civil law, abella vs. comelec 201 scra 253

8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253

1/30

MAIN CASE

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 100710 September 3, 1991

BENJAMIN P. ABELLA, petitioner,

vs.

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

G.R. No. 100739 September 3, 1991

A#ELINA $. LARRA%ABAL, petitioner,

vs.

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

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

Cesar A. Sevilla for petitioner in 100710.

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


2/30

GUTIERRE%, JR., J .' p

The main issue in these consolidated petitions centers on who is the rihtful overnor of

the province of !e"te #$ petitioner Adelina !arra%abal &'.R. No. #(()*+$ who obtained

the hihest number of votes in the local elections of ebruar" #, #+-- and was

proclaimed as the dul" elected overnor but who was later declared b" the Commission

on Elections &CME!EC$ /... to lac0 both residence and reistration 1ualifications for

the position of 'overnor of !e"te as provided b" Art. 2, 3ection #4, Philippine

Constitution in relation to Title 55, Chapter 5, 3ec. 64, B.P. Bl. #*) and 3ec. -+, R.A. No.

#)+ and is hereb" dis1ualified as such 'overnor/7 4$ petitioner Ben8amin Abella &'.R.

No. #(()#($, who obtained the second hihest number of votes for the position of

overnor but was not allowed b" the CME!EC to be proclaimed as overnor after the

dis1ualification of !arra%abal7 or *$ !eopoldo E. Petilla, the vice9overnor of the

province of. !e"te.

This is the fourth time that the controvers" relatin to the local elections in ebruar" #,

#+-- for overnor of the province of !e"te is elevated to this Court. The antecedent facts

of these cases are stated in the earlier consolidated cases of BEN:AM5N P. ABE!!A and

35!;E3TRE T. , petitioners, v. A


3/30

Petitioner Ben8amin P. Abella was the official candidate of the !iberal

Part" for provincial overnor of !e"te in the local election held on

ebruar" #, #+--. The private respondent is the wife of Emeterio ;.

!arra%abal, the oriinal candidate of the !a0as n Bansa9P


4/30

seasonabl" elevated them to the Commission on Elections in ten separate

appeals doc0eted as 3PC Nos. --9G4) to --G4)95. Pendin resolution of

these cases, Abella intervened on March ), #+-- in the dis1ualification

case, doc0eted as 3PC No. --9@6G, and the followin da" filed a complaint,

with the !aw


5/30

commissioners dissentin. &'.R. No. --((6, Rollo, pp 6)9G#7 penned b"

Commissioner Abue, :r., with Commissioners Africa Rama, and ?orac,

dissentin$ The dismissal of this case is the sub8ect of '.R. No. --((6. &at

pp. @##9@#*$


6/30

n :ul" #-, #++#, the Commission en ban# issued a resolution which denied !arra%abalFs

motion to declare decision void andHor motion for reconsideration and affirmed the

second divisionFs decision. 5n the same resolution, the Commission disallowed AbellaFs

proclamation as overnor of !e"te.

Dence, these petitions.

Ie treat the various Comments as Answers and decide the petitions on their merits.

Actin on a most urent petition &motion$ for the issuance of a restrainin order filed b"

petitioner !arra%abal, this Court issued a temporar" restrainin order on Auust #, #++#.

... Effective immediatel" and continuin until further orders from this

Court, orderin the respondent on on Elections to CEA3E and


7/30

5n '.R. No. #(()*+, petitioner !arra%abal professes that the CME!EC completel"

disrearded our pronouncement in '.R. No. --((6 in that instead of actin on 3PC

Case No. --9@6G under section )- of the Election Code, the CME!EC proceeded with a

dis1ualification case not contemplated in '.R. No. --((6.

The arument is not meritorious.

The 1uestioned decision and resolution of the CME!EC conform with this CourtFs

decision in '.R. No. --((6.

5nitiall", herein respondent 3ilvestre T. de la Cru% &Ben8amin P. Abella, petitioner in

'.R. No. #(()#( was allowed to intervene in the case$ filed a petition with the

CME!EC to dis1ualif" petitioner !arra%abal from runnin as overnor of !e"te on the

round that she misrepresented her residence in her certificate of candidac" as

Janana, !e"te. 5t was alleed that she was in fact a resident of rmoc Cit" li0e her

husband who was earlier dis1ualified from runnin for the same office. The CME!EC

dismissed the petition and referred the case to its !aw


8/30

interest involved and the necessit" of resolvin the 1uestion of the earliest

possible time for the benefit of the inhabitants of !e"te.

5n the view of the Court, the pertinent provision is 3ection )- in relation to

3ection G of R.A. No. GG6G.

3ec. )-. Petition to !en$ !e #orse to or #an#el a #ertifi#ate of #an!i!a#$.

K A verified petition see0in to den" due course or to cancel a certificate of

candidac" ma" be filed b" an" person eclusivel" on the round that an"

material representation contained therein as re1uired under 3ection )6

hereof is false. The petition ma" be filed at an" time not later than twent"9

five da"s from the time of the filin of the certificate of candidac" and shall

be decided, after due notice and hearin, not later than fifteen da"s before

the election.

3ection G of R.A. GG6G states as follows

%ffe#t of is'alifi#ation Case. K An" candidate who has been declared b"

final 8udment to be dis1ualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast

for him shall not be counted. 5f for an" reason a candidate is not declared

b" final 8udment before an election to be dis1ualified and he is voted in

such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and

hearin of the action, in1uir", or protest and, upon motion of the

complainant or an" intervenor, ma" durin the pendenc" thereof order the

suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence

of his uilt is stron. ...


9/30

The above9stressed circumstances should eplain the necessit" for

continuin the investiation of the private respondentFs challened

dis1ualification even after the election notwithstandin that such matter is

usuall" resolved before the election. 5ndependentl" of these circumstances,

such proceedins are allowed b" 3ection G of RA. GG6G if for an" reason a

candidate is not declared b" final 8udment before an election to be

dis1ualified ...

5n fine, the Court directed the CME!EC to determine the residence 1ualification of

petitioner !arra%abal in 3PC Case No. --9@6G. Concomitant with this directive would be

the dis1ualification of petitioner !arra%abal in the event that substantial evidence is

adduced that she reall" lac0s the residence provided b" law to 1ualif" her to run for the

position of overnor in !e"te.

5n line with the CourtFs directive, the CME!EC conducted hearins in 3PC Case No.

--9@6G to resolve the 1ualification of !arra%abal on the basis of two &4$ leal issues

raised b" 3ilvestre T. de la Cru% namel", !arra%abalFs lac0 of leal residence in the

province of !e"te and her not bein a reistered voter in the province, as re1uired b"

Title 55, Chapter 5, 3ection 64, B.P. Bl. **), in relation to Article 2, 3ection #4 of theConstitution, to wit

3ec. 64. (alifi#ation. K $ An elective local official must be a citi%en of

the Philippines, at least twent"9three "ears of ae on election da", a

1ualified voter reistered as such in the barana", municipalit", cit" or

province where he proposes to be elected, a resident therein for at least

one "ear at the time of the filin of his certificate of candidac", and able to

read and write Enlish, Pilipino, or an" other local lanuae or dialect.


10/30

3ec. #4. Cities that are hihl" urbani%ed, as determined b" law, and

component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from votin for

provincial elective officials, shall be independent of the province. The

voters of component cities within a province, whose charters contain no

such prohibition, shall not be deprived of their riht to vote for elective

provincial officials.

The position of petitioners


11/30

5n this reard she states that ... /her subse1uent ph"sical transfer of residence to rmoc

Cit" thereafter, did not necessaril" erased &sic$ or removed her Janana residence, for

as lon as she had the A)"-S %/%*%)" evidenced b" her continuous and reular

acts of returnin there in the course of the "ears, althouh she had ph"sicall" resided at

rmoc Cit"./ &Petition, Rollo, p. 6($

As can be leaned from the 1uestioned decision, the CME!EC based its findin that

the petitioner lac0s the re1uired residence on the evidence of record to the effect that

despite protestations to the contrar" made b" the petitioner, she has established her

residence at rmoc Cit" from #+)@ to the present and not at Janana, !e"te. Der

attempt to purportedl" chane her residence one "ear before the election b" reisterin

at Janana, !e"te to 1ualif" her to ran for the position of overnor of the province of

!e"te clearl" shows that she considers herself alread" a resident of rmoc Cit". 5n the

absence of an" evidence to prove otherwise, the reliance on the provisions of the amil"

Code was proper and in consonance with human eperience. The petitioner did not

present evidence to show that she and her husband maintain separate residences, she at

Janana, !e"te and her husband at rmoc Cit". The second division of the CME!EC

in its decision dated ebruar" #6, #++# states

But there is the more fundamental issue of residence. The onl" indications

of a chane of residence so far as respondent is concerned are the address

indicated in the application for cancellation filed b" respondent indicatin

her postal address as Janana, !e"te, the annotation in her ;oterFs

affidavit for Precinct No. #@ that her reistration was cancelled due to lac0

of residence7 the testimon" of Anastacia


12/30

had decided to bu" their propert" because she wanted to beautif" the

house for their residence. 3he attached as anne the written contract

sined b" her and the spouses7 and the testimon" of Adolfo !arra%abal

Eh. /#(/ cousin of the spouses that Fat a famil" meetin ... the political

plan of the !arra%abal clan was discussed, amon which were &sic$ the

problem of Terr"Fs residence in rmoc Cit"F and that it was decided in said

meetin ... that 5nda" !arra%abal, wife of Terr", will transfer her rmoc

Reistration as a voter to Janana, !e"te &so$ she will be able to vote for

Terr" and also help me in m" candidac"7 that the" have been sta"in in

Janana, ver" often as the" have properties in !ono" and a house in

Mahawan.

The references to residence in the documents of cancellation and

reistration are alread" assessed for their evidentiar" value in relation to

the documents themselves above. The 1uestion must therefore be

addressed in relation to the testimon" of Anastacia


13/30

!arra%abal was rmoc Cit" and that 5nda" !arra%abal was oin to

transfer her reistration so she ma" be able to vote for him.

or the purpose of runnin for public office, the residence re1uirement

should be read as leal residence or domicile, not an" place where a part"

ma" have properties and ma" visit from time to time.

The Civil Code is clear that For the eercise of civil rihts and the

fulfillment of civil obliations, the domicile of natural persons is the place

of their habitual residence.

Arts. G- and G+ of the amil" Code, E.. No. 4(+ also provide as follows

Art. G-. The husband and wife are oblied to live toether,

observe mutual love, respect and fidelit", and render mutual

help and support.

Art. G+. The husband and wife shall fi the famil" domicile.

5n case of disareement, the court shall decide. The court

ma" eempt one spouse from livin with the other if the

latter should live abroad or there are other valid and

compellin reasons for the eemption. Dowever, such

eemption shall not appl" if the same is not compatible with

the solidarit" of the famil".

Dusband and wife as a matter of principle live toether in one leal

residence which is their usual place of abode. &CME!EC decision, pp. 4#9

4*7 Rollo L #(()#(, pp. G)9G+7 Emphsis supplied$


14/30

As reards the principle of AN5M=3 RE;ERTEN


15/30

considers herself a resident therein. The intention of anis reverten!i not to abandon

her residence in Janana, !e"te therefor, is nor present. The fact that she occasionall"

visits Janana, !e"te throuh the "ears does not sinif" an intention to continue her

residence therein. 5t is common amon us ilipinos to often visit places where we

formerl" resided speciall" so when we have left friends and relatives therein althouh for

intents and purposes we have alread" transferred our residence to other places.

Anent the issue of whether or not the petitioner is a reistered voter of Janana, !e"te,

the petitioner insists that she is such a reistered voter based on the followin

antecedents #$ 3he cancelled her reistration in rmoc Cit" on November 4@, #+-), and

4$ she then transferred her reistration to Janana, !e"te on November 4@, #+-) b"

reisterin thereat and *$ she later voted on election da" &ebruar" #, #+--$ in Janana,

!e"te.


16/30

member because the Chairman of the Board of Election 5nspectors

alleedl" left earlier and did not come bac0. Eh. /*9B/.

Ie find the version pressed b" respondent unworth" of belief. The stor" is

mar0ed b" so man" bi%arre cirumtances not consistent with the ordinar"

course of events or the natural behavior of persons. Amon these are

$ The application for cancellation of reistration b" respondent Adelina

?. !arra%abal happened to be misplaced b" a cler0 in the Election

ReistrarFs ffice for rmoc Cit" so it was not sent to the Board of Election

5nspectors in a sealed envelope7

&4$ The FinadvertermentF &sic$ misplacement was discovered onl" on

:anuar" +,#+--7

&*$ The voterFs affidavit was delivered b" itself without an" endorsement or

coverin letter from the Election Reistrar or an"bod" else7

&6$ The election cler0 delivered the application for cancellation onl"

towards the last hour of the revision da", alleedl" at 6*( P.M., :anuar" +,

#+--7

&@$ All the members of the Board of Election 5nspectors had alread" sined

the Minutes indicatin that no revision of the voterFs list was made as of

@(( PM

&G$ The poll cler0 and the third member prepared another minutes statin

that the election cler0 had delivered the application for cancellation at

6*( P.M. without an" reference to the minutes the" had previousl"

sined7


17/30

&)$ Emeterio !arra%abal, who was supposed to have reistered in Precinct

#), Mahawan, Janana, was supposed to have filled up an application for

cancellation of his reistration in Precinct No. #@, rmoc Cit" at Precinct

#) concurrent with his reistration. Dis application for cancellation was

never submitted in evidence.

&-$ The serial number of the voterFs affidavits of the spouses !arra%abal in

Precinct No. #) are far removed from the serial numbers of the other new

reistrants in November 4-, #+-) in the same precinct.

The most tellin evidence is the list of voters &orm 49A$, Eh. /'/, that

the Chairman and the poll cler0 had written in Part 55 of the same, closed

b" the sinatures of both officials showin that there were onl" nine &+$

additional reistered voters in Precinct #), Mahawan, Janana, !e"te,

namel", Bantasan, Merl"7 Conie7 !imosnero Anita7 !imosnero I7 Pame

;irinia7 3avenario, Anali%a7 ;erallo, felia7 Basan, :uanita7 and Acan

Bonifacio. This is consistent with the list of new voters after the November

4-, #+-) for Precinct No. #), Mahawan, Janana, !e"te submitted b" the

Election of Janana to the National Central ile of the Commission percertification of the Chief, National Central ile


18/30

wee0s after the election da" that the same Reistrar certified for the first

time that there were two voters lists, the first without the names of the

!arra%abals and the second, which appeared onl" after ebruar" #,

submitted b" the Chairman of the Board for Precinct #) which contained

the spouses !arra%abalsF names.

5t miht also be stressed that one set of voterFs list Eh. /'/ had the

sinature of both the Chairman, poll cler0 and third member of the board,

while the one which appeared later which included the names of the

!arra%abal had the sinature onl" of the Chairman. Eh. /5/.

rom the certification of the National Central iles, it appears that the

3erial Nos. of the newl" reistered voters were as follows (#-+-4#9:

(#-+449: (#-+-4*9: (#-+-469: (#-+-4@9: (#-+-4G9: (#-+-4)9:

(#-+-4-9: (#-+-*+9: The alleed reistration of Emeterio ;. !arra%abal

and Adelina ?. !arra%abal are ineplicabl" effected throuh voterFs

affidavits with 3erial Nos. (#+(-+*: and (# +(-6(9:. These serial

numbers are traced per record of the Commission to Precinct No. G,

municipalit" of Janana, !e"te. Per official Pro8ect of precincts on file withthe Commission, Precinct No. G is a poblacion precinct located in

Janana, Municipal Dih 3chool Buildin. Dow these documents came to

be used in Precinct No. #) in Barana" Mahawan and onl" b" the

!arra%abals has never been eplained.

5t also ta0es a lot of strainin to believe the stor" about the effort to cancel

reistration on November 4@, #+-), which application surfaced before the

Board of Election inspectors for Precinct No. #@, rmoc Cit" onl" on

:anuar" +, #+--, Revision


19/30

the Board of Election 5nspectors for Precinct #@. urthermore, the entire

membership of the Board of 5nspectors for said precinct, sined a Minutes,

Eh. /*9A/ which indicates that no order of inclusion or eclusion was

received from an" court and that the board proceeded with the numberin

of a total 44+ voters for the precinct. The Minutes also indicates that the

Board ad8ourned at @(( p.m. Eh. /*9B/ which was supposedl" prepared

after Eh. /*9A/ sined onl" b" the poll cler0 and third member indicates

that at 6*( P.M. an unidentified cler0 from the Election ReistrarFs ffice

arrived with the application for cancellation of ;ilma Man%ano and

Adelina !arra%abal.

5t also appears that on November 4-, #+-), the Board of Election

5nspectors for Precinct #@, rmoc Cit" prepared the list of voters for said

precinct, Eh. FNF where the name of Adelina ?. !arra%abal appears as

voter No. +G and Emeterio ;. !arra%abal is listed as ;oter No. +-. At the

bac0 of the list there is a certification that there was no voter which was

included b" court order and that to voters, one Montero and one 3alvame

were ecluded b" virtue of such order. As of :anuar" 4+, #+--, when the

certified true cop" of the ;oterFs !ist for Precinct #@ was furnished the

petitioner, no additional entr" was reflected on the list which would show

what transpired on :anuar" +, #+--, as alleed b" the Election Reistrar

for rmoc Cit" and the poll cler0 and third member of the board of

inspectors that a cancellation was effected. 5t taes credulit" therefore, to

lend belief to Eh. /49C/, when was issued b" the Cit" Reistrar for rmoc

onl" on ebruar" #, #++(, which for the first time showed handwritten

annotations of cancellation of the reistration of Adelina !arra%abal and

;ilma Man%ano b" witnesses 'ratol and Patono. 5f this evidence did not

eist at the time of the entr" which purports to have been on :anuar" +,

#+--, this evidence could have been used to confront within Carolina

ue%on when she testified and identified Eh. /N/ on April #6, #+--. 5n

fact if these entries indicatin &sic$ were made, the" would have been


20/30

evident in Eh. FI. The failure to confront ue%on with the entries and the

late submission of Eh. /49C/ can onl" lead to two conclusions these

entries did not eist as of :anuar" 4+, #+-- when the certification of the

list of voters was made and that the" were annotated in the voterFs list after

that date. This is consistent with Eh. /P/ which was issued on ebruar"

##, #+--.

The relative weiht of the partiesF evidence supports petitionerFs thesis that

respondent was not a reistered voter in Precinct No. #), Br". Mahawan,

Janana, !e"te, and, that she and her husband Emeterio !arra%abal

continued to be reistered voters in Precinct No. #@, rmoc Cit". &Rollo,

pp. G49G)7 CME!EC decision, pp. 4494)$

The Court is bound b" these factual findins as the" are supported b" substantial

evidence

5n Arat# v. Coission on %le#tions &-- 3CRA 4@#$, spea0in of the

need to preserve the Findependence and all the needed concomitant

powersF of the Commission on Elections, :ustice Antonio P. Barredodeclared that it is but proper that the Court should accord the reatest

measures of presumption of reularit" to its course of action ... to the end

it ma" achieve its desined place in the democratic fabric of our

overnment ... &Abella v. !arra%abal, spra$

ailin in her contention that she is a resident and reistered voter of Janana, !e"te,

the petitioner poses an alternative position that her bein a reistered voter in rmoc

Cit" was no impediment to her candidac" for the position of overnor of the province of

!e"te.

3ection #4, Article 2 of the Constitution provides


21/30

Cities that are hihl" urbani%ed, as determined b" law, and component

cities whose charters prohibit their voters from votin for provincial

elective officials, shall be independent of the province. The voters of

component cities within a province, whose charters contain no such

prohibition, shall not be deprived of their riht to vote for elective

provincial officials.

3ection -+ of Republic Act No. #)+ creatin the Cit" of rmoc provides

Election of provincial overnor and members of the Provincial Board of

the members of the Provincial Board of the Province of !e"te K The

1ualified voters of rmoc Cit" shall not be 1ualified and entitled to vote in

the election of the provincial overnor and the members of the provincial

board of the Province of !e"te.

Relatin therefore, section -+ of R.A. #)+ to section #4, Article 2 of the Constitution one

comes up with the followin conclusion that rmoc Cit" when orani%ed was not "et a

hihl"9urbanned cit" but is, nevertheless, considered independent of the province of

!e"te to which it is eoraphicall" attached because its charter prohibits its voters from votin for the provincial elective officials. The 1uestion now is whether or not the

prohibition aainst the Fcit"Fs reistered votersF electin the provincial officials

necessaril" mean, a prohibition of the reistered voters to be elected as provincial

officials.

The petitioner citin section 6, Article 2 of the Constitution, to wit

3ec. 6. The President of the Philippines shall eercise eneral supervision

over local overnments. Provinces with respect to component cities and

municipalities and cities and municipalities with respect to component

barana"s, shall ensure that the acts of their component units are within

the scope of their prescribed powers and functions.


22/30

submits that /while a Component Cit" whose charter prohibits its voters from

participatin in the elections for provincial office, is indeed independent of the province,

such independence cannot be e1uated with a hihl" urbani%ed cit"7 rather it is limited to

the administrative supervision aspect, and nowhere should it lead to the conclusion that

said voters are li0ewise prohibited from runnin for the provincial offices./ &Petition, p.

4+$

The arument is untenable.

3ection #4, Article 2 of the Constitution is eplicit in that aside from hihl"9urbani%ed

cities, component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from votin for provincial

elective officials are independent of the province. 5n the same provision, it provides for

other #oponent #ities itin a provin#e whose charters do not provide a similar

prohibition. Necessaril", component cities li0e rmoc Cit" whose charters prohibit their

voters from votin for provincial elective officials are treated li0e hihl" urbani%ed cities

which are outside the supervisor" power of the province to which the" are

eoraphicall" attached. This independence from the province carries with it the

prohibition or mandate directed to their reistered voters not to vote and be voted for

the provincial elective offices. The resolution in '.R. No. -()#G entitled Peralta v. *eCoission on %le#tions, et al. dated


23/30

The petitioner ta0es eception to this interpretation. 3he opines that such interpretation

is /wron Enlish/ since nowhere in the provision is there an" reference to a prohibition

aainst runnin for provincial elective office. 3he states that if the prohibition to run was

indeed intended, the provision should have been phrased /3hall not be 1ualified T

R=N in the election R provincial overnor./ A comma should have been used after

the word 1ualified and after the word /vote/ to clearl" indicate that the phrase /in the

election of the provincial overnor/ is modified separatel" and distinctl" b" the words

/not 1ualified/ and the words /not entitled to vote./ &Petition, p. #+$

The Court finds the petitionerFs interpretation fallacious.

5n the case of apa v. Arro$o )@ 3CRA )G #+-+$ this Court interpreted 3ection 4( of

Presidential


24/30

erroneous. The complete and applicable rule is ad proxi ante!e#ens

flat relationisi ipe!iatrsenten#ia &3ee Blac0Fs !aw


25/30

&4$ The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed b" the

President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term

of seven "ears without reappointment. f those first appointed, three

Members shall hold office for seven "ears, two Members for five "ears, and

the last Members for three "ears, without reappointment. An"

appointment to an" vacanc" shall be onl" for the unepired term of the

predecessor. 5n no case shall an" Member be appointed or desinated in a

temporar" or actin capacit". 5n relation to the Transitor" Provision of the

#+-) Constitution &Article 2;555$ particularl" 3ection #@ thereof, to wit

The incumbent Members of the Civil 3ervice Commission, the Commission

on Elections, and the Commission on Audit shall continue in office for one

"ear after the ratification of this Constitution, unless the" are sooner

removed for cause or become incapacitated to dischare The duties of their

office or appointed to a new term thereunder. 5n no case shall an" Member

serve loner than seven "ears includin service before the ratification of

this Constitution.

There is no need to pass upon this constitutional issue raised b" the petitioner. The

Court ruled in the case of Alger %le#tri#, "n#. v. Cort of Appeals *@ 3CRA *) #+-@$

... This Court does not decide 1uestions of a constitutional nature unlessabsolutel" necessar" to a decision of the case. 5f there eists some other

round based on statute or eneral law or other rounds of construction,

we decide the case on a non9constitutional determination. &3ee Burton v.

=nited 3tates, #+G =.3. 4-*7 3iler v. !ouisville O Nashville R. Co. 4#* =.3.

#)@7 Berea Collee v. Jentuc0" 4## =.3. 6@.$ &at p. 6@$


26/30

Even if we concede that Commissioner loresF term epired on ebruar" 4, #++#, we fail

to see how this could validate the holdin of an elective office b" one who is clearl"

dis1ualified from runnin for that position and the continued eercise of overnment

powers b" one without leal authorit" to do so. The powers of this Court are broad

enouh to en8oin the violation of constitutional and statutor" provisions b" public

officers especiall" where, as in this case, we merel" affirm the decision of the

CME!EC en ban# promulated at a time when Commissioner lores was no loner a

member.

Moreover, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the decision of the second

division of CME!EC would still be valid under the !e fa#to doctrine.

Commissioner lores was appointed for a three9"ear term from ebruar" #@, #+-- to

ebruar" #@, #++#. 5n these three "ears he eercised his duties and functions as

Commissioner. 'rantin in the absence of a statute epressl" statin when the terms of

the CME!EC Chairman and members commence and epire, that his term epired on

ebruar" 4, #++# to enable a faithful compliance with the constitutional provision that

the terms of office in the CME!EC are on a staered basis commencin and endin at

fied intervals, his continuance in office until ebruar" #@, #++# has a color of validit".Therefore, all his official acts from ebruar" *, #++# to ebruar" #@, #++#, are considered

valid. The Court ruled in the case of 4e$te A#ting /i#e56overnor Arelio . enzon v.

4e$te A#ting 6overnor 4eopol!o %. Perilla, et al . '.R. No. +()G4, Ma" 4(, #++#

And finall", even rantin that the President, actin throuh the 3ecretar"

of !ocal 'overnment, possesses no power to appoint the petitioner, at the

ver" least, the petitioner is a de facto officer entitled to compensation.

There is no den"in that the petitioner assumed the ffice of the ;ice9

'overnor under color of a 0nown appointment. As revealed b" the records,

the petitioner was appointed b" no less than the alter eo of the President,

the 3ecretar" of !ocal 'overnment, after which he too0 his oath of office


27/30

before 3enator Alberto Romulo in the ffice of


28/30

Ihile it is true that 3PC No. --9@6G was oriinall" a petition to den" due course to the

certificate of candidac" of !arra%abal and was filed before !arra%abal could be

proclaimed the fact remains that the local elections of ebruar" #, #+-- in the province

of !e"te proceeded with !arra%abal considered as a bona9fide candidate. The voters of

the province voted for her in the sincere belief that she was a 1ualified candidate for the

position of overnor. Der votes were counted and she obtained the hihest number of

votes. The net effect is that the petitioner lost in the election. De was repudiated b" the

electorate. 5n the rivaldo and !abo cases, this is precisel" the reason wh" the

candidates who obtained the second hihest number of votes were not allowed to

assume the positions vacated b" rivaldo the overnorship of 3orsoon, and !abo, the

position of ma"or in Bauio Cit". The nature of the proceedins therefore, is not that

compellin. Ihat matters is that in the event a candidate for an elected position who is voted for and who obtains the hihest number of votes is dis1ualified for not possessin

the eliibilit" re1uirements at the time of the election as provided b" law, the candidate

who obtains the second hihest number of votes for the same position can not assume

the vacated position. 5t should be stressed that in '.R. No. --((6, the Court set aside

the dismissal of 3PC No. --9@6G, and directed the CME!EC to conduct hearins to

determine whether or not !arra%abal was 1ualified to be a candidate for the position of

overnor in the province of !e"te. This is the import of the decision in '.R. No. --((6.

Thus, the Court ruled in the case of 4abo, Jr. v. Coission on %le#tions

inall", there is the 1uestion of whether or not the private respondent,

who filed the 1uo warranto petition, can replace the petitioner as ma"or.

De cannot. The simple reason is that as he obtained onl" the second

hihest number of votes in the election, he was obviousl" not the choice of

the people of Bauio Cit".

The latest rulin of the Court on this issue is 3antos v. Commission on

Elections, *) 3CRA )6($ decided in #+-@. 5n that case, the candidate who

placed second was proclaimed elected after the votes for his winnin rival,

who was dis1ualified as a turncoat and considered a non9candidate, were


29/30

all disreard as stra". 5n effect, the second placer won b" default. That

decision was supported b" eiht members of the Court then, &Cuevas, :.,

ponente, with Ma0asiar, Concepcion, :r., Escolin, Relova,


30/30

elected and no measure can be declared carried unless he or

it receives a ma8orit" or pluralit" of the leal votes cast in the

election. &4( Corpus :uris 4nd, 3 46*, p. G)G.$

The fact that the candidate who obtained the hihest number

of votes is later declared to be dis1ualified or not eliible for

the office to which he was elected does not necessaril" entitle

the candidate who obtained the second hihest number of

votes to be declared the winner of the elective office. The

votes cast for a dead, dis1ualified, or non9eliible person ma"

not be valid the vote the winner into office or maintain him

there. Dowever the absence of a statute which clearl" asserts

a contrar" politics and leislative polic" on the matter, if the

votes were cast in the sincere belief that the candidate was

alive, 1ualified, or eliible, the" should not be treated as

stra", void or meaninless. &at pp. 4(94#$

5n sum, the Court does not find an" reason to reverse and set aside the 1uestioned

decision and resolution of the CME!EC. The CME!EC has not acted without or inecess of 8urisdiction or in rave abuse of discretion.

IDERERE, the instant petitions are

civil law, abella vs. comelec 201 scra 253

Documents