NUISANCE CANDIDATES

PAMATONG VS. COMELEC

GR NO. 161872 April 13, 2004
Ponente: TINGA, J.:

FACTS:

Rev. Elly Velez Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy for President on December

17, 2003. However, COMELEC refused to give due course to petitioner’s Certificate of

Candidacy. His motion for reconsideration was also denied and he was declared, (including

the other 35 people) a nuisance candidate for the reason that he could not wage a national

campaign and/or is not nominated by a political party. Hence, Pamatong filed a Petition for Writ

of Certiorari in order to reverse the resolutions of COMELEC which were allegedly in violation

of his right to “equal access to opportunities for public services” under Section 26 Article II of

the 1987 Constitution.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the resolution violated the provisions of the Constitution?

HELD:

No. The resolution did not violate the Constitution.

The “equal access” provision of the Constitution is submerged part of Article II of the

Consitution and are generally considered not self-executing. The provision does not bestow a

right to seek the Presidency; it does not contain a judicially enforceable constitutional right and

merely specifies a guideline for legislative action. The provision is not intended to compel the

State to enact positive measures that would accommodate as many as possible into public

office. The privilege may be subjected to limitations. One such valid limitation is the provision

of the Omnibus Election Code on nuisance candidates.

Hence, such resolution, was not violative of the Constitution.