ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 162232. June 1, 2004]

VELASQUEZ vs. COMELEC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 1 2004 .

G.R. No. 162232 (Vic Ramos Velasquez a.k.a. "MR. JURY" vs. Commission on Elections.)

On January 5, 2004, petitioner Vic Ramos Velasquez filed his certificate of candidacy for President in the May 10, 2004 national elections. On January 17, 2004, respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued Resolution No. 6558 which cancelled/denied due course to the certificates of candidacy of certain applicants, among whom was petitioner Velasquez, on the ground that "there are indications that the various certificates were filed to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of names of the registered candidates or by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate had no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate."

On February 26, 2004, petitioner filed an "Opposition," seeking the reconsideration of the Resolution dated January 17, 2004. As the COMELEC had failed to act on his "Opposition", not even to set it for hearing, petitioner filed with this Court the instant Petition for Mandamus, Certiorari with Motion and Prayer for Immediate Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and/or Preliminary Mandatory Injunction.

Assailing COMELEC Resolution No. 6558, petitioner claims that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the resolution since it has no jurisdiction to disqualify or pass upon the qualifications of presidential candidates and since it even added arbitrary qualifications for the position of President. Petitioner asserts that there was no evidence presented to show that he has no bona fide intention to run for the presidency and therefore he could not be declared a nuisance candidate. He adds that the declaration of nuisance candidates is unconstitutional as it violates the people's right to vote and be voted for, as well as the free and open-party system.

During the pendency of this case, this Court in Pamatong v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 161872, issued a Resolution on April 13, 2004, wherein it upheld the presumed validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 6452 dated December 10, 2003 outlining the instances wherein the COMELEC may motu proprio refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy, in this wise:

The rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates and the disqualification of candidates who have not evinced a bona fide intention to run for office is easy to divine. The State has a compelling interest to ensure that its electoral exercises are rational, objective, and orderly. Towards this end, the State takes into account the practical considerations in conducting elections. Inevitably, the greater the number of candidates, the greater the opportunities for logistical confusion, not to mention the increased allocation of time and resources in preparation for the election. These practical difficulties should, of course, never exempt the State from the conduct of a mandated electoral exercise. At the same time, remedial actions should be available to alleviate these logistical hardships, whenever necessary and proper. Ultimately, a disorderly election is not merely a textbook example of inefficiency, but a rot that erodes faith in our democratic institutions. As the United States Supreme Court held:

[T]here is surely an important state interest in requiring some preliminary showing of a significant modicum of support before printing the name of a political organization and its candidates on the ballot - the interest, if no other, in avoiding confusion, deception and even frustration of the democratic [process].1

After two (2) extensions, the Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment in behalf of the COMELEC on May 7, 2004. Three (3) days later, on May 10, 2004, the presidential elections were held. Clearly, therefore, this case has become moot and academic.

WHEREFORE, this case is DISMISSED on the ground of mootness.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D: PUNO
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

1 Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971).

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011