GR L 13066; (April, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-13066; April 30, 1958
CONSUELO FA. ALVEAR, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Consuelo Fa. Alvear, a qualified candidate for Senator, filed her certificate of candidacy with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) on August 13, 1957. On September 30, 1957, the COMELEC adopted a resolution requiring petitioner and other candidates to submit no less than 140,000 copies of their certificates of candidacy by October 21, 1957, and to defray the expenses for their distribution, under penalty of not having their candidacy given due course. Petitioner protested this resolution on October 14, 1957, branding it as arbitrary, discriminatory, and beyond the COMELEC’s legal power. The COMELEC denied her protest on October 20, 1957. The COMELEC, in its defense, asserted it had discretionary power to not give due course to a certificate of candidacy if filed not in good faith, and that the resolution was adopted to protect public funds from candidates who might not file in good faith, as the printing and distribution for a senatorial candidate cost the government around P5,000.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC has the discretionary power to impose the condition of submitting and paying for 140,000 copies of a certificate of candidacy as a prerequisite for giving due course to a candidacy for Senator.
RULING
No. The COMELEC’s resolution is annulled. Under Section 36 of the Revised Election Code, a candidate for Senator is only required to furnish ten copies of the certificate of candidacy to the COMELEC. It is the express ministerial duty of the COMELEC to prepare and distribute the necessary copies to all election precincts. The Court, citing Abcede v. Imperial, held that the COMELEC has a ministerial duty to receive the certificate and, by implication, a ministerial duty to comply with the preparation and distribution mandate. The COMELEC’s concern about protecting public funds from candidates who may not file in good faith does not justify imposing additional requirements beyond the law. If the COMELEC believes the law imposes an unnecessary burden, the remedy is to seek an amendment from Congress, not to alter the law through its own resolution. This case is distinguished from Garcia v. Imperial, where the COMELEC properly exercised its discretion to prevent a candidacy filed in bad faith to create confusion among voters, a situation not present here. The writ of preliminary injunction is made permanent.