EN BANC
G.R. No. 230249, April 24, 2018
ATTY. PABLO B. FRANCISCO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND
ATTY. JOHNIELLE KEITH P. NIETO, Respondents.
DECISION
VELASCO JR., J.:
Nature of the Case
This treats of the petition for certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the
Rules of Court filed by Atty. Pablo B. Francisco (Francisco), which seeks to nullify the
February 2, 2017 Resolution1 of the public respondent Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) En Banc. The assailed ruling dismissed Francisco's Petition for
Disqualification against private respondent Atty. Johnielle Keith P. Nieto (Nieto).
The Facts
Francisco is a registered voter in Cainta, Rizal, while Nieto was elected as mayor of the
same municipality in 2013. Nieto filed a certificate of candidacy (COC) to signify his bid
for re-election for the 2016 National and Local Elections.
On April 8, 2016, Francisco filed before the COMELEC a Petition for Disqualification
against Nieto, docketed as SPA 16-062(DC), alleging that on April 1-2, 2016,
respondent made financial contributions out of the government coffers for the asphalt-
paving of the road entrance along Imelda Avenue of Cainta Green Park Village. This,
according to petitioner, amounted to the expending of public funds within forty-five
(45) days before the 2016 polls and to illegal contributions for road repairs, respectively
punishable under Sees. 261(v)2 and 1043 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known
as the Omnibus Election Code (OEC). Petitioner further claimed that the said asphalt
paving was one of the accomplishments that respondent reported on his Facebook
page.
In his Answer filed on April 22, 2016, Nieto countered that the questioned asphalting
project was subjected to public bidding on March 15, 2016, with a Notice of Award
issued on March 21, 2016. Thus, the asphalting project falls within the excepted public
works mentioned in Sec. 261(v)(l)(b) of the OEC.
During the preliminary conference on May 5, 2016, the counsels for the parties marked
their respective pieces of evidence. Thereafter, an Order was issued giving them ten
(10) days to file their respective memoranda. The COMELEC would receive copies of the
memoranda on May 16, 2016 and, thereafter, the case was deemed submitted for
resolution. In the interim, Nieto would be re-elected as municipal mayor of Cainta,
Rizal, having garnered the plurality of votes upon the conclusion of the 2016 polls.
Ruling of the COMELEC
On August 16, 2016, the COMELEC Second Division promulgated a
Resolution4 dismissing the Petition for Disqualification against Nieto, and ruled in the
following wise:
From the foregoing, it is clear that a candidate cannot be disqualified without a prior
finding that he or she is suffering from a disqualification provided by law or the
Constitution. To be sure, in order to disqualify a candidate there must be a declaration
by a final judgment of a competent court that the candidate sought to be disqualified is
guilty of or found by the Commission to be suffering from any disqualification provided
by law or the Constitution.
In the instant case, this Commission (Second Division) finds no such prior declaration
by a final judgment of a competent court or of a finding of the Commission that
Respondent is guilty of the acts complained of Whether or not the Respondent is guilty
of the alleged acts is a prejudicial question which should be determined first in a proper
proceedings (sic) before a tribunal with competent jurisdiction. In the absence of such
prior finding of a competent tribunal, the Commission has no basis to disqualify
Respondent. That said, the case must be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.5
The COMELEC Second Division anchored its ruling on the Court's landmark decision
in Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC6 (Poe) wherein the Court enunciated thusly:
Clearly, the amendment done in 2012 is an acceptance of the reality of absence of an
authorized proceeding for determining before election the qualifications of candidate.
Such that, as presently required, to disqualify a candidate there must be a
declaration by a final judgment of a competent court that the candidate sought
to be disqualified "is guilty of or found by the Commission to be suffering from
any disqualification provided by law or the Constitution."
Insofar as the qualification of a candidate is concerned, Rule 25 and Rule 23 are
flipsides of one to the other. Both do not allow, are not authorizations, are not
vestment of jurisdiction, for the COMELEC to determine the qualification of a
candidate. The facts of qualification must beforehand be established in a prior
proceeding before an authority properly vested with jurisdiction. The prior
determination of qualification may be by statute, by executive order or by a judgment
of a competent court or tribunal. (emphasis added)
On September 8, 2016, petitioner moved for reconsideration from the COMELEC Second
Division's Resolution before the COMELEC En Banc, arguing in the main that there need
not be a final judgment by a competent court that the candidate sought to be
disqualified is guilty of or is suffering from any disqualification. He also stressed that
since the act complained of can only be committed within forty-five (45) days before
the election, it would be impossible to secure a conviction prior to initiating the
disqualification proceedings.
Despite these strong asseverations, however, the COMELEC En Banc found no reason to
disturb the ruling of the Second Division. Instead, the seven-person Commission
echoed the pronouncement that for a petition for disqualification to prosper, there must
be "a declaration by a final judgment of a competent court that the candidate sought to
be disqualified is guilty of or found by the Commission to be suffering from any
disqualification provided by law or the Constitution." The COMELEC En Banc then
deemed that the denial of the petition is the only course of action it could take under
the premises. Thus, in its assailed February 2, 2017 Resolution, the electoral tribunal
held:
Although the ruling enunciated by the Supreme Court in [Poe] has effectively
emasculated the Commission's power under COMELEC Resolution No. 9523 to disqualify
a candidate, it cannot decline to apply such ruling in view of the principle that "judicial
decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the
legal system of the Philippines."
As such, Petitioner's reliance on the cases cited in the Motion for Reconsideration is
misplaced, considering that the Poe case is now the controlling doctrine on the matter
having been decided in 2016 and thus supersedes any previous ruling on the matter.
