Professional Documents
Culture Documents
G.R. No. 125629 March 25, 1998 MANUEL C. SUNGA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FERDINAND ELLOSILLO, J.: This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure seeks to annul and set aside, for having been rendered ith grave abuse of discretion a!ounting to lack or e"cess of #urisdiction, the 17 $a% 1996 Resolution of the C&$'('C )nd *ivision in Sunga v. Trinidad, +P, -o. 95.)1/ 1 dis!issing the petition for dis0ualification against private respondent 1erdinand 2. Trinidad pursuant to C&$'('C Resolution -o. )353 pro!ulgated / -ove!ber 1944, as a!ended b% C&$'('C Resolution -o. )353., pro!ulgated 4 ,ugust 1993, and /3 5ul% 1996 Resolution of the C&$'('C En Banc affir!ing the 17 $a% 1996 Resolution of the C&$'('C )nd *ivision. Petitioner $anuel C. +unga as one of the candidates for the position of $a%or in the $unicipalit% of 6guig, Province of Caga%an, in the 4 $a% 1995 elections. Private respondent 1erdinand 2. Trinidad, then incu!bent !a%or, as a candidate for re.election in the sa!e !unicipalit%. &n )) ,pril 1995 +unga filed ith the C&$'('C a letter.co!plaint 2 for dis0ualification against Trinidad, accusing hi! of using three 7/8 local govern!ent vehicles in his ca!paign, in violation of +ec. )61, par. 7o8, ,rt. 9966, of 2P 2lg. 441 7&!nibus 'lection Code, as a!ended8. &n 7 $a% 1995, +unga filed another letter.co!plaint ! ith the C&$'('C charging Trinidad this ti!e ith violation of +ec. )61, par. 7e8 7referring to threats, inti!idation, terroris! or other for!s of coercion8 of the &!nibus 'lection Code, in addition to the earlier violation i!puted to hi! in the first letter.co!plaint. This as follo ed b% an ,!ended Petition " for dis0ualification consolidating the charges in the t o 7)8 letters.co!plaint, including vote bu%ing, and providing !ore specific details of the violations co!!itted b% Trinidad. The case as docketed as +P, -o. 95.)1/. 6n a $inute Resolution dated )5 $a% 1995, 5 the C&$'('C )nd *ivision referred the co!plaint to its (a *epart!ent for investigation. :earings ere held herein +unga adduced evidence to prove his accusations. Trinidad, on the other hand, opted not to sub!it an% evidence at all. $ean hile, the election results sho ed that Trinidad garnered the highest nu!ber of votes, hile +unga trailed second.
. TRINIDAD, respondents.
&n 13 $a% 1995 +unga !oved for the suspension of the procla!ation of Trinidad. :o ever, not ithstanding the !otion, Trinidad as proclai!ed the elected !a%or, pro!pting +unga to file another !otion to suspend the effectsof the procla!ation. 2oth !otions ere not acted upon b% the C&$'('C )nd *ivision. &n )4 5une 1995 the C&$'('C (a *epart!ent sub!itted its Report 6 to the C&$'('C En Banc reco!!ending that Trinidad be charged in court for violation of the follo ing penal provisions of the &!nibus 'lection Code; 7a8 +ec. )61, par. 7a8, on vote bu%ing< 7b8 +ec. )61, par. 7e8, on threats, inti!idation, terroris! or other for!s of coercion< and, 7c8 +ec. )61, par. 7o8, on use of an% e0uip!ent, vehicle o ned b% the govern!ent or an% of its political subdivisions. The (a *epart!ent like ise reco!!ended to recall and revoke the procla!ation of 1erdinand 2. Trinidad as the dul% elected $a%or of 6guig, Caga%an< proclai! $anuel C. +unga as the dul% elected $a%or< and, direct +unga to take his oath and assu!e the duties and functions of the office. The C&$'('C En Banc approved the findings of the (a *epart!ent and directed the filing of the corresponding infor!ations in the Regional Trial Court against Trinidad. ,ccordingl%, four 7=8 infor!ations # for various elections offenses ere filed in the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao, Caga%an. The dis0ualification case, on the other hand, as referred to the C&$'('C )nd *ivision for hearing. &n ) $a% 1996 +unga filed a Second Urgent Motion to Suspend the Effects and Annul the Proclamation with Urgent Motion for Early Resolution of the Petition. 2ut in its 17 $a% 1996 Resolution, the C&$'('C )nd *ivision dis!issed the petition for dis0ualification, holding in its Resolution -o. )353 that > 1. ,n% co!plaint for dis0ualification of a dul% registered candidate based upon an% of the grounds specificall% enu!erated under +ec. 64 of the &!nibus 'lection Code, filed directl% ith the Co!!ission before an election in hich respondent is a candidate, shall be in0uired into b% the Co!!ission for the purpose of deter!ining hether the acts co!plained of have in fact been co!!itted . . . . 6n case such co!plaint as not resolved before the election, the Co!!ission !a% motu propio, or on !otion of an% of the parties, refer the co!plaint to the (a *epart!ent of the Co!!ission as the instru!ent of the latter in the e"ercise of its e"clusive po er to conduct a preli!inar% investigation of all cases involving cri!inal infractions of the election la s . . . . ). ,n% co!plaint for dis0ualification based on +ec. 64 of the &!nibus 'lection Code in relation to +ec. 6 of Republic ,ct -o. 66=6 filed after the election against a candidate ho has alread% been proclai!ed as a inner shall be dis!issed as a dis0ualification case. :o ever, the co!plaint shall be referred for preli!inar% investigation to the (a *epart!ent of this Co!!ission.
1
Private respondent, on the other hand, postulates inter alia that +ungaBs letters.co!plaint of )) ,pril 1995 and 7 $a% 1995 ere not petitions for dis0ualification because no filing fee as paid b% +unga< the letters.co!plaint ere never docketed b% the C&$'('C< and, no su!!ons as ever issued b% the C&$'('C and private respondent as not re0uired to ans er the letters.co!plaint. 6t as onl% on 1/ $a% 1995 hen petitioner filed the so.called Amended Petition, docketed for the first ti!e as +P, -o. 95.)1/. Thus, the C&$'('C correctl% dis!issed the dis0ualification case for having been filed onl% after the 4 $a% 1995 elections and the procla!ation of private respondent on 13 $a% 1995, pursuant to C&$'('C Resolution -o. )353. C&$'('C filed its Co!!ent on )1 ,pril 1997 rel%ing heavil% on Resolution -o. )353 and the Silvestre v. Duavit 8ruling in support of the dis!issal of the dis0ualification case. The C&$'('C insisted that the outright dis!issal of a dis0ualification case as arranted under an% of the follo ing circu!stances; 7a8 the dis!ualification case was filed "efore the election "ut was still pending #unresolved$ after the election < 7b8 the dis0ualification case as filed after the election but before the procla!ation of the inner< and, 7c8 the dis0ualification case as filed after the election and after the procla!ation of the inner. The issue in this case is hether the C&$'('C co!!itted grave abuse of discretion dis0ualification case against private respondent Trinidad. The petition is partl% !eritorious. ?e find private respondentBs argu!ents on the propriet% of the letters.co!plaint puerile. C&$'('C itself i!pliedl% recogni@ed in its Resolution that the petition as filed before the 4 $a% 1995 election in the for! of letters.co!plaint, thus > This case originall% ca!e to the attention of this Co!!ission on )6 ,pril 1995 in a for! of letter fro! petitioner accusing respondent of utili@ing govern!ent properties in his ca!paign and pra%ing for the latterBs i!!ediate dis0ualification. ,nother letter dated 7 $a% 1995 and addressed to the C&$'('C Regional *irector of Region 66 reiterated petitionerBs pra%er hile alleging that respondent and his !en co!!itted acts of terroris! and violated the gun ban. 1inall%, on 11 $a% 1995, an ,!ended Petition as filed ith the Clerk of Court of the Co!!ission containing substantiall% the sa!e allegations as the previous letters but supported b% affidavits and other docu!entar% evidence. That the ,!ended Petition as filed onl% on 11 $a% 1995, or after the elections, is of no conse0uence. 6t as !erel% a reiteration of the charges filed b% petitioner against private respondent on )6 ,pril 1995 and 7 $a% 1995 or before the elections. Conse0uentl%, the ,!ended Petition retroacted to such earlier dates. ,n a!end!ent hich !erel% supple!ents and a!plifies facts originall% alleged in the co!plaint relates back to the date of the co!!ence!ent of the action and is not barred b% the statute of li!itations hich e"pired after the service of the original co!plaint. 9 The fact that no docket fee as paid therefor as not a fatal procedural lapse on the part of petitioner. +ec. 14, Rule =), of the C&$'('C Rules of Procedure provides, C6f the fees above described are not paid, the Co!!ission !a% refuse to
2
hich provides;
+ec. 6. Effects of Dis!ualification ase. > ,n% candidate ho has been declared b% final #udg!ent to be dis0ualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for hi! shall not be counted. 6f for an% reason a candidate is not declared b% final #udg!ent before an election to be dis0ualified and he is voted for and receives the inning nu!ber of votes in such election, the Court or Co!!ission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action% in!uiry or protest and, upon !otion of the co!plainant or an% intervenor, !a% during the pendenc% thereof order the suspension of the procla!ation of such candidate henever the evidence of his guilt is strong 7e!phasis supplied8. Clearl%, the legislative intent is that the C&$'('C should continue the trial and hearing of the dis0ualification case to its conclusion, i.e., until #udg!ent is rendered thereon. The ord CshallC signifies that this re0uire!ent of the la is !andator%, operating to i!pose a positive dut% hich !ust be enforced. 11 The i!plication is that the C&$'('C is left ith no discretion but to proceed ith the dis0ualification case even after the election. Thus, in providing for the outright dis!issal of the dis0ualification case hich re!ains unresolved after the election, Silvestre v. Duavit in effect disallo s hat R, -o. 66=6 i!perativel% re0uires. This a!ounts to a !uasi&'udiciallegislation b% the C&$'('C hich cannot be countenanced and is invalid for having been issued be%ond the scope of its authorit%. 6nterpretative rulings of !uasi& 'udicial bodies or ad!inistrative agencies !ust al a%s be in perfect har!on% ith statutes and should be for the sole purpose of carr%ing their general provisions into effect. 2% such interpretative or ad!inistrative rulings, of course, the scope of the la itself cannot be li!ited. 6ndeed, a !uasi&'udicial bod% or an ad!inistrative agenc% for that !atter cannot a!end an act of Congress. :ence, in case of a discrepanc% bet een the basic la and an interpretative or ad!inistrative ruling, the basic la prevails. 2esides, the deleterious effect of the Silvestre ruling is not difficult to foresee. , candidate guilt% of election offenses ould be undeservedl% re arded, instead of punished, b% the dis!issal of the dis0ualification case against hi! si!pl% because the investigating bod% as unable, for an% reason caused upon it, to deter!ine before the election if the offenses ere indeed co!!itted b% the candidate sought to be dis0ualified. ,ll that the erring aspirant ould need to do is to e!plo% dela%ing tactics so that the dis0ualification case based on the co!!ission of election offenses ould not be decided before the election. This scenario is productive of !ore fraud hich certainl% is not the !ain intent and purpose of the la . The fact that Trinidad as alread% proclai!ed and had assu!ed the position of !a%or did not divest the C&$'('C of authorit% and #urisdiction to continue the hearing and eventuall% decide the dis0ualification case. 6n Aguam v. (ME)E 12 this Court held > Ti!e and again this Court has given its i!pri!atur on the principle that C&$'('C is ith authorit% to annul an% canvass and procla!ation hich as illegall% !ade. The fact that a candidate proclai!ed has assu!ed office, e have said, is no bar to the e"ercise of such po er. 6t of course !a% not be availed of here there has been a valid procla!ation. +ince private respondentBs petition before the C&$'('C is precisel% directed at the annul!ent of the canvass and procla!ation, e perceive that in0uir% into this issue is ithin the area allocated b% the Constitution and la to C&$'('C . . . Reall%, ere a victi! of a procla!ation to be precluded fro! challenging the validit% thereof after that procla!ation and the assu!ption of office thereunder, baneful effects !a% easil% supervene. 6t !ust be e!phasi@ed that the purpose of a dis0ualification proceeding is to prevent the candidate fro! running or, if elected, fro! serving, or to prosecute hi! for violation of the election la s. &bviousl%, the fact that a candidate has been proclai!ed elected does not signif% that his dis0ualification is dee!ed condoned and !a% no longer be the sub#ect of a separate investigation. 6t is orth to note that an election offense has cri!inal as ell as electoral aspects. 6ts cri!inal aspect involves the ascertain!ent of the guilt or innocence of the accused candidate. (ike in an% other cri!inal case, it usuall% entails a full. blo n hearing and the 0uantu! of proof re0uired to secure a conviction is be%ond reasonable doubt. 6ts electoral aspect, on the other hand, is a deter!ination of hether the offender should be dis0ualified fro! office. This is done through an ad!inistrative proceeding hich is su!!ar% in character and re0uires onl% a clear preponderance of evidence. Thus,
3
+ec. ==. Permanent vacancies in the office of the *overnor% +ice&*overnor% Mayor% +ice&Mayor . > 7a8 6f a per!anent vacanc% occurs in the office of the Aovernor or $a%or, the Dice.Aovernor or Dice.$a%or concerned shall beco!e the Aovernor or $a%or . . . 1or purposes of this chapter, a per!anent vacanc% arises hen an elective local official fills a higher vacant office, refuses to assu!e office, fails to 0ualif%, dies, is re!oved fro! office, voluntaril% resigns or is other ise per!anentl% incapacitated to discharge the functions of his office . . . . This provision is echoed in ,rt. 4/ of the ,mplementing Rules and Regulations of the )ocal *overnment ode of -..- .
The language of the la is clear, e"plicit and une0uivocal, thus ad!its no roo! for interpretation but !erel% application. This is the basic legal precept. ,ccordingl%, in the event that Trinidad is ad#udged to be dis0ualified, a per!anent vacanc% ill be created for failure of the elected !a%or to 0ualif% for the said office. 6n such eventualit%, the dul% elected vice.!a%or shall succeed as provided b% la . 19 ?:'R'1&R', the petition is P,RT6,((E AR,-T'*. The 17 $a% 1996 and /3 5ul% 1996 Resolutions of the C&$'('C are ,--F(('* and +'T ,+6*'. C&$'('C is ordered to R'6-+T,T' +P, -o. 95.)1/, C$anuel C. +unga v. 1erdinand 2. Trinidad,C for dis0ualification, and ,CT on the case taking its bearings fro! the opinion herein e"pressed. -o costs.
4
G.R. No. 1$62#$%#! F&'r(ar) 1$, 199" SULTAN MO*AMAD L. MITMUG, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICI+AL OARD OF CAN,ASSERS OF LUM A% A-A AO, LANAO DEL SUR, and DATU GAM AI DAGALANGIT, respondents. Pimentel% Apostol% )ayosa / Si"ayan )aw (ffice for petitioner0 Brillantes% 1achura% 1avarro / Arcilla for private respondent0
ELLOSILLO, J.: The turnout of voters during the 11 $a% 199) election in (u!ba.2a%abao, (anao del +ur, as abnor!all% lo . ,s a result, several petitions ere filed seeking the declaration of failure of election in precincts here less than )5G of the electorate !anaged to cast their votes. 2ut a special election as ordered in precincts here no voting actuall% took place. The Co!!ission on 'lections 7C&$'('C8 ruled that for as long as the precincts functioned and conducted actual voting during election da%, lo voter turnout ould not #ustif% a declaration of failure of election. ?e are no called upon to revie this ruling. Petitioner +F(T,- $&:,$,* (. $6T$FA and private respondent *,TF A,$2,6 *,A,(,-A6T ere a!ong the candidates for the !a%oralt% position of (u!ba.2a%abao during the 11 !a% 199) election. There ere si"t%.seven 7678 precincts in the !unicipalit%. ,s as heretofore stated, voter turnout as rather lo , particularl% in fort%.nine 7=98 precincts here the average voter turnout as )).)6G, i.e., onl% ),//3 out of 9,4/3 registered voters therein cast their votes. 1ive 758 of these precincts did not conduct actual voting at all. 1 Conse0uentl%, C&$'('C ordered the holding of a special election on /3 $a% 199) in the five 758 precincts hich failed to function during election da%. &n /3 5ul% 199) another special election as held for a si"th precinct. 2 6n the interi!, petitioner filed a petition seeking the annul!ent of the special election conducted on /3 $a% 199) alleging various irregularities such as the alteration, ta!pering and substitution of ballots. 2ut on 1/ 5ul% 199), C&$'('C considered the petition !oot since the votes in the sub#ect precincts ere alread% counted. ! &ther petitions seeking the declaration of failure of election in so!e or all precincts of (u!ba.2a%abao C&$'('C b% other !a%oralt% candidates, to it; ere also filed ith
1. SPA 1o. .2&324; &n 6 5une 199), private respondent *atu Aa!ba *agalangit filed an urgent petition pra%ing for the holding of a special election in Precinct -o. ))., alleging therein that hen the ballot bo" as opened, ballots ere alread% torn to pieces. &n 1= 5ul% 199), the petition as granted and a special election for Precinct -o. ))., as set for )5 5ul% 199). " ). SP 1o. .2&335; &n 16 5une 1999), *atu 'lias ,bdusala!, another !a%oralt% candidate, filed a petition to declare failure of election in t ent%.nine 7)98 !ore precincts as a result of alleged ta!pering of ballots 5 and clustering of precincts. 6 &n 16 5ul% 199), the petition as dis!issed. C&$'('C ruled that there !ust be a situation here there is absolute inabilit% to vote before a failure of election can be declared. # +ince voting as actuall% conducted in the contested precincts, there as no basis for the petition. /. SPA 1o .2&356; &n )3 5une 199), private respondent filed another petition, this ti!e seeking to e"clude fro! the counting the ballots cast in si" 768 precincts on the ground that the integrit% of the ballot bo"es therein as violated. 8 ,gain, on 1= 5ul% 199), C&$'('C considered the petition !oot, as the issue raised therein as related to that of +P, -o. 9)./11 hich on 9 5ul% 199) as alread% set aside as !oot. 9 =. SPA 1o. .2&347; &n 1 5ul% 199), *atu 2agato Hhalid (onta, a fourth !a%oralt% candidate, filed a petition hich in the !ain sought the declaration of failure of election in all si"t%.seven 7678 precincts of (u!ba.2a%abao, (anao del +ur, on the ground of !assive disenfranchise!ent of voters. 1$ &n 9 5ul% 199), C&$'('C dis!issed the petition, ruling that the allegations therein did not support a case of failure of election. 11 &n 4 5ul% 199), petitioner filed a !otion to intervene in these four 7=8 petitions. 12 2ut C&$'('C treated the sa!e as a !otion for reconsideration and pro!ptl% denied it considering that under the C&$'('C Rules of Procedure such !otion as a prohibited pleading. 1! Thereafter, a ne board of 'lection 6nspectors as for!ed to conduct the special election set for )5 5ul% 199). Petitioner i!pugned the creation of this 2oard. -evertheless, on /3 5ul% 199), the ne 2oard convened and began the canvassing of votes. 1inall%, on /1 5ul% 199), private respondent as proclai!ed the dul% elected $a%or of (u!ba.2a%abao, (anao del +ur.
5
+ETRONILA S. RULLODA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS /COMELEC0, ELECTION OFFICER LUDI,ICO L. ASUNCION OF SAN .ACINTO, +ANGASINAN1 ARANGA- OARD OF CAN,ASSERS OF RG-. STO. TOMAS, SAN .ACINTO, +ANGASINAN, oard o2 E3&c45on T&33&r6 o2 +r&c. No6. !$A7!$A1, !1A, !1A1, and !2A1, and REMEGIO +LACIDO, respondents. -NARES%SANTIAGO, J.8 6n the baranga% elections of 5ul% 15, )33), Ro!eo -. Rulloda and Re!egio (. Placido ere the contending candidates for 2aranga% Chair!an of +to. To!as, +an 5acinto, Pangasinan. &n 5une )), )33), Ro!eo suffered a heart attack and passed a a% at the $andalu%ong Cit% $edical Center.1 :is ido , petitioner Petronila C2ett%C Rulloda, rote a letter to the Co!!ission on 'lections on 5une )5, )33) seeking per!ission to run as candidate for 2aranga% Chair!an of +to. To!as in lieu of her late husband. )PetitionerKs re0uest as supported b% the ,ppeal.Petition containing several signatures of people purporting to be !e!bers of the electorate of 2aranga% +to. To!as./ &n 5ul% 1=, )33), 'lection &fficer (udivico (. ,suncion issued a directive to the Chair!an and $e!bers of the 2aranga% 2oard of Canvassers of +to. To!as as follo s; 5ust in case the na!es C2'TTEC or CP'TR&-6(,C or the surna!e CRF((&*,C is ritten on the ballot, read the sa!e as it is ritten but add the ords C-&T C&F-T'*C like C2'TTE -&T C&F-T'*C or CRF((&*, -&T C&F-T'*.C= 2ased on the tall% of petitionerKs atchers ho ere allo ed to itness the canvass of votes during the 5ul% 15, )33) elections, petitioner garnered 516 votes hile respondent Re!egio Placido received )93 votes. 5 *espite this, the 2oard of Canvassers proclai!ed Placido as the 2aranga% Chair!an of +to. To!as. 6 ,fter the elections, petitioner learned that the C&$'('C, acting on the separate re0uests of ,ndres Pere@ $anala%sa% and Petronila Rulloda to be substituted as candidates for 2aranga% Chair!an of 2aranga% (a 1uente, +ta. Rosa, -ueva 'ci#a and 2aranga% +to. To!as, +an 5acinto, Pangasinan, respectivel%, issued Resolution -o. 5)17 dated 5ul% 1/, )33) hich states; PR'$6+'+ C&-+6*'R'*, the Co!!ission R'+&(D'*, as it hereb% R'+&(D'+, to ,*&PT the reco!!endation of the (a *epart!ent as follo s; 1. To den% due course the Certificates of Candidac% of ,-*R'+ P'R'L $,-,(,E+,E and P'TR&-6(, +. RF((&*,< and ). To direct the 'lection &fficer of +ta. Rosa, -ueva 'ci#a and +an 5acinto, Pangasinan to delete the na!e of ,-*R'+ P'R'L $,-,(,E+,E, candidate for 2aranga% Chair!an in 2aranga% (a 1uente, +ta. Rosa, -ueva 'ci#a< and the na!e of P'TR&-6(, +. RF((&*,, candidate for 2aranga% Captain in 2aranga% +to. To!as, +an 5acinto, Pangasinan. (et the (a *epart!ent i!ple!ent this resolution.
+& &R*'R'*.7 The above.0uoted Resolution cited as authorit% the C&$'('CKs Resolution -o. =431 dated $a% )/, )33), setting forth the guidelines on the filing of certificates of candidac% in connection ith the 5ul% 15, )33) s%nchroni@ed 2aranga% and +angguniang Habataan elections, !ore particularl% +ection 9 thereof hich reads; +ec. 9. +ubstitution of candidates. M There shall be no substitution of candidates for "arangay andsangguniang ;a"ataan officials.4 :ence, petitioner filed the instant petition for certiorari, seeking to annul +ection 9 of Resolution -o. =431 and Resolution -o. 5)17, both of the C&$'('C, insofar as the% prohibited petitioner fro! running as substitute candidate in lieu of her deceased husband< to nullif% the procla!ation of respondent< and to proclai! her as the dul% elected 2aranga% Chair!an of +to. To!as, +an 5acinto, Pangasinan. Private respondent Re!egio Placido filed his Co!!ent, arguing that since the baranga% election is non.partisan, substitution of candidates is not allo ed. $oreover, petitioner did not file an% certificate of candidac%< hence, there onl% one candidate for 2aranga% Chair!an of +to. To!as, na!el%, respondent Placido. 9
as
Public respondent C&$'('C also filed its Co!!ent. 6t contends that its Resolution -o. =431 as issued not pursuant to its 0uasi.#udicial functions but as an incident of its inherent ad!inistrative functions over the conduct of the baranga% elections. Therefore, the sa!e !a% not be the sub#ect of revie in a petition for certiorari. 1urther, the C&$'('C alleges
8