Sasa notes...
Fariñas v. Executive Secretary
G.R. Nos. 147387 & 152161, December 10, 2003
Facts
Before the Supreme Court were two petitions filed by then members of the House of
Representatives questioning the constitutionality of Section 14 of Republic Act No. 9006 (The Fair
Election Act).
Prior to RA 9006, Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code provided that any elective official who
filed a certificate of candidacy (COC) for a position different from the one he was currently holding
would be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon filing the COC. The only exceptions
were the President and Vice-President.
Congress later enacted RA 9006, a law primarily intended to promote free, orderly, honest,
peaceful, and credible elections through fair election practices. During the bicameral conference
committee deliberations, a provision was inserted repealing Section 67 of the Omnibus Election
Code. This provision eventually became Section 14 of RA 9006.
The legislative history became important in the case. After the bicameral conference committee
submitted its report, Representative Jacinto Paras proposed an amendment. Because of this, the
House returned the report to the bicameral conference committee and even appointed new sets of
conferees. A new bicameral conference report was later presented and approved by both the House
and the Senate. During the House deliberations, Representatives Rodolfo Fariñas and Manuel Garcia
opposed the report, arguing that the repeal of Section 67 was a "rider" because it was unrelated to
the subject of the bill. Representative Francis Escudero also expressed doubts regarding its
constitutionality, although he voted in favor of the report.
After approval by both Houses of Congress, the bill was signed by the Senate President and the
Speaker of the House and was subsequently signed into law by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
on February 12, 2001.
Petitioners Rodolfo Fariñas, Manuel Garcia, Francis Escudero, Agapito Aquino, and Gerry Salapuddin
then challenged the law before the Supreme Court.
They argued that:
Section 14 was unconstitutional because it violated the one-subject-one-title rule. According to
them, RA 9006 dealt mainly with election propaganda and fair election practices, while Section 67
concerned the resignation of elective officials who sought another office. Thus, the repeal was
allegedly unrelated to the title and subject matter of the law.
The repeal violated the Equal Protection Clause. They pointed out that while Section 67 (covering
elective officials) was repealed, Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code remained effective.
Section 66 provides that appointive officials are deemed resigned upon filing a COC. As a result,
elective officials could run for another office without losing their positions, while appointive officials
could not.
RA 9006 was invalid because of alleged irregularities in its passage. Petitioners claimed there
were defects in the bicameral conference committee process, including the creation of multiple sets
of conferees, the absence of proper records, questions regarding signatures on the report, and
alleged procedural violations during congressional approval.
They also questioned the validity of the law's effectivity clause, which stated that the law would
take effect immediately upon approval.
The respondents, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that the repeal of
Section 67 was related to the objective of promoting fair election practices and removing what
Congress considered an unfair restriction on elective officials. They also maintained that elective
and appointive officials belong to different classes and may therefore be treated differently. Finally,
they invoked the Enrolled Bill Doctrine, arguing that once a bill has been signed by the presiding
officers of both Houses and certified by their respective secretaries, courts can no longer inquire
into alleged irregularities in its passage.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the petitioners had legal standing to file the case.
[Link] or not Section 14 of RA 9006 violated the one-subject-one-title rule under Article VI,
Section 26(1) of the Constitution.
3. Whether or not the repeal of Section 67 while retaining Section 66 violated the Equal Protection
Clause.
4. Whether or not RA 9006 was invalid because of alleged irregularities in its enactment.
5. Whether or not the effectivity clause of RA 9006 was valid.
Rulings
. Yes! Although petitioners did not show direct personal injury, the Court relaxed the rules on
standing because the case involved a matter of transcendental public importance affecting
the electoral process and public accountability.
. NO! The Court held that Section 14 was not a prohibited rider. The title of RA 9006, "An Act
to Enhance the Holding of Free, Orderly, Honest, Peaceful and Credible Elections through Fair
Election Practices," was broad enough to include provisions affecting election procedures
and candidates. The Constitution does not require the title of a law to be an index of all its
contents. It is enough that the provision is germane to the general subject of the law.
Congress considered the automatic resignation rule under Section 67 as a form of
discrimination or unfairness against elective officials. Therefore, its repeal was reasonably
connected with the objective of promoting fair election practices.
. [Link] Court held that elective officials and appointive officials are not similarly situated.
Elective officials hold office by virtue of the people's mandate and may engage in political
activities. Appointive officials, on the other hand, derive their positions from appointment and
are generally prohibited from engaging in partisan political activities under civil service
[Link] of these substantial distinctions, Congress may validly treat them differently.
Hence, repealing Section 67 while retaining Section 66 did not violate equal protection.
. NO! The Court applied the Enrolled Bill [Link] law bore the signatures of the Senate
President and the Speaker of the House and was certified by the secretaries of both
chambers as having been duly passed. These certifications are conclusive upon the
courtsThe alleged irregularities involved internal congressional procedures, and courts
generally will not interfere with such matters unless there is a clear constitutional violation.
. The clause was defective, but the law remained valid. The provision stating that the law would
take effect immediately upon approval could not dispense with the constitutional requirement
of publication. Applying Tañada v. Tuvera, the Court held that publication is indispensable
before a law can become effective. Thus, RA 9006 took effect only after proper publication,
notwithstanding its wording. Important Doctrines. One Subject-One Title Rule. A law satisfies
the constitutional requirement if its title is broad enough to include all provisions reasonably
related to its general purpose. The title need not enumerate every detail of the law. Rider
Doctrine. A provision is not a prohibited rider if it is germane or related to the general subject
expressed in the title of the law. Equal Protection Equal protection allows reasonable
classifications. Different treatment is valid when the classification is based on substantial
distinctions relevant to the purpose of the law. Enrolled Bill Doctrine. Once a bill is
authenticated by the signatures of the Senate President and Speaker of the House and
certified by the secretaries of both chambers, courts generally accept it as properly enacted
and will not investigate alleged procedural irregularities in Congress. Publication
Requirement. Under Tañada v. Tuvera, publication is mandatory before a law can take effect.
Congress may change the date of effectivity but cannot eliminate the requirement of
publication. Short Case Holding. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section
14 of RA 9006, ruled that the repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code was valid,
found no violation of the one-subject-one-title rule or equal protection clause, applied the
Enrolled Bill Doctrine to reject challenges to the legislative process, and held that although
the law's effectivity clause was defective, the law remained valid and became effective only
after proper publication.