Scribd
Upload
260 views1 page

GIRON V COMELEC

Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Sections 12 and 14 of the Fair Election Act, arguing they violated the one subject-one title rule. Section 12 dealt with votes for substituted candidates and Section 14 repealed a section of another law. COMEC opposed, citing a previous ruling. The Supreme Court ruled the sections did not violate the one subject-one title rule. The title of the Fair Election Act was comprehensive enough to include the provisions and repeal. Provisions in a law can be diverse as long as they are consistent with and further the general subject.

Uploaded by

Lloyd David P. Vicedo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
260 views1 page

GIRON V COMELEC

Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Sections 12 and 14 of the Fair Election Act, arguing they violated the one subject-one title rule. Section 12 dealt with votes for substituted candidates and Section 14 repealed a section of another law. COMEC opposed, citing a previous ruling. The Supreme Court ruled the sections did not violate the one subject-one title rule. The title of the Fair Election Act was comprehensive enough to include the provisions and repeal. Provisions in a law can be diverse as long as they are consistent with and further the general subject.

Uploaded by

Lloyd David P. Vicedo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

GIRON v COMELEC

G.R. No. 188179 January 22, 2013


SERENO, J.
FACTS:
A special civil action for certiorari and prohibition was raised by petitioner to assail the
constitutionality of Secs. 12 and 14 of the Fair Election Act. They seek to prohibit
COMELEC from implementing such provisions.
Petitioner asserts that the mentioned Sections are in violation of the one subject-one title
rule in the Constitution, as these provisions are unrelated to the main subject of the Fair
Election Act: the lifting of the political ad ban. 
Section 12 refers to the treatment of the votes cast for substituted candidates after the
official ballots have been printed, while Section 14 pertains to the repeal of Section 67
(Candidates holding elective office) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.
Respondent opposed the petition, stating that this case had already been resolved in
Farinas v Exec. Secretary.
ISSUE:
Whether or not certain sections of the Fair Election Act violates the one subject-one title
rule. (NO.)
RULING:
NO. Petitioner and petitioners-in-intervention were unable to present a compelling reason
that would surpass the strong presumption of validity and constitutionality in favor of the
Fair Election Act. No justification to reverse the ruling in Farinas.
The requirement that the subject of an act shall be expressed in its title should receive a
reasonable and not a technical construction. It is sufficient if the title be comprehensive
enough reasonably to include the general object which a statute seeks to effect, without
expressing each and every end and means necessary or convenient for the accomplishing of
that object. Mere details need not be set forth. The title need not be an abstract or index of
the Act.
The Court is convinced that the title and the objectives of Rep. Act No. 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 alleged unrelatedness of Sec. 67 of the Omnibus Election Code to the provisions of RA
9006 does not violate the constitutional provision.
The 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.

You might also like