Labo, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

The ineligibility of a candidate who received the highest number of votes does not entitle the candidate who received the next highest number of votes to be declared elected; a permanent vacancy is created which must be filled by the vice-mayor through succession under the Local Government Code, not by proclaiming the defeated candidate.

This was the second time the SC ruled on Labo’s citizenship. In Labo v. COMELEC (176 SCRA 1 [1989]), the SC declared Labo not a citizen of the Philippines and ordered him to vacate the office of Mayor. Despite this, Labo filed again for the May 11, 1992 elections, claiming he had reacquired Philippine citizenship.

• March 23, 1992: Labo filed his certificate of candidacy for City Mayor of Baguio.
• March 25, 1992: Ortega filed his certificate of candidacy for the same position.
• March 26, 1992: Ortega filed a petition to deny due course to Labo’s certificate of candidacy (SPA No. 92-029) before the COMELEC, alleging false representation regarding citizenship.
• March 27 – April 24, 1992: COMELEC issued summons and orders requiring Labo to file his Answer; Labo failed to respond until May 5, 1992.
• May 4, 1992: Hearing held; Ortega presented the 1989 SC decision; Labo presented no evidence.
• May 9, 1992: COMELEC issued resolution cancelling Labo’s certificate of candidacy.
• May 10, 1992: COMELEC issued order allowing Labo to be voted upon subject to final outcome (resolution not yet final).
• May 11, 1992: Elections held; Labo received highest number of votes.
• May 13, 1992: COMELEC resolved to suspend Labo’s proclamation.
• May 15, 1992: Labo filed petition for review (GR No. 105111); Ortega filed urgent motion for implementation of May 9 resolution.
• May 26, 1992: COMELEC denied Ortega’s motion.
• June 1, 1992: Ortega filed petition for mandamus (GR No. 105384).

• Labo filed his certificate of candidacy stating he was a "natural-born" Filipino citizen.
• Ortega filed a disqualification case, relying on the 1989 SC decision in Labo v. COMELEC declaring Labo not a citizen.
• Labo failed to file his Answer within the reglementary period despite being served summons twice; filed Answer only on May 5, 1992, claiming "existing facts" and "supervening events" showed he maintained Philippine citizenship.
• Before the COMELEC, Labo presented no evidence to support his claim of reacquisition.
• Labo won the election with 27,471 votes against Ortega’s 12,602, but was not proclaimed due to pending disqualification.
• Labo claimed he filed an application for repatriation under PD 725 and LOI 270 before the Special Committee on Naturalization, which remained pending without official action.

Labo (GR No. 105111): - Alleged lack of trial on the merits and opportunity to be heard in the 1989 case. - Cited Vance v. Terrazas (444 US 252): expatriation requires proof of specific intent to relinquish citizenship, which was never established. - Claimed COMELEC proceedings were abbreviated (only one day hearing), denying him due process. - Argued that Sec. 72 of the Omnibus Election Code operates as a "legislatively mandated special repatriation proceeding" allowing his proclamation since the disqualification was not final before the election. - Claimed reacquisition of citizenship via pending application for repatriation under PD 725 and LOI 270.

Ortega (GR No. 105384): - Argued that the COMELEC resolution cancelling Labo’s certificate became final and executory on May 14, 1992 (5 days after promulgation on May 9). - Contended that as the candidate with the next highest number of votes, he should be proclaimed Mayor since Labo was disqualified.

COMELEC: - Labo was given ample opportunity to file his Answer but failed to do so until after the hearing; no grave abuse of discretion in cancelling the certificate. - Labo presented no evidence of reacquisition of citizenship before the COMELEC or the SC. - Bound by the 1989 SC decision declaring Labo an alien.

Labo (in Ortega’s petition): - Opposed the implementation of the COMELEC resolution pending SC review.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in cancelling Labo’s certificate of candidacy despite alleged lack of full trial and due process.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether Labo validly reacquired Philippine citizenship.
  • Whether Sec. 72 of the Omnibus Election Code (or Sec. 6 of RA 6646) allows the proclamation of a candidate whose disqualification becomes final after the election.
  • Whether the candidate receiving the second highest number of votes (Ortega) can be proclaimed winner upon the disqualification of the candidate with the highest votes (Labo).
  • Who is entitled to assume the office of Mayor of Baguio City.

• Procedural: No grave abuse of discretion. The COMELEC issued summons on March 27, 1992 and April 24, 1992; Labo failed to file his Answer until May 5, 1992. He was given due process but chose not to present evidence. The COMELEC properly relied on the 1989 SC decision declaring Labo an alien.

• Substantive:

  • Citizenship: Labo is not a Filipino citizen. He failed to submit any evidence of reacquisition. Under CA No. 63, as amended by PD 725, reacquisition requires direct act of Congress, naturalization, or repatriation. A mere application for repatriation, without approval by the Special Committee on Naturalization, does not automatically restore citizenship.
  • Effect of Disqualification: Sec. 72 of the Omnibus Election Code was repealed by Sec. 6 of RA 6646. The COMELEC properly suspended Labo’s proclamation. The May 9, 1992 resolution became final and executory on May 14, 1992 (5 days after receipt), as no TRO was issued by the SC.
  • Second Placer Rule: The candidate receiving the next highest number of votes cannot be proclaimed winner simply because the winner is disqualified. The electorate voted for Labo in the sincere belief he was qualified; their votes cannot be treated as stray or transferred to Ortega. The will of the people cannot cure the vice of ineligibility, especially regarding citizenship.
  • Succession: A permanent vacancy was created. Under Sec. 44 of the Local Government Code, the vice-mayor elect succeeds to the office of Mayor.

• Second Placer Rule — A candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes cannot be declared elected simply because the candidate with the highest number of votes is disqualified. The votes cast for the disqualified candidate are valid and cannot be considered stray if the electorate voted in the sincere belief that the candidate was qualified. The SC overruled Santos v. COMELEC (which allowed the second placer to win by default) and reaffirmed Geronimo v. Santos and Topacio v. Paredes.
• Reacquisition of Citizenship — Philippine citizenship may be reacquired only by: (1) direct act of Congress; (2) naturalization; or (3) repatriation under CA No. 63 and PD 725. A mere application for repatriation, without official approval by the proper authorities (Special Committee on Naturalization), does not amount to automatic reacquisition.
• Res Judicata in Citizenship Cases — A final judgment declaring a person an alien binds subsequent proceedings; the COMELEC is bound by prior SC declarations regarding citizenship.
• Finality of COMELEC Decisions — Under Sec. 78 of the Omnibus Election Code and Sec. 3, Rule 39 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, decisions cancelling certificates of candidacy become final and executory after five (5) days from promulgation unless restrained by the SC.

• "The fact that he was elected by the people of Baguio does not excuse this patent violation of the salutary rule limiting public office and employment only to the citizens of this country."
• "The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly believed, as in this case, that the candidate was qualified."
• "The ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority votes does not entitle the eligible candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected."
• "A minority or defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office."
• "It would be extremely repugnant to the basic concept of the constitutionally guaranteed right to suffrage if a candidate who has not acquired the majority or plurality of votes is proclaimed a winner and imposed as the representative of a constituency, the majority of which have positively declared through their ballots that they did not choose him."

• Labo v. Commission on Elections (176 SCRA 1 [1989]) — Prior decision declaring Labo not a citizen; controlling precedent binding the COMELEC.
• Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections (174 SCRA 245 [1989]) — Citizenship is an indispensable requirement for public office; electorate’s will cannot cure lack of citizenship.
• Abella v. Commission on Elections (201 SCRA 253 [1991]) — Second placer cannot assume office if winner is disqualified; voters’ sincere belief in candidate’s qualification preserves the validity of votes cast.
• Geronimo v. Santos (136 SCRA 435 [1985]) — Affirmed the rule that the second placer cannot be proclaimed; cited as the "more logical and democratic rule."
• Santos v. Commission on Elections (137 SCRA 740 [1985]) — Distinguished and effectively overruled; previously allowed second placer to win by default where winner was disqualified.
• Topacio v. Paredes (23 Phil. 238 [1912]) — Original 1912 doctrine that the second placer cannot be proclaimed winner.

• Sec. 78, Omnibus Election Code — Decisions of the COMELEC on petitions to deny due course to certificates of candidacy become final after five days from receipt unless stayed by the SC.
• Sec. 6, RA 6646 (Electoral Reforms Law of 1987) — Repealed Sec. 72 of the Omnibus Election Code; provides that if a candidate is not declared disqualified before election and receives winning votes, the COMELEC may suspend proclamation pending trial if evidence of guilt is strong.
• Sec. 39(a), Local Government Code — Requires elective local officials to be citizens of the Philippines.
• Sec. 44, Local Government Code — Succession to permanent vacancy in the office of mayor: the vice-mayor becomes mayor.
• CA No. 63, as amended by PD 725 — Modes of reacquiring Philippine citizenship: (1) direct act of Congress, (2) naturalization, or (3) repatriation.
• PD 725 and LOI 270 — Creation of the Special Committee on Naturalization to process repatriation petitions; mere application without approval does not restore citizenship.

• Justice Gutierrez, Jr. (Concurring and Dissenting) — Dissented on the citizenship issue: maintained that Labo never validly acquired Australian citizenship because his marriage was bigamous (wife had existing valid marriage), thus his oath of allegiance to Australia was void and could not divest him of Philippine citizenship. Concurred on the second placer rule, citing his own ponencia in Geronimo v. Santos, and emphasized that on election day, Labo was not yet disqualified (resolution became final only on May 14), so the people had already made their choice.

• N/A (Justice Gutierrez, Jr.'s opinion is classified as Concurring and Dissenting, not a pure dissent).