G.R. No. 258456 , July 26, 2022
GIORGIDI B. AGGABAO AND AMELITA S. NAVARRO, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC) AND LAW DEPARTMENT, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) received two Certificates of Nomination and Acceptance (CONAs) from Partido Reporma for the mayoralty race in Santiago City, Isabela: one for petitioner Amelita Navarro and another for Christopher Ayson. Citing its own Resolution No. 10717, which addresses multiple nominations, the COMELEC declared both as independent candidates. Consequently, when Navarro withdrew her Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) and petitioner Giorgidi Aggabao filed his CoC as her substitute, the COMELEC denied due course to Aggabao’s CoC, as substitution is disallowed for independent candidates. Prior to this denial, Partido Reporma Chairman Senator Panfilo Lacson sent letters to the COMELEC disowning Ayson’s CONA, asserting Navarro was the sole official nominee and that Ayson was not a party member. The COMELEC failed to act on these letters, prompting the petitioners to file this certiorari petition charging the COMELEC with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in declaring Navarro an independent candidate and denying Aggabao’s substitution without acting on the letters challenging the validity of a CONA?

RULING

Yes, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. The ponencia, with which Justice Caguioa concurs, partly granted the petition. Initially, the COMELEC correctly performed a ministerial duty in receiving the CoCs and CONAs upon finding they were in due form. However, upon receipt of Senator Lacson’s letters, which squarely challenged the authenticity and validity of Ayson’s CONA, a legal controversy emerged that required the COMELEC to look beyond the facial validity of the documents. At this point, the COMELEC was duty-bound to exercise its quasi-judicial powers, which mandate the observance of due process, specifically notice and hearing to ascertain the facts. By completely ignoring the letters and failing to conduct any proceeding to resolve the dispute over the legitimate nominee, the COMELEC abdicated this duty. Its inaction constituted a grave abuse of discretion, rendering the assailed issuances null for violation of due process. The Court nullified these issuances but declared the prayer to admit Aggabao’s CoC moot due to the conclusion of the elections. Justice Caguioa’s Separate Concurring Opinion emphasizes that the COMELEC, despite a seeming vacuum in its specific rules for such a pre-election controversy, should have referred the matter for a hearing before one of its divisions. The case underscores the necessity for political parties to be circumspect in issuing CONAs and for the COMELEC to actively exercise its quasi-judicial mandate when factual disputes arise.