Roque.electionLaws

8/18/2019 Roque.electionLaws

1/6

Villarosa vs. COMELECG.R. No. 133927. November 29, 1999

Doctrine: The COMELEC Rules of Procedure require that all actions led with the

Commission be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in interest

The letter!petition does not alle"e that the protestant is a candidate for any position

in the May ##$ #%%& elections$ or a representati'e of a re"istered political party or

coalition$ or at the 'ery least$ a re"istered 'oter in the lone district of Occidental

Mindoro !!! as to stand to sustain any form of in(ury by petitioner)s use of the

nic*name +T, -bsent such essential alle"ation$ the letter!petition stood defecti'e

and should ha'e been dismissed outri"ht for failure to state a cause of action

acts: Ma -melita C ,illarosa was a candidate for Representati'e of Occidental

Mindoro in #%%& elections and was proclaimed duly elected thereto On March ./$

#%%&$ she led her certicate of candidacy in which she stated$ amon" others$ that

her nic*name is +T, On -pril .0$ #%%&$ 1an Restor led a petition addressed toCOMELEC Chairman Pardo as*in" for the in'alidation or cancellation of +T, as the

o2cial nic*name of ,illarosa as declared in her certicate of candidacy$ and the

nullication of all 'otes cast in the said nic*name$ on the "round that she is not

publicly *nown by that name The petition further a'erred that ,illarosa is publicly

*nown in Occidental Mindoro as 3irlie and that the appellation +T, actually pertains

to the initials of her husband and former Con"ressman of Occidental Mindoro$ +ose

Tapales ,illarosa

On election day$ May ##$ #%%&$ the Commission$ sittin" en banc$ issued a Resolution

"rantin" Restor)s petition on the "round that the nic*name +T, is not one by which

,illarosa is popularly *nown ,illarosa recei'ed a fa4 copy of this Resolution at 5:6.in the afternoon of May ##$ #%%&$ at which time 'otin" has ceased and can'assin"

of 'otes in some precincts has already "one underway

On May #.$ #%%&$ ,illarosa led with the Commission an 7r"ent Manifestation and

Motion to reconsider the aforesaid Resolution 8indin" that no new matter has been

raised therein$ the Commission en banc issued another Resolution the ne4t day$

May #6$ #%%&$ denyin" the abo'e motion

!ss"e: 9hether COMELEC committed "ra'e abuse of discretion in ta*in"

co"niance$ rulin"$ and resol'in" Restor)s petition;

#el$:


2/6

to sustain any form of in(ury by petitioners use of the nic*name +T, -bsent such

essential alle"ation$ the petition stood defecti'e and should ha'e been dismissed

outri"ht for failure to state a cause of action

8urthermore it stands uncontested that ,illarosa came to *now of the said only upon

receipt of a copy of the COMELEC)s Resolution issued on May ##$ #%%&$ which sherecei'ed by fa4 at 5:6. in the afternoon of the same day 7nder these

circumstances$ it is clear that the Commission passed upon the petition without

a=ordin" ,illarosa the opportunity to e4plain her side and to counter the alle"ations

of Restor)s petition 1ue process dictates that before any decision can be 'alidly

rendered in a case$ the twin requirements of notice and hearin" must be obser'ed

The question of whether the Commission may decide cases en banc without rst

referrin" them to any of its di'isions has been consistently answered in the ne"ati'e

since >armiento 's COMELEC$ which interpreted >ection 6$ -rticle ?@ACB of the

Constitution as requirin" all election cases to be rst heard and decided by a

di'ision of the Commission$ before bein" brou"ht to the Commission en banc onreconsideration Conformably$ we hold that the Commission e4ceeded the bounds of

its (urisdiction when it too* co"niance of Restor)s petition at the rst instance$ thus

renderin" its May ##$ #%%& Resolution 'oid

To the abo'e rule$ Restor ta*e e4ception by statin" that the petition posed issues

which were administrati'e in character$ and$ thus$ not sub(ect to the requirement of

referral to di'ision which applies only in the Commission)s e4ercise of its

ad(udicatory or quasi!(udicial functions The Court did not a"ree with this 'iew

because it is not a quasi!(udicial matter and may thus be dealt with rsthand by the

Commission en banc Restor)s petition clearly as*s$ not only for the in'alidation of

+T, as ,illarosa)s authoried nic*name$ but also the nullication of all 'otes cast inthat name

Center or %eo&le Em&o'erment !n Governance vs. COMELECG.R. No. 1(9)*+ e&tember 21, 2-1-

Doctrine: The pertinent portion of >ection #. of R- %6% is clear in that once an

-E> technolo"y is selected for implementation$ the Commission shall promptly

ma*e the source code of that technolo"y a'ailable and open to any interested

political party or "roups which may conduct their own re'iew thereof The COMELEC

has o=ered no reason not to comply with this requirement of the law ?ndeed$ itsonly e4cuse for not disclosin" the source code was that it was not yet a'ailable

when CenPE3 as*ed for it and$ subsequently$ that the re'iew had to be done$

apparently for security reason$ under a controlled en'ironment The elections had

passed and that reason is already stale

acts: On May .$ .00% Center for People Empowerment in 3o'ernance ACenPE3B$

a non!"o'ernment or"aniation$wrote COMELEC$ requestin" a copy of the source


3/6

code of the Precinct Count Optical >can APCO>B pro"rams$ the Doard of Can'assers

ConsolidationCan'assin" >ystem ADOC CC>B pro"rams for the municipal$ pro'incial$

national$ and con"ressional can'ass$ the COMELEC ser'er pro"rams$ and the source

code of the in!house COMELEC pro"rams called the 1ata Capturin" >ystem A1C>B

utilities CenPE3 in'o*ed the followin" pertinent portion of >ection #. of Republic

-ct AR-B %6% which pro'ides: Fonce an -E> technolo"y is selected forimplementation$ the Commission shall promptly ma*e the source code of that

technolo"y a'ailable and open to any interested political party or "roups which may

conduct their own re'iew thereofG

On +une .H$ .00% the COMELEC "ranted the request for the source code of the PCO>

and the CC>$ but denied that for the 1C>$ since the 1C> was a system used in

processin" the Lists of ,oters which is not part of the 'otin"$ countin" and

can'assin" systems contemplated by R- %6% -ccordin" to COMELEC$ if the

source code for the 1C> were to be di'ul"ed$ unscrupulous indi'iduals mi"ht

chan"e the pro"ram and pass o= an illicit one that could benet certain candidates

or parties

>till$ the COMELEC apparently did not release e'en the *inds of source code that it

said it was appro'in" for release Consequently$ on +uly #6$ .00%$ CenPE3 once

more as*ed COMELEC for the source code of the PCO>$ to"ether with other

documents$ pro"rams$ and dia"rams related to the -E> CenPE3 sent follow!up

letters on +uly #/ and .0 and on -u"ust .H$ .00%

On -u"ust .$ .00% COMELEC replied that the source code CenPE3 wanted did not

yet e4ist for the reasons: #B that it had not yet recei'ed the baseline source code of

the pro'ider$ >martmatic$ since payment to it had been withheld as a result of a

pendin" suitI .B its customiation of the baseline source code was tar"eted forcompletion in Jo'ember .00% yetI 6B under >ection ## of R- %6%$ the customied

source code still had to be re'iewed by an established international certication

entity$ which re'iew was e4pected to be completed by the end of 8ebruary .0#0I

and HB only then would the -E> be made a'ailable for re'iew under a controlled

en'ironment

Re(ectin" COMELECs e4cuse$ on October 5$ .00% CenPE3 led the present petition

for mandamus$ see*in" to compel COMELEC to immediately ma*e its source codes

a'ailable to CenPE3 and other interested parties COMELEC claimed in its comment

that CenPE3 did not ha'e a clear$ certain$ and well!dened ri"ht that was

enforceable by mandamus because COMELECs duty to ma*e the source code

a'ailable presupposed that it already had the same COMELEC restated the

e4planation it "a'e in its -u"ust .$ .00% letter to CenPE3

!ss"e: 9hether CenPE3 can compel COMELEC to release the source codes;

#el$:


4/6

The pertinent portion of >ection #. of R- %6% is clear in that once an -E>

technolo"y is selected for implementation$ the Commission shall promptly ma*e the

source code of that technolo"y a'ailable and open to any interested political party

or "roups which may conduct their own re'iew thereof The COMELEC has o=ered no

reason not to comply with this requirement of the law ?ndeed$ its only e4cuse for

not disclosin" the source code was that it was not yet a'ailable when CenPE3 as*edfor it and$ subsequently$ that the re'iew had to be done$ apparently for security

reason$ under a controlled en'ironment The elections had passed and that reason

is already stale

ani$a$ vs. COMELECG.R. No. 9-(7( an"ar/ 29, 199-

Doctrine: 9hat was "ranted to COMELEC was the power to super'ise and re"ulate

the use and en(oyment of franchises$ permits or other "rants issued for the

operation of transportation or other public utilities$ media of communication orinformation to the end that equal opportunity$ time and space$ and the ri"ht to

reply$ includin" reasonable$ equal rates therefor$ for public information campai"ns

and forums amon" candidates are ensured The e'il sou"ht to be pre'ented by this

pro'ision is the possibility that a franchise holder may fa'or or "i'e any undue

ad'anta"e to a candidate in terms of ad'ertisin" space or radio or tele'ision time

This is also the reason why a Kcolumnist$ commentator$ announcer or personality$

who is a candidate for any electi'e o2ce is required to ta*e a lea'e of absence from

his wor* durin" the campai"n period A.nd par >ection ##AbB R- HB ?t cannot be

"ainsaid that a columnist or commentator who is also a candidate would be more

e4posed to the 'oters to the pre(udice of other candidates unless required to ta*e a

lea'e of absence

acts: On October .6$ #%&%$ R- Jo /$ entitled K-J -CT PRO,?1?J3 8OR -J

OR3-J?C -CT 8OR TE COR1?LLER- -7TOJOMO7> RE3?OJK was enacted into law

Pursuant to said law$ the City of Da"uio and the Cordilleras which consist of the

pro'inces of Den"uet$ Mountain Pro'ince$ ?fu"ao$ -bra and alin"a!-payao$ all

comprisin" the Cordillera -utonomous Re"ion$ shall ta*e part in a plebiscite for the

ratication of said Or"anic -ct ori"inally scheduled last 1ecember ./$ #%&% which

was$ howe'er$ reset to +anuary 60$ #%%0 by 'irtue of Comelec Resolution Jo ...

dated 1ecember ./$ #%&%

COMELEC$ by 'irtue of the power 'ested by the #%&/ Constitution$ the OmnibusElection Code ADP &B$ said R- / and other pertinent election laws$

promul"ated Resolution Jo .#/$ to "o'ern the conduct of the plebiscite on the

said Or"anic -ct for the Cordillera -utonomous Re"ion

?n a petition dated Jo'ember .0$ #%&%$ Pablito , >anidad$ who claims to be a

newspaper columnist of the KO,ER,?E9K for the D-37?O M?1L-J1 CO7R?ER$ a

wee*ly newspaper circulated in the City of Da"uio and the Cordilleras$ assailed the


5/6

constitutionality of >ection #% of Comelec Resolution Jo .#/$ which pro'ides:

Fdurin" the plebiscite campai"n period$ on the day before and on the plebiscite day$

no mass media columnist$ commentator$ announcer or personality shall use his

column or radio or tele'ision time to campai"n for or a"ainst the plebiscite issuesG

?t is alle"ed by >anidad that said pro'ision is 'oid and unconstitutional because it'iolates the constitutional "uarantees of the freedom of e4pression and of the press

enshrined in the Constitution 7nli*e a re"ular news reporter or news correspondent

who merely reports the news$ >anidad maintains that as a columnist$ his column

ob'iously and necessarily contains and reNects his opinions$ 'iews and beliefs on

any issue or sub(ect about which he writes e belie'es that said pro'ision of

COMELEC Resolution Jo .#/ constitutes a prior restraint on his constitutionally!

"uaranteed freedom of the press and further imposes subsequent punishment for

those who may 'iolate it because it contains a penal pro'ision

Petitioner li*ewise maintains that if media practitioners were to e4press their 'iews$

beliefs and opinions on the issue submitted to a plebiscite$ it would in fact help inthe "o'ernment dri'e and desire to disseminate information$ and hear$ as well as

'entilate$ all sides of the issue

COMELEC maintains that the questioned pro'ision of Resolution Jo .#/ is not

'iolati'e of the constitutional "uarantees of the freedom of e4pression and of the

press Rather it is a 'alid implementation of the power of the COMELEC to super'ise

and re"ulate media durin" election or plebiscite periods as enunciated in -rticle ?@!

C$ >ection H of the #%&/ Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines ?t is stated

further by them that Resolution .#/ does not absolutely bar >anidad from

e4pressin" his 'iews andor from campai"nin" for or a"ainst the Or"anic -ct e

may still e4press his 'iews or campai"n for or a"ainst the act throu"h the COMELECspace and airtime as pro'ided under >ections %0 and %. of DP &

!ss"e: 9hether the questioned pro'ision of Resolution Jo .#/ 'iolated the

freedom of e4pression and of the press;

#el$:


6/6

par >ection ##AbB R- HB ?t cannot be "ainsaid that a columnist or commentator

who is also a candidate would be more e4posed to the 'oters to the pre(udice of

other candidates unless required to ta*e a lea'e of absence

owe'er$ neither -rticle ?@!C of the Constitution nor >ection ## AbB$ .nd par of R-

H can be construed to mean that the COMELEC has also been "ranted the ri"htto super'ise and re"ulate the e4ercise by media practitioners themsel'es of their

ri"ht to e4pression durin" plebiscite periods Media practitioners e4ercisin" their

freedom of e4pression durin" plebiscite periods are neither the franchise holders

nor the candidates ?n fact$ there are no candidates in'ol'ed in a plebiscite

Therefore$ >ection #% of Comelec Resolution Jo .#/ has no statutory basis

-nent COMELECs ar"ument that >ection #% of Resolution .#/ does not absolutely

bar >anidad from e4pressin" his 'iews because he may do so throu"h the COMELEC

space and time$ the same is not meritorious 9hile the limitation does not

absolutely bar >anidad)s freedom of e4pression$ it is still a restriction on his choice

of the forum where he may e4press his 'iew Jo reason was ad'anced by COMELECto (ustify such abrid"ement The Court held that this form of re"ulation is

tantamount to a restriction of petitioners freedom of e4pression for no (ustiable

reason

Documents

Roque.electionLaws