<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
>

<channel>
	<title>www.soriano-ph.com &#187; COMELEC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://soriano-ph.com/tag/comelec/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://soriano-ph.com</link>
	<description>all about life, law, society and cyberspace</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 06:50:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<creativeCommons:license>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ph/</creativeCommons:license>
		<item>
		<title>Quinto vs. Comelec &#8211; Incongruous?</title>
		<link>http://soriano-ph.com/2009/12/02/quinto-vs-comelec-incongruous/</link>
		<comments>http://soriano-ph.com/2009/12/02/quinto-vs-comelec-incongruous/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:14:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JNS</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[On Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Reflections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appointive post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[COMELEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[elective position]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philippines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://soriano-ph.com/?p=286</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court En Banc declared unconstitutional in Quinto vs. COMELEC (G. R. No. 189698, 1 December 2009) the second proviso in the third paragraph of Sec. 13 of RA 9369, Sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 4 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678. Consequently, appointive public officials are no longer ipso [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: justify;">The Supreme Court <em>En Banc</em> declared unconstitutional in <a href="http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/189698.htm" target="_blank">Quinto vs. COMELEC (G. R. No. 189698, 1 December 2009)</a> the second proviso in the third paragraph of Sec. 13 of RA 9369, Sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 4 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678. Consequently, appointive public officials are no longer <em>ipso facto</em> resigned when they file their certificate of candidacy for an elective post.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">With the ruling, justices, judges, election officials, military and police officers, members of the cabinet and all appointed civil servants may continue to exercise the functions of, and hold on to, their appointive office while campaigning to get elected for an elective position.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">If they lose, they just continue occupying their appointive posts without even violating Sec. 6, Art. IX (B) of the Constitution that says &#8220;No candidate who has lost in any election shall, within one year after such election, be appointed to any office in the Government of any government-owned or controlled corporations or in any of its subsidiaries&#8221;.  Why? It is because they have already been appointed before they lost the elections.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The decision does not seem to prevent the evil that the Constitution, in so many words, seeks to prevent. Next elections, should the Filipino people be wary that the Chief Justice, the Chairman of the COMELEC or the Chief of Staff of the AFP becoming a candidate for President, Vice-President or Senator while serving the office to which they were appointed?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Just asking, in the meantime that this decision is not yet final and executory.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><span style="color: #000000;">NOTE</span></strong> &#8211; In a <strong><span style="color: #333399;"><a href="http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm" target="_blank">Resolution of the Supreme Court </a></span></strong><em><strong><span style="color: #333399;"><a href="http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm" target="_blank">en banc </a></span></strong></em><strong><span style="color: #333399;"><a href="http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/february2010/189698.htm" target="_blank">dated 22 February 2010</a></span></strong>, it granted the motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC and set aside the foregoing Decision. Thus, the constitutionality of Section 4 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678, the second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369, and Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code were upheld.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://soriano-ph.com/2009/12/02/quinto-vs-comelec-incongruous/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<creativeCommons:license>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ph/</creativeCommons:license>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
