9/12/2016

GuerrerovsComelec:137004:July26,2000:J.Quisumbing:EnBanc

ENBANC
[G.R.No.137004.July26,2000]

ARNOLDV.GUERRERO,petitioner,vs.THECOMMISSIONONELECTIONS,
HON.MANUELB.VILLAR,JR.,astheSpeakeroftheHouseof
Representatives,11thCongress,HON.ROBERTOP.NAZARENO,asthe
SecretaryGeneraloftheHouseofRepresentatives,11thCongress,RODOLFO
C.FARIASandGUILLERMOR.RUIZ,respondents.
DECISION
QUISUMBING,J.:
BeforetheCourtisapetitionforcertiorari,prohibition,andmandamus,withprayerfora
temporaryrestrainingorderand/orpreliminaryinjunction,underRule65oftheRulesofCourt.
ItassailstheOrderoftheCommissiononElections,SecondDivision,datedMay10,1998,in
COMELECCaseNo.SPA98227,whichdismissedthepetitionfiledbyhereinrespondent
GuillermoC.RuiztodisqualifyrespondentRodolfoC.Fariasasacandidatefortheelective
officeofCongressmaninthefirstdistrictofIlocosNorteduringtheMay11,1998elections.It
alsoassailstheResolutiondatedMay16,1998,oftheCOMELECEnBanc,denyingthe
motionforreconsiderationfiledbyrespondentRuizanddismissingthepetitioninintervention
filedbyhereinpetitionerArnoldV.Guerrero.
IntheSecondDivisionoftheCOMELEC,Ruizsoughttoperpetuallydisqualifyrespondent
FariasasacandidateforthepositionofCongressman.[1]RuizallegedthatFariashadbeen
campaigningasacandidateforCongressmanintheMay11,1998polls,despitehisfailureto
fileaCertificateofCandidacyforsaidoffice.RuizaverredthatFariasfailuretofilesaid
CertificateviolatedSection73oftheOmnibusElectionCode[2]inrelationtoCOMELEC
ResolutionNo.2577,datedJanuary15,1998.RuizaskedtheCOMELECtodeclareFariasas
a"nuisancecandidate"pursuanttoSection69oftheOmnibusElectionCode[3]andto
disqualifyhimfromrunningintheMay11,1998elections,aswellasinallfuturepolls.
OnMay8,1998,FariasfiledhisCertificateofCandidacywiththeCOMELEC,substituting
candidateChevylleV.FariaswhowithdrewonApril3,1998.
OnMay9,1998,Ruizfiledan"UrgentExParteMotionToResolvePetition"withthe
COMELEC,attachingtheretoacopyoftheCertificateofCandidacyofFarias.
OnMay10,1998,theSecondDivisionoftheCOMELECdecidedCaseNo.SPA98227,
disposingasfollows:
"WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theCommission(SecondDivision)RESOLVESto
DISMISStheinstantpetitionforutterlackofmerit.
"SOORDERED."[4]
IndismissingRuizspetition,theSecondDivisionoftheCOMELECstated,"[T]hereisnone
(sic)intherecordstoconsiderrespondentanofficialcandidatetospeakofwithoutthefilingof
saidcertificate.Hence,thereisnocertificateofcandidacytobecancelled,consequently,no
candidatetobedisqualified."[5]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/137004.htm

1/5

9/12/2016

GuerrerovsComelec:137004:July26,2000:J.Quisumbing:EnBanc

OnMay11,1998,theelectionspushedthroughasscheduled.Thepostelectiontallyofvotes
inIlocosNorteshowedthatFariasgotatotalof56,369votesrepresentingthehighestnumber
ofvotesreceivedinthefirstdistrict.Fariaswasdulyproclaimedwinner.
OnMay16,1998,Ruizfiledamotionforreconsideration,contendingthatFariascouldnot
validlysubstituteforChevylleV.Farias,sincethelatterwasnottheofficialcandidateofthe
LakasngMakabayanMasangPilipino(LAMMP),butwasanindependentcandidate.Another
personcannotsubstituteforanindependentcandidate.Thus,Fariascertificateofcandidacy
claimingtobetheofficialcandidateofLAMMPinlieuofChevylleV.Fariaswasfatally
defective,accordingtoRuiz.
OnJune3,1998,FariastookhisoathofofficeasamemberoftheHouseofRepresentatives.
OnJune10,1998,petitionerhereinfiledhis"PetitionInIntervention"inCOMELECCaseNo.
SPA98227.PetitioneraverredthathewastheofficialcandidateoftheLiberalParty(LP)in
saidelectionsforCongressman,andstoodtobeadverselyaffectedbyCaseNo.SPA98227.
GuerrerocontendedthatFarias,havingfailedtofilehisCertificateofCandidacyonorbefore
thelastdaytherefor,beingmidnightofMarch27,1998,Fariasillegallyresortedtotheremedy
ofsubstitutionprovidedforunderSection77oftheOmnibusElectionCode[6]andthus,Farias
disqualificationwasinorder.GuerrerothenaskedthatthepositionofRepresentativeofthefirst
districtofIlocosNortebedeclaredvacantandspecialelectionscalledfor,butdisallowingthe
candidacyofFarias.
OnJanuary6,1999,theCOMELECEnBancdismissedRuizsmotionforreconsiderationand
GuerrerospetitionininterventioninCaseNo.SPA98227.Thedecretalportionofits
Resolutionreads:
"PRESCINDINGFROMTHEFOREGOINGPREMISES,thisCommission(EnBanc)
RESOLVED,asitherebyRESOLVES,toAFFIRMtheOrderoftheCommission(Second
Division)andthereafter,DISMISSthisinstantmotionforreconsiderationforlackof
jurisdiction(italicsintheoriginal)withoutprejudicetothefilingofaquowarrantocase,if
hesodesires.
"SOORDERED."[7]
Hence,theinstantpetition,anchoredonthefollowinggrounds:
A.....THERESPONDENTCOMELECGRAVELYABUSEDITSDISCRETIONANDACTEDIN
EXCESSAND/ORWITHOUTJURISDICTIONINREFUSINGTORULEONTHEVALIDITY
ORINVALIDITYOFTHECANDIDACYORPURPORTEDCERTIFICATEOFCANDIDACYOF
PRIVATERESPONDENTFARIAS.
B.....THERESPONDENTCOMELECGRAVELYABUSEDITSDISCRETIONANDACTEDIN
EXCESSAND/ORWITHOUTJURISDICTIONINTOSSINGTHEDUTYTORULEONTHE
VALIDITYORINVALIDITYOFTHECANDIDACYORPURPORTEDCERTIFICATEOF
CANDIDACYOFPRIVATERESPONDENTFARIASTOTHEHOUSEOF
REPRESENTATIVESELECTORALTRIBUNAL(HRET)CONSIDERINGTHATTHELATTER
(HRET)OBVIOUSLYLACKSJURISDICTIONTORULEONTHEISSUETHEREBYUNDULY
CREATINGAVACUUMANDRENDERINGPETITIONERWITHOUTAREMEDY.
C.....THERESPONDENTCOMELECGRAVELYABUSEDITSDISCRETIONANDACTEDIN
EXCESSAND/ORWITHOUTJURISDICTIONINNOTRENDERINGARULING,BASEDON
THEFACTSASSTATEDINITSASSAILEDRESOLUTIONDATEDJANUARY6,1999(Annex
"B"hereof)DISQUALIFYINGPRIVATERESPONDENTFARIASASACANDIDATEFOR
CONGRESSMANOFTHEFIRSTLEGISLATIVEDISTRICTOFILOCOSNORTEDURING
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/137004.htm

2/5

9/12/2016

GuerrerovsComelec:137004:July26,2000:J.Quisumbing:EnBanc

THEMAY11,1998ELECTIONS,PREMISEDONITSFINDINGSTHAT"THEREISNONEIN
THERECORDSTOCONSIDERRESPONDENT(FARIAS)ANOFFICIALCANDIDATETO
SPEAKOFWITHOUTTHEFILINGOFSAIDCERTIFICATE,HENCE,THEREISNO
CERTIFICATEOFCANDIDACYTOBECANCELLED,CONSEQUENTLY,NOCANDIDATETO
BEDISQUALIFIED."
D.....THERESPONDENTCOMELECGRAVELYABUSEDITSDISCRETIONANDACTEDIN
EXCESSAND/ORWITHOUTJURISDICTIONINNOTCALLINGASPECIALELECTIONTO
FILLUPTHEVACANTPOSITIONOFCONGRESSMANOFTHEFIRSTLEGISLATIVE
DISTRICTOFILOCOSNORTEDUETOTHEDISQUALIFICATIONOFRESPONDENT
FARIASASACANDIDATETHERETOANDWHOAPPEARSTOHAVEOBTAINEDTHE
HIGHESTNUMBEROFVOTESCASTINTHEMAY11,1998ELECTIONS.
Wefindpertinentforourresolutionthisissue:
DidtheCOMELECcommitgraveabuseofdiscretioninholdingthatthedeterminationofthe
validityofthecertificateofcandidacyofrespondentFariasisalreadywithintheexclusive
jurisdictionoftheElectoralTribunaloftheHouseofRepresentatives?
Initsassailedresolution,theCOMELEChadnotedthatrespondentFariashadtakenhisoath
andassumedofficeasaMemberofthe11thCongressandbyexpressmandateofthe
Constitution,[8]ithadlostjurisdictionoverthecase.
PetitionerGuerreroarguesthattherefusaloftheCOMELECtoruleonthevalidityorinvalidity
ofthecertificateofcandidacyofFariasamountedtograveabuseofdiscretiononitspart.He
claimsthatCOMELECfailedinitsConstitutionaldutytoupholdandenforcealllawsrelativeto
elections.[9]HereliesonGallardov.JudgeTabamo,Jr.,218SCRA253(1993),whichreiterated
thedoctrinelaiddowninZaldivarv.Estenzo,23SCRA533(1968),thattheCOMELEChas
exclusivechargeoftheenforcementandadministrationofalllawsrelativetotheconductofan
electoralexercise.
Aspecialcivilactionforcertiorarimaybeavailedofwhenthetribunal,board,orofficer
exercisingjudicialorquasijudicialfunctionshasactedwithoutorinexcessofjurisdictionand
thereisnoappealoranyplain,speedy,andadequateremedyintheordinarycourseoflawfor
thepurposeofannullingtheproceeding.[10]Itistheproperremedytoquestionanyfinalorder,
rulinganddecisionoftheCOMELECrenderedintheexerciseofitsadjudicatoryorquasi
judicialpowers.[11]Butforanactionforcertioraritoprosper,theremustbeashowingthatthe
COMELECactedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion.Thismeanssuchcapriciousandwhimsical
exerciseofjudgmentasisequivalenttolackofjurisdictionorexcessthereof,aswherethe
powerisexercisedinanarbitraryanddespoticmannerbyreasonofpassionorpersonal
hostility,anditmustbesopatentastoamounttoanevasionofpositivedutyoravirtualrefusal
toperformthedutyenjoinedbylaw.[12]
Inthepresentcase,wefindnograveabuseofdiscretiononthepartoftheCOMELECwhenit
heldthatitsjurisdictionoverCaseNo.SPA98277hadceasedwiththeassumptionofofficeof
respondentFariasasRepresentativeforthefirstdistrictofIlocosNorte.WhiletheCOMELEC
isvestedwiththepowertodeclarevalidorinvalidacertificateofcandidacy,itsrefusalto
exercisethatpowerfollowingtheproclamationandassumptionofthepositionbyFariasisa
recognitionofthejurisdictionalboundariesseparatingtheCOMELECandtheElectoralTribunal
oftheHouseofRepresentatives(HRET).UnderArticleVI,Section17oftheConstitution,the
HREThassoleandexclusivejurisdictionoverallcontestsrelativetotheelection,returns,and
qualificationsofmembersoftheHouseofRepresentatives.Thus,onceawinningcandidate
hasbeenproclaimed,takenhisoath,andassumedofficeasamemberoftheHouseof
Representatives,COMELECsjurisdictionoverelectioncontestsrelatingtohiselection,returns,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/137004.htm

3/5

9/12/2016

GuerrerovsComelec:137004:July26,2000:J.Quisumbing:EnBanc

andqualificationsends,andtheHRETsownjurisdictionbegins.[13]Thus,theCOMELECs
decisiontodiscontinueexercisingjurisdictionoverthecaseisjustifiable,indeferencetothe
HRETsownjurisdictionandfunctions.
However,petitionercontendsthatthejurisdictionoftheHRETasdefinedunderArticleVI,
Section17oftheConstitutionislimitedonlytothequalificationsprescribedunderArticleVI,
Section6oftheConstitution.[14]Consequently,heclaimsthatanyissuewhichdoesnotinvolve
theseconstitutionalqualificationsisbeyondtherealmoftheHRET.Thefilingofacertificateof
candidacybeingastatutoryqualificationundertheOmnibusElectionCodeisoutsidethepale
oftheHRET,accordingtohim.
Thiscontentionlackscogencyandisfarfrompersuasive.ArticleVI,Section17ofthe
Constitutioncannotbecircumscribedlexically.Theword"qualifications"cannotbereadas
qualifiedbytheterm"constitutional."Ubilexnondistinguitnocnosdistinguiredebemos.Basic
istheruleinstatutoryconstructionthatwherethelawdoesnotdistinguish,thecourtsshould
notdistinguish.[15]Thereshouldbenodistinctionintheapplicationofalawwherenoneis
indicated.Forfirstly,thedraftersofthefundamentallaw,inmakingnoqualificationintheuseof
ageneralwordorexpression,musthaveintendednodistinctionatall.Secondly,thecourts
couldonlydistinguishwheretherearefactsorcircumstancesshowingthatthelawgiver
intendedadistinctionorqualification.Insuchacase,thecourtswouldmerelygiveeffecttothe
lawgiversintent.[16]
PetitionerfurtherarguesthattheHRETassumesjurisdictiononlyifthereisavalid
proclamationofthewinningcandidate.Hecontendsthatifacandidatefailstosatisfythe
statutoryrequirementstoqualifyhimasacandidate,hissubsequentproclamationisvoidab
initio.Wheretheproclamationisnullandvoid,thereisnoproclamationatallandthemere
assumptionofofficebytheproclaimedcandidatedoesnotdeprivetheCOMELECatallofits
powertodeclaresuchnullity,accordingtopetitioner.Butaswealreadyheld,inanelectoral
contestwherethevalidityoftheproclamationofawinningcandidatewhohastakenhisoathof
officeandassumedhispostasCongressmanisraised,thatissueisbestaddressedtothe
HRET.[17]Thereasonforthisrulingisselfevident,foritavoidsduplicityofproceedingsanda
clashofjurisdictionbetweenconstitutionalbodies,withdueregardtothepeoplesmandate.
WhetherrespondentFariasvalidlysubstitutedChevylleV.Fariasandwhetherrespondent
becamealegitimatecandidate,inourview,mustlikewisebeaddressedtothesoundjudgment
oftheElectoralTribunal.OnlythuscanwedemonstratefealtytotheConstitutionalprovision
thattheElectoralTribunalofeachHouseofCongressshallbethe"solejudgeofallcontests
relatingtotheelection,returns,andqualificationsoftheirrespectivemembers".[18]
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyDISMISSEDforlackofmerit.Costsagainstpetitioner.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,Bellosillo,Melo,Puno,Vitug,Kapunan,Mendoza,Panganiban,Purisima,
Pardo,Buena,GonzagaReyes,YnaresSantiago,andDeLeon,Jr.,JJ.,concur.

[1] Annex"C,"Rollo,pp.5158.
[2]

SEC.73.Certificateofcandidacy.Nopersonshallbeeligibleforanyelectivepublicofficeunlesshefilesasworncertificateof
candidacywithintheperiodfixedherein.
"Apersonwhohasfiledacertificateofcandidacymay,priortotheelection,withdrawthesamebysubmittingtotheofficeconcerned
awrittendeclarationunderoath.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/137004.htm

4/5

9/12/2016

GuerrerovsComelec:137004:July26,2000:J.Quisumbing:EnBanc

"Nopersonshallbeeligibleformorethanoneofficetobefilledinthesameelection,andifhefileshiscertificateofcandidacyfor
morethanoneoffice,heshallnotbeeligibleforanyofthem.However,beforetheexpirationoftheperiodforthefilingofcertificates
ofcandidacy,thepersonwhohasfiledmorethanonecertificateofcandidacymaydeclareunderoaththeofficeforwhichhedesires
tobeeligibleandcancelthecertificateofcandidacyfortheotherofficeoroffices.
"Thefilingorwithdrawalofcertificateofcandidacyshallnotaffectwhatevercivil,criminaloradministrativeliabilitieswhicha
candidatemayhaveincurred."
[3] "SEC.69.Nuisancecandidates.TheCommissionmay,motupropriooruponaverifiedpetitionofaninterestedparty,refuseto
giveduecoursetoorcancelacertificateofcandidacy,ifitisshownthatsaidcertificatehasbeenfiledtoputtheelectionprocessin
mockeryordisreputeorcauseconfusionamongthevotersbythesimilarityofthenamesoftheregisteredcandidatesorbyother
circumstancesoractswhichclearlydemonstratethatthecandidatehasnobonafideintentiontorunfortheofficeforwhichthe
certificateofcandidacyhasbeenfiledandthuspreventafaithfuldeterminationofthetruewilloftheelectorate."
[4] SupraNote1,at43.
[5] Id.at4243.
[6] SEC.77.Candidatesincaseofdeath,disqualificationorwithdrawalofanother.Ifafterthelastdayforthefilingofcertificatesof
candidacy,anofficialcandidateofaregisteredoraccreditedpoliticalpartydies,withdrawsorisdisqualifiedforanycause,onlya
personbelongingto,andcertifiedby,thesamepoliticalpartymayfileacertificateofcandidacytoreplacethecandidatewhodied,
withdreworwasdisqualified.Thesubstitutecandidatenominatedbythepoliticalpartyconcernedmayfilehiscertificateof
candidacyfortheofficeaffectedinaccordancewiththeprecedingsectionsnotlaterthanmiddayofthedayoftheelection.Ifthe
death,withdrawalordisqualificationshouldoccurbetweenthedaybeforetheelectionandmiddayofelectionday,saidcertificate
maybefiledwithanyboardofelectioninspectorsinthepoliticalsubdivisionwhereheisacandidate,or,inthecaseofcandidatesto
bevotedforbytheentireelectorateofthecountry,withtheCommission."
[7] Rollo,p.49.
[8] Art.VI,Sec.17provides:"TheSenateandtheHouseofRepresentativesshalleachhaveanElectoralTribunalwhichshallbethe
solejudgeofallcontestsrelatingtotheelection,returnsandqualificationsoftheirrespectiveMembers.EachElectoralTribunalshall
becomposedofnineMembers,threeofwhomshallbeJusticesoftheSupremeCourttobedesignatedbytheChiefJustice,andthe
remainingsixshallbeMembersoftheSenateortheHouseofRepresentatives,asthecasemaybe,whoshallbechosenonthebasisof
proportionalrepresentationfromthepoliticalpartiesandthepartiesororganizationsregisteredunderthepartylistsystem
representedtherein.TheseniorJusticeintheElectoralTribunalshallbeitsChairman."
[9]

"Art.IXC,Sec.2.TheCommissiononElectionsshallexercisethefollowingpowersandfunctions:

(1)Enforceandadministeralllawsandregulationsrelativetotheconductofanelection,plebiscite,initiative,referendum,andrecall.
xxx"
[10] Suntayv.CojuangcoSuntay,300SCRA760,766(1998)citingSempiov.CourtofAppeals,263SCRA617(1996).
[11] Loongv.CommissiononElections,305SCRA832,852(1999)citingFilipinasEngineeringandMachineShopv.Ferrer,135
SCRA25(1985)Reyesv.RegionalTrialCourtofOrientalMindoro,Br.XXXIX,244SCRA41,45(1995).
[12] Cuisonv.CourtofAppeals,289SCRA159,171(1998)citingEsguerrav.CourtofAppeals,267SCRA380(1997).
[13] Aquinov.CommissiononElections,248SCRA400,417418(1995)RomualdezMarcosv.CommissiononElections,248
SCRA300,340341(1995).
[14] Art.VI,Sec.6provides:"NopersonshallbeaMemberoftheHouseofRepresentativesunlessheisanaturalborncitizenofthe
Philippinesand,onthedayoftheelection,isatleasttwentyfiveyearsofage,abletoreadandwrite,and,exceptthepartylist
representatives,aregisteredvoterinthedistrictinwhichheshallbeelected,andaresidentthereofforaperiodofnotlessthanone
yearimmediatelyprecedingthedayoftheelection."
[15] Olfatov.CommissiononElections,103SCRA741,778(1981).
[16] SocialSecuritySystemv.CityofBacolod,115SCRA412,415(1982).
[17] Lazatinv.CommissiononElections,157SCRA337,338(1988).
[18] CONST.,Art.VI,Section17.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/137004.htm

5/5