Hayudini Vs Comelec (2014)
Hayudini Vs Comelec (2014)
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
For the Court's resolution is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition1 under Rule 65,
which petitioner Gamal S. Hayudini (Hayudini) filed to set aside and annul the
assailed Resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), dated June 20,
20132 and July 10, 2013,3 which cancelled his Certificate of Candidacy for the
mayoralty seat in the 2013 local elections in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, for having
been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of
jurisdiction.
On October 5, 2012, Hayudini filed his Certificate of Candidacy4 (CoC) for the
position of Municipal Mayor of South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi in the May 13, 2013 National
and Local Elections held in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Ten days
after, or on October 15, 2012, Mustapha J. Omar (Omar) filed a Petition to Deny
Due Course or Cancel Hayudini’s CoC, entitled Mustapha J. Omar v. Gamal S.
Hayudini, docketed as SPA No. 13-106(DC)(F).5Omar basically asserted that
Hayudini should be disqualified for making false representation regarding his
residence. He claimed that Hayudini declared in his CoC that he is a resident of the
Municipality of South Ubian when, in fact, he resides in Zamboanga City.
Thereafter, on November 30, 2012, Hayudini filed a Petition for Inclusion in the
Permanent List of Voters in Barangay Bintawlan, South Ubian before the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). Despite the opposition of Ignacio Aguilar Baki, the MCTC
granted Hayudini’s petition on January 31, 2013.6 On that same day, the COMELEC’s
Oppositor Baki, subsequently, elevated the case to the Bongao Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 5. The RTC, on March 8, 2013, Reversed8 the MCTC ruling and
ordered the deletion of Hayudini’s name in Barangay Bintawlan’s permanent list of
voters. In view of said decision, Omar filed before the COMELEC a Petition to Cancel
the Certificate of Candidacy of Gamal S. Hayudini by Virtue of a Supervening Event
on March 26, 2013. The petition was docketed as SPA No. 13-249(DC)(F).9 Hayudini
appealed the March 8, 2013 RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), but on April
17, 2013, in CA-G.R. SP No. 05426,10 the same was denied.
On May 13, 2013, Hayudini won the mayoralty race in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi. He
was proclaimed and, consequently, took his oath of office.
On June 20, 2013, the COMELEC Second Division issued a Resolution11 granting
Omar’s second petition to cancel Hayudini’s CoC. The dispositive portion of the
COMELEC Resolution reads:
The Office of the Deputy Executive Director for Operations is hereby directed to
constitute a Special Board of Canvassers for the purpose of proclaiming the lawful
winner for mayoralty position in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi during the 13 May 2013
elections.
SO ORDERED.12
Hayudini, thus, filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc,
arguing that its Second Division committed grave error when it gave due course to a
belatedly filed petition and treated the March 8, 2013 RTC Decision as a supervening
event.
"Ergo, since respondent Lonzanida was never a candidate for the position of mayor
[of] San Antonio, Zambales, the votes cast for him should be considered stray votes.
Consequently, Intervenor Antipolo, who remains as the sole candidate for the
mayoralty post and obtained the highest number of votes, should now be proclaimed
as the duly-elected Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales.
The Office of the Deputy Executive Director for Operations is hereby directed to
constitute a Special Board of Canvassers for the purpose of proclaiming SALMA
OMAR as the winning candidate for mayoralty position in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi
during the May 13, 2013 elections.
SO ORDERED.14
A.
xxxx
C.
III.
xxxx
L.
A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an independent action based on
thespecific grounds and available only if there is no appeal or any other plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It will only prosper if
grave abuse of discretion is alleged and is actually proved to exist. Grave abuse of
discretion has been defined as the arbitrary exercise of power due to passion,
prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of
power that amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by
law or to act at all in contemplation of law. For an act to be condemned as having
been done with grave abuse of discretion, such an abuse must be patent and
gross.16 Here, Hayudini miserably failed to prove that the COMELEC rendered its
assailed Resolutions with grave abuse of discretion.
Hayudini contends that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it
admitted, and later granted, Omar’s petition despite failure to comply with Sections
2 and 4 of Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by Resolution
No. 9523. The subject sections read:
Section 2. Period to File Petition. — The Petition must be filed within five (5) days
from the last day for filing of certificate of candidacy; but not later than twenty five
(25) days from the time of filing of the certificate of candidacy subject of the
Petition. In case of a substitute candidate, the Petition must be filed within five (5)
days from the time the substitute candidate filed his certificate of candidacy.
xxxx
1. The petitioner shall, before filing of the Petition, furnish a copy of the Petition,
through personal service to the respondent. In cases where personal service is not
feasible, or the respondent refuses to receive the Petition, or the respondents’
whereabouts cannot be ascertained, the petitioner shall execute an affidavit stating
the reason or circumstances therefor and resort to registered mail as a mode of
Here, Hayudini filed his CoC on October 5, 2012, which was also the last day of filing
of CoC for the May 13, 2013 elections. Omar, on the other hand, filed the subject
petition only on March 26, 2013. Under the COMELEC Rules, a Petition to Deny Due
Course or Cancel CoC must be filed within five days from the last day for filing a
certificate of candidacy, but not later than twenty-five days from the time of filing of
the CoC subject of the petition. Clearly, Omar’s petition was filed way beyond the
prescribed period. Likewise, he failed to provide sufficient explanation as to why his
petition was not served personally to Hayudini.
Settled is the rule that the COMELEC Rules of Procedure are subject to liberal
construction.1âwphi1 The COMELEC has the power to liberally interpret or even
suspend its rules of procedure in the interest of justice, including obtaining a speedy
disposition of all matters pending before it. This liberality is for the purpose of
promoting the effective and efficient implementation of its objectives − ensuring the
holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections, as well as achieving
Indeed, Omar had previously filed a Petition to Deny Due Course or Cancel
Hayudini’s CoC on October 15, 2012, docketed as SPA No. 13-106(DC)(F). This was
dismissed on January 31, 2013, or the same day the MCTC granted Hayudini’s
petition to be included in the list of voters. However, on March 8, 2013, the RTC
reversed the MCTC ruling and, consequently, ordered the deletion of Hayudini’s
name in Barangay Bintawlan’s permanent list of voters. Said deletion was already
final and executory under the law.22 Hayudini, however, still appealed the case to
the CA, which was subsequently denied. Notably, thereafter, he went to the CA
again, this time to file a petition for certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
05499.23 In a Resolution dated July 9, 2013, the CA also denied said petition
primarily because of Hayudini’s act of engaging in the pernicious practice of forum
shopping by filing two modes of appeal before said court.24 Hence, by virtue of the
finality of said RTC decision deleting his name from the voters’ list, Hayudini, who
had been previously qualified under the law25 to run for an elective position, was
then rendered ineligible.
Given the finality of the RTC decision, the same should be considered a valid
supervening event. A supervening event refers to facts and events transpiring after
the judgment or order had become executory. These circumstances affect or change
the substance of the judgment and render its execution inequitable.26 Here, the
RTC’s March 8, 2013 decision, ordering the deletion of Hayudini’s name in the list of
voters, which came after the dismissal of Omar’s first petition, is indubitably a
supervening event which would render the execution of the ruling in SPA No. 13-
106(DC)(F) iniquitous and unjust. As the COMELEC aptly ruled, the decision to
exclude Hayudini was still non-existent when the COMELEC first promulgated the
The same ruling adequately equipped Omar with the necessary ground to
successfully have Hayudini’s CoC struck down. Under the rules, a statement in a
certificate of candidacy claiming that a candidate is eligible to run for public office
when in truth he is not, is a false material representation, a ground for a petition
under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.
xxxx
Section 74 requires the candidate to state under oath in his CoC "that he is eligible
for said office." A candidate is eligible if he has a right to run for the public office. If
a candidate is not actually eligible because he is not a registered voter in the
municipality where he intends to be elected, but still he states under oath in his
certificate of candidacy that he is eligible to run for public office, then the candidate
clearly makes a false material representation, a ground to support a petition under
Section 78.33 It is interesting to note that Hayudini was, in fact, initially excluded by
the ERB as a voter. On November 30, 2012, the ERB issued a certificate confirming
the disapproval of Hayudini’s petition for registration.34 This is precisely the reason
why he needed to file a Petition for Inclusion in the Permanent List of Voters in
Had the COMELEC not given due course to Omar’s petition solely based on
procedural deficiencies, South Ubian would have a mayor who is not even a
registered voter in the locality he is supposed to govern, thereby creating a
ridiculously absurd and outrageous situation. Hence, the COMELEC was accurate in
cancelling Hayudini’s certificate of candidacy. Hayudini likewise protests that it was a
grave error on the part of the COMELEC to have declared his proclamation null and
void when no petition for annulment of his proclamation was ever filed. What
petitioner seems to miss, however, is that the nullification of his proclamation as a
winning candidate is also a legitimate outcome − a necessary legal consequence −
of the cancellation of his CoC pursuant to Section 78. A CoC cancellation proceeding
essentially partakes of the nature of a disqualification case.35 The cancellation of a
CoC essentially renders the votes cast for the candidate whose certificate of
candidacy has been cancelled as stray votes.36 If the disqualification or CoC
cancellation or denial case is not resolved before the election day, the proceedings
shall continue even after the election and the proclamation of the winner.
Meanwhile, the candidate may be voted for and even be proclaimed as the winner,
but the COMELEC's jurisdiction to deny due course and cancel his or her CoC
continues. This rule likewise applies even if the candidate facing disqualification has
already taken his oath of office.37 The only exception to this rule is in the case of
congressional and senatorial candidates where the COMELEC ipso jure loses
jurisdiction in favor of either the Senate or the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal after the candidates have been proclaimed, taken the proper oath, and also
assumed office.38
It bears stressing that one of the requirements for a mayoralty candidate is that he
must be a resident of the city or municipality where he intends to be elected. Thus,
under Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code, it is required that a candidate must
certify under oath that he is eligible for the public office he seeks election. In this
We find the factual mileu of the Aratea case applicable in the instant case, since this
is also a case for a petition to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy.
Since Hayudini was never a valid candidate for the position of the Municipal Mayor of
South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, the votes cast for him should be considered stray votes,
Consequently, the COMELEC properly proclaimed Salma Omar, who garnered the
highest number of votes in the remaining qualified candidates for the mayoralty
post, as the duly-elected Mayor of South Ubian, Tawi Tawi.
Codilla v. De Venecia case has no application in this case, since it dealt with a
petition for disqualification under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code and not a
petition to deny due course or cancel certificate of candidacy under Section 78 which
is the case at bar.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The COMELEC Resolutions dated June 20,
2013 and July 10, 2013 are hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions
in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
Footnotes
2 Id. at 81-87.
3 Id. at 48-51.
4 Id. at 101.
5 Id. at 90-97.
6 Id. at 216-221.
7 Id. at 149-156.
9 Id. at 157-166.
10 Id. at 222-242.
11 Id. at 81-87.
12 Id. at 86.
16 Beluso v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 180711, June 22, 2010, 621 SCRA 450, 456.
17 Emphasis supplied
18 G.R. Nos. 187958, 187961, and 187962, April 7, 2010, 617 SCRA 575, 598.
20 Violago v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 194143, October 4, 2011, 658 SCRA 516, 525.
21 Id.
22 Omnibus Election Code, Sec. 138. Jurisdiction in inclusion and exclusion cases. -
The municipal and metropolitan trial courts shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all matters of inclusion and exclusion of voters from the list in their
respective municipalities or cities. Decisions of the municipal or metropolitan trial
courts may be appealed directly by the aggrieved party to the proper regional trial
court within five days from receipt of notice thereof, otherwise said decision of the
municipal or metropolitan trial court shall become final and executory after said
period. The regional trial court shall decide the appeal within ten days from the time
the appeal was received and its decision shall be immediately final and executory.
No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained by the courts. (Emphasis
supplied)
24 Id. at 442-444.
(a) An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines; a registered voter in
the barangay, municipality, city or province or, in the case of a member of the
sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, or sangguniang bayan, the
district where he intends to be elected; a resident therein for at least one (1) year
immediately preceding the day of the election; and able to read and write Filipino or
any other local language or dialect. x x x
27 Rollo, p. 85.
29 Rollo, p. 85.
30 Velasco v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 180051, December 24, 2008, 575 SCRA 590, 603-
604.
33 Jalosjos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 193237 and G.R. No. 193536, October 9, 2012,
683 SCRA 1, 2.
34 Rollo, p. 128.
41 Casan Macode Maquiling v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013.