Case Digest (G.R. No. 161872)
Facts:
Petitioner Rev. Elly Velez Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy for President on December 17, 2003; Respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) refused to give due course in Resolution No. 6558 (January 17, 2004) and, upon reconsideration, denied his motion under Omnibus Resolution No. 6604 (February 11, 2004) declaring him a nuisance candidate pursuant to the Omnibus Election Code and COMELEC rules. Two commissioners had earlier voted to include petitioner, and petitioner then sought relief in this Court by a petition for writ of certiorari challenging the COMELEC determinations and the form for the Certificate of Candidacy.
Issues:
- Did the COMELEC’s refusal to give due course and its declaration of petitioner as a nuisance candidate violate Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution?
- Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioner absent evidentiary support in its resolutions?
- Is the Certificate of Candidacy form invalid for failing to require biographical data and a program of government in violation of election law?
Ruling:
The Court held that Section 26, Article II is not self-executing and does not create a judicially enforceable right to run for public office; limitations such as Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code and COMELEC Resolution No. 6452 may validly be applied to exclude nuisance candidates. The petition was not sustained on the merits because the COMELEC records did not show the evidence it relied upon; the case was remanded to the COMELEC for reception of further evidence to determine whether petitioner is a nuisance candidate, and the Court found the Certificate of Candidacy form to comply with Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Ratio:
The Court reasoned that the equal access provision in Article II is declaratory of policy and generally not self-executing, so it does not invalidate statutory or regulatory limitations that apply equally to all aspirants; the State has a compelling interest in ensuring orderly elections and the COMELEC has latitude to exclude nuisance candidates under statutory authority. Because the question whether a candidate is a nuisance involves factual findings, the Court could not resolve alleged grave abuse of discretion without the evidence COMELEC considered; absence of that record required remand for reception of evidence.
Doctrine:
- Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution is declaratory and not self-executing as a source of a judicially enforceable right to run for office.
- Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code and COMELEC Resolution No. 6452 permit motu proprio disqualification of nuisance candidates to protect orderly elections.
- The COMELEC has broad discretion to adopt means necessary to ensure free, honest, and orderly elections.
- The Supreme Court will not review factual determinations for grave abuse of discretion without the evidence considered by the COMELEC and may remand for reception of further evidence.
- The Certificate of Candidacy form that complies with Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code is valid.