ChanRobles Virtual law Library
PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
ON-LINE
Sponsored by: The ChanRobles LawNet
Search www.chanrobles.com
.
Republic of the
Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
PETRONILA S.
RULLODA,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
154198
January 20, 2003
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS
(COMELEC), ELECTION OFFICER
LUDIVICO L. ASUNCION
OF SAN JACINTO, PANGASINAN;
BARANGAY BOARD OF
CANVASSERS OF BRGY. STO. TOMAS,
SAN JACINTO,
PANGASINAN,
BOARD OF ELECTION TELLERS OF
PRECINCT NOS.
30A/30A1,
31A, 31A1, AND 32A1, AND REMEGIO PLACIDO,
Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
chan
robles virtual law library
In the barangay elections
of July 15, 2002, Romeo N. Rulloda and Remegio L. Placido were the
contending
candidates for Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas, San Jacinto,
Pangasinan.
On June 22, 2002, Romeo suffered a heart attack and passed away at the
Mandaluyong City Medical Center.[1]chan
robles virtual law library
chan
robles virtual law library
His widow, petitioner
Petronila "Betty" Rulloda, wrote a letter to the Commission on
Elections
on June 25, 2002 seeking permission to run as candidate for Barangay
Chairman
of Sto. Tomas in lieu of her late husband.[2]
Petitioner’s request was supported by the Appeal-Petition containing
several
signatures of people purporting to be members of the electorate of
Barangay
Sto. Tomas.[3]chan
robles virtual law library
chan
robles virtual law library
On July 14, 2002,
Election
Officer Ludivico L. Asuncion issued a directive to the Chairman and
Members
of the Barangay Board of Canvassers of Sto. Tomas as follows:chan
robles virtual law library
chan
robles virtual law library
Just in case the names
"BETTY" or "PETRONILA" or the surname "RULLODA" is written on the
ballot,
read the same as it is written but add the words "NOT COUNTED" like
"BETTY
NOT COUNTED" or "RULLODA NOT COUNTED."[4]chan
robles virtual law library
chan
robles virtual law library
Based on the tally
of petitioner’s watchers who were allowed to witness the canvass of
votes
during the July 15, 2002 elections, petitioner garnered 516 votes while
respondent Remegio Placido received 290 votes.[5]
Despite this, the Board of Canvassers proclaimed Placido as the
Barangay
Chairman of Sto. Tomas.[6]
chan
robles virtual law library
After the elections,
petitioner learned that the COMELEC, acting on the separate requests of
Andres Perez Manalaysay and Petronila Rulloda to be substituted as
candidates
for Barangay Chairman of Barangay La Fuente, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija and
Barangay Sto. Tomas, San Jacinto, Pangasinan, respectively, issued
Resolution
No. 5217 dated July 13, 2002 which states:chan
robles virtual law library
chan
robles virtual law library
PREMISES CONSIDERED,
the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to ADOPT the
recommendation
of the Law Department as follows:
chan
robles virtual law library
1. To
deny due course the Certificates of Candidacy of ANDRES PEREZ
MANALAYSAY
and PETRONILA S. RULLODA; andchan
robles virtual law library
chan
robles virtual law library
2. To
direct the Election Officer of Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija and San Jacinto,
Pangasinan to delete the name of ANDRES PEREZ MANALAYSAY, candidate for
Barangay Chairman in Barangay La Fuente, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija; and
the
name of PETRONILA S. RULLODA, candidate for Barangay Captain in
Barangay
Sto. Tomas, San Jacinto, Pangasinan.chan
robles virtual law library
chan
robles virtual law library
Let the Law Department
implement this resolution.chan
robles virtual law library
chan
robles virtual law library
SO ORDERED.[7]chan
robles virtual law library
chan
robles virtual law library
The above-quoted
Resolution
cited as authority the COMELEC’s Resolution No. 4801 dated May 23,
2002,
setting forth the guidelines on the filing of certificates of candidacy
in connection with the July 15, 2002 synchronized Barangay and
Sangguniang
Kabataan elections, more particularly Section 9 thereof which reads:
chan
robles virtual law library
Sec. 9. Substitution
of candidates. - There shall be no substitution of candidates for
barangay
and sangguniang kabataan officials.[8]
chan
robles virtual law library
Hence, petitioner filed
the instant petition for certiorari, seeking to annul Section 9 of
Resolution
No. 4801 and Resolution No. 5217, both of the COMELEC, insofar as they
prohibited petitioner from running as substitute candidate in lieu of
her
deceased husband; to nullify the proclamation of respondent; and to
proclaim
her as the duly elected Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas, San Jacinto,
Pangasinan.chan
robles virtual law library
chan
robles virtual law library
Private respondent
Remegio Placido filed his Comment, arguing that since the barangay
election
is non-partisan, substitution of candidates is not allowed. Moreover,
petitioner
did not file any certificate of candidacy; hence, there was only one
candidate
for Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas, namely, respondent Placido.[9]
chan
robles virtual law library
Public respondent
COMELEC
also filed its Comment. It contends that its Resolution No. 4801 was
issued
not pursuant to its quasi-judicial functions but as an incident of its
inherent administrative functions over the conduct of the barangay
elections.
Therefore, the same may not be the subject of review in a petition for
certiorari. Further, the COMELEC alleges that it did not commit grave
abuse
of discretion in denying due course to petitioner’s certificate of
candidacy
and in proclaiming respondent considering that he was the only
candidate
for Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas.[10]chan
robles virtual law library
chan
robles virtual law library
We find merit in the
petition.chan
robles virtual law library
chan
robles virtual law library
At the outset, there
is no dispute that petitioner garnered 516 votes while respondent got
only
290 votes. Respondents did not deny this in their respective Comments.chan
robles virtual law library
chan
robles virtual law library
In our jurisdiction,
an election means the choice or selection of candidates to public
office
by popular vote through the use of the ballot, and the elected
officials
which are determined through the will of the electorate. An election is
the embodiment of the popular will, the expression of the sovereign
power
of the people. The winner is the candidate who has obtained a majority
or plurality of valid votes cast in the election. Sound policy dictates
that public elective offices are filled by those who receive the
highest
number of votes cast in the election for that office. For, in all
republican
forms of government the basic idea is that no one can be declared
elected
and no measure can be declared carried unless he or it receives a
majority
or plurality of the legal votes cast in the election.[11]
chan
robles virtual law library
Respondents base their
argument that the substitution of candidates is not allowed in barangay
elections on Section 77 of the Omnibus Elections Code, which states:
chan
robles virtual law library
Section 77. Candidates
in case of death, disqualification or withdrawal of another. - If after
the last day of the filing of certificates of candidacy, an official
candidate
of a registered or accredited political party dies, withdraws or is
disqualified
for any cause, only a person belonging to, and certified by the same
political
party may file a certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate who
died, withdrew or was disqualified. The substitute candidate nominated
by the political party concerned may file his certificate of candidacy
for the office affected in accordance with the preceding sections not
later
than mid-day of the election. If the death, withdrawal or
disqualification
should occur between the day before the election and mid-day of
election
day, said certificate may be filed with any board of election
inspectors
in the political subdivision where he is a candidate or, in the case of
candidates to be voted by the entire electorate of the country, with
the
Commission.
chan
robles virtual law library
Private respondent
argues that inasmuch as the barangay election is non-partisan, there
can
be no substitution because there is no political party from which to
designate
the substitute. Such an interpretation, aside from being non sequitur,
ignores the purpose of election laws which is to give effect to, rather
than frustrate, the will of the voters.[12]
It is a solemn duty to uphold the clear and unmistakable mandate of the
people. It is well-settled that in case of doubt, political laws must
be
so construed as to give life and spirit to the popular mandate freely
expressed
through the ballot.[13]chan
robles virtual law library
Contrary to respondent’s claim, the absence of a specific provision governing substitution of candidates in barangay elections can not be inferred as a prohibition against said substitution. Such a restrictive construction cannot be read into the law where the same is not written. Indeed, there is more reason to allow the substitution of candidates where no political parties are involved than when political considerations or party affiliations reign, a fact that must have been subsumed by law.chan robles virtual law library
Private respondent likewise contends that the votes in petitioner’s favor can not be counted because she did not file any certificate of candidacy. In other words, he was the only candidate for Barangay Chairman. His claim is refuted by the Memorandum of the COMELEC Law Department as well as the assailed Resolution No. 5217, wherein it indubitably appears that petitioner’s letter-request to be allowed to run as Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas in lieu of her late husband was treated as a certificate of candidacy.[14]chan robles virtual law library
To reiterate, it was petitioner who obtained the plurality of votes in the contested election. Technicalities and procedural niceties in election cases should not be made to stand in the way of the true will of the electorate. Laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical objections.[15]chan robles virtual law library
Election contests involve public interest, and technicalities and procedural barriers must yield if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the true will of the electorate in the choice of their elective officials. The Court frowns upon any interpretation of the law that would hinder in any way not only the free and intelligent casting of the votes in an election but also the correct ascertainment of the results.[16]chan robles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolution No. 5217 of the Commission on Elections, insofar as it denied due course to petitioner’s certificate of candidacy, is declared NULL and VOID. The proclamation of respondent Remegio L. Placido as Barangay Chairman of Sto. Tomas, San Jacinto, Pangasinan is SET ASIDE, and the Board of Canvassers of the said Barangay is ORDERED to proclaim petitioner as the duly elected Barangay Chairman thereof.chan robles virtual law library
SO ORDERED.chan robles virtual law library
Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug,
Mendoza, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona,
Carpio-Morales,
Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., and
Quisumbing,
JJ.,
in the result, pro hac vice only. Panganiban, J., in the
result.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 46.chan
robles virtual law library
[2]
Ibid., p. 47.chan
robles virtual law library
[3]
Ibid., pp. 49-64.chan
robles virtual law library
[4]
Ibid., p. 67.chan
robles virtual law library
[5]
Ibid., pp. 68-82.chan
robles virtual law library
[6]
Ibid., p. 83.chan
robles virtual law library
[7]
Ibid., pp. 42-43.chan
robles virtual law library
[8]
Ibid., pp. 33-39, at 38.chan
robles virtual law library
[9]
Ibid., pp. 122-125.chan
robles virtual law library
[10]
Ibid., pp. 133-137.chan
robles virtual law library
[11]
Carlos v. Angeles, 346 SCRA 571, 582 [2000].chan
robles virtual law library
[12]
Papandayan, Jr. v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 147909. April 16, 2002.chan
robles virtual law library
[13]
Bengson III v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, et al.,
Concurring
Opinion of Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, 357 SCRA 545, 566 [2001];
citing
Frivaldo v. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 727 [1996].
[14]
Rollo, pp. 40-43.chan
robles virtual law library
[15]
Carlos v. Angeles, supra., citing Benito v. COMELEC, 235 SCRA 436, 442
[1994].chan
robles virtual law library
[16]
O’Hara v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. Nos. 148941-42, March 12, 2002.chan
robles virtual law library
Back to Top - Back to Main Index - Back to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions - Back to Home
|