Facts:

The case involves the petitioners, Bankers Association of the Philippines and Perry L. Pe, who filed a petition against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) regarding the constitutionality and legality of Resolution No. 9688, issued on May 7, 2013. This resolution, known as the Money Ban Resolution, aimed to deter and prevent vote-buying during the May 13, 2013 national and local elections. The resolution prohibited cash withdrawals, encashment of checks, and conversion of monetary instruments into cash exceeding One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) per day from May 8 to May 13, 2013. It also restricted the possession and transportation of cash exceeding Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) during the same period, presuming such amounts were intended for vote-buying. The petitioners sought a status quo ante order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the implementation of this resolution. The Comelec justified the resolution by citing its constitutional...

Facts:

Background of the Case: The petitioners, Bankers Association of the Philippines and Perry L. Pe, challenged the constitutionality and legality of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution No. 9688, also known as the "Money Ban Resolution," issued on May 7, 2013. The resolution aimed to deter and prevent vote-buying during the May 13, 2013 National and Local Elections.

Key Provisions of the Money Ban Resolution:

1. Cash Withdrawal Restrictions: The resolution prohibited the withdrawal, encashment, or conversion of monetary instruments exceeding P100,000 per day from May 8 to 13, 2013, in banks, finance companies, pawnshops, and similar institutions.
2. Cash Transportation Restrictions: It also prohibited the possession or transportation of cash exceeding P500,000 during the same period, presuming such amounts were intended for vote-buying.
3. Suspicious Transactions: Withdrawals or encashments exceeding P500,000 within one banking day were deemed "suspicious transactions" under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), allowing the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to monitor and investigate.

Amendment to the Resolution: Comelec issued Resolution No. 9688-A on May 9, 2013, exempting routine and regular business transactions from the restrictions and clarifying the presumption of vote-buying for cash exceeding P500,000.

Status Quo Ante Order: On May 10, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a Status Quo Ante Order, temporarily halting the implementation of the Money Ban Resolution.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Mootness Doctrine: The Court emphasized that it will not rule on cases that have become moot, as judicial review requires a live controversy. The Money Ban Resolution had expired, and no similar measures were implemented in subsequent elections, making the case incapable of repetition.
2. Judicial Restraint: The Court highlighted the importance of judicial restraint, especially in cases involving policy decisions by constitutional bodies like the Comelec. The choice of measures to ensure free and fair elections is a political question beyond the scope of judicial review.
3. Legislative Authority: The Court noted that Congress has the plenary authority to address issues like vote-buying through legislation, rendering further judicial intervention unnecessary.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, lifting the Status Quo Ante Order, and declined to rule on the constitutionality of the Money Ban Resolution due to mootness. The case serves as a reminder of the limits of judicial review and the importance of addressing election-related issues through legislative action.