|
By William B. Depasupil, Reporter
THE Commission on Elections (Comelec) is
empowered by the Constitution to prosecute violators of elections
laws and has the right to determine under which laws prosecution
will be pursued, based on an en banc decision written by Justice
Minita Chico-Nazario.
The Supreme Court (SC) stressed this ruling in
its 30-page decision upholding Comelec’s action to file charges
against the couple Carlos and Erlinda Romualdez for violation of
Republic Act (RA) 8189, or the Voter’s Registration Act of 1996.
“The courts cannot dictate nor usurp its
[Comelec’s] discretionary powers,” said the High Court in
dismissing the petition of the Romualdezes, and affirming
Comelec’s resolution to file charges against the couple.
The petitioners applied for registration as new
voters with the office of the election officer of Burauen, Leyte
even while they were also registered voters of Precinct No. 4419-A
of Barangay Bagong Lipunan of Crame, District IV, Quezon City.
Petitioners also left blank the space in the
application form requiring them to state their “period of
residence” in Burauen.
The court ruled that in Section 10 (g) and (j)
of RA 8189, an application for registration as a voter shall contain
the periods of residence in the Philippines, the place of
registration, and a statement that the applicant is not a registered
voter of any precinct, respectively.
Section. 45 (j), on the other hand, provides
that violation of any of the provisions of RA 8189 shall be
considered an election offense.
In their petition, the Romualdezes pointed out
to the High Tribunal that Section 45 (j) should instead be declared
as void for vagueness.
But the SC en banc set aside the couple’s
argument, saying that “the language of Section 45 (j) is
precise.”
“The challenged provision renders itself to no
other interpretation. A reading of the challenged provision involves
no guesswork. We do not see herein an uncertainty that makes the
same vague. Notably, herein petitioners do not cite a word in the
challenged provision, the import or meaning of which they do not
understand,” said the decision.
The Court cited its 2004 ruling in Romualdez v.
Sandiganbayan and its 2006 ruling in David v. Arroyo holding that an
“on-its-face” invalidation of criminal statutes “is not
appropriate,” unlike in free speech cases.
In its decision, the Court stated an
“‘on-its-face’ invalidation would result in a mass acquittal
of parties whose cases may not have even reached the courts. Such
invalidation would constitute a departure from the usual requirement
of ‘actual case or controversy’ and permit decisions to be made
in a sterile, abstract context having no factual concreteness.”
Noting that the information charging the
petitioners had already been filed with the regional trial court,
the SC held that the case against the Romualdezes must be allowed to
take its due course.
Concurring with Nazario are Justices Leonardo
Quisumbing, Consuelo Yńares Santiago, Renato Corona, Adolfo Azcuna,
Presbitero Velasco, Jr., Ruben Reyes, Teresita Leonardo de Castro,
and Arturo Brion.
Justices Antonio Carpio and Dante Tinga wrote
separate dissenting opinions to grant the petition.
Carpio opined that the inapplicability of the
overbreadth and vagueness doctrines to penal statutes applies only
insofar as these doctrines are used to mount “facial” challenges
to penal statutes not involving free speech, while the present
petition involves an “as applied” challenge to the
constitutionality of Section 45 (j) of RA 8189.
According to Carpio, the “substantial
vagueness” of the said provision, which does not specify what
provisions of RA 8189, if violated, carry a penal sanction, violates
the due process clause of the Constitution.
For his part, Tinga opined that the practical
value of the facial invalidation of Section 45 (j) of RA 8189, which
criminalizes the violation of Section 10 and the violation of any
and all other provisions of RA 8189, as an election offense on the
ground of vagueness “cannot be discounted.”
Chief Justice Reynato Puno joined Tinga’s
dissent, while Justices Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Conchita Carpio
Morales, and Antonio Eduardo Nachura joined the dissents of both
Carpio and Tinga.
|
