EMILIO RAMON "E.R." P. EJERCITO vs. HON.

COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS and EDGAR "EGAY" S. SAN LUIS

FACTS:

Three days prior to the May 13, 2013 Elections, a petition for
disqualification was filed by Edgar Egay San Luis before the COMELEC
against Emilio Ramon E.R. P. Ejercito, who was a fellow gubernatorial
candidate and, at the time, the incumbent Governor of the Province of Laguna.

Petition alleged Ejercito distributed orange card to influence voters in

his favor; and Ejercito exceeds the amount of expenditures necessary.

Ejercito proclaimed Governor.

The COMELEC First Division issued a Summons with Notice of

Conference. Ejercito prayed for the dismissal of the petition which was
improperly filed because it is in reality a complaint for election offenses, thus,
the case should have been filed before the COMELEC Law Department, and if
with probable cause, file with proper court.
The COMELEC First Division resolved to grant the disqualification of
Ejercito. The COMELEC En Banc agreed with the findings of its First Division
that San Luis petition is an action to disqualify Ejercito.
Ejercito filed before the Court GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION against
COMELEC and contends It violated the right of petitioner due process
when it ruled for disqualification of petitioner even it was not prayed for
disqualification. Worse, there is yet no finding of guilt by competent court that
he committed election offense.

ISSUE: WON COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion

HELD:

NO. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule
65, is an independent action that is available only if there is no appeal or any
other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.44 It is a
legal remedy that is limited to the resolution of jurisdictional issues and is not
meant to correct simple errors of judgment.45 More importantly, it will only
prosper if grave abuse of discretion is alleged and is actually proved to exist.46

Grave abuse of discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal violates

the Constitution, the law or existing jurisprudence. It means such capricious
and whimsical exercise of judgment as would amount to lack of jurisdiction; it
contemplates a situation where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, so patent and gross
as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the
duty enjoined by law. x x x.47

Ejercito failed to prove that the COMELEC rendered its assailed

Resolution with grave abuse of discretion.

The COMELEC First Division and COMELEC En Banc correctly ruled

that the petition filed by San Luis against Ejercito is not just for prosecution of
election offense but for disqualification as well. Ejercito cannot feign ignorance
of the true nature and intent of San Luis petition. The title of San Luis petition
shows that the case was brought under Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure, which is the specific rule governing the disqualification of
candidates. Moreover, the averments of San Luis petition rely on Section 68 (a)
and (c) of the OEC as grounds for its causes of action. Section 68 of the OEC
precisely enumerates the grounds for the disqualification of a candidate for
elective position and provides, as penalty, that the candidate shall be
disqualified from continuing as such, or if he or she has been elected, from
holding the office. A similar tenor was expressed in the prayer in the petition
filed by San Luis.

An election offense has both criminal and electoral aspects. The electoral
aspect may proceed independently of the criminal aspect, and vice-versa. The
criminal aspect of a disqualification case determines whether there is probable
cause to charge a candidate for an election offense. The prosecutor is the
COMELEC, through its Law Department, which determines whether probable
cause exists. If there is probable cause, the COMELEC, through its Law
Department, files the criminal information before the proper court. Proceedings
before the proper court demand a full-blown hearing and require proof beyond
reasonable doubt to convict. A criminal conviction shall result in the
disqualification of the offender, which may even include disqualification from
holding a future public office. The conduct of preliminary investigation is not
required in the resolution of the electoral aspect of a disqualification case.

The exclusive power of the COMELEC to conduct a preliminary

investigation of all casesinvolving criminal infractions of the election laws
stated in Par. 1 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2050 pertains to the criminal
aspect of a disqualification case. Hence, an erring candidate may be
disqualified even without prior determination of probable cause in a
preliminary investigation