Title
Panlaqui vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 188671
Decision Date
Feb 24, 2010
A mayoral candidate's disqualification for residency misrepresentation was not final before elections; the second placer cannot assume office, upholding voter sovereignty.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 188671)

Litigation Over Voter Registration

Velasco, originally naturalized as a U.S. citizen, reacquired Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 on July 31, 2006, and applied for voter registration in Sasmuan on October 13, 2006. The ERB denied his registration for lack of residency; the MTC reversed on February 9, 2007; the RTC reversed on March 1, 2007, concluding that Velasco abandoned Philippine domicile upon U.S. naturalization.

COC Cancellation and Proclamation Nullification

Despite the pending voter-inclusion dispute, Velasco filed his COC on March 28, 2007. Panlaqui sought cancellation of Velasco’s COC for material misrepresentation. After Velasco’s May 2007 electoral victory, the Comelec First Division found material misrepresentation in his voter status, canceled his COC on July 6, 2007, and nullified his proclamation on October 15, 2007. This Court affirmed those resolutions in G.R. No. 180051 (December 24, 2008).

Denial of Motion for Proclamation

Panlaqui moved for proclamation as the rightful mayor but the Comelec En Banc denied it, holding that Velasco’s disqualification was not final before election day; therefore, Panlaqui remained a second placer and succession did not apply.

Reliance on Cayat Doctrine

Panlaqui urged application of Cayat v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 163776, April 24, 2007), where the Court directed proclamation of a sole remaining candidate because the first placer’s disqualification became final before the election, leaving the petitioner as the only candidate, not a second placer.

Distinguishing Voter Inclusion from COC Proceedings

The Court emphasized that voter-inclusion/exclusion and COC denial/cancellation are distinct proceedings under the Comelec Rules. Voter-inclusion proceedings determine eligibility to vote; COC cancellation proceedings determine material misrepresentation in candidacy. A final decision in a voter-inclusion case does not equate to a final disqualification in a candidacy case.

Rejection of Disqualification Theory

The Court rejected Panlaqui’s argument that the RTC’s March 1, 2007 voter-inclusion decision constituted a final dis

...continue reading

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