Bautista v. COMELEC [G.R. Nos. 154796-97. October 2! 2""# C$R%&O! J .' .'
()e *acts •
•
•
On 10 June June 2002, 2002, Bauti Bautista sta filed filed his certif certifica icate te of candid candidacy acy for Punong Punong Barang Barangay ay in Lumba Lumbang ngan an for the 15 July July 2002 2002 baran barangay gay elections. Election Election Officer Officer Josefina Josefina P. Jareo Jareo Electi Election on Officer Officer Jareo! Jareo! re+use, to accet Bautistas certi+icate o+ ca,i,ac/ because )e 0as ot a reistere, voter i Lubaa. On 11 June 2002, Bautista filed an action for mandamus against Election Election Officer Officer Jareo Jareo "ith the #egional #egional $rial $rial %ourt %ourt of Batangas Batangas,, Branch Branch 1& trial trial court! court!.. On 1 July July 2002, 02, the trial trial court court ordere ordered d Election Election Officer Officer Jareo to acce*t acce*t Bautista Bautistas s certifica certificate te of candidacy candidacy and and to incl inclu ude his name in the the cer certifi tifie ed list list of cand candid idat ate es for Punong Barangay. ()e Barangay. ()e tria3 court ru3e, t)at ectio 7 o+ COME COMELE LEC C Reso Reso3u 3uti tio o No. No. 4"1 4"1 a,a a,ates tes E3ecti E3ectio o O++ice O++icer r 8areo to ic3u,e t)e ae o+ Bautista i t)e certi+ie, 3ist o+ ca,i,ates uti3 t)e COMELEC ,irects ot)er0ise. '()
[4#
[5#
•
+n com*l com*lian iance ce "ith "ith the the trial trial courts courts order order,, Electi Election on Offic Officer er Jareo Jareo incl includ uded ed Baut Bautis ista ta in the the cert certif ifie ied d list list of cand candid idat ates es for for Puno Punong ng Barang Barangay ay.. t the same same time, time, Electi Election on Offi Officer cer Jareo Jareo refer referred red the the matter of Bautistas inclusion in the certified list of candidates "ith the %O-ELE% La" e*artment on 5 July 2002. '/)
•
•
On 11 July 2002, the %O-ELE% La" e*artment recommended the cancellation of Bautistas certificate of candidacy since he "as not registered as a oter in Lumbangan. $he %O-ELE% en banc failed failed to act on the %O-ELE% La" e*artments recommendation before the barangay elections on 15 July 2002. uring uring the 15 July 2002 2002 baran barangay gay election elections, s, Bautista Bautista obtained obtained the highest number of otes 1! "hile lcore3a came in second "ith 522 522 ote otes, s, or a marg margin in of 1 1 ote otes. s. Baut Bautis ista ta "as "as *roc *rocla laim imed ed "inner.
•
•
•
•
On 4 ugus ugustt 2002 2002,, Baut Bautis ista ta too too his his oath oath of offi office ce as Puno Punong ng Barangay before %ongress"oman Eileen Ermita6Buhainof the 7irst istrict istrict of Batangas Batangas.. On 1/ ugust ugust 2002, 2002, Bautista Bautista again again too his oath oath of offic office e during during a mass mass oath6 oath6ta taing ing ceremo ceremony ny admini administe stered red by 8asugbu -unici*al -ayor #aymund *acible. -ean -ean"h "hil ile, e, %O-E %O-ELE LE% % issu issued ed #eso #esolu luti tion on 8o. 8o. 5&0& 5&0& on 2( July July 2002 2002 and #esolu #esolutio tion n 8o. 554& 554& on 10 ugu ugust st 2002 2002 %O-E %O-ELE LE% % #esolutions!. +n #esolution 8o. 5&0&, the %O-ELE% en banc resoled to cancel Bautistas certificate of candidacy. On the other other hand, hand, #esol #esoluti ution on 8o. 8o. 554& 554& e9*re e9*resse ssed d %O-ELE %O-ELE%s %s *olicy *olicy regarding *roclaimed candidates found to be ineligible for not being registered oters in the *lace of their election +n a let letter ter dated ated 1 ugust gust 200 2002, %O-ELE% %O-ELE% %ommission %ommissioner er Lu3iminda $ancangco directed Election Officer Jareo to 1! delete the name of Bautista from the official list of candidates for Punong Bara Barang ngay ay of Bara arangay gay Lumba mbanga ngan: 2! 2! orde rder the the Board oard of %an %anass asser ers s of Lumb Lumban anga gan n to reco recon nen ene e for for the the *ur* *ur*o ose of *rocla *roclaimi iming ng the electe elected d Punong Punong Baran Barangay gay "ith "ith due notice notice to all candidate candidates s concerne concerned: d: and (! direct direct the *roclaime *roclaimed d dis;ualifie dis;ualified d candidate Bautista to cease and desist from taing his oath of office or from assuming the *osition "hich he "on in the elections, citing %O-ELE% #esolution 8os. 5&0& and 554&. ')
%onse;uently, Election Officer Jareo issued on 20 ugust 2002 an Order deleting the name of Bautista from the list of candidates for Puno Punong ng Bara Barang ngay ay.. $he $he Orde Orderr also also *roh *rohib ibit ited ed Baut Bautis ista ta fro from assumi assuming ng the *osit *osition ion and discha dischargi rging ng the functi functions ons of Punong Punong Barangay of Lumbangan *ursuant to the %O-ELE% #esolutions. '10)
$he Board of %anassers reconened on 2( ugust 2002 and after maing the necessary corrections in the %ertificate of %anass of
•
•
On 2/ ugust ugust 2002, Bautista "rote a letter to %O-ELE% re;uesting the latter for reconsideration of the %O-ELE% #esolutions. On =e*tembe =e*temberr 2002, 2002, "hile his letter letter for reconsiderat reconsideration ion "as still *ending "ith the %O-ELE%, Bautista filed this *etition for certiorari
•
•
•
•
On 4 ugus ugustt 2002 2002,, Baut Bautis ista ta too too his his oath oath of offi office ce as Puno Punong ng Barangay before %ongress"oman Eileen Ermita6Buhainof the 7irst istrict istrict of Batangas Batangas.. On 1/ ugust ugust 2002, 2002, Bautista Bautista again again too his oath oath of offic office e during during a mass mass oath6 oath6ta taing ing ceremo ceremony ny admini administe stered red by 8asugbu -unici*al -ayor #aymund *acible. -ean -ean"h "hil ile, e, %O-E %O-ELE LE% % issu issued ed #eso #esolu luti tion on 8o. 8o. 5&0& 5&0& on 2( July July 2002 2002 and #esolu #esolutio tion n 8o. 554& 554& on 10 ugu ugust st 2002 2002 %O-E %O-ELE LE% % #esolutions!. +n #esolution 8o. 5&0&, the %O-ELE% en banc resoled to cancel Bautistas certificate of candidacy. On the other other hand, hand, #esol #esoluti ution on 8o. 8o. 554& 554& e9*re e9*resse ssed d %O-ELE %O-ELE%s %s *olicy *olicy regarding *roclaimed candidates found to be ineligible for not being registered oters in the *lace of their election +n a let letter ter dated ated 1 ugust gust 200 2002, %O-ELE% %O-ELE% %ommission %ommissioner er Lu3iminda $ancangco directed Election Officer Jareo to 1! delete the name of Bautista from the official list of candidates for Punong Bara Barang ngay ay of Bara arangay gay Lumba mbanga ngan: 2! 2! orde rder the the Board oard of %an %anass asser ers s of Lumb Lumban anga gan n to reco recon nen ene e for for the the *ur* *ur*o ose of *rocla *roclaimi iming ng the electe elected d Punong Punong Baran Barangay gay "ith "ith due notice notice to all candidate candidates s concerne concerned: d: and (! direct direct the *roclaime *roclaimed d dis;ualifie dis;ualified d candidate Bautista to cease and desist from taing his oath of office or from assuming the *osition "hich he "on in the elections, citing %O-ELE% #esolution 8os. 5&0& and 554&. ')
%onse;uently, Election Officer Jareo issued on 20 ugust 2002 an Order deleting the name of Bautista from the list of candidates for Puno Punong ng Bara Barang ngay ay.. $he $he Orde Orderr also also *roh *rohib ibit ited ed Baut Bautis ista ta fro from assumi assuming ng the *osit *osition ion and discha dischargi rging ng the functi functions ons of Punong Punong Barangay of Lumbangan *ursuant to the %O-ELE% #esolutions. '10)
$he Board of %anassers reconened on 2( ugust 2002 and after maing the necessary corrections in the %ertificate of %anass of
•
•
On 2/ ugust ugust 2002, Bautista "rote a letter to %O-ELE% re;uesting the latter for reconsideration of the %O-ELE% #esolutions. On =e*tembe =e*temberr 2002, 2002, "hile his letter letter for reconsiderat reconsideration ion "as still *ending "ith the %O-ELE%, Bautista filed this *etition for certiorari
and and *roh *rohib ibit itio ion n "ith "ith a *ray *rayer er for for the the issu issuan ance ce of a tem* tem*or orar ary y restraining order. ()e &ssues $he issues raised are> ubstative issues' issues' ao i iortat sa toic sa %ubCor 1. :)et :)et)e )err or ot ot a ca, ca,i, i,at ate e +or +or %uo %uo Bara Bara a/ a/ s)ou s)ou3, 3, be a reistere, voter o+ t)e baraa/ 0)ere )e ite,s to ru. 2. :)et)e :)et)err or ot t)e ru3e ru3e o succe successi ssio o u,er u,er ec. 44 o+ t)e LGC s)ou3, be a3ie, %roce,ura3 issues' issues' e,e ra ,i basa)o! ao i a;ataas )a)a . :)et)er :)et)er or ot certio certiorari rari 0as 0as t)e roer roer ree,/ ree,/ 4. :)e :)et)e t)er or ot ot COME COMEL LEC e bac bac )as )as
uireet' ?nder ?nder the #eis #eised ed dminis dministra trati tie e %ode, %ode, one one of the the ;ual ;ualif ific icat atio ions ns of an elec lectie tie mun munici* ici*a al office icer is tha that he mus must be a ;ualif alifie ied d ot oter in his his munici*ality. munici*ality. On the other hand, under under the #e*ublic ct ct 8o. 2(0, other"ise no"n as the Barrio %harter, a candidate for the barrio council mus mustt be a ;ualified elector. $hus, in the 154 case of Rocha v. Cordis, Cordis, the %ourt held that a candidate for an electie munici*al office did not hae to be a registered oter in the munici*ality to ;ualify to run for an electie munici*al office. %iting the earlier case of Yra v. Abao, Abao, the %ourt ruled that the "ords ;ualified elector meant a *erson "ho had all the ;ualifications *roided by la" to be a oter and not a *erson registered in the electoral list. +n the same ein, the '(()
'(&)
'(5)
'(/)
'()
term ;ualified "hen a**lied to a oter does not necessarily mean that a *erson must be a registered oter. ?o0ever! u,er t)e Loca3 Goveret Co,e o+ 1991! 0)ic) too; e++ect o 1 8auar/ 1992! a e3ective 3oca3 o++icia3! ic3u,i a %uo Baraa/! ust ot o3/ be a >ua3i+ie, e3ector or a >ua3i+ie, voter! )e ust a3so be a reistere, voter. [#
$hese ;ualifications "ere reiterated in =ection 2 of %O-ELE% #esolution 8o. &401 dated 2( -ay 2002 "hich *rescribed the guidelines on the filing of certificates of candidacy in connection "ith the 15 July 2002 elections. =ection of %O-ELE% #esolution 8o. &401 lie"ise re;uires the Election Officer to erify "hether the candidates are registered oters and *ossess all the ;ualifications of a candidate. $hus, (f) Before the preparation of the certified lists of candidates it shall be the duty of the Election Officer to: (1) verify whether all candidates for barangay and sangguniang kabataan positions are registered voters of the barangay where they file their certificates of candidacy; and (2) examine the entries of the certificates of candidacy and determine on the basis of said entries whether the candidate concerned possesses all the qualifications of a candidate. (g) If there are candidates who are not registered voters in the barangay where they run for barangay or sangguniang kabataan positions or do not possess all the other qualifications of a candidate he shall !ake the corresponding report by "E#I$%E"E& 'I and by "*$+ %EE#"' to the aw &epart!ent of the ,o!!ission within three (-) days fro! the last day for filing the certificates of candidacy, copy furnished the Provincial lection !upervisor and the "egional lection #irector. %he na!es of said candidates however shall still be included in the certified lists of candidates until the ,o!!ission directs otherwise. (!a$to gibuhat ni %&"')
&t is t)us c3ear t)at t)e 3a0 as it o0 sta,s re>uires a ca,i,ate +or %uo Baraa/ to be a reistere, voter o+ t)e baraa/ 0)ere )e ite,s to ru +or o++ice. Bautista a,itte, i )is a++i,avit ,ate, 24 $uust 2""2 t)at )e 0as ot a reistere, voter o+ Baraa/ Lubaa. &t is t)us c3ear t)at Bautista 0as reiss i )is ,ut/ to esure )is ri)t to vote a, to be vote, +or ub3ic o++ice. s early as 2001, he "as already a"are that his name "as no longer included in the roster of registered oters. @et, Bautista chose not to register ane" that year des*ite his no"ledge that he needed to register as a oter in the barangay to run for the office of Punong Barangay. [4"#
Bautista alleges that his non6registration as a oter of Barangay Lumbangan "as due to the refusal of Election Officer Jareo to register him sometime in January 2002 but did not offer any other *roof lie a duly accom*lished a**lication form for registration to substantiate his claim that he indeed attem*ted to register ane". Bautista "as a"are "hen he filed his certificate of candidacy for the office of Punong Barangay that he laced one of the ;ualifications that of being a registered oter in the barangay "here he ran for office. Ae therefore made a misre*resentation of a material fact "hen he made a false statement in his certificate of candidacy that he "as a registered oter in Barangay Lumbangan. n electie office is a *ublic trust. Ae "ho as*ires for electie office should not mae a mocery of the electoral *rocess by falsely re*resenting himself. $he im*ortance of a alid certificate of candidacy rests at the ery core of the electoral *rocess. ?nder =ection 4 of the Omnibus Election %ode, false re*resentation of a material fact in the certificate of candidacy is a ground for the denial or cancellation of the certificate of candidacy. $he material misre*resentation contem*lated by =ection 4 refers to ;ualifications for electie office. candidate guilty of misre*resentation may be 1! *reented from running, or 2! if elected, from sering, or (! *rosecuted for iolation of the election la"s. '&2)
'&()
'&&)
+noing salus populi est suprema lex , Bautista argues that the *eo*les choice e9*ressed in the local elections deseres res*ect. Bautistas inocation of the liberal inter*retation of election la"s is unaailing. s held in Aquino v. Commission on Elections> '&5)
+ndeed, the electorate cannot amend or "aie the ;ualifications *rescribed by la" for electie office. $he "ill of the *eo*le as e9*ressed through the ballot cannot cure the ice of ineligibility. ()e +act t)at Bautista! a o-reistere, voter! 0as e3ecte, to t)e o++ice o+ %uo Baraa/ ,oes ot erase t)e +act t)at )e 3ac;s oe o+ t)e >ua3i+icatios +or %uo Baraa/. '&/)
2. :)et)er or ot t)e ru3e o successio u,er ec. 44 o+ t)e LGC s)ou3, be a3ie,- =E :)et)er it 0as roer to roc3ai $3corea as %uo Baraa/ i vie0 o+ ie3iibi3it/ o+ t)e 0ii ca,i,ate-NO #es*ondent lcore3a, alleges that her *roclamation as the elected Punong Barangay "as legal and alid. lcore3a claims her case falls under the e9ce*tion to the rule that the dis;ualification of the "inning candidate does not entitle the candidate "ith the ne9t higher number of otes to be *roclaimed
"inner. lcore3a cites Grego v. COMELEC "hich held that the e9ce*tion is *redicated on the concurrence of t"o assum*tions, namely> 1! the one "ho obtained the highest number of otes is dis;ualified: and 2! the electorate is fully a"are in fact and in la" of a candidates dis;ualification so as to bring such a"areness "ithin the realm of notoriety but "ould nonetheless cast their otes in faor of the ineligible candidate. '&)
$his %ourt agrees "ith the ie" of the =olicitor eneral. &t is o0 sett3e, ,octrie t)at t)e COMELEC caot roc3ai as 0ier t)e ca,i,ate 0)o obtais t)e seco, )i)est uber o+ votes i case t)e 0ii ca,i,ate is ie3iib3e or ,is>ua3i+ie,. $he e9ce*tion to this "ell6settled rule "as mentioned in Labo, Jr. v. Commission on Elections and reiterated in Grego v. COMELEC . Ao"eer, the facts "arranting the e9ce*tion to the rule do not obtain in the *resent case. '&4)
'&)
'50)
Electorate did not no! about the disquali"ication# +t "as only on 2( July 2002 after elections! that the %O-ELE% en banc issued #esolution 8o. 5&0&, ado*ting the recommendation of the %O-ELE% La" e*artment and directing the Election Officer to delete Bautistas name from the official list of candidates. ()us! 0)e t)e e3ectorate vote, +or Bautista as %uo Baraa/ o 15 8u3/ 2""2! it 0as u,er t)e be3ie+ t)at )e 0as >ua3i+ie,. $here is no *resum*tion that the electorate agreed to the inalidation of their otes as stray otes in case of Bautistas dis;ualification. ()e Court caot a,)ere to t)e t)eor/ o+ reso,et $3corea t)at t)e votes cast i +avor o+ Bautista are stra/ votes. $ subse>uet +i,i b/ t)e COMELEC en banc t)at Bautista is ie3iib3e caot retroact to t)e ,ate o+ e3ectios so as to iva3i,ate t)e votes cast +or )i. '51)
[52#
$he Local oernment %ode *roides for the rule regarding *ermanent acancy in the Office of the Punong Barangay, thus> !. . (b) If a per!anent vacancy occurs in the office of the punong barangay !e!ber the highest ranking sangguniang barangay !e!ber or in the case of his per!anent disability the second highest ranking sanggunian !e!ber shall beco!e the punong barangay. *or purposes of this hapter, a per!anent vacancy arises when an elective local official fills a higher vacant office, refuses to assume office, fails to qualify, dies, is removed from office, voluntarily resigns, or is otherwise permanently incapacitated to discharge the functions of his office.
ice Bautista +ai3e, to >ua3i+/ +or t)e ositio o+ %uo Baraa/! t)e )i)est ra;i sauia baraa/ eber! or i t)e case o+ )is eraet ,isabi3it/! t)e seco, )i)est ra;i sauia eber! s)a33 becoe t)e %uo Baraa/.
Gu/s! a,i a, e3ectio 3a0 issues a i sa ubos e,e ra i ,i basa)o & t)i;. COMELEC stu++ a i @a. But o o i+ /ou 0at. . :)et)er or ot certiorari 0as t)e roer ree,/- =E #es*ondents contend that a motion for reconsideration of the assailed %O-ELE% #esolutions is a *rere;uisite to the filing of a *etition for certiorari and *rohibition and that the instant *etition is *remature because Bautista has a *ending motion for reconsideration of the %O-ELE% #esolutions. $he contention of res*ondents is "rong. =ection 1 d!, #ule 1( of the 1( %O-ELE% #ules of Procedure *rohibits a motion to reconsider a resolution of the %O-ELE% en banc e9ce*t in cases inoling election offenses. &s the case before the '+ did not involve an election offense, reconsideration of the '+ resolution was not possible and petitioner had no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. *or him to wait until the '+ denied his motion would be to allow the reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari with this ourt to run and expir e.
$he instant controersy inoles resolutions issued by the %O-ELE% en banc "hich do not *ertain to election offenses. Aence, a s*ecial ciil action for certiorari is the *ro*er remedy. 4. :)et)er or ot COMELEC e bac )as
On the other hand, res*ondents allege that the %onstitution ests the %O-ELE% "ith the *o"er to enforce and administer all la"s and regulations relatie to the conduct of elections. $he %onstitution thus em*o"ers the %O-ELE% to *ass u*on the ;ualification of candidates for electie office.
7urthermore, res*ondents submit that the %O-ELE%s Curisdiction to cancel the certificate of candidacy of dis;ualified candidates is already settled Curis*rudence. '1)
+n Garvida v. $ales, Jr., the %ourt held that it is the %O-ELE% sitting in diision and not the %O-ELE% en banc "hich has Curisdiction oer *etitions to cancel a certificate of candidacy. '14)
*nder the sa!e "ules of .rocedure /urisdiction over a petition to cancel a certificate of candidacy lies with the ,O'EE, sitting in &ivision not en banc.
+n this case, Election Officer Jareo re*orted to the %O-ELE% La" e*artment Bautistas ineligibility for being a non6registered oter. $he %O-ELE% La" e*artment recommended to the %O-ELE% en banc to deny due course or to cancel Bautistas certificate of candidacy. $he %O-ELE% en banc a**roed the recommendation in #esolution 8o. 5&0& dated 2( July 2002. $ ,ivisio o+ t)e COMELEC s)ou3, )ave +irst )ear, t)is case. ()e COMELEC en banc ca o3/ act o t)e case i+ t)ere is a otio +or recosi,eratio o+ t)e ,ecisio o+ t)e COMELEC ,ivisio. %ancellation *roceedings inole the %O-ELE%s ;uasi6Cudicial functions. $he %ourt discussed the difference bet"een administratie and ;uasi6Cudicial functions in %illarosa v. Commission on Elections > '1)
dmin functions
Duasi6Cudicial functions
t)he ter! ad!inistrative connotes or 8hile a quasi2/udicial function is pertains to ad!inistration especially ter! which applies to the action • !anage!ent as by !anaging or conducting directing or superintending discretion etc of public the e0ecution application or conduct of ad!inistrative officers or bodies who persons or things It does not entail an are required to investigate facts or opportunity to be heard the production and ascertain the e0istence of facts hold weighing of evidence and a decision or hearings and draw conclusions fro! resolution thereon the! as a basis for their official action and to e0ercise discretion of a -he onstitution merely vests the • /udicial nature. '+s administrative powers in +n the e9ercise of its adCudicatory • the ommission on lections, while or ;uasi6Cudicial *o"ers, the providing that the '+ may %onstitution mandates the sit en banc or in two %O-ELE% to hear and decide divisions. ,learly the ,O'EE, en cases first by diision and u*on banc can act directly on !atters motion for reconsideration, by the falling within its ad!inistrative %O-ELE% en banc . powers. 'n the other hand, the ,O'EE,s • • -he '+s administrative quasi2/udicial powers are found in powers are found in !ection 2 (), (/), $ection 3 (3) of rticle I42, , (), (0), (1), (), (3), and (4) of &rticle
567. %he ,O'EE,s e0ercise of its quasi2/udicial powers is sub/ect to $ection - of rticle I42, which e0pressly requires that all election cases including pre2 procla!ation controversies shall be decided by the ,O'EE, in division and the !otion for reconsideration shall be decided by the ,O'EE, en banc It follows as held by the ,ourt in ,anicosa that the ,O'EE, is !andated to decide cases first in division and then upon !otion for reconsideration en banc only when the ,O'EE, e0ercises its quasi2/udicial powers.
?nder =ection (, #ule 2( of the 1( %O-ELE% #ules of Procedure, a *etition for the denial or cancellation of a certificate of candidacy must be heard summarily after due notice. +t is thus clear that cancellation *roceedings inole the e9ercise of the ;uasi6Cudicial functions of the %O-ELE% "hich the %O-ELE% in division should first decide. 5. :)et)er or ot Bautista 0as ,erive, o+ roce,ura3 ,ue rocess =E
$he o**ortunity to be heard does not only refer to the right to *resent erbal arguments in court during a formal hearing. $here is due *rocess "hen a *arty is able to *resent eidence in the form of *leadings. ?o0ever! t)e COMELEC ,i, ot ive Bautista suc) oortuit/ to e@3ai )is si,e. ()e COMELEC en banc issue, Reso3utio Nos. 54"4 a, 554 0it)out rior otice a, )eari. '25)
'2/)
e cannot ignore the im*ortance of *rior notice and hearing. =eere conse;uences attach to the %O-ELE% #esolutions "hich not only ordered the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy of Bautista but also the annulment of his *roclamation as Punong Barangay. hat is inoled here is not Cust the right to be oted for *ublic office but the right to hold *ublic office. 5e hold that its order to set aside the procla!ation of petitioner is invalid for having been rendered without due process of law .rocedural due process de!ands prior notice and hearing %hen after the hearing it is also necessary that the tribunal show substantial evidence to support its ruling In other words due process requires that a party be given an opportunity to adduce his evidence to support his side of the case and that the evidence should be considered in the ad/udication of the case. .etitioner cannot be deprived of his office without due process of law lthough public office is not property under $ection 1 of the Bill of "ights of the ,onstitution and one cannot acquire a vested right to public office it is nevertheless a protected right &ue process in proceedings before the ,O'EE, e0ercising its quasi2/udicial functions requires due notice and hearing a!ong others. ,O'EE, is without power to partially or totally annul a procla!ation or suspend the effects of a procla!ation without notice and hearing .
$he fact that Bautista "as able to file a letter "ith the %O-ELE% en banc re;uesting for reconsideration of the #esolutions is beside the *oint. $o reiterate, the 1( %O-ELE% #ules of Procedure *rohibit a motion for reconsideration of a %O-ELE% en banc resolution e9ce*t in cases inoling election offenses. #es*ondents lie"ise submit that there "as no need for *resentation and ealuation of eidence since the issue of "hether Bautista "as a registered oter is easily resoled by looing at the %O-ELE% registration records. ()is reasoi +ai3s to cosi,er t)e istaces 0)ere a voter a/ be e@c3u,e, t)rou) ia,vertece or reistere, 0it) a erroeous or isse33e, ae. &,ee,! i+ it 0as
[29#
["#
0)o are ot reistere, voters to be ic3u,e, i t)e certi+ie, 3ist o+ ca,i,ates uti3 t)e COMELEC ,irects ot)er0ise. #ule 2( of the 1( %O-ELE% #ules of Procedure *roides for the t"in re;uirements of *rior notice and hearing, as follo"s> "ule 2/ Petition to #eny #ue ourse to or ancel ertificates of andidacy !ec. /. !ummary Proceeding. %he petition shall be heard su!!arily after due notice. !ec. . #elegation of "eception of vidence. -he ommission may designate any of its officials who are members of the Philippine 9ar to hear the case and receive evidence. (mphasis supplied)
summary *roceeding does not mean that the %O-ELE% could do a"ay "ith the re;uirements of notice and hearing. $he %O-ELE% should hae at least gien notice to Bautista to gie him the chance to adduce eidence to e9*lain his side in the cancellation *roceeding. ()e COMELEC en banc ,erive, Bautista o+ roce,ura3 ,ue rocess o+ 3a0 0)e it arove, t)e reort a, recoe,atio o+ t)e La0 Aeartet 0it)out otice a, )eari. '(1)
R$=MNAO $. B$(&($ OC$! &etitioner, vs. ?ONOR$BLE COMM&&ON ON ELEC(&ON! 8OE*&N$ %. 8$REO! ?ON. M$=OR R$=MNA M. $%$C&BLE! *R$NC&C$ C. ROAR&GED! $GR&%&N$ B. $N(&G! M$R&$ G. C$NO$! a, A&&N$ $LCORED$! res&ondents. AEC&&ON C$R%&O! J .'
()e Case $his is a *etition for certiorari and *rohibition "ith a *rayer for the issuance of a tem*orary restraining order to nullify #esolution 8os. 5&0& and 554& of the %ommission on Elections %O-ELE%! en banc . #esolution 8o. 5&0& dated 2( July 2002 ordered the deletion of #aymundo . Bautistas Bautista! name from the official list of candidates for the *osition of Punong Barangay of Barangay Lumbangan, 8asugbu, Batangas Lumbangan! in the 15 July 2002 elections. #esolution 8o. 554& dated 10 ugust '1)
'2)
2002 *roided for the *olicy of the %O-ELE% regarding *roclaimed candidates found to be ineligible for not being registered oters in the *lace "here they ran for office. ()e *acts On 10 June 2002, Bautista filed his certificate of candidacy for Punong Barangay in Lumbangan for the 15 July 2002 barangay elections. Election Officer Josefina P. Jareo Election Officer Jareo! refused to acce*t Bautistas certificate of candidacy because he "as not a registered oter in Lumbangan. On 11 June 2002, Bautista filed an action for mandamus against Election Officer Jareo "ith the #egional $rial %ourt of Batangas, Branch 1& trial court!. On 1 July 2002, the trial court ordered Election Officer Jareo to acce*t Bautistas certificate of candidacy and to include his name in the certified list of candidates for Punong Barangay. $he trial court ruled that =ection g! of %O-ELE% #esolution 8o. &401 mandates Election Officer Jareo to include the name of Bautista in the certified list of candidates until the %O-ELE% directs other"ise. +n com*liance "ith the trial courts order, Election Officer Jareo included Bautista in the certified list of candidates for Punong Barangay. t the same time, Election Officer Jareo referred the matter of Bautistas inclusion in the certified list of candidates "ith the %O-ELE% La" e*artment on 5 July 2002. On 11 July 2002, the %O-ELE% La" e*artment recommended the cancellation of Bautistas certificate of candidacy since he "as not registered as a oter in Lumbangan. $he %O-ELE% en banc failed to act on the %O-ELE% La" e*artments recommendation before the barangay elections on 15 July 2002. '()
'&)
'5)
'/)
uring the 15 July 2002 barangay elections, Bautista and *riate res*ondent iina lcore3a lcore3a! "ere candidates for the *osition of Punong Barangay in Lumbangan. Bautista obtained the highest number of otes 1! "hile lcore3a came in second "ith 522 otes, or a margin of 1 otes. $hus, the Lumbangan Board of %anassers Board of %anassers! *roclaimed Bautista as the elected Punong Barangay on 15 July 2002. On 4 ugust 2002, Bautista too his oath of office as Punong Barangay before %ongress"oman Eileen Ermita6Buhainof the 7irst istrict of Batangas. On 1/ ugust 2002, Bautista again too his oath of office during a mass oath6taing ceremony administered by 8asugbu -unici*al -ayor #aymund *acible. ')
'4)
-ean"hile, %O-ELE% issued #esolution 8o. 5&0& on 2( July 2002 and #esolution 8o. 554& on 10 ugust 2002 %O-ELE% #esolutions!. +n
#esolution 8o. 5&0&, the %O-ELE% en banc resoled to cancel Bautistas certificate of candidacy. $he %O-ELE% en banc directed the Election Officer to delete Bautistas name from the official list of candidates. $he dis*ositie *ortion of #esolution 8o. 5&0& reads> onsidering the foregoing, the ommission, "!':#, as it hereby "!':!, to &#'P- the recommendation, as follows . -o #<= due course to>or cancel the certificates of candidacy of the following &. *or 9arangay 'fficials . '<"&#' !. P#"&?&
On the other hand, #esolution 8o. 554& e9*ressed %O-ELE%s *olicy regarding *roclaimed candidates found to be ineligible for not being registered oters in the *lace of their election, thus> '< P"'&5+# &<#5#&-! *'B<# -' 9 5<5@59 *'" 95<@ <'- "@5!-"# :'-"! 5< -A P& 8A" -A= 8" -#. (a) *or a proclaimed candidate whose certificate of candidacy was denied due course to or cancelled by virtue of a "esolution of the ommission n 9anc albeit such "esolution did not arrive on time. . -o #5"- the lection 'fficers concerned to implement the resolution of the ommission deleting the name of the candidate whose certificate of candidacy was denied due course;
2. -o #5"- the candidate whose name was ordered deleted to cease and desist from ta$ing his oath of office or from assuming the position to which he was elected, unless a temporary restraining order was issued by the !upreme ourt; and /. -o "'<:< the 9oard of anvassers for the purpose of proclaiming the duly7 elected candidates and correcting the ertificate of anvass of Proclamation. (b) *or a proclaimed candidate who is subsequently declared disqualified by the ommission in the disqualification case filed against him prior to his proclamation. . -o #5"- the proclaimed disqualified candidate to cease and desist from ta$ing his oath of office or from assuming the position to which he was elected, unless a temporary restraining order was issued by the !upreme ourt; and 2. -o "'<:< the 9oard of anvassers for the purpose of proclaiming the duly7 elected candidates and correcting the ertificate of anvass of Proclamation. (c) *or a proclaimed candidate who is found to be ineligible only after his proclamation (i.e., -here is no "esolution denying due course to or canceling his certificate of candidacy and there is no petition for disqualification pending against him before his proclamation.) . -o #5!+5!! any and all cases questioning the eligibility of such candidate for &D '* %B"5!#5-5'<, the proper remedy being a quo warranto case before the metropolitan or municipal trial court.
+n a letter dated 1 ugust 2002, %O-ELE% %ommissioner Lu3iminda $ancangco directed Election Officer Jareo to 1! delete the name of Bautista from the official list of candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Lumbangan: 2! order the Board of %anassers of Lumbangan to reconene for the *ur*ose of *roclaiming the elected Punong Barangay "ith due notice to all candidates concerned: and (! direct the *roclaimed dis;ualified candidate Bautista to cease and desist from taing his oath of office or from assuming the *osition "hich he "on in the elections, citing %O-ELE% #esolution 8os. 5&0& and 554&. %onse;uently, Election Officer Jareo issued on 20 ugust 2002 an Order deleting the name of Bautista from the list of candidates for Punong Barangay. $he Order also *rohibited Bautista from assuming the *osition and discharging the functions of Punong Barangay of Lumbangan *ursuant to the %O-ELE% #esolutions. $he Board of %anassers reconened on 2( ugust 2002 and after maing the necessary corrections in the %ertificate of %anass of
'10)
"inning Punong Barangay. lcore3a thus of Punong Barangay of Lumbangan.
assumed
'11)
the
*ost
On 2/ ugust 2002, Bautista "rote a letter to %O-ELE% re;uesting the latter for reconsideration of the %O-ELE% #esolutions. On =e*tember 2002, "hile his letter for reconsideration "as still *ending "ith the %O-ELE%, Bautista filed this *etition for certiorari and *rohibition "ith a *rayer for the issuance of a tem*orary restraining order. ()e &ssues $he issues raised are> 1. hether the %O-ELE% en banc committed grae abuse of discretion amounting to e9cess or lac of Curisdiction "hen it issued #esolution 8os. 5&0& and 554&: 2. hether the %O-ELE% de*ried Bautista of due *rocess "hen the %O-ELE% en banc issued #esolution 8os. 5&0& and 554&: and (. hether it "as *ro*er to *roclaim lcore3a as Punong Barangay in ie" of the alleged dis;ualification of the "inning candidate Bautista.
()e Courts Ru3i Before considering the merits of the case, "e shall first resole the *rocedural ;uestions raised by res*ondents. #es*ondents contend that a motion for reconsideration of the assailed %O-ELE% #esolutions is a *rere;uisite to the filing of a *etition for certiorari and *rohibition.bsent any e9traordinary circumstances, a *arty "ho has filed a motion for reconsideration should "ait for the resolution of the motion before filing the *etition for certiorari. #es*ondents allege that the instant *etition is *remature because Bautista has a *ending motion for reconsideration of the %O-ELE% #esolutions. #es*ondents claim that Bautista filed the instant *etition barely t"o "ees after filing the motion for reconsideration "ith the %O-ELE% en banc "ithout "aiting for the resolution of his motion. '12)
$he contention of res*ondents is "rong. $he case cited by res*ondents refers to a motion for reconsideration *ending before the %O-ELE% en banc seeing the reconsideration of a resolution rendered by a %O-ELE% division. #ule 1 of the 1( %O-ELE% #ules of Procedure allo"s a motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order, or ruling of a diision. Ao"eer, =ection 1 d!, #ule 1( of the 1( %O-ELE% #ules of '1()
Procedure *rohibits a motion to reconsider a resolution of the %O-ELE% en banc e9ce*t in cases inoling election offenses.s held in Angelia v. Commission on Elections> '1&)
8e hold that petitioner acted correctly in filing the present petition because the resolution of the '+ in question is not subCect to reconsideration and, therefore, any party who disagreed with it only had one recourse, and that was to file a petition for certiorari under "ule 10 of the "ules of ivil Procedure. "ule /, of the '+ "ules of Procedure provides What Pleadings are Not Allowed . -he following pleadings are not allowed .. . . d) motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling, resolution, order or decision except in election offense cases; ... &s the case before the '+ did not involve an election offense, reconsideration of the '+ resolution was not possible and petitioner had no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. *or him to wait until the '+ denied his motion would be to allow the reglementary period for filing a petition for certiorari with this ourt to run and expir e.
$he instant controersy inoles resolutions issued by the %O-ELE% en banc "hich do not *ertain to election offenses. Aence, a s*ecial ciil action for certiorari is the *ro*er remedy in accordance "ith =ection 2, #ule /& of the #ules of %ourt "hich *roides> '15)
!. 2. Mode of review. & Cudgment or final order or resolution of the ,o!!ission on Elections and the ommission on &udit !ay be brought by the aggrieved party to the $upre!e ,ourt on certiorari under "ule 67 except as hereinafter provided. (mphasis supplied)
:)et)er t)e COMELEC en banc coitte, rave abuse o+ ,iscretio aouti to e@cess or 3ac; o+
%O-ELE% cannot motu proprio act on the issue of his alleged lac of ;ualification. Een assuming that there "as a dis;ualification case filed against him, it is the %O-ELE% sitting in diision "hich has Curisdiction and not the %O-ELE% en banc . '1/)
On the other hand, res*ondents allege that the %onstitution ests the %O-ELE% "ith the *o"er to enforce and administer all la"s and regulations relatie to the conduct of elections. $he %onstitution thus em*o"ers the %O-ELE% to *ass u*on the ;ualification of candidates for electie office. 7urthermore, res*ondents submit that the %O-ELE%s Curisdiction to cancel the certificate of candidacy of dis;ualified candidates is already settled Curis*rudence. '1)
#es*ondents cited cases to su**ort their claim that the %O-ELE% has Curisdiction to cancel the certificates of candidacy of dis;ualified candidates. Ao"eer, the %O-ELE% heard these cases first in diision and not en banc in the first instance. +n Garvida v. $ales, Jr., the %ourt held that it is the %O-ELE% sitting in diision and not the %O-ELE% en banc "hich has Curisdiction oer *etitions to cancel a certificate of candidacy. $he %ourt held> '14)
x x x -he 'mnibus lection ode, in !ection 3, &rticle 56, governs the procedure to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy, viE Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. 7 & verified petition see$ing to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under !ection hereof is false. -he petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty7five days from the time of filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before election. 5n relation thereto, "ule 2/ of the '+ "ules of Procedure provides that a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy for an elective office may be filed with the aw #epartment of the '+ on the ground that the candidate has made a false material representation in his certificate. -he petition may be heard and evidence received by any official designated by the '+ after which the case shall be decided by the '+ itself. *nder the sa!e "ules of .rocedure /urisdiction over a petition to cancel a certificate of candidacy lies with the ,O'EE, sitting in &ivision not en banc. ases before a #ivision may only be entertained by the '+ en banc
when the required number of votes to reach a decision, resolution, order or ruling is not obtained in the #ivision. +oreover, only motions to reconsider decisions, resolutions, orders or rulings of the '+ in #ivision are resolved by the '+ en banc. 5t is therefore the '+ sitting in #ivisions that can hear and decide election cases. -his is clear from !ection / of the said "ules thus Sec. 3. The o!!ission in Sitting in "ivisions. -he ommission shall sit in two (2) #ivisions to hear and decide protests or petitions in ordinary actions, special actions, special cases, provisional remedies, contempt and special proceedings except in accreditation of citiEens arms of the ommission. In the instant case the ,O'EE, en banc did not refer the case to any of its &ivisions upon receipt of the petition It therefore acted without /urisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion when it entertained the petition and issued the order of 'ay 3 1886 . (mphasis supplied)
+n this case, Election Officer Jareo re*orted to the %O-ELE% La" e*artment Bautistas ineligibility for being a non6registered oter. $he %O-ELE% La" e*artment recommended to the %O-ELE% en banc to deny due course or to cancel Bautistas certificate of candidacy. $he %O-ELE% en banc a**roed the recommendation in #esolution 8o. 5&0& dated 2( July 2002. diision of the %O-ELE% should hae first heard this case. $he %O-ELE% en banc can only act on the case if there is a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the %O-ELE% diision. Aence, the %O-ELE% en banc acted "ithout Curisdiction "hen it ordered the cancellation of Bautistas certificate of candidacy "ithout first referring the case to a diision for summary hearing. $he *roceeding on the cancellation of a certificate of candidacy does not merely *ertain to the administratie functions of the %O-ELE%. %ancellation *roceedings inole the %O-ELE%s ;uasi6Cudicial functions. $he %ourt discussed the difference bet"een administratie and ;uasi6Cudicial functions in %illarosa v. Commission on Elections > '1)
5n the concurring opinion of %ustice &ntonio in #niversity of Nueva aceres vs. Martine$ , 01 !"& 3, he noted that (t)he ter! ad!inistrative connotes or pertains to ad!inistration especially !anage!ent as by !anaging or conducting directing or superintending the
e0ecution application or conduct of persons or things It does not entail an opportunity to be heard the production and weighing of evidence and a decision or resolution thereon
8hile a quasi2/udicial function is ter! which applies to the action discretion etc of public ad!inistrative officers or bodies who are required to investigate facts or ascertain the e0istence of facts hold hearings and draw conclusions fro! the! as a basis for their official action and to e0ercise discretion of a /udicial nature. (mphasis supplied)
+n the e9ercise of its adCudicatory or ;uasi6Cudicial *o"ers, the %onstitution mandates the %O-ELE% to hear and decide cases first by diision and u*on motion for reconsideration, by the %O-ELE% en banc . +n 'a(tan v. COMELEC , the %ourt e9*ounded on the administratie and ;uasi6Cudicial *o"ers of the %O-ELE%. $he %ourt e9*lained> '20)
'21)
Bnder !ection 2, &rticle 567 of the 43 onstitution, the '+ exercises both administrative and quasi7Cudicial powers. -he '+s administrative powers are found in !ection 2 (), (/), (), (0), (1), (), (3), and (4) of &rticle 567 . -he 43 onstitution does not prescribe how the '+ should exercise its administrative powers, whether en banc or in division. -he onstitution merely vests the '+s administrative powers in the ommission on lections, while providing that the '+ may sit en banc or in two divisions. ,learly the ,O'EE, en banc can act directly on !atters falling within its ad!inistrative powers. 5ndeed, this has been the practice of the '+ both under the 4/ and 43 onstitutions. 'n the other hand, the ,O'EE,s quasi2/udicial powers are found in $ection 3 (3) of rticle I42, , to wit !ection 2. -he ommission on lections shall exercise the following powers and functions xxx (2) xercise exclusive original Curisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate Curisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general Curisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited Curisdiction.
#ecisions, final orders, or rulings of the ommission on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable. %he ,O'EE,s e0ercise of its quasi2/udicial powers is sub/ect to $ection - of rticle I42, which e0pressly requires that all election cases including pre2 procla!ation controversies shall be decided by the ,O'EE, in division and the !otion for reconsideration shall be decided by the ,O'EE, en banc It follows as held by the ,ourt in ,anicosa that the ,O'EE, is !andated to decide cases first in division and then upon !otion for reconsideration en banc only when the ,O'EE, e0ercises its quasi2/udicial powers. (mphasis supplied)
?nder =ection (, #ule 2( of the 1( %O-ELE% #ules of Procedure, a *etition for the denial or cancellation of a certificate of candidacy must be heard summarily after due notice. +t is thus clear that cancellation *roceedings inole the e9ercise of the ;uasi6Cudicial functions of the %O-ELE% "hich the %O-ELE% in division should first decide. -ore so in this case "here the cancellation *roceedings originated not from a *etition but from a re*ort of the election officer regarding the lac of ;ualification of the candidate in the barangay election. $he %O-ELE% en banc cannot short cut the *roceedings by acting on the case "ithout a *rior action by a diision because it denies due *rocess to the candidate. :)et)er t)e COMELEC ,erive, Bautista o+ ,ue rocess 0)e it issue, Reso3utio Nos. 54"4 a, 554 Bautista alleges that the %O-ELE% denied him due *rocess because there "as no notice and hearing *rior to the issuance of #esolution 8os. 5&0& and 554&. Ae became a"are of the issuance of the %O-ELE% #esolutions only "hen he receied a co*y of Election Officer Jareos Order dated 20 ugust 2002 ordering him to cease and desist from assuming the *osition of Punong Barangay. '22)
$he =olicitor eneral submits that the %O-ELE% did not de*rie Bautista of due *rocess. Bautista had the chance to be heard and to *resent his side "hen he filed a letter to the %O-ELE% en banc re;uesting reconsideration of the #esolutions. '2()
$his %ourt has e9*lained the nature of due *rocess in $ta("ast )hili&&ines Cor&oration v. *LRC > '2&)
-he essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to see$ a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. & formal or trial7type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential. %he require!ents are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to e0plain their side of the controversy at hand 5hat is frowned upon is absolute lack of notice and hearing . x x x (mphasis supplied)
$he o**ortunity to be heard does not only refer to the right to *resent erbal arguments in court during a formal hearing. $here is due *rocess "hen a *arty is able to *resent eidence in the form of *leadings. Ao"eer, the %O-ELE% did not gie Bautista such o**ortunity to e9*lain his side. $he %O-ELE% en banc issued #esolution 8os. 5&0& and 554& "ithout *rior notice and hearing. '25)
'2/)
e cannot ignore the im*ortance of *rior notice and hearing. =eere conse;uences attach to the %O-ELE% #esolutions "hich not only ordered the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy of Bautista but also the annulment of his *roclamation as Punong Barangay. hat is inoled here is not Cust the right to be oted for *ublic office but the right to hold *ublic office. s held in $andoval v. Commission on Elections> '2)
x x x <hough the '+ is clothed with Curisdiction over the subCect matter and issue of !P
annul or suspend the proclamation of any candidate, we had ruled in *arinas vs. ommission on lections, "eyes vs. ommission on lections and @allardo vs. ommission on lections that the ,O'EE, is without power to partially or totally annul a procla!ation or suspend the effects of a procla!ation without notice and hearing . (mphasis supplied)
$he fact that Bautista "as able to file a letter "ith the %O-ELE% en banc re;uesting for reconsideration of the #esolutions is beside the *oint. $o reiterate, the 1( %O-ELE% #ules of Procedure *rohibit a motion for reconsideration of a %O-ELE% en banc resolution e9ce*t in cases inoling election offenses. #es*ondents lie"ise submit that there "as no need for *resentation and ealuation of eidence since the issue of "hether Bautista "as a registered oter is easily resoled by looing at the %O-ELE% registration records. $his reasoning fails to consider the instances "here a oter may be e9cluded through inadertence or registered "ith an erroneous or miss*elled name. +ndeed, if it "as Cust a sim*le matter of looing at the record of registered oters, then the %O-ELE% "ould not hae included =ection g! in its #esolution 8o. &401. $his =ection allo"s candidates "ho are not registered oters to be included in the certified list of candidates until the %O-ELE% directs other"ise. '24)
'2)
'(0)
#ule 2( of the 1( %O-ELE% #ules of Procedure *roides for the t"in re;uirements of *rior notice and hearing, as follo"s> "ule 2/ Petition to #eny #ue ourse to or ancel ertificates of andidacy !ection . @rounds for #enial of ertificate of andidacy. & petition to deny due course to or cancel, a certificate of candidacy for any elective office may be filed with the aw #epartment of the ommission by any citiEen of voting age or a duly registered political party, organiEation, or coalition of political parties on the e+clusive ground that any material representation contained therein as required by law is false. !ec. 2. Period to *ile Petition. -he petition must be filed within five (0) days following the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy. !ec. /. !ummary Proceeding. %he petition shall be heard su!!arily after due notice. !ec. . #elegation of "eception of vidence. -he ommission may designate any of its officials who are members of the Philippine 9ar to hear the case and receive evidence. (mphasis supplied)
summary *roceeding does not mean that the %O-ELE% could do a"ay "ith the re;uirements of notice and hearing. $he %O-ELE% should hae at least gien notice to Bautista to gie him the chance to adduce eidence to e9*lain his side in the cancellation *roceeding. $he %O-ELE% en banc de*ried Bautista of *rocedural due *rocess of la" "hen it a**roed the re*ort and recommendation of the La" e*artment "ithout notice and hearing. '(1)
:)et)er Bautista 0as a reistere, voter o+ Baraa/ Lubaa 0)e )e +i3e, )is certi+icate o+ ca,i,ac/ $he eents that trans*ired after the 15 July 2002 elections necessitate the early resolution of this case. $he %ourt deems it *ro*er not to remand the case to the %O-ELE% to aoid further delay. $he %ourt "ill resole this case based on the *leadings submitted by the *arties. '(2)
?nder the #eised dministratie %ode, one of the ;ualifications of an electie munici*al officer is that he must be a ;ualified oter in his munici*ality. =ection 21& of the #eised dministratie %ode reads> '(()
!ection 2. ,ualifications of elective !unici-al officer. n elective !unicipal officer !ust at the ti!e of the election be a qualified voter in his !unicipality and must have been resident therein for at least one year, and must not be less than twenty7 three years of age. Ae must also be able to read and write intelligently either nglish, !panish, or the local dialect. (mphasis supplied)
On the other hand, under the #e*ublic ct 8o. 2(0, other"ise no"n as the Barrio %harter, a candidate for the barrio council must be a ;ualified elector. =ection 4 of the Barrio %harter reads> '(&)
'(5)
!ection 3. ,ualifications for election to the barrio council . andidates for election to the barrio council (a) +ust be a qualified elector and must have been a resident of the barrio for at least six months prior to the election; and (b) +ust not have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude or of a crime which carries a penalty of at least one year imprisonment. (mphasis supplied)
$hus, in the 154 case of Rocha v. Cordis, the %ourt held that a candidate for an electie munici*al office did not hae to be a registered oter '(/)
in the munici*ality to ;ualify to run for an electie munici*al office. %iting the earlier case of Yra v. Abao, the %ourt ruled that the "ords ;ualified elector meant a *erson "ho had all the ;ualifications *roided by la" to be a oter and not a *erson registered in the electoral list. +n the same ein, the term ;ualified "hen a**lied to a oter does not necessarily mean that a *erson must be a registered oter. '()
Ao"eer, under the Local oernment %ode of 11, "hich too effect on 1 January 12, an electie local official, including a Punong Barangay, must not only be a ;ualified elector or a ;ualified oter, he must also be a registered oter. =ection ( of the Local oernment %ode *roides> '(4)
'()
!. /4. ,ualifications. (a) &n elective local official must be a citiEen of the Philippines; a registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or province or, in the case of a member of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, or sangguniang bayan, the district where he intends to be elected ; a resident therein for at least one () year immediately preceding the day of the election; and able to read and write *ilpino or any other local language or dialect. xxx (e) andidates for the position of punong barangay or member of the sangguniang barangay must be at least eighteen (3) years of age on election day. xxx
$hese ;ualifications "ere reiterated in =ection 2 of %O-ELE% #esolution 8o. &401 dated 2( -ay 2002 "hich *rescribed the guidelines on the filing of certificates of candidacy in connection "ith the 15 July 2002 elections. =ection 2 reads> !ec. 2. ,ualifications. (a) andidates for .unong Barangay and Sangguniang %arangay agawad must be () *ilipino citiEens; (2) &t least 3 years old on election day; (/) &ble to read and write Pilipino or any local language or dialect; and () "egistered voters of the barangay where they intend to run for office and residents thereof for at least one () year immediately preceding the day of the election. (mphasis supplied)
=ection of %O-ELE% #esolution 8o. &401 lie"ise re;uires the Election Officer to erify "hether the candidates are registered oters and *ossess all the ;ualifications of a candidate. $hus, =ection f! and g! read> (f) Before the preparation of the certified lists of candidates it shall be the duty of the Election Officer to: (1) verify whether all candidates for barangay and sangguniang kabataan positions are registered voters of the barangay where they file their certificates of candidacy; and (2) examine the entries of the certificates of candidacy and determine on the basis of said entries whether the candidate concerned possesses all the qualifications of a candidate. (g) If there are candidates who are not registered voters in the barangay where they run for barangay or sangguniang kabataan positions or do not possess all the other qualifications of a candidate he shall !ake the corresponding report by "E#I$%E"E& 'I and by "*$+ %EE#"' to the aw &epart!ent of the ,o!!ission within three (-) days fro! the last day for filing the certificates of candidacy, copy furnished the Provincial lection !upervisor and the "egional lection #irector. %he na!es of said candidates however shall still be included in the certified lists of candidates until the ,o!!ission directs otherwise. (mphasis supplied)
+t is thus clear that the la" as it no" stands re;uires a candidate for Punong Barangay to be a registered oter of the barangay "here he intends to run for office. Bautista admitted in his affidait dated 2& ugust 2002 that he "as not a registered oter of Barangay Lumbangan, thus> '&0)
&**5#&:5-hat 5, "&=+B<#' &. G '& 9&B-5!-&, of legal age, married, +echanical ngineer by profession, *ilipino citiEen and have been residing at !itio alamundingan, 9arangay umbangan,
2. -hat since the time 5 reached the age of maCority, 5 have participated both in the
ccording to Bautistas affidait, he "as *ractically out of the country from 15 until 2001. hen the certified list of oters ceased to be effectie and o*eratie after the barangay elections in 1, ;ualified oters had to register again to ote in any election. **arently, Bautista failed to register during the general registration of oters conducted by the %O-ELE% in 1 since he "as still out of the country during that time. #e*ublic ct 8o. 414 $he
!. . General Registration of Voters I!!ediately after the barangay elections in 188< the e0isting certified list of voters shall cease to be effective and operative. *or purposes of the +ay 443 elections and all elections, plebiscites, referenda, initiatives, and recall subsequent thereto, the ommission shall underta$e a general registration of voters before the 9oard of lection 5nspectors on ;une 1= 17 31 and 33 and , subCect to the discretion of the ommission, on ;une 3> and 38 188< in accordance with this &ct. !. 3. System of Continuing Registration of Voters. %he personal filing of application of registration of voters shall be conducted daily in the office of the Election Officer during regular office hours o registration shall however be conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty (139) days before a regular election and ninety (89) days before a special election. xxx !. F. Registration of Voters . & qualified voter shall be registered in the permanent list of voters in a precinct of the city or municipality where he resides to be able to vote in any election. %o register as a voter he shall personally acco!plish an application for! for registration as prescribed by the ,o!!ission in three (-) copies before the Election Officer on any date during office hours after having acquired the qualifications of a voter . (mphasis supplied) xxx
+t is thus clear that Bautista "as remiss in his duty to ensure his right to ote and to be oted for *ublic office. s early as 2001, he "as already a"are that his name "as no longer included in the roster of registered oters. @et, Bautista chose not to register ane" that year des*ite his no"ledge that he needed to register as a oter in the barangay to run for the office of Punong Barangay. Bautista alleges that his non6registration as a oter of Barangay Lumbangan "as due to the refusal of Election Officer Jareo to register him sometime in January 2002. side from his bare allegation that he tried to register in January 2002, Bautista did not *roffer any other *roof lie a duly accom*lished a**lication form for registration to substantiate his claim that he indeed attem*ted to register ane". On the other hand, Election Officer Jareo denies Bautistas allegations in her comment filed on 10 October 2002, thus> '&1)
COMMENT
'+! <'8 "espondent %'!P5<& P. %&"' (sic) and to this Aonorable !upreme ourt by way of comment to the Petition for ertiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the 5ssuance of -emporary "estraining 'rder, filed by herein Petitioner, most respectfully states that 1. #es*ondent JO=EP+8 P. J#EO sic! is the Election Officer of 8asugbu, Batangas, "hile *etitioner, #@-?8O . B?$+=$ "as one of the candidates for the Barangay %hairman of Barangay Lumbangan, 8asugbu, Batangas, in the recently concluded barangay elections: 2. Based on the records in our files, *etitioner "as not and is not a registered oter of Barangay Lumbangan or any other barangays in 8asugbu, Batangas: (. +here !as never an instance during the &eriod starting June -- u& to /ecember 01, 022 !hen registration o" voters "or the u&dating o" the %oters Registration Record had been undertaen b( the Commission on Elections on an on again3o"" again s(stem, did &etitioner RAYM4*/O 'A4+5$+A come to our o""ice to chec or ensure that he is still in the active list o" voters o" 'aranga( Lumbangan, i.e., assuming that he !as registered as a voter thereo", in the "irst &lace6 &. +he last da( o" registration o" voters 7ne! or trans"eree8 had been last /ecember 01, 022 and registration shall resume again, this coming $e&tember 1, 0220 . +n the meantime, no general registration nor s*ecial registration had been mandated by the %ommission on Election %O-ELE%, for breity! bet"een the *eriod ecember 2, 2001 until =e*tember 15, 2002: 5. 5 onl( met &etitioner RAYM4*/O 'A4+5$+A "or the "irst time !hen he came to our o""ice to "ile his Certi"icate o" Candidac( last June 2, 0220, !hich !as the last da( set b( the COMELEC "or the "iling o" Certi"icates o" Candidac(6
xxx
Bautista "as a"are "hen he filed his certificate of candidacy for the office of Punong Barangay that he laced one of the ;ualifications that of being a registered oter in the barangay "here he ran for office. Ae therefore made a misre*resentation of a material fact "hen he made a false statement in his certificate of candidacy that he "as a registered oter in Barangay Lumbangan. n electie office is a *ublic trust. Ae "ho as*ires for electie office should not mae a mocery of the electoral *rocess by falsely re*resenting himself. $he im*ortance of a alid certificate of candidacy rests at the ery core of the electoral *rocess. ?nder =ection 4 of the Omnibus Election %ode, false re*resentation of a material fact in the certificate of candidacy is a ground for the denial or cancellation of the certificate of candidacy. $he material misre*resentation contem*lated by =ection 4 refers to ;ualifications for electie office. candidate guilty of misre*resentation may '&2)
'&()
be 1! *reented from running, or 2! if elected, from sering, or (! *rosecuted for iolation of the election la"s. '&&)
+noing salus populi est suprema lex , Bautista argues that the *eo*les choice e9*ressed in the local elections deseres res*ect. Bautistas inocation of the liberal inter*retation of election la"s is unaailing. s held in Aquino v. Commission on Elections> '&5)
5n fine, we are left with no choice but to affirm the '+s conclusion declaring herein petitioner ineligible for the elective position as "epresentative of +a$ati itys !econd #istrict on the basis of respondent commissions finding that petitioner lac$s the one year residence in the district mandated by the 43 onstitution. & democratic government is necessarily a government of laws. 5n a republican government those laws are themselves ordained by the people. -hrough their representatives, they dictate the qualifications necessary for service in government positions. &nd as petitioner clearly lac$s one of the essential qualifications for running for membership in the Aouse of "epresentatives, not even the will of a maCority or plurality of the voters of the !econd #istrict of +a$ati ity would substitute for a requirement mandated by the fundamental law itself.
+ndeed, the electorate cannot amend or "aie the ;ualifications *rescribed by la" for electie office. $he "ill of the *eo*le as e9*ressed through the ballot cannot cure the ice of ineligibility. $he fact that Bautista, a non6 registered oter, "as elected to the office of Punong Barangay does not erase the fact that he lacs one of the ;ualifications for Punong Barangay. '&/)
:)et)er it 0as roer to roc3ai $3corea as %uo Baraa/ i vie0 o+ ie3iibi3it/ o+ t)e 0ii ca,i,ate Bautista subscribes to the ie" of the =olicitor eneral that under the la" and Curis*rudence, the %O-ELE% cannot *roclaim as "inner the second *lacer in case of ineligibility of the "inning candidate. $he =olicitor eneral submits that the dis;ualification of the "inning candidate Bautista does not result in the *roclamation of lcore3a "ho obtained the second highest number of otes because lcore3a "as obiously not the choice of the electorate. $he =olicitor eneral em*hasi3ed that the %O-ELE% declared Bautista ineligible for the *ost of Punong Barangay only after his election and *roclamation as the "inning candidate. #es*ondent lcore3a, ho"eer, alleges that her *roclamation as the elected Punong Barangay "as legal and alid. lcore3a claims her case falls
under the e9ce*tion to the rule that the dis;ualification of the "inning candidate does not entitle the candidate "ith the ne9t higher number of otes to be *roclaimed "inner. lcore3a cites Grego v. COMELEC "hich held that the e9ce*tion is *redicated on the concurrence of t"o assum*tions, namely> 1! the one "ho obtained the highest number of otes is dis;ualified: and 2! the electorate is fully a"are in fact and in la" of a candidates dis;ualification so as to bring such a"areness "ithin the realm of notoriety but "ould nonetheless cast their otes in faor of the ineligible candidate. '&)
$his %ourt agrees "ith the ie" of the =olicitor eneral. +t is no" settled doctrine that the %O-ELE% cannot *roclaim as "inner the candidate "ho obtains the second highest number of otes in case the "inning candidate is ineligible or dis;ualified. $he e9ce*tion to this "ell6settled rule "as mentioned in Labo, Jr. v. Commission on Elections and reiterated in Grego v. COMELEC . Ao"eer, the facts "arranting the e9ce*tion to the rule do not obtain in the *resent case. '&4)
'&)
'50)
lthough the %O-ELE% La" e*artment recommended to deny due course or to cancel the certificate of candidacy of Bautista on 11 July 2002, the %O-ELE% en banc failed to act on it before the 15 July 2002 barangay elections. +t "as only on 2( July 2002 that the %O-ELE% en banc issued #esolution 8o. 5&0&, ado*ting the recommendation of the %O-ELE% La" e*artment and directing the Election Officer to delete Bautistas name from the official list of candidates. $hus, "hen the electorate oted for Bautista as Punong Barangay on 15 July 2002, it "as under the belief that he "as ;ualified. $here is no *resum*tion that the electorate agreed to the inalidation of their otes as stray otes in case of Bautistas dis;ualification. $he %ourt cannot adhere to the theory of res*ondent lcore3a that the otes cast in faor of Bautista are stray otes. subse;uent finding by the %O-ELE% en banc that Bautista is ineligible cannot retroact to the date of elections so as to inalidate the otes cast for him. s held in/omino v. COMELEC > '51)
'52)
'5()
'5&)
ontrary to the claim of 5<-":<'", petitioner was not notoriously $nown by the public as an ineligible candidate. <hough the resolution declaring him ineligible as candidate was rendered before the election, however, the same is not yet final and executory. 5n fact, it was no less than the '+ in its !upplemental 'mnibus "esolution
misapply their franchise. -hus, said votes can not be treated as stray, void, or meaningless.
$he Local oernment %ode *roides for the rule regarding *ermanent acancy in the Office of the Punong Barangay, thus> !. . Per!anent vacancies in the (ffices of the /overnor& 0ice1/overnor& Mayor& and 0ice1Mayor. 5f a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the governor or mayor, the vice7governor or vice7mayor concerned shall become the governor or mayor. 5f a permanent vacancy occurs in the offices of the governor, vice7governor, mayor, or vice7mayor, the highest ran$ing sanggunian member or, in the case of his permanent inability, the second highest ran$ing sanggunian member, shall become the governor, vice7 governor, mayor or vice7mayor, as the case may be. !ubsequent vacancies in the said office shall be filled automatically by the other sanggunian members according to their ran$ing as defined herein. (b) If a per!anent vacancy occurs in the office of the punong barangay !e!ber the highest ranking sangguniang barangay !e!ber or in the case of his per!anent disability the second highest ranking sanggunian !e!ber shall beco!e the punong barangay. (c) & tie between or among the highest ran$ing sanggunian members shall be resolved by the drawing of lots. (d) -he successors as defined herein shall serve only the unexpired terms of their predecessors. *or purposes of this hapter, a per!anent vacancy arises when an elective local official fills a higher vacant office, refuses to assume office, fails to qualify, dies, is removed from office, voluntarily resigns, or is otherwise permanently incapacitated to discharge the functions of his office. *or purposes of succession as provided in this hapter, ran$ing in the sanggunian shall be determined on the basis of the proportion of votes obtained by each winning candidate to the total number of registered voters in each district in the immediately preceding local election. (mphasis supplied)
=ince Bautista failed to ;ualify for the *osition of Punong Barangay, the highest raning sangguniang barangay member, or in the case of his *ermanent disability, the second highest raning sangguniang member, shall become the Punong Barangay. '55)
:?ERE*ORE! "e +=-+== the *etition. Petitioner #aymundo . Bautista is ineligible for the *osition of Punong Barangay of Barangay Lumbangan for not being a registered oter of Barangay Lumbangan. $he *roclamation of the second *lacer iina lcore3a as "inner in lieu of Bautista is oid. +nstead, the highest raning sangguniang barangay member of Barangay Lumbangan
