Farinas vs. Executive Secretary

Facts:

Rodolfo C. Farinas, Manuel M. Garcia, Francis G. Escudero, and Agapito A. Aquino, as Members of the House of Representatives and also as taxpayers, in their own behalf and in representation of the members of the minority in the House of Representatives, (petitioners) filed a petition (G.R. No. 147387) and Cong. Gerry A. Salapuddin filed a separate petition (G.R. No. 152161) seeking relief under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The petitions, decided by the Supreme Court En Banc on December 10, 2003, were authored by Callejo, Sr., J. The petitions challenged Section 14 of Republic Act No. 9006 (the Fair Election Act) insofar as it expressly repealed Section 67 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (the Omnibus Election Code). The relief sought was a declaration that Section 14 (or the entire Act) was unconstitutional, and a finding that House officers committed grave abuse of discretion by not treating certain members who ran for the Senate as ipso facto resigned.

The legislative history: RA 9006 was a consolidation of HB No. 9000 and SB No. 1742. A Bicameral Conference Committee (BCC) reported on November 29, 2000; subsequent House plenary action on February 5–7, 2001 involved proposed amendments, re-election of conferees and viva voce votes, and manifest deliberations on inclusion of a provision repealing Section 67. The bill was certified as a consolidation, signed by the Senate President and the Speaker, and was approved by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on February 12, 2001.

Petitioners alleged that Section 14—which repealed Section 67 (which considered elective officials ipso facto resigned upon filing a certificate of candidacy for another elective office except President and Vice‑President)—was a proscribed rider violating Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution (one subject–one title); that the repeal violated equal protection because Section 66 (which applies a similar ipso facto resignation rule to appointive officials) was left intact; that irregularities in enactment (various BCC procedural defects) voided the Act in toto; and that Section 16 (effectivity clause) violated due process by bypassing required publication. They also contended that House officers committed grave abuse by not striking from the rolls those who filed for other elective offices.

Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General and other impleaded officials (including the Commission on Elections, the Speaker and House Secretary General), moved to dismiss, asserting among others lack of standing, the applicability of the enrolled bill doctrine to foreclose inquiry into alleged legislative irregularities, the germane ...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Do the petitioners have legal standing to challenge Section 14 of Republic Act No. 9006?
• Does Section 14 (the repealing clause) of RA 9006, insofar as it repeals Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, constitute a proscribed rider in violation of Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution (one subject–one title rule)?
• Does the repeal of Section 67 while retaining Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code violate the Equal Protection Clause?
• May the Court inquire into alleged procedural irregularities in the enactment of RA 9006 (i.e., is the enrolled bill doctrine applicable), and do such alleged irregularities render the entire Act void?
• Is Section 16 (the effectivity clause) of RA 9006 valid, or does its statement that the...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)