IN RE: SATURNINO VS.
BERMUDEZ ESCOLIN, SEP OPINION
• PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF as to who is being pertained to in the
Transitory provision of the 1986 consti whose term will be extended to June 30,
1992. It’s not clear whether it’s the Cory-Doy team-up or the Marcos-Tolentino
team.
• Petition dismissed due to:
1. lack of jurisdiction
2. lack of cause of action – it’s been established by public record & common
public knowledge that Cory is the new pres. & Doy is the VP.
3. lack of standing to sue
4. amounts to suit against president w/c is prohibited since she’s immune from
suit during incumbency & tenure
5. It is not justiciable. The people have decided. Foreign governments have
recognized legitimacy of current gov’t. Political because other departments
are assigned to declare who the winner is.
• Cruz, Sep. Opinion: Consti has not been ratified yet so they can’t interpret it.
PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOC VS. COMELEC
• BP 883 calls for special national elections while Marcos is still in office. He says
that he will resign as soon as a qualified person has been elected to the office.
ISSUE: WON calling for a special national elections when there is no vacancy in the
presidency is unconstitutional
HELD: 7 voted to dismiss & deny petition, 5 declared it unconstitutional thus granting
petition. Since 10 votes needed to declare an act unconsti’l was not met, act is
consti’l.
TEEHANKEE CONCURRING
• It’s a political ques that only the people can answer in their sovereign capacity.
• Supervening events should be considered:
1. it unified the opposition & implemented the 2-party sys
2. it can only be settled only thru presidential election
3. even the opposition is willing to give the president the illegal handicap as
long as election is clean, fair & honest
4. people are prepared & conditioned to hold election. Election is on.
5. Canceling the election can only aggravate econ crisis, insurgency, unstable
pol.situation and president won’t be able to govern effectively.
6. nat. survival of the country depends on the election. It’s the last chance of
Philippine democracy.
7. Pres. Lost mandate thus we need to give people the chance to choose a
new president.
8. Legislature has accepted it by virtue of BP 883.
PLANA, SEP. OPINION
• Consti doesn’t prohibit president from tendering resignation that’s not
immediately effective
• Pres’l resignation in the future is allowed. No need to wait for actual vacancy
before enacting legislation.
• Presumption of validity out of respect for the joint decisions of the exec & legis.
• Petitioners failed to demonstrate that BP 883 is against any consti provision
• It’s political in charac.
• President himself wanted a new election.
• BP was enacted w/in legislative body’s powers.
• People responded to it overwhelmingly.
• It can deliver the country from clutches of subversive forces as well as grave
economic problems.
RELOVA, SEP. OPINION
• Resignation: should come with a) intention to surrender/relinquish b) act of
relinquishment c) acceptance by competent & lawful authority
• Legislative accepted resignation thru BP 883
• Even opposition party has fielded candidates recognizing the election
• Time, effort & money have been spent
• It should be decided by people.
• Legis & exec have spoken
GUTIERREZ, SEP. OPINION
• Governmental acts ought to conform with the Consti.
• Vacancy must be real & actual with real & irrevocable resignation. Presidential
seat is still occupied, no vacancy.
• Snap election – applicable in a parliamentary set-up.
DE LA FUENTE, SEP. OPINION
• Unconsti’l coz it violates intent, letter & spirit of succession provision of Consti
• Resignation ought to be a permanent vacancy. It should be actual not merely
prospective or contingent.
• Declared constitutional only because of supervening events. It’s not really consti’l
in itself.
• If obj of snap election is to ask for the people’s vote of confidence, we should
hold a referendum instead. If people vote negatively, then we can say that there
is a vacancy. Or another option would be to have a consti’l amendment.
ALAMPAY, SEP OPINION
• Look at consti first before considering the supervening events, people’s desire,
etc.
• Respect & follow Consti. Current situation does not meet all specific condition
that there should first be an actual & existing vacancy before special election can
be held.
• Unconsti’l – it violates spirit & letter of Consti
PATAJO, DISSENTING
• Special election can only be called prior to end of President’s term if president’s
a) permanently disabled b) dead c) removed from office d) resigned.
• By issuing BP 883, Batasang Pambansa shortened president’s term in effect
amending the Consti. They can’t do so in their legislative set-up. It should be
done in the manner provided for by Consti. Term can only be shortened by
unconditional resignation of the president before his term expires.
TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A
4689782.doc
1
• If there is a vacancy, speaker should take the pres’l seat first pending the election • Thus, Provisional Consti no longer in effect & OIC governor no longer had power
of a qualified candidate. It only contemplates actual vacancy & not in futuro. to replace petitioners. Provisional Consti’s prescribed period was cut short by the
• President’s resignation which will take effect only upon qualification of president ratification of the consti.
elect in a pres’l elec in Feb. 7, 86 is not resignation contemplated in Consti. SARMIENTO, DISSENTING
• Consti can’t change w/ pub.opinion. • Effectivity date: proclamation date because it is only then when the ratification
has been ascertained.
DE LEON VS. ESGUERRA • During plebiscite, will of the people was not yet determined.
Original Action for Prohibition • All previous constis were effective on the day they were proclaimed ratified.
• Javellana vs. Exec. Sec.: date of effectivity was when SC declared it as ratified.
• May 17, 82 – Alfredo de Leon won as Brgy. Capt and other petitioners won as
Counclimen of Brgy. Dolores, Taytay, Rizal
• Feb. 9, 87 – de Leon received memo antedated Dec. 1, 86 signed by OIC Gov.
Benjamin Esguerra, Feb. 8, 87 designating Florentino Magno as new Capt by
authority of Minister of Loc. Gov.
• Similar memo signed Feb. 8, 87 designated new councilmen
• Petitioners: want memoranda to be declared null & void and prohibit respondents
from taking over their positions since they’re supposed to stay in office until June
7, 88 pursuant to Brgy. Election Act of 1982 Sec. 3. 1987 consti’s been ratified
too thus, OIC gov no longer has authority to replace them & designate
successors.
• Respondents: Provisional Consti, Art. III, Sec. 2 is still applicable. All terms of
office have been abolished. They continued holding post simply because no new
successors were appointed yet. Appointment should be w/in one year from Feb.
25, 86.
ISSUE: WON designation of successors is valid.
HELD: NO. Memoranda of no legal effect.
RATIO:
1. Effectivity of the memoranda should be based on the date when it was signed. So
Feb. 8, 87 not Dec. 1, 86.
2. Feb. 8, 87 is w/in the prescribed period. But Provisional Consti was no longer in
effect then because 1987 Consti has been ratified and its Transitory Provision,
Art. XVIII, Sec. 27 states that all previous constis were superseded already.
3. Consti was ratified on Feb. 2, 87. Thus it was the Consti in effect. Petitioners now
acquired security of tenure until fixed term of office for barangay officials has
been fixed. Barangay Elections Act is not inconsistent w/Consti.

TEEHANKEE, CONCURRING
• Consti became in effect on Feb. 2, 87, date of plebiscite & not Feb. 11, 87 when
its ratification was proclaimed
• There was proposal during Con Con to make Consti effective on the day of the
proclamation of its ratification but this opposed. Thus they agreed that its
effectivity will be on the very day of the plebiscite.
• Canvass is merely a mathematical confirmation whereas a presidential
proclamation is only an official confirmatory declaration of an act actually done by
the people when they voted during the plebiscite.

TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON I-A

4689782.doc
2