Case Summary (G.R. No. 192221)
Procedural History of Special Action
On May 1, 2010 COMELEC En Banc promulgated Resolution 8844, directing deletion of disqualified candidates’ names and treating any votes cast for them as stray. Petitioner sought ex parte relief to delete Aurelio’s name or, alternatively, to have votes cast for him credited to her under Resolution 4116. After the election, the Municipal Board of Canvassers, adhering to Resolution 8844, ranked Aurelio third with 532 votes, Dela Cruz second with 6,389, and Pacete first with 6,428; Pacete was proclaimed vice-mayor on May 13.
Petitioner’s Contentions
Petitioner argued that Resolution 8844 unjustifiably reversed the rule in Resolution 4116, violating equal protection and due process by disregarding distinctions between nuisance and disqualified candidates in automated polls. Had Aurelio’s votes been credited to her, she would have secured 6,921 votes, surpassing Pacete. She invoked Bautista v. COMELEC to show that votes for nuisance candidates with identical names must be counted for the bona fide candidate to give effect to voter intent.
Respondents’ Counterarguments
COMELEC asserted broad discretion in election regulation, emphasizing the presumed validity of its rules and the automated system’s safeguards against misreading ballots. It maintained that manual-election precedents no longer applied, as printed candidate names and PCOS machines ensure clarity of voter intent. Relying on OEC Sections 72 and 211(24), respondents insisted that any vote for a candidate disqualified by final judgment must be stray, regardless of circumstances, and pointed to public notices of Aurelio’s cancellation and voter education efforts.
Legal Issue
Whether, under the automated election system and 1987 Constitution, votes cast for a nuisance candidate whose COC was validly cancelled but whose name remained on the ballot should be considered stray or credited to the similarly-named bona fide candidate.
Court’s Analysis of Applicable Law
The Court observed that Sections 72 and 211(24) of the OEC govern cases of disqualification, not petitions to cancel or deny due course to COCs for nuisance candidacies under Sections 69 and 78. Cancellation under Section 69 renders the candidate as never having been validly nominated. COMELEC’s blanket application of the stray-vote rule to such cancellations contradicted the specialized process and outcome for nuisance-candidate cases.
Application of COMELEC Resolution 4116 and Jurisprudence
Resolution 4116 expressly directs that votes cast for nuisance candidates sharing names with bona fide candidates “shall not be considered stray but shall be counted” for the latter. In Bautista v. COMELEC and Ma
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 192221)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for certiorari with prayer for injunctive relief filed May 31, 2010 under Rule 65 in conjunction with Section 2, Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended
- Petitioner challenged COMELEC Resolution No. 8844 which directed that votes cast for disqualified or nuisance candidates appearing on the official ballots be considered stray
- Reliefs sought:
- Temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction against proclamation and assumption to office of private respondent Pacete
- Declaration of portion of Resolution No. 8844 null and void and an order to count votes cast for nuisance candidate Aurelio N. Dela Cruz in favor of petitioner
- Directive to the Regional Trial Court to proclaim petitioner as duly elected vice-mayor after adjustment of vote tallies
- Permanent injunction against private respondent’s assumption to office pending final resolution
Factual Background
- Petitioner, a three-term Sangguniang Bayan member of Bugasong, Antique, filed her COC for vice-mayor on November 28, 2009 under NPC
- Aurelio N. Dela Cruz, an unknown retired individual, filed his COC for the same position on December 6, 2009
- Petitioner moved to declare Aurelio a nuisance candidate due to name similarity and lack of bona fide intent; COMELEC First Division cancelled his COC on January 29, 2010
- Despite cancellation, Aurelio’s name remained on the Certified List of Candidates and the official ballots for the May 10, 2010 automated elections
- Petitioner’s urgent omnibus motion sought deletion of Aurelio’s name or, alternatively, that votes cast for him be credited to her under COMELEC Resolution No. 4116 (2001)
- COMELEC En Banc issued Resolution No. 8844 on May 1, 2010 ordering deletion of disqualified candidates from the candidate list but directing that votes cast for them be considered stray
- Automated elections proceeded May 10, 2010; on canvass, 532 votes were cast for Aurelio, 6,389 for petitioner, and 6,428 for private respondent Pacete
- Pacete was proclaimed vice-mayor on May 13, 2010; petitioner filed an election protest on May 21, 2010 seeking to adjust tallies and annul Pacete’s procl