G.R. No. 188179 - Giron vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. 188179)

Nature of the challenged provisions

Section 12 addresses substitution of candidates occurring after official ballots have been printed, directing that votes cast for substituted candidates be treated as stray votes without invalidating the whole ballot and mandating spaces on ballots for writing substitute names (with an exception where the substitute shares the same family name). Section 14 is the repealing clause of RA 9006, expressly repealing specified provisions of the Omnibus Election Code, including Section 67 (which deems certain elective officials ipso facto resigned upon filing candidacy for a different office).

Petitioner’s constitutional claim

Giron contended that Sections 12 and 14 are unrelated to RA 9006’s ostensible subject—the lifting of the political advertising ban—and thus constitute an unconstitutional amalgam in violation of the one subject–one title requirement, rendering the enactment defective under Section 26(1), Article VI.

Respondent’s position and intervenors

COMELEC, through Chairperson Melo, opposed the Petition and relied in part on this Court’s prior ruling in Fariñas v. Executive Secretary (En Banc, Dec. 10, 2003), which addressed the scope and title sufficiency of RA 9006. The petitioners-in-intervention adopted arguments substantially similar to those of Giron.

Legal standard: presumption of constitutionality and interpretation of titles

The Court reiterated the strong presumption favoring the constitutionality of statutes and the principle that constitutional requirements relating to subjects and titles should receive a reasonable, not technical, construction. Challengers bear the burden of demonstrating a clear, unmistakable, and unequivocal constitutional breach. It is sufficient that a title be comprehensive enough reasonably to include the general object the statute seeks to effect; it need not enumerate every detail or means.

Analysis regarding Section 14 and Section 67

The Court reproduced its comprehensive exposition from Fariñas, noting that Section 14 expressly repealed Sections 67 and 85 of the Omnibus Election Code and certain provisions of RA 6646. Section 67 imposed ipso facto resignation on elective officials who ran for a different office (except President and Vice‑President). The Court emphasized that RA 9006’s title—An Act to Enhance the Holding of Free, Orderly, Honest, Peaceful and Credible Elections through Fair Election Practices—and its declaration of principles (Section 2) were broad enough to encompass measures intended to level the playing field, including the repeal of statutes amounting to harassment or discrimination against candidates.

Congressional intent and legislative history

The Court referenced Bicameral Conference Committee deliberations demonstrating that Congress deliberately selected a broad title and scope to address various unfair election practices beyond media regulation. The legislative discussions showed conscious inclusion of provisions like substitution rules and the treatment of incumbent candidates’ status as being integral to fair election practices and the general purpose of RA 9006.

Application of precedent to Section 12

Applying the same reasoning, the Court found Section 12—providing for treatment of votes fo

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 188179)

Procedural Posture

Petition filed as a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition questioning the constitutionality of Sections 12 and 14 of Republic Act No. 9006 (the Fair Election Act).
Petitioner: Henry R. Giron. Respondent: Commission on Elections (COMELEC), represented by then Chairperson Jose Melo.
Petitioners-in-intervention: Almario E. Francisco, Federico S. Jong Jr., and Ricardo L. Baes Jr., who reiterated Giron’s ratiocinations.
Relief sought: Declaration that Sections 12 and 14 are unconstitutional under Section 26(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution (the “one subject-one title” rule), and an order prohibiting COMELEC from implementing those sections.
Disposition: Petition and petitions-in-intervention dismissed for failure to establish a clear breach of the Constitution. SO ORDERED.

Central Issue Presented

Whether the inclusion of Section 12 (Substitution of Candidates) and Section 14 (Repealing Clause) in R.A. 9006 violates Section 26(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution — i.e., whether R.A. 9006 violates the constitutional “one subject-one title” rule.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions Invoked

Section 26(1), Article VI, 1987 Constitution: the one subject-one title requirement for bills passed by Congress (as invoked by petitioner).
R.A. No. 9006 (Fair Election Act): title reproduced in the decision as "An Act to Enhance the Holding of Free, Orderly, Honest, Peaceful and Credible Elections through Fair Election Practices."
Section 2 (Declaration of Principles and Objectives) of R.A. 9006: text provided in the decision describing supervision/regulation of media use during election period to guarantee equal opportunity for public service, access to media time and space, equitable right to reply, and assurance of free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections; and to ensure bona fide candidates are free from harassment and discrimination.
Section 12, R.A. 9006 (as quoted):
- "SECTION 12. Substitution of Candidates. — In case of valid substitutions after the official ballots have been printed, the votes cast for the substituted candidates shall be considered as stray votes but shall not invalidate the whole ballot. For this purpose, the official ballots shall provide spaces where the voters may write the name of the substitute candidates if they are voting for the latter: Provided, however, That if the substitute candidate is of the same family name, this provision shall not apply."
Section 14, R.A. 9006 (reproduced in the decision):
- "SECTION 14. Repealing Clause. — Sections 67 and 85 of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) and Sections 10 and 11 of Republic Act No. 6646 are hereby repealed. As a consequence, the first proviso in the third paragraph of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8436 is rendered ineffective. All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, or any part thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified or amended accordingly."
Section 67, Omnibus Election Code (quoted):
- "SECTION 67. Candidates holding elective office. — Any elective official, whether national or local, running for any office other than the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for President and Vice-President, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy. x x x x"

Factual and Contextual Background

Petitioners assert Sections 12 and 14 are unrelated to the ostensible main subject of R.A. 9006 — the lifting of the political advertisement ban — and thus are violative of the one subject-one title rule.
Section 12 addresses treatment of votes for substituted candidates after ballots have been printed (votes considered stray but not invalidating whole ballot; provision for writing substitute names on ballots; exception for same family name).
Section 14 repeals Section 67 (and other provisions) of the Omnibus Election Code; Section 67 imposes ipso facto resignation for elective officials who file candidacy for a different office (except President and Vice-President).
Petitioners contend the inclusion of these provisions would enable elective officials to gain campaign advantage and allow them to expend public funds from filing until after elections.
Respondent COMELEC, through Chairperson Jose Melo, opposed the Petition and relied in part on this Court’s prior ruling in FariAas v. Executive Secretary (G.R. Nos. 147387 & 152161, 10 December 2003), which addressed the scope of R.A. 9006 and its title.

Petitioners’ Contentions (as presented in source)

Sections 12 and 14 are unrelated riders or provisions foreign to the main subject of R.A. 9006, thereby breaching S