Irregular but valid

Since December 3, 1985 when the Omnibus Election Code was enacted, the playing field of candidates vying for elective positions had been a little bit more level because of Sections 66 and 67.Section 66 considered appointive officials ipso facto resigned from their offices upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy. Section 67 on the other hand considered any elective official, whether national or local, running for any office other than the one he is holding, except for President and Vice President, ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy. Under this set-up, candidates coming from the private sector were more or less on equal footing with candidates holding public office whether appointive or elective because upon filing their certificates of candidacy, all of them are private individuals already.

But on February 12, 2001, the playing field had been re-configured and became lop-sided again when President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed Republic Act No. 9006 into law. R.A. 9006 otherwise known as “An Act to Enhance the Holding of Free, Orderly, Honest, Peaceful and Credible Elections through Fair Election Practices” primarily deals with the lifting of the ban on the use of media for election propaganda and the elimination of unfair election practices. Section 14 of said law however also repealed Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code so that effective February 12, 2001 elective officials who run for office other than the ones they are holding are no longer considered ipso facto resigned from their posts upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy. They continue in public office even as they campaign for reelection or election to another elective position.

Thus in the 2001 and subsequent elections thereafter, members of the House of Representatives who run for a seat in the Senate continue to be Congressmen even upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy. They are the ones who benefitted most from the law they passed. Also because of this Section 14, R.A. 9006, an incumbent president like GMA will not be considered ipso facto resigned from her position upon the filing the certificate of her candidacy should she still decide to run for another office upon expiration of her term; such as member of the Lower House representing the 2nd district of Pampanga now being bruited about as the “clamor” of the constituents.

Typical of the many other moves taken by our politicians now in power, Section 14 became a part of R.A. 9006 in a highly questionable manner because it was attended with some irregularity and mystery. Tracing its legislative history, the Supreme Court in Farinas vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. 147382, and Salapuddin vs. COMELEC, December 10, 2003, found that said R.A. was a consolidation of conflicting bills originating in the Lower House and the Senate. To reconcile the conflicting bills, a Bicameral Conference Committee (BCC) was formed composed of 8 Senators and 16 Congressmen.

On November 29, 2000, the BCC submitted its report signed by its members recommending the approval of the bill as reconciled. The reconciled bill did not contain Section 14 yet. But during the plenary session of the Lower House for the approval of the reconciled bill on February 5, 2001, then Rep. Jacinto V. Paras proposed an amendment to the BCC report. Rep. Didagen Dilangalen however pointed out that the House could no longer submit an amendment thereto. So Rep. Sergio A.F. Apostol moved that the House return the report to the BCC in view of the proposed amendment. Despite Dilangalen’s objection, majority of the House members by viva voce voting approved the return of the report to the BCC for proper action.

Thus the House elected anew the same members to the BCC. But for unclear reasons another set of nominees were named to the BCC upon motion of Rep. Ignacio R. Bunye. Then two days later, or on February 7, 2001, Bunye moved that the House consider the BCC Report anew. But Dilangalen again objected and pointed out that the report had been recommitted to the BCC. This time the Chair responded and told the House that the BCC report was already the new one and was the result of the reconvening of the BCC. When Dilangalen asked for time to examine the new report, the House, upon Apostol’s motion deferred its approval until the other members were given a copy thereof.

But after taking up other pending matters, the House still proceeded to approve the supposedly new BCC report on the conflicting provisions of the two bills, with a vote of 125 to 3 and no abstention, despite Dilangalen’s observation that the procedure was irregular since no Senator signed the new BCC report. On the same day, the Senate likewise approved the BCC report on the contrasting provisions of the Senate and House bills. Thus R.A. 9006 with the said Section 14 was signed into law by President Arroyo, five days later or on February 12, 2001.

Congressmen Farinas, Garcia, Escudero, Aquino and Salapuddin questioned the validity of R.A. 9006 particularly the manner in which it was passed, how Section 14 was incorporated therein, and the irregularity in the BCC reports. But the SC could only say and rightly so, that it “finds no reason to deviate from the salutary rule” that “where irregularities mostly involve the internal rules of Congress, it is not “the proper forum” because the enforcement of these rules are “merely procedural” and it has “no concern” with their “observance”.

This is a typical example of how Congress and the Executive operate. They can surreptitiously manipulate and go around their own rules to advance their own selfish interests and find nothing wrong with them no matter how improper and irregular they are. As long as they remain in power, change is not possible. Abolishing the bicameral Congress and changing the presidential form of government may be necessary. But that is a long term solution that calls for a charter change that is too late now.