essence of elections & basis.doc

8/14/2019 Essence of Elections & Basis.doc

1/9

Elections Cases Essence of Elections/Basis

G.R. No. 125629 March 25, 1998

MANUEL C. SUNGA, petitioner,vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FERDINAND . TRINIDAD, respondents.

ELLOSILLO, J.:

This petition for certiorariunder Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure seeks to annul and set aside, for havingbeen rendered ith grave abuse of discretion a!ounting to lack or e"cess of #urisdiction, the 17 $a% 1996 Resolution ofthe C&$'('C )nd *ivision in Sunga v.Trinidad, +P -o. 95)1/1dis!issing the petition for dis0ualification againstprivate respondent erdinand 2. Trinidad pursuant to C&$'('C Resolution -o. )353 pro!ulgated / -ove!ber 1944, asa!ended b% C&$'('C Resolution -o. )353 pro!ulgated 4 ugust 1993, and /3 ul% 1996 Resolution of theC&$'('C En Bancaffir!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 guig, Province ofCaga%an, in the 4 $a% 1995 elections. Private respondent erdinand 2. Trinidad, then incu!bent !a%or, as a candidatefor reelection in the sa!e !unicipalit%.

&n )) pril 1995 +unga filed ith the C&$'('C a letterco!plaint2for dis0ualification against Trinidad, accusing hi! ofusing three /8 local govern!ent vehicles in his ca!paign, in violation of +ec. )61, par. o8, rt. , of 2P 2lg. 441

&!nibus 'lection Code, as a!ended8. &n 7 $a% 1995, +unga filed another letterco!plaint!ith the C&$'('Ccharging Trinidad this ti!e ith violation of +ec. )61, par. e8 referring to threats, inti!idation, terroris! or other for!s ofcoercion8 of the &!nibus 'lection Code, in addition to the earlier violation i!puted to hi! in the first letterco!plaint. Thisas folloed b% an !ended Petition"for dis0ualification consolidating the charges in the to )8 lettersco!plaint,including vote bu%ing, and providing !ore specific details of the violations co!!itted b% Trinidad. The case as docketedas +P -o. 95)1/.

n a $inute Resolution dated )5 $a% 1995,5the C&$'('C )nd *ivision referred the co!plaint to its (a *epart!ent forinvestigation. :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.

$eanhile, the election results shoed that Trinidad garnered the highest nu!ber of votes, hile +unga trailed second.

&n 13 $a% 1995 +unga !oved for the suspension of the procla!ation of Trinidad. :oever, notithstanding the !otion,Trinidad as proclai!ed the elected !a%or, pro!pting +unga to file another !otion to suspend the effects

of theprocla!ation. 2oth !otions ere not acted upon b% the C&$'('C )nd *ivision.

&n )4 une 1995 the C&$'('C (a *epart!ent sub!itted its Report6to the C&$'('C En Bancreco!!ending thatTrinidad be charged in court for violation of the folloing penal provisions of the &!nibus 'lection Code; a8 +ec. )61,par. a8, on vote bu%ing< b8 +ec. )61, par. e8, on threats, inti!idation, terroris! or other for!s of coercion< and, c8 +ec.)61, par. o8, on use of an% e0uip!ent, vehicle oned b% the govern!ent or an% of its political subdivisions. The (a*epart!ent likeise reco!!ended to recall and revoke the procla!ation of erdinand 2. Trinidad as the dul% elected$a%or of guig, Caga%an< proclai! $anuel C. +unga as the dul% elected $a%or< and, direct +unga to take his oath andassu!e the duties and functions of the office.

The C&$'('C En Bancapproved the findings of the (a *epart!ent and directed the filing of the correspondinginfor!ations in the Regional Trial Court against Trinidad. ccordingl%, four =8 infor!ations#for various elections offensesere filed in the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao, Caga%an. The dis0ualification case, on the other hand, as referredto the C&$'('C )nd *ivision for hearing.

&n ) $a% 1996 +unga filed a Second Urgent Motion to Suspend the Effects and Annul the Proclamation with UrgentMotion for Early Resolution of the Petition. 2ut in its 17 $a% 1996 Resolution, the C&$'('C )nd *ivision dis!issed thepetition 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 inhich respondent is a candidate, shall be in0uired into b% the Co!!ission for the purpose of deter!ining hetherthe acts co!plained of have in fact been co!!itted . . . .

n case such co!plaint as not resolved before the election, the Co!!ission !a% motu propio, or on !otion ofan% of the parties, refer the co!plaint to the (a *epart!ent of the Co!!ission as the instru!ent of the latter inthe e"ercise of its e"clusive poer to conduct a preli!inar% investigation of all cases involving cri!inal infractionsof the electionlas . . . .

). n% co!plaint for dis0ualification based on +ec. 64 of the &!nibus 'lection Code in relation to +ec. 6 ofRepublic ct -o. 66=6 filed after the election against a candidate ho has alread% been proclai!ed as a innershall be dis!issed as a dis0ualification case. :oever, the co!plaint shall be referred for preli!inar%investigation to the (a *epart!ent of this Co!!ission.

1


2/9


?here a si!ilar co!plaint is filed after election but before procla!ation of the respondent candidate, theco!plaint shall, nevertheless, be dis!issed as a dis0ualification case. :oever, the co!plaint shall be referredfor preli!inar% investigation to the (a *epart!ent. f, before procla!ation, the (a *epart!ent !akes a primafaciefinding of guilt and the corresponding infor!ation has been filed ith the appropriate trial court, theco!plainant !a% file a petition for suspension of the procla!ation of the respondent ith the court before hichthe cri!inal case is pending and said court !a% order the suspension of the procla!ation if the evidence of guilt isstrong.

s interpreted in the case of Silvestre v.Duavit, +P 9=33/, Resolution -o. )353 provides for the outrightdis!issal of the dis0ualification case in three cases; 18 The dis0ualification case as filed before the election butre!ains unresolved until after the election< )8 The dis0ualification case as filed after the election and before theprocla!ation of inners< and /8 The dis0ualification case as filed after election and after procla!ation.

f the instant case is dee!ed to have been filed upon receipt b% the C&$'('C of the letterco!plaint on pril )61995, it nevertheless re!ained pending until after the election. f it is dee!ed to have been filed upon filing of thea!ended petition on 11 $a% 1995, it as clearl% filed after the election. n either case, Resolution -o. )353!andates the dis!issal of the dis0ualification case.

:is !otion for reconsideration having been denied b% the C&$'('C En Banc, +unga filed the instant petition contendingthat the C&$'('C co!!itted grave abuse of discretion in dis!issing the petition for dis0ualification in that; first, +ec. 6of 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&$'('C of its #urisdiction< secondC&$'('CResolution -o. )353 is null and void as it contravenes +ec. 6 of R.. -o. 66=6< third

, the fact that C&$'('C authori@edthe filing of four =8 infor!ations against private respondent for violation of the penal provisions of the &!nibus 'lectionCode shos !ore than sufficient and substantial evidence to dis0ualif% Trinidad, and he should have been so dis0ualified

This case originall% ca!e to the attention of this Co!!ission on )6 pril 1995 in a for! of letter fro! petitioneraccusing respondent of utili@ing govern!ent properties in his ca!paign and pra%ing for the latterBs i!!ediatedis0ualification. nother letter dated 7 $a% 1995 and addressed to the C&$'('C Regional *irector of Region reiterated petitionerBs pra%er hile alleging that respondent and his !en co!!itted acts of terroris! and violatedthe gun ban. inall%, 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 otherdocu!entar% evidence.

That the !ended Petition as filed onl% on 11 $a% 1995, or after the elections, is of no conse0uence. t as !erel% areiteration of the charges filed b% petitioner against private respondent on )6 pril 1995 and 7 $a% 1995 or before theelections. 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 theaction 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, f the fees above described are not paid, the Co!!ission !a% refuse to

2


3/9


take action thereon until the% are paid and !a% dis!iss the action or proceeding. The use of the ord !a% indicatesthat it is per!issive onl% and operates to confer a discretion on the C&$'('C hether to entertain the petition or not incase of nonpa%!ent of legal fees. That the C&$'('C acted on and did not dis!iss the petition outright shos that thenonpa%!ent of fees as not considered b% it as a legal obstacle to entertaining the sa!e. 2e that as it !a%, theprocedural defects have been cured b% the subse0uent pa%!ent of docket fees, and private respondent as served ithsu!!ons, albeit belatedl%, and he sub!itted his anser to the co!plaint. :ence, private respondent has no cause toco!plain that no docket fee as paid, no su!!ons served upon hi!, or that he as not re0uired to anser.

-either do e agree ith the conclusions of the C&$'('C. ?e discern nothing in C&$'('C Resolution -o. )353declaring, ordering or directing the dis!issal of a dis0ualification case filed before the election but hich re!ainedunresolved after the election. ?hat the Resolution !andates in such a case is for the Co!!ission to refer the co!plaintto its (a *epart!ent for investigation to deter!ine hether the acts co!plained of have in fact been co!!itted b% thecandidate sought to be dis0ualified. The findings of the (a *epart!ent then beco!e the basis for dis0ualif%ing the erringcandidate. This is totall% different fro! the other to situations conte!plated b% Resolution -o. )353, i.e., adis0ualification case filed after the election but before the procla!ation of inners and that filed after the election and theprocla!ation of inners, herein it as specificall% directed b% the sa!e Resolution to be dis!issed as a dis0ualificationcase.

$oreover, Resolution -o. )353 as interpreted in Silvestre v.Duavit infringes on +ec. 6 of R -o. 66=6, 1$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. f for an% reason a candidate isnot declared b% final #udg!ent before an election to be dis0ualified and he is voted for and receives the inningnu!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 orderthe suspension of the procla!ation of such candidate henever the evidence of his guilt is strong e!phasissupplied8.

Clearl%, the legislative intent is that the C&$'('C should continue the trial and hearing of the dis0ualification case to itsconclusion, i.e., until #udg!ent is rendered thereon. The ord shall signifies that this re0uire!ent of the la is!andator%, operating to i!pose a positive dut% hich !ust be enforced. 11The i!plication is that the C&$'('C is leftith no discretion but to proceed ith the dis0ualification case even after the election. Thus, in providing for the outrightdis!issal of the dis0ualification case hich re!ains unresolved after the election,Silvestre v.Duavitin effect disalloshat R -o. 66=6 i!perativel% re0uires. This a!ounts to a !uasi&'udiciallegislation b% the C&$'('C hich cannot becountenanced and is invalid for having been issued be%ond the scope of its authorit%. nterpretative rulings of !uasi&

'udicialbodies or ad!inistrative agencies !ust ala%s be in perfect har!on% ith statutes and should be for the solepurpose of carr%ing their general provisions into effect. 2% such interpretative or ad!inistrative rulings, of course, thescope of the la itself cannot be li!ited. ndeed, a!uasi&'udicialbod% or an ad!inistrative agenc% for that !atter cannota!end an act of Congress. :ence, in case of a discrepanc% beteen the basic la and an interpretative or ad!inistrativeruling, the basic la prevails.

2esides, the deleterious effect of the Silvestreruling is not difficult to foresee. candidate guilt% of election offensesould be undeservedl% rearded, 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 offensesere indeed co!!itted b% the candidate sought to be dis0ualified. ll that the erring aspirant ould need to do is toe!plo% dela%ing tactics so that the dis0ualification case based on the co!!ission of election offenses ould not bedecided before the election. This scenario is productive of !ore fraud hich certainl% is not the !ain intent and purpose ofthe la.

The fact that Trinidad as alread% proclai!ed and had assu!ed the position of !a%or did not divest the C&$'('C ofauthorit% and #urisdiction to continue the hearing and eventuall% decide the dis0ualification case. nAguamv.(ME)E12this Court held >

Ti!e and again this Court has given its i!pri!atur on the principle that C&$'('C is ith authorit% to annul an%canvass and procla!ation hich as illegall% !ade. The fact that a candidate proclai!ed has assu!ed office, ehave said, is no bar to the e"ercise of such poer. t of course !a% not be availed of here there has been a validprocla!ation. +ince private respondentBs petition before the C&$'('C is precisel% directed at the annul!ent ofthe canvass and procla!ation, e perceive that in0uir% into this issue is ithin the area allocated b% theConstitution and la to C&$'('C . . . Reall%, ere a victi! of a procla!ation to be precluded fro! challengingthe validit% thereof after that procla!ation and the assu!ption of office thereunder, baneful effects !a% easil%

supervene.

t !ust be e!phasi@ed that the purpose of a dis0ualification proceeding is to prevent the candidate fro! running or, ifelected, fro! serving, or to prosecute hi! for violation of the election las. &bviousl%, the fact that a candidate has beenproclai!ed elected does not signif% that his dis0ualification is dee!ed condoned and !a% no longer be the sub#ect of aseparate investigation.

t is orth to note that an election offense has cri!inal as ell as electoral aspects. ts cri!inal aspect involves theascertain!ent of the guilt or innocence of the accused candidate. (ike in an% other cri!inal case, it usuall% entails a fullblon hearing and the 0uantu! of proof re0uired to secure a conviction is be%ond reasonable doubt. ts electoral aspect,on the other hand, is a deter!ination of hether the offender should be dis0ualified fro! office. This is done through anad!inistrative proceeding hich is su!!ar% in character and re0uires onl% a clear preponderance of evidence. Thus,

3


4/9


under +ec. = of the C&$'('C Rules of Procedure, petitions for dis0ualification shall be heard su!!aril% after duenotice. t is the electoral aspect that e are !ore concerned ith, under hich an erring candidate !a% be dis0ualifiedeven ithout prior cri!inal conviction.1!

t is 0uite pu@@ling that the C&$'('C never acted on +ungaBs !otion to suspend the procla!ation of Trinidad. The lastsentence of +ec. 6 of R -o. 66=6 categoricall% declares that the Co!!ission !a% order the suspension of theprocla!ation of a candidate sought to be dis0ualified henever the evidence of his guilt is strong. nd there is not ascintilla of doubt that the evidence of TrinidadBs guilt as strong as shon in the Report and Recommendation of theC&$'('C (a *epart!ent >

Parentheticall%, there is !erit to petitionerBs petition against the respondent for dis0ualification for the allegedco!!ission of election offenses under +ec. 64 of the &!nibus 'lection Code, such as use of ar!ed !en and actof terroris!, inti!idation and coercion of voters, !assive votebu%ing and others, dul% supported b% affidavits ofitnesses and other docu!ents. Conse0uentl%, the petitionerBs evidence supporting the dis0ualification ofrespondent 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 16une 1995, thus the aiver is the intentional relin0uishing of a knon right of respondent TR-**.

n fact, on the basis of this Report and Recommendationthe C&$'('C directed the filing of four =8 cri!inal infor!ationsagainst Trinidad before the Regional Trial Court, an indication that there as indeedprima facieevidence of violation ofelection las.

:oever, +ungaBs contention that he is entitled to be proclai!ed as the dul% elected $a%or of the $unicipalit% of guig,Province of Caga%an, in the event that Trinidad is dis0ualified finds no support in la and #urisprudence. The fact that thecandidate ho obtained the highest nu!ber of votes is later dis0ualified for the office to hich he as elected does notentitle 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 theabsence of a statute hich clearl% asserts a contrar% political and legislative polic% on the !atter, if the votes ere cast inthe 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%chologicalele!ents behind votersB preferences. 'lection is the process of co!plete ascertain!ent of the e"pression of the popularill. ts ulti!ate purpose is to give effect to the ill of the electorate b% giving the! direct participation in choosing the !enand 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 isproclai!ed inner and i!posed as the representative of a constituenc%, the !a#orit% of ho! have positivel% declaredthrough 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 thepeople of guig, Caga%an. The reath of victor% cannot be transferred fro! the dis0ualified inner to the repudiated loserbecause 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.16nA!uinov.(ME)E,1#this Court !ade the folloing 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 notprepared 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. 7163,18hich provides in part>

+ec. ==. Permanent vacancies in the office of the *overnor% +ice&*overnor% Mayor% +ice&Mayor. > a8 f aper!anent vacanc% occurs in the office of the Aovernor or $a%or, the DiceAovernor or Dice$a%or concernedshall beco!e the Aovernor or $a%or . . .

or purposes of this chapter, a per!anent vacanc% arises hen an elective local official fills a higher vacantoffice, refuses to assu!e office, fails to 0ualif%, dies, is re!oved fro! office, voluntaril% resigns or is otheriseper!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. n such eventualit%, the dul% elected vice!a%orshall succeed as provided b% la.19

?:'R'&R', the petition is PRT((E AR-T'*. The 17 $a% 1996 and /3 ul% 1996 Resolutions of the C&$'('Care --F(('* and +'T +*'. C&$'('C is ordered to R'-+TT' +P -o. 95)1/, $anuel C. +unga v. erdinand2. Trinidad, for dis0ualification, and CT on the case taking its bearings fro! the opinion herein e"pressed. -o costs.

4


5/9


6/9


&n / ugust 199), petitioner instituted the instant proceedings seeking the declaration of failure of election in fort%nine=98 precincts here less than a 0uarter of the electorate ere able to cast their votes. :e also pra%ed for the issuance ofa 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 resultnot onl% of so!e but all the precincts of (u!ba2a%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.

t !a% be noted that hen petitioner filed his election protest ith the Regional Trial Court of (anao del +ur, he infor!edthe trial court of the pendenc% of these proceedings. Paragraph / of his protest states ITJhat on ugust /, 199), %ourprotestant filed a Petition for ertiorariith the+upre!e Court . . . docketed as A.R. -o. 136)73 assailing the validit% of the procla!ation of the hereinprotestee. . . . 15'videntl%, petitioner did not intend to abandon his recourse ith this Court. &n the contrar%, he intendedto pursue it. ?here onl% an election protest e8 a"undante ad cautela is filed, the Court retains #urisdiction to hear thepetition 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 inden%ing motu proprioand ithout due notice and hearing the petitions seeking to declare a failure of election in so!e orall of the precincts in (u!ba2a%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 unlaful clustering of precincts, hichC&$'('C should have at least heard before rendering its #udg!ent.

ncidentall%, a petition to annul an election is not a preprocla!ation controvers%. Conse0uentl%, the procla!ation of ainning candidate together ith his subse0uent assu!ption of office is not an i!pedi!ent to the prosecution of the caseto its logical conclusion.1#

Fnder the C&$'('C Rules of Procedure, ithin tent%four )=8 hours fro! the filing of a verified petition to declare afailure to elect, notices to all interested parties indicating therein the date of hearing should be served through the fastest!eans available. 18The 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 =/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.

:oever, a closer e"a!ination of the C&$'('C Rules of Procedure, particularl% +ec. ), Rule )6, thereof hich as liftedfro! +ec. 6, 2.P. 441, otherise knon as the &!nibus 'lection Code of the Philippines, indicates otherise. t reads >

+ec. ). :ailure of election. > f, on account offorce ma'eure, violence, terroris!, fraud or other analogouscauses the election in an% precinct has not been held on the date fi"ed, or had been suspended beforethe hour fi"ed b% la for the closing of the voting, or after the voting and during the preparation and thetrans!ission of the election returns or in the custod% of canvass thereof, such election results in a failureto elect, and in an% of such cases the failure or suspension of election ould affect the result of theelection, the Co!!ission shall, on the basis of a verified petition b% an% interested part% and after duenotice and hearing, call for the holding or continuation of the election not held, suspended or hichresulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonabl% close to the date of the election not held, suspended orhich resulted in a failure to elect but not later than thirt% /38 da%s after the cessation of the cause ofsuch 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, to )8 conditions !ustconcur;first, no voting has taken place in the precinct or precincts on the date fi"ed b% la or, even if there as voting, theelection nevertheless results in failure to elect< and, second, the votes not cast ould affect the result of the election. 21

n the case before us, it is indubitable that the votes not cast ill definitel% affect the outco!e of the election. 2ut, the firstre0uisite is !issing, i.e., that no actual voting took place, or even if there is, the results thereon ill be tanta!ount to afailure to elect. +ince actual voting and election b% the registered voters in the 0uestioned precincts have taken place, theresults thereof cannot be disregarded and e"cluded. 22C&$'('C therefore did not co!!it an% abuse of discretion, !uchless grave, in den%ing the petitions outright. There as no basis for the petitions since the facts alleged therein did notconstitute sufficient grounds to arrant the relief sought. or, the language of the la e"pressl% re0uires the concurrenceof these conditions to #ustif% the calling of a special election. 2!

ndeed, the fact that a verified petition is filed does not auto!aticall% !ean that a hearing on the case ill be held beforeC&$'('C ill act on it. The verified petition !ust still sho on its face that the conditions to declare a failure to elect arepresent. n the absence thereof, the petition !ust be denied outright.

Considering that there is no concurrence of the to )8 conditions in the petitions seeking to declare failure of election infort%three =/8 !ore, precincts, there is no !ore need to receive evidence on alleged election irregularities.

6


7/9


8/9


G.R. No. 15"198 an(ar) 2$, 2$$!

+ETRONILA S. RULLODA,petitioner,vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS /COMELEC0, ELECTION OFFICER LUDIICO L. ASUNCION OF SAN ACINTO,+ANGASINAN ARANGA- OARD OF CANASSERS OF RG-. STO. TOMAS, SAN ACINTO, +ANGASINAN,oard o E3&c4on T&33&r o +r&c. No. !$A7!$A1, !1A, !1A1, and !2A1, and REMEGIO +LACIDO, respondents.

-NARES%SANTIAGO, J.

n the baranga% elections of ul% 15, )33), Ro!eo -. Rulloda and Re!egio (. Placido ere the contending candidates for2aranga% Chair!an of +to. To!as, +an acinto, Pangasinan. &n une )), )33), Ro!eo suffered a heart attack andpassed aa% at the $andalu%ong Cit% $edical Center.1

:is ido, petitioner Petronila 2ett% Rulloda, rote a letter to the Co!!ission on 'lections on une )5, )33) seekingper!ission to run as candidate for 2aranga% Chair!an of +to. To!as in lieu of her late husband.)PetitionerKs re0uest assupported b% the ppealPetition containing several signatures of people purporting to be !e!bers of the electorate of2aranga% +to. To!as./

&n ul% 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 follos;

ust in case the na!es 2'TTE or P'TR&-( or the surna!e RF((&* is ritten on the ballot, read thesa!e as it is ritten but add the ords -&T C&F-T'* like 2'TTE -&T C&F-T'* or RF((&* -&TC&F-T'*.=

2ased on the tall% of petitionerKs atchers ho ere alloed to itness the canvass of votes during the ul% 15, )33)elections, petitioner garnered 516 votes hile respondent Re!egio Placido received )93 votes.5*espite this, the 2oard ofCanvassers 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 uente, +ta. Rosa, -ueva

'ci#a and 2aranga% +to. To!as, +an acinto, Pangasinan, respectivel%, issued Resolution -o. 5)17 dated ul% 1/, )33)hich states;

PR'$+'+ C&-+*'R'*, the Co!!ission R'+&(D'*, as it hereb% R'+&(D'+, to *&PT thereco!!endation of the (a *epart!ent as follos;

1. To den% due course the Certificates of Candidac% of -*R'+ P'R'L $-(E+E and P'TR&-( +.RF((&*< and

). To direct the 'lection &fficer of +ta. Rosa, -ueva 'ci#a and +an acinto, Pangasinan to delete the na!e of-*R'+ P'R'L $-(E+E, candidate for 2aranga% Chair!an in 2aranga% (a uente, +ta. Rosa, -ueva'ci#a< and the na!e of P'TR&-( +. RF((&*, candidate for 2aranga% Captain in 2aranga% +to. To!as, +anacinto, Pangasinan.

(et the (a *epart!ent i!ple!ent this resolution.

+& &R*'R'*.7

The above0uoted Resolution cited as authorit% the C&$'('CKs Resolution -o. =431 dated $a% )/, )33), setting forththe guidelines on the filing of certificates of candidac% in connection ith the ul% 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 "arangayandsangguniang;a"ataanofficials.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 herdeceased husband< to nullif% the procla!ation of respondent< and to proclai! her as the dul% elected 2aranga% Chair!anof +to. To!as, +an acinto, Pangasinan.

Private respondent Re!egio Placido filed his Co!!ent, arguing that since the baranga% election is nonpartisan,substitution of candidates is not alloed. $oreover, petitioner did not file an% certificate of candidac%< hence, there asonl% one candidate for 2aranga% Chair!an of +to. To!as, na!el%, respondent Placido.9

Public respondent C&$'('C also filed its Co!!ent. t contends that its Resolution -o. =431 as issued not pursuant toits 0uasi#udicial functions but as an incident of its inherent ad!inistrative functions over the conduct of the baranga%elections. Therefore, the sa!e !a% not be the sub#ect of revie in a petition for certiorari. urther, the C&$'('C alleges

8


9/9


that it did not co!!it grave abuse of discretion in den%ing due course to petitionerKs certificate of candidac% and inproclai!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 didnot den% this in their respective Co!!ents.

n our #urisdiction, an election !eans the choice or selection of candidates to public office b% popular vote through the useof the ballot, and the elected officials hich are deter!ined through the ill of the electorate. n election is thee!bodi!ent of the popular ill, the e"pression of the sovereign poer of the people. The inner is the candidate ho hasobtained a !a#orit% or pluralit% of valid votes cast in the election. +ound polic% dictates that public elective offices are filledb% those ho receive the highest nu!ber of votes cast in the election for that office. or, in all republican for!s ofgovern!ent the basic idea is that no one can be declared elected and no !easure can be declared carried unless he or itreceives 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 alloed in baranga% elections on +ection 77 ofthe &!nibus 'lections Code, hich states;

+ection 77. andidates in case of death% dis!ualification or withdrawal of another. M f after the last da% of thefiling of certificates of candidac%, an official candidate of a registered or accredited political part% dies, ithdras

or is dis0ualified for an% cause, onl% a person belonging to, and certified b% the sa!e political part% !a% file acertificate of candidac% to replace the candidate ho died, ithdre or as dis0ualified. The substitute candidateno!inated b% the political part% concerned !a% file his certificate of candidac% for the office affected inaccordance ith the preceding sections not later than !idda% of the election. f the death, ithdraal ordis0ualification should occur beteen the da% before the election and !idda% 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 ofcandidates 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 nonpartisan, there can be no substitution becausethere is no political part% fro! hich to designate the substitute. +uch an interpretation, aside fro! beingnon se!uitur,ignores the purpose of election las hich is to give effect to, rather than frustrate, the ill of the voters.1)t is a sole!ndut% to uphold the clear and un!istakable !andate of the people. t is ellsettled that in case of doubt, political las!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 intothe la here the sa!e is not ritten. ndeed, there is !ore reason to allo the substitution of candidates here nopolitical parties are involved than hen political considerations or part% affiliations reign, a fact that !ust have beensubsu!ed b% la.

Private respondent likeise contends that the votes in petitionerKs favor can not be counted because she did not file an%certificate of candidac%. n 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 letterre0uest to be alloed to run as 2aranga% Chair!an of +to. To!as in lieu of her latehusband 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 proceduralniceties in election cases should not be !ade to stand in the a% of the true ill of the electorate. (as governing electioncontests !ust be liberall% construed to the end that the ill of the people in the choice of public officials !a% not bedefeated b% !ere technical ob#ections.15

'lection contests involve public interest, and technicalities and procedural barriers !ust %ield if the% constitute anobstacle to the deter!ination of the true ill of the electorate in the choice of their elective officials. The Courtfrons upon an% interpretation of the la that ould hinder in an% a% not onl% the free and intelligent casting ofthe votes in an election but also the correct ascertain!ent of the results.16

*EREFORE, in vie of the foregoing, the instant petition is AR-T'*. The assailed Resolution -o. 5)17 of theCo!!ission on 'lections, insofar as it denied due course to petitionerKs certificate of candidac%, is declared -F(( andD&*. The procla!ation of respondent Re!egio (. Placido as 2aranga% Chair!an of +to. To!as, +an acinto,Pangasinan is +'T +*', and the 2oard of Canvassers of the said 2aranga% is &R*'R'* to proclai! petitioner as thedul% elected 2aranga% Chair!an thereof.

SO ORDERED.

9

essence of elections & basis.doc

Documents