Scribd
Upload
45 views1 page

Case #17 PBA vs. COMELEC (1985)

The Supreme Court dismissed petitions to prohibit the special election called by President Marcos through Proclamation No. 883. [1] The petitions argued that BP 883 was unconstitutional because it allowed Marcos to remain in office after calling a special election. [2] However, the Court found there were not enough votes to declare BP 883 unconstitutional. [3] Additionally, the issues had become political questions that were best decided by the people in the scheduled election.

Uploaded by

Mida Salisa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
45 views1 page

Case #17 PBA vs. COMELEC (1985)

The Supreme Court dismissed petitions to prohibit the special election called by President Marcos through Proclamation No. 883. [1] The petitions argued that BP 883 was unconstitutional because it allowed Marcos to remain in office after calling a special election. [2] However, the Court found there were not enough votes to declare BP 883 unconstitutional. [3] Additionally, the issues had become political questions that were best decided by the people in the scheduled election.

Uploaded by

Mida Salisa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PBA v.

Comelec HELD:

Facts: The petitions were dismissed and the


prayer for the issuance of an injunction
1. Eleven (11) petitions were filed for restraining respondents from holding the
prohibition against the enforcement of BP 883 election on February 7, 1986, in as much as
which calls for special national elections on there are less than the required 10 votes to
February 7, 1986 (Snap elections) for the declare BP 883 unconstitutional.
offices of President and Vice President. It was
contended that BP 883 in conflict with the The events that have transpired since
constitution in that it allows the President to December 3,as the Court did not issue any
continue holding office after the calling of the restraining order, have turned the issue into a
special election. political question (from the purely justiciable
issue of the questioned constitutionality of the
2. Senator Pelaez submits that President act due to the lack of the actual vacancy of the
Marcos’ letter of conditional “resignation” did President’s office) which can be truly decided
not create the actual vacancy required in only by the people in their sovereign capacity
Section 9, Article 7 of the Constitution which at the scheduled election, since there is no
could be the basis of the holding of a special issue more political than the election. The
election for President and Vice President Court cannot stand in the way of letting the
earlier than the regular elections for such people decide through their ballot, either to
positions in 1987. The letter states that the give the incumbent president a new mandate
President is: “irrevocably vacat(ing) the or to elect a new president.
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.”

3. 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. 

ISSUE:

 W/N BP 883 is unconstitutional, and


should the Supreme Court therefore stop and
prohibit the holding of the elections 

You might also like