-
In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term. (Section 8, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
-
Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. (Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646 or the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987)
-
When a person who is not qualified is voted for and eventually garners the highest number of votes, even the will of the electorate expressed through the ballot cannot cure the defect in the qualifications of the candidate. (Casan Macode Maquiling v. COMELEC, et.al., G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013)
“The popular vote does not cure the ineligibility of a candidate.” –Casan Macode Maquiling v. COMELEC, et.al. (G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013)
“What will stop an otherwise disqualified individual from filing a seemingly valid COC, concealing any disqualification, and employing every strategy to delay any disqualification case filed against him so he can submit himself to the electorate and win, if winning the election will guarantee a disregard of constitutional and statutory provisions on qualifications and disqualifications of candidates?” -Casan Macode Maquiling v. COMELEC, et.al. (G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013)
“The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly believed, as in this case, that the candidate was qualified. Obviously, this rule requires strict application when the deficiency is lack of citizenship. If a person seeks to serve in the Republic of the Philippines, he must owe his total loyalty to this country only, abjuring and renouncing all fealty and fidelity to any other state.” – Juan Frivaldo v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 120295 June 28, 1996)
In light of recent turn of events relating to the 2022 National Elections, the subject of disqualification of a candidate, has become a matter of growing concern. As a matter of fact, such question has been a recurring theme in almost every election season. Issues relating to elections has been always been imbued with public interest especially because the Philippines is a democratic and republican State. (Section 1 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution.)
Accordingly, in case the President of the Philippines is disqualified, who between the Vice President and the Presidential Candidate who obtained the highest number of valid votes cast shall assume the Presidency?
The law says:
Section 7 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution states that:
SECTION 7. The President-elect and the Vice-President-elect shall assume office at the beginning of their terms.
If the President-elect fails to qualify, the Vice-President-elect shall act as President until the President-elect shall have qualified.
If a President shall not have been chosen, the Vice-President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have been chosen and qualified.
If at the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died or shall have become permanently disabled, the Vice-President-elect shall become President.
Where no President and Vice-President shall have been chosen or shall have qualified, or where both shall have died or become permanently disabled, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall act as President until a President or a Vice-President shall have been chosen and qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in which one who is to act as President shall be selected until a President or a Vice-President shall have qualified, in case of death, permanent disability, or inability of the officials mentioned in the next preceding paragraph.
Section 8 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution likewise states that:
SECTION 8. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the President and Vice-President, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall then act as President until the President or Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as President in case of death, permanent disability, or resignation of the Acting President. He shall serve until the President or the Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified, and be subject to the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting President.
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646 or the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 states that:
Sec. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. – Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.
Jurisprudence says:
In the case of Mozart Panlaqui vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 188671, February 24, 2010) citing the case of Kare v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 157526, April 28, 2004), the Supreme Court has held that the second placer could not replace the presidential candidate who has been disqualified since it would be contrary to the will of the electorate. To wit:
“To simplistically assume that the second placer 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 results under such circumstances.
To allow the defeated and repudiated candidate to take over the mayoralty despite his rejection by the electorate is to disenfranchise them through no fault on their part, and to undermine the importance and the meaning of democracy and the right of the people to elect officials of their choice.
Theoretically, the second placer could receive just one vote. In such a case, it would be absurd to proclaim the totally repudiated candidate as the voters’ choice.”
In the case of Ramon Labo, Jr. vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 105111, July 03, 1992), the Supreme Court ruled that:
“It is therefore incorrect to argue that since a candidate has been disqualified, the votes intended for the disqualified candidate should, in effect, be considered null and void. This would amount to disenfranchising the electorate in whom sovereignty resides. At the risk of being repetitious, the people of Baguio City opted to elect petitioner Labo bona fide, without any intention to misapply their franchise, and in the honest belief that Labo was then qualified to be the person to whom they would entrust the exercise of the powers of the government. Unfortunately, petitioner Labo turned out to be disqualified and cannot assume the office.”
However, in a more recent case of Casan Macode Maquiling v. COMELEC, et.al. (G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013), which overturned the above-cited case of Labo v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court held that it is the second placer who shall be proclaimed as the winner, having obtained the highest number of valid votes. To wit:
“The ballot cannot override the constitutional and statutory requirements for qualifications and disqualifications of candidates. When the law requires certain qualifications to be possessed or that certain disqualifications be not possessed by persons desiring to serve as elective public officials, those qualifications must be met before one even becomes a candidate. When a person who is not qualified is voted for and eventually garners the highest number of votes, even the will of the electorate expressed through the ballot cannot cure the defect in the qualifications of the candidate. To rule otherwise is to trample upon and rent asunder the very law that sets forth the qualifications and disqualifications of candidates. We might as well write off our election laws if the voice of the electorate is the sole determinant of who should be proclaimed worthy to occupy elective positions in our Republic.”
The Supreme Court further held that:
“Even when the votes for the ineligible candidate are disregarded, the will of the electorate is still respected, and even more so. The votes cast in favor of an ineligible candidate do not constitute the sole and total expression of the sovereign voice. The votes cast in favor of eligible and legitimate candidates form part of that voice and must also be respected.”
On what grounds can a Presidential Candidate be disqualified?
The law says:
Under the Omnibus Election Code, there are two pre-election remedies that may be filed against any bona fide candidate: (1) a Petition for Disqualification under sections 12 and 68; and (2) a Petition to Deny Course under Section 78.
Petition for Disqualification under sections 12 and 68
The Petition for Disqualification is limited to grounds like insanity, incompetence, conviction for the crimes of subversion, insurrection, rebellion among others. Ineligibility or absence of qualification is not one of them.
“Sec. 12. Disqualifications. – Any person who has been declared by competent authority
insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given plenary pardon or granted amnesty.
These disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be deemed removed upon the declaration by competent authority that said insanity or incompetence had been removed or after the expiration of a period of five years from his service of sentence, unless within the same period he again becomes disqualified.”
“Sec. 68. Disqualifications. – Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having
(a) given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions;
(b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy;
(c) spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code;
(d) solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or
(e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, subparagraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the election laws.”
Petition to Deny Course under Section 78.
Petition to Deny Course, unlike a Petition for Disqualification, admits a single ground. Under Section 78, a COC may be denied due course or cancelled when a candidate commits “material representation” in his COC. Under prevailing jurisprudence, that means one should prove that there is “deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. In other words, it must be made with an intention to deceive the electorate as to one’s qualifications for public office.” (Casan Macode Maquiling v. COMELEC, et.al., G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013)
“Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. – A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.”
Petition to Deny Course, however, does not tackle the qualification of the candidate per se, but whether the candidate committed any deliberate misrepresentation in relation to those qualifications. Bad faith being an indispensable element of the petition, good faith naturally is an available defense. Thus, an ineligible candidate who made an erroneous declaration in an honest belief that he possesses all the qualification cannot come under the provision.
Section 78 likewise states that it may be filed any day after the last day for filing of COCs, but not later than the date of proclamation.
What are the effects of disqualification?
The law says:
“Sec. 72. Effects of disqualification cases and priority. – The Commission and the courts shall give priority to cases of disqualification by reason of violation of this Act to the end that a final decision shall be rendered not later than seven days before the election in which the disqualification is sought.
Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. Nevertheless, if for any reason, a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, his violation of the provisions of the preceding sections shall not prevent his proclamation and assumption to office.”
Who has the power to inquire into the qualifications of electoral candidates?
The law says:
Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1793, or the Act Constituting an Independent Presidential Electoral Tribunal states that:
“Section 1. There shall be an independent Presidential Electoral Tribunal to be composed of eleven members which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the president-elect and the vice-president-elect of the Philippines. It shall be composed of the Chief Justice and the other ten members of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice shall be its chairman. If on account of illness, absence, or incapacity upon any of the grounds mentioned in section one, Rule one hundred and twenty-six of the Rules of Court, of any member of the Tribunal, or whenever, by reason of temporary disability of any member thereof, or vacancies occurring therein the requisite number of members of the Tribunal necessary to constitute a quorum or to render a judgment in any given contest, as hereafter provided, is not present, or for any other good reason for the early disposal of the contest, the Chief Justice may designate any retired justice or justices of the Supreme Court as may be necessary, to sit temporarily as Member of the Tribunal, in order to form a quorum or until a judgment in said contest is reached: Provided, however, That if no retired justices of the Supreme Court are available or the number available is not sufficient, justices of the Court of Appeals and retired justices of the Court of Appeals may be designated to act as Member of the Tribunal.”
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
[email-subscribers-form id=”4″]