Case Summary (G.R. No. 177508)
Provisions of RA 9369 Under Challenge
Petitioner assailed:
- Section 34 – entitlement and compensation of poll watchers, classification of “dominant” parties, and criteria for recognizing principal watchers.
- Section 37 – amendments to certificate of canvass procedures (authenticity, discrepancies, additional returns, pre-proclamation controversies).
- Section 38 – lifting prohibition on pre-proclamation cases in national elections, subject to specified exceptions.
- Section 43 – granting COMELEC concurrent prosecutorial power with other government prosecutors.
Constitutional Issues Presented
- Violation of the one-subject rule (Section 26[1], Article VI)
- Impairment of the exclusive jurisdiction of electoral tribunals (Sections 17, Article VI; 4[7], Article VII)
- Breach of COMELEC’s exclusive power to prosecute (Section 2[6], Article IX-C)
- Violation of the non-impairment Clause (Section 10, Article III)
Presumption of Constitutionality
The Court reaffirmed that statutes enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality. To overcome it, petitioner must prove a clear constitutional breach, not speculative objections.
One-Subject Rule Compliance
The title of RA 9369, as an amendatory act to RA 8436 (and related laws), broadly covers amendments “to encourage transparency, credibility, fairness and accuracy.” Since Sections 34, 37, 38, and 43 amend RA 7166 and BP 881—integral components of election law—they are germane to the statute’s declared purpose and do not violate the one-subject requirement.
Jurisdiction Over Pre-Proclamation Cases
Sections 37 and 38 permit Congress (for President/Vice President) and the COMELEC en banc (for Senators) to verify authenticity and correct manifest errors in certificates of canvass prior to proclamation, applying Sections 17–20 procedures of RA 7166. This does not encroach upon the Presidential Electoral Tribunal or Senate Electoral Tribunal, whose jurisdiction attaches only after proclamation of results. Pre-proclamation review by legislative or administrative boards and post-proclamation contests by the tribunals are distinct and non-overlapping.
Concurrent Prosecution Authority
Section 43 amends BP 881 §265 to allow COMELEC legal officers to prosecute election offenses “concurrent with other prosecuting arms.” The 1987 Constitution vests COMELEC with power to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute election law violations, but it does not make this power exclusive. The exclusivity originally derived from BP 881 and subsequent COMELEC rules,
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 177508)
Procedural Posture
- Petition filed under Rule 65 for prohibition with prayer for temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction.
- Petitioner withdrew request for preliminary injunction after 14 May 2007 elections.
- En banc Supreme Court hears challenge to constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9369 (RA 9369) and seeks to enjoin COMELEC from its implementation.
Legislative History of RA 9369
- Consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2231 (passed 7 December 2006) and House Bill No. 5352 (passed 19 December 2006).
- Signed by the President on 23 January 2007, published in Malaya and Business Mirror on 26 January 2007.
- Took effect on 10 February 2007, less than four months before the 14 May 2007 elections.
Assailed Provisions of RA 9369
- Section 34 amends Section 26 of RA 7166 on entitlement and qualification of official watchers.
- Section 37 amends Section 30 of RA 7166 on National Board of Canvassers’ determination of authenticity and due execution of certificates of canvass.
- Section 38 amends Section 15 of RA 7166 on prohibition and exceptions for pre-proclamation cases.
- Section 43 amends Section 265 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 on COMELEC’s power to conduct preliminary investigations and prosecute election offenses.
Issues Presented
- Whether RA 9369’s title and subject matter comply with Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution.
- Whether Sections 37 and 38 violate Section 17, Article VI and Paragraph 7, Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution by encroaching on PET and SET jurisdiction.
- Whether Section 43 violates Section 2(6), Article IX-C of the Constitution by diluting COMELEC’s exclusive power to prosecute election offenses.
- Whether Section 34 violates the non-impairment clause (Section 10, Article III) by fixing per diems for poll watchers.
Petitioner’s Contentions
- Title of RA 9369 is misleading and not germane to manual canvassing provisions.
- Sections 34, 37, 38, and 43 exceed the scope expressed in the title.
- Sections 37 and 38 permit Congre