Tagolino vs HRET en Banc G.R. No. 202202 March 19, 2013

8/20/2019 Tagolino vs HRET en Banc G.R. No. 202202 March 19, 2013

1/25

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 202202 March 19, 2013

SILVERIO R. TAGOLINO, Petitioner,vs.HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AN LUC! MARIE TORRES"GOME#,Respondents.

D E C I S I N

PERLAS"BERNABE, J.:

Assailed in this Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule !" of the Rules of Court is theMarch ##, #$%# Decision% of the &ouse of Representatives Electoral 'ribunal (&RE') in &RE' CaseNo. %$*$+% (-) hich declared the validit/ of private respondent 0uc/ Marie 'orres*1o2e34ssubstitution as the 0iberal Part/4s replace2ent candidate for the position of 0e/te Representative(5ourth 0e6islative District) in lieu of Richard 1o2e3.

Th$ Fac%&

n Nove2ber +$, #$$7, Richard 1o2e3 (Richard) filed his certificate of candidac/# (CoC) ith theCo22ission on Elections (CME0EC), see8in6 con6ressional office as Representative for the5ourth 0e6islative District of 0e/te under the tic8et of the 0iberal Part/. Subse9uentl/, on Dece2ber!, #$$7, one of the opposin6 candidates, Buenaventura :untilla (:untilla), filed a ;erified Petition,+

alle6in6 that Richard, ho as actuall/ a resident of Colle6e Street, East 1reenhills, San :uan Cit/,Metro Manila, 2isrepresented in his CoC that he resided in 7%$ Carlota &ills, Can*adien6, r2ocCit/. In this re6ard, :untilla asserted that Richard failed to 2eet the one (%) /ear residenc/re9uire2ent under Section !, Article ;I Philippine Constitution (Constitution) and thusshould be declared dis9ualified?ineli6ible to run for the said office. In addition, :untilla pra/ed thatRichard4s CoC be denied due course and?or cancelled."

n 5ebruar/ %>, #$%$, the CME0EC 5irst Division rendered a Resolution! 6rantin6 :untilla4spetition ithout an/ 9ualification. 'he dispositive portion of hich reads@

-&ERE5RE, pre2ises considered, the Co22ission RES0;ED, as it hereb/ RES0;E, to1RAN' the Petition to Dis9ualif/ Candidate for 0ac8 of ualification filed b/ BENA;EN'RA .

:N'I00A a6ainst RIC&ARD I. 1ME. Accordin6l/, RIC&ARD I. 1ME is DISA0I5IED as acandidate for the ffice of Con6ress2an, 5ourth District of 0e/te, for lac8 of residenc/ re9uire2ent.

S RDERED.

A66rieved, Richard 2oved for reconsideration but the sa2e as denied b/ the CME0EC En Bancthrou6h a Resolution dated Ma/ 'hereafter, in a Manifestation of even date, Richardaccepted the said resolution ith finalit/ in order to enable his substitute to facilitate the filin6 of thenecessar/ docu2ents for substitution.=

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt1


2/25

n Ma/ ", #$%$, 0uc/ Marie 'orres*1o2e3 (private respondent) filed her CoC7 to6ether ith aCertificate of No2ination and Acceptance%$ fro2 the 0iberal Part/ endorsin6 her as the part/4s officialsubstitute candidate vice her husband, Richard, for the sa2e con6ressional post. In response tovarious letter*re9uests sub2itted to the CME0EC4s 0a Depart2ent (0a Depart2ent), theCME0EC En Banc, in the eercise of its ad2inistrative functions, issued Resolution No. ==7$%% onMa/ =, #$%$, approvin6, a2on6 others, the reco22endation of the said depart2ent to allo the

substitution of private respondent. 'he reco22endation reads@

S'D AND BSER;A'IN

n the sa2e date, this Depart2ent received an pposition fro2 Mr. Buenaventura . :untilla, thruhis counsel, opposin6 the candidac/ of Ms. 0uc/ Marie 'orres 1o2e3, as a substitute candidate forMr. Richard I. 1o2e3.

'he cru of the opposition ste22ed fro2 the issue that there should be no substitution becausethere is no candidate to substitute for.

It 2ust be stressed that the resolution of the 5irst Division, this Co22ission, in SPA No. $7*$"7

spea8s for dis9ualification of candidate Richard I. 1o2e3 and not of cancellation of his Certificate ofCandidac/@

F-herefore, pre2ises considered, the Co22ission RES0;ED, as it hereb/ RES0;ES, to 1RAN'the Petition to Dis9ualif/ Candidate for 0ac8 of ualification filed a6ainst RIC&ARD I. 1ME.

Accordin6l/, RIC&ARD I. 1ME is DISA0I5IED as a candidate for the ffice of Con6ress2an,5ourth District of 0e/te, for lac8 of residenc/ re9uire2ent.4

'he said resolution as affir2ed b/ the Co22ission En Banc on Ma/ $= dated ctober !, #$$7.

In vie of the fore6oin6, the 0a Depart2ent RECMMENDS the folloin6@

#. ' A00- CANDIDA'E 0C MARIE 'RRES 1ME AS A SBS'I''E CANDIDA'E 5RRIC&ARD 1ME@ (E2phasis and underscorin6 supplied)

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt11


3/25

'he folloin6 da/, or on Ma/ 7, #$%$, :untilla filed an Etre2el/ r6ent Motion for Reconsideration%# (Ma/ 7, #$%$ Motion) of the above*2entioned CME0EC En Banc resolution

Pendin6 resolution of :untilla4s Ma/ 7, #$%$ Motion, the national and local elections ere conductedas scheduled on Ma/ %$, #$%$. Durin6 the elections, Richards, hose na2e re2ained on theballots, 6arnered %$%, #"$ votes hile his opponents, na2el/, Eufrocino Codilla, :r. and herein

petitioner Silverio 'a6olino, obtained >!,"

In her ;erified Anser ,%= private respondent denied petitioner4s alle6ations and clai2ed that shevalidl/ substituted her husband in the electoral process. She also averred that she personall/ 8nonto the notar/ public ho notari3ed her CoC, one Att/. Ed6ardo Cordeno, and thus, she as notre9uired to have presented an/ co2petent proof of identit/ durin6 the notari3ation of the saiddocu2ent. 0astl/, she asserted that despite her 2arria6e to Richard and eercise of profession inMetro Manila, she continued to 2aintain her residenc/ in r2oc Cit/ hich as the place here sheas born and raised.

Durin6 the preli2inar/ conference, and as shon in the Preli2inar/ Conference rder datedSepte2ber #, #$%$, the parties a6reed on the folloin6 issues for resolution@

%. -hether or not the instant petition for 9uo arranto is 2eritoriousG

#. -hether or not the substitution of respondent is validG

+. -hether or not a petition for 9uo arranto can be used as a substitute for failure tofile the necessar/ petition for dis9ualification ith the CME0ECG


4/25

dis9ualification and not of CoC cancellation. &ence, it held that the substitution of private respondentin lieu of Richard as le6al and valid.#% Also, it upheld the validit/ of private respondent4s CoC due topetitioner4s failure to controvert her clai2 that she as personall/ 8non to the notar/ public honotari3ed her CoC.## 5inall/, the &RE' ruled that hile it had been ad2itted that private respondentresides in Col6ate Street, San :uan Cit/ and lived in San Rafael, Bulacan, the fact as shecontinued to retain her do2icile in r2oc Cit/ 6iven that her absence therefro2 as onl/ te2porar/.

&ence, the instant petition.

Issues Before the Court

'he cru of the present controvers/ is hatever or not the &RE' 6ravel/ abused its discretion infindin6 that Richard as validl/ substituted b/ private respondent as candidate for 0e/teRepresentative (5ourth 0e6islative District) in vie of the for2er4s failure to 2eet the one (%) /earresidenc/ re9uire2ent provided under Section !, Article ;I of the Constitution.

It is petitioner4s sub2ission that the &RE' 6ravel/ abused its discretion hen it upheld the validit/ of private respondent4s substitution despite contrar/ Hurisprudence holdin6 that substitution is

i2per2issible here the substituted candidate4s CoC as denied due course to and?or cancelled, asin the case of Richard. n the other hand, respondents 2aintain that Richard4s CoC as not denieddue course to and?or cancelled b/ the CME0EC as he as onl/ dis9ualified and therefore, asproperl/ substituted b/ private respondent.

R'()*+ o %h$ Co'r%

'he petition is 2eritorious.

A. Distinction beteen a petition for dis9ualification and a petition to den/ due course to?cancel acertificate of candidac/

'he 2nibus Election Code#+

(EC) provides for certain re2edies to assail a candidate4s bid forpublic office. A2on6 these hich obtain particular si6nificance to this case are@ (%) a petition fordis9ualification under Section !=G and (#) a petition to den/ due course to and?or cancel a certificateof candidac/ under Section >=. 'he distinctions beteen the to are ell*perceived.

Pri2aril/, a dis9ualification case under Section != of the EC is hin6ed on either@ (a) a candidate4spossession of a per2anent resident status in a forei6n countr/G# and %$< of the ECGand (") violatin6 Sections =$,#! =+,#> =",#= =!#7 and #!%, para6raphs d,+$ e,+% 8,+# v,++ and cc, sub*para6raph !+


5/25

It 2ust be stressed that one ho is dis9ualified under Section != is still technicall/ considered tohave been a candidate, albeit proscribed to continue as such onl/ because of supervenin6infractions hich do not, hoever, den/ his or her statutor/ eli6ibilit/. In other ords, hile thecandidate4s co2pliance ith the eli6ibilit/ re9uire2ents as prescribed b/ la, such as a6e,residenc/, and citi3enship, is not in 9uestion, he or she is, hoever, ordered to discontinue suchcandidac/ as a for2 of penal sanction brou6ht b/ the co22ission of the above*2entioned election

offenses.

n the other hand, a denial of due course to and?or cancellation of a CoC proceedin6 under Section>= of the EC+! is pre2ised on a person4s 2isrepresentation of an/ of the 2aterial 9ualificationsre9uired for the elective office aspired for. It is not enou6h that a person lac8s the relevant9ualificationG he or she 2ust have also 2ade a false representation of the sa2e in the CoC.+> 'henature of a Section >= petition as discussed in the case of 5er2in v. CME0EC,+= here the Courtillu2ined@

0et it be 2isunderstood, the denial of due course to or the cancellation of the CoC is not based onthe lac8 of 9ualifications but on a findin6 that the candidate 2ade a 2aterial representation that isfalse, hich 2a/ relate to the 9ualifications re9uired of the public office he?she is runnin6 for. It is

noted that the candidates states in his?her CoC that he?she is eli6ible for the office he?she see8s.Section >= of the EC, therefore, is to be read in relation to the constitutional and statutor/provisions on 9ualifications or eli6ibilit/ for public office. If the candidate subse9uentl/ states a2aterial representation in the CoC that is false, the CME0EC, folloin6 the la, is e2poered toden/ due course to or cancel such certificate. Indeed, the Court has alread/ li8ened a proceedin6under Section >= to a 9uo arranto proceedin6 under Section #"+ of the EC since the/ both dealith the eli6ibilit/ or 9ualification of a candidate, ith the distinction 2ainl/ in the fact that a Section>= petition is filed before procla2ation, hile a petition for 9uo arranto is filed after procla2ation of the innin6 candidate. (E2phasis supplied)

Corollar/ thereto, it 2ust be noted that the deliberateness of the 2isrepresentation, 2uch less one4sintent to defraud, is of bare si6nificance in a Section >= petition as it is enou6h that the person4sdeclaration of a 2aterial 9ualification in the CoC be false. In this relation, Hurisprudence holds that an

epress findin6 that the person co22itted an/ deliberate 2isrepresentation is of little conse9uencein the deter2ination of hether one4s CoC should be dee2ed cancelled or not. +7 -hat re2ains2aterial is that the petition essentiall/ see8s to den/ due course to and?or cancel the CoC on thebasis of one4s ineli6ibilit/ and that the sa2e be 6ranted ithout an/ 9ualification. = is dee2ed to have not been a candidate at all. 'hereason bein6 is that a cancelled CoC is considered void ab initio and thus, cannot 6ive rise to a validcandidac/ and necessaril/, to valid votes.= is not treatedas a candidate at all, as if he?she never filed a CoC.

'he fore6oin6 variance 6ains ut2ost i2portance to the present case considerin6 its i2plications oncandidate substitution.

B. ;alid CoC as a condition sine 9ua non for candidate substitution

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt42


6/25

Section >> of the EC provides that if an official candidate of a re6istered or accredited politicalpart/ dies, ithdras or is dis9ualified for an/ cause, a person belon6in6 to and certified b/ thesa2e political part/ 2a/ file a CoC to replace the candidate ho died, ithdre or as dis9ualified.It states that@

Sec. >>. Candidates in case of death, dis9ualification or ithdraal of another. * If after the last da/

for the filin6 of certificates of candidac/, an official candidate of a re6istered or accredited politicalpart/ dies, ithdras or is dis9ualified for an/ cause, onl/ a person belon6in6 to, and certified b/,the sa2e political part/ 2a/ file a certificate of candidac/ to replace the candidate ho died,ithdre or as dis9ualified. (E2phasis supplied)

Evidentl/, Section >> re9uires that there be an official candidate before candidate substitutionproceeds. 'hus, hether the 6round for substitution is death, ithdraal or dis9ualification of acandidate, the said section une9uivocall/ states that onl/ an official candidate of a re6istered oraccredited part/ 2a/ be substituted.7(a) of the EC, the ter2 candidate refers to an/ person aspirin6 for orsee8in6 an elective public office ho has filed a certificate of candidac/ b/ hi2self or throu6h an

accredited political part/, a66roup2ent, or coalition of parties. Clearl/, the la re9uires that one 2usthave validl/ filed a CoC in order to be considered a candidate. 'he re9uire2ent of havin6 a CoCobtains even 6reater i2portance if one considers its nature. In particular, a CoC for2ali3es not onl/a person4s public declaration to run for office but evidences as ell his or her statutor/ eli6ibilit/ to beelected for the said post. In Sinaca v. Mula,C. Diver6ent effects of dis9ualification and denial of due course to and?or cancellation of CoC casesvis**vis candidate substitution

Proceedin6, fro2 the fore6oin6 discourse, it is evident that there lies a clear*cut distinction beteena dis9ualification case under Section != and denial of due course to and?or cancellation of CCcase under Section >= vis**vis their respective effects on candidate substitution under Section >>. 1âwphi1

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt46


7/25

As eplained in the case of Miranda v. Aba/a (Miranda), a candidate ho is dis9ualified underSection != can be validl/ substituted pursuant to Section >> because he re2ains a candidate untildis9ualifiedG but a person hose CoC has been denied due course to and?or cancelled underSection >= cannot be substituted because he is not considered a candidate. > epressl/ enu2erates the instances heresubstitution is per2issible, that is hen an official candidate of a re6istered or accredited politicalpart/ dies, ithdras or is dis9ualified for an/ cause. Noticeabl/, 2aterial 2isrepresentation casesare not included in the said section and therefore, cannot be a valid basis to proceed ith candidatesubstitution.

D. Application to the case at bar

In this case, it is undisputed that Richard as dis9ualified to run in the Ma/ %$, #$%$ elections due to

his failure to co2pl/ ith the one /ear residenc/ re9uire2ent., #$%$ Resolution did not eplicitl/decree the denial of due course to and?or cancellation of Richard4s CoC should not have obviatedthe CME0EC En Banc fro2 declarin6 the invalidit/ of private respondent4s substitution. It should bestressed that the clear and une9uivocal basis for Richard4s dis9ualification is his failure to co2pl/ith the residenc/ re9uire2ent under Section !, Article ;I of the Constitution hich is a 6round for

the denial of due course to and?or cancellation a CoC under Section >= of the EC,2isrepresentation conte2plated under a Section >= petition refers to state2ents affectin6 one4s9ualifications for elective office such as a6e, residence and citi3enship or non*possession of natural*born 5ilipino status."% 'here is therefore no le6al basis to support a findin6 of dis9ualification ithinthe a2bit of election las. Accordin6l/, 6iven Richard4s non*co2pliance ith the one /ear residenc/re9uire2ent, it cannot be 2ista8en that the CME0EC 5irst Division4s un9ualified 6rant of :untilla4s;erified Petition to Dis9ualif/ Candidate for 0ac8 of ualification"# J hich pra/ed that theCME0EC declare Richard DISA0I5IED and INE0I1IB0E fro2 see8in6 the office of Me2ber ofthe &ouse of Representatives and that his Certificate of Candidac/ be DENIED DECRSE and?or CANCE00ED"+ J carried ith it the denial of due course to and?or cancellation ofRichard4s CoC pursuant to Section >=.

Case la dictates that if a petition pra/s for the denial of due course to and?or cancellation of CoCand the sa2e is 6ranted b/ the CME0EC ithout an/ 9ualification, the cancellation of thecandidate4s CoC in in order. 'his is precisel/ the cru of the Miranda rulin6 herein the Court, inupholdin6 the CME0EC En Banc4s nullification of the substitution in that case, decreed that theCME0EC Division4s un9ualified 6rant of the petition necessaril/ included the denial of due courseto and?or cancellation of the candidate4s CoC, notithstandin6 the use of the ter2 dis9ualified inthe CME0EC Division4s resolution, as the fore6oin6 as pra/ed for in the said petition@

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt53


8/25

'he 9uestion to settle net is hether or not aside fro2 :oiel Pe2pe Miranda bein6 dis9ualified b/the CME0EC in its Ma/ ", %77= resolution, his certificate of candidac/ had li8eise been denieddue course and cancelled.

'he Court rules that it as.

Private respondent4s petition in SPA No. 7=*$%7 specificall/ pra/ed for the folloin6@

-&ERE5RE, it is respectfull/ pra/ed that the Certificate of Candidac/ filed b/ respondent for theposition of Ma/or for the Cit/ of Snatia6o be not 6iven due course and?or cancelled.

ther reliefs Hust and e9uitable in the pre2ises are li8eise pra/ed for.

In resolvin6 the petition filed b/ private respondent specif/in6 a ver/ particular relief, the CME0ECruled favorabl/ in the folloin6 2anner@

-&ERE5RE, in vie of the fore6oin6, the Co22ission (5IRS' DI;ISIN) 1RAN'S the Petition.Respondent :SE Pe2pe MIRANDA is hereb/ DISA0I5IED fro2 runnin6 for the position of

2a/or of Santia6o Cit/, Isabela, in the Ma/ %%, %77= national and local elections.

S RDERED.

5ro2 a plain readin6 of the dispositive portion of the CME0EC resolution of Ma/ ", %77= in SPANo. 7=*$%7, it is sufficientl/ clear that the pra/er specificall/ and particularl/ sou6ht in the petitionas 1RAN'ED, there bein6 no 9ualification on the 2atter hatsoever. 'he dis9ualification assi2pl/ ruled over and above the 6rantin6 of the specific pra/er for denial of due course andcancellation of the certificate of candidac/.

'here is no dispute that the co2plaint or petition filed b/ private respondent in SPA No. 7=*$%7 isone to den/ due course and to cancel the certificate of candidac/ of :ose Pe2pe Miranda. 'here isli8eise no 9uestion that the said petition as 1RAN'ED ithout an/ 9ualification hatsoever. It israther clear, therefore, that hether or not the CME0EC 6ranted an/ further relief in SPA No. 7=*$%7 b/ dis9ualif/in6 the candidate, the fact re2ains that the said petition as 6ranted and that thecertificate of candidac/ of :ose Pe2pe Miranda as denied due course and cancelled. (E2phasisand underscorin6 supplied)

'he sa2e rule as later discussed in the case of 'ala6a, vi3@

+. 1rantin6 ithout an/ 9ualification or petition in SPA No. $7*$#7(DC) 2anifested CME0EC4sintention to declare Ra2on dis9ualified and to cancel his CoC

In Miranda v. Aba/a, the specific relief that the petition pra/ed for as that the CoC be not 6ivendue course and?or cancelled. 'he CME0EC cate6oricall/ 6ranted the petition and thenpronounced J in apparent contradiction J that :oel Pe2pe Miranda as dis9ualified. 'he Courtheld that the CME0EC, b/ 6rantin6 the petition ithout an/ 9ualification, dis9ualified :oel Pe2peMiranda and at the sa2e ti2e cancelled :ose Pe2pe Miranda4s CoC.


9/25

'he crucial point of Miranda v. Aba/a as that the CME0EC actuall/ 6ranted the particular relief ofcancellin6 or den/in6 due course to the CoC pra/ed for in the petition b/ not subHectin6 that relief toan/ 9ualification. (E2phasis and underscorin6 supplied)

In vie of the fore6oin6 rulin6s, the CME0EC En Banc direl/ 2isconstrued the CME0EC 5irstDivision4s 5ebruar/ %>, #$%$ Resolution hen it adopted the 0a Depart2ent4s findin6 that Richardas onl/ dis9ualified and that his CoC as not denied due course to and?or cancelled, pavin6 thea/ for the approval of private respondent4s substitution. It overloo8ed the fact that the CME0EC5irst Division4s rulin6 enco2passed the cancellation of Richard4s CoC and in conse9uence,disalloed the substitution of private respondent. It as therefore 6rave and serious error on the partof the CME0EC En Banc to have approved private respondent4s substitution.

Conse9uentl/, in perpetuatin6 the CME0EC En Banc4s error as above*discussed, the &RE'co22itted a 6rave abuse of discretion, arrantin6 the 6rant of the instant petition.

5unda2ental is the rule that 6rave abuse of discretion arises hen a loer court or tribunal patentl/

violates the Constitution, the la or eistin6 Hurisprudence."<

-hile it is ell*reco6ni3ed that the&RE' has been e2poered b/ the Constitution to be the sole Hud6e of all contests relatin6 to theelection, returns, and 9ualifications of the 2e2bers of the &ouse, the Court 2aintains Hurisdictionover it to chec8 hether or not there has been a 6rave abuse of discretion a2ountin6 to lac8 orecess of Hurisdiction on the part of the latter ."" In other ords, hen the &RE' utterl/ disre6ards thela and settled precedents on the 2atter before it, it co22its a 6rave abuse of discretion.

Records clearl/ sho that@ (%) Richard as held ineli6ible as a con6ressional candidate for the5ourth District of 0e/te due to his failure to co2pl/ ith the one /ear residenc/ re9uire2entG (#):untilla4s petition pra/ed for the denial of due course to and?or cancellation of his CoCG and (+) theCME0EC 5irst Division 6ranted the fore6oin6 petition ithout an/ 9ualification. B/ theseundisputed and essential facts alone, the &RE' should not have adopted the CME0EC En Banc4serroneous findin6 that the CME0EC 5irst Division4s 5ebruar/ %>, #$%$ Resolution spea8s onl/ ofdis9ualification and not of cancellation of Richard4s CoC +! and thereb/, sanctioned the substitutionof private respondent.

0est it be 2isunderstood, the &RE' is not bound b/ previous CME0EC pronounce2ents relative tothe 9ualifications of the Me2bers of the &ouse. Bein6 the sole Hud6e"> of all contests relatin6 to theelection, returns, and 9ualifications of its respective 2e2bers, the &RE' cannot be tied don b/CME0EC resolutions, else its constitutional 2andate"= be circu2vented and rendered nu6ator/.Instructive on this point is the Court4s dis9uisition in 5ernande3 v. &RE',"7 to it@

Private respondent concludes fro2 the above that petitioner had no le6al basis to clai2 that the&RE', hen reference to the 9ualification?s of Me2bers of the &ouse of Representatives isconcerned, is co*e9ual, to the CME0EC respectin6 the 2atter of eli6ibilit/ and 9ualification of a

2e2ber of the &ouse of Representatives. 'he truth is the other a/ around, because theCME0EC is subservient to the &RE' hen the dispute or contest at issue refers to the eli6ibilit/and?or 9ualification of a Me2ber of the &ouse of Representatives. A petition for 9uo arranto isithin the eclusive Hurisdiction of the &RE' as sole Hud6e, and cannot be considered foru2shoppin6 even if another bod/ 2a/ have passed upon in ad2inistrative or 9uasi*Hudicial proceedin6sthe issue of the Me2ber4s 9ualification hile the Me2ber as still a candidate. 'here is foru2*shoppin6 onl/ here to cases involve the sa2e parties and the sa2e cause of action. 'he tocases here are distinct and dissi2ilar in their nature and character. (E2phasis and underscorin6supplied)

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt59


10/25

Notabl/, the phrase election, returns, and 9ualifications should be interpreted in its totalit/ asreferrin6 to all 2atters affectin6 the validit/ of the contestee4s title. More particularl/, the ter29ualifications refers to 2atters that could be raised in a 9uo arranto proceedin6 a6ainst the pro*clai2ed inner, such as his dislo/alt/ or ineli6ibilit/, or the inade9uac/ of his certificate ofcandidac/.!$ As used in Section >< of the EC, the ord eli6ible 2eans havin6 the ri6ht to run forelective public office, that is, havin6 all the 9ualifications and none of the ineli6ibilities to run for the

public office.!%

In this relation, private respondent4s on 9ualification to run for public office J hichas inetricabl/ lin8ed to her husband4s on 9ualifications due to her substitution J as the propersubHect of 9uo arranto proceedin6s fallin6 ithin the eclusive Hurisdiction of the &RE' andindependent fro2 an/ previous proceedin6s before the CME0EC, lest the Hurisdiction dividebeteen the to be blurred.

Nonetheless, it 2ust be pointed out that the &RE'4s independence is not ithout li2itation. Asearlier 2entioned, the Court retains certiorari Hurisdiction over the &RE' if onl/ to chec8 hether ornot it has 6ravel/ abused its discretion. In this re6ard, the Court does not endeavor to deni6rate norunder2ine the &RE'4s independenceG rather, it 2erel/ fulfills its dut/ to ensure that the Constitutionand the las are upheld throu6h the eercise of its poer of Hudicial revie.

In fine, the Court observes that the &RE' antonl/ disre6arded the la b/ deliberatel/ adoptin6 theCME0EC En Banc4s flaed findin6s re6ardin6 private respondent4s eli6ibilit/ to run for public officehich essentiall/ ste22ed fro2 her substitution. In this li6ht, it cannot be 6ainsaid that the &RE'6ravel/ abused its discretion.

in6 to the lac8 of proper substitution in its case, private respondent as therefore not a bona fidecandidate for the position of Representative for the 5ourth District of 0e/te hen she ran for office,hich 2eans that she could not have been elected. Considerin6 this pronounce2ent, there eists noco6ent reason to further dell on the other issues respectin6 private respondent4s on 9ualificationto office.

-&ERE5RE, the petition is 1RAN'ED. Accordin6l/, the March ##, #$%# Decision rendered b/ the&ouse of Representatives Electoral 'ribunal in &RE' Case No. %$*$+% (-) is hereb/ RE;ERSED

and SE' ASIDE.

S RDERED.

ESTELA M. PERLAS"BERNABE Associate :ustice

-E CNCR@

MARIA LOURES P. A. SERENOChief :ustice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate :ustice

(No part due to participation in &RE')PRESBITERO -. VELASCO, -R.K

Associate :ustice

TERESITA -. LEONARO"E CASTRO Associate :ustice

(No part due to participation in &RE')ARTURO . BRIONK

Associate :ustice

(No part due to participation in &RE')IOSAO M. PERALTAK

Associate :ustice

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt61


11/25

(No part due to participation in &RE')LUCAS P. BERSAMINK

Associate :ustice

MARIANO C. EL CASTILLO Associate :ustice

ROBERTO A. ABA

Associate :ustice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, -R.

Associate :ustice

-OSE PORTUGAL PERE# Associate :ustice

-OSE CATRAL MENO#A Associate :ustice

BIENVENIO L. RE!ES Associate :ustice

MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN Associate :ustice

C E R ' I 5 I C A ' I N

I certif/ that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the caseas assi6ned to the riter of the opinion of the Court.

MARIA LOURES P. A. SERENOChief :ustice

Foo%*o%$&

K No part.

% Rollo, pp. .

+ Id. at #

! Id. at #"7*#!". Si6ned b/ Presidin6 Co22issioner Rene ;. Sar2iento,Co22issioners Ar2ando C. ;elasco and 1re6orio . 0arra3abal (no part).

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt6


12/25

> Id. at #!!*#>>. Penned b/ Co22issioner Elias R. usoph, ith Co22issionersRene ;. Sar2iento, 0ucenito N. 'a6le, Nicode2o '. 5errer, and Ar2ando C. ;elasco,concurrin6, Co22issioners :ose A. R. Melo and 1re6orio . 0arra3abal, no part.

= Id. at #>=*#=$.

7 Id. at #7>.

%$ Id. at #7=.

%% Id. at %+#*%+7.

%# Id. at +%%*+#!.

%+ Id. at 7=.

%


13/25

#= Refers to certain for2s of election propa6anda.

#7 Refers to violation of rules and re6ulations on election propa6anda throu6h 2ass2edia.

+$ Refers to coercion of subordinates.

+% Refers to threats, inti2idation, terroris2, use of fraudulent device or other for2s ofcoercion.

+# Refers to unlaful electioneerin6.

++ Refers to the release, disburse2ent or ependiture of public funds.

+7!7", Dece2ber %=, #$$=, ">< SCRA >=#.

+= 5er2in v. CME0EC, id.

+7 See Miranda v. Aba/a, +>$ Phil. !


14/25

>!.

"# Rollo, p. #

"+ Id. at #"#*#"+G e2phasis and underscorin6 supplied.

"%=#%, ctober 7, #$$!, "$< SCRA %%!.

"" See Ben6son III v. &RE', In the case of 0a3atin v. &RE', #"$ Phil. +7$, +77* Philippine Constitution, the Hurisdiction of the Electoral 'ribunal isori6inal and eclusive, vi3@

'he use of the ord sole e2phasi3es the eclusive character of the Hurisdiction conferred. 'he eercise of poer b/ the Electoral Co22issionunder the %7+" Constitution has been described as intended to be asco2plete and uni2paired as if it had ori6inall/ re2ained in the le6islature.Earlier this 6rant of poer to the le6islature as characteri3ed b/ :usticeMalcol2 as full, clear and co2pleteG nder the a2ended %7+" Constitution,the poer as un9ualifiedl/ reposed upon the Electoral 'ribunal and it

re2ained as full, clear and co2plete as that previousl/ 6ranted the0e6islature and the Electoral Co22ission. 'he sa2e 2a/ be said ithre6ard to the Hurisdiction of the Electoral 'ribunal under the %7=>Constitution. (E2phasis suppliedG citations o2itted)

"= Art. !, Sec. %> of the Constitution states@

Sec. %>. 'he Senate and the &ouse of Representatives shall each have anElectoral 'ribunal hich shall be the sole Hud6e of all contests relatin6 to theelection, returns, and 9ualifications of their respective Me2bers. (E2phasissupplied)

"7 1.R. No. %=>=, Dece2ber #%, #$$7, !$= SCRA >++, >*>#%+%, April #, #$$>, "#$SCRA %!!.

!% Supra note #", citin6 the ford Dictionar/ of En6lish (ford niversit/ Press#$%$).

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt57http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt61


15/25

'he 0aphil ProHect * Arellano 0a 5oundation

ISSENTING OPINION

ABA, J.:

n Nove2ber +$, #$$7 Richard 1o2e3 (Richard) filed his certificate of candidac/ (CoC) forCon6ress2an of 0e/te4s


16/25

'he cru of the opposition ste22ed fro2 the issue that there should be no substitution becausethere is no candidate to substitute for.

It 2ust be stressed that the resolution of the 5irst Division, this Co22ission, in SPA No. $7*$"7spea8s of dis9ualification of candidate Richard I. 1o2e3 and not of cancellation of his Certificate ofCandidac/@

-herefore, pre2ises considered, the Co22ission RES0;ED, as it hereb/ RES0;ES, to1RAN' the Petition to Dis9ualif/ Candidate for 0ac8 of ualification filed a6ainst RIC&ARD I.1ME. Accordin6l/, RIC&ARD I. 1ME is DISA0I5IED as a candidate for the ffice ofCon6ress2an, 5ourth District of 0e/te, for lac8 of residenc/ re9uire2ent.

'he said resolution as affir2ed b/ the Co22ission En Banc on Ma/


17/25

do2icile in r2oc Cit/ despite her chan6e of residence and transfer of votin6 re6istration to SanRafael, Bulacan, arisin6 fro2 her 2arria6e to Richard.

n March ##, #$%$ the &RE' rendered a Decision%% dis2issin6 the 9uo arranto petition anddeclarin6 0uc/ 1o2e3 a 9ualified candidate durin6 the Ma/ #$%$ election for the subHect position,her substitution of her dis9ualified husband bein6 valid and le6al. &RE' ruled that 0uc/ 1o2e34s

do2icile continued to be r2oc Cit/ despite her 2arria6e to Richard. 'a6olino 2oved forreconsideration but &RE' denied the sa2e on Ma/ #=, #$%#, hence, this petition.

uestion Presented

As the ponencia ould have it, the issue boils don to the 9uestion of hether or not 0uc/ 1o2e3validl/ substituted Richard ho2 the CME0EC declared dis9ualified for lac8 of residenc/.

But the above is not an accurate state2ent of the real issue in this case. 'he real issue in this caseis hether or not the &RE' can revie and reverse a CME0EC Decision involvin6 a 2e2ber of the&ouse of Representatives that had beco2e final and eecutor/.

Discussion

'he election of 0uc/ 1o2e3 as Con6ress2an of the , #$%$ Resolution, hich 2erel/ dis9ualified hi2. -hen the CME0EC En Banc dis2issed that

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt11ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt11a


18/25

2otion for reconsideration on Ma/ Resolution2erel/ ordered Richard4s dis9ualification and such resolution had irreversibl/ beco2e final andeecutor/.

:untilla of course filed on Ma/ =, #$%$ a 2otion for reconsideration of the CME0EC En Banc4sResolution of the sa2e date that alloed 0uc/ 1o2e34s substitution of Richard, but the 2otionre2ained unacted upon, obviousl/ oin6 to the supervisin6 Ma/ %$, #$%$ elections. At an/ rate,:untilla 2a/ be dee2ed to have abandoned that 2otion for reconsideration for he never insisted thatit be resolved. And he never raised before this Court the issue of the validit/ of that CME0EC En

Banc4s Ma/ = Resolution that alloed the substitution. nchallen6ed, that resolution beca2e finaland eecutor/ as ell.

'he Court has of course ruled In 1uerrero v. Co22ission on Elections%# that, since the Constitution2a8es the &RE' the sole Hud6e of all contests relatin6 to the election, returns and 9ualifications ofits 2e2bers, it has the Hurisdiction to pass upon the validit/ of substitution involvin6 such 2e2bers.Said the Court@

-hether respondent Rodolfo 5arias validl/ substituted Chev/lle ;. 5arias and hether respondentbeca2e a le6iti2ate candidate, in our vie, 2ust li8eise be addressed to the sound Hud62ent ofthe Electoral 'ribunal. nl/ thus can e de2onstrate fealt/ to the Constitutional provision that theElectoral 'ribunal of each &ouse of Con6ress shall be the sole Hud6e of all contests relatin6 to theelection, returns and 9ualifications of their respective 2e2bers.%+ (E2phasis supplied)

But the above rulin6 should be understood in the contet of the facts of the 5arias case. 1uiller2oRui3, a re6istered voter, filed a petition ith the CME0EC4s Second Division see8in6 the perpetualdis9ualification of Rodolfo 5arias as candidate for Con6ress2an for the Ma/ %%, %77= elections onthe 6round that he had been ca2pai6nin6 for that position despite his failure to file a CoC.Eventuall/, 5arias filed his CoC on Ma/ =, %77= in substitution of Chev/lle 5arias ho ithdreearlier on April +. Because of this supervenin6 event, on Ma/ %$ the Second Division dis2issedRui3L4 petition for lac8 of 2erit.

5arias on the elections and as pro2ptl/ proclai2ed. n Ma/ %!, %77=, hoever, Rui3 filed a2otion for reconsideration of the Second Division4s Ma/ %$ Resolution, contendin6 that 5ariascould not validl/ substitutes for Chev/lle, since the latter as not the official candidate of the 0a8as

n6 Ma8aba/an Masan6 Pilipino but as an independent candidate. Meanti2e, on :une +, %77=5arias too8 his oath as 2e2ber of the &ouse of Representatives.

n :une %$, %77= petitioner Arnold 1uerrero, a rival candidate, filed a petition*in*intervie ith theCME0EC, assailin6 5arias4 substitution of Chev/lle. n :anuar/ !, %777, the CME0EC En Bancdis2issed Rui34s 2otion for reconsideration and 1uerrero4s petition*in*intervie for lac8 of

Hurisdiction since 5arias had in the 2eanti2e assu2ed office.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt12ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt13ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt12ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt13a


19/25

pon 1uerrero4s petition, this Court held that hile the CME0EC has the poer to declare a CoCvalid or invalid, its refusal to eercise that poer, folloin6 5arias4 procla2ation and assu2ption ofoffice, si2pl/ reco6ni3ed the Hurisdictional boundaries beteen the CME0EC and the &RE'. 'heCourt said that hether 5arias validl/ substituted Chev/lle 2ust no be addressed to the sound

Hud62ent of the &RE'. 'he CME0EC4s Hurisdiction over election contests relatin6 to his election,returns, and 9ualifications ends, and the &RE'4s on Hurisdiction be6ins.

'a6olino cannot invo8e the 5arias rulin6 for three reasons@

5irst, the Court4s thesis in 5arias is that the &RE' can ta8e over a pendin6 2atter before theCME0EC since the latter 2a/ be considered ousted of its Hurisdiction over the sa2e upon theinner4s assu2ption of office. 'he &RE' ta8es over the authorit/ to resolve such pendin6 2atter.

&ere, hoever, the 8e/ issue of hether or not the CME0EC 5irst Division4s 5ebruar/ %>, #$%$Resolution, hich 2erel/ dis9ualified Richard but did not cancel his CoC, is no lon6er a pendin62atter. It beca2e final and eecutor/ since, as pointed out above, :untilla did not file a 2otion for itsreconsideration and the CME0EC En Banc had found it to be the case.

Second, 1uerrero had the ri6ht to raise the issue of 5arias4 dis9ualification before the &RE' sincehe intervened and Hoined cause ith 1uiller2o in his action before the CME0EC. 'his 6ave1uerrero a sta8e in the resolution of 1uiller2o4s 2otion for reconsideration after the CME0ECdeclined to further act on the sa2e.

&ere, 'a6olino never intervieed in :untilla4s actions before the CME0EC. &e sta/ed out of it.Conse9uentl/, he has no ri6ht to as8 the &RE' to resolve :untilla4s Ma/ =, #$%$ 2otion forreconsideration of the CME0EC En Banc4s order of the sa2e date. 'he ri6ht to press for theresolution of that Ma/ = 2otion for reconsideration belon6ed to :untilla ho alone filed it. But, as ithappened, he abandoned his 2otion hen he did not co2e up either to the Supre2e Court or to the&RE' to cause it to be resolved.

And third, 'a6olino is barred fro2 clai2in6 that, in dis9ualif/in6 Richard, the CME0EC4s 5irstDivision in effect caused the cancellation of his CoC. 'a6olino 2ade a bindin6 ad2ission durin6 thePreli2inar/ Conference before the &RE' that the CME0EC did not in fact order such cancellationof Richard4s CoC.%, #$%$, the Co2elec dis9ualified Richard I. 1o2e3 ascandidate for Representative of the 5ourth District of 0e/te for lac8 of residenc/G


20/25

'rue, the parties raised before the &RE' the issue of hether the substitution of respondent isvalid. But this 2erel/ accords ith 0uc/ 1o2e34s defense in her anser that the CME0EC hadalread/ resolved her substitution of Richard ith finalit/ in its Resolution ==7$. It did not 2ean thatthe parties ere sub2ittin6 to the &RE' for resolution the issue of the final and eecutor/ nature ofthe CME0EC 5irst Division4s resolution that enabled her to substitute for Richard.

So the Court co2es to the real issue in this case@ hether or not the &RE' can revie and reverse aCME0EC decision, involvin6 a 2e2ber of the &ouse of Representatives, that had alread/ beco2efinal and eecutor/.

'he &RE' has no authorit/ to revie final and eecutor/ resolutions or decisions of the CME0ECthat it rendered pursuant to its poers under the Constitution, no 2atter if such resolutions ordecisions are erroneous. 'he parties cannot b/ a6ree2ent confer such authorit/ on &RE'. Neitherthe &RE' nor the Court can set aside the CME0EC4s final and eecutor/ resolutions that pavedthe a/ for 0uc/ 1o2e3 to substitute her husband.

As for 0uc/ 1o2e34s residenc/ 9ualification, the evidence presented in the case a2pl/ supports&RE'4s conclusion that she 2et such 9ualification.

5or all of the above reasons, I vote to den/ the petition.

ROBERTO A. ABA Associate :ustice

Foo%*o%$&

% Rollo, pp. #

! Id. at +$+*+%$.

> Id. at +%%*+#


21/25

b. is personall/ 8non to the notar/ public or identified b/ the notar/ publicthrou6h co2petent evidence of identit/ as defined b/ these RulesG

%$ Rollo, pp. #+*+7.

%% Anne A, Petition, id. at


22/25

No Hoint election protest shall be ad2itted, but the 'ribunal, for 6ood and sufficient reasons, 2a/consolidate individual protests and hear and decide the2 Hointl/.

'he protest is verified b/ an affidavit that the affiant has read it and that the alle6ations therein aretrue and correct of his 8noled6e and belief. A verification based on infor2ation and belief, or upon8noled6e, infor2ation and belief, is not a sufficient verification.

An unverified election protest shall not suspend the runnin6 of the re6le2entar/ period to file theprotest.

R0E %>. uo -arranto. J A verified petition for 9uo arranto contestin6 the election of a Me2berof the &ouse of Representatives on the 6round of ineli6ibilit/ or of dislo/alt/ to the Republic of thePhilippines shall be filed b/ an/ voter ithin ten (%$) da/s after the procla2ation of the inner. 'hepart/ filin6 the petition shall be desi6nated as the petitioner hile the adverse part/ shall be 8nonas the respondent.

'he rule on verification provided in Section %! hereof shall appl/ to petitions for 9uo arranto.

As correctl/ asserted b/ respondent 1o2e3 in her ;erified Anser filed before the &RE', thePetition for uo -arranto should have been dis2issed outri6ht pursuant to Rule #% of the Rules ofthe &RE', 9uoted belo@

R0E #%. Su22ar/ Dis2issal of Election Contest. J An election protest or petition for 9uo arranto2a/ be su22aril/ dis2issed b/ the 'ribunal ithout the necessit/ of re9uirin6 the protestee orrespondent to anser if, inter alia@

(#) 'he petition is filed be/ond the period provided in Rules %! and %> of these Rules.

'his Court has e2phasi3ed the i2portance of co2pliance ith the &RE' Rules prescribin6re6le2entar/ periods to be observed b/ the parties in an election contest to epedite the disposition

of election controversies so as not to frustrate the ill of the electorate. In &ofer v. &ouse ofRepresentatives Electoral 'ribunal,% the Court sustained the dis2issal b/ the &RE' of the electionprotest for failure to co2pl/ strictl/ ith the period prescribed b/ the &RE' Rules.

Si2ilarl/, Pere3 v. Co22ission on Elections# held that re2edies are unavailin6 once the prescriptiveperiod to brin6 the appropriate petition has set in. 'he pertinent rulin6 of the Court in Pere3 is 9uotedas follos@

Petitioner4s re2edies should have been (%) to reiterate her pra/er in the petition for dis9ualification,and 2ove for the issuance of an order b/ the CME0EC suspendin6 the procla2ation of privaterespondent pendin6 the hearin6 of the said petition and, in the event the 2otion as denied beforethe procla2ation of private respondent, file a petition for certiorari in this Court ith a pra/er for a

restrainin6 order to enHoin the procla2ation of private respondentG or (#) to file a petition for 9uoarranto in the &ouse of Representatives Electoral 'ribunal ithin ten (%$) da/s after theprocla2ation of private respondent as Representative*elect on Ma/ %!, %77=. bviousl/, neither ofthese re2edies can be availed of no.+

'he &RE' and this Court cannot set aside at ill the &RE' Rules 2andatin6 the ti2el/ filin6 ofelection contests. therise, a dan6erous precedent ill be set that ill cause uncertaint/ in theapplication of the &RE' Rules and instabilit/ in the holdin6 of an elective post b/ a proclai2edinnin6 candidate that 2a/ aversel/ affect public service.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt1lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt2lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt2lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt3lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt1lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt2lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt3l


23/25

In vie of the fore6oin6, I sub2it that the &RE' is bereft of Hurisdiction to entertain the Petition foruo -arranto filed b/ 'a6olino, after the lapse of the re6le2entar/ period prescribed b/ its onRules. 'he procla2ation of respondent 1o2e3 has beco2e incontrovertible or unassailable after theepiration of ten (%$) da/s fro2 its date.

No factual basis to cancel the certificate of candidac/.

'he lac8 of Hurisdiction on the part of the &RE' to entertain the unti2el/ Petition for uo -arrantoassailin6 the procla2ation of private respondent 1o2e3 ould suffice to dis2iss outri6ht the instantpetition. Moreover, the substantive issue etensivel/ discussed in the ponencia of the &onorable

Associate :ustice Estela Perlas Bernabe, particularl/ as to the diver6ent effects of dis9ualificationand denial of due course to and?or cancellation of CC (Certificate of Candidac/) cases vis**viscandidate substitution is inappropriate.

5irstl/, the certificate of candidac/ of Richard 1o2e3, the husband of respondent 1o2e3, as notcancelled b/ the CME0EC.

Secondl/, the decision b/ the CME0EC not to cancel said certificate of candidac/ as proper as

the CME0EC did not reach an/ findin6 that Richard 1o2e3 deliberatel/ co22itted a2isrepresentation, hich is a re9uisite for the cancellation of a certificate of candidac/ under Section>= of the 2nibus Election Code. In Mitra v. Co22ission on Elections,=, of the 2nibus Election Code (EC) 6overns the cancellationof, and 6rant or denial of due course to, CCs. 'he co2bined application of these sections re9uiresthat the candidate4s stated facts in the CC be true, under pain of the CC4s denial or cancellation if an/ representation of a 2aterial fact is 2ade.

'he false representation that these provisions 2ention 2ust necessaril/ pertain to a 2aterial fact.

'he critical 2aterial facts are those that refer to a candidate4s 9ualifications for elective office, suchas his or her citi3enship and residence. 'he candidate4s status as a re6istered voter in the politicalunit here he or she is a candidate si2ilarl/ falls under this classification as it is a re9uire2ent that,b/ la (the 0ocal 1overn2ent Code), 2ust be reflected in the CC. 'he reason for this is obvious@the candidate, if he or she ins, ill or8 for and represent the political unit here he or she ran as acandidate.

'he false representation under Section >= 2ust li8eise be a deliberate atte2pt to 2islead,2isinfor2, or hide a fact that ould otherise render a candidate ineli6ible. 1iven the purpose ofthe re9uire2ent, it 2ust be 2ade ith the intention to deceive the electorate as to the ould*becandidate4s 9ualifications for public office. 'hus, the 2isrepresentation that Section>= addressescannot be the result of a 2ere innocuous 2ista8e, and cannot eist in a situation here the intent todeceive is patentl/ absent, or here no deception on the electorate results. 'he deliberate character

of the 2isrepresentation necessaril/ follos fro2 a consideration of the conse9uences of an/2aterial falsit/@ a candidate ho falsifies a 2aterial fact cannot runG if he runs and is elected, hecannot serveG in both cases, he can be prosecuted for violation of the election las.

Based on these standards, e find that Mitra did not co22it an/ deliberate 2aterial2isrepresentation in his CC. 'he CME0EC 6ravel/ abused its discretion in its appreciation of theevidence, leadin6 it to conclude that Mitra is not a resident of Aborlan, Palaan. 'he CME0EC,too, failed to criticall/ consider hether Mitra deliberatel/ atte2pted to 2islead, 2isinfor2 or hide a

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt4lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#fnt4l


24/25

fact that ould otherise render hi2 ineli6ible for the position of 1overnor of Palaan. (E2phasissupplied and citations o2itted.)

'he ponencia of :ustice Bernabe indul6ed in the le6al fiction that the certificate of candidac/ ofRichard 1o2e3 as cancelled hen it in fact as not. Neither can the Court no on its on decreesuch cancellation in the absence of an/ factual basis or evidentiar/ support for a findin6 that Richard

1o2e3 co22itted a deliberate atte2pt to 2islead, 2isinfor2, or hide a fact that ould otheriserender hi2 ineli6ible.

Substitution as valid.

Since the CME0EC did not cancel the certificate of candidac/ of Richard 1o2e3 but onl/dis9ualified hi2 fro2 runnin6 in the elections, the substitution b/ respondent 1o2e3 of Richard1o2e3 s9uarel/ falls ithin the a2bit of Section >> of the 2nibus Election Code (EC), hichuses the broad lan6ua6e dis9ualification for an/ cause, as follos@

Section >>. Candidates in case of death, dis9ualification or ithdraal of another. J If after the lastda/ for the filin6 of certificates of candidac/, an official candidate of a re6istered or accredited

political part/ dies, ithdras or is dis9ualified for an/ cause, onl/ a person belon6in6 to, andcertified b/, the sa2e political part/ 2a/ file a certificate of candidac/ to replace the candidate hodied, ithdre or as dis9ualified. 'he substitute candidate no2inated b/ the political part/concerned 2a/ file his certificate of candidac/ for the office affected in accordance ith theprecedin6 sections not later than 2id*da/ of the da/ of the election. If the death, ithdraal ordis9ualification should occur beteen the da/ before the election and 2id*da/ of election da/, saidcertificate 2a/ be filed ith an/ board of election inspectors in the political subdivision here he is acandidate, or, in the case of candidates to be voted for b/ the entire electorate of the countr/, iththe Co22ission.

Petition for uo -arranto lac8ed factual basis.

Re6ardin6 the issue of hether a Petition for uo -arranto is a proper le6al re2ed/ to assail thevalidit/ of the substitution of a candidate under Section >> of the EC, it suffices here to state that,under Rule %> of the &RE' Rules, the 6rounds for a Petition for uo -arranto are ineli6ibilit/ to runfor a public office or dislo/alt/ to the Republic of the Philippines.

Pertinentl/, Section !, Article ;I of the Constitution, hich provides for the 9ualifications of a Me2ber of the &ouse of Representatives, states as follos@

Section !. No person shall be a Me2ber of the &ouse of Representatives unless he is a natural*bornciti3en of the Philippines and, on the da/ of the election, is at least tent/*five /ears of a6e, able toread and rite, and, ecept the part/*list representatives, a re6istered voter in the district in hich heshall be elected, and a resident thereat for a period of not less than one /ear i22ediatel/ precedin6the da/ of the election.

'he above*9uoted provision refers to the personal attributes of a candidate. 'he ponencia did notfind an/ of the above 9ualifications absent in the case of respondent 1o2e3. &oever, the ponenciaattributed the ineli6ibilit/ of respondent 1o2e3 to its erroneous assu2ption that the certificate ofcandidac/ of Richard 1o2e3, ho2 she substituted, should have been cancelled. As eplainedabove, the CME0EC correctl/ did not so cancel said certificate, it havin6 found no factual basis todo so. 'his bein6 the case and the fact that the Petition for uo -arranto as filed out of ti2e, thereis no need to dell on the issue of hether the Petition for uo -arranto 2a/ validl/ 9uestion the


25/25

validit/ of the substitution of a candidate and to discuss the constitutional boundaries of therespective Hurisdictions of the CME0EC and the &RE'.

In vie of the fore6oin6, I reiterate 2/ vote to dis2iss the Petition for Certiorari filed b/ 'a6olino.

TERESITA -. LEONARO"E CASTRO

Associate :ustice

Foo%*o%$&

% 1.R. No. %"==++, Ma/ %#, #$$" Phil. %%$!(%777).

+ Id. at %%%!.

>$.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt1lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt2lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt3lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt4lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt1lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt2lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt3lhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/mar2013/gr_202202_2013.html#rnt4l

Tagolino vs HRET en Banc G.R. No. 202202 March 19, 2013

Documents

Transcript of Tagolino vs HRET en Banc G.R. No. 202202 March 19, 2013