Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
COMELEC
G.R. No. 181613
November 25, 2009
FACTS:
Comelec disqualified Rosalida A. Penera from running for the office of Mayor
in Sta. Monica, Surigao del Norte and declared that the Vice-Mayor should succeed
her. The disqualification was based on allegations of premature campaigning.
Apparently, the campaign period for local officials began on 30 March 2007 and
ended on 12 May 2007. Penera filed her certificate of candidacy on 29 March 2007.
On the same date, she allegedly participated in a campaign through a motorcade
thus making her liable for premature campaigning under the election laws.
ISSUE:
Should Penera be disqualified?
HELD:
No. Section 79(a) of the Omnibus Election Code defines a "candidate" as "any
person aspiring for or seeking an elective public office, who has filed a certificate of
candidacy." The second sentence, third paragraph, Section 15 of RA 8436, as
amended by Section 13 of RA 9369, provides that "any person who files his
certificate of candidacy within the period for filing shall only be considered as a
candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of
candidacy." The immediately succeeding proviso in the same third paragraph states
that "unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon
the start of the aforesaid campaign period."
According to the case of Lanot vs. Comelec, a person who files a
certificate of candidacy is not a candidate until the start of the campaign
period. Thus, the essential elements for violation of Section 80 of the Omnibus
Election Code are: (1) a person engages in an election campaign or partisan political
activity; (2) the act is designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular
candidate or candidates; (3) the act is done outside the campaign period. The
second element requires the existence of a "candidate." Under Section 79(a), a
candidate is one who "has filed a certificate of candidacy" to an elective public office.
Unless one has filed his certificate of candidacy, he is not a "candidate". The third
element requires that the campaign period has not started when the election
campaign or partisan political activity is committed.
A candidate is liable for an election offense only for acts done during the
campaign period, not before. The law is clear as daylight any election offense that
may be committed by a candidate under any election law cannot be committed
before the start of the campaign period. Penera is not liable for premature
campaigning for partisan political acts before the start of the campaigning.
Neris explanations unsatisfactory. They issued an Order citing him in contempt and
ordering his arrest and detention at the Office of the Senate SergeantAtArms
until such time that he would appear and give his testimony.
ISSUE:
1) Whether or not the Communications elicited by the 3 questions are
covered by executive privilege.
2) Whether or not the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee may issue a contempt
order.
HELD:
1) Yes. The elements of presidential communications privilege are:
i. The protected communication must relate to a quintessential and
nondelegable presidential power.
FACTS:
Petitioners who are government employees raised constitutional challenge
against the provision of RA 9369, otherwise known as the Automation Law, on the
automatic resignation of appointive officials the moment they file their certificate of
candidacy. Petitioners contend that appointive officials should not be considered ipso
fact resigned from their position the moment they file their COCs because at that
instance, they are not yet considered as candidates by law. They will only be
recognized as such when campaign period starts. They likewise alleged that the law
is unconstitutional for being discriminatory and violative of equal protection clause
because it isolates appointive officials and favors elective officials.
hand, questioned petitioners legal standing because they have not filed their COCs
yet and thus their interest is merely speculative.
ISSUES:
1)
2)
Whether or not the law intends that appointive officials running for
public office be considered resign the moment they file their COCs.
3)
HELD:
1.
Yes, petitioners legal standing is anchored on the fact that they are qualified
voters. A restriction on candidacy affects the rights of voters to choose their public
officials. The court believes that both candidates and voters may challenge the
provision because of its impact on voting rights.
2.
No, the real intention of the law is that persons holding appointive positions
will only be considered as resigned at the start of the campaign period when they are
treated by law as candidates. This is in accord with the proviso in the same law that
a person who files his COC shall only be considered as candidate at the start of the
campaign period.
3.
Yes,
the
provision
is
violative
of equal
protection
clause because
the classification is not germane to the purpose of the law. The reasons for the
passage of the law are to prevent the use of governmental position to promote ones
candidacy or to wield coercive influence on the electorate. Limiting the restriction to
appointive officials will not serve the purpose. Whether one holds an appointive
office or an elective one, the evils sought to be prevented by then measure remain.
Furthermore, the challenged provision also suffers from infirmity for being
overbroad. The provision pertains to all civil servants holding appointive positions
without distinctions whether they occupy high positions in government or not. The
provision is directed to the activity of seeking any and all public offices, whether they
be partisan or non partisan in character, whether they be national municipal or
Barangay.
HENCE, the challenged provision must fail for being UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
We find that Ang Ladlad has sufficiently demonstrated its compliance with the
legal requirements for accreditation. Indeed, aside from COMELECs moral objection
and the belated allegation of non-existence, nowhere in the records has the
respondent ever found/ruled that Ang Ladlad is not qualified to register as a partylist organization under any of the requisites under RA 7941 or the guidelines in Ang
Bagong Bayani. The difference, COMELEC claims, lies in Ang Ladlads morality, or
lack thereof.
II. Religion as the Basis for Refusal to Accept Ang Ladlads Petition for Registration
Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that "[n]o law shall be made
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." At
bottom, what our non-establishment clause calls for is "government neutrality in
religious matters." Clearly, "governmental reliance on religious justification is
inconsistent with this policy of neutrality." We thus find that it was grave violation of
the non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the Koran to
justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad.
Rather than relying on religious belief, the legitimacy of the Assailed
Resolutions should depend on whether the COMELEC is able to advance some
justification for its rulings beyond mere conformity to religious doctrine.
III. Public Morals as a Ground to Deny Ang Ladlads Petition for Registration
The Assailed Resolutions have not identified any specific overt immoral act
performed by Ang Ladlad. Even the OSG agrees that "there should have been a
finding by the COMELEC that the groups members have committed or are
committing immoral acts." The OSG argues:
x x x A person may be sexually attracted to a person of the same gender, of a
different gender, or more than one gender, but mere attraction does not
translate to immoral acts. There is a great divide between thought and action.
Reduction ad absurdum. If immoral thoughts could be penalized, COMELEC
would have its hands full of disqualification cases against both the "straights"
and the gays." Certainly this is not the intendment of the law.
Respondent has failed to explain what societal ills are sought to be prevented,
or why special protection is required for the youth. Neither has the COMELEC
condescended to justify its position that petitioners admission into the party-list
system would be so harmful as to irreparably damage the moral fabric of society.
IV. Equal Protection
Recent jurisprudence has affirmed that if a law neither burdens a fundamental
right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the classification as long as it bears
a rational relationship to some legitimate government end. In Central Bank
Employees Association, Inc. v. Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas, we declared that "[i]n our
jurisdiction, the standard of analysis of equal protection challenges x x x have
followed the rational basis test, coupled with a deferential attitude to legislative
classifications and a reluctance to invalidate a law unless there is a showing of a
clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution." No law exists to criminalize
homosexual behavior or expressions or parties about homosexual behavior.
V. Freedom of Expression and Association
Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a
democratic society, and this freedom applies not only to those that are favorably
received but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb. Any restriction imposed in
this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Absent any
compelling state interest, it is not for the COMELEC or this Court to impose its views
on the populace. Otherwise stated, the COMELEC is certainly not free to interfere
with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or
discouraging a disfavored one.
VI. Non-Discrimination and International Law
The principle of non-discrimination is laid out in Article 26 of the ICCPR, as
follows:
Article 26 - All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any
discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall
prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective
protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status.
In this context, the principle of non-discrimination requires that laws of
general application relating to elections be applied equally to all persons, regardless
of sexual orientation. Although sexual orientation is not specifically enumerated as a
status or ratio for discrimination in Article 26 of the ICCPR, the ICCPR Human Rights
Committee has opined that the reference to "sex" in Article 26 should be construed
to include "sexual orientation. Additionally, a variety of United Nations bodies have
declared discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to be prohibited under
various international agreements.
The UDHR provides:
Article 21. - (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his
country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Likewise, the ICCPR states:
Article 25 - Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without
any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable
restrictions:
(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely
chosen representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by
universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing
the free expression of the will of the electors;
FACTS:
This case traces its genesis to the controversy that has arisen from the
forthcoming compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Puno on May 17, 2010 or seven
days after the election. Under Section 4(1) Article VIII, vacancy in the Supreme
Court shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof. But, under
Section 15, Article VII, the incumbent president is prohibited from appointing two
months immediately before the next presidential election. The JBC has started its
nominating process but different petitions were filed to enjoin the JBC from further
proceeding in its nomination and leave the appointment power to the next president
pursuant to the prohibition under Section 15, Article VII.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appointment in the judiciary is covered by the
prohibition under Section 15, Article VII.
HELD:
No, appointment in the judiciary is not covered by the prohibition. The
prohibition under Section 15, Article VII, is exclusive to the appointment in the
executive department. This provision is directed against appointment made for
buying votes and made for partisan consideration or the so called midnight
appointments. The framers did not intent to extend the prohibition to the judiciary
because their establishment of the JBC and their subjecting the nomination and
screening of candidates for judicial positions to the unhurried and deliberate process
of JBC ensured that there will be no midnight appointments. This isolating process is
not present in appointment in the executive.
VIII, vacancy in the judiciary must be filled up within ninety days from occurrence
thereof.
imperative duty of the President to appoint within ninety days from vacancy. Hence,
incumbent president may appoint the new Chief Justice to replace Puno.