Scribd
Upload
20 views

Santiago V Comelec

The Supreme Court was petitioned to enjoin the implementation of Presidential Decree 73, which called for a plebiscite to ratify the proposed constitution from the 1971 Constitutional Convention. The Court had initially refrained from ruling due to the postponement of the plebiscite. However, the petitioners filed an urgent motion for a decision. The Court held that it had the authority to rule on the constitutionality of the decree based on past cases and the 1935 Constitution. It declared the validity of the decree moot since the plebiscite was postponed. The Court also affirmed the authority of the Constitutional Convention to propose amendments unless inconsistent with fundamental principles of law.

Uploaded by

Vin Lacsie
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
20 views

Santiago V Comelec

The Supreme Court was petitioned to enjoin the implementation of Presidential Decree 73, which called for a plebiscite to ratify the proposed constitution from the 1971 Constitutional Convention. The Court had initially refrained from ruling due to the postponement of the plebiscite. However, the petitioners filed an urgent motion for a decision. The Court held that it had the authority to rule on the constitutionality of the decree based on past cases and the 1935 Constitution. It declared the validity of the decree moot since the plebiscite was postponed. The Court also affirmed the authority of the Constitutional Convention to propose amendments unless inconsistent with fundamental principles of law.

Uploaded by

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

Planas v.

COMELEC, 49 SCRA 105 (1973)


FACTS:
While the 1971 Constitution Convention was in session on September 21, 1972, the
president issued Proclamation No. 1081 placing the Philippines under martial law. On
November 29, 1972 the Convention approved its proposed constitution. The next day
the president issued PD No. 73 submitting to the people for ratification or rejection
the proposed constitution as well as setting the plebiscite for said ratification. On
December 7, 1972, Charito Planas filed a petition to enjoin respondents from
implemented PD No. 73 because the calling of the plebiscite among others are
lodged exclusively in the Congress. On December 17, 1972, the president issued an
order temporarily suspending the effects of PD 1081 for the purpose of free and open
debate on the proposed constitution. On December 23, the president announced the
postponement of the plebiscite, as such, the Court refrained from deciding the cases.
On January 12, the petitioners filed for an urgent motion praying that the case be
decided as soon as possible.
ISSUE:
1. Is validity of PD 73 justiciable?
2. Is PD 73 valid?
3. Does the 1971 Constitutional Convention have the authority to pass the proposed
constitution?
HELD:
The Court may pass upon constitutionality of PD 73 not only because of a long list of
cases decided by the Court but also of subdivision (1) of Section 2, Article VIII of the
1935 Constitution which expressly provides for the authority of the Court to review
cases revolving such issue. The validity of the decree itself was declared moot and
academic by the Court. The convention is free to postulate any amendment as long
as it is not inconsistent to what is known as Jus Cogens.

You might also like