Lawyer asks SC to nullify Comelec rule on party-list nomination
MANILA, Philippines — A lawyer asked the Supreme Court (SC) on Monday to nullify a Commission on Elections (Comelec) rule allowing public officials to hold office even after they were nominated as candidates of party-list groups.
In his 28-page petition, election lawyer Romulo Macalintal asked the SC to declare null and void Section 11, Rule II of Comelec Resolution No. 11045 dated August 28 this year for being “unconstitutional.”
READ: Lawyer asks SC to compel Sereno to submit ‘missing’ SALN
According to Macalintal, such rule “violates Section 4, Article 9-B of the Constitution and existing jurisprudence that no officer the civil service shall engage directly or indirectly, in any electioneering or partisan political activity.”
He likewise asked the SC to issue a temporary restraining order or status quo order directing the Comelec to cease and desist from implementing the said rule.
Citing an example, Macalintal mentioned the Quinto vs Comelec case in 2010 when the executive secretary or the chairman and commissioners of Comelec, as well as their regional directors, provincial election supervisors, and election officers “may run as party-list nominees while they are supervising the elections and will act as Chairpersons of the various boards of canvassers of votes for party-lists.”
Article continues after this advertisementIn the 2022 polls, Macalinatal pointed out that Comelec “has been very consistent in its rule that ‘public appointive officials shall be considered ipso facto resigned from office and must vacate the same upon the filing of Certificates of Nomination and Acceptance of Nomination’ in party-list elections as provided in its August 2021 Resolution No. 10717.”
Article continues after this advertisement“It is unbelievable that the Comelec would suddenly make a change of heart in the 2025 elections,” he stressed.
The lawyer argued that the high court has the power to stop the new Comelec rule, which he said would give the nominees an advantage and “damage and prejudice of political aspirants not connected with the government.”
Going back to the Quinto vs Comelec case, the lawyer said that SC allowed public appointive officials to remain in office even after filing their respective Certificates of Candidacy (COCs).
“A number of high-ranking Cabinet members, Comelec officers, and even the Secretary of Justice and a Judge of the Regional Trial Court had filed their COCs in their respective provinces,” the lawyer said.
“Realizing the evil effect of such ruling, the SC immediately reversed its said decision in February 2010 and ruled that said public appointive officials should be deemed resigned from office upon the filing of their COCs which is still the existing jurisprudence on this issue,” he added.
Moreover, Macalintal reminded Comelec it has been in the statute books for more than a decade that automatic resignation awaits appointive public officials upon filing their COCs.
“While it may be argued that the candidates in party-list are the party-list groups themselves, it will be the height of hypocrisy to say that these public appointive officials who are nominees of party-list will not engage in electioneering or partisan political activity,” the lawyer said.
“The mere filing of a Certificate of Acceptance of Nomination by such public official is akin to the filing of a Certificate of Candidacy for an elective position. And it has been ruled that the filing of such certificate is already a partisan political activity because for sure these nominees will campaign for their election in Congress,” he further stressed.
