Bare the List; Resolution

In the consolidated cases of BA-RA 7941 v. Comelec, GR No. 177271 and Rosales v. Comelec, GR No. 177314, the Supreme Court (see Jay B. Rempillo, SC Orders Comelec to Disclose Party-list Nominees’ Names, Court News Flash May 2007, May 3, 2007) resolved the issue regarding the release of the names of part-list nominees.

In a 15-page unanimous decision, the Court En Banc said that the prohibition imposed on the COMELEC under section 7 of RA 7941 (Party-list System Act) is limited in scope and duration as it extends only to the certified list which the same provision requires to be posted in the polling places on election day. It further said that to stretch the coverage of the prohibition to the absolute is to read into the law something that is not intended.

The Court followed Fr. Bernas' arguments (see previous blog) regarding constitutinal right to information. It held tat “In all, we agree with the petitioners that respondent Comelec has a constitutional duty to disclose and release the names of the nominess of the party-list groups.”

The Court cited section 7, Article III of the Constitution (the right of people to information on matters of public concern) and section 28, Article II of the Constitution (the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest) as bases in ordering the poll body to divulge the said names.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Alternative to Oposa

I do not mean to suggest that the Philippine Supreme Court has abandoned the environment. Sometimes the solutions to our problems need not be remedies that straddle generations or excite international attention. There is still one alternative that the Supreme Court has preserved: local governments. Local governments in the Philippines are not all allies of the environment. Too many local officials equate economic development with large-scale resource extraction activities such as mining and logging. But when cases reach the Supreme Court, the Court has been remarkably supportive of local governments and community efforts to protect the environment. Two decisions of the Court come to mind. The first is Tano v Socrates (G.R. No. 110249, August 21, 1997). In that case the Supreme Court upheld the power of the local governments to enact laws to protect the environment pursuant to the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code of 1991. The Court pointed out that the Code seeks “to
Read more

Local government avalanche is Congress' fault

A recent Newsbreak report, GMA Creating Too Many LGUs , by Miriam Grace Go (August 22, 2007), unfairly blames President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for the increase in the number of local government units in the Philippines. This increase, particularly in the case of cities has been going on ever since the Local Government Code of 1991 took effect. It is encouraged by two features of the Code: (a) the formula for the distribution of the internal revenue allotment that favors cities, and (b) the relative ease in making cities. Politicians determined to increase the financial resources of their governments have been campaigning to upgrade into cities ever since they discovered these weaknesses in the Code. In 1986, there were 73 provinces, 60 cities, and 1,530 municipalities in the country. Just before the Estrada administration collapsed, there were already 110 cities. On March 5, 2001, less than two months into office, President Arroyo signed 14 bills on the conversion of municipalities i
Read more

Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. City of Lapu-Lapu, et al., G.R. No. 181756, June 15, 2015.

The Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority is an instrumentality of the government; thus, its properties actually, solely and exclusively used for public purposes, consisting of the airport terminal building, airfield, runway, taxiway and the lots on which they are situated, are not subject to real property tax and respondent City is not justified in collecting taxes from petitioner over said properties. [1] MCIAA is vested with corporate powers but it is not a stock or non-stock corporation, which is a necessary condition before an agency or instrumentality is deemed a government-owned or controlled corporation. Like MIAA, petitioner MCIAA has capital under its charter but it is not divided into shares of stock. [2] [1] Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. City of Lapu-Lapu, et al. , G.R. No. 181756, June 15, 2015. [2] Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. City of Lapu-Lapu, et al. , G.R. No. 181756, June 15, 2015.
Read more