TL;DR
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition questioning the constitutionality of COMELEC Resolution No. 9688 (Money Ban Resolution) for being moot and academic. The resolution, which aimed to prevent vote-buying by restricting cash withdrawals and possession during the May 13, 2013 elections, was no longer in effect after the elections concluded. The Court emphasized that judicial review is limited to actual cases and controversies, and the issues raised were no longer relevant. This decision underscores the principle that courts generally refrain from ruling on moot issues unless specific exceptions, such as the possibility of repetition evading review, exist. Ultimately, the Court found that the circumstances did not warrant a decision on the merits.
Cash and Controversy: When Election Rules Meet Constitutional Rights
The case of Bankers Association of the Philippines v. COMELEC arose from a contentious resolution issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in the lead-up to the May 13, 2013 national and local elections. This resolution, known as the āMoney Ban Resolution,ā sought to curb vote-buying by restricting cash withdrawals, encashment of checks, and the possession or transportation of cash exceeding certain amounts. The Bankers Association of the Philippines, along with Perry L. Pe, challenged the constitutionality and legality of this resolution, arguing that it exceeded COMELEC’s authority and infringed upon constitutional rights. The heart of the matter lies in determining the extent of COMELECās power to regulate financial transactions during election periods and whether such regulations unduly infringe on individual liberties.
The petitioners argued that COMELEC overstepped its jurisdiction by attempting to regulate the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) and the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), neither of which are holders of special privileges granted by the government. They emphasized that COMELEC’s power to supervise and regulate franchises or permits under Section 4, Article IX-C of the Constitution does not extend to the BSP, whose authority stems directly from the Constitution and Republic Act No. 8791 (The General Banking Law of 2000). Furthermore, the petitioners asserted that the COMELECās power to deputize extends only to law enforcement agencies, requiring the Presidentās concurrence, which was allegedly not obtained in this case.
A critical point of contention was paragraph 3 of the Money Ban Resolution, which effectively amended RA No. 9160 (Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 or AMLA) by treating cash withdrawals or encashments exceeding P500,000 within a specified period as āsuspicious transactions.ā The petitioners argued that this classification was not among those enumerated under Section 3(b) of the AMLA, and an administrative issuance cannot amend a law enacted by Congress. Moreover, they claimed the resolution violated the constitutional rights to due process and the presumption of innocence, arguing that it unduly restricted the withdrawal, possession, and transportation of cash, and created an unreasonable presumption of vote-buying based solely on the possession of a certain amount of money.
The COMELEC defended its resolution by asserting its constitutional authority to supervise and regulate banks and other financial entities during the election period, citing Section 4, Article IX-C of the Constitution. They argued that the authority granted to banks by the BSP under Section 6 of RA No. 8791 is akin to āgrants, special privileges, or concessionsā subject to COMELEC regulation. The COMELEC also contended that the BSP is a government instrumentality that it may validly deputize, and that Presidential concurrence was either not required or had been secured through a memorandum order. Furthermore, the COMELEC maintained that the Money Ban Resolution was a reasonable measure that did not unduly oppress individuals, as it merely limited cash transactions without affecting non-cash transactions.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, declaring it moot and academic. The Court emphasized that the Money Ban Resolution was effective only for a limited period during the May 13, 2013 elections. The issuance of a Status Quo Ante Order on May 10, 2013, effectively suspended the resolution’s enforcement during the most critical period. Given that the elections had concluded, the Court found that the issues raised were no longer relevant, as the resolution no longer had any practical application. The Court reiterated that judicial review is limited to actual cases and controversies, and it generally declines to exercise jurisdiction over moot issues.
While acknowledging exceptions to the āmoot and academicā principle, such as cases involving grave constitutional violations or issues of paramount public interest, the Court found none of these exceptions applicable. Specifically, the Court noted that the COMELEC did not implement similar measures in subsequent elections, suggesting that the necessity for such restrictions was not consistently present. The Court also highlighted that the BSP and the Monetary Board retain sufficient authority to address concerns related to banking transactions without the need for a COMELEC resolution. Furthermore, Congress possesses the power to address the issues through legislation, rendering further action on the merits of the assailed Money Ban Resolution unnecessary.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether COMELEC’s Money Ban Resolution, restricting cash withdrawals and possession during elections, was constitutional and within its authority. |
| Why did the Supreme Court dismiss the petition? | The Court dismissed the petition because the Money Ban Resolution was only effective during the May 13, 2013 elections, which had already passed, rendering the issue moot and academic. |
| What is the “moot and academic” principle? | The “moot and academic” principle means that a court will not decide a case if the issues presented are no longer relevant or have no practical effect due to events that have occurred since the case was filed. |
| Did the Court address the constitutionality of the Money Ban Resolution? | No, the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the resolution because the case was dismissed as moot. |
| Can COMELEC regulate banks during the election period? | The Supreme Court did not definitively rule on COMELEC’s power to regulate banks, but the decision suggests that COMELEC’s power is not unlimited and must be balanced against other constitutional rights and statutory mandates. |
| What is the significance of the Status Quo Ante Order in this case? | The Status Quo Ante Order effectively suspended the enforcement of the Money Ban Resolution during the most critical period of the elections. |
| What options does Congress have following this ruling? | Congress can legislate measures to address concerns related to vote-buying and the flow of cash during elections, which could render future COMELEC actions unnecessary. |
In conclusion, this case serves as a reminder of the limits of judicial power and the importance of actual cases and controversies for judicial review. While the Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the Money Ban Resolution, the decision underscores the need for a careful balance between election regulations and constitutional rights.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: BANKERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206794, November 26, 2013
Leave a Reply