G.R. No. 23892. March 23, 1925
RAMON R. PAPA, PRESIDENT OF THE PROVINCIAL COMMITTEE OF THE “PARTIDO NACIONALISTA CONSOLIDADO” OF THE CITY OF MANILA, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CIT…
MALCOLM, J.:
well worn issue in this case, as well as in a series of cases, which
election years may be expected to produce, relates to the
representation of political parties on election boards. The Municipal
Board of the City of Manila named two election inspectors and two
substitutes therefor for the Partido Democrata and one inspector and his substitute for the Partido Liberal,
for each of the municipal election precints. A Judge of First Instance
of the City of Manila, on mandamus proceedings being instituted and
heard, rendered judgment ordering the Municipal Board of the City of
Manila within two days to meet in a special session and proceed to name
for each of the election precincts of the city, two election
inspectors and a secretary and their respective substitutes, from
names proposed by the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado, and one inspector with his corresponding substitute from names proposed by the Partido Democrata,
with costs against the members of the Municipal Board. From this
judgment, the respondent Municipal Board of the City of Manila
appealed. In this instance, the Partido Liberal has been permitted to intervene in the proceedings.
The hearings before the Municipal Board of the City of Manila and
before the courts, and the deliberations of these bodies, have
disclosed a truly remarkable divergence of views, absolutely hopeless
of reconcilement. The trial judge, counsel for the appellee, and one
member of this court, who will likely state his individual opinion,
unite in holding that the votes cast at the special election in 1923
should be made the criterion in determining which political party
polled the largest number of votes, and that the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado is entitled to majority representation on the board of inspectors in the coming general elections, and the Partido Democrata
to minority representation on these election boards. At the other
extreme, stand the Municipal Board of the City of Manila, counsel for
the appellant, and possibly one member of this court, who reach the
conclusion that the Partido Democrata should be given the control of the election boards and that the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado
should be shut off from all participation on these boards. Two other
members of the court incline to the view that because of the hopeless
confusion resulting from any attempt to analyze the vote at the special
election, the court is forced to consider the vote at the last general
election and thus to grant two inspectors on each election board to the
Partido Democrata and one inspector to the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado.
Out of this state of affairs, must come some sort of a decision which
the writer will endeavor to have present the situation fairly and to
reflect the opinion of the majority.
The facts are mostly stipulated. They are: The last general elections were held in 1922. In the City of Manila, the Partido Democrata ran first, the Partido Nacionalista Colectivista second, and the Partido Nacionalista third. The Partido Liberal
also polled some votes. A special election to fill a vacancy in the
office of Senator of the Fourth District including the City of Manila,
was held on October 2, 1923. At this special election, two persons,
Juan Sumulong and Ramon J. Fernandez, filed their certificates of
candidacy. In the City of Manila, Juan Sumulong received 16,022 votes
and Ramon J. Fernandez, 19,380 votes. When the time came for the
Municipal Board of the City of Manila to name election inspectors and
poll clerks for the general election of 1925, it refused all
participation on election boards to the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado, the political legatee of the Partido Nacionalista Colectivista and the Partido Nacionalista. Instead, it provided for election boards, as above indicated, by giving majority representation to the Partido Democrata and minority representation to the Partido Liberal.
Leaving further statement of the facts for later discussion, we should
now make connection between the facts and the law. The portion of the
revised Election Law, principally to be taken under consideration, is
section 417 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Acts Nos. 2711,
3030, and 3210. As this section stood in Act No. 3030, before its last
amendment, and as it was enforced during the general elections of 1922
and the special election of 1923, it reads in part:
“It
shall be the duty of the municipal council in each municipality wherein
a general election is to be held to appoint, ninety days immediately
prior to the date of such general election, three inspectors of
election and one poll clerk, with their respective substitutes, for
each election precinct therein, who shall hold office for three years
or until their successors shall have taken charge of the same. The date
of the meeting of the municipal council for the appointment of
inspectors shall be published at least fifteen days in advance of such
meeting, by the town crier and other means o£ publication. Should there
be in such municipality one or more political parties or branches or
fractions thereof, or political groups, then two of said inspectors and
two substitutes for the same shall belong to the party which polled the
largest number of votes in said municipality at such preceding election
and the other inspector and his substitute shall belong to the party,
branch or fraction thereof, or political group which polled the next
largest number of votes at said election.”
Pursuant to the terminology of the law above quoted, election
inspectors were chosen on the basis of the results of the general
elections. The phrase “at such preceding election” referred back to the
phrase “general election.” If these provisions had remained unchanged,
there could exist no doubt that election inspectors for the general
election in 1925 would be chosen on the basis of the general election
in 1922, which would mean two election inspectors for each precinct of
the City of Manila for the Partido Democrata and one election inspector for each precinct for the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado.
At the last session of the Philippine Legislature, however, it again
amended section 417 by the enactment of Act No. 3210 by changing the
phrase “at such preceding election” to the phrase “at the next
preceding election.” Possibly the law is still susceptible to the
interpretation that “the next preceding election” has relation with the
“general election” mentioned in the beginning of the section. But
obviously, the law was amended for some purpose. As the law now exists,
a special election is as much a “preceding election” as a general
election. This may be unfortunate, for a special election is an
election not regularly held to supply a vacancy in a particular office
before the expiration of the full term for which the incumbent was
elected, and thus does not as well echo the political sentiment of the
electorate as does a general election. Without, however, entering into
this phase of the question and without attempting to substitute our
opinion of what is best for the opinion of the Legislature, we must
give literal application to the phrase “next preceding election” and
permit it to cover a preceding election, whether general or special.
Conceding, therefore, that under the law as last amended, the next
preceding election to the approaching election of 1925 is the special
election of 1923, then the question becomes one of determining which
political party polled the largest number of votes in the City of
Manila at the special election and which political party polled the
next largest number of votes at said election. This brings us again to
look at certain combined phases of law and fact.
To begin
with, section 404 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Act No.
3030, provides that “no person shall be eligible for the office of
senator * * * unless, within the time fixed by law, he shall file a
duly verified certificate of candidacy.” In said certificate, the
candidate must state, among other things, “the name of the political
party to which the candidate belongs, or that he belongs to none, if
such be the case.”
In the certificate of candidacy of Juan Sumulong, he declared that “Yo, Juan Sumulong, anuncio y permito que se anuncie mi candidatura para el cargo de Senador por el 4.º Distrito Senatorial * * *. Que pertenezco y soy el candidato oficial del Partido Democrata, para el referido cargo de Senador de dicho Distrito Senatorial.”
(I, Juan Sumulong, announce and permit the announcement of my candidacy
for the office of Senator for the 4th Senatorial District * * *. That I
pertain to, and am the official candidate of the Partido Democrata for the office of Senator of said Senatorial District.) In the certificate of candidacy of Ramon J. Fernandez, he stated that “Yo,
Ramon Fernandez, declaro que permito que se anuncie mi candidatura para
el cargo de Senador del Cuarto Distrito; * * * que soy elegible para el
mencionado cargo de Senador y no pertenezco por ahora a ningun partido
politico.” (I, Ramon Fernandez, declare that I permit my candidacy
to be announced for the office of Senator for the Fourth District; * *
* that I am eligible for the above mentioned office of Senator, and do
not belong at present to any political party.” Senator Fernandez was
not called as a witness during the trial of this case, but on the
witness stand, Senator Vicente de Vera, general secretary of the Partido Colectivista during the campaign of the special election and now the secretary-treasurer of the executive committee of the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado in response to the question “Y, segun su conocimiento personal, ¿no ha pertenecido nunca a ningun partido politico o grupo politico en Manila?”
(And according to your personal knowledge, he has never belonged to any
political party or political group in Manila?), referring to Senator
Fernandez, answered “No.” On the contrary, it appears that Senator
Fernandez was hailed as the candidate of “Juan de la Cruz” and the
candidate of the “People.” He was, however, the choice of the coalition
formed by the Partido Colectivista and the Partido Nacionalista
and received the backing of the leaders of these parties throughout the
campaign. According to the testimony of Senator De Vera, the triumph of
Senator Fernandez in Manila was brought about by the favor accorded him
by the voters pertaining to the Partido Colectivista, the Partido Nacionalista, the Partido Liberal, and the Partido Democrata, and other independent electors.
With this the situation, it is questionable if the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado
can now claim a monopoly of the benefits arising from an election when
the successful candidate ran as an independent. The certificate of
candidacy of Ramon J. Fernandez permitted the placing of his name
before the electorate. It was in the nature of a formal manifestation
to the whole world of his political creed or lack of political creed.
It constituted an authorized badge which the voter could scrutinize
before casting his ballot. The electors voted for Ramon J. Fernandez,
Independent. They did not vote for Ramon J. Fernandez, Colectivista, Nacionalista, Liberal, or Democrata.
It would be hard to say whether of the 19,380 votes received by Senator
Fernandez, 16,023 thereof, or one more than was received by his
opponent, came to him on account of the backing of the Partido Colectivista and the Partido Nacionalista, or whether such support only accounted for 16,021 votes, or one less than was received by his opponent.
It has been the practice of this court to hold that a person who does
not belong to any political party, but is only an independent
candidate, has no right to recommend persons as election inspectors.
The statute, providing that election inspectors shall be selected from
the leading political parties, discloses a legislative intent to
preserve and protect party organization. (Lucero vs. Municipal Council of Lupao, No. 15438; Lucero vs. Municipal Council of Quezon, No. 15439; Lucero vs. Municipal Council of Talavera, No. 15440; Lucero vs. Municipal Council of Rizal, No. 15442; Lucero vs. Municipal Council of Muñoz, No. 15444; Lucero vs. Municipal Council of Santo Domingo, No. 15445;[*] and Villamor, Tratado de Elecciones,
p. 203.) This court has likewise held in at least two decisions and the
same has been the judgment of a member of this court, Justice Villamor,
in his well-known work on Elections, that “for the proper and correct
weighing of the evidence that determines which of the political parties
was victorious in the last election, and the classification of the
voters who cast the votes, the political filiation and color of the
candidate nominated and voted for must be taken into account. Only the
votes cast in favor of the official candidates of a party, being
homogeneous, can be computed in the name and in favor of the party to
which said candidates voted for belonged * * *. The political filiation
and color of the candidate voted for, which determine those of his
voters, must be judged and considered as of the date of the election
and not afterwards * * *.” (Bustos vs. Municipal Council of Masantol, No. 15310; Galian and Montenegro vs. Municipal Board of Manila, No. 15324;[*] Villamor, Tratado de Elecciones, third edition, pp. 206, 207.) We would not be warranted in departing from the doctrines previously announced in our decisions.
It results, therefore, that while the 16,022 votes given to Juan
Sumulong in the City of Manila as the official candidate of the Partido Democrata for the position of Senator can be counted in favor of the Partido Democrata,
not all at least of the 19,380 votes received by Ramon J. Fernandez as
a candidate who did “not belong at present to any political party” can
be counted in favor of the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado, the successor of the Partido Nacionalista Colectivista and the Partido Nacionalista. On the basis of the results in the special election of 1923, in relation with the general election of 1922, the Partido Democrata must still be considered the majority party in the City of Manila and the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado, the minority party. As for the Partido Liberal,
no serious consideration can be given to its claims, since its failure
to present a complete ticket in 1922, and since its expression of
sympathy and adhesion to the cause of the resigning members of the
Council of State, and the Mayor of the City of Manila, and its
felicitations of Ramon J. Fernandez on his acceptance of candidacy for
the position of Senator, hardly disclose a showing worthy of comparison
with its competitors in the political field.
The trial judge
gave the poll clerk in each election precinct to the party having the
largest number of votes. By implication, although not expressly, he
suggested that the poll clerk should necessarily belong to the majority
party. His Honor may have been induced to take this position by some
loose language appearing in our decisions. It will be noted, however,
that while the law is specific in providing that election inspectors
shall belong to the two leading parties, it is silent as to the
political filiation of poll clerks. It must, therefore, be assumed that
the appointment of poll clerks rests entirely within the discretion of
the municipal council or the Municipal Board. Poll clerks may belong to
any political party or to no party at all. (See Laurel, The Election Law, Annotated, p. 50.)
The whole purpose of the much amended Election Law is to provide for
clean elections. The courts will assist in accomplishing this purpose
just in so far as they make themselves the instruments of the public
welfare. As a practical observation, it is of record and is moreover
contemporaneous history that the two leading parties in the Philippines
are the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado and the Partido Democrata. It is also a safe deduction that in the City of Manila, the Partido Democrata has for some years and up to the present “been the dominant political party, and the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado,
under other forms, the party or parties of the opposition. By giving to
each of these political parties representation on election boards,
honesty in the conduct of the election will be better assured. To the
courts will go the satisfaction of having aided in this much desired
result.
A majority of the court, for varying reasons, concur
in this—that the judgment appealed from must be reversed, and upon the
petitioner-appellee amending his complaint to make it accord with our
findings, judgment shall issue directing the Municipal Board of the
City of Manila immediately after receipt of notice to convene and to
name one election inspector and one substitute for each election
precinct in the City of Manila from the names submitted by the
legitimate representative or representatives of the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado, the appointments heretofore made by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila of election inspectors for the Partido Democrata,
and of poll clerks, to remain undisturbed. No costs shall be allowed in
either instance. Without awaiting the expiration of the customary
fifteen-day period, the record will be remanded at once to the court
below. It is so ordered.
Johnson, Ostrand, and Johns, JJ., concur.
[*] Not reported.
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING
VILLAMOR, J.:
I believe it important, for the due consideration of this case, to
state at the outset the facts, such as were proven in the court below.
On the day of the hearing the attorneys for both parties submitted to the court the following stipulation of facts:
“1.
That at the general elections of 1922, the ‘Democrata’ Party obtained
the majority of the votes cast in the City of Manila, the ‘Nacionalista
Colectivista’ Party, the next highest number of votes and the
‘Nacionalista’ Party, the lowest.“2. That the election
that followed said general elections in the City of Manila was a
special election for the office of Senator for the Fourth District, and
which election was held on October 2, 1923, and that since then no
other election was held in the City of Manila; and that the next
elections, which will be general elections, will be held on June 2,
1925.“3. That in said special election for Senator for
the Fourth Senatorial District only two candidates presented
themselves, Juan Sumulong, as the official candidate of the ‘Democrata’
Party, who filed his certificate of candidacy prescribed by the law,
Exhibit 1 of the answer; and the other candidate, who presented himself
in said election, was Ramon J. Fernandez, who also filed his
certificate of candidacy and declaration as required by the law,
Exhibit 2 of the answer.“4. That the number of votes
obtained by Mr. Juan Sumulong in said special election for Senator in
the City of Manila was 16,022 and the number of votes obtained by Mr.
Ramon J. Fernandez in said election in Manila was 19,380, according to
Exhibit 3.“5. That on March 4, 1925, the respondent
Municipal Board of Manila met for the purpose of appointing the
election inspectors and substitutes and secretaries of election for the
141 precincts of the City of Manila, who will act in the next general
elections, and in said session there was submitted to said Municipal
Board by the ‘Partido Nacionalista Consolidado’ a list of the names of
persons pertaining to said party, whom said party recommended for their
appointment as inspectors, substitute inspectors and secretaries in
representation of said party, according to Exhibit 4, without prejudice
to the correctness of this Exhibit 4 being verified by the respondent.“6.
That the ‘Democrata’ Party and the ‘Liberal’ Party have presented their
respective lists of inspectors with their respective substitutes and
secretaries of election to said Municipal Board in the aforesaid
meeting held March 4, 1925, which proposals will be marked Exhibits 5
and 6 as soon as the same are brought in by the Secretary of the
Municipal Board.“7. That the respondent Municipal
Board at the meeting held March 4, 1925, has appointed two inspectors
with their two substitutes, pertaining to the ‘Democrata’ Party for
each of the electoral precincts of Manila, and one inspector with his
substitute pertaining to the ‘Liberal’ Party for each of the electoral
precincts of Manila.“8. It is likewise stipulated as a
fact that none of those proposed by the ‘Nacionalista Consolidado’
Party was appointed up to the present time by the Municipal Board for
the offices of inspectors and substitutes in any of the precincts of
the City of Manila.“9. It is also stipulated as a fact
that the ‘Liberal’ Party fought in the elections held in the City of
Manila on June 6, 1922, with Mr. Prudencio Remigio as candidate for
representative and the proper number of city councilors in his ticket,
the ‘Nacionalista-Colectivista’ and ‘Nacionalista’ parties as well as
the ‘Democrata’, having also fought in said general elections.”
Other facts upon which the contending attorneys could not come to an agreement, and evidence was introduced, are as follows:
“First.
That in the special elections of October 2, 1923, the ‘Nacionalista’
Party known also as ‘Unipersonalista’ and the ‘Colectivista’ Party, two
fractions of the ‘Gran Partido Nacionalista,’ coalesced and fought as
Coalition Party in those elections and filed an application for a
mandamus against the Municipal Board of the City of Manila for the
purpose of compelling said Board to appoint the substitute inspectors
that were lacking, from the list of names presented to said Municipal
Board for the purpose; and that in their appearance and answer the
attorneys for the respondent Board stated as one of their special
defenses the following: ‘7. That in the special elections to be held in
the 4th Senatorial District on October 2, 1923, no more than two
candidates are now running for election: Juan Sumulong, candidate
nominated by the “Democrata” Party and formally affiliated to said
party, and Ramon J. Fernandez nominated by a few politicians, now the
leaders of the “Coalicion Nacionalista-Colectivista,” who at present
does not belong to any political party, according to his certificate of
candidacy, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3;’ that after
a hearing upon said application, a decision was rendered, ordering the
issuance of the mandamus prayed for, compelling the members of the
respondent Board to fill the vacancies in the offices of election
inspectors in such a manner that in those electoral precincts wherein
there are vacancies the three parties, ‘Nacionalista,’ ‘Colectivista’
and ‘Democrata’ shall have their corresponding inspectors; which
decision was later taken on appeal to the Supreme Court of these
Islands and affirmed by said court. (See case No. 24893 of this court marked Exhibit A.)“Second.
That in the Cabinet crisis that took place on account of the Conley
case and in which the City Mayor, Mr. Ramon J. Fernandez, also
presented his resignation, the leaders of the ‘Unipersonalista’ and
‘Colectivista’ parties agreed to coalesce and fight together in those
special elections, adopting the Conley case as a national issue, and
fought against the ‘Democrata Party’ which, in the opinion of those
leaders of the two fractions of the ‘Gran Partido Nacionalista,’
defended the acts of the Governor-General; that considering that the
protest of the Filipino people against the acts of the
Governor-General, which they considered injurious to their rights and
legitimate aspirations, was represented in the ex-Mayor, Mr. Ramon J.
Fernandez, the aforesaid leaders proclaimed him to be identified with
the people, that is, Juan de la Cruz, and for this reason he was
proclaimed candidate of Juan de la Cruz, that is to say, that he
represented in his person the rights and aspirations of the Filipino
people which they considered to have been trampled upon.“Third.
That upon these considerations those two fractions of the ‘Gran Partido
Nacionalista’ coalesced, as above stated, and nominated as their
official candidate, Mr. Ramon J. Fernandez, who, although he did not
belong to any political party, as he frankly stated in his certificate
of candidacy Exhibit 2, was, nevertheless, the one best representing
the grievances which it was believed were inflicted upon the Filipino
people, that is to say, Juan de la Cruz, which have given rise to that
crisis in which all the Secretaries of Departments and the Mayor of the
City of Manila presented their resignation to the Honorable
Governor-General.“Fourth. That once Mr. Ramon J.
Fernandez was nominated by the so-called Coalition Party for the vacant
office of Senator for the Fourth District, a commission composed of
various members of said party, among whom were Messrs. Quezon, Osmeña,
and Vicente de Vera, repaired to the house of Mr. Fernandez to notify
him of his nomination and request him to accept it, Mr. Quezon having
then delivered a speech which was answered by Mr. Ramon J. Fernandez,
accepting the nomination made in his favor, thus agreeing, therefore,
to be the official candidate of the coalesced ‘Nacionalista’
(‘Unipersonalista’) and ‘Colectivista’ parties. (See speeches published in newspapers, Exhibit 6.)“Fifth.
That, as above stated, there were in those elections no more than two
candidates, Messrs. Fernandez and Sumulong, and in the meetings and
articles published in the papers on those days it can be verified that
the members of the so-called Coalition Party, who supported Ramon J.
Fernandez, attacked the ‘Democrata’ Party, and those of the latter
attacked, in turn, the Coalition Party; and the same thing happened not
only in the City of Manila, but also in the provinces and towns
included in the Fourth Senatorial District; and when Mr. Ramon J.
Fernandez came out victorious over Mr. Juan Sumulong, the Coalition
Party made a big parade celebrating that victory with great rejoice.” (See articles published in newspapers regarding these facts.)
The Honorable Vicente Nepomuceno, judge, who tried this case in the
first instance, in drawing his conclusions from the evidence presented
by the parties, says:
“From the
evidence above set forth it follows that although he did not belong to
any political party, yet Mr. Ramon J. Fernandez accepted the nomination
made in his favor by the so-called Coalition Party, and consequently
there, is no doubt that in fact and before the public, Mr. Ramon J.
Fernandez was the candidate of the ‘Nacionalista’ (‘Unipersonalista’)
and ‘Colectivista’ parties coalesced; and this fact was known by the
members of the ‘Democrata’ Party, and for the very reason that they
knew it, they always attacked the ‘Gran Partido Nacionalista’ and the
two fractions into which it was divided and the so-called Coalition
Party, as may be verified from the articles published in the local
newspapers.“It having been proved that Don Ramon J.
Fernandez, the coalition candidate, won the election over his
adversary, Don Juan Sumulong, the victory of Mr. Fernandez in the final
analysis is the victory of the political party that had supported him;
because if Mr. Fernandez won the election, his victory is not due to
his being independent or unaffiliated to any political party, but to
the large number of votes that he obtained over his opponent, thanks to
the efficient and undismayed support that he received from the
coalition party, that is, from the two fractions of the Gran Partido Nacionalista, which then united to oppose the Partido Democrata which was considered their common enemy.“The
evidence has shown that the two factions known as ‘Nacionalista
(Unipersonalista)’ and ‘Colectivista’ which then united under the name
of ‘Partido de Coalicion’ have come to be reunited under the name of ‘Partido Nacionalista Consolidado,’ as witnessed from the testimony of Mr. Vicente de Vera and the platform Exhibit B of the said Partido Consolidado.“If
the parties thus coalited polled the largest number of votes for Don
Ramon J. Fernandez and if the coalited parties are the same that have
now united under the name of Partido Nacionalista Consolidado,
it is evident that the latter consolidated party has subrogated itself
to the rights of the coalition party composed of the ‘Nacionalista’ and
‘Colectivista’ parties.”
Applying the
provisions of section 5 of Act No. 3210 to the facts of the instant
case, the trial court held that the mandamus sued out by the chairman
of the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado should issue, and
indeed ordered the Municipal Board of the City of Manila and each and
every one of its members to meet within two days after notice of the
said judgment, and proceed to appoint for each and every election
precinct of the City of Manila two election inspectors and a secretary
and their substitutes belonging to the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado, and one inspector with the necessary substitute of the Partido Democrata,
the names of whom should be taken from the list submitted to the board
by the representatives of the said political parties, and should they
have been already appointed not in accordance with that decision, that
they proceed immediately to reverse the same and to make new
appointments in accordance therewith, and lastly, costs should be taxed
against the members of the Municipal Board who were present at the
session of March 4, 1925, and who took part in and approved the
resolution that gave rise to the writ of mandamus herein.
From this judgment, the Municipal Board of Manila appealed. Counsel for
appellant, after assigning six errors in his brief, summarizes the
different arguments set forth by him in the following propositions:
- That the votes cast in favor of the “independent” candidate Don Ramon J. Fernandez cannot be credited to any political party.
- That the Partido Democrata
is the only political party that obtained a majority of votes in Manila
in the last general election held June 6,1922, and was the only
political party that had any candidate in the last special election
held October 2, 1923. - That the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado is a new party organized and founded many months after the last general and special elections held in the City of Manila.
The dispositive part of the majority opinion is as follows:
“A
majority of the court, for varying reasons, concur in this—that the
judgment appealed from must be reversed, and upon the
petitioner-appellee amending his complaint to make it accord with our
findings, judgment shall issue directing the Municipal Board of the
City of Manila immediately after receipt of notice to convene and to
name one election inspector and one substitute for each election
precinct in the City of Manila from the names submitted by the
legitimate representative or representatives of the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado, the appointments heretofore made by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila of election inspectors for the Partido Democrata,
and of poll clerks, to remain undisturbed. No costs shall be allowed in
either instance. Without awaiting the expiration of the customary
fifteen-day period, the record will be remanded at once to the court
below. It is so ordered.”
For the reasons stated on page 9 (p. 703, supra) of the said decision, I am in accord with the majority opinion in so far as it rejects the contention of the Partido Liberal,
intervenor in this case. I also agree with the majority decision,
holding that the appointment of poll clerks is within the discretion of
the Municipal Council or Municipal Board. But I regret to have to
disagree with the worthy opinion of the majority confirming the
appointments made by the Municipal Board of the City of Manila of the
election inspectors and their substitutes from the list of the Partido Democrata,
thus reversing the judgment appealed from, which ordered the Municipal
Board of the City of Manila to appoint an election inspector and his
substitute for each of the election precincts of the City of Manila
from the names submitted by the legal representatives of the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado.
Under the premises resulting from the evidence submitted, I have very little to add to justify this humble opinion of mine.
Bearing in mind the findings of facts of the trial court, which, in
passing, were not held erroneous by the majority of this court, it
seems to me that its finding of law is inescapable—that two inspectors
and their substitutes must belong to the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado, and that one inspector and one substitute must belong to the Partido Democrata in each and every precinct of the City of Manila.
Numerous cases are cited by this court, holding that an independent
candidate has no right to be represented in the election board (Lucero vs. Municipal Council of Quezon, R. G. No. 15439)[*]; that an independent candidate has no right to recommend appointment of election officers (Lucero vs. Municipal Council of Lupao, R. G. No. 15438)[*]; that a political bloc is not recognized as a political party (Lucero vs. Municipal Council of Talavera, R. G. No. 15440)[*]; that the independent party to which a candidate belongs is not a political party and has no right of representation (Lucero vs. Municipal Council of Rizal, R. G. No. 15442)[*];
and that a person not representing any political party and who is an
independent candidate has no right to recommend anybody for appointment
as election inspector (Lucero vs. Municipal Council of Muñoz, R. G. No. 15444; Lucero vs. Municipal Council of Santo Domingo, R. G, No. 15445).[*]
I am in full accord with the doctrines enunciated in the above
mentioned cases, but upon examination, it will be noted that in the
same cases, the question was of an independent candidate pretending to
be represented in the election board or of an independent political
group pretending to have the same right in regard to the appointment of
inspectors of election.
In my opinion, an independent
candidate is he who presents himself to the electorate alone supported
probably by a group of persons adhering to him; or he who, belonging to
a political party, goes into the political arena without having been
nominated by his party. In these cases, the doctrines laid down by this
court are clear and to the point that neither the independent candidate
nor the independent political bloc have a right to the appointment of
election inspectors of their color or group. The case that we now have
before us presents in my opinion very different characteristics which
do not permit of the application of the jurisprudence that we have
cited. In the instant case, there is no independent candidate claiming
for the appointment of an election inspector nor an independent
political group claiming that right. The petitioner-appellee is Don
Ramon R. Papa, chairman of the provincial committee of the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado for the City of Manila and he is the one who wants the appointment of two election inspectors and their substitutes for the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado;
and this party which has taken the place of the Coalition Nationalists
which has supported and carried the 1923 election for its candidate
Ramon J. Fernandez is the one for which the appointment of the election
inspectors is now prayed for. According to the evidence, the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado has substituted itself to the fractions of Gran Partido Nacionalista, that is, the Partido Nacionalista Unipersonalista and Partido Nacionalista Colectivista,
which as has been said united to support and work for the election of
their candidate Ramon J. Fernandez. That said fractions or branches of
the Gran Partido Nacionalista were duly organized for the
1923 election, as political parties, is clear from the evidence and
that they were not simply political groups, that is, a number of
persons brought together for electoral purposes according to the
definition of section 11 of Act No. 3030, amending section 417 of the
Election Law.
It is true that the candidate Ramon J.
Fernandez in his certificate of candidacy stated that he did not belong
to any political party, but this does not destroy the proven fact that
he (Ramon J. Fernandez) was nominated as the candidate of the two
branches of the Gran Partido Nacionalista, then known as the
Coalition Party, and that this party worked and supported his candidacy
against Don Juan Sumulong, the candidate of the opposition or of the Partido Democrata;
neither does it destroy the proven fact that Ramon J. Fernandez
accepted the nomination offered to him by the Coalition Party. It is
equally true that the counsel for the appellant Municipal Board
excepted to the order of the court admitting in evidence the proof of
the petitioner to the effect that the Coalition Party, predecessor of
the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado, had nominated as its
candidate Don Ramon J. Fernandez, that party publicly campaigned and
supported his candidacy, that it celebrated afterwards his victory as
that of the Coalition Party. But the majority of this court does not
discuss this phase of the question which induces the belief that the
orders of the trial court were right, especially when the majority
pauses to consider the testimony to this effect of the witness of the
petitioner.
It is said that it is not possible to segregate the votes of the Nacionalistas (Unipersonalistas and Colectivistas)
that caused the victory of their candidate Ramon J. Fernandez in the
1923 election, because according to the witness D. Vicente de Vera, it
seems that democratas and liberales voters also cast
their votes for Mr. Fernandez. But such difficulty should not be
considered in deciding this case. In the first place, because Mr. De
Vera on page 31 of the stenographic notes on cross-examination by
appellant’s counsel said:
“Q. But don’t you know of your knowledge that he was voted for by the electors of the above mentioned parties (Nacionalistas, Democratas and Liberales.)?—A.
You know very well that that is impossible in view of the secrecy in
voting imposed by the law and I cannot affirm in a positive manner that
such and such voter cast his ballot for such and such candidate. I
cannot swear to that. I know that you are a democrata, but who knows that you voted for Mr. Fernandez.“Q.
So that all the testimony given by you as to the electors who voted or
cast their ballots for Mr. Fernandez is a mere conjecture and
conclusion gathered from circumstances of your own knowledge and not
from facts that you personally know? A. What I say is this: That our
candidate Don Ramon J. Fernandez of the Partido Nacionalista and of the Partido Colectivista, then known as the Coalition Party, has won in the election.”
Secondly, because according to the opinion of the majority of this court, the contention of the Partido Liberal
does not deserve any serious consideration, and lastly, because there
is a strong presumption that the voters who cast their ballots for a
candidate nominated by a political party are either affiliated to that
party or simply sympathized with its political program. Furthermore, if
for one reason or another, it is not possible to determine the number
of votes of the Coalition Party that made possible the victory of their
candidate Ramon J. Fernandez, then, under what legal provision is the Partido Consolidado,
successor of the Coalition Party, now given an election inspector and a
substitute in all the election precincts of the City of Manila? If the
returns of the 1922 election are to be considered, there is a violation
of section 5 of Act No. 321Q, according to which the election of 1923,
just immediately preceding the 1925 election, must serve as the basis
for determining the proportion of inspectors that should be allotted to
each political party that may have polled the largest number of votes
in the preceding election, as admitted in the decision of this court.
If in accordance with the evidence, the Coalition Party intervened in
the 1923 election and elected its candidate for senator Don Ramon J.
Fernandez, if Don Ramon J. Fernandez, candidate of the Coalition Party,
polled 19,380 votes in the City of Manila as against 16,022, obtained
by Don Juan Sumulong, the candidate of the Partido Democrata; if the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado
with regard to the appointment of election inspectors has the same
rights as its predecessor (the Coalition Party) would have had, it is
evident in my opinion that the trial court decided this case in
accordance with law by ordering the Municipal Board of the City of
Manila to appoint two election inspectors and two substitutes for each
and every precinct of the City of Manila from the list recommended by
the legal representatives of the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado. As to this point, I hold that the decision appealed from should be affirmed.
[*] Not reported.
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING
ROMUALDEZ, J.:
I
believe it to have been sufficiently shown that Mr. Ramon J. Fernandez,
although he did not belong to any political party, was nominated by the
coalesced Nacionalista (Unipersonalista) and Colectivista parties as their candidate for Senator in the special elections of the year 1923; that Mr. Juan Sumulong was nominated by the Democrata Party as its candidate for Senator in said elections; that the two parties Nacionalista and Colectivista were merged afterwards under the name of Partido Nacionalista Consolidado,
which is the petitioner in this proceeding. As said candidate, Mr.
Fernandez, is the one who triumphed in said special elections, which
are the ones immediately preceding the general elections to which the
effects of this petition are directed, it results that the party which
obtained the highest number of votes in its candidate for Senator in
the City of Manila in the immediately preceding elections is the Nacionalista Consolidado, and the party obtaining the next lower place, the Democrata Party. Therefore, I believe that the Partido Nacionalista Consolidado must have two inspectors and the Democrata Party one, with their respective substitutes. In other respects I agree with the majority.