Santos v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Manuel I. Santos and private respondent Ricardo J. Rufino were candidates for Municipal Mayor of Taytay, Rizal in the January 30, 1980 elections. On January 14, 1980, a disqualification case based on turncoatism was filed against petitioner Santos. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued a resolution disqualifying petitioner Santos on January 19, 1980. Petitioner elevated this to the Supreme Court, which granted a restraining order to allow him to be voted for due to time constraints. On January 30, 1980, after the canvass, petitioner Santos was proclaimed Mayor having garnered the highest number of votes (15,463), with private respondent Rufino receiving 11,137 votes. Procedural History: Following petitioner's proclamation, private respondent filed a petition for "Recanvass, Annulment and/or Suspension of Proclamation" with the COMELEC, which was consolidated with the disqualification case. On March 31, 1981, the Supreme Court affirmed the disqualification of petitioner Santos and upheld the COMELEC's resolution. Private respondent then filed a motion for proclamation, arguing that petitioner, being disqualified, was a non-candidate and his votes should be disregarded. Petitioner opposed, citing doctrines that distinguished disqualification from withdrawal and argued that the doctrine relied upon by respondent had been abandoned. The COMELEC deferred action pending petitioner's motion for reconsideration. On October 15, 1981, the Supreme Court denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Subsequently, the COMELEC, in a resolution dated October 23, 1981, recalled the proclamation of petitioner Santos and proclaimed private respondent Rufino as the duly elected Mayor. Private respondent took his oath of office on October 27, 1981. The Petition: Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus, assailing the COMELEC's October 23, 1981 resolution for allegedly being issued without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner argued that the proclamation of Rufino was not an issue in the original pleadings and that COMELEC lacked the authority to proclaim Rufino in the context of the cases.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in recalling the proclamation of petitioner Santos and proclaiming private respondent Rufino as the duly elected Mayor of Taytay, Rizal. Whether votes cast for a disqualified candidate should be considered stray votes and not counted. Whether the COMELEC had the authority to proclaim the winning candidate after disqualifying one of the candidates.
Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in recalling the proclamation of petitioner Santos and proclaiming private respondent Rufino as the duly elected Mayor. Votes cast for a disqualified candidate are considered stray votes and shall not be counted. The COMELEC has the authority to proclaim the rightful winner after resolving a pre-proclamation controversy involving disqualification.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's alleged lack of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the petitioner's assertion of lack of jurisdiction was contradicted by the pleadings. Specifically, in PPC Case No. 379, private respondent Rufino expressly prayed for his proclamation as the duly elected Mayor. Furthermore, when the COMELEC disqualified petitioner Santos as a candidate, it became legally incumbent upon the COMELEC to proclaim the rightful winner, a function within its exclusive authority to enforce and administer election laws. The COMELEC's action in proclaiming private respondent Rufino was a compliance with its legal duty under the Constitution and election laws. The Court also noted that petitioner did not raise the issue of COMELEC's lack of jurisdiction in his opposition to Rufino's motion for proclamation, his opposition being centered on the pendency of his motion for reconsideration with the Supreme Court. On whether votes cast for a disqualified candidate should be considered stray votes: The Court held that votes cast for a disqualified candidate are considered stray votes and shall not be counted, as provided by Section 155 of the Election Code. A disqualified candidate is considered a non-candidate in the eyes of the law. Therefore, all votes garnered by petitioner Santos, having been legally disqualified, were correctly deemed stray votes and not counted. This principle was supported by the ruling in Ticzon vs. Comelec, where a disqualified candidate's votes were also treated as invalid. On the COMELEC's authority to proclaim the winning candidate: The Court affirmed that the COMELEC has the exclusive authority to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections. In this case, after disqualifying petitioner Santos and thus rendering him a non-candidate, it was within the COMELEC's power and duty to determine and proclaim the rightful winner of the election. The COMELEC's resolution recalling the proclamation of Santos and proclaiming Rufino was a necessary consequence of the final affirmation of Santos' disqualification, ensuring that the will of the electorate, as expressed through valid votes, was given effect. The Court emphasized that allowing the proclamation of a disqualified candidate would be contrary to the principles of speedy disposition of election controversies and the electorate's choice.
Main Doctrine
Votes cast for a disqualified candidate are considered stray votes and shall not be counted, and the candidate who obtained the second highest number of valid votes should be proclaimed as the winner.