G.R. No. L-52451, L-52678, and L-53393. March 31, 1981.
Zacarias A. Ticzon, petitioner, vs. Commission on Elections, et al. (Consolidated Cases).

FACTS

These consolidated petitions arose from the January 30, 1980 local elections in San Pablo City. Petitioner Zacarias A. Ticzon and respondent Cesar P. Dizon were candidates for mayor. After the election, Dizon filed a petition with the COMELEC to suspend the canvass, alleging irregularities. The COMELEC issued an ex-parte order halting the canvass. Ticzon secured a Supreme Court restraining order directing the board to proceed with the canvass, which indicated he obtained a plurality of votes.
Subsequently, Dizon filed a petition to disqualify Ticzon for “turncoatism,” alleging Ticzon switched from the Liberal Party to the Nacionalista Party. The COMELEC, acting on this post-election petition, issued a resolution disqualifying Ticzon and directing the board of canvassers to proclaim Dizon as the “remaining winning candidate.” This was done despite the Supreme Court having issued multiple restraining orders against the COMELEC’s earlier resolutions suspending the canvass and altering the board’s composition. Ticzon and intervenor Ramon Armedilla challenged these COMELEC actions.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying Ticzon for turncoatism after the election and in ordering the proclamation of Dizon despite Ticzon’s apparent plurality of votes, all while defying the Supreme Court’s restraining orders.

RULING

The Supreme Court, by a 7-4 vote, dismissed the petitions and upheld the COMELEC’s actions. The plurality decision found no grave abuse of discretion in the COMELEC’s disqualification of Ticzon based on turncoatism under the 1973 Constitution. It ruled that the COMELEC acted within its jurisdiction and that the proclamation of Dizon, as the only qualified candidate remaining, was valid.
However, a strong dissenting opinion, echoed by four justices, vehemently disagreed. The dissent argued that the COMELEC committed a grave abuse of discretion by issuing successive ex-parte resolutions to thwart the proclamation of the apparent winner, in blatant disregard of the Court’s restraining orders. It criticized the post-election disqualification as arbitrary, noting the COMELEC applied the turncoatism rule selectively, as Dizon himself had switched parties. The dissent emphasized that the fundamental will of the electorate, which chose Ticzon, was subverted. It argued that under the prevailing doctrine, a candidate who disqualifies the winner cannot simply be proclaimed; the votes for the disqualified candidate are not automatically transferred. The dissent concluded that the COMELEC’s actions eroded its credibility and constituted a failure to uphold the sovereign will.