PHIL Bar vs COMELEC DIGEST 40 SCRA 455, January 7, 1986

FACTS:

Petitions were filed questioning the validity of BP 883, calling a special election for President and Vice-President on
February 7, 1986.

The law was enacted following the letter of President Marcos to the BP that he was "irrevocably vacating the
position of President effective only when the election is held and after the winner is proclaimed and qualified as
Pres. by taking his oath of office ten days after his proclamation."

The principal ground for the challenge to the validity of the statute was that the conditional resignation of the
President did not create a vacancy required by Article VII, Sec. 9 which authorized the calling of a special election.

ISSUES:

Whether or not BP 883 is unconstitutional.

Whether or not the Supreme Court should allow incumbent President Marcos to run on that said special election.

HELD:

After deliberating, 7 Justices voted to dismiss. On the other hand, 5 Justices voted to declare the statute
unconstitutional. In accordance with Javellana v. Executive Secretary, of the view that as there were less than ten
votes for declaring BP 883 unconstitutional. The petitions should be dismissed.

On the second issue, it turned out to be a political question. It can only be decided by the people in their sovereign
capacity at the scheduled election. Thus, it is outside the ambit of the courts.

The Court cannot stand in the way of letting the people decide through their ballot, either to the give the incumbent
president a new mandate or elect a new president.