EN BANC
[G.R. No. 207851. November 24, 2015.]
ANGEL G. NAVAL, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND NELSON B. JULIA, respondents.
[G.R. No. 216925. November 24, 2015.]
ANGEL G. NAVAL, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND NELSON B. JULIA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated NOVEMBER 24, 2015, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 207851 (Angel G. Naval vs. Commission on Elections and Nelson B. Julia) and G.R. No. 216925 (Angel G. Naval vs. Commission on Elections and Nelson B. Julia). — The instant Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, 1 docketed as G.R. No. 216925, challenges the Writ of Execution 2 issued by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc on February 26, 2015 in SPA Case No. 13-166 (DC). 3
Antecedents
The petitioner herein, Angel G. Naval (Naval), and the private respondent, Nelson B. Julia (Julia), were both candidates for the position of Member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Camarines Sur, Third District (Sanggunian), in the May 2013 elections.
On October 29, 2012, Julia filed before the COMELEC a Verified Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy (COC) 4 of Naval. Julia, invoking Section 78 5 of the Omnibus Election Code, claimed that Naval violated the three-term limit rule, hence, ineligible to run as Sanggunian Member.
On March 5, 2013, the COMELEC's Second Division issued a Resolution 6 cancelling Naval's COC. Thereafter, on June 5, 2013, the COMELEC en banc denied Naval's motion for reconsideration. 7
Naval filed before the Court a Petition for Certiorari with an Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, 8 docketed as G.R. No. 207851. However, the Court denied Naval's petition, through the Decision dated July 8, 2014. 9 The decision became final and executory on August 27, 2014. 10
On February 26, 2015, the COMELEC en banc issued a Writ of Execution directing the Special Provincial Board of Canvassers of the Third District of Camarines Sur to convene and proclaim Manuel D. Andal (Andal) 11 as the duly-elected Second Member of the Sanggunian.
On February 27, 2015, Naval "resigned" from his post. 12 On March 2, 2015, the Governor of Camarines Sur appointed Naval as Provincial Administrator. 13
On March 12, 2015, the Special Provincial Board of Canvassers of the Third District of Camarines Sur proclaimed Andal as the duly-elected Second Member of the Sanggunian. 14 cDHAES
Issues
On March 12, 2015, Naval filed before the Court the instant petition raising the issues of whether or not the COMELEC gravely erred in:
(1) proclaiming Andal, who is "not the choice of the sovereign will," to succeed Naval; 15 and
(2) ignoring Section 45 16 of the Local Government Code (LGC), which provides that the President, through the Executive Secretary, shall fill up by appointment permanent vacancies in the Sanggunian. 17
In support of the petition, Naval alleges that Andal, being merely a third placer, is not the people's choice and could not rightfully assume the contested position. Further, by virtue of Naval's resignation, a permanent vacancy resulted calling for the application of the provisions of the LGC on succession.
In the Resolution dated March 17, 2015, the Court resolved to consolidate G.R. No. 216925 with G.R. No. 207851. 18 The Court further resolved to require the adverse parties to comment on the petition. 19
In its Comment, 20 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) emphasizes the final and executory character of the COMELEC resolutions and the Court decision, which cancelled Naval's COC. Moreover, Naval failed to implead Andal, who is an indispensable party. The OSG further argues that the LGC provisions on vacancies and succession do not apply in the case at bar. Citing Aratea v. COMELEC21 and Maquiling v. COMELEC, 22 the OSG contends that the votes cast for a candidate with a cancelled COC should not be considered at all in determining the winner in an election. The candidate who places second in the vote count is actually the first placer among the qualified candidates. In Jalosjos v. COMELEC, 23 the Court also ruled that the ouster of a de facto officer does not create a permanent vacancy. In actuality, there is no vacancy to speak of as the de jure officer won the elections and has the legal right to assume the position. 24 TCAScE
Ruling of the Court
The instant petition lacks merit.
The two issues, being inter-related, shall be discussed jointly.
Maquiling is instructive anent the effects of a candidate's ineligibility on the votes cast during the elections, and on succession, viz.:
An ineligible candidate who receives the highest number of votes is a wrongful winner. By express legal mandate, he could not even have been a candidate in the first place, but by virtue of the lack of material time or any other intervening circumstances, his ineligibility might not have been passed upon prior to election date. Consequently, he may have had the opportunity to hold himself out to the electorate as a legitimate and duly qualified candidate. However, notwithstanding the outcome of the elections, his ineligibility as a candidate remains unchanged. Ineligibility does not only pertain to his qualifications as a candidate but necessarily affects his right to hold public office. The number of ballots cast in his favor cannot cure the defect of failure to qualify with the substantive legal requirements of eligibility to run for public office.
xxx xxx xxx
. . . When there are participants who turn out to be ineligible, their victory is voided and the laurel is awarded to the next in rank who does not possess any of the disqualifications nor lacks any of the qualifications set in the rules to be eligible as candidates.
xxx xxx xxx
To hold that such proclamation [of the candidate with a cancelled COC] is valid is to negate the prohibitory character of the disqualification which Arnado possessed even prior to the filing of the certificate of candidacy. The affirmation of Arnado's disqualification, although made long after the elections, reaches back to the filing of the certificate of candidacy. Arnado is declared not to be a candidate at all in the May 2010 elections.
Arnado being a non-candidate, the votes cast in his favor should not have been counted. This leaves Maquiling as the qualified candidate who obtained the highest number of votes. Therefore, the rule on succession under the [LGC] will not apply. 25 (Underscoring ours)
In Jalosjos, the Court is emphatic that:
The cancellation of the [COC] of de facto officer.
xxx xxx xxx
On the question of who should assume the post vacated by the ineligible candidate, this Court amply explained in Jalosjos, Jr. that: ASEcHI
Decisions of this Court holding that the second-placer cannot be proclaimed winner if the first-placer is disqualified or declared ineligible should be limited to situations where the [COC] of the first placer was valid at the time of filing but subsequently had to be cancelled because of a violation of law that took place, or a legal impediment that took effect, after the filing of the [COC]. If the [COC] is void ab initio, then legally the person who filed such void [COC] was never a candidate in the elections at any time. All votes for such non-candidate are stray votes and should not be counted. Thus, such non candidate can never be a first-placer in the elections. If a [COC] void ab initio is cancelled on the day, or before the day, of the election, prevailing jurisprudence holds that all votes for that candidate are stray votes. If a [COC] void ab initio is cancelled one day or more after the elections, all votes for such candidate should also be stray votes because the [COC] is void from the very beginning. . . . .
There is another more compelling reason why the eligible candidate who garnered the highest number of votes must assume the office. The ineligible candidate who was proclaimed and who already assumed office is a de facto officer by virtue of the ineligibility.
The rule on succession in Section 4426of the [LGC] cannot apply in instances when a de facto officer is ousted from office and the de jure officer takes over. The ouster of a de facto officer cannot create a permanent vacancy as contemplated in the [LGC]. There is no vacancy to speak of as the de jure officer, the rightful winner in the elections, has the legal right to assume the position. 27 (Some of the citations omitted, emphasis and italics in the original and underscoring ours)
Clearly, an ineligible candidate can never be a first-placer in the elections. If such candidate is proclaimed and has assumed the functions pertaining to the position, he merely becomes a de facto officer. His or her ouster from office shall not result in the creation of a permanent vacancy, but shall give way to the de jure officer's rightful assumption of the post.
As provided in Section 44 (d) of the LGC, a permanent vacancy only arises when the elected officer 1) fills a higher position, 2) refuses to assume office, 3) fails to qualify, 4) dies, 5) is removed from office, 6) resigns, or 7) is permanently incapacitated to discharge the functions of his office.
For purposes of applying the provisions of Sections 44 and 45 of the LGC on succession, the meaning of the phrase "fails to qualify" is technical and not all embracing.
Qualification is the act of an elected person in signifying acceptance of the office and in undertaking to execute the trust confided in him or her. Failure to take an oath and assume the powers, duties and functions of the office would result to a failure to qualify. Section 92 of the LGC thus states that "all elective and appointive local officials and employees shall, upon assumption to office, subscribe to an oath or affirmation of office in the prescribed form." 28
In the instant petition, the vacancy in the Sanggunian resulted from Naval's ineligibility, which is not among the seven instances contemplated in Sections 44 and 45 of the LGC. Hence, the rules on succession provided for in the LGC find no application in the case at bar.
Accordingly, the Court finds no grave abuse of discretion committed by the COMELEC en banc in issuing the Writ of Execution dated February 26, 2015 in SPA Case No. 13-166 (DC).
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is DISMISSED." Carpio, J., on official leave. Perlas-Bernabe, J., on leave. Jardeleza, J., on official leave. (15) ITAaHc
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1 Rollo (G.R. No. 216925), pp. 3-19.
2 Id. at 23-26.
3. Nelson B. Julia v. Angel G. Naval.
4 Rollo (G.R. No. 216925), pp. 27-41.
5. 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 the 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.
6 Rollo (G.R. No. 216925), pp. 120-130.
7 Id. at 131-139.
8 Rollo (G.R. No. 207851), pp. 3-22.
9 Naval v. COMELEC, 729 SCRA 299.
10. Rollo (G.R. No. 216925), p. 140.
11. Per Provincial/District Certificate of Canvass, Julia garnered 43,340 votes, Naval got 40,496 votes and Andal had 39,099 votes; id. at 142-143.
12. Id. at 11. Note that despite the pendency of petitions filed by Julia and Naval against each other, they were both proclaimed on May 16, 2013 as the winning candidates for the positions of Sanggunian Members for the Third District of Camarines Sur, id. at 94.
13. Id. at 96.
14. Id. at 146.
15. Id. at 10.
16. SEC. 45. Permanent Vacancies in the Sanggunian. — (a) Permanent vacancies in the Sanggunian where automatic successions provided above do not apply shall be filled by appointment in the following manner:
(1) The President, through the Executive Secretary, in the case of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and the Sangguniang Panlungsod of highly urbanized cities and independent component cities;
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Except for the Sangguniang Barangay, only the nominee of the political party under which the Sanggunian member concerned had been elected and whose elevation to the position next higher in rank created the last vacancy in the Sanggunian shall be appointed in the manner hereinabove provided. The appointee shall come from the same political party as that of the Sanggunian member who caused the vacancy and shall serve the unexpired term of the vacant office. In the appointment herein mentioned, a nomination and a certificate of membership of the appointee from the highest official of the political party concerned are conditions sine qua non, and any appointment without such nomination and certification shall be null and void ab initio and shall be a ground for administrative action against the official responsible therefor.
(c) In case the permanent vacancy is caused by a Sanggunian member who does not belong to any political party, the local chief executive shall, upon recommendation of the Sanggunian concerned, appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy.
xxx xxx xxx (Underscoring ours)
17. Rollo (G.R. No. 216925), pp. 11-12.
18. Id. at 80-81.
19. Id. at 83A.
20. Id. at 89-119.
21. G.R. No. 195229, October 9, 2012, 683 SCRA 105.
22. G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013, 696 SCRA 420.
23. G.R. No. 193314, June 25, 2013, 699 SCRA 507.
24. Rollo (G.R. No. 216925), pp. 107-110.
25. Supra note 22, at 458-464.
26. Sec. 44. Permanent Vacancies in the Offices of the Governor, Vice-Governor, Mayor, and Vice-Mayor. — (a) 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 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, the highest ranking sanggunian barangay member or, in case of his permanent inability, 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. (Underscoring and italics ours)
27. Supra note 23, at 518-520.
28. Please see the Department of the Interior and Local Government Opinion No. 25, Series of 2008, dated April 15, 2008 <http://www.dilg.gov.ph/PDF_File/issuances/legal_opinions/LO025S2008.pdf>, visited on November 2, 2015.