G.R. No. 235058 & 235064 September 4, 2018
CONSERTINO C. SANTOS, et al., Petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC) EN BANC and JENNIFER ANTIQUERA ROXAS, Respondents.

FACTS

Jennifer Roxas filed a petition to declare Rosalie Isles Roxas a nuisance candidate for the 2016 Sangguniang Panlungsod elections in Pasay City, arguing Rosalie used the ballot name “Roxas Jenn-Rose” to impersonate her (“Roxas Jenny”) and cause voter confusion. The COMELEC Second Division granted the petition on March 30, 2016, canceling Rosalie’s COC. Rosalie filed a motion for reconsideration. The elections proceeded on May 9, 2016, with Roxas placing 7th and Rosalie 14th. The top six candidates, including petitioners Consertino Santos and Ricardo Santos, were proclaimed. On July 22, 2016, the COMELEC En Banc denied Rosalie’s motion. Respondent Roxas then filed an election protest and a motion for execution, seeking to credit Rosalie’s 13,328 votes to her, which would alter the top six ranking.
The COMELEC En Banc issued a Writ of Execution on November 8, 2017, directing the Special Board of Canvassers to reconvene, count Rosalie’s votes in favor of Roxas, and proclaim the winning candidates accordingly. Petitioners, the proclaimed candidates who were not parties to the original nuisance case, filed these petitions, arguing the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion. They contended the writ altered the election results and effected a proclamation, which was beyond the scope of a simple nuisance candidate declaration.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Writ of Execution which effectively directed the crediting of votes and a new proclamation, beyond merely declaring Rosalie Isles Roxas a nuisance candidate.

RULING

Yes, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court ruled that the sole effect of a final judgment declaring a candidate a nuisance is the cancellation of that candidate’s Certificate of Candidacy. The COMELEC’s authority ended there. The writ’s directive to credit the nuisance candidate’s votes to another candidate and to reconvene the board for a new proclamation constituted an unconstitutional amendment of the final decision. It effectively adjudicated an election protest, which is a separate proceeding, without the requisite due process for the adversely affected proclaimed winners.
The legal logic is anchored on the nature and limited effect of a nuisance candidate declaration under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code. Such a declaration renders the nuisance candidate’s COC void from the beginning. Votes cast for that candidate are considered stray. The Court, citing Bautista v. COMELEC and Martinez III v. HRET, emphasized that the subsequent crediting of these stray votes to another candidate is not an automatic legal consequence. It requires a separate election contest where the true will of the electorate is determined. By ordering the transfer of votes via an execution writ, the COMELEC encroached upon the jurisdiction of electoral tribunals and courts in election contests, thereby acting without jurisdiction. The writ was annulled and set aside.