Title
Lanot vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 164858
Decision Date
Nov 16, 2006
Petition challenging COMELEC's resolutions and advisory on Eusebio's disqualification as Pasig City Mayor; SC dismissed, finding no grave abuse of discretion.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 164858)

COMELEC First Division Resolution (5 May 2004)

The First Division adopted Director Ladra’s findings and ordered:

  1. Disqualification of Eusebio as Pasig City Mayor candidate.
  2. Deletion of his name from certified lists.
  3. Classification of votes for him as stray and exclusion from canvass.
  4. Referral of criminal charges to the COMELEC Law Department.
    This resolution was immediately executory unless enjoined by the En Banc.

Chairman Abalos Advisory and En Banc Suspension (8–11 May 2004)

  • 8 May 2004: Chairman Abalos reiterated the First Division order in a Very Urgent Advisory to election officers.
  • 10 May 2004: He issued a memorandum enjoining implementation due to Eusebio’s pending motion for reconsideration.
  • 11 May 2004: The En Banc, recognizing the motion’s pendency, denied petitioners’ request to suspend counting but provisionally suspended any proclamation of Eusebio pending final resolution.

En Banc Direction to Proclaim (21 May 2004)

With 98 percent of returns canvassed and Eusebio leading by over 10,000 votes, the En Banc invoked its policies (Resolutions 7128, 7129) to expedite proclamations. It lifted the 11 May 2004 suspension and directed the Pasig City Board of Canvassers to proclaim Eusebio without prejudice to the disqualification case’s final outcome.

En Banc Referral to Law Department (20 August 2004)

The En Banc set aside the 5 May 2004 disqualification resolution and annulled its order, referring the petition to the COMELEC Law Department for criminal investigation under Resolution 2050 and relevant jurisprudence (AlbaAa, Lonzanida, Sunga).

Issues on Grave Abuse of Discretion

Petitioners alleged that:

  • The 20 August 2004 resolution capriciously nullified the First Division’s order, misapplied COMELEC rules and jurisprudence, and dismissed the electoral aspect.
  • The 21 May 2004 order disregarded strong evidence warranting suspension of proclamation.
  • Chairman Abalos abused power by enjoining the First Division order.
  • COMELEC failed to enforce the 5 May 2004 resolution and refused to proclaim Lanot as Mayor.

Supreme Court’s Review of Party Substitution and Intervention

  • Lanot’s death (13 April 2005) did not extinguish the disqualification case. Under COMELEC Rules and RA 6646, proper substitution (Raymundo) and intervention (Benavides) are permitted while the case remains pending.
  • These measures ensure that electoral cases are not rendered academic and prevent delay tactics by challenged candidates.

Analysis of COMELEC’s Actions

  1. 10 May 2004 Memorandum and 11 May 2004 En Banc Suspension
    The Court found no abuse of discretion. A resolution pending reconsideration is not yet final and cannot be executed; advisory measures were appropriate to preserve status quo.

  2. 21 May 2004 Lifting of Suspension
    The En Banc’s decision to proceed with proclamation under its expedited-canvass policy was within its discretionary authority. Temporary suspension of proclamation is provisional and may be lifted when warranted by canvass results.

  3. 20 August 2004 Referral to Law Department
    The Court held that the En Banc erred by dismissing the electoral aspect and referring the entire case to the Law Department. Under RA 6646 Section 6 and COMELEC Resolution 6452, the electoral inquiry—summary in nature and based on preponderance of evidence—must proceed independently of any parallel criminal investigation. Resolution 2050’s referral provision is discretionary and does not mandate dismissal of the electoral aspect.

Merits of Disqualification Under Section 80, OEC

  • Section 80 penalizes “election campaign or partisan political activity” by a “candidate” outside the campaign period.
  • Section 79(a) defines “candidate” as one who has filed a certificate of candidacy.
  • RA 8436’s Section 11 moved the filing deadline to 120 days before election solely to facilitate ballot printing; it did not alter the candidate status or campaign-period definitions in the OEC.
  • Campaign period for local elections remained at 45 days before election (24 March 2004); candidat

...continue reading

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