Saya-ang v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Eduardo T. Saya-ang, Sr. and Ricardo T. Lara were candidates for Barangay Captain. On July 15, 2002, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc, through Resolution No. 5393, denied due course to their certificates of candidacy, recommending their names be deleted from the list of candidates. Despite this, petitioners were proclaimed winners on July 16, 2002, and took their oaths of office on July 31, 2002. Procedural History: On August 9, 2002, a COMELEC memorandum directed election officers to delete names of candidates whose certificates of candidacy were denied due course, even if the denial was not timely received, and to order such candidates to desist from taking their oaths unless restrained by the Supreme Court. COMELEC en banc Resolution No. 5584 was issued on August 10, 2002, and later amended by Resolution No. 5666 on August 21, 2002. Resolution No. 5666 declared that the proclamation of a disqualified candidate is void from the beginning if the disqualification is subsequently resolved against them, even if the dispositive portion of the denial resolution does not explicitly state annulment. Acting on these resolutions, the Acting Election Officer issued a directive on September 4, 2002, ordering the Board of Canvassers to reconvene and proclaim the duly elected candidates and correct the certificates of canvass and proclamation. The Petition: Petitioners filed the instant petition assailing COMELEC en banc Resolution No. 5393, arguing it was erroneous, without basis in fact and law, and issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC en banc Resolution No. 5393, promulgated on July 15, 2002, denying due course to the certificates of candidacy of petitioners, is erroneous and issued with grave abuse of discretion; and whether the COMELEC had jurisdiction and its resolution was final. Whether the proclamation of petitioners as winners, despite the denial of due course to their certificates of candidacy, is void from the beginning; and the effect of subsequent resolutions. Whether petitioners were denied due process by the COMELEC; and the importance of the will of the electorate.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. COMELEC en banc Resolution No. 5393 is SET ASIDE.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's Jurisdiction and the Finality of its Resolution: The COMELEC has jurisdiction to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy, which jurisdiction continues even after the elections if no final judgment of disqualification was rendered before the elections, provided the candidate has not been proclaimed or taken their oath. Decisions on petitions to deny due course become final and executory five days after promulgation, unless restrained by the Supreme Court. In this case, Resolution No. 5393 was promulgated on July 15, 2002, the day of the elections. Petitioners still had until June 20, 2002, to file a motion for reconsideration, meaning the COMELEC's decision had not yet become final and executory. Therefore, the Barangay Board of Canvassers correctly retained petitioners' names and proclaimed them as winners on July 16, 2002, as they were still considered in the running at that time. On the Validity of Proclamation and the Effect of Subsequent Resolutions: COMELEC Resolution No. 5666 declared that the proclamation of a disqualified candidate is void from the beginning if the disqualification is subsequently resolved against them, even if the dispositive portion of the denial resolution does not explicitly state such annulment. This principle, when applied to the facts, means that the subsequent resolutions of the COMELEC, which declared the proclamation void, could be invoked. However, the Court found that the initial denial of due course was flawed due to lack of due process. On Due Process and the Will of the Electorate: Petitioners claim they were not served a copy of the assailed Resolution and were not given a chance to present evidence, only learning about it on August 19, 2002. The COMELEC's argument of constructive notice through the publication of Resolution No. 4801 was rejected. The Court emphasized that COMELEC Rules of Procedure require summary hearings after due notice for petitions to cancel a certificate of candidacy. The essence of procedural due process is notice and a real opportunity to be heard. Petitioners were not informed of the inquiry, nor were they called upon to present their evidence, thus violating their right to due process. The Court reiterated the principle that defects in certificates of candidacy should be questioned before the election. Mandatory provisions requiring steps before elections are construed as directory after the elections to give effect to the will of the electorate. The Court cited Lambonao v. Tero and Lino Luna v. Rodriguez, stating that election laws are meant to assist voters, not defeat their will. Nullifying ballots due to the failure of election officers to perform their duties would defeat the object of elections. Since petitioners had already been proclaimed winners and had taken their oaths of office, their proclaimed status should be respected, especially given the procedural infirmities in the COMELEC's actions.
Main Doctrine
A proclamation of a candidate whose certificate of candidacy was denied due course is void from the beginning, even if the dispositive portion of the denial resolution does not explicitly state such annulment, provided the denial is subsequently resolved against the candidate and they have not yet taken their oath of office. Furthermore, the COMELEC's power to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy must be exercised with due process, requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard.