You are on page 1of 2

VICTORIA VS. COMELEC, G.R. NO.

109005 January 10, 1994


RULE ON SUCCESSION

Facts
Due to the Suspension of Governor Salalima of the Province of Albay, Vice – Governor
Danilo Azana assumed the powers and functions of the Governor leading to a vacancy on the
Vice –Governor’s position. Now herein petitioner and respondent having the highest votes in the
Sanggunian are contested for the position.
The COMELEC based on certification on the number of votes obtained by the
Sanggunian members in relation to the number of votes obtained, issued a resolution certifying
respondent Jesus James Calisin as the first in order of ranking and petitioner Juan Victoria as
second in ranking.
Herein petitioner claims that the ranking of Sanggunian Member should not only be
based on number of votes obtained in relation to the total number of registered voters, but also on
the number of voters in the district who actually voted therein.

Issue
Whether or not petitioner’s contention is tenable?

Ruling

No.
Section 44 of the Local Government Code of 1991 provides:
(a) if a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the governor or mayor, the vice – governor or
vice – mayor concerned shall become governor or mayor. If a permanent vacancy occurs in
the offices of the governor, vice-governor, mayor, vice-mayor, the 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 filed automatically by the other
Sanggunian members according to their ranking as defined herein
For the purposes of succession as provided in the 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.
The law is clear that the ranking in the Sanggunian shall be determined on the basis of the
proportion of the votes obtained by each winning candidate of the total number of registered
voters who actually voted. In such case, the Court has no recourse but to merely apply the law.
Therefore, petitioner’s contention is untenable considering the clear mandate of the law,
which leaves no room for other interpretation but it must very well be addressed to the
legislative branch and not to this Court which has no power to change the law.

LLOSA FAITH HANNAH A.

You might also like