EN BANC

[G.R. No. 59343. April 24, 1985.]

CARLOS C. PONTAWE and LOUIE P. LOPEZ, petitioners, vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ROSARIO T. CABANGON and
ALFREDO B. FLORES, respondents.

[G.R. No. 61497. April 24, 1985.]

FEDERICO C. PONTAWE, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON

ELECTIONS, ROSARIO T. CABANGON and CARLOS C.
PONTAWE, respondents.

Julian U. Vera for petitioners in 59343.

Juan A. Primicias for petitioner in 61497.
Abelardo Fermin for private respondents in 59343 & 61497.

SYLLABUS

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; ELECTIONS; 1978 ELECTION CODE;

SUBSTITUTION OF DISQUALIFIED CANDIDATES; DISQUALIFICATION
IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY. — Section 28, of The 1978 Election Code allows the
substitution of candidates who may have been disqualified after the last day for
filing the certificates of candidacy. The substitution may be on or before mid-day
of the day of the election. A substitute is one who takes the place of another who
is no longer a candidate, otherwise the former would be an additional, not a
substitute candidate. And, if the disqualification is not immediately executory,
there would be no need of nominating a substitute. Having been disqualified
before election day, the votes "Pontawe" and "Lopez" could not be counted for
Federico and Wilfredo, but should be credited as they were by the Municipal
Board of Canvassers in favor of Carlos and Louie.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ORDER OF CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY,
IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY. — It will be noted that the second paragraph of
paragraph 3 of Section 186 provides that the decision, order or ruling of the
Commission cancelling a certificate or candidacy shall be immediately executory.
In the case at bar, the order of disqualification by the COMELEC took place before
the elections. The fact that it occurred sooner or before the proclamation would
not matter. What matters is, a disqualification was ordered and, as a
consequence, a substitution was in order.
3. ID.; ID.; BINDING COMELEC RULING; PROPER OBJECT OF APPEAL BY
CERTIORARI. — The fact that Federico Pontawe and Wilfredo Lopez filed a Petition
for Certiorari (G.R. No. L-52433) with this Court questioning their disqualification
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 by the COMELEC does not mean that the COMELEC ruling was not immediately
executory. It is their right to ask for a review of a COMELEC ruling as provided for
by the Constitution, Section 11, Article XII thereof. The question remains not as
to whether the COMELEC ruling was appealable, but whether it was already
effective and binding on election day. The facts and law in the case at bar would
indicate that it was.
PLANA, J., dissenting:
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; ELECTIONS; ELECTION CODE; AMENDMENT OF
PROVISION ON SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDATES; IMPERATIVE. — The instant case
vividly illustrates a notable defect of the Election Code. Be it noted that
substitute candidates Carlos Pontawe and Louie Lopez filed their certificates of
candidacy just one day before the election. Under the circumstances, there was
hardly any chance for the voters to know that they have substituted Federico
Pontawe and Wilfredo Lopez. Indeed, right on election day, the COMELEC
Registrar of Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan, did not know if Federico Pontawe and
Wilfredo Lopez were still candidates or had been replaced. He had to verify from
COMELEC. Now, if by the application of the rules prescribed in the Election Code
for the appreciation of ballots, the votes cast for PONTAWE only or for the
Nacionalista Party candidates, or even votes cast for F. PONTAWE would be
counted in favor of the substitute candidates (Section 155 paragraphs 1, 8, 9 and
26), the Election Law would become an unholy instrument for foisting upon the
public an electoral fraud. This underscores the need to amend the Election Code
with reference to substitute candidates so as to avoid what practically amounts
to an electoral fraud. A substitute candidate bearing the same name as the
substituted candidate ought to be barred or, if allowed to be a candidate, he
should be governed by a different set of rules for the appreciation of ballots.

DECISION

RELOVA, J : p

Federico Pontawe and Wilfredo Lopez were the candidates for the positions of
Mayor and Member of the Sangguniang Bayan, respectively, of the Nacionalista
Party (NP) during the elections of January 30, 1980 in Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan.
On the other, Rosario T. Cabangon and Alfredo Flores were the candidates for
Mayor and Member of the Sangguniang Bayan, respectively, of the Kilusang
Bagong Lipunan (KBL). On January 24, 1980, the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) disqualified Federico Pontawe and Wilfredo Lopez on the ground of
turncoatism in PDC Case No. 42.
The Nacionalista Party, on January 29, 1980, upon receipt of the notice of the
COMELEC of said disqualification, nominated Carlos Pontawe, son of the
disqualified Federico Pontawe, and Louie Lopez, to substitute for Federico Pontawe
and Wilfredo Lopez, respectively. On the same day, January 29, 1980, disqualified
candidates Federico Pontawe and Wilfredo Lopez filed a Petition for Certiorari
with this Court to Annul the resolution of the COMELEC ordering their
disqualification. The petition was docketed as G. R. No. L-52433. However, upon
separate manifestations of Federico Pontawe and Wilfredo Lopez that they were
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 abandoning their appeal, this Court, on April 24, 1980 and June 10, 1980,
dismissed G. R. No. L-52433. LLphil

On January 31, 1980, Carlos Pontawe and Louie Lopez were proclaimed by the
Municipal Board of Canvassers of Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan as the duly elected
Municipal Mayor and Member of the Sangguniang Bayan, respectively. As a
consequence, on February 11, 1980, Rosario Cabangon and three other KBL
candidates who lost in the elections filed an election protest against Carlos
Pontawe, Louie Lopez and two others in the then Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan (Dagupan City).
On February 2, 1981, the lower court declared the election of Carlos Pontawe and
Louie Lopez as null and void and proclaimed Rosario Cabangon and Alfredo Flores
as duly elected Mayor and Member of the Sangguniang Bayan, respectively.
On November 3, 1981, the COMELEC affirmed the decision of the trial court. This
decision of the COMELEC is the subject of the petition for certiorari in G. R. No. L-
59343. The petition was given due course and the parties have filed their
respective memoranda. In the meantime, Carlos Pontawe and Louie Lopez were
allowed to continue in their respective positions as Mayor and Member of the
Sangguniang Bayan pending the final determination of this case.
On August 6, 1982, Federico Pontawe filed another petition for certiorari,
docketed in this Court as G. R. No. L-61497, against the COMELEC, Rosario
Cabangon and Carlos Pontawe, questioning the refusal of the COMELEC to allow
him to intervene in the electoral protest filed by Rosario Cabangon and Alfredo
Flores against Carlos Pontawe and Louie Lopez. In our resolution of August 31,
1982, We ordered the consolidation of G. R. No. L-61497 and G. R. No. 59343
inasmuch as they involve the issue as to who were the duly elected Mayor and
Member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan in the elections
on January 30, 1980.
Section 28 of the 1978 Election Code provides:
"SEC. 28. Candidates in case of death, withdrawal or disqualification of
another. — If, after the last day for filing certificates of candidacy, a
candidate with a certificate of candidacy duly filed should die, withdraw or
be disqualified for any cause, any voter qualified for the office may file his
certificate of candidacy for the office for which the deceased, the
candidate who has withdrawn, or disqualified person was a candidate in
accordance with the preceding sections on or before mid-day of the day
of the election, and if the death, withdrawal or disqualification should
occur between the day before the election and the mid-day of election
day, said certificate may be filed with any election committee in the
political subdivision where he is a candidate: Provided, however, That if
the candidate who died, withdrew or was disqualified is the official
candidate of a political party, group or aggrupation, only a person
belonging to, and certified by, the same political party, group or
aggrupation may file a certificate of candidacy for the same office."

Carlos Pontawe and Louie Lopez were nominated as substitute candidates in lieu
of Federico Pontawe and Wilfredo Lopez whose disqualification were decreed by
the COMELEC on January 24, 1980. The substitution was made on January 29,
1980, or the day before the election, by the Nacionalista Party to which the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 disqualified candidates belong. Thus, there is no question that there was a valid
nomination of Carlos Pontawe and Louie Lopez in which case all the Pontawe and
Lopez votes should be credited to them (Carlos Pontawe and Louie Lopez),
including those cast by block voting in favor of the Nacionalista Party to which
they were affiliated. prcd

The Municipal Board of Canvassers favored Carlos Pontawe with 7,124 votes as
against 5,632 for Rosario Cabangon. However, the Court of First Instance ruled
that Federico Pontawe and Wilfredo Lopez were still candidates on January 30,
1980 because of the appeal taken by them to the Supreme Court disputing the
order of disqualification by the COMELEC which they did not consider as final and
executory. The lower court found that the final total votes of the protestees and
the protestants are as follows: (pp. 16-17, Rollo of G. R. No. L-59343).
"CARLOS PONTAWE
as per revision 7,462

minus Federico Pontawe & F. Pontawe votes 1,013

minus PONTAWE votes (stray) 5,346 6,359
Final total votes 1,103

"LOUIE LOPEZ
as per revision 6,442

minus Wilfredo, William & W. LOPEZ votes 2,190

minus LOPEZ votes (stray) 3,333 5,523

Final total votes 919

"ROSITA CABANGON
as per revision (uncontested) 5,627

Final total votes 5,627

"ALFREDO FLORES

as per revision (uncontested) 5,331

Final total votes 5,331

The issue then is whether or not Federico Pontawe and Wilfredo Lopez were still
candidates on election day. If they were, then the votes "Pontawe" or "Lopez"
would be considered stray. On the other hand, if they were not, said votes would
be credited to Carlos Pontawe and Louie Lopez.

On this point, We hold that Federico Pontawe and Wilfredo Lopez were no longer
candidates on election day, January 30, 1980.
1. Section 28, of The 1978 Election Code allows the substitution of
candidates who may have been disqualified after the last day for filing the
certificates of candidacy. The substitution may be on or before mid-day of the day
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 of the election. A substitute is one who takes the place of another who is no
longer a candidate, otherwise the former would be an additional, not a substitute
candidate. And, if the disqualification is not immediately executory, there would
be no need of nominating a substitute. Having been disqualified before election
day, the votes "Pontawe" and "Lopez" could not be counted for Federico and
Wilfredo, but should be credited as they were by the Municipal Board of
Canvassers in favor of Carlos and Louie.
2. Section 186 of The 1978 Election Code reads:
"SEC. 186. Measures to ensure enforcement. — For the effective
enforcement of the provisions of this Code, the Commission is further
vested and charged with the following powers, duties and responsibilities:
"xxx xxx xxx

"3. To cancel at any time before proclamation the certificate of

candidacy of any candidate found, through summary proceedings, to
have (a) given money or other material inducements to influence, induce
or corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions; (b)
committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) solicited or
received contributions from foreigners or foreign government; (d)
violated the provisions regulating campaign propaganda; (e) committed
any of the prohibited acts provided in Section 178 hereof; (f) knowingly
tolerated his supporters in committing such acts; or (g) spend for his
campaign more than the amount provided in Section 51 hereof.
"Any decision, order or ruling of the Commission cancelling a certificate of
candidacy as provided in the preceding paragraph shall be immediately
executory."

It will be noted that the second paragraph of paragraph 3 of Section 186 provides
that the decision, order or ruling of the Commission cancelling a certificate or
candidacy shall be immediately executory. In the case at bar, the order of
disqualification by the COMELEC took place before the elections. The fact that it
occurred sooner or before the proclamation would not matter. What matters is, a
disqualification was ordered and, as a consequence, a substitution was in order. prLL

3. The fact that Federico Pontawe and Wilfredo Lopez filed a Petition for
Certiorari (G.R. No. L-52433) with this Court questioning their disqualification by
the COMELEC does not mean that the COMELEC ruling was not immediately
executory. It is their right to ask for a review of a COMELEC ruling as provided for
by the Constitution, Section 11, Article XII thereof. The question remains not as
to whether the COMELEC ruling was appealable, but whether it was already
effective and binding on election day. The facts and law in the case at bar would
indicate that it was.
ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the COMELEC sustaining the election of Rosario
Cabangon and Alfredo Flores for the positions of Mayor and Member of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan, respectively, is hereby SET
ASIDE and another one rendered declaring CARLOS PONTAWE and LOUIE LOPEZ
as having been duly elected to the said positions. With this decision the issue
raised in G. R. No. L-61497 has become moot and academic.
SO ORDERED.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Teehankee, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Escolin and Cuevas,
JJ ., concur.
Fernando, C . J ., concurring pro hac vice.
Aquino and Alampay, JJ ., took no part.
De la Fuente, J ., concurring in the opinions of Justice Plana and Justice Gutierrez,
Jr.

Separate Opinions
PLANA, J ., dissenting:

The facts of the case may be capsulized as follows: Federico Pontawe,

Nacionalista Party (NP) candidate for Mayor, and Wilfredo Lopez, NP candidate
for Member of the Sangguniang Bayan, Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan, were
disqualified by COMELEC on January 24, 1980 on the ground of turncoatism.
On January 29, 1980 — or just one day before the election — the NP
nominated Carlos Pontawe (then student son of Federico Pontawe) and Louie
Lopez (his relationship to Wilfredo Lopez does not appear) as substitute
candidates to replace Federico Pontawe and Wilfredo Lopez. Nonetheless,
Federico Pontawe and Wilfredo Lopez did not accept the COMELEC verdict. On
the same day that Carlos Pontawe and Louie Lopez became candidates,
Federico Pontawe and Wilfredo Lopez challenged the COMELEC decision
disqualifying them by filing a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

In the mayoralty election on January 30, 1980, there were only 117 votes cast
for CARLOS PONTAWE or C. PONTAWE; 1,013 for FEDERICO PONTAWE or F.
PONTAWE; 5,346 for PONTAWE only, with no indication as to whether the person
voted for was Federico or Carlos; a few thousand votes for NP candidates; and
5,627 for Rosario Cabangon, the KBL candidate. As to the election for members
of the Sangguniang Bayan, there were only 110 votes cast for LOUIE LOPEZ or L.
LOPEZ; 6,332 for LOPEZ only, without any indication as to whether the person
voted for was Wilfredo or Louie Lopez; and 5,331 for Alfredo Flores, a KBL
candidate.
If both Federico Pontawe and Carlos Pontawe were candidates for Mayor, Federico
would be credited with 1,013 votes; Carlos Pontawe 117 votes; Cabangon 5,627
votes. Votes cast for PONTAWE only without further identification (5,346) as well
as those cast for NP would be deemed stray votes vis-a-vis Federico and Carlos
Pontawe. Cabangon would win. Analogously, if Wilfredo Lopez and Louie Lopez
were both candidates, Louie would be credited with 110 votes only; and Alfredo
Flores 5,331 votes. The votes cast for LOPEZ only without further identification
(6,332) would be deemed stray votes. Alfredo Flores would win. cdphil

On the other hand, if Federico Pontawe and Wilfredo Lopez were no longer
candidates as of election day (January 30, 1980), the votes for PONTAWE only,
those cast for NP candidates, and perhaps even those for F. Pontawe would all be
counted for Carlos Pontawe; similarly, the votes for LOPEZ only would be counted
for Louie Lopez; and both Carlos Pontawe and Louie Lopez would win. (See 1978
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Election Code, Sec. 155, paragraphs 1, 8, 9 and 26).
Under the circumstances, the crucial issue is whether Federico Pontawe and
Wilfredo Lopez were still candidates as of January 30, 1980 despite the COMELEC
decision of January 24, 1980 declaring them disqualified, taking into account the
petition for certiorari they filed with the Supreme Court on January 29, 1980.
The answer to this question depends, in turn, on whether the COMELEC decision
declaring Federico Pontawe and Wilfredo Lopez disqualified was immediately
executory.
The former Court of First Instance of Pangasinan (Dagupan Branch) and the
COMELEC ruled that Federico Pontawe and Wilfredo Lopez were still candidates
on January 30, 1980, and declared Rosario Cabangon and Alfredo Flores winners.
This ruling is now challenged in this special civil action. The main opinion penned
by Mr. Justice Relova would reverse the ruling.
With reluctance borne of my high respect for the learned Mr. Justice Relova, I beg
to dissent along the line so forcefully voiced by the equally learned Mr. Justice
Gutierrez. I wish however to articulate on the following points:cdll

1. Under Article XII, Sec. 11 of the Constitution, a party aggrieved by a

decision or ruling of the COMELEC may challenge the same before the Supreme
Court by filing a petition for certiorari within 30 days from receipt of the
COMELEC decision or ruling. In the instant case, if the COMELEC decision of
January 24, 1980 adjudging Federico Pontawe and Wilfredo Lopez disqualified
were immediately executory, such that they could not be voted for an election
day, their constitutional right to challenge the COMELEC ruling would in effect be
nullified. For even if the Supreme Court in the end reverses the COMELEC, the
candidates wrongly disqualified would have an empty victory. As they were not
candidates on election day, no votes could thereafter be counted for them. Such a
reading of the Election Law, which writes off a remedy provided for in the
Constitution, should be eschewed.
2. Equitable considerations likewise argue against the Pontawes and the
Lopezes and their political aggrupation. After Federico Pontawe and Wilfredo
Lopez had been disqualified, they caused to be nominated by their political party
one day before the election, not just any qualified candidate, but persons bearing
their own surnames — a move evidently adopted so that the substitute
candidates could get credit for the votes intended for the disqualified candidates,
since the voters would hardly have the chance to know the substitute candidates.
Out of abundant caution, however, Federico Pontawe and Wilfredo Lopez still
considered themselves as candidates and continued to fight for their candidacies
before and after election day. Indeed, as aforesaid, one day before the election,
they filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court by way of appeal from
the COMELEC decision declaring them disqualified. But after their substitute
candidates, Carlos Pontawe and Louie Lopez, had been proclaimed winners and
had assumed office, Federico and Wilfredo voluntarily abandoned their appeal.
Then, after the Court of First Instance and the COMELEC had ruled against Carlos
Pontawe and Louie Lopez and adjudged Rosario Cabangon and Alfredo Flores as
victors, Federico Pontawe and Wilfredo Lopez made another turn about, this time
seeking to revive their candidacies by filing a motion for intervention with the
COMELEC, which rightly rejected the motion.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 3. The instant case vividly illustrates a notable defect of the Election Code. Be
it noted that substitute candidates Carlos Pontawe and Louie Lopez filed their
certificates of candidacy just one day before the election. Under the
circumstances, there was hardly any chance for the voters to know that they
have substituted Federico Pontawe and Wilfredo Lopez. Indeed, right on election
day, the COMELEC Registrar of Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan, did not know if Federico
Pontawe and Wilfredo Lopez were still candidates or had been replaced. He had to
verify from COMELEC. Now, if by the application of the rules prescribed in the
Election Code for the appreciation of ballots, the votes cast for PONTAWE only or
for the Nacionalista Party candidates, or even votes cast for F. PONTAWE would be
counted in favor of the substitute candidates (Section 155 paragraphs 1, 8, 9 and
26), the Election Law would become an unholy instrument for foisting upon the
public an electoral fraud.

This underscores the need to amend the Election Code with reference to
substitute candidates so as to avoid what practically amounts to an electoral
fraud. A substitute candidate bearing the same name as the substituted
candidate ought to be barred or, if allowed to be a candidate, he should be
governed by a different set of rules for the appreciation of ballots.
4. There is a keen need to finish this election case right away. Only 117
voters of Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan voted for Carlos or C. Pontawe, and just 110
voted for Louie or L. Lopez. On the other hand, 5,627 votes were cast for Rosario
Cabangon and 5,331 for Alfredo Flores. Yet, Carlos Pontawe and Louie Lopez have
been holding office for more than 4 years now. This is a very anomalous
situation which should be stopped soonest.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J ., dissenting:

I am constrained to dissent from the opinion of the Court written in such

a trenchant and learned manner by Mr. Justice Relova.

To me, however, the issues are more far reaching than the individual fortunes of
Mr. Federico C. Pontawe, Mr. Wilfredo Lopez, Mr. Louie Lopez, Ms. Rosario
Cabangon, and Mr. Alfredo Flores. They even transcend the desires of the good
people of Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan.
Federico Pontawe was candidate for mayor of the Nationalista Party in the 1980
local elections.
On January 24, 1980, the COMELEC declared him disqualified to run for mayor on
the ground of turncoatism.
On January 29, 1980, Carlos Pontawe, the son of Federico Pontawe was
nominated to be a substitute candidate for his father.
During the elections on January 30, 1980, 5,346 votes were cast for Pontawe,
with no indication whether they were for Federico Pontawe or Carlos Pontawe.
The respondent COMELEC considers these votes as stray.
If Federico Pontawe had only respected the COMELEC resolution disqualifying
him as a candidate and respected the decision of his son and his party that Carlos
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Pontawe would be a substitute candidate for him, there would be no question on
how the votes for "Pontawe" should be appreciated.
But the elder Pontawe acted otherwise. He insisted during the elections that he
was still a candidate for mayor. Long after the elections were over, when he filed
his motion for intervention after December 19, 1981, Federico Pontawe
continued to assert that he was still a candidate on the day of the elections. How
then can we rule that there was only one Pontawe running for mayor on January
30, 1980 and that Mr. Federico Pontawe — the insistent candidate — was already
out of the picture? LibLex

On January 29, 1980, Federico Pontawe filed with the Supreme Court a petition
for certiorari to annul the COMELEC decision disqualifying his candidacy. In other
words, on January 30, 1980 when the elections were held, Federico Pontawe
considered himself a candidate otherwise he would not have appealed the
COMELEC decision to us. And we should consider him as having continued to be a
candidate on the day of the election unless he wants to make an appeal to this
Court a meaningless thing or an empty gesture devoid of significance and with
no effect whatsoever on the candidacy of Federico Pontawe and of his son Carlos
Pontawe. Suppose the Supreme Court reversed COMELEC and ruled that Federico
Pontawe was not guilty of turncoatism? How would the "Pontawe" votes be
evaluated? Should the appreciation of the "Pontawe" votes not depend on who
were the candidates on the day of the election and not on developments that
arise months or years later?
Section 28 of the Revised Election Code of 1978 provides:
"SEC. 28. Candidates in case of death withdrawal or disqualification of
another. — If, after the last day for filing certificates of candidacy, a
candidate with a certificate of candidacy duly filed should die, withdraw or
be disqualified for any cause, any voter qualified for the office may file his
certificate of candidacy for the office for which the deceased, the
candidate who has withdrawn, or disqualified person was a candidate in
accordance with the preceding sections on or before mid-day of the day
of election, and if the death, withdrawal or disqualification should occur
between the day before the election and the mid-day of election day, said
certificate may be filed with any election committee in the political
subdivision where he is a candidate: Provided however, That if the
candidate who died, withdrew or was disqualified is the official candidate
of a political party, group or aggrupation, only a person belonging to, and
certified by, the same political party, group or aggrupation may file a
certificate of candidacy for the same office."

Was Federico Pontawe disqualified on the day of the election? With an appeal
pending in the Supreme Court and Mr. Pontawe himself insisting on his candidacy
and on his not being disqualified, I prefer to rule that he was not disqualified as
of that date.
The argument that a decree of disqualification is immediately executory would
make the decision of the COMELEC final and non-appealable. There would be no
sense in this Court's examining the appeal from that decision if legally speaking
and for all intents and purposes, the elder Pontawe had already been substituted
beyond recourse and beyond change. And as earlier stated, suppose this Court
ruled that he was not disqualified.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 The real problem presented by this case is that our politicians do not respect the
constitutional provision which seeks to bring about greater stability in our
political system through more responsible, dedicated, and disciplined political
parties. As long as the constitutional provision is not repealed and legislation
implementing it has not been struck down, the Constitution and the law should
be respected. cdphil

Section 10, Article XII-C of the Constitution which provides:

"SEC. 10. No elective public officer may change his political party
affiliation during his term of office, and no candidate for any elective
public office may change his political party affiliation within six months
immediately preceding or following an election."

was intended by the framers in the Constitutional Convention and the

sovereign people who ratified it to avoid the sorry spectacle of politicians
jumping from one party to another for personal and selfish reasons and not
because they adhere to the platforms and ideologies of the party to which
they belong nor because they really want to dedicate their lives to the service
of the country. The provision was intended to do away so-called "political
butterflies."
Our present political system, while termed a "modified parliamentary" form of
government by most people, is probably more of a modified presidential form
with generous infusions of parliamentary characteristics. But whatever
description we give to it, a pre-condition for its success is the presence of
disciplined political parties. Thus, the opposition party must be organized and
united in its challenge. It must be a more or less permanent and dedicated group
with its key members, the ones holding or aspiring for elective office, not flitting
from one party to another as their selfish motives dictate. The opposition must
be moderate and not irresponsible, ready with a viable and excellent alternative
program that can be implemented if the people elect that party to power. The
provision on turncoatism is supposed to bring about greater stability into our
political system. Until such time as better measures are devised and the
provision against turncoatism is shelved or replaced with a hopefully better
provision, it is the duty of the Court to sustain its enforcement.
I mention the factor of turncoatism because it is no coincidence that Federico
Pontawe's substitute was his son Carlos Pontawe. The Pontawes wanted to keep
the mayorship for their family — never mind the provisions of the Constitution. I
feel the Court should not help them in this objective.
The problem of turncoatism is a most complex one with countless ramifications. I
abide by the choice of methods by the legislature and the executive since this is
essentially a matter of policy.
One final consideration.
The decisions, orders, and rulings of the Commission on Elections are appealable
to us only on certiorari. (Section 11, Article XII-C, Constitution) Certiorari is
available only when the respondent Commission has acted without or in excess
of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. (Section 1, Rule 65) There can be
no question about COMELEC jurisdiction in this case. Has COMELEC acted with
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 grave abuse of discretion?
Moreno's Philippine Law Dictionary, 1982 Edition, pp. 270-271, defines grave
abuse of discretion as:
"Such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to
lack of jurisdiction.

"Where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by

reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and
gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal
to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. —
Alafriz v. Nable, 72 Phil. 278.

"The capricious and arbitrary exercise of judgment. — Palma v. Q & S

Inc., 123 Phil. 960.

"Error of judgment. Both differ in that grave abuse of discretion means

capricious and arbitrary exercise of judgment while error of judgment
means the mistake actually committed in adjudication. — Ferrer v. Fortun,
SP-06839, January 26, 1978."

I feel that the mostanyone should find in the COMELEC decision is perhaps some
kind of error but not grave abuse of discretion.
I therefore, vote to dismiss the petition for lack of merit.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com