Case Digest: Pamatong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004
Political Law Review | Self-executing provisions
Rev. Elly Velez Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy for President on December 17, 2003.
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) refused to give due course to his candidacy (Resolution No. 6558) and, along with 35 others, declared him a nuisance candidate, reasoning that he could not wage a national campaign or was not supported by a registered political party with national constituency.
He then filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, claiming that COMELEC’s action violated his “equal access to opportunities for public service” under Section 26, Article II of the Constitution.
Section 26 is not self-executing.
The constitutional guarantee of "equal access to opportunities for public service" is not a right, but a privilege subject to legislative or administrative regulation.
The provision is part of the “Declaration of Principles and State Policies” and does not confer enforceable rights. It merely serves as a guideline for legislative or executive action. They do not create rights that courts can enforce, and failure to comply does not give rise to a cause of action.
Since the Court lacked sufficient evidence to assess whether Pamatong was properly classified as a nuisance candidate, it remanded the case to COMELEC for further proceedings.