View full case

BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT v. COMELEC

FACTS:

The petitioner, Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) Party List, filed a petition for prohibition with a prayer for a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction. The petition challenges the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9369 (RA 9369) and seeks to enjoin the respondent, Commission on Elections (COMELEC), from implementing the said statute. RA 9369, a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2231 and House Bill No. 5352, was passed by the Senate on December 7, 2006, and by the House of Representatives on December 19, 2006. It was signed by the President on January 23, 2007, and took effect on February 10, 2007.

Petitioner argues that RA 9369 violates Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution and questions the constitutionality of Sections 34, 37, 38, and 43 of RA 9369. Petitioner claims that these provisions are of questionable application and doubtful validity for failing to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. The COMELEC and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed their respective Comments, asserting that RA 9369 enjoys the presumption of constitutionality, except for the prayer of the COMELEC to declare Section 43 as unconstitutional. Petitioner specifically assails Section 34, Section 37, Section 38, and Section 43 of RA 9369, which are intended to amend certain provisions of Republic Act No. 7166 (RA 7166) on the conduct of elections.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether RA 9369 and its provisions are unconstitutional.

  2. Whether Sections 37 and 38 violate the powers of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) and the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET).

  3. Whether there is a conflict of jurisdiction between Congress and the COMELEC en banc on one hand, and the PET and the SET on the other.

  4. Whether Section 43 violates Section 2(6), Article IX-C of the Constitution.

  5. Whether Section 34 violates Section 10, Article III of the Constitution.

  6. Whether the provision that fixes the per diem of poll watchers of the dominant majority and minority parties violates the freedom of the parties to contract and their right to fix the terms and conditions of the contract.

  7. Whether the regulation of the per diem of poll watchers is a valid exercise of police power.

RULING:

  1. The court ruled that RA 9369 and its provisions are constitutional. The petitioner failed to show a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and the title of RA 9369 is comprehensive enough to encompass subjects related to the general purpose of promoting transparency, credibility, fairness, and accuracy in elections.

  2. The court ruled that Sections 37 and 38 do not violate the powers of the PET and the SET. The amendments introduced by these sections only pertain to the adoption and application of procedures on pre-proclamation controversies in cases of discrepancies, incompleteness, erasure, or alteration in the certificates of canvass. Congress and the COMELEC en banc are not given the power to entertain pre-proclamation cases for national elective posts.

  3. There is no conflict of jurisdiction between Congress and the COMELEC en banc, and the PET and the SET because their powers are exercised on different occasions and for different purposes. The PET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice President, while the SET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the Senate. Congress and the COMELEC en banc only have the power to determine the authenticity and due execution of the certificates of canvass before the proclamation of the winning candidates.

  4. Section 43 does not violate Section 2(6), Article IX-C of the Constitution. The Constitution vests in the COMELEC the power to investigate and prosecute cases of violations of election laws, but the phrase "where appropriate" leaves it to the legislature to determine the kind of election offenses that the COMELEC shall prosecute exclusively or concurrently with other prosecuting arms of the government. The grant of the "exclusive power" to the COMELEC to investigate and prosecute election offenses can be found in BP 881, but the Constitution itself does not grant this exclusive power.

  5. Section 34 does not violate Section 10, Article III of the Constitution. The provision fixing the per diem of poll watchers of the dominant majority and dominant minority parties is not a violation of the equal protection clause because the classification is based on a valid substantial distinction, which is the representation of dominant majority and dominant minority parties.

  6. There is no violation of the non-impairment clause as the law was enacted prior to the hiring of poll watchers and was deemed incorporated in their contracts. The non-impairment clause applies to laws that change the terms of a contract or withdraw remedies for enforcement.

  7. The regulation of the per diem of poll watchers is a valid exercise of police power as poll watching is a public interest concern and poll watchers play an important role in ensuring fair and honest elections. The regulation promotes the general welfare of the community.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Every statute is presumed to be constitutional, and those who challenge the constitutionality of a law must show a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution.

  • The requirement that every bill shall embrace only one subject expressed in the title thereof is satisfied if the title is comprehensive enough to include subjects related to the general purpose which the statute seeks to achieve.

  • Pre-proclamation cases involving the authenticity and due execution of certificates of canvass are allowed in elections for President, Vice-President, and Senators, based on the amendments introduced by RA 9369 to Sections 15 and 30 of RA 7166.

  • The powers of Congress and the COMELEC en banc, on one hand, and the PET and the SET, on the other, are exercised on different occasions and for different purposes. (Jurisdiction of PET and SET)

  • The "exclusive power" of the COMELEC to investigate and prosecute election offenses is not granted by the Constitution itself, but by legislative enactment (BP 881).

  • The phrase "where appropriate" in Section 2(6), Article IX-C of the Constitution leaves it to the legislature to determine the kind of election offenses that the COMELEC shall prosecute exclusively or concurrently with other prosecuting arms of the government.

  • Classification based on a valid substantial distinction does not violate the equal protection clause.

  • The non-impairment clause is limited to laws that derogate from prior acts or contracts by changing the intention of the parties. It does not apply to laws enacted before the contracts were formed.

  • Police power is superior to the non-impairment clause and can be exercised in the interest of public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community.

  • Contracts and rights are subject to the police power of the State and may be regulated by the State as the general well-being of the community may require or as circumstances change.

  • The court has the authority to dismiss a petition for lack of merit.

  • Concurring justices agree with the ruling of the court, while a justice on official leave does not participate in the decision-making process.