Go vs. Commission on Elections

A candidate who has filed more than one certificate of candidacy may effectively withdraw the other candidacy by substantial compliance with Section 73 of the Omnibus Election Code, and disqualification without notice and hearing violates procedural due process. The venue requirement in COMELEC Resolution No. 3253-A is merely directory, an administrative issuance cannot add to statutory requirements, and a 28-minute delay caused by refusal of the tendered withdrawal and geographic impossibility did not render petitioner ineligible for either office.

Rep. Ma. Catalina L. Go was the incumbent representative of the Fifth District of Leyte whose term was to expire at noon on June 30, 2001. Felipe V. Montejo and Arvin V. Antoni were private parties who challenged her candidacies, while the Commission on Elections was impleaded as the tribunal that cancelled both certificates. Section 73 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 governs eligibility where more than one certificate of candidacy is filed and permits cancellation of the other certificate before expiration of the filing period, implemented for the May 14, 2001 elections by COMELEC Resolution No. 3253-A and petitions under Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.

Petitioner Ma. Catalina L. Go was the incumbent representative of the Fifth District of Leyte. On February 27, 2001, she filed with the municipal election officer of Baybay, Leyte a certificate of candidacy for mayor of Baybay. On February 28, 2001, at 11:47 p.m., she filed with the provincial election supervisor of Leyte in Tacloban City another certificate of candidacy for governor of Leyte.

Simultaneously with the gubernatorial filing, she attempted to file with the provincial election supervisor an affidavit withdrawing her mayoralty candidacy. The supervisor refused to accept it and advised that, pursuant to a COMELEC resolution, it should be filed with the municipal election officer of Baybay where the mayoralty certificate had been filed. With only minutes left before midnight, the deadline for filing certificates or withdrawals, and with Tacloban to Baybay requiring about two hours of travel, petitioner sent the affidavit by fax to her father in Baybay for submission there.

The facsimile copy was submitted to the office of the election officer of Baybay at 12:28 a.m. on March 1, 2001, while the original was actually received by that office at 1:15 p.m. the same day. On March 5, 2001, respondents Montejo and Antoni filed petitions before the provincial election supervisor to deny due course to and/or cancel petitioner's certificates, alleging that she had filed for two offices without timely cancelling the other, falsely swore to eligibility, and was thus ineligible for both. The provincial supervisor inhibited himself and referred the cases to the COMELEC Law Department, which studied them ex parte and recommended cancellation on the ground that the withdrawal was filed only on March 1, 2001, one day after the deadline. In the meantime, the COMELEC First Division had directed hearing before the Regional Election Director, who summoned petitioner, received her consolidated position paper on April 23, 2001, and set reception of evidence for April 25, 2001, but the COMELEC en banc had already approved the Law Department recommendation on April 23, 2001.

• Late and Improper Withdrawal: Respondent countered that the affidavit of withdrawal was ineffectual because the facsimile was filed at 12:28 a.m. on March 1, 2001 and the original only at 1:15 p.m. that day, twenty-eight minutes and beyond the midnight February 28, 2001 deadline, and not with the municipal election officer of Baybay where the mayoralty certificate was filed.
• Ineligibility for Both Offices: Respondent argued that petitioner, having filed certificates for mayor on February 27, 2001 and for governor on February 28, 2001 without timely declaring under oath the office desired and cancelling the other, remained a candidate for two offices at the deadline and was ineligible for either under Section 73 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 1(b) of COMELEC Resolution No. 3253-A, with false representation of eligibility and obedience to laws warranting denial of due course.
• Proper Referral and Study: Respondent maintained that referral by the inhibiting provincial supervisor to the COMELEC Law Department and its report and recommendation justified deletion of petitioner's name from the certified lists for governor and mayor.

• Multiple Candidacies: Whether petitioner is disqualified as candidate for governor of Leyte and mayor of Baybay, Leyte because she filed certificates of candidacy for both positions.
• Validity of Withdrawal — Proper Office: Whether the affidavit of withdrawal must be filed with the election officer of the place where the certificate of candidacy to be withdrawn was filed.
• Validity of Withdrawal — Facsimile and Timeliness: Whether the affidavit of withdrawal transmitted by fax and received at 12:28 a.m. on March 1, 2001 constitutes a valid withdrawal.
• Procedural Due Process: Whether petitioner was denied procedural due process of law in the cancellation of her certificates of candidacy.

• Multiple Candidacies: No. Petitioner was not disqualified, her withdrawal of the mayoralty candidacy being effective and leaving the gubernatorial candidacy in full force.
• Validity of Withdrawal — Proper Office: No. Section 73 requires submission only to the office concerned, so filing with the provincial election supervisor sufficed and the resolution's same-office rule is merely directory.
• Validity of Withdrawal — Facsimile and Timeliness: Yes. Receipt at 12:28 a.m. on March 1, 2001 was substantial compliance, the delay being excusable under the circumstances and not fatal to withdrawal.
• Procedural Due Process: Yes. Deciding on ex parte Law Department study without notice and hearing, while a separate hearing was pending, violated Rule 23's summary proceeding after due notice.

• Multiple Candidacies: Section 73 permits a person who filed more than one certificate before expiration of the filing period to declare under oath the office desired and cancel the other certificate. Applied here, the timely tender to the provincial supervisor at 11:47 p.m. on February 28, 2001, followed by facsimile delivery at 12:28 a.m. on March 1, 2001, was treated as effective cancellation of the Baybay mayoralty bid. Accordingly, only the gubernatorial certificate subsisted and ineligibility for both offices did not attach.
• Validity of Withdrawal — Proper Office: Nothing in Section 73 mandates filing the withdrawal with the same office where the withdrawn certificate was filed; submission to the office concerned allows filing with the COMELEC main office, regional director, provincial supervisor, or municipal officer. While Section 12 of Resolution No. 3253-A directs filing where the certificate was filed, such administrative requirement is directory for convenience, not mandatory or jurisdictional, and cannot contradict, amend, or supply deficiencies in the statute. Hence refusal by the provincial supervisor to receive the affidavit was unjustified, and tender thereto sufficed, with grave abuse committed in declaring ineligibility on venue grounds.
• Validity of Withdrawal — Facsimile and Timeliness: Substantial compliance sufficed where strict compliance was rendered humanly impossible by the supervisor's refusal minutes before midnight and the two-hour distance between Tacloban City and Baybay. Fax, the fastest practical means, delivered the withdrawal 28 minutes past midnight, with the original following the same day. Absent fraud or prejudice, the brief delay was excused as substantial compliance under Montinola vs. Commission on Elections.
• Procedural Due Process: Rule 23, Section 3 requires petitions to deny due course to or cancel certificates to be heard summarily after due notice, and a quasi-judicial tribunal must observe procedural due process that hears before it condemns. Here the Law Department conducted an ex parte study, required no comment, held no hearing, and was unaware of the Regional Director's summons, position paper, and scheduled reception of evidence, yet the en banc adopted its April 5, 2001 recommendation on April 23, 2001. Deprivation of opportunity to be heard thus independently voided the cancellation, as in Villarosa vs. Commission on Elections and Sandoval vs. Commission on Elections.

• Multiple candidacies; withdrawal under Section 73 — No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be filled in the same election, and filing for more than one renders him ineligible for any of them; however, before expiration of the filing period he may declare under oath the office desired and cancel the other certificate or certificates. Applied here, effective withdrawal of the Baybay mayoralty candidacy preserved eligibility for Leyte governor.
• Withdrawal venue as directory requirement — Section 73 allows withdrawal by written declaration under oath submitted to the office concerned, without fixing exclusive venue; a COMELEC resolution requiring filing where the withdrawn certificate was filed is merely directory for convenience, not mandatory or jurisdictional. Tender to the provincial election supervisor therefore effectively withdrew the municipal candidacy.
• Administrative regulation cannot contradict statute — An administrative resolution cannot contradict, amend, repeal, or supply deficiencies in the law it implements. Resolution No. 3253-A could not impose a jurisdictional venue limitation absent from Section 73.
• Substantial compliance in election laws — Where departure from prescribed form is not made fatal by law, results from honest exigency, and is not used for fraud, the requirement is directory and the deviation is a harmless irregularity. The 28-minute delay caused by refusal of timely tender and distance was excused.
• Procedural due process in certificate cancellation — Petitions to deny due course to or cancel certificates of candidacy shall be heard summarily after due notice; the COMELEC as quasi-judicial tribunal must give notice and opportunity to be heard before condemnation. Ex parte resolution without requiring answer or holding hearing voids the cancellation.

• "There is nothing in this Section which mandates that the affidavit of withdrawal must be filed with the same office where the certificate of candidacy to be withdrawn was filed." — States the core statutory construction rejecting exclusive venue and permitting filing with any concerned COMELEC office.
• "such requirement is merely directory, and is intended for convenience. It is not mandatory or jurisdictional. An administrative resolution can not contradict, much less amend or repeal a law, or supply a deficiency in the law." — Defines the status of Resolution No. 3253-A's venue rule and the limit on administrative rulemaking.
• "The filing of the affidavit of withdrawal with the election officer of Baybay, Leyte, at 12:28 a.m., 1 March 2001 was a substantial compliance with the requirement of the law." — Articulates the ratio excusing the 28-minute delay under the circumstances.
• "The COMELEC, acting as a quasi-judicial tribunal, cannot ignore the requirements of procedural due process in resolving cases before it." — Anchors the independent due process ground for annulment for deciding without notice and hearing.

• Montinola vs. Commission on Elections, 98 Phil. 220 [1956] — Cited as basis that filing of withdrawal at 12:28 a.m. was substantial compliance and that withdrawal left the other candidacy in full force.
• Palanca vs. Court of Appeals, 238 SCRA 593 [1994] — Cited for the principle that an administrative resolution cannot contradict, amend, or supply deficiencies in the law.
• Villarosa vs. Commission on Elections, 319 SCRA 470 [1999] — Cited to support finding of deprivation of procedural due process in approving an ex parte recommendation.
• Sandoval vs. Commission on Elections, 323 SCRA 403, 423 [2000] — Cited for the duty of the COMELEC as quasi-judicial tribunal to observe procedural due process.
• Flores vs. Buencamino, 74 SCRA 332 [1976]; Lorenzana vs. Cayetano, 78 SCRA 485 [1977]; Loquias vs. Rodriguez, 65 SCRA 659 [1975]; Romero vs. Court of Appeals, 147 SCRA 183 [1987] — Cited for Webster's definition that procedural due process requires a law that hears before it condemns, proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial.

• Section 73, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) — Requires sworn certificate filed within the period; allows withdrawal by written declaration under oath to the office concerned; bars eligibility for more than one office but allows pre-deadline declaration of desired office and cancellation of the other. Applied to preserve the gubernatorial candidacy upon effective withdrawal of the mayoralty candidacy.
• Section 1(b), COMELEC Resolution No. 3253-A — Reproduces the multiple-office bar and pre-deadline oath and cancellation proviso. Invoked by private respondents to claim ineligibility for both offices; rejected because timely substantial withdrawal occurred.
• Section 12, COMELEC Resolution No. 3253-A — Requires withdrawal statement in five copies filed with the office where the certificate was filed, with forwarding and notice duties. Held directory and for convenience only, not mandatory or jurisdictional.
• Section 3, Rule 23, COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Provides that a petition to deny due course to or cancel certificates shall be heard summarily after due notice. Violated by ex parte Law Department study and en banc approval without hearing petitioner.
• Republic Act No. 8792 (E-Commerce Law) — Noted as possible legal basis for transmission by fax, relevant to the municipal officer's lack of fax machine and petitioner's facsimile filing.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., in a concurring opinion, emphasized that Section 73 speaks only of the office concerned while Section 12 of Resolution No. 3253-A added a same-office venue limit adopted merely for expediency, hence directory rather than mandatory. Tender at 11:47 p.m. to the provincial supervisor should have been received and transmitted, producing the same effect as filing in Baybay, and any defect was cured by subsequent facsimile and original filing. The 28-minute delay over 105 kilometers was an indecisive, harmless irregularity absent fraud or prejudice, and cancellation without hearing violated due process.