REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
INTRAMUROS, MANILA
RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE, MATTHEW MARCOS MANOTOC, MARTIN GOMEZ ROMUALDEZ, CYNTHIA AGUILAR VILLAR,
PETER C. CUA, and all similarly situated
candidates.
SPA No.
For: DISQUALIFICATION AS CANDIDATES
X-----
Respondents,
--x
PETITION TO DISQUALIFY AS CANDIDATES
FOR BEING DISQUALIFIED CANDIDATES UNDER THE LAW
Petitioners, through the undersigned counsel and unto
this Honorable Commission, respectfully state that:
PREFACE
Is the spouse, child, parent or sibling (immediate
family members) of an incumbent but graduating Mayor or Governor prohibited and
DISQUALIFIED from running for the same elective positions to replace and succeed
their incumbent relatives?
Are they disqualified under Article X, Section 8 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, in relation to Article II, Section 26 thereof?
Is the spouse, child, parent or sibling (immediate
family members) of an incumbent but graduating Congressman or District
Representative prohibited and DISQUALIFIED from running for the same elective
position to replace and succeed their incumbent relative?
Are they disqualified under Article VI, Section 7 of
the 1987 Philippine Constitution, in relation to Article II, Section 26
thereof?
Many of the incumbent Mayors, Governors, and District
Representatives and their families have CONTINUOUSLY occupied the same elective
posts for more than 15 years, some for more than 20 years.
Are they not CLEARLY AND PLAINLY political dynasties,
and therefore already covered by the constitutional prohibition against
political dynasties under Article II, Section 26?
Is legislation from Congress still necessary to
declare these political families as political dynasties since they are CLEARLY
AND PLAINLY political dynasties?
NATURE OF THE PETITION
1. This Petition is filed pursuant to RULE 25,
Section 1 of COMELEC
Resolution No. 95231 which provides:
"Section 1. Grounds. Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party, is declared by final decision of a competent court, guilty of, or found by the Commission to be suffering from any disqualification provided by law or the Constitution." (Emphasis Supplied)
1 IN THE MATTER OF THE AMENDMENT TO RULES 23, 24, AND
25 OF THE COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR PURPOSES OF THE 13 MAY 2013 NATIONAL,
LOCAL AND ARMM ELECTIONS AND SUBSEQUENT ELECTIONS
2. As discussed hereunder, the respondents should be disqualified from seeking the respective elective offices they sought in violation of ARTICLE X (LOCAL GOVERNMENT), SECTION 8, IN RELATION TO ARTICLE II, SECTION 26 OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION.
THE PETITIONERS
3. Under Section 2 of Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure, as amended by COMELEC Resolution No. 9523 promulgated on 25
September 2012, a verified Petition to Disqualify a Candidate may be filed by
any registered voter or any duly registered political party, organization or
coalition of political parties.
4. ALL herein Petitioners are natural persons,
Filipino citizens, of legal age, and members of the multisectoral coalition
ANIM or Alyansa ng Nagkakaisang Mamamayan.
5. They are likewise all concerned citizens,
taxpayers and registered voters in the country representing the interest of the
Filipino People and are filing the present petition that raises an issue of
Transcendental Significance or Paramount Importance to the people due to the
inaction of the state in prohibiting a clear disregard violation of our
Constitution.
6. Petitioner JOSE COLIN M. BAGAFORO is the incumbent
Bishop of the Diocese of Kidapawan. He is a registered voter at Barangay
Balindog, Kidapawan City.
7. Petitioner GERARDO A. ALMINAZA is the incumbent
Bishop of the Diocese of San Carlos City, Negros Occidental. He is a registered
voter at Barangay San Julio Subdivision, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental.
8. Petitioner WILFREDO D. FRANCO is a retired Police
Major General. He is a registered voter at Barangay Camp 7, Baguio City.
9. Petitioner NOEL O. DELOS REYES is a retired Police
Brigadier General. He is a registered voter at Barangay Sun Valley, Paranaque
City.
10. Petitioner REYNALDO V. REYES is a retired Major General of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. He is a registered voter at Barangay Tambo, Lipa City.
11. Petitioner GUILLERMO G. CUNANAN is a retired
Colonel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. He is a registered voter at
Barangay Sun Valley, Paranaque City.
12. Petitioner ROBERTO D. YAP is a resigned Captain
of the Philippine Army. He is a registered voter at Barangay Bel Air, Makati
City.
13. Petitioner LUISITO DIEZ REDOBLE, is a registered
voter at
Barangay Pilar, Las Pinas City.
14. Petitioner ALEXANDER L. LACSON is a registered voter at Barangay White Plains, Quezon City.
15. Petitioners are represented in this petition by ATTY. ALEXANDER L LACSON, with office address at Unit 2303, 23rd Floor, Tycoon Centre, Pearl Drive, Ortigas Center, Pasig City (Tel Nos. 470.2120; address email alexlacson12@gmail.com), where they may be served with summons, notices, orders and other processes of this Honorable Commission.
and
RESPONDENTS
16. Respondent RODRIGO DUTERTE is running for Mayor
of Davao City. His residential address is at No. 458 Taal Road, Centra Park
Subd., Talomo Proper, Davao City.
17. Respondent MATTHEW MARCOS MANOTOC is running for
Governor in Ilocos Norte. His address is at the Governor's Office, Provincial
Capitol, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte.
18. Respondent MARTIN GOMEZ ROMUALDEZ is running for
Congressman of First District, Leyte. His address is at Office of the Speaker,
House of Representatives, Batasan Compound, Batasan Hills, Quezon City.
19. Respondent CYNTHIA AGUILAR VILLAR is running for District Representative of the lone district of Las Pinas. Her address is at Room 523 & 13, New Wing, 5th Floor, GSIS Building, Financial Center, Diokno Blvd., Pasay City.
20. Respondent PETER C. CUA is running for Governor
of the Province of Catanduanes. His residence address is at Barangay San Roque,
San Andres, Catanduanes.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
AND CAUSES OF ACTIONS
I: THE CASE OF RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE
21. Rodrigo Roa Duterte has filed his certificate of
candidacy for Mayor of Davao City for the 2025 elections. His biological son,
Sebastian Duterte, the incumbent Mayor of the City, has filed his own
certificate of candidacy for Vice-Mayor of Davao City.
22. The family of Respondent Rodrigo R. Duterte has
occupied the position of Mayor of Davao City for a total of 33 years in the
last 37 years, and has ruled Davao City CONTINUOUSLY in the last
years since 2001. Please see table below.
MAYOR of DAVAO CITY
YEAR
February 1988 - November 12, 1990
Rodrigo R. Duterte
Dominador B. Zuno (Acting
November 12, 1990 - January
Mayor)
11, 1991
Rodrigo R Duterte
January 11, 1991 - March 1998
Benjamin C. De Guzman (Acting March 19, 1998- May 30,
2001
Mayor)
Rodrigo R. Duterte
Sara Z. Duterte
Rodrigo R. Duterte Sara Z. Duterte
Sebastian Z. Duterte
June 30, 2001 - May 30, 2010
June 30, 2010 - May 30, 2013
June 30, 2013 - May 30, 2016
June 30, 2016-May 30, 2022 June 30, 2022 - Present
LO
23. Respondent RODRIGO and SEBASTIAN DUTERTE are father and son who are running in tandem for Mayor and Vice-Mayor of Davao City.
24. If they both win, there will be concentration of
political power in the hands of members of their family. There will monopoly of
pollical power in the hands of their family.
25.Is Respondent RODRIGO DUTERTE disqualified from
running for Mayor of Davao City, for being a member of a political dynasty,
since he is replacing his son for the position, and considering that he and his
family have CONTINUOUSLY occupied said position for the past 23 years since
2001, and for 33 years in the past 37 years?
II: THE CASE OF MATTHEW MARCOS MANOTOC
26. For the 2025 elections, respondent MATTHEW MARCOS
MANOTOC has filed his certificate of candidacy for Governor of the province of
Ilocos Norte.
27.Respondent Manotoc is the biological son of
Senator Maria Imelda Josefa Remedios "Imee" Romualdez Marcos, the
biological sister of incumbent President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr.
28. The family of Respondent Manotoc has occupied the
position of Governor of Ilocos Norte since 1971, and has held it CONTINUOUSLY
for the past 26 years, since 1998 when his uncle, President Ferdinand R. Marcos
Jr. was elected Governor. Please Table below.
GOVERNOR of ILOCOS NORTE
YEAR
Elizabeth Marcos Keon
1971-1983
Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr
1983-1986
Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr
1998-2007
Michael Marcos Keon
2007-2010
Maria Imelda Josefa "Imee" R.
2010-2019
Marcos
Matthew Marcos Manotoc
-
2019 Present
29. Is Respondent Matthew Marcos Manotoc disqualified to run for Governor Ilocos Norte, for being a member of a political dynasty, considering that he and his family have CONTINUOUSLY occupied said position for the past 26 years, since 1998?
III: THE CASE OF MARTIN GOMEZ ROMUALDEZ
30. Respondent MARTIN GOMEZ ROMUALDEZ has filed his
certificate of candidacy for District Representative of the First District of
Leyte.
31.His father, Benjamin Romualdez was the younger
brother of
Imelda Romualdez Marcos.
32. Respondent Romualdez's family has occupied the
position of District Representative of the First District of Leyte since 1995,
when his aunt Imelda R. Marcos was elected District Representative of the said
district. Respondent Martin and his wife have occupied said position
CONTINUOUSLY for the past 17 years, since 2007. Please see Table below.
REPRESENTATIVE, FIRST
DISTRICT, LEYTE
Imelda Romualdez Marcos
1995-1998
Alfred S. Romualdez (brother of 1998-2001
YEAR
Imelda)
Ted Failon
Remedios L. Petilla
Martin G. Romualdez
Yedda Marie Romualdez
Martin G. Romualdez
2001-2004
2004-2007
2007-2016
2016-2019
2019-Present
run for
33.Is Respondent Martin Romualdez disqualified to
Congressman or Representative of the First District
of Leyte, for being a member of a political dynasty, considering that he and
his wife have CONTINUOUSLY occupied said position for the past
years, since 2007?
17
IV: THE CASE OF CYNTHIA AGUILAR VILLAR
34. Respondent Cynthia Aguilar Villar has filed her
certificate of candidacy for District Representative of the lone district of
Las Pinas City, Metro Manila. She is replacing her daughter, Rep Camille A.
Villar, who will now run for the Senate to replace her mother, Respondent
Senator Cynthia Villar. Rep Camille hopes to join her brother in the Senate,
Senator Mark Villar.
35. Respondent Cynthia's family has CONTINUOUSLY
occupied the position of District Representative of the lone district of Las
Pinas for the past 26 years, since 1998 when her husband Manuel
"Manny" B. Villar was first elected Representative. But the family of
Respondent Cynthia, the Aguilar family, has ruled Las Pinas since 1964 when her
father became Mayor of the City. Her family, the Aguilar family, has ruled Las
Pinas continuously for the past 30 years, since 1995.
36. Please see Table below
REPRESENTATIVE, LONE DISTRICT, LAS PINAS
Manuel "Manny" Villar Cynthia Aguilar
Villar
Mark Aguilar Villar
Camille Aguilar Villar
YEAR
1998-2001
2001-2016
2016-2019
2019 Present
37.Is Respondent Cynthia disqualified to run for Congresswoman or Representative of the lone District of Las Pinas, for being a member of a political dynasty, since she and her family have CONTINUOUSLY occupied said position for the past 26 years, since 1998?
IV: THE CASE OF PETER C. CUA
38.Respondent Peter C. Cua is the incumbent
Vice-Governor of Catanduanes. His biological brother, Joseph C. Cua, is the
incumbent Governor.
39.Respondent Peter has filed his certificate of candidacy for Governor of Catanduanes, to replace his biological brother, Joseph C. Cua, the incumbent Governor, who has reached the maximum three (3) consecutive terms allowed under the Philippine Constitution. Joseph Cua is running for Mayor of Virac, Catanduanes.
40.Joseph Cua served as Governor of Catanduanes from
2007 to
2013, and from 2016 to 2025
41.Is Respondent Peter disqualified to run for
Governor of Catanduanes to succeed and replace his brother Joseph, the
incumbent Governor who has reached the maximum three (3) consecutive terms
allowed under Article X, Section 27 of the Philippine Constitution, for being a
member of a political dynasty, since he and his family have CONTINUOUSLY
occupied said position for the past nine (9) years, for a total of 15 years in
the last 18 years?
GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION
THE SPOUSE, CHILD, PARENT OR SIBLING OF A GRADUATING GOVERNOR OR MAYOR IS PROHIBITED AND DISQUALIFIED TO RUN FOR THE SAME POSITION TO REPLACE AND
SUCCEED
INCUMBENT BUT GRADUATING GOVERNOR OR MAYOR UNDER
ARTICLE X (LOCAL GOVERNMENT), SECTION 8, IN RELATION TO ARTICLE II, SECTION
PHILIPPINE
THE
26
OF
CONSTITUTION
THE
42.It was the clear intention of the framers of the
1987 Philippine Constitution for the prohibition against political dynasties,
as contained in Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, to
be included and considered AS ONE OF THE DISQUALIFICATIONS in running for any
elective public office.
43. This is clearly shown below, in the clarificatory statement of Constitutional Commissioner Chrisitan Monsod given during the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission on the inclusion of the prohibition against political dynasty in Article II Section 26 in the 1987 Constitution:
Mr. Monsod:
xxx
We have in this Constitution qualifications of those
who seek public office. We are adding in this section a disqualification to
those who may aspire after public office, and, in effect, amending the various
provisions in this Constitution which enumerate
the
qualifications and disqualifications of the law.2
(Underscoring Supplied)
44. Article X, Section 8 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution provides that "The term of office of elective local
officials... shall be three years and no such official shall serve for more
than three (3) consecutive terms.
45. It was the clear intention of the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution that when they adopted Article X, Section 8, they clearly wanted to prevent the incumbent but graduating local officials from transferring or passing on the elective local posts they occupy to the members of their family, meaning to their spouse, children, parents or siblings.
46. This is clearly shown below, in the deliberations
of the
Constitutional Commission specifically on Article X,
Section 7 on Local Governments, which were cited by the Supreme Court in the
case of LATASA VS COMELEC3:
As a rule, in a representative democracy, the people
should be allowed freely to choose those who will govern them.
2 Page 939. R.C.C. No. 90, Tuesday, September 23,
1986
3
G.R. No. 154829. December 10, 2003
Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution is an exception to this rule, in that it limits the range of choice of the people.
Section 8. The term of office of elective local
officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall
be three years and no such official shall serve for more than three consecutive
terms. xxx
XXX
The framers of the Constitution, by including this
exception, wanted to establish some safeguards against the excessive
accumulation of power as a result of consecutive terms. As Commissioner Blas
Ople stated during the deliberations:
x x x I think we want to prevent future situations where,
as a result of continuous service and frequent re-elections, officials from the
President down to the municipal mayor tend to develop a proprietary interest in
their positions and to accumulate these powers and perquisites that permit them
to stay on indefinitely or to transfer these posts to members of their families
in a subsequent election. x x x (Emphasis and Underscoring Supplied)
47. The framers of the Constitution clearly intended
to prevent the graduating local officials from transferring or passing on the
elective local posts they occupy to the members of their family.
48. In the case of LATASA VS COMELEC cited above, the
Supreme Court clearly stated the rationale for the three-term limit for all
elective local officials, which is to prevent the monopolization of political
power by a person or his/her family.
49. Article X, Section 8 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution is the anti-
dynasty provision on elective local officials.
50. The above provision should be read in relation to
Article II, Section 26 of the Philippine Constitution which states that
"The
State shall
law."
prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by
51. The present practice or norm today where
graduating governors or mayors make the members of their family run to replace
and succeed them is a clear circumvention of the constitutional provisions in
Article X, Section 8 in relation to Article II, Section 26.
52. The clear intention of the framers of the 1987
Philippine Constitution was to prevent the scenario where public offices are
being inherited by members of political families.
53. This is clearly shown in the clarificatory
statement of Constitutional Commissioner Jose Nolledo, chairman of the anti-
dynasty committee of the Constitutional Commission, given during the
deliberations on the anti-dynasty provision of the Constitution, to wit:
MR NOLLEDO. xxx
I am the author of this provision because I take into
consideration the political realities in the Philippines, where we have small
political kingdoms in different parts of the country. I am talking of family
dynasties. For example, we have dynasties in Luzon, in Visayas and in Mindanao.
In our Provisions on the Articles on the Executive
and the Legislative, we are allowing reelection. In the Philippines, I think it
is known to everyone that a person runs for governor; he becomes a governor for
one term; he is allowed two reelections under our concept. Then he runs for
reelection; he wins. The third time, he runs for reelection and he wins and he
is now prohibited from running again until a lapse of another election period.
What does he do? Because he is old already and decrepit, he asks his son to run
for governor.
In the meantime, he holds public office while the campaign is going on. He has control; he has already institutionalized himself. His son will inherit the position of governor, in effect, and then this will go to the grandson, et cetera. The others who do not have the political advantage in the sense that they have no control of government facilities will be denied the right to run for public office. Younger ones, perhaps more intelligent ones, the poorer ones, can no longer climb the political ladder because of political dynasty.
It seems to be that public office becomes inherited.
Our government becomes monarchial in character and no longer constitutional.
xxx4 (Underscoring Supplied)
54. The framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
clearly intended for the members of the family of the graduating incumbent
local officials like Governor and Mayor to be prohibited and disqualified from
inhering the elective posts from the incumbent.
55. Hence, the spouse, child, parent or sibling of a
graduating Governor or Mayor is PROHIBITED AND DISQUALIFIED to run for the same
position to replace and succeed the incumbent but graduating Governor or Mayor
under Article X (Local Government), Section 8, in relation to Article II,
Section 26 of the Philippine Constitution.
APPLICATION AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS
56. Respondent RODRIGO DUTERTE is disqualified from
running for Mayor of Davao City, for being a member of a political dynasty,
since he is replacing his son, Sebastian Duterte who is the incumbent Mayor,
and considering that he and his family have CONTINUOUSLY occupied said position
for the past 23 years since 2001, and for 33 years in the past 37 years.
4 Page 731. R.C.C. No 85. Wednesday, September 17,
1986
57. Respondent Matthew Marcos Manotoc is disqualified to run for Governor Ilocos Norte, for being a member of a political dynasty, since he inherited the position from his mother, Senator Imee Marcos, and considering that he and his family have CONTINUOUSLY occupied said position for the past 26 years,
since 1998.
58. Respondent Peter Cua, who is the incumbent
Vice-Governor of Catanduanes, is disqualified to run for Governor of
Catanduanes to succeed and replace his brother Joseph, the incumbent Governor
who has reached the maximum three (3) consecutive terms allowed under Article
X, Section 27 of the Philippine Constitution, for being a member of a political
dynasty, since he and his family have CONTINUOUSLY occupied said position for
the past nine (9) years, for a total of 15 years in the last 18 years.
II
THE SPOUSE, CHILD, PARENT OR SIBLING OF A GRADUATING
CONGRESSMAN OR DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE IS PROHIBITED AND DISQUALIFIED TO RUN
FOR THE SAME POSITION TO REPLACE AND SUCCEED THE
INCUMBENT
GRADUATING
BUT
CONGRESSMAN
OR
DISTRICT.
REPRESENTATIVE UNDER
ARTICLE
VI
SECOND PARAGRAPH IN
RELATION TO
(LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT), SECTION 7,
ARTICLE II, SECTION 26 OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
59. May a Congressman or District Representative, who
is graduating or finishing his/her third term in office, be replaced or
succeeded by a member of his immediate family, specifically by his spouse,
child, parent, or sibling?
60. All the arguments, pleadings, and explanations
stated above, are hereby repleaded in this section as far they are applicable
herein.
61. Under Article VI, Section 7, second paragraph of the Philippine
Constitution, it is provided that "No member of
the House of Representatives shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive
terms..."
62. The clear prohibition on political dynasty
against elective local
officials also applies to the members of Philippine
Congress.
63. This is clearly shown below, in the deliberations
of the Constitutional Commission specifically on Article X, Section 7 on Local
Governments, which were cited by the Supreme Court in the case of LATASA VS
COMELEC5:
Blas Ople:
X X X
I think we want to prevent future situations where,
as a result of continuous service and frequent re-elections, officials from the
President down to the municipal mayor tend to develop a proprietary interest in
their positions and to accumulate these powers and perquisites that permit them
to stay on
indefinitely or to transfer these posts to members of
their families in a subsequent
election. x x x (Emphasis and Underscoring Supplied)
64. The framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
clearly intended to prevent all graduating elective officials, including
District Representatives, from transferring or passing on the elective posts
they occupy to the members of their immediate family.
65. The framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
clearly intended for the members of the family of the graduating incumbent
elective officials like Congressmen or District Representatives to be
prohibited and disqualified from inhering the elective posts from the
incumbent.
66. Hence, the spouse, child, parent or sibling of a
graduating Congressman or District Representative is PROHIBITED AND
DISQUALIFIED to run for the same position to replace and succeed the incumbent
but graduating Congressman or District
5 G.R. No. 154829. December 10, 2003
Representative under Article VI (Legislative Department), Section 7, in relation to Article II, Section 26 of the Philippine Constitution.
APPLICATION AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS
67. Respondent Martin G. Romualdez is disqualified to
run for Congressman or Representative of the First District of Leyte, for being
a member of a political dynasty, considering that he and his wife have
CONTINUOUSLY occupied said position for the past 17 years, since 2007.
68. Respondent Cynthia A. Villar is disqualified to
run for Congresswoman or Representative of the lone District of Las Pinas, for
being a member of a political dynasty, since she is Villar as merely replacing
her daughter Rep Camille Congresswoman, and considering that she and her family
have CONTINUOUSLY occupied said position for the past 26 years,
since 1998.
III
ARTICLE II, SECTION 26 OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE
CONSTITUTION IS SELF- EXECUTING AGANST MEMBERS OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY OF THE
INCUMBERNTS. THIS WAS THE CLEAR INTENTION OF THE FRAMERS OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE
CONSTITUTION
69. Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution provides that "The State shall guarantee equal access to
opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be
defined by law".
70. The above Constitutional prohibition is
self-executing against the members of immediate family of the incumbent
elective official.
71. This was the clear intention of the framers of
the 1987 Philippine Constitution. They added the phrase "as maybe defined
by law"
only to give Congress the power to widen or expand its application.
72. The term "political dynasty", as used
in Article II Section 26, already includes the members of the immediate family
of the incumbent elective officials.
73.This is clearly shown in the deliberations of the
framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution on the anti-dynasty provision, as
shown below:
XXX
of
MR. SUAREZ: Just a point of clarification from the
distinguished proponent. May I just clear it up with Honorable Davide. There
might be some points inconsistency here because in the first sentence we are
saying that the State should give equal access to opportunities in order that
the people can render public service, but the last portion would prohibit in
the manner prescribed by law. Would this not be a limitation of that equal
access to opportunities?
MR. DAVIDE. No, Mr. Presiding Officer. On the
contrary the idea of eliminating political dynasties is really to see to it
that there will be greater opportunities to public service. We have to consider
the common good or the greater number of people who will be benefited. When
When we prohibit political dynasties, it is to open
up the opportunities to more and more people, otherwise it would be a monopoly
only of a very few.
MR. SUAREZ. In other words, what we are saying is we
are prohibiting the incumbents AND THEIR RELATIVES from aspiring for that same
position so that everybody will
have equal access to or opportunity for this position.
—
MR. DAVIDE. That is my perception, Mr. Presiding
Officer not only relatives aspiring for the same office. Probably, the law
the
may provide that during incumbency of an elective
official, relatives may not be allowed to run for a position within the same
political unit or to be appointed to any position within the same political
unit. I say the same political unit because necessarily we cannot prevent, for
instance, a son whose father is the governor of Metro Manila to run in
Davao." (Emphasis Supplied)
XXX
74. This is also shown clearly in the clarificatory
statement of Constitutional Commissioner Jose Nolledo, the principal sponsor of
the anti-political dynasty provision in the Constitution, to wit:
X X X X X That seems to me to be the meaning of
political dynasty, although Congress may still widen the meaning of the term.
In the case of the governor, Mr. Presiding Officer, if he has ran for two re-
elections and he decides that a close relative run for election for the same
position, the governor, who is now incumbent, must have built fortunes and even
private armies to assure the perpetuation through the election of the close relatives.
His built-in advantages over his opponents will not widen political
participation in an election..." (BERNAS, The Intent of the 1986
Constitution Writers, 1995, pp. 141- 150)
6 Page 955. R.C.C. No. 90, Tuesday, September 23,
1986
75.It must be stressed that the provision in Article II, Section 26 uses
the word "SHALL".
a. Meaning, the State already prohibits political
dynasties. Put another way, there's already a Constitutional Prohibition
against political dynasties.
b. There is no need for a legislation from Congress
to prohibit
political dynasties as there is already a
Constitutional Prohibition against political dynasties.
76. Equally important, the framers of the 1987
Philippine Constitution already made a clear definition of what a political
dynasty is.
77. This is clearly shown in the deliberations of the
members of the
Constitutional Commission, to wit:
XXX
MR. SUAREZ. In other words, what we are saying is we
are prohibiting the incumbents AND THEIR RELATIVES from aspiring for that same
position so that everybody will have equal access to or opportunity for this
position.
MR. DAVIDE. That is my perception, Mr. Presiding
Officer not only relatives aspiring for the same office. Probably, the law may
provide that during the incumbency of an elective official, relatives may not
be allowed to run for a position within the same political unit or to be
appointed to any position within the same political unit. I say the same
political unit because necessarily we cannot prevent, for instance, a son whose
father is the governor of Metro Manila to run in Davao.7 (Emphasis Supplied)
7 Page 955. R.C.C. No. 90, Tuesday, September 23,
1986
XXX
78. Constitutional Commissioner Jose Nolledo, the
principal sponsor of the anti-political dynasty provision in the Constitution,
made it very clear to the members of the Constitutional Commission as to what
he meant by political dynasties. He said:
.
.
•
-
S011
"JOSE NOLLEDO: And with this provision, Mr.
Presiding Officer, we do away with political monopoly as now appearing in many
parts of our country, Mr. Presiding Officer, we seem to approve of the practice
that public office is inherited (This) is designed to avoid circumvention of
the provision limiting reelection of public officers to give a chance to others
in running for public office... In the case of local government officials like
governors, for example, we allow them to have two reelections. If he is
reelected twice, he can no longer run for reelection in which case, he will ask
his close relative-a son, or a daughter or a brother or a sister to run for
public office under his patronage. And in this case, we circumvent the rule
against further reelection because it may also happen that his younger may run
for governor and he is still strong enough to exercise moral as well as
effective influence upon the son. And the son becomes a subaltern, subjecting
himself to the will of the father who has apparently retired. x x x x x That
seems to me to be the meaning of political dynasty, although Congress may still
widen the meaning of the term. In the case of the governor, Mr. Presiding
Officer, if he has ran for two re-elections and he decides that a close
relative run for election for the same position, the governor, who is now
incumbent, must have built fortunes and even private armies to assure the
perpetuation through the election of the close relatives. His built-in
advantages over his opponents will not widen an election..." political
participation in
8
(BERNAS, The Intent of the 1986
Constitution Writers, 1995, pp. 141-150)
79. The clause "as may be defined by law"
was not intended to nullify or frustrate the immediate implementation of the
constitutional prohibition against clear and obvious cases of political
dynasties.
80. Thus, it was the clear intention of the framers
of the 1987 Constitution that Article II, Section 26 will be a self-executing
provision against the members of immediate family of the incumbent elective
officials, or against clear and plain political dynasties.
81. In the case of Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS, the
Supreme Court
declared that:
"In self-executing constitutional provisions,
the legislature may still enact legislation to facilitate the exercise of
powers directly granted by the constitution, further the operation of such a
provision, prescribe a practice to be used for its enforcement, provide a
convenient remedy for the 01 the protection of the rights secured determination
thereof, or place reasonable safeguards around the exercise of the right. The
mere fact that legislation may supplement and add to or prescribe a penalty for
the violation of a self-executing constitutional provision does not render such
a provision ineffective in the absence of such legislation. The omission from a
constitution of any express provision for a remedy for enforcing a right or
liability is not necessarily an indication that it was not intended to be
self-executing. The rule is that a self- executing provision of the
constitution does not necessarily exhaust legislative power on the subject, but
any legislation must be in harmony with the constitution, further the exercise
of constitutional right and make it more available. Subsequent legislation
however does not
G.R. No. 122156
necessarily 111ean that the subject
constitutional provision is not, by itself, fully
enforceable. (Emphasis Supplied)
82. Evidently, the Constitutional prohibition against
the immediate family members of incumbent graduating elective official does not
need further legislation from Congress for them to be prohibited and
disqualified from running for the same positions.
IV
COMELEC HAS THE POWER TO IMPLEMENT THE
"SELF-EXECUTING" CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST THE IMMEDIATE
FAMILY MEMBERS
INCUMBENTS
OFFICIALS
OF
83. The Supreme Court en banc has reiterated the
long-standing rule that the presumption is that all provisions of the
Constitution are self-executing, and in case of doubt, the Constitution should
be considered self-executing rather than non-self-executing.
84. This was the ruling of the Supreme Court en banc
in Manila
Prince Hotel vs. GSIS (G.R. No. 122156, February 3,
1997).
85. Ten (10) years later, in 2007, the Supreme Court
en banc reiterated the same ruling in the case of Tondo Medical Center
Employees Association v. CA (GR No 167324; July 17, 2007), where the Supreme
Court ruled that "as a general rule, the provisions of the Constitution
are considered self-executing, and do not require future legislation for their
enforcement. For if they are not treated as self-executing, the mandate of the
fundamental law can be easily nullified by the inaction of Congress."
86.In Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, the Supreme Court
en banc
ruled as follows:
"As against constitutions of the past, modern constitutions
have been generally drafted upon a different principle and
22
have often become in effect extensive codes of laws
intended to operate directly upon the people in a manner similar to that of
statutory enactments, and the function of constitutional conventions has
evolved into one more like that of a legislative body. Hence, unless it is
expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a
constitutional mandate, the presumption ποτο is that all provisions of the
constitution are self- executing. If the constitutional provisions are treated
as requiring legislation instead of self- executing, the legislature would have
the power to ignore and practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental law.
This can be cataclysmic. That is why the prevailing view is, as it has always
been, that x x x in case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered
self-executing rather than non- self-executing.
(Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
87.In the same Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, the
Supreme Court en
banc also issued the following ruling:
-
"The executive department has a constitutional
duty to implement laws, including the Constitution, even before Congress acts
provided that there are discoverable legal standards for executive action. When
the executive acts, it must be guided by its own understanding of the
constitutional command and of applicable laws. The responsibility for reading
and understanding the Constitution and the laws is not the sole prerogative of
Congress. If it were, the executive would have to ask Congress, or perhaps the
Court, for an interpretation every time the executive is confronted by a
constitutional command. That is not how
23
constitutional government operates." (Emphasis
supplied)
88. The Supreme Court ruling above reminds the
Executive Department, including the Commission on Election (COMELEC) of the
following:
c. That it has the constitutional duty to implement
the
Constitution;
d. That it can do so even before Congress acts,
provided that there are "discoverable legal standards" for executive
action e. That it must be guided by its own understanding of the
constitutional command and of applicable laws
89. The COMELEC can use the following "discoverable
legal standards" in prohibiting and disqualifying the immediate members of
the family of incumbent elective officials, specifically the District
Representatives, Governors and Mayors, from running for the same elective
positions to replace or succeed their incumbent relatives;
f. The true and clear intent of the framers of the
1987 Philippine Constitution, as found in the records of their deliberations;
g. The Supreme Court, en banc, rulings in the cases
of Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS; Tondo Medical Center Employees Association v.
CA; and Latasa vs Comelec, as cited above.
90. Under the Philippine Constitution, specifically
in Article IX (C), Section 2 thereof, the COMELEC has the power, among others,
to "Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the
conduct of an election xxx"
91. Public office is a public trust. Public officers
and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity,
integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act patriotism
and justice xxx.?
with
92. Under such provisions, COMELEC has a clear
mandate and authority to implement constitutional provisions, including the
9 Article XI Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution
24
clear intention of the Constitution on the
prohibition of political dynasties. COMELEC can use its powers to disqualify
candidates who violate the principle of equal access to public service by
virtue of their family ties and ensuring that the elections are fair and free
from undue influence by political dynasties.
93. Thus, the COMELEC has the power to disqualify the
immediate family members of incumbent Mayors, Governors and District
Representatives from running for the same elective positions to replace or
succeed their incumbent relatives.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioners
respectfully pray for the following:
A) That they granted the privilege to present and
argue their petition and arguments orally before the Commission En Banc;
B) That after due deliberations, the following
respondents be declared as disqualified to run for the positions they indicated
in their respective Certificates of Candidacy:
1. Respondent RODRIGO R. DUTERTE, for Mayor of Davao
City; 2. Respondent MATTHEW MARCOS MANOTOC, for Governor
of Ilocos Norte;
3. Respondent MARTIN G. ROMUALDEZ, for
Representative,
First District, Leyte;
4. Respondent CYNTHIA A. VILLAR, for Representative,
Las
Pinas;
5. Respondent PETER C. CUA, for Goverrnor of
Catanduanes.
Similar disqualification should be made against all
other candidates who are similarly situated.
Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises,
are likewise prayed for.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Pasig City for Manila, 15 October 2024.
25
By:
ALEXANDER L.LACSON
Lawyer's Roll Nd. 40795
IBP Lifetime No. 011103/29 June 2012, QC
PTR No. AA 1651187, 01/04/24
CTC No. 10968832; 01-04-2024; Pasig City
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0029673
(Valid until April 14, 2025) Admitted to the Bar in
1996 Email: alexlacson12@gmail.com Office Address:
2303 23rd Floor, Tycoon Centre, Pearl Drive, Ortigas,
Pasig City Tel. No. 8470-1887/8470-2120
26
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
CITY OF
Quezon City
)
VERIFICATION &
CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, Alexander L. Lacson of legal age, Filipino
citizen, with postal address Unit 2303 23rd Floor, Tycoon Building, Pearl
Drive, Ortigas, Pasig City, after being duly sworn in accordance with law,
hereby depose and state that:
1. I am a Petitioner in this Petition.
2. I represent all other petitioners in this Petition
3. We have caused the preparation of the foregoing
Petition.
4. We have read and understood the contents of the
Petition and attest the factual allegations therein are true and correct based
on our personal knowledge, as well as on available authentic records.
5. We have not filed any other case with the same
facts and issues before any tribunal or quasi-judicial body in the Philippines.
6. We are executing this sworn statement in
compliance with Rule 7, Section 3 (b) and (c) of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of
Procedure.
at
ALEXANDER LLACSON
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this
OCT 1 5 2024
Quezon City affiant exhibiting to me his Driver's
License No. N02-93-225542 valid until 2032/01/05 issued at LTO with Agency Code
N34.
Doc. No.
Page No.
234; 48
Book No.
t
Series of 2024.
ATTY. GERALD CESAR G. CHAVEZ
NOTARY PUBLIC FOR QUEZON CITY
ADM MATTER NO. NP-331 (2024-2025)
Until December 31, 2025
19 Marcos St. Doña Faustina Subdivision, Brgy. San
Bartolome, Novaliches, Quezon City ATTORNEY'S ROLL No: 92012
PTR NO: 1703742; 01-08, 2024 Pasig City, 01-08-2024;
PPLM
27
COPY FURNISHED TO: (BY REGISTERED MAIL)
MR. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE Address: 458 Taal Road, Centra
Park Subd., Talomo Proper, 8000 Davao City
GOV. MATTHEW MARCOS
MANOTOC
Governor's Office, Provincial Capitol, Laoag City,
2900 Ilocos Norte
SPEAKER MARTIN GOMEZ
ROMUALDEZ
Office of the Speaker, House of Representatives,
Registry Receipt No.:
RM 983 639 6603 ZZ Post Office:
Ortigas Center pasig city Date: 10-17-2024
Registry Receipt No.:
RM 983 639 677
Post Office:
ZZ
Ortigas Center, Pasig City Date: 10-17-2024
Registry Receipt No.:
RM 983 639 685 ZZ Post Office:
Ortigas Center Pasig City
Batasan Compound, Batasan Hills, 1126 Date:
Ju-17-2024
Quezon City
SEN. CYNTHIA AGUILAR VILLAR Room 523 & 13, New
Wing, 5th Floor, GSIS Building,
Financial Center, Diokno Blvd., 1300 Pasay City
VICE-GOV PETER C. CUA
Registry Receipt No.:
RM 983 639 694 ZZ Post Office:
Ortigas Center pasig city Date: 10-17-2024
Registry Receipt No.:
Barangay San Roque, San Andres, 4810 RM 983 639 703
ZZ
Catanduanes
Post Office:
Ortigas Center pasig city
Date: 10-17-2024/
28
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
Quezon City
) S.S.
AFFIDAVIT OF EXPLANATION
I, Alexander L. Lacson, of legal age, Filipino
citizen, with postal address Unit 2303 23rd Floor, Tycoon Building, Pearl
Drive, Ortigas, Pasig City, after being duly sworn in accordance with law,
hereby depose and state that:
7. I am a Petitioner in this Petition for
Disqualification.
8. That copies of the Petition for Disqualification
will be served upon respondent parties by registered mail because of the
distance involved and the circumstances of the currently held elective
positions of some respondents.
ALEXANDER L. LACSON Affiant
at
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this
OCT 1 5 2024 Quezon City affiant exhibiting to me his
Driver's License No. N02-93-225542 valid until 2032/01/05 issued at LTO with Agency
Code
N34.
Doc. No. 235
Page No.
43
Book No.
I
Series of 2024.
Otel
ATTY. GERALD CESAR G. CHAVEZ
NOTARY PUBLIC FOR QUEZON CITY ADM MATTER NO. NP-331
(2024-2025) Until December 31, 2025
19 Marcos St. Doña Faustina Subdivision, Brgy. San
Bartolome, Novaliches, Quezon City
ATTORNEY'S ROLL No: 92012
PTR NO: 1703742; 01-08, 2024 Pasig City, 01-08-2024;
PPLM
29
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
Pasig City
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY REGISTRY MAIL
(EXPLANATION WHY SERVICE WAS NOT MADE PERSONALLY)
I, GEREM M. TAGUFA, Filipino, of legal age, with
office address at Unit 2303 23rd Floor, Tycoon Building, Pearl Drive, Ortigas,
Pasig City, after being duly sworn to, hereby depose and state:
1) I work as Liaison Officer of Atty Alexander
Lacson.
2) I was tasked to furnish a copy of the Petition for
Disqualification vs. Rodrigo Duterte, et. Al to all the named respondents by
registry mail, considering the distance of the addresses of the respondents
from our law office in Ortigas, Pasig City. This pursuant to the provisions of
Section 1 Rule 23 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure.
3) In compliance therewith, I have furnished a copy
of the said Petition for Disqualification to each of all the herein
respondents. As proof thereof, I hereby attach the Registry Receipts as
follows:
MR. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE
Address: 458 Taal Road, Centra Park
Subd., Talomo Proper, 8000 Davao City
Registry Receipt No.: RM 983 639 663 ZZ
Post Office:
Ortigas
Center Pasig City
Date: 10-17-2024
Registry Receipt No.:
GOV. MATTHEW MARCOS
MANOTOC
Governor's Office, Provincial Capitol, Laoag City,
2900 Ilocos Norte
SPEAKER MARTIN GOMEZ
ROMUALDEZ
Office of the Speaker, House of Representatives,
Batasan Compound, Batasan Hills, 1126 Quezon City
RM 983
Post Office:
639 677 ZZ
Ortigas Center Pasig City 10-17-2024
Date:
Registry Receipt No.: RM 183 639 GK ZZ
Post Office:
Ortigas
Date:
Center Pasig City рау сом
10-17-2024
SEN. CYNTHIA AGUILAR
VILLAR
Registry Receipt No.: RM 983 639 694 ZZ
Room 523 & 13, New Wing, 5th Floor, Post Office:
GSIS Building,
Ortigas
Financial Center, Diokno Blvd., 1300
Date:
Pasay City
Pasig City
Centar
10-17-2024
VICE-GOV PETER C. CUA
Barangay San Roque, San Andres,
4810 Catanduanes
Registry Receipt No.: RM 983 639 703 ZZ
Post Office:
Ortigas
Centar Pasig aty
Date: 10-17-2024
4) I execute this Affidavit of Service to set forth
the truth of the
foregoing matters and for any other lawful matter
this may serve.
GEREM M. TAGUFA Affiant
OCT 17, 2024
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
in
Pasig City
affiant exhibiting to me his Driver's License
No. N25-09-011612 valid until 2032/12/05
Doc. No. 376
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2024
ATTY. JOMAR M. HIZOLA
CHOTARY PUBLIC
Cities of Pasig, San Juan and Pateros, Metro Manila
21k Strata 100 Blddg., Don F. Ortigas St., Pasig City Appointment No. 150;
Until Dec. 31, 2024 SC. Roll No. 81022/05-21-2022 IBP No. 423716/01/16/2024;
IBP Manila 1 PTR No. 1716816/01/16/2024; Pasig City MCLE No. VIII-0006903
02/20/2024-04/14/2028
No comments:
Post a Comment