Pamatong Vs Comelec
Pamatong Vs Comelec
First, the constitutional and legal dimensions An inquiry into the intent of the framers5 produces
involved. the same determination that the provision is not self-
executory. The original wording of the present
Implicit in the petitioner’s invocation of the Section 26, Article II had read, "The State shall
constitutional provision ensuring "equal access to broaden opportunities to public office and prohibit
opportunities for public office" is the claim that there public dynasties."6 Commissioner (now Chief Justice)
is a constitutional right to run for or hold public office Hilario Davide, Jr. successfully brought forth an
and, particularly in his case, to seek the presidency. amendment that changed the word "broaden" to
There is none. What is recognized is merely a the phrase "ensure equal access," and the
privilege subject to limitations imposed by law. substitution of the word "office" to "service." He
Section 26, Article II of the Constitution neither explained his proposal in this wise:
bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege to the
level of an enforceable right. There is nothing in the I changed the word "broaden" to "ENSURE
plain language of the provision which suggests such EQUAL ACCESS TO" because what is
a thrust or justifies an interpretation of the sort. important would be equal access to the
opportunity. If you broaden, it would
necessarily mean that the government would
be mandated to create as many offices as their inherent impreciseness. Certainly, it was not the
are possible to accommodate as many intention of the framers to inflict on the people an
people as are also possible. That is the operative but amorphous foundation from which
meaning of broadening opportunities to innately unenforceable rights may be sourced.
public service. So, in order that we should not
mandate the State to make the government As earlier noted, the privilege of equal access to
the number one employer and to limit offices opportunities to public office may be subjected to
only to what may be necessary and limitations. Some valid limitations specifically on the
expedient yet offering equal opportunities to privilege to seek elective office are found in the
access to it, I change the word provisions9 of the Omnibus Election Code on
"broaden."7 (emphasis supplied) "Nuisance Candidates" and COMELEC Resolution
No. 645210 dated December 10, 2002 outlining the
Obviously, the provision is not intended to compel instances wherein the COMELEC may motu
the State to enact positive measures that would proprio refuse to give due course to or cancel
accommodate as many people as possible into a Certificate of Candidacy.
public office. The approval of the "Davide
amendment" indicates the design of the framers to As long as the limitations apply to everybody equally
cast the provision as simply enunciatory of a desired without discrimination, however, the equal access
policy objective and not reflective of the imposition clause is not violated. Equality is not sacrificed as
of a clear State burden. long as the burdens engendered by the limitations
are meant to be borne by any one who is minded
Moreover, the provision as written leaves much to to file a certificate of candidacy. In the case at bar,
be desired if it is to be regarded as the source of there is no showing that any person is exempt from
positive rights. It is difficult to interpret the clause as the limitations or the burdens which they create.
operative in the absence of legislation since its
effective means and reach are not properly Significantly, petitioner does not challenge the
defined. Broadly written, the myriad of claims that constitutionality or validity of Section 69 of the
can be subsumed under this rubric appear to be Omnibus Election Code and COMELEC Resolution
entirely open-ended.8 Words and phrases such as No. 6452 dated 10 December 2003. Thus, their
"equal access," "opportunities," and "public service" presumed validity stands and has to be accorded
are susceptible to countless interpretations owing to due weight.
Clearly, therefore, petitioner’s reliance on the equal other, in avoiding confusion, deception and
access clause in Section 26, Article II of the even frustration of the democratic [process].11
Constitution is misplaced.
The COMELEC itself recognized these practical
The rationale behind the prohibition against considerations when it promulgated Resolution No.
nuisance candidates and the disqualification of 6558 on 17 January 2004, adopting the study
candidates who have not evinced a bona fide Memorandum of its Law Department dated 11
intention to run for office is easy to divine. The State January 2004. As observed in the
has a compelling interest to ensure that its electoral COMELEC’s Comment:
exercises are rational, objective, and orderly.
Towards this end, the State takes into account the There is a need to limit the number of
practical considerations in conducting elections. candidates especially in the case of
Inevitably, the greater the number of candidates, candidates for national positions because the
the greater the opportunities for logistical confusion, election process becomes a mockery even if
not to mention the increased allocation of time and those who cannot clearly wage a national
resources in preparation for the election. These campaign are allowed to run. Their names
practical difficulties should, of course, never exempt would have to be printed in the Certified List
the State from the conduct of a mandated of Candidates, Voters Information Sheet and
electoral exercise. At the same time, remedial the Official Ballots. These would entail
actions should be available to alleviate these additional costs to the government. For the
logistical hardships, whenever necessary and official ballots in automated counting and
proper. Ultimately, a disorderly election is not merely canvassing of votes, an additional page
a textbook example of inefficiency, but a rot that would amount to more or less FOUR HUNDRED
erodes faith in our democratic institutions. As the FIFTY MILLION PESOS (P450,000,000.00).
United States Supreme Court held:
xxx[I]t serves no practical purpose to allow
[T]here is surely an important state interest in those candidates to continue if they cannot
requiring some preliminary showing of a wage a decent campaign enough to project
significant modicum of support before printing the prospect of winning, no matter how slim.12
the name of a political organization and its
candidates on the ballot – the interest, if no The preparation of ballots is but one aspect that
would be affected by allowance of "nuisance
candidates" to run in the elections. Our election laws The Omnibus Election Code and COMELEC
provide various entitlements for candidates for Resolution No. 6452 are cognizant of the compelling
public office, such as watchers in every polling State interest to ensure orderly and credible
place,13 watchers in the board of canvassers,14 or elections by excising impediments thereto, such as
even the receipt of electoral nuisance candidacies that distract and detract
contributions. Moreover, there are election rules
15 from the larger purpose. The COMELEC is mandated
and regulations the formulations of which are by the Constitution with the administration of
dependent on the number of candidates in a given elections16 and endowed with considerable latitude
election. in adopting means and methods that will ensure the
promotion of free, orderly and honest
Given these considerations, the ignominious nature elections.17 Moreover, the Constitution guarantees
of a nuisance candidacy becomes even more that only bona fidecandidates for public office shall
galling. The organization of an election with bona be free from any form of harassment and
fide candidates standing is onerous enough. To add discrimination.18 The determination of bona
into the mix candidates with no serious intentions or fide candidates is governed by the statutes, and the
capabilities to run a viable campaign would concept, to our mind is, satisfactorily defined in the
actually impair the electoral process. This is not to Omnibus Election Code.
mention the candidacies which are palpably
ridiculous so as to constitute a one-note joke. The Now, the needed factual premises.
poll body would be bogged by irrelevant minutiae
covering every step of the electoral process, most However valid the law and the COMELEC issuance
probably posed at the instance of these nuisance involved are, their proper application in the case of
candidates. It would be a senseless sacrifice on the the petitioner cannot be tested and reviewed by
part of the State. this Court on the basis of what is now before it. The
assailed resolutions of the COMELEC do not direct
Owing to the superior interest in ensuring a credible the Court to the evidence which it considered in
and orderly election, the State could exclude determining that petitioner was a nuisance
nuisance candidates and need not indulge in, as candidate. This precludes the Court from reviewing
the song goes, "their trips to the moon on gossamer at this instance whether the COMELEC committed
wings." grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioner,
since such a review would necessarily take into
account the matters which the COMELEC established by the Constitution and other election
considered in arriving at its decisions. laws.
Petitioner has submitted to this Court mere IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, COMELEC Case No.
photocopies of various documents purportedly SPP (MP) No. 04-001 is hereby remanded to the
evincing his credentials as an eligible candidate for COMELEC for the reception of further evidence, to
the presidency. Yet this Court, not being a trier of determine the question on whether petitioner Elly
facts, can not properly pass upon the reproductions Velez Lao Pamatong is a nuisance candidate as
as evidence at this level. Neither the COMELEC nor contemplated in Section 69 of the Omnibus Election
the Solicitor General appended any document to Code.
their respective Comments.
The COMELEC is directed to hold and complete the
The question of whether a candidate is a nuisance reception of evidence and report its findings to this
candidate or not is both legal and factual. The basis Court with deliberate dispatch.
of the factual determination is not before this Court.
Thus, the remand of this case for the reception of SO ORDERED.
further evidence is in order.
Davide, Jr., Puno, Vitug*, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
A word of caution is in order. What is at stake is Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
petitioner’s aspiration and offer to serve in the Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo,
government. It deserves not a cursory treatment but Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
a hearing which conforms to the requirements of
due process.
2See Basco v. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 91649, May 6J. Bernas, The Intent of the 1986 Constitution
14, 1991, 197 SCRA 52, 68; Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Writers (1995), p. 148.
Morato, G.R. No. 118910, 246 SCRA 540, 564.
"A provision which lays down a general 7IV Records of Proceedings and Debates,
principle, such as those found in Art. II of the 1986 Constitutional Commission 945.
1987 Constitution, is usually not self-executing."
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, 3 8See J. Feliciano, concurring, Oposa v.
February 1997, 267 SCRA 408, 431. Factoran, Jr., G.R. No. 101083, 30 July 1993,
"Accordingly, [the Court has] held that the 224 SCRA 792, 815.
provisions in Article II of our Constitution
entitled "Declaration of Principles and State 9 Section 69. Nuisance Candidates. — The
Policies" should generally be construed as Commission may, motu proprio or upon a
mere statements of principles of the State." verified petition of an interested party, refuse
Justice Puno, dissenting, Manila Prince Hotel v. to give due course or cancel a certificate of
GSIS, Id. at 474. candidacy if it is shown that said certificate
has been filed to put the election process in
3See Kilosbayan Inc. v. Morato, G.R. No. mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion
118910, 16 November 1995, 250 SCRA 130, among the voters by the similarity of the
138. Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, supra note 2 names of the registered candidates or by
at 436. other circumstances or acts which clearly
demonstrate that the candidate has no bona
4 Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato, supra note 2. fide intention to run for the office for which the
certificate of candidacy has been filed and
5 "A searching inquiry should be made to find thus prevent a faithful determination of the
out if the provision is intended as a present true will of the electorate.
enactment, complete in itself as a definitive
law, or if it needs future legislation for 10SEC. 6. Motu Proprio Cases. — The
completion and enforcement. The inquiry Commission may, at any time before the
demands a micro-analysis and the context of election, motu proprio refuse to give due
course to or cancel a certificate of of such bona fide intention, such
candidacy of any candidate for the positions as:
of President, Vice-President, Senator and
Party-list: d.1 Candidates who do not
belong to or are not
I. The grounds: nominated by any
registered political party of
a. Candidates who, on the face national constituency;
of their certificate of candidacy,
do not possess the constitutional d.2 Presidential, Vice-
and legal qualifications of the Presidential [candi-dates]
office to which they aspire to be who do not present running
elected; mates for vice-president,
respectively, nor senatorial
b. Candidate who, on the face of candidates;
said certificate, filed their
certificate of candidacy to put d.3 Candidates who do not
the election process in mockery have a platform of
or disrepute; government and are not
capable of waging a
c. Candidates whose certificate nationwide campaign.
of candidacy could cause
confusion among the voters by 11 Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971).
the similarity of names and
surnames with other candidates; 12 Rollo, pp. 469.
and
See Section 178, Omnibus Election Code, as
13
amended.