Banat v.

COMELEC (August 7, 2007)

Doctrine:
Every election statute is deemed constitutional and the presumption always favors the validity of
the statute assailed. Those who assail the validity of the statute should prove a clear and
unequivocal breach and not merely a speculative or argumentative one; otherwise the petition
must necessarily fail.
Facts:
The petitioner, the BANAT party-list, assails some provisions of RA 9369 and asks for a
temporary restraining order to be issued against COMELEC to prevent it from implementing the
statute. In their petition, they posit that the statute is unconstitutional since the statute itself
contains provisions which are not germane RA 9369 since it speaks of poll automation, yet Sec.
34, 37, 38, and 43 speak of devices and methods for manual canvassing of election returns
matters which it claims are not embraced within the title of the statute itself.
In addition to the abovementioned reason, BANAT additionally argues that Sections 37 and 38
impairs the powers of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal and the Senate Electoral Tribunal since
under the amended provisions, Congress, in the case of the election of a President and VicePresident; and the COMELEC sitting en banc as the National Board of Canvassers, may exercise
the functions of the PET and SET, respectively, when they are given the power to entertain preproclamation cases. Since they undermine and encroach upon the independence and jurisdiction
of the PET and SEC, the law must be declared unconstitutional.
Likewise, BANAT argues that Section 43 of the law is unconstitutional because it gives the
different prosecuting arms of the government equal status as COMELEC in dealing with
election-related offenses. Moreover, Section 34, which fixes the per diem of poll watchers, is
unconstitutional because it violates the freedom of the parties to enter into a contract by fixing
the allowance at PHP 400.00.
Issue:
Is RA 9369 unconstitutional?
Held:
No, it is constitutional. The title of RA 9369 is broad enough to encompass topics which deal not
only with the automation process but with everything related to its purpose encouraging the
conduction of transparent, credible, fair, and accurate elections.
On the matter of Sections 37 and 38, Congress and the COMELEC do not encroach upon the
jurisdiction of the PET and the SET. There is no conflict of jurisdiction since the powers of
Congress and the COMELEC en banc and of the PET and the SET are exercised on different
occasions and for different purposes.
The PET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the
President or Vice President while the SET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,

returns, and qualifications of members of the Senate. Their jurisdiction can only be invoked once
the winning presidential, vice presidential or senatorial candidates have been proclaimed.
On the other hand, under Section 37 and 38 of RA 9369, Congress and the COMELEC en banc
can determine only the authenticity and due execution of the Certificates of Canvass and
Congress and the COMELEC en banc can exercise this power only before the proclamation of
the winning presidential, vice-presidential, and senatorial candidates.
As to the validity of Sections 43, it is valid. The grant of the exclusive power to investigate and
prosecute election offenses to the COMELEC was not by virtue of the Constitution but by BP
881, a legislative enactment. As such, should the legislature see fit, it can freely amend the
provisions of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure and the same act would not violate the
Constitution.
Lastly, as to Section 34, the same is valid as well. There is no violation of the non-impairment
clause because such rule is limited in application only to laws that derogate from prior acts or
contracts by enlarging, abridging or in any manner changing the intention of the parties. In fixing
the per diem of poll watchers, there has yet to be a contract which could be enforced since RA
9369 was enacted three months before any contract for poll watching was even done.
Even assuming that there already was a contract formed prior to the election period, the police
power is superior to the non-impairment clause. The constitutional guaranty of non-impairment
of contracts is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State, in the interest of public
health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. RA 9369 is an exercise of such
power since it promotes the welfare of poll watchers, a position invested with public interest.