G.R. No. 205033, June 18, 2013
Romeo G. Jalosjos, Petitioner, vs. The Commission on Elections, Maria Isabelle G. Climaco-Salazar, Roel B. Natividad, Arturo N. Onrubia, Ahmad Narzad K. Sampang, Jose L. Lobregat, Adelante Zamboanga Party, and Elbert C. Atilano, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Romeo G. Jalosjos was convicted by final judgment on November 16, 2001, in G.R. Nos. 132875-76 for two counts of statutory rape and six counts of acts of lasciviousness. He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal, which carried the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification under Article 41 of the Revised Penal Code. His prison term was later commuted, and he was discharged on March 18, 2009. On April 26, 2012, his application for voter registration in Zamboanga City was denied due to his disqualification. Pending his Petition for Inclusion in the voter list, he filed a Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for Mayor of Zamboanga City on October 5, 2012. The Municipal Trial Court denied his Petition for Inclusion on October 18, 2012, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court on October 31, 2012. Meanwhile, five petitions were filed before COMELEC Divisions seeking the denial/cancellation of his CoC. Before these were resolved, the COMELEC En Banc issued motu proprio Resolution No. 9613 on January 15, 2013, cancelling and denying due course to his CoC due to his perpetual absolute disqualification and failure to meet the voter registration requirement, citing the precedent in Jalosjos, Jr. and Cardino v. COMELEC.

ISSUE

1. Whether the COMELEC En Banc acted beyond its jurisdiction and violated due process by issuing Resolution No. 9613 motu proprio.
2. Whether petitioner’s perpetual absolute disqualification to run for elective office had been removed by Section 40(a) of the Local Government Code of 1991.

RULING

The petition is bereft of merit. Although the controversy was mooted by petitioner’s exclusion from the May 2013 elections, the Court addressed the issues due to their doctrinal value.
1. On the Motu Proprio Issuance and Due Process: The COMELEC En Banc did not act beyond its jurisdiction nor violate due process. The constitutional requirement (Section 3, Article IX-C) for a motion for reconsideration before the En Banc applies only to the COMELEC’s exercise of quasi-judicial powers, not its administrative functions. The denial/cancellation of a CoC based on a candidate’s disqualification from a final conviction falls under the COMELEC’s administrative mandate to “enforce and administer all laws” relating to elections. Following Jalosjos, Jr. and Cardino v. COMELEC and Aratea v. COMELEC, the COMELEC has a legal duty to cancel motu proprio the CoC of anyone suffering from perpetual absolute disqualification by virtue of a final judgment, even without a pending petition. The final judgment itself serves as notice to the COMELEC of the disqualification.
2. On the Effect of Perpetual Absolute Disqualification: Petitioner’s perpetual absolute disqualification was not removed. The accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification, imposed due to his conviction for statutory rape (a crime involving moral turpitude), entails the deprivation of the right to vote, to be elected, and to hold any public office. This disqualification is distinct from and not covered by the specific grounds for disqualification under Section 40(a) of the Local Government Code. The accessory penalty under the Revised Penal Code remains effective and constitutes a perpetual legal bar to running for public office. His discharge from prison did not extinguish this accessory penalty. Furthermore, his failure to be a registered voter, as finally adjudicated by the courts, provided an additional ground for the denial of his CoC.