SC remands Pamatong case to Comelec

With less than a month to go before the May 10 elections, the Supreme Court has remanded the case of obscure presidential candidate lawyer Elly Pamatong to the Commission on Elections (Comelec).

The Supreme Court ordered the poll body to conduct further hearings on whether or not Pamatong is a nuisance candidate and should be disqualified from the presidential race.

In a 15-page resolution penned by Justice Dante Tinga, the Supreme Court en banc ordered the Comelec to complete its reception of evidence connected with the case and report its findings to the SC immediately.

The decision, dated April 13, said that determining whether or not a candidate should be considered a nuisance is a question of both fact and law and that returning the Pamatong case to the Comelec is the proper thing to do.

In February, the Comelec declared Pamatong and 35 others nuisance candidates for being incapable of mounting a national campaign. Also, they were neither nominated nor supported by a registered political party with a national constituency.

In his petition for certiorari, Pamatong sought to reverse the Comelec ruling, saying it violated his right to "equal opportunities for public service" under Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution.

Pamatong said the Comelec erred in disqualifying him, claiming that he was the most qualified of all the presidential candidates and could launch a national and international campaign through numerous organizations he claims to lead.

He also claimed he has established a network in his law practice that extends to many other countries and that he had prepared a platform of government.

The SC said Pamatong’s arguments supporting his claim he was denied equal access to the opportunity to enter public service was misplaced, since the State has the right to impose limitations to ensure orderly and credible elections.

It also said the Comelec may give due course to or cancel his certificate of candidacy.

However, the court said the assailed resolutions of the Comelec "do not direct the Court to the evidence which it considered in determining that (Pamatong) was a nuisance candidate."

The lack of evidence in the Comelec ruling, according to the Supreme Court, precludes it from reviewing the case to determine whether or not the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying (Pamatong), since such a review would necessarily take into account the matters which the Comelec considered in arriving at its decisions."

The court noted that Pamatong submitted photocopied documents as proof of his credentials as an eligible candidate for president.

Since the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, it cannot accept these reproductions as evidence. It said neither the Comelec nor the Solicitor-General have appended any document to their respective comments on Pamatong’s petition, the court said.

"A word of caution is in order," the court added. "What is at stake is (Pamatong’s) aspiration and offer to serve in the government. It deserves not a cursory treatment, but a hearing which conforms to the requirements of due process."

With regards to Pamatong’s attacks on the validity of the Comelec certificate of candidacy, the SC ruled that the form strictly complies with Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code, which specifically states what a COC should contain.

Pamatong contends that the COC should ask for a candidate’s a bio-data and program of government.