for class reading

EN BANC

G.R. No. 212398               November 25, 2014

EMILIO RAMON "E.R." P. EJERCITO, Petitioner,
vs.
HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EDGAR "EGA Y" S. SAN LUIS, Respondents.

G.R. No. 134047 December 8, 1999

AMADO S. BAGATSING, ERNESTO M. MACEDA, and JAIME LOPEZ, petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOSE L. ATIENZA, respondents.

G.R. No. 192856               March 8, 2011

FERNANDO V. GONZALEZ, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RENO G. LIM, STEPHEN C. BICHARA and THE SPECIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS constituted per Res. dated July 23, 2010 of the Commission on Elections En Banc, Respondent

EN BANC

G.R. No. 195229               October 9, 2012

EFREN RACEL ARA TEA, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSiON ON ELECTIONS and ESTELA D. ANTlPOLO, Respondents.

EN BANC

G.R. No. 196804               October 9, 2012

MAYOR BARBARA RUBY C. TALAGA, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and RODERICK A. ALCALA, Respondents.

G.R. No. L-28613           August 27, 1968

AMBROCIO LACUNA, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
BENJAMIN H. ABES, respondent-appellee.

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-54039 November 28, 1980

GUILLERMO S. ARCENAS, petitioner,
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JESUS R. VITUG. JR., respondent

EN BANC

G.R. No. 205033               June 18, 2013

ROMEO G. JALOSJOS, Petitioner,
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MARIA ISABELLE G. CLIMACO-SALAZAR, ROEL B. NATIVIDAD, ARTURO N. ONRUBIA, AHMAD NARZAD K. SAMPANG, JOSE L. LOBREGAT, ADELANTE ZAMBOANGA PARTY, AND ELBERT C. ATILANO, Respondents.

EN BANC

G.R. No. 193237               October 9, 2012

DOMINADOR G. JALOSJOS, JR., Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and AGAPITO J. CARDINO, Respondents.

the Comelec has no discretion to give or not to give due course to COCs. We emphasized that the duty of the Comelec to give due course to COCs filed in due form is ministerial in character, and that while-the Comelec may look into patent defects in the COCs, it may not go into matters not appearing on their face. The question of eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate is thus beyond the usual and proper cognizance of the Comelec.

In Cipriano v. Comelec,20 we ruled that the Comelec has no discretion to give or not to give due course to COCs. We emphasized that the duty of the Comelec to give due course to COCs filed in due form is ministerial in character, and that while-the Comelec may look into patent defects in the COCs, it may not go into matters not appearing on their face. The question of eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate is thus beyond the usual and proper cognizance of the Comelec.

Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) provides for the procedure of substitution of candidates, to wit:

Sec. 77. Candidates in case of death, disqualification or withdrawal of another. – If after the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy, an official candidate of a registered or accredited political party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause, only a person belonging to, and certified by, the same political party may file a certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate who died, withdrew or was disqualified. The substitute candidate nominated by the political party concerned may file his certificate of candidacy for the office affected in accordance with the preceding sections not later than mid-day of election day of the election.

If the death, withdrawal or disqualification should occur between the day before the election and mid-day of election day, said certificate may be filed with any board of election inspectors in the political subdivision where he is candidate or, in case of candidates to be voted for by the entire electorate of the country, with the Commission.

Under the express provision of Sec. 77 of B. P. Blg. 881, not just any person, but only "an official candidate of a registered or accredited political party" may be substituted.21 In the case at bar, Kimberly was an official nominee of the Liberal Party;22 thus, she can be validly substituted.

EN BANC

G.R. No. 205136               December 2, 2014
OLIVIA DA SILVA CERAFICA, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

e hold that Antipolo, the alleged "second placer," should be proclaimed Mayor because Lonzanida’s certificate of candidacy was void ab initio. In short, Lonzanida was never a candidate at all. All votes for Lonzanida were stray votes. Thus, Antipolo, the only qualified candidate, actually garnered the highest number of votes for the position of Mayor.

We hold that Antipolo, the alleged "second placer," should be proclaimed Mayor because Lonzanida’s certificate of candidacy was void ab initio. In short, Lonzanida was never a candidate at all. All votes for Lonzanida were stray votes. Thus, Antipolo, the only qualified candidate, actually garnered the highest number of votes for the position of Mayor.

Qualifications and Disqualifications

Section 65 of the Omnibus Election Code points to the Local Government Code for the qualifications of elective local officials. Paragraphs (a) and (c) of Section 39 and Section 40 of the Local Government Code provide in pertinent part:

Sec. 39. Qualifications. ‒ (a) An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines; a registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city or province x x x; a resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election; and able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect.

x x x x

(c) Candidates for the position of mayor or vice-mayor of independent component cities, component cities, or municipalities must be at least twenty-one (21) years of age on election day.

x x x x

Sec. 40. Disqualifications. - The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position:

(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence;

(b) Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;

(c) Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic;

(d) Those with dual citizenship;

(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or abroad;

(f) Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this Code; and

(g) The insane or feeble-minded. (Emphasis supplied)

Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code provides:

Sec. 12. Disqualification. — Any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for which he was sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given plenary pardon or granted amnesty.

The disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be deemed removed upon the declaration by competent authority that said insanity or incompetence had been removed or after the expiration of a period of five years from his service of sentence, unless within the same period he again becomes disqualified. (Emphasis supplied)

The grounds for disqualification for a petition under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code are specifically enumerated:

Sec. 68. Disqualifications. ‒ Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision by a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having (a) given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions; (b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, subparagraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the election laws. (Emphasis supplied)

A petition for disqualification under Section 68 clearly refers to "the commission of prohibited acts and possession of a permanent resident status in a foreign country."²⁰ All the offenses mentioned in Section 68 refer to election offenses under the Omnibus Election Code, not to violations of other penal laws. There is absolutely nothing in the language of Section 68 that would justify including violation of the three-term limit rule, or conviction by final judgment of the crime of falsification under the Revised Penal Code, as one of the grounds or offenses covered under Section 68. In Codilla, Sr. v. de Venecia,²¹ this Court ruled:

[T]he jurisdiction of the COMELEC to disqualify candidates is limited to those enumerated in Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code. All other election offenses are beyond the ambit of COMELEC jurisdiction. They are criminal and not administrative in nature. x x x

Clearly, the violation by Lonzanida of the three-term limit rule, or his conviction by final judgment of the crime of falsification under the Revised Penal Code, does not constitute a ground for a petition under Section 68.

EN BANC

G.R. No. 195229               October 9, 2012

EFREN RACEL ARA TEA, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSiON ON ELECTIONS and ESTELA D. ANTlPOLO, Respondents.

Section 6, Rule 25 of the COMELEC Resolution No. 9523, which governs Section 68 petitions for disqualification, enunciates the rule succinctly, to wit: Section 6. Effect of Granting of Petition.– In the event a Petition to disqualify a candidate is granted by final judgment as defined under Section 8 of Rule 23 and the disqualified candidate obtains the highest number of votes, the candidate with the second highest number of votes cannot be proclaimed and the rule of succession, if allowed by law, shall be observed. In the event the rule of succession is not allowed, a vacancy shall exist for such position.34

The petition for disqualification against Ejercito for campaign over-spending before the Commission isheard and resolved pursuant to the electoral aspect of Section 68 of the OEC. It is an administrative proceeding separate and distinct from the criminal proceeding through which Ejercito may be made to undergo in order to determine whether he can be held criminally liable for the same act of over-spending. It is through this administrative proceeding that this Commission, initially through its divisions, makes a factual determination on the veracity of the parties’ respective allegations in a disqualification case. There is no need for a preliminary investigation finding on the criminal aspect of the offenses in Section 68 before the Commission can act on the administrative or electoral aspect of the offense. All that is needed is a complaint or a petition. As enunciated in Lanot, "(a)n erring candidate may be disqualified even without prior determination of probable cause in a preliminary investigation. The electoral aspect may proceed independently of the criminal aspect, and vice-versa."

EN BANC

G.R. No. 212398               November 25, 2014
EMILIO RAMON "E.R." P. EJERCITO, Petitioner,
vs.
HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EDGAR "EGA Y" S. SAN LUIS, Respondents.

Since the petition in SPA No. 10-074 (DC) sought to cancel the COC filed by Gonzalez and disqualify him as a candidate on the ground of false representation as to his citizenship, the same should have been filed within twenty-five days from the filing of the COC, pursuant to Section 78 of the OEC. Gonzales filed his COC on December 1, 2009. Clearly, the petition for disqualification and cancellation of COC filed by Lim on March 30, 2010 was filed out of time. The COMELEC therefore erred in giving due course to the petition.

Sections 6 and 7 of Rep. Act No. 6646 are here re-quoted:

"SEC. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. - Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong."

"SEC. 7. Petition to Deny Due Course To or Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy. - The procedure hereinabove provided shall apply to petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy as provided in Section 78 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881."

It will be noted that nothing in Sections 6 or 7 modifies or alters the 25-day period prescribed by Section 78 of the Code for filing the appropriate action to cancel a certificate of candidacy on account of any false represent­ation made therein. On the contrary, said Section 7 affirms and reiterates Section 78 of the Code.

We note that Section 6 refers only to the effects of a disqualification case which may be based on grounds other than that provided under Section 78 of the Code. But Section 7 of Rep. Act No. 6646 also makes the effects referred to in Section 6 applicable to disqualification cases filed under Section 78 of the Code. Nowhere in Sections 6 and 7 of Rep. Act No. 6646 is mention made of the period within which these disqualification cases may be filed. This is because there are provisions in the Code which supply the periods within which a petition relating to disqualification of candidates must be filed, such as Section 78, already discussed, and Section 253 on petitions for quo warranto.

Thus, if a person qualified to file a petition to disqualify a certain candidate fails to file the petition within the 25-day period prescribed by Section 78 of the Code for whatever reasons, the election laws do not leave him completely helpless as he has another chance to raise the disqualification of the candidate by filing a petition for quo warranto within ten (10) days from the proclamation of the results of the election, as provided under Section 253 of the Code. x x x³² (Additional emphasis supplied.)

EN BANC

G.R. No. 192856               March 8, 2011
FERNANDO V. GONZALEZ, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RENO G. LIM, STEPHEN C. BICHARA and THE SPECIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS constituted per Res. dated July 23, 2010 of the Commission on Elections En Banc, Respondents.