Case Summary (G.R. No. 172035)
Key Dates
Filing of COC: June 7, 2002. SK Election and COMELEC Resolution No. 5363: July 15, 2002. Proclamation and subsequent oath: proclamation on July 15, 2002; oath taken August 14, 2002. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration: August 19, 2002. COMELEC Resolution No. 5781 (resolution on reconsideration): October 7, 2002. Supreme Court decision: 2004 (use 1987 Constitution as governing law).
Applicable Law and Authority
Constitutional basis for COMELEC powers: Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution (COMELEC’s mandate to enforce and administer election laws and its powers, including quasi‑judicial functions). Statutory and regulatory provisions cited: Omnibus Election Code Sections 76 (ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge COCs) and 78 (petition to deny due course to or cancel a COC on ground of material misrepresentation); COMELEC Resolutions 4801, 5363, 5584, 5666, and 5781 governing verification procedures and administrative handling of alleged ineligible candidates.
Procedural Background
COMELEC Resolution No. 4801 directed Election Officers to verify candidate voter registration status, report alleged ineligibles to the Law Department within three days from the last day for filing of COCs, and include names in certified lists until otherwise directed. Pursuant to reports from Election Officers and recommendations of the Law Department, the COMELEC en banc issued Resolution No. 5363 cancelling certain COCs (including petitioner’s) on the ground of non‑registration in the barangay sought. Despite cancellation by resolution, petitioner’s name remained on the ballot; she was allowed to vote, was proclaimed by the Board of Canvassers, and assumed office. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and subsequently a petition for certiorari challenging the COMELEC resolutions.
COMELEC’s Procedural Policy and Practice
COMELEC’s practice (as reflected in Resolutions 5584 and 5666) established that Election Officers shall verify registration status and report alleged ineligibles; the Law Department recommends action to the en banc; the Commission may then give due course to or cancel COCs. The Commission treated such administrative inquiries as effective notice to candidates (by publication of Resolution No. 4801) and asserted authority to motu proprio deny/cancel COCs even if the en banc resolution issued after proclamation, directing election officers to delete names and instructing disqualified candidates to cease assuming office; in amended policy the Commission declared that proclamation of a candidate subsequently found disqualified is void ab initio.
Petitioner’s Contentions
Petitioner asserted that (1) COMELEC lacked authority to deny due course to or cancel a COC motu proprio without a petition filed under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code; (2) the report of the Election Officer did not constitute a petition under Section 78; (3) cancellation without notice and hearing deprived her of due process; (4) the COMELEC en banc lacked jurisdiction to decide election‑related cases in the first instance where the Division ordinarily has such authority; and (5) removal of a proclaimed candidate should be by quo warranto after proclamation, not by summary administrative action.
COMELEC’s Justification
COMELEC defended its actions by invoking its administrative power to enforce and administer election laws, arguing that Resolution No. 4801’s publication constituted constructive notice to candidates of the administrative inquiry and that, by virtue of reports from Election Officers or timely petitions, the Commission acquired jurisdiction to act on COCs even if the en banc resolution issued after elections or proclamation. The Commission relied on its constitutional and statutory authority to regulate and ensure the integrity of elections, including administrative mechanisms to deny or cancel COCs.
Legal Issue Framed
Whether COMELEC, in the exercise of its administrative powers, may motu proprio deny due course to or cancel a properly filed certificate of candidacy without the notice and hearing required by law — in particular whether such action is within its administrative authority or must be exercised in its quasi‑judicial capacity under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Ministerial Duty to Receive Certificates of Candidacy (Sec. 76)
Section 76 of the Omnibus Election Code imposes a ministerial duty on the Commission and its designated officers to receive and acknowledge certificates of candidacy filed in due form. The Court reiterates prior rulings that COMELEC has no discretion to refuse to give due course to a COC on the basis of matters not appearing on the face of the certificate; the initial receipt and acknowledgment is ministerial.
Petition to Cancel COC and Due Process Requirements (Sec. 78)
Section 78 permits any person to file a verified petition to deny due course to or cancel a COC exclusively on the ground that any material representation in the COC is false, to be filed within 25 days from filing of the COC and decided after notice and hearing not later than 15 days before the election. Under Rule 23 of COMELEC Rules of Procedure such petitions are to be heard summarily after due notice, with the candidate afforded opportunity to present evidence (affidavits, counter‑affidavits, documentary evidence, and cross‑examination where necessary). Due process thus requires prior notice and an opportunity to be heard; the determination of falsity of a material representation and eligibility involves adjudicative fact‑finding requiring quasi‑judicial procedure.
Administrative versus Quasi‑Judicial Function of COMELEC
The Court distinguishes COMELEC’s administrative powers (e.g., logistical election functions, registration, appointment of officials, rule‑making) from its quasi‑judicial powers (exclusive original jurisdiction over contests relating to elections, returns and qualifications). Denial or cancellation of a COC on grounds implicating eligibility and material representations calls for the exercise of quasi‑judicial powers because it involves adjudication of contested facts and may deprive a candidate of the right to run or hold office. As such, the exercise of this power deman
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 172035)
Case Background and Parties
- Petitioners: Ellan Marie P. Cipriano (a minor represented by her father Rolando Cipriano) and "other youth of the land affected and similarly situated."
- Respondents: Commission on Elections (COMELEC); Department of Interior and Local Government; Election Officer Lope Gayo, Jr., 1st District, Pasay City; Sangguniang Barangay through its Chairman Johnny Santiago of Barangay 38, Pasay City; Greg Paolo Alcera in his capacity as SK Federation President of Pasay City; named minors Edna Tibar and Kristal Gale Bonggo (assisted by parents); SK Chairman Ruel Tayam Decena of Barangay 142, Pasay City; The President of the Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Sangguniang Kabataan; and all SK officers and youth similarly situated, and their agents and representatives.
- Nature of petition: Petition for certiorari challenging COMELEC Resolutions that cancelled petitioner’s certificate of candidacy and thereby sought to remove or oust petitioner as SK Chairman without notice, hearing, or other proceedings asserted by petitioner as constitutionally required.
Chronology of Key Facts
- June 7, 2002: Petitioner filed her certificate of candidacy as Chairman of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) for the SK elections.
- May 25, 2002: COMELEC Resolution No. 4801 (governing conduct of Barangay and SK elections) was published in the Manila Standard and Manila Bulletin (as cited).
- July 15, 2002 (date of the SK elections): COMELEC issued Resolution No. 5363 adopting the Law Department’s recommendation to deny due course to or cancel certificates of candidacy of several candidates, including petitioner, on ground they were not registered voters in the barangay where they sought to run.
- July 15, 2002 (election day): Despite Resolution No. 5363, petitioner was allowed to vote; her name remained on official list of candidates; after canvass petitioner was proclaimed duly elected SK Chairman of Barangay 38, Pasay City.
- August 14, 2002: Petitioner took her oath of office as SK Chairman.
- August 19, 2002: Petitioner filed with COMELEC a motion for reconsideration of Resolution No. 5363, raising due process, jurisdictional, and procedural arguments.
- August 10, 2002: COMELEC had earlier promulgated Resolution No. 5584, which articulated policy on proclaimed candidates found to be ineligible for not being registered voters (cited in subsequent actions).
- October 7, 2002: COMELEC issued Resolution No. 5781 resolving petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by reference to prior resolutions and policies, including Resolution No. 5584 and 4801.
- Subsequent amendment: Resolution No. 5584 was amended by Resolution No. 5666 to clarify status of proclamations and annulments where disqualification is later resolved against a proclaimed candidate.
Petitioner's Procedural and Substantive Claims
- Procedural claim: Petitioner argued she was denied due process when COMELEC cancelled her certificate of candidacy without notice and hearing.
- Jurisdictional claim: Petitioner contended COMELEC en banc lacked authority to act on the cancellation of her certificate of candidacy in the first instance, asserting that the Division of the Commission has authority to decide election-related cases (including pre-proclamation controversies), citing precedents Sarmiento v. COMELEC and Garvida v. Sales.
- Statutory interpretation claim: Petitioner asserted that a certificate of candidacy may be denied due course or cancelled only via an appropriate petition filed by any registered candidate for the same position under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code in relation to Sections 5 and 7 of R.A. No. 6646; she argued that the Election Officer’s report cannot be considered a petition under Section 78 and COMELEC could not, by itself, cancel candidacies.
- Remedy claim: Petitioner contended she could only be removed by a petition for quo warranto after proclamation as duly-elected SK Chairman.
- Reliefs sought (as pled in petition):
- (a) Declare Resolutions No. 5363 (July 15, 2002) and No. 5781 (October 7, 2002), and any other COMELEC actions intended to summarily oust petitioner without notice, inquiry, protest, quo warranto, investigation and hearing, illegal and unconstitutional for violating due process.
- (b) Declare illegal the practice of the COMELEC en banc deciding election-related cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, in the first instance, citing Sarmiento v. COMELEC and Garvida v. Sales.
- (c) Declare unconstitutional Sections 6 and 7 of R.A. 9164 and adjust SK age of membership and officers from 15 to 21 years in accordance with specified provisions of R.A. 7160 (Local Government Code) — noted by petitioner though Court did not reach this issue.
- (d) If Sections 6 and 7 of R.A. 9164 are sustained, direct SK officers and members older than 18 to cease functioning (contention not decided).
- (e) Direct respondents to pay petitioner’s salary, allowance, and other benefits as SK Chairperson.
COMELEC Actions, Policies, and Rationale
- COMELEC Law Department recommendation: Law Department found petitioner and other candidates were not registered voters in the barangay where they sought to run and recommended denial of due course or cancellation of certificates.
- COMELEC Resolution No. 4801 (policy duties to Election Officers as described in later resolutions and cited by Commission):
- Directed Election Officers to:
- Verify whether candidates for barangay and SK positions are registered voters of the barangay where they filed their certificates; and
- Examine the entries of certificates of candidacy to determine, on the basis of said entries, whether candidates possess required qualifications.
- Mandated Election Officers to report by registered mail and rush telegram to the Law Department names of candidates who are not registered voters in the place where they seek to run within three days from last day for filing certificates of candidacy.
- Stated names of reported candidates shall remain in certified lists until further direction.
- Directed Election Officers to:
- COMELEC practice described in Resolutions Nos. 5584 and 5781:
- Upon Election Officer’s report, Law Department would recommend to Commission en banc, and the latter, by en banc resolution, would give due course to or deny/cancel certificates.
- Commission asserted administrative inquiry into eligibility starts from time of filing of certificate of candidacy; candidates were deemed to have constructive notice by publication of Resolution No. 4801 in newspapers on May 25, 2002.
- Commission’s claimed authority: COMELEC asserted it may motu proprio deny/cancel certificates of candidacy of candidates found not to be registered voters in the place where they seek to run by virtue of its administrative powers.
- Procedures available to parties: Any registered candidate for same office could file a verified petition to deny due course to or cancel certificate pursuant to Section 69 (nuisance candidate) or Section 78 (material misrepresentation) of the Omnibus Election Code within five days from last day for filing of certificate of candida