Title
Santos vs. Commission on Elections En Banc
Case
G.R. No. 235058
Decision Date
Sep 4, 2018
Jennifer Roxas contested Rosalie Isles Roxas as a nuisance candidate. COMELEC canceled Rosalie’s candidacy, crediting her votes to Jennifer, altering election results. SC upheld COMELEC’s decision but modified vote crediting to prevent double-counting.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 210318)

Petitions and Resolutions on Nuisance Candidacy

• October 21, 2015 – Roxas filed petition to declare Rosalie a nuisance candidate under Section 69, B.P. Blg. 881, alleging intent to confuse voters by using “Jenn-Rose.”
• March 30, 2016 – COMELEC Second Division declared Rosalie a nuisance candidate, canceled her Certificate of Candidacy (COC), and ruled she lacked bona fide intention and financial capacity to campaign.
• April 18, 2016 – Rosalie filed a motion for reconsideration; no resolution issued before May 9 election.
• July 22, 2016 – COMELEC En Banc denied reconsideration; resolution considered final and executory by February 15, 2017.

Election Results and Protest Proceedings

• May 9, 2016 – Voters cast ballots; official ranking placed petitioners 3rd and 5th, Roxas 7th, Rosalie 14th. Top six proclaimed winners included petitioners but not Roxas.
• May 20, 2016 – Roxas filed an election protest “ad cautelam” to credit Rosalie’s 13,328 votes to her, annul petitioners’ proclamation, and proclaim her as winner; later added other proclaimed candidates as respondents.

Issuance of Writs of Execution by COMELEC

• April 4, 2017 – COMELEC En Banc issued first Writ of Execution directing SCBOC to reconvene and add Rosalie’s votes to Roxas, yielding 47,066 votes for Roxas.
• April 20, 2017 – SCBOC reconvened, applied simple arithmetic addition, amended the statement of votes.
• November 8, 2017 – COMELEC En Banc issued second Writ of Execution directing annulment of petitioners’ proclamation and proclaiming Roxas as second-highest vote-getter.

Consolidated Petitions to the Supreme Court

Issues raised:

  1. Grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction—issuing writs of execution without hearing petitioners (due process violation).
  2. Violation of immutability of judgments—the directives to add votes were not in the March 30 and July 22 resolutions.
  3. Breach of Section 11, COMELEC Resolution No. 10083—timing and method of crediting votes.

Parties’ Arguments

Petitioners’ contentions:
– No actual or constructive notice before first and second writs; deprived of due process.
– Writs exceeded the dispositive portions of prior resolutions; lacked authority to credit votes or amend proclamation.
– Under Resolution No. 10083, votes of nuisance candidates become stray if final and executory only after proclamation; separate protest needed.

Roxas’s counter:
– She suffered prejudice from late resolution of nuisance petition and TRO.
– Petitioners filed multiple motions and were notified during writ implementations; due process satisfied.
– Crediting votes is a legal consequence of nuisance declaration.

Office of the Solicitor General’s position:
– Votes for nuisance candidates in multi-seat offices should not be automatically credited, to prevent “double votes” when a voter marked both nuisance and legitimate candidate.

Applicable Constitutional and Statutory Provisions

1987 Constitution:
– Due process (Art. III, Sec. 1) – right to be heard.
– Suffrage and elections (Art. V, Sec. 1) – free choice of electorate.

Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, Section 69:
– Defines and empowers COMELEC to cancel COCs of nuisance candidates.

Omnibus Election Code, Section 72:
– Priority and effects of disqualification cases; votes for disqualified candidates not counted.

COMELEC Resolution No. 10083, Sec. 11(K):
– Governs proclamation: credits votes of nuisance candidate sharing surname with legitimate candidate; does not distinguish finality before or after elections for nuisance cases.

Jurisprudence on Nuisance Candidates and Crediting Votes

– Bautista v. COMELEC (1998): Even if nuisance decision was final after election, votes separately tallied were credited to legitimate candidate when intent was clear.
– Martinez III v. HRET (2010): Final nuisance declaration should cancel candidacy as of election day; votes creditable despite COMELEC delays.
– Dela Cruz v. COMELEC (2012): Automated election votes for nuisance candidate credited to legitimate candidate; rule in Resolution No. 4116 remains good law.

Execution of Nuisance Case Decisions

– A final and executory nuisance‐candidate decision cancels the COC as if it never existed; votes for the nuisance candidate thus belong to the legitimate candidate.
– No separate proceeding (e.g., election protest) is required to credit votes once nuisance declaration is final.
– Writ of execution may validly include directives necessary to effect the cancellation and credit votes.

Due Process in Execution Proceedings

– Real parties in interest are the nuisance candidate and the legitimate candidate whose votes may be affected.
– Although other candidates are not direct parties, petitioners received multiple notices and opportunities to file motions and were served with the second writ.
– COMELEC adequately considered and denied their motions before issuing the writs; due pr







...continue reading

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

About Privacy Terms