lucy torres-gomes case

7/23/2019 Lucy Torres-gomes Case

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lucy-torres-gomes-case 1/11

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,r2oc Cit/. In this re6ard, :untilla asserted that Richard failed to 2eet the one (%) /ear residenc/re9uire2ent under Section !, Article ;I< of the %7=> 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#fnt1




















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/ $<, #$%$.

'he dis9ualification of a candidate does not auto2aticall/ cancel one4s certificate of candidac/,especiall/ hen it is no2inated b/ a political part/. In effect, the political part/ is still alloed to

substitute the candidate hose candidac/ as declared dis9ualified. After all, the ri6ht to substituteis a privile6e 6iven to a political part/ to eercise and not dependent totall/ to a candidate.

Nonetheless, in case of doubt, the sa2e 2ust ala/s be resolved to the 9ualification of a candidateto run in the public office.

'he substitution co2plied ith the re9uire2ents provided under Section %# in relation to Section %+of Co2elec Resolution No. =!>= 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)










'he folloin6 da/, or on Ma/ 7, #$%$, :untilla filed an Etre2el/ r6ent Motion forReconsideration%# (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 >!,"<7 and <7+ votes, respectivel/.%+ In vie of theafore2entioned substitution, Richard4s votes ere credited in favor of private respondent and as aresult, she as proclai2ed the dul/*elected Representative of the 5ourth District of 0e/te.

n Ma/ %%, #$%$, :untilla filed an Etre2el/ r6ent Motion to resolve the pendin6 Ma/ 7, #$%$Motion relative to Resolution No. ==7$.%< 'he said 2otion, hoever, re2ained unacted.

n Ma/ #<, #$%$, petitioner filed a Petition%" for 9uo arranto before the &RE' in order to oustprivate respondent fro2 her con6ressional seat, clai2in6 that@ (%) she failed to co2pl/ ith the one(%) /ear residenc/ re9uire2ent under Section !, Article ;I of the Constitution considerin6 that thetransfer of her voter re6istration fro2 San Rafael Bulacan%! to the 5ourth District of 0e/te as onl/applied for on :ul/ #+, #$$7G (#) she did not validl/ substitute Richard as his CoC as void ab initioG

and (+) private respondent4s CoC as void due to her non*co2pliance ith the prescribed notarialre9uire2ents i.e., she failed to present valid and co2petent proof of her identit/ before the notari3in6officer.%>

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 to file thenecessar/ petition for dis9ualification ith the CME0ECG

<. -hether or not respondent4s CC as dul/ subscribedG and

". -hether or not respondent is ineli6ible for the position of Representative of the 5ourthDistrict of 0e/te for lac8 of residenc/ re9uire2ent.%7

R'()*+ o %h$ HRET

After due proceedin6s, the &RE' issued the assailed March ##, #$%# Decision#$ hich dis2issedthe 9uo arranto petition and declared that private respondent as a 9ualified candidate for theposition of 0e/te Representative (5ourth 0e6islative District). It observed that the resolution den/in6Richard4s candidac/ i.e., the CME0EC 5irst Division4s 5ebruar/ %>, #$%$ Resolution, spo8e of

























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#< or (b) his or her co22ission ofcertain acts of dis9ualification. Anent the latter, the prohibited acts under Section != refer to electionoffenses under the EC, and not to violations of other penal las.#" In particular, these are@ (%) 6ivin62one/ or other 2aterial consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officialsperfor2in6 electoral functionsG (#) co22ittin6 acts of terroris2 to enhance one4s candidac/G (+)spendin6 in one4s election ca2pai6n an a2ount in ecess of that alloed b/ the ECG (<) solicitin6,receivin6 or 2a8in6 an/ contribution prohibited under Sections =7, 7", 7!, 7> and %$< of the ECGand (") violatin6 Sections =$,#! =+,#> =",#= =!#7 and #!%, para6raphs d,+$ e,+% 8,+# v,++and cc, sub*para6raph !+< of the EC. Accordin6l/, the sa2e provision (Section !=) states that an/ candidateho, in an action or protest in hich he or she is a part/, is declared b/ final decision of a co2petentcourt 6uilt/ of, or found b/ the CME0EC to have co22itted an/ of the fore6oin6 acts shall bedis9ualified fro2 continuin6 as a candidate for public office, or disalloed fro2 holdin6 the sa2e, ifhe or she had alread/ been elected.+"







































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. <$

Pertinentl/, hile a dis9ualified candidate under Section != is still considered to have been acandidate for all intents and purposes, on the other hand, a person hose CoC had been denieddue course to and?or cancelled under Section >= 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.<% In 'ala6a v. CME0EC<# ('ala6a), the Court ruled that@

-hile a person ho is dis9ualified under Section != is 2erel/ prohibited to continue as a

candidate, a person ho certificate is cancelled or denied due course under Section >= 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



















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.<+

As defined under Section >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,<< the Court has illu2ined@

A certificate of candidac/ is in the nature of a for2al 2anifestation to the hole orld of thecandidate4s political creed or lac8 of political creed. It is a state2ent of a person see8in6 to run for apublic office certif/in6 that he announces his candidac/ for the office 2entioned and the be is eli6iblefor the office, the na2e of the political part/ to hich he belon6s, if he belon6s to an/, and his post*office address for all election purposes bein6 as ell stated. (E2phasis and underscorin6 supplied).

In this re6ard, the CoC is the docu2ent hich for2all/ accords upon a person the status of acandidate. In other ords, absent a valid CoC one is not considered a candidate under le6alconte2plation. As held in 'ala6a@<"

a person4s declaration of his intention to run for public office and his affir2ation that hepossesses the eli6ibilit/ for the position he see8s to assu2e, folloed b/ the ti2el/ filin6 of suchdeclaration, constitute a valid CoC that render the person 2a8in6 the declaration a valid or officialcandidate. (E2phasis supplied)

Considerin6 that Section >> re9uires that there be a candidate in order for substitution to ta8e place,as ell as the precept that a person ithout a valid CoC is not considered as a candidate at all, itnecessaril/ follos that if a person4s CoC had been denied due course to and?or cancelled, he orshe cannot be validl/ substituted in the electoral process. 'he eistence of a valid CoC is therefore a

condition sine 9ua non for a dis9ualified candidate to be validl/ substituted.<!

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











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. <= Stated differentl/,since there ould be no candidate to spea8 of under a denial of due course to and?or cancellation ofa CoC case, then there ould be no candidate to be substitutedG the sa2e does not obtain, hoever,

in a dis9ualification case since there re2ains to be a candidate to be substituted, althou6h his or hercandidac/ is discontinued.

n this note, it is e9uall/ revelator/ that Section >> 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.<7

'he confusion, hoever, ste22edfro2 the use of the ord dis9ualified in the 5ebruar/ %>, #$%$ Resolution of the CME0EC 5irstDivision, hich as adopted b/ the CME0EC En Banc in 6rantin6 the substitution of privaterespondent, and even further perpetuated b/ the &RE' in den/in6 the 9uo arranto petition. Inshort, a findin6 that Richard as 2erel/ dis9ualified J and not that his CoC as denied due courseto and?or cancelled J ould 2ean that he could have been validl/ substitute b/ private respondent,thereb/ le6iti2i3in6 her candidac/.

et the fact that the CME0EC 5irst Division4s 5ebruar/ %>, #$%$ 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@
















'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.



'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)




















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









(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

lucy torres-gomes case

Documents