ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 158001.
GONZALES vs. HRET
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 158001 (Rodolfo Gonzales vs. The House Of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Jose G. Solis.)
Before this Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
which seeks to annul and set aside the decision dated
This case originated from a petition for quo warranto filed by petitioner Rodolfo Gonzales questioning the election and proclamation of respondent Jose Solis as Representative for the 2nd Congressional District city the Province of Sorsogon during the 2001 elections. Petitioner alleged that it was not respondent who affixed his signature and thumbmark on his certificate of candidacy. Such being the case, respondent's certificate of candidacy was null and void.
In his answer,
respondent denied that the signature in his certificate of candidacy was
falsified. He also testified during the hearing that, on
On
In sum, the settled jurisprudence is that even if a certificate of candidacy was not duly signed or did not contain the required data, the election and proclamation of the winning candidate should not be nullified on such grounds after elections, the reason being that the provisions of the election law were adopted to "assist the voters in their participation in the affairs of the government and not to defeat that object." [1] cralaw
On
Hence, this petition.
As early as 1918, this Court, has pronounced that the rules and regulations for the conduct of elections are mandatory before the election but after the elections, they become merely directory. [2] cralaw Corollarily, defects in the certificates of candidacy should be questioned on or before the election and not after the will of the people has been expressed through the ballot. [3] cralaw The reason for this is because innocent voters will be deprived of their votes without any fault on their part.Thus, after the termination of the election, public interest must prevail over that of the defeated candidate.
In the present case, petitioner failed to assail the genuineness
of respondent's signature and thumbmark before the
Clearly, the people have expressed their will honestly and we cannot declare now the election of respondent was illegal and that he should quit the office for which he was elected, simply by reason of an alleged defect in his certificate of candidacy.To rule otherwise will result in the disenfranchisement of the electorate which is precisely what our election laws are trying to prevent.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, p. 53.
[2] cralaw Luna vs. Rodriguez, 39 SCRA 208 (1918).
[3] cralaw Lambonao vs. Tero, 15 SCRA 716 [1965].
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
