Professional Documents
Culture Documents
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Philippine Bar
Association vs.
Commission on Elections
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
January 7, 1986
Gentlemen
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En
Banc dated December 19, 1985
"G.R. No. 72915 (Philippine Bar Association, et al. vs. The
Commission on Elections, et al); G.R. No. 72922 (Martiniano P. Vivo, et
al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al.); G.R. No. 72923 (MP Aquilino Q.
Pimentel, Jr., et al. vs. The Treasurer of the Philippines, et al.); G.R. No.
72924 (The Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity and
Nationalism, Inc. [MABINI], et al. vs. The Commission on Elections, et
al.); G.R. No. 72927 (The Liberal Party, et al. vs. The National Treasurer
of the Philippines); G.R. No. 72928 (Concerned Women of the
Philippines, et al. vs. Hon. Maximiano Savellano, et al.); G.R. No. 72935
(Alberto G. Romulo, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al.); G.R. No.
72954 (Victor C. Avecilla, et al. vs. Commission on Elections); G.R. No.
72957 (National Bar Association of the Philippines, et al. vs. Commission
on Elections, et al); G.R. No. 72968 (Laban ng Bayan [LABAN], et al. vs.
The Commission on Elections, et al.) and G.R. No. 72986 (Juan T. David
vs. The Commission on Elections, et al.).After considering all the
pleadings and deliberating on the issues raised in the petitions as well as
on the oral arguments of the parties and the amici curiae in the hearings
held in these cases, Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino and six (6) Justices,
namely, Justices Claudio Teehankee, Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr.,
Vicente Abad Santos, Efren I. Plana, Venicio T. Escolin and Lorenzo
Relova, voted to DISMISS the petitions in these cases and to DENY the
prayer for the issuance of an injunction restraining respondents from
456
'Accordingly, inasmuch as there are less than the required ten (10) votes to declare
Batas Pambansa Bilang 883 unconstitutional, the petitions in these cases are hereby
DISMISSED and the writs therein prayed for are DENIED.' "
"Chief Justice Aquino is of the opinion that the revision of the December
19, 1985 resolution is totally unnecessary. It is clear. It is understood that
the petitions are dismissed. The public and the Comelec understood that
the petitions were dismissed."
* Melecio-Herrera, J., took no part in all these cases.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) GLORIA C. PARAS
Clerk of Court
_______________
457
I vote for the dismissal of the petition for prohibition against enforcement
of resolve issue issue and prevent on the ground that no clear case has
been made of an absolute void of power and authority that would warrant
its nullification and that prohibition is not a remedy for acts done that can
no longer be undone.
The stated issue is quite simple: mendments amendments nts abolishing
calling for special national elections on February that such restoration for
the offices of President and Vice-President of the Philippines (for the first
time since the pre-martial ed 1969 presidential elections) unconstitutional,
and should this Court therefore stop and prohibit the holding of the
elections?
Upon the filing on December 3rd of the lead and other petitions at bar,
four members of the Court (Justices Abad Santos, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr.,
and myself) voted per the Court's Resolution of December 5th to issue a
temporary restraining order against enforcement of the Act and to hear the
petitions on last December 12th so as to maintain the status quo and
thereafter speedily resolve the issue and prevent the people's expectations
from reaching a point of no return, Our vote did not gain the required
concurrence of a majority of eight. Instead the Court granted the parties
substantial periods for filing of respondents' comment and petitioners'
replies and to hear the case only after two weeks on December 17th
(continued to December 18th) with a clear consensus to take a vote and
resolve the petitions immediately af ter the hearing.
It is of public knowledge and record, as pointed out by former VicePresident, Senator and Executive Committee Member Emmanuel N.
458
Emphasis copied.
460
460
giant step, the biggest stride yet made by our people in their struggle for
the restoration of freedom and democracy, which were shattered by the
declaration of martial law. Four elections have since been heldin 1978
for the interim Batasan Pambansa, in 1980 for local officials, in 1981 for
President, and in 1984 for the present Batasan. None of these elections
could be said to have been truly democratic, mainly due to the absence of a
strong, united opposition. Today, by some miracle, the Opposition has
become united, so that a truly one-on-one contest for the Presidency can be
held and the two-party system has suddenly become a reality. These are
substantial gains that should not be frittered away by postponing the
Presidential and Vice-Presidential election to mid-1987. With these
developments, the issue has been decided by the political will of the
people. This Honorable Court should not put obstacles to their exercise of
that will. Beyond these considerations, national survival depends on the
forthcoming snap poll. x x x x x x
"Then the President goes on to state that the mandate he received from
the people in 1981 is no longer valid and that to go on he needs a new
mandate. Here is a confession that he has reached a blank wall, that he can
no longer lead the nation, much less achieve his economic and other
programs on the basis of his 1981 election. The Presidency has lost its
capacity
______________
5
462
462
464
process.) 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 to elect a new president.
SEPARATE OPINION
PLANA, J.:
The narrow legal issue involved in these petitions is whether Batas
Pambansa Blg. 883 which provides for a "snap" election on February 7,
1986 violates the Constitution.
An examination of the Constitution, particularly Article VII, Section 9,
does not yield the conclusion that B.P. Blg. 883 is offensive to its
provisions. What is clear is that the Constitution does not prohibit the
President from tendering a resignation that is not immediately effective.
Indeed, there is no provision whatsoever regarding such kind of
resignation.
Not being prohibited, a Presidential resignation in futuro is allowed.
And in such a case, the Batasang Pambansa is not obliged to sit and wait
for the actual vacancy to arise before enacting necessary legislation. That
would be an unreasonable and absurd interpretation of the Constitution,
which is to be eschewed.
Quite apart from the foregoing, there is a strong presumption that a law
is constitutional, which is fortified by the rule that all reasonable doubt
should be resolved in favor of its constitutionality. Hence, in assessing the
constitutionality of a law, "to doubt is to sustain." This approach is dictated
by a healthy respect of the courts for a co-equal department, the
Legislature, and the latter's assumed wisdom within the area of its
competence. This principle is doubly applicable as regards B.P. Blg. 883
which is the product of the joint action of the executive and legislative
departments.
SUPREME COURT 465
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Philippine Bar
Association vs.
Commission on Elections
465
Long ago, U.S. Chief Justice Marshall laid down an epochal standard in
evaluating the constitutional validity of a law: "Let the end be legitimate,
let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are
appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not
prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are
constitutional." (M'Culloch v. Maryland, et al., 4 Wheat. 316.) That
standard remains valid till now.
Accordingly, I vote to dismiss the petitions.
SEPARATION OPINION
ESCOLIN, J., separate opinion:
In my view, petitioners failed to demonstrate that BP 883 clearly
contravenes any applicable constitutional provision. Besides, the issue
posed by these petitions is essentially political in character. And "when the
issue is a political one which comes within the exclusive sphere of the
Legislative or Executive Department of the government to decide, the
Judicial Department or the Supreme Court has no authority to determine
whether or not the act of the Legislature or Chief Executive is against the
Constitution. What determines the jurisdiction of the courts in such case is
the issue involved, and not the law or constitutional provision which may
be applied." [Mabanag, et al vs. Lopez Vito, et al., L-1123, March 5, 1948,
78 Phil. 1, See concurring opinion of Justice Feria].
It appears that the President himself sought the passage of the
challenged legislation, in his quest for a "new mandate" in an election that
will constitute "public judgment now on policies and programs of a
fundamental nature" The Batasan Pambansa, in the exercise of its plenary
power of legislation, has authorized the holding of the election. The
positive response of the people to the call for such an election has been
overwhelming; and the body politic itself has decided that only an election
in this crucial time could deliver the country from the clutches of
subversive f orces as well as the grave economic problems plaguing the
country.
466
466
clearly proven to be violative of the letter and the spirit of the constitution,
this Court attuned to the realities of the situation, should not prevent the
electorate from giving expression to their sovereign will.
SEPARATE OPINION
RELOVA, J.:
Article VII of the Constitution, Section 9 thereof, as amended, provides:
"SECTION 9. In case of permanent disability, death, removal from office or
resignation of the President, the VicePresident shall become the President to serve the
unexpired term. The Batasang Pambansa shall by law provide for the case of
permanent disability, death, removal from office or resignation of both the President
and Vice-President, declaring what officer shall then become President or the manner
in which one shall be selected. In case a vacancy in the Office of President occurs
before the presidential election in 1987, the Speaker of the Batasang Pambansa shall
act as President until a President and a Vice-President or either of them shall have
been elected and shall have qualified. Their term of office shall commence at noon of
the tenth day following proclamation, and shall end at noon on the thirtieth day of
June of the sixth year thereafter."
As held in Gamboa, et al. vs. CA, 108 SCRA 1, [o]ne of the ways of
terminating official relations is by resignation. To constitute a complete
and operative resignation of public office, there must be an intention to
relinquish a part of the term, accompanied by the act of relinquishment
and a resignation implies an expression of the incumbent in some form,
express or implied, of the intention to surrender, renounce, and relinquish
the office and the acceptance by competence and lawful authority. In Our
jurisprudence, acceptance is necessary for resignation of a public officer to
be operative and effective, otherwise the officer is subject to the penal
provisions of Article 238 of the Revised Penal Code. x x x." (Italics
supplied) In the light of the abovecited case, actual vacancy need not exist
SUPREME COURT 467
REPORTS
ANNOTATED
Philippine Bar
Association vs.
Commission on Elections
467
468
stitution (see Article VII, Section 1 of the Constitution; Vera vs. Avelino,
77 Phil. 192 [1946]; Arnault vs. Nazareno, 87 Phil 29 [1950];Occena vs.
Commission on Elections, 95 SCRA 755 [1980].
The interstices of the Constitution are within the power of the legislature
to fill up. What is not prohibited by the Constitution can be provided for
by the Batasang Pambansa. Indeed, it is conceded 'that the Congress of the
Philippines has a wider range of legislative field than either the Congress
of the United States or a State Legislature' (Amault vs. Nazareno, 87 Phil.
29; 44-45 [1950].
1. "3.
The calling of an election is essentially legislative in nature
(Ututalum vs. Commission on Elections, 15 SCRA 465 [1965]. All
elections for President, Vice President, members of the legislature
and local officials in our country have been called through legislative
enactments.
It cannot be doubted that enactment of Batas Pambansa Blg. 883 falls well within the
legislative authority of the Batasang Pambansa. The narrow issue is whether the law
violates the Constitution, particularly Section 9, Article VII." (pp. 6-8, Consolidated
Comment of the Solicitor General.)
Besides, supervening events have occurred since the passage of the law on
December 3, 1985 and there would be no turning back now. The Batasang
Pambansa passed the law and the President has approved it; but the Court
failed to issue a restraining order when the petitions were filed on
December 3, 1985 so as to maintain the status quo. Thereafter, the ruling
political parties (KBL and UNIDO) have fielded their respective
presidential and vice presidential candidates in conventions and
proclamations attended by thousands of people. So much time, effort and
money have already been spent. We can take judicial notice of the fact that
the overwhelming sentiment and desire of our people is for the holding of
the coming snap elections and that they have tacitly consented and
approved the law in question. At this juncture, We cannot now deprive
them of this right of suffrage. The two coordinate branches of the
government (legislative and executive) have spoken. The judiciary should
not be an obstacle to the people's desire to select their Chief Executive in
the forthcoming snap polls.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to dismiss the petitions.
469
the functions with which it is entrusted have no choice but to yield obedience to its
commands. Whatever limits it imposes must be observed. Congress in the enactment
of statutes must ever be on guard lest the restrictions on its authority, whether
substantive or formal, be transcended. The Presidency in the execu470
470
tion of the laws cannot ignore or disregard what it ordains. In its task of applying the
law to the facts as found in deciding cases, the judiciary is called upon to maintain
inviolate what is decreed by the fundamental law. Even its power of judicial review
to pass upon the validity of the acts of the coordinate branches in the course of
adjudication is a logical corollary of this basic principle that the Constitution is
paramount. It overrides any governmental measure that fails to live up to its
mandates. Thereby there is a recognition of its being the supreme law.''
472
SEPARATE OPINION
DELA FUENTE, J.:
For the reasons well stated by my distinguished colleague, Hon. Lino
Patajo, I am inclined to share the view expressed in his dissent that B.P.
Blg. 883 is unconstitutional. For it contravenes the intent, letter and spirit
of the succession provisionsection 9, Article VIIof the Constitution.
To my mind the said statute would, if implemented, sidetrack or bypass
the cited constitutional provision designed to govern the selection of a
successor in case of vacancy in the office of
474
474
________________
1
"The question of the constitutionality of the 'snap election for Presidentand maybe
Vice-President?on Jan. 17, 1986 proposed in Cabinet Bill No. 7 is a very serious one.
Grave doubts raised on its constitutional validity must be resolved before any favorable
action is taken on the proposal. Otherwise, the political controversy now rocking the
country could degenerate into irreversible national disunity. Worse still, the rule of law in
our country, the very foundation of a free and democratic society, would be irreparably
compromised.
xxx
xxx
xxx
475
". . . a severe blow on it at this time, like holding an unconstitutional presidential election, could
irreparably destroy it.
xxx
xxx
xxx
"The consequence of all this was: as ratified by the people, the present presidential succession
procedure, which was adopted together with other constitutional amendments on Jan. 17, 1984, is
definite, precise, and clear, leaving no room for the Batasan to change or add to it one whit. No
discretion whatsoever is given to the Batasan to exercise its legislative power either to amend or to
ignore any portion thereof.
"The Batasan's clear duty is circumscribed solely to implement the presidential succession
formula now embodied in the Constitution and nothing more. Its role in putting it into effect is
purely ministerial, which in layman's language means automatic, mechanical, not requiring the
exercise of judgment. To test the validity of the foregoing assertions, let us analyze Section 9,
Article VIIthe only section of the Constitution that deals with presidential successionsentence
by sentence.
'Section 9. In case of permanent disability. . . .
xxx
xxx
xxx
"The first sentence presupposes that a Vice-President shall have been elected and shall have
qualified. It provides that in case the Presidency becomes vacant by reason of permanent disability,
death, removal from office or resignation, the Vice-President shall automatically become President.
This is the 'spare tire' concept of the Vice-Presidency which our people are familiar with and easily
understand from experience. . . The provision does not apply to the present where we have no VicePresident.
"The next sentence provides that in the absence of a President and Vice-President, the Batasan
shall by law provided for a further line of succession. This is one of only two instances where the
Constitution authorizes the Batasan to take a hand in the presidential succession procedure. The
other one is found in the fifth and last
476
476
"The third and following sentences prescribe the succession procedure if a permanent vacancy
occurs during the term of President Marcos, that is, until its expiration in June, 1987. The trigger
mechanism which would set off the events enumerated in these provisions is the occurrence of a
permanent vacancya real, not a "paper" vacancy. This is sine qua non. Without the occurrence of
an actual and permanent vacancy, the presidential succession procedure cannot come to life. With
is occurrence, the events take place, dominolike, automatically. The Batasan has no authority
whatsoever to contrive another cause, like a post-dated resignation to take place only if the
President loses in the (snap) election proposed in Cabinet Bill No. 7, to justify such an election.
This would nullify the succession procedure of the Constitution and would be grossly
unconstitutional.
"Let us, by re-reading the third and succeeding sentences, pinpoint the specifics of the succession
procedure mandated by the Constitution.
"Upon the occurrence of a permanent vacancy in the Presidency
477
1.
The Speaker of the Batasan automatically becomes the Acting President. He shall serve as
such until President and Vice-President, or either of them shall have been elected and shall
have qualified. The language of the Constitution is clear enough, requiring no explanation or
elaboration.
2.
2.
On the third day after the occurrence of the vacancy, (a) at ten o'clock in the morning, (b)
the Batasan shall convene in accordance with its rules without need of a callthe
constitutional provision itself makes the call in advance; and (c) within seven (7) days enact
a law, (d) calling a special election to elect a President and Vice-President; (c) not earlier
than fortyfive (45) nor later than sixty (60) days from the time of such call.
"Please note how the Constitution goes into painstaking details. The convening of the Batasan must
be on the third day from the occurrence of the vacancynot on the first or second or fourth and so
forth but on the third. Even the hour of convening is set at ten (10) o'clock. The Batasan is given a
deadline of seven (7) days within which to enact a law calling for a specified election. The
candidates to be selected are specifiedthe President and the Vice-President. The Batasan is given
very little leeway in fixing the date of the election: it must not be earlier than forty-five (45) nor
later than sixty (60) days after the call. This minuteness of detail had a definite purpose, as we shall
presently see.
"The provisions of the above-mentioned Section 9, Article VII, are contrary to all traditional
notions of constitution-making. The standard knowledge is that a constitution must be couched in
general terms, allowing the legislature to flesh out the constitution's broad outlines with details. As
above-shown, however, the abovecited Section 9 does not follow the traditions. The Constitution
itself supplies the details. It allows the legislature no leeway to do so.
xxx
xxx
xxx
"The foregoing circumstances reveal the clear intent of the Constitution: to prohibit the Batasan
from legislating at all on succes
478
478
xxx
xxx
'The 'law' calling a special election under the presidential succession provision, Section 9
of Article 7, is in effect, a measure sui generis wherein the Constitution has acted both as
the fundamental law of the land and as the legislature pre-empting any claim of the
xxx
xxx
"On the basis of the foregoing detained scrutiny of the pertinent constitutional
provisions, there can be no doubt on the Constitution's meaning the intent: such a special
presidential election during President Marcos' term must take place and must be carried out
strictly in accordance with the circumstances and procedures specifically laid out by the
Constitution.
"Cabinet Bill No. 7, however, would openly defy the Constitution. Consider the
following:
1.
(a)
While Section 9, Article VII of the Constitution would authorize a special election
during the term of President Marcos only in case his office is permanently and
actually vacant, the cabinet bill would authorize a "snap" election without the
occurrence of such a vacancy. (President Marcos' letter of
479
1.
"resignation" categorically states that he will relinquish the Presidency only if some
one else is elected to and qualifies for the position. Since the "resignation" would be
simultaneous with the assumption of office or any person elected other than President
Marcos, there would actually be no vacancy.)
2.
(b)
While the Constitution would install the Speaker as Acting president from the
moment the vacancy occurs until a President or, in his absence, a Vice-President,
shall have qualified, so that, in effect, it is the Speaker, as Acting President, who
would oversee the election, the cabinet bill would brush the Speaker aside, (and with
him the Constitution), and allow President Marcos to usurp the Speaker's role and
oversee the election in which his own fitness to continue as President would be the
crucial issue.
3.
(c)
While the Constitution specifically directs the Batasan to meet on the third day after
the vacancy occurs to enact a law calling for the special election, within seven (7)
days, the cabinet bill would blithely ignore these specifics.
"If the proposal becomes a law and is upheld, then the constitutional provisions on the
same subject would be set aside. It would be a dangerous precedent. . .
xxx
xxx
xxx
"If we would but. . . hold uppermost in our minds the future of constitutional government
in our country, I believe there can be an accommodation which would bolster rather than
subvert the rule of law. ln this connection, may l offer the following suggestion; . . .
"1 In his speech in Cebu on Nov. 15, 1985, the President stated 'more or less, that a 'snap'
election was crucial because his leadership had been assailed abroad and it was necessary to
show the world that the people were still with him. . .
"If this is the objective, rather than holding a 'snap' election in violation of the
Constitution, I would endorse the recommendation of
480
480
"2.
Another alternative would be to amend the Constitution. The Batasan should meet as
a constituent assembly and approve a resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution authorizing the calling of a special presidential election more or less in
the manner proposed in Cabinet Bill No. 7 or as may be agreed between the majority,
and the minority in the Batasan. The resolution should then be submitted to the
people in a plebiscite. . .
"In either case, the Constitution shall have been shielded from further assaults on its
supremecy. . ."
481
482
call for the holding of an election before the expiration of the term of the
President in 1987 is upon the occurrence of the contingencies provided for
in Section 9 of Article VII of the Constitution, namely the permanent
disability, death, removal from office or resignation of the President before
the presidential election of 1987 for in that case a vacancy in the Office of
the President has been created triggering the mechanism f or the calling of
a special election to fill up said vacancy together with the election of the
vice-president in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 9,
Article VII of the Constitution and that Batas Pambansa Blg. 883 has in
effect shortened the term of the President elected in 1981 without going
through the process of amending the Constitution as the Batasan in
enacting said law acted in the exercise of its legislative powers and not as
a constituent body. Petitioners contend that the letter of the President
recommending to the Batasan the calling of a special election because of
the need for the President to seek a new mandate in an election that will
assess, as demanded by the opposition, the policies and programs being
undertaken by him upon his undertaking that he will irrevocably vacate the
position of the President effective when such election is held and the
winner is proclaimed and qualified as president by taking his oath of office
ten days after his proclamation is not a resignation which would create a
vacancy within the meaning of Section 9 of Article VII. That there is no
vacancy is evident from the fact that the President still continues in office
until the assumption in office by the winning candidate in the special
election instead of the Speaker who, under the provision of the
Constitution, becomes acting president in case of a permanent disability,
death, removal from office or resignation of the President before the
presidential election of 1987. What Section 9, Article VII on484
484
definite and inevitable vacancy in the Office of the President which will
pave the way for the holding of said special election because of his
undertaking to irrevocably vacate the position of President effective only
when the election is held and the winner is proclaimed and qualified as
president by taking his oath of office ten days after his proclamation does
not create a vacancy that will trigger the mechanism for the calling of a
special election to fill up said vacancy in accordance with the procedure
set forth in Section 9 of Article VII. Actually, the conditions mentioned by
the President for calling of a special election have not at all created a
vacancy because he continues in office as president up to the assumption
of office of the president-elect. As petitioners correctly contended, proof
that there is no vacancy in the Office of the President as contemplated in
Section 9 of Article VII is that he continues to exercise the functions of the
president instead of the Speaker who, under the provisions of said Section
9, becomes acting president in case of a permanent disability, death,
removal from office or resignation of the President before the presidential
election of 1987.
The contention of the Solicitor General that the provisions of Section 9,
Article VII do not preclude the Batasan Pambansa in the exercise of its
plenary legislative powers to call for the holding of a special election for
the position of president in a situation other than that contemplated in
Section 9 such as the need of the incumbent President f or a new mandate
is without merit. While it is true that the power to call an election is
exclusively a legislative prerogative, such power cannot be exercised
where its effect would be to amend an express provision of the
Constitution, more specifically Section 5, Article VII fixing the term of the
office of the president and the vicepresident to six years. The power to
define the term of the president and vice-president is not legislative but
constituent and can only be exercised thru an amendment to the
Constitution in the manner provided for in the Constitution. In effect,
Batas Pambansa Blg. 883 has amended the Constitution by an act of the
Batasan as a legislative body, not a constituent assembly and without the
ratification of majority
486
486
487
In the same vein is what the Court said in ex rel Kinworthy v. Martin, 60
Ark. 343, 30 S.W. 421, that in construing Constitutions, Courts have
nothing to do with the argument ab inconveniente and should not bend the
Constitution to suit the law of the hour, quoting Greencasce vs. Black, 5
Ind. 557, 565. 11 Am. Jur. 659.
The constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Blg. 883 is a justiciable one
and not a political question which the Court must decide without
equivocation.
I vote, therefore, to grant the petition and declare Batas Pambansa Blg.
883 unconstitutional. January 7, 1986
January 7, 1986
Re: G.R. No. 72915 (Philippine Bar Association, et al. vs. The
Commission on Elections, et al.) and others
Herewith is a copy of the second revised pages 1 and 2 of the resolution in
the above-entitled snap election cases dated December 19, 1985. Revision
consists in the addition of paragraph 7 and statement that MelencioHerrera, J., took no part.
(Sgd.) GLORIA C. PARAS
Clerk of Court
488
488
489
Atty. Emigdio S.
The Commission on Elections
Tanjuatco Jr. (x)
(x)
Rm. 402 Equitable Intramuros, Manila
Bank Bldg.
P. de Roxas cor. G. Puyat Ave.
Makati, Metro
The Auditor General (x)
Manila
Commission on Audit
Atty. Fulgencio S. Don M. Marcos Ave., Q.C.
Factoran Jr. (x)
Atty. Edgardo R. Abaya (x)
Rm. 402 Equitable Atty Felicitas S. Aquino (x)
Bank Bldg.
490
72954
Atty. Romeo L. Go
(x)
Counsel for
petitioners
7 Kennedy Drive,
Pleasant
view Subd.
Tandang Sora,
Quezon City
491
Atty. Mary
The Solicitor General (x)
Concepcion
Bautista
(x)
134 Amorsolo St.,
Counsel for
Legaspi Village
petitioners
3034 Gen. G. del
Makati, Metro Manila
Pilar St.
Makati, Metro Manila
Hon. Maximiano Sevellano (x)
Chairman, COMELEC
Intramuros, Manila
492
72935
Assemblyman
The Solicitor General (x)
Alberto G. Romulo
(x)
134 Amorsolo St.,
Petitioner &
Legaspi Village
Coronel for Co.
petitioners
Makati, Metro Manila
25 Malipajo St., Valle Verde III
Pasig, Metro Manila Commission on Elections (x)
492
Intramuros, Manila
o0o