OPINIONS:

C.J.

1. W/N the question as to the validity of PD 1102 is a justiciable question.

Principle of separation of powers- each department is supreme and independent of the

others, and each is devoid of authority, not only to encroach upon the powers or field of
action assigned to any of the other departments, but, also, to inquire into or pass upon the
advisability or wisdom of the acts performed, measured taken or decisions made by the
other departments provided that such acts, measures, or decisions are within the area
allocated thereto by the Constitution. This principle goes hand in hand with the system of
checks and balances, under which each department is vested by the Fundamental Law with
some powers to forestall, restrain, or arrest a possible or actual misuse or abuse of powers
by the other departments.

Political question connotes a ‘question of policy’. It refers to those questions which, under
the Constitution, are to bedecided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or concerned
with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure. Accordingly,
when the grant of power is qualified, or conditional or subject to limitations, the issue on
whether r not the prescribed qualifications or conditions have been met, or the limitations
respectd, is justiciable, the crux of the problem being one of legality or validity of the
contested act, not its wisdom.

2. Has the proposed new Constitution been ratified conformably to said Art. 15 of the 1935
Constitution?

Procedure prescribed by the 1935 Constitution for its amendment:

(Section 1, Art. 15)

1. Amendments be proposed by either the Congress or by a convention called for that

purpose (by ¾ votes of all the members of the Senate and HoR, separately)
2. Amendments submitted to the people for ratification at an election
3. Amendments be approved by a majority of the votes cast in said election

Who may vote in a plebiscite under Art. V?

Article 5 of the Constitution declares who may exercise the right of suffrage, so that those
lacking the qualifications therein prescribed may not exercise such right. The provision
under consideration was meant to be and is a grant or conferment of a right to persons
possessing the qualifications and none of the disqualifications therein mentioned.

It is inconceivable that Section 1 of Article 5 apply only to elections of public officers and not
to plebiscites for the ratification of amendments to the Fundamental Law or revision thereof,
and permit the legislature to require lesser qualifications for such ratification.

It is thus clear that the proceedings held in such CA were fundamentally irregular, in that
persons lacking the qualifications prescribed were allowed to voted in such Assemblies.
“Votes cast”- choices made on ballots—not orally or by raising (of hands) by the persons
taking aprt in the plebiscite.

How should the plebiscite be held?

Art. 10, Sections 1 and 2 provides that there shall be an “independent Commission on
Elections” whose duty is the enforcement and administration of election laws—which are
neither legislative or judicial in nature—thus essentially executive or under the mandate of
the Chief Executive. But, being independent, this means that it is “independent principally of
the Chief Executive”.

Has the proposed Constitution been approved by a majority of the people in CA allegedly
held throughout the Philippines?

No.

- Francisco Cruz, alleged president of the National Association, reported to the

President the total result of the voting in the CA. But it turns out, he is not a member
of any barrio council sicne 1972
- No certification from COMELEC in support of the alleged results of the CA relied upon
in Proclamation nO. 1102.
- Not ratified in accordance witrh the provisions of the 1935 Consti as well as the new
proposed Constitution as regards to the minimum age requirement to vote and as to
how the votes must be cast, i.e. “secret” and “in writing”.