NAME NINOTCHKA D.

ABABA
JD1-C
Constitutional Law 1
CASE TITLE Phil Bar Assoc. v. COMELEC
DATE January 7, 1986; 140 SCRA 455
FACTS 11 petitions were filed for prohibition against the enforcement of BP 883
which calls for special national elections on February 7, 1986 (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.

Senator Pelaez submits that President Marcos’ letter of conditional

“resignation” did not create the actual vacancy required in Section 9, Article
7 of the Constitution which could be the basis of the holding of a special
election 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 of 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 of 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.

ISSUE/S Is BP 883 unconstitutional?

Should the Supreme Court therefore stop and prohibit the holding of the
elections?
RULING Seven (7) Justices cast a dismissal vote following discussion. On the other
hand, the statute was ruled unconstitutional by five (5) Justices. The petitions
ought to be rejected because BP 883 was declared unlawful by less than ten
(10) votes.

On the second matter at hand, it emerged as a political issue. It can only be

chosen by the voting public in their own discretion during the planned
election. Election that is fair, honest, and clean.

Therefore, it is not within the purview of the courts. The Court cannot
obstruct the people's right to use their vote to choose whether to extend the
current president's term or elect a new one.