Part 1.
VOID CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY -
In the 2013 case decided by the Supreme Court en banc entitled CASAN MACODE MAQUILING VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET. AL., docketed as G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013 and written by former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, which cited the cases of ARATEA V. COMELEC and JALOSJOS V. COMELEC, it was held that A VOID CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY (CIC) CANNOT PRODUCE ANY LEGAL EFFECT.
Thus, the votes cast in favor of the ineligible candidate are not considered at all in determining the winner of an election.
Even when the votes for the ineligible candidate are disregarded, the will of the electorate is still respected, and even more so. The votes cast in favor of an ineligible candidate do not constitute the sole and total expression of the sovereign voice. The votes cast in favor of eligible and legitimate candidates form part of that voice and must also be respected.
As in any contest, elections are governed by rules that determine the qualifications and disqualifications of those who are allowed to participate as players. When there are participants who turn out to be ineligible, their victory is voided and the laurel is awarded to the next in rank who does not possess any of the disqualifications nor lacks any of the qualifications set in the rules to be eligible as candidates.
There is no need to apply the rule cited in Labo v. COMELEC that when the voters are well aware within the realm of notoriety of a candidate’s disqualification and still cast their votes in favor said candidate, then the eligible candidate obtaining the next higher number of votes may be deemed elected. That rule is also a mere obiter that further complicated the rules affecting qualified candidates who placed second to ineligible ones.
The electorate’s awareness of the candidate’s disqualification is not a prerequisite for the disqualification to attach to the candidate. The very existence of a disqualifying circumstance makes the candidate ineligible. Knowledge by the electorate of a candidate’s disqualification is not necessary before a qualified candidate who placed second to a disqualified one can be proclaimed as the winner. The second-placer in the vote count is actually the first-placer among the qualified candidates.
THAT THE DISQUALIFIED CANDIDATE HAS ALREADY BEEN PROCLAIMED AND HAS ASSUMED OFFICE IS OF NO MOMENT. THE SUBSEQUENT DISQUALIFICATION BASED ON A SUBSTANTIVE GROUND THAT EXISTED PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY VOIDS NOT ONLY THE COC BUT ALSO THE PROCLAMATION.
The Court cited SECTION 6 of R.A. NO. 6646 which provides:
"Section 6. EFFECT OF DISQUALIFICATION CASE. - Any candidate who has been declared by FINAL JUDGMENT to be DISQUALIFIED shall NOT BE VOTED FOR, and the votes cast for him shall NOT BE COUNTED. If for any reason a candidate is NOT declared by final judgment BEFORE AN ELECTION to be DISQUALIFIED and he is VOTED FOR and receives the WINNING NUMBER OF VOTES in such election, the Court or Commission shall CONTINUE WITH THE TRIAL and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, UPON MOTION of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof ORDER THE SUSPENSION OF THE PROCLAMATION OF SUCH CANDIDATE whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.
Source:
In the 2013 case decided by the Supreme Court en banc entitled CASAN MACODE MAQUILING VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET. AL., docketed as G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013 and written by former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, which cited the cases of ARATEA V. COMELEC and JALOSJOS V. COMELEC, it was held that A VOID CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY (CIC) CANNOT PRODUCE ANY LEGAL EFFECT.
Thus, the votes cast in favor of the ineligible candidate are not considered at all in determining the winner of an election.
Even when the votes for the ineligible candidate are disregarded, the will of the electorate is still respected, and even more so. The votes cast in favor of an ineligible candidate do not constitute the sole and total expression of the sovereign voice. The votes cast in favor of eligible and legitimate candidates form part of that voice and must also be respected.
As in any contest, elections are governed by rules that determine the qualifications and disqualifications of those who are allowed to participate as players. When there are participants who turn out to be ineligible, their victory is voided and the laurel is awarded to the next in rank who does not possess any of the disqualifications nor lacks any of the qualifications set in the rules to be eligible as candidates.
There is no need to apply the rule cited in Labo v. COMELEC that when the voters are well aware within the realm of notoriety of a candidate’s disqualification and still cast their votes in favor said candidate, then the eligible candidate obtaining the next higher number of votes may be deemed elected. That rule is also a mere obiter that further complicated the rules affecting qualified candidates who placed second to ineligible ones.
The electorate’s awareness of the candidate’s disqualification is not a prerequisite for the disqualification to attach to the candidate. The very existence of a disqualifying circumstance makes the candidate ineligible. Knowledge by the electorate of a candidate’s disqualification is not necessary before a qualified candidate who placed second to a disqualified one can be proclaimed as the winner. The second-placer in the vote count is actually the first-placer among the qualified candidates.
THAT THE DISQUALIFIED CANDIDATE HAS ALREADY BEEN PROCLAIMED AND HAS ASSUMED OFFICE IS OF NO MOMENT. THE SUBSEQUENT DISQUALIFICATION BASED ON A SUBSTANTIVE GROUND THAT EXISTED PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY VOIDS NOT ONLY THE COC BUT ALSO THE PROCLAMATION.
The Court cited SECTION 6 of R.A. NO. 6646 which provides:
"Section 6. EFFECT OF DISQUALIFICATION CASE. - Any candidate who has been declared by FINAL JUDGMENT to be DISQUALIFIED shall NOT BE VOTED FOR, and the votes cast for him shall NOT BE COUNTED. If for any reason a candidate is NOT declared by final judgment BEFORE AN ELECTION to be DISQUALIFIED and he is VOTED FOR and receives the WINNING NUMBER OF VOTES in such election, the Court or Commission shall CONTINUE WITH THE TRIAL and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, UPON MOTION of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof ORDER THE SUSPENSION OF THE PROCLAMATION OF SUCH CANDIDATE whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.
Source:
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#rnt45
