civil law, abella vs. comelec 201 scra 253
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
1/30
MAIN CASE
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 100710 September 3, 1991
BENJAMIN P. ABELLA, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS !" A#ELINA $. LARRA%ABAL, respondents.
G.R. No. 100739 September 3, 1991
A#ELINA $. LARRA%ABAL, petitioner,
vs.
COMMSSION ON ELECTIONS !" SIL&ESTRE #E LA CRU%, respondents.
Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. for petitioner in 100739.
Cesar A. Sevilla for petitioner in 100710.
Panganiban, Benitez, Baninaga & Batista for private respon!ent S. !e la Crz.
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
2/30
GUTIERRE%, JR., J .' p
The main issue in these consolidated petitions centers on who is the rihtful overnor of
the province of !e"te #$ petitioner Adelina !arra%abal &'.R. No. #(()*+$ who obtained
the hihest number of votes in the local elections of ebruar" #, #+-- and was
proclaimed as the dul" elected overnor but who was later declared b" the Commission
on Elections &CME!EC$ /... to lac0 both residence and reistration 1ualifications for
the position of 'overnor of !e"te as provided b" Art. 2, 3ection #4, Philippine
Constitution in relation to Title 55, Chapter 5, 3ec. 64, B.P. Bl. #*) and 3ec. -+, R.A. No.
#)+ and is hereb" dis1ualified as such 'overnor/7 4$ petitioner Ben8amin Abella &'.R.
No. #(()#($, who obtained the second hihest number of votes for the position of
overnor but was not allowed b" the CME!EC to be proclaimed as overnor after the
dis1ualification of !arra%abal7 or *$ !eopoldo E. Petilla, the vice9overnor of the
province of. !e"te.
This is the fourth time that the controvers" relatin to the local elections in ebruar" #,
#+-- for overnor of the province of !e"te is elevated to this Court. The antecedent facts
of these cases are stated in the earlier consolidated cases of BEN:AM5N P. ABE!!A and
35!;E3TRE T. , petitioners, v. A
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
3/30
Petitioner Ben8amin P. Abella was the official candidate of the !iberal
Part" for provincial overnor of !e"te in the local election held on
ebruar" #, #+--. The private respondent is the wife of Emeterio ;.
!arra%abal, the oriinal candidate of the !a0as n Bansa9P
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
4/30
seasonabl" elevated them to the Commission on Elections in ten separate
appeals doc0eted as 3PC Nos. --9G4) to --G4)95. Pendin resolution of
these cases, Abella intervened on March ), #+-- in the dis1ualification
case, doc0eted as 3PC No. --9@6G, and the followin da" filed a complaint,
with the !aw
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
5/30
commissioners dissentin. &'.R. No. --((6, Rollo, pp 6)9G#7 penned b"
Commissioner Abue, :r., with Commissioners Africa Rama, and ?orac,
dissentin$ The dismissal of this case is the sub8ect of '.R. No. --((6. &at
pp. @##9@#*$
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
6/30
n :ul" #-, #++#, the Commission en ban# issued a resolution which denied !arra%abalFs
motion to declare decision void andHor motion for reconsideration and affirmed the
second divisionFs decision. 5n the same resolution, the Commission disallowed AbellaFs
proclamation as overnor of !e"te.
Dence, these petitions.
Ie treat the various Comments as Answers and decide the petitions on their merits.
Actin on a most urent petition &motion$ for the issuance of a restrainin order filed b"
petitioner !arra%abal, this Court issued a temporar" restrainin order on Auust #, #++#.
... Effective immediatel" and continuin until further orders from this
Court, orderin the respondent on on Elections to CEA3E and
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
7/30
5n '.R. No. #(()*+, petitioner !arra%abal professes that the CME!EC completel"
disrearded our pronouncement in '.R. No. --((6 in that instead of actin on 3PC
Case No. --9@6G under section )- of the Election Code, the CME!EC proceeded with a
dis1ualification case not contemplated in '.R. No. --((6.
The arument is not meritorious.
The 1uestioned decision and resolution of the CME!EC conform with this CourtFs
decision in '.R. No. --((6.
5nitiall", herein respondent 3ilvestre T. de la Cru% &Ben8amin P. Abella, petitioner in
'.R. No. #(()#( was allowed to intervene in the case$ filed a petition with the
CME!EC to dis1ualif" petitioner !arra%abal from runnin as overnor of !e"te on the
round that she misrepresented her residence in her certificate of candidac" as
Janana, !e"te. 5t was alleed that she was in fact a resident of rmoc Cit" li0e her
husband who was earlier dis1ualified from runnin for the same office. The CME!EC
dismissed the petition and referred the case to its !aw
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
8/30
interest involved and the necessit" of resolvin the 1uestion of the earliest
possible time for the benefit of the inhabitants of !e"te.
5n the view of the Court, the pertinent provision is 3ection )- in relation to
3ection G of R.A. No. GG6G.
3ec. )-. Petition to !en$ !e #orse to or #an#el a #ertifi#ate of #an!i!a#$.
K A verified petition see0in to den" due course or to cancel a certificate of
candidac" ma" be filed b" an" person eclusivel" on the round that an"
material representation contained therein as re1uired under 3ection )6
hereof is false. The petition ma" be filed at an" time not later than twent"9
five da"s from the time of the filin of the certificate of candidac" and shall
be decided, after due notice and hearin, not later than fifteen da"s before
the election.
3ection G of R.A. GG6G states as follows
%ffe#t of is'alifi#ation Case. K An" candidate who has been declared b"
final 8udment to be dis1ualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast
for him shall not be counted. 5f for an" reason a candidate is not declared
b" final 8udment before an election to be dis1ualified and he is voted in
such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and
hearin of the action, in1uir", or protest and, upon motion of the
complainant or an" intervenor, ma" durin the pendenc" thereof order the
suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence
of his uilt is stron. ...
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
9/30
The above9stressed circumstances should eplain the necessit" for
continuin the investiation of the private respondentFs challened
dis1ualification even after the election notwithstandin that such matter is
usuall" resolved before the election. 5ndependentl" of these circumstances,
such proceedins are allowed b" 3ection G of RA. GG6G if for an" reason a
candidate is not declared b" final 8udment before an election to be
dis1ualified ...
5n fine, the Court directed the CME!EC to determine the residence 1ualification of
petitioner !arra%abal in 3PC Case No. --9@6G. Concomitant with this directive would be
the dis1ualification of petitioner !arra%abal in the event that substantial evidence is
adduced that she reall" lac0s the residence provided b" law to 1ualif" her to run for the
position of overnor in !e"te.
5n line with the CourtFs directive, the CME!EC conducted hearins in 3PC Case No.
--9@6G to resolve the 1ualification of !arra%abal on the basis of two &4$ leal issues
raised b" 3ilvestre T. de la Cru% namel", !arra%abalFs lac0 of leal residence in the
province of !e"te and her not bein a reistered voter in the province, as re1uired b"
Title 55, Chapter 5, 3ection 64, B.P. Bl. **), in relation to Article 2, 3ection #4 of theConstitution, to wit
3ec. 64. (alifi#ation. K $ An elective local official must be a citi%en of
the Philippines, at least twent"9three "ears of ae on election da", a
1ualified voter reistered as such in the barana", municipalit", cit" or
province where he proposes to be elected, a resident therein for at least
one "ear at the time of the filin of his certificate of candidac", and able to
read and write Enlish, Pilipino, or an" other local lanuae or dialect.
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
10/30
3ec. #4. Cities that are hihl" urbani%ed, as determined b" law, and
component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from votin for
provincial elective officials, shall be independent of the province. The
voters of component cities within a province, whose charters contain no
such prohibition, shall not be deprived of their riht to vote for elective
provincial officials.
The position of petitioners
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
11/30
5n this reard she states that ... /her subse1uent ph"sical transfer of residence to rmoc
Cit" thereafter, did not necessaril" erased &sic$ or removed her Janana residence, for
as lon as she had the A)"-S %/%*%)" evidenced b" her continuous and reular
acts of returnin there in the course of the "ears, althouh she had ph"sicall" resided at
rmoc Cit"./ &Petition, Rollo, p. 6($
As can be leaned from the 1uestioned decision, the CME!EC based its findin that
the petitioner lac0s the re1uired residence on the evidence of record to the effect that
despite protestations to the contrar" made b" the petitioner, she has established her
residence at rmoc Cit" from #+)@ to the present and not at Janana, !e"te. Der
attempt to purportedl" chane her residence one "ear before the election b" reisterin
at Janana, !e"te to 1ualif" her to ran for the position of overnor of the province of
!e"te clearl" shows that she considers herself alread" a resident of rmoc Cit". 5n the
absence of an" evidence to prove otherwise, the reliance on the provisions of the amil"
Code was proper and in consonance with human eperience. The petitioner did not
present evidence to show that she and her husband maintain separate residences, she at
Janana, !e"te and her husband at rmoc Cit". The second division of the CME!EC
in its decision dated ebruar" #6, #++# states
But there is the more fundamental issue of residence. The onl" indications
of a chane of residence so far as respondent is concerned are the address
indicated in the application for cancellation filed b" respondent indicatin
her postal address as Janana, !e"te, the annotation in her ;oterFs
affidavit for Precinct No. #@ that her reistration was cancelled due to lac0
of residence7 the testimon" of Anastacia
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
12/30
had decided to bu" their propert" because she wanted to beautif" the
house for their residence. 3he attached as anne the written contract
sined b" her and the spouses7 and the testimon" of Adolfo !arra%abal
Eh. /#(/ cousin of the spouses that Fat a famil" meetin ... the political
plan of the !arra%abal clan was discussed, amon which were &sic$ the
problem of Terr"Fs residence in rmoc Cit"F and that it was decided in said
meetin ... that 5nda" !arra%abal, wife of Terr", will transfer her rmoc
Reistration as a voter to Janana, !e"te &so$ she will be able to vote for
Terr" and also help me in m" candidac"7 that the" have been sta"in in
Janana, ver" often as the" have properties in !ono" and a house in
Mahawan.
The references to residence in the documents of cancellation and
reistration are alread" assessed for their evidentiar" value in relation to
the documents themselves above. The 1uestion must therefore be
addressed in relation to the testimon" of Anastacia
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
13/30
!arra%abal was rmoc Cit" and that 5nda" !arra%abal was oin to
transfer her reistration so she ma" be able to vote for him.
or the purpose of runnin for public office, the residence re1uirement
should be read as leal residence or domicile, not an" place where a part"
ma" have properties and ma" visit from time to time.
The Civil Code is clear that For the eercise of civil rihts and the
fulfillment of civil obliations, the domicile of natural persons is the place
of their habitual residence.
Arts. G- and G+ of the amil" Code, E.. No. 4(+ also provide as follows
Art. G-. The husband and wife are oblied to live toether,
observe mutual love, respect and fidelit", and render mutual
help and support.
Art. G+. The husband and wife shall fi the famil" domicile.
5n case of disareement, the court shall decide. The court
ma" eempt one spouse from livin with the other if the
latter should live abroad or there are other valid and
compellin reasons for the eemption. Dowever, such
eemption shall not appl" if the same is not compatible with
the solidarit" of the famil".
Dusband and wife as a matter of principle live toether in one leal
residence which is their usual place of abode. &CME!EC decision, pp. 4#9
4*7 Rollo L #(()#(, pp. G)9G+7 Emphsis supplied$
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
14/30
As reards the principle of AN5M=3 RE;ERTEN
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
15/30
considers herself a resident therein. The intention of anis reverten!i not to abandon
her residence in Janana, !e"te therefor, is nor present. The fact that she occasionall"
visits Janana, !e"te throuh the "ears does not sinif" an intention to continue her
residence therein. 5t is common amon us ilipinos to often visit places where we
formerl" resided speciall" so when we have left friends and relatives therein althouh for
intents and purposes we have alread" transferred our residence to other places.
Anent the issue of whether or not the petitioner is a reistered voter of Janana, !e"te,
the petitioner insists that she is such a reistered voter based on the followin
antecedents #$ 3he cancelled her reistration in rmoc Cit" on November 4@, #+-), and
4$ she then transferred her reistration to Janana, !e"te on November 4@, #+-) b"
reisterin thereat and *$ she later voted on election da" &ebruar" #, #+--$ in Janana,
!e"te.
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
16/30
member because the Chairman of the Board of Election 5nspectors
alleedl" left earlier and did not come bac0. Eh. /*9B/.
Ie find the version pressed b" respondent unworth" of belief. The stor" is
mar0ed b" so man" bi%arre cirumtances not consistent with the ordinar"
course of events or the natural behavior of persons. Amon these are
$ The application for cancellation of reistration b" respondent Adelina
?. !arra%abal happened to be misplaced b" a cler0 in the Election
ReistrarFs ffice for rmoc Cit" so it was not sent to the Board of Election
5nspectors in a sealed envelope7
&4$ The FinadvertermentF &sic$ misplacement was discovered onl" on
:anuar" +,#+--7
&*$ The voterFs affidavit was delivered b" itself without an" endorsement or
coverin letter from the Election Reistrar or an"bod" else7
&6$ The election cler0 delivered the application for cancellation onl"
towards the last hour of the revision da", alleedl" at 6*( P.M., :anuar" +,
#+--7
&@$ All the members of the Board of Election 5nspectors had alread" sined
the Minutes indicatin that no revision of the voterFs list was made as of
@(( PM
&G$ The poll cler0 and the third member prepared another minutes statin
that the election cler0 had delivered the application for cancellation at
6*( P.M. without an" reference to the minutes the" had previousl"
sined7
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
17/30
&)$ Emeterio !arra%abal, who was supposed to have reistered in Precinct
#), Mahawan, Janana, was supposed to have filled up an application for
cancellation of his reistration in Precinct No. #@, rmoc Cit" at Precinct
#) concurrent with his reistration. Dis application for cancellation was
never submitted in evidence.
&-$ The serial number of the voterFs affidavits of the spouses !arra%abal in
Precinct No. #) are far removed from the serial numbers of the other new
reistrants in November 4-, #+-) in the same precinct.
The most tellin evidence is the list of voters &orm 49A$, Eh. /'/, that
the Chairman and the poll cler0 had written in Part 55 of the same, closed
b" the sinatures of both officials showin that there were onl" nine &+$
additional reistered voters in Precinct #), Mahawan, Janana, !e"te,
namel", Bantasan, Merl"7 Conie7 !imosnero Anita7 !imosnero I7 Pame
;irinia7 3avenario, Anali%a7 ;erallo, felia7 Basan, :uanita7 and Acan
Bonifacio. This is consistent with the list of new voters after the November
4-, #+-) for Precinct No. #), Mahawan, Janana, !e"te submitted b" the
Election of Janana to the National Central ile of the Commission percertification of the Chief, National Central ile
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
18/30
wee0s after the election da" that the same Reistrar certified for the first
time that there were two voters lists, the first without the names of the
!arra%abals and the second, which appeared onl" after ebruar" #,
submitted b" the Chairman of the Board for Precinct #) which contained
the spouses !arra%abalsF names.
5t miht also be stressed that one set of voterFs list Eh. /'/ had the
sinature of both the Chairman, poll cler0 and third member of the board,
while the one which appeared later which included the names of the
!arra%abal had the sinature onl" of the Chairman. Eh. /5/.
rom the certification of the National Central iles, it appears that the
3erial Nos. of the newl" reistered voters were as follows (#-+-4#9:
(#-+449: (#-+-4*9: (#-+-469: (#-+-4@9: (#-+-4G9: (#-+-4)9:
(#-+-4-9: (#-+-*+9: The alleed reistration of Emeterio ;. !arra%abal
and Adelina ?. !arra%abal are ineplicabl" effected throuh voterFs
affidavits with 3erial Nos. (#+(-+*: and (# +(-6(9:. These serial
numbers are traced per record of the Commission to Precinct No. G,
municipalit" of Janana, !e"te. Per official Pro8ect of precincts on file withthe Commission, Precinct No. G is a poblacion precinct located in
Janana, Municipal Dih 3chool Buildin. Dow these documents came to
be used in Precinct No. #) in Barana" Mahawan and onl" b" the
!arra%abals has never been eplained.
5t also ta0es a lot of strainin to believe the stor" about the effort to cancel
reistration on November 4@, #+-), which application surfaced before the
Board of Election inspectors for Precinct No. #@, rmoc Cit" onl" on
:anuar" +, #+--, Revision
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
19/30
the Board of Election 5nspectors for Precinct #@. urthermore, the entire
membership of the Board of 5nspectors for said precinct, sined a Minutes,
Eh. /*9A/ which indicates that no order of inclusion or eclusion was
received from an" court and that the board proceeded with the numberin
of a total 44+ voters for the precinct. The Minutes also indicates that the
Board ad8ourned at @(( p.m. Eh. /*9B/ which was supposedl" prepared
after Eh. /*9A/ sined onl" b" the poll cler0 and third member indicates
that at 6*( P.M. an unidentified cler0 from the Election ReistrarFs ffice
arrived with the application for cancellation of ;ilma Man%ano and
Adelina !arra%abal.
5t also appears that on November 4-, #+-), the Board of Election
5nspectors for Precinct #@, rmoc Cit" prepared the list of voters for said
precinct, Eh. FNF where the name of Adelina ?. !arra%abal appears as
voter No. +G and Emeterio ;. !arra%abal is listed as ;oter No. +-. At the
bac0 of the list there is a certification that there was no voter which was
included b" court order and that to voters, one Montero and one 3alvame
were ecluded b" virtue of such order. As of :anuar" 4+, #+--, when the
certified true cop" of the ;oterFs !ist for Precinct #@ was furnished the
petitioner, no additional entr" was reflected on the list which would show
what transpired on :anuar" +, #+--, as alleed b" the Election Reistrar
for rmoc Cit" and the poll cler0 and third member of the board of
inspectors that a cancellation was effected. 5t taes credulit" therefore, to
lend belief to Eh. /49C/, when was issued b" the Cit" Reistrar for rmoc
onl" on ebruar" #, #++(, which for the first time showed handwritten
annotations of cancellation of the reistration of Adelina !arra%abal and
;ilma Man%ano b" witnesses 'ratol and Patono. 5f this evidence did not
eist at the time of the entr" which purports to have been on :anuar" +,
#+--, this evidence could have been used to confront within Carolina
ue%on when she testified and identified Eh. /N/ on April #6, #+--. 5n
fact if these entries indicatin &sic$ were made, the" would have been
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
20/30
evident in Eh. FI. The failure to confront ue%on with the entries and the
late submission of Eh. /49C/ can onl" lead to two conclusions these
entries did not eist as of :anuar" 4+, #+-- when the certification of the
list of voters was made and that the" were annotated in the voterFs list after
that date. This is consistent with Eh. /P/ which was issued on ebruar"
##, #+--.
The relative weiht of the partiesF evidence supports petitionerFs thesis that
respondent was not a reistered voter in Precinct No. #), Br". Mahawan,
Janana, !e"te, and, that she and her husband Emeterio !arra%abal
continued to be reistered voters in Precinct No. #@, rmoc Cit". &Rollo,
pp. G49G)7 CME!EC decision, pp. 4494)$
The Court is bound b" these factual findins as the" are supported b" substantial
evidence
5n Arat# v. Coission on %le#tions &-- 3CRA 4@#$, spea0in of the
need to preserve the Findependence and all the needed concomitant
powersF of the Commission on Elections, :ustice Antonio P. Barredodeclared that it is but proper that the Court should accord the reatest
measures of presumption of reularit" to its course of action ... to the end
it ma" achieve its desined place in the democratic fabric of our
overnment ... &Abella v. !arra%abal, spra$
ailin in her contention that she is a resident and reistered voter of Janana, !e"te,
the petitioner poses an alternative position that her bein a reistered voter in rmoc
Cit" was no impediment to her candidac" for the position of overnor of the province of
!e"te.
3ection #4, Article 2 of the Constitution provides
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
21/30
Cities that are hihl" urbani%ed, as determined b" law, and component
cities whose charters prohibit their voters from votin for provincial
elective officials, shall be independent of the province. The voters of
component cities within a province, whose charters contain no such
prohibition, shall not be deprived of their riht to vote for elective
provincial officials.
3ection -+ of Republic Act No. #)+ creatin the Cit" of rmoc provides
Election of provincial overnor and members of the Provincial Board of
the members of the Provincial Board of the Province of !e"te K The
1ualified voters of rmoc Cit" shall not be 1ualified and entitled to vote in
the election of the provincial overnor and the members of the provincial
board of the Province of !e"te.
Relatin therefore, section -+ of R.A. #)+ to section #4, Article 2 of the Constitution one
comes up with the followin conclusion that rmoc Cit" when orani%ed was not "et a
hihl"9urbanned cit" but is, nevertheless, considered independent of the province of
!e"te to which it is eoraphicall" attached because its charter prohibits its voters from votin for the provincial elective officials. The 1uestion now is whether or not the
prohibition aainst the Fcit"Fs reistered votersF electin the provincial officials
necessaril" mean, a prohibition of the reistered voters to be elected as provincial
officials.
The petitioner citin section 6, Article 2 of the Constitution, to wit
3ec. 6. The President of the Philippines shall eercise eneral supervision
over local overnments. Provinces with respect to component cities and
municipalities and cities and municipalities with respect to component
barana"s, shall ensure that the acts of their component units are within
the scope of their prescribed powers and functions.
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
22/30
submits that /while a Component Cit" whose charter prohibits its voters from
participatin in the elections for provincial office, is indeed independent of the province,
such independence cannot be e1uated with a hihl" urbani%ed cit"7 rather it is limited to
the administrative supervision aspect, and nowhere should it lead to the conclusion that
said voters are li0ewise prohibited from runnin for the provincial offices./ &Petition, p.
4+$
The arument is untenable.
3ection #4, Article 2 of the Constitution is eplicit in that aside from hihl"9urbani%ed
cities, component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from votin for provincial
elective officials are independent of the province. 5n the same provision, it provides for
other #oponent #ities itin a provin#e whose charters do not provide a similar
prohibition. Necessaril", component cities li0e rmoc Cit" whose charters prohibit their
voters from votin for provincial elective officials are treated li0e hihl" urbani%ed cities
which are outside the supervisor" power of the province to which the" are
eoraphicall" attached. This independence from the province carries with it the
prohibition or mandate directed to their reistered voters not to vote and be voted for
the provincial elective offices. The resolution in '.R. No. -()#G entitled Peralta v. *eCoission on %le#tions, et al. dated
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
23/30
The petitioner ta0es eception to this interpretation. 3he opines that such interpretation
is /wron Enlish/ since nowhere in the provision is there an" reference to a prohibition
aainst runnin for provincial elective office. 3he states that if the prohibition to run was
indeed intended, the provision should have been phrased /3hall not be 1ualified T
R=N in the election R provincial overnor./ A comma should have been used after
the word 1ualified and after the word /vote/ to clearl" indicate that the phrase /in the
election of the provincial overnor/ is modified separatel" and distinctl" b" the words
/not 1ualified/ and the words /not entitled to vote./ &Petition, p. #+$
The Court finds the petitionerFs interpretation fallacious.
5n the case of apa v. Arro$o )@ 3CRA )G #+-+$ this Court interpreted 3ection 4( of
Presidential
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
24/30
erroneous. The complete and applicable rule is ad proxi ante!e#ens
flat relationisi ipe!iatrsenten#ia &3ee Blac0Fs !aw
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
25/30
&4$ The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed b" the
President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term
of seven "ears without reappointment. f those first appointed, three
Members shall hold office for seven "ears, two Members for five "ears, and
the last Members for three "ears, without reappointment. An"
appointment to an" vacanc" shall be onl" for the unepired term of the
predecessor. 5n no case shall an" Member be appointed or desinated in a
temporar" or actin capacit". 5n relation to the Transitor" Provision of the
#+-) Constitution &Article 2;555$ particularl" 3ection #@ thereof, to wit
The incumbent Members of the Civil 3ervice Commission, the Commission
on Elections, and the Commission on Audit shall continue in office for one
"ear after the ratification of this Constitution, unless the" are sooner
removed for cause or become incapacitated to dischare The duties of their
office or appointed to a new term thereunder. 5n no case shall an" Member
serve loner than seven "ears includin service before the ratification of
this Constitution.
There is no need to pass upon this constitutional issue raised b" the petitioner. The
Court ruled in the case of Alger %le#tri#, "n#. v. Cort of Appeals *@ 3CRA *) #+-@$
... This Court does not decide 1uestions of a constitutional nature unlessabsolutel" necessar" to a decision of the case. 5f there eists some other
round based on statute or eneral law or other rounds of construction,
we decide the case on a non9constitutional determination. &3ee Burton v.
=nited 3tates, #+G =.3. 4-*7 3iler v. !ouisville O Nashville R. Co. 4#* =.3.
#)@7 Berea Collee v. Jentuc0" 4## =.3. 6@.$ &at p. 6@$
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
26/30
Even if we concede that Commissioner loresF term epired on ebruar" 4, #++#, we fail
to see how this could validate the holdin of an elective office b" one who is clearl"
dis1ualified from runnin for that position and the continued eercise of overnment
powers b" one without leal authorit" to do so. The powers of this Court are broad
enouh to en8oin the violation of constitutional and statutor" provisions b" public
officers especiall" where, as in this case, we merel" affirm the decision of the
CME!EC en ban# promulated at a time when Commissioner lores was no loner a
member.
Moreover, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the decision of the second
division of CME!EC would still be valid under the !e fa#to doctrine.
Commissioner lores was appointed for a three9"ear term from ebruar" #@, #+-- to
ebruar" #@, #++#. 5n these three "ears he eercised his duties and functions as
Commissioner. 'rantin in the absence of a statute epressl" statin when the terms of
the CME!EC Chairman and members commence and epire, that his term epired on
ebruar" 4, #++# to enable a faithful compliance with the constitutional provision that
the terms of office in the CME!EC are on a staered basis commencin and endin at
fied intervals, his continuance in office until ebruar" #@, #++# has a color of validit".Therefore, all his official acts from ebruar" *, #++# to ebruar" #@, #++#, are considered
valid. The Court ruled in the case of 4e$te A#ting /i#e56overnor Arelio . enzon v.
4e$te A#ting 6overnor 4eopol!o %. Perilla, et al . '.R. No. +()G4, Ma" 4(, #++#
And finall", even rantin that the President, actin throuh the 3ecretar"
of !ocal 'overnment, possesses no power to appoint the petitioner, at the
ver" least, the petitioner is a de facto officer entitled to compensation.
There is no den"in that the petitioner assumed the ffice of the ;ice9
'overnor under color of a 0nown appointment. As revealed b" the records,
the petitioner was appointed b" no less than the alter eo of the President,
the 3ecretar" of !ocal 'overnment, after which he too0 his oath of office
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
27/30
before 3enator Alberto Romulo in the ffice of
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
28/30
Ihile it is true that 3PC No. --9@6G was oriinall" a petition to den" due course to the
certificate of candidac" of !arra%abal and was filed before !arra%abal could be
proclaimed the fact remains that the local elections of ebruar" #, #+-- in the province
of !e"te proceeded with !arra%abal considered as a bona9fide candidate. The voters of
the province voted for her in the sincere belief that she was a 1ualified candidate for the
position of overnor. Der votes were counted and she obtained the hihest number of
votes. The net effect is that the petitioner lost in the election. De was repudiated b" the
electorate. 5n the rivaldo and !abo cases, this is precisel" the reason wh" the
candidates who obtained the second hihest number of votes were not allowed to
assume the positions vacated b" rivaldo the overnorship of 3orsoon, and !abo, the
position of ma"or in Bauio Cit". The nature of the proceedins therefore, is not that
compellin. Ihat matters is that in the event a candidate for an elected position who is voted for and who obtains the hihest number of votes is dis1ualified for not possessin
the eliibilit" re1uirements at the time of the election as provided b" law, the candidate
who obtains the second hihest number of votes for the same position can not assume
the vacated position. 5t should be stressed that in '.R. No. --((6, the Court set aside
the dismissal of 3PC No. --9@6G, and directed the CME!EC to conduct hearins to
determine whether or not !arra%abal was 1ualified to be a candidate for the position of
overnor in the province of !e"te. This is the import of the decision in '.R. No. --((6.
Thus, the Court ruled in the case of 4abo, Jr. v. Coission on %le#tions
inall", there is the 1uestion of whether or not the private respondent,
who filed the 1uo warranto petition, can replace the petitioner as ma"or.
De cannot. The simple reason is that as he obtained onl" the second
hihest number of votes in the election, he was obviousl" not the choice of
the people of Bauio Cit".
The latest rulin of the Court on this issue is 3antos v. Commission on
Elections, *) 3CRA )6($ decided in #+-@. 5n that case, the candidate who
placed second was proclaimed elected after the votes for his winnin rival,
who was dis1ualified as a turncoat and considered a non9candidate, were
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
29/30
all disreard as stra". 5n effect, the second placer won b" default. That
decision was supported b" eiht members of the Court then, &Cuevas, :.,
ponente, with Ma0asiar, Concepcion, :r., Escolin, Relova,
-
8/16/2019 Civil Law, Abella vs. Comelec 201 Scra 253
30/30
elected and no measure can be declared carried unless he or
it receives a ma8orit" or pluralit" of the leal votes cast in the
election. &4( Corpus :uris 4nd, 3 46*, p. G)G.$
The fact that the candidate who obtained the hihest number
of votes is later declared to be dis1ualified or not eliible for
the office to which he was elected does not necessaril" entitle
the candidate who obtained the second hihest number of
votes to be declared the winner of the elective office. The
votes cast for a dead, dis1ualified, or non9eliible person ma"
not be valid the vote the winner into office or maintain him
there. Dowever the absence of a statute which clearl" asserts
a contrar" politics and leislative polic" on the matter, if the
votes were cast in the sincere belief that the candidate was
alive, 1ualified, or eliible, the" should not be treated as
stra", void or meaninless. &at pp. 4(94#$
5n sum, the Court does not find an" reason to reverse and set aside the 1uestioned
decision and resolution of the CME!EC. The CME!EC has not acted without or inecess of 8urisdiction or in rave abuse of discretion.
IDERERE, the instant petitions are