Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Peralta Vs

    Uploaded by

    jeanette4hijada
    12 views1 page
    The petitioners argued that the 45-day campaign period established in the 1978 Election Code was unconstitutional for two reasons: (1) it was decreed by the President rather than the Commission on Elections as required by the Constitution, and (2) it should be at least 90 days rather than 45 days. The Supreme Court held that the 45-day period was constitutional. Although decreed by the President rather than the Commission, the President had continuing legislative power during martial law. Additionally, the interim election required special rules due to the state of emergency. The Commission on Elections also adopted the 45-day period established in the Election Code.

    Original Description:

    case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The petitioners argued that the 45-day campaign period established in the 1978 Election Code was unconstitutional for two reasons: (1) it was decreed by the President rather than the Commission on Elections as required by the Constitution, and (2) it should be at least 90 days rather than 45 days. The Supreme Court held that the 45-day period was constitutional. Although decreed by the President rather than the Commission, the President had continuing legislative power during martial law. Additionally, the interim election required special rules due to the state of emergency. The Commission on Elections also adopted the 45-day period established in the Election Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    12 views1 page

    Peralta Vs

    Uploaded by

    jeanette4hijada
    The petitioners argued that the 45-day campaign period established in the 1978 Election Code was unconstitutional for two reasons: (1) it was decreed by the President rather than the Commission on Elections as required by the Constitution, and (2) it should be at least 90 days rather than 45 days. The Supreme Court held that the 45-day period was constitutional. Although decreed by the President rather than the Commission, the President had continuing legislative power during martial law. Additionally, the interim election required special rules due to the state of emergency. The Commission on Elections also adopted the 45-day period established in the Election Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    PERALTA vs.

    COMELEC Case Digest


    PERALTA vs. COMELEC
    82 SCRA 30

    Facts:

    Section 4 of the 1978 Election Code provides that the election period shall be fixed by
    the Commission on Elections in accordance with Section 6, Article XII[C] of the
    Constitution. The period of campaign shall not be more than forty-five days immediately
    preceding the election, excluding the day before and the day of the election. Petitioners
    questioned the constitutionality of the 45-day campaign period because: (a) it was
    decreed by the President and not by the Commission on Elections as provided by
    Section 6 of Article XII-C and (b) the period should cover at least ninety days (90). They
    argue that Section 6 of Article XII-C of the Constitution provides that the election period
    shall commence ninety days before the day of election and shall end thirty days
    thereafter.”

    Issue: Whether or not the 45-day period is unconstitutional

    Held:

    The 45-day campaign period is constitutional. Although the campaign period prescribed
    in the 1978 Election Code for the election of the representatives to the interim Batasang
    Pambansa is less than 90 days and was decreed by the President and not by the
    Commission on Elections as provided by Section 6 of Article XII-C of the Constitution,
    the same does not violate the Constitution, because under Amendment 1, the manner
    of election of members of the interim Batasang Pambansa shall be prescribed and
    regulated by law, and the incumbent President under Amendment No. 5, shall continue
    to exercise legislative power until martial law shall have been lifted. Moreover, the
    election for members in the interim Batasang Pambansa is an election in a state of
    emergency requiring special rules, and only the incumbent President has the authority
    and means of obtaining information on the peace and order condition of the country
    within which an electoral campaign may be adequately conducted in all regions of the
    nation. But even assuming that it should be the Commission on Elections that should fix
    the period of campaign, the constitutional mandate is complied with by the fact that the
    Commission has adopted and is enforcing the period fixed in Section 4, Article 1, of the
    1978 Election Code.

    You might also like