Case Digest (G.R. No. 195229)
Facts:
Aratea v. Commission on Elections and Estela D. Antipolo, G.R. No. 195229, October 09, 2012, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner is Efren Racel Aratea; respondents are the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Estela D. Antipolo.
In December 2009 Dra. Sigrid S. Rodolfo filed a petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code to deny due course to or cancel the certificate of candidacy (CoC) of Romeo D. Lonzanida for Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales, alleging he had served more than three consecutive terms and thus made a false material representation of eligibility in his CoC. The COMELEC Second Division granted the petition and on 18 February 2010 cancelled Lonzanida’s CoC and struck his name off the official list of candidates. Lonzanida filed a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc, which remained pending.
The May 10, 2010 election proceeded with Lonzanida and Aratea receiving the highest votes and being proclaimed Mayor and Vice‑Mayor respectively. Aratea took his oath as Acting Mayor on 5 July 2010 and sought DILG guidance; the DILG took the position that Lonzanida’s disqualification created a permanent vacancy and that Aratea should assume the mayoralty pending COMELEC action. On 11 August 2010 the COMELEC En Banc denied Lonzanida’s motion for reconsideration, disqualifying him both for having served more than three consecutive terms and because he had been finally convicted of multiple counts of falsification.
On 25 August 2010 Antipolo moved to intervene, claiming to be the only qualified candidate entitled to proclamation if Lonzanida was never a valid candidate. The COMELEC En Banc on 12 January 2011 granted leave to intervene and on 2 February 2011 declared Lonzanida’s proclamation null and void, admitted Antipolo’s petition‑in‑intervention, ordered constitution of a special board to proclaim Antipolo as Mayor, and directed A...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the petition against Romeo D. Lonzanida a petition to cancel his certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code or a petition for disqualification under Section 68 (and related provisions)?
- Did Lonzanida’s CoC contain a false material representation (or was he otherwise ineligible) so that his CoC was void ab initio and the votes cast for him were stray?
- If Lonzanida’s candidacy was void ab initio, who should rightfully fill the vacancy — should the second placer be proclaimed, or should the duly‑elected Vice‑M...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)