Scribd
Upload
185 views1 page

Yaplin (Lozada V Comelec)

Lozada v. COMELEC involved a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the COMELEC to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the Interim Batasang Pambansa. The COMELEC denied the petition on the grounds that the petitioners lacked standing, the court lacked jurisdiction, and the constitutional provision cited did not apply to the Interim Batasang Pambansa. The Supreme Court agreed with COMELEC, holding that it did not have jurisdiction to compel the COMELEC's authority in this case, and that holding special elections across regional districts would require large expenditures that only the Batasang Pambansa could appropriate funds for.

Uploaded by

Johnson Yaplin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
185 views1 page

Yaplin (Lozada V Comelec)

Lozada v. COMELEC involved a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the COMELEC to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the Interim Batasang Pambansa. The COMELEC denied the petition on the grounds that the petitioners lacked standing, the court lacked jurisdiction, and the constitutional provision cited did not apply to the Interim Batasang Pambansa. The Supreme Court agreed with COMELEC, holding that it did not have jurisdiction to compel the COMELEC's authority in this case, and that holding special elections across regional districts would require large expenditures that only the Batasang Pambansa could appropriate funds for.

Uploaded by

Johnson Yaplin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Lozada v.

COMELEC
120 SCRA 337
January 27, 1983

FACTS:

Lozada and Igot filed a petition for mandamus compelling the COMELEC to hold
a special election to fill the vacancies in the Interim Batasang Pambansa. They
stated that in contention on Art. 8 Sec 5 (2) of 1973 Constitution providing “in case
a vacancy arises in the National Assembly one year or more before a regular
election, The COMELEC shall call a special election to be held within 60 days
after the vacancy occurs to effect the member to serve the unexpired term”.
COMELEC denied the petition for the reason: 1. Petitioers lack standing to file the
instant petitionfor they are not proper parties to institute this action; 2. this court
has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition and; 3. Art. 8 Sec 5 (2) of 1973
Constitution does not apply to the Interim Batasang Pambansa.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Supreme Court can compel COMELEC to hold a special
election to fill vacancies in the legislature.

HELD:

No. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over the COMELEC is only to review by
certiorari the latter’s decision, order and ruling. There is no decision of the
COMELEC so this court has no jurisdiction over the COMELEC’s authority. It is
obvious that holding the special election in many regional districts would spend
large of expenditures of money. Only Batasang Pambansa can move the needed
appropriation for the purpose and power of the Batasang Pambansa may neither be
subject to mandamus by court nor may COMELEC compel to Batasang Pambansa
to exercise its power of appropriate funds will spent for the special election. . Art.
8 Sec 5 (2) of 1973 Constitution intended to apply in National Assembly only and
not for the Batasang Pambansa.

You might also like