Lanot vs COMELEC

G.R. 164858 (428 SCRA 315)

November 16, 2006

Facts: Lanot and Eusebio were candidates for the 2004 mayoral elections on Pasig City. Lanot et al filed a petition for disqualification against Eusebio. Petiotioners alleged that Eusebio engaged in an election campaign in various forms on various occasions outside the designated campaign period, violation of Sec 80 of the Omnibus Election Code. COMELEC order the disqualification of Eusebio but such disqualification was lifted upon approval his motion for reconsideration. The 2004 election was conducted; Eusebio received the highest number of votes and was proclaimed Mayor. Lanot filed a motion to annul Eusebio’s proclamation and to order his proclamation instead since he obtained the second highest number of votes. COMELEC refer the case to the Law department for investigation to determine the acts complained of were in fact committed by respondent Eusebio.

Issues: 1) W/N Eusebio should be disqualified for engaging election campaign outside the designated campaign period.

           2) W/N Lanot should be proclaimed as mayor if Eusebio id disqualified

Ruling: Euesbio should not be disqualified.

The essential elements for violation of Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code are: (1) a person engages in an election campaign or partisan political activity, (2) the act is designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates, (3) the act is done outside the campaign period; Unless one has filed his certificate of candidacy, he is not a “candidate”  Under Section 79(a), a candidate is one who “has filed a certificate of candidacy” to an elective public office. The third element requires that the campaign period has not started when the election campaign or partisan political activity is committed. Assuming that all candidates to a public office file their certificates of candidacy on the last day, which under Section 75 of the Omnibus Election Code is the day before the start of the campaign period, then no one can be prosecuted for violation of Section 80 for acts done prior to such last day. Before such last day, there is no “particular candidate or candidates” to campaign for or against. On the day immediately after the last day of filing, the campaign period starts and Section 80 ceases to apply since Section 80 covers only acts done “outside” the campaign period.

Acts committed by Eusebio prior to his being a “candidate” on 23 March 2004, even if constituting election campaigning or partisan political activities, are not punishable under Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code. Such acts are protected as part of freedom of expression of a citizen before he becomes a candidate for elective public office. Acts committed by Eusebio on or after 24 March 2004, or during the campaign period, are not covered by Section 80 which punishes only acts outside the campaign period.

The disqualification of the elected candidate does not entitle the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to occupy the office vacated because of the disqualification. Votes cast in favor of a candidate who obtained the highest number of votes, against whom a petition for disqualification was filed before the election, are presumed to have been cast in the belief that he was qualified. For this reason, the second placer cannot be declared elected. The exception to this rule rests on two assumptions. First, the one who obtained the highest number of votes is disqualified. Second, the voters are so fully aware in fact and in law of a candidate’s disqualification to bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety but nonetheless the voters still cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate. Lanot and Benavides failed to prove that the exception applies in the present case. Thus, assuming for the sake of argument that Eusebio is disqualified, the rule on succession provides that the duly elected Vice-Mayor of Pasig City shall succeed in Eusebio’s place.