Rodolfo Farinas v. ExecSec. et al. and Cong. Salapuddin v.

COMELEC – GR 147387/152161, 12/10/03

Facts: 2 petitions for certiorari/prohibition and prohibition, respectively, were filed seeking to declare the
unconstitutionality of Sec. 14 RA which repeals Sec. 67 BP 881 (Omnibus Election Code). RA 9006 is a
consolidation of HB 9000 and SB 1742. The Bicameral Conference Committee of both houses disagreed
on some provisions of the bills and proposed amendments to each other. The committee reported on
some contradicting provisions including Sec 14. HoR reelected their conferees twice before proceeding to
vote to keep the disagreeing provisions 125 to 3. Reps. Farinas, Garcia, and Escudero voted no because
they doubted the constitutionality of Sec 14. Both houses finished voting on 02/07 then passed the
consolidated RA 9006 to GMA which was signed into law on 02/12/01.

Farinas et al. alleged to SC that Sec 14 violates Sec 26(1) Art 6 Const. which requires laws to have only 1
subject expressed in its title. Sec 14 repealing Sec 67 OEC constitutes a proscribed rider. They stated RA
9006 deals with the lifting of the ban on uses of media for election propaganda and elimination of unfair
election practice, while Sec 67 OEC imposes a limitation on officials who run for another office by
considering them as resigned as soon as they file their certificate of candidacy. The repeal of Sec 67 OEC
is not mentioned nor relevant to the title of RA 9006.

The repeal of Sec 67 violates the equal protection clause since it leaves the limitation imposed by Sec 66
intact; Sec 66 reads that the limitation for running for another office is resignation of the current upon
filing for candidacy. They stated Sec 14 of RA 9006 discriminates against appointive officials; by repealing
Sec 67, anyone running for another office is no longer a sign of resignation while at the same time Sec 66
considers them resigned.

Farinas asserts RA 9006 as null/void in its entirety as irregularities attended its enactment into law; Sec
16 included that RA 9006 is effective upon approval which was a violation of due process since it requires
publication first. He also argued that Sec 67 OEC is a good law as its based on the constitutional mandate
on accountability of public officers. He also said the Speaker and SecGen of HoR acted with grave abuse
of discretion for not considering the HoR Reps running for Senate during the May 14 ’01 elections.

Respondents, via OSG, moved for dismissal saying Farinas et al. have no legal standing in the case; Farinas
hasn’t proven he would be harmed in the passage of RA 9006 neither does he have interest as taxpayers
since the RA does not involve the exercise of Congress’ taxing/spending power. Respondents invoked the
“enrolled bill” doctrine to prove that the RA was duly enacted into law through the signatures and
certifications of the Senate President and House Speaker with their respective secretaries. They also
stated the title of RA 9006 doesn’t violate Sec 26(1) Art 6 Const. since it’s so broad that it covers all election
related practices; the title of the law doesn’t need to be a complete index of its contents as long as the
title is comprehensive enough of its provisions.

To the respondents, the repeal of Sec 67 is germane to RA 9006’s title since considering an elected official
resigned will place them in equal footing with other candidates. Furthermore, it doesn’t violate due
process since it doesn’t arbitrarily deprive life, liberty, and property. The provided penalties for violations
in the RA would be heard in court before any prescription.

Issue: Does Farinas have legal standing? Is Sec. 14 of RA 9006, repealing Sec. 67 OEC, unconstitutional?

Held: Farinas et al. have legal standing as they filed in their capacity as HoR members and as
taxpayers/registered voters.
The Court must not construe titles of statutes so narrowly that it impedes the power of legislation. The
title of RA 9006 is comprehensive enough to cover its general subject. Mere details need not be discussed
in the title as the title shouldn’t be an abstract/index of the law. A statute may have various diverse
provisions provided that they are not inconsistent with the general subject.

The legislators already considered Sec. 67 OECC as a form of harassment/discrimination of elected officials
that needs to be repealed. SC does not need to question the wisdom of legislative determination, whether
wise or unwise, provided that the actual statute passed is not unconstitutional.

Regarding equal protection, it is not absolute and is subject to reasonable classification. Sec. 67 clearly
differentiates between elective officials and appointive officials but the manner in which to deal with
them is up to the legislature and not the court. Regardless, Sec. 14 treats the different officials similarly,
thus equal protection is not violated.

The enrolled bill doctrine is applicable to this case because the signatures and certifications of the heads
of each house proves the lack of irregularities in its enactment alleged by Farinas. Furthermore, the SC is
not the proper place for the enforcement of internal rules of Congress; to cite Arroyo v. De Venecia.

Finally, the effectivity clause of RA 9006 is defective as it cannot be effective immediately upon approval.
To be effective, it must first be published. However, just because this clause is defective does not make
the entire law invalid. In Tanada v. Tuvera, the law merely needs to be published to take effect. Lack of
publication does not warrant the extinction of the law.

It is a firm principle in constitutional law that courts do not involve themselves with the wisdom or policy
of a statute. That is the exclusive concern of the legislative branch. When a statute is challenged on
constitutional grounds, the sole function of the court is to determine whether it transcends constitutional
limitations or the limits of legislative power. This was not the case.

RA 9006 – Fair Election Act: “An Act to Enhance the Holding of Free, Orderly, Honest, Peaceful and
Credible Elections through Fair Election Practices”

Sec 14 RA 9006: Repealing Clause. - Section 67 and 85 of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa
Bldg. 881) and Sections 10 and 11 of Republic Act No. 6646 are hereby repealed. As a consequence, the
first proviso in the third paragraph of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8436 is rendered ineffective. All laws,
presidential decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, or any part thereof inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified or amended accordingly.

HB 9000: An Act Allowing the Use of Mass Media for Election Propaganda, amending for the Purpose BP
881, Otherwise Known as the OEC as Amended, and for Other Purposes.

SB 1742: An Act to Enhance the Holding of Free, Orderly, Honest, Peaceful, and Credible Elections Through
Fair Election Practices.

BP 881: Omnibus Election Code

Sec 66 BP 881: Candidates holding elective office. — Any elective official, whether national or local,
running for any office other than the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for President
and Vice-President, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate
of candidacy.