Justice Antonio Carpio on SC (Nachura) decision: Disaster waiting to happen
By Norman Bordadora
Philippine Daily Inquirer
The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down as unconstitutional those provisions in the election laws that consider appointed officials to be resigned once they filed their certificates of candidacy (CoCs), the court spokesperson said.
Deputy court administrator Jose Midas Marquez said the court en banc voted to consider those provisions violative of the equal protection clause under the Constitution.
Unlike elective officials, the appointive officials are mandated by law to resign after they file their CoCs.
“In considering persons holding appointive positions as ipso facto resigned from their posts upon the filing of their CoCs, but not considering as resigned all other civil servants, specifically the electives ones, the law unduly discriminates against the first class,” Marquez said, quoting from the decision.
“The fact alone that there is substantial distinction between those who hold appointive positions and those occupying elective posts, does not justify such differential treatment,” he added.
Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura penned the majority opinion in connection with a petition filed by election lawyer Romulo Macalintal in behalf of two officials of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Eleazar Quinto and Gerino Tolentino.
Puno dissents
Seven justices agreed with Nachura while six, including Chief Justice Reynato Puno, dissented, Marquez said.
Quinto and Tolentino, DENR undersecretary and director, respectively, have expressed their intention to run for congressional and local positions in the 2010 elections.
“According to the majority, the classification brought by the distinction is not germane to the purpose of the law, which is to preserve the integrity, efficiency, and discipline of civil service,” Marquez said.
As it is, elected officials continue to hold office until their respective terms end and they campaign while still holding on to their seats.
On the other hand, under the questioned election laws, appointed officials have to resign.
Appointing official has last say
Marquez answered in the affirmative when asked if appointed officials could stay on in their present positions even if they became official candidates for the 2010 elections.
That is, “until they are removed from office,” Marquez said, indicating that the appointing authority would have the last say on the tenure of those officials.
Asked whether appointed officials who have already resigned from their positions before filing their certificates of candidacy can get back their old posts in view of the court’s ruling, Marquez said: “It would be up to the appointing authority.”
Among those who recently resigned before filing their CoCs were administration standard-bearer and former Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro and his running mate, former Optical Media Board Chair Edu Manzano.
Marquez said the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of the Automated Election Law, Section 4(a) of Commission on Elections Resolution No. 8678, and Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code.
The automated election law and the Comelec resolution provide “[t]hat 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 facto resigned from his/her office and must vacate the same at the start of the day of the filing of his/her certificate of candidacy.”
Palace happy, relieved
Both provisions were lifted from Sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, Marquez said.
Malacañang cheered the high court’s ruling.
“We welcome that. We are certainly relieved by it,” presidential political adviser Gabriel Claudio said.
He added: “Many of the Cabinet officials who have been considered as resigned if there was no such ruling from the Supreme Court would now be able to lend a few more months of credible service to the country and the people.”
Press Secretary Cerge Remonde said that Cabinet officials who had resigned to run for public office, including Teodoro, would no longer be taken back.
Ten others
“Those who have resigned and been replaced would not be reappointed,” Remonde said.
Among those who have resigned to run for public office were Public Works Secretary Hermogenes Ebdane Jr., Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Ralph Recto and Secretary Avelino Razon.
Remonde also said that 10 other Cabinet officials who were set to file their CoCs Tuesday had not tendered their resignation but would have to decide whether to resign eventually before the start of the campaign period.
“Now there’s no need to resign until I think you start campaigning,” Cabinet Secretary Silvestre Bello III, the only Cabinet official running for senator, said by phone. With a report from TJ Burgonio
Double standard as usual. This is why the incumbent crooks have all the funds and resources to run while those in the lower government position will have to live with the crumbs they get. This is why we have a very rotten political system!
I always believed that if one intend to run for another post, whether elected or appointed in current position, one has to resign before pursuing another. The idea is to show “delicadeza”, enshrined in our culture as Filipinos, but more importantly to show respect to the one’s who entrusted the position, which is the people in the case of elective post, and the appointing power for appointed post.
Appointed post whether in government or government controlled corporations has alternates anyway so there no danger continuing service.
Elective post can be viewed the same but with exceptions, either keep the post vacant and/or assign OIC. But looks like the law states otherwise (i.e. elected remains in the position).
But if our laws say different from what I noted above, then that’s the law (honestly, I am surprise by this??)
For me whether its the law or not, resign first. Be professional and respectful.
Looking at Supreme Court decision, in my view, it is still a LAW meaning the court should have kept it in place not struck it down, and have Congress look into it for revision if that is not the intent.
A self serving intent promoted by the “ruling class”. I wont be surprise if pandak has a hand on this.
This are the things we should not tolerate, assigning judges at SC that play politics…a very dangerous game and bad for us!!!
Olan. kaya nga yung masisiba ang nakaupo. They are using their clout and the people’s money to win again. In the case of the boobuwit, kanya ang AFP at mga katulong niya ang mga public servants. Pera pa niya ang pera ng bayan. Kaya ang mga alipores niya, follw the leader lang.
This is very wrong in so many levels.
With Nachura penning the decision, hindi na nakakapagtaka. Sana ilabas na rin kung sino yung 7 pang kakosa ni Nachura. Karamihan ng appointed sa Supreme Court ay dahil sa political reasons.
This a preview of how the Supreme Court will deal with issues concerning GMA after June 2010.
tama ka parasabayan…ang mga taong ito walang nang respeto sa bayan! Harapang panloloko ang kanilang ginagawa.
Itong eleksyon na ito ay mahalaga…di dapat manalo yung mga senadores, tongressman, at mga executive na kaalyado niya na lumipat sa ibat-ibang party…parang may masamang binabalak ang mga ito…grab power to prolong themselves by destroying our institution… katulad ng ginawaga ni pandak ngayon.
Traidor sa servicio, Mga traidor ng bayan!!
Oblak, precisely the point why the boobuwit is running for a tongress seat. Her allies will still be there, the Supreme Court in in her pocket, the Ombudsman is her husband’s girl friend and she has the Ampatuans to manufacture the votes for her annointed presidential candidate. Konting masahe pa at ayos na!
It took her two years to plot the ouster of Erap. She had nine years to plan her parliamentary government and her prime minister position. ONLY A DEATH ala AMPATUAN will stop her! Only then can we rejoice!
At kung magkaproblema yung CHA-CHA niya sa tongress, nandyan naman ang kanyang mga justices! Just tiis pa rin tayo.
This is a GMA-Comelec red herring.The issue here is about elected officials and not about appointed officials.
Let us compare Batas Pambansa Bilang 881 (Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines)Section 66 and 67 and Comelec Resolution No.8678 Section 4:
____________________________
Batas Pambansa Bilang 881 Section 66 and 67
Sec. 66. Candidates holding appointive office or positions. – Any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and officers and employees in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
Sec. 67. Candidates holding elective office. – Any elective official, whether national or local, running for any office other than the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for President and Vice-President, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
***************************
Comelec Resolution No.8678 – SEC. 4. Effects of Filing Certificates of Candidacy. –
a) Any person holding a public appointive office or position including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and other officers and employees in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
b) Any person holding an elective office or position shall not be considered resigned upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy for the same or any other elective office or position.
________________________
Can you spot the difference? Sec. 66 of B.P.881 was just copied in the Comelec Resolution 8678 (Sec. 4a)whereas Section 67 of the B.P. 881 was amended in the Comelec Resolution 8678 (Section 4b).Why was this done by the Comelec? You do the math.
B.P. section 67 is an “anti-gloria” provision of the law since elective officials are considered resigned “by the very fact itself” once they file their certificate of candidacy except on the following grounds: a.)They are running for the same office being the incumbent b.) They are running for the presidency or the vice-presidency.
Since Gloria filed her certificate of candidacy to be a member of Congress, she is deemed resigned, but the Comelec came to the rescue. Kung makakalusot.
Kung ako si Noli, I will assumed the presidency and create a justiciable situation. Ito dapat ang i-resolve nang Supreme Court at hindi yung sa mga appointive officials.
The promulgation of Comelec Resolution 8678 was on October 6, 2009, the petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed before the Supreme Court on October 19,2009. This a clear case of a moro-moro and a diversionary tactic.
The constitution and our election laws do not prohibit Gloria from running for any other position other than the presidency in the 2010 elections but she now, in my opinion, is deemed resigned.
Can we still expect a clean and honest election in May if the Comelec is cheating on us now?
Balasubas at manyak sa pera ang gobyernong ito halos lahat ng ahensya control nila lalo na sa military at comelec. Wala ng pag asa ang ating bansa. Dapat pakawalan si Ampatuan para siya ang mag liquidate lahat ng mga taong ito isama na ang mga heneral na inutil at mga parak na di mapagkakatiwalaan. No doubt gutom nga naman ang profession na yan kaya umaasa nalang sa mga modus operandi at suhol ng gobyerno.
Malapit na tayong maging Rwanda… hindi malayong mangyari ang civil war dito sa atin… may be next year, depende sa resulta ng election.
Not one of our representatives question this? File an appeal for reconsideration..Law seems simple enough to understand. Curious why the S.C. decide the other way? Are they too dumb or just a part of it.
Ms Ellen,
Anyone from the supposedly opposition question this ruling?
Ito na ba ang pagpaparamdam ng GMA justices na payback time na. Testing the water and decide the case na alam na ikatutuwa ng malacanang.
Jusmio naman, kahit 1st year law student sasagutin na DAPAT lang mag resign ang mga iyan. Sa post ni Ace, andyan ang batas, malinaw at walang duda. Kailangan pa ba ng different interpretation ng batas.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be the last bastion of democracy but with this kind of justices, i.e.Nachura and company……. (sorry Ms. Ellen, can’t continue, my words are unprintable)
Nanlalambot ako sa kawalanghiyaan ng nakararami sa ating mga mahistrado sa Korteng Sobrena. Gayundin sa Commolect.
Grabe na sila!
Halatang halata. Payback time!
May bonus pa ‘yan.
Heto ang mga kasama ni Nachura sa decision na ito:
1. Corona
2. Del Castillo
3. Velasco
4. Leonardo-De Castro
5. Bersamin
6. Chico-Nazario
7. Brion
Ang mga pumalig kay CJ Puno sa dissenting opinion:
1. Abad
2. Carpio
3. Carpio-Morales
4. Villarama
5. Peralta
Bilib ako kina Abad at Villarama, newly appointed justices who had shown independence. Sadly for Bersamin and Del Castillo, they just confirmed what others had suspected that they were able to bypass Villarama because of strong political connections in the palace
For those interested lang.
The majority decision penned by Nachura was heavily based on an american case, the Mancuso vs. Taft case. Not so much on existing Philippine jurisprudence.
The dissenting opinion of Justice Puno made use of Philippine election laws, past and present, the transcript of passage of the election laws to determine the intent of the framers of the law and the several cases decided in the U.S. which overruled the Mancuso vs. Taft case.
The dissenting opinions of CJ Puno, Carpio and Carpio-Morales clearly showed that Nachura is really an A&*%#ole!!!
This will give any incumbent unfair advantage. The justices are supposed to interpret the law-not to make them. It seems it was tailored just for GMA and her band of thieves in congress.
Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code was repealed by Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 9006. I stand corrected.
This ruling may very well be the icing on the cake. GMA will have total domination of the country. It was just a ploy that Ebdane announced his candidacy. It gave the comelec a chance to ask the supreme court for a ruling. They changed the law. Can they do that? Where are all the legal luminaries of the country?
Denial of equal protection daw. Goddamn nasaan ang logic niyo?
The Constitution mandates equal treatment of people who are similarly situated. Elected officials have been chosen by the people for a specific term, while appointive officials have been chosen by an elective official. So elective officials have the trust of the the people, while appointive ones enjoy the trust of the appointing authority. One (elective) holds office by direct mandate of the people, while another (appointive) holds office by the selection of a representative of the people. Clearly, they are not similarly situated.
Since the appointing authority (president) flows from the sovereign power, that may be controlled by the sovereign. That was so controlled, when the people, through their representatives, limited the power of the appointing official. Between the power of the people (legislature) and the power of a servant of the people, the choice is quite clear.
Now about equal protection; equal protection comes into play when rights are at stake. The right of one individual must be protected with the same degree as the right of another. But public office is a public trust, not a right. And the people have spoken (through their representatives) stating that they trust those they elected, but those appointed by the people’s representative do not enjoy the same trust.
This issue is not only about Goyang. This will affect future generations, in regard to the relationship of the legislature and the appointing power.
Besides, even if I were working for Goyang, so what is a few months? How many of Goyang’s appointees are running anyway? You (SC justice) will stake your name and judicial legacy on a favor that is not crucial to your master (mistress)? You (SC justice) will risk the eternal scorn of freshman law students (like my scorn for Barredo) on a useless favor?
There is a scene in Dead Poets Society (Robin Williams), where he asks his literature students to march, while he is talking, and do other weird stuff. His point was, if you march to the cadence of a drumbeat, pretty soon, you walk in lockstep with the others, and you cease to think for yourself. This happens all the time; whether you talk of Goyang’s justices, Nazi youth, or white supremacists.
Sabi ni Nachura in the final paragraph of his ponencia:
This is intellectual dishonesty.
This is what the US Supreme Court in Clements v. Fashing said:
The opinion got four votes (CJ Burger, Powell, O’Connor and Rehnquist). Stevens concurred in the result, stating:
Gandahan mo naman ang panggogoyo Nachura. Kachura ning opinion mo abe. Ask your Kapampangan Boss Lady what that means you nitwit.
Sinupalpal ni CJ PUno si Nachura. Heto ang sabi ni CJ PUno sa kanyang dissenting opinion:
“Clearly, Letter Carriers, Broadrick, and Magill demonstrate beyond doubt that Mancuso v. Taft, which was heavily relied upon by the ponencia, has effectively been overruled. As it is no longer good law, the ponencia’s exhortation that we should follow Mancuso “[since] the Americans, from whom we copied the provision in question, had already stricken down a similar measure for being unconstitutional[,]” is misplaced and unwarranted.”
In spite of the good arguments presented by the Chief Justice, the seven justices concurred with Nachura! Namputcha talaga!!!
Mancuso v. Taft is a decision of the First Circuit Court of Appeals; binding only on the first circuit (Maine, Massachussetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island). It is not an interpretation of the US Supreme Court. Its persuasive effect, is, therefore, diminished (1/13; there are thirteen circuits).
It is, therefore, not correct to state that the Americans have stricken down a similar measure. Only 1/13 of the Americans struck down a similar measure.
How will these affect the military officers running for public office?
This ruling is fraught with dangers.
Walang pinag-iba ang style na ito sa style ng Supreme Court during Marcos’s time. Dito sa America, si Glora Kapal ay tinatawag na Marcos Lite. Abot langit ang pagsisisi ng mga sumuporta kay Glora Kapal. Akala ko rin matino, professor ba naman, iyon pala iba ang kulo niya.
Ganoon din ang vibes ko kay Gibo Teodoro. Magaling mag salita pero kwidaw!
Mancuso v. Taft required the strict scrutiny of the ordinance of the City of Cranston in Rhode Island, which prohibited a city official from
By strict scrutiny is meant that the law will pass through the proverbial eye of the needle to be pass constitutional muster. The State carries a heavy burden to justify the classification, because it must demonstrate a compelling state interest.
Strict scrutiny is only required if the classification is based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. In candidacy cases, strict scrutiny is required when classification is based on wealth (Clements v. Fashing).
The First Circuit Court of Appeals also held that the law violated the First Amendment (freedom of speech and association), which is a fundamental right.
But the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Clement v. Fashing held that:
So the Supreme Court of the United States has actually struck down Mancuso, because it held that candidacy is not a fundamental right, and that the classification need not pass strict scrutiny. It further held that:
This is the first time that I have seen a decision uphold a Court of Appeals decision that has been struck down by the Supreme Court.
Somebody should file a motion for reconsideration. I want to see Nachura squirm on paper, trying to justify reliance on Mancuso over Clements
That is the problem with reading just extracts, instead of the case in the original. This is how you flunk recitations in the class of my late Heroine, Haydee Bofill Yorac.
Ms. Ellen isa yang tungkol sa military officers sa mga arguments ni Justice Carpio sa kanyang dissenting opinion.
Snv, Atty. Rafanan, legal chief of Comelec said the commissioners will meet en banc next week to decide on the motion for reconsideration.
My column tomorrow is on this topic. Associate Justice nazario is retiring tomorrow. That’s minus one from those who concurred.
Tnx, Oblak.
Note. Mancuso was decided in 1973; Clements in 1982.
So struck down talaga ang Mancuso.
Carpio’s penultimate paragraph (with thanks to Oblak)..
Ang tanong na dapat mangibabaw sa usaping ito: WALA BA TALAGANG maliwanag na larawan o bahid ng pagtanaw ng utang-na-loob sa desisyon ng mga appointees ni the goyang? At, MAGKANO?
Saan saan lang ba sila pinulot ni panduck bago itinalagang kasamang mahistrado sa Korteng Sobrena?