Case Name: Mitra et al. v.

Commission on Elections
G.R. No. 56503
Ramon Mitra, jr., Napoleon Rama, Emmanuel T. Santos, Ernie Rondon, Antonio
Martinez, Jejomar Binay, Rodrigo H. Melchor, Joaquin (Titong) Roces, Rafael
Yap, and Mel Lopez, petitioners, v. Commission on Elections, respondent.
Ponente: Enrique Fernando, C.J.
Facts

Petitioners Mitra et al. questioned the validity of the 1973 constitution and filed a
petition to the Supreme Court to hold a plebiscite where the people can either
vote to ratify or reject it. In the event that it is rejected, the petitioners pray that
the 1935 Constitution be restored with the lifting of Martial Law on January 17,
1981.
Doctrine

The petition to hold a plebiscite cannot be granted because it is founded on the
erroneous notion that the present constitution is not valid. Given that the court
has previously ruled in favor of the validity of the 1973 Constitution, it remains
legitimately in force and effect even with the lifting of Martial Law. Hence, the
petition for a plebiscite has no merit.
Issue

i. Whether the 1973 Constitution is valid

Held/Ratio Decidendi

i. Yes. Regardless of a valid ratification, acquiescence of the people can
render a new constitution in force and effect. The acceptance of the
people of the 1973 Constitution is unquestionable given that the people
attended referenda on July 27 and 28 in 1973 (P.D. 229), February 27 and
28 in 1975 (Proc. No. 1366 as amended by Proc. No. 1366-A), October 16
and 17 1975 (P.D. 991) where the 1976 amendments to the Constitution
were adopted and another one on December 17, 1977.

Two elections were also held under that Constitution: Interim Batasang
Pambansa on April 7, 1978 and the other for local government officials on
January 30, 1980. These events show clear recognition of the present
Constitution by the people and since sovereignty resides with them, the
Court was duty-bound to render obeisance to it as well.

In addition, while the president had the power to promulgate laws and
decrees during Martial Law, the Supreme Court maintained and continued
to act as an independent branch of the government and exercise the
power of judicial review. Hence, the court duly established the validity of
the Presidents competence to issue orders and decrees.

In light of the decision in Javellana v. Executive Secretary, L-36142, the
1973 Constitution is regarded as the fundamental law. It cannot be made
clearer that the 1973 Constitution was in force by virtue of the peoples
acceptance thereof. Chief Justice Fernando reiterates the ruling in
Javellana, there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution
being considered in force and effect.

Separate Opinions
Teehankee, J. dissenting


Justice Teehankee votes to give due course to petitioners petition praying for the
holding of a plebiscite for the people to vote anew on the ratification of the 1973
Constitution. He states that the complex, complicated, and radical changes of
structure of government requires that the people be given adequate time and
information as to the amendments to be voted upon for their conscientious
deliberation and intelligent consent or rejection. He points out that due to the
restricted media and free expression of opinions during Martial law, there are no
concrete ways of knowing to the point of judicial certainty whether the people
have accepted the Constitution.