Title
Uy vs. Commission on Elections and Jalosjos
Case
G.R. No. 260650
Decision Date
Aug 8, 2023
The Supreme Court ruled that suspension of proclamation without hearing a winning candidate violates due process, and declared the nuisance candidate ruling improper for lack of evidence, directing the Commission on Elections to proclaim the true winner.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 260650)

Procedural history before Comelec and PBOC

On April 19, 2022, the Comelec Second Division declared Frederico a nuisance candidate and cancelled his CoC. Frederico sought reconsideration. Elections occurred May 9, 2022; canvass results as transmitted to the PBOC showed Roberto leading with 69,591 votes and Romeo with 69,109; Frederico had 5,424 votes. Romeo moved to suspend Roberto’s proclamation, asserting Frederico’s votes should be credited to him. The PBOC received an “advanced copy” by email of a Comelec En Banc Order directing suspension; despite irregularities in that advanced copy, the PBOC—after the Comelec Chairperson confirmed the Order by phone—resolved in the early hours of May 12, 2022, to suspend Roberto’s proclamation. Comelec En Banc also issued an Order suspending Roberto’s proclamation on May 12, 2022, by majority, over dissent that raised due process concerns and inapplicability of suspension rules in nuisance proceedings.

Supreme Court filings and interim actions

Roberto filed an extremely urgent petition with Comelec and later a certiorari petition before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 260650) to direct PBOC to proclaim him. Frederico filed a certiorari petition (G.R. No. 260952) challenging the Comelec En Banc Resolution of June 7, 2022, which denied his reconsideration (on timeliness grounds) and ordered his votes credited to Romeo under the Dela Cruz rule. The Comelec En Banc on June 15, 2022 issued a writ of execution to the PBOC to reconvene, credit Frederico’s votes to Romeo, and proclaim the winning candidate; PBOC proclaimed Romeo on June 23, 2022. The Supreme Court consolidated the petitions and issued a Status Quo Ante Order to preserve last uncontested conditions prior to the May 12 and June 7 Comelec actions.

Issue 1 — Supreme Court jurisdiction to review Comelec En Banc decisions

The Court reaffirmed its constitutional power to review Comelec decisions by certiorari under Article IX-A, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution, emphasizing that this review pertains to final orders, rulings, and decisions of the Comelec En Banc exercising adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. The Court rejected arguments that the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) had appellate jurisdiction over Comelec En Banc rulings; the HRET does not have authority to declare a nuisance candidate or cancel a CoC, and the proper remedy to challenge Comelec En Banc decisions is a timely petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Issue 2 — HRET jurisdiction and the prerequisites for its exclusivity

The Court explained HRET’s jurisdiction is limited to contests involving Members of the House, and that the HRET acquires jurisdiction only after three requisites concur: (1) valid proclamation, (2) proper oath, and (3) assumption of office by the proclaimed candidate. The Court distinguished prior precedent that sometimes divested Comelec jurisdiction after proclamation, noting those holdings applied where the proclaimed candidate had actually taken oath and assumed office. Because those requisites were absent or affected in this case (and because the Status Quo Ante Order prevented proclamation from taking legal effect), the HRET did not have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the Comelec En Banc orders attacked here.

Analysis of the Comelec En Banc Order suspending proclamation (May 12, 2022)

The Court held that the May 12, 2022 suspension of Roberto’s proclamation was tainted by grave abuse of discretion and violated Roberto’s right to due process. Legal framework: RA No. 6646 Sections 6–7 and Comelec Rules permit suspension of proclamation in disqualification cases where evidence of guilt is strong, and Rule 23/24 provide rules for suspension in petitions to deny due course or cancel CoC. But those suspension mechanisms apply to proceedings under Section 78 of the OEC (material misrepresentation) and are not available, in the ordinary course, for Section 69 nuisance-candidate proceedings. Here, the suspension occurred in a Section 69 proceeding; the Comelec relied on an irregular “advanced copy” order lacking complete signatures and certifications; PBOC members acted on the Chairperson’s phone confirmation rather than on a duly issued, signed, and certified order; and the suspension was ordered without giving Roberto notice or opportunity to be heard even though he was the immediate party affected. The Court underscored the ministerial nature of the board of canvassers to proclaim the leading candidate without unnecessary delay and found it improper to suspend proclamation motu proprio on the basis of a pending nuisance petition.

Analysis of the Comelec En Banc Resolution affirming nuisance candidacy (June 7, 2022)

The Court found grave abuse of discretion in the June 7, 2022 Comelec En Banc Resolution that denied Frederico’s motion for reconsideration as late (filed by e‑mail at 6:23 p.m., beyond a 5:00 p.m. cutoff) and simultaneously affirmed the nuisance finding. The Court emphasized the need to balance procedural strictness with substantial justice, noting the motion arrived a little over an hour late and that the question of nuisance candidacy was determinative of the election outcome — circumstances that warranted a liberal application of procedural rules. On the merits, the Court held the Comelec Second Division’s factual findings were inadequate and speculative: the Division minimized Frederico’s party nomination by NUP, discounted his claimed support and campaign expenditures with only the phrase “does not appear,” and relied on alleged phonetic similarity of nicknames despite clear differences on the printed ballots and the protections afforded by the automated election system (AES). The Comelec failed to identify substantial evidence of lack of bona fide intention or of likely voter confusion sufficient to cancel Frederico’s CoC under Section 69; the cancellation therefore amounted to grave abuse of discretion.

Treatment of votes, ballots, and automated election system considerations

The Court explained that AES ballots include full names and political parties, and candidates may select how their names appear on ballots; in this case ballots showed “JALOSJOS, KUYA JAN (NUP)” and “JALOSJOS, ROMEO JR. (NP),” which the Court found sufficiently distinguishable. The majority rejected the Comelec’s reliance on idem sonans and analogies to manual-elections cases (e.g., Bautista) as inadequate under AES. The Court also stressed that cancellation of a CoC after the election — if not supported by strong evidence — would render votes worthless and unjustly disenfranchise voters; defects in certificates of candidacy should, where possible, be addressed before an election rather than invalidating votes after the fact.

Application of precedent and ultimate factual conclusions on nuisance candidacy

The majority reviewed authorities (Dela Cruz, Santos, Bautista, Zapanta, etc.) and concluded that none authorized cancelling a candidate’s CoC on the slender basis applied here. The Comelec Second Division’s finding that Frederico lacked political support and bona fide intent was speculative and contradicted evidence of his political party nomination and subsequent court findings on his voter registration status. Given the absence of substantial proof that Frederico’s candidacy was sham or intended to cause confusion, the Court held Frederico was a legitimate candidate and his votes were valid.

Holdings, relief ordered, and immediate effect

The Supreme Court granted the consolidated petitions. It set aside the Comelec En Banc Order of May 12, 2022 and the Comelec En Banc Resolution of June 7, 2022 on grounds of grave abuse of discretion, annulled Romeo’s proclamation that had arisen from execution of those assailed actions, and directed the Comelec to proclaim Roberto T. Uy, Jr. as the duly elected representative for Zamboanga del Norte’s 1st district. The Court lifted the Status Quo Ante Order and declared the Decision immediately executory.

Concurrences and vote

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice J. Lopez and was concurred in by Chief Justice Gesmundo and Justices Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Zalameda, Gaerlan, Dimaampao, Marquez, Kho, Jr., and Singh. Justices Caguioa (dissent), L

    ...continue reading

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