Pamatong v.

COMELEC

Petitioner Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy to the Commission on Election, however
respondent COMELEC refused to recognize his candidacy. He was declared as a nuisance
candidate, someone who could not wage a national campaign and was not nominated by a
political party or are not supported by a registered political party with a national constituency.

Petitioner assailed the decision of COMELEC and argued that it was in violation of his rights to
equal access to opportunities to public service. According to him the COMELEC directly
amended the mandate of the Constitution by limiting the number of qualified candidates.

Issue
WON the constitutional rights of equal access to opportunity to public service was violated. -
NO

Ratio

According to the Supreme Court there is no such rights, it is a mere privilege granted by the
state subject to limitation imposed by law. Section 26 Article II of the Constitution does not
grant a person such rights. Moreover, this section is not self-executory, it is just a guideline for
legislative or executive action. Furthermore, this privilege is subject to limitation, an example of
which is declaration of a nuisance candidate, as long as the limitation applies to everybody
there is no violation of equal access clause.