Can GMA Run For Congresswoman?

There is an ongoing debate as to whether President Gloria Arroyo would be considered as having forfeited her position should she run for congresswoman in Pampanga. Let me submit what I understood about this issue.

Before the passage of Fair Election Act (Republic Act No. 9006), any elective official including a President is deemed resigned from his office upon filing of his certificate of candidacy. The Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881, Sec. 67) provides :

Sec. 67. Candidates holding elective office. - Any elective official, whether national or local, running for any office other than the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for President and Vice-President, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.

In the landmark case of Dimaporo vs. Mitra (G.R. No. 96859, 15 October 1991), the Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of Speaker Mitras’ administrative act of erasing Ali Dimaporo name from the Roll of the House, pursuant to Sec. 67 of B.P. 881. The High Tribunal underscored the basic concept that a public office is a public trust - it is created for the interest and benefit of the people. As such, the holder thereof is subject to such regulations and conditions as the law may impose and he cannot complain of any restrictions which public policy may dictate on his office.

However, Sec. 67 of B.P. 881, was repealed by Sec. 14 of R.A. 9006 in 2001. The repealing clause provides :

Section 14. Repealing Clause. – Section 67 and 85 of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Bldg. 881) and Sections 10 and 11 of Republic Act No. 6646 are hereby repealed. As a consequence, the first proviso in the third paragraph of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8436 is rendered ineffective. All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, or any part thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified or amended accordingly.

R.A. 9006 was declared constitutional by no less than the Supreme Court in Farinas vs. Comelec (G.R. No. 152161, 10 December 2003). The SC said that Congress is not precluded from repealing Section 67 by the ruling of the Court in Dimaporo v. Mitra, upholding the validity of the provision and by its pronouncement in the same case that the provision has a laudable purpose. Over time, Congress may find it imperative to repeal the law on its belief that the election process is thereby enhanced and the paramount objective of election laws — the fair, honest and orderly election of truly deserving members of Congress — is achieved.

Incidentally, Justice Cruz, argued that the repeal of Sec. 67 of B.P. 881 by Sec. 14 of R.A. 9006 is not valid for being a mere rider in violation of Art. VI, Sec. 26 (1) of the Constitution providing that “every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.” The Fair Election Act deals only with political advertising, like TV commercials and election posters. It has nothing to do with forfeiture of original offices upon the filing of certificates of candidacy for different offices as provided for in Sec. 67.
In conclusion, based on the R.A. 9006 and Farinas ruling, GMA would not be deemed as having forfeited her position should she files her certificate of candidacy for congresswoman or any other positions lower than the Presidency for that matter.

It is however my fervent hope that someone has to challenge anew the constitutionality of Sec. 14 of Fair Election Act in the event GMA files her certificate of candidacy.

Bill of Attainder?

Last week, the Provincial Board (PB) of Pampanga passed a resolution declaring running priest Fr. Robert Reyes as a “persona non grata” or an undesirable person. The PB’s action stemmed from the lambasting it received from Fr. Reyes for the former’s continuing opposition to Gov. Ed Panlilio’s governance.

A prominent lawyer-journalist in Pampanga described the resolution as a bill of attainder saying that such resolution has all the earmarks of a bill of attainder which are, (1) the unwanted characterization is a form of punishment; (2) The PB resolution was a legislative act; and (3) Fr. Reyes was neither invited nor given the opportunity to explain himself before the PB prior to making its “persona non grata” resolution.

I disagree.

One of the constitutive elements of a bill of attainder is that there must be a law enacted by a legislative body. Settled is the rule that a municipal resolution does not partake of the nature of a law. Said the Supreme Court in Municipality of Paranaque vs. VM Realty Corp., G.R. No. 127820, 20 July 1998)

We are not convinced by petitioner's insistence that the terms "resolution" and "ordinance" are synonymous. A municipal ordinance is different from a resolution. An ordinance is a law, but a resolution is merely a declaration of the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. An ordinance possesses a general and permanent character, but a resolution is temporary in nature. Additionally, the two are enacted differently - a third reading is necessary for an ordinance, but not for a resolution, unless decided otherwise by a majority of all the Sanggunian members.

Absent the most essential element of a bill of attainder (i.e., there must be a law enacted by a legislative body), I submit the view the PB’s resolution on Fr. Reyes does not amount to a bill of attainder.

Can a gender be judicially changed?

Can a petition for a change of sex (gender) be judicially granted on the basis of sex reassignment surgery (sex alteration)? In the case Silverio vs. Republic (G.R. No. 174689, 22 October 2007), the Supreme Court rejected the ruling of the Trial Court and pronounced to the effect that there is no law allowing the change of entry in the birth certificate as to sex on the ground of sex reassignment.

If an individual is an intersexual (hermaphrodite) or having both male and female reproductive organs, can a petition for a change of gender be judicially allowed on basis of his or her intersexuality? There is also no law allowing the change of entry in the birth certificate as to sex on the ground of intersexuality.

However, the Supreme Court, in the case of Republic vs. Cagandahan (GR No. 166676, 12 September 2008), affirmed the decision of RTC Laguna granting the Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate of Jennifer B. Cagandahan to change her name to Jeff Cagandahan and her gender to male. Jennifer was diagnosed of having a Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, a rare medical condition where afflicted persons possess both male and female characteristics.

To quote the article in the Supreme Court, the High Court considered “the compassionate calls for recognition of the various degrees of intersex as variations which should not be subject to outright denial.” It noted that Cagandahan “thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body produces high levels of male hormones (androgen), there is preponderant biological support for considering him as being male.” It stressed that Cagandahan has let nature take its course in her develoment to reveal more fully his male characteristics.

2008 Bar : Questions in Political Law

Arguably, Political Law is said to be the waterloo of the bar examinees. Many did not pass the bar because they failed on this difficult bar subject. The 2008 bar questions in Political Law are already made available in the Supreme Court website. The Bar Exams Forum, of which I am an active member, has also posted the Political Law questions which are now being discussed and answered by the forum members.

The Political Law questions already answered by the members of Bar Exams Forum are found here. Mind you, these are only suggested answers. The authoritative answers are normally prepared by the Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS) and the UP College of Law.