Case Summary (G.R. No. 161872)
Petition and Constitutional Claim
Petitioner sought certiorari relief, alleging that COMELEC’s resolutions violated his “equal access to opportunities for public service” under Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution by confining candidacy to those able to mount nationwide campaigns or backed by political parties, thereby amending constitutional electoral provisions and limiting popular sovereignty.
Equal Access Clause Not Self-Executing
The Court held that Section 26, Article II is a policy declaration without judicially enforceable rights. The “equal access” phrase did not create a constitutional right to candidacy but stated a guideline for legislative and executive action. Absent implementing legislation, the provision cannot be the basis of a cause of action.
Framers’ Intent and Textual Analysis
Amendment history shows that the framers replaced “broaden opportunities to public office” with “ensure equal access to opportunities for public service” to avoid mandating expansion of public employment. The language is general and open-ended, indicating a non-self-executory policy objective rather than an operative right.
Valid Statutory Limitations on Candidacy
The Omnibus Election Code and COMELEC Resolution No. 6452 empower the Commission to refuse or cancel certificates of candidacy motu proprio for nuisance candidacies—those filed to mock the process, cause confusion, or lacking bona fide intent. Such regulations apply equally to all aspirants and do not infringe the equal access policy.
Compelling State Interest in Orderly Elections
The State’s interest in rational, objective, and orderly elections justifies limitations on frivolous candidacies. Excessive candidates burden logistical arrangements—ballot printing, tabulation, election monitoring—and risk eroding public confidence. The United States precedent in Jenness v. Fortson supports requiring preliminary showings of support to prevent confusion and protect democratic processes.
COMELEC’s Practical Considerations
COMELEC’s study memorandum and Resolution No. 6558 emphasized the cost and impracticality of printing ballots for candidates unable to run a credible national campaign. Additional candidates would inflate election expenses—up to ₱450 million for extra ballot pages—and complicate the allocation of watchers, canvassing procedures, and contribution regulations.
Need for Factual Determination
The Court cannot determine on the record before it whether petitioner is a nuisance candidate, as the assailed resolutions do not disclose the evidence relied upon by COMELEC. Photocopies of cr
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 161872)
Facts
- On December 17, 2003, petitioner Rev. Elly Velez Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy for President.
- The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued Resolution No. 6558 on January 17, 2004, refusing to give due course to his candidacy.
- Commissioners Luzviminda G. Tancangco and Mehol K. Sadain dissented, believing petitioner had organizational backing.
- Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (docketed SPP (MP) No. 04-001) on January 15, 2004.
- COMELEC, by Omnibus Resolution No. 6604 dated February 11, 2004, denied petitioner’s motion and declared him (with 35 others) a “nuisance candidate.”
- Petitioner then filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari before the Supreme Court, alleging violation of his right to “equal access to opportunities for public service” under Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution.
Procedural History
- Resolution No. 6558 (Jan. 17, 2004): Denial of due course to petitioner’s Certificate of Candidacy.
- Motion for Reconsideration filed (Jan. 15, 2004), docketed as SPP (MP) No. 04-001.
- Omnibus Resolution No. 6604 (Feb. 11, 2004): Denial of all similar motions, classification of petitioner as nuisance candidate.
- Petition for Writ of Certiorari (April 13, 2004) filed before the Supreme Court En Banc.
Issues
- Does Section 26, Article II of the Constitution confer a judicially enforceable right to candidacy or is it merely a policy directive?
- Did COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in classifying petitioner as a nuisance candidate?
- Is the COMELEC-issued form for Certificate of Candidacy deficient for lack of bio-data and platform-of-government provisions?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Section 26, Article II guarantees “equal access to opportunities for public service,” including the right to run for presidency.