G.R. No. L-52451, March 31, 1981,
♦ Decision,
Aquino, [J]
♦ Concurring Opinion,
De Castro, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion,
Fernando, [CJ]
♦ Dissenting Opinion,
Teehankee, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion,
Abad Santos, [J]
♦ Dissenting Opinion,
Melencio-Herrera, [J]
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-52451 March 31, 1981
ZACARIAS A. TICZON, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
G.R. No. L-52678 March 31, 1981
ZACARIAS A. TICZON, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF SAN PABLO CITY and ANTONIO B. COSICO, respondents,
CESAR P. DIZON, intervenor.
G.R. No. L-53393 March 31, 1981
RAMON ARMEDILLA, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and CESAR P. DIZON, respondents.
AQUINO, J.:
These related cases, concerning the position of mayor of San Pedro City, have a common factual background and involve turncoatism as a ground for disqualification.
1. In 1963, Zacarias A. Ticzon, as official candidate of the Liberal Party, was elected mayor of San Pablo City while Cezar P. Dizon, the Nacionalista candidate, was elected vice-mayor.
2. In 1967, Dizon as the Nacionalista candidate, was elected mayor of San Pablo City. He beat Ticzon, the official candidate of Liberal Party.
3. In 1971, Dizon, again as a Nacionalista, was reelected mayor, beating Ticzon, who ran as a rebel Liberal Party candidate, and Pedro Magcase, the official Liberal Party candidate. By reason of transitory provisions of the Constitution, Dizon continued to serve as mayor after expiration of his four-year term in 1975.
4. According to Dizon, he remained a member of the Natcionalista Party up to the early party of 1978 when he campaigned for the candidates for the Batasang Pambansa of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) in the elections held on April 7, 1978.
5. Dizon was the official KBL candidate for mayor of San Pablo City in the elections on January 30, 1980 while, ironically, his old antagonist, Ticzon, was the official Nacionalista standard-bearer.
7. The change in party affiliation made by Dizon and Ticzon provoked the filing against them of the charge of turncoatism. Thus, on January 21, 1980, Roman C. Armedilla, a registered voter of San Pablo City, filed with the Commission on Elections a petition to disqualify Dizon on the ground that in his certificate of candidacy dated January 3, 1980 he indicated that he was the KBL official candidate although he was formerly affiliated with the he Nacionalista Party (Case No. 166).
8. Dizon in his verified answer to that petition alleged that during his four-year term in office, he did not change his party affiliation because he continued to be a member of the Nacionalista Party; that he remained in office after December 31, 1975 not as an elected official but as a "casual"; that his change of party affiliation was beyond the six-month prohibitory period because he became a KBL member in 1978 and that the constitutional prohibition should not be applied retroactively to his case. He said that he was the KBL campaign manager in San Pablo City in the elections for Batasan members on April 7, 1978 (p. 7, Memorandum). His certificate of affiliation with the KBL is dated March 7, 1978 and is at tested by the President of the Philippines and Secretary General Jose a Roño (Annex B of Dizon's Memo).
9. On the other hand, on January 23, 1980, Antonio B. Cosico, a registered vogter, filed with the Comelec a petition to disqualify Ticzon because in his second certificate of candidacy he stated that he was nominated by the Nacionalista Party although he admittedly ran as a Liberal Party candidate in the 1971 elections (Case No. 235). Fifty-eight barangay captains and chairmen of San Pablo City, in a resolution dated January 27, 1980, asked Mayor Dizon to push through the disqualification case against Ticzon (pp. 89-91, Rollo of G.R. No. 52678).
10. Ticzon in his answer to that petition alleged that in 19710 he was expelled from the Liberal Party because he had run as a rebel candidate and, consequently, in January, 1980 when he ran for mayor, he was partyless. Attached to his answer was an affidavit of Manuel A. Concordia, the acting chairman of the district committee of the Liberal Party. Concordia attested to the expulsion of Ticzon from the Liberal Party in 1971. (According to Dizon, no answer was filed by Ticzon, pp. 72 and 85, Rollo of G.R. No. 52678).
11. The disqualification case against Ticzon was submitted for decision on February 6, 1980 when Ticzon offered as rebuttal evidence the affidavit of Senator Gerardo Roxas, the president of the Liberal Party, affirming that in 1971 Ticzon was expelled from the party for acts inimical to its objectives (pp. 30-31, Rollo of G.R. No. 52678). But Governor Felicisimo San Luis, the provincial chairman of the Liberal Party, stated in his affidavit that Ticzon was not expelled from the party (p. 86, Rollo). the two disqualification cases were not decided before the elections.
12. A third case, Case No. 462, was filed by Ceferino Ambrary, the KBL campaign manager in San Pablo City, against the San Pablo City chapter of the Nacionalista Parety for having included among its candidates for councilor a guest candidate named Dominador Laset, Jr., a member of the National Union for Liberation. Because of that guest candidacy, the Comelec in its resolutions of February 13 and 16, 1980 treated the candidates of the Nacionalista Party in San Pablo City as independent candidates not entitled to the benefit of block-voting (pp. 223 and 285 to 287, Rollo of G.R. No. 52678).
13. In the meantime or in the evening of January 30, 1980, the city board of canvassers started the canvass of the election returns. Dizon later asked the Comelec to change tohe board of canvassers on the ground of bias and partiality (p. 38, Rollo of G.R. No. 52678).
14. The Comelec in a telegram dated January 30, 1980 to the city board of canvassers directed that should it appear that Ticzon had won, then his proclamation should be suspended in view of the pending disqualification case against him (p. 292, Rollo of G.R. No. 52678).
15. On January 31, 1980, Dizon filed with the Comelec a verified petition praying, alternatively, for the suspension of the canvass and the proclamation or for the nullification of the election. He alleged the following grounds.
3. That prior to the elections of January 30, 1980, in the City of San Pablo, many registered voters in the permanent list of voters were not included in the certified list of voters prepared for each voting center, so that thousands of registered voters were disenfranchised and not able to vote on Election Day, which registered disenfranchised voters had they been able to vote, would materially alter the results of the election, more particularly with respect to the position of City Mayor;
4. That private respondent (Ticzon) on or before Election Day has restored to widespread vote-buying and has employed strongarm tactics, resulting in the nullification of the free will of the electorate;
5. That the election returns submitted appear to be tampered with, altered or falsified and that there exists discrepancies in the authentic copies from a voting center or discrepancies in the votes of the candidates, which tampering, alteration, or falsification and discrepancies in the returns would materially affect the results of the elections, more particularly that of the position of City Mayor. (ANNEX A of Dizon's Memorandum.)
16. Ticzon was furnished with a copy of that petition. The Comelec acted on it by sending a directive dated February 1, 1980 to the provincial election officer of Laguna to stop the canvass of the votes for city mayor, vice-mayor and members of the Sangguniang Panglungsod in San Pablo City and advising that "no canvass or proclamation shall be undertaken until further orders" from the Comelec (p. 32, Rollo of G.R. No. 52678).
17. That directive triggered the filing by Ticzon of a petition for certiorari in this Court on February 4, 1980 for the purpose of suspending its enforcement (G.R. No. 52451, Ticzon vs. Comelec). Only the Comelec was made a respondent in that case. Ticzon did not implead Dizon as a respondent in that case This Court issued a resolution with a restraining order on February 5, 1980, enjoining the Comelec from enforcing its directive insofar as it suspended the canvass and instructing the city board of canvassers to proceed with the he canvass of the election returns (p. 33, Rollo). Not being a respondent, Dizon was not aware of that resolution. The provincial election officer of Laguna was advised by telegram on February 6 of that restraining order.
18. However, that restraining order was not implemented because before it was served upon the Comelec, it had issued a resolution dated February 6, 1980, replacing the city board of canvassers with a new board of canvassers composed of three Comelec lawyers. It was stated in the resolution that Dizon had sought the replacement of the city board of canvassers due to acts prejudicial to his candidacy (p. 35, Rollo). Dizon contented that this Court's restraining order did not prohibit the change of the city board of canvassers.
19. Dizon had complained to the Comelec that the city superintendent of schools and the city fiscal, two of the three members of the city board of canvassers, were partial to Ticzon. The fiscal allegedly owed his appointment to Congressman Manuel A. Concordia (Ticzon's lawyer) while the city superintendent of schools had allegedly campaigned on the sly for Ticzon. The Comelec' investigating team found it advisable that a new board of canvassers be appointed and that the venue of the canvass be changed to manila )pp. 78-79, Rollo).
20. On February 7, the Comelec instructed the new board of canvassers to bring the election returns to Manila and to of canvassers to bring the election returns to Manila and to canvass them in the Comelec's session hall (p. 36, Rollo). Dizon in a sworn letter to the city board of canvassers dated February 7, 1980 alleged that the previous members of the board were partial and biased; that there was lack of notice or improper notice to the parties in the previous partial canvass of the returns and that there was undue haste in the previous canvass. Dizon asked for a recanvass in the interest of fairness and justice (pp. 38-39, Rollo).
21. The Comelec in its resolution of February 11, 1980 held that the recanvass was not prohibited by this Court's restraining order. It ordered the new board to canvass all the election returns including those already canvassed by the old board (p. 39, Rollo). So, the new board canvassed all the returns.
22. At the instance of Ticzon and without the knowledge of Dizon, this Court issued on February 14, 1980 an order restraining the canvass of the election returns in Manila by the new city board of canvassers. That order was served in the Comelec at ten o'clock in the morning of February 15, 1980 when the recanvass was about to be terminated and after Ticzon had learned of the resolution of February 12, disqualifying him. A copy of the restraining order was sent to the Comelec's Law Department at four-quarter in the afternoon. Horacio Apostol of the Law Department sent the restraining order to the Comelec Chairman at five-forty in the afternoon of the following day. But the day before, Dizon had already been proclaimed as mayor (p. 4, Memo of Solicitor General of August 1, 40-41, Rollo).
23. In the meanwhile, or on February 12, 1980 before the recanvass was completed, the Comelec in its Resolution No. 9085 Case No. 235, Cosico vs. Ticzon, ruled that Ticzon was disqualified because without having resigned from the Liberal Party or being expelled therefrom he ran as a Nacionalista (pp. 40-41, Rollo).
24. The Comelec found that, according to the affidavit of Pedro Magcase, a former vice-mayor and Liberal Party standard bearer, and other documentary evidence, Ticzon continued as a member in good standing of the Liberal Party. Hence, Ticzon's. Hence, Ticzon's candidacy was not given due course, the votes in his favor were regarded as stray votes and the new city board of canvassers was directed to proclaim Dizon as the winning candidate for mayor of San Pablo City (p. 40, Rollo). Thus, this Court's second restraining order of February 14, enjoining the canvass by the newly constituted board of canvassers, was useless. It was useless because of the Comelec's prior resolution of February 12, disqualifying Ticzon and ordering the proclamation of Dizon. By reason of Ticzon's disqualification, there was no need to canvass or determine the votes for him as tallied in the election returns.
25. In a separate resolution No. 9098 in Case 166, dated February 13, 1980, the Comelec dismissed Armedilla's petition to disqualify Dizon. That petition was submitted on the basis of the pleadings. The dismissal was anchored on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (p. 23, Rollo of G.R. No. 53393).
26. On February 15, 1980, Ticzon filed in this Court against the Comelec and Cosico a second petition for certiorari wherein he prayed that the resolution disqualifying him be set aside. Again, Ticzon did not implead Dizon as a respondent (G.R. No. 52678).
27 On that same day, after five o'clock in the afternoon, this Court issued a third restraining order, enjoining the Comelec from implementing the disqualification resolution and the city board of canvassers from proclaiming Dizon. That restraining order was received in the Comelec at seven-forty in the evening. However, as already stated, at a little past six o'clock in the evening of that same day, or before that third restraining order could be served, the city board of canvassers, implementing the Comelec's February 12 resolution, proclaimed Dizon as mayor. He garnered 28, 119 votes. As directed by the Comelec, the votes in favor of Ticzon were not counted and were considered stray votes (pp. 45, 49, 102, 109 and 112, Rollo of G.R. No. 52678).
28. It should be noted that Ticzon filed with the Comelec a petition for quo warranto dated February 22, 1980, seeking to oust Dizon as mayor on the ground of turncoastism, and that he filed against Dizon an election protest ad cautelam (Cases Nos. 80-15, pp. 34-36, Rollo of G.R. No. 53393).
29. On February 20, 1980 Dizon filed a motion to intervene in the second case. Attached to his motion was his answer in intervention. His motion was granted. Annexed to that motion was a resolution dated February 3, 1980, signed by fifty-eight (58) barangay chairmen and captains of San Pablo City, headed by Ricardo B. Dioso, Sr., enumerating the following irregularities and frauds allegedly committed by the Nationalistas or Ticzon's backers: (1) use of flying and face voters; (2) open ballot boxes; (3) disenfranchisement of old and new voters; (4) substitution of ballots; (5) some KBL voters were not able to vote due to the threats on their persons and families made by Nacionalista leaders; (6) substitution of voters and voting by dead persons; (7) to invalidated the ballots of KBL voters who resorted to block-voting, some teachers wrote therein the names of certain candidates; (8) frauds committed by teachers; (9) vote-buying by adherents of Ticzon at prices ranging from P20 to P50 per vote; (10) use as watchers by Nacionalistas of ex-convicts and goons and (11) fraudulent reading of ballots to favor Nacionalista candidates (Annex G, p. 92, Rollo).
30. With respect to the disqualification case against Dizon, Armedilla interposed in this Court on March 18, 1980 and "appeal by certiorari" wherein he contended that the Comelec did not observe due process in dismissing the case (G.R. No. 53393).
31. Dizon in his comment on that appeal traversed the allegation as to nonobservance of due process. He said that at the hearing of the petition for disqualification on January 26, 1980 in the Comelec the case was submitted on the basis of the pleadings (p. 30, Rollo of G.R. No. 53393).
The issues are whether the Comelec committed a grave abuse of discretion in changing the city board of canvassers and the venue of the recanvass of the returns, in disqualifying Ticzon on the ground of turncoatism, in dismissing the petition for disqualification against Dizon and in ordering his proclamation.
In resolving those issues, we have to take into account the Comelec's unique position in our scheme of government and its dominant and pervasive role in insuring the holding of free, orderly and honest elections.
The Comelec is empowered to "enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections" and is "the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns, and disqualifications" of elective officials (Sec. 2[1 & 2], Art. XII[C], Constitution; Secs. 185 and 188, 1978 Election Code).
It is "the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies and any of its decisions, orders or rulings shall be final and executory" (Art. 175, 1978 Election Code). However, its decision, order or ruling may be reviewed by this Court on certiorari (Sec. 11, Art. XII[C] of the Constitution).
It has "direct control and supervision over the board the canvassers" and any member of the board "may at any time be relieved for the cause and subtitled motu propio by the commission" (Sec. 168' Election Code of 1978).
We find that the Comelec did not abuse its discretion in changing the city board of canvassers' in directing that the canvass be held in its session hall in Manila and in allowing a recanvass of the returns already canvassed by the old board. The Comelec acted within its powers and jurisdiction in taking those steps based on its findings. It investigating the situation in the light of the representations made by Dizon. The question as to the recanvass was argued by the parties before the city board of canvassers.
There is no justifications for this Court to interfere with the action taken by the Comelec. In factual matters, the Comelec is "en mejores condiciones que ningun otro organismo del Estado para conocer aquellos que tiendana asequrar la pureza del sufragio, en que radica la salud de las democracias. Sus conclusiones, por tanto, relativas a los hechos y las cuestiones de equidad no deben ser modificadas, a menos que en autos aparezca que abuso gravamente de sus facultades." (Vinzons vs. Commission on Elections, 73 Phil. 247, 251-2.)
Hence, the petition in the first case, G.R. No. 52451, should be dismissed for lack of merit.
The other cases, G.R. Nos. 52678 and 53393, are preproclamation controversies which arose because of the constitutional prohibition that "no elective public officer may change his political party affiliation during his term of office, and no candidate for any elective public office may change his political party affiliation within six moths immediately preceding or following an election" (Sec. 10, Art. XII[C]). That prohibition is incorporated in section 4 of Batas Blg. 52 which took effect on December 22, 1979.
Section 7 of that law provides that the Comelec "shall motu proprio, or upon sworn petition of any voter, political party or candidate, after due notice and hearing, refuse to give due course to a certificate of candidacy if it is shown that the person filing the same does not possess all the necessary qualifications for the office concerned or is disqualified from running for said office as provided by law".
The Comelec found that Ticzon, a Liberal in the 1971 elections, indicated that he was a Nacionalista in the certificate of candidacy which he filed for the elections on January 30, 1980. "The records do not disclose that he resigned his membership from the said Liberal Party. Neither was he expelled from his party. On the contrary, the affidavit of Ex-Vice-Mayor Pedro Magcase shows" that Ticzon remained with the Liberal Party. "All other documentary evidences on record indicate his continuance as member in good standing of the Liberal Party" (Resolution No. 9085, p. 40, Rollo of G.R. No. 52678).
The Comelec had jurisdiction to make the factual finding that Ticzon changed his party affiliation within six months preceding the elections. It is not a whimsical and capricious preceding the elections. It is not a whimisical and capricious finding. It is supported by documentary evidence. Ticzon was not denied due process when the finding was made. He was duly heard and he presented evidence at the hearing. Consequently, that finding cannot be set aside in this certiorari proceeding. It is binding and conclusive on this Court.
"Indeed, in special civil actions for certiorari, the main issue is one of jurisdiction — lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction whereas petitions for review on certiorari are limited to the considered of questions of law" (Lucman vs. Dimaporo, L-31558, May 29, 1970, 33 SCRA 387, 399-400. See Basier vs. Commission on Elections, L-33692, February 24, 1972 and two other cases, 43 SCRA 238).
A review of the decision, order or ruling of the Comelec by means of certiorari means that this Court cannot review its factual findings (Sotto vs. Commission on Elections, 76 Phil. 516, 521).
If the courts do not disturb the factual findings of administrative agencies created by law, except when there is no substantial evidence to support such findings, then there is no reason to believe that the Constitution intended to place the Comelec (which was created by the Constitution as an independent body) on a lower level than those administrative agencies (Lucman) vs. Dimporo, 33 SCRA 387, 401).
Another contention of Ticzon is that the Comelec erred in regarding the votes obtained by him as stray votes. The Comelec's ruling is based on section 155(24) of the 1978 Election Code which provides that "any vote cast in favor of a candidate who has been disqualified under this Code shall be considered as stray and shall not be counted but it shall not invalidate the ballot". This is a new provision.
It is argued that because that rule is found among the "rules for the appreciation of ballots", it should be applied by the citizens elections committee in the counting of votes and it cannot be applied by the board of canvassers in canvassing the election returns. That contention has no merit.
Rule 24 means that the votes cast for a disqualified candidate fall into the category of invalid or inexistent votes because a disqualified candidate is no candidate at all or is not a candidate in the eyes of the law.
In Monsale vs.Nico, 83 Phil. 758, a candidate who withdrew his candidacy but who, nevertheless, obtained the highest number of votes, was to proclaimed because he had ceased to be a candidate.ℒαwρhi৷ His opponent, who obtained the next highest number of votes, was proclaimed as the duly elected municipal mayor.
The Comelec did not give due course to Ticzon's candidacy. He became a non-candidate.1a⍵⍴h!1 The votes for a non-candidate cannot be counted and cannot influence the result of the elections. The votes for Ticzon were properly adjudged as stray votes.
With respect to the disqualification case against Mayor Dizon (G.R. No. 53393), the contention that due process was not observed in dismissing that case is not well-taken because petitioner Armedilla was given a chance to controvert Dizon's defense that he was already a KBL partisan in April, 1978 or more than six months prior to January 30, 1980 but Armedilla was not able to overthrow that defense. He submitted the case for decision by the Comelec on the pleadings.
The Comelec concluded that Dizon did not violate the prohibition against turncoatism. (See Resolution of January 25, 1980 in Amante vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 52375 where a gubernatorial candidate who was a KBL member for a short time and then ran as a Nacionalista in the election of January 30, 1980 was not considered disqualified.)
Armedilla's counsel, who is also Ticzon's counsel, did not discuss in his memorandum the disqualification case against Dizon. The latter's counsel discussed it in his memorandum.
Dizon contends that the constitutional provision disqualifying an elective officer from changing his political party affiliation during his term of office cannot be given retroactive effect to his case. He argues that in 1971, when he was elected mayor for a four-year term ending on December 31, 1975, there was no legal no legal provision prohibiting an elective public official from changing his party affiliation.
After his four-year term expired, he continued to hold office by virtue of the provision that "all officials and employees in the existing Government shall continue in office until otherwise provided by law or decreed by the incumbent President of the Philippines" (Sec. 9, Art, XVII, Transistory Provisions of the Constitution).
The Comelec assumed that the other portion of Section 10, Article XII[C], regarding change of political party within six months prior to the elections, has no application to Dizon because, as alleged in his answer, he changed his party in April, 1978 or more than six months before January 30, 1980.
However, since, as stated earlier, Ticzon had filed with the Comelec a quo warranto proceeding against Dizon, wherein Dizon's alleged disqualification is in issue, that same matter may again be threshed out in the Comelec (Case No. 80-15).
Justice Barredo, Makasiar, Concepcion Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero and De Castro (seven including the herein ponente) concurred in this opinion. Chief Justice Fernando in a separate opinion concurs in Justice Melencio-Herrera's dissent. Justice Teehankee and Abad Santos filed separate dissents.
WHEREFORE, the petition in the three cases are dismissed without prejudice to further proceedings in the aforementioned quo warranto case.
The proclamation of Cesar P. Dizon as mayor of San Pablo City is upheld. No. costs.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo, Makasair, Concepcion Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero and De Castro, JJ., concuur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
