Gonzalez vs. COMELEC

A petition questioning a candidate's citizenship filed before the election is a petition to cancel the certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code and must be filed within twenty-five days from the filing of the COC; a COMELEC rule cannot supplant this statutory period.

Petitioner Fernando V. Gonzalez and private respondent Reno G. Lim filed certificates of candidacy for Representative of the 3rd District of Albay for the May 10, 2010 elections. Gonzalez, a former Governor, was challenged by Stephen Bichara, who alleged that Gonzalez was a Spanish national who failed to validly elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 625. Gonzalez asserted he took an Oath of Allegiance on his 21st birthday and had consistently acted as a Filipino citizen.

• The Petition Against Gonzalez: On March 30, 2010, Bichara filed SPA No. 10-074 (DC) seeking to disqualify Gonzalez and cancel his COC on the ground that he was Spanish and failed to elect Philippine citizenship. Gonzalez had filed his COC on December 1, 2009.
• COMELEC Second Division Ruling: On May 8, 2010, the COMELEC Second Division granted the petition, declaring Gonzalez disqualified for failure to prove compliance with C.A. No. 625. Gonzalez received a copy of the resolution on May 11, 2010.
• Election and Proclamation: During the May 10, 2010 elections, Gonzalez won with 96,000 votes against Lim's 68,701. On May 12, 2010, the PBOC proclaimed Gonzalez, who took his oath of office the same day.
• Motion for Reconsideration: On May 14, 2010, Gonzalez filed an MR, arguing the petition was filed out of time and that his proclamation divested COMELEC of jurisdiction.
• COMELEC En Banc Ruling: On July 23, 2010, the COMELEC En Banc denied the MR, ruling it was pro forma and did not suspend the execution of the May 8 Resolution. It annulled Gonzalez's proclamation as premature and illegal, and ordered the constitution of a Special Board of Canvassers to proclaim Lim. Commissioner Sarmiento dissented, favoring the will of the people, while Commissioner Velasco dissented, arguing COMELEC lost jurisdiction to the HRET and the MR was not pro forma.

• Timeliness of Petition: Petitioner argued that Bichara's petition questioning his citizenship was essentially a petition under Section 78 of the OEC (cancellation of COC based on false representation), which should have been filed within twenty-five days from the filing of the COC, making the March 30, 2010 filing out of time.
• Validity of Proclamation: Petitioner maintained that his proclamation was valid because the COMELEC Second Division's disqualification resolution had not yet become final and executory at the time of proclamation.
• Jurisdiction: Petitioner contended that COMELEC lost jurisdiction over his qualifications upon his proclamation, oath-taking, and assumption of office, transferring jurisdiction to the HRET.
• Pro Forma Motion: Petitioner asserted his motion for reconsideration was not pro forma as it raised substantive arguments.
• Second Placer Rule: Petitioner argued that Lim, as the second placer, could not be proclaimed as the winner.

• Timeliness of Petition: Respondent COMELEC argued the petition was both for disqualification and cancellation of COC, filed within the period allowed under Section 4(B) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8696 (not later than the date of proclamation).
• Pro Forma Motion: Respondents maintained that Gonzalez's MR was pro forma because it merely mentioned his proclamation without substantiating compliance with C.A. No. 625, thus failing to suspend the execution of the disqualification resolution.
• Illegal Proclamation: Respondents argued the proclamation was premature and illegal under Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646 and Section 16 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678, which allow the suspension or annulment of proclamation when evidence of guilt is strong.
• Retention of Jurisdiction: Respondents distinguished Limkaichong, asserting COMELEC retained jurisdiction to annul the illegal proclamation, especially since the automated election system made it impossible to remove the disqualified candidate's name from the ballots.

• Timeliness: Whether the petition in SPA No. 10-074 (DC) was timely filed.
• Validity of Proclamation: Whether Gonzalez was validly proclaimed as the duly elected Representative.
• Jurisdiction: Whether the COMELEC lost jurisdiction over the issue of Gonzalez's citizenship.

• Timeliness: The petition was filed out of time. A petition questioning a candidate's citizenship based on false representation in the COC is a petition under Section 78 of the OEC, which must be filed within twenty-five days from the filing of the COC. COMELEC procedural rules (Rule 25 and Resolution No. 8696) allowing filing until proclamation cannot supplant this statutory period.
• Validity of Proclamation: The proclamation was valid. Gonzalez's MR was not pro forma because it raised substantive arguments and did not suffer from the defects that make an MR pro forma. The timely filing of the MR suspended the execution of the May 8, 2010 Resolution; thus, no final judgment of disqualification existed at the time of proclamation. The votes cast for Gonzalez could not be considered stray.
• Jurisdiction: COMELEC lost jurisdiction to the HRET. Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken an oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, COMELEC's jurisdiction ends and the HRET's begins. The advent of automated elections did not alter this rule. Furthermore, the second placer cannot be proclaimed elected; the wreath of victory cannot be transferred to the repudiated loser.

• Distinction between Section 68 and Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code — Section 68 covers disqualification based on specific prohibited acts or election offenses, while Section 78 covers denial or cancellation of COC based on false material representation regarding qualifications (age, residence, citizenship). They are different remedies with different periods and effects and should not be interchanged.
• Pro Forma Motion for Reconsideration — A motion for reconsideration is not automatically pro forma merely because it reiterates issues already passed upon. It is pro forma if it is a second MR, fails to specify findings contrary to law or evidence, fails to substantiate alleged errors, merely alleges the decision is contrary to law, or if adverse party is not notified.
• Jurisdiction of the HRET — Under Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, the HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. Once a candidate is proclaimed, takes an oath, and assumes office, COMELEC loses jurisdiction.
• Second Placer Rule — The ineligibility of a candidate receiving the majority or plurality of votes does not entitle the eligible candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected. The wreath of victory cannot be transferred from the disqualified winner to the repudiated loser, unless the electorate was fully aware in fact and in law of the candidate's disqualification but voted for them anyway.

• "A 'Section 78' petition ought not to be interchanged or confused with a 'Section 68' petition. They are different remedies, based on different grounds, and resulting in different eventualities."
• "Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins."
• "The second placer is just that, a second placer – he lost in the elections and was repudiated by either the majority or plurality of voters... The wreath of victory cannot be transferred from the disqualified winner to the repudiated loser."

• Loong v. Commission on Elections — Controlling precedent holding that the period for filing a petition for cancellation of COC based on false representation is covered by Rule 23 (twenty-five-day period under Sec 78 OEC), not Rule 25, and a COMELEC procedural rule cannot supersede a statutory period.
• Fermin v. Commission on Elections — Followed; stressed that Section 78 and Section 68 petitions must not be interchanged and a COMELEC rule cannot vary legislative enactments distinguishing them.
• Limkaichong v. Commission on Elections — Followed; reiterated that upon proclamation, oath-taking, and assumption of office, COMELEC loses jurisdiction to the HRET.
• Codilla, Sr. v. De Venecia — Followed; held that suspension of proclamation of a winning candidate requires a motion by the complainant or intervenor; COMELEC cannot act motu proprio.
• Bautista v. Commission on Elections — Followed; held that a subsequent finding of ineligibility cannot retroact to invalidate votes cast for a candidate believed to be qualified at the time of the election.

• Section 78, Omnibus Election Code — Governs petitions to deny due course or cancel a COC based on false material representation; requires filing not later than twenty-five days from the filing of the COC. Applied to characterize the petition against Gonzalez and declare it filed out of time.
• Section 68, Omnibus Election Code — Governs petitions for disqualification based on election offenses or illegal acts. Distinguished from Section 78 to show the petition against Gonzalez was erroneously treated under this provision.
• Section 6, Republic Act No. 6646 — Provides the effect of a disqualification case; requires a final judgment before election for votes to be considered stray, and requires a motion for suspension of proclamation. Applied to rule that Gonzalez's votes were not stray and his proclamation was not illegal.
• Article VI, Section 17, 1987 Constitution — Vests the HRET with sole jurisdiction over contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of House members. Applied to divest COMELEC of jurisdiction upon Gonzalez's assumption of office.

Renato C. Corona (C.J.), Antonio T. Carpio, Conchita Carpio Morales, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza, Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno.