Salcedo II vs. Comelec,
G.R. No. 135886, August 16, 1999
En Banc, GONZAGA-REYES, J.
Facts:
On
February 18, 1968, Neptali P. Salcedo married Agnes Celiz, which marriage is
evidenced by a certified true copy of the marriage contract issued by the
Municipal Civil Registrar of Ajuy, Iloilo. Without his first marriage having
been dissolved, Neptali P. Salcedo married private respondent Ermelita Cacao in
a civil ceremony held on September 21, 1986. Two days later, on September 23,
1986, Ermelita Cacao contracted another marriage with a certain Jesus Aguirre,
as shown by a marriage certificate filed with the Office of the Civil
Registrar.
Petitioner
Victorino Salcedo II and private respondent Ermelita Cacao Salcedo both ran for
the position of mayor of the municipality of Sara, Iloilo in the May 11, 1998
elections, both of them having filed their respective certificates of candidacy
on March 27, 1998. However, on April 17, 1998, petitioner filed with the
Comelec a petition seeking the cancellation of private respondent's certificate
of candidacy on the ground
that she had made a false representation therein by stating that her surname
was "Salcedo." Petitioner contended that private respondent
had no right to use said surname because she was not legally married to Neptali
Salcedo. On May 13, 1998, private respondent was proclaimed as the duly elected
mayor of Sara, Iloilo.
In
her answer, private respondent claimed that she had no information or knowledge
at the time she married Neptali Salcedo that he was in fact already married;
that, upon learning of his existing marriage, she encouraged her husband to
take steps to annul his marriage with Agnes Celiz because the latter had
abandoned their marital home since 1972 and has not been heard from since that
time; that on February 16, 1998, Neptali Salcedo filed a petition for
declaration of presumptive death before Branch 66 of the Regional Trial Court
of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, which was granted by the court in its April 8, 1998
decision; that Neptali Salcedo and Jesus Aguirre are one and the same person;
and that since 1986 up to the present she has been using the surname "Salcedo"
in all her personal, commercial and public transactions.
Comelec's
Second Division ruled, by a vote of 2 to 1, that since there is an existing
valid marriage between Neptali Salcedo and Agnes Celiz, the subsequent marriage
of the former with private respondent is null and void. Consequently, the use
by private respondent of the surname "Salcedo" constitutes material
misrepresentation and is a ground for the cancellation of her certificate of
candidacy.
Comelec
en banc overturned its previous resolution, ruling that private respondent's
certificate of candidacy did not contain any material misrepresentation.
Issue:
Whether
the used of the surname “Salcedo” by Ermelita Cacao Salcedo constitute material
misrepresentation.
Held:
No; as
stated in the law, in order to justify the cancellation of the certificate of
candidacy under section 78, it is essential that the false representation
mentioned therein pertain 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. Although
the law does not specify what would be considered as a "material
representation," the Court has interpreted this phrase in a line of
decisions applying section 78 of the Code.
The
Court has likened a proceeding under section 78 to a quo warranto proceeding
under section 253 since they both deal with the qualifications of a candidate.
In the case of Aznar vs. Commission on Elections, wherein a petition was filed
asking the Comelec to disqualify private respondent Emilio Osmena on the ground
that he does not possess the requisite Filipino citizenship, the Court said -
There are two instances where a petition
questioning the qualifications of a registered candidate to run for the office
for which his certificate of candidacy was filed can be raised under the
Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), to wit:
"(1) Before election,
pursuant to Section 78 thereof which provides that:
`Section 78. Petition to deny due course or to 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 misrepresentation 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.
and
"(2) After
election, pursuant to Section 253 thereof, viz:
`Sec. 253.
Petition for quo warranto. - Any voter contesting the election of any
Member of the Batasang Pambansa[20], regional, provincial, or city officer on
the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines
shall file a sworn petition for quo warranto with the Commission within ten
days after the proclamation of the results of the election."(emphasis
supplied)The only difference between the two
proceedings is that, under section 78, the qualifications for elective office
are misrepresented in the certificate of candidacy and the proceedings must be
initiated before the elections, whereas a petition for quo warranto under
section 253 may be brought on the basis of two grounds - (1) ineligibility or
(2) disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines, and must be initiated within
ten days after the proclamation of the election results. Under
section 253, a candidate is ineligible if he is disqualified to be elected to
office, and he is disqualified if he lacks any of the qualifications for
elective office.
Therefore, it may
be concluded that the material misrepresentation contemplated by section 78 of
the Code refer to
qualifications for elective office. This conclusion is strengthened by
the fact that the consequences imposed upon a candidate guilty of having made a
false representation in his certificate of candidacy are grave - to prevent the
candidate from running or, if elected, from serving, or to prosecute him for
violation of the election laws. It could not have been the intention of the law
to deprive a person of such a basic and substantive political right to be voted
for a public office upon just any innocuous mistake.
Petitioner has
made no allegations concerning private respondent's qualifications to run for
the office of mayor. Aside from his contention that she made a
misrepresentation in the use of the surname "Salcedo," petitioner
does not claim that private respondent lacks 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. Thus, petitioner
has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the misrepresentation
allegedly made by private respondent in her certificate of candidacy pertains
to a material matter.
Aside from the requirement of
materiality, a false representation under section 78 must consist of a
"deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would
otherwise render a candidate ineligible." In other words, it must be made
with an intention to deceive the electorate as to one's qualifications for
public office. The use of a surname, when not intended to mislead or deceive
the public as to one's identity, is not within the scope of the provision.
There is
absolutely no showing that the inhabitants of Sara, Iloilo were deceived by the
use of such surname by private respondent. Petitioner does not allege that the
electorate did not know who they were voting for when they cast their ballots
in favor of "Ermelita Cacao Salcedo" or that they were fooled into
voting for someone else by the use of such name. It may safely be assumed that
the electorate knew who private respondent was, not only by name, but also by
face and may have even been personally acquainted with her since she has been
residing in the municipality of Sara, Iloilo since at least 1986. Bolstering
this assumption is the fact that she has been living with Neptali Salcedo, the
mayor of Sara for three consecutive terms, since 1970 and the latter has held
her out to the public as his wife.
No comments:
Post a Comment