April 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > April 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 177012 : April 10, 2007] BUENAFE A. BRIGGS - A.K.A. BRIGIDO A. BUENAFE VS. COMELEC:
[G.R. No. 177012 : April 10, 2007]
BUENAFE A. BRIGGS - A.K.A. BRIGIDO A. BUENAFE VS. COMELEC
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated 10 APRIL 2007
G.R. No. 177012 (Buenafe A. Briggs - a.k.a. Brigido A. Buenafe vs. COMELEC)
This Petition for Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition, prepared and signed by the petitioner himself, seeks, among others, to invalidate COMELEC Resolution No. 7832 dated 2 March 2007, which purportedly disqualified petitioner and forty-one (41) other would-be senatorial candidates as "nuisance candidates". However, no copy of COMELEC Resolution No. 7832 is attached to the petition.
In petitions for certiorari or prohibition, Rule 65 commonly requires that "the petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto..." The requirement is mandatory and, hence, failure to comply therewith is ground for dismissal of the petition. The importance of appending a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution in a special civil action for certiorari or prohibition is especially crucial since it is an original action of which the initiatory pleading is the petition itself and it has to pass measure right at the start through a facial examination of the petition and the issuance or act assailed therein. Since there is no record on appeal that is elevated to the Court, the duty falls on the petitioner to submit to this Court at the onset, the certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution assailed in the petition. Otherwise, the Court has no means to ascertain whether the public respondent indeed committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering the assailed ruling since such ruling is not before us.
Petitioner claims that he did not append a copy of the Resolution because "neither the respondent's Law Department nor its Clerk-of-the-Commission could spare on repeated demands a copy for herein petitioner - with the sorry excuse of 'I don't have a copy...' or being passed from one department to another for the needed copy, yet to no avail."[1] We have no means of testing the veracity of this allegation and are indeed under no obligation to accept it at face value. Should we nonetheless admit the petition despite the fatal flaw based on this unsubstantiated claim alone, it would set an unseemly precedent whereby would-be petitioners in certiorari or prohibition petitions could evade attaching the certified true copy of the assailed ruling merely be claiming that they were refused a copy of such ruling.
In any event, an examination of the petition does not elicit on our part an inclination to give due course on meritorious grounds. It essentially seeks a declaration that the State, through the COMELEC, has no authority to disqualify "nuisance candidates" and to void as unconstitutional the provision of law, Section 69 of the Omnibus Election code, that allows the COMELEC to do so. The petition characterizes Pamatong v. COMELEC, the decision which affirmed the constitutional authority to disqualify nuisance candidates, as "very erroneous"[2], and notes as a result, "[t]he only constitutionalized hopefulness of the sovereign Filipino citizenry to improve their sick Nation beyond its sickening status quo has just been extra-constitutionally amended wholesale off their Constitution by the Philippine Judiciary gone lunatically despotic!"[3]
Suffice it to say, the Court sees no cogent reason to review or reconsider the Pamatong doctrine, or modify in anyway our views regarding the State's authority to disqualify nuisance candidates.
All told, the allegations raised by the petition do not demonstrate grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent.
Wherefore, the petition is DISMISSED.
G.R. No. 177012 (Buenafe A. Briggs - a.k.a. Brigido A. Buenafe vs. COMELEC)
This Petition for Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition, prepared and signed by the petitioner himself, seeks, among others, to invalidate COMELEC Resolution No. 7832 dated 2 March 2007, which purportedly disqualified petitioner and forty-one (41) other would-be senatorial candidates as "nuisance candidates". However, no copy of COMELEC Resolution No. 7832 is attached to the petition.
In petitions for certiorari or prohibition, Rule 65 commonly requires that "the petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto..." The requirement is mandatory and, hence, failure to comply therewith is ground for dismissal of the petition. The importance of appending a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution in a special civil action for certiorari or prohibition is especially crucial since it is an original action of which the initiatory pleading is the petition itself and it has to pass measure right at the start through a facial examination of the petition and the issuance or act assailed therein. Since there is no record on appeal that is elevated to the Court, the duty falls on the petitioner to submit to this Court at the onset, the certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution assailed in the petition. Otherwise, the Court has no means to ascertain whether the public respondent indeed committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering the assailed ruling since such ruling is not before us.
Petitioner claims that he did not append a copy of the Resolution because "neither the respondent's Law Department nor its Clerk-of-the-Commission could spare on repeated demands a copy for herein petitioner - with the sorry excuse of 'I don't have a copy...' or being passed from one department to another for the needed copy, yet to no avail."[1] We have no means of testing the veracity of this allegation and are indeed under no obligation to accept it at face value. Should we nonetheless admit the petition despite the fatal flaw based on this unsubstantiated claim alone, it would set an unseemly precedent whereby would-be petitioners in certiorari or prohibition petitions could evade attaching the certified true copy of the assailed ruling merely be claiming that they were refused a copy of such ruling.
In any event, an examination of the petition does not elicit on our part an inclination to give due course on meritorious grounds. It essentially seeks a declaration that the State, through the COMELEC, has no authority to disqualify "nuisance candidates" and to void as unconstitutional the provision of law, Section 69 of the Omnibus Election code, that allows the COMELEC to do so. The petition characterizes Pamatong v. COMELEC, the decision which affirmed the constitutional authority to disqualify nuisance candidates, as "very erroneous"[2], and notes as a result, "[t]he only constitutionalized hopefulness of the sovereign Filipino citizenry to improve their sick Nation beyond its sickening status quo has just been extra-constitutionally amended wholesale off their Constitution by the Philippine Judiciary gone lunatically despotic!"[3]
Suffice it to say, the Court sees no cogent reason to review or reconsider the Pamatong doctrine, or modify in anyway our views regarding the State's authority to disqualify nuisance candidates.
All told, the allegations raised by the petition do not demonstrate grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent.
Wherefore, the petition is DISMISSED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 7
[2] Id., at 13.
[3] Id., at 14.
