**Facts**:
Dominador G. Jalosjos, Jr. and Agapito J. Cardino were mayoral candidates for Dapitan City, Zamboanga del Norte, in the May 2010 elections. Jalosjos sought his third term, while Cardino questioned Jalosjos’ eligibility based on a prior conviction for robbery, which Jalosjos did not serve due to granted probation. Their legal battle traversed several phases:
1. **Preliminary Phase**: On December 6, 2009, Cardino filed a petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code to cancel Jalosjos’ certificate of candidacy (COC) due to false material representation regarding his eligibility.
2. **COMELEC First Division Ruling (May 10, 2010)**: Granted Cardino’s petition, finding Jalosjos’ COC contained false material representation due to a prior robbery conviction. Jalosjos had claimed eligibility based on probation that was later revoked but was falsely reflected as completed due to a fraudulently issued certification.
3. **COMELEC En Banc Ruling (August 11, 2010)**: Upheld the First Division’s decision, reinforcing Jalosjos’ ineligibility for not having served his sentence due to a criminal conviction involving moral turpitude.
4. **Supreme Court Resolution on G.R. No. 193237 (February 22, 2011)**: Dismissed Jalosjos’ petition for certiorari challenging the COMELEC’s rulings, affirming the cancellation of his COC.
5. **Subsequent Developments**: Jalosjos resigned as Mayor in April 2012, citing his candidacy for Provincial Governor in May 2013, and merged his outstanding petition with Cardino’s continuing challenge on the succession aspect decided by the COMELEC.
**Issues**:
1. Was Jalosjos’ probation validly revoked, and did it impact his eligibility for elective office?
2. Did the COMELEC err in canceling Jalosjos’ COC based on false material representation regarding his eligibility?
3. What is the legal effect of Jalosjos’ participation in the May 2010 elections despite the cancellation of his COC?
4. Should the rule of succession under the Local Government Code apply, or is Cardino entitled to assume the Mayor’s position due to Jalosjos’ disqualification?
**Court’s Decision**:
1. **Probation Revocation**: The Court found that Jalosjos’ claim of successfully completing probation was based on fraudulent certification, considering a prior revocation that was never rectified. Thus, his conviction and the subsequent penalties, including disqualifications, remained in effect.
2. **COC Cancellation**: The Court ruled that Jalosjos committed a false material representation in declaring himself eligible for elective office in his COC. His ineligibility stemmed from his unserved sentence following a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude.
3. **Effect of Jalosjos’ Participation**: Jalosjos was never a legitimate candidate as he was ineligible from the outset. Consequently, all votes for him were deemed stray, leaving Cardino as the remaining qualified candidate with the highest number of votes.
4. **Succession vs. Direct Assumption**: The Court decided against applying the rule of succession under the Local Government Code, as Jalosjos’ COC was void ab initio. Cardino, having the legal right and being the only valid candidate, was entitled to be proclaimed Mayor of Dapitan City.
**Doctrine**:
A false statement regarding eligibility in a COC constitutes a false material representation, a ground for a petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. Eligibility involves having the right to run for elective public office, and a disqualified individual making a false claim of eligibility knowingly commits material misrepresentation.
**Class Notes**:
– *Material Misrepresentation*: A deliberate false claim about one’s eligibility for public office in a COC.
– *Eligibility vs. Disqualification*: Eligibility refers to the inherent right to run for office, based on qualifications specified by law. Disqualification refers to conditions or actions that nullify an individual’s right to run for or hold public office.
– *Probation and Political Rights*: Probation does not restore political rights or nullify the legal consequences of a conviction involving moral turpitude unless specifically stated.
– *Rule of Succession vs. Direct Assumption*: In cases where a COC is void ab initio due to material misrepresentation about eligibility, the prevailing candidate’s direct opponent, not the line of succession, assumes the office if they are the only other valid candidate.
**Historical Background**:
The case underscores the strict legal standards governing the eligibility and integrity of candidates for public office in the Philippines. It highlights the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law, ensuring that the electoral process is not undermined by candidates making false representations about their qualifications. This decision reiterates the principle that the sanctity of the electoral process must be protected against candidates with criminal convictions and underscores the procedural and substantive requirements that govern the candidacy in Philippine elections.
Leave a Reply