Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    University of The Philippines College of Law: Non Impairment of Contract Clause (Art. 3, Sec.10)

    Uploaded by

    Juno Geronimo
    The case discusses whether Section 34 of RA 9369, which fixes the per diem of poll watchers for the dominant majority and minority parties at P400, violates the non-impairment clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 34 is constitutional as there was no existing contract impaired and the regulation of per diem is a valid exercise of police power to promote fair elections. The Court upheld the COMELEC's implementation of RA 9369 and dismissed the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    University of The Philippines College of Law: Non Impairment of Contract Clause (Art. 3, Sec.10)

    Uploaded by

    Juno Geronimo
    38 views2 pages
    The case discusses whether Section 34 of RA 9369, which fixes the per diem of poll watchers for the dominant majority and minority parties at P400, violates the non-impairment clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 34 is constitutional as there was no existing contract impaired and the regulation of per diem is a valid exercise of police power to promote fair elections. The Court upheld the COMELEC's implementation of RA 9369 and dismissed the petition.

    Original Description:

    Consti II digest

    Original Title

    II-22 BANAT v. COMELEC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case discusses whether Section 34 of RA 9369, which fixes the per diem of poll watchers for the dominant majority and minority parties at P400, violates the non-impairment clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 34 is constitutional as there was no existing contract impaired and the regulation of per diem is a valid exercise of police power to promote fair elections. The Court upheld the COMELEC's implementation of RA 9369 and dismissed the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    38 views2 pages

    University of The Philippines College of Law: Non Impairment of Contract Clause (Art. 3, Sec.10)

    Uploaded by

    Juno Geronimo
    The case discusses whether Section 34 of RA 9369, which fixes the per diem of poll watchers for the dominant majority and minority parties at P400, violates the non-impairment clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 34 is constitutional as there was no existing contract impaired and the regulation of per diem is a valid exercise of police power to promote fair elections. The Court upheld the COMELEC's implementation of RA 9369 and dismissed the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    University of the Philippines College of Law

    Block F2021

    Topic Non Impairment of Contract Clause (Art. 3, Sec.10)


    Case No. G.R. No. 177508 / August 7, 2009
    Case Name BANAT v. COMELEC
    Ponente J. Carpio
    Case assigned to Cole and Juno

    RELEVANT FACTS

     A petition for prohibition was filed by Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency
    (BANAT) Party List assailing the constitutionality of RA 9369, enjoining the respondent COMELEC from
    implementing statute;

     RA 9369 is an amendatory act entitled “An Act Amending RA 8436 1”, with effectivity date of February 10,
    2007, more than three months ahead of May 14, 2007 elections;

     Among others, petitioner BANAT contends that Sec. 34 of RA 9369 is violative of Art. III, Sec. 10 of the
    Constitution by fixing the per diem of poll watchers of both the dominant majority and minority parties
    at P400.00, encroaching upon their (the parties) freedom to contract and their right to fix the terms and
    conditions of the contract they see fair, equitable and just;

     Contested portion of Sec. 34 reads as follow:

    “The dominant majority party and dominant minority party, which the Commission shall
    determine in accordance with law, shall each be entitled to one official watcher who shall
    be paid a fixed per diem of four hundred pesos (400.00).”

    ISSUE

     W/N Sec. 34 of RA 9369 is violative of non-impairment clause (Art. III, Sec. 10) for fixing the per diem
    rate of poll watchers

    RATIO DECIDENDI

    Issue Ratio
    W/N Sec. 34 of RA 9369 is No.
    violative of non-
    impairment clause (1) The Court ruled that there is no existing contract yet and, therefore, no
    enforceable right or demandable obligation will be impaired. RA 9369 was
    enacted more than three months prior to the May 14, 2007 elections. Hence,
    when the dominant majority and minority parties hired their respective poll
    watchers for the May 14, 2007 elections, they were deemed to have
    incorporated in their contracts the provisions of RA 9369.
    1
    RA 8436 “An Act Authorizing the Commission on Elections To Use an Automated Election System in the May 11, 1998
    National or Local Elections and in Subsequent National and Local Electoral Exercises, to Encourage Transparency, Credibility,
    Fairness and Accuracy of Elections, Amending for the Purpose BP 881, as Amended, RA No. 7166 and Other Related Election
    Laws, Providing Funds Therefor and For Other Purposes
    University of the Philippines College of Law
    Block F2021

    The Court explained that non-impairment clause is limited in application to


    laws that derogate from prior acts or contracts by enlarging, abridging or in
    any manner changing the intentions of the parties. There is impairment if a
    subsequent law changes the terms of a contract between the parties,
    imposes new conditions, dispenses with those agreed upon or withdraws
    remedies for the enforcement of the rights of the parties.

    (2) Even if there is an existing contract, Sec. 34 would still be constitutional


    since it is a valid exercise of police power, and police power is superior than
    non-impairment clause.

    The Court argued that the regulation of the per diem of the poll watchers of
    the dominant majority and minority parties is a valid exercise of police power
    since it promotes the general welfare of the people. They couched the
    argument on the role of the poll watchers (reiterated, in three different
    phrasings but essentially the same meaning): (1) the poll watching is an
    agreement with solemn duty to ensure the sanctity of votes. (2) that such role
    is invested with public interest, being essential not only in guarding the votes
    of their respective candidates or political parties but also ensure that all votes
    are properly counted; (3) that they help ensure that the elections are
    transparent, credible, fair, and accurate.

    RULING

    WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition for lack of merit.

    SO ORDERED.

    NO SEPARATE OPINION

    You might also like