Guro vs. Commission on Elections

The 25-day reglementary period for filing a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code must be strictly applied where the ground alleged is misrepresentation as to voter registration, absent exceptional circumstances analogous to those recognized in prior jurisprudence.

Petitioner was the erstwhile municipal mayor of Lumbaca-Unayan, Lanao del Sur, running for re-election in the May 2016 National and Local Elections. Private respondent filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the same position on October 16, 2015, indicating under oath that he was a registered voter of Barangay Poblacion Dilausan, Lumbaca-Unayan, Lanao del Sur. The COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by COMELEC Resolution No. 9523, govern the period within which a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed.

On October 16, 2015, private respondent Somerado Malomalo Guro filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Municipal Mayor of Lumbaca-Unayan, Lanao del Sur in connection with the May 2016 National and Local Elections, indicating therein under oath that he is a registered voter of Barangay Poblacion Dilausan, Lumbaca-Unayan, Lanao del Sur and that he is eligible to run for the office he seeks to be elected to. Petitioner Saripoden Ariman Guro, the erstwhile municipal mayor of Lumbaca-Unayan running for re-election, challenged private respondent's candidacy via a Petition for Disqualification on April 29, 2016, alleging that based on the posted certified voters' list, private respondent is not a registered voter of the municipality and hence not qualified to be a candidate for the contested position.

On June 13, 2016, private respondent filed his Verified Answer (With Special and Affirmative Defenses), denying the material allegations in the petition and arguing that the same had been rendered moot and academic by the COMELEC's resolution approving the recommendation of Director Teopisto R. Elnas, Jr. of the Election and Barangay Affairs Department (EBAD) for inclusion of respondent's name in the supplemental list of voters. He likewise averred that he was able to cast his vote on Election Day, and that he won and was proclaimed as the Mayor of Lumbaca-Unayan in the May 2016 NLE.

The COMELEC First Division dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioner filed the same beyond the prescriptive period of twenty-five (25) days for filing a Petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. In denying petitioner's verified motion for reconsideration, the COMELEC En Banc affirmed said order and found that the petition was filed way beyond the reglementary period, finding it unnecessary to tackle the other substantive issues raised by petitioner. Private respondent filed his COC on October 16, 2015, while petitioner filed his petition before the COMELEC on April 29, 2016, or after the lapse of one hundred ninety-six (196) days.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner attributed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the COMELEC for having dismissed the petition on mere technical grounds instead of deciding the case on the merits in view of the alleged grave violation of election laws by private respondent.

• Mootness and Compliance: Private respondent argued that the petition had been rendered moot and academic by the COMELEC's resolution approving the recommendation for inclusion of his name in the supplemental list of voters, and that he was able to cast his vote on Election Day and won and was proclaimed as Mayor.

• Reglementary Period: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for disqualification for having been filed beyond the 25-day reglementary period under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.

• Reglementary Period: No. The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition on technical grounds, as the petition was filed 196 days after the filing of the COC, way beyond the 25-day reglementary period under Section 78 of the OEC, and no exceptional circumstance warranted a relaxation of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.

• Reglementary Period: The Court held that since the petition was anchored on the alleged ineligibility of private respondent, the same is in the nature of a petition to deny due course to or cancel the latter's COC which falls under Section 78 of the OEC. Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by COMELEC Resolution No. 9523, provides that a petition must be filed within five (5) days from the last day for filing of certificate of candidacy, but not later than twenty-five (25) days from the time of filing of the certificate of candidacy subject of the petition. Private respondent filed his COC on October 16, 2015, while petitioner filed his petition on April 29, 2016, or after the lapse of one hundred ninety-six (196) days.

The Court distinguished the cases relied upon by petitioner. In Aznar vs. Commission on Elections, the Court ruled on the merits as a matter of public interest because the issue involved the private respondent's citizenship and qualification to hold public office. In Loong vs. Commission on Elections, the Court held that a ground involving misrepresentation as to age is not on the same level as lack of Philippine citizenship, which is "an overriding and fundamental desideratum matched perhaps only by disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines." Where the disqualification is based on age, residence, or any of the many grounds for ineligibility, the reglementary period provided by law should be applied strictly. On the ground that herein private respondent allegedly misrepresented himself as being a registered voter, the Court saw no reason to depart from settled jurisprudence and ruled that the reglementary period should likewise be strictly applied.

The Court also examined cases where a liberal construction was favored. In Hayudini vs. Commission on Elections, liberal construction was allowed only because of a supervening event — the RTC reversed the MCTC ruling and the deletion of Hayudini's name from the list of voters became final and executory, which adequately equipped Omar with the necessary ground to successfully challenge Hayudini's COC. In Caballero vs. Commission on Elections, the suspension of the rules was justified because the issue pertained to qualification and eligibility to run for public office and was imbued with public interest, and because of peculiar circumstances including the petitioner's efforts to serve a copy of the petition and the impossibility of personal service since he was in Canada. In Ocate vs. Commission on Elections, a liberal stance was taken for a one-day filing delay because the petitioner exerted due diligence and only failed to file on time on account of a typhoon. The Court found no circumstance in the case at bench analogous to those in the above cases to warrant a relaxation of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, and accordingly held that no grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the COMELEC in denying petitioner's petition on technical grounds.

• Strict application of reglementary period for Section 78 petitions — A petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code must be filed within five (5) days from the last day for filing of certificate of candidacy, but not later than twenty-five (25) days from the time of filing of the certificate of candidacy subject of the petition. Where the disqualification is based on age, residence, or any of the many grounds for ineligibility other than lack of citizenship, the reglementary period provided by law should be applied strictly. The Court applied this doctrine to a ground involving misrepresentation as to voter registration, finding no reason to depart from settled jurisprudence.

• Public interest exception to procedural rules — While the public good should supersede any procedural infirmities which may affect a petition filed with the COMELEC, the same should be limited to a clear case of an alien holding elective public office, and perhaps, a clear case of disloyalty to the Republic. The Court cited the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Gutierrez, Jr. in Frivaldo vs. Commission on Elections in articulating this limitation, and found that the alleged misrepresentation as to voter registration does not fall within this exception.

• "Where the disqualification is based on age, residence, or any of the many grounds for ineligibility, the reglementary period provided by law should be applied strictly." — This passage articulates the controlling rule that strict application of the reglementary period is the norm for grounds other than lack of citizenship, and forms the basis for the Court's ruling in this case.

• "We find no circumstance in the case at bench analogous to those in the above cases to warrant a relaxation of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, no grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the COMELEC in denying petitioner's petition on technical grounds." — This passage states the Court's conclusion that the exceptions recognized in prior jurisprudence do not apply to the present case, and that the COMELEC acted within its discretion.

• Aznar vs. Commission on Elections, 264 Phil. 307-331 (1990) — Distinguished; the Court ruled on the merits despite the petition being filed beyond the reglementary period because the issue involved the private respondent's citizenship and qualification to hold public office, a matter of public interest.

• Loong vs. Commission on Elections, 290-A Phil. 559 (1992) — Followed; the Court held that misrepresentation as to age is not on the same level as lack of Philippine citizenship, and the reglementary period should be strictly applied to such grounds.

• Frivaldo vs. Commission on Elections, 327 Phil. 521 (1996) — Cited for the proposition that the public good should supersede procedural infirmities only in clear cases of an alien holding elective public office or disloyalty to the Republic.

• Hayudini vs. Commission on Elections, 733 Phil. 822 (2014) — Distinguished; liberal construction was allowed only because of a supervening event — the RTC reversal of the MCTC ruling and the finality of the deletion of the candidate's name from the list of voters.

• Caballero vs. Commission on Elections, 770 Phil. 94 (2015) — Distinguished; suspension of the rules was justified because the issue pertained to qualification and eligibility imbued with public interest, and because of peculiar circumstances including efforts to serve the petition and impossibility of personal service.

• Ocate vs. Commission on Elections, 537 Phil. 584 (2006) — Distinguished; a liberal stance was taken for a one-day filing delay because the petitioner exerted due diligence and failed to file on time only because of a typhoon.

• Section 78, Omnibus Election Code — The provision governing petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy on the exclusive ground that any material representation contained therein as required by law is false. The Court applied this provision in determining the nature of the petition filed by petitioner.

• Rule 23, Section 1, COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by COMELEC Resolution No. 9523 — Provides the grounds for a verified petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy, and requires that petitions invoking grounds other than those stated or combining grounds for a separate remedy shall be summarily dismissed.

• Rule 23, Section 2, COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by COMELEC Resolution No. 9523 — Provides the reglementary period for filing a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy: within five (5) days from the last day for filing of certificate of candidacy, but not later than twenty-five (25) days from the time of filing of the certificate of candidacy subject of the petition. The Court applied this provision to find that petitioner's filing was 196 days late.

Gesmundo, C.J., Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Delos Santos, Gaerlan, and J. Lopez, JJ., concurred. Leonen, J., was on official leave.