BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY (BANAT) PARTY-LIST, REPRESENTED BY SALVADOR B. BRITANICO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

BANAT Party-List versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a petition for prohibition with a prayer for a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction, filed by the Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency Party-List, through its representative Salvador Britanico, against the Commission on Elections. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to declare Republic Act Number 9369 unconstitutional and to stop the Commission from implementing it. The case matters because it is the Court's settled statement on three recurring bar topics: the one-subject and title requirement for statutes, the scope of the Commission's power to investigate and prosecute election offenses, and the supremacy of police power over the non-impairment clause. It also fixes the modern rule on pre-proclamation cases in national elections.

Procedural History

This was an original action in the Supreme Court, not an appeal from any lower court. The petitioner went directly to the Court by a petition for prohibition, assailing the constitutionality of Republic Act Number 9369 and of its Sections 34, 37, 38, and 43, and praying that the Commission on Elections be enjoined from implementing the statute. The Commission and the Office of the Solicitor General filed their respective comments. Both maintained at the outset that the statute enjoys the presumption of constitutionality, save that the Commission itself prayed that Section 43 be declared unconstitutional. The Court then resolved the petition on its merits.

Facts

Republic Act Number 9369 is a consolidation of Senate Bill Number 2231 and House Bill Number 5352, passed by the Senate on 7 December 2006 and by the House of Representatives on 19 December 2006. On 23 January 2007, less than four months before the 14 May 2007 local elections, the President signed the law. Two newspapers of general circulation, Malaya and Business Mirror, published it on 26 January 2007, so it took effect on 10 February 2007.

On 7 May 2007, the petitioner, a duly accredited multi-sectoral organization, filed this petition for prohibition. It alleged that Republic Act Number 9369 violated Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution, and it also assailed the constitutionality of Sections 34, 37, 38, and 43, which it described as of questionable application and doubtful validity for failing to comply with the Constitution.

The assailed provisions amend earlier election laws. Section 34 amends Section 26 of Republic Act Number 7166 on official watchers and fixes a per diem of four hundred pesos for the watcher of the dominant majority and dominant minority parties. Section 37 amends Section 30 of the same law on the determination of the authenticity and due execution of certificates of canvass. Section 38 amends Section 15 on pre-proclamation cases. Section 43 amends Section 265 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 on the prosecution of election offenses.

Issues

• Whether or not Republic Act Number 9369 violates Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution on the one-subject and title requirement.
• Whether or not Sections 37 and 38 violate Section 17, Article VI and Paragraph 7, Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution by impairing the jurisdiction of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal and the Senate Electoral Tribunal.
• Whether or not Section 43 violates Section 2(6), Article IX-C of the Constitution by giving other prosecuting arms of the government concurrent power with the Commission on Elections.
• Whether or not Section 34 violates Section 10, Article III of the Constitution on the non-impairment of contracts.

Applicable Provisions

Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution provides:

Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.

This is the provision the petitioner invokes against the title of Republic Act Number 9369 and against the assailed sections.

Section 2(6), Article IX-C of the Constitution provides:

The Commission may investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.

The Court reads the phrase "where appropriate" as leaving to Congress the choice between exclusive and concurrent prosecution.

Section 265 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, before its amendment, provided:

The Commission shall, through its duly authorized legal officers, have the exclusive power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under this Code, and to prosecute the same. The Commission may avail of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government.

This shows that the exclusivity of the Commission's prosecutory power came from statute, not from the Constitution.

Section 10, Article III of the Constitution provides:

No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

This is the clause the petitioner invokes against the fixed per diem in Section 34.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition has no merit. Every statute is presumed constitutional, and one who assails it must show a clear and unequivocal breach, not a doubtful or speculative one. The title requirement is given a practical rather than a technical construction. It is satisfied if the title is comprehensive enough to include subjects related to the general purpose of the statute, and a title declaring the act to be one amending a specified code is sufficient. Republic Act Number 9369 is an amendatory act whose title expressly covers amendments to Republic Act Number 8436, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, Republic Act Number 7166, and other related election laws to encourage transparency, credibility, fairness, and accuracy of elections. The assailed sections amend specific provisions of those laws, so they are germane to the subject matter.

On the second issue, the Court held that Sections 37 and 38 do not violate the Constitution. There is no conflict of jurisdiction, because the powers of Congress and the Commission en banc, on one hand, and of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal and the Senate Electoral Tribunal, on the other, are exercised on different occasions and for different purposes. The Tribunals act only after the winning candidates have been proclaimed; Congress and the Commission en banc determine only the authenticity and due execution of certificates of canvass, and they do so before proclamation. The Court recalled its earlier ruling that pre-proclamation cases on the authenticity and due execution of certificates of canvass are now allowed in presidential, vice-presidential, and senatorial elections, subject to the general prohibition and its recognized exceptions.

On the third issue, the Court held that Section 43 is constitutional. The Constitution does not give the Commission exclusive power to investigate and prosecute election offenses; the phrase "where appropriate" leaves to the legislature the power to determine which offenses the Commission shall prosecute exclusively or concurrently with other prosecuting arms of the government. The exclusivity came from Section 265 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, a legislative enactment, and given the plenary power of the legislature to amend or repeal laws, a law amending that section does not violate the Constitution.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that Section 34 does not violate the non-impairment clause. There was no existing contract when the law took effect, so no enforceable right or demandable obligation was impaired; the parties who later hired watchers were deemed to have incorporated the law into their contracts. In any event, police power is superior to the non-impairment clause, and poll watching is vested with public interest. The Court quoted its earlier ruling:

Furthermore, the freedom to contract is not absolute; all contracts and all rights are subject to the police power of the State and not only may regulations which affect them be established by the State, but all such regulations must be subject to change from time to time, as the general well-being of the community may require, or as the circumstances may change, or as experience may demonstrate the necessity.

Doctrine

First, the one-subject and title requirement is satisfied if the title is comprehensive enough to include subjects related to the general purpose of the statute; the title need not be an index of the contents, and a title declaring the act to be one amending a specified code is sufficient.

Second, the Commission on Elections does not have constitutional exclusivity in prosecuting election offenses; the phrase "where appropriate" in Section 2(6), Article IX-C leaves the choice of exclusive or concurrent prosecution to Congress.

Third, the non-impairment clause applies only to prior or perfected contracts, and it yields to police power exercised for the general welfare.

Fourth, pre-proclamation cases in national elections remain generally prohibited, except for the correction of manifest errors, questions affecting the composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers, and the determination of the authenticity and due execution of certificates of canvass.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the Court upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act Number 9369 and of its assailed sections.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that the Commission's exclusive power to prosecute election offenses comes from Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, not from the Constitution, because the Constitution says only "where appropriate." Examiners use this case on the one-subject rule, on the Commission's concurrent prosecutory power, and on police power prevailing over the non-impairment clause.