From APS Law and DNB Law:

Digest Output of Stephanie Pua and Gabrielle Dayao

Quick Summary:
Justice Salvador Esguerra who was appointed by Pres. Marcos as a Supreme Court Justice not long before
the proclamation of Martial Law, voted that the question presented in the case was political, and thus
beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. He opined that the 1973 Constitution was validly ratified, accepted
by the people and already in force, as proven by the aftermath of the Proclamation and Decrees. As ratio
for his opinion, Justice Esguerra discussed the effects of the 1973 Constitution: that he understood the
Courts powers to stem from it, and that given how the legislative and executive departments have
proceeded under the new constitution, it would only be absurd to now find it invalid.

Opinion Digest:
These petitions seek to stop and prohibit the respondents Executive Officers from implementing the
Constitution signed on November 30, 1972; in L-36165, to compel respondents Gil Puyat and Jose J. Roy,
President and President Pro-Tempore, respectively, of the Senate under the 1935 Constitution, to convene
the Senate in regular session which should have started on January 22, 1973; to nullify Proclamation No.
1102 of the President, issued on January 17, 1973, which declared the ratification of the Constitution on
November 30, 1972, by the Filipino people, through the barangays or Citizens Assemblies established
under Presidential Decree No. 86 issued on December 31, 1972, which were empowered under
Presidential Decree No. 86-A, issued on January 5, 1973, to act in connection with the ratification of said
Constitution.
ESGUERRA, J., concurring:
The issues raised for determination, on which the resolution of the Motion to Dismiss hinges, are as
follows:
1. Is the question presented political and, hence, beyond the competence of this Court to decide, or
is it justiciable and fit for judicial determination?
2. Was the new Constitution of November 30, 1972, ratified in accordance with the amending
process prescribed by Article XV of the 1935 Constitution?
3. Has the new Constitution been accepted and acquiesced in by the Filipino people?
4. Is the new Constitution actually in force and effect?
5. If the answers to questions Nos. 3 and 4 be in the affirmative, are petitioners entitled to the reliefs
prayed for?
Justice Esguerra provided a joint discussion of the issues issues Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in order to arrive at a
logical conclusion. Petitioners assail Proclamation No. 1102 and Presidential Decrees Nos. 86 and 86A, claiming that the ratification of the new Constitution pursuant to the said decrees, as unauthorized and
devoid of legal effect.
PD 86 organized the barangays or Citizens Assemblies composed of all citizens at least fifteen years of
age, and through these assemblies, the proposed 1972 Constitution was submitted to the people for
ratification. Proclamation No. 1102 of the President declared the result of the referendum or plebiscite
conducted through the Citizens Assemblies, and that 14,976,561 members thereof voted for the
ratification of the new Constitution and 743,869 voted against it. The Presidential decrees set up the
means for the ratification and acceptance of the new Constitution, and Proclamation No. 1102 simply
announced the result of the referendum or plebiscite by the people through the Citizens Assemblies. But
what the petition really sought to be invalidated is the new Constitution itself the very framework of
the present Government since January 17, 1973. Hence, it leads to the issue whether or not the Court may
set aside the new Constitution?

From APS Law and DNB Law:

Digest Output of Stephanie Pua and Gabrielle Dayao
It is the height of absurdity and impudence for a court to wage open war against the organic act to which
it owes its existence. The situation in which this Court finds itself does not permit it to pass upon the
question whether or not the new Constitution has entered into force and has superseded the 1935
Constitution. If it declares that the present Constitution has not been validly ratified, it has to uphold the
1935 Constitution as still the prevailing organic law. The result would be too anomalous to describe, for
then this Court would have to declare that it is governed by one Constitution or the 1935 Constitution;
and the legislative and executive branches by another or the 1972 Constitution.
95 out of 108 members of the House of Representatives have opted to serve in the interim National
Assembly provided for under the new Constitution. 15 out of 24 Senators have done likewise. The
members of the Congress did not meet anymore last January 22, 1973, not because they were really
prevented from so doing but because of no serious effort on their parts to assert their offices under the
1935 Constitution. The Executive Department has been fully reorganized; the appointments of key
executive officers including those of the Armed Forces were extended and they took an oath to support
and defend the new Constitution. The courts, except the Supreme Court by reason of these cases, have
administered justice under the new constitution. All government offices have dealt with the public and
performed their functions according to the new Constitution and laws promulgated thereunder.
When a Constitution has been in operation for sometime, even without popular ratification at that,
submission of the people thereto by the organization of the government provided therein and observance
of its prescriptions by public officers chosen thereunder, is indicative of approval.
In Luther vs. Borden, it was held:
Judicial power presupposes an established government capable of enacting laws and
enforcing their execution, and appointing judges to expound and administer them. The
acceptance of the judicial office is a recognition of the authority of government from
which it is derived. And if the authority of the government is annulled and overthrown,
the power of its courts and other officers is annulled with it. And if a State court should
enter upon the inquiry proposed in this case, and should come to conclusion that the
government under which it acted had been put aside and displaced by an opposing
government it would cease to be a court, and be incapable of pronouncing a judicial
decision upon the question it undertook to try. If it decides at all as a court, it necessarily
affirms the existence and authority of the government under which it is exercising
judicial power.
Further, foreign relations of the Republic of the Philippines have been normally conducted on the basis of
the new Constitution and no state with which we maintain diplomatic relations has withdrawn its
recognition of our government.
A political question is one entrusted to the people for judgment in their sovereign capacity, or to a coequal and coordinate branch of the Government. The case at hand involves a political question when there
would be "the impossibility of undertaking independent resolutions without expressing a lack of respect
due to coordinate branches of government", or when there is "the potentiality of embarrassment from
multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question."
Hence, Justice Esguerra votes to dismiss all petitions.