You are on page 1of 9

Elections Cases Essence of Elections/Basis

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

Elections Cases Essence of Elections/Basis


?here a si!ilar co!plaint is filed after election but before procla!ation of the respondent candidate, the co!plaint shall, nevertheless, be dis!issed as a dis0ualification case. :o ever, the co!plaint shall be referred for preli!inar% investigation to the (a *epart!ent. 6f, before procla!ation, the (a *epart!ent !akes a prima facie finding of guilt and the corresponding infor!ation has been filed ith the appropriate trial court, the co!plainant !a% file a petition for suspension of the procla!ation of the respondent ith the court before hich the cri!inal case is pending and said court !a% order the suspension of the procla!ation if the evidence of guilt is strong. ,s interpreted in the case of Silvestre v. Duavit, +P, 9=.33/, Resolution -o. )353 provides for the outright dis!issal of the dis0ualification case in three cases; 718 The dis0ualification case as filed before the election but re!ains unresolved until after the election< 7)8 The dis0ualification case as filed after the election and before the procla!ation of inners< and 7/8 The dis0ualification case as filed after election and after procla!ation. 6f the instant case is dee!ed to have been filed upon receipt b% the C&$'('C of the letter.co!plaint on ,pril )6 1995, it nevertheless re!ained pending until after the election. 6f it is dee!ed to have been filed upon filing of the a!ended petition on 11 $a% 1995, it as clearl% filed after the election. 6n either case, Resolution -o. )353 !andates the dis!issal of the dis0ualification case. :is !otion for reconsideration having been denied b% the C&$'('C En Banc, +unga filed the instant petition contending that the C&$'('C co!!itted grave abuse of discretion in dis!issing the petition for dis0ualification in that; first, +ec. 6 of R, -o. 66=6 re0uires the C&$'('C to resolve the dis0ualification case even after the election and procla!ation, and the procla!ation and assu!ption of office b% Trinidad did not deprive the C&$'('C of its #urisdiction< second C&$'('C Resolution -o. )353 is null and void as it contravenes +ec. 6 of R.,. -o. 66=6< third, the fact that C&$'('C authori@ed the filing of four 7=8 infor!ations against private respondent for violation of the penal provisions of the &!nibus 'lection Code sho s !ore than sufficient and substantial evidence to dis0ualif% Trinidad, and he should have been so dis0ualified< and fourth, since Trinidad as a dis0ualified candidate, it is as if petitioner as the onl% candidate entitled to be proclai!ed as the dul% elected !a%or. 6n his 17.page argu!ents. omment and Manifestation dated / *ece!ber 1996, the +olicitor Aeneral concurred ith petitionerBs

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

hen it dis!issed the

Elections Cases Essence of Elections/Basis


take action thereon until the% are paid and !a% dis!iss the action or proceeding.C The use of the ord C!a%C indicates that it is per!issive onl% and operates to confer a discretion on the C&$'('C hether to entertain the petition or not in case of non.pa%!ent of legal fees. That the C&$'('C acted on and did not dis!iss the petition outright sho s that the non.pa%!ent of fees as not considered b% it as a legal obstacle to entertaining the sa!e. 2e that as it !a%, the procedural defects have been cured b% the subse0uent pa%!ent of docket fees, and private respondent as served ith su!!ons, albeit belatedl%, and he sub!itted his ans er to the co!plaint. :ence, private respondent has no cause to co!plain that no docket fee as paid, no su!!ons served upon hi!, or that he as not re0uired to ans er. -either do e agree ith the conclusions of the C&$'('C. ?e discern nothing in C&$'('C Resolution -o. )353 declaring, ordering or directing the dis!issal of a dis0ualification case filed before the election but hich re!ained unresolved after the election. ?hat the Resolution !andates in such a case is for the Co!!ission to refer the co!plaint to its (a *epart!ent for investigation to deter!ine hether the acts co!plained of have in fact been co!!itted b% the candidate sought to be dis0ualified. The findings of the (a *epart!ent then beco!e the basis for dis0ualif%ing the erring candidate. This is totall% different fro! the other t o situations conte!plated b% Resolution -o. )353, i.e., a dis0ualification case filed after the election but before the procla!ation of inners and that filed after the election and the procla!ation of inners, herein it as specificall% directed b% the sa!e Resolution to be dis!issed as a dis0ualification case. $oreover, Resolution -o. )353 as interpreted in Silvestre v. Duavit infringes on +ec. 6 of R, -o. 66=6,
1$

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

Elections Cases Essence of Elections/Basis


under +ec. = of the C&$'('C Rules of Procedure, petitions for dis0ualification Cshall be heard su!!aril% after due notice.C 6t is the electoral aspect that e are !ore concerned ith, under hich an erring candidate !a% be dis0ualified even ithout prior cri!inal conviction. 1! 6t is 0uite pu@@ling that the C&$'('C never acted on +ungaBs !otion to suspend the procla!ation of Trinidad. The last sentence of +ec. 6 of R, -o. 66=6 categoricall% declares that the Co!!ission !a% order the suspension of the procla!ation of a candidate sought to be dis0ualified henever the evidence of his guilt is strong. ,nd there is not a scintilla of doubt that the evidence of TrinidadBs guilt as strong as sho n in the Report and Recommendation of the C&$'('C (a *epart!ent > Parentheticall%, there is !erit to petitionerBs petition against the respondent for dis0ualification for the alleged co!!ission of election offenses under +ec. 64 of the &!nibus 'lection Code, such as use of ar!ed !en and act of terroris!, inti!idation and coercion of voters, !assive vote.bu%ing and others, dul% supported b% affidavits of itnesses and other docu!ents. Conse0uentl%, the petitionerBs evidence supporting the dis0ualification of respondent re!ain unrebutted si!pl% because respondent has e"pressl% aived his right to present evidence in +P, -o. 95.)1/ in his $anifestation and ob#ection to the presentation of evidence in +P, -o. 95.)1/ dated 16 5une 1995, thus the aiver is the intentional relin0uishing of a kno n right of respondent TR6-6*,*. 6n fact, on the basis of this Report and Recommendation the C&$'('C directed the filing of four 7=8 cri!inal infor!ations against Trinidad before the Regional Trial Court, an indication that there as indeed prima facieevidence of violation of election la s. :o ever, +ungaBs contention that he is entitled to be proclai!ed as the dul% elected $a%or of the $unicipalit% of 6guig, Province of Caga%an, in the event that Trinidad is dis0ualified finds no support in la and #urisprudence. The fact that the candidate ho obtained the highest nu!ber of votes is later dis0ualified for the office to hich he as elected does not entitle the candidate ho obtained the second highest nu!ber of votes to be declared the inner of the elective office. The votes cast for a dis0ualified person !a% not be valid to install the inner into office or !aintain hi! there. 2ut in the absence of a statute hich clearl% asserts a contrar% political and legislative polic% on the !atter, if the votes ere cast in the sincere belief that the candidate as 0ualified, the% should not be treated as stra%, void or !eaningless. 1" +unga totall% !iscontrued the nature of our de!ocratic electoral process as ell as the sociological and ps%chological ele!ents behind votersB preferences. 'lection is the process of co!plete ascertain!ent of the e"pression of the popular ill. 6ts ulti!ate purpose is to give effect to the ill of the electorate b% giving the! direct participation in choosing the !en and o!en ho ill run their govern!ent. Thus, it ould be e"tre!el% repugnant to the basic concept of the constitutionall% guaranteed right to suffrage if a candidate ho has not ac0uired the !a#orit% or pluralit% of votes is proclai!ed inner and i!posed as the representative of a constituenc%, the !a#orit% of ho! have positivel% declared through their ballots that the% do not choose hi!. 15 ?hile +unga !a% have garnered the second highest nu!ber of votes, the fact re!ains that he as not the choice of the people of 6guig, Caga%an. CThe reath of victor% cannot be transferred fro! the dis0ualified inner to the repudiated loser because the la then as no onl% authori@es a declaration of election in favor of the person ho has obtained a pluralit% of votes and does not entitle a candidate receiving the ne"t highest nu!ber of votes to be declared elected.C 16 6n A!uino v. (ME)E , 1# this Court !ade the follo ing pronounce!ent; To si!plisticall% assu!e that the second placer ould have received the other votes ould be to substitute our #udg!ent for the voter. The second placer is #ust that, a second placer. :e lost the election. :e as repudiated b% either a !a#orit% or pluralit% of voters. :e could not be considered the first a!ong 0ualified candidates because in a field hich e"cludes the dis0ualified candidate< the conditions ould have substantiall% changed. ?e are not prepared to e"trapolate the results under such circu!stances. ,lso, hat +unga > ants us to do is to disregard the e"press !andate of +ec. ==, R, -o. 7163, 18 hich provides in part

+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

Elections Cases Essence of Elections/Basis

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

Elections Cases Essence of Elections/Basis


&n / ,ugust 199), petitioner instituted the instant proceedings seeking the declaration of failure of election in fort%.nine 7=98 precincts here less than a 0uarter of the electorate ere able to cast their votes. :e also pra%ed for the issuance of a te!porar% restraining order to en#oin private respondent fro! assu!ing office. &n 13 ,ugust 199), petitioner lodged an election protest ith the Regional trial Court of (anao del +ur disputing the result not onl% of so!e but all the precincts of (u!ba.2a%abao, del +ur. 1" Respondents, on the other hand, assert that ith the filing of an election protest, petitioner is alread% dee!ed to have abandoned the instant petition. 6t !a% be noted that hen petitioner filed his election protest ith the Regional Trial Court of (anao del +ur, he infor!ed the trial court of the pendenc% of these proceedings. Paragraph / of his protest states CITJhat on ,ugust /, 199), %our protestant filed a Petition for ertiorari ith the +upre!e Court . . . docketed as A.R. -o. 136)73 assailing the validit% of the procla!ation of the herein protestee. . . .C 15 'videntl%, petitioner did not intend to abandon his recourse ith this Court. &n the contrar%, he intended to pursue it. ?here onl% an election protest e8 a"undante ad cautela is filed, the Court retains #urisdiction to hear the petition seeking to annul an election. 16 The !ain issue is hether respondent C&$'('C acted ith grave abuse of discretion a!ounting to lack of #urisdiction in den%ing motu proprio and ithout due notice and hearing the petitions seeking to declare a failure of election in so!e or all of the precincts in (u!ba.2a%abao, (anao del +ur. ,fter all, petitioner argues, he has !eritorious grounds in support thereto, vi9., the !assive disenfranchise!ent of voters due to alleged terroris! and unla ful clustering of precincts, hich C&$'('C should have at least heard before rendering its #udg!ent. 6ncidentall%, a petition to annul an election is not a pre.procla!ation controvers%. Conse0uentl%, the procla!ation of a inning candidate together ith his subse0uent assu!ption of office is not an i!pedi!ent to the prosecution of the case to its logical conclusion. 1# Fnder the C&$'('C Rules of Procedure, ithin t ent%.four 7)=8 hours fro! the filing of a verified petition to declare a failure to elect, notices to all interested parties indicating therein the date of hearing should be served through the fastest !eans available. 18 The hearing of the case ill also be su!!ar% in nature. 19 2ased on the foregoing, the clear intent of the la is that a petition of this nature !ust be acted upon ith dispatch onl% after hearing thereon shall have been conducted. +ince C&$'('C denied the other petitions 2$ hich sought to include fort%.three 7=/8 !ore precincts in a special election ithout conducting an% hearing, it ould appear then that there indeed !ight have been grave abuse of discretion in den%ing the petitions. :o ever, a closer e"a!ination of the C&$'('C Rules of Procedure, particularl% +ec. ), Rule )6, thereof hich as lifted fro! +ec. 6, 2.P. 441, other ise kno n as the &!nibus 'lection Code of the Philippines, indicates other ise. 6t reads > +ec. ). :ailure of election. > 6f, on account of force ma'eure, violence, terroris!, fraud or other analogous causes the election in an% precinct has not been held on the date fi"ed, or had been suspended before the hour fi"ed b% la for the closing of the voting, or after the voting and during the preparation and the trans!ission of the election returns or in the custod% of canvass thereof, such election results in a failure to elect, and in an% of such cases the failure or suspension of election ould affect the result of the election, the Co!!ission shall, on the basis of a verified petition b% an% interested part% and after due notice and hearing, call for the holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or hich resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonabl% close to the date of the election not held, suspended or hich resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirt% 7/38 da%s after the cessation of the cause of such postpone!ent or suspension of the election or failure to elect. 2efore C&$'('C can act on a verified petition seeking to declare a failure of election, t o 7)8 conditions !ust concur; first, no voting has taken place in the precinct or precincts on the date fi"ed b% la or, even if there as voting, the election nevertheless results in failure to elect< and, second, the votes not cast ould affect the result of the election. 21 6n the case before us, it is indubitable that the votes not cast ill definitel% affect the outco!e of the election. 2ut, the first re0uisite is !issing, i.e., that no actual voting took place, or even if there is, the results thereon ill be tanta!ount to a failure to elect. +ince actual voting and election b% the registered voters in the 0uestioned precincts have taken place, the results thereof cannot be disregarded and e"cluded. 22 C&$'('C therefore did not co!!it an% abuse of discretion, !uch less grave, in den%ing the petitions outright. There as no basis for the petitions since the facts alleged therein did not constitute sufficient grounds to arrant the relief sought. 1or, the language of the la e"pressl% re0uires the concurrence of these conditions to #ustif% the calling of a special election. 2! 6ndeed, the fact that a verified petition is filed does not auto!aticall% !ean that a hearing on the case ill be held before C&$'('C ill act on it. The verified petition !ust still sho on its face that the conditions to declare a failure to elect are present. 6n the absence thereof, the petition !ust be denied outright. Considering that there is no concurrence of the t o 7)8 conditions in the petitions seeking to declare failure of election in fort%.three 7=/8 !ore, precincts, there is no !ore need to receive evidence on alleged election irregularities.

Elections Cases Essence of Elections/Basis


6nstead, the 0uestion of hether there have been terroris! and other irregularities is better ventilated in an election contest. These irregularities !a% not as a rule be invoked to declare a failure of election and to disenfranchise the electorate through the !isdeeds of a relative fe . 2" &ther ise, elections ill never be carried out ith the resultant disenfranchise!ent of innocent voters as losers ill al a%s cr% fraud and terroris!. There can be failure of election in a political unit onl% if the ill of the !a#orit% has been defiled and cannot be ascertained. 2ut, if it can be deter!ined, it !ust be accorded respect. ,fter all, there is no provision in our election la s hich re0uires that a !a#orit% of registered voters !ust cast their votes. ,ll the la re0uires is that a inning candidate !ust be elected b% a pluralit% of valid votes, regardless of the actual nu!ber of ballots cast. 25 Thus, even if less than )5G of the electorate in the 0uestioned precincts cast their votes, the sa!e !ust still be respected. There is prima facie sho ing that private respondent as elected through a pluralit% of valid votes of a valid constituenc%. ?:'R'1&R', there being no grave abuse of discretion, the Petition for +& &R*'R'*. ertiorari is *6+$6++'*.

Elections Cases Essence of Elections/Basis

G.R. No. 15"198

.an(ar) 2$, 2$$!

+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

Elections Cases Essence of Elections/Basis


that it did not co!!it grave abuse of discretion in den%ing due course to petitionerKs certificate of candidac% and in proclai!ing respondent considering that he as the onl% candidate for 2aranga% Chair!an of +to. To!as. 13 ?e find !erit in the petition. ,t the outset, there is no dispute that petitioner garnered 516 votes hile respondent got onl% )93 votes. Respondents did not den% this in their respective Co!!ents. 6n our #urisdiction, an election !eans the choice or selection of candidates to public office b% popular vote through the use of the ballot, and the elected officials hich are deter!ined through the ill of the electorate. ,n election is the e!bodi!ent of the popular ill, the e"pression of the sovereign po er of the people. The inner is the candidate ho has obtained a !a#orit% or pluralit% of valid votes cast in the election. +ound polic% dictates that public elective offices are filled b% those ho receive the highest nu!ber of votes cast in the election for that office. 1or, in all republican for!s of govern!ent the basic idea is that no one can be declared elected and no !easure can be declared carried unless he or it receives a !a#orit% or pluralit% of the legal votes cast in the election. 11 Respondents base their argu!ent that the substitution of candidates is not allo ed in baranga% elections on +ection 77 of the &!nibus 'lections Code, hich states; +ection 77. andidates in case of death% dis!ualification or withdrawal of another . M 6f after the last da% of the filing of certificates of candidac%, an official candidate of a registered or accredited political part% dies, ithdra s or is dis0ualified for an% cause, onl% a person belonging to, and certified b% the sa!e political part% !a% file a certificate of candidac% to replace the candidate ho died, ithdre or as dis0ualified. The substitute candidate no!inated b% the political part% concerned !a% file his certificate of candidac% for the office affected in accordance ith the preceding sections not later than !id.da% of the election. 6f the death, ithdra al or dis0ualification should occur bet een the da% before the election and !id.da% of election da%, said certificate !a% be filed ith an% board of election inspectors in the political subdivision here he is a candidate or, in the case of candidates to be voted b% the entire electorate of the countr%, ith the Co!!ission. Private respondent argues that inas!uch as the baranga% election is non.partisan, there can be no substitution because there is no political part% fro! hich to designate the substitute. +uch an interpretation, aside fro! being non se!uitur, ignores the purpose of election la s hich is to give effect to, rather than frustrate, the ill of the voters. 1) 6t is a sole!n dut% to uphold the clear and un!istakable !andate of the people. 6t is ell.settled that in case of doubt, political la s !ust be so construed as to give life and spirit to the popular !andate freel% e"pressed through the ballot. 1/ Contrar% to respondentKs clai!, the absence of a specific provision governing substitution of candidates in baranga% elections can not be inferred as a prohibition against said substitution. +uch a restrictive construction cannot be read into the la here the sa!e is not ritten. 6ndeed, there is !ore reason to allo the substitution of candidates here no political parties are involved than hen political considerations or part% affiliations reign, a fact that !ust have been subsu!ed b% la . Private respondent like ise contends that the votes in petitionerKs favor can not be counted because she did not file an% certificate of candidac%. 6n other ords, he as the onl% candidate for 2aranga% Chair!an. :is clai! is refuted b% the $e!orandu! of the C&$'('C (a *epart!ent as ell as the assailed Resolution -o. 5)17, herein it indubitabl% appears that petitionerKs letter.re0uest to be allo ed to run as 2aranga% Chair!an of +to. To!as in lieu of her late husband as treated as a certificate of candidac%.1= To reiterate, it as petitioner ho obtained the pluralit% of votes in the contested election. Technicalities and procedural niceties in election cases should not be !ade to stand in the a% of the true ill of the electorate. (a s governing election contests !ust be liberall% construed to the end that the ill of the people in the choice of public officials !a% not be defeated b% !ere technical ob#ections.15 'lection contests involve public interest, and technicalities and procedural barriers !ust %ield if the% constitute an obstacle to the deter!ination of the true ill of the electorate in the choice of their elective officials. The Court fro ns upon an% interpretation of the la that ould hinder in an% a% not onl% the free and intelligent casting of the votes in an election but also the correct ascertain!ent of the results. 16 9*EREFORE, in vie of the foregoing, the instant petition is AR,-T'*. The assailed Resolution -o. 5)17 of the Co!!ission on 'lections, insofar as it denied due course to petitionerKs certificate of candidac%, is declared -F(( and D&6*. The procla!ation of respondent Re!egio (. Placido as 2aranga% Chair!an of +to. To!as, +an 5acinto, Pangasinan is +'T ,+6*', and the 2oard of Canvassers of the said 2aranga% is &R*'R'* to proclai! petitioner as the dul% elected 2aranga% Chair!an thereof. SO ORDERED.

You might also like