"x x x.
Question: Who is running the elections?
Answer: The Commission on Elections.
Wrong. It is the Supreme Court. At least that’s how it appears to us.
The Constitution says election matters are the domain of the Comelec. It is supposed to be the expert in elections. But lately, the Supreme Court has been arrogating unto itself important policy matters on elections, and Comelec Chair Sixto Brillantes is understandably so frustrated and flabbergasted that he is on the verge of resigning.
“Who’s running the elections?” he asked. “Is it the Comelec or the Supreme Court?”
Why shouldn’t he be discouraged and disappointed when in the last couple of months the high court reversed four Comelec decisions on crucial poll issues?
Last March 5, the high court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on a Comelec letter ordering the Diocese of Bacolod to remove its oversized tarpaulin identifying “Team Patay” and “Team Buhay” senatorial candidates to guide its flock on who to vote for or to reject.
Then just last week, the high court issued a status quo ante (SQA) order on a Comelec decision disqualifying some party-list groups. (An SQA orders litigants to go back to the situation before the assailed order was given.) It ordered the Comelec to look once more at the qualifications of the party-list groups seeking accreditation. Meaning, until the Comelec finishes looking at the qualifications of the party-list groups under the new parameters given by the high court, the party-lists already disqualified are back in contention. Can the Comelec finish the job in the few remaining days before the polls?
Earlier, the Supreme Court also suspended a Comelec decision declaring the winner in the mayoralty elections in Imus, Cavite, and remanded the case back to the Comelec.
The last straw that made Brillantes think of quitting is the high court’s decision a few days ago to issue another SQA order on Comelec rules limiting air time on political ads.
That’s four “outs” in as many times at bat. Brillantes understandably feels as angry and despondent as a coach or manager of a losing baseball team.
The trouble with the tribunal’s TROs and SQAs is that these did not resolve the cases on the merits but merely suspended the Comelec rules when the elections are less than a month away. The orders partake of dilatory tactics used by lawyers to postpone defeat in the trial courts. That leaves the Comelec hanging, in limbo, as Brillantes rues.
Decide the cases on the merits quickly, Brillantes asked the high court, so we will know what to do before the elections overtake us, which is less than a month away.
“Are we (the Comelec) wrong or are we right?” A ruling on the merits will decide that, the Comelec chair said. “If the court rules with finality on the merits, that we are wrong, then that’s it, we are wrong. But don’t leave [the Comelec and litigants] hanging, so we will know what to do” and avoid confusion and wrong interpretations.
Brillantes wondered why it took the tribunal two months to make a ruling on the case, and then only an SQA. The petition questioning the Comelec order limiting the air time for political ads—to make the playing field even for all candidates, rich or poor—was filed last February. But the tribunal issued its SQA only a few days ago, when there are only a few days left before the elections.
“I wouldn’t wait for two months and then just come out with a status quo ante order” which does not solve anything, Brillantes said.
Indeed, the courts—from the Supreme Court down to the trial courts—have been quick to issue TROs and SQAs and then take an eternity to decide on the merits, often after the decision becomes academic.
For example, the Comelec declared the real winner in the mayoralty elections of Imus, Cavite, after recounting the votes. But the high court remanded the case back to the Comelec and told it to recount the votes yet again, giving the mayor’s seat back to the loser. By the time the nth recount is finished, the elections would be over, and there would be a new mayor.
That is the case with most election-protest cases. By the time the real winner is proclaimed, only a few weeks or less of the term remains. The loser occupies the elective post for most of the whole term, and collects all the salaries and allowances, and pork barrel, to which he has no right, and which should have gone to the winner.
It is, happily, a little different in the case of the election protest of Koko Pimentel against Migz Zubiri in the last senatorial elections. Rather than delay and prolong the case, as most losers do, Zubiri, like a true gentleman, decided to resign when the recount showed that he was losing, and Pimentel was able to assume his senatorial seat two years before it is to expire. Zubiri and Pimentel are again running against each other in the May elections. Who will win this time?
x x x."
Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/50981/supreme-court-poaching-on-comelec-territory#ixzz2Qtch2PAc
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
