158 Bautista v. Commission On Elections20210424-14-101iams

EN BANC
[G.R. Nos. 154796-97. October 23, 2003.]
RAYMUNDO A. BAUTISTA @ "OCA" , petitioner, vs.

HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, JOSEFINA P.
JAREÑO, HON. MAYOR RAYMUND M. APACIBLE, FRANCISCA
C. RODRIGUEZ, AGRIPINA B. ANTIG, MARIA G. CANOVAS,
and DIVINA ALCOREZA, respondents.
Isidro C. Ilao for petitioner.

Solicitor General for public respondent.
Pedro M. Belmi for private respondents.
SYNOPSIS
Petitioner Raymundo A. Bautista filed his certificate of candidacy for

Punong Barangay in the 15 July 2002 elections. However, the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) Law Department recommended the cancellation of his
certificate of candidacy since he was not a registered voter in Barangay
Lumbangan, Nasugbu, Batangas. The COMELEC en banc failed to act on said
recommendation before elections. During the elections, Bautista prevailed over
his contender Divina Alcoreza and he took his oath of office. Meanwhile, the
COMELEC issued Resolution No. 5404 dated 23 July 2002 that ordered the
deletion of Bautista's name from the official list of candidates for the position of
Punong Barangay. It further issued Resolution No. 5584 dated 10 August 2002
which stated the policy on the proclaimed candidates found to be ineligible for
not being registered voters in the place where they were elected. Pursuant
thereto, Election Officer Josefina Jareño issued an order deleting the name of
Bautista from the list of candidates of Punong Barangay. It also prohibited
Bautista from assuming the position and discharging the functions of Punong
Barangay. Hence, Bautista filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition
assailing the aforementioned COMELEC Resolutions.
The Court ruled that under the Local Government Code of 1991, which
took effect on 1 January 1992, an elective local official, including a Punong
Barangay, must not only be a "qualified elector" or a "qualified voter," he must
also be a "registered voter." It is thus clear that the law as it now stands
requires a candidate for Punong Barangay to be a registered voter of the
Barangay where he intends to run for office.
In this case, Bautista made a misrepresentation of a material fact when
he made a false statement in his certificate of candidacy that he was a
registered voter in Barangay Lumbangan. Under Section 78 of the Omnibus
Election Code, false representation of a material fact in the certificate of
candidacy is a ground for the denial or cancellation of the certificate of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
candidacy. The material misrepresentation contemplated by Section 78 refers
to qualifications for elective office. A candidate guilty of misrepresentation may
be (1) prevented from running, or (2) if elected, from serving, or (3) prosecuted
for violation of the elections laws. Accordingly, since Bautista failed to qualify
for the position of Punong Barangay, the highest ranking sangguniang barangay
member, or in the case of his permanent disability, the second highest ranking
sangguniang member, shall become the Punong Barangay. Petition dismissed.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; CERTIORARI; PROPER REMEDY

TO QUESTION RESOLUTIONS ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION ON ELECTION
(COMELEC) ENBANC WHICH DO NOT PERTAIN TO ELECTION OFFENSES. — The
instant controversy involves resolutions issued by the COMELEC en banc which
do not pertain to election offenses. Hence, a special civil action for certiorari is
the proper remedy in accordance with Section 2, Rule 64 of the Rules of
Court[.]
2. POLITICAL LAW; ELECTION LAWS; OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE; COMELEC

IN DIVISION HAS JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONS TO CANCEL A CERTIFICATE OF
CANDIDACY; VIOLATED IN CASE AT BAR. — In Garvida v.Sales, Jr., the Court
held that it is the COMELEC sitting in division and not the COMELEC en banc
which has jurisdiction over petitions to cancel a certificate of candidacy. In this
case, Election Officer Jareño reported to the COMELEC Law Department
Bautista's ineligibility for being a non-registered voter. The COMELEC Law
Department recommended to the COMELEC en banc to deny due course or to
cancel Bautista's certificate of candidacy The COMELEC en banc approved the
recommendation in Resolution No. 5404 dated 23 July 2002. A division of the
COMELEC should have first heard this case. The COMELEC en banc can only act
on the case if there is a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the
COMELEC division. Hence, the COMELEC en banc acted without jurisdiction
when it ordered the cancellation of Bautista's certificate of candidacy without
first referring the case to a division for summary hearing. The proceeding on
the cancellation of a certificate of candidacy does not merely pertain to the
administrative functions of the COMELEC. Cancellation proceedings involve the
COMELEC's quasi-judicial functions.
3. ID.; CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS; COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS;
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS; ADMINISTRATIVE AND QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS,
DIFFERENTIATED. — The Court discussed the difference between administrative
and quasi judicial functions in Villarosa v. Commission on Elections: "In the
concurring opinion of Justice Antonio in University of Nueva Caceres vs.
Martinez, 56 SCRA 148, he noted that (t)he term "administrative" connotes, or
pertains, to "administration, especially management, as by managing or
conducting, directing or superintending, the execution, application, or conduct
of persons or things . " It does not entail an opportunity to be heard, the
production and weighing of evidence, and a decision or resolution thereon.
While a "quasi-judicial function" is a term which applies to the action,
discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or bodies, who are required to
investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw
conclusions from them, as a basis for their official action and to exercise
discretion of a judicial nature.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; IN THE EXERCISE OF QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS, THE

COMELEC MUST HEAR AND DECIDE CASES FIRST BY DIVISION AND UPON
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY EN BANC. — In the exercise of its
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, the Constitution mandates the COMELEC
to hear and decide cases first by division and upon motion for reconsideration,
by the COMELEC en banc. In Baytan v. COMELEC, the Court expounded on the
administrative and quasi-judicial powers of the COMELEC. The Court explained:
"Under Section 2, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, the COMELEC exercises
both administrative and quasi-judicial powers. The COMELEC's administrative
powers are found in Section 2 (1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), and (9) of Article IX-
C. The 1987 Constitution does not prescribe how the COMELEC should exercise
its administrative powers, whether en banc or in division. The Constitution
merely vests the COMELEC's administrative powers in the "Commission on
Elections," while providing that the COMELEC "may sit en banc or in two
divisions." Clearly, the COMELEC en banc can act directly on matters failing
within its administrative powers. Indeed, this has been the practice of the
COMELEC both under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. On the other hand, the
COMELEC's quasi judicial powers are found in Section 2 (2) of Article IX-C[.] . . .
The COMELEC's exercise of its quasi-judicial powers is subject to Section 3 of
Article IX-C which expressly requires that all election cases, including pre-
proclamation controversies, shall be decided by the COMELEC in division, and
the motion for reconsideration shall be decided by the COMELEC en banc. It
follows, as held by the Court in Canicosa, that the COMELEC is mandated to
decide cases first in division, and then upon motion for reconsideration en
banc, only when the COMELEC exercises its quasi judicial powers.
5. ID.; ELECTION LAWS; 1993 COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE;
CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY; MUST BE HEARD SUMMARILY
AFTER DUE NOTICE. — Under Section 3, Rule 23 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of
Procedure, a petition for the denial or cancellation of a certificate of candidacy
must be heard summarily after due notice. It is thus clear that cancellation
proceedings involve the exercise of the quasi-judicial functions of the COMELEC
which the COMELEC in division should first decide. More so in this case where
the cancellation proceedings originated not from a petition but from a report of
the election officer regarding the lack of qualification of the candidate in the
barangay election. The COMELEC en banc cannot short cut the proceedings by
acting on the case without a prior action by a division because it denies due
process to the candidate.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; VIOLATED IN CASE AT BAR. — However, the
COMELEC did not give Bautista such opportunity to explain his side. The
COMELEC en banc issued Resolution Nos. 5404 and 5584 without prior notice
and hearing. We cannot ignore the importance of prior notice and hearing.
Severe consequences attach to the COMELEC Resolutions which not only
ordered the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy of Bautista but also the
annulment of his proclamation as Punong Barangay. What is involved here is
not just the right to be voted for public office but the right to hold public office.
. . . A summary proceeding does not mean that the COMELEC could do away
with the requirements of notice and hearing. The COMELEC should have at least
given notice to Bautista to give him the chance to adduce evidence to explain
his side in the cancellation proceeding. The COMELEC en banc deprived
Bautista of procedural due process of law when it approved the report and
recommendation of the Law Department without notice and hearing.
7. ID.; ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS; DUE
PROCESS; EXPLAINED. — This Court has explained the nature of due process in
Stayfast Philippines Corporation v. NLRC: "The essence of due process is simply
the opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of
the action or ruling complained of. A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all
times and in all instances essential. The requirements are satisfied where the
parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the
controversy at hand. What is frowned upon is absolute lack of notice and
hearing. " . . . The opportunity to be heard does not only refer to the right to
present verbal arguments in court during a formal hearing. There is due
process when a party is able to present evidence in the form of pleadings.
8. ID.; ELECTION LAWS; COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 4801; ALLOWS

CANDIDATES WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED VOTERS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE
CERTIFIED LIST OF CANDIDATES UNTIL THE COMELEC DIRECTS OTHERWISE. —
Respondents likewise submit that there was no need for presentation and
evaluation of evidence since the issue of whether Bautista was a registered
voter is easily resolved by looking at the COMELEC registration records. This
reasoning fails to consider the instances where a voter may be excluded
through inadvertence or registered with an erroneous or misspelled name.
Indeed, if it was just a simple matter of looking at the record of registered
voters, then the COMELEC would not have included Section 7 (g) in its
Resolution No. 4801. This Section allows candidates who are not registered
voters to be included in the certified list of candidates until the COMELEC
directs otherwise.
9. POLITICAL LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF

1991; QUALIFICATIONS OF CANDIDATE FOR PUNONG BARANGAY ; MUST BE A
REGISTERED VOTER OF THE BARANGAY WHERE HE INTENDS TO RUN FOR
OFFICE. — Under the Local Government Code of 1991, which took effect on 1
January 1992, an elective local official, including a Punong Barangay, must not
only be a "qualified elector" or a "qualified voter," he must also be a
"registered voter." . . . These qualifications were reiterated in Section 2 of
COMELEC Resolution No. 4801 dated 23 May 2002 which prescribed the
guidelines on the filing of certificates of candidacy in connection with the 15
July 2002 elections. . . . Section 7 of COMELEC Resolution No. 4801 likewise
requires the Election Officer to verify whether the candidates are registered
voters and possess all the qualifications of a candidate. . . . It is thus clear that
the law as it now stands requires a candidate for Punong Barangay to be a
registered voter of the barangay where he intends to run for office.
10. ID.; ELECTION LAWS; OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE; FALSE
REPRESENTATION OF A MATERIAL FACT IN THE CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY IS
A GROUND FOR THE DENIAL OR CANCELLATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
CANDIDACY; CASE AT BAR. — Bautista was aware when he filed his certificate
of candidacy for the office of Punong Barangay that he lacked one of the
qualifications — that of being a registered voter in the barangay where he ran
for office. He therefore made a misrepresentation of a material fact when he
made a false statement in his certificate of candidacy that he was a registered
voter in Barangay Lumbangan. An elective office is a public trust. He who
aspires for elective office should not make a mockery of the electoral process
by falsely representing himself. The importance of a valid certificate of
candidacy rests at the very core of the electoral process. Under Section 78 of
the Omnibus Election Code, false representation of a material fact in the
certificate of candidacy is a ground for the denial or cancellation of the
certificate of candidacy. The material misrepresentation contemplated by
Section 78 refers to qualifications for elective office. A candidate guilty of
misrepresentation may be (1) prevented from running, or (2) if elected, from
serving, or (3) prosecuted for violation of the election laws.
11. ID.; ID.; 1993 COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE; CANCELLATION OF

CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY; WILL OF THE PEOPLE AS EXPRESSED THROUGH
THE BALLOT CANNOT CURE THE VICE OF INELIGIBILITY. — Indeed, the
electorate cannot amend or waive the qualifications prescribed by law for
elective office. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot
cure the vice of ineligibility. The fact that Bautista, a non-registered voter, was
elected to the office of Punong Barangay does not erase the fact that he lacks
one of the qualifications for Punong Barangay.
12. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; COMELEC CANNOT PROCLAIM AS WINNER THE
CANDIDATE WHO OBTAINS THE SECOND HIGHEST NUMBER OF VOTES IN CASE
THE WINNING CANDIDATE IS INELIGIBLE OR DISQUALIFIED. — It is now settled
doctrine that the COMELEC cannot proclaim as winner the candidate who
obtains the second highest number of votes in case the winning candidate is
ineligible or disqualified. The exception to this well-settled rule was mentioned
in Labo, Jr.v. Commission on Elections and reiterated in Grego v. COMELEC. ETHIDa
13. ID.; ID.; ID.; SUBSEQUENT FINDING BY THE COMELEC EN BANC THAT A
CERTAIN CANDIDATE IS INELIGIBLE CANNOT RETROACT TO THE DATE OF
ELECTIONS SO AS TO INVALIDATE THE VOTES CAST FOR HIM. — Although the
COMELEC Law Department recommended to deny due course or to cancel the
certificate of candidacy of Bautista on 11 July 2002, the COMELEC en banc
failed to act on it before the 15 July 2002 barangay elections. It was only on 23
July 2002 that the COMELEC en banc issued Resolution No. 5404, adopting the
recommendation of the COMELEC Law Department and directing the Election
Officer to delete Bautista's name from the official list of candidates. Thus, when
the electorate voted for Bautista as Punong Barangay on 15 July 2002, it was
under the belief that he was qualified. There is no presumption that the
electorate agreed to the invalidation of their votes as stray votes in case of
Bautista's disqualification. The Court cannot adhere to the theory of respondent
Alcoreza that the votes cast in favor of Bautista are stray votes. A subsequent
finding by the COMELEC en banc that Bautista is ineligible cannot retroact to
the date of elections so as to invalidate the votes cast for him.
14. ID.; ID.; ID.; IN CASE THE ELECTED PUNONG BARANGAY FAILED TO
QUALIFY, THE HIGHEST RANKING SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY MEMBER SHALL
TAKE HIS PLACE. — Since Bautista failed to qualify for the position of Punong
Barangay, the highest ranking sangguniang barangay member, or in the case of
his permanent disability, the second highest ranking sangguniang member,
shall become the Punong Barangay.
DECISION
CARPIO, J : p
The Case
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order to nullify Resolution Nos. 5404 and
5584 of the Commission on Elections ("COMELEC") en banc. Resolution No.
5404 1 dated 23 July 2002 ordered the deletion of Raymundo A. Bautista's
("Bautista") name from the official list of candidates for the position of Punong
Barangay of Barangay Lumbangan, Nasugbu, Batangas ("Lumbangan") in the
15 July 2002 elections. Resolution No. 5584 2 dated 10 August 2002 provided
for the policy of the COMELEC regarding proclaimed candidates found to be
ineligible for not being registered voters in the place where they ran for office.
The Facts
On 10 June 2002, Bautista filed his certificate of candidacy for Punong
Barangay in Lumbangan for the 15 July 2002 barangay elections. Election
Officer Josefina P. Jareño ("Election Officer Jareño") refused to accept Bautista's
certificate of candidacy because he was not a registered voter in Lumbangan.
On 11 June 2002, Bautista filed an action for mandamus against Election Officer
Jareño with the Regional Trial Court of Batangas, Branch 14 ("trial court"). 3 On
1 July 2002, the trial court ordered Election Officer Jareño to accept Bautista's
certificate of candidacy and to include his name in the certified list of
candidates for Punong Barangay. The trial court ruled that Section 7 (g) of
COMELEC Resolution No. 4801 4 mandates Election Officer Jareño to include the
name of Bautista in the certified list of candidates until the COMELEC directs
otherwise. 5 In compliance with the trial court's order, Election Officer Jareño
included Bautista in the certified list of candidates for Punong Barangay. At the
same time, Election Officer Jareño referred the matter of Bautista's inclusion in
the certified list of candidates with the COMELEC Law Department on 5 July
2002. 6 On 11 July 2002, the COMELEC Law Department recommended the
cancellation of Bautista's certificate of candidacy since he was not registered
as a voter in Lumbangan. The COMELEC en banc failed to act on the COMELEC
Law Department's recommendation before the barangay elections on 15 July
2002.
During the 15 July 2002 barangay elections, Bautista and private
respondent Divina Alcoreza ("Alcoreza") were candidates for the position of
Punong Barangay in Lumbangan. Bautista obtained the highest number of
votes (719) while Alcoreza came in second with 522 votes, or a margin of 197
votes. Thus, the Lumbangan Board of Canvassers ("Board of Canvassers") 7
proclaimed Bautista as the elected Punong Barangay 8 on 15 July 2002. On 8
August 2002, Bautista took his oath of office as Punong Barangay before
Congresswoman Eileen Ermita-Buhain of the First District of Batangas. On 16
August 2002, Bautista again took his oath of office during a mass oath-taking
ceremony administered by Nasugbu Municipal Mayor Raymund Apacible.
Meanwhile, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 5404 on 23 July 2002 and

Resolution No. 5584 on 10 August 2002 ("COMELEC Resolutions"). In Resolution
No. 5404, the COMELEC en banc resolved to cancel Bautista's certificate of
candidacy. The COMELEC en banc directed the Election Officer to delete
Bautista's name from the official list of candidates. The dispositive portion of
Resolution No. 5404 reads:
Considering the foregoing, the Commission, RESOLVED, as it
hereby RESOLVES, to ADOPT the recommendation, as follows:
1. To DENY due course to/or cancel the certificates of candidacy
of the following:
A. For Barangay Officials:

1. CONRADO S. PEDRAZA — Navotas
2. PIO B. MALIGAYA — Sampaga
3. PATERNO H. MENDOZA — Sampaga all of Balayan, Batangas.
B. a. RAY OCA A. BAUTISTA, candidate for Punong Barangay of Brgy.

Lumbangan, Nasugbu, Batangas, for not being registered voters
of barangays where they are running for an office;
2. To DIRECT the Election Officers of Balayan, Batangas and
Nasugbu, Batangas, to delete their names in the official list of
candidates in their respective Barangays without prejudice to the filing
of complaint against them for misrepresentation under Section 74 of
the Omnibus Election Code if the evidence so warrants.
Let the Law Department implement this resolution.
On the other hand, Resolution No. 5584 expressed COMELEC's policy

regarding proclaimed candidates found to be ineligible for not being registered
voters in the place of their election, thus:

ON PROCLAIMED CANDIDATES FOUND TO BE INELIGIBLE FOR
BEING NOT REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE PLACE WHERE THEY WERE
ELECTED.
(a) For a proclaimed candidate whose certificate of candidacy
was denied due course to or cancelled by virtue of a Resolution of the
Commission En Banc albeit such Resolution did not arrive on time.
1. To DIRECT the Election Officers concerned to implement
the resolution of the Commission deleting the name of the
candidate whose certificate of candidacy was denied due course;
2. To DIRECT the candidate whose name was ordered
deleted to cease and desist from taking his oath of office or from
assuming the position to which he was elected, unless a
temporary restraining order was issued by the Supreme Court;
and
3. To RECONVENE the Board of Canvassers for the purpose
of proclaiming the duly-elected candidates and correcting the
Certificate of Canvass of Proclamation.
(b) For a proclaimed candidate who is subsequently declared
disqualified by the Commission in the disqualification case filed against
him prior to his proclamation.
1. To DIRECT the proclaimed disqualified candidate to

cease and desist from taking his oath of office or from assuming
the position to which he was elected, unless a temporary
restraining order was issued by the Supreme Court; and
2. To RECONVENE the Board of Canvassers for the purpose
of proclaiming the duly-elected candidates and correcting the
Certificate of Canvass of Proclamation.
(c) For a proclaimed candidate who is found to be ineligible only

after his proclamation (i.e., There is no Resolution denying due course
to or canceling his certificate of candidacy and there is no petition for
disqualification pending against him before his proclamation.)
1. To DISMISS any and all cases questioning the eligibility
of such candidate for LACK OF JURISDICTION, the proper remedy
being a quo warranto case before the metropolitan or municipal
trial court.
In a letter dated 19 August 2002, 9 COMELEC Commissioner Luzviminda

Tancangco directed Election Officer Jareño to (1) delete the name of Bautista
from the official list of candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay
Lumbangan; (2) order the Board of Canvassers of Lumbangan to reconvene for
the purpose of proclaiming the elected Punong Barangay with due notice to all
candidates concerned; and (3) direct the proclaimed disqualified candidate
Bautista to cease and desist from taking his oath of office or from assuming the
position which he won in the elections, citing COMELEC Resolution Nos. 5404
and 5584. Consequently, Election Officer Jareño issued on 20 August 2002 an
Order 10 deleting the name of Bautista from the list of candidates for Punong
Barangay. The Order also prohibited Bautista from assuming the position and
discharging the functions of Punong Barangay of Lumbangan pursuant to the
COMELEC Resolutions. The Board of Canvassers reconvened on 23 August 2002
and after making the necessary corrections in the Certificate of Canvass of
Votes, proclaimed Alcoreza as the winning Punong Barangay. 11 Alcoreza thus
assumed the post of Punong Barangay of Lumbangan.
On 26 August 2002, Bautista wrote a letter to COMELEC requesting the
latter for reconsideration of the COMELEC Resolutions.
On 9 September 2002, while his letter for reconsideration was still
pending with the COMELEC, Bautista filed this petition for certiorari and
prohibition with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order.
The Issues
The issues raised are:
1. Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction when it
issued Resolution Nos. 5404 and 5584;
2. Whether the COMELEC deprived Bautista of due process when

the COMELEC en banc issued Resolution Nos. 5404 and 5584;
and
3. Whether it was proper to proclaim Alcoreza as Punong Barangay

in view of the alleged disqualification of the winning
candidate Bautista.
The Court's Ruling
Before considering the merits of the case, we shall first resolve the
procedural questions raised by respondents. Respondents contend that a
motion for reconsideration of the assailed COMELEC Resolutions is a
prerequisite to the filing of a petition for certiorari and prohibition. Absent any
extraordinary circumstances, a party who has filed a motion for reconsideration
should wait for the resolution of the motion before filing the petition for
certiorari. Respondents allege that the instant petition is premature because
Bautista has a pending motion for reconsideration of the COMELEC Resolutions.
Respondents claim that Bautista filed the instant petition barely two weeks
after filing the motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc without
waiting for the resolution of his motion. 12
The contention of respondents is wrong. The case 13 cited by respondents
refers to a motion for reconsideration pending before the COMELEC en banc
seeking the reconsideration of a resolution rendered by a COMELEC division.
Rule 19 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure allows a motion to reconsider
a decision, resolution, order, or ruling of a division. However, Section 1 (d), Rule
13 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure prohibits a motion to reconsider a
resolution of the COMELEC en banc except in cases involving election offenses.
As held in Angelia v. Commission on Elections: 14
We hold that petitioner acted correctly in filing the present
petition because the resolution of the COMELEC in question is not
subject to reconsideration and, therefore, any party who disagreed with
it only had one recourse, and that was to file a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 13, §1 of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides:
What Pleadings are Not Allowed. — The following pleadings are

riot allowed:
xxx xxx xxx

d) motion for reconsideration of an en banc ruling, resolution,
order or decision except in election offense cases;
xxx xxx xxx

As the case before the COMELEC did not involve an election
offense, reconsideration of the COMELEC resolution was not possible
and petitioner had no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law. For him to wait until the
COMELEC denied his motion would be to allow the reglementary period
for filing a petition for certiorari with this Court to run and expire.
The instant controversy involves resolutions issued by the COMELEC en

banc which do not pertain to election offenses. Hence, a special civil action for
certiorari is the proper remedy 15 in accordance with Section 2, Rule 64 of the
Rules of Court which provides:
SEC. 2. Mode of review. — A judgment or final order or resolution
of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit may be
brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari
under Rule 65 except as hereinafter provided. (Emphasis supplied)
Whether the COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing Resolution Nos. 5404
and 5584
Bautista argues that without any disqualification case formally filed
against him, the COMELEC has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of his case.
The COMELEC cannot motu proprio act on the issue of his alleged lack of
qualification. Even assuming that there was a disqualification case filed against
him, it is the COMELEC sitting in division which has jurisdiction and not the
COMELEC en banc. 16
On the other hand, respondents allege that the Constitution vests the
COMELEC with the power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations
relative to the conduct of elections. The Constitution thus empowers the
COMELEC to pass upon the qualification of candidates for elective office.
Furthermore, respondents submit that the COMELEC's jurisdiction to cancel the
certificate of candidacy of disqualified candidates is already settled
jurisprudence. 17
Respondents cited cases to support their claim that the COMELEC has
jurisdiction to cancel the certificates of candidacy of disqualified candidates.
However, the COMELEC heard these cases first in division and not en banc in
the first instance.
In Garvida v. Sales, Jr., 18 the Court held that it is the COMELEC sitting in
division and not the COMELEC en banc which has jurisdiction over petitions to
cancel a certificate of candidacy. The Court held:
. . . The Omnibus Election Code, in Section 78, Article IX, governs
the procedure to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of
candidacy, viz:
"Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a
certificate of candidacy. — A verified petition seeking to deny
due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by
any person exclusively on the ground that any material
representation contained therein as required under Section 74
hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later
than twenty-five days from the time of filing of the certificate of
candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not
later than fifteen days before election."
In relation thereto, Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
provides that a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of
candidacy for an elective office may be filed with the Law Department
of the COMELEC on the ground that the candidate has made a false
material representation in his certificate. The petition may be heard
and evidence received by any official designated by the COMELEC after
which the case shall be decided by the COMELEC itself.
Under the same Rules of Procedure, jurisdiction over a petition to
cancel a certificate of candidacy lies with the COMELEC sitting in
Division, not en banc. Cases before a Division may only be entertained
by the COMELEC en banc when the required number of votes to reach
a decision, resolution, order or ruling is not obtained in the Division.
Moreover, only motions to reconsider decisions, resolutions, orders or
rulings of the COMELEC in Division are resolved by the COMELEC en
banc.
It is therefore the COMELEC sitting in Divisions that can hear and

decide election cases. This is clear from Section 3 of the said Rules
thus:
"Sec. 3. The Commission in Sitting in Divisions. — The

Commission shall sit in two (2) Divisions to hear and decide
protests or petitions in ordinary actions, special actions, special
cases, provisional remedies, contempt and special proceedings
except in accreditation of citizens' arms of the Commission."
In the instant case, the COMELEC en banc did not refer the case
to any of its Divisions upon receipt of the petition. It therefore acted
without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion when it
entertained the petition and issued the order of May 2, 1996.
(Emphasis supplied)
In this case, Election Officer Jareño reported to the COMELEC Law
Department Bautista's ineligibility for being a non-registered voter. The
COMELEC Law Department recommended to the COMELEC en banc to deny due
course or to cancel Bautista's certificate of candidacy. The COMELEC en banc
approved the recommendation in Resolution No. 5404 dated 23 July 2002.
A division of the COMELEC should have first heard this case. The
COMELEC en banc can only act on the case if there is a motion for
reconsideration of the decision of the COMELEC division. Hence, the COMELEC
en banc acted without jurisdiction when it ordered the cancellation of Bautista's
certificate of candidacy without first referring the case to a division for
summary hearing.
The proceeding on the cancellation of a certificate of candidacy does not

merely pertain to the administrative functions of the COMELEC. Cancellation
proceedings involve the COMELEC's quasi judicial functions. The Court
discussed the difference between administrative and quasi-judicial functions in
Villarosa v. Commission on Elections: 19
In the concurring opinion of Justice Antonio in University of Nueva
Caceres vs. Martinez, 56 SCRA 148, he noted that
(t)he term "administrative" connotes, or pertains, to
"administration, especially management, as by managing or
conducting, directing or superintending, the execution, application, or
conduct of persons or things." It does not entail an opportunity to be
heard, the production and weighing of evidence, and a decision or
resolution thereon.
While a "quasi judicial function" is
A term which applies to the action, discretion, etc., of public

administrative officers or bodies, who are required to investigate facts,
or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions
from them, as a basis for their official action and to exercise discretion
of a judicial nature. (Emphasis supplied)
In the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, the
Constitution mandates the COMELEC to hear and decide cases first by division
and upon motion for reconsideration, by the COMELEC en banc. 20 In Baytan v.
COMELEC, 21 the Court expounded on the administrative and quasi-judicial
powers of the COMELEC. The Court explained:
Under Section 2, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution, the
COMELEC exercises both administrative and quasi-judicial powers. The
COMELEC's administrative powers are found in Section 2 (1), (3), (4),
(5), (6), (7), (8), and (9) of Article IX-C. The 1987 Constitution does not
prescribe how the COMELEC should exercise its administrative powers,
whether en banc or in division. The Constitution merely vests the
COMELEC's administrative powers in the "Commission on Elections,"
while providing that the COMELEC "may sit en banc or in two divisions."
Clearly, the COMELEC en banc can act directly on matters falling within
its administrative powers. Indeed, this has been the practice of the
COMELEC both under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.
On the other hand, the COMELEC's quasi-judicial powers are
found in Section 2 (2) of Article IX-C, to wit:
"Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the
following powers and functions:
xxx xxx xxx

(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all
contests relating to the elections, returns, and
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city
officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests
involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts
of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay
officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission

on Elections contests involving elective municipal and
barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not
appealable."
The COMELEC's exercise of its quasi-judicial powers is subject to

Section 3 of Article IX-C which expressly requires that all election
cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, shall be decided by
the COMELEC in division, and the motion for reconsideration shall be
decided by the COMELEC en banc. It follows, as held by the Court in
Canicosa, that the COMELEC is mandated to decide cases first in
division, and then upon motion for reconsideration en banc, only when
the COMELEC exercises its quasi-judicial powers. (Emphasis supplied)
Under Section 3, Rule 23 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a
petition for the denial or cancellation of a certificate of candidacy must be
heard summarily after due notice. It is thus clear that cancellation proceedings
involve the exercise of the quasi-judicial functions of the COMELEC which the
COMELEC in division should first decide. More so in this case where the
cancellation proceedings originated not from a petition but from a report of the
election officer regarding the lack of qualification of the candidate in the
barangay election. The COMELEC en banc cannot short cut the proceedings by
acting on the case without a prior action by a division because it denies due
process to the candidate.
Whether the COMELEC deprived Bautista of due process when it issued

Resolution Nos. 5404 and 5584
Bautista alleges that the COMELEC denied him due process because there
was no notice and hearing prior to the issuance of Resolution Nos. 5404 and
5584. He became aware of the issuance of the COMELEC Resolutions only when
he received a copy of Election Officer Jareño's Order dated 20 August 2002
ordering him to cease and desist from assuming the position of Punong
Barangay. 22
The Solicitor General submits that the COMELEC did not deprive Bautista
of due process. Bautista had the chance to be heard and to present his side
when he filed a letter to the COMELEC en banc requesting reconsideration of
the Resolutions. 23
This Court has explained the nature of due process in Stayfast Philippines
Corporation v. NLRC: 24
The essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be
heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to
explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of.
A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all
instances essential. The requirements are satisfied where the parties
are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the
controversy at hand. What is frowned upon is absolute lack of notice
and hearing. . . (Emphasis supplied)
The opportunity to be heard does not only refer to the right to present
verbal arguments in court during a formal hearing. 25 There is due process
when a party is able to present evidence in the form of pleadings. 26 However,
the COMELEC did not give Bautista such opportunity to explain his side. The
COMELEC en banc issued Resolution Nos. 5404 and 5584 without prior notice
and hearing.
We cannot ignore the importance of prior notice and hearing. Severe

consequences attach to the COMELEC Resolutions which not only ordered the
cancellation of the certificate of candidacy of Bautista but also the annulment
of his proclamation as Punong Barangay. What is involved here is not just the
right to be voted for public office but the right to hold public office. As held in
Sandoval v. Commission on Elections: 27
. . . Although the COMELEC is clothed with jurisdiction over the
subject matter and issue of SPC No. 98-143 and SPC No. 98-206, we
find the exercise of its jurisdiction tainted with illegality. We hold that
its order to set aside the proclamation of petitioner is invalid for having
been rendered without due process of law. Procedural due process
demands prior notice and hearing. Then after the hearing, it is also
necessary that the tribunal show substantial evidence to support its
ruling. In other words, due process requires that a party be given an
opportunity to adduce his evidence to support his side of the case and
that the evidence should be considered in the adjudication of the case.
The facts show that COMELEC set aside the proclamation of petitioner
without benefit of prior notice and hearing and it rendered the
questioned order based solely on private respondent's allegations. We
held in Bince, Jr. vs. COMELEC:
"Petitioner cannot be deprived of his office without due
process of law. Although public office is not property under
Section 1 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, and one cannot
acquire a vested right to public office, it is, nevertheless, a
protected right. Due process in proceedings before the
COMELEC, exercising its quasi-judicial functions, requires due
notice and hearing, among others. Thus, although the COMELEC
possesses, in appropriate cases, the power to annul or suspend
the proclamation of any candidate, we had ruled in Farinas vs.
Commission on Elections, Reyes vs. Commission on Elections and
Gallardo vs. Commission on Elections that the COMELEC is
without power to partially or totally annul a proclamation or
suspend the effects of a proclamation without notice and
hearing." (Emphasis supplied)
The fact that Bautista was able to file a letter with the COMELECen banc
requesting for reconsideration of the Resolutions is beside the point. To
reiterate, the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure prohibit a motion for
reconsideration of a COMELEC en banc resolution except in cases involving
election offenses.
Respondents likewise submit that there was no need for presentation and
evaluation of evidence since the issue of whether Bautista was a registered
voter is easily resolved by looking at the COMELEC registration records. 28 This
reasoning fails to consider the instances where a voter may be excluded
through inadvertence or registered with an erroneous or misspelled name. 29
Indeed, if it was just a simple matter of looking at the record of registered
voters, then the COMELEC would not have included Section 7 (g) 30 in its
Resolution No. 4801. This Section allows candidates who are not registered
voters to be included in the certified list of candidates until the COMELEC
directs otherwise.
Rule 23 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides for the twin
requirements of prior notice and hearing, as follows:
Rule 23 — Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certificates of
Candidacy
Section 1. Grounds for Denial of Certificate of Candidacy. — A

petition to deny due course to or cancel, a certificate of candidacy for
any elective office may be filed with the Law Department of the
Commission by any citizen of voting age or a duly registered political
party, organization, or coalition of political parties on the exclusive
ground that any material representation contained therein as required
by law is false.
Sec. 2. Period to File Petition . — The petition must be filed within

five (5) days following the last day for the filing of certificates of
candidacy.
Sec. 3. Summary Proceeding. — The petition shall be heard
summarily after due notice.
Sec. 4. Delegation of Reception of Evidence. — The Commission
may designate any of its officials who are members of the Philippine
Bar to hear the case and receive evidence. (Emphasis supplied)
A summary proceeding does not mean that the COMELEC could do away
with the requirements of notice and hearing. The COMELEC should have at least
given notice to Bautista to give him the chance to adduce evidence to explain
his side in the cancellation proceeding. The COMELEC en banc deprived
Bautista of procedural due process of law when it approved the report and
recommendation of the Law Department without notice and hearing. 31
Whether Bautista was a registered voter of Barangay Lumbangan when he

filed his certificate of candidacy
The events 32 that transpired after the 15 July 2002 elections necessitate
the early resolution of this case. The Court deems it proper not to remand the
case to the COMELEC to avoid further delay. The Court will resolve this case
based on the pleadings submitted by the parties.
Under the Revised Administrative Code, 33 one of the qualifications of an

elective municipal officer is that he must be a "qualified voter" in his
municipality. Section 2174 of the Revised Administrative Code reads:
Section 2174. Qualifications of elective municipal officer. — An
elective municipal officer must, at the time of the election, be a
qualified voter in his municipality and must have been resident therein
for at least one year, and must not be less than twenty-three years of
age. He must also be able to read and write intelligently either English,
Spanish, or the local dialect. (Emphasis supplied)
On the other hand, under the Republic Act No. 2370, 34 otherwise known
as the Barrio Charter, a candidate for the barrio council 35 must be a "qualified
elector." Section 8 of the Barrio Charter reads:
Section 8. Qualifications for election to the barrio council. —
Candidates for election to the barrio council:
(a) Must be a qualified elector and must have been a resident of
the barrio for at least six months prior to the election; and
(b) Must not have been convicted of a crime involving moral

turpitude or of a crime which carries a penalty of at least one year
imprisonment. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, in the 1958 case of Rocha v. Cordis, 36 the Court held that a
candidate for an elective municipal office did not have to be a registered voter
in the municipality to qualify to run for an elective municipal office. Citing the
earlier case of Yra v. Abaño, 37 the Court ruled that the words "qualified elector"
meant a person who had all the qualifications provided by law to be a voter and
not a person registered in the electoral list. In the same vein, the term
"qualified" when applied to a voter does not necessarily mean that a person
must be a registered voter.
However, under the Local Government Code of 1991, 38 which took effect
on 1 January 1992, an elective local official, including a Punong Barangay, must
not only be a "qualified elector" or a "qualified voter," he must also be a
"registered voter." 39 Section 39 of the Local Government Code provides:
SEC. 39. Qualifications. — (a) An elective local official must be a
citizen of the Philippines; a registered voter in the barangay,
municipality, city, or province or, in the case of a member of the
sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, or sangguniang
bayan, the district where he intends to be elected; a resident therein
for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election;
and able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or
dialect.
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Candidates for the position of punong barangay or member of

the sangguniang barangay must be at least eighteen (18) years of age
on election day.
xxx xxx xxx
These qualifications were reiterated in Section 2 of COMELEC Resolution

No. 4801 dated 23 May 2002 which prescribed the guidelines on the filing of
certificates of candidacy in connection with the 15 July 2002 elections. Section
2 reads:
Sec. 2. Qualifications. — (a) Candidates for Punong Barangay and
Sangguniang Barangay Kagawad must be:
(1) Filipino citizens;
(2) At least 18 years old on election day;
(3) Able to read and write Pilipino or any local language or

dialect; and
(4) Registered voters of the barangay where they intend to run
for office and residents thereof for at least one (1) year
immediately preceding the day of the election. (Emphasis
supplied)
Section 7 of COMELEC Resolution No. 4801 likewise requires the Election

Officer to verify whether the candidates are registered voters and possess all
the qualifications of a candidate. Thus, Section 7 (f) and (g) read:
(f) Before the preparation of the certified lists of candidates it
shall be the duty of the Election Officer to: (1) verify whether all
candidates for barangay and sangguniang kabataan positions are
registered voters of the barangay where they file their certificates of
candidacy; and (2) examine the entries of the certificates of candidacy
and determine on the basis of said entries whether the candidate
concerned possesses all the qualifications of a candidate.
(g) If there are candidates who are not registered voters in the
barangay where they run for barangay or sangguniang kabataan
positions or do not possess all the other qualifications of a candidate,
he shall make the corresponding report by REGISTERED MAIL and by
RUSH TELEGRAM to the Law Department of the Commission within
three (3) days from the last day for filing the certificates of candidacy,
copy furnished the Provincial Election Supervisor and the Regional
Election Director. The names of said candidates, however, shall still be
included in the certified lists of candidates until the Commission directs
otherwise. (Emphasis supplied)
It is thus clear that the law as it now stands requires a candidate for
Punong Barangay to be a registered voter of the barangay where he intends to
run for office.
Bautista admitted in his affidavit 40 dated 24 August 2002 that he was not
a registered voter of Barangay Lumbangan, thus:
AFFIDAVIT
That I, RAYMUNDO A. @ OCA BAUTISTA, of legal age, married,
Mechanical Engineer by profession, Filipino citizen and have been
residing at Sitio Calamundingan, Barangay Lumbangan, Nasugbu,
Batangas, after being duly sworn according to law depose and say:
1. That I was born at Barangay Tumalim, Nasugbu, Batangas, on
Match 15, 1954 and upon reaching the age of four (4) our family
transferred to Sitio Calamundingan, Barangay Lumbangan, Nasugbu,
Batangas and I have been permanently residing thereat since that time
up to the present, and this fact can be attested to by our immediate
neighbors.
2. That since the time I reached the age of majority, I have
participated both in the National and Local Elections up to the year
1995 and as matter of fact I ran for the Office of member of the
Municipal Council in the year 1992 Elections.
3. Sometime during the late part of the year 1995, I went to the
United States of America scounting (sic) for a good job but I was not
able to find one so I went home in the year 2000 but again believing
that I could land a job in the United States, I again went there but I was
not able to get a job therein and so I went back to the Philippines in the
year 2001 but I found out that my name was no longer included in the
list of registered voters at Barangay Lumbangan, Nasugbu, Batangas.
4. Sometime in the year 2002, I personally went to the Office of
the Local Election Registrar particularly talking to Miss Josefina P.
Jareño in order to register because as I know, to run for the Office of
Barangay Chairman, I have to be a registered voter in our Barangay.
5. However, I was denied registration because according to her,
her Office is not open for registration at any time and I should wait for
the General Registration and for that reason I was not able to register.
xxx xxx xxx

11. That had I known that there is a provision in Section 52,
under paragraph (k) A, when Miss Josefina P. Jareño denied my request
for registration as a voter, I would have filed a Petition for Mandamus
with the proper Court so that she can be ordered to register me as a
voter in Barangay Lumbangan, Nasugbu, Batangas so that any and all
technicality may be avoided." (Emphasis supplied)
According to Bautista's affidavit, he was practically out of the country

from 1995 until 2001. When the certified list of voters ceased to be effective
and operative after the barangay elections in 1997, qualified voters had to
register again to vote in any election. Apparently, Bautista failed to register
during the general registration of voters conducted by the COMELEC in 1997
since he was still out of the country during that time. Republic Act No. 8189
("The Voter's Registration Act of 1996") provides for a system of continuing
registration of voters. Thus, Bautista should have registered anew in the office
of the Election Officer when he came back to the Philippines in 2001 and
learned that his name was no longer included in the roster of registered voters.
The pertinent provisions of RA No. 8189 read:
SEC. 7. General Registration of Voters. — Immediately after the
barangay elections in 1997, the existing certified list of voters shall
cease to be effective and operative. For purposes of the May 1998
elections and all elections, plebiscites, referenda, initiatives, and recall
subsequent thereto, the Commission shall undertake a general
registration of voters before the Board of Election Inspectors on June
14, 15, 21 and 22 and, subject to the discretion of the Commission, on
June 28 and 29, 1997 in accordance with this Act.
SEC. 8. System of Continuing Registration of Voters. — The
personal filing of application of registration of voters shall be conducted
daily in the office of the Election Officer during regular office hours. No
registration shall, however be conducted during the period starting one
hundred twenty (120) days before a regular election and ninety (90)
days before a special election.
xxx xxx xxx
SEC. 10. Registration of Voters. — A qualified voter shall be

registered in the permanent list of voters in a precinct of the city or
municipality where he resides to be able to vote in any election. To
register as a voter, he shall personally accomplish an application form
for registration as prescribed by the Commission in three (3) copies
before the Election Officer on any date during office hours after having
acquired the qualifications of a voter. (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
It is thus clear that Bautista was remiss in his duty to ensure his right to
vote and to be voted for public office. As early as 2001, he was already aware
that his name was no longer included in the roster of registered voters. Yet,
Bautista chose not to register anew that year despite his knowledge that he
needed to register as a voter in the barangay to run for the office of Punong
Barangay.
Bautista alleges that his non-registration as a voter of Barangay

Lumbangan was due to the refusal of Election Officer Jareño to register him
sometime in January 2002. 41 Aside from his bare allegation that he tried to
register in January 2002, Bautista did not proffer any other proof like a duly
accomplished application form for registration to substantiate his claim that he
indeed attempted to register anew. On the other hand, Election Officer Jareño
denies Bautista's allegations in her comment filed on 10 October 2002, thus:
COMMENT
COMES NOW Respondent JOSEPINA P. JARENO (sic) and to this
Honorable Supreme Court by way of comment to the Petition for
Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary
Restraining Order, filed by herein Petitioner, most respectfully states
that:
1. Respondent JOSEPINA P. JAREÑO (sic) is the Election Officer of
Nasugbu, Batangas, while petitioner, RAYMUNDO A. BAUTISTA
was one of the candidates for the Barangay Chairman of
Barangay Lumbangan, Nasugbu, Batangas, in the recently
concluded barangay elections;
2. Based on the records in our files, petitioner was not and is not a
registered voter of Barangay Lumbangan or any other barangays
in Nasugbu, Batangas;
3. There was never an instance during the period starting June 1997 up
to December 26, 2001 when registration of voters for the
updating of the Voter's Registration Record had been undertaken
by the Commission on Elections on an "on again/off again"
system, did petitioner RAYMUNDO BAUTISTA come to our office
to check or ensure that he is still in the active list of voters of
Barangay Lumbangan, i.e., assuming that he was registered as a
voter thereof, in the first place;
4. The last day of registration of voters (new or transferee) had been
last December 26, 2001, and registration shall resume again, this
coming September 16, 2002. In the meantime, no general
registration nor special registration had been mandated by the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC, for brevity) between the
period December 27, 2001 until September 15, 2002;
5. I only met petitioner RAYMUNDO BAUTISTA for the first time when he
came to our office to file his Certificate of Candidacy last June 10,
2002, which was the last day set by the COMELEC for the filing of
Certificates of Candidacy;
xxx xxx xxx
Bautista was aware when he filed his certificate of candidacy for the office
of Punong Barangay that he lacked one of the qualifications — that of being a
registered voter in the barangay where he ran for office. He therefore made a
misrepresentation of a material fact when he made a false statement in his
certificate of candidacy that he was a registered voter in Barangay Lumbangan.
42 An elective office is a public trust. He who aspires for elective office should
not make a mockery of the electoral process by falsely representing himself.
The importance of a valid certificate of candidacy rests at the very core of the
electoral process. 43 Under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, false
representation of a material fact in the certificate of candidacy is a ground for
the denial or cancellation of the certificate of candidacy. The material
misrepresentation contemplated by Section 78 refers to qualifications for
elective office. A candidate guilty of misrepresentation may be (1) prevented
from running, or (2) if elected, from serving, or (3) prosecuted for violation of
the election laws. 44
Invoking salus populi est suprema lex, Bautista argues that the people's
choice expressed in the local elections deserves respect. Bautista's invocation
of the liberal interpretation of election laws is unavailing. As held in Aquino v.
Commission on Elections: 45
In fine, we are left with no choice but to affirm the COMELEC's
conclusion declaring herein petitioner ineligible for the elective position
as Representative of Makati City's Second District on the basis of
respondent commission's finding that petitioner lacks the one year
residence in the district mandated by the 1987 Constitution. A
democratic government is necessarily a government of laws. In a
republican government those laws are themselves ordained by the
people. Through their representatives, they dictate the qualifications
necessary for service in government positions. And as petitioner clearly
lacks one of the essential qualifications for running for membership in
the House of Representatives, not even the will of a majority or plurality
of the voters of the Second District of Makati City would substitute for a
requirement mandated by the fundamental law itself.
Indeed, the electorate cannot amend or waive the qualifications

prescribed by law for elective office. The will of the people as expressed
through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility. 46 The fact that Bautista,
a non-registered voter, was elected to the office of Punong Barangay does not
erase the fact that he lacks one of the qualifications for Punong Barangay.
Whether it was proper to proclaim Alcoreza as Punong Barangay in view of

ineligibility of the winning candidate
Bautista subscribes to the view of the Solicitor General that under the law
and jurisprudence, the COMELEC cannot proclaim as winner the second placer
in case of ineligibility of the winning candidate.
The Solicitor General submits that the disqualification of the winning

candidate Bautista does not result in the proclamation of Alcoreza who
obtained the second highest number of votes because Alcoreza was obviously
not the choice of the electorate. The Solicitor General emphasized that the
COMELEC declared Bautista ineligible for the post of Punong Barangay only
after his election and proclamation as the winning candidate.
Respondent Alcoreza, however, alleges that her proclamation as the

elected Punong Barangay was legal and valid. Alcoreza claims her case falls
under the exception to the rule that the disqualification of the winning
candidate does not entitle the candidate with the next higher number of votes
to be proclaimed winner. Alcoreza cites Grego v. COMELEC 47 which held that
the exception is predicated on the concurrence of two assumptions, namely: (1)
the one who obtained the highest number of votes is disqualified; and (2) the
electorate is fully aware in fact and in law of a candidate's disqualification so as
to bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety but would nonetheless
cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate.
This Court agrees with the view of the Solicitor General. It is now settled
doctrine that the COMELEC cannot proclaim as winner the candidate who
obtains the second highest number of votes in case the winning candidate is
ineligible or disqualified. 48 The exception to this well-settled rule was
mentioned in Labo, Jr. v. Commission on Elections 49 and reiterated in Grego v.
COMELEC. 50 However, the facts warranting the exception to the rule do not
obtain in the present case.
Although the COMELEC Law Department recommended to deny due

course or to cancel the certificate of candidacy of Bautista on 11 July 2002, the
COMELEC en banc failed to act on it before the 15 July 2002 barangay elections.
It was only on 23 July 2002 that the COMELEC en banc issued Resolution No.
5404, adopting the recommendation of the COMELEC Law Department and
directing the Election Officer to delete Bautista's name from the official list of
candidates.
Thus, when the electorate voted for Bautista as Punong Barangay on 15

July 2002, it was under the belief that he was qualified. There is no
presumption that the electorate agreed to the invalidation of their votes as
stray votes in case of Bautista's disqualification. 51 The Court cannot adhere to
the theory of respondent Alcoreza that the votes cast in favor of Bautista are
stray votes. 52 A subsequent finding by the COMELEC en banc that Bautista is
ineligible cannot retroact to the date of elections so as to invalidate the votes
cast for him. 53 As held in Domino v. COMELEC: 54
Contrary to the claim of INTERVENOR, petitioner was not
notoriously known by the public as an ineligible candidate. Although
the resolution declaring him ineligible as candidate was rendered
before the election, however, the same is not yet final and executory.
In fact, it was no less than the COMELEC in its Supplemental Omnibus
Resolution No. 3046 that allowed DOMINO to be voted for the office
and ordered that the votes cast for him be counted as the Resolution
declaring him ineligible has not yet attained finality. Thus the votes
cast for DOMINO are presumed to have been cast in the sincere belief
that he was a qualified candidate, without any intention to misapply
their franchise. Thus, said votes can not be treated as stray, void, or
meaningless.
The Local Government Code provides for the rule regarding permanent
vacancy in the Office of the Punong Barangay, thus:
SEC. 44. Permanent vacancies in the Offices of the Governor,
Vice-Governor, Mayor, and Vice-Mayor. — If a permanent vacancy
occurs in the office of the governor or mayor, the vice-governor or vice-
mayor concerned shall become the governor or mayor. If a permanent
vacancy occurs in the offices of the governor, vice-governor, mayor, or
vice-mayor, the highest ranking sanggunian member or, in the case of
his permanent inability, the second highest ranking sanggunian
member, shall become the governor, vice-governor, mayor or vice-
mayor, as the case may be. Subsequent vacancies in the said office
shall be filled automatically by the other sanggunian members
according to their ranking as defined herein.

(b) If a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the punong
barangay member, the highest ranking sangguniang barangay
member, or in the case of his permanent disability, the second highest
ranking sanggunian member, shall become the punong barangay.
(c) A tie between or among the highest ranking sanggunian
members shall be resolved by the drawing of lots.
(d) The successors as defined herein shall serve only the

unexpired terms of their predecessors.
For purposes of this Chapter, a permanent vacancy arises when
an elective local official fills a higher vacant office, refuses to assume
office, fails to qualify, dies, is removed from office, voluntarily resigns,
or is otherwise permanently incapacitated to discharge the functions of
his office.
For purposes of succession as provided in this Chapter, ranking
in the sanggunian shall be determined on the basis of the proportion of
votes obtained by each winning candidate to the total number of
registered voters in each district in the immediately preceding local
election. (Emphasis supplied)
Since Bautista failed to qualify for the position of Punong Barangay, the
highest ranking sangguniang barangay member, or in the case of his
permanent disability, the second highest ranking sangguniang member, shall
become the Punong Barangay. 55
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. Petitioner Raymundo A. Bautista is
ineligible for the position of Punong Barangay of Barangay Lumbangan for not
being a registered voter of Barangay Lumbangan. The proclamation of the
second placer Divina Alcoreza as winner in lieu of Bautista is void. Instead, the
highest ranking sangguniang barangay member of Barangay Lumbangan shall
assume the office of Punong Barangay of Lumbangan for the unexpired portion
of the term.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C .J ., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing,

Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr.,
Azcuna and Tinga, JJ ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago, J ., is on official leave.
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 32–36.

2. Ibid., pp. 37–48.
3. Ibid., pp. 143–146.
4. Sec. 7 (g) of COMELEC Resolution No. 4801 dated 23 May 2002 reads:
(g) If there are candidates who are not registered voters in the Barangay where
they run for Barangay or Sangguniang Kabataan positions or do not possess
all the other qualifications of a candidate, he shall make the corresponding
report by REGISTERED MAIL and by RUSH TELEGRAM to the Law Department
of the Commission within three (3) days from the last day for filing the
certificates of candidacy, copy furnished the Provincial Election Supervisor
and the Regional Election Director. The names of said candidates, however,
shall still be included in the certified lists of candidates until the Commission
directs otherwise.
5. Rollo, pp. 147–148.
6. Ibid., pp. 149–151.

7. The Board of Canvassers of Barangay Lumbangan was composed of respondents
Francisca C. Rodriguez as chairperson and Maria G. Canovas and Agripina B.
Antig as members.
8. Certificate of Canvass of Votes and Proclamation of Winning Candidates for
Punong Barangay and Kagawad ng Sangguniang Barangay by the Barangay
Board of Canvassers (No. 0025550); Rollo, p. 26.
9. Rollo , p. 103.
10. Ibid., Rollo, p. 58.

11. Ibid., p. 31.
12. Memorandum for Respondents, pp. 12–13; Rollo, pp. 319–320.
13. Bagatsing v. COMELEC, 378 Phil. 585 (1999).
14. 388 Phil. 560, 566 (2000).

15. Faelnar v. People, 387 Phil. 442 (2000).
16. Rollo, pp. 218, 298–301.
17. Ibid., pp. 321–323.

18. 338 Phil. 484 (1997).
19. 377 Phil. 497 (1999).
20. Canicosa v. COMELEC, 347 Phil. 189 (1997).

21. G.R. No. 153945, 4 February 2003.
22. Rollo , p. 374.
23. Ibid., pp. 350–352.
24. G.R. No. 81480, 9 February 1993, 218 SCRA 596, 601.
25. Domingo, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 372 Phil. 188 (1999).
26. Trinidad v. COMELEC, 373 Phil. 802 (1999).
27. 380 Phil. 375, 392 (2000).

28. Rollo, pp. 96, 327–328.

29. Sections 37 and 38 of Republic Act No. 8189 ("The Voter's Registration Act of
1996") provide for the remedy of voters who were excluded through
inadvertence or registered with an erroneous or misspelled name.
30. Supra, note 4.
31. Go v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 147741, 10 May 2001, 357 SCRA 739.
32. The following events transpired after the 15 July 2002 elections: (1) Alcoreza
was proclaimed as Punong Barangay in view of the alleged ineligibility of
Bautista; (2) Bautista refused to vacate the barangay hall and continued
performing his functions as Punong Barangay albeit without receiving
compensation; (3) Alcoreza is likewise performing the functions of a Punong
Barangay; (4) In a Quo Warranto case filed by Barangay Councilman
Armando Bartolome against Bautista, the Municipal Trial Court of Nasugbu
rendered a decision dated 25 November 2002 which found Bautista guilty of
usurping and unlawfully exercising the position of Punong Barangay and
ordered his ouster; (5) Municipal Mayor Apacible issued a memorandum
dated 4 February 2003 to all Department Heads and the Chief of Police of
Nasugbu, Batangas to entertain only transactions initiated by Alcoreza as the
Punong Barangay; (6) On 12 February 2003, the concerned citizens of
Barangay Lumbangan (1,246 petitioners) filed a petition for the early
resolution of this case; (7) Bautista padlocked the barangay hall in view of
the decision of the MTC of Nasugbu; (8) On 19 June 2003, some barangay
councilmen, together with some policemen, allegedly forced open the
barangay hall by destroying the padlock.
33. Act No. 2711, which was approved on 10 March 1917.

34. R.A. No. 2370 took effect on 1 January 1960.
35. Section 6 of R.A. No. 2370 reads:
Section 6. The barrio council. — In each barrio there shall be organized a barrio
council which shall have as members the following:
(a) a barrio lieutenant;

(b) a barrio treasurer;
(c) four council lieutenants;
(d) vice barrio lieutenants, in such number as there are sitios in the barrio; or
where there are no sitios, one vice barrio lieutenant for every two hundred
inhabitants of the barrio: Provided, That no person shall be elected vice
barrio lieutenant unless he is a resident of the sitio he shall represent.
36. 103 Phil. 327 (1958).

37. 52 Phil. 380 (1928).
38. R.A. No. 7160.
39. Similarly, under Article VI, Sections 3 & 6 of the 1987 Constitution, a senator or
a congressman must actually be a "registered voter" and not just a "qualified
elector" as provided under the 1935 Constitution.
40. Rollo, 60–61.
41. Rollo, p. 64.
42. Rollo, p. 25.
43. Miranda v. Abaya, 370 Phil. 642 (1999).
44. Salcedo II v. COMELEC, 371 Phil. 377 (1999).

45. G.R. No. 120265, 18 September 1995, 248 SCRA 400, 429.
46. Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 87193, 23 June 1989, 174 SCRA
245.
47. G.R. No. 125955, 19 June 1997, 274 SCRA 481, 501.
48. Codilla, Sr. v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 150605, 10 December 2002; Trinidad v.
COMELEC, 373 Phil 802 (1999); Loreto v. Brion, 370 Phil. 727 (1999); Domino
v. COMELEC, 369 Phil. 798 (1999); Abella v. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. 100710, 3 September 1991, 201 SCRA 253.
49. G.R. Nos. 105111 & 105384, 3 July 1992, 211 SCRA 297.
50. Supra note 48.
51. See Garvida v. Sales, Jr., 338 Phil. 484 (1997).

52. See Sunga v. COMELEC, 351 Phil. 310 (1998).
53. See Reyes v. COMELEC, 324 Phil. 813 (1996).
54. 369 Phil. 798, 825 (1999).

55. See Recabo, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 368 Phil. 277 (1999); Nolasco v.
COMELEC, 341 Phil. 761 (1997); Labo v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
105111 & 105384, 3 July 1992, 211 SCRA 297.

158 Bautista v. Commission On Elections20210424-14-101iams

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

158 Bautista v. Commission On Elections20210424-14-101iams

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

158 Bautista v. Commission On Elections20210424-14-101iams

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. 154796-97. October 23, 2003.]

RAYMUNDO A. BAUTISTA @ "OCA" , petitioner, vs.

Isidro C. Ilao for petitioner.

Petitioner Raymundo A. Bautista ﬁled his certiﬁcate of candidacy for

1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; CERTIORARI; PROPER REMEDY

2. POLITICAL LAW; ELECTION LAWS; OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE; COMELEC

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; IN THE EXERCISE OF QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS, THE

8. ID.; ELECTION LAWS; COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 4801; ALLOWS

9. POLITICAL LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF

11. ID.; ID.; 1993 COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE; CANCELLATION OF

Meanwhile, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 5404 on 23 July 2002 and

A. For Barangay Officials:

B. a. RAY OCA A. BAUTISTA, candidate for Punong Barangay of Brgy.

Let the Law Department implement this resolution.

On the other hand, Resolution No. 5584 expressed COMELEC's policy

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

1. To DIRECT the proclaimed disqualiﬁed candidate to

(c) For a proclaimed candidate who is found to be ineligible only

In a letter dated 19 August 2002, 9 COMELEC Commissioner Luzviminda

2. Whether the COMELEC deprived Bautista of due process when

3. Whether it was proper to proclaim Alcoreza as Punong Barangay

What Pleadings are Not Allowed. — The following pleadings are

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

The instant controversy involves resolutions issued by the COMELEC en

It is therefore the COMELEC sitting in Divisions that can hear and

"Sec. 3. The Commission in Sitting in Divisions. — The

The proceeding on the cancellation of a certiﬁcate of candidacy does not

A term which applies to the action, discretion, etc., of public

xxx xxx xxx

Decisions, ﬁnal orders, or rulings of the Commission

The COMELEC's exercise of its quasi-judicial powers is subject to

Whether the COMELEC deprived Bautista of due process when it issued

We cannot ignore the importance of prior notice and hearing. Severe

Section 1. Grounds for Denial of Certiﬁcate of Candidacy. — A

Sec. 2. Period to File Petition . — The petition must be ﬁled within

Whether Bautista was a registered voter of Barangay Lumbangan when he

Under the Revised Administrative Code, 33 one of the qualiﬁcations of an

(b) Must not have been convicted of a crime involving moral

(e) Candidates for the position of punong barangay or member of

These qualiﬁcations were reiterated in Section 2 of COMELEC Resolution

(3) Able to read and write Pilipino or any local language or

Section 7 of COMELEC Resolution No. 4801 likewise requires the Election

xxx xxx xxx

According to Bautista's aﬃdavit, he was practically out of the country

SEC. 10. Registration of Voters. — A qualiﬁed voter shall be

Bautista alleges that his non-registration as a voter of Barangay

Indeed, the electorate cannot amend or waive the qualiﬁcations

Whether it was proper to proclaim Alcoreza as Punong Barangay in view of

The Solicitor General submits that the disqualiﬁcation of the winning

Respondent Alcoreza, however, alleges that her proclamation as the

Although the COMELEC Law Department recommended to deny due

Thus, when the electorate voted for Bautista as Punong Barangay on 15

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

(d) The successors as deﬁned herein shall serve only the

Davide, Jr., C .J ., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing,

1. Rollo, pp. 32–36.

6. Ibid., pp. 149–151.