1. Bautista vs.

COMELEC
[G.R. Nos. 154796-97 October 2! 2""#
E$ Ba$c! %. Car&io
'(C)*+
On June 10, 2002, Bautista fled his certifcate of candidacy for Punong
Barangay in Lumbangan for the July 15, 2002 barangay elections. lection
O!cer Jare"o refused to acce#t Bautista$s certifcate of candidacy because
he %as not a registered &oter in Lumbangan. On June 11, 2002, Bautista fled
an action for mandamus against lection O!cer Jare"o %ith the 'egional
(rial )ourt of Batangas. (he trial court ordered lection O!cer Jare"o to
acce#t Bautista$s certifcate of candidacy and to include his name in the
certifed list of candidates for Punong Barangay. *n com#liance %ith the trial
court$s order, lection O!cer Jare"o included Bautista in the certifed list of
candidates for Punong Barangay. +t the same time, lection O!cer Jare"o
referred the matter of Bautista$s inclusion in the certifed list of candidates
%ith the )O,L) La% -e#artment on 5 July 2002. (hereafter, the )O,L)
La% -e#artment recommended the cancellation of Bautista$s certifcate of
candidacy since he %as not registered as a &oter in Lumbangan. (he
)O,L) en banc failed to act on the )O,L) La% -e#artment$s
recommendation before the barangay elections on 15 July 2002.
-uring the 15 July 2002 barangay elections, Bautista and #ri&ate res#ondent
+lcore.a, ere candidates for the #osition of Punong Barangay in Lumbangan.
Bautista obtained the highest number of &otes /0112 %hile +lcore.a came in
second %ith 522 &otes, or a margin of 110 &otes. (hus, the Lumbangan
Board of )an&assers #roclaimed Bautista as the elected Punong Barangay.
,ean%hile, )O,L) issued 'esolution 3o. 5404 on 25 July 2002 and
'esolution 3o. 5564 on 10 +ugust 2002 /7)O,L) 'esolutions72. *n
'esolution 3o. 5404, the )O,L) en banc resol&ed to cancel Bautista$s
certifcate of candidacy. On the other hand, 'esolution 3o. 5564 e8#ressed
)O,L)$s #olicy regarding #roclaimed candidates found to be ineligible for
not being registered &oters in the #lace of their election.
,**-E*+
1. 9hether or not the )O,L) en banc committed gra&e abuse of
discretion amounting to e8cess or lac: of ;urisdiction %hen it issued
'esolution 3os. 5404 and 5564<
2. 9hether or not the )O,L) de#ri&ed Bautista of due #rocess %hen
the )O,L) en banc issued 'esolution 3os. 5404 and 5564
5. 9hether Bautista %as a registered &oter of Barangay Lumbangan
%hen he fled his certifcate of candidacy< and
4. 9hether or not it %as #ro#er to #roclaim +lcore.a as Punong
Barangay in &ie% of the alleged dis=ualifcation of the %inning
candidate Bautista.
.EL/>
1. + di&ision of the )O,L) should ha&e frst heard this case. (he )O,L)
en banc can only act on the case if there is a motion for reconsideration of
the decision of the )O,L) di&ision. ?ence, the )O,L) en banc acted
%ithout ;urisdiction %hen it ordered the cancellation of Bautista$s certifcate
of candidacy %ithout frst referring the case to a di&ision for summary
hearing.
(he #roceeding on the cancellation of a certifcate of candidacy does not
merely #ertain to the administrati&e functions of the )O,L). )ancellation
#roceedings in&ol&e the )O,L)$s =uasi@;udicial functions.
2. (he o##ortunity to be heard does not only refer to the right to #resent
&erbal arguments in court during a formal hearing. (here is due #rocess
%hen a #arty is able to #resent e&idence in the form of #leadings.

?o%e&er,
the )O,L) did not gi&e Bautista such o##ortunity to e8#lain his side. (he
)O,L) en banc issued 'esolution 3os. 5404 and 5564 %ithout #rior notice
and hearing.
+ summary #roceeding does not mean that the )O,L) could do a%ay %ith
the re=uirements of notice and hearing. (he )O,L) should ha&e at least
gi&en notice to Bautista to gi&e him the chance to adduce e&idence to
e8#lain his side in the cancellation #roceeding. (he )O,L) en banc
de#ri&ed Bautista of #rocedural due #rocess of la% %hen it a##ro&ed the
re#ort and recommendation of the La% -e#artment %ithout notice and
hearing.
. Bautista %as a%are %hen he fled his certifcate of candidacy for the o!ce
of Punong Barangay that he lac:ed one of the =ualifcations @ that of being a
registered &oter in the barangay %here he ran for o!ce. ?e therefore made a
misre#resentation of a material fact %hen he made a false statement in his
certifcate of candidacy that he %as a registered &oter in Barangay
Lumbangan. +n electi&e o!ce is a #ublic trust. ?e %ho as#ires for electi&e
o!ce should not ma:e a moc:ery of the electoral #rocess by falsely
re#resenting himself. (he im#ortance of a &alid certifcate of candidacy rests
at the &ery core of the electoral #rocess.Ander Bection 06 of the Omnibus
lection )ode, false re#resentation of a material fact in the certifcate of
candidacy is a ground for the denial or cancellation of the certifcate of
candidacy. (he material misre#resentation contem#lated by Bection 06
refers to =ualifcations for electi&e o!ce. + candidate guilty of
misre#resentation may be /12 #re&ented from running, or /22 if elected, from
ser&ing, or /52 #rosecuted for &iolation of the election la%s.
4. *t is a %ell@settled doctrine that the )O,L) cannot #roclaim as %inner
the candidate %ho obtains the second highest number of &otes in case the
%inning candidate is ineligible or dis=ualifed. (he e8ce#tion to this %ell@
settled rule %as mentioned in Labo, Jr. &. )ommission on lections %hich held
that the e8ce#tion is #redicated on the concurrence of t%o assum#tions,
namely> /12 the one %ho obtained the highest number of &otes is
dis=ualifed< and /22 the electorate is fully a%are in fact and in la% of a
candidate$s dis=ualifcation so as to bring such a%areness %ithin the realm of
notoriety but %ould nonetheless cast their &otes in fa&or of the ineligible
candidate.
Collo%ing Bec. 44 of the Local Do&ernment )ode #ro&ides for the rule
regarding #ermanent &acancy in the O!ce of the Punong Barangay, the
highest ran:ing sangguniang barangay member, or in the case of his
#ermanent disability, the second highest ran:ing sangguniang member, shall
become the Punong Barangay. (hus, the #roclamation of the second #lacer
-i&ina +lcore.a as %inner in lieu of Bautista is &oid.