CASE DIGEST: Panlaqui v. Commission on Elections

 

Panlaqui v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 188671, [February 24, 2010], 627 PHIL 389-398

DOCTRINE: Requirements before elections; registration of voters

FACTS:

In 1983, Nardo Velasco moved to the US where he subsequently became a citizen. Upon Velasco’s application for dual citizenship under Republic Act No. 92252 was approved on July 31, 2006, he took oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and returned to the Philippines on September 14, 2006.

On October 13, 2006, Velasco applied for registration as a voter of Sasmuan, which was denied by the Election Registration Board. He thus filed a petition for the inclusion of his name in the list of voters before the MTC of Sasmuan which reversed the ERB’s decision and ordered his inclusion in the list of voters of Sasmuan.

On appeal, the RTC reversed the MTC’s Decision, drawing Velasco to elevate the matter to the Court of Appeals which dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In the meantime, Velasco filed on March 28, 2007 his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for mayor of Sasmuan, therein claiming his status as a registered voter. Panlaqui, who vied for the same position, thereupon filed before the Comelec a Petition to Deny Due Course To and/or To Cancel Velasco’s COC based on gross material misrepresentation as to his residency and, consequently, his qualification to vote.

In the electoral bout of May 2007, Velasco won over Panlaqui as mayor of Sasmuan. As the Comelec failed to resolve Panlaqui’s petition prior to the elections, Velasco took his oath of office and assumed the duties of the office.

Finding material misrepresentation on the part of Velasco, the Comelec cancelled his COC and nullified his proclamation which was affirmed by the SC in G.R. No. 180051.

Panlaqui thereafter filed a motion for proclamation which the Comelec denied by the assailed Resolution, pointing out that the rule on succession does not operate in favor of Panlaqui as the second placer because Velasco was not disqualified by final judgment before election day.

Panlaqui asserts that the RTC March 1, 2007 Decision in the voter’s inclusion proceedings must be considered as the final judgment of disqualification against Velasco, which decision was issued more than two months prior to the elections. Panlaqui posits that when Velasco’s petition for inclusion was denied, he was also declared as disqualified to run for public office.

ISSUE:

Is it within the province of the RTC in a voter's inclusion/exclusion proceedings to take cognizance of and determine the presence of a false representation of a material fact?

RULING:

Voters’ inclusion/exclusion proceedings, on the one hand, essentially involve the issue of whether a petitioner shall be included in or excluded from the list of voters based on the qualifications required by law and the facts presented to show possession of these qualifications.

On the other hand, COC denial/cancellation proceedings involve the issue of whether there is a false representation of a material fact. The false representation must necessarily pertain not to a mere innocuous mistake but to a material fact or those that refer to a candidate’s qualifications for elective office. Apart from the requirement of materiality, the false representation must consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible or, otherwise stated, with the intention to deceive the electorate as to the would-be candidate’s qualifications for public office.

It is not within the province of the RTC in a voters inclusion/exclusion proceedings to take cognizance of and determine the presence of a false representation of a material fact. It has no jurisdiction to try the issues of whether the misrepresentation relates to material fact and whether there was an intention to deceive the electorate in terms of one’s qualifications for public office. The finding that Velasco was not qualified to vote due to lack of residency requirement does not translate into a finding of a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render him ineligible.

Assuming arguendo the plausibility of Panlaqui’s theory, the Comelec correctly observed that when the RTC issued its March 1, 2007 Decision, there was yet no COC to cancel because Velasco’s COC was filed only on March 28, 2007. Indeed, not only would it be in excess of jurisdiction but also beyond the realm of possibility for the RTC to rule that there was deliberate concealment on the part of Velasco when he stated under oath in his COC that he is a registered voter of Sasmuan despite his knowledge of the RTC decision which was yet forthcoming.