NARDO M. VELASCO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MOZART P. PANLAQUI, RESPONDENTS.

Velasco versus Commission on Elections and Panlaqui

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Nardo Velasco against the Commission on Elections and Mozart Panlaqui, asking the Supreme Court to annul the resolutions of the Commission's Second Division and of the Commission en banc that denied due course to Velasco's certificate of candidacy for Mayor of Sasmuan, Pampanga. The case matters because it draws the sharp line between two proceedings that students often confuse: the voters' inclusion and exclusion proceedings, which end in a judgment that is immediately final and executory, and the certificate of candidacy denial and cancellation proceedings, which belong to the Commission on Elections. It also teaches what makes a false statement in a certificate of candidacy a material misrepresentation.

Procedural History

Velasco applied for registration as a voter of Sasmuan, Pampanga, and the Election Registration Board denied his application. He then filed a petition for inclusion in the list of voters with the Municipal Trial Court of Sasmuan, which granted the petition and ordered his inclusion. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga reversed the Municipal Trial Court and set aside its decision, holding that Velasco had failed to comply with the residency requirement. Velasco brought a petition for review under Rule 42 to the Court of Appeals.

Meanwhile, Panlaqui filed with the Commission on Elections a petition to deny due course to and cancel Velasco's certificate of candidacy. The Second Division of the Commission granted the petition, cancelled the certificate, and declared Velasco's proclamation null and void. The Commission en banc denied his motion for reconsideration. Velasco then filed the present petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 64 in relation with Rule 65. The Court of Appeals later rendered a decision granting Velasco's appeal, but on motion for reconsideration it issued an amended decision dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction, since a Regional Trial Court decision in an inclusion and exclusion case is immediately final and executory. The Supreme Court issued a status quo ante order enjoining the Commission from implementing the assailed resolutions.

Facts

Velasco was born in Sasmuan, Pampanga in 1952. He married there in 1975, and in 1983 he moved to and worked in the United States, where he later became a citizen. In 2006 he applied for dual citizenship under the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003. His application was approved on July 31, 2006, and on the same day he took his oath of allegiance before the Philippine Consulate General in San Francisco. He returned to the Philippines on September 14, 2006 and stayed, except for a brief trip abroad.

Velasco then applied for registration as a voter of Sasmuan, but the Election Registration Board denied him. He filed a petition for inclusion with the Municipal Trial Court, which granted it. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court reversed, ruling that he had lost his domicile of origin when he became a United States citizen and had reacquired Philippine residency only on July 31, 2006, so he lacked the residency required of a voter.

On March 28, 2007, Velasco filed his certificate of candidacy for Mayor, stating that he was a registered voter of a precinct in Sasmuan, and on the same day he executed an affidavit renouncing his American citizenship. The next day, Panlaqui, a rival candidate, filed a petition to deny due course to and cancel the certificate, alleging that Velasco was not a registered voter and lacked the residency requirement. Velasco won the election with 7,822 votes and was proclaimed Mayor. The Commission nonetheless cancelled his certificate, finding that he had committed material misrepresentation when he claimed to be a registered voter despite the final Regional Trial Court ruling.

Issues

• Whether or not Velasco committed forum shopping.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion in cancelling Velasco's certificate of candidacy.

Applicable Provisions

Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code provides:

Sec. 74. Contents of certificate of candidacy. -- The certificate of candidacy shall state that the person filing it is announcing his candidacy for the office stated therein and that he is eligible for said office; if for Member of the Batasang Pambansa, the province, including its component cities, highly urbanized city or district or sector which he seeks to represent; the political party to which he belongs; civil status; his date of birth; residence; his post office address for all election purposes; his profession or occupation; that he will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; that he will obey the laws, legal orders, and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted authorities; that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant to a foreign country; that the obligation assumed by his oath is assumed voluntarily, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that the facts stated in the certificate of candidacy are true to the best of his knowledge.

This provision requires that the facts stated in the certificate be true, and it is the standard against which Velasco's claim of being a registered voter is measured.

Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code provides:

Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. - A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing not later than fifteen days before the election.

This is the ground on which Panlaqui's petition rested and the authority under which the Commission acted.

Section 138 of the Omnibus Election Code provides:

Sec. 138. Jurisdiction in inclusion and exclusion cases. - The Municipal and Metropolitan Trial Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases of inclusion and exclusion of voters from the list in their respective cities or municipalities. Decisions of the Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Courts may be appealed by the aggrieved party to the Regional Trial Courts within five (5) days from receipt of notice thereof. Otherwise, said decision shall become final and executory. The regional trial court shall decide the appeal within ten (10) days from the time it is received and the decision shall become final and executory. No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained.

This provision made the Regional Trial Court's denial of Velasco's inclusion final and executory, and it is the ruling the Commission relied upon.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found the petition devoid of merit and did not sustain the claim of forum shopping as a barrier to relief.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion means a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or an exercise of power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. The Court explained that a false representation under Section 78 must pertain to a material fact, and must be a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact that would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. A candidate's status as a registered voter is such a material fact, because the Local Government Code requires it to be reflected in the certificate.

The Court stressed that the Commission did not rule on Velasco's right to vote. That question was decided by the Election Registration Board, the Municipal Trial Court, and the Regional Trial Court. The Commission merely recognized the final and executory Regional Trial Court ruling. Since Velasco knew of that ruling when he filed his certificate, his claim to be a registered voter was false, and his silence about the denial of his registration showed a deliberate concealment. The Court also noted that Velasco's appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 42 was not available to him, because a Regional Trial Court ruling in an inclusion and exclusion case is final and executory, as the appellate court itself recognized in its amended decision.

Doctrine

A certificate of candidacy may be denied due course or cancelled under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code only on the ground that a material representation required by Section 74 is false. The false representation must be material, meaning it refers to a qualification for elective office such as citizenship, residence, or status as a registered voter, and it must be deliberate, made with the intention to deceive the electorate.

Voters' inclusion and exclusion proceedings are distinct from certificate of candidacy denial and cancellation proceedings. The first concerns the right to vote and ends in a Regional Trial Court decision that is immediately final and executory under Section 138, correctible only by certiorari on grave abuse of discretion. The second concerns the right to be a candidate and is cognizable by the Commission on Elections. A final ruling in the first may be recognized by the Commission in the second without the Commission ruling on the right to vote.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the Commission's cancellation of Velasco's certificate of candidacy and the annulment of his proclamation.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a false statement on a material qualification in a certificate of candidacy, deliberately made, is ground for cancellation under Section 78, and a final judgment in a voters' inclusion case binds the Commission. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between inclusion and exclusion proceedings and certificate of candidacy proceedings, and the meaning of material misrepresentation.