G.R. No. 13069. May 28, 1958
JOVENCIO A. REYES, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND GODOFREDO S. REYES, RESPONDENTS.
LABRADOR, J.:
elections, for the position of Congressman, Second District of Ilocos Sur, his
certificate of candidacy having been filed on August 20, 1957. Upon the filing
of said certificate of candidacy, the Commission informed him that it would be
given due course. But on September 22, 1957, Godofredo S. Reyes, another
candidate for the position of Congressman of said district, file«i a petition
with the Commission praying that the certificate of candidacy of petitioner
herein be declared cancelled for the reason that it was presented in bad faith.
Thereupon the Commission on Elections, in accordance with the established
practice in such cases, ordered an investigation, after which it decided that
petitioner’s certificate of candidacy was filed in bad faith, in view of the
following findings that it made after the investigation:
“Respondent Jovencio A. Reyes has not been campaigning for his candidacy;
that he has no posters and streamers announcing his candidacy except one 6″ x
10″ poster, on an acacia tree along the road leading to the Poblacion of
Santiago, Ilocos Sur, hometown of the respondent; that there is absolutely no
political activity of Atty. Jovencio A. Reyes in any of the towns and municipal
districts comprising tile second congressional district of Ilocos Sur, except in
the form of letters mailed from Manila, applying for permits to hold political
meetings in the towns of Santa, Narvaean, Can don, and Sta. Lucia that from the
date of the filing of his certificate of candidacy up to October 27, 1957, he
has not held even one political meeting or rally in any of the twenty-three
towns and municipal districts of the second congressional district of Ilocos
Sur, not even in his hometown, Santiago, Ilocos Sur, or that his wife’s town,
Sta. Maria, Ilocos Sur; that he lias not been conducting hcuse to house
campaign; that many people interviewed declared that they have not seen Atty.
Jovencio A. Reyes for quite a long time, for he is actually residing in Quezon
City.” (Exhibit “2,” for Respondent Commission.)
When the petition was presented we granted a preliminary injunction,
requiring respondent Commission to give due course to the certificate of
candidacy.
The case was called for hearing on November 9 at which all the parties
appeared. Petitioner appeared in person, and as a lawyer argued his case, and
the Court had opportunity to see his person and inquire into his qualifications.
We are satisfied that he is fully qualified for the position.
Petitioner claims that the action of the Commission in refusing to give due
course to his candidacy is both in excess of the Commission’s jurisdiction and
an abuse of discretion on its part. We find that the respondent Commissions’
refusal is not due to any disqualification or lack of competence, or absence of
the requisite qualifications of petitioner, but because the commission believes
that petitioner has not shown interest in campaigning for his candidacy, not
having held meetings or having distributed sufficient posters within the
district to appraise the electorate of his candidacy. We do not agree with the
Commission in its conclusion that petitioner’s candidacy has been inspired by
bad faith. Good faith is always to be presumed. A candidate, may believe that
mere announcement of his candidacy, by the filing of his certificate, is
sufficient. Failure to hold campaign meetings or to distribute posters may be
caused by a desire not to stoop to the usual forms of winning votes, and this
may have been impelled by the highest principles of ethics and the desire to
give the electorate freedom of choice without resort to the common system of
campaigning. A candidate may feel it below his dignity to engage in the common
forms of campaigning; this feeling is not inconsistent with good faith. It is,
therefore, an abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission on Elections to
conclude that because petitioner has refused to follow the common and ordinary
form of campaigning his candidacy has been attended by bad faith.
Furthermore, the Commission has gone beyond its powers and arrogated unto
itself the dangerous prerogative of determining whether to give course to a
candidacy or not, on its own belief or impressions, even when a candidate has
all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications prescribed by law. This
Court has made itself clear that such an arrogation of powers is beyond the
jurisdiction of the Commission, when through Mr. Justice Concepcion, we
said:
“Sections 36 and 37 of the Revised Election Code give the Commission no
discretion to give or not to give due course to petitioner’s certificate of
candidacy. On the contrary, the Commission has, admittedly, the ministerial duty
to receive said certificate of candidacy. Of what use would it be to receive it,
if the certificate were not to be given due course? Moreover, the Constitution
fixes the qualification for the office of the President. All possessors of such
qualifications are, therefore, deemed legally fit, at least, to aspire to such
office and to run therefor provided that they comply with the requirements of
the law. Lastly, the power of decision of the Commission is limited to purely
‘administrative questions.’ (Art. X, section 2, Constitution of the
Philippines.) It has no authority to decide matters ‘involving the right to
vote’. It may not even pass upon the legality of a given vote (Nationalista
Party vs. Commission on Elections, 47 Off. Gaz., 2851). How could it, therefore,
assert the greater and more far-reaching authority to determine who-among those
possessing the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution, who have complied
with the procedural requirements relative to the filing of certificates of
candidacy-should be allowed to enjoy the full benefits intended by law
therefor?” (Abcede vs. Hon. Domingo Imperial, et al., Supra, p.
136.)
As in the above case, this case should be distinguished from the case of
Ciriaco S. Garcia vs. Imperial, G.R. No. L-12930, October 22, 1957, wherein we
sustained the power of the Commission to refuse to give course to petitioner’s
certificate of candidacy because it would tend to prevent a faithful
determination of the true will of the electorate because of the confusion
between the name of the petitioner and the candidate of the Nacionalista Party.
In the case at bar, no such confusion would arise because of the great
difference between the name of the petitioner herein and that of the other
respondent.
Wherefore, the petition is hereby granted, and the preliminary injunction
made absolute. With costs against respondent Godofredo S. Reyes.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.