EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 53532, July 25, 1980 ]
NOLI M. VENEZUELA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, AND ARTEMIO R. SALDIVAR, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
FERNANDO, C.J.:
Once again, what was characterized in Reyes v. Commission on Elections[1] an "innovative and mandatory" provision[2] of the Constitution, prohibiting the change of party affiliation by an elective officer
during the term for which he was elected, is invoked in this appeal by certiorari. A peculiar feature, however, was that such a question was not raised until after the election, to be more precise, on February 6, 1980, the first petition for disqualification being
based on private respondent Artemio R. Saldivar facing three criminal charges before the Sandiganbayan.[3] As admitted by petitioner-appellant, there was already a dismissal on February 4, 1980 but he had not as yet received a copy when he included
such a ground.[4] Then on February 19, 1980 he filed with respondent Commission on Elections this present petition for disqualification based on the above provision.[5] Again, he was unsuccessful respondent Commission on Elections,
without any hearing, found it without any merit. Hence this appeal by certiorari.
Respondent Commission on Elections and private respondent Saldivar were required to comment. As could be expected, the prayer in both Comments was for the dismissal. It is undisputed, as alleged by private respondent, that he was duly proclaimed Mayor of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan by the board of canvassers on February 6, 1980.[6] In the Comment of the Solicitor General[7] for respondent Commission on Elections, the prayer was that no grave abuse of discretion was shown. The Comments were considered as the respective answers and the case deemed submitted for decision, after the Reply to Comments of respondents was received by this Court.
In such Reply, the ruling in the aforesaid Reyes decision was invoked. It was contended that there being no hearing on the question of disqualification, the order of respondent Commission on Elections now assailed, is devoid of validity, violative as it is of one of the cardinal requireÂments of due process, so emphatically stressed in the leading case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations.[8] It does not admit of doubt that in Reyes as well as in Pimentel v. Commission on Elections,[9] the case was thereafter remanded to respondent Commission on Elections, so that the matter of disqualification could be fully threshed out after a hearing to be conducted with due observance of procedural due process. While this contention finds support in the above decisions, there is a factor that militates against it. It was not until February 6, 1980, as admitted in the very petition itself, that the issue of disqualification was raised. The view, therefore, that the present proceeding cannot with precision be described as a pre-proclamation controversy, considering that on the very same day, private respondent Saldivar had already been proclaimed, has much to commend it. Moreover, it would save the time and energy of the litigants as well as respondent Commission, and eventually this Court in view of its appellate jurisdiction, if the matter were passed upon in an election protest or quo warranto petition in the proper court or agency, the office involved being that of municipal mayor.[10] As of now, judging from the petitions still being elevated to this Tribunal, respondent Commission is still swamped with such controversies.
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. Petitioner is granted a period of ten days from receipt of this resolution to file before the proper court a quo warranto suit or an election protest. No costs.
Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Teehankee, J., concurs in a separate opinion.
Guerrero, J., on official leave.
Abad Santos, J., did not take part.
[1] G.R. No. 52699, May 15, 1980.
[2] According to Article XII, C, Section 10 of the Constitution: "No elective public officer may change his political party affiliation during his term of office, and no candidate for any elective public office may change his political party affiliation within six months immediately preceding or following an election."
[3] Petition, par. 4.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., par. 5.
[6] Comment of private respondent, par. 5.
[7] Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza was assisted by Assistant Solicitor General Nathanael P. de Pano, Jr. and Trial Attorney Ralph C. Lantion.
[8] 69 Phil. 635 (1940).
[9] G.R. No. 52428, February 21, 1980.
[10] Cf. Abalos v. Domingo, L-52665 and Sec. 189 of the 1978 Election Code.
Respondent Commission on Elections and private respondent Saldivar were required to comment. As could be expected, the prayer in both Comments was for the dismissal. It is undisputed, as alleged by private respondent, that he was duly proclaimed Mayor of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan by the board of canvassers on February 6, 1980.[6] In the Comment of the Solicitor General[7] for respondent Commission on Elections, the prayer was that no grave abuse of discretion was shown. The Comments were considered as the respective answers and the case deemed submitted for decision, after the Reply to Comments of respondents was received by this Court.
In such Reply, the ruling in the aforesaid Reyes decision was invoked. It was contended that there being no hearing on the question of disqualification, the order of respondent Commission on Elections now assailed, is devoid of validity, violative as it is of one of the cardinal requireÂments of due process, so emphatically stressed in the leading case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations.[8] It does not admit of doubt that in Reyes as well as in Pimentel v. Commission on Elections,[9] the case was thereafter remanded to respondent Commission on Elections, so that the matter of disqualification could be fully threshed out after a hearing to be conducted with due observance of procedural due process. While this contention finds support in the above decisions, there is a factor that militates against it. It was not until February 6, 1980, as admitted in the very petition itself, that the issue of disqualification was raised. The view, therefore, that the present proceeding cannot with precision be described as a pre-proclamation controversy, considering that on the very same day, private respondent Saldivar had already been proclaimed, has much to commend it. Moreover, it would save the time and energy of the litigants as well as respondent Commission, and eventually this Court in view of its appellate jurisdiction, if the matter were passed upon in an election protest or quo warranto petition in the proper court or agency, the office involved being that of municipal mayor.[10] As of now, judging from the petitions still being elevated to this Tribunal, respondent Commission is still swamped with such controversies.
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. Petitioner is granted a period of ten days from receipt of this resolution to file before the proper court a quo warranto suit or an election protest. No costs.
Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Teehankee, J., concurs in a separate opinion.
Guerrero, J., on official leave.
Abad Santos, J., did not take part.
[1] G.R. No. 52699, May 15, 1980.
[2] According to Article XII, C, Section 10 of the Constitution: "No elective public officer may change his political party affiliation during his term of office, and no candidate for any elective public office may change his political party affiliation within six months immediately preceding or following an election."
[3] Petition, par. 4.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., par. 5.
[6] Comment of private respondent, par. 5.
[7] Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza was assisted by Assistant Solicitor General Nathanael P. de Pano, Jr. and Trial Attorney Ralph C. Lantion.
[8] 69 Phil. 635 (1940).
[9] G.R. No. 52428, February 21, 1980.
[10] Cf. Abalos v. Domingo, L-52665 and Sec. 189 of the 1978 Election Code.