Cases For Constitutional Law 1

1

CONTENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Imbong vs. Comelec / G.R. No. L-32432 / Sept. 11, 1970 Tolentino vs. Comelec / G.R. No. L-34150 / Oct. 16, 1971 Planas vs. Comelec / G.R. No. L-35925 / Jan. 22, 1973 Javellana vs. Executive Secretary / G.R. No. L-36142 / Mar. 31, 1973 Sanidad vs. Comelec / G.R. No. L-44640 / Oct. 12, 1976 Lawyers League vs. Aquino / G.R. No. 73748 / May 22, 1986 De Leon vs. Esquerra / G.R. No. 78059 / Aug. 31, 1987

1

2

1 CHAPTER 2 - CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY / 1935 Constitution Imbong vs. Comelec G.R. No. L-32432 Sept. 11, 1970 PETITIONERS MANUEL B. IMBONG RESPONDENTS JAIME FERRER, as Chairman of the Comelec LINO M. PATAJO and CESAR MILAFLOR, as members thereof FACTS:

IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF R.A. No. 6132, THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION ACT OF 1970 

  



March 16, 1967 Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly passed resolution No. 2 which, among others, called for a Constitutional Convention to be composed of two delegates from each representative district who shall have the same qualifications as those of Congressmen To be elected on the second Tuesday of November, 1970 in accordance with the Revised Election Code. Congress then as a legislative assembly enacted RA 4914 implementing Resolution No 2 June 17, 1969 Congress as a Constitutional Assembly passed Resolution No. 4 which amended Resolution No. 2 and provided more details on the qualifications and apportionment of the delegates but provided that other details are to be embodied in an implementing legislation. Congress acting as a legislative assembly thus enacted RA 6132, implementing Resolution Nos. 2 and 4, and expressly repealing RA 4914. Petitioners now assail the validity of RA 6132.

Issue 

May Congress, acting as a legislative assembly, enact RA 6132 to implement a resolution passed by the same body acting as a Constituent Assembly



Are the provisions of R.A. 6132 constitutional?

Held 

Yes. The grant to Congress as a Constituent Assembly of such plenary authority to call a constitutional convention includes, by virtue of the doctrine of necessary implication, all other powers essential to the effective exercise of the principal power granted, such as the power to fix the qualifications, number, apportionment, and compensation of the delegates as well as appropriation of funds, and other implementing details indispensable to the convention.

-

While the authority to call a constitutional convention is vested by the Constitution solely and exclusively in Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly, the power to enact the implementing details, does not exclusively pertain to Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly. Such implementing details are matters within the competence of Congress in the exercise of its comprehensive legislative power, which power encompasses all matters not expressly or by necessary implication removed by the Constitution from the ambit of legislative action.

-

2

3

-



When Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, omits to provide for such implementing details after calling a 4 The CONSTITUTION of the PHILIPPINES constitutional convention, Congress, acting as a legislative body, can enact the necessary implementing legislation to fill in the gaps. A constituent body can propose anything but conclude nothing. The provisions are constitutional. - Sec. 4 of R.A. 6132 is merely an application with Sec. 2 of Art. XII of the Constitution and does not constitute a denial of due process or equal protection of the law. - Sec. 2 also merely obeyed the intent of the Congress in Res. Nos. 2 and 4 regarding the apportionment of delegates. - The challenged disqualification of an elected delegate from running for any public office in Sec. 5 is a valid limitation as it is reasonable and not arbitrary. - Lastly, par. 1 of Sec. 8(a) which is both contested by the petitioners is still valid as the restriction contained in the section is so narrow that basic constitutional rights remain substantially intact and inviolate thus the limitation is a valid infringement of the constitutional guarantees invoked by the petitioners.

RELATED LAWS:   

    

Resolution No 2 (1967) - Calls for Constitutional Convention to be composed of 2 delegates from each representative district who shall be elected in November, 1970. RA 4919 -implementation of Resolution No 2 Resolution 4 (1969) - amended Resolution 2: Constitutional Convention shall be composed of 320delegates a proportioned among existing representative districts according to the population. Provided that each district shall be entitled to 2 delegates. RA 6132 - Concon Act 1970, repealed RA 4919, implemented Res No. 2 & 4. Sec 4: considers all public officers/employees as resigned when they file their candidacy Sec 2: apportionment of delegates Sec 5: Disqualifies any elected delegate from running for any public office in the election or from assuming any appointive office/position until the final adjournment of the ConCon. Par 1 Sec 8: ban against all political parties/organized groups from giving support/representing a delegate to the convention.

3

4

2 CHAPTER 2 - CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY / 1935 Constitution Tolentino vs. Comelec G.R. No. L-34150 Oct. 16, 1971 PETITIONERS ARTURO M. TOLENTINO RESPONDENT COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and THE CHIEF ACCOUNTANT THE AUDITOR & DISBURSING OFFICER OF THE 1971 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION FACTS: Petition for prohibition principally to restrain the respondent Commission on Elections "from undertaking to hold a plebiscite on November 8, 1971 

Sept 28, 1971 first Organic Resolution No. 1 approved by the 1971 Constitutional Convention which seeks to improve the constitution, proposed to reduce the voting age from 21 to 18 years of age and made women qualified to vote.



Sept 30, 1971 the COMELEC resolved to inform the Concon that it will hold the plebiscite to ratify the proposed constitutional amendment.



Concon then passed a series of resolutions to continue with the plebiscite



It was scheduled on November 8, 1971 which is the same day for the elections of other Gov’t officials.



Tolentino filed a motion to prohibit such plebiscite and assailed COMELEC’s resolution and the holding of the plebiscite arguing that the calling and holding of such plebiscite is by constitution a power lodged exclusively in congress



And the proposed amendment in question can’t be presented to the people for ratification separately from each and all other amendments (Sect 1 Art XV)



Petitioners now seek to restrain COMELEC on acting on such resolution.

ISSUE A. Whether or not amendments to the Constitution be submitted to the electorate for ratification partially without prejudice to future amendments that may be proposed by the Constitutional Convention B. Whether or not the Organic Resolution No. 1 of the 1971 Constitutional Convention violates the Constitution HELD A. No. Art XV, Sec 1 of the 1935 Const. clearly provides that “such amendments shall be valid as part of the Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for ratification” -

Thus leaving no room for doubt as to how many “elections” or plebiscites may be held to ratify any amendment/s proposed by the same Convention.

-

The provision unequivocally says “an election” which means only one.

-

In the case at bar, the Convention has hardly started considering the merits of the proposals. 4

5

-

To present to the people any single proposal cannot comply with this requirement.

-

There is here “no proper submission”

B. NO, all the amendments to be proposed by the same Convention must be submitted to the people in a single "election" or plebiscite. -

In order that a plebiscite for the ratification of a Constitutional amendment may be validly held, it must provide the voter not only sufficient time but ample basis for an intelligent appraisal of the nature of the amendment but as well as its relation to the other parts of the Constitution with which it has to form a harmonious whole.

 

The petition herein is granted. Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of 1971 and the implementing acts and resolutions of the Convention, insofar as they provide for the holding of a plebiscite on November 8, 1971, as well as the resolution of the respondent Comelec complying therewith (RR Resolution No. 695) are hereby declared null and void. The respondents Comelec, Disbursing Officer, Chief Accountant and Auditor of the Constitutional Convention are hereby enjoined from taking any action in compliance with the said organic resolution. In view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, the Court declares this decision immediately executory.

  

5

6

3 CHAPTER 2 - CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY / 1973 Constitution Planas vs. Comelec G.R. No. L-35925 Jan. 22, 1973 PETITIONERS CHARITO PLANAS

RESPONDENT COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

FACTS:  Plebiscite case  Sept 2, 1972 The President issued Proclamation 1081 placing the entire Philippines under Martial law during the convention was in session.  Nov 29, 1972 the convention approved its proposed constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.  Nov 30, 1972 The President issued presidential Decree 73 and set plebiscite for said ratification on rejection of the proposed Constitution on Jan 15, 1973  Planas filed with the Supreme Court this case against COMELEC, The Treasure and the Auditor General on December 17, 1972  No formal action was taken until Jan 7, 1973 when General Order No. 20 was issued  Jan 22, 1973 the congress was pursuant to the 1935 constitution scheduled to meet in regular session since the main objection to Presidential Decree 73 was that the President doesn’t have the legislative authority to call a plebiscite and appropriate funds which congress questionably could do, particularly in view of the formal postponement of the plebiscite by the president.  After consultation with among other leaders of congress and the COMELEC, the court deemed it more to defer its final action on these cases.  The opening of the regular session slated on Jan 22 in accordance with the existing constitution despite Martial law. ISSUES: A. WON the validity of PD 73 is justiciable on the ground that the question at hand is political in nature B. WON PD 73 is valid C. WON the Concon have the authority to pass the proposed constitution D. WON Martial Law affected the proper submission of the proposed Constitution to a plebiscite

HELD: A. Yes, the court finds that the issue aforementioned is a justiciable one since the assailed decree purports to have the force and effect of legislation not only bec of the long list decided by the court on the acts of the executive but also of the subdivision (1) Sec 2 Art VIII of 1935 Constitution B. The issue on Validity of PD 73 was declared moot and academic by the court bec the plebiscite ordained in said decree has been postponed, manifestly a justifiable one on the authority C. Yes, the court held that the Concon was legally free to postulate any amendment it may deem fit to propose for as long as they adhere to S1 of Art XIV 1935 consti. D. The issue involves question of fact that which can’t be predetermined, and that martial law doesn’t necessarily bar the factual possibility of adequate freedom. WHEREFORE, all of the aforementioned cases are hereby dismissed 6

7 4

CHAPTER 2 - CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY / 1973 Constitution Javellana vs. Executive Secretary G.R. No. L-36142 Mar. 31, 1973 PETITIONERS JOSUE JAVELLANA RESPONDENT THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE

FACTS: The Plebiscite Case       

    

On November 29, 1972, the Convention approved its Proposed Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines November 30, 1972, the President of the Philippines issued Presidential Decree No. 73 “Submitting to the Filipino people for ratification or rejection the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention and appropriating funds therefor,” As well as setting the plebiscite for said ratification or rejection of the Proposed Constitution on January 15, 1973 December 7, 1972, Charito Planas filed a case against the Commission on Elections, the Treasurer of the Philippines and the Auditor General To enjoin said “respondents or their agents from implementing Presidential Decree No. 73, in any manner, until further orders of the Court,” upon the grounds, inter alia, that said Presidential Decree “has no force and effect as law because the calling … of such plebiscite, the setting of guidelines for the conduct of the same, the prescription of the ballots to be used and the question to be answered by the voters, and the appropriation of public funds for the purpose, are, by the Constitution, lodged exclusively in Congress …,” And “there is no proper submission to the people of said Proposed Constitution set for January 15, 1973 There being no freedom of speech, press and assembly, and there being no sufficient time to inform the people of the contents thereof.” Accordingly, a motion was filed for the Supreme Court’s speedy decision to the matter beforehand. The Secretary of Justice called on the writer of this opinion and said that, upon instructions of the President, he was delivering to him (the writer) a copy of Proclamation No. 1102 Which had just been signed by the President ANNOUNCING THE RATIFICATION BY THE FILIPINO PEOPLE OF THE CONSTITUTION PROPOSED BY THE 1971 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION The Ratification Case







Jan 20, 1973, two days before the Supreme Court decided the sequel of plebiscite cases, Javellana filed this suit against the respondents to restrain them from implementing any of the provisions of the proposed Constitution not found in the present 1935 Constitution Javellana also alleged that the President had announced the immediate implementation of the new constitution, thru his Cabinet, respondents Respondents are acting without or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing the said proposed constitution upon ground that the President as Commander-in-Chief of the AFP is without authority to create the Citizens Assemblies 7

8

 

without power to approve proposed constitution without power to proclaim the ratification by the Filipino people of the proposed constitution; The election held to ratify the proposed constitution was not a free election, hence null and void. Petitioners prayed for the nullification of Proclamation No. 1102 and any order, decree, and proclamation which have the same import and objective.

 

ISSUES A. Whether or not the proposed Constitution has been acquiesced in (with or without valid ratification) by the people. B. Whether or not the proposed Constitution by the 1971 Constitutional Convention in force C. Whether or not the petitioners are entitled for relief. D. Whether or not the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 is a justiciable question. E. Whether or not the constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention has been ratified validly conforming to the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions HELD A. Viva voce voting for the ratification of the constitution is void. -

-

Article XV of the 1935 Constitution envisages with the term “votes cast” choices made on ballots not orally raising hands or by the persons taking part in plebiscites. This is but natural and logical, for, since the early years of the American regime, we had adopted the Australian Ballot System, with its major characteristics, namely, uniform official ballots prepared and furnished by the Government and secrecy in the voting, with the advantage of keeping records that permit judicial inquiry, when necessary, into the accuracy of the election returns.

B. 4 members of the Court, Justices Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio & Esguerra hold that it is in force by virtue of the people’s acceptance thereof -

-

4 members of the Court, Justices Makalintal, Castro, Fernando & Teehankee cast no vote thereon on the premise stated in their votes on the third question that they could not state with judicial certainty whether the people have accepted or not accepted the Constitution 2 members of the Court, voted that the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention is not in force With the result, there are not enough votes to declare that the new Constitution is not in force.

C. The plebiscite on the constitution not having been conducted under the supervision of COMELEC is void. -

-

-

The point is such of the Barrio Assemblies as were held took place without the intervention of the COMELEC and without provisions of the Election complying with the Code of 1971 or even of those of Presidential Decree No. 73. The procedure therein mostly followed is such that there is no reasonable means of checking the accuracy of the returns filed by the officers who conducted said plebiscites. This is another patent violation of Article X of the 1935 Constitution which form part of the fundamental scheme set forth in the 1935 Constitution As amended, to insure the “free, orderly, and honest” expression of the people’s will. For this, the alleged plebiscite in the Citizen’s Assemblies is null and void, insofar as the same are claimed to have ratified the revised Constitution 8

9

D. It is a justiciable and a non-political question. -

-

To determine whether or not the new constitution is in force depends upon whether or not the said new constitution has been ratified in accordance with the requirements of the 1935 Constitution. It is well settled that the matter of ratification of an amendment to the constitution should be settled applying the provisions of the constitution in force at the time of the alleged ratification of the old constitution

E. The votes of persons less than 21 years of age render the proceedings in the Citizen’s assembly’s void. -

-



Proceedings held in such Citizen’s Assemblies were fundamentally irregular, in that persons lacking the qualifications prescribed in Article V Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution were allowed to vote in said Assemblies. And, since there is no means by which the invalid votes of those less than 21 years of age can be separated or segregated from those of the qualified voters, the proceedings in the Citizen’s Assemblies must be considered null and void Case dismissed

9

10

5 CHAPTER 2 - CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY / 1973 Constitution Sanidad vs. Comelec G.R. No. L-44640 Oct. 12, 1976 PETITIONERS PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO V. SANIDAD RESPONDENT HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS HONORABLE NATIONAL TREASURER FACTS  September 2, 1976, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 991 to call for a national referendum on October 16, 1976 through the so-called Citizens Assemblies (“barangays”).  Its primary purpose is to resolve the issues of martial law (As to its existence and length of effectivity)  September 22, the president issued another proclamation (P.D. 1033) to specify the questions that are to be asked during the referendum on October 16.  

The 1ST whether or not the citizen wants martial law to continue The 2ND asks for the approval on several proposed amendments to the existing Constitution.



The COMELEC was vested with the exclusive supervision and control of the national referendum in October 16. Father and son, Pablo and Pablito Sanidad filed for prohibition with preliminary injunction to enjoin the COMELEC from holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16, And to declare without force and effect Presidential Decree Nos. 991 and 1033, insofar as they propose amendments to the Constitution. Another petitioner, Vicente Guzman filed for prohibition with preliminary injunction, asserting that the power to propose amendments or revisions of the Constitution during the transition period is expressly conferred to the interim National Assembly under Section 16, Article XVII of the Constitution. Another set of petitioners, Raul Gonzales and Alfredo Salapantan sought to restrain the implementation of Presidential Decrees relative to the forthcoming ReferendumPlebiscite of October 16. They assert that the incumbent President cannot act as a constituent assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution and a referendum-plebiscite is untenable under the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973. The submission of the proposed amendments in such a short period of time for deliberation renders the plebiscite a nullity. To lift Martial Law, the President need not consult the people via referendum; and allowing 15-.year olds to vote would amount to an amendment of the Constitution, which confines the right of suffrage to those citizens of the Philippines 18 years of age and above. The Solicitor General contends that petitioners have no standing to sue, and that the issue raised is political in nature and thus it cannot be reviewed by the court. The Solicitor General also asserts that at this state of the transition period, only the incumbent President has the authority to exercise constituent power The referendum plebiscite is a step towards normalization

  

   

  

10

11

ISSUES A. Is the question of the constitutionality of Presidential Decrees Nos. 991, 1031 and 1033 political or justiciable? B. Does the President possess the power to propose amendments to the Constitution as well as set up the required machinery and prescribe the procedure for the ratification of his proposals by the people? C. Is the submission to the people of the proposed amendments sufficient and proper?

HELD A. - 7 Justices of the Court held that the issue is a justiciable question - While only 3 maintained it was of political nature and thus not justiciable. - The Court did not agree with the Solicitor General’s contention that the issue is a political one. - This is because the 1973 Constitution expressly provided that the power to propose amendments to the constitution resides in the interim National Assembly in the period of transition. - After that transition period, and when the regular National Assembly is in its active session, the power to propose amendments becomes ipso facto the prerogative of the regular National Assembly. The normal course has not been followed. - Rather than calling the National Assembly to constitute itself into a constituent assembly, the president undertook the proposal of amendments through Presidential Decree 1033 and in effect, through a Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16. B. - Yes, in abnormal times, 13 the separation of powers may form an insurmountable barrier to a decisive emergency action - The power of the State in crisis must be freed from the normal system of constitutional and legal limitations so that the crisis may be ended and normal times restored. - The presidential exercise of legislative powers in times of martial law is now a conceded valid act.14 there is no reason why the President cannot discharge validly the function of the Int. Assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution which is but adjunct to its gross legislative power. - For the President to decline to undertake the amending process, in the absence of the Int. Assembly, would leave a governmental machinery at a stalemate, thereby impeding the objective of a crisis govt “to end the crises and restore normal times” C. - Yes. Three weeks (period from the issuance of presidential decrees to referendumplebiscite) is not too short for free debates and discussions. - The questions are not new. They are issues of the day. All that the 1973 Constitution provides is that the plebiscite “shall be held not later than 3 months after approval of such amendment RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate and wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned     

Chief Justice Castro and Associate Justices Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion Jr. and Martin voted to dismiss the three petitions at bar. For reasons as expressed in his separate opinion. Associate Justice Fernando concurs in the result. Associate Justices Teehankee and Muñoz Palma voted to grant the petitions. ACCORDINGLY, the vote being 8 to 2 to dismiss, the said petitions are hereby dismissed. This decision is immediately executory.

11

12

6 CHAPTER 2 - CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY / 1973 Constitution Lawyers League vs. Aquino G.R. No. 73748 May 22, 1986 PETITIONERS LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR BETTER PHILIPPINES RESPONDENT President Corazon C. Aquino PONENTE GLORIA C. PARAS FACTS  



February 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 1 announcing that she and Vice President Laurel were taking power. March 25, 1986, proclamation No.3 was issued providing the basis of the Aquino government assumption of power by stating that the “New government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines.” Petitioners alleged that the Aquino government is illegal because it was not established pursuant to the 1973 Constitution.

ISSUES

A. Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate HELD A. As early as April 10, 1986, this Court had already voted to dismiss the petitions for the reasons to be stated below.  





On April 17, 1986, Atty. Lozano as counsel for the petitioners in G.R. Nos. 73748 and 73972 withdrew the petitions and manifested that they would pursue the question by extra-judicial methods. The withdrawal is functus oficio. The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter. It belongs to the realm of politics where only the people of the Philippines are the judge. And the people have made the judgment; they have accepted the government of President Corazon C. Aquino The community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present government. All the eleven members of this Court, as reorganized, have sworn to uphold the fundamental law of the Republic under her government. It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government

12

13

7 CHAPTER 2 - CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY / 1987 Constitution De Leon vs. Esquerra G.R. No. 78059 Aug. 31, 1987 PETITIONERS ALFREDO M. DE LEON, ANGEL S. SALAMAT MARIO C. STA. ANA, JOSE C. TOLENTINO ROGELIO J. DE LA ROSA, JOSE M. RESURRECCION RESPONDENT HON. BENJAMIN B. ESGUERRA, as OIC Governor of the Province of Rizal HON. ROMEO C. DE LEON, as OIC Mayor of the Municipality of Taytay Rizal FLORENTINO G. MAGNO, REMIGIO M. TIGAS, RICARDO Z. LACANIENTA TEODORO V. MEDINA, ROSENDO S. PAZ, ERESITA L. TOLENTINO FACTS 

In the barangay elections held in May 17, 1982



Feb 9, 1987 Petitioner Alfredo M. de Leon received a memorandum antedated Dec 1, 1986 signed on Feb 8, 1987 by OIC Gov. Benjamin Esguerra, Designating Florentino Magno as New Barangay Captain.



DE Leon was elected barangay captain along with other petitioners as Barangay Councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Taytay Rizal.



A separate memorandum with the same dates was also issued by Hon. Esguerra replacing the barangay councilmen.



De Leon together with the other petitioners filed a petition to declare the subject Memorandum null and void and prevent the respondents from taking over their positions in the barangay.



Petitioners maintain that pursuant to the Sec.3 of the BP Blg. 222, their term of office shall be 6 years which shall commence on June 7 1982 and shall continue until their successors shall have elected and shall have qualified, “or up to June 7 1988.



It is also in their position that with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, the OIC Governor no longer has the authority to replace them and to designate their successors However the respondents contend that the term of office of elective and appointive officials were abolished and that petitioners continued in office by virtue of provisions under the 1973 constitution.





Respondents rely on Section2, Article III of the Provisional Constitution promulgated on March 25 1986, which provided [All elective and appointed officials under 1973 Constitution shall continue in office until otherwise provided by proclamation or executive order or upon the designation or appointment and qualification of their successors, if such appointment is made within a period of a year from February 25 1986.

ISSUES A. Whether or not the 1986 provisional constitution may be validly recognized B. Whether or not the 1987 constitution was already in effect on February 2, 1987 the day of the actual plebiscite or February 8, 1987, its announcement 13

14

RULING 

The court held that since the promulgation of the Provisional Constitution, there has been no proclamation or executive order terminating the term of elective Barangay officials.



Thus, the issue for resolution is whether or not the designation of respondents to replace petitioners was validly made during the one-year period which ended on February 25, 1987.



Considering the candid Affidavit of respondent OIC Governor, we hold that February 8, 1977, should be considered as the effective date of replacement and not December 1, 1986 to which it was antedated, in keeping with the dictates of justice.



But while February 8, 1987 is ostensibly still within the one year deadline, the aforementioned provision in the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been overtaken by Section 27, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution reading:



"Sec. 27. This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon its ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held for the purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions.

 

The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been superseded.



Having become inoperative, respondent OIC Governor could no longer rely on Section 2, Article III, thereof to designate respondents to the elective positions occupied by petitioners.



Further, the record of the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission further shows the clear, unequivocal and express intent of the Constitutional Commission that "the act of ratification is the act of voting by the people, So that is the date of the ratification"



And that "the canvass of the votes is merely the mathematical confirmation of what was done during the date of the plebiscite and the proclamation of the President is merely the of facial confirmatory declaration of an act which was actually done by the Filipino people in adopting the Constitution when they cast their votes on the date of the plebiscite."



The 1987 Constitution is deemed ratified on February 2, 1987, the actual date of the voting and not February 8, 1987, the announcement of the resolution.



The Supreme Court also finds nothing inconsistent between the term of six years for elective Barangay Officials and the 1987 Constitution.



The memoranda issued by the OIC Governor, therefore be declared null and void, no legal force and effect and the Writ of Prohibition is granted which bar the respondents from taking over petitioners position in Barangay Council

14