You are on page 1of 15
Republic of the Philippines COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Intramuros, Manila SECOND DIVISION IN RE: PETITION TO CORRECT MANIFEST ERRORS IN THE CERTIFICATE OF CANVASS FOR THE 4™ DISTRICT OF THE PROVINCE OF QUEZON WITH URGENT MOTION TO SUSPEND CANVASS AND/OR PROCLAMATION FOR SAID POSITION. WIGBERTO R. TANADA, Petitioner, PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF THE PROVINCE OF QUEZON, ALVIN JOHN S. TANADA and ANGELINA D. TAN, Respondents. NOTICE 1. ATTY. WILFRED D. ASIS ATTY. HENRY S. ROJAS. ATTY. VIVENCIO APANIO ROJAS and UY LAW OFFICES Counsel for the Petitioner Suite 3 F, Sot. Esguerra Street Timog Avenue, Quezon City, Metro Manila 2. ATTY. JEREMIAH C. ASIS Counsel for the Petitioner Unit 4-8, PDCP Tower, V.A. Rufino comer Leviste Streets Makati City, Metro Manila 3. ATTY. IMELDA C. MANALAYSAY Collaborating Counsel for the Petitioner 2/F HIVAS CONVENTION CENTER Malolos City, Bulecan 4. ATTY. GEORGE ERWIN M. GARCIA G.M. GARCIA LAW OFFICE ‘Counsel for Respondent Angelina D. Tan Ground Floor, LAIKO BLdg., Cabildo Street, Intramuros, Manila 1002 5. ATTY. VICTOR ELEAZAR V.Y, ELEAZAR LAW OFFICE Counsel for Respondent Alvin John S. Tahada 10" Floor, Burgundy Corporate Tower 252 Sen. Gil J. Puyat Avenue Makati City 1230. Metra Manila SPC NO. 13-013 Pige2SPCNo, 13-013 6. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF QUEZON c/o The Provincial Election Supervisor ‘Commission on Elections Lucena City, Quezon 7. THE PROVINCIAL ELECTION SUPERVISOR ‘Commission on Elections Capitol Compound, Lucena City, Quezon frmton Here ET INGS Attached is a copy of the RESOLUTION of ‘the Commission (SECOND DIVISION) together with the SEPARATE OPINIO Nof Commissioner Maria Grace Cielo M. Padaca in the above-entitled case promulgated June 28, 2013. Manila, 28 June 2013, FOR THE DIVISION: Ri si Lhd Jerk Sf the Cc mn a oeA ce evel 7y Republic of the Philippines Commission on Elections Manila ‘SECOND DIVISION i IN RE: PETITION TO CORRECT MANIFEST ERRORS IN THE CERTIFICATE OF CANVASS FOR THE 4™ DISTRICT OF THE PROVINCE OF QUEZON WITH SURGENT MOTION TO SUSPEND CANVASS AND/OR PROCLAMATION FOR SAID POSITION, SPCNo. 13-033 WIGBERTO R. TANADA, JR., v Petitioner, - versus - Promlgateds PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF THE UN 28 2013: PROVINCE OF QUEZON, ALVIN JOHN S. TANADA, and ANGELINA D. TAN, Respondents, RESOLUTION At fore is a petition: filed by Wigberto R. Tafiada (“Petitioner”) to correct manifest errors in the Certificate of Canvass for Members of the House of Representatives in the 4 District of the Province of Quezon, with urgent motion to suspend and/or annul canvassing and proclamation. The undisputed antecedent facts are narrated below for clarity of presentations: * Reon at 17 SPCNo.1g-013, Pages of 14 1. Petitioner,? Angelina D. Tan (“Respondent Tan” collectively as “Respondents”),s and Alvin John S. Taiiada (“Respondent Taada’, collectively as “Respondents” were the contenders for congressional seat in the 4! district of Quezon Province last 13 May 2013 elections. 2. Petitioner filed two (2) cases against respondent Tafiada, ie., petition to cancel his certificate of candidacy (*COC")> and petition to declare him nuisance candidate.* In a consolidated resolution dated 29 January 2013, the Commission First Division dismissed both petitions. 3. Undaunted, petitioner sought reconsideration of the aforesaid | consolidated resolution which the Commission En Banc partially granted in a resolution dated 25 April 2013. In said resolution,’ the Commission En Bane cancelled the COC of respondent Tafiada for material misrepresentation but did not declare the latter as nuisance candidate. 4. The 25 April 2013 resolution of the Commission En Banc attained finality in time for election. However, the name of respondent Taiiada was not deleted from the official ballot, hence, the following election day results: ‘Tan, Angelina D, - 84,782 votes Tafiada, AlvinJohn $. —-—7,038 votes Tafiada, Wigberto Jr.R. - 80,698 votes 5. Petitioner filed a motion® before Provincial Board of Canvassers (“PBOC”) seeking the inclusion or counting of respondent's votes in his favor. Such motion, however, was denied by the PBOC. * 6, On 16 May 2013, the PBOC proclaimed respondent Tan “as the duly elected Member of the House of * Td, at18, 3 Id, at20. 4 Td, at 22, 5 SPA No. 13-056, * SPANo. 13-057. 7 Haat a5-40, Pages oft Representatives in the 4 District of Quezon Province..° Petitioner now invokes this Commission. In his initiatory pleading, petitioner put forward the contention that the inclusion or non-deletion of respondent Tafiada’s name in the official ballot paved the way to confusion and misinformation of yoters in the 4" District of Quezon Province. Specifically, the erroneous official ballot misguided and mislead the electorate considering the identical surnames of petitioner and respondent Tafiada. An uneven playing field was thereby created to the prejudice of petitioner and the entire voting populace of 4'* District of Quezon Province. In order to rectify the unfair and unjust situation thereby created, petitioner prayed that the votes cast for respondent Tafiada be counted in his favor. To firm up his arguments, the cases of Dela Cruz v. Comelec, et al. Fernandez v. Fernandez,"* Bautista v. Comelec,® and Martinez II v. HRET were cited. In her answer dated 05 June 2013, respondent Tan rebutted the allegations of petitioner by raising the issue of jurisdiction and impropriety of action, She averred that the instant case, having been directed against the proceedings of the PBOC, partakes the nature of a pre-proclamation controversy which is prohibited under Republic Act No. 7166 (“RA 7166”). * Moreover, she claimed that jurisdiction over the case pertains to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET") in view of her proclamation and oath-taking as Member of the House of Representative for the 4" District of Quezon Province. In support of her asseverations, a number of cases were cited. For his part, respondent Tafiada claimed that the 25 April 2013 resolution of the Commission En Banc insofar as SPA No. 13-056 is concerned has yet to attain finality as the later has timely filed a motion for reconsideration,’ and is not precluded from assailing it up to the Supreme Court in case of unfavorable decision. He alleged that the electorate cannot be mislead by their similarity of surnames because of their marked difference brought about by petitioner's prominence and dissimilar first name. Likewise, he pointed out petitioner's alleged violation of the rule on forum shopping. ‘91d, at ar, 4 GR No, t9aam1, 1g November 2ore, "™GRNo. 1-32675, SGRNo, 193840. 610 SCRA 59 (2010). von Aet Providing for Synchronized National and Local Elections and For Electoral Reforms, ‘Authorizing Appropriations Therefor, and for Other Purposes. void, at 17-192. ‘SPCNo. 1-019 Page 4 of x After the 14 June 2013 hearing, the parties submitted their respective memorandum” reiterating the facts and issues involved, and elucidating points in support of their diametrically opposing stance. This Commission now resolves. Procedural Aspect ‘ A perusal of the extant records disclosed that all parties raised procedural issues. Specifically, petitioner sought to consider respondent Tan's answer as a scrap of paper for alleged lack of or irregular verification while respondents prayed for the outright dismissal of the instant case on the ground of forum shopping and for availing a procedurally flawed remedy. These arguments are proper, albeit trivial. The Comelec Rules of Procedure, or any procedural rule for that matter, has been crafted to afford’ an orderly, inexpensive and expeditious resolution of cases, and not to frustrate the ends of justice or diminish its scope and effect. It cannot, therefore; stand in the way of truth, and cannot be applied in an overly rigid manner lest, override the principle of substantial justice and render inutile the aims for which said rules have been conceptualized This Commission is not ready, as of yet, to depart from the foregoing doctrinal policy. As has been done since time immemorial, the ironclad application of procedural rules shall not cow this Commission from rendering judgment based on merits, and brush aside procedural rules or technical objections, at its own discretion, if necessary. As succinctly put: “‘oxx legal niceties and technicalities cannot stand in the way of the sovereign will. Consistently, we have held: (Laws governing election contests must be rally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical objections” The foregoing resolve finds guidance from no less than the provisions of the Comelee Rules of Procedure,’ and the plethora of "Id, at 142-151; 152-166; 267-189, “Sec. 3. Construetion, - These rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote the effective and efficient implementation of the objectives of ensuring the holding of free, orderly, honest, Deacefil and credible elections and to achieve just, expeditions and inexpensive delertaination and disposition of every action and proceeding bronght before the Commission. See. 4. Suspension of the Rules. - In the interest of justice and in order to obtain speedy Aisposition of all matters pending before the Commission, these rules or any portion thereof ‘may be suspended by the Commission. SPCNo. 13-013 Page oft cases"? consistently applying the same. The raison d'etre for such liberality is enunciated in the case of Violago v. Comelec, et al.:20 “This liberality is for the purpose of promoting the effective and efficient implementation of the objectives of ensuring the holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections and for achieving just, expeditious and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the Comelec.” ‘ Prescinding from the foregoing disquisitions, it would suffice to say that all the procedural infirmities raised by all parties deserve scant consideration, if at all. To rule otherwise would tantamount to sheer abdication of this Commission’s sacred mandate to determine the sovereign will of the electorate in the 4" District of the Province of Quezon, Substantive Aspect This Commission has the power and authority to hear and decide the present controversy. Respondents incessantly argued that the HRET has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the present case pursuant to Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. In an attempt to sway this Commission, respondents made reference to the cases of Aggabao y. Comelec,# Lazatin v. Comelec,2? and Guerrero v. Comelec.23 We do not agree, Pertinent portion of Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution states: “The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. xxx" (Emphases ours.) ‘The aforestated provision of the Constitution has been applied in the cases relied upon by respondents. In the most recent case of "Benito v. Comelec, 235 SCRA 436, 442 [August 17, 1994], Frivaldo v, Comelee, G.R. Nos. 320295 & 123755, 257 SCRA 727, 770-771 [1996], Barroso V. Ampig, G.R. No, 238218. 17 March +2000, Cumigad v. Comelee, G.R. NO. 167344, 20 March 2007. % GR No. 194143 , 04 October 2011, *GR.No. 136756, 26 January 2005, GR No, 800007. 26 January 1088. SPCNo.13-013 Page 6 of 11 Limkaichong v. Comelee, et al.,24 the Supreme Court pronounced in this wise: 5 “The Court has invariably held that once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC's jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET's own jurisdiction begins. It follows then that the proclamation of a winning candidate divests the COMELEC. of its jurisdiction over matters pending before it at the time of the proclamation. ‘The party ‘questioning his qualification should now present his case in a proper proceeding before the HRET, the constitutionally mandated tribunal to hear and decide a case involving a Member of the House of Representatives with respect to the latter's election, returns and qualifications. The use of the ‘word “sole” in Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution and in Section 250 of the OEC underscores the exclusivity of the Electoral ‘Tribunals’ jurisdiction over election contests relating to its members.” (Original emphases.) ‘A quick digest of all the pertinent cases, the Limkaichong Case included, would reveal the attendance of certain requisites in order for the Commission on Elections (“Comelec") to be divested of jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and. qualifications involving congressional candidates, viz: (1) proclamation; (2) oath-taking; and (3) assumption to office. The HRET shall only acquire jurisdiction after the wim ‘candidate has been proclaimed, taken oath, and assumed office. While the Limkaichong Case mentioned of “proclamation of a winning candidate divests the Comelec of its jurisdiction over matters pending before it at the time of proclamation”, said statement cannot he taken to mean that assumption to office is a dispensable clement to vest jurisdiction upon HRET. This is so for, the reasons that: firstly, Limkaichong was already proclaimed, taken! her oath, and assumed office as Member of the House of Representatives when her qualifications were contested; and secondly, the original text of the decision specifically enumerated and highlighted the elements that would divest Comelec of jurisdiction, including among others, assumption to office, The circumstance of Limkaichong’s assumption to office as well as the specific mention of assumption to office cannot be prevailed upon by a general contradictory statement. This is bolstered by the fact that all the other pertinent cases» mentioned of assumption to office as a requirement. SPC No. 13-013, Page 7 of 11 Applying the requisites elucidated above, and considering the factual milieu herein, it cannot be gainsaid that this Commission has properly acquired jurisdiction over the instant case. As correctly pointed out by petitioner, respondent Tan, although proclaimed and taken her oath, has yet to assume office after the end of the term of office of the outgoing Congressman for the 4% District of Quezon Provinee, or at noon of 30 June 2013. Absent the element of assumption to office, this Commission is correct in- exercising jurisdiction over the present controversy. Pre-proclamation controversies involving Members of the House of Representatives is allowed to correct manifest errors. ‘As a general rule, pre-proclamation controversies shall not be allowed when involved is the election of Members of the House of Representatives. This rule, however, admits of exception as categorically provided in the last sentence of Section 15 of RA 7166: “Pre-proclamation Cases Not Allowed in Elections for President Vice-President, Senator, and Member of the House ‘of Representatives. - For purposes of the elections for President, Vice-President, Senator and Member of the House of Representatives, no pre-proclamation cases shall be allowed on matters relating to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election returns or the certificates of canvass, as the case may be. However, this does not preclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body motu propio or upon written complaint of an interested person to correct manifest errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns before it.” (Emphases ours.) The aforesaid exception is reiterated in the general instructions®® authorizing the board of canvassers to effect necessary corrections if, after the generation of the Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation (“COCP”), said COCP does not reflect the true winner for a particular position by reason of circumstances which render the proclamation of the candidate with highest number of votes improper. In the present case, the respective Municipal Board of Canvassers in the district and the PBOC did not exercise the authority vested upon them by virtue of RA 7166 and Comelec Resolution No. 9648 despite petitioner's assertions. ‘The PBOC reasoned that no manifest error exists in the COCP that would warrant correction % General Instructions for the Board of Canvassers on the Consolidation/ Canvass and ‘Transmission of Votes in Connection with the May 13, 2013 National and Local Elections SPCNo,13-013 Page 8 of 1 considering that the cancellation of respondent Tafiada’s COC was due to misrepresentation. Such resolve is justified, but only if a simplistic approach is taken. Ergo, neither fault nor blame can be attributed to the canvassers. ‘The present controversy, however, transcends the letters of the law. The attendant circumstances and other precursors, as well as the significant and far-reaching implications on the exercise of democracy demand a more profound approach. Surely, this Commission will not veer away and must come up with a definitive determination of the core issue at hand. Respondent Tafiada’s COC is already cancelled by virtue of the 25 April 2013 Resolution of the Commission En Bane, It must be emphasized, at this point, that respondent Tafiada is not a candidate in the eyes of law. His COC has already been cancelled by a final judgment prior to the 13 May 2013 elections. Notwithstanding the specious position maintained by respondent Tafiada, the 25 April 2013 resolution of the Commission En Bane has attained finality because he availed of an erroneous judicial remedy which, in effect, did not toll the 5-day period within which to secure a temporary restraining order from the Supreme Court. The following is instructive: “Sec. 13. Finality of Decisions or Resolutions. — xxx (b) In Special Actions and Special Cases a decision or resolutions of the Commission en bane shall become final and executory after five (5) days from its promulgation unless restrained by the Supreme Court." Respondent Tafiada’s COC was cancelled due to misrepresentation on his residency. Such misrepresentation, according to the 25 April 2013 Resolution of the Commission En Banc, was committed “with intent to mislead, misinform, or deceive the electorate”. While said resolution did not elaborate the nature and extent of respondent Taiiada’s intent to mislead, misinform, or deceive-the electorate, it can be reasonably concluded that such was committed deliberately so as to qualify as material misrepresentation. This is so because jurisprudence is replete of cases*® categorically making deliberate intent as a requisite to constitute material misrepresentation. © Rule 8, © Sal melee Rules of Procedure. ¥. Comelec, et al, G.R. No. 195886, 16 August 1999, citing Labo v. Comelee, 241 Page 9 of 11 ‘The non-deletion of Respondent Tafiada’s name in the official ballot created confusion to justify the application of Comelee Resolution No. 96482 on proclamation of winners. Despite the cancellation of respondent Tafiada’s COC, his name was not deleted in the official ballot for the 4' District of Quezon Province, Such factual circumstance breathed life to the intent to mislead, misinform or deceive the electorate. Stated differently, on the day of elections, the voters were actually and effectively misle misinformed, and deceived by the identical surnames of petitioner and respondent Tafiada. Although the confusion thereby created proceeds from the cancellation of respondent Tafiada’s COC and the non-deletion of his name in the official ballot, such confusion is the very same evil sought to be avoided in an action to declare a candidate as nuisance. Thus - “Section 1. Grounds. — Any candidate for any elective office who filed his certificate of candidacy to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion among the voters hy the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or who by other acts or circumstances is clearly demonstrated to have no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed, thus preventing a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate, may be declared a nuisance candidate, and his certificate of candidacy may be denied due course or may be cancelled." (Emphases ours.) Confusion would not have arisen had respondent Tafiada’s surname been different from that of petitioner, and even if his name remains in the official ballot after the cancellation of his COC. Then, it would have been simpler as the votes cast for him would have been considered as stray following Rule 23(9),' supra. However, the * Acandidate who obtained the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed by the Board, except forthe following: 2 Incase candidate has been declared a nuisance candidate by final and executory Decision or Resolution, the votes cast forthe nuisance candidate shall be added to the eanddate ‘who shares the same surname asthe nuisance eandidate and thereafter, the candidate who ‘garnered the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed; xx Ha 3008 In cases where the generated/printed COCP does not refleet the true winner for @ particular position by reason of the circumstances stated above, the Board is authorized to effect the necessary correction on the entty for said position, to reflect the true witiner as determined in accordance with the foregoing rules, provided all the members of the Board countersign euch ‘entry. Such fact shall he entered in the Minutes. 3 Rule 24 (1), supra. oct of Granting of Petition, — In the event s Petition to Deny Due Course to or cate of Candidacy is granted by final judgment as defined in the immediately age 10 oat similarity of surnames between petitioner and respondent Tafiada ramified the issue. This ramification demands the application of the effects of declaration of a candidate as nuisance. That is — the votes cast for respondent Tafiada must be counted in favor of the legitimate candidate bearing a similar surname, or petitioner. To rule otherwise ‘would truly dilute the will of the people. The voters actually intended to vote for one Taftada, not for anyone else. This Commission also takes cognizance of the fact that the outgoing Congressman in the 4t* District of Quezon Province is Hon. Lorenzo R. Tafiada ITT. This fact, coupled with the cancelled COC of respondent Tafiada, bolstered the resolve to attribute the votes to petitioner because, to the mind of this Commission, the voters actually intended to cast their votes for one Tafiada and not for anyone else. The pronouncement in the case of Dela Cruz v. Comelec, et al.2? lends guidance: “As we pronounced in Bautista, the voters’ constructive Knowledge of such cancelled candidacy made their will more determinable, as it is then more logical to conclude that the votes cast for Aurelio could have been intended only for the legitimate candidate, petitioner. The possibility of confusion in names of candidates if the names of nuisance candidates remained on the ballots on election day, cannot be discounted or eliminated, even under the automated voting system especially considering that voters who mistakenly shaded the oval beside the name of the nuisance candidate instead of the bona fide candidate they intended to vote for could no longer ask for replacement ballots to correct the same.” WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The proclamation of Angelina D. Tan as Member of the House of Representatives for the 4! District of the Province of Quezon is hereby annulled. Accordingly, the PBOC of the 4" District of the Province of Quezon is hereby directed to reconvene for the purpose of effecting the necessary corrections in the Certificate of Canvassing and Proclamation to: (1) credit the 7,038 votes of Alvin John S. Taiada to Wigberto R. Taiiada, Jr.; (2) then, recompute the votes casts for Wigberto R. Taiiada, Jr; and (3) thereafter, proclaim the rightful winner. preceding section, the votes east for the candidate whose certificate of candida cancelled or denied due course shall be deemed as stray votes :GRNo, 92281, 1g November 2012. : LED Me Arend. ee expats Spina SPC No. 1-013, Page 11 of 41 SO ORDERED. Presitling Commissioner / ; a Labcbfef este se Moi faite. ete Ye nil F cima ae jm CIELO M. PADACA Commissioner ioner my CERTIFICATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the conclusions in the above resolution were reached in consultation among the members of the Commission before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Commission (Second Division). H Presiding Commissioner COMMISSION ON BLECTIONS ‘OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE COMMISSION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY MA, JOSEFINA E. DELA CRUZ ‘CLERK OFTHE COMMSION® eae loa ha . EE bal p Republic of the Philippines COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. Intramuros, Manila SECOND DIVISION IN RE: PETITION TO CORRECT MANIFEST ERRORS IN THE CERTIFICATE OF CANVASS FOR THE 4™ DISTRICT OF THE PROVINCE OF QUEZON WITH SPC No. 13 - 013 Yusoph, ER, Conmissioner Padaca, M.G.CM, Commissioner Guia, L-.F,, Commissioner URGENT MOTION TO SUSPEND CANVASS AND/OR PROCLAMATION FOR SAID POSITION, WIGBERTO R. TANADA, JR. Petitioner, ~ versus ~ PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF THE PROVINCE OF QUEZON, \ ALVIN JOHN S. TANADA, t » X S AND ANGELINA D. TAN, Respondents. x Promulgated: JUN 28 2013 i SEPARATE OPINION At the heart of.the processes of any democratic and republican government is the determination of the true will of the electorate. Thus, when situations or circumstances arise which deflect the true will of the people, those with the capacity to prevent such deflections should act. SPA No. 13-013 Page 20f2 Wigherio R. Tara ros Provincial Boer of Canosa of Separate Opinion Quezon, Ali JS. Tae nd Angelina DT In this case, the negative effect of Alvin John S, Tafada’s name on the ballot on Wigberto R. Taftada’s candidacy cannot be denied, This representation agrees with the conclusions made by the ponencia that despite the cancellation of Alvin John’s Certificate of Candidacy, his name was not deleted in the official ballot. Such is a clear limitation of the automated elections, one that should not have imperiled Wigberto’s candidacy and the electorate’s will. Unlike in manual elections where the name of a disqualified candidate could be removed from the list of candidates by a mere stroke of a pen, such is not possible in today’s system of elections. Thus, the undersigned concurs in the result, baue tts Vadesa- mantener SE PADACA Commissioner 7 ‘COMMISSION ON BLECTIONS OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE COMMISSION CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

You might also like