Case Summary (G.R. No. 205136)
Facts
Kimberly filed a Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for City Councilor, City of Taguig, on 1 October 2012, stating a birth date of 29 October 1992, which made her under the 23‑year age requirement in R.A. No. 8487, Sec. 9(c). The Comelec summoned Kimberly for a clarificatory hearing on her age, but she instead filed a sworn withdrawal of her COC on 17 December 2012. On the same date Olivia filed a COC as Kimberly’s substitute, with certification by the Liberal Party. Director Esmeralda Amora‑Ladra of the Comelec Law Department recommended cancelling Kimberly’s COC and denying substitution, invoking Comelec Resolution No. 9551 (which directs refusal of due course to and cancellation of COCs of those knowingly below age). The Comelec En Banc, in a Special Meeting of 3 January 2013, adopted that recommendation, cancelled Kimberly’s COC, and denied Olivia’s substitution.
Issues Presented in the Petition
Olivia sought certiorari and injunctive relief alleging grave abuse of discretion by Comelec in: (I) cancelling Kimberly’s COC and denying substitution; (II) ruling there was no valid substitution; and (III) issuing the challenged resolution without affording Olivia (and Kimberly) the opportunity to be heard, i.e., denying due process.
Positions of the Parties
- Comelec’s position: Kimberly’s COC was invalid because she was ineligible by reason of age and made a material misrepresentation; therefore she was never an official candidate and could not be substituted. Comelec contended it may cancel COCs motu proprio where patent defects exist.
- Olivia’s position: Despite Kimberly’s ineligibility, Kimberly nevertheless filed a COC that the Comelec had a ministerial duty to receive; Kimberly therefore was an official candidate who validly withdrew and was properly substituted by Olivia. Olivia also argued there was no deliberate misrepresentation and that the withdrawal upon learning of ineligibility negates any claim of malicious intent.
Jurisdictional and Practical Considerations (Mootness)
A verification of the Comelec database showed Olivia was not among the official candidates and was not voted for in the 2013 elections; winners had already been proclaimed. The Court therefore found the petition moot and academic as to practical relief. Nonetheless, because the issues were capable of repetition yet evading review, the Court proceeded to address the substantive legal issues to prevent recurrence and to provide guidance.
Legal Framework on Receipt of COCs and Substitution
Under B.P. Blg. 881 Sec. 76 the Comelec has a ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge COCs filed in due form. Section 77 prescribes substitution rules: when an official candidate of a registered or accredited political party dies, withdraws, or is disqualified after the last day for filing, only a person belonging to and certified by the same party may file as substitute, and not later than midday of election day. Section 78 provides the remedy to deny due course to or cancel a COC for material misrepresentation via a verified petition within prescribed time. Jurisprudence (e.g., Cipriano v. Comelec) recognizes the ministerial nature of receiving COCs and limits Comelec’s inquiry to patent defects apparent on the face of the COC; eligibility questions ordinarily fall outside the Comelec’s initial ministerial role and must be addressed through proper proceedings.
Court’s Analysis on Validity of Substitution
The Court concluded that the Comelec gravely abused its discretion in declaring Kimberly not to have filed a valid COC and in denying substitution. The decision rests on several points explicitly grounded in the statutory scheme and controlling precedents:
- Kimberly was the official nominee of the Liberal Party and thus, under Sec. 77, was the kind of candidate who could be substituted.
- Kimberly validly filed a COC and subsequently withdrew after the last day for filing; Olivia belonged to and was certified by the same political party; and Olivia filed her COC within the substitution period (not later than midday of election day). These facts satisfied the procedural requirements for substitution under Sec. 77.
- The Court relied on Luna v. Comelec, which held that where an underage candidate who filed a COC subsequently withdraws and the procedural requirements for substitution are met, the substitution is valid. Luna emphasized the Comelec’s ministerial duty to receive COCs and held that Comelec may not, without proper proceedings under Section 78, cancel or deny due course to a COC that was filed in due form.
Due Process and Quasi‑Judicial Procedure
The Court stressed that cancellation proceedings are quasi‑judicial and therefore must observe constitutional and procedural safeguards. Article IX‑C
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 205136)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for certiorari under Rule 64 of the Revised Rules of Court filed by Olivia Da Silva Cerafica (petitioner) seeking relief from respondent Commission on Elections' (Comelec) minute resolution that (a) cancelled the Certificate of Candidacy (COC) of Kimberly Da Silva Cerafica (Kimberly) and (b) denied substitution of Kimberly by Olivia.
- Petition included prayer for issuance of Temporary Restraining Order, Status Quo Ante Order, and/or Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction.
- Comelec adopted the Law Department recommendation in a Special En Banc Meeting on 3 January 2013 to cancel Kimberly’s COC and deny substitution by Olivia; the Law Department was directed to implement the resolution.
- The Supreme Court received and resolved the petition; the Court ultimately dismissed the petition as moot and academic but reached the merits to caution Comelec about precipitous cancellation of COCs.
- Opinion authored by Justice Perez; Chief Justice Sereno noted as on official leave; Acting Chief Justice per Special Order noted; Justices listed as concurring; Justice Brion and Jardeleza noted as on official leave in parts.
Facts
- On 1 October 2012, Kimberly filed a COC for Councilor of the City of Taguig for the 2013 Elections stating her date of birth as 29 October 1992, meaning she would be twenty (20) years old on election day.
- The Charter of the City of Taguig, citing Sec. 9(c) of R.A. No. 8487, required elected members of the sangguniang panlungsod to be at least twenty-three (23) years of age on the day of the election.
- Kimberly was summoned to a clarificatory hearing because of the age qualification issue.
- Kimberly filed a sworn Statement of Withdrawal of COC on 17 December 2012, and simultaneously Olivia filed her own COC as Kimberly’s substitute; the clarificatory hearing did not proceed as a result.
- Director Esmeralda Amora-Ladra of the Comelec Law Department, in a Memorandum dated 18 December 2012, recommended cancellation of Kimberly’s COC and denial of substitution by Olivia, invoking Comelec Resolution No. 9551 and reasoning that it was as if no COC had been filed by Kimberly.
- The Comelec En Banc, in its 3 January 2013 Special Meeting, adopted the Law Department’s recommendation and resolved to cancel Kimberly’s COC and deny substitution by Olivia, noting also possible civil, criminal, or administrative liabilities under Section 14 of Comelec Resolution 9518.
- A verification with the Comelec database showed Olivia was not among the official candidates for the 2013 Elections and was not voted for, and the proclamation of winning councilors for the 2013 elections had occurred before the Supreme Court’s resolution.
Issues Presented by Petitioner
- Whether the Comelec acted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and contrary to law and jurisprudence, in issuing the minute resolution that: (a) cancelled Kimberly’s COC and denied substitution by Olivia; (b) ruled there was no valid substitution by petitioner, resulting in motu proprio denial of petitioner’s COC; and (c) issued the resolution without giving petitioner an opportunity to be heard, thereby denying substitution motu proprio.
Comelec’s Position (as stated in its Comment)
- Olivia cannot validly substitute Kimberly because Kimberly was never an official candidate due to ineligibility by reason of age.
- Kimberly’s filed COC was invalid for containing a material misrepresentation relating to her eligibility for the office sought.
- Comelec asserted authority to cancel Kimberly’s COC motu proprio, and to look into patent defects in COCs such as noncompliance with age requirements.
- The Comelec filed its Comment on 22 April 2013, articulating these contentions and relying on internal resolutions and its interpretation of authority to refuse due course to or cancel COCs.
Petitioner’s Position (as stated in Reply)
- Olivia contended that despite Kimberly’s lack of qualification by age, Kimberly nevertheless filed a valid COC and thus was an official candidate who could be validly substituted.
- Olivia argued Kimberly did not misrepresent her birth date to qualify for the position and that there was no deliberate attempt to mislead the electorate; Kimberly withdrew her COC upon learning of the lack of qualification.
- Olivia filed a Reply on 10 May 2013 defending the validity of the substitution and the COC filing process applicable to Kimberly and to her own substitution.
Statutory and Regulatory Framework Referenced
- R.A. No. 8487 (Charter of the City of Taguig), Sec. 9(c): requires sangguniang panlungsod members to be at least twenty-three (23) years old on election day, among other residency and voter qualifications.
- Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code, referred to as Election Code):
- Sec. 76: Ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge receipt of COCs.
- Sec. 77: Substitution rules—if after last day for filing COCs an official candidate of a registered or accredited political party dies, withdraws or is di