GR 161872; (April, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 161872; April 13, 2004
Rev. Elly Chavez Pamatong, Esquire, petitioner, vs. Commission on Elections, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Rev. Elly Velez Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy for President for the 2004 elections. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC), via Resolution No. 6558, refused to give due course to his candidacy, a decision later affirmed by Omnibus Resolution No. 6604. The COMELEC classified Pamatong as a nuisance candidate, finding he could not wage a nationwide campaign and lacked nomination or support from a registered political party with a national constituency. Pamatong moved for reconsideration, arguing his extensive qualifications and leadership of national organizations demonstrated his capability.
Pamatong then filed this Petition for Certiorari, asserting the COMELEC resolutions violated his constitutional right to “equal access to opportunities for public service” under Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution. He contended the COMELEC effectively amended constitutional electoral provisions by limiting candidates to those with substantial resources or party backing, thereby restricting the people’s choice. He also challenged the validity of the COMELEC’s Certificate of Candidacy form for lacking fields for a candidate’s bio-data and platform.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring Pamatong a nuisance candidate, thereby violating his claimed constitutional right to equal access to public service.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the COMELEC’s resolutions. The Court clarified that there is no constitutional right to run for public office; what exists is a privilege subject to limitations imposed by law. The “equal access to opportunities for public service” clause in the Declaration of Principles and State Policies is not self-executing. It establishes a policy guideline for legislative or executive action but does not confer a judicially enforceable right. Its disregard does not create a cause of action.
The Court affirmed the COMELEC’s authority to disqualify nuisance candidates under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code and its own rules, such as COMELEC Resolution No. 6452. These powers are necessary to prevent the election process from being undermined by candidates with no bona fide intention to run, which causes confusion and mockery. The limitations applied by the COMELEC, based on objective criteria like the capacity to wage a national campaign, apply equally to all without discrimination. Therefore, they do not violate the principle of equal access. The COMELEC acted within its constitutional mandate to enforce and administer election laws, and its factual determination that Pamatong was a nuisance candidate was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.