G.R. No. 177927 February 15, 2008
FLORANTE S. QUIZON, petitioner, vs. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (SECOND DIVISION), MANILA, ATTY. ARNULFO H. PIOQUINTO (ELECTION OFFICER, ANTIPOLO CITY) and ROBERTO VILLANUEVA PUNO, respondents.
FACTS:
This petition for mandamus with prayer for preliminary injunction seeks to compel the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Second Division to resolve the petition and supplemental petition for disqualification andcancellation of certificate of candidacy filed by Florante S. Quizon against Roberto V. Puno. In this case, petitionerand private respondent Puno were congressional candidates during the May 14, 2007 national and local elections.
On April 17, 2007, Quizon filed a Petition for Disqualification and Cancellation of Certificate of Candidacyagainst Puno. He alleged that Puno is not qualified to run as candidate in Antipolo City because of the failure to meet the residency requirement prior to the day of election. The petitioner also further claims that private respondent’s claim in his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) that he is a resident of Antipolo for 4 years and 6 months before May 14,2007 constitutes a material misrepresentation since he was in fact a resident of Quezon City.
Then, the petitioner filed a Supplement to the petition claiming that Puno cannot be a valid candidate for a congressional seat in the 1st District of Antipolo City since he indicated in his COC that he was running in the 1st District of the Province of Rizal which is a different legislative district. There are also concerned residents of the First District of Antipolo City who wrote a letter seeking clarification from the COMELEC on the legal and political implications of the COC of Puno, who was seeking public office in the First District of the Province of Rizal.
However, waging his political campaign in the City of Antipolo is a separate and distinct legislative district.They prayed that Puno’s COC be declared as invalid and that the same be cancelled.
After petitioner Quizon filed this Petition for Mandamus alleging that the COMELEC had not rendered a judgment on the above-mentioned petitions and that the unreasonable delay in rendering judgment deprived him of his right to be declared as the winner and assume the position of member of the House of Representatives.
The COMELEC Second Division promulgated that the Petition for Disqualification and Cancellation of the Certificate of Candidacy of respondent Roberto V. Puno is DISMISSED.
Thus, Quizon filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc which remains unresolved up to this date. On the comment, Puno argues that the petition for mandamus was mooted by the July 31,2007 Resolution of the COMELEC Second Division. And that the petition must be dismissed for the act sought to be performed is a discretionary and not a ministerial duty; and for failure of Quizon to show that he is entitled to the writ.
The Office of the Solicitor General agrees that the petition for mandamus was mooted by the July 31, 2007 Resolution of the COMELEC Second Division. It likewise posits that any question regarding Puno’s qualifications now pertains to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). In the instant petition, Quizon prays that the Court order the COMELEC to resolve his pending petition for disqualification.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the mandamus is proper?
RULING:
The Court ruled that it is not proper. The petition failed to meet the requisites for mandamus. As a general rule, the writ of mandamus lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty. When the act sought to be performed involves the exercise of discretion, the respondent may only be directed by Mandamus to act but not to act in one way or the other.
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. Hence, the Court may only compel COMELEC to exercise such discretion and resolve the matter but it may not control the manner of exercising such discretion.
However, the issuance of a writ commanding COMELEC to resolve the petition for disqualification will no longer serve any purpose since COMELEC has issued its decision on the matter. Moreover, petitioner has not adequately shown a well-defined, clear and certain legal right to warrant the granting of the petition. He asserts that the unreasonable delay in resolving the petition deprived him of his right to be proclaimed as the winning candidate since all votes cast in favor of respondent are stray due to his invalid candidacy.
Accordingly, COMELEC must consider that only he and Amarante Velasco were the candidates in the said election and since he received a higher number of votes than Velasco, petitioner argues that he should be proclaimed the winning candidate. Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646 provides a final judgment before the election is required for the votes of a disqualified candidate to be considered "stray."
In the absence of any final judgment of disqualification against Puno, the votes cast in his favor cannot be considered stray. As to the alleged irregularity in the filing of the certificate of candidacy, it is important to note that this Court has repeatedly held that provisions of the election law regarding certificates of candidacy, such as signing and swearing on the same, as well as the information required to be stated therein, are considered mandatory prior to the elections. Thereafter, they are regarded as merely directory to give effect to the will of the people.In the instant case, Puno won by an overwhelming number of votes. Technicalities should not be permitted to defeat the intention of the voter, especially so if that intention is discoverable from the ballot itself, as in this case.
Finally, petitioner has other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. After a resolution on the petition for disqualification, a motion for reconsideration may be filed before the COMELEC En Banc as what was done by petitioner. Only then can petitioner come before this Court via a petition for certiorari. These rules of procedure are not without reason. They are meant to facilitate the orderly administration of justice and petitioner cannot take a judicial shortcut without violating the rule on hierarchy of courts. Clearly, petitioner failed to show that he met all the requirements for the issuance of the writ of mandamus.
No comments:
Post a Comment