Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-48595 October 8, 1941
WENCESLAO Q. VINZONS, en su concepto de Presidente de la YOUNG PHILIPPINE, INC., recurrente,
vs.
LA COMISION DE ELECCIONES; JUAN SUMULONG, en su concepto de Presidente del Frente Popular (SUMULONG); y PEDRO ABAD SANTOS, en su concepto de Presidente del Frente Popular (ABAD SANTOS), recurridos.
D. Wenceslao Q. Vinzons en su propia representacion.
El Procurador General de la Costa y el Primer Procurador General Auxiliar Sr. B. L. Reyes en representacion de la recurrida Comision de Elecciones.
D. Lorenzo Sumulong y D. Ruperto Suñga en representacion del recurrido Juan Sumulong.
D. Moises C. Nicomedes en representacion del recurrido Pedro Abad Santos.
HORRILLENO, J.:
Este es un recurso presentado por Young Philippines, un partido politico, contra la Comision de Elecciones, el Frente Popular (Sumulong) y el Frente Popular (Abad Santos). Dieron lugar al recurso las resoluciones de dicha Comision, promulgadas el 13 de septiembre de 1941, en los asuntos Nos. 56 y 57, respectivamente. En la primera se declaraba que el recurrente no tenia derecho a pedir que su ticket o lista de candidatos se imprimiera en la balota oficial; y se ordenaba que se descartaran del mismo los nombres de candidatos que personalmente habian presentado su certificado de candidatura, haciendo constar en el que pertenecian a partidos distintos de Young Philippines. En la ultima se disponia la impresion en la balota oficial del ticket de los partidos Frente Popular (Sumulong) y Frente Popular (Abad Santos) en el orden en que estan mencionados, inmediatamente despues del ticket del Partido Nacionalista.
La Comision alega en su contestacion, entre otras cosas, que en la lista certificada de los candidatos para Senadores de Young Philippines aparecen ciertas personas que no estan afiliadas a dicho partido, y que son candidatos oficiales de otros; que de los 103 candidatos para miembros de la Camara de Representantes, solamente 17 pertenecen al mencionado partido Young Philippines; los demas son candidatos de otros partidos; y que la inclusion de personas que pertenecen a otras agrupaciones politicas en el ticket de Young Philippines es contraria al espiritu de la ley.
El Frente Popular (Sumulong) al contestar al recurso, presenta una contra-peticion contra la Comision y el Frente Popular (Abad Santos), en la cual pide que se declare que el Partido Frente Popular (Sumulong) es el unico que tiene derecho a que se imprima en la balota oficial su ticket, con exclusion del Frente Popular (Abad Santos), fundandose en que este partido no tomo parte en las elecciones nacionales de 1938.
Y con respecto al Frente Popular (Abad Santos), su representacion, alegando que fue este partido Frente Popular el que lucho en las elecciones de 1938, pide que la solicitud de Young Philippines sea denegada; que el ticket de Pagkakaisa Ng Bayan (Frente Popular Sumulong) sea descartado de la balota oficial; y que el ticket del Frente Popular (Abad Santos) se imprima en dicha balota.
Young Philippines sostiene que la Comision error al declarar que este partido no tiene derecho a que se incluya su ticket en la balota oficial; y al ordenar que se descartaran de dicho ticket los nombres de aquellos candidatos que, segun su certificado de candidatura, pertenecen a otros partidos.
Tales alegaciones suscitan una cuestion de derecho, y es la de si Young Philippines, un partido politico, reconodico como tal, puede legalmente pedir que se imprima su ticket en la balota oficial.
La resolucion de este punto debe buscarse en el articulo 3 de la Ley No. 666 del Commonwealth, que dice, entre otras cosas, lo siguiente:
La balota estara preparada en tal forma que el elector pueda votar por la lista completa de los candidatos de un partido o por candidatos individuales y para este fin, las listas de candidatos de los partidos politicos regularmente organizados que participaron en las ultimas elecciones para cargos nacionales, tal como estan certificados bajo juramento por los directores nacionales de los partidos respectivos, estaran impresas en la balota ...
Ahora bien: ¿que se propuso la ley al disponer la presentacion de listas de candidatos de los partidos politicos regularmente organizados? Es evidente, a nuestro juicio, que la ley se propuso definir las fronteras de partido en una lucha electoral. Tal demarcacion de lineas de partido es una necesidad politica imperativa, y esta fundada en la filosofia misma del sistema de gobierno vigente en el pais, el cual sistema es, en su esencia, democratico. Dentro de este regimen el gobierno es uno de partido. Siendo esto asi, no habiendo fijacion de fronteras entre los partidos, la responsabilidad de los mismos apareceria fragmentada, indefinida; y, como consecuencia de ello, el pueblo estaria desorientado, no sabria a cual pedir cuenta y exigir la responsabilidad consiguiente, en su dia, en la administracion y direccion de los intereses y negocios del Estado; frustraria, ademas, uno de los fines por los cuales los partidos vienen a la vida en una democracia. Nos referimos a la mutua vigilancia que debe haber entre ellos, y que es esencial para que se mantengan fieles a sus respectivas plataformas, y para que el partido gobernante sea mas atento y obediente a los principios que encarna su plataforma, y por los cuales ha llegado al poder. Cuando, pues, la ley habla de listas de candidatos de los partidos, debe entenderse que se refiere a aquellas en que se consignen los nombres de los candidatos que militan dentro de los partidos que las presentan. El privilegio, por tanto, que la ley concede a un partido de presentar una lista de sus candidatos, es un privilegio creado no para un partido como una unidad abstracta, prescindiendo de los individuos que lo integran y que le dan vida y personalidad, sino al partido — grupo de personas que persiguen el mismo fin, los mismos ideales politicos en un gobierno. Interpretar la ley de otra manera, o sea, permitir que un partido presente una lista de candidatos que, por propia manifestacion, pertenecen a agrupaciones politicas distintas, seria ir contra los fines de la ley y contra la esencia misma del sistema de gobierno democratico, adoptado por nosotros.
Ademas, considerando que la representacion de los partidos politicos en la junta de inspectores de eleccion tiene por base el numero de votos que los respectivos miembros de dichos partidos hayan obtenido en las elecciones inmediatamente anteriores a las en que tales partidos intervienen, la inclusion en la lista de los nombre de personas que pertenecen a otras agrupaciones politicas distintas del partido que las presentan, causaria una confusion, no solo en el computo de votos, sino tambien en la mente del electorado; y daria lugar, ademas, a cuestiones sobre cual de dichos partidos tendria derecho a que se le adjudicaran los votos obtenidos por tales candidatos. Todo esto por una parte. Y por otra parte, consta en autos que Young Philippines no tiene, de los que militan bajo su bandera, candidatos ni para Presidente ni para Vice-Presidente, ni para Senadores. Los unicos que presenta y que son de los suyos son los candidatos para representantes de los siguientes distritos: Camarines Norte (unico distrito), Cavite (unico distrito), Isabela (unico distrito), Laguna (nuevo distrito), Manila (primero y segundo distritos), Provincia Montanosa (primer distrito), Rizal (primer distrito), Sorsogon (primer distrito), Tarlac (primer distrito), y Tayabas (segundo distrito).
Tenemos, pues, que Young Philippines no ofrece ningun ticket. Pues, ticket, segun el sentido del articulo 3 de la Ley No. 666 del Commonwealth, entraña la idea de pluralidad de su contenido; esto es, que, para que un ticket pueda conceptuarse de tal, debe contener mas de un candidato.lâwphi1.nêt
En relacion con las respectivas pretensiones del Partido Frente Popular (Sumulong) y Frente Popular (Abad Santos) las mismas no suscitan sino cuestiones de hecho, o sea, cual entre los dos tomo parte en las elecciones del año 1938. La Comision de Elecciones es un cuerpo independiente, creado por la Constitucion, investido de la facultad exclusiva de velar por la ejecucion de las leyes relativas a las elecciones, y de decidir todas las cuestiones administrativas que afectan a las mismas. Esta, en materia de hechos, en mejores condiciones que ningun otro organismo del Estado para conocer aquellos que tiendan a asegurar la pureza del sufragio, en que radica la salud de las democracias. (Titulo X, Art. 2, Enmiendas de la Constitucion.) Sus conclusiones, por tanto, relativas a los hechos y a las cuestiones de equidad no deben ser modificadas, a menos que en autos aparezca que abuso gravamente de sus facultades, lo que no ocurre en el presente caso.
Por todo lo expuesto, entendemos que la Comision de Elecciones no erro: (a) al denegar la inclusion del ticket de Young Philippines en la balota oficial, ni al ordenar que se descartaran de dicho ticket los nombres de los candidatos de filiacion distinta de la Young Philippines; y (b) al reconocer la existencia de los dos partidos Frente Popular (Sumulong) y Frente Popular (Abad Santos), ni al decretar la inclusion del ticket de ambos partidos en la balota oficial, segun el orden dispuesto por dicha Comision de Elecciones.
Procede, por tanto, confirmar como por la presente confirmamos sus resoluciones objeto de recurso, ordenando el sobreseimiento de la solicitud y el de las contrapeticiones presentadas tanto por el Frente Popular (Sumulong) como por el Frente Popular (Abad Santos). No se hace especial pronunciamiento en cuanto a las costas. Asi se ordena.
Avanceña, Pres., y Diaz, M., estan conformes.
Moran, M., esta conforme con la parte dispositiva.
Abad Santos y Laurel MM., no tomaron parte.
Separate Opinions
OZAETA, J., dissenting:
I dissent from the majority on three of the questions involved in this case.
1. The first question is whether or not the Young Philippines is entitled to have its ticket or list of candidates printed on the official ballot. The majority of the Court affirm the decision of the Commission on Elections which answered that question in the negative. The Commission held that since the participation of the Young Philippines in the 1938 election for national officials was not substantial, it has no right to have its ticket for the coming election printed on the official ballot. The Commission observed "that the political activities of the Young Philippines for the propagation of its ideals in the provinces were not of the same intensity and extent as those which it displayed in the capital of the Islands where it became known as a political party thru public acts and demonstrations for the dissemination of its political ideals." It ruled that "the intended meaning of the word participated in said section [sec. 3 of Commonwealth Act No. 666] is that of serious and substantial participation."
That, in my opinion, is tantamount to amending the law by interpretation — by reading into it something that is not within the manifest intention of the legislature as gathered from the statute itself. Section 3 of Commonwealth Act No. 666 provides:
... The ballot shall be prepared in such manner that the voter may vote for a straight party ticket or for individual candidates and for this purpose, the tickets of the regularly organized political parties that participated in the last preceding election for national officials, as certified under oath by the national directorates of the respective parties, shall be printed on the ballot ... (Emphasis mine.)
The law does not require us to measure the intensity of a party's activities in the different parts of the country. Neither does it require a certain minimum amount of participation in the preceding election to entitle a party to have its ticket printed on the official ballot. Under the law as enacted, if a political party participated in the last election for national officials, it is entitled to have its ticket printed on the official ballot.
If the National Assembly had intended to prescribe a certain minimum amount of participation by a political party to entitle it to have its ticket printed on the official ballot, it would have so provided in Commonwealth Act No. 666, as it did in Commonwealth Act No. 657 with reference to the appointment of election inspectors for the party that polled the next largest number of votes at the preceding election, by stating that said votes should constitute at least ten per centum of the total number of votes cast in the said election.
On the other hand it is easily understandable that the National Assembly did not want to attach a condition to a political party's right to have its ticket printed on the official ballot, by requiring that its participation in the 1938 election be substantial. The National Assembly knew that none of the different minority parties had polled a substantial number of votes thruout the Philippines in the 1938 election. It must have taken into consideration that to require substantial participation as a condition precedent to the right to have a party's ticket printed on the official ballot might result in the majority party's monopolizing that right, in which case the National Assembly, which was composed of the majority party, would be the target of criticisms.
The Commission's interpretation of the law is not only without basis but arbitrary and unreasonable, in my opinion. The decision of the Commission does not state what degree of intensity or amount of participation in the preceding election would satisfy it for the purpose of allowing a political party to have its ticket printed, on the official ballot. Neither does it say what number of votes polled by a political party it would consider substantial participation. The law as thus interpreted by the Commission on Elections is vague and indefinite and its application is subject to whim or caprice.
I cannot give my assent to such interpretation. Indeed, the law is clear and need not be interpreted; it need only be applied.
2. The second question is whether or not different political parties may nominate the same candidate for the same office. The Commission on Elections held that the "party ticket" mentioned in section 3 of Commonwealth Act No. 666 is one composed of candidates that belong to the party submitting the same, and ordered discarded from the ticket of the Young Philippines those candidates who personally filed their certificates of candidacy stating that they belong to parties other than the Young Philippines. The majority of the Court also affirmed this ruling of the Commission. Again I disagree. The third paragraph of section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 666 reads as follows:
In case two or more certificates of candidacy for different national offices are filed by different political parties in favor of the same candidate, the certificate of candidacy filed by the party to which said candidate belongs shall prevail, unless the candidate concerned shall decide otherwise. If a candidate who files his own certificate of candidacy for a national office is also nominated by one or more political parties for other national offices, the certificate filed by the candidate himself shall govern. (Emphasis mine.)
From this it is clear that what the law does not permit is the nomination of the same candidate by different political parties for different national offices. It does not prohibit the nomination of the same candidate by different political parties for the same national office. Therefore, there is not only no prohibition but on the contrary there is an implied authorization for different political parties to nominate the same candidate for the same office. In states of the Union where no such prohibition exists, it has been held that the same candidate may be nominated by different political parties for the same office. (Fisher v. Dudley, 74 Md. 242, 12 L. R. A., 586; Williams v. Dalrymple [Mo.], 33 S. W. 447.)
The argument that to permit the Young Philippines to nominate candidates belonging to other properties would subsequently give rise to the right of said party to claim the votes cast for said candidates as votes for the party for the purpose of determining its right to propose election inspectors is, in my opinion, of no weight because the votes obtained by each candidate have to be credited to the party to which he belongs, according to his certificate of candidacy. (See Higgins v. Berg. 74 Minn. 11, 42 L. R. A., 245.)
3. The third question on which I dissent is, Who has the right to use the name "Popular Front" on the official ballot — the party headed by Mr. Juan Sumulong or that headed by Mr. Pedro Abad Santos? The Commission on Elections held that both parties have the right to use the same name, distinguishing the one from the other merely by adding in parentheses the same Sumulong to the one and the name Abad Santos to the other.
In the first place, that would give rise to confusion and the invalidation of many ballots, because if a voter should write on the ballot the name Popular Front without adding either "(Sumulong)" or "(Abad Santos)," that vote could not be counted for either party.
In the second place, I believe that neither the party headed by Mr. Juan Sumulong nor that headed by Mr. Pedro Abad Santos is entitled to use the name Popular Front, which was borne by the confederation of different minority parties among which were that of Mr. Sumulong and that of Mr. Abad Santos, after those parties had separated from the confederation and had reverted to their original independent existence. Before the signing of the formal confederation on December 22, 1936, the group headed by Mr. Juan Sumulong was known as Pagkakaisa ng Bayan and that headed by Mr. Pedro Abad Santos was known as the Socialist Party of Pampanga. The latter was subsequently merged and reorganized into the Communist Party of the Philippines. Therefore, in order not to mislead the voters, each of the two parties in question should be required to present itself to the voting public in its own color: that headed by Mr. Juan Sumulong as Pagkakaisa ng Bayan and that headed by Mr. Pedro Abad Santos as Communist Party of the Philippines. It is a notorious fact that the political party headed by Mr. Pedro Abad Santos is the Communist Party of the Philippines and not the Popular Front. In the 1938 election for the National Assembly, his party presented Mariano P. Balgos as candidate for the north district of Manila and Guillermo Capadocia for the south district. Both those candidates were and are Communist leaders.
I concede that the Commission on Elections being a constitutional body, its decision is entitled to the highest consideration from this Court. But since the Constitution and the law reorganizing the Commission on Elections place upon this Court the responsibility to review any decision, order, or ruling of the Commission on Elections, we would shirk that responsibility should we refuse to reverse or modify a decision or ruling of the Commission that we may find to be erroneous.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
