G.R. No. 206794 ; November 26, 2013
BANKERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES and PERRY L. PE, Petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Bankers Association of the Philippines and Perry L. Pe assailed the constitutionality of COMELEC Resolution No. 9688, which imposed a “money ban” for the May 13, 2013 elections. The resolution prohibited cash withdrawals exceeding ₱100,000 per day from May 8 to 13, 2013, and the possession or transportation of cash exceeding ₱500,000 during the same period. It further declared that withdrawals totaling over ₱500,000 within a banking day would be presumed a “suspicious transaction” under the Anti-Money Laundering Act. The COMELEC deputized the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) and the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to implement these measures, aiming to deter vote-buying.
The petitioners argued that the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction. They contended that its constitutional power to supervise or regulate franchises and special privileges under Section 4, Article IX-C does not extend to the BSP, which is a regulatory body, not a grantee of a government privilege. They also asserted that the COMELEC’s deputation power under Section 2(4) of the same Article is limited to law enforcement agencies and requires presidential concurrence, which was allegedly lacking for the BSP and AMLC. They claimed the resolution effectively amended the Anti-Money Laundering Act and violated constitutional rights to due process and liberty.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in issuing Resolution No. 9688, thereby rendering it unconstitutional and void.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court declared Resolution No. 9688 unconstitutional. The COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by exercising powers not granted by the Constitution. First, its power to supervise or regulate under Section 4, Article IX-C applies only to entities holding government franchises, special privileges, or concessions. The BSP, as the central monetary authority, and banks under its supervision are not such grantees; they operate under a general regulatory regime. The COMELEC cannot regulate banking transactions under this provision.
Second, its power to deputize under Section 2(4), Article IX-C is explicitly limited to “law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the Government” and requires the President’s concurrence. While the BSP and AMLC are government instrumentalities, they are primarily regulatory, not law enforcement, bodies. More critically, the deputation was done without the required presidential concurrence specific to these agencies for the money ban’s purpose. The general Memorandum of Agreement cited by COMELEC for concurrence was insufficient, as it did not expressly cover the novel and intrusive regulatory actions mandated by the resolution.
The Court held that the resolution’s sweeping restrictions and presumptions constituted an invalid exercise of police power, infringing on the liberty of movement and the right to property without sufficient justification or procedural safeguards. The COMELEC’s noble objective of preventing vote-buying does not justify overstepping its constitutional boundaries and issuing a resolution that is arbitrary and oppressive.