Scribd
Upload
69 views1 page

Rev. Elly Chavez Pamatong, Esquire v. Commission On Elections

1) Elly Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy for President but COMELEC refused to give it due course and declared him a nuisance candidate, arguing he could not wage a nationwide campaign without party support. 2) Pamatong argued this violated his right to equal access of opportunities under the Constitution. 3) The Supreme Court ruled there is no absolute constitutional right to run for or hold public office, as the equal access provision is not self-executing but simply expresses a policy goal. COMELEC may limit candidates as nuisance if limitations apply equally without discrimination.

Uploaded by

Eve Lorenzo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
69 views1 page

Rev. Elly Chavez Pamatong, Esquire v. Commission On Elections

1) Elly Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy for President but COMELEC refused to give it due course and declared him a nuisance candidate, arguing he could not wage a nationwide campaign without party support. 2) Pamatong argued this violated his right to equal access of opportunities under the Constitution. 3) The Supreme Court ruled there is no absolute constitutional right to run for or hold public office, as the equal access provision is not self-executing but simply expresses a policy goal. COMELEC may limit candidates as nuisance if limitations apply equally without discrimination.

Uploaded by

Eve Lorenzo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Rev. Elly Chavez Pamatong, Esquire v.

Commission On Elections
G.R. No. 161872. April 13, 2004

Facts: Elly Velez Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy for President. However,
COMELEC refused to give due course to his Certificate of Candidacy. Pamatong moved for
reconsideration. COMELEC declared Pamatong and 35 others nuisance candidates who could
not wage a nationwide campaign and/or are not nominated by a political party or are not
supported by a registered political party with a national constituency. Pamatong filed this
petition, praying for the reversal of the resolutions of COMELEC for being violative of his right
to equal access of oppurtunites. Pamatong contended that the COMELEC indirectly amended the
constitutional provisions on the electoral process and limited the power of the sovereign people
to choose their leaders.

Issue: Whether or not there is a constitutional right to run for or hold public office.

Ruling: What is recognized in Section 26, Article II of the Constitution is merely a


privilege subject to limitations imposed by law. Equal access to opportunities for public office is
a subsumed part of Article II of the Constitution, entitled “Declaration of Principles and State
Policies.” The provisions under the Article are generally considered not self-executing, and there
is no plausible reason for according a different treatment to the equal access provision. The
provision is not intended to compel the State to enact positive measures that would accommodate
as many people as possible into public office. The design of the framers is to cast the provision
as simply enunciatory of a desired policy objective and not reflective of the imposition of a clear
State burden. Some valid limitations to the said privilege are found in the provisions of the
Omnibus Election Code on Nuisance Candidates and COMELEC Resolution No. 6452 outlining
the instances wherein the COMELEC may motu proprio refuse to give due course to or cancel a
Certificate of Candidacy. As long as the limitations apply to everybody equally without
discrimination, however, the equal access clause is not violated.

You might also like