Title
Aggabao vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 258456
Decision Date
Jul 26, 2022
COMELEC declared Navarro independent due to Ayson's disputed CONA, denied Aggabao's substitution; SC ruled COMELEC abused discretion, violated due process.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 258456)

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Navarro filed her COC for Mayor on October 4, 2021 with a CONA dated September 23, 2021 signed by Senator Lacson. Ayson filed a COC for the same post on October 8, 2021 with a CONA purportedly bearing Lacson’s signature. Senator Lacson sent letters dated November 6 and December 2, 2021 disclaiming Ayson’s CONA and confirming Navarro as the party’s official mayoral candidate. Navarro withdrew her mayoral COC on November 9, 2021 and designated Aggabao as substitute; Aggabao filed his COC as substitute on November 9, 2021. COMELEC Law Department issued Document No. 21‑3973 (Nov. 10, 2021), Document No. 21‑7467 (Dec. 22, 2021), and Document No. 22‑0176 (Jan. 5, 2022). The Supreme Court issued a TRO on January 25, 2022; COMELEC’s final ballot face generation date was January 9, 2022; the May 9, 2022 elections concluded with proclamation of a mayoral winner; the Court rendered judgment on July 26, 2022.

Applicable Law and Rules

Primary constitutional basis: 1987 Constitution, Article IX‑C (powers of the COMELEC, Sections 2 and 3). Statutory and regulatory sources invoked: Omnibus Election Code (Sections 74, 76, 77, 78); COMELEC Resolution No. 10717 (Sections 15, 32, 40, and related provisions governing COCs and CONAs); COMELEC Rules of Procedure (e.g., Rule 23 summary proceedings); Rules of Court (Rule 64 certiorari). The Court applied settled distinctions among COMELEC’s administrative, quasi‑legislative and quasi‑judicial functions as developed in prior jurisprudence cited in the ponencia.

Factual Background Essential to the Dispute

Two allegedly valid CONAs from the same party were received by COMELEC for the same elective office. Senator Lacson, by formal letter and notarized certification, disavowed the CONA in favor of Ayson and affirmed Navarro as the party’s candidate. Navarro then withdrew and designated Aggabao as substitute. Despite Lacson’s communications, the COMELEC Law Department treated the situation as multiple nominations by one party, declared the affected persons independent candidates, and denied substitution for Aggabao.

Initial COMELEC Determinations and Ballot Effects

The Law Department’s Document No. 21‑3973 (Nov. 10, 2021) deemed Navarro independent under Section 15 of Resolution No. 10717 because Partido Reporma had purportedly nominated more than the number of allowed candidates for the mayoralty. The COMELEC En Banc (Document No. 21‑7467, Dec. 22, 2021) maintained that position and denied due course to Aggabao’s substitution; the certified list of candidates (Dec. 23, 2021) listed Ayson as an independent mayoral candidate and Navarro under vice‑mayor, while Aggabao’s name did not appear as mayor. Aggabao’s motion for reconsideration was denied in Document No. 22‑0176 (Jan. 5, 2022), the COMELEC characterizing certain pleadings as prohibited.

Petitioners’ Claims and Relief Sought

Petitioners filed a certiorari under Rule 64, alleging grave abuse of discretion: (1) denial of due process because Aggabao’s substitution was denied without Division proceedings; (2) incorrect application of Section 15 because Partido Reporma did not properly nominate more than one candidate (Ayson’s CONA was disavowed and allegedly fake); and (3) entitlement to substitution under the Omnibus Election Code and Resolution No. 10717. Petitioners sought nullification of the three COMELEC documents and injunctive relief to prevent exclusion from the ballot.

COMELEC’s Position and Operational Defense

COMELEC maintained it performed ministerial duties when it received and acknowledged the COCs and notarized CONAs, which enjoy a presumption of regularity. It relied on Section 15 of Resolution No. 10717 to declare multiple nominees independent and on Sections 77 (OEC) and 40 (Resolution No. 10717) to deny substitution of independent candidates. COMELEC also explained it could not comply with the Court’s TRO in practice because ballot generation and printing were already in advanced stages after the January 9, 2022 cut‑off, rendering compliance technically impossible without jeopardizing the conduct of the elections.

Jurisdictional and Functional Framework for COMELEC Action

The Court emphasized COMELEC’s tripartite nature of powers: administrative (receiving and acknowledging COCs/CONAs), quasi‑legislative (rulemaking), and quasi‑judicial (deciding pre‑proclamation controversies and election contests) as anchored in Article IX‑C. The ministerial duty to receive COCs/CONAs exists under OEC Sec. 76 and Resolution No. 10717 Sec. 32, but when facts beyond the face of documents are contested, COMELEC must exercise quasi‑judicial functions—investigating, receiving evidence, holding hearings, and deciding in Division first with En Banc review on reconsideration as required by the Constitution and COMELEC’s procedural rules.

Mootness of the Primary Relief and Exception Invoked

Because the May 9, 2022 elections were concluded and a mayor proclaimed, the petition’s practical relief (admission of Aggabao’s COC and inclusion on the ballot) became moot. The Court nonetheless invoked the exception for issues capable of repetition yet evading review and for matters requiring controlling principles: the dispute involved recurring procedural deficiencies and substantial public interest touching on electoral integrity and due process, warranting judicial resolution despite mootness.

Court’s Analysis Following Senator Lacson’s Disavowals

The Court held that once Senator Lacson formally disavowed Ayson’s CONA and demanded correction, a bona fide legal controversy arose that required COMELEC to go beyond ministerial receipt. This controversy implicated conflicting claims of endorsement and demanded quasi‑judicial treatment: notice, opportunity to be heard, reception and weighing of evidence, and a Division determination. The COMELEC’s failure to refer the matter to a Division for adjudication meant it neglected its quasi‑judicial duties.

Due Process Requirements and Relevant Precedents

The ponencia relied on established precedents (e.g., Bedol, Cipriano, Francisco, Engle, Bautista, Cerafica) to reiterate that denial of due course to, or cancellation of, a COC ordinarily entails quasi‑judicial functions and must be heard and decided by a COMELEC Division, with En Banc consideration only on reconsideration. The Law Department’s recommendations are not binding; the En Banc acting without prior Division proceedings or summary hearing in the face of contested facts violates due process.

Finding of Grave Abuse of Discretion

The Court found COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by (a) accepting the Law Department’s approach without conducting hearings when confronted with Lacson’s disavowals and (b) effectively depriving petitioners and the political party of the opportunity to establish the party’s endorsed candidate. The lack of adjudicative proceedings denied petitioners procedural due process and deprived the electorate of a fully adjudicated choice.

Relief Granted and Disposition of Assailed Documents

The

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms