FACTS:
On March 27, 1998, Francisco R. Reyes, Jr., filed his certificate of candidacy for vice-mayor of Mainit, Surigao Del Norte under the LAKAS NUCD-UMDP (LAKAS). His nomination is evidence by the certificate of nomination and acceptance signed by Fidel V. Ramos and Jose de Venecia, National Chairman and Secretary General, respectively, of the said political party.
On
April 2, 1998, Kaiser B. Recabo, Jr., claiming to be the official candidate of
LAKAS as vice-mayor of the same municipality, also filed his certificate of
candidacy. Recabo submitted to the Comelec a copy of the certificate of his
nomination and acceptance signed only by one representative of LAKAS, Francisco
T. Matugas. The space of the other representative (Robert Z. Barbers) is blank.
Reyes
filed with the Comelec a petition to cancel the certificate of candidacy of
Recabo, alleging that Recabo is a substitute candidate of his mother, Candelaria
B. Recabo. Reyes submits that since the certificate of nomination and
acceptance in favor of Candelaria B. Recabo is not signed by Robert Barbers,
there is no valid nomination by LAKAS in favor of Candelaria. Therefore, Candelaria not having been validly
nominated, should be deemed an independent candidate only. And since Candelaria is an independent
candidate, she cannot be validly substituted because under Sec. 11 of Comelec
Res. No. 2977 promulgated on January 15, 1998, “no substitution shall be
allowed for an independent candidate.”
Comelec
cancelled the certificate of candidacy of Recabo. The Motion for
Reconsideration was denied.
Hence,
Recabo filed before the SC a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 alleging
that: 1) His certificate of candidacy and that of his mother whom he
substituted substantially complied with the requirements of being official
candidate of the LAKAS; 2) The people of Mainit have spoken loud and clear in his
favor by giving him a resounding majority of 1,102 votes or 12% of the votes
cast for both of them; and, 3) By cancelling his certificate of candidacy, Comelec
acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner’s
certificate of nomination by LAKAS NUCD-UMDP is valid?
NO.
COMELEC Resolution No. 2977 provides under Section 5 thereof: “The certificate
of nomination by registered political parties of their official candidates shall
be filed with the certificates of candidacy not later than the last day for
filing of certificates of candidacy as specified in Section 4 hereof, duly
signed and attested under oath by the party president, chairman,
secretary-general or any other party officer duly authorized in writing to do
so.”
Pursuant
to said resolution, the political party of LAKAS NUCD-UMDP issued an
`Authorization’ designating two (2) Party officers to nominate, sign, attest
under oath and issue the Official Certificates of Nomination, namely, Francisco
T. Matugas and Robert Ace S. Barbers.
Consistent with the foregoing, the certificate of nomination and
acceptance, as pointed out by the Comelec, requires the joint signing of the
two party officers.
The
certificate of nomination of the petitioner as well as his mother did not
comply with the requirements of being official candidates of LAKAS Party. The
certificate of nomination was invalid because it was signed only by one
authorized party officer as compared to Reyes’ which was signed by the National
Chairman and Secretary General, respectively, of said political party.
Moreover,
the chronology of events would still call for the cancellation of petitioner’s
certificate of candidacy to curb the evil that the Comelec sought to abate
pursuant to its mandate to hold free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible
elections. As the respondent Commission stated, “to allow respondent to run
under the circumstances adverted to herein would put the election process in
mockery and disrepute for we would in effect be allowing an anomalous situation
where a single political party may field-in multiple candidates for a single
election position.”
It
will be recalled that the mother of herein petitioner filed her certificate of
candidacy on March 25, 1998 and later withdrew the same on March 31, 1998. In the meantime, Reyes, Jr. filed his
certificate of candidacy on March 27, 1998.
Thereafter, Recabo, Jr. filed his certificate of candidacy on April 2,
1998, in substitution of his mother who had withdrawn earlier.
Assuming
all three candidates were fielded-in by the same political party, at the time
petitioner Recabo, Jr. filed his certificate of candidacy there was no more
void to fill in as respondent Reyes, Jr. had already filed his certificate of
candidacy as official candidate of LAKAS NUCD-UMDP. Verily, there was no more vacancy to be
substituted for. Disunity and
discord amongst members of a political party should not be allowed to create a
mockery of our electoral process, which envisions one candidate from a
political party for each position.
ISSUE: Whether or not a certificate of votes
is sufficient to establish the results of the election.
To put
matters in the proper perspective, we shall resolve the second issue first that
the “electorate has spoken loud and clear in favor of petitioner by giving him
a resounding majority of 1,102 votes or 12% of the votes cast for both of
them”. Petitioner, in effect, argues that the “popular will as clearly
expressed in votes cast and counted should prevail, such that the election of a
candidate cannot be annulled because of formal defects in his certificate.”
Recabo
submitted a ‘Certified List of Candidates
with their Votes Obtained’ and an undated `Certified List of Winning Candidates’ both signed by the Acting
Election Officer and Election Officer-OIC, respectively.
In
Garay vs. Commission on Elections, we had occasion to rule that: “xxx. According to Section 17, a certificate of
votes can only be “evidence to prove tampering, alteration, falsification or
any other anomaly committed in the election returns concerned, when duly
authenticated x x x.” A certificate
of votes does not constitute sufficient evidence of the true and genuine
results of the election; only election returns are.”
In
like manner, neither is the certified list of winning candidates sufficient
evidence of the real results of the election.
Moreover, the certificate of votes submitted does not conform with
Section 16 of R.A. 6646. It does not state the number of votes obtained in
words; it does not state the number of the precinct, the total number of voters
who voted in the precinct and the time issued. Most importantly, it was merely
certified true and correct by a certain Lydia P. Mahinay as acting election
officer. As aforequoted, Section 16 of
R.A. 6646 requires that the certificate of votes be signed and thumbmarked by
each member of the board of election inspectors.
Thus, the doctrine that a mere
technicality cannot be used to frustrate the people’s will finds no application
in the case at bar considering that the results of the election have not been
duly established.
ISSUE: Should Reyes be proclaimed winner and
assume the position of vice-mayor being the second highest winning candidate?
No. A
certificate of votes is not sufficient to establish the true and genuine
results of the election. A certificate
of canvass issued on the basis of the election returns is required to proclaim
the elected candidate. It is settled that the disqualification or
non-qualification of the winner in a vice mayoralty race does not justify the
proclamation of the defeated candidate who obtained the second highest number
of votes. To simplistically assume that
the second placer would have received the other votes would be to substitute
our judgment for the mind of the voter. The
second placer is just that, a second placer.
He lost the elections. He was
repudiated by either a majority or plurality of voters. He could not be considered the first among
qualified candidates because in a field which excludes the disqualified
candidate, the conditions would have substantially changed. We are not prepared to extrapolate the results
under the circumstances.
ISSUE: How then the vacancy should be filled
up?
The
vacancy due to the ineligibility of herein petitioner should be filled up in
accordance with Section 44 of the Local Government Code of 1991 which provides
that the highest ranking sanggunian member shall become the vice-mayor. (
0
Comments
