What Went Before: Supreme Court vs. Comelec
In the run-up to the May 13 polling, the Supreme Court stopped or reversed at least four controversial Commission on Elections (Comelec) resolutions.
On April 5, the court voted to allow political parties and groups not representing marginalized and unrepresented sectors to participate in party-list elections.
Voting 10-2, the court granted 54 petitions for certiorari and prohibition filed by party-list groups that had been disqualified by the Comelec. The court later ordered the cases remanded to Comelec so it could ascertain the qualifications of each group based on revised standards.
Comelec Chairman Sixto Brillantes Jr. “deplored” the court’s ruling, saying his efforts to cleanse the party-list system were “wasted.”
On April 16, the court stopped the Comelec from implementing its airtime limits on political advertisements.
Voting 9-6, the court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on a Comelec move to limit each national candidate to 120 minutes of TV campaign commercials and 180 minutes of radio commercials for the entire campaign period.
The order came less than a month before the May 13 elections, leaving Brillantes to question its timing because it put the Comelec and the senatorial candidates “in limbo.”
On May 8, the high tribunal ordered the reduction of the five-day liquor ban imposed by the Comelec to two days—on the eve of the elections and on Election Day.
Food and Beverage Inc. and International Wines and Spirits Association Inc. sought the TRO, saying they would suffer irreparable injury.
On May 10, the court issued a status quo ante order against the Comelec’s “money ban” resolution prohibiting cash withdrawals from banks exceeding P100,000 per day and the carrying of P500,000 in cash beginning May 8 to May 13.
The poll body later amended the resolution, leaving it to the discretion of bank tellers and officials whether to allow cash withdrawals of at least P100,000.—Inquirer Research
Source: Inquirer Archives
