EN BANC

[G.R. No. 93986. December 22, 1992.]

BENJAMIN T. LOONG, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON

ELECTIONS, NURHUSSEIN UTUTALUM and ALIM BASHIR
EDRIS, respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE; 25-DAY PERIOD

PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 78 OF THE CODE CANNOT BE SUPERSEDED BY THE
COMELEC'S RULES OF PROCEDURE; COMELEC HAS NO LEGISLATIVE POWERS. —
Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code ("Code" for brevity) provides that the
certificate of candidacy of the person filing it shall state, among others, the date
of birth of said person. Section 78 of the same Code states that in case a person
filing a certificate of candidacy has committed false representation, a petition to
cancel the certificate of the aforesaid person may be filed within twenty-five (25)
days from the time the certificate was filed. Clearly, SPA No. 90-006 was filed
beyond the 25-day period prescribed by Section 78 of the Omnibus Election
Code. We do not agree with private respondent Ututalum's contention that the
petition for disqualification, as in the case at bar, may be filed at any time after
the last day for filing a certificate of candidacy but not later than the date of
proclamation, applying Section 3, Rule 25 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure.
Rule 25 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure refers to Disqualification of
Candidates; and Section 1 of said rule provides that any candidate who commits
any act declared by law to be a ground for disqualification may be disqualified
from continuing as a candidate. The grounds for disqualification as expressed in
Sections 12 and 68 of the Code are the following: "SEC. 12. Disqualifications. —
Any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or
incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion,
insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for which he was sentenced to a penalty
of more than eighteen months or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be
disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given
plenary pardon or granted amnesty." "SEC. 68. Disqualifications. — Any
candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final
decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having (a)
given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the
voters or public officials performing electoral functions; (b) committed acts of
terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in his election campaign an amount
in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, received or made any
contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or (e) violated
any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v. and cc, sub-
paragraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has
been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent resident of
or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective
office under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence
requirement provided for in the election laws." The petition filed by private
respondent Ututalum with the respondent Comelec to disqualify petitioner Loong
on the ground that the latter made a false representation in his certificate of
candidacy as to his age, clearly does not fall under the grounds of disqualification
as provided for in Rule 25 but is expressly covered by Rule 23 of the Comelec
Rules of Procedure governing petitions to cancel certificate of candidacy.
Moreover, Section 3, Rule 25 which allows the filing of the petition at any time
after the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy but not later than the
date of proclamation, is merely a procedural rule issued by respondent
Commission which, although a constitutional body, has no legislative powers.
Thus, it can not supersede Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code which is a
legislative enactment.
2. SECTIONS 6 AND 7 OF REP. ACT NO. 6646 (ELECTORAL REFORMS LAW OF
1987) DO NOT MODIFY OR ALTER THE 25-DAY PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY SEC. 78
OF THE OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE; NOWHERE IN SAID SECTIONS IS MENTION
MADE OF THE PERIOD FOR FILING DISQUALIFICATION CASES. — We also do not
find merit in the contention of respondent Commission that in the light of the
provisions of Section 6 and 7 of Rep. Act. No. 6646, a petition to deny due course
to or cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed even beyond the 25-day period
prescribed by Section 78 of the Code, as long as it is filed within a reasonable
time from the discovery of the ineligibility. Sections 6 and 7 of Rep. Act No. 6646
are here re-quoted: "SEC. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. — Any candidate who
has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and
the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not
declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted
for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or
Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry, or
protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the
pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate
whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong." "SEC. 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." It will be noted
that nothing in Sections 6 or 7 modifies or alters the 25-day period prescribed by
Section 78 of the Code for filing the appropriate action to cancel a certificate of
candidacy on account of any false representation made therein. On the contrary,
said Section 7 affirms and reiterates Section 78 of the Code. We note that
Section 6 refers only to the effects of a disqualification case which may be based
on grounds other than that provided under Section 78 of the Code. But Section 7
of Rep. Act No. 6646 also makes the effects referred to in Section 6 applicable to
disqualification cases filed under Section 78 of the Code. Nowhere in Sections 6
and 7 of Rep. Act. No. 6646 is mention made of the period within which these
disqualification cases may be filed.
3. PERIODS WITHIN WHICH A PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF
CANDIDATES MUST BE FILED ARE PROVIDED FOR IN THE CODE IN SEC. 78 AND
SEC. 253 (PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO). — There are provisions in the Code
which supply the periods within which a petition relating to disqualification of
candidates must be filed, such as Section 78, already discussed, and Section 253
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 on petitions for quo warranto. Thus, if a person qualified to file a petition to
disqualify a certain candidate fails to file the petition within the 25-day period
prescribed by Section 78 of the Code for whatever reasons, the election laws do
not leave him completely helpless as he has another chance to raise the
disqualification of the candidate by filing a petition for quo warranto within ten
(10) days from the proclamation of the results of the election, as provided under
Section 253 of the Code. Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure similarly provides
that any voter contesting the election of any regional, provincial or city official
on the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines
may file a petition for quo warranto with the Electoral Contest Adjudication
Department. The petition may be filed within ten (10) days from the date the
respondent is proclaimed (Section 2).
4. COMELEC HAS NO POWER TO REMEDY SO-CALLED "PROCEDURAL GAP" IN
THE LAW, ITS FUNCTION NOT BEING LEGISLATIVE. — It is true that the discovery
of false representation as to material facts required to be stated in a certificate of
candidacy, under Section 74 of the Code, may be made only after the lapse of
the 25-day period prescribed by Section 78 of the Code, through no fault of the
person who discovers such misrepresentations and who would want the
disqualification of the candidate committing the misrepresentation. It would
seem, therefore, that there could indeed be a gap between the time of the
discovery of the misrepresentation, (when the discovery is made after the 25-
day period under Sec. 78 of the Code has lapsed) and the time when the
proclamation of the results of the election is made. During this so-called "gap"
the would-be petitioner (who would seek the disqualification of the candidate) is
left with nothing to do except to wait for the proclamation of the results, so that
he could avail of a remedy against the misrepresenting candidate, that is, by
filing a petition for quo warranto against him. Respondent Commission sees this
"gap" in what it, calls a procedural gap which, according to it, is unnecessary and
should be remedied. At the same time, it can not be denied that it is the purpose
and intent of the legislative branch of the government to fix a definite time
within which petitions for protests related to eligibility of candidates for elective
offices must be filed, as seen in Sections 78 and 253 of the Code. Respondent
Commission may have seen the need to remedy this so-called "procedural gap",
but it is not for it to prescribe what the law does not provide, its function not
being legislative. The question of whether the time to file these petitions or
protests is too short or ineffective is one for the Legislature to decide and remedy.
5. FRIVALDO RULING NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE AT BAR; REASON. — We
are aware that in Frivaldo vs. Comelec, this Court held that a petition to
disqualify an elective official, on the ground that he is not a Filipino citizen, may
be filed at anytime, even beyond the period prescribed by law, and even if he had
already been proclaimed elected to the office and in fact had long been
discharging the duties of said office. But we disagree with respondent
Commission that the Frivaldo ruling applies to the case at bar in all its
connotations and implications. For one, the ground for which disqualification is
sought in the present case is misrepresentation as to the required age of the
candidate, whereas, in Frivaldo the ground for disqualification was lack of
Philippine citizenship. This is an overriding and fundamental desideratum
matched perhaps only by disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 6. SPA NO. 90-006 WAS FILED BEYOND THE 25-DAY PERIOD, AND COULD
NOT BE TREATED AS A PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO; REASON. — In sum, SPA
No. 90-006 was filed by private respondent Ututalum beyond the 25-day period
(from the filing by petitioner Loong of the questioned certificate of candidacy
prescribed by Section 78 of the Code. It follows that the dismissal of said petition
for disqualification is warranted. Further it would appear that we can not treat
SPA No. 90-006 as a petition for quo warranto (Section 253 of the Code) for
when it was filed with the respondent Commission, no proclamation of election
results had as yet been made, hence, it was premature.

DECISION

PADILLA, J : p

In this special civil action of certiorari, petitioner assails the Resolution dated 15
May 1990 of the Commission on Elections (Second Division), issued in SPA No.
90-006 entitled "Nur Hussein Ututalum, petitioner vs. Benjamin Loong,
respondent," a petition to disqualify Benjamin Loong, candidate for Regional Vice-
Governor of the Autonomous Government in Muslim Mindanao. Said assailed
resolution ruled that the respondent Commission has jurisdiction to hear and
decide SPA No. 90-006.
On 15 January 1990, petitioner filed with the respondent Commission his
certificate of candidacy for the position of Vice-Governor of the Mindanao
Autonomous Region in the election held on 17 February 1990 (15 January 1990
being the last day for filing said certificate); herein two (2) private respondents
(Ututalum and Edris) were also candidates for the same position.
On 5 March 1990 (or 16 days after the election), respondent Ututalum filed
before the respondent Commission (Second Division) a petition (docketed as SPA
Case No. 90-006) seeking to disqualify petitioner for the office of Regional Vice-
Governor, on the ground that the latter made a false representation in his
certificate of candidacy as to his age.
On 7 March 1990, the other candidate, respondent Edris, filed a "Petition in
Intervention" in the said SPA No. 90-006, raising therein issues similar to those
raised by respondent Ututalum in his main petition.
On 19 March 1990, 1 petitioner Loong filed in SPA No. 90-006 his answer to the
petition, seeking the dismissal of the petition, and alleging the following:
1. that it has not been the practice among the Muslim people in the
community where respondent was born to record the birth of a child with
the Office of the Civil Registry; that following such practice, respondent's
parents did not also record his birth with the said office; that, to be sure
of his age qualification, respondent, before filing his certificate of
candidacy consulted his mother and other persons who have personal
knowledge of his date of birth and all assured respondent that his correct
date of birth is July 4, 1954.
Cdpr

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 2. that respondent COMELEC has no jurisdiction because such
petition is actually one which is to deny due course to or cancel a
certificate of candidacy which, under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election
Code (BP 881), as amended by Election Reforms Law of 1987, should
have been filed within 25 days following the last day for filing of the
certificate of candidacy.

On 30 March 1990, petitioner Loong also filed his "Answer to Petition for
Intervention." 2
On 15 May 1990, the respondent Commission (Second Division) rendered the
now assailed Resolution 3 (with two (2) Commissioners — Yorac and Flores
concurring, and one Commissioner — Dimaampao dissenting), holding that:
"WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, the Commission on
Elections (Second Division) holds that it has jurisdiction to try the instant
petition and the respondent's motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction is hereby denied."

In its questioned resolution, respondent Commission held that, in consonance

with the ruling of this Court in Frivaldo vs. COMELEC 4 to wit —
"The qualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be erased by the
electorate alone. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot
cannot cure the vice of ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly believed,
as in this case, that the candidate was qualified."

Sections 6 and 7 of Rep. Act No. 6646 5 (in relation to the said Frivaldo ruling)
should now mean that:
"1. When there is an allegation of falsification of an entry in a
candidate's certificate of candidacy, and such alleged falsification refers to
a fact concerning the candidate's eligibility to run for and hold an elective
public office, a petition to declare such candidate ineligible is seasonable if
it is brought within a reasonable time of the discovery of ineligibility.

2. Such petition for a declaration of ineligibility is seasonable even if

filed after the period prescribed by law for attacking certificate of
candidacy and before the proclamation of the candidate sought to be
disqualified. The substantive issue of qualification cannot be subordinated
to or defeated by the gap in procedural rules. . . ." 6

Denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the abovecited resolution, the

respondent Commission issued Resolution dated 3 July 1990, 7 stating among
others that —
"While the Frivaldo case referred to the question of respondent's
citizenship, we hold that the principle applies to discovery of violation of
other requirements for eligibility, such as for instance the fact that a
candidate is a holder of a green card or other certificates of permanent
residence in another country, or, as in this case, that the candidate does
not possess the age qualification for the office."

On 3 July 1990, petitioner was proclaimed as the duly elected Vice-Governor of

the Mindanao Autonomous Region. 8 Hence, this special civil action of certiorari
filed by petitioner on 9 July 1990 to annul the aforesaid resolutions of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 respondent Commission dated 15 May 1990 and 3 July 1990, issued in SPA No.
90-006.
The principal issue in the case at bar, as we see it, is whether or not SPA No. 90-
006 (a petition to cancel the certificate of candidacy of petitioner Loong) was
filed within the period prescribed by law. cdrep

The undisputed facts are as follows: petitioner Loong filed his certificate of
candidacy on 15 January 1990 (the last day for filing the same), the election for
officials of the Muslim Mindanao Autonomous Region being on 17 February
1990; but private respondent Ututalum filed the petition (SPA 90-006) to
disqualify candidate Loong only on 5 March 1990, or forty-nine (49) days from
the date Loong's certificate of candidacy was filed (i.e. 15 January 1990), and
sixteen (16) days after the election itself.
Petitioner Loong contends that SPA No. 90-006 was filed out of time because it
was filed beyond the 25-day period prescribed by Section 78 of the Omnibus
Election Code. On the other hand, private respondent Ututalum alleges that SPA
No. 90-006, though filed only on 5 March 1990, was filed when no proclamation
of winner had as yet been made and that the petition is deemed filed on time as
Section 3, Rule 25 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure states that the petition to
disqualify a candidate on grounds of ineligibility "shall be filed any day after the
last day for filing of certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of
proclamation."
On the part of respondent Commission, it held in its assailed resolution that the
petition in SPA No. 90-006 was timely filed, applying Sections 6 and 7 of Republic
Act No. 6646, 9 and Section 2, Rule 23 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure which
states that the petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy
must be filed within five (5) days following the last day for the filing of a
certificate of candidacy, both read in the light of the Frivaldo ruling of this Court.
We find the present petition to be meritorious.
Sections 3 and 4 of Rep. Act No. 6734 (entitled, "An act providing for an organic
act for the autonomous region in Muslin Mindanao") requires that the age of a
person running for the office of Vice Governor for the autonomous region shall be
at least thirty-five (35) years on the day of the election. Private respondent
Ututalum alleges that petitioner Loong falls short of this age requirement, hence,
on 5 March 1990, he filed a petition to disqualify the petitioner.
Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code ("Code" for brevity) provides that the
certificate of candidacy of the person filing it shall state, among others, the date
of birth of said person. Section 78 of the same Code states that in case a person
filing a certificate of candidacy has committed false representation, a petition to
cancel the certificate of the aforesaid person may be filed within twenty-five (25)
days from the time the certificate was filed.
Clearly, SPA No. 90-006 was filed beyond the 25-day period prescribed by Section
78 of the Omnibus Election Code.
We do not agree with private respondent Ututalum's contention that the petition
for disqualification, as in the case at bar, may be filed at any time after the last
day for filing a certificate of candidacy but not later than the date of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 proclamation, applying Section 3, Rule 25 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure.
Rule 25 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure refers to Disqualification of
Candidates; and Section 1 of said rule provides that any candidate who commits
any act declared by law to be a ground for disqualification may be disqualified
from continuing as a candidate. The grounds for disqualification as expressed in
Sections 12 and 68 of the Code are the following:
"SECTION 12. Disqualification. — Any person who has been declared
by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced
by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense
for which he was sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months
or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a
candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given plenary
pardon or granted amnesty."

"SECTION 68. Disqualifications. — Any candidate who, in an action or

protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent
court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having (a) given money or
other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or
public officials performing electoral functions; (b) committed acts of
terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in his election campaign an
amount in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, received or
made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104;
or (e) violated any of Section 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k,
v. and cc, sub-paragraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a
candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. Any person
who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall
not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said
person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a
foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided
for in the election laws."

The petition filed by private respondent Ututalum with the respondent Comelec
to disqualify petitioner Loong on the ground that the latter made a false
representation in his certificate of candidacy as to his age, clearly does not fall
under the grounds of disqualification as provided for in Rule 25 but is expressly
covered by Rule 23 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure governing petitions to
cancel certificate of candidacy. Moreover, Section 3, Rule 25 which allows the
filing of the petition at any time after the last day for the filing of certificates of
candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation, is merely a procedural rule
issued by respondent Commission which, although a constitutional body, has no
legislative powers. Thus, it can not supersede Section 78 of the Omnibus Election
Code which is a legislative enactment.
We also do not find merit in the contention of respondent Commission that in the
light of the provisions of Section 6 and 7 of Rep. Act No. 6646, a petition to deny
due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed even beyond the
25-day period prescribed by Section 78 of the Code, as long as it is filed within a
reasonable time from the discovery of the ineligibility.
Sections 6 and 7 of Rep. Act No. 6646 are here re-quoted:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 "SECTION 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. — Any candidate who has
been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for,
and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a
candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be
disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes
in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and
hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the
complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order
the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the
evidence of his guilt is strong."
LLphil

"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."

It will be noted that nothing in Sections 6 or 7 modifies or alters the 25-day

period prescribed by Section 78 of the Code for filing the appropriate action to
cancel a certificate of candidacy on account of any false representation made
therein. On the contrary, said Section 7 affirms and reiterates Section 78 of the
Code.
We note that Section 6 refers only to the effects of a disqualification case which
may be based on grounds other than that provided under Section 78 of the Code.
But Section 7 of Rep. Act No. 6646 also makes the effects referred to in Section 6
applicable to disqualification cases filed under Section 78 of the Code. Nowhere in
Sections 6 and 7 of Rep. Act. No. 6646 is mention made of the period within
which these disqualification cases may be filed. This is because there are
provisions in the Code which supply the periods within which a petition relating
to disqualification of candidates must be filed, such as Section 78, already
discussed, and Section 253 on petitions for quo warranto.
Thus, if a person qualified to file a petition to disqualify a certain candidate fails
to file the petition within the 25-day period prescribed by Section 78 of the Code
for whatever reasons, the election laws do not leave him completely helpless as
he has another chance to raise the disqualification of the candidate by filing a
petition for quo warranto within ten (10) days from the proclamation of the
results of the election, as provided under Section 253 of the Code. Section 1,
Rule 21 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure similarly provides that any voter
contesting the election of any regional, provincial or city official on the ground of
ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines may file a petition
f o r quo warranto with the Electoral Contest Adjudication Department. The
petition may be filed within ten (10) days from the date the respondent is
proclaimed (Section 2).
It is true that the discovery of false representation as to material facts required
to be stated in a certificate of candidacy, under Section 74 of the Code, may be
made only after the lapse of the 25-day period prescribed by Section 78 of the
Code, through no fault of the person who discovers such misrepresentations and
who would want the disqualification of the candidate committing the
misrepresentation. It would seem, therefore, that there could indeed be a gap
between the time of the discovery of the misrepresentation, (when the discovery
is made after the 25-day period under Sec. 78 of the Code has lapsed) and the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 time when the proclamation of the results of the election is made. During this
so-called "gap" the would-be petitioner (who would seek the disqualification of
the candidate) is left with nothing to do except to wait for the proclamation of
the results, so that he could avail of a remedy against the misrepresenting
candidate, that is, by filing a petition for quo warranto against him. Respondent
Commission sees this "gap" in what it, calls a procedural gap which, according to
it, is unnecessary and should be remedied.
At the same time, it can not be denied that it is the purpose and intent of the
legislative branch of the government to fix a definite time within which petitions
for protests related to eligibility of candidates for elective offices must be filed, 10
as seen in Sections 78 and 253 of the Code. Respondent Commission may have
seen the need to remedy this so-called "procedural gap", but it is not for it to
prescribe what the law does not provide, its function not being legislative. The
question of whether the time to file these petitions or protests is too short or
ineffective is one for the Legislature to decide and remedy.
We are aware that in Frivaldo vs. Comelec, 11 this Court held that a petition to
disqualify an elective official, on the ground that he is not a Filipino citizen, may
be filed at anytime, even beyond the period prescribed by law, and even if he had
already been proclaimed elected to the office and in fact had long been
discharging the duties of said office. But we disagree with respondent
Commission that the Frivaldo ruling applies to the case at bar in all its
connotations and implications. For one, the ground for which disqualification is
sought in the present case is misrepresentation as to the required age of the
candidate, whereas, in Frivaldo the ground for disqualification was lack of
Philippine citizenship. This is an overriding and fundamental desideratum
matched perhaps only by disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines.
Mr. Justice Gutierrez, Jr., in his concurring opinion in Frivaldo vs. Comelec 12 said:
"It is an established rule of long standing that the period fixed by law for
the filing of a protest — whether quo warranto or election contest is —
mandatory and jurisdictional.

"As a rule, the quo warranto petition seeking to annul the petitioner's
election and proclamation should have been filed within ten days after the
proclamation of election results. The purpose of the law in not allowing
the filing of protests beyond the period fixed by law is to have a certain
and definite time within which petitions against the results of an election
should be filed and to provide summary proceedings for the settlement
of such disputes.
xxx xxx xxx
"I must emphasize, however, that my concurrence is limited to a clear
case of an alien holding an elective public office. And perhaps in a clear
case of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines. Where the
disqualification is based on age, residence, or any of the many grounds
for ineligibility, I believe that the ten-day period should be applied strictly."

I n Aznar vs. Comelec, 13 the records show that private respondent filed his
certificate of candidacy on 19 November 1987 and that the petitioner filed his
petition for disqualification of said private respondent on 22 January 1988. Since
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 the petition for disqualification was filed beyond the twenty five-day period
required in Section 78 of the Code, it was clear that said petition had been filed
out of time. The Court also ruled that the petition for the disqualification of
private respondent could not also be treated as a petition for quo warranto under
Section 253 of the same Code as it was unquestionably premature, considering
that private respondent was proclaimed Provincial Governor of Cebu only 3
March 1988. However, as a matter of public interest to ascertain the
respondent's citizenship and qualification to hold the public office to which he
had been proclaimed elected, the Court ruled on the merits of the case.

But the Court, in another case, in an EN BANC Resolution 14 affirmed the

dismissal by the COMELEC of the petitions for disqualification. It appeared that
on 2 March 1990, a petition to disqualify Padilla Pundaodaya (SPA No. 90-004)
was filed because of an allegedly falsified certificate of candidacy which he could
not have personally filed on 15 January 1990 since he had been in Saudi Arabia
since 24 July 1987 and arrived in Manila only on 24 January 1990. The Court
held that the disqualification petition was correctly treated by the Commission
on Elections as a petition to cancel a defective certificate of candidacy but the
petition was filed out of time and could not anymore be entertained.
In sum, SPA No. 90-006 was filed by private respondent Ututalum beyond the
25-day period (from the filing by petitioner Loong of the questioned certificate of
candidacy prescribed by Section 78 of the Code. It follows that the dismissal of
said petition for disqualification is warranted. Further it would appear that we can
not treat SPA No. 90-006 as a petition for quo warranto (Section 253 of the Code)
for when it was filed with the respondent Commission, no proclamation of
election results had as yet been made, hence, it was premature. LLphil

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The resolutions of respondent

Commission, dated 15 May 1990 and 3 July 1990, rendered in SPA No. 90-006
are hereby SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C .J ., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado,
Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Campos, Jr., JJ ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, p. 67.
2. Rollo, p. 75.
3. Rollo, p. 22.
4. G.R. No. 87193, June 23, 1989, 174 SCRA 245.

5. The Electroral Reforms Law of 1987 approved on January 5, 1988.

6. Rollo, pp. 23-24.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 7. Rollo, p. 30.
8. Rollo, p. 10.
9. Sections 6 and 7 of Rep. Act No. 6646 provide that:

"SEC. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. — Any candidate who has been

declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the
votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not
declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted
for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or
Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or
protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the
pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate
whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong."

"SEC. 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."
10. Municipality of Masantol vs. Guevarra, 44 Phil. 580 (1963).
11. 174 SCRA 245.
12. Ibid., pp. 256-258.

13. G.R. No. 83820, May 25, 1990, 185 SCRA 703.
14. Dr. Tocod D. Macaraya, et al. vs. The Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. No.
93404; Zorayda Y.A. Tamano, et al. vs. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 93405, August
2, 1990.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com