G.R. No. 168792, February 23, 2009.
ANTONIO B. GUNSI, SR., Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and DATU ISRAEL SINSUAT, Respondents.

FACTS

On January 9, 2004, private respondent Datu Israel Sinsuat filed a petition for denial of due course to or cancellation of the certificate of candidacy (COC) of petitioner Antonio B. Gunsi, Sr. for Mayor of South Upi, Maguindanao in the May 10, 2004 elections. Sinsuat alleged Gunsi was not a registered voter in South Upi because he failed to sign his application for registration, his name was illegally inserted in the List of Applicants and Voters, and the unsigned application had no legal effect. Gunsi countered that his failure to sign did not invalidate his registration as he possessed the voter qualifications under the law. The Investigating Officer recommended disqualification. The COMELEC Second Division initially dismissed the petition as moot and academic on August 2, 2004, since Sinsuat had been proclaimed the winning candidate. However, on October 11, 2004, the Second Division issued an Order clarifying its earlier resolution, stating that due to the annulment of Sinsuat’s proclamation in a pending pre-proclamation case, it was necessary to rule categorically, and it disqualified Gunsi for being a non-registered resident. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed this Order on June 9, 2005. Gunsi filed the present petition, challenging the COMELEC’s jurisdiction and alleging grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying Antonio B. Gunsi, Sr. from running as Mayor of South Upi, Maguindanao for being a non-registered voter due to his failure to sign his application for registration.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and AFFIRMED the COMELEC’s Order and Resolution. The Court noted the case had become moot and academic as the term of office for Mayor of South Upi had expired on June 30, 2007, and none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied. On the merits, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. Gunsi failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8189 (The Voter’s Registration Act of 1996), which requires a voter to personally accomplish an application form containing specimen signatures. The evidence showed Gunsi’s application was a photocopy (the original lost) and lacked his signature on the oath portions; the administering officer also did not sign it. The Acting Election Officer admitted inserting Gunsi’s name in the List of Voters based on an unsigned photocopy, and members of the Election Registration Board testified they did not encounter Gunsi’s application. These irregularities established that Gunsi was not a registered voter, justifying the cancellation of his COC and his disqualification.