GR 206004; (February, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 206004 , February 24, 2015
JOSEPH B. TIMBOL, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Joseph B. Timbol filed a Certificate of Candidacy for Member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the Second District of Caloocan City for the May 13, 2013 elections. On January 11, 2013, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9610, declaring Timbol a nuisance candidate and ordering the removal of his name from the certified list of candidates. Timbol received a subpoena for a clarificatory hearing before the COMELEC Election Officer on January 17, 2013. During the hearing, Timbol argued he was not a nuisance candidate, citing his 8th-place finish in the 2010 elections and sufficient campaign resources. The Election Officer recommended that his Certificate of Candidacy be given due course. However, Timbol’s name remained on the nuisance list. He filed a Petition for inclusion on February 2, 2013, but the COMELEC denied it via a Minute Resolution dated February 5, 2013, stating it was moot as ballot printing had begun. Timbol filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court on March 15, 2013, arguing the COMELEC deprived him of due process by declaring him a nuisance candidate before the clarificatory hearing.
ISSUE
1. Whether the case is moot and academic.
2. Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in denying Timbol’s Petition for inclusion in the certified list of candidates.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the Petition.
1. The case is moot and academic. The May 13, 2013 elections had been concluded, and winners proclaimed, rendering Timbol’s prayer for inclusion on the ballot of no practical value. However, the Court exercised its discretion to resolve the case because it involves an issue capable of repetition yet evading review, and to set forth controlling principles regarding the COMELEC’s motu proprio power against nuisance candidates.
2. The COMELEC gravely abused its discretion. While the COMELEC has the power to motu proprio deny due course to or cancel a Certificate of Candidacy of a nuisance candidate under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code, this power is subject to the candidate’s opportunity to be heard as required by procedural due process and COMELEC rules. The COMELEC violated due process by issuing Resolution No. 9610 declaring Timbol a nuisance candidate on January 11, 2013, before conducting the clarificatory hearing on January 17, 2013. This rendered the subsequent hearing an ineffective opportunity to be heard. The filing of a Petition for inclusion did not cure this defect. The COMELEC’s act of prejudging the case constituted a denial of due process.