OSMEA VS. COMELEC Petition for Prohibition, Mandamus & Injunction Ponente: Personalities: Justice Paras Gov.

Emiliano Osmea Gov. Roberto Pagdanganan Rep. Pablo Garcia Rep. Raul del Mar Rep. Antonio Bacaltos Rep. Wilfredo Cainglet Rep. Romeo Guanzon Petitioners COMELEC Oscar Orbos Guillermo Carague Rosalina Cajucom Respondents Solicitor General, for respondents Manuel Siayngco, Oliviano Regalado Jacinto Jimenez Pablo Garcia, Winston Garcia For petitioners FACTS: Petitioners argue that RA 7056, in providing for desynchronized elections violates the Constitution: 1. PC mandate that local & natl elections be held on the second Monday of May, beginning 1992 2. par. 2, Sec. 3 of RA 7056, by providing that provincial, city & municipal officials hold over beyond June 30, 1992 violates Sec. 2, Art. 18 of PC 3. Par. 2 Sec. 3 of RA 7056 shortens the term of certain officials to be elected on the second Monday of November 1992 a violation of Sec. 8, Art. 10 of PC 4. Sec. 8 of RA 7056, by fixing campaign periods (Pres. & VP 130, Senators 45 days before elections) violates Sec. 9 Art. 9 of PC 5. Problems stated as reasons for desynchronization are not valid. Petitioners argue that as public officials and taxpayers, they have the duty to uphold the PC. Respondents argue that the questioned provision is a valid exercise of legislative power, and that the amending process in the Consti does not apply to transitory provisions. Furthermore, it is a political question, and the petitioners have no standing. Pending judgment, a temporary restraining order on RA 7056 was issued on June 27, 1991. ISSUES: 1. WON Court has jurisdiction over the matter 2. WON RA 7056 is unconstitutional 3. WON amending process applies to Transitory Provisions HELD: 1. Issue is a justiciable controversy

RATIO: The act in question is not discretionary in nature. The question is the legality and not wisdom of RA 7056. Furthermore, the SC now has expanded jurisdiction over matters involving political questions, so long as Constitutionality is an issue, as evident in Sec. 1, Art. 8 of PC. Transcendental importance of cases to the public can merit brushing aside of procedure which is why procedural flaws (standing, etc.) of petitioners can be brushed aside. 2. Statute violates the Constitution. RATIO: The Constitution specifically provides for the synchronization of elections, as seen from the discussion of its framers. The provisions of RA 7056 assailed by petitioners are violative of the Constitution. 3. Transitory Provisions Constitutional RATIO: The Transitory Provisions were not created to be applied as soon as practicable, but on a nd specific date: 2 Monday of May, 1992. The Solicitor General merely focused on the procedural issues and the legislative power of Congress, but failed to address the Constitutional questions. Moreover, the absence of a provision prohibiting separate elections does not prec lude synchronization. WHEREFORE, RA 7056 is unconstitutional & therefore null & void. The TRO is made permanent.