This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
189698 February 22, 2010
NO. In the Fariñas case, the petitioners challenged Sec. 14 of RA. 9006 repealing Sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) for giving undue benefit to elective officials in comparison with appointive officials. Incidentally, the Court upheld the substantial distinctions between the two and pronounced that there was no violation of the equal protection clause. However in the present case, the Court held that the discussion on the equal protection clause was an obiter dictum since the issue raised therein was against the repealing clause. It didn’t squarely challenge Sec. 66. Sec. 13 of RA. 9369 unduly discriminated appointive and elective officials. Applying the 4 requisites of a valid classification, the proviso does not comply with the second requirement – that it must be germane to the purpose of the law. The obvious reason for the challenged provision is to prevent the use of a governmental position to promote one’s candidacy, or even to wield a dangerous or coercive influence of the electorate. The measure is further aimed at promoting the efficiency, integrity, and discipline of the public service by eliminating the danger that the discharge of official duty would be motivated by political considerations rather than the welfare of the public. The restriction is also justified by the proposition that the entry of civil servants to the electorate arena, while still in office, could result in neglect or inefficiency in the performance of duty because they would be attending to their campaign rather than to their office work. Sec. 13 of RA. 9369 pertains to all civil servants holding appointive posts without distinction as to whether they occupy high positions in government or not. Certainly, a utility worker in the government will also be considered as ipso facto resigned once he files his certificate of candidacy for the election. This scenario is absurd for, indeed, it is unimaginable how he can use his position in the government to wield influence in the political world. The provision s directed to the activity any and all public offices, whether they be partisan or non partisan in character, whether they be in the national, municipal or brgy. level. Congress has not shown a compelling state interest to restrict the fundamental right involved on such a sweeping scale.
COMELEC issued a resolution declaring appointive officials who filed their certificate of candidacy as ipso facto resigned from their positions. FACTS: Petitioners Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the COMELEC for issuing a resolution declaring appointive officials who filed their certificate of candidacy as ipso facto resigned from their positions. In this defense, the COMELEC avers that it only copied the provision from Sec. 13 of R.A. 9369. ISSUE: Whether or not the said COMELEC resolution was valid. HELD:
26. Velasco vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 180051
This petition for certiorari seeks to set aside and annul the resolutions denying the COC Velasco had filed for the position of Mayor of the Municipality of Sasmuan, Pampanga. The distinctions between inclusion/exclusion proceedings and COC denial/cancellation proceedings, refute and belie Velasco's position that the COMELEC improperly ruled on his right to vote when it cancelled his COC. ISSUE: Is decision in an inclusion/exclusion proceeding operate as a bar to any future action challenging one’s right to be registered as a voter? HELD: Inclusion/exclusion proceedings, while judicial in character, are summary proceedings. A decision in an inclusion/exclusion proceeding does not operate as a bar to any future action in any other election that a party may take concerning his right to be registered as a voter. A ruling on the right to vote by the trial court for a specific election is binding on the COMELEC. By clear implication, the COMELEC itself does not rule on
under the Constitution. the Second Division of the COMELEC denied the petition for disqualification. Commission on Elections and Melquiades A. Señeres asserted that Robles was. Pushing the point." thus showing that private respondent either harbors dual citizenship or is a permanent resident of a foreign country in contravention of Section 40 of the LGC: Sec. That the Respondent is reportedly a US citizen or Permanent resident of the United States and has not reportedly relinquished his allegiance or residence to that foreign country. petitioner Señeres alleged that he was the acting president and secretary-general of BUHAY. n April 3. including the Certificates of Nomination of representatives. No. . 2004 when Robles vacated the position. in an inclusion/exclus ion proceeding. 2007. All the required Manifestations of Desire to Participate in the said electoral exercises. 2008 FACTS: On challenge via Certiorari and Prohibition is the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc Resolution of August 21. FACTS: In 1999. like the former. for lack of authority. without re-election. AT ALL EVENTS. Señeres. 2007. nor that by using his Filipino name the voting public was thereby deceived. null and void owing to the expiration of the latter’s term as party president.the right to vote by recognizing in a Sec. 20071 affirming the May 28. Justimbaste (petitioner) against Rustico B. NO. private respondent Robles was elected president and chairperson of Buhay. 2007. 28. 179413 NOVEMBER 28. Señeres vs. having assumed that position since August 17. filed with the COMELEC a Petition to Deny Due Course to Certificates. 2009. with Robles as its president. Balderian is considered a Filipino. The constitution of BUHAY provides for a three-year term for all its party officers. having elected to be and is thus qualified to run as Mayor of the Municipality of Tabontabon. By Resolution of May 28. Further. on the other hand. HELD: No. 78 COC denial/cancellati on proceeding the final and executory ruling by a court. ISSUE:Whether or not private respondent committed material misrepresentation and falsification in his certificate of candidacy. 40. JUSTIMBASTE VERSUS COMELEC G. BUHAY participated in the 2001 and 2004 elections. In the meantime.The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position: (d) Those with dual citizenship. Balderian (private respondent). thus disqualified from filing his application for Candidacy for mayor.R. . in connection with the May 2007 elections. premises considered the instant petition for disqualification is denied and the respondent Rustico B. the use of a name other than that stated in the certificate of birth is not a material misrepresentation. Leyte during the May 14. 27. G. were enjoined from engaging in. private respondent won and was proclaimed as mayor of Tabontabon. the latter being the Acting Administrator of the Light Railway Transport Authority (LRTA). disqualified from being an officer of any political party. a government-controlled corporation. Hans Christian M. so Señeres would charge. Dr. Señeres would claim that the nominations made by Robles were. 2007 elections on the ground that he is not a Filipino citizen. Petitioner asserts that private respondent committed material misrepresentation when he stated in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen and that his name is Rustico Besa Balderian. Furthermore." It need not be emphasized that there is no showing that there was an intent to deceive the electorate as to private respondent's identity. disposing as follows: WHEREFORE. the manifestation to participate bore the signature of Robles as BUHAY president. In it. As in the past two elections. Robles. petitioner filed with the Office of the Leyte Provincial Election Supervisor a petition to disqualify private respondent as a candidate for mayor of Tabontabon. 178678. Robles. carried the signature of Robles as president of BUHAY.R. instead of Chu Teck Siao. as "material misrepresentation" under the earlier-quoted Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code refers to "qualifications for elective office. Disqualifications. petitioner asserts that the immigration records of private respondent who frequently went to the United States from 1998 up to 2006 reflected the acronyms "BB" and "RP" which petitioner takes to STAND FOR "Balikbayan" and "Re-entry Permit. April 16. On January 26. f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this Code. as mandated by law. 20072 Resolution of its Second Division dismissing the petition for disqualification filed by Priscila R. was into a partisan political activity which civil service members. a party-list group duly registered with COMELEC. BUHAY again filed a Manifestation of its Desire to Participate in the Party-List System of Representation. Leyte.
the COMELEC issued two resolutions proclaiming BUHAY as a winning partylist organization for the May 2007 elections entitled to three (3) House seats and it also declared Robles as the duly authorized representative of BUHAY. board. 2007 elections. . sitting as National Board of Canvassers. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law was available to Señeres.On July 9 and July 18. respectively.” For certiorari to prosper. It is undisputed that the COMELEC. It is the “proper remedy to question any final order. entitled to three (3) seats in the House of Representatives. respectively. 2007 and July 18. speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law except the instant petition. 2007. The 1987 Constitution cannot be more explicit in this regard. or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and there is no appeal or any plain. 2007. and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of annulling the proceeding. and there is no appeal or any other plain. however. In the present case. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. ruling and decision of the COMELEC rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. a plain. there must be a showing that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion and that there is no appeal or any plain. ISSUE: Wh ethe r or not the CO ME LEC acte d with out or in exc ess of juri sdic tion HELD: A special civil action for certiorari may be availed of when the tribunal. proclaimed BUHAY as a winning party-list organization for the May 14. speedy. The proclamation came in the form of two Resolutions dated July 9. Said resolutions are official proclamations of COMELEC considering it is BUHAY that ran for election as partylist organization and not the BUHAY nominees.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.