BANAT Party-List vs. COMELEC

The phrase "where appropriate" in Section 2(6), Article IX-C of the Constitution does not grant the COMELEC exclusive power to investigate and prosecute election offenses, but leaves to the legislature the discretion to determine whether such power should be exclusive or concurrent with other prosecuting arms of the government; furthermore, the constitutional requirement that every bill embrace only one subject is satisfied if the title is comprehensive enough to include subjects related to the general purpose of the statute, and the State's police power prevails over the non-impairment clause when regulating matters invested with public interest such as poll watching.

Republic Act No. 9369 is an amendatory act consolidating Senate Bill No. 2231 and House Bill No. 5352, signed into law on January 23, 2007, and published on January 26, 2007, taking effect on February 10, 2007. The law amends Republic Act No. 8436 (the Automated Election System Law), Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (the Omnibus Election Code), and Republic Act No. 7166 (the Synchronized Elections Law) to encourage transparency, credibility, fairness, and accuracy in elections. With the May 14, 2007 local elections approaching, petitioner BANAT Party-List, a duly accredited multi-sectoral organization, challenged specific provisions of this statute alleging constitutional infirmities.

• Republic Act No. 9369, entitled "An Act Amending Republic Act No. 8436... to Encourage Transparency, Credibility, Fairness and Accuracy of Elections, Amending for the Purpose Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, as Amended, Republic Act No. 7166 and Other Related Election Laws...", took effect on February 10, 2007, less than four months before the May 14, 2007 local elections.
• Section 34 of RA 9369 amends Section 26 of RA 7166 by providing that the dominant majority and dominant minority parties shall each be entitled to one official watcher who shall be paid a fixed per diem of four hundred pesos (P400.00).
• Section 37 of RA 9369 amends Section 30 of RA 7166, providing that Congress (for President and Vice President) and the COMELEC en banc (for Senators) shall determine the authenticity and due execution of certificates of canvass, and adopts the procedure on pre-proclamation controversies for cases involving discrepancies, incompleteness, erasures, or alterations in the certificates.
• Section 38 of RA 9369 amends Section 15 of RA 7166, allowing pre-proclamation cases for President, Vice President, Senator, and Members of the House of Representatives only in specific instances: correction of manifest errors, questions affecting the composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers, and determination of authenticity and due execution of certificates of canvass as provided in Section 30.
• Section 43 of RA 9369 amends Section 265 of BP 881, changing the COMELEC's power from "exclusive power" to "concurrent power with the other prosecuting arms of the government" to conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute election offenses.
• Petitioner BANAT Party-List is a duly accredited multi-sectoral organization that filed the petition alleging that the assailed provisions violate various constitutional provisions.

• RA 9369 violates Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution (the one-subject rule) because its title speaks of poll automation but contains substantial provisions dealing with manual canvassing of election returns and poll watchers' compensation, which are neither embraced in the title nor germane to the subject matter.
• Sections 37 and 38 violate Section 17, Article VI (regarding the Senate Electoral Tribunal) and Paragraph 7, Section 4, Article VII (regarding the Presidential Electoral Tribunal) because they allow Congress and the COMELEC en banc to entertain pre-proclamation cases for President, Vice President, and Senators, thereby encroaching upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the PET and SET as sole judges of all contests relating to election, returns, and qualifications.
• Section 43 violates Section 2(6), Article IX-C of the Constitution because the provision allegedly grants the COMELEC the "exclusive power" to investigate and prosecute election offenses, which is removed by making such power concurrent with other prosecuting arms of the government.
• Section 34 violates Section 10, Article III (the non-impairment clause) because fixing the per diem of poll watchers at P400.00 impairs the freedom of the parties to contract and their right to fix terms and conditions of employment contracts using private funds.

• RA 9369 enjoys the presumption of constitutionality, and petitioner failed to show a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution.
• The title of RA 9369 is broad enough to encompass topics dealing not only with automation but with everything related to its purpose of encouraging transparent, credible, fair, and accurate elections; the assailed provisions are germane as they amend RA 7166 and BP 881 which are cited in the title.
• There is no encroachment on the PET and SET because Congress and COMELEC en banc exercise their powers as canvassers before proclamation, while the electoral tribunals exercise jurisdiction as judges of contests after proclamation; these are different occasions and purposes.
• The Constitution does not prohibit pre-proclamation cases involving national elective posts; Section 2(6), Article IX-C uses the phrase "where appropriate," which leaves to the legislature the power to determine whether the COMELEC's power to prosecute should be exclusive or concurrent.
• There is no violation of the non-impairment clause because no existing contract was impaired (the law was enacted before the 2007 elections), and even if there were contracts, police power prevails over the non-impairment clause; poll watching is invested with public interest and regulation of compensation promotes general welfare.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether RA 9369 violates Section 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution (one-subject/title rule).
  • Whether Sections 37 and 38 violate Section 17, Article VI and Paragraph 7, Section 4, Article VII by encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the Senate Electoral Tribunal and Presidential Electoral Tribunal.
  • Whether Section 43 violates Section 2(6), Article IX-C of the Constitution regarding the COMELEC's power to investigate and prosecute election offenses.
  • Whether Section 34 violates Section 10, Article III of the Constitution (non-impairment clause).

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • One-Subject Rule: The constitutional requirement is satisfied if the title is comprehensive enough to include subjects related to the general purpose which the statute seeks to achieve. RA 9369's title covers amendments to RA 8436, BP 881, RA 7166, and other related election laws to achieve transparency and credibility in elections. The assailed provisions are germane as they amend specific sections of RA 7166 and BP 881.
  • Electoral Tribunal Jurisdiction: No violation. The PET and SET are the sole judges of all contests relating to election, returns, and qualifications, but their jurisdiction is invoked only after proclamation of winning candidates. Congress and COMELEC en banc exercise their powers before proclamation as national boards of canvassers to determine the authenticity and due execution of certificates of canvass. These are distinct functions exercised at different times and for different purposes.
  • Prosecution Power: No violation. Section 2(6), Article IX-C does not grant the COMELEC "exclusive power" but provides power to investigate and, "where appropriate," prosecute. The phrase "where appropriate" leaves to the legislature the determination of whether such power should be exclusive or concurrent. The grant of exclusive power in BP 881 was statutory, not constitutional, and Congress validly amended this through RA 9369.
  • Non-impairment Clause: No violation. First, there was no existing contract impaired because RA 9369 took effect on February 10, 2007, and any contracts for the May 14, 2007 elections were deemed to incorporate its provisions. Second, police power is superior to the non-impairment clause; the regulation of poll watchers' per diem is a valid exercise of police power to promote the general welfare, as poll watching is invested with public interest and aids in ensuring fair and honest elections.

• Presumption of Constitutionality — Every statute is presumed constitutional, and those who petition to declare a law unconstitutional must show a clear and unequivocal breach, not merely a doubtful, speculative, or argumentative one; otherwise, the petition must fail.
• One-Subject/Title Rule (Practical Construction) — The constitutional requirement that every bill embrace only one subject expressed in the title is given a practical rather than technical construction; the title need not be an index of all contents and will suffice if the matters embodied in the text are relevant to each other and may be inferred from the title.
• Police Power Superior to 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; the freedom to contract is not absolute and all rights are subject to the police power of the State.
• Separation of Functions Between Canvassers and Electoral Tribunals — The jurisdiction of the PET and SET can only be invoked once winning candidates have been proclaimed; Congress and COMELEC en banc exercise their powers as canvassers before proclamation, and there is no conflict of jurisdiction since these powers are exercised on different occasions and for different purposes.

• "It is settled that every statute is presumed to be constitutional. The presumption is that the legislature intended to enact a valid, sensible and just law. Those who petition the Court to declare a law unconstitutional must show that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not merely a doubtful, speculative or argumentative one; otherwise, the petition must fail."
• "The constitutional requirement that 'every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof' has always been given a practical rather than a technical construction."
• "The phrase '[w]here appropriate' leaves to the legislature the power to determine the kind of election offenses that the COMELEC shall prosecute exclusively or concurrently with other prosecuting arms of the government."
• "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."
• "The prompt investigation, prosecution, and disposition of election offenses constitute an indispensable part of the task of securing free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections."

• Pimentel III v. COMELEC — Cited for the ruling that by virtue of the amendments introduced by RA 9369 to Sections 15 and 30 of RA 7166, pre-proclamation cases involving the authenticity and due execution of certificates of canvass are now allowed in elections for President, Vice-President, and Senators.
• People v. Basilla — Acknowledged that without the assistance of provincial and city fiscals and state prosecutors, the prompt and fair investigation and prosecution of election offenses would not be possible.
• COMELEC v. Español — Noted that the COMELEC is enfeebled by lack of funds and the magnitude of its workload, lacking sufficient legal officers to conduct investigations and prosecutions.
• Beltran v. Secretary of Health — Cited for the principle that the freedom to contract is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the State.
• Lacson v. Executive Secretary — Cited for the presumption of constitutionality of statutes.
• Chiongbian v. Orbos — Cited for the practical construction of the one-subject rule.
• Tio v. Videogram Regulatory Board — Cited for the rule that the title need not be an index of the contents of the statute.

• Section 26(1), Article VI — Requires every bill passed by Congress to embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
• Section 17, Article VI — Establishes the Senate Electoral Tribunal as the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of Senators.
• Paragraph 7, Section 4, Article VII — Establishes the Supreme Court sitting en banc as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President.
• Section 2(6), Article IX-C — Grants the COMELEC the power to investigate and, "where appropriate," prosecute cases of violations of election laws.
• Section 10, Article III — Provides that no law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
• Section 34 of RA 9369 — Fixes the per diem of official watchers of dominant majority and minority parties.
• Section 37 of RA 9369 — Amends Section 30 of RA 7166 regarding Congress and COMELEC en banc as national boards of canvassers and the determination of authenticity of certificates of canvass.
• Section 38 of RA 9369 — Amends Section 15 of RA 7166 regarding pre-proclamation cases for national elective posts.
• Section 43 of RA 9369 — Amends Section 265 of BP 881 regarding the power to prosecute election offenses.
• Article 1306, Civil Code — Provides that contracting parties may establish stipulations as they deem convenient provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.

• Puno, C.J., Ynares-Santiago, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, and Bersamin, JJ. — Joined in the unanimous decision without issuing separate opinions.