DELA CRUZ vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS G.R. No. 192221, November 13, 2012 Issue With the adoption of automated election system in our country, one of the emerging concerns is the application of the law on nuisance candidates under a new voting system wherein voters indicate their choice of candidates by shading the oval corresponding to the name of their chosen candidate printed on the ballots, instead of writing the candidate's name on the appropriate space provided in the ballots as in previous manual elections. I! "#e $%me o! % $u&s%$'e '%$(&(%"e )#ose 'er"&!&'%"e o! '%$(&(%'* #%( bee$ '%$'e++e( b* "#e Comm&ss&o$ o$ E+e'"&o$s COMELEC- )%s s"&++ &$'+u(e( or r&$"e( &$ "#e o!!&'&%+ b%++o"s o$ e+e'"&o$ (%*, s#ou+( "#e vo"es '%s" !or su'# $u&s%$'e '%$(&(%"e be 'o$s&(ere( s"r%* or 'ou$"e( &$ !%vor o! "#e bo$% !&(e '%$(&(%"e/ %'"s In this this petiti petition on for certio certiorar rari, i, Casimi Casimira ra S. Dela Dela Cruz Cruz assail assails s C!"#" C!"#"C C $esolu $esolutio tion n %o. && considering as stray the votes cast in favor of certain candidates who were either dis(ualified or whose CCs had been cancelled)denied due course but whose names still appeared in the official ballots or certified lists of candidates for the !ay *+, +*+ elections. During the canvassing of the votes by the !unicipal -oard of Canvassers !-C/ of -ugasong on !ay *0, +*+, Casimira insisted that the votes cast in favor of 1urelio be counted in her favor. 2owever, the !-C refused, citing $esolution %o. &&. 3he Statement of 4otes by 5recinct for 4ice6 !ayor of 1nti(ue6-ugasong 1nti(ue6-ugasong showed the following results of the voting7 331#
$1%8
D"#1 C$9:, 19$"#I %.
;0
0
D"#1 C$9:, C1SI!I$1 S.
<0&=
51C"3", >2% ##?D !.
<&
*
Conse(uently, >ohn #loyd !. 5acete was proclaimed 4ice6!ayor of -ugasong by the !-C of -ugasong. Considering that 5acete won by a margin of only thirty6nine 0=/ votes, Casimira contends that she would have clearly won the elections for 4ice6!ayor of -ugasong had the !-C properly tallied or added the votes cast for 1urelio 1urelio to her votes. Ru+&$ 3he petition is meritorious. It bears to stress that Sections ** / and @ applies to all dis(ualification cases and not to petitions to cancel or deny due course to a certificate of candidacy such as Sections <= nuisance candidates/ and @& material representation shown to be false/. %otably, such facts indicating that a certificate of candidacy has been filed Ato put the election process in mocBery or disrepute, or to cause confus confusion ion among the voters voters by the simil similari arity ty of the names names of the register registered ed candid candidate ates, s, or other other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorateA are not among those grounds enumerated in Section <& giving money or material consideration to influence or corrupt voters or public officials performing electoral functions, election campaign overspending and soliciting, receiving or maBing prohibited contributions/ of the "C or Section + of $epublic 1ct %o. @*<+ #ocal overnment Code of *==*/. In Fermin vs. COMELEC , this Court distinguished a petition for dis(ualification under Section <& and a petition to cancel or deny due course to a certificate of candidacy CC/ under Section @&. Said proceedings are governed by d ifferent rules and have distinct outcomes. 1t this point, we must stress stress that a ASection @&A petition ought not to to be interchanged or confused with a ASection <&A petition. 3hey are different remedies, based on different grounds, and resulting in different eventualities. 3o emphasize, a petition for dis(ualification, on the one hand, can be premised on Section * or <& of the "C, or Section + of the #C. n the other hand, a petition to deny due course to or cancel a CoC can only be grounded on a statement of a material representation in the said certificate that is false. 3he petitions petitions also have different different effects. #&+e % erso$ )#o &s (&su%+&!&e( u$(er Se'"&o$ 45 &s mere+* ro#&b&"e( "o 'o$"&$ue %s % '%$(&(%"e, "#e erso$ )#ose 'er"&!&'%"e &s '%$'e++e( or (e$&e( (ue 'ourse u$(er Se'"&o$ 65 &s $o" "re%"e( %s % '%$(&(%"e %" %++, %s &! #e7s#e $ever !&+e( % CoC . 3hus, in Miranda vs. Abaya, Abaya, this Court made the distinction that % '%$(&(%"e )#o &s (&su%+&!&e( (&su%+&!&e( u$(er
Page 1 of 3
Se'"&o$ 45 '%$ v%+&(+* be subs"&"u"e( u$(er Se'"&o$ 66 o! "#e OEC be'%use #e7s#e rem%&$s % '%$(&(%"e u$"&+ (&su%+&!&e(8 bu" % erso$ )#ose CoC #%s bee$ (e$&e( (ue 'ourse or '%$'e++e( u$(er Se'"&o$ 65 '%$$o" be subs"&"u"e( be'%use #e7s#e &s $ever 'o$s&(ere( % '%$(&(%"e. 1dditional emphasis supplied/ Strictly speaBing, a cancelled certificate cannot give rise to a valid candidacy, and much less to valid votes. Said votes cannot be counted in favor of the candidate whose CC was cancelled as he)she is not treated as a candidate at all, as if he)she never filed a CC. -ut should these votes cast for the candidate whose CC was cancelled or denied due course be considered strayE 3he foregoing rule regarding the votes cast for a nuisance candidate declared as such under a final Fudgment was applied by this Court in Bautista vs. COMELEC where the name of the nuisance candidate "dwin -autista having the same surname with the bona fide candidate/ still appeared on the ballots on election day because while the C!"#"C rendered its decision to cancel "dwin -autistaGs CC on 1pril 0+, *==&, it denied his motion for reconsideration only on !ay *0, *==& or three days after the election. We said that "#e vo"es !or '%$(&(%"es !or m%*or se%r%"e+* "%++&e( o$ or(ers o! "#e COMELEC C#%&rm%$ )%s !or "#e urose o! +%"er 'ou$"&$ "#e vo"es %$( #e$'e %re $o" re%++* s"r%* vo"es. T#ese se%r%"e "%++&es %'"u%++* m%(e "#e )&++ o! "#e e+e'"or%"e (e"erm&$%b+e (es&"e "#e %%re$" 'o$!us&o$ '%use( b* % o"e$"&%+ $u&s%$'e '%$(&(%"e . -ut since the C!"#"C decision declaring "dwin -autista a nuisance candidate was not yet final on electionday, this Court also considered those factual circumstances showing that the votes mistaBenly deemed as Astray votesA refer to only the legitimate candidate petitioner "fren -autista/ and could not have been intended for "dwin -autista. We further noted that the voters had constructive as well as actual Bnowledge of the action of the C!"#"C delisting "dwin -autista as a candidate for mayor. 1 s"r%* vo"e &s &$v%+&(%"e( be'%use "#ere &s $o )%* o! (e"erm&$&$ "#e re%+ &$"e$"&o$ o! "#e vo"er . 3his is, however, not the situation in the case at bar. Significantly, it has also been established that by virtue of newspaper releases and other forms of notification, the voters were informed of the C!"#"CGs decision to declare "dwin -autista a n uisance candidate. In the more recent case of !artinez III v. 2ouse of $epresentatives "lectoral 3ribunal, this Court liBewise applied the rule in C!"#"C $esolution %o. **< not to consider the votes cast for a nuisance candidate stray but to count them in favor of the bona fide candidate notwithstanding that the decision to declare him as such was issued only after the elections. 1s illustrated in -autista, the pendency of proceedings against a nuisance candidate on election day inevitably eposes the bona fide candidate to the confusion over the similarity of names that affects the voterGs will and frustrates the same. It may be that the factual scenario in -autista is not eactly the same as in this case, mainly because the Comelec resolution declaring "dwin -autista a nuisance candidate was issued before and not after the elections, with the electorate having been informed thereof through newspaper releases and other forms of notification on the day of election. 9ndeniably, however, the adverse effect on the voterGs will was similarly present in this case, if not worse, considering the substantial number of ballots with only A!1$3I%":A orAC. !1$3I%":A written on the line for $epresentative 6 over five thousand 6 which have been declared as stray votes, the invalidated ballots being more than sufficient to overcome private respondentGs lead of only ;0 votes after the recount. 2ere, 1urelio was declared a nuisance candidate long before the !ay *+, +*+ elections. n the basis of $esolution %o. **<, "#e vo"es '%s" !or #&m s#ou+( $o" #%ve bee$ 'o$s&(ere( s"r%* bu" 'ou$"e( &$ !%vor o! e"&"&o$er . C!"#"CGs changing of the rule on votes cast for nuisance candidates resulted in the invalidation of significant number of votes and the loss of petitioner to private respondent by a slim margin. We observed in !artinez7 -autista upheld the basic rule that "#e r&mor(&%+ obe'"&ve o! e+e'"&o$ +%)s &s "o &ve e!!e'" "o, r%"#er "#%$ !rus"r%"e, "#e )&++ o! "#e vo"er . T#e &$'+us&o$ o! $u&s%$'e '%$(&(%"es "ur$s "#e e+e'"or%+ e:er'&se &$"o %$ u$eve$ +%*&$ !&e+( )#ere "#e bo$% !&(e '%$(&(%"e &s !%'e( )&"# "#e rose'" o! #%v&$ % s&$&!&'%$" $umber o! vo"es '%s" !or #&m &$v%+&(%"e( %s s"r%* vo"es b* "#e mere rese$'e o! %$o"#er '%$(&(%"e )&"# % s&m&+%r sur$%me . 1ny delay on the part of the C!"#"C increases the probability of votes lost in this manner. While political campaigners try to minimize stray votes by advising the electorate to write the full name of their candidate on the ballot, still, election woes brought by nuisance candidates persist. T#e Cour" )&++ $o" se'u+%"e o$ )#e"#er "#e $e) %u"om%"e( vo"&$ s*s"em "o be &m+eme$"e( &$ "#e M%* 2010 e+e'"&o$s )&++ +esse$ "#e oss&b&+&"* o! 'o$!us&o$ over "#e $%mes o! '%$(&(%"es. What needs to be stressed at this point is the apparent failure of the 2$"3 to give weight to relevant circumstances that maBe the will of the electorate determinable, following the precedent in -autista.
Page 2 of 3
C!"#"C Fustified the issuance of $esolution %o. && to amend the former rule in $esolution %o. **< by enumerating those changes brought about by the new automated election system to the form of official ballots, manner of voting and counting of votes. It said that the substantial distinctions between manual and automated elections validly altered the rules on considering the votes cast for the dis(ualified or nuisance candidates. 1s to the rulings in -autista and !artinez III, C!"#"C opines that these find no application in the case at bar because the rules on appreciation of ballotsapply only to elections where the names of candidates are handwritten in the ballots. 3he Court is not persuaded. In !artinez III, we tooB Fudicial notice of the reality that, especially in local elections, o+&"&'%+ r&v%+s or oer%"ors be$e!&"e( !rom "#e usu%++* be+%"e( (e'&s&o$s b* COMELEC o$ e"&"&o$s "o '%$'e+ or (e$* (ue 'ourse "o COCs o! o"e$"&%+ $u&s%$'e '%$(&(%"es. I$ su'# &$s"%$'es, o+&"&'%+ '%m%&$ers "r* "o m&$&m&;e s"r%* vo"es b* %(v&s&$ "#e e+e'"or%"e "o )r&"e "#e !u++ $%me o! "#e&r '%$(&(%"e o$ "#e b%++o", bu" s"&++, e+e'"&o$ )oes brou#" b* $u&s%$'e '%$(&(%"es ers&s" . 1s far as C!"#"C is concerned, the confusion caused by similarity of surnames of candidates for the same position and putting the electoral process in mocBery or disrepute, had already been rectified by the new voting system where the voter simply shades the oval corresponding to the name of their chosen candidate. 2owever, as shown in this case, C!"#"C issued $esolution %o. && on !ay *, +*+, nine days before the elections, with sufficient time to delete the names of dis(ualified candidates not Fust from the Certified #ist of Candidates but also from the fficial -allot. Indeed, what use will it serve if C!"#"C orders the names of dis(ualified candidates to be deleted from list of official candidates if the official ballots still carry their namesE We hold that "#e ru+e &$ Reso+u"&o$ No. <114 'o$s&(er&$ "#e vo"es '%s" !or % $u&s%$'e '%$(&(%"e (e'+%re( %s su'# &$ % !&$%+ u(me$", %r"&'u+%r+* )#ere su'# $u&s%$'e '%$(&(%"e #%s "#e s%me sur$%me %s "#%" o! "#e +e&"&m%"e '%$(&(%"e, $o"s"r%* bu" 'ou$"e( &$ !%vor o! "#e +%""er, rem%&$s % oo( +%). !oreover, private respondent admits that the voters were properly informed of the cancellation of CC of 1urelio because C!"#"C published the same before election day. 1s we pronounced in -autista, "#e vo"ers= 'o$s"ru'"&ve >$o)+e(e o! su'# '%$'e++e( '%$(&(%'* m%(e "#e&r )&++ more (e"erm&$%b+e, %s &" &s "#e$ more +o&'%+ "o 'o$'+u(e "#%" "#e vo"es '%s" !or Aure+&o 'ou+( #%ve bee$ &$"e$(e( o$+* !or "#e +e&"&m%"e '%$(&(%"e . 3he possibility of confusion in names of candidates if the names of nuisance candidates remained on the ballots on election day, cannot be discounted or eliminated, even under the automated voting system especially considering that voters who mistaBenly shaded the oval beside the name of the nuisance candidate instead of the bona fide candidate they intended to vote for could no longer asB for replacement ballots to correct the same. Hinally, upholding the former rule in $esolution %o. **< is more consistent with the rule well6 ensconced in our Furisprudence that laws and statutes governing election contests especially appreciation of ballots must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the electorate in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by technical infirmities. Indeed, as our electoral eperience had demonstrated, such infirmities and delays in the delisting of nuisance candidates from both the Certified #ist of Candidates and fficial -allots only made possible the very evil sought to be prevented by the eclusion of nuisance candidates during elections.
Page 3 of 3
