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 Summary (G.R. No. 188179)

Factual Background

Petitioner challenged the inclusion in R.A. 9006 of provisions that, he alleged, were unrelated to the principal subject expressed in the Act's title. Section 12 addressed the treatment of votes when substitutions occurred after official ballots had been printed and prescribed that such votes be considered stray votes while providing a mechanism for voters to write in substitute candidates' names. Section 14 repealed specified provisions of the Omnibus Election Code, including Section 67, which provided that an elective official running for a different office ipso facto resigned upon filing a certificate of candidacy, subject to enumerated exceptions. Petitioner contended that these provisions were not germane to the Act's principal subject of lifting the political advertisement ban and thus violated the one subject-one title requirement of the Constitution.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition before the Court. The COMELEC, through its chairperson, opposed the Petition and relied on prior Supreme Court authority, principally Farinas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. Nos. 147387 & 152161, 10 December 2003, 417 SCRA 503. The three intervenors filed petitions-in-intervention reiterating petitioner’s constitutional challenge. The Supreme Court, sitting En Banc, resolved the matter by decision dated January 22, 2013.

Issues

The dispositive issue was whether the inclusion of Section 12 and Section 14 in R.A. 9006 violated Section 26(1), Article VI, 1987 Constitution, the one subject-one title rule, by embracing subjects not expressed in the Act's title.

The Parties' Contentions

Petitioner asserted that the challenged provisions were unrelated to the Fair Election Act’s declared purpose of lifting the media advertising ban and regulating election propaganda; thus their insertion in R.A. 9006 breached the constitutional mandate that every bill embrace only one subject as expressed in its title. Petitioner argued that repeal of Section 67 and the rule on substituted candidates were distinct matters that should have appeared in a separate enactment. The COMELEC opposed the Petition, urging that the Court had already determined the constitutionality of the Act’s scope in Farinas v. Executive Secretary, and that the Act’s title and declaration of principles were sufficiently comprehensive to encompass the challenged provisions. The intervenors adopted petitioner’s arguments.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Court dismissed the Petition and the petitions-in-intervention for failure to establish a clear, unmistakable, and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. The Court upheld the constitutionality of R.A. 9006, including Sections 12 and 14, and declined to disturb its prior exposition in Farinas v. Executive Secretary.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reaffirmed the strong presumption of constitutionality that attends legislative enactments and applied a liberal and reasonable construction of the constitutional title requirement. The Court recalled the rule that the title of an act need only be sufficiently comprehensive to indicate the general object of the statute and need not enumerate every detail or means necessary to accomplish that object. The Court examined the Act’s short title, "An Act to Enhance the Holding of Free, Orderly, Honest, Peaceful and Credible Elections through Fair Election Practices," and Section 2’s declaration of principles and objectives, finding that these provisions expressed a broad legislative purpose to remedy unfair election practices and to ensure equal opportunity in the use of media and in other election-related matters. The Court relied on the legislative history, including the Bicameral Conference Committee deliberations of November 23, 2000, which showed a conscious decision by Congress to adopt a generic title and to include provisions addressing perceived unfair election practices beyond the media ban, such as late substitutions and the ipso facto resignation rule formerly in Section 67. The Court held that an act having a single general subject may contain diverse provisions so long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject and may comprise methods and means of carrying out that subject. The Court determined that Section 14’s repeal of Section 67 and Section 12’s rules on substitution after ballots were printed were germane to leveling the playing field and therefore fell within the ambit of the Act’s title and objectives. The Court emphasized the controlling precedent of Farinas v. Executive

...continue reading