GR 225152 Leonen (Digest)
G.R. No. 225152, October 5, 2021
PARTIDO DEMOKRATIKO PILIPINO-LAKAS NG BAYAN (PDP-LABAN) HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-GENERAL, CONG. PANTALEON “BEBOT” ALVAREZ, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS EN BANC, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner PDP-Laban assailed the constitutionality of Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Resolution No. 10147, which extended the deadline for the filing of Statements of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCEs) for the May 9, 2016 elections from June 8, 2016 to June 30, 2016. Petitioner argued that Section 14 of Republic Act No. 7166 mandates a non-extendible 30-day period for filing SOCEs after election day, and that COMELEC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in promulgating the resolution, as it exceeded its delegated rule-making power. The ponencia exercised judicial restraint, avoiding the constitutional issue by resolving the case on other grounds. Justice Leonen, in a Separate Concurring Opinion, disagreed with this avoidance.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should rule on the constitutionality of COMELEC Resolution No. 10147, which is assailed for effectively creating additional qualifications for national and local elective candidates.
RULING
Justice Leonen, in his Separate Concurring Opinion, fervently believed the Court should rule on the constitutionality of Resolution No. 10147. He concurred in the result declaring the resolution illegal but provided separate reasons. He argued that the case presents a purely legal and justiciable issue of transcendental importance, not a factual one requiring avoidance. He contended that an actual case exists with concrete adverseness, as petitioner alleged a direct violation of statutory mandate by COMELEC. He further stated that the constitutionality of the resolution is the lis mota (the very cause of the suit) of the case, as it involves a contrariety of legal rights: petitioner’s claim that COMELEC exceeded its rule-making power versus COMELEC’s assertion that the 30-day period is extendible. He emphasized that the Court should not avoid its constitutional duty to decide such fundamental issues, especially to prevent irreversible acts under an allegedly unconstitutional measure.