G.R. No. 134293 June 21, 1999
KAISER B. RECABO, JR., petitioner,
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FRANCISCO R. REYES, JR., respondents.
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to annul the resolution dated May 8, 1998 of the First Division of the Commission on Elections1 ("the Commission"), cancelling the certificate of candidacy of petitioner Kaiser B. Recabo, Jr., and the resolution dated July 1, 1998 of the Commission en banc, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
The antecedents as found by the Commission in the resolution dated May 8, 1998 are:
It appears that on March 27, 1998, petitioner Francisco R. Reyes, Jr., filed his certificate of candidacy (Annex A, Petition) as the official candidate (for vice-mayor of the municipality of Mainit, Surigao Del Norte) of the political party LAKAS NUCD-UMDP. His nomination by said political party is evidence by the certificate of nomination and acceptance dated March 27, 1998 signed by Fidel V. Ramos and Jose de Venecia, National Chairman and Secretary General, respectively, of said political party. This certificate of nomination and acceptance is petitioner's Annex A-1.
However, on April 2, 1998, another person, respondent Kaiser B. Recabo, Jr., claiming to be the official candidate of LAKAS NUCD-UMDP as vice-mayor of the municipality of Mainit, Surigao del Norte also filed his certificate of candidacy (Annex E, Petition). Petitioner submitted to this Commission a copy of the certificate of nomination and acceptance in favor of Kaiser B. Recabo, Jr., dated March 30, 1998 (Annex F) signed only by one representative of LAKAS NUCD-UMDP. Francisco T. Matugas. The space of the other representative (Robert Z. Barbers) is blank.
Petitioner in par. II-2 of the petition alleges:
II-2. The respondent KAISER B. RECABO, JR., is a SUBSTITUTE candidate for the office of VICE-MAYOR of the Municipality of Mainit, Surigao del Norte. He filed his Certificate of Candidacy on April 02, 1998. He claims to be a substitute of MRS. CANDELARIA B. RECABO who filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the position of VICE-MAYOR of Mainit, Surigao del Norte on March 25, 1998.
The allegations in this paragraph are admitted by respondent as he has not specifically denied the same. Further, respondent emphasizes that he admits this in par. 1 of his Answer where he states:
1. Except those that may be specifically denied in the following paragraphs of this answer, he admits the material allegations of the petition.
Petitioner submits the theory that since the certificate of nomination and acceptance (Annex C) in favor of Candelaria B. Recabo is not signed by Robert Barbers, there is no valid nomination by LAKAS NUCD-UMDP in favor of Candelaria Recabo. Therefore, Candelaria B. Recabo not having been validly nominated, should be deemed an independent candidate only. And since Candelaria B. Recabo is an independent candidate, she cannot be validly substituted because under Sec. 11 of Comelec Res. No. 2977 promulgated on January 15, 1998, "no substitution shall be allowed for an independent candidate."
On the other hand, respondent argues that the certificate of nomination and acceptance signed only by representative Matugas (and without the joint signature of representative Barbers) substantially complied with the party requirements and are, therefore, valid as far as the party is concerned. Respondent maintains that his nomination is valid. Respondent further argues that the Commission has no jurisdiction to rule on who between petitioner and respondent has a valid certificate of candidacy.1âwphi1.nęt
Respondent likewise claims that the certificate of nomination in favor petitioner (Annex A-1) is falsified because it was notarized in Mainit, Surigao del Norte at a time when the signatories therein (Fidel Ramos and Jose de Venecia, Jr.,) were not in said place. Respondent however has not presented any evidence to this effect.2
Based on the foregoing, the respondent Commission cancelled the certificate of candidacy of petitioner Kaiser B. Recabo, Jr. On May 14, 1998, petitioner Recabo, Jr., filed a motion for reconsideration and a supplement thereto on May 22, 1998. Francisco R. Reyes, Jr. filed his opposition. On July 1, 1998, the Commission en banc issued a resolution denying the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
Hence, the instant petition on the following grounds:
1. The certificate of candidacy of petitioner and that of his mother whom he substituted as candidate for Vice Mayor substantially complied with the requirements of being official candidate of the LAKAS NUCD-UMDP party.
2. The people of Mainit, Surigao del Norte have spoken loud and clear in favor of petitioner by giving him a resounding majority of 1,102 votes or 12% of the votes cast for both of them.
3. By canceling the certificate of candidacy of petitioner, public respondent acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law available to petitioner, except this present petition.3
The respondent Commission rationalized the cancellation petitioner's certificate of candidacy thus:
It appears from the very wording of the certificate of nomination and acceptance of LAKAS NUCD-UMDP that joint signing of the certificate is required for validity. The body of the certificate begins by . . . "WE, GOV. FRANCISCO T. MATUGAS and ROBERTO Z. BARBERS . . . as its Provincial Chairman and District Chairman, respectively, hereby nominate.
The certificate continues . . ." WITNESS OUR HANDS this 18th day of March 1998" etc.
From the way the document is worded, the intent is that there should be two complete signatures on the certificate for the certificate to be valid.
The mischief in respondent's assertion to the effect that this Commission has no jurisdiction to rule on whose certificate of candidacy should be given due course is that if such a position is taken, it would give rise to scenario whereby one single political party may make multiple nominations for a single elective position. Such is not a situation the intent of the rules and regulations issued by this Commission.
We, therefore, rule that petitioner's certificate of candidacy be given due course and that respondent's certificate of candidacy be denied due course. First, because petitioner filed it much earlier than respondent and second, because the certificate of nomination and acceptance upon which respondent's certificate of candidacy is premised appears to be invalid. We find the theory of petitioner, that at best Candelaria Recabo is only an independent candidate, logical and valid. Consequently, she cannot be substitute by respondent. (Sec. 11, Comelec Res. 2977).
Furthermore, under Sec. 69 of the Omnibus Election Code, the Commission may motu proprio, or upon valid petition, 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 by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate. To allow respondent to run under the circumstances adverted to herein would put the election process in mockery or disrepute for we would in effect be allowing an anomalous situation where a single political party may field-in multiple candidates for a single elective position.4
To put matters in the proper perspective, we shall resolve the second issue first that the "electorate has spoken loud and clear in favor of petitioner by giving him a resounding majority of 1,102 votes or 12% of the votes cast for both of them". Petitioner, in effect, argues that the "popular will as clearly expressed in votes cast and counted should prevail, such that the election of a candidate cannot be annulled because of formula defects in his certificate." 5 Petitioner cites a number of cases to advance this position.6
According to petitioner, on May 11, 1998, election day, he garnered 4,835 votes as against private respondent's votes of 3,733. As proof, petitioner Recabo, Jr. submitted a "Certified List of Candidates with their Votes Obtained dated May 14, 1998 and an undated "Certified List of Winning Candidates" both signed by a certain Lydia P. Mahinay as Acting Election Officer, and Election Officer-OIC, respectively.7
In Garay vs. Commission on Elections8 we had occasion to rule that:
. . . According to Section 17,9 a certificate of votes can only be "evidence to prove tampering, alteration, falsification or any other anomaly committed in the election returns concerned, when duly authenticated . . ." A certificate of votes does not constitutes sufficient evidence of the true and genuine results of the election; only election returns are, pursuant to Sections 231, 233-236, and 238 of B.P. Blg. 881. 10
In like manner, neither is the certified list of winning candidates signed by the said Election Officer II and OIC sufficient evidence of the real results of the election. Moreover, we final that the certificate of votes does not conform with Section 16 of R.A. 6646 which reads:
Sec. 16. Certificate of Votes. — After the counting of the votes cast in the precinct and announcement of the results of the election, and before leaving the polling place, the board of election inspectors shall issue a certificate of votes upon request of the duly accredited watchers. The certificate shall contain the number of votes obtained by each candidates written in words and figures, the number of the precinct, the name of the city of municipality, province, the total number of voters who voted in the precinct and the date and time issued, and shall be signed and thumbmarked by each member of the board.
The certificate of votes submitted by petitioner does not state the number of votes obtained in words; it does not state the number of the precinct, the total number of votes who voted in the precinct and the time issued. Most importantly, it was merely certified true and correct by a certain Lydia P. Mahinay as acting election officer. As aforequoted, Section 16 of R.A. 6646 requires that the certificate of votes be signed and thumbmarked by each member of the board of election inspectors.
Thus, the doctrine that a mere technicality cannot be used to frustrate the people's will find no application in the case at bar considering that the results of the election have not been duly established.
This brings us to the first issue of whether "the certificate of candidacy of petitioner and that of his mother who he substituted as candidate for Vice Mayor substantially complied with the requirements of being official candidates of LAKAS NUCD-UMDP Party." The issue boils down to the validly of the certificate of nomination of petitioner by LAKAS NUCD-UMDP which is required to be attached and filed with the certificate of candidacy, for apparently, petitioner possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided by law and the contents of petitioner's certificate of candidacy are otherwise in order.
Preliminary, it must be stated that in special civil actions for certiorari, the main issue is one of jurisdiction — lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. 11 In the case at bar, we find that the findings and conclusions reached by the respondent Commission were not whimsical nor capricious. The respondent Commission acted within its powers and jurisdiction in canceling the certificate of candidacy of petitioner and there is no justification for this Court to interfere with the actions taken by the Comelec. The findings of the respondent Commission are supported by documentary evidence.
COMELEC Resolution No. 2977 which prescribed the rules and regulations governing the filing of certificates of candidacy in connection with the May 11, 1998 election provides under Section 5 thereof:
Sec. 5. Certificate of nomination of official candidates by political party. . . . — The certificate of nomination by registered political parties, organizations or coalitions of their official candidates shall be filed with the certificates of candidacy not lather than the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy as specified in Section 4 hereof, duly signed and attested under oath by the party president, chairman, secretary-general or any other party officer duly authorized in writing to do so.
x x x x x x x x x
Pursuant to said resolution, the political party of LAKAS NUCD-UMDP issued an "Authorization designating two (2) Party officers to nominate, sign, attest under oath and issue the Official Certificates of Nomination, namely, Francisco T. Matugas and Robert Ace S. Barbers. Consistent with the foregoing, the certificate of nomination and acceptance, as pointed out by the respondent Commission, requires the joint signing of the two party officers. The fact that only Francisco T. Matugas signed the certificate of nomination of petitioner Recabo, Jr. leaves the same open to question. On the other hand, the certificate of nomination of private respondent Reyes, Jr. was signed by no less than Fidel V. Ramos and Jose De Venecia, Jr. as the National Chairman and Secretary General, respectively of the LAKAS NUCD-UMDP party. By and large, the best authority to interpret a rule is the source itself of the rule, in this case the COMELEC. 12
Moreover, the chronology of events would still call for the cancellation of petitioner's certificate of candidacy to curb the evil that the respondent Commission sought to abate pursuant to its mandate to hold free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections. 13 As the respondent Commission stated, "to allow respondent to run under the circumstances adverted to herein would put the election process in mockery and disrepute for we would in effect be allowing an anomalous situation where a single political party may field-in multiple candidates for a single position."
It will be recalled that the mother of herein petitioner filed her certificate of candidacy on March 25, 1998 and later withdrew the same on March 31, 1998. In the meantime, private respondent Reyes, Jr. filed his certificate of candidacy on March 27, 1998. Thereafter, herein petitioner Recabo, Jr. filed his certificate of candidacy of April 2, 1998, in substitution of his mother who had withdrawn earlier.
Assuming all three candidates were fielded-in by the same political party, at the petitioner Recabo, Jr. filed his certificate of candidacy there was no more void to fill in as respondent Reyes, Jr. has already filed his certificate of candidacy as official candidate of LAKAS NUCD-UMDP. Verily, there was no more vacancy to be substituted for. Disunity and discord amongst members of a political party should not be allowed to create a mockery of our electoral process, which envisions one candidate from a political party for each position.
This issue was not raised in this petition, nevertheless, we deem it necessary to clarify respondent Commissioner's declaration that petitioner's mother is an independent candidate on account of the invalidity of her certificate of nomination and acceptance to forestall any confusion that may arise on account of the said declaration. For the same reason, that his certificate of nomination was invalid because it was signed only by one authorized party officer, may petitioner be likewise deemed an independent candidate and pave the way for his candidacy in the said elections? The answer still be in the negative. Were we to treat him as an independent candidate, his certificate of candidacy would still be cancelled and denied due course on the ground that it was filed out of time. It is well-settled that a certified filed beyond the deadline is not valid. 14
Petitioner filed his certificate of candidacy on April 2, 1998, well within the prescriptive period for filing a substitute certificate of candidacy, but way beyond the period for filing an independent certificate of candidacy. Section 4 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2977 requires that "the certificate of candidacy for municipal positions in areas other than the ARMM should be filed starting January 11, 1998 to midnight of March 27, 1998. 15 On the other hand, Section 11 thereof provides that "the substitute candidate nominated by the political party concerned may file his certificate of candidacy as herein provided for the office affected not lather than mid-day of the day of the election. 16
Finally, private respondent Reyes, Jr. has filed a motion in this Court to the effect that in the event this Court affirms the non-qualification of petitioner Recabo Jr., he should be proclaimed the winner and assume the position of vice mayor of the municipality of Mainit, Surigao del Norte. Apparently, respondent Reyes, Jr. is counting on the certificate of votes to establish that he is the second highest winning candidate. As we have pointed out earlier, a certificate of votes is not sufficient to establish the true and genuine results of the election. A certificate of canvass issued on the basis of the election returns is required to proclaim the elected candidate. 17 Moreover, it is settled that the disqualification or non-qualification of the winner in a vice mayoralty race does not justify the proclamation of the defeated candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes. Thus, in the recent case of Reyes vs. Commission on Elections, 18 it was stated:
That the candidate who obtains the second highest number of votes may not be proclaimed winner in case the winning candidate is disqualified is now settled. The doctrinal instability caused by see-sawing rulings has since been removed. In the latest ruling on the question, this Court said:
To simplistically assume that the second would have received the other votes would be to substitute our judgment for the mind of the voter. The second placer is just that, a second placer. He lost the elections. He was repudiated by either a majority or plurality of voters. He could not be considered the first among qualified candidates because in a field which excludes the disqualified candidate, the conditions would have substantially changed. We are not prepared to extrapolate the result under the circumstances. (at p. 529.)
Hence, in the event that herein petitioner Kaiser Recabo, Jr. obtained the plurality of votes in the May 11, 1998 elections for Vice Mayor of the Municipality of Mainit, Surigao del Norte, the vacancy due to the ineligibility of herein petitioner should be filled up in accordance with Section 44 of the Local Government Code of 1991 19 which provides that the highest ranking sanggunian member shall become the vice-mayor.
In the sum, we find that the respondent Commission did not act without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in cancelling and denying due course to petitioner Recabo, Jr.'s certificate of candidacy.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed resolutions respondent Commission dated May 8, 1998 and July 1, 1998 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Purisima, Buena and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
Puno, J., abroad on official business.
Panganiban, J., is on leave.
Pardo, J., took no part.
Footnotes
1 Composed of Commissioners Manolo B. Gorospe (as Presiding Commissioner), Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores and Evalyn I. Fetalino.
2 Rollo, pp. 39-41.
3 Ibid., pp. 10-11.
4 Id., p. 41-42.
5 De Guzman vs. Board of Canvassers, 48 Phil. 211.
6 Alcala vs. COMELEC, 133 SCRA 352, citing Lino Luna vs. Rodriguez, 39 Phil. 208; Benito vs. COMELEC, 235 SCRA 436; Rodriguez vs. COMELEC, 119 SCRA 465; Bince, Jr., vs. COMELEC, 242 SCRA 273.
7 Annexes "A" and "B" to the supplement to the motion for reconsideration, Rollo, pp. 54-55.
8 261 SCRA 224 (1996).
9 Sec. 17 of R.A. 6646 (The Electoral Reform Law of 1987).
Sec. 17. Certificate of Votes as Evidence. — The provisions of Sections 235 and 236 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 notwithstanding, the certificate of votes shall be admissible in evidence to prove tempering, alternation, falsification or any anomaly committed in the election returns concerned, when duly authenticated by testimonial or documentary evidence presented to the board of canvassers by at least two members of the board of election inspectors who issued the certificate: Provided, That failure to present any certificate of votes shall not be a bar to the presentation of other evidence to impugn the authenticity of the election returns.
10 Sec. 231. Canvass by the board. — The board of canvassers shall meet not later than six o'clock in the afternoon of election day at the place designated by the Commission to receive the election returns and immediately canvass those that may have already been received. It shall meet continuously from day to day until the canvass is completed, and may adjourn but only for the purpose of awaiting the other election returns from other polling places within its jurisdiction. Each time the board adjourns, it shall make a total of all the votes canvassed so far for each candidate for each office, furnishing the Commission in Manila by the fastest means of communication a certified copy thereof, and making available the data contained therein to the mass media and other interested parties. As soon as the other election returns are delivered, the board shall immediately resume canvassing until all the returns have been canvassed.
The respective board of canvassers shall prepare a certificate of canvass duly signed and affixed with the imprint of the thumb of the right hand of each member, supported by a statement of the votes and received by each candidate in each polling place and, on the basis thereof, shall proclaim as elected the candidates who obtained the highest of votes cast in the province, city, municipality or barangay. Failure to comply with this requirement shall constitute an election offense.
Subject to reasonable exceptions, the board of canvassers must complete their canvass within thirty-six hours in municipalities, forty-eight hours in cities and seventy-two hours in provinces. Violation hereof shall be an election offense punishable under Section 264 hereof.
With respect to the election for President and Vice-President, the provincial and city boards of canvassers shall prepare in quintuplicate a certificate of canvass supported by a statement of votes received by each candidate in each polling place and transmit the first copy thereof to the Speaker of the Batasang Pambansa. The second copy shall be transmitted to the Commission, the third copy shall be kept by the provincial election supervisor or city election registrar; the fourth and the fifth copies of each of the two accredited political parties (Sec. 169, 1978 EC).
Sec. 233. When the election returns are delayed, lost or destroyed. — In case its copy of the election returns is missing, the board of canvassers shall, by messenger or otherwise, obtain such missing election returns from the board of election inspectors concerned, or if said returns have been lost or destroyed, the board of canvassers, upon prior authority of the Commission, may use any of the authentic copies of said election returns or a certified copy of said election issued by the Commission, and forthwith direct its representative to investigate the case and immediately report the matter to the Commission.
The board of canvassers notwithstanding the fact that not all the election returns have been received by it, may terminate the canvass and proclaim the candidates elected on the basis of the available election returns if the missing election returns will not affect the result of the election. (Sec. 171, 1978 EC).
Sec. 234. Material defects in the election returns. — If it should clearly appear that some requisites in form or date have been omitted in the election returns, the board of canvassers shall call for all the members of the board of election inspectors concerned by the most expeditions means, for the same board to effect the correction: Provided, That in case of the omission in the election returns of the name of any candidate and/or his corresponding votes, the board of canvassers shall require the board of election inspectors concerned to complete the necessary data in the elections returns and affix therein their initials: Provided, further, that if the votes omitted in the returns can not be ascertained by other means except by recounting the ballots, the Commission, after satisfying itself that the identity and integrity of the ballot box have not been violated shall order the board of election inspectors to open the ballot box and also after satisfying itself that the integrity of the ballots therein has been duly preserved order the board of election inspectors to count the votes for the candidate whose votes have been omitted with notice thereof to all candidates for the position involved and thereafter complete the returns.
The right of a candidate to avail of this provision shall not be lost or affected by the fact that an election protest is subsequently filed by any of the candidates. (Sec. 172, 1978 EC).
Sec. 235. When election returns appear to be tampered with or falsified. — If the election returns submitted to the board of canvassers appear to be tampered with, altered or falsified after they have left the hands of the board of election inspectors, or otherwise not authentic, or were prepared by the board of election inspectors under duress, force, intimidation or prepared by persons other than the member of the board of election inspectors, the board of canvassers shall use the other copies of said election returns and, if necessary, the copy inside the ballot box which upon previous authority given by the Commission may be retrieved in accordance with Section 220 hereof. If the other copies of the returns are likewise tampered with, altered, falsified not authentic, prepared under duress, force, intimidation or prepared by persons other than the members of the board of election inspectors, the board of canvassers or any candidate affected shall bring the matter to the attention of the Commission. The Commission shall then, after giving notice to all candidates concerned and after satisfying itself that nothing in its ballot box indicate that its identify and integrity have been violated, order the opening of the ballot box and, likewise after satisfying itself that the integrity of the ballots therein has been duly preserved shall order the board of election inspectors to recount the votes of the candidates affected and prepare a new return which shall then be used by the board of canvassers as basis the canvass (Sec. 173, 1978 EC).
Sec. 236. Discrepancies in election returns. — In cases it appears to the board of canvassers that there exists discrepancies in the other authentic copies of the election returns from a polling place or discrepancies in the votes of any candidate in words and figures in the same return, and in either case the difference affects the results of the election, the Commission, upon motion of the board of canvassers or nay candidate affected and after due notice to all candidates concerned, shall proceed summarily to determine whether the integrity of the ballot box had been preserved, and once satisfied thereof shall order the opening of the ballot box to recount the votes cast in the polling place solely for the purpose of determining the true result of the count of votes of the candidates concernedl. (Sec. 174, 1978 EC).
Sec. 238. Canvass of remaining or unquestioned returns to continue. — In cases under Sections 233, 234, 235 and 236 hereof, the board of canvassers shall continue the canvass of the remaining or unquestioned election returns. If, after the canvass of all the said returns, it should be determined that the returns which have been set aside will affect the result of the election, no proclamation shall be made except upon orders of the Commission after due notice and hearing. Any proclamation made in violation hereof shall be null and void. (New).
11 Bashier vs. Commission on Elections, 43 SCRA 238.
12 Bocobo vs. COMELEC, 191 SCRA 576.
13 Sec. 4, Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution.
14 Gador vs. Commission on Elections, 95 SCRA 431.
15 Sec. 4. Periods for filing certificate of candidacy and petition for registration and/or manifestation to participate under the party list system. — The certificate of candidacy and petition for registration and or manifestation to participate under the party-list system shall be filed as follows:
(a) x x x x x x x x x
(b) For Member of the House of Representatives, provincial, city or Municipal positions in areas other than the ARMM, starting January 11, 1998 up to midnight of March 27, 1998.
(c) x x x x x x x x x
16 Sec. 11. Substitute candidate in case of death, disqualification or withdrawal of another. — If after the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy, an official candidate of a registered political party dies, withdraws or is disqualification for any cause, he may be substituted by a candidate belonging to, and nominated by, the same political candidate, nor for an official party candidate who withdraws his candidacy on April 04, 1998, and thereafter (thirty seven calendar days before the elections). The substitute candidate nominated by the political party concerned may file his certificate of candidacy as herein provided for the office affected not later than mid-day of the election. If the death or disqualification should occur between the day before the election and mid-day of election day, the substitute candidate may file the certificate with any board of election inspectors in the political subdivisions where he is a candidate, or in the case of candidates for President, Vice-President or Senator with the Law Department of the Commission on Elections in Manila.
No person who was Withdrawn his candidacy for a position shall be eligible as substitute for any other position.
17 See note 10.
18 254 SCRA 514.
19 Sec. 44. Permanent Vacancies in the Offices of the Governor, Vice Governor, Mayor, and Vice Mayor. — (a) If a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the governor or mayor, the vice governor or vice mayor concerned shall become the governor or mayor. If a permanent vacancy occurs in the offices of the governor, vice governor, mayor or vice mayor, the highest ranking sanggunian member or, in case of his permanent inability, the second highest ranking sanggunian member, shall become the governor, vice governor, mayor or vice mayor, as the case may be. Subsequent vacancies in the said office be filled automatically by the other sanggunian members according to their ranking as defined herein.1âwphi1.nęt
(b) x x x x x x x x x.
(c) x x x x x x x x x.
(d) x x x x x x x x x.
xxx xxx xxx.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
