2S ADMIN Case Digests

TOPIC Pre-Proclamation Controversy AUTHOR #4_Chan

CASE TITLE BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND GR NO 177508

TRANSPARENCY (BANAT) PARTY-LIST vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

TICKLER BANAT; RA 9369 DATE August 7, 2009

DOCTRINE Every election statute is deemed constitutional and the presumption always favors the validity of the statute
assailed. Those who assail the validity of the statute should prove a clear and unequivocal breach and not merely
a speculative or argumentative one; otherwise, the petition must necessarily fail.

FACTS The petitioner, the BANAT party-list, a duly accredited multi-sectoral organization, assails some provisions of RA
9369 and asks for a temporary restraining order to be issued against COMELEC to prevent it from implementing
the statute. In their petition, they posit that the statute is unconstitutional since the statute itself contains provisions
which are not germane RA 9369 since it speaks of poll automation, yet Sec. 34, 37, 38, and 43 speak of devices
and methods for manual canvassing of election returns – matters which it claims are not embraced within the title
of the statute itself.

In addition to the abovementioned reason, BANAT additionally argues that Sections 37 and 38 impairs the powers
of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal and the Senate Electoral Tribunal since under the amended provisions,
Congress, in the case of the election of a President and Vice-President; and the COMELEC sitting en banc as
the National Board of Canvassers, may exercise the functions of the PET and SET, respectively, when they are
given the power to entertain pre-proclamation cases. Since they undermine and encroach upon the
independence and jurisdiction of the PET and SEC, the law must be declared unconstitutional.

Likewise, BANAT argues that Section 43 of the law is unconstitutional because it gives the different prosecuting
arms of the government equal status as COMELEC in dealing with election-related offenses. Moreover, Section
34, which fixes the per diem of poll watchers, is unconstitutional because it violates the freedom of the parties to
enter into a contract by fixing the allowance at PHP 400.00.

ISSUE/S Whether or not RA 9369 is unconstitutional.

RULING/S No, it is not unconstitutional.

The title of RA 9369 is broad enough to encompass topics which deal not only with the automation process but
with everything related to its purpose encouraging the conduction of transparent, credible, fair, and accurate
elections.

On the matter of Sections 37 and 38, Congress and the COMELEC do not encroach upon the jurisdiction of the
PET and the SET. There is no conflict of jurisdiction since the powers of Congress and the COMELEC en banc
and of the PET and the SET 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. Their jurisdiction can only be invoked once the winning presidential, vice presidential
or senatorial candidates have been proclaimed.

On the other hand, under Section 37 and 38 of RA 9369, Congress and the COMELEC en banc can determine
only the authenticity and due execution of the Certificates of Canvass and Congress and the COMELEC en
banc can exercise this power only before the proclamation of the winning presidential, vice-presidential, and
senatorial candidates.

As to the validity of Section 43, it is valid. The grant of the exclusive power to investigate and prosecute election
offenses to the COMELEC was not by virtue of the Constitution but by BP 88, a legislative enactment. As such,

2S [AY 2020-2021]
San Beda University – College of Law
 2S ADMIN Case Digests
should the legislature see fit, it can freely amend the provisions of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure and
the same act would not violate the Constitution.

Lastly, as to Section 34, the same is valid as well. There is no violation of the non-impairment clause because
such rule is limited in application only to laws that derogate from prior acts or contracts by enlarging, abridging
or in any manner changing the intention of the parties. In fixing the per diem of poll watchers, there has yet to
be a contract which could be enforced since RA 9369 was enacted three months before any contract for poll
watching was even done.

Even assuming that there already was a contract formed prior to the election period, the police power is superior
to the non-impairment clause. The constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of contracts is limited by the
exercise of the police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of
the community. RA 9369 is an exercise of such power since it promotes the welfare of poll watchers, a position
invested with public interest.

WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit.

2S [AY 2020-2021]
San Beda University – College of Law