Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5K views

    Phil Bar Association V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Cari Mangalindan Macaalay
    The Philippine Bar Association challenged the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa 883, which called for national elections in February 1986 for the offices of President and Vice President while the incumbent President would remain in office. By a vote of 8-7, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and denied the request to prohibit the elections. While some Justices dissented that there was no actual vacancy yet, the majority found that cancelling scheduled elections could undermine stability and that the people should be allowed to vote, even in this novel situation not foreseen by the constitution's framers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Phil Bar Association V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Cari Mangalindan Macaalay
    5K views2 pages
    The Philippine Bar Association challenged the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa 883, which called for national elections in February 1986 for the offices of President and Vice President while the incumbent President would remain in office. By a vote of 8-7, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and denied the request to prohibit the elections. While some Justices dissented that there was no actual vacancy yet, the majority found that cancelling scheduled elections could undermine stability and that the people should be allowed to vote, even in this novel situation not foreseen by the constitution's framers.

    Original Description:

    Consti Digest

    Original Title

    Phil Bar Association v Comelec

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Philippine Bar Association challenged the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa 883, which called for national elections in February 1986 for the offices of President and Vice President while the incumbent President would remain in office. By a vote of 8-7, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and denied the request to prohibit the elections. While some Justices dissented that there was no actual vacancy yet, the majority found that cancelling scheduled elections could undermine stability and that the people should be allowed to vote, even in this novel situation not foreseen by the constitution's framers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    5K views2 pages

    Phil Bar Association V Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Cari Mangalindan Macaalay
    The Philippine Bar Association challenged the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa 883, which called for national elections in February 1986 for the offices of President and Vice President while the incumbent President would remain in office. By a vote of 8-7, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and denied the request to prohibit the elections. While some Justices dissented that there was no actual vacancy yet, the majority found that cancelling scheduled elections could undermine stability and that the people should be allowed to vote, even in this novel situation not foreseen by the constitution's framers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    CMM DIGEST

    Philippine Bar Association v Comelec


    January 7, 1986
    Batas Pambansa 883 as unconstitutional
    (Constitutional Law 1)

    Plaintiff: Philippine Bar Association, et al
    Defendant: Comelec, et al
    Ponente:

    RELATED LAWS:
    BP 883 / Cabinet Bill No 7: calls for national elections on Feb 7, 1986 for the
    offices of P & VP of the Philippines.

    Art 7 Sec 9: In case of permanent disability, death, removal from office or
    resignation of the President, the VP shall become the President to serve the
    unexpired term. The Batasang Pambansa shall by law provide for the cases
    mentioned of the P and VP, declaring what officer shall then become P & VP or the
    manner in which one shall be selected. In case vacancy in the office of the president
    occurs before the election in 1987, the Speaker of the Batasang Pambansa shall act
    as president until a Pres and VP or either od them shall have been elected and shall
    have qualified. Their term of office shall commence at noon of the 10
    th
    day following
    proclamation, and shall end at noon on the 13
    th
    day of June of the 6
    th
    year thereafter.

    FACTS:
    Plaintiffs claim that BP833 is in conflict with the Constitution in that it allows
    the President to continue holding office after the calling of the election.


    ISSUE: Whether BP 833 is unconstitutional and the court must stop and prohibit the
    holding of elections.

    HOLDING: No. There are less than 10 required votes to declare BP 833
    unconstitutional. Thus, petitions are dismissed, writs are denied.

    RATIO:
    Teehankee, Concur: The cancellation of the elections can only aggravate the
    prevailing crisis and the President may find it difficult to govern effectively. Political
    system that calls an election and calls it off when the momentum has already built
    up will not be taken by the people kindly. The president is seeking the judgment of
    the people and the court cannot stand on its way. Such a vacancy arising from an
    incumbent of the Presidential inspired by the desire to seek a fresh mandate from
    the people is a novel situation that was not contemplated by the framers of 1981
    amendments to the 1973 constitution.

    Plana, Concur: Art 7 Sec 9 does not yield to the conclusion that BP 883 is
    unconstitutional. Batasang Pambansa is not obliged by the constitution to sit and
    wait until actual vacancy arises before it can enact necessary legislation.
    CMM DIGEST
    Philippine Bar Association v Comelec
    January 7, 1986
    Batas Pambansa 883 as unconstitutional
    (Constitutional Law 1)


    Escolin, Concur: The petition is political in character. Judicial department has no
    authority to determine the constitutionality of the acts of legislature/executive. The
    jurisdiction of the court is the issue involved, not the provision which may be
    applied. Given the circumstances and a statute thats not clearly proven to violate
    the constitution, the court should not prevent the electorate from giving expression
    to their sovereign will.

    Relova, Concur: The provision does not say that actual vacancy must exist on the
    day of the election. Had the president not issued the letter of resignation, then the
    BP was without authority to enace BP 883. Furthermore, so much time, money and
    effort have already been spent. BP has passed the law and the president has
    approved it.

    Gutierrez, Dissent: No official, no matter how high, is above the law. It is
    elementary in the law of public office that no valid election or appointment can be
    made until such position is vacant. I cannot accept the fictitious vacancy enacted
    by the President is the vacancy referred to in the law. The president must first
    resign, let the Speaker of BP act as president until a new president is elected. Snap
    elections to make executive accountable to people are for parliamentary systems.
    Ours is a presidential.

    De La Fuente, Dissent: resignation must result to a permanent vacancy. If the
    president merely needed a vote of confidence, then the proper vehicle would be
    referendum, not snap elections, or a constitutional amendment.

    Alampay, Dissent: Appeals to what is claimed to be the present popular wish
    should not assume any significance in the ruling of this court.

    Patajo, Dissent: There is no vacancy. Constitutions do not change with the varying
    tides of public opinion.

    You might also like