Remember the 1973 “ratification cases”
“There is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect." These were the words of the Supreme Court in ruling that the 1973 Philippine Constitution was politically ratified by the Filipino people.
What was meant by “no further judicial obstacle”? Let me try to answer that question hoping that my best layman’s language is good enough to be understood. I apologize, in advance, if I still fail to simplify this legal mumbo-jumbo. The memory of this septuagenarian might also be somehow blurred.
Half a century ago, there was a case which was filed by Josue Javellana before our highest tribunal challenging the way the Constitution, as revised by the 1971 Constitutional Convention, was supposedly submitted to the people for approval. This court action and similar cases filed by such notable personalities as Senators Gerardo Roxas, Ambrosio Padilla, Jovito Salonga, Salvador Laurel, Eva Estrada Kalaw, and Congressman Ramon Mitra became known as the “Ratification Cases”.
Javellana and company argued that the referendum/ plebiscite held on January 10-15, 1973 did not comply with the legal requirements of plebiscite. According to them, for purposes of conducting a plebiscite, the applicable law on election should be used. For instance, under the then existing law, Republic Act No. 6388, known as the Election Code of 1971, only 21-year-olds and older could vote, balloting was the allowed means and there should be election returns upon which canvassing would proceed. These were among the strict processes that were not complied with. Firstly, then President Ferdinand Edralin Marcos convened the Citizens Assemblies, with ages 15 and above, in clear violation of the then effective, existing, and valid election code.
Secondly, people were huddled in rooms and asked to raise their hands in reply to certain questions. When they did, they were reported as having approved the charter. One photographer then, who is now a mediaman, told me that the one mischievous question that was allegedly raised was “kinsay gigutom?” Instinctively, everybody raised his hand and upon which instance photographs were taken. The pictures were reportedly captioned: People voting to approve the Constitution. The viva voce voting did not follow the law. Thirdly, the accompanying photos and reports took the place of election returns. Another legal infraction! Yet, Marcos issued Proclamation 1102, declaring that the Constitution was ratified!
The petitions of Javellana and others were dismissed by the Supreme Court in the simplistic words I cited in opening this column. Yes, the Supreme Court, our final arbiter, had spoken. Its words, supreme. Admitting that fait acompli, I could only rationalize in my Constitutional Law classes that the 1973 Constitution was NOT LEGALLY although it was POLITICALLY ratified by the people.
I recall this difficult part of our political history in the light of the fact that yesterday the Commission on Elections acknowledged to have received the papers attributed as part of the Peoples’ Initiative as submitted by about 700 local government units. Whew, lighting fast! By the way the PEOPLE here as the People in Congress! Even then, let us remember that the Javellana petition was anchored on solid legal and moral grounds. The unconstitutionality of the present Peoples Initiative is even more manifest. But we must NEVER UNLEARN the lessons, to me bitter, from the ratification cases!
"The unconstitutionality of the present Peoples Initiative is even more manifest "