Pamatong vs. COMELEC (GR No. 161872.

July 13, 2004)

Sec. 26 Art. 2: The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and
prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.

Facts:
Petitioner Elly Velez Lao Pamatong filed a certificate of candidacy for the President, but
COMELEC refused to give due course to it. Pamatong filed a Motion for Reconsideration and
COMELEC denied it; hence, petitioner filed this petition before the Court. He cites the “equal
access clause” in the Constitution, which gives him the right to seek public office (the Presidency,
in particular). He sought a TRO to enjoin the COMELEC from enforcing its Resolutions. The Court
then ruled that the equal access clause grants the petitioner the right to seek public office, but then
remanded the case to COMELEC for the reception of further evidence.

At the hearing by COMELEC, Pamatong presented two witnesses and gave COMELEC books that
he had written. COMELEC then submitted to the Court a Compliance Report, which contained a
transcript of the hearing, the exhibits submitted by the petitioner, and citations of the Omnibus
Election Code and Comelec Resolution No. 6452, but it did not evaluate the evidence of the
petitioner, nor did it offer any recommendations. The Court deemed the Report unsatisfactory and
remanded the case for further evidence. COMELEC submitted a new Compliance Report with
evaluation of the evidence, but signed by one person. The Court returned the Compliance Report
again (June 28, 2004), and it was resubmitted with signatures of five Commissioners.

Issue: Whether Pamatong could legitimately run for office, according to the rules set by
COMELEC.

Ruling: The petition was obviously mooted, since the presidential elections were already held on
10 May 2004.

Resolution No. 6558 of COMELEC states, “candidates who do not belong to or are nominated by
any registered political party of national constituency, presidential candidates who do not present
running mate for vice-president, nor senatorial candidates, and candidates who do not have a
platform of government and are not capable of waging a nationwide campaign,” shall be denied
due course for certificate of candidacy for president. The petitioner, in his hearing of 27 April 2004,
does not have a running mate nor senatorial candidates. He has a platform of government, but has
no organizational setup on a nationwide basis. The evidence he submitted was nothing but an
enumeration of books written, achievements and work experience. He was a party-list nominee
(Alliance for Democracy) in 2001 and garnered only 50,000 votes. He ran for an elective position
in Zamboanga and got only 456 votes. Obviously he lacks the capability to wage a nationwide
campaign.

The petition is dismissed for having become MOOT and ACADEMIC.

Notes:
Nuisance Candidate can be denied due course of candidacy:
1. No national party of national constituency
2. No running mate nor senatorial line up
3. No platform
4. Incapable of waging nationwide campaign
The establishment of political dynasties is an effective way of monopolizing and perpetuating power. Hence, the state is commanded to
prohibit political dynasties.
1. The electorate should be free to choose who they want to vote.
2. There is no definition of political dynasty since Congress is the principle playground of political dynasties.