Case Digest (G.R. No. 177508) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) Party-List), represented by Salvador B. Britanico v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 177508, decided on August 7, 2009, petitioner BANAT filed on May 7, 2007 a petition for prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure and prayed for a temporary restraining order to enjoin respondent COMELEC from implementing Republic Act No. 9369. RA 9369, an amendatory act to RA 8436 (the automation law), BP 881 (the Omnibus Election Code), RA 7166 (synchronized elections law), and other related statutes, was ratified by the President on January 23, 2007, published in newspapers on January 26, and took effect on February 10, 2007—less than four months before the May 14, 2007 elections. Petitioner alleged that RA 9369’s title was misleading, and that its Sections 34, 37, 38, and 43 violated various provisions of the 1987 Constitution. COMELEC and the Office of the Solicitor General filed comment Case Digest (G.R. No. 177508) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of the Petition
- Petitioner Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) Party-List, represented by Salvador B. Britanico, filed a petition for prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction, against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
- The petition assails the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9369 (RA 9369), which amended RA 8436 (on automated elections), Batas Pambansa Bilang 881 (Omnibus Election Code), RA 7166 (synchronized elections), and other related election laws.
- Enactment and Effectivity of RA 9369
- RA 9369 originated as Senate Bill No. 2231 and House Bill No. 5352, passed by the Senate on December 7, 2006, and the House on December 19, 2006.
- Signed by the President on January 23, 2007; published January 26, 2007 in Malaya and Business Mirror; took effect on February 10, 2007—less than four months before the May 14, 2007 local elections.
- Assailed Provisions
- Section 34 (amending Sec. 26 of RA 7166) – entitlements and per diem of official watchers.
- Section 37 (amending Sec. 30 of RA 7166) – procedures for Congress/COMELEC en banc to determine authenticity/due execution of certificates of canvass.
- Section 38 (amending Sec. 15 of RA 7166) – allowance of pre-proclamation cases in certain instances.
- Section 43 (amending Sec. 265 of BP 881) – COMELEC’s power to conduct preliminary investigations and prosecute election offenses, now concurrent with other government prosecuting arms.
- Contentions of the Parties
- Petitioner contends RA 9369 violates:
- Section 26(1), Article VI (one-subject rule/one title rule).
- Sections 37 & 38 infringe upon the exclusive jurisdiction of electoral tribunals (PET, SET) under Sec. 17, Art. VI and Par. 7, Sec. 4, Art. VII.
- Section 43 violates Sec. 2(6), Art. IX-C by diluting COMELEC’s exclusive prosecutorial power.
- Section 34 violates the non-impairment clause (Sec. 10, Art. III).
- COMELEC and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argue RA 9369 enjoys presumption of constitutionality, with only COMELEC seeking the unconstitutionality of Section 43.
Issues:
- Does RA 9369 violate Section 26(1), Article VI (one-subject rule and title requirement)?
- Do Sections 37 and 38 of RA 9369 violate Section 17, Article VI and Par. 7, Section 4, Article VII by encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal and Senate Electoral Tribunal?
- Does Section 43 of RA 9369 violate Section 2(6), Article IX-C by depriving COMELEC of exclusive power to investigate and prosecute election offenses?
- Does Section 34 of RA 9369 violate Section 10, Article III (non-impairment of contracts) by fixing the per diem of official watchers?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)