G.R. No. 161872 April 13, 2004 the power of the sovereign people to choose their leaders.

er of the sovereign people to choose their leaders. The COMELEC

supposedly erred in disqualifying him since he is the most qualified among
REV. ELLY CHAVEZ PAMATONG, ESQUIRE, petitioner,
all the presidential candidates, i.e., he possesses all the constitutional and
vs. legal qualifications for the office of the president, he is capable of waging a
national campaign since he has numerous national organizations under his
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent. leadership, he also has the capacity to wage an international campaign since
RESOLUTION he has practiced law in other countries, and he has a platform of
government. Petitioner likewise attacks the validity of the form for the
TINGA, J.: Certificate of Candidacy prepared by the COMELEC. Petitioner claims that
Petitioner Rev. Elly Velez Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the form does not provide clear and reasonable guidelines for determining
President on December 17, 2003. Respondent Commission on Elections the qualifications of candidates since it does not ask for the candidate’s bio-
(COMELEC) refused to give due course to petitioner’s Certificate of data and his program of government.
Candidacy in its Resolution No. 6558 dated January 17, 2004. The decision, First, the constitutional and legal dimensions involved.
however, was not unanimous since Commissioners Luzviminda G.
Tancangco and Mehol K. Sadain voted to include petitioner as they believed Implicit in the petitioner’s invocation of the constitutional provision
he had parties or movements to back up his candidacy. ensuring "equal access to opportunities for public office" is the claim that
there is a constitutional right to run for or hold public office and,
On January 15, 2004, petitioner moved for reconsideration of Resolution No. particularly in his case, to seek the presidency. There is none. What is
6558. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was docketed as SPP (MP) No. recognized is merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed by law.
04-001. The COMELEC, acting on petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration Section 26, Article II of the Constitution neither bestows such a right nor
and on similar motions filed by other aspirants for national elective elevates the privilege to the level of an enforceable right. There is nothing in
positions, denied the same under the aegis of Omnibus Resolution No. 6604 the plain language of the provision which suggests such a thrust or justifies
dated February 11, 2004. The COMELEC declared petitioner and thirty-five an interpretation of the sort.
(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 The "equal access" provision is a subsumed part of Article II of the
registered political party with a national constituency. Commissioner Sadain Constitution, entitled "Declaration of Principles and State Policies." The
maintained his vote for petitioner. By then, Commissioner Tancangco had provisions under the Article are generally considered not self-executing,2
retired. and there is no plausible reason for according a different treatment to the
"equal access" provision. Like the rest of the policies enumerated in Article
In this Petition For Writ of Certiorari, petitioner seeks to reverse the II, the provision does not contain any judicially enforceable constitutional
resolutions which were allegedly rendered in violation of his right to "equal right but merely specifies a guideline for legislative or executive action.3
access to opportunities for public service" under Section 26, Article II of the The disregard of the provision does not give rise to any cause of action
1987 before the courts.4
Constitution,1 by limiting the number of qualified candidates only to those An inquiry into the intent of the framers5 produces the same determination
who can afford to wage a nationwide campaign and/or are nominated by that the provision is not self-executory. The original wording of the present
political parties. In so doing, petitioner argues that the COMELEC indirectly Section 26, Article II had read, "The State shall broaden opportunities to
amended the constitutional provisions on the electoral process and limited public office and prohibit public dynasties."6 Commissioner (now Chief
Justice) Hilario Davide, Jr. successfully brought forth an amendment that As long as the limitations apply to everybody equally without discrimination,
changed the word "broaden" to the phrase "ensure equal access," and the however, the equal access clause is not violated. Equality is not sacrificed as
substitution of the word "office" to "service." He explained his proposal in long as the burdens engendered by the limitations are meant to be borne by
this wise: any one who is minded 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
I changed the word "broaden" to "ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS TO" because
burdens which they create.
what is important would be equal access to the opportunity. If you broaden,
it would necessarily mean that the government would be mandated to Significantly, petitioner does not challenge the constitutionality or validity of
create as many offices as are possible to accommodate as many people as Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code and COMELEC Resolution No. 6452
are also possible. That is the meaning of broadening opportunities to public dated 10 December 2003. Thus, their presumed validity stands and has to
service. So, in order that we should not mandate the State to make the be accorded due weight.
government the number one employer and to limit offices only to what may
Clearly, therefore, petitioner’s reliance on the equal access clause in Section
be necessary and expedient yet offering equal opportunities to access to it, I
26, Article II of the Constitution is misplaced.
change the word "broaden."7 (emphasis supplied)
The rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates and the
Obviously, the provision is not intended to compel the State to enact
disqualification of candidates who have not evinced a bona fide intention to
positive measures that would accommodate as many people as possible into
run for office is easy to divine. The State has a compelling interest to ensure
public office. The approval of the "Davide amendment" indicates the design
that its electoral exercises are rational, objective, and orderly. Towards this
of the framers to cast the provision as simply enunciatory of a desired policy
end, the State takes into account the practical considerations in conducting
objective and not reflective of the imposition of a clear State burden.
elections. Inevitably, the greater the number of candidates, the greater the
Moreover, the provision as written leaves much to be desired if it is to be opportunities for logistical confusion, not to mention the increased
regarded as the source of positive rights. It is difficult to interpret the clause allocation of time and resources in preparation for the election. These
as operative in the absence of legislation since its effective means and reach practical difficulties should, of course, never exempt the State from the
are not properly defined. Broadly written, the myriad of claims that can be conduct of a mandated electoral exercise. At the same time, remedial
subsumed under this rubric appear to be entirely open-ended.8 Words and actions should be available to alleviate these logistical hardships, whenever
phrases such as "equal access," "opportunities," and "public service" are necessary and proper. Ultimately, a disorderly election is not merely a
susceptible to countless interpretations owing to their inherent textbook example of inefficiency, but a rot that erodes faith in our
impreciseness. Certainly, it was not the intention of the framers to inflict on democratic institutions. As the United States Supreme Court held:
the people an operative but amorphous foundation from which innately
[T]here is surely an important state interest in requiring some preliminary
unenforceable rights may be sourced.
showing of a significant modicum of support before printing the name of a
As earlier noted, the privilege of equal access to opportunities to public political organization and its candidates on the ballot – the interest, if no
office may be subjected to limitations. Some valid limitations specifically on other, in avoiding confusion, deception and even frustration of the
the privilege to seek elective office are found in the provisions9 of the democratic [process].11
Omnibus Election Code on "Nuisance Candidates" and COMELEC Resolution
No. 645210 dated December 10, 2002 outlining the instances wherein the
COMELEC may motu proprio refuse to give due course to or cancel a The COMELEC itself recognized these practical considerations when it
Certificate of Candidacy. promulgated Resolution No. 6558 on 17 January 2004, adopting the study
Memorandum of its Law Department dated 11 January 2004. As observed in The Omnibus Election Code and COMELEC Resolution No. 6452 are
the COMELEC’s Comment: cognizant of the compelling State interest to ensure orderly and credible
elections by excising impediments thereto, such as nuisance candidacies
There is a need to limit the number of candidates especially in the case of
that distract and detract from the larger purpose. The COMELEC is
candidates for national positions because the election process becomes a
mandated by the Constitution with the administration of elections16 and
mockery even if those who cannot clearly wage a national campaign are
endowed with considerable latitude in adopting means and methods that
allowed to run. Their names would have to be printed in the Certified List of
will ensure the promotion of free, orderly and honest elections.17
Candidates, Voters Information Sheet and the Official Ballots. These would
Moreover, the Constitution guarantees that only bona fide candidates for
entail additional costs to the government. For the official ballots in
public office shall be free from any form of harassment and
automated counting and canvassing of votes, an additional page would
discrimination.18 The determination of bona fide candidates is governed by
amount to more or less FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY MILLION PESOS
the statutes, and the concept, to our mind is, satisfactorily defined in the
(₱450,000,000.00).
Omnibus Election Code.
xxx[I]t serves no practical purpose to allow those candidates to continue if
Now, the needed factual premises.
they cannot wage a decent campaign enough to project the prospect of
winning, no matter how slim.12 However valid the law and the COMELEC issuance involved are, their proper
application in the case of the petitioner cannot be tested and reviewed by
The preparation of ballots is but one aspect that would be affected by
this Court on the basis of what is now before it. The assailed resolutions of
allowance of "nuisance candidates" to run in the elections. Our election laws
the COMELEC do not direct the Court to the evidence which it considered in
provide various entitlements for candidates for public office, such as
determining that petitioner was a nuisance candidate. This precludes the
watchers in every polling place,13 watchers in the board of canvassers,14 or
Court from reviewing at this instance whether the COMELEC committed
even the receipt of electoral contributions.15 Moreover, there are election
grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioner, since such a review
rules and regulations the formulations of which are dependent on the
would necessarily take into account the matters which the COMELEC
number of candidates in a given election.
considered in arriving at its decisions.
Given these considerations, the ignominious nature of a nuisance candidacy
Petitioner has submitted to this Court mere photocopies of various
becomes even more galling. The organization of an election with bona fide
documents purportedly evincing his credentials as an eligible candidate for
candidates standing is onerous enough. To add into the mix candidates with
the presidency. Yet this Court, not being a trier of facts, can not properly
no serious intentions or capabilities to run a viable campaign would actually
pass upon the reproductions as evidence at this level. Neither the COMELEC
impair the electoral process. This is not to mention the candidacies which
nor the Solicitor General appended any document to their respective
are palpably ridiculous so as to constitute a one-note joke. The poll body
Comments.
would be bogged by irrelevant minutiae covering every step of the electoral
process, most probably posed at the instance of these nuisance candidates. The question of whether a candidate is a nuisance candidate or not is both
It would be a senseless sacrifice on the part of the State. legal and factual. The basis of the factual determination is not before this
Court. Thus, the remand of this case for the reception of further evidence is
in order.
Owing to the superior interest in ensuring a credible and orderly election,
the State could exclude nuisance candidates and need not indulge in, as the
song goes, "their trips to the moon on gossamer wings."
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 cursory treatment but a
hearing which conforms to the requirements of due process.

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 with Section 74 of
the Omnibus Election Code. This provision specifically enumerates what a
certificate of candidacy should contain, with the required information
tending to show that the candidate possesses the minimum qualifications
for the 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.

The COMELEC is directed to hold and complete the reception of evidence

and report its findings to this Court with deliberate dispatch.

SO ORDERED.