222 Cipriano v.

Comelec
G.R. No. 158830 | August 10, 2004
Puno J. / cf

SUBJECT MATTER: Qualifications

SUMMARY: Cipriano filed CoC as chairman of SK. COMELEC found out that she wasn’t registered in the barangay
where she intended to run and issued a reso cancelling her CoC. She won the election but COMELEC declared her
proclamation void. Petitioner argues that the COMELEC cannot motu proprio cancel a CoC and that she was denied due
process. SC ruled that receipt of the CoC is a ministerial duty of the COMELEC and that a petition is needed before they
can call for a summary proceeding on the sufficiency of the CoC.

DOCTRINES: The Commission may not, by itself, without the proper proceedings, deny due course to or cancel a
certificate of candidacy filed in due form. When a candidate files his certificate of candidacy, the COMELEC has a
ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge its receipt.

PARTIES:
Petitioner ELLAN MARIE P. CIPRIANO, a minor represented by her father ROLANDO CIPRIANO, (AND
OTHER YOUTH OF THE LAND AFFECTED AND SIMILARLY SITUATED)
Respondent COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
Election Officer LOPE GAYO, JR., 1st District, Pasay City, SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY thru its
Chairman JOHNNY SANTIAGO of Barangay 38, Pasay City, GREG PAOLO ALCERA in his capacity as
SK Federation President of Pasay City, EDNA TIBAR—a minor assisted by parents, KRISTAL GALE
BONGGO—a minor assisted by parents, SK Chairman RUEL TAYAM DECENA of Barangay 142, Pasay
City, THE PRESIDENT OF THE PAMBANSANG KATIPUNAN NG MGA SANGGUNIANG
KABATAAN, and ALL SK OFFICERS AND YOUTH OF THE LAND SIMILARLY SITUATED and
THEIR AGENTS AND REPRESENTATIVES

FACTS:
 Cipriano filed with the COMELEC her certificate of candidacy as Chairman of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) (of Brgy.
38, Pasay City) for the SK elections held on July 15, 2002.
 On July 15, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 5363, adopting the recommendation of the Commission’s Law
Department to deny due course to or cancel the certificates of candidacy of several candidates for the SK elections,
including Cipriano’s. This was based on the findings of the Law Department that she and all the other candidates
affected by said resolution were not registered voters in the barangay where they intended to run.
 Nonetheless, Cipriano was allowed to vote in the elections, and her name was not deleted from the official list of
candidates. She was proclaimed by the Brgy. Board of Canvassers as the duly elected SK Chairman. She took her oath of
office in August.
 On Aug. 19, after learning of Resolution 5363, Cipriano filed with the COMELEC a motion for reconsideration of said
resolution, arguing:
o A certificate of candidacy may only be denied due course or cancelled via an appropriate petition filed by any
registered candidate for the same position under Section 781 of the Omnibus Election Code in relation to
Sections 5 and 72 of R.A. 6646.

1 Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. - A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel
a certificate of candidacy may be filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as
required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the
filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.

2Section 5. Procedure in Cases of Nuisance Candidates. - (d) The Commission may designate any of its officials who are lawyers to hear the
case and receive evidence. The proceeding shall be summary in nature. In lieu of oral testimonies, the parties may be required to
submit position papers together with affidavits or counter-affidavits and other documentary evidence. The hearing officer shall
 o The report of the Election Officer of Pasay City cannot be considered a petition under Section 78 of the
Omnibus Election Code, and the COMELEC cannot, by itself, deny due course to or cancel one’s certificate of
candidacy.
o She was denied due process when her certificate of candidacy was cancelled by the Commission without
notice and hearing.
o COMELEC en banc did not have jurisdiction to act on the cancellation of her certificate of candidacy on the
first instance because it is the Division of the Commission that has authority to decide election- related cases.
o She may only be removed by a petition for quo warranto after her proclamation as duly- elected SK
Chairman.
 The COMELEC issued Resolution No. 5781, resolving the MR. It cited its previous resolution, Resolution No. 5584, in
relation to Resolution No. 4801. Resolution No. 5584 explained the procedure adopted by the Commission in
Resolution No. 4801 in denying due course the certificate of candidacy of a candidate:
o Election Officers were given the duty to: (1) verify whether all candidates for barangay and sangguniang
kabataan positions are registered voters of the barangay where they filed their certificates of candidacy; and
(2) examine the entries of the certificates of candidacy and determine on the basis of said entries whether the
candidate concerned possesses all the qualifications of a candidate.
o They are also mandated to report the unregistered candidates to the Law Dept. However, their names will
still be included in the candidate list until the COMELEC directs otherwise.
o The Law Dept. then makes a recommendation to the Commission en banc. An en banc resolution then either
gives due course or denies the certificates of candidacy.
o The candidates are deemed to have constructive notice of this administrative inquiry by virtue of the
publication of Reso No. 4801 in the newspaper.
o Furthermore, all disqualification cases filed on the ground of ineligibility shall survive, although the
candidate has already been proclaimed.
 Cipriano filed this instant petition, asking to:
o (DUE PROCESS) Declare unconstitutional the COMELEC resolutions, which were intended to summarily
oust and remove her as the Chairman without any notice, inquiry, election protest, petition for quo warranto,
investigation, and hearing;
o Declare illegal the resolutions issued by the COMELEC en banc, because of a lack of authority to decide
election-related controversies;
 COMELEC: In the exercise of its administrative power to enforce and administer election laws. It may motu proprio
deny or cancel the certificates of candidacy of candidates who are found to be unqualified for the position they are
seeking.

ISSUE: WON Resolution No. 5363 is valid – NO (or Can COMELEC motu proprio cancel a certificate of candidacy?)

RATIO:

The COMELEC is clothed with three powers:

 Administrative – includes the appointment of election officials and inspectors, conduct registration of voters,
deputize law enforcement agencies and government instrumentalities to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful
and credible elections;
 Legislative – power to promulgate rules and regulations implementing the provisions of the Omnibus Election
Code or other laws;

immediately submit to the Commission his findings, reports, and recommendations within five (5) days from the completion of such
submission of evidence. The Commission shall render its decision within five (5) days from receipt thereof.

Section 7. Petition to Deny Due Course To or Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy. - The procedure hereinabove provided shall apply to
petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy as provided in Section 78 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.
  Quasi-judicial - exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications
of all elective regional, provincial and city officials; and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective
municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided
by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.

Aside from the powers vested by the Constitution, the Commission also exercises other powers expressly provided in the
Omnibus Election Code, one of which is the authority to deny due course to or to cancel a certificate of candidacy. The
exercise of such authority, however, must be in accordance with the conditions set by law.

A. The COMELEC may not, by itself, without the proper proceedings, deny due course to or cancel a certificate of
candidacy filed in due form.

The duty of the COMELEC to give due course to certificates of candidacy filed in due form is ministerial in character.
When a candidate files his certificate of candidacy, the COMELEC has a ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge its
receipt, as per Sec. 76 of the Omnibus Election Code3. It does not, however, have discretion to give or not to give due
course to the certificate.

Nonetheless, it is provided that a person may file before the COMELEC a petition to deny due course or cancel a
certificate of candidacy on the ground that any material representation is false (Sec. 78, OEC). However, this must be
followed by a hearing.

Because the resolution of such fact may result to a deprivation of one’s right to run for public office, or, as in this case,
one’s right to hold public office, it is only proper and fair that the candidate concerned be notified of the proceedings
against him and that he be given the opportunity to refute the allegations against him.

B. The denial of due course or cancellation of one’s certificate of candidacy is not within the administrative
powers of the Commission, but rather calls for the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions.

Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper
governmental organs. On the other hand, where a power rests in judgment or discretion, so that it is of judicial nature or
character, but does not involve the exercise of functions of a judge, or is conferred upon an officer other than a judicial
officer, it is deemed quasi-judicial.

DISPOSITIVE:
In view of the foregoing discussion, we rule that Resolution No. 5363 and Resolution No. 5781, canceling petitioners
certificate of candidacy without proper proceedings, are tainted with grave abuse of discretion and therefore void.

3Sec. 76. Ministerial duty of receiving and acknowledging receipt.— The Commission, provincial election supervisor, election registrar
or officer designated by the Commission or the board of election inspectors under the succeeding section shall have the ministerial duty
to receive and acknowledge receipt of the certificate of candidacy.