Martinez Vs Salimbangon.docx

EN BANC CELESTINO III,

C. Martinez a nuisance candidate only on June 12, 2007 or almost one (1) month after the elections. A.

MARTINEZ

G.R.

No.

189034 Petitioner, Present: PUNO, C.J.,

- versus -

CARPIO, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, LEONARDODE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ, and MENDOZA, J J.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Promulgated ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND : BENHUR L. SALIMBANGON, Responden January 12, ts. 2010 x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x DECISION VILLARAMA, JR., J.: This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 seeks to nullify the Decision[1] dated May 28, 2009 of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal in HRET Case No. 07-035 dismissing the election protest and declaring private respondent as the duly elected Representative of the Fourth Legislative District of Cebu, and the Resolution[2] dated July 30, 2009 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration thereof. The Facts In the May 14, 2007 elections, petitioner Martinez and private respondent Salimbangon were among the candidates for Representative in the Fourth Legislative District of Cebu Province. On March 29, 2007, Edilito C. Martinez, a resident of Barangay Tambongon, Daan-Bantayan, Cebu, filed his certificate of candidacy for the same position. On April 3, 2007, Martinez filed a petition to declare Edilito C. Martinez a nuisance candidate.[3] However, the Commission on Elections Second Division issued its Resolution declaring Edilito

On July 9, 2007, Salimbangon was proclaimed winner in the congressional elections for the Fourth Legislative District of Cebu on the basis of official results showing that he garnered sixty-seven thousand two hundred seventy-seven (67,277) votes as against Martinez who garnered sixty-seven thousand one hundred seventy-three (67,173) votes, or a difference of one hundred four (104) votes. Martinez filed an Election Protest Ad Cautelam on July 18, 2007 and on July 26, 2007, the HRET granted his motion to convert the same into a Regular Protest of all one thousand one hundred twenty-nine (1,129) precincts of the Fourth Legislative District of Cebu. The election protest is based on three hundred (300) ballots more or less with only "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" written on the line for Representative which the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) did not count for Martinez on the ground that there was another congressional candidate (Edilito C. Martinez) who had the same surname. Martinez further alleged that he lost several thousand votes as a result of incorrect appreciation of ballots not counted in his favor while clearly marked ballots, groups of ballots which appeared to have been prepared by one (1) person, individual ballots which appeared to have been prepared by two (2) or more persons, and fake and unofficial ballots were read and counted in favor of Salimbangon. He also claimed that the votes reflected in the election returns were unlawfully increased in favor of Salimbangon while votes in his favor were unlawfully decreased.[4] Salimbangon filed his Answer with CounterProtest stating that the Minutes of Voting (MOV) inside the ballot boxes in all the protested precincts contain no recorded objections regarding straying of votes claimed by Martinez, and that it was very seldom, if at all, that there were ballots with only "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" written on the line for Representative. He counter-protested 954 precincts on grounds of coercion/intimidation and duress; massive votebuying; "lansadera"; misreading/miscounting/misappreciation of votes; and other electoral anomalies and irregularities. During the revision, ballots with only "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" written on the line for Representative were not counted and temporarily classified as stray. These comprise majority of the 9,831 stray ballots claimed by Martinez.[5] HRET Ruling In its Decision dated May 28, 2009, the HRET resolved each of the claims and objections respectively raised by protestant and protestee applying the rules for appreciation of ballots. The Tribunal recognized as most crucial the issue of whether or not ballots with only "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" written on the line

for Representative should be counted in favor of Martinez. Thus, the election protest "will rise or fall on how the Tribunal [appreciates said] ballots."[6] Ruling on the issue, the HRET sustained the BEI in considering the ballots as stray in accordance with Sec. 211 (1) of the Omnibus Election Code which provides: "Where only the first name of a candidate or only his surname is written, the vote for such candidate is valid, if there is no other candidate with the same first name or surname for the same office."[7] [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED.] Since the name of Edilito C. Martinez was still included in the official list of candidates on election day (May 14, 2007), the HRET held that five thousand four hundred one (5,401) ballots with "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" only written on the line for Representative were properly denied on the ground that there was no way of determining the real intention of the voter. These ballots were included in the 7,544 ballots denied as votes for Martinez in 961 precincts.[8] Commiserating with Martinez on the delayed resolution of SPA Case No. 07-133 (PES), the HRET stated: "We sympathize to (sic) the protestant that he is the victim of the inaction of the Comelec in failing to decide the petition to disqualify Edilito C. Martinez as nuisance candidate on or before the May 14, 2007 elections. After all, it appears that the latter did not even lift a finger to oppose the petition for his declaration as nuisance candidate and that per its decision rendered only twenty-nine (29) days after the May 14, 2007 elections, Edilito C. Martinez was indeed a nuisance candidate. "As it is, the delay committed by the Comelec in deciding the petition to disqualify Edilito C. Martinez as nuisance candidate on or before May 14, 2007 election did not only cause injustice to herein protestant but worst, had resulted to (sic) the disenfranchisement of five thousand four hundred one (5,401) electorates whose votes could have changed the number of votes garnered by the parties herein if not changed altogether the outcome of the election itself."[9] The final overall results of recount and appreciation of ballots, election documents and other

evidence in the entire 1,129 precincts as determined by the HRET are as follows :[10] Overall Votes

Fourth

District

of

Cebu

PROTESTANT PROTESTEE 1] Votes per physical count* in 961 precincts 57,758 where there was ballot appreciation 2] Votes in 12 precincts** without ballots 998 found during revision (based on election returns) 3] Votes per election returns in 156 precincts in which several 9,937 spurious ballots were placed after elections, counting and/or canvassing of votes 68,693

57,132

660

7,815

65,607

Less: Objected 4,333 ballots rejected***

860

Add: Claimed 2,287 ballots admitted***

2,348

Unclaimed ballots 8 admitted***

11

Restored Ballots

2

Total Votes in the Contested Precincts After 66,655 Appreciation of Evidence

67,108

PLURALITY OF PROTESTEE'S VOTES

453

* Taken from Revision Reports ** Namely Precinct Nos. 51A, DaanBantayan, 40A, 56A, 79A, all of Bantayan, 15C, 19D, 66B/67A, 88A, 105A, all of Bogo, 40A/41A, 70A/71A, all of Medellin, 30A, Sta. Fe. *** During appreciation of ballots in 961 precincts. On the basis of the foregoing, the HRET dismissed the election protest, affirmed the proclamation of Salimbangon and declared him to be

the duly elected Representative of the Fourth Legislative District of Cebu, having won by a plurality margin of 453 votes. Martinez moved for reconsideration of the Decision, but the HRET denied it by Resolution dated July 30, 2009.[11] The Petition Petitioner alleges that the HRET gravely abused its discretion when it failed to credit the "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" votes in his favor despite the finality of the COMELEC resolution declaring Edilito C. Martinez a nuisance candidate. Petitioner argues that the Decision disenfranchised 5,401 voters when it ruled that said votes cannot be counted as votes for him since "there is no way of determining the real intention of the voter", in utter disregard of the mandate of Art. VIII, Sec. 14 of the Constitution. He maintains that there is no clear and good reason to justify the rejection of those 5,401 ballots, and points out that at the time private respondent was proclaimed by the Board of Canvassers, only 104 votes separated private respondent from him (private respondent was credited with 67,277 votes as against 67,173 votes of petitioner, while nuisance candidate Edilito C. Martinez got a measly 363 votes.)[12] Petitioner further alleges that the HRET invalidated ballots for him without stating the legal and factual bases therefor, and on grounds other than the objections raised by private respondent. He contends that the HRET erred in concluding that the ruling in Bautista v. Commission on Elections[13] cannot be applied in view of circumstances which supposedly distinguish the present case from Bautista. Finally, petitioner cites the dissenting opinion of the Honorable Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura who disagreed with the majority ruling and posited that the final declaration by COMELEC that Edilito C. Martinez was a nuisance candidate and the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy should be deemed effective as of the day of the election.[14] In his Comment, private respondent assails the apparent desire of petitioner for this Court to review the physical appreciation of ballots conducted by the HRET when he assigned as issues the alleged erroneous invalidation by the HRET of petitioner's ballots which were ruled as written by two (2) persons, and when he even appreciated ballots that were declared by the HRET as marked ballots. Private respondent details the mostly post-election anomalies and irregularities, particularly in Bogo City, perpetrated by the petitioner as found by the HRET such as tampering of election returns and statement of votes and vote padding/tampering. As to the "MARTINEZ" and "C. MARTINEZ" ballots, private respondent asserts that the HRET correctly refused to credit petitioner with these votes, stressing that there were admittedly three (3) candidates for the position of Representative for the Fourth Legislative District of Cebu as of May 14, 2007.

Not a single voter in the district knew of any nuisance congressional candidate on election day. Private respondent argues that it would be illogical and most unfair to count the said ballots in favor of petitioner as it is erroneous to base the voter's intent on the supervening circumstance which was inexistent on the date the ballot was accomplished and cast. The HRET likewise did not err in holding that the Bautista ruling is inapplicable, there being no announced declaration yet of one (1) of the candidates as nuisance candidate when the voters cast their ballots on election day. The Issues What then is the legal effect of declaring a nuisance candidate as such in a final judgment after the elections? Should ballots containing only the similar surname of two (2) candidates be considered as stray votes or counted in favor of the bona fide candidate? Our Ruling The Court finds the petition meritorious. Section Code provides:

69

of

the Omnibus

Election

"Section 69. Nuisance candidates. -The Commission may motu proprio or upon a verified petition of an interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if it is shown that said certificate has been filed to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate." Republic Act No. 6646, otherwise known as The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987" provides in Section 5 thereof: "SEC. 5. Procedure in Cases of Nuisance Candidates. -(a) A verified petition to declare a duly registered candidate as a nuisance candidate under Section 69 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 shall be filed personally or through duly authorized representative with the Commission by any registered candidate for the same office within five (5) days from the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy. Filing by mail shall not be allowed.

"(b) Within three (3) days from the filing of the petition, the Commission shall issue summons to the respondent candidate together with a copy of the petition and its enclosures, if any. "(c) The respondent shall be given three (3) days from receipt of the summons within which to file his verified answer (not a motion to dismiss) to the petition, serving copy thereof upon the petitioner. Grounds for a motion to dismiss may be raised as affirmative defenses. "(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 counteraffidavits and other documentary evidence. The hearing officer shall 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. "(e) The decision, order, or ruling of the Commission shall, after five (5) days from receipt of a copy thereof by the parties, be final and executory unless stayed by the Supreme Court. "(f) The Commission shall within twenty-four hours, through the fastest available means, disseminate its decision or the decision of the Supreme Court to the city or municipal election registrars, boards of election inspectors and the general public in the political subdivision concerned." [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED.] By their very nature, proceedings in cases of nuisance candidates require prompt disposition. The declaration of a duly registered candidate as nuisance candidate results in the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy. The law mandates the Commission and the courts to give priority to cases of disqualification to the end that a final decision shall be rendered not later than seven days before the election in which the disqualification is sought.[15] In many instances, however, proceedings against nuisance candidates remained pending and undecided until election day

and even after completed.

canvassing

of

votes

had

been

Here, petitioner sought to declare Edilito C. Martinez as a nuisance candidate immediately after the latter filed his certificate of candidacy as an independent candidate and long before the May 14, 2007 elections. Petitioner averred that Edilito C. Martinez who was a driver of a motorcycle for hire, locally known as "habal-habal", did not own any real property in his municipality, had not filed his income tax return for the past years, and being an independent candidate did not have any political machinery to propel his candidacy nor did he have political supporters to help him in his campaign. Petitioner claimed that Edilito C. Martinez after the filing of his certificate of candidacy, was never heard of again and neither did he start an electoral campaign. Given such lack of bona fide intention of Edilito C. Martinez to run for the office for which he filed a certificate of candidacy, petitioner contended that his candidacy would just cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of their surnames, considering that petitioner was undeniably the frontrunner in the congressional district in the Fourth Legislative District of Cebu as his mother, Rep. Clavel A. Martinez, was the incumbent Representative of the district.[16] The COMELEC's Second Division granted the petition and declared Edilito C. Martinez as a nuisance candidate. It noted that the failure of said candidate to answer and deny the accusations against him clearly disclosed the fact that he had no bona fide intention to run for public office. Thus, it concluded that his only purpose for filing his certificate of candidacy was to put the election process into mockery and cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of his surname with that of petitioner.[17] No motion for reconsideration was filed by Edilito C. Martinez and neither did he appeal before this Court the resolution declaring him a nuisance candidate. Said decision had thus become final and executory after five (5) days from its promulgation in accordance with the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.[18] But having come too late, the decision was an empty victory for petitioner who lost to private respondent by a slim margin of 104 votes. In his election protest, petitioner sought to have ballots with only "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" written on the line for Representative counted in his favor. The HRET, however, considered such ballots numbering 5,401 as stray and rejected petitioner's argument that the ruling in Bautista v. Comelec (supra) is applicable in this case. Bautista involves a mayoralty candidate (Cipriano "Efren" Bautista) during the May 11, 1998 elections who filed a petition to declare as nuisance candidate Edwin "Efren" Bautista, who filed a certificate of candidacy for the same position at the last minute. The COMELEC granted the petition, declared Edwin Bautista a nuisance candidate and ordered the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy.

Consequently, Edwin Bautista's name was not included in the official list of candidates for the position of mayor of Navotas City and copies of the list were distributed to the boards of election inspectors (BEI). On May 8, 1998, Edwin filed a motion for reconsideration and as a result, the Election Officer of Navotas issued a directive to the BEI to include the name of Edwin Bautista in the certified list of candidates, only to recall said order in the afternoon. In view of the conflicting directives, counsel for petitioner requested the COMELEC that instructions be given to the BEI to tally separately the votes for "EFREN BAUTISTA", "EFREN", "E. BAUTISTA" and "BAUTISTA." On May 13, 1998, the COMELEC denied Edwin Bautista's motion for reconsideration. When the canvass of the election returns was commenced, the Municipal Board of Canvassers refused to canvass as part of the valid votes of petitioner the separate tallies of ballots on which were written "EFREN BAUTISTA," "EFREN," "E. BAUTISTA" and "BAUTISTA." Petitioner then filed with the COMELEC a petition to declare illegal the proceedings of the Municipal Board of Canvassers. Meanwhile Edwin Bautista filed a petition for certiorari with this Court assailing the actions of COMELEC declaring him a nuisance candidate and ordering the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy. The Court dismissed said petition finding no grave abuse of discretion committed by the COMELEC and subsequently also denied with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by Edwin Bautista. As to the petition to declare as illegal the proceedings of the Municipal Board of Canvassers for its refusal to include the stray votes in the separate tally sheet, the COMELEC dismissed the same, citing Sec. 211 (4)[19] of the Omnibus Election Code. Petitioner Bautista elevated the case to the Supreme Court which ruled in his favor, thus: "At the outset and initially setting aside all the ramifications of the substantive issue of the instant petition, the primordial concern of the Court is to verify whether or not on the day of the election, there was only one 'Efren Bautista' as a validly registered candidate as far as the electorate was concerned. "x x x "Edwin Bautista moved for reconsideration on May 8, 1998. Unfortunately, said motion was not resolved as of election day. Technically, the April 30, 1998 decision was not yet final as of May 11, 1998, and this technicality created serious problems on election day. xxx

"An analysis of the foregoing incidents shows that the separate tallies were made to remedy any prejudice that may be caused by the inclusion of a potential nuisance candidate in the Navotas mayoralty race. Such inclusion was brought about by technicality, specifically Edwin Bautista's filing of a motion for reconsideration, which prevented the April 30, 1998 resolution disqualifying him from becoming final at that time. "Ideally, the matter should have been finally resolved prior to election day. Its pendency on election day exposed petitioner to the evils brought about by the inclusion of a then potential, later shown in reality to be nuisance candidate. We have ruled that a nuisance candidate is one whose certificate of candidacy is presented and filed to cause confusion among the electorate by the similarity of the names of the registered candidate or by other names which demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate (Fernandez vs. Fernandez, 36 SCRA 1 [1970]). "It must be emphasized that the instant case involves a ground for disqualification which clearly affects the voters' will and causes confusion that frustrates the same. This is precisely what election laws are trying to protect. They give effect to, rather than frustrate, the will of the voter. Thus, extreme caution should be observed before any ballot is invalidated. Further, in the appreciation of ballots, doubts are resolved in favor of their validity. (Silverio vs. Castro, 19 SCRA 521 [1967]). xxxx "As discussed in the COMELEC's April 30, 1998 decision, in accordance with Section 69, Edwin Bautista was found to be a nuisance candidate. First and foremost, he was running under the name of Edwin 'Efren' Bautista, when it had been established that he was really known as 'Boboy' or 'Boboy Tarugo.' Second, the following circumstances saliently demonstrate that he had no bona fide intention of running for the office for which he filed

his certificate of candidacy: He is said to be engaged in a 'buy and sell' business, but he has no license therefor. He declared that he had a monthly income of P10,000.00 but with expenses totalling P9,000.00. He does not own any real property. He did not file his income tax return for the years 1995 and 1996 and when asked why, he said he did not have any net income and that he was only earning enough to defray household expenses. He even violated COMELEC rules since he failed to submit the names of individuals who paid for his campaign materials as well as the printing press he dealt with. He did not have a political line-up and had no funds to support his campaign expenses. He merely depended on friends whose names he did not submit to the COMELEC. And as straightforwardly found by the COMELEC, he 'has not demonstrated any accomplishment/achievement in his twenty-six (26) years of existence as a person that would surely attract the electorate to choose him as their representative in government.' "In contrast, it was shown that petitioner had previously held under his name Cipriano and appellation, 'Efren' Bautista, various elective positions, namely: Barangay Captain of Navotas in 1962, Municipal Councilor of Navotas in 1970, and Vice-Mayor of Navotas in 1980. He is a duly registered Naval Architect and Marine Engineer, and a member of various civic organizations such as the Rotary Club of Navotas and the Philippine Jaycees. "It seems obvious to us that the votes separately tallied are not really stray votes. Then COMELEC Chairman Bernardo P. Pardo himself, now a respected member of the Court, in his May 14, 1998 Memorandum, allowed the segregation of the votes for "Bautista," "Efren," and "Efren Bautista," and "E. Bautista" into a separate improvised tally, for the purpose of later counting the votes. In fine, the COMELEC itself validated the separate tallies since they were meant to be used in the canvassing later on to the actual number of votes cast. These separate tallies actually made the will of the electorate determinable despite the apparent confusion caused by a potential nuisance candidate. What remained unsaid by the COMELEC

Chairman was the fact that as early as May 13, 1998, the COMELEC had already spoken and stated its final position on the issue of whether or not Edwin Bautista is a nuisance candidate. It had already denied Edwin's motion for reconsideration in its May 13, 1998 Order x x x "x x x x "This important detail only shows that as of May 14, 1998, when Chairman Pardo issued the aforestated Memorandum, Edwin Bautista had already been finally declared as a nuisance candidate by the COMELEC. And when Edwin Bautista elevated the matter to this Court, we upheld such declaration. How then can we consider valid the votes for Edwin Bautista whom we finally ruled as disqualified from the 1998 Navotas mayoralty race? That is like saying one thing and doing another. These are two incompatible acts the contrariety and inconsistency of which are all too obvious."[20] [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED.]

Petitioner now invokes this Court's pronouncement in Bautista to the effect that votes indicating only the surname of two (2) candidates should not be considered as stray but counted in favor of the bona fide candidate after the other candidate with a similar surname was declared a nuisance candidate. In refusing to apply the ruling in Bautista, the HRET said that the factual circumstances in said case are different, thus: "Protestant strongly asserts that the 'MARTINEZ' or 'C. MARTINEZ' only votes be counted in his favor invoking the ruling in the case of Bautista vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 133840, November 13, 1998 (298 SCRA 480) where the Supreme Court held that the final and conclusive ruling on the declaration of a nuisance candidate retroacts on the day of the election. "We disagree. "While the Bautista vs. Comelec case also involves a candidate declared as nuisance by the Comelec, the case herein is not on all fours with it. x x x "x x x "It is clear from the facts of the Bautista case nuisance candidate, Edwin was declared as such on

foregoing that the Bautista, April 30,

1998, eleven (11) days before the May 11, 1998 elections. Although the decision was not yet final on Election Day because of a Motion for Reconsideration that Edwin Bautista had filed on May 8, 1998, nevertheless, his name was not included in the list of candidates for the position of Mayor for Navotas. This is not the situation in the present case for Edilito C. Martinez was not yet declared disqualified during the May 14, 2007 elections. There were, therefore, two (2) congressional candidates on the day of the election with "MARTINEZ" as surname, Celestino A. Martinez and Edilito C. Martinez. "More importantly, in the Bautista case, while the Comelec's decision declaring Edwin Bautista a nuisance candidate had not yet attained finality on election day, May 11, 1998, the voters of Navotas were informed of such disqualification by virtue of newspaper releases and other forms of notification. The voters in said case had constructive as well as actual knowledge of the action of the Comelec delisting Edwin Bautista as a candidate for mayor. This is not so in the present case for Edilito C. Martinez was not yet disqualified as nuisance candidate during the May 14, 2007 elections. There were no newspaper releases and other forms of notification to the voters of the Fourth District of Cebu on or before May 14, 2007 elections that Edilito C. Martinez was disqualified as a nuisance candidate."[21] [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED.]

It is clear that Bautista is anchored on the factual determination that the COMELEC resolution declaring Edwin Bautista a nuisance candidate was already final since his motion for reconsideration was already denied by the Commission when canvassing of the votes started. Hence, the segregated and separately tallied votes containing only the similar first names/nicknames and surnames of the two (2) candidates were considered as not really stray votes. We held that the separate tallies validated by the COMELEC actually made the will of the electorate determinable despite the apparent confusion caused by a nuisance candidate. In the case at bar, there was no segregation or separate tally of votes for petitioner. Unlike in Bautista, there was simply no opportunity for

petitioner to request the segregation and separate tally of expected ballots containing only the surname "MARTINEZ" as the resolution granting his petition was promulgated only a month later. The HRET, while not closing its eyes to the prejudice caused to petitioner by COMELEC's inaction and delay, as well as the disenfranchisement of the 5,401 voters, refused to credit him with those votes on the ground that there was no way of determining the real intention of the voter. We disagree. The purpose of an election protest is to ascertain whether the candidate proclaimed by the board of canvassers is the lawful choice of the people. What is sought is the correction of the canvass of votes, which was the basis of proclamation of the winning candidate. Election contests, therefore, involve the adjudication not only of private and pecuniary interests of rival candidates, but also of paramount public interest considering the need to dispel uncertainty over the real choice of the electorate.[22] In controversies pertaining to nuisance candidates as in the case at bar, the law contemplates the likelihood of confusion which the similarity of surnames of two (2) candidates may generate. A nuisance candidate is thus defined as one who, based on the attendant circumstances, has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed, his sole purpose being the reduction of the votes of a strong candidate, upon the expectation that ballots with only the surname of such candidate will be considered stray and not counted for either of them. In elections for national positions such as President, Vice-President and Senator, the sheer logistical challenge posed by nuisance candidates gives compelling reason for the Commission to exercise its authority to eliminate nuisance candidates who obviously have no financial capacity or serious intention to mount a nationwide campaign. Thus we explained in Pamatong v. Commission on Elections[23]: "The rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates and the disqualification of candidates who have not evinced a bona fide intention to run for office is easy to divine. The State has a compelling interest to ensure that its electoral exercises are rational, objective, and orderly. Towards this end, the State takes into account the practical considerations in conducting elections. Inevitably, the greater the number of candidates, the greater the opportunities for logistical confusion, not to mention the increased allocation of time and resources in preparation for the election. These practical difficulties should, of course, never

exempt the State from the conduct of a mandated electoral exercise. At the same time, remedial actions should be available to alleviate these logistical hardships, whenever necessary and proper. Ultimately, a disorderly election is not merely a textbook example of inefficiency, but a rot that erodes faith in our democratic institutions. As the United States Supreme Court held: [T]here is surely an important state interest in requiring some preliminary showing of a significant modicum of support before printing the name of a political organization and its candidates on the ballot -- the interest, if no other, in avoiding confusion, deception and even frustration of the democratic [process]. "x x x x "There is a need to limit the number of candidates especially in the case of candidates for national positions because the election process becomes a mockery even if those who cannot clearly wage a national campaign are allowed to run. Their names would have to be printed in the Certified List of Candidates, Voters Information Sheet and the Official Ballots. These would entail additional costs to the government. x x x "The preparation of ballots is but one aspect that would be affected by allowance of "nuisance candidates" to run in the elections. Our election laws provide various entitlements for candidates for public office, such as watchers in every polling place, watchers in the board of canvassers, or even the receipt of electoral contributions. Moreover, there are election rules and regulations the formulations of which are dependent on the number of candidates in a given election.

"Given these considerations, the ignominious nature of a nuisance candidacy becomes even more galling. The organization of an election with bona fide candidates standing is onerous enough. To add into the mix candidates with no serious intentions or capabilities to run a viable campaign would actually impair the electoral process. x x x "x SUPPLIED]

x

x"

[24]

[EMPHASIS

Given the realities of elections in our country and particularly contests involving local positions, what emerges as the paramount concern in barring nuisance candidates from participating in the electoral exercise is the avoidance of confusion and frustration of the democratic process by preventing a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate, more than the practical considerations mentioned in Pamatong. A report published by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism in connection with the May 11, 1998 elections indicated that the tactic of fielding nuisance candidates with the same surnames as leading contenders had become one (1) "dirty trick" practiced in at least 18 parts of the country. The success of this clever scheme by political rivals or operators has been attributed to the last-minute disqualification of nuisance candidates by the Commission, notably its "slow-moving" decisionmaking.[25] As illustrated in Bautista, the pendency of proceedings against a nuisance candidate on election day inevitably exposes the bona fide candidate to the confusion over the similarity of names that affects the voter's will and frustrates the same. It may be that the factual scenario in Bautista is not exactly the same as in this case, mainly because the Comelec resolution declaring Edwin Bautista a nuisance candidate was issued before and not after the elections, with the electorate having been informed thereof through newspaper releases and other forms of notification on the day of election. Undeniably, however, the adverse effect on the voter's will was similarly present in this case, if not worse, considering the substantial number of ballots with only "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" written on the line for Representative - over five thousand - which have been declared as stray votes, the invalidated ballots being more than sufficient to overcome private respondent's lead of only 453 votes after the recount. Bautista upheld the basic rule that the primordial objective of election laws is to give effect to, rather than frustrate, the will of the voter. The inclusion of nuisance candidates turns the electoral exercise into an uneven playing field where the bona fide candidate is faced with the prospect of having a significant number of votes cast for him invalidated as stray votes by the mere presence of another candidate with a similar surname. Any delay on the part of the

COMELEC increases the probability of votes lost in this manner. While political campaigners try to minimize stray votes by advising the electorate to write the full name of their candidate on the ballot, still, election woes brought by nuisance candidates persist. The Court will not speculate on whether the new automated voting system to be implemented in the May 2010 elections will lessen the possibility of confusion over the names of candidates. What needs to be stressed at this point is the apparent failure of the HRET to give weight to relevant circumstances that make the will of the electorate determinable, following the precedent in Bautista. These can be gleaned from the findings of the Commission on the personal circumstances of Edilito C. Martinez clearly indicating lack of serious intent to run for the position for which he filed his certificate of candidacy, foremost of which is his sudden absence after such filing. In contrast to petitioner who is a well-known politician, a former municipal mayor for three (3) terms and a strong contender for the position of Representative of the Fourth Legislative District of Cebu (then occupied by his mother), it seems too obvious that Edilito C. Martinez was far from the voters' consciousness as he did not even campaign nor formally launch his candidacy. The HRET likewise failed to mention the total number of votes actually cast for Edilito C. Martinez, which can support petitioner's contention that the "MARTINEZ" and "C. MARTINEZ" votes could not have been intended as votes for Edilito C. Martinez. Petitioner should not be prejudiced by COMELEC's inefficiency and lethargy. Nor should the absence of objection over straying of votes during the actual counting bar petitioner from raising the issue in his election protest. The evidence clearly shows that Edilito C. Martinez, who did not even bother to file an answer and simply disappeared after filing his certificate of candidacy, was an unknown in politics within the district, a "habal-habal" driver who had neither the financial resources nor political support to sustain his candidacy. The similarity of his surname with that of petitioner was meant to cause confusion among the voters and spoil petitioner's chances of winning the congressional race for the Fourth Legislative District of Cebu. As it turned out, there were thousands of ballots with only "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" written on the line for Representative, votes considered stray by the BEI and not counted in favor of petitioner, and which the HRET affirmed to be invalid votes. Had the Commission timely resolved the petition to declare Edilito C. Martinez a nuisance candidate, all such ballots with "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" would have been counted in favor of petitioner and not considered stray, pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 4116,[26] issued in relation to the finality of resolutions or decisions in disqualification cases, which provides: This pertains to the finality of decisions or resolutions of the Commission en banc or division,

particularly on Special (Disqualification Cases).

Actions

Special Action cases refer to the following: (a) Petition to deny due course to a certificate of candidacy; (b) Petition to declare candidate as a nuisance candidate;

a

(c) Petition to candidate; and (d) Petition to suspend an election.

disqualify

a

postpone

or

Considering the foregoing and in order to guide field officials on the finality of decisions or resolutions on special action cases (disqualification cases) the Commission, RESOLVES, as it is hereby RESOLVED, as follows: (1) the decision or resolution of the En Banc of the Commission on disqualification cases shall become final and executory after five (5) days from its promulgation unless restrained by the Supreme Court; xxx (4) the decision or resolution of the En Banc on nuisance candidates, particularly whether the nuisance candidate has the same name as the bona fide candidate shall be immediately executory; (5) the decision or resolution of a DIVISION on nuisance candidate, particularly where the nuisance candidate has the same name as the bona fide candidate shall be immediately executory after the lapse of five (5) days unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed. In which case, the votes cast shall not be considered stray but shall be counted and tallied for the bona fide candidate. All resolutions, orders and rules inconsistent herewith are hereby modified or repealed. [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED.] We held in several cases that the judgments of the Electoral Tribunals are beyond judicial interference, unless rendered without or in excess of their jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.[27] The power of judicial review may be invoked in exceptional cases upon a clear showing of such arbitrary and improvident use by the Tribunal of its power as

constitutes a clear denial of due process of law, or upon a demonstration of a very clear unmitigated error, manifestly constituting such grave abuse of direction that there has to be a remedy for such abuse.[28] Grave abuse of discretion implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility. The grave abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.[29] Respondent HRET gravely abused its discretion in affirming the proclamation of respondent Salimbangon as the duly elected Representative of the Fourth Legislative District of Cebu despite the final outcome of revision showing 5,401 ballots with only "MARTINEZ" or "C. "MARTINEZ" written on the line for Representative, votes which should have been properly counted in favor of petitioner and not nullified as stray votes, after considering all relevant circumstances clearly establishing that such votes could not have been intended for "Edilito C. Martinez" who was declared a nuisance candidate in a final judgment. Ensconced in our jurisprudence is the wellfounded rule that laws and statutes governing election contests especially appreciation of ballots must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the electorate in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by technical infirmities. An election protest is imbued with public interest so much so that the need to dispel uncertainties which becloud the real choice of the people is imperative. [30] The prohibition against nuisance candidates is aimed precisely at preventing uncertainty and confusion in ascertaining the true will of the electorate. Thus, in certain situations as in the case at bar, final judgments declaring a nuisance candidate should effectively cancel the certificate of candidacy filed by such candidate as of election day. Otherwise, potential nuisance candidates will continue to put the electoral process into mockery by filing certificates of candidacy at the last minute and delaying resolution of any petition to declare them as nuisance candidates until elections are held and the votes counted and canvassed. We therefore hold that ballots indicating only the similar surname of two (2) candidates for the same position may, in appropriate cases, be counted in favor of the bona fide candidate and not considered stray, even if the other candidate was declared a nuisance candidate by final judgment after the elections. Accordingly, the 5,401 votes for "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" should be credited to petitioner giving him a total of 72,056 votes as against 67,108 total votes of private respondent. Petitioner thus garnered more votes than private respondent with a winning margin of 4,948 votes. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 28, 2009 and Resolution dated July 30, 2009 of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal in HRET Case No. 07-035 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Celestino A. Martinez III is hereby declared the duly elected Representative of the Fourth Legislative District of

Cebu in the May 14, 2007 elections. This decision is immediately executory. Let a copy of the decision be served personally upon the parties and their counsels. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

EN BANC G.R. No. 209835, September 22, 2015 ROGELIO BATIN CABALLERO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JONATHAN ENRIQUE V. NANUD, JR., Respondents. DECISION PERALTA, J.: Before us is a petition for certiorari with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order seeking to set aside the Resolution1 dated November 6, 2013 of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc which affirmed in toto the Resolution2 dated May 3, 2013 of the COMELEC First Division canceling the Certificate of Candidacy (COC) of petitioner Rogelio Batin Caballero. Petitioner3 and private respondent Jonathan Enrique V. Nanud, Jr.4 were both candidates for the mayoralty position of the Municipality of Uyugan, Province of Batanes in the May 13, 2013 elections. Private respondent filed a Petition5 to deny due course to or cancellation of petitioner's certificate of candidacy alleging that the latter made a false representation when he declared in his COC that he was eligible to run for Mayor of Uyugan, Batanes despite being a Canadian citizen and a nonresident thereof. During the December 10, 2012 conference, petitioner, through counsel, manifested that he was not properly served with a copy of the petition and the petition was served by registered mail not in his address in Barangay Imnajbu, Uyugan, Batanes. He, however, received a copy of the petition during the conference. Petitioner did not file an Answer but filed a Memorandum controverting private respondent's substantial allegations in his petition. Petitioner argued that prior to the filing of his COC on October 3, 2012, he took an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before the Philippine Consul General in Toronto, Canada on September 13, 2012 and became a dual Filipino and Canadian citizen pursuant to Republic Act (RA) No. 9225, otherwise known as the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003. Thereafter, he renounced his Canadian citizenship and executed an Affidavit of Renunciation before a Notary Public in Batanes on October 1, 2012 to conform with Section 5(2) of RA No. 9225.6 He claimed that he did not lose his domicile of origin in Uyugan, Batanes despite becoming a Canadian citizen as he merely left Uyugan temporarily to pursue a brighter future for him and his family; and that he went back to Uyugan during his vacation while working in Nigeria, California, and finally in Canada. On May 3, 2013, the COMELEC First Division issued a Resolution finding that petitioner made a material misrepresentation in his COC when he declared that he

is a resident of Barangay Imnajbu, Uyugan, Batanes within one year prior to the election. The decretal portion of the resolution reads:cralawlawlibrary WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES to GRANT the instant Petition. The Certificate of Candidacy of respondent Caballero is hereby CANCELLED.7chanrobleslaw The COMELEC First Division did not discuss the procedural deficiency raised by petitioner as he was already given a copy of the petition and also in consonance with the Commission's constitutional duty of determining the qualifications of petitioner to run for elective office. It found that while petitioner complied with the requirements of RA No. 9225 since he had taken his Oath of Allegiance to the Philippines and had validly renounced his Canadian citizenship, he failed to comply with the other requirements provided under RA No. 9225 for those seeking elective office, i.e., persons who renounced their foreign citizenship must still comply with the one year residency requirement provided for under Section 39 of the Local Government Code. Petitioner's naturalization as a Canadian citizen resulted in the abandonment of his domicile of origin in Uyugan, Batanes; thus, having abandoned his domicile of origin, it is incumbent upon him to prove that he was able to reestablish his domicile in Uyugan for him to be eligible to run for elective office in said locality which he failed to do. Elections were subsequently held on May 13, 2013 and the election returns showed that petitioner won over private respondent.8 Private respondent filed an Urgent Ex-parte Motion to Defer Proclamation.9 On May 14, 2013, petitioner was proclaimed Mayor of Uyugan, Batanes. On May 16, 2013, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc assailing the May 3, 2013 Resolution issued by the COMELEC's First Division canceling his COC. On May 17, 2013, private respondent filed a Petition to Annul Proclamation.10 On November 6, 2013, the COMELEC En Banc issued its assailed Resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner filed for certiorari with temporary

with us the instant petition prayer for the issuance of a restraining order.

In the meantime, private respondent filed a Motion for Execution11 of the May 3, 2013 Resolution of the COMELEC First Division as affirmed by the En Banc and prayed for the cancellation of petitioner's COC, the appropriate correction of the certificate of canvas to reflect that all votes in favor of petitioner are stray votes, declaration of nullity of petitioner's proclamation and proclamation of private respondent as the dulyelected Mayor of Uyugan, Batanes in the May 13, 2013

elections.

of time, provided that the right of the parties to a full day in court is not substantially impaired.17

On December 12, 2013, COMELEC Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. issued a Writ of Execution.12 Private respondent took his Oath of Office13 on December 20, 2013. In the instant petition for certiorari, petitioner raises the following assignment of errors, to wit:cralawlawlibrary THE COMELEC EN BANC GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE CLEAR IMPORT OF PROCEDURAL RULES PROVIDED FOR UNDER COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 9523 PROMULGATED ON 25 SEPTEMBER 2012. THE COMELEC EN BANC GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER ABANDONED HIS PHILIPPINE DOMICILE WHEN HE WORKED IN SEVERAL FOREIGN COUNTRIES FOR "GREENER PASTURE." EVEN ASSUMING THAT PETITIONER HAS ABANDONED HIS PHILIPPINE DOMICILE WHEN HE BECAME A CANADIAN CITIZEN, HIS REACQUISITION OF HIS FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP, TAKING OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT NINE (9) MONTHS PRIOR TO HIS ELECTION ON 13 MAY 2013, IS A SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW ON RESIDENCY.14chanrobleslaw Petitioner contends that when private respondent filed a petition to deny due course or to cancel his COC with the Office of the Municipal Election Officer of Uyugan, Batanes, a copy thereof was not personally served on him; that private respondent later sent a copy of the petition to him by registered mail without an attached affidavit stating the reason on why registered mail as a mode of service was resorted to. Petitioner argues that private respondent violated Section 4, paragraphs (1)15 and (4),16 Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by COMELEC Resolution No. 9523, thus, his petition to deny due course or cancel petitioner's certificate of candidacy should have been denied outright. We

are

not

convinced.

While private respondent failed to comply with the above-mentioned requirements, the settled rule, however, is that the COMELEC Rules of Procedure are subject to liberal construction. Moreover, the COMELEC may exercise its power to suspend its own rules as provided under Section 4, Rule 1 of their Rules of Procedure.cralawlawlibrary Sec. 4. Suspension of the Rules. - In the interest of justice and in order to obtain speedy disposition of all matters pending before the Commission, these rules or any portion thereof may be suspended by the Commission.chanrobleslaw Under this authority, the Commission is similarly enabled to cope with all situations without concerning itself about procedural niceties that do not square with the need to do justice, in any case without further loss

In Hayudini v. COMELEC,18 we sustained the COMELEC's liberal treatment of respondent's petition to deny due course or cancel petitioner's COC despite its failure to comply with Sections 2 and 4 of Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by Resolution No. 9523, i.e., pertaining to the period to file petition and to provide sufficient explanation as to why his petition was not served personally on petitioner, respectively, and held that:cralawlawlibrary As a general rule, statutes providing for election contests are to be liberally construed in order that the will of the people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated by mere technical objections. Moreover, it is neither fair nor just to keep in office, for an indefinite period, one whose right to it is uncertain and under suspicion. It is imperative that his claim be immediately cleared, not only for the benefit of the winner but for the sake of public interest, which can only be achieved by brushing aside technicalities of procedure that protract and delay the trial of an ordinary action. This principle was reiterated in the cases of Tolentino v. Commission on Elections and De Castro v. Commission on Elections, where the Court held that "in exercising its powers and jurisdiction, as defined by its mandate to protect the integrity of elections, the COMELEC must not be straitjacketed by procedural rules in resolving election disputes." Settled is the rule that the COMELEC Rules of Procedure are subject to liberal construction. The COMELEC has the power to liberally interpret or even suspend its rules of procedure in the interest of justice, including obtaining a speedy disposition of all matters pending before it. This liberality is for the purpose of promoting the effective and efficient implementation of its objectives - ensuring the holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections, as well as achieving just, expeditious, and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the COMELEC. Unlike an ordinary civil action, an election contest is imbued with public interest. It involves not only the adjudication of private and pecuniary interests of rival candidates, but also the paramount need of dispelling the uncertainty which beclouds the real choice of the electorate. And the tribunal has the corresponding duty to ascertain, by all means within its command, whom the people truly chose as their rightful leader.19chanrobleslaw Here, we find that the issue raised, i.e., whether petitioner had been a resident of Uyugan, Batanes at least one (1) year before the elections held on May 13, 2013 as he represented in his COC, pertains to his qualification and eligibility to run for public office, therefore imbued with public interest, which justified the COMELEC's suspension of its own rules. We adopt the COMELEC's s ratiocination in accepting the petition, to wit:cralawlawlibrary This Commission recognizes the failure of petitioner to comply strictly with the procedure for filing a petition

to deny due course to or cancel certificate of candidacy set forth in Section 4, Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure as amended by COMELEC Resolution No. 9523, which requires service of a copy of the petition to respondent prior to its filing. But then, we should also consider the efforts exerted by petitioner in serving a copy of his petition to respondent after being made aware that such service is necessary. We should also take note of the impossibility for petitioner to personally serve a copy of the petition to respondent since he was in Canada at the time of its filing as shown in respondent's travel records. The very purpose of prior service of the petition to respondent is to afford the latter an opportunity to answer the allegations contained in the petition even prior to the service of summons by the Commission to him. In this case, respondent was given a copy of the petition during the conference held on 10 December 2012 and was ultimately accorded the occasion to rebut all the allegations against him. He even filed a Memorandum containing his defenses to petitioner's allegations. For all intents and purposes, therefore, respondent was never deprived of due process which is the very essence of this Commission's Rules of Procedure. Even the Supreme Court acknowledges the need for procedural rules to bow to substantive considerations "through a liberal construction aimed at promoting their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding, x x x x

x

x

x

When a case is impressed with public interest, a relaxation of the application of the rules is in order, x x x. Unquestionably, the instant case is impressed with public interest which warrants the relaxation of the application of the [R]ules of [P]rocedure, consistent with the ruling of the Supreme Court in several cases.20chanrobleslaw Petitioner next claims that he did not abandon his Philippine domicile. He argues that he was born and baptized in Uyugan, Batanes; studied and had worked therein for a couple of years, and had paid his community tax certificate; and, that he was a registered voter and had exercised his right of suffrage and even built his house therein. He also contends that he usually comes back to Uyugan, Batanes during his vacations from work abroad, thus, his domicile had not been lost. Petitioner avers that the requirement of the law in fixing the residence qualification of a candidate running for public office is not strictly on the period of residence in the place where he seeks to be elected but on the acquaintance by the candidate on his constituents' vital needs for their common welfare; and that his nine months of actual stay in Uyugan, Batanes prior to his election is a substantial compliance with the law. Petitioner insists that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in canceling his COC.

We

are

not

persuaded.

RA No. 9225, which is known as the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003, declares that natural-born citizens of the Philippines, who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country, can reacquire or retain his Philippine citizenship under the conditions of the law.21 The law does not provide for residency requirement for the reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship; nor does it mention any effect of such reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship on the current residence of the concerned natural-born Filipino.22 RA No. 9225 treats citizenship independently of residence.23 This is only logical and consistent with the general intent of the law to allow for dual citizenship. Since a natural-born Filipino may hold, at the same time, both Philippine and foreign citizenships, he may establish residence either in the Philippines or in the foreign country of which he is also a citizen.24 However, when a natural-born Filipino with dual citizenship seeks for an elective public office, residency in the Philippines becomes material. Section 5(2) of FLA No. 9225 provides:cralawlawlibrary SEC. 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities. - Those who retain or reacquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions: x x x x (2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath. chanrobleslaw Republic Act No. 7160, which is known as the Local Government Code of 1991, provides, among others, for the qualifications of an elective local official. Section 39 thereof states:cralawlawlibrary SEC. 39. Qualifications. - (a) An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines; a registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city or province or, in the case of a member of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, or sanggunian bayan, the district where he intends to be elected; a resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election; and able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect.chanrobleslaw Clearly, the Local Government candidate must be a resident seeks to be elected at least preceding the election day.

Code requires that the of the place where he one year immediately Respondent filed the

petition for cancellation of petitioner's COC on the ground that the latter made material misrepresentation when he declared therein that he is a resident of Uyugan, Batanes for at least one year immediately preceeding the day of elections. The term "residence" is to be understood not in its common acceptation as referring to "dwelling" or "habitation," but rather to "domicile" or legal residence,25 that is, "the place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus manendi)."26 A domicile of origin is acquired by every person at birth. It is usually the place where the child's parents reside and continues until the same is abandoned by acquisition of new domicile (domicile of choice). It consists not only in the intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention.27 Petitioner was a natural born Filipino who was born and raised in Uyugan, Batanes. Thus, it could be said that he had his domicile of origin in Uyugan, Batanes. However, he later worked in Canada and became a Canadian citizen. In Coquilla v. COMELEC28 we ruled that naturalization in a foreign country may result in an abandonment of domicile in the Philippines. This holds true in petitioner's case as permanent resident status in Canada is required for the acquisition of Canadian citizenship.29 Hence, petitioner had effectively abandoned his domicile in the Philippines and transferred his domicile of choice in Canada. His frequent visits to Uyugan, Batanes during his vacation from work in Canada cannot be considered as waiver of such abandonment. The next question is what is the effect of petitioner's retention of his Philippine citizenship under RA No. 9225 on his residence or domicile? In Japzon v. COMELEC,30 wherein respondent Ty reacquired his Philippine citizenship under RA No. 9225 and run for Mayor of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar and whose residency in the said place was put in issue, we had the occasion to state, thus:cralawlawlibrary [Petitioner's] reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 had no automatic impact or effect on his residence/domicile. He could still retain his domicile in the USA, and he did not necessarily regain his domicile in the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines. Ty merely had the option to again establish his domicile in the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines, said place becoming his new domicile of choice. The length of his residence therein shall be determined from the time he made it his domicile of choice, and it shall not retroact to the time of his birth.31chanrobleslaw Hence, petitioner's retention of his Philippine citizenship under RA No. 9225 did not automatically make him regain his residence in Uyugan, Batanes. He

must still prove that after becoming a Philippine citizen on September 13, 2012, he had reestablished Uyugan, Batanes as his new domicile of choice which is reckoned from the time he made it as such. The COMELEC found that petitioner failed to present competent evidence to prove that he was able to reestablish his residence in Uyugan within a period of one year immediately preceding the May 13, 2013 elections. It found that it was only after reacquiring his Filipino citizenship by virtue of RA No. 9225 on September 13, 2012 that petitioner can rightfully claim that he re-established his domicile in Uyugan, Batanes, if such was accompanied by physical presence thereat, coupled with an actual intent to reestablish his domicile there. However, the period from September 13, 2012 to May 12, 2013 was even less than the one year residency required by law. Doctrinally entrenched is the rule that in a petition for certiorari, findings of fact of administrative bodies, such as respondent COMELEC in the instant case, are final unless grave abuse of discretion has marred such factual determinations/~ Clearly, where there is no proof of grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, fraud or error of law in the questioned Resolutions, we may not review the factual findings of COMELEC, nor substitute its own findings on the sufficiency of evidence.33 Records indeed showed that petitioner failed to prove that he had been a resident of Uyugan, Batanes for at least one year immediately preceding the day of elections as required under Section 39 of the Local Government Code. Petitioner's argument that his nine (9) months of actual stay in Uyugan, Batanes, prior to the May 13, 2013 local elections is a substantial compliance with the law, is not persuasive. In Aquino v. Commission on Elections,34 we held:cralawlawlibrary x x x A democratic government is necessarily a government of laws. In a republican government those laws are themselves ordained by the people. Through their representatives, they dictate the qualifications necessary for service in government positions. And as petitioner clearly lacks one of the essential qualifications for running for membership in the House of Representatives, not even the will of a majority or plurality of the voters of the Second District of Makati City would substitute for a requirement mandated by the fundamental law itself.35chanrobleslaw Petitioner had made a material misrepresentation by stating in his COC that he is a resident of Uyugan, Batanes for at least one (1) year immediately proceeding the day of the election, thus, a ground for a petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. Section 74, in relation to Section 78, of the OEC governs the cancellation of, and grant or denial of due course to COCs, to wit:cralawlawlibrary 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; if for Member of the Batasang Pambansa, the province, including its component cities, highly urbanized city or district or sector which he seeks to represent; the political party to which he belongs; civil status; his date of birth; residence; his post office address for all election purposes; his profession or occupation; that he will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; that he will obey the laws, legal orders, and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted authorities; that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant to a foreign country; that the obligation imposed by his oath is assumed voluntarily, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that the facts stated in the certificate of candidacy are true to the best of his knowledge. x

x

x

x

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 any 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.chanrobleslaw We have held that in order to justify the cancellation of COC under Section 78, it is essential that the false representation mentioned therein pertains to a material matter for the sanction imposed by this provision would affect the substantive rights of a candidate - the right to run for the elective post for which he filed the certificate of candidacy.36 We concluded that material representation contemplated by Section 78 refers to qualifications for elective office, such as the requisite residency, age, citizenship or any other legal qualification necessary to run for a local elective office as provided for in the Local Government Code.37 Furthermore, aside from the requirement of materiality, the misrepresentation must consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible.38 We, therefore, find no grave abuse of discretion committed by the COMELEC in canceling petitioner's COC for material misrepresentation. WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The Resolution dated May 3, 2013 of the COMELEC First Division and the Resolution dated November 6, 2013 of the COMELEC En Banc and are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.