GR 52265; (January, 1980) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-52265 January 28, 1980
SAMUEL C. OCCEÑA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, NATIONAL TREASURER, and DIRECTOR OF PRINTING, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Samuel C. Occeña filed a petition for prohibition seeking to restrain respondents from implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 51, 52, 53, and 54. These laws provided for local elections scheduled for January 30, 1980, and a simultaneous plebiscite on a proposed constitutional amendment regarding the retirement age of members of the judiciary. The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of these acts on several grounds. He argued that the Interim Batasang Pambansa (IBP) lacked the power to authorize local elections. Assuming it had such power, he contended it could not do so without first enacting a local government code. He further asserted that scheduling the elections less than ninety days from the passage of the law violated the Constitution. Finally, he questioned the legality of holding the plebiscite concurrently with the local elections.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether the IBP possessed the legislative power to call for local elections; (2) if so, whether the enactment of a local government code was a prerequisite; (3) whether the scheduling of elections within less than ninety days from the law’s passage was constitutional; and (4) whether the plebiscite could validly be held simultaneously with the local elections.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no constitutional infirmity. On the first issue, the Court held that the legislative power granted to the National Assembly under the 1973 Constitution was explicitly vested in the IBP during the transition period by virtue of the 1976 Amendments. This power is plenary and includes the inherent authority to regulate elections, prescribe ballots, and provide for the manner of choosing candidates. The Court found no constitutional provision, express or implied, denying the IBP this authority. The petitioner’s reliance on a committee report related to the rejected interim National Assembly was misplaced, as the IBP was a distinct body created by the sovereign will of the people in the 1976 plebiscite.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that Section 1, Article XI of the Constitution did not impose the enactment of a local government code as a condition precedent for holding local elections. The IBP could call elections to strengthen local democratic institutions without precluding the future enactment of such a code. Regarding the third issue, the Court interpreted Section 6, Article XII as not fixing an unalterable 90-day campaign period. This provision, read in conjunction with Section 5 granting the COMELEC regulatory powers, merely defines the “election period,” which the COMELEC could adjust. Finally, on the fourth issue, the Court found no prohibition against holding a plebiscite simultaneously with a local election, noting the proposed amendment had been widely publicized and debated. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.