Case Digest
Case: Rev. Elly Velez Pamatong vs. Commission on Elections
G.R. No.: 161872
Date: April 13, 2004
Ponente: Justice Panganiban
Facts:
On December 17, 2003, Rev. Elly Velez Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy
(COC) for President.
On January 17, 2004, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 6558, refusing to give
due course to his COC, citing him as a nuisance candidate (with two commissioners
dissenting).
Pamatong filed a motion for reconsideration, but on February 11, 2004, the
COMELEC, in Omnibus Resolution No. 6604, declared him and 35 others nuisance
candidates for lack of bona fide intention or capacity to wage a nationwide campaign.
Pamatong elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing:
1. That the COMELEC violated his right to equal access to opportunities for
public service under Sec. 26, Art. II, 1987 Constitution.
2. That he met all constitutional qualifications for the presidency.
3. That the COMELEC form was invalid because it lacked provisions for
biographical data and program of government.
The COMELEC reasoned that too many candidates would cause logistical problems,
confusion among voters, and increased expenses (P450 million for additional ballot
pages).
Issues:
1. Whether Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution grants a self-executing right
to run for public office.
2. Whether COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in declaring petitioner a
nuisance candidate under Sec. 69, Omnibus Election Code.
3. Whether the COMELEC-prescribed COC form is invalid for lacking biographical
data and program of government.
Ruling:
1. On the constitutional right to run for office:
o The Court held that Sec. 26, Art. II (equal access to opportunities for public
service) is a non-self-executing provision.
o There is no constitutional right to run for public office; what exists is a
statutory privilege, subject to limitations by law such as the Omnibus Election
Code.
2. On nuisance candidacy:
o The SC upheld the authority of COMELEC under Sec. 69, Omnibus Election
Code and COMELEC Resolution No. 6452 to exclude nuisance candidates in
order to protect the integrity and efficiency of the electoral process.
o However, since the COMELEC failed to present sufficient factual basis in the
record for Pamatong’s nuisance status, the SC remanded the case to COMELEC
for reception of evidence.
3. On the validity of the COC form:
o The Court ruled that the COMELEC COC form complies with Sec. 74 of the
Omnibus Election Code. The law does not require inclusion of biographical data
or a program of government.
Doctrine / Ratio:
Sec. 26, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution is not self-executing; it is merely a declaration
of principle and policy. It does not create enforceable rights to run for office.
Running for public office is a privilege, not a constitutional right.
The COMELEC has the power to regulate nuisance candidates to ensure orderly
elections and prevent confusion among voters.
Why it falls under Constitutional Law:
The case squarely involves the interpretation of constitutional provisions, specifically
Sec. 26, Art. II (equal access to opportunities for public service), and how it relates to
the right to seek elective office.
It also tackles the constitutional authority of COMELEC under Art. IX-C to supervise
elections and enforce laws to ensure free, orderly, and credible elections.
The ruling clarifies the distinction between constitutional rights vs. statutory
privileges, a fundamental Constitutional Law principle.
