NICANOR C. IBUNA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE MUNICIPAL TREASURER/AND BOARD OF CANVASSERS, SAN JUAN, RIZAL, RESPONDENTS.

Ibuna versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Nicanor C. Ibuna, as chairman of the local Nacionalista Party of San Juan, Rizal, against the Commission on Elections and the Municipal Treasurer and Board of Canvassers of San Juan, Rizal. The petitioner challenges the validity of two appointments made by the Commission on Elections to the municipal board of canvassers of San Juan, each replacing a councilor who was a candidate. The case matters because it fixes the metes and bounds of the Commission's appointing power: the Commission may fill the vacancy, but it may not substitute its own policy for the will of Congress, and the party to which the replacement must belong is measured by the law's own words.

Procedural History

The case reached the Supreme Court as an original action for certiorari. The petitioner went directly to the Supreme Court to impugn the appointments made by the Commission on Elections, and the Court, through a restraining order, held the matter in check while it inquired into the scope of the Commission's power. There were no intermediate rulings of a trial court or of the Court of Appeals recited in the decision; the Supreme Court itself passed upon the controversy in the first instance.

Facts

The municipal council of San Juan, Rizal, constituted the municipal board of canvassers. Under the law, councilors who are themselves candidates are excluded from that board and are replaced by the Commission on Elections with registered voters of the same party.

Councilor Calixto Dungo was elected in 1963, his certificate of candidacy then showing that he was a Nacionalista running as an independent. He ran again in 1967, and his certificate of candidacy categorically stated that he belonged to the Nacionalista Party. Because he was a candidate, the Commission replaced him with Cesar Advincula, a Liberal. Councilor Arturo de Guzman was elected councilor in 1963 as a Nacionalista, but by the time he sought reelection in 1967 he had affiliated with the Liberal Party. The Commission replaced him with Arturo Casanova, also a Liberal.

The Commission defended its choice of a Liberal to replace Dungo on the ground that Dungo himself had recommended that person and had expressly objected to the nominee of petitioner Ibuna, invoking a policy that party representation must be preserved but that, in the absence of any party, the candidate himself chooses his replacement. As to de Guzman, the Commission rested on his change of party affiliation.

Issues

• Whether or not the Commission on Elections acted within its jurisdiction in appointing Cesar Advincula, a Liberal, to replace Councilor Calixto Dungo, who was a Nacionalista both in 1963 and in 1967.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections validly appointed Arturo Casanova, a Liberal, to replace Councilor Arturo de Guzman, who was elected as a Nacionalista but had become a Liberal by the time of his disqualification as a candidate.

Applicable Provisions

Section 167 of the Election Code provides:

The municipal council shall constitute the municipal board of canvassers, excluding the members who are candidates and who shall be replaced by the Commission on Elections with registered voters of the same party.

This is the provision whose scope the Court inquires into, for it both grants the Commission the power to replace and limits that power to registered voters of the same party.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled for the petitioner. It held that since Dungo's certificates of candidacy showed that both in 1963 and in 1967 he was a Nacionalista, the appointment of a person who was not a registered voter of that party found no support in the law. The statutory provision is explicit, and Congress having pronounced its will, it is the duty of the Commission to obey. The question of policy is for Congress, not the Commission, to decide; if the Commission disagrees with what the law requires, its remedy is to call the attention of the legislative body. In choosing a person not a registered voter of the same party, the Commission acted beyond the bounds of its jurisdiction. The Court added that the Commission is not restricted to the person recommended by the petitioner as chairman; all that the law requires is that its appointee be a registered voter of such party.

On the second issue, the Court sustained the Commission. The majority held that what the Commission did was in accordance with the literal language of the law. As of the time of de Guzman's disqualification, he was a member of the Liberal Party, and his replacement should therefore be a registered voter of that party. The Court stressed that its first and fundamental duty is to apply the law, and that construction and interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them. A minority, including Justice Zaldivar, Justice Sanchez, and the writer of the opinion, thought the language not sufficiently plain to call for only one interpretation, and warned that measuring party status at the date of disqualification would encourage elective officials to become turncoats.

Doctrine

The Commission on Elections has no legislative power to change or modify the law, and such power may not be delegated to it. Its functions and powers are limited by law, and where it acts beyond the bounds of its jurisdiction, certiorari lies.

Under Section 167 of the Election Code, the replacement appointed by the Commission must be a registered voter of the same party as the excluded councilor. The Commission is not bound by the recommendation of the party chairman; the law requires only that the appointee be a registered voter of that party.

For purposes of the replacement, the party status of the excluded councilor is determined as of the time of his disqualification as a candidate, not as of the date of his election. Where the law's language is plain, the Court applies it; construction and interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them.

Disposition

The Court sustained the appointment of Arturo Casanova to replace Arturo de Guzman, nullified the appointment of Cesar Advincula to replace Councilor Calixto Dungo, declared null and void all proceedings of the board of canvassers in which Cesar Advincula acted, and lifted the restraining order so that the Commission could act in accordance with the Court's opinion.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the Commission on Elections has no legislative power to change or modify the law, and its replacement must be a registered voter of the same party as the excluded councilor. Examiners like to use this case on the limits of the Commission's appointing power and on the rule that party status for replacement is measured at the time of disqualification.