Case:

OLIVIA DA SILAVA CERAFICA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

G.R. No. 205136
December 2, 2014

Nature of the Proceeding:

Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 64 of the Revised Rules of Court

Facts:
Kimberly filed her COC for councilor of City of Taguig for the 2013 election
and indicated her age therein that she will be twenty (20) years of age on the day
of the elections, in contravention of the requirement that one must be at least
twenty-three (23) years of age on the day of the elections as set out in Sec. 9 (c)
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8487.

She withdrew her candidacy and Olivia, of the same political party, filed a
substitution for Kimberlys spot pursuant to Section 77 of the Omnibus Election
Code (B.P. Blg. 881). However, Director Amora-Ladra of the Comelec Law
Department recommended the cancellation of Kimberlys COC and denial of the
substitution of Kimberly by Olivia through a Comelec Resolution No. 9551.

The Special En Banc Meeting of the Comelec adopted the recommendation

of the Director Amor-Ladra.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the Comelec acted with GAD amounting to lack or

excess of jurisdiction and contrary to law and jurisprudence in
issuing the assailed minute resolution resulting in the
cancellation of Kimberlys COC and the denial of the substitution
of Kimberly Da Silva Cerafica by Olivia Da Silva Ceraifica as an
effect of the cancellation of the COC of Kimberly.

2. Whether or not the Comelec acted with GAD amounting to lack or

excess of jurisdiction and contrary to law and jurisprudence
when it ruled that there was no valid substitution by petitioner
for Kimberly resulting in the motu proprio denial of the
petitioners COC.

3. Whether or not the Comelec acted with GAD amounting to lack or

excess of jurisdiction and contrary to law and jurisprudence in
issuing the assailed resolution without giving the petitioner an
opportunity to be heard.
Held:
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, with the cautionary counsel that
cancellation of certificate of candidacy is a quasi-judicial process, and
accordingly is heard by the Commission on Elections in Division and En Banc
on appeal, we DISMISS the present petition for being moot and academic.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. YES. In Cipriano v. Comelec, it was held that the Comelec has no

discretion to give or not to give due couse to COCs. It was emphasized that
the duty of the Comelec to give due course to COCs filed in due form is
ministerial in character, and that while the Comelec may look into patent
defects in the COCs, it may not go into matters not appearing on their
face. The question of eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate is thus
beyond the usual and proper cognizance of the Comelec.

Under the express provision of Sec. 77 of B. P. Blg. 881, not just any
person, but only "an official candidate of a registered or accredited
political party" may be substituted. In the case at bar, Kimberly was an
official nominee of the Liberal Party; thus, she can be validly substituted.

In Luna v. Comelec, where the candidate, who was also under age,
withdrew his COC before election day and was substituted by a qualified
candidate, we declared that such substitution was valid.

2. YES. The Comelec may not, by itself, without the proper proceedings, deny
due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy filed in due form.

In Sanchez vs. Del Rosario, the Court ruled that the question of eligibility
or ineligibility of a candidate for non-age is beyond the usual and proper
cognizance of the Comelec.

3. YES, there was lack of due process because the petitioner was not given
the opportunity to be heard. Under Section 3, Rule 23 of the 1993
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, a petition for the denial or cancellation of a
certificate of candidacy must be heard summarily after due notice.

In the exercise of it adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers, the Constitution

mandates it to hear and decide cases first by Division and, upon motion
for reconsideration, by the En Banc. As cancellation proceedings involve
the exercise of quasi-judicial functions of the Comelec, the Comelec in
Division should have first decided this case.
 In Bautista v. Comelec, et al., where the Comelec Law Department
recommended the cancellation of a candidates COC for lack of
qualification, and which recommendation was affirmed by the Comelec En
Banc, the Court held that the Comelec En Banc cannot short cut the
proceedings by acting on the case without a prior action by a division
because it denies due process to the candidate.