Alvear v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Consuelo Fa. Alvear filed her certificate of candidacy for senator on August 13, 1957. On September 30, 1957, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued a resolution requiring candidates, including petitioner, to submit no less than 140,000 copies of their certificates of candidacy for distribution and to defray the expenses, otherwise their candidacies would not be given due course. Procedural History: Petitioner protested the resolution on October 14, 1957, branding it arbitrary and beyond the COMELEC's power. The COMELEC denied the protest on October 20, 1957. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus, praying that the COMELEC's resolution be declared null and void and that her candidacy be given due course.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission on Elections has the discretion to require an excessive number of copies of a certificate of candidacy from a candidate for senator. Whether the Commission on Elections has the authority to impose conditions not provided by law for giving due course to a certificate of candidacy.
Ruling
The Supreme Court annulled the resolution of the Commission on Elections and made the writ of preliminary injunction permanent. It ordered the COMELEC to give due course to petitioner's candidacy.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Commission on Elections' discretion to require an excessive number of copies of a certificate of candidacy: The Court held that Section 36 of the Revised Election Code clearly provides that only ten copies of certificates of candidacy for senators need to be filed with the Commission on Elections. The preparation and distribution of copies to all election precincts throughout the Philippines is the express duty of the Commission itself, not a requirement imposed upon the candidate. The Court emphasized that this duty is ministerial and that the Commission has no discretion in this regard. To impose a requirement of 140,000 copies upon the candidate, especially when the reason given is the candidate's "first time" candidacy and lack of background knowledge, is erroneous and contrary to the clear mandate of the law. The Court reiterated its interpretation from a previous case that the Commission's duty to receive and give due course to certificates of candidacy is ministerial, and it would be a useless act to require filing if not to be given due course. On the issue of the Commission on Elections' authority to impose conditions not provided by law: The Court found that the COMELEC acted beyond its legal powers by imposing the condition of submitting an excessive number of copies and defraying associated expenses. The Revised Election Code does not grant the COMELEC such authority. The Court distinguished this case from Ciriaco S. Garcia vs. Imperial, where the COMELEC was upheld in refusing to give due course to a certificate of candidacy filed not in good faith but to prejudice another candidate. In the present case, there was no finding that petitioner's candidacy was filed in bad faith or for purposes other than to win the election. The COMELEC's concern for public funds is a policy matter for Congress to address through amendments to the law, not for the COMELEC to unilaterally impose through resolutions.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections has a ministerial duty to give due course to a certificate of candidacy, and it cannot impose additional requirements not provided by law, such as demanding an excessive number of copies for distribution, as this is the Commission's duty to prepare and distribute.