ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 163650. June 15, 2004]
VILLANUEVA vs. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 15 2004 .
G.R. No. 163650 (Antonio D. Villanueva vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.)
Antonio D. Villanueva ("Villanueva") filed the present petition praying for the invalidation of the Certificate of Candidacy filed by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo ("President Arroyo") for the 10 May 2004 presidential elections. Villanueva questions the validity of President Arroyo's Community Tax Certificate and the due notarization of her Certificate of Candidacy, as well as the authenticity of President Arroyo's thumbmark and signature as affixed on her Certificate of Candidacy.
The petition is defective for failure to submit proof of service of the petition on the adverse party, as required by Rule 56, Section 2(c), Rule 46, Section 3, par. 3, in relation to Rule 56, Section 1, par. 1, and Rule 13, Section 13 of the Rules of Court. The procedural infirmity suffices to warrant dismissal of the petition.
Even if the procedural defect is cast aside and even assuming that any of the claim s asserted in the petition are true, not one of them constitute a proper ground for the cancellation of a Certificate of Candidacy under the governing statutory provision, Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. Section 78 provides that the petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy must be based exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained in the Certificate of Candidacy is false.1 The material misrepresentation adverted to in Section 78 refers to the qualifications for elective office.2 In his petition, Villanueva does not allege that President Arroyo made any false statement in her Certificate of Candidacy concerning her eligibility to run for the presidency.
Moreover, the petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy must be filed not later than twenty five (25) days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy.3 President Arroyo filed her Certificate of Candidacy before the Commission on Elections on 5 January 2004. Villanueva's petition was filed before this Court on 8 June 2004, one hundred forty two (142) days from the reckoning date, thus one hundred seventeen (117) days late.
Suffice it also to note in brief that the Court has no jurisdiction over Villanueva's petition, as the Court's exercise of original jurisdiction under Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution only pertains to the qualifications of the President or Vice-President, not to those of a presidential candidate.4 It is the COMELEC which has the original jurisdiction to determine whether a Certificate of Candidacy of a candidate for office should be cancelled.5 Since Congress had not yet proclaimed any winning candidate for president at the time of the filing of this petition, Villanueva's petition thus questions the qualifications of a presidential candidate, a matter over which this Court does not have original jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED.
Vitug and Corona, JJ., on official leave.
Ynares-Santiago, J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
1 See Section 78, Omnibus Election Code.
2 Salcedo II v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 135886, 16 August 1999, 312 SCRA 447,458.
3 See Section 78, Omnibus Election Code. See also Garvida v. Sales, 338 Phil. 484, 493-494 (1997).
4 Section 4, Article VII, Constitution. See also Tecson, et al. v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 161434, 161634, 161824, 3 March 2004, wherein the Court unanimously ruled as prematurely raised, the original petitions of M.J. Tecson and Z.A. Velez contesting the qualifications of presidential candidate R.K. Poe.
5 See Sections 2(1) and 2(3), Article IX-C, Constitution. See also Aquino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 20265, 18 September 1995; Domino v. COMELEC, 310 SCRA 546, 563 (1999). [T]he COMELEC has the original jurisdiction to determine in an appropriate proceeding whether a candidate for an elective office is eligible for the office for which he filed his certificate of candidacy or is disqualified to be a candidate or to continue such candidacy because of any of the recognized grounds for disqualification." C.J. Davide, concurring, Tecson, et al. v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 161434, 161634, 161824, 3 March 2004.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
