G.R. 147387 December
10 2003 [En Banc]
FACTS:
SEC. 67 of the
Omnibus Election Code reads: Candidates holding elective
office. – Any elective official, whether national or local, running for any
office other than the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity, except
for President and Vice-President, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from
his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
Petitioners alleged
that Section 14 of RA 9006 entitled "An Act to Enhance the Holding of
Free, Orderly, Honest, Peaceful and Credible Elections through Fair Elections
Practices, insofar as it repeals Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, is
unconstitutional for being in violation of Section 26(1) of the Article VI of
the Constitution, requiring every law to have only one subject which should be
in expressed in its title.
The inclusion of Sec
14 repealing Sec 67 of the Omnibus Election Code in RA 9006 constitutes a
proscribed rider. The Sec 14 of RA 9006 primarily deals with the lifting of the
ban on the use of media for election propaganda and the elimination of unfair
election practices. Sec 67 of the OEC imposes a limitation of officials who run
for office other than the one they are holding in a permanent capacity by considering
them as ipso facto resigned therefrom upon filing of the certificate of
candidacy. The repeal of Sec 67 of the OEC is thus not embraced in the title,
nor germane to the subject matter of RA 9006.
ISSUE:
Whether or not
Section 14 of RA 9006 is a rider.
RULING:
No. The Court is
convinced that the title and the objectives of RA 9006 are comprehensive enough
to include the repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code within its
contemplation. To require that the said repeal of Section 67 of the Code be
expressed in the title is to insist that the title be a complete index of its
content. The purported dissimilarity of Section 67 of the Code and the Section
14 of the RA 9006 does not violate "one subject-one title rule." This
Court has held that an act having a single general subject, indicated in the
title, may contain any number of provisions, no matter how diverse they may be,
so long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject,
and may be considered in furtherance of such subject by providing for the
method and means of carrying out the general subject.
Section 26(1) of the
Constitution provides: Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one
subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
The avowed purpose of
the constitutional directive that the subject of a bill should be embraced in
its title is to apprise the legislators of the purposes, the nature and scope
of its provisions, and prevent the enactment into law of matters which have not
received the notice, action and study of the legislators and the public. In
this case, it cannot be claimed that the legislators were not apprised of the
repeal of Section 67 of the Code as the same was amply and comprehensively
deliberated upon by the members of the House. In fact, the petitioners as
members of the House of Representatives, expressed their reservations regarding
its validity prior to casting their votes. Undoubtedly, the legislators were
aware of the existence of the provision repealing Section 67 of the Omnibus
Election Code.
