EN BANC
|
JAMELA SALIC MARUHOM, Petitioner, - versus - COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and MOHAMMADALI
“Mericano” A. ABINAL, Respondents. |
|
G.
R. No. 179430 Present: PUNO,
C.J., QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO, CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, and BERSAMIN, JJ. Promulgated: July
27, 2009 |
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
CHICO-NAZARIO,
J.:
Before
Us is a Petition for Certiorari[1]
with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction assailing the Resolution[2]
dated 21 August 2007 of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc
and Resolution[3] dated 8
May 2007 of the COMELEC First Division, both pertaining to SPA No. 07-093.
The
facts gathered from the records are as follows:
Petitioner
Jamela Salic Maruhom (Maruhom) and private respondent Mohammadali “Mericano” A.
Abinal (Abinal) were mayoralty candidates in the
On
1 April 2007, Abinal filed before the COMELEC a Petition for Disqualification
and to Deny Due Course to or Cancel the Certificate of Candidacy under Section
78 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 881,[4]
otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (OEC),[5]
against Maruhom, which was docketed as SPA No. 07-093. Abinal alleged that Maruhom
was a double registrant, being a registered voter in Precinct No. 0208A,
Barangay Panggao Saduc,
Abinal
also averred that Maruhom made false material representations in her
registrations in Marawi and Marantao.[7] Maruhom stated in her Marawi registration
that: (1) she was “Jamela H. Salic Maruhom”; (2) she was born on 5 April 1960;
(3) she was born in Marawi; and (4) she had resided in Marawi for 43
years. On the other hand, Maruhom
indicated in her Marantao registration that: (1) she was “Hadja Jamelah Salic
Abani”; (2) she was born on 3 September 1960; (3) she was born in Marantao; and
(4) she had resided in Marantao for 42 years.[8]
Abinal
further claimed that Maruhom also made false material representations in her
COC. Maruhom wrote in her Marantao registration[9]
that she was born on
Abinal
asserted that the aforementioned false material representations made by Maruhom
were valid grounds for denying due course to, or cancellation of, the latter’s
COC under Section 78 of the OEC.[11]
Maruhom
filed before the COMELEC an Answer with Motion to Dismiss SPA No. 07-093
contending that she was qualified to run as municipal mayor of Marantao, as she
had all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided by
law. A candidate could only be
disqualified for a ground provided by law, and there was no law declaring
double registration as a ground for disqualification. Maruhom also insisted that she did not make
false material representations in her COC, because her complete name was
“Salic, Jamelah, Abani, Mama, Esmail, Maruhom.” Maruhom explained that “Salic”
was her father’s surname; “Jamelah” was her first name; that “Abani, Mama,
Esmail” were her paternal and maternal grandparents’ names; and “Maruhom” was
her husband’s surname. Hence, Maruhom
asked the COMELEC to dismiss Abinal’s Petition in SPA No. 07-093.[12]
After
submission of the parties’ Position Papers and Memoranda, the COMELEC First
Division issued a Resolution in SPA No. 07-093 on
Maruhom
filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Meanwhile,
the
On
Aggrieved,
Maruhom filed the instant Petition for Certiorari, under Rule 64 of the
Revised Rules of Court, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of
COMELEC, based on the following grounds:
I.
THE COMELEC HAS NO JURISDICTION TO
DECLARE NULL AND VOID THE REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONER AS A REGISTERED VOTER
OF MARANTAO, LANAO DEL SUR IN THE MAY 14, 2007 ELECTIONS;
II.
THE COMELEC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DECLARED THE PETITIONER AS
A DOUBLE REGISTRANT.[17]
The
Petition at bar has no merit.
Maruhom
challenges in her Petition the jurisdiction of the COMELEC in declaring her registration
in Marantao void. She asserts that
Section 2, Article IX(c) of the Constitution prohibits the COMELEC from
assuming jurisdiction or deciding issues involving the right to vote. Section 33 of Republic Act No. 8189, or the
Voter’s Registration Act of 1996 (VRA), confers upon the Municipal Trial Courts
(MTCs) and Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs) original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all cases of inclusion and exclusion of voters in their
respective cities or municipalities.
Maruhom argues that the validity of her registration in Marantao can
only be directly challenged in a petition for exclusion filed with the MTC of
Marantao, and cannot be collaterally attacked in the Petition for
Disqualification and to Deny Due Course to or Cancel the Certificate of
Candidacy filed by Abinal before the COMELEC.
Maruhom further contends that the reliance by COMELEC on its “broad
plenary powers to enforce and administer all laws relating to election” is
baseless in light of the aforementioned Section 33 of the VRA. The Resolution dated 8 May 2007 of the
COMELEC First Division and Resolution dated 21 August 2007 of the COMELEC En
Banc amount to judicial legislation, since the COMELEC has no authority to
prescribe what the law does not provide, its functions not being legislative.[18]
Maruhom,
whether intentionally or inadvertently, is muddling the issues in this
case. The present case is not about her
being denied her right to register as a voter, but is all about her making
false material representations in her COC, which would warrant the cancellation
of the same.
Abinal’s
Petition in SPA No. 07-093 primarily prays that the COMELEC deny due course to
or cancel Maruhom’s COC under Section 78 of the OEC, alleging that Maruhom made
false material representations in her COC.
Under
Section 78 of the OEC, a false representation of material fact in the COC is a
ground for the denial or cancellation of the COC. The false representation must pertain to a
material fact that affects the right of the candidate to run for the election
for which he filed his COC. Such
material fact refers to a candidate’s eligibility or qualification for
elective office like citizenship, residence or status as a registered voter.[19] Aside from the requirement of materiality,
the false representation must consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead,
misinform, or hide a fact that would otherwise render a candidate
ineligible. In other words, it must be
made with the intention to deceive the electorate as to the would-be
candidate’s qualifications for public office.[20]
It is settled that the COMELEC has
jurisdiction over a petition filed under Section 78 of the OEC.[21] In the exercise of such jurisdiction, it is
within the competence of the COMELEC to determine whether false representation
as to material facts was made in the COC.[22]
If
the candidate states a material representation in the COC that is false, the
COMELEC is empowered to deny due course to or cancel the COC. The person whose COC is denied due course or
cancelled under Section 78 of the OEC is not treated as a candidate at all, as
if such person never filed a COC.[23]
Evidence
on record supports the following facts: Maruhom registered as a voter in Marawi
on 26 July 2003;[24] only
three days after, on 29 July 2003, Maruhom again registered as a voter in
Marantao, without first canceling her registeration in Marawi;[25] and
on 28 March 2007, Maruhom filed her COC declaring that she was a registered
voter in Marantao and eligible to run as a candidate for the position of mayor
of said municipality.[26]
Given
Maruhom’s double registration in Marawi and Marantao, then COMELEC should
determine which registration was valid and which one was null. COMELEC could not consider both registrations
valid because it would then give rise to the anomalous situation where Maruhom
could vote in two precincts at the same time.
This would be a dangerous precedent that would open the floodgates to
massive election cheating and fraud. This
was precisely the situation that the COMELEC intended to address when it issued
its Minute Resolution No. 00-1513 on
Following
the clear and plain words of Minute Resolution No. 00-1513, therefore,
Maruhom’s earlier registration in Marawi is deemed valid, while her subsequent
registration in Marantao is void ab initio. Accordingly, Maruhom cannot be considered a
registered voter in Marantao and, thus, she made a false representation in her
COC when she claimed to be one.
Maruhom’s
voter registration constitutes a material fact because it affects her
eligibility to be elected as municipal mayor of Marantao. Section 39(a) of Republic Act No. 7160,
otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991,[27]
requires that an elective local official must be, among other things, a registered
voter in the barangay, municipality,
city or province where he intends to be elected.
Several
circumstances convince us that Maruhom was aware that she had a subsisting
registration in Marawi and deliberately attempted to conceal said fact, which
would have rendered her ineligible to run as mayoralty candidate in
Marantao. Before filing her COC, Maruhom
requested the COMELEC to cancel her Marawi registration.[28] It is undisputed that by the time Maruhom
filed her COC, the COMELEC had not yet acted on her request for cancellation of
her Marawi registration. Despite knowing
that her request for cancellation of her Marawi registration was still pending
before the COMELEC, Maruhom proceeded to declare, under oath, in her COC, that
she was a registered voter in Marantao and that she was eligible to run for the
position of mayor of said municipality.
There is no showing that Maruhom informed or advised the election
officer of Marantao of her subsisting Marawi registration and her pending
request for cancellation of the same.
Evidently, Maruhom would much rather sweep the fact of her Marawi
registration under the carpet, than deal with the complications arising from
it, which may very well put in jeopardy her intention to run for mayor of
Marantao.
Indeed,
Maruhom made false material representations in her COC that she was a
registered voter in Marantao and that she was eligible to be a mayoralty
candidate in said municipality.
Maruhom’s insistence that only the MTC has jurisdiction to rule on her voter registration is specious. It must be underscored that in addition to the express jurisdiction of COMELEC over petitions for cancellation of COCs, on the ground of false material representations, under Section 78 of the OEC, the Constitution also extends to COMELEC all the necessary and incidental powers for it to achieve the holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.[29] The determination, therefore, made by the COMELEC that Maruhom’s Marawi registration is valid, while her Marantao registration is void, is only in accord with its explicit jurisdiction, or at the very least, its residual powers. Furthermore, as aptly pointed out by Abinal and COMELEC, through the Office of the Solicitor General,[30] the 8 May 2007 Resolution of the COMELEC First Division and the 21 August 2007 Resolution of the COMELEC en banc merely defeated Maruhom’s intent to run for elective office, but it did not deprive her of her right to vote. Although Maruhom’s registration in Marantao is void, her registration in Marawi still subsists. She may be barred from voting or running for mayor in the former, but she may still exercise her right to vote, or even run for an elective post, in the latter.
Maruhom
does not deny at all that she registered twice. However, Maruhom calls our attention to the
fact that on
It
is true that Maruhom did make several requests for the cancellation of her
Marawi registration, but without official action by the COMELEC thereon, they
remain mere requests. They cannot simply
be deemed granted. We take note that
Maruhom’s first request for cancellation of her Marawi registration was
submitted on
Therefore,
Maruhom, at the time she filed her COC, could not have honestly declared
therein that she was a registered voter of Marantao and an eligible candidate
for mayor of the said municipality. It
is incumbent upon Maruhom to truthfully state her eligibility in her COC,
especially so because the COC is filled up under oath.[32] An elective office is a public trust. He who aspires for elective office should not
make a mockery of the electoral process by falsely representing himself.[33]
The
well-settled rule is that this Court will not interfere with a COMELEC
decision/resolution unless the COMELEC is shown to have committed grave abuse
of discretion. Correctly understood, grave abuse of discretion is such
“capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction, or an exercise of power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by
reason of passion or personal hostility, or an exercise of judgment so patent
and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal
to perform the duty enjoined, or to act in a manner not at all in contemplation
of law.”[34] Given our foregoing discussion, we find no
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment on the part of the COMELEC in
rendering the assailed Resolutions in SPA No. 07-093.
WHEREFORE,
after due deliberation, the instant Petition for Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED.
The Resolution dated 8 May 2007 of the
COMELEC First Division and the Resolution dated 21 August 2007 of the COMELEC En
Banc in SPA No. 07-093, are hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against petitioner Jamela Salic
Maruhom.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate
Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice |
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO Associate
Justice |
RENATO C.
CORONA Associate
Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate
Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13
of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice |
[1] Under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; rollo, pp. 3-18.
[2] Penned
by Chairman Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. with Commissioners Resurrecccion Z. Borra,
Florentino A. Tuason, Jr., Romeo A. Brawner and Rene V. Sarmiento, concurring; rollo, pp. 40-45.
[3] Rollo, pp. 21-28.
[4] 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 x x x.
[5] The
Omnibus Election Code took effect on
[6] Records,
p. 11.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] In
the Matter of the Omnibus Resolution Annulling the Second or Subsequent
Registration of any Registered Voter While His First Registration Subsists:
“The
Commission, after due deliberation, RESOLVED as it hereby RESOLVES x x x as
follows:
1. That while the first
registration of any voter subsists, any subsequent registration thereto is void
ab initio;
2. That to allow the names of
such double/multiple registrant to remain in the computerized voters list is to
tolerate padding thereof;
(3) That it is imperative to
delete the names of the double/multiple registrants from the computerized
voters list, their subsequent registration being invalid;
(4) That the deletion of the names of double/multiple registrants shall be without prejudice to their prosecution for committing double/multiple registration. x x x.
[14] Records, pp. 49-56 and 69-82.
[15] Pursuant to Section 5 (c), Rule 3 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure which provides that “any motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division shall be resolved by the Commission en banc x x x.”
[16] Election Case No. 1731-07 is still pending; rollo, p. 145.
[17] Rollo, pp. 221-222.
[18]
[19] Velasco
v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 180051,
[20]
[21] Saya-ang, Sr. v. Commission on Elections, 462 Phil. 373, 379 (2003).
[22] Domino v. Commission on Elections, 369 Phil. 798, 814 (1999).
[23] Fermin v. Commission on Elections, supra note 19.
[24] Records, p. 21.
[25]
[26]
[27] SECTION 39. Qualifications. – (a) An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines; a registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or province, or, in the case of a member of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, or sangguniang bayan, the district where he intends to be elected; a resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election; and able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect.
[28] Records, pp. 57-59.
[29] Maruhom v. Commission on Elections, 387 Phil. 491, 506 (2000).
[30] Rollo, pp. 189-190 and 207.
[31]
[32] Section
73 of the Omnibus Election Code reads:
SEC. 73. Certificate of Candidacy. No person shall be eligible for any elective public office unless he files a sworn certificate of candidacy within the period fixed herein.
[33] Bautista v. Commission on Elections, 460 Phil. 459, 488 (2003).
[34] Velasco v. Commission on Elections, supra note 19.