Limbona v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Norlainie Mitmug Limbona, her husband Mohammad G. Limbona, and respondent Malik "Bobby" T. Alingan were candidates for mayor in Pantar, Lanao del Norte, during the 2007 Synchronized National and Local Elections. Alingan filed petitions to disqualify both Mohammad and Norlainie, alleging they failed to meet the one-year residency requirement for the position. Procedural History: Initially, Norlainie withdrew her certificate of candidacy, which the Commission on Elections (Comelec) approved. Subsequently, Mohammad was disqualified by the Comelec, leading Norlainie to file a new certificate of candidacy as a substitute. Alingan then filed a second disqualification petition against Norlainie. Despite Norlainie winning the election, the Comelec disqualified her, citing lack of residency, not being a registered voter, and the nullity of her certificate of candidacy. The Comelec later denied her motion for reconsideration. The Petition: This petition for certiorari seeks to nullify the Comelec's resolutions disqualifying Norlainie. The petitioner argues that the Comelec gravely abused its discretion by proceeding with the disqualification case after her initial certificate of candidacy was withdrawn and her substitute certificate was given due course. The petition also challenges the Comelec's findings regarding her residency and the validity of her substitute candidacy.
Issue(s)
Whether the withdrawal of petitioner's certificate of candidacy rendered the disqualification case moot. Whether the Comelec gravely abused its discretion in proceeding with the disqualification case despite the approval of petitioner's withdrawal of certificate of candidacy and the subsequent approval of her substitute certificate of candidacy. Whether petitioner satisfied the one-year residency requirement for the position of mayor of Pantar, Lanao del Norte.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The September 4, 2007 Resolution of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) in SPA Case No. 07-611 disqualifying petitioner Norlainie Mitmug Limbona from running for office of the Mayor of Pantar, Lanao del Norte, and the January 9, 2008 Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, are affirmed. In view of the permanent vacancy in the Office of the Mayor, the proclaimed Vice-Mayor shall succeed as Mayor. The temporary restraining order issued on January 29, 2008 is ordered lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of mootness due to withdrawal of certificate of candidacy: The withdrawal of a certificate of candidacy does not render the certificate void ab initio. Once filed, the permanent legal effects produced by the certificate remain even if it is subsequently withdrawn. Section 73 of the Omnibus Election Code explicitly states that the filing or withdrawal of a certificate of candidacy shall not affect whatever civil, criminal, or administrative liabilities a candidate may have incurred. Therefore, the Comelec did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it ruled on the merits of the petition despite the withdrawal of petitioner's certificate of candidacy, as the proceedings had already been set in motion. A case only becomes moot when there is no longer an actual controversy or a useful purpose in passing upon the merits. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion regarding the approval of the substitute candidacy and the Comelec's authority to decide disqualification cases after the election: The fact that petitioner's certificate of candidacy as a substitute candidate was given due course by the Comelec did not bar the Comelec from deciding on her qualifications. The resolution giving due course to a substitute candidacy only signifies that the certificate was accomplished in form and substance and would not cause confusion among voters; it does not pass upon the issue of disqualification. The bases for giving due course to a certificate of candidacy are distinct from those for determining disqualification. Thus, the Comelec correctly proceeded to resolve the disqualification case. Furthermore, the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 (R.A. No. 6646) authorizes the Comelec to try and decide petitions for disqualifications even after the elections. Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646 provides that if a candidate is not declared disqualified by final judgment before an election and receives the winning votes, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, and may order the suspension of proclamation if the evidence of guilt is strong. Therefore, the Comelec did not err when it continued with the trial and hearing of the petition for disqualification. On the issue of residency requirement: The Comelec correctly found that petitioner failed to satisfy the one-year residency requirement. For election law purposes, "residence" is synonymous with "domicile," which requires not only intention to reside but also personal presence and conduct indicative of such intention. The law aims to prevent strangers from holding office. Acquiring a domicile by choice requires residence in the new locality, an intention to remain, and an intention to abandon the old domicile. Petitioner's claim of residing in Pantar for 20 months was unsubstantiated self-serving affidavits, lacking independent and competent corroboration. The filing of a certificate of candidacy alone is insufficient to establish residence. The Comelec found petitioner's domicile of origin to be Maguing, Lanao del Norte, and her domicile by operation of law (due to marriage) to be Rapasun, Marawi City. Her husband only changed his domicile to Pantar on November 11, 2006. Presuming spouses live together, petitioner's domicile change would also be on November 11, 2006. Articles 68 and 69 of the Family Code oblige spouses to live together and fix a family domicile. Without evidence of a separate residence or valid exemption, reliance on these provisions is proper. Thus, for failing to comply with the residency requirement, petitioner is disqualified.
Main Doctrine
The withdrawal of a certificate of candidacy does not render the proceedings moot, as the filing of the certificate produces legal effects that remain even after withdrawal. Furthermore, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) may continue to decide disqualification cases even after an election if the candidate is not yet declared disqualified by final judgment.