ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |

e Court Resolutions > Year 2004 > Pamatong vs Comelec : 161872 : July
Banc:

[G.R. No. 161872. July 13, 2004]

PAMATONG VS. COMELEC

EN BANC

our information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 13 2004.

VELEZ LAO PAMATONG, ESQUIRE VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS.)

cedents, as cited in our Resolution dated 13 April 2004. Petitioner Elly Velez Lao Pamatong filed his certificate of candidacy for th
ve due course to it per Resolution No. 6558 dated 17 January 2004. After the COMELEC denied his Motion for Reconsideration, pe

he "equal access clause" in the Constitution1 vested in him the right to seek public office, the presidency in particular. He also so
solutions. The Court deemed it proper not to grant the provisional relief sought.

esolution dated 13 April 2004, the Court ruled that the equal access clause does grant petitioner the right to seek public office. H
he Court to the evidence which it considered in determining that petitioner was a nuisance candidate, the Court remanded the ca
y to complete the proceedings and "report its findings to this Court with deliberate dispatch."

Court's RESOLUTION, the COMELEC held the hearing for the reception of further evidence on 27 April 2004. During the hearing, p
red the documentary evidence before the COMELEC, including copies of various books authored by the petitioner. 3

ELEC, through Commissioner Florentine A. Tuason, Jr., submitted to this Court a Compliance Report. Attached thereto were the v
of 27 April 2004. A portion of the Report, under the caption "Findings", contained a very brief summary of the antecedent facts,
solution No. 6452. The provisions contain the legal basis for the disqualification of "nuisance candidates." However, the Report d
offer any recommendation.

unsatisfactory in light of the specific instructions given to the COMELEC in the 13 April 2004 Resolution, the relevant portion of w

nd the COMELEC issuance involved are, their proper application in the case of the petitioner cannot be tested and reviewed by th
LEC do not direct the Court to the evidence which it considered in determining that petitioner was a nuisance candidate. This pre
ve abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioner, since such a review would necessarily take into account the matters which the

d to this Court mere photocopies of various documents purportedly evincing his credentials as an eligible candidate for the presid
ions as evidence at this level. Neither the COMELEC nor the Solicitor General appended any document to their respective COMME
 a candidate is a nuisance candidate or not is both legal and factual. The basis of the factual determination is not before this Cou

lution dated 6 May 2004, the Court required the COMELEC to "FULLY COMPLY with the aforesaid resolution of 13 April 2004 by su
mendation, within five (5) days from notice hereof."5 On 12 May 2004, the COMELEC submitted a new Compliance Report, which c
one Alioden D. Dalaig, Director IV, Law Department of the COMELEC. 6

June 2004, the Court returned the Compliance Report filed by Atty. Dalaig to the COMELEC, for resubmission together with the ap
, this time signed by five Commissioners of the COMELEC.8

e Report recites the following findings:

58, the Commission denied due course to the certificate of candidacy of several presidential candidates, including petitioner, on t

no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy had been filed or acts that clearly demonstrate t

es who do not belong to or are nominated by any registered political party of national constituency;

ntial candidates who do not present running mate for vice-president, nor senatorial candidates;

es who do not have a platform of government and are not capable of waging a nationwide campaign.

mission indubitably show that petitioner is not nominated by any political party; neither does he have a running mate for vice-pre
nt but he is not capable of waging a nationwide campaign. He has no organizational setup on a nationwide basis.

7, 2004, the testimonial and documentary evidence submitted by petitioner are nothing but an enumeration of the books he has
how that he has the machinery and necessary organization to wage a nationwide campaign.

l 27, 2004, petitioner admitted that he was a party-list nominee (Alliance for Democracy) in the May 2001 elections and said par
boanga and garnered only more or less 456 votes. If petitioner cannot obtain substantial number of votes for these elective posit
Office of President and his capability to wage a nationwide campaign, there is no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the Com

ble about the above-quoted findings of the COMELEC. Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code authorizes the disqualification of
of candidacy has been filed.10 COMELEC Resolution No. 6452 likewise provides the mechanics and the grounds for denying, amo
rty backing the candidacy, the lack of a running mate or accompanying slate of candidates, or the incapability to wage a nationw
not BONA FIDE, citing the reasons on which the conclusion is based.

tition has obviously been mooted with the holding of the presidential elections on 10 May 2004. The Court is no longer in a posit
ss the petition on the ground of mootness.

ION is dismissed for having become MOOT and ACADEMIC. No costs.

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

CLERK OF COURT
 87 CONST.

do Carbonell, a former Dean of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila and reputedly the author of seventy books. Rollo, pp. 536
Command, a Security Officer and the Deputy Chief of Staff of the "United Soldiers for America or United Soldiers for the Armed F

rincipal exhibits, namely Exhibits "A" to "M." Rollo , pp. 522-523.

Abalos, and Commissioners R. Javier, M. Sadain, R. Borra and F. Tuason, Jr.

bus Election Code.

C Resolution No. 6452, which reads:

IO CASES. - The Commission may, at any time before the election, motu proprio refuse to give due course to or can
, Vice-President, Senator and Party-list:

ve no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy had been filed or acts that clear

do not belong to or are not nominated by any registered political party of national constituency;

Presidential [candidates] who do not present running mates for vice-president, respectively, nor senatorial candid

ot have a platform of government and are not capable of waging a nationwide campaign.

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916

1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924

1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932

1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940

1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948

1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956

1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964

1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916

1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924

1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932

 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940

1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948

1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956

1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964

1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

998 - 2018 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanroble