PEDRO S. ALIALY, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

Alialy versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari and mandamus, with a prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, brought by Pedro Alialy and six other candidates for councilor, together with the local chapter of the Nacionalista Party in Victoria, Oriental Mindoro, against the Commission on Elections. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to set aside the Commission's resolution refusing to give due course to their collective certificate of candidacy because it lacked the signature of the party secretary. The case matters because it fixes the rule that the signature requirements of the election law are, as a general rule, directory rather than mandatory, and that a substantial compliance, or a timely cure, will save a certificate of candidacy from the fatal consequences of a technical omission.

Procedural History

The controversy began before the Commission on Elections itself. A collective certificate of candidacy for the November 1959 elections was filed on September 1, 1959, signed and sworn to by Fe Marquez as chairman of the local Nacionalista Party chapter. On October 14, 1959, the Commission resolved not to give due course to the certificate, on the ground that it was subscribed under oath only by the chairman and not by the secretary, and so was not prepared in compliance with Section 35 of the Revised Election Code. The Commission, however, considered the certificate valid insofar as the candidacy of Fe Marquez for mayor was concerned, since her own signature and oath appeared on it.

The petitioners moved for reconsideration on October 27, 1959, arguing that the omission was an inconsequential deviation that could not affect the result of the election. On October 29, 1959, they filed a supplement to the motion, alleging that an amended certificate of candidacy, dated October 26, 1959, had been filed, now bearing the signatures of both the chairman and the secretary of the chapter. On October 30, 1959, counsel was advised that the motion for reconsideration was denied. Because the elections were near, the petitioners came directly to the Supreme Court on November 2, 1959, by petition for certiorari and mandamus. On November 4, 1959, after a bond of 200 pesos was posted, the Court issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction ordering the Commission to give due course to the certificate and to count the votes cast in the petitioners' favor.

Facts

On September 1, 1959, a collective certificate of candidacy was filed with the Commission on Elections for the November 10, 1959 elections. It named the petitioners as candidates for councilor, Fe Marquez as mayor, and Timoteo Ocampo as vice mayor. The certificate was signed and sworn to by Fe Marquez alone, in her capacity as chairman of the local Nacionalista Party chapter in Victoria, Oriental Mindoro. The secretary of the chapter did not sign it.

When the Commission examined the certificate, it resolved on October 14, 1959, not to give due course to it, treating the absence of the secretary's signature as a failure to comply with Section 35 of the Revised Election Code. It nonetheless treated the certificate as valid as to Fe Marquez's own candidacy for mayor, because her signature and oath were on the document.

The petitioners sought reconsideration, and while that was pending they filed an amended certificate dated October 26, 1959, now signed by both the chairman and the secretary of the chapter. The Commission denied reconsideration on October 30, 1959, and took the position in its answer that the amended certificate came long after the September 11, 1959 deadline, and that since the original certificate was void, there was nothing to confirm or amend. It is worth noting that the Commission acted on the original certificate only on October 14, 1959, well after the deadline had passed.

Issues

• Whether or not the absence of the signature of the party secretary on the original certificate of candidacy, filed before the deadline, rendered the certificate invalid.
• Whether or not the amended certificate, filed after the deadline but before the election, cured the defect and amounted to a substantial compliance with the law.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to give due course to the petitioners' certificate of candidacy.

Applicable Provisions

Section 35 of the Revised Election Code provides:

Certificates of candidacy of candidates may be filed by a political party nominating them without the signature or oath of said candidates. Any political party having officially nominated candidates shall file with the Commission on Elections a certificate of such official nominations subscribed under oath by the president and secretary or corresponding officers of such political group or party.

This is the provision the Commission invoked in refusing the certificate, and the provision the Court construes as directory in the circumstances of this case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the absence of the secretary's signature on the original certificate, filed before the September 11, 1959 deadline, did not render the certificate invalid. The Court recalled the purpose of the requirement: to make known to the Commission that the persons named have been nominated by a duly authorized political group, that the certificate reflects the sentiment of the nominating body, that the candidate is a resident of the municipality, that he is eligible for the office, and that he belongs to a party. No one impugned the genuineness of the certificate, and the party officers called upon to certify later affirmed and confirmed its truthfulness.

On the second issue, the Court held that the amendment of the certificate, although made after the deadline but before the election, was a substantial compliance with the law, and the defect was cured. The Court observed that the Commission had itself acted on the original certificate only on October 14, 1959, long after the deadline. It relied on its earlier ruling in the Canceran case, quoting it with approval:

Moreover, the timely filing of the motion for reconsideration by petitioners on October 15, 1959 has, in effect, cured the said defect of the certificate, inasmuch as it includes as petitioners or movants, the chairman and secretary of the Nacionalista Party in Cauayan, Isabela, the very officials required by the statute to sign said certificate.

On the third issue, the Court held that the Commission had sacrificed substance to form. It adopted a directory construction of the law, quoting with approval the rule laid down in Gardiner versus Romulo:

when the Election Law does not provide that a departure from a prescribed form will be fatal and such departure has been due to an honest mistake or misinterpretation of the Election Law on the part of him who was obligated to observe it, and such departure has not been used as a means for fraudulent practices the law will be held directory and such departure will be considered a harmless irregularity

The Court stressed that the omission did not affect the integrity of the elections in Victoria and occasioned injury to no one. It added that Pedro Alialy was in fact elected councilor, and that if substantial compliance were to give way to a mere technicality, the will of the electorate would be frustrated.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the requirement in Section 35 of the Revised Election Code that a certificate of official nominations be subscribed under oath by the president and secretary, or corresponding officers, of the political party is, as a general rule, directory and not mandatory. Second, a departure from the prescribed form that is due to an honest mistake or misinterpretation, and that is not used as a means of fraudulent practice, is a harmless irregularity and does not invalidate the certificate. Third, a defect in a certificate of candidacy may be cured by an amended certificate or by a timely motion for reconsideration filed before the election that supplies the missing signatures, amounting to substantial compliance. Fourth, where the omission does not affect the integrity of the elections and injures no one, the law favors substance over form so as not to frustrate the will of the electorate.

Disposition

The Court reversed the resolution of the Commission on Elections dated October 14, 1959, granted the petition, and made the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction permanent and definitive, without costs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the signature requirements of the election law are directory, and a substantial compliance or a timely cure saves a certificate of candidacy from a technical omission. Examiners like to use this case on the distinction between mandatory and directory election requirements, and on substantial compliance and the curing of defects in certificates of candidacy.