Title
Panlaqui vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 188671
Decision Date
Feb 24, 2010
A mayoral candidate's disqualification for residency misrepresentation was not final before elections; the second placer cannot assume office, upholding voter sovereignty.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 188671)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
    • Mozart P. Panlaqui (Petitioner) challenged the proclamation of Nardo M. Velasco (Respondent) as Mayor of Sasmuan, Pampanga.
    • Velasco, born in Sasmuan on June 22, 1952, married in 1975, moved to the U.S. in 1983, and became a naturalized U.S. citizen.
  • Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship and Voter Registration
    • Under RA 9225, Velasco’s application for dual Philippine citizenship was approved on July 31, 2006; he took his oath the same day and returned to the Philippines on September 14, 2006.
    • On October 13, 2006, Velasco applied for voter registration in Sasmuan; the Election Registration Board (ERB) denied it.
  • Judicial Proceedings on Voter Inclusion
    • Municipal Trial Court (MTC) Decision (Feb. 9, 2007) ordered Velasco’s inclusion in the voter list.
    • Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision (Mar. 1, 2007) reversed the MTC, finding Velasco ineligible due to lack of residency.
    • Court of Appeals (Aug. 19, 2008) dismissed Velasco’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
  • Candidacy, Election, and Comelec Actions
    • Velasco filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for mayor on March 28, 2007, claiming voter status.
    • Panlaqui filed before the Comelec a Petition to Deny Due Course To and/or To Cancel Velasco’s COC for material misrepresentation.
    • May 2007 elections: Velasco won and assumed office.
    • Comelec First Division Resolutions (July 6, 2007; Oct. 15, 2007) canceled his COC and nullified his proclamation for material misrepresentation; this Court affirmed (G.R. No. 180051).
  • Motion for Proclamation and Present Petition
    • Panlaqui moved for proclamation as second placer; Comelec En Banc denied it (June 17, 2009), holding that succession rule did not apply as Velasco’s disqualification was not final before election day.
    • Panlaqui filed a petition for certiorari before this Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion and invoking the Cayat doctrine on second-placer succession.

Issues:

  • Whether the RTC’s March 1, 2007 Decision in the voter-inclusion proceedings constituted a final judgment disqualifying Velasco from candidacy prior to election day.
  • Whether the rule on succession and the “rejection of the second-placer” doctrine should operate to proclaim Panlaqui as mayor.
  • Whether the Comelec En Banc gravely abused its discretion in denying Panlaqui’s motion for proclamation.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.