Filtered By: Topstories
News

SC asked to reverse ruling on appointive officials


Senator Manuel “Mar" Roxas II on Monday asked the Supreme Court to reverse its earlier ruling allowing appointed officials seeking elective posts to retain their government positions after formalizing their candidacy. In his 26-page motion to intervene, Roxas said the ruling encourages these officials to violate the Constitution. “In allowing public appointive officials to engage in partisan political activity, the Honorable Court’s 01 December 2009 decision effectively encourages these officials to violate the prohibition expressed in [the Constitution]," he said. Section 2(4), Article IX-B of the Charter states that no officer or employee in the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any electioneering or partisan political campaign. Roxas, a vice presidential aspirant in the 2010 elections, is seeking to intervene in the suit filed by election lawyer Romulo Macalintal in behalf of his clients, Environment Undersecretary Eleazar Quinto and Land Management Bureau director Gerino Tolentino. Partisan political activity Roxas pointed out that the filing of certificate of candidacy is considered a partisan political activity. He accused the high court of encroaching the duties of the legislative branch by virtually repealing what is prescribed in the law. Republic Act No. 9639 or the Poll Automation Act states that “any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the armed forces, and officers, and employees in government-owned or-controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his or her office and must vacate the same at the start of the day of the filing of his/her certificate of candidacy." The same provision was repeated in Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code. Voting 8-6, the SC struck down for being unconstitutional the two provisions. Abuse of power Roxas warned that government officials holding appointive posts could use their authority and access to government funds in preparing for their campaign. The high court's decision was earlier criticized by political analyst Benito Lim, who said the ruling would be disadvantageous to the contenders who are not in powerful positions. Even Chief Justice Reynato Puno offered a dissenting opinion on the ruling favored by eight of the 15 high tribunal justices. Puno cited the “probable harm to society in permitting incumbent appointive officials to remain in office even as they actively pursue elective posts." “The country cannot afford an election which will be perceived as neither free nor fair. It is the bounden duty of this Court to protect the integrity of our electoral process from any suspicion of partisan bias," he said. - KBK, GMANews.TV

LOADING CONTENT