PEREZ vs COMELEC and AGUINALDO G.R. No. 133944. October 28,
1999
FACTS:
On March 26, 1998, private respondent filed his certificate
of candidacy for Representative of the Third District of Cagayan in the May 11,
1998 elections. Four days
later, on March 30, 1998, petitioner, as a voter and citizen, filed in the
COMELEC a petition for the disqualification of private respondent as a
candidate on the ground that he had not been a resident of the district for at
least one (1) year immediately before the day of the elections as required by
Art. VI, §6 of the Constitution.
On May 10, 1998, the First Division of the COMELEC, in a unanimous
resolution,[11] dismissed
the petition for disqualification, finding private respondent Aguinaldo
qualified to run as representative for the Third District of Cagayan.
ISSUE:
Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the instant
petition for certiorari and eventually pass upon private
respondent’s eligibility for the office of Representative of the Third District
of Cagayan?
RULING:
…the following provision of R.A. No. 6646:
Sec. 6 Effect
of Disqualification Case. ¾ 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 (COMELEC) 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.
“As already stated, the petition for disqualification
against private respondent was decided by the First Division of the COMELEC on
May 10, 1998. The following
day, May 11, 1998, the elections were held. Notwithstanding the fact that private
respondent had already been proclaimed on May 16, 1998 and had taken his oath
of office on May 17, 1998, petitioner still filed a motion for reconsideration
on May 22, 1998, which the COMELEC en banc denied on June 11, 1998. Clearly, this could not be done. Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 6646 authorizes the
continuation of proceedings for disqualification even after the elections if
the respondent has not been proclaimed. The
COMELEC en banc had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion because the
proclamation of private respondent barred further consideration of petitioner’s
action. In the same vein,
considering that at the time of the filing of this petition on June 16, 1998,
private respondent was already a member of the House of Representatives, this
Court has no jurisdiction over the same. Pursuant to Art. VI, §17 of the
Constitution, the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal has the exclusive
original jurisdiction over the petition for the declaration of private
respondent’s ineligibility. As
this Court held in Lazatin v.
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal:[14]”
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
When does section 6 of R.A. 6646 apply to petitions
for disqualifying a candidate and when does it not apply?
In the case
supra, R.A 6646, section 6 cannot be applied since there was already a decision
made by COMELEC based on substantial evidence, dismissing the petition for disqualification, finding
private respondent Aguinaldo qualified to run as representative for the Third
District of Cagayan. Accordingly he was proclaimed elected and, on May 17, 1998, he was sworn in office. It therefore
barred further consideration
of petitioner’s action.
“Petitioner’s remedies should have been:
1)
to reiterate her
prayer in the petition for disqualification, and move for the issuance of an
order by the COMELEC suspending the proclamation of private respondent pending
the hearing of the said petition and, in the event the motion was denied before
the proclamation of private respondent, file a petition for certiorari in this Court with a prayer for a
restraining order to enjoin the proclamation of private respondent;
2)
to file a petition for quo warranto in the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal within ten (10) days after the proclamation of private
respondent as Representative-elect on May 16, 1998.”
“In the case of Lonzanida where this court held that the
clear legislative intent is that the COMELEC should continue the trial and
hearing of the disqualification case to its conclusion i.e., until judgment is
rendered. The outright
dismissal of the petition for disqualification filed before the election but
which remained unresolved after the proclamation of the candidate sought to be
disqualified will unduly reward the said candidate and may encourage him to
employ delaying tactics to impede the resolution of the petition until after he
has been proclaimed.”
“…In Aguam v. COMELEC this Court held- ‘Time and again this
Court has given its imprimatur on the principle that COMELEC is with authority
to annul any canvass and proclamation which was illegally made. The fact that a candidate proclaimed
has assumed office, we have said, is no bar to the exercise of such
power. It of course may not
be availed of where there has been a valid proclamation. Since private respondent’s petition
before the COMELEC is precisely directed at the annulment of the canvass and
proclamation, we perceive that inquiry into this issue is within the area
allocated by the Constitution and law to COMELEC xxx Really, were a victim of a
proclamation to be precluded from challenging the validity thereof after that
proclamation and the assumption of office thereunder, baneful effects may
easily supervene.”
“It must be emphasized that the purpose of a disqualification
proceeding is to prevent the candidate from running or, if elected. From serving, or to prosecute him for
violation of the election laws. Obviously,
the fact that a candidate has been proclaimed elected does not signify that his
disqualification is deemed condoned and may no longer be the subject of a
separate investigation.”
