Dimapilis v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Joseph C. Dimapilis was elected as Punong Barangay of Barangay Pulung Maragul, Angeles City, in the October 2010 elections. He ran for re-election in the October 2013 Barangay Elections. The Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) had previously found Dimapilis guilty of Grave Misconduct in a consolidated decision dated June 23, 2009, and an order dated November 10, 2009. These rulings imposed the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding public office. Procedural History: On October 29, 2013, the COMELEC Law Department filed a Petition for Disqualification against Dimapilis, citing his perpetual disqualification from holding public office due to the OMB rulings. Dimapilis filed an answer, arguing that the petition was a hybrid of a disqualification case and a petition to deny due course to or cancel a Certificate of Candidacy (CoC), and that the OMB decision was subject to an injunction by the Regional Trial Court based on the condonation doctrine. The COMELEC Second Division, in a Resolution dated April 11, 2016, treated the petition as one for cancellation of CoC, found that Dimapilis committed material misrepresentation by declaring his eligibility, and cancelled his CoC. The COMELEC En Banc, in a Resolution dated August 31, 2016, denied Dimapilis's motion for reconsideration and affirmed the Second Division's ruling. The Petition: Petitioner Joseph C. Dimapilis filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the COMELEC's Resolutions that cancelled his Certificate of Candidacy and annulled his proclamation. He argued that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion. The core of his argument revolved around the applicability of the condonation doctrine and the alleged lack of authority of the COMELEC Law Department to file the petition motu proprio. He also contended that the OMB rulings were effectively stayed by court injunctions and that a subsequent dismissal of a criminal case against him should be considered.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling petitioner's Certificate of Candidacy. Whether petitioner's perpetual disqualification to hold public office is a material fact involving eligibility. Whether the COMELEC has the duty to motu proprio bar from running for public office those suffering from perpetual disqualification. Whether petitioner's re-election as Punong Barangay operated as a condonation of his alleged misconduct.
Ruling
The petition is without merit. The COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in cancelling petitioner's Certificate of Candidacy. The Resolutions dated April 11, 2016 and August 31, 2016 of the COMELEC are affirmed. Petitioner Joseph C. Dimapilis is ordered to cease and desist from discharging the functions of the Punong Barangay of Barangay Pulung Maragul, Angeles City.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling petitioner's Certificate of Candidacy: The Court held that the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion. Petitioner's perpetual disqualification to hold public office, stemming from a final judgment finding him guilty of Grave Misconduct and imposing dismissal from service, is a material fact involving eligibility. A person running for public office must possess none of the grounds for disqualification. The Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) is a formal requirement for eligibility, and a false material representation therein renders it void ab initio. Therefore, petitioner's CoC was void from the start as he was not eligible to run for any public office at the time of filing. The Court reiterated that a person whose CoC has been cancelled is deemed to have not been a candidate at all, as the CoC is void ab initio. The votes cast for him are considered stray votes and are not counted. This invalidates his proclamation and entitles the qualified candidate receiving the highest number of votes to the position. The eligible candidate who garnered the highest number of votes must assume office, as the ineligible candidate is considered a de facto officer. On the issue of whether petitioner's perpetual disqualification to hold public office is a material fact involving eligibility: The Court affirmed that perpetual disqualification to hold public office is indeed a material fact involving eligibility. Eligibility relates to the capacity of holding as well as being elected to an office. Conversely, ineligibility is a disqualification or legal incapacity to be elected or appointed. Since petitioner was found guilty of Grave Misconduct by final judgment and was meted the penalty of dismissal from service with perpetual disqualification, he was legally incapacitated to run for any elective position. On the issue of whether the COMELEC has the duty to motu proprio bar from running for public office those suffering from perpetual disqualification: The Court ruled that the COMELEC has a legal duty to cancel the CoC of anyone suffering from perpetual disqualification, even without a petition. This duty stems from the COMELEC's constitutional mandate to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections. The final judgment imposing perpetual disqualification serves as notice to the COMELEC. The Court emphasized that allowing the COMELEC to wait for a petition would lead to anomalies, and it would be remiss in its duty if it does not motu proprio bar those suffering from such disqualification. This falls within the COMELEC's administrative functions when the grounds for disqualification are rendered conclusive by final and executory judgments. On the issue of whether petitioner's re-election as Punong Barangay operated as a condonation of his alleged misconduct: The Court held that petitioner's re-election could not operate as a condonation. The condonation doctrine was abandoned in Carpio Morales v. Binay, Jr., which held that election is not a mode of condoning administrative offenses. Even prior to this abandonment, the rationale for the condonation doctrine, as established in Aguinaldo v. Santos, was hinged on the expiration of the term of office during which the misconduct was committed before a decision could be rendered. In this case, the OMB rulings attained finality on May 28, 2010, prior to petitioner's first election in October 2010. The accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification had already attached and remained effective at the time petitioner filed his CoC in 2013, thus barring his re-election and precluding the application of the condonation doctrine.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has the legal duty to motu proprio cancel the Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) of anyone suffering from the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office by virtue of a final judgment, as such disqualification is a material fact involving eligibility and renders the CoC void ab initio.