Dela Cruz vs. Commission on Elections

Votes cast for a nuisance candidate whose certificate of candidacy has been cancelled and who bears the same surname as a bona fide candidate shall not be considered stray; they must be counted in favor of the bona fide candidate. The cancellation of a certificate of candidacy under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code (nuisance candidate) is distinct from a disqualification under Section 68, and the legal effect is that the nuisance candidate is treated as if he never filed a candidacy; consequently, the rules on stray votes for disqualified candidates under Sections 72 and 211(24) of the Omnibus Election Code do not apply.

Casimira S. Dela Cruz, a three-term Sangguniang Bayan member, sought the vice-mayoralty of Bugasong, Antique in the 10 May 2010 automated elections. Aurelio N. Dela Cruz filed a certificate of candidacy for the same office. The COMELEC First Division declared Aurelio a nuisance candidate on 29 January 2010, finding that he lacked a bona fide intention to run, had a dismal electoral history, and that his surname identical to petitioner’s would cause voter confusion and mock the electoral process. Despite the cancellation, Aurelio’s name was not deleted from the certified list of candidates or the official ballots. On 1 May 2010, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8844, directing that votes for candidates whose certificates had been cancelled or denied due course be considered stray. Aurelio’s name was printed on the ballot on election day; he received 532 votes. When the Municipal Board of Canvassers refused to credit those votes to petitioner, private respondent Pacete was proclaimed winner by a margin of 39 votes.

• The Candidacies:

  • Petitioner Casimira S. Dela Cruz had been elected SB member of Bugasong, Antique in 2001, 2004, and 2007, consistently obtaining high vote totals. She filed her certificate of candidacy for Vice-Mayor on 28 November 2009 under the National People’s Coalition.
  • Aurelio N. Dela Cruz also filed a certificate of candidacy for the same position. He was politically unknown, had no party affiliation, and had previously obtained only 126 votes for SB member (2007) and 6 votes for barangay captain (2007).

• Declaration of Nuisance Candidate:

  • On 6 December 2009, petitioner filed a petition under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code to declare Aurelio a nuisance candidate, alleging that his candidacy was intended to cause confusion because of the identical surname and that he lacked any genuine intention or capability to mount a campaign.
  • The COMELEC First Division, in a Resolution dated 29 January 2010, granted the petition, declared Aurelio a nuisance candidate, and cancelled his certificate of candidacy.

• Failure to Delete Aurelio’s Name and COMELEC Resolution No. 8844:

  • Despite the cancellation, Aurelio’s name remained on the Certified List of Candidates and on the Official Sample Ballot.
  • Petitioner’s Urgent Ex-Parte Omnibus Motion dated 23 March 2010 sought either the deletion of Aurelio’s name or, if deletion was no longer feasible, an order that the votes cast for him be credited to petitioner under the rule in COMELEC Resolution No. 4116.
  • On 1 May 2010, the COMELEC En Banc promulgated Resolution No. 8844, which directed the deletion of the names of disqualified candidates from the certified list of candidates but ordered that “votes of said candidates, if voted upon, be considered stray.”

• Election and Canvass:

  • The 10 May 2010 automated elections were conducted with Aurelio’s name still printed on the official ballots.
  • The MBOC’s Statement of Votes showed: Aurelio N. Dela Cruz – 532, Casimira S. Dela Cruz – 6,389, John Lloyd M. Pacete – 6,428.
  • Petitioner insisted that the 532 votes for Aurelio be counted in her favor. The MBOC refused, citing Resolution No. 8844, and proclaimed private respondent Pacete as the winning candidate on 13 May 2010 by a margin of 39 votes.

• Subsequent Actions:

  • Petitioner filed an election protest with the RTC of Antique on 21 May 2010 and, shortly thereafter, the instant certiorari petition before the Supreme Court.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner contended that COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by issuing Resolution No. 8844, which treated votes for a nuisance candidate as stray instead of counting them in favor of the bona fide candidate as required by COMELEC Resolution No. 4116. She argued that the MBOC’s refusal to credit the 532 votes to her was a direct consequence of this invalid rule and prevented her from winning the election.

• Violation of Equal Protection: Petitioner maintained that Resolution No. 8844 violated her right to equal protection of the laws because there is no substantial distinction between manual and automated elections that justifies abandoning the rule in Resolution No. 4116. She argued that Resolution No. 4116 correctly distinguished between disqualified candidates, nuisance candidates with similar names, nuisance candidates with dissimilar names, and candidates who withdrew, while Resolution No. 8844 lumped them together without rational basis.

• Violation of Due Process and Frustration of Voter Will: Petitioner argued that the resolution defeated the very purpose of excluding nuisance candidates—protecting the electorate from confusion—and thus violated due process by enabling the mischief it was meant to prevent.

• Presumption of Validity and Absence of Constitutional Breach (COMELEC): COMELEC asserted that its resolutions enjoy a presumption of validity and that petitioner failed to prove a clear violation of the Constitution. It argued that the petition raised bare allegations of equal protection and due process violations.

• Substantial Distinction Between Manual and Automated Elections (COMELEC): COMELEC enumerated material differences: in automated elections, the voter shades an oval next to a candidate’s full printed name, making the voter’s choice deliberate; the rules on appreciation of handwritten ballots under Section 211 of the Omnibus Election Code are inapplicable; and the PCOS machines eliminate human errors in reading names. These distinctions, it argued, justified the change in rule.

• Rule on Stray Votes for Disqualified Candidates (Private Respondent Pacete): Private respondent contended that Section 211(24) in relation to Section 72 of the Omnibus Election Code expressly mandates that votes for a candidate who has been disqualified by final judgment are stray. Citing Kare v. COMELEC, he argued that this rule applies regardless of the ground for disqualification, including nuisance candidates.

• Forewarning and Voter Education (Private Respondent Pacete): Private respondent pointed out that Resolution No. 8844 was published before election day, giving voters actual notice that Aurelio’s candidacy had been cancelled and that votes for him would be considered stray. He further argued that petitioner and her party conducted voter education emphasizing her number “2” on the ballot, and that since Aurelio had a different first name, confusion was unlikely.

• Nature of Cancellation of Nuisance Candidate’s COC: Whether the cancellation of a certificate of candidacy under Section 69 (nuisance candidate) produces the same legal effects as a disqualification under Section 68, such that votes cast for the nuisance candidate are considered stray pursuant to Section 72 and Section 211(24) of the Omnibus Election Code.

• Validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 8844: Whether COMELEC Resolution No. 8844, which directed that votes for candidates whose certificates of candidacy had been cancelled or denied due course (including nuisance candidates) be considered stray, was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

• Applicability of the Automated Election System: Whether the shift to an automated election system constitutes a substantial distinction that justifies abandoning the rule under COMELEC Resolution No. 4116—that votes for a nuisance candidate with the same surname as a bona fide candidate should not be considered stray but counted for the latter.

• Nature of Cancellation of Nuisance Candidate’s COC: The cancellation of a certificate of candidacy under Section 69 is not equivalent to a disqualification under Section 68. A petition to declare a candidate a nuisance candidate and to cancel or deny due course to a certificate of candidacy is a distinct remedy, based on different grounds, and produces a different result: the nuisance candidate is treated as if he never filed a certificate of candidacy at all. Consequently, Sections 72 and 211(24) of the Omnibus Election Code, which apply exclusively to candidates disqualified by final judgment, do not govern the treatment of votes cast for nuisance candidates. The votes for a candidate whose COC was cancelled cannot be considered stray on the strength of those provisions.

• Validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 8844: Resolution No. 8844 was declared null and void insofar as it ordered that votes for nuisance candidates be considered stray. COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion by conflating disqualification cases and petitions to cancel certificates of candidacy. The longstanding rule in COMELEC Resolution No. 4116—that votes for a nuisance candidate declared as such by final judgment, particularly one who shares the surname of a bona fide candidate, shall not be considered stray but shall be counted in favor of the bona fide candidate—remains good law and is more consistent with the overarching principle that election laws must be liberally interpreted to give effect to the will of the electorate.

• Applicability of the Automated Election System: The advent of automated elections does not warrant a different rule. The possibility of voter confusion due to similarity of surnames persists even when voters shade ovals next to printed names, as demonstrated by the substantial number of votes cast for the nuisance candidate. Moreover, COMELEC had sufficient time to delete Aurelio’s name from the official ballots after the cancellation of his COC but failed to do so. The voters’ constructive and actual knowledge of the cancellation—through publication—made it logical to conclude that the votes for Aurelio were truly intended for the bona fide candidate, Casimira Dela Cruz. Therefore, the rationale of Bautista v. COMELEC and Martinez III v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal applies with equal force.

• Distinction Between Disqualification and Cancellation of COC — A petition for disqualification under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code (or Section 40 of the Local Government Code) is distinct from a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 69 (nuisance candidate) or Section 78 (material misrepresentation). The remedies are based on different grounds and produce different effects. A disqualified candidate remains a candidate until disqualified and may be substituted; a person whose COC is cancelled or denied due course is not treated as a candidate at all, as if no COC was ever filed, and may not be substituted(Fermin v. COMELEC).

• Effect of Cancelling a Nuisance Candidate’s COC on Votes Cast — Where a candidate has been declared a nuisance candidate by final judgment, particularly when the nuisance candidate bears the same surname as a bona fide candidate, the votes cast for the nuisance candidate are not stray but must be counted in favor of the bona fide candidate. This rule, codified in COMELEC Resolution No. 4116, is rooted in the necessity to give effect to the will of the electorate and to prevent the evil that nuisance candidates are meant to address: confusion and frustration of voter intent (Bautista v. COMELEC; Martinez III v. HRET).

• Stray Vote Doctrine and Voter Intent — A vote is considered stray only when the true intention of the voter cannot be determined. Constructive and actual knowledge by the electorate of the cancellation of a nuisance candidate’s candidacy makes the voter’s will more readily determinable, as it is logical to conclude that the ballot was intended for the legitimate candidate sharing the same surname.

• Liberal Construction of Election Laws — Election laws and rules on the appreciation of ballots must be liberally construed to give effect to the will of the electorate in choosing public officials, and not to defeat that will through technical infirmities.

• Applicability of Section 72 and Section 211(24), Omnibus Election Code — These provisions apply strictly to candidates who have been disqualified by final judgment. They do not extend to candidates whose certificates of candidacy have been cancelled or denied due course under Section 69 (nuisance candidates) or Section 78. The distinction drawn in Kare v. COMELEC was confined to disqualification cases and did not encompass petitions to cancel a COC.

• "Strictly speaking, a cancelled certificate cannot give rise to a valid candidacy, and much less to valid votes. Said votes cannot be counted in favor of the candidate whose COC was cancelled as he/she is not treated as a candidate at all, as if he/she never filed a COC." — This passage encapsulates the fundamental doctrinal distinction between disqualification and cancellation of a COC.

• "The rule in Resolution No. 4116 considering the votes cast for a nuisance candidate declared as such in a final judgment, particularly where such nuisance candidate has the same surname as that of the legitimate candidate, not stray but counted in favor of the latter, remains a good law." — The Court explicitly reaffirmed the continuing validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 4116 despite the shift to automated elections.

• "As we pronounced in Bautista, the voters’ constructive knowledge of such cancelled candidacy made their will more determinable, as it is then more logical to conclude that the votes cast for Aurelio could have been intended only for the legitimate candidate, petitioner." — This passage applies the voter-intent principle to the facts.

• "Laws and statutes governing election contests especially appreciation of ballots must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the electorate in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by technical infirmities." — A succinct statement of a foundational election law canon.

• Bautista v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133840, 13 November 1998, 298 SCRA 480 — Followed. Established that votes for a nuisance candidate with the same surname as a bona fide candidate are not stray where the electorate was informed of the nuisance candidate’s delisting, as the voter’s will remains determinable.

• Martinez III v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 189034, 12 January 2010, 610 SCRA 53 — Followed. Applied COMELEC Resolution No. 4116 and Bautista to count votes for a nuisance candidate in favor of the bona fide candidate, holding that the adverse effect on voter will persists even when the declaration of nuisance candidacy comes after the elections.

• Fermin v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 179695 & 182369, 18 December 2008, 574 SCRA 782 — Followed. Articulated the distinction between a petition for disqualification under Section 68 and a petition to cancel or deny due course to a COC under Section 78, which the Court extended to Section 69 nuisance candidate petitions.

• Kare v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 157526 & 157527, 28 April 2004, 428 SCRA 264 — Distinguished. The Court clarified that Kare’s interpretation of Sections 72 and 211(24) as applying to all disqualifications regardless of ground was limited to disqualification cases and did not extend to cancellations of COCs of nuisance candidates.

• Section 69, Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) — Governs nuisance candidates. The provision authorizes the COMELEC to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if the candidate filed it to put the election process in mockery or disrepute, to cause confusion among voters due to similarity of names, or where circumstances clearly demonstrate a lack of a bona fide intention to run. This served as the basis for cancelling Aurelio’s COC.

• Section 68, Omnibus Election Code — Enumerates specific disqualification grounds (vote-buying, overspending, prohibited contributions). The Court distinguished this provision from Section 69 to hold that the effects of disqualification do not apply to nuisance candidates.

• Section 72, Omnibus Election Code — Mandates that a candidate disqualified by final judgment shall not be voted for and votes cast for him shall not be counted. The Court ruled this provision inapplicable to candidates whose COCs were cancelled under Section 69.

• Section 211(24), Omnibus Election Code — Provides that any vote cast for a candidate who has been disqualified by final judgment shall be considered stray and not counted but does not invalidate the ballot. This rule was held to cover only disqualification cases, not nuisance candidate cancellations.

• COMELEC Resolution No. 4116 (7 May 2001) — Prescribed the rule that votes cast for a nuisance candidate declared as such by final judgment, especially where the nuisance candidate has the same name as the bona fide candidate, shall not be considered stray but shall be counted and tallied for the bona fide candidate. Reaffirmed as good law.

• COMELEC Resolution No. 8844 (1 May 2010) — Declared null and void insofar as it directed that votes for nuisance candidates whose COCs had been cancelled be considered stray, for contravening Resolution No. 4116 and relevant jurisprudence.

Chief Justice Sereno, and Justices Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, and Perlas-Bernabe concurred.

N/A – The decision was unanimous.