Supreme Court: Appointed officials running in polls must quit
MANILA, Philippines (2nd UPDATE) - Aiming to level the playing field in the May 10 polls, the Supreme Court has ruled that appointed officials seeking elective posts should quit their government posts.
Voting 10-5, the Tribunal reversed its earlier ruling allowing appointed officials to remain in their posts despite filing their certificates of candidacy (COCs). The vote then was 9-6 in favor of appointed officials not being required to quit.
Malacañang lawyer Romulo Macalintal, who represented the original parties who prompted the case, said he will appeal the new decision.
Far from leveling the playing field, Macalintal insists the new ruling is discriminatory against appointed officials since it assumes that elected ones are not using their positions to promote their personal interests.
“But it is very clear that incumbent senators running for president are already out of the field campaigning even before the start of the campaign period practically leaving their jobs as lawmakers. In the case of appointive officials, while they filed their COCs, they remain in their respective offices and cannot campaign without being charged their official leave credits or being deducted of their salaries,” Macalintal said in a statement.
Macalintal expressed surprise over the reversal, adding that the parties which sought to intervene in the case, like former Senator Franklin Drilon and Senator Manuel Roxas II, merely copied the previous dissenting opinions.
“I was looking for new arguments, and they failed to show one,” he said in a separate interview.
20 VIPs affected
Veteran election lawyer Sixto Brillantes said about 20 high-profile personalities and dozens of others will be affected by the decision, although they will not be held liable for election offenses for not resigning from their posts.
“They (appointive officials) were acting on the basis of a previous ruling. They were acting in good faith,” Brillantes noted.
Some of the government officials to be affected by the new ruling are Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera, who is seeking a congressional post in the first district of Quezon province, and Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, who is running for congressman in the first district of Batangas.
Also to be adversely affected are presidential legal counsel Raul Gonzalez, who is running for mayor in Iloilo City; Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap, who is seeking a congressional seat in the 3rd district of Bohol; and, Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya, who is running for Congress as Camarines Sur representative.
Brillantes said the affected personalities need not resign from their posts, in the meantime, since the ruling is expected to be appealed.
Comelec welcomes ruling
He said the decision may not really affect appointed officials after all since the start of the campaign period for local officials would have begun by the time the ruling is handed down with finality.
The campaign period for local officials starts March 26.
Meanwhile, Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera said she will follow the Supreme Court decision, but she wants to read the resolution first.
Devanadera said she has no problem with the ruling as she really would have to resign shortly to campaign. She said she stayed on for personal reasons, to see the completion of big cases like the Ampatuan multiple murder and rebellion cases.
Comelec Commissioner Rene Sarmiento, for his part, said: "We welcome reversal of the Supreme Court on the Quinto case. This now levels the playing field for all candidates because the undue advantage of sitting officials is removed. RA [Republic Act] 9369 is also very clear that appointive officials who file their COCs are deemed resigned ipso factor. -- with reports from Timi Nubla and Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Share your views
STILL ON PARTY LIST NOMINEES
A very enlightening post, treb
My concern is that the party, organization or coalition is the one being voted on and not the individual.
A person accepts the nomination of the party.
That person does not actually file a certificate of candidacy.
Prior to being accredited by the Comelec, the party, organization or coalition through its officers, files a manifestation to participate.
Ergo, the SC ruling does not apply to a nominee holding an public appointive office or position.
PS. The deadline for the submission of party list nominees is March 26, 2010.
PS. I am not a lawyer.
Erratum
My last sentence should be read as: It's really beyond my comprehension instead of "It's really behind my comprehension" as previously posted. My apologies.
Thanks too Smagul
Thanks too Smagul for your kind understanding. A Law is a Law and no one should be above the Law. I just cannot understand why Malacanang Attorney Macalintal and the 5 dissenting SC Justices are disputing/contesting this Law which has been approved and signed by their master PGMA. It's really behind my comprehension.
Thanks Treb
This entail a different story. Perhaps there is a motive in this for the sake of eliminating the less qualified in sincerity.
Pahabol - So the people may know
Copy and paste this link on the web:
http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2007/ra_9369_2007.html
I regret for any inconvenience you might have.
So the people may know and virgoearthrat
The SC is just implementing Section 13 of Republic Act 9369 which was signed into Law on January 23, 2007 by PGMA.
Please click this link: http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2007/ra_9369_2007.html
Paragraph 3 of Section 13 of Republic Act 9369, states among others:
"For this purpose, the Commission shall set the deadline for the filing of certificate of candidacy/petition of registration/manifestation to participate in the election. Any person who files his certificate of candidacy within this period shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall effect only upon that start of the aforesaid campaign period: Provided, finally, That any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the armed forces, and officers, and employees in government-owned or-controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso factor resigned from his/her office and must vacate the same at the start of the day of the filing of his/her certification of candidacy.
Therefore, it goes without saying that the last sentence of this Section applies also to Party List Nominees (any person) who are holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the armed forces, and officers, and employees in government-owned or-controlled corporations.
I trust this answers the query of virgoearthrat and so the people may know. Reiterating that SC decision is already a LAW - RA 9369. I just wonder why other members of SC and a certain Malacanang lawyer are blind or don't have enough knowledge about this Law.
PARTY LIST NOMINEES
Does this new SC ruling apply to appointive officials seeking nomination as party list representatives?
RA 7941
Sec. 8. Nominations of Party-List Representatives. - Each registered party, organization or coalition shall submit to the COMELEC not later than forty-four (45) [sic] days before the election a list of names, not less than five (5) from which party-list representatives shall be chosen in case it obtains the required number of votes.
A person may be nominated in one (1) list only. Only persons who have given their consent in writing may be named in the list. The list shall not include any candidate for any elective office or person who has lost his bid for an elective office in the immediately preceding election. No change of names or alteration of the order of nominees shall be allowed after the same shall have been submitted to the COMELEC except in cases where the nominee dies, or withdraws in writing, his nomination, becomes incapacitated in which case the name of the substitutes nominee shall be placed last in the list. Incumbent sectoral representatives in the House of Representatives who are nominated in the party-list system shall not be considered resigned.
Sec. 9. Qualification of Party-List Nominees. - No person shall be nominated as party-list representative unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election, able to read and write, bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election.
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty during his term shall be allowed to continue until the expiration of his term.
Sec. 10. Manner of Voting. - Every voter shall be entitled to two (2) votes. The first is a vote for candidate for member of the House of Representatives in his legislative district, and the second, a vote for the party, organization, or coalition he wants represented in the House of Representatives: provided, that a vote cast for a party, sectoral organization, or coalition not entitled to be voted for shall not be counted: provided, finally that the first election under the party-list system shall be held in May 1998.
The COMELEC shall undertake the necessary information campaign for purposes of educating the electorate on the matter of the party-list system.
magulo!
Eh, putaragis sino ba talaga ang dapat may authority sa election? kung ganayan dapat i aboish n lng yung comelec kasi korte suprema namn ang ng dedesisyon. magulo? di ko maintindihan? taragis na bansa to. "Wala n tayo sa dereksyon. kailangan natin ng tunay na leader, Matagal pa ang pgtititiis mga kabayan ko. ilang hnerasyon pa ng mga ganid ng titiisin, Kailan man ang isang bansang may maggulong pamamalakad at magulong comunidad pulitikal ay hinde mgkakaroon ng kaunlaran. Pustahan tayo after 40 years! patay p rin sa gutom ang mga pilipino!
Ummm...yeah
Actually what they should do is send this back to congress to In Act, else the custodian of the law is breaking the law. Sigh* if fairness is the issue, put a cap on the spending and the duration period of campaigning, with strict rule to be followed by heavy penalty to those who break it.
With all respect to our Official or the people in general. The problem within our understanding of the constitution is our lack of sympathy and respect in the wisdom to those group of wise men who authored it. Hundreds of years of trials and errors in sacrifices and suffering expend to gain the understanding of why the execution of the law must be a concern to all who are entrusted and those who are individual. It's sole purpose is to provide a sense of direction to the organization of the three branches of the Government. The draft outlines the individual and combined powers of each branch, while reserving the rights of each individual state (province). It defines the importance of jury trials, civil liberties and duties and the accountability of the government. The Constitution also very clearly defines that the federal government does not enjoy authority outside of the established clauses in the Preamble. The court should overruled this and throw it, since it's unconstitutional and that's what they should be doing, instead of entertaining it.
JUDICIARY IS ANOTHER BRANCH OF GOVERMENT
JUDICIARY IS ANOTHER BRANCH OF GOVERMENT.Don't let Malacanang dectate you what you need to do.Kaya walang nangyayari sa bayan natin may mga kagaya niyong nakaupo sa puwesto pero puro walang prinsipiyo...puro pera lang ang nasa utak ninyo.IT"S TIME FOR A CHANGE