G.R. No. 194076 and G.R. No. 194160, October 19, 2011
ALFAIS T. MUNDER, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ATTY. TAGO R. SARIP, Respondents.

ATTY. TAGO R. SARIP, Petitioner, vs. ALFAIS T. MUNDER, OLOMODIN M. MACABALANG, JAMAL M. MANUA AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondents.

FACTS

Alfais T. Munder filed his Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for Mayor of Bubong, Lanao del Sur on November 26, 2009. His rival, Atty. Tago R. Sarip, filed a Petition for Disqualification against Munder with the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on April 13, 2010. Sarip alleged that Munder was not a registered voter of Bubong, citing a Certification from the Election Officer that no “Alfais T. Munder” born on May 7, 1987 (the birth date in Munder’s CoC) was in the voters’ list. Sarip presented a Voter Certification for an “Alfais Tocalo Munder” with a birth date of May 7, 1984, registered in 2003. Sarip argued these were different persons, making Munder unqualified and guilty of dishonesty. Munder won the May 10, 2010 election and was proclaimed Mayor on May 15, 2010. In his Answer, Munder countered that Sarip’s petition invoked grounds proper for a Petition to Deny Due Course or to Cancel a CoC under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, which must be filed within 25 days from the filing of the CoC (or by December 21, 2009), and thus Sarip’s April 2010 petition was filed out of time. The Comelec Second Division dismissed Sarip’s petition, agreeing it was an improperly filed and belated petition for cancellation. However, the Comelec En Banc, upon Sarip’s Motion for Reconsideration, reversed the Second Division. It ruled directly on the merits, finding that the person in the CoC (born 1987) and the registered voter (born 1984) were not the same, thereby disqualifying Munder for lack of the qualification of being a registered voter.

ISSUE

Whether the Comelec En Banc acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of and granting Sarip’s Petition for Disqualification, which was filed beyond the period prescribed for a Petition to Deny Due Course or to Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy based on false material representation.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Comelec En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized the distinction between a Petition for Disqualification and a Petition to Deny Due Course or to Cancel a CoC under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. A petition under Section 78, based on a candidate’s false material representation regarding eligibility, must be filed within 25 days from the filing of the CoC. Sarip’s petition, although labeled as one for disqualification, was grounded on alleged false representations in Munder’s CoC regarding his status as a registered voter and his age. These are quintessential grounds for a Section 78 petition, not for disqualification under the specific grounds listed in Comelec Resolution No. 8696 (e.g., lack of qualifications like age, citizenship, residency, or specific disqualifications like permanent residency in a foreign country). Since Sarip’s petition was filed on April 13, 2010, well beyond the December 21, 2009 deadline for a Section 78 petition, the Comelec had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The Comelec En Banc erred in disregarding this jurisdictional defect and proceeding to rule on the substantive merits. Consequently, the Comelec En Banc’s Resolution dated October 4, 2010, disqualifying Munder, was annulled and set aside.