JACINTO MAPPALA V JUDGE CRISPULO NUÑEZ

FACTS: In 1989, the Provincial prosecutor of Isabela filed: (1) an information
against Alejandro Angoluan for illegal possession of a firearm in violation of
P.D. No. 1866 (Criminal Case No. 22-954); (2) an information against
Angoluan and five other co-accused for frustrated murder (Criminal Case No.
22-955); and (3) an information against Alejandro and Honorato Angoluan for
violation of the Omnibus election code (Criminal Case No. 22-965). The
complaining witness in Criminal Case No. 22-955 was Jacinto Mappala, the
complainant against respondent in this administrative case. All the actions
were consolidated and assigned to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 22,
Cabagan, Isabela, presided by respondent.
Complainant charged respondent with, among others, serious misconduct for
acquitting Alejandro Angoluan of violation of the OEC in Crim Case No. 22965.
Respondent Judge justified the acquittal of Alejandro of violation of the
Election Law in Criminal Case No. 965 on the ground that ". . . the firearm was
not taken from his person within the precinct but was not taken . . . more than
50 meters away from the precinct"
Furthermore, he claimed that what the law considered as a crime was the
"carrying of firearms within (50) or 100 meters away from the precinct. The
firearm was not taken from the accused within the 50 or 100 meters distance
from the precinct because in truth and in fact the said firearm was
surrendered by the accused two (2) days after the elections. The mistake in
the distance is merely a clerical error. But be it 50 meters or 100 meters, still
the accused could not be convicted under the said provision, specifically
Section 261, Subsection (p) of Article XXII of the Omnibus election Code".
ISSUE: WON Judge Nuñez erred in acquitting Angoluan for the commission
of the offense against Section 261(p) of the OEC (i.e., illegal possession of
firearms).
HELD: Said provision reads as follows:
Deadly weapons. — Any person who carries any deadly weapon in the polling
place and within a radius of one hundred meters thereof during the days and
hours fixed by law for the registration of voters in the polling place, voting,
counting of votes, or preparation of the election returns. However, in cases of
affray, turmoil, or disorder, any peace officer or public officer authorized by the
Commission to supervise the election is entitled to carry firearms or any other
weapon for the purpose of preserving and enforcing the law.
To support a conviction under Section 261(p) of the Omnibus election Code, it
is not necessary that the deadly weapon should have been seized from the
accused while he was in the precinct or within a radius of 100 meters
therefrom. It is enough that the accused carried the deadly weapon "in the
polling place and within a radius of one hundred meters thereof" during any of

JOY CHRISMA LUNA V COMELEC FACTS: On 15 January 2004. Ruperto Blanco. Anthony Layao. Nelia Lazaga. may not be validly substituted by Luna. Cipriano Lapez. he was disqualified to run for vice-mayor and cannot be substituted by Luna. Private respondents alleged that Luna made a false material representation in her certificate of candidacy because Luna is not a registered voter of Lagayan. Abra. Private respondents alleged that Hans Roger was only 20 years old on election day and. Victoria Layao. On 20 April 2004. Abra and that this was sufficient to disqualify Luna from running as vice-mayor. Abra as a substitute for Hans Roger. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the finding that Hans Roger. while Luna complied with the procedural requirements for substitution. Abra removed the name of Hans Roger from the list of candidates and placed the name of Luna.. and Eugenio Caber Donato (private respondents) filed a petition for the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy or disqualification of Luna. the COMELEC has a ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge its receipt. ISSUE: WON Joy Luna’s substitution of Hans Luna for the vice-mayoral seat is valid. private respondents Tomas Layao. Moderno Lapez. Private respondents also claimed that Luna’s certificate of candidacy was not validly filed because the substitution by Luna for Hans Roger was invalid. Abra but a registered voter of Bangued. Hans Roger was not a valid candidate for vice-mayor. When a candidate files his certificate of candidacy. who withdrew his certificate of candidacy on the same date. After respondent himself had found that the prosecution had established these facts.the specified days and hours. therefore. it is difficult to understand why he acquitted Alejandro of the charge of violation of Section 261(p) of the Omnibus election Code. The COMELEC First Division ruled that. Jr. However. The COMELEC First Division also ruled that Luna was not a registered voter of Lagayan. being underage. Abra. Solomon Lalugan III. Luna filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of vice-mayor of Lagayan. the COMELEC En Banc ruled that Luna was a registered voter of Lagayan. Section 76 of the . Election Officer of Lagayan. Rodrigo Pariñas. HELD: The petition is partly meritorious.

The COMELEC may not. 76. with the Commission. could not be considered to have filed a valid certificate of candidacy and. or is disqualified for any cause after the last day for the filing of certificate of candidacy. withdrawal or disqualification should occur between the day before the election and mid-day of election day. only a person belonging to. and certified by. the same political party may file a certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate who died. in the case of candidates to be voted for by the entire electorate of the country.6 the COMELEC had the ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge receipt of Hans Roger’s certificate of candidacy.7 On 15 January 2004. Ministerial duty of receiving and acknowledging receipt. 77. being under age. election registrar or officer designated by the Commission or the board of election inspectors under the succeeding section shall have the ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge receipt of the certificate of candidacy. Del Rosario.. the COMELEC had the ministerial duty to give due course to Hans Roger’s certificate of candidacy. 9 On the same date. an official candidate of a registered or accredited political party dies. withdraws.8 There is no provision of law which prevents a candidate from withdrawing his certificate of candidacy before the election. deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy filed in due form. The substitute candidate nominated by the political party concerned may file his certificate of candidacy for the office affected in accordance with the preceding sections not later than midday of election day of the election.The Commission. .If after the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy. Thus. Candidates in case of death. disqualification or withdrawal of another.Omnibus Election Code (Election Code) provides: Sec. Sec. Hans Roger withdrew his certificate of candidacy. by itself.11 In Sanchez v. Section 77 of the Election Code prescribes the rules on substitution of an official candidate of a registered political party who dies. without the proper proceedings. or.10 Luna can validly substitute for Hans Roger. Since Hans Roger withdrew his certificate of candidacy and the COMELEC found that Luna complied with all the procedural requirements for a valid substitution. The COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring that Hans Roger. could not be validly substituted by Luna. If the death. The Election Code allows a person who has filed a certificate of candidacy to withdraw the same prior to the election by submitting a written declaration under oath. said certificate may be filed with any board of election inspectors in the political subdivision where he is a candidate. withdrew or was disqualified. when Hans Roger filed his certificate of candidacy on 5 January 2004.12 the Court ruled that the . Luna filed her certificate of candidacy as substitute for Hans Roger. thus. withdraws or is disqualified for any cause. In this case. provincial election supervisor.

the COMELEC. ISSUES: (1) Whether or not Section 5(d) of Republic Act No. If Hans Roger made a material misrepresentation as to his date of birth or age in his certificate of candidacy. . ATTY ROMULO MACALINTAL V COMELEC FACTS: Before the Court is a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Romulo B. Luna validly substituted for Hans Roger Luna. thus. Petitioner Joy Chrisma B. without the proper proceedings. Hans Roger already withdrew his certificate of candidacy before the COMELEC declared that he was not a valid candidate. Luna for Hans Roger Luna was invalid. we PARTLY GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the ruling of the COMELEC En Banc that the substitution by petitioner Joy Chrisma B. cancelled Hans Roger’s certificate of candidacy and declared the substitution by Luna invalid. Macalintal. Hans Roger’s certificate of candidacy was never cancelled or denied due course by the COMELEC. WHEREFORE. 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003) suffer from constitutional infirmity. In this case. It would have been different if there was a petition to deny due course to or cancel Hans Roger’s certificate of candidacy. unless Hans Roger’s certificate of candidacy was denied due course or cancelled in accordance with Section 78 of the Election Code. his eligibility may only be impugned through a verified petition to deny due course to or cancel such certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Election Code. Claiming that he has actual and material legal interest in the subject matter of this case in seeing to it that public funds are properly and lawfully used and appropriated. Therefore. was not a valid candidate in the petition to deny due course to or cancel Luna’s certificate of candidacy. there was no petition to deny due course to or cancel the certificate of candidacy of Hans Roger. Moreover.question of eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate for non-age is beyond the usual and proper cognizance of the COMELEC. Luna’s right to due process. We AFFIRM the ruling of the COMELEC En Banc that there was no violation of petitioner Joy Chrisma B. Hans Roger’s certificate of candidacy was valid and he may be validly substituted by Luna. petitioner filed the instant petition as a taxpayer and as a lawyer. For if the COMELEC cancelled Hans Roger’s certificate of candidacy after the proper proceedings. seeking a declaration that certain provisions of Republic Act No. 9189 violates the residency requirement in Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution. The COMELEC only declared that Hans Roger did not file a valid certificate of candidacy and. 15 However. In effect. then he is no candidate at all and there can be no substitution of a person whose certificate of candidacy has been cancelled and denied due course. a member of the Philippine Bar.

9189 enumerates those who are disqualified voting under this Act. promulgate without violating the independence of the COMELEC under Section 1. 9189 does not only require the promise to resume actual physical permanent residence in the Philippines not later than 3 years after approval of registration but it also requires the Filipino abroad. 9189. (3) Whether or not Congress may.(2) Whether or not Section 18. must declare that he/she has not applied for citizenship in another country. it can be said that the Congress itself was conscious of this probability and provided for deterrence which is that the Filipino who fails to . Although there is a possibility that the Filipino will not return after he has exercised his right to vote. Failure to return shall be cause for the removal of the name of the immigrant or permanent resident from the National Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent disqualification to vote in absentia. upon registration. Panacea of the controversy: Affidavit for without it.5 of the same law violates the constitutional mandate under Section 4. However. 9189. the presumption of abandonment of Phil domicile shall remain. Thus. However. and a resident in the place where he proposes to vote for at least 6 months immediately preceding an election. an exception is provided i. and that the Court may have to discard that particular ruling. Section 5 of RA No. Such affidavit shall also state that he/she has not applied for citizenship in another country. he/she must return to the Philippines otherwise consequences will be met according to RA No. Petitioner claims that this is violative of the residency requirement in Section 1 Article V of the Constitution which requires the voter must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one yr. the Court is not in a position to rule on the wisdom of the law or to repeal or modify it if such law is found to be impractical. amend. revise. and approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations that the Commission on Elections. It disqualifies an immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in the host country. HELD: (1) No. unless he/she executes. OSG held that ruling in said case does not hold water at present. Article VII of the Constitution that the winning candidates for President and the Vice-President shall be proclaimed as winners by Congress.e. Section 5 of RA No. The qualified Filipino abroad who executed an affidavit is deemed to have retained his domicile in the Philippines and presumed not to have lost his domicile by his physical absence from this country. an affidavit prepared for the purpose by the Commission declaring that he/she shall resume actual physical permanent residence in the Philippines not later than 3 years from approval of registration. However. exercise the power to review. Article IX-A of the Constitution. WON he is a green card holder. Act No. a temporary visitor or even on business trip. through the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created in Section 25 of Rep.

A.5 of R. The constitutionality of Section 18. Congress went beyond the scope of its constitutional authority. (2) Yes. review. In fine. which is to grant Filipino immigrants and permanent residents abroad the unquestionable right to exercise the right of suffrage (Section 1 Article V) the Court finds that Section 5 of RA No. the Court is left with no option but to withdraw from its usual silence in declaring a provision of law unconstitutional. c) The second sentence of the first paragraph of Section 19. 9189 are declared VOID for being UNCONSTITUTIONAL: a) The phrase in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Section 17. Accordingly. revise. Congress trampled upon the constitutional mandate of independence of the COMELEC.1.A. and d) The second sentence in the second paragraph of Section 25. to wit: It shall review. the petition is partly GRANTED. 9189 is not constitutionally defective. The canvassing of the votes and the proclamation of the winning candidates for President and Vice President for the entire nation must remain in the hands of Congress as its duty and power under Section 4 of Article VII of the Constitution. No. to wit: subject to the approval of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee. to wit: only upon review and approval of the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee. the Court is prevented from making it mean what the Court pleases. the votes he cast shall not be invalidated because he was qualified to vote on the date of the elections.1. considering that underlying intent of the Constitution. Expressum facit cessare tacitum: where a law sets down plainly its whole meaning. WHEREFORE. No. as is evident in its statutory construction and intent of the framers. COMELEC has the authority to proclaim the winning candidates only for Senators and Party-list Reps. Article IX-A of the Constitution mandating the independence of constitutional commission. b) The portion of the last paragraph of Section 17. such as COMELEC. amend and revise the Implementing Rules & Regulations for RA No.return as promised stands to lose his right of suffrage. By vesting itself with the powers to approve. (3) No. 9189. to wit: The Implementing Rules and Regulations shall be submitted to the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created by virtue of this Act for prior approval. 9189 is UPHELD with respect only to the authority given to the COMELEC to proclaim the winning . for being repugnant to Section 1. Under such a situation. The following portions of R. amend and approve the Implementing Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Commission of the same law. Congress should not have allowed COMELEC to usurp a power that constitutionally belongs to it.

Liong. ARNADO filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor of Kauswagan. No. It therefore annulled his proclamation as Municipal Mayor of Kauswagan. a natural born Filipino citizen. filed a petition to disqualify and/or cancel his certificate of candidacy in connection with the 2010 elections. 2010. and submitting his documentary evidence in support of his answer. ROMMEL ARNADO V COMELEC FACTS: Rommel Arnado. 2009. In support of his claim. it agreed with him in saying ARNADO is a US citizen. It was only after his proclamation as winner that he filed an answer. while the Comelec First Division ruled correctly on ARNADO’s citizenship. Meanwhile.A. lost his citizenship when he was naturalised as a US citizen. When required to answer. Lanao del Norte. On July 10. 9189. filed his Motion For Intervention and opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration filed by ARNADO.candidates for the Senators and party-list representatives but not as to the power to canvass the votes and proclaim the winning candidates for President and Vice-President which is lodged with Congress under Section 4. ARNADO is not a resident of Kauswagan. According to Casan. the rest of the provisions of said law continues to be in full force and effect. and ordered the rule of replacement of ARNADO pursuant to the rule of succession under the Local Government Code. he took his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines under the provisions of Republic Act 9225. Casan. The constitutionality of Section 5(d) is UPHELD. On April 3. arriving back in the Philippines on 24 November 2009. another mayoralty candidate. According to BALUA. he again took his Oath of Allegiance as well as executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his US citizenship. ARNADO thus filed his Motion for Reconsideration to the order. he is also a foreigner. On April 28. traversing the allegations of BALUA. thereupon an Order of Approval of his citizenship retention and re-acquisition was issued in his favour. 2009. as attested to by the Bureau of Immigration. Although the division dismissed BALUA’s claim that ARNADO is a US resident. and again departed on 29 July 2009. Pursuant to Section 30 of R. another mayoralty candidate and who garnered the second highest number of votes in the 2010 elections. The said record shows that Arnado left the country on 14 April 2009 and returned on 25 June 2009. treated as a petition for disqualification. 2008. BALUA presented in his Memorandum a computer-generated travel record[ dated 03 December 2009 indicating that Arnado has been using his US Passport No. citing that ARNADO’s consistent use of his American passport negated his Affidavit of Renunciation of US citizenship and showed his intention to retain US citizenship. Article VII of the Constitution. it erred when it ruled that the order of succession under the Local Government should be . The COMELEC First Division instead of treating the case as a petition for cancellation of the certificate of candidacy. ARNADO did not file any. 057782700 in entering and departing the Philippines. On November 30.

candidates may risk falsifying their COC qualifications if they know that an election victory will cure any defect that their COCs may have. However. his Philippine passport was issued late. We might as well write off our election laws if the voice of the electorate is the sole determinant of who should be proclaimed worthy to occupy elective positions in our republic. as the legitimate candidate with the highest number of votes. that is. should be proclaimed the winner. The COMELEC En Banc. To state the obvious.followed. even the will of the electorate expressed through the ballot cannot cure the defect in the qualifications of the candidate. 2009. ARNADO opposed the Motion For Intervention filed by Casan. To rule otherwise is to trample upon and rent asunder the very law that sets forth the qualifications and disqualifications of candidates. he regained his Philippine citizenship. Section 78 may likewise be emasculated as mere delay in the resolution of the petition to cancel or deny due course to a COC can render a Section 78 petition useless if a candidate with false COC data wins. alleging that intervention is not allowed after the Comelec had already rendered a decision. acting on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by ARNADO and the Motion for Intervention of Casan. (Citations omitted) . HELD: The ballot cannot override the constitutional and statutory requirements for qualifications and disqualifications of candidates. It ruled that ARNADO had a plausible explanation as to why he used his US passport in his travels. Equally susceptive of being rendered toothless is Section 74 of the OEC that sets out what should be stated in a COC. When a person who is not qualified is voted for and eventually garners the highest number of votes. When the law requires certain qualifications to be possessed or that certain disqualifications be not possessed by persons desiring to serve as elective public officials. he (Casan). Election victory then becomes a magic formula to bypass election eligibility requirements. but ruled that he will not be prejudiced by the decision of the First Division as it correctly ruled that the order of succession should be followed. It allowed the Motion for Intervention by Casan. When he took the oath of allegiance and executed his Affidavit of Renunciation on April 3. those qualifications must be met before one even becomes a candidate. and Casan was never the winner. it reversed the First Division and held that ARNADO’s use of the US passport was not one of the grounds by which citizenship may be lost under RA 9225. Following the cancellation of ARNADO’s certificate of candidacy and his disqualification. The first requirement that may fall when an unqualified reading is made is Section 39 of the LGC which specifies the basic qualifications of local government officials. 2012. ISSUE: WON the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioner who has fully complied with the requirements of RA 9225 before the filing of his COC on Oct 1. granted the Motion for Reconsideration.

Maquiling then becomes the winner in the election as he obtained the highest number of votes from among the qualified candidates. the votes cast in favor of the ineligible candidate are not considered at all in determining the winner of an election. That rule is also a mere obiter that further complicated the rules affecting qualified candidates who placed second to ineligible ones. The second-placer in the vote count is actually the first-placer among the qualified candidates. COMELEC that when the voters are well aware within the realm of notoriety of a candidate’s disqualification and still cast their votes in favor said candidate. To allow the sovereign voice spoken through the ballot to trump constitutional and statutory provisions on qualifications and disqualifications of candidates is not democracy or republicanism. Thus. it precisely serves as an open invitation for electoral anarchy to set in. There is no need to apply the rule cited in Labo v. We have ruled in the recent cases of Aratea v. The electorate’s awareness of the candidate’s disqualification is not a prerequisite for the disqualification to attach to the candidate. Even when the votes for the ineligible candidate are disregarded. With Arnado’s disqualification. COMELEC[ and Jalosjos v. That the disqualified candidate has already been proclaimed and has assumed office is of no moment.It is imperative to safeguard the expression of the sovereign voice through the ballot by ensuring that its exercise respects the rule of law. Arnado being a non-candidate. It is electoral anarchy. When set rules are disregarded and only the electorate’s voice spoken through the ballot is made to matter in the end. This leaves Maquiling as the qualified candidate who obtained . COMELEC that a void COC cannot produce any legal effect. The subsequent disqualification based on a substantive ground that existed prior to the filing of the certificate of candidacy voids not only the COC but also the proclamation. The votes cast in favor of eligible and legitimate candidates form part of that voice and must also be respected. then the eligible candidate obtaining the next higher number of votes may be deemed elected. the votes cast in his favor should not have been counted. the will of the electorate is still respected. Knowledge by the electorate of a candidate’s disqualification is not necessary before a qualified candidate who placed second to a disqualified one can be proclaimed as the winner. and even more so. The very existence of a disqualifying circumstance makes the candidate ineligible. Maquiling is not a second-placer as he obtained the highest number of votes from among the qualified candidates. The votes cast in favor of an ineligible candidate do not constitute the sole and total expression of the sovereign voice.

The Status Quo Ante Order issued by this Court is LIFTED. the instant Petition is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed Comelec Resolutions are AFFIRMED. WHEREFORE.the highest number of votes. this Court finds no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Comelec En Banc in sustaining the Resolution of the Comelec Second Division disqualifying Arnado from running in the May 13. Lanao del Norte and proclaiming Capitan as the duly elected mayor of said municipality. Therefore. 2013 elections and in accordingly setting aside his proclamation as elected mayor of Kauswagan. In fine. the rule on succession under the Local Government Code will not apply. .