Javier v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Governor Exequiel B. Javier (Gov. Javier) was proclaimed the duly elected governor of Antique in the May 13, 2013 elections. Prior to this, on November 9, 2012, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Antique recommended the preventive suspension of Valderrama Mayor Mary Joyce U. Roquero (Mayor Roquero) in relation to an administrative complaint. Despite a temporary restraining order (TRO) from the Court of Appeals (CA) and a judgment from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) enjoining the preventive suspension, Gov. Javier issued Executive Order No. 003, S. 2013, on January 23, 2013, preventively suspending Mayor Roquero for thirty (30) days. Subsequently, the SP suspended Mayor Roquero for four (4) months. Mayor Roquero filed an election offense complaint against Gov. Javier for violating Section 261(x) of the Omnibus Election Code (Election Code). Meanwhile, Cornelio P. Aldon and Raymundo T. Roquero filed a petition for disqualification against Gov. Javier and other officials, alleging violations of Section 261(d) and (e) of the Election Code (Coercion of Subordinates and Threats, Intimidation, etc.) by suspending Mayor Roquero, claiming it was political harassment. The COMELEC Second Division disqualified Gov. Javier and annulled his proclamation, citing the violation of the election period ban and finding that the suspension was a form of punishment for political opposition, falling under Section 261(d) of the Election Code. The resolution was tied, leading to its elevation to the COMELEC en banc. The COMELEC en banc, through a per curiam order on January 12, 2015, disqualified Gov. Javier and annulled his proclamation, with a vote of 4-2-1. Procedural History: The COMELEC Second Division disqualified Gov. Javier on October 3, 2014. Due to a tie in the voting, the case was elevated to the COMELEC en banc. On January 12, 2015, the COMELEC en banc issued a per curiam order disqualifying Gov. Javier and annulling his proclamation. The Petition: Gov. Javier filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in relation to Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, challenging the COMELEC en banc's January 12, 2015 order. He argued that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion because the order was based on an "internal arrangement" and did not obtain a majority vote due to Commissioner Arthur Lim's participation. He also asserted that the COMELEC erred in ruling that R.A. No. 7890 did not remove Section 261(d) of the Election Code as a ground for disqualification and that the COMELEC unconstitutionally set the election period.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission gravely abused its discretion when it issued Resolution No. 9581 fixing the 2013 election period from January 13, 2013 until June 12, 2013, for the purpose of determining administrative and criminal liability for election offenses, and whether the petitioner was denied due process. Whether the Commission erred in ruling that R.A. No. 7890 did not remove coercion as a ground for disqualification under Section 68 of the Election Code. Whether the Commission en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its Order dated January 12, 2015, disqualifying Gov. Javier and annulling his proclamation as the governor of Antique, considering Commissioner Lim's participation, the COMELEC's internal arrangement, and the absence of a promulgated date or advance copy.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the January 12, 2015 per curiam order of the Commission on Elections en banc in SPA No. 13-254 (DC). SO ORDERED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the election period and due process: The Court found no merit in the petitioner's argument that the COMELEC Resolution No. 9385 and 9581 fixing the election period were ultra vires, citing Article IX-C, Section 9 of the Constitution and the Election Code. The Court also found the petitioner's claim of lack of due process to be misplaced, as SPA No. 13-254 was an administrative proceeding governed by Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which are summary in nature. The essence of administrative due process was complied with. On the repeal of Section 261(d) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 by Republic Act No. 7890: The Court found that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in disqualifying Gov. Javier based on Section 261(d) of the Election Code because Republic Act No. 7890 expressly repealed Section 261(d)(1) and (2) of the Election Code. The COMELEC's reasoning that this was merely an implied repeal was erroneous, and their insistence constituted an arbitrary and whimsical exercise of judgment. On Commissioner Arthur Lim's participation, the COMELEC's internal arrangement, and procedural issues: The Court found the petitioner's reliance on Estrella v. COMELEC to be misplaced regarding Commissioner Lim's participation. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC's "internal arrangement" to resolve the case, citing the COMELEC Rules of Procedure allowing for liberal construction and suspension of rules. The Court also noted that the promulgation date was clearly indicated, and the failure to serve an advance copy did not affect the validity of the order.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the COMELEC en banc's order disqualifying Governor Exequiel B. Javier. The Court ruled that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by disqualifying Javier based on Section 261(d) of the Omnibus Election Code, which had been expressly repealed by Republic Act No. 7890. The Court clarified that an express repeal removes the provision entirely, and the COMELEC's insistence on an implied repeal was erroneous.