Aquino vs. Comelec, 248 SCRA 400
Aquino vs. Comelec, 248 SCRA 400
Aquino vs. Comelec, 248 SCRA 400
SYLLABUS
I therefore vote to deny the petition and to lift the temporary restraining order issued by the
Court dated June 6, 1995.
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 61.
2. Id., at 56-60.
3. Id., at 63.
4. Petition, Annex H; Rollo p. 65.
5. Id., Annex I; Rollo , p. 71.
6. Id., Ibid.
7. Id., Annex K, Id., at 74.
8. Id., Annex L, Id., at 75
9. Petition, annex "D"; Rollo, p. 55.
10. Id., at 7-8 citing the completed canvass of election returns by the Board of Canvassers of
Makati City as source.
11. Id., Annex "A"; Rollo pp. 30-31.
12. Id., Annex "B"; Id., at 32-33.
13. Id., Annex "C"; Id., at 48-49.
14. The petition filed on June 6, 1995 prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order to enjoin public respondents from reconvening and determining the winner out of the
remaining qualified candidates for Representative of the Second Congressional District of
Makati City. As prayed for a temporary restraining order was issued by the Court on June 6,
1995.
15. Id., at 12-14.
16. B.P. 881, Sec. 231 provides:
The respective Board of Canvassers shall prepare a certificate of canvass duly
signed and affixed with the imprint of the thumb of the right hand of each member, supported by
a statement of the votes received by each candidate in each polling place and, on the basis
thereof, shall proclaim as elected the candidates who obtained the highest number of votes cast in
the provinces, city, municipality or Barangay. Failure to comply with this requirement shall
constitute an election offense.
17. Rollo, p. 35.
18. CONST., Art. VI, sec. 6.
19. 199 SCRA 692 (1991).
20. Id., at 713-714.
21. MINOR, CONFLICT OF LAWS, 62.
22. 73 Phil. 453 (1941).
23. Rollo, pp. 35-36.
24. Id.
25. Id.
26. Id., at 37.
27. Id., at 34-37.
28. Resolution, p. 3.
29. Id.
30. 18 Am. Jur 211-220.
31. 176 SCRA 1 [1989].
32. 23 Phil. 238 [1912].
33. 103 SCRA. 687 [1981].
34. 136 SCRA 435 [May 14, 1985].
35. 137 SCRA 740 [July 23, 1985].
36. 176 SCRA 1[1989].
37. 201 SCRA 253 [1991].
38. 235 SCRA 436 [1994].
39. 211 SCRA 297 [1992].
40. In England, where the election system is open and the voters known, knowledge of a
candidate's ineligibility or disqualification is more easily presumed. . . and upon the
establishment of such disqualification on the part of the majority candidate, the one receiving the
next highest number of votes is declared elected. King v. Hawkins, 10 East 211; King v. Parry,
14 Id. 549; Gosling v. Veley, 7 Q.B. 406; French v. Nolan, 2 Moak 711; Reg v. Cooks, 3 El. &
BI. 249; Rex v. Monday, 2 Cowp. 530; Rex v. Foxcroft, Burr. 1017. In a few states in the United
States the settled law is directly opposite that taken by the Court in Labo and Abella, supra. For
example, in Indiana, ballots cast for an ineligible candidate are not counted for any purpose.
They cannot be counted to defeat the election of an opposing candidate by showing that he did
not receive a majority of votes cast in such election. Votes made favor of an ineligible candidate
are considered illegal, and have no effect upon the election for any purpose. Consequently the
qualified candidate having the highest number of legal votes is regarded as entitled to offices.
Price v. Baker, 41 Id., 572, See also, Gulick v. New, 14 Ind. 93 and Carson v. Mcphetridge, 15
id., 327.
PADILLA, J., concurring:
1. See p. 4 Annex "C", Petition; Comelec En Banc Resolution dated 2 June 1995.
FRANCISCO, J., concurring and dissenting:
1. Rule 16. Election Protest. — A verified petition contesting the election of any Member of
the House of Representatives shall be filed by any candidate who has duly filed a certificate of
candidacy and has been voted for the same office, within ten (10) days after the proclamation of
the winner.
Rule 17. Quo Warranto. — A verified petition for quo warranto contesting
the election of a Member of the House of Representatives on the ground of ineligibility or of
disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines shall be filed by any voter within ten (10) days after
the proclamation of the winner.
2. Puzon, v. Evangelista Cua, HRET Case No. 42, July 25, 1988, Vol. 1 HRET Reports 9;
Aznar v. Bacaltos, HRET Case No. 05, January 28, 1988, Vol. 1, HRET Reports 5; Ty Deling v.
Villarin, HRET Case No. 53, May 2, 1950.
3. Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. Mendoza, 156 SCRA 44, 53-54 (1987).
4. La Campana Food Products Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 223 SCRA 152, 157 (1993).
5. 219 SCRA 230 (1993).
6. Id., at 239.
7. Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29, 35-36 (1968).
8. 28 C.J.S. § 11.
9. Resolution, SPA No. 95-113, June 2, 1995, p. 4.
10. Tanseco v. Arteche, 57 Phil. 227, 235 91932).
11. Petition, June 5, 1995, p. 20.
C o p y r i g h t 1 9 9 4 - 1 9 9 9 C D T e c h n o l o g i e s A s i a, I n c.