Facts:
On October 2, 2015, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) reminded candidates and political parties of the final and non-extendible deadline for the submission of Statements of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCEs) for the May 9, 2016 national and local elections, not later than June 8, 2016, under RA No. 7166. However, on June 23, 2016, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 10147, extending the filing deadline to June 30, 2016. The PDP-Laban, represented by Secretary-General Pantaleon Alvarez, filed a Petition for Certiorari on July 7, 2016, challenging this extension and arguing that it violated RA No. 7166. COMELEC defended its action, citing past precedence and asserting the flexibility of the filing period based on its textual interpretation of the law. Intervenors Leon Estrella Peralta and others echoed PDP-Laban’s concerns, also emphasizing the potential for abuse such extension might entail.
Issues:
1. Whether the COMELEC has the power to extend the SOCE filing deadline beyond the “final and non-extendible” deadline of June 8, 2016, as stipulated by RA No. 7166.
2. Whether such extension constitutes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC, thus rendering COMELEC Resolution No. 10147 void.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled against the COMELEC, declaring that Resolution No. 10147 was void for exceeding the limits of COMELEC’s delegated rule-making authority in contravention of Section 14 of RA No. 7166. The Court found the law to be unambiguous, stating that SOCEs must be filed within 30 days after the elections, with any deviation from this provision constituting grave abuse of discretion. However, using the doctrine of operative fact, the Court held that SOCEs filed within the extended deadline set by the challenged resolution are deemed timely filed.
Doctrine:
The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that an administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress. A rule or regulation must be within the confines of the granting statute and must not override, dilute, or disregard specific mandates of the legislature. Compliance with statutory requirements, especially those with set deadlines, cannot be altered by implementing rules or regulations.
Class Notes:
– Statutory Construction: Verba legis non est recedendum (“from the words of a statute there should be no departure”).
– Grave Abuse of Discretion: Exists when a public official or body acts in a judicial or quasi-judicial context in a manner that is arbitrary or despotic.
– Operative Fact Doctrine: Legal infractions committed under a rule or law later deemed void can still produce legal consequences or effects for actions performed when such a rule or law was presumed valid.
– Rule-Making Authority of Administrative Bodies: Limited by the scope and purpose of the enabling law; cannot modify, expand, or contradict legislative intent.
Historical Background:
This case highlighted a tension between the administrative flexibility sought by the COMELEC for practical governance and the strict adherence to statutory deadlines mandated by law. It reflects on the balance of ensuring procedural compliance while also adapting to the realities of electoral administration. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the primacy of legislative directives over administrative convenience or precedent, emphasizing the importance of the rule of law in the electoral process.
Leave a Reply