1. Home
  2. Resource Center
  3. COMELEC Resolutions
  4. National and Local Elections
  5. 2013 National and Local Elections
  6. Resolution No. 9551

Resolution No. 9551

Promulgation: 30 October 2012

IN THE MATTER OF THE CERTIFICATES OF CANDIDACY FOR SENATORS IN THE MAY 13, 2013 AUTOMATED SYNCHRONIZED NATIONAL, LOCAL AND ARMM REGIONAL ELECTIONS

Under consideration of the Commission en banc is the legitimacy and the sufficiency of the certificates of candidacy (COC) of the persons who intend to run for the position of Senator in the May 13, 2013 Automated Synchronized National, Local and ARMM Regional Elections and who were called for hearing last October 18 and 19, 2012.

The power of the Commission to refuse, to give due course to or to cancel motu proprio, a certificate of candidacy is founded in Our general power under Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution to enforce and administer election laws, as follows:

"Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:

1. Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall."

The pertinent law in this case is Section 69 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 or the Omnibus Election Code, which provides:

"Sec. 69. Nuisance candidates. - The Commission may motu or upon a verified petition of an interested party, 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 to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate."

Implementing the above provision, the Commission promulgated Resolution No. 9523 on September 25, 2012, which states:

"Rule 24 - Proceedings Against Nuisance Candidates

Section 1. Grounds. - Any candidate for any elective office who filed his certificate of candidacy to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or who by other acts or circumstances is clearly demonstrated to have no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed, thus preventing a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate, may be declared a nuisance candidate, and his certificate of candidacy may be denied due course or may be cancelled.

Section 2. Who May File Petition to Declare a Candidate as Nuisance Candidate. - Any registered candidate for the same position may file a verified Petition to declare a candidate as a nuisance candidate.

Section 3. Period to File the Petition. - The Petition shall be filed personally or through an authorized representative, within five (5) days from the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy. In case of a substitute candidate, the Petition must be filed within five (5) days from the time the substitute candidate filed his certificate of candidacy.

Section 4. Motu Proprio Cases. - The Commission may, at any time before the election, motu proprio, declare a candidate as a nuisance candidate subject to an opportunity to be heard.

In Pamatong vs. COMELEC, the Supreme Court in explaining Section 69 of Omnibus Election Code in relation to the Constitutional provision on equal access to opportunities to public office, held as follows:

"As earlier noted, the privilege of equal access to opportunities to public office may be subjected to limitations. Some valid limitations specifically on the privilege to seek elective office are found in the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code on "Nuisance Candidates" and COMELEC Resolution No. 6452 dated December 10, 2002 outlining the instances wherein the COMELEC may motu proprio refuse to give due course to or cancel a Certificate of Candidacy.

The rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates and the disqualification of candidates who have not evinced a bona fide intention to run for office is easy to divine. The State has a compelling interest to ensure that its electoral exercises are rational, objective, and orderly. Towards this end, the State takes into account the practical considerations in conducting elections. Inevitably, the greater the number of candidates, the greater the opportunities for logistical confusion, not to mention the increased allocation of time and resources in preparation for the election. These practical difficulties should, of course, never exempt the State from the conduct of a mandate electoral exercise. At the same time, remedial actions should be available to alleviate these logistical hardships, whenever necessary and proper. Ultimately, a disorderly election is not merely a textbook example of inefficiency, but a rot that erodes faith in our democratic institutions.

Given these considerations, the ignominious nature of a nuisance candidacy becomes even more galling. The organization of an election with bona fide candidates standing is onerous enough. To add into the mix candidates with no serious intentions or capabilities to run a viable campaign would actually impair the electoral process. This is not to mention the candidacies which are palpably ridiculous so as to constitute a one-note joke. The poll body would be bogged by irrelevant minutiae covering every step of the electoral process, most probably posed at the instance of these nuisance candidates. It would be a senseless sacrifice on the part of the State.

xxx xxx xxx

There is a need to limit the number of candidates especially in the case of candidates for national positions because the election process becomes a mockery even if those who cannot clearly wage a national campaign are allowed to run. Their names would have to be printed in the Certified List of Candidates, Voters Information Sheet and the Official Ballots. These would entail additional to the government."

With the same wisdom and invoking our motu proprio power to refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy of nuisance candidates, we called 57 prospective candidates for the hearing last October 18 and 19, 2012 on the basis of the study and recommendation dated October 8, 2012 of this Commission's Law Department.

After due deliberation and hearing, we resolved TO REFUSE TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO and CANCEL THE CERTIFICATES OF CANDIDACY of the following who failed to attend the October 18 and 19, 2012 hearings despite due notice and for failing to justify the legitimacy of their certificates of candidacy:

  1. Bantolo, Rosario S.
  2. Cailing, Patrocino A.
  3. Dazo, Catalino A.
  4. Handumon, Benjamin S Jr.
  5. Jolongbayan, Edwin S.
  6. LacanLuisongTagean, Salam Ed E Jr.
  7. Lagata, Merlito O.
  8. Lawag, Victor S.
  9. Maluenda, Severo L Jr.
  10. Mandap, Elena L.
  11. Po, Manuel A.
  12. Rirao, Marlon G.
  13. Talag, Alfonso E Jr.
  14. Tomol, Rogelio C.
  15. Villamor, Ulyn E.

We also resolved TO REFUSE TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO and CANCEL THE CERTIFICATES OF CANDIDACY of the nominees of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) nominated by Vicente Millora. Per our records, it appears that Vicente Millora is not the authorized signatory/representative of KBL, but former Comm. Jaime Opinion. Under Resolution 9518, a candidate who has been nominated by a person who is not the duly authorized representative of the party shall be deemed "Idependent" to wit:

"SEC. 7. Independent Candidate. - An independent candidate is one who falls in any of the following circumstances:

1. Who has not been nominated by a duly registered political party or coalition of political parties or its duly authorized representative;"

Bearing in mind that these candidates are in effect considered independent candidates, they have not adequately shown or proven their capacity to independently wage a national campaign without the support of an established political party. Apart from this, based on their demeanor during the hearing and their answers to the questions proffered by us, we are of the impression that they have not fully appreciated the seriousness and the gravity of running for senator. Having failed to establish their bona fide intention to run for senator, we resolved to not give due course to or cancel the certificates of candidacy of following:

  1. Cadion, Leo M.
  2. Galang, Virgilio J.

As regards, the senatorial candidates nominated by former Comm. Jaime Opinion, who is the duly authorized representative/signatory of KBL, we note that two (2) of their candidates have already withdrawn their COCs:

  1. Gundayao, Virgilio G.
  2. Lozano, Oliver U.

Thus, as regards to them, this proceeding has been rendered moot and academic.
We also note that the KBL, though former Comm. Opinion, has withdrawn the Certificates of Nomination and Acceptance (CONA) issued to the following candidates:

  1. Abella, Alma L.
  2. Chavez, Melchor G.
  3. Nueva, Norma C.
  4. Pancho, Jr. Wenceslao P
  5. Wood, Victor N.

As a result, we treat the above-named candidates as independent. Unfortunately, we are not convinced of their capacity to independently and individually wage a national campaign without the support of KBL. Similarly, in the cases of the Millora-nominated senatorial candidates, we are also of the impression that they have not fully appreciated the seriousness and the gravity of running for such an important post our government. The senate has no place for jokers and harlequins. More importantly, we are not convinced of their bona fide intention to run, except to put the election process in mockery or disrepute. As such, we resolve to refuse to give due course to and to cancel their certificates of candidacy.

Moreover, we resolved TO REFUSE TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO and CANCEL THE CERTIFICATES OF CANDIDACY of the following who have. (1.) not shown genuine interest or seriousness to run for the position of senator; (2.) not nominated by a political party or are not supported by a registered political party with a national constituency and have not shown or proven their capacity to independently wage a national campaign; and (3.) by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for senator. The list is as follows:

  1. Baguio, Florentino F.
  2. Bernardino, Aeric P.
  3. Bula, Leonardo C.
  4. Cabrera, Rafael M.
  5. Cadag, Victorio Angelo A.
  6. Capular, Elizabeth S.
  7. Dimaya, Arsenio T.
  8. Donato, Juanito E.
  9. Escosura, Anisio B.
  10. Espinosa, Manuel P.
  11. Factor, Generoso J.
  12. Fernandez, Eduardo Syamasundar-Das P.
  13. Garay, Roque F.
  14. Gorostiza, Byron Adriano D.
  15. Insigne, Manuel E.
  16. Lope, Wendell H.
  17. Magtira, Daniel R.
  18. Ning, Carlito P.
  19. Nocon, Valeriano III P.
  20. Rojas, Erickson Eli Felix B.
  21. Salangsang, Pepito S.
  22. Santosidad, Rebecca C.
  23. Soriano, Cosme Omie P.
  24. Suerte, Orlando G.
  25. Sulibit, Nonato M.

We also resolved TO REFUSE TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO and CANCEL THE CERTIFICATES OF CANDIDACY of those who, despite having known their apparent lack of qualification for being below the minimum age requirement imposed by the Constitution, still deliberately filed their COCs for Senator. We find no other justification other than that they have no genuine interest to run for senator but merely to put the election process in mockery or disrepute:

  1. Ajel, Remelyn T. (32 years old)
  2. Marcos, Francis Leo A. (33 years old)
  3. Sy, Johnny Chris H. (32 years old)

ON THE OTHER HAND, we GIVE DUE COURSE to THE CERTIFICATES OF CANDICACY of:

DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE PHILIPPINES

  1. Belgica, Greco Antonious Beda B.
  2. Falcone, Baldomero C.
  3. Señeres, Christian M.

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY

  1. Alcantara, Samson S.

INDEPENDENT

  1. Penson, Richard L.

The DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE PHILIPPINES is a newly accredited political party by this Commission - which we granted after it adequately proved its legitimacy and the breadth of its membership. Through this party, we have reasonable basis to believe that its nominated candidates Greco Antonious Beda B. Belgica, Baldomero C. Falcone, and Christian M. Señeres can wage a national campaign. We are also convinced by its candidates' platform of government and the seriousness of their participation that We unanimously felt that they should be given a chance.

Samson S. Alcantara of the SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY, a duly registered political party, has adequately convinced the Commission of his platform of government. We also note that Mr. Alcantara is a bar exam topnotcher (3rd placer, 1957), a noted and renowned law professor, law book author and a bar reviewer.

We also give due course to the COC of Richard L. Penson. In support of his candidacy, he personally appeared and submitted to the commission various documents in support of his bid i.e. tax records, report of independent auditors of companies associated with him, news articles on his accomplishments among others. He is also a graduate of the University of Cincinnati and of Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Penson is noted businessman, a corporate executive and a social activist. We are also convinced of his platform of government and his capacity to wage a campaign.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we RESOLVED as it hereby RESOLVES:

  1. TO GIVE DUE COURSE to the certificates of candidacy of:
    1. Alcantara, Samson S.
    2. Belgica,Greco Antonious Beda B.
    3. Falcone, Baldomero C.
    4. Penson, Richard L.
    5. Señeres, Christian M.
  2. TO GIVE DUE COURSE to the WITHDRAWAL of the certificates of candidacy of:
    1. Gundayao, Virgilio G.
    2. Lozano, Oliver U.
  3. TO REFUSE TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO and CANCEL THE CERTIFICATES OF CANDIDACY of the following NUISANCE CANDIDATES:
    1. Abella, Alma L.
    2. Ajel, Remelyn T.
    3. Baguio, Florentino F.
    4. Bantolo, Rosario S.
    5. Bernardino, Aeric P.
    6. Bula, Leonardo C.
    7. Cabrera, Rafael M.
    8. Cadag, Victorio Angelo A.
    9. Cadion, Leo M.
    10. Capular, Elizabeth S.
    11. Chavez, Melchor G.
    12. Cailing, Patrocino A.
    13. Dazo, Catalino A.
    14. Dimaya, Arsenio T.
    15. Donato, Juanito E.
    16. Escosura, Anisio B.
    17. Espinosa, Manuel P.
    18. Factor, Generoso J.
    19. Fernandez, Eduardo Syamasundar-Das P.
    20. Galang, Virgilio J.
    21. Garay, Roque F.
    22. Gorostiza, Byron Adriano D.
    23. Handumon, Benjamin S Jr.
    24. Insigne, Manuel E.
    25. Jolongbayan, Edwin S.
    26. LacanLuisongTagean, Salam Ed E Jr.
    27. Lagata, Merlito O.
    28. Lawag, Victor S.
    29. Lope, Wendell H.
    30. Magtira, Daniel R.
    31. Maluenda, Severo L Jr.
    32. Mandap, Elena L.
    33. Marcos, Francis Leo A.
    34. Ning, Carlito P.
    35. Nocon, Valeriano III P.
    36. Nueva, Norma C.
    37. Pancho, Wenceslao P Jr.
    38. Po. Manuel A.
    39. Rirao, Marlon G.
    40. Rojas, Erickson Eli Felix B.
    41. Salangsang, Pepito S.
    42. Santosidad, Rebecca C.
    43. Soriano, Cosme Omie P.
    44. Suerte, Orlando G.
    45. Sulibit, Nonato M.
    46. Sy, Johnny Chris H.
    47. Talag, Alfonso E Jr.
    48. Tomol, Rogelio C.
    49. Villamor, Ulyn E.
    50. Wood, Victor N.

SO ORDERED.

(Sgd.) SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR.
Chairman
(Sgd.) RENE V. SARMIENTO
Commissioner		 (Sgd.) LUCENITO N. TAGLE
Commissioner
(Sgd.) ARMANDO C. VELASCO
Commissioner		 (On Official Business)
ELIAS R. YUSOPH
Commissioner
(On Leave)
CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM
Commissioner		 (Sgd.) MARIA GRACIA CIELO M. PADACA
Commissioner

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that the conclusions in the above resolution were reached in consultation among the members of the Commission before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Commission (en banc).

(Sgd.) SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR.
Chairman

Attachment(s)

Signed Copy [.pdf 711 KB]