REV. ELLY VELEZ LAO PAMATONG, ESQUIRE v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS G.R.

No. 161872 April 13, 2004, Tinga, J.

Facts:

Rev. Elly Velez Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for President for the 2004
elections, but the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) refused to give due course to the
same on the ground that he was a nuisance candidate who could not wage a nationwide
campaign and/or not nominated by a political party or are not supported by a registered
political party with a national constituency. Pamatong questions the COMELEC ruling before
the Supreme Court, arguing that the COMELEC violated his right to “equal access to
opportunities for public service” under Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution.

There is no constitutional right to run for or hold public office, but a privilege, subject to
limitations imposed by the law. Section 26, Article II of the Constitution neither bestows such

right nor elevates the privilege to the level of an enforceable right since the “equal access”

provision, like the other state principles and policies under Article II, are generally not self-

executing.

Issue:

NO.

Whether Pamatong has the constitutional right to run for or hold public office.

Ruling:

It is not a constitutional right, but a privilege subject to limitations imposed by

law. Section 26, Article II of the Constitution neither bestows such right nor elevates the

privilege to the level of an enforceable right. The state principles and policies under Article II

are generally not self-executing, and this includes the “equal access” provision. Like the rest
of the policies under Article II, the provision merely specifies a guideline for legislative or

executive action.

In this case, the privilege to run for the Presidency is limited by the provisions of the
Omnibus Election Code on “Nuisance Candidates”. As long as the limitations apply to
everybody equally without discrimination, the equal access clause is not violated. Hence,
the COMELEC’s act of denying due course to Pamatong’s COC on the ground that he is a

nuisance candidate is valid.