SUMMARY OF THE JUSTICES OPINION ON THE JAVELLANA vs.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY CASE (WHICH RESOLVED THE RATIFICATION ISSUE) Originally, there were a total of seven Justices who opined involving the requirements of the 1935 constitution for a valid ratification namely: a) Ratification of amendments must be held in an election conducted under the election law b) Supervised by the COMLEC c) Only franchised voters can take part A. Chief Justice Conception - the amendatory process provided in the 1973 constitution was not followed because it was precisely provided that only qualified citizens under Article V of the 1935 constitution are the only ones allowed to participate in the plebiscite B. Makalintal and Castro - The citizens assemblies were not limited to qualified 21 yrs of age, let alone registered voters but included all citizens from the age of 15 - No official ballots were used in the voting for it was done only by acclamation or show of hands - There was no secrecy as one of the essential features of election process - No set of rules were observed - COMELEC did no part in the elections - Thus, the 1935 constitutional requirements were not followed. C. Zaldivar (same as above) D. Fernando (same as above) E. Teehankee - Two of the essential requisites for ratification through election namely the participation of enfranchised person only and administration of the COMELEC are missing thus, there is an irregularity in the ratification. F. Barredo - The referendum falls short of the requirements provided by the 1935 constitution but the result of the referendum (votes of the people) is sufficient basis for declaring that the New Constitution has been ratified. G. Makasiar - An entirely new constitution does not have to be ratified in accordance with the existing constitutional statutory law. (classic example of an illegal submission that did not impair the validity of the ratification or adoption of a new constitution is the case of th eFedereal Constituion of the US). Those who originally dissented (Esguerra, Makaisar and Antonio) believed that people alone should determine whether the constitution was ratified or not. Since the majority of the people ratified the constitution, it is should be considered in force. Moreover, since there is no provision on revision in the 1935 constitution, the 1971 constitutional convention was called by the direct authority of the people and not by the authority of the constitution. However, 3 justices voted to dismiss the case (Makalintal, Castro, Barredo) including the dissenters. They all believed that whether or not the requirements in the 1935 constitution were complied with is irrelevant in the face of the acceptance of the constitution by the people.

Procedure prescribed by the 1935 Constitution for its amendment Art. XV Section 1 1. That the amendments to the Constitution be proposed either by Congress or by a Convention called for that purpose, by a vote of of all the members of the senate and the House of Representatives voting separately, but in joint session assembled; That such amendments be submitted to the people for their ratification at an election; That such amendments be approved by a majority of the votes cast in said election.

2. 3.