G.R. No. 205136
December 2, 2014
OLIVIA DA SILVA CERAFICA, Petitioner,
vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
"x x x.
VALID SUBSTITUTION
In declaring that Kimberly, being under age, could not be considered to have filed a valid COC and, thus, could not be validly substituted by Olivia, we find that the Comelec gravely abused its discretion.
Firstly, subject to its authority over nuisance candidates18 and its power to deny due course to or cancel COCs under Sec. 78, Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 881, the Comelec has the ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge receipt of COCs.19
In Cipriano v. Comelec,20 we ruled that the Comelec has no discretion to give or not to give due couse to COCs. We emphasized that the duty of the Comelec to give due course to COCs filed in due form is ministerial in character, and that whilethe Comelec may look into patent defects in the COCs, it may not go into matters not appearing on their face. The question of eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate is thus beyond the usual and proper cognizance of the Comelec.
Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) provides for the procedure of substitution of candidates, to wit:
Sec. 77. Candidates in case of death, disqualification or withdrawal of another. – If after the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy, an official candidate of a registered or accredited political party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause, only a person belonging to, and certified by, the same political party may file a certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate who died, withdrew or was disqualified.
The substitute candidate nominated by the political party concerned may file his certificate of candidacy for the office affected in accordance with the preceding sections not later than mid-day of election day of the election.
If the death, withdrawal or disqualification should occur between the day before the election and mid-day of election day, said certificate may be filed with any board of election inspectors in the political subdivision where he is candidate or, in case of candidates to be voted for by the entire electorate of the country, with the Commission.
Under the express provision of Sec. 77 of B. P. Blg. 881, not just any person, but only "an official candidate of a registered or accredited political party" may be substituted.21 In the case at bar, Kimberly was an official nominee of the Liberal Party;22 thus, she can be validly substituted.
The next question then is whether Olivia complied with all of the requirements for a valid substitution; we answer in the affirmative. First, there was a valid withdrawal of Kimberly’s COC after the last day for the filing of COCs; second, Olivia belongs to and is certified to by the same political party to which Kimberly belongs;23 and third, Olivia filed her COC not later than mid-day of election day.24
In Luna v. Comelec,25 where the candidate, who was also under age, withdrew his COC before election day and was substituted by a qualified candidate, we declared that suchsubstitution was valid. The Court eloquently explained:
Substitution of Luna for Hans Roger was Valid
Luna contends that Hans Roger filed a valid certificate of candidacy and, subsequently, upon Hans Roger’s withdrawal of his certificate of candidacy, there was a valid substitution by Luna. On the other hand, the COMELEC ruled that Hans Roger, being under age, could not be considered tohave filed a valid certificate of candidacy and, therefore, is not a valid candidate who could be substituted by Luna.
When a candidate files his certificate of candidacy, the COMELEC has a ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge its receipt. Section 76 of the Omnibus Election Code(Election Code) provides:
Sec. 76. Ministerial duty of receiving and acknowledging receipt. – The Commission, provincial election supervisor, election registrar or officer designated by the Commission or the board of election inspectors under the succeeding section shall have the ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge receipt of the certificate of candidacy.
In this case, when Hans Roger filed his certificate of candidacy on 5 January 2004, the COMELEC had the ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge receipt of Hans Roger’s certificate of candidacy. Thus, the COMELEC had the ministerial duty to give due course to Hans Rogers certificate of candidacy.
On 15 January 2004, Hans Roger withdrew his certificate of candidacy. The Election Code allows a person who has filed a certificate of candidacy to withdraw the same prior to the election by submitting a written declaration under oath. There is no provision of law which prevents a candidate from withdrawing his certificate of candidacy before the election.
On the same date, Luna filed her certificate of candidacy as substitute for Hans Roger. Section 77 of the Election Code prescribes the rules on substitution of an official candidate of a registered political party who dies, withdraws, or is disqualified for any cause after the last day for the filing of certificate of candidacy. Section 77 of the Election Code provides:
Sec. 77. Candidates in case of death, disqualification or withdrawal of another. – If after the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy, an official candidate of a registered or accredited politicalparty dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause, only a person belonging to, and certified by, the same political party may file a certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate who died, withdrew or was disqualified.
The substitute candidate nominated by the political party concerned may file his certificate of candidacy for the office affected in accordance with the preceding sections not later thanmid-day of election day of the election. If the death, withdrawal or disqualification should occur between the day before the election and midday of election day, said certificate may be filed with any board of election inspectors in the political subdivision where he is candidate or, in case of candidates to be voted for by the entire electorate of the country, with the Commission.
Since Hans Roger withdrew his certificate of candidacy and the COMELEC found that Luna complied with all the procedural requirements for a valid substitution, Luna can validly substitute for Hans Roger.
The COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring that Hans Roger, being under age, could not be considered to have filed a valid certificate of candidacy and, thus, could not be validly substituted by Luna. The COMELEC may not, by itself, without the proper proceedings, deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy filed in due form. In Sanchez vs. Del Rosario, the Court ruled that the question of eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate for non-age is beyond the usual and proper cognizance of the COMELEC.
Section 74 of the Election Code provides that the certificate of candidacy shall state, among others, the date of birth of the person filing the certificate. Section 78 of the Election Code provides that in case a person filing a certificate of candidacy has committed false material representation, a verified petition to deny due course to or cancel the certificate of candidacy of said person may be filed at any time not later than 25 days from the time of filing of the certificate of candidacy.
If Hans Roger made a material misrepresentation as to his date of birth or age in his certificate of candidacy, his eligibility may only be impugned through a verified petition to deny due course to or cancel such certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Election Code.
In this case, there was no petition to deny due course to or cancel the certificate of candidacyof Hans Roger. The COMELEC only declared that Hans Roger did not file a valid certificate of candidacy and, thus, was not a valid candidate in the petition to deny due course to or cancel Luna’s certificate of candidacy. In effect, the COMELEC, without the proper proceedings, cancelled Hans Roger’s certificate of candidacy and declared the substitution by Luna invalid.
It would have been different if there was a petition to deny due course to or cancel Hans Roger’s certificate of candidacy.1âwphi1 For if the COMELEC cancelled Hans Roger’s certificate of candidacy after the proper proceedings, then he is no candidate at all and there can be no substitution of a person whose certificate of candidacy has been cancelled and denied due course. However, Hans Roger’s certificate of candidacy was never cancelled or denied due course by the COMELEC.
Moreover, Hans Roger already withdrew his certificate of candidacy before the COMELEC declared that he was not a valid candidate. Therefore, unless Hans Roger’s certificate of candidacy was denied due course or cancelled in accordance with Section 78 of the Election Code, Hans Roger’s certificate of candidacy was valid and he may be validly substituted by Luna.26 (Emphases supplied.)
x x x."
