abella v larazabal

7/26/2019 Abella v Larazabal

1/15

Today is Friday, June 17, 2016

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

E !"#

R. No. 100710 September 3, 1991

NJAMIN P. ABELLA, petitioner,

MMISSION ON ELECTIONS !" A#ELINA $. LARRA%ABAL, respondents.

R. No. 100739 September 3, 1991

ELINA $. LARRA%ABAL, petitioner,

MMSSION ON ELECTIONS !" SIL&ESTRE #E LA CRU%, respondents.

to S. Brillantes, Jr. for petitioner in 100739.

sar A. Sevilla for petitioner in 100710.

nganiban, Benitez, Baninaga & Batista for private respon!ent S. !e la Crz.

TIERRE%, JR., J.'p

e &ain issue in these consolidated petitions centers on 'ho is the ri(htful (o$ernor of the pro$ince of )eyte 1* petitionerelina )arra+abal -%R% o% 1007./* 'ho obtained the hi(hest nu&ber of $otes in the local elections of February 1, 1/ s proclai&ed as the duly elected (o$ernor but 'ho 'as later declared by the #o&&ission on Elections #ME)E#* %%%

h residence and re(istration 4ualifications for the position of -o$ernor of )eyte as pro$ided by "rt% 5, ection 12, Philippnstitution in relation to Title , #hapter , ec% 82, !%P% !l(% 1.7 and ec% /, R%"% o% 17/ and is hereby dis4ualified as s$ernor9 2* petitioner !en:a&in "bella -%R% o% 100710*, 'ho obtained the second hi(hest nu&ber of $otes for the posiernor but 'as not allo'ed by the #ME)E# to be proclai&ed as (o$ernor after the dis4ualification of )arra+abal9 or .*poldo E% Petilla, the $ice;(o$ernor of the pro$ince of% )eyte%

s is the fourth ti&e that the contro$ersy relatin( to the local elections in February 1, 1/ for (o$ernor of the pro$ince ofle$ated to this #ourt% The antecedent facts of these cases are stated in the earlier consolidated cases of !EJ"M P%E))" and )


2/15

?, petitioners $% "=E)" )"RR"?"!") and #MM E)E#T, respondents

o% 008* 10 #R" A0/ B1//C*, to 'itD

The #ourt has ordered the consolidation of -%R% os 7721;.0 and -%R% o% 008 in$ol$in( the sa

parties and the sa&e election in 1/ for the office of pro$incial (o$ernor of )eyte% #hallen(ed in thpetitions for certiorari are the resolutions of the respondent #o&&ission on Elections dis&issin( theprocla&ation and dis4ualification cases filed by the herein petitioners a(ainst pri$ate respondent "d)arra+abal%

Petitioner !en:a&in P% "bella 'as the official candidate of the )iberal Party for pro$incial (o$ernor o)eyte in the local election held on February 1, 1/% The pri$ate respondent is the 'ife of E&eterio )arra+abal, the ori(inal candidate of the )a3as n( !ansa;P=P;)aban 'ho 'as dis4ualified by the#o&&ission on Elections on January 1, 1/, for lac3 of residence% -%R% o% 008, Rollo, pp% 10108* e filed a petition for certiorari to challen(e this resolution% e, ho'e$er, filed an ur(ent e;pa&otion to 'ithdra' petition 'hich 'as (ranted in a resolution dated January 21, 1/ and the case dis&issed% B-%R% o% 1.1.C* n January .1, 1/, the day before the election, she filed her o'n

certificate of candidacy in substitution of her husband% "bi!%, p% 8* The follo'in( day, at about /D.0oGcloc3 in the &ornin(, il$estre de la #ru+, a re(istered $oter of Tacloban #ity, filed a petition 'ith tpro$incial election super$isor of )eyte to dis4ualify her for alle(ed false state&ents in her certificatecandidacy re(ardin( her residence% "!%, pp% 11.;11* This 'as i&&ediately trans&itted to the &ain of the #o&&ission on Elections, 'hich could not function, ho'e$er, because all but one of its &e&bhad not yet been confir&ed by the #o&&ission on "ppoint&ents% =e la #ru+ then ca&e to this #ou'hich issued a te&porary restrainin( order on February 8, 1/, en:oinin( the pro$incial board ofcan$assers of )eyte Gfro& proclai&in( "delina )arra+abal as the 'innin( candidate for the ffice of -o$ernor in the pro$ince of )eyte, in the e$ent that she obtains the 'innin( &ar(in of $otes in thecan$ass of election returns of said pro$ince%G "!%, p% 17/* n March 1, 1/, the #o&&ission on Eleha$in( been fully constituted, 'e re&anded the petition thereto for appropriate action, includin(&aintenance or liftin( of the #ourtGs te&porary restrainin( order of February 8, 1/% "!% pp% 12;1

n the &eanti&e, petitioner "bella, after raisin( $arious $erbal ob:ections later duly reduced to 'ritindurin( the can$ass of the election returns, seasonably ele$ated the& to the #o&&ission on Electionten separate appeals doc3eted as P# os% ;627 to 627;% Pendin( resolution of these cases, inter$ened on March 7, 1/ in the dis4ualification case, doc3eted as P# o% ;A86, and the folloday filed a co&plaint, 'ith the )a' =epart&ent of the #ME)E# char(in( the pri$ate respondent 'falsification and &isrepresentation of her residence in her certificate of candidacy% n March 22, 1/public respondent consolidated the pre;procla&ation and dis4ualification cases 'ith the econd =i$

n February ., 1//, this =i$ision unani&ously upheld $irtually all the challen(ed rulin(s of the proboard of can$assers, &ostly on the (round that the ob:ection raised 'ere &erely for&al and did notthe $alidity of the returns or the ballots, and ordered the procla&ation of the 'inner after co&pletioncan$ass% -%R% os% 7721;.0, Rollo, pp% 1;A0* n that sa&e date, the dis4ualification case 'as a

dis&issed by a 2;1 decision, and the &atter 'as referred to the )a' =epart&ent for Gpreli&inaryin$esti(ation for possible $iolation of ection 78 of the &nibus Election #ode% G -%R% os% 008, pp% 26;80*

The &otion for reconsideration of the resolution on the pre;procla&ation cases 'as denied by the#ME)E# en ban# on "pril 1., 1//, 'ith no dissentin( $ote% -%R% os% 7721;.0, Rollo, pp% A1;AThese cases are the sub:ect of -%R% os% 7721;.0, 'here 'e issued on "pril 1, 1//, anotherte&porary restrainin( order to the pro$incial board of can$assers of )eyte to #E"E and =ET frresu&in( the can$ass of the contested returns andHor fro& proclai&in( pri$ate respondent "delina


3/15

)arra+abal -o$ernor of )eyte%

The &otion for reconsideration of the resolution on the 4ualification case 'as also denied by the#ME)E# en ban# on May 8, 1//, but 'ith three co&&issioners dissentin(% -%R% o% 008, Ro87;619 penned by #o&&issioner "bue(, Jr%, 'ith #o&&issioners "frica Ra&a, and @orac, dissentin

dis&issal of this case is the sub:ect of -%R% o% 008% at pp% A11;A1.*

posin( of the consolidated petitions, this #ourt rendered :ud(&ent as follo'sD

1% n -%R%os% 7721;.0, the decision dated February ., 1//, the resolution dated "pril 1., 1//, aaffir&ed and the petition is =ME=%

2% n -%R% o% 008, the decision dated February .,1//, and the resolution dated May 8, 1//, arRE


4/15

thereof% Rollo;1007./, p% 208*

-%R% o% 1007./, petitioner )arra+abal professes that the #ME)E# co&pletely disre(arded our pronounce&ent in -%R08 in that instead of actin( on P# #ase o% ;A86 under section 7 of the Election #ode, the #ME)E# proceeded

4ualification case not conte&plated in -%R% o% 008%

e ar(u&ent is not &eritorious%

e 4uestioned decision and resolution of the #ME)E# confor& 'ith this #ourtGs decision in -%R% o% 008%

ally, herein respondent il$estre T% de la #ru+ !en:a&in P% "bella, petitioner in -%R% o% 100710 'as allo'ed to inter$ecase* filed a petition 'ith the #ME)E# to dis4ualify petitioner )arra+abal fro& runnin( as (o$ernor of )eyte on the (rot she &isrepresented her residence in her certificate of candidacy as anan(a, )eyte% t 'as alle(ed that she 'as in facdent of r&oc #ity li3e her husband 'ho 'as earlier dis4ualified fro& runnin( for the sa&e office% The #ME)E# dis&petition and referred the case to its )a' =epart&ent for proper action on the (round that the petition 'as a $iolation of

ction 78 of the Election #ode and, pursuant to it rules, should be prosecuted as an election offense under ection 262 ode%

s #ourt re$ersed and set aside the #ME)E#Gs rulin(, to 'itD

The #ourt holds that the dis&issal 'as i&proper% The issue of residence ha$in( been s4uarely raisebefore it, it should not ha$e been shunted aside to the )a' =epart&ent for a roundabout in$esti(atithe pri$ate respondentGs 4ualification throu(h the filin( of a cri&inal prosecution, if found to be 'arra'ith resultant dis4ualification of the accused in case of con$iction% The #ME)E# should ha$e optea &ore direct and speedy process a$ailable under the la', considerin( the $ital public interest in$ol$and the necessity of resol$in( the 4uestion of the earliest possible ti&e for the benefit of the inhabita)eyte%

n the $ie' of the #ourt, the pertinent pro$ision is ection 7 in relation to ection 6 of R%"% o% 668

ec% 7% Petition to !en$ !e #orse to or #an#el a #ertifi#ate of #an!i!a#$% K " $erified petition seeto deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy &ay be filed by any person eclusi$ely on(round that any &aterial representation contained therein as re4uired under ection 78 hereof is faThe petition &ay be filed at any ti&e not later than t'enty;fi$e days fro& the ti&e of the filin( of thecertificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearin(, not later than fifteen daybefore the election%

ction 6 of R%"% 6686 states as follo'sD

%ffe#t of is'alifi#ation Case% K "ny candidate 'ho has been declared by final :ud(&ent to bedis4ualified shall not be $oted for, and the $otes cast for hi& shall not be counted% f for any reason

candidate is not declared by final :ud(&ent before an election to be dis4ualified and he is $oted in selection, the #ourt or #o&&ission shall continue 'ith the trial and hearin( of the action, in4uiry, or pand, upon &otion of the co&plainant or any inter$enor, &ay durin( the pendency thereof order thesuspension of the procla&ation of such candidate 'hene$er the e$idence of his (uilt is stron(% %%%

The abo$e;stressed circu&stances should eplain the necessity for continuin( the in$esti(ation of tpri$ate respondentGs challen(ed dis4ualification e$en after the election not'ithstandin( that such &


5/15

usually resol$ed before the election% ndependently of these circu&stances, such proceedin(s are aby ection 6 of R"% 6686 if for any reason a candidate is not declared by final :ud(&ent before an eto be dis4ualified %%%

ne, the #ourt directed the #ME)E# to deter&ine the residence 4ualification of petitioner )arra+abal in P# #ase o%

% #onco&itant 'ith this directi$e 'ould be the dis4ualification of petitioner )arra+abal in the e$ent that substantial e$ideuced that she really lac3s the residence pro$ided by la' to 4ualify her to run for the position of (o$ernor in )eyte%

ne 'ith the #ourtGs directi$e, the #ME)E# conducted hearin(s in P# #ase o% ;A86 to resol$e the 4ualification ofra+abal on the basis of t'o 2* le(al issues raised by il$estre T% de la #ru+ na&ely, )arra+abalGs lac3 of le(al residence$ince of )eyte and her not bein( a re(istered $oter in the pro$ince, as re4uired by Title , #hapter , ection 82, !%P% !l(elation to "rticle 5, ection 12 of the #onstitution, to 'itD

ec% 82% (alifi#ation% K 1* "n electi$e local official &ust be a citi+en of the Philippines, at least t'three years of a(e on election day, a 4ualified $oter re(istered as such in the baran(ay, &unicipalityor pro$ince 'here he proposes to be elected, a resident therein for at least one year at the ti&e of tfilin( of his certificate of candidacy, and able to read and 'rite En(lish, Pilipino, or any other local

lan(ua(e or dialect%

ec% 12% #ities that are hi(hly urbani+ed, as deter&ined by la', and co&ponent cities 'hose charteprohibit their $oters fro& $otin( for pro$incial electi$e officials, shall be independent of the pro$ince%$oters of co&ponent cities 'ithin a pro$ince, 'hose charters contain no such prohibition, shall not bdepri$ed of their ri(ht to $ote for electi$e pro$incial officials%

e position of petitioners =e la #ru+ and "bena 'as that respondent )arra+abal is neither a resident nor a re(istered $otenan(a, )eyte as she clai&ed but a resident and re(istered $oter of r&oc #ity, a co&ponent city of the pro$ince of )eytependent of the pro$ince pursuant to ection 12, "rticle 5 of the #onstitution thereby dis4ualifyin( her for the position of

ernor of )eyte% They presented testi&onial as 'ell as docu&entary e$idence to pro$e their stance%

the other hand, respondent )arra+abal &aintained that she 'as a resident and a re(istered $oter of anan(a, )eyte% hsented testi&onial as 'ell as docu&entary e$idence to pro$e her stand%

e #ME)E# ruled a(ainst the respondent, no' petitioner )arra+abal%

s 4uestioned decision and resolution, the #ME)E# found that petitioner )arra+abal 'as neither a resident of anan(ate nor a re(istered $oter thereat% Iith these findin(s, the #ME)E# dis4ualified the petitioner as (o$ernor of the pro$inte%

e petitioner, ho'e$er, a$ers that the #ME)E# decision is erroneous 'hen it relied on the pro$isions of the Fa&ily #od

that the petitioner lac3s the re4uired residence to 4ualify her to run for the position of (o$ernor of )eyte% he opines thaer the Election )a', the &atter of deter&ination of the RE=E#E is &ore on the principle of ")*%)*"+), the ani&uertendi rather than anythin( else%

his re(ard she states that %%% her subse4uent physical transfer of residence to r&oc #ity thereafter, did not necessarilysed sic* or re&o$ed her anan(a residence, for as lon( as she had theA)"-S %/%*%)"e$idenced by her cont re(ular acts of returnin( there in the course of the years, althou(h she had physically resided at r&oc #ity% Petition,0*


6/15

can be (leaned fro& the 4uestioned decision, the #ME)E# based its findin( that the petitioner lac3s the re4uired resihe e$idence of record to the effect that despite protestations to the contrary &ade by the petitioner, she has establisheddence at r&oc #ity fro& 1/7A to the present and not at anan(a, )eyte% er atte&pt to purportedly chan(e her reside year before the election by re(isterin( at anan(a, )eyte to 4ualify her to ran for the position of (o$ernor of the pro$incte clearly sho's that she considers herself already a resident of r&oc #ity% n the absence of any e$idence to pro$e

er'ise, the reliance on the pro$isions of the Fa&ily #ode 'as proper and in consonance 'ith hu&an eperience% Thetioner did not present e$idence to sho' that she and her husband &aintain separate residences, she at anan(a, )eytehusband at r&oc #ity% The second di$ision of the #ME)E# in its decision dated February 18, 1//1 statesD

!ut there is the &ore funda&ental issue of residence% The only indications of a chan(e of residenceas respondent is concerned areD the address indicated in the application for cancellation filed byrespondent indicatin( her postal address as anan(a, )eyte, the annotation in her


7/15

"rts% 6 and 6/ of the Fa&ily #ode, E%% o% 20/ also pro$ide as follo'sD

"rt% 6% The husband and 'ife are obli(ed to li$e to(ether, obser$e &utual lo$e, resand fidelity, and render &utual help and support%

"rt% 6/% The husband and 'ife shall fi the fa&ily do&icile% n case of disa(ree&ent,court shall decide% The court &ay ee&pt one spouse fro& li$in( 'ith the other if theshould li$e abroad or there are other $alid and co&pellin( reasons for the ee&ptiono'e$er, such ee&ption shall not apply if the sa&e is not co&patible 'ith the solidof the fa&ily%

usband and 'ife as a &atter of principle li$e to(ether in one le(al residence 'hich is their usual plabode% #ME)E# decision, pp% 21;2.9 Rollo L 100710, pp% 67;6/9 E&phsis supplied*

re(ards the principle of "M> RE


8/15

nsfer of re(istration in anan(a, )eyte, is not supported by the records% "s the #ME)E# statedD

The train of e$ents, 'hich led to respondentGs ( of her certificate of candidacy on the basis of herre(istration started on o$e&ber 2A, 1/7, 'hen she alle(edly filed all application for cancellation ore(istration Eh% 2;!% ubse4uent to this re4uest, her $oterGs affida$it in Precinct 1A, r&oc #ity '

erial o% 0/1./8 J 'as annotated 'ith the 'ords Gcancelled upon application of the $oter due totransfer of residence%G Thereafter, she re(istered in Precinct o% 17, Maha'an, anan(a, )eyte ono$e&ber 2,1/7 'hich re(istration 'as contained in


9/15

File of the #o&&ission per certification of the #hief, ational #entral File =i$ision on January 2A, 1dated January 2A, 1/, Eh% G#G% The affida$its sub&itted by the Election Re(istrar to the #o&&isscould only ha$e co&e fro& the !oard of Election nspectors of Precinct o% 17, after the o$e&ber 1/7 re(istration, for the Election Re(istrar could not ha$e had the affida$its of these ne' re(istrantapart fro& those supplied by the Precinct itself% Ihy 'ere not the affida$its of the )arra+abals includ

Ias this part of the incredibly bi+arre series of inad$ertence and ne(lect that spanned r&oc #ity aanan(a This also eplains the certification dated January 2/, 1/, of the Election Re(istrar ofanan(a that as of that date Mrs% "delina )arra+abal 'as not a re(istered $oter in any of theG precinanan(a% Eh% )% t 'as only on February 1A, 1/, or t'o 'ee3s after the election day that the saRe(istrar certified for the first ti&e that there 'ere t'o $oters lists, the first 'ithout the na&es of the)arra+abals and the second, 'hich appeared only after February 1, sub&itted by the #hair&an of th!oard for Precinct 17 'hich contained the spouses )arra+abalsG na&es%

t &i(ht also be stressed that one set of $oterGs list Eh% - had the si(nature of both the #hair&ancler3 and third &e&ber of the board, 'hile the one 'hich appeared later 'hich included the na&es )arra+abal had the si(nature only of the #hair&an% Eh% %

Fro& the certification of the ational #entral Files, it appears that the erial os% of the ne'ly re(is$oters 'ere as follo'sD 01/21;J 01/22;J 01/2.;J 01/28;J 01/2A;J 01/26;J 01/2701/2;J 01/./;J The alle(ed re(istration of E&eterio


10/15

e$idence could ha$e been used to confront 'ithin #arolina Nue+on 'hen she testified and identified on "pril 18, 1/% n fact if these entries indicatin( sic* 'ere &ade, they 'ould ha$e been e$ideEh% GI% The failure to confront Nue+on 'ith the entries and the late sub&ission of Eh% 2;# can olead to t'o conclusionsD these entries did not eist as of January 2/, 1/ 'hen the certification of tof $oters 'as &ade and that they 'ere annotated in the $oterGs list after that date% This is consistent

Eh% P 'hich 'as issued on February 11, 1/%

The relati$e 'ei(ht of the partiesG e$idence supports petitionerGs thesis that respondent 'as not are(istered $oter in Precinct o% 17, !r(y% Maha'an, anan(a, )eyte, and, that she and her husbandE&eterio )arra+abal continued to be re(istered $oters in Precinct o% 1A, r&oc #ity% Rollo, pp% 62#ME)E# decision, pp% 22;27*

e #ourt is bound by these factual findin(s as they are supported by substantial e$idenceD

nArat# v. Coission on %le#tions #R" 2A1*, spea3in( of the need to preser$e theGindependence and all the needed conco&itant po'ersG of the #o&&ission on Elections, Justice "nP% !arredo declared that it is but proper that the #ourt should accord the (reatest &easures of

presu&ption of re(ularity to its course of action %%% to the end it &ay achie$e its desi(ned place in thde&ocratic fabric of our (o$ern&ent %%% "bella $% )arra+abal, spra*

in( in her contention that she is a resident and re(istered $oter of anan(a, )eyte, the petitioner poses an alternati$e pt her bein( a re(istered $oter in r&oc #ity 'as no i&pedi&ent to her candidacy for the position of (o$ernor of the pro$eyte%

ction 12, "rticle 5 of the #onstitution pro$idesD

#ities that are hi(hly urbani+ed, as deter&ined by la', and co&ponent cities 'hose charters prohib$oters fro& $otin( for pro$incial electi$e officials, shall be independent of the pro$ince% The $oters oco&ponent cities 'ithin a pro$ince, 'hose charters contain no such prohibition, shall not be depri$e

their ri(ht to $ote for electi$e pro$incial officials%

ction / of Republic "ct o% 17/ creatin( the #ity of r&oc pro$idesD

Election of pro$incial (o$ernor and &e&bers of the Pro$incial !oard of the &e&bers of the Pro$inc!oard of the Pro$ince of )eyte K The 4ualified $oters of r&oc #ity shall not be 4ualified and entitl$ote in the election of the pro$incial (o$ernor and the &e&bers of the pro$incial board of the Pro$in)eyte%

atin( therefore, section / of R%"% 17/ to section 12, "rticle 5 of the #onstitution one co&es up 'ith the follo'in( conclut r&oc #ity 'hen or(ani+ed 'as not yet a hi(hly;urbanned city but is, ne$ertheless, considered independent of the proeyte to 'hich it is (eo(raphically attached because its charter prohibits its $oters fro& $otin( for the pro$incial electi$e

cials% The 4uestion no' is 'hether or not the prohibition a(ainst the GcityGs re(istered $otersG electin( the pro$incial officiaessarily &ean, a prohibition of the re(istered $oters to be elected as pro$incial officials%

e petitioner citin( section 8, "rticle 5 of the #onstitution, to 'itD

ec% 8% The President of the Philippines shall eercise (eneral super$ision o$er local (o$ern&ents%Pro$inces 'ith respect to co&ponent cities and &unicipalities and cities and &unicipalities 'ith respco&ponent baran(ays, shall ensure that the acts of their co&ponent units are 'ithin the scope of th


11/15


12/15

ante!e#ens flat relationisi ipe!iatrsenten#ia ee !lac3Gs )a' =ictionary, 8th Ed%, A7 citin( !ro'!ro'n, =elta . Terry 1A7, 2/ "% 2d 18/, 1A.* Relati$e 'ords refer to the nearest antecedent, unlesspre$ented by the contet% n the present case, the e&ploy&ent of the 'ord GandG bet'een Gfacilities,i&pro$e&ents, infrastructuresG and Gother for&s of de$elop&ent,G far fro& supportin( petitionerGs theener$ates it instead since it is basic in le(al her&eneutics that and is not &eant to separate 'ords b

con:unction used to denote a :oinder or union% at pp% 1;.*

plyin( these principles to the instant case, the con:unction an! bet'een the phrase sall not be 'alifie! andentitle! to $er to t'o prohibitions as ruled by the #ME)E# in relation to the de&onstrati$e phrase in the election of the pro$incialernor and the &e&bers of the pro$incial board of the Pro$ince of )eyte%

ally, the petitioner contends that the February 18, 1//1 decision of the #ME)E#Gs second di$ision is null and $oid on tund that on that date, the ter& of #o&&issioner "ndres Flores, one of the si(natories of the &a:ority opinion $ote 'as already epired on February 2, 1//1% #o&&issioner Flores 'as no&inated by the President on January .0, 1/ andfir&ed by the #o&&ission on "ppoint&ents on February 1A, 1/% is ter& of office 'as fied by the President for thrers fro& February 1A, 1/ to February 1A, 1//1%*

e petitioner postulates that the President has no po'er to fi the ter&s of office of the #o&&issioners of the #ME)E#ause the #onstitution i&pliedly fies such ter&s of office% Iith re(ards to #o&&issioner Flores, the petitioner professesresG ter& of three .* years epired on February 2, 1//1 based in section 12*, "rticle 5, #, of the #onstitution, to 'itD

2* The #hair&an and the #o&&issioners shall be appointed by the President 'ith the consent of t#o&&ission on "ppoint&ents for a ter& of se$en years 'ithout reappoint&ent% f those first appointhree Me&bers shall hold office for se$en years, t'o Me&bers for fi$e years, and the last Me&bers three years, 'ithout reappoint&ent% "ny appoint&ent to any $acancy shall be only for the unepiredof the predecessor% n no case shall any Me&ber be appointed or desi(nated in a te&porary or actincapacity% n relation to the Transitory Pro$ision of the 1/7 #onstitution "rticle 5


13/15

en if 'e concede that #o&&issioner FloresG ter& epired on February 2, 1//1, 'e fail to see ho' this could $alidate thedin( of an electi$e office by one 'ho is clearly dis4ualified fro& runnin( for that position and the continued eercise ofern&ent po'ers by one 'ithout le(al authority to do so% The po'ers of this #ourt are broad enou(h to en:oin the $iolatistitutional and statutory pro$isions by public officers especially 'here, as in this case, 'e &erely affir& the decision of tME)E# en ban# pro&ul(ated at a ti&e 'hen #o&&issioner Flores 'as no lon(er a &e&ber%

reo$er, under the peculiar circu&stances of this case, the decision of the second di$ision of #ME)E# 'ould still be $aer the !e fa#todoctrine%

&&issioner Flores 'as appointed for a three;year ter& fro& February 1A, 1/ to February 1A, 1//1% n these three yearcised his duties and functions as #o&&issioner% -rantin( in the absence of a statute epressly statin( 'hen the ter&sME)E# #hair&an and &e&bers co&&ence and epire, that his ter& epired on February 2, 1//1 to enable a faithful

&pliance 'ith the constitutional pro$ision that the ter&s of office in the #ME)E# are on a sta((ered basis co&&encin(in( at fied inter$als, his continuance in office until February 1A, 1//1 has a color of $alidity% Therefore, all his official ac

& February ., 1//1 to February 1A, 1//1, are considered $alid% The #ourt ruled in the case of 4e$te A#ting /i#e56overnrelio . enzon v. 4e$te A#ting 6overnor 4eopol!o %. Perilla, et al% -%R% o% /0762, May 20, 1//1D

"nd finally, e$en (rantin( that the President, actin( throu(h the ecretary of )ocal -o$ern&ent,possesses no po'er to appoint the petitioner, at the $ery least, the petitioner is a de facto officer ento co&pensation%

There is no denyin( that the petitioner assu&ed the ffice of the


14/15

ile it is true that P# o% ;A86 'as ori(inally a petition to deny due course to the certificate of candidacy of )arra+abas filed before )arra+abal could be proclai&ed the fact re&ains that the local elections of February 1, 1/ in the pro$incte proceeded 'ith )arra+abal considered as a bona;fide candidate% The $oters of the pro$ince $oted for her in the sinceef that she 'as a 4ualified candidate for the position of (o$ernor% er $otes 'ere counted and she obtained the hi(hest

&ber of $otes% The net effect is that the petitioner lost in the election% e 'as repudiated by the electorate% n the Fri$aldo

o cases, this is precisely the reason 'hy the candidates 'ho obtained the second hi(hest nu&ber of $otes 'ere not allssu&e the positions $acated by Fri$aldo the (o$ernorship of orso(on, and )abo, the position of &ayor in !a(uio #ity%ure of the proceedin(s therefore, is not that co&pellin(% Ihat &atters is that in the e$ent a candidate for an elected poso is $oted for and 'ho obtains the hi(hest nu&ber of $otes is dis4ualified for not possessin( the eli(ibility re4uire&ents ae of the election as pro$ided by la', the candidate 'ho obtains the second hi(hest nu&ber of $otes for the sa&e positioassu&e the $acated position% t should be stressed that in -%R% o% 008, the #ourt set aside the dis&issal of P# o, and directed the #ME)E# to conduct hearin(s to deter&ine 'hether or not )arra+abal 'as 4ualified to be a candidaposition of (o$ernor in the pro$ince of )eyte% This is the i&port of the decision in -%R% o% 008% Thus, the #ourt rulede of 4abo, Jr. v. Coission on %le#tionsD

Finally, there is the 4uestion of 'hether or not the pri$ate respondent, 'ho filed the 4uo 'arranto pecan replace the petitioner as &ayor% e cannot% The si&ple reason is that as he obtained only the s

hi(hest nu&ber of $otes in the election, he 'as ob$iously not the choice of the people of !a(uio #it

The latest rulin( of the #ourt on this issue is antos $% #o&&ission on Elections, 1.7 #R" 780*decided in 1/A% n that case, the candidate 'ho placed second 'as proclai&ed elected after the $ofor his 'innin( ri$al, 'ho 'as dis4ualified as a turncoat and considered a non;candidate, 'ere alldisre(ard as stray% n effect, the second placer 'on by default% That decision 'as supported by ei(h&e&bers of the #ourt then, #ue$as, J%, ponente, 'ith Ma3asiar, #oncepcion, Jr%, Escolin, Relo$a, Fuente, "la&pay and "4uino, JJ%, concurrin(%* 'ith three dissentin( Teehan3ee, "ctin( #%J%, "badantos and Melencio;errera, JJ%* and another t'o reser$in( their $ote% Plana and -utierre+, Jr%, Jne 'as on official lea$e% Fernando, #%J%*

Re;ea&inin( that decision, the #ourt finds, and so holds, that it should be re$ersed in fa$or of the case of -eroni&o $% Ra&os, 1.6 #R" 8.A* 'hich represents the &ore lo(ical and de&ocratic rul

That case, 'hich reiterated the doctrine first announced in 1/12 in Topacio $% Paredes, 2. Phil% 2.supported by ten &e&bers of the #ourt, -utierre+, Jr%, ponente, 'ith Teehan3ee, "bad antos, Meerrera, Plana, Escolin, Relo$a, =e la Fuente, #ue$as and "la&pay, JJ%, concurrin(* 'ithout any dalthou(h one reser$ed his $ote, Ma3asiar, J%* another too3 no part, "4uino, J%* and t'o others 'erlea$e% Fernando, #%J% and #oncepcion, Jr%, J%* There the #ourt heldD

%%% it 'ould be etre&ely repu(nant to the basic concept of the constitutionally (uarari(ht to suffra(e if a candidate 'ho has not ac4uired the &a:ority or plurality of $otesproclai&ed a 'inner and i&posed as the representati$e of a constituency, the &a:or'hich ha$e positi$ely declared throu(h their ballots that they do not choose hi&%

ound policy dictates that public electi$e offices are filled by those 'ho ha$e recei$e

hi(hest nu&ber of $otes cast in the election for that office, and it is a funda&ental idall republican for&s of (o$ern&ent that no one can be declared elected and no &eacan be declared carried unless he or it recei$es a &a:ority or plurality of the le(al $ocast in the election% 20 #orpus Juris 2nd, 28., p% 676%*

The fact that the candidate 'ho obtained the hi(hest nu&ber of $otes is later declarbe dis4ualified or not eli(ible for the office to 'hich he 'as elected does not necessaentitle the candidate 'ho obtained the second hi(hest nu&ber of $otes to be declare'inner of the electi$e office% The $otes cast for a dead, dis4ualified, or non;eli(ible p


15/15

&ay not be $alid the $ote the 'inner into office or &aintain hi& there% o'e$er theabsence of a statute 'hich clearly asserts a contrary politics and le(islati$e policy o&atter, if the $otes 'ere cast in the sincere belief that the candidate 'as ali$e, 4ualieli(ible, they should not be treated as stray, $oid or &eanin(less% at pp% 20;21*

u&, the #ourt does not find any reason to re$erse and set aside the 4uestioned decision and resolution of the #ME)Ee #ME)E# has not acted 'ithout or in ecess of :urisdiction or in (ra$e abuse of discretion%

EREFRE, the instant petitions are =ME=% The 4uestioned decision of the second di$ision of the #o&&ission onctions dated February 18, 1//1 and the 4uestioned Resolution en banc of the #o&&ission dated July 1, 1//1 are hereFRME=% The te&porary restrainin( order issued on "u(ust 1, 1//1 is )FTE=% #osts a(ainst the petitioners%

R=ERE=%

rvasa, elen#io5errera, Crz, Paras, Pa!illa, Bi!in, 6ri8o5A'ino, e!ial!ea, egala!o an! avi!e, Jr., JJ., #on#r.

nan , C.J., too no part.

i#iano an! Sariento, JJ., is on leave.

)a'phil Pro:ect ; "rellano )a' Foundation

abella v larazabal

Documents