Ocampo v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Pablo V. Ocampo filed an electoral protest against private respondent Mario B. Crespo (a.k.a. Mark Jimenez) for the position of Representative of the 6th District of Manila in the May 14, 2001 elections. Private respondent was proclaimed the winner with 32,097 votes, a margin of 768 votes over petitioner who garnered 31,329 votes. Petitioner alleged grounds such as misreading of votes, falsification of election returns, substitution of election returns, use of spurious ballots, and ballots written by one or two persons. Procedural History: The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) limited the issues to vote-buying and whether petitioner could be proclaimed. Subsequently, in related cases (HRET Cases Nos. 01-020 and 01-023), the HRET declared private respondent ineligible for lack of residence and ordered him to vacate his office. Petitioner then moved to implement Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646, arguing that votes for private respondent should not be counted and that he, as the second placer, should be proclaimed. The HRET issued a Resolution finding private respondent guilty of vote-buying and disqualifying him, but ruled that petitioner, as a second placer, could not be proclaimed the winner, citing jurisprudence that a second placer cannot be proclaimed the first among remaining qualified candidates. The HRET also held that it was unnecessary to rule on the recount and revision of ballots. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the HRET in ruling that it was unnecessary to rule on the recount and revision of ballots and in not implementing Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646, which states that votes cast for a candidate declared disqualified by final judgment shall not be counted. Private respondent countered that the disqualification resolutions were rendered after the election and were not yet final. The HRET reiterated its ruling.
Issue(s)
Whether the votes cast in favor of private respondent should not be counted pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646. Whether petitioner, a second placer, can be proclaimed the duly elected Congressman of the 6th District of Manila.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolutions of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether votes cast for private respondent should not be counted pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646: The Court held that Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646 and Section 72 of the Omnibus Election Code require a final judgment before the election for the votes of a disqualified candidate to be considered stray. In this case, private respondent was declared disqualified almost twenty-two (22) months after the May 14, 2001 elections. Therefore, the requirement of a "final judgment before election" was absent, and petitioner could not invoke Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646. The Court emphasized that when people vote for a candidate not yet disqualified by final judgment, they do so bona fide, believing the candidate is qualified. To declare their votes stray retroactively would amount to disenfranchising the electorate. On the issue of whether petitioner, a second placer, can be proclaimed the duly elected Congressman: The Court reiterated the settled jurisprudence that the subsequent disqualification of a candidate who obtained the highest number of votes does not entitle the candidate who garnered the second highest number of votes to be declared the winner. This principle has been consistently upheld in numerous decisions, tracing back to a 1912 ruling. The Court explained that in congressional elections, unlike local government elections where a vice-mayor or vice-governor may succeed, there are no runners-up or second placers who can be proclaimed winner. If the winning candidate is disqualified, a permanent vacancy is created, and the only recourse is to hold another election to ascertain the new choice of the electorate. Proclaiming a second placer would be anathema to the precepts of republicanism and democracy, as it would disenfranchise the majority of the voters. The Court also noted that the Twelfth Congress had adjourned and a new representative had been elected for the subsequent term, rendering the petition moot and academic.
Main Doctrine
The subsequent disqualification of a candidate who obtained the highest number of votes does not entitle the second placer to be proclaimed the winner. Furthermore, for the votes cast for a disqualified candidate to be considered stray, the disqualification must have been declared by final judgment before the election.