Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Nathalie Irene Velasquez
    8 views6 pages
    comelec

    Original Title

    comelec

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    comelec

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views6 pages

    Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Nathalie Irene Velasquez
    comelec

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 6
    Republic of the Philippines COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Manila EN BANC VIRGILIO A. BOTE, Petitioner, _- SPA NO. 18 -213(DC) AURELIO M. UMALI, x— 1. 4, Respondent. . NOTICE ATTY. PAOLO GONZALES ATTY. BELINDA GRACE G. GERVASIO ATTY. SHEILA C. SISON FORTUN NARVASA & SAL: Counsel for the Petitioner 23"! Floor, Multinational Bancorporation Centre 6805 Ayala Ave,, City of Makati 1227 Philippines ZAR ATTY. RAINER P. DELA FUENTE GD LAW Counsel for the Respondent Unit 1028, Lokal Mall, Centenial Road, Kawit, Cavite 4104 THE ELECTION OFFICER ‘Commission on Elections Kawit, Cavite THE EDUCATION AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT (EID) This Commission GREETINGS: Attached is a copy of the RESOLUTION of the Commission (EN BANC) in the above-entitled case promulgated 6 August 2019, Pursuant to the attached RESOLUTION, the Ac 1g Clerk of the Commission hereby requests the Election Officer of Kawit, Cavite, to serve the copy of the Resolution to the counsel for the Respondent. You shall then furnish this Office the corresponding proof of receipt thereof within five (5) days from receipt hereof Given this 6 day of August 2019, City of Manila, Philippines. FOR THE COMMISSION: if é CUARESMA-LILAGAN of the Commission. So Republic of the Philippines COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Manila EN BANC VIRGILIO A. BOTE, Petitioner, SPA No. 18-213 (DC) -versus- AURELIO M. UMALI, Respondent. RESOLUTION For Resolution by the Commission (En Banc) is a Motion for Reconsideration! filed by Virgilio A. Bote ("Petitoner”) seeking the reversal of the Resolution? dated 06 February 2019 (the “Assailed Resolution”) issued by the Commission (Second Division) dismissing the Petition to Deny Due Course to and/or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy (“CoC”) filed by Aurelio M. Umali (“Respondent”). In his Motion for Reconsideration, Respondent averred that the ‘Commission (Second Division) erred in resolving to dismiss the Petition as all requisites to deny due course or cancel respondent's CoC are present, to wit: “First, respondent committed a falsity or false material rep in his Certificate of Candidacy when he declared that he is run as Governor of Nueva Ecija, when in fact, he immediately executory nature of the Ombudsman det ion finding him "ea 628 2d. at 07 to 215. ie SPP 18-213 (DC) Page 2 0f5 Resolution administratively liable with the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding public office. Second, the false representation of respondent is certainly material and involves entries relating to his eligibility or to the fact of him possessing, all the qualifications and none of the eligibilities. Xxx, XXX Xxx, “Third, the misrepresentation of respondent constitutes a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform or hide a material fact which would otherwise render him ineligible to run for public office.” Section 1, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides for the grounds for filing a motion for reconsideration, thus: Section 1. Grounds for Motion for Reconsideration. - A motion for reconsideration may be filed on the grounds that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision, order or ruling; or that the said decision, order or ruling is contrary to law. [Emphasis supplied] After careful review of the records of the case, the Commission (En Banc) finds no cogent reason to disturb or modify the findings reached in the Assailed Resolution. Petitioner reiterates that the penalty of perpetual disqualification imposed by the Ombudsman in an administrative case is immediately executory and that filing or pendency of an appeal from such decision imposing the penalty of perpetual disqualification shall not stay its execution. Citing Dinupilis v. COMELEC; Petitioner argued that the COMELEC has the duty to motu proprio bar from running for public office those suffering from perpetual disqualification to hold public office. We disagree. As lucidly explained by the Commission (Second Division) in the Assailed Resolution, to which We wholeheartedly agree, to wit: ‘ "GR No. 227188, Apel 18, 2017, srP 18.213 (DC) : Resolution Page 30f5 This Commission has consistently adopted the position that an Ombudsman decision dismissing a public officer, or a similar decision that carries with it the penalty of disqualification from holding public office or from government service, needs to have attained finality before it can prevent an otherwise qualified citizen from being, a candidate in an election, We recognized and respect the constitutional power and prerogative of the Office of Ombudsman to “promulgate its rules and procedure” and to effectively enforce the same so that it can perform its constitutional mandate to ensure accountability, as well as the observance of high . We understand the ethical standards and efficiency in govern wisdom of adopting a rule making an Ombudsman decision, which dismissed an erring, officer, immediately executory, even if an appeal fon said decision has been taken and yet to be decided. Said rule is necessary to strengthen the Ombudsman’s effort to minimize, if not totally eradicate, graft and corruption in government. ‘The Commission on Elections, however, was the one mandated by the Constitution to ensure the conduct of free and fair elections, and the protection of the electoral rights of citizens. The 1987 Constitution grants this Commission the power fo enforce and aduinister all Ines relative lo the conduct of elections, as well as to decide, except those involving te right {0 vote, all questions affecting elections. Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of which Philippines is a state party likewise provides: Article 25. Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without Any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) Totake part in the conduct of publicaffars, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) To vote and to be elected at genui be by universal and equal suffrage ancl shall be held by secret ballot, ‘guaranteeing the free expression of the will ofthe electors; periodic exercises which shall (©) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country fem ass supple). Ingeained in the discharge of its constitutional powers and functions is this Commission’s responsibility of ensuring that the political rights vof Filipino citizens are protected. These political rights inelude the right to vote and be voted on in a free and fair election. Section 78 of the OEC is one of the law relative to the conduct of elections that this Commission is mandated to enforce. The same holds true for Section 12 and 68 of the OEC, and Section 40 (b) of the LGC. From the foregoing, this Commission is of the position that a decision which would deprive a citizen of his basic right to be voted on in an election should be final and immutable before the same can be made effective. There is no question about the wisdom of the Ombudsman’s A spP 18-213 (DC) Page d of 5 Resolution rule that directs the immediate implementation of a decision carrying with it the penalty of dismissal of persons found guilty of serious administrative offenses, despite the pendency of a motion for reconsideration or appeal thereon, However, while the guilty person can be immediately removed from office even if he has moved for the reconsideration or appealed his dismissal, his status as a citizen with the rights to vote and to be voted on in elections remains. These rights can only be legally taken away from him when the decision depriving him of the same has become final and immutable. evidence or proof Further, Petitioner failed to submit additional Respondent the circumstance that the penalty imposed to er had he demonstrated any appreciation of the to change has become final and executory, neithi error by the Commission (Second Division) in the evidence nor proven that the Assailed Resolution is contrary to law, which are the exclusive grounds for a motion for reconsideration. There is therefore no ground to warrant the reversal of the Assailed Resolution. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission (En Banc) AFFIRMS the Resolution dated 06 February 2019 of the Commission (Second Division) and RESOLVES to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration. SO ORDERED. FM, ABAS Chairman <= 5 s

    You might also like