REV. ELLY CHAVEZ PAMATONG v.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 161872
April 13, 2004

FACTS

Petitioner Rev. Elly Velez Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy for President on December 17, 2003.
Respondent COMELEC refused to give due course to petitioner’s Certificate of Candidacy.. The decision,
however, was not unanimous since Commissioners Luzviminda G. Tancangco and Mehol K. Sadain voted to
include petitioner as they believed he had parties or movements to back up his candidacy.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but was denied along with similar motions filed by other aspirants for
national elective positions. COMELEC declared petitioner and thirty-five (35) others as nuisance candidates
who could not wage a nationwide campaign and/or are not nominated by a political party or are not supported
by a registered political party with a national constituency. Commissioner Sadain maintained his vote for
petitioner. By then, Commissioner Tancangco had retired.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, seeking to reverse the resolutions, which were allegedly rendered in
violation of his right to "equal access to opportunities for public service" under Section 26, Article II of the 1987.

Petitioner argues that the COMELEC indirectly amended the constitutional provisions on the electoral process
and limited the power of the sovereign people to choose their leaders. The COMELEC supposedly erred in
disqualifying him since he is the most qualified among all the presidential candidate.

ISSUE

1.) Whether or not the resolutions violated his Constitutional rights (Ar. II, Sec 26)

RULING

1. NO. Implicit in the petitioner’s invocation of the constitutional provision ensuring "equal access to
opportunities for public office" is the claim that there is a constitutional right to run for or hold public office and,
particularly in his case, to seek the presidency. There is none. What is recognized is merely a privilege subject
to limitations imposed by law. Section 26, Article II of the Constitution neither bestows such a right nor elevates
the privilege to the level of an enforceable right.

The "equal access" provision is a subsumed part of Article II of the Constitution, entitled "Declaration of
Principles and State Policies." The provisions under the Article are generally considered not self-executing.
The provision does not contain any judicially enforceable constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline for
3
legislative or executive action. The disregard of the provision does not give rise to any cause of action before
4
the courts.

5
An inquiry into the intent of the framers produces the same determination that the provision is not self-
executory.

The privilege of equal access to opportunities to public office may be subjected to limitations. Some valid
9
limitations specifically on the privilege to seek elective office are found in the provisions of the Omnibus
Election Code. As long as the limitations apply to everybody equally without discrimination, however, the equal
access clause is not violated. In the case at bar, there is no showing that any person is exempt from the
limitations or the burdens which they create.

PINKY M. N.

Petitioner’s reliance on the equal access clause in Section 26, Article II of the Constitution is misplaced.

However, no matter how valid the law and the COMELEC issuance involved are, their proper application in the
case of the petitioner cannot be tested and reviewed by this Court on the basis of what is now before it. The
assailed resolutions of the COMELEC do not direct the Court to the evidence which it considered in
determining that petitioner was a nuisance candidate. This precludes the Court from reviewing at this instance
whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioner, since such a review
would necessarily take into account the matters which the COMELEC considered in arriving at its decisions.

Petitioner has submitted to this Court mere photocopies of various documents purportedly evincing his
credentials as an eligible candidate for the presidency. Yet this Court, not being a trier of facts, can not properly
pass upon the reproductions as evidence at this level. Neither the COMELEC nor the Solicitor General
appended any document to their respective Comments.

The question of whether a candidate is a nuisance candidate or not is both legal and factual. The basis of the
factual determination is not before this Court. Thus, the remand of this case for the reception of further
evidence is in order.

The case is remanded to the COMELEC for the reception of further evidence, to determine the question on
whether petitioner Elly Velez Lao Pamatong is a nuisance candidate.

PINKY M. N.