October 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G. R. No. 198298 : October 04, 2011]
NASRA KAHAL, THROUGH HER FATHER LADJA KAHAL V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ALIYA U. AKMARI, THROUGH HER GUARDIAN HAMSATUL AKMARI
�G. R. No. 198298 (Nasra Kahal, through her father Ladja Kahal v. Commission on Elections and Aliya U. Akmari, through her guardian Hamsatul Akmari) - The Court DISMISSES the Petition for Review and Certiorari dated 05 September 2011 filed by petitioner Nasra Kahal, through her father, Ladja Kahal since the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) committed no serious error or grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying her as a candidate for the 2010 Sangguniang Kabataan elections.
Well-taken is the COMELEC's reliance on the 2009 Birth Certificate of petitioner Kahal, which indicates that she was less than 15 years old at the time of the elections. The said Birth Certificate bears a Civil Registry No. 2009-671 and the actual signatures of petitioner's aunt and the municipal civil registrar. In addition, the academic records of petitioner Kahal confirmed that her birthdate was indeed 05 May 1996. On the other hand, her 2007 Birth Certificate does not bear the actual signatures of her father or the municipal civil registrar, and the notation "SGD" affixed to their names is not convincing proof of the authenticity of the signatures.
The pendency of a separate Petition filed by petitioner Kahal to correct her Birth Certificate in the trial court does not stay the hand of the COMELEC, since that case has yet to be resolved in her favor and attain finality to have any positive influence on her case. Hence, the COMELEC cannot be faulted for its reliance on the civil registrar's existing record of the 2009 Birth Certificate as it appeared at the time of the proceedings below.
Petitioner's invocation of Papandayan, Jr. v. COMELEC (G. R. No. 147909, 16 April 16, 2002, 381 SCRA 133), is misplaced. In Papandayan, the evidence to establish the municipal mayor's lack of residency qualification was weak and inconclusive, and it is clear that �the purpose of the law would not be thwarted by upholding the victor's right to the office." In sharp contrast, sufficient evidence and documentary proof were presented to establish the date of petitioner Kahal's birth was different from what she stated in her Certificate of Candidacy and thus, disqualified her as a candidate in the 2010 Sangguniang Kabataan elections.
Contrary to the insistence of petitioner on giving effect to the people's will, her proclamation as the winning candidate for Sangguniang Kabataan chairperson, cannot brush aside her age ineligibility. "The electorate cannot amend or waive the qualifications prescribed by law for elective office. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility." (Bautista v. COMELEC, G. R. Nos. 154796-97, 23 October 2003, 414 SCRA 299, 323)
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review and Certiorari dated 05 September 2011 filed by petitioner Nasra Kahal, through her father, Ladja Kahal, is DISMISSED."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court