SASMUAN, Pampanga – The Supreme Court has taken exception to its past ruling that had favored the will of the people in electoral conflicts involving certificates of candi-dacies (COCs), as it decided en banc against the victory of Mayor Nardo Velasco in the 2007 elections here.
“The balance must always tilt in favor of upholding and enforcing the law. To rule otherwise is to slowly gnaw at the rule of law”, it said in a 32-page decision that allowed the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to finally unseat Velasco.
The 32-page decision was penned by Justice Arturo Brion. Only Justice Renato Corona did not sign the decision as he was reportedly on leave at the time it was tacked by the High Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed Velasco’s appeal against an earlier declaration of the Comelec that his COC in May 2007 was null and void from the beginning as he lacked the residency requirement mandated by law for local candidates.
“We distinguish our ruling in this case from others that we have made in the past by the clarification that COC defects beyond matters of form and that involve material misrepresentations cannot avail of the benefit of our ruling that COC mandatory requirements before elections are considered merely directory after the people shall have spoken,” the Supreme Court said.
Even before the May 2007 polls, the regional trial court of Guagua, Pampanga already declared as null and void Velasco’s candidacy for his lack of one year residency requirement according to law.
But Velasco appealed his case before higher courts, even as he later won the mayoral race against closest rival Mozart Panlaqui.
On July 6, 2007, the Comelec’s second division cancelled Velasco’s certificate of candidacy, citing his lack of one-year residency requirement. The following Oct. 15, the Comelec en banc upheld the verdict of its second division.
On March 5 last year, the Comelec en banc issued a writ of execution asking Velasco to “vacate the position of municipal mayor of Sasmuan, Pampanga.”
Velasco, however, succeeded in seeking from the Supreme Court a status quo order that prevented his ouster. The Supreme Court, however, also lifted this order in its recent en banc decision.
In its decision, the High Court said that “a mandatory and material election law requirement involves more than the will of the people in any given locality”.
“Where a material COC misrepresentation under oath is made, thereby violating both our election and criminal laws, we are faced as well with an assault on the will of the people of the Philippines as expressed in our laws,” it noted.
The Supreme Court stressed that “in a choice between provisions on material qualifications of elected officials, on the one hand, and the will of the electorate in any given locality, on the other, we believe and so hold that we cannot choose the electorate’s will.”
“Wherefore, we dismiss the petition (of Velasco against the Comelec verdict) for lack of merit. The status quo order we issued is hereby immediately lifted. We declare that there is no more legal impediment or obstacle to the implementation of the assailed Comelec resolution,” it added.
The Supreme Court’s verdict, however, did not say who should assume the mayoral post.
One camp said that the Court’s decision indicated that only Panlaqui was the legitimate mayoral candidate here in 2007 and that he should thus take over as mayor.
Pampanga Comelec chief Temmie Lambino, who has yet to receive an official copy of the Supreme Court verdict, told Punto that under normal jurisprudence, the vice mayor should take over the mayoral post under the rules of succession.
Vice Mayor Fernando Baltazar, who won under the camp of Panlaqui, could not be reached immediately for comment.
But Lambino declined to comment on the case of this town, as he noted that the Supreme Court itself had diverted from its past ruling on the case.
“The balance must always tilt in favor of upholding and enforcing the law. To rule otherwise is to slowly gnaw at the rule of law”, it said in a 32-page decision that allowed the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to finally unseat Velasco.
The 32-page decision was penned by Justice Arturo Brion. Only Justice Renato Corona did not sign the decision as he was reportedly on leave at the time it was tacked by the High Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed Velasco’s appeal against an earlier declaration of the Comelec that his COC in May 2007 was null and void from the beginning as he lacked the residency requirement mandated by law for local candidates.
“We distinguish our ruling in this case from others that we have made in the past by the clarification that COC defects beyond matters of form and that involve material misrepresentations cannot avail of the benefit of our ruling that COC mandatory requirements before elections are considered merely directory after the people shall have spoken,” the Supreme Court said.
Even before the May 2007 polls, the regional trial court of Guagua, Pampanga already declared as null and void Velasco’s candidacy for his lack of one year residency requirement according to law.
But Velasco appealed his case before higher courts, even as he later won the mayoral race against closest rival Mozart Panlaqui.
On July 6, 2007, the Comelec’s second division cancelled Velasco’s certificate of candidacy, citing his lack of one-year residency requirement. The following Oct. 15, the Comelec en banc upheld the verdict of its second division.
On March 5 last year, the Comelec en banc issued a writ of execution asking Velasco to “vacate the position of municipal mayor of Sasmuan, Pampanga.”
Velasco, however, succeeded in seeking from the Supreme Court a status quo order that prevented his ouster. The Supreme Court, however, also lifted this order in its recent en banc decision.
In its decision, the High Court said that “a mandatory and material election law requirement involves more than the will of the people in any given locality”.
“Where a material COC misrepresentation under oath is made, thereby violating both our election and criminal laws, we are faced as well with an assault on the will of the people of the Philippines as expressed in our laws,” it noted.
The Supreme Court stressed that “in a choice between provisions on material qualifications of elected officials, on the one hand, and the will of the electorate in any given locality, on the other, we believe and so hold that we cannot choose the electorate’s will.”
“Wherefore, we dismiss the petition (of Velasco against the Comelec verdict) for lack of merit. The status quo order we issued is hereby immediately lifted. We declare that there is no more legal impediment or obstacle to the implementation of the assailed Comelec resolution,” it added.
The Supreme Court’s verdict, however, did not say who should assume the mayoral post.
One camp said that the Court’s decision indicated that only Panlaqui was the legitimate mayoral candidate here in 2007 and that he should thus take over as mayor.
Pampanga Comelec chief Temmie Lambino, who has yet to receive an official copy of the Supreme Court verdict, told Punto that under normal jurisprudence, the vice mayor should take over the mayoral post under the rules of succession.
Vice Mayor Fernando Baltazar, who won under the camp of Panlaqui, could not be reached immediately for comment.
But Lambino declined to comment on the case of this town, as he noted that the Supreme Court itself had diverted from its past ruling on the case.
