Back

Archbishop Capalla vs. Commission on Elections (COMELEC) [DISSENTING OPINION, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.]

ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA, OMAR SOLITARIO ALI and MARY ANNE L. SUSANO, Petitioners, versus THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. and SOLIDARITY FOR SOVEREIGNTY (S4S), represented by Ma. Linda Olaguer; RAMON PEDROSA, BENJAMIN PAULINO SR., EVELYN CORONEL, MA. LINDA OLAGUER MONTAYRE, and NELSON T. MONTAYRE, Petitioners, versus COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, represented by its Chairman, Commissioner SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., Respondent. and TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, BISHOP BRODERICK S. PABILLO, SOLITA COLLAS MONSOD, MARIA CORAZON MENDOZA ACOL, FR. JOSE DIZON, NELSON JAVA CELIS, PABLO R. MANALASTAS, GEORGINA R. ENCANTO and ANNA LEAH E. COLINA, Petitioners, versus COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and SMARTMATIC TIM CORPORATION, Respondents. and TANGGULANG DEMOKRASYA (TAN DEM), INC., EVELYN L. KILAYKO, TERESITA D. BALTAZAR, PILAR L. CALDERON and ELITA T. MONTILLA, Petitioners, versus COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and SMARTMATIC-TIM Corporation, Respondents.

G.R. No. 201112 and G.R. No. 201121 and G.R. No. 201127 and G.R. No. 201413 | 2012-06-13

DISSENTING OPINION

 

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

 

         It is not the province of the Court to inquire into the wisdom of a government act for each great branch of our legal system is an expert in its own field and supreme in its own sphere. However, public acts should always be consistent with our laws and made within the bounds of the Constitution.  Pragmatism may be one of the tools in policy making but law is the lone tool given to this Court to perform its judicial function. For legality of government actions should be tested against what the law says and not what...