Primary Holding

A candidate whose certificate of candidacy has been denied due course and canceled cannot be substituted under Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code. As a result, Joel G. Miranda’s substitution was void, and he was not legally elected as mayor.

Background

Jose "Pempe" Miranda, the incumbent mayor of Santiago City, sought reelection despite having already served the maximum of three consecutive terms. Antonio M. Abaya filed a petition to deny due course and/or cancel Jose Miranda’s certificate of candidacy, which the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) granted on May 5, 1998. Despite this, Joel G. Miranda filed a certificate of candidacy on May 6, 1998, claiming to be a substitute candidate for his father.

Facts

• 1. Jose Miranda was already ineligible for reelection due to the three-term limit under the 1987 Constitution and Local Government Code.
• 2. His certificate of candidacy was denied due course and canceled due to false material representation.
• 3. Joel Miranda attempted to substitute for his father despite the latter not being a valid candidate at the time of substitution.
• 4. COMELEC en banc ruled that substitution was not possible since Jose Miranda was never a valid candidate.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. He was a valid substitute under Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code, which allows substitution for a candidate who is disqualified.
• 2. COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in annulling his election and proclamation.
• 3. The people’s will should be upheld since he won by 1,666 votes.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. Jose Miranda was never a valid candidate since his certificate of candidacy was canceled, making substitution invalid.
• 2. Under election laws, a canceled certificate of candidacy does not give rise to a valid candidacy.
• 3. Votes cast for Joel Miranda should be considered stray, making Abaya the winner by default.

Issues

• 1. Whether COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in annulling the substitution and proclamation of Joel Miranda.
• 2. Whether Abaya should be proclaimed as the duly elected mayor.

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court ruled that COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in nullifying the substitution and election of Joel Miranda. The cancellation of Jose Miranda’s certificate of candidacy meant there was no valid candidacy to be substituted.
• 2. However, the Court disagreed with COMELEC’s order to proclaim Abaya. Instead, it held that the rule on succession under the Local Government Code should apply.
• 3. The Court reaffirmed the doctrine that a candidate who places second in an election cannot be proclaimed the winner in case of the disqualification of the leading candidate.

Rationale

• 1. The Supreme Court ruled COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion. Jose’s certificate was canceled, voiding his candidacy ab initio. Substitution under Section 77 requires a valid original candidate, which Jose was not. The Court applied expression unius est exclusio alterius: substitution is limited to death, withdrawal, or disqualification, excluding cancellation. Citing Bautista v. COMELEC, a canceled certificate invalidates candidacy. Joel’s substitution was void, making his votes stray. Succession under Section 44 of the Local Government Code applies, not Abaya’s proclamation.

Doctrines

• 1. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius: Since Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code only allows substitution in cases of death, withdrawal, or disqualification, it does not apply to a canceled certificate of candidacy.
• 2. Ejusdem generis: The phrase "disqualification for any cause" must be interpreted in the context of the previous words (death and withdrawal), excluding cancellation of a certificate of candidacy.
• 3. Nemo dat quod non habet: One cannot give what one does not have; a non-candidate cannot be substituted.
• 4. Doctrine of the Second Placer: The candidate who placed second in an election cannot be proclaimed the winner if the leading candidate is disqualified.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "The importance of a valid certificate of candidacy rests at the very core of the electoral process. It cannot be taken lightly, lest there be anarchy and chaos."
• 2. "A canceled certificate does not give rise to a valid candidacy."

Precedents Cited

• 1. Bautista v. COMELEC (1998) – Established that a canceled certificate does not give rise to a valid candidacy.
• 2. Gador v. COMELEC (1980) – Held that a certificate of candidacy filed out of time is void, and the filer is not a candidate.
• 3. Reyes v. COMELEC (1996) – Second placers cannot be proclaimed winners if the leading candidate is disqualified.
• 4. Labo v. COMELEC (1989) – A disqualified candidate cannot be substituted unless he had a valid candidacy.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Article X, Section 8 of the 1987 Constitution – Limits local officials to three consecutive terms.
• 2. Section 43(b), Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code) – Implements the three-term limit.
• 3. Section 77, Omnibus Election Code – Allows substitution for candidates who die, withdraw, or are disqualified.
• 4. Section 78, Omnibus Election Code – Provides for the denial of due course or cancellation of a certificate of candidacy due to false material representation.