In a hearing at the Suffolk County Appeals Court today, state officials will attempt to overturn a lower court ruling to block enactment of five state ballot questions which passed last month.

Among the initiatives under review is Question 9, which would repeal controversial rent control laws in Cambridge, Boston and Brookline.

Defending the constitutionality of the state referendum, Attorney General L. Scott Harshbarger '64 filed an appeal yesterday in an effort to nullify a Monday decision by Suffolk Superior Court Judge Hiller B. Zobel, who found the conduct of the referendum unconstitutional.

Two attorneys representing tenant advocates and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union persuaded Zobel that Secretary of State Michael J. Connolly, who conducted the referendum, violated Article 48 of the state constitution by not printing summaries of the proposed laws on the ballot.

Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks will represent Connolly at a 2 p.m. hearing today before Associate Justice Christopher J. Armstrong.

Connolly had originally planned to submit all nine questions to the Governor's Council yesterday for certification, the first step to the implementation of the questions.

George F. Cronin, secretary to the Governor's Council, confirmed yesterday that only the four uncontested questions had been submitted for certification.

A law passed by the state legislature in September permitted Connolly to provide printed summaries of the ballot questions at polling sites across the state.

But that law is unconstitutional, said Burton A. Nadler, who is representing the four plaintiffs in the suit against Connolly.

"It certainly permits the secretary of state to [provide summaries], but the constitution is what prohibits it," Nadler said in an telephone interview yesterday. "And the constitution is what prevails."

Zobel agreed. "I take the constitutional provision to require that except as authorized in the Constitution itself, the fair and concise summary must be printed on the ballot," the judge wrote in his three-page ruling.

In the state's appeal, Harshberger argued that "the court abused its discretion" in issuing the restraining order.

He said the plaintiffs had failed to show that "imminent irreparable harm" would be caused by the certification of the referendum, or that the questions would take effect before their request for a court injunction could be heard.

"The Superior Court apparently concluded that plaintiffs were likely to succeed in establishing that a recently enacted statute governing the matter of voting...was unconstitutional," Harshbarger wrote in his appeal, referring to the September law.

"It is a determination not supported by established law," the attorney general added.

"It's extraordinary to grant a temporary restraining order when there's no showing of harm to any party," said Ed Cafasso, spokesperson for the attorney general.