G.R. No. 109005 January 10, 1994
JUAN D. VICTORIA, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JESUS JAMES CALISIN, respondents.

FACTS

In the May 11, 1992 elections, Juan D. Victoria and Jesus James Calisin, among others, were elected as members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Albay from different districts. Due to the suspension of the Provincial Governor, the Vice-Governor assumed the governorship, leaving the vice-governor post vacant. Under the law, this vacancy is to be filled by the highest-ranking Sanggunian member. The COMELEC, in a Resolution dated January 22, 1993, certified Calisin as the highest-ranking member based on the proportion of votes obtained to the total number of registered voters in each district, ranking him first (21.78%) and Victoria second (21.19%). The Secretary of the DILG subsequently designated Calisin as Acting Vice-Governor. Victoria filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the ranking should be based on the proportion of votes obtained to the number of voters who actually voted, not the total registered voters. Applying his proposed formula, Victoria claimed he would rank higher. The COMELEC denied his motion on February 22, 1993.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in determining the ranking of Sanggunian members for purposes of succession based on the proportion of votes obtained to the total number of registered voters in the district, as opposed to the number of voters who actually voted.

RULING

No. The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC’s resolution, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court ruled that Section 44 of the Local Government Code is clear and unambiguous: ranking “shall be determined on the basis of the proportion of votes obtained by each winning candidate to the total number of registered voters in each district.” The plain meaning of the law must be applied, and the Court cannot speculate on legislative intent or interpret the statute differently. The Court emphasized the principle of verba legis, that if a statute is clear, it must be given its literal meaning. Victoria’s proposed interpretation, which would use the number of actual voters, finds no support in the explicit language of the law. Any proposed amendment to the formula must be addressed to the legislative branch, not the judiciary.