True to his libertarian and philosophical form, Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno has succeeded in persuading his colleagues in the Court to recover its sanity. nobility and dignity by reversing its stupid and unwise 2009 decision which held that appointive officials and employees were not deemed automatically resigned upon filing of their certificates of candidacy.
It will be noted that in December year, the Court declared as unconstitutional the prevailing election laws of the Philippines which deem as automatically resigned all appointive officials and employees who are running in an election upon filing of their certificates of candidacy with the Commission on Elections.
[See: Section 4(a) of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution 8678, the second provision in the third paragraph of Section 13 of RA 9369, and Section 66 of the of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC)].
I will digest this week the 44-page decision of the Court penned by the Chief Justice himself as soon as it is made public.
Bets who are appointed execs resigned—high court
By Tetch Torres, Dona Pazzibugan
INQUIRER.net, Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 14:41:00 02/22/2010
MANILA, Philippines—(UPDATE) Reversing its December 1, 2009 decision, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that appointed officials, including members of the judiciary and the poll body, who have filed their certificate of candidacy for the May 10 elections are “deemed resigned.”
Supreme Court spokesman Midas Marquez said the ruling contained in the 44-page resolution is “effective immediately” since the prevailing law is that all appointive officials running in May 10 elections are automatically considered resigned.
The decision, penned by Chief Justice Reynato Puno, will affect four Cabinet members who are seeking congressional posts: Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera, Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap, and Presidential Management Staff chief Hermogenes Esperon.
Voting 10-5, the high court said its December 2009 decision failed to consider the threat to government “posed by the partisan potential of a large and growing bureaucracy: the danger of systematic abuse perpetuated by a ‘powerful political machine’ that has amassed ‘the scattered powers of government workers’ so as to give itself and its incumbent workers an ‘unbreakable grasp on the reins of power.’”
“In the case at bar, the probable harm to society in permitting incumbent appointive officials to remain in office, even as they actively pursue elective posts, far outweighs the less likely evil of having arguably protected candidacies blocked by the possible inhibitory effect of a potentially overly broad statute,” the court said.
The Supreme Court noted the “absurdity” of a situation where aside from high-ranking cabinet members who already filed their certificates of candidacy without relinquishing their posts, several election officers and judges have also thrown their hat into the political ring.
"We cannot allow the tilting of our electoral playing field in their favor,” said the high court.
Devanadera, who substituted for her sister for a congressional seat in Quezon province, was given special mention. The court noted that her position as justice secretary includes supervision over the city and provincial prosecutors, who, in turn, act as vice chair of the respective boards of canvassers.
“In fine, the assailed Decision would have us ‘equalize the playing field’ by invalidating provisions of law that seek to restrain the evils from running riot. Under the pretext of equal protection, it would favor a situation in which the evils are unconfined and vagrant, existing at the behest of both appointive and elected officials, over another in which a significant portion thereof is contained. The absurdity of that position is self-evident, to say the least,” said the Court.
The new ruling thus upheld the constitutionality of the three provisions in the election laws that deemed appointive officials automatically resigned once they filed their certificates of candidacy. It held that the said provisions do not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
The court reversed its December 2009 ruling that allowed appointive officials who are running in May 10 elections to remain in office. It set aside the ruling which declared as unconstitutional Section 4(a) of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution 8678, the second provision in the third paragraph of Section 13 of RA 9369, and Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC).
The court held as baseless its earlier decision’s claim that the right to run for public office is inextricably linked with the fundamental freedoms of expression and association.
Citing American case law, it said a fundamental right to express one’s political views through candidacy has not been recognized so as to invoke a rigorous standard of review.
See:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20100222-254698/Bets-who-are-appointed-execs-resignedhigh-court
Addendum:
Editorial
‘Partisan potential’
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 20:48:00 02/23/2010
LIKE MANY, we welcome the Supreme Court's reconsideration of the matter of appointed officials running for elective office. These officials really ought to be deemed resigned the moment they file their certificates of candidacy. The Court’s reversal of its Dec. 1, 2009 decision in the Quinto and Tolentino v. Comelec case turns this “ought” into reality.
The new ruling, written by Chief Justice Reynato Puno, describes the effect of the first decision with precision: it “paved the way for public appointive officials to continue discharging the powers, prerogatives and functions of their office notwithstanding their entry into the political arena.” The original decision, written by Associate Justice Eduardo Nachura, essentially argued that forcing appointive officials who had already entered the political arena to resign their posts, while allowing elected officials to stay in theirs, violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
The Puno decision meets this argument with many counter-arguments, plus the corrective of reality: In truth, leaving appointive officials in place gave them an unfair advantage over their election rivals. Nachura’s perspective “obviously fails to consider a different, yet equally plausible, threat to the government posed by the partisan potential of a large and growing bureaucracy: the danger of systematic abuse perpetuated by a ‘powerful political machine’ that has amassed ‘the scattered powers of government workers’ so as to give itself and its incumbent workers an ‘unbreakable grasp on the reins of power.’”
As the track record of the Arroyo administration proves, and as Malacañang’s belligerent attitude to the new ruling demonstrates, officials of the Executive are not shy about using the “partisan potential” of the administration’s political machine. For this reason alone, many Filipinos welcome the reversal; the playing field that Justice Nachura sought to level in the abstract has been made so by the new ruling, in the concrete.
See:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/editorial/view/20100223-254957/Partisan-potential