G.R. No. L-53532 - Noli M. Venezuela vs. Commission on Elections

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-53532 July 25, 1980

NOLI M. VENEZUELA,petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and ARTEMIO R. SALDIVAR,respondents.

FERNANDO,C.J.:

Once again, what was characterized inReyes v. Commission on Elections1an "innovative and mandatory" provision2of the Constitution, prohibiting the change of party affilliation by an elective officer during the term for which he was elected, is invoked in this appeal by certiorari. A peculiar feature, however, was that such a question was not raised until after the election, to be more precise, on February 6, 1980, the first petitioner for disqualification being based on private respondent Artemio R. Saldivar facing three criminal charges before theSandigan-Bayan.3As admitted by petitioner-appellant, there was already a dismissal on February 4, 1980 but he had not as yet received a copy when he included such a ground.4Then on February 19, 1980 he file with respondent Commission on Elections this present petitioner for disqualification based on the above provision.5Again, the he was unsuccessful, respondent Commission on Elections, without any hearing, found it without any merit. Hence this appeal bycertiorari.

Respondent Commission on Elections and private respondent Saldivar were required to comment. As could be expected, the prayer in both Comments was for the dismissal. It is undisputed, as alleged by private respondent, that he was duly proclaimed Mayor of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan, by the board of canvassers on February 6, 1980.6In the Comment of the Solicitor General7for respondent Commission on Elections, the prayer was that no grave abuse of discretion was shown. The Comments were considered as the respective answers and the case deemed submitted for decision, after the Reply to Comments of respondents was received by this Court.

In such Reply, the ruling in the aforesaid Reyes decision was invoked. It was contended that there being no hearing on the question of disqualification, the order of respondent Commission on Elections now assailed, is devoid of validity, violative as it is of one of the cardinal requirements of due process, so emphatically stressed in the leading case ofAng Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations.8It does not admit of doubt that in Reyes as well as in Pimentel v. Commission on Elections,9the case was thereafter remanded to respondent Commission on Elections, so that the matter of disqualification could be fully threshed out after a hearing to be conducted with due observance of procedural due process. While this contention finds support in the above decisions, there is a factor that militates against it. It was not until February 6, 0980, as admitted in the very petitioner itself, that the issue of disqualification was raised. The view, therefore, that the present proceeding cannot with precision be described as a pre-proclaimation controversy considering that on the very same day, private respondent Saldivar had already been proclaimed, has much to commend it. Moreover, it would save the time and energy of the litigants as well as respondents Commission, and eventually this Court in view of its appellate jurisdiction, if the matter were passed upon in an election protest orquo warrantopetitioner in the lower court, the office involved being that of municipal mayor.10As of now, judging from the petitions still being elevated to this Tribunal, respondent Commission is still swamped with such controversies.

WHEREFORE,the petition is dismissed. Petitioner is granted a period of ten days from receipt of this resolution to file before the proper courta quowarranto suit or an election protest.ℒαwρhi৷No costs.

Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Abad Santos, J., took no part.

Footnotes

Separate Opinions

TEEHANKEE,J.,concurring:

The Court's Resolution orders the dismissal of the petition which seeks the reversal of the Comelec's action refusing to disqualify respondent Artemio R. Salidivar from the position to mayor of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan to which he was elected in the January 30, 1980 elections on the ground of turncoatism (in that he was elected as a Nacionalista Party member to the same position in 1971 but switched to, and filed his certificate of candidacy as, a KBL Party member in the January 30, 1980 elections), but grants petitioner a ten-day period from notice thereof with which to file before the proper court aquo warrantosuit or an election protest.

I concur. As stated by me in the case ofRenato U. Reyes vs. Comelec1, "(I) have previously urged that all such pre-election cases seeking to disqualify the winner on the ground of alleged turncoatism should be ordered dismissedafterthe elections, subject to the filing of an appropriatequo warrantoaction or election protest against the winner in the appropriate forum (the Comelec for provincial and city officials and the proper Court of First Instance for municipal officials2). This coincides with the President's own view as he was reported in the February 27, 1980 newspapers 'to have ordered the lawyers of the KBL [Kilusang Bagong Lipunan] to withdraw all disqualification charges to allow already proclaimed opposition candidates involved in such cases to assume office,' reserving the right to file an election protest (although such Presidential orders seem to have been ignored since I am not aware of any of the numerous disqualification cases before us that have been so withdrawn).

I added therein that the people's will and undeniable right to have officials of their unfettered choice would thus be respected pending the final determination of the cases remanded to the Comelec or election protests filed with the proper court and cited seven imperative considerations and reasons (herein reproduced by reference) why the winning candidate who has received the approbation and mandate of the electorate should be entitled to due process and a full-dress hearing in regular proceedings with confrontation and examination of witnesses rather than to have the people's choice unceremoniously ousted in summary pre-proclamation proceedings decided in a battle of conflicting affidavits.3

A final note. Respondent Comelec in its Comment of May 8, 1980 filed by Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza takes the position that "(I)t isworth notingthatthe peopleof Pozorrubio, Pangasinanhave spokenandtheir choiceto be their mayor is the private respondent.The will of the electorateof Pozorrubio, Pangasinanshould be respected.

InCanceran v. COMELEC,107 Phil. 607, this Honorable Court held thatthe courts must give the voice of the electorate efficacy and not stifle or frustrate it.Also of particular relevance is the ruling of this Honorable Court inLino Luna v. Rodriguez,29 Phil. 208, andDe Guzman v. Board of Canvassers,48 Phil. 211:

It is to be devoutly wished that the Comelec apply equally and consistently this salutary position in all pending pre-proclamation cases (many of which are still pending in this Court involving on the whole opposition party winners sought to be disqualified). If this were to be done, Comelec as represented by the Solicitor General should forthwith recall and revoke its pre-proclamation, and in several instances post-elections, disqualification on alleged turncoatism of the people's choice and winning candidates, leaving the losers to raise the same question in a regularquo warrantoor election protest within a ten-day grace period, as has been done in the case at bar.

Footnotes