Lawyerly

GR No. 211140

2016-01-12

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

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

On July 23, 2013, Reyes filed a Manifestation and Notice of Withdrawal of Petition "without waiver of her arguments, positions, defenses/causes of action as will be articulated in the HRET which is now the proper forum."[16]

GR No. 211140

2016-01-12

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

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Aratea v. Commission on Elections[71] qualified the second-placer rule. The candidate receiving the next highest number of votes would be entitled to the position if the Certificate of Candidacy of the candidate receiving the highest number of votes had been initially declared valid at the time of filing but had to be subsequently cancelled.[72] Additionally, if the Certificate of Candidacy of the candidate receiving the highest number of votes was void ab initio, the votes of the candidate should be considered stray and not counted.[73] This would entitle the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to the position. Thus: 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. 212426

2016-01-12

SAGUISAG v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OCHOA

SERENO, C.J.

The President also carries the mandate of being the sole organ in the conduct of foreign relations.[15] Since every state has the capacity to interact with and engage in relations with other sovereign states,[16] it is but logical that every state must vest in an agent the authority to represent its interests to those other sovereign states.

GR No. 206666

2015-01-21

ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

I also disregard outright, for lack of relevance, the cases that Lim cited regarding intervention. In his cited Maquiling v. COMELEC[46] and Aratea v. COMELEC[47] cases, the intervenors filed their intervention before the COMELEC and not before the Court. Thus, any reliance on these cases would be misplaced.

GR No. 206666

2015-01-21

ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Political rights, on the other hand, refer to the right to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or administration of government, the right of suffrage, the right to hold public office, the right of petition and, in general, the rights appurtenant to citizenship vis-a-vis the management of government.[74]

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.

Corollary thereto, the proclamation of respondent GAMAL S. HAYUDINI is hereby declared null and void and without any legal force and effect. SALMA A. OMAR is hereby proclaimed as the duly-elected Mayor for South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, being the qualified candidate obtaining the highest number of votes, considering the doctrine laid down by the case Aratea v. Comelec[13] that a cancelled CoC cannot give rise to a valid candidacy, and much less, to a valid vote, to wit:"Ergo, since respondent Lonzanida was never a candidate for the position of mayor [of] San Antonio, Zambales, the votes cast for him should be considered stray votes. Consequently, Intervenor Antipolo, who remains as the sole candidate for the mayoralty post and obtained the highest number of votes, should now be proclaimed as the duly-elected Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales.

GR No. 206698

2014-02-25

LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE v. COMELEC

PERALTA, J.

In Aratea v. Commission on Elections,[10] we proclaimed Estela D. Antipolo, the alleged second placer, as Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales, being the one who remained as the sole qualified candidate for the mayoralty post and obtained the highest number of votes, since the COC of Romeo D. Lonzanida, the first placer, was declared void ab initio. We find that violation of the three-term limit is an eligibility affecting the qualification of a candidate to elective office and the misrepresentation of such is a ground to grant the petition to deny due course or cancel a COC. We said that:Section 74 requires the candidate to certify that he is eligible for the public office he seeks election. Thus, Section 74 states that "the certificate of candidacy shall state that the person filing x x x is eligible for said office." The three-term limit rule, enacted to prevent the establishment of political dynasties and to enhance the electorate's freedom of choice, is found both in the Constitution and the law. After being elected and serving for three consecutive terms, an elective local official cannot seek immediate reelection for the same office in the next regular election because he is ineligible. One who has an ineligibility to run for elective public office is not "eligible for [the] office." As used in Section 74, the word "eligible" means having the right to run for elective public office, that is, having all the qualifications and none of the ineligibilities to run for the public office.[11]

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.

In her Answer, petitioner countered that, while she is publicly known to be the wife of Congressman Herminaldo I. Mandanas (Congressman Mandanas), there is no valid and binding marriage between them. According to petitioner, although her marriage with Congressman Mandanas was solemnized in a religious rite, it did not comply with certain formal requirements prescribed by the Family Code, rendering it void ab initio.[7] Consequently, petitioner argues that as she is not duty-bound to live with Congressman Mandanas, then his residence cannot be attributed to her.[8] As to her date of birth, the Certificate of Live Birth issued by the National Statistics Office shows that it was on 3 July 1964.[9] Lastly, petitioner notes that the allegation that she is a permanent resident and/or a citizen of the United States of America is not supported by evidence.[10]

GR No. 205033

2013-06-18

ROMEO G. JALOSJOS v. COMELEC

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

In Aratea v. COMELEC (Aratea),[18] the Court similarly pronounced that the disqualification of a convict to run for public office, as affirmed by final judgment of a competent court, is part of the enforcement and administration of all laws relating to the conduct of elections.[19]

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. 211140 2016-01-12	LORD ALLAN JAY Q. VELASCO v. SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
On July 23, 2013, Reyes filed a Manifestation and Notice of Withdrawal of Petition "without waiver of her arguments, positions, defenses/causes of action as will be articulated in the HRET which is now the proper forum."[16]
	GR No. 211140 2016-01-12	LORD ALLAN JAY Q. VELASCO v. SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Aratea v. Commission on Elections[71] qualified the second-placer rule. The candidate receiving the next highest number of votes would be entitled to the position if the Certificate of Candidacy of the candidate receiving the highest number of votes had been initially declared valid at the time of filing but had to be subsequently cancelled.[72] Additionally, if the Certificate of Candidacy of the candidate receiving the highest number of votes was void ab initio, the votes of the candidate should be considered stray and not counted.[73] This would entitle the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to the position. Thus: 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. 212426 2016-01-12	SAGUISAG v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OCHOA SERENO, C.J.
The President also carries the mandate of being the sole organ in the conduct of foreign relations.[15] Since every state has the capacity to interact with and engage in relations with other sovereign states,[16] it is but logical that every state must vest in an agent the authority to represent its interests to those other sovereign states.
	GR No. 206666 2015-01-21	ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
I also disregard outright, for lack of relevance, the cases that Lim cited regarding intervention. In his cited Maquiling v. COMELEC[46] and Aratea v. COMELEC[47] cases, the intervenors filed their intervention before the COMELEC and not before the Court. Thus, any reliance on these cases would be misplaced.
	GR No. 206666 2015-01-21	ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL v. COMELEC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Political rights, on the other hand, refer to the right to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or administration of government, the right of suffrage, the right to hold public office, the right of petition and, in general, the rights appurtenant to citizenship vis-a-vis the management of government.[74]
	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.
Corollary thereto, the proclamation of respondent GAMAL S. HAYUDINI is hereby declared null and void and without any legal force and effect. SALMA A. OMAR is hereby proclaimed as the duly-elected Mayor for South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, being the qualified candidate obtaining the highest number of votes, considering the doctrine laid down by the case Aratea v. Comelec[13] that a cancelled CoC cannot give rise to a valid candidacy, and much less, to a valid vote, to wit:"Ergo, since respondent Lonzanida was never a candidate for the position of mayor [of] San Antonio, Zambales, the votes cast for him should be considered stray votes. Consequently, Intervenor Antipolo, who remains as the sole candidate for the mayoralty post and obtained the highest number of votes, should now be proclaimed as the duly-elected Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales.
	GR No. 206698 2014-02-25	LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
In Aratea v. Commission on Elections,[10] we proclaimed Estela D. Antipolo, the alleged second placer, as Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales, being the one who remained as the sole qualified candidate for the mayoralty post and obtained the highest number of votes, since the COC of Romeo D. Lonzanida, the first placer, was declared void ab initio. We find that violation of the three-term limit is an eligibility affecting the qualification of a candidate to elective office and the misrepresentation of such is a ground to grant the petition to deny due course or cancel a COC. We said that:Section 74 requires the candidate to certify that he is eligible for the public office he seeks election. Thus, Section 74 states that "the certificate of candidacy shall state that the person filing x x x is eligible for said office." The three-term limit rule, enacted to prevent the establishment of political dynasties and to enhance the electorate's freedom of choice, is found both in the Constitution and the law. After being elected and serving for three consecutive terms, an elective local official cannot seek immediate reelection for the same office in the next regular election because he is ineligible. One who has an ineligibility to run for elective public office is not "eligible for [the] office." As used in Section 74, the word "eligible" means having the right to run for elective public office, that is, having all the qualifications and none of the ineligibilities to run for the public office.[11]
	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.
In her Answer, petitioner countered that, while she is publicly known to be the wife of Congressman Herminaldo I. Mandanas (Congressman Mandanas), there is no valid and binding marriage between them. According to petitioner, although her marriage with Congressman Mandanas was solemnized in a religious rite, it did not comply with certain formal requirements prescribed by the Family Code, rendering it void ab initio.[7] Consequently, petitioner argues that as she is not duty-bound to live with Congressman Mandanas, then his residence cannot be attributed to her.[8] As to her date of birth, the Certificate of Live Birth issued by the National Statistics Office shows that it was on 3 July 1964.[9] Lastly, petitioner notes that the allegation that she is a permanent resident and/or a citizen of the United States of America is not supported by evidence.[10]
	GR No. 205033 2013-06-18	ROMEO G. JALOSJOS v. COMELEC PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In Aratea v. COMELEC (Aratea),[18] the Court similarly pronounced that the disqualification of a convict to run for public office, as affirmed by final judgment of a competent court, is part of the enforcement and administration of all laws relating to the conduct of elections.[19]
	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.

EFREN RACEL ARATEA v. COMELEC