GR L 13001; (March, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-13001; March 18, 1958
ALFREDO ABCEDE, petitioner, vs. HON. DOMINGO IMPERIAL, GAUDENCIO GARCIA, and SIXTO BRILLANTES, Commissioners, Commission on Elections, respondents.
FACTS
Prior to September 7, 1957, petitioner Alfredo Abcede filed his certificate of candidacy for President with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) for the November 12, 1957 elections. The COMELEC summoned him and other candidates to a hearing to show cause why their certificates should be considered filed in good faith. After the hearing, the COMELEC issued a resolution on October 4, 1957, ordering that Abcede’s certificate of candidacy “shall not be given due course.” The resolution cited that Abcede was a candidate for senator in 1953 and 1955 but received nil votes, and that his main program was the redemption of Japanese war notes. It noted that a Fraud Order from the Bureau of Posts had banned mail matter for an association he was involved with, based on findings of a scheme to obtain money by false pretenses. The COMELEC concluded his certificate was not filed in good faith, as he had no political organization, no visible supporters, and not even “the tiniest chance” to obtain a substantial number of votes. Abcede’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting him to file a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court to annul the resolution and compel the COMELEC to give due course to his certificate. The Court issued a preliminary injunction against the COMELEC’s resolution.
ISSUE
Whether the Commission on Elections has the discretion to refuse to give due course to a certificate of candidacy for President on the grounds that it was not filed in good faith, based on the candidate’s perceived lack of chance to obtain a substantial number of votes and other cited circumstances.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC has no such discretion; its duty is ministerial. The Court annulled the COMELEC’s resolution insofar as it pertained to Abcede and made the preliminary injunction permanent.
The Court held that under Sections 36 and 37 of the Revised Election Code, the COMELEC has the “ministerial duty” to receive certificates of candidacy and to immediately send copies to the provincial boards. The use of “shall” and “immediately” indicates a mandatory, not discretionary, duty. The Court reasoned that the duty to receive would be useless if not followed by the duty to give due course. Furthermore, the Constitution fixes the qualifications for the presidency, and anyone possessing those qualifications who complies with the procedural filing requirements is legally fit to run. The COMELEC’s power is limited to administrative questions; it cannot decide who among qualified candidates should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of candidacy based on assessments of their understanding, chances of success, or motives. Questions regarding the expenditure of public funds for candidates with little chance are matters of policy for Congress, not the COMELEC. While commending the COMELEC’s vigilance, the Court found its action in this case beyond its jurisdiction and therefore void.