MAINTAINING its vote of 9-6, the Supreme Court has ruled with finality declaring presidential frontrunner Senator Grace Poe as qualified to run for president in the May 9 general elections.
In a three-page resolution, the SC denied the motions for reconsiderations filed by the Commission on Elections and four other private respondents seeking a reversal of its March 8, 2016 decision because the appellants did not present new arguments.
Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, along with Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Jose Perez, Jose Mendoza, Marvic Leonen, Francis Jardeleza and Alfredo Caguioa voted to sustain the high court’s ruling finding grave abuse of discretion in Comelec decision to disqualify Poe on ground of material misrepresentations in her Certificate of Candidacy.
The six magistrates who dissented in the dismissal of the motions for reconsideration and earlier voted to disqualify Poe include Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo Brion, Mariano del Castillo, Estela Perlas Bernabe and Bienvenido Reyes.
Bernabe was not around during the vote since she went on official leave, “but left her vote in this case and maintained her dissent.”
“No further pleadings or motions will be entertained. Let entry of judgment be made in due course,” the full court resolution stated.
While its rare for magistrates to attach their concurring and dissenting opinions in minute resolution, Chief Justice Sereno and several justices did so to explain their votes to deny the motion for reconsideration of its March 8 decision.
“The minute resolution that denies the motions for reconsideration accurately reflects the understanding of this Court—that the motions do not raise any new substantial argument, and that all the issues that the motions raised have already been passed upon in the 8 March 2016 decision,” Sereno said, in her 28-page concurring opinion.
The SC already resolved to deny the motion for reconsideration during its en banc session on Tuesday, but it opted to delay the release of the resolution until after all the concurring and dissenting opinions are submitted.
“Nevertheless, due to the strong feelings expressed by some of our dissenting colleagues, the Court decided to delay the release of the resolution dismissing with finality the Motions for Reconsideration and to await submission of their dissents. Some of them may believe that a minute resolution will not do justice to the motions, but that is their view, and that view remains a dissenting view,” Sereno stressed.
“The candidates must be allowed to move on; the electorate must no longer be distracted by the skirmishes before this Court. It serves no good purpose for baseless howls of protest to amplify today’s ambient noise,” she said.
“No one is benefited except those who want to ‘game’ judicial processes for political ends. The sovereign choice on who will be the next president of the Philippines must be respected by this Court. Only after this choice has been made may we potentially step in. Needless to say, the expression of this electoral choice would necessarily affect how this Court will decide the issues brought before it. That this is the reality designed by the Constitution itself should have been by now accepted by all mature lawyers and students of the Constitution,” Sereno added.
In their separate concurring opinions, Associate Justices Marvic Leonen and Diosdado Peralta said under the Constitution, particularly Article IX-C, Section 2 (2), Comelec can only exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over elective positions, excluding President and Vice President.
Peralta argued that determining the qualifications of a President and Vice President is with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal.
“I opted to join Justice Caguioa in his view that a more thorough discussion of and ruling on Poe’s qualifications, specifically as to her natural-born citizenship, as well as her 10-year residency, are premature, the same being cognizable only after she had been proclaimed as winner of the presidential elections and through a petition filed in the PET, and not the Comelec, with the precise purpose of contesting what she had stated as her qualifications,” Peralta pointed out.
Leonen said the basic issue on the consolidated petitions filed by Poe is only on whether Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the cancellation of her COC.
“The basic issues borne by the consolidated Petitions pertained to the Commission on Elections’ grave abuse of discretion in canceling petitioner’s Certificate of Candidacy for President in the May 9, 2016 elections. This overarching issue entailed an examination of the extent of the Commission on Elections’ jurisdiction and competence in petitions to deny due course to or to cancel certificates of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. Related to this was the matter of whether a candidate’s deliberate intent to deceive is a necessary element for the cancellation of his or her certificate of candidacy,” Leonen stressed.
Leonen also debunked pronouncement that their ruling could lead to “chaos and anarchy.”
“To predict ‘chaos and anarchy’ as the Commission on Elections does in its Motion for Reconsideration, therefore, is to caricature and simplify the extended opinions expressed by the Justices of this Court who did not agree with the Commission,” Leonen emphasized.
“Worse, the evil that the Constitution sought to avoid by not endowing it with unbridled power to determine the qualification of a candidate has come to pass. It is not unreasonable to fear that the Commission is now partial against a candidate for the elections for President. Its actuations can easily be misinterpreted as participating in the partisan voices of those who are supporting a different candidate for the elections,” he said.
According to him, the SC is transparent in its decision, the reason for a more than 600 pages of decision and opinion.
“In deciding these consolidated Petitions, we have endeavored to be transparent and legible because we were all aware of the possible repercussions of our Decision. The lengthy opinions were, to my mind, a tribute to our strong fighting faith that our People can empower themselves by taking the time to read and analyze the various reasons why each of us came to our Decision. After all, a critical and informed view is the mark of an empowered sovereign,” Leonen said.