Giron vs. Commission on Elections

G.R. No. 188179
Petitioner challenges Sections 12 and 14 of R.A. 9006 (Fair Election Act) under the "one subject-one title" rule; SC upholds constitutionality, citing relevance to fair elections.
constitutionality petitioner respondent

Case Digest (G.R. No. 188179)

Facts:

Henry R. Giron v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 188179, January 22, 2013, the Supreme Court En Banc, Sereno, J., writing for the Court.

Petitioner Henry R. Giron filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition challenging the constitutionality of Section 12 (Substitution of Candidates) and Section 14 (Repealing Clause) of Republic Act No. 9006 (the Fair Election Act). Giron sought to enjoin the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) from implementing those provisions on the ground that they constitute an unconstitutional inclusion in a bill whose title and principal subject addressed the lifting of the political advertising ban, thereby violating the one subject–one title rule in Section 26(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Giron argued that Section 12 (on treatment of votes for substituted candidates after ballots are printed) and Section 14 (which repealed Section 67 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, the Omnibus Election Code, providing for ipso facto resignation of certain elective officials upon filing certificates of candidacy) are unrelated to the Act’s primary subject.

Respondent COMELEC, represented at the time by Chairperson Jose Melo, opposed the Petition and relied on this Court’s prior ruling in Farinas v. Executive Secretary (G.R. Nos. 147387 & 152161, December 10, 2003) as controlling. Interventions were filed by Almario E. Francisco, Federico S. Jong Jr., and Ricardo L. Baes Jr., whose petitions-in-intervention echoed Giron’s constitutional objections. There is no record in the decision of prior rulings by lower courts; the matter was brought directly to the Court by special civil action.

The Court examined the text and objectives of R.A. 9006 (including Section 2’s declaration of principles), the content of Sections 12 and 14, the l...(Pro-only)

Issues:

  • Does the inclusion of Sections 12 and 14 in Republic Act No. 9006 violate the one subject–one title rule under Section 26(1), Article VI of the 1987 Const...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

  • (Pro-only)

Ratio:

  • (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

  • (Pro-only)
Unlock Full Case Digest