CASE DIGEST : LOONG VS COMELEC

G.R. No. 93986 December 22, 1992

BENJAMIN T. LOONG, petitioner, 

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, NURSHUSSEIN UTUTALUM and ALIM BASHIR EDRIS, respondents.

FACTS : On 15 January 1990, petitioner filed with the respondent Commission his certificate of candidacy for the position of Vice-Governor of the Mindanao Autonomous Region in the election held on 17 February 1990 (15 January 1990 being the last day for filing said certificate); herein two (2) private respondents (Ututalum and Edris) were also candidates for the same position.

On 5 March 1990 (or 16 days after the election), respondent Ututalum filed before the respondent Commission (Second Division) a petition (docketed as SPA Case No. 90-006) seeking to disqualify petitioner for the office of Regional Vice-Governor, on the ground that the latter made a false representation in his certificate of candidacy as to his age.

On 15 May 1990, the respondent Commission (Second Division) rendered the now assailed Resolution 3 (with two (2) Commissioners — Yorac and Flores concurring, and one Commissioner — Dimaampao dissenting), holding that:

WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, the Commission on Elections (Second Division) holds that it has jurisdiction to try the instant petition and the respondent's motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is hereby denied.

Denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the above-cited resolution, the respondent Commission issued Resolution dated 3 July 1990, 7 stating among others that —

While the Frivaldo case referred to the questioned of respondent's citizenship, we hold that the principle applies to discovery of violation of requirements for eligibility, such as for instance the fact that a candidate is a holder of a green card or other certificates of permanent residence in another country, or, as in this case, that the candidate does not possess the age qualification for the office.

On 3 July 1990, petitioner was proclaimed as the duly elected Vice-Governor of the Mindanao Autonomous Region. 8 Hence, this special civil action of certiorari filed by petitioner on 9 July 1990 to annul the aforesaid resolutions of respondent Commission dated 15 May 1990 and 3 July 1990, issued in SPA No. 90-006.

ISSUE : SPA No. 90-006 (a petition to cancel the certificate of candidacy of petitioner Loong) was filed within the period prescribed by law.

HELD : The undisputed facts are as follows: petitioner Loong filed his certificate of candidacy on 15 January 1990 (The last day for filing the same), the election for officials of the Muslim Mindanao Autonomous Region being on 17 February 1990; but private respondent Ututalum filed the petition (SPA 90-006) to disqualify candidate Loong only on 5 March 1990, or forty-nine (49) days from the date Loong's certificate of candidacy was filed (i.e. 15 January 1990), and sixteen (16) days after the election itself.

Sections 3 and 4 of Rep. Act No. 6734 (entitled, "An Act Providing for an Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao") requires that the age of a person running for the office of Vice Governor for the autonomous region shall be at least thirty-five (35) years on the day of the election

Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code ("Code" for brevity) provides that the certificate of candidacy of the person filing it shall state, among others, the date of birth of said person. Section 78 of the same Code states that is case a person filing a certificate of candidacy has committed false representation, a petition to cancel the certificate of the aforesaid person may be filed within twenty-five (25) days from the time the certificate was filed.

Clearly, SPA No. 90-006 was filed beyond the 25-day period prescribed by Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.

We do not agree with private respondent Ututalum's contention that the petition for disqualification, as in the case at bar, may be filed at any time after the last day for filing a certificate of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation, applying Section 3, Rule 25 of the Comelec Rules of Procedures.

The petition filed by private respondent Ututalum with the respondent Comelec to disqualify petitioner Loong on the ground that the latter made a false representation in his certificate of candidacy as to his age, clearly does not fall under the grounds of disqualification as provided for in Rule 25 but is expressly covered by Rule 23 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure governing petitions to cancel certificate of candidacy. Moreover, Section 3, Rule 25 which allows the filing of the petition at nay time after the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation, is merely a procedural rule issued by respondent Commission which, although a constitutional body, has no legislative powers. Thus, it can not supersede Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code which is a legislative enactment.

We note that Section 6 refers only to the effects of a disqualification case which may be based on grounds other than that provided under Section 78 of the Code. But Section 7 of Rep. Act No. 6646 also makes the effects referred to in Section 6 applicable to disqualification cases filed under Section 78 of the Code. Nowhere in Section 6 and 7 Rep. Act. No 6646 is mentioned made of the period within which these disqualification cases may be filed. This is because there are provisions in the Code which supply the periods within which a petition relating to disqualification of candidates must be filed, such as Section 78, already discussed, and Section 253 on petitions for quo warranto.

Thus, if a person qualified to file a petition to disqualification a certain candidate fails to file the petition within the 25-day period prescribed by Section 78 of the Code for whatever reasons, the election laws do not leave him completely helpless as he has another chance to raise the disqualification of the candidate by filing a petition for quo warranto within ten (10) days from the proclamation of the results of the election, as provided under Section 253 of the Code. Section 1 Rule 21 of the Comelec Rules of procedure similarly provides that any voter contesting the election of any regional, provincial or city official on the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines may file a petition for quo warranto with the Electoral Contest Adjudication Department. The petition may be filed within ten (10)days from the date the respondent is proclaimed (Section 2).

In sum, SPA No. 90-006 was filed by private respondent Ututalum beyond the 25-day period (from the filing by petitioner Loong of the questioned certificate of candidacy) prescribed by Section 78 of the Code. It follows that the dismissal of said petition for disqualification is warranted. Further it would appear that we can not treat SPA NO. 90-006 as a petition for quo warranto (Section 253 of the Code) for when it was filed with the respondent Commission, no proclamation of election results had as yet been made, it was premature.