Case Summary (G.R. No. 93986)
Key Dates
- 15 January 1990: Loong filed his certificate of candidacy (last day for filing).
- 17 February 1990: Election for officials of the Mindanao Autonomous Region.
- 5 March 1990: Ututalum filed SPA No. 90-006 petition to disqualify Loong (49 days after Loong’s filing; 16 days after election).
- 7 March 1990: Edris filed Petition in Intervention.
- 15 May 1990: COMELEC (Second Division) issued resolution asserting jurisdiction to hear SPA No. 90-006.
- 3 July 1990: COMELEC denied reconsideration; Loong was proclaimed Vice-Governor on the same date.
- 9 July 1990: Loong filed special civil action (certiorari) in the Supreme Court.
- 22 December 1992: Supreme Court rendered the decision under review.
Applicable Constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered after 1990).
Factual Background
Loong alleged he relied on community practice and personal confirmations of his mother and others that his date of birth was July 4, 1954. Ututalum alleged Loong did not meet the age qualification (35 years on election day) required by the organic act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, and thus filed to cancel Loong’s certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. Loong answered, raising that the petition was time-barred under Section 78 and that COMELEC lacked jurisdiction.
Procedural Posture Before the Supreme Court
COMELEC’s Second Division (two Commissioners concurring, one dissenting) denied Loong’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, relying on this Court’s Frivaldo decision and on Sections 6 and 7 of Republic Act No. 6646 to permit filing a certificate-cancellation petition after the statutory 25-day period if filed within a reasonable time after discovery and before proclamation. Loong sought certiorari to annul the COMELEC resolutions dated 15 May 1990 and 3 July 1990.
Issues Presented
- Whether SPA No. 90-006 was filed within the period prescribed by law (Section 78, Omnibus Election Code).
- Whether COMELEC’s procedural rule (Rule 25) or Sections 6 and 7 of RA No. 6646 could extend or modify the statutory 25-day filing period for petitions to cancel certificates of candidacy.
- Whether SPA No. 90-006 could be treated as a petition for quo warranto under Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code when filed before proclamation.
Relevant Statutes and Rules
- Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881): Section 74 (contents of certificate of candidacy), Section 78 (25-day period to file petition to cancel certificate for false representation), Section 253 (quo warranto filing period after proclamation).
- Republic Act No. 6734 (Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao): age requirement—at least 35 years on election day for Vice-Governor.
- Republic Act No. 6646 (Electoral Reforms Law of 1987): Sections 6 and 7 (effects of disqualification cases and procedural application to petitions to deny due course to or cancel certificates).
- COMELEC Rules of Procedure: Rule 23 (petitions to cancel certificate of candidacy), Rule 25 (disqualification proceedings and time to file under that rule).
- Precedents cited: Frivaldo v. COMELEC (citizenship disqualification; Court had allowed post-proclamation challenge in limited context), Aznar v. COMELEC, and other decisions addressing the timing and proper remedy for disqualification claims.
Court’s Legal Analysis — Timeliness Under Section 78
The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code prescribes a mandatory, legislative 25-day period from filing of the certificate of candidacy to bring a petition to cancel that certificate for false representation. In the case at bar SPA No. 90-006 was filed 49 days after Loong’s certificate filing (and 16 days after the election), which plainly exceeded the statutory 25-day period. The Court concluded SPA No. 90-006 was therefore filed out of time under Section 78.
Court’s Legal Analysis — COMELEC Rules and RA 6646
The Court held that procedural rules promulgated by COMELEC (e.g., Section 3, Rule 25 permitting filing “any day after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation”) cannot supersede or modify the clear legislative prescription of Section 78. COMELEC lacks legislative power to alter statutory filing periods. The Court further examined Sections 6 and 7 of RA No. 6646 and found they do not alter or extend the 25-day period in Section 78; rather, Section 7 expressly reiterates that the procedure provided applies to petitions under Section 78. Section 6 addresses the effects of a disqualification case (e.g., suspension of proclamation in certain circumstances) but does not change filing periods. Thus RA 6646 did not validate filing beyond Section 78’s 25 days.
Court’s Legal Analysis — Quo Warranto and the “Procedural Gap”
The Court acknowledged the practical possibility that discovery of a false representation might occur after the 25-day Section 78 period has lapsed, creating a temporal gap before proclamation during which the would-be petitioner might be without remedy. Nevertheless, the Court held that the election laws foresee this situation by providing a separate remedy—quo warranto under Section 253—which may be filed within ten days from proclamation. The proper legislative remedy for any perceived procedural gap rests with the Legislature; COMELEC cannot remedy it by extending filing periods by rule. Because SPA No. 90-006 was filed before proclamation, it could not be treated as a quo warranto petition (that remedy is premature until after proclamation).
Court’s Legal Analysis — Limited Scope of Frivaldo
The Court examined Frivaldo, noting that the Frivaldo decision involved lack of Philippine citizenship—a fundamental qualification implicating loyalty to the Republic—and had been allowed to be litigated beyond the usual filing periods. The Court declined to apply Frivaldo broadly to all grounds of ineligibility. Where ineligibility arises from age, residence, or other similar grounds, the Court emphasized that statutory filing periods (e.g., the 25-day period of Section 78 or the 10-day quo warranto period under Section 253) should be applied strictly. The Cou
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 93986)
Title and Nature of Action
- Special civil action of certiorari filed by petitioner Benjamin T. Loong seeking to annul resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) rendered in SPA No. 90-006 (Nur Hussein Ututalum v. Benjamin Loong).
- The challenged COMELEC resolutions (dated 15 May 1990 and 3 July 1990) held that the Commission had jurisdiction to hear and decide a petition to cancel petitioner Loong’s certificate of candidacy on the ground of false representation as to age.
Relevant Dates and Chronology (Undisputed Facts)
- 15 January 1990: Petitioner Benjamin T. Loong filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of Vice-Governor of the Mindanao Autonomous Region (last day for filing certificates of candidacy).
- 17 February 1990: Election for officials of the Mindanao Autonomous Region held.
- 5 March 1990: Private respondent Nurhussein Ututalum filed SPA Case No. 90-006 with the COMELEC (petition to disqualify Loong alleging false representation as to age).
- 7 March 1990: Private respondent Alim Bashir Edris filed a Petition in Intervention in SPA No. 90-006, raising issues similar to Ututalum’s petition.
- 19 March 1990: Petitioner Loong filed his Answer to the petition in SPA No. 90-006.
- 30 March 1990: Loong filed his Answer to the Petition for Intervention.
- 15 May 1990: COMELEC (Second Division) rendered the Resolution (assailed) holding it had jurisdiction to try SPA No. 90-006 (two Commissioners—Yorac and Flores—concurring; Commissioner Dimaampao dissenting).
- 3 July 1990: COMELEC denied motion for reconsideration and issued an additional Resolution reiterating jurisdictional position; on the same date Loong was proclaimed as duly elected Vice-Governor.
- 9 July 1990: Loong filed the special civil action of certiorari in this Court to annul the COMELEC resolutions.
- 22 December 1992: This Court issued its decision granting the petition and setting aside the COMELEC resolutions.
Parties and Positions
- Petitioner: Benjamin T. Loong
- Candidate for Regional Vice-Governor, filed certificate of candidacy on 15 January 1990.
- Answered the disqualification petition asserting (a) customary non-registration of births in his birthplace and that he verified his birth date with his mother and others who assured him his date of birth was July 4, 1954; (b) COMELEC lacked jurisdiction because the petition to cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 78 (also argued under Section 76 in Loong’s pleadings) of the Omnibus Election Code must be filed within five days following the last day for filing the certificate (Loong contended a 25-day period prescribed by law — see below for source discrepancies cited in the record).
- Private Respondent/Original Petitioner in SPA: Nurhussein Ututalum
- Filed petition on 5 March 1990 to disqualify Loong for alleged false representation of age in his certificate of candidacy.
- Contended SPA No. 90-006 was timely because Section 3, Rule 25 of COMELEC Rules allows filing any day after the last day for filing certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation.
- Private Respondent in Intervention: Alim Bashir Edris
- Filed Petition in Intervention on 7 March 1990 raising similar issues to Ututalum.
- Respondent Commission: Commission on Elections (Second Division)
- Ruled, relying on Frivaldo v. COMELEC and on Sections 6 and 7 of Republic Act No. 6646, that the Commission had jurisdiction to hear SPA No. 90-006 despite the lapse of statutory periods; applied Rule 23 and Rule 25 of COMELEC Rules in light of Frivaldo.
Procedural Posture Before the Supreme Court
- Loong sought certiorari to annul COMELEC’s resolutions of 15 May 1990 and 3 July 1990 which denied COMELEC’s lack-of-jurisdiction motion and continued to assert jurisdiction over SPA No. 90-006.
- The principal legal question presented: whether SPA No. 90-006 (petition to cancel Loong’s certificate of candidacy for false representation as to age) was filed within the period prescribed by law.
Statutes, Rules and Provisions Quoted or Applied
- Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881)
- Section 74: Certificate of candidacy must state date of birth among other things.
- Section 78: Provides that where a person filing a certificate of candidacy has committed false representation, a petition to cancel the certificate may be filed within twenty-five (25) days from the time the certificate was filed (the decision emphasizes Section 78 as the 25-day provision).
- Section 253: Petition for quo warranto; remedy available within ten (10) days from proclamation to contest elected official’s right to hold office (cited as alternative remedy when Section 78 period lapses).
- Sections 12 and 68: Enumerated grounds for disqualification referenced in discussing Rule 25 (disqualifications for insanity, criminal conviction, bribery, election offenses, permanent residents of foreign country, etc.).
- Republic Act No. 6646 (Electoral Reforms Law of 1987)
- Section 6: Effects of disqualification case; votes not counted if candidate declared disqualified; if not declared before election, court/commission may continue trial and may suspend proclamation where evidence is strong.
- Section 7: Procedure for petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy as provided in Section 78 of BP 881; the section reiterates rather than alters time periods prescribed by the Code.
- Republic Act No. 6734 (Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao)
- Sections 3 and 4: Require that a person running for Vice-Governor of the autonomous region be at least thirty-five (35) years of age on election day.
- COMELEC Rules of Procedure
- Rule 23: Governs petitions to cancel certificates of candidacy (referred to as the appropriate rule for false representation cases).
- Rule 25 (Section 1 and Section 3 cited): Governs Disqualification of Candidates; Section 3 (as read by respondents) permits a petition to disqualify on grounds of ineligibility to be filed any day after the last day for filing certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation (COMELEC treated this as permitting later filings).
- Case Law Cited
- Frivaldo v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 87193, June 23, 1989, 174 SCRA 245): Held that qualifications for elective office cannot be cured by the ballot; Court in that case allowed exceptions regarding citizenship as an overriding qualification; COMELEC relied on Frivaldo to justify jurisdiction beyond statutor