the strict i7ple7entation of the rotation rule began, the 12,chapter Western !indanao Region has been represented in the $oard of 1o&ernors by only si9 -5/ %hapters, as follows8 1223,122. ,,,,, )anao del Sur ,,,,,, :i7natang T' Saro 122.,1227 ,,,,, %otabato ,,,,,,,,,,,, 1eorge %' 6abido 1227,1222 ,,,,, MA!$AS*)TA ,, Arthur :' )i7 1222,2001 ,,,,, MA!$AS*)TA ,, aulino R' "rsando 2001,2003 ,,,,, #orth %otabato ,,, )ittle Sarah A' Agdeppa 2003,200. ,,,,, Sultan Nudarat ,,,, %arlos )' Aalde?, 6r' 200.,2007 ,,,,, S(%SAR1"# ,,,,, Rogelio %' 1arcia 2007,2002 ,,,,, Sultan Nudarat ,,,, %arlos )' Aalde?, 6r' Therefore, pursuant to the strict rotation, the )anao del Sur %hapter 7ust wait for the si9 -5/ other %hapters in the region -Ma7boanga Sibugay, Ma7boanga del #orte, Ma7boanga del Sur, )anao del #orte, !isa7is (ccidental, and !aguindanao,%otabato %ity/ to ha&e their turn in the $oard of 1o&ernors before )anao del Sur 7ay again represent the Western !indanao Region in the $oard of 1o&ernors'

Since both Attys' #asser !aroho7salic and $-e/n=a7in )anto belong to the )anao del Sur %hapter, both of the7 are dis0ualified to be elected as 1o&ernor of the Western !indanao Region for the 2002,2011 ter7' With respect to Atty' $en=a7in )anto, his no7ination by the $oard of (fficers was not only in&alid, but also lost credibility after three -3/, out of the thirteen -13/ signatories to his no7ination, resigned fro7 the $oard of (fficers, and si9 -5/ others signed ;authori?ations; in fa&or of Atty' !acalawi authori?ing hi7 to no7inate and elect the 1o&ernor for the Western !indanao Region' That left only four -3/ &otes in fa&or of his no7ination for 1o&ernor of the Western !indanao Region' A+' The elections for the +$ "9ecuti&e Aice resident separately held on !ay 2, 2002 by the $autista and Ainluan 1roups were null and &oid for lacB of 0uoru7' The presence of fi&e -./ 1o&ernors,elect is needed to constitute a 0uoru7 of the 2,7e7ber $oard of 1o&ernors,elect who shall elect the "9ecuti&e Aice resident' As pre&iously stated, there were two -2/ si7ultaneous elections for the "9ecuti&e Aice resident for the 2002,2011 ter7 T one was called and presided o&er by "A Ainluan in the $oard Roo7 of the +$ #ational (ffice, while the other election for the sa7e position was presided o&er by outgoing +$ res' $autista in another roo7 of the sa7e building, at the sa7e ti7e, 2800 A.M', on the sa7e date, !ay 2, 2002' Those present at the 7eeting of the Ainluan 1roup were8 1' Atty' "lpidio 1' Soriano 2' Atty' $en=a7in $' )anto 3' Atty' A7ador Tolentino, 6r', 1o&ernor,elect for Southern )u?on 3' Atty' 6ose A' %abrera, 1o&ernor,elect for $icolandia .' Atty' "rwin <ortunato, 1o&ernor,elect for Western Aisayas 5' Atty' Roland $' +nting, 1o&ernor,elect for "astern Aisayas Since both Attys' Soriano and )anto were not &alidly elected as 1o&ernors respecti&ely of the 1reater !anila Region and the Western !indanao Region, they were dis0ualified to sit in the inco7ing $oard of 1o&ernors and participate in the election of the succeeding "9ecuti&e Aice resident' The re7aining four -3/ 1o&ernors,elect T 1o&ernors Tolentino, %abrera, <ortunato, and +nting, did not constitute a 0uoru7 of the $oard of 1o&ernors to conduct a &alid election of the +$ "9ecuti&e Aice resident' The election of Atty' "lpidio 1' Soriano as "9ecuti&e Aice resident by the Ainluan 1roup was in&alid' Aside fro7 lacB of a 0uoru7 to conduct the elections, "A Ainluan wrongly presided o&er the election' Thus, Atty' Soriano was not duly elected as 1o&ernor of the 1reater !anila Region, hence, he is dis0ualified to sit in the $oard of 1o&ernors' #either did the 7eeting of the $autista 1roup fare any better, for those present were8 1' Atty' !ilagros <ernan,%ayosa, 1o&ernor,elect for #orthern )u?on 2' Atty' <erdinand L' !iclat, 1o&ernor,elect for %entral )u?on 3' Atty' !anuel !' !ara7ba, 1o&ernor,elect for 1reater !anila 3' Atty' Roan )ibarios, 1o&ernor,elect for "astern !indanao .' Atty' #asser !aroho7salic Atty' !aroho7salicUs election as 1o&ernor for Western !indanao was in&alid for &iolating the rotation rule' The four -3/ re7aining go&ernors,elect -Attys' %ayosa, !iclat, !ara7ba and )ibarios/ liBe those in the Ainluan 1roup, did not constitute a 0uoru7 to conduct the election of the +$ "9ecuti&e Aice resident for the current ter7' The election of 1o&ernor Roan )ibarios as "9ecuti&e Aice resident by this group was therefore null and &oid' $esides that flaw in his election, since the "astern Aisayas Region, represented by 1o&ernor 6ose Aguila 1rapilon of $iliran, had succeeded to the presidency in 1227,1222, its ne9t turn will co7e after the eight -4/ other regions shall ha&e also ser&ed in the presidency' That will be after si9teen years, or, in 201.,2017 yet' A++' The ad7inistrati&e co7plaint against "A Rogelio A' Ainluan and his 1roup of 1o&ernors -Abelardo "strada of #orthern )u?on, $onifacio $arandon of $icolandia, "&ergisto "scalon of "astern Aisayas, and Ray7und !ercado of Western Aisayas/ is 7eritorious, for their conduct was fractious and high,handed, causing disunity and acri7onious disagree7ents in the +$ ' 1' The re0uest of the "A AinluanUs 1roup for a special 7eeting of the $oard of 1o&ernors on April 23, 2002 T two -2/ days before the scheduled election of the regional 1o&ernors on April 2., 2002 T when +$ res' $autista was in

Ma7boanga on +$ business, and the other 1o&ernors had =ust returned to their respecti&e regions to prepare for the April 2. election of the regional go&ernors, was unreasonable' The special 7eeting on April 23, 2002 which he hi7self presided o&er, &iolated Sec' 32, Art' A+ of the $y,)aws which pro&ides that it is the resident who shall call a special 7eeting, and it is also the resident who shall preside o&er the 7eeting, not Atty' Ainluan -Sec' .0, Art' A++, $y,)aws/' The proper recourse for the Ainluan 1roup, in &iew of resident $autistaUs refusal to call a special 7eeting as re0uested by the7, is found in Section 33, Art' A+ of the $y,)aws which pro&ides that, ;The $oard 7ay taBe action, without a 7eeting, by resolution signed by at least fi&e 1o&ernors pro&ided that e&ery 7e7ber of the $oard shall ha&e been pre&iously apprised of the contents of the resolution'; $ut the Ainluan 1roup ignored that procedure' They held a special 7eeting on April 23, 2002, where they adopted Resolution #o' KA+++,2002 -Special,23 April 2002/ striBing out as ultra &ires the earlier Resolution #o' KA+++,2002 passed in the regular 7onthly 7eeting of the $oard of 1o&ernors on April 17, 2002' That 7eeting was illegal, hence, the resolution adopted therein was null and &oid' 2' The second special 7eeting held by the Ainluan 1roup on April 30, 2002 wherein they appro&ed Resolution KA+++,2002 -Special,A,30 April 2002/ resol&ing the election protests in the 1!R, Western Aisayas and Western !indanao go&ernorsU elections, with co7plete disregard for the protesteesU right to due process, was liBewise illegal, hence, the 1roupUs resolution of the election protests was liBewise null and &oid, and the new election of the 1!R 1o&ernor which they set on !ay 3, 2002 was in&alid' 3' The ;$oard Resolution; which was adopted and fa9ed to the 1o&ernors,elect on !ay 4, 2002, by the Ainluan 1roup, setting the election of the +$ "9ecuti&e Aice resident on !ay 2, 2002, at 2800 A.M'@ declaring res' $autista ;unfit to preside; o&er the election and ;designating "A Ainluan to preside o&er the election; in lieu of res' $autista, was uncalled and unwarranted, and caused disunity and disorder in the +$ ' +t was in effect a coup to unseat res' $autista before the end of his ter7, and pre7aturely install "A Ainluan as president' The actuations of Atty' AinluanUs 1roup in defying the lawful authority of +$ resident $autista, due to Atty' AinluanUs o&erweening desire to propel his fraternity brother, Atty' "lpidio 1' Soriano, to the ne9t presidency of the +$ , s7acBed of politicBing, which is strongly conde7ned and strictly prohibited by the +$ $y,)aws and the $ar +ntegration Rule'5 Again, it 7ust be noted that while the pending ad7inistrati&e case against Atty' Ainluan and his co,respondents has not yet been resol&ed, Atty' Ainluan was not allowed to assu7e his position as resident of the +$ for 2002,2011' +nstead, the Supre7e %ourt designated retired Supre7e %ourt Associate 6ustice Santiago Napunan as (fficer,in, %harge of the +$ ' +++' Rulings of the %ourt The %ourt co7pletely agrees with the reco77endations of the Special %o77ittee with respect to, a7ong others, the following8 1' :eclaring Atty' !anuel !' !ara7ba -!anila +++ %hapter/ as the duly elected 1o&ernor of the 1reater !anila Region for the 2002,2011 ter77@ and, 2' :eclaring Atty' "rwin !' <ortunato -Ro7blon %hapter/ as the duly elected 1o&ernor of the Western Aisayas Region for the 2002,2011 ter74' As far as the %ourt is concerned, there is no dispute that the election of Atty' !ara7ba was in order' :uring the election held last April 2., 2002 which was duly presided o&er by then outgoing 1reater !anila Region 1o&ernor !arcial !agsino, it was Atty' !ara7ba who garnered the highest nu7ber of &otes a7ong the delegates co7pared to Atty' Soriano, 13 &otes to 12 &otes' Cowe&er, instead of accepting the said defeat graciously, Atty' Soriano then filed an election protest on April 27, 2002 clai7ing that the said election was &oid because there were non, delegates, particularly Attys' )oan?on and )a0ui of the Iue?on %ity %hapter, who were allowed to &ote' %onse0uently, Atty' Soriano got a fa&orable ruling fro7 the group of Atty' Ainluan, as "A , and for7er 1o&ernors "strada -#orthern )u?on/, $arandon, 6r' -$icolandia/, "scalon -"astern Aisayas/ and !ercado -Western Aisayas/ per Resolution #o' KA+++,2002 -Special A,30 April 2002/' This then resulted in the ano7alous election of Atty' Soriano as 1o&ernor of the 1reater !anila Region last !ay 3, 2002' +n addressing the said contro&ersy, and as already discussed, the %o77ittee concluded that ;the Ainluan 1roupUs interpretation of Sec' 31, Art' A, of the $y,)aws in Resolution #o' KA+++,2002 -Special,23 April 2002/ to be in error and de&oid of rational and historical bases'; +t was then pointed out that ;-t/he argu7ent of the I%,%hapter resident Tran0uil Sal&ador, -as well as by Atty' Soriano/, that Attys' )oan?on and )a0ui were not delegates because they were not elected by the I%,$oard of (fficers, is not well taBen'; )iBewise, the %o77ittee considered the situation then in&ol&ing the Iue?on %ity %hapter as ;not a Vproper caseU for the election of additional delegates by the $oard of (fficers because the %hapter is entitled to the sa7e nu7ber of delegates -11/ to the Couse -of

:elegates/, as the nu7ber of officers in its $oard of (fficers' +ts officers are ipso facto the %hapterUs delegates to the Couse' There is no need for the $oard of (fficers to conduct an election'; Thus, and as rightly deter7ined by the %o77ittee to which the %ourt subscribes to, ;the election of Atty' Soriano -I% %hapter/ in the special election that was presided o&er by "A Ainluan on !ay 3, 2002, was a nullity on three -3/ grounds8 <irst, because Atty' Soriano already lost the election on April 2., 2002' Second, the special election conducted by the Ainluan 1roup on !ay 3, 2-002/ was illegal because it was not called nor presided by the regional 1o&ernor -Atty' !agsino/' Third, Atty' Soriano is dis0ualified to run for 1!R 1o&ernor for the 2002,2011 ter7 because his ;election; as such would &iolate the rotation rule which the Supre7e %ourt re0uires to be ;strictly i7ple7ented;'; This being so, since he was not a duly elected 1o&ernor of the 1reater !anila Region, then Atty' Soriano cannot be &oted as well as +$ "9ecuti&e Aice resident for 2002,2011' With respect to the case of Atty' <ortunato, his election as 1o&ernor for the Western Aisayas Region was upheld since ;he obtained the highest nu7ber of &otes a7ong the three -3/ candidates for the position; and ;also because under the rotation rule, it is now the turn of the Ro7blon %hapter to represent the Western Aisayas Region in the +$ $oard of 1o&ernors'; (n account thereof, the %ourt is con&inced that the contentions of protestees Attys' %ornelio Aldon -Anti0ue %hapter/ and $en=a7in (rtega -#egros (ccidental %hapter/ cannot prosper' After all, the %ourt already upheld per its Resolution in $ar !atter #o' .45 dated !ay 15, 1221 that the ;rotation rule; under Sections 37 and 32 of the +$ $y,)aws ;shall be strictly i7ple7ented so that all prior elections for go&ernor in the region shall be recBoned with or considered in deter7ining who should be the go&ernor to be selected fro7 the different chapters to represent the region in the $oard of 1o&ernors'; !ore so, when the concerned chapter in&oBed its right thereto as in the case of Atty' <ortunato who ca7e fro7 the Ro7blon %hapter which was ne9t in the rotation' To the %ourt, the election of Atty' <ortunato as 1o&ernor last April 2., 2002 is well,settled' Ce did not only co7e fro7 the chapter which is entitled to be elected for the said position, but also got the highest nu7ber of &otes a7ong the candidates that included protestees Attys' Aldon and (rtega' As the election was presided o&er by then outgoing 1o&ernor Ray7und !ercado, the %ourt finds no cogent reason as well to re&erse the findings of the %o77ittee insofar as upholding the election of Atty' <ortunato is concerned' Suffice it to say, the %o77ittee was correct in not finding any ano7aly with respect thereto'
4avvp)i4

(n the nullification of the election of Atty' #asser !aroho7salic as 1o&ernor for the Western !indanao Region, the %ourt does not agree with the reco77endation of the %o77ittee to hold a special election in the said region 2' +nstead, the %ourt rules to uphold the election of Atty' !aroho7salic last April 2., 2002 which was presided o&er by then outgoing 1o&ernor %arlos Aalde?, 6r' +t 7ust be pointed out that Atty' !aroho7salic was duly no7inated by Atty' Ale9 !acalawi, resident of the )anao del Sur %hapter, and the official delegate of the said chapter to the Couse of :elegates for the Western !indanao Region during the elections held last April 2., 2002' (n the other hand, Atty' $en=a7in )anto was supposedly no7inated by the $oard of (fficers of the )anao del Sur %hapter, e9cept Atty' !acalawi, in Resolution #o' 002, 2002 dated <ebruary 24, 2002' Cowe&er, it appears that, as disco&ered by the %o77ittee, ;three -3/ signatories of the resolution; apparently ;resigned as 7e7bers of the $oard of (fficers; since they are prosecutors who are ;ineligible for election or appoint7ent to any position in the +ntegrated $ar or any %hapter thereof;, while ;-s/i9 -5/ other signatories of the resolution; allegedly ;recalled their signatures; and they, instead, ;signed an Vauthori?ationU authori?ing the %hapter resident, Atty' !acalawi, ;to select and &ote; ;for the Regional 1o&ernor for Western !indanao;'; Thus, ;-t/he withdrawal of nine -2/ signatures fro7 the Resolution #o' 002, left only four -3/ &otes in support of )antoUs no7ination T a puny 7inority of the 13,7e7ber $oard of (fficers of the )anao del Sur %hapter'; 10 The atte7pt of Atty' Ainluan and his group of 1o&ernors to nullify the election of Atty' !aroho7salic through Resolution #o' KA+++,2002 -Special A,30 April 2002/ was clearly irregular and un=ustified' $ased on the April 2., 2002 election results, Atty' !aroho7salic won o&er his ri&al Atty' )anto, 5 &otes to . &otes' %onse0uently, he was duly proclai7ed as the elected 1o&ernor of the Western !indanao Region' (n April 27, 2002, Atty' )anto filed an election protest, ;0uestioning the &alidity of Atty' !aroho7salicUs no7ination by Atty' !acalawi, resident of the +$ )anao del Sur %hapter, and clai7ing that his -)antoUs/ no7ination by the $oard of (fficers of the )anao del Sur %hapter was the &alid no7ination'; +77ediately, on April 30, 2002, the group of Atty' Ainluan issued Resolution #o' KA+++,2002 proclai7ing Atty' )anto as the duly elected 1o&ernor without affording Atty' !aroho7salic his right to due process' !ore i7portantly, instead of calling for another election liBe what it did for the 1reater !anila Region, the group of Atty' Ainluan proceeded to instantly declare Atty' )anto as ha&ing been duly elected ;on the ground that the no7ination of the protestee, #asser !aroho7salic, was contrary to the will of the )anao del Sur %hapter e9pressed through $oard Resolution #o' 00-2/,2002 of the $oard of (fficers -of the )anao del Sur %hapter/'; 11 As borne out by the records, Atty' !aroho7salic was duly no7inated by Atty' Ale9 !acalawi, resident of the )anao del Sur %hapter, and the official delegate of the said chapter to the Couse of :elegates for the Western !indanao Region during the elections' (n the other hand, Atty' )anto was supposedly no7inated by the $oard of (fficers of the sa7e %hapter in a resolution dated <ebruary 24, 2002, which was not signed and appro&ed by Atty' !acalawi' Cowe&er, and as already pointed out by the %o77ittee, the ;withdrawal of nine -2/ signatures fro7 the Resolution

#o' 002, left only four -3/ &otes in support of )antoUs no7ination T a puny 7inority of the 13,7e7ber $oard of (fficers of the )anao del Sur %hapter';12 Thus, the %o77ittee, citing Sec' 37, Art' A+ of the $y,)aws, clearly repudiated and o&erturned Resolution #o' KA+++, 2002 -Special A, 30 April 2002/ of Atty' Ainluan and his group of 1o&ernors' +n its Report, it declared that the ;no7inee of the %hapter resident, not the no7inee of the $oard of (fficers, is the &alid no7inee for 1o&ernor of the Region,;13 thereby sustaining the position of Atty' !aroho7salic and, in effect, the &alidity of his no7ination by Atty' !acalawi' :espite the said findings, Atty' !aroho7salic was stripped of his electoral 7andate and &ictory when the %o77ittee, in&oBing the strict application of the ;rotation rule,; proceeded to altogether nullify the result of the elections duly conducted on April 2., 2002' According to the %o77ittee, neither )anto nor !aroho7salic is 0ualified to be elected go&ernor because it was not the turn of )anao del Sur chapter to represent the Western !indanao Region in the $oard of 1o&ernors for the 2002,2011 ter7' As declared in the Report ,, Cowe&er, under the rotation rule, it is not the )anao del Sur %hapter that should represent the Western !indanao Region in the $oard of 1o&ernors for the 2002,2011 ter7' The record of the +$ #ational Secretariat shows that, starting in 1223,122. when the strict i7ple7entation of the rotation rule began, the 12 Tchapter Western !indanao Region has been represented in the $oard of 1o&ernors only si9 -5/ %hapters, as follows8 1223,122.,,,)anao del Sur,,,,,:i7natang T' Saro 122.,1227,,,%otatabato,,,,,,,,,1eorge %' 6abido 1227,1222,,,MA!$AS*)TAEArthur :' )i7 1222,2001,,,MA!$AS*)TA,,, aulino R' "rsando 2001,2003,,,#orth %otabato,,,, )ittle Sarah A' Agdeppa 2003,200.,,,Sultan Nudarat,,,,,%arlos )' Aalde?, 6r' 200.,2007,,,S(%SAR1"#,,,,,Rogelio %' 1arcia 2007,2002,,,Sultan Nudarat,,,,,%arlos )' Aalde?, 6r' Therefore, pursuant to the strict rotation rule, the )anao del Sur %hapter 7ust wait for the si9 -5/ other %hapters in the region -Ma7boanga Sibugay, Ma7boanga del #orte, Ma7boanga del Sur, )anao del #orte, !isa7is (ccidental, and !aguindanao,%otabato %ity/ to ha&e their turn in the $oard of 1o&ernors before )anao del Sur 7ay again represent the Western !indanao Region in the $oard of 1o&ernors' Since both Attys' #asser !aroho7salic and $en=a7in )anto belong to the )anao del Sur %hapter, both of the7 are dis0ualified to be elected as 1o&ernor of the Western !indanao Region for the 2002,2011 ter7' The ruling of the %o77ittee insofar as it nullified the election of Atty' !aroho7salic as 1o&ernor of the Western !indanao Region cannot be sustained for not being in full accord with facts and the rules' While the %o77ittee 7ay ha&e correctly pointed out that under the rotation rule it was not yet the turn of +$ )anao del Sur %hapter to represent the region in the $oard of 1o&ernors for the 2002,2011 ter7, it does not necessarily follow that the result of the elections should be altogether nullified on that ground' "&idently, and as deter7ined by the %o77ittee itself, there are instances when the ;rotation rule; was not followed insofar as the elections in 1222 and 2007 were concerned with respect to the Western !indanao Region' +n the regular election of April 2., 2002, there is no dispute that the &oting delegates of +$ Western !indanao Region &oted into office Atty' !aroho7salic of )anao del Sur %hapter as 1o&ernor for the 2002,2011 ter7' :uring the said election, his only ri&al was Atty' $en=a7in )anto who also belongs to the sa7e )anao del Sur %hapter' A third candidate, Atty' "scobar fro7 the Sarangani %hapter, was no7inated but he declined the no7ination' While the %o77ittee points out that si9 -5/ chapters in the region, including Sarangani, are entitled to precedence o&er the )anao del Sur chapter in the order of rotation, the fact re7ains that not one of the7 no7inated or fielded a candidate fro7 their respecti&e ranBs during the April 2., 2002 election' #either did any one of the7 challenge the no7inations of the )anao del Sur %hapter based on the order of rotation' $y not fielding a candidate for 1o&ernor and by declining the no7ination raised in fa&or of its %hapter resident -Atty' "scobar/, the +$ Sarangani %hapter is dee7ed to ha&e wai&ed its turn in the rotation order' The sa7e can be said of the re7aining chapters' They too are dee7ed to ha&e wai&ed their turn in the rotation as they opted not to field or no7inate a candidate fro7 a7ong their respecti&e 7e7bers' #either did they in&oBe the rotation rule to challenge the no7inations fro7 the )anao del Sur %hapter' (n the contrary, they fully e9pressed their concurrence

to the cited no7inations, which 7ay be interpreted as a wai&er of their right to taBe their turn to represent the region in the $oard of 1o&ernors for the 2002,2011 ter7' +t need not be stressed that, as cited by the %o77ittee itself, there were instances when the 1o&ernor of the Western !indanao Region ca7e fro7 the sa7e chapter such as MA!$AS*)TA -1227,1222 P 1222,2001/ and Sultan Nudarat -2003,200. P 2007,2002/' Thus, Atty' !aroho7salic could not be faulted if the other chapters opted not to field or no7inate their own candidates' Ca&ing been &alidly no7inated and duly proclai7ed as the duly elected 1o&ernor of Western !indanao, Atty' !aroho7salic therefore deser&es to assu7e his position during the re7ainder of the ter7' +t would ha&e been a different story if another %hapter in the order of rotation fielded its own candidate or in&oBed the rotation rule to challenge Atty' !aroho7salicUs no7ination' $ut the record is bereft of any showing that his no7ination and subse0uent election was challenged on that basis' +f there was any challenge at all, it 7erely referred to his no7ination by Atty' !acalawi which the %o77ittee itself has found to be in order' Thus, no co7pelling reason e9ists to disregard the electoral 7andate and nullify the will of the &oting delegates as e9pressed through the ballot' The ;rotation rule; is not absolute but sub=ect to wai&er as when the chapters in the order of rotation opted not to field or no7inate their own candidates for 1o&ernor during the election regularly done for that purpose' +f a &alidly no7inated candidate obtains the highest nu7ber of &otes in the election conducted, his electoral 7andate deser&es to be respected unless obtained through fraud as established by e&idence' Such is not the case here' Suffice it to say, the ;rotation rule; should be applied in har7ony with, and not in derogation of, the so&ereign will of the electorate as e9pressed through the ballot' Thus, Atty' !aroho7salic cannot be di&ested and depri&ed of his electoral 7andate and &ictory' The order of rotation is not a rigid and infle9ible rule as to bar its rela9ation in e9ceptional and co7pelling circu7stances' +f only to stress, co7pared to the case of Atty' <ortunato whose Ro7blon %hapter in&oBed the ;rotation rule,; no chapter in the Western !indanao Region which was ne9t in the rotation in&oBed the said rule' #ow, in its Report, the %o77ittee nullified the elections for the +$ "A separately and si7ultaneously conducted by resident $autista and "A Ainluan on !ay 2, 2002 and called for a special election 13 for the sa7e' +n the case of the election conducted by "A Ainluan, the results were nullified for lacB of authority to preside o&er the election and for lacB 0uoru7, citing the dis0ualification of Attys' Soriano and )anto to sit in the inco7ing $oard of 1o&ernors' The finding deser&es to be sustained' +n the sa7e Report, the %o77ittee also nullified the result of the election for the inco7ing "A conducted by resident $autista' While recogni?ing resident $autistaUs authority to conduct the election, the %o77ittee nonetheless nullified the election results for lacB of 0uoru7, citing the ineligibility of Atty' !aroho7salic to sit in the inco7ing $oard of 1o&ernors, thereby lea&ing only four -out of nine/ 1o&ernors,elect in attendance which did not constitute a 0uoru7' With the election of Atty' !aroho7salic as 1o&ernor of Western !indanao being dee7ed &alid, then the defect of lacB of 0uoru7 that supposedly tainted the election proceedings for "A separately conducted by +$ resident $autista 7ay ha&e been cured, fi&e -./ 1o&ernors being sufficient to constitute a 0uoru7' $e that as it 7ay, the reco77endation of the %o77ittee to hold a special election for the "A for the re7aining 2002,2011 ter7 deser&es to be upheld to heal the di&isions in the +$ and pro7ote unity by enabling all the nine -2/ 1o&ernors,elect to elect the "A in a unified 7eeting called for that purpose' This will enable 7atters to start on a clean and correct slate, free fro7 the politicBing and the under handed tactics that ha&e characteri?ed the +$ elections for so long' +n the conduct of the unified election of the inco7ing "A , the following findings and reco77endations of the %o77ittee shall be adopted8 TC" R(TAT+(# (< TC" R"S+:"#%L A!(#1 TC" R"1+(#S, Sec' 37, Art' A++ of the $y,)aws, as a7ended by $ar !atter 321, (ct' 5, 1242, pro&ides that the "9ecuti&e Aice resident shall be chosen by the $oard of 1o&ernors fro7 a7ong the nine -2/ regional go&ernors' The "9ecuti&e Aice resident shall auto7atically beco7e resident for the ne9t succeeding ter7' The residency shall rotate a7ong the nine Regions'; The list of national presidents furnished the Special %o77ittee by the +$ #ational Secretariat, shows that the go&ernors of the following regions were resident of the +$ during the past nine -2/ ter7s -1221,2002/8 #u7eriano Tanopo, 6r' - angasinan/c%entral )u?onc1221,1223 !er&in 1' "ncanto -Iue?on %ity/c 1reater !anila 1223,122.

Raul R' Anchangco -!aBati/cSouthern )u?onc122.,1227 6ose Aguila 1rapilon -$iliran/c "astewrn Aisayas c 1227,1222 Arthur :' )i7 - Ma7basulta/cWestern !indanaoc1222,2001 Teofilo S' ilando, 6r' -Nalinga Apayao/c#orthern )u?onc2001,2003 6ose Ansel7o )' %adi? -%a7arines Sur/c$icolandiac200.,Aug' 2005 6ose Aicente $' Sala?ar -Albay/c$icolandiac Aug' 2005,2007 <eliciano !' $autista - angasinan/c%entral )u?onc2007,2002 (nly the 1o&ernors of the Western Aisayas and "astern !indanao regions ha&e not yet had their turn as "9ecuti&e Aice resident cu7 ne9t +$ resident, while %entral )u?on and $icolandia ha&e had two -2/ ter7s already' Therefore, either the go&ernor of the Western Aisayas Region, or the go&ernor of the "astern !indanao Region should be elected as "9ecuti&e Aice resident for the 2002,2011 ter7' Accordingly, a special election shall be held by the present nine,7an +$ $oard of 1o&ernors to elect the "A for the re7ainder of the ter7 of 2002,2011, which shall be presided o&er and conducted by +$ (fficer,in,%harge 6ustice Santiago Napunan -Ret'/ within se&en -7/ days fro7 notice' <urther, in its report, the %o77ittee declared that ;the high,handed and di&isi&e tactics of Atty' Rogelio A' Ainluan and his group of 1o&ernors, Abelardo "strada, $onifacio $arandon 6r', "&ergisto "scalon, and Ray7und !ercado, which disrupted the peaceful and orderly flow of business in the +$ , caused chaos in the #ational (ffice, bitter disagree7ents, and ill,feelings, and al7ost disintegrated the +ntegrated $ar, constituted gra&e professional 7isconduct which should be appropriately sanctioned to discourage its repetition in the future'; 1. The %o77ittee, howe&er, fell short of deter7ining and reco77ending the appropriate penalty for the gra&e professional 7isconduct found to ha&e been co77itted by Atty' Ainluan and his group of 1o&ernors' Still, with the abo&e fir7 and une0ui&ocal findings and declarations of the %o77ittee against Atty' Ainluan and his group that included Attys' "strada, $arandon, 6r', "scalon and !ercado as ;unprofessional; 7e7bers of the +$ $oard of 1o&ernors -2007,2002 ter7/ they certainly do not deser&e to hold such estee7ed positions' +t has long been held that, as pro&ided for in Rule 1'01, %anon 1 of the %ode of rofessional Responsibility 15 that ;-a/ lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, i77oral or deceitful conduct'; Added to this, Rule 7'03, %anon 7 re0uires that ;-a/ lawyer shall not engage in conduct that ad&ersely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or pri&ate life, beha&e in a scandalous 7anner to the discredit of the legal profession'; +n the case at bar, such canons find application' +n addition, it was clear to the %o77ittee, and the %ourt agrees, that ;-t/he actuations of Atty' AinluanUs 1roup in defying the lawful authority of +$ resident $autista, due to Atty' AinluanUs o&erweening desire to propel his fraternity brother, Atty' "lpidio 1' Soriano, to the ne9t presidency of the +$ , s7acBed of politicBing, which is strongly conde7ned and strictly prohibited by the +$ $y,)aws and the $ar +ntegration Rule'; +ndeed, said actuations of Atty' Ainluan and his group of for7er +$ 1o&ernors "strada, $arandon, 6r', "scalon and !ercado were grossly ini7ical to the interest of the +$ and were &iolati&e of their sole7n oath as lawyers' After all, what they did ser&ed only to benefit the apparently selfish goals of defeated candidate Atty' "lpidio Soriano to be elected as +$ "A and be the ne9t +$ resident for the 2011,2013 ter7 by hooB or by crooB' $earing the abo&e in 7ind, what Attys' Ainluan, "strada, $arandon, 6r', "scalon and !ercado conspired to do was truly ;high,handed and di&isi&e; that 7ust not pass unsanctioned' (therwise, future leaders of the +$ , 1o&ernors at that, 7ight be si7ilarly inclined to do what they did, 7uch to the pre=udice of the +$ and its 7e7bership' Surely, this should be addressed without 7uch delay so as to nip,in,the,bud such gross 7isconduct and unprofessionalis7' They all deser&e to suffer the sa7e fate for betraying as well the trust bestowed on the7 for the high positions that they pre&iously held' The Resolution of the %ourt in the case of Re8 1242 "lections of the +ntegrated $ar of the hilippines 17 already declared that unethical practices of lawyers during +$ elections cannot but result in the stature of the +$ as an association of the practitioners of a noble and honored profession being di7inished' As held therein, ;-r/espect for law is gra&ely eroded when lawyers the7sel&es, who are supposed to be 7inions of the law, engage in unlawful practices and ca&alierly brush aside the &ery rules that the +$ for7ulated for their obser&ance'; 14 +ndeed, the said strong and &igorous declaration of this %ourt on the 1242 +$ "lection scandal is rele&ant here' While Atty' Ainluan and his group deser&e to be stripped of their positions in the +$ , this can no longer be done as their ter7s as 1o&ernors already e9pired, specially on the part of Attys' "strada, $arandon, 6r', "scalon and !ercado' Cowe&er, in the case of Atty' Ainluan, as for7er "A of the +$ he would ha&e auto7atically succeeded

to the presidency for the ter7 2002,2011 but now should not be allowed to' After all, and considering the findings of the %o77ittee, he has clearly 7anifested his unworthiness to hold the said post' (n account thereof, Atty' Ainluan is thus declared unfit to assu7e the position of +$ resident' To the %ourt, if Atty' Ainluan cannot be fit to beco7e a 1o&ernor and "A of the +$ then he is not entitled to succeed as its resident for the 2002,2011 ter7' Also, Atty' Ainluan and his group should no longer be allowed to run as national officers to pre&ent such si7ilar irregularity fro7 happening again' Thus, in subse0uent elections of the +$ , they are dis0ualified to run as candidates' (n the reco77endation of the %o77ittee to a7end Sections 31 12, 33, par' -g/ 20, 3221, 3222, and 3323, Article A+ and Section 3723, Article A++ of the +$ $y,)aws, the %ourt finds the sa7e in order' As such, and in order to i77ediately effect refor7s in the +$ , particularly in the holding of its elections for national officers, the sub=ect a7end7ents are hereby adopted and appro&ed' WC"R"<(R", pre7ises considered, the %ourt resol&es that8 1' The elections of Attys' !anuel !' !ara7ba, "rwin !' <ortunato and #asser A' !aroho7salic as 1o&ernors for the 1reater !anila Region, Western Aisayas Region and Western !indanao Region, respecti&ely, for the ter7 2002,2011 are * C"):@ 2' A special election to elect the +$ "9ecuti&e Aice resident for the 2002,2011 ter7 is hereby (R:"R": to be held under the super&ision of this %ourt within se&en -7/ days fro7 receipt of this Resolution with Attys' !ara7ba, <ortunato and !aroho7salic being allowed to represent and &ote as duly,elected 1o&ernors of their respecti&e regions@ 3' Attys' Rogelio Ainluan, Abelardo "strada, $onifacio $arandon, 6r', "&ergisto "scalon and Ray7und !ercado are all found 1*+)TL of gra&e professional 7isconduct arising fro7 their actuations in connection with the contro&ersies in the elections in the +$ last April 2., 2002 and !ay 2, 2002 and are hereby dis0ualified to run as national officers of the +$ in any subse0uent election' While their elections as 1o&ernors for the ter7 2007,2002 can no longer be annulled as this has already e9pired, Atty' Ainluan is declared unfit to hold the position of +$ "9ecuti&e Aice resident for the 2007,2002 ter7 and therefore barred fro7 succeeding as +$ resident for the 2002,2011 ter7@ 3' The proposed a7end7ents to Sections 31, 33, par' -g/, 32, 32, and 33, Article A+ and Section 37, Article A++ of the +$ $y,)aws as contained in the Report and Reco77endation of the Special %o77ittee dated 6uly 2, 2002 are hereby appro&ed and adopted@ and .' The designation of retired S% 6ustice Santiago Napunan as (fficer,in,%harge of the +$ shall continue, unless earlier re&oBed by the %ourt, but not to e9tend beyond 6une 30, 2011' S( (R:"R":' G.R. No. 1))336 No64:<4r 2), 2@@4

COMM"SS"ON ON UMAN R"G TS EMPLO#EESP ASSOC"AT"ON EC REAF R40r4/4*14+ <2 .1/ Pr4/.+4*1, MARC"AL A. SANC E&, JR., petitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON UMAN R"G TS, respondent'

:"%+S+(#

C "CO-NA&AR"O, J.C %an the %o77ission on Cu7an Rights lawfully i7ple7ent an upgrading and reclassification of personnel positions without the prior appro&al of the :epart7ent of $udget and !anage7entH $efore this %ourt is a petition for re&iew filed by petitioner %o77ission on Cu7an Rights "7ployeesD Association -%CR"A/ challenging the :ecision1 dated 22 #o&e7ber 2001 of the %ourt of Appeals in %A,G.R' S #o' .2574 affir7ing the Resolutions2 dated 15 :ece7ber 1222 and 02 6une 2000 of the %i&il Ser&ice %o77ission -%S%/, which sustained the &alidity of the upgrading and reclassification of certain personnel positions in the %o77ission on Cu7an Rights -%CR/ despite the disappro&al thereof by the :epart7ent of $udget and !anage7ent -:$!/'

Also assailed is the resolution dated 11 Septe7ber 2002 of the %ourt of Appeals denying the 7otion for reconsideration filed by petitioner' The antecedent facts which spawned the present contro&ersy are as follows8 (n 13 <ebruary 1224, %ongress passed Republic Act #o' 4.22, otherwise Bnown as the 1eneral Appropriations Act of 1224' +t pro&ided for Special ro&isions Applicable to All %onstitutional (ffices "n=oying <iscal Autono7y' The last portion of Article KKK+++ co&ers the appropriations of the %CR' These special pro&isions state8 1' (rgani?ational Structure' Any pro&ision of law to the contrary notwithstanding and within the li7its of their respecti&e appropriations as authori?ed in this Act, the %onstitutional %o77issions and (ffices en=oying fiscal autono7y are authori?ed to for7ulate and i7ple7ent the organi?ational structures of their respecti&e offices, to fi9 and deter7ine the salaries, allowances, and other benefits of their personnel, and whene&er public interest so re0uires, 7aBe ad=ust7ents in their personal ser&ices ite7i?ation including, but not li7ited to, the transfer of ite7 or creation of new positions in their respecti&e offices8 R(A+:":, That officers and e7ployees whose positions are affected by such reorgani?ation or ad=ust7ents shall be granted retire7ent gratuities and separation pay in accordance with e9isting laws, which shall be payable fro7 any une9pended balance of, or sa&ings in the appropriations of their respecti&e offices8 R(A+:":, <*RTC"R, That the i7ple7entation hereof shall be in accordance with salary rates, allowances and other benefits authori?ed under co7pensation standardi?ation laws' 2' *se of Sa&ings' The %onstitutional %o77issions and (ffices en=oying fiscal autono7y are hereby authori?ed to use sa&ings in their respecti&e appropriations for8 -a/ printing andJor publication of decisions, resolutions, and training infor7ation 7aterials@ -b/ repair, 7aintenance and i7pro&e7ent of central and regional offices, facilities and e0uip7ent@ -c/ purchase of booBs, =ournals, periodicals and e0uip7ent@ -d/ necessary e9penses for the e7ploy7ent of te7porary, contractual and casual e7ployees@ -e/ pay7ent of e9traordinary and 7iscellaneous e9penses, co77utable representation and transportation allowances, and fringe benefits for their officials and e7ployees as 7ay be authori?ed by law@ and -f/ other official purposes, sub=ect to accounting and auditing rules and regulations' -"7phases supplied/ on the strength of these special pro&isions, the %CR, through its then %hairperson Aurora ' #a&arette,Reci>a and %o77issioners #asser A' !aroho7salic, !ercedes A' %ontreras, Aicente ' Sibulo, and 6orge R' %o0uia, pro7ulgated Resolution #o' A24,037 on 03 Septe7ber 1224, adopting an upgrading and reclassification sche7e a7ong selected positions in the %o77ission, to wit8 WC"R"AS, the 1eneral Appropriations Act, <L 1224, R'A' #o' 4.22 has pro&ided special pro&isions applicable to all %onstitutional (ffices en=oying <iscal Autono7y, particularly on organi?ational structures and authori?es the sa7e to for7ulate and i7ple7ent the organi?ational structures of their respecti&e offices to fi9 and deter7ine the salaries, allowances and other benefits of their personnel and whene&er public interest so re0uires, 7aBe ad=ust7ents in the personnel ser&ices ite7i?ation including, but not li7ited to, the transfer of ite7 or creation of new positions in their respecti&e offices8 R(A+:":, That officers and e7ployees whose positions are affected by such reorgani?ation or ad=ust7ents shall be granted retire7ent gratuities and separation pay in accordance with e9isting laws, which shall be payable fro7 any une9panded balance of, or sa&ings in the appropriations of their respecti&e offices@ Whereas, the %o77ission on Cu7an Rights is a 7e7ber of the %onstitutional <iscal Autono7y 1roup -%<A1/ and on 6uly 23, 1224, %<A1 passed an appro&ed 6oint Resolution #o' 32 adopting internal rules i7ple7enting the special pro&isions heretoforth 7entioned@ #(W TC"R"<(R", the %o77ission by &irtue of its fiscal autono7y hereby appro&es and authori?es the upgrading and aug7entation of the co77ensurate a7ount generated fro7 sa&ings under ersonal Ser&ices to support the i7ple7entation of this resolution effecti&e %alendar Lear 1224@ )et the Cu7an Resources :e&elop7ent :i&ision -CR::/ prepare the necessary #otice of Salary Ad=ust7ent and other appropriate docu7ents to i7ple7ent this resolution@ ' ' ' ' 3 -"7phasis supplied/ Anne9ed to said resolution is the proposed creation of ten additional plantilla positions, na7ely8 one :irector +A position, with Salary 1rade 24 for the %araga Regional (ffice, four Security (fficer ++ with Salary 1rade 1., and fi&e rocess Ser&ers, with Salary 1rade . under the (ffice of the %o77issioners' 3 (n 12 (ctober 1224, %CR issued Resolution #o' A24,0.. . pro&iding for the upgrading or raising of salary grades of the following positions in the %o77ission8 #u7ber of ositions <ro7 12 Attorney A+ osition Title To :irector +A <ro7 25 To 24 222,103'00 Salary 1rade Total Salary Re0uire7ents

-+n the Regional <ield (ffices/ 3 1 :irector +++ :irector +A 27 23 24 24 34,224'00 35,733'00 <inancial P :irector +A !anage7ent (fficer ++ $udget (fficer +++ $udget (fficer +A

1 1 1 1

14 14 14 23

23 23 23 24

.1,7.5'00 .1,7.5'00 .1,7.5'00 35,733'005

Accountant +++ %hief Accountant %ashier +++ +nfor7ation (fficer A %ashier A :irector +A

+t, liBewise, pro&ided for the creation and upgrading of the following positions8 A' %reation #u7ber of ositions 3 osition Title Security (fficer ++ -%oter7inous/ Salary 1rade 1. Total Salary Re0uire7ents 543,740'00

$' *pgrading #u7ber of ositions osition Title <ro7 1 Attorney A 2 Security (fficer + Total 3 To :irector +A Security (fficer ++ Salary 1rade <ro7 2. 11 To 24 1. 24,022'00 .7,3.5'00 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 4.,.34'007 Total Salary Re0uire7ents

To support the i7ple7entation of such sche7e, the %CR, in the sa7e resolution, authori?ed the aug7entation of a co77ensurate a7ount generated fro7 sa&ings under ersonnel Ser&ices' $y &irtue of Resolution #o' A24,052 dated 17 #o&e7ber 1224, the %CR ;collapsed; the &acant positions in the body to pro&ide additional source of funding for said staffing 7odification' A7ong the positions collapsed were8 one Attorney +++, four Attorney +A, one %he7ist +++, three Special +n&estigator +, one %lerB +++, and one Accounting %lerB ++' 4 The %CR forwarded said staffing 7odification and upgrading sche7e to the :$! with a re0uest for its appro&al, but the then :$! secretary $en=a7in :ioBno denied the re0uest on the following =ustification8 c $ased on the e&aluations 7ade the re0uest was not fa&orably considered as it effecti&ely in&ol&ed the ele&ation of the field units fro7 di&isions to ser&ices' The present proposal seeBs further to upgrade the twel&e -12/ positions of Attorney A+, S1,25 to :irector +A, S1,24' This would ele&ate the field units to a bureau or regional office, a le&el e&en higher than the one pre&iously denied' The re0uest to upgrade the three -3/ positions of :irector +++, S1,27 to :irector +A, S1,24, in the %entral (ffice in effect would ele&ate the ser&ices to (ffice and change the conte9t fro7 support to substanti&e without actual change in functions' +n the absence of a specific pro&ision of law which 7ay be used as a legal basis to ele&ate the le&el of di&isions to a bureau or regional office, and the ser&ices to offices, we reiterate our pre&ious stand denying the upgrading of the twel&e -12/ positions of Attorney A+, S1,25 to :irector +++, S1,27 or :irector +A, S1,24, in the <ield (perations (ffice -<((/ and three -3/ :irector +++, S1,27 to :irector +A, S1,24 in the %entral (ffice' As represented, resident Ra7os then issued a !e7orandu7 to the :$! Secretary dated 10 :ece7ber 1227, directing the latter to increase the nu7ber of lantilla positions in the %CR both %entral and Regional (ffices to

i7ple7ent the hilippine :ecade lan on Cu7an Rights "ducation, the hilippine Cu7an Rights lan and $arangay Rights Actions %enter in accordance with e9isting laws' -"7phasis in the original/ ursuant to Section 74 of the 1eneral ro&isions of the 1eneral Appropriations Act -1AA/ <L 1224, no organi?ational unit or changes in Bey positions shall be authori?ed unless pro&ided by law or directed by the resident, thus, the creation of a <inance !anage7ent (ffice and a ublic Affairs (ffice cannot be gi&en fa&orable reco77endation' !oreo&er, as pro&ided under Section 2 of RA #o' 57.4, otherwise Bnown as the %o7pensation Standardi?ation )aw, the :epart7ent of $udget and !anage7ent is directed to establish and ad7inister a unified co7pensation and position classification syste7 in the go&ern7ent' The Supre7e %ourt ruled in the case of Aictorina %ru? &s' %ourt of Appeals, G.R' #o' 1121.., dated 6anuary 30, 1225, that this :epart7ent has the sole power and discretion to ad7inister the co7pensation and position classification syste7 of the #ational 1o&ern7ent' $eing a 7e7ber of the fiscal autono7y group does not &est the agency with the authority to reclassify, upgrade, and create positions without appro&al of the :$!' While the 7e7bers of the 1roup are authori?ed to for7ulate and i7ple7ent the organi?ational structures of their respecti&e offices and deter7ine the co7pensation of their personnel, such authority is not absolute and 7ust be e9ercised within the para7eters of the *nified osition %lassification and %o7pensation Syste7 established under RA 57.4 7ore popularly Bnown as the %o7pensation Standardi?ation )aw' We therefore reiterate our pre&ious stand on the 7atter' 2 -"7phases supplied/ +n light of the :$!Ds disappro&al of the proposed personnel 7odification sche7e, the %S%,#ational %apital Region (ffice, through a 7e7orandu7 dated 22 !arch 1222, reco77ended to the %S%,%entral (ffice that the sub=ect appoint7ents be re=ected owing to the :$!Ds disappro&al of the plantilla reclassification' !eanwhile, the officers of petitioner %CR"A, in representation of the ranB and file e7ployees of the %CR, re0uested the %S%,%entral (ffice to affir7 the reco77endation of the %S%,Regional (ffice' %CR"A stood its ground in saying that the :$! is the only agency with appropriate authority 7andated by law to e&aluate and appro&e 7atters of reclassification and upgrading, as well as creation of positions' The %S%,%entral (ffice denied %CR"ADs re0uest in a Resolution dated 15 :ece7ber 1222, and re&ersed the reco77endation of the %S%,Regional (ffice that the upgrading sche7e be censured' The decretal portion of which reads8 WC"R"<(R", the re0uest of Ronnie #' Rosero, Cubert A' Rui?, <lordeli?a A' $riones, 1eorge I' :u7lao FandG, %ora?on A' Santos,Tiu, is hereby denied' 10 %CR"A filed a 7otion for reconsideration, but the %S%,%entral (ffice denied the sa7e on 02 6une 2000' 1i&en the cacophony of =udg7ents between the :$! and the %S%, petitioner %CR"A ele&ated the 7atter to the %ourt of Appeals' The %ourt of Appeals affir7ed the pronounce7ent of the %S%,%entral (ffice and upheld the &alidity of the upgrading, retitling, and reclassification sche7e in the %CR on the =ustification that such action is within the a7bit of %CRDs fiscal autono7y' The fallo of the %ourt of Appeals decision pro&ides8 +# A+"W (< A)) TC" <(R"1(+#1, the instant petition is ordered :+S!+SS": and the 0uestioned %i&il Ser&ice %o77ission Resolution #o' 22,2400 dated :ece7ber 15, 1222 as well as #o' 0013.3 dated 6une 2, 2000, are hereby A<<+R!":' #o cost'11 *nperturbed, petitioner filed this petition in this %ourt contending that8 A' cTC" %(*RT (< A "A)S 1RAA")L "RR": WC"# +T C"): TCAT *#:"R TC" 1247 %(#ST+T*T+(#, TC" %(!!+SS+(# (# C*!A# R+1CTS "#6(LS <+S%A) A*T(#(!L' $' cTC" %(*RT (< A "A)S S"R+(*S)L "RR": +# * C():+#1 TC" %(#STR*%T+(# (< TC" %(!!+SS+(# (# C*!A# R+1CTS (< R" *$)+% A%T #(' 4.22 -TC" 1"#"RA) A R( R+AT+(#S A%T <(R TC" <+S%A) L"AR 1224/ :"S +T" +TS $"+#1 +# SCAR %(#<)+%T W+TC TC" 1247 %(#ST+T*T+(# A#: TC" STAT*T" +TS")<' %' cTC" %(*RT (< A "A)S S"R+(*S)L A#: 1RAA")L "RR": +# A<<+R!+#1 TC" AA)+:+TL (< TC" %+A+) S"RA+%" %(!!+SS+(# R"S()*T+(# #(S' 222400 A#: 0013.3 AS W")) AS TCAT (< TC" ( +#+(# (< TC" :" ART!"#T (< 6*ST+%" +# STAT+#1 TCAT TC" %(!!+SS+(# (# C*!A# R+1CTS "#6(LS <+S%A) A*T(#(!L *#:"R TC" 1247 %(#ST+T*T+(# A#: TCAT TC+S <+S%A)

A*T(#(!L +#%)*:"S TC" A%T+(# TAN"# $L +T +# %())A S+#1, * 1RA:+#1 A#: R"%)ASS+<+%AT+(# (< (S+T+(#S TC"R"+#'12 The central 0uestion we 7ust answer in order to resol&e this case is8 %an the %o77ission on Cu7an Rights &alidly i7ple7ent an upgrading, reclassification, creation, and collapsing of plantilla positions in the %o77ission without the prior appro&al of the :epart7ent of $udget and !anage7entH etitioner %CR"A grouses that the %ourt of Appeals and the %S%,%entral (ffice both erred in sanctioning the %CRDs alleged blanBet authority to upgrade, reclassify, and create positions inas7uch as the appro&al of the :$! relati&e to such sche7e is still indispensable' etitioner bewails that the %S% and the %ourt of Appeals erroneously assu7ed that %CR en=oys fiscal autono7y insofar as financial 7atters are concerned, particularly with regard to the upgrading and reclassification of positions therein' Respondent %CR sharply retorts that petitioner has no locus standi considering that there e9ists no official written record in the %o77ission recogni?ing petitioner as a bona fide organi?ation of its e7ployees nor is there anything in the records to show that its president, !arcial A' Sanche?, 6r', has the authority to sue the %CR' The %CR contends that it has the authority to cause the upgrading, reclassification, plantilla creation, and collapsing sche7e sans the appro&al of the :$! because it en=oys fiscal autono7y' After a thorough consideration of the argu7ents of both parties and an assiduous scrutiny of the records in the case at bar, it is the %ourtDs opinion that the present petition is i7bued with 7erit' (n petitionerDs personality to bring this suit, we held in a 7ultitude of cases that a proper party is one who has sustained or is in i77ediate danger of sustaining an in=ury as a result of the act co7plained of' 13 Cere, petitioner, which consists of ranB and file e7ployees of respondent %CR, protests that the upgrading and collapsing of positions benefited only a select few in the upper le&el positions in the %o77ission resulting to the de7orali?ation of the ranB and file e7ployees' This sufficiently 7eets the in=ury test' +ndeed, the %CRDs upgrading sche7e, if found to be &alid, potentially entails eating up the %o77issionDs sa&ings or that portion of its budgetary pie otherwise allocated for ersonnel Ser&ices, fro7 which the benefits of the e7ployees, including those in the ranB and file, are deri&ed' <urther, the personality of petitioner to file this case was recogni?ed by the %S% when it tooB cogni?ance of the %CR"ADs re0uest to affir7 the reco77endation of the %S%,#ational %apital Region (ffice' %CR"ADs personality to bring the suit was a non,issue in the %ourt of Appeals when it passed upon the 7erits of this case' Thus, neither should our hands be tied by this technical concern' +ndeed, it is settled =urisprudence that an issue that was neither raised in the co7plaint nor in the court below cannot be raised for the first ti7e on appeal, as to do so would be offensi&e to the basic rules of fair play, =ustice, and due process' 13 We now del&e into the 7ain issue of whether or not the appro&al by the :$! is a condition precedent to the enact7ent of an upgrading, reclassification, creation and collapsing of plantilla positions in the %CR' 1er7ane to our discussion is Rep' Act #o' 57.4, An Act rescribing a Re&ised %o7pensation and osition %lassification Syste7 in the 1o&ern7ent and <or (ther urposes, or the Salary Standardi?ation )aw, dated 01 6uly 1242, which pro&ides in Sections 2 and 3 thereof that it is the :$! that shall establish and ad7inister a unified %o7pensation and osition %lassification Syste7' Thus8 S"%' 2' State7ent of olicy' ,, +t is hereby declared the policy of the State to pro&ide e0ual pay for substantially e0ual worB and to base differences in pay upon substanti&e differences in duties and responsibilities, and 0ualification re0uire7ents of the positions' +n deter7ining rates of pay, due regard shall be gi&en to, a7ong others, pre&ailing rates in the pri&ate sector for co7parable worB' <or this purpose, the :epart7ent of $udget and !anage7ent -:$!/ is hereby directed to establish and ad7inister a unified %o7pensation and osition %lassification Syste7, hereinafter referred to as the Syste7 as pro&ided for in residential :ecree #o' 24., as a7ended, that shall be applied for all go&ern7ent entities, as 7andated by the %onstitution' -"7phasis supplied'/ S"%' 3' %o&erage' T The %o7pensation and osition %lassification Syste7 herein pro&ided shall apply to all positions, appointi&e or electi&e, on full or part,ti7e basis, now e9isting or hereafter created in the go&ern7ent, including go&ern7ent,owned or controlled corporations and go&ern7ent financial institutions' The ter7 ;go&ern7ent; refers to the "9ecuti&e, the )egislati&e and the 6udicial $ranches and the %onstitutional %o77issions and shall include all, but shall not be li7ited to, depart7ents, bureaus, offices, boards, co77issions, courts, tribunals, councils, authorities, ad7inistrations, centers, institutes, state colleges and uni&ersities, local go&ern7ent units, and the ar7ed forces' The ter7 ;go&ern7ent,owned or controlled corporations and financial institutions; shall include all corporations and financial institutions owned or controlled by the #ational 1o&ern7ent, whether such corporations and financial institutions perfor7 go&ern7ental or proprietary functions' -"7phasis supplied'/

The disputation of the %ourt of Appeals that the %CR is e9e7pt fro7 the long ar7 of the Salary Standardi?ation )aw is flawed considering that the co&erage thereof, as defined abo&e, enco7passes the entire ga7ut of go&ern7ent offices, sans 0ualification' This power to ;ad7inister; is not purely 7inisterial in character as erroneously held by the %ourt of Appeals' The word to ad7inister 7eans to control or regulate in behalf of others@ to direct or superintend the e9ecution, application or conduct of@ and to 7anage or conduct public affairs, as to ad7inister the go&ern7ent of the state' 1. The regulatory power of the :$! on 7atters of co7pensation is encrypted not only in law, but in =urisprudence as well' +n the recent case of hilippine Retire7ent Authority - RA/ &' 6esusito )' $u>ag, 15 this %ourt, speaBing through !r' 6ustice Reynato uno, ruled that co7pensation, allowances, and other benefits recei&ed by RA officials and e7ployees without the re0uisite appro&al or authority of the :$! are unauthori?ed and irregular' +n the words of the %ourt T :espite the power granted to the $oard of :irectors of RA to establish and fi9 a co7pensation and benefits sche7e for its e7ployees, the sa7e is sub=ect to the re&iew of the :epart7ent of $udget and !anage7ent' Cowe&er, in &iew of the e9press powers granted to RA under its charter, the e9tent of the re&iew authority of the :epart7ent of $udget and !anage7ent is li7ited' As stated in +ntia, the tasB of the :epart7ent of $udget and !anage7ent is si7ply to re&iew the co7pensation and benefits plan of the go&ern7ent agency or entity concerned and deter7ine if the sa7e co7plies with the prescribed policies and guidelines issued in this regard' The role of the :epart7ent of $udget and !anage7ent is super&isorial in nature, its 7ain duty being to ascertain that the proposed co7pensation, benefits and other incenti&es to be gi&en to RA officials and e7ployees adhere to the policies and guidelines issued in accordance with applicable laws' +n Aictorina %ru? &' %ourt of Appeals,17 we held that the :$! has the sole power and discretion to ad7inister the co7pensation and position classification syste7 of the national go&ern7ent' +n +ntia, 6r' &' %o77ission on Audit,14 the %ourt held that although the charter12 of the hilippine ostal %orporation - %/ grants it the power to fi9 the co7pensation and benefits of its e7ployees and e9e7pts % fro7 the co&erage of the rules and regulations of the %o7pensation and osition %lassification (ffice, by &irtue of Section 5 of ':' #o' 1.27, the co7pensation syste7 established by the % is, nonetheless, sub=ect to the re&iew of the :$!' This %ourt intoned8 +t should be e7phasi?ed that the re&iew by the :$! of any % resolution affecting the co7pensation structure of its personnel should not be interpreted to 7ean that the :$! can dictate upon the % $oard of :irectors and depri&e the latter of its discretion on the 7atter' Rather, the :$!Ds function is 7erely to ensure that the action taBen by the $oard of :irectors co7plies with the re0uire7ents of the law, specifically, that %Ds co7pensation syste7 ;confor7s as closely as possible with that pro&ided for under R'A' #o' 57.4'; -"7phasis supplied'/ As 7easured by the foregoing legal and =urisprudential yardsticBs, the i7pri7atur of the :$! 7ust first be sought prior to i7ple7entation of any reclassification or upgrading of positions in go&ern7ent' This is consonant to the 7andate of the :$! under the Re&ised Ad7inistrati&e %ode of 1247, Section 3, %hapter 1, Title KA++, to wit8 S"%' 3' owers and <unctions' T The :epart7ent of $udget and !anage7ent shall assist the resident in the preparation of a national resources and e9penditures budget, preparation, e9ecution and control of the #ational $udget, preparation and 7aintenance of accounting syste7s essential to the budgetary process, achie&e7ent of 7ore econo7y and efficiency in the 7anage7ent of go&ern7ent operations, ad7inistration of co7pensation and position classification syste7s, assess7ent of organi?ational effecti&eness and re&iew and e&aluation of legislati&e proposals ha&ing budgetary or organi?ational i7plications' -"7phasis supplied'/ +rrefragably, it is within the turf of the :$! Secretary to disallow the upgrading, reclassification, and creation of additional plantilla positions in the %CR based on its finding that such sche7e lacBs legal =ustification' #otably, the %CR itself recogni?es the authority of the :$! to deny or appro&e the proposed reclassification of positions as e&idenced by its three letters to the :$! re0uesting appro&al thereof' As such, it is now estopped fro7 now clai7ing that the nod of appro&al it has pre&iously sought fro7 the :$! is a superfluity' The %ourt of Appeals incorrectly relied on the pronounce7ent of the %S%,%entral (ffice that the %CR is a constitutional co77ission, and as such en=oys fiscal autono7y' 20 alpably, the %ourt of AppealsD :ecision was based on the 7istaBen pre7ise that the %CR belongs to the species of constitutional co77issions' $ut, Article +K of the %onstitution states in no uncertain ter7s that only the %S%, the %o77ission on "lections, and the %o77ission on Audit shall be tagged as %onstitutional %o77issions with the appurtenant right to fiscal autono7y' Thus8 Sec' 1' The %onstitutional %o77issions, which shall be independent, are the %i&il Ser&ice %o77ission, the %o77ission on "lections, and the %o77ission on Audit'

Sec' .' The %o77ission shall en=oy fiscal autono7y' Their appro&ed annual appropriations shall be auto7atically and regularly released' Along the sa7e &ein, the Ad7inistrati&e %ode, in %hapter ., Sections 23 and 25 of $ooB ++ on :istribution of owers of 1o&ern7ent, the constitutional co77issions shall include only the %i&il Ser&ice %o77ission, the %o77ission on "lections, and the %o77ission on Audit, which are granted independence and fiscal autono7y' +n contrast, %hapter ., Section 22 thereof, is silent on the grant of si7ilar powers to the other bodies including the %CR' Thus8 S"%' 23' %onstitutional %o77issions' T The %onstitutional %o77issions, which shall be independent, are the %i&il Ser&ice %o77ission, the %o77ission on "lections, and the %o77ission on Audit' S"%' 25' <iscal Autono7y' T The %onstitutional %o77issions shall en=oy fiscal autono7y' The appro&ed annual appropriations shall be auto7atically and regularly released' S"%' 22' (ther $odies' T There shall be in accordance with the %onstitution, an (ffice of the (7buds7an, a %o77ission on Cu7an Rights, and independent central 7onetary authority, and a national police co77ission' )iBewise, as pro&ided in the %onstitution, %ongress 7ay establish an independent econo7ic and planning agency' -"7phasis ours'/ <ro7 the 1247 %onstitution and the Ad7inistrati&e %ode, it is abundantly clear that the %CR is not a7ong the class of %onstitutional %o77issions' As e9pressed in the oft,repeated 7a9i7 e9pressio unius est e9clusio alterius, the e9press 7ention of one person, thing, act or conse0uence e9cludes all others' Stated otherwise, e9pressiu7 facit cessare tacitu7 T what is e9pressed puts an end to what is i7plied' 21 #or is there any legal basis to support the contention that the %CR en=oys fiscal autono7y' +n essence, fiscal autono7y entails freedo7 fro7 outside control and li7itations, other than those pro&ided by law' +t is the freedo7 to allocate and utili?e funds granted by law, in accordance with law, and pursuant to the wisdo7 and dispatch its needs 7ay re0uire fro7 ti7e to ti7e' 22 +n $la0uera &' Alcala and $eng?on &' :rilon, 23 it is understood that it is only the 6udiciary, the %i&il Ser&ice %o77ission, the %o77ission on Audit, the %o77ission on "lections, and the (ffice of the (7buds7an, which en=oy fiscal autono7y' Thus, in $eng?on, 23 we e9plained8 As en&isioned in the %onstitution, the fiscal autono7y en=oyed by the 6udiciary, the %i&il Ser&ice %o77ission, the %o77ission on Audit, the %o77ission on "lections, and the (ffice of the (7buds7an conte7plates a guarantee of full fle9ibility to allocate and utili?e their resources with the wisdo7 and dispatch that their needs re0uire' +t recogni?es the power and authority to le&y, assess and collect fees, fi9 rates of co7pensation not e9ceeding the highest rates authori?ed by law for co7pensation and pay plans of the go&ern7ent and allocate and disburse such su7s as 7ay be pro&ided by law or prescribed by the7 in the course of the discharge of their functions' ''' The 6udiciary, the %onstitutional %o77issions, and the (7buds7an 7ust ha&e the independence and fle9ibility needed in the discharge of their constitutional duties' The i7position of restrictions and constraints on the 7anner the independent constitutional offices allocate and utili?e the funds appropriated for their operations is anathe7a to fiscal autono7y and &iolati&e not only of the e9press 7andate of the %onstitution but especially as regards the Supre7e %ourt, of the independence and separation of powers upon which the entire fabric of our constitutional syste7 is based' +n the interest of co7ity and cooperation, the Supre7e %ourt, FtheG %onstitutional %o77issions, and the (7buds7an ha&e so far li7ited their ob=ections to constant re7inders' We now agree with the petitioners that this grant of autono7y should cease to be a 7eaningless pro&ision' -"7phasis supplied'/ #either does the fact that the %CR was ad7itted as a 7e7ber by the %onstitutional <iscal Autono7y 1roup -%<A1/ ipso facto clothed it with fiscal autono7y' <iscal autono7y is a constitutional grant, not a tag obtainable by 7e7bership' We note with interest that the special pro&ision under Rep' Act #o' 4.22, while cited under the heading of the %CR, did not specifically 7ention %CR as a7ong those offices to which the special pro&ision to for7ulate and i7ple7ent organi?ational structures apply, but 7erely states its co&erage to include %onstitutional %o77issions and (ffices en=oying fiscal autono7y' +n contrast, the Special ro&ision Applicable to the 6udiciary under Article KKA+++ of the 1eneral Appropriations Act of 1224 specifically 7entions that such special pro&ision applies to the =udiciary and had categorically authori?ed the %hief 6ustice of the Supre7e %ourt to for7ulate and i7ple7ent the organi?ational structure of the 6udiciary, to wit8 1' (rgani?ational Structure' Any pro&ision of law to the contrary notwithstanding and within the li7its of their respecti&e appropriations authori?ed in this Act, the %hief 6ustice of the Supre7e %ourt is authori?ed to for7ulate and i7ple7ent organi?ational structure of the 6udiciary, to fi9 and deter7ine the salaries, allowances, and other benefits of their personnel, and whene&er public interest so re0uires, 7aBe ad=ust7ents in the personal ser&ices ite7i?ation including, but not li7ited to, the transfer of ite7 or creation of new positions in the 6udiciary@ R(A+:":, That officers and e7ployees whose positions are affected by

such reorgani?ation or ad=ust7ents shall be granted retire7ent gratuities and separation pay in accordance with e9isting law, which shall be payable fro7 any une9pended balance of, or sa&ings in the appropriations of their respecti&e offices8 R(A+:":, <*RTC"R, That the i7ple7entation hereof shall be in accordance with salary rates, allowances and other benefits authori?ed under co7pensation standardi?ation laws' -"7phasis supplied'/ All told, the %CR, although ad7ittedly a constitutional creation is, nonetheless, not included in the genus of offices accorded fiscal autono7y by constitutional or legislati&e fiat' "&en assu7ing en arguendo that the %CR en=oys fiscal autono7y, we share the stance of the :$! that the grant of fiscal autono7y notwithstanding, all go&ern7ent offices 7ust, all the sa7e, Bowtow to the Salary Standardi?ation )aw' We are of the sa7e 7ind with the :$! on its standpoint, thus, $eing a 7e7ber of the fiscal autono7y group does not &est the agency with the authority to reclassify, upgrade, and create positions without appro&al of the :$!' While the 7e7bers of the 1roup are authori?ed to for7ulate and i7ple7ent the organi?ational structures of their respecti&e offices and deter7ine the co7pensation of their personnel, such authority is not absolute and 7ust be e9ercised within the para7eters of the *nified osition %lassification and %o7pensation Syste7 established under RA 57.4 7ore popularly Bnown as the %o7pensation Standardi?ation )aw'2. -"7phasis supplied'/ The 7ost lucid argu7ent against the stand of respondent, howe&er, is the pro&ision of Rep' Act #o' 4.22 ;that the i7ple7entation hereof shall be in accordance with salary rates, allowances and other benefits authori?ed under co7pensation standardi?ation laws';25 +ndeed, the law upon which respondent hea&ily anchors its case upon has e9pressly pro&ided that any for7 of ad=ust7ent in the organi?ational structure 7ust be within the para7eters of the Salary Standardi?ation )aw' The Salary Standardi?ation )aw has gained i7petus in addressing one of the basic causes of discontent of 7any ci&il ser&ants'27 <or this purpose, %ongress has delegated to the :$! the power to ad7inister the Salary Standardi?ation )aw and to ensure that the spirit behind it is obser&ed' This power is part of the syste7 of checBs and balances or syste7 of restraints in our go&ern7ent' The :$!Ds e9ercise of such authority is not in itself an arrogation inas7uch as it is pursuant to the para7ount law of the land, the Salary Standardi?ation )aw and the Ad7inistrati&e %ode' +n line with its role to breathe life into the policy behind the Salary Standardi?ation )aw of ;pro&iding e0ual pay for substantially e0ual worB and to base differences in pay upon substanti&e differences in duties and responsibilities, and 0ualification re0uire7ents of the positions,; the :$!, in the case under re&iew, 7ade a deter7ination, after a thorough e&aluation, that the reclassification and upgrading sche7e proposed by the %CR lacBs legal rationali?ation' The :$! e9pounded that Section 74 of the general pro&isions of the 1eneral Appropriations Act <L 1224, which the %CR hea&ily relies upon to =ustify its reclassification sche7e, e9plicitly pro&ides that ;no organi?ational unit or changes in Bey positions shall be authori?ed unless pro&ided by law or directed by the resident'; Cere, the :$! discerned that there is no law authori?ing the creation of a <inance !anage7ent (ffice and a ublic Affairs (ffice in the %CR' Anent %CRDs proposal to upgrade twel&e positions of Attorney A+, S1,25 to :irector +A, S1,24, and four positions of :irector +++, S1,27 to :irector +A, S1,24, in the %entral (ffice, the :$! denied the sa7e as this would change the conte9t fro7 support to substanti&e without actual change in functions' This &iew of the :$!, as the lawDs designated body to i7ple7ent and ad7inister a unified co7pensation syste7, is beyond ca&il' The interpretation of an ad7inistrati&e go&ern7ent agency, which is tasBed to i7ple7ent a statute is accorded great respect and ordinarily controls the construction of the courts' +n "nergy Regulatory $oard &' %ourt of Appeals,24 we echoed the basic rule that the courts will not interfere in 7atters which are addressed to the sound discretion of go&ern7ent agencies entrusted with the regulation of acti&ities co7ing under the special technical Bnowledge and training of such agencies' To be sure, considering his e9pertise on 7atters affecting the nationDs coffers, the Secretary of the :$!, as the residentDs alter ego, Bnows fro7 where he speaBs inas7uch as he has the front seat &iew of the ad&erse effects of an unwarranted upgrading or creation of positions in the %CR in particular and in the entire go&ern7ent in general' WC"R"<(R", the petition is 1RA#T":, the :ecision dated 22 #o&e7ber 2001 of the %ourt of Appeals in %A, G.R' S #o' .2574 and its Resolution dated 11 Septe7ber 2002 are hereby R"A"RS": and S"T AS+:"' The ruling dated 22 !arch 1222 of the %i&il Ser&ice %o77ision,#ational %apital Region is R"+#STAT":' The %o77ission on Cu7an Rights Resolution #o' A24,037 dated 03 Septe7ber 1224, Resolution #o' A24,0.. dated 12 (ctober 1224 and Resolution #o' A24,052 dated 17 #o&e7ber 1224 without the appro&al of the :epart7ent of $udget and !anage7ent are disallowed' #o pronounce7ent as to costs' S( (R:"R":'
[G.R. No. 93867 : December 18, 1990.]

192 SCRA 358 SIXT S. !RI""ANT#S, $R., Petitioner, vs. %A&D## !. & RAC, '( )er c*+*c',- *. ACTING C%AIR/#RS N o0 ,)e C 11ISSI N N #"#CTI NS, Respondent. D#CISI N CR23, J.: The petitioner is challenging the designation by the President of the Philippines of Associate Commissioner Haydee B. Yorac as Acting Chairman of the Commission on Elections, in place of Chairman Hilario B. Davide, ho had been named chairman of the fact!finding commission to investigate the December "#$# co%p d& etat attempt. The '%alifications of the respondent are conceded by the petitioner and are not in iss%e in this case. (hat is the po er of the President of the Philippines to ma)e the challenged designation in vie of the stat%s of the Commission on Elections as an independent constit%tional body and the specific provision of Article *+! C, ,ection "-./ of the Constit%tion that 0-*/n no case shall any 1ember -of the Commission on Elections/ be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.0 The petitioner invo)es the case of 2acionalista Party v. Ba%tista, $3 Phil. "4", here President Elpidio 5%irino designated the ,olicitor 6eneral as acting member of the Commission on Elections and the Co%rt revo)ed the designation as contrary to the Constit%tion. *t is also alleged that the respondent is not even the senior member of the Commission on Elections, being o%tran)ed by Associate Commissioner Alfredo E. Ab%eg, 7r.
8!crala

The petitioner contends that the choice of the Acting Chairman of the Commission on Elections is an internal matter that sho%ld be resolved by the members themselves and that the intr%sion of the President of the Philippines violates their independence. He cites the practice in this Co%rt, here the senior Associate 7%stice serves as Acting Chief 7%stice in the absence of the Chief 7%stice. 2o designation from the President of the Philippines is necessary. *n his Comment, the ,olicitor 6eneral arg%es that no s%ch designation is necessary in the case of the ,%preme Co%rt beca%se the temporary s%ccession cited is provided for in ,ection ". of the 7%diciary Act of "#9$. A similar r%le is fo%nd in ,ection 3 of BP ".# for the Co%rt of Appeals. There is no s%ch arrangement, ho ever, in the case of the Commission on Elections. The designation made by the President of the Philippines sho%ld therefore be s%stained for reasons of 0administrative e:pediency,0 to prevent disr%ption of the f%nctions of the C;1E<EC. E:pediency is a d%bio%s =%stification. *t may also be an overstatement to s%ggest that the operations of the Commission on Elections o%ld have been dist%rbed or stalemated if the President of the Philippines had not stepped in and designated an Acting Chairman. There did not seem to be any s%ch problem. *n any event, even ass%ming that diffic%lty, e do not agree that 0only the President -co%ld/ act to fill the hiat%s,0 as the ,olicitor 6eneral maintains. Article *+!A, ,ection ", of the Constit%tion e:pressly describes all the Constit%tional Commissions as 0independent.0 Altho%gh essentially e:ec%tive in nat%re, they are not %nder the control of the President of the Philippines in the discharge of their respective f%nctions. Each of these Commissions cond%cts its o n proceedings %nder the applicable la s and its o n r%les and in the e:ercise of its o n discretion. *ts decisions, orders and r%lings are s%b=ect only to revie on Certiorari by this Co%rt as provided by the Constit%tion in Article *+!A, ,ection >. The choice of a temporary chairman in the absence of the reg%lar chairman comes %nder that discretion. That discretion cannot be e:ercised for it, even ith its consent, by the President of the Philippines. A designation as Acting Chairman is by its very terms essentially temporary and therefore revocable at ill. 2o ca%se need be established to =%stify its revocation. Ass%ming its validity, the designation of the respondent as Acting Chairman of the Commission on Elections may be ithdra n by the President of the Philippines at any time and for hatever reason she sees fit. *t is do%btf%l if the respondent, having accepted s%ch designation, ill not be estopped from challenging its ithdra al.
chanroble s virt%al la library

*t is tr%e, as the ,olicitor 6eneral points o%t, that the respondent cannot be removed at ill from her permanent position as Associate Commissioner. *t is no less tr%e, ho ever, that she can be replaced as Acting Chairman, ith or itho%t ca%se, and th%s deprived of the po ers and per'%isites of that temporary position. The lac) of a stat%tory r%le covering the sit%ation at bar is no =%stification for the President of the Philippines to fill the void by e:tending the temporary designation in favor of the respondent. This is still a government of la s and not of men. The problem allegedly so%ght to be corrected, if it e:isted at all, did not call for presidential action. The sit%ation co%ld have been handled by the members of the Commission on Elections themselves itho%t the participation of the President, ho ever ell!meaning.

*n the choice of the Acting Chairman, the members of the Commission on Elections o%ld most li)ely have been g%ided by the seniority r%le as they themselves o%ld have appreciated it. *n any event, that choice and the basis thereof ere for them and not the President to ma)e. The Co%rt has not the slightest do%bt that the President of the Philippines as moved only by the best of motives hen she iss%ed the challenged designation. B%t hile conceding her good ill, e cannot s%stain her act beca%se it conflicts ith the Constit%tion. Hence, even as this Co%rt revo)ed the designation in the Ba%tista case, so too m%st it ann%l the designation in the case at bar. The Constit%tion provides for many safeg%ards to the independence of the Commission on Elections, foremost among hich is the sec%rity of ten%re of its members. That g%aranty is not available to the respondent as Acting Chairman of the Commission on Elections by designation of the President of the Philippines. (HE?E@;?E, the designation by the President of the Philippines of respondent Haydee B. Yorac as Acting Chairman of the Commission on Elections is declared A2C;2,T*TAT*;2A<, and the respondent is hereby ordered to desist from serving as s%ch. This is itho%t pre=%dice to the inc%mbent Associate Commissioners of the Commission on Elections restoring her to the same position if they so desire, or choosing another member in her place, pending the appointment of a permanent Chairman by the President of the Philippines ith the consent of the Commission on Appointments.
8 rd

,; ;?DE?ED.

G.R. No. 133676 A0r.9 14, 1999 TUPA# T. LOONG, petitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS a*+ A(%USA,UR TAN , respondents. #USOP J","R", .*14r64*or.

PUNO, J+n a bid to, i7pro&e our elections, %ongress enacted R'A' #o' 4335 on :ece7ber 22, 1227 prescribing the adoption of an auto7ated election syste7' The new syste7 was used in the !ay 11, 1224 regular elections held in the Autono7ous Region in !usli7 !indanao -AR!!/ which includes the ro&ince of Sulu' Atty' 6ose Tolentino, 6r' headed the %(!")"% TasB <orce to ha&e ad7inistrati&e o&ersight of the elections in Sulu' The &oting in Sulu was relati&ely peaceful and orderly' 1 The proble7 started during the auto7ated counting of &otes for the local officials of Sulu at the Sulu at the Sulu State %ollege' At about 5 a'7' of !ay 12, 1224, so7e election inspectors and watchers infor7ed Atty' Tolentino, 6r' of discrepancies between the election returns and the &otes cast for the 7ayoralty candidates in the 7unicipality of ata' So7e ballots picBed at rando7 by Atty' Tolentino, 6r' confir7ed that &otes in fa&or of a 7ayoralty candidate were not reflected in the printed election returns' Ce suspended the auto7ated counting of ballots in ata and i77ediately co77unicated the proble7 to the technical e9perts of %(!")"% and the suppliers of the auto7ated 7achine' After the consultations, the e9perts told hi7 that the proble7 was caused by 7isalign7ent of the o&als opposite the na7es of candidates in the local ballots' They found nothing wrong with the auto7ated 7achines' The error was in the printing of the local ballots, as a conse0uence of which, the auto7ated 7achines failed to read the7 correctly' 2 At 12830 p'7' of the sa7e day, Atty' Tolentino, 6r' called for an e7ergency 7eeting of the local candidates and the 7ilitary,police officials o&erseeing the Sulu elections' Those who attended were the &arious candidates for go&ernor, na7ely, petitioner Tupay )oong, pri&ate respondent AbdusaBar Tan, inter&enor Lusop 6iBiri and Ni7ar Tulawie' Also in attendance were $rig' 1en' "dgardo "spinosa, A< , !arine forces, Southern hilippines, $rig' 1en' erci&al Subala, A< , 3rd !arine $rigade, Supt' %harle7agne Ale=andrino, ro&incial :irector, Sulu, # %o77and and congressional candidate $ensandi Tulawie' 3 The 7eeting discussed how the ballots in ata should be counted in light of the 7isaligned o&als' There was lacB of agree7ent' Those who reco77ended a shift to 7anual count were $rig' 1enerals "spinosa and Subala, # :irector Ale=andro, gubernational candidates Tan and Tulawie and congressional candidate $ensandi Tulawie' Those who insisted on an auto7ated count were gubernational candidates )oong and 6iBiri' +n &iew of their differences in opinion, Atty' Tolentino, 6r' re0uested the parties to sub7it their written position papers' 4 Reports that the auto7ated counting of ballots in other 7unicipalities in Sulu was not worBing well were recei&ed by the %(!")"% TasB <orce' )ocal ballots in fi&e -./ 7unicipalities were re=ected by the auto7ated 7achines' These 7unicipalities were Talipao, Siasi, Tudanan, Tapul and 6olo' The ballots were re=ected because they had the wrong se0uence code' ) ri&ate respondent Tan and Atty' Tolentino, 6r' sent separate co77ucations to the %(!")"% en *anc in !anila' Still, on !ay 12, 1224, Tan re0uested for the suspension of the auto7ated counting of ballots throughout the Sulu pro&ince' 6 (n the sa7e day, %(!")"% issued !inute Resolution #o' 24,1737 ordering a 7anual count but only in the 7unicipality of ata' The resolution reads8 7

999 999 999 +n the 7atter of the etition dated !ay 12, 1224 of AbdusaBur Tan, 1o&ernor, Sulu, to suspend or stop counting of ballots through auto7ation -sic/ 7achines for the following grounds, 0uoted to wit8 1' The "lection Returns for the !unicipality of ata, ro&ince of Sulu,:istrict ++ do not reflect or re&eal the 7andate of the &oters8 :+S%*SS+(#S That the watchers called the attention of our political leaders and candidates regarding their disco&ery that the election returns generated after the last ballots for a precinct is scanned re&ealed that so7e candidates obtained ?ero &otes, a7ong others the ro&incial $oard !e7bers, !ayor, Aice,!ayor, and the councilors for the )ANAS,#*%:,*!: @ That the top ballot, howe&er, re&eals that the ballots contained &otes for Anton $urahan, candidate for !unicipal !ayor while the "lection Return shows ?ero &ote@ That further re&iew of the "lection Return re&eals that 6ohn !asilla7, candidate for !ayor under the )ANAS,#*%:,*!: ,!#)< obtains -sic/ 100Q &otes of the total nu7ber of &oters who actually &oted@ The foregoing discrepancies were liBewise noted and confir7ed by the chair7en, poll clerBs and 7e7bers of the $oard of "lection +nspectors -$"+/ such as Rena 6awan, A7Banta Ca=irul, :ulba Nadil, Teddy !ira=uli, Rainer Talcon, !iBe 6upaBal, Ar7ina AB7ad, Ro7ulo Roldan and )er7a A7rawali to 7ention so7e@ The ata incident can be confir7ed by no less than Atty' 6ose Tolentino, Cead, tasB <orce Sulu, whose attention was called regarding the discrepancies@ The foregoing is a clear e&idence that the auto7ated 7achine -scanner/ cannot be relied upon as to truly reflect the contents of the ballots' +f such happened in the !unicipality of ata, it is &ery possible that the sa7e is happening in the counting of &otes in the other 7unicipalities of this pro&ince' +f this will not be suspended or stopped, the use of auto7ated 7achines will ser&e as a &ehicle to frustrate the will of the so&ereign people of Sulu@ Wherefore, the foregoing pre7ises considered and in the interest of an honest and orderly election, it is respectfully prayed of this Conorable %o77ission that an (rder be issued i77ediately suspending or stopping the use of the auto7ated 7achine -scanner/ in the counting of &otes for all the eighteen -14/ 7unicipalities in the ro&ince of Sulu and in lieu thereof, to a&oid delay, counting be done through the usual way Bnown tested by us' While the co77ission does not agree with the conclusions stated in the petition, and the failure of the 7achine to read &otes 7ay ha&e been occasioned by other factors, a 7atter that re0uires i77ediate in&estigation, but in the public interest, the %o77ission, R"S()A": to grant the etition dated !ay 12, 1224 and to (rder that the counting of &otes shall be done 7anually in the !unicipality of ATA, the only place in Sulu where the auto7ated 7achine failed to read the ballots, sub=ect to notice to all parties concerned' $efore 7idnight of !ay 12, 1224, Atty' Tolentino, 6r' was able to send to the %(!")"% en *anc his report and reco77endation, urging the use of the 7anual count in the entire ro&ince of Sulu, viz8 ? The undersigned stopped the counting in the 7unicipality of ata since he disco&ered that &otes for a candidate for 7ayor was credited in fa&or of the other candidate' Aerification with the Sulu Technical Staff, including at S0uires of "S P S, re&eals that the cause of the errors is the way the ballot was printed' Aside fro7 7isalign7ent of the o&als and use of codes assigned to another 7unicipality -which caused the re=ection of all local ballots in one precinct in Talipao/, error 7essages appeared on the screen although the actual condition of the ballots would ha&e shown a different 7essage' $ecause of these, the undersigned directed that counting for all ballots in Sulu be stopped to enable the %o77ission to deter7ine the proble7 and rectify the sa7e' +t is sub7itted that stopping the counting is 7ore in consonance with the %o77issionDs 7andate than proceeding with an auto7ated but inaccurate count'
1wphi1.nt

+n &iew of the error disco&ered in ata and the undersignedDs order to suspend that counting, the following docu7ents were sub7itted to hi7' 1' *nsigned letter dated !ay 12, 1224 sub7itted by %ongress7an Tulawie for 7anual counting and can&assing@ 2' etition of 1o&ernor SaBur Tan for 7anual counting@ 3' osition paper of Tupay )oong, $en=a7in )oong, and Asani Ta7ang for auto7ated count@ 3' !#)< osition for auto7ated count@ and .' Reco77endation of 1eneral "'A' "spinosa, 1eneral ! Subala, and : %S Ale=andrino for 7anual count@ Additional 7arines ha&e been deployed at the SS%' The undersigned is not sure if it is 7erely intended to ta7e a disorderly crowd, inside and outside SS%, or a show of force' +t is sub7itted that since an error was disco&ered in a 7achine which is supposed to ha&e an error rate of 18 1,000,000, not a few people would belie&e that this error in ata would e9tend to the other 7unicipalities' Whether or not this true, it would be 7ore prudent to stay away fro7 a lifeless thing that has sown tension and an9iety a7ong and between the &oters of Sulu' Respectfully sub7itted8 12 !ay 1224 -Sgd'/ 6(S" !' T()"#T+#(, 6R' The ne9t day, !ay 13, 1224, %(!")"% issued Resolution #o' 24,17.0 appro&ing, Atty' Tolentino, 6r'Ds reco77endation and the 7anner of its i7ple7entation as suggested by "9ecuti&e :irector Resurrection M' $orra' The Resolution reads8 9 +n the 7atter of the !e7orandu7 dated 13 !ay 1224 of "9ecuti&e :irector Resurrection M' $orra, pertinent portion of which is 0uoted as follows8 +n connection with !in' Res' #o' 24,1737 pro7ulgated !ay 12, 1224 which resol&ed to order that the counting of &otes shall be done 7anually in the 7unicipality of ata, the only place in Sulu where the auto7ated counting 7achine failed to read the ballots, sub=ect to notice to all parties concerned, please find the following8 1' Candwritten !e7o of :irector 6ose !' Tolentino, 6r', TasB <orce Cead, Sulu, addressed to the "9ecuti&e :irector on the sub=ect counting and can&assing in the 7unicipality of ata due to the errors of the counting of &otes by the 7achine brought about by the error in the printing of the ballot, causing 7isalign7ent of o&als and use of codes assigned to another 7unicipality' Ce reco77ended to re&ert to the 7anual counting of &otes in the whole of Sulu' Ce attached the stand of %ongress7an Tulawie, 1o&ernor SaBur Tan and reco77endation of $rigadier 1eneral "dgardo "spinosa, 1eneral erci&al Subla, JSupt' %harle7agne Ale=andrino for 7anual counting' The position paper of for7er 1o&ernor Tupay )oong, !r' $en=a7in )oong and !r' Asani S' Ta77ang, who are candidates for 1o&ernor and %ongress7an of 1st and 2nd :istricts respecti&ely, who wanted the continuation of the auto7ated counting' While the forces of A< are ready to pro&ide ar7 -sic/ security to our %o7elec officials, $"+s and other deputies, the political tensions and i77inent &iolence and bloodshed 7ay not be pre&ented, as per report recei&ed, the !#)< forces are readying their forces to surround the &enue for auto7ated counting and can&assing in Sulu in order that the auto7ation process will continue' :irector $orra reco77ends, that while he supports !inute Resolution #o' 24,1737, i7ple7entation thereof shall be done as follows8 1' That all the counting 7achines fro7 6olo, Sulu be transported bacB by %130 to !anila and be located at the a&ailable space at +%% for purposes of both auto7ated and 7anual operations' This approach will Beep the %(!")"% officials away fro7 &iolence and bloodshed between the two ca7ps who are deter7ined to slug each

other as abo&e 7entioned in 6olo, Sulu' (nly authori?ed political party and candidate watchers will be allowed in +%% with proper security, both inside and outside the peri7eters of the &enue at +%%' 2' With this process, there will be an ob=ecti&e analysis and super&ision of the auto7ated and 7anual operations by both the !+S and Technical "9pert of the "S P S away fro7 the thundering 7ortars and the sounds of sophisticated hea&y weapons fro7 both sides of the warring factions' 3' )astly, it will be directly under the close super&ision and control of %o77ission on "lections &n %anc' R"S()A":8 1' To transport all counting 7achines fro7 6olo, Sulu by %130 to !anila for purposes of both auto7ated and 7anual operations, with notice to all parties concerned@ 2' To authori?e the official tra&el of the board of can&assers concerned for the conduct of the auto7ated and 7anual operations of the counting of &otes at +%% under the close super&ision and control of the %o77ission &n %anc' <or this purpose, to 7aBe a&ailable a designated space at the +%%@ 3' To authori?e the presence of only the duly authori?ed representati&e of the political parties concerned and the candidates watchers both outside and inside the peri7eters of the &enue at +%%' Atty' Tolentino, 6r' furnished the parties with copies of !inute Resolution #o' 24,17.0 and called for another 7eeting the ne9t day, !ay 13, 1224, to discuss the i7ple7entation of the resolution' 1@ The 7eeting was attended by the parties, by )t' 1en' 6oselin #a?areno, then %hief of the A< Southern %o77and, the #A!<R"), 7edia, and the public' "specially discussed was the 7anner of transporting the ballots and the counting 7achines to the +%% in !anila' They agreed allow each political party to ha&e at least one -1/ escortJwatcher for 7unicipality to aco7pany the flight' Two %130s were used for purpose' 11 (n !ay 1., 1224, the %(!")"% en *anc issued !inute Resolution #o' 24,1725 laying down the rules for the 7anual count, viz8 12 +n the 7atter of the !e7orandu7 dated 1. !ay 1224 of "9ecuti&e :irector Resurrection M' $orra, 0uoted to wit8 +n the i7ple7entation of %(!")"% !in' Resolution #o' 24,17.0 pro7ulgated 13 !ay 1224 in the 7anual counting of &otes of ata, Sulu, and in &iew of the arri&al of the counting 7achines, ballot bo9es, docu7ents and other election paraphernalia for the whole pro&ince of Sulu now stored in +%%, as well as the arri&al of the !unicipal $oard of %an&assers of said !unicipality in Sulu, and after conference with so7e 7e7bers of the Senior Staff and Technical %o77ittee of this %o77ission, the following are hereby respectfully reco77ended8 1' !anual counting of the local ballots of the auto7ated election syste7 in ata, Sulu@ 2' Auto7ated counting of the national ballots considering that there are no 0uestions raised on the #ational "lecti&e (fficials as pre, printed in the 7arB,sensed ballots@ 3' The creation of the following Special $oards of +nspectors under the super&ision of Atty' 6ose !' Tolentino, 6r', TasB <orce Cead, Sulu, na7ely8 a/ Atty' !a7asapunod !' Agua7 !s' 1loria <ernande? !s' "speran?a #icolas b/ :irector "ster )' Aillaflor,Ro9as

!s' %elia Ro7ero !s' Rebecca !acaraya c/ Atty' Menaida S' Soriano !s' 6ocelyn 1uiang !a' 6acelyn Tan d/ Atty' "rlinda %' "cha&ia !s' Theresa A' Torralba !s' !a' %ar7en )la7as e/ :irector "strella ' de !esa !s' Teresita Aelasco !s' #elly 6aena 3' Additional Special $oard of +nspectors 7ay be created when necessary' .' The ro&incial $oard of %an&assers which by standing Resolution is headed by the TasB <orce Sulu Cead shall consolidate the 7anual and auto7ated results as sub7itted by the !unicipal $oards of %an&assers of the whole pro&ince with two 7e7bers co7posed of :irectors "strella ' de !esa and "ster )' Aillaflor,Ro9as@ 5' The political parties and the candidates in Sulu as well as the arty,)ist %andidates are authori?ed to appoint their own watchers upon appro&al of the %o77issionD, R"S()A": to appro&e the foregoing reco77endations in the i7ple7entation of !in' Resolution #o' 24,17.0 pro7ulgated on 13 !ay 1224 pro&iding for the 7anual counting of &otes in the 7unicipality of ata, Sulu' R"S()A":, 7oreo&er, considering the reco77endation of %o77' !anolo $' 1orospe, %o77issioner,+n,%harge, AR!!, to conduct a parallel 7anual counting on all 14 7unicipalities of Sulu as a final guidance of the reliability of the counting 7achine which will ser&e as basis for the procla7ation of the winning candidates and for future reference on the use of the auto7ated counting 7achine' (n !ay 14, 1224, petitioner filed his ob=ection to !inute Resolution #o' 24,1725, viz8 13 1' The 7inute resolution under agenda #o' 24,1725 &iolates the pro&isions of Republic Act #o' 4335 pro&iding for an auto7ated counting of the ballots in the Autono7ous Region in !usli7 !indanao' The auto7ated counting is 7andatory and could not be substituted by a 7anual counting' Where the 7achines are allegedly defecti&e, the only re7edy pro&ided for by law is to replace the 7achine' !anual counting is prohibited by law@ 2' There are strong indications that in the 7unicipality of ata the ballots of the said 7unicipality were re=ected by the counting 7achine because the ballots were ta7pered andJor the te9ture of the ballots fed to the counting 7achine are not the official ballots of the %o7elec@ 3' The auto7ated counting 7achines of the %o7elec ha&e been designed in such a way that only genuine official ballots could be read and counted by the 7achine@ 3' The counting 7achines in the other 7unicipalities are in order' +n fact, the auto7ated counting has already started' The auto7ated counting in the 7unicipalities of )ugus and angli7a Tahil has been co7pleted' There is no legal basis for the ;parallel 7anual counting; ordained in the disputed 7inute resolution' #onetheless, %(!")"% started the 7anual count on the sa7e date, !ay 14, 1224'

(n !ay 2., 1224, petitioner filed with this %ourt a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 5. of the Rules of %ourt' Ce contended that8 -a/ %(!")"% issued !inute Resolution #os' 24,1737, 24,17.0, and 24,1724 without prior notice and hearing to hi7@ -b/ the order for 7anual counting &iolated R'A' #o' 4335@ -c/ 7anual counting ga&e ;opportunity to the following election cheatings,; na7ely8 -a/ The counting by hu7an hands of the ta7pered, faBe and counterfeit ballots which the counting 7achines ha&e been progra77ed to re=ect -Section 7, 4 P 2 of Rep' Act 4335/' -b/ The opportunity to substitute the ballots all stored at the +%%' +n fact, no less than the head of the %(!")"% TasB <orce of Sulu, Atty' 6ose !' Tolentino, 6r' who reco77ended to the %(!")"% the ano7alous 7anual counting, had approached the watchers of petitioners to allow the retri&al of the ballots, saying ;tayo, tayo lang 7ga watchers, pag,usapan natin,; clearly indicating o&ertures of possible bribery of the watchers of petitioner -A##"K "/' -c/ With the creation by the %(!")"% of only 22 $oards of "lection +nspectors to 7anually count the 1,123 precincts, the 7anipulators are gi&en sufficient ti7e to change and ta7per the ballots to be 7anually counted' -d/ There is the opportunity of delaying the procla7ation of the winning candidates through the usually dilatory 7o&es in a pre,procla7ation contro&ersy because the returns and certificates of can&ass are already hu7an -sic/ 7ade' +n the auto7ated counting there is no roo7 for any dilatory pre,procla7ation contro&ersy because the returns and the !$% and $% certificates of can&ass are 7achine 7ade and i77ediate procla7ation is ordained thereafter' etitioner then prayed8 WC"R"<(R", it is 7ost especially prayed of the Conorable %ourt that8 1' upon filing of this petition, a te7porary restraining order be issued en=oining the %(!")"% fro7 conducting a 7anual counting of the ballots of the 1,123 precincts of the 14 7unicipalities of the ro&ince of Sulu but instead proceed with the auto7ated counting of the ballots, Fpreparation of the election returns and !$%, $% certificates of can&ass and proclai7 the winning candidates on the basis of the auto7ated counting and consolidation of results@ 2' this petition be gi&en due course and the respondents be re0uired to answer@ 3' after due hearing, the 0uestioned %(!")"% &n %anc !inute Resolutions of !ay 12, 13, 1., and 17, 1224 be all declared null and &oid a* initio for ha&ing been issued without =urisdiction andJor with gra&e abuse of discretion a7ounting to lacB of =urisdiction and for being in &iolation of due process of law@ 3' the winning candidates of the ro&ince of Sulu be proclai7ed on the basis of the results of the auto7ated counting, auto7ated election returns, auto7ated !$% and $% certificates of can&ass@ 999 999 999 (n 6une 4, 1224, pri&ate respondents Tan was proclai7ed go&ernor,elect of Sulu on the basis of the 7anual count' 14 ri&ate respondents garnered 33,.73 &otes' etitioner was third with 3.,3.2 &otes or a difference of 4,121 &otes' (n 6une 23, 1224, this %ourt re0uired the respondents to file their %o77ent to the petition and directed the parties ;to 7aintain the status 9uo pre&ailing at the ti7e of the filing of the petition'; 1) The &ice,go&ernor elect was allowed to te7porarily discharge the powers and functions of go&ernor' (n August 20, 1224, Lusop 6iBiri, the )ANAS,#*%:,*!: ,!#)< candidate for go&ernor filed a 7otion for inter&ention and a !e7orandu7 in +nter&ention' 16 The result of the 7anual count showed he recei&ed 34,223 &otes and placed second' Si7ilarly, he alleged denial of due process, lacB of factual basis of the %(!")"% resolutions and illegality of 7anual count in light of R'A' #o' 4335' The %ourt noted his inter&ention' 17 A si7ilar petition for inter&ention filed by Abdulwahid Sahidulla, a candidate for &ice,go&ernor, on (ctober 7, 1224 was denied as it was filed too late' +n due ti7e, the parties filed their respecti&e %o77ents' (n Septe7ber 2., 1224, the %ourt heard the parties in oral argu7ent 1? which was followed by the sub7ission of their written 7e7oranda' The issues for resolution are the following8 1' Whether or not a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 5. of the Rules of %ourt is the appropriate re7edy to in&alidate the disputed %(!")"% resolutions'

2' Assu7ing the appropriateness of the re7edy, whether or not %(!")"% co77itted gra&e abuse of discretion a7ounting to lacB of =urisdiction in ordering a 7anual count' 2'a' +s there a legal basis for the 7anual countH 2'b' Are its factual bases reasonableH 2'c' Were the petitioner and the inter&enor denied due process by the %(!")"% when it ordered a 7anual countH 3' Assu7ing the 7anual count is illegal and that its result is unreliable, whether or not it is proper to call for a special election for the position of go&ernor of Sulu' We shall resol&e the issues in seriatim' =irst' We hold that certiorari is the proper re7edy of the petitioner' Section 7, Article +K -A/ of the 1247 %onstitution states that ;unless pro&ided by this %onstitution or by law, any decision, order or ruling of each %o77ission 7ay be brought to the Supre7e %ourt on certiorari by the aggrie&ed party within thirty days fro7 receipt of a copy thereof'; We ha&e interpreted this pro&ision to 7ean final orders, rulings and decisions of the powers' 19 %ontrariwise, ad7inistrati&e orders of the %(!")"% are not, as a general rule, fit sub=ects of a petition for certiorari' The 7ain issue in the case at bar is whether the %(!")"% gra&ely abused its discretion when it ordered a 7anual count of the 1224 Sulu local elections' A resolution of the issue will in&ol&e an interpretation of R'A' #o' 4335 on auto7ated election in relation to the broad power of the %(!")"% under Section 2-1/, Article +K-%/ of the %onstitution ;to enforce and ad7inister all laws and regulations relati&e to the conduct of an election ' ' ''; The issue is not only legal but one of first i7pression and undoubtedly suffered with significance to the entire nation' +t is ad=udicatory of the right of the petitioner, the pri&ate respondents and the inter&enor to the position of go&ernor of Sulu' These are enough considerations to call for an e9ercise of the certiorari =urisdiction of this %ourt' Second' The big issue, one of first i7pression, is whether the %(!")"% co77itted gra&e abuse of discretion a7ounting to lacB of =urisdiction when it ordered a 7anual count in light of R'A' #o' 4335' The post election realities on ground will show that the order for a 7anual count cannot be characteri?ed as arbitrary, capricious or whi7sical' a' +t is well established that the auto7ated 7achines failed to read correctly the ballots in the 7unicipality of ata' A 7ayoralty candidate, !r' Anton $urahan, obtained ?ero &otes despite the representations of the %hair7an of the $oard of "lection +nspectors and others that they &oted for hi7' Another candidate garnered 100Q of the &otes' b' +t is liBewise conceded that the auto7ated 7achines re=ected and would not count the local ballots in the 7unicipalities of ata, Talipao, Siasi, +ndanan, Tapal and 6olo' c' These flaws in the auto7ated counting of local ballots in the 7unicipalities of ata, Talipao, Siasi, +ndanan, Tapal and 6olo were carefully analy?ed by the technical e9perts of %(!")"% and the supplier of the auto7ated 7achines' All of the7 found nothing wrong the auto7ated 7achines' They traced the proble7 to the printing of local ballots by he #ational rinting (ffice' +n the case of the of the 7unicipality of ata, it was disco&ered that the o&als of the local ballots were 7isaligned and could not be read correctly by the auto7ated 7achines' +n the case of the 7unicipalities of Talipao, Siasi, +ndanan, Tapal and 6olo, it turned out that the local ballots contained the wrong se0uence code' "ach 7unicipality was assigned a se0uence code as a security 7easure' $allots with the wrong se0uence code were progra77ed to be re=ected by the auto7ated 7achines' +t is plain that to continue with the auto7ated count in these fi&e -./ 7unicipalities would result in a grossly erroneous count' +t cannot also be gainsaid that the count in these fi&e -./ 7unicipalities will affect the local elections in Sulu' There was no need for 7ore sa7pling of locals ballots in these 7unicipalities as they suffered fro7 the sa7e defects' All local ballots in ata with 7isaligned o&als will be erroneously read by the auto7ated 7achines' Si7ilarly, all local ballots in Talipao, Siasi, +ndanan, Tapal and 6olo with wrong se0uence codes are certain to be re=ected by the auto7ated 7achines' There is no showing in the records that the local ballots in these fi&e -./ 7unicipalities are dissi7ilar which could =ustify the call for their greater sa7pling' T)ird' These failures of auto7ated counting created post election tension in Sulu, a pro&ince with a history of &iolent elections' %(!")"% had to act desi&ely in &iew of the fast deteriorating peace and order situation caused by the delay in the counting of &otes' The e&idence of this fragile peace and order cannot be downgraded' +n his handwritten report to the %(!")"% dated !ay 12, 1224, Atty' Tolentino, 6r' stated8 999 999 999

Additional 7arines ha&e been deployed at the SS%' The undersigned is not sure if it is 7erely intended to ta7e a disorderly crowd inside and outside SS%, or a show of force' +t is sub7itted that since an error was disco&ered in a 7achine which is supposed to ha&e an error rate of 181,000,000, not a few people would belie&e that this error in ata would e9tend to the other 7unicipalities' Whether or not this is true, it would be 7ore prudent to stay away fro7 a lifeless thing that has shown tension and an9iety a7ong and between the &oters of Sulu' "9ecuti&e :irector Resurreccion M' $orra, TasB <orce Cead, AR!! in his !ay 13, 1224 !e7orandu7 to the %(!")"% liBewise stated8 999 999 999 While the forces of A< are ready to pro&ide ar7 -sic/ security to our %(!")"% officials, $"+Ds and other deputies, the political tensions and i77inent &iolence and bloodshed 7ay not be pre&ented, as per report recei&ed, the !#)< forces are readying their forces to surround the &enue for auto7ated counting and can&assing in Sulu in order that auto7ation process will continue' )ast but not the least, the 7ilitary and the police authorities unani7ously reco77ended 7anual counting to preser&e peace and order' $rig' 1en' "dgardo A' "spinosa, %o77anding 1eneral, !arine <orces Southern hilippines, $rig' 1en' erci&al !' Subala, %o77anding 1eneral, 3rd !arine $rigade, and Supt' %harle7agne S' Ale=andrino, ro&incial :irector, Sulu # %o77and e9plained that it;' ' ' will not only ser&e the interest of 7a=ority of the political parties in&ol&ed in the electoral process but also ser&e the interest of the 7ilitary and police forces in 7aintaining peace and order throughout the pro&ince of Sulu'; An auto7ated count of the local &otes in Sulu would ha&e resulted in a wrong count, a tra&esty of the so&ereignty of the electorate' +ts after7ath could ha&e been a bloodbath' %(!")"% a&oided this i77inent probality by ordering a 7anual count of the &otes' +t would be the height of irony if the %ourt conde7ns %(!")"% for aborting &iolence in the Sulu elections' =ourt)' We also find that petitioner )oong and inter&enor 6iBiri were not denied process' The Tolentino 7e7orandu7 clearly shows that they were gi&en e&ery opportunity to oppose the 7anual in count of the local ballots in Sulu' They were orally heard' They later sub7itted written position papers' Their representati&es escorted the transfer of the ballots and the auto7ated 7achines fro7 Sulu to !anila' Their watchers obser&ed the 7anual count fro7 beginning to end' We 0uote the Tolentino 7e7orandu7, viz8 999 999 999 (n or about 5800 a'7' of !ay 12, 1224, while auto7ated counting of all the ballots for the pro&ince of Sulu was being conducted at the counting center located at the Sulu State %ollege, the %(!")"% Sulu TasB <orce Cead -T< Cead/ proceeded to the roo7 where the counting 7achine assigned to the 7unicipality of ata was installed to &erify the cause of the co77otion therein' :uring the inter&iew conducted by the T< Cead, the 7e7bers of the $oard of "lection +nspectors -$"+/ and watchers present in said roo7 stated that the counting 7achine assigned to the 7unicipality of ata did not reflect the true results of the &oting thereat' The 7e7bers of the $"+ co7plained that their &otes were not reflected in the printout of the election returns since per election returns of their precincts, the candidate they &oted for obtained ;?ero;' After &erifying the printout of so7e election returns as against the official ballots, the T< Cead disco&ered that &otes cast in fa&or of a 7ayoralty candidate were credited in fa&or of his opponent' +n his atte7pt to re7edy the situation, the T< Cead suspended the counting of all ballots for said 7unicipality to enable %(!")"% field technicians to deter7ine the cause of the technical error, rectify the sa7e, and thereafter proceed with auto7ated counting' +n the 7eanti7e, the counting of the ballots for the other 7unicipalities proceeded under the auto7ated syste7' Technical e9perts of the supplier based in !anila were infor7ed of the proble7 and after nu7erous consultations through long distance calls, the technical e9perts concluded that the cause of the error was in the 7anner the ballots for local positions were printed by the #ational rinting (ffice -# (/, na7ely, that the o&als opposite the na7es of the candidates were not properly aligned' As regards the ballots for national positions, no error was found' Since the proble7 was not 7achine,related, it was ob&ious that the use of counting 7achines fro7 other 7unicipalities to count the ballots of the 7unicipality of ata would still result in the sa7e erroneous count' Thus, it was found necessary to deter7ine the e9tent of the error in the ballot printing process before proceeding with the auto7ated counting' To a&oid a situation where proceeding with auto7ation will result in an erroneous count, the T< Cead, on or about 1183. a'7' ordered the suspension of the counting of all ballots in the pro&ince to

enable hi7 to call a 7eeting with the heads of the political parties which fielded candidates in the pro&ince, infor7 the7 of the technical error, and find solutions to the proble7' (n or about 12830 p'7', the T< Cead presided o&er a conference at %a7p 1eneral $autista -3rd !arine $rigade/ to discuss the process by which the will of the electorate could be deter7ined' resent during the 7eeting were8 1' $rig' 1en' "dgardo "spino?a !arine <orces, Southern hilippines' 2' $rig' 1en' erci&al Subala 3rd !arine $rigade 3' ro&incial :ir' %harle7agne Ale=andrino Sulu # %o77and 3' 1ubernatorial %andidate Tupay )oong )ANAS,#*%: )oong Wing .' 1ubernatorial %andidate AbdusaBur Tan )ANAS,#*%: Tan Wing 5' 1ubernatorial %andidate Lusop 6iBiri )ANAS,#*%: Tan Wing 7' 1ubernatorial %andidate Ni7ar Tulawie )A!! 4' %ongressional %andidate $ensaudi Tulawie )A!! :uring said 7eeting, all of the abo&e parties &erbally ad&anced their respecti&e positions' Those in fa&or of a 7anual count were8 1' $rig' 1en' "dgardo "spino?a 2' $rig' 1en' erci&al Subala 3' ro&incial :ir' %harle7agne Ale=andrino 3' 1ubernatorial %andidate AbdusaBur Tan .' 1ubernatorial %andidate Ni7ar Tulawie 5' %ongressional %andidate $ensaudi Tulawie and those in fa&or of an auto7ated count were8 1' 1ubernatorial %andidate Tupay )oong 2' 1ubernatorial %andidate Lusop 6iBiri Said parties were then re0uested by the T< Cead to sub7it their respecti&e position papers so that the sa7e 7ap be forwarded to the %o77ission en *anc, together with the reco77endations of the T< Cead'

The T< Cead returned to the counting center at the Sulu State %ollege and called his technical staff to deter7ine the e9tent of the technical error and to enable hi7 to sub7it the appropriate reco77endation to the %o77ission en *anc' *pon consultation with the technical staff, it was disco&ered that in the !unicipality of Talipao, so7e of the local ballots were re=ected by the 7achine' Aerification showed that while the ballots were genuine, ballot paper bearing a wrong ;se0uence code; was used by the # ( during the printing process' $riefly, the following is the 7anner by which a ;se0uence code; deter7ined genuineness of a ballot' A 7unicipality is assigned a specific -e9cept for 6olo, which assigned two -2/ 7achines, and sharing of one -1/ 7achine by two -2/ 7unicipalities, na7ely, C' ' Tahil and !ai7bung, Apanda7i and N' %aluang, ata and TongBil and ana7ao and )ugus/' A 7achine is then assigned a specific ;se0uence code; as one of the security features to detect whether the ballots passing through it are genuine' Since a counting 7achine is progra77ed to read the specific ;se0uence code; assigned to it, ballots which bear a ;se0uence code; assigned to another 7achineJ7unicipality, e&en if said ballots were genuine will be re=ected by the 7achine' (ther 7unicipalities, such as Siasi, +ndanan, Tapul and 6olo also had the sa7e proble7 of re=ected ballots' Cowe&er, since the operators were not aware that one of the reasons for re=ection of ballots is the use of wrong ;se0uence code;, they failed to deter7ine whether the cause for re=ection of ballots for said 7unicipalities was the sa7e as that for the 7unicipality of Talipao' +n the case of ;7isaligned o&als;, the counting 7achine will not re=ect the ballot because all the security features, such as ;se0uence code;, are present in the ballot, howe&er, since the o&al is 7isaligned or not placed in its proper position, the 7achine will credit the shaded o&al for the position where the 7achine is progra77ed to ;read; the o&al' Thus, instead of re=ecting the ballot, the 7achine will credit the &otes of a candidate in fa&or of his opponent, or in the ad=acent space where the o&al should be properly placed' +t could not be deter7ined if the other 7unicipalities also had the sa7e technical error in their official ballots since the ;7isaligned o&als; were disco&ered only after 7e7bers of the $oard of "lection +nspectors of the !unicipality of ata co7plained that their &otes were not reflected in the printout of the election results' As the e9tent or co&erage of the technical errors could not be deter7ined, the T< Cead, upon consultation with his technical staff, was of the belief that it would be 7ore prudent to count the ballots 7anually than to proceed with an auto7ated syste7 which will result in an erroneous count' The T< Cead thus ordered the indefinite suspension of counting of ballots until such ti7e as the %o77ission shall ha&e resol&ed the petitionJposition papers to be sub7itted by the parties' The T< Cead and his staff returned to %a7p 1eneral $autista to await the sub7ission of the position papers of the parties concerned' *pon receipt of the position papers of the parties, the T< Cead fa9ed the sa7e in the e&ening of !ay 12, 1224, together with his handwritten reco77endation to proceed with a 7anual count' Attached are copies of the reco77endations of the T< Cead -Anne9 ;1;/, and the position papers of the hilippine !arines and hilippine #ational olice -Anne9 ;2;/, )ANAS,#*%: Tan Wing Anne9 -Anne9 ;3;/, )aBas,#*%: )oong Wing -Anne9 ;3;/, )ANAS,#*%:,!#)< Wing -Anne9 ;.;/ and )A!! -Anne9 ;5;/' Said reco77endations and position papers were the bases for the pro7ulgation of %(!")"% !inute Resolution #o' 24,17.0 dated !ay 13, 1224 -Anne9 ;7;/, directing, a7ong other things, that the ballots and counting 7achines be transported by %130 to !anila for both auto7ated and 7anual operations' !inute Resolution #o' 24,17.0 was recei&ed by the T< Cead through fa9 on or about .830 in the e&ening of !ay 13, 1224' %opies were then ser&ed through personal deli&ery to the heads of the political parties, with notice to the7 that another conference will be conducted at the 3rd !arine $rigade on !ay 13, 1224 at 2800 oDclocB in the 7orning, this ti7e, with )t' 1eneral 6oselin #a?areno, then A< %o77ander, Southern %o77and' Attached is a copy of said notice -Anne9 ;4;/ bearing the signatures of candidates Tan -Anne9 ;4,A;/ and )oong -Anne9 ;4,$;/ and the representati&es of candidates Tulawie -Anne9 ;4,%;/ and 6iBiri -Anne9 ;4,:;/' (n !ay 13, 1224, the T< Cead presided o&er said conference in the presence of the heads of the political parties of Sulu, together with their counsel, including )t' 1en' #a?areno, $rig' 1en' Subala, representati&es of the #A!<R"), 7edia and the public' After hearing the sides of all parties concerned, including that of #A!<R"), the procedure by which the ballots and counting 7achines were to be transported to !anila was finali?ed, with each political party authori?ed to send at least one -1/ escortJwatcher for e&ery 7unicipality to acco7pany the

ballot bo9es and counting 7achines fro7 the counting center at the Sulu State %ollege to the Sulu Airport to the +%%, where the %(!")"% was then conducting its Senatariol %an&ass' There being four parties, a total of se&enty,two -72/ escortsJwatchers acco7panied the ballots and counting 7achines' Two %130s left Sulu on !ay 1., 1224 to transport all the ballot bo9es and counting 7achines, acco7panied by all the authori?ed escorts' Said ballots bo9es reached the +%% on the sa7e day, with all escortsJwatchers allowed to station the7sel&es at the ballot bo9 storage area' (n !ay 17, 1224, another %130 left Sulu to ferry the 7e7bers of the board of can&assers' =ift)' The e&idence is clear that the integrity of the local ballots was safeguarded when they were transferred fro7 Sulu to !anila and when they were 7anually counted' A shown by the Tolentino 7e7orandu7, representati&es of the political parties escorted the transfer of ballots fro7 Sulu to +%%' +ndeed, in his !ay 13, 1222 letter to Atty' Tolentino, 6r', petitioner Tupay )oong hi7self sub7itted the na7es of his representati&e who would co7pany the ballot bo9es and other election paraphernalia, viz8 2@ :ear Atty' Tolentino8 Sub7itted herewith are the na7es of escort-s/ to acco7pany the ballot bo9es and other election pharaphernalia to be transported to %(!")"%, !anila, to wit8 1' 6olo E 6oseph )u 2' atiBul E <athie $' )oong 3' +ndanan E :i9on 6adi 3' Siasi E 6a7al +s7ael .' N' Naluang E "n=i7ar Aba7 5' ata E !ar&in Cassan 7' arang E Siyang )oong 4' angutaran E C=i' #asser )oong 2' !arunggas E Taib !angBabong 10' )uuB E 6un Arbison 11' anda7i E (rBan (s7an 12' TongBil E *s7an Sahidulla 13' Tapul E Alphawanis Tupay 13' )ugus E atta Alih 1.' !ai7bong E !iBe $angahan 15' ' "stino E Lasir +bba 17' ana7so E Ca7ba )oong 14' Talipao E +s7ael Sali Coping for your Bind and -sic/ consideration for appro&al on this 7atter' ThanB you' Aery truly yours, -Sgd'/ Tupay T' )oong

-sgd'/ Asani S' Ta77ang The ballot bo9es were consistently under the watchful eyes of the parties representati&es' They were placed in an open space at the +%%' The watchers stationed the7sel&es so7e fi&e -./ 7eters away for7 the ballot bo9es' They watched 23 hours a day and slept at the +%%' 21 The partiesD watchers again acco7panied the transfer of the ballot bo9es fro7 +%% to the public schools of asay %ity where the ballots were counted' After the counting, they once 7ore escorted the return of the ballot bo9es to +%%' 22 +n fine, petitionerDs charge that the ballots could ha&e been ta7pered with before the 7anual counting is totally unfounded' Si!t)' The e&idence also re&eals that the result of the 7anual count is reliable' +t bears stressing that the ballots used in the case at bar were specially 7ade to suit an auto7ated election' The ballots were unco7plicated' They had fairly large o&als opposite the na7es of candidates' A &oter needed only to checB the o&al opposite the na7e of his candidate' When the %(!")"% ordered a 7anual count of the &otes, it issued special rules as the counting in&ol&ed a different Bind of ballot, albeit, 7ore si7ple ballots' The (7nibus "lection %ode rules on appreciation of ballots cannot apply for they only apply to elections where the na7es of candidates are handwritten in the ballots' The rules were spelled out in !inute Resolution 24,1724, viz8 23 +n the 7atter of the !e7orandu7 dated 17 !ay 1224 of "9ecuti&e :irector Resurreccion M' $orra, reprocedure of the counting of &otes for Sulu for the con&ening of the $oard of "lection +nspectors, the !unicipal $oard of %an&assers and the ro&incial $oard on !ay 14, 1224 at 2800 a'7' at the hilippine +nternational %on&ention %enter - +%%/' R"S()A": to appro&e the following procedure for the counting of &otes for Sulu at the +%%8 +' %o77on ro&isions8 1' (pen the ballot bo9, retrie&e the !inutes of Aoting and the uncounted ballots or the en&elope containing the counted ballots as the case 7ay be@ 2' Segregate the national ballots fro7 the local ballots@ 3' %ount the nu7ber of pieces of both the national and local ballots and co7pare the sa7e with the nu7ber of &otes who actually &oted as stated in the !inutes of Aoting8 +f there is no !inutes of Aoting, refer to the Aoting Records at the bacB of the ARRs to deter7ine the nu7ber of &oters who actually &oted' +f there are 7ore ballots than the nu7ber of &oters who actually &oted, the poll clerB shall draw out as 7any local and national ballots as 7ay be e0ual to the e9cess and place the7 in the en&elope for e9cess ballots' ++' %ounting of Aotes A' #ational $allots8 1' +f the national ballots ha&e already been counted, return the sa7e inside the en&elope for counted ballots, reseal and place the en&elope inside the ballot bo9@ 2' +f the national ballots ha&e not yet been counted, place the7 inside an en&elope and gi&e the en&elope through a liaison officer to the 7achine operator concerned for counting and printing of the election returns@ 3' The 7achine operator shall affi9 his signature and thu7b7arB thereon, and return the sa7e to the 7e7bers of the $"+ concerned for their signatures and thu7b7arBs@

3' The said returns shall then be placed in corresponding en&elopes for distribution@ $' )ocal $allots8 1' 1roup the local ballots in piles of fifty -.0/@ 2' The %hair7an shall read the &otes while the poll clerB and the third 7e7ber shall si7ultaneously acco7plish the election returns and the tally board respecti&ely' +f the &oters shaded 7ore o&als than the nu7ber of positions to be &oted for, no &ote shall be counted in fa&or of any candidate' 3' After all the local ballots shall ha&e been 7anually counted, the sa7e shall be gi&en to the 7achine operator concerned for counting by the scanning 7achine' The 7achine operator shall then sa&e the results in a disBette and print out the election returns for %(!")"% reference' 3' The $"+ shall acco7plish the certification portion of the election returns and announce the results@ .' lace the election returns in their respecti&e en&elopes and distribute the7 accordingly@ 5' Return all pertinent election docu7ents and paraphernalia inside the ballot bo9' +++' %onsolidation of Results A' #ational $allots 1' The results of the counting for the national ballots for each 7unicipality shall be consolidated by using the "Rs of the auto7ated election syste7@ 2' After the consolidation, the !achine (perator shall print the certificate of can&ass by 7unicipality and state7ent of &otes by precinct@ 3' To consolidate the pro&incial results, the !( shall load all the disBettes used in the scanner to the "Rs@ 3' The !( shall print the pro&incial certificate of can&ass and the S(A by 7unicipality@ .' +n case there is syste7 failure in the counting andJor consolidation of the results, the ($%J!($% shall re&ert to 7anual consolidation' $' )ocal $allots 1' The consolidation of &otes shall be done 7anually by the ro&incialJ!unicipal $oard of %an&assers@ 2' The procla7ation of winning candidates shall be based 7anual consolidation' R"S()A":, 7oreo&er that the pertinent pro&isions of %(!")"% Resolution #os' 2271 and 3030 shall apply' )et the "9ecuti&e :irector i7ple7ent this resolution' As aforestated, fi&e -./ Special $oards were initially created under Atty' Tolentino, 6r' to undertaBe the 7anual counting, 24 viz8 a/ Atty' !a7asapunod !' Agua7

!s' 11oria <ernande? !s' "speran?a #icolas b/ :irector "ster )' Aillaflor,Ro9as !s' %elia Ro7ero !s' Rebecca !acaraya c/ Atty' Menaida S' Soriano !s' 6ocelyn 1uiang !a' 6ocelyn Tan d/ Atty' "rlinda %' "cha&ia !s' Teresa A' Torralba !s' !a' %ar7en )la7as e/ :irector "strella ' de !esa !s' Teresita Aelasco !s' #elly 6aena )ater, the %(!")"% utili?ed the ser&ices of 500 public school teachers fro7 asay %ity to do the 7anual counting' <i&e -./ ele7entary schools ser&ed as the &enues of the counting, viz8 2) 1' 1ota7co "le7entary School, 1ota7co Street, asay %ity E for the 7unicipalities of +ndanan, angutaran, angli7a Tahil, !ai7bung@ 2' Ma7ora "le7entary School, Ma7ora Street, asay %ity E for the 7unicipalities of 6olo, Talipao, angli7a "stino, and Tapul@ 3' "pifanio "le7entary School, Tra7o Street, asay %ity E for the 7unicipalities of arang, )ugus, ana7ao@ 3' $urgos "le7entary School, $urgos Street, asay %ity E for the 7unicipalities of )uuB and TongBil@ .' al7a "le7entary School E for the 7unicipalities of Siasi and Nalingalang %aluang' <ro7 beginning to end, the 7anual counting was done with the watchers of the parties concerned in attendance' Thereafter, the certificates of can&ass were prepared and signed by the %ityJ!unicipal $oard of %an&assers co7posed of the %hair7an, Aice,%hair7an, and Secretary' They were also signed by the partiesD watchers' 26 The correctness of the 7anual count cannot therefore be doubted' There was no need for an e9pert to count the &otes' The naBed eye could see the checB7arBs opposite the big o&als' +ndeed, nobody co7plained that the &otes could not be read and counted' The %(!")"% representati&es had no difficulty counting the &otes' The 500 public school teachers of asay %ity had no difficulty' The watchers of the parties had no difficulty' etitioner did not ob=ect to the rules on 7anual count on the ground that the ballots cannot be 7anually counted' +ndeed, in his original etition, petitioner did not co7plain that the local ballots could not be counted by a lay7an' #either did the inter&enor co7plain in his petition for inter&ention' The allegation that it will taBe a trained eye to read the ballots is 7ore i7agined than real' This is not all' As pri&ate respondent Tan alleged, the 7anual count could not ha&e been 7anipulated in his fa&or because the results shows that 7ost of his political opponents won' Thus, ;the official results show that the two congressional seats in Sulu were won by %ongress7an Cussin A7in of the )ANAS,!#)< Wing for the 1st :istrict and %ongress7an Asani Ta77ang of the )ANAS,)oong Wing for the 2nd :istrict' +n the pro&incial le&el, of the eight -4/ seats for the Sangguniang anlalawigan, two -2/ were won by the ca7p of respondent Tan@ three -3/ by the ca7p of petitioner )oong@ two -2/ by the !#)<@ and one -1/ by )A!! ' +n the 7ayoral race, se&en -7/ out of eighteen -14/ &ictorious 7unicipal 7ayors were identified with respondent Tan@ four -3/ with petitioner )oong@ three

-3/ with the !#)<@ two -2/ with )A!! and one -1/ with R" (R!A' 27 There is logic to pri&ate respondent TanDs contention that if the 7anual count was ta7pered, his candidates would not ha&e 7iserably lost'
1wphi1.nt

Sevent)' We further hold that petitioner cannot insist on auto7ated counting under R'A' #o' 4335 after the 7achines 7isread or re=ected the local ballots in fi&e -./ 7unicipalities in Sulu' Section 2 of R'A' #o' 4335 pro&ides8 Sec' 2' Syste7s $reaBdown in the %ounting %enter' E +n the e&ent of a syste7s breaBdown of all assigned 7achines in the counting center, the %o77ission shall use any a&ailable 7achine or any co7ponent thereof fro7 another cityJ7unicipality upon appro&al of the %o77ission &n %anc or any of its di&isions' The transfer of such 7achines or any co7ponent thereof shall be undertaBen in the presence of representati&es of political parties and citi?ensD ar7 of the %o77ission who shall be notified by the election officer of such transfer' There is a syste7s breaBdown in the counting center when the 7achine fails to read the ballots or fails to storeJsa&e results or fails to print the results after it has read the ballots@ or when the co7puter fails to consolidate election resultsJreports or fails to print election results,reports after consolidation' As the facts show, it was inutile for the %(!")"% to use other 7achines to count the local &otes in Sulu' The errors in counting were due to the 7isprinting of o&als and the use of wrong se0uence codes in the local ballots' The errors were not 7achine,related' #eedless to state, to grant petitionerDs prayer to continue the 7achine count of the local ballots will certainly result in an erroneous count and sub&ert the will of the electorate' &ig)t)' +n enacting R'A' #o' 4335, %ongress ob&iously failed to pro&ide a re7edy where the error in counting is not 7achine,related for hu7an foresight is not all,seeing' We hold, howe&er, that the &acuu7 in the law cannot pre&ent the %(!")"% fro7 le&itating abo&e the proble7' Section 2-1/ of Article +K-%/ of the %onstitution gi&es the %(!")"% the broad power ;to enforce and ad7inister all laws and regulations relati&e to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiati&e, referendu7 and recall'; *ndoubtedly, the te9t and intent of this pro&ision is to gi&e %(!")"% all the necessary and incidental powers for it to achie&e the ob=ecti&e of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections' %ongruent to this intent, this %ourt has not been niggardly in defining the para7eters of powers of %(!")"% in the conduct of our elections' Thus, we held in Sumulong v. + M&L&+8 2? olitics is a practical 7atter, and political 0uestions 7ust be dealt with realistically E not fro7 the standpoint of pure theory' The %o77ission on "lections, because of its fact,finding facilities, its contacts with political strategists, and its Bnowledge deri&ed fro7 actual e9perience in dealing with political contro&ersies, is in a peculiarly ad&antageous position to decide co7ple9 political 0uestions ' ' '' There are no ready 7ade for7ulas for sol&ing public proble7s' Ti7e and e9perience are necessary to e&ol&e patterns that will ser&e the ends of good go&ern7ent' +n the 7atter of the ad7inistration of laws relati&e to the conduct of election, ' ' ' we 7ust not by any e9cessi&e ?eal taBe away fro7 the %o77ission on "lections the initiati&e which by constitutional and legal 7andates properly belongs to it' +n the case at bar, the %(!")"% order for a 7anual count was not reasonable' +t was the only way to count the decisi&e local &otes in the si9 -5/ 7unicipalities of ata, Talipao, Siasi, Tudanan, Tapul and 6olo' The botto7 line is that by 7eans of the 7anual count, the will of the &oters of Sulu was honestly deter7ined' We cannot BicB away the will of the people by gi&ing a literal interpretation to R'A' 4335' R'A' 4335 did not prohibit 7anual counting when 7achine count does not worB' %ounting is part and parcel of the conduct of an election which is under the control and super&ision of the %(!")"%' +t ought to be self,e&ident that the %onstitution did not en&ision a %(!")"% that cannot count the result of an election' 'int)' (ur elections are not conducted under laboratory conditions' +n running for public offices, candidates do not follow the rules of "7ily ost' Too often, %(!")"% has to 7aBe snap =udg7ents to 7eet unforeseen circu7stances that threaten to sub&ert the will of our &oters' +n the process, the actions of %(!")"% 7ay not be i7peccable, indeed, 7ay e&en be debatable' We cannot, howe&er, engage in a swi&el chair criticis7 of these actions often taBen under &ery difficult circu7stances' "&en 7ore, we cannot order a special election unless de7anded by e9ceptional circu7stances' Thus, the plea for this %ourt to call a special election for the go&ernorship of Sulu is co7pletely off,line' The plea can only be grounded on failure of election' Section 5 of the (7nibus "lection %ode tells us when there is a failure of election, viz8 Sec' 5' <ailure of election' E +f, on account of force ma6eure, terroris7, fraud, or other analogous causes, the election in any polling place has not been held on the date fi9ed, or had been suspended before the hour fi9ed by law for the closing of the &oting, or after the &oting and during the preparation and the trans7ission of the election returns or in the custody or can&ass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect, and in any of such cases the failure or suspension of election would affect the result of the election, the %o77ission shall on the basis of a &erified petition by any interested party and after due notice and hearing, call for the holding or continuation

of the election, not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty days after the cessation of the cause of such postpone7ent or suspension of the election or failure to elect' To begin with, the plea for a special election 7ust be addressed to the %(!")"% and not to this %ourt' Section 5 of the (7nibus "lection %ode should be read in relation to Section 3 of R'A' #o' 7155 which pro&ides8 Sec' 3' ostpone7ent, <ailure of "lection and Special "lections' E The postpone7ent, declaration of failure of elections and the calling of special elections as pro&ided in Sections ., 5, and 7 of the (7nibus "lection %ode shall be decided by the %o77ission en *anc by a 7a=ority &ote of its 7e7bers' The causes for the declaration of a failure of election 7ay occur before or after casting of &otes or on the day of the election' The grounds for failure of election E force ma6eure, terroris7, fraud or other analogous causes E clearly in&ol&e 0uestions of fact' +t is for this reason that they can only be deter7ined by the %(!")"% en *ancafter due notice and hearing to the parties' +n the case at bar, petitioner ne&er asBed the %(!")"% en *anc to call for a special election in Sulu' "&en his original petition with this %ourt, petitioner did not pray for a special election' Cis plea for a special election is a 7ere afterthought' Too late in the day and too unprocedural' Worse, the grounds for failure of election are ine9istent' The records show that the &oters of Sulu were able to cast their &otes freely and fairly' Their &otes were counted correctly, albeit 7anually' The people ha&e spoBen' Their so&ereign will has to be obeyed' There is another reason why a special election cannot be ordered by this %ourt' To hold a special election only for the position of 1o&ernor will be discri7inatory and will &iolate the right of pri&ate respondent to e0ual protection of the law' The records show that all elected officials in Sulu ha&e been proclai7ed and are now discharging their powers and duties' Thus, two -2/ congress7en, a &ice,go&ernor, eight -4/ 7e7bers of the Sangguniang anlalawigan and eighteen -14/ 7ayors, nu7erous &ice,7ayors and 7unicipal councilors are now ser&ing in their official capacities' These officials were proclai7ed on the basis of the sa7e 7anually counted &otes of Sulu' +f 7anual counting is illegal, their assu7ption of office cannot also be countenanced' ri&ate respondentDs election cannot be singled out as in&alid for aliBes cannot be treated unaliBes' A final ,ord' (ur decision 7erely reinforces our collecti&e efforts to endow %(!")"% with enough power to hold free, honest, orderly and credible elections' A 0uicB flashbacB of its history is necessary lest our efforts be lost in the labyrinth of ti7e' The %(!")"% was organi?ed under %o77onwealth Act #o' 507 enacted on August 22, 1230' The power to enforce our election laws was originally &ested in the resident and e9ercised through the :epart7ent of +nterior' According to :ean Sinco, 29 the &iew ulti7ately that an independent body could better protect the right of suffrage of our people' Cence, the enforce7ent of our election laws, while an e9ecuti&e power, was transferred to the %(!")"%' <ro7 a statutory creation, the %(!")"% was transfor7ed to a constitutional body by &irtue of the 1230 a7end7ents to the 123. %onstitution which tooB effect on :ece7ber 2, 1230' %(!")"% was generously granted the power to ;ha&e e9clusi&e charge of the enforce7ent and ad7inistration of all laws relati&e to the conduct of elections ' ' '' 3@ Then ca7e the 1273 %onstitution' +t further broadened the powers of %(!")"% by 7aBing it the sole =udge of all election contests relating to the election, returns and 0ualifications of 7e7bers of the national legislature and electi&e pro&incial and city officials' 31 +n fine, the %(!")"% was gi&en =udicial power aside fro7 its traditional ad7inistrati&e and e9ecuti&e functions' The 1247 %onstitution 0uicBened this trend of strengthening the %(!")"%' Today, %(!")"% enforces and ad7inisters all laws and regulations relati&e to the conduct of elections, plebiscites, initiati&es, referenda and recalls' "lection contests in&ol&ing regional, pro&incial and city electi&e officials are under its e9clusi&e original =urisdiction' All contests in&ol&ing electi&e 7unicipal and barangay officials are under its appellate =urisdiction' 32 (ur decisions ha&e been in cadence with the 7o&e7ent towards e7powering the %(!")"% in order that it can 7ore effecti&ely perfor7 its duty of safeguarding the sanctity of our elections' +n +auton vs. + M&L&+, 33 we laid down this liberal approach, viz8 999 999 999 The purpose of the Re&ised "lection %ode is to protect the integrity of elections and to suppress all e&ils that 7ay &iolate its purity and defeat the will of the &oters' The purity of the elections is one of the 7ost funda7ental re0uisites of popular go&ern7ent' The %o77ission on "lections, by constitutional 7andate, 7ust do e&erything in its power to secure a fair and honest can&ass of the &otes cast in the elections' +n the perfor7ance of its duties, the %o77ission 7ust be gi&en a considerable latitude in adopting 7eans and 7ethods that will insure the acco7plish7ent of the

great ob=ecti&e for which it was created E to pro7ote free, orderly, and honest elections' The choice of 7eans taBen by the %o77ission on "lections, unless they are clearly illegal or constitute gra&e abuse of discretion, should not be interfered with' +n $acis vs. + M&L&+, 34 we reiterated the guiding principle that ;clean elections control the appropriateness of the re7edy'; The dissent, for all its depth, is out of step with this 7o&e7ent' +t conde7ns %(!")"% for e9ercising its discretion to resort to 7anual count when this was its only &iable alternati&e' +t would set aside the results of the 7anual count e&en when the results are free fro7 fraud and irregularity' Worse, it would set aside the =udg7ent of the people electing the pri&ate respondent as 1o&ernor' *pholding the so&ereignty of the people is what de7ocracy is all about' When the so&ereignty of the people e9pressed thru the ballot is at staBe, it is not enough for this %ourt to 7aBe a state7ent but it should do e&erything ha&e that so&ereignty obeyed by all' Well done is always better than well said' +# A+"W WC"R"(<, the petition of Tupay )oong and the petition in inter&ention of Lusop 6iBiri are dis7issed, there being no showing that public respondent gra&ely abused its discretion in issuing !inute Resolution #os' 24,1734, 24,17.0, 24,1725 and 24,1724' (ur status 9uo order of 6une 23, 1224 is lifted' #o costs' S( (R:"R":' G.R. No. 14@917 Oc1o<4r 1@, 2@@3

MENEL"ETO A. OLAN%A, petitioner, &s' LEONAR%O G. (UGA#ONG, P "L"PP"NE MERC ANT MAR"NE ACA%EM#, M"C AEL %UMANGENG, PMMA (OAR% O$ "NVEST"GAT"ON, AL$RE%O JOSON, LAURO %EL ROSAR"O, AURORA (ORROMEO, EMMANUEL SANTOS, MARLO-E RE#ES, TOMAS ADU"NO, NORMEL"TA #ANE&A a*+ PE%RO %ULA#, respondents' :"%+S+(# CARP"O-MORALES, J.: The present petition for re&iew under Rule 3. of the Rules of %ourt assails the 6une 4, 1222 1 and #o&e7ber 12, 12222 orders of the Regional Trial %ourt -RT%/ of +ba, Ma7bales, $ranch 70, in Sp' %i&il Action #o' RT%,24,+, a petition3 for 9uo ,arranto, mandamus, and prohibition with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preli7inary in=unction and da7ages' The antecedents of the case are as follows8 (n !arch 17, 1224, twel&e officers and e7ployees of the hilippine !erchant !arine Acade7y - !!A/ including petitioner, then :ean of the %ollege of !arine "ngineering and for7er !!A %o7ple9 ro=ect (fficer, filed a &erified co7plaint with the (ffice of the (7buds7an against respondent )eonardo 1' $ugayong -$ugayong/, resident of the !!A, charging hi7 with &iolation of Section 3 -g/ of Republic Act #o' 3012, as a7ended, otherwise Bnown as the Anti,1raft and %orrupt ractices Act, for entering into a grossly disad&antageous contract with the hilippine #ational %onstruction %orporation - #%%/ on behalf of !!A' (n !arch 22, 1224, petitioner was inter&iewed li&e on :MRC by radio anchor7an <ernan "n&erga regarding the abo&e,said co7plaint, pro7pting respondent $ugayong to re0uire petitioner, by !e7orandu7 4 of !arch 2., 1224, to e9plain under oath within 72 hours why no disciplinary action should be taBen against hi7 for 7isusing classified infor7ation' +n the 7eanti7e, respondent edro S' :ulay, 6r' -:ulay/, chief security officer of the !!A, by a !arch 25, 1224 letter5 addressed to respondent $ugayong, stated that he heard the radio inter&iew of petitioner and that in discussing publicly without any clearance fro7 respondent $ugayong the !e7orandu7 of Agree7ent between !!A and #%%, petitioner &iolated the !!A <aculty CandbooB and other ci&il ser&ice rules' Respondent :ulay accordingly re0uested that a board of in&estigators be created to looB into the 7atter' $y special order6 of !arch 27, 1224, respondent $ugayong relie&ed petitioner as :ean of the %ollege of !arine "ngineering and designated hi7 as acting e9ecuti&e assistant in the 1raduate School rogra7 at a7antasan ng !aBati' The order at the sa7e ti7e directed petitioner to turn o&er all docu7ents, properties and records related to his duties as :ean to respondent "ngr' !ichael :u7angeng who was appointed by respondent $ugayong as Acting :ean' (n e&en date, petitioner returned respondent $ugayongUs !arch 2., 1224 !e7orandu7, arguing that it was not properly addressed to hi7, his 7iddle initial being incorrect' 7 Respondent $ugayong thus sent a !e7orandu78 of !arch 27, 1224 to petitioner si7ilar to that of !arch 2., 1224, this ti7e putting the correct 7iddle initial of petitioner'

Responding to respondent $ugayongUs !arch 27, 1224 !e7orandu7, petitioner argued that his radio inter&iew did not warrant disciplinary action as the co7plaint with the (ffice of the (7buds7an was a public docu7ent and in&ol&ed public interest and he was 7erely e9ercising his constitutionally guaranteed freedo7 of e9pression' 9 $y an April 1, 1224 !e7orandu7, respondent $ugayong found petitionerUs e9planation unsatisfactory and not under oath as re0uired by his !e7orandu7 of !arch 27, 1224' 10 Ce thus created a board,11 by Special (rder12of April 5, 1224, to in&estigate the allegations of respondent :ulay in his !arch 25, 1224 letter'
4a,p)i4.nTt

Sustaining the findings of the board, respondent $ugayong, by decision 13 of August 21, 1224, suspended petitioner for three 7onths for &iolation of the !!A <aculty CandbooB and the ci&il ser&ice rules' etitioner thereupon filed before the RT% of +ba, Ma7bales on (ctober 27, 1224 a petition against herein respondents for 9uo ,arranto, mandamus, and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preli7inary in=unction and da7ages, clai7ing that there was no &alid cause to depri&e hi7 of his position as :ean and that respondent :u7angeng was usurping his position' $ranch 70 of the RT% of +ba, Ma7bales, by (rder of 6une 4, 1222, dis7issed petitionerUs petition, on 7otion of respondents, in this wise, 0uoted &erbati7814 After considering both 7otions, the %ourt finds the grounds relied upon by the respondents, especially that the plaintiff has not e9hausted all ad7inistrati&e re7edies, the co7plaint not ha&ing alleged the fact of such e9haustion, the sa7e 7ay be dis7issed for lacB of cause of action' -*nderscoring supplied/ etitionerUs 7otion for reconsideration15 of the 6une 4, 1222 order of the trial court ha&ing been denied, the present petition was filed, petitioner assigning to the trial court the following errors8 16 +' TC" C(#(RA$)" TR+A) %(*RT %(!!+TT": 1RAA" A#: !A#+<"ST "RR(R +# :+S!+SS+#1 TC" "T+T+(# (# TC" 1R(*#: (< "T+T+(#"RUS A))"1": <A+)*R" T( "KCA*ST A)) C+S A:!+#+STRAT+A" R"!":+"S' ++' TC" C(#(RA$)" TR+A) %(*RT %(!!+TT": A AT"#T A#: 1R+"A(*S "RR(R WC"# +T :+S!+SS": TC" "T+T+(# :"S +T" TC" <+)+#1 $L (TC"R R"S (#:"#TS (< TC"+R R"S "%T+A" A#SW"RS' As a rule, this %ourt re&iews only the specific issues or errors raised by the parties' Cowe&er, e&en if not raised, an error in =urisdiction 7ay be taBen up'17 The !!A was created pursuant to Republic Act #o' 3540, ;A# A%T %(#A"RT+#1 TC" R"S"#T C+)+ +#" #A*T+%A) S%C(() +#T( TC" C+)+ +#" !"R%CA#T !AR+#" A%A:"!L, %(#<"RR+#1 TC" :"1R""S (< $A%C")(R (< S%+"#%" +# !AR+#" TRA#S (RTAT+(#, !A6(R +# #AA+1AT+(# A#: S"A!A#SC+ , A#: $A%C")(R (< S%+"#%" +# !AR+#" TRA#S (RTAT+(#, !A6(R +# ST"A! "#1+#" A#: ")"%TR+%A)
4a,p)i4.nTt

"#1+#""R+#1, R(A+:+#1 <(R A !"R%CA#T !AR+#" A%A:"!L $(AR:, :"<+#T#1 TC" $(AR:US R"S (#S+$+)+T+"S A#: :*T+"S, A#: <(R (TC"R *R (S"S; as a7ended' +t is a go&ern7ent institution,18hence, falling under the =urisdiction of the %i&il Ser&ice %o77ission8 19 The test to deter7ine whether a corporation is go&ern7ent,owned or controlled, or pri&ate in nature is si7ple' +s it created by its own charter for the e9ercise of a public function, or by incorporation under the general corporation lawH Those with special charters are go&ern7ent corporations sub=ect to its pro&isions, and its e7ployees are under the =urisdiction of the %i&il Ser&ice %o77ission, and are co7pulsory 7e7bers of the 1o&ern7ent Ser&ice +nsurance Syste7' -"7phasis and underscoring supplied/ :isciplinary cases and cases in&ol&ing ;personnel actions; affecting e7ployees in the ci&il ser&ice including ;appoint7ent through certification, pro7otion, transfer, reinstate7ent, ree7ploy7ent, detail, reassign7ent, de7otion and separation; are within the e9clusi&e =urisdiction of %i&il Ser&ice %o77ission 20 which is the sole arbiter of contro&ersies relating to the ci&il ser&ice' +n Corsiga v. Defensor,21 this %ourt held8 The %i&il Ser&ice %o77ission has =urisdiction o&er all e7ployees of 1o&ern7ent branches, subdi&isions, instru7entalities, and agencies, including go&ern7ent,owned or controlled corporations with original charters' As such, it is the sole arbiter of contro&ersies relating to the ci&il ser&ice' The #ational +rrigation Ad7inistration, created under residential :ecree #o' 1702, is a go&ern7ent,owned and controlled corporation with original charter' Thus, being an e7ployee of the #+A, pri&ate respondent is co&ered by the %i&il Ser&ice %o77ission' Section 13 Rule A++ of the Rules +7ple7enting $ooB A of "9ecuti&e (rder #o' 222 -the Ad7' %ode of 1247/ pro&ides how appeal can be taBen fro7 a decision of a depart7ent or agency head' +t states that such decision shall

be brought to the !erit Syste7 rotection $oard -now the %S% "n $anc per %S% Resolution #o' 23,2347 dated 6une 22, 1223/' +t is the intent of the %i&il Ser&ice )aw, in re0uiring the establish7ent of a grie&ance procedure in Rule K++, Section 5 of the sa7e rules, that decisions of lower le&el officials be appealed to the agency head, then to the %i&il Ser&ice %o77ission' :ecisions of the %i&il Ser&ice %o77ission, in turn, 7ay be ele&ated to the %ourt of Appeals' *nder this set up, the trial court does not ha&e =urisdiction o&er personnel actions and, thus,co77itted an error in taBing =urisdiction o&er %i&il %ase #o' 22352' The trial court should ha&e dis7issed the case on 7otion of petitioner and let pri&ate respondent 0uestion R!( #o' .2 before the #+A Ad7inistrator, and then the %i&il Ser&ice %o77ission' As held in !antala &s' Sal&ador, cases in&ol&ing personnel actions, reassign7ent included, affecting ci&il ser&ice e7ployees, are within the e9clusi&e =urisdiction of the %i&il Ser&ice %o77ission' -"7phasis supplied and citations o7itted/ +t was thus error for the trial court, which does not ha&e =urisdiction, to, in the first, place taBe cogni?ance of the petition of petitioner assailing his relief as :ean and his designation to another position' This lea&es it unnecessary to dwell on the issues herein raised by petitioner' WC"R"<(R", the petition is, upon the ground of lacB of =urisdiction of the trial court, hereby :"#+":' S( (R:"R":' G.R. No. L-314)) $4<r5ar2 2?, 19?)

$"L"P"NAS ENG"NEER"NG AN% MAC "NE S OP, petitioner, 6/' ON. JA"ME N. $ERRER, L"NO PATAJO a*+ CESAR M"RA$LOR a/ Co::.//.o*4r/ o8 1h4 Co::.//.o* o* E94c1.o*/7 COMELEC ("%%"NG COMM"TTEE C A"RMAN EM"L"O AGU"LA a*+ MEM(ERS PAC"ENC"O (ALLON, ALEJAN%RO MACARANAS, TOMAS MALLONGA a*+ ERNESTO LOM(OS7 ON. JU%GE JOSE LEUTER"O o8 1h4 Co5r1 o8 $.r/1 "*/1a*c4 o8 Ma*.9a, (ra*ch 11 a*+ ACME STEEL MANU$ACTUR"NG COMPAN#, respondents'

CUEVAS, J.:

Appeal by certiorari fro7 the (rder dated #o&e7ber 1., 1252 issued by the respondent 6udge of the then %ourt of <irst +nsta of !anila, $ranch ++, :+S!+SS+#1 %i&il %ase #o' 77272 entitled, ; $.9.0.*a/ E*G.*44r.*G andMach.*4 Sho0 6/' %(!")"% al';, and his ConorDs subse0uent (rder of :ece7ber 20, 1252 :"#L+#1 petitionerDs 7otion for reconsideration'

+n preparation for the national elections of #o&e7ber 11, 1252, then respondent %o77issioners of the %o77ission on "lecti -%(!")"%/ issued an +#A+TAT+(# T( $+: %A)) #o' 127 on Septe7ber 15, 1252 calling for the sub7ission of sealed proposals for the 7anufacture and deli&ery of 1 1,000 units of &oting booths with the following specifications and descriptions wit8

11,000 *nits A(T+#1 $((TCS, easy to install and store' !ust be of light but strong and durable 7aterials, rust proof or rust resistant and construction 7ust be sturdy' "ach *nit shall consists of two &oting booths with o&erall 7easure7ents of 1.0 c7s' long 9 7. c7s' wide 9 14. c7s' high' -"ach &ot booth or co7part7ent 7easuring 7. c7s' long 9 7. c7s' wide 9 14. c7s' high/' The top and all sides e9cept the front side, shall be fully co&ered' The front side of the unit shall be without co&er to ser&e a opening -entrance/' "ach &oting co7part7ent shall be pro&ided with a writing table' "ach unit shall be contained in indi&idual wooden bo9'
$idders are re0uired to sub7it finished sa7ple' 1

A7ong the se&enteen bidders who sub7itted proposals in response to the said +#A+TAT+(# were the herein petitioner, <ilipinos E*G.*44r.*G and Mach.*4 Sho0, -$.9.0.*a/ for short/ and the pri&ate respondent, Ac7e Steel !anufacturing %o7pany, -Ac7e for short/'
$.9.0.*a/D sealed proposal was as follows8 rices er *nit 124'00 123'00 Ac7eDs bid was rices er *nit $rief :escription $rief :escription Sa7ple 2 E sa7e in construction as sa7ple 1, e9cept that its siding and top co&er is 7ade of plywood -or lawanit if a&ailable/' 33'. Bilos in weight' acBed in wooden bo9' 2 Sa7e as sa7ple 2, e9cept that it is pacBed in corrogated carton bo9'

74'00

!ade of steel, channel type fra7es with steel sheet sidings, top co&er and table@ painted, .1 Bilos in weight' 3

(n (ctober 7, 1252, the respondent %(!")"% $idding %o77ittee %hair7an and !e7bers sub7itted their !e7orandu7 on the proceedings taBen pursuant to the said +n&itation to $id which stated that Ac7eDs bid had to be re=ected because the sa7ple it sub7itted was ;7ade of blacB iron sheets, painted, and therefore not rust proof or rust resistant,; and that, ;it is also hea&y E .1 Bilos in weight' 4 The %o77ittee instead reco77ended that $.9.0.*a/ be awarded the contract to 7anufacture and supply the &oting booths, but that an ;ocular inspection be 7ade by all 7e7bers of the %o77ission of all the sa7ples before the final award be 7ade'; ) (n (ctober 2, 1252, after an ocular inspection of all the sa7ples sub7itted was conducted by the %(!")"% %o77issioners, and after the %o77issioners noted that Ac7e sub7itted the lowest bid, the %(!")"% issued a Resolution awarding the contract -for &oting booths/ to Ac7e, sub=ect to the condition, a7ong others, that ;-Ac7e/ i7pro&es the sa7ple sub7itted in such 7anner as it would be rust proof or rust resistant' ''' '; 6 (n (ctober 11, 1252, the %(!")"% issued urchase (rder #o' 542 for the 7anufacture and supply of the 11,000 *nits of &oting booths in fa&or of Ac7e' Ac7e accepted the ter7s of the purchase' (n (ctober 15, 1252, $.9.0.*a/ filed an +n=unction suit with the then %ourt of <irst +nstance of !anila, docBeted as %i&il %ase #o' 77272, against herein public respondents %(!")"% %o77issioners, chair7an and 7e7bers of the %o7elec $idding %o77ittee, and pri&ate respondent Ac7e' $.9.0.*a/ also applied for a writ of preli7inary in=unction' After hearing petitionerDs said application, the respondent 6udge in an order dated (ctober 20, 1252 denied the writ prayed for' 7 Thereafter or 7ore specifically on (ctober 22, 1252, the public respondents filed a 7otion to :is7iss on the grounds that the lower court has no =urisdiction o&er the nature of suit, and that the co7plaint states no cause of action' ? Acting on the 7otion -to dis7iss/, the respondent 6udge issued the 0uestioned (rder dis7issing %i&il %ase #o' 77272' $.9.0.*a/D 7otion for reconsideration was denied for lacB of 7erit' Cence, the instant appeal' +n the 7eanti7e, since no restraining order had been issued against the holding of the national elections scheduled on #o&e7ber 11, 1252, Ac7e co7plied with its contract with the %(!")"%' (n this score alone, this petition should be dis7issed for being 7oot and acade7ic' %onsidering howe&er the nature and i7portance of the legal 0uestions raised, We ha&e opted to discuss and resol&e the sa7e with finality' Two 7ain issues are raised before *s, na7ely8 1' Whether or not the lower court has =urisdiction to taBe cogni?ance of a suit in&ol&ing an order of the %(!")"% dealing with an award of contract arising fro7 its in&itation to bid@ and 2' Whether or not $.9.0.*a/, the losing bidder, has a cause of action under the pre7ises against the %(!")"% and Ac7e, the winning bidder, to en=oin the7 fro7 co7plying with their contract' We resol&e the first issue in the affir7ati&e' $y constitutional 7andate, The %o77ission on "lections shall ha&e e9clusi&e charge of the enforce7ent and ad7inistration of all laws relati&e to the conduct of elections and shall e9ercise all other functions which 7ay be conferred upon it by law' +t shall decide, sa&e those in&ol&ing the right to &ote, all ad7inistrati&e 0uestions affecting elections, including the deter7ination of the nu7ber of location of olling places, and the appoint7ent of election inspectors and of other election officials' ''' The decisions, orders and rulings of the %o77ission shall be sub=ect to re&iew by the Supre7e %ourt' -Section 2, Article K, 123. hilippine %onstitution, which was then in force/ Section . of the Re&ised "lection %ode -Republic Act #o' 140, appro&ed 6une 21, 1237, the election law then enforced/ pro&ided that, ;-a/ any contro&ersy sub7itted to the %o77ission on "lections shall be tried, heard and decided by it within fifteen days counted fro7 the ti7e the corresponding petition gi&ing rise to said contro&ersy is filed,; and that, ;any &iolation of any final and e9ecutory decision, order, or ruling of the %o77ission shall; constitute conte7pt of court )iBewise, the sa7e section pro&ided that, ;any decision, order or ruling of the %o77ission on

"lections 7ay be re&iewed by the Supre7e %ourt by writ of certiorari in accordance with the Rules of %ourt or with such rules as 7ay be pro7ulgated by the Supre7e %ourt' Si7ilarly, Section 17-./ of the 6udiciary Act of 1234 -Republic Act #o' 225/, as a7ended, pro&ides that, ;final awards, =udg7ents, decisions or orders of the %o77ission on "lections '''; fall within the e9clusi&e =urisdiction of the Supre7e %ourt by way of certiorari' Section 1, Rule 33 of the 1253 Re&ised Rules of %ourt prescribed the 7anner of appeal by certiorari to the Supre7e %ourt fro7 a final ruling or decision of the %o77ission on "lections, a7ong other ad7inistrati&e bodies' Cence it has been consistently held 9 that it is the Supre7e %ourt, not the %ourt of <irst +nstance, which has e9clusi&e =urisdiction to re&iew on certiorari final decisions, orders or rulings of the %(!")"% relati&e to the conduct of elections and enforce7ent of election laws' We are howe&er, far fro7 con&ince that an order of the %(!")"% awarding a contract to a pri&ate party, as a result of its choice a7ong &arious proposals sub7itted in response to its in&itation to bid co7es within the pur&iew of a ;final order; which is e9clusi&ely and directly appealable to this court on certiorari' What is conte7plated by the ter7 ;final orders, rulings and decisions; of the %(!")"% re&iewable by certiorari by the Supre7e %ourt as pro&ided by law are those rendered in actions or proceedings before the %(!")"% and taBen cogni?ance of by the said body in the e9ercise of its ad=udicatory or 0uasi,=udicial powers' +t cannot be gainsaid that the powers &ested by the %onstitution and the law on the %o77ission on "lections 7ay either be classified as those pertaining to its ad=udicatory or 0uasi,=udicial functions, or those which are inherently ad7inistrati&e and so7eti7es 7inisterial in character' Thus in the case of Masangca" vs. +ommission on &lections, 1'R' #o' ),13427, Septe7ber 24, 1252 -5 S%RA 27, 2422/, We held that E ''' -W/e had the occasion to stress in the case of Guevarra vs. +ommission on &lections -1'R' #o' ),12.25, 6uly 31, 12.4/ that under the law and the constitution, the %o77ission on "lections has not only the duty to enforce and ad7inister all laws relati&e to the conduct of elections, but also the power to try, hear and decide any contro&ersy that 7ay be sub7itted to it in connection with the elections' +n this sense, We said the %o77ission, although it cannot be classified as a court of =ustice within the 7eaning of the %onstitution -Sec' 30, Article A+++/, for it is 7erely an ad7inistrati&e body, 7ay, howe&er, e9ercise 0uasi,=udicial functions insofar as contro&ersies that by e9press pro&ision of law co7e under its =urisdiction' The difficulty lies in drawing the de7arcation line between the duty which inherently is ad7inistrati&e in character and a function which calls for the e9ercise of the 0uasi,=udicial function of the %o77ission' +n the sa7e case, we also e9pressed the &iew that when the %o77ission e9ercises a 7inisterial function it cannot e9ercise the power to punish for conte7pt because such power is inherently =udicial in nature' ''' ' We agree with petitionerDs contention that the order of the %o77ission granting the award to a bidder is not an order rendered in a legal contro&ersy before it wherein the parties filed their respecti&e pleadings and presented e&idence after which the 0uestioned order was issued@ and that this order of the co77ission was issued pursuant to its authority to enter into contracts in relation to election purposes' +n short, the %(!")"% resolution awarding the contract in fa&or of Ac7e was not issued pursuant to its 0uasi,=udicial functions but 7erely as an incident of its inherent ad7inistrati&e functions o&er the conduct of elections, and hence, the said resolution 7ay not be dee7ed as a ;final order; re&iewable by certiorari by the Supre7e %ourt' $eing non,=udicial in character, no conte7pt 7ay be i7posed by the %(!")"% fro7 said order, and no direct and e9clusi&e appeal by certiorari to this Tribunal lie fro7 such order' Any 0uestion arising fro7 said order 7ay be well taBen in an ordinary ci&il action before the trial courts' (n the second issue, We rule that $.9.0.*a/, the losing bidder, has no cause of action under the pre7ises to en=oin the %(!")"% fro7 pursuing its contract with Ac7e, the winning bidder' While it 7ay be true that the lower court has the =urisdiction o&er contro&ersies dealing with the %(!")"%Ds award of contracts, the sa7e being purely ad7inistrati&e and ci&il in nature, ne&ertheless, herein petitioner has no cause of action on the basis of the allegations of its co7plaint' +ndeed, while the law re0uires the e9ercise of sound discretion on the part of procure7ent authorities, 1@ and that the reser&ation to re=ect any or all bids 7ay not be used as a shield to a fraudulent award, 11petitioner has 7iserably failed to pro&e or substantiate the e9istence of 7alice or fraud on the part of the public respondents in the challenged award' The %(!")"%Ds +n&itation to $id #o' 127, dated Septe7ber 15, 1252, e9pressly stipulates E 4' A/AR( = + 'TRA+T

Sub=ect to the rights herein reser&ed, award shall be 7ade by the %o77ission by resolution to the lowest and responsible bidder whose (ffer will best ser&e the interest of the %o77ission on

"lections' The resolution of the %o77ission shag be co77unicated in writing to the winning bidder' The winning bidder or awardees shall enter into contract with the %o77ission on "lections for the supply of the &oting booths under the ter7s and conditions e7bodied in the +n&itation to $id' TA& + MM<SS< ' ' &L&+T< 'S R&S&RV&S TA& R<GAT T R&J&+T A'F R ALL %<(S> T /A<V& A'F <'= RMAT< ' TA&R&<'> R T A++&$T S@+A %<( AS MAF <' <TS (<S+R&T< ' %& + 'S<(&R&( M ST R&AS 'A%L& A'( A(VA'TAG& @S. The right is also reser&ed to re=ect bids which are defecti&e due to inade0uate preparation, o7ission or lacBs sufficient data, guarantee and other infor7ation re0uired to be sub7itted, or bids without the acco7panying bond' The right is further reser&ed to re=ect the bid of a bidder who had pre&iously failed to perfor7 properly or to deli&er on nine 7aterials co&ered by contract of si7ilar nature' 999 999 999
13' TA<S +ALL = R%<(S <S ' M R& TAA' A' <'V<TAT< ' T MA.& $R $ SALS A'( TA& + MM<SS< ' ' &L&+T< 'S <S ' T % @'( T A++&$T A'F %<(, ' R SAALL TA<S +ALL = R %<(S %F <TS&L= + '=&R A R<GAT T A'F %<((&R T A+T< ' = R (AMAG&S R @'R&AL<U&( R &:$&+T&( $R =<TS @'L&SS TA& %<( <S (@LF A++&$T&( %F TA&R& S L@T< ' = TA& + MM<SS< ' ' &L&+T< 'S' 12 -"7phasis supplied/

The ;$idders Tender %all #o' 127;, the for7 acco7plished by the bidder pursuant to +n&itation to $id #o' 127, also categorically pro&ide that the bidder sub7its his proposals ;sub=ect to the conditions stated in the in&itation'; 13 +t is crystal clear fro7 the afore0uoted conditions, that sub=ect to the rights of the %(!")"% duly reser&ed in the said +n&itation, award shall be 7ade to the lowest and responsible bidder whose offer will best ser&e the interest of the %(!")"%@ that the %(!")"% had reser&ed the right, a7ong others, to accept such bid, as 7ay in its discretion, be considered 7ost reasonable and ad&antageous@ and that the in&itation was 7erely a call for proposals' %onse0uently, the %(!")"% was not under legal obligation to accept any bid since ;Ad&ertise7ents for bidders are si7ply in&itation to 7aBe proposals and the ad&ertiser is not bound to accept the highest or lowest bidder, unless the contrary appears'; 14 ursuant to %(!")"%Ds +n&itation to $id #o' 127, a bidder 7ay ha&e the right to de7and da7ages, or unreali?ed or e9pected profits, only when his bid was accepted by resolution of the %(!")"%' $.9.0.*a/D bid, although reco77ended for award of contract by the bidding co77ittee, was not the winning bid' #o resolution to that effect appeared to ha&e been issued by the %(!")"%' :ecidedly then, $.9.0.*a/ has no cause of action' +n )eo0uinco 6/' ostal Sa&ings $anB, 37 hil' 772, 77377., this %ourt held8 ''' -A/ppellant set forth and ad7itted in his pleadings in the regulation adopted by the $oard of :irectors authori?ing the sale at public auction of the land, as well as the notice announcing the auction that appellant had e9pressly reser&ed to the7sel&es the right to re=ect any and all bids' $y taBing part in the auction and offering his bid, the appellant &oluntarily sub7itted to the ter7s and conditions of the auction sale announced in the notice, and clearly acBnowledged the right reser&ed to the appellees' The appellees, 7aBing use of that right, re=ected his offer' %learly the appellant has no ground of action to co7pel the7 to e9ecute a deed of sale of the land in his fa&or, nor to co7pel the7 to accept his bid or offer' ''' ' +n issuing the resolution awarding the contract for &oting booths in Ac7eDs fa&or, the %o77issioners of the %(!")"% had taBen into account that Ac7eDs bid was the lowest@ that Ac7e was a responsible 7anufacturer@ and that upon an ocular inspection of the sa7ples sub7itted by the bidders, Ac7eDs sa7ple was fa&orable chosen sub=ect to certain conditions cited in the resolution' +n fine, the public respondents properly e9ercised its sound discretion in 7aBing the award' (nce 7ore, We reiterate the dictu7 earlier laid down in the case of Jalandoni vs. 'ational Resettlement and Re)a*ilitation Administration, et al', 1'R' #o' ),1.124, !ay 30,1250 -104 hil, 345, 321,322/ that E #either can it be contended that the fact that appellant ga&e the lowest 0uotation, which was fa&orably indorsed by the %o77ittee on $ids, created a &ested right in fa&or of the said bidder' Ad7ittedly, the offers were re=ected by the $oard of :irectors' +t is clear therefore that there ha&ing no 7eeting of the 7inds of the parties, there was no perfected contract between the7 which could be the basis of action against the defendants,appellees' The presentation by a reliable and responsible bidder of the lowest bid to officials whose duty it is to let the contract to the lowest reliable and responsible bidder, but who ha&e the right and ha&e gi&en notice that they reser&e the right to re=ect any and an bids, does not constitute an agree7ent that they will 7aBe a contract with such a bidder, nor &est in hi7 such an absolute right to the contract as against a higher bidder -%olorado a&ing %o' 6/, !urphy, -%%A 4th/ 74 <' 24, 37 )RA 530/'

The 7ere deter7ination of a public official or board to accept the proposal of a bidder does not constitute a contract -S7ith7eyer 6/' *nited States, 137 *'S' 332, 37 ), ed' 125,13 S' %t' 321/@ the decision 7ust be co77unicated to the bidder -%edar Rapids )u7ber %o' 6/' <ischer, 122 +owa 332,10. #'W' .2.,3 )RA -#S/ 177/' #o contractual relation can arise 7erely fro7 a bid, unless by the ter7s of the statute and the ad&ertise7ent, a bid in pursuance thereof is, as a 7atter of law, an acceptance of an offer, wholly apart fro7 any action on the part of the 7unicipality or any of its officers -!olloy 6/' Rochelle, supra/' WC"R"<(R", finding the instant petition to be without 7erit aside fro7 being 7oot and acade7ic, the sa7e is hereby :+S!+SS":' #o pronounce7ent as to costs' S( (R:"R":' G.R. No. 13@214 A5G5/1 9, 1999

"SMAEL A. MAT A#, JR., petitioner, &s' C"V"L SERV"CE COMM"SS"ON, respondent' %AV"%E, JR., CJ.: etitioner +s7ael A' !athay, 6r' -hereafter !ATCAL/@ !ayor of Iue?on %ity, seeBs the nullification of the resolutions of the %i&il Ser&ice %o77ission -%S%/ recalling his appoint7ent of (legario S' Tabernilla -hereafter TA$"R#+))A/ as "lectrical "ngineer A in the city go&ern7ent@ and conse0uently, the re&ersal of the Resolutions of the %ourt of Appeals of -1/ 15 6uly 1227 denying due course and dis7issing the petition for certiorari docBeted as %A,G.R' #o' 33331, and -2/ 12 August 1227 denying the 7otion for reconsideration' The antecedent facts follow8 (n 25 #o&e7ber 1222, the Iue?on %ity %ouncil enacted %ity (rdinance #o' S ,33, S' 22, creating an "lectrical :i&ision under the "ngineering :epart7ent with thirty,si9 new plantilla positions to co7ple7ent the staffing re0uire7ents' (ne of those newly created positions was "lectrical "ngineer A, which re0uired a rofessional "lectrical "ngineer to fill it up and which beca7e the sub=ect of a heated co7petition by two licensed professional electrical engineers, TA$"R#+))A and 6ose +' "nri0ue? -hereafter "#R+I*"M/' The for7er was an "ngineer ++, and the latter was an "lectrical "ngineer +++ of the e9isting "lectrical :i&ision under the %ity <ire :epart7ent, which was pre&iously part of the Iue?on %ity 1o&ern7ent but which was later transferred to the $ureau of <ire rotection, Iue?on %ity <ire Station' %onfor7ably to the long e9isting city policy of pro&iding preferential consideration to Iue?on %ity residents in the filling up of positions in the city office, the ersonnel Selection $oard of the city go&ern7ent reco77ended the appoint7ent of TA$"R#+))A, who had in his fa&or the ad&antage of being a Iue?on %ity resident'
1wphi1.nt

(n 22 August 1223, !ATCAL e9tended to TA$"R#+))A a per7anent appoint7ent, which was appro&ed on 1. Septe7ber 1223 by the %S% Regional <ield (ffice Acting :irector ++, )igaya +' %aya' 1 TA$"R#+))A thereafter tooB his oath of office and assu7ed the duties of his new position' "#R+I*"M disputed the ;pro7otional; appoint7ent before the %S%, clai7ing it was issued in clear &iolation of %S% !% #o' 32, s' 1221, which prescribes a $achelorDs :egree in "ngineering as the educational re0uire7ent for the ser&ice,wide position of "ngineer A' TA$"R#+))A, a 7ere Associate "lectrical "ngineer and not a holder of a $achelorDs :egree, clearly failed to 7eet the 0ualifications of the position and, therefore, could not be &alidly appointed thereto' Re0uested to co77ent on the protest, !ATCAL 7aintained that TA$"R#+))ADs assu7ption of the position effecti&e 1 (ctober 1223 7ooted the protest, adding that his appointee 7et the 7ini7u7 re0uire7ents of the position as specified in the %ity (rdinance and e9isting hiring policies' +n its Resolution #o' 2.,1214 dated 10 6anuary 122.2 the %S% recalled and re&oBed the appoint7ent of TA$"R#+))A@ thus8 After a careful re&iew of the records, the %o77ission finds the appoint7ent issued to Tabernilla not in order' The re0uire7ents prescribed by the 0ualification standard for the position of "ngineer A are as follows8 ":*%AT+(#8 $achelorDs degree in "ngineering rele&ant to the =ob'

"K "R+"#%"8 3 years in positionJs in&ol&ing 7anage7ent and super&ision' The records clearly show that Tabernilla has not obtained any bachelorDs degree in engineering' This is e&en reflected in the e&aluation sheet for the position of "ngineer A, which was sub7itted by !ayor !athay' +t appears in said e&aluation sheet that Tabernilla is only a graduate of Associate in "lectrical "ngineering' Thus, he was not 0ualified for appoint7ent to the position of "lectrical "ngineer A' WC"R"<(R", the appro&al of the appoint7ent of (legario S' Tabernilla as "ngineer A dated August 22, 1223, is hereby recalled and re&oBed' )igaya %aya, Acting <ield (fficer is hereby directed to e9plain in writing within fi&e -./ days fro7 receipt hereof why she appro&ed TabernillaDs appoint7ent under per7anent status although he does not 7eet the 0ualification re0uire7ents' !ATCAL 7o&ed for the reconsideration3 of the said Resolution, alleging that the (rdinance which was the law that created the office une0ui&ocally specified a rofessional "lectrical "ngineer as its only re0uire7ent@ hence, the appointee needed only to co7ply therewith' While conceding that the appoint7ent in local go&ern7ent units are sub=ect to ci&il ser&ice laws, rules and regulations, !ATCAL a&erred that such truis7 cannot o&erride the right of the right of the appointing power to choose his appointee, considering that the power of appoint7ent is essentially discretionary'3 !ATCAL further argued that TA$"R#+))ADs title to the office beca7e co7plete with the confir7ation by the %S% Regional <ield (ffice of TA$"R#+))ADs appoint7ent and his subse0uent taBing of the of the oath of office and assu7ption of duties' TA$"R#+))A then ac0uired a legal right which could not be taBen away fro7 hi7 either by re&ocation of the appoint7ent or by re7o&al e9cept for cause and with pre&ious notice and hearing'. !ATCAL then inti7ated that TA$"R#+))A was not notified of the protest, nor was a hearing conducted thereon' !ATCAL thereafter filed a supple7ental 7otion 7anifesting that under Republic Act' #o' 143, 5 the education re0uire7ent for ad7ission to the "lectrical "ngineering $oard "9a7inations is only two years of resident collegiate engineering training' Since TA$"R#+))A co7pleted the two,year Associate in "lectrical "ngineering course and passed the board e9a7inations, he was 0ualified for the contested position' +n Resolution 2.,17337 dated 2 !arch 122., the %S% denied the 7otion for reconsideration' +t elucidated that under Sections 75, 77 and 74 of R'A' #o' 7150, otherwise Bnown as the )ocal 1o&ern7ent %ode of 1221, the %S% has the power to deter7ine the 0ualification standards for the &arious positions in the local go&ern7ent and re&iew whether the appoint7ents 7eet these standards' The 0ualification standards for new offices, which local go&ern7ents ha&e the authority to create, 7ust not be lower than those prescribed by the %S%' *nder e9isting ci&il ser&ice laws and rules, an appointee to "ngineer A 7ust possess a $achelorDs :egree in "ngineering' TA$"R#+))A certainly failed to 0ualify for the position' The fact that he 7et all the re0uire7ents for ad7ission to "lectrical "ngineering $oard "9a7ination as pro&ided for under R'A' #o' 143, and passed the said e9a7ination does not 7ean co7pliance with the prescribed 0ualification standards' (n 7 Septe7ber 122., TA$"R#+))A filed his own ;petition; praying for the re&iew of, and ;second hard looB; on, Resolutions #os' 2.,0214 and 2.,1733' (n 13 6une 1225, the %S% issued Resolution #o' 253772 4 denying the ;petition,; which it treated as a 7otion for reconsideration' +t ratiocinated that TA$"R#+))A had no legal personality to file such a pleading because under !% 34, s' 23, art +-3/, a ;FrGe0uest for reconsideration of action taBen by the %S% (ffice on appoint7ents shall always be 7ade by the appointing officer'; $esides, the allegations in the said ;petition; were not 7eritorious' (n 2. 6uly 1225, !ATCAL filed a ;petition; with the %S% praying for the ;re&iew and reconsideration; of the three ad&erse Resolutions thus far issued, and reiterating therein the argu7ents adduced in the first 7otion for reconsideration' The ;petition; obtained a si7ilar unpropitious fate with the %S%Ds denial of the sa7e per Resolution #o' 272.3.2dated 13 April 1227 on the grounds that -1/ the ;petition; was in the nature of a second 7otion for reconsideration, which was not allowed pursuant to Section 2 of the *nifor7 Rules of rocedures in the %onduct of Ad7inistrati&e +n&estigations, as ;only one 7otion for reconsideration FcouldG be entertained;@ and -2/ it was filed late' *ndaunted, !ATCAL filed before the %ourt of Appeals on 17 6une 1227 a petition for certiorari under Rule 5. of the Re&ised Rules of %ourt contending that the %S% acted without or in e9cess of =urisdiction, or with gra&e abuse of discretion a7ounting to lacB or e9cess of =urisdiction in issuing Resolution #os' 2.,0214, 2.,1733, 25,3772, and 27, 2.3.' The %ourt of Appeals, howe&er, dis7issed the petition in a Resolution 10 pro7ulgated on 15 6uly 1227 ;for being the wrong re7edy and for being ti7e,barred'; +t ruled that the petition for certiorari filed nineteen days after receipt of Resolution #o' 27,2.3. could not be a substitute for a lost appeal'

+n his 7otion for reconsideration, !ATCAL argued that ;what was brought to fore; in his petition for certiorari was an error of =urisdiction in that the %S% had no =urisdiction or authority to re&oBe or cancel an appro&ed and co7pleted appoint7ent to a ci&il ser&ice position' Cence, Rule 5. of the Rules of %ourt, not Supre7e %ourt Ad7inistrati&e %ircular #o' +,2., applied' *ni7pressed, the %ourt of Appeals denied the 7otion for reconsideration in a Resolution 11 pro7ulgated on 12 August 1227, ad&erting to the sa7e reasons relied upon in dis7issing the petition' <urther7ore, it held that !ATCAL was precluded fro7 raising the 0uestion of =urisdiction, since he failed to sub7it the sa7e as an issue in the proceedings before the %S%' !ATCAL now posits in this petition for re&iew on certiorari under Rule 3. of the 1227 Rules of %i&il rocedure that the %ourt of Appeals co77itted gross errors of law in holding that -1/ his petition for certiorari was not the proper re7edy and could not be a substitute for appeal@ -2/ said petition was ti7e,barred@ -3/ the %S% had =urisdiction to recall and re&oBe a co7pleted appoint7ent@ and -3/ petitioner did not raise the 0uestion of =urisdiction in the proceedings before the %S% such that he was guilty of laches and estoppel' The %S%, through the (ffice of the Solicitor 1eneral, re7ains steadfast in its &iew that it co77itted no error of =urisdiction, as it was 7erely enforcing its re&isory power o&er a subordinate when it re&ersed the erroneous deter7ination by the Regional <ield (ffice of TA$"R#+))ADs 0ualification' The %S% now proposes that the Iue?on %ity ordinance was an ultra vires act, considering that the sa7e prescribed a 0ualification standard lower than that set for the position, and, hence, fell short of the in=unction of Section 74 of R'A' #o' 7150 that all 7atters pertinent to hu7an resources and de&elop7ent in local go&ern7ent units should be go&erned by ci&il ser&ice laws' The instant petition 7ust fail' +t 7ust be recalled that in its Resolution of 2 !arch 122. the %S% denied petitionerDs 7otion for the reconsideration of its Resolution of 10 6anuary 122. re&oBing the appoint7ent of TA$"R#+))A' etitioner recei&ed a copy of the for7er Resolution on 3 April 122.' At the ti7e, =udg7ents or final orders of the %S% were unappealable' 12 +t was only on 1 6une 122. that Re&ised Ad7inistrati&e %ircular #o' 1,2. tooB effect' That %ircular pro&ides that =udg7ents or final orders of 0uasi,=udicial agencies, liBe the %S%, 7ay be appealed to the %ourt of Appeals within fifteen days fro7 notice thereof' Cence, before that date, =udg7ents or final orders of the %S% were sub=ect only to the certiorari =urisdiction of this %ourt'13 Section 7, Subdi&ision A, Article +K of the %onstitution pro&ides8 *nless otherwise pro&ided by this %onstitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each %o77ission 7ay be brought to the Supre7e %ourt by certiorari by the aggrie&ed party within thirty days fro7 receipt of a copy thereof' The re7edy, therefore, of petitioner was to file with this %ourt a special ci&il action for certiorari within thirty days fro7 3 April 122.' $ut he failed to do so@ thus, the challenged resolutions beca7e final' #otwithstanding the finality of the afore7entioned resolutions, TA$"R#+))A filed on 7 Septe7ber 122. a petition before the %S% for the re&iew of said resolutions' As correctly held by the %S%, the said petition, which was in fact a 7otion for reconsideration, would not prosper because under art +-3/ of !e7orandu7 %ircular #o' 34, Series of 1223, only the appointing officer, in this case !ATCAL, can re0uest reconsideration of actions taBen by the %S% on appoint7ents' $esides, the said petition was filed long after the resolutions sought to be reconsidered beca7e final' $ut still, on 2. 6uly 1225, or 7ore than a 7onth after the issuance of the resolution denying TA$"R#+))ADs 7otion for reconsideration, !ATCAL filed with the %S% a petition for the re&iew and reconsideration of the three resolutions thus far issued' This petition was correctly treated by the %S% as a second 7otion for reconsideration, it ha&ing been filed with the sa7e body that issued the assailed resolutions, coupled with the fact that it was a rehash of the argu7ents raised in the first 7otion for reconsideration' As such, the sa7e could not be considered because under Section 2 of the *nifor7 Rules of rocedure in the %onduct of Ad7inistrati&e +n&estigations, which is applicable to protests or 0uestions in&ol&ing the issuance of appoint7ents, ;only one 7otion for reconsideration shall be entertained'; Section 17, Rule A+ of the (7nibus Rules +7ple7enting $ooB A of "9ecuti&e (rder #o' 222 and (ther ertinent %i&il Ser&ice )aws also pro&ides8 ;+n all instances, only one petition for reconsideration shall be entertained'; "&en assu7ing that a second 7otion for reconsideration was allowed by the Rules, !ATCALDs ;petition; would still be 7et with denial because it was filed 7ore than a year after his receipt of the resolution denying his first 7otion for reconsideration' As earlier discussed, the Resolutions of 10 6anuary and 2 !arch 122. had already attained finality' This %ourt, therefore, finds no necessity to pass upon the ti7eliness or propriety of the petition for certiorari filed by !ATCAL before the %ourt of Appeals on 17 6une 1227, or after 7ore than two years fro7 the date the said resolutions beca7e final' #e&ertheless, e&en granting for the saBe of argu7ent that the 0uestioned resolutions were not yet final and that !ATCALDs second 7otion for reconsideration was allowed and seasonably filed, the petition for certiorari instituted before the %ourt of Appeals had to be dis7issed =ust the sa7e' The special ci&il action for certiorari under Rule 5. of the Rules of %ourt will lie only if there is no appeal or any plain, speedy or ade0uate re7edy in the ordinary course of law'13 +n this case, after the denial of !ATCALDs second 7otion for reconsideration, appeal was a&ailable

as a re7edy' As earlier 7entioned, Re&ised Ad7inistrati&e %ircular #o' 1,2., which tooB effect on 1 6une 122., pro&ides for an appeal to the %ourt of Appeals fro7 the =udg7ents, final orders or resolutions of the %i&il Ser&ice %o77ission' And Section 3 thereof 7andates that the appeal be taBen within fifteen days fro7 notice of the denial of the 7otion for reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the go&erning law of the court or agency a 9uo' Cere, !ATCAL filed his petition before the %ourt of Appeals on 17 6une 1227, or nineteen days after his receipt of the resolution denying his second 7otion for reconsideration' As held in cases too nu7erous to 7ention, a special ci&il action for certiorari cannot be a&ailed of as a substitute for a lost or lapsed re7edy of appeal' 1. The petitioner asse&erates, howe&er, that the said resolutions were &oid and were issued in &iolation of due process@ hence, they could ne&er beco7e final, and they could be attacBed directly or collaterally e&en after the ti7e of appeal or re&iew has lapsed' According to hi7, the %S% had no =urisdiction or authority to re&oBe or cancel an appoint7ent to a ci&il ser&ice position after its Regional (ffice had appro&ed the sa7e and the appointed had assu7ed the new position' We cannot subscribe to petitionerDs theory' *nder Section 12 -11/ of $ooB A of "9ecuti&e (rder #o' 222, otherwise Bnown as the ;Ad7inistrati&e %ode of 1247,; the %S% has the power to ;FhGear and decide ad7inistrati&e cases instituted before it directly or on appeal, including contested appoint7ents, and re&iew decisions and actions of its agencies and of the agencies attached to it'; !oreo&er, Section 20, Rule A+ of the (7nibus Rules +7ple7enting $ooB A "9ecuti&e (rder #o' 222 and (ther ertinent %i&il Ser&ice )aws pro&ides that notwithstanding the initial appro&al of an appoint7ent, the sa7e 7ay be recalled for ;F&Giolation of other e9isting %i&il Ser&ice laws, rules and regulations'; As held in (e*ulgado v' +ivil Service +ommission,15 the %S% is e7powered to taBe appropriate action on all appoint7ents and other personnel actions and that such power ;includes the authority to recall an appoint7ent initially appro&ed in disregard of applicable pro&isions of %i&il Ser&ice law and regulations'; Accordingly, it cannot be said that the %S% did not ha&e =urisdiction or gra&ely abused its discretion in recalling the appoint7ent of TA$"R#+))A, which was issued in &iolation of e9isting ci&il ser&ice rules prescribing a $achelorDs :egree in "ngineering as one of the 7ini7u7 0ualifications for the 0uestioned position' Anent petitionerDs i7putation to the %S% of &iolation of due process, the sa7e does not hold water' What was lodged before the %o77ission was not disciplinary case wherein petitioner or TA$"R#+))A should ha&e been afforded an opportunity to be heard' As ruled in :ebulgado, 17 the %S%, in appro&ing or disappro&ing an appoint7ent, ;only e9a7ines the confor7ity of the appoint7ent with applicable pro&isions of law and whether the appointee possesses the 7ini7u7 0ualifications and none of the dis0ualifications'; At any rate, petitioner was re0uested to co77ent on the protest@ and he did file co77ent and, later, a 7otion for reconsideration of the re&ocation of the initially appro&ed appoint7ent' <inally, petitioner fears that if the %S% resolutions recalling the appoint7ent 7ade by !ATCAL is upheld, it would ;throw out of =ob a ci&il ser&ice e7ployee who had rendered 7ore than forty years of satisfactory ser&ice for the 1o&ern7ent, all because he relied on the presu7ption that the Acting Regional :irector regularly perfor7ed her official duty'; etitionerDs apprehension is without basis' Section 12, Rule A+ of the (7nibus Rules +7ple7enting $ooB A of "'(' #o' 222 , as well as Sections 33 and 34 of the *nifor7 Rules of rocedure in the %onduct of Ad7inistrati&e +n&estigations, specifically pro&ides that in case the protest is finally resol&ed against the protestee, his appoint7ent shall beco7e ineffecti&e and he shall be re&erted to his for7er position' WC"R"<(R", the present petition is :+S!+SS":' The challenged resolutions of the %i&il Ser&ice %o77ission are hereby A<<+R!":'
1wphi1.nt

S( (R:"R":' G.R. No. 1))717 Oc1o<4r 23, 2@@3

AL(ERTO JARAM"LLA, petitioner, &s' COMM"SS"ON ON ELECT"ONS, ANTON"O SU#AT, MUN"C"PAL (OAR% O$ CANVASSERS O$ STA. CRU&, "LOCOS SUR, T E NE- MUN"C"PAL (OAR% O$ CANVASSERS ECOMELECF, AN% "RENEO CORTE&,respondents' %EC"S"ON A&CUNA, J.: <or re&iew before the %ourt is the instant petition for certiorari1 with prayer for te7porary restraining order and preli7inary in=unction ascribing gra&e abuse of discretion to public respondent %o77ission on "lections -%(!")"%/ in issuing its en *anc resolution dated (ctober 23, 2002' The antecedent facts, as su77ari?ed in the %(!")"% resolution, 2 are as follows8

FRespondentG Antonio Suyat and FpetitionerG Alberto 6' 6ara7illa both ran for the position of !e7ber of the Sangguniang $ayan in the !unicipality of Sta' %ru?, +locos Sur in the !ay 13, 2001 elections' (n !ay 15, 2001, the !unicipal $oard of %an&assers of Sta' %ru?, proclai7ed the winning candidates for the offices of !ayor, Aice,!ayor and eight -4/ 7e7bers of the Sangguniang $ayan' The %ertificate of %an&ass of Aotes and rocla7ation shows the following results and ranBing with respect to the 7e7bers of the Sangguniang $ayan, to wit8 #a7e of %andidates Total Aotes (btained

1' RA1*%(S, !a' )uisa )a9a7ana 5,323 2' A$ALA, 6uan 6r', Anda0uig 3' 1+#"S, <idel %udia7at 3' I*+)( , Renato A&ila .' $+)+1A#, (sias :epdepen 5' R*+M, Agustin Turgano 7' 6ARA!+))A, Alberto 6i7eno 4' %(RT"M, +reneo Cabon 5,013 .,742 .,227 .,130 3,272 3,41. 3,407

+n the tabulated results issued by the "lection (fficer and %hairperson of the !unicipal $oard of %an&assers of Sta' %ru?, it is shown that Frespondent SuyatG obtained <our thousand se&en hundred se&enty nine -3,772/ &otes and was ranBed no' 2' *pon re&iew by Frespondent SuyatG, he disco&ered that FpetitionerG was credited with only twenty three -23/ &otes per "lection Return fro7 recinct #o' 33A1' Cowe&er, when the figures were forwarded to the State7ent of Aotes by recinct, FpetitionerG was credited with se&enty three -73/ &otes for recinct #o' 33A1 or fifty -.0/ &otes 7ore than what he actually obtained' +f the entry were to be corrected, the affected candidates would be ranBed as follows8 7' %(RT"M, +reneo Cabon T 3,407 4' S*LAT, Antonio T 2' 6ARA!+))A, Alberto T 3,772 3,75.

(n 6une 13, 2001, respondent Suyat filed before the %(!")"% en *anc an *rgent !otion for +ssuance of (rder to Recon&ene,3 which the latter treated as a etition for %orrection of !anifest "rror' etitioner countered in his Answer3 that said petition should be dis7issed for ha&ing been filed out of ti7e and for lacB of the re0uired certification of non,foru7 shopping' (n (ctober 23, 2002, %(!")"% en *anc issued the assailed resolution, the dispositi&e portion of which reads8 . WC"R"<(R", pre7ises considered, the !otionJ etition is hereby 1RA#T":' The procla7ation of Respondent A)$"RT( 6' 6ARA!+))A Fherein petitionerG is A##*))":' A #ew !unicipal $oard of %an&assers is hereby created co7posed of the following8 Atty' #")+A A*R"*S T %hair7an Atty' !+%CA") :' :+(#":A T Aice %hair7an Atty' A))"# <RA#%+S <' A$ALA T !e7ber The #ew $oard is hereby directed to i77ediately con&ene at the %o7elec Session Call, +ntra7uros, !anila, after due notice to parties and effect a correction in the entry in the State7ent of Aotes by recinct particularly the &otes for Respondent Alberto 6ara7illa Fherein petitionerG, who should be credited with twenty three -23/ &otes only' Thereafter, the #ew $oard shall prepare a corrected %ertificate of %an&ass and rocla7ation on the basis of the #ew State7ent of Aotes and proclai7 the etitioner Fherein pri&ate respondent SuyatG as the eighth -4th/ $oard !e7ber of Sta' %ru?, +locos Sur' !r' +reneo Cabon %orte? shall be declared the 7th !unicipal $oard !e7ber' The #ew $oard shall use the %o7elec copies of the election returns and State7ent of Aotes pertaining to the instant case' S( (R:"R":' Cence the present recourse by petitioner anchored on the following grounds8

+' TCAT TC" %(!!+SS+(# (# ")"%T+(# "RR": +# #(T :+S!+SS+#1 TC" %AS" %(#S+:"R+#1 TCAT TC" "T+T+(# <+)": $"<(R" TC" %(!")"% WAS <+)": $"L(#: TC" R"S%R+ T+A" "R+(: AS S"T <(RTC +# TC" %(!")"% R*)"S (< R(%":*R"' ++' TCAT TC" %(!!+SS+(# (# ")"%T+(# "RR": +# 1+A+#1 :*" %(*RS" T( TC" "T+T+(# +#ST"A: (< :+S!+SS+#1 +T %(#S+:"R+#1 TCAT TC" "T+T+(# )A%N": A %"RT+<+%AT+(# A1A+#ST <(R*!, SC( +#1' +++' TCAT TC" %(!!+SS+(# (# ")"%T+(# "RR": +# #(T :+S!+SS+#1 TC" %AS" <(R <A+)*R" T( AL TC" :(%N"T (R <+)+#1 <"" (# T+!"'5 $efore discussing the 7erits, although not raised in the petition, the %ourt dee7s it appropriate to discuss the =urisdiction of the %(!")"% en *anc in election cases' Article +K,% of the %onstitution states in part that8 Sec' 3' The %o77ission on "lections 7ay sit en *anc or in two di&isions, and shall pro7ulgate its rules of procedure in order to e9pedite disposition of election cases, including pre,procla7ation contro&ersies' All such election cases shall be heard and decided in di&ision, pro&ided that 7otions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the %o77ission en *anc.7 As stated in the pro&ision, and in line with the %ourtUs recent pronounce7ent in Milla v. %almores1La!a,4 election cases including pre,procla7ation contro&ersies should first be heard and decided by a di&ision of the %(!")"%, and then by the co77ission en *anc if a 7otion for reconsideration of the di&ision is filed'
4aVWIp)i4.net

+t 7ust be noted howe&er that this pro&ision applies only in cases where the %(!")"% e9ercises its ad=udicatory or 0uasi,=udicial powers, and not when it 7erely e9ercises purely ad7inistrati&e functions' This doctrine was laid out in +astroma"or v. + M&L&+,2 and reiterated in subse0uent cases'10 Accordingly, when the case de7ands only the e9ercise by the %(!")"% of its ad7inistrati&e functions, such as the correction of a 7anifest 7istaBe in the addition of &otes or an erroneous tabulation in the state7ent of &otes, the %(!")"% en *anc can directly act on it in the e9ercise of its constitutional function to decide 0uestions affecting elections' 11 The etition for %orrection of !anifest "rrors in the case at bar alleges an erroneous copying of figures fro7 the election return to the State7ent of Aotes by recinct' Such an error in the tabulation of the results, which 7erely re0uires a clerical correction without the necessity of opening ballot bo9es or e9a7ining ballots, de7ands only the e9ercise of the ad7inistrati&e power of the %(!")"%' Cence, the %o77ission en *anc properly assu7ed original =urisdiction o&er the aforesaid petition' #ow we proceed to the 7erits of the case' etitioner bewails the fact that the %(!")"% tooB cogni?ance of respondent SuyatUs petition for correction despite its ha&ing been filed beyond the .,day regle7entary period fi9ed in the %(!")"% Rules of rocedure and its lacB of certification against foru7,shopping'12 etitioner o&erlooBs the fact that the %(!")"% has the discretion to suspend its rules or any portion thereof in the interest of =ustice' Section 3, Rule 1 of the %(!")"% Rules e9pressly pro&ides that8 S"%' 3' Suspension of t)e Rules P +n the interest of =ustice and in order to obtain speedy disposition of all 7atters pending before the co77ission, these rules or any portion thereof 7ay be suspended by the %o77ission' The %(!")"% therefore has authority to suspend the regle7entary periods pro&ided by the rules, or the re0uire7ent of certification of non,foru7 shopping for that 7atter, in the interest of =ustice and speedy resolution of the cases before it'13 etitioner ne9t points out respondent SuyatUs o7ission to pay the prescribed filing fees'
4aVWIp)i4.net

As correctly pointed out by the (ffice of the Solicitor 1eneral, the %(!")"% is not constrained to dis7iss a case before it by reason of non,pay7ent of filing fees'13 Section 14, Rule 30 the %(!")"% Rules of rocedure states8 S"% 14' 'onpa"ment of $rescri*ed =ees P +f the fees abo&e prescribed are not paid, the %o77ission 7ay refuse to taBe action thereon until they are paid and 7ay dis7iss the action or the proceeding' 1. The use of the word ;7ay; in the aforecited pro&ision readily shows that the %(!")"% is conferred the discretion whether to entertain the petition or not in case of non,pay7ent of legal fees' 15 And e&en if it were not afforded such discretion, as discussed abo&e, it is authori?ed to suspend its rules or any portion thereof in the interest of =ustice' 17 +t is noteworthy that petitioner only raised issues on the foregoing technicalities, without 0uestioning the %(!")"%Us finding of 7anifest error in the tabulation of &otes' "&en at the %(!")"% stage, his denial in his Answer14 was unsubstantiated by any rebuttal e&idence to dispro&e the sub7itted photocopies of the election returns and state7ent of &otes, which clearly showed the erroneous addition of .0 &otes in his fa&or' The %(!")"%Us

un0uestioned findings of fact are therefore sustained' The %ourt reiterates that factual findings of the %(!")"% based on its own assess7ents and duly supported by e&idence, are gi&en conclusi&e weight in the absence of arbitrariness or gra&e abuse of discretion' 12 )aws go&erning election contests 7ust be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials 7ay not be defeated by 7ere technical ob=ections' 20 Adherence to technicality that would put a sta7p on a palpably &oid procla7ation, with the ine&itable result of frustrating the peopleUs will, can ne&er be countenanced'21 WC"R"<(R", finding no gra&e abuse of discretion co77itted by public respondent %(!")"%, its Resolution en *anc dated (ctober 23, 2002 is A<<+R!":' The petition is :+S!+SS":' #o pronounce7ent as to costs' S( (R:"R":'