EN BANC

[G.R. No. 258456. July 26, 2022.]

[Formerly UDK 17252]

GIORGIDI B. AGGABAO and AMELITA S. NAVARRO, petitioners,

vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC) and LAW
DEPARTMENT, respondents.

DECISION

LAZARO-JAVIER, J : p

In this Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court,

Giorgidi B. Aggabao (Aggabao) and Amelita S. Navarro (Navarro) seek to
nullify the following documents issued by respondent Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) through its Law Department: a) Document No. 21-
3973 1 dated November 10, 2021, declaring Navarro as an independent
candidate; b) Document No. 21-7467 2 dated December 22, 2021,
denying Aggabao's Certificate of Candidacy (COC) as substitute candidate
for petitioner Navarro; and c) Document No. 222-0176 dated January 5,
2022, denying Aggabao's motion for reconsideration. Petitioners also pray
that the Court restrain his exclusion from the ballot pending final resolution
of the case.
On October 4, 2021, Navarro filed her COC 3 for Mayor of Santiago City,
Isabela for the May 9, 2022 National and Local Elections. She stated in her
COC that she was officially nominated by the Partido para sa Demokratikong
Reporma (Partido Reporma) for the mayoralty race. She attached to her COC
a notarized copy of her Certificate of Nomination and Acceptance (CONA)
dated September 23, 2021 signed by Senator Panfilo M. Lacson (Senator
Lacson), the Chairperson of Partido Reporma. 4
On October 8, 2021, one Christopher G. Ayson (Ayson) also filed a COC
for Mayor of Santiago City, Isabela. He, too, declared in his COC that he was
nominated by Partido Reporma. 5 He submitted a CONA of even date which
he claimed was also signed by Senator Lacson. 6
When Senator Lacson learned of Ayson's aforesaid declaration, he sent
COMELEC through its Law Department a Letter 7 dated November 6, 2021,
disclaiming that Partido Reporma issued any CONA in favor of Ayson.
Senator Lacson emphasized that for purposes of the May 9, 2022 elections,
Navarro was the official candidate of Partido Reporma for Mayor of Santiago
City, Isabela, thus: 8
ATTY. MARIA NORINA S. TANGARO-CASINGAL
Director, Law Department
Commission on Elections
Palacio Del Gobernador, Postigo Street
 Intramuros Manila
Re: Official Candidate of Partido Reporma for Mayor in the City of
Santiago, Isabela
Dear Director Tangaro-Casingal,
On behalf of PARTIDO PARA SA DEMOKRATIKONG REPORMA
(PARTIDO REPORMA), I am writing to inform your good office and the
Honorable Commission that Partido Reporma has not issued any
Certificate of Nomination and Acceptance (CONA) in favor of a
certain CHRISTIAN GAMBOA [AY]SON supposedly nominating
him as the party's purported candidate for the position of
Mayor in Santiago City, Isabela. A Certification issued by the
undersigned is attached herein for your immediate reference. CAIHTE

It must be emphasized that for purposes of the May 9, 2022

National and Local Elections, the official candidate of Partido
Reporma for the aforementioned position is Ms. AMELITA S.
NAVARRO.
Considering the foregoing, Partido Reporma respectfully
requests that the necessary correction/s be made in the
Honorable Commission's Certified List of Candidates.
Kind consideration and immediate action regarding this matter
is much appreciated. Thank you. 9
Sincerely yours,
[original signed]
Sen. Panfilo "Ping" M. Lacson
Chairman, PARTIDO REPORMA
Attached to the letter was a notarized Certification of Senator Lacson,
viz.:
CERTIFICATION
To Whom it may Concern:
This is to certify that our party, PARTIDO PARA SA
DEMOKRATIKONG REPORMA (Partido Reporma), has not
issued any Certificate of Nomination and Acceptance (CONA)
to a certain Christopher Gamboa [Ay]son who is purportedly
running for Mayor in the City of Santiago, Province of Isabela
under Partido Reporma.
This Certification is being issued for any legal purpose it may
serve.
Done this 6th day of November 2021, in Pasig City. (Emphasis
supplied)
[original signed]
SEN. PANFILO LACSON
Chairman 10
On November 9, 2021, Navarro withdrew her candidacy and opted to
run for Vice-Mayor of Santiago City, Isabela instead. In her Statement of
Withdrawal, 11 she declared that she would be substituted by Aggabao who
is also a member of Partido Reporma. On even date, Aggabao filed his COC
as Mayor of Santiago City, Isabela. 12 He stated in his COC that he was
officially nominated by Partido Reporma as evidenced by his CONA dated
November 8, 2021 signed by Senator Lacson. 13
Dispositions of the COMELEC
B y Document No. 21-3973 14 dated November 10, 2021,
respondent COMELEC through its Law Department Director Maria Norina
Tangaro-Casingal informed Navarro that she was deemed to be an
independent candidate pursuant to Section 15 of COMELEC Resolution No.
10717 because Partido Reporma nominated two (2) candidates for the same
mayoralty post, more than the number allowed to be voted for the elective
position (i.e., one [1]). Section 15 reads:
Section 15. Â Allowed Number of Nominations . — No duly
registered [Political Party] or Coalition shall be allowed to nominate
more than the number of candidates required to be voted for in a
particular elective position.
If the [Political Party] or Coalition nominated more than the
number of candidates required to be voted for in a particular elective
position, all of the nominations shall be denied due course by the
Commission, and the aspirants shall be declared independent
candidates. 15
By Letter 16 dated November 12, 2021 addressed to the COMELEC Law
Department, Aggabao clarified that on November 9, 2021, Navarro already
withdrew her COC for Mayor of Santiago City, Isabela. On even date, he filed
his COC as substitute candidate. It was indicated in his CONA that he was
the official candidate of Partido Reporma for the mayoralty post, in lieu of
Navarro. He called the attention of the COMELEC to the Letter and
Certification both dated November 6, 2021 of Senator Lacson, the
Chairperson of Partido Reporma stating that the Partido Reporma never
issued a CONA in favor of Ayson.
Thereafter, on December 2, 2021, Senator Lacson sent another Letter
addressed to COMELEC Chairperson Sheriff Abas reiterating his November 6,
2021 Letter that: (a) for purposes of the May 9, 2022 elections, the official
candidate of Partido Reporma for Mayor of Santiago City, Isabela was
Navarro prior to her withdrawal; and (b) Partido Reporma never issued a
CONA to Ayson. Senator Lacson stressed that Ayson was not even a member
of Partido Reporma as confirmed by Partido Reporma Regional Chairperson
Michael John C. Delmendo, thus: 17 DETACa

xxx xxx xxx

x x x I, as Chairman of Partido Reporma, categorically declared and
emphasized that for purposes of the May 9, 2022 National and
Local Elections, the official candidate of Partido Reporma for
the position of Mayor of Santiago City is Ms. Amelita S.
Navarro. x x x the party has not issued any CONA to a certain
Christopher Gamboa [Ay]son who is running for mayor of
Santiago City.
I disowned Ayson's CONA as it is illogical, if not absurd for
Partido Reporma to have issued a CONA to said Christopher Gamboa
 Ayson when he is not even a member of Partido Reporma .
Attached hereto as Annex "F" is the Affidavit of Atty. Michael John
C. Delmendo, Regional Chairman of Partido Reporma, Region
2 where Santiago City belongs, stating that Christopher
Gamboa Ayson, is not a member of the Party.
Yet despite all the foregoing Party declaration and
certification denying the genuineness and authenticity of Mr.
Ayson's CONA, the Law Department issued the subject
Document No. 21-3973, obviously without exercising due
diligence, and declared Ms. Navarro as an independent candidate,
using as an expedient basis the existence of two (2) candidates from
the same party. To allow this to happen will set a dangerous
precedent that any ill-motivated person can just file his candidacy
and claim to have been nominated by a certain party to sow
confusion, dislodge a viable candidate and make a mockery of the
elections. I ask the C[OMELEC] to carefully consider this
problem.
xxx xxx xxx

[original signed]
PANFILO "PING LACSON"
Senator
Chairman, Partido Para sa Demokratikong
Reporma 18

On December 22, 2021, the COMELEC Law Department issued

Document No. 21-7467, 19 reflecting the following disposition of the
COMELEC En Banc, thus:
Pursuant to Sections 39 and 40 of COMELEC Resolution No.
10717 promulgated on August 18, 2021, please be advised that the
Certificate of Candidacy filed by Amelita Sison Navarro is hereby
WITHDRAWN effective 09 November 2021. Consequently, her name
will be deleted/removed/cancelled from the Official Ballot and the
Certified List of Candidates for the May 9, 2022 National and Local
Elections.
Please be informed that the COMELEC En Banc during the
regular meeting held on 22 December 2021 has maintained that
Amelita Sison Navarro as INDEPENDENT pursuant to Section 15
of the COMELEC Resolution No. 10717 because your political party
nominated more than the number of candidates required to be voted
for in a particular elective position. Hence, the COC of Giorgidi Buza
Aggabao who filed as a substitute cannot be given due course.
For your information and guidance. 20

Meantime, on December 23, 2021, the COMELEC posted a Certified List

of Candidates for the May 9, 2022 National and Local Elections. Navarro's
name did not appear under the column "Mayor" but under the column "Vice
Mayor." As for Ayson, his name was included as an Independent candidate
for "Mayor." On the other hand, Aggabao's name was not included in the list
of candidates for "Mayor" as seen in the list provided below: aDSIHc
 Certified List of Candidates
(Municipal)
ISABELA-CITY OF SANTIAGO

ISABELA-CITY OF SANTIAGO Â

MAYOR Â Â Â

# NAME TO SEX NAME POLITICAL

APPEAR ON THE PARTY
BALLOT

1 AYSON, MALE AYSON, INDEPENDENT

CHRISTOPHER CHRISTOPHER 21
(IND) GAMBOA

2 CORNEL, MAUI MALE CORNEL, INDEPENDENT

MANUEL
ESTARIJA

3 LUCUDINE, MALE LUCUDINE, INDEPENDENT

MAR22 (IND) MARCELINO
ACOSTA

4 MIGUEL, MALE MIGUEL, PARTIDO

WALTER JAY WALTER JAY FEDERAL NG
(PFP) AGGABAO PILIPINAS

5 MIRANDA, OTEP MALE MIRANDA, PROGRESSIVE

(PROMDI) JOSEPH MOVEMENT FOR
GUTIERREZ THE
DEVOLUTION OF
INITIATIVES

6 ROQUE, NAP MALE ROQUE, INDEPENDENT

(IND) NAPOLEON
HERMOSURA

7 TAN, SHEENA FEMALE TAN, ALYSSA PARTIDO

(PDPLBN) SHEENA PUA DEMOKRATIKO
PILIPINO LAKAS
NG BAYAN

8 TESORO, FEMALE TESORO, LAKAS

GENALYN GENALYN CHRISTIAN
(LAKAS) APOLTO MUSLIM
DEMOCRATS

9 VALDEZ, MALE VALDEZ, INDEPENDENT

ARTHUR (IND) ARTHUR
MERCADO

ISABELA-CITY OF SANTIAGO Â Â
VICE-MAYOR Â Â

# NAME TO SEX NAME POLITICAL PARTY

APPEAR ON
THE BALLOT

1 ABAYA, ALVIN MALE ABAYA, ALVIN PARTIDO

(PDPLBN) NAVARRO DEMOKRATIKO
PILIPINO LAKAS NG
BAYAN

2 BARTOLOME, MALE BARTOLOME, FEDERALISMO NG

BONIFACIO BONIFACIO DUGONG DAKILANG
(PDDS) PADIERNOS SAMAHAN

3 LIM, ANGELO MALE LIM, ANGELO INDEPENDENT

(IND) MIRANDA

4 NAVARRO, FEMALE NAVARRO, PARTIDO PARA SA

AMELITA AMELITA DEMOKRATIKONG
(PDR) SISON REPORMA 22

5 NAVARRO, MALE NAVARRO, PROGRESSIVE

SOC SOCORRO MOVEMENT FOR THE
(PROMDI) BERMISA DEVOLUTION OF
INITIATIVES

Consequently, Aggabao filed a motion for reconsideration which was

denied under Document No. 22-0176 23 dated January 5, 2022. The
COMELEC reiterated that both Ayson and Navarro were independent
candidates, hence, Aggabao's COC as substitute of Navarro cannot be given
due course. The COMELEC also held that Aggabao's motion for
reconsideration was a prohibited pleading under Rule 13, Section 1 (d) of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure. 24
The COMELEC though admitted that it received the twin letters
from Senator Lacson dated November 6, 2021 and December 2, 2021,
respectively, disowning the CONA of Ayson and requesting the immediate
rectification of Document No. 21-3973 dated November 10, 2021. 25
The Present Petition
Aggabao and Navarro now charge the COMELEC and its Law
Department with grave abuse of discretion in declaring Navarro as an
independent candidate and in denying Aggabao's substitution of Navarro as
the official candidate for Mayor of Santiago City, Isabela of Partido Reporma.
They essentially assert:
First. The COMELEC violated their right to due process. Specifically, it
denied Aggabao's COC as substitute of Navarro, without prior proceedings
before any of its Divisions. 26
Second. Respondents incorrectly applied Section 15 of COMELEC
Resolution No. 10717. Partido Reporma did not nominate more than one (1)
candidate for Mayor of Santiago City, Isabela. Ayson's supposed CONA from
Partido Reporma was fake as repeatedly disavowed by its Chairperson
Senator Lacson himself. 27
Third. Since Navarro was the official candidate of Partido Reporma for
Mayor of Santiago City, Isabela prior to her withdrawal, she could be validly
substituted by Aggabao who has complied with all the legal requirements as
substitute candidate. 28
Petitioners further seek the issuance of a temporary restraining order
(TRO) and/or writ of status quo ante order against the implementation of
Document No. 21-7467 29 dated December 22, 2021. 30
Under Order 31 dated January 25, 2022, the Court, after due
consideration, issued a TRO, enjoining COMELEC from enforcing Document
No. 21-7467:
xxx xxx xxx
NOW, THEREFORE, respondent COMELEC is hereby required to
COMMENT on the petition within a NON-EXTENDABLE period of ten
(10) days from notice hereof. Meanwhile, a TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER is ISSUED, effective immediately and
continuing until further orders from this Court, enjoining You,
respondent COMELEC, your agents, representatives, or persons
acting in your place or stead, from enforcing the assailed Doc. No. 21-
7467 dated December 22, 2021. 32
xxx xxx xxx
In its Comment 33 dated February 2, 2022, the COMELEC, through the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) informed the Court that it had received
two (2) separate COCs with attached CONAs issued by Partido Reporma for
the position of Mayor of Santiago City, Isabela, i.e., one from petitioner
Navarro and another from Ayson. Pursuant to Section 15 of the COMELEC
Resolution No. 10717, both Navarro and Ayson were declared independent
candidates. 34 The COMELEC, thus, argued that since Navarro was an
independent candidate, Aggabao could not have substituted her for the
mayoralty post pursuant to Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC)
in relation to Section 40 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10717, thus: TIADCc

Section 77. Â Omnibus Election Code:

Candidates 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 or accredited political
party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause, only a person
belonging to, and certified by, the same political party may file a
certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate who died, withdrew
or was disqualified. The substitute candidate nominated by the
political party concerned may file his certificate of candidacy for the
office affected in accordance with the preceding sections not later
than mid-day of the day of the election. If the death, withdrawal or
disqualification should occur between the day before the election and
mid-day of election day, said certificate may be filed with any board
of election inspectors in the political subdivision where he is
 candidate or, in case of candidates to be voted for by the entire
electorate of the country, with the Commission.
Section 40, COMELEC Resolution No. 10717:
Substitution of Aspirants/Official Candidates in Case of Death,
Disqualification or Withdrawal of Another. — An aspirant/official
candidate of a duly registered PP or Coalition who dies, withdraws or
is disqualified for any cause after the last day for the filing of COCs
may be substituted by an aspirant/official candidate belonging to, and
nominated by, the same PP or Coalition.
No substitute shall be allowed for any independent candidate.
The substitute of an aspirant who died, withdrew his candidacy,
or was disqualified may file a COC for the office affected on or before
November 15, 2021 (Monday) so that the name of the substitute will
be reflected on the official ballots.
No substitution due to withdrawal shall be allowed after
November 15, 2021.
xxx xxx xxx
The COMELEC underscored the provision of law which does not allow
substitution where the original candidate is an independent candidate. It
only allows substitution where the original candidate and the latter's
substitute belong to and are certified by the same political party. 35
Too, the COMELEC asserted that it was merely exercising its ministerial
duty when it received Ayson's COC and CONA both of which it had accorded
the presumption of regularity for having been notarized. 36 It prayed that the
TRO issued by the Court on January 25, 2022 be lifted. 37
On February 24, 2022, petitioners filed a Manifestation with Grave
Concern 38 stating that they received a copy of Document No. 22-1924 (LAW
22-02663) dated February 16, 2022 from the COMELEC Law Department.
This document reiterated the status of Navarro as an independent
candidate. But the issuance of this document violated the TRO issued by the
Court on January 25, 2022 enjoining the enforcement of Document No. 21-
7467 which considered Navarro as an independent candidate. 39
By Resolution 40 dated April 19, 2022, the Court directed the COMELEC
to explain why it did not comply with the TRO issued by the Court per Order
dated January 25, 2022. 41
In its Manifestation 42 dated June 10, 2022, the COMELEC called the
attention of the Court to its Minute Resolution 43 No. 22-0079 dated January
26, 2022 entitled "In the Matter of the Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs)
Issued by the Supreme Court on Various SPA and SPP Cases," viz.: AIDSTE

After due deliberation, the Commission RESOLVED, as it

hereby RESOLVES, to adopt Minute Resolution 22-0019, wherein the
Commission resolved to include in the publication and ballots the
above-named party-lists groups who obtained temporary restraining
orders (TROs) from the Supreme Court and the same was received
by the Commission prior to January 9, 2022 which is the date
of the generation of the final ballot face for the 2022 NLE as a
 judicial courtesy and recognition of the authority of the Supreme
Court. However, TROs received after January 9, 2022 the date for the
generation of the final ballot face is already technically impossible to
comply as the process of generating another ballot face will leave
little time for the Commission to complete the preparation for the
2022 NLE putting at much risk the holding thereof. 44
The COMELEC informed the Court that as early as January 9, 2022, it
already initiated preparatory activities as regards the printing of the
machine-readable official ballots. Thus, it had to comply with a very strict
timeline, 45 thus:

PREPARATORY ACTIVITY DATE

Generation of the Final Ballot Face Templates January 9, 2022

Loading of the Finalized List of Candidates in the January 15, 2022

Election Management System Database (EMS)

Generation of the Serialized Machine-Readable Official January 15, 2022

Ballots

The COMELEC further averred that the tedious processes involving the
various preparatory activities and printing of the official machine-readable
ballots compelled it to adopt a cut-off date within which to comply with the
TROs issued by the Court. This meant that beyond this cut-off date, the act
or acts sought to be restrained would have already become fait accompli. 46
The COMELEC then claimed that it received the subject TRO only on
January 25, 2022 far beyond its cut-off date of January 9, 2022. Hence, the
matters sought to be restrained — the declaration of petitioner Navarro as
an independent candidate and denial of due course to petitioner Aggabao's
candidacy for Mayor of Isabela City as a substitute for petitioner Navarro —
had themselves become fait accompli. This meant that the final ballot face
templates were already generated, and the machine-readable official ballots
were already being printed. It gave notice that any adjustment,
postponement, or suspension of these activities would prejudice the timely
conduct of its constitutional duties. 47
Our Ruling
Mootness of the Petition
The conclusion of the May 9, 2022 National and Local Elections and the
subsequent proclamation of one Sheena Tan as the Mayor-elect of Santiago
City, Isabela 48 have undoubtedly rendered the petition moot insofar as it
seeks to nullify the denial of Aggabao's COC as substitute of Navarro, the
non-inclusion of Aggabao's name as a mayoralty candidate, and Navarro's
declaration as an independent candidate. A case is moot when it ceases to
present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an
adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no
practical value or use. 49
Here, the election of Tan to the contested mayoralty post has put an
end to the dispute, and none of the complained actions by COMELEC (i.e.,
the denial of Aggabao's COC as substitute of Navarro, the non-inclusion of
Aggabao's name as a mayoralty candidate, and Navarro's declaration as an
independent candidate) even if wrong will not undo the outcome of the
election to this office.
Despite the mootness of a case, however, the Court may still render a
decision if it finds that: (a) there is a grave violation of the Constitution; (b)
the case involves a situation of exceptional character and is of paramount
public interest; (c) the issues raised require the formulation of
controlling principles to guide the Bench, the Bar and the public;
and (4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. 50
As eruditely explained by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh
during the deliberation, the third exception applies here. Left unchecked, the
COMELEC may repeat the underlying questionable acts or omissions which
resulted in the assailed dispositions, albeit not necessarily against
petitioners themselves again but against some other individuals in
elections to come. These underlying questionable acts or omissions
include: (a) ignoring the clear and repeated certifications and letters
of a particular political party about the identity of the candidate it seeks to
endorse and the falsity of a candidate's claim of endorsement by that
particular political party; (b) failing to conduct a summary hearing on
the candidates' conflicting claims pertaining to their party membership
and endorsement; and (c) emasculating the TRO issued by the Court by
perpetuating the erroneous COC cancellation and improperly denying one's
right to be substituted as a candidate.
As the final guardian and arbiter of the Constitution, the Court deems it
necessary to lay down principles on the observance of the right to due
process, particularly the right to hearing of candidates to whom conflicting
CONAs have been issued, in view of the seeming vacuum in the COMELEC's
rules. 51acEHCD

Powers and functions of the COMELEC

The Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code confer the powers and
functions of the COMELEC which may be classified into administrative, quasi-
legislative, and quasi-judicial. 52 Bedol v. COMELEC 53 expounds:
The powers and functions of the COMELEC, conferred upon it by
the 1987 Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code, may be
classified into administrative, quasi-legislative, and quasi-judicial. The
quasi-judicial power of the COMELEC embraces the power to
resolve controversies arising from the enforcement of
election laws, and to be the sole judge of all pre-proclamation
controversies; and of all contests relating to the elections,
returns, and qualifications. Its quasi-legislative power refers to the
issuance of rules and regulations to implement the election laws and
to exercise such legislative functions as may expressly be delegated
to it by Congress. Its administrative function refers to the
enforcement and administration of election laws. In the
exercise of such power, the Constitution (Section 6, Article IX-
 A) and the Omnibus Election Code (Section 52 [c]) authorize
the COMELEC to issue rules and regulations to implement the
provisions of the 1987 Constitution and the Omnibus Election
Code.
The quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power
is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which
the legislative policy is to apply, and to decide in accordance
with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing
and administering the same law. 54 (Emphases supplied)
The administrative powers of the COMELEC are found in Section 2 (1),
(3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), and (9) of Article IX-C of the Constitution, 55 thus:
SECTION 2. Â The Commission on Elections shall exercise the
following powers and functions:
(1) Â Enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to
the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and
recall.
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Â Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions
affecting elections, including determination of the number and
location of polling places, appointment of election officials and
inspectors, and registration of voters.
(4) Â Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law
enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the Government,
including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for the exclusive
purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible
elections.
(5) Â Register, after sufficient publication, political parties,
organizations, or coalitions which, in addition to other requirements,
must present their platform or program of government; and accredit
citizens' arms of the Commission on Elections. Religious
denominations and sects shall not be registered. Those which seek to
achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse to
uphold and adhere to this Constitution, or which are supported by any
foreign government shall likewise be refused registration.
Financial contributions from foreign governments and their
agencies to political parties, organizations, coalitions, or candidates
related to elections constitute interference in national affairs, and,
when accepted, shall be an additional ground for the cancellation of
their registration with the Commission, in addition to other penalties
that may be prescribed by law.
(6) Â File, upon a verified complaint, or on its own initiative,
petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters; investigate and,
where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws,
including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and
malpractices. SDHTEC

(7) Â Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize

election spending, including limitation of places where propaganda
materials shall be posted, and to prevent and penalize all forms of
 election frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance candidacies.
(8) Â Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or
employee it has deputized, or the imposition of any other disciplinary
action, for violation or disregard of, or disobedience to its directive,
order, or decision.
(9) Â Submit to the President and the Congress a comprehensive
report on the conduct of each election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum, or recall.
As for its quasi-judicial powers, Section 2 (2) of Article IX-C ordains: 56
Section 2. Â The Commission on Elections shall exercise the
following powers and functions:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) Â Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests
relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective
regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over
all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial
courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials
decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election
contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be
final, executory, and not appealable.
When the COMELEC receives or acknowledges receipt of COCs and
CONAs filed in due form, it performs the administrative function of
enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations pertaining to the
conduct of an election. 57 Section 76 of the Omnibus Election Code in
relation to Section 32 of Resolution No. 10717 provides:
Omnibus Election Code, Section 76:
Sec. 76. Â Ministerial duty of receiving and acknowledging receipt.
— The Commission, provincial election supervisor, election registrar
or officer designated by the Commission or the board of election
inspectors under the succeeding section shall have the ministerial
duty to receive and acknowledge receipt of the certificate of
candidacy.
COMELEC Resolution No. 10717, Section 32:
Section 32. Â Ministerial Duty of Receiving and Acknowledging
Receipt of Certificates of Candidacy/Nomination and Acceptance. —
The Receiving Officer has the ministerial duty to receive and
acknowledge the receipt of the COC and CONA; Provided that they
are filed in conformity with the rules and regulations. 58
Based thereon, the COMELEC must receive COCs and CONAs provided
they are filed in conformity with the rules and regulations. Thus, we agree
with the COMELEC when it asserted that up to the point when it received
Ayson's COC and CONA (which it accorded with the presumption of regularity
for having been notarized), it merely performed its ministerial function
under the foregoing provisions.
A ministerial act is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given
state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal
authority, without regard to or the exercise of his or her own judgment upon
the propriety or impropriety of the act done. 59
To repeat, because Ayson's COC and CONA appeared to be regular on
their face, the COMELEC had no recourse but to accept them. 60 Up to that
point, no grave abuse of discretion could be ascribed to the COMELEC simply
because there was no occasion for the exercise of such discretion to come
into play. 61
AScHCD

But following the acceptance of Ayson's COC and CONA, supervening

events took place which necessarily called for the COMELEC's exercise of its
discretionary power vis-Ã -vis the performance of its quasi-judicial functions,
viz.: Senator Lacson, Chairperson of Partido Reporma, disclaimed the CONA
allegedly issued by Partido Reporma to Ayson; and he sought the COMELEC's
"immediate action" and requested that "the necessary correction/s be made
in the [COMELEC's] Certified List of Candidates." 62 In fine, Senator Lacson
was seeking a resolution of a controversy which affected the candidacy of
Ayson and Navarro, and subsequently, Aggabao.
As astutely observed by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa
(Justice Caguioa) during our deliberation, 63 when Senator Lacson sent his
letters to the COMELEC challenging the validity or authenticity of the CONA
of Ayson, a legal controversy had then come to fore, i.e., which of the
respective CONAs of Ayson and Navarro should prevail? To be sure,
this legal controversy required the COMELEC to look beyond the face of
these CONAs. On this score, Section 2 of Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution
empowers the COMELEC to exercise jurisdiction over all contests relating to
the elections, returns and qualifications of all elective officials, and to decide
all questions affecting elections. 64 It is mandated to "investigate and, where
appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of elections laws, including acts or
omissions constituting election frauds, offenses and malpractices." 65 Thus,
even after its acceptance of Ayson's CONA, which initially appeared to be
regular, the COMELEC became duty bound to take cognizance of, and
investigate, the material information coming from Senator Lacson that
Partido Reporma had not issued any CONA in favor of Ayson. 66
In this regard, where the situation calls for the power of the
COMELEC to exercise its judgment or discretion involving a
determination of fact, or resolution of controversies 67 where parties
adduce evidence in support of their contentious, 68 the COMELEC
ought to perform its quasi-judicial functions. 69 In Francisco v. COMELEC , 70
we pronounced:
The COMELEC's adjudicative function over election contests is
quasi-judicial in character since the COMELEC is a governmental
body, other than a court, that is vested with jurisdiction to decide the
specific class of controversies it is charged with resolving. In
adjudicating the rights of persons before it, the COMELEC is not
just empowered but is in fact required to investigate facts or
ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh
evidence, and draw conclusions from them as basis for their
 official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial nature.
This is simply in congruence with the concept of due process that all
administrative adjudicatory bodies are enjoined to observe.
The COMELEC is, thus, fully-clothed with authority to
make factual determinations in relation to the election
contests before it. This has been the thrust of the decades worth of
constitutional revisions that transformed the COMELEC from a purely
administrative body, whose scope of decision-making is limited to
those incidental to its duty to enforce election laws, to a polling
commission that also exercises original and exclusive, as well as
appellate, jurisdiction over election contests. (Emphases and
underscoring supplied)
Baytan v. COMELEC 71 echoed the rule that in the exercise of its quasi-
judicial power, the COMELEC should reckon with Section 3 of Article IX-C 72
of the Constitution. This provision requires all election cases, including pre-
proclamation controversies, to be decided by the COMELEC in Division;
and the motion for reconsideration, by the COMELEC En Banc.
Again, as correctly pointed out by Justice Caguioa, the COMELEC En
Banc had, in several instances, referred matters to its Divisions for hearing.
73 The COMELEC, therefore, should have similarly referred the administrative
matter in this case to a Division and docketed the same as an election case,
heard the parties thereon, and thereafter resolved the material issue as to
who between Ayson and Navarro, and subsequently Aggabao was the real
mayoralty candidate of Partido Reporma. That the COMELEC rules may
be silent on how these conflicting CONAS and the disavowals of the
concerned political party may be resolved did not justify its
inaction. 74 All it needed to do was adhere to the due process requisites of
notice and hearing attendant to every adjudication it does in the exercise of
its quasi-judicial functions. In Engle v. COMELEC, 75 we held that in the
exercise of its quasi-judicial functions, the COMELEC is mandated to hear and
decide cases first by Division and, on motion for reconsideration, by the
COMELEC En Banc. The Court further stressed that the opinion of the
COMELEC Law Department is not binding and at most, is merely
recommendatory. 76 The COMELEC En Banc cannot short cut proceedings by
acting without prior action by a Division because this deprives the candidate
of due process. 77AcICHD

In Cerafica v. COMELEC, 78 which involved the cancellation of COCs via

minute resolutions simply adopting the recommendations of the COMELEC
Law Department, the Court ruled that the COMELEC gravely abused its
discretion because such situations properly called for the referral of the case
to a Division for summary hearing. 79
The COMELEC acted with
grave abuse of discretion
Grave abuse of discretion is defined as arbitrary or despotic exercise of
power due to passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; or the whimsical,
arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or
refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in
contemplation of law. 80

Going by the undisputed facts, the COMELEC effectively aided the

winning mayoralty candidate by refusing to resolve the respective status of
Ayson and Navarro, and later on of Aggabao, as candidates. It opted to rely
solely on the recommendation of its Law Department, sans the benefit of its
own independent confirmation which could have been done by referring the
case to the COMELEC Division for a summary hearing. Had the COMELEC
performed its adjudicative duty required under the Constitution and the law,
Ayson or Aggabao could have given the winning candidate a run for her
money. But as things turned out, both were denied the opportunity to run as
the official mayoralty candidate of Partido Reporma. The party itself was
deprived of the right to prove who its official mayoralty candidate was, and
the electorate, consequently, was deprived of the opportunity to choose
either of these two candidates as their duly elected leader.
The lack of hearing precludes the
Court from resolving who between
Ayson and Aggabao was the real
official candidate of Partido
Reporma
The Court once more agrees with the keen observation of Justice
Caguioa that because the COMELEC failed to exercise its quasi-judicial
functions, conduct hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions
therefrom, 81 let alone, resolve once and for all the issue of party
endorsement or representation between Ayson and Aggabao, the Court itself
in this certiorari proceeding cannot do either one or the other. The Court is
not a trier of facts. 82 Nor can it draw conclusions or resolve the issue of
party endorsement or representation where the facts had not been
established on record before the COMELEC at the first instance.
But as for the assailed Document No. 21-3973 83 dated November
10, 2021, declaring Navarro as an independent candidate; (b) Document
No. 21-7467 84 dated December 22, 2021, denying Aggabao's Certificate
of Candidacy (COC) as substitute candidate for petitioner Navarro; and (c)
Document No. 222-0176 dated January 5, 2022, denying Aggabao's
motion for reconsideration, the Court nullifies and sets them aside for non-
compliance with the due process requirements as discussed above.
The Court accepts the explanation
of the COMELEC why it went
ahead with the printing of ballots
despite the TRO issued by the
Court.
Although we find the COMELEC to have acted with grave abuse of
discretion when it failed to afford due process to the contending parties and
rule on the controversy between Ayson, on one hand, and Navarro, Aggabao
and Partido Reporma, on the other, it has sufficiently demonstrated that it
was not impelled by a desire to disrespect the authority of the Court when it
proceeded with the election preparations, which included the printing of
ballots, despite the TRO issued by the Court. Rather, the COMELEC only
sought to ensure that the May 9, 2022 National and Local Elections would
take place on the second Monday of May as decreed in the Constitution: TAIaHE

After due deliberation, the Commission RESOLVED, as it

hereby RESOLVES, to adopt Minute Resolution 22-0019, wherein the
Commission resolved to include in the publication and ballots the
above-named party-lists groups who obtained temporary restraining
orders (TROs) from the Supreme Court and the same was received
by the Commission prior to January 9, 2022 which is the date
of the generation of the final ballot face for the 2022 NLE as a
judicial courtesy and recognition of the authority of the Supreme
Court. However, TROs received after January 9, 2022 the date for the
generation of the final ballot face is already technically impossible to
comply as the process of generating another ballot face will leave
little time for the Commission to complete the preparation for the
2022 NLE putting at much risk the holding thereof. 85
The Court, therefore, accepts the explanation of the COMELEC on the
matter. It defers to the wisdom of the COMELEC, after all, it is Constitutional
body charged with the power of enforcement and administration of all laws
and regulations relative to the conduct of an election. 86 It possesses
indubitable expertise in the field of elections 87 and was in the best position
to determine what preparations were needed to ensure that the 2022
national and local elections would promptly, as it did, take place.
Conclusion
As ordained in the recent case of Marquez v. COMELEC, 88 the Court
recognizes that the COMELEC is time-pressed in its preparatory activities
especially during an election year. Thus, we strongly urge the COMELEC to
promptly resolve substitution cases and similar cases which may result in the
inclusion or exclusion of candidates so that it can devote its time to ensuring
the conduct of free, fair, and honest elections. A balanced policy which
guarantees promptness, on one hand, and the fair exercise of discretion on
the other, will not only aid in the noble mandate of the COMELEC but also
prevent cases from becoming moot, as here.
To avoid a recurrence of similar undesirable incidents in the future, the
COMELEC is likewise strongly urged to adopt a practicable plan and timeline
to ensure that all these cases are resolved at the earliest possible time. In
formulating these measures and plans, the COMELEC should bear in mind
that its dispositions are subject to review by the Court and that the Court
also needs ample time to resolve these cases prior to election day. It should
further consider that the aggrieved party will likely seek injunctive relief
from the Court which might affect its pre-set timeline for necessary election
preparations.
Whatever practicable measures or plans may be formulated by the
COMELEC in this regard should ensure that election cases are promptly
decided to prevent them from becoming moot as what happened here.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. Document No. 21-
3973 dated November 10, 2021, Document No. 21-7467 dated December 22,
2021, and Document No. 22-0176 dated January 5, 2022 issued by
respondent Commission on Elections are NULLIFIED.
As for petitioners' prayer to admit the Certificate of Candidacy of
Giorgidi B. Aggabao as substitute candidate for Mayor of Santiago City and
to include his name in the list of candidates for the post, the same is
DECLARED MOOT.
The Manifestation dated June 10, 2022 of the Commission on Elections
bearing its explanation why the Temporary Restraining Order under Order
dated January 25, 2022 was not complied with is NOTED and ACCEPTED.
To avoid a recurrence of similar incidents in the future, the Commission
on Elections is strongly urged to adopt a practicable plan and timeline to
ensure that all cases which involve substitution cases or similar cases which
may result in the inclusion or exclusion of a candidate from the ballot are
resolved at the earliest possible time.
SO ORDERED.
Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, Hernando, Inting, Zalameda, M.V. Lopez,
Gaerlan, Rosario, J.Y. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez and Singh, JJ., concur.
Caguioa, J., see separate concurring.
Kho, Jr., * J., took no part.

Separate Opinions
CAGUIOA, J., concurring:

The ponencia resolves to partly grant the instant Petition for Certiorari
1 (Petition) thereby nullifying the assailed Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) issuances 2 but declaring moot the prayer to admit the
Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) of petitioner Giorgidi B. Aggabao 3
Per the ponencia's narration of facts, the COMELEC received two (2)
Certificates of Nomination and Acceptance (CONAs) from the Partido para sa
Demokratikong Reporma (Partido Reporma) issued in favor of petitioner
Amelita Navarro 4 (Ayson), respectively, who were both running for Mayor of
Santiago City. In view of the multiple nominations made by the Partido
Reporma, Navarro and Ayson were declared as independent candidates,
pursuant to Section 15 5 of COMELEC Resolution (Com Res) No. 10717. 6 As
such, when Navarro withdrew her CoC for the position of Mayor and Aggabao
filed his CoC as Navarro's substitute, the COMELEC denied due course to
Aggabao's CoC in accordance with Section 40 7 of the same Com Res which
disallows substitution for independent candidates. Prior to the cancellation of
Aggabao's CoC, Senator Panfilo Lacson (Sen. Lacson), the Chairman of
Partido Reporma, sent letters dated November 6, 2021 and December 2,
2021, to the COMELEC disowning Ayson's CONA, maintaining that Navarro is
the official candidate of Partido Reporma for Mayor of Santiago City, and
stating that Ayson is not even a member of the party; hence, it was absurd
for Partido Reporma to have issued a CONA in his favor. However, the
COMELEC failed to act on these letters. 8
 Hence, the present Petition which charges respondents COMELEC En
Banc and its Law Department with grave abuse of discretion in declaring
Navarro as an independent candidate and in denying Aggabao's substitution
of Navarro's candidacy as Mayor of Santiago City, Isabela. TCAScE

On January 25, 2022, the Court issued a temporary restraining order

(TRO) against the assailed COMELEC issuances. 9 Nevertheless, the
COMELEC, on February 16, 2022, reiterated that Navarro is an independent
candidate. However, it later explained its defiance of the TRO in that as
early as January 9, 2022, the preparatory activities with respect to the
printing of the official ballots had begun; hence, the matter sought to be
restrained had become fait accompli. 10
T h e ponencia, in partly granting the instant Petition, ruled, among
others, that: (1) while the COMELEC was correct in receiving the CoCs and
CONAs of Navarro and Ayson upon finding that they were filed in due form
pursuant to its ministerial duty, it committed grave abuse of discretion when
it failed to act on the letters of Sen. Lacson which challenged the validity or
authenticity of Ayson's CONA; (2) upon the emergence of a legal controversy
on the CONAs requiring the COMELEC to look beyond its face, the COMELEC
became duty-bound to perform its quasi-judicial functions, which mandated
the requisites of notice and hearing; (3) the lack of hearing precludes the
Court from resolving who between Ayson and Aggabao was the real official
candidate of Partido Reporma as the Court is not a trier of facts; and (4)
nevertheless, the assailed COMELEC issuances are nullified for non-
compliance with the due process requirements. 11
I concur with the ponencia's finding of grave abuse of discretion on the
COMELEC's part and, thus, the disposition of the case. I write this Separate
Concurring Opinion to stress that: (1) the COMELEC's exercise of its quasi-
judicial powers requires the observance of notice and hearing upon the
concerned parties; (2) thus, in failing to accord the parties due process, it
gravely abused its discretion when it completely ignored the letters of Sen.
Lacson which gave rise to a legal controversy; (3) despite the seeming
vacuum in its rules, the COMELEC should have referred the case for hearing
to one of its divisions; and (4) the present case shows a need to enjoin
political parties to be more circumspect in issuing CONAs.
When the COMELEC exercises its
quasi-judicial powers, notice and
hearing is necessary. There is an
exercise of quasi-judicial powers when
investigation and ascertainment of facts,
as well as judgment and discretion, are
crucial. Administrative powers, on the
other hand, require merely an
application of policies and enforcement
of orders.
Pursuant to Section 3, 12 Article IX-C of the Constitution, the COMELEC
need only hear and decide, first through its divisions, and then, upon motion
for reconsideration, sitting as an en banc, when it is exercising its
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. It may act in either division or directly
as an en banc when it is in the exercise of its administrative powers. 13
Crucial, therefore, to the present controversy is the determination of the
nature of the power exercised by the COMELEC when it issued the assailed
resolutions.
The case of Bedol v. COMELEC 14 is instructive on the three (3) powers
of the COMELEC:
The powers and functions of the COMELEC, conferred upon it by
the 1987 Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code, may be
classified into administrative, quasi-legislative, and quasi-judicial.
The quasi-judicial power of the COMELEC embraces the power
to resolve controversies arising from the enforcement of
election laws, and to be the sole judge of all pre-proclamation
controversies; and of all contests relating to the elections,
returns, and qualifications. Its quasi-legislative power refers to the
issuance of rules and regulations to implement the election laws and
to exercise such legislative functions as may expressly be delegated
to it by Congress. Its administrative function refers to the
enforcement and administration of election laws. In the
exercise of such power, the Constitution (Section 6, Article IX-
A) and the Omnibus Election Code (Section 52 [c]) authorize
the COMELEC to issue rules and regulations to implement the
provisions of the 1987 Constitution and the Omnibus Election
Code.
The quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicators power
is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which
the legislative policy is to apply, and to decide in accordance
with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing
and administering the same law. x x x 15 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
I n Cipriano v. COMELEC 16 (Cipriano), the COMELEC En Banc, as
recommended by its Law Department, disallowed the CoCs of therein
petitioners as they were not registered voters. As in the present case,
petitioners therein cried deprivation of their due process rights, with the
COMELEC interposing the defense that its assailed resolutions were issued in
the exercise of its administrative powers; hence, did not require notice and
hearing. In ruling for petitioners, the Court elaborated on the distinction
between the COMELEC's power to administer election laws and its quasi-
judicial powers, viz.:
cTDaEH

Contrary to the submission of the COMELEC, the denial of due

course or cancellation of one's certificate of candidacy is not within
the administrative powers of the Commission, but rather calls for the
exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Administrative power is
concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing
orders as determined by proper governmental organs. We
have earlier enumerated the scope of the Commission's
administrative functions. On the other hand, where a power
rests in judgment or discretion, so that it is of judicial nature
 or character, but does not involve the exercise of functions of
a judge, or is conferred upon an officer other than a judicial
officer, it is deemed quasi-judicial. 17 (Emphasis supplied)
The Court in Jalosjos v. COMELEC, 18 citing Villarosa v. COMELEC, 19

pertinently ruled:
[T]he term 'administrative' connotes, or pertains, to
'administration, especially management, as by managing or
conducting, directing or superintending, the execution,
application, or conduct of persons or things.['] It does not
entail an opportunity to be heard, the production and
weighing of evidence, and a decision or resolution thereon.
While a 'quasi-judicial function' is a terms which applies to the
action, discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or
bodies, who are required to investigate facts, or ascertain the
existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from
them, as a basis for their official action and to exercise
discretion of a judicial nature. x x x 20 (Additional emphasis
supplied; underscoring in the original)
From the foregoing, there is an exercise of quasi-judicial powers when
investigation and ascertainment of facts, as well as judgment or discretion,
are crucial. More specifically, when the body is required to ascertain facts to
which the law shall apply so that discretion of judicial character is necessary,
adjudicatory powers are in play. On the other hand, where what is involved
is the mere application of policies and enforcement of orders as determined
by proper governmental organs, there is a mere exercise of administrative
powers. The latter does not entail the production and weighing of evidence,
hence, an opportunity to be heard is not necessary.
The COMELEC, in the exercise of its
administrative powers, properly applied
its rules in receiving both Navarro's and
Ayson's CONAs and declaring them
independent candidates. However, it
gravely abused its discretion in failing to
accord notice and hearing to the parties
when a legal controversy arose after
Sen. Lacson sent his letters thereby
requiring the COMELEC to exercise its
quasi-judicial powers.
Under Section 76 21 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, 22 otherwise known
as the "Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines" (OEC) and Section 32 23 of
Com Res No. 10717, it is the ministerial duty of the COMELEC to receive and
acknowledge receipt of the CoCs and CONAs filed before it, provided that
these were filed in due form and in conformity with the rules and regulations,
respectively. Conversely, the Court, in several occasions, has ruled that the
COMELEC, may not, by itself, without the proper proceedings, deny due
course to or cancel a CoC filed in due form. 24 In Cipriano, citing Sanchez v.
Del Rosario , 25 the Court held that the duty of the COMELEC to give due
course to a CoC filed in due form is ministerial in character and that while it
may look into patent defects therein, it may not go into matters not
appearing on its face. 26cSaATC

In the present case, the COMELEC received the CoCs of both Navarro
and Ayson, pursuant to its ministerial duty to receive and give due course to
CoCs filed in due form. The CONAs attached to both CoCs, likewise being
regular on their faces and compliant with the COMELEC rules, were likewise
received and given due course, again, pursuant to the COMELEC's ministerial
duty. Finally, there being two (2) CONAs issued by the same political party in
favor of two (2) nominees for the same position, the COMELEC treated these
nominees as independent candidates and disallowed both nominations,
pursuant to Section 15 of Com Res No. 10717, which mandates that in case
of such excessive nominations, "all of the nominations shall be denied due
course by the Commission, and the aspirants shall be declared independent
candidates." 27 To emphasize, these actions by the COMELEC were done
pursuant to its administrative functions, there being no need to admit
evidence, ascertain facts and render conclusions thereon.
Nevertheless, when Sen. Lacson sent letters to the COMELEC
challenging the validity or authenticity of the CONA of Ayson issued by
Partido Reporma, there arose a legal controversy which required the
COMELEC to look beyond the face of the certificates. At this point, the
COMELEC was already required to investigate, receive evidence and
examine and weigh the same to arrive at factual conclusions to which the
law shall apply. Specifically, it was called upon to ascertain whether Ayson's
CONA was not authentic, as claimed by Sen. Lacson, so that Section 15 of
Com Res No. 10717 on multiple nominations would be inapplicable, leaving
Navarro as the lone nominee of Partido Reporma. If so found, then the
substitution of Navarro by Aggabao should be valid under Section 40 of the
same Com Res.
To stress, where only an application of the law is required without
having to investigate and ascertain facts beyond the face of the certificates
and other uncontroverted documents, administrative functions are
exercised. This is thus involved when the COMELEC examines, upon filing of
the CoC, the attached CONA, and ascertain, on its face, whether it was filed
in due form and within the filing period, properly and completely filled-out,
signed by the authorized signatories (by simple comparison of such
signatures to those in the pertinent list submitted by the party to the
COMELEC ahead of the filing of CoCs) and compliant with the requirements
under the rules. 28 Once found that the CONA is filed in conformity with the
rules and regulations, it becomes the ministerial duty of the COMELEC to
receive and acknowledge receipt of the CONAs filed with them, in
accordance with Section 76 of the OEC and Section 32 of Com Res No.
10717.
However, when there arises an issue or controversy with the
certificates not appearing on their faces, such as when extrinsic evidence is
offered to prove an allegedly fraudulent CONA, the COMELEC cannot merely
ignore the same — as what it apparently did with respect to Sen. Lacson's
letters — especially where, as in this case, such non-action inevitably led to
the cancellation of the CoC of the substitute candidate, Aggabao.
The cancellation of a CoC on the
ground of invalidity of the candidate's
substitution requires notice and
hearing.
On this note, the Court has held that both denial of due course to and
cancellation of CoCs are adjudicatory proceedings which need to be first
heard by the COMELEC division, as a matter of jurisdiction. The COMELEC En
Banc can only act on the same upon a motion for reconsideration of its
division's decision. 29
In Luna v. COMELEC, 30 the Court voided the COMELEC's disallowance
of a substitution of an underaged candidate and the consequent cancellation
of the CoC of his substitute. The Court even went further as to suggest that a
petition to deny due course to or cancel the CoC of the substituted candidate
was necessary because ineligibility of a candidate for non-age is beyond the
usual and proper cognizance of the COMELEC outside of a petition under
Section 78 31 of the OEC, owing to its ministerial duty to give due course to
CoCs filed in due form.
In Cipriano, the Court categorically held that the denial of due course or
cancellation of a CoC "is not within the administrative powers of the
[COMELEC], but rather calls for the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions." 32
Hence, the Court annulled the COMELEC's Resolution, adopting the
recommendation of its Law Department and cancelling or denying due
course to CoCs of several candidates, including petitioners, for not being
registered voters. It ruled that outside of patent defects, the COMELEC may
only deny due course to or cancel a CoC in accordance with the procedure
laid down in Section 78, which affords all parties notice and an opportunity
to present evidence, albeit through a summary procedure. 33
In Bautista v. COMELEC, 34 the Court held that the COMELEC denied a
candidate of his due process rights when its en banc, upon its Law
Department's recommendation, cancelled the candidate's CoC for the
latter's failure to register as a voter. The Court ruled that a division of the
COMELEC should have first heard the case, so that the COMELEC En Banc
acted without jurisdiction when it ordered such cancellation of the CoC. 35
The COMELEC contended that there was no need for presentation and
evaluation of evidence because the issue of whether Bautista was a
registered voter is easily resolved by looking at the COMELEC registrations
records. The Court nevertheless ruled that such reasoning fails to consider
instances where a voter may be excluded through inadvertence or
registered with an erroneous or misspelled name. Indeed, a COMELEC rule
allows candidates who are not registered voters to be included in the
certified list of candidates until the COMELEC directs otherwise. The Court
declared that the COMELEC should have observed the summary proceeding
outlined in Rule 23 36 of its Rules of Procedures 37 in relation to petitions to
deny due course to or cancel CoCs. 38
In Engle v. COMELEC En Banc 39 (Engle), while the Court ruled that the
matter of validity of petitioner's substitution is not a proper subject of a Rule
78 petition to deny due course to or cancel a CoC as it does not relate to a
qualification of the candidate, it nonetheless held that the denial of due
course to the CoCs of both the substituted candidate and his substitute calls
for the exercise of the COMELEC's quasi-judicial functions, and therefore,
must first be heard and decided by the COMELEC's divisions, thus:
First, the COMELEC Law Department's "ruling" was issued only
after the filing of petitioner's COC. Second, with respect to the denial
of due course to James L. Engle's COC as a nominee of Lakas-CMD
and to petitioner's COC as his substitute, the COMELEC Law
Department's letter is not binding and at most, recommendatory. It is
settled in jurisprudence that the denial of due course [to] or
cancellation of one's COC is not within the administrative powers of
the COMELEC, but rather calls for the exercise of its quasi-judicial
functions. We have also previously held that the COMELEC, in the
exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, is mandated by
the Constitution to hear and decide such cases first by Division and,
upon motion for reconsideration, by the En Banc. In resolving cases to
deny due course to or cancel certificates of candidacy, the COMELEC
cannot merely rely on the recommendations of its Law Department
but must conduct due proceedings through one of its divisions.
Returning to the case at bar, the COMELEC Second Division only
formally ruled on the status of James L. Engle as an independent
candidate and the invalidity of petitioner's substitution on July 5,
2013, months after the May 13, 2013 Elections. 40
Hence, it appears that although Engle held against the propriety of a
Section 78 petition to adjudicate the issue of validity of substitution because
the same does not relate to the qualifications of a candidate, it still held the
stance that cancellation of CoC's on the ground of invalidity of substitution
demands the exercise of quasi-judicial powers of the COMELEC, hence, must
first be heard and decided by its division. Engle merely failed to specify the
remedy therefor under the COMELEC Rules or any statute. EATCcI

Nevertheless, the Court in Tagolino v. House of Representatives

Electoral Tribunal 41 (Tagolino), appears to have taken the position that an
invalid substitution may be a ground to remove a winning candidate from
office as the same still relates to the expanded meaning of "qualifications."
Tagolino involved the cancellation of CoC of Richard Gomez (for non-
compliance with the pertinent residency requirement) and the consequent
removal from office in a quo warranto action of his substitute, his wife, Lucy
Torres-Gomez (Lucy). The Court, through the masterful. ponencia of Senior
Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe (SAJ Bernabe), held that as a person
whose CoC was denied due course or cancelled (i.e., Richard Gomez) cannot
be substituted, Lucy, the substitute, never became a bona fide candidate.
Tagolino occasioned to define "qualifications" and the word "eligible" as used
in Section 74 42 of the OEC, thus:
Notably, the phrase "election, returns, and qualifications"
should be interpreted in its totality as referring to all matters
affecting the validity of the contestee's title. More particularly, the
term "qualifications" refers to matters that could be raised in a quo
 warranto proceeding against the proclaimed winner, such as his
disloyalty or ineligibility, or the inadequacy of his certificate of
candidacy. As used in Section 74 of the OEC, the word "eligible"
means having the right to run for elective public office, that is, having
all the qualifications and none of the ineligibilities to run for the public
office. In this relation, private respondent's own qualification to run
for public office — which was inextricably linked to her husband's own
qualifications due to her substitution — was the proper subject of quo
warranto proceedings falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
HRET and independent from any previous proceedings before the
COMELEC, lest the jurisdictional divide between the two be blurred. 43
To stress, Section 74 lays down the contents of a CoC, one of which is a
declaration that the candidate is eligible for the office sought. It appears
that, proceeding from Tagolino , an invalid substitution may be the proper
subject of a false material declaration under Section 78 of the OEC.
The COMELEC should have endorsed
the matter to one of its divisions for
hearing despite the seeming vacuum in
its rules treating of a remedy to
challenge its administrative allowance
or disallowance of substitutions.
To recall, under the Constitution, the COMELEC must hear and decide
election cases pursuant to its quasi-judicial powers sitting, first, as a division
and then as an en banc, on motion for reconsideration. While there appears
to be nothing in the COMELEC's rules expressly and categorically authorizing
it to endorse a matter to its division for hearing and decision, the Court takes
notice of several cases wherein the COMELEC En Banc referred a matter to
its divisions for hearing. 44 In the present case, the COMELEC should have
similarly referred the administrative matter to its division and docketed the
same as an election case, heard the parties thereon and, only after such
hearing, decided the case.
Further, the COMELEC's rules likewise appear devoid of any remedy to
challenge its administrative allowance or disallowance of substitution or
CONAs or its declaration of candidates as independent candidates pursuant
to its rules. There is no explicit avenue to contest such actions, i.e., where a
party can file a petition and thereafter can present evidence. To recall, the
remedy against an administrative action of the COMELEC, through the
COMELEC En Banc, is a petition for certiorari with the Court alleging grave
abuse of discretion. 45 However, the Court is generally not a trier of facts and
does not receive and evaluate evidence. This is why Sen. Lacson, in
disclaiming the CONA issued in Ayson's favor, merely wrote letters to the
COMELEC. Again, upon receipt of the letters, the COMELEC should have
docketed the matter as an election case with its division and then heard the
parties thereon. DHITCc

However, as it turned out, the COMELEC failed to act on the letters.

Instead, it merely declared in Document No. 21-7467 that it maintains its
position that Navarro was an independent candidate without any
explanation why Aggabao and Sen. Lacson's allegations did not deserve any
credence. At the risk of being repetitive, when COMELEC was confronted
with Sen. Lacson's letters, there arose a controversy requiring the COMELEC
to afford the parties notice and hearing. As the COMELEC failed in this, I
agree therefore with the ponencia that it gravely abused its discretion in
failing to observe the constitutional requirement of hearing and deciding
election cases at the first instance with the COMELEC divisions.
Nevertheless, it must be stressed that while the COMELEC erred in
ignoring altogether the letters of Sen. Lacson, it could not have likewise
validly and properly dishonored Ayson's CONA on the basis solely of said
letters. As mentioned, it was positively required to accord all the parties
notice and hearing, especially in light of the following circumstances
surrounding the letters:
First, Sen. Lacson's letters, quite intriguingly, did not specifically refute
the genuineness of his signature on Ayson's CONA and are silent as to how
Ayson may have obtained the same.
Second , the letters seek to avoid the CONA issued in favor of Ayson,
who was neither heard by the COMELEC nor a party to the present case.
Third, to recall, Ayson's CONA, as found by the COMELEC Law
Department and En Banc, was regular on its face, conformed with the
prescribed form and bore the signature of Sen. Lacson as appearing on
Partido Reporma's List of Authorized Signatories with Specimen Signatures
submitted to the COMELEC. Further and, perhaps, more importantly, the
CONA is notarized, hence, presumed regular.
Fourth, the fact that Ayson is not a member of Partido Reporma, as
alleged in Sen. Lacson's letters, lacks legal bearing on his alleged
nomination because the OEC allows political parties to nominate guest
candidates. 46 Neither is it irregular that Navarro's nomination was
seemingly allowed by the COMELEC when she filed her CoC as Vice Mayor of
Santiago City after withdrawing as a Mayoralty candidate. Unlike in the
Mayoralty race where Ayson filed a CONA supposedly likewise issued by
Partido Reporma, Navarro is indisputably the lone candidate nominated by
the party in the Vice Mayoralty race (assuming she filed a CONA along with
her CoC as Vice-Mayor). There is no occasion to apply Section 15 of Com Res
No. 10717 in the latter.
Political parties are enjoined to be more
circumspect in issuing CONAs.
It is well to point out that the present case does not appear to be
unique or even rare. There seems to be a significant number of election
cases involving the issue of multiple CONAs, appearing in due form and
notarized, but issued to more than the maximum number of candidates
prescribed in the rules, resulting in the treatment of all such candidates as
independent pursuant to Section 15 of Com Res No. 10717.
It is, indeed, curious why the authorized signatory of a CONA, which
appears regular and conforms with pertinent rules and regulations, cannot
categorically refute the authenticity of his or her own signature thereon,
although claiming the same to have been fraudulently issued. Perhaps, a
possibility is that such CONA likewise bears authentic signatures and was
duly-issued.
One can imagine a large-sized political party such as a national party
whose leadership from the national level understandably lacks familiarity
with the political climate in every locality in the country. Perhaps because it
is more practical, the leadership, who is likewise authorized to issue and sign
CONAs, simply releases blank but duly-signed CONAs, to be filled-up by the
parties' local chapters with the names of party nominees for local positions.
However, a problem arises when both the national and local leaderships (by
filling up the pro-forma and pre-signed CONAs) decide to nominate different
candidates for the same positions, without duly communicating with each
other. This now results in multiple CONAs, appearing in due form, bearing
authentic signatures of the authorized signatory and duly-notarized, issued
in favor of more than the maximum number of candidates allowed by law,
consequently rendering all concerned candidates as independent. In other
words, such problem arises when there is lack of communication and
coordination within the political party.
cEaSHC

Thus, as a parting note, the Court reminds political parties to be more

circumspect in signing and issuing CONAs, as it is the State, and even the
Court, that gets burdened with having to settle their internal controversies
which could have been easily avoided with due coordination and
communication among its members and officers. The preparations for, and
conduct of, a national and local elections are gargantuan tasks which the
COMELEC must undertake in the context of rapidly-moving timelines.
Therefore, the same must not be hampered by party politics and blunders
easily remediable by observing due diligence in the party's conduct of its
business.
To conclude, I vote to GRANT the instant Petition for Certiorari as the
COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in failing to accord the
parties notice and hearing in exercising its quasi-judicial functions.

Footnotes

* Not participating due to previous post as Commission on Elections Commissioner.

1. Rollo , p. 51.

2. Id. at 38.

3. Id. at 41.

4. Id. at 42.

5. Id. at 43.

6. Id. at 44.
7. Id. at 45-46.

8. Id. at 15-16.

9. Emphases supplied.

10. Id.

11. Rollo , p. 48.

12. Id. at 49.

13. Id. at 50.

14. Id. at 51.

15. Emphases in original.

16. Rollo , p. 52.

17. Id. at 61.

18. Id. at 61, emphases supplied.

19. Id. at 38-39.

20. Id., emphases in the original.

21. Id. at 40, emphasis supplied.

22. Id., emphasis provided.

23. Id. at 72-73.

24. Id. at 73.

25. Id. at 72.

26. Rollo , pp. 22-24.

27. Id. at 25.

28. Id. at 28.

29. Id. at 38-39.

30. Rollo , pp. 30-32.

31. Id. at 82-84.

32. Id., emphases in the original.

33. Id. at 121-139.

34. Id. at 125.

35 Id. at 129-130.
36. Id. at 128.

37. Id. at 138.

38. Id. at 113-115.

39. Id. at 113.

40. Id. at 145.

41. Id. at 82-84.

42. Id. at 162-171.

43. Id. at 172-174.

44. Id. at 173, emphases in the original.

45. Id. at 163.

46. Id. at 163-167.

47. Id. at 167.

48. Santiago City, Isabela 2022 Election Results. Accessed at

https://stgocity.com/city-of-santiago-election-results-2022/ on June 23, 2022.

49. Marquez v. Commission on Elections , G.R. No. 238274 (Notice), November 9,

2021.

50. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Inc. v.

Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), 791 Phil. 243, 259 (2016), citing
Belgica v. Ochoa, 721 Phil. 416 (2013).

51. Separate Opinion of Justice Caguioa, pp. 2-3.

52. Bedol v. COMELEC, 621 Phil. 498, 510 (2009).

53. Id.

54. Id.

55. Baytan v. COMELEC, 444 Phil. 812 (2003).

56. Id.

57. 1987 Constitution, Article IX-C, Section 2 (1); See Cipriano v. COMELEC , 479
Phil. 677, 688 (2004).

58. Emphasis omitted.

59. Department of Education v. Rizal Teachers Kilusang Bayan for Credit, Inc., G.R.
No. 202097, July 3, 2019, citing Umali v. Judicial and Bar Council, 814 Phil.
253, 293-294 (2017).

60. Omnibus Election Code, Section 76; COMELEC Resolution No. 10717, Section
32.
61. See Department of Education v. Rizal Teachers Kilusang Bayan for Credit, Inc.,
G.R. No. 202097, July 3, 2019, citing Umali v. Judicial and Bar Council, supra
at 294; Sps. Espiridion v. Court of Appeals , 523 Phil. 664, 668 (2006).

62. Rollo , pp. 15-16.

63. Separate Opinion of Justice Caguioa, p. 6.

64. 1987 Constitution, Article IX-C, SECTION 2 (2) and (3).

65. 1987 Constitution, Article IX-C, SECTION 2 (6).

66. Rollo , pp. 15-16.

67. Emmanuel Tipon and Artemio Tipon, Election Laws, (2010), p. 95.

68. Cipriano v. COMELEC , supra 57 at 691.

69. Sandoval v. COMELEC , 380 Phil. 375, 392 (2000).

70. Francisco v. COMELEC , 831 Phil. 106, 121 (2018).

71. Supra note 52 at 825.

72. 1987 Constitution, Article IX-C, SECTION 3. The Commission on Elections may
sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in
order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation
controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division,
provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by
the Commission En Banc.

73. Separate Opinion of Justice Caguioa, p. 10.

74. Id.

75. 778 Phil. 568 (2016).

76. Id. at 581.

77. Bautista v. COMELEC , 460 Phil. 459, 477 (2003).

78. 749 Phil. 80 (2014).

79. Id. at 91.

80. Beluso v. COMELEC , 635 Phil. 436, 443 (2010).

81. Separate Opinion of Justice Caguioa, p. 11.

82. See Cacho v. Manahan , 823 Phil. 1011, 1021 (2018), citing Maglana Rice and
Corn Mill, Inc. v. Tan, 673 Phil. 532, 539 (2011).

83. Rollo , p. 51.

84. Id. at 38.

85. Id. at 173, emphases in the original.

86. Cayetano v. COMELEC, 515 Phil. 485, 492-493 (2006), citing Buac v. COMELEC ,
465 Phil. 800 (2004).

87. Id.

88. See Marquez v. COMELEC , G.R. No. 258435, June 28, 2022.

CAGUIOA, J., concurring:

* Also Giorgidi Buza Aggabao in some parts of the rollo.

** Also Amelita Sison Navarro in some parts of the rollo.

1. Rollo , pp. 12-37.

2. Ponencia , pp. 1-2. These issuances are: (a) Document No. 21-3973 dated
November 10, 2021, declaring Navarro as an independent candidate; (b)
Document No. 21-7467 dated December 22, 2021, denying Aggabao's CoC
as substitute candidate for Navarro; and (c) Document No. 22-0176 dated
January 5, 2022, denying Aggabao's motion for reconsideration.

3. Id. at 20.

4. Also Christian Gamboa Ison in some parts of the rollo.

5. SECTION 15. Allowed Number of Nominations . — x x x

If the [political parties] or [coalition of political parties] nominated more than

the number of candidates required to be voted for in a particular elective
position, all of the nominations shall be denied due course by the
Commission, and the aspirants shall be declared independent candidates.
(Emphasis in the original)

6. RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING: 1) POLITICAL CONVENTIONS; 2)

SUBMISSION OF NOMINEES OF GROUPS OR ORGANIZATIONS PARTICIPATING
UNDER THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM OF REPRESENTATION; AND 3) FILING OF
CERTIFICATES OF CANDIDACY AND NOMINATION OF AND ACCEPTANCE BY
OFFICIAL CANDIDATES OF REGISTERED POLITICAL PARTIES OR COALITIONS
OF POLITICAL PARTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE MAY 9, 2022 NATIONAL
AND LOCAL ELECTIONS, August 18, 2021.

7. SECTION 40. Substitution of Aspirants/Official Candidates in Case of

Death, Disqualification or Withdrawal of Another. — x x x

No substitute shall be allowed for any independent candidate.

xxx xxx xxx

8. Ponencia , pp. 2-6.

9. Id. at 8.

10. Id. at 10-11.

11. See id. at 14-18.

12. SEC. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and
shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of
election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election
cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for
reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.

13. See Cipriano v. COMELEC , 479 Phil. 677 (2004).

14. 621 Phil. 498 (2009).

15. Id. at 510. Citation omitted.

16. Cipriano v. COMELEC , supra note 13.

17. Id. at 690-691. Citations omitted.

18. 711 Phil. 414 (2013).

19. 377 Phil. 497, 506-507 (1999).

20. Jalosjos v. COMELEC , supra note 18, at 423-424.

21. SEC. 76. Ministerial duty of receiving and acknowledging receipt. — The
Commission, provincial election supervisor, election registrar or officer
designated by the Commission or the board of election inspectors under the
succeeding section shall have the ministerial duty to receive and
acknowledge receipt of the certificate of candidacy.

22. Approved on December 3, 1985.

23. SECTION 32. Ministerial Duty of Receiving and Acknowledging Receipt

of Certificates of Candidacy/Nomination and Acceptance . — The
Receiving Officer has the ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge the
receipt of the COC and CONA; Provided that they are filed in conformity
with the rules and regulations. (Emphasis in the original)

24. See Luna v. COMELEC , 550 Phil. 284, 292 (2007) and Cipriano v. COMELEC ,
supra note 13, at 689.

25. 111 Phil. 733, 736-737 (1961).

26. Cipriano v. COMELEC , supra note 13, at 689.

27. Emphasis omitted.

28. See Sections 13 and 14 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10717.

29. See Bautista v. COMELEC , 460 Phil. 459, 475-476 (2003).

30. Supra note 24.

31. 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 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.

32. Cipriano v. COMELEC , supra note 13, at 690.

33. See id. at 689-690.

34. Supra note 29.

35. Id. at 475.

36. SECTION 1. Grounds for Denial of Certificate of Candidacy. — A petition to deny

due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy for any elective office may
be filed with the Law Department of the Commission by any citizen of voting
age or a duly registered political party, organization, or coalition or political
parties on the exclusive ground that any material representation contained
therein as required by law is false.

SECTION 2. Period to File Petition. — The petition must be filed within five (5)
days following the last day for the filing of certificate of candidacy.

SECTION 3. Summary Proceeding. — The petition shall be heard summarily

after due notice.

SECTION 4. Delegation of Reception of Evidence. — The Commission may

designate any of its officials who are members of the Philippine Bar to hear
the case and to receive evidence.

37. COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE, approved on February 15, 1993.

38. Bautista v. COMELEC , supra note 29, at 480.

39. 778 Phil. 568 (2016).

40. Id. at 583-584. Citations omitted.

41. 706 Phil. 534 (2013).

42. SEC. 74. Contents of certificate of candidacy. — The certificate of candidacy

shall state that the person filing it is announcing his candidacy for the office
stated therein and that he is eligible for said office; if for Member of the
Batasang Pambansa, the province, including its component cities, highly
urbanized city or district or sector which he seeks to represent; the political
party to which he belongs; civil status; his date of birth; residence; his post
office address for all election purposes; his profession or occupation; that he
will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain
true faith and allegiance thereto; that he will obey the laws, legal orders, and
decrees promulgated by the duly constituted authorities; that he is not a
permanent resident or immigrant to a foreign country; that the obligation
imposed by his oath is assumed voluntarily, without mental reservation or
purpose of evasion; and that the facts stated in the certificate of candidacy
are true to the best of his knowledge.

xxx xxx xxx

43. Tagolino v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, supra note 41, at 560-
561. Citations omitted.

44. E.g., Sunga v. COMELEC, 351 Phil. 310, 324 (1998) wherein a letter-complaint
for disqualification was referred by the COMELEC En Banc to its second
Division for hearing.

45. See Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

46. SEC. 70. Guest candidacy . — A political party may nominate and/or support
candidates not belonging to it.