4.

The 1986 Snap Elections

Philippine Bar Association v Comelec
G.R. No 72915,
December 20, 1985

Facts:

Numbers of petitions were filed for prohibition against the enforcement of BP 883 which
calls for special national elections on February 07, 1986 the Snap elections for the
offices of President and Vice President of the Philippines. BP 883 in conflict with the
constitution in that it allows the President to continue holding office after the calling of
the special election.

President Marcos’ gave a letter of conditional resignation which it did not create the
actual vacancy required in Section 9, Article 7 of the Constitution which could be the
basis of the holding of special election for President and Vice President earlier than the
regular elections for such positions in 1987. The letter states that the President is:
“irrevocably vacat(ing) the position of President effective only when the election is held
and after the winner is proclaimed and qualified as President by taking his oath office
ten (10) days after his proclamation.

The unified opposition, rather than insist on strict compliance with the cited
constitutional provision that the incumbent President actually resign, vacate his office
and turn it over to the Speaker of the Batasang Pambansa as acting President, their
standard bearers have not filed any suit or petition in intervention for the purpose nor
repudiated the scheduled election. They have not insisted that President Marcos vacate
his office, so long as the election is clean, fair and honest.

Issues:

1. Whether BP 833 is unconstitutional

2. Should the Supreme Court therefore stop and prohibit the holding of the elections

Ruling

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 give the incumbent president a new mandate or to elect a new president.