Dela Cruz v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Casimira S. Dela Cruz (Petitioner) was a three-term member of the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of Bugasong, Antique. In the May 2010 elections, she filed her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Vice-Mayor. Subsequently, Aurelio N. Dela Cruz (Aurelio), an unknown with no political experience and a poor showing in previous elections, filed a COC for the same position. Petitioner filed a petition to declare Aurelio a nuisance candidate, arguing his candidacy was intended to cause confusion due to their identical surnames. On January 29, 2010, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) First Division declared Aurelio a nuisance candidate and cancelled his COC. However, Aurelio's name remained on the official ballots. Procedural History: On May 1, 2010, the COMELEC En Banc issued Resolution No. 8844, which directed that votes for disqualified or nuisance candidates (including Aurelio) whose names remained on the ballot be considered 'stray.' During the May 10, 2010 elections, Petitioner garnered 6,389 votes, while private respondent John Lloyd M. Pacete (Pacete) garnered 6,428 votes. Aurelio received 532 votes. The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBOC) refused to credit Aurelio's votes to Petitioner, citing Resolution No. 8844, and proclaimed Pacete the winner by a margin of 39 votes. Petitioner filed an election protest and subsequently this petition for certiorari. The Petition: Petitioner argues that COMELEC Resolution No. 8844 is null and void for violating the equal protection clause and due process. She contends that there is no substantial distinction between manual and automated elections that justifies abandoning the rule in COMELEC Resolution No. 4116, which requires counting votes for a nuisance candidate in favor of the bona fide candidate when they share the same surname. She asserts that had the 532 votes for Aurelio been credited to her, she would have won with 6,921 votes.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution No. 8844, which considers votes for a nuisance candidate as stray in an automated election. Whether the rule in Resolution No. 4116 (crediting nuisance votes to the bona fide candidate) remains applicable despite the shift to the Automated Election System (AES).
Ruling
The petition is MERITORIOUS. COMELEC Resolution No. 8844 is declared NULL and VOID insofar as it orders that votes for nuisance candidates with cancelled Certificates of Candidacy be considered stray. Petitioner Casimira S. Dela Cruz is DECLARED the duly elected Vice-Mayor of Bugasong, Antique.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) committed grave abuse of discretion because Resolution No. 8844 contravened existing law and jurisprudence. The Court emphasized the critical distinction between a petition for 'disqualification' under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) and a petition to 'cancel or deny due course' to a Certificate of Candidacy (COC) under Section 69 (nuisance) or Section 78 (material misrepresentation). Under Section 72 and Section 211(24) of the OEC, only votes for candidates 'disqualified' by final judgment are considered stray. In contrast, a person whose COC is cancelled is not treated as a candidate at all, as if they never filed a COC. Therefore, the COMELEC erred in applying the 'stray vote' rule of disqualification cases to nuisance candidates whose COCs were cancelled. On Issue 2: The Court rejected the COMELEC's argument that the Automated Election System (AES) rendered the rule in Resolution No. 4116 obsolete. The COMELEC argued that because voters now shade ovals next to printed names rather than writing them, the risk of confusion is eliminated. However, the Court ruled that the primordial objective of election laws is to give effect to the will of the voter. Applying the precedents in Bautista v. COMELEC and Martinez III v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, the Court found that the confusion caused by similar surnames persists even in an automated system. Since the voters had constructive knowledge that Aurelio's candidacy was cancelled, it is logical to conclude that the votes cast for 'Dela Cruz, Aurelio' were intended for the only legitimate 'Dela Cruz' candidate, the Petitioner. The Court concluded that technicalities of a new voting system cannot be used to defeat the electorate's clear intent.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court ruled that the legal effect of declaring a candidate a 'nuisance' under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) is distinct from 'disqualification' under Section 68. While Section 72 and Section 211(24) of the OEC mandate that votes for 'disqualified' candidates be considered stray, these provisions do not apply to nuisance candidates whose Certificates of Candidacy (COC) are cancelled. In cases where a nuisance candidate shares a surname with a bona fide candidate, the votes cast for the former must be credited to the latter. This rule persists in the Automated Election System (AES) because the confusion intended by the nuisance candidate—thwarting the will of the electorate—remains a threat that the shading of ovals cannot entirely eliminate.