Miranda v. Abaya
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jose "Pempe" Miranda filed his certificate of candidacy (CoC) for Mayor of Santiago City. Private respondent Antonio M. Abaya filed a petition to deny due course to and/or cancel Jose "Pempe" Miranda's CoC (SPA No. 98-019), which was granted by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) on May 5, 1998, resulting in the disqualification of Jose "Pempe" Miranda. Subsequently, on May 6, 1998, petitioner Joel G. Miranda filed his CoC as a substitute for his father, Jose "Pempe" Miranda. Petitioner Joel G. Miranda garnered the highest number of votes in the May 11, 1998 elections and was proclaimed Mayor. Procedural History: Private respondent filed a petition to declare the substitution void (SPA No. 98-288), arguing that Joel G. Miranda's CoC was void ab initio because Jose "Pempe" Miranda's CoC had already been cancelled. The COMELEC's First Division dismissed this petition. However, the COMELEC En Banc, in a resolution dated December 8, 1998, reversed the First Division's dismissal, granted the motion for reconsideration, annulled Joel G. Miranda's election and proclamation, and directed the City Board of Canvassers to reconvene and proclaim the winning candidate. Petitioner Joel G. Miranda filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner sought to annul the COMELEC En Banc's resolution, arguing that the annulment of his substitution and proclamation was issued without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and that the directive to proclaim the private respondent was also issued with grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the annulment of petitioner's substitution and proclamation was issued without jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction; and whether the COMELEC acted correctly in denying due course to and cancelling Jose "Pempe" Miranda's CoC. Whether the order of the COMELEC directing the proclamation of the private respondent was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction; and the proper procedure for filling the vacancy given the disqualification of the winning candidate.
Ruling
The petition is partly DENIED, affirming the COMELEC's ruling to annul the election and proclamation of petitioner. The petition is GRANTED to MODIFY the COMELEC's resolution by DELETING the portion directing the city board of canvassers to reconvene and proclaim the winning candidate. The law on succession under the Local Government Code should be enforced.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, and the denial of due course to Jose "Pempe" Miranda's CoC: The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC acted within its jurisdiction and did not commit grave abuse of discretion in annulling the petitioner's substitution and proclamation. The COMELEC's resolution in SPA No. 98-288 was deemed correct. The Court ruled that Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code does not extend to cases where the CoC of the person to be substituted had been denied due course and cancelled under Section 78 of the Code. A CoC that has been denied due course and cancelled is considered void ab initio, rendering the individual not a candidate at all, and therefore, there is nothing to substitute. The Court found that the COMELEC's resolution in SPA No. 98-019, which granted the petition to deny due course to and/or cancel the CoC of Jose "Pempe" Miranda, was clear and unqualified. On the proclamation of the winning candidate and the proper procedure for filling the vacancy: The Court modified the COMELEC's directive to proclaim the winning candidate among those voted upon. Citing Nolasco vs. Commission on Elections and Reyes v. Comelec, the Court held that in cases where the winning candidate is disqualified, the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes cannot be automatically proclaimed winner. Instead, the law on succession under Section 44 of Republic Act 7160 (Local Government Code) should apply.
Main Doctrine
A candidate whose certificate of candidacy has been denied due course and cancelled cannot be substituted under Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code, as such denial and cancellation renders the individual not a candidate at all, and thus, there is nothing to substitute. The law on succession under the Local Government Code applies when the proclaimed winner is disqualified.