Title
Ocampo vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
Case
G.R. No. 158466
Decision Date
Jun 15, 2004
A 2001 electoral protest over Manila's 6th District congressional seat; Crespo disqualified post-election, but Ocampo, the second placer, couldn't be declared winner. SC ruled votes for Crespo valid, no automatic win for Ocampo, and mooted the case due to a new election.
certiorari
votes
winning candidate

Case Summary (A.M. No. R-156-P)

Factual Background

In the May 14, 2001 elections, Mario B. Crespo a.k.a. Mark Jimenez was proclaimed by the Manila City Board of Canvassers on May 23, 2001 as the duly elected Representative of the Sixth District of Manila with 32,097 votes. Pablo V. Ocampo obtained 31,329 votes, a margin of 768 votes. On May 31, 2001, petitioner filed an electoral protest before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, challenging results in 807 precincts and alleging misreading and falsification of returns, substitution of returns, use of spurious ballots, and multiple-writer ballots.

Proceedings before the HRET

The HRET docketed the protest as HRET Case No. 01-024. After preliminary conference, the Tribunal limited the contest to two issues: whether respondent committed massive vote-buying and whether petitioner could be proclaimed the duly elected Representative. Respondent filed an answer with a counter-protest. Separately, in HRET Cases Nos. 01-020 and 01-023, the Tribunal declared Crespo ineligible for lack of residency and ordered him to vacate his office; motions for reconsideration were denied.

HRET Resolutions of March 27 and June 2, 2003

On March 27, 2003, the HRET issued a resolution finding Crespo guilty of vote-buying and disqualifying him from holding the seat. The Tribunal nonetheless held that petitioner, as second placer, could not be proclaimed the duly elected Representative. The HRET relied on jurisprudence that a subsequent disqualification of the highest vote-getter does not automatically entitle the second placer to proclamation. The Tribunal stated that the only appropriate remedy to determine the electorate’s new choice was a special election under Article VI, Section 9, 1987 Constitution and Republic Act No. 6645. On June 2, 2003, the HRET denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner’s Contentions

Petitioner asserted that the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion by refusing to implement Section 6, Republic Act No. 6646, which provides that votes cast for a candidate declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be counted. Petitioner maintained that Crespo’s disqualification required treating Crespo’s votes as stray and that, after deducting those votes, petitioner—having the second highest number—should be declared and proclaimed the duly elected Representative.

Respondents’ Contentions

Respondent Crespo argued that Section 6, R.A. No. 6646 applies only where the disqualification by final judgment occurs before the election. He noted that the HRET disqualifications postdated the May 14, 2001 elections by almost twenty-two months and that those HRET resolutions were not yet final and executory because they were the subject of certiorari proceedings. The HRET, through the Office of the Solicitor General, defended its rulings that the second placer cannot be proclaimed and that recount and revision were unnecessary in view of the disqualification ruling.

Issues Presented

The Court framed the issues as: (1) whether the votes cast for respondent should be disregarded pursuant to Section 6, R.A. No. 6646; and (2) whether petitioner, as second placer, could be declared the duly elected Congressman of the Sixth District of Manila.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court, through Justice Sandoval-Gutierrez, dismissed the petition. The Court held that Section 6, R.A. No. 6646 requires a final judgment of disqualification before the election for the votes cast in favor of the disqualified candidate to be treated as stray. Because Crespo was disqualified almost twenty-two months after the May 14, 2001 elections, the statutory requirement was absent and petitioner could not invoke Section 6. The Court further reaffirmed settled jurisprudence that the subsequent disqualification of the highest vote-getter does not entitle the candidate with the second highest votes to be proclaimed the winner. Finally, the Court declared the petition moot and academic in light of the adjournment of the Twelfth Congress and the subsequent proclamation of Bienvenido Abante following the 2004 elections.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated the principle that votes for a candidate not disqualified by final judgment on election day represent bona fide expression of the electorate’s franchise and cannot be retroactively declared stray without disenfranchising voters. The Court relied on its prior discussion in Codilla, Sr. v. De Venecia and other precedents to hold that the statutory and constitutional framework contemplates a final pre-election disqualification before votes become uncountable under Section 6, R.A. No. 6646. On the second issue, the Court traced the consistent line of authority—citing Sunga v. COMELEC, Labo, Jr. v. COMELEC, Abella v. COMELEC, Benito v. COMELEC, Domino v. COMELEC, and earlier decisions such as Topacio v. Paredes and Geronimo v. Ramos—to affirm that a second placer has no legal right to be proclaimed when the winner is later disqualified. The Court explained that voters do not select a substitute representative at the time of election and that the only proper means to fill a vacancy created by a disqualification is a special election authorized by Article VI, Section 9, 1987 Constitution and implemented by Republic Act No. 6645.

Precedents and Authorities Cited

The Court relied on a sequence of controlling precedents and statuto

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms