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: 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: 9: In case of permanent disability, death, removal from office or resignation of the President, the VP shall become the President to se rve the unexpired term. The Batasang Pambansa shall by law provide for the case s 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 a ct 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 10th day following proclamation, and shall end at noon on the 13th day of June of the 6th year thereafter. FACTS: Plaintiffs claim that BP833 is in conflict with the Constitution in that it a llows the President to continue holding office after the calling of the election.
ISSUE: ISSUE: Whether BP 833 is unconstitutional and the court must stop and prohibit the holding of elections. HOLDING: HOLDING: No. There are less than 10 required votes to declare BP 833 unconstitutional. Thus, petitions are dismissed, writs are denied. RATIO: RATIO: Teehankee, Concur: The 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 a nd 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 sta nd 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 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 that’s 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.
