Cipriano vs. COMELEC

The COMELEC cannot, motu proprio and without notice and hearing, deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy filed in due form. Such action is an exercise of quasi-judicial power requiring the observance of due process, not an administrative function, and the COMELEC's ministerial duty to receive a certificate of candidacy precludes it from unilaterally cancelling the same based on eligibility questions not apparent on the document's face.

Petitioner Ellan Marie P. Cipriano filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Chairman of Barangay 38, Pasay City, for the July 15, 2002 SK elections. The COMELEC Law Department, acting on reports from Election Officers identifying candidates who were not registered voters in their respective barangays, recommended the cancellation of several certificates of candidacy, including petitioner's. On election day, the COMELEC En Banc issued Resolution No. 5363 adopting this recommendation. Petitioner's name remained on the official list of candidates; she was allowed to vote, was proclaimed the winner, and took her oath of office. Upon learning of Resolution No. 5363, petitioner sought reconsideration, which the COMELEC denied via Resolution No. 5781, reiterating its authority to motu proprio cancel certificates of candidacy as part of its administrative powers and declaring the proclamations of ineligible candidates void ab initio.

• Filing of Certificate of Candidacy: On June 7, 2002, petitioner filed her certificate of candidacy for SK Chairman of Barangay 38, Pasay City, for the July 15, 2002 elections.
• Cancellation of Candidacy: On July 15, 2002, the date of the elections, the COMELEC En Banc issued Resolution No. 5363, adopting the recommendation of its Law Department to deny due course to or cancel the certificates of candidacy of several SK candidates, including petitioner. The finding was based on Election Officers' reports that these candidates were not registered voters in the barangays where they sought to run, pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 4801.
• Election and Proclamation: Notwithstanding Resolution No. 5363, petitioner's name was not deleted from the official list of candidates. She was allowed to vote, and after the canvassing of votes, the Barangay Board of Canvassers proclaimed her the duly elected SK Chairman. She took her oath of office on August 14, 2002.
• Motion for Reconsideration: On August 19, 2002, petitioner learned of Resolution No. 5363 and filed a motion for reconsideration. She argued that the COMELEC could not motu proprio cancel her certificate of candidacy without a verified petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code and that she was denied due process.
• Denial of Motion: On October 7, 2002, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 5781 denying the motion. The COMELEC maintained that its administrative inquiry into a candidate's eligibility begins upon the filing of the certificate of candidacy, and that publication of COMELEC Resolution No. 4801 constituted constructive notice. It further declared that the proclamation of a disqualified candidate whose certificate of candidacy had been cancelled by an En Banc resolution is void from the beginning.

• Due Process: Petitioner argued that she was deprived of due process when the COMELEC cancelled her certificate of candidacy without notice and hearing. She maintained that a certificate of candidacy may only be denied due course or cancelled via a verified petition filed by a registered candidate under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, not by an Election Officer's report.
• Jurisdiction of the COMELEC En Banc: Petitioner contended that the COMELEC En Banc lacked jurisdiction to act on the cancellation of her certificate of candidacy in the first instance, as such authority belongs to the Divisions of the Commission.
• Proper Remedy Post-Proclamation: Petitioner asserted that after her proclamation as the duly-elected SK Chairman, she could only be removed via a petition for quo warranto, not through a motu proprio cancellation of her certificate of candidacy.
• Constitutionality of R.A. No. 9164: Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Sections 6 and 7 of R.A. No. 9164, which lowered the age of membership in the SK, and sought to direct SK officers over 18 years old to vacate their positions.

• Administrative Power: The COMELEC defended its actions by invoking its broad administrative power to enforce and administer election laws. It argued that, in the exercise of such power, it may motu proprio deny or cancel the certificates of candidacy of candidates found to be unqualified for the position they are seeking.
• Constructive Notice: The COMELEC contended that the publication of COMELEC Resolution No. 4801 in two newspapers of general circulation provided sufficient constructive notice to candidates regarding the Commission’s administrative inquiry into their qualifications, obviating the need for individual notice and hearing.

• Validity of Motu Proprio Cancellation: Whether the COMELEC may, motu proprio and without notice and hearing, deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy on the ground that the candidate lacks the qualifications prescribed by law.

• Validity of Motu Proprio Cancellation: Resolutions No. 5363 and 5781 are void for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. The duty of the COMELEC to receive and acknowledge a certificate of candidacy filed in due form is ministerial under Section 76 of the Omnibus Election Code. While the COMELEC may look into patent defects in the certificate, it cannot delve into matters not appearing on its face, such as eligibility or ineligibility. The denial of due course or cancellation of a certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code necessitates the exercise of quasi-judicial, not administrative, power. Because the determination of whether a material representation is false or a candidate is eligible involves a determination of fact that may result in the deprivation of the right to run for or hold public office, due process mandates prior notice and hearing. Constructive notice via the publication of general resolutions is insufficient; the candidate must be notified of the specific proceedings and allowed to present evidence to prove their qualifications. The issue regarding the constitutionality of Sections 6 and 7 of R.A. No. 9164 was not ruled upon, it not being the lis mota of the case.

• Ministerial Duty to Receive Certificate of Candidacy — The COMELEC has no discretion to refuse a certificate of candidacy filed in due form; its duty to receive and acknowledge the same is ministerial. It may only look into patent defects on the face of the document and cannot unilaterally investigate matters not appearing thereon, such as a candidate's eligibility.
• Quasi-Judicial Nature of COC Cancellation — The denial of due course to or cancellation of a certificate of candidacy calls for the exercise of the COMELEC's quasi-judicial functions, not its administrative powers. Where a power rests in judgment or discretion and involves the determination of fact based on evidence—which may result in the deprivation of a right—it is quasi-judicial and strictly requires notice and hearing.

• "The Commission may not, by itself, without the proper proceedings, deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy filed in due form."
• "The duty of the COMELEC to give due course to certificates of candidacy filed in due form is ministerial in character. While the Commission may look into patent defects in the certificates, it may not go into matters not appearing on their face. The question of eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate is thus beyond the usual and proper cognizance of said body."
• "It should be stressed that it is not sufficient, as the COMELEC claims, that the candidate be notified of the Commission’s inquiry into the veracity of the contents of his certificate of candidacy, but he must also be allowed to present his own evidence to prove that he possesses the qualifications for the office he seeks."

• Abcede v. Hon. Imperial, 103 Phil. 136 (1958) — Followed. The Court reiterated that the COMELEC has no discretion to give or not to give due course to a certificate of candidacy.
• Sanchez v. Del Rosario, 111 Phil. 733 (1961) — Followed. Established that the COMELEC's duty to give due course to certificates of candidacy is ministerial, and it may not go into matters not appearing on the face of the certificate.
• Sandoval v. COMELEC, 323 SCRA 403 (2000) — Followed. Cited for the definition of the COMELEC's administrative powers and the principle that due process demands prior notice and hearing.
• Ople v. Torres, 293 SCRA 150 (1998) — Followed. Cited for the definition of administrative power as the work of applying policies and enforcing orders.
• Saya-ang, Sr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 155087, November 28, 2003 — Followed. Cited for the proposition that summary proceedings under Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure still require notice and the submission of position papers or affidavits.

• Section 76, Omnibus Election Code — Defines the ministerial duty of the COMELEC, provincial election supervisor, or election registrar to receive and acknowledge receipt of a certificate of candidacy. Applied to show that the COMELEC has no discretion to refuse a COC filed in due form.
• Section 78, Omnibus Election Code — Governs the petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy on the ground of false material representation, requiring a verified petition, and decision after notice and hearing. Applied to demonstrate that cancellation is a quasi-judicial function requiring due process.
• Section 2(1), Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution — Vests the COMELEC with the power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections. Interpreted not to extend to the motu proprio cancellation of COCs without hearing, as such action is quasi-judicial.
• Rule 23, COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Provides for summary hearing after due notice in petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concurred.