FACTS:
On March 16, 1996, in preparation of the May
1996 SK election, petitioner Lynette G. Garvida applied for registration as
member and voter of the Katipunan ng Kabataan of Barangay San Lorenzo, Bangui,
Ilocos Norte. The Board of Election Tellers denied the application on the
ground that Garvida is already 21 years and 10 months old, which exceeded the
age limit for KK as laid down in Section 3 [b] of COMELEC Resolution No. 2824.
She
appealed before the MCTC of Bangui-Pagudpud-Adams-Damalneg, Ilocos Norte,
which granted her appeal and ordered her qualification and registration as
member and voter of KK.
On
April 23, 1996, Garvida filed her COC for SK Chairman but was disapproved by
the election officer due to her age. Petitioner, however, appealed before the
COMELEC Regional Director who set aside the order of the EO and allowed
petitioner to run.
On
April 29, 1996, Florencio G. Sales Jr., petitioner’s rival candidate for SK
Chairman, sent a 2-copy petition for the disqualification of Garvida on the ground
of false representation of age, via facsimile and a registered mail, before the
COMELEC-Manila.
On
May 2, 1996, the EO Rios issued a memorandum to petitioner informing her of the
disqualification and gave her 24 hours to explain why her COC should be
approved. On the same day, the COMELEC
en banc issued an order directing the BET and BoC of Brgy. San Lorenzo to
suspend Garvida’s proclamation if ever she won the election, as a response to
the petition for disqualification filed by Salas.
On
May 6, 1996 SK election, Garvida won by 78 against Salas’ 76 votes. In accordance with the order of COMELEC en banc,
the BET did not proclaim petitioner as the winner. Hence this petition for certiorari.
In
June 2, BET proclaimed Garvida as the winner without prejudice to any further
action by the Commission on Elections or any other interested party. She eventually won as Auditor of the
Pambansang Pederasyon ng SK.
ISSUE: (1) W/N the COMELEC en banc acted without
jurisdiction in denying and cancelling petitioner’s CoC on the ground of
overage. (2) W/N the COMELEC en banc erred in acting on a petition filed
through fax.
RULING:
(1) Yes.
The Rules of Procedure of the Omnibus Election Code, specifically R23 requires
that a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy for
an elective office may be filed with the Law
Department of the COMELEC on the ground that the candidate has made a false
material representation in his certificate. The petition may be heard and
evidence received by any official designated by the COMELEC after which the
case shall be decided by the COMELEC itself. S3 of the same Rule further
provides that “the Commission shall sit in two (2) Divisions to hear and decide
protests or petitions in ordinary actions, special actions, special cases,
provisional remedies, contempt and special proceedings except in accreditation
of citizens' arms of the Commission.” In the instant case, the COMELEC en banc
did not refer the case to any of its Divisions upon receipt of the petition. It
therefore acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion when it
entertained the petition and issued the order of May 2, 1996.
(2) Every
pleading before the COMELEC must be printed, mimeographed or typewritten in
legal size bond paper and filed in at least ten (10) legible copies. Pleadings
must be filed directly with the proper Clerk of Court of the COMELEC
personally, or, by registered mail. Filing a pleading by facsimile transmission
is not sanctioned by the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, much less by the Rules of
Court. A facsimile is not a genuine and authentic pleading. It is, at best, an
exact copy preserving all the marks of an original. Without the
original, there is no way of determining on its face whether the facsimile
pleading is genuine and authentic and was originally signed by the party and
his counsel. It may, in fact, be a sham pleading. The uncertainty of the
authenticity of a facsimile pleading should have restrained the COMELEC en banc from acting on the petition and
issuing the questioned order. The COMELEC en banc should have waited until it received
the petition filed by registered mail.
AGE QUALIFICATION ISSUE:
The age requirement for the Katipunan ng Kabataan membership is fifteen
(15) but not more than twenty-one (21) years of age (S424, LGC) while an
elective official must be at least fifteen (15) years but not more than
twenty-one (21) years of age on the day of his election (S428, LGC). The provision that an elective official of
the SK should not be more than 21 years of age on the day of his election is
very clear. The Local Government Code speaks of years, not months nor days.
When the law speaks of years, it is understood that years are of 365 days each.
The law does not state that the candidate be less than 22 years on election
day. Petitioner must be a qualified voter prior to her eligibility as a
candidate for the election. At the time
of the filing of her candidacy, petitioner is already more that the maximum age
limit of 21 years old, and just less than 10 days before she turns 22, at the
time of her proclamation.
EFFECT OF
WINNING THE ELECTION.
The fact
that the candidate was elected will not make the age requirement directory, nor
will it validate his election. The will of the people as expressed
through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility.
ISSUE OF SUCCESSION.
The ineligibility of Garvida does not entitle Salas, the candidate who
obtained the highest number of votes in the May 6, 1996 elections, to be
declared elected. A defeated candidate
cannot be deemed elected to the office. Neither
the Court can order that petitioner should be succeeded by the Sangguniang
Kabataan member who obtained the next highest number of votes in the May 6,
1996 elections pursuant to Section 435 of the LGC as it only applies when a
Sangguniang Kabataan Chairman "refuses to assume office, fails to qualify,
is convicted of a felony, voluntarily resigns, dies, is permanently
incapacitated, is removed from office, or has been absent without leave for
more than three (3) consecutive months." In this case, petitioner was
INELIGIBLE to assume position. Hence,
the Court ordered her to vacate the SK Chairman position and be replaced by the
SK member elected among themselves by simple majority.