Go v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Rep. Ma. Catalina L. Go filed a certificate of candidacy (COC) for Mayor of Baybay, Leyte on February 27, 2001. On February 28, 2001, she filed another COC for Governor of Leyte. Simultaneously, she attempted to withdraw her COC for Mayor with the Provincial Election Supervisor of Leyte, who refused to accept it, advising her to file it with the Municipal Election Officer of Baybay, Leyte. Due to time constraints and travel distance, petitioner faxed her affidavit of withdrawal to her father in Baybay, Leyte, who submitted it to the Municipal Election Officer at 12:28 a.m. on March 1, 2001. The original was received by the same office at 1:15 p.m. on March 1, 2001. Procedural History: Petitions were filed to deny due course to or cancel petitioner's COCs for both positions, alleging she filed for more than one office and failed to withdraw one before the deadline. The Provincial Election Supervisor inhibited himself and referred the cases to the COMELEC Law Department. The Law Department conducted an ex-parte study and recommended the cancellation of both COCs. The COMELEC en banc adopted this recommendation, declaring petitioner disqualified. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari seeking to nullify the COMELEC resolution, arguing that her withdrawal was timely and that she was denied procedural due process.
Issue(s)
I. Whether petitioner is disqualified to be a candidate for governor of Leyte and mayor of Baybay, Leyte because she filed certificates of candidacy for both positions; and Whether there was a valid withdrawal of the certificate of candidacy for municipal mayor of Baybay, Leyte. II. (a) Whether the affidavit of withdrawal must be filed with the election officer of the place where the certificate of candidacy was filed. III. (b) Whether the affidavit of withdrawal may be validly filed by fax. IV. Whether there was denial to petitioner of procedural due process of law.
Ruling
The Court grants the petition, annuls the COMELEC resolution, and declares valid petitioner's certificate of candidacy for Governor of Leyte. The filing of the affidavit of withdrawal with the election officer of Baybay, Leyte, at 12:28 a.m., March 1, 2001, was a substantial compliance with the law. The withdrawal was effective, leaving her certificate of candidacy for governor in full force. The COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue I (Disqualification and Valid Withdrawal): The Court held that Section 73 of the Omnibus Election Code does not mandate that an affidavit of withdrawal must be filed with the same office where the certificate of candidacy was filed. It can be filed with the main COMELEC office, regional election director, provincial election supervisor, or municipal election officer. COMELEC Resolution No. 3253-A, Section 12, which required filing with the office where the COC was filed, was deemed merely directory and not mandatory or jurisdictional, as an administrative resolution cannot contradict a law. Therefore, the filing of petitioner's affidavit of withdrawal with the Municipal Election Officer of Baybay, Leyte, constituted substantial compliance. The Court noted that the facsimile transmission, though received 28 minutes past the deadline, was a practical means given the circumstances, and the original was filed on the same day. The Court also acknowledged that the Provincial Election Supervisor could have received and transmitted the withdrawal. The filing of the withdrawal was deemed effective, leaving her COC for Governor valid. On Issue II (a) (Filing Venue for Withdrawal): The Court clarified that Section 73 of the Omnibus Election Code does not specify a particular office for filing a withdrawal. It only requires submission to the "office concerned." While COMELEC Resolution No. 3253-A, Section 12, suggested filing with the office where the COC was filed, this was considered a directory provision, not a jurisdictional one. Administrative rules cannot override or amend statutory provisions. Thus, filing with the Municipal Election Officer of Baybay, Leyte, was sufficient, even if the COC for Governor was filed elsewhere. On Issue III (b) (Fax Filing): The Court implicitly recognized the validity of fax filing, noting that with the enactment of the E-Commerce Law (R.A. No. 8792), transmission by fax may be legal. The facsimile copy was submitted to the Municipal Election Officer of Baybay, Leyte, at 12:28 a.m. on March 1, 2001, which, coupled with the subsequent filing of the original, was considered part of the substantial compliance. On Issue IV (Procedural Due Process): The Court found that petitioner was deprived of procedural due process. The COMELEC Law Department conducted an ex-parte study without giving petitioner an opportunity to be heard or to submit responsive pleadings. Although a hearing was scheduled later by the Regional Election Director, the COMELEC en banc had already acted on the recommendation of the Law Department without affording petitioner her right to notice and hearing. The Court emphasized that COMELEC, acting as a quasi-judicial tribunal, must observe the requirements of procedural due process, which includes the right to be heard before judgment is rendered.
Main Doctrine
The filing of an affidavit of withdrawal of a certificate of candidacy with an election officer other than the one where the certificate was filed, if done before the deadline, constitutes substantial compliance, especially when the COMELEC resolution prescribing the specific office for filing is merely directory and not jurisdictional. Furthermore, a candidate must be afforded procedural due process before their certificate of candidacy can be denied due course or cancelled.