EN BANC C.

Martinez a nuisance candidate only on June 12,

2007 or almost one (1) month after the elections.
CELESTINO A. MARTINEZ G.R. No.
III, 189034 On July 9, 2007, Salimbangon was proclaimed
Petitioner, winner in the congressional elections for the Fourth
Present: Legislative District of Cebu on the basis of official
results showing that he garnered sixty-seven thousand
PUNO, C.J., two hundred seventy-seven (67,277) votes as against
Martinez who garnered sixty-seven thousand one
CARPIO, hundred seventy-three (67,173) votes, or a difference
CORONA, of one hundred four (104) votes.
CARPIO
- versus - MORALES, Martinez filed an Election Protest Ad Cautelam
VELASCO, on July 18, 2007 and on July 26, 2007, the HRET
JR., granted his motion to convert the same into a Regular
NACHURA, Protest of all one thousand one hundred twenty-nine
LEONARDO- (1,129) precincts of the Fourth Legislative District of
DE CASTRO, Cebu.
BRION,
PERALTA, The election protest is based on three hundred
BERSAMIN, (300) ballots more or less with only "MARTINEZ" or "C.
DEL MARTINEZ" written on the line for Representative
CASTILLO, which the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) did not
ABAD, count for Martinez on the ground that there was
VILLARAMA, another congressional candidate (Edilito C. Martinez)
JR., who had the same surname. Martinez further alleged
PEREZ, and that he lost several thousand votes as a result of
MENDOZA, J incorrect appreciation of ballots not counted in his
J. favor while clearly marked ballots, groups of ballots
HOUSE OF which appeared to have been prepared by one (1)
REPRESENTATIVES Promulgated person, individual ballots which appeared to have been
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND : prepared by two (2) or more persons, and fake and
BENHUR L. SALIMBANGON, unofficial ballots were read and counted in favor of
Responden January 12, Salimbangon. He also claimed that the votes reflected
ts. 2010 in the election returns were unlawfully increased in
x-------------------------------------------------------- favor of Salimbangon while votes in his favor were
---------------------------------x unlawfully decreased.[4]

DECISION Salimbangon filed his Answer with Counter-

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
Protest 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 vote-
buying; "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 evidence in the entire 1,129 precincts as determined
Martinez. Thus, the election protest "will rise or fall on by the HRET are as follows :[10]
how the Tribunal [appreciates said] ballots."[6]
Overall Fourth District of Cebu
Ruling on the issue, the HRET sustained the BEI Votes
in considering the ballots as stray in accordance with PROTESTANT PROTESTEE
Sec. 211 (1) of the Omnibus Election Code which
provides: 1] Votes per
physical count* in
"Where only the first name of a 961 precincts 57,758 57,132
candidate or only his surname is where there was
written, the vote for such candidate is ballot appreciation
valid, if there is no other candidate 2] Votes in 12
with the same first name or precincts**
surname for the same without ballots 998 660
office."[7] [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED.] found during
revision (based on
Since the name of Edilito C. Martinez was still election returns)
included in the official list of candidates on election
day (May 14, 2007), the HRET held that five thousand 3] Votes per
four hundred one (5,401) ballots with "MARTINEZ" or election returns in
"C. MARTINEZ" only written on the line for 156 precincts in
Representative were properly denied on the ground which several 9,937 7,815
that there was no way of determining the real spurious ballots
intention of the voter. These ballots were included in were placed after
the 7,544 ballots denied as votes for Martinez in 961 elections,
precincts.[8] counting and/or
canvassing of
Commiserating with Martinez on the delayed votes
resolution of SPA Case No. 07-133 (PES), the HRET 68,693 65,607
stated:

"We sympathize to (sic) the Less: Objected 4,333 860

protestant that he is the victim of the ballots
inaction of the Comelec in failing to rejected***
decide the petition to disqualify Edilito Add: Claimed 2,287 2,348
C. Martinez as nuisance candidate on ballots
or before the May 14, 2007 elections. admitted***
After all, it appears that the latter did
not even lift a finger to oppose the Unclaimed ballots 8 11
petition for his declaration as nuisance admitted***
candidate and that per its decision Restored Ballots 2
rendered only twenty-nine (29) days
after the May 14, 2007 elections, Total Votes in
Edilito C. Martinez was indeed a the Contested
nuisance candidate. Precincts After 66,655 67,108
Appreciation of
"As it is, the delay committed by Evidence
the Comelec in deciding the petition to PLURALITY OF
disqualify Edilito C. Martinez as PROTESTEE'S 453
nuisance candidate on or before May VOTES
14, 2007 election did not only cause
injustice to herein protestant but
worst, had resulted to (sic) the * Taken from Revision Reports
disenfranchisement of five thousand ** Namely Precinct Nos. 51A, Daan-
four hundred one (5,401) electorates Bantayan, 40A, 56A, 79A, all of
whose votes could have changed the Bantayan,
number of votes garnered by the 15C, 19D, 66B/67A, 88A, 105A, all of
parties herein if not changed Bogo, 40A/41A, 70A/71A, all of
altogether the outcome of the election Medellin, 30A, Sta. Fe.
itself."[9] *** During appreciation of ballots in
961 precincts.
The final overall results of recount and
appreciation of ballots, election documents and other 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 69 of the Omnibus Election
Code provides:
"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 counter-
affidavits 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 canvassing of votes had been
completed.
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 foregoing
facts of the Bautista case that the
nuisance candidate, Edwin Bautista,
was declared as such on 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:
"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

[T]here is surely "x x x" [24] [EMPHASIS

an important state SUPPLIED]
interest in requiring
some preliminary
showing of a significant Given the realities of elections in our country
modicum of support and particularly contests involving local positions, what
before printing the name emerges as the paramount concern in barring nuisance
of a political candidates from participating in the electoral exercise
organization and its is the avoidance of confusion and frustration of the
candidates on the ballot democratic process by preventing a faithful
-- the interest, if no determination of the true will of the electorate, more
other, in avoiding than the practical considerations mentioned
confusion, deception in Pamatong. A report published by the Philippine
and even frustration Center for Investigative Journalism in connection with
of the democratic the May 11, 1998 elections indicated that the tactic of
[process]. fielding nuisance candidates with the same surnames
as leading contenders had become one (1) "dirty trick"
"x x x x practiced in at least 18 parts of the country. The
success of this clever scheme by political rivals or
"There is a need to operators has been attributed to the last-minute
limit the number of disqualification of nuisance candidates by the
candidates especially in Commission, notably its "slow-moving" decision-
the case of candidates making.[25]
for national positions
because the election As illustrated in Bautista, the pendency of
process becomes a proceedings against a nuisance candidate on election
mockery even if those day inevitably exposes the bona fide candidate to the
who cannot clearly wage confusion over the similarity of names that affects the
a national campaign are voter's will and frustrates the same. It may be that the
allowed to run. Their factual scenario in Bautista is not exactly the same as
names would have to be in this case, mainly because the Comelec resolution
printed in the Certified declaring Edwin Bautista a nuisance candidate was
List of Candidates, issued before and not after the elections, with the
Voters Information Sheet electorate having been informed thereof through
and the Official Ballots. newspaper releases and other forms of notification on
These would entail the day of election. Undeniably, however, the adverse
additional costs to the effect on the voter's will was similarly present in this
government. x x x case, if not worse, considering the substantial number
of ballots with only "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ"
"The preparation of ballots is but written on the line for Representative - over five
one aspect that would be affected by thousand - which have been declared as stray votes,
allowance of "nuisance candidates" to the invalidated ballots being more than sufficient to
run in the elections. Our election laws overcome private respondent's lead of only 453 votes
provide various entitlements for after the recount.
candidates for public office, such as
watchers in every polling place, Bautista upheld the basic rule that the
watchers in the board of canvassers, or primordial objective of election laws is to give effect to,
even the receipt of electoral rather than frustrate, the will of the voter. The
contributions. Moreover, there are inclusion of nuisance candidates turns the electoral
election rules and regulations the exercise into an uneven playing field where the bona
formulations of which are dependent on fide candidate is faced with the prospect of having a
the number of candidates in a given significant number of votes cast for him invalidated as
election. 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 particularly on Special Actions
manner. While political campaigners try to minimize (Disqualification Cases).
stray votes by advising the electorate to write the full
name of their candidate on the ballot, still, election Special Action cases refer to the
woes brought by nuisance candidates persist. following:
(a) Petition to deny due course to
The Court will not speculate on whether the new
a certificate of candidacy;
automated voting system to be implemented in the
May 2010 elections will lessen the possibility of (b) Petition to declare a
confusion over the names of candidates. What needs candidate as a nuisance candidate;
to be stressed at this point is the apparent failure of
the HRET to give weight to relevant circumstances that (c) Petition to disqualify a
make the will of the electorate determinable, following candidate; and
the precedent in Bautista. These can be gleaned from (d) Petition to postpone or
the findings of the Commission on the personal suspend an election.
circumstances of Edilito C. Martinez clearly indicating
lack of serious intent to run for the position for which Considering the foregoing and in
he filed his certificate of candidacy, foremost of which order to guide field officials on the
is his sudden absence after such filing. In contrast to finality of decisions or resolutions on
petitioner who is a well-known politician, a former special action cases (disqualification
municipal mayor for three (3) terms and a strong cases) the Commission, RESOLVES, as
contender for the position of Representative of the it is hereby RESOLVED, as follows:
Fourth Legislative District of Cebu (then occupied by
his mother), it seems too obvious that Edilito C. (1) the decision or resolution of
Martinez was far from the voters' consciousness as he the En Banc of the Commission on
did not even campaign nor formally launch his disqualification cases shall become final
candidacy. The HRET likewise failed to mention the and executory after five (5) days from
total number of votes actually cast for Edilito C. its promulgation unless restrained by
Martinez, which can support petitioner's contention the Supreme Court;
that the "MARTINEZ" and "C. MARTINEZ" votes could
not have been intended as votes for Edilito C. xxx
Martinez.
(4) the decision or resolution of
Petitioner should not be prejudiced by the En Banc on nuisance candidates,
COMELEC's inefficiency and lethargy. Nor should the particularly whether the nuisance
absence of objection over straying of votes during the candidate has the same name as the
actual counting bar petitioner from raising the issue in bona fide candidate shall be
his election protest. The evidence clearly shows that immediately executory;
Edilito C. Martinez, who did not even bother to file an
answer and simply disappeared after filing his (5) the decision or resolution
certificate of candidacy, was an unknown in politics of a DIVISION on nuisance
within the district, a "habal-habal" driver who had candidate, particularly where the
neither the financial resources nor political support to nuisance candidate has the same
sustain his candidacy. The similarity of his surname name as the bona fide candidate
with that of petitioner was meant to cause confusion shall be immediately executory
among the voters and spoil petitioner's chances of after the lapse of five (5)
winning the congressional race for the Fourth days unless a motion for
Legislative District of Cebu. As it turned out, there reconsideration is seasonably filed. In
were thousands of ballots with only "MARTINEZ" or "C. which case, the votes cast shall not
MARTINEZ" written on the line for Representative, be considered stray but shall be
votes considered stray by the BEI and not counted in counted and tallied for the bona
favor of petitioner, and which the HRET affirmed to be fide candidate.
invalid votes. Had the Commission timely resolved the
petition to declare Edilito C. Martinez a nuisance All resolutions, orders and rules
candidate, all such ballots with "MARTINEZ" or "C. inconsistent herewith are hereby
MARTINEZ" would have been counted in favor of modified or repealed. [EMPHASIS
petitioner and not considered stray, pursuant to SUPPLIED.]
COMELEC Resolution No. 4116,[26] issued in relation to
the finality of resolutions or decisions in disqualification
cases, which provides: We held in several cases that the judgments of
the Electoral Tribunals are beyond judicial interference,
This pertains to the finality of unless rendered without or in excess of their
decisions or resolutions of the jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.[27] The
Commission en banc or division, 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 Cebu in the May 14, 2007 elections. This decision is
upon a demonstration of a very clear unmitigated immediately executory.
error, manifestly constituting such grave abuse of
direction that there has to be a remedy for such Let a copy of the decision be served personally
abuse.[28] Grave abuse of discretion implies capricious upon the parties and their counsels.
and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack
of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of No pronouncement as to costs.
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 SO ORDERED.
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 well-
founded 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
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 with us the instant petition
for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a
temporary 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 duly-
elected Mayor of Uyugan, Batanes in the May 13, 2013
elections.
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
of time, provided that the right of the parties to a full
day in court is not substantially impaired.17
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 under existing laws of the Philippines and the following
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 re-
acquire 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
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 Code requires that the
candidate must be a resident of the place where he
seeks to be elected at least one year immediately
preceding the election day. 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.