Aratea v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Romeo D. Lonzanida (Lonzanida) and Estela D. Antipolo (Antipolo) were candidates for Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales in the May 2010 elections. Dra. Sigrid S. Rodolfo filed a petition to disqualify Lonzanida and cancel his certificate of candidacy (COC) for violating the three-term limit rule. The COMELEC Second Division initially cancelled Lonzanida's COC on February 18, 2010. Lonzanida's motion for reconsideration was pending during the elections, where he and Efren Racel Aratea (Aratea) garnered the highest votes and were proclaimed Mayor and Vice-Mayor, respectively. Procedural History: Aratea assumed office as Acting Mayor and later sought DILG opinion on succession. DILG Opinion No. 117, S. 2010 stated Lonzanida was disqualified due to criminal conviction, creating a permanent vacancy. Aratea was allowed to take his oath as permanent Mayor, without prejudice to COMELEC rulings. On August 11, 2010, the COMELEC En Banc disqualified Lonzanida for violating the three-term limit and for conviction by final judgment for ten counts of falsification, with the Supreme Court decision becoming final on October 23, 2009, prior to Lonzanida filing his COC. Antipolo intervened, claiming her right to be proclaimed Mayor. Aratea argued Antipolo, as second placer, could not be proclaimed, and he, as Vice-Mayor, should succeed Lonzanida due to the permanent vacancy. The COMELEC En Banc, in an Order dated January 12, 2011, allowed Antipolo's intervention. Subsequently, in a Resolution dated February 2, 2011, the COMELEC En Banc declared Lonzanida's proclamation void, granted Antipolo's intervention, and ordered her proclamation as Mayor, directing Aratea to cease discharging mayoral functions and to turn over the office. The Petition: Aratea filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Supreme Court, asserting that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the January 12, 2011 Order and February 2, 2011 Resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether Lonzanida's certificate of candidacy was void ab initio due to false material representation regarding his eligibility. Whether Lonzanida's violation of the three-term limit rule and his conviction for falsification constitute grounds for cancellation of his certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. Whether the COMELEC has a legal duty to cancel the certificate of candidacy of a person suffering from perpetual special disqualification, even without a petition under Section 78. Whether the votes cast for Lonzanida should be considered stray votes, thereby making Antipolo, as the sole qualified candidate, the winner.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Resolution dated 2 February 2011 and the Order dated 12 January 2011 of the COMELEC En Banc in SPA No. 09-158 (DC) are AFFIRMED. The COMELEC En Banc is DIRECTED to constitute a Special Municipal Board of Canvassers to proclaim Estela D. Antipolo as the duly elected Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales. Petitioner Efren Racel Aratea is ORDERED to cease and desist from discharging the functions of the Office of the Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Lonzanida's certificate of candidacy was void ab initio due to false material representation regarding his eligibility: The Court held that Lonzanida's certificate of candidacy was void ab initio. Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code requires a candidate to certify under oath that he is eligible for the office sought. Lonzanida, having been elected and served as Mayor for more than three consecutive terms, was ineligible to run again. Furthermore, his conviction by final judgment for falsification, carrying the accessory penalty of perpetual special disqualification, rendered him perpetually ineligible to hold or run for any elective public office. This disqualification took effect before he filed his COC. By certifying his eligibility, Lonzanida made a false material representation, a ground for cancellation under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. On whether Lonzanida's violation of the three-term limit rule and his conviction for falsification constitute grounds for cancellation of his certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code: The Court clarified that while Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code enumerates specific election offenses for disqualification, Section 78 pertains to false material representations in the COC. The violation of the three-term limit rule and the conviction for falsification, which resulted in perpetual special disqualification, are ineligibilities affecting a candidate's qualification. Such ineligibilities, when falsely represented as non-existent in the COC, fall squarely under Section 78. The Court distinguished this from Section 68, which deals with specific prohibited acts and foreign residency status. On whether the COMELEC has a legal duty to cancel the certificate of candidacy of a person suffering from perpetual special disqualification, even without a petition under Section 78: The Court affirmed that the COMELEC has a legal duty to cancel the COC of anyone suffering from perpetual special disqualification, even without a Section 78 petition. The final judgment of conviction serves as judicial notice to the COMELEC of the convict's disqualification. The Constitution mandates the COMELEC to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to elections, and implementing such disqualifications is part of this duty. On whether the votes cast for Lonzanida should be considered stray votes, thereby making Antipolo, as the sole qualified candidate, the winner: The Court ruled that since Lonzanida's COC was void ab initio, he was never a candidate. Consequently, all votes cast for him were considered stray votes. As Antipolo was the only qualified candidate for Mayor and received the highest number of votes among qualified candidates, she was deemed to have garnered the highest number of votes and should be proclaimed the duly elected Mayor. This aligns with the principle that a void COC cannot give rise to valid candidacy or valid votes.
Main Doctrine
A candidate who is disqualified by final judgment due to a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, carrying the accessory penalty of perpetual special disqualification, makes a false material representation when certifying eligibility in his certificate of candidacy, rendering the certificate void ab initio. All votes cast for such a candidate are considered stray votes.