HENRY P. LANOT, SUBSTITUTED BY MARIO S. RAYMUNDO, PETITIONER, CHARMIE Q. BENAVIDES, PETITIONER-INTERVENOR, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND VICENTE P. EUSEBIO, RESPONDENTS.

Lanot versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Henry Lanot, later substituted by Mario Raymundo, with Charmie Benavides intervening, against the Commission on Elections and Vicente Eusebio. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to annul three issuances of the Commission on Elections arising from a disqualification case against Eusebio, a candidate for Pasig City Mayor in the May 2004 elections. The case matters because it fixes the rules on when a disqualified candidate's votes may be counted, when a proclamation may be suspended or lifted, and what happens to a disqualification case that remains unresolved on election day.

Procedural History

Lanot and several co-petitioners filed a petition for disqualification against Eusebio before the Commission on Elections, grounded on Sections 68 and 80 of the Omnibus Election Code. The Regional Election Director for the National Capital Region conducted hearings and recommended disqualification. The First Division of the Commission adopted that recommendation on 5 May 2004, ordering Eusebio's disqualification, the deletion of his name from the certified list of candidates, the counting of his votes as stray, and the non-inclusion of those votes in the canvass. Eusebio moved for reconsideration. On election day, the Chairman of the Commission issued a memorandum enjoining implementation of the First Division resolution. The Commission En Banc then lifted the suspension of the proclamation, and Eusebio was proclaimed. Later, the Commission En Banc set aside the First Division resolution and referred the matter to its Law Department for investigation. Lanot came to the Supreme Court on certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

Facts

On 19 March 2004, Lanot and five others filed a petition for disqualification against Eusebio, who was running for Pasig City Mayor in the 10 May 2004 elections. They alleged that Eusebio campaigned outside the designated campaign period: addressing a medical mission sponsored by the city government, uttering defamatory statements against Lanot, publishing a press release predicting victory, installing billboards, streamers, posters, and stickers bearing his surname across Pasig City, and distributing shoes to schoolchildren to induce their parents to vote for him. Eusebio denied the allegations and called the petition a harassment case.

The Regional Director heard the case on 2, 5, and 7 April 2004, and recommended disqualification under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code for violation of Section 80. On 5 May 2004, five days before the elections, the First Division adopted the recommendation and ordered Eusebio disqualified, his name deleted from the certified list, his votes treated as stray, and the filing of an information against him. Eusebio moved for reconsideration on 9 May 2004. On election day, the Chairman issued a memorandum enjoining the Regional Director from implementing the resolution because of the pending motion.

On 11 May 2004, the Commission En Banc denied the motion to suspend the counting but ordered the suspension of Eusebio's proclamation should he win. On 21 May 2004, the Commission En Banc set aside that suspension and directed the Board of Canvassers to proclaim the winning candidate, without prejudice to the final outcome of the disqualification case. Eusebio was proclaimed on 23 May 2004. On 20 August 2004, the Commission En Banc set aside the First Division resolution and referred the case to the Law Department to determine whether Eusebio actually committed the acts complained of. Meanwhile, Lanot was killed, and Raymundo substituted for him; Benavides, the third placer, intervened.

Issues

• Whether or not the Commission En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the First Division resolution of disqualification and referring the case to its Law Department for investigation.
• Whether or not the Commission En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in lifting the suspension of Eusebio's proclamation.
• Whether or not the Chairman of the Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in unilaterally enjoining implementation of the First Division resolution.
• Whether or not the electoral aspect of the disqualification case survived the death of Lanot and the proclamation of Eusebio, such that substitution and intervention were proper.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6 of the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 provides:

Section 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. — Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted.

This provision is decisive because it limits the non-counting of votes to a candidate disqualified by final judgment, which Eusebio was not at the time of the elections.

Section 1 of Commission on Elections Resolution No. 2050 provides:

Any complaint for the disqualification of a duly registered candidate based upon any of the grounds specifically enumerated under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, filed directly with the Commission before an election in which the respondent is a candidate, shall be inquired into by the Commission for the purpose of determining whether the acts complained of have in fact been committed. Where the inquiry by the Commission results in a finding before election, that the respondent candidate did in fact commit the acts complained, the Commission shall order the disqualification of the respondent candidate from continuing as such candidate. In case such complaint was not resolved before the election, the Commission may motu proprio, or on motion of any of the parties, refer the complaint to the Law Department of the Commission as the instrument of the latter in the exercise of its exclusive power to conduct a preliminary investigation of all cases involving criminal infractions of the election laws. Such recourse may be availed of irrespective of whether the respondent has been elected or has lost in the election.

This provision is the rule the Commission invoked in referring the unresolved disqualification case to its Law Department.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion in referring the case to its Law Department. The petition was filed less than two months before the elections and was not finally resolved at the time of the elections. Under Section 1 of Resolution No. 2050, a disqualification complaint unresolved before the election is referred to the Law Department for investigation, and this recourse is available whether the respondent was elected or lost. The Court noted, however, that the prevailing law is Section 6 of the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987, and any rule or action of the Commission must accord with it.

On the second issue, the Court held that the lifting of the suspension of the proclamation was proper. The Commission has discretion to suspend the proclamation of a winning candidate during the pendency of a disqualification case when the evidence of guilt is strong, but such an order is merely provisional and may be lifted when warranted by the evidence.

On the third issue, the Court held that the Chairman's memorandum was not an arrogation of adjudicatory power. It was merely an advisory required by the circumstances, since Eusebio had timely filed a motion for reconsideration and there was no time to resolve it before the elections. The Commission En Banc itself ratified the memorandum. A disposition that has not attained finality cannot be implemented even through indirect means.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the electoral aspect of the disqualification case survived Lanot's death and Eusebio's proclamation. Any citizen of voting age may continue the action in the stead of a deceased petitioner, and Section 6 of the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 allows intervention even after the elections if no final judgment has been rendered.

Doctrine

A candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. Before final judgment, his votes are counted and canvassed, and he may be proclaimed.

The suspension of a winning candidate's proclamation during the pendency of a disqualification case is merely provisional and may be lifted when warranted by the evidence.

A disqualification complaint unresolved before the election may be referred to the Law Department of the Commission for preliminary investigation, and the electoral aspect of the case survives the death of the petitioner and the proclamation of the respondent, provided there is proper substitution or intervention.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the challenged issuances of the Commission on Elections were upheld.

Remember This

Memorize the rule that only a candidate disqualified by final judgment cannot be voted for and cannot have his votes counted. Examiners use this case to test the effect of a pending disqualification case on the counting of votes, the suspension and lifting of proclamation, and the survival of the electoral aspect after the petitioner's death.