Post Top Ad

Your Ad Spot

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Excerpts of COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 8713 Promulgated December 15,2009

Ito ang resolusyon ng COMELEC na nagdisqulify kay Nicanor "Nick" Perlas bilang kandidato sa pagka presidente.  Para sa akin ay walang legal na basehan para madisqualify si Nick Perlas.  Ang naging pahayag nila na "walang pera" ang dahilan ay nagbibigay ba ng kautusan na dapat ay mayayaman lamang ang kakandidato sa ating bansa?  Isa itong malaking kalokohan.

Bago natin basahin ang kakatwang desisyong ito ay nagpapahayag ako sa panawagan ni Nex Agustin at ng iba pa upang tutulan ang bagay na ito...

Mga kaPerlas!

Attached is the pertinent details of the Comelec resolution.

The Comelec has declared Nick as "nuisance candidate" and you will find that he does not fit the definition stated in the constitutionv -- and that the Comelec is really committing a huge transgression to the Filipino people by deciding for US! They are deciding for us that New Politics cannot happen, and that people of Integrity cannot lead this country --instead convicted felons like Erap, and corrupt officials have a right to rule over us...

Kung hahayaan natin ang Comelec na magkaroon ng ganitong mga klaseng desisyon, e di paano na sa elekyon mismo??? Mas marami pa silang mga kalokohan na gagawin! Hindi tayo dapat magpaloko. Kailangan nating kumilos!

Bukas ang simula ng ating pagkilos, samahan natin si Nick sa Comelec!

And standby for more activities in the coming days to show our protest!

PAGE 17…

On the other hand, despite having possessed the requirements provided under law, the candidates' capacity to wage a national campaign and the determination of their true intent in filing the certificates of candidacy is another matter.

The Constitution provides that the State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public office; this privelege is subject however, to limitations. Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code as amended by Section 5 of R.A. 6646, gave this Commission the power to motu proprio cancel or deny due course to a certificate of candidacy of registered candidates. It provides, that:

PAGE 18…

Nuisance candidates. - The Commission may, motu proprio or upon a verified petition of an interested party, refuses to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if it shown that said certificate has been filed to put the election process in mockery or disrespute or to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate.”

A nuisance candidate therefore is one whose certificate of candidacy is presented and filed to cause confusion among the electorate by the similarity of names of the registered candidate or by other names which demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the will of the electorate.

More recently in the case of Pamatong vs. COMELEC the Supreme Court said that “the rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates and the disqualific; ation of candidates who have not evinced a bona fide intention to run for office is easy to divine. The State has a compelling interest to ensure that its electoral exercises are rational, objective, and orderly. Towards this end, the state takes into account the practical considerations in conducting elections. Inevitably, the greater the number of candidates, the greater the opportunities for logistical confusion, not the mention the increased allocation of time and resources in preparation for the election. These practical difficulties should, of course, never exempt the State from the conduct of a mandated electoral exercise. At the same time, remedial actions should be available to alleviate these logistical hardships, whenever necessart and proper.”

Taking all these into account, the Commission has the sole mandate to administer election laws and conduct elections; and with it is bestowed considerable latitude to adopt rules and regulations that will ensure orderly elections.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Law Department hereby RECOMMENDS as follows:

I. TO CANCEL/DENY DUE COURSE to the certificates of candidacy for president of the following persons:

PAGE 20…



This resolution is without prejudice to the outcome of the disqualification cases pending before this Commission.

Pursuant to Sec. 5(d) of Resolution 8696, those who are adversely affected by this resolution are hereby given a period of five (5) days from the date of publication hereof to file personally or through authorized representatiove a verified opposition in ten (10) legible copies with the Office of the Clerk of the Commission, this Commission, if they so desire.

PAGE 32…

The Clerk of the Commission shall assign a docket number which must be consecutive according to the order of receipt and must bear the year and prefixed as SPA (MP) and shall set the opposition for hearing within two (2) days from receipt thereof.

Let the Education and Information Department cause the immediate publication of this resolution in two (2) newspapers of general circulation. The Law Department is hereby directed to furnish the candidates herein a copy of this resolution with dispatch.









Cc: Chairman
All Commissioners
Executive Director
Deputy Executive Director for Operations
Education and Information Department
Law Department

Also Visit My Other Blogs
| Newz Around Us | Ordinary People, Ordinary Day |

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post Top Ad

Your Ad Spot