Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 65 views

    54 Mitra Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    RandolphIanSison
    Mitra vs. COMELEC was a petition for mandamus and prohibition filed by former delegates seeking to have a plebiscite vote on the ratification of the 1973 Constitution. They argued that if rejected, the 1935 Constitution would be restored with the lifting of martial law. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, with a majority ruling that there was no further judicial obstacle to the 1973 Constitution being in force and effect. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    54 Mitra Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    RandolphIanSison
    65 views1 page
    Mitra vs. COMELEC was a petition for mandamus and prohibition filed by former delegates seeking to have a plebiscite vote on the ratification of the 1973 Constitution. They argued that if rejected, the 1935 Constitution would be restored with the lifting of martial law. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, with a majority ruling that there was no further judicial obstacle to the 1973 Constitution being in force and effect. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

    Original Description:

    CASE DIGEST

    Original Title

    54 Mitra vs Comelec

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Mitra vs. COMELEC was a petition for mandamus and prohibition filed by former delegates seeking to have a plebiscite vote on the ratification of the 1973 Constitution. They argued that if rejected, the 1935 Constitution would be restored with the lifting of martial law. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, with a majority ruling that there was no further judicial obstacle to the 1973 Constitution being in force and effect. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    65 views1 page

    54 Mitra Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    RandolphIanSison
    Mitra vs. COMELEC was a petition for mandamus and prohibition filed by former delegates seeking to have a plebiscite vote on the ratification of the 1973 Constitution. They argued that if rejected, the 1935 Constitution would be restored with the lifting of martial law. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, with a majority ruling that there was no further judicial obstacle to the 1973 Constitution being in force and effect. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Mitra vs.

    COMELEC

    FACTS:
    This is a petition for mandamus and prohibition, which is not dissimilar from the prohibition
    proceedings just dismissed filed respectively by former delegates Samuel Occena and Ramon
    Gonzales. The plea in this case is made for the holding of a plebiscite so that the people may vote
    on the ratification of the Constitution, now in force, but as to them still in the stage of proposal. In
    the event it is rejected, so their thinking goes, then the 1935 Constitution, which in the view of
    petitioners was suspended by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces after the proclamation
    of martial law, could be once more operative with the lifting of martial law on January 17, 1981.
    There is what was therein referred to as “rather unorthodox aspect” in the “assertion that the 1973
    Constitution is not the fundamental law.”

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not one of approval or of rejection, of validity or of unconstitutionality, is controlling.

    HELD:
    The ruling cannot be any clearer. This dispositive portion reads: “by virtue of the majority of six
    (6) votes of Justices Makalintal, Castro, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra with the four
    (4) dissenting votes of the Chief of Justice and Justices Zaldivar, Fernando, ad Teehankee, all the
    aforementioned cases are hereby dismissed. This being the vote of the majority, there is no further
    judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect.” As far as there
    being “no further judicial obstacle” to the operative character of the 1973 Constitution, there can
    be no doubt that such is the view of eighth of the ten members of the Court.

    Wherefore, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit.

    *shortened, kasi yung iba issue hindi na po related sa Judicial Power.

    You might also like