Administrative and Election Laws - Election Cases - Leo Acebedo

7/26/2019 Administrative and Election Laws - Election Cases - Leo Acebedo

1/227

[G.R. No. 134340. November 25, 1999]

LININDING PANGANDAMAN,petitioner, vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECIONS, PRO!INCIAL"OARD O# CAN!ASSERS O# LANAO DELS$R, MA%ED M$ILAN, ALEEM,AMERRODIN SARANGANI &'( NARRAA"D$L )A""AR )IALIL, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

*NARES+SANIAGO,J.

Recently, this Court emphatically stated that[U]pholding the sovereignty of the people is what

democracy is all about. When the sovereignty of the

people expressed thru the ballot is at stae, it is not

enough for this Court to mae a statement but it

should do everything to have that sovereignty obeyed

by all. Well done is always better than well said.[!]Corollarily, laws and statutes governing election

contests especially the appreciation of ballots must be

liberally construed to the end that the will of theelectorate in the choice of public o"cials may not be

defeated by technical in#rmities.[$]%hese standards

will be the legal matrix within which this controversy

will be ad&udged.

Challenged in this petition for certiorari and

prohibition with prayer for temporary restraining order

and preliminary in&unction is the 'mnibus 'rder of the

Commission on (lections )C'*(+(C en banc dated

-uly !, !//0,[1]the dispositive portion of which reads

as follows2

-%ERE#ORE, premises considered, /e&eeo' for the municipalities, namely

3utig +umbayabague

4apatagan 5ultan 6umalondong

*aguing 5ultan 7umander

*asiu *arawi City

+umbabayabao

shall be held o' 1 )6 199.

S/e& eeo' shall also be held o' )6 25,199 for the municipalities of

7anassi +umbatan

*alabang 8agayawan

*arantao %ubaran

%here shall be machine counting and consolidation of

votes for all municipalities except *aguing and those

precincts where ballots for manual count will be used.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/134340.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/134340.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/134340.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/134340.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/134340.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/134340.htm#_edn1


2/227

%he (ducation and 9nformation 6epartment, the :cting

8(5 of +anao del 5ur and the (lection '"cers in these

municipalities are hereby directed to cause the

immediate publication of this 'mnibus 'rder in their

respective municipality )sic.

5chedule for /e& eeo' in the municipalities of*adalum and %ugaya is em/or&r6788e( pending unresolved issues before theCommission.

+et the (xecutive 6irector for 'peration[s] of the

Commission execute this order with dispatch.

SO ORDERED.

%he C'*(+(Cs challenged 'mnibus 'rder

summari;es the relevant facts of the controversy thus2

%he instant cases were #led by petitioners praying that

the Commission declare [a] failure of elections in their

respective municipalities and to hold special elections

thereafter. %he petitions were reinforced by reports

received by the Commission from its #eld o"cers anddeputies. : pre


3/227

9t was found that the cause of failure of election[s] in

the twelve municipalities where there was total failure

of election[s] as follows 2

1. "$IG armed confrontation of opposing politicalgroups and vehement disagreement on the clusteringof precincts.

B :cting election o"cer reported that all election

paraphernalia are available except for $>> ballots for

precinct ?:.

2. APAAGAN allegedly, Camad 3enito, husband ofmayoralty candidate 3ailo 3enito, terrori;ed the :cting

*unicipal %reasurer 'uo *acaumbas thus preventingthe distribution of ballots and other election

paraphernalia to the members of the 3oard of (lection

9nspectors )3(9s for brevity. 5imilarly, there were only

twenty two )$$ public school teachers who were

available as 3(9s and eighteen )!0 of them were

disuali#ed to act due to relationship to candidates

within the prohibited degree.

9n (lection Case Ao. ?=!, the *unicipal Circuit %rialCourt of 4apatagan, +anao del 5ur issued an order

dated :pril 1>, !//0 ordering the (lection '"cer of

4apatagan, +anao del 5ur to delete, erase, and cancel

all Doters Registration Records with serial numbers

1@=@>>! to 1@=@?>> after #nding that said DRRs were

received only on 6ecember !?, !//0 by (: Camal

Calandada from :tty. *uslemin %ahir. :nd yet, said

DRRs appeared to be #lled up, used and dated !

6ecember !//=. : copy of said order was received on

!> *ay !//0 by the (lection '"cer. %he court having

found by implication that said DRRs were

irregularlyEunlawfully issued, and its order having

become #nal, this Commission in compliance with saidcourt order hereby orders the (lection '"cer of

4apatagan to delete from the records said DRRs with

serial nos. from 1@=@=>>! to 1@=@?>>.

8ursuant to said order, the +aw 6epartment is directed

to conduct a &oint investigation administrative and

preliminary investigation for election oFenses against

Camal Calandada and *uslemin %ahir to determine

their criminal and administrative liability and to submit

to the Commission its #ndings and recommendation

within sixty )@> days from receipt of this 'rder.

%he 8A8, thru the Criminal 9nvestigation 7roup in

Region G99 is similarly directed to initiate an

investigation on the conduct of Camad 3enito in

contributing to the failure of election[s] in 4apatagan.

B :ll election paraphernalia are available.

3. L$M"AAN all the members of the diFerent 3oardof 9nspectors are disuali#ed to act as such by reason

of relationship either by consanguinity or a"nity,

within the prohibited degree.

B :ll election paraphernalia for 1/ precincts are intact

and available.


4/227

4. L$M"A"A*A"AO candidates could not agree onthe venue of the distribution of the election supplies

and there was vehement disagreement on the

clustering of precincts.

B :ll election paraphernalia for #fty nine )?/ precincts

are available.

5. L$M"A*ANAG$E there was non :.*. of election day thus

preventing the distribution of election paraphernalia

from her o"ce. 5ome parties claim in fact that she was

only seen at noontime of election day while she was in

the house of the incumbent mayor of *asiu.

B :ll election paraphernalia for eighty )0> precinctsare available.

9. S$LAN D$MALONDONG *unicipal %reasurer didnot appear on *ay !> I !!, !//0 at the o"ce of the

8rovincial %reasurer to receive the ballots and other

election paraphernalia for distribution to the 3(9s so

there was no election supplies for distribution on

election day.


5/227

B :ll election paraphernalia for !@ precincts are

available.

10. S$LAN G$MANDER no 3(9s appeared on

election day because most of them are disuali#ed bylaw to act as suchJ the remaining !$ who are not

disuali#ed also did not appearJ there was also

disagreement on the venue of distribution of election

supplies.

B :ll election paraphernalia for ?! precincts are

available.

11. $"ARAN non=? voters, will be the sub&ect of a petition

to declare its nullity to be #led by the +aw 6epartmentof the Commission before the Regional %rial Court in

*arawi City. 9t is the desire of the Commission to put to

rest the issue on the controversy surrounding the

,>=? voters to allow honest election in this

municipality. :fter the controversy is put to rest, then

the special election shall be scheduled.

8:R%9:+ K:9+UR( 'K (+(C%9'A

9n the following municipalities and City of *arawi,

there was partial failure of election in the speci#ed

precincts due to the following reasons2

!. 7:A:559 members of the 3(9s for nine precincts asherein below enumerated did not appear thus election

supplies were not distributed on election day for the

following precincts2

3arangay Aame 8recinct Ao.

!. 8oblacion !:$

!:1E!:

$. 3aya 0:

1. +inu !:

!:!

!:$

. *acaguiling !0:

!0:!

!0:$

%here was also failure of election in precinct !:! and

!=:! due to ballot box snatching. %he ballot box

containing o"cial ballots and other election


6/227

paraphernalia for precinct !=:!, 3rgy. *acabao whose

polling place was at 7anassi Central (lementary

5chool was snatched allegedly by the incumbent

mayor of 7anassi, *aning 6ianga and his armed

escorts.

9n precinct $: in 3rgy. 3agoingud, failure of election is

declared and special election shall be held considering

that the ballot box, o"cial ballots and other election

paraphernalia were illegally brought to a private

dwelling in said barangay and voting irregularly too

place therein despite the fact that the designated

polling place was 7adungan (lementary 5chool at

7adungan. %his could not tae place unless the 3(9s

assigned in 8recinct $: cooperated in these acts.

%he acts complained of against (x


7/227

?. Calumbog !!:E!!:!

@. Campo *uslim L !$:$

=. Chinatown !1:

0. < do < !1:

/. Curahab !:

!>. 6iamaru !?:

!!. < do < !?:!

!$. *atampay L $@:

!1. 8asir L $/:

!. < do < $/:!

!?. < do < $/:$

!@. 5umbagarogong 11:

!=. < do < 11:!

!0. %acub L 1:

!/. %iongcop 1@:

$>. < do < 1@:!E1@:$

$!. %ubo 1=:$

$$. < do < 1=:?

$1. < do < 1=:@

L ballot box snatched

B :ll election paraphernalia for eighteen precincts are

intact and available. %he Commission will cause the

printing of !,>>> ballots and other election forms for

#ve precincts )0:!, !$:$, $@:, 1:.

1. *:R:A%:' thirty


8/227

=. < do < $/:

been violated. %here being no proof that the integrity

of the ballots had been violated in these precincts, the

members of the *unicipal 3oard of Canvassers of

*arantao are directed to include the same in the

canvass.

. 8:7:M:W:A casting of votes was aborted due to

widespread terrorism. Kifteen )!? precincts failed to

function.

B :ll election paraphernalia are available. However, in

precinct ?:E?:!, some commotion too place. (leven

voters out of two hundred and sixty

!!. 3rgy. 7uimba 10:

!$. < do < 10:

!1. 3rgy. +olod 5aduc =1:


9/227

due to nonwhich is missing or undelivered or without ballots

contained therein.

%he petition for declaration of failure of election in the

municipality of Calanogas, +anao del 5ur will be

covered by a diFerent resolution.

%o avoid the ris of another failure of elections and to

encourage public trust in the process and results of the

special elections, the following changes shall be

undertaen2

a. 'nly elements of the :rmed Korces of the

8hilippines and the 8hilippine Aational 8olice who are

assigned to the aFected areas shall serve as members

of the 3oard of (lection 9nspectors )3(9s. %he :cting

8rovincial (lection 5upervisor )8(5 of +anao del 5ur,

:tty. 5uharto :mbolodto, shall ensure that said 3(9s

are given adeuate brie#ng for this tasJ

Considering that under


10/227

election oFenses committed during the election

period.

8etitioner asserts that the C'*(+(C acted with

grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac of&urisdiction in issuing the assailed 'mnibus 'rder

!.] 3y insisting on holding special elections on -uly !0

and $?, !//0 more than thirty )1> days after the

failure to elect, in certain municipalities, in

contravention of the clear and explicit provisions of

5ection @ of the 'mnibus (lection CodeJ

$.] 3y failing to declare a total failure of elections in

the entire province of +anao del 5ur and to certify thesame to the 8resident of the 8hilippines and Congress

so that the necessary legislation may be enacted for

the holding of a special electionJ

1.] 3y ordering only elements of the :rmed Korces of

the 8hilippines and the 8hilippine Aational 8olice who

are not assigned to the aFected areas as members of

the 3oard of (lection 9nspectors, in contravention of

5ections !@@, !=>, !=? and !=@ of the 'mnibus(lection CodeJ

.] 3y insisting on machine counting despite the

proven unreliability and undependability of the

counting of votes with use of computer machines.

9n support of his cause, petitioner insists on a strict

compliance with the holding of special elections not

later than thirty )1> days after failure to elect

pursuant to 5ection @ of the 'mnibus (lection Code

which provides that2

5(C. @. Failure of elections. 9f, on account of forcemajeure, violence, terrorism, fraud or other analogous

causes the election in any polling place has not been

held on the date #xed, or had been suspended before

the hour #xed by law for the closing of the voting, or

after the voting and during the preparation and

transmission of the election returns or in the custody

or canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to

elect, and in any of such cases the failure or

suspension of election would aFect the result of the

election, the Commission shall, on the basis of averi#ed petition by any interested party and after due

notice and hearing, call for the holding or continuation

of the election not held, suspended or which resulted

in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close to the

date of the election not held, suspended or which

resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirty

days after the cessation of the cause of such

postponement or suspension of the election or failure

to elect.

8etitioner argues that the above


11/227

%he provision invoed can not be construed in the

manner as argued by petitioner for it would defeat the

purpose and spirit for which the law was enacted.

9t is a basic precept in statutory construction that astatute should be interpreted in harmony with the

Constitution and that the spirit, rather than the letter

of the law determines its constructionJ for that reason,

a statute must be read according to its spirit and

intent.[]%hus, a too literal interpretation of the law that

would lead to absurdity prompted this Court to

[a]dmonish against a tooliteral reading of the law as

this is apt to constrict rather than ful#ll its purpose and

defeat the intention of its authors. %hat intention isusually found not in the letter that illeth but in the

spirit that vivi#eth xxx[?]

5ection $ )! of :rticle 9G )C of the Constitution

gives the C'*(+(C the broad power to enforce and

administer all laws and regulations relative to the

conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative,

referendum and recall. %here can hardly be any doubt

that the text and intent of this constitutional provisionis to give C'*(+(C all

the necessaryand incidental powers for it to achieve

the ob&ective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful

and credible elections.

8ursuant to this intent, this Court has been liberal

in de#ning the parameters of the C'*(+(Cs powers in

conducting elections. :s stated in the old but

nevertheless still very much applicable case

of Sumulong v. COMELEC2[@]

8olitics is a practical matter, and political uestions

must be dealt with realistically not from the standpointof pure theory. %he Commission on (lections, because

of its fact


12/227

%he purpose of the governing statutes on the

conduct of elections

[i]s to protect the integrity of elections to suppress all

evils that may violate its purity and defeat the will ofthe voters. %he purity of the elections is one of the

most fundamental reuisites of popular

government. %he Commission on (lections, by

constitutional mandate, must do everything in its

power to secure a fair and honest canvass of the votes

cast in the elections. 9n the performance of its

duties, te Commission must be given a considerable

latitude in adopting means and metods tat "ill

insure te accomplisment of te great objective for

"ic it "as created to promote free, orderly, andhonest elections. The choice of means taken by

the Commission on Elections, unless they are

clearly illegal or constitute grave abuse of

discretion, should not be interfered with.[0]

7uided by the above days after the cessation of the

cause of the postponement or suspension of the

election or the failure to electJ and, $.] it should be

reasonably close to the date of the election not held,

suspended or which resulted in the failure to elect. %he

#rst involves a uestion of fact. %he second must be

determined in te ligt of te peculiar circumstances

of a case.[!>]%hus, the holding of elections within the

next few months from the cessation of the cause of thepostponement, suspension or failure to elect may still

be considered reasonably close to the date of the

election not held.[!!]

9n this case, the C'*(+(C can hardly be faulted for

tardiness. %he dates set for the special elections were

actually the nearest dates from the time totalEpartial

failure of elections was determined, which date fell on

-uly !, !//0, the date of promulgation of the

challenged 'mnibus 'rder. Aeedless to state, -uly !0and $?, the dates chosen by the C'*(+(C for the

holding of special elections were only a fe" days a"ay

from te time a total$partial failure of elections "as

declared and, tus, tese "ere dates reasonably close

tereto, given the prevailing facts herein. Kurthermore,

it bears stressing that in the exercise of the plenitude

of its powers to protect the integrity of elections, the

C'*(+(C should not and must not be strait&aceted by

procedural rules in the exercise of its discretion toresolve election disputes.[!$]

8etitioners argument that respondent C'*(+(C

gravely abused its discretion by failing to declare a

total failure of elections in the entire province of +anao

del 5ur and to certify the same to the 8resident and

Congress so that the necessary legislation may be
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/134340.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/134340.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/134340.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/134340.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/134340.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/134340.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/134340.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/134340.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/134340.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/nov99/134340.htm#_edn12


13/227

enacted for the holding of a special election, liewise

fails to persuade.

Ao less than petitioner himself concedes that there

was total failure of elections in twelve )!$municipalities and partial failure in eleven )!!. Met he

now insists a total failure of elections should have

been declared in the entire province of +anao del

5ur. 5u"ce it to state that the propriety of declaring

whether or not there has been a total failure of

elections in the entire province of +anao del 5ur is a

factual issue which this Court will not delve into

considering that the C'*(+(C, through its deputi;ed

o"cials in the #eld, is in the best position to assess the

actual conditions prevailing in that area. :bsent anyshowing of grave abuse of discretion, the #ndings of

fact of the C'*(+(C or any administrative agency

exercising particular expertise in its #eld of endeavor,

are binding on the Court.[!1]%here is no cogent reason

to depart from the general rule in this case.

%he insistence of petitioner that the C'*(+(C

violated 5ections !@@, !=>, !=? and !=@ of the

'mnibus (lection Code when it ordered elements ofthe :rmed Korces of the 8hilippines ):K8 and the

8hilippine Aational 8olice )8A8 who are not assigned

to the aFected areas as members of the 3oard of

(lection 9nspectors )3(9s is liewise unconvincing vis%%

visthe underlying reason of the public respondent to

have an eFective and impartial military presence to

avoid the ris of another failure of elections.

5o too must fall the argument that machine

counting being allegedly undependable and unreliable

should not be resorted to as the reasoning of

petitioner, by itself, invoes the answer. 9f the

C'*(+(C saw it #t to order a machine counting ofvotes in the municipalities enumerated, it could only

mean that the decree of R.:. Ao. 01@ could be

implemented without the interference of the claimed

unreliability, inaccuracy and undependability of the

computer sets. %he absence of any satisfactory proof

to support petitioners allegations to the contrary

reduces them to mere self


14/227

:t balance, the uestion really boils down to a choice

of philosophy and perception of how to interpret and

apply laws relating to electionsJ literal or liberalJ the

letter or the spiritJ the naed provision or its ultimate

purposeJ legal syllogism or substantial &usticeJ inisolation or in the context of social conditionsJ harshly

against or gently in favor of the voters obvious

choice. In applying election laws, it would be far

better to err in favor of popular sovereignty

than to be right in complex but little understood

legalisms.[!@]

9ndeed, to embar upon the costly electoral

exercise insisted upon by petitioner in terms of time

and taxpayers money is an unwarranted imposition onthe people of the aFected areas and is an

unacceptable option to the &udicial conscience.

-%ERE#ORE, in view of all the foregoing, thepetition is 695*955(6 for lac of merit.

SO ORDERED.

&avide, 'r., C.'., (ellosillo, Melo, )uno, *itug,+apunan, Mendoa,-uisumbing )urisima, (uena,

onaga%/eyes, and&e Leon, 'r., ''., concur.

)anganiban, '., in the result.

[G.R. No. 1:0130. A/r 14, 2004]

ISIDRO ID$L


15/227

petitioners therein and 3esben *auiso )*auiso,

who had placed ninth )/th in the canvass results. %he

election protest was doceted as C'*(+(C Case Ao.

(8C $>>!

:suncion < !@,?@=

7arcia < !@,?>$

8R'%(5%((52

9dulsa < !@,>!1

*auiso < !@,$@@

Cabana < !@,$@@[!]

:t the same time, the 5econd 6ivision determined that

one Rey M. *orti; )*orti;, who was not a party to the

election protest, had garnered more votes than the

three protestants. :pparently, per the Certi0cate of

Canvass, *orti; had placed tenth )!>th in the city

council election, though he had not been impleaded in

the protest as he was a party


16/227

'bviously aggrieved, the protestees, #led a Motion

for /econsiderationbefore the C'*(+(C En (ancon

$! -anuary $>>1. :side from contesting the 5econd

6ivisions appreciation of the contested ballots, the

petitioners also speci#cally uestioned theproclamation of *orti;, who was not a party to the

election protest. 8etitioners also noted therein that

:suncion and 7arcia had #led certi#cates of candidacy

for )unong (arangay and (arangay

+aga"adrespectively in the !? -uly

$>>$ barangayelections, and :suncion was elected.

:s a result, it was argued, :suncion and 7arcia should

be deemed to have abandoned their election protest.[]

'n != Kebruary $>>1, before the C'*(+(C En(anchad resolved the Motion for

/econsideration,private respondent %eresita :.

3ollo;os )3ollo;os, who was not a party to the election

protest, #led a Motion for Leave to #ntervenein

PC'*(+(C Case Ao. (8C $>>!th instead.

'n !0 5eptember $>>1, the C'*(+(C En

(ancissued a /esolutionpartially a"rming the 5econd

6ivisions /esolution. 9t held that the 5econd 6ivision

committed no reversible error as to the appreciation of

the contested ballots, and in declaring *orti; as the

seventh )=th place councilor. However, the C'*(+(C

also considered 3ollo;os claim as meritorious, as

according to it, [r]ecords reveal that 3ollo;os garnereda total of seventeen thousand twenty$1

votes, clearly outnumbering [:suncions] !@,?@= votes

and [7arcias] !@,?>$ votes.[@]3ollo;os Motion for

#nterventionwas thus granted, and 3ollo;os was

proclaimed as the ninth )/ th place candidate. :t the

same time, the C'*(+(C En (anc also ruled that

:suncion should not be proclaimed, as he has been

deemed to have abandoned his protest due to his

successful candidacy for )unong (arangay in the !?

-uly $>>$ elections. :ccordingly, the tenth )!>th placewas declared vacant.

8etitioners now come before this Court on

a )etition for Certiorari, assailing the /esolutions of the

C'*(+(C. %hey assert that the C'*(+(C committed

grave abuse of discretion in proclaiming *orti; and

3ollo;os, the former having no participation in the

election protest, while the latter having #led her

motion for intervention beyond the period provided bylaw.[=]%hey also uestion the manner of appreciation

by the C'*(+(C of the contested ballots.[0]Kinally,

they applied for aTemporary /estraining Order, which

the Court has not granted.

%he appreciation of contested ballots and election

documents involves a uestion of fact best left to the

determination of the C'*(+(C, a speciali;ed agency
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/apr2004/160130.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/apr2004/160130.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/apr2004/160130.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/apr2004/160130.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/apr2004/160130.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/apr2004/160130.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/apr2004/160130.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/apr2004/160130.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/apr2004/160130.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/apr2004/160130.htm#_ftn8


17/227

tased with the supervision of elections all over the

country.[/]%he #ndings of fact of the C'*(+(C when

supported by substantial evidence are #nal and non]8etitioners want this Court to review the

speci#c appreciation by the 5econd 6ivision of ballotscast in fortyth, has become the seventh )=th placer,

considering that his original vote total still surpassed

that of the protestants. We are unable to see how such

declaration by the C'*(+(C could constitute grave

abuse of discretion, even if *orti; had not been a

party to the election protest. He was not a losing

candidate elevated into victory, as he apparently was

already proclaimed a duly elected city councilor in *ayof $>>!.[!!]%he petitioners were dislodged from their

respective seats because the private respondents

garnered more votes than them. *orti;s vote total

remained unchanged despite the protest. His elevation

to seventh )=th place is but a necessary conseuence

of the #nding of the C'*(+(C that the petitioners had

actually obtained less number of votes than as

reNected in the #rst canvass results. 9t would be

patently ridiculous for the Court or the C'*(+(C tohold that he should still be deemed as the tenth )!>th

placer when the amended vote totals reveal that he

had garnered more votes than the new eighth )0th

placer. 8resumptively, the vote totals as amended

after the revision more accurately reNect the true will

of the voters of 7ingoog City, and the elevation of

councilor *orti; from tenth )!>th to seventh )=th

place is in consonance with the electoral mandate.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/apr2004/160130.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/apr2004/160130.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/apr2004/160130.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/apr2004/160130.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/apr2004/160130.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/apr2004/160130.htm#_ftn11


18/227

(lection protests are guided by an extra


19/227

election as )unong (arangayshould be deemed an

abandonment of his protest. 9n so holding, the

C'*(+(C En (anccited the Courts ma&ority opinion in

the case of &efensor%Santiago v. /amos.[!0]%he parties

adduced no compelling reason for the Court to disturbthis conclusion of the C'*(+(C. :t the same time, the

eleventh )!!th placer 7arcia cannot be elevated to

the tenth )!>th spot, for the simple reason that the

electorate of 7ingoog City did not elect him as one of

the ten )!> city councilors.[!/]

-%ERE#ORE, the petition is 695*955(6 for lac ofmerit.

SO ORDERED.

&avide, 'r., C.'., )uno, *itug, )anganiban,

-uisumbing, 1nares%Santiago, Sandoval%utierre,

Carpio, 2ustria%Martine, Corona, Carpio%Morales,

Callejo, Sr., and2cuna, ''., concur.

G.R. No. 12493 A/r 1, 199;

L*NEE G. GAR!IDA, petitioner,vs.

#LORENCIO G. SALES, )R., %E %ONORA"LECOMMISSION ON ELECIONS, ELECION O##ICERDIONISIO #. RIOS &'( PRO!INCIAL S$PER!ISORNOLI PIPO, respondents.

P$NO,J.!

8etitioner +ynette 7. 7arvida sees to annul and set

aside the order dated *ay $, !//@ of respondent

Commission on (lections )C'*(+(C en

bancsuspending her proclamation as the duly elected

Chairman of the 5angguniang 4abataan of 3arangay

5an +oren;o, *unicipality of 3angui, 9locos Aorte.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/apr2004/160130.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/apr2004/160130.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/apr2004/160130.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/apr2004/160130.htm#_ftn19


20/227

%he facts are undisputed. %he 5angguniang 4abataan

)54 elections nationwide was scheduled to be held on

*ay @, !//@. 'n *arch !@, !//@, petitioner applied for

registration as member and voter of the 4atipunan ng

4abataan of 3arangay 5an +oren;o, 3angui, 9locosAorte. %he 3oard of (lection %ellers, however, denied

her application on the ground that petitioner, who was

then twenty months old,

exceeded the age limit for membership in the

4atipunan ng 4abataan as laid down in 5ection 1 [b] of

C'*(+(C Resolution Ao. $0$.

'n :pril $, !//@, petitioner #led a Q8etition for

9nclusion as Registered 4abataang *ember and DoterQ

with the *unicipal Circuit %rial Court, 3angui.>>.

5' 'R6(R(6. 9

'n *ay @, !//@, election day, petitioner garnered =0

votes as against private respondents votes of =@. 109n

accordance with the *ay $, !//@ order of the

C'*(+(C en banc, the 3oard of (lection %ellers did not

proclaim petitioner as the winner. Hence, the instantpetition for certiorariwas #led on *ay $=, !//@.

'n -une $, !//@, however, the 3oard of (lection %ellers

proclaimed petitioner the winner for the position of 54

chairman, 3arangay 5an +oren;o, 3angui, 9locos

Aorte. 11%he proclamation was Qwithout pre&udice to

any further action by the Commission on (lections or

any other interested party.Q 12'n -uly ?, !//@,

petitioner ran in the 8ambayang 8ederasyon ng mga

5angguniang 4abataan for the municipality of 3angui,

9locos Aorte. 5he won as :uditor and was proclaimed

one of the elected o"cials of the 8ederasyon. 13

8etitioner raises two )$ signi#cant issues2 the #rst

concerns the &urisdiction of the C'*(+(C en bancto

act on the petition to deny or cancel her certi#cate of

candidacyJ the second, the cancellation of her


22/227

certi#cate of candidacy on the ground that she has

exceeded the age reuirement to run as an elective

o"cial of the 54.

9

5ection ?1$ )a of the +ocal 7overnment Code of !//!

provides that the conduct of the 54 elections is under

the supervision of the C'*(+(C and shall be governed

by the 'mnibus (lection Code. 14%he 'mnibus

(lection Code, in 5ection =0, :rticle 9G, governs the

procedure to deny due course to or cancel a certi#cate

of candidacy, vi2

5ec. =0. )etition to deny due course to orcancel a certi0cate of candidacy. S :

veri#ed petition seeing to deny due

course or to cancel a certi#cate of

candidacy may be #led by any person

exclusively on the ground that any

material representation contained therein

as reuired under 5ection = hereof is

false. %he petition may be #led at any

time not later than twenty


23/227

9n the instant case, the C'*(+(C en bancdid not refer

the case to any of its 6ivisions upon receipt of the

petition. 9t therefore acted without &urisdiction or with

grave abuse of discretion when it entertained the

petition and issued the order of *ay $, !//@.

1

99

%he C'*(+(C en bancalso erred when it failed to note

that the petition itself did not comply with the formal

reuirements of pleadings under the C'*(+(C Rules

of 8rocedure. %hese reuirements are2

Sec.4. Filing of )leadings. S (very

pleading, motion and other papers mustbe #led in ten )!> legible copies.

However, when there is more than one

respondent or protestee, the petitioner or

protestant must #le additional number of

copies of the petition or protest as there

are additional respondents or protestees.

Sec.5. 6o" Filed. S %he documents

referred to in the immediately preceding

section must be #led directly with the

proper Cler of Court of the Commission

personally, or, unless otherwise provided

in these Rules, by registered mail. 9n the

latter case, the date of mailing is the date

of #ling and the reuirement as to the

number of copies must be complied with.

Sec.3. Form of )leadings, etc. S )a :ll

pleadings allowed by these Rules shall be

printed, mimeographed or typewritten on

legal si;e bond paper and shall be in

(nglish or Kilipino.

xxx xxx xxx

(very pleading before the C'*(+(C must be

printed, mimeographed or typewritten in legal

si;e bond paper and #led in at least ten )!>

legible copies. 8leadings must be #led directly

with the proper Cler of Court of the C'*(+(C

personally, or, by registered mail.

9n the instant case, the sub&ect petition was not in

proper form. 'nly two )$ copies of the petition were

#led with the C'*(+(C. 19:lso, the C'*(+(C en

bancissued its Resolution on the basis of the petition

transmitted by facsimile, not by registered mail.

: facsimile or fax transmission is a process involving

the transmission and reproduction of printed and

graphic matter by scanning an original copy, one

elemental area at a time, and representing the shade

or tone of each area by a speci#ed amount of electric

current. 20%he current is transmitted as a signal over

regular telephone lines or via microwave relay and is

used by the receiver to reproduce an image of the

elemental area in the proper position and the correct

shade. 21%he receiver is euipped with a stylus or


24/227

other device that produces a printed record on paper

referred to as a facsimile. 22

Kiling a pleading by facsimile transmission is not

sanctioned by the C'*(+(C Rules of 8rocedure, much

less by the Rules of Court. : facsimile is not a genuine

and authentic pleading. 9t is, at best, an exact copy

preserving all the mars of an original. 23Without the

original, there is no way of determining on its face

whether the facsimile pleading is genuine and

authentic and was originally signed by the party and

his counsel. 9t may, in fact, be a sham pleading. %he

uncertainty of the authenticity of a facsimile pleading

should have restrained the C'*(+(C en bancfrom

acting on the petition and issuing the uestionedorder. %he C'*(+(C en bancshould have waited until

it received the petition #led by registered mail.

999

%o write #nis to the case at bar, we shall now resolve

the issue of petitioners age.

%he 4atipunan ng 4abataan was originally created by

8residential 6ecree Ao. @0 in !/=? as the 4abataang

3arangay, a barangay youth organi;ation composed of

all residents of the barangay who were at least !?

years but less than !0 years of age. 24%he 4abataang

3arangay sought to provide its members a medium to

express their views and opinions and participate in

issues of transcendental importance. 259ts aFairs were

administered by a barangay youth chairman together

with six barangay youth leaders who were actual

residents of the barangay and were at least !? years

but less than !0 years of age. 2:9n !/01, 3atas

8ambansa 3lg. 11=, then the +ocal 7overnment Code,

raised the maximum age of the 4abataang 3arangaymembers from Qless than !0 years of ageQ to Qnot

more than $! years of age.Q

%he +ocal 7overnment Code of !//! changed the

4abataang 3arangay into the 4atipunan ng 4abataan.

9t, however, retained the age limit of the members laid

down in 3.8. 11= at !? but not more than $! years

old. 2;%he aFairs of the 4atipunan ng 4abataan are

administered by the 5angguniang 4abataan )54

composed of a chairman and seven )= members whoare elected by the 4atipunan ng 4abataan. 2%he

chairman automatically becomes ex


25/227

and who are duly registered in the list of

the sangguniang abataan or in the

o"cial barangay list in the custody of the

barangay secretary.

: member of the 4atipunan ng 4abataan may

become a candidate for the 5angguniang

4abataan if he possesses the following

uali#cations2

Sec.758. -uali0cations. S :n elective

o"cial of the sangguniang abataan must

be a citi;en of the 8hilippines, a uali#ed

voter of the atipunan ng abataan, a

resident of the barangay for at least one)! year immediately prior to election, at

least #fteen )!? years but not more than

twenty


26/227

Sec.9. -uali0cations of elective

members. S :n elective o"cial of the 54

must be2

a a uali#ed voterJ

b a resident in the barangay for at least

one )! year immediately prior to the

electionsJ and

c able to read and write Kilipino or any

8hilippine language or dialect or (nglish.

Cases involving the eligibility or

uali#cation of candidates shall bedecided by the cityEmunicipal (lection

'"cer )(' whose decision shall be #nal.

: member of the 4atipunan ng 4abataan may

be a uali#ed voter in the *ay @, !//@ 54

elections if he is2 )a a Kilipino citi;enJ )b !? but

not more than $! years of age on election

day, i.e., the voter must be born between *ay @,

!/=? and *ay @, !/0!, inclusiveJ and )c a

resident of the 8hilippines for at least one )!

year and an actual resident of the barangay at

least six )@ months immediately preceding the

elections. : candidate for the 54 must2 )a

possess the foregoing uali#cations of a voterJ

)b be a resident in the barangay at least one )!

year immediately preceding the electionsJ and

)c able to read and write.

(xcept for the uestion of age, petitioner has all the

uali#cations of a member and voter in the 4atipunan

ng 4abataan and a candidate for the 5angguniang

4abataan. 8etitioner s age is admittedly beyond the

limit set in 5ection 1 [b] of C'*(+(C Resolution Ao.$0$. 8etitioner, however, argues that 5ection 1 [b] of

Resolution Ao. $0$ is unlawful, ultra viresand beyond

the scope of 5ections $ and $0 of the +ocal

7overnment Code of !//!. 5he contends that the

Code itself does not provide that the voter must be

exactly $! years of age on election day. 5he urges that

so long as she did not turn twenty


27/227

understandable considering that the Code itself

provides more uali#cations for an elective 54 o"cial

than for a member of the 4atipunan ng

4abataan.&issimilum dissimilis est ratio. 31%he courts

may distinguish when there are facts andcircumstances showing that the legislature intended a

distinction or uali#cation. 32

%he uali#cation that a voter in the 54 elections must

not be more than $! years of age on the day of the

election is not provided in 5ection $ of the +ocal

7overnment Code of !//!. 9n fact the term Quali#ed

voterQ appears only in C'*(+(C Resolution Ao.

$0$. 335ince a Quali#ed voterQ is not necessarily an

elective o"cial, then it may be assumed that aQuali#ed voterQ is a Qmember of the 4atipunan ng

4abataan.Q 5ection $ of the Code does not provide

that the maximum age of a member of the 4atipunan

ng 4abataan is determined on the day of the election.

5ection 1 [b] of C'*(+(C Resolution Ao. $0$ is

therefore ultra viresinsofar as it sets the age limit of a

voter for the 54 elections at exactly $! years on the

day of the election.

%he provision that an elective o"cial of the 54 should

not be more than $! years of age on the day of his

election is very clear. %he +ocal 7overnment Code

speas of years, not months nor days. When the law

speas of years, it is understood that years are of 1@?

days each. 34'ne born on the #rst day of the year is

conseuently deemed to be one year old on the 1@?th

day after his birth S the last day of the year. 359n

computing years, the #rst year is reached after

completing the #rst 1@? days. :fter the #rst 1@?th day,

the #rst day of the second 1@?


28/227

organi;ation to $! years, it did not reenact the

provision in such a way as to mae the youth Qat least

!? but less than $$ years old.Q 9f the intention of the

Codes framers was to include citi;ens less than $$

years old, they should have stated so expressly

instead of leaving the matter open to confusion and

doubt. 3;

Kormer 5enator :uilino O. 8imentel, the sponsor and

principal author of the +ocal 7overnment Code of !//!

declared that one of the reasons why the 4atipunan ng

4abataan was created and the 4abataang 3arangay

discontinued was because most, if not all, 4abataang

3arangay leaders were already over $! years of age

by the time 8resident :uino assumed power. 3%heywere not the QyouthQ anymore. %he +ocal 7overnment

Code of !//! #xed the maximum age limit at not more

than $! years 39and the only exception is in the

second paragraph of 5ection $1 which reads2

5ec. $1. Creation and Election. S

a . . . J

b : sangguniang abataan o"cial who,

during his term of o"ce, shall have

passed the age of twenty


29/227

over the age limit for elective 54 o"cials set by

5ection $0 of the +ocal 7overnment Code and

5ections 1 [b] and @ of Comelec Resolution Ao. $0$.

5he was ineligible to run as candidate for the *ay @,

!//@ 5angguniang 4abataan elections.

%he reuirement that a candidate possess the age

uali#cation is founded on public policy and if he lacs

the age on the day of the election, he can be declared

ineligible. 419n the same vein, if the candidate is over

the maximum age limit on the day of the election, he

is ineligible. %he fact that the candidate was elected

will not mae the age reuirement directory, nor will it

validate his election. 42%he will of the people as

expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice ofineligibility. 43

%he ineligibility of petitioner does not entitle private

respondent, the candidate who obtained the highest

number of votes in the *ay @, !//@ elections, to be

declared elected. 44: defeated candidate cannot be

deemed elected to the o"ce. 45*oreover, despite his

claims, 4:private respondent has failed to prove that

the electorate themselves actually new of petitioners

ineligibility and that they maliciously voted for her with

the intention of misapplying their franchises and

throwing away their votes for the bene#t of her rival

candidate. 4;

Aeither can this Court order that pursuant to 5ection

1? of the +ocal 7overnment Code petitioner should

be succeeded by the 5angguniang 4abataan member

who obtained the next highest number of votes in the

*ay @, !//@ elections. 45ection 1? applies when a

5angguniang 4abataan Chairman Qrefuses to assume

o"ce, fails to ualify, 49is convicted of a felony,

voluntarily resigns, dies, is permanently incapacitated,

is removed from o"ce, or has been absent without

leave for more than three )1 consecutive months.Q

%he uestion of the age uali#cation is a uestion of

eligibility.503eing QeligibleQ means being Qlegally

uali#edJ capable of being legally

chosen.Q 519neligibility, on the other hand, refers to the

lac of the uali#cations prescribed in the Constitution

or the statutes for holding public o"ce. 529neligibility

is not one of the grounds enumerated in 5ection 1?for succession of the 54 Chairman.

%o avoid a hiatus in the o"ce of 54 Chairman, the

Court deems it necessary to order that the vacancy be

#lled by the 54 member chosen by the incumbent 54

members of 3arangay 5an +oren;o, 3angui, 9locos

Aorte by simple ma&ority from among themselves. %he

member chosen shall assume the o"ce of 54

Chairman for the unexpired portion of the term, and

shall discharge the powers and duties, and en&oy the

rights and privileges appurtenant to said o"ce.

9A D9(W WH(R('K, the petition is dismissed and

petitioner +ynette 7. 7arvida is declared ineligible for

being over the age uali#cation for candidacy in the

*ay @, !//@ elections of the 5angguniang 4abataan,

and is ordered to vacate her position as Chairman of


30/227

the 5angguniang 4abataan of 3arangay 5an +oren;o,

3angui, 9locos Aorte. %he 5angguniang 4abataan

member voted by simple ma&ority by and from among

the incumbent 5angguniang 4abataan members of

3arangay 5an +oren;o, 3angui, 9locos Aorte shall

assume the o"ce of 5angguniang 4abataan Chairman

of 3arangay 5an +oren;o, 3angui, 9locos Aorte for the

unexpired portion of the term.

5' 'R6(R(6.

:arvasa, C.'., )adilla, /egalado, &avide, 'r., /omero,

(ellosillo, Melo, *itug, +apunan, Mendoa, Francisco,

)anganiban and Torres, 'r., ''., concur.

6ermosisima, 'r., '., is on leave.

[G.R. No. 1:1434. M&r8 3, 2004]

MARIA )EANEE C. ECSON &'( #ELI ".DESIDERIO, )R.,petitioners, vs.8eCOMMISSION ON ELECIONS, RONALDALLAN ELL* POE &.B.&. #ERNANDO POE,

)R. &'( !ICORINO .#ORNIER,respondents.


31/227

[G.R. No. 1:1:34. M&r8 3, 2004]

8 o'?erre( o'8oe 78om 8e &e beeve &re (eerv'> o?8e /rve>e. I & /reo 8er&>e, & 7e &&' 'em&be &o',[!]8& &''o be&Be' >86 b6 &'6o'e H e8er b6 8oe 78oe'o6 or b6 8oe 78o (/e .

3efore the Court are three consolidated cases, allof which raise a single uestion of profoundimportance to the nation. %he issue of citi;enship isbrought up to challenge the uali#cations of apresidential candidate to hold the highest o"ce of theland. 'ur people are waiting for the &udgment of theCourt with bated breath. 9s Kernando 8oe, -r., the hero

of silver screen, and now one of the main contendersfor the presidency, a natural>1, respondent Ronald :llan4elly 8oe, also nown as Kernando 8oe, -r. )hereinafterQK8-Q, #led his certi#cate of candidacy for the positionof 8resident of the Republic of the 8hilippines underthe 4oalisyon ng Aagaaisang 8ilipino )4A8 8arty, inthe forthcoming national elections. 9n his certi#cate ofcandidacy, K8-, representing himself to be a natural :ugust !/1/ and his place of birth tobe *anila.

Dictorino G. Kornier, petitioner in 7.R. Ao. !@!0$,entitled QDictorino G. Kornier, 8etitioner, versus Hon.

Commission on (lections and Ronald :llan 4elley 8oe,also nown as Kernando 8oe, -r., Respondents,Qinitiated, on >/ -anuary $>>, a petition doceted 58:Ao. >>1 before the Commission on (lections)QC'*(+(CQ to disualify K8- and to deny due courseor to cancel his certi#cate of candidacy upon the thesisthat K8- made a material misrepresentation in hiscerti#cate of candidacy by claiming to be a natural until *ay !/@were totally destroyed during World War 99.

'n $1 -anuary $>>, the C'*(+(C dismissed 58:Ao. >>1 for lac of merit. %hree days later, or on $@

-anuary $>>, Kornier #led his motion for

reconsideration. %he motion was denied on >@Kebruary $>> by the C'*(+(C en banc. 'n!>Kebruary $>>, petitioner assailed the decision of theC'*(+(C before this Court conformably with Rule @,in relation to Rule @?, of the Revised Rules of Civil8rocedure. %he petition, doceted 7. R. Ao. !@!0$,liewise prayed for a temporary restraining order, awrit of preliminary in&unction or any other resolutionthat would stay the #nality andEor execution of theC'*(+(C resolutions.


33/227

%he other petitions, later consolidated with 7. R.Ao. !@!0$, would include 7. R. Ao. !@!1, entitledQ*aria -eanette C. %ecson, and Kelix 3. 6esiderio, -r.,vs. %he Commission on (lections, Ronald :llan 4elley8oe )a.!.a.Kernando 8oe, -r., and Dictorino G. Kornier,Q

and the other, doceted 7. R. Ao. !@!@1, entitledQoilo :ntonio 7. Dele;, vs. Ronald :llan 4elley8oe, a.!.a.Kernando 8oe, -r.,Q both challenging the

&urisdiction of the C'*(+(C and asserting that, under:rticle D99, 5ection , paragraph =, of the !/0=Constitution, only the 5upreme Court had original andexclusive &urisdiction to resolve the basic issue on thecase.

)r(o' o? 8e Cor

I' G. R. No. 1:124

9n seeing the disuali#cation of the candidacy ofK8- and to have the C'*(+(C deny due course to orcancel K8-s certi#cate of candidacy for allegedmisrepresentation of a material fact )i.e., that K8- wasa natural


34/227

:dditionally, 5ection !, :rticle D999, of the sameConstitution provides that &udicial power is vested inone 5upreme Court and in such lower courts as maybe established by law which power includes the duty ofthe courts of &ustice to settle actual controversies

involving rights which are legally demandable andenforceable, and to determine whether or not therehas been a grave abuse of discretion amounting tolac or excess of &urisdiction on the part of any branchor instrumentality of the 7overnment.

9t is su"ciently clear that the petition brought upin 7. R. Ao. !@!0$ was aptly elevated to, and couldwell be taen cogni;ance of by, this Court. : contraryview could be a gross denial to our people of theirfundamental right to be fully informed, and to mae a

proper choice, on who could or should be elected tooccupy the highest government post in the land.

I' G. R. No. 1:1434 &'( G. R. No. 1:1:34

8etitioners %ecson, et al., in 7. R. Ao. !@!1, andDele;, in 7. R. Ao. !@!@1, invoe the provisions of:rticle D99, 5ection , paragraph =, of the !/0=Constitution in assailing the &urisdiction of theC'*(+(C when it too cogni;ance of 58: Ao. >>1and in urging the 5upreme Court to instead tae on thepetitions they directly instituted before it. %he

Constitutional provision cited reads2

Q%he 5upreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole&udge of all contests relating to the election, returns,and uali#cations of the 8resident or Dice


35/227

and uali#cations of the 8resident or Dice


36/227

established the rights necessary for individualfreedom, such as rights to property, personal libertyand &ustice.[/] 9ts meaning expanded during the !/thcentury to includepolitical citiensip, whichencompassed the right to participate in the exercise of

political power.[!>]

%he $>th century saw the next stageof the development ofsocial citiensip, which laidemphasis on the right of the citi;en to economic well$, the #rst comprehensivelegislation of the Congress of the United 5tates on the8hilippines . Kernando 8oe, 5r., and my sister, 3essie,were blessed with four ) more childrenafter Ronald :llan 8oe.

x x x x x x x x x

!0. 9 am executing this 6eclaration to attest tothe fact that my nephew, Ronald :llan8oe is a natural born Kilipino, and that heis the legitimate child of Kernando 8oe, 5r.

6one in City of 5tocton, California, U.5.:., this!$th day of -anuary $>>.

Ruby 4elley*angahas

6eclarant

DNA e'>

9n case proof of #liation or paternity would beunliely to satisfactorily establish or would be di"cultto obtain, 6A: testing, which examines genetic codesobtained from body cells of the illegitimate child andany physical residue of the long dead parent could beresorted to. : positive match would clear up #liation or

paternity. 9n Tijing vs. Court of 2ppeals,[$]

this Courthas acnowledged the strong weight of 6A: testing >!, the petitioner, also a candidate

for *ayor during the *ay $>>! elections, #led a

petition for =uo "arrantowith the R%C of :goo, +a

Union. He prayed that )a the respondent be declared

disuali#ed to hold the position of *ayor of %ubao, +a

UnionJ )b the respondents proclamation as winner be

declared null and voidJ and )c the petitioner be

proclaimed as the duly>!, the R%C rendered a

6ecision[!>]

dismissing the petition for =uo "arranto.%he R%C ruled that the respondent was uali#ed to

occupy the position as *unicipal *ayor.

%he R%C held that the respondents act of

registration as a voter, or of #ling an income tax

return, does not constitute an abandonment or waiver

of her status as a permanent resident of the U.5.:.[!!]Aonetheless, it declared that the respondent was no

longer such permanent resident during the *ay $>>!

elections because she had already waived her greencard even prior to the #ling of her certi#cate of

candidacy when she #rst ran for mayor in the !//0

elections.[!$]%he R%C held that the waiver of the status

as a permanent resident under 5ec. @0)e[!1]of the

'mnibus (lection Code is still eFective. 9t ruled that

5ec. >)f[!]of the +ocal 7overnment Code )+7C of

!//! did not repeal 5ec. @0)e. Kor one, there is
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn14


53/227


54/227

5(C%9'A 1/. -uali0cations.

)a :n elective local o"cial must be a citi;en of the

8hilippinesJ a registered voter in the barangay,

municipality, city, or province or, in the case of a

member of the sangguniang panlala"igan,sangguniang panlungsod, or sangguniang bayan,the

district where he intends to be electedJ a resident

therein for at least one )! year immediately preceding

the day of the electionBand able to read and write

Kilipino or any local language or dialect.

9n interpreting this reuirement, our ruling

in )apandayan, 'r. v. Commission on Elections[$!]is

instructive, thus2

%he term residence, as used in the election law,

imports not only an intention to reside in a #xed place

but also personal presence in that place, coupled with

conduct indicative of such intention. 6omicile denotes

a #xed permanent residence to which when absent for

business or pleasure, or for lie reasons, one intends to

return. [$$]

*ore recently in Co=uilla v. Commission onElections,[$1]we further clari#ed the meaning of the

term, and held as follows2

%he term residence is to be understood not in its

common acceptation as referring to dwelling or

habitation, but rather to domicile or legal residence,

that is, the place where a party actually or

constructively has his permanent home, where he, no

matter where he may be found at any given time,

eventually intends to return and remain animus

manendiD. : domicile of origin is acuired by every

person at birth. 9t is usually the place where the childs

parents reside and continues )sic until the same isabandoned by acuisition of new domicile )domicile of

choice.[$]

9n Caasi v. Court of 2ppeals,[$?]we held that a

Kilipino citi;ens immigration to a foreign country

constitutes an abandonment of his domicile and

residence in the 8hilippines. 9n other words, the

acuisition of a permanent residency status in a

foreign country constitutes a renunciation of the statusas a resident of the 8hilippines. 'n the other hand, the

Court explained in another case[$@]that a new domicile

is reacuired if the following conditions concur2

)! [R]residence or bodily presence in the new localityJ

)$ an intention to remain thereJ and )1 an intention

to abandon the old domicile. %here must be animus

manendicoupled with animus non revertendi. %he

purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must

be for an inde#nite period of timeJ the change ofresidence must be voluntaryJ and the residence at the

place chosen for the new domicile must be actual. [$=]

:pplying case law to the present case, it can be

said that the respondent eFectively abandoned her

residency in the 8hilippines by her acuisition of the

status of a permanent U.5. resident. Aonetheless, we
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/147909.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/151914.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/151914.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/147909.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/151914.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/151914.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn27


55/227

#nd that the respondent reacuired her residency in

the 8hilippines even before the holding of the *ay

$>>! elections. %he records show that she surrendered

her green card to the 9mmigration and Aaturali;ation

5ervice of the :merican (mbassy way bac in !//0.

3y such act, her intention to abandon her U.5.residency could not have been made clearer.

*oreover, when she decided to relocate to the

8hilippines for good in !//1, she continued living here

and only went to the U.5.:. on periodic visits to her

children who were residing there. *oreover, she was

elected *ayor in the !//0 elections and served as

such for the duration of her term. We #nd such acts

su"cient to establish that the respondent intended to

stay in the 8hilippines inde#nitely and, ultimately, thatshe has once again made the 8hilippines her

permanent residence. :s we ruled in)ere v.

Commission on Elections2[$0]

When the evidence on the alleged lac of residence

uali#cation is wea or inconclusive and it clearly

appears, as in the instant case, that the purpose of the

law would not be thwarted by upholding the right to

the o"ce, the will of the electorate should be

respected. 9n this case, considering the purpose of theresidency reuirement, i.e.,to ensure that the person

elected is familiar with the needs and problems of his

constituency, there can be no doubt that private

respondent is uali#ed, having been governor of the

entire province of Cagayan for ten years immediately

before his election as Representative of that provinces

%hird 6istrict.[$/]

%he petitioner posits that, under existing law, the

waiver of the status as a permanent resident of a

foreign country is no longer allowed to cure the

disuali#cation, in case of permanent residents

abroad. He argues that the prevailing law is the +7C of

!//! which impliedly repealed 5ec. @0 of the 'mnibus(lection Code for being inconsistent. He asserts that

the inconsistency lies in the fact that 5ection >)f of

the +7C does not provide for the waiver of the status

as permanent residents in a foreign country which, on

the other hand, is provided under 5ection @0 of the

'mnibus (lection Code. He contends that under

5ection >)f of the +7C, permanent residents or those

who have acuired the right to reside abroad and

continue to avail of the same right even after theeFectivity of the law on -anuary !, !//$, are

disuali#ed from running for any local elective

position. Hence, the petitioner argues, since the

respondent continued to avail of the right to reside

permanently in the U.5.:. until !//=, the respondent

was disuali#ed from running for mayor during the

*ay $>>! elections.

%he respondent counters that the petitioners

interpretation of 5ec. >)f of the +7C of !//! ispatently illogical, absurd, and myopic, if not totally

outrageous. 5uch interpretation would, in eFect,

forever ban Kilipinos from running for local elective

positions, that is, those who are permanent residents

abroad and who have failed to abandon their status as

such after the eFectivity of the +7C. [1>]%he respondent

avers that the provision simply means that after the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/oct99/133944.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/oct99/133944.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/oct99/133944.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/oct99/133944.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn30


56/227

eFectivity of the +7C, permanent residents in a foreign

country or those who have acuired the right to reside

there and continue to avail of the said right are

disuali#ed from running for any elective local

position. 5he argues therefore that she is no longer

disuali#ed because, at the time she ran for o"ce, shealready ceased to avail of her right as a permanent

U.5. resident or immigrant.[1!]

We agree with the respondent. 5ection @0 of the

'mnibus (lection Code was not repealed by the +7C of

!//!. %he repealing clause of the +7C, 5ection ?1,[1$]does not speci#cally mention a repeal of any

provision of the 'mnibus (lection Code. %he

legislature is presumed to now the existing laws, suchthat whenever it intends to repeal a particular or

speci#c provision of law, it does so expressly. %he

failure to add a speci#c repealing clause particularly

mentioning the statute to be repealed indicates that

the intent was not to repeal any existing law on the

matter, unless an irreconcilable inconsistency and

repugnancy exists in the terms of the new and the old

laws.[11]

9n this case, we discern no irreconcilableinconsistency between 5ection @0 of the 'mnibus

(lection Code and 5ection >)f of the +7C. 5ection @0

of the 'mnibus (lection Code provides in part2

:ny person who is a permanent resident of or an

immigrant to a foreign country shall not be uali#ed to

run for any elective o"ce under this Code, unless said

person has waived his status as a permanent resident

or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with

the residence reuirement provided for in the election

laws.

'n the other hand, 5ec. >)f of the +7C providesthat permanent residents in a foreign country or those

who have acuired the right to reside abroad and

continue to avail of the same right after the eFectivity

of this Code are disuali#ed from running for any

elective local position.

%he two provisions are basically the same in that

they both provide that permanent residents or

immigrants to a foreign country are disuali#ed fromrunning for any local elective position. %he diFerence

lies only in the fact that 5ection @0 of the 'mnibus

(lection Code speci0cally provides for an e;ception to

te dis=uali0cation. %his does not mae the two

provisions inconsistent with each other.

*oreover, the two provisions are inpari

materiathey relate to the same sub&ect matter.

5tatutes inpari materia, although in apparent conNict,

are so far as reasonably possible construed to be inharmony with each other.[1]%hus, the R%C correctly

made the following observations2

%he deletion is based on the premise that once a

person waives or abandons his status as a permanent

resident or immigrant of a foreign country he has,

therefore, ceased to be such from the time of the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn34


57/227

waiver or abandonment. %he phrase as used in 5ection

@0 of the 'mnibus (lection Code is a catchphrase or a

conditional clause on how a permanent resident or

immigrant of a foreign country could fall outside the

coverage of the prohibition. %he legislature found the

inclusion of the phrase unnecessary or, with no oFensemeant to the framers of 3atas 8ambansa [3lg.] 00!, a

surplusage, so to spea. Hence, the deletion.

5o that, the absence of that conditional clause in

5ection >)f of the +ocal 7overnment Code may be

supplied by 5ection @0)e of the 'mnibus (lection

Code as both provisions relate to the same sub&ect

matter and purposeJ hence, inpari materia.:nd, when

statutes are in pari materia, they are to be construedtogetherJ each legislative intent is to be interpreted

with reference to other acts relating to the same

matter or sub&ect. )3lac, Construction and

9nterpretation of +aws, $nd ed., p. 11! [1?]

Kinally, the respondent avers that in the event of

her disuali#cation from holding o"ce, the petitioner

cannot assume the mayoralty post because he did not

obtain a plurality of votes for the position.

%he rule is well settled. %he ineligibility of a

candidate receiving ma&ority votes does not entitle the

eligible candidate receiving the next highest number

of votes to be declared elected. : minority or defeated

candidate cannot be deemed elected to the o"ce. :s

we held in /eyes v. Commission on Elections2[1@]

%o simplistically assume that the second placer would

have received the other votes would be to substitute

our &udgment for the mind of the voter. %he second

placer is &ust that, a second placer. He lost the

elections. He was repudiated by either a ma&ority or

plurality of voters. He could not be considered the #rstamong uali#ed candidates because in a #eld which

excludes the disuali#ed candidate, the conditions

would have substantially changed. We are not

prepared to extrapolate the results under the

circumstances.[1=]

-%ERE#ORE, premises considered, the petition ishereby 6(A9(6. %he 6ecision of the Regional %rial

Court of :goo, +a Union, 3ranch 1$, in (8C Ao. := is:KK9R*(6.

SO ORDERED.

)uno, CairmanD, 2ustria%Martine,

Tinga, andCico%:aario, ''., concur.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/120905.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/mar1996/120905.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/150477.htm#_ftn37


58/227


59/227

Chairman of 3arangay 10, 8asay City.[1]5he too her

oath of o"ce on :ugust !, $>>$.[]

'n :ugust !/, $>>$, petitioner, after learning of

Resolution Ao. ?1@1, #led with the C'*(+(C a motion

for reconsideration of said resolution. 5he argued thata certi#cate of candidacy may only be denied due

course or cancelled viaan appropriate petition #led by

any registered candidate for the same position under

5ection =0 of the 'mnibus (lection Code in relation to

5ections ? and = of Republic :ct )R.:. Ao. @@@.

:ccording to petitioner, the report of the (lection

'"cer of 8asay City cannot be considered a petition

under 5ection =0 of the 'mnibus (lection Code, and

the C'*(+(C cannot, by itself, deny due course to orcancel ones certi#cate of candidacy. 8etitioner also

claimed that she was denied due process when her

certi#cate of candidacy was cancelled by the

Commission without notice and hearing. 8etitioner

further argued that the C'*(+(C en bancdid not have

&urisdiction to act on the cancellation of her certi#cate

of candidacy on the #rst instance because it is the

6ivision of the Commission that has authority to

decide election


60/227

3y virtue of the said report, the +aw 6epartment

maes a recommendation to the Commission En (anc,

and the latter, by virtue of an En (anc Resolution

either gives due course to or deniesEcancels the

certi#cates of candidacy of the said candidates.

Derily, the administrative inuiry of the Commission on

the eligibility of candidates starts from the time they

#led their certi#cates of candidacy. %he candidates, by

virtue of the publication of C'*(+(C Resolution Ao.

0>! on *ay $?, $>>$ in the *anila 5tandard and

*anila 3ulletin are deemed to have constructive notice

of the said administrative inuiry. %hus, the

Commission, by virtue of its administrative powers,

may motu propriodenyEcancel the certi#cates ofcandidacy of candidates who are found to be not

registered voters in the place where they see to run

for public o"ce.

:ny registered candidate for the same o"ce may also

#le a veri#ed petition to deny due course to or cancel

a certi#cate of candidacy pursuant to 5ection @/

)nuisance candidate or 5ec. =0 )material

misrepresentation in the certi#cate of candidacy of

the 'mnibus (lection Code either personally orthrough a duly authori;ed representative within #ve

)? days from the last day for #ling of certi#cate of

candidacy directly with the '"ce of the 8rovincial

(lection 5upervisor or with the '"ce of the (lection

'"cer concerned.

Hence, as long as the (lection '"cer reported the

alleged ineligibility in accordance with C'*(+(C

Resolution Ao. 0>!, or the petition to deny due

course to or cancel a certi#cate of candidacy was #led

within the reglementary period, the fact that the

Resolution of this Commission, denying due course toor canceling the certi#cate of candidacy of an

ineligible candidate, was not promulgated or did not

arrive prior to or on the day of the elections is

therefore of no moment. %he proclamation of an

ineligible candidate is not a bar to the exercise of this

Commissions power to implement the said Resolution

of the Commission (n 3anc because it already

acuired the &urisdiction to determine the ineligibility

of the candidates who #led their certi#cates ofcandidacy even before elections by virtue of either the

report of the (lection '"cer or the petition to deny

due course to or cancel the certi#cate of candidacy

#led against them.

'n the matter of petitions for disuali#cation, the

provisions of C'*(+(C Resolution Ao. 0>! are

liewise clear2 )! : veri#ed petition to disualify a

candidate on the ground of ineligibility or under

5ection @0 of the 'mnibus (lection Code may be #ledat anytime before proclamation of the winning

candidate by any registered voter or any candidate for

the same o"ce, )$ :ll disuali#cation cases #led on

the ground of ineligibility shall survive, although the

candidate has already been proclaimed.


61/227

Clearly, by virtue of the above


62/227

5adain to amend Resolution Ao. ??0 promulgated on

!> :ugust $>>$ with modi#cation.

:ccordingly, Resolution Ao. ??0 shall now read as

follows2

I

'A 8R'C+:9*(6 C:A696:%(5 K'UA6 %' 3(

9A(+9793+( K'R 3(9A7 A'% R(795%(R(6 D'%(R5 9A

%H( 8+:C( WH(R( %H(M W(R( (+(C%(6 GGG GGG

)a xxx

)b xxx

)c xxx

)d Kor both )a and )b, in

the event that the

disuali#ed candidate

is proclaimed the

winner despite his

disuali#cation or

despite the pendingdisuali#cation case

#led before his

proclamation, but

which is subseuently

resolved against him,

the proclamation of

said disuali#ed

candidate is hereby

declared void from the

beginning, even if the

dispositive portion of

the resolution

disualifying him orcanceling his certi#cate

of candidacy does not

provide for such an

annulment.[0]

Hence, petitioner #led the instant petition seeing2

a %o declare illegal and unconstitutional the

C'*(+(C Resolution Ao. ?1@1 promulgated on!? -uly $>>$ and C'*(+(C Resolution Ao.

?=0! promulgated on 'ctober =, $>>$ and any

other C'*(+(C actions and resolutions which

are intended to summarily oust and remove

petitioner as 54 Chairman of 3arangay 10,

8asay City without any notice, inuiry, election

protest, petition for =uo "arranto, investigation

and hearing, and therefore a clear violation of

due process of law.

b %o declare illegal the aforesaid C'*(+(C

Resolutions sitting en banc which does not

have authority to decide election related case,

including pre


63/227


64/227


65/227

candidacy #led in due form is ministerial in character.

While the Commission may loo into patent defects in

the certi#cates, it may not go into matters not

appearing on their face. %he uestion of eligibility or

ineligibility of a candidate is thus beyond the usual and

proper cogni;ance of said body.[!?]

Aonetheless, 5ection =0 of the 'mnibus (lection

Code allows any person to #le before the C'*(+(C a

petition to deny due course to or cancel a certi#cate of

candidacy on the ground that any material

representation therein is false. 9t states2

5ec. =0. )etition to deny due course to or cancel a

certi0cate of candidacy. < : veri#ed petition seeing to

deny due course or to cancel a certi#cate of candidacy

may be #led by any person exclusively on the ground

that any material representation contained therein as

reuired under 5ection = hereof is false. %he petition

may be #led at any time not later than twenty


66/227


67/227

G.R. No. 135:91 Se/ember 2;, 1999

EMMAN$EL SINACA, petitioner,vs.

MIG$EL M$LA &'( COMMISSION ONELECIONS, respondents.

DA!IDE, )R., C.J.!

3efore us is a special civil action

for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition, with a prayer

for preliminary in&unction andEor temporary restraining

order assailing the Resolution of @ 'ctober !//0, of

respondent Commission on (lections )hereafter

C'*(+(C in 58: Ao. /0


68/227

WingQ as the substitute mayoralty candidate for the

*unicipality of *alimono, 5urigao del Aorte. 'n the

basis of said nomination, (**:AU(+ #led his

certi#cate of candidacy 3attached thereto is his

certi#cate of nomination as +:4:5 mayoralty

candidate signed by 7overnor Krancisco %. *:%U7:5)hereafter *:%U7:5, as party provincial chairman

together with (**:AU(+s written acceptance of the

partys nomination.4

'n !! *ay !//0, *U+: #led through mail

another petition for disuali#cation, this time

against (**:AU(+, which was received by the

C'*(+(C on ! *ay !//0 and was doceted as

58: Ao. /0


69/227


70/227

nominate

candidates for

local o"cials, is

an intra, !//0,

correspondingly #led.

Respondent is correct in stating that the

uestion of nomination is a party concern

which is beyond the ambit of the

Commission. What matters is, the


71/227

candidate has been certi#ed as a party

member and the nomination duly issued

in his favor.

3e that as it may, the petition is rendered

moot and academic by the proclamationof respondent on *ay !$, !//0, as

evidenced by the certi#cate of canvass

and proclamation of winning candidates

for municipal o"ces with 5A !@@=!$/0

and his oath of o"ce dated *ay !1, !//0,

which forms part of the record of this

case.

WH(R(K'R(, premises considered, the

Commission )5econd 6ivision R(5'+D(5

to 695*955 the instant petition for lac of

merit.

*U+: #led a motion for reconsideration raising in the

main that the signature alone of *:%U7:5 in the

nomination was not su"cient because the partys

authority to nominate was given to both *:%U7:5 and

5enator Robert 5. 3arbers )hereafter 3:R3(R5, in

their &oint capacity, and that the nomination of(**:AU(+ is void since he was an independent

candidate prior to his nomination.

'n @ 'ctober !//0, the C'*(+(C en bancissued a

Resolution9which set aside the resolution dated $0*ay !//0 of the 5econd 6ivision and disuali#ed

(**:AU(+, for the following reasons2

9n the motion for reconsideration,

petitioner argues that the signature only

of 7overnor *atugas in the nomination

was not su"cient because the partys

authority to nominate was given to both

7overnor *atugas and 5enator Robert3arbers, in their &oint capacity.

We do not have to resolve this issue

because the more important issue is

whether respondent is disuali#ed as a

substitute candidate. He was an

independent candidate for councilor at

the time he #led his certi#cate of

candidacy for mayor as a substitute of a

disuali#ed candidate. %hus, he did not

belong to the same political party as the

substituted candidate.

We sustain petitioners position. We

declare that the substitution of

disuali#ed mayoralty candidate %eodoro

K. 5inaca, -r. by respondent (mmanuel 6.

5inaca was not valid because the latter

was an independent candidate forcouncilor prior to his nomination as

substitute candidate in place of the

withdrawing candidate who was a +aas

party member.

9A D9(W WH(R('K, the Commission en

banchereby resolves to 5(% :596( the


72/227

Commission )5econd 6ivisions resolution

dated *ay $0, !//0. We declare

(mmanuel 6. 5inaca 695OU:+9K9(6 to be

a substitute candidate for mayor of

*alimono, 5urigao del Aorte, and :AAU+

his proclamation as such being void abinitio. Upon #nality of this resolution, he is

ordered to vacate the position of mayor of

the municipality of *alimono, 5urigao del

Aorte, to which the vice


73/227

+:4:5 party Q*:%U7:5 wingQ to which %('6'R', the

disuali#ed candidate, belongs, as evidenced by the

Certi#cat

Documents

Administrative and Election Laws - Election Cases - Leo Acebedo