Lawyerly

GR No. 211140

2016-01-12

LORD ALLAN JAY Q. VELASCO v. SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Decisions of this Court holding that the second-placer cannot be proclaimed winner if the first-placer is disqualified or declared ineligible should be limited to situations where the certificate of candidacy of the first-placer was valid at the time of filing but subsequently had to be cancelled because of a violation of law that took place, or a legal impediment that took effect, after the filing of the certificate of candidacy. If the certificate of candidacy is void ab initio, then legally the person who filed such void certificate of candidacy was never a candidate in the elections at any time. All votes for such non-candidate are stray votes and should not be counted. Thus, such non-candidate can never be a first-placer in the elections. If a certificate of candidacy void ab initio is cancelled on the day, or before the day, of the election, prevailing jurisprudence holds that all votes for that candidate are stray votes. If a certificate of candidacy void ab initio is cancelled one day or more after the elections, all votes for such candidate should also be stray votes because the certificate of candidacy is void from the beginning. This is the more equitable and logical approach on the effect of the cancellation of a certificate of candidacy that is void ab initio. Otherwise, a certificate of candidacy void ab initio can operate to defeat one or more valid certificates of candidacy for the same position.[75] (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)

GR No. 211140

2016-01-12

LORD ALLAN JAY Q. VELASCO v. SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The Decision in Aratea was subsequently reiterated in Jalosjos, Jr. v. Commission on Elections[76] and Maquiling v. Commission on Elections.[77]

GR No. 215847

2016-01-12

GOV. EXEQUIEL B. JAVIER v. COMELEC

BRION, J.

With the express repeal of Section 261(d), the basis for disqualifying Javier no longer existed. As we held in Jalosjos, Jr. v. Commission on Elections,[43] [t]he jurisdiction of the COMELEC to disqualify candidates is limited to those enumerated in Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code. All other election offenses are beyond the ambit of COMELEC jurisdiction. They are criminal and not administrative in nature.[44] Pursuant to sections 265 and 268 of the Omnibus Election Code, the power of the COMELEC is confined to the conduct of preliminary investigation on the alleged election offenses for the purpose of prosecuting the alleged offenders before the regular courts of justice.[45]

GR No. 206666

2015-01-21

ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Take notice that the applicability of Section 12 of the OEC to candidates running for local elective positions is not unprecedented. In Jalosjos, Jr. v. Commission on Elections,[37] the Court acknowledged the aforementioned provision as one of the legal remedies that may be availed of to disqualify a candidate in a local election filed any day after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy, but not later than the date of proclamation.[38] The pertinent ruling in the Jalosjos case is quoted as follows:What is indisputably clear is that false material representation of Jalosjos is a ground for a petition under Section 78. However, since the false material representation arises from a crime penalized by prision mayor, a petition under Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code or Section 40 of the Local Government Code can also be properly filed. The petitioner has a choice whether to anchor his petition on Section 12 or Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, or on Section 40 of the Local Government Code. The law expressly provides multiple remedies and the choice of which remedy to adopt belongs to petitioner.[39] (Emphasis supplied.)

GR No. 206666

2015-01-21

ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

On January 24, 2013, Risos-Vidal, the petitioner in this case, filed a Petition for Disqualification against former President Estrada before the COMELEC. The petition was docketed as SPA No. 13-211 (DC). Risos-Vidal anchored her petition on the theory that "[Former President Estrada] is Disqualified to Run for Public Office because of his Conviction for Plunder by the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 26558 entitled 'People of the Philippines vs. Joseph Ejercito Estrada' Sentencing Him to Suffer the Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with Perpetual Absolute Disqualification."[11] She relied on Section 40 of the Local Government Code (LGC), in relation to Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), which state respectively, that:Sec. 40, Local Government Code:

GR No. 206666

2015-01-21

ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

From the perspective of the RPC, it should be appreciated, as discussed above, that a conviction carries penalties with varying components. These are mainly the principal penalties and the accessory penalties.[76]

GR No. 206666

2015-01-21

ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

This court's 2012 decisions in Aratea v. COMELEC[252] and Dominador Jalosjos, Jr. v. COMELEC[253] ruled that a certificate of candidacy that was cancelled for being void ab initio, it having been filed by a candidate who falsely claimed that he was eligible, produces no effect, it "cannot give rise to a valid candidacy, and much less to valid votes."[254] Thus, the votes cast for the ineligible candidate should be considered "stray votes and should not be counted."[255]

GR No. 207900

2014-04-22

MAYOR GAMAL S. HAYUDINI v. COMELEC

PERALTA, J.

On October 5, 2012, Hayudini filed his Certificate of Candidacy[4] (CoC) for the position of Municipal Mayor of South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi in the May 13, 2013 National and Local Elections held in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Ten days after, or on October 15, 2012, Mustapha J. Omar (Omar) filed a Petition to Deny Due Course or Cancel Hayudini's CoC, entitled Mustapha J. Omar v. Gamal S. Hayudini, docketed as SPA No. 13-106(DC)(F).[5] Omar basically asserted that Hayudini should be disqualified for making false representation regarding his residence. He claimed that Hayudini declared in his CoC that he is a resident of the Municipality of South Ubian when, in fact, he resides in Zamboanga City.

GR No. 193314

2013-06-25

SVETLANA P. JALOSJOS v. COMELEC

SERENO, C.J.

This Court has ruled in Aratea v. COMELEC[14] and Jalosjos, Jr. v. COMELEC[15] that the cancellation of the COC based on an ineligibility that existed at the time of its filing means that the candidate was never a valid candidate from the very beginning.[16]

GR No. 207264

2013-06-25

REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES v. COMELEC

PEREZ, J.

During the course of the proceedings, on 8 February 2013, respondent filed a "Manifestation with Motion to Admit Newly Discovered Evidence and Amended List of Exhibits"[11] consisting of, among others: (1) a copy of an article published on the internet on 8 January 2013 entitled "Seeking and Finding the Truth about Regina O. Reyes" with an Affidavit of Identification and Authenticity of Document executed by its author Eliseo J. Obligacion, which provides a database record of the Bureau of Immigration indicating that petitioner is an American citizen and a holder of a U.S. passport; (2) a Certification of Travel Records of petitioner, issued by Simeon Sanchez, Acting Chief, Verification and Certification Unit of the Bureau of Immigration which indicates that petitioner used a U.S. Passport in her various travels abroad.

GR No. 205033

2013-06-18

ROMEO G. JALOSJOS v. COMELEC

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Meanwhile, five (5) petitions were lodged before the COMELEC's First and Second Divisions (COMELEC Divisions), praying for the denial of due course to and/or cancellation of petitioner's CoC. Pending resolution, the COMELEC En Banc issued motu proprio Resolution No. 9613[14] on January 15, 2013, resolving "to CANCEL and DENY due course the Certificate of Candidacy filed by Romeo G. Jalosjos as Mayor of Zamboanga City in the May 13, 2013 National and Local Elections" due to his perpetual absolute disqualification as well as his failure to comply with the voter registration requirement. As basis, the COMELEC En Banc relied on the Court's pronouncement in the consolidated cases of Dominador Jalosjos, Jr. v. COMELEC and Agapito Cardino v. COMELEC[15] (Jalosjos, Jr. and Cardino).

GR No. 195649

2013-04-16

CASAN MACODE MAQUILING v. COMELEC

SERENO, C.J.

We have ruled in the recent cases of Aratea v. COMELEC[54] and Jalosjos v. COMELEC[55] that a void COC cannot produce any legal effect. Thus, the votes cast in favor of the ineligible candidate are not considered at all in determining the winner of an election.

GR No. 195649

2013-04-16

CASAN MACODE MAQUILING v. COMELEC

SERENO, C.J.

I, Rommel Cagoco Arnado, solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.[6]

	GR No. 211140 2016-01-12	LORD ALLAN JAY Q. VELASCO v. SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Decisions of this Court holding that the second-placer cannot be proclaimed winner if the first-placer is disqualified or declared ineligible should be limited to situations where the certificate of candidacy of the first-placer was valid at the time of filing but subsequently had to be cancelled because of a violation of law that took place, or a legal impediment that took effect, after the filing of the certificate of candidacy. If the certificate of candidacy is void ab initio, then legally the person who filed such void certificate of candidacy was never a candidate in the elections at any time. All votes for such non-candidate are stray votes and should not be counted. Thus, such non-candidate can never be a first-placer in the elections. If a certificate of candidacy void ab initio is cancelled on the day, or before the day, of the election, prevailing jurisprudence holds that all votes for that candidate are stray votes. If a certificate of candidacy void ab initio is cancelled one day or more after the elections, all votes for such candidate should also be stray votes because the certificate of candidacy is void from the beginning. This is the more equitable and logical approach on the effect of the cancellation of a certificate of candidacy that is void ab initio. Otherwise, a certificate of candidacy void ab initio can operate to defeat one or more valid certificates of candidacy for the same position.[75] (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
	GR No. 211140 2016-01-12	LORD ALLAN JAY Q. VELASCO v. SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The Decision in Aratea was subsequently reiterated in Jalosjos, Jr. v. Commission on Elections[76] and Maquiling v. Commission on Elections.[77]
	GR No. 215847 2016-01-12	GOV. EXEQUIEL B. JAVIER v. COMELEC BRION, J.
With the express repeal of Section 261(d), the basis for disqualifying Javier no longer existed. As we held in Jalosjos, Jr. v. Commission on Elections,[43] [t]he jurisdiction of the COMELEC to disqualify candidates is limited to those enumerated in Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code. All other election offenses are beyond the ambit of COMELEC jurisdiction. They are criminal and not administrative in nature.[44] Pursuant to sections 265 and 268 of the Omnibus Election Code, the power of the COMELEC is confined to the conduct of preliminary investigation on the alleged election offenses for the purpose of prosecuting the alleged offenders before the regular courts of justice.[45]
	GR No. 206666 2015-01-21	ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Take notice that the applicability of Section 12 of the OEC to candidates running for local elective positions is not unprecedented. In Jalosjos, Jr. v. Commission on Elections,[37] the Court acknowledged the aforementioned provision as one of the legal remedies that may be availed of to disqualify a candidate in a local election filed any day after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy, but not later than the date of proclamation.[38] The pertinent ruling in the Jalosjos case is quoted as follows:What is indisputably clear is that false material representation of Jalosjos is a ground for a petition under Section 78. However, since the false material representation arises from a crime penalized by prision mayor, a petition under Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code or Section 40 of the Local Government Code can also be properly filed. The petitioner has a choice whether to anchor his petition on Section 12 or Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, or on Section 40 of the Local Government Code. The law expressly provides multiple remedies and the choice of which remedy to adopt belongs to petitioner.[39] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 206666 2015-01-21	ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
On January 24, 2013, Risos-Vidal, the petitioner in this case, filed a Petition for Disqualification against former President Estrada before the COMELEC. The petition was docketed as SPA No. 13-211 (DC). Risos-Vidal anchored her petition on the theory that "[Former President Estrada] is Disqualified to Run for Public Office because of his Conviction for Plunder by the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 26558 entitled 'People of the Philippines vs. Joseph Ejercito Estrada' Sentencing Him to Suffer the Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with Perpetual Absolute Disqualification."[11] She relied on Section 40 of the Local Government Code (LGC), in relation to Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), which state respectively, that:Sec. 40, Local Government Code:
	GR No. 206666 2015-01-21	ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
From the perspective of the RPC, it should be appreciated, as discussed above, that a conviction carries penalties with varying components. These are mainly the principal penalties and the accessory penalties.[76]
	GR No. 206666 2015-01-21	ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This court's 2012 decisions in Aratea v. COMELEC[252] and Dominador Jalosjos, Jr. v. COMELEC[253] ruled that a certificate of candidacy that was cancelled for being void ab initio, it having been filed by a candidate who falsely claimed that he was eligible, produces no effect, it "cannot give rise to a valid candidacy, and much less to valid votes."[254] Thus, the votes cast for the ineligible candidate should be considered "stray votes and should not be counted."[255]
	GR No. 207900 2014-04-22	MAYOR GAMAL S. HAYUDINI v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
On October 5, 2012, Hayudini filed his Certificate of Candidacy[4] (CoC) for the position of Municipal Mayor of South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi in the May 13, 2013 National and Local Elections held in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Ten days after, or on October 15, 2012, Mustapha J. Omar (Omar) filed a Petition to Deny Due Course or Cancel Hayudini's CoC, entitled Mustapha J. Omar v. Gamal S. Hayudini, docketed as SPA No. 13-106(DC)(F).[5] Omar basically asserted that Hayudini should be disqualified for making false representation regarding his residence. He claimed that Hayudini declared in his CoC that he is a resident of the Municipality of South Ubian when, in fact, he resides in Zamboanga City.
	GR No. 193314 2013-06-25	SVETLANA P. JALOSJOS v. COMELEC SERENO, C.J.
This Court has ruled in Aratea v. COMELEC[14] and Jalosjos, Jr. v. COMELEC[15] that the cancellation of the COC based on an ineligibility that existed at the time of its filing means that the candidate was never a valid candidate from the very beginning.[16]
	GR No. 207264 2013-06-25	REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES v. COMELEC PEREZ, J.
During the course of the proceedings, on 8 February 2013, respondent filed a "Manifestation with Motion to Admit Newly Discovered Evidence and Amended List of Exhibits"[11] consisting of, among others: (1) a copy of an article published on the internet on 8 January 2013 entitled "Seeking and Finding the Truth about Regina O. Reyes" with an Affidavit of Identification and Authenticity of Document executed by its author Eliseo J. Obligacion, which provides a database record of the Bureau of Immigration indicating that petitioner is an American citizen and a holder of a U.S. passport; (2) a Certification of Travel Records of petitioner, issued by Simeon Sanchez, Acting Chief, Verification and Certification Unit of the Bureau of Immigration which indicates that petitioner used a U.S. Passport in her various travels abroad.
	GR No. 205033 2013-06-18	ROMEO G. JALOSJOS v. COMELEC PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Meanwhile, five (5) petitions were lodged before the COMELEC's First and Second Divisions (COMELEC Divisions), praying for the denial of due course to and/or cancellation of petitioner's CoC. Pending resolution, the COMELEC En Banc issued motu proprio Resolution No. 9613[14] on January 15, 2013, resolving "to CANCEL and DENY due course the Certificate of Candidacy filed by Romeo G. Jalosjos as Mayor of Zamboanga City in the May 13, 2013 National and Local Elections" due to his perpetual absolute disqualification as well as his failure to comply with the voter registration requirement. As basis, the COMELEC En Banc relied on the Court's pronouncement in the consolidated cases of Dominador Jalosjos, Jr. v. COMELEC and Agapito Cardino v. COMELEC[15] (Jalosjos, Jr. and Cardino).
	GR No. 195649 2013-04-16	CASAN MACODE MAQUILING v. COMELEC SERENO, C.J.
We have ruled in the recent cases of Aratea v. COMELEC[54] and Jalosjos v. COMELEC[55] that a void COC cannot produce any legal effect. Thus, the votes cast in favor of the ineligible candidate are not considered at all in determining the winner of an election.
	GR No. 195649 2013-04-16	CASAN MACODE MAQUILING v. COMELEC SERENO, C.J.
I, Rommel Cagoco Arnado, solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.[6]

DOMINADOR G. JALOSJOS v. COMELEC