ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
EN BANC
G.R. No. 155087 :
EDUARDO T. SAYA-ANG, SR., and RICARDO T. LARA, petitioners, vs. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, HONORABLE PIO JOSE S. JOSON, HONORABLE JOSE P. BALBUENA, HONORABLE LIRIO T. JOQUINO and MANTIL D. LIM, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
AZCUNA, J.:
Petitioners herein, Eduardo T. Saya-ang, Sr. and Ricardo T. Lara,
were candidates for the Office of Barangay Captain of Barangays Congan and New
Aklan respectively for the July 15, 2002 Synchronized Sangguniang Kabataan (SK)
and Barangay Elections. Petitioner
Saya-ang filed his certificate of candidacy in Barangay Congan on
The pertinent portion of the assailed Resolution states:
Considering the foregoing, the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to approve the recommendation of the Law Department as follows:
1. To deny due course to the Certificates of Candidacy of Romeo P. Sumayog, Sandigan Damie, James Ceasar I. Young, Eduardo T. Saya-ang, Sr., and Ricardo L. Lara; and
2. To direct the Election Officer of Glan, Sarangani to delete their names from the Certified List of Candidates for Barangay Kagawad and Punong Barangay of Barangays E. Alegado, Baliton, Cross, Congan, and New Aklan, respectively.
Without prejudice to the filing of criminal cases against them as the evidence so warrants under the circumstances.
Let the Law Department implement this resolution.
SO ORDERED.
Despite the abovementioned Resolution, petitioners were still
proclaimed as winners on
On
On
On
Petitioners received the aforementioned directive on
I.
ON PROCLAIMED CANDIDATES FOUND TO BE INELIGIBLE FOR BEING NOT REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE PLACE WHERE THEY WERE ELECTED
x x x
(d) For both (a) and (b), in the event that the disqualified candidate is proclaimed the winner despite his disqualification or despite the pending disqualification case filed before his proclamation, but which is subsequently resolved against him, the proclamation of said disqualified candidate is hereby declared void from the beginning, with notice to the candidate concerned, even if the dispositive portion of the resolution disqualifying him or cancelling his certificate of candidacy does not provide for such an annulment.2cräläwvirtualibräry
On
Hence, the instant petition anchored on the sole assignment of error:
THAT THE PROMULGATION OF THE EN BANC RESOLUTION NO. 5393, DATED 15 JULY 2002, BY RESPONDENT HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS IS PATENTLY ERRONEOUS BEING WITHOUT BASIS IN FACT AND IN LAW AND THE ISSUANCE OF WHICH IS IN GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING EVEN AS IT DOES TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION.3cräläwvirtualibräry
At the very outset, it must be made clear that the Comelec has jurisdiction to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy.4 Such jurisdiction continues even after the elections, if for any reason no final judgment of disqualification is rendered before the elections, and the candidate facing disqualification is voted for and receives the highest number of votes, and provided further that the winning candidate has not been proclaimed or taken his oath of office.5 Furthermore, a decision by the Comelec to disqualify a candidate shall become final and executory only after a period of five days:
Sec. 3. Decisions After Five Days.--- Decisions in pre-proclamation cases and petitions to deny due course to or cancel certificates of candidacy, to declare a candidate as nuisance candidate or to disqualify a candidate, and to postpone or suspend elections shall become final and executory after the lapse of five (5) days from their promulgation, unless restrained by the Supreme Court.6cräläwvirtualibräry
In the present case, the assailed Resolution denying due course
to petitioners certificates of candidacy was promulgated on
Petitioners also maintain that they were never served a copy of
the assailed Resolution and were never given the chance to present their
evidence. They claim that they only knew
about Resolution 5393 on
It is clear, however, that under Section 3, Rule 23 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, a petition to cancel a certificate of candidacy shall be heard summarily after due notice. The same rules also provide that when the proceedings are authorized to be summary, in lieu of oral testimonies, the parties may, after due notice, be required to submit their position papers together with affidavits, counter-affidavits and other documentary evidence; and when there is a need for clarification of certain matters, at the discretion of the Commission en banc or the Division, the parties may be allowed to cross-examine the affiants.7cräläwvirtualibräry
The rules providing for the abovementioned summary hearing were mandated to accord due process of law to candidates during elections. The right to due process is a cardinal and primary right which must be respected in all proceedings.8 It is the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play,9 the cornerstone of every democratic society. In any proceeding, the essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a real opportunity to be heard.10 Respondent Comelecs argument that petitioners have already been constructively notified of the inquiry against them cannot be given merit. Petitioners herein were not even informed of the administrative inquiry against them, nor were they called upon to adduce their own evidence and to meet and refute the evidence against them. Petitioners certainly cannot read the minds of those tasked to look into their certificates of candidacy, nor did they have any way of knowing that a proceeding had already been instituted against them and that they were entitled to present evidence on their behalf.
Finally, the Court notes again that petitioners have already been proclaimed as the winners in the elections. They have already taken their oaths of office and are, at present, serving their constituents in their respective barangays. In Lambonao v. Tero,11 the Court held that defects in the certificates of candidacy should have been questioned on or before the election and not after the will of the people has been expressed through the ballots. It was further held in the said case that while provisions relating to certificates of candidacy are mandatory in terms, it is an established rule of interpretation as regards election laws, that mandatory provisions requiring certain steps before elections will be construed as directory after the elections, to give effect to the will of the electorate. The rationale for this principle was explained in Lino Luna v. Rodriguez,12 where the Court said that these various and numerous provisions were adopted to assist the voters in their participation in the affairs of the government and not to defeat that object. When voters have honestly cast their ballots, the same should not be nullified simply because the officers tasked under the law to direct the elections and guard the purity of the ballot did not do their duty.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. Resolution No. 5393 of the respondent Commission on Elections en banc is SET ASIDE. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1 Annex B-4 of Petition; Rollo, pp. 38-49.
2 Annex C-1 of Petition; Rollo, pp. 51-54.
3 Petition, p. 15; rollo, p. 20.
4 Section 78, Article IX of the Omnibus Election Code.
5 Juan Domino v. Comelec, et. al., 310 SCRA 549, 571 (1999).
6 Section 3, Rule 39, Part VII, Comelec Rules of Procedure.
7 Section 3, Rule 17, Comelec Rules of Procedure.
8 Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635 (1940).
9 Isagani A. Cruz, Constitutional Law, p. 95 citing Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Holmes and the Supreme Court, pp. 32-33.
10 Fabella v. Court of Appeals, 282 SCRA 256, 269 (1997) citing Bernas, Joaquin G., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, p. 108 (1996).
11 15 SCRA 716, 719 (1965) citing De Guzman v. Board of Canvassers and Lucero, 48 Phil. 211, 215-216.
12 39 Phil. 208.