Title
Jalosjos vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 205033
Decision Date
Jun 18, 2013
Convicted of statutory rape, Jalosjos faced perpetual disqualification, barring voter registration and candidacy despite commutation; COMELEC upheld the penalty, dismissing his petition.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 205033)

Parties

Petitioner: Romeo G. Jalosjos.
Respondents: COMELEC En Banc; Maria Isabelle G. Climaco-Salazar; Roel B. Natividad; Arturo N. Onrubia; Ahmad Narzad K. Sampang; Jose L. Lobregat; Adelante Zamboanga Party; Elbert C. Atilano.

Key Dates

• November 16, 2001: Supreme Court convicts Jalosjos (People v. Jalosjos).
• April 30, 2007: Presidential commutation of sentence.
• March 18, 2009: Certificate of Discharge from Prison issued.
• April 26, 2012: Voter registration application denied.
• October 5, 2012: Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) filed for mayoralty.
• October 18 & 31, 2012: MTCC and RTC deny petition to include Jalosjos in voters’ list.
• January 15, 2013: COMELEC En Banc issues Resolution No. 9613 cancelling CoC.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution, Article IX-C, Section 3 (COMELEC in banc vs. divisions).
• Omnibus Election Code (BP 881): Sections 12, 78, 138.
• Local Government Code (RA 7160): Section 40(a).
• Revised Penal Code (RPC): Articles 30, 32, 41.

Facts

Jalosjos was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal, carrying the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. His term was commuted and he was discharged in 2009. Denied voter registration in 2012 due to existing disqualification, he nonetheless filed a CoC for Zamboanga City mayor. The MTCC and RTC upheld his ineligibility and the COMELEC Divisions received petitions to cancel his CoC. The COMELEC En Banc, acting motu proprio, resolved to cancel his CoC on grounds of perpetual absolute disqualification and failure to register as voter.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether the COMELEC En Banc exceeded its jurisdiction and violated due process by issuing Resolution No. 9613 motu proprio.
  2. Whether Jalosjos’s perpetual absolute disqualification was removed by Section 40(a) of the Local Government Code.

Jurisdiction and Due Process

The court held that Resolution No. 9613 arose from COMELEC’s administrative, not quasi-judicial, function. Article IX-C, Section 3’s motion-for-reconsideration requirement applies solely to quasi-judicial proceedings. Enforcement of final judgments disqualifying a candidate is an administrative duty; no prior petition or hearing was required. Therefore, due process was satisfied by virtue of the underlying final conviction and the final RTC order on voter registration.

Administrative vs. Quasi-Judicial Function

In reliance on prior rulings (Jalosjos, Jr. & Cardino; Aratea), the court explained that cancellation of a CoC based on a conclusive, final conviction falls under COMELEC’s administrative mandate to enforce election laws. Quasi-judicial processes are reserved for cases requiring fact-finding and hearings; final convictions obviate such need.

Perpetual Absolute Disqualification

Under RPC Articles 30 and 41, perpetual absolute disqualification deprives a convict of the right to vote or run for office permanently, irrespective of commutation or pardon, unless expressly remitted. The accessory penalty attaches immediately upon final j

...continue reading

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