Jalosjos v. Commission on Elections
REVERSALFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Svetlana P. Jalosjos was proclaimed the winning candidate for Mayor of Baliangao, Misamis Occidental in the May 10, 2010 elections. Private respondents challenged her eligibility, alleging she did not meet the one-year residency requirement. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) cancelled her Certificate of Candidacy (COC). Procedural History: The Supreme Court previously issued a Status Quo Order. After the final determination of petitioner's ineligibility and the lifting of the Status Quo Order, the issue became who between the vice-mayor and the second placer should assume office. This Resolution addresses the motions for reconsideration filed by both petitioner and private respondents. The Petition: Petitioner argued that the Court erred in finding inconsistencies in her witnesses' affidavits, that her stay in Brgy. Punta Miray should be considered for residency, that her voter registration presupposed prior residency, that her COC should not be cancelled absent a finding of deliberate deception, and that COMELEC lost jurisdiction after her proclamation.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court erred in concluding that there are inconsistencies in the Joint Affidavit of the witnesses presented by petitioner. Whether petitioner's stay in Brgy. Punta Miray should be considered in determining the one-year residency requirement in the same municipality. Whether petitioner's registration as a voter presupposes she has stayed in the municipality at least six months prior to the registration. Whether petitioner's certificate of candidacy (COC) should be cancelled, absent any finding of a deliberate attempt to deceive the electorate. Whether COMELEC was ousted of its jurisdiction to decide on the question of the qualification of petitioner after she was proclaimed as winner.
Ruling
The Court denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration and granted the private respondents' motion for partial reconsideration. It declared Agne V. Yap, Sr. as the duly elected Mayor of the Municipality of Baliangao, Misamis Occidental. The resolution is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged inconsistencies in the Joint Affidavit: The Court found significant inconsistencies in the statements of petitioner's witnesses. While they claimed personal knowledge of petitioner's actual and physical residence in Brgy. Tugas since 2008, they also stated that construction of her residential house and resort infrastructure began in January 2009 and was still ongoing until December 2009. Furthermore, they mentioned that petitioner stayed at Mrs. Lourdes Yap's house in Brgy. Punta Miray while her own house was being constructed. These statements directly contradicted the claim of continuous residence in Brgy. Tugas since 2008, as the construction of her residential unit had not even commenced until 2009, and its completion date was not established. The Court emphasized that mere purchase of land does not establish residence, and a temporary stay in another's house does not constitute residence. On considering stay in Brgy. Punta Miray for residency: The Court clarified that petitioner's stay in Mrs. Yap's house in Brgy. Punta Miray was merely a temporary and intermittent stay, not amounting to residence. It was not petitioner's intention to reside in that barangay, but rather a place to stay while her residence in Brgy. Tugas was under construction. Therefore, this temporary stay could not be counted as residence in Baliangao for the purpose of meeting the one-year requirement prior to the elections. The Court distinguished this from cases where a more substantial basis for residence was presented, such as a notarized lease contract or evidence of cohabitation. On voter registration presupposing residency: The Court held that the approval of voter registration does not automatically presuppose that the registrant has met the six-month residency requirement for elections. Petitioner claimed six months of residency in Brgy. Tugas prior to her voter registration on May 7, 2009, which would require her to have resided there on or before November 8, 2008. However, the records showed she purchased property in Brgy. Tugas only in December 2008. Thus, her claim of prior residency was false, and the approval of her registration did not validate this falsehood or prove her eligibility for the one-year residency requirement for the COC. On cancellation of COC absent deliberate attempt to deceive: The Court ruled that a false material representation in a COC, such as failing to meet the required residency, constitutes a deliberate attempt to deceive the electorate. Petitioner's sworn declaration of eligibility in her COC was directly contradicted by her failure to prove the one-year residency requirement. This falsity justified the cancellation of her COC, as it was a "deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide the fact" of her ineligibility. On COMELEC's jurisdiction after proclamation: The Court affirmed that COMELEC is not divested of its jurisdiction to decide petitions for cancellation of COC even after the winner is proclaimed. Citing R.A. 6646, the Court explained that disqualification cases can continue after an election, and if the evidence of guilt is strong, the proclamation of a winning candidate may be suspended. Furthermore, Section 7 of R.A. 6646 explicitly allows the application of these provisions to petitions for cancellation of COC based on Section 78 of BP 881. Therefore, COMELEC retained its authority to cancel petitioner's COC.
Main Doctrine
A certificate of candidacy that is void ab initio is legally considered as if it was never filed, rendering all votes cast for such candidate as stray votes. The COMELEC retains jurisdiction to cancel such a certificate even after proclamation, and the subsequent assumption of office by the ineligible candidate does not validate their position, as they are considered a de facto officer whose ouster does not create a permanent vacancy.