EN BANC

[ G.R. No. 179695. December 18, 2008 ]

MIKE A. FERMIN, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND UMBRA RAMIL BAYAM
DILANGALEN, RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. No. 182369]

MIKE A. FERMIN, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND UMBRA RAMIL BAYAM
DILANGALEN, RESPONDENTS.

DECISION
NACHURA, J.:

These consolidated petitions provide a welcome avenue for the Court to dichotomize, once and for all,
two popular remedies to prevent a candidate from running for an elective position which are
indiscriminately interchanged by the Bench and the Bar, adding confusion to the already difficult state of
our jurisprudence on election laws.

For the Court's resolution are two petitions for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court: (1) G.R. No. 179695, which assails the June 29, 2007 Resolution[1] of the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) 2nd Division in SPA No. 07-372, and the September 20, 2007 Resolution[2] of the
COMELEC En Banc affirming the said division resolution; and (2) G.R. No. 182369, which challenges the
February 14, 2008 Resolution[3] of the COMELEC 1st Division in SPR No. 45-2007, the March 13, 2008
Order[4] of the COMELEC En Banc denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration, and the March 26,
2008 Entry of Judgment[5] issued by the Electoral Contests and Adjudication Department (ECAD) of the
Commission in the said case.

The relevant facts and proceedings follow.

After the creation of Shariff Kabunsuan,[6] the Regional Assembly of the Autonomous Region in Muslim
Mindanao (ARMM), on November 22, 2006, passed Autonomy Act No. 205 [7] creating the Municipality
of Northern Kabuntalan in Shariff Kabunsuan. This new municipality was constituted by separating
Barangays Balong, Damatog, Gayonga, Guiawa, Indatuan, Kapinpilan, P. Labio, Libungan, Montay,
Sabaken and Tumaguinting from the Municipality of Kabuntalan.[8]

Mike A. Fermin, the petitioner in both cases, was a registered voter of Barangay Payan, Kabuntalan. On
December 13, 2006, claiming that he had been a resident of Barangay Indatuan for 1 year and 6 months,
petitioner applied with the COMELEC for the transfer of his registration record to the said barangay.[9]
In the meantime, the creation of North Kabuntalan was ratified in a plebiscite on December 30, 2006,
[10] formally making Barangay Indatuan a component of Northern Kabuntalan.

Thereafter, on January 8, 2007, the COMELEC approved petitioner's application for the transfer of his
voting record and registration as a voter to Precinct 21A of Barangay Indatuan, Northern Kabuntalan.
[11] On March 29, 2007, Fermin filed his Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for mayor of Northern
Kabuntalan in the May 14, 2007 National and Local Elections.[12]
On April 20, 2007, private respondent Umbra Ramil Bayam Dilangalen, another mayoralty candidate,
filed a Petition[13] for Disqualification [the Dilangalen petition] against Fermin, docketed as SPA (PES)
No. A07-003 [re-docketed as SPA No. 07-372 before the COMELEC] with the Office of the Provincial
Election Supervisor of Shariff Kabunsuan. The petition alleged that the petitioner did not possess the
period of residency required for candidacy and that he perjured himself in his CoC and in his application
for transfer of voting record. The pertinent portions of the petition follow:
THE PETITIONER is of legal age, a registered voter, resident and incumbent Municipal Mayor of the
Municipality of Northern Kabuntalan, holding office at Barangay Paulino Labio in the Municipality of
Northern Kabuntalan where he may be served summons and other legal processes.

THE PETITIONER is a candidate for election as Mayor in the same Municipality of Northern Kabuntalan,
being a resident of and domiciled in the Municipality since birth. The Respondent is also a candidate for
the same office, Mayor in the same Municipality of Northern Kabuntalan. He is, however, not a resident
of the Municipality.

THE RESPONDENT perjured himself when he swore to the truth of his statement in his Certificate of
Candidacy of being a resident of the Municipality for the last 38 years, when in truth and in fact he
simply transferred his registration from the Municipality of Kabuntalan on 13 December 2006, wherein
he stated that he has relocated to that municipality a year and six months earlier, or no earlier than June
2005.

THE RESPONDENT perjured himself when he swore to the truth of his statement in his Certificate of
Candidacy of being a resident of the Municipality for the last 38 years, when in truth and in fact he has
stayed for at least 33 years in Barangay Payan, Municipality [of] Kabunt[a]lan.

THE RESPONDENT perjured himself when he swore to the truth of his statement in his Application for
Transfer that he is a resident of Barangay Indatuan on 13 December 2006, wherein he stated that he has
relocated to that municipality a year and six months earlier, or on or about June 2005, when in truth and
in fact he has never resided much less domiciled himself in Indatuan or anywhere else in the
Municipality of Northern Kabuntalan earlier than 14 May 2006.

THE RESPONDENT perjured himself when he swore to the truth of his statement in his Certificate of
Candidacy of being a resident of the Municipality for the last 38 years, when in truth and in fact he has
never resided in the Municipality, but was simply visiting the area whenever election is [f]ast
approaching.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that, [in consideration] of the
Respondent not possessing the residence required for candidacy, and having perjured himself in a
number of times, the Commission disqualify the Respondent.[14]
Elections were held without any decision being rendered by the COMELEC in the said case. After the
counting and canvassing of votes, Dilangalen emerged as the victor with 1,849 votes over Fermin's
1,640.[15] The latter subsequently filed an election protest (Election Case No. 2007-022) with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13 of Cotabato City.[16]

G.R. No. 179695

On June 29, 2007, the COMELEC 2nd Division, in SPA No. 07-372, disqualified Fermin for not being a
resident of Northern Kabuntalan.[17] It ruled that, based on his declaration that he is a resident of
Barangay Payan as of April 27, 2006 in his oath of office before Datu Andal Ampatuan, Fermin could not
have been a resident of Barangay Indatuan for at least one year.[18]

The COMELEC En Banc, on September 20, 2007, affirmed the Division's ruling.[19]

Thus, petitioner instituted G.R. No. 179695 before this Court raising the following issues:
A.

WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION TO DISQUALIFY PETITIONER FROM SEEKING THE MAYORALTY POST OF
THE MUNICIPALITY OF NORTHERN KABUNTALAN SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR HAVING BEEN FILED OUT
OF TIME.

B.

WHETHER OR NOT THE ONE (1) YEAR RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT AS PROVIDED BY ART. 56, PAR. NO. 3,
RULE XIII, RULES AND REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE
AUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIM MINDANAO IS APPLICABLE TO PETITIONER, WHO TRANSFERRED HIS
VOTER'S REGISTRATION RECORD DUE TO CHANGE OF RESIDENCE FROM BARANGAY PAYAN TO
BARANGAY INDATUAN IN THE SAME MUNICIPALITY OF KABUNTALAN.[20]
Petitioner contends that the Dilangalen petition is a petition to deny due course to or cancel a CoC
under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC).[21] Following Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6646, the
same must be filed within 5 days from the last day for the filing of CoC, which, in this case, is March 30,
2007, and considering that the said petition was filed by Dilangalen only on April 20, 2007, the same was
filed out of time. The COMELEC should have then dismissed SPA No. 07-372 outright.[22]

Petitioner further argues that he has been a resident of Barangay Indatuan long before the creation of
Northern Kabuntalan. This change of residence prompted him to apply for the transfer of his voter's
registration record from Barangay Payan to Barangay Indatuan. Moreover, the one year residency
requirement under the law is not applicable to candidates for elective office in a newly created
municipality, because the length of residency of all its inhabitants is reckoned from the effective date of
its creation.[23]

In his comment, private respondent counters that the petition it filed is one for disqualification under
Section 68 of the OEC which may be filed at any time after the last day for filing of the CoC but not later
than the candidate's proclamation should he win in the elections. As he filed the petition on April 20,
2007, long before the proclamation of the eventual winning candidate, the same was filed on time.[24]

Private respondent likewise posits that petitioner failed to comply with the one-year residency
requirement for him to be able to run for an elective office in Northern Kabuntalan. Petitioner applied
for the transfer of his voting record on December 13, 2006, and this was approved only on January 8,
2007.[25]

G.R. No. 182369

During the pendency of G.R. No. 179695 with the Court, Dilangalen filed, on September 27, 2007, with
the RTC of Cotabato a motion to dismiss Election Case No. 07-022 on the ground that Fermin had no
legal standing to file the said protest, the COMELEC En Banc having already affirmed his disqualification
as a candidate; and this Court, in the abovementioned case, did not issue an order restraining the
implementation of the assailed COMELEC resolutions.

The RTC, however, denied this motion on September 28, 2007. On motion for reconsideration, the trial
court remained steadfast in its stand that the election protest was separate and distinct from the
COMELEC proceedings, and that, unless restrained by the proper authority, it would continue hearing
the protest.[26]

Assailing the RTC's denial of his motions, Dilangalen filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition[27]
docketed as SPR No. 45-2007 with the COMELEC. On February 14, 2008, the COMELEC 1st Division set
aside the aforesaid orders of the trial court for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion,
prohibited the said court from acting on and proceeding with the protest, and ordered it to dismiss the
same.[28] The COMELEC En Banc, on March 13, 2008, denied petitioner's motion for the reconsideration
of the division's ruling on account of Fermin's failure to pay the required fees. It further directed the
issuance of an entry of judgment in the said case.[29] On March 26, 2008, the ECAD recorded the finality
of the ruling in SPR No. 45-2007 in the Book of Entries of Judgments.[30]

These developments prompted Fermin to file another certiorari petition before this Court, docketed as
G.R. No. 182369. In this petition, Fermin raises the following issues for our resolution:
A.

Whether or not public respondent has departed from the accepted and usual course of its rules of
procedure, as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision by the Honorable Court.

B.

Whether or not public respondent in taking cognizance of the certiorari and prohibition not in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction, acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or in (sic) excess [of jurisdiction].

C.

Whether or not public respondent, in ordering Judge Ibrahim to dismiss the election protest case, acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in (sic) excess
of jurisdiction.

D.

Whether or not public respondent, in not uniformly observing its process in the service of its resolution
and/or order, had denied to petitioner the equal protection of the law.

E.
Whether or not the petition for certiorari and prohibition is dismissible in view of the pendency of
another action and whereby the result of the first action is determinative of the second action in any
event and regardless of which party is successful.

F.

Whether or not there is forum shopping.

G.

Whether or not the public respondent, acting not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, has authority to
issue TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction as ancillary remedy of the original action for certiorari and
prohibition.

H.

Whether or not public respondent has jurisdiction to divest the Court of Judge Ibrahim of its jurisdiction
on the election protest case.[31]
The Court, on April 29, 2008, initially dismissed the said petition.[32] Fermin subsequently filed in
succession his motions for reconsideration and for the consolidation of G.R. Nos. 179695 & 182369.
Considering that the two petitions were interrelated, the Court resolved to consolidate them.
The Issues

The primordial issues in these consolidated cases may be encapsulated, as follows:

(1)
Whether or not the Dilangalen petition is one under Section 68 or Section 78 of the OEC;

(2)
Whether or not it was filed on time;

(3)
Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion when it declared petitioner as not a resident
of the locality for at least one year prior to the May 14, 2007 elections; and

(4)
Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion when it ordered the dismissal of Election Case
No. 07-022 on the ground that Fermin had no legal standing to file the protest.
Our Ruling

I.

Pivotal in the ascertainment of the timeliness of the Dilangalen petition is its proper characterization.

As aforesaid, petitioner, on the one hand, argues that the Dilangalen petition was filed pursuant to
Section 78 of the OEC; while private respondent counters that the same is based on Section 68 of the
Code.

After studying the said petition in detail, the Court finds that the same is in the nature of a petition to
deny due course to or cancel a CoC under Section 78[33] of the OEC. The petition contains the essential
allegations of a "Section 78" petition, namely: (1) the candidate made a representation in his certificate;
(2) the representation pertains to a material matter which would affect the substantive rights of the
candidate (the right to run for the election for which he filed his certificate); and (3) the candidate made
the false representation with the intention to deceive the electorate as to his qualification for public
office or deliberately attempted to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render him
ineligible.[34] It likewise appropriately raises a question on a candidate's eligibility for public office, in
this case, hi possession of the one-year residency requirement under the law.

Lest it be misunderstood, the denial of due course to or the cancellation of the CoC is not based on the
lack of qualifications but on a finding that the candidate made a material representation that is false,
which may relate to the qualifications required of the public office he/she is running for. It is noted that
the candidate states in his/her CoC that he/she is eligible for the office he/she seeks. Section 78 of the
OEC, therefore, is to be read in relation to the constitutional[35] and statutory[36] provisions on
qualifications or eligibility for public office. If the candidate subsequently states a material
representation in the CoC that is false, the COMELEC, following the law, is empowered to deny due
course to or cancel such certificate.[37] Indeed, the Court has already likened a proceeding under
Section 78 to a quo warranto proceeding under Section 253[38] of the OEC since they both deal with the
eligibility or qualification of a candidate,[39] with the distinction mainly in the fact that a "Section 78"
petition is filed before proclamation, while a petition for quo warranto is filed after proclamation of the
wining candidate.

At this point, we must stress that a "Section 78" petition ought not to be interchanged or confused with
a "Section 68" petition. They are different remedies, based on different grounds, and resulting in
different eventualities. Private respondent's insistence, therefore, that the petition it filed before the
COMELEC in SPA No. 07-372 is in the nature of a disqualification case under Section 68, as it is in fact
captioned a "Petition for Disqualification," does not persuade the Court.

The ground raised in the Dilangalen petition is that Fermin allegedly lacked one of the qualifications to
be elected as mayor of Northern Kabuntalan, i.e., he had not established residence in the said locality
for at least one year immediately preceding the election. Failure to meet the one-year residency
requirement for the public office is not a ground for the "disqualification" of a candidate under Section
68. The provision only refers to the commission of prohibited acts and the possession of a permanent
resident status in a foreign country as grounds for disqualification, thus:
SEC. 68. Disqualifications.—Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared
by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having (a) given money
or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing
electoral functions; (b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in his election
campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, received or made any
contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85,
86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, subparagraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a
candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent resident of
or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code,
unless said person has waived his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in
accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the election laws.
Likewise, the other provisions of law referring to "disqualification" do not include the lack of the one-
year residency qualification as a ground therefor, thus:
Sections 12 of the OEC

SEC. 12. Disqualifications.—Any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or
incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion, or for any
offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months or for a crime
involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has
been given plenary pardon or granted amnesty.

The disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be deemed removed upon the declaration
by competent authority that said insanity or incompetence had been removed or after the expiration of
a period of five years from his service or sentence, unless within the same period he again becomes
disqualified.

Section 40 of the Local Government Code (LGC)[40]

SECTION 40. Disqualifications—The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local
position:

(a)
Those sentence by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable
by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving sentence;

(b)
Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;

(c)
Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic;

(d)
Those with dual citizenship;
(e)
Fugitive from justice in criminal or nonpolitical cases here or abroad;

(f)
Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside abroad and
continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this Code; and

(g)
The insane or feeble-minded.
Considering that the Dilangalen petition does not state any of these grounds for disqualification, it
cannot be categorized as a "Section 68" petition.

To emphasize, a petition for disqualification, on the one hand, can be premised on Section 12 or 68 of
the OEC, or Section 40 of the LGC. On the other hand, a petition to deny due course to or cancel a CoC
can only be grounded on a statement of a material representation in the said certificate that is false. The
petitions also have different effects. While a person who is disqualified under Section 68 is merely
prohibited to continue as a candidate, the person whose certificate is cancelled or denied due course
under Section 78 is not treated as a candidate at all, as if he/she never filed a CoC. Thus, in Miranda v.
Abaya,[41] this Court made the distinction that a candidate who is disqualified under Section 68 can
validly be substituted under Section 77 of the OEC because he/she remains a candidate until
disqualified; but a person whose CoC has been denied due course or cancelled under Section 78 cannot
be substituted because he/she is never considered a candidate.[42]

In support of his claim that he actually filed a "petition for disqualification" and not a "petition to deny
due course to or cancel a CoC," Dilangalen takes refuge in Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure,
[43] specifically Section 1[44] thereof, to the extent that it states, "[a]ny candidate who does not possess
all the qualifications of a candidate as provided for by the Constitution or by existing law x x x may be
disqualified from continuing as a candidate," and COMELEC Resolution No. 7800[45] (Rules Delegating to
COMELEC Field Officials the Authority to Hear and Receive Evidence in Disqualification Cases Filed in
Connection with the May 14, 2007 National and Local Elections), which states in Section 5(C)(1) and (3)
(a)(4) that:
Sec. 5. Procedure in filing petitions.—For purposes of the preceding section, the following procedure
shall be observed:

xxxx
C. PETITION TO DISQUALIFY A CANDIDATE PURSUANT TO SEC. 68 OF THE OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE
AND PETITION TO DISQUALIFY FOR LACK OF QUALIFICATIONS OR POSSESSING SOME GROUNDS FOR
DISQUALIFICATION
1) A verified petition to disqualify a candidate pursuant to Sec. 68 of the OEC and the verified petition to
disqualify a candidate for lack of qualifications or possessing some grounds for disqualification may be
filed on any day after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of
proclamation.
xxxx

3) The petition to disqualify a candidate for lack of qualification or possessing some grounds for
disqualification, shall be filed in ten (10) legible copies with the concerned office mentioned in Sec. 3
hereof, personally or through a duly authorized representative by any person of voting age, or duly
registered political party, organization or coalition of political parties on the grounds that any candidate
does not possess all the qualifications of a candidate as provided for by the constitution or by existing
law, or who possesses some grounds for disqualification,

3.a. Disqualification under existing election laws:

For not being a citizen of the Philippines;
For being a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country;
For lack of the required age;
For lack of residence;
For not being a registered voter;
For not being able to read and write;
In case of a party-list nominee, for not being a bona fide member of the party or organization which he
seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days immediately preceding the day of the election. [Emphasis
supplied.]
We disagree. A COMELEC rule or resolution cannot supplant or vary the legislative enactments that
distinguish the grounds for disqualification from those of ineligibility, and the appropriate proceedings
to raise the said grounds. In other words, Rule 25 and COMELEC Resolution No. 7800 cannot supersede
the dissimilar requirements of the law for the filing of a petition for disqualification under Section 68,
and a petition for the denial of due course to or cancellation of CoC under Section 78 of the OEC.[46] As
aptly observed by the eminent constitutionalist, Supreme Court Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, in his
separate opinion in Romualdez-Marcos v. Commission on Elections: [47]
Apparently realizing the lack of an authorized proceeding for declaring the ineligibility of candidates, the
COMELEC amended its rules on February 15, 1993 so as to provide in Rule 25, §1 the following:
Grounds for disqualification. — Any candidate who does not possess all the qualifications of a candidate
as provided for by the Constitution or by existing law or who commits any act declared by law to be
grounds for disqualification may be disqualified from continuing as a candidate.
The lack of provision for declaring the ineligibility of candidates, however, cannot be supplied by a mere
rule. Such an act is equivalent to the creation of a cause of action which is a substantive matter which
the COMELEC, in the exercise of its rule-making power under Art. IX, A, §6 of the Constitution, cannot
do. It is noteworthy that the Constitution withholds from the COMELEC even the power to decide cases
involving the right to vote, which essentially involves an inquiry into qualifications based on age,
residence and citizenship of voters. [Art. IX, C, §2(3)]

The assimilation in Rule 25 of the COMELEC rules of grounds for ineligibility into grounds for
disqualification is contrary to the evident intention of the law. For not only in their grounds but also in
their consequences are proceedings for "disqualification" different from those for a declaration of
"ineligibility." "Disqualification" proceedings, as already stated, are based on grounds specified in §12
and §68 of the Omnibus Election Code and in §40 of the Local Government Code and are for the purpose
of barring an individual from becoming a candidate or from continuing as a candidate for public office. In
a word, their purpose is to eliminate a candidate from the race either from the start or during its
progress. "Ineligibility," on the other hand, refers to the lack of the qualifications prescribed in the
Constitution or the statutes for holding public office and the purpose of the proceedings for declaration
of ineligibility is to remove the incumbent from office.
Consequently, that an individual possesses the qualifications for a public office does not imply that he is
not disqualified from becoming a candidate or continuing as a candidate for a public office and vice-
versa. We have this sort of dichotomy in our Naturalization Law. (C.A. No. 473) That an alien has the
qualifications prescribed in §2 of the law does not imply that he does not suffer from any of [the]
disqualifications provided in §4.

Indeed, provisions for disqualifications on the ground that the candidate is guilty of prohibited election
practices or offenses, like other pre- proclamation remedies, are aimed at the detestable practice of "
grabbing the proclamation and prolonging the election protest," through the use of "manufactured"
election returns or resort to other trickery for the purpose of altering the results of the election. This
rationale does not apply to cases for determining a candidate's qualifications for office before the
election. To the contrary, it is the candidate against whom a proceeding for disqualification is brought
who could be prejudiced because he could be prevented from assuming office even though in the end
he prevails.[48]
Furthermore, the procedure laid down in the said Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure cannot be
used in "Section 78" proceedings, precisely because a different rule, Rule 23,[49] specifically governs
petitions to deny due course to or cancel CoCs.

II.

Having thus determined that the Dilangalen petition is one under Section 78 of the OEC, the Court now
declares that the same has to comply with the 25-day statutory period for its filing. Aznar v. Commission
on Elections[50] and Loong v. Commission on Elections[51] give ascendancy to the express mandate of
the law that "the petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the
filing of the certificate of candidacy." Construed in relation to reglementary periods and the principles of
prescription, the dismissal of "Section 78" petitions filed beyond the 25-day period must come as a
matter of course.

We find it necessary to point out that Sections 5 and 7[52] of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6646,[53] contrary
to the erroneous arguments of both parties, did not in any way amend the period for filing "Section 78"
petitions. While Section 7 of the said law makes reference to Section 5 on the procedure in the conduct
of cases for the denial of due course to the CoCs of nuisance candidates[54] (retired Chief Justice Hilario
G. Davide, Jr., in his dissenting opinion in Aquino v. Commission on Elections[55] explains that "the
`procedure hereinabove provided' mentioned in Section 7 cannot be construed to refer to Section 6
which does not provide for a procedure but for the effects of disqualification cases, [but] can only refer
to the procedure provided in Section 5 of the said Act on nuisance candidates x x x."), the same cannot
be taken to mean that the 25-day period for filing "Section 78" petitions under the OEC is changed to 5
days counted from the last day for the filing of CoCs. The clear language of Section 78 certainly cannot
be amended or modified by the mere reference in a subsequent statute to the use of a procedure
specifically intended for another type of action. Cardinal is the rule in statutory construction that repeals
by implication are disfavored and will not be so declared by the Court unless the intent of the legislators
is manifest.[56] In addition, it is noteworthy that Loong,[57] which upheld the 25-day period for filing
"Section 78" petitions, was decided long after the enactment of R.A. 6646. In this regard, we therefore
find as contrary to the unequivocal mandate of the law, Rule 23, Section 2 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure which states:
Sec. 2. Period to File Petition.--The petition must be filed within five (5) days following the last day for
the filing of certificates of candidacy.
As the law stands, the petition to deny due course to or cancel a CoC " may be filed at any time not later
than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy."
Accordingly, it is necessary to determine when Fermin filed his CoC in order to ascertain whether the
Dilangalen petition filed on April 20, 2007 was well within the restrictive 25-day period. If it was not,
then the COMELEC should have, as discussed above, dismissed the petition outright.

The record in these cases reveals that Fermin filed his CoC for mayor of Northern Kabuntalan for the
May 14, 2007 National and Local Elections on March 29, 2007.[58] It is clear therefore that the petition
to deny due course to or cancel Fermin's CoC was filed by Dilangalen well within the 25-day
reglementary period. The COMELEC therefore did not abuse its discretion, much more gravely, when it
did not dismiss the petition outright.

III.

However, the Court finds the COMELEC to have gravely abused its discretion when it precipitately
declared that Fermin was not a resident of Northern Kabuntalan for at least one year prior to the said
elections.

In its assailed June 29, 2007 Resolution,[59] the COMELEC ruled as follows:
In the petitioner's memorandum, an authenticated copy of the respondent's oath of office subscribed
and sworn to before Datu Andal Ampatuan, Governor Maguindanao Province, it was stated that
respondent's residence is at Barangay Payan, Maguindanao (sic) as of April 27, 2006. Clearly the
respondent is not a resident of Northern Kabuntalan earlier than 15 May 2006 as his very own oath of
office would reveal that he is really a resident of Barangay Payan, Kabuntalan less than 365 days
immediately preceding the May 14, 2007 elections. He is a resident of a barangay not a component of
the local government unit in which he seeks to be elected as of May 15, 2006 and is therefore not
qualified or eligible to seek election as mayor in the said municipality.[60]
Obviously, the COMELEC relied on a single piece of evidence to support its finding that petitioner was
not a resident of Barangay Indatuan, Northern Kabuntalan, i.e., the oath of office subscribed and sworn
to before Governor Datu Andal Ampatuan, in which petitioner indicated that he was a resident of
Barangay Payan, Kabuntalan as of April 27, 2006. However, this single piece of evidence does not
necessarily support a finding that petitioner was not a resident of Northern Kabuntalan as of May 14,
2006, or one year prior to the May 14, 2007 elections.[61] Petitioner merely admitted that he was a
resident of another locality as of April 27, 2006, which was more than a year before the elections. It is
not inconsistent with his subsequent claim that he complied with the residency requirement for the
elective office, as petitioner could have transferred to Barangay Indatuan after April 27, 2006, on or
before May 14, 2006.

Neither does this evidence support the allegation that petitioner failed to comply with the residency
requirement for the transfer of his voting record from Barangay Payan to Barangay Indatuan. Given that
a voter is required to reside in the place wherein he proposes to vote only for six months immediately
preceding the election,[62] petitioner's application for transfer on December 13, 2006 does not
contradict his earlier admission that he was a resident of Barangay Payan as of April 27, 2006. Be that as
it may, the issue involved in the Dilangalen petition is whether or not petitioner made a material
representation that is false in his CoC, and not in his application for the transfer of his registration and
voting record.

The foregoing considered, the Court finds that the Dilangalen petition does not make out a prima facie
case. Its dismissal is therefore warranted. We emphasize that the mere filing of a petition and the
convenient allegation therein that a candidate does not reside in the locality where he seeks to be
elected is insufficient to effect the cancellation of his CoC. Convincing evidence must substantiate every
allegation.[63] A litigating party is said to have a prima facie case when the evidence in his favor is
sufficiently strong for his opponent to be called on to answer it. A prima facie case, then, is one which is
established by sufficient evidence and can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence adduced on the
other side.[64]

IV.

In light of the foregoing disquisition, the COMELEC's order for the dismissal of Fermin's election protest
is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, considering that the same is premised on Fermin's alleged lack
of legal standing to file the protest, which, in turn, is based on Fermin's alleged lack of residency
qualification. With our disposition herein that the Dilangalen petition should be dismissed, a disquisition
that Fermin has no standing as a candidate would be reckless and improper.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitions for certiorari are GRANTED. The assailed issuances of
the COMELEC are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio Morales, Tinga, Chico-Nazario,
Velasco, Jr., Reyes, Leonardo-De Castro, and Brion, JJ., concur.
Corona, and Azcuna, JJ., on official leave.

[1] Rollo (G.R. No. 179695), pp. 36-39.

[2] Id. at 33-35.

[3] Rollo (G.R. No. 182369), pp. 67-76.

[4] Id. at 79-80.

[5] Id. at 81.

[6] The Court, in the recently promulgated Sema v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 177597, July 16,
2008, declared as void Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 201 creating the Province of Shariff
Kabunsuan, although there is still a pending Motion for Reconsideration.

[7] Rollo (G.R. No. 179695), pp. 51-53.

[8] Id. at 51.

[9] Id. at 44.

[10] Id. at 46.

[11] Id. at 45-47.

[12] Rollo (G.R. No. 182369), p. 271.

[13] Rollo (G.R. No. 179695), pp. 55-56.

[14] Id. at 55.

[15] Id. at 68.

[16] Id. at 10.

[17] Id. at 36-39.

[18] Id. at 37-38.

[19] Id. at 33-34.

[20] Id. at 11-12.

[21] Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, approved on December 3, 1985.

[22] Rollo (G.R. No. 179695), pp. 12-15.

[23] Id. at 15-20.

[24] Id. at 112-121.

[25] Id. at 121-125.

[26] Rollo (G.R. No. 182369), pp. 97-98.

[27] Id. at 82-95.

[28] Id. at 75.

[29] Id. at 79-80.

[30] Id. at 81.

[31] Id. at 13-18.

[32] Id. at 229.

[33] Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code provides:

SEC. 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy.—A verified petition seeking
to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the
ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false.
The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the
certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before
the election.

[34] Salcedo II v. Commission on Elections, 371 Phil. 377, 388-389 (1999).

[35] Art. VI, Sec. 3 which provides that:

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, and, on the
day of the election, is at least thirty- five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a
resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election.

Art. VI, Sec. 6 which provides that:

Section 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born

citizen of the Philippines, and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read
and write, and, except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall
be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day
of the election.

Art. VII, Sec. 2 which provides that:

Section 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a natural- born citizen of the Philippines, a
registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a
resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election.
Art. VII, Sec. 3 which pertinently provides that:

Section 3. There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the same qualifications and term of office and
be elected with and in the same manner as the President. x x x x

[36] Sec. 39 of the Local Government Code which provides:

SECTION 39. Qualifications.—

(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 language or dialect.

(b) Candidates for the position of governor, vice-governor, or member of the sangguniang panlalawigan,
or mayor, vice-mayor or member of the sangguniang panlungsod of highly urbanized cities must be at
least twenty-one (21) years of age on election day.

(c) Candidates for the position of mayor or vice-mayor of independent component cities, component
cities, or municipalities must be at least twenty-one (21) years of age on election day.

(d) Candidates for the position of member of the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan must
be at least eighteen (18) years of age on election day.

(e) Candidates for the position of punong barangay or member of the sangguniang barangay must be at
least eighteen (18) years of age on election day.

(f) Candidates for the sangguniang kabataan must be at least fifteen (15) years of age but not more than
twenty-one (21) years of age on election day.

[37] Salcedo II v. Commission on Elections, supra note 34, at 454.

[38] Sec. 253 of the OEC provides:

Sec. 253. Petition for quo warranto.—Any voter contesting the election of any Member of the Batasang
Pambansa, regional, provincial, or city officer on the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the
Republic of the Philippines shall file a sworn petition for quo warranto with the Commission within ten
days after the proclamation of the results of the election.
Any voter contesting the election of any municipal or barangay officer on the ground of ineligibility or of
disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines shall file a sworn petition for quo warranto with the regional
trial court or metropolitan trial court, respectively, within ten days after the proclamation of the results
of the election.

[39] Salcedo II v. Commission on Elections, supra note 34, at 387.

[40] Republic Act No. 7160, which became effective on January 1, 1992.

[41] 370 Phil. 642 (1999).

[42] Id. at 659.

[43] Approved on February 15, 1993.

[44] Rule 25, Sec. 1 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure reads in full:

SECTION 1. Grounds for Disqualification.—Any candidate who does not possess all the qualifications of a
candidate as provided for by the Constitution or by existing law or who commits any act declared by law
to be grounds for disqualification may be disqualified from continuing as a candidate. [Italics supplied.]

[45] Promulgated on January 5, 2007.

[46] Loong v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 93986, December 22, 1992, 216 SCRA 760, 767, cited by
former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. in his Dissenting Opinion in Aquino v. Commission on Elections,
G.R. No. 120265, September 18, 1995, 248 SCRA 400, 445-447.

[47] G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995, 248 SCRA 300.

[48] Id. at 397-398. (Emphasis supplied.)

[49] Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides:

Rule 23 - Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certificates of Candidacy

Section 1. Grounds for Denial of Certificate of Candidacy.—A petition to deny due course to or cancel a
certificate of candidacy for any elective office may be filed with the Law Department of the Commission
by any citizen of voting age or a duly registered political party, organization, or coalition of political
parties on the exclusive ground that any material representation contained therein as required by law is
false.
Sec. 2. Period to File Petition.—The petition must be filed within five (5) days following the last day for
the filing of certificates of candidacy.

Sec. 3. Summary Proceeding.—The petition shall be heard summarily after due notice.

Sec. 4. Delegation of Reception of Evidence.—The Commission may designate any of its officials who are
members of the Philippine Bar to hear the case and to receive evidence.

[50] G.R. No. 83820, May 25, 1990, 185 SCRA 703,708-709.

[51] G.R. No. 93986, December 22, 1992, 216 SCRA 760, 765-766.

[52] Sections 5 and 7 of R.A. No. 6646 reads:

"Sec. 5. Procedure in Cases of Nuisance Candidates. - (a) A verified petition to declare a duly registered
candidate as a nuisance candidate under Section 69 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 shall be filed personally
or through duly authorized representative with the Commission by any registered candidate for the
same office within five (5) days from the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy. Filing by mail
shall not be allowed.

"(b) Within three (3) days from the filing of the petition, the Commission shall issue summons to the
respondent candidate together with a copy of the petition and its enclosures, if any.

"(c) The respondent shall be given three (3) days from receipt of the summons within which to file his
verified answer (not a motion to dismiss) to the petition, serving copy thereof upon the petitioner.
Grounds for a motion to dismiss may be raised as affirmative defenses.

"(d) The Commission may designate any of its officials who are lawyers to hear the case and receive
evidence. The proceeding shall be summary in nature. In lieu of oral testimonies, the parties may be
required to submit position papers together with affidavits or counter-affidavits and other documentary
evidence. The hearing officer shall immediately submit to the Commission his findings, reports, and
recommendations within five (5) days from the completion of such submission of evidence. The
Commission shall render its decision within five (5) days from receipt thereof.

"(e) The decision, order, or ruling of the Commission shall, after five (5) days from receipt of a copy
thereof by the parties, be final and executory unless stayed by the Supreme Court.

"(f) The Commission shall within twenty-four hours, through the fastest available means, disseminate its
decision or the decision of the Supreme Court to the city or municipal election registrars, boards of
election inspectors and the general public in the political subdivision concerned.

"x x x x
"Sec. 7. Petition to Deny Due Course To or Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy. - The procedure
hereinabove provided shall apply to petitions to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy
as provided in Section 78 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881."

[53] Entitled "AN ACT INTRODUCING ADDITIONAL REFORMS IN THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES;" approved on January 5, 1988.

[54] Section 69 of the OEC provides that: "The Commission may, motu propio or upon a verified petition
of an interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if it is shown that
said certificate has been filed to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion
among voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or by other circumstances or
acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for
which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true
will of the electorate."

[55] G.R. No. 120265, September 18, 1995, 248 SCRA 400, 448.

[56] Tan v. Pereña, G.R. No. 149743, February 18, 2005, 452 SCRA 53, 68.

[57] Supra note 46.

[58] Rollo (G.R. No. 182369), p. 271.

[59] Supra note 1.

[60] Id. at 37-38.

[61] Supra note 36.

[62] Section 9 of Republic Act No. 8189 or "The Voter's Registration Act of 1996" provides:

Sec. 9. Who may Register. - All citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law who are at
least eighteen (18) years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one (1) year,
and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six (6) months immediately preceding the
election, may register as a voter.

Any person who temporarily resides in another city, municipality or country solely by reason of his
occupation, profession, employment in private or public service, educational activities, work in the
military or naval reservations within the Philippines, service in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the
National Police Forces, or confinement or detention in government institutions in accordance with law,
shall not be deemed to have lost his original residence.
Any person, who, on the day of registration may not have reached the required age or period of
residence but, who, on the day of the election shall possess such qualifications, may register as a voter.
(Emphasis ours.)

[63] See Mutilan v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 171248, April 2, 2007, 520 SCRA 152, 163;
Pasandalan v. Commission on Elections, 434 Phil. 161, 173 (2002).

[64] Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 325 Phil. 762, 809 (1996).