33. EFREN ARATEA v.

COMELEC AND ESTELA ANTIPOLO

G.R. No. 195229, October 9, 2012, Carpio, J.

FACTS: Romeo D. Lonzanida (Lonzanida) and Estela D. Antipolo (Antipolo) were candidates for Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales in the May 2010 National and Local Elections. Dra. Sigrid S. Rodolfo (Rodolfo) filed a petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code to disqualify Lonzanida and to deny due course or to cancel Lonzanidas certificate of candidacy on the ground that Lonzanida was elected, and had served, as mayor of San Antonio, Zambales for four (4) consecutive terms immediately prior to the term for the May 2010 elections. Rodolfo asserted that Lonzanida made a false material representation in his certificate of candidacy when Lonzanida certified under oath that he was eligible for the office he sought election. Section 8, Article X of the 1987 Constitution and Section 43(b) of the Local Government Code both prohibit a local elective official from being elected and serving for more than three consecutive terms for the same position. The COMELEC Second Division rendered a Resolutionon 18 February 2010 cancelling Lonzanidas certificate of candidacy. Lonzanidas motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc remained pending during the May 2010 elections. Lonzanida and Efren Racel Aratea (Aratea) garnered the highest number of votes and were respectively proclaimed Mayor and Vice-Mayor. Aratea took his oath of office as Acting Mayor before Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge of Olongapo. On the same date, Aratea wrote the DILG and requested for an opinion on whether, as Vice-Mayor, he was legally required to assume the Office of the Mayor in view of Lonzanidas disqualification. DILG stated that Lonzanida was disqualified to hold office by reason of his criminal conviction, and as a consequence, his office was deemed permanently vacant, and thus, Aratea should assume the Office of the Mayor in an acting capacity without prejudice to the COMELECs resolution of Lonzanidas motion for reconsideration. In another letter dated 6 August 2010, Aratea requested the DILG to allow him to take the oath of office as Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales. In his response, then Secretary Jesse M. Robredo allowed Aratea to take an oath of office as "the permanent Municipal Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales without prejudice however to the outcome of the cases pending before the COMELEC. On 11 August 2010, the COMELEC En Banc issued a Resolution disqualifying Lonzanida from running for Mayor in the May 2010 elections. The COMELEC En Bancs resolution was based on two grounds: first, Lonzanida had been elected and had served as Mayor for more than three consecutive terms without interruption; and second, Lonzanida had been convicted by final judgment of 10 counts of falsification under the Revised Penal Code. Lonzanida was sentenced for each count of falsification to imprisonment of 4 years and 1 day of prisin correccional as minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prisin mayor as maximum. The judgment of conviction became final on 23 October 2009 in the Decision of this Court in Lonzanida v. People, before Lonzanida filed his certificate of candidacy on 1 December 2009. The manner of filling up the permanent vacancy in the Office of the Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales is dependent upon the determination of Lonzanidas removal. Whether Lonzanida was disqualified under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, or made a false material representation under Section 78 of the same Code that resulted in his certificate of candidacy being void ab initio, is determinative of whether Aratea or Antipolo is the rightful occupant to the Office of the Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales. HELD: Antipolo, the alleged "second placer," should be proclaimed Mayor bec ause Lonzanidas certificate of candidacy was void ab initio. In short, Lonzanida was never a candidate at all. All votes for Lonzanida were

stray votes. Thus, Antipolo, the only qualified candidate, actually garnered the highest number of votes for the position of Mayor. The grounds for disqualification for a petition under Section 68 1 of the Omnibus Election Code are specifically enumerated. A petition for disqualification under Section 68 clearly refers to "the commission of prohibited acts and possession of a permanent resident status in a foreign country." All the offenses mentioned in Section 68 refer to election offenses under the Omnibus Election Code, not to violations of other penal laws. There is absolutely nothing in the language of Section 68 that would justify including violation of the three-term limit rule, or conviction by final judgment of the crime of falsification under the Revised Penal Code, as one of the grounds or offenses covered under Section 68. On the other hand, Section 782 of the Omnibus Election Code states that a certificate of candidacy may be denied or cancelled when there is false material representation of the contents of the certificate of candidacy: Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code details the contents of the certificate of candidacy:
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 x x x

The conviction of Lonzanida by final judgment, with the penalty of prisin mayor, disqualifies him perpetually from holding any public office, or from being elected to any public office. This perpetual disqualification took effect upon the finality of the judgment of conviction, before Lonzanida filed his certificate of candidacy. The penalty of prisin mayor automatically carries with it, by operation of law, the accessory penalties of temporary absolute disqualification and perpetual special disqualification. Under Article 30 of the Revised Penal Code, temporary absolute disqualification produces the effect of "deprivation of the right to vote in any election for any popular elective office or to be elected to such office. The duration of temporary absolute disqualification is the same as that of the principal penalty of prisin mayor. On the other hand, under Article 32 of the Revised Penal Code, perpetual special disqualification means that "the offender shall not be permitted to hold any public office during the period of his disqualification, which is perpetually. Both temporary absolute disqualification and perpetual special disqualification constitute ineligibilities to hold elective public office.
39. UTTO V. COMELEC FACTS: This petition seeks to annul the resolutions of the Commission on directing the inclusion of five election returns excluded by the municipal board of canvassers during the canvass of votes for the May 14, 2001 election in the municipality of Sultan sa Barongis, Maguindanao and finding petitioners proclamation to be illegal and void ab initio. Petitioner Utto and respondent Angas were candidates for the position of mayor. For the canvassing of votes of the May 14 election returns, the original municipal board of canvassers was composed of Alid as chairman with Abo and Gonina, as members. During the canvassing on May 16, election returns in Precinct Nos. 15A, 25A/26A, 66A, and 68A/69A were presented. On May 18, respondent filed a petition to inhibit Alid and Abo, which resulted in the suspension of the canvassing. Alid and Abo inhibited themselves from the proceeding. Mamalinta took over as chairperson, with Khalid and Gonina, as members of the municipal board of canvassers. The canvassing was again suspended when both Khalid and Gonina inhibited themselves from participating in the proceedings. The provincial election supervisor designated Mangelen and Diolanen as members of the municipal board of canvassers. In an affidavit executed, Diolanen stated that chairperson Mamalinta called him up and informed him that she would convene the board of canvassers, with instructions for him not to attend because he was already replaced. He further stated that Mangelen called him up to tell him of his (Mangelen) decision to inhibit himself as member of the board of canvassers due to pressure exerted by chairperson Mamalinta. The municipal board of canvassers convened with chairperson Mamalinta and member Reneido were present. The other member was absent. Before

the start of the canvass, chairperson Mamalinta distributed to the parties present a report on the status of canvassing. Out of the 98 precincts, the municipal board of canvassers issued four (4) separate rulings excluding the above-cited five (5) election returns. Particularly, the municipal board of canvassers ruled that the Election Returns were tampered with or were not original. Despite respondents manifestation, the municipal board of canvassers proceeded with the proclamation of the candidates for municipal offices. The board proclaimed petitioner as the duly elected mayor of the municipality. ISSUE: Whether or not said proclamation is valid. HELD: NO. It is provided that the procedure in the disposition of contested election returns and certificate of canvass. The Comelec precludes the board of canvassers from proclaiming any candidate as winner, except upon its authorization after it has ruled on the appeal of the losing party. Any proclamation made in violation thereof shall be void ab initio, unless the contested returns will not adversely affect the results of the election. This provision is mandatory and requires strict observance. Section 20 (i), Republic Act No. 7166 where COMELEC Resolution No.3848 finds basis further states: SEC. 20. Procedure in Disposition of Contested Election Returns.--(a) x x x(i) The board of canvassers shall not proclaim any candidate as winner unless authorized by the Commission after the latter has ruled on the objections brought to it on appeal by the losing party. Any proclamation made in violation hereof shall be void ab initio, unless the contested returns will not adversely affect the results of the election. Consequently, petitioners proclamation was null and void. It was made on May 31, 2001 aft er respondent manifested his intention to appeal the ruling of the board of canvassers. On the day of the proclamation, respondent attempted to file a verified notice of appeal, but the chairperson of the municipal board of canvassers refused to accept the appeal. Within the reglementary period for filing an appeal, respondent went to the COMELEC. Pursuant to said section, the municipal board of canvassers may not proclaim any candidate without waiting for the authorization of the COMELEC. Considering that petitioner had a very small margin of 149 votes over respondent, and there were 944 registered voters from the five excluded election returns, the results of the municipal election would be undoubtedly adversely affected by the contested returns. The proclamation thus made is void ab initio. It is now settled that an incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and cannot be the basis of a proclamation. A canvass cannot be reflective of the true vote of the electorate unless all returns are considered and none is omitted. When the municipal board of canvassers disregarded the five election returns, it in effect disenfranchised the voters of the excluded precincts. Time and again, the Court has given its imprimatur on the principle that COMELEC is with authority to annul any canvass and proclamation illegally made. The fact that a candidate illegally proclaimed has assumed office is not a bar to the exercise of such power. It is also true that after proclamation, the remedy of a party aggrieved in an election is an election protest. This is on the assumption, however, that there has been a valid proclamation. Where a proclamation is null and void, the proclaimed candidates assumption of office cannot deprive COMELEC of the power to declare such proclamation a nullity

40. Agujetas v. Court of Appeals

FACTS: Sec 28 of RA 7166 pertaining to canvassing by boards of canvassers is silent as to how the board of canvassers shall prepare the certificate of canvass and as to what will be its basis, w/c details are provided in the second paragraph of Sec231 of the Omnibus Election Code, an earlier statute, respective boards of canvassers shall prepare a certificate of canvass duly signed and affixed with the imprint of the thumb of the right hand of each member, supported by a statement of the votes and received by each candidate in each polling place and on the basis thereof shall proclaim as elected the

candidates who obtained the highest number of votes coast in the provinces, city, municipality or barangay, and failure to comply with this requirement shall constitut e an election offense RULING: Did not impliedly repeal the second paragraph of Sec 231 of OEC and render the failure to comply with the requirement no longer an election offense.