Philippine Bar vs COMELEC Case Digest – 140 SCRA 455

Philippine Bar vs COMELEC Case Digest

Philippine Bar vs COMELEC Case Digest

Follow my blog with Bloglovin

Facts – Philippine Bar vs COMELEC Case Digest

Petitioners filed a complaint questioning the validity of BP 883; calling for 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 President by taking his oath of office ten days after his proclamation.

Petitioners question the validity of Marcos’ resignation as it did not create the vacancy needed for a special election to be held and pray for prohibition to acts in relation to BP Blg 883.



  1. Whether or not BP 883 is unconstitutional.
  2. Whether or not the Supreme Court should allow incumbent President Marcos to run on that said special election.


Petitions dismissed. BP 883 is constitutional.

7 Justices voted to dismiss the case, while 5 justices voted to declare the statute unconstitutional.

It turned out that the issue has become a political question. It can be only decided by the people in their sovereign capacity at the scheduled election, fair, clean, and honest election.

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 elect a new president.

Philippine Bar vs COMELEC Case Digest

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts