Pamatong vs. COMELEC Case Digest

CASE FACTS ISSUES RULING
1. No. The petitioner has no constitutional right to run or hold public office and, particularly, seek the presidency. What is
recognized in Section 26, Article II of the Constitution is merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed by law. It neither
Petitioner Pamatong filed his Certificate of
bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege to the level of an enforceable right. There is nothing in the plain language of the
Candidacy (COC) for President. The
provision which suggests such a thrust or justifies an interpretation of the sort.
COMELEC refused to give due course to
Pamatong’s Certificate of Candidacy. The "equal access" provision is a subsumed part of Article II of the Constitution, entitled "Declaration of Principles and State
Topic:
Policies." The provisions under the Article are generally considered not self-executing, and there is no plausible reason for
Respondent COMELEC declared petitioner according a different treatment to the "equal access" provision. Like the rest of the policies enumerated in Article II, the
Judicial
and 35 others as nuisance candidates who provision does not contain any judicially enforceable constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline for legislative or
Elaboration of
could not wage a nationwide campaign executive action. The disregard of the provision does not give rise to any cause of action before the courts.
the
and/or are not nominated by a political
Constitution: Obviously, the provision is not intended to compel the State to enact positive measures that would accommodate as many
party or are not supported by a registered 1. 1. W O N the
Construction people as possible into public office. Moreover, the provision as written leaves much to be desired if it is to be regarded as the
political party with a national constituency. petitioner has a
and source of positive rights. It is difficult to interpret the clause as operative in the absence of legislation since its effective means
Supremacy constitutional right
and reach are not properly defined. Broadly written, the myriad of claims that can be subsumed under this rubric appear to be
Pamatong filed a Petition For Writ of to run for or hold
entirely open-ended. Words and phrases such as "equal access," "opportunities," and "public service" are susceptible to
Certiorari with the Supreme Court claiming public office and,
countless interpretations owing to their inherent impreciseness. Certainly, it was not the intention of the framers to inflict on the
that the COMELEC violated his right to particularly, to seek
people an operative but amorphous foundation from which innately unenforceable rights may be sourced.
"equal access to opportunities for public the presidency and;
service" under Section 26, Article II of the
The privilege of equal access to opportunities to public office may be subjected to limitations. Some valid limitations specifically
1987 Constitution, by limiting the number 2. W O N the
Pamatong on the privilege to seek elective office are found in the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code on "Nuisance Candidates.” As
of qualified candidates only to those who petitioner is a
long as the limitations apply to everybody equally without discrimination, however, the equal access clause is not violated.
can afford to wage a nationwide campaign nuisance
Equality is not sacrificed as long as the burdens engendered by the limitations are meant to be borne by anyone who is minded
and/or are nominated by political parties. candidate.
vs. to file a certificate of candidacy. In the case at bar, there is no showing that any person is exempt from the limitations or the
The COMELEC supposedly erred in
burdens which they create.
disqualifying him since he is the most
Comelec qualified among all the presidential 2. The question of whether a candidate is a nuisance candidate or not is both legal and factual. The basis of the factual
candidates, i.e., he possesses all the determination is not before this Court. Thus, the remand of this case for the reception of further evidence is in order.
constitutional and legal qualifications for
the office of the president, he is capable of A word of caution is in order. What is at stake is petitioner's aspiration and offer to serve in the government. It deserves not a
G.R. No. waging a national campaign since he has cursory treatment but a hearing which conforms to the requirements of due process.
161872 numerous national organizations under his
leadership, he also has the capacity to As to petitioner's attacks on the validity of the form for the certificate of candidacy, suffice it to say that the form strictly complies
wage an international campaign since he with Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code. This provision specifically enumerates what a certificate of candidacy should
has practiced law in other countries, and contain, with... the required information tending to show that the candidate possesses the minimum qualifications for the
April 13, 2004 he has a platform of government. position aspired for as established by the Constitution and other election laws.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, COMELEC Case No. SPP (MP) No. 04-001 is hereby remanded to the COMELEC for the
reception of further evidence, to determine the question on whether petitioner Elly Velez Lao Pamatong is a nuisance candidate
as contemplated in Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code.
At any rate, Pamatong was eventually declared a nuisance candidate and was disqualified.

Pamatong vs. COMELEC Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pamatong vs. COMELEC Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pamatong vs. COMELEC Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE FACTS ISSUES RULING

You might also like