ChanRobles Virtual law Library

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 13 2004 .

G.R. No. 161872 (Elly Velez Lao Pamatong, Esquire vs. Commission on Elections.)

A brief recall of the antecedents, as cited in our Resolution dated 13 April 2004. Petitioner Elly Velez Lao Pamatong filed his certificate of candidacy for the President. However, respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) refused to give due course to it per Resolution No. 6558 dated 17 January 2004. After the COMELEC denied his Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner filed the present petition before the Court.

Petitioner argued that the "equal access clause" in the Constitution 1 vested in him the right to seek public office, the presidency in particular. He also sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin the COMELEC from enforcing its assailed Resolutions. The Court deemed it proper not to grant the provisional relief sought.

In the aforementioned Resolution dated 13 April 2004, the Court ruled that the equal access clause does grant petitioner the right to seek public office. However, owing to the fact that the assailed resolutions of the COMELEC do not direct the Court to the evidence which it considered in determining that petitioner was a nuisance candidate, the Court remanded the case to the COMELEC for the reception of further evidence, with a directive to the poll body to complete the proceedings and "report its findings to this Court with deliberate dispatch."

In accordance with the Court's Resolution, the COMELEC held the hearing for the reception of further evidence on 27 April 2004. During the hearing, petitioner appeared for himself. He presented two witnesses. 2 He also offered the documentary evidence before the COMELEC, including copies of various books authored by the petitioner. 3

On 4 May 2004, the COMELEC, through Commissioner Florentine A. Tuason, Jr., submitted to this Court a Compliance Report. Attached thereto were the various documentary exhibits submitted by petitioner, as well as a transcript of the hearing of 27 April 2004. A portion of the Report, under the caption "Findings", contained a very brief summary of the antecedent facts, and citations of Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 6 of Comelec Resolution No. 6452. The provisions contain the legal basis for the disqualification of "nuisance candidates." However, the Report did not present any evaluation of the evidence submitted by petitioner. Neither did it offer any recommendation.

The Report was deemed unsatisfactory in light of the specific instructions given to the COMELEC in the 13 April 2004 Resolution, the relevant portion of which reads:

However valid the law and the COMELEC issuance involved are, their proper application in the case of the petitioner cannot be tested and reviewed by this Court on the basis of what is now before it. The assailed resolutions of the COMELEC do not direct the Court to the evidence which it considered in determining that petitioner was a nuisance candidate. This precludes the Court from reviewing at this instance whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioner, since such a review would necessarily take into account the matters which the COMELEC considered in arriving at its decisions.

Petitioner has submitted to this Court mere photocopies of various documents purportedly evincing his credentials as an eligible candidate for the presidency. Yet this Court, not being a trier of facts, can not properly pass upon the reproductions as evidence at this level. Neither the COMELEC nor the Solicitor General appended any document to their respective Comments.

The question of whether a candidate is a nuisance candidate or not is both legal and factual. The basis of the factual determination is not before this Court. Thus, the remand of this case for the reception of further evidence is in order. 4

Accordingly, in the Resolution dated 6 May 2004, the Court required the COMELEC to "FULLY COMPLY with the aforesaid resolution of 13 April 2004 by submitting a signed report containing the evaluation of the evidence and its recommendation, within five (5) days from notice hereof." 5 On 12 May 2004, the COMELEC submitted a new Compliance Report, which contained an evaluation of petitioner's evidence but was signed "for the Commission" by one Alioden D. Dalaig, Director IV, Law Department of the COMELEC. 6

In a Resolution dated 8 June 2004, the Court returned the Compliance Report filed by Atty. Dalaig to the COMELEC, for resubmission together with the appropriate signatures thereon. 7 On 28 June 2004, the Compliance Report was resubmitted, this time signed by five Commissioners of the COMELEC. 8

The COMELEC Compliance Report recites the following findings:

In its Resolution No. 6558, the Commission denied due course to the certificate of candidacy of several presidential candidates, including petitioner, on the following grounds:

1. Candidates who have no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy had been filed or acts that clearly demonstrate the lack of such bona fide intention as:

a. candidates who do not belong to or are nominated by any registered political party of national constituency;

b. presidential candidates who do not present running mate for vice-president, nor senatorial candidates;

c. candidates who do not have a platform of government and are not capable of waging a nationwide campaign.

The records of the Commission indubitably show that petitioner is not nominated by any political party; neither does he have a running mate for vice-president nor senatorial candidates. While it may be true that he has a platform of government but he is not capable of waging a nationwide campaign. He has no organizational setup on a nationwide basis.

In the hearing of April 27, 2004, the testimonial and documentary evidence submitted by petitioner are nothing but an enumeration of the books he has written, his achievements and his work experiences. There is nothing therein which show that he has the machinery and necessary organization to wage a nationwide campaign.

In his testimony on April 27, 2004, petitioner admitted that he was a party-list nominee (Alliance for Democracy) in the May 2001 elections and said party garnered only about 50,000 votes; and that he run for a certain elective position in Zamboanga and garnered only more or less 456 votes. If petitioner cannot obtain substantial number of votes for these elective positions, in the absence of other evidence showing his bona fide intention to run for the Office of President and his capability to wage a nationwide campaign, there is no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the Commission that the is a nuisance candidate. 9

There is nothing disputable about the above-quoted findings of the COMELEC. Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code authorizes the disqualification of a candidate who has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed. 1 0 COMELEC Resolution No. 6452 likewise provides the mechanics and the grounds for denying, among others, a presidential candidacy, bona fide status, such as the lack of a political party backing the candidacy, the lack of a running mate or accompanying slate of candidates, or the incapability to wage a nationwide campaign. 1 1 The COMELEC has made the specific finding that petitioner's candidacy is not bona fide, citing the reasons on which the conclusion is based.

However, the present petition has obviously been mooted with the holding of the presidential elections on 10 May 2004. The Court is no longer in a position to grant the relief prayed for in the petition. Hence, there is no recourse but to dismiss the petition on the ground of mootness.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is dismissed for having become MOOT and ACADEMIC. No costs.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court